Evaluation of the SureSpot Direct-Reading Instrument for the Determination of Polymeric MDI Aerosols
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent studies in our laboratories have focused on the reliability of direct-reading instruments for the determination of airborne isocyanate concentrations. The evaluation of airborne isocyanates is complicated because these substances exist as diisocyanate monomers and polyisocyanate oligomers, both in the vapor and aerosol phases. The studies showed that a number of direct-reading instruments, including the SureSpot test kit, do not allow an accurate determination of isocyanates in the aerosol phase. Using a test chamber, concentrations of various commercial polymeric methylenediphenyl diisocyanates (PMDI) were generated in the aerosol phase to examine the correlation between the SureSpot monitor and two laboratory methods. The results obtained with the SureSpot and laboratory methods correlated poorly. More precisely, the results indicated that the SureSpot direct-reading instrument had a distinctive response to each commercial PMDI and, in addition, it was not accurate for the determination of total PMDI in the aerosol phase. It seemed that the analytical response of the SureSpot is based on a calibration curve only reliable for MDI and not for the determination of PMDIs in the aerosol phase. Further investigation also indicated that the calibration provided by the manufacturer could not be converted into a linear curve over the suggested MDI concentrations range. An appropriate calibration procedure was developed in our laboratories for the SureSpot to accurately determine all commercial PMDIs without great variability.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it