Chemical composition and suitability of some Turkish thermal muds as peloids
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Thermal muds have been used in many spas for the treatment of different diseases as well as to clean and beautify the skin and in different forms such as mud baths, masks, and cataplasms. Mineralogical and chemical compositions and the possible toxicity of the peloids were investigated and compared with some limits to determine whether they have any health benefits and potential applications for pelotherapeutic treatments. The studied peloid samples were collected from 19 spas in different parts of Turkey and they were classified as neutral to slightly alkaline, with a high electrical conductivity value that had a high chlorine content and was regarded as highly conductive. The temperature of the peloids was between 23.2 and 61.0 °C. The mineralogical composition mainly comprised smectite and illite, partially quartz and feldspar, some carbonate (calcite and dolomite), and other minerals. The most abundant clay mineral was Ca-montmorillonite. The major and trace element contents of some of the peloids were similar to each other, while the contents of some toxic elements showed a clear variation. Toxic element contents, e.g., As, Cd, Hg, Pb, and Sb, of the peloids were higher or lower than the commercial herbalist clay, pharmaceutical clay, natural clay, average clay, and Canadian Natural Health Products Guide. The toxicity of some hazardous elements was compared, especially that of the pharmaceutical clay, and evaluated together with other parameters. Toxic elements were higher than in the pharmaceutical clay in most of the peloids.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".