ArticleHeliyon2023
Comparison of the drinking water standard for pesticides of the Brazil with other countries.
Article in Heliyon, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Acaricidal efficacy of medicinal plants againstVeterinary and animal science · 2026Review
- Individual and Combined Effects of Commercial Glyphosate and Dicamba-Based Herbicide Formulations on Cytotoxicity, Oxidative Stress and Cell Death on Human Intestinal Caco-2 Cells.Journal of xenobiotics · 2026Article
- Upcycled Coffee Waste as Sustainable Sorbents for Monitoring Organophosphorus Pesticides in Environmental Waters.ACS omega · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The objective was to compare the types and concentrations of pesticides allowed in the water potability standard for human supply in Brazil with other countries considered to be the largest consumers of pesticides in dollars invested in purchase/trade. This is a descriptive and documentary study, with data collection in regulations available in official government websites in Brazil, USA, China, Japan, France, Germany, Canada, Argentina, India, Italy, and World Health Organization (WHO). Since Germany, France and Italy are part of the European Union (EU), the legislative resolution of the European Parliament was adopted. Pesticides number and maximum permitted values (MPV) differ between the countries and WHO. In the Brazilian ordinance there are forty pesticides, a number like the USA, Canada, China, and WHO, but that represents only 8% of the total pesticides registered for agricultural use in Brazil. When comparing the ordinance of Brazil with EU the values are only the same for Aldrin + Dieldrin. For other, amounts between 2 and 5000 times more are allowed in Brazil. Brazilian regulations do not establish a total value for the mixture of pesticides in water, only individual limits, which together can reach 1677.13 μg/L, while in EU standards it is only 0.5 μg/L. The study showed discrepancies of the pesticides allowed in water potability standard of the Brazil with other countries, but features 12 pesticides with the same concentrations as WHO guidelines, thus, a worldwide standardization in water potability regulations is necessary to promote health and reducing risk of exposure.
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.