ArticleEcotoxicology (London, England)2026
Embryotoxic effects of diflubenzuron active ingredient and commercial formulations: comparative insights from zebrafish model.
Article in Ecotoxicology (London, England), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Diflubenzuron (DFB) is a larvicide widely incorporated into pesticide product formulations (PPFs). In addition to the active ingredient (AI), PPFs contain inert substances and adjuvants that may interfere with the AI toxicity. This study aims to compare the embryotoxicity of a veterinary powder (VF; 3% DFB) and an agricultural water-soluble pellet (AF; 80% DFB) towards DFB, referred to as AI (purity > 99%). Zebrafish (Danio rerio) embryos were exposed to AI and both formulations at low (0.025 and 0.125 mg L− 1 of AI); intermediate (0.25 and 1.25 mg L− 1 of AI); and high (2.5 and 10 mg L− 1 of AI) concentrations, as well as a reconstituted water (fish medium) and DMSO (0.4% v/v) controls. Survival, hatching rates, pigmentation, and morphological biomarkers were monitored over 120 h post-fertilization (hpf). No significant effects on survival or hatching rates were observed. Morphological abnormalities, such as notochord deformities and yolk sac opacity, occurred at all concentrations, differing in frequency and intensity. AI showed stronger effects at lower and intermediate concentrations, whereas AF and VF exhibited stronger effects at higher concentrations. Oxygen consumption did not differ significantly from controls. Regarding morphometry, AF induced more pronounced alterations than both PPFs, mainly at intermediate and high concentrations, affecting sensory, physiological, skeletal, and muscle parameters. VF caused minor changes, AI showed no significant effects, and AF presented greater toxicity. AF caused an increase while AI and VF resulted in a slight decrease in body pigmentation. Our findings suggest that PPFs may enhance toxicity by increasing the AI solubility.
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.