Phthalate pollution: environmental fate and cumulative human exposure index using the multivariate analysis approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A comprehensive review was performed on the environmental fate, environmental occurrence, toxicity, physical-chemical properties, abiotic and biotic removal and degradation of phthalate esters (PAEs) to compute the overall phthalate exposure and their impact on human beings. The removal and degradation of these wide spread pollutants by abiotic processes such as hydrolysis and photodecomposition are very slow and insignificant. On the other hand, the breakdown of PAEs by microorganisms is considered to be one of the major routes of environmental degradation for these widespread pollutants. Numerous microbial strains have been reported to degrade these compounds under aerobic, anaerobic and facultative conditions. Concurrently, the environmental fate, transport and transformation/degradation of these compounds under natural conditions are highly dependent on their physical and chemical properties. In order to understand the relationship between the concentrations of PAEs of different environmental compartments and human exposure prospects, a novel average phthalate pollution index (PPI) and cumulative phthalate exposure index (PEI) were proposed using the multivariate analysis approach. These indices were computed on the basis of relative importance, environmental occurrence, toxicity, physical-chemical properties, abiotic and biotic removal and degradation of dimethyl phthalate (DMP), diethyl phthalate (DEP), dibutyl phthalate (DBP), butyl benzyl phthalate (BBP) and diethyl-hexyl phthalate (DEHP). At present, the average PPI and cumulative PEI of 29 countries were evaluated using the concentrations of PAEs reported in the literature. These indices signify the overall phthalate pollution, human exposure and their interrelation. According to the index, Slovakia, Canada, Taiwan, Sweden and South Africa are among the top five countries in terms of cumulative phthalate exposure as per the existing data. The exposure percentage of total PAEs significantly varies between 23 and 44% since many environmental compartments are not directly exposed to human beings and they are degraded under natural conditions.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".