Dominant lethal test with rats exposed to 1,3-dichloropropene by inhalation

In vitro and in vivo assessments of the genotoxic potential of 3-chloroallyl alcohol

3-Chloroallyl alcohol (3-CAA) can be found in the environment following the application of plant protection products. 3-CAA is formed in groundwater following the injection of 1,3-dichloropropene, a fumigant used to control nematodes. 3-CAA is also formed, in leafy crops, as a glycoside conjugate following application of the herbicide, clethodim. Human exposure may occur from groundwater used as drinking water or through dietary consumption. To characterize 3-CAA's potential to cause genotoxicity in mammals, in vitro and in vivo studies were conducted. 3-CAA was negative in an Ames test and positive in a mouse lymphoma forward mutation assay. 3-CAA was negative in an acute in vivo CD-1 mouse bone marrow micronucleus assay when administered up to a dose level of 125 mg/kg/day for two consecutive days. In a combined gene mutation assay and erythrocyte micronucleus assay, using transgenic Big Blue® Fischer 344 rats, 3-CAA was administered via drinking water at targeted dose levels of 0, 10, 30, and 100 mg/kg/day for 29 days. Peripheral blood samples, collected at the end of treatment, were analyzed for micronucleus induction in reticulocytes using flow cytometry. Liver and bone marrow samples, collected 2 days after the termination of the treatment, were analyzed for the induction of mutations at the cII locus. 3-CAA did not induce an increase in mutant frequency or micronuclei under the experimental conditions. In conclusion, the mutagenic response observed in the in vitro mouse lymphoma assay is not confirmed in the whole animal. 3-CAA is not considered to pose a mutagenic risk.

Weight of evidence analysis of the tumorigenic potential of 1,3-dichloropropene supports a threshold-based risk assessment

1,3-Dichloropropene (1,3-D; CAS #542-75-6) is a fumigant used for preplant treatment of soil to control parasitic nematodes and manage soil borne diseases for numerous fruit, vegetable, field and tree and vine crops across diverse global agricultural areas. In the USA, 1,3-D has historically been classified by the U.S. EPA as likely to be carcinogenic to humans via both oral and inhalation routes. This classification for the oral route was primarily based upon increases in multiple tumor types observed in National Toxicology Program (NTP) cancer bioassays in rats and mice, while the classification for the inhalation route was based upon increased benign bronchioloalveolar adenomas in a mouse study conducted by The Dow Chemical Company. Based on U.S. EPA standard risk assessment methodologies, a low-dose linear extrapolation approach has been used to estimate risks to humans. Furthermore, genotoxicity associated with 1,3-D was historically considered a potential mode of action (MOA) for its tumorigenicity. New information is available and additional studies have been conducted that reveal a different picture of the tumorigenic potential of 1,3-D. These data and information include: (1) initial cancer studies by the NTP were conducted on an antiquated form of 1,3-D which contained a known mutagen/carcinogen, epichlorohydrin, as a stabilizer while current 1,3-D fumigants use epoxidized soybean oil (ESO) as the stabilizer; (2) results from two additional oral rodent cancer bioassays conducted on the modern form of 1,3-D became available and these two studies reveal a lack of carcinogenicity; (3) a newly conducted Big Blue study in F344 rats via the oral route further confirms that 1,3-D is not an in vivo genotoxicant; and (4) a newly conducted repeat dose inhalation toxicokinetic (TK) study shows that linear dose proportionality is observed below 30 ppm, which demonstrates the non-relevance of 60 ppm 1,3-D-induced benign lung tumors in mice for human health assessment. This weight of evidence review is organized as follows: (a) the TK of 1,3-D are presented because of relevant considerations when evaluating test doses/concentrations and reported findings of tumorigenicity; (b) the genotoxicity profile of 1,3-D is presented, including a contemporary study in order to put a possible genotoxicity MOA into perspective; (c) the six available bioassays are reviewed followed by (d) scientifically supported points of departure (PODs) and evaluation of human exposure for use in risk assessment. Through this assessment, all available data support the conclusion that 1,3-D is not a tumorigen at doses below 12.5 mg/kg bw/day via the oral route or at doses below 30 ppm via the inhalation route. These findings and clearly identified PODs show that a linear low dose extrapolation approach is not appropriate and a threshold-based risk assessment for 1,3-D is human health protective. Finally, in 2019, the Cancer Assessment Review Committee (CARC) reevaluated the carcinogenic potential of 1,3-D. In accordance with the EPA's Final Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment, the CARC classified 1,3-D (Telone) as "Suggestive Evidence of Carcinogenic Potential based on the presence of liver tumors by the oral route in male rats only." Given this finding, EPA stated that "quantification of human cancer risk is not required. The CARC recommends using a non-linear approach (i.e. reference dose (RfD)) that will adequately account for all chronic toxicity including carcinogenicity, that could result from exposure to 1,3-dichloropropene."

