MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3098896075 · doi:10.1080/15459624.2020.1834111

On-site comparison of the OSHA 47, Asset EZ4-NCO, Iso-Chek, DAN, and CIP10 methods for measuring methylene diphenyl diisocyanate (MDI) at an oriented-strand board (OSB) factory

2020· article· en· W3098896075 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
KeywordsPolyurethaneChemistryIsocyanateToxicologyOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Diisocyanates are occupational contaminants and known sensitizers causing irritation (skin and respiratory tract) as well as occupational asthma. Because of their physicochemical properties (semi-volatile and high reactivity) and low occupational limits, diisocyanate exposure evaluation is still a challenge nowadays for industrial hygienists and laboratories. The objective of this study was to compare the methylene diphenyl diisocyanate (MDI) concentrations measured by five methods using different collection or derivatization approaches in an oriented-strand board (OSB) factory. The methods used were: OSHA 47 (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). Real-time monitoring of particle concentration and size distribution was performed to explain the potential bias between methods. The comparison study was performed over 3 consecutive days, generating at least 18 replicates for each of the 5 methods. The results of each methods were compared using linear mixed effect modeling. Compared to Asset, which yielded the highest concentrations overall, the OSHA method provided the smallest bias with -18% (95% CI [-61;24]) (not significant) for MDI monomer and the DAN method provided the smallest bias with -30 (95% CI [-70;9]) (not significant) for Total Reactive Isocyanate Group (TRIG). The CIP10 and Iso-Chek methods provided the largest biases for MDI monomer (-83% (95% CI [-115;-51]) and -78% (95% CI [-110;-46]), respectively) as well as for TRIG (-87% (95% CI [-120;-55]) and -75% (95% CI [-107;-44]), respectively). The underestimations of the CIP10 and Iso-Chek were explained by its inefficient sampling principle for fines particles and the use of a non-impregnated filter to collect aerosol MDI, respectively. This study confirms that impregnated filter, including denuding device such as the Asset EZ4-NCO sampler, collects the MDI-coated wood particles and MDI vapor with similar efficiency. It also demonstrates for the first time in this type of MDI emission a significant agreement for TRIG concentration between the DAN method in the impregnated filter configuration and an international standard one such as Asset.

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 score0.168
Threshold uncertainty score0.592

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.293 · 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

Citations4
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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