Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35412009›Full record

ArticleIntegrated environmental assessment and management2023

Estimating dermal contact soil exposure for amphibians.

S Thomas Purucker, Marcía N Snyder, Donna A Glinski, Robin J Van Meter, Kristina Garber, Emma A Chelsvig, Michael J Cyterski, Sumathy Sinnathamby, Elizabeth A Paulukonis, W Matthew Henderson

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Integrated environmental assessment and management, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

10 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

S Thomas PuruckerUSEPA Office of Research and Development, Durham, North Carolina, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9669-6975
Marcía N SnyderUS Forest Service, Region 6, Corvallis, Oregon, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2202-2668
Donna A GlinskiNational Research Council, Athens, Georgia, USA.
Robin J Van MeterWashington College, Chestertown, Maryland, USA.
Kristina GarberUSEPA Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, Washington, District of Columbia, USA.
Emma A ChelsvigOak Ridge Institute for Science and Education, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
Michael J CyterskiUSEPA Office of Research and Development, Athens, Georgia, USA.
Sumathy SinnathambyUSEPA Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, Washington, District of Columbia, USA.
Elizabeth A PaulukonisOak Ridge Institute for Science and Education, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
W Matthew HendersonUSEPA Office of Research and Development, Athens, Georgia, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2800-8536
Environmental Protection Agency · USOak Ridge Associated Universities · USNational Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine · USUS Forest Service · USWashington College · US

Funding

Intramural EPA EPA999999U.S. Environmental Protection Agency through Interagency Agreement No. DW8992298301 bet
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Chemical exposure estimation through the dermal route is an underemphasized area of ecological risk assessment for terrestrial animals. Currently, there are efforts to create exposure models to estimate doses from this pathway for use in ecological risk assessment. One significant limitation has been insufficient published data to characterize exposure and to support the selection and parameterization of appropriate models, particularly for amphibians in terrestrial habitats. Recent publications measuring pesticide doses to terrestrial-phase amphibians have begun to rectify this situation. We collated and summarized available measurements of terrestrial amphibian dermal exposure to pesticides from 11 studies in which researchers measured tissue concentrations associated with known pesticide experimental application rates. This data set included tissue concentrations in 11 amphibian species and 14 different pesticides. We then compared the results of two screening exposure models that differed based on surface area scaling approaches as a function of body weight (one based on birds as surrogates for amphibians and another amphibian-specific) to the measured tissue residue concentrations. We define a false-negative rate for each screening model as the proportion of amphibians for which the predicted concentration is less than the observed concentration (i.e., underestimate), contrary to the intent of screening models, which are intended to have a bias for higher exposure concentrations. The screening model that uses birds as surrogates did not have any instances where estimated expected avian doses were less than measured amphibian body burdens. When using the amphibian-specific exposure model that corrected for differences between avian and amphibian surface area, measured concentrations were greater than model estimates for 11.3% of the 1158 comparisons. The database of measured pesticide concentrations in terrestrial amphibians is provided for use in calculating bioconcentration factors and for future amphibian dermal exposure model development. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2023;19:9-16. © 2022 SETAC. This article has been contributed to by U.S. Government employees and their work is in the public domain in the USA.

Indexed as

AmphibiansPesticidesAnimalsEcosystemSoilPesticidesSoilAmphibiansDermal contactExposure modelingPesticidesTerrestrial

Identifiers

PMID35412009
PMCPMC11429039
OpenAlexW4223425918

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.