Allergenic Ingredients in Personal Hygiene Wet Wipes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Wet wipes are a significant allergen source for anogenital allergic contact dermatitis. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to calculate the frequency of potentially allergenic ingredients in personal hygiene wet wipes. METHODS: Ingredient lists from brand name and generic personal hygiene wet wipes from 4 large retailers were compiled. RESULTS: In the 54 personal hygiene wet wipes evaluated, a total of 132 ingredients were identified (average of 11.9 ingredients per wipe). The most common ingredients were Aloe barbadensis (77.8%), citric acid (77.8%), fragrance (72.2%), sorbic acid derivatives (63.0%), tocopherol derivatives (63.0%), glycerin (59.3%), phenoxyethanol (55.6%), disodium cocoamphodiacetate (53.7%), disodium ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) (42.6%), propylene glycol (42.6%), iodopropynyl butylcarbamate (40.7%), chamomile extracts (38.9%), sodium benzoate (35.2%), bronopol (22.2%), sodium citrate (22.2%), lanolin derivatives (20.4%), parabens (20.4%), polyethylene glycol derivatives (18.5%), disodium phosphate (16.7%), dimethylol dimethyl hydantoin (DMDM) (14.8%), and cocamidopropyl propylene glycol (PG)-dimonium chloride phosphate (11.1%). Of note, methylisothiazolinone (5.6%) was uncommon; methylchloroisothiazolinone was not identified in the personal hygiene wet wipes examined. CONCLUSIONS: There are many potential allergens in personal hygiene wet wipes, especially fragrance and preservatives.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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 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".