In-vitro permeation of the Insect repellent N,N-diethyl-m-toluamide (DEET) and the sunscreen oxybenzone
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The permeation behaviours of the insect repellent N,N-diethyl-m-toluamide (DEET) and the sunscreen oxybenzone were assessed in a series of in-vitro diffusion studies, using piglet skin and poly (dimethylsiloxane) (PDMS) membrane. The transmembrane permeability of DEET and oxybenzone across piglet skin and PDMS membrane was dependent on dissolving vehicles and test concentrations. An enhanced permeation increase across piglet skin was found for DEET and oxybenzone when both compounds were present in the same medium (DEET: 289% in propylene glycol, 243% in ethanol and 112% in poly(ethylene glycol) (PEG-400); oxybenzone: 139% in PEG-400, 120% in propylene glycol and 112% in ethanol). Permeation enhancement was also observed in PDMS membrane (DEET: 207% in ethanol, 124% in PEG-400 and 107% in propylene glycol; oxybenzone: 254% in PEG-400, 154% in ethanol and 105% in propylene glycol). PDMS membrane was found to be a suitable candidate for in-vitro diffusion evaluations. This study shows that the permeations of the insect repellent DEET and the sunscreen oxybenzone were synergistically enhanced when they were applied simultaneously.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".