Altered reproduction in fish exposed to pulp and paper mill effluents: Roles of individual compounds and mill operating conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For the last 20 years, studies conducted in North America, Scandinavia, and New Zealand have shown that pulp and paper mill effluents affect fish reproduction. Despite the level of effort applied, few leads are available regarding the factors responsible. Effluents affect reproduction in multiple fish species, as evidenced by decreased gonad size, decreased circulating and gonadal production of reproductive steroids, altered expression of secondary sex characteristics, and decreased egg production. Several studies also have shown that effluent constituents are capable of accumulating in fish and binding to sex steroid receptors/ binding proteins. Studies aimed at isolating biologically active substances within the pulping and papermaking process have provided clues about their source, and work has progressed in identifying opportunities for in-mill treatment technologies. Following comparisons of manufacturing processes and fish responses before and after process changes, it can be concluded that effluent from all types of mill processes are capable of affecting fish reproduction and that any improvements could not be attributed to a specific process modification (because mills normally performed multiple modifications simultaneously). Improved reproductive performance in fish generally was associated with reduced use of molecular chlorine, improved condensate handling, and liquor spill control. Effluent biotreatment has been effective in reducing some effects, but biotreated effluents also have shown no difference or an exacerbation of effects. The role of biotreatment in relation to effects on fish reproduction remains unclear and needs to be resolved.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".