MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2013725167 · doi:10.1080/09593330.2004.9619353

Endocrine Disrupting Compounds (EDC) in Municipal Wastewater Treatment: A Need for Mass Balance

2004· review· en· W2013725167 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Technology · 2004
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWater Quality Monitoring and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWaste managementWastewaterBalance (ability)Sewage treatmentEnvironmental scienceChemistryBusinessEngineeringMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Increasing attention has been focused on endocrine disrupting compounds (EDCs) as pollutants in municipal wastewater. Recent studies have shown that these compounds can have a negative impact on the environment, and that in many cases they are not efficiently removed in wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs). Studies have also revealed that their destruction and transport out into the environment depend on the design and operational characteristics of these treatment systems and on the properties of the chemicals themselves. This paper reviews the current knowledge on EDCs, natural and synthetic hormones including estrone (E1), 17beta-estradiol (E2), and 17alpha-ethinylestradiol (EE2) in WWTP. Several key data gaps are addressed when assessing the removal of EDCs in WWTPs. First, analytical methods used by most researchers do not account for the inactive or conjugated form of the compounds, yet they can become deconjugated to active forms during treatment, leading to an additional source of contaminant load. Next, insufficient measurements are made at various stages within the WWTP preventing adequate analyses on how each u nit process contributes to degradation. Currently, there is no standardized procedure for assessing degradation of EDCs in WWTPs, and it is often difficult to compare published data generated by individual test protocols. This paper identifies streams that should be sampled in WWTPs and suggests a mass balance approach that takes into account all forms of the compound in both liquid and solid phases. Issues of potential concern in performing mass balances are discussed leading to a proposal of variables that should be analyzed and included in published articles. The adoption of similar methods by researchers in future work will produce a better picture of the presence and fate of these compounds in the environment.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.992
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.272 · 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