Department of Public Health and Epidemiology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary.
Doctoral School of Health Sciences, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary.
Front Public Health. 2021 May 24;9:639143. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2021.639143. eCollection 2021.
Glyphosate is the most commonly used herbicide around the world, which led to its accumulation in the environment and consequent ubiquitous human exposure. Glyphosate is marketed in numerous glyphosate-based herbicide formulations (GBHs) that include co-formulants to enhance herbicidal effect of the active ingredient, but are declared as inert substances. However, these other ingredients can have biologic activity on their own and may interact with the glyphosate in synergistic toxicity. In this study, we focused to compare the cytogenetic effect of the active ingredient glyphosate and three marketed GBHs (Roundup Mega, Fozat 480, and Glyfos) by investigating cytotoxicity with fluorescent co-labeling and WST-1 cell viability assay as well as genotoxicity with cytokinesis block micronucleus assay in isolated human mononuclear white blood cells. Glyphosate had no notable cytotoxic activity over the tested concentration range (0-10,000 μM), whereas all the selected GBHs induced significant cell death from 1,000 μM regardless of metabolic activation (S9). Micronucleus (MN) formation induced by glyphosate and its formulations at sub-cytotoxic concentrations (0-100 μM) exhibited a diverse pattern. Glyphosate caused statistically significant increase of MN frequency at the highest concentration (100 μM) after 20-h exposure. Contrarily, Roundup Mega exerted a significant genotoxic effect at 100 μM both after 4- and 20-h exposures; moreover, Glyfos and Fozat 480 also resulted in a statistically significant increase of MN frequency from the concentration of 10 μM after 4-h and 20-h treatment, respectively. The presence of S9 had no effect on MN formation induced by either glyphosate or GBHs. The differences observed in the cytotoxic and genotoxic pattern between the active principle and formulations confirm the previous concept that the presence of co-formulants in the formulations or the interaction of them with the active ingredient is responsible for the increased toxicity of herbicide products, and draw attention to the fact that GBHs are still currently in use, the toxicity of which rivals that of POEA-containing formulations (e.g., Glyfos) already banned in Europe. Hence, it is advisable to subject them to further comprehensive toxicological screening to assess the true health risks of exposed individuals, and to reconsider their free availability to any users.
草甘膦是世界上使用最广泛的除草剂,这导致它在环境中积累,进而普遍导致人类接触。草甘膦以多种草甘膦基除草剂制剂(GBHs)销售,其中包括增效剂以增强有效成分的除草效果,但被宣布为惰性物质。然而,这些其他成分本身可能具有生物活性,并可能与草甘膦协同毒性相互作用。在这项研究中,我们通过使用荧光共标记和 WST-1 细胞活力测定法研究细胞毒性,以及使用细胞分裂阻断微核测定法研究遗传毒性,比较了活性成分草甘膦和三种市售 GBHs(Roundup Mega、Fozat 480 和 Glyfos)的细胞遗传学效应。草甘膦在测试浓度范围内(0-10000μM)没有明显的细胞毒性活性,而所有选定的 GBHs 都在代谢激活(S9)的情况下,无论浓度如何,都能诱导明显的细胞死亡。草甘膦及其制剂在亚细胞毒性浓度(0-100μM)下诱导的微核(MN)形成表现出不同的模式。草甘膦在最高浓度(100μM)下,在 20 小时暴露后,MN 频率呈统计学显著增加。相反,Roundup Mega 在 100μM 浓度下,无论是在 4 小时和 20 小时暴露后,都表现出显著的遗传毒性作用;此外,Glyfos 和 Fozat 480 在 4 小时和 20 小时处理后,浓度分别为 10μM 时,MN 频率也呈统计学显著增加。S9 的存在对草甘膦或 GBHs 诱导的 MN 形成没有影响。活性成分和制剂的细胞毒性和遗传毒性模式之间观察到的差异证实了以前的概念,即制剂中增效剂的存在或它们与有效成分的相互作用是导致除草剂产品毒性增加的原因,并引起人们对以下事实的关注:GBHs 仍在使用中,其毒性与已在欧洲禁用的含有 POEA 的制剂(例如 Glyfos)相当。因此,建议对它们进行进一步的全面毒理学筛选,以评估暴露个体的真正健康风险,并重新考虑对任何使用者免费提供这些制剂。