Comparison of Two <i>In Vitro</i> Extraction Protocols for Assessing Metals’ Bioaccessibility Using Dust and Soil Reference Materials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT The bioaccessibility of arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel, and zinc in four National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) standard reference materials and two Canadian dust samples as determined using the Solubility/Bioavailability Research Consortium (SBRC) in vitro procedure ranged from a low of 1.8% for chromium in standard reference material NIST 2711 to a high of 95.2% for cadmium in NIST 2584. The SBRC data were compared to data generated using a modified EN-71 Toy Safety protocol conducted at two different laboratories. Results for the two extraction methods compared well with differences between the means (SBRC vs. modified EN-71) generally less than 10% for the majority of the metals. These differences between the two extraction methods were negligible compared to variability caused by (a) the inherent heterogeneity of typical house dust samples and (b) differences in ICP-MS analytical approaches employed in the different laboratories. Results indicate that the modified EN-71 method is useful and appropriate as a relatively simple, rapid, and reproducible screening test for estimating metals’ bioaccessibility in soil and dust samples.
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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".