Characterization of drying bioaerosols with four size distribution measurement instruments in the context of airborne transmission
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Measuring aerosol size distributions with precision is important to understand the transmission of infectious diseases causing pneumonia-like illnesses, including Legionnaire’s disease and COVID-19. Accurate size measurement can help guide the identification of risk mitigation strategies, a challenging task as the size of pathogen carrying particles can change due to evaporation. Using oil and water-based particles, we compare four measurement instruments that provide aerosol size distributions relying on different measurement principles; phase doppler anemometry, light scattering, electrical mobility and aerodynamic impaction. The size distributions obtained from the different measurement instruments are consistent for oil-based particles but differ significantly for particles experiencing evaporation. Experiments were conducted to quantify the differences in measurement caused by evaporation as well as the measurement losses. The size range covered by the four instruments is from 0.025 to 10 µm. Finally, an approach based on the complete drying of a salt solution is presented to obtain the size distribution at the source of the aerosol generation. Understanding of the infectious dose and the pathogen concentration at the source, the most dangerous size ranges of the aerosols can thus be determined, and actions can be taken to reduce the propagation of these particles.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".