DOCSLIB.ORG

Toxicological Review of Chlordecone (Kepone)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Toxicological Review of Chlordecone (Kepone) EPA/635/R-07/004F www.epa.gov/iris TOXICOLOGICAL REVIEW OF CHLORDECONE (KEPONE) (CAS No. 143-50-0) In Support of Summary Information on the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) September 2009 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington, DC DISCLAIMER This document has been reviewed in accordance with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency policy and approved for publication. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. ii CONTENTS —TOXICOLOGICAL REVIEW OF CHLORDECONE (CAS No. 143-50-0) LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................................... v LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................... viii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ...................................................................... ix FOREWORD .................................................................................................................................. x AUTHORS, CONTRIBUTORS, AND REVIEWERS ................................................................. xi 1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 1 2. CHEMICAL AND PHYSICAL INFORMATION RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENTS .......... 3 3. TOXICOKINETICS .................................................................................................................. 5 3.1. ABSORPTION ................................................................................................................. 5 3.2. DISTRIBUTION............................................................................................................... 7 3.3. METABOLISM .............................................................................................................. 10 3.4. ELIMINATION .............................................................................................................. 13 3.5. PHYSIOLOGICALLY BASED TOXICOKINETIC MODELS .................................... 15 4. HAZARD IDENTIFICATION ................................................................................................ 18 4.1. STUDIES IN HUMANS―EPIDEMIOLOGY, CASE REPORTS, CLINICAL CONTROLS .................................................................................................................. 18 4.2. SUBCHRONIC AND CHRONIC STUDIES AND CANCER BIOASSAYS IN ANIMALS―ORAL AND INHALATION ................................................................... 19 4.2.1. Subchronic Studies ............................................................................................... 20 4.2.1.1. Oral Exposure Studies ........................................................................... 20 4.2.1.2. Inhalation Exposure Studies .................................................................. 20 4.2.2. Chronic Studies .................................................................................................... 20 4.2.2.1. Oral Exposure Studies ........................................................................... 21 4.3. REPRODUCTIVE/DEVELOPMENTAL STUDIES ..................................................... 34 4.3.1. Reproductive Toxicity Studies ............................................................................. 34 4.3.2. Developmental Toxicity Studies .......................................................................... 46 4.3.3. Screening Studies ................................................................................................. 48 4.4. OTHER DURATION-OR ENDPOINT-SPECIFIC STUDIES...................................... 49 4.4.1. Acute Toxicity Studies ......................................................................................... 49 4.4.2. Potentiation of Halomethane Toxicity ................................................................. 49 4.4.3. Neurotoxicity Studies ........................................................................................... 51 4.4.4. Endocrine Disruption Studies .............................................................................. 51 4.4.5. Immunological Studies ........................................................................................ 53 4.5. MECHANISTIC DATA AND OTHER STUDIES IN SUPPORT OF THE MODE OF ACTION ........................................................................................................................ 57 4.5.1. Genotoxicity ......................................................................................................... 57 4.5.2. Tumor Promotion and Mechanistic Studies ......................................................... 57 4.5.3. Structural Analog Data—Relationship to Mirex ................................................. 60 4.6. SYNTHESIS OF MAJOR NONCANCER EFFECTS ................................................... 63 4.6.1. Oral ...................................................................................................................... 66 4.6.2. Mode-of-Action Information—Glomerular Lesions ........................................... 69 4.7. EVALUATION OF CARCINOGENICITY ................................................................... 70 4.7.1. Summary of Overall Weight of Evidence ............................................................ 70 4.7.2. Synthesis of Human, Animal, and Other Supporting Evidence ........................... 71 4.7.3. Mode-of-Action Information ............................................................................... 