Save this now! An introduction to domestic and international pesticide-related databases.
Category:
Industry Information
Author:
China Pesticide Industry Association
Source:
Environmental and Occupational Medicine, Issue 12, 2020
Release date:
2021-11-25
Save this now! An introduction to domestic and international pesticide-related databases.

The large-scale use of chemical pesticides has had significant impacts on both the ecological environment and human health. When conducting research in areas such as environmental pollutant risk assessment, environmental pollution remediation, pesticide management, and ecotoxicology, a comprehensive, pesticide‑related database platform serves as an indispensable foundational resource.
This paper provides an overview of six widely used international pesticide‑related databases—EFSA OpenFoodTox, EPA CompTox Chemicals Dashboard, the Pesticide Properties Database (PPDB), the Pesticide Action Network (PAN), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Ecotoxicology Database (ECOTOX), and the Toxicology Data Network (TOXNET)—including their key features. It compares the types of queryable data available in each database, evaluates their respective strengths and limitations, and examines their applications in pesticide risk management. In addition, the paper outlines the characteristics of four domestic databases and identifies their shortcomings.
As the variety of pesticides expands and efforts to ensure the quality and safety of agricultural products deepen, pesticide‑related data are growing rapidly. Consequently, achieving scientific, systematic, and standardized data management is of paramount importance in pesticide regulation. One approach to systematizing pesticide data management is to establish a database of pesticide‑related contaminants; internationally, relatively comprehensive pesticide toxicology databases have already been developed. In China, some pesticide toxicology research currently relies on foreign databases, whose data sources are predominantly English-language publications or non‑English works with English abstracts. Moreover, these international databases contain limited information on the ecotoxicological effects of Chinese native species. As a result, when conducting pesticide toxicology and ecological risk assessment studies, the scientific rigor of such research is compromised due to differences in species composition and ecological structures between China and other regions.
At present, when conducting research on environmental pollutant risk assessment, remediation, pesticide management, and ecotoxicology in China, scientists are often constrained by the lack of a domestically developed toxicity database and platform. Consequently, establishing a localized database of pesticide environmental and toxicological data, along with a corresponding data‑application platform, has become an urgent priority for environmental pollutant research in China. This paper reviews the current state of pesticide‑related databases both domestically and internationally, outlining the basic features, data types, categories, and distinctive characteristics of commonly used databases, to serve as a reference and resource for relevant studies.
Introduction to Major Overseas Pesticide-Related Databases
The development of soil environmental pollutant databases abroad began early and has become quite sophisticated. As early as the 20th century, European and North American countries had established comprehensive, systematic toxicity databases along with robust data‑collection and quality‑assurance protocols. Examples include the European Food Safety Authority’s (EFSA) OpenFoodTox database, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) CompTox Chemicals Dashboard, and the Pesticide Properties Database (PPDB). These international toxicity databases are primarily supported and developed by national government agencies, research institutions, and private companies, and are managed and maintained by specialized authorities that conduct regular data updates. Most of these databases are publicly accessible and share their data either in full or in part.
EFSA OpenFoodTox database
Established in 2002, the EFSA operates independently of European legislative and executive bodies—namely the Commission, the Council, and the Parliament—as well as the EU member states. It serves as an independent risk-assessment body for food and feed safety within the European Union. The agency aims to evaluate risks across the entire food chain, safeguarding consumers, animals, and the environment from food‑related hazards, and providing impartial scientific advice to policymakers responsible for managing food safety in Europe.
OpenFoodTox provides an open-access database on chemical hazards in food and feed, with pesticide‑related risk assessment data forming a key component. Its researchers have conducted risk assessments for nearly 5,000 substances, drawing on more than 2,040 scientific opinions, statements, and conclusions. For each substance, EFSA has prepared summaries covering human health, animal health, and ecological hazard assessments. These summaries include: the substance characterization section, which provides molecular formula, Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) number, and other relevant data; the reference points section, which details study type, species, mode of action, effects, and toxicity; the reference values section, which lists substance classifications, special population groups, and reference values; the OpenFoodTox section, which contains chemical evaluations, genotoxicity data, and endpoint studies; the EFSA output section, which specifies the legal basis and output type; and the genotoxicity section, which reports on the substance’s genotoxic potential, along with authorship and publication year.
