Additional file 1 of Assessment of acute and chronic ecotoxicological effects of aqueous eluates of stone wool insulation materials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Additional file 1: Table S1. Composition of elution media (pH 6, pH 7 and pH 8) according to OECD Guideline No. 29 (OECD, 2001) and based on DIN EN ISO 6341 (DIN EN ISO, 2013). Text S1. Elution and sampling procedure of the pH screening test. Text S2. Results of the pH screening test and reasons for choosing pH 8 for the following experiments. Figure S1. Aluminum mean concentration and standard error in the eluates (n = 2) at pH 6 (circles), pH 7 (squares) and pH 8 (triangles), as detected by ICP-MS. Figure S2. Nickel mean concentration and standard error in the eluates (n = 2) at pH 6 (circles), pH 7 (squares) and pH 8 (triangles), as detected by ICP-MS. Table S2. Composition of elution medium used to prepare eluates for the algae growth inhibition test. Table S3. Composition of micronutrient supplement solution used in algae test and final concentration of micronutrients in the supplemented eluates. Table S4. Elements analyzed by ICP-MS and ICP-OES. Table S5. Limits of detection (LOD) and limits of quantification (LOQ) for the analyzed elements. Table S6. Instrumental settings for the NPOC measurement. Table S7. Limits of detection (LOD) and limits of quantification (LOQ) of the non-purgeable organic carbon analysis. Text S3. Culturing conditions for the test organisms. Table S8. Composition of liquid culture medium for Aliivibrio fischeri, according to on DIN EN ISO 11348-1 (DIN EN ISO, 2009). Table S9. Composition of protective medium for storage of luminescent bacteria, according to DIN EN ISO 11348-1 (DIN EN ISO, 2009). Table S10. Composition of algae culturing medium, based on Ebert (2014). Table S11. Composition of modified Aachener Daphnia Medium (ADaM), based on Klüttgen et al., (1994) and modified by Ebert et al. (1996). Table S12. Composition of nematode growth medium (NGM), based on ISO 10872 (ISO, 2010). Table S13. Relevant validation criteria of the ecotoxicity tests. Table S14. Initial algae biomass used to start the growth inhibition tests. Table S15. Parameters of fluorescence measurements in algae test. Figure S3. Linear correlation between fluorescence and number of algae cells per mL (R² = 0.9949). Table S16. Composition M9 medium. Text S4. Synchronization procedure for C. elegans. Table S17. Mean initial body length of nematodes determined at test start. Text S5. Preparation procedure for the E. coli OP50 feed stock. Table S18. Specific surface area of the test samples as determined by the BET method. Table S19. Results of DLS measurements in each sample analyzed. Table S20. Results for the validation criteria in the negative control replicates of the bioluminescence inhibition test. Table S21. Results for the validation criteria of the algae growth inhibition tests. Figure S4. Acute algae growth inhibition in the reference test with potassium dichromate. Figure S5. Acute effects (48 h) on Daphnia mobility in the reference test with potassium dichromate. Figure S6. Chronic effects (21 d) on Daphnia reproduction in the reference test with potassium dichromate. Figure S7. Chronic effects (96 h) on growth, fertility and reproduction of Caenorhabditis elegans in the reference test with Benzylcetyldimethylammonium chloride (BAC-C16). Table S22. Results for the validation criteria in the controls of the nematode growth and reproduction tests. Formula S1. Formula to calculate the Canadian Federal Water Quality Guideline (FWQG) for the protection of aquatic ecosystems from harmful effects of aluminum (Environment and Climate Change Canada, 2021) at a given pH value, water hardness (in mg CaCO3 eq./L) and DOC concentration (in mg/L).
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 | 0.002 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.886 | 0.192 |
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".