Microplastics Alter the Distribution and Toxic Potential of Typical Pharmaceuticals in Aqueous Solutions: Mechanisms and Theory Calculations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aquatic risks associated with various pharmaceuticals can be significantly influenced by the ubiquitous presence of microplastics (MPs), leading to unforeseen environmental effects. Uncovering the interactions between MPs and pharmaceuticals with diverse functional groups is of crucial importance for accurate risk assessment. Here, the sorption behaviors and underlying mechanisms by which polystyrene (PS) MPs interact with pharmaceuticals having different functional groups were explored through experimental methods, site energy distribution theory, and density functional theory (DFT) calculations. Results indicated that PS MPs exhibited a notable sorption capacity for pharmaceuticals, with the order of sorption being naproxen (NAP), bezafibrate (BZF), norfloxacin (NOR), ibuprofen (IBU), sulfamethoxazole (SMX), and carbamazepine (CAB). A deeper analysis revealed that multiple factors, including hydrophobicity, electrostatic repulsion, π–π interactions, and hydrogen bonding, regulate the sorption process. Furthermore, the Dubinin–Astakhov (DA) model was employed to calculate the energy distribution. The adsorption affinity ( E m = 2.88–8.36 kJ/mol) and energy heterogeneity (σ e * = 1.59–2.25) of PS MPs for different pharmaceuticals followed the order SMX > NOR > NAP > CAB > IBU > BZF. DFT calculations confirmed that the formation of n−π bonds between PS MPs and pharmaceuticals was also a primary sorption mechanism. The different sorption mechanisms of PS MPs for various pharmaceuticals can eventually alter their toxicity, such as increased toxicity of pharmaceuticals with carboxyl groups. Overall, this study offers a more comprehensive understanding of the interactions between MPs and pharmaceuticals, which can contribute significantly to the risk assessment of pharmaceuticals in the presence of MPs.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".