The Berried Clubby Molt & Moss
Menu

Open this record in the complete research map

Controlled experiment Direct Neocaridina evidence

Effects of the endocrine disrupter chemicals chlordane and lindane on the male green neon shrimp (Neocaridina denticulata)

Huang, Wang and Chen, 2004. Chemosphere 57(11): 1621-1627.

Open the source

This record is a claim boundary, not a quality badge. Evidence class and species relationship describe what was studied. They do not make the result universal, complete or automatically applicable to a home aquarium.

Source taxon as published
Wild-collected male Neocaridina denticulata from rivers in Taipei County, Taiwan
Environment
Ten-litre glass-beaker exposure after two weeks of acclimation at 25 +/- 1 C, pH 7.4 to 7.8, dissolved oxygen above 7.3 mg/L and hardness 38 to 45 mg/L as CaCO3
Life stages
13 to 16 mm male
Reviewed
2026-08-12

What was studied

Study shape: Nominal chlordane at 1 and 10 ng/L and lindane at 0.1 and 1 microgram/L were compared for 28 days with no-pesticide, acetone-vehicle and alcohol-dissolved estradiol positive controls. Hormone-associated samples were taken on days 1, 3, 7, 14 and 28, and masculine-appendage measurements on days 3, 7, 14 and 28.

Experimental unit: The 10-litre exposure beaker, described as triplicate for each group. The article says 150 males were used per group, while figure-level n values are 15 for hormone-associated assays and 6 for appendage measurements without explaining their distribution among the three beakers.

Endpoints: estradiol enzyme immunoassay, testosterone enzyme immunoassay, alkali-labile phosphate response, masculine appendage to cephalothorax length ratio.

Claim boundary

What it can support: The paper reports treatment-associated estradiol and testosterone measurements, an alkali-labile phosphate increase only in the high chlordane group and early changes in the masculine-appendage length ratio under several nominal treatments.

What it cannot support: Water concentrations and a renewal schedule were not reported. Alkali-labile phosphate was a nonspecific proxy rather than a vitellogenin-specific assay. Estradiol used alcohol without a described alcohol-matched control. The analysis used repeated paired t tests without a reported multiplicity correction and does not explain how animal-level n values map to replicate beakers. Appendage effects varied by concentration and time and reproductive competence was not tested. The study does not validate an external-sign diagnosis, mechanism, household threshold, safe concentration or biomarker.

Publication status audit

Matched in dated Crossref query

The canonical DOI appeared in the dated broad query and carried no registered update in that response. This is a metadata observation, not proof that the work has never changed.

Metadata snapshot reviewed 2026-08-12. Inspect the method, unmatched queue and limitations.

Correction impact

If this source boundary changes, these are the known downstream consumers. The list distinguishes scientific re-review from generated parity and historical follow-up.

Editorial review required (2)

This curated wording or synthesis must be reconsidered when the source boundary changes. A passing generator test cannot decide the new scientific meaning.

  • chemical-safety decision card Tank-side decision card
    The card translates this guide into an observation, first action, next record and stopping boundary, so all four require editorial review when the source changes.
  • chemical-safety practical guide Practical guide
    The guide uses this evidence record and its practical wording must remain inside the revised source boundary.

Generated from governing registry (10)

This surface derives from a governing registry and should update with it, but release tests must still prove parity and routing.

Historical record needs follow-up decision (1)

Do not silently rewrite history. Decide whether the prior change record remains accurate and publish a new correction or scope note when needed.

Inspect the corpus-wide propagation audit.

How this record is classified

Controlled experiment: An assigned treatment or controlled comparison. The treatment, unit, duration and endpoint still limit the claim.

Direct Neocaridina evidence: The source measured animals named within Neocaridina. Direct still does not mean universal or sufficient.

Topics: Chemical exposure, Anatomy, Health

Critically appraise this source without a score

These questions fit this record's controlled experiment role. They are prompts, not automatic judgments. Open the original source to answer them.

  1. Identity and provenance: How were the organism, population, stock and life stage identified and sourced? A published name or seller label can hide a taxonomic, population or life-stage transfer.
  2. Independent unit: What unit was independently assigned or sampled, and how many units support each comparison? Animal counts do not create independent replication when animals share a vessel, site, family or treatment history.
  3. Comparison and context: What was the actual comparator, allocation process, environment, duration and material condition? A result has meaning only against the comparison and conditions that produced it.
  4. Endpoint and measurement: Which endpoint was measured, with what method, unit, timing, resolution and decision rule? One endpoint cannot silently become survival, welfare, diagnosis, reproduction or long-term population performance.
  5. Denominators and missingness: Are starting counts, exclusions, losses, missing observations and analysis denominators reconciled? Unreported or changing denominators can alter the apparent direction, precision and applicability of a result.
  6. Transfer boundary: What is the nearest tempting aquarium claim that this source design cannot establish? Direct evidence can still be narrow, and adjacent evidence can be useful only while the inference remains visible.
  7. Treatment assignment: Were independent units assigned to treatments, and were baseline conditions comparable? Unclear allocation or baseline imbalance can confound the treatment comparison.
  8. Replication: Were treatment vessels or other exposure units independently replicated rather than subsampled? Repeated animals or assays inside one exposure unit do not replicate the environmental treatment.
  9. Exposure verification: Was the treatment, dose, feed intake or environmental exposure measured and maintained as described? Nominal treatment labels may not equal the exposure animals actually received.
  10. Analysis: Did the statistical model match the unit, repeated measures, multiplicity and missing outcomes? A precise p-value cannot repair a mismatched unit or unaccounted comparison structure.

Read the complete appraisal framework.

Where it is used

Reuse the reviewed citation boundary

Download CSL-JSON or download RIS. Both retain this record's support, limitation and review note.

Challenge a transcription, interpretation or missing boundary. A challenge changes the record only after editorial review.