Levels and temporal trend of bisphenol A in composite food samples from Canadian Total Diet Study 2008–2012
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Food composite samples from the Canadian Total Diet Study which was conducted each year from 2008 to 2012 rotating between different cities were analysed for bisphenol A (BPA). The overall levels of BPA in the composite food samples from each of the five years from 2008 to 2012 were similar in general with averages (range) of 7.7 ng/g (0.20-106 ng/g), 7.8 ng/g (0.26-110 ng/g), 6.9 ng/g (0.20-84 ng/g), 7.7 ng/g (0.20-105 ng/g) and 9.0 ng/g (0.15-90 ng/g) for 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012, respectively. Levels of BPA in most of the non-canned food composite samples were low and no particular trends were observed. In contrast, the trend of BPA levels in canned food composite samples over the five years (2008-2012) varies. BPA levels in most of the canned food composite samples from 2008 to 2012 were consistent in general (e.g. canned luncheon meat: 10-18 ng/g, canned baked beans: 18-25 ng/g). While BPA levels over the five years were found to decrease for some canned food composite samples (e.g., canned fish: 109 ng/g in 2009 vs. 51 ng/g in 2012), they were also found to increase for some other canned food composite samples (e.g. canned meat soups: 90-104 ng/g in 2011-2012 vs. 29 ng/g in 2008). Thus, recent changes in can coating for food packaging to BPA-free alternatives may have not been fully reflected in all canned food products over the period from 2008 to 2012. Continued monitoring is necessary to more fully assess the potential impact on dietary exposure by the use of BPA alternatives in food contact materials.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".