INVESTIGATION OF THE TOXICOKINETICS OF PETROLEUM HYDROCARBON DISTILLATES WITH THE EARTHWORM <i>EISENIA ANDREI</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Canada-wide standards for petroleum hydrocarbons in soils regulate petroleum hydrocarbons based on four distillate ranges: F1 (C6-C10), F2 (>C10-C16), F3 (>C16-C34), and F4 (>C34). Previous toxicity tests with earthworms and F2, as well as two subfractions of F3, F3a (>C16-C23) and F3a (>C23-C34), indicate that test durations might not be sufficiently long to reach threshold effect concentrations, likely because of the differing toxicokinetics for each distillate. A study was conducted to determine the toxicokinetics of both aliphatic and aromatic fractions of F2, F3a, and F3b with the earthworm Eisenia andrei. Peak accumulation curves were observed for F2 aliphatics and aromatics and F3a aromatics, likely as a result of changes in exposure concentration over the test duration via loss or a decrease in the bioavailable fraction. Biota-soil accumulation factors were >1 for total F2 aliphatics and aromatics and F3a aromatics as well as for several individual polyaromatic hydrocarbons for each distillate. Aromatics were disproportionately accumulated over aliphatics and were the main contributors to toxicity; therefore, aromatics and aliphatics should be regulated separately. The toxicokinetics were used to interpret previous toxicity data. Higher molecular weight distillates need longer-than-standard test durations to determine toxicity, so toxicity test results from fixed, standard-duration tests are not strictly comparable for these petroleum distillates.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".