Experimentally validated mathematical model of analyte uptake by permeation passive samplers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A mathematical model describing the sampling process in a permeation-based passive sampler was developed and evaluated numerically. The model was applied to the Waterloo Membrane Sampler (WMS), which employs a polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) membrane as a permeation barrier, and an adsorbent as a receiving phase. Samplers of this kind are used for sampling volatile organic compounds (VOC) from air and soil gas. The model predicts the spatio-temporal variation of sorbed and free analyte concentrations within the sampler components (membrane, sorbent bed and dead volume), from which the uptake rate throughout the sampling process can be determined. A gradual decline in the uptake rate during the sampling process is predicted, which is more pronounced when sampling higher concentrations. Decline of the uptake rate can be attributed to diminishing analyte concentration gradient within the membrane, which results from resistance to mass transfer and the development of analyte concentration gradients within the sorbent bed. The effects of changing the sampler component dimensions on the rate of this decline in the uptake rate can be predicted from the model. Performance of the model was evaluated experimentally for sampling of toluene vapors under controlled conditions. The model predictions proved close to the experimental values. The model provides a valuable tool to predict changes in the uptake rate during sampling, to assign suitable exposure times at different analyte concentration levels, and to optimize the dimensions of the sampler in a manner that minimizes these changes during the sampling period.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".