Hubbry Logo
ChloropicrinChloropicrinMain
Open search
Chloropicrin
Community hub
Chloropicrin
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Chloropicrin
Chloropicrin
Chloropicrin
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Chloropicrin
Names
IUPAC name
Trichloro(nitro)methane
Other names
  • Nitrochloroform
  • Nitrotrichloromethane
  • PS
  • Tri-clor
  • Trichloronitromethane
Identifiers
3D model (JSmol)
1756135
ChEBI
ChEMBL
ChemSpider
ECHA InfoCard 100.000.847 Edit this at Wikidata
EC Number
  • 200-930-9
240197
KEGG
RTECS number
  • PB6300000
UNII
UN number 1580
  • InChI=1S/CCl3NO2/c2-1(3,4)5(6)7 checkY
    Key: LFHISGNCFUNFFM-UHFFFAOYSA-N checkY
  • InChI=1/CCl3NO2/c2-1(3,4)5(6)7
    Key: LFHISGNCFUNFFM-UHFFFAOYAJ
  • ClC(Cl)(Cl)[N+]([O-])=O
Properties
CCl3NO2
Molar mass 164.375 g/mol
Appearance colorless liquid
Odor irritating[1]
Density 1.692 g/ml
Melting point −69 °C (−92 °F; 204 K)
Boiling point 112 °C (234 °F; 385 K) (decomposes)
0.2%[1]
Vapor pressure 18 mmHg (20°C)[1]
−75.3·10−6 cm3/mol
Hazards
Occupational safety and health (OHS/OSH):
Main hazards
 Extremely toxic and irritating to skin, eyes, and lungs.
GHS labelling:
GHS05: CorrosiveGHS06: ToxicGHS08: Health hazardGHS09: Environmental hazard
Danger
H301, H314, H330, H370, H372, H410
P260, P264, P270, P271, P273, P280, P284, P301+P310, P301+P330+P331, P303+P361+P353, P304+P340, P305+P351+P338, P307+P311, P310, P314, P320, P321, P330, P363, P391, P403+P233, P405, P501
NFPA 704 (fire diamond)
NFPA 704 four-colored diamondHealth 4: Very short exposure could cause death or major residual injury. E.g. VX gasFlammability 0: Will not burn. E.g. waterInstability 3: Capable of detonation or explosive decomposition but requires a strong initiating source, must be heated under confinement before initiation, reacts explosively with water, or will detonate if severely shocked. E.g. hydrogen peroxideSpecial hazards (white): no code
4
0
3
Lethal dose or concentration (LD, LC):
9.7 ppm (mouse, 4 hr)
117 ppm (rat, 20 min)
14.4 ppm (rat, 4 hr)[2]
293 ppm (human, 10 min)
340 ppm (mouse, 1 min)
117 ppm (cat, 20 min)[2]
NIOSH (US health exposure limits):
PEL (Permissible)
 TWA 0.1 ppm (0.7 mg/m3)[1]
REL (Recommended)
 TWA 0.1 ppm (0.7 mg/m3)[1]
IDLH (Immediate danger)
 2 ppm[1]
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 ?)

Chloropicrin, also known as PS (from Port Sunlight[3]) and nitrochloroform, is a chemical compound currently used as a broad-spectrum antimicrobial, fungicide, herbicide, insecticide, and nematicide.[4] It was used as a poison gas in World War I and the Russian military has been accused of using it in the Russo-Ukrainian War.[5][6][7] Its chemical structural formula is Cl3C−NO2.

Synthesis

[edit]

Chloropicrin was discovered in 1848 by Scottish chemist John Stenhouse. He prepared it by the reaction of sodium hypochlorite with picric acid:

HOC6H2(NO2)3 + 11 NaOCl → 3 Cl3CNO2 + 3 Na2CO3 + 3 NaOH + 2 NaCl

Because of the precursor used, Stenhouse named the compound chloropicrin, although the two compounds are structurally dissimilar.

Today, chloropicrin is manufactured by the reaction of nitromethane with sodium hypochlorite:[8]

H3CNO2 + 3 NaOCl → Cl3CNO2 + 3 NaOH

Reaction of chloroform and nitric acid also yields chloropicrin:[9]

Cl3CH + HONO2 → Cl3CNO2 + H2O

Properties

[edit]

Chloropicrin's chemical formula is CCl3NO2 and its molecular weight is 164.38 grams/mole.[10] Pure chloropicrin is a colorless liquid, with a boiling point of 112 °C.[10] Chloropicrin is sparingly soluble in water with solubility of 2 g/L at 25 °C.[10] It is volatile, with a vapor pressure of 23.2 millimeters of mercury (mmHg) at 25 °C; the corresponding Henry's law constant is 0.00251 atmosphere-cubic meter per mole.[10] The octanol-water partition coefficient (Kow) of chloropicrin is estimated to be 269.[10] Its soil adsorption coefficient (Koc; normalized to soil organic matter content) is 25 cm3/g.[10]

Uses

[edit]

Poison

[edit]

Chloropicrin was manufactured for use as poison gas in World War I.[11] In World War I, German forces used concentrated chloropicrin against Allied forces as a tear gas. While not as lethal as other chemical weapons, it induced vomiting and forced Allied soldiers to remove their masks to vomit, exposing them to more toxic gases used as weapons during the war.[12] It was also used by the Imperial Russian Army in hand grenades as 50% solution in sulfuryl chloride.[13]

In February 2024, Ukrainian General Oleksandr Tarnavskyi accused the Russian Armed Forces of using chloropicrin munitions.[14] In May 2024, the United States Department of State also alleged use of chloropicrin by Russian forces in Ukraine, and imposed sanctions against Russian individuals and entities as a response.[15] Dutch and German intelligence agencies found chloropicrin use to be "commonplace" by July 2025.[16]

Agriculture

[edit]

In agriculture, chloropicrin is injected into soil prior to planting a crop to fumigate soil. Chloropicrin affects a broad spectrum of fungi, microbes and insects.[17] It is commonly used as a stand-alone treatment or in combination / co-formulation with methyl bromide and 1,3-dichloropropene.[17][18] Chloropicrin is used as an indicator and repellent when fumigating residences for insects with sulfuryl fluoride which is an odorless gas.[citation needed] Chloropicrin's mode of action is unknown[19] (IRAC MoA 8B).[20] Chloropicrin may stimulate weed germination, which can be useful when quickly followed by a more effective herbicide.[21]

