MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1988831603 · doi:10.1016/j.apsb.2013.11.002

Evaluation of percutaneous permeation of repellent DEET and sunscreen oxybenzone from emulsion-based formulations in artificial membrane and human skin

2014· article· en· W1988831603 on OpenAlexaff
Tao Wang, Donald W. Miller, Frank J. Burczynski, Xiaochen Gu

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Pharmaceutica Sinica B · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInsect and Pesticide Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPermeationEmulsionDEETChemistryChromatographyHuman skinOrganic chemistryMembraneMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Insect repellent DEET and sunscreen ingredient oxybenzone play an essential role in minimizing vector-borne diseases and skin cancers. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of emulsion type, addition of thickening agent and droplet size in three emulsion-based lotions on percutaneous permeation of DEET and oxybenzone using in vitro diffusion experiments, in order to minimize overall systemic permeation of the substances. Formulation C (water-in-oil emulsion) significantly increased overall permeation of DEET through human skin (56%) compared to Formulation A (oil-in-water emulsion). Formulation B (oil-in-water emulsion with thickening agent xanthan gum) significantly decreased the size of oil droplet containing DEET (16%), but no effect on oil droplets containing oxybenzone. Adding xanthan gum also increased overall permeation of DEET and oxybenzone (21% and 150%) when compared to Formulation A; presence of both ingredients in Formulation B further increased their permeation (36% and 23%) in comparison to its single counterparts. Overall permeation of oxybenzone through LDPE was significantly higher by 26%-628% than that through human skin; overall permeation of DEET through human skin was significantly higher by 64%-338% than that through LDPE.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.793
Threshold uncertainty score0.758

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.097
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.263 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActa Pharmaceutica Sinica BSame topicInsect and Pesticide ResearchFrench-language works237,207