The Penetration of Chromium
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Chromium (Cr) contact allergy is frequent in many industrialized countries. The knowledge of the factors that can influence percutaneous penetration is very important assessing the risk of human exposure. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to compare the concentration of Cr in various skin layers using 2 different vehicles. METHODS: Full-thickness (approximately 1 mm) porcine ear skin was mounted in Franz-type diffusion cells. Duplicate potassium dichromate preparations in 0.5% petrolatum (pet) and 0.5% in aqua (aq) were applied to the donor compartment facing the epidermis for 24 hours. After the experiment, the porcine skin samples were cut with a microtome. All samples were analyzed for total Cr concentration by inductively coupled plasma sector field mass spectrometry. The limit of detection was 0.001 μg/cm3. RESULTS: Chromium was detected in both recipient phases. The distribution of Cr in the skin is similar for pet and aq preparations, but the concentration of Cr detected in the skin was almost 2 times lower for pet comparing aq preparations. CONCLUSIONS: Both vehicles were suitable for penetrating the skin. Less Cr is found in the skin when pet is used as a vehicle. Acid wipe sampling and finger immersion test results might be false-negative for Cr in occupations involving contact with Cr salts in aq solutions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".