Chloropicrin was first registered in 1975 in the US. After a 2008 re-approval, the EPA[22] stated that chloropicrin "means more fresh fruits and vegetables can be cheaply produced domestically year-round because several severe pest problems can be efficiently controlled."[23][24] To ensure chloropicrin is used safely, the EPA requires a strict set of protections for handlers, workers, and persons living and working in and around farmland during treatments.[25][24] EPA protections were increased in both 2011 and 2012, reducing fumigant exposures and significantly improving safety.[26] Protections include the training of certified applicators supervising pesticide application, the use of buffer zones, posting before and during pesticide application, fumigant management plans, and compliance assistance and assurance measures.[citation needed]

Used as a preplant soil treatment measure, chloropicrin suppresses soilborne pathogenic fungi and some nematodes and insects. According to chloropicrin manufacturers, with a half-life of hours to days, it is completely digested by soil organisms before the crop is planted, making it safe and efficient.[citation needed] Contrary to popular belief, chloropicrin does not sterilize soil and does not deplete the ozone layer, as the compound is destroyed by sunlight. Additionally, chloropicrin has never been found in groundwater, due to its low solubility.[27]

California

[edit]

In California, experience with acute effects of chloropicrin when used as a soil fumigant for strawberries and other crops led to the release of regulations in January 2015 creating buffer zones and other precautions to minimize exposure to farm workers, neighbors, and passersby.[28][29]

Safety

[edit]

At a national level, chloropicrin is regulated in the United States by the United States Environmental Protection Agency as a restricted use pesticide.[30] Because of its toxicity, distribution and use of chloropicrin is available only to licensed professionals and specially certified growers who are trained in its proper and safe use.[30] In the US, occupational exposure limits have been set at 0.1 ppm over an eight-hour time-weighted average.[31]

High concentrations

[edit]
Gas identification art for chloropicrin

Chloropicrin is harmful to humans. It can be absorbed systemically through inhalation, ingestion, and the skin. At high concentrations, it is severely irritating to the lungs, eyes, and skin.[32]

Damage to protective gear

[edit]

Chloropicrin and its derivative phosgene oxime have been known to damage or compromise earlier generations of personal protective equipment. Some of the soldiers attacked mentioned a white smoke emerging from their gas masks.[citation needed]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Chloropicrin

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia

Chloropicrin (CCl₃NO₂), also known as trichloronitromethane or by its military designation PS, is a synthetic organochlorine compound that serves primarily as a broad-spectrum fumigant in to suppress nematodes, fungi, , and weeds, while historically functioning as a agent valued for its severe irritant and lacrimatory properties. The compound appears as a colorless to pale yellow oily liquid with a pungent, irritating odor reminiscent of , exhibiting low in but high volatility that enables deep penetration for . Noncombustible and denser than water, chloropicrin's vapors are highly toxic by inhalation, causing intense eye, nose, and throat irritation, , and potential systemic effects through interference with oxygen transport in . Introduced over a century ago, it gained notoriety during when deployed by German forces as a and vomiting agent, though less lethal than other gases, its deployment highlighted the compound's capacity to incapacitate through respiratory and ocular distress. In modern , chloropicrin remains a critical tool for pre-plant treatment in high-value crops like strawberries and peppers, enhancing yields by mitigating soil-borne pathogens despite ongoing debates over its environmental persistence and handler safety requirements. Its dual legacy underscores a balance between efficacious pest and inherent hazards, necessitating strict regulatory controls under frameworks like the UN for non-prohibited applications.

History

Early Discovery and Synthesis

Chloropicrin, chemically known as trichloronitromethane (CCl₃NO₂), was first synthesized in 1848 by Scottish chemist John Stenhouse through the reaction of (2,4,6-trinitrophenol) with bleaching powder or , yielding the compound as a where nitro groups from picric acid were selectively incorporated. This initial preparation highlighted its lachrymatory properties but did not immediately lead to practical applications. Early synthesis methods remained small-scale and lab-oriented, relying on the Stenhouse process or variations involving the chlorination and of simpler precursors like with concentrated under controlled conditions to form the trichloronitromethane structure. These techniques produced limited quantities suitable for basic chemical characterization rather than bulk production. The compound's potential beyond mere curiosity emerged with its patenting in for insecticidal applications, marking the first formal recognition of its biocidal efficacy against pests. By 1916, testing revealed its potent fumigant qualities, capable of penetrating enclosed spaces and incapacitating through , though initial focus remained on non-agricultural contexts.

Military Applications in World War I

Chloropicrin, designated as "PS" by Allied forces, served primarily as a harassing and in during , valued for its potent irritant properties that induced vomiting, severe lacrimation, and temporary blindness, often compelling soldiers to remove protective masks and exposing them to more lethal gases like . German forces employed it in artillery shells mixed with to enhance penetration of early gas masks, which were ineffective against its lacrimatory effects; this combination first gained prominence during operations near on July 12, 1917, where it contributed to respiratory distress and secondary casualties from rather than immediate lethality. The agent's tactical deployment aimed at disrupting troop cohesion by causing mass incapacitation, with exposed individuals experiencing intense eye inflammation, coughing, nausea, and lung fluid accumulation, though direct fatalities from chloropicrin alone remained low, aligning with broader statistics where such agents accounted for under 1% of total deaths but inflicted disproportionate non-fatal injuries. Allied powers, including Britain and later the , adopted chloropicrin for similar purposes, firing it in shells during key engagements such as the Battle of Messines in June 1917, where over 75,000 rounds were used to irritate and demoralize German positions. Its efficacy stemmed from rapid onset of symptoms—lacrimation within seconds at concentrations as low as 0.3 ppm, escalating to vomiting and blindness at higher exposures—allowing it to bypass rudimentary filters made of or , though improved masks later mitigated its impact. Limitations included its volatility, which reduced persistence in open terrain, and reliance on delivery via shells or cylinders, making it vulnerable to wind shifts and ; nonetheless, it was produced in large quantities by all major combatants, with stockpiles supporting extensive use until the . Historical records indicate chloropicrin's role amplified the psychological terror of gas attacks, as its odor—reminiscent of flypaper or pineapple—signaled impending exposure, but its primary value lay in non-lethal disruption, with casualties often requiring evacuation for treatment of and irritation rather than succumbing outright. By 1918, integration into mixed-gas munitions had become standard, yet evolving protective equipment and the sheer scale of conventional diminished its standalone decisiveness on the .

