Using ultrahigh-resolution mass spectrometry and toxicity identification techniques to characterize the toxicity of oil sands process-affected water: The case for classical naphthenic acids
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Previous assessments of oil sands process-affected water (OSPW) toxicity were hampered by lack of high-resolution analytical analysis, use of nonstandard toxicity methods, and variability between OSPW samples. We integrated ultrahigh-resolution mass spectrometry with a toxicity identification evaluation (TIE) approach to quantitatively identify the primary cause of acute toxicity of OSPW to rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). The initial characterization of OSPW toxicity indicated that toxicity was associated with nonpolar organic compounds, and toxicant(s) were further isolated within a range of discrete methanol fractions that were then subjected to Orbitrap mass spectrometry to evaluate the contribution of naphthenic acid fraction compounds to toxicity. The results showed that toxicity was attributable to classical naphthenic acids, with the potency of individual compounds increasing as a function of carbon number. Notably, the mass of classical naphthenic acids present in OSPW was dominated by carbon numbers ≤16; however, toxicity was largely a function of classical naphthenic acids with ≥17 carbons. Additional experiments found that acute toxicity of the organic fraction was similar when tested at conductivities of 400 and 1800 μmhos/cm and that rainbow trout fry were more sensitive to the organic fraction than larval fathead minnows (Pimephales promelas). Collectively, the results will aid in developing treatment goals and targets for removal of OSPW toxicity in water return scenarios both during operations and on mine closure. Environ Toxicol Chem 2017;36:3148–3157. © 2017 SETAC Abstract The aquatic toxicity of oil sands process-affected water was isolated to the organic fraction using toxicity identification evaluation techniques. The organic fraction was then further fractionated into different percent methanol fractions and analyzed for toxicity and naphthenic acids using ultrahigh-resolution Orbitrap mass spectrometry to confirm the potency of naphthenic acid species and identify those responsible for toxicity.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".