Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29725885›Full record

ArticleEcotoxicology (London, England)2018

Ecotoxicological assessment of the herbicide Winner Top and its active substances-are the other formulants truly inert?

Libânia Queirós, Tânia Vidal, António J A Nogueira, Fernando J M Gonçalves, Joana Luísa Pereira

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Ecotoxicology (London, England), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 47% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Libânia QueirósDepartment of Biology & CESAM (Centre for Environmental and Marine Studies), University of Aveiro, Aveiro, 3810-193, Portugal. libania.queiros@ua.pt.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4887-3188
Tânia VidalDepartment of Biology & CESAM (Centre for Environmental and Marine Studies), University of Aveiro, Aveiro, 3810-193, Portugal.
António J A NogueiraDepartment of Biology & CESAM (Centre for Environmental and Marine Studies), University of Aveiro, Aveiro, 3810-193, Portugal.
Fernando J M GonçalvesDepartment of Biology & CESAM (Centre for Environmental and Marine Studies), University of Aveiro, Aveiro, 3810-193, Portugal.
Joana Luísa PereiraDepartment of Biology & CESAM (Centre for Environmental and Marine Studies), University of Aveiro, Aveiro, 3810-193, Portugal.
University of Aveiro · PT

Funding

Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia SFRH/BD/129871/2017Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia SFRH/BDP/94562/2013Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia SFRH/BPD/101971/2014Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia UID/AMB/50017
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Formulants used in Plant Protection Products (PPPs) to promote their efficiency are normally undisclosed in the PPP documentation, unless they bear a human health or environmental hazardous potential per se. PPP regulation also demands the assessment of putative interactions among formulants within each product recipe and consequent effects, but these results are often unavailable. Such a case is that of the herbicide Winner Top (Selectis®, Portugal), which we selected as a model commercial formulation in the present study specifically aiming at (i) characterising its aquatic toxicity towards sensitive eco-receptors (Raphidocelis subcapitata, Chlorella vulgaris, Lemna minor and Lemna gibba), as well as that of its active substances (a.s.) nicosulfuron and terbuthylazine; (ii) comparing the ecotoxicity among the commercial formulation, the corresponding mixture of its a.s. and this a.s.'s mixture increasingly enriched with the formulants. Single chemical testing revealed that terbuthylazine was the strongest microalgae growth inhibitor and nicosulfuron was the strongest macrophyte growth inhibitor. On the other hand, the commercial formulation was consistently less toxic than the corresponding mixture of the a.s., suggesting that Winner Top formulants (72.9% of the commercial formulation) interact with the a.s., promoting less than additive effects in the selected non-target species. Importantly, this environmentally protective effect of the formulation can be apparent. Because macrophytes share most physiological features with the weeds targeted by the studied herbicide, it is likely that increased application doses are required to reach desired efficacy levels with the consequent detrimental increase of PPP residues load in edge-of-field freshwater ecosystems.

Indexed as

AraceaeChlorellaChlorophytaHerbicidesToxicity TestsWater Pollutants, ChemicalHerbicidesWater Pollutants, ChemicalFormulant mixtureNicosulfuronNon-target aquatic speciesTerbuthylazineWinner Top

Identifiers

PMID29725885
OpenAlexW2799508749

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.