Differences in Soil Solution Chemistry between Soils Amended with Nanosized CuO or Cu Reference Materials: Implications for Nanotoxicity Tests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Soil toxicity tests for metal oxide nanoparticles often include micrometer-sized oxide and metal salt treatments to distinguish between toxicity from nanometer-sized particles, non-nanometer-sized particles, and dissolved ions. Test result will be confounded if each chemical form has different effects on soil solution chemistry. We report on changes in soil solution chemistry over 56 days-the duration of some standard soil toxicity tests-in three soils amended with 500 mg/kg Cu as nanometer-sized CuO (nano), micrometer-sized CuO (micrometer), or Cu(NO3)2 (salt). In the CuO-amended soils, the log Cu2+ activity was initially low (minimum -9.48) and increased with time (maximum -5.20), whereas in the salt-amended soils it was initially high (maximum -4.80) and decreased with time (minimum -6.10). The Cu2+ activity in the nano-amended soils was higher than in the micrometer-amended soils for at least the first 11 days, and lower than in the salt-amended soils for at least 28 d. The pH, and dissolved Ca and Mg concentrations in the CuO-amended soils were similar, but the salt-amended soils had lower pH for at least 14 d, and higher Ca and Mg concentrations throughout the test. Soil pretreatments such as leaching and aging prior to toxicity tests are suggested.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".