This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Persistent organic pollutant article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article was the subject of an educational assignment in 2013 Q3. Further details were available on the "Education Program:Boston College/Environmental Disruptors of Development (Spring 2014)" page, which is now unavailable on the wiki. |
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 January 2022 and 16 May 2022. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Parker720 (
article contribs).
The section on LRT seems to be self-contradictory. Satyrium 13:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Not withstanding the scientific nature of POPs/PBTs and the need to expand this article, I'm intrigued by the attention of the Rational Skepticism Project in this article. Is there concern that article itself is biased or is this an attempt to attract someone qualified to revamp? Is this tag being applied to every scientific topic? A comment by Pustelnik who posted the tag would be welcomed. Kmarkey ( talk) 14:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
move here from article space, not clear what this is saying and no references (it was tagged as section for cleanup) RJFJR ( talk) 15:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
The general trend of POPs is the following:
There is a sentence in the first section that mentions "natural sources of POPs" which is tagged as needing clarification. It seems to me that, while it could be argued that by definition "pollutants" must be produced or introduced into the environment by humans, if you accept them being potentially naturally occurring, Ciguatoxin would be a good example. It is organic, produced by dinoflagellates, bioaccumulates up the subtropical reef fish food chain, and is poisonous to humans. However, I was not able to find any source material specifically describing Ciguatoxin as a POP.
( Sflanker ( talk) 18:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC))
Natural Sources of POP's should be expanded upon and clarification is needed as to what "potentially naturally occurring" means.
Yogi44 ( talk) 23:17, 2 February 2015 (UTC)yogi44
Persistent Organic Pollutant
Introduction
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chingla ( talk • contribs)
@ Leyo:: thank you for informing me that POP's and endocrine disruptors are two different "concepts" in your edit summary explaining the deletion of my edit adding the latter. For ease, lets look at the Stockholm twelve: if you would be so kind to point out one that is not an endocrine disruptor. Thanks.-- Wuerzele ( talk) 07:43, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
@ Jonesey95: its nice that you fix errors, thanks. could you please wait until someones done with a little subsection? i consider adding the meat of the matter, rewriting convoluted unreferenced half truths and attributing references the primary work, rather than crossing each t and dotting each i, which is the second step. please give a little room before you jump in. looks like that happened to you before, but maybe nobody ever told you. edit conflicts are annoying interruptions. i'll leave the page now and you can edit to your heart's desire, since it needs tons of work.-- Wuerzele ( talk) 22:15, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
@ Wuerzele: Thank you for moving the citation from the inappropriate reference list to the text as footnotes. I asked the users who added this list to help. -- Leyo 22:30, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
General: Great job overall. The article is very comprehensive and thorough. It flows very nicely and the subheadings make it easy for the reader to follow the information being presented. I pointed out a few sections that I think could use more citations and wikilinks, but in general the citations were good and the wikilinks were helpful. I also found the See Also section very helpful for further reading. I think the introduction is very balanced. It provides the reader with a lot of information that is scientific yet easily understood. The paragraph on health concerns is very matter-of-fact and rather than sounding biased it merely states evidence. Your introduction also considers the global stance on POPs rather than the view of only one country or region, which is good.
Compounds: I really appreciated the fact that the compound’s use, half-life, and mode of human exposure are included. That provides the reader with a very comprehensive look at the scope of these compounds.
Chemical Properties: This section is comprehensive yet concise, which is well done. It nicely explains how these compounds easily bioaccumulate. The last sentence, however, is a bit of a run-on and the second half of the sentence could actually be reworded for greater clarity.
Long-range Transport: I would like to see the list of organic fluids set in parentheses linked to their respective pages. Other than that I thought this section was enlightening.
Bioaccumulation: The third sentence in this section about biomagnification could be reworded or broken up into two sentence and expanded on for more clarity of what exactly is going on between trophic levels.
Additive and Synergistic Effects: I think there needs to be wikilinks in this section, especially for the concepts “additive” and “synergistic”. This is a good section to include though, particularly since it points out the flaws of certain research and the reality of the way these compounds impact the body.
