Assessment of the Oxidative Potential and Oxidative Burden from Occupational Exposures to Particulate Matter
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Oxidative potential (OP) is a toxicologically relevant metric that integrates features like mass concentration and chemical composition of particulate matter (PM). Although it has been extensively explored as a metric for the characterization of environmental particles, this is still an underexplored application in the occupational field. This study aimed to estimate the OP of particles in two occupational settings from a construction trades school. This characterization also includes the comparison between activities, sampling strategies, and size fractions. Particulate mass concentrations (PM4-Personal, PM4-Area, and PM2.5-Area) and number concentrations were measured during three weeks of welding and construction/bricklaying activities. The OP was assessed by the ascorbate assay (OPAA) using a synthetic respiratory tract lining fluid (RTLF), while the oxidative burden (OBAA) was determined by multiplying the OPAA values with PM concentrations. Median (25th–75th percentiles) of PM mass and number concentrations were 900 (672–1730) µg m–3 and 128 000 (78 000–169 000) particles cm–3 for welding, and 432 (345–530) µg m–3 and 2800 (1700–4400) particles cm–3 for construction. Welding particles, especially from the first week of activities, were also associated with higher redox activity (OPAA: 3.3 (2.3–4.6) ρmol min–1 µg–1; OBAA: 1750 (893–4560) ρmol min–1 m–3) compared to the construction site (OPAA: 1.4 (1.0–1.8) ρmol min–1 µg–1; OBAA: 486 (341–695) ρmol min–1 m–3). The OPAA was independent of the sampling strategy or size fraction. However, driven by the higher PM concentrations, the OBAA from personal samples was higher compared to area samples in the welding shop, suggesting an influence of the sampling strategy on PM concentrations and OBAA. These results demonstrate that important levels of OPAA can be found in occupational settings, especially during welding activities. Furthermore, the OBAA found in both workplaces largely exceeded the levels found in environmental studies. Therefore, measures of OP and OB could be further explored as metrics for exposure assessment to occupational PM, as well as for associations with cardiorespiratory outcomes in future occupational epidemiological studies.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".