MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2115681556 · doi:10.1186/s12302-014-0029-y

Evaluation of evidence that the organophosphorus insecticide chlorpyrifos is a potential persistent organic pollutant (POP) or persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic (PBT)

2014· article· en· W2115681556 on OpenAlexafffund
John P. Giesy, Keith R. Solomon, Don Mackay, Julie C. Anderson

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Sciences Europe · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPesticide and Herbicide Environmental Studies
Canadian institutionsStantec (Canada)Trent UniversityUniversity of GuelphUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersNanjing UniversityState Key Laboratory in Marine PollutionState Administration of Foreign Experts AffairsCanada Research ChairsChinese Academy of SciencesCity University of Hong Kong
KeywordsBioaccumulationEnvironmental chemistryContext (archaeology)BiomagnificationPollutantChlorpyrifosEnvironmental sciencePesticideEnvironmental toxicologyToxicologyChemistryToxicityBiologyEcologyOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A number of chemicals, including several organochlorine pesticides, have been identified as persistent organic pollutants (POPs). Here, the properties of chlorpyrifos (CPY; CAS No. 2921-88-2) and its active metabolite, chlorpyrifos oxon (CPYO; CAS No. 5598-15-2), are assessed relative to criteria for classification of compounds as persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic substances (PBTs). The manufacture and use of POPs are regulated at the global level by the Stockholm Convention (SC) and the UN-ECE POP Protocol. Properties that result in a chemical being classified as a POP, along with long-range transport (LRT), while understood in a generic way, often vary among jurisdictions. Under the SC, POPs are identified by a combination of bulk (intensive) properties, including persistence and biomagnification, and an extensive property, hazard. While it is known that CPY is inherently hazardous, what is important is the aggregate potential for exposure in various environmental matrices. Instead of classifying chemicals as PBT based solely on a few simple, numeric criteria, it is suggested that an overall weight of evidence (WoE) approach, which can also consider the unique properties of the substance, be applied. While CPY and its transformation products are not currently being evaluated as POPs under the SC, CPY is widely used globally and some have suggested that its properties should be evaluated in the context of the SC, especially in locations remote from application. In Europe, all pesticides are being evaluated for properties that contribute to persistence, bioaccumulation, and toxicity under the aegis of EC Regulation No. 1107/2009: 'Concerning the Placing of Plant Protection Products on the Market.' The properties that contribute to the P, LRT, B, and T of CPY were reviewed, and a WoE approach that included an evaluation of the strength of the evidence and the relevance of the data to the classification of CPY and CPYO as POPs or PBTs was applied. While toxic under the simple classification system used in EC Regulation No. 1107/2009, based on its intensive properties and results of monitoring and simulation modeling, it was concluded that there is no justification for classifying CPY or its metabolite, CPYO, as a POP or PBT.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.076
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.150
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.076
Threshold uncertainty score0.400

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0760.150
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.004
Bibliometrics0.0210.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0050.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.109
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.171 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations150
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental Sciences EuropeSame topicPesticide and Herbicide Environmental StudiesFrench-language works237,207