MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1997933674 · doi:10.1080/02652030600838407

Formation of iodoacetic acids during cooking: Interaction of iodized table salt with chlorinated drinking water

2006· article· en· W1997933674 on OpenAlexaff
Adam Becalski, Benjamin P.‐Y. Lau, Timothy Schrader, Stephen W. Seaman, W. F. Sun

Bibliographic record

VenueFood Additives & Contaminants · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWater Treatment and Disinfection
Canadian institutionsHealth Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIodoacetic acidIodised saltChemistrySalt (chemistry)Environmental chemistryToxicologyIodineOrganic chemistryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Iodoacetic and chloroiodoacetic acids were formed when municipal chlorinated tap water was allowed to react with iodized (with potassium iodide) table salt or with potassium iodide itself. Iodoacetic acid was recently shown to be a potent cytotoxic and genotoxic agent. For analysis, samples were extracted with t-amyl methyl ether and converted to the corresponding methyl esters using methanol and sulfuric acid. The concentration of iodoacetic acid was determined by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) using an authentic standard. The identities of iodoacetic and chloroiodoacetic acids were further confirmed by gas chromatography-high-resolution mass spectrometry (GC-HRMS). Certain influences of sodium hypochlorite and humic acid as well as the concentration of potassium iodide on the yields of these acids were investigated. The concentration of iodoacetic acid in tap water samples boiled with 2 g l-1 of iodized table salt was found to be in the 1.5 microg l-1 range, whilst the concentration of chloroiodoacetic acid was estimated to be three to five times lower.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.191 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations23
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFood Additives & ContaminantsSame topicWater Treatment and DisinfectionFrench-language works237,207