Laboratory and Field Tests of a Novel Three-Stage Personal Dust Sampler for Sampling Three Dust Fractions Simultaneously
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study designed and calibrated a novel three-stage personal dust sampler for sampling inhalable, thoracic, and respirable dust fractions simultaneously. The sampler has an annular inlet as the first stage for inhalable dust sampling, two impactors in the second and third stages to classify thoracic and respirable dusts, respectively, and a final filter. Laboratory calibration tests using monodisperse liquid and solid particles showed that with 100 ppi (pores per inch) PUF (porous polyurethane foam) substrates and at the flow rate of 3.2 L/min, the sampling efficiency curves of both impactor stages matched with the ISO/CEN/ACGIH thoracic and respirable sampling criteria, respectively. The sampler also agreed with the inhalable criterion for particles smaller than 17 μ m while the deviation increases with increasing particle diameter with a maximum of 28% for 27 μ m particles. It was also found that collection efficiency curve for solid particles was similar to that of liquid particles, indicating that there was no solid particle bounce from the PUF substrates for both impactors. This study also compared inhalable, thoracic, and respirable dust concentrations measured by the present three-stage personal dust samplers with those of the Respicon samplers at three different workplaces. Without using a correction factor of 1.5 for the extrathoracic dusts of the Respicon, field results showed that the present three-stage sampler measured three dust fractions comparable to those of the Respicon samplers. The inhalable dust concentrations of the two samplers differed within 5% while the thoracic and respirable concentration differed by less than 22%.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".