Comparison of chemical contaminant measurements using CLAM, POCIS, and silicone band samplers in estuarine mesocosms

Discrete water samples represent a snapshot of conditions at a particular moment in time and may not represent a true chemical exposure caused by changes in chemical input, tide, flow, and precipitation. Sampling technologies have been engineered to better estimate time‐weighted concentrations. In t...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Integrated environmental assessment and management 2024-09, Vol.20 (5), p.1384-1395
Hauptverfasser: Wirth, Ed, Shaddrix, Brian, Pisarski, Emily, Pennington, Paul, DeLorenzo, Marie, Whitall, David
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 1395
container_issue 5
container_start_page 1384
container_title Integrated environmental assessment and management
container_volume 20
creator Wirth, Ed
Shaddrix, Brian
Pisarski, Emily
Pennington, Paul
DeLorenzo, Marie
Whitall, David
description Discrete water samples represent a snapshot of conditions at a particular moment in time and may not represent a true chemical exposure caused by changes in chemical input, tide, flow, and precipitation. Sampling technologies have been engineered to better estimate time‐weighted concentrations. In this study, we consider the utility of three integrative sampling platforms: polar organic chemical integrative sampler (POCIS), silicone bands (SBs), and continuous, low‐level aquatic monitoring (CLAM). This experiment used simulated southeastern salt marsh mesocosm systems to evaluate the response of passive (POCIS, SBs) and active sampling (CLAM) devices along with discrete sampling methodologies. Three systems were assigned to each passive sampler technology. Initially, all tanks were dosed at nominal (low) bifenthrin, pyrene, and triclosan concentrations of 0.02, 2.2, and 100 µg/L, respectively. After 28 days, the same treatment systems were dosed a second time (high) with bifenthrin, pyrene, and triclosan at 0.08, 8.8, and 200 µg/L, respectively. For passive samplers, estimated water concentrations were calculated using published or laboratory‐derived sampling rate constants. Chemical residues measured from SBs resulted in high/low ratios of approximately 2x, approximately 3x, and 1x for bifenthrin, pyrene, and triclosan. A similar pattern was calculated using data from POCIS samples (~4x, ~3x, ~1x). Results from this study will help users of CLAM, POCIS, and SB data to better evaluate water concentrations from sampling events that are integrated across time. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2024;20:1384–1395. © 2024 The Authors. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society of Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry (SETAC). Key Points Integrative passive samplers can be an important tool in coastal chemical pollutant monitoring programs, but salt content in marine and estuarine systems can pose a challenge when estimating time‐weighted average concentrations. Remote sampling systems that track the total volume extracted, such as the continuous low‐level aquatic monitoring (CLAM) unit, may be appropriate for monitoring in remote areas and generating integrated chemical concentrations. Passive sampler devices require sampling rate constants (Rs and KPW) that are sensitive to environmental factors such as salinity. There is a general lack of reported constants measured under saline conditions.
