Quantitative filter forensics with residential HVAC filters to assess indoor concentrations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Analysis of the dust from heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) filters is a promising long-term sampling method to characterize airborne particle-bound contaminants. This filter forensics (FF) approach provides valuable insights about differences between buildings, but does not allow for an estimation of indoor concentrations. In this investigation, FF is extended to quantitative filter forensics (QFF) by using measurements of the volume of air that passes through the filter and the filter efficiency, to assess the integrated average airborne concentrations of total fungal and bacterial DNA, 36 fungal species, endotoxins, phthalates, and organophosphate esters (OPEs) based on dust extracted from HVAC filters. Filters were collected from 59 homes located in central Texas, USA, after 1 month of deployment in each summer and winter. Results showed considerable differences in the concentrations of airborne particle-bound contaminants in studied homes. The airborne concentrations for most of the analytes are comparable with those reported in the literature. In this sample of homes, the HVAC characterization measurements varied much less between homes than the variation in the filter dust concentration of each analyte, suggesting that even in the absence of HVAC data, FF can provide insight about concentration differences for homes with similar HVAC systems.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".