Comparative chronic toxicity of imidacloprid, clothianidin, and thiamethoxam to<i>Chironomus dilutus</i>and estimation of toxic equivalency factors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nontarget aquatic insects are susceptible to chronic neonicotinoid insecticide exposure during the early stages of development from repeated runoff events and prolonged persistence of these chemicals. Investigations on the chronic toxicity of neonicotinoids to aquatic invertebrates have been limited to a few species and under different laboratory conditions that often preclude direct comparisons of the relative toxicity of different compounds. In the present study, full life-cycle toxicity tests using Chironomus dilutus were performed to compare the toxicity of 3 commonly used neonicotinoids: imidacloprid, clothianidin, and thiamethoxam. Test conditions followed a static-renewal exposure protocol in which lethal and sublethal endpoints were assessed on days 14 and 40. Reduced emergence success, advanced emergence timing, and male-biased sex ratios were sensitive responses to low-level neonicotinoid exposure. The 14-d median lethal concentrations for imidacloprid, clothianidin, and thiamethoxam were 1.52 μg/L, 2.41 μg/L, and 23.60 μg/L, respectively. The 40-d median effect concentrations (emergence) for imidacloprid, clothianidin, and thiamethoxam were 0.39 μg/L, 0.28 μg/L, and 4.13 μg/L, respectively. Toxic equivalence relative to imidacloprid was estimated through a 3-point response average of equivalencies calculated at 20%, 50%, and 90% lethal and effect concentrations. Relative to imidacloprid (toxic equivalency factor [TEF] = 1.0), chronic (lethality) 14-d TEFs for clothianidin and thiamethoxam were 1.05 and 0.14, respectively, and chronic (emergence inhibition) 40-d TEFs were 1.62 and 0.11, respectively. These population-relevant endpoints and TEFs suggest that imidacloprid and clothianidin exert comparable chronic toxicity to C. dilutus, whereas thiamethoxam induced comparable effects only at concentrations an order of magnitude higher. However, the authors caution that under field conditions, thiamethoxam readily degrades to clothianidin, thereby likely enhancing toxicity. Environ Toxicol Chem 2017;36:372-382. © 2016 SETAC.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".