MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392561338 · doi:10.1002/etc.5836

Microparticles in Wild and Caged Biota, Sediments, and Water Relative to Large Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plant Discharges

2024· article· en· W4392561338 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Ellie M. Weir, Karen A. Kidd, Bonnie M. Hamilton, Jiabao Wu, Mark R. Servos, Adrienne J. Bartlett, Gerald R. Tetreault, Patricia L. Gillis

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Toxicology and Chemistry · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMicroplastics and Plastic Pollution
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaUniversity of WaterlooUniversity of TorontoMcMaster University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaHealth CanadaJarislowsky FoundationCanada Foundation for Innovation
KeywordsBiotaWastewaterEnvironmental scienceEnvironmental chemistrySewage treatmentEcotoxicologyChemistryEnvironmental engineeringEcologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Anthropogenically modified microparticles including microplastics are present in municipal wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) effluents; however, it is unclear whether biotic exposures are elevated downstream of these outfalls. In the fall of 2019, the present study examined whether microparticle levels in resident fish, environmental samples, and caged organisms were elevated near the Waterloo and Kitchener WWTP outfalls along the Grand River, Ontario, Canada. Wild rainbow darters (Etheostoma caeruleum) were collected from a total of 10 sites upstream and downstream of both WWTPs, along with surface water and sediment samples to assess spatial patterns over an approximately 70-km river stretch. Amphipods (Hyalella azteca), fluted-shell mussels (Lasmigona costata), and rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) were also caged upstream and downstream of one WWTP for 14 or 28 days. Whole amphipods, fish digestive tracts, and mussel tissues (hemolymph, digestive glands, gills) were digested with potassium hydroxide, whereas environmental samples were processed using filtration and density separation. Visual identification, measurement, and chemical confirmation (subset only) of microparticles were completed. Elevated abiotic microparticles were found at several upstream reference sites as well as at one or both wastewater-impacted sites. Microparticles in amphipods, all mussel tissues, and wild fish did not show patterns indicative of increased exposures downstream of effluent discharges. In contrast, elevated microparticle counts were found in trout caged directly downstream of the outfall. Across all samples, cellulose fibers (mainly blue and clear colors) were the most common. Overall, results suggest little influence of WWTP effluents on microparticles in biota but rather a ubiquitous presence across most sites that indicates the importance of other point and nonpoint sources to this system. Environ Toxicol Chem 2024;43:1047-1061. © 2024 His Majesty the King in Right of Canada and The Authors. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of SETAC. Reproduced with the permission of the Minister of Environment and Climate Change Canada.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.074
Threshold uncertainty score0.146

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.191 · 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

Citations8
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental Toxicology and ChemistrySame topicMicroplastics and Plastic PollutionFrench-language works237,207