Chronic effects of polychlorinated dibenzofurans on mink in laboratory and field environments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mink are often used as a sentinel species in ecological risk assessments of chemicals such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDDs), and dibenzofurans (PCDFs) that cause toxicity mediated through the aromatic hydrocarbon receptor. Considerable toxicological information is available on the effects of PCBs and PCDDs on mink, but limited toxicological information is available for PCDFs. Thus, exposure concentrations at which adverse effects occur could not be determined reliably for complex mixtures in which PCDFs dominate the total calculated concentration of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin equivalent (TEQ). Two studies were conducted to evaluate the potential toxicity of PCDFs to mink. The first was a chronic exposure, conducted under controlled laboratory conditions, in which mink were exposed to 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzofuran (2,3,7,8-TCDF) concentrations as great as 2.4 x 10(3) ng 2,3,7,8-TCDF/kg wet-weight (ww) diet or 2.4 x 10(2) ng TEQ(2006-WHO-mammal)/kg ww diet. In that study, transient decreases in body masses of kits relative to the controls was the only statistically significant effect observed. The second study was a 3-y field study during which indicators of individual health, including hematological and morphological parameters, were determined for mink exposed chronically to a mixture of PCDDs and PCDFs under field conditions. In the field study, there were no statistically significant differences in any of the measured parameters between mink exposed to a median estimated dietary dose of 31 ng TEQ(2006-WHO-mammal)/kg ww and mink from an upstream reference area where they had a median dietary exposure of 0.68 ng TEQ(2006-WHO-mammal)/kg ww. In both studies, concentrations of TEQ(2006-WHO-mammal) to which the mink were exposed exceeded those at which adverse effects, based on studies with PCDD and PCB congeners, would have been expected. Yet in both instances where PCDF congeners were the sole or predominant source of the TEQ(2006-WHO-mammal), predicted adverse effects were not observed. Taken together, the results of these studies suggest that the values of the mammalian-specific toxicity equivalency factors suggested by the World Health Organization overestimate the toxic potency of PCDFs to mink. Therefore, hazard cannot be accurately predicted by making comparisons to toxicity reference values derived from exposure studies conducted with PCBs or PCDDs in situations where mink are exposed to TEQ mixtures dominated by PCDFs.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".