Toxicity of a cadmium-contaminated diet to <i>Hyalella azteca</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Four- and 10-week chronic toxicity tests were conducted using the freshwater amphipod Hyalella azteca and Cd-contaminated Chlorella sp. as a food source. Chlorella sp. was cultured in various Cd concentrations, filtered from solution, rinsed, dried, and ground into food flakes for the H. azteca. Unlike Cd toxicity from water sources, growth was found to be a more sensitive toxicological endpoint than survival, with calculated 50 and 25% effect concentrations (EC50s and EC25s, respectively) of 5.43 and 2.82 nmol/g, respectively, for Cd measured in food. Based on the regression of Cd in Chlorella sp. against Cd in filtered culture medium, the EC50 and EC25 corresponded to dissolved Cd concentrations of 11.30 and 5.09 nmol/L, respectively. Little or no bioaccumulation of Cd was found in the tissues of H. azteca that were fed contaminated food. These results demonstrate an apparent toxicological effect (either direct or indirect) of Cd-contaminated Chlorella sp. to H. azteca that is not associated with Cd accumulation. Toxicity of Cd-contaminated Chlorella sp. differs from waterborne Cd toxicity both in terms of the most sensitive endpoint (growth vs survival) and the relationship between toxicity and bioaccumulation. Unlike Cd toxicity through water exposure, Cd bioaccumulation by H. azteca cannot, therefore, be used to infer toxicity of Cd in a diet of Chlorella sp. Although the concentration of Cd in the algal culture medium that ultimately reduced growth of H. azteca in the present study was higher than Cd in water, which caused mortality to H. azteca in water-only tests during previous studies, further research regarding the contribution of dietary Cd to overall Cd toxicity is needed to verify that water-quality guidelines and risk assessments based on water-only exposures are fully protective.
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".