Determination of lead in wax crayon using flame atomic absorption spectrometry / Suhailey binti Mohd Noor
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 method for the determination of lead in wax crayon by Flame Atomic Absorption Spectrometry was adopted from Health Canada Safety Program (HCSP), Product Safety Laboratory, ‘Determination of Total Lead in Wax Crayon by Closed Vessel Micowave Digestion’ and verified. The parameter of method verification such as accuracy, precision, limit of detection, limit of quantitation and linearity were studied. Three colours from 10 boxes of wax crayon samples were analysed. Microwave digestion method was used to extract the lead prior to analysis. The concentration of lead in red, blue and orange colour wax crayon was 25.23 ± 3.26 mg kg-1, 21.21 ± 3.44 mg kg-1 and 32.15 ± 0.35 mg kg-1 respectively. Our results also indicate that, there is no significant different in lead content between blue and red colour wax crayon. However, there is significant different in amount of lead in orange colour compared to blue and red colour wax crayon. Previous study had estimated that a greater than 15 ug/day intake of available lead could cause a previously normal child to exceed a 10 ug/dl blood level which gave toxic effect to children.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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