MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1541327068 · doi:10.1155/2015/501326

Toxic Effects of Nickel Oxide Bulk and Nanoparticles on the Aquatic Plant<i>Lemna gibba</i>L.

2015· article· en· W1541327068 on OpenAlexafffund
Abdallah Oukarroum, Lotfi Barhoumi, Mahshid Samadani, David Dewez

Bibliographic record

VenueBioMed Research International · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicNanoparticles: synthesis and applications
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsLemna gibbaNickel oxideNon-blocking I/OReactive oxygen speciesChemistryNanoparticleEnvironmental chemistryNickelBiophysicsAquatic plantMaterials scienceNanotechnologyBiologyBiochemistryEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aquatic plant Lemna gibba L. was used to investigate and compare the toxicity induced by 30 nm nickel oxide nanoparticles (NiO-NPs) and nickel(II) oxide as bulk (NiO-Bulk). Plants were exposed during 24 h to 0-1000 mg/L of NiO-NPs or NiO-Bulk. Analysis of physicochemical characteristics of nanoparticles in solution indicated agglomerations of NiO-NPs in culture medium and a wide size distribution was observed. Both NiO-NPs and NiO-Bulk caused a strong increase in reactive oxygen species (ROS) formation, especially at high concentration (1000 mg/L). These results showed a strong evidence of a cellular oxidative stress induction caused by the exposure to NiO. Under this condition, NiO-NPs and NiO-Bulk induced a strong inhibitory effect on the PSII quantum yield, indicating an alteration of the photosynthetic electron transport performance. Under the experimental conditions used, it is clear that the observed toxicity impact was mainly due to NiO particles effect. Therefore, results of this study permitted determining the use of ROS production as an early biomarker of NiO exposure on the aquatic plant model L. gibba used in toxicity testing.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.435

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.089
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.258 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations51
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBioMed Research InternationalSame topicNanoparticles: synthesis and applicationsFrench-language works237,207