Drinking Water Intake by Infants Living in Quebec Rural Areas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
P-231 Introduction: Liquids are the main if not the only component of infant diet. While water consumption by artificially fed infants could be important, it has rarely been studied. We present the results of a study evaluating the water consumption profiles of infants living in agricultural areas in Quebec. Methods: All the infants born during a four-month period and living in seven sectors where there is intensive agricultural activity were selected for the study from the Quebec birth registry. Only those living in areas served by ground water (served either by private well or a water utility) and whose gestation duration was superior to 33 weeks were targeted. Of the 704 mothers of infants eligible during the studied period, 642 (91.2%) accepted to participate in a phone interview when their child was about 2 months old. Detailed water consumption was evaluated using a standardized questionnaire on the direct and indirect intake of water via artificial milk feeding, juice, cereals, etc. Tap water as well as bottled water intake was specifically evaluated. Results: Three hundred and five infants (47.5%) had artificial feeding but only 278 (43.3%) had their bottles prepared with water (dry milk mixed with water). Tap water was used to prepare their milk bottle for 167 (60.1%), the others used bottled water. Because water intake was similar among infants fed with tap water or bottled water, their intake is presented for the whole group. Mean total daily water intake at eight weeks was estimated to be 654 mL (95%CI: 627–682) or 122 mL/kg (95% CI: 117–127). The 90th percentile of water intake was estimated at 981mL (179 mL/kg). Discussion and Conclusion: Water consumption by infants has rarely been studied. In the Child-Specific Exposure Factors Handbook, based on the 1994–1996 US Department of Agriculture survey, USEPA recommends using for a child less than one year old the following water intake: mean total daily water intake 340 ml or 46 ml/Kg with a 90th percentile of 880 ml or 127 ml/Kg (USEPA, 2002). Our results demonstrate that two-month old infants have significantly higher water intake either total or per body unit than older children. This should be taken into account when evaluating infant exposure to drinking water contaminants. Reference: US EPA (2002). Child-Specific Exposure Factors Handbook. National Center for Exposure Assessment. Washington, DC.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".