Transition to Agricultural Use

Following the end of in 1918, chloropicrin transitioned from military use as a and toxicant to agricultural applications, driven by its demonstrated toxicity toward pests and surplus wartime production. In 1919, it was first employed for nematode control in , capitalizing on observations of its insecticidal and broad-spectrum biocidal effects from battlefield exposures. By the early , U.S. and European agricultural trials tested chloropicrin as a pre-plant fumigant, confirming its efficacy against nematodes, soil-borne fungi, and such as wireworms, with applications injected into to achieve partial sterilization. These experiments, including those by Matthews in , revealed beneficial impacts on crop health through pest suppression, outweighing handling challenges from its lacrimatory irritancy and supporting initial adoption despite the need for protective measures. Expansion accelerated in the 1930s and 1940s amid increasing soil-borne disease pressures from , with chloropicrin established as a versatile via refined injection techniques and early combination patents that broadened its spectrum against pathogens. Field data from this era underscored its role in enabling higher yields by mitigating yield-limiting pests, cementing pre-plant protocols in regions facing and fungal outbreaks.

Chemical Properties

Physical Characteristics


Chloropicrin is a colorless to pale yellow oily liquid at , with a of approximately -64 °C. Its is 1.692 g/cm³, making it denser than . The compound has a of 112 °C at standard pressure. Chloropicrin exhibits high volatility, with a of 24 mm Hg at 25 °C. It is sparingly soluble in water, at about 1.6 g/L at 25 °C, but miscible with many organic solvents, which affects its penetration in various media. The substance emits a strong, pungent, irritating detectable at concentrations as low as 1 ppm, serving as an inherent warning property.

Reactivity and Stability

Chloropicrin demonstrates stability in neutral aqueous solutions, showing no significant under these conditions. However, it undergoes in alkaline environments, yielding and ions as decomposition products. In air, chloropicrin is susceptible to via absorption of light in the 280–390 nm wavelength range, with estimated half-lives ranging from approximately 6 hours under simulated conditions to longer periods depending on atmospheric factors. The compound exhibits reactivity toward nucleophiles such as amines and thiols, forming stable adducts that contribute to its biocidal efficacy by disrupting biological processes. Chloropicrin is non-flammable under typical conditions, as indicated by its NFPA rating of 0, but possesses a reactivity rating of 3, signifying potential for or explosive when subjected to shock, heat, or contamination in concentrated forms. Bulk containers have been noted to be shock-sensitive, capable of detonating upon impact. Empirical field and laboratory studies reveal chloropicrin's in to be 1–7 days, varying with factors like moisture, temperature, and microbial activity; for instance, average dissipation times of 3.7–4.5 days have been reported, with producing as a terminal product and no accumulation of persistent residues. Degradation accelerates in the presence of soil microorganisms, confirming rapid breakdown pathways without long-term stability in terrestrial environments.

Production Methods

Industrial Synthesis Processes

The primary industrial synthesis of chloropicrin employs the chlorination of using aqueous , optimized for high yield and scalability in batch reactors. is rapidly added to a slight excess of solution over 8 to 25 minutes, with temperature controlled below 30°C to prevent decomposition and side reactions, followed by to isolate the product. The reaction stoichiometry is CH₃NO₂ + 3 NaOCl → CCl₃NO₂ + 3 NaOH, achieving yields of 90% or higher based on when using technical-grade and precise addition rates. This method minimizes byproducts like dichloronitromethane through excess oxidant and adjustment to alkaline conditions. An established alternative process involves the gas-phase of with or at temperatures of 100–200°C, facilitating direct substitution of the to form chloropicrin with efficiencies exceeding 90% in optimized flow reactors. This approach leverages vapor-phase conditions to enhance reaction kinetics and purity, reducing liquid-phase handling hazards associated with concentrated . Modern refinements include catalytic promoters to suppress formation as a . Smaller-scale production may utilize direct chlorination of with gas in the presence of bases, though this variant requires additional purification steps to achieve commercial-grade material and is less favored for large volumes due to issues in equipment. Global production supports agricultural demand, with market values indicating annual output in the thousands of metric tons, primarily via the route for its cost-effectiveness and safety in integrated chemical facilities.

Historical vs. Modern Techniques

Early production of chloropicrin in the late 19th and early 20th centuries relied on batch processes reacting with or bleaching powder, as initially demonstrated in 1848 by Scottish chemist J. Stenhouse and scaled for munitions by the U.S. Bureau of Mines. These methods involved hazardous handling of explosive (2,4,6-trinitrophenol), generating acidic and nitro-containing wastes that required neutralization and disposal, with yields typically below 80% due to side reactions and incomplete chlorination. An alternative early route used reacted with concentrated , producing HCl and potential NOx emissions alongside the target trichloronitromethane, further complicating in open or semi-batch systems. By the mid-20th century, industrial synthesis shifted to the reaction of with , enabling higher selectivity and safer starting materials devoid of explosive intermediates. Modern techniques, refined through patents like US3106588A (1963), employ controlled, rapid addition of to over 8-25 minutes in stirred reactors, achieving yields of 92-95% while minimizing dichloronitromethane byproducts through pH and temperature optimization (maintained at 20-30°C). This process generates primarily as a , which can be neutralized or recycled, reducing overall volume compared to historical acid-heavy routes. Regulatory oversight by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), intensified under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act amendments of the 1970s, has driven further enhancements, including enclosed for product purification to >99% purity and <1% impurities, alongside emission controls to limit releases. While core reaction chemistry remains consistent, post-1970s adoption of continuous-flow or semi-continuous reactors in commercial facilities has improved scalability, safety via automated controls, and environmental compliance by capturing fumes and reducing energy demands through efficient heat integration, though specific quantitative audits on energy savings for chloropicrin are proprietary. These evolutions have lowered production costs per unit while aligning with stricter hazardous waste standards under the .

