Metabolic Disposition of the Insect Repellent DEET and the Sunscreen Oxybenzone Following Intravenous and Skin Administration in Rats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Insect repellent N,N-diethyl-m-toluamide (DEET) and sunscreen oxybenzone have shown a synergistic percutaneous enhancement when applied concurrently. Both compounds are extensively metabolized in vivo into a series of potentially toxic metabolites: 2 metabolites of DEET, N,N-diethyl-m-hydroxymethylbenzamide (DHMB) and N-ethyl-m-toluamide (ET), and 3 metabolites of oxybenzone, 2,4-dihydroxybenzophenone (DHB), 2,2-dihydroxy-4-methoxybenzophenone (DMB), and 2,3,4-trihydroxybenzophenone (THB). In this study, the metabolites were extensively distributed following intravenous and topical skin administration of DEET and oxybenzone in rats. Combined application enhanced the disposition of all DEET metabolites in the liver but did not consistently affect the distribution of oxybenzone metabolites. The DHMB appeared to be the major metabolite for DEET, while THB and its precursor DHB were the main metabolites for oxybenzone. Repeated once-daily topical application for 30 days led to higher concentrations of DEET metabolites in the liver. Hepatoma cell studies revealed a decrease in cellular proliferation from all metabolites as single and combined treatments, most notably at 72 hours. Increased accumulation of DHMB and ET in the liver together with an ability to reduce cellular proliferation at achievable plasma concentrations indicated that simultaneous exposure to DEET and oxybenzone might have the potential to precipitate adverse effects in a rat animal model.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".