MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3037471384 · doi:10.1080/23744731.2020.1787085

Performance of mechanical filters used in general ventilation against nanoparticles

2020· article· en· W3037471384 on OpenAlexafffund
Clothilde Brochot, Pooya Abdolghader, Fariborz Haghighat, Ali Bahloul

Bibliographic record

VenueScience and Technology for the Built Environment · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAerosol Filtration and Electrostatic Precipitation
Canadian institutionsInstitut de recherche Robert-Sauvé en santé et en sécurité du travailConcordia University
FundersConcordia UniversityInstitut de Recherche Robert-Sauvé en Santé et en Sécurité du Travail
KeywordsASHRAE 90.1Pressure dropMaterials scienceFiltration (mathematics)NanoparticleParticle sizePenetration (warfare)Composite materialNanotechnologyChemical engineeringMechanicsMathematicsEngineeringPhysicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With an equal mass, nanoparticles (NP) have a higher toxicity than particles with the same chemical composition but with larger surface area. However, the toxicological knowledge concerning NP is still insufficient to establish limit values of exposure. To seek the lowest exposure level, filtration is a simple and effective way to capture particles, including NP. According to ANSI/ASHRAE 52.2 standard, ventilation filters efficiency is tested for particles ranging from 0.3 to 10.0 μm. Performances of entire filters for NP are still very limited and particle size of 300 nm (0.3 μm) is commonly used as the most penetrating particle size (MPPS) for mechanical media. To evaluate the filter performance for NP, five type of filters were investigated to measure their performance for particles smaller than 300 nm including NP. The performance of these filters was evaluated in terms of penetration and pressure drop. Experimental data permit to evaluate the MPPS for these mechanical filters. Nevertheless, 150–500 nm range provides a better estimation of the MPPS in the conditions which were tested. Also, filtration velocity influences efficiency for nanoparticles at 50 nm but no effect was observed for MPPS.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.194 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScience and Technology for the Built EnvironmentSame topicAerosol Filtration and Electrostatic PrecipitationFrench-language works237,207