Acute Toxicity of Monochloramine to Juvenile Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Walbaum) and Ceriodaphnia dubia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A comprehensive data set for the acute toxicity of monochloramine to juvenile chinook salmon, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha, and the aquatic invertebrate Ceriodaphnia dubia are presented. For exposures up to 10 days, the equation LC50 = 7244t-0.4525 (where LC50 = monochloramine concentration in μg/L for 50% lethality and t = time in minutes) can predict the LC50 value for monochloramine in juvenile chinook salmon and accounts for 94.4% of the variability in the experimental data. Predictions of acute toxicity were less reliable for concentrations in the range 0.5 mg/L to 0.8 mg/L since the time to 50% mortality (LT50) value varied substantially in this range. Post-exposure mortality occurred only with exposures of >0.67 mg/L monochloramine. Feeding fish immediately before and during acute monochloramine exposure created a large chloramine demand in test chambers. In all tests where fish were fed, measured monochloramine concentrations were below detectable levels (<10 μg/L) and no fish mortality occurred. Monochloramine toxicity to the freshwater invertebrate Ceriodaphnia dubia was studied with time-to-lethality tests at 26 different concentrations. The equation LC50 = 61600t-1.0748 predicted the LC50 value for monochloramine in C. dubia and accounted for 94.8% of the variability in the experimental data. The mathematical equations that describe the LC50 for juvenile chinook salmon and C. dubia were used as reference lines for the evaluation of relative monochloramine toxicity. Both juvenile chinook salmon and C. dubia were among the most sensitive fish and aquatic invertebrate species, respectively, C. dubia being more sensitive than juvenile chinook salmon for exposure durations >30 minutes.
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".