Talk:Chlorpyrifos

Is the sale of Chlorpyrifos banned in the US? It is no longer available in California. It was sold under the name Dursban.

I know it's used in mortein cockroach baits. cyclosarin 09:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

It is currently used in cockroach baits "HotShot Max-Attrax Roach Bait" - see any product description for details. Clearly not completely banned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.176.44.67 (talk) 17:41, 17 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

This is still available for sale as an agricultural insecticide. Source: I sell agricultural chemicals for a large ag-chemical retailer. <ref>http://www.cdms.net/LDat/ld73D000.pdf</ref>03:26, 9 August 2012 (UTC)Patahorn (talk)

The synthesis states that "O,O-diethyl phosphorochloridothioate" is used, but an ethyl group has two carbons and the substance shown clearly only has one carbon per group so if anything, the substance is "O,O-dimethyl phosphorochloridothioate"^[1] As I cannot vouch for the correctness of the described synthesis, I have, however, not changed the article Saittam (talk) 07:01, 1 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

The substance contains two ethyl (not methyl) groups. Hence, everything is fine. —46.140.3.42 (talk) 07:20, 1 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

I notice the comment below with heading "Either bad or unclear redirect" says that there are both ethyl & methyl forms. It sounds like there is further work needed to structure the article (or articles) accordingly. Gould363 (talk) 19:09, 1 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

As creator of the file, I have to make clear that all the shown structures as well as the reaction path is correct. The reaction equation is based on the industrial synthesis method for this compound stated in Pesticide Synthesis Handbook by Thomas A. Unger. Furthermore, a quick SciFinder search resulted in the same equation. Chem Sim 2001 (talk) 15:31, 2 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

I'm not seeing a problem. The synthesis for chlorpyrifos is correct. Chlorpyrifos methyl is a different but related chemical. Chlorpyrifos methyl redirects to Chlorpyrifos#Chlorpyrifos_methyl which explains this. Yilloslime (talk) 18:35, 2 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Chlorpyrifos methyl needs to have its own article. --Leyo 20:02, 4 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Dear Author(s),

I am interested in adding an External Link for this product that directs users to its product information page on the Crop Protection Database (CPD). The CPD is a fact-based, neutral listing of technical information for crop protection products. The CPD listing for this product expands upon the information listed on Wikipedia and would be a valuable addition to the page. This includes experimental code numbers, formulations, action group, outside U.S. registration information, safety guidelines, handling/storage information, emergency guidelines, and a comprehensive list of suppliers, brand names, premix partners, and discontinued products.

Please strongly consider approving my request. For more information, visit: http://www.farmchemicalsinternational.com/cropprotection/cpd/

Regards, Judygt (talk) 12:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

It is considered a possible endocrine disruptor. (See: "Dursban Warnings", "Dursban Injuries") — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petey Parrot (talk • contribs) 21:05, 16 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

WP:MEDRS, please. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:58, 16 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

I can confirm that I recently bought a package of 0.5% Chlorpyrifos in the form of Hot Shot MaxAttrax Roach Bait at a local Walmart here in Oklahoma City, OK. The issue of the ban rumor is addressed directly here:

http://www.chlorpyrifos.com/myths-vs-facts.htm#BannedInTheUS — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbergman27 (talk • Sbergman27 (talk) 21:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Chlorpyrifos-methyl redirects to here - however this is a different compound from Chlorpyrifos (sometimes referred to as Chlorpyrifos-ethyl) See [[1]]. I can't tell if the redirect is mistakenly pointing here because someone thought that it was just another synonym for this compound, or if this is a and attempt to have a single entry for two very similar (and related) pesticides. --The chemistds (talk) 09:07, 19 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

The sections on exposure blend human and rat data in a way that is confusing. One suggestion is to separate the animal data and human results. The Wikipedia standards for such reports differ, but we need to be clear that there are two sets of experiments.

