Cotton Dust and Endotoxin Exposure Levels in Three Shanghai Textile Factories: A Comparison of Samplers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The results of a field survey at three Shanghai textile factories were used to compare the performance of the Chinese dust sampler (CDS) with the standard American sampler, vertical elutriator (VE). Side-by-side samples using a CDS and a VE were collected in seven specific manufacturing processes, with additional area and personal samples collected with a modified Institute of Occupational Medicine (IOM) personal inhalable sampler. Filters were analyzed for mass and endotoxin concentration. The geometric mean (GM) of the samples collected by the CDS was 0.79 mg/m3 (geometric standard deviation [GSD] 1.9) compared with a GM of 0.31 mg/m3 (GSD 1.7) for the VE measurements. The correlation coefficient for the CDS and VE samples was 0.35. The CDS, a high-volume total dust area sampler, collects 2 to 10 times more dust than the VE, a size-selective method, depending on the manufacturing process. In spinning at Factory A, the VE and CDS measured concentrations of 0.15 mg/m3 and 1.62 mg/m3, respectively. Cotton dust concentration measurements collected by the IOM sampler demonstrated that personal exposure concentrations were significantly higher (GM 1.84 mg/m3, GSD 1.6) than fixed-position area samples (GM 0.68 mg/m3, GSD 1.9). The endotoxin concentration based on the VE samples was 366 EU/m3, with the highest levels found in the specific manufacturing process drawing (1871 EU/m3) and the lowest in spinning (43.5 EU/m3). The results of the field comparison were used to convert historic CDS data into comparable exposures and to assign retrospective exposures to subjects included in a case-cohort study of lung cancer among female textile workers in Shanghai.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".