Single-walled carbon nanotubes toxicity to the freshwater amphipod Hyalella azteca: influence of sediment and exposure duration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Carbon nanomaterials are present in various industrial applications and therefore their release into the environment including freshwater ecosystem is expected to increase. The aim of the present study was to investigate the influence of several parameters on the toxicity of single-walled carbon nanotubes (SWCNT) to the freshwater amphipod, Hyalella azteca. The effect of period of exposure, sediment presence and possible impurities released during SWCNT preparation on survival and/or growth of such organism was evaluated. We measured a reduction of survival at concentrations ranging from 10 to 40 mg/L after 96-h exposure, while no mortality was observed with the same concentrations and in the presence of artificial sediment after 14 days of exposure. It is possible that SWCNT are adsorbed on the organic matter from the artificial sediment leading to a decrease of SWCNT bioavailability. The survival and growth toxicity tests revealed a stronger effect at 28 days compared to the 14 days of exposure, and full mortality of organisms at 1000 mg/L for both exposure times. The presence of SWCNT in the gut of survived organisms was observed. The present study demonstrates that the interaction with sediment should be considered when carbon nanotubes toxicity through water exposure is investigated.
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".