Ecological risk assessment of fifty pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs) in Chinese surface waters: A proposed multiple-level system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Interest in the risks posed by trace concentrations of pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs) in surface waters is increasing, particularly with regard to potential effects of long-term, low-dose exposures of aquatic organisms. In most cases, the actual studies on PPCPs were risk assessments at screening-level, and accurate estimates were scarce. In this study, exposure and ecotoxicity data of 50 PPCPs were collected based on our previous studies, and a multiple-level environmental risk assessment was performed. The 50 selected PPCPs are likely to be frequently detected in surface waters of China, with concentrations ranging from the ng L−1 to the low-g L−1, and the risk quotients based on median concentrations ranged from 2046 for nonylphenol to 0 for phantolide. A semi-probabilistic approach screened 33 PPCPs that posed potential risks to aquatic organisms, among which 15 chemicals (nonylphenol, sulfamethoxazole, di (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, 17β-ethynyl estradiol, caffeine, tetracycline, 17β-estradiol, estrone, dibutyl phthalate, ibuprofen, carbamazepine, tonalide, galaxolide, triclosan, and bisphenol A) were categorized as priority compounds according to an optimized risk assessment, and then the refined probabilistic risk assessment indicated 12 of them posed low to high risk to aquatic ecosystem, with the maximum risk products ranged from 1.54% to 17.38%. Based on these results, we propose that the optimized risk assessment was appropriate for screening priority contaminants at national scale, and when a more accurate estimation is required, the refined probability risk assessment is useful. The methodology and process might provide reference for other research of chemical evaluation and management for rivers, lakes, and sea waters.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".