Spatial variability of ecosystem exposure to home and personal care chemicals in Asia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is well recognized that there are currently limitations in the spatial and temporal resolution of environmental exposure models due to significant variabilities and uncertainties in model inputs and parameters. Here we present the updated Pangea multi-scale multimedia model based on the more spatially resolved, catchment-based hydrological HydroBASINS dataset covering the entire globe. We apply it to predict spatially-explicit exposure concentrations of linear alkylbenzene sulphonate (LAS) and triclosan (TCS) as two chemicals found in homecare (HC) and personal care (PC) products in river catchments across Asia, and test its potential for identifying/prioritizing catchments with higher exposure concentrations. In addition, we also identify the key parameters in the model framework driving higher concentrations and perform uncertainty analyses by applying Monte Carlo simulations on emissions and other non-spatial model inputs. The updated combination of Pangea with the HydroBASINS hydrological data represents a substantial improvement from the previous model with the gridded hydrological dataset (WWDRII) for modelling substance fate, with higher resolution and improved coverage in regions with lower flows, with the results demonstrating good agreement with monitored concentrations for TCS in both the freshwater (R 2 = 0.55) and sediment (R 2 = 0.81) compartments. The ranking of water basins by Predicted Environmental Concentrations (PECs) was similar for both TCS and LAS, with highest concentrations (Indus, Huang He, Cauvery, Huai He and Ganges) being one to two orders of magnitude greater than the water basins with lowest predicted PECs (Mekong and Brahmaputra). Emissions per unit volume of each catchment, chemical persistence, and river discharge were deemed to be the most influential factors on the variation of predicted PECs. Focusing on the Huang He (Yellow River) water basin, uncertainty confidence intervals (factor 31 for LAS and 6 for TCS) are much lower than the variability of predicted PECs across the Huang He catchments (factors 90,700 for LAS and 13,500 for TCS).
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".