Investigation of Air Quality and Particle Emission During Wet Granite Edge Finishing on Machine Tool with Half-Beveled and Ogee Profile Tools
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Granite wet edge finishing is widely adopted to improve surface durability and aesthetics while reducing dust dispersion compared to dry processes. However, even under flooded lubrication, fine particles (FP, 0.5–20 µm) and ultrafine particles (UFP, <100 nm) containing crystalline silica are emitted, posing health risks such as silicosis and pulmonary or cardiovascular diseases. This study investigates particle emissions during CNC edge finishing of black (containing 0% quartz) and white granites (containing 41% quartz) using two industrially relevant profile tools: Half-Beveled (HB) and Ogee (OG). A full factorial design evaluated the effects of granite type, tool geometry, abrasive grit size, spindle speed, and feed rate. Particle concentrations were measured with Aerodynamic and Scanning Mobility Particle Sizers. Results show that spindle speed (N) is the dominant factor, explaining up to 92% of variance in emissions, whereas feed rate (Vf) played a minor role. Tool geometry had a pronounced effect on UFP release: sharp-edged geometries (HB) promoted localized micro-fracturing and higher emissions, while curved geometries (OG) distributed stresses and reduced particle detachment. White granite generated higher mass emissions due to its high quartz content, while black granite exhibited more stable emission behavior. These findings highlight the dual necessity of optimizing cutting kinematics and selecting appropriate tool profiles to balance surface quality and occupational health in granite processing.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".