MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4310967054 · doi:10.1016/j.ijheh.2022.114093

Biomonitoring of DEET and DCBA in Canadian children following typical protective insect repellent use

2022· article· en· W4310967054 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Jennifer C. Gibson, Leonora Marro, Danielle Brandow, Lauren Remedios, Mandy Fisher, Michael M. Borghese, Katarzyna Kieliszkiewicz, Anna O. Lukina, Kim Irwin

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPesticide Exposure and Toxicity
Canadian institutionsPublic Health Agency of CanadaHealth Canada
FundersHealth CanadaPublic Health AgencyPublic Health Agency of Canada
KeywordsDEETInsect repellentBiomonitoringToxicologyPopulationUrineMedicineMetaboliteEnvironmental healthBiologyEcologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

N,N-diethyl-m-toluamide (DEET) is an ingredient found in many consumer insect repellents and its use is recommended to Canadians by government agencies, including Health Canada, for protection against insect bites including mosquitos and ticks. The majority of research on DEET exposure and toxicokinetics in humans has focused on adult populations with little information from vulnerable populations, including children. We aimed to fill this knowledge gap by examining real-world exposure data for DEET and its metabolite 3-diethylcarbamoyl benzoic acid (DCBA) in a sample population of Canadian children. We conducted a 24-h observational exposure human biomonitoring study at three overnight summer camps in Ontario, Canada through July and August 2019. Participating children aged 7-13 years provided multiple spot urine samples over a 24-h period and completed a journal to document insect repellent use and factors that could influence absorption of DEET. Children were instructed to use insect repellent as they usually would while attending a summer camp. Exposure was quantified using the information from the participant's journal and the change in the mass of their insect repellent containers over the course of the study. A total of 389 urine samples were collected from 124 children. Among participants using insect repellent, urinary levels of DEET were elevated between 2 and 8 h post-application and decreased thereafter but remained qualitatively higher than concentrations in participants who did not use insect repellent on the study day, even at 18-22 h post-application. DCBA was the predominant metabolite of DEET exposure in urine. DCBA was elevated between 8 and 14 h post-application, and declined thereafter, but not to the level observed among those who did not use insect repellent on the study day. Children who used more insect repellent, or used higher concentration insect repellent (10%-30% DEET) excreted higher levels of DEET and DCBA. Excreted DEET and DCBA accounted for 0.001% (median) and 1.3% (median) of the estimated applied DEET, respectively. Children did not reach an undetectable level of DEET or DCBA in urine, even among those not using insect repellent during the study day, indicating a potentially complex multi-route exposure to insect repellents in a real world scenario. This work provides targeted biomonitoring data for children intentionally using DEET-based insect repellents for normal protective use, and will support the risk re-evaluation of DEET by Health Canada.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.221 · 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.

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

Citations10
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Hygiene and Environmental HealthSame topicPesticide Exposure and ToxicityFrench-language works237,207