Primary Uses in Agriculture

Soil Fumigation Mechanisms

Chloropicrin volatilizes rapidly after soil injection, diffusing as a gas through interconnected pores and air-filled voids to achieve uniform distribution and contact with target organisms. This physical mechanism allows penetration to effective depths of 1.5 to 3 feet in loamy soils under optimal conditions of moderate (10-20%) and (above 50°F), far exceeding the limited reach of non-volatile surface-applied pesticides. Biochemically, chloropicrin disrupts pest physiology by generating strong acidic substances upon cellular uptake, inducing protein denaturation, inhibition, cellular swelling, , and across diverse taxa including nematodes, soil fungi (e.g., spp.), , and weed seeds. This broad-spectrum action targets sulfhydryl groups in proteins and interferes with metabolic pathways, leading to rapid mortality without dependence on species-specific vulnerabilities. Typical application rates of 100-300 pounds per acre yield lethal concentrations (e.g., 400-700 μL/L in air) sufficient for high pest kill rates in lab assays. Empirical field trials confirm control levels often surpassing 90% for root-knot nematodes (Meloidogyne spp.) and fungal pathogens like Verticillium dahliae when integrated with tarping, as measured by post-fumigation population reductions and bioassays. The compound's reactivity ensures alkylating-like effects on DNA and proteins in exposed organisms, enhancing efficacy against dormant weed seeds and bacterial endospores. Its pungent odor, inherent to the molecule's structure, signals vapor presence during application, minimizing uneven distribution risks.

Applications in High-Value Crops

Chloropicrin is employed in soil for high-value crops such as , tomatoes, and nuts in , where it targets soil-borne pathogens and pests to enhance yield and quality. In production, which accounts for approximately 81% of California's agricultural chloropicrin use as of 2023, supports pest management essential for maintaining health and productivity, with strawberries comprising about 70% of annual applications primarily on the Central Coast. The Department of Pesticide Regulation has affirmed its vital role in enabling growers to maximize yields over decades through effective control of nematodes, fungi, and insects. In cultivation, treatments incorporating chloropicrin at concentrations greater than 60% have consistently resulted in higher yields compared to untreated controls, as demonstrated in field studies evaluating fumigant efficacy against pathogens. For nut crops like pistachios, chloropicrin applications, often combined with other fumigants, reduce densities and promote early establishment, leading to improved growth rates. Field trials conducted in 2023 and 2024 showed that fumigant treatments containing chloropicrin increased plant growth relative to untreated areas, with formulations like 35% chloropicrin exhibiting notable benefits in suppressing pests over multiple seasons. Chloropicrin's efficacy against and nematodes underpins its economic value in these crops, providing growers with improved returns through higher marketable yields and reduced disease-related losses. Cost-benefit analyses highlight its consistent in specialty crop production by enhancing overall crop performance despite application challenges.

Synergistic Use with Other Fumigants

Chloropicrin is frequently combined with (1,3-D) in applications, typically at ratios such as 60-70% 1,3-D and 30-40% chloropicrin, to achieve a broader of than either fumigant alone. This stems from 1,3-D's primary nematicidal effects complemented by chloropicrin's strong fungicidal properties against soilborne pathogens like and , resulting in reduced inoculum levels and higher crop yields in trials on strawberries and other high-value crops. Historically, prior to the 2005 phaseout of methyl bromide, mixtures of 67% methyl bromide and 33% chloropicrin were standard for enhanced efficacy against fungi, nematodes, and weeds, with the combination demonstrating additive or synergistic activity exceeding individual applications in greenhouse and field tests. In non-agricultural and structural contexts, chloropicrin serves as a warning agent in low concentrations (often 2-5%) added to odorless fumigants like or , leveraging its intensely irritating odor and lacrimatory effects at 1 ppm to alert applicators and bystanders to potential exposure before reaching hazardous levels. This practice has been documented to improve safety protocols by providing an olfactory and sensory cue that mitigates undetected risks during application and phases. Multi-year field studies in , including assessments through 2023-2024, affirm that chloropicrin mixtures with 1,3-D or metam sustain efficacy without viable standalone alternatives for certain soilborne diseases, while allowing microbial community recovery and indicators like nutrient cycling to rebound within 4-6 weeks post-fumigation. These combinations have shown consistent yield benefits in repeated applications on crops like tomatoes and berries, with no evidence of diminished synergistic effects over time when applied under regulatory tarping requirements.

Non-Agricultural Applications

Historical Riot Control and Warfare

Chloropicrin saw limited post-World War I application in riot control by law enforcement agencies during the 1920s and 1930s, where it served as an irritant agent for crowd dispersal due to its capacity to induce intense lacrimation, coughing, and vomiting at low airborne concentrations. Its deployment exploited these reflex responses to temporarily disable individuals without immediate lethality, though its classification as a choking agent rather than a pure riot control substance—owing to potential for pulmonary damage—restricted widespread adoption. By the 1950s, chloropicrin had been largely phased out in favor of less toxic alternatives like CS gas, which offered comparable incapacitative effects with minimized risk of severe respiratory injury. In non-lethal warfare contexts, French forces employed chloropicrin during the in in the mid-1920s, releasing it against insurgent positions to harass and dislodge combatants through irritant overload, mirroring its tactical role of forcing mask removal and exposure to combined agents. Empirical data from exposure thresholds indicate incapacitation via ocular and emetic reflexes at concentrations of approximately 1-15 ppm, where 0.3-1 ppm provokes painful eye irritation and tearing, escalating to and above 15 ppm for durations exceeding one minute, without reliance on systemic toxicity for efficacy. Allegations of its tactical reuse emerged in 2024 during the , with the U.S. Department of State determining Russian forces deployed chloropicrin against Ukrainian troops to compel evacuation of fortified sites, yielding irritant symptoms like respiratory distress and emesis but low casualty rates akin to historical patterns. Ukrainian investigations documented over 1,000 chemical incidents by March 2024, including chloropicrin cases that prioritized over lethal outcomes, consistent with its profile as a vomiting agent rather than a high-mortality .

Industrial and Warning Agent Roles

Chloropicrin functions as a warning agent in fumigation operations involving odorless compounds like sulfuryl fluoride (Vikane) or methyl bromide, where it is added in small quantities to provide an irritative signal—causing eye tearing and respiratory discomfort at concentrations as low as 1 ppm—alerting workers to potential leaks or breaches before the primary fumigant reaches dangerous levels. This role extends to structural and enclosed-space fumigations in industrial contexts, such as pest control in warehouses or processing facilities, packaged in cylinders or bottles for precise metering. Historically, chloropicrin was applied as a direct fumigant for stored- , particularly in empty bins and silos, at application rates of 1 per 250 square feet of floor area to target like weevils. Modern usage in grain storage is restricted to such empty-space treatments for pre-storage , with dissipation typically occurring within 48 hours under controlled conditions. These applications constitute niche, low-volume industrial deployments compared to broader treatments. Industrial handling enforces strict exposure controls, with the OSHA set at 0.1 ppm (0.7 mg/m³) as an 8-hour time-weighted average, supported by ventilation systems, monitoring, and respiratory protection to maintain levels below irritant thresholds. In properly managed settings, exposure incidents are minimal, as the compound's inherent warning properties and regulatory safeguards enable rapid detection and mitigation.

