MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2422210575

Biomonitoring of herbicides in Ontario farm applicators.

2005· article· en· W2422210575 on OpenAlexaffabout
Tye E. Arbuckle, Donald C. Cole, Len Ritter, B. D. Ripley

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPesticide Exposure and Toxicity
Canadian institutionsHealth Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiomonitoringMCPAUrinePersonal protective equipmentPesticideToxicologyOccupational exposureMedicineEnvironmental healthEnvironmental scienceAnimal scienceEnvironmental chemistryChemistryBiologyAgronomyCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Internal medicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Biomonitoring of pesticide residues in urine offers the advantages of integrating exposure due to all routes of entry and accounting for individual differences in several factors such as pharmacokinetics. The study was designed to measure the body burden of 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) and 4-chloro-2-methylphenoxyacetic acid (MCPA) in farm applicators and to measure compliance with label recommendations regarding the use of personal protective gear and the impact of such use on exposure. METHODS: Farmers (N=126) from Ontario, Canada, collected a preexposure spot sample of urine and then two consecutive 24-hour urine samples immediately following the farmers' first use of these herbicides during 1996. Details on the pesticides used and handling practices were collected by questionnaire. RESULTS: For the farmers who reported using 2,4-D, the mean urinary concentration was 27.6 microg/l in the day-1 sample and 40.8 microg/l in the day-2 sample. The comparable figures for MCPA were 44.4 microg/l and 58.0 microg/l, respectively. Adherence to all of the recommended personal protective gear was rare (3%). Wearing goggles or a face shield during mixing and loading was associated with the lowest exposures. CONCLUSIONS: The urinary concentrations of 2,4-D and MCPA of these farm applicators were of the same order of magnitude as those published in the past decade, but lower than earlier studies, indicating that improvements in education, equipment, and labeling have likely had an impact on the degree of exposure in occupational settings.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.510
Threshold uncertainty score0.963

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.174 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations21
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicPesticide Exposure and ToxicityFrench-language works237,207