Carbon monoxide poisoning associated with blasting operations close to underground enclosed spaces. Part 2. Special working procedures to minimize CO migration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Carbon monoxide (CO) produced by blasting operations in civil engineering works in residential environments can migrate fair distances in the surrounding fractured bedrock and underground infrastructures in the blast area and can then infiltrate enclosed spaces. Poisoning of workers and people in general exposed to an emission of CO produced by explosives has occurred many times. Special working procedures must be developed to minimize the risk of poisoning. Three different procedures were tested in the field where the geologic conditions (slate confined with more than 0.5 m of clayey till) were favourable for CO migration. The first procedure tested aimed to minimize CO production and migration by changing the usual explosive type and the sequence of blasting, excavating and embanking the debris, and installing vents in the surrounding rock. This method did not have a significant effect on CO migration. The second method aimed to mitigate the CO produced by excavating the overburden before drilling, placing blast mats, excavating the broken rock after each blast, and changing the sequence of blasting. This procedure was efficient and safe. The third method consisted of pumping the interstitial air in the broken rock with a vacuum truck immediately after each blast. This method was a good alternative but requires monitoring of the exhaust air and was not as efficient and reliable as the excavation method.Key words: carbon monoxide, blasting, poisoning, enclosed spaces, remediation, house.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".