© 2026 Sinochem Nanjing Corporation,
All Right Reserved
Decades ago, the emergence of organophosphate chemistry changed how people handled pests and managed chemical threats. O,O-Dimethyl-O-[1-Methyl-2-Chloro-2-(Diethylcarbamoyl)Vinyl] Phosphate didn’t just appear in labs by coincidence. Behind this compound lies a story of researchers searching for greater control over arthropod populations and, indirectly, public health. Originally, developments in agrochemicals pushed forward exploration of these classes of compounds, giving rise to new methods of synthesis, purification, and formulation. Scientists early on saw that, compared to some of the older chemicals like parathion or TEPP, this compound carried its share of risks, but also sustainable advantages in certain controlled settings. Through war and peacetime, industrial chemists worked to fine-tune how these molecules targeted insect nervous systems while minimizing danger to workers and the environment. Over time, regulations shifted, attitudes toward environmental stewardship grew sharper, and the chemical’s history started influencing its present role. Today, nobody can talk about O,O-Dimethyl-O-[1-Methyl-2-Chloro-2-(Diethylcarbamoyl)Vinyl] Phosphate in isolation—its pedigree runs deep.
Firmly anchored in organophosphates, this compound features a dichotomy: one end represents traditional phosphate groups, the other hosts a carbon chain with diethylcarbamoyl and methyl-chloro groups. People in the field know that this structural complexity gives the molecule its signature mode of action. Typically, the physical state appears as a pale oily liquid under normal temperature, often exhibiting moderate volatility. Its solubility in organic solvents means laboratories prefer it in solution over powder. What I’ve personally observed is that the pungency and ease of absorption across barriers underline the importance of careful handling. Chemists must never underestimate the risk these organics can pose because the very thing that gives them their punch in the field — high reactivity — demands serious attention. For the uninitiated, reading an ingredient label might not signal much, but among experts, the unique identifiers and trade names stand as a sort of shorthand for an entire history of chemical, biological, and industrial events.
Labels and tech specs often skim the surface. It’s one thing to print a list of melting points, LD50 values, or note compatibility with emulsion concentrates—quite another to understand the subtleties behind them. Through my years reading through chemical registration documents, I noticed the regulations often hinge on more than just acute toxicity numbers. Workers and end users often point out the gap between what is written on paper and lived reality: how a formulation behaves after days in the sun, or the lingering taste in groundwater when a tank rinsing goes awry. No matter how many times the protocol says “store in a cool, dry place,” people have to navigate the messy side of real usage, where storage rooms get hot and pesticide drums sometimes drip. This is why it always matters who’s doing the labeling, and what context stands behind a technical specification.
Most folks outside the chemical industry never see what goes into producing this molecule. The synthesis usually proceeds along a route that hooks distinct precursors through careful phosphorylation, sometimes involving agents like diethylcarbamoyl chloride. Throughout the workflow, all eyes focus on process safety. Even with new automation technologies, the legacy of old accidents pushes people to aim for tighter controls. People forget just how much human judgment rests behind every batch: there’s lab work to fine-tune pH, skillful timing of addition steps, and insight from years of trial and error. The push for green chemistry brings up some interesting pressures. More voices now call for processes that reduce solvents, limit chlorinated byproducts, and lower the energy required for completion. Although older processes often got the job done, chemists today look for room to optimize reactions with less waste, more selectivity, and higher yields — not simply for efficiency, but because regulators, co-workers, and the environment demand it.
O,O-Dimethyl-O-[1-Methyl-2-Chloro-2-(Diethylcarbamoyl)Vinyl] Phosphate attracts attention for its willingness to react with several nucleophiles, including water and amines. Moisture, especially, presents a constant threat, hydrolyzing the product and rendering it less effective or even hazardous in storage. Periodically, colleagues attempt to tweak the reactivity profile, hoping for newer, safer analogs. A chemical group swap — sometimes replacing the chlorine or modifying the carbamoyl groups — delivers different outcomes for toxicology and persistence. The lab notebooks fill up with notes on every attempted substitution, knowing each change could tip the scales from potent pesticide to regulatory problem. The challenge, as usual, becomes predicting which chemical changes bring genuine safety or utility, as opposed to merely shifting risk elsewhere.
