CHLORODIFLUOROACETIC ACID FATE AND TOXICITY TO THE MACROPHYTES LEMNA GIBBA, MYRIOPHYLLUM SPICATUM, AND MYRIOPHYLLUM SIBIRICUM IN AQUATIC MICROCOSMS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chlorodifluoroacetic acid (CDFA) is a novel haloacetic acid (HAA) and has been recently documented in aquatic systems. It is a suspected degradation product of the refrigerants 1,1,2-trichloro-1,1-difluoroethane (CFC-113) and 1-chloro-1,1-difluoroethane (HCFC-142b). Haloacetic acids can be phytotoxic, putatively acting through inhibition of the citric acid cycle. Replicate (n = 3) 12,000-L model aquatic ecosystems (microcosms) were dosed once at 0.5, 1, 5, and 20 mg/L of neutralized CDFA. Three microcosms served as controls. Each microcosm was stocked with eight individual apical shoots of both Myriophyllum spicatum and Myriophyllum sibiricum and sampled at regular intervals over a 42-d exposure period. The plants were assessed for the somatic endpoints of plant length, root growth, node number, and wet and dry mass and the biochemical endpoints of chlorophyll-a/b and carotenoid content as well as citric acid levels. The duckweed Lemna gibba was also introduced into these systems and monitored over a period of 14 d for wet/dry mass, plant/frond number, chlorophyll content, and growth rate. Concentrations of CDFA remained constant in the water column over the course of the fate investigation (241 d), indicating that this compound undergoes little, if any, degradation in aquatic systems. Results showed few statistically significant differences from controls for all three plant species with exposure to CDFA but no biologically relevant impacts. Overall, CDFA does not appear to pose any risk to these aquatic macrophytes at current environmental concentrations.
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) | 0.000 | 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 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".