The use of toxicity bioassays to monitor the recovery of oiled wetland sediments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Six toxicity assays were compared to determine their efficacy in assessing toxicity dynamics during a wetland bioremediation study. The toxicity bioassays used were the Microtox 100% elutriate test, Microtox Solid Phase Test (SPT), amphipod assay, P450 reporter gene system, Toxi-ChromoPad test and a Salmonella/microsome assay. Oiled sediments were analyzed for toxicity in the petroleum biostimulation experiment conducted along the San Jacinto River, near Houston (TX, USA). The bioassays were evaluated for their ability to measure acute toxicity, chronic toxicity, and the mutagenic potential of amended oiled plots as compared to oiled and unoiled control plots. Amendments were diammonium phosphate alone or in combination with potassium nitrate, which served as an alternate electron acceptor. With exception of the Toxi-ChromoPad and Salmonella tests, the bioassays exhibited a significant increase in toxicity after oil application. Microtox bioassays detected significant sediment toxicity up to 29 d after oil and amendment application. The Microtox solid phase test results correlated strongly with gas chromatography-mass spectrometry analyses of total target saturate and aromatic hydrocarbons. The amphipod assay detected initial toxicity with a decline to day 70, followed by a significant increase in toxicity on day 140 in plots receiving nutrient amendments, which may be in response to excessive nutrient application. Low levels of enzyme induction were observed with the P450 reporter gene system assay in all oiled sediments throughout the study, suggesting low but persistent levels of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Of the six tests, the two Microtox tests and the amphipod test showed the most potential in evaluating petroleum toxicity in wetland sediments.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".