MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4291415169 · doi:10.3390/atmos13081281

Occupational Microbial Risk among Embalmers

2022· article· en· W4291415169 on OpenAlexafffund
Loïc Wingert, Maximilien Debia, Stéphane Hallé, Geneviève Marchand

Bibliographic record

VenueAtmosphere · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfection Control and Ventilation
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie SupérieureUniversité de MontréalInstitut de recherche Robert-Sauvé en santé et en sécurité du travail
FundersInstitut de Recherche Robert-Sauvé en Santé et en Sécurité du Travail
KeywordsIndoor bioaerosolAerosolizationAerosolBioaerosolStreptococcus pneumoniaeEnvironmental chemistryEnvironmental scienceMicrobiologyPhysiologyChemistryMedicineBiologyInhalation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Embalmers are exposed to many pathogens present in bodily fluids. However, the risk posed by these pathogens has yet to be defined in terms of the nature of the hazard and the intensity of the exposure. The objective of this project was to monitor the exposure of embalmers to biological particles in real time and to characterize the microbiota found in the air during embalming activities in three thanatopraxy laboratories. An innovative approach, using a laser-induced fluorescence aerosol spectrometer (WIBS-NEO), made it possible to measure the concentrations and particle size distributions of the aerosols (biological and non-biological) emitted during embalming. At the same time, an Andersen impactor was used to sample the culturable microbiota present in the air and perform its characterization. The preferential aerosolization of the biological (fluorescent) fraction during embalming procedures, which was compared to the non-biological (non-fluorescent) fraction, showed that most of the tasks performed by the embalmer are likely to lead to microbial exposure via bioaerosols. The concentrations measured represented the equivalent of 2000 to 10,000 biological particles inhaled per minute. Although Mycobacterium tuberculosis was not identified in the air during this study, the presence of Streptococcus pneumoniae in some of the samples demonstrated that if a pathogen is present in the lungs of the deceased it can be aerosolized and inhaled by the embalmers. The size distribution showed that embalmers are exposed to a high proportion of small particles in the aerosols produced during their work. Thus, the respirable/total ratios calculated are between 58% and 78%. Finally, the detection of airborne Enterobacter, Serratia, Leclercia, and Hafnia tended to demonstrate the aerosolization of intestinal bacteria and their possible inhalation or ingestion. Due to the difficulty of identifying the presence of pathogenic agents before embalming, the presence of faecal bacteria in the air, the proximity of the embalmer to the body, and the limitations associated with the dilution of contaminants by general ventilation in the near field, local ventilation must be provided. Otherwise, minimally, a fitted N95-type respirator should be recommended.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAtmosphereSame topicInfection Control and VentilationFrench-language works237,207