Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37300923›Full record

ArticleAquatic toxicology (Amsterdam, Netherlands)2023

Improving the design and conduct of aquatic toxicity studies with oils based on 20 years of CROSERF experience.

W A Stubblefield, M Barron, G Bragin, M E DeLorenzo, B de Jourdan, B Echols, D P French-McCay, P Jackman, J R Loughery, T F Parkerton and 2 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Aquatic toxicology (Amsterdam, Netherlands), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 32% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 9 institutions in 2 countries.

W A StubblefieldOregon State University, USA. Electronic address: bill.stubblefield@oregonstate.edu.
M BarronUnited States Environmental Protection Agency (retired), USA.
G BraginExxonMobil Biomedical Sciences, Inc., USA.
M E DeLorenzoNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), USA.
B de JourdanHuntsman Marine Science Centre, St. Andrews, New Brunswick, Canada.
B EcholsEnvironmental Toxicology Associates LLC, USA.
D P French-McCayRPS Group, USA.
P JackmanEnvironment and Climate Change Canada (retired), Canada.
J R LougheryHuntsman Marine Science Centre, St. Andrews, New Brunswick, Canada.
T F ParkertonEnviSci Consulting, LLC, USA.
D A RenegarNova Southeastern University, USA.
J L Rodriguez-GilInternational Institute for Sustainable Development Experimental Lakes Area (IISD-ELA), Canada.
Huntsman Marine Science Centre · CAEnvironmental Protection Agency · USEnvironment and Climate Change Canada · CAExxonMobil (United States) · USInternational Institute for Sustainable Development · CANational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration · USNova Southeastern University · USOregon State University · USSociety of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry · US

Funding

Intramural EPA EPA999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Laboratory toxicity testing is a key tool used in oil spill science, spill effects assessment, and mitigation strategy decisions to minimize environmental impacts. A major consideration in oil toxicity testing is how to replicate real-world spill conditions, oil types, weathering states, receptor organisms, and modifying environmental factors under laboratory conditions. Oils and petroleum-derived products are comprised of thousands of compounds with different physicochemical and toxicological properties, and this leads to challenges in conducting and interpreting oil toxicity studies. Experimental methods used to mix oils with aqueous test media have been shown to influence the aqueous-phase hydrocarbon composition and concentrations, hydrocarbon phase distribution (i.e., dissolved phase versus in oil droplets), and the stability of oil:water solutions which, in turn, influence the bioavailability and toxicity of the oil containing media. Studies have shown that differences in experimental methods can lead to divergent test results. Therefore, it is imperative to standardize the methods used to prepare oil:water solutions in order to improve the realism and comparability of laboratory tests. The CROSERF methodology, originally published in 2005, was developed as a standardized method to prepare oil:water solutions for testing and evaluating dispersants and dispersed oil. However, it was found equally applicable for use in testing oil-derived petroleum substances. The goals of the current effort were to: (1) build upon two decades of experience to update existing CROSERF guidance for conducting aquatic toxicity tests and (2) to improve the design of laboratory toxicity studies for use in hazard evaluation and development of quantitative effects models that can then be applied in spill assessment. Key experimental design considerations discussed include species selection (standard vs field collected), test substance (single compound vs whole oil), exposure regime (static vs flow-through) and duration, exposure metrics, toxicity endpoints, and quality assurance and control.

Indexed as

PetroleumPetroleum PollutionWater Pollutants, ChemicalHydrocarbonsOilsWaterHydrocarbonsOilsPetroleumWaterWater Pollutants, ChemicalAquatic toxicity test methodsAquatic toxicologyCROSERF

Identifiers

PMID37300923
PMCPMC12290910
OpenAlexW4377100890

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.