Hubbry Logo
ChlordaneChlordaneMain
Open search
Chlordane
Community hub
Chlordane
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Chlordane
Chlordane
Chlordane
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Chlordane
cis-chlordane (α-chlordane)
trans-chlordane (γ-chlordane, beta-chlordane)
cis-chlordane
trans-chlordane
Names
Systematic IUPAC name
1,2,4,5,6,7,8,8-Octachloro-3a,4,7,7a-tetrahydro-4,7-methanoindane
Other names
Chlordan; Chlordano; Ortho; Octachloro-4,7-methanohydroindane
Identifiers
3D model (JSmol)
ChEBI
ChemSpider
ECHA InfoCard 100.000.317 Edit this at Wikidata
EC Number
  • 200-349-0
KEGG
UNII
UN number 2996 2762
  • InChI=1S/C10H6Cl8/c11-3-1-2-4(5(3)12)9(16)7(14)6(13)8(2,15)10(9,17)18/h2-5H,1H2
    Key: BIWJNBZANLAXMG-UHFFFAOYSA-N
  • C1C2C(C(C1Cl)Cl)C3(C(=C(C2(C3(Cl)Cl)Cl)Cl)Cl)Cl
Properties
C10H6Cl8
Molar mass 409.76 g·mol−1
Appearance White solid
Odor Slightly pungent, chlorine-like
Density 1.59 g/cm3
Melting point 102–106 °C (216–223 °F; 375–379 K)[1]
Boiling point decomposes[1]
0.0001% (20°C)[1]
1.565
Hazards
Occupational safety and health (OHS/OSH):
Main hazards
 moderately toxic and a suspected human carcinogen
GHS labelling:
GHS06: ToxicGHS08: Health hazardGHS09: Environmental hazard
Danger
H301, H311, H351, H410
P201, P273, P280, P301+P310+P330, P302+P352+P312[2]
Flash point 107 °C (225 °F; 380 K) (open cup)
Explosive limits 0.7–5%
Lethal dose or concentration (LD, LC):
100-300 mg/kg (rabbit, oral)
145-430 mg/kg (mouse, oral)
200-590 mg/kg (rat, oral)
1720 mg/kg (hamster, oral)[3]
NIOSH (US health exposure limits):
PEL (Permissible)
 TWA 0.5 mg/m3 [skin][1]
REL (Recommended)
 Ca TWA 0.5 mg/m3 [skin][1]
IDLH (Immediate danger)
 100 mg/m3[1]
Safety data sheet (SDS) Chlordane (technical mixture)
Except where otherwise noted, data are given for materials in their standard state (at 25 °C [77 °F], 100 kPa).
checkY verify (what is checkY☒N ?)

Chlordane, or chlordan, is an organochlorine compound that was used as a pesticide. It is a white solid. In the United States, chlordane was used for termite-treatment of approximately 30 million homes until it was banned in 1988.[4] Chlordane was banned 10 years earlier for food crops like corn and citrus, and on lawns and domestic gardens.[5]

Like other chlorinated cyclodiene insecticides, chlordane is classified as an organic pollutant hazardous for human health. It is resistant to degradation in the environment and in humans/animals and readily accumulates in lipids (fats) of humans and animals.[6] Exposure to the compound has been linked to cancers, diabetes, and neurological disorders.

Production, composition and uses

[edit]

Technical chlordane development was by chance at Velsicol Chemical Corporation by Julius Hyman in 1948, during a search for possible uses of a by-product of synthetic rubber manufacturing. By chlorinating this by-product, persistent and potent insecticides were easily and cheaply produced. The chlorine atoms, 7 in the case of heptachlor, 8 in chlordane, and 9 in the case of nonachlor, surround and stabilize the cyclodiene ring and thus these compounds are referred to as cyclodienes. Other members of the cyclodiene family of organochlorine insecticides are aldrin and its epoxide, dieldrin, as well as endrin, which is a stereoisomer of dieldrin. Cyclodiene derives its name from hexachlorocyclopentadiene, a precursor in its production.

Synthesis of cis- (above) and trans-chlordane (below)

Hexachlorocyclopentadiene forms a Diels-Alder adduct with cyclopentadiene to give chlordene intermediate [3734-48-3]; chlorination of this adduct gives predominantly two chlordane isomers, α and β, in addition to other products such as trans-nonachlor and heptachlor.[7] The β-isomer is popularly known as gamma and is more bioactive.[5] The mixture that is composed of 147 components is called technical chlordane.[8][9]

  • cis-chlordane (also known as α-chlordane (CAS=5103-71-9))
    cis-chlordane (also known as α-chlordane (CAS=5103-71-9))
  • trans-chlordane (also known as γ-chlordane and gamma-chlordane (CAS=5103-74-2))
    trans-chlordane (also known as γ-chlordane and gamma-chlordane (CAS=5103-74-2))
  • trans-nonachlor
    trans-nonachlor
  • (+)-heptachlor
    (+)-heptachlor

Chlordane appears as a white or off-white crystals when synthesized, but it was more commonly sold in various formulations as oil solutions, emulsions, sprays, dusts, and powders. These products were sold in the United States from 1948 to 1988.

