MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Soft plastic fishing lures as a potential source of chemical pollution - Chemical analyses, toxicological relevance, and anglers’ perspectives

2024· article· en· W4399701297 on OpenAlexafffund
Wolf‐Christian Lewin, Roxana Sühring, Eric Fries, Melissa Solomon, Markus Brinkmann, Marc Simon Weltersbach, Harry V. Strehlow, Marko Freese

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Science of The Total Environment · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEffects and risks of endocrine disrupting chemicals
Canadian institutionsGlobal Institute for Water SecurityUniversity of SaskatchewanToronto Metropolitan University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCanada First Research Excellence FundBundesministerium für Bildung, Wissenschaft, Forschung und TechnologieToronto Metropolitan UniversityBundesministerium für Bildung und ForschungNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaEuropean CommissionCanada Foundation for Innovation
KeywordsPhthalateDiethyl phthalateBioassayDimethyl phthalateToxicologyFishingEnvironmental chemistryLeaching (pedology)Environmental scienceBiologyChemistryEcologyOrganic chemistrySoil water

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Soft plastic lures (SPLs) are commonly used artificial lures in recreational angling. Anglers regularly lose SPLs while fishing and there is little knowledge about the environmental impacts of lost SPLs. As with other plastic items, SPLs contain phthalates and other persistent additives that may leach into water. In this study, 16 randomly chosen SPLs of common models were analyzed for the leaching of persistent, water-soluble plastic additives, including phthalates. The estrogenicity of sample extracts from a subsample of 10 SPLs was assessed using luciferase reporter gene bioassays. Over a period of 61 days, 10 of the 16 SPLs leached the targeted phthalates dimethyl phthalate (DMP), diethyl phthalate (DEP), benzyl butyl phthalate (BBP) and di-n-butyl phthalate (DnBP) at median detectable concentrations ranging from 10 ng/g sample BBP to a median of 1001 ng/g DMP as well as 45 persistent, mobile, and toxic (PMT) plastic additives. DEP was detected most frequently in 8 SPLs, followed by BBP (2 SPLs), DMP (2 SPLs) and DnBP (1 SPL). The extract from one SPL with comparatively low phthalate and PMT plastic additive levels was active in the bioassay, indicating high endocrine-disruptive potential, presumably due to unknown additives that were not among the target substances of the methodology used in this study. The study was supplemented by a mail survey among anglers, in which attitudes of anglers towards SPLs were investigated. The survey indicated that SPL loss is a common event during angling. Most participants were concerned about potential ecological impacts of SPLs, wanted the ingredients of SPLs to be labelled and supported legal restrictions concerning toxic ingredients of SPLs. The study shows that SPLs are a potential source of environmental pollution, may pose human health risks and need further investigation, considering the frequent use of SPLs in recreational angling.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.279 · 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

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Science of The Total Environment→Same topicEffects and risks of endocrine disrupting chemicals→French-language works237,207→