A Repeated 28‐Day Oral Dose Toxicity Study of Two Water Treatment Chemicals (Monoethanolamine and Monopropylamine) in Rats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With clean water becoming increasingly scarce, safe and effective treatment methods are essential. Chemical disinfectants like Monoethanolamine (MEA) and Monopropylamine (MPA) are widely used due to their cost-effectiveness, but their health risks remain unclear. To investigate the sub-chronic oral toxicity of two commercially used antiscalants to assess their potential health risks and to develop a safer and more sustainable water treatment methods, we conducted a 28-day study on 70 rats to assess their sub-chronic oral toxicity. Blood analysis revealed significant increases in WBC, MCV, MCH, PLT, and PCT levels, along with a notable rise in ALP (p < 0.05). Histopathological examination showed severe liver, heart, and lung damage, including necrosis, inflammatory cell accumulation, and tissue degeneration. These findings suggest that MEA and MPA pose serious health risks, raising concerns about their widespread use in water treatment. Given their potential impact on human health and the environment, it is crucial to reassess their safety and explore alternative disinfectants. Ensuring the long-term safety of water treatment methods is vital for public health and environmental sustainability, making further research and regulatory evaluation necessary.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".