Toxicokinetics Of 2,3,7,8-TCDF and 2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF in Mink (Mustela vison) at Ecologically Relevant Exposures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wild mink (Mustela vison) living along the Tittabawassee River in central Michigan exhibit elevated hepatic and dietary polychlorinated dibenzofuran (PCDF) concentrations exceeding mink-specific, literature-reported toxicity reference values (TRVs) on a toxicity equivalents basis. However, no apparent effects on individuals or population are evident, suggesting that available TRVs may overpredict risk for the site-specific mix of congeners. To investigate this discrepancy, a 180-day spiked feed study was conducted to assess: (1) the dosages of key congeners necessary to achieve liver concentrations bracketing those observed in wild mink, (2) time to achieve steady-state concentrations, and (3) effect of coadministration of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzofuran (TCDF) and 2,3,4,7,8-pentachlorodibenzofuran (4-PeCDF) on the toxicokinetics and distribution of each congener. Adipose and hepatic PCDF concentrations were measured at 0, 90, and 180 days. PCDF concentrations in mink scat were determined at several time points and indicated nearly complete absorption of both TCDF and 4-PeCDF from the diet. Elimination half-times of TCDF were < 15 h and were inversely proportional to dose, while those for 4-PeCDF were approximately 7-9 days with no clear dose dependency in the tested dose range. Coadministration of 4-PeCDF and TCDF accelerated clearance of TCDF compared to administration of TCDF alone. Clearance of 4-PeCDF was not affected by TCDF coadministration. Distribution of 4-PeCDF, but not TCDF, demonstrated increased hepatic sequestration with increasing dose. 4-PeCDF toxicokinetics were described using a previously published two-compartment model. Overall, the toxicokinetic information gathered here illustrates the impact of CYP1A1 induction on bioaccumulation and toxicity potential of TCDF and 4-PeCDF. This information may provide insight into why the current TRVs do not appear to correctly characterize the risk for these two congeners when they are the primary components of an environmental mixture.
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) | 0.000 | 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".