↓ Skip to main content

Sensitivity of Ethiopian aquatic macroinvertebrates to the pesticides endosulfan and diazinon, compared to literature data

Overview of attention for article published in Ecotoxicology, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (54th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
33 Mendeley
Title
Sensitivity of Ethiopian aquatic macroinvertebrates to the pesticides endosulfan and diazinon, compared to literature data
Published in
Ecotoxicology, May 2016
DOI 10.1007/s10646-016-1676-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Berhan M. Teklu, Negussie Retta, Paul J. Van den Brink

Abstract

The aims of the present study were to present a methodology for toxicity tests that can be used when analytical resources to verify the test concentrations are limited, and to evaluate whether the sensitivity of a limited number of Ethiopian species to pesticides differs from literature values for, mainly, temperate species. Acute toxicity tests were performed using three Ethiopian aquatic invertebrate species, one crustacean (Diaphanosoma brachyurum) and two insects (Anopheles pharoensis and Culex pipiens) and using the pesticides endosulfan and diazinon. All species-pesticide combinations were tested in duplicate to estimate the consistency, i.e. the intra-laboratory variation, in test results. Daphnia magna was tested as well to allow the test results to be compared directly with values from the literature. Results indicate that the differences between the EC50s obtained for D. magna in this study and those reported in the literature were less than a factor of 2. This indicates that the methodology used is able to provide credible toxicity values. The results of the duplicated tests showed intra-laboratory variation in EC50 values of up to a factor of 3, with one test showing a difference of a factor of 6 at 48 h. Comparison with available literature results for arthropod species using species sensitivity distributions indicated that the test results obtained in this study fit well in the log-normal distribution of the literature values. We conclude that the methodology of performing multiple tests to check for consistency of test results and performing tests with D. magna for comparison with literature values to check for accuracy is able to provide reliable effect threshold levels and that the tested Ethiopian species did not differ in sensitivity from the arthropod species reported on in the literature.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users 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 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 33 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 21%
Student > Master 6 18%
Researcher 4 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 9%
Professor 2 6%
Other 4 12%
Unknown 7 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 11 33%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 6%
Chemistry 2 6%
Engineering 2 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Other 5 15%
Unknown 10 30%
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 27 June 2016.
All research outputs
#17,806,995
of 22,875,477 outputs
Outputs from Ecotoxicology
#730
of 1,477 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#236,187
of 334,086 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ecotoxicology
#12
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,875,477 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,477 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.5. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% 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 334,086 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.