Toxicology and Human Health Effects

Acute Exposure Symptoms and Mechanisms

Chloropicrin primarily acts as a sensory irritant upon acute exposure, eliciting immediate reflexive responses through stimulation of endings in the eyes, nasal passages, and upper . At concentrations as low as 0.1-0.15 ppm, individuals experience ocular irritation manifesting as tearing and burning sensations, while respiratory effects include coughing, , and a feeling of chest tightness. Skin contact with the form causes intense painful irritation and potential blistering. The irritant mechanism involves direct activation of unspecialized free nerve endings of the afferent , leading to neurogenic inflammation and reflex-mediated symptoms such as lacrimation and , distinct from direct cytotoxic damage at higher doses. of 1 ppm induces significant eye irritation, with intolerable ocular and respiratory effects reported at 7.4 ppm for 10 minutes in human volunteers. These sensory responses serve as early warning signs, often preceding more severe toxic effects. At elevated concentrations, chloropicrin transitions to overt toxicity, causing lower inflammation, , , and potentially fatal due to alveolar damage and fluid accumulation. Animal models demonstrate this dose-response: mice exhibit an LC50 of 56 ppm for 30-minute exposure, while rats show LC50 values of 11.9-18.9 ppm over 4 hours, with lethality often delayed by hours to days from secondary or progression. Most cases of irritant exposure resolve within hours to days with removal from the source and supportive care, including ventilation for severe respiratory distress.

Chronic and Long-Term Risks

Chloropicrin is not classified as a carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), which has not listed it, or by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), whose assessments conclude no concern for carcinogenic potential based on weight-of-evidence evaluations of available data. studies, including 78-week dietary exposures in rats and mice at doses up to 25 mg/kg/day, showed no evidence of neoplastic lesions attributable to chloropicrin. Animal studies on reproductive and developmental demonstrate no adverse effects at agriculturally relevant exposure levels. Inhalation developmental toxicity studies in rats and rabbits identified no-observed-adverse-effect levels (NOAELs) of 1.0 ppm for systemic effects and greater than 1.5 ppm for reproductive parameters, with maternal but no teratogenicity observed only at higher doses. Two-generation reproduction studies in rats confirmed no impacts on or pup viability at exposures up to 5.3 mg/kg/day. Occupational exposure assessments indicate minimal chronic risks when application protocols are followed, with primary long-term concerns limited to respiratory from repeated low-level exposures rather than irreversible . Regulatory reviews of applicator data emphasize that reported chronic illnesses stem predominantly from misuse, such as inadequate , rather than inherent properties at controlled doses below occupational exposure limits. Chloropicrin exhibits rapid metabolic clearance in mammals, undergoing dechlorination via reaction with and thiols to form non-accumulating metabolites like dichloronitromethane, with an (log Kow) of 2.38 indicating low potential. Longitudinal biomarker monitoring in exposure studies shows quick elimination, supporting the absence of persistent tissue residues or cumulative toxicity from repeated low-dose applications.

Empirical Data on Exposure Incidents

In , chloropicrin drift incidents have primarily involved acute irritant effects from off-target airborne movement during , often attributable to wind speeds exceeding application guidelines. A 2003 event in Kern County exposed 165 residents to drifted chloropicrin from nearby fields, causing eye irritation, respiratory distress, , and ; all cases resolved without reported long-term sequelae following medical evaluation and removal from exposure. Similarly, a 2005 drift in Salinas affected over 200 individuals in a residential area, with symptoms including severe eye and throat burning linked to inversion layers trapping vapors, though recovery occurred without chronic outcomes. These incidents underscore preventable causal factors such as inadequate wind monitoring and buffer zones, rather than uncontrollable volatility, as fumigant protocols specify no application when winds exceed 10 mph. In strawberry production regions like Monterey and Santa Cruz Counties during the 2010s, drift events near fumigated fields reported acute exposures among workers and residents, with symptoms resolving post-exposure. For instance, a 2012 Salinas Valley incident involved field crews experiencing respiratory irritation from chloropicrin and 1,3-D drift, tied to application during unsuitable meteorological conditions; no persistent harm was documented. Over 2002–2011, California recorded approximately 800 chloropicrin-related illness cases statewide, predominantly acute and drift-associated, representing a low incidence relative to annual usage exceeding 15 million pounds, with most linked to procedural lapses like tarpaulin tears or wind shifts rather than inherent dispersion risks. Such rarity—fewer than 80 cases yearly amid thousands of applications—highlights efficacy of re-entry intervals and notification systems in mitigating widespread impact. Handler exposures emphasize equipment limitations, as chloropicrin liquid attacks rubber and certain plastics, degrading seals and gloves within hours of contact, necessitating non-rubber alternatives and strict time limits. protocols cap potential exposures to under 15 minutes via ventilated suits and immediate , aligning with NIOSH immediately dangerous to life or health (IDLH) threshold of 2 ppm to prevent penetration. Recent air monitoring corroborates minimal ambient exposure, with California's 2023 statewide network detecting chloropicrin in only select samples at three sites, while 95% of analyses showed levels below health-protective thresholds or non-detectable, countering claims of pervasive . This pattern, driven by rapid degradation (half-life 2–4 days) and emission controls, indicates drift incidents stem from isolated application errors, not systemic atmospheric persistence.

