Guidance for measuring and evaluating biomagnification factors and trophic magnification factors of difficult substances: application to decabromodiphenylethane
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As field based trophic magnification factors (TMFs) and biomagnification factors (BMFs) become more prominent regulatory metrics used in bioaccumulation assessments of commercial chemicals, there is a need to develop standardized guidelines for conducting field-based bioaccumulation studies and to establish methods using weight of evidence analyses of those studies. Hence, the primary objectives of this study were (1) to compile a set of comprehensive criteria and guidelines for conducting field-based biomagnification studies and (2) to develop a weight of evidence meta-analysis for evaluating field-based biomagnification studies and their reported biomagnification metrics for assessing the biomagnification potential of substances. To test the effectiveness of our proposed guidelines and weight of evidence meta-analysis, we reviewed over 25 field studies investigating the biomagnification of decabromodiphenyl ethane (DBDPE), a substance that is considered super-hydrophobic and difficult to test in bioconcentration tests. Approximately half of the field studies that investigated trophic magnification of DBDPE in food webs or biomagnification of DBDPE in predator-prey interactions were considered of acceptable quality, whereas no studies were of high quality. Quality scores of studies statistically decreased with increasing TMF (r2 = 0.261, p = .035) and/or BMF (r2 = 0.238, p = .0024). The weight of evidence meta-analysis indicated with a high level of confidence that concentrations of DBDPE do not biomagnify in top predators and within food-webs. Given the increasing importance of the TMF and BMF for bioaccumulation assessments and the apparent deficiencies in current biomagnification studies identified in this meta-analysis for DBDPE, there is an urgent need to adopt standardized guidelines and procedures for both conducting and evaluating field-based biomagnification studies.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".