Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39030647›Full record

ArticleParasites & vectors2024

Exploring sources of inaccuracy and irreproducibility in the CDC bottle bioassay through direct insecticide quantification.

Evah F Peard, Calvin Luu, Kimberly J Hageman, Rose Sepesy, Scott A Bernhardt

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Parasites & vectors, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Combined effect of methanolic extracts ofParasite epidemiology and control · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

5 authors.

Evah F PeardDepartment of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Utah State University, Logan, UT, USA.
Calvin LuuDepartment of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Utah State University, Logan, UT, USA.
Kimberly J HagemanDepartment of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Utah State University, Logan, UT, USA. kim.hageman@usu.edu.
Rose SepesyDepartment of Biology, Utah State University, Logan, UT, USA.
Scott A BernhardtDepartment of Biology, Utah State University, Logan, UT, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) bottle bioassay is a commonly used susceptibility test for measuring insect response to insecticide exposure. However, inconsistencies and high variability in insect response when conducting CDC bottle bioassays have been reported in previous publications. We hypothesized that the CDC bottle bioassay results may be compromised when expected and actual insecticide concentrations in the bottles are not equivalent and that inadequate bottle cleaning and/or loss during insecticide introduction and bottle storage steps could be responsible. We explored this hypothesis by quantifying insecticides using gas chromatography tandem mass spectrometry (GC-MS/MS) in bottles that had been cleaned, prepared, and stored according to the CDC guidelines.

methodsWe investigated the bottle cleaning, preparation, and storage methods outlined in the CDC bottle bioassay procedure to identify sources of irreproducibility. We also investigated the effectiveness of cleaning bottles by autoclaving because this method is commonly used in insecticide assessment laboratories. The two insecticides used in this study were chlorpyrifos and lambda-cyhalothrin (λ-cyhalothrin). Insecticides were removed from glass bioassay bottles by rinsing with ethyl-acetate and n-hexane and then quantified using GC-MS/MS.

resultsThe CDC bottle bioassay cleaning methods did not sufficiently remove both insecticides from the glass bottles. The cleaning methods removed chlorpyrifos, which has higher water solubility, more effectively than λ-cyhalothrin. Chlorpyrifos experienced significant loss during the bottle-coating process whereas λ-cyhalothrin did not. As for bottle storage, no significant decreases in insecticide concentrations were observed for 6 h following the initial drying period for either insecticide.

conclusionsThe CDC bottle bioassay protocol is susceptible to producing inaccurate results since its recommended bottle cleaning method is not sufficient and semi-volatile insecticides can volatilize from the bottle during the coating process. This can lead to the CDC bottle bioassay producing erroneous LC

Indexed as

Biological AssayCenters for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S.Gas Chromatography-Mass SpectrometryInsecticidesNitrilesPyrethrinsAnimalsChlorpyrifosReproducibility of ResultsTandem Mass SpectrometryUnited StatesChlorpyrifoscyhalothrinInsecticidesNitrilesPyrethrinsChlorpyrifosDose-response curvesLambda-cyhalothrinLethal concentrationOrganophosphatePesticidePyrethroidSusceptibility bioassay

Identifiers

PMID39030647
PMCPMC11264779

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.