Because of concern for harm to human health and to the environment, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) banned all uses of chlordane in 1983, except termite control in wooden structures (e.g. houses). After many reports of chlordane in the indoor air of treated homes, EPA banned the remaining use of chlordane in 1988.[10] The EPA recommends that children should not drink water with more than 60 parts of chlordane per billion parts of drinking water (60 ppb) for longer than 1 day. EPA has set a limit in drinking water of 2 ppb.[citation needed]

Chlordane is very persistent in the environment because it does not break down easily. Tests of the air in the residence of U.S. government housing, 32 years after chlordane treatment, showed levels of chlordane and heptachlor 10-15 times the Minimal Risk Levels (20 nanograms/cubic meter of air) published by the Centers for Disease Control.[citation needed] It has an environmental half-life of 10 to 20 years.[11]

Origin, pathways of exposure, and processes of excretion

[edit]
Sources and pathways that chlordane contaminates the indoor air of American homes

In the years 1948–1988 chlordane was a common pesticide for corn and citrus crops, as well as a method of home termite control.[6] Pathways of exposure to chlordane include ingestion of crops grown in chlordane-contaminated soil, inhalation of air in chlordane-treated homes and from landfills, and ingestion of high-fat foods such as meat, fish, and dairy, as chlordane builds up in fatty tissue.[12] The United States Environmental Protection Agency reported that over 30 million homes were treated with technical chlordane or technical chlordane with heptachlor. Depending on the site of home treatment, the indoor air levels of chlordane can still exceed the Minimal Risks Levels (MRLs) for both cancer and chronic disease by orders of magnitude.[13] Chlordane is excreted slowly through feces, urine elimination, and through breast milk in nursing mothers. It is able to cross the placenta and become absorbed by developing fetuses in pregnant women.[14] A breakdown product of chlordane, the metabolite oxychlordane, accumulates in blood and adipose tissue with age.[15]

Environmental impact

[edit]

Being hydrophobic, chlordane adheres to soil particles and enters groundwater only slowly, owing to its low solubility (0.009 ppm). It requires many years to degrade.[16] Chlordane bioaccumulates in animals.[17] It is highly toxic to fish, with an LD50 of 0.022–0.095 mg/kg (oral).

Oxychlordane (C10H4Cl8O), the primary metabolite of chlordane, and heptachlor epoxide, the primary metabolite of heptachlor, along with the two other main components of the chlordane mixture, cis-nonachlor and trans-nonachlor, are the main bioaccumulating constituents.[8] trans-Nonachlor is more toxic than technical chlordane and cis-nonachlor is less toxic.[8]

Chlordane and heptachlor are known as persistent organic pollutants (POP), classified among the "dirty dozen" and banned by the 2001 Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants.[18]

Health effects

[edit]

Exposure to chlordane/heptachlor and/or its metabolites (oxychlordane, heptachlor epoxide) are risk factors for type-2 diabetes,[19] for lymphoma,[20] for prostate cancer,[21] for obesity,[22] for testicular cancer,[23] for breast cancer.[24]

An epidemiological study conducted by the National Cancer Institute reported that higher levels of chlordane in dust on the floors of homes were associated with higher rates of non-Hodgkin lymphoma in occupants.[25] Breathing chlordane in indoor air is the main route of exposure for these levels in human tissues. Currently, EPA has defined a concentration of 24 nanogram per cubic meter of air (ng/M3) for chlordane compounds over a 20-year exposure period as the concentration that will increase the probability of cancer by 1 in 1,000,000 persons. This probability of developing cancer increases to 10 in 1,000,000 persons with an exposure of 100 ng/m3 and 100 in 1,000,000 with an exposure of 1000 ng/m3.[26]

The non-cancer health effects of chlordane compounds, which include diabetes, insulin resistance, migraines, respiratory infections, immune-system activation, anxiety, depression, blurry vision, confusion, intractable seizures as well as permanent neurological damage,[27] probably affects more people than cancer. Trans-nonachlor and oxychlordane in serum of mothers during gestation has been linked with behaviors associated with autism in offspring at age 4–5.[28] The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) has defined a concentration of chlordane compounds of 20 ng/m3 as the Minimal Risk Level (MRLs). ATSDR defines Minimal Risk Level as an estimate of daily human exposure to a dose of a chemical that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of adverse non-cancerous effects over a specific duration of exposure.[29]

Remediation

[edit]

Chlordane was applied under the home/building during treatment for termites and the half-life can be up to 30 years. Chlordane has a low vapor pressure and volatilizes slowly into the air of home/building above. To remove chlordane from indoor air requires either ventilation (Heat Exchange Ventilation) or activated carbon filtration. Chemical remediation of chlordane in soils was attempted by the US Army Corps of Engineers by mixing chlordane with aqueous lime and persulfate. In a phytoremediation study, Kentucky bluegrass and Perennial ryegrass were found to be minimally affected by chlordane, and both were found to take it up into their roots and shoots.[30] Mycoremediation of chlordane in soil have found that contamination levels were reduced.[30] The fungus Phanerochaete chrysosporium has been found to reduce concentrations of chlordane by 21% in water in 30 days and in solids in 60 days.[31]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Chlordane

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia

Chlordane is a synthetic organochlorine , appearing as a thick, colorless to amber liquid with a mild, irritating odor, composed primarily of the stereoisomers cis-chlordane (α-chlordane) and trans-chlordane (γ-chlordane), along with related chlorinated hydrocarbons and byproducts. Developed in the 1940s and introduced commercially around 1945, chlordane served as a broad-spectrum contact effective against soil insects, agricultural pests, , and , with widespread applications in crop protection, lawn treatments, and subterranean structural barriers until regulatory restrictions curtailed its use. Its environmental persistence—resisting degradation for decades in and sediments—combined with high lipophilicity enabling and through food chains, alongside toxicity manifesting as acute neurological symptoms (tremors, convulsions) and chronic effects (liver damage, probable carcinogenicity), prompted the U.S. EPA to cancel all registrations in 1988, following earlier limitations on non-termite uses in 1983.

