Comparison of Bisphenol A and Bisphenol S Percutaneous Absorption and Biotransformation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Bisphenol S (BPS) has been widely substituted for bisphenol A (BPA) on thermal papers, but little is known about its skin absorption. OBJECTIVES: We compared the percutaneous absorption and biotransformation of BPS and BPA in vitro and in a controlled human trial. METHODS: Absorption and biotransformation of BPS and BPA were monitored across reconstructed human epidermis at two environmentally relevant doses over 25 h. In the human trial, five male participants handled thermal receipts containing BPS and washed their hands after 2 h. Urine (0-48 h) and serum (0-7.5h) were analyzed for target bisphenols, and one participant repeated the experiment with extended monitoring. BPS data were compared with published data for isotope-labeled BPA ([Formula: see text]) in the same participants. RESULTS: At doses of 1.5 and [Formula: see text] applied to reconstructed human epidermis, the permeability coefficient of BPS (0.009 and [Formula: see text], respectively) was significantly lower than for BPA (0.036 and [Formula: see text], respectively), and metabolism of both bisphenols was negligible. In participants handling thermal receipts, the quantities of BPS and [Formula: see text] on hands was significantly correlated with maximum urinary event flux ([Formula: see text]), but the slope was lower for BPS than BPA ([Formula: see text] and 1.1, respectively). As a proportion of total urinary bisphenol, free BPS [[Formula: see text]: [Formula: see text]] was higher than for free BPA ([Formula: see text]). Postexposure maximum urinary BPS concentrations (0.93 to [Formula: see text]; [Formula: see text]) were in the 93-98th percentile range of BPS in background Canadians ([Formula: see text]; [Formula: see text]). CONCLUSION: Both the in vitro and human studies suggested lower percutaneous absorption of BPS compared with BPA, but a lower biotransformation efficiency of BPS should also be considered in its evaluation as a BPA substitute. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP5044.
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".