Comparison of aerosol spectrometers : accounting for evaporation and sampling losses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Measuring aerosol size distribution with precision is critical to understand the transmission of pathogens causing respiratory illnesses and to identify risk mitigation strategies. It is however a challenging task as the size of pathogen-carrying particles evolves over time due to evaporation. Although measurement techniques well established in the field of aerosol science are often used to characterize bioaerosols, their performance is seldom assessed with respect to evaporation and deposition in sampling lines. Four instruments providing aerosol size distribution were compared using oil and water-based particles. They each rely on different measurement principles: phase doppler anemometry, light scattering, electrical mobility and aerodynamic impaction. Size distributions of oil-based particles showed consistency across different measurement instruments, but significant discrepancies arose for water-based particles undergoing evaporation. These larger differences result from both evaporation and particle deposition in transit between the sampling point and the measurement inside the instrument. Phase doppler anemometry was best suited for precise size distribution measurement, as it eliminates the need for a sampling line, thereby preventing particle loss or evaporation during transit. With this instrument as a reference, empirical correction factors for evaporation and deposition were derived from dimensionless numbers and experimental data, enabling quantitative assessment of bioaerosol size distribution using different instruments. To obtain the size distribution at the source of the aerosol generation, complete drying of a salt solution was performed. Using the complete drying technique and accounting for losses, sampling instruments can reliably provide this critical information and allow for thorough risk assessment in the context of airborne transmission.
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) | 0.000 | 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".