{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0391644908616188, 'fraction_numerical': 0.01174934725848564, 'mean_word_length': 5.286885245901639, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Comment on ‘Ranking and classification of non-ionic organic pesticides for environmental distribution: a QSAR approach' by Paola Gramatica

In their article, Gramatica et al. [1] employ a quantitative structure–activity relationship (QSAR) approach to predict the environmental distribution of 54 pesticides that these authors term ‘nonionic.’ Pirimicarb is included in this list of claimed ‘non-ionic’ compounds. However, this compound has a pKa for protonation of 4.54 and will be at least partially ionised in many environmental systems [2]. As such, the partitioning constants for pirimicarb will be pH dependent [3] and assumptions regarding neutrality as used by Gramatica et al. [1] are not valid for the environmental distribution and fate of this pesticide.