Vacuum cleaner as a source of abiotic and biological air pollution in buildings: a review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Vacuum cleaner is known as a proper way to remove settled dust or aerosols from surfaces to protect building occupants against abiotic and biological particles. In fact, the act of vacuuming the surface re-suspends a significant amount of dust and aerosols in the air. The other source of abiotic and biological particles could be the bag of cleaner and the motor of vacuum cleaner. The bag of the cleaners is the reservoir for microorganisms where they can grow, reproduce and become bio-aerosolized in case of penetration through the cleaner filtration system. Micro-organisms can disseminate from the bag, spread in the system and capture on the final filtration system where overshoot airflow can re-entrain the bioaerosol in the breathing zone which will cause catastrophe for all, especially those who are suffering from allergic and infectious diseases. The motor, due to arcing/abrasion of carbon, emits a significant number of nanoparticles, which can target our cardiovascular and respiratory organs. This review presents a summary of studies on vacuum cleaner and its effect on indoor air quality.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".