doi_str_mv 10.1002/ieam.4953
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_3063465377</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>3091657796</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3483-37ce2215baad49d40420a530e8337411935de415bf1b37a426fe2332e419edfc3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kUFr3DAQhUVpadKkh_6BIuilhWwiaSR7fVxM2i5sSCHt2WjlcatgSVuNTci_rzab5hDISdLMpzePeYx9kOJcCqEuPNpwrhsDr9ixNEYuoG7g9dO9ro_YO6JbITQoUG_ZESyXshHKHLOpTWFns6cUeRq4-4PBOztyl-Jkg482TjygpTljwDgRn8nH37zdrK7O-I_rdn1zxm3sOfnRlz_Itw8vG3YjZuI-cqRpLgNKKyAllyjQKXsz2JHw_eN5wn59vfzZfl9srr-t29Vm4UAvoTh3qJQ0W2t73fRaaCWsAYFLgFpL2YDpUZf-ILdQW62qARWAKrUG-8HBCft80N3l9HcuRrrgyeE42ohppg5EBboyZUMF_fQMvU1zjsVdoRpZmbpuqkJ9OVAuJ6KMQ7fLPth830nR7aPo9lF0-ygK-_FRcd4G7J_I_7svwMUBuPMj3r-s1K0vV1cPkv8AAmCSow</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>3091657796</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparison of chemical contaminant measurements using CLAM, POCIS, and silicone band samplers in estuarine mesocosms</title><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>Wirth, Ed ; Shaddrix, Brian ; Pisarski, Emily ; Pennington, Paul ; DeLorenzo, Marie ; Whitall, David</creator><creatorcontrib>Wirth, Ed ; Shaddrix, Brian ; Pisarski, Emily ; Pennington, Paul ; DeLorenzo, Marie ; Whitall, David</creatorcontrib><description>Discrete water samples represent a snapshot of conditions at a particular moment in time and may not represent a true chemical exposure caused by changes in chemical input, tide, flow, and precipitation. Sampling technologies have been engineered to better estimate time‐weighted concentrations. In this study, we consider the utility of three integrative sampling platforms: polar organic chemical integrative sampler (POCIS), silicone bands (SBs), and continuous, low‐level aquatic monitoring (CLAM). This experiment used simulated southeastern salt marsh mesocosm systems to evaluate the response of passive (POCIS, SBs) and active sampling (CLAM) devices along with discrete sampling methodologies. Three systems were assigned to each passive sampler technology. Initially, all tanks were dosed at nominal (low) bifenthrin, pyrene, and triclosan concentrations of 0.02, 2.2, and 100 µg/L, respectively. After 28 days, the same treatment systems were dosed a second time (high) with bifenthrin, pyrene, and triclosan at 0.08, 8.8, and 200 µg/L, respectively. For passive samplers, estimated water concentrations were calculated using published or laboratory‐derived sampling rate constants. Chemical residues measured from SBs resulted in high/low ratios of approximately 2x, approximately 3x, and 1x for bifenthrin, pyrene, and triclosan. A similar pattern was calculated using data from POCIS samples (~4x, ~3x, ~1x). Results from this study will help users of CLAM, POCIS, and SB data to better evaluate water concentrations from sampling events that are integrated across time. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2024;20:1384–1395. © 2024 The Authors. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society of Environmental Toxicology &amp; Chemistry (SETAC). Key Points Integrative passive samplers can be an important tool in coastal chemical pollutant monitoring programs, but salt content in marine and estuarine systems can pose a challenge when estimating time‐weighted average concentrations. Remote sampling systems that track the total volume extracted, such as the continuous low‐level aquatic monitoring (CLAM) unit, may be appropriate for monitoring in remote areas and generating integrated chemical concentrations. Passive sampler devices require sampling rate constants (Rs and KPW) that are sensitive to environmental factors such as salinity. There is a general lack of reported constants measured under saline conditions.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1551-3777</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 1551-3793</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1551-3793</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/ieam.4953</identifier><identifier>PMID: 38819025</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>Brackishwater environment ; Chemical pollution ; Chemical residues ; Clams ; Coastal organic contaminants ; Contaminants ; Environmental assessment ; Environmental Impact Assessment ; Environmental management ; Environmental monitoring ; Estuaries ; Evaluation ; In situ sampling ; Insecticides ; Integrated environmental assessment ; Mesocosms ; Organic chemicals ; Organic chemistry ; Pyrene ; Rate constants ; Saltmarshes ; Samplers ; Sampling ; Sampling methods ; Silicones ; Tanks ; Time measurement ; Time‐integrated water concentrations ; Toxicology ; Triclosan ; Water analysis ; Water sampling</subject><ispartof>Integrated environmental assessment and management, 2024-09, Vol.20 (5), p.1384-1395</ispartof><rights>2024 The Authors. published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society of Environmental Toxicology &amp; Chemistry (SETAC).