Insights into In Situ Benthic Caging Tests for Ecotoxicity Assessments Targeting Discharging Groundwater Contaminant Plumes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While in situ toxicity testing with caged organisms has been used to assess surface water and sediment contamination, no successful application to benthic organisms exposed to highly contaminated groundwater plumes discharging to surface waters has been reported. The objective of this study was to demonstrate and evaluate this application using four sets of tests performed at three previously reported contaminated groundwater sites, which include one river site affected by volatile organic contaminant plumes, and two sites, one pond and one small urban stream, impacted by landfill plumes. The study examined multiple cage designs and orientations and two test organisms: an amphipod (Hyalella azteca) and midge larvae (Chironomus riparius; only one study). Cages were deployed for between 5 and 28 days and assessed for organism survival and growth. At all sites and for some deployment conditions, cages exposed to high contaminant concentrations in the plume footprint had greater mortality compared to those exposed to lower or background concentrations. Organism growth was less clear as a metric of toxicity. Vertically oriented cages typically showed high mortality to plume contaminants, but some were also affected by other non-target groundwater conditions (e.g., low dissolved oxygen, other contaminant sources), while horizontally oriented cages were rarely responsive to either groundwater influence. A hybrid cage design showed much promise in its single study. Useful observations on the test organisms and on potentially problematic site conditions were also made. The informed use of in situ toxicity cages could be an additional beneficial tool for groundwater contaminated site assessments.
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) | 0.001 | 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".