Organophosphates like this one often cycle through a roster of synonyms, each attached to patents, research papers, or product launches over the last century. Some of these trade names pick up notoriety for the wrong reasons, winding up etched in legal literature. In some markets, people might ask for it by one commercial moniker, while regulators list an entirely different name. From bitter experience, confusion over synonyms can open the door to mishandling, accidental overdosing, and—worst of all—serious accidents. Whether in the warehouse, the field, or the lab, clear, consistent nomenclature saves lives. Groups like the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) and national safety agencies pressure companies and researchers alike to prioritize clarity over branding, making sure no one douses a crop, storage bin, or pump with the wrong formulation.
Conversations about safety always dominate when discussing organophosphates. People working with these chemicals deal with strict operational standards, from special gloves to air monitoring. I’ve seen the toll that lapse in training, leaky valves, or an overfilled sprayer can take. Regulations at both national and international levels enforce limits for airborne concentrations, planned exposure times, and even the personal hygiene of those handling the compound. Sometimes, guidelines seem burdensome and second-guessed by those who just want to get the job done quickly. From my own perspective, every layer of precaution adds up, because one small mistake can lead to nervous system injury or long-term chronic illness. The need for constant vigilance, retraining, and up-to-date signage in the workplace cannot be overstated.
Historically, this chemical landed mainly in the world of crop protection. Its ability to knock back insects appealed to growers balancing profits against infestations. Now, as consumer awareness rises, the public voice grows louder against broad-brush use of organophosphates. Some sectors press for organic labels and pesticide-free environments. In contrast, pest pressures on essential crops force others to argue for selective, precise chemical solutions. The tug-of-war spills into local politics, food labeling, and grocery store aisles. As more evidence comes to light about long-term exposure and environmental migration—waterways absorbing agricultural runoff, non-target species suffering—debate over its continued application sharpens. What stands out for anyone who has watched the regulatory pendulum swing is that short-term fixes can sometimes sow seeds for long-term headaches.
Across the world, labs keep chipping away at the mysteries of organophosphates. Live animal toxicology, computer-modeled QSAR approaches, and newer alternatives all keep filling the journals. In recent years, focus shifted toward tracing low-level exposure pathways, mapping out how these chemicals break down in soils, rivers, and even in kitchen dust. For every silver bullet claim—some paper trumpeting low resistance development—there comes another pointing to bioaccumulation or harm to pollinators. From my seat in the scientific community, there’s respect for the ambition but even more respect for humility; sometimes, a compound works for a while, then nature pushes back. The most exciting research tracks new biosensors, bioremediation techniques, and crop practices that minimize reliance on chemicals. Genuine breakthroughs usually happen slowly, through stubborn diligence rather than headline-grabbing wonder drugs.
O,O-Dimethyl-O-[1-Methyl-2-Chloro-2-(Diethylcarbamoyl)Vinyl] Phosphate bears the reputation of a classic organophosphate in toxicological studies. It acts on acetylcholinesterase, blocking neurotransmitter breakdown, leading to symptoms ranging from muscle twitching and nausea to convulsions and, at high doses, fatality. Researchers dug deeply into acute and chronic effects, not just in humans, but in domestic animals, wildlife, and aquatic organisms. Since the ‘70s, the debate over “safe” exposure limits ricocheted between agencies and industry. Repeated studies reveal that metabolites can turn up in water bodies and even in food, adding fuel to the regulatory fire. What complicates matters is not just the danger of the pure compound, but the risks from breakdown products and byproducts formed during application or storage. Families downstream from application zones have reason to care about every microgram, and so do the scientists checking for cumulative impacts years after the first spray.
Each year, new restrictions and alternative options roll out. Researchers keep digging for “softer” chemistries: ones that give reliable protection without the toxic legacy. Some countries now reward development of bio-rational alternatives, fostering collaboration between academic scientists and crop advisers who remember earlier waves of unintended consequences. Automation, AI-driven mixing and application, and real-time field sensors pull some of the unpredictability out of the equation—but these changes rarely reach smaller farms first. In my opinion, widespread education, retraining, and unbiased monitoring matter as much as tweaks to molecular structure. The old compounds, though formidable, cannot stand as the only answer. As newer generations press for transparency and ecological resilience, the industry faces real pressure to adapt. Building science-based consensus and responding quickly to emerging data will decide whether chemicals like O,O-Dimethyl-O-[1-Methyl-2-Chloro-2-(Diethylcarbamoyl)Vinyl] Phosphate fade quietly away or stick around for another half-century.
