Identification of Chemicals that Cause Oxidative Stress in Oil Sands Process-Affected Water
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Oil sands process-affected water (OSPW) has been reported to cause oxidative stress in organisms, yet the causative agents remain unknown. In this study, a high-throughput in vitro Nrf2 reporter system was used, to determine chemicals in OSPW that cause oxidative stress. Five fractions, with increasing polarity, of the dissolved organic phase of OSPW were generated by use of solid phase extraction cartridges. The greatest response of Nrf2 was elicited by F2 (2.7 ± 0.1-fold), consistent with greater hydroperoxidation of lipids in embryos of Japanese medaka ( Oryzias latipes ) exposed to F2. Classic naphthenic acids were mainly eluted in F1, and should not be causative chemicals. When F2 was fractionated into 60 subfractions by use of HPLC, significant activation of Nrf2 was observed in three grouped fractions: F2.8 (1.30 ± 0.01-fold), F2.16 (1.34 ± 0.05-fold), and F2.25 (1.28 ± 0.15-fold). 54 compounds were predicted to be potential chemicals causing Nrf2 response, predominated by SO 3 + and O 3 + species. By use of high-resolution MS 2 spectra, these SO 3 + and O 3 + species were identified as hydroxylated aldehydes. This study demonstrated that polyoxygenated chemicals, rather than classic NAs, were the major chemicals responsible for oxidative stress in the aqueous phase of OSPW.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".