为什么没有证据表明吡啶杀死了英国螃蟹

IF 3.5 Q3 ENGINEERING, ENVIRONMENTAL
Alex T. Ford, Mark F. Fitzsimons and Crispin Halsall
{"title":"为什么没有证据表明吡啶杀死了英国螃蟹","authors":"Alex T. Ford, Mark F. Fitzsimons and Crispin Halsall","doi":"10.1039/D4VA00006D","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p >The North East coast of England experienced a mass mortality event in late 2021 affecting millions of crabs and lobsters. The die-off coincided with the redevelopment of one of the UK's flagship ports, prompting local scientists to suggest the remobilization of dredged industrial contaminants as a cause. A multi-agency investigation found no definitive causal factor; however, re-evaluation of data by consultants drew a different conclusion, linking the industrial compound pyridine to the crustacean deaths. Authors of an unpublished study subsequently claimed that their data demonstrated pyridine to be exceptionally toxic and that their modeling explained the coastal distribution of washups. These data were presented to a cross-party Environmental, Fisheries and Rural Affairs (EFRA) committee in the UK parliament and led to the commissioning of an independent panel to review the data. This panel was also unable to identify a definitive cause, but found that a major role for pyridine was ‘very unlikely’. Unfortunately, the debate has been highly politicised, with misleading information aired by the two leading political parties. Here, several members of that independent review panel refute the pyridine link to the mass mortality, based on both reported data and the known chemistry and behaviour of this molecule, and highlight where the science has been misrepresented by the media.</p>","PeriodicalId":72941,"journal":{"name":"Environmental science. Advances","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlepdf/2024/va/d4va00006d?page=search","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Why there is no evidence that pyridine killed the English crabs†\",\"authors\":\"Alex T. Ford, Mark F. Fitzsimons and Crispin Halsall\",\"doi\":\"10.1039/D4VA00006D\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p >The North East coast of England experienced a mass mortality event in late 2021 affecting millions of crabs and lobsters. The die-off coincided with the redevelopment of one of the UK's flagship ports, prompting local scientists to suggest the remobilization of dredged industrial contaminants as a cause. A multi-agency investigation found no definitive causal factor; however, re-evaluation of data by consultants drew a different conclusion, linking the industrial compound pyridine to the crustacean deaths. Authors of an unpublished study subsequently claimed that their data demonstrated pyridine to be exceptionally toxic and that their modeling explained the coastal distribution of washups. These data were presented to a cross-party Environmental, Fisheries and Rural Affairs (EFRA) committee in the UK parliament and led to the commissioning of an independent panel to review the data. This panel was also unable to identify a definitive cause, but found that a major role for pyridine was ‘very unlikely’. Unfortunately, the debate has been highly politicised, with misleading information aired by the two leading political parties. Here, several members of that independent review panel refute the pyridine link to the mass mortality, based on both reported data and the known chemistry and behaviour of this molecule, and highlight where the science has been misrepresented by the media.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":72941,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Environmental science. Advances\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlepdf/2024/va/d4va00006d?page=search\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Environmental science. Advances\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2024/va/d4va00006d\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, ENVIRONMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental science. Advances","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2024/va/d4va00006d","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, ENVIRONMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

2021 年末,英格兰东北海岸发生了大规模死亡事件,数百万只螃蟹和龙虾受到影响。这次死亡事件与英国旗舰港口之一的重新开发相吻合,促使当地科学家认为疏浚工业污染物的重新流动是造成死亡的原因之一。一项多机构调查没有发现明确的致病因素,但顾问对数据的重新评估得出了不同的结论,认为工业化合物吡啶与甲壳类动物的死亡有关。随后,一项未发表的研究称,他们的数据表明吡啶具有特殊毒性,他们的建模解释了冲刷的沿海分布。这些数据被提交给了英国议会的一个跨党派环境、渔业和农村事务(EFRA)委员会,并导致该委员会委托一个独立小组对这些数据进行审查。该小组也无法确定明确的原因,但认为吡啶发挥主要作用的可能性 "非常小"。不幸的是,这场辩论被高度政治化,两个主要政党都发布了误导性信息。在此,该独立审查小组的几位成员根据报告数据和已知的吡啶分子化学性质和行为,驳斥了吡啶与大规模死亡之间的联系,并强调了媒体对科学的误导之处。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Why there is no evidence that pyridine killed the English crabs†

Why there is no evidence that pyridine killed the English crabs†

The North East coast of England experienced a mass mortality event in late 2021 affecting millions of crabs and lobsters. The die-off coincided with the redevelopment of one of the UK's flagship ports, prompting local scientists to suggest the remobilization of dredged industrial contaminants as a cause. A multi-agency investigation found no definitive causal factor; however, re-evaluation of data by consultants drew a different conclusion, linking the industrial compound pyridine to the crustacean deaths. Authors of an unpublished study subsequently claimed that their data demonstrated pyridine to be exceptionally toxic and that their modeling explained the coastal distribution of washups. These data were presented to a cross-party Environmental, Fisheries and Rural Affairs (EFRA) committee in the UK parliament and led to the commissioning of an independent panel to review the data. This panel was also unable to identify a definitive cause, but found that a major role for pyridine was ‘very unlikely’. Unfortunately, the debate has been highly politicised, with misleading information aired by the two leading political parties. Here, several members of that independent review panel refute the pyridine link to the mass mortality, based on both reported data and the known chemistry and behaviour of this molecule, and highlight where the science has been misrepresented by the media.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信