{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.015111695137976347, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0032851511169513796, 'mean_word_length': 5.954337899543379, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The variability of delivered dose of aerosols with the same respirable concentration but different size distributions.

The influences of aerosol size distribution and breath tidal volume on respirable dose estimates were examined for mouth breathing using the ACGIH/ISO/CEN criterion for respirable-equivalent aerosols. Actual tissue doses predicted from a set of pulmonary empirical deposition equations, the Heyder-Rudolf equations, were compared with deposition assumed to occur under the penetration-based respirable dust sampling criterion. Deposition estimate errors ranged from approximately 1/10- to 10-fold, with aerosol mass median aerodynamic equivalent diameter and geometric standard deviation as well as tidal volume each showing a substantial influence under appropriate conditions. These findings demonstrate that reliance on respirable aerosol sampling data obtained with devices performing on a penetration-based sampling criterion may lead to erroneous dose-response relationships in exposure standard development as well as exposure misclassification errors during epidemiological studies. A more reliable dose estimate would be obtained using devices with collection efficiency performance closely matching the alveolar deposition prediction curves of Heyder and Rudolf. We believe that if it is not currently required, the development of a deposition-based aerosol sampling methodology will soon be required for the determination and quantification of inhaled aerosol-induced adverse health effects.