MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Microplastic effects on soil aggregation in sterilized and non-sterilized soils

2024· preprint· en· W4401962091 on OpenAlexaff
Haixiao Li, Longyuan Yang, Chenghui Luo, Le Liu, Cheng Li, Noura Ziadi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMicroplastics and Plastic Pollution
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSoil waterSterilization (economics)Environmental scienceSoil scienceBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The perceived impact of soil microplastics on soil aggregation is primarily attributed to their potential toxicity toward soil microorganisms. However, only a limited number of studies have undertaken comprehensive controlled experiments involving sterilized soils to substantiate this notion. The present study embarked on soil incubation experiments encompassing both non-sterilized soils and soils subjected to oven-heating sterilization to investigate the ramifications of polyethylene (PE) and polypropylene (PP) microplastics, characterized by mesh sizes of 30, 150, and 1000, on both the water-stability and mechanical stability of soil aggregates. The presence of microplastics decreased aggregation stability in Tianjin soils (on average -48.89% and -81.61% for 0.5-1 and 1-2 mm aggregates, respectively). The impact of microplastics was notably more evident in the non-sterilized soils. Microplastics also demonstrated the capacity to modify aggregate properties such as surface roughness. This study indicates the pivotal role played by interactions between soil microplastics and microorganisms on soil aggregation, but microplastics hold the potential to influence soil aggregation through non-biogenic pathways.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.208 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMicroplastics and Plastic Pollution→French-language works237,207→