This database was established to extract and aggregate data from EFSA researchers’ reports; accordingly, all its data originate exclusively from EFSA publications—scientific opinions, statements, and pesticide‑review conclusions—making it a secondary‑derived dataset. Users can directly and swiftly access the original source documents through the database. In addition to pesticide data, the database also includes information on food additives, nutrients, and contaminants in the food chain. The final section of the database presents key studies, enabling researchers to derive reference values from these benchmark sources. During data entry, the system automatically validates data quality, and any submissions require manual verification to ensure accuracy. EFSA’s Scientific Committee and expert panels review the data it publishes, while auditors conduct independent assessments to uphold data credibility, with a commitment to full transparency in all its activities.
The URL for the EFSA OpenFoodTox database is:
https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/data/chemical-hazards-data (freely accessible and usable)
EPA CompTox Chemicals Dashboard database
The EPA was established on December 2, 1970. Its distributed‑structure database was publicly released in 2004 and currently contains more than 875,000 substances, primarily drawn from the research of EPA environmental scientists. After 2014, it began automatically incorporating selected portions of three public datasets: the EPA’s Substance Registration Service (SRS), the U.S. National Library of Medicine’s ChemID, and PubChem. Initially, the Distributed Structure‑Searchable Toxicity (DSSTox) database included information on just over 7,000 chemicals, all entered manually; by 2013, this had expanded to 24,000 substances, at which point manual management and maintenance could no longer support further growth. Consequently, DSSTox_V2 was developed; the second generation not only digitized all the data from the original DSSTox but also integrated additional public chemical databases, bringing the total number of chemicals covered to over 740,000. In 2016, building on DSSTox_V2, the EPA launched the CompTox Chemicals Dashboard, a primary tool for public access to DSSTox’s chemical structure database and index.
The EPA also maintains several other pesticide‑ and toxicology‑related databases, including the Pesticide Chemical Search, ChemView, the Integrated Risk Information System, the Water Quality Portal, and the National Pesticide Information Retrieval System. On the EPA’s homepage, users can access the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry’s toxicological profiles, which cover approximately 275 substances. These profiles provide information on each substance’s basic characteristics, physicochemical properties, human health endpoints, and relevant regulatory requirements. The EPA’s main website is https://www.epa.gov/, while its dedicated page for pesticide risk assessment is https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks, offering extensive resources on pesticide risk assessment, pesticide databases, and pesticide science.
The URL for the EPA CompTox Chemicals Dashboard is:
https://comptox.epa.gov/dashboard (available for free viewing and use)
PPDB
In 2007, PPDB was launched as a freely accessible website. Developed by the Institute of Pesticides and the Environment at the University of Hertfordshire for a wide range of end users, it evolved from a database originally integrated into agricultural environmental management software. With further system development and expansion supported by the EU‑funded FOOTPRINT project and additional revenue, it now also supports risk assessment and risk management.
PPDB is a comprehensive information database that provides data on the chemical properties, physicochemical characteristics, human health effects, and ecotoxicology of pesticides. As of 2017, PPDB contains data on nearly 2,300 pesticide active substances and more than 700 metabolites. Each substance has approximately 300 parameters stored, covering six domains: chemical properties, general status, pesticide formulations, environmental fate, ecotoxicology, and human health and protection. The data in PPDB are sourced from globally published scientific literature and databases, technical manuals, regulatory registries, company‑provided technical data sheets, and research projects. Prior to being entered into the database, all data undergo quality control, employing peer review and cross‑checking against other databases and data sources. If data are deemed questionable and the original reference source is known, PPDB revisits the original source and adjusts its quality score for users’ reference.
The types of pesticides it contains include approved pesticides, newly developed pesticides, and obsolete or banned pesticides. In addition to the pesticide‑properties database, it also maintains two databases on biopesticides and veterinary medicines.
