MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3035047025 · doi:10.1002/rem.21646

Vapor intrusion risk evaluation using automated continuous chemical and physical parameter monitoring

2020· article· en· W3035047025 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueRemediation Journal · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWind and Air Flow Studies
Canadian institutionsGeoscience BC
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceIntrusionAdvectionRepresentativeness heuristicFlux (metallurgy)Sample (material)Computer scienceMeteorologyStatisticsChemistryGeologyGeographyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Vapor intrusion risk characterization efforts are challenging due to complexities associated with background indoor air constituents, preferential subsurface migration pathways, and representativeness limitations associated with traditional randomly timed time‐integrated sampling methods that do not sufficiently account for factors controlling concentration dynamics. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recommends basing risk related decisions on the reasonable maximum exposure (RME). However, with very few exceptions, practitioners have not been applying this criterion. The RME will most likely occur during upward advective flux conditions. As such, for RME determinations, it is important to sample when upward advective flux conditions are occurring. The most common vapor intrusion assessment efforts include randomly timed sample collection events, and therefore do not accurately yield RME estimates. More specifically, researchers have demonstrated that randomly timed sampling schemes can result in false negative determinations of potential risk corresponding to RMEs. For sites experiencing trichloroethylene (TCE) vapor intrusion, the potential for acute risks poses additional challenges, as there is a critical need for rapid response to exposure exceedances to minimize health risks and liabilities. To address these challenges, continuous monitoring platforms have been deployed to monitor indoor concentrations of key volatile constituents, atmospheric pressure, and pressure differential conditions that can result in upward toxic vapor transport and entry into overlying buildings. This article demonstrates how vapor intrusion RME‐based risks can be successfully and efficiently determined using continuous monitoring of concentration and parameters indicating upward advective chemical flux. Time series analyses from multiple selected 8‐ and 24‐hr time increments during upward advective TCE flux conditions were performed to simulate results expected from the most commonly employed sampling methods. These analyses indicate that, although most of the selected time increments overlap within the same 24‐hr window, results and conclusions vary. As such, these findings demonstrate that continuous monitoring of concentration and parameters such as differential pressure and determination of a time‐weighted concentration average over a selected duration when upward advective flux is occurring can allow for a realistic RME‐based risk estimate.

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.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.853
Threshold uncertainty score0.258

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.251 · 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