Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 165

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Improving Data Quality for Environmental Fate Models: A Least-Squares Adjustment Procedure for Harmonizing Physicochemical Properties of Organic Compounds

Schenker, Urs, MacLeod, Matthew, Scheringer, Martin, Hungerbühler, Konrad·2005·Environmental Science & Technology

Abstract

Physicochemical properties (vapor pressure, aqueous solubility, octanol solubility, Henry's law constant, and octanol-air and octanol-water partition coefficients) and their temperature dependencies are required for fate modeling of environmental pollutants. To be internally consistent, measured values for these properties often must be adjusted. The goal of adjusting the property values for consistency is to more accurately estimate the true values. However, consistency and accuracy are not synonymous. If there are systematic errors in one property, then adjustment for consistency may reduce the accuracy of other property data. Here, we provide methods for achieving consistency and improving accuracy in the selection of partitioning properties from literature sources. First, we show that a widely used procedure does not always minimize the adjustments of property values derived from the literature when harmonizing them according to thermodynamic constraints. In such cases, the final adjusted values (FAVs) are unnecessarily different from the literature-derived values (LDVs) selected from measurements. We present an improved procedure based on the theory of least squares that minimizes the adjustment of LDVs and allows quantitative propagation of uncertainty from LDVs to FAVs. When this procedure is applied to partitioning properties for 30 organic chemicals, FAVs obtained differ by up to 30% from those calculated with the current adjustment procedure. Second, we point out that the adjustment procedure is only appropriate for correcting random errors in measurement data. Biased LDVs must be identified and corrected prior to harmonization. Using a set of 16 PCB congeners as a case study, we provide methods to identify biased data and discuss possible sources of bias. We present a new interpretation of property data for the PCBs and a new set of internally consistent properties and quantitative structure-property relationships that we recommend as the best currently available.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1021/es0502526

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Schenker, U., MacLeod, M., Scheringer, M., & Hungerbühler, K.
Venue
Environmental Science & Technology
Published
2005-09-22
Volume
39
Issue
21
Pages
8434-8441
ISSN
  • 0013-936X (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-5851
OpenAlex
W1982849616
Cited by
165
References
0
FWCI
4.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.