A Novel “By Difference” Method for Assessing Dermal Absorption of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons from Soil at Federal Contaminated Sites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A highly precautionary cost-effective method for estimating dermal absorption using data from 24-h skin soap washes from in vitro dermal absorption tests in Bronaugh flow-through diffusion cells with human skin is reported. Skin was dosed with 16 U.S. Environmental Protection (EPA) priority polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) applied in mixture each at 2 μg/ml (ppm) in acetone without soil. Concurrent tests were conducted with an unspiked aqueous suspension of PAH-contaminated soil obtained from a Canadian federal contaminated site. Percentage dermal absorption was estimated "by difference" from the applied dose and that detected by high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) in 24-h skin soap washes. The dermal absorption for 11 PAH ranged from 71 to 88.3% without and with soil, respectively. Lower absorption was found for 5 PAH in soil, in the range of 26.4 to 60.8%. Data could not be corrected for evaporative loss due to inconsistent data from Tenax adsorbent. Corroboratory gas chromatography/mass spectroscopy (GC/MS) tests are needed. Previously published in vitro data from the authors' laboratory supported use of the "by difference" method.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".