↓ Skip to main content

Ignoring Adjuvant Toxicity Falsifies the Safety Profile of Commercial Pesticides

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Public Health, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
11 news outlets
blogs
3 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
165 X users
facebook
9 Facebook pages
googleplus
4 Google+ users
reddit
1 Redditor

Readers on

mendeley
286 Mendeley
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
Ignoring Adjuvant Toxicity Falsifies the Safety Profile of Commercial Pesticides
Published in
Frontiers in Public Health, January 2018
DOI 10.3389/fpubh.2017.00361
Pubmed ID
Authors

Robin Mesnage, Michael N. Antoniou

Abstract

Commercial formulations of pesticides are invariably not single ingredients. Instead they are cocktails of chemicals, composed of a designated pesticidal "active principle" and "other ingredients," with the latter collectively also known as "adjuvants." These include surfactants, antifoaming agents, dyes, etc. Some adjuvants are added to influence the absorption and stability of the active principle and thus promote its pesticidal action. Currently, the health risk assessment of pesticides in the European Union and in the United States focuses almost exclusively on the stated active principle. Nonetheless, adjuvants can also be toxic in their own right with numerous negative health effects having been reported in humans and on the environment. Despite the known toxicity of adjuvants, they are regulated differently from active principles, with their toxic effects being generally ignored. Adjuvants are not subject to an acceptable daily intake, and they are not included in the health risk assessment of dietary exposures to pesticide residues. Here, we illustrate this gap in risk assessment by reference to glyphosate, the most used pesticide active ingredient. We also investigate the case of neonicotinoid insecticides, which are strongly suspected to be involved in bee and bumblebee colony collapse disorder. Authors of studies sometimes use the name of the active principle (for example glyphosate) when they are testing a commercial formulation containing multiple (active principle plus adjuvant) ingredients. This results in confusion in the scientific literature and within regulatory circles and leads to a misrepresentation of the safety profile of commercial pesticides. Urgent action is needed to lift the veil on the presence of adjuvants in food and human bodily fluids, as well as in the environment (such as in air, water, and soil) and to characterize their toxicological properties. This must be accompanied by regulatory precautionary measures to protect the environment and general human population from some toxic adjuvants that are currently missing from risk assessments.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 165 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 286 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 286 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 42 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 41 14%
Researcher 35 12%
Student > Bachelor 31 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 18 6%
Other 42 15%
Unknown 77 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 59 21%
Environmental Science 33 12%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 26 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 17 6%
Chemistry 14 5%
Other 40 14%
Unknown 97 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 216. 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 01 November 2023.
All research outputs
#181,776
of 25,703,943 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Public Health
#116
of 14,388 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,167
of 452,522 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Public Health
#3
of 107 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,703,943 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 14,388 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.6. 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 452,522 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 107 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 97% of its contemporaries.