Retraction Note: Structural characterization of Bacillus licheniformis Dahb1 exopolysaccharide—antimicrobial potential and larvicidal activity on malaria and Zika virus mosquito vectors.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Retraction Note: Structural characterization of Bacillus licheniformis Dahb1 exopolysaccharide—antimicrobial potential and larvicidal activity on malaria and Zika virus mosquito vectors.
Authors: Abinaya, Muthukumar1 (AUTHOR), Vaseeharan, Baskaralingam1 (AUTHOR) vaseeharanb@gmail.com, Divya, Mani1 (AUTHOR), Vijayakumar, Sekar1 (AUTHOR), Govindarajan, Marimuthu2,3 (AUTHOR), Alharbi, Naiyf S.4 (AUTHOR), Khaled, Jamal M.4 (AUTHOR), Al-anbr, Mohammed N.4 (AUTHOR), Benelli, Giovanni5,6 (AUTHOR)
Source: Environmental Science & Pollution Research. Feb2025, Vol. 32 Issue 10, p6285-6285. 1p.
Subject Terms: *Retraction of scholarly articles, *Control boards (Electrical engineering), *Bacillus licheniformis, *Mosquito vectors, *Zika virus, *Plasmodium
Abstract: The article "Structural characterization of Bacillus licheniformis Dahb1 exopolysaccharide—antimicrobial potential and larvicidal activity on malaria and Zika virus mosquito vectors" published in Environmental Science & Pollution Research has been retracted due to concerns about figures and conflicts of interest. The Editor-in-Chief found issues with several figures and identified a conflict of interest between authors and reviewers. The retraction was made to correct the scholarly record, with one author agreeing to the retraction while another disagreed. [Extracted from the article]
Database: Energy & Power Source
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Description
Abstract:The article "Structural characterization of Bacillus licheniformis Dahb1 exopolysaccharide—antimicrobial potential and larvicidal activity on malaria and Zika virus mosquito vectors" published in Environmental Science & Pollution Research has been retracted due to concerns about figures and conflicts of interest. The Editor-in-Chief found issues with several figures and identified a conflict of interest between authors and reviewers. The retraction was made to correct the scholarly record, with one author agreeing to the retraction while another disagreed. [Extracted from the article]
ISSN:09441344
DOI:10.1007/s11356-025-36172-2