Kopru & Soylak 2024 — Trace metals in Turkish children’s cosmetics by ICP-MS [RETRACTED]

RETRACTED ARTICLE. The published PDF supplied for ingest carries a “RETRACTED ARTICLE” watermark on every page. The retraction notice text itself is not part of the supplied PDF, and the retraction date and stated grounds are not visible in this file. This page is preserved as a record of the published claims but evidence tier is downgraded to C and the values must not be pooled into HMTc threshold-setting synthesis or into the consumer-app scoring layer. Any downstream use requires Karen’s review of the retraction notice first.

This open-access Optical and Quantum Electronics study (received 24 Nov 2023, accepted 19 Dec 2023, published online 22 Jan 2024) tested thirty children’s-cosmetics products purchased from the Turkish market for thirteen elemental impurities (Al, Cr, Mn, Fe, Co, Ni, Cu, Zn, As, Se, Hg, Cd, Pb) by inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry following microwave acid digestion (HNO₃ 65 % + H₂O₂ 35 %, 9:1). The panel covered 22 eye shadows, 4 lipsticks, and 4 nail polishes drawn from three anonymized “children’s toy makeup kits” (Brand 1, Brand 2, Brand 3) marketed for children in Turkey. The authors compared their findings against US FDA cosmetic limits (Pb 20 µg g⁻¹ for color additives), Health Canada Product Safety Laboratory limits (3 µg g⁻¹ for As/Cd/Hg; 10 µg g⁻¹ for Pb), and the German BfR cosmetic-impurity guidance (Cd 5, As 5, Hg 1, Pb 20 µg g⁻¹), reporting that “the results of As, Cd, Hg, Pb … are below the limits set by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Health Canada Product Safety Laboratory (PSL) for the 3 brands” — a conclusion that the per-product Table 4/5 values do not uniformly support (see Implications). Evidence tier is C: the article is retracted, the n=1 sample structure per (brand × color) combination limits standalone weight on any single value, calibration range (0-50 µg L⁻¹) is narrow relative to several reported in-product concentrations (notably Al), and the paper presents per-color findings without aggregating to product-form pooled summaries. Retracted-article status overrides any consideration of B-tier on the basis of method clarity.

Key numbers

Thirteen metals quantified by ICP-MS (Agilent 7900), reported as mean ± SD in µg g⁻¹ (= mg kg⁻¹ = ppm) in the as-sold finished product. N=3 replicate analyses per product (analytical replication, not sample replication). Calibration standards prepared at 0-50 µg L⁻¹ in HNO₃ from Merck multi-element stock at 1000 µg L⁻¹. Internal standard solution containing ¹⁴⁵Sc, ¹⁰³Rh, ²⁰⁹Bi at 200 µg L⁻¹ used for sampling-rate and plasma-condition correction. Brand identities are anonymized in the source as Brand 1, Brand 2, Brand 3; the wiki preserves the source’s own numbering without imputing commercial-brand attribution.

Method validation (Table 2 of source, NCS ZC 81002b Human Hair certified reference material)

NCS ZC 81002b Human Hair was analyzed as a CRM to assess digestion and analytical recovery for thirteen elements. Recoveries ranged 94 % (Hg) to 107 % (Cd); all reported recoveries fell within the 94-107 % band.

Method LOD / LOQ (Table 3 of source, µg L⁻¹, N=3)

Eye shadow concentrations across three brands, 22 products (µg g⁻¹, mean ± SD, N=3)

Tabulated from Tables 4 and 5 of the source. Brand 1 carries 10 eye shadows (4 colorful + 6 silvery); Brand 2 carries 5; Brand 3 carries 7.

Lipstick concentrations, 4 products (µg g⁻¹, mean ± SD, N=3)

Nail polish concentrations, 4 products (µg g⁻¹, mean ± SD, N=3)

Note: Table 5 in the source labels the Brand 3 final-row entry “Lipstick / Pink” (the Brand 3 pink lipstick row above) and then continues with what the text describes as four nail polishes. The Brand 3 nail polish (purple) is reported in the text’s panel-maximum summary as part of the four-nail-polish set, with values implicit. The conclusions state “4 nail polish samples” but Table 5 explicitly shows three nail polish rows (Brand 1 pink, Brand 2 pink, Brand 2 purple). The Brand 3 purple nail polish row in Table 5 is the bottom-most row that begins with the “Nail polish” subheading and shows Al 8.2 ± 0.8 — but that same numeric row pattern also appears as Brand 2 purple. Paper-internal inconsistency: the conclusions enumerate “4 nail polishes” but Table 5 as printed shows three nail-polish-form rows for the Brand 2/3 panel. The cell-by-cell row labels in the published table are difficult to verify against the conclusions text. Flagged in Verification notes; values transcribed as printed without imputing the Brand 3 purple nail polish row.

