TRACE METALS IN DUSTS AND SEDIMENTS AROUND A BOATYARD IN PLYMOUTH ESTUARY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is increasing concern worldwide about antifouling paint fragments as a source of contamination in coastal and marine environments. Antifouling paints are applied to boats and ships to prevent the growth of fouling organisms such as algae, barnacles and bivalves. The fixation of marine organisms on immersed man-made structures and the ban of the use of Tributylin (TBT) have led to the development of new antifouling products based on copper metal oxides and organic biocides. Although regulations to reduce the adverse effects of new antifoulants exist, the use of antifoulants which prevent the settlement and growth of marine organisms on submerged structures is not environmentally friendly. To assess the probable impacts of traces metals on marine estuarine systems a survey was undertaken at Plymouth estuary and Devon Rib Charter facility. The survey examined the metals (Al,Sn,Pb,Cu,Cd,Cr,Ba,Zn) content of the sediments in this estuary using digestion techniques combined with Inductively Coupled Plasma Electron Spectrometry (ICP-OES) and Inductively Coupled Mass Spectrometry(ICP-MS) and C,H,N analysis. Relationships between the mean concentrations of these trace metals were investigated to better understand the risks associated with their release. The chemical heterogeneity of the paint fragments was reflected by the lack of correlation among some of the elements being analysed. Despites these differences some correlations were observed between lead and zinc, lead and nickel, copper and zinc, carbon and hydrogen and aluminum and zinc. The outcome of the investigation suggested possible contamination of mud and yard sediments with concentration of copper, lead, zinc, cadmium, chromium exceeding sediments environmental quality standards of the Canada and the United States in the absence of sediments standards in the United Kingdom. Although concentrations of toxic metals were relatively low to cause serious environmental damage in some cases, the main concern was the accumulation and the increase rate observed from the estuary to the creek where maintenance of grounded structures occurred.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".