75 4.8. SUSCEPTIBLE POPULATIONS AND LIFE STAGES ............................................... 76 4.8.1. Possible Childhood Susceptibility ....................................................................... 76 iii 4.8.2. Possible Gender Differences ................................................................................ 76 5. DOSE-RESPONSE ASSESSMENTS ..................................................................................... 78 5.1. ORAL REFERENCE DOSE (RfD) ................................................................................ 78 5.1.1. Choice of Principal Study and Critical Effect—with Rationale and Justification 78 5.1.2. Methods of Analysis ............................................................................................ 84 5.1.3. RfD Derivation—Including Application of Uncertainty Factors (UFs) .............. 86 5.1.4. Reference value (RfV) Comparison Information ................................................ 87 5.1.5. Previous RfD Assessment .................................................................................... 90 5.2. INHALATION REFERENCE CONCENTRATION (RfC) .......................................... 90 5.3. CANCER ASSESSMENT .............................................................................................. 91 5.3.1. Choice of Study/Data with Rationale and Justification ....................................... 91 5.3.2. Dose-Response Data ............................................................................................ 92 5.3.3. Dose Adjustments and Extrapolation Methods .................................................... 94 5.3.4. Derivation of the Oral Cancer Slope Factor ........................................................ 96 5.3.5. Uncertainties in Cancer Risk Values ................................................................... 97 6. MAJOR CONCLUSIONS IN THE CHARACTERIZATION OF ....................................... 102 HAZARD AND DOSE RESPONSE .......................................................................................... 102 6.1. HUMAN HAZARD POTENTIAL ............................................................................... 102 6.2. DOSE RESPONSE ....................................................................................................... 104 6.2.1. Noncancer .......................................................................................................... 104 6.2.2. Cancer ................................................................................................................ 106 7. REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................... 108 APPENDIX A. SUMMARY OF EXTERNAL PEER REVIEW AND PUBLIC COMMENTS AND DISPOSITION .................................................................................................................. A-1 APPENDIX B. BENCHMARK DOSE CALCULATIONS FOR THE RfD ............................ B-1 APPENDIX C. TIME-TO-TUMOR MODELING RESULTS FROM TOX_RISK BASED ON THE INCIDENCE OF HEPATOCELLULAR CARCINOMAS ............................................... C-1 iv LIST OF TABLES Table 2-1. Physicochemical properties of chlordecone ................................................................. 3 Table 3-1. Whole blood chlordecone level by group of exposed subjects .................................... 6 Table 3-2. Distribution of chlordecone in exposed workers .......................................................... 8 Table 4-1. Incidence and time to tumor of hepatocellular carcinoma in rats .............................. 24 Table 4-2. Summary of endocrine and reproductive system tumor incidence among rats exposed to chlordecone ............................................................................................................................... 25 Table 4-3. Percent body weight gain and percent survival of chlordecone-exposed rats and
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Multi-Scale Impact of Chronic Exposure to Environmental Concentrations Of
    Multi-scale impact of chronic exposure to environmental concentrations of chlordecone in freshwater cnidarian, Hydra circumcincta Romain Colpaert, Pierre-Henri Villard, Laetitia de Jong, Marina Mambert, Karim Benbrahim, Joelle Abraldes, Claire Cerini, Valérie Pique, Maxime Robin, Xavier Moreau To cite this version: Romain Colpaert, Pierre-Henri Villard, Laetitia de Jong, Marina Mambert, Karim Benbrahim, et al.. Multi-scale impact of chronic exposure to environmental concentrations of chlordecone in freshwater cnidarian, Hydra circumcincta. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, Springer Verlag, 2020, 27 (33), pp.41052-41062. 10.1007/s11356-019-06859-4. hal-02451113 HAL Id: hal-02451113 https://hal-amu.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02451113 Submitted on 23 Jan 2020 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Multi-scale impact of chronic exposure to environmental concentrations of chlordecone in freshwater cnidarian, Hydra circumcincta. Romain COLPAERT1, Pierre-Henri VILLARD1, Laetitia DE JONG1, Marina MAMBERT1, Karim BENBRAHIM1, Joelle ABRALDES1, Claire CERINI2, Valérie PIQUE1, Maxime ROBIN1, Xavier MOREAU1 1 : Aix Marseille Univ, Avignon Univ, CNRS, IRD, IMBE, Marseille, France 2 : Aix Marseille Univ, Inserm U1263, C2VN, Marseille, France Corresponding author: email : [email protected] phone : +33-(0)4-91-83-56-38 Abstract Chlordecone (CLD) is an organochlorine pesticide widely used by the past to control pest insects in banana plantations in the French West Indies.
