↓ Skip to main content

Environmental fate and exposure; neonicotinoids and fipronil

Overview of attention for article published in Environmental Science and 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 (#6 of 11,161)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
14 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
policy
4 policy sources
twitter
89 X users
patent
2 patents
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages
googleplus
116 Google+ users

Citations

dimensions_citation
916 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
1145 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 and 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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 89 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 1,145 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%
Norway 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Argentina 1 <1%
Other 4 <1%
Unknown 1124 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 194 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 176 15%
Researcher 149 13%
Student > Bachelor 130 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 59 5%
Other 167 15%
Unknown 270 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 326 28%
Environmental Science 196 17%
Chemistry 70 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 55 5%
Engineering 35 3%
Other 128 11%
Unknown 335 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 319. 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 19 January 2024.
All research outputs
#107,227
of 25,837,817 outputs
Outputs from Environmental Science and Pollution Research
#6
of 11,161 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#838
of 243,500 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Environmental Science and Pollution Research
#1
of 130 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,837,817 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 11,161 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.2. 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 243,500 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 130 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 99% of its contemporaries.