Approaches for Evaluating the Relevance of Multiroute Exposures in Establishing Guideline Values for Drinking Water Contaminants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In establishing the guideline values for chemical contaminants in drinking water, the contribution of inhalation and dermal routes associated with showering/bathing needs to be evaluated. The present article reviews the current approaches available for evaluating the importance of inhalation and dermal routes of exposure to drinking water contaminants (DWCs) and integrates them within a 2-tier approach. Accordingly, tier 1 would evaluate whether the dermal or inhalation route is likely to contribute to at least 10% of the dose received from ingestion of drinking water (i.e., 0.15 L-equivalent per day based on the daily water intake rate of 1.5 L/day typically used in Health Canada assessments). Based on the route-specific exposure parameters (i.e., area of skin exposed, effective skin permeability coefficient [K(p)], and air to water concentration ratio during use conditions [F(air-water)], breathing rate, duration of contact, and fraction absorbed), it was determined that for DWCs with K(p) less than 0.024 cm/hr and F(air - water) less than 0.0063, the dermal and inhalation routes during showering or bathing are unlikely to contribute significantly to the total dose. For DWCs with K(p) value equal to or greater than 0.025 cm/hr, dermal notation is implied, and as such, tier 2 calculation of L-equivalent associated with dermal exposure needs to be performed. Similarly, for DWCs with F(air-water) greater than 0.00063, inhalation notation is implied, and detailed evaluation of the L-equivalent associated with inhalation exposure (i.e., tier 2) is suggested. In general, data from human volunteer studies, observational measurements, and targeted modeling studies are useful for deriving L-equivalents, reflective of the magnitude of dose received via dermal and inhalation routes relative to the oral route. However, in resource-limited situations, these approaches can be integrated within a 2-tier approach for prioritizing and providing quantitative evaluations of the relevance of dermal and inhalation routes for developing exposure guidelines for DWCs.
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 | 0.039 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".