Metalworking Fluid-Related Aerosols in Machining Plants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Respiratory problems are observed in machinists using soluble metalworking fluid (MWF). Evidences suggest that these problems could be related to the aerosolized microorganisms and their byproducts from MWF. To establish MWF aerosol exposure thresholds and to better understand their effect on human health, these aerosols must be fully characterized. This article evaluates airborne microorganisms and aerosols from soluble MWF in the working environment. Air quality parameters (endotoxin levels, culturable airborne microorganisms, fluid mist, inhalable dust and air exchange rates) were evaluated at 44 sites, in 25 shops in Quebec, Canada. Microorganism concentrations were also measured in MWF. Culturable airborne bacteria concentrations were low, ranging from 1.2 x 10(1) to 1.5 x 10(3) CFU (colony forming units) m(-3), even for metalworking fluid highly contaminated by bacteria (up to 2.4 x 10(9) CFU mL(-1)). Inhalable dust varied between < 0.1 to 2.6 mg m(-3), while air exchange rates were mostly below the standard (4 h(-1)) for this type of workplace, between 0.6 to 14.2 h(-1). Only nine of 44 sites respected the suggested minimum value for air exchange rates. Fluid mist ranged from 0.02 to 0.89 mg m(-3), which is below the threshold limit value (TLV) (ACGIH) of 5 mg m(-3). Airborne endotoxin concentrations ranged from undetectable to 183 EU m(-3) (endotoxin units), showing no correlation with airborne microorganisms or inhalable dust. Most workstations respected the suggested minimum values for fluid mist and showed low concentrations of airborne endotoxin, culturable microorganisms and inhalable dust despite fluid contamination, even when air exchange rates were below the recommendations. Airborne Pseudomonas pseudoalcaligenes was recovered from many sites at significant concentrations. Health-associated risks following exposure to this microorganism should be further investigated.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".