Chemical Properties and Composition

Molecular Structure and Isomers

Technical chlordane consists of a complex mixture of more than 25 chlorinated hydrocarbon compounds derived from the cyclodiene family, with the primary active ingredients being the stereoisomers cis-chlordane (α-chlordane, CAS 5103-71-9) and trans-chlordane (γ-chlordane, CAS 5103-74-2). These two isomers typically account for 60-85% of the technical product, present in roughly equal proportions, alongside minor components such as , chlordene, and cis- and trans-nonachlor. The core molecular structure of chlordane is C₁₀H₆Cl₈, characterized by a bridged bicyclic norbornene-like framework with eight atoms attached to the carbon skeleton, specifically at positions forming a 1,2,4-metheno-2,3,4,7,7-pentachloro-1H-indene derivative. The cis and trans isomers differ in the stereochemical configuration of the chlorine substituents relative to the molecular bridges, with cis-chlordane featuring the endo-exo orientation and trans-chlordane the exo-exo arrangement. This arises from the rigidity of the caged , leading to distinct spatial distributions that can influence reactivity, such as differential susceptibility to epoxidation or dechlorination pathways. Heptachlor, a related precursor compound (C₁₀H₅Cl₇), often comprises up to 10-20% of technical chlordane and shares a similar hexachlorohexahydro-4,7-methanoindene core, differing by one fewer chlorine atom. The presence of these structural variants contributes to the mixture's overall chemical heterogeneity, where the stereoisomers' configurations affect molecular stability, with the trans form generally exhibiting greater thermodynamic stability due to minimized steric interactions.

Physical and Chemical Characteristics

Technical chlordane, the commercial formulation, is a ranging in color from colorless to , with a of 1.59–1.63 g/cm³ at 25°C. Pure chlordane compounds form white solids or eutectic mixtures that remain at , exhibiting low volatility characterized by a below 1 × 10⁻⁵ mmHg at 25°C. Its high lipophilicity is indicated by an (log Kow) of 5.54–6.16. Chlordane demonstrates low aqueous solubility, approximately 0.009 mg/L at 25°C, which contributes to its limited mobility in . It is highly soluble in organic solvents such as and acetone but resists under neutral or acidic conditions and shows minimal in environmental matrices like or surfaces. Under typical environmental conditions, chlordane exhibits , with in varying by type: half-lives of about 4 years in general soils but exceeding 20 years in heavy, clayey, or organic-rich soils due to strong adsorption to .
PropertyValueConditions
Water solubility0.009 mg/L25°C
log Kow5.54–6.16Estimated/pure
Soil half-life4–>20 yearsVaries by soil type

Historical Development and Production

Invention and Commercialization

Chlordane was developed in the laboratories of Velsicol Chemical Corporation during the 1940s as a broad-spectrum insecticide, discovered by chemist Julius Hyman while exploring applications for chlorinated hydrocarbon byproducts. The compound, a mixture primarily consisting of chlorinated cyclodiene isomers, emerged from efforts to create effective pest control agents amid post-World War II agricultural demands. Velsicol, founded in 1931, prioritized innovation in organochlorine chemicals, positioning chlordane as a versatile alternative to earlier insecticides like DDT. Commercial production of technical chlordane commenced in , marking the onset of large-scale by Velsicol at facilities including those in and later Memphis. Initial formulations targeted soil-dwelling , capitalizing on chlordane's persistence and contact , which proved superior for subterranean applications compared to less stable predecessors. Federal registration followed in 1948 under the U.S. Department of Agriculture's oversight (preceding the EPA's formation), approving uses in , , and settings, including control around building foundations. Adoption accelerated rapidly due to demonstrated efficacy against pests such as , cutworms, and grubs, with chlordane integrated into crop protection and structural treatments by the early . U.S. production escalated through the , reaching a peak of 9.5 million kilograms in 1974, reflecting widespread reliance on the for both commercial agriculture and residential applications before emerging environmental concerns prompted scrutiny. This growth underscored chlordane's economic value in reducing crop losses and structural damage, though it also highlighted Velsicol's dominant market position in cyclodiene pesticides.

Manufacturing Processes and Scale

Chlordane is produced industrially via a sequential chlorination process starting with . undergoes exhaustive chlorination to hexachlorocyclopentadiene, which then reacts with additional in a to form chlordene. This intermediate is further chlorinated under controlled conditions, typically involving liquid-phase reactions at elevated temperatures, to yield technical chlordane as a viscous, isomeric mixture predominantly consisting of cis- and trans-octachloro-4,7-methano-3a,4,7,7a-tetrahydroindane derivatives, alongside and other coproducts. The manufacturing process demands precise control of addition to minimize unwanted byproducts and achieve the target composition of 60-75% octachloro isomers in technical-grade material, with the remainder including lower chlorinated impurities like epoxide precursors. This scalability stems from the availability of inexpensive chlorinating agents and the robustness of continuous-flow chlorination reactors, enabling efficient heat dissipation from exothermic reactions. In the United States, was dominated by Velsicol Chemical Corporation, reaching a peak of 9,500 metric tons in 1974 before declining due to regulatory pressures. Cumulative U.S. output contributed the majority of an estimated global total exceeding 70,000 metric tons by the late 1980s, after which domestic ceased following the phase-out, with limited production shifting to other nations lacking equivalent restrictions. The process's cost-effectiveness, driven by high yields from commodity feedstocks, supported annual volumes sufficient for widespread agricultural distribution.

