MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2593110763 · doi:10.1021/acs.estlett.7b00043

Sweetened Swimming Pools and Hot Tubs

2017· article· en· W2593110763 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Lindsay K. Jmaiff Blackstock, Wéi Wang, Sai Vemula, Benjamin T. Jaeger, Xing‐Fang Li

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Science & Technology Letters · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWater Treatment and Disinfection
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsUrineTap waterEnvironmental chemistryChemistryChlorineEnvironmental scienceEnvironmental engineeringBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Nitrogenous organics in urine can react with chlorine in swimming pools to form volatile and irritating N-Cl-amines. A urinary marker is desirable for the control of pool water quality. The widespread consumption of acesulfame-K (ACE), a stable synthetic sweetener, and its complete excretion in urine, makes it an ideal urinary marker. Here we report the occurrence of ACE and its potential application in swimming pools and hot tubs. First, we developed a new method for achieving high-throughput analysis of ACE without preconcentration or large-volume injection. Analysis of more than 250 samples from 31 pools and tubs from two Canadian cities showed ACE in all samples. Concentrations ranged from 30 to 7110 ng/L, up to 570-fold greater than in the input tap water. The level of dissolved organic carbon was significantly greater in all pools and tubs than in the input water. Finally, we determined the levels of ACE over 3 weeks in two pools (110000 and 220000 U.S. gallons) and used the average ACE level to estimate the urine contribution as 30 and 75 L. This study clearly shows the human impact in pools and tubs. This work is useful for future studies of the human contribution to DBP formation, epidemiological assessment of exposure, and adverse health effects in recreational facilities.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.197 · 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

Citations33
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental Science & Technology LettersSame topicWater Treatment and DisinfectionFrench-language works237,207