Its website is:
http://sitem.herts.ac.uk/aeru/ppdb/en/index.htm (available for free viewing)
Pesticide Action Network (PAN)
The PAN Pesticide Database is a one-stop resource for pesticide toxicity and regulatory information, established in 1982. PAN is a network comprising more than 600 non-governmental organizations, institutions, and individuals from over 90 countries, supported by five independent regional hubs—Africa, North America, Latin America, Europe, and Asia-Pacific—that implement its programs and activities. The North American hub is responsible for maintaining and updating the PAN Pesticide Database, which aggregates pesticide information from diverse sources and provides data on approximately 6,400 pesticides and their transformation products. The database covers identification details, health toxicology (both chronic and acute), symptoms of poisoning, regulatory status, potential for water contamination, ecotoxicity, and regulatory information. It is the most comprehensive database of registered pesticide data in North America. To ensure data accuracy, all entries undergo peer review by scientists, with the majority of information drawn from official sources that have been evaluated using weight-of-evidence methodologies.
All data sources are fully cited, enabling users to quickly access the original datasets. Each dataset is accompanied by reference documentation that identifies its provenance and assesses the accuracy, timeliness, and comprehensiveness of the source. PAN’s data are primarily drawn from official institutions, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the World Health Organization, the National Toxicology Program, the National Institutes of Health, and the International Agency for Research on Cancer. When data are obtained from the internet, links to the original sources are provided; and when data cannot be retrieved from authoritative databases, the original source—namely, peer-reviewed scientific literature—is supplied.
Its website is http://www.pesticideinfo.org/ (available for free browsing).
U.S. Ecotoxicology Database (ECOTOX)
ECOTOX is developed and maintained by the Mid-Continent Ecological Division of the National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory within the EPA’s Office of Research and Development. Its data consist primarily of ecotoxicity information on aquatic and terrestrial organisms for specific chemical substances, compiled by ECOTOX staff from literature housed in the library of the EPA’s Mid-Continent Ecological Division.
ECOTOX is primarily composed of three independent databases—AQUIRE, PHYTOTOX, and TERRETOX—and integrates toxicity data for aquatic and terrestrial organisms drawn from published literature spanning from 1970 to the present. As of February 8, 2020, the database contains information on 11,822 chemical substances, covering 13,039 species. It is updated approximately every three months. The data include basic chemical‑pollutant information such as English name, chemical name, solvent name, CAS number, molecular formula, and purity; experimental biological parameters, including the test organism’s common name, Latin name, number of individuals, life stage, and descriptive characteristics; experimental conditions, such as assay type, concentration or dose of the toxicant, exposure location, route of exposure, and duration of the experiment; and toxicity endpoints, including the median lethal dose (LD50), the median lethal concentration (LC50), residual toxicity effects, and related endpoint data. Data quality assurance involves two levels: self‑checks by data collectors, followed by reviews conducted by experienced data collectors and a final verification by the data manager.
The website for this database is:
https://cfpub.epa.gov/ecotox/search.cfm (available for free access)
Toxicology Data Network (TOXNET)
TOXNET is a comprehensive database collection developed by the Division of Specialized Information Services at the U.S. National Library of Medicine. It comprises two bibliographic databases—Toxicology Literature Online and the Developmental and Reproductive Toxicology Database—as well as twelve additional databases, including the Chemical Carcinogenesis Research Information System, the Carcinogenic Potency Database, the Comparative Toxicogenomics Database, the Genetics Database, the Hazardous Substances Database, the Integrated Risk Information System, and the International Toxicity Risk Assessment Database. Currently, the Hazardous Substances Database contains toxicological data on more than 5,000 hazardous chemicals that have undergone expert review, while the Toxicology Literature Online database includes 4 million records documenting the biochemical, pharmacological, physiological, and toxicological effects of drugs and other chemicals. The remaining databases also provide specialized, detailed information; the volume of data for each can be found via the corresponding database link on the website. The primary content of these databases encompasses basic chemical information; health‑related toxicity data, such as carcinogenicity, mutagenicity, tumor‑promoting and inhibitory effects, and health hazard assessments; environmental data, including safety management and ecotoxicological information; as well as analytical data on pharmaceuticals and chemicals, along with related biochemical, pharmacological, physiological, and toxicological knowledge and data. All data are sourced from core authoritative publications, government documents, EPA technical reports, and leading peer‑reviewed journals. Users may choose to search individual databases, multiple databases, or all databases simultaneously.
