environmental-pollution

name	environmental-pollution
description	Use when targeting Environmental Pollution or deciding whether a contamination/pollutant-impact manuscript fits this venue. Encodes the journal's fit, the source-fate-impact evidence bar, measurement-and-controls expectations, house style, official-submission re-check, and desk-reject heuristics.

Environmental Pollution (environmental-pollution)

Journal positioning

Environmental Pollution is the Elsevier journal for environmental contamination and its effects — the sources, fate, transport, and ecological and health impacts of pollutants across air, water, soil, and biota, including emerging contaminants, microplastics, metals, and persistent organics. Its defining expectation is rigorous evidence of pollutant impact, not mere detection: a study that quantifies a contaminant with sound measurement and controls and connects it to fate, transport, exposure, or an ecological/health effect. A "we detected X in Y" survey with no impact, mechanism, or fate insight — and no quantification beyond presence — is a weak fit. This skill is a fit / venue-selection / re-framing tool. It does not replace the journal's current author guidelines. Before submitting, re-check the live Environmental Pollution submission guidance.

When to trigger

• The author names Environmental Pollution and wants a fit/framing check for a contamination or pollutant-impact paper.
• An occurrence/monitoring survey must be re-framed around fate, transport, exposure, or a demonstrated ecological/health effect.
• The author is choosing between Environmental Pollution, an environmental-health venue, and a general environmental-science journal.
• The author needs this journal's measurement-rigor and impact-evidence bar and desk-reject heuristics.

Scope & topic fit

• Sources, occurrence, and environmental behavior (fate, transport, transformation, partitioning) of pollutants in air, water, soil, sediment, and biota.
• Emerging contaminants and microplastics/nanoplastics: occurrence, characterization, and documented environmental or biological effects.
• Metals, persistent organic pollutants, pesticides, and their bioaccumulation, biomagnification, and toxicity.
• Ecotoxicology and ecological impact of contamination at organism, population, community, or ecosystem level, with mechanistic or effect evidence.
• Human-exposure-relevant contamination when the environmental contamination process is central (the health endpoint is supportive, not the whole study).
• Remediation, mitigation, and pollution-control studies when contaminant behavior and effectiveness are quantitatively demonstrated.

Method & evidence bar

• The contribution must go beyond detection: quantify the contaminant and connect it to fate, transport, exposure, or an ecological/health effect with defensible evidence.
• Analytical measurements need validated methods, QA/QC, blanks, recovery, LOD/LOQ, and contamination control — especially critical for microplastics and trace contaminants.
• Sampling design must be representative and adequately replicated; spatial/temporal confounding and background levels must be addressed.
• Ecotoxicological and effect studies need proper controls, dose/concentration-response where relevant, environmentally realistic exposures, and statistics matched to the design.
• Fate/transport and modeling claims must be supported by data or validated models with uncertainty, not assumed.
• Causal or impact claims must be proportionate to the evidence; correlation between presence and an effect is not impact without mechanism or controlled comparison.

Structure & house style

• Standard research-article format; the journal also publishes reviews and shorter formats — re-check current article types and length on the live guide.
• The introduction must frame the contamination problem and the specific fate/impact gap, not only that a pollutant is topical.
• Figures and tables should be quantitative and impact-oriented (concentration distributions with QA/QC, dose-response, fate/transport results, effect endpoints), with method validation in SI.
• Methods, data, and QA/QC must support reproducibility; follow the journal's data-availability expectations and any contamination-control reporting (notably for microplastics).
• Graphical abstract and highlights are expected; re-check current specifications on the live guide.

Official-submission checklist

• Before giving submission-ready advice, read ../../resources/source-basis.md and ../../resources/official-source-map.md; start from the Elsevier anchors, then cite the current Environmental Pollution page you checked.
• Search the live site for "Environmental Pollution guide for authors" and follow the current Elsevier version.
• Re-check article types, length, abstract, and graphical-abstract/highlights requirements.
• Confirm QA/QC and contamination-control reporting expectations (e.g., blanks, recovery, microplastics protocols).
• Re-check data-availability, raw-data deposition, and supplementary-data policy.
• Re-check competing-interests, funding, author-contribution, and AI-use disclosure, and open-access terms.
• If the live official instructions conflict with this skill, the official instructions win.

Pre-submission self-check

• The study goes beyond "we detected X" to fate, transport, exposure, or a demonstrated effect.
• Analytical methods are validated with QA/QC, blanks, recovery, and LOD/LOQ reported.
• Sampling is representative and replicated, with background and confounding addressed.
• Effect/ecotoxicology work has controls, realistic exposures, and (where relevant) dose-response.
• Impact/causal claims are proportionate to the evidence, with mechanism or controlled comparison.
• Highlights, graphical abstract, and QA/QC reporting are prepared per the live guide.

Common desk-reject triggers

• An occurrence/monitoring survey reporting only presence, with no fate, exposure, or impact.
• Trace-contaminant or microplastics measurements with no QA/QC or contamination control.
• Ecotoxicology at unrealistic concentrations or without proper controls or dose-response.
• Impact claims from correlation alone, with no mechanism or controlled comparison.
• Single-site, single-time-point sampling presented as a general contamination conclusion.
• Scope mismatch: a human-health epidemiology paper, or a pure analytical-method or remediation-engineering paper, with no pollution-impact contribution.

Re-routing decision

• Human-exposure-to-health link is the core (epidemiology/exposome) → environment-international.
• Public-health/policy framing with NIEHS-style remit → environmental-health-perspectives.
• Biological/ecological response driven by global change rather than a pollutant → global-change-biology.
• Dietary-contaminant chemistry is the contribution → food-chemistry.
• Pollution-control technology/engineering emphasis → environmental-science-and-technology.

Output format

[Fit] High / Medium / Low (one-line reason)
[Target] Environmental Pollution
[Topic tags] <2–3 closest contamination/pollutant topics>
[Impact beyond detection] <the fate / transport / exposure / effect the study establishes>
[Method/evidence] <do QA/QC, sampling design, controls, and dose-response clear the bar?>
[Top risk] <the single most likely reason for rejection — often "detection-only">
[Official items to re-check] <article type / QA/QC reporting / highlights / data policy / disclosures>
[Re-route suggestion] <if not a fit, a better-matched venue>