MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409211165 · doi:10.1016/j.ecoenv.2025.118127

Acute toxicity of three alkylbenzene sulfonates in six freshwater aquatic species

2025· article· en· W4409211165 on OpenAlex
Houda Hanana, Ève A.M. Gilroy, Adrienne J. Bartlett, Chris J. Bennett, Cassandra Brinovcar, Lorraine L. Brown, Stacey Clarence, Amila O. De Silva, Patricia L. Gillis, Amanda M. Hedges, Hilal Musadiq Khan, Carlo Lavalle, Joanne L. Parrott, Victor Pham-Ho, Joseph Salerno, Karen Shires, Magali Houde

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueEcotoxicology and Environmental Safety · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental Chemistry and Analysis
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
FundersEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
KeywordsToxicityLinear alkylbenzeneAquatic toxicologyAcute toxicityEnvironmental chemistryChemistryPulmonary surfactantOrganic chemistryBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Alkylbenzene sulfonates (ABS) are surfactants widely used in residential and commercial products. To support the environmental risk assessment of these compounds, the acute toxicity of three ABS, linear (n-ABS), branched (BABS), and alkyl phenoxybenzene sulfonates (APBS), was evaluated using six aquatic organisms from different trophic levels (algae, daphnid, amphipod, mussel, snail, and fish). This approach allowed direct comparisons among species to provide insights into species sensitivity to these surfactants, and among compounds to provide information on those with a lack of ecotoxicity data (e.g., BABS, APBS). Endpoints related to survival, growth, and physiological changes were recorded. Comparisons among the three ABS were based on nominal concentrations due to the absence of pure analytical standards for APBS. However, analytical methods were developed for BABS and available for n-ABS, so effects of these compounds were also evaluated based on measured concentrations. Results showed differences in sensitivity among compounds for all species exposed to environmental concentrations of ABS, except for snails, which showed similar sensitivity to all surfactants and were among the most tolerant species. Based on nominal concentrations, the EC50/LC50 values for n-ABS, BABS, and APBS ranged, respectively, from 5.0 to 17.8 mg/L, 7.3 to 25.6 mg/L, and 3.5 to > 100 mg/L. The most sensitive species to n-ABS were fish, mussels, and amphipods, while amphipods and mussels were the most sensitive to BABS and APBS, respectively. Species sensitivity was also evaluated using measured concentrations of n-ABS and BABS. The results indicated that EC50/LC50 values varied from 1.24 to 13.13 mg/L and from 1.53 to 5.21 mg/L for n-ABS and BABS, respectively, and were in the range of concentrations reported in environmental surface waters. Amphipods and mussels could therefore be relevant sensitive model organisms for the environmental risk assessment of n-ABS and BABS.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.122
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.004
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.189 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it