MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390775599 · doi:10.1080/19440049.2024.2302098

Chloroform in food samples from 2014 Canadian total diet study: occurrence and dietary exposure

2024· article· en· W4390775599 on OpenAlexaffabout
Xu‐Liang Cao, Melissa Sparling, Robert Dabeka

Bibliographic record

VenueFood Additives & Contaminants Part A · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWater Treatment and Disinfection
Canadian institutionsHealth Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChloroformTap waterChemistryChlorineFood scienceBody weightFood groupChromatographyBiologyMedicineEnvironmental engineeringEnvironmental scienceOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chloroform or trichloromethane is one of the trihalomethanes formed during disinfection of water with chlorine, and residues of chloroform can be detected in foods and food products due to the use of chlorinated drinking water and disinfecting food processing equipment with chlorine-based disinfectants. In this study, chloroform was detected in 37 (or 23%) of the 159 composite food samples from the 2014 Canadian Total Diet Study, but was not detected in cereals, fruits, fast foods, and most of the meat samples. Chloroform was detected in almost all 14 composite samples of dairy products, with the highest level (58 ng/g) observed in butter, followed by cream (26 ng/g), and cheese (12-21 ng/g). Chloroform was detected in tap water (23 and 29 ng/g) and most of the beverage samples, but concentrations were lower than those reported in other studies possibly due to evaporation during the preparation of the composite samples. Dietary exposures to chloroform are higher for younger age groups (0.51-1.41 µg/kg body weight/day) than for adults (0.25-0.42 µg/kg body weight/day). Drinking water contributed most to daily intakes for all age groups, accounting for between 62% and 86% of the total chloroform dietary intakes.

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 score0.549
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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)0.0020.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFood Additives & Contaminants Part ASame topicWater Treatment and DisinfectionFrench-language works237,207