Cited by 282Environmental Toxicology and EcotoxicologyWater Quality and Resources StudiesCrustacean biology and ecology

Statistical models to predict the toxicity of major ions to Ceriodaphnia dubia, Daphnia magna and Pimephales promelas (fathead minnows)

Mount, David R, Gulley, David D, Hockett, J Russell, Garrison, Tyler D, Evans, James M·1997·Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry

Abstract

Toxicity of fresh waters with high total dissolved solids has been shown to be dependent on the specific ionic composition of the water. To provide a predictive tool to assess toxicity attributable to major ions, we tested the toxicity of over 2,900 ion solutions using the daphnids, Ceriodaphnia dubia and Daphnia magna, and fathead minnows (Pimephales promelas). Multiple logistic regression was used to relate ion composition to survival for each of the three test species. In general, relative ion toxicity was K+ > HCO3− ≈ Mg2+ > Cl− > SO42−; Na+ and Ca2+ were not significant variables in the regressions, suggesting that the toxicity of Na+ and Ca2+ salts was primarily attributable to the corresponding anion. For C. dubia and D. magna, toxicity of Cl−, SO42−, and K+ was reduced in solutions enriched with more than one cation. Final regression models showed a good quality of fit to the data (R2 = 0.767–0.861). Preliminary applications of these models to field-collected samples indicated a high degree of accuracy for the C. dubia model, while the D. magna and fathead minnow models tended to overpredict ion toxicity.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/etc.5620161005

Cites

16 of 16 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mount, D. R., Gulley, D. D., Hockett, J. R., Garrison, T. D., & Evans, J. M.
Affiliations
  • Environmental Protection Agency (US)
  • University of Wyoming (US)
  • ENSR Consulting and Engineering, Fort Collins, Colorado 80521, USA
  • Gas Research Institute, Chicago, Illinois 60631, USA
Corresponding author
Mount, David R
Venue
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry
Published
1997-10-01
Volume
16
Issue
10
Pages
2009-2019
ISSN
  • 0730-7268 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-8618
OpenAlex
W2097363884
Cited by
282
References
16
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 19 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 11
FWCI
2.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Environmental Toxicology and Ecotoxicology
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Water Science and Technology › Water Quality and Resources Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Crustacean biology and ecology
Keywords
major ions, ion toxicity, total dissolved solids, freshwater ecotoxicity, Ceriodaphnia dubia, Daphnia magna, fathead minnow, survival prediction, multivariate logistic regression, cation-anion interactions, chloride, sulfate, potassium, bicarbonate, magnesium, sodium, calcium, water quality assessment

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review