</rights><rights>2024 The Authors. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society of Environmental Toxicology &amp; Chemistry (SETAC).</rights><rights>2024. This article is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3483-37ce2215baad49d40420a530e8337411935de415bf1b37a426fe2332e419edfc3</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-3273-3850</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002%2Fieam.4953$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002%2Fieam.4953$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1411,27901,27902,45550,45551</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38819025$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Wirth, Ed</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shaddrix, Brian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pisarski, Emily</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pennington, Paul</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>DeLorenzo, Marie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Whitall, David</creatorcontrib><title>Comparison of chemical contaminant measurements using CLAM, POCIS, and silicone band samplers in estuarine mesocosms</title><title>Integrated environmental assessment and management</title><addtitle>Integr Environ Assess Manag</addtitle><description>Discrete water samples represent a snapshot of conditions at a particular moment in time and may not represent a true chemical exposure caused by changes in chemical input, tide, flow, and precipitation. Sampling technologies have been engineered to better estimate time‐weighted concentrations. In this study, we consider the utility of three integrative sampling platforms: polar organic chemical integrative sampler (POCIS), silicone bands (SBs), and continuous, low‐level aquatic monitoring (CLAM). This experiment used simulated southeastern salt marsh mesocosm systems to evaluate the response of passive (POCIS, SBs) and active sampling (CLAM) devices along with discrete sampling methodologies. Three systems were assigned to each passive sampler technology. Initially, all tanks were dosed at nominal (low) bifenthrin, pyrene, and triclosan concentrations of 0.02, 2.2, and 100 µg/L, respectively. After 28 days, the same treatment systems were dosed a second time (high) with bifenthrin, pyrene, and triclosan at 0.08, 8.8, and 200 µg/L, respectively. For passive samplers, estimated water concentrations were calculated using published or laboratory‐derived sampling rate constants. Chemical residues measured from SBs resulted in high/low ratios of approximately 2x, approximately 3x, and 1x for bifenthrin, pyrene, and triclosan. A similar pattern was calculated using data from POCIS samples (~4x, ~3x, ~1x). Results from this study will help users of CLAM, POCIS, and SB data to better evaluate water concentrations from sampling events that are integrated across time. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2024;20:1384–1395. © 2024 The Authors. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society of Environmental Toxicology &amp; Chemistry (SETAC). Key Points Integrative passive samplers can be an important tool in coastal chemical pollutant monitoring programs, but salt content in marine and estuarine systems can pose a challenge when estimating time‐weighted average concentrations. Remote sampling systems that track the total volume extracted, such as the continuous low‐level aquatic monitoring (CLAM) unit, may be appropriate for monitoring in remote areas and generating integrated chemical concentrations. Passive sampler devices require sampling rate constants (Rs and KPW) that are sensitive to environmental factors such as salinity. There is a general lack of reported constants measured under saline conditions.