Applications and Efficacy

Primary Uses in Pest Control

Chlordane was primarily employed as a for the control of subterranean (Reticulitermes spp.) in structural protection, with applications involving subsurface treatments around building foundations to create protective barriers against infestation. From its commercial introduction in 1948 until regulatory restrictions in 1978, it was also widely used against soil-dwelling pests in agricultural settings, including crops such as corn, , small grains, , oilseeds, and potatoes, as well as in lawns and orchards. , the Environmental Protection Agency estimates that chlordane treatments were applied to approximately 19.5 million structures for prevention prior to its phase-out for this purpose in 1988. Common application methods for control included trenching along foundations, rodding into , subslab injection beneath structures, and low-pressure spraying to saturate zones. For broader pest , it was typically applied as surface sprays or incorporated into via mixing or . Formulations most frequently used were emulsifiable concentrates, which allowed dilution in for spray or injection delivery, alongside dusts, granules, and wettable powders for varied deployment. These approaches leveraged chlordane's contact and stomach properties to target pests in their subterranean habitats. In certain niches, chlordane served as a persistent alternative to earlier broad-spectrum insecticides like , particularly where extended residual activity was required for underground insect suppression, filling gaps left by DDT's limitations in deep penetration.

Performance Data and Economic Benefits

Chlordane exhibited strong efficacy against subterranean through both toxic and repellent mechanisms, forming persistent barriers that prevented structural infestations for 17 to 21 years in long-term field evaluations of treatments applied at various concentrations. In comparative assessments, chlordane maintained control for up to 33 years, outperforming alternatives that required reapplication within shorter periods, such as a fraction of that duration. This longevity reduced the frequency of interventions, providing economic advantages by averting annual U.S. damage costs, which exceeded billions of dollars in property repairs and reinforcements for untreated or inadequately protected structures. In cost terms, chlordane's application minimized expenditures on repeated treatments and remediation, as its superior lowered lifetime protection costs relative to less durable substitutes available prior to restrictions. A 1983 risk-benefit evaluation concluded that the pesticide's role in preventing high-cost infestations justified its use despite concerns, given the substantial financial burden of termite-induced relocations, rebuilds, and claims. For agricultural , chlordane safeguarded yields from in crops like corn, , strawberries, and , with analyses indicating that its replacement would elevate costs and reduce output; a 1971 projection estimated $1.84 million in combined impacts from higher alternative expenses ($1.56 million) and yield shortfalls ($0.28 million) across treated U.S. acreage. Specific losses included $31 per acre in and $75 per acre in strawberries due to inferior efficacy of substitutes like , underscoring chlordane's value in sustaining productivity and farm revenues before phase-outs.

Regulatory Framework and Restrictions

Timeline of Approvals and Bans

Chlordane received initial registration as a pesticide by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 1948. Agricultural applications were deregistered in 1978, limiting uses primarily to structural pest control such as termite treatments. In 1983, the EPA canceled all remaining registrations except for termite control. The final cancellation of termite uses occurred on April 14, 1988, prohibiting all commercial production, sale, and application in the United States. In the , chlordane faced restrictions under Council Directive 79/117/EEC, which banned its marketing and use effective January 1, 1981. Similar prohibitions emerged across other European nations throughout the and early , with agricultural and broad-spectrum applications curtailed by the mid-1970s in several countries. On the international level, chlordane was listed as one of the initial 12 persistent organic pollutants under the Stockholm Convention, adopted in 2001 and entering into force in 2004, mandating global elimination of production and use subject to registered specific exemptions for certain parties. Phasedown of stockpiles continued in developing regions post-2001; for instance, completed elimination of chlordane production and use by under Convention-supported programs. Limited exceptions persist in some jurisdictions for research or , while export from banning countries has been restricted under related treaties like the .

Rationales and International Variations

The primary rationales for restricting chlordane centered on its environmental persistence, high potential in fatty tissues, and observed toxicity to , which prompted phased cancellations in major markets despite limited direct evidence of widespread harm from typical exposures. demonstrated carcinogenic effects, including liver tumors in at doses relevant to chronic low-level exposure, leading regulators to classify it as a probable under precautionary frameworks, even as epidemiological data showed only weak associations with cancers like . This application of precaution prioritized potential ecological risks over definitive causation, with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) decisions emphasizing buildup in food chains and non-target species impacts over robust occupational cohort outcomes. Regulatory variations reflect differing balances between pest control needs and risk thresholds, with stricter measures in and driven by advanced monitoring of wildlife , contrasted by more permissive allowances in regions facing acute pressures. , cancellations progressed from agricultural uses in 1978 to a full ban by April 1988, citing indoor air contamination in treated homes and ecosystem loading; similar timelines applied in and , culminating in North American elimination via a 1990s regional . The incorporated chlordane into (POP) controls under the Stockholm Convention by 2001, enforcing zero-tolerance production and use to mitigate transboundary deposition, while restricted it to applications before a 1986 prohibition. In contrast, select tropical and subtropical nations have retained restricted applications for structural control and , where high pest rates and limited infrastructure amplify economic losses from untreated infestations, though global enforcement under the Prior Informed Consent (PIC) regime has curbed unrestricted trade since the 1990s. Critics highlight enforcement inconsistencies, noting that while developed regions phased out chlordane amid viable alternatives like pyrethroids, these substitutes face growing insect resistance—evident in reduced efficacy against subterranean termites—and may require higher application volumes, potentially offsetting persistence advantages. Such disparities underscore debates on whether uniform bans overlook context-specific benefits, as chlordane's broad-spectrum knockdown remained superior for certain soil-dwelling pests despite its drawbacks.

