Reactions of captan and folpet with thiols

An Evaluation of the Common Mechanism Approach to the Food Quality Protection Act: Captan and Four Related Fungicides, a Practical Example

Under the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996 (Act), the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is mandated to conduct cumulative risk assessment on pesticides that act through a common mechanism of toxicity. Incumbent on the Agency is the development of sound scientific principles upon which to evaluate compounds for the presence of a common mechanism. Using the currently available draft guidance criteria, this paper employs five fungicides of the same general class, typified by captan, to evaluate both the criteria and the available scientific data.

Captan and folpet are two chloroalkylthio fungicides currently registered with EPA under Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) for agricultural use. As such, these compounds are subject to the provisions of FQPA. Three additional fungicidal compounds—dichlofluanid, tolylfluanid, and captafol—are not registered for use in the United States; however, these five compounds have chemical structure and biological toxicity similarities and differences that permit their utility as test cases to determine what the EPA would conclude, with regard to common mechanism, if these draft guidelines were applied to these compounds.

The results of the analyses are consistent and support the conclusion that captan and folpet share a common mode of toxicity for mouse duodenal tumors as defined in the Act. This common mode of toxicity is not shared by dichlofluanid, tolylfluanid, or captafol.

The basis for concluding a common mechanism exists between captan and folpet. They include 1. Structural Similarity—The compounds are structural analogs having the identical biologically active moiety (i.e., the-SCCl3side chain). 2. Mechanisms of Pesticidal Action—The compounds have the same mechanism of action. The overwhelming body of evidence suggests they are active because of their reactions with thiols. Both compounds, in reacting with thiols, produce similar degradates. Differences in rates of reaction are attributable to physical-chemical properties of the two compounds. 3. General Mechanisms of Mammalian Toxicity—The compounds induce mammalian toxicity through the same mechanism that is responsible for their pesticidal action, reactions with thiols. Another, albeit less likely, mechanism (for both compounds) is cross-Unking of proteins with DNA, although the extremely short half-lives of these compounds (seconds) argues against this possibility. 4. Sites of Action—Both compounds express their primary toxicity as local rather than systemic effects. 5. Common Toxic Endpoint—These two compounds induce gastrointestinal tumors (in mice only). 6. Mode of Action—Both compounds express their common toxic endpoint through a nongenotoxic, compensatory proliferation mechanism. 7. Specificity of Action—For both compounds, the majority of tumors appear in the duodenum. Furthermore, these tumors are induced only in mice. Repeated carcinogenicity testing suggests that rats are refractive to the effects of captan and folpet. The significantly faster hydrolytic rate for folpet at the lower pH values (e.g., increased 8-fold at pH 5) encountered in the stomach is believed to account for the tumors of the stomach observed with folpet and not captan. 8. Other Toxic Endpoints—For other toxic endpoints where comparative data are available, captan and folpet show similar patterns of toxicity (e.g., mutagenicity, skin sensitization, and acute toxicity).

Physicochemical characteristics and bronchial epithelial cell cytotoxicity of Folpan 80 WG(R) and Myco 500(R), two commercial forms of folpet

BACKGROUND

Pesticides, in particular folpet, have been found in rural and urban air in France in the past few years. Folpet is a contact fungicide and has been widely used for the past 50 years in vineyards in France. Slightly water-soluble and mostly present as particles in the environment, it has been measured at average concentration of 40.1 mug/m3 during its spraying, 0.16-1.2 mug/m3 in rural air and around 0.01 mug/m3 in urban air, potentially exposing both the workers and the general population. However, no study on its penetration by inhalation and on its respiratory toxicity has been published. The objective of this study was to determine the physicochemical characteristics of folpet particles (morphology, granulometry, stability) in its commercial forms under their typical application conditions. Moreover, the cytotoxic effect of these particles and the generation of reactive oxygen species were assessed in vitro on respiratory cells.

RESULTS

Granulometry of two commercial forms of folpet (Folpan 80WG(R) and Myco 500(R)) under their typical application conditions showed that the majority of the particles (>75%) had a size under 5 mum, and therefore could be inhaled by humans. These particles were relatively stable over time: more than 75% of folpet remained in the particle suspension after 30 days under the typical application conditions. The inhibitory concentration (IC50) on human bronchial epithelial cells (16HBE14o-) was found to be between 2.89 and 5.11 mug/cm2 for folpet commercial products after 24 h of exposure. Folpet degradation products and vehicles of Folpan 80 WG(R) did not show any cytotoxicity at tested concentrations. At non-cytotoxic and subtoxic concentrations, Folpan 80 WG(R) was found to increase DCFH-DA fluorescence.

CONCLUSION

These results show that the particles of commercial forms of folpet are relatively stable over time. Particles could be easily inhaled by humans, could reach the conducting airways and are cytotoxic to respiratory cells in vitro. Folpet particles may mediate its toxicity directly or indirectly through ROS-mediated alterations. These data constitute the first step towards the risk assessment of folpet particles by inhalation for human health. This work confirms the need for further studies on the effect of environmental pesticides on the respiratory system.

Captan: Transition from ‘B2’ to ‘not likely’. How pesticide registrants affected the EPA Cancer Classification Update

On 24 November 2004 EPA changed the cancer classification of captan from a 'probable human carcinogen' (Category B2) to 'not likely' when used according to label directions. The new cancer classification considers captan to be a potential carcinogen at prolonged high doses that cause cytotoxicity and regenerative cell hyperplasia. These high doses of captan are many orders of magnitude above those likely to be consumed in the diet, or encountered by individuals in occupational or residential settings. This revised cancer classification reflects EPA's implementation of their new cancer guidelines. The procedures involved in the reclassification effort were agreed upon with EPA and involved an Independent Transparent Review as it related to four components that formed the basis of the original 1986 B2 classification: mouse tumors; rat tumors; mutagenicity; and structural similarity to other carcinogens. A Peer Review Panel organized and administered by Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment (TERA) met on 2-3 September 2003. The Panel concluded that captan acted through a non-mutagenic threshold mode of action that required prolonged irritation of the duodenal villi as the initial key event. EPA's Cancer Assessment Review Committee (CARC) met on 9 June 2004 and endorsed the Peer Review findings. EPA intended to have the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) consider the basis for this reclassification but found the science was robust and judged that a SAP review was not warranted. Using the revised classification, the margin of exposure is approximately 1,200,000, supporting the 'not likely' characterization.