Graphical tools for the planning and interpretation of polyurethane foam based passive air sampling campaigns
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Due to low cost and easy handling during sampling and extraction, passive air samplers (PASs) using polyurethane foam (PUF) as a sorbent have become the most commonly deployed PASs for semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs). However, depending on the scenario, PUF-PAS may not always be operating in the linear uptake phase, which implies the need to consider how temperature, wind speed, deployment length and chemical properties interact to determine the amount of a target chemical taken up and the fraction of a depuration compound (DC) being lost during deployment. Guidance is, therefore, necessary to quantitatively interpret curvi-linear uptake in the PUF-PAS and avoid selection of DCs unsuited to the deployment conditions. In this study, the PAS-SIM model is used to generate graphical tools that aid in addressing important questions frequently arising during the use of PUF-PASs. Specifically, we generated five charts that display (i) the inherent sampling rate as a function of wind speed and a chemical's molecular diffusivity, (ii) the length of the linear uptake period as a function of chemical properties, temperature and the acceptable deviation from linearity, (iii) the time to 95% equilibrium as influenced by chemical properties, temperature and wind speed, (iv) the dependence of the fractional loss of DCs on chemical properties, temperature, wind speed and deployment length, and (v) the influence of chemical properties, temperature and the total suspended particle concentration on the extent of sorption to atmospheric particles. The charts also facilitate the assessment of the influence of parameter uncertainty. It is hoped that these charts assist with planning and interpreting sampling campaigns based on a mechanistic and quantitative understanding of uptake in PUF-based PASs.
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 | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.030 | 0.006 |
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".