MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4321996551 · doi:10.5194/egusphere-egu23-10352

In situ chemical characterization of airborne nanoplastic particles by aerosol mass spectrometry

2023· preprint· en· W4321996551 on OpenAlexaff
Arthur W. H. Chan, Michael N. Tawadrous, Xing Wang, Alex K. Y. Lee

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMicroplastics and Plastic Pollution
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaOntario College of Art and Design
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAerosolMass spectrometryCharacterization (materials science)Particle (ecology)Materials scienceAnalytical Chemistry (journal)Particle sizeChromatographyChemistryNanotechnology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Extensive use of plastic products has introduced a large amount of plastic pollutants in urban areas and even in remote environments. Nanoplastic particles, in particular, can remain airborne for weeks and transported across greater distances. Characterization of atmospheric nanoplastic particles has been limited. Sampling methods used for larger microplastic particles, such as deposition sampling, and characterization methods, such as spectroscopy, are not applicable to nanoplastic particles. Furthermore, offline sampling methods involve extensive sample preparation procedures which can alter physical and chemical properties of the particles.In this work, we investigate the use of aerosol mass spectrometry (AMS) as an in situ technique to characterize nanoplastic particle size and composition. We generate plastic particles via three different techniques: thermal decomposition of PET plastic bottles, 3D printing (using PET, ABS, and PLA filaments) and mechanical abrasion. Particle size was characterized using a Scanning Mobility Particle Sizer (SMPS). Particles were also sampled into a high resolution time of flight aerosol mass spectrometer (HR-ToF-AMS) and onto quartz filters for offline characterization using pyrolysis gas chromatography mass spectrometry (Py-GC/MS).We found that the AMS produced real-time particle mass spectra that were very similar to those measured by Py-GC/MS analysis of particles collected on filters. The consistency between the two techniques demonstrate that AMS can provide similar information about polymeric content as Py-GC/MS, which is a widely used technique for plastic materials, but at a substantially lower detection limit and higher time resolution. On the other hand, the use chromatographic separation in Py-GC/MS provides more comprehensive evaluation of polymeric composition. For example, we were able to detect changes in ratios between monomers and dimers of PET using Py-GC/MS. Py-GC/MS was also able to provide simultaneous measurement of rubber polymers and additives in tire wear particles, an important source of particles in the near road atmosphere.Since AMS is a commonly used technique for non-refractory components in atmospheric aerosol, optimizing the AMS for nanoplastic particle detection will help understand the sources, dynamics, mixing state and fate of nanoplastic particles in the atmosphere.

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.197 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMicroplastics and Plastic Pollution→French-language works237,207→