Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35232234›Full record

SynthesisProceedings. Biological sciences2022

'Inert' ingredients are understudied, potentially dangerous to bees and deserve more research attention.

Edward A Straw, Linzi J Thompson, Ellouise Leadbeater, Mark J F Brown

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Proceedings. Biological sciences, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review: the risks of spray adjuvants to honey bees.Journal of insect science (Online) · 2023
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

4 authors.

Edward A StrawCentre for Ecology, Evolution and Behaviour, Department of Biological Sciences, School of Life Sciences and the Environment, Royal Holloway University of London, Egham, Surrey TW20 0EX, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-3205-9157
Linzi J ThompsonDepartment of Agriculture and Food Science, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin, Ireland.ORCID 0000-0001-6570-6192
Ellouise LeadbeaterCentre for Ecology, Evolution and Behaviour, Department of Biological Sciences, School of Life Sciences and the Environment, Royal Holloway University of London, Egham, Surrey TW20 0EX, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4029-7254
Mark J F BrownCentre for Ecology, Evolution and Behaviour, Department of Biological Sciences, School of Life Sciences and the Environment, Royal Holloway University of London, Egham, Surrey TW20 0EX, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-8887-3628

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Agrochemical formulations are composed of two broad groups of chemicals: active ingredients, which confer pest control action, and 'inert' ingredients, which facilitate the action of the active ingredient. Most research into the effects of agrochemicals focusses on the effects of active ingredients. This reflects the assumption that 'inert' ingredients are non-toxic. A review of relevant research shows that for bees, this assumption is without empirical foundation. After conducting a systematic literature search, we found just 19 studies that tested the effects of 'inert' ingredients on bee health. In these studies, 'inert' ingredients were found to cause mortality in bees through multiple exposure routes, act synergistically with other stressors and cause colony level effects. This lack of research is compounded by a lack of diversity in study organism used. We argue that 'inert' ingredients have distinct, and poorly understood, ecological persistency profiles and toxicities, making research into their individual effects necessary. We highlight the lack of mitigation in place to protect bees from 'inert' ingredients and argue that research efforts should be redistributed to address the knowledge gap identified here. If so-called 'inert' ingredients are, in fact, detrimental to bee health, their potential role in widespread bee declines needs urgent assessment.

Indexed as

PesticidesAnimalsAttentionBeesPesticidesadjuvantbeesco-formulantinert ingredientspesticidessystematic review

Identifiers

PMID35232234
PMCPMC8889201

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.