Toxicity of Cúspide 480SL® spray mixture formulation of glyphosate to aquatic organisms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2011, an alternative formulation of glyphosate (Cúspide 480SL®) was chosen to replace Roundup-SL®, Fuete-SL®, and Gly-41® for the control of Erythroxylum coca, the source of cocaine, in Colombia. Cúspide 480SL contains the active ingredient glyphosate isopropylamine (IPA) salt, which is the same active ingredient used in previous formulations. However, Cúspide 480SL contains an alkyl polyglycoside surfactant rather than the polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA) surfactant used in other formulations and known to be more toxic to nonprimary producing aquatic organisms than glyphosate itself. An adjuvant, Cosmo-Flux F411, and water also are added to the spray mixture before application. Aquatic ecosystems adjacent to the target coca fields might be exposed to the spray mix, placing aquatic organisms at risk. Because no toxicity data were available for spray mixture on aquatic organisms, acute toxicity tests were conducted on aquatic plants, invertebrates, and fish, by using the Cúspide 480SL spray mix as described on the label. Based on the median effective concentration (EC50) values for similar organisms, the spray mixture was less toxic to aquatic organisms than formulations previously used for the control of coca (i.e., Roundup-SL, Fuete-SL, and Gly-41). A physical effect induced by Cosmo-Flux F411 was observed in Daphnia magna, Ceriodaphnia dubia, and Hyalella azteca, causing the invertebrates to be trapped in an oily film that was present at the surface of the water. However, a hazard assessment for the Cúspide 480SL spray mix, using estimated worst-case exposure scenario concentrations and EC50 values from the toxicity tests, indicated de minimis hazard for the tested aquatic animals, with hazard quotients all <<1.
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".