Nickel Exposure From Keys: Alternatives for Protection and Prevention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Keys are an important exposure source of metal allergens to consumers and confer a significant problem for nickel-allergic individuals because of repeated daily use. OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were to investigate the frequency of nickel and cobalt release in keys and to consider the effectiveness of coatings for preventing metallic allergen release from common metal allergen-releasing keys. METHODS: Keys from a variety of common stores were nickel and cobalt spot tested. Nickel-releasing keys were coated with enamel sprays, subjected to a use test, and retested to assess for metal allergen release. RESULTS: Of 55 tested keys, 80% showed a strong positive result to the nickel spot test. None of the tested keys exhibited cobalt release. No keys initially released nickel after enamel coatings. Key coatings chipped at the portion inserted into a lock after 30 insertions, and keys were found to release nickel. The handle of the key was not found to release nickel after 60 insertions. CONCLUSIONS: Nickel release from keys is very common; nickel-allergic consumers should consider purchasing keys that do not release nickel (eg, brass, anodized). Enamel coating may be useful in protecting nickel-sensitive individuals from their keys but cannot consistently prevent nickel-release from portions used frequently.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".