Talk:Chlorpyrifos

Synthesis not correct

The synthesis states that "O,O-diethyl phosphorochloridothioate" is used, but an ethyl group has two carbons and the substance shown clearly only has one carbon per group so if anything, the substance is "O,O-dimethyl phosphorochloridothioate" As I cannot vouch for the correctness of the described synthesis, I have, however, not changed the article Saittam (talk) 07:01, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

The substance contains two ethyl (not methyl) groups. Hence, everything is fine. —46.140.3.42 (talk) 07:20, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I notice the comment below with heading "Either bad or unclear redirect" says that there are both ethyl & methyl forms. It sounds like there is further work needed to structure the article (or articles) accordingly. Gould363 (talk) 19:09, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

As creator of the file, I have to make clear that all the shown structures as well as the reaction path is correct. The reaction equation is based on the industrial synthesis method for this compound stated in Pesticide Synthesis Handbook by Thomas A. Unger. Furthermore, a quick SciFinder search resulted in the same equation. Chem Sim 2001 (talk) 15:31, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a problem. The synthesis for chlorpyrifos is correct. Chlorpyrifos methyl is a different but related chemical. Chlorpyrifos methyl redirects to Chlorpyrifos#Chlorpyrifos_methyl which explains this. Yilloslime (talk) 18:35, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Chlorpyrifos methyl needs to have its own article. --Leyo 20:02, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

References

Contradictory wording?

The "Adulthood" subheading under the "Toxicity and Safety" section seems to say two different things in the second line about increased lung cancer risk. The first sentence says that an increase in lung cancer risk was observed in pesticide applicators, but the second sentence says a lower risk rate was observed. Which is it? The second source indicates that a higher rate for pesticide applicators was observed; the first source is now a dead link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.172.112.145 (talk) 22:46, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Unbalanced

This article is currently unbalanced in its content. For such a widely used insecticide that is approved by regulatory agencies worldwide, there must be a positive benefit-to-risk ratio. Currently, this article really says little about its benefits (small sections on use and application) while the majority of the article is about toxicity, health effects, environmental concerns, etc. A more neutral, balanced approach to discussing this topic is needed. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:29, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree. It also has a non-relavant political undertone such as inserting a comment such as: "The Dow Chemical Company, a major producer of chlorpyrifos for use on food for human consumption, contributed $1 million to the Donald J. Trump inaugural committee on December 26, 2016".

@Edgar181: The possible safety risks of chlorpyrifos have received a lot of news coverage in recent months. Which "benefits" does it have in comparison to other pesticides? Jarble (talk) 01:19, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

@Edgar181:@Jarble:I have made a few minor changes reflecting a more unbiased tone, mostly in the lede to notate the accurate sourcing in the body of the article, which uses a lot of singular studies and as such, has quantifiers with it (may, could, possibly). I agree this article is still unbalanced, as there is a lot of referencing one-off or dated studies with no follow-up and very little in the way of technical information in the exposure levels (especially the current recommended levels and it's relation to toxicity or how current usage guidelines are related to current studies. For now, someone with a more technical explanation can come along and clean it up, but if that does not succeed in a moderate time frame, I may attempt to tackle it myself. As it stands, there's a lot of "could", "might" and "may" and given the recent inquiries into it's efficacy, I'm certain more recent studies have been done that may affirm (thus adding a secondary source) or conflict with the data currently used in the article. Seola (talk) 14:42, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

It is an effective broad spectrum pesticide with health concerns. We mention uses first and foremost. Does not look to bad to me currently. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:51, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Concur DocTox (talk) 01:18, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Non sequitur

It acts on the nervous system of insects by inhibiting acetylcholinesterase. Toxicity results in more than 10,000 deaths a year.

I would have guessed billions and billions, or no-one would buy it.

That clipped second sentence simply can't stand on its own in this context, and it really ought to be more specific regardless.

Someday The Onion is going to run the headline: "Five Deaths from Old Age Now Confirmed from a Single Year / Four Coroners Fined for Lack of Imagination".

Unlike probabilities, death rolls never seem to sum to unity, un unfortunate undercurrent that makes these blunt declarations resemble nothing so much as tabloid click-bait. — MaxEnt 14:41, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Have clarified that it refers to humans. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:04, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Misuse of primary sources

Came here today to find background information on a topic widely appearing in news about 2017 EPA decisions. Disappointed: The article misuses primary sources, drawing firm conclusions in the lede and in the main body based solely on primary sources, in some cases, as few as one (see e.g., see lede reference to an inference taken from the a J. Forensic Leg. Med. article, ref. 6 as of this date, and repeated primary source-arguments in the biological/medical main sections). For instance, in the toxicity mechanisms section, whole paragaphs and subsections stand on single primary source, including, in one case, a source that carries the expression "Preliminary Observations" in its title. This article clearly should be tagged for violation of WP sourcing standards, whatever editors might feel about the regulatory status of the agent in their jurisdictions. Le Prof 98.228.192.239 (talk) 14:08, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I did a review and it seems fine to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.156.233.252 (talk) 19:35, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Misuse of secondary sources and misleading partial quote.

The section under "Human Exposure" uses a secondary source when the primary source is readily available. "However as of 2016, EPA scientists had not been able to find any level of exposure to the pesticide that was safe." However, this sentence is misleading since it implies that they found that any exposure was unsafe and that is not the case. Due to poor and conflicting data they were unable to reach a conclusion.

Further the partial quote "...this assessment indicates that dietary risks from food alone are of concern..." is not a conclusion of the assessment but is part of an explanation of the methodology. Likewise the quote "chlorpyrifos may not provide a sufficiently health protective human health risk assessment given the potential for neurodevelopmental outcomes." is not a conclusion of the assessment as implied, but is stating the concern that lead to the undertaking of the assessment in the first place.

The article also does not make it clear that the acceptable daily dose includes a 100X safety factor.

blu (talk) 16:06, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Is chlorpyriphos carcinogenic? Please add and hilight in infobox.

Please add in the infobox with hilight about whether it is carcinogenic or not, and how much carcinogenic it is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:4195:A391:0:0:56D:80AD (talk) 15:31, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

It is not, according to C&L Inventory. --Leyo 15:25, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Splitting discussion

This article on chlorpyrifos is lengthy. I would consider moving detailed information on chlorpyrifos toxicity into its own article and potentially the section on regulations as well especially given their constant state of flux. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 02:06, 7 March 2025 (UTC)