MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4206352440 · doi:10.26434/chemrxiv-2022-3cz25

How Impurities Responsible for Recalls Emerge in Hand Sanitizers

2022· preprint· en· W4206352440 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Farsheed Shahbazi‐Raz, Neda Mashhadi, Bukola Rhoda Aremu, Paul Tucci, Justin F. Binder, John F. Trant

Bibliographic record

VenueChemRxiv · 2022
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicFood Safety and Hygiene
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBusinessHand sanitizerHydrogen peroxideChemistryCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)ImpurityCommerceFood scienceOrganic chemistryMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The global pandemic has created an unprecedented demand for alcohol-based hand sanitizers. This stimulated the entry of many new producers of hand sanitizers, both to provide a new business during the general shutdowns, and to meet the needs of society. Similarly, this created a need for alcohol sources well beyond what had been produced for the consumer market. This has led to numerous recalls of formulations in both the United States and Canada for exceeding the limits of several key impurities, arising from oxidized forms of alcohols, that could risk consumers’ health. Some of these recalls likely arise from the use of substandard ingredients, but others are less easily explained. However, the inclusion of hydrogen peroxide, and the possibly introduction of metal salts from processing could explain the levels of oxidative impurities. This study investigates these questions experimentally using the standard WHO formula as the base formulation, and finds that these impurities do readily arise in the presence of metal salts.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.201 · 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChemRxivSame topicFood Safety and HygieneFrench-language works237,207