MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7064988172

A comparison of the bioaccumulation potential of three freshwater organisims exposed to sediment-associated contaminants under laboratory conditions

2011· article· en· W7064988172 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Atrium (University of Guelph) · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPower Transformer Diagnostics and Insulation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBioaccumulationPimephales promelasSedimentTrophic levelContaminationChironomus ripariusBioindicatorCrangon crangon
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the field of sediment quality assessment, increased support has been expressed for using multiple species that represent different taxa, trophic levels, and potential routes of exposure. However, few studies have compared the bioaccumulation potential of various test species over a range of sediment contaminants (hydrophobic organics and metals). As part of the development and standardization of a laboratory bioaccumulation method for the Ontario Ministry of the Environment, the oligochaete Lumbriculus variegatus, mayfly nymph Hexagenia spp., and juvenile fathead minnow Pimephales promelas were exposed to a variety of fieldcontaminated sediments (n¼10) to evaluate their relative effectiveness for accumulating different contaminants (e.g., dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane[DDT] and metabolites, polychlorinated biphenyls [PCBs), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons [PAHs), polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans [PCDD/Fs), and heavy metals). Bioaccumulation was usually highest in L. variegatus but also most variable within and (relative measures) between sediments. Bioaccumulation was similar between L. variegatus and Hexagenia spp. in most of the sediments tested. Significant differences in bioaccumulation between species were observed for DDT, dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane (DDD), PAHs, and PCDD/Fs. The present study indicates that species-specific differences in bioaccumulation may, but do not always, exist and can vary with contaminant and sediment type. The choice of test species or combination to use in a standard test method may depend on the objectives of the sediment quality assessment and data requirements of an ecological risk assessment. The results of the present study provide insight for selection of test species and validation of laboratory methods for assessing bioaccumulation with these species, as well as valuable information for interpreting results of bioaccumulation tests.

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.881
Threshold uncertainty score0.249

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.195 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Atrium (University of Guelph)Same topicPower Transformer Diagnostics and InsulationFrench-language works237,207