ReviewArchives of toxicology2026
Pesticide bioavailability, bioaccumulation, and bioconcentration in zebrafish: a critical review with emphasis on methodological inadequacies.
Review in Archives of toxicology, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Zebrafish (Danio rerio) have become the pre-eminent vertebrate model in aquatic ecotoxicology, yet the evidence base on pesticide bioavailability, bioaccumulation, and bioconcentration in this species is characterised by profound methodological fragmentation that limits the derivation of reliable risk estimates. This review critically appraises the primary literature across five major pesticide classes, namely organophosphates, pyrethroids, organochlorines, triazole and succinate dehydrogenase inhibitor (SDHI) fungicides, and herbicides, and argues that the field's central limitation is not a deficit of primary studies but rather a systematic failure to implement methodological standards capable of generating internally consistent, cross-comparable toxicokinetic data. Bioconcentration factors (BCFs) in zebrafish span four orders of magnitude, from less than 2 for glyphosate to over 1300 for chlorfenapyr, with log Kow as the primary predictor; yet BCF values derived from embryo stages cannot be extrapolated to adults given the profound life-stage dependency of CYP450 metabolic capacity. A recurring pattern of nominal-concentration reporting, pure active-ingredient testing, single life-stage design, and single-compound exposure has generated a body of evidence that diverges systematically from real-world pesticide exposure conditions. Quantitative analysis of methodological bias reveals that biotransformation alone can reduce internal concentrations by 5- to 90-fold; sediment partitioning can confine pyrethroid bioavailability in the water column to as little as 0.07% of total added mass; and formulation adjuvants can redirect pesticide distribution entirely between water and sediment compartments. A cross-study quality assessment of the ten primary studies forming the evidence core of this review shows that the majority score 7 or below on a 10-point methodological adequacy scale, with no study simultaneously verifying concentrations, capturing tissue-specific BCFs, tracking metabolites, and incorporating realistic mixture or formulation conditions. This review provides the first integrated, methodologically-focused, quantitative synthesis of these issues in zebrafish, identifies five priority knowledge gaps, and proposes a minimum standards framework for future zebrafish pesticide bioaccumulation studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42047700What 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.