Concentration and risk of pharmaceuticals in freshwater systems are related to the population density and the livestock units in Iberian Rivers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Considerable amounts of pharmaceuticals are used in human and veterinary medicine, which are not efficiently removed during wastewater and slurries treatment and subsequently entering continuously into freshwater systems. The intrinsic biological activity of these non-regulated pollutants turns their presence in the aquatic environment into an ecological matter of concern. We present the first quantitative study relating the presence of pharmaceuticals and their predicted ecotoxicological effects with human population and livestock units. Four representative Iberian River basins (Spain) were studied: Llobregat, Ebro, Júcar and Guadalquivir. The levels of pharmaceuticals were determined in surface water and sediment samples collected from 77 locations along their stream networks. Predicted total toxic units to algae, Daphnia and fish were estimated for pharmaceuticals detected in surface waters. The use of chemometrics enabled the study of pharmaceuticals for: their spatial distribution along the rivers in two consecutive years; their potential ecotoxicological risk to aquatic organisms; and the relationships among their occurrence and predicted ecotoxicity with human population and animal farming pressure. The Llobregat and the Ebro River basins were characterized as the most polluted and at highest ecotoxicological risk, followed by Júcar and Guadalquivir. No significant acute risks of pharmaceuticals to aquatic organisms were observed. However potential chronic ecotoxicological effects on algae could be expected at two hot spots of pharmaceuticals pollution identified in the Llobregat and Ebro basins. Analgesics/antiinflammatories, antibiotics and diuretics were the most relevant therapeutic groups across the four river basins. Among them, hydrochlorothiazide and gemfibrozil, as well as azithromycin and ibuprofen were widely spread and concentrated pharmaceuticals in surface waters and sediments, respectively. Regarding their predicted ecotoxicity, sertraline, gemfibrozil and loratidine were identified as the more concerning compounds. Significantly positive relationships were found among levels of pharmaceuticals and toxic units and population density and livestock units in both surface water and sediment matrices.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".