    [Show full text]
  • OECD Environment Health and Safety Publications Series on Testing and Assessment No
    OECD Environment Health and Safety Publications Series on Testing and Assessment No. 21 Detailed Review Paper Appraisal of Test Methods for Sex Hormone Disrupting Chemicals Environment Directorate ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT Paris May 2001 1 Also Published in the Series Testing and Assessment: No. 1, Guidance Document for the Development of OECD Guidelines for Testing of Chemicals (1993; reformatted 1995) No. 2, Detailed Review Paper on Biodegradability Testing (1995) No. 3, Guidance Document for Aquatic Effects Assessment (1995) No. 4, Report of the OECD Workshop on Environmental Hazard/Risk Assessment (1995) No. 5, Report of the SETAC/OECD Workshop on Avian Toxicity Testing (1996) No. 6, Report of the Final Ring-test of the Daphnia magna Reproduction Test (1997) No. 7, Guidance Document on Direct Phototransformation of Chemicals in Water (1997) No. 8, Report of the OECD Workshop on Sharing Information about New Industrial Chemicals Assessment (1997) No. 9 Guidance Document for the Conduct of Studies of Occupational Exposure to Pesticides During Agricultural Application (1997) No. 10, Report of the OECD Workshop on Statistical Analysis of Aquatic Toxicity Data (1998) No. 11, Detailed Review Paper on Aquatic Testing Methods for Pesticides and industrial Chemicals (1998) No. 12, Detailed Review Document on Classification Systems for Germ Cell Mutagenicity in OECD Member Countries (1998) No. 13, Detailed Review Document on Classification Systems for Sensitising Substances in OECD Member Countries 1998) No. 14, Detailed Review Document on Classification Systems for Eye Irritation/Corrosion in OECD Member Countries (1998) No. 15, Detailed Review Document on Classification Systems for Reproductive Toxicity in OECD Member Countries (1998) No.
    [Show full text]
  • (A) Sources, Including As Appropriate (Provide Summary Information
    UNEP/POPS/POPRC.1/4 Format for submitting pursuant to Article 8 of the Stockholm Convention the information specified in Annex E of the Convention Introductory information Name of the submitting Party/observer NGO Observer: Pesticide Action Network on behalf of the International POPs Elimination Network (IPEN) Contact details Clare Butler Ellis PhD, M.Inst.P, C.Env. Pesticide Action Network UK [email protected] Joseph DiGangi, PhD Environmental Health Fund +001-312-566-0985 [email protected] Chemical name Chlordecone Chemical name: 1,1a,3,3a,4,5,5,5a,5b,6-decachloro-octahydro-1,3,4-metheno-2H- cyclobuta[cd]pentalen-2-one CAS=143-50-0 Common trade names: GC 1189, Kepone, Merex Synonyms: Chlordecone, Chlordecone Kepone, Decachloroketone, Decachlorooctahydro-1,3,4-metheno-2H-cyclobuta(cd)pentalen-2-one, Decachloropentacyclo(5.3.0.0.0.0 2,6,4,10,5,9)decane-3-one, Decachlorotetracyclodecanone decachlorooctahydro- , Date of submission 27 January 2006 (a) Sources, including as appropriate (provide summary information and relevant references) (i) Production data: Quantity 1 “Chlordecone is no longer produced commercially in the United States. Between 1951 and 1975, approximately 3.6 million pounds (1.6 million kg) of chlordecone were produced in the United States (Epstein 1978). During this period, Allied Chemical Annex E information on chlordecone 1 UNEP/POPS/POPRC.1/4 Company produced approximately 1.8 million pounds (816,500 kg) of chlordecone at plants in Claymont, Delaware; Marcus Hook, Pennsylvania and Hopewell, Virginia. In 1974, because of increasing demand for chlordecone and a need to use their facility in Hopewell, Virginia, for other purposes, Allied Chemical transferred its chlordecone manufacturing to Life Sciences Products Company (EPA 1978b).