Environmental Fate and Impacts

Degradation in Soil and Atmosphere

Chloropicrin degrades rapidly in soil through a combination of microbial metabolism and abiotic hydrolysis, primarily yielding carbon dioxide (CO₂), nitrite (NO₂⁻), nitrate (NO₃⁻), and chloride (Cl⁻) ions as end products. Laboratory and field studies indicate a degradation half-life ranging from 1 to 5 days under typical agricultural conditions, influenced by factors such as soil temperature, moisture, and organic matter content. For instance, field experiments at 20°C have reported an average half-life of 4.3 days (95% confidence interval: 3.9–4.9 days). Higher application rates can extend the half-life, with values increasing from 0.4 days at 16 mg kg⁻¹ soil to 15.8 days at 295 mg kg⁻¹ soil, due to saturation of degradation pathways. Degradation accelerates in moist soils, where hydrolysis and microbial activity are enhanced, leading to faster breakdown compared to drier conditions; however, excessive moisture gradients can sometimes slow rates in specific soil types by limiting oxygen availability for microbes. Complete dissipation from the topsoil typically occurs within 1–2 weeks post-application, primarily via volatilization and in situ transformation, with minimal leaching due to chloropicrin's low soil mobility (Koc ≈ 40–100 mL g⁻¹) and high vapor pressure. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency assessments confirm negligible persistence in groundwater, as confirmed by modeling and monitoring data showing rapid attenuation before reaching aquifers. In the atmosphere, chloropicrin primarily undergoes photolysis upon exposure to sunlight, with decomposition products including (COCl₂) and (NOCl). Experimental studies under simulated sunlight yield a photolytic of approximately 5.9 ± 1.5 hours at near-atmospheric oxygen pressures, though atmospheric models estimate effective lifetimes of 1–2 days accounting for indirect reactions with hydroxyl radicals. Atmospheric degradation models indicate minimal contribution to , as the molecule's short lifetime limits transport to the and its photoproducts do not significantly interact with layers. Overall, atmospheric persistence is brief, reducing long-range transport risks.

Effects on Non-Target Organisms

Chloropicrin induces temporary suppression of microbial communities, including non-target and fungi, typically lasting days to weeks, after which populations rebound and may even stimulate beneficial taxa. A 2023 field study on fields found that while initial decreased post-, microbial richness and evenness recovered fully within one growing season, with no persistent loss in or functional guilds critical for nutrient cycling. , inhibited during active , typically restore to pre-treatment levels or higher within 2-4 weeks, as evidenced by elevated persistence followed by normalized rates. Amendments like can accelerate this recovery by 20-50% for bacterial and fungal abundances without favoring pathogens. For terrestrial wildlife, chloropicrin poses low acute risk to birds and mammals primarily due to its potent irritancy, which triggers avoidance behaviors via stimulation at concentrations below lethal thresholds (e.g., eye and respiratory at ≤1 ppm). represents the dominant exposure route for non-target vertebrates, but volatility and rapid atmospheric degradation limit persistence, with no evidence of or secondary poisoning in food chains. Empirical assessments confirm that treated fields do not exhibit long-term impairing soil ecosystem services, as microbial metabolic activity and community composition stabilize post-recovery, supporting consistent function without cascading declines in non-target .

Monitoring Data and Regulatory Assessments

The Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) Air Monitoring Network reported in 2023 that were not detectable in 95% of analyzed air samples across agricultural communities, with chloropicrin concentrations in the remaining detections peaking at levels 7% below established health screening benchmarks. DPR's ongoing evaluation of these near-threshold findings for chloropicrin informs targeted risk mitigation without indicating exceedances of acute exposure limits. A 2025 review by the Council on Science and Technology (CCST), commissioned by DPR, affirmed chloropicrin's critical role in agriculture for controlling soilborne pests in crops like strawberries, noting that no available alternatives serve as a universal replacement due to efficacy gaps in broad-spectrum pathogen suppression. This assessment underscores chloropicrin's necessity amid limited viable substitutes, supporting data-driven buffer and application protocols to minimize off-site drift. In the , chloropicrin has not been approved as a protection product active substance under (EC) No 1107/, reflecting restrictions on its fumigant applications, though limited derogations occur under national schemes with strict rate caps (e.g., maximum 490 kg/ha every three years in some member states for specific uses). Despite these limits, global demand sustains its production and export, with the broader agricultural fumigants market—including chloropicrin—projected to expand at a 2.8% CAGR to $1.46 billion by 2035, driven by needs in pest for high-value crops. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) risk assessments for chloropicrin indicate that mandated buffer zones (e.g., 100-300 feet depending on application rate and ) yield risk quotients below 1.0 for bystander acute exposure, signifying levels of concern not exceeded under modeled worst-case drift scenarios. These buffers, combined with real-time notifications to adjacent areas, effectively mitigate potential airborne concentrations to below regulatory thresholds.

Regulatory Framework and Controversies

Global and U.S. Regulations

In the United States, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reregistered chloropicrin as a soil fumigant in July 2008 under the Federal , , and Act (FIFRA), determining it eligible for continued use with risk mitigation measures including mandatory (PPE) such as respirators and coveralls for handlers, buffer zones around application sites to limit off-site drift, and labeling requirements warning of its irritant properties. These provisions were based on toxicological data establishing acute exposure thresholds, without imposing residential use bans or broad precautionary restrictions despite acknowledged irritancy at low concentrations. The (OSHA) sets a (PEL) for chloropicrin at 0.1 ppm (0.7 mg/m³) as an 8-hour time-weighted average, reflecting empirical respiratory irritation data from controlled studies and occupational monitoring. Globally, chloropicrin is regulated primarily as an irritant fumigant rather than a , with the (WHO) providing guidelines for its incidental formation in from chlorination byproducts and noting its rapid degradation in environmental matrices, without classifying it among bioaccumulative toxins warranting phaseout. Usage persists in over 50 agricultural economies including the , , , and others, where approvals hinge on application controls like tarping and ventilation rather than outright bans, as evidenced by steady global market volumes exceeding 500,000 metric tons annually without evident regulatory-driven decline. International trade data from 2020–2024 show no phaseout trends, with production and exports stable or increasing in major suppliers like and the U.S., underscoring reliance on threshold-based standards over categorical prohibitions.

California-Specific Debates and Restrictions

In 1987, chloropicrin was prioritized for evaluation as a potential toxic air contaminant (TAC) by the , leading to formal listing proceedings that culminated in regulatory actions emphasizing drift mitigation. This status prompted the Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) to implement stringent use restrictions, including mandatory buffer zones around occupied structures (typically 100-300 feet, expanded in sensitive areas), daily application limits of 40 acres (or 60 acres with tarpaulins), and temporal constraints prohibiting applications earlier than one hour after sunrise or later than three hours before sunset. Ongoing DPR reevaluation, initiated in the 2010s and intensified by 2024, has required registrants to submit data on worker exposure, air monitoring, and studies, with proposed mitigations like enhanced buffer zones and reduced application rates to address bystander risks. A 2025 state-funded study on fumigant alternatives confirmed that no non-chemical or alternative methods, such as metam sodium alone, achieve equivalent in high-value crops like strawberries, projecting substantial yield reductions—potentially exceeding 20-30% based on historical post-methyl transition data—without chloropicrin. Debates intensified around drift incidents, particularly near schools in agricultural regions like Monterey and Ventura Counties, where wind-carried emissions have prompted evacuations and lawsuits alleging inadequate protections for students, often in low-income Latino communities. Environmental advocacy groups, such as Beyond Pesticides, have cited these events to demand phase-outs, arguing that chloropicrin's irritant properties pose unacceptable risks despite mitigations like totally impermeable films (TIF) and seals that retain 70-90% more fumigant in soil. Agricultural stakeholders counter that such restrictions threaten California's $2-3 billion sector, which relies on chloropicrin for and control, with DPR surveillance data showing low severe outcomes—fewer than 1% of reported illnesses involving hospitalizations from chloropicrin drift since 2010, often attributable to atypical wind events rather than systemic failures. Economic analyses emphasize that alternatives increase production costs by 15-25% without matching yields, underscoring the chemical's role in sustaining output amid limited substitutes.

Efficacy vs. Risk Assessments and Myth Debunking

Chloropicrin demonstrates high efficacy as a broad-spectrum soil fumigant, effectively controlling nematodes, fungi, and soilborne pathogens that organic methods often fail to suppress, thereby enabling substantial yield increases in crops such as strawberries and ginger. Studies indicate that chloropicrin fumigation can promote crop yields by mitigating continuous cropping obstacles and reducing disease incidence, with field trials showing marketable yield gains comparable to or exceeding non-chemical alternatives in fumigant-dependent soils. This pest control capability supports food security by sustaining production in high-value agriculture where pathogen pressures would otherwise lead to significant losses, as evidenced by its role in maintaining viable strawberry acreage in regions like California. A common myth that chloropicrin causes permanent sterility is contradicted by empirical data on microbial dynamics post-fumigation. While initial application reduces microbial populations, bacterial and fungal communities recover within weeks to months, often shifting toward beneficial compositions that enhance and suppress pathogens long-term. Genetic sequencing analyses reveal that treated soils harbor diverse microbial species, including over 200 unique taxa absent in untreated controls, indicating no sterilization but rather a selective restructuring that does not impair overall or elevate beyond those from alternatives. Risk assessments of chloropicrin are frequently overstated in media portrayals emphasizing its as a "war gas," yet its potent irritant properties—manifesting as immediate eye, respiratory, and warnings—facilitate detection and , distinguishing it from odorless fumigants and reducing unintended exposures. Peer-reviewed confirms no carcinogenic effects in long-term oral or studies, with occupational risks managed through buffer zones and application protocols that have correlated with low acute illness incidence relative to usage volume. Environmental advocacy for outright bans, often from left-leaning groups prioritizing precaution, overlooks causal links between fumigant use and yield stability, potentially inflating costs; conversely, pro-innovation perspectives stress empirical safety improvements via technology and property rights over regulatory overreach unsubstantiated by incident data. No viable alternatives fully replicate chloropicrin's efficacy without yield trade-offs, underscoring its risk-benefit profile in pathogen-prone soils.

