{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.019681349578256794, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0009372071227741331, 'mean_word_length': 5.980392156862745, '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}}
Mist concentration measurements. II: Laboratory and field evaluations.

Sampling methods to determine occupational exposures to metalworking fluid mists are subject to bias. Light-scattering devices may respond differently to variations in particle size, shape, and refractive index. Gravimetric samplers are prone to evaporative losses of semi-volatile components. The performance of two light scattering devices, an electrostatic precipitator, and filters followed by gravimetric analysis was investigated when measuring metalworking fluid mist in laboratory and field settings. Laboratory tests with soluble oil and field tests with soluble oil, straight oil, and semi-synthetic fluid showed significant evaporative losses from filters. Light-scattering devices tended to overestimate mist concentrations when mass median diameters were less than about 2 microns and to underestimate mist concentrations when mass median diameters were larger. Filters will underestimate occupational exposures to metalworking fluid mists when semi-volatile components are present.