Panel-level maxima as stated in the source’s Results discussion (p. 13)

The source’s results-discussion paragraph (p. 13) states panel-level maxima across the 30 products that do not consistently match the Tables 4-5 cell values. The transcription below cites the table-verified maxima (with the product cell from Tables 4-5 that supports them), not the discussion-paragraph values where those diverge from the tables; paper-internal discussion-vs-table contradictions are documented in Verification notes.

Table-verified panel maxima across all 30 products: Al 822.8 µg g⁻¹ (Brand 1 orange eye shadow), Cr 51.8 (Brand 1 silvery orange eye shadow), Mn 19.2 (Brand 2 pink eye shadow), Fe 67.8 (Brand 1 pink lipstick), Co 0.58 (Brand 1 red lipstick), Ni 1.11 (Brand 2 pink nail polish; Brand 1 pink lipstick Ni 1.1 ± 0.6 is comparable), Cu 9.44 (Brand 3 green eye shadow), Zn 13.3 (Brand 3 orange eye shadow), tAs 0.84 (Brand 1 purple eye shadow), Se 0.38 (Brand 3 orange eye shadow), Cd 0.26 (Brand 2 pink nail polish), tHg 0.90 (Brand 1 orange eye shadow), Pb 12.2 (Brand 1 green eye shadow).

The authors describe lead exposure across all 22 eye shadows in 3 brands and across colors as falling in the range 0.05 to 12.2 µg g⁻¹ (wet weight basis stated in the discussion text). The maximum Pb 12.2 µg g⁻¹ is below the US FDA 20 µg g⁻¹ cosmetic-color-additive limit (US FDA 2002) but exceeds the Health Canada Product Safety Laboratory 10 µg g⁻¹ Pb limit for cosmetics in three products (Brand 1 green eye shadow 12.2; Brand 1 red lipstick 10.7; Brand 1 pink nail polish 12.10). The source narrative concludes that “the results … are below the limits set by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Health Canada Product Safety Laboratory (PSL) for the 3 brands,” a statement the per-product table values do not support for Pb against the Health Canada limit. Documented as a paper-internal inconsistency in Verification notes.

Methods

Product selection. Thirty cosmetic products were purchased from local markets in Turkey from three different brands of children’s “toy makeup kits” (kits numbered 1-3, brand names not disclosed). The panel composed of 22 eye shadows of seven colors (pink, blue, green, yellow, orange, purple, brown), 4 lipsticks of three colors (red, pink, plus one not described in the sample-collection paragraph), and 4 nail polishes of three colors (pink, purple, and one not described).

Sample digestion. 0.20 g of each cosmetic sample was weighed into 100 mL PTFE digestion vessels in triplicate. An acid mixture of HNO₃ (65 % w/w) and H₂O₂ (35 % w/w) in 9:1 ratio was added. Samples were microwave-digested in an ETHOS Easy™ Microwave Digestion System (Milestone Advanced Digestion Inc., USA) with a two-step program: 1800 W for 20 min at 210 °C, then 1800 W for 15 min at 210 °C. PTFE vessels were cooled to room temperature after digestion. Digested samples were filtered through Whatman No. 40 filter paper to remove undissolved particles, then diluted to 25 mL with double-distilled water before ICP-MS analysis. Blank solutions were prepared in the same manner.

Instrumentation. ICP-MS (Agilent 7900) with autosampler, Babington nebulizer, Ni cones, peristaltic sample-delivery pump. ICP-MS operating conditions: RF power 1550 W, RF matching 1.80 V, sample depth 8.0 mm, torch-H −0.3 mm, torch-V 0.8 mm, carrier gas 1.20 L/min, nebulizer gas 1 L/min, auxiliary gas 0.9 L/min, plasma gas 15 L/min, nebulizer pump 0.1 rps, spray-chamber temperature 2 °C. High-purity argon (99.99 %) was used as the plasma support gas. Pulse/analog detector factor was adjusted daily before analyses. ICP-MS tuning solution at 10 µg L⁻¹ (Ce, Co, Li, Tl, Y) was used for instrument tuning before each experiment.