Health Effects I wonder why it is that serum levels are higher in females than in males. There must be research on this fact; what conclusions have scientists come up with?
Stockholm Convention: This section is well done but I would like to see some citations to back up what is being said. However, I’m wondering if this section would have flowed better in the beginning of this article. This convention was mentioned in the introduction and is the basis for the Compounds section, so it actually might help to have this background information in the beginning.
POPs in urban areas and indoor environments I would reread this section again and make sure the point you’re trying to make is clear because I found it a bit confusing and it seemed that either words were missing or sentences were combined while editing that weren’t combined seamlessly. But I think the information you included is important and very informational.
Kglobalhealth ( talk) 01:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
In general, the article is well organized and flows pretty well. There are great details and examples provided.
Introduction provides good explanation, or general idea, of persistent organic pollutant. However, it would be helpful if some kind of chemical information (perhaps a chart) is provided along with explanation. I was able to see a separate section for chemical properties, but visual chart would help the readers a bit more (or it would be helpful if the chemical property section is moved so that readers can understand the properties before getting into other issues or information on POPs).
For the compounds section, it was very great to see each compound with its explanations. However, some compounds, such as aldrin, dieldrin, endrin, etc, compounds’ effects on humans were not explained in detail or were unclear. Although health effects section was provided below (which I found very helpful), it would be great to see general health effects on humans for each compound!
Like I stated above, chemical properties section was clear, but it would be better if this section was moved towards beginning (and perhaps rearranged in a form of chart or other visual method).
Long-range transport and bioaccumulation sections were well-explained and provided clarification in understanding POPs. However, I would like to see citations after each sentence that includes information from different sources, not all at once at the end of the paragraph. It would be easier for the readers to access sources for the information if needed.
For the additive and synergistic effects section, I would like to see sources that back up the information/experiments. Some examples of experiments along with some explanation would be nice. In addition, some examples of synergistic effects of mixture of POPs and other chemical mixtures would be a great help in better understanding of this section.
For the health effects section, different effects were well organized. However, I think this section needs citation of the sources (ex: a 2002 study) – needs clarification on the case studies.
Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants section would be better with citations on information provided.
It was nice to see that you addressed POPs in urban areas and indoor environments, but it was a bit confusing reading the section. You mentioned that “recent studies of indoor dust and air have implicated indoor environments as sources for human exposure via inhalation and ingestion”. It would help if the sources were provided for the studies and some details on the experiment. Also, article says that there are significant indoor POP pollutions. But is there a specific way that increases the indoor pollution? Or do certain activities cause significant increase in indoor POP pollution?
I enjoyed reading your article. Information was helpful and very interesting. Good luck on your final version of the article and I hope the review helped a bit!
Kohw 23:23, 11 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kohw ( talk • contribs)
This is a great wikipedia page. It is clear you've done a lot of research and you do an excellent job of staying neutral while presenting research to support your entry. Given how many chemicals there are that are classified as POPs, I think your page will have some heavy traffic!! There are some points where you need to be more consistent in citing. In general, you do a good job and have quality sources vs. quantity. Overall, the largest critiques I have are structural/organizational (see below). As with all writing, the grammar and flow is a never ending process of improvement, but overall you do a good job. I did go through and directly edit some things to help out!
It would be helpful to add current research going on as POPs and how corporations are responding to the international convention. In addition, there is a lot more information you can provide on various environmental effects POPs have in our world. You mention wildlife but what about the environment. DDT decimated Vietnam. I get it is hard to do since every specific POP is different, but perhaps a general, broad section on environmental impacts will be useful. I think some are linked to climate change as well. Are there any numbers you can find to support its environmental impact. Finally, I believe a section on how you clean up these chemicals or handle them might be useful. Once again, it probably varies from chemical to chemical, but i'm sure there is a broad technique that generally works. This section could even be nested under the environmental section.
