Spatial patterns of microplastics in freshwater bivalves (Bivalvia: Unionidae and Sphaeriidae) relative to municipal wastewater effluent discharges
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Microplastics are discharged by municipal wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs); however, their uptake by filter-feeding freshwater bivalves is poorly understood. This study examined the abundance and characteristics of microplastics in wild bivalves from five locations along a 155 km stretch of the Grand River (Ontario, Canada) in 2021-2022, including upstream and downstream of three municipal WWTPs. At each site, fingernail clams (Sphaeriidae spp., n = 5 composites), freshwater mussels (Lasmigona costata, n = 10; gill, digestive gland, and hemolymph), and surface water (n = 3) were sampled at a single timepoint. Microplastics (particles >38 μm to 5 mm) were isolated and visualized via stereomicroscopy, and a subset chemically analyzed using Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy. Fingernail clams contained the highest total blank corrected microparticle counts (35.5 ± 29.4 g-1 [mean ± SD]), mussel tissues ranged from 4.3 ± 4.2 mL-1 in hemolymph to 6.5 ± 8.1 g-1 in digestive gland, and water contained 5.5 ± 2.8 L-1. Fibers were the dominant morphology across all samples, most particles were between 80 μm and 2 mm in length and, of those analyzed chemically, 30.0% were a plastic polymer. At sites downstream of WWTP outfalls, elevated counts were only seen in mussel gills and not in other bivalve tissues or water compared with upstream samples. Although microplastics were found across all sites in both biotic and abiotic compartments, results suggest little impact of WWTP discharges on their uptake in downstream bivalves.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".