Size distribution effects of cadmium tellurium quantum dots (CdS/CdTe) immunotoxicity on aquatic organisms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The increasing use of products derived from nanotechnology has raised concern about their potential toxicity to aquatic life. This study sought to examine the comparative immunotoxicity of capped cadmium sulphide/cadmium telluride (CdS/CdTe) quantum dots (QDs) and possible impact of particle/aggregate size on two bivalves (Mytilus edulis and Elliptio complanata) and a fish (Oncorhynchus mykiss). The QDs were dispersed in sterile water and fractionated using a series of micro/ultrafiltration membranes of decreasing pore size: 450 nm, 100 nm, 50 nm, 25 nm, 100 kDa (6.8 nm), 30 kDa (4.6 nm), 10 kDa (3.2 nm) and 1 kDa (1.5 nm). The total concentrations of cadmium and tellurium were determined for the filtered material and for that retained on the filters (retentate). The immunotoxicity was determined by measuring cell viability and phagocytosis. Results revealed that nanoparticles retained on the ultrafilters had a higher Cd/Te ratio compared to the permeate fraction (ratio of 5 and 2 respectively) which could indicate that the CdS core was not associated with the permeable fraction of Cd. Our results demonstrate that the toxicity of CdS/CdTe QDs was concentration and size dependent. Large CdS/CdTe QD aggregates (25 nm < size < 100 nm) reduced phagocytosis more than did smaller nanoparticles (<25 nm). Moreover, our results revealed that the different species responded differently to these fractions. Mytilus edulis hemocytes were less sensitive to CdS/CdTe QDs than the Oncorhynchus mykiss macrophage and Elliptio complanata hemocytes.
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".