Assessment of Nanoparticle Exposure in Nanosilica Handling Process: Including Characteristics of Nanoparticles Leaking from a Vacuum Cleaner
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nanosilica is one of the most widely used nanomaterials across the world. However, their assessment data on the occupational exposure to nanoparticles is insufficient. The present study performed an exposure monitoring in workplace environments where synthetic powders are prepared using fumed nanosilica. Furthermore, after it was observed during exposure monitoring that nanoparticles were emitted through leakage in a vacuum cleaner (even with a HEPA-filter installed in it), the properties of the leaked nanoparticles were also investigated. Workers were exposed to high-concentration nanosilica emitted into the air while pouring it into a container or transferring the container. The use of a vacuum cleaner with a leak (caused by an inadequate sealing) was found to be the origin of nanosilica dispersion in the indoor air. While the particle size of the nanosilica that emitted into the air (during the handling of nanosilica by a worker) was mostly over 100 nm or several microns (µm) due to the coagulation of particles, the size of nanosilica that leaked out of vacuum cleaner was almost similar to the primary size (mode diameter 11.5 nm). Analysis of area samples resulted in 20% (60% in terms of peak concentration) less than the analysis of the personals sample.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 it