Combining Nontargeted Analysis with Computer-Based Hazard Comparison Approaches to Support Prioritization of Unregulated Organic Contaminants in Biosolids
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Biosolids are a byproduct of wastewater treatment that can be beneficially applied to agricultural land as a fertilizer. While U.S. regulations limit metals and pathogens in biosolids intended for land applications, no organic contaminants are currently regulated. Novel techniques can aid in detection, evaluation, and prioritization of biosolid-associated organic contaminants (BOCs). For example, nontargeted analysis (NTA) can detect a broad range of chemicals, producing data sets representing thousands of measured analytes that can be combined with computational toxicological tools to support human and ecological hazard assessment and prioritization. We combined NTA with a computer-based tool from the U.S. EPA, the Cheminformatics Hazard Comparison Module (HCM), to identify and prioritize BOCs present in U.S. and Canadian biosolids ( n = 16). Four-hundred fifty-one features were detected in at least 80% of samples, with identities of 92 compounds confirmed or assigned probable structures. These compounds were primarily categorized as endogenous compounds, pharmaceuticals, industrial chemicals, and fragrances. Examples of top prioritized compounds were p-cresol and chlorophene, based on human health end points, and fludioxonil and triclocarban, based on ecological health end points. Combining NTA results with hazard comparison data allowed us to prioritize compounds to be included in future studies of the environmental fate and transport of BOCs.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".