Directly Predicting Water Quality Criteria from Physicochemical Properties of Transition Metals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Transition metals are a group of elements widespread in aquatic environments that can be hazardous when concentrations exceeding threshold values. Due to insufficient data, criteria maximum concentrations (CMCs) of only seven transition metals for protecting aquatic life have been recommended by the USEPA. Hence, it is deemed necessary to develop empirical models for predicting the threshold values of water quality criteria (WQC) for other transition metals for which insufficient information on toxic potency is available. The present study established quantitative relationships between recommended CMCs and physicochemical parameters of seven transition metals, then used the developed relationships to predict CMCs for other transition metals. Seven of 26 physicochemical parameters examined were significantly correlated with the recommended CMCs. Based on this, five of the seven parameters were selected to construct a linear free energy model for predicting CMCs. The most relevant parameters were identified through principle component analysis, and the one with the best correlation with the recommended CMCs was a combination of covalent radius, ionic radius and electron density. Predicted values were largely consistent with their toxic potency values. The present study provides an alternative approach to develop screening threshold level for metals which have insufficient information to use traditional methods.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".