Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28944437›Full record

ArticleEnvironmental science and pollution research international2017

No effect of insect repellents on the behaviour of Lymnaea stagnalis at environmentally relevant concentrations.

Patrick Fink, Eric von Elert

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 37% 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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Patrick FinkCologne Biocenter, Workgroup Aquatic Chemical Ecology, University of Cologne, Zülpicher Strasse 47b, 50674, Köln, Germany. fink@limno.net.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5927-8977
Eric von ElertCologne Biocenter, Workgroup Aquatic Chemical Ecology, University of Cologne, Zülpicher Strasse 47b, 50674, Köln, Germany.
University of Cologne · DE

Funding

German Federal Environment Agency (UBA) FKZ 3712 67 417 2
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Insect repellents are widely applied to various materials and to both human and animal skin to deter mosquitoes and ticks. The most common deterrent compounds applied are DEET, EBAAP and icaridin (picaridin, Bayrepel). Due to their extensive application, these repellents are frequently detected in surface waters in considerable concentrations. As these compounds are designed to alter invertebrates' behaviour rather than to intoxicate them, we hypothesised that insect repellents have the potential to modify the natural behaviour of non-target invertebrates in natural freshwater bodies. To test this, we used a well-established laboratory assay designed to quantify the odour-mediated foraging behaviour of freshwater gastropods and the great pond snail Lymnaea stagnalis (Linnaeus, 1758) as a model organism to test for potential deterrent effects of insect repellents on aquatic snails. Using a wide concentration range from the picogramme per litre to microgramme per litre range (and by far exceeding the range of concentrations reported from natural waters), we found no evidence for a deterrent effect of either of the three repellents on foraging L. stagnalis. Our data and other recent studies give no indication for undesirable behavioural alterations by common insect repellents in surface waters.

Indexed as

AnimalsBehavior, Animalbeta-AlanineDEETInsect RepellentsLymnaeaModels, AnimalPiperidinesbeta-AlanineDEETinsect repellent M 3535Insect RepellentspicaridinPiperidinesDEETEBAAPFood searchingGastropodaIcaridinInfochemicalsSemiochemicals

Identifiers

PMID28944437
OpenAlexW2758071151

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.