Evaluation of different modifications to a personal impactor (Andersen series 290) for evaluating respirable and inhalable fractions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PROBLEM PROBLEMSampling using cascade impactors theoretically allows the three dust fractions defined by the ACGIH (American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists) to be evaluated: the inhalable fraction, the thoracic fraction, and the respirable fraction.However, the use of personal impactors (Andersen series 290) in environments with high concentrations of dusts with large aerodynamic diameters presents several problems, mainly in dust weighing.In environments where these conditions are present, the first stage is often difficult to weigh due to the dust deposited on its surface at the head.This dust must somehow be recovered manually and weighed. OBJECTIVE OBJECTIVETo study the effect of certain modifications to personal impactors by comparing them to other samplers. METHODOLOGY METHODOLOGYDifferent modifications or additions made to personal impactors for the purpose of facilitating the recovery of dusts from the top of the first stage and for evaluating the inhalable fraction of an aerosol were evaluated in two phases.These impactors are Marple-type impactors and are sold by Andersen Instruments Inc. as series 290 impactors.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".