MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3180551516 · doi:10.1111/cobi.13794

Microplastic contamination in Great Lakes fish

2021· article· en· W3180551516 on OpenAlexaffabout
Keenan Munno, Paul A. Helm, Chelsea M. Rochman, Tara George, Donald A. Jackson

Bibliographic record

VenueConservation Biology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMicroplastics and Plastic Pollution
Canadian institutionsMinistry of EnvironmentMinistry of the Environment, Conservation and ParksUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMicroplasticsEnvironmental scienceAbundance (ecology)ContaminationFish <Actinopterygii>PopulationAquatic ecosystemFisheryEcologyEnvironmental chemistryBiologyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Freshwater ecosystems, generally adjacent to human population and more contaminated relative to adjacent marine ecosystems, are vulnerable to microplastic contamination. We sampled 7 species of fish from Lake Ontario and Lake Superior and assessed their gastrointestinal (GI) tracts to quantify ingested microplastics and other anthropogenic particles. A subset of the microparticles were chemically analyzed to confirm polymer types and anthropogenic origins. We documented the highest concentration of microplastics and other anthropogenic microparticles ever reported in bony fish. We found 12,442 anthropogenic microparticles across 212 fish (8 species) from nearshore Lake Ontario, 943 across 50 fish (1 species) from Humber River, and 3094 across 119 fish (7 species) from Lake Superior. Fish from Lake Ontario had the greatest mean abundance of anthropogenic microparticles in their GI tracts (59 particles/fish [SD 104]), with up to 915 microparticles in a single fish. Fish from Lake Superior contained a mean [SD] of 26 [74] particles/fish, and fish from Humber River contained 19 [14] particles/fish. Most particles were microfibers. Overall, ≥90% of particles were anthropogenic, of which 35-59% were microplastics. Polyethylene (24%), polyethylene terephthalate (20%), and polypropylene (18%) were the most common microplastics. Ingestion of anthropogenic particles was significantly different among species within Lake Ontario (p < 0.05), and the abundance of anthropogenic particles increased as fish length increased in Lake Ontario (ρ = 0.62). Although we cannot extrapolate the concentration of microplastics in the water and sediments of these fish, the relatively high abundance of microplastics in the GI tracts of fish suggests environmental exposure may be above threshold concentrations for risk.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.280
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.206 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations95
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueConservation BiologySame topicMicroplastics and Plastic PollutionFrench-language works237,207