Fathead Minnows Exposed to Organic Compounds from Oil Sands Tailings as Embryos Have Reduced Survival, Impaired Development, and Altered Behaviors That Persist into Larval Stages
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Our study evaluated whether exposure to naphthenic acid fraction compounds (NAFCs) extracted from oil sands process–affected waters (OSPW) has adverse effects on fish embryos that persist into later life. We exposed fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas) embryos to concentrations of NAFCs found in OSPW (2.5–54 mg/L) for 7 days (1 day postfertilization to hatch), then raised surviving larvae in outdoor mesocosms of uncontaminated lake water for 1 month. Embryos exposed to NAFCs were more likely to exhibit malformations (by up to 8-fold) and had slower heart rates (by up to 24%) compared to controls. Fish raised in uncontaminated lake water following exposure to NAFCs as embryos, were 2.5-fold less likely to survive during the larval stage than control fish. These fish also showed up to a 45% decrease in swim activity and a 36% increase in swim burst events during behavioral tests relative to controls. We conclude that exposure to NAFCs during the embryonic stage can have lasting effects on fish survival, physiology, and behavior that persist at least through the larval stage. These findings of delayed mortalities and persistent sublethal effects of embryonic NAFC exposure are relevant to informing the development of regulations on treated OSPW releases from mining operations. Environ Toxicol Chem 2022;41:1319–1332. © 2022 The Authors. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of SETAC. Abstract Embryonic exposure of fathead minnows (Pimephales promelas) to naphthenic acid fraction components derived from oil sands tailings in a seminatural setting had adverse effects on survival, development, and behavior that persisted into larval stages. NAFC = naphthenic acid fraction component.
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".