Investigation of the potential effects of firefighting water additives on soil invertebrates and terrestrial plants
Abstract
The intensity and frequency of forest fires is increasing across the globe due to climate change. Additives are often added to make water more effective at extinguishing fire and preventing re-ignition. This study investigated the toxicity of nine different firefighting water additives to four species of soil invertebrates (Folsomia candida, Porcellio laevis, Porcellio scaber, and Trichorhina tomentosa) and two plant species (Agropyron cristatum and Raphanus sativus). Considerable variation in toxicity was observed among the firefighting products. The toxicity of individual products also varied considerably amongst the tested species. A hazard assessment was conducted by comparing the concentration of firefighting water additive that caused a 50% effect (LC50 or EC50) or a concentration that caused no effect (NOEC) to the concentration recommended by the manufacturer. At a rate of application representative of a forest firefighting scenario, most firefighting water additives tested in this study posed a hazard to F. candida and the three isopod species. The majority of products did not pose a risk to the two plant species included in this study. Consideration of the toxicity of firefighting water additives to terrestrial biota should be considered along with the efficacy of the product to fight fires when deciding which products to use.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Soil invertebrates and ecosystem services
Lavelle, P., Decaëns, T., Aubert, M., Barot, S., Blouin, M., Bureau, F., Margerie, P., Mora, P., & Rossi, J.-P. (2006) · European Journal of Soil Biology · doi:10.1016/j.ejsobi.2006.10.002 · Cited by 1,606 · see citing works
Dietrich, J. P., Myers, M. S., Strickland, S. A., Van Gaest, A., & Arkoosh, M. R. (2013) · Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry · doi:10.1002/etc.2052 · Cited by 25 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
- Authors
- Anderson, J., & Prosser, R. S.
- Affiliations
- University of Guelph (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Prosser, R.S.
- Venue
- Chemosphere
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2023-02
- Volume
- 313
- Pages
- 137496
- ISSN
- 0045-6535 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4310885971
- Cited by
- 9
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2
- FWCI
- 0.69
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- Locations
- Chemosphere (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- NSERC
- Mitacs
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Environmental Toxicology and Ecotoxicology
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Fire effects on ecosystems
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Pollution › Pesticide and Herbicide Environmental Studies
- Keywords
- soil invertebrates, land plants, ecotoxicity, Folsomia candida, Porcellio laevis, Porcellio scaber, Agropyron cristatum, radish, hazard assessment, forest fires, Isopoda
- MeSH terms
- Animals, Arthropods, Fires, Invertebrates, Soil, Soil Pollutants, Isopoda
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