ArticleUCL open. Environment2025
Miniaturisation of the
Article in UCL open. Environment, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Miniaturised Protocol for Feeding Measurements in Daphnids.Methods and protocols · 2026Article
- Acute immobilization assay withNAM journal · 2025Article
- Influence of Silver Fiber Morphology on the Dose-Response Relationship and Enrichment inChemical research in toxicology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
International standard test guidelines for the ecotoxicological characterisation of various substances use organisms such as algae, daphnids and fish embryos. These guidelines recommend or use relatively high volumes of water for the process of testing, for example, 200 mL for a complete dose-response relationship in a daphnia assay. However, for various samples such as concentrated extracts from environmental monitoring or leachates from microplastic ageing experiments, the amount of available sample volume is limited, that is, rather in the range of 10-50 mL/biotest. Using the exposure volumes as recommended in test guidelines would not allow to test a range of different concentrations or to repeat tests or use multiple different organismic bioassays. Lower media volumes would allow the testing of more samples (more concentrations per sample, more test repetitions for statistical robustness, etc.) but it may also decrease the possible number of organisms tested in the same volume. Here, we aimed at reducing the test volumes in the acute daphnia assay (using a maximum of 30 mL for a complete dose-response relationship) without impacting animals' sensitivity towards toxicants. A literature review on existing miniaturisation approaches was used as a starting point. Subsequently, assays employing conventional as well as reduced test volumes were compared for 16 selected test substances with a diverse spectrum of lipophilicity. Results showed that there are differences in EC
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.