Controlled field evaluation of water flow rate effects on sampling polar organic compounds using polar organic chemical integrative samplers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The uptake of polar organic contaminants into polar organic chemical integrative samplers (POCIS) varies with environmental factors, such as water flow rate. To evaluate the influence of water flow rate on the uptake of contaminants into POCIS, flow-controlled field experiments were conducted with POCIS deployed in channel systems through which treated sewage effluent flowed at rates between 2.6 and 37 cm/s. Both pharmaceutical POCIS and pesticide POCIS were exposed to effluent for 21 d and evaluated for uptake of pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs) and endocrine disrupting substances (EDS). The pesticide POCIS had higher uptake rates for PPCPs and EDS than the pharmaceutical POCIS, but there are some practical advantages to using pharmaceutical POCIS. The uptake of contaminants into POCIS increased with flow rate, but these effects were relatively small (i.e., less than twofold) for most of the test compounds. There was no relationship observed between the hydrophobicity (log octanol/water partition coefficient, log K(OW)) of model compounds and the effects of flow rate on the uptake kinetics by POCIS. These data indicate that water flow rate has a relatively minor influence on the accumulation of PPCPs and EDS into POCIS.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".