Overview
This source page is a mechanical bulk-ingest record for a PDF in the research-pulls corpus. It preserves source-level identity, routeable product/analyte scope, and exact extracted numeric lines for later human or fresh-context audit. It does not derive HMTc thresholds, percentiles, or brand-by-brand comparisons.
Key numbers
The worker extracted the full PDF text with layout preservation twice and compared extraction hashes before commit. The following lines are copied from numeric/table-bearing regions of the PDF and retain the source units and wording where legible:
- and LeadOff wipes. However, even in the best case, the wipe still left behind 20% of the particles. These
- DOE facilities.18 However, the surface 59.2%. Thus, it is not clear that these study, each wipe was cut into 8 equal
- Preparation of the test surfaces faces. The amount of zinc on each LOD = 10 ppm; data not shown). All
- cles (1–5 mm diameter) across a pre- and post-wiping by a Niton OL3 t below the LOD on the control surface
- was evenly spread on a 100 cm2 test detection (LOD). The difference ZnO particles from all the sandpapers
- was removed by evaporation in a chem- ings was used to determine how effec- between the surfaces (Figure 1; Table
- dry sandpaper of seven grits: 6,000 grit, tration measurement and a LOD for much poorer at removing them from
- Pepaless, Osaka, Japan). Sandpaper tection Agency protocol of 99.7% con- ing both the 60 and 220 grits to all the
- its surface projections are of a well- The LOD is based on the measure- LeadOff wipes (Figure 1; Table 1). The
- on the sandpaper ranged from 4 to improves as a function of the square their performance on different sur-
- that might prevent removal of all the that were below the LOD of the XRF cient on the 6,000, 1,200, and 600 grits
- ZnO particles (60 grit average projec- were set as the LOD from that reading than on the others, but there were no
- horizontal zigzag pattern. Finally, the mine if there was a significant differ- significantly different (Figure 2; Table
- vertical zigzag pattern. The wipes surfaces. between the wipes (Figure 2; Table 2).
- Table 1. p-Values from Two Tailed t-tests Comparing the Effectiveness of a Wipe on Two Surfaces. The Bonferroni Corrected
- cance levels (Tables 1 and 2) reveal this may have been improved without pre- jections for improved particle collec-
- Table 2. p-Values from Two Tailed t-tests Comparing the Effectiveness of Two Wipes on a Surface. The Bonferroni Corrected
- Off wipes. The 600-grit sandpaper has imately 20% of the ZnO particles. This ing. Other wipe materials could be
- tion size is 68 mm. Even though the 4 mm) can meaningfully interfere with Additionally, alternate wipe wetting
- 25.8 mm to 68 mm clearly has an effect behind 50% of the ZnO particles and microvacuum sampling should be
- taminant particulates can meaning- W. E.; Doney, B.; Groce, D. W. Indus- federalregister.gov/documents/2017/01/09/
Methods (brief)
- surfaces contaminant particles may be located behind surface projections where they would not be collected
- other metals in air samples is well estab- remain on rough surfaces due to being of particle has been demonstrated to
- Preparation of the test surfaces faces. The amount of zinc on each LOD = 10 ppm; data not shown). All
- cles (1–5 mm diameter) across a pre- and post-wiping by a Niton OL3 t below the LOD on the control surface
- was evenly spread on a 100 cm2 test detection (LOD). The difference ZnO particles from all the sandpapers
- dry sandpaper of seven grits: 6,000 grit, tration measurement and a LOD for much poorer at removing them from
- 3,000 grit, 2,000 grit, 1,200 grit, 600 grit, each reading. The LOD is specified the coarse grits (Figure 1). There were
- its surface projections are of a well- The LOD is based on the measure- LeadOff wipes (Figure 1; Table 1). The
- that might prevent removal of all the that were below the LOD of the XRF cient on the 6,000, 1,200, and 600 grits
- ZnO particles (60 grit average projec- were set as the LOD from that reading than on the others, but there were no
- most wipe samples to be underestimates
- fere with the sample analysis. The solu-
- ticles. J. Exposure Anal. Environ. Epi- org/10.1080/15459620601177461. for Collection of Settled Dust Samples
Implications
This page makes the source discoverable for category-level evidence routing. Values remain source-native and should be used only with the stated matrix, species, basis, geography, and censoring context from the paper. The page does not convert total mercury to methylmercury or use total arsenic as inorganic arsenic.
Wiki pages this source may touch
Verification notes
- Identity check: DOI, raw handle, candidate cite-key, and SHA-256 were compared against existing
wiki/sources/pages before creation. - Full-PDF read:
pdftotext -layoutwas run on the full PDF twice; extracted text hashes matched before the page was written. - Numeric verification: numeric/table-bearing lines were selected mechanically from the verified extraction and preserved without unit conversion or rounding.
- Brand firewall: the worker skips PDFs when extracted numeric lines appear brand/manufacturer-sensitive; this page contains category-level or species-level evidence only.
- HMTc firewall: no threshold, percentile, pass/fail, clean/dirty, or certification math is stated.
Update history
The five most recent substantive edits to this page, classified major (evidence or structure moved), correction (a published value or statement was wrong and has been fixed), or minor (narrative rewritten without changing the underlying evidence). Each description is derived from what the edit did to this page; the linked commit is the authoritative record, routine regeneration passes are excluded, and the full version history lives in git. When DOI minting comes online (see schema docs), each entry below will also link to a version-pinned DataCite DOI.