Antimony in the environment: knowns and unknowns
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Environmental context. Antimony first attracted public attention in the mid-1990s amid claims that it was involved in Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. A substantial number of papers have now been published on the element and its behaviour in the natural environment. However, many key aspects of the environmental chemistry of antimony remain poorly understood. These include critical areas such as its ecotoxicology, its global cycling through different environmental compartments, and what chemical form it takes in different environments. More focussed research would help the situation. The present review highlights several areas of environmental antimony chemistry that urgently need to be addressed. Abstract. The objective of the present article is to present a critical overview of issues related to the current state of knowledge on the behaviour of antimony in the environment. It makes no attempt to systematically review all published data. However, it does provide a list of the main published reviews on antimony and identifies subjects where systematic reviews are needed. Areas where our knowledge is strong – and the corresponding gaps – in subjects ranging from total concentrations and speciation in the various environmental compartments, to ecotoxicity, to cycling between compartments, are discussed, along with the underlying research. Determining total antimony no longer poses a problem for most environmental samples but speciation measurements remain challenging throughout the process, from sampling to analysis. This means that the analytical tools still need to be improved but experience shows that, to be useful in practice, this should be directly driven by the requirements of laboratory and field measurements. Many different issues can be identified where further research is required, both in the laboratory and in the field, the most urgently needed studies probably being: (i) long-term spatial and temporal studies in the different environmental compartments in order to collect the data needed to establish a global biogeochemical cycle; (ii) laboratory studies of antimony interactions with potential natural binders; (iii) reliable ecotoxicological studies.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".