Oil and oil dispersant do not cause synergistic toxicity to fish embryos
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Atlantic herring (Clupea harengus) embryos were exposed to water accommodated fractions (WAFs; oil dissolved in water) and chemically enhanced water accommodated fractions (CEWAFs; oil dispersed in water with Corexit 9500A) of Medium South American (MESA) crude oil. The CEWAF was approximately 100-fold more toxic than WAF based on nominal loadings of test solutions (% v/v). In contrast, the ratio of WAF and CEWAF toxicity expressed as measured oil concentrations approximated 1.0, indicating that the higher toxicity of CEWAFs was caused by an increase in exposure to hydrocarbons with chemical dispersion. In a second experiment, the chronic toxicity of Corexit 9500A and chemically dispersed heavy fuel oil 7102 (HFO 7102) to rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) embryos was compared to chemically dispersed Nujol, a nontoxic mineral oil. Dispersant alone was toxic, but caused different signs of toxicity than HFO 7102. Nujol at a dispersant-to-oil ratio of 1:20 was nontoxic, suggesting that dispersant was sequestered by oil and not present at toxic concentrations. In contrast, the same nominal loadings of dispersed HFO 7102 caused concentration-dependent increases in toxicity. Both experiments suggest that chemically dispersed oil was more toxic to fish embryos than solutions created by mechanical mixing due to the increased exposure of fish to petroleum hydrocarbons and not to changes in hydrocarbon toxicity. The Nujol control discriminated between the toxicity of oil and chemical dispersant and would be a practical addition to programs of dispersant testing.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.001 |
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 teacher head, 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".