NanoRelease: Pilot interlaboratory comparison of a weathering protocol applied to resilient and labile polymers with and without embedded carbon nanotubes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A major use of multi-walled carbon nanotubes (MWCNTs) is as functional fillers embedded in a solid matrix, such as plastics or coatings. Weathering and abrasion of the solid matrix during use can lead to environmental releases of the MWCNTs. Here we focus on a protocol to identify and quantify the primary release induced by weathering, and assess reproducibility, transferability, and sensitivity towards different materials and uses. We prepared 132 specimens of two polymer-MWCNT composites containing the same grade of MWCNTs used in earlier OECD hazard assessments but without UV stabilizer. We report on a pilot inter-laboratory comparison (ILC) with four labs (two US and two EU) aging by UV and rain, then shipping for analysis. Two labs (one US and one EU) conducted the release sampling and analysis by Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM), Inductively Coupled Plasma- Mass Spectrometry (ICP-MS), UltravioleteVisible Spectroscopy (UVeVis), Analytical Ultracentrifugation (AUC), and Asymmetric Flow Field Flow Fractionation (AF4). We compare results between aging labs, between analysis labs and between materials. Surprisingly, we found quantitative agreement between analysis labs for TEM, ICP-MS, UVeVis; low variation between aging labs by all methods; and consistent rankings of release between TEM, ICP-MS, UVeVis, AUC. Significant disagreement was related primarily to differences in aging, but even these cases remained within a factor of two.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".