An interlaboratory comparison to quantify oxidative potential measurement in aerosol particles: challenges and recommendations for harmonisation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents the findings from a collaborative interlaboratory comparison exercise designed to assess oxidative potential (OP) measurements conducted by 20 laboratories worldwide. This study represents an innovative effort as the first exercise specifically aimed at harmonising this type of OP assay, setting a new benchmark in the field. Over the last decade, there has been a noticeable increase in OP studies, with numerous research groups investigating the effects of exposure to air pollution particles through the evaluation of OP levels. However, the absence of standardised methods for OP measurements has resulted in variability in results across different groups, rendering meaningful comparisons challenging. To address this issue, this study engages in an international effort to compare OP measurements using a simplified method (with a dithiothreitol (DTT) assay). Here, we quantify the OP in liquid samples to focus on the protocol measurement itself, while future international OP interlaboratory comparisons (ILCs) should aim to assess the whole chain process, including the sample extraction. We analyse the similarities and discrepancies observed in the results, identifying the critical parameters (such as the instrument used, the use of a simplified protocol, the delivery and analysis time) that could influence OP measurements and provide recommendations for future studies and interlaboratory comparisons even if other crucial aspects, such as sampling PM methods, sample storage, extraction methods and conditions, and the evaluation of other OP assays, still need to be standardised. This collaborative approach enhances the robustness of the OP DTT assay and paves the way for future studies to build on a unified framework. This pioneering work concludes that interlaboratory comparisons provide essential insights into the OP metric and are crucial to move toward the harmonisation of OP measurements.
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 | 0.429 | 0.223 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".