| Title |
No effect of insect repellents on the behaviour of Lymnaea stagnalis at environmentally relevant concentrations
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Environmental Science and Pollution Research, September 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11356-017-0205-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Patrick Fink, Eric von Elert |
| Abstract |
Insect repellents are widely applied to various materials and to both human and animal skin to deter mosquitoes and ticks. The most common deterrent compounds applied are DEET, EBAAP and icaridin (picaridin, Bayrepel). Due to their extensive application, these repellents are frequently detected in surface waters in considerable concentrations. As these compounds are designed to alter invertebrates' behaviour rather than to intoxicate them, we hypothesised that insect repellents have the potential to modify the natural behaviour of non-target invertebrates in natural freshwater bodies. To test this, we used a well-established laboratory assay designed to quantify the odour-mediated foraging behaviour of freshwater gastropods and the great pond snail Lymnaea stagnalis (Linnaeus, 1758) as a model organism to test for potential deterrent effects of insect repellents on aquatic snails. Using a wide concentration range from the picogramme per litre to microgramme per litre range (and by far exceeding the range of concentrations reported from natural waters), we found no evidence for a deterrent effect of either of the three repellents on foraging L. stagnalis. Our data and other recent studies give no indication for undesirable behavioural alterations by common insect repellents in surface waters. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 11 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 11 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 3 | 27% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 18% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 1 | 9% |
| Unknown | 4 | 36% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 27% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 9% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 9% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 9% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 9% |
| Other | 1 | 9% |
| Unknown | 3 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 October 2017.
All research outputs
#16,223,992
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Environmental Science and Pollution Research
#3,738
of 9,883 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#205,373
of 323,080 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Environmental Science and Pollution Research
#99
of 255 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,883 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 323,080 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 255 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.