Farmers keep an eye on pests because one bad outbreak can erase a good growing season. O,O-Dimethyl-O-[1-Methyl-2-Chloro-2-(Diethylcarbamoyl)Vinyl] Phosphate steps in as an organophosphate insecticide, knocking back bugs that target cotton, fruit, and row crops. I’ve seen folks stressed over aphids or caterpillars, knowing damage spreads fast. A product like this—often called by trade names—goes right to work, cutting down insect numbers before they take over. Most of the time, growers need something that works quickly but doesn’t stick around and build up in the soil. This fits the bill, breaking down after doing its job and letting people return to the fields without worry.
Everyone wants a crop that fetches a good price, but getting there means managing bugs efficiently. This phosphate stops nerve signals in pests, and that’s a big deal because people spot fast improvements. It works both by contact and through systemic action, soaking into plants so sap-sucking insects can’t avoid it. Once their numbers drop, there’s relief at the harvest, fewer leaves full of holes, and less fruit damage to sort through.
No farm tool comes without baggage, though. These chemicals come with safety warnings for a reason. Cases of misuse do happen—think of workers applying it without enough gear or not sticking to guidelines. Poisoning can sneak up in hot, humid weather, where exposure is easy to miss. Both the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and agricultural safety bureaus keep their eyes on these risks, making sure labels set out strict mixing and application limits.
The trade-off for dealing with stubborn pest problems is real. This compound, like many organophosphates, impacts more than just target insects. Birds, aquatic life, and even beneficial bugs can take a hit. On smaller family farms I’ve visited, I heard concerns about honeybee health. These stories matter—pollinators keep much of our food economy alive. If labels are ignored or weather surprises folks spraying fields, chemical drift can end up where no one wants it.
I’ve seen gloves, masks, and full coveralls as regular gear during spraying. Doctors in rural hospitals sometimes treat acute symptoms in those exposed directly—nausea, headaches, muscle weakness. This danger isn’t some far-off worry; it’s one more thing people have to plan for in busy seasons.
Today, farmers have more options than they did decades ago. Integrated pest management (IPM) makes a big difference—using crop rotation, natural predators, trap crops, and careful monitoring so heavy hitters like this chemical aren’t always the first line of defense. Its place in the toolbox has changed; the goal is to use less when possible and keep everyone—people, wildlife, and soil—in better shape for the long haul.
Safer handling means following training, using applicator certifications, and not cutting corners. Protecting water, bees, and workers helps keep the food supply steady and communities healthy. So every choice about using this substance shapes not just fields today but what grows next season and who gets to farm it.
Years of working with cleaning solutions and garden products have taught me a thing or two about protection. I once swapped out gloves for bare hands just to rinse a sink. Two days later, my skin itched and cracked. Even products labeled “natural” can carry risk. When directions say “wear gloves,” the reason is simple: common chemicals can irritate skin or sneak through small cuts. Goggles and masks are more than overkill for splashy lab experiments. Mixing drain cleaner or bleach in a poorly ventilated bathroom once left me dizzy—an ambulance ride hammered home how fast fumes move from “annoying” to dangerous.
The words on the label seem wordy, but skipping them never pays off. Labels list more than ingredients; they highlight what could burn, stain, or harm your lungs. Years ago, a neighbor lost several rugs because a cleaning powder, safe on tile, bleached wool. Those few extra minutes with the label kept me from making the same mistake. Manufacturers include handling tips and emergency steps for good reason.
The term “well-ventilated space” rarely registers until something goes wrong. Apartments make it tempting to close the bathroom door and turn up the heat, especially in winter. I learned the hard way that proper airflow matters, even for products that don’t smell strong. Ammonia and chlorine-based solutions give off invisible fumes. Breathing those in, even briefly, brings headaches or worse. I always prop open a window, use fans, or work outside if possible.
Shoving bottles under the kitchen sink once felt convenient, until a friend’s toddler managed to pop open a cap. Locking up chemicals and keeping them on high shelves prevents tragedies. Temperature shifts in garages and sheds make bottles leak or burst, especially during hot summers. Now I store chemicals upright, away from food, and double-check that caps click shut.