</description><subject>Brackishwater environment</subject><subject>Chemical pollution</subject><subject>Chemical residues</subject><subject>Clams</subject><subject>Coastal organic contaminants</subject><subject>Contaminants</subject><subject>Environmental assessment</subject><subject>Environmental Impact Assessment</subject><subject>Environmental management</subject><subject>Environmental monitoring</subject><subject>Estuaries</subject><subject>Evaluation</subject><subject>In situ sampling</subject><subject>Insecticides</subject><subject>Integrated environmental assessment</subject><subject>Mesocosms</subject><subject>Organic chemicals</subject><subject>Organic chemistry</subject><subject>Pyrene</subject><subject>Rate constants</subject><subject>Saltmarshes</subject><subject>Samplers</subject><subject>Sampling</subject><subject>Sampling methods</subject><subject>Silicones</subject><subject>Tanks</subject><subject>Time measurement</subject><subject>Time‐integrated water concentrations</subject><subject>Toxicology</subject><subject>Triclosan</subject><subject>Water analysis</subject><subject>Water sampling</subject><issn>1551-3777</issn><issn>1551-3793</issn><issn>1551-3793</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2024</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>24P</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kUFr3DAQhUVpadKkh_6BIuilhWwiaSR7fVxM2i5sSCHt2WjlcatgSVuNTci_rzab5hDISdLMpzePeYx9kOJcCqEuPNpwrhsDr9ixNEYuoG7g9dO9ro_YO6JbITQoUG_ZESyXshHKHLOpTWFns6cUeRq4-4PBOztyl-Jkg482TjygpTljwDgRn8nH37zdrK7O-I_rdn1zxm3sOfnRlz_Itw8vG3YjZuI-cqRpLgNKKyAllyjQKXsz2JHw_eN5wn59vfzZfl9srr-t29Vm4UAvoTh3qJQ0W2t73fRaaCWsAYFLgFpL2YDpUZf-ILdQW62qARWAKrUG-8HBCft80N3l9HcuRrrgyeE42ohppg5EBboyZUMF_fQMvU1zjsVdoRpZmbpuqkJ9OVAuJ6KMQ7fLPth830nR7aPo9lF0-ygK-_FRcd4G7J_I_7svwMUBuPMj3r-s1K0vV1cPkv8AAmCSow</recordid><startdate>202409</startdate><enddate>202409</enddate><creator>Wirth, Ed</creator><creator>Shaddrix, Brian</creator><creator>Pisarski, Emily</creator><creator>Pennington, Paul</creator><creator>DeLorenzo, Marie</creator><creator>Whitall, David</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><scope>24P</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QH</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7U7</scope><scope>7UA</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>F1W</scope><scope>H97</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>L.G</scope><scope>SOI</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3273-3850</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202409</creationdate><title>Comparison of chemical contaminant measurements using CLAM, POCIS, and silicone band samplers in estuarine mesocosms</title><author>Wirth, Ed ; Shaddrix, Brian ; Pisarski, Emily ; Pennington, Paul ; DeLorenzo, Marie ; Whitall, David</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3483-37ce2215baad49d40420a530e8337411935de415bf1b37a426fe2332e419edfc3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2024</creationdate><topic>Brackishwater environment</topic><topic>Chemical pollution</topic><topic>Chemical residues</topic><topic>Clams</topic><topic>Coastal organic contaminants</topic><topic>Contaminants</topic><topic>Environmental assessment</topic><topic>Environmental Impact Assessment</topic><topic>Environmental management</topic><topic>Environmental monitoring</topic><topic>Estuaries</topic><topic>Evaluation</topic><topic>In situ sampling</topic><topic>Insecticides</topic><topic>Integrated environmental assessment</topic><topic>Mesocosms</topic><topic>Organic chemicals</topic><topic>Organic chemistry</topic><topic>Pyrene</topic><topic>Rate constants</topic><topic>Saltmarshes</topic><topic>Samplers</topic><topic>Sampling</topic><topic>Sampling methods</topic><topic>Silicones</topic><topic>Tanks</topic><topic>Time measurement</topic><topic>Time‐integrated water concentrations</topic><topic>Toxicology</topic><topic>Triclosan</topic><topic>Water analysis</topic><topic>Water sampling</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Wirth, Ed</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shaddrix, Brian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pisarski, Emily</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pennington, Paul</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>DeLorenzo, Marie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Whitall, David</creatorcontrib><collection>Wiley Online Library Open Access</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Aqualine</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Toxicology Abstracts</collection><collection>Water Resources Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 3: Aquatic Pollution &amp; Environmental Quality</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Integrated environmental assessment and management</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Wirth, Ed</au><au>Shaddrix, Brian</au><au>Pisarski, Emily</au><au>Pennington, Paul</au><au>DeLorenzo, Marie</au><au>Whitall, David</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparison of chemical contaminant measurements using CLAM, POCIS, and silicone band samplers in estuarine mesocosms</atitle><jtitle>Integrated environmental assessment