PCBs, PCDD/Fs, and Organochlorine Pesticides in Farmed Atlantic Salmon from Maine, Eastern Canada, and Norway, and Wild Salmon from Alaska
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Farmed Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) from Maine and eastern Canada, wild Alaskan Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), and organically farmed Norwegian salmon samples were analyzed for the presence of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), dioxin-like PCBs, polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDDs), dibenzo-p-furans (PCDFs), and chlorinated pesticides. PCDD and PCDF congeners were not detected in > 80% of the samples analyzed. Total PCB concentrations (7.2-29.5 ng/g, wet weight, ww) in the farmed salmon were significantly higher than those in the wild Alaskan Chinook samples (3.9-8.1 ng/g, ww). Concentrations of PCBs, WHO PCB TEQs, and chlorinated pesticides varied significantly by region. PCB and WHO PCB TEQ concentrations in farmed salmon from eastern Canada were lower than those reported in samples collected two years earlier, possibly reflecting recent industry efforts to lower contaminant concentrations in feed. Organically farmed Norwegian salmon had the highest concentrations of PCBs (mean: 27 ng/g, ww) and WHO PCB TEQs (2.85 pg/g,ww); their TEQ values are in the higher range of those reported in farmed salmon from around the world. Removal of skin from salmon fillets resulted in highly variable reductions of lipids and contaminants, and in some skin-off samples, contaminant levels were higher, suggesting that skin removal does not protect the consumer from health risks associated with consumption of farmed salmon.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".