MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2134487445 · doi:10.1002/etc.5620220509

Inverse relationship between bioconcentration factor and exposure concentration for metals: Implications for hazard assessment of metals in the aquatic environment

2003· article· en· W2134487445 on OpenAlexaff
James C. McGeer, Kevin V. Brix, J.M. Skeaff, David K. DeForest, Sarah I. Brigham, William J. Adams, Andrew Green

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Toxicology and Chemistry · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental Toxicology and Ecotoxicology
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBioconcentrationBioaccumulationBiomagnificationEnvironmental chemistryChemistryContext (archaeology)Biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The bioconcentration factor (BCF) and bioaccumulation factor (BAF) are used as the criteria for bioaccumulation in the context of identifying and classifying substances that are hazardous to the aquatic environment. The BCF/BAF criteria, while developed as surrogates for chronic toxicity and/or biomagnification of anthropogenic organic substances, are applied to all substances including metals. This work examines the theoretical and experimental basis for the use of BCF/BAF in the hazard assessment of Zn, Cd, Cu, Pb, Ni, and Ag. As well, BCF/BAFs for Hg (methyl and inorganic forms) and hexachlorobenzene (HCB) were evaluated. The BCF/BAF data for Zn, Cd, Cu, Pb, Ni, and Ag were characterized by extreme variability in mean BCF/BAF values and a clear inverse relationship between BCF/BAF and aqueous exposure. The high variability persisted when even when data were limited to an exposure range where chronic toxicity would be expected. Mean BCF/BAF values for Hg were also variable, but the inverse relationship was equivocal, in contrast with HCB, which conformed to the BCF model. This study illustrates that the BCF/BAF criteria, as currently applied, are inappropriate for the hazard identification and classification of metals. Furthermore, using BCF and BAF data leads to conclusions that are inconsistent with the toxicological data, as values are highest (indicating hazard) at low exposure concentrations and are lowest (indicating no hazard) at high exposure concentrations, where impacts are likely. Bioconcentration and bioaccumulation factors do not distinguish between essential mineral nutrient, normal background metal bioaccumulation, the adaptive capabilities of animals to vary uptake and elimination within the spectrum of exposure regimes, nor the specific ability to sequester, detoxify, and store internalized metal from metal uptake that results in adverse effect. An alternative to BCF, the accumulation factor (ACF), for metals was assessed and, while providing an improvement, it did not provide a complete solution. A bioaccumulation criterion for the hazard identification of metals is required, and work directed at linking chronic toxicity and bioaccumulation may provide some solutions.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations515
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental Toxicology and ChemistrySame topicEnvironmental Toxicology and EcotoxicologyFrench-language works237,207