MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3084721454 · doi:10.1021/acs.est.0c02665

Occurrence and Gas–Particle Partitioning of Organic UV-Filters in Urban Air

2020· article· en· W3084721454 on OpenAlexafffund
César Nicolás Pegoraro, Tom Harner, Ky Su, Lutz Ahrens

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Science & Technology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSkin Protection and Aging
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
FundersGovernment of Canada
KeywordsVolatilisationEnvironmental chemistryVolatile organic compoundParticle (ecology)ChemistryOrganic compoundUV filterGas phaseMass spectrometryGas chromatography–mass spectrometryChromatographyOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

. Homosalate (HMS) was the most prevalent organic UV-filter in air (47% of the total concentration), followed by 2-ethylhexyl salicylate (EHS, ∼29%), E- and Z-2-ethylhexyl 4-methoxycinnamate (EHMC, ∼17%). Ambient air (gas + particle phase) concentrations of organic UV-filters showed a strong seasonality, with peak levels during the summer. An analysis of Clausius-Clapeyron slopes indicated that much of the ambient burden of organic UV-filters are explained by volatilization from terrestrial and aquatic surfaces and supplemented with human activities and use of lotions and sunscreens, containing organic UV-filters, in addition to its use in plastics, textiles, paints, and pesticides. The results showed that organic UV-filters exist mainly in the gas phase with some exceptions, for instance, octocrylene (OCR), which was associated with both gas and particle phases, and avobenzone (AVB), which was predominantly in the particle phase. Lastly, this study revealed the need for basic physical chemical property data for organic UV-filters, including information on transformation rates and products, for better evaluating their environmental fate and effects.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.213 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations44
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental Science & TechnologySame topicSkin Protection and AgingFrench-language works237,207