Follow-up on High Lead Concentrations in New Decorative Enamel Paints Available in Egypt
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The average total lead concentration of new enamel household paints in Egypt was previously reported to be the second highest among the seven countries from Africa, Asia and South America that were included in a 2009 publication. The follow up study reported in this paper includes more than twice as many brands (11 versus 4) and samples (45 versus 20) as the initial study. Paints from three of the four brands included in the initial study were sampled again to examine possible changes. Paint from the eight brands not examined in the initial study had lower lead concentrations (4,150 ppm average) compared to brands in the initial study, 26,200 ppm resulting in an average concentration of 11,900 ppm in the follow up study. These two averages are 291- and 132-times higher, respectively, than the current U.S. limit of 90 ppm in new paints for consumer use. Paint lead concentrations in brands/colors manufactured at different times did not exhibit any overall pattern of increase or decrease. The data from the follow up and initial studies were combined using the sample collected more recently for those brand/colors collected twice, resulting in a total of fifty-two (52) samples with an average lead concentration of 14,300 ppm. The presence of lead in new paints continues to represent a threat to children and efforts are needed to cease the use of lead compounds in making paints by using readily available substitutes. In a 1997 report of the analyses of fifteen (15) new paints intended for use on the interior of houses, the median concentration, 370 ppm, and the maximum, 19,200 ppm, were much lower than those presented in this report. This is consistent with a statement in the 1997 report that anecdotal evidence that some paint companies may be starting or increasing the production of lead-based paint.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".