MCPA Permeation Through Protective Gloves
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Permeation of 4-chloro-2-methylphenoxyacetic acid (MCPA) in commercial herbicide formulations through common protective glove types was evaluated to aid in the selection of appropriate skin protection. The ASTM test method F739-91 was used to measure the permeation of two undiluted formulations, one containing a salt, and the other an ester form of MCPA. The four glove types tested were natural rubber, neoprene 73, nitrile 37-145, and Viton-coated chloroprene. Triplicate tests of each combination of formulation and glove material were conducted. Permeation cells with a 0.01 M sodium hydroxide collection medium were used for the experiments. Aliquots of the collection medium were withdrawn at regular intervals and acidified, and quantification of the free acid was achieved using HPLC-UV (230 nm). There was no appreciable permeation of the salt formulation over a 24-hour test period. For the ester formulation, the following mean steady-state permeation rate (microg x cm(-2) min(-1)) and mean lag time (hours), respectively, were measured: Viton (0.06, 17.8), natural rubber (0.08, 15.4), neoprene 73 (0.21, 15.1), and nitrile (0.04, 24.2). Permeation was associated with significant swelling, averaging a nearly 30 percent increase from the pre-immersion thickness. All four glove types provide adequate protection against permeation by the salt formulation and at least eight-hour protection against the ester formulation. Given the greater permeation of the ester formulation, the salt formulation of MCPA herbicide should be used whenever possible.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".