MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3186559100 · doi:10.1016/j.envint.2021.106727

Chemical contaminant exposures assessed using silicone wristbands among occupants in office buildings in the USA, UK, China, and India

2021· article· en· W3186559100 on OpenAlexaff
Anna S. Young, Nicholas J. Herkert, Heather M. Stapleton, José Guillermo Cedeño Laurent, Emily R. Jones, Piers MacNaughton, Brent A. Coull, Tamarra James‐Todd, Russ Hauser, Marianne Lahaie Luna, Yu Shan Chung, Joseph G. Allen

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironment International · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicToxic Organic Pollutants Impact
Canadian institutionsPublic Health OntarioUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Institute for Occupational Safety and HealthNational Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
KeywordsEnvironmental sciencePesticidePolybrominated diphenyl ethersChinaPhthalateEnvironmental protectionEnvironmental healthPollutionEnvironmental chemistryPollutantGeographyChemistryEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Little is known about chemical contaminant exposures of office workers in buildings globally. Complex mixtures of harmful chemicals accumulate indoors from building materials, building maintenance, personal products, and outdoor pollution. We evaluated exposures to 99 chemicals in urban office buildings in the USA, UK, China, and India using silicone wristbands worn by 251 participants while they were at work. Here, we report concentrations of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) and other brominated flame retardants (BFRs), organophosphate esters (OPEs), phthalates and phthalate alternatives, pesticides, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). First, we found major differences in office worker chemical exposures by country, some of which can be explained by regulations and use patterns. For example, exposures to several pesticides were substantially higher in India where there were fewer restrictions and unique malaria challenges, and exposures to flame retardants tended to be higher in the USA and UK where there were historic, stringent furniture flammability standards. Higher exposures to PAHs in China and India could be due to high levels of outdoor air pollution that penetrates indoors. Second, some office workers were still exposed to legacy PCBs, PBDEs, and pesticides, even decades after bans or phase-outs. Third, we identified exposure to a contemporary PCB that is not covered under legacy PCB bans due to its presence as an unintentional byproduct in materials. Fourth, exposures to novel BFRs, OPEs, and other chemicals commonly used as substitutes to previously phased-out chemicals were ubiquitous. Fifth, some exposures were influenced by individual factors, not just countries and buildings. Phthalate exposures, for example, were related to personal care product use, country restrictions, and building materials. Overall, we found substantial country differences in chemical exposures and continued exposures to legacy phased-out chemicals and their substitutes in buildings. These findings warrant further research on the role of chemicals in office buildings on worker health.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.150
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations46
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironment InternationalSame topicToxic Organic Pollutants ImpactFrench-language works237,207