and management</jtitle><addtitle>Integr Environ Assess Manag</addtitle><date>2024-09</date><risdate>2024</risdate><volume>20</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>1384</spage><epage>1395</epage><pages>1384-1395</pages><issn>1551-3777</issn><issn>1551-3793</issn><eissn>1551-3793</eissn><abstract>Discrete water samples represent a snapshot of conditions at a particular moment in time and may not represent a true chemical exposure caused by changes in chemical input, tide, flow, and precipitation. Sampling technologies have been engineered to better estimate time‐weighted concentrations. In this study, we consider the utility of three integrative sampling platforms: polar organic chemical integrative sampler (POCIS), silicone bands (SBs), and continuous, low‐level aquatic monitoring (CLAM). This experiment used simulated southeastern salt marsh mesocosm systems to evaluate the response of passive (POCIS, SBs) and active sampling (CLAM) devices along with discrete sampling methodologies. Three systems were assigned to each passive sampler technology. Initially, all tanks were dosed at nominal (low) bifenthrin, pyrene, and triclosan concentrations of 0.02, 2.2, and 100 µg/L, respectively. After 28 days, the same treatment systems were dosed a second time (high) with bifenthrin, pyrene, and triclosan at 0.08, 8.8, and 200 µg/L, respectively. For passive samplers, estimated water concentrations were calculated using published or laboratory‐derived sampling rate constants. Chemical residues measured from SBs resulted in high/low ratios of approximately 2x, approximately 3x, and 1x for bifenthrin, pyrene, and triclosan. A similar pattern was calculated using data from POCIS samples (~4x, ~3x, ~1x). Results from this study will help users of CLAM, POCIS, and SB data to better evaluate water concentrations from sampling events that are integrated across time. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2024;20:1384–1395. © 2024 The Authors. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society of Environmental Toxicology &amp; Chemistry (SETAC). Key Points Integrative passive samplers can be an important tool in coastal chemical pollutant monitoring programs, but salt content in marine and estuarine systems can pose a challenge when estimating time‐weighted average concentrations. Remote sampling systems that track the total volume extracted, such as the continuous low‐level aquatic monitoring (CLAM) unit, may be appropriate for monitoring in remote areas and generating integrated chemical concentrations. Passive sampler devices require sampling rate constants (Rs and KPW) that are sensitive to environmental factors such as salinity. There is a general lack of reported constants measured under saline conditions.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><pmid>38819025</pmid><doi>10.1002/ieam.4953</doi><tpages>12</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3273-3850</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1551-3777
ispartof Integrated environmental assessment and management, 2024-09, Vol.20 (5), p.1384-1395
issn 1551-3777
1551-3793
1551-3793
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_3063465377
source Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete
subjects Brackishwater environment
Chemical pollution
Chemical residues
Clams
Coastal organic contaminants
Contaminants
Environmental assessment
Environmental Impact Assessment
Environmental management
Environmental monitoring
Estuaries
Evaluation
In situ sampling
Insecticides
Integrated environmental assessment
Mesocosms
Organic chemicals
Organic chemistry
Pyrene
Rate constants
Saltmarshes
Samplers
Sampling
Sampling methods
Silicones
Tanks
Time measurement
Time‐integrated water concentrations
Toxicology
Triclosan
Water analysis
Water sampling
title Comparison of chemical contaminant measurements using CLAM, POCIS, and silicone band samplers in estuarine mesocosms
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-15T07%3A58%3A28IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparison%20of%20chemical%20contaminant%20measurements%20using%20CLAM,%20POCIS,%20and%20silicone%20band%20samplers%20in%20estuarine%20mesocosms&rft.jtitle=Integrated%20environmental%20assessment%20and%20management&rft.au=Wirth,%20Ed&rft.date=2024-09&rft.volume=20&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=1384&rft.epage=1395&rft.pages=1384-1395&rft.issn=1551-3777&rft.eissn=1551-3793&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/ieam.4953&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E3091657796%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=3091657796&rft_id=info:pmid/38819025&rfr_iscdi=true