4.5 Article

Toxicity evaluation of three pesticides on non-target aquatic and soil organisms: commercial formulation versus active ingredient

期刊

ECOTOXICOLOGY
卷 18, 期 4, 页码 455-463

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10646-009-0300-y

关键词

Propanil; Methomyl; Glyphosate; Growth inhibition; Immobilisation; Avoidance

资金

  1. Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT, Portugal) [SFRH/BPD/44733/2008]
  2. Sara Cristina Antunes [SFRH/BPD/40052/2007]
  3. Catarina Ribeiro Marques [SFRH/BD/18339/2004]
  4. Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia [SFRH/BPD/44733/2008] Funding Source: FCT

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Ecological Risk Assessment of pesticides requires data regarding their toxicity to aquatic and terrestrial non-target species. Such requirements concern active ingredient(s), generally not considering the noxious potential of commercial formulations. This work intends to contribute with novel information on the effects of short-term exposures to two herbicides, with different modes of action (Spasor(A (R)), Stam Novel Flo 480(A (R))), and an insecticide (Lannate(A (R))), as well as to corresponding active ingredients (Glyphosate, Propanil and Methomyl, respectively). The microalga Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata (growth inhibition), the cladoceran Daphnia magna (immobilisation), and the earthworm Eisenia andrei (avoidance behaviour) were used as test species. Both herbicides were innocuous to all test organisms at environmentally realistic concentrations, except for Stam and Propanil (highly toxic for Pseudokirchneriella; moderately toxic to Daphnia). Lannate and Methomyl were highly toxic to Daphnia and caused Eisenia to significantly avoid the spiked soil at realistic application rates. The toxicity of formulations either overestimated (e.g. Stam/Propanil for P. subcapitata) or underestimated (e.g. Stam/Propanil for D. magna) that of the active ingredient.

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

4.5
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