MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200495499 · doi:10.26434/chemrxiv-2021-pvvfq

Plastic Microbead Accumulation in our Freshwaters:North American Great Lakes Assessments and Perspective

2021· preprint· en· W4200495499 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Mary Torrance, Emma Gillies, Tristan H. Borchers, Avery Shoemaker, Christopher J. Barrett

Bibliographic record

VenueChemRxiv · 2021
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMicroplastics and Plastic Pollution
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMcGill University
KeywordsMicrobead (research)Plastic pollutionEnvironmental scienceMicroplasticsWatershedHydrology (agriculture)GeologyOceanographyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The authors review recent studies conducted across the Great Lakes of North America to assess the quantity and type of microplastic waste found in these waters, sediments, and beaches. Findings from their own studies are shared, sampling plastic pollution from remote and secluded Nature Reserves in Lake Erie (ON), and the Ottawa River watershed (QC), showing significant accumulation of microbeads. Spherical ‘microbeads’ made of plastics are now ubiquitous in a wide range of personal healthcare and cleansing products, used by the average North American consumer now at upwards of quadrillions per day. Designed to be flushable, these plastic microbeads inevitably end up in municipal wastewater streams, and then to a large extent leak into our freshwater ecosystems. Recent studies throughout the important Great Lakes system of North America have reported microbeads at essentially all locations examined. On the shorelines, in surface waters, throughout water columns, and in sediments of these freshwater systems, microbeads are now ever-present, and are accumulating in significant amounts. Their small and stable shape and composition, and limited pathways to degradation produce a long lifespan, with the capacity to remain in the freshwater environment for potentially hundreds of years. This review collects and compares initial microbead studies between 2013–2021 in the Great Lakes region to provide a snapshot of the current levels and locations, and to serve as a baseline for future tracking to assess progress as the microbead contamination and accumulation problem is addressed. We as well present findings from our own local study of microplastic/bead accumulation downstream of the Great Lakes, in the St. Lawrence and Ottawa rivers near Montreal. Aspects of microbead contamination represent a unique subset of the worldwide microplastic problem, in that much control remains over their life cycle and eventual fate. Consequently, the power to address this microbead problem can rest with polymer chemists and engineers, who, armed with a better understanding of the relevant physical polymer properties of the beads that govern their movement into the aquatic environment, hold the ability to rationally redesign microbead composition and develop removal techniques.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.873
Threshold uncertainty score0.253

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChemRxivSame topicMicroplastics and Plastic PollutionFrench-language works237,207