Calibration. ICP-MS multi-element standard solution from Merck (Darmstadt, Germany). Stock solution and standards diluted in HNO₃. Calibration curve range 0-50 µg L⁻¹. Internal standard solution: ¹⁴⁵Sc, ¹⁰³Rh, ²⁰⁹Bi at 200 µg L⁻¹ for sampling-rate and plasma-condition correction.

Reagents. HCl (37 % w/w) and HNO₃ (65 % w/w) from Merck. High-quality distilled water from a Millipore Milli-Q system.

Reference material. NCS ZC 81002b Human Hair certified reference material (CRM). Same digestion and analysis procedure applied to the CRM to validate the method. Recoveries: 94 % (Hg) to 107 % (Cd). All recoveries within 94-107 %.

Method calibration parameters. LOD = 3 × standard-deviation-of-blank / slope-of-calibration-graph (N=10 repetitive blank analyses); LOQ = 10 × SD / slope.

Speciation. ICP-MS without chromatographic separation. Total arsenic (tAs) and total mercury (tHg) reported; no As-species or Hg-species separation. Total chromium (Cr) reported; no Cr-VI speciation.

Implications

Certification. The paper would contribute to the Cat 2 Children Personal Care occurrence pool for eye shadows, lipsticks, and nail polishes if the article were not retracted. Per the retracted-article status, the values are excluded from synthesis pools and must not be used in HMTc threshold-setting until Karen has reviewed the retraction notice and confirmed whether any subset of the underlying measurements is salvageable. The page is preserved as a record of the published claims and to make any future re-examination of the values traceable.

Brand-level pattern observation (anonymized). The source’s own discussion observes that Brand 1 carried systematically higher Al, Pb, and Hg concentrations than Brand 2 or Brand 3 across product forms. The three highest Pb values in the panel (12.2 µg g⁻¹ eye shadow, 10.7 µg g⁻¹ red lipstick, 12.10 µg g⁻¹ nail polish) all belong to Brand 1. The three highest Hg values (0.90, 0.65, 0.57 µg g⁻¹) similarly all belong to Brand 1. This per-brand asymmetry is itself a notable finding: in an n=22 eye-shadow / n=4 lipstick / n=4 nail-polish panel, one of three children’s-cosmetic kit sources carries a Pb-and-Hg loading roughly an order of magnitude higher than the other two. If the underlying data are valid, this pattern suggests that the dominant determinant of contamination in this panel is the kit-brand selection (i.e., the manufacturer’s pigment sourcing and quality control) rather than the product form or color. The retraction status forecloses any downstream use until the retraction grounds are known.

Health Canada Pb 10 µg g⁻¹ exceedances. Three of 30 products (Brand 1 green eye shadow 12.2; Brand 1 red lipstick 10.7; Brand 1 pink nail polish 12.10) report Pb above the Health Canada PSL 10 µg g⁻¹ cosmetic-impurity limit. The source’s conclusion that “the results … are below the limits set by … Health Canada Product Safety Laboratory (PSL) for the 3 brands” is inconsistent with the per-product values reported. This inconsistency is documented in Verification notes; it may relate to the retraction grounds.

App. Excluded from app-layer scoring per retracted-article status.

Courses. May be cited in regulatory courses as an example of how retracted analytical papers should be handled in evidence synthesis (preservation as record; exclusion from pooling; cross-reference to retraction notice).

Wiki pages this source may touch

• lead
• aluminum
• mercury-total
• cadmium
• arsenic-total
• chromium
• manganese
• iron
• cobalt
• nickel
• copper
• zinc
• selenium
• eye-makeup
• lipstick
• childrens-nail-polish
• childrens-makeup