The website for the TOXNET series of databases is:
https://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ (All content is available free of charge)
However, due to the restructuring of the U.S. National Library of Medicine, most of its toxicology information services have been integrated into other products and services. Specifically, the Hazardous Substances Database, the Chemical Carcinogenesis Research Information System, and the Genetics Database have been incorporated into PubChem; the Toxicology Literature Online and the Developmental and Reproductive Toxicology Database—two literature‑based databases—have been merged into PubMed; and the Comprehensive Risk Information System, the Carcinogenic Potency Database, and the Comparative Toxicogenomics Database are no longer part of TOXNET’s supported services, though their data remain accessible. The TOXNET website referenced above provides links to access these databases.
Comparison of Major Foreign Databases
(1) Data query comparison
The EFSA and EPA databases allow data retrieval through queries of assessment reports or other literature, covering fundamental information (such as CAS number, molecular formula, and molecular weight), physicochemical properties (including physical state, melting point, boiling point, decomposition temperature, vapor pressure, Henry’s law constant, water solubility, and solubility in organic solvents), environmental behavior (such as degradation rate, adsorption coefficient, hydrolysis rate, and photolysis rate), health‑related toxicity (including acceptable daily intake, acute reference dose, and operator exposure limits), and ecotoxicological aspects—providing relatively comprehensive details. The PPDB and PAN databases enable direct data querying but offer fewer data parameters than the former. ECOTOX is an ecotoxicology database that provides detailed ecotoxicological data for a wide range of taxa, including birds, mammals, fish, aquatic invertebrates, benthic organisms, algae, aquatic higher plants, aquatic microcosm and mesocosm experiments, bees, other arthropods, earthworms, collembolans, and various other individual species.
Table 1: Comparison of Data Metrics Included in Major Overseas Pesticide-Related Databases

(2) Comparison of Advantages and Disadvantages
EFSA’s data are relatively comprehensive and abundant, though retrieving them can be cumbersome, and the database covers only European Union–related information. The EPA’s dataset is similarly broad in scope and variety, and it further maintains a separate pesticide database, which facilitates more efficient data collection and retrieval. PPDB and PAN are dedicated pesticide databases; their data types and metrics are more targeted, making it easier and more specialized to access pesticide‑related information. ECOTOX draws much of its data from published literature, yet users need not consult the original sources—data are presented directly in tabular form and can be exported as Excel files for convenient statistical analysis; however, exported datasets still require verification and filtering before use. TOXNET, by contrast, focuses primarily on pharmaceuticals and lacks substantial ecotoxicological data.
Table 2: Comparison of the Advantages and Disadvantages of Major Foreign Pesticide-Related Databases

(3) Comparison in Environmental Management Applications
For environmental management research, we recommend prioritizing the EFSA OpenFoodTox, EPA CompTox Chemicals Dashboard, PPDB, and ECOTOX databases. The EFSA OpenFoodTox and EPA CompTox Chemicals Dashboard offer rich data types that broadly cover the information needed for environmental management studies, including raw field‑ and laboratory‑based data from Europe and the United States. However, if relevant data cannot be retrieved effectively, the PPDB can be used to quickly obtain basic chemical information, physicochemical properties, environmental fate, and health‑toxicity data; combined with the extensive ecotoxicological datasets in ECOTOX, this approach can help fill in the gaps required for the study. We do not recommend using the PAN or TOXNET databases. The PAN database contains limited data volume and scope, making it difficult to meet research needs; PPDB can serve as a suitable alternative. Meanwhile, the TOXNET database has been integrated into other services of the U.S. National Library of Medicine, requiring users to access its individual sub‑databases separately, which can be cumbersome.
