Source Apportionment of PAH in Hamilton Harbour Suspended Sediments: Comparison of Two Factor Analysis Methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A total of 26 suspended sediment samples collected over a 5-year period in Hamilton Harbour, Ontario, Canada and surrounding creeks were analyzed for a suite of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and sulfur heterocycles. Hamilton Harbour sediments contain relatively high levels of polycyclic aromatic compounds and heavy metals due to emissions from industrial and mobile sources. Two receptor modeling methods using factor analyses were compared to determine the profiles and relative contributions of pollution sources to the harbor; these methods are principal component analyses (PCA) with multiple linear regression analysis (MLR) and positive matrix factorization (PMF). Both methods identified four factors and gave excellent correlation coefficients between predicted and measured levels of 25 aromatic compounds; both methods predicted similar contributions from coal tar/coal combustion sources to the harbor (19 and 26%, respectively). One PCA factor was identified as contributions from vehicular emissions (61%); PMF was able to differentiate vehicular emissions into two factors, one attributed to gasoline emissions sources (28%) and the other to diesel emissions sources (24%). Overall, PMF afforded better source identification than PCA with MLR. This work constitutes one of the few examples of the application of PMF to the source apportionment of sediments; the addition of sulfur heterocycles to the analyte list greatly aided in the source identification process.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".