Printing ink related chemicals, including synthetic phenolic antioxidants, organophosphite antioxidants, and photoinitiators, in printing paper products and implications for human exposure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although synthetic antioxidants (AOs) and photoinitiators (PIs) are known to be used in printing inks, there are little data on residual concentrations in printing paper products. In the present study, twenty-five PIs, ten AOs, and six transformation products were analyzed in two types of printing paper products, magazines and paperboard food packaging materials, both of which are unavoidable everyday products in our life. Nine AOs and six transformation products can be detected in food packaging materials with total concentrations (geometric mean, GM) of 1.16 × 104 ng/dm2. Twenty-two PIs were detected in food packaging materials with total concentrations (GM) of 1.76 × 104 ng/dm2. These chemicals were also detected in magazines, albeit at low concentrations (GM of AOs: 466 ng/dm2, GM of PIs: 1.17 × 103 ng/dm2). Magazine front covers were found to have much higher concentrations of the target compounds than magazine inside pages. Tris(2,4-di-tert-butylphenyl) phosphate (AO168O), 2,6-di-tert-butyl-4-methylphenol (BHT), bisphenol A (BPA), and benzophenone (BP) were among the predominant chemicals in those printing paper products. Preliminary calculations suggest that dermal exposure to AOs (GM: 6.25 ng/day) and PIs (GM: 17.0 ng/day) via contact with printing paper products is a minor exposure pathway compared to food intake/dust ingestion and is exceedingly unlikely to cause adverse health 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 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".