Criteria for selecting literature is potentially problematic. Chlorpyrifos has been the subject of 16,197 reports (as of 5 August, 2014). So selection of individual research papers risks being capricious or random (this is what came up when I Googled). For topics where the literature is so massive, one approach is to follow WP:SECONDARY. Since 2004, about 100 reviews have appeared, some of these highly cited and many of these focusing on health issues. Relying on those would possibly enhance the objectivity of the article. --Smokefoot (talk) 13:32, 6 August 2014 (UTC) Of the 105 reviews published since 2004, these three are both highly cited, in English, and focus on human-health. They might be relied on to supplant some of the primary references in the article:Reply

• "A summary of recent findings on birth outcomes and developmental effects of prenatal ETS, PAH, and pesticide exposures” Perera, F. P.; Rauh, V.; Whyatt, R. M.; Tang, D.; Tsai, W. Y.; Bernert, J. T.; Tu, Y. H.; Andrews, H.; Barr, D. B.; Camann, D. E.; et al. Neurotoxicology (2005), 26(4), 573-587. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuro.2004.07.007
• "Age dependence of organophosphate and carbamate neurotoxicity in the postnatal rat: extrapolation to the human” Vidair, Charles A. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology (2004), 196(2), 287-302. DOI: 10.1016/j.taap.2003.12.016
• "Review of the toxicology of chlorpyrifos with an emphasis on human exposure and neurodevelopment" Eaton, David L.; Daroff, Robert B.; Autrup, Herman; Bridges, James; Buffler, Patricia; Costa, Lucio G.; Coyle, Joseph; McKhann, Guy; Mobley, William C.; Nadel, Lynn; et al. Critical Reviews in Toxicology (2008), 38(Suppl. 2), 1-125. Abstract: "A review. This review examines the large body of toxicol. and epidemiol. information on human exposures to chlorpyrifos, with an emphasis on the controversial potential for chlorpyrifos to induce neurodevelopmental effects at low doses..."--Smokefoot (talk) 12:38, 7 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

I've begun addressing these comments in several of the sections on the page (e.g., related to effects from exposure early in life and related to potential mechanisms other than acetylcholinesterase inhibition), but I have not completely incorporated them yet. --E.Thorsos (talk) 20:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Chlorpyrifos. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060421162206/http://www.panna.org:80/campaigns/docsDrift/SecondhandPs.pdf to http://www.panna.org/campaigns/docsDrift/SecondhandPs.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:20, 8 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

  That link doesn't work at the moment. I guess give it some time and see if it does. Bwtranch (talk) 18:38, 8 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Chlorpyrifos. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090824081746/http://www.cdms.net:80/ldat/ld0AT004.pdf to http://www.cdms.net/ldat/ld0AT004.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110311064523/http://www.farmoz.com.au/label/farmoz/STRIKE_OUT_500WP_16103844.pdf to http://www.farmoz.com.au/label/farmoz/STRIKE_OUT_500WP_16103844.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:59, 10 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

I am moving these out of the "external links" section as they're not truly external links, and because there are so many articles about this pesticide I think general papers (rather than reviews, overviews etc) should only be listed if they are cited in the article.

• Salyha Y. Biological effects assessment of chlorpyrifos and some aspects of its neurotoxicity // Visnyk of Lviv University. - Biology series. - Is. 54, Lviv. - 2010. - P.3-14.
• Salyha, Yu T. "Chlorpyrifos Leads to Oxidative Stress-Induced Death of Hippocampal Cells in Vitro." Neurophysiology, Vol. 45, No. 3, 2013.P.193-199.

The "Adulthood" subheading under the "Toxicity and Safety" section seems to say two different things in the second line about increased lung cancer risk. The first sentence says that an increase in lung cancer risk was observed in pesticide applicators, but the second sentence says a lower risk rate was observed. Which is it? The second source indicates that a higher rate for pesticide applicators was observed; the first source is now a dead link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.172.112.145 (talk) 22:46, 29 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

This article is currently unbalanced in its content. For such a widely used insecticide that is approved by regulatory agencies worldwide, there must be a positive benefit-to-risk ratio. Currently, this article really says little about its benefits (small sections on use and application) while the majority of the article is about toxicity, health effects, environmental concerns, etc. A more neutral, balanced approach to discussing this topic is needed. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:29, 31 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

I agree. It also has a non-relavant political undertone such as inserting a comment such as: "The Dow Chemical Company, a major producer of chlorpyrifos for use on food for human consumption, contributed $1 million to the Donald J. Trump inaugural committee on December 26, 2016".

