Toxicological and hygienic characteristics of substances of the chloroacetanilide group (literature review)

The group of chloroacetanilides (chloroacetamides) comprises compounds widely used as herbicides in many countries around the world, including the Russian Federation. This group includes substances such as alachlor, acetochlor, butachlor, dimethenamid, metazachlor, metolachlor, and propisochlor. Currently, both Russian and international researchers agree on the effectiveness of these compounds against monocotyledonous grasses and certain dicotyledonous weed species. Despite their high efficacy, the use of the studied compounds, due to their toxicity, increases the risk of adverse effects on the health of workers and the general population.

The search for toxicological data, including information on delayed and specific effects, was conducted using existing literature, final reports of the European Food Safety Authority (hereinafter – EFSA), and accessible informational resources and databases (Codex Alimentarius, FAO/WHO, Extoxnet, Scopus, Web of Science, MedLine, Springer Nature Link, CyberLeninka, PubMed, Elibrary).

The toxicity of chloroacetanilide group compounds has been established to vary. These substances are characterized by delayed effects and are metabolized in the bodies of mammals and in environmental objects to more toxic metabolites, some of which enhance the damaging effects of the parent compounds. Both the parent compounds and their metabolites are toxic to ecosystems, aquatic organisms, birds, honeybees, earthworms, and wild mammals. They are persistent in soil and exhibit mobility in groundwater (FOCUS model).

It should be noted that the existing literature lacks information regarding the toxic effects of the studied group of compounds under conditions of chronic inhalation exposure. This gap constitutes scientific interest and substantiates the need for corresponding experimental studies.

Contribution:
Sinitskaya T.A. – the concept and design of the study, editing;
Poroshin M.A. – processing of material, writing text.
All authors are responsible for the integrity of all parts of the manuscript and approval of the manuscript final version

Conflict of interest. The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Funding. The study had no sponsorship.

Received: July 14, 2025 / Revised: November 20, 2025 / Accepted: March 24, 2026 / Published: May 18, 2026

1. Tareev A.I., Bereznov A.V., Smirnov V.V., Tareeva A.A., Kislaya S.S. Global market of chemical crop protection agents: forecasting yield losses and economic prospects for domestic pesticide production. Tekhnika i tekhnologiya pishchevykh proizvodstv. 2024; 54(2): 310–29. https://doi.org/10.21603/2074-9414-2024-2-2508 https://elibrary.ru/hkncpp (in Russian)

2. Analysis of production chains in high-tech chemical markets. Plant protection products. Moscow; 2022. Available at: https://muctr.ru/upload/iblock/049/iinkj8jk92bnz6snk9msgqy4pej69eq0.pdf (in Russian)

3. Haggblade S., Minten B., Pray C., Reardon T., Zilberman D. The herbicide revolution in developing countries: patterns, causes, and implications. Eur. J. Dev. Res. 2017; 29: 533–59. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41287-017-0090-7

4. Gámiz B., López-Cabeza R., Cox L., Celis R. Environmental fate of chiral pesticides in soils. In: Rodríguez-Cruz M.S., Sánchez-Martín M.J., eds. Pesticides in Soils. The Handbook of Environmental Chemistry, vol. 113. Cham: Springer; 2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/698_2021_796

5. Xie J., Zhao L., Liu K., Guo F., Liu W. Enantioselective effects of chiral amide herbicides napropamide, acetochlor and propisochlor: The more efficient R-enantiomer and its environmentally friendly. Sci. Total. Environ. 2018; 626: 860–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.01.140

6. Mahajan G., Chauhan B.S. Evaluation of preemergent herbicides for Chloris virgata control in mungbean. Plants (Basel). 2021; 10(8): 1632. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants10081632

7. Zia Ul Haq M., Shafiq S., Mohsin M.Z.Ul., Ali M., Khaliq A., Abbas R.N., et al. Pre-emergence herbicide selection for successful cultivation of black seed (Nigella sativa L.), psyllium (Plantago ovata Forsk), and quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.). J. Appl. Res. Med. Aromat. Plants. 2024; 43: 100576. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmap.2024.100576 https://elibrary.ru/pbvtbb

8. Jeschke P. Current status of chirality in agrochemicals. Pest Manag. Sci. 2018; 74(11): 2389–404. https://doi.org/10.1002/ps.5052

9. Basheer A.A. Chemical chiral pollution: impact on the society and science and need of the regulations in the 21st century. Chirality. 2018; 30(4): 402–6. https://doi.org/10.1002/chir.22808

10. Drăghici C., Chirila E., Sica M. Enantioselectivity of chiral pesticides in the environment. In: Simeonov L.I., Macaev F.Z., Simeonova B.G., eds. Environmental Security Assessment and Management of Obsolete Pesticides in Southeast Europe. Springer; 2013: 91–102.

11. Ye J., Zhao M., Niu L., Liu W. Enantioselective environmental toxicology of chiral pesticides. Chem. Res. Toxicol. 2015; 28(3): 325–38. https://doi.org/10.1021/tx500481n

12. Garrison A.W. An introduction to pesticide chirality and the consequences of stereoselectivity. In: Garrison A.W., Gan J., Liu W., ed. Chiral Pesticides: Stereoselectivity and Its Consequences. ACS Symposium Series. Volume 1085. Washington: American Chemical Society; 2011: 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1021/bk-2011-1085.ch001

13. Musarurwa H., Tavengwa N.T. Green aspects during synthesis, application and chromatographic analysis of chiral pesticides. Trends Environ. Anal. Chem. 2020; 27: e00093. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.teac.2020.e00093

14. Herbicide Resistance Action Committee. Global Herbicide Classification Lookup. Available at: https://hracglobal.com/tools/classification-lookup

15. Weed Science Society of America. Available at: https://wssa.net

16. Bamal D., Duhan A., Pal A., Beniwal R.K., Kumawat P., Dhanda S., et al. Herbicide risks to non-target species and the environment: A review. Environ. Chem. Lett. 2024; 22: 2977–3032. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-024-01773-9

17. Kim H., Wang H., Ki J.S. Chloroacetanilides inhibit photosynthesis and disrupt the thylakoid membranes of the dinoflagellate Prorocentrum minimum as revealed with metazachlor treatment. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2021; 211: 111928. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2021.111928

18. Pesticide action network international (PAN); 2022. Available at: https://pan-international.org/pan-international-consolidated-list-of-banned-pesticides/

19. Beloedova N.S., Poroshin M.A., Sinitskaya T.A., Safandeev V.V. Assessment of the effect of the herbicide propizochlor on the embryonic development of rats. In: Zdorovaya Sreda - 2023: Proceedings of the All-Russian Scientific and Practical Conference with International Participation [Zdorovaya sreda – 2023: Materialy Vserossiiskoi nauchno-prakticheskoi konferentsii s mezhdunarodnym uchastiem]. Ufa; 2023: 223–30. https://elibrary.ru/nhcbug (in Russian)

20. Beloedova N.S., Sinitskaya T.A., Poroshin M.A., Khamidulina Kh.Kh., Safandeev V.V. Characterization of a chloroacetanilide derivative in a chronic oral toxicology study in rats. Toksikologicheskii vestnik. 2023; 31(1): 37–46. https://doi.org/10.47470/0869-7922-2023-31-1-37-46 https://elibrary.ru/hucphw (in Russian)

21. Furukawa S., Harada T., Thake D., Iatropoulos M.J., Sherman J.H. Consensus diagnoses and mode of action for the formation of gastric tumors in rats treated with the chloroacetanilide herbicides alachlor and butachlor. Toxicol. Pathol. 2014; 42(2): 386–402. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192623313484106