Once again, this is a GREAT wikipedia page. I'm being very nitpicky and pushy. I truly do think it'll generate a lot of traffic and it is necessary to have. If you have any questions feel free to email me or talk to me after class. I'd be happy to help in any way possible.
Introduction
Compound
Chemical Properties
Health Effects
Stockholm Convention and POP Indoors
After reading through all of the peer review comments we thoroughly reviewed the article, rewording areas which were hi-lighted as confusing or too generalized by the reviews, updated . We did some restructuring of the page so that the information might flow more clearly and added a brief section describing the current state of science of control and removal of POPs in the environment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chingla ( talk • contribs) 13:08, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Great and informative article! The one section i was a little uncertain about was "POPs in urban areas and indoor environments" because the information is much more vague than the rest of the article. Perhaps it would be possible to expand upon the factors of indoor pollution and POPs within the home, as you mention that over time, trends have increased time spent indoors. You mention air and dust, but are there other factors that contribute to the prevalence of POPs and how they are tracked indoors? Just a couple thoughts! Egilmore15 ( talk) 20:08, 2 February 2015 (UTC)Egilmore15
Certain sentences do not make sense anymore after these major changes. Some copyediting is needed. Smokefoot, could you make an attempt yourself (after having gone through your changes again)? -- Leyo 19:27, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
There is a redundancy of
Persistent organic pollutant#Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants and
Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants#Listed substances. It appeared with
this large addition that was made within the
Education Program.
I'd suggest that the redundancy is fixed by shortening the section in this article. --
Leyo
20:12, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
See here http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/emon/pubs/fatememo/glyphos.pdf . This is about as durable as other substances already mentioned here. -- Kku 16:03, 20 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding incorrectly signed comment added by Kku
I’m really interested in this, as to me, some plastics can undoubtedly be classified here, and are in definition a persistent organic pollutant.
I know this is my own classification, however there must be some kind of attribution or reference somewhere! Help! AnonKnowsBest ( talk) 17:25, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 August 2022 and 8 December 2022. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
ToxicologyVerify (
article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Spmg98 ( talk) 17:56, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Persistent organic pollutant article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article was the subject of an educational assignment in 2013 Q3. Further details were available on the "Education Program:Boston College/Environmental Disruptors of Development (Spring 2014)" page, which is now unavailable on the wiki. |
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 January 2022 and 16 May 2022. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Parker720 (
article contribs).
The section on LRT seems to be self-contradictory. Satyrium 13:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Not withstanding the scientific nature of POPs/PBTs and the need to expand this article, I'm intrigued by the attention of the Rational Skepticism Project in this article. Is there concern that article itself is biased or is this an attempt to attract someone qualified to revamp? Is this tag being applied to every scientific topic? A comment by Pustelnik who posted the tag would be welcomed. Kmarkey ( talk) 14:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
move here from article space, not clear what this is saying and no references (it was tagged as section for cleanup) RJFJR ( talk) 15:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
The general trend of POPs is the following:
There is a sentence in the first section that mentions "natural sources of POPs" which is tagged as needing clarification. It seems to me that, while it could be argued that by definition "pollutants" must be produced or introduced into the environment by humans, if you accept them being potentially naturally occurring, Ciguatoxin would be a good example. It is organic, produced by dinoflagellates, bioaccumulates up the subtropical reef fish food chain, and is poisonous to humans. However, I was not able to find any source material specifically describing Ciguatoxin as a POP.
( Sflanker ( talk) 18:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC))
Natural Sources of POP's should be expanded upon and clarification is needed as to what "potentially naturally occurring" means.
