Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 182

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Probabilistic risk assessment of cotton pyrethroids: I. Distributional analyses of laboratory aquatic toxicity data

Solomon, Keith R, Giddings, Jeffrey M, Maund, Stephen J·2001·Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry

Abstract

This is the first in a series of five papers that assess the risk of the cotton pyrethroids in aquatic ecosystems in a series of steps ranging from the analysis of effects data through modeling exposures in the landscape. Pyrethroid insecticides used on cotton have the potential to contaminate aquatic systems. The objectives of this study were to develop probabilistic estimates of toxicity distributions, to compare these among the pyrethroids, and to evaluate cypermethrin as a representative pyrethroid for the purposes of a class risk assessment of the pyrethroids. The distribution of cypermethrin acute toxicity data gave 10th centile values of 10 ng/L for all organisms, 6.4 ng/L for arthropods, and 380 ng/L for vertebrates. For bifenthrin, cyfluthrin, lambda-cyhalothrin, and deltamethrin, the 10th centile values for all organisms were 15, 12, 10, and 9 ng/L, respectively, indicating similar or somewhat lower toxicity than cypermethrin. For tralomethrin and fenpropathrin, the 10th centiles were <310 and 240 ng/L, respectively. The distribution of permethrin toxicity to all organisms, arthropods, and vertebrates gave 10th centiles of 180, 76, and 1600 ng/L, respectively, whereas those for fenvalerate were 37, 8, and 150 ng/L. With the exception of tralomethrin, the distributions of acute toxicity values had similar slopes, suggesting that the variation of sensitivity in a range of aquatic nontarget species is similar. The pyrethroids have different recommended field rates of application that are related to their efficacy, and the relationship between field rate and 10th centiles showed a trend. These results support the use of cypermethrin as a reasonable worst-case surrogate for the other pyrethroids for the purposes of risk assessment of pyrethroids as a class.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/etc.5620200326

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 182

Metadata

Authors
Solomon, K. R., Giddings, J. M., & Maund, S. J.
Venue
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry
Published
2001-03-01
Volume
20
Issue
3
Pages
652-659
ISSN
  • 0730-7268 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-8618
OpenAlex
W2095664530
Cited by
182
References
0
FWCI
10.66
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Probabilistic risk assessment of cotton pyrethroids: I. Distributional analyses of laboratory aquatic toxicity data. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/etc.5620200326
The paper
Solomon, K. R., Giddings, J. M., & Maund, S. J. (2001). Probabilistic risk assessment of cotton pyrethroids: I. Distributional analyses of laboratory aquatic toxicity data. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.5620200326

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.