MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1969177600 · doi:10.1002/etc.5620190627

A critical surface area concept for acute hazard classification of relatively insoluble metal-containing powders in aquatic environments

2000· article· en· W1969177600 on OpenAlexaff
Jim Skeaff, Katrien Delbeke, Frank Van Assche, Bruce R. Conard

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Toxicology and Chemistry · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRecycling and Waste Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsVale (Canada)Natural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetalSpecific surface areaAcute toxicityEnvironmental chemistryHazardHazard analysisChemistryEnvironmental scienceToxicityOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A method is proposed for determining the hazard identification, based on acute aquatic toxicity, and subsequent classification if necessary, of metals and sparingly soluble inorganic metal compounds. The method is based on establishing a relationship between the measured reaction kinetics of the substance with an aqueous medium and the measured surface area of the substance loaded to the medium. The total dissolved metal concentration at a given time expressed as a function of measured surface area is then compared with an appropriate acute toxicity value, the median lethal effective concentration (L(E)C50), as measured in standard toxicity tests with the corresponding soluble metal salt to yield a critical surface area independent of particle size that will deliver the L(E)C50 to the medium. The critical surface area can then be converted to the conventional 100, 10, and 1 mg/L cutoff points to calculate a hazard identification line that can be used straightforwardly thereafter to establish the hazard classification of any form of the substance once its specific surface area is measured. Further transformation testing of the forms that the substance may be produced in is not required. The application of the critical surface area method to determine the hazard classification according to specific surface area is illustrated by worked examples for nickel metal and zinc metal. Selection of appropriate L(E)C50 values is critical, because different values can substantially change the final classification.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.213
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.249 · 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.

Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations8
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental Toxicology and ChemistrySame topicRecycling and Waste Management TechniquesFrench-language works237,207