Dispersion of bioaerosols from composting facilities.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The promotion of composting as an option for sustainable waste management has raised concerns regarding public health impacts of exposures to potentially hazardous bioaerosols. Recent source term experiments show that bioaerosol emissions are episodic and that peak emissions are related to compost agitation. The Environment Agency requires risk assessments for facilities that have sensitive receptors within 250m of their boundary. In order to improve current risk assessment methodologies, improved predictions of bioaerosol dispersal are required. Dispersion modelling has been successfully used to determine dispersion of odours from waste management. In this paper, bioaerosol concentration data measured at a composting facility is analysed in an ongoing series of model experiments, using the ADMS air dispersion model. Initial modelling results reveal that the concentrations of bioaerosols decrease rapidly with distance from the site, although under certain circumstances, it is possible that higher concentrations may still be present at 200m from the site boundary. However, dispersion models are not yet able to take into account all the properties of bioaerosols, in particular, their viability and their ability to aggregate and form clumps, which will affect the rate of dispersal. A series of experiments were designed to examine how the options within dispersion model affect the dispersion of bioaerosols and under which circumstances high concentrations may disperse to sensitive receptors. The results will be compared with bioaerosol measurements taken downwind of a composting facility, to determine the accuracy of the model predictions. This is the first stage in an attempt to design a best practice method for modelling bioaerosols.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".