Dumping leftover cleaners down the drain solves nothing. My city runs seasonal hazardous waste collection. Dropping off leftovers keeps nasty compounds out of drinking water. I’ve seen what happens when old paint or pesticides leak into soil—they linger and move fast, hurting pets and kids. Never flush or trash until reading local disposal guides; making one phone call saves a mess later.
Taking shortcuts turns a handy project or quick cleanup into a medical issue. Over time I learned that carelessness is rarely about knowledge—fatigue, rushing, or distraction creep in. Setting up a work zone with gloves on the counter, a mask within reach, and an open window turns safety from a chore to a habit. Keeping a bottle of clean water handy for rinsing eyes or skin has come in handy more than once.
Handling household or workplace chemicals calls for choices grounded in real life: respect the product, prepare before opening, and think through each step. Safety gear, labels, fresh air, good storage, and careful disposal all keep regular users—and their families—out of clinics and ERs. Safety grows from the small steps repeated every day, not grand gestures made once in a while.
At first, storing chemicals can look like a simple task—stick them on a shelf, mark the bottle, and call it a day. When you see those cautionary labels or hear stories of warehouse accidents, though, it clicks: improper chemical storage is risky for people and property. Even basic chemicals can ignite, leak harmful vapors, corrode containers, or react if someone stores them without proper care.
Every time I step into a storage area, I check for airflow. Poorly ventilated spaces trap toxic fumes or flammable vapors, turning a forgotten corner into a hazard zone. Local exhaust systems or simple fans aren’t just nice extras—they play a big part in preventing accidents. If a liquid evaporates easily, its storage should feature vents or air exchange, not just to meet codes but to protect anyone who might enter that room.
Leaks and spills happen more than people admit. Chemical containment trays or secondary spill trays make clean-up much easier and give your facility a chance to catch a disaster before it spreads. Older facilities often lack these simple safeguards, but the investment pays itself back tenfold after just one accident avoided.
Heat throws chemicals into overdrive—liquids expand, vapors build, reactions speed up. I’ve seen cardboard boxes warp and old labels peel off from storing bottles near radiators, making identification impossible and risking dangerous mix-ups. Most reactive or volatile chemicals belong in a cool, dry spot, out of direct sunlight. Even a closet far from the boiler or a dark ventilated cabinet goes a long way.
Labels often fade or get stained over time, so using clear, durable tags helps. I keep records with dates and safety instructions, posted both on the container and in a logbook. For mixtures or diluted chemicals, the unknown factor can be the biggest danger, so make every label count.
Storing acids next to bases or oxidizers side by side with organics risks violent reactions. I once saw a shelf where ammonia and bleach sat inches apart. Just one slipup could have sent out toxic chlorine gas. Sturdy dividers or even separate rooms can stop a careless mistake from putting lives at risk. Ignore color codes or ignore the MSDS, and clean-up becomes an emergency instead of maintenance.
I recommend checking compatibility charts before every reorganizing job. If memory slips, having wall charts visible cuts down confusion. Education sessions for everyone who stocks or handles containers can save time later, not to mention prevent injuries or property loss.
Unauthorized entry causes half the problems with chemical storage. Locks on cabinets, access logs, and keeping a tight inventory list mean only trained staff handle risky substances. I’ve seen labs lose track of flammables because multiple people left things unlocked. Regular walk-throughs and checklists work best. If loss prevention or safety protocols feel too cumbersome, a simple audit catches blind spots.
An eyewash station, fire extinguisher, and proper signage sound like basic steps, but I’ve visited more than a few sites where these get neglected. After seeing one small acid spill send a colleague to the hospital, I always check for accessible safety kits and document every incident, no matter how minor. Training days and visible safety posters might feel repetitive but create a culture that takes threats seriously.
Clear policies, strong physical safeguards, regular checks, and ongoing staff education keep storage safe and compliant. Upfront effort saves money and lives down the line. The best storage plans grow from real experience—not just theory or copy-paste rules.
Standing in front of store shelves, most people just want to buy something safe for their family or pets. Labels are full of claims: “natural,” “eco-friendly,” “non-toxic.” None of these words mean much without understanding the science behind them or the lack of oversight. Companies love making products look safe so consumers feel comfortable tossing them into a shopping cart. Few stop to think about what happens next, especially if a child chews on a toy, a dog licks the floor, or someone with asthma breathes in a spray.
