The Impact of Egg Ozonation on Hatching Success, Larval Growth, and Survival of Atlantic Cod, Atlantic Salmon, and Rainbow Trout
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The direct exposure of fish eggs to ozonated water has generated interest as a means of ensuring pathogen-free eggs without the use of harsh chemicals. However, there are numerous knowledge gaps, including safe contact times, exposure levels, and potential long-term effects on aquaculture species in both freshwater and seawater. The effect of different ozone (O3) doses (0.5-1.0, 1.5-2.0, and 2.5-3.0 mg of O3/L for 90 s) on recently fertilized eggs of Atlantic Cod Gadus morhua and eyed eggs of Atlantic Salmon Salmo salar and Rainbow Trout Oncorhynchus mykiss was evaluated in comparison with the effects of two commercial disinfectants: Perosan (0.004 mg/L) and Ovadine (100 mg/L). The impact of ozone application was evaluated based on hatching success, larval nucleic acid concentration, larval growth, and survival. Overall, results indicated that ozonation of Atlantic Cod eggs at a dose less than 3.0 mg/L for 90 s produced no negative effect on the larvae up to 30 d posthatch. Furthermore, ozonation of Atlantic Salmon and Rainbow Trout eggs generated no negative effect on the larvae, based on monitoring until 85% yolk sac re-absorption (16 d posthatch).
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".