Peer review of a cancer weight of evidence assessment based on updated toxicokinetics, genotoxicity, and carcinogenicity data for 1,3-dichloropropene using a blinded, virtual panel of experts

A cancer weight of evidence (WOE) analysis based on updated toxicokinetics, genotoxicity, and carcinogenicity data for 1,3-dichloropropene was peer reviewed by a panel of experts. Historically, 1,3-dichloropropene has been classified in the U.S. as "likely to be carcinogenic to humans" via oral and inhalation exposure routes based upon the results of rodent cancer bioassays conducted in the 1980s. Contemporary studies led the authors of the WOE analysis to conclude that the currently manufactured form of 1,3-dichloropropene is not mutagenic and not carcinogenic below certain doses, pointing to a threshold-based approach for cancer risk assessment. SciPinion conducted a peer review of the WOE analysis using methods for assembling and managing blinded expert panels that maximize expertise while minimizing potential selection/participation bias. The process was implemented through a web-based application that poses a series of questions soliciting the experts' scientific opinions and observations about specific topics. The goal of the peer review was to have experts provide conclusions about the WOE for carcinogenicity classification of 1,3-dichloropropene, identify potential data gaps, and evaluate the validity of a threshold-based risk assessment for 1,3-dichloropropene. Based on a robust peer review of the current scientific information, a cancer WOE classification of "not likely to be carcinogenic to humans" is best supported for 1,3-dichloropropene. This conclusion is reached with a high degree of consensus (consensus score = 0.92) across expert panel members.

In vivo mutagenicity evaluation of the soil fumigant 1,3-dichloropropene

1,3-Dichloropropene (1,3-D; CAS No. 542-75-6) is a soil fumigant used for the control of nematodes in agriculture. There is an extensive database on the genotoxicity of 1,3-D and many of the published studies are confounded by the presence of mutagenic stabilisers in the test substance. Mixed results were obtained in the in vitro assays, often due to the purity of the 1,3-D sample tested. In order to get further clarity, the mutagenic potential of 1,3-D was investigated in vivo in the transgenic Big Blue rodent models. Inhalation exposure of 150 ppm 1,3-D (×2.5 tumourigenic dose) to transgenic male B6C3F1 mice did not induce lacI mutations in either the lung (tumour target tissue) or liver. Similarly, dietary administration of 1,3-D up to 50 mg/kg/day to transgenic male Fischer 344 rats did not increase the cII mutant frequency in either the liver (tumour target) or kidney. These results, along with other available in vivo data, including the absence of DNA adducts and clastogenic/aneugenic potential, support the conclusion that 1,3-D is efficiently detoxified in vivo and, as such, does not pose a mutagenic hazard or risk.

Mammalian toxicity of 1,3-dichloropropene

DCP has been utilized as a soil fumigant for more than 45 yr for the control for parasitic plant nematodes. Injected into soil before planting of crops, the instability of DCP in soil and water and its volatility dictate the principal route of human exposure that may occur, inhalation. Extensive data have been accumulated on the toxicity and metabolism of DCP. DCP is moderately toxic via oral or inhalation exposure, is irritating to the skin and eyes, and has potential to produce skin sensitization. It is rapidly and extensively metabolized. It has a half-life in the blood of rats and humans of only 3-7 min and < 10 min, respectively. Rats and mice excrete approximately 80% of even relatively high oral dosages within 24 hr, primarily as breakdown products of a glutathione conjugate or as carbon dioxide. These products reflect the primary routes of metabolism of DCP, via GSH-conjugative and hydrolytic pathways. An additional pathway based upon the epoxidation of DCP has also been proposed, but this does not appear to occur to any toxicologically significant degree in the presence of normally occurring GSTs. Direct evidence of the latter pathway is only been obtained at dosages of DCP in excess of the reported LD50. Humans also appear to rapidly metabolize DCP and excrete its metabolites. Subchronic toxicity studies of relatively pure DCP in rats and mice via oral or inhalation routes have resulted in portal-of-entry tissue effects that reflect the irritant properties of this chemical to nasal and gastric mucosa. At higher exposure levels in mice, however, toxicity was also identified in a remote tissue, the urinary bladder. Toxicity in dogs ingesting DCP was limited to the formation of a regenerative hypochromic, microcytic anemia. No teratological or reproductive effects were observed in rats or rabbits inhaling DCP vapors. Nonneoplastic changes from chronic dosing of DCP were generally similar to those observed in subchronic studies. Somewhat variable responses, however, have been observed for neoplastic effects, depending on the DCP formulation, route, and species used. Inhalation of a recent formulation increased the benign tumor incidence in the lungs of male mice (only) while ingestion of similar test material by rats and mice resulted in a low incidence of benign liver tumors in rats (only). In contrast, an older formulation containing Epi as a stabilizing agent administered to rats and mice via bolus oral dosing induced a number of malignant or benign tumors: in the forestomach and liver in rats and the forestomach, lung, and urinary bladder in mice. An equally complicated database has accumulated for DCP in vitro and in vivo genotoxicity testing. Genotoxicity has been reported in in vitro assays; however, confounding factors such as low-purity formulations, use of a genotoxic stabilizer, or generation of reactive impurities during attempts to purify test material have complicated interpretation. DCP appears to lack direct DNA reactivity, and a general trend toward decreasing activity with increasing complexity of the assay system and the presence of GST is evident. The weight-of-evidence evaluation of the genotoxicity data base suggests a lack of genotoxicity in vivo. Clearly definable treatment-related effects of DCP suggesting a plausible nongenotoxic mechanism of tumorigenic action, for example, enhanced cell proliferation, have not been in evidence in target tissues of treated animals. Thus, the specific mode of tumorigenesis of DCP in test animals remains to be elucidated but appears to involve a non-DNA-reactive mechanism. In conclusion, DCP-based soil fumigants have maintained an important role in agricultural despite the structural similarity of DCP to known genotoxic carcinogens and its own activity in in vitro genotoxicity assays. This role results from a combination of its use on soils before the planting of crops, its limited environmental half-life, rapid metabolism by animals via GSH conjugation and catabolism to CO2, lack of genotoxicity in in vivo assays, and an extensive toxicological database in animals, including several oncogenicity bioassays. These data, when combined with occupational and environmental exposure information, have provided a scientifically sound basis for the continued safe use of DCP-containing products.