UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, O.C. 20460 

MEMORANDUM 

Date: March 29. 20 16 

OFFICE OF 

CHEMICAL SAFETY AND 

POLLUTION PREVENTION 

UBJECT: Dicamba. Acute and Chronic Dietary Exposure Assessments of Food and Drinking 

Water to Support the Use of Dicamba on Dicamba-Tolerant Co11on and Soybean for 

Amended Section 3 Registration, and Registration of the New N.N-Bis-(3-aminopropyl) 

methylamine (BAPMA) Salt Formulation. 

PC Code: 02980 I. 029802. 029806, 128931. 128944 & DP Barcode 0410346, 0429869, 0429962 & 0429963 

129043 

Decision No.: 432752. 463710. 467977 Registration No.: 524-582 &7969-GUL 

Petition No.: 2F8067 & OF7725 Regulatory Action: Amended Section 3 Registrations & R 170 

New Food-Use Registrations 

Risk Assessment Type: Sin11.le Chemical. Dietary Case No.: 0065 

TX R No.: NA CAS No.: 1918-00-9 

MRID No.: None -40 CFR: 180.227 

FROM: Peter Savoia, Chemist \_ :J~ -t;_~ ~-..._.,......,~ Risk Assessment Branch YNll 

THRU: 

Health Effects Division (7509~)~ t. t~ ) Danelle Drew. Chemist, and L \. 

Michael S. Metzger, Branch <th1 f v' i 1-tL 

Risk Assessment Branch V N II 

Health Effects Division (7509P) 

And 

Dou~las Dotson.' Ph.D., Chei:nist. and . 1. J~ 

Sum1tra Bose B1swas, Chemist ~ (!, . ~ · 

Dietary Exposure Science Advisory Council 

Health Effects Division (7509P) 

TO: William A. Irwin, Risk Assessor 

Risk Assessment Branch YNll 

Health Effects Division· (7509P) 

And 

Kathryn Montague, Risk Manager 

Grant Rowland, Risk Review Manager 

Herbicide Branch 

Registration Division (7505P) 

Executive Summary 

Acute and chronic aggregate dietary food and drinking water exposure and risk assessments were 

conducted using the Dietary Exposure Eva luation Model software with the Food Commodity 

Page l of27 
Dicamba Aggregate Dietary Exposure Assessment DP No. D410346

Page 2 of 27

Intake Database (DEEM-FCID) Version 3.16. This software uses 2003-2008 food consumption 

data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) National Health and Nutrition 

Examination Survey, What We Eat in America, (NHANES/WWEIA). These analyses were 

conducted in support of a human health risk assessment for the amended Section 3 uses of dicamba 

on dicamba-tolerant cotton and soybeans proposed by Monsanto. It will also be used to support 

the requested new use registration of the Engenia herbicide, a N,N-Bis-(3-aminopropyl) 

methylamine (BAPMA) salt formulation of dicamba developed by BASF. This memorandum was 

reviewed by two peer reviewers of the DESAC as per the current DESAC SOP. 

Attached are the acute and chronic aggregate dietary risk assessments made to support all of the 

newly proposed registrations requested for dicamba, as well as its existing uses. These dietary risk 

assessments included all the residues of concern for dicamba risk assessment which include 

dicamba, and depending in the matrix, one or more of the following metabolites expressed as 

parent equivalents; 5-OH dicamba, 3,6-dichloro-2-hydroxybenzoic acid (DCSA), and 2,5-dichloro3,6- dihydroxybenzoic acid (DCGA) metabolites, expressed as parent dicamba equivalents. 

Tolerance-level residues, DEEM-FCID (ver. 7.81) default processing factors, as well as 100 

percent crop treated (%CT) data for the acute determination along with average residues from field 

trial studies for crops and %CT refinements for the chronic analysis were used. Modeling 

estimates for ground water (PRZM-GW) were used to estimate residue concentrations in drinking 

water for both the acute and chronic assessments. 

Acute Dietary Exposure Assessment

The acute analysis was an unrefined determination which used tolerance levels and 100 %CT for 

all existing and proposed uses. The population subgroup of females 13-49 years was concluded 

not to have a toxicological endpoint for dietary risk assessment. The dietary exposure analyses 

that were performed result in acute dietary risk estimates that are below the Agency’s level of 

concern for both food and water. For the U.S. population the exposure was 0.042760 mg/kg/day, 

which utilized 15% of the acute population adjusted dose (aPAD) at the 95

th percentile. The 

highest exposure and risk estimates were for all infants. At the 95

th percentile, the exposure for all 

infants was 0.088733 mg/kg/day, which utