MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W936159091 · doi:10.3133/sir20065189

Areal distribution and concentration of contaminants of concern in surficial streambed and lakebed sediments, Lake St. Clair and tributaries, Michigan, 1990-2003

2006· article· en· W936159091 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Cynthia M. Rachol, Daniel T. Button

Notice bibliographique

RevueScientific investigations report · 2006
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineEnvironmental Science
ThématiqueWater Quality and Resources Studies
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésTributaryHydrology (agriculture)SedimentBeaverDrainage basinBiotaEnvironmental scienceGeologyWater qualityStructural basinPhysical geographyGeomorphologyGeographyEcologyCartography

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

As part of the Lake St. Clair Regional Monitoring Project, the U.S. Geological Survey evaluated data collected from surficial streambed and lakebed sediments in the Lake Erie-Lake St. Clair drainages. This study incorporates data collected from 1990 through 2003 and focuses primarily on the U.S. part of the Lake St. Clair Basin, including Lake St. Clair, the St. Clair River, and tributaries to Lake St. Clair. Comparable data from the Canadian part of the study area are included where available. The data are compiled into 4 chemical classes and consist of 21 compounds. The data are compared to effects-based sediment-quality guidelines, where the Threshold Effect Level and Lowest Effect Level represent concentrations below which adverse effects on biota are not expected and the Probable Effect Level and Severe Effect Level represent concentrations above which adverse effects on biota are expected to be frequent.Maps in the report show the spatial distribution of the sampling locations and illustrate the concentrations relative to the selected sediment-quality guidelines. These maps indicate that sediment samples from certain areas routinely had contaminant concentrations greater than the Threshold Effect Concentration or Lowest Effect Level. These locations are the upper reach of the St. Clair River, the main stem and mouth of the Clinton River, Big Beaver Creek, Red Run, and Paint Creek. Maps also indicated areas that routinely contained sediment contaminant concentrations that were greater than the Probable Effect Concentration or Severe Effect Level. These locations include the upper reach of the St. Clair River, the main stem and mouth of the Clinton River, Red Run, within direct tributaries along Lake St. Clair and in marinas within the lake, and within the Clinton River headwaters in Oakland County.Although most samples collected within Lake St. Clair were from sites adjacent to the mouths of its tributaries, samples analyzed for trace-element concentrations were collected throughout the lake. The distribution of trace-element concentrations corresponded well with the results of a two-dimensional hydrodynamic model of flow patterns from the Clinton River into Lake St. Clair. The model was developed independent from the bed sediment analysis described in this report; yet it showed a zone of deposition for outflow from the Clinton River into Lake St. Clair that corresponded well with the spatial distribution of trace-element concentrations. This zone runs along the western shoreline of Lake St. Clair from L'Anse Creuse Bay to St. Clair Shores, Michigan and is reflected in the samples analyzed for mercury and cadmium.Statistical summaries of the concentration data are presented for most contaminants, and selected statistics are compared to effects-based sediment-quality guidelines. Summaries were not computed for dieldrin, chlordane, hexachlorocyclohexane, lindane, and mirex because insufficient data are available for these contaminants. A statistical comparison showed that the median concentration for hexachlorobenzene, anthracene, benz[a]anthracene, chrysene, and pyrene are greater than the Threshold Effect Concentration or Lowest Effect Level.Probable Effect Concentration Quotients provide a mechanism for comparing the concentrations of contaminant mixtures against effects-based biota data. Probable Effect Concentration Quotients were calculated for individual samples and compared to effects-based toxicity ranges. The toxicity-range categories used in this study were nontoxic (quotients < 0.5) and toxic (quotients > 0.5). Of the 546 individual samples for which Probable Effect Concentration Quotients were calculated, 469 (86 percent) were categorized as being nontoxic and 77 (14 percent) were categorized as being toxic. Bed-sediment samples with toxic Probable Effect Concentration Quotients were collected from Paint Creek, Galloway Creek, the main stem of the Clinton River, Big Beaver Creek, Red Run, Clinton River towards the mouth, Lake St. Clair along the western shore, and the St. Clair River near Sarnia.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,043
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,981

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,003
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,025
Tête enseignante GPT0,229
Écart entre enseignants0,205 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations2
Publié2006
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueScientific investigations reportMême sujetWater Quality and Resources StudiesTravaux en français237 207