A state‐of‐the‐science review of analytical methods for urinary dialkylphosphate metabolites in the assessment of exposure to organophosphate pesticides: From 2000 to 2022
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The general population and workers are exposed to organophosphate insecticides, one of the leading chemical classes of pesticides used in rural and urban areas. This paper aims to conduct an integrative review of the most used analytical methods for identifying and quantifying dialkylphosphate-which are metabolites of organophosphate insecticides-in the urine of exposed workers, discussing their advantages, limitations and applicability. Searches utilized the PubMed, the Scientific Electronic Library Online and the Brazilian Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations databases between 2000 and 2021. Twenty-five studies were selected. The extraction methods most used were liquid-liquid extraction (LLE) (36%) and solid-phase extraction (SPE) (36%), with the SPE being more economical in terms of time and amount of solvents needed, and presenting the best percentage of recovery of analytes, when compared with LLE. Nineteen studies (76%) used the gas chromatography method of separation, and among these, 12 records (63%) indicated mass spectrometry used as a detection technology (analyzer). Studies demonstrate that dialkylphosphates are sensitive and representative exposure biomarkers for environmental and occupational organophosphate exposure.
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.
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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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 it