MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394683139 · doi:10.1002/etc.5861

Sediment Toxicity Tests: A Critical Review of Their use in Environmental Regulations

2024· review· en· W4394683139 on OpenAlexaff
Matti T. Leppänen, Sandrine Sourisseau, Robert M. Burgess, Stuart L. Simpson, Paul K. Sibley, Michiel T. O. Jonker

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Toxicology and Chemistry · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental Toxicology and Ecotoxicology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersSuomen YmpäristökeskusNankai UniversityEuropean Chemical Industry CouncilU.S. Environmental Protection Agency
KeywordsToxicitySedimentEnvironmental scienceEnvironmental chemistryBiologyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sediments are an integral component of aquatic systems, linking multiple water uses, functions, and services. Contamination of sediments by chemicals is a worldwide problem, with many jurisdictions trying to prevent future pollution (prospective) and manage existing contamination (retrospective). The present review assesses the implementation of sediment toxicity testing in environmental regulations globally. Currently, the incorporation of sediment toxicity testing in regulations is most common in the European Union (EU), North America, and Australasian regions, with some expansion in Asia and non-EU Europe. Employing sediment toxicity testing in prospective assessments (i.e., before chemicals are allowed on the market) is most advanced and harmonized with pesticides. In the retrospective assessment of environmental risks (i.e., chemicals already contaminating sediments), regulatory sediment toxicity testing practices are applied inconsistently on the global scale. International harmonization of sediment toxicity tests is considered an asset and has been successful through the widespread adoption and deployment of Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development guidelines. On the other hand, retrospective sediment assessments benefit from incorporating regional species and protocols. Currently used toxicity testing species are diverse, with temperate species being applied most often, whereas test protocols are insufficiently flexible to appropriately address the range of environmental contaminants, including nanomaterials, highly hydrophobic contaminants, and ionized chemicals. The ever-increasing and -changing pressures placed on aquatic resources are a challenge for protection and management efforts, calling for continuous sediment toxicity test method improvement to insure effective use in regulatory frameworks. Future developments should focus on including more subtle and specific toxicity endpoints (e.g., incorporating bioavailability-based in vitro tests) and genomic techniques, extending sediment toxicity testing from single to multispecies approaches, and providing a better link with ecological protection goals. Environ Toxicol Chem 2024;43:1697-1716. © 2024 The Authors. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of SETAC.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0080.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations30
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental Toxicology and ChemistrySame topicEnvironmental Toxicology and EcotoxicologyFrench-language works237,207