Distribution of Phthalate Esters in a Marine Aquatic Food Web: Comparison to Polychlorinated Biphenyls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dialkyl phthalate esters (DPEs) are widely used chemicals, with over 4 million tonnes being produced worldwide each year. On the basis of their octanol-water partition coefficients (Kow), which range from 10(1.61) for dimethyl phthalate to 10(9.46) for di-iso-decyl phthalate, certain phthalate esters have the potential to bioconcentrate and biomagnify in aquatic food webs. However, there are no reported field studies on the trophodynamics of phthalate ester in aquatic food webs. This study reports the distribution of 8 individual phthalate esters (i.e., dimethyl, diethyl, di-isobutyl, di-n-butyl, butylbenzyl, di(2-ethylhexyl), di-n-octyl, and di-n-nonyl) and 5 commercial isomeric mixtures (i.e., di-iso-hexyl (C6), di-iso-heptyl (C7), di-iso-octyl (C8), di-iso-nonyl (C9), and di-iso-decyl (C10)) in a marine aquatic food web. DPE concentrations were determined in 18 marine species, representing approximately 4 trophic levels. Co-analysis of DPEs and 6 PCB congeners (i.e., PCB-18, 99, 118, 180, 194, and 209) in all samples produced a direct comparison of the bioaccumulation behavior of PCBs and DPEs. Lipid equivalent concentrations of the PCBs increased with increasing trophic position and stable isotope ratios (delta15N). The Food-Web Magnification Factor (FWMF) of the PCB congeners ranged from 1.8 to 9.5. Lipid equivalent concentrations of low and intermediate molecular weight DPEs (i.e., C1-C7 DPEs: dimethyl, diethyl, di-iso-butyl, di-n-butyl, benzylbutyl, and C6 and C7 isomers) did not exhibit statistically significant trends with trophic position or stable nitrogen isotope ratios (delta15N) in the food web and FWMFs were not significantly different from 1. Lipid equivalent concentrations of the high-molecular-weight DPEs (i.e., C8-C10 DPEs: di(2-ethylhexyl), di-n-octyl, di-n-nonyl, C8, C9, and C10) declined significantly with increasing trophic position and stable isotope ratios (delta15N), producing FWMFs between 0.25 and 0.48. These results show that all DPEs tested did not biomagnify in the studied aquatic food web whereas PCBs did biomagnify.
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) | 0.001 | 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".