Method variables affecting the bioaccessibility of arsenic in soil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Arsenic bioaccessibility tests are now being commonly used in risk assessment. However, concerns remain about the reliability of such tests because the bioaccessibility of arsenic from soil may be susceptible to soil composition (including iron concentration), as well as method considerations such as varying liquid-to-solid ratios and the chosen buffer system. In this study, arsenic-contaminated tailings and soils were tested to compare two bioaccessibility methods: one that uses glycine as a buffer, and a second that is more physiologically based. With the glycine-buffered method, arsenic and iron bioaccessibility increased in the presence of a higher buffer concentration at higher liquid-to-solid ratios, whereas the results of physiologically-based tests were unaffected by variations in these parameters. In the glycine-buffered system, interactions between iron and glycine may influence the concentration of arsenic in solution, which may not be consistent with human gastrointestinal conditions. The choice of a physiologically-based method may be more appropriate to achieve representative arsenic bioaccessibility values toward estimating risks to human health.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".