ArticleEnvironmental science and pollution research international2017
Sublethal effect assessment of a low-power and dual-frequency anti-cyanobacterial ultrasound device on the common carp (Cyprinus carpio): a field study.
Article in Environmental science and pollution research international, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Contrasted effects of an anti-cyanobacterial ultrasound device on the non-target freshwater invertebrate species Gammarus roeseli.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The use of ultrasonication for cyanobacterial control in freshwater bodies has become increasingly popular during the last decades despite controversial efficiency on large scale application. Apart from that, little information is currently available regarding ultrasound toxicity potential towards non-target species. This work was designed to address this issue in the common carp using a low-power (7-9 W output) and dual-frequency (23 and 46 kHz) anti-cyanobacterial ultrasound device. Results showed that carps were unaffected by ultrasound exposure when exposed in floating cages in fish ponds over a 30-day period. The experiment duration was the main factor influencing all measured biological parameters in exposed and non-exposed organisms. Indeed, it was positively associated with an increase in fish condition factor. Cortisol level also tended to slightly increase over the number of days of experiment but its variation did not enable to sort out any ultrasound exposure-related stress. Moreover, an overall diminution along the experimental period of the expression level of a set of biomarkers could be reported, encompassing cellular antioxidant enzyme activities such as superoxide dismutase (SOD), glutathione peroxydase (GPx), catalase and glutathione S-transferase (GST), and lactate dehydrogenase activity. Subtle changes in these biomarkers were dependent of the type of enzyme activity and especially of the origin of fish (i.e., sampled pond) regardless of the presence of ultrasound equipment, reflecting thereby fish adaptation to local environmental conditions in each pond. In conclusion, this study does not provide indication that ultrasonication in the aforementioned conditions affects the welfare and physiological homeostasis of carps.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28039630What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.