Verification notes

• 2026-06-01 fresh ingest (Claude Opus 4.7, autonomous v2.0 manual-fetch skill). New page; no prior wiki revision. DOI grep (10.1007/s11082-023-06166-w), raw_handle grep (KADC_inductively-coupled-plasma-mass-spectrometry-icp-m), and kopru2024 cite-key grep against wiki/sources/ all returned zero matches before ingest.
• RETRACTED ARTICLE — primary metadata note. Every page of the supplied PDF (1, 2, 3, …, 20) carries a “RETRACTED ARTICLE” diagonal watermark stamped over the article body. The retraction notice itself is not included in the PDF, and the retraction date and the publisher’s stated grounds are not visible. Springer’s standard practice is to maintain the retracted article online with a separate retraction-notice DOI; that retraction notice has not been retrieved as part of this ingest. retracted: true set in frontmatter; retraction_note documents the watermark observation and the absence of the retraction-grounds text. Evidence tier set to C (not B) on this basis. The article is excluded from synthesis pools.
• Speciation discipline (Part 14). ICP-MS without prior chromatographic separation measures total As and total Hg. The metals: frontmatter uses tAs (not iAs) and tHg (not MeHg). The wiki body and Key numbers tables similarly use “tAs” and “tHg” labels. Chromium reported as Cr (total Cr), not Cr-VI.
• Brand-firewall compliance (Part 12 strict, 2026-05-17 lock). The source itself anonymizes the three brand identities as “Brand 1”, “Brand 2”, “Brand 3” — no commercial brand names appear anywhere in the PDF. The wiki preserves the source’s own anonymized numbering when reporting per-brand asymmetries (e.g., “Brand 1 carries the three highest Pb values”). Because “Brand 1” / “Brand 2” / “Brand 3” do not identify any specific commercial brand a reader could purchase, these labels do not enable brand-by-contamination ranking and do not violate Part 12. If the retraction notice (when retrieved) discloses the actual brand names, the per-brand attribution will need to be re-aggregated to product-form ranges only.
• Wiki/HMTc firewall (Part 2). No synthesis-across-papers claims, no HMTc threshold proposals, no consumer risk advisories. The author-cited regulatory benchmarks (US FDA 20 µg g⁻¹ Pb cosmetic-color additive; Health Canada PSL 3/3/3/10 µg g⁻¹ for As/Cd/Hg/Pb; German BfR 5/5/1/20 for Cd/As/Hg/Pb) are reported as part of the source’s own discussion, not as wiki-side synthesis. The observation that three products exceed the Health Canada Pb limit is the source’s own data versus the source’s own cited limit, documented for completeness; the wiki does not propose any threshold.
• Paper-internal Pb/Health-Canada inconsistency. The source concludes “the results of As, Cd, Hg, Pb … are below the limits set by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Health Canada Product Safety Laboratory (PSL) for the 3 brands” (Abstract, p. 1, and Conclusion p. 13). Per the per-product values printed in Tables 4 and 5, three products exceed the Health Canada 10 µg g⁻¹ Pb limit: Brand 1 green eye shadow (12.2 ± 1.4), Brand 1 red lipstick (10.7 ± 0.6), Brand 1 pink nail polish (12.10 ± 0.05). The conclusion narrative is at odds with the table values; this inconsistency may relate to the retraction grounds and is preserved for any future analysis of the retraction.
• Paper-internal nail-polish count inconsistency. The conclusions enumerate “4 nail polishes” but Table 4 (Brand 1 continuation) plus Table 5 (Brand 2 and Brand 3) as printed appear to show three nail-polish rows (Brand 1 pink; Brand 2 pink; Brand 2 purple). A Brand 3 nail polish (purple) is referenced in the discussion text but its dedicated row is difficult to disambiguate from the lipstick rows in the published Table 5 layout, where row labels overlap with the “RETRACTED ARTICLE” watermark. Values transcribed as printed without imputing the unclear row.
• Cu < LOD treatment. Eight of 22 eye shadows, three of 4 lipsticks, and two of 4 nail polishes report Cu “<0.005 µg g⁻¹”; this is the source’s own LOD notation (Cu LOD is 0.1 µg L⁻¹ = ~0.0125 µg g⁻¹ for the 0.20 g / 25 mL digest, so “<0.005 µg g⁻¹” appears to be a reporting-convention cutoff distinct from the printed LOD; transcribed as displayed).
• Calibration range vs in-product concentrations (Al). Aluminum was calibrated 0-50 µg L⁻¹. In-product Al concentrations reach 822.8 µg g⁻¹ × (25 mL / 0.20 g) × (1 / dilution) — i.e., the analytical solution Al concentration after digestion and dilution would be approximately 4-6 µg mL⁻¹ = 4000-6000 µg L⁻¹ for the high-Al products, far above the upper calibration point of 50 µg L⁻¹. The source does not document the post-digestion dilution factor that would bring the analytical solution into the calibration range. This is a methodological caveat: ICP-MS quantitation extrapolated 80-120× beyond the calibrated range is unreliable; the high-Al values (notably Brand 1 colorful eye shadows at 527-823 µg g⁻¹) should be treated as semi-quantitative. Flagged here as a method-quality observation; may also relate to the retraction grounds.
• License. Open Access under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0) declared on the last page of the article.
• DOI verified. DOI 10.1007/s11082-023-06166-w printed on page 1 of the article.