    [Show full text]
  • Research Article Effect of Chlordecone on The
    NorCal Open Access Publications Journal of Aquatic Research and NORCAL Marine Sciences OPEN ACCESS PUBLICATION Volume 2; Issue 2 Asifa KP and Chitra KC Research Article ISSN 2639-4618 Effect of Chlordecone on the Reproductive Potential of the Cichlid Fish, Pseudetroplus Maculatus (Bloch, 1795) Asifa KP, Chitra KC* Endocrinology and Toxicology Laboratory, Department of Zoology, University of Calicut, Kerala, India. *Corresponding author: Chitra KC, Endocrinology and Toxicology Laboratory, Department of Zoology, University of Calicut, Kerala, India. Email: [email protected] Received Date: 16 March, 2019; Accepted Date: 03 May, 2019; Published Date: 17 May, 2019 Abstract Introduction The present study was undertaken to evaluate that chlordecone, During the past few decades, large number of environmental an organochlorine pesticide, possessing estrogenic properties contaminants such as, pesticides, pharmaceutical drugs, plas- are known to influence the reproductive potential of the cich- tic products, natural phytochemicals etc. has been continu- lid fish, Pseudetroplus maculatus. Chlordecone at two sublethal ously released into various compartments of both terrestrial concentrations, 3.5 and 7µg/L, were exposed to fish for 4, 7, 15 and aquatic ecosystems, which are known to disrupt the en- and 30 days in order to evaluate the level of vitellogenin, main- docrine system of animals, including humans. Such chemicals taining the control groups. Vitellogenin concentrations were are called endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs), which can measured in both male and female fishes by using indirect end- interfere with biosynthesis, transport, action, metabolism and points, such as alkali-labile phosphoprotein (ALP), total pro- removal of various hormones in the body resulting in varia- tein and calcium concentrations in the blood plasma.
    [Show full text]
  • Past Use of Chlordane, Dieldrin, And
    The Hazard Evaluation and Emergency Response Office (HEER Office) is part of the Hawai‘i Department of Health (HDOH) Environmental Health Administration, whose mission is to protect human health and the environment. The HEER Office provides leadership, support, and partnership in preventing, planning for, responding to, and enforcing environmental laws relating to releases or threats of releases of hazardous substances. Past Use of Chlordane, Dieldrin, and other Organochlorine Pesticides for Termite Control in Hawai‘i: Safe Management Practices around Treated Foundations or during Building Demolition This fact sheet provides building owners, demolition and construction contractors, developers, realtors, and others with an overview of the potential environmental concerns associated with the past use of organochlorine termiticides (pesticides used to control termites) in Hawai‘i. In addition, this fact sheet discusses methods for reducing exposure to organochlorine termiticides during building demolition or around the foundations of treated buildings and identifies resources for further information. What are organochlorine termiticides? Organochlorine termiticides are a group of pesticides that were used for termite control in and around wooden buildings and homes from the mid-1940s to the late 1980s. These organochlorine pesticides included chlordane, aldrin, dieldrin, heptachlor, and dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT). They were used primarily by pest control operators in Hawaii’s urban areas, but also by homeowners, the military, the state, and counties to protect buildings against termite damage. In the 1970s and 1980s, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) banned all uses of these organochlorine pesticides except for heptachlor, which can be used today only for control of fire ants in underground power transformers.
