Talk:Dimethyl tetrachloroterephthalate

Bibliography Compilation - Environmental Disruptor Group Project

Agriculture, Idaho State Department Of, and June 200. Dimethyl Tetrachloroterephthalate (DCPA) Pesticide Management Plan (n.d.): n. pag. Dimethyl Tetrachloroterephthalate (DCPA) Pesticide Management Plan. Idaho State Department of Agriculture, June 2007. Web. 15 Feb. 2015.

Cox, Caroline. "DCPA (Dacthal)." Journal of Pesticide Reform, n.d. Web. 15 Feb. 2015. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TommyEagle55 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Those references appears weak (narrow primary sources). Please talk to your teacher about how to conduct literature searches. Here are some reviews, the kinds of WP:SECONDARY sources that are better (more readable, more authoritative) to build on:

• Mode of carcinogenic action of pesticides inducing thyroid follicular cell tumors in rodents" By Hurley, Pamela M.; Hill, Richard N.; Whiting, Rick J. Environmental Health Perspectives (1998), 106(8), 437-445. doi:10.1289/ehp.98106437
• "Pesticide trends in major rivers of the United States, 1992-2010" By Ryberg, Karen R.; Vecchia, Aldo V.; Gilliom, Robert J.; Martin, Jeffrey D. Scientific Investigations Report (United States Geological Survey) (2014), (2014-5135), 1-74.

--Smokefoot (talk) 01:55, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Proposed Additions to Article

Firstly, we would like to greatly expand upon the chemical properties table found on the current wikipedia page (boiling point, half life etc). We would also like to expand upon chemical in the introduction of the article, adding facts like current usage or when the compound was first synthesized.

Usage In this section, we would go into more depth on the creation of Dacthal, and it’s uses in society. This section could discuss where in the world Dacthal is used as a pesticide, and the quantity of usage in these areas. This could also be a good section to explain the mechanism by which Dacthal acts as a pesticide, and also explain why some might choose to use Dacthal over other common pesticides

Efficacy This section could be key to explaining the success of Dacthal as a pesticide, potentially getting data from the company that synthesizes the product. These figures could include the parts per million value of Dacthal in some pesticide sprays, and potentially Dacthal’s suppressive ability for various crops

Degredation Through our research, we have determined that Dacthal degregates, TPA and MTP, are what may be responsible for developmental disruption due to Dacthal. This would be a good place to introduce these degregates, and here we can link to our pages on TPA and MTP. Currently, these pages do not exist, so even brief wikipedia entries would be helpful. We can use data from studies that show the stability of Dacthal, which multiple studies have investigated. This will describe the process by which Dacthal degrades, and also what causes this degradation.

Toxicology/ Environmental Damage This section should make up the bulk of our article. We could begin by noting some characteristics such as OD 50, and subsequently discuss studies that have shown the levels of Dacthal found in humans/animals that have been exposed to Dacthal. The studies we have found show the contamination of Dacthal in ground water, soil, plants, animals, fish, etc. We could discuss how Dacthal moves from being sprayed onto crops into the environment, and the implications of Dacthal in the environment. Furthermore, this section could discuss how high levels of Dacthal have been shown to disrupt healthy bodily functions, and what may lead to these effects on a cellular level.

Regulation and the Future of Dacthal Many of our data sources come from federal or state governments that have performed research, testing, and analysis on Dacthal and its degragates. One would think they are running these tests to determine if Dacthal is safe as well as effective. We would discuss varying usage limits of Dacthal in different US regions, and even around the world. We could also discuss alternatives to Dacthal that may be safer, or reasons that further testing may lead to a phasing out of Dacthal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ctpen15 (talk • contribs) 04:24, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Review

Overall this article is well written and informative. There are a few things that can be added or moved around to help the article flow a little bit better. First off, I would recommend using either DCPA or Dacthal throughout the whole article after the abbreviated names have been introduced. This is probably not absolutely necessary, and you did seem to stick with DCPA for the majority of the article, but keeping with just one of those terms might help avoid confusion. The lead section does a good job introducing the chemical and what it is used for. If I were to make any changes to the lead section I would consider adding a sentence saying something about the major health effects seen in animals (decreased motor activity/poor reflexes), as this is a large chunk of the article. Also, I think there could be a few more wikilinks throughout the article. Some suggestions for links in the Biodegradation section would be words like bioconcentration, degradation, and groundwater. In the toxicology section I would recommend links on words like lungs, liver, kidney, thyroid gland, metabolites, microtubule, cell division, cell wall, chromosome, multinucleate, adrenal gland, mitotic. Not all of these are necessary but I think adding links to some of the more complicated terms like microtubule and multinucleate might help readers who are not as up to speed on biological terminology. In terms of the order of the article, I like how you have the headings split. In the toxicology section it’s good to have different subheadings for humans and animals. However, there is once sentence under the Animal Studies subheading that starts with “In humans…” and discusses how it is absorbed by humans. While this relates to what is being discussed about animal studies, you might want to consider putting that under the Humans subheading. Also in the toxicology section there is a paragraph about how DCPA kills plants. This paragraph is sandwiched between two paragraphs that discuss health effects on animals. It contains important information about how the chemical works so I would recommend either adding another subheading under Toxicology for Plants or adding another section titled something along the lines of “How It Works.” Under the Regulation section, if possible, add a list of the states that do have standards set for DCPA. And if there is any information about regulation in other countries add something about that. This is a good article that contains important information about this chemical. The major thing I would say is adding more wikilinks but overall it is very well done. I hope my comments help! Aukere (talk) 17:12, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Let's start with dioxins...