• Authors verified against PDF byline. Semiha Kopru¹,² and Mustafa Soylak¹,²,³ (¹Department of Chemistry, Faculty of Sciences, Erciyes University, 38039 Kayseri, Turkey; ²Technology Research and Application Center, Erciyes University, 38039 Kayseri, Turkey; ³Turkish Academy of Sciences (TUBA), 06670 Cankaya, Ankara, Turkey). Corresponding author Mustafa Soylak (soylak@erciyes.edu.tr).
• Funding declaration. TÜBİTAK (Scientific and Technological Research Council of Türkiye) open-access funding; project funded by the Scientific Research Projects unit (BAP) of Erciyes University, Project No. FBA-2022-11786.
• Sample size convention. N=3 indicates three replicate ICP-MS analyses per product (analytical replication on the same digested sample), not three independent commercial samples per (brand × color) combination. Within-brand per-product sample size is n=1.
• Brand 2 purple eye shadow Mn = “1003 ± 0.02” is almost certainly a typesetting error. Table 5 prints “1003 ± 0.02” for the Mn cell of the Brand 2 purple eye shadow row. The other four Brand 2 eye-shadow Mn values are 15.80 – 19.2 µg g⁻¹; an Mn value of 1003 µg g⁻¹ (~0.1 % of mass) is three orders of magnitude higher than its neighbors and is implausible for an eye-shadow Mn impurity. The most likely correct value is 10.03 ± 0.02 µg g⁻¹ (consistent with the rest of the Brand 2 row). The wiki transcribes the as-printed “1003 ± 0.02” with a note rather than imputing a corrected value; the first-pass ingest’s gloss “100 ± 3” was not supported by anything in the source and has been removed per audit finding 2 (2026-06-01 fresh-context subagent audit, verified).
• Paper-internal contradiction: discussion p.13 eye-shadow Cr panel max. The discussion paragraph at the top of p.13 states “16.5 µg g⁻¹ Cr (for only brand 1 orange eye shadow)” as the panel max for chromium in eye shadows. Per Table 4: Brand 1 orange eye shadow Cr = 4.4 ± 0.3 (not 16.5); the value 16.5 ± 2.5 actually appears in Brand 1 silvery purple eye shadow; and the true panel max for eye-shadow Cr is 51.8 ± 3.0 in Brand 1 silvery orange. The discussion paragraph is therefore wrong on both the value and the attributed product. The wiki Table-verified panel maxima list uses the table values (51.8 / Brand 1 silvery orange); the discussion text’s claim is documented here, not propagated.
• Paper-internal contradiction: discussion p.13 eye-shadow Ni panel max. The discussion paragraph at the top of p.13 states “1.4 µg g⁻¹ Ni” as the eye-shadow panel max. No eye-shadow cell in Tables 4 or 5 reports Ni ≥ 1.0; the highest eye-shadow Ni values are Brand 3 blue 0.64 and Brand 3 yellow 0.34. The 1.4 value the discussion cites appears nowhere in the source’s eye-shadow data and may be a confusion with Brand 1 yellow eye shadow’s Cu cell (Cu = 1.4 ± 0.6 in the column adjacent to Ni 0.02 ± 0.01). The first-pass ingest’s panel-maxima paragraph attributed “Ni 1.4 (Brand 1 yellow eye shadow)” — this was the same column-swap error as in the source’s own discussion paragraph and has been corrected per audit finding 1 (2026-06-01 fresh-context subagent audit, verified). The wiki Table-verified panel maxima list reports Ni 1.11 (Brand 2 pink nail polish) as the true panel-wide Ni max.
• Disposition of audit finding 3 sub-claim “Pb 10.7 vs 12.2 for Brand 1” — false positive. The fresh-context audit subagent flagged a discussion-vs-table contradiction over the upper bound of Brand 1 Pb. On independent verification: discussion p.13’s “In brand 1 it is the range of 2.5–10.7 µg g⁻¹” is a statement specifically about lipsticks (Brand 1 red lipstick Pb = 10.7, Brand 1 pink lipstick Pb = 2.5). The 12.2 µg g⁻¹ Pb value belongs to Brand 1 green eye shadow (Table 4), a different product form. No contradiction exists between these two values; they are correct readings of two different product-form populations. Audit sub-claim rejected.
• Audit subagent (2026-06-01, general-purpose fresh-context, v2.0 skill Phase 2) — verdict REVISE, three findings applied + one false-positive sub-claim documented.
  1. Check-1 ❌ “Ni 1.4 (Brand 1 yellow eye shadow)” in panel-maxima paragraph. Independently verified: Table 4 Brand 1 yellow row shows Ni = 0.02 ± 0.01 (the 1.4 belongs to the Cu column, not Ni). The discussion-text claim of Ni 1.4 eye-shadow max is unsupported by any table cell. Applied: panel-maxima paragraph rewritten to report only table-verified maxima; new Verification note documents the discussion-vs-table contradiction.
  2. Check-1 ⚠️ Brand 2 / purple Mn “100 ± 3” imputation. Independently verified: Table 5 prints “1003 ± 0.02”; the “100 ± 3” interpretation was an ingest-side imputation not present in the source. Applied: the as-printed value is retained with an in-cell note pointing to the Verification-note discussion; the “100 ± 3” imputation removed.
  3. Check-1 ⚠️ additional paper-internal contradictions. Verified two further discussion-vs-table contradictions (Cr 16.5 at Brand 1 orange vs Table 4 4.4; Ni 1.4 vs no supporting cell); both now documented in Verification notes.
  4. Audit sub-claim “Pb 10.7 vs 12.2 for Brand 1” rejected as false positive (lipstick range vs eye-shadow value — different product forms). Documented above. Checks 2-5 ✅ (slug vocabulary, speciation/methods, brand firewall, wiki-HMTc firewall) all clean; no changes applied. Net effect: numerical-fidelity issues isolated to the panel-maxima narrative paragraph (now corrected) and one printed-value imputation (now reverted); the per-product tables themselves were verified clean cell-by-cell.

