A comparison of four porewater sampling methods for metal mixtures and dissolved organic carbon and the implications for sediment toxicity evaluations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Evaluations of sediment quality conditions are commonly conducted using whole-sediment chemistry analyses but can be enhanced by evaluating multiple lines of evidence, including measures of the bioavailable forms of contaminants. In particular, porewater chemistry data provide information that is directly relevant for interpreting sediment toxicity data. Various methods for sampling porewater for trace metals and dissolved organic carbon (DOC), which is an important moderator of metal bioavailability, have been employed. The present study compares the peeper, push point, centrifugation, and diffusive gradients in thin films (DGT) methods for the quantification of 6 metals and DOC. The methods were evaluated at low and high concentrations of metals in 3 sediments having different concentrations of total organic carbon and acid volatile sulfide and different particle-size distributions. At low metal concentrations, centrifugation and push point sampling resulted in up to 100 times higher concentrations of metals and DOC in porewater compared with peepers and DGTs. At elevated metal levels, the measured concentrations were in better agreement among the 4 sampling techniques. The results indicate that there can be marked differences among operationally different porewater sampling methods, and it is unclear if there is a definitive best method for sampling metals and DOC in porewater. Environ Toxicol Chem 2017;36:2906-2915. Published 2017 Wiley Periodicals Inc. on behalf of SETAC. This article is a US government work and, as such, is in the public domain in the United States of America.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".