    [Show full text]
  • EPA Listed Wastes Table 1: Maximum Concentration of Contaminants For
    EPA Listed Wastes Table 1: Maximum concentration of contaminants for the toxicity characteristic, as determined by the TCLP (D list) Regulatory HW No. Contaminant CAS No. Level (mg/L) D004 Arsenic 7440-38-2 5.0 D005 Barium 7440-39-3 100.0 D0018 Benzene 71-43-2 0.5 D006 Cadmium 7440-43-9 1.0 D019 Carbon tetrachloride 56-23-5 0.5 D020 Chlordane 57-74-9 0.03 D021 Chlorobenzene 108-90-7 100.0 D022 Chloroform 67-66-3 6.0 D007 Chromium 7440-47-3 5.0 D023 o-Cresol 95-48-7 200.0** D024 m-Cresol 108-39-4 200.0** D025 p-Cresol 106-44-5 200.0** D026 Cresol ------------ 200.0** D016 2,4-D 94-75-7 10.0 D027 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 106-46-7 7.5 D028 1,2-Dichloroethane 107-06-2 0.5 D029 1,1-Dichloroethylene 75-35-4 0.7 D030 2,4-Dinitrotoluene 121-14-2 0.13* D012 Endrin 72-20-8 0.02 D031 Heptachlor 76-44-8 0.008 D032 Hexachlorobenzene 118-74-1 0.13* D033 Hexachlorobutadiene 87-68-3 0.5 D034 Hexachloroethane 67-72-1 3.0 D008 Lead 7439-92-1 5.0 D013 Lindane 58-89-9 0.4 D009 Mercury 7439-97-6 0.2 D014 Methoxychlor 72-43-5 10.0 D035 Methyl ethyl ketone 78-93-3 200.0 D036 Nitrobenzene 98-95-3 2.0 D037 Pentachlorophenol 87-86-5 100.0 D038 Pyridine 110-86-1 5.0* D010 Selenium 7782-49-2 1.0 D011 Silver 7740-22-4 5.0 D039 Tetrachloroethylene 127-18-4 0.7 D015 Toxaphene 8001-35-2 0.5 D040 Trichloroethylene 79-01-6 0.5 D041 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol 95-95-4 400.0 D042 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 88-06-2 2.0 D017 2,4,5-TP (Silvex) 93-72-1 1.0 D043 Vinyl Chloride 74-01-4 0.2 * Quantitation limit is greater than the calculated regulatory level.
    [Show full text]
  • In Silico Pharmacodynamics, Toxicity Profile and Biological Activities of the Saharan Medicinal Plant Limoniastrum Feei
    Brazilian Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences Article http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/s2175-97902017000300061 In silico pharmacodynamics, toxicity profile and biological activities of the Saharan medicinal plant Limoniastrum feei Ouahab Ammar* Department of Pharmacy, Faculty of Medical Sciences, University of Batna 2, Algeria In-silico study was performed to find the pharmacodynamics, toxicity profiles and biological activities of three phytochemicals isolated from Limoniastrum feei (Plumbagenaceae). Online pharmacokinetic tools were used to estimate the potential of Quercetin, kaempferol-3-O-β-D-glucopyranoside (astragalin) and quercitin-7-O-β-D-glucopyranoside as specific drugs. Then the prediction of potential targets of these compounds were investigated using PharmMapper. Auto-Dock 4.0 software was used to investigate the different interactions of these compounds with the targets predicted earlier. The permeability of quercetin s rule of five. Hematopoietic prostaglandin (PG) D׳ was found within the range stated by Lipinski synthase (HPGDS), farnesyl diphosphate synthetase (FPPS) and the deoxycytidine kinase (DCK) were potential targets for quercetin, astragalin and quercetin 7, respectively. Quercetin showed antiallergic and anti-inflammatory activity, while astragalin and quercetin 7 were predicted to have anticancer activities. The activity of Astragalin appeared to be mediated by FPPS inhibition. The inhibition of DCK was predicted as the anticancer mechanisms of quercetin 7. The compounds showed interesting interactions and satisfactory binding energies when docked into their targets. These compounds are proposed to have activities against a variety of human aliments such as allergy, tumors, muscular dystrophy, and diabetic cataracts. Keywords: Limoniastrum feei/pharmacokinetics. Limoniastrum feei/biological activity. Quercetin. Astragalin. Quercetin 7. Medicinal plants. Molecular docking.
