Assessing Contaminants of Emerging Concern in the Great Lakes Ecosystem: A Decade of Method Development and Practical Application
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Assessing the ecological risk of contaminants in the field typically involves consideration of a complex mixture of compounds which may or may not be detected via instrumental analyses. Further, there are insufficient data to predict the potential biological effects of many detected compounds, leading to their being characterized as contaminants of emerging concern (CECs). Over the past several years, advances in chemistry, toxicology, and bioinformatics have resulted in a variety of concepts and tools that can enhance the pragmatic assessment of the ecological risk of CECs. The present Focus article describes a 10+- year multiagency effort supported through the U.S. Great Lakes Restoration Initiative to assess the occurrence and implications of CECs in the North American Great Lakes. State-of-the-science methods and models were used to evaluate more than 700 sites in about approximately 200 tributaries across lakes Ontario, Erie, Huron, Michigan, and Superior, sometimes on multiple occasions. Studies featured measurement of up to 500 different target analytes in different environmental matrices, coupled with evaluation of biological effects in resident species, animals from in situ and laboratory exposures, and in vitro systems. Experimental taxa included birds, fish, and a variety of invertebrates, and measured endpoints ranged from molecular to apical responses. Data were integrated and evaluated using a diversity of curated knowledgebases and models with the goal of producing actionable insights for risk assessors and managers charged with evaluating and mitigating the effects of CECs in the Great Lakes. This overview is based on research and data captured in approximately about 90 peer-reviewed journal articles and reports, including approximately about 30 appearing in a virtual issue comprised of highlighted papers published in Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry or Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management. Environ Toxicol Chem 2023;42:2506-2518. © 2023 SETAC. This article has been contributed to by U.S. Government employees and their work is in the public domain in the USA.
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 | 0.092 | 0.079 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".