Toxicity of four sulfonamide antibiotics to the freshwater amphipod <i>Hyalella azteca</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sulfonamides are a widely used class of antibiotics; however, there are few toxicological data available with which to conduct environmental risk assessments for these compounds. Therefore, the toxicity of four sulfonamides (sulfaguanidine, sulfathiazole, sulfamerazine, and sulfasalazine) to Hyalella azteca was assessed in chronic (four-week), water-only exposures. Survival was evaluated weekly, and growth was measured at the end of the test. Four-week lethal concentrations associated with 50% mortality (LC50s) for sulfaguanidine, sulfathiazole, and sulfamerazine were 0.90, 1.6, and 3.9 µM, respectively. Sulfaguanidine caused effects on survival more quickly and at lower concentrations than sulfathiazole or sulfamerazine. These differences were more pronounced at week 1 than week 4, when sulfaguanidine LC50s were 8 to 20 times lower and 2 to 4 times lower, respectively. Growth was affected by sulfathiazole but was a less sensitive end point than survival, with an effective concentration associated with 50% reduction in growth (EC50) of 13 µM, whereas sulfaguanidine and sulfamerazine caused negligible effects on growth. Sulfasalazine had no effect on survival or growth at any concentration tested, up to 13 µM. The effects observed in the present study occurred at concentrations exceeding those typically found in environmental waters. However, given that LC50s decreased with exposure duration (except for sulfasalazine), the present study demonstrates the importance of conducting longer-term tests to adequately assess the environmental toxicity of sulfonamides.
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".