Overview of results from the WaterTox intercalibration and environmental testing phase II program: Part 2, ecotoxicological evaluation of drinking water supplies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Because of rapid population growth, industrial development, and intensified agricultural production increasing amounts of chemicals are being released into the environment, polluting receiving water bodies around the world. Given the potential health risk associated with the presence of toxicants in water sources used for drinking yet the scarcity of available data, there is a need to evaluate these waters and develop strategies to reduce and prevent their contamination. The present study examined the applicability of a battery of simple, inexpensive bioassays in environmental management and the relevance of the test results in establishing the toxicological quality of water sources and drinking water within the framework of the eight-country WaterTox Network, sponsored by the International Development Research Centre, Ottawa, Canada. Seventy-six samples were collected from surface and groundwater sources and seven samples from drinking water treatment plants. Each sample was tested with a core battery of bioassays (Daphnia magna, Hydra attenuata, and Lactuca sativa root inhibition tests) and a limited set of physical and chemical parameters. In addition, three labs included the Selenastrum capricornutum test. When no toxic effects were found with the battery, samples were concentrated 10x using a solid-phase extraction (SPE) procedure. Nonconcentrated natural water samples produced a toxic response in 24% of cases with all three core bioassays. When all bioassays are considered, the percentage of raw samples showing toxicity with at least one bioassay increased to 60%. Of seven treated drinkingwater samples, four showed toxicity with at least one bioassay, raising the possibility that treatment processes in these instances were unable to remove toxic contaminants. The Daphnia magna and Hydra attenuata tests indicated a high level of sensitivity overall. Although only three of the eight countries used S. capricornutum, it proved to be an efficient and reliable bioassay for toxicity assessment.
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 | 0.013 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".