@Edgar181: The possible safety risks of chlorpyrifos have received a lot of news coverage in recent months. Which "benefits" does it have in comparison to other pesticides? Jarble (talk) 01:19, 8 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Edgar181:@Jarble:I have made a few minor changes reflecting a more unbiased tone, mostly in the lede to notate the accurate sourcing in the body of the article, which uses a lot of singular studies and as such, has quantifiers with it (may, could, possibly). I agree this article is still unbalanced, as there is a lot of referencing one-off or dated studies with no follow-up and very little in the way of technical information in the exposure levels (especially the current recommended levels and it's relation to toxicity or how current usage guidelines are related to current studies. For now, someone with a more technical explanation can come along and clean it up, but if that does not succeed in a moderate time frame, I may attempt to tackle it myself. As it stands, there's a lot of "could", "might" and "may" and given the recent inquiries into it's efficacy, I'm certain more recent studies have been done that may affirm (thus adding a secondary source) or conflict with the data currently used in the article. Seola (talk) 14:42, 23 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

It is an effective broad spectrum pesticide with health concerns. We mention uses first and foremost. Does not look to bad to me currently. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:51, 3 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Concur DocTox (talk) 01:18, 6 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

It acts on the nervous system of insects by inhibiting acetylcholinesterase. Toxicity results in more than 10,000 deaths a year.

I would have guessed billions and billions, or no-one would buy it.

That clipped second sentence simply can't stand on its own in this context, and it really ought to be more specific regardless.

Someday The Onion is going to run the headline: "Five Deaths from Old Age Now Confirmed from a Single Year / Four Coroners Fined for Lack of Imagination".

Unlike probabilities, death rolls never seem to sum to unity, un unfortunate undercurrent that makes these blunt declarations resemble nothing so much as tabloid click-bait. — MaxEnt 14:41, 10 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Have clarified that it refers to humans. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:04, 10 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Came here today to find background information on a topic widely appearing in news about 2017 EPA decisions. Disappointed: The article misuses primary sources, drawing firm conclusions in the lede and in the main body based solely on primary sources, in some cases, as few as one (see e.g., see lede reference to an inference taken from the a J. Forensic Leg. Med. article, ref. 6 as of this date, and repeated primary source-arguments in the biological/medical main sections). For instance, in the toxicity mechanisms section, whole paragaphs and subsections stand on single primary source, including, in one case, a source that carries the expression "Preliminary Observations" in its title. This article clearly should be tagged for violation of WP sourcing standards, whatever editors might feel about the regulatory status of the agent in their jurisdictions. Le Prof 98.228.192.239 (talk) 14:08, 23 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

I did a review and it seems fine to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.156.233.252 (talk) 19:35, 21 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

The section under "Human Exposure" uses a secondary source when the primary source is readily available. "However as of 2016, EPA scientists had not been able to find any level of exposure to the pesticide that was safe." However, this sentence is misleading since it implies that they found that any exposure was unsafe and that is not the case. Due to poor and conflicting data they were unable to reach a conclusion.

Further the partial quote "...this assessment indicates that dietary risks from food alone are of concern..." is not a conclusion of the assessment but is part of an explanation of the methodology. Likewise the quote "chlorpyrifos may not provide a sufficiently health protective human health risk assessment given the potential for neurodevelopmental outcomes." is not a conclusion of the assessment as implied, but is stating the concern that lead to the undertaking of the assessment in the first place.

The article also does not make it clear that the acceptable daily dose includes a 100X safety factor.

blu (talk) 16:06, 8 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/401086-court-orders-trump-epa-to-ban-controversial-pesticide 100.15.129.3 (talk) 17:26, 9 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Please add in the infobox with hilight about whether it is carcinogenic or not, and how much carcinogenic it is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:4195:A391:0:0:56D:80AD (talk) 15:31, 31 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

It is not, according to C&L Inventory. --Leyo 15:25, 2 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

tolerances in the US likely to be reinstated as a rollback on the 2021 regulations. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/02/05/2024-02153/chlorpyrifos-reinstatement-of-tolerances

regulation section seems a bit lengthy and is almost solely focused on the united states. is this a concern to anyone? 24.228.13.216 (talk) 20:52, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply