MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2129444139 · doi:10.1897/ieam_2007-050.1

A new approach to the hazard classification of alloys based on transformation/dissolution

2008· article· en· W2129444139 on OpenAlexaff
J.M. Skeaff, D.J. Hardy, Pierrette King

Bibliographic record

VenueIntegrated Environmental Assessment and Management · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRecycling and Waste Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransformation (genetics)DissolutionHazardEnvironmental scienceComputer scienceEngineeringChemistryChemical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Most of the metals produced for commercial application enter into service as alloys which, together with metals and all other chemicals in commerce, are subject to a hazard identification and classification initiative now being implemented in a number of jurisdictions worldwide, including the European Union Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) initiative, effective 1 June 2007. This initiative has considerable implications for environmental protection and market access. While a method for the hazard identification and classification of metals is available in the recently developed United Nations (UN) guidance document on the Globally Harmonized System of Hazard Classification and Labelling (GHS), an approach for alloys has yet to be formulated. Within the GHS, a transformation/dissolution protocol (T/ DP) for metals and sparingly soluble metal compounds is provided as a standard laboratory method for measuring the rate and extent of the release of metals into aqueous media from metal-bearing substances. By comparison with ecotoxicity reference data, T/D data can be used to derive UN GHS classification proposals. In this study we applied the T/DP for the 1st time to several economically important metals and alloys: iron powder, nickel powder, copper powder, and the alloys Fe-2Cu-0.6C (copper = 2%, carbon = 0.6%), Fe-2Ni-0.6C, Stainless Steel 304, Monel, brass, Inconel, and nickel-silver. The iron and copper powders and the iron and nickel powders had been sintered to produce the Fe-2Me-0.6C (Me = copper or nickel) alloys which made them essentially resistant to reaction with the aqueous media, so they would not classify under the GHS, although their component copper and nickel metal powders would. Forming a protective passivating film, chromium in the Stainless Steel 304 and Inconel alloys protected them from reaction with the aqueous media, so that their metal releases were minimal and would not result in GHS classification. For the other alloys, we developed a new critical surface area-toxic units (CSA-TU) approach to derive their GHS classification proposals. The CSA-TU approach can be readily applied to other multicomponent alloy systems, without the need to arbitrarily select a particular component among several as the determinant of toxicity. This paper shows how regulatory obligations, such as those mandated by REACH, can be met with a laboratory-based CSA-TU method for deriving hazard classification proposals for alloys, linking to attendant environmental protection management decisions. Drawing on T/D data derived from laboratory testing of the alloy itself, the CSA-TU approach can be applied to establish scientifically defensible decisions on hazard classification proposals for an alloy of interest. The resulting decisions can then be incorporated into environmental management measures in such jurisdictions as the European Union. Based on an approach developed specifically for alloys, the hazard classification decisions can be regarded as relevant, credible, and protective of the environment. Since alloys are usually more resistant to chemical attack than their components, this approach is a considerable improvement over the possibility provided for in the GHS of calculating a hazard classification level for an alloy from the classification levels of its components.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.810
Threshold uncertainty score0.551

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.226 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations22
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIntegrated Environmental Assessment and ManagementSame topicRecycling and Waste Management TechniquesFrench-language works237,207