<i>In Vivo</i> Bioconcentration of 10 Anionic Surfactants in Rainbow Trout Explained by <i>In Vitro</i> Data on Partitioning and S9 Clearance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
High Resolution Image Download MS PowerPoint Slide Bioconcentration factors (BCFs) in rainbow trout were measured for 10 anionic surfactants with a range of alkyl chain lengths and different polar head groups. The BCFs ranged from 0.04 L kg –1 ww (for C 10 SO 3 ) to 1370 L kg –1 ww (C 16 SO 3 ). There was a strong correlation between the log BCF and log membrane lipid–water distribution ratio ( D MLW, r 2 = 0.96), and biotransformation was identified as the dominant elimination mechanism. The strong positive influence of D MLW on BCF was attributed to two phenomena: (i) increased partitioning from water into the epithelial membrane of the gill, leading to more rapid diffusion across this barrier and more rapid uptake, and (ii) increased sequestration of the surfactant body burden into membranes and other body tissues, resulting in lower freely dissolved concentrations available for biotransformation. Estimated whole-body in vivo biotransformation rate constants k B-BCF are within a factor three of rate constants estimated from S9 in vitro assays for six of the eight test chemicals for which k B-BCF could be determined. A model-based assessment indicated that the hepatic clearance rate of freely dissolved chemicals was similar for the studied surfactants. The dataset will be useful for evaluation of in silico and in vitro methods to assess bioaccumulation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".