Published by Oxford University Press doi:10.1093/annhyg/meh042 Determinants of Exposure to Metalworking Fluid Aerosol in Small Machine Shops
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to evaluate personal exposure to metalworking fluid (MWF) aerosols in very small machine shops (1–8 machinists per shop) and to investigate workplace factors associated with exposures. A total of 20 willing machine shops in Vancouver, Canada (from 46 eligible shops, 43%) and 88 machinists participated (participation rate for machinists 92%). Most machinists wore two personal sampling trains (an open-faced 37 mm cassette and a PM10 impactor) on each of two full work shifts. Observational data were collected regarding potential determinants of exposure at 15 min intervals throughout each shift. A total of 322 personal samples were taken over 54 days. Mean aerosol exposure was 0.32 mg/m3 (range 0.06–2.19) for the 37 mm cassette samples and 0.27 mg/m3 (range 0.026–3.67) for PM10. Expos-ures from the two sampler types were highly correlated (R = 0.86). The mean shop-specific ratio comparing exposure from the 37 mm cassette with that from the PM10 sampler was 1.43 and varied significantly across shops, ranging from 0.97 to 2.19. Machine, task and shop character-istics associated with significantly increased aerosol exposure included the proportion of time spent grinding, operating an enclosed computer controlled machine, the presence of welding in the shop for both sampler types and the number of machines using MWF for PM10 samples
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".