22. Dierickx P.J. Glutathione-dependent cytotoxicity of the chloroacetanilide herbicides alachlor, metolachlor, and propachlor in rat and human hepatoma-derived cultured cells. Cell Biol. Toxicol. 1999; 15(5): 325–32. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1007619919336

23. Ma X., Zhang Y., Guan M., Zhang W., Tian H., Jiang C., et al. Genotoxicity of chloroacetamide herbicides and their metabolites in vitro and in vivo. Int. J. Mol. Med. 2021; 47(6): 103. https://doi.org/10.3892/ijmm.2021.4936

24. Vashistha V.K., Sethi S., Mittal A., Das D.K., Pullabhotla R.V.S.R., Bala R., et al. Stereoselective analysis of chiral pesticides: a review. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2024; 196(2): 153. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-024-12310-0

25. Khamidulina Kh.Kh., Proskurina A.S. On the Issue of Regulation of Endocrine Disruptors in the Russian Federation. In: Medical and Biological Aspects of Chemical Safety: Collection of Scientific Papers of the V All-Russian Scientific and Practical Conference of Young Scientists [Mediko-biologicheskie aspekty khimicheskoi bezopasnosti: Sbornik nauchnykh trudov V Vserossiiskoi nauchno-prakticheskoi konferentsii molodykh uchenykh]. St. Petersburg; 2023: 92–3. https://elibrary.ru/zyssvf (in Russian)

26. Turner J.A. The Pesticide Manual. 18th ed. British Crop Production Council; 2018.

27. Extension Toxicology Network (EXTOXNET). Pesticide Information Profile (PIP) Acetochlor; 1996. Available at: https://extoxnet.orst.edu/pips/acetochl.htm

28. Extension Toxicology Network (EXTOXNET). Pesticide Information Profile (PIP) Metolachlor; 1996. Available at: https://extoxnet.orst.edu/pips/metolach.htm

29. European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). Conclusion regarding the peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance fluazinam. EFSA J. 2008; 6(7): 137r. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2008.137r

30. Alvarez F., Arena M., Auteri D., Binaglia M., Castoldi A.F., Chiusolo A., et al. Conclusion on the peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance S-metolachlor excluding the assessment of the endocrine disrupting properties. EFSA J. 2023; 21(2): e07852. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2023.7852

31. Arena M., Auteri D., Barmaz S., Bellisai G., Brancato A., Brocca D., et al. Peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance dimethenamid-P. EFSA J. 2018; 16(4): e05211. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2018.5211

32. European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). Conclusion regarding the peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance metazachlor. EFSA J. 2008; 6(7): 145r. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2008.145r

33. European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). Conclusion on the peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance propisochlor. EFSA J. 2010; 8(9): 1769. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2010.1769

34. Ashby J., Kier L., Wilson A.G., Green T., Lefevre P.A., Tinwell H., et al. Evaluation of the potential carcinogenicity and genetic toxicity to humans of the herbicide acetochlor. Hum. Exp. Toxicol. 1996; 15(9): 702–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/096032719601500902

35. Dirheimer G. Commentary on the publication: Evaluation of the potential carcinogenicity and genetic toxicity to humans of the herbicide acetochlor. Hum. Exp. Toxicol. 1997; 16(4): 188. https://doi.org/10.1177/096032719701600403

36. Hurley P.M. Mode of carcinogenic action of pesticides inducing thyroid follicular cell tumors in rodents. Environ. Health Perspect. 1998; 106(8): 437–45. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.98106437

37. Kongtip P., Nankongnab N., Kallayanatham N., Pundee R., Choochouy N., Yimsabai J., et al. Thyroid hormones in conventional and organic farmers in Thailand. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2019; 16(15): 2704. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16152704

38. Shen Y., Zhang J., Xie J., Liu J. In vitro assessment of corticosteroid effects of eight chiral herbicides. J. Environ. Sci. Health B. 2020; 55(2): 91–102. https://doi.org/10.1080/03601234.2019.1665408