Water, Waste & Pollution

Biomagnification

The increase in concentration of persistent substances at each successive trophic level of a food chain — why top predators carry the heaviest toxic loads.

Established · Version 0.1

Definition

The process by which the concentration of certain substances — such as mercury, DDT, PCBs and other persistent, fat-soluble pollutants — increases at each successive level of a food chain or food web, so that top predators accumulate far higher concentrations than the organisms they feed on.

References

Overview

What it means

Biomagnification acts across the food chain, while its companion process, bioaccumulation, acts within a single organism over its lifetime; the two compound. Energy loss between trophic levels forces predators to consume many times their weight in prey, concentrating retained toxins with every meal.

Classic consequences include DDT-driven eggshell thinning in birds of prey and methylmercury levels in large predatory fish that trigger human consumption advisories.

How it is used

The concept underpins PBT (persistent, bioaccumulative, toxic) screening in chemicals regulation, fish-consumption guidance, and monitoring of indicator species such as raptors and marine mammals. It also explains why pollutants banned decades ago still circulate in food webs.

Why it matters

Biomagnification is the mechanism that converts diffuse, low-level pollution into concentrated harm for wildlife and for communities dependent on fish — the core argument for eliminating persistent chemicals at source rather than managing them downstream.

Review

Public comments appear only after editor acceptance. Draft comments stay in the review queue.

0
How people contribute

Reviewers choose the definition or an overview paragraph, leave a comment or replacement, and attach evidence or a source link.

How comments are used

Editors compare reviewer cards side by side. AI may help find agreement, conflicts, unsupported claims and possible source issues.

What gets published

Only an editor-accepted synthesis changes the public page. Reviewer identities are shown only with consent and an editorial decision to attribute them.

No editor-accepted reviews yet

Submitted reviews stay private until an editor decides whether to accept and attribute them.

Contribute to this entry

Help improve this definition

Your contribution is private while it is checked. Nothing changes on this page unless an editor accepts it.

How review works

Loading verified endorsements… Endorsements are not votes and never determine publication.

Endorse this definition

Endorse the exact version shown here. This is not a vote, and publication remains an editorial decision.

v0.1

Sign-in supplies your email for necessary follow-up; it is not displayed publicly. We do not ask you to enter it again.

Sign in to your account before submitting.

Review board

Comment on a specific line. Each reviewer stays separate until an editor accepts a merged draft.

1Separate reviewer cards

Each person comments on the definition or overview in their own draft card, with role, evidence and suggested wording kept together.

2AI comparison

AI can compare comments against the current text, flag conflicting claims, surface missing evidence and identify where reviewers agree.

3Editor synthesis

An editor merges compatible suggestions into a draft change, checks sources, records disagreements and decides what can be published.

Text to reviewChoose the exact definition or overview paragraph.
Reviewer commentDraft only. Not public until editor accepted.
Definition
Reviewer identityYour signed-in account identifies the submission. We use its email only for verification and necessary follow-up, and never display it publicly.
Before you submit

This proposal follows the editorial and AI-assistance rules. The live definition will not change until an editor accepts it.

  • Add the proposed wording or note.
  • Explain why the change is needed.
  • Ready
  • Ready

Sign in to your account before submitting.

You can still save a draft, but completing these items makes editorial review faster. Multiple reviewers can suggest changes on the same text. Editors compare, merge, accept or decline them before any public change.