↓ Skip to main content

Environmental fate and exposure; neonicotinoids and fipronil

Overview of attention for article published in Environmental Science & Pollution Research, August 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#4 of 3,729)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
5 news outlets
twitter
100 tweeters
patent
2 patents
googleplus
116 Google+ users

Citations

dimensions_citation
288 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
552 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Environmental fate and exposure; neonicotinoids and fipronil
Published in
Environmental Science & Pollution Research, August 2014
DOI 10.1007/s11356-014-3332-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

J.-M. Bonmatin, C. Giorio, V. Girolami, D. Goulson, D. P. Kreutzweiser, C. Krupke, M. Liess, E. Long, M. Marzaro, E. A. D. Mitchell, D. A. Noome, N. Simon-Delso, A. Tapparo

Abstract

Systemic insecticides are applied to plants using a wide variety of methods, ranging from foliar sprays to seed treatments and soil drenches. Neonicotinoids and fipronil are among the most widely used pesticides in the world. Their popularity is largely due to their high toxicity to invertebrates, the ease and flexibility with which they can be applied, their long persistence, and their systemic nature, which ensures that they spread to all parts of the target crop. However, these properties also increase the probability of environmental contamination and exposure of nontarget organisms. Environmental contamination occurs via a number of routes including dust generated during drilling of dressed seeds, contamination and accumulation in arable soils and soil water, runoff into waterways, and uptake of pesticides by nontarget plants via their roots or dust deposition on leaves. Persistence in soils, waterways, and nontarget plants is variable but can be prolonged; for example, the half-lives of neonicotinoids in soils can exceed 1,000 days, so they can accumulate when used repeatedly. Similarly, they can persist in woody plants for periods exceeding 1 year. Breakdown results in toxic metabolites, though concentrations of these in the environment are rarely measured. Overall, there is strong evidence that soils, waterways, and plants in agricultural environments and neighboring areas are contaminated with variable levels of neonicotinoids or fipronil mixtures and their metabolites (soil, parts per billion (ppb)-parts per million (ppm) range; water, parts per trillion (ppt)-ppb range; and plants, ppb-ppm range). This provides multiple routes for chronic (and acute in some cases) exposure of nontarget animals. For example, pollinators are exposed through direct contact with dust during drilling; consumption of pollen, nectar, or guttation drops from seed-treated crops, water, and consumption of contaminated pollen and nectar from wild flowers and trees growing near-treated crops. Studies of food stores in honeybee colonies from across the globe demonstrate that colonies are routinely and chronically exposed to neonicotinoids, fipronil, and their metabolites (generally in the 1-100 ppb range), mixed with other pesticides some of which are known to act synergistically with neonicotinoids. Other nontarget organisms, particularly those inhabiting soils, aquatic habitats, or herbivorous insects feeding on noncrop plants in farmland, will also inevitably receive exposure, although data are generally lacking for these groups. We summarize the current state of knowledge regarding the environmental fate of these compounds by outlining what is known about the chemical properties of these compounds, and placing these properties in the context of modern agricultural practices.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 100 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 552 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 5 <1%
United Kingdom 3 <1%
France 2 <1%
Brazil 2 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
Poland 1 <1%
Madagascar 1 <1%
Other 4 <1%
Unknown 531 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 125 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 106 19%
Researcher 84 15%
Student > Bachelor 70 13%
Unspecified 55 10%
Other 112 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 216 39%
Environmental Science 121 22%
Unspecified 89 16%
Chemistry 37 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 28 5%
Other 61 11%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 240. 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 30 April 2019.
All research outputs
#51,037
of 13,333,212 outputs
Outputs from Environmental Science & Pollution Research
#4
of 3,729 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#791
of 193,660 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Environmental Science & Pollution Research
#1
of 57 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,333,212 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,729 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
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 193,660 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 57 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.