Evaluation of the effect of reactive sulfide on the acute toxicity of silver (I) to <i>Daphnia magna</i>. Part 1: Description of the chemical system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Experiments were designed to assess the potential protective effect of the presence of sulfide against the acute (48-h) toxicity of silver(I) to Daphnia magna. Tests were conducted in borosilicate glass beakers (250 ml) in moderately hard synthetic water. Toxicity solutions were replaced after 24 h by static renewal method. This paper describes the chemical system, and the acute toxicity results are presented in a companion paper. Sulfide was below detection limit (<5 nM) in controls with no sulfide added. Sulfide, added as zinc sulfide clusters at approximately 35- or approximately 350-nM concentration, dropped in concentration to approximately 25 and 250 nM, respectively, over the 24-h period of measurements. Silver also decreased in concentration during the experiment (up to 59%), and the rate of loss was greater in the absence of sulfide compared with the presence of sulfide. A filtration experiment indicated a 1:1 binding ratio of silver to sulfide and a conditional stability constant for the Ag(I)-zinc sulfide complex of log K' = 8.9. The losses of sulfide and silver during the experiments highlighted the need for regular monitoring of the important chemical components of the system, even during short (48-h) toxicity tests.
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".