Gas‐Phase Sorption–Desorption of Propargyl Bromide and 1,3‐Dichloropropene on Plastic Materials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The goal of this research was to provide information for choosing appropriate materials for studying gas-phase concentrations of propargyl bromide (3BP) and 1,3-dichloropropene (1,3-D) in laboratory experiments. Several materials were tested and found to sorb both gas-phase chemicals in the following order: stainless steel (SS) < Teflon polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE-FEP) approximately flexible polyvinyl chloride (PVC) approximately acrylic < low-density polyethylene (PE) < vinyl approximately silicone < polyurethane foam (PUF). Sorption of SS was insignificant and PUF sorbed all the fumigant that was applied. For the other materials, linear sorption coefficients (Kd) for 3BP ranged from 3.0 cm3 g(-1) for PVC to 215 cm3 g(-1) for silicone. Freundlich sorption coefficients for 1,3-D ranged from 11.5 to 371 cm3 g(-1). First-order desorption rate constants in an open system ranged from 0.05 to 1.38 h(-1) for 3BP and from 0.07 to 1.73 h(-1) for 1,3-D. In a closed system, less than 2% of sorbed fumigant desorbed from vinyl while up to 99% desorbed from PVC within 24 h when equilibrated at the highest headspace concentration. Sorption of both fumigants was linearly related to the square root of time except for vinyl and silicone. This may indicate non-fickian diffusion of fumigant into the polymer matrix. Vinyl, silicone, PE, and PUF should be avoided for quantitative study of organic gases, except possibly as a trapping medium. Use of PTFE, PVC, and acrylic may require correction for sorption-desorption and diffusion.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".