Ecological impact and environmental fate of perfluorooctane sulfonate on the zooplankton community in indoor microcosms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is presently a substantial amount of information being gathered concerning the environmental risk associated with the perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) compound. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) is requiring that more research be completed before making definitive decisions concerning the regulatory issues covered in the significant new use rule (18/10-2000) under the Toxic Substance Control Act. However, there are no risk assessment requirements under seminatural conditions in microcosms. The PFOS can enter, and has been found in, the aquatic environment through different pathways, including spills associated with use of fire-fighting foams containing PFOS, leaching from washing Scotchgard-treated clothes with the wastewater, leaching from various coatings, discharges as residual waste from fluorochemical production, or volatilization and transportation atmospherically. The biota is the sink of PFOS rather than the sediment or soil. The aim of this article is to determine a 35-d community no-observable-effect concentration (NOECcommunity) for freshwater zooplankton and the fate of PFOS during the course of study. The PFOS persisted in the water phase with only slight reductions over the study; only the decrease from 33.9 mg/L at day 1 to 29.8 mg/L at day 35 was significant. A 90 to 100% reduction (p < 0.01) of the total zooplankton population was found after one week of exposure to 30 mg PFOS/L and a similar reduction after two weeks at 10 mg PFOS/L. The Daphnia magna 21-d NOECsurvival of 12 mg/L has previously been found in a standard laboratory bioassay by 3M. The rank order of susceptibility for the test community was Copepoda > Cladocera > Rotifera, assuming all adverse direct effects.
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".