MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2066564855 · doi:10.1139/a00-010

Use and limitations of microbial bioassays for assessing copper bioavailability in the aquatic environment

2000· article· en· W2066564855 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jennifer L. Stauber, Cheryl M. Davies

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Reviews · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHeavy metals in environment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBioassayEnvironmental chemistryBioavailabilityAquatic ecosystemCopper toxicityEnvironmental scienceBiotic Ligand ModelEcotoxicityOrganismMetal toxicityBiologyToxicityEcotoxicologyEcologyChemistryHeavy metals

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although chemical measurement techniques and geochemical speciation modelling may detect and predict the different forms of copper in aquatic systems and hence provide some information about the likely toxicity of the water to aquatic organisms, they do not give direct quantitative data on adverse biological effects. Bioassays or toxicity tests are generic tests that use living organisms as indicators of contaminant bioavailability in aquatic systems. The microbial community, including protozoa, algae, bacteria, and fungi, provides a useful tool for directly assessing the hazard of copper in natural ecosystems. Most of our information on copper toxicity in aquatic systems comes from single-species tests using cultured organisms. However, whole community bioassays with natural phytoplankton and bacterial populations are finding increasing use. Although laboratory toxicity tests using ionic copper spiked into pristine seawater or synthetic softwater provide information on copper toxicity under controlled conditions, their usefulness for estimating bioavailable copper is limited in natural waters, where copper toxicity is ameliorated by complexation and adsorption. Careful selection of appropriately sensitive test species, bioassay endpoints, and test protocols is necessary to ensure the environmental relevance of the bioassays used. An understanding of metal speciation, metal-cell binding, mechanisms of toxicity, and limitations of the bioassays is required to understand copper bioavailability in natural waters and sediments. In this review, the use of bioassays with bacteria and microalgae for assessing copper bioavailability in marine and fresh waters and sediments is discussed, with particular emphasis on the limitations of current techniques. There is an urgent need for more environmentally relevant tests with sufficient sensitivity to detect bioavailable copper at concentrations close to water and sediment quality guideline values. Key words: bioassay, copper, metal, bioavailability, toxicity, bacteria, algae.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.063

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.098
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.185 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations145
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental ReviewsSame topicHeavy metals in environmentFrench-language works237,207