Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30365179›Full record

ReviewEnvironmental toxicology and chemistry2019

Oil toxicity test methods must be improved.

Peter V Hodson, Julie Adams, R Stephen Brown

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Environmental toxicology and chemistry, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
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

3 authors.

Peter V HodsonSchool of Environmental Studies, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.
Julie AdamsSchool of Environmental Studies, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.
R Stephen BrownSchool of Environmental Studies, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A review of the literature on oil toxicity tests showed a high diversity of reported test methods that may affect the composition, stability, and toxicity of oil solutions. Concentrations of oil in test solutions are dynamic because hydrocarbons evaporate, partition to test containers, bioaccumulate, biodegrade, and photo-oxidize. As a result, the composition and toxicity of test solutions may vary widely and create significant obstacles to comparing toxicity among studies and to applying existing data to new risk assessments. Some differences in toxicity can be resolved if benchmarks are based on measured concentrations of hydrocarbons in test solutions, highlighting the key role of chemical analyses. However, analyses have often been too infrequent to characterize rapid and profound changes in oil concentrations and composition during tests. The lack of practical methods to discriminate particulate from dissolved oil may also contribute to underestimating toxicity. Overall, current test protocols create uncertainty in toxicity benchmarks, with a high risk of errors in measured toxicity. Standard oil toxicity tests conducted in parallel with tests under site-specific conditions would provide an understanding of how test methods and conditions affect measured oil toxicity. Development of standard test methods could be achieved by collaborations among university, industry, and government scientists to define methods acceptable to all 3 sectors. Environ Toxicol Chem 2019;38:302-311. © 2018 The Authors. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of SETAC.

Indexed as

AnimalsAquatic OrganismsEcotoxicologyGuidelines as TopicPetroleumPetroleum PollutionToxicity TestsWater Pollutants, ChemicalPetroleumWater Pollutants, ChemicalOil toxicityReviewSite-specificStandardTest methods

Identifiers

PMID30365179
PMCPMC7379545

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.