Assessment of sublethal ecotoxicity of solvents on larvae of a model native amphibian (<scp><i>Lithobates pipiens</i></scp>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Carrier solvents are used frequently in toxicity testing to assist hydrophobic chemicals into solution, but such solvents may have toxic effects on test subjects. Amphibians are model organisms in toxicity studies; however, little is known about the direct effects of solvents on native amphibians. Following modifications to standardized guidelines for native species, we used acute 96-hour exposures to assess the direct effects of three common solvents on survival, differences in morphology and occurrence of abnormalities of northern leopard frog larvae (Lithobates pipiens). The solvents, dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO), ethanol (ETOH) and acetone (ACE) were used at nominal concentrations ranging from 1 to 100 μL/L. We also conducted a 30-day exposure to assess the direct chronic effects of DMSO at 1 and 5 μL/L, on larval growth, development and sex differentiation, but found no effects. Acute exposure to solvents also had no effect on the survival of larvae, but we found significant abnormalities in tadpoles acutely exposed to 100 μL/L ACE. Acute exposure to DMSO and ETOH had further concentration-dependent effects on larval morphological traits. Our study suggests that DMSO and ETOH at ≤20 μL/L may be used as solvents in amphibian ecotoxicological studies, but ACE should be limited to ≤50 μL/L in ecotoxicity studies and perhaps much less (≤10 μL/L) in studies with other amphibians, based on a review of existing literature. We emphasize pilot studies when using solvents on acute and chronic ecotoxicity tests, using native amphibians.
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".