Donley Nathan, Cox Caroline, Bennett Kyla, Temkin Alexis M, Andrews David Q, Naidenko Olga V
Center for Biological Diversity, Portland, Oregon, USA.
Center for Environmental Health (retired), Oakland, California, USA.
Environ Health Perspect. 2024 Jul;132(7):75003. doi: 10.1289/EHP13954. Epub 2024 Jul 24.
Environmental contamination by fluorinated chemicals, in particular chemicals from the per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) class, has raised concerns around the globe because of documented adverse impacts on human health, wildlife, and ecosystem quality. Recent studies have indicated that pesticide products may contain a variety of chemicals that meet the PFAS definition, including the active pesticide ingredients themselves. Given that pesticides are some of the most widely distributed pollutants across the world, the legacy impacts of PFAS addition into pesticide products could be widespread and have wide-ranging implications on agriculture and food and water contamination, as well as the presence of PFAS in rural environments.
The purpose of this commentary is to explore different ways that PFAS can be introduced into pesticide products, the extent of PFAS contamination of pesticide products, and the implications this could have for human and environmental health.
We submitted multiple public records requests to state and federal agencies in the United States and Canada and extracted relevant data from those records. We also compiled data from publicly accessible databases for our analyses.
We found that the biggest contributor to PFAS in pesticide products was active ingredients and their degradates. Nearly a quarter of all US conventional pesticide active ingredients were organofluorines and 14% were PFAS, and for active ingredients approved in the last 10 y, this had increased to 61% organofluorines and 30% PFAS. Another major contributing source was through PFAS leaching from fluorinated containers into pesticide products. Fluorination of adjuvant products and "inert" ingredients appeared to be limited, although this represents a major knowledge gap. We explored aspects of immunotoxicity, persistence, water contamination, and total fluorine load in the environment and conclude that the recent trend of using fluorinated active ingredients in pesticides may be having effects on chemical toxicity and persistence that are not given adequate oversight in the United States. We recommend a more stringent risk assessment approach for fluorinated pesticides, transparent disclosure of "inert" ingredients on pesticide labels, a complete phase-out of post-mold fluorination of plastic containers, and greater monitoring in the United States. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP13954.
氟化化学品对环境的污染，尤其是全氟和多氟烷基物质（PFAS）类化学品，由于有记录表明其对人类健康、野生动物和生态系统质量产生不利影响，已引起全球关注。最近的研究表明，农药产品可能含有多种符合PFAS定义的化学品，包括农药活性成分本身。鉴于农药是全球分布最广泛的污染物之一，PFAS添加到农药产品中的遗留影响可能很广泛，对农业、食品和水污染以及农村环境中PFAS的存在具有广泛影响。
本评论的目的是探讨PFAS进入农药产品的不同方式、农药产品中PFAS的污染程度以及这对人类和环境健康可能产生的影响。
我们向美国和加拿大的州及联邦机构提交了多项公开记录请求，并从这些记录中提取了相关数据。我们还从公开可用的数据库中收集数据进行分析。
我们发现，农药产品中PFAS的最大来源是活性成分及其降解产物。美国所有传统农药活性成分中近四分之一是有机氟化合物，14%是PFAS，而在过去10年批准的活性成分中，这一比例已增至61%的有机氟化合物和30%的PFAS。另一个主要来源是PFAS从氟化容器中沥滤到农药产品中。辅助产品和“惰性”成分的氟化似乎有限，尽管这是一个重大的知识空白。我们探讨了免疫毒性、持久性、水污染和环境中总氟负荷等方面，并得出结论，近期在农药中使用氟化活性成分的趋势可能正在对化学毒性和持久性产生影响，而在美国，这些影响并未得到充分监管。我们建议对氟化农药采用更严格的风险评估方法，在农药标签上透明披露“惰性”成分，全面淘汰塑料容器成型后的氟化工艺，并在美国加强监测。https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP13954
