PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
February 14, 2026Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology0 citationsOpen Access

Do co-formulants influence plant protection product genotoxicity ?

View Full Paper
ASA. Stagkos-GeorgiadisUniversity of PotsdamVRV. RaoljiFederal Institute for Risk AssessmentJKJeannette KoenigFederal Institute for Risk Assessment

Key Points

  • The aim is to investigate whether co-formulants affect the genotoxicity of plant protection products (PPPs).
  • Conducted in silico analysis to identify potentially genotoxic co-formulants.
  • Prioritized PPPs for in vitro testing based on co-formulant concentration.
  • Assessed genotoxic potential using the micronucleus test in V79 cells.
  • Four prioritized co-formulants exceeded 1% concentration in eight PPPs without further investigation.
  • No difference in genotoxicity between metiram and its PPP was observed.
  • A 2-fold increase in micronuclei formation was found in the formulated PPP with pendimethalin compared to pendimethalin alone.

Abstract

Plant protection products (PPPs) contain active substances (AS) providing pesticidal activity and co-formulants supporting efficacy. AS undergo extensive safety assessment, including genotoxicity testing, while PPPs are assessed only for acute and local toxicity. Genotoxicity may contribute to long-term effects like carcinogenesis, and as operators are exposed to concentrated PPPs and spray dilutions, co-formulant toxicity and interactions require attention. An in silico analysis was conducted to identify potentially genotoxic co-formulants and prioritise PPPs for in vitro testing. Four prioritised co-formulants exceeded 1 % concentration in eight PPPs, but existing data ruled out further investigation. AS with known in vitro genotoxic potential were assessed for toxicokinetic interaction with co-formulants. The genotoxic potential of PPPs containing metiram, a dithiocarbamate fungicide, and pendimethalin, a dinitroaniline herbicide, was assessed in V79 cells using in vitro micronucleus test. No difference was observed between metiram and its PPP, whereas a 2-fold increase in micronuclei formation occurred in formulated PPP compared to pendimethalin alone at highest tested concentration. These findings indicate that co-formulants, although unlikely to be genotoxic on their own, may influence the genotoxic potential of pendimethalin in the tested PPP. Therefore, AS showing genotoxic potential in vitro should be considered for testing in respective formulated PPPs.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Stagkos-Georgiadis et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/699010382ccff479cfe56c47https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yrtph.2026.106059
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Effects of nonionic surfactants on membrane transporters in Caco-2 cell monolayers2002 · 507 citations
  2. 2Repeated-dose liver micronucleus assay of mitomycin C in young adult rats2014 · 12 citations
  3. 3Genetic Toxicity of Complex Mixtures of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons: Evaluating Dose-Additivity in a Transgenic Mouse Model2017 · 22 citations
  4. 4In Silico Tools for Sharing Data and Knowledge on Toxicity and Metabolism: Derek for Windows, Meteor, and Vitic2008 · 342 citations
  5. 5Bioaccumulation of glyphosate and its formulation Roundup Ultra in Lumbriculus variegatus and its effects on biotransformation and antioxidant enzymes2008 · 166 citations