Environmental Behavior and Effects

Persistence, Mobility, and Bioaccumulation

Chlordane exhibits substantial persistence in , where half-lives range from 2 to 20 years under varying environmental conditions, with residues remaining detectable in the upper layers for over 20 years. This longevity stems from resistance to rapid degradation, as the compound's chlorinated limits microbial breakdown, favoring slow processes like microbial activity and photolysis that produce metabolites such as oxychlordane and trans-nonachlor. In moist soils, volatilization contributes to initial losses, with half-lives of 2–3 days reported, though overall dissipation remains protracted. Mobility of chlordane in the subsurface is low, attributed to strong to and particles, evidenced by organic carbon partition coefficients (Koc) spanning 1,000–76,000 L/kg (mean log Koc ≈6.3 for trans-chlordane). Its low aqueous (0.056 mg/L) further restricts leaching, classifying it as a nonleacher that predominantly resides in . Nonetheless, transport to occurs indirectly via or adsorption to suspended particulates during erosion events. Bioaccumulation of chlordane is pronounced due to its (log Kow 5.54–5.6), yielding factors (BCF) in aquatic organisms from 100 to 18,500, including 3,000–12,000 in marine species and up to 18,500 in . This affinity for lipid tissues promotes uptake from water and subsequent along food webs, as metabolic clearance is inefficient in many species. Despite low volatility ( 5.8×10⁻⁷ to 2.9×10⁻⁵ mmHg), chlordane undergoes atmospheric from treated surfaces, facilitating detections in remote areas like the at trace levels (≤0.0054 ng/m³). Photolysis and reactions limit atmospheric residence to about 1.3 days, yet repeated volatilization and long-range enable global dispersal.

Impacts on Ecosystems and Wildlife

Chlordane demonstrates high to , with median lethal concentrations (LC50) reported at 0.07–0.09 mg/L for species such as bluegill sunfish and . It is similarly toxic to aquatic , including crustaceans and , through direct exposure or in food chains, leading to disrupted aquatic ecosystems where residues persist in sediments. For birds, chlordane exhibits moderate , with an oral LD50 of 83 mg/kg in species like mallards, though field observations document poisoning incidents, such as in six and four raptor species in from 1996–1997, attributed to soil and prey contamination causing neurological symptoms and mortality. Bioaccumulation of chlordane and its metabolites, such as oxychlordane, occurs readily in fatty tissues of , birds, and mammals, magnifying exposure risks across trophic levels independent of its persistence. This has resulted in ongoing fish consumption advisories in regions with legacy contamination, such as waterways, where residues in species like exceed safe thresholds for human consumers, indirectly signaling sustained ecological pressure on predatory wildlife. Unlike , which directly inhibits calcium deposition leading to eggshell thinning, empirical data do not strongly link chlordane to this effect in birds, though correlated organochlorine burdens have been noted in affected populations. In terrestrial ecosystems, chlordane disrupts microbial communities by altering taxonomic composition and functional genes, as observed in exposures affecting bacterial diversity and gut microbiomes. It also impacts populations, reducing abundances and viability without broadly halting processes, based on field and microcosm studies. Population-level effects include localized declines in sensitive and communities near application sites, with monitoring data post-1988 U.S. ban showing residue reductions—such as in eggs—and partial recovery in trends, though full restoration lags in heavily contaminated areas due to slow degradation. These outcomes stem from verified field poisonings and assays rather than solely predictive models, highlighting causal neurotoxic and enzymatic disruptions over generalized risk projections.

Human Health Considerations

Exposure Pathways and Toxicology

Chlordane exposure in humans occurs primarily through of vapors or dust during or in treated structures, dermal contact with contaminated or equipment, and incidental via food chains or direct soil/dust consumption. Occupational settings historically involved higher risks via and dermal routes during manufacturing, formulation, and control applications. The compound is lipophilic and readily absorbed across , oral, and dermal routes, with gastrointestinal and respiratory occurring efficiently in animal models and inferred for humans from data. Post-absorption, chlordane distributes preferentially to the liver and kidneys initially, followed by in , reflecting its affinity for fatty compartments. Hepatic via P-450 enzymes converts it primarily to persistent epoxides like oxychlordane and trans-nonachlor, which further accumulate in liver and fat. Excretion is slow and predominantly fecal (70–90% in , similar in humans), with minor transfer; biological half-lives in human tissues range from approximately 20 days in adipose to 88 days overall. Acute high-dose exposures induce excitation, manifesting as tremors, , , and convulsions in both human case reports and animal studies, with effects observed at oral doses as low as 0.15 mg/kg in humans and 200 mg/kg in . This arises from antagonism at GABA_A receptors, where chlordane blocks channels, reducing inhibitory and promoting neuronal hyperexcitability, as demonstrated in assays and consistent with organochlorine mechanisms.

Evidence from Animal and Human Studies

In , technical chlordane exhibits moderate acute oral , with LD50 values ranging from 200 to 590 mg/kg in rats, depending on sex and formulation, and dermal LD50 values around 840 mg/kg in male rats. High-dose oral or exposures in and other mammals induce effects such as tremors, convulsions, and , alongside gastrointestinal distress and . Pathological findings include liver enlargement with fatty degeneration, subserosal hemorrhages, and splenic congestion. Chronic animal exposures to chlordane at lower doses (e.g., 5-25 mg/kg/day in rats) reveal , evidenced by hepatocellular , proliferation, and elevated liver levels, without consistent progression to overt failure at environmentally relevant levels. Reproductive and developmental effects, such as reduced fertility, , and skeletal anomalies, occur primarily at high doses exceeding 10 mg/kg/day in and rabbits, often confounded by maternal . No clear thresholds for these non-neoplastic effects emerge below dietary concentrations of 10 ppm in multi-generational studies. Human data derive mainly from acute poisoning incidents and limited occupational monitoring, with no large-scale controlled trials. Case reports of intentional or accidental ingestions (doses >1 g) describe neurologic symptoms including , , muscle twitching, , , and convulsions, alongside , , and in severe cases, resolving with supportive care like and benzodiazepines. Subacute home exposures via treatments have linked to neuropsychological deficits, such as impaired and executive function, in small cohorts, though causality is obscured by co-exposures and self-reporting. Occupational cohorts exposed to chlordane aerosols (0.001-0.002 mg/m³ over 1-15 years) show no consistent non-cancer health deficits, with normal and absence of neurologic sequelae in follow-ups. Retrospective studies of workers report mixed associations with or irritability, but lack dose-response gradients and controls for confounders like or other solvents. Extrapolating animal findings to humans is challenged by orders-of-magnitude differences between experimental doses (often >100 mg/kg) and typical background exposures (<0.01 µg/kg/day via diet), yielding uncertain minimal effect levels.

