ArticleMolecules (Basel, Switzerland)2018
Evaluation of Highly Detectable Pesticides Sprayed in
Article in Molecules (Basel, Switzerland), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Design, synthesis, and insecticidal activity evaluation of piperine derivatives.Frontiers in chemistry · 2022Article
- Special Issue "Chemical Speciation of Organic and Inorganic Components of Environmental and Biological Interest in Natural Fluids: Behaviour, Interaction and Sequestration".Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- Sulfoxaflor Residues in Pollen and Nectar of Cotton Applied through Drip Irrigation and Their Potential Exposure toInsects · 2020Article
- Dissipation Dynamics and Dietary Risk Assessment of Kresoxim-Methyl Residue in Rice.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Honeybees are major pollinators of agricultural crops and many other plants in natural ecosystems alike. In recent years, managed honeybee colonies have decreased rapidly. The application of pesticides is hypothesized to be an important route leading to colony loss. Herein, a quick, easy, cheap, effective, rugged, and safe (QuEChERS) method was used to determine eight highly detectable pesticides (carbendazim, prochloraz, pyrimethanil, fenpropathrin, chlorpyrifos, imidacloprid, thiamethoxam, and acetamiprid) in rape flowers. A field experiment was conducted at the recommended dose to evaluate the contact exposure risk posed to honeybees for 0⁻14 days after treatment. The initial residue deposits of neonicotinoids and fungicides among these compounds were 0.4⁻1.3 mg/kg and 11.7⁻32.3 mg/kg, respectively, and 6.4 mg/kg for fenpropathrin and 4.2 mg/kg for chlorpyrifos. The risk was quantified using the flower hazard quotient (FHQ) value. According to the data, we considered imidacloprid, thiamethoxam, chlorpyrifos, fenpropathrin, and prochloraz to pose an unacceptable risk to honeybees after spraying in fields, while fungicides (carbendazim and pyrimethanil) and acetamiprid posed moderate or acceptable risks to honeybees. Therefore, acetamiprid can be used instead of imidacloprid and thiamethoxam to protect rape from some insects in agriculture, and the application of prochloraz should be reduced.
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.