4.7 Article

Is Actara & REG; a less toxic neonicotinoid formulation? A multigenerational study using the non-target organism Chironomus xanthus

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s11356-023-28956-1

关键词

Chironomid; Actara; Thiamethoxam; Tolerance; Pesticides

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study evaluated the biological effects of the commercial formulation Actara on the aquatic non-target and non-biting larvae of Chironomus xanthus. The results showed that Actara was non-toxic to C. xanthus at environmentally relevant concentrations.
Neonicotinoids are highly consumed systemic insecticides that mimic acetylcholine (ACh) with a specific mode of action at the nicotinic acetylcholine receptors (nAChRs). The insecticide Actara & REG; (active ingredient thiamethoxam- TMX) is a commercial formulation widely used for the control of various agricultural pest species. However, negative effects of TMX have been observed in non-target organisms. This work aimed to evaluate the biological effects of the commercial formulation Actara & REG; on the aquatic non-target and non-biting larvae of Chironomus xanthus (Diptera). The lethal (LC50) and sublethal (body length, head capsule width, cumulative emergence, and mean time to emergence-EmT(50)) effects were determined in two subsequent generations (P and F1). The estimated 48 h LC50 for C. xanthus larvae exposed to Actara & REG; was 73.02 & mu;g TMX/L. By looking at the sublethal effects of Actara on the life cycle parameters of C. xanthus, we determined that none of the concentrations used induced a significantly different response in the organisms, compared to the control treatment (NOEC > 2 & mu;g TMX/L). However, the head capsule width in the parental (P) generation exposed to Actara (& GE; 0.9 & mu;g TMX/L) was significantly bigger than the head capsule width of control animals. Overall, our results highlight that, at environmentally relevant concentrations, the commercial formulation Actara & REG; is non-toxic to C. xanthus.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据