I remember years back, I bought a flea collar for my dog, trusting the packaging’s promise that it would keep him healthy. After a few days, he started scratching like mad and seemed lethargic. I took the collar off and visited the vet. Turns out, the collar had a pesticide ingredient linked to skin problems in pets. I realized then that “safe for pets” can mean something very different from “absolutely harmless to every dog.” The dose, exposure, and the unique ways bodies break down chemicals all matter. What leaves one animal unharmed could hurt another, especially smaller ones or those with health issues.
Humans aren’t all the same either—children’s bodies develop fast, which means they can be extra sensitive to chemicals in plastics, dyes, or cleaning agents. Exposure can add up over time. Take BPA, a chemical once common in water bottles and food containers. Research in the last decade linked BPA with hormone disruption, possible links to cancer, and developmental delays. Scientists saw enough problems that regulations changed and manufacturers started removing it from products. That indicates something bigger: toxic risk isn’t always obvious at first. Sometimes, it shows up after years of everyday use.
Most customers trust the rules that decide what gets onto grocery and hardware store shelves. Here’s the catch: In many cases, the burden falls on consumers to figure out the hidden risks. Testing for long-term effects costs time and money. Regulations often lag behind the science. For instance, the “generally recognized as safe” label (GRAS) on food additives might rest on old studies, company-funded reports, or incomplete data. Government recall lists fill up with toys coated in lead paint, pet treats tainted with chemicals, and cleaning sprays that trigger asthma attacks. Buying a product off the shelf doesn’t equal a clean bill of health.
Years of writing about health and the environment taught me something basic, yet powerful: ask questions. Look for full ingredient lists, shop from transparent brands, and avoid products that hide behind vague words. Stick with simple ingredients if you can. For house cleaning, vinegar and baking soda work well and cut down on chemical exposure at home. On the pet side, rely on veterinarian-approved options. Don’t ignore product recalls or consumer reports—these often point to real risks before they hit the news.
Above all, speak up to lawmakers and share stories. Health and safety watchdogs respond to community pressure. When everyday people demand more honesty and better safeguards, companies start to listen. That builds a safer world for families and their pets, not just the bottom line.
Everyone who’s ever handled chemicals on the job knows that accidents can happen. Whether you’re a lab tech mixing reagents, a janitor working with cleaning agents, or a teacher pouring solutions for a demonstration, a slip or a distracted moment can leave something dangerous on your skin, the countertop, or even the floor. That's not just an inconvenience. Some substances burn, eat away at surfaces, or send fumes into the air.
Here's the deal: losing precious seconds after a spill lets trouble grow. Most safety data sheets make this clear. Direct contact with certain chemicals can cause burns or allergic reactions quickly. Airborne fumes, even without direct contact, can send someone coughing or cause a headache, and it gets worse in small, unventilated spaces. I experienced this during a summer research stint, when ammonia spilled on a workbench. It didn't seem major until my eyes watered and my throat tightened. The answer wasn’t to panic, but to act fast and smart.
Nothing gets more attention in safety training than “people first.” Evacuating those closest to the spill comes before pulling out mop buckets or thinking about property. If skin or eyes get splashed, use the nearest running water – wash off for at least 15 minutes, even if it feels like forever. Nobody should stop to check their phone, call a manager, or move to a sink down the hall. Emergency eyewash stations and showers save skin, lungs, and lives.
Still, that’s just one layer. Check labels and safety sheets before any work – know exactly what to do before anything goes wrong. Some chemicals mix with water and get worse. Hydrofluoric acid, for example, requires a calcium gluconate gel after a rinse, and not every facility stocks it. Talk with team leads before starting a new substance. This kind of prep often separates a minor scare from an ER trip.
After making sure no one’s harmed, keep the spill from spreading. Absorbent pads, spill socks, or even damp towels can create a border. If the substance’s a powder, don’t sweep or touch it – the dust just flies into the air. Ventilation matters, so open windows or hit exhaust fans if vapors are building up. Cut off entry to the affected area and put up clear signs to warn others. Every year, people outside the initial incident become victims just by wandering into the wrong room.
Don’t just wipe up and toss the rags in the trash. Bag up pads and gloves in marked hazardous waste containers. Wash hands thoroughly, even after using gloves. If clothes are contaminated, change out right away and clean up before heading home.
A successful response starts before any spill hits the floor. Regular drills and clear charts at each worksite make action automatic. Building muscle memory through practice pays off when alarms blare or eyes burn. Employers with the right supplies and training prove they value safety—and in dangerous lines of work, nothing builds trust like knowing your team has your back.
