MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W936159091 · doi:10.3133/sir20065189

Areal distribution and concentration of contaminants of concern in surficial streambed and lakebed sediments, Lake St. Clair and tributaries, Michigan, 1990-2003

2006· article· en· W936159091 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Cynthia M. Rachol, Daniel T. Button

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific investigations report · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWater Quality and Resources Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTributaryHydrology (agriculture)SedimentBeaverDrainage basinBiotaEnvironmental scienceGeologyWater qualityStructural basinPhysical geographyGeomorphologyGeographyEcologyCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As part of the Lake St. Clair Regional Monitoring Project, the U.S. Geological Survey evaluated data collected from surficial streambed and lakebed sediments in the Lake Erie-Lake St. Clair drainages. This study incorporates data collected from 1990 through 2003 and focuses primarily on the U.S. part of the Lake St. Clair Basin, including Lake St. Clair, the St. Clair River, and tributaries to Lake St. Clair. Comparable data from the Canadian part of the study area are included where available. The data are compiled into 4 chemical classes and consist of 21 compounds. The data are compared to effects-based sediment-quality guidelines, where the Threshold Effect Level and Lowest Effect Level represent concentrations below which adverse effects on biota are not expected and the Probable Effect Level and Severe Effect Level represent concentrations above which adverse effects on biota are expected to be frequent.Maps in the report show the spatial distribution of the sampling locations and illustrate the concentrations relative to the selected sediment-quality guidelines. These maps indicate that sediment samples from certain areas routinely had contaminant concentrations greater than the Threshold Effect Concentration or Lowest Effect Level. These locations are the upper reach of the St. Clair River, the main stem and mouth of the Clinton River, Big Beaver Creek, Red Run, and Paint Creek. Maps also indicated areas that routinely contained sediment contaminant concentrations that were greater than the Probable Effect Concentration or Severe Effect Level. These locations include the upper reach of the St. Clair River, the main stem and mouth of the Clinton River, Red Run, within direct tributaries along Lake St. Clair and in marinas within the lake, and within the Clinton River headwaters in Oakland County.Although most samples collected within Lake St. Clair were from sites adjacent to the mouths of its tributaries, samples analyzed for trace-element concentrations were collected throughout the lake. The distribution of trace-element concentrations corresponded well with the results of a two-dimensional hydrodynamic model of flow patterns from the Clinton River into Lake St. Clair. The model was developed independent from the bed sediment analysis described in this report; yet it showed a zone of deposition for outflow from the Clinton River into Lake St. Clair that corresponded well with the spatial distribution of trace-element concentrations. This zone runs along the western shoreline of Lake St. Clair from L'Anse Creuse Bay to St. Clair Shores, Michigan and is reflected in the samples analyzed for mercury and cadmium.Statistical summaries of the concentration data are presented for most contaminants, and selected statistics are compared to effects-based sediment-quality guidelines. Summaries were not computed for dieldrin, chlordane, hexachlorocyclohexane, lindane, and mirex because insufficient data are available for these contaminants. A statistical comparison showed that the median concentration for hexachlorobenzene, anthracene, benz[a]anthracene, chrysene, and pyrene are greater than the Threshold Effect Concentration or Lowest Effect Level.Probable Effect Concentration Quotients provide a mechanism for comparing the concentrations of contaminant mixtures against effects-based biota data. Probable Effect Concentration Quotients were calculated for individual samples and compared to effects-based toxicity ranges. The toxicity-range categories used in this study were nontoxic (quotients < 0.5) and toxic (quotients > 0.5). Of the 546 individual samples for which Probable Effect Concentration Quotients were calculated, 469 (86 percent) were categorized as being nontoxic and 77 (14 percent) were categorized as being toxic. Bed-sediment samples with toxic Probable Effect Concentration Quotients were collected from Paint Creek, Galloway Creek, the main stem of the Clinton River, Big Beaver Creek, Red Run, Clinton River towards the mouth, Lake St. Clair along the western shore, and the St. Clair River near Sarnia.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.981

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.003
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.205 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific investigations reportSame topicWater Quality and Resources StudiesFrench-language works237,207