MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417350879 · doi:10.1021/acsestwater.5c00982

Leaching of Organotin Compounds from Polyvinyl Chloride Pipe

2025· article· en· W4417350879 on OpenAlexafffund
Juan Li, Husein Almuhtaram, Robert C. Andrews

Bibliographic record

VenueACS ES&T Water · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMarine Biology and Environmental Chemistry
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsLeaching (pedology)Polyvinyl chlorideChlorineChlorideChlorinated polyvinyl chlorideHuman health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examined the leaching of organotin (OT) heat stabilizers, including monobutyltin (MBT) and dibutyltin (DBT), from a polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe used for drinking water distribution. Four types of virgin PVC pipes were subjected to a range of chlorine concentrations (4−25 mg/L), a water velocity of 0.09 m/s, a pH of 8, and a temperature of 20 °C. Leaching of MBT occurred over 1 to 7 days when exposed to 4 mg/L of chlorine, with maximum concentrations ranging from 0.008 to 0.296 μg/L. Subsequently, virgin pipes disinfected following an American Water Works Association procedure were employed in leaching trials with 4 mg/L chlorine. MBT leaching extended up to 14 days with the concentration remaining stable at approximately 0.15 μg/L, 10× lower than the World Health Organization guideline for OTs in drinking water. However, when the NSF/ANSI/CAN 61-2023 certification procedure was employed on the same PVC materials, OTs were not detected, in direct contrast with the trials involving pipe disinfection procedures. These findings suggest that while OT leaching from a PVC pipe does not occur at levels that may pose a human health concern, standard pipe test protocols should be updated such that they are more representative of practices employed in actual distribution systems.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.317

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.170
Teacher spread0.167 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACS ES&T WaterSame topicMarine Biology and Environmental ChemistryFrench-language works237,207