Many injuries or exposures stem from uncertainty or hesitation, not ignorance. Workers should always have clear access to both the materials they use and the remedies nearby. Investing in regular team refreshers, restocking emergency supplies, and keeping instructions simple can mean the difference between a close call and a medical emergency. Owning up to accidents and discussing them openly helps teams get better, not just luckier, as time goes on.
| Names | |
| Preferred IUPAC name | Dimethyl [1-chloro-2-(diethylcarbamoyl)ethenyl] phosphate |
| Other names |
Dimethoate Rogor Cygon Phosdrin Perfekthion |
| Pronunciation | /ˌoʊ.oʊ.daɪˈmɛθ.ɪl.oʊ.ˈwʌn.mɛθ.əl.tuːˈklɔːr.oʊ.tuː.daɪˌɛθ.əlˈkɑːr.bə.mɔɪlˈvɪn.ɪlˈfoʊs.feɪt/ |
| Identifiers | |
| CAS Number | [2439-99-8] |
| Beilstein Reference | 2047519 |
| ChEBI | CHEBI:34919 |
| ChEMBL | CHEMBL1085762 |
| ChemSpider | 199727 |
| DrugBank | DB00223 |
| ECHA InfoCard | 03a1fc80-0e26-47ac-bbbd-1aea14ea6792 |
| EC Number | EC 214-423-9 |
| Gmelin Reference | Gmelin 185394 |
| KEGG | C19687 |
| MeSH | D014226 |
| PubChem CID | 656607 |
| RTECS number | YJ0175000 |
| UNII | 072T8D8WYL |
| UN number | UN3018 |
| CompTox Dashboard (EPA) | DTXSID8020226 |
| Properties | |
| Chemical formula | C9H17ClN1O4P |
| Molar mass | 358.78 g/mol |
| Appearance | Colorless to yellowish transparent liquid |
| Odor | Odorless |
| Density | 1.24 g/cm³ |
| Solubility in water | Slightly soluble |
| log P | 0.89 |
| Vapor pressure | 0.0003 mmHg at 25°C |
| Acidity (pKa) | 1.62 |
| Basicity (pKb) | pKb = 2.48 |
| Magnetic susceptibility (χ) | -72.9×10⁻⁶ cm³/mol |
| Refractive index (nD) | 1.4760 |
| Viscosity | Viscous liquid |
| Dipole moment | 3.85 D |
| Thermochemistry | |
| Std molar entropy (S⦵298) | 576.8 J·mol⁻¹·K⁻¹ |
| Std enthalpy of formation (ΔfH⦵298) | -829.6 kJ/mol |
| Std enthalpy of combustion (ΔcH⦵298) | -7921.9 kJ/mol |
| Pharmacology | |
| ATC code | N01BA08 |
| Hazards | |
| Main hazards | Toxic if swallowed, in contact with skin or if inhaled; causes damage to organs; very toxic to aquatic life with long lasting effects. |
| GHS labelling | GHS05, GHS06, GHS09 |
| Pictograms | GHS06, GHS09 |
| Signal word | Warning |
| Hazard statements | H302, H312, H332, H317, H361, H400, H410 |
| Precautionary statements | P261, P264, P270, P271, P272, P273, P280, P301+P310, P302+P352, P304+P340, P305+P351+P338, P308+P311, P330, P391, P403+P233, P405, P501 |
| NFPA 704 (fire diamond) | 1-3-1-W |
| Flash point | 151 °C |
| Autoignition temperature | Autoignition temperature: 360°C |
| Lethal dose or concentration | Rat oral LD50 4.4 mg/kg |
| LD50 (median dose) | 37 mg/kg (rat, oral) |
| NIOSH | SY8575000 |
| PEL (Permissible) | PEL (Permissible Exposure Limit) for O,O-Dimethyl-O-[1-Methyl-2-Chloro-2-(Diethylcarbamoyl)Vinyl] Phosphate is "0.05 mg/m³ (as TWA)". |
| REL (Recommended) | 0.1 mg/m³ |
| IDLH (Immediate danger) | IDLH: 30 mg/m3 |
| Related compounds | |
| Related compounds |
Phosmet Parathion-methyl Phorate Dimethoate Trichlorfon |