References

  1. https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Chloropicrin
  2. https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ershdb/emergencyresponsecard_29750034.html
  3. https://cameochemicals.noaa.gov/chemical/387
  4. https://www.acs.org/molecule-of-the-week/archive/c/chloropicrin.html
  5. https://www.apsnet.org/about/newsroom/releases/Pages/chloropicrin.aspx
  6. https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/wash-documents/wash-chemicals/chloropicrin-background-document.pdf?sfvrsn=8d643115_4
  7. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/chemistry/chloropicrin
  8. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/chloropicrin
  9. https://achh.army.mil/history/book-wwi-volxiv-volxivhtml-ch03/
  10. https://www.kumc.edu/school-of-medicine/academics/departments/history-and-philosophy-of-medicine/archives/wwi/essays/medicine/gas-in-the-great-war.html
  11. https://www.hyle.org/journal/issues/24-1/schummer.htm
  12. https://pubs.nmsu.edu/research/horticulture/NMCA33/index.html
  13. https://www.cdpr.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/chloropicrinrisk_2012.pdf
  14. https://journals.flvc.org/nematropica/article/download/69679/67339/0
  15. http://nemaplex.ucdavis.edu/mangmnt/Chemical.htm
  16. https://www.osha.gov/chemicaldata/604
  17. https://pim-resources.coleparmer.com/sds/20104.pdf
  18. https://www.pesticidereform.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/chloropicrin.pdf
  19. https://www.rottler.com/labels/douglasproducts.chloropicrin102815.sds.pdf
  20. https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-07/documents/osha-pv2103.pdf
  21. https://patents.google.com/patent/RU2554345C2/en
  22. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/chloropicrin
  23. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271225092_Photolysis_of_chloropicrin_by_simulated_sunlight
  24. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9305582/
  25. http://www.osha.gov/chemicaldata/604
  26. https://label.westernpest.com/files_techservices/archive/greatlakes.chloropicrin.msds.pdf
  27. https://www.cdpr.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/chloropicrin.pdf
  28. https://www.ineos.com/globalassets/ineos-group/businesses/ineos-koh/product-resources/safety-data-sheet_chloropicrin_original-id-150556.pdf
  29. https://patents.google.com/patent/US3106588A/en
  30. https://patents.google.com/patent/US2181411A/en
  31. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/ja02168a015
  32. https://www.industryresearch.biz/market-reports/chloropicrin-market-108848
  33. https://www.denix.osd.mil/rcwmprogram/history/
  34. https://scholarworks.uni.edu/context/pias/article/4075/viewcontent/038_The_Production_of_Chloropicrin_as_needed_from_dry_mixtures_of_picric_acid_and_bleaching_powder.pdf
  35. https://patents.google.com/patent/US1327714A/en
  36. https://www.usitc.gov/publications/701_731/pub4142.pdf
  37. https://cms.ctahr.hawaii.edu/epp/Education/Study-Guide-Packets/SoilFumigation
  38. https://pnwhandbooks.org/plantdisease/pesticide-articles/fumigation/orchard-soil-fumigation
  39. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/npp2.27
  40. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0261219402000315
  41. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3950219/
  42. https://escholarship.org/content/qt9w41x2hw/qt9w41x2hw.pdf
  43. https://californiaagriculture.org/api/v1/articles/108821-revised-chloropicrin-use-requirements-impact-strawberry-growers-unequally.pdf
  44. https://trical.com/2025/03/26/dpr-report-confirms-vital-role-of-chloropicrin/
  45. https://www.tricalgroup.com/aghub/keyword.cfm?k=FFD1B464-70E5-48D3-9B8F-C5D941556E20
  46. https://trical.com/2023/07/31/pistachio-field-trials-decreased-nematode-densities/
  47. https://trical.com/2024/03/11/pistachio-field-trials-decreased-nematode-densities-part-2/
  48. https://www.tricalgroup.com/aghub/Category.cfm?c=4
  49. https://triestag.com/2024/08/08/breaking-down-the-details-on-chloropicrin/
  50. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35544358/
  51. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ps.6982
  52. https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2013-11/documents/chloropicrin-methyl-bromide-hndlr-sfty-info-12-2010.pdf
  53. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/%28SICI%291526-4998%28200005%2956:5%253C413::AID-PS140%253E3.0.CO%3B2-J
  54. https://downloads.regulations.gov/EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0153-0030/content.pdf
  55. https://www.cdpr.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/directive.pdf
  56. https://www.cdpr.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/ccst_fumigants_study.pdf
  57. https://www.fs.usda.gov/nrs/pubs/jrnl/2024/nrs_2024_castellano-hinojosa_001.pdf
  58. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10373873/
  59. https://www.msdmanuals.com/professional/injuries-poisoning/mass-casualty-weapons/riot-control-chemical-agents
  60. https://www.the-trench.org/chloropicrin-in-ukrainian-war-1
  61. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/political-science/articles/10.3389/fpos.2025.1634144/full
  62. http://extoxnet.orst.edu/pips/chloropi.htm
  63. https://2021-2025.state.gov/imposing-new-measures-on-russia-for-its-full-scale-war-and-use-of-chemical-weapons-against-ukraine-2/
  64. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-68941220
  65. https://academic.oup.com/jee/article-abstract/76/1/184/2213770
  66. https://downloads.regulations.gov/EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0153-0058/content.pdf
  67. https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npg/npgd0132.html
  68. https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2014-08/documents/chloropicrin_interim_0.pdf
  69. https://downloads.regulations.gov/EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0153-0024/content.pdf
  70. https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/hc-sc/migration/hc-sc/cps-spc/alt_formats/pdf/pest/part/consultations/rev2016-10/REV2016-10-eng.pdf
  71. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5332a4.htm
  72. https://www.calhealthreport.org/2015/09/02/dangerous-drift/
  73. https://www.nrdc.org/stories/sour-side-strawberries
  74. https://assets.greenbook.net/M108680.pdf
  75. https://www.cdpr.ca.gov/2024/10/14/2023-air-monitoring-report-finds-no-detectable-pesticides-in-95-of-sample-analyses/
  76. https://www.cdpr.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/2023_amn_results-2024.pdf
  77. https://www.tricalafrica.com/Chloropicrin_and_Soil_Health.pdf
  78. https://www.ars.usda.gov/arsuserfiles/20361500/pdf_pubs/P2657.pdf
  79. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048969719322429
  80. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2021-10/chloropicrinparta.pdf
  81. https://sitem.herts.ac.uk/aeru/ppdb/en/Reports/148.htm
  82. https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.2903/j.efsa.2020.6028
  83. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1352231015000552
  84. https://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2016/sc-hc/H113-5-2016-10-eng.pdf
  85. https://intra.engr.ucr.edu/~carter/pubs/clpicrin.pdf
  86. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10375714/
  87. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0147651321005261
  88. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236633637_Fumigation_of_rabbit_warrens_with_chloropicrin_produces_poor_welfare_outcomes_-_a_review
  89. https://amb-express.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s13568-017-0475-1
  90. https://ccst.us/ccst-report-assesses-the-use-of-fumigants-13-d-and-chloropicrin-in-california/
  91. https://www.cdpr.ca.gov/2025/03/13/dpr-releases-first-phase-of-state-funded-fumigant-alternatives-study-focused-on-13-d-and-chloropicrin/
  92. https://www.factmr.com/report/agricultural-fumigants-market
  93. https://www.openpr.com/news/3994068/agricultural-fumigants-market-size-worth-us-1-46-billion
  94. https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi?Dockey=P1004QST.TXT
  95. https://downloads.regulations.gov/EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0350-0396/content.pdf
  96. https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi?Dockey=P100AFP0.TXT
  97. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2008/07/16/E8-16266/chloropicrin-dazomet-metam-sodiumpotassium-and-methyl-bromide-reregistration-eligibility-decisions
  98. https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi?Dockey=P1010HX8.txt
  99. https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12940-019-0488-0
  100. https://dataintelo.com/report/global-chloropicrin-market
  101. https://www.usitc.gov/publications/701_731/pub3712.pdf
  102. https://www.businessresearchinsights.com/market-reports/chloropicrin-market-123463
  103. https://www.pesticidereform.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/poisonAir.pdf
  104. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/cen-09304-notw9
  105. https://www.cdpr.ca.gov/additional-labeling-requirements-for-use-of-all-products-containing-chloropicrin-as-an-active-ingredient-in-california/
  106. https://www.cdpr.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/ca2024-19.pdf
  107. https://californiaagriculture.org/article/109052-totally-impermeable-film-retains-fumigants-allowing-lower-application-rates-in-strawberry/attachment/213988.pdf
  108. https://lookout.co/a-tale-of-two-fumigants-three-local-schools-and-formidable-ag-adversaries/story
  109. https://www.ehn.org/lawsuit-accuses-california-officials-of-failing-to-protect-students-from-toxic-pesticide-exposure
  110. https://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/2024/12/california-asked-to-put-an-end-to-a-deadly-fumigant-used-on-food-eaten-nationwide/
  111. https://insideclimatenews.org/news/20122024/california-agricultural-toxic-pesticides-disproportionate-impact/
  112. https://www.cdpr.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/2021-PISP-Report.pdf
  113. https://progressivecrop.com/2021/03/12/life-after-methyl-bromide-in-california-berries/
  114. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0091767
  115. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/microbiology/articles/10.3389/fmicb.2023.1225944/full
  116. https://ucanr.edu/sites/default/files/2024-05/398137.pdf
  117. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7448014/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.