Screening of genotoxicity and mutagenicity in extractable organics from oil sands process–affected water
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Large volumes of oil sands process-affected water (OSPW) are produced by the oil sands surface mining industry during alkaline hot-water extraction of bitumen. It is well documented that the acid extractable organics (AEOs) in OSPW, a highly complex mixture of acidic and polar neutral substances, are acutely toxic; but few studies have examined the genotoxicity or mutagenicity of this mixture. In the present study, the in vitro SOS Chromotest and the Ames test (TA98 and TA100 strains) were used to evaluate genotoxicity and mutagenicity for whole OSPW AEOs in the presence and absence of biotransformation by rat S9 liver enzymes. Two subfractions were also examined in the same assays: neutral extractable fraction (F1-NE), and the subsequent acid extractable fraction (F2-AE). In the SOS assay, whole AEO was cytotoxic when concentrated 2× (i.e., twice as concentrated as the environmental sample) and showed increasing genotoxic response above 6×. Co-exposure with S9 had a protective effect on the cell SOS-inducing factor and survival but did not eliminate genotoxicity above 6× concentrations. Most of the cytotoxicity was attributable to F2-AE, but both F1-NE and F2-AE had similar genotoxic dose-responses above 6×. In the Ames test without S9, whole AEO was mutagenic in both strains above 10× concentrations. Co-incubation with S9 had little effect on the TA100 strain but with TA98 resulted in bioactivation at midlevel doses (1.5-6.3×) and protection at higher doses (10-25×). The 2 subfractions were mutagenic in both strains but with different dose-responses. Further research in vivo or in more relevant cells is warranted to investigate the carcinogenic risks of OSPW. Environ Toxicol Chem 2017;36:1397-1404. © 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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".