ArticleEcotoxicology (London, England)2018
Ecotoxicological assessment of the herbicide Winner Top and its active substances-are the other formulants truly inert?
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.
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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pesticides: formulants, distribution pathways and effects on human health - a review.Toxicology reports · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
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
Identifiers
What 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.