Comparison between the ASSET EZ4 NCO and Impinger Sampling Devices for Aerosol Sampling of 4,4′-Methylene Diphenyl Diisocyanate in Spray Foam Application
Bibliographic record
Abstract
4,4'-methylene diphenyl diisocyanate (MDI) aerosol exposure evaluation in spray foam insulation application is known to be a challenge. Current available techniques are either not user-friendly or are inaccurate or are not validated for this application. A new sampler has recently been developed to address the user-friendliness issues with other samplers: the ASSET EZ4-NCO, but the use of this sampler in spray foam insulation applications has not been demonstrated or validated. Because of this, the current work was undertaken to provide a comparison of the ASSET sampler with an impinger method, considered to be the best available method in the context of spray foam insulation, and hence the pertinence of comparing this sampler to an impinger method, considered to be the best available method for measuring MDI monomer and oligomers for this particular application. Liquid chromatography coupled with tandem mass spectrometry method for MDI monomer and oligomer analysis was implemented based on the Supelco literature. It allows the analysis of MDI-dibutylamine (DBA) and MDI 3-ring-DBA with a minimum reported value of 5ng ml(-1), a dynamic range of 5-140ng ml(-1), precision <15% and accuracy >80%. This method was used to quantify MDI aerosols collected with the ASSET sampler in an MDI spray foam environment in parallel with the toluene/MOPIP impinger reference method. The ASSET sampler significantly underestimated the levels of MDI monomer and oligomers when compared to the reference method. The estimated bias was 72% (95% confidence interval [CI] 54-89%) for the monomer and 96% (95% CI 76-115%) for the oligomers. These results demonstrate the importance of evaluating each new sampler for each isocyanate application prior to a formal worker exposure evaluation.
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 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 | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".