Ingest log

• 2024-01-22 (publication): Optical and Quantum Electronics 56(8):399. Received 24 Nov 2023, accepted 19 Dec 2023, published online 22 Jan 2024. CC BY 4.0. Subsequently retracted (date and grounds not visible in supplied PDF).
• 2026-06-01 fresh ingest (Claude Opus 4.7, autonomous v2.0 manual-fetch skill): NEW path. Three identity checks against wiki/sources/ (DOI grep, raw_handle grep, cite-key grep) returned zero matches. PDF read in three chunks (pages 1-8, 9-16, 17-20) via the pages parameter; all of abstract, introduction, methods (instrumentation, reagents, calibration, sample collection, digestion), Table 1 (ICP-MS operating conditions), Table 2 (CRM recoveries), Table 3 (LOD/LOQ), Table 4 (Brand 1 results), Table 5 (Brand 2 + Brand 3 results), discussion (p. 12-15), conclusion, and references read in full. RETRACTED status surfaced as primary metadata. Source page written, routing audit refreshed (4 product routes, 0 unresolved, advisory-only ingredients-empty note), ingest committed, audit queued.
• 2026-06-01 Phase 2 audit (fresh-context Agent subagent, general-purpose): Verdict REVISE. Three numerical-fidelity findings (one ❌ on a panel-maxima narrative misattribution, one ⚠️ on an imputed value not in source, one ⚠️ raising two additional discussion-vs-table contradictions). Two of three findings confirmed and applied; one ⚠️ sub-claim (Pb 10.7 vs 12.2 for Brand 1) verified as a false positive (different product forms) and rejected with documentation. Checks 2-5 (slug vocabulary, speciation/methods, brand firewall, wiki-HMTc firewall) all clean. No changes to per-product Tables 4-5 transcription (verified clean cell-by-cell against the source PDF).

Page history

The five most recent substantive edits to this page. The full version history lives in git; when DOI minting comes online (see schema docs), each entry below will also link to a version-pinned DataCite DOI.