Yogi44 ( talk) 23:17, 2 February 2015 (UTC)yogi44
Persistent Organic Pollutant
Introduction
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chingla ( talk • contribs)
@ Leyo:: thank you for informing me that POP's and endocrine disruptors are two different "concepts" in your edit summary explaining the deletion of my edit adding the latter. For ease, lets look at the Stockholm twelve: if you would be so kind to point out one that is not an endocrine disruptor. Thanks.-- Wuerzele ( talk) 07:43, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
@ Jonesey95: its nice that you fix errors, thanks. could you please wait until someones done with a little subsection? i consider adding the meat of the matter, rewriting convoluted unreferenced half truths and attributing references the primary work, rather than crossing each t and dotting each i, which is the second step. please give a little room before you jump in. looks like that happened to you before, but maybe nobody ever told you. edit conflicts are annoying interruptions. i'll leave the page now and you can edit to your heart's desire, since it needs tons of work.-- Wuerzele ( talk) 22:15, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
@ Wuerzele: Thank you for moving the citation from the inappropriate reference list to the text as footnotes. I asked the users who added this list to help. -- Leyo 22:30, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
General: Great job overall. The article is very comprehensive and thorough. It flows very nicely and the subheadings make it easy for the reader to follow the information being presented. I pointed out a few sections that I think could use more citations and wikilinks, but in general the citations were good and the wikilinks were helpful. I also found the See Also section very helpful for further reading. I think the introduction is very balanced. It provides the reader with a lot of information that is scientific yet easily understood. The paragraph on health concerns is very matter-of-fact and rather than sounding biased it merely states evidence. Your introduction also considers the global stance on POPs rather than the view of only one country or region, which is good.
Compounds: I really appreciated the fact that the compound’s use, half-life, and mode of human exposure are included. That provides the reader with a very comprehensive look at the scope of these compounds.
Chemical Properties: This section is comprehensive yet concise, which is well done. It nicely explains how these compounds easily bioaccumulate. The last sentence, however, is a bit of a run-on and the second half of the sentence could actually be reworded for greater clarity.
Long-range Transport: I would like to see the list of organic fluids set in parentheses linked to their respective pages. Other than that I thought this section was enlightening.
Bioaccumulation: The third sentence in this section about biomagnification could be reworded or broken up into two sentence and expanded on for more clarity of what exactly is going on between trophic levels.
Additive and Synergistic Effects: I think there needs to be wikilinks in this section, especially for the concepts “additive” and “synergistic”. This is a good section to include though, particularly since it points out the flaws of certain research and the reality of the way these compounds impact the body.
Health Effects I wonder why it is that serum levels are higher in females than in males. There must be research on this fact; what conclusions have scientists come up with?
Stockholm Convention: This section is well done but I would like to see some citations to back up what is being said. However, I’m wondering if this section would have flowed better in the beginning of this article. This convention was mentioned in the introduction and is the basis for the Compounds section, so it actually might help to have this background information in the beginning.
POPs in urban areas and indoor environments I would reread this section again and make sure the point you’re trying to make is clear because I found it a bit confusing and it seemed that either words were missing or sentences were combined while editing that weren’t combined seamlessly. But I think the information you included is important and very informational.
Kglobalhealth ( talk) 01:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
In general, the article is well organized and flows pretty well. There are great details and examples provided.
Introduction provides good explanation, or general idea, of persistent organic pollutant. However, it would be helpful if some kind of chemical information (perhaps a chart) is provided along with explanation. I was able to see a separate section for chemical properties, but visual chart would help the readers a bit more (or it would be helpful if the chemical property section is moved so that readers can understand the properties before getting into other issues or information on POPs).
For the compounds section, it was very great to see each compound with its explanations. However, some compounds, such as aldrin, dieldrin, endrin, etc, compounds’ effects on humans were not explained in detail or were unclear. Although health effects section was provided below (which I found very helpful), it would be great to see general health effects on humans for each compound!
Like I stated above, chemical properties section was clear, but it would be better if this section was moved towards beginning (and perhaps rearranged in a form of chart or other visual method).
Long-range transport and bioaccumulation sections were well-explained and provided clarification in understanding POPs. However, I would like to see citations after each sentence that includes information from different sources, not all at once at the end of the paragraph. It would be easier for the readers to access sources for the information if needed.
For the additive and synergistic effects section, I would like to see sources that back up the information/experiments. Some examples of experiments along with some explanation would be nice. In addition, some examples of synergistic effects of mixture of POPs and other chemical mixtures would be a great help in better understanding of this section.