Introduction to Domestic Pesticide-Related Databases
Current Status of Domestic Pesticide-Related Database Development
Since 1978, China has been establishing pesticide databases, including the National Database of Toxic Chemicals, the Chinese Academy of Sciences’ Database on Chemical Toxicity, and the Shanghai Institute of Organic Chemistry’s specialized chemical database. The primary contents of these databases encompass basic substance information, physicochemical property data, health‑related toxicity data, source literature, occupational standards, and relevant regulations.
China National Database of Basic Toxic Chemicals
China’s National Basic Database of Toxic Chemicals was established in 1990 by the Research Institute of Environmental Sciences and comprises 11 sub‑databases. The data are primarily drawn from archival records on 10,000 chemicals collected during the 1985 “National Chemical Survey and Registration,” as well as from the foreign chemical toxicity database, the Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances (RTECS), and the International Register of Potentially Toxic Chemicals; these resources are currently not available for public online access.
Chemical Toxicity Database
The Chemical Toxicity Database is published by the Institute of Process Engineering, Chinese Academy of Sciences, and developed under the auspices of the Computer Network Information Center, Chinese Academy of Sciences. It constitutes an important component of the comprehensive scientific and technological information database. The database is divided into three sections: the English-language Chemical Toxicity Database, the Chinese-language Chemical Toxicity Literature Database, and the Chemical Safety Properties Database.
Most of the data in the English-language chemical toxicity database originate from RTECS, which was publicly released prior to 2001. Before 2001, RTECS was a free publication issued by the U.S. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health; however, it is now owned by Symyx Technologies, a high-tech company based in Silicon Valley, and access to its data requires a paid subscription. The English-language chemical toxicity database has been compiled since the 1950s and is updated four times annually. By 2003, the total dataset had grown to approximately 300 MB, containing over 150,000 records that encompass health‑related toxicity information—such as irritancy, acute toxicity, teratogenicity, carcinogenicity, and reproductive effects—as well as environmental and occupational health standards and EPA documentation. It also includes physical properties (e.g., flammability, explosivity) and chemical characteristics (e.g., toxicity, environmental standards) essential for chemical safety management, accident prevention, and emergency response, thereby largely meeting the needs of occupational health, public health, and environmental research.
The Chinese Literature Database on Chemical Toxicity has compiled and organized characteristic data derived from experiments, observations, and other sources reported in approximately 120 domestic periodical publications issued regularly since 1953. These data have been reviewed and validated by experts and entered into the database according to standardized specifications. The data‑collection effort for this database was initiated in 2003; to date, it contains roughly 5.6 MB of information, comprising more than 3,300 records.
The Chemical Safety Properties Database primarily contains substantive data on the physical safety properties of common chemical substances—such as flammability, explosivity, and storage and transportation requirements—as well as their chemical safety properties, including toxicity and environmental standards. It also includes essential information such as CAS numbers, chemical names, trade names, relative molecular masses, and molecular formulas. Currently, the database comprises approximately 5 MB of data, with over 7,300 records, and was independently developed by the Chinese Academy of Sciences.
Its website is: http://www.toxic.csdb.cn/ (freely accessible to registered users).
Chemistry-specific database
The Chemistry Database is part of the Chinese Academy of Sciences’ Special Project on Scientific Big Data and was developed by the Shanghai Institute of Organic Chemistry, CAS. It has now become the largest public‑access chemistry database in China, with some data sourced from RTECS. The following sections introduce two sub‑databases within the Chemistry Database.
The Toxicokinetics Prediction Database is part of the Chemical Information System at the Shanghai Institute of Organic Chemistry, containing extensive toxicokinetic prediction data and toxicity estimation data essential for drug discovery. It encompasses more than 100,000 common natural and pharmaceutical compounds. Users can search the database by entering a compound’s structure or by specifying the type and numerical range of predicted parameters to filter for target compounds.
Its website is:
http://www.organchem.csdb.cn/scdb/main/ADME_introduce.asp (An account is required for access)
The Environmental Chemical Toxicant Prevention and Control Database of the Shanghai Institute of Organic Chemistry currently contains technical information on the prevention and control of more than 1,000 environmentally harmful chemical toxicants, covering their stability, toxicological data, clinical manifestations of poisoning, ecological risks and environmental protection, occupational safety and health, epidemiological investigations, and physicochemical properties. Users can search for chemicals by their Chinese or English names, CAS numbers, molecular formulas, or toxicant categories, and access relevant toxicity‑related prevention and control information.
