MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Risk assessment of organochlorine re pesticide recidue in Nigeria cannabis sativaL.

2025· article· en· W7104257270 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Journal of Environmental Engineering Science · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicToxic Organic Pollutants Impact
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEndrinAldrinHeptachlorHazard quotientHealth risk assessmentRisk assessmentPesticidePesticide residueChlordane

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cannabis is a versatile crop with a wide range of agricultural and industrial uses. This study aimed to investigate potential health risks associated with organochlorine pesticide residues (OCPs) and heavy metals in different parts of Cannabis sativa L. plant. Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (GC-MS) and Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy (AAS) were employed for the identification and quantification of OCPs and heavy metals, respectively. The OCPs results showed uniform presence of heptachlor (0.74-0.75 mg/kg), aldrin (0.34-0.35 mg/kg), and endosulfandiol (1.31-1.35 mg/kg) across all plant components. Endrin ketone was significantly higher in leaves (2.755 mg/kg), and p,p'-DDE was detected only in seeds (0.45 mg/kg) and blend samples (0.45 mg/kg). Concentrations of heptachlor, aldrin, endrin ketone, and p,p'-DDE exceeded Health Canada's Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs). Conversely, endosulfandiol levels remained within regulatory thresholds, and trans-Chlordane, 4,7-methanoindene, and methoxychlor were below detection limits in all plant parts. The health risk assessment, evaluated using estimated daily intake (EDI), hazard index (HI), and target hazard quotient (THQ) metrics, revealed that while most pesticide residues posed minimal health risks (HI < 1). THQ values for all analyzed pesticides were below 1.0, indicating low risk of non-cancer health effects.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.817
Threshold uncertainty score0.847

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied Journal of Environmental Engineering ScienceSame topicToxic Organic Pollutants ImpactFrench-language works237,207