For the health effects section, different effects were well organized. However, I think this section needs citation of the sources (ex: a 2002 study) – needs clarification on the case studies.
Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants section would be better with citations on information provided.
It was nice to see that you addressed POPs in urban areas and indoor environments, but it was a bit confusing reading the section. You mentioned that “recent studies of indoor dust and air have implicated indoor environments as sources for human exposure via inhalation and ingestion”. It would help if the sources were provided for the studies and some details on the experiment. Also, article says that there are significant indoor POP pollutions. But is there a specific way that increases the indoor pollution? Or do certain activities cause significant increase in indoor POP pollution?
I enjoyed reading your article. Information was helpful and very interesting. Good luck on your final version of the article and I hope the review helped a bit!
Kohw 23:23, 11 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kohw ( talk • contribs)
This is a great wikipedia page. It is clear you've done a lot of research and you do an excellent job of staying neutral while presenting research to support your entry. Given how many chemicals there are that are classified as POPs, I think your page will have some heavy traffic!! There are some points where you need to be more consistent in citing. In general, you do a good job and have quality sources vs. quantity. Overall, the largest critiques I have are structural/organizational (see below). As with all writing, the grammar and flow is a never ending process of improvement, but overall you do a good job. I did go through and directly edit some things to help out!
It would be helpful to add current research going on as POPs and how corporations are responding to the international convention. In addition, there is a lot more information you can provide on various environmental effects POPs have in our world. You mention wildlife but what about the environment. DDT decimated Vietnam. I get it is hard to do since every specific POP is different, but perhaps a general, broad section on environmental impacts will be useful. I think some are linked to climate change as well. Are there any numbers you can find to support its environmental impact. Finally, I believe a section on how you clean up these chemicals or handle them might be useful. Once again, it probably varies from chemical to chemical, but i'm sure there is a broad technique that generally works. This section could even be nested under the environmental section.
Once again, this is a GREAT wikipedia page. I'm being very nitpicky and pushy. I truly do think it'll generate a lot of traffic and it is necessary to have. If you have any questions feel free to email me or talk to me after class. I'd be happy to help in any way possible.
Introduction
Compound
Chemical Properties
Health Effects
Stockholm Convention and POP Indoors
After reading through all of the peer review comments we thoroughly reviewed the article, rewording areas which were hi-lighted as confusing or too generalized by the reviews, updated . We did some restructuring of the page so that the information might flow more clearly and added a brief section describing the current state of science of control and removal of POPs in the environment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chingla ( talk • contribs) 13:08, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Great and informative article! The one section i was a little uncertain about was "POPs in urban areas and indoor environments" because the information is much more vague than the rest of the article. Perhaps it would be possible to expand upon the factors of indoor pollution and POPs within the home, as you mention that over time, trends have increased time spent indoors. You mention air and dust, but are there other factors that contribute to the prevalence of POPs and how they are tracked indoors? Just a couple thoughts! Egilmore15 ( talk) 20:08, 2 February 2015 (UTC)Egilmore15
Certain sentences do not make sense anymore after these major changes. Some copyediting is needed. Smokefoot, could you make an attempt yourself (after having gone through your changes again)? -- Leyo 19:27, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
There is a redundancy of
Persistent organic pollutant#Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants and
Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants#Listed substances. It appeared with
this large addition that was made within the
Education Program.
I'd suggest that the redundancy is fixed by shortening the section in this article. --
Leyo
20:12, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
See here http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/emon/pubs/fatememo/glyphos.pdf . This is about as durable as other substances already mentioned here. -- Kku 16:03, 20 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding incorrectly signed comment added by Kku
I’m really interested in this, as to me, some plastics can undoubtedly be classified here, and are in definition a persistent organic pollutant.
I know this is my own classification, however there must be some kind of attribution or reference somewhere! Help! AnonKnowsBest ( talk) 17:25, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 August 2022 and 8 December 2022. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
ToxicologyVerify (
article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Spmg98 ( talk) 17:56, 28 September 2022 (UTC)