Measurement of Endotoxins in Bioaerosols at Workplace: A Critical Review of Literature and a Standardization Issue
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Endotoxins are lipopolysaccharides found in the outer membrane of most Gram-negative bacteria and cyanobacteria. Worker exposure to endotoxins has been shown in a number of work situations and is associated with both respiratory and systemic pathologies. The lack of an occupational exposure limit is mainly due to the absence of a standard protocol at the international level for sampling and analyzing airborne endotoxins. The bibliographic review in this article takes an exhaustive look at the current knowledge on measuring airborne endotoxins. It shows that, despite several reference documents at the international level, the methods used to measure endotoxin exposure differ considerably from one laboratory to another. Standardization is necessary to reduce interlaboratory variability and, ultimately, to improve the use of interstudy data. The bibliographic review presents the current status of standardization for airborne endotoxin measurement methods in the workplace and summarizes areas for further research. This article is both a reference document for all operators wishing to use such methods and a working document to build international consensus around the measurement of airborne endotoxins.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".