A systematic review of herbicide safener toxicity.

IF 5.7 2区 医学 Q1 TOXICOLOGY
Derek Simonsen, Vanessa Livania, David M Cwiertny, Riley J Samuelson, John D Sivey, Hans-Joachim Lehmler
{"title":"A systematic review of herbicide safener toxicity.","authors":"Derek Simonsen, Vanessa Livania, David M Cwiertny, Riley J Samuelson, John D Sivey, Hans-Joachim Lehmler","doi":"10.1080/10408444.2024.2391431","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Herbicide safeners are agrochemicals added to herbicide formulations to protect crops from herbicide damage without reducing the effectiveness of the herbicide against weeds. While safeners are typically structurally similar to their co-formulated herbicides, they are classified as \"inert\" in the United States, meaning they are not held to the same regulatory standards as the herbicides. This review systematically examines the toxicity of safeners, which is important given their large-scale global use and potential for exposure to wildlife, livestock, and humans. A systematic review of peer-reviewed literature identified only seven studies examining safener toxicity. Regulatory toxicity data, compiled from the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) database, included data for 9 of the 18 commercial safeners. Most safeners have low acute ecotoxicity and mammalian toxicity; however, chronic effects and the underlying mechanism are less clear. Benoxacor showed enantioselective metabolism and depletion by drug-metabolizing enzymes. In conclusion, despite the widespread use of safeners, significant knowledge gaps exist regarding their toxicity. More research is needed to fully characterize the potential risks of safeners to human health and the environment. Regulatory agencies should consider reclassifying safeners as active ingredients to ensure adequate toxicity testing and risk assessment.</p>","PeriodicalId":10869,"journal":{"name":"Critical Reviews in Toxicology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical Reviews in Toxicology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10408444.2024.2391431","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"TOXICOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Herbicide safeners are agrochemicals added to herbicide formulations to protect crops from herbicide damage without reducing the effectiveness of the herbicide against weeds. While safeners are typically structurally similar to their co-formulated herbicides, they are classified as "inert" in the United States, meaning they are not held to the same regulatory standards as the herbicides. This review systematically examines the toxicity of safeners, which is important given their large-scale global use and potential for exposure to wildlife, livestock, and humans. A systematic review of peer-reviewed literature identified only seven studies examining safener toxicity. Regulatory toxicity data, compiled from the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) database, included data for 9 of the 18 commercial safeners. Most safeners have low acute ecotoxicity and mammalian toxicity; however, chronic effects and the underlying mechanism are less clear. Benoxacor showed enantioselective metabolism and depletion by drug-metabolizing enzymes. In conclusion, despite the widespread use of safeners, significant knowledge gaps exist regarding their toxicity. More research is needed to fully characterize the potential risks of safeners to human health and the environment. Regulatory agencies should consider reclassifying safeners as active ingredients to ensure adequate toxicity testing and risk assessment.

除草剂安全剂毒性的系统性审查。
除草剂安全剂是添加到除草剂配方中的农用化学品,用于保护作物免受除草剂的损害,同时又不降低除草剂对杂草的效力。虽然安全剂通常在结构上与共同配制的除草剂相似,但在美国它们被归类为 "惰性",这意味着它们不受与除草剂相同的监管标准的约束。本综述系统地研究了安全剂的毒性,考虑到安全剂在全球的大规模使用以及野生动物、牲畜和人类接触安全剂的可能性,这一点非常重要。通过对同行评审文献的系统性审查,仅发现七项研究对安全剂的毒性进行了研究。从欧洲化学品管理局 (ECHA) 数据库中汇编的监管毒性数据包括 18 种商用保险粉中 9 种的数据。大多数保险粉的急性生态毒性和哺乳动物毒性较低;但慢性效应和潜在机制则不太清楚。贝诺沙考显示了对映体选择性代谢和药物代谢酶的消耗。总之,尽管安全剂被广泛使用,但有关其毒性的知识仍存在很大差距。需要进行更多的研究,以充分确定保险粉对人类健康和环境的潜在风险。监管机构应考虑将保险粉重新归类为活性成分,以确保进行充分的毒性测试和风险评估。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
9.50
自引率
1.70%
发文量
29
期刊介绍: Critical Reviews in Toxicology provides up-to-date, objective analyses of topics related to the mechanisms of action, responses, and assessment of health risks due to toxicant exposure. The journal publishes critical, comprehensive reviews of research findings in toxicology and the application of toxicological information in assessing human health hazards and risks. Toxicants of concern include commodity and specialty chemicals such as formaldehyde, acrylonitrile, and pesticides; pharmaceutical agents of all types; consumer products such as macronutrients and food additives; environmental agents such as ambient ozone; and occupational exposures such as asbestos and benzene.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信