Its website is:
http://www.organchem.csdb.cn/scdb/main/huanjing_introduce.asp (An account is required for access.)
Agricultural and Veterinary Drug Database
The agricultural and veterinary drug database, hosted by FoodPartner.net—the comprehensive industry portal under Yantai Fumeite Food Technology Co., Ltd.—contains data updated through 2012, encompassing more than 3,500 entries. The dataset includes basic information, physicochemical properties, toxicological data, and details on applications for each agricultural and veterinary product.
Its website is: http://db.foodmate.net/pesticide/ (free access available).
Comparison of domestic databases
China’s National Database for Fundamental Research on Toxic Chemicals enjoys strong data credibility but is not accessible online; the chemical toxicity database contains limited ecotoxicological data; specialized pesticide databases are absent from chemistry‑related databases; and the sources of data in agricultural and veterinary drug databases remain unclear.
Table 3: Comparison of the Advantages and Disadvantages of Major Domestic Pesticide-Related Databases

Limitations of Domestic Pesticide-Related Database Development
At present, the data in China’s domestic pesticide-related databases remain insufficiently comprehensive; as evidenced by the four databases listed above:
(1) China lacks sufficient domestic toxicity data. Compared with foreign databases, Chinese databases contain fewer health‑related toxicity records for native species and a significant paucity of ecotoxicological data. For example, in the chemical toxicity database, English-language literature accounts for over 150,000 entries sourced from international databases, whereas domestic data comprise just over 3,300 entries.
(2) The scope of data collection is relatively limited. Data in China’s domestic databases primarily cover basic physicochemical properties, a limited set of environmental fate and behavior data, health toxicity information, and source literature. Health toxicity data include acute toxicity, acceptable daily intake, acute reference dose, operator‑acceptable exposure levels, test methods, and routes of exposure, while ecotoxicity data comprise vague species names (common names), amounts of toxic substances used, exposure durations, and descriptions of toxicological effects. In contrast, the U.S. ECOTOX database not only encompasses the same types of data as China’s domestic chemical‑toxicity databases but also provides far more detailed taxonomic species names and a much broader range of species. Moreover, it specifies species age classes, clearly states experimental conditions, and includes key parameters related to toxicity testing, making it considerably more comprehensive and detailed than domestic databases.
(3) Data updates and maintenance are not timely. Most of the chemical databases in English available domestically rely on data from the U.S.-based RTECS, which is an open‑access version dating back to before 2001 and has not been updated promptly; the agro‑pharmaceutical and veterinary drug database has been updated only up to 2012.
(4) Insufficient data sharing. Domestic databases often fail to offer free query and browsing capabilities, require separate registration, impose usage restrictions, remain closed to external access, and exhibit limited general applicability.
(5) Data collection protocols and data‑filtering criteria have yet to be established. At present, China’s domestic databases lack standardized procedures for the collection and compilation of toxicity data and do not employ rigorous data‑filtering criteria; consequently, the accuracy and reliability of the data cannot be assured, which may in turn affect the outcomes of risk assessments.
(6) There is a lack of dedicated pesticide databases. In China, most databases are chemical‑substance repositories that encompass a broader range of compounds but fall short in providing comprehensive ecotoxicological and health‑toxicity data relevant to pesticides. By contrast, overseas databases such as PAN and PPDB offer more robust resources, facilitating the conduct of environmental research on pesticides.
Conclusion
Although China has previously conducted extensive research on pesticide science and environmental benchmarks, amassing a relatively rich body of literature and data, the collection, organization, compilation, and field‑based acquisition of such information are extremely time‑consuming and labor‑intensive. Moreover, the lack of corresponding national standards and technical specifications to support these processes has resulted in very limited development of relevant domestic databases, thereby becoming a major bottleneck for the advancement of ecological and environmental research in China.
