In vitro evaluation of concurrent use of commercially available insect repellent and sunscreen preparations.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Insect repellents and sunscreens are over-the-counter products extensively used by the general public. Concurrent application of these products has become widespread in many regions across North America, because of concerns about West Nile virus and skin cancers. OBJECTIVES: We investigated whether formulation type, application amount, and sequence would affect the percutaneous absorption profiles of the active repellent and sunscreen ingredients. METHODS: In vitro percutaneous permeation of the repellent N,N-diethyl-m-toluamide (DEET) and the sunscreen oxybenzone from concurrent application of five commercially available products (A, repellent spray; B, repellent lotion; C, sunscreen lotion; D and E, combined repellent/sunscreen lotions) was measured and compared using Franz-style diffusion cells with piglet skin at 37 degrees C. RESULTS: Penetration of DEET in A and B increased by 1640% and 282%, respectively, when C was applied concurrently. Penetration of DEET in D and E was 53% and 79% higher than that in B. Permeation of DEET from A + C (2:1) and A + C (1: 2) increased by 530% and 278%, respectively. Permeation of oxybenzone was 189% and 280% higher in A + C and B + C than in C. Permeation of oxybenzone in D and E was also 221% and 296% higher than that in C. Permeation of oxybenzone was 196% greater when A was applied on top of C than when C was applied on top of A, while oxybenzone in A + C (1:2) permeated 171% more than that in A + C (2:1). CONCLUSIONS: Concurrent application of commercially available repellent and sunscreen products resulted in significant synergistic percutaneous permeation of the repellent DEET and the sunscreen oxybenzone in vitro. The percutaneous penetration profiles were dependent upon the type of formulation, application sequence and application proportion.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".