Assessment of Carcinogenic Risk

The (EPA) classifies chlordane as a Group B2 probable , a determination primarily based on sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in demonstrating increased incidences of liver tumors in mice and male rats following oral exposure. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) categorizes chlordane as Group 2B, possibly carcinogenic to humans, reflecting limited evidence in humans but sufficient evidence in experimental animals, including hepatocellular adenomas and carcinomas in B6C3F1 mice administered doses of 10–64 mg/kg/day in feed for 80 weeks. These classifications rely on high-dose bioassays where tumor promotion, rather than direct initiation, appears dominant, as chlordane induces enzymes and cell proliferation akin to non-genotoxic agents like . Human epidemiological data provide weak and equivocal support for carcinogenicity, with most case-control and cohort studies failing to establish consistent associations due to unquantified exposures, confounding from mixtures, and lifestyle factors. For instance, registry-based analyses of applicators showed no elevated risks for or linked to chlordane use, while a study of reported inconsistent odds ratios without dose-response trends. No large-scale cohort studies demonstrate clear causal links, and occupational exposure assessments often conflate chlordane with co-applied organochlorines, limiting attribution. Mechanistic investigations indicate chlordane functions predominantly as a tumor promoter in two-stage models, enhancing preneoplastic lesions initiated by genotoxic agents like N-nitrosodiethylamine in mouse liver, without evidence of direct DNA reactivity or mutagenicity in standard assays. This promoter role, involving sustained hepatocyte proliferation and enzyme induction at doses far exceeding environmental levels, supports arguments for potential thresholds below which risks approach background rates from natural dietary carcinogens or endogenous processes, though regulatory models assume linearity absent human thresholds data. Species differences—tumors in mice but not rats—and lack of genotoxicity underscore uncertainties in extrapolating to humans, where endocrine-modulating effects may contribute indirectly but remain unproven for oncogenesis.

Remediation Strategies

Techniques for Contaminated Sites

Excavation followed by off-site or secure landfilling represents a primary technique for addressing high-concentration chlordane hotspots in , effectively removing bulk residues from sites exceeding regulatory thresholds such as 1.4 µg/g for remediation standards. This method has been applied under CERCLA frameworks at contaminated industrial facilities, where physical removal prevents further leaching into , though it requires careful handling to minimize dust and volatilization during transport. In situ chemical oxidation, particularly using activators, targets persistent chlordane fractions by generating radicals that cleave chlorinated bonds, with evaluations on legacy soils showing partial degradation rates of up to 50% under optimized conditions. has also been tested as a complementary approach, hydrolyzing chlordane into less toxic metabolites, though diminishes in heterogeneous soils due to uneven oxidant distribution. Bioremediation employs microbial consortia, such as actinobacteria strains (e.g., spp.), to degrade chlordane via dechlorination and ring cleavage enzymes, achieving nearly 90% reduction in controlled slurry bioreactor systems over 28-60 days when combined with nutrients. Landfarming techniques, integrating with indigenous soil microbes, have demonstrated 70-85% removal in field trials for pesticide-contaminated matrices, though slower rates apply to aged, sorbed residues. Phytoremediation trials utilize plants like to enhance degradation of organochlorine s, including chlordane analogs, with pilot-scale studies reporting 20-40% concentration reductions over one through uptake and microbial stimulation, albeit with variable success tied to and . EPA case studies, such as those involving production sites, highlight combined excavation-bioremediation approaches yielding 80-95% overall contaminant mass removal, though efficacy varies by site , with incomplete degradation of recalcitrant isomers necessitating post-treatment monitoring. For legacy termite-treated soils at former bases, monitoring protocols involve systematic surface and subsurface sampling to delineate plumes, often revealing concentrations from 22 to 2,540 ppm near foundations, coupled with volatilization flux assessments using forced-air chambers to evaluate risks prior to remediation decisions. These protocols, mandated under base closure regulations, guide risk-based thresholds for intervention, emphasizing long-term surveillance.

