Distribution, Source Appropriation, and Human Health Risk Assessment of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons due to Consumption of Callinectes amnicola from Woji Creek inSambreiro River
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Crabs (Callinectes amnicola) and surface water sampled from the Sambreiro River, Rivers State of Nigeria, were analyzed for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons concentrations for four months (December (2019), January, February, and March (2020)). Excess cancer risk due to ingestion of the crabs was assessed for individuals of the age groups: 3 to < 6 years, 16 to < 21 years, 21 to < 50 years, and ≥ 50 years. Although concentrations in surface water (ΣPAH16 = 0.125±011 mg/L) were lower than in the previous study, results obtained revealed considerably higher concentrations of aromatic hydrocarbons in crab tissues (ΣPAH16=10.659±2.399 mg/kg). Hepatopancreas (ΣPAH16=6.590±0.266 mg/kg) accumulated the highest concentration of hydrocarbons followed by the gills (ΣPAH16=2.349±0.029 mg/kg), then the muscles (ΣPAH16=1.720±0.320 mg/kg). Source appropriation results revealed a combination of the petrogenic and pyrogenic contribution of hydrocarbons in the crab tissues. The trend for the toxicity equivalent quotient was hepatopancreas > muscles > gills; while the excess cancer risk exceeded for all age groups, suggesting that humans are at risk of cancer arising from the ingestion of crab species from this study location.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".