Foreign databases draw on a wide range of data sources, offering content that is richer and more accurate than that of domestic Chinese databases, along with timely updates and full data sharing. As a result, in conducting environmental research on pesticides, most toxicity data currently relied upon in China originate from foreign databases. However, these foreign databases predominantly contain data derived from the major biological systems of other countries, while indigenous Chinese pesticide‑toxicity data remain scarce. Relying heavily on such external data for related studies often introduces biases due to inter‑regional differences in species composition, variations in background pollutant concentrations and intrinsic properties across regions, and disparities in human exposure pathways and levels. These factors undermine the accuracy and credibility of the research, thereby impeding efforts to monitor, manage, and mitigate pesticide pollution. Furthermore, the data available in foreign databases are largely limited to acute toxicology; to address chronic toxicity and other long‑term effects of pesticides, it is equally essential to establish a national database on chronic pesticide toxicity and to conduct sustained, longitudinal monitoring of the chronic toxicological profiles of various pesticides.
Prospects
Although China currently lacks a relatively comprehensive and systematic pesticide toxicity database, foreign databases can offer valuable insights. Drawing on international experience, the development of a national pesticide toxicity database in China urgently requires breakthroughs in the following areas:
(1) Establish standards and guidelines for the compilation and integration of pesticide data. At present, China’s pesticide‑related databases lack standardized protocols for compiling toxicity data. Developing systematic standards and refining data‑collection workflows can ensure high-quality database development, reduce redundant and unproductive tasks, and enhance the efficiency of data‑gathering efforts. China could draw on the data‑collection framework of the ECOTOX database, whose collection protocols, data‑quality assurance measures, and verification procedures have been refined over three decades of data generation. By adopting these practices in the construction of its own pesticide database, China can address existing gaps in data‑integration techniques and data‑collection processes.
(2) Establish a pesticide database that is comprehensive, rich in content, reliable, and shareable. Pesticide data should encompass basic information (Chinese and English names, chemical name, CAS number, molecular formula, and molecular weight), physicochemical properties (physical state, melting point, boiling point, decomposition temperature, vapor pressure, Henry’s law constant, water solubility, solubility in organic solvents, surface tension, octanol–water partition coefficient, dissociation constant, flammability—flash point—, explosivity, and oxidizing potential), environmental behavior (degradation rate in soil, adsorption coefficient, hydrolysis rate, photolysis rate, and bioaccumulation factor), health toxicity (acute toxicity, short-term toxicity, genotoxicity, chronic toxicity, carcinogenicity, reproductive toxicity, developmental toxicity, neurotoxicity, acceptable daily intake, acute reference dose, and operator‑acceptable exposure levels), and ecotoxicology (species information, experimental conditions, and test results). Data sources may include leveraging EFSA OpenFoodTox and the EPA CompTox Chemicals Dashboard to extract raw data from scientific literature, facilitating data traceability; alternatively, drawing on ECOTOX and TOXNET to integrate multiple relevant toxicity databases into a unified repository tailored to diverse research needs.
(3) Emphasize the collection of domestically generated bio‑toxicity data in China. China’s pesticide toxicology research still relies on support from the toxicity databases of countries with more advanced scientific and technological capabilities. Although China has conducted a certain number of domestic bio‑toxicity studies, the existing body of health‑toxicity and ecotoxicity data remains insufficient to effectively safeguard native species and the ecological environment. Building and refining a comprehensive database of toxicological information for China’s indigenous biota is one of the key priorities for underpinning benchmark studies tailored to national conditions. Accordingly, priority should be given to gathering toxicological data on native organisms, including resources such as toxicity data on Chinese native species found in domestic and international databases, reports, and projects.
Although China has yet to establish a comprehensive database and platform for basic pesticide toxicity, with the preliminary completion of a domestic pesticide toxicity database, the advent of the information age, and the continuous strengthening of the country’s research capabilities, China’s indigenous pesticide toxicology database will undoubtedly continue to evolve and become increasingly robust. In this process, it is essential to draw extensively on the operational experience of international databases, systematically collect and refine Chinese‑specific pesticide toxicity data, and foster information exchange among various platforms while promoting openness to the outside world, thereby providing strong support for research needs in areas such as the measurement, supervision, and management of pesticide contaminants.