Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Fate and toxicity of the active ingredients (AI's) of plant protection products in surface waters is often influenced by pH. Although a general range of pH values is reported in literature, an evaluation targeting aquatic ecosystems with documented AI inputs is lacking at the larger scale. Results show 95% of European surface waters (n = 3075) with a documented history of AI exposure fall within a rather narrow pH range, between 7.0 and 8.5. Spatial and temporal variability in the data may at least be partly explained by the calcareous characteristics of parental rock material, the affiliation of the sampling site to a freshwater ecoregion, and the photosynthetic activity of macrophytes (i.e., higher pH values with photosynthesis). Nonetheless, the documented pH range fits well with the standard pH of most ecotoxicological test guidelines, confirming the fate and ecotoxicity of AIs are usually adequately addressed.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00128-015-1665-7 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!