Characterization and Quantification of Ultrafine Particles and Carbonaceous Components from Occupational Exposures to Diesel Particulate Matter in Selected Workplaces
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Questions still exist regarding which indicator better estimates worker's exposure to diesel particulate matter (DPM) and, especially for ultrafine particles (UFP), how exposure levels and the characteristics of the particles vary in workplaces with different exposure conditions. This study aimed to quantify and characterize DPM exposures in three workplaces with different exposure levels: an underground mine, a subway tunnel, and a truck repair workshop. The same sampling strategy was used and included measurements of the particle number concentration (PNC), mass concentration, size distribution, transmission electron microscopy (TEM), and the characterization of carbonaceous fractions. The highest geometric means (GMs) of PNC and elemental carbon (EC) were measured in the mine [134 000 (geometric standard deviation, GSD = 1.5) particles cm-3 and 125 (GSD = 2.1) µg m-3], followed by the tunnel [32 800 (GSD = 1.7) particles cm-3 and 24.7 (GSD = 2.4) µg m-3], and the truck workshop [22 700 (GSD = 1.3) particles cm-3 and 2.7 (GSD = 2.4) µg m-3]. This gradient of exposure was also observed for total carbon (TC) and particulate matter. The TC/EC ratio was 1.4 in the mine, 2.5 in the tunnel and 8.7 in the workshop, indicating important organic carbon interference in the non-mining workplaces. EC and PNC were strongly correlated in the tunnel (r = 0.85; P < 0.01) and the workshop (r = 0.91; P < 0.001), but a moderate correlation was observed in the mine (r = 0.57; P < 0.05). Results from TEM showed individual carbon spheres between 10 and 56.5 nm organized in agglomerates, while results from the size distribution profiles showed bimodal distributions with a larger accumulation mode in the mine (93 nm) compared with the tunnel (39 nm) and the truck workshop (34 nm). In conclusion, the composition of the carbonaceous fraction varies according to the workplace, and can interfere with DPM estimation when TC is used as indicator. Also, the dominance of particles <100 nm in all workplaces, the high levels of PNC measured and the good correlation with EC suggest that UFP exposures should receive more attention on occupational routine measurements and regulations.
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".