MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1574060208 · doi:10.5772/17396

Environmental Impact and Remediation of Residual Lead and Arsenic Pesticides in Soil

2011· book-chapter· en· W1574060208 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueInTech eBooks · 2011
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPesticide Exposure and Toxicity
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental remediationArsenicPesticideEnvironmental scienceEnvironmental chemistryResidualSoil remediationToxicologyContaminationChemistryAgronomyBiologyEcologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chemical control of insects is considered one of the most beneficial developments of civilization (Klassen & Schwartz, 1983). As long ago as 1000 B.C., sulfur compounds were used to control insects in Asia Minor (National Academy of Science, 1969). However, the extensive use of chemicals to control pests has developed only in the last 150 years. The first example of large-scale effective chemical control of an insect pest occurred in 1867, with the use of Paris green (copper acetoarsenate) to control Colorado potato beetle, Leptinotarsa deecemlineata (Say). Paris green was later used to control codling moth, Laspeyresia pomonella (Linnaeus), on fruit trees (Klassen & Schwartz, 1983). Due to its effectiveness in controlling gypsy moth, Porthetria dispar (Linnaeus), lead arsenate replaced Paris green in New England in 1892. Lead arsenate was later used to control codling moth in apple, plum, and peach orchards (Klassen and Schwartz, 1983; Peryea, 1998a). This chapter will focus on the inorganic pesticide lead arsenate (PbHAsO4) and its effects on the environment. Both lead (Pb) and arsenic (As) have been used to produce a large number of chemical and manufactured products. Some of these products have been used in agriculture as defoliants, insecticides, and fungicides to control pests in apple, plum, and peach orchards, turf, vegetable crops, and on cattle. From the late 1800s to about 1947, lead arsenate was the most commonly used insecticide for control of codling moth in deciduous tree fruit orchards in countries throughout the world, including the USA, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, England, and France, because of its low cost, high efficiency, and low phytotoxicity (Focus, 2006; Peryea and Kammereck, 1997 and Shepard, 1951). The wide use of lead arsenate significantly increased its annual production during the early 1900s. Worldwide, lead arsenate production increased from 2,268 metric tons in 1908 to more than 41,000 metric tons in 1944. Even though the total amount of lead arsenate used on orchards is not known, this pesticide was applied frequently and at high application rates. Annual application rates as high as 215 kg Pb ha-1 and 80 kg As ha-1 were recommended for apple orchards (Peryea and Creger, 1994). Such high application rates helped minimize the development of resistant insects, a problem that farmers were facing with other insecticides. Moreover, the fact that lead arsenate has multiple sites of action made it unlikely that insect resistance could be achieved with single mutations (Georghiou, 1983). Lead arsenate was used as an insecticide until the introduction of the organochlorine dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) in the 1940s (Peryea 1998a; Wolz et al., 2003). However, lead arsenate continued to be used in some locations into the 1970s and was not officially banned until 1988 (Focus, 2006).

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 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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.681
Threshold uncertainty score0.311

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.192 · 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