I removed a section discussing the negative effects of dioxins and HCB. What was unclear was why the relevance of this material to the present article. I did not see any reference, much less a WP:SECONDARY reference that indicates that they are components of the pesticide under discussion. One could imagine them being contaminants but the fact needs to be well documented. Perhaps I missed something.--Smokefoot (talk) 22:31, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Overall writing problems

1. Every acronym needs to be defined when first used.
2. Terminology needs to be consistent--even the name/synonym used to represent the title compound changes from section to section and sentence to sentence.
3. Lots of redundant material. For example, the same essential topic--breakdown leads to products that have certain toxic effects--is covered with essentially the same facts in two different sections. A wikipedia article needs to be a unified writing, not discrete essays.
4. WP:LEDE is a mess. The intro needs to summarize the article, not give background. Virtually the whole article is about toxicity and environmental fate. The lead talks about its usefulness for farmers and its manufacturing.

DMacks (talk) 19:42, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dimethyl tetrachloroterephthalate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081122012634/http://www.american-vanguard.com/dacthal.html to http://www.american-vanguard.com/dacthal.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110710061637/http://www.agri.state.id.us/Categories/Environment/water/waterPDF/gwreports/DCPA-PMP.pdf to http://www.agri.state.id.us/Categories/Environment/water/waterPDF/gwreports/DCPA-PMP.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:11, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Toxicology section needs major revision or deletion

Sentence 1 ("Studies show"): The term of art is "adverse health effects" not "detrimental health effects." The 2000 mg/kg/day is a single dose, so it should say "a dose of 2000." Not clear what laboratory animals were used (mice, rats, rabbits?).

Sentence 2 ("There were"): Need to specify if the effects were adverse or not.

Sentence 3 ("The LD50"): The definition of the LD50 is a single dose that kills 50% of the animals within 14 days of administration (a definition of "50% lethal dose of DPCA" is still too jargony). I've never heard of spartan rats, this is likely a corruption of "Sprague-Dawley" which is one of the most commonly used rat strains for LD50 studies.

Sentence 4 ("In humans"): There is no citation for this statement. Typically metabolism studies such as these are performed in rats or mice, not humans, using radiolabeled chemical. Also, there are many other routes of elimination besides urinary excretion, so basing the percent absorption solely on urinary metabolite levels would be expected to underpredict absorption. This whole sentence needs to be rewritten or deleted.

Sentence 5 ("Decreased motor"): This sentence lacks a citation. Also the phrase "poor sight reflexes" is atypical, so I question whether this statement was in the original source.

Sentence 6 ("There were"): This sentence is fine, assuming it accurately reflects the citation.

Sentence 7 ("Rats whose"): For laboratory animals, the terminology is "dams and pups/offspring" not "mothers and rats." In many, but not all, study designs, both the male and female parental generation are exposed prior to mating and the dams are exposed through most of gestation and sometimes into lactation. So more detail is needed to accurately capture the exposure regimen so that the results can be accurately interpreted. At minimum, the sentence should be revised to read "The offspring of rats exposed to DCPA during pregnancy had impaired learning scores when compared to offspring from unexposed rats." I've also never heard of "higher-level learning test scores" for assessing neurobehavioral effects in pups, it sounds like they took the LSAT or something.

Sentence 8 ("Studies regarding"): No citation.

Sentences 9-10 ("A study" and "Alternatively, a"): These two studies were conducted 30 years apart. During the intervening period, Good Laboratory Practices (GLP) and test guideline programs (such as the OPPTS and OECD guideline programs) were developed to standardize the conduct of animal toxicology studies, including the cancer bioassay. Putting both studies on equal footing is misleading. Also, the mention that the 1963 study used "pure" DCPA makes it seem like the 1993 study used "impure" DCPA. This is also misleading. Animal toxicology studies generally are supposed to use the purest form of the chemical that is available, and to provide a percent purity as part of the study reporting. Analytical methods for measuring impurities also advanced greatly in the 30 year period between the studies, so it is very possible that the 1963 test material contained impurities that could not be detected using the standard equipment available at the time.

Sentences 11-15 ("Studies have," "This interference," "The abnormal," "The key," and "It essentially"): All five of these sentences support a conclusion that DCPA is a genotoxic agent (it damages genetic material of cells). This increases concern for cancer and developmental toxicity since DNA damage can lead to tumor formation and birth defects. Also, it is not unusual for mitotic inhibitors to produce multinucleate cells, in fact it is so common that some of the most frequently run genotoxicity assays look specifically for this effect.

Sentences 16-17 ("Exposure to" and "The effects"): These two sentences belong in the first paragraph with the description of organ-level effects. They are out of place in the discussion of genotoxicity. "Damaging effects" should be changed to "Adverse effects" similar to sentence 1. "Poor reflexes" should be changed to "Impaired reflexes" since there are no thresholds delineating the transition from good to poor to absent reflexes. 161.80.29.65 (talk) 22:07, 28 July 2023 (UTC)