Effectiveness and Ongoing Challenges

Remediation efforts for chlordane-contaminated soils have demonstrated variable success, with bioremediation techniques achieving reductions of up to 56% in γ-chlordane concentrations over 28 days in aerobic soil assays using indigenous microorganisms. Slurry-bioreactor systems augmented with Streptomyces consortia have shown promise in enhancing removal efficiency from polluted soils, though specific quantitative outcomes depend on site conditions such as initial concentrations and treatment duration. Thermal desorption and excavation methods at legacy sites, like military housing areas, have reduced chlordane levels significantly over short-term treatments, sometimes meeting preliminary goals of 1-3.3 mg/kg in processed soils. However, these approaches often fall short of complete elimination, with residual concentrations persisting due to chlordane's strong adsorption to organic carbon, clay, and silt particles, limiting desorption and further degradation. Despite remediation, chlordane's environmental —exceeding 30 years in soils and sediments—results in ongoing detections in aquatic systems and biota decades after its 1988 U.S. ban, including in tissues where legacy contaminants remain measurable. Slow recovery in areas like underscores incomplete remediation outcomes, as bound residues in sediments continue to bioaccumulate in , evading full clearance even after bans and interventions. Key challenges include high costs and scalability limitations for advanced techniques like , which require site-specific optimization and may not economically apply to large-area contaminations. Recontamination risks arise from incomplete removal or migration from untreated adjacent zones, complicating verification of cleanup goals such as EPA screening levels below 1 mg/kg, where analytical detection limits and heterogeneous soil binding hinder confirmation of non-detect status. Natural attenuation analogs, like background organochlorines, further obscure low-level assessments, necessitating repeated monitoring to ensure long-term efficacy. Recent advances in the include bioaugmented slurry-bioreactors for targeted chlordane degradation, offering improved control over microbial consortia for higher efficiency in contained systems. Nano-bioremediation approaches, integrating with biological agents, have emerged for persistent pesticides like chlordane, enhancing degradation rates through increased surface area and reactivity, though field-scale validation remains limited. These innovations address binding challenges but face hurdles in regulatory approval and cost for widespread deployment.

Debates and Alternative Viewpoints

Weighing Benefits Against Risks

Chlordane's primary benefit in control stemmed from its long residual efficacy, which provided protection against subterranean termites for decades after application, significantly reducing structural damage to wooden building elements such as foundations, framing, and floors. Introduced in , it was applied to over 30 million homes in the United States, preventing widespread infestations that historically caused extensive property losses prior to effective chemical interventions; for instance, termite-related damages were estimated at hundreds of millions annually by the early even with controls in place, implying far greater unmitigated costs in earlier decades when options were limited to mechanical barriers or short-lived treatments. This residual persistence outperformed alternatives like or , which required more frequent re-applications and incurred at least twice the costs for equivalent efficacy. Observed human health risks from typical residential applications remained low despite the scale of use, with acute incidents—such as gastrointestinal distress or neurological symptoms like tremors—primarily linked to accidental high-dose exposures rather than standard subsurface treatments, and no evidence of widespread epidemics or elevated cancer clusters attributable to routine applications across millions of treated structures. Modeled risks, often extrapolated from high-dose showing hepatic effects or carcinogenicity in , projected potential long-term harms including endocrine disruption, yet empirical data from human indicated minimal incidence, contrasting with regulatory emphases on persistence-driven . In comparison, unregulated termite proliferation without such controls could exacerbate spread and necessitate costlier physical repairs or less durable alternatives, potentially shifting burdens to untreated properties. Cost-benefit assessments, such as a 1983 industry analysis, concluded that chlordane's protective value against termite-induced structural failures—estimated to save billions in avoided damages over decades—outweighed projected and environmental costs, particularly given the pesticide's targeted application and low volatility in . Industry stakeholders, including operators, highlighted these economic advantages and superior performance over post-ban substitutes, arguing for continued use under refined protocols, while regulators prioritized precautionary models of chronic exposure despite sparse confirmatory human data. This divergence underscores a tension between observable, quantified benefits in property preservation and hypothetical risks amplified by persistence, with empirical low-incidence patterns suggesting overestimation in some projections.

Critiques of Regulatory Overreach

Critics of chlordane regulation contend that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) decisions exemplified precautionary overreach, extrapolating risks from high-dose animal studies to policy despite limited epidemiological support. Chlordane produced liver tumors in mice at doses far exceeding typical exposures, but remains equivocal, consisting of mixed case-control results and insufficient cohort to establish causality for cancer or other systemic effects. The EPA's as a probable relies predominantly on bioassays, with thresholds for no-observed-adverse-effect levels (NOAELs) in animals suggesting margins of safety that precautionary bans disregarded in favor of zero-tolerance assumptions. This approach overlooked chlordane's demonstrated utility in subsurface termite control and crop protection, where its persistence enabled long-term efficacy and reduced application frequency compared to alternatives. Post-ban replacements, such as chlorpyrifos for termiticide uses, exhibited higher acute mammalian toxicity, potentially amplifying short-term exposure risks during more frequent reapplications. Economic analyses indicated elevated costs for structural treatments and agricultural pest management, straining productivity in regions reliant on effective, low-volume insecticides for food security. A 1980 Government Accountability Office (GAO) review criticized the EPA for not performing a formal risk-benefit analysis prior to restricting chlordane, noting that continued termite uses were approved administratively rather than through balanced evaluation of benefits against mitigated risks. Proponents of risk-based tolerances argue this omission favored hazard-based prohibitions, amplifying animal-derived concerns into policy without accounting for exposure gradients or societal trade-offs, such as increased termite damage to infrastructure estimated in billions annually pre-ban. International disparities further highlight potential overreaction, as nations with delayed phase-outs under the Stockholm Convention reported no disproportionate health catastrophes attributable to chlordane persistence, underscoring the need for context-specific thresholds over uniform global restrictions.

