ArticleBulletin of environmental contamination and toxicology2021
Counting Enchytraeus crypticus Juveniles in Chronic Exposures: An Alternative Method for Ecotoxicity Studies Using Tropical Artificial Soil.
Article in Bulletin of environmental contamination and toxicology, 2021. 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.
- Evaluating White Worm (Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Soil toxicity tests are commonly applied using Enchytraeus crypticus to analyze reproductive outputs. However, the traditional method for counting potworms takes a long time due to the significant number of offspring. This paper compares the conventional total counting of E. crypticus juveniles (M1) and an alternative methodology (M2). The proposed methodology (M2) uses a simple random counting method (1/4) for the partial counting of juveniles and total estimation. Chronic bioassays (21 days of exposure) were performed in tropical artificial soil (TAS) using sugarcane vinasse as a hazardous substance. Comparing the final density of juveniles recorded in M1 and M2, no statistical differences were pointed out in either one. Applying analyses based on effective concentration (EC10 and EC50), no statistical differences were identified there either. The t-test showed that there was no statistical difference between the counting methods (M1 and M2) in each treatment (control and dilutions). Moreover, we ran the Tukey test for M1 and M2 methods separately and observed that 100 % of the vinasse showed a statistical difference compared to the control treatment in both (p ≤ 0.05), affirming that independent of the counting method, the ecotoxicological outputs were similar. Therefore, the proposed alternative is a suitable method for bioassay using. E. crypticus in tropical artificial soil, decreasing to 1/4 the total time required for counting.
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.