Comparison of Endotoxin Exposure Assessment by Bioaerosol Impinger and Filter-Sampling Methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Environmental assessment data collected in two prior occupational hygiene studies of swine barns and sawmills allowed the comparison of concurrent, triplicate, side-by-side endotoxin measurements using air sampling filters and bioaerosol impingers. Endotoxin concentrations in impinger solutions and filter eluates were assayed using the Limulus amebocyte lysate assay. In sawmills, impinger sampling yielded significantly higher endotoxin concentration measurements and lower variances than filter sampling with IOM inhalable dust samplers. Analysis of variance for repeated measures showed that this association remained after controlling for other factors such as replicate, sawmill, sawmill operation, wood type, and interaction terms. Endotoxin concentrations in the swine barns were 10-fold higher on average than in sawmills. These samples demonstrated comparable endotoxin concentration estimates for impinger and filter methods although the variability was lower using the impinger method. In both occupational settings, side-by-side replicates were more uniform for the impinger samples than for the filter samples. This study demonstrates that impinger sampling is an acceptable method for quantitation of area endotoxin concentrations. Further, when sampling is performed with impingers for airborne microorganism quantitation, these same impinger solutions can yield valid endotoxin exposure estimates, negating the need for additional filter sampling.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".