Microscale and molecular analyses of river biofilm communities treated with microgram levels of cerium oxide nanoparticles indicate limited but significant effects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cerium oxide (CeO2) nanoparticles are used as in-fuel catalysts and in manufacturing processes, creating a potential for release to aquatic environments. Exposures at 1 and 10 μg/L CeO2-nanoparticles were made to assess effects during the development of river biofilm communities. Scanning transmission x-ray microscopy (STXM) indicated extensive sorption of nanoparticles to the community and co-localization with lipid moieties. Following 8 weeks of development, polycarbonate coupons were removed from the reactors and used for molecular analyses, denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis analysis (DGGE-16S rRNA) and 16S rRNA amplicon sequencing. Microscopic imaging of the biofilm communities (bacterial, photosynthetic biomass, exopolymer composition, thickness, protozoan numbers), as well as carbon substrate utilization fingerprinting was performed. There was a trend toward reduced photosynthetic biomass, but no significant effects of CeO2 exposure were found on photosynthetic and bacterial biomass or biofilm thickness. Sole carbon source utilization analyses indicated increased utilization of 10 carbon sources in the carbohydrate, carboxylic acid and amino acids categories related to CeO2 exposures; however, predominantly, no significant effects (p < 0.05) were detected. Measures of microbial diversity, lectin binding affinities of exopolymeric substances and results of DGGE analyses, indicated significant changes to community composition (p < 0.05) with CeO2 exposure. Increased binding of the lectin Canavalia ensiformis was observed, consistent with changes in bacterial-associated polymers. Whereas, no significant changes were observed in binding to residues associated with algal and cyanobacterial exopolymers. 16S rRNA amplicon sequencing of community DNA indicated changes in diversity and shifts in community composition; however, these did not trend with increasing CeO2 exposure. Counting of protozoans in the biofilm communities indicated no significant effects on this trophic level. Thus, based on biomass and functional measures, CeO2 nanoparticles did not appear to have significant effects; however, there was evidence of selection pressure resulting in significant changes in microbial community composition.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".