Emerging Pollutants- A review of current understanding and future scenario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A recently identified community of chemicals found in aquatic ecosystems are pollutants of increasing concern or, literally, emerging pollutants (EPs). It was only the advances in analytical techniques that enabled the identification of these pollutants even at low concentrations. The persistent discovery of new chemicals prompts concerns about their origin routes, their destiny, their transport, their transition and their effect on the aquatic ecosystem. As new chemical substances are continually being generated and scientific research optimizes its awareness of existing and previous pollutants, pollutants of increasing concerns will stay a moving target. EPs primarily originating from the disposal of urban and industrial wastewater effluents, are widespread in the aquatic ecosystems. Owing to the potential biological effect on organisms within the ecosystem, their existence is of worry. A holistic approach to sampling is needed in order to understand their fate and transformations in wastewater and ecosystem. This implies the attainment of relevant evidence and promotes a deeper interpretation of spatiotemporal pollutant patterns and occurrence. During treating of wastewater, owing to more planning criteria and absence of good analytical techniques, there is a shortage of residual pollutants study. This leads to under-reported analysis of many EPs joining wastewater treatment works and the aquatic ecosystem. Sludge can hold concentrations of certain chemicals, during the treatment of wastewater that ends up being applied to agriculture without analysis for EPs. Hence a framework for environmental reporting that is more holistic is needed, so that the destiny and effect of EPs are explored in all environmental systems. This review discusses current understanding of EPs and provides recommendations for better future analysis.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".