MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Microfibers Released into the Air from a Household\nTumble Dryer

2022· article· en· W6921749824 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicTextile materials and evaluations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMicrofiberPolyesterFiltration (mathematics)TextilePollutantSynthetic fiber

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Microfibers of polyester\nand cotton might be significant for the\ntransport and fate of chemical pollutants in the air due to the amounts\nemitted, as well as their capacities to sorb inorganic and organic\ncompounds. It was hypothesized that household tumble driers could\nbe atmospheric sources of these microfibers. This study quantified\nthe number of the two most common textile fibers discharged from a\nhousehold vented tumble dryer to ambient air. The results suggest\nthat driers of this type are a potential source of air contamination\nby microfibers, releasing 433,128–561,810 microfibers during\n15 min of use. Microfibers can be generated from both polyester and\ncotton textiles. The abundances of microfibers of polyester produced\nwere directly proportional to the masses of clothing loaded into a\ndryer, but such a relationship was not apparent for cotton textiles.\nOn the basis of the results presented here and other relevant data,\nit was estimated that the average Canadian household can annually\nrelease from 9 × 10<sup>7</sup> to 12 × 10<sup>7</sup> microfibers\nfrom a single dryer. To minimize the release of these microfibers\ninto the air, an appropriate engineered filtration system should be\ndeveloped and adopted as an effective control measure for individual\nhousehold driers.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.654
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.6590.005

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.205 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshareSame topicTextile materials and evaluationsFrench-language works237,207