Design of an exposure chamber to test samplers used in the evaluation of personal exposure to nanoparticles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to design a laboratory size exposure chamber for the testing of samplers used to collect personal exposure samples for nanoparticles. A polyethylene cylindrical container with a diameter of 42 cm and height of 60 cm was used as the testing chamber. The chamber was divided into 2 parts by an aluminium honey comb. Particles generated using a 1 jet Collison nebulizer (BGI) operating at a flow rate of 4L/min were inserted into the chamber via a tube located near to the top of the chamber. A heater was inserted just after the nebulizer to avoid condensation of water in the tubing, and dilution air, running at 10L/min was inserted just after the heater. As particle charge can dramatically affect sampling a particle neutralizer was attached to the generation system so as to neutralize the particles before they enter the chamber. A diffusion dryer was used to remove any water from the air stream prior to enter the chamber. A fan was used to mix and distribute the generated particles. After generation and mixing, the particles passed through the aluminium honeycomb which is essential to eliminate any turbulent or unwanted air flow. Six sampling ports along with a pressure gauge were placed on the walls 15 cm from the bottom of the chamber. The pressure gauge was added to ensure the desired pressure is achieved during sampling. The sampling ports allowed for the connection of five samplers and sampling pumps as well as the connection of an ultrafine particle counter. The exposure chamber was developed to assess various samplers for carbon nanotubes and cellulose nanocrystals. Results showed that the chamber was working properly and that mixing was sufficiently uniform to test samplers.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".