Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
In this study three different types of samplers for the determination of 1,6-hexamethylene diisocyanate in air were compared. The experimental set up was a simulation of real life conditions with spray painting operations performed inside a commercial, full sized, spray box. The sampling methods were 1-(2-methoxyphenyl)-piperazine impregnated on glass fibre filter, and the same reagent in impinger, and also dibutylamine in impinger. All analyses were performed by LC-MS-MS. The determined concentrations varied between 20 and 90 microg m(-3) with relative standard deviations from 7 to 17% for each method. No significant difference was found between the three methods using ANOVA with a significance level of alpha = 0.05.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1039/b108249c | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!