Aquatic exposures of chemical mixtures in urban environments: Approaches to impact assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Urban regions of the world are expanding rapidly, placing additional stress on water resources. Urban water bodies serve many purposes, from washing and sources of drinking water to transport and conduits for storm drainage and effluent discharge. These water bodies receive chemical emissions arising from either single or multiple point sources, diffuse sources which can be continuous, intermittent, or seasonal. Thus, aquatic organisms in these water bodies are exposed to temporally and compositionally variable mixtures. We have delineated source-specific signatures of these mixtures for diffuse urban runoff and urban point source exposure scenarios to support risk assessment and management of these mixtures. The first step in a tiered approach to assessing chemical exposure has been developed based on the event mean concentration concept, with chemical concentrations in runoff defined by volumes of water leaving each surface and the chemical exposure mixture profiles for different urban scenarios. Although generalizations can be made about the chemical composition of urban sources and event mean exposure predictions for initial prioritization, such modeling needs to be complemented with biological monitoring data. It is highly unlikely that the current paradigm of routine regulatory chemical monitoring alone will provide a realistic appraisal of urban aquatic chemical mixture exposures. Future consideration is also needed of the role of nonchemical stressors in such highly modified urban water bodies. Environ Toxicol Chem 2018;37:703-714. © 2017 The Authors. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of SETAC.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".