↓ Skip to main content

Toxicity of flavor enhancers to the oriental fruit fly, Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel) (Diptera: Tephritidae)

Overview of attention for article published in Ecotoxicology, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
12 Mendeley
Title
Toxicity of flavor enhancers to the oriental fruit fly, Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel) (Diptera: Tephritidae)
Published in
Ecotoxicology, April 2018
DOI 10.1007/s10646-018-1934-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chunyan Zheng, Dongyu Yang, Zhiqiang Li, Yijuan Xu

Abstract

The objective of this study was to evaluate the toxicity of flavor enhancers to the oriental fruit fly Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel). The flavor enhancers glycine, disodium guanylate, succinic acid disodium salt, monosodium glutamate (MSG), disodium inosinate, and L-alanine significantly increased the mortality of B. dorsalis flies. The mortality of flies that fed on glycine, disodium guanylate, succinic acid disodium salt, and MSG was greater than 90%. Additionally, fruit fly mortality increased with increases in both time and concentration. Glycine not only reduced the climbing ability of B. dorsalis but also affected the duration and frequency of its behavioral patterns (flight, walking, grooming and inactivity). Compared with adult flies in the control group, adult B. dorsalis flies that fed on glycine exhibited a significantly increased duration and frequency of inactivity and a decreased duration and frequency of both flight and walking. However, the effect of glycine on grooming activity was not significant. These findings demonstrate the toxic effects of flavor enhancers on B. dorsalis. Glycine also affected the behavior of adult flies at a low dose. Therefore, glycine has potentially toxic to insects and also likely to have a negative impact at sublethal concentrations.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 12 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 12 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 33%
Student > Bachelor 2 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 8%
Student > Master 1 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 8%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 3 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 17%
Chemistry 2 17%
Environmental Science 1 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 8%
Other 2 17%
Unknown 3 25%
Attention Score in Context

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 11 April 2018.
All research outputs
#20,480,611
of 23,041,514 outputs
Outputs from Ecotoxicology
#978
of 1,481 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#290,344
of 329,169 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ecotoxicology
#26
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,041,514 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,481 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.5. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 329,169 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 39 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.