Determining level of PCBs in skin and muscle tissue of Cyprinus carpio and Esox lucius in Anzali Wetland (Abkenar)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this research is to determine the levels of polycholoro biphenil (PCBs) in skin and muscle tissues of common carp (Cyprinus carpio) and common pike (Esox lucius) fishes in the west part of Anzali wetland (Abkenar) in the two seasons, autumn 2009 and winter 2010. In each seasons, nine fishes from each species were selected randomly. The samples, transferred in cool condition and the muscles and skins of them were removed. All of the preparations organs clean up and PCBS analysis were carried with GC-ECD (Gas chromatography). Mean concentrations of PCBS were 24.36пg/g dry.w in skin 14.36пg/g dry.w in muscle tissue for E. lucius and 21.84пg/g dry.w in skin and 20.86пg/g dry.w in muscle tissue of C. carpio. In the autumn, the values was less than FDI standard and food standard Australia/AZ MRL and skin tissue of E. lucius and muscle tissue of C. carpio was over of US EPA standard values. Mean concentration of PCBS were 29.43пg/g dry.w in skin and 10.10ng/g dry.w in muscle tissue for E. lucius and 33.06пg/g dry.w in skin and 11.00пg/g dry.w in muscle tissue for C. carpio. In the winter, the value was less than FDI standard and food standard Australia /AZ MRL and skin tissue of E. lucius and skin tissue of C. carpio was over of US EPA standard values. Mean concentration of PCBs in water in the autumn (0.0042ppb) was less than recommended water quality Criteria E.P.A and in the winter (0.1938ppb) was over recommended water quality Criteria E.P.A. Mean concentration of PCBs in sediment in the autumn (4.89ng/g dry.w) and winter (4.48ng/g dry.w) was less than Interim Canadian Sediment Quality Guidelines. There were significant differences between E. lucius mussels and C. carpio skin tissue in two seasons (autumn and winter) in water and ingredient suspension. But in sediments, no significant difference was detected in autumn and winter.
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 | 0.001 | 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".