References

  1. https://wwwn.cdc.gov/TSP/ToxFAQs/ToxFAQsDetails.aspx?faqid=354&toxid=62
  2. https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/12303035
  3. https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/12303039
  4. https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-09/documents/chlordane.pdf
  5. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4715584/
  6. https://iris.epa.gov/ChemicalLanding/&substance_nmbr%253D0142
  7. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK591471/
  8. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK591468/
  9. https://www.inchem.org/documents/ehc/ehc/ehc34.htm
  10. https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp31-c4.pdf
  11. https://www.chemicalbook.com/ChemicalProductProperty_EN_CB1451919.htm
  12. https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Chlordane_-technical
  13. https://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?ID=C57749&Mask=200
  14. https://sitem.herts.ac.uk/aeru/ppdb/en/Reports/134.htm
  15. https://www.sigmaaldrich.com/US/en/product/sial/53797
  16. https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/trans-Chlordane
  17. https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi?Dockey=9100PO38.TXT
  18. https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp31.pdf
  19. https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Chlordane
  20. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK217617/
  21. https://cdn.who.int/media/docs/default-source/wash-documents/wash-chemicals/chlordane-background-document.pdf?sfvrsn=99e31a46_6
  22. https://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/archive/chlordanetech.pdf
  23. https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ToxProfiles/tp31-c1-b.pdf
  24. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/chemistry/chlordane
  25. https://www.inchem.org/documents/jmpr/jmpmono/v070pr03.htm
  26. https://www.velsicol.com/history
  27. https://publications.iarc.who.int/_publications/media/download/2579/6290a6c334444f85df94b7059eac0768e1c66956.pdf
  28. https://wwwn.cdc.gov/TSP/substances/ToxSubstance.aspx?toxid=62
  29. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK499636/
  30. https://www.gao.gov/assets/ced-80-116.pdf
  31. https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp31-c5.pdf
  32. https://patents.google.com/patent/US2598561A/en
  33. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/chlordane
  34. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048969713010000
  35. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/chlordane
  36. https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/4795/chapter/21
  37. https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi?Dockey=91024T4I.TXT
  38. http://extoxnet.orst.edu/pips/chlordan.htm
  39. https://books.rsc.org/books/edited-volume/1793/chapter/2109916/DDT-and-Other-Chlorinated-Insecticides
  40. https://academic.oup.com/jee/article/64/3/745/825093
  41. https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi?Dockey=9100A58A.TXT
  42. https://www.pestworld.org/news-hub/pest-articles/new-year-same-termite-damage/
  43. https://www.eap.mcgill.ca/MagRack/JPR/JPR_01.htm
  44. https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/307475/files/aer231.pdf
  45. http://www.basel.int/Portals/4/download.aspx?d=UNEP-CHW-SUBM-GUID-TGsPOPsWastes-Pesticides-EU-201412119.English.doc
  46. https://www.epa.gov/great-lakes-monitoring/great-lakes-open-lakes-trend-monitoring-program-total-chlordane
  47. https://www.pan-europe.info/old/Archive/Banned%2520and%2520authorised.htm
  48. https://www.pops.int/TheConvention/ThePOPs/AllPOPs/tabid/2509/Default.aspx
  49. https://www.thegef.org/newsroom/press-releases/china-acknowledged-gef-helping-phase-out-chlordane-and-mirex-two-pops-used
  50. https://www.cec.org/files/documents/publications/1967-chlordane-no-longer-used-in-north-america-en.pdf
  51. http://www.pic.int/Portals/5/DGDs/DGD_Chlordane_EN.pdf
  52. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233492840_Comparison_of_Eleven_Soil_Termiticides_Against_the_Formosan_Subterranean_Termite_and_Eastern_Subterranean_Termite_Isoptera_Rhinotermitidae
  53. https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/398811468010882210/e12851v1010SF1EAP1PMP82992.doc
  54. https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi?Dockey=9100B9L4.TXT
  55. https://www.[researchgate](/page/ResearchGate).net/publication/229977309_Chlordane_transport_in_a_sandy_soil_Effects_of_suspended_soil_material_and_pig_slurry
  56. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es049489c
  57. https://pubs.usgs.gov/publication/5200089
  58. https://academic.oup.com/etc/article/18/9/2095/7829878
  59. https://dph.illinois.gov/topics-services/environmental-health-protection/toxicology/fish-advisories/chlordane-facts.html
  60. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0269749188900838
  61. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0269749121006771
  62. https://jornada.nmsu.edu/files/bibliography/JRN00021.pdf
  63. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/004565359090009I
  64. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0887617795000569
  65. https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi?Dockey=30000Y2C.TXT
  66. https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp31-c6.pdf
  67. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8013410/
  68. https://dep.nj.gov/wp-content/uploads/standards/57-74-9.pdf
  69. https://www.wbdg.org/FFC/ARMYCOE/PWTB/pwtb_200_1_31.pdf
  70. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA529312.pdf
  71. https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-08/documents/bioremediation_542r01019.pdf
  72. https://animorepository.dlsu.edu.ph/etd_masteral/3538/
  73. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9415570/
  74. https://cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/SiteProfiles/index.cfm?fuseaction=second.cleanup&id=0500092
  75. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA552496.pdf
  76. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0964830511002113
  77. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0045653523015370
  78. https://www.deq.nc.gov/water-quality/bims/reports/statewide-organics-report-dec-3-12/download
  79. https://www.sfei.org/sites/default/files/biblio_files/Connor_et_al_2007_legacy_pesticides.pdf
  80. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969725000324
  81. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9626991/
  82. https://dtsc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/31/2018/09/Final_Residential_Pesticide_Study.pdf
  83. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Nan-Yao-Su/publication/284040374_Economically_important_termites_in_the_United_States_and_their_control/links/570e5e9d08aee76b9dadec71/Economically-important-termites-in-the-United-States-and-their-control.pdf
  84. https://wwwn.cdc.gov/TSP/MMG/MMGDetails.aspx?mmgid=349&toxid=62
  85. https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2001/1052/Analyses/20011052SAG_2001s1052.ag.pdf
  86. https://www.gao.gov/products/ced-80-116
  87. https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12940-019-0488-0
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.