Dietary- and tissue-based exposure of belted kingfisher to PCDFs and PCDDs in the Tittabawassee River floodplain, Midland, MI, USA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Concentrations of polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDFs) and other dioxin-like compounds in soils and sediments of the Tittabawassee River and associated floodplains downstream of Midland, Michigan, USA, are greater than upstream sites. As a result of these concentrations, which are some of the greatest ever reported, a site-specific exposure assessment of belted kingfisher breeding in the assessment area was conducted. To reduce the uncertainty associated with predicting exposure from abiotic matrices, concentrations of residues were quantified in site-specific prey items and in eggs and nestlings of belted kingfisher. Dietary exposure, expressed as the potential average daily dose, based on site-specific concentrations of PCDFs, polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDDs), and 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin equivalents (TEQ(WHO-Avian)) in prey items was consistently greater along the Tittabawassee River than in associated reference areas and further downstream sites in the Saginaw River. Concentrations of PCDD/DFs in eggs and nestlings of belted kingfisher varied among sampling areas, being greater in both eggs and nestlings nesting along the Tittabawassee River compared to those of belted kingfisher from upstream reference areas. Geometric mean concentrations of PCDD/DFs were 130 and 200 ng/kg wet weight in eggs and nestlings of belted kingfisher, respectively. These concentrations are the equivalent of 84 and 95 ng TEQ(WHO-Avian)/kg. Site-specific biomagnification factors for select PCDD/DF congeners ranged from <1.0 to 1.8 in belted kingfisher.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".