    [Show full text]
  • Health Consultation Chevron Chemical Co
    - • ! t Health Consultation Chevron Chemical Co. (Ortho Division) Orlando, Orange County, Florida CERCLIS NO. FLD004064242 June 1995 Prepared by Environmental Toxicology The Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Under a Cooperative Agreement With Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry U.S. Public Health Service Department of Health and Human Services - ' ' Health Consultation - Chevron Chemical June 1995 Background and Statement of Issues The purpose of this health consultation is to interpret the results of indoor air monitoring for pesticides in two trailers adjacent to the Chevron Chemical Superfund site in Orlando, Florida. During a March 9, 1995 public meeting, two nearby residents expressed concerns that the insides of their trailers were contaminated with pesticides. We agreed to test their trailers for pesticide contamination. The Chevron Chemical Co. (Ortho Division) Superfund site is a former pesticide formulation plant and truck repair facility in Orlando, Florida (Figures 1-3, Appendix A). Past waste disposal practices contaminated soil and ground water. Stormwater run-off carried pesticide-contaminated soil to the adjacent Armstrong Trailer Park. In 1992, the Chevron Chemical Company removed the on-site contaminated soil. In 1994, they removed the contaminated soil from the Armstrong Trailer Park. In a 1995 public health assessment (ATSDR 1995), we found the site was a public health hazard because some residents of the adjacent Armstrong Trailer Park may have unknowingly eaten small amounts of soil contaminated with the pesticide chlordane. As a result, we estimated those residents have a moderately increased risk of liver cancer. Since Chevron cleaned up the chlordane-contaminated soil at this trailer park, we estimated the remaining cancer risk from chlordane is insignificant.
    [Show full text]
  • Chronology of Pesticides Used on National Park Service Collections
    Conserve O Gram June 2001 Number 2/16 Chronology Of Pesticides Used On National Park Service Collections The history of National Park Service pesticide use publication). Synonyms and trade names were policy for museum collection objects is obtained from the Merck Index, notes from the documented in various publications including IPM Coordinator, and two Internet sites Field Manual for Museums (Burns), Manual for (<http://chemfinder.com> and <http:// Museums (Lewis), versions of the Museum www.cdpr.ca.gov/cgi-bin/epa>). Handbook, Part I, and two versions of the Integrated Pest Management Information Manual. Not all of the chemicals listed in the Other non-policy sources include Coleman's accompanying charts were marketed as pesticides. Manual for Small Museums, object treatment Some are fungicides and microbiocides. One, reports and notes from NPS staff, and notes from Lexol, is a leather preservative and consolidant. the Office of the Integrated Pest Management All of these are included here because records (IPM) Coordinator. indicate they were applied to objects as pesticides. The two accompanying charts list the types of The potential for pesticide residue remaining on pesticides that may have been used on National collection objects is very high. Objects with such Park Service collections along with some common residues pose a health risk to curatorial staff and synonyms and trade names. to the public who come into physical contact with them, unless proper precautions are taken. Dates shown in blue on the chart represent Additional information on health and safety issues published recommendations for the use of and protective measures can be found in the pesticides.
    [Show full text]
  • Download in English
    UNITED NATIONS BC UNEP/CHW.12/5/Add.9 Distr.: General 10 July 2015 Original: English Conference of the Parties to the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal Twelfth meeting Geneva, 4–15 May 2015 Agenda item 4 (b) (i) Matters related to the implementation of the Convention: scientific and technical matters: technical guidelines Technical guidelines Technical guidelines on the environmentally sound management of wastes consisting of, containing or contaminated with the pesticides aldrin, alpha hexachlorocyclohexane, beta hexachlorocyclohexane, chlordane, chlordecone, dieldrin, endrin, heptachlor, hexachlorobenzene, lindane, mirex, pentachlorobenzene, perfluorooctane sulfonic acid, technical endosulfan and its related isomers or toxaphene or with hexachlorobenzene as an industrial chemical Note by the Secretariat At its twelfth meeting, the Conference of the Parties to the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal adopted, in decision BC-12/3 on technical guidelines on the environmentally sound management of wastes consisting of, containing or contaminated with persistent organic pollutants, the technical guidelines on the environmentally sound management of wastes consisting of, containing or contaminated with the pesticides aldrin, alpha hexachlorocyclohexane, beta hexachlorocyclohexane, chlordane, chlordecone, dieldrin, endrin, heptachlor, hexachlorobenzene, lindane, mirex, pentachlorobenzene, perfluorooctane sulfonic acid, technical endosulfan and its related isomers or toxaphene or with hexachlorobenzene as an industrial chemical, on the basis of the draft technical guidelines contained in document UNEP/CHW.12/INF/15. The technical guidelines referred to above were prepared by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations as lead organization for this work taking into account comments received from members of the small intersesssional working group on persistent organic pollutants wastes by 27 March 2015.
