MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2132056443 · doi:10.1093/annhyg/mer015

Comparison of Mounting Methods for the Evaluation of Fibers by Phase Contrast Microscopy

2011· article· en· W2132056443 on OpenAlexaff
Eun Gyung Lee, Thomas W.S. Pang, John H. Nelson, Mike Andrew, Martin Harper

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Annals of Occupational Hygiene · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectrical and Bioimpedance Tomography
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFiberTriacetinPhase contrast microscopyClearanceMaterials scienceComposite materialBiomedical engineeringChemistryChromatographyOpticsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objectives of this study were to evaluate mounting methods for fiber examination of air sample filters by phase contrast microscopy (PCM) and to evaluate differences in fiber counts that might be due to fiber movement. Acetone/triacetin (AT) with various amounts of triacetin and acetone/Euparal (AE) where the mounting medium was placed between the cleared filter wedge and the coverslip were tested as a function of time. Field sample slides collected from a taconite iron-ore processing mill, a tremolitic talc-ore processing mill, and from around a crusher in a meta-basalt stone quarry were prepared with relocatable coverslips to revisit the same field areas on the slides. For each slide, three or four field areas were randomly selected and pictures were taken every 2 weeks to determine any sign of fiber movement over time. For 11 AT slides (named as AT-3.5) prepared with 3.5 μl of the mounting medium according to the NIOSH 7400 method, no fiber movements were detected over 59 weeks. On the other hand, AT slides prepared with larger quantities (10, 15, and 20 μl) of the mounting medium (named as AT-10) and AE slides prepared with ∼10 μl mounting medium showed fiber movement from the eighth day at the earliest. Fiber movement began earlier for the slides mounted with excess triacetin than for those mounted with Euparal. The sample slide storage method, either vertically or horizontally, did not seem to accelerate fiber movement. Additionally, two other modified methods, dimethylformamide solution/Euparal (mDE) and dimethylformamide solution/triacetin (mDT), were also prepared where the mounting medium was placed between the cleared filter wedge and the glass slide. The findings of fiber movements were similar; when 3.5 μl of triacetin was used for the mDT slides, fiber movements were not detected, while fibers on slides prepared with 10 μl triacetin (mDT-10) moved around. No fiber movements were observed for the mDE slides at any time during 59 weeks. Once fiber movement started, fibers moved over distances measured from 4 μm and up to >1000 μm within 22 weeks. However, since then, no further fiber movements have been observed in any field sample slides. Additional sample slides, two Amosite and two chrysotile, were prepared from Union for International Cancer Control (UICC) samples using the AT method with 5 μl triacetin mounting medium. Fiber movements were also observed in these samples; chrysotile fibers began to migrate in 3 weeks, while Amosite fiber movement started after 3 months. Although fiber movement was observed for the AT-10, AE, and mDT-10 sample slides, fiber counts were not significantly different from AT-3.5 and mDE samples that exhibited no fiber movement. Although fiber counts would not be significantly changed by fiber movement, the type and amount of mounting medium for sample slide preparation remains critical for issues such as quality assurance and training of analysts by revisiting the same fibers.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.291
Threshold uncertainty score0.195

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.256
GPT teacher head0.499
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations2
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Annals of Occupational HygieneSame topicElectrical and Bioimpedance TomographyFrench-language works237,207