ON THE NEED FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF HYGIENIC STANDARDS (MACs) IN THE WATER AND AIR OF THE WORKING AREA FOR PERFLUOROOCTANOIC ACID IN THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Currently, perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) has no hygienic standards in the air of the working area and objects of the human environment in the Russian Federation. By the decision of the Stockholm Convention SC-9/12, PFOA, its salts and derivatives are included in Part I of Annex A of the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants in 2019 (with exceptions for possible use). The Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade included PFOA, its salts and derivatives in the list of potential candidates for inclusion in Annex III of the Rotterdam Convention at the next meeting COP10 in 2021. The use of this chemical on the territory of the Russian Federation entails water and air pollution. Industrial emissions and waste water from fluoropolymer production, thermal use of materials and products containing polytetrafluoroethylene, biological and atmospheric degradation of fluorotelomer alcohols, waste water from treatment facilities are the sources of the release of PFOA into the environment. Analysis of international databases has showed that PFOA is standardized in the air of the working area in Germany, Japan, and Switzerland. In the countries of the European Union, as well as the USA and Canada, the issue of PFOA standardizing in drinking water is being now actively under discuss. Taking into account the high toxicity and hazard of the substance and the serious concern of the civil society of the Russian Federation, the Federal Service for Supervision of Consumer Rights Protection and Human Wellbeing requested the Russian Register of Potentially Hazardous Chemical and Biological Substances to develop MACs for perfluorooctanoic acid in the air of the working area and water as soon as possible. The MACs for PFOA have been proposed using risk analysis: 0,005 mg/m3, aerosol, hazard class 1 – in the air of the working area and 0,0002 mg/L, the limiting hazard indicator – sanitary-toxicological, hazard class 1 – in the water.
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 | 0.038 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".