    [Show full text]
  • Chemicals of High Concern List (Sorted Alphabetically), July 2010
    Minnesota Department of Health, Chemicals of High Concern list, July 1, 2010 Persistent, Bioaccumulative, Toxic or very CAS Persistent, very HPV (2006 and 3 of 4 Number Chemical Name Health endpoint(s) Bioaccumulative Source(s) Use example(s) or class years) (S)-4-hydroxy-3-(3-oxo-1-phenylbutyl)-2- Maine (EU Reproductive 5543-57-7 benzopyrone Reproduction Toxicant) Sunscreen Maine (CA Prop 65; IARC; EU Carcinogen; NTP 11th ROC; OSPAR Chemicals of High Concern); WA Appen1; 91-94-1 [1,1'-biphenyl]-4,4'-diamine, 3,3'-dichloro-Cancer x Minnesota HRL Dye, curing agent Maine (OSPAR Chemicals of [1,1'-biphenyl]-4,4'-diamine, N,N'-bis(2,4- Concern; Canada PBiT); WA 29398-96-7 dinitrophenyl)-3,3'-dimethoxy- x Appen1 Colorant [1,1'-Biphenyl]-4-ol, 3,4',5-tris(1,1- Maine (Canada PBiT); WA 6257-39-2 dimethylethyl)- x Appen1 [1,1'-Biphenyl]-4-ol, 3,4'-bis(1,1- Maine (Canada PBiT); WA 42479-88-9 dimethylethyl)- x Appen1 Chemical intermediate [1,1'-biphenyl]-4-ol, 3,5-bis(1,1- Maine (OSPAR Chemicals of 2668-47-5 dimethylethyl)- x Concern); WA Appen1 [2,6'-Bibenzothiazole]-7-sulfonic acid, 2'- (4-aminophenyl)-6-methyl-, diazotized, coupled with diazotized 4- aminobenzenesulfonic acid and Maine (Canada PBiT); WA 91696-90-1 resorcinol, sodium salts x Appen1 1(2H)-Quinolineethanol, 6-[(2-chloro-4,6- dinitrophenyl) azo]-3,4-dihydro-2,2,4,7- Maine (Canada PBiT); WA 63133-84-6 tetramethyl- x Appen1 1(2H)-Quinolinepropanamide, 6-(2,2- dicyanoethenyl)-3, 4-dihydro-2,2,4,7- Maine (Canada PBiT); WA 63467-15-2 tetramethyl-N-phenyl- x Appen1 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloro-2,2-bis(4-
    [Show full text]
  • Chlordane and Toxaphene Residues Following Cooking of Treated Channel Catfish Fillets
    763 Journal of Food Protection, Vol. 63, No. 6, 2000, Pages 763±767 Copyright Q, International Association for Food Protection Chlordane and Toxaphene Residues following Cooking of Treated Channel Cat®sh Fillets C. R. SANTERRE,1* R. INGRAM,2 D. H. XU,3 G. W. LEWIS,4 AND L. G. LANE2 1Department of Foods and Nutrition, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana 47907-1264; 2Mississippi State Chemical Laboratory, Mississippi State, Mississippi 39762; 3Department of Fisheries and Allied Aquacultures, Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama 36849; and 4Warnell School of Forest Resources, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia 30602, USA MS 99-215: Received 28 July 1999/Accepted 17 December 1999 Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/jfp/article-pdf/63/6/763/1673844/0362-028x-63_6_763.pdf by guest on 27 September 2021 ABSTRACT The reduction in residues of chlordane and toxaphene following cooking (frying, baking, and smoking) of ®llets obtained from treated Channel cat®sh (Ictalurus punctatus) was determined. On average, cooking reduced moisture content by 17% and increased fat content by 28 to 274%. Frying reduced chlordane residues by 56 to 86% on a dry basis (db) or 84 to 92% on a percent fat basis (fb) when raw ®llets were compared to cooked ®llets. Baking and smoking reduced chlordane signi®cantly less (P , 0.05) than frying with reductions in residues of 12% and 9% (db) or 30% and 33% (fb), respectively. Frying reduced toxaphene residues by 40 to 49% (db) or 65 to 77% (fb), while baking and smoking reduced toxaphene by 35% and 24% (db) or 51% and 59% (fb), respectively.
    [Show full text]