Using an interlaboratory study to revise methods for conducting 10-d to 42-d water or sediment toxicity tests with<i>Hyalella azteca</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Studies have been conducted to refine US Environmental Protection Agency, ASTM International, and Environment Canada standard methods for conducting 42-d reproduction tests with Hyalella azteca in water or in sediment. Modifications to the H. azteca method include better-defined ionic composition requirements for exposure water (i.e., >15 mg/L of chloride and >0.02 mg/L of bromide) and improved survival, growth, and reproduction with alternate diets provided as increased rations over time in water-only or whole-sediment toxicity tests. A total of 24 laboratories volunteered to participate in the present interlaboratory study evaluating the performance of H. azteca in 42-d studies in control sand or control sediment using the refined methods. Improved growth and reproduction of H. azteca was observed with 2 alternate diets of 1) ramped diatoms (Thalassiosira weissflogii) + ramped Tetramin or 2) yeast-cerophyll-trout chow (YCT) + ramped Tetramin, especially when compared with results from the traditional diet of 1.8 mg YCT/d. Laboratories were able to meet proposed test acceptability criteria and in most cases had lower variation in growth or reproduction compared with previous interlaboratory studies using the traditional YCT diet. Laboratory success in conducting 42-d H. azteca exposures benefited from adherence to several key requirements of the detailed testing, culturing, and handling methods. Results from the present interlaboratory study are being used to help revise standard methods for conducting 10-d to 42-d water or sediment toxicity exposures with H. azteca. Environ Toxicol Chem 2016;35:2439-2447. © 2016 SETAC.
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 | 0.023 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".