Slow-stirring method for determining the<i>n</i>-octanol/water partition coefficient (<i>p</i>ow) for highly hydrophobic chemicals: Performance evaluation in a ring test
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The n-octanol/water partition coefficient (Pow) is one of the most important parameters employed for estimating a chemical's environmental fate and toxicity. The currently adopted test guidelines for its determination do not allow for reliable determination of log Pow greater than 5. The slow-stirring experiment, in contrast, has been demonstrated to provide reliable log Pow data up to log Pow of 8.3. To validate this method and to obtain its approval as an official Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (Paris, France) test guideline, a ring test was performed to evaluate the accuracy and precision of the slow-stirring experiment for determination of log Pow, particularly for highly hydrophobic compounds. Up to 15 volunteer laboratories tested 1,2,3,4-tetrachlorobenzene, hexachlorobenzene. 2,2',3,3',5,5',6,6'-octachlorobiphenyl, and decachlorobiphenyl (4.5 < log Pow < 8.2). The ring-test results for the respective chemicals were 4.62, 5.50, 7.39, and 8.18. The results deviated by less than 0.1 log Pow units from the reference log Pow. In addition, the relative standard deviations of log Pow were less than 2%. Using the protocol of the ring test, log Pow of p,p'-DDT was determined to be 6.24 +/- 0.05 (mean +/- standard deviation). In combination, these results indicate that the slow-stirring method is precise and accurate and, thus, allows for reliable determination of log Pow of highly hydrophobic chemicals.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".