Aquatic hazard assessment of MON 0818, a commercial mixture of alkylamine ethoxylates commonly used in glyphosate-containing herbicide formulations. Part 1: Species sensitivity distribution from laboratory acute exposures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The sensitivity of 15 aquatic species, including primary producers, benthic invertebrates, cladocerans, mollusks, and fish, to MON 0818, a commercial surfactant mixture of polyoxyethylene tallow amines, was evaluated in standard acute (48–96-h) laboratory tests. In addition, the potential for chronic toxicity (8 d) was evaluated with Ceriodaphnia dubia. Exposure concentrations were confirmed. No significant effects on any endpoint were observed in the chronic test. A tier-1 hazard assessment was conducted by comparing species sensitivity distributions based on the generated data, as well as literature data, with 4 exposure scenarios. This assessment showed moderate levels of hazard (43.1% of the species exposed at or above median effective concentration levels), for a chosen worst-case scenario—unintentional direct over-spray of a 15-cm-deep body of water with the maximum label application rate for the studied formulations (Roundup Original, Vision Forestry Herbicide; 12 L formulation ha−1, equivalent to 4.27 kg acid equivalent [a.e.] ha−1). The hazard decreased to impairment of 20.9% of species under the maximum application rate for more typical uses (6 L formulation ha−1, 2.14 kg a.e. ha−1), and down to 6.9% for a more frequently employed application rate (2.5 L formulation ha−1, 0.89 kg a.e. ha−1). Finally, the percentage (3.8%) was less than the hazardous concentration for 5% of the species based on concentrations of MON 0818 calculated from maximum measured concentrations of glyphosate in the environment. Environ Toxicol Chem 2017;36:501–511. © 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 | 0.000 | 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".