Assessment of toxicity of two types of drill cuttings from a drilling rig on the Trinidad East coast using<i>Metamysidopsis insularis</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated the relative toxicity of water-based cuttings (WBC) and synthetic oil-based cuttings (SOBC) to the marine species, Metamysidopsis insularis. Results obtained indicate that SOBC (LC50 1.2 (0.85–1.6)%) was more toxic to M. insularis than WBC (LC50 9.9 (8.3–11.8)%), with similar metal contents in both types of cuttings. The elevated levels of metals found in the cuttings when compared to surficial sediments may be due to both drilling fluids, as well as the rock strata from which the cuttings were obtained. Furthermore, total petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH) analyses demonstrated significantly higher concentrations of TPH present in SOBC (14,680 ± 1250 mg kg−1) compared to WBC (860 ± 115 mg kg−1). This may also be due to the increased depth and hence oil bearing rock formations in the selected sampling area, along with the associated synthetic oil-based drilling fluid. These findings therefore supply evidence that drill cuttings after treatment prior to discharge are potentially toxic to marine organisms.
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) | 0.001 | 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".