Association between exposure to airborne trichloramine and health effects in indoor swimming pool workers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The main objective of this study was to comprehensively investigate the association between trichloramine (TCA) exposure and respiratory health effects in swimming pool workers. METHODOLOGY: In this study, air sampling was performed for TCA concentrations at fixed locations (static measurements) and on individual workers (personal measurements) in six indoor public swimming pools during periods of high swimmer attendance over the winter school break. Health effects were evaluated using questionnaires and fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FENO) tests performed before and after the working day. RESULTS: In these swimming pools, the environmental TCA concentration ranged from 0.11 to 0.88 mg/m³. Worker exposure ranged from 0.05 to 0.72 mg/m³ for personal measurements. Furthermore, in each swimming pool, the average worker exposure to TCA exceeded the recommended occupational exposure limit of 0.35 mg/m³. Personal TCA measurements were consistently lower than static measurements performed around the pool, with a reduction ranging from 21% to 49%. This can be explained by the time that the workers spend in the pool area, office, and break room. The most common respiratory health effects self-reported by the workers were coughing, shortness of breath, and sneezing with prevalence rates of 38%, 37%, and 35%, respectively. This study demonstrated an association between TCA exposure and eye irritation. Analysis of the FENO tests revealed that individuals with preexisting asthma or allergies exhibited sustained FENO elevation. CONCLUSION: The findings suggest that occupational exposure to TCA in indoor swimming pools is a matter of concern. Implementing and improving workplace safety measures is crucial for safeguarding the respiratory health of swimming pool workers.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".