MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3015443085 · doi:10.1080/15459624.2020.1731518

On site comparison of the OSHA 42, Asset EZ4-NCO, Iso-Chek, DAN and CIP10 methods for measuring toluene diisocyanate (TDI) at a polyurethane foam factory

2020· article· en· W3015443085 on OpenAlexaff
Simon Aubin, El Mekki Hamdi, Audrey Joly, Philippe Sarazin, Jacques Lesage, Livain Breau, Mark W Spence, Sébastien Gagné

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOccupational exposure and asthma
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à MontréalInstitut de recherche Robert-Sauvé en santé et en sécurité du travail
Fundersnot available
KeywordsToluene diisocyanatePolyurethaneTolueneIsocyanateChemistryChromatographyEnvironmental chemistryOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Because of the semi-volatile nature of diisocyanates (being airborne in both physical vapor and particulate phases), their high reactivity and low occupational exposure limits, diisocyanate exposure evaluation has been challenging for industrial hygienists and laboratories. The objective of this study was to compare the toluene diisocyanate (2,4 and 2,6 isomers, TDI) concentration measured by five methods in a flexible polyurethane foam factory using different collection or derivatization approaches. The methods used were: OSHA 42 modified (filter, 1-(2-pyridyl)piperazine) (OSHA), Asset EZ4-NCO (denuder and filter, dibutylamine) (Asset), Iso-Chek (double-filter, 9-(N-methylaminomethyl) anthracene and 1,2-methoxyphenylpiperazine), DAN (filter, 1,8-diaminonaphthalene), and CIP10 (centrifugation, 1,2-methoxyphenylpiperazine). Particle real-time monitoring for concentration and size distribution was performed in parallel to improve the understanding of the potential bias between methods. The comparison study was performed over 3 days, providing 18 replicates for each of the 5 methods. Isocyanate concentrations collected for each sampling method were compared using linear mixed effect modeling. Compared to OSHA, which yielded the highest concentrations overall, the Asset and DAN methods provided the smallest biases (-29% (95% CI [-52;-6]) and -45% (95% CI [-67;-23]), respectively), while the CIP10 and Iso-Chek methods provided the largest biases (-82% (95% CI [-105;-66]) and -96% (95% CI [-118;-75]), respectively). The substantial bias of Iso-Chek and CIP10 seemed to be explained by the predominance of TDI in the form of sub-micron particles that were inadequately captured by these two methods due to their sampling principle, which are particle filtration without derivatizing agent and centrifugation respectively. Asset and DAN performance seemed to decrease as the sampling time increased. While DAN's bias could be related to a reagent deficiency on the filter, the disparities between OSHA and Asset, both considered as reference methods, highlight the fact that the mechanisms of collection, derivation and extraction do not seem to be completely controlled. Finally, an upward trend has been observed between concentrations of particles below 300 nm in size and concentration levels of TDI. It has also been observed that TDI levels increased with the TDI foam index produced at the facility.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.214
Threshold uncertainty score0.485

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.061
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.287 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Occupational and Environmental HygieneSame topicOccupational exposure and asthmaFrench-language works237,207