Contact transfer of engineered nanomaterials in the workplace
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigates the potential spread of cadmium selenide quantum dots in laboratory environments through contact of gloves with simulated dry spills on laboratory countertops. Secondary transfer of quantum dots from the contaminated gloves to other substrates was initiated by contact of the gloves with different materials found in the laboratory. Transfer of quantum dots to these substrates was qualitatively evaluated by inspection under ultraviolet illumination. This secondary contact resulted in the delivery of quantum dots to all the evaluated substrates. The amount of quantum dots transferred was quantified by elemental analysis. The residue containing quantum dots picked up by the glove was transferred to at least seven additional sections of the pristine substrate through a series of sequential contacts. These results demonstrate the potential for contact transfer as a pathway for spreading nanomaterials throughout the workplace, and that 7-day-old dried spills are susceptible to the propagation of nanomaterials by contact transfer. As research and commercialization of engineered nanomaterials increase worldwide, it is necessary to establish safe practices to protect workers from the potential for chronic exposure to potentially hazardous materials. Similar experimental procedures to those described herein can be adopted by industries or regulatory agencies to guide the development of their nanomaterial safety programmes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".