Characterization of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon bioavailability in estuarine sediments using thin-film extraction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is well documented that the bioavailability of hydrophobic organic chemicals (HOCs) can vary substantially among sediments. This makes risk assessments based on total sediment concentrations problematic. The present study investigates the application of thin-film solid-phase extraction to measure bioavailable concentrations of phenanthrene in estuarine sediment by comparing concentrations of phenanthrene in the amphipod Corophium colo and in thin ethylene/vinyl acetate films at different concentrations in three geochemically different sediments. For all sediment types, concentrations of phenanthrene in sediments and thin films followed linear relationships, indicating first-order exchange kinetics. Organism/thin-film concentration ratios did not vary systematically among sediment types but dropped significantly with increasing phenanthrene concentration in the sediments. While at low phenanthrene concentrations in the sediment fugacities of phenanthrene in the amphipods approached the fugacities in the thin films, they were significantly lower than those in the sediments at higher concentrations. While phenanthrene concentrations in the three sediment types were identical, biota sediment accumulation factors and concentrations in amphipods and thin films were consistently lower in sediments enriched with black carbon than in sediments with sedimentary organic matter bearing a more diagenetic organic signature. It is concluded that, for the range of concentrations tested, thin-film solid-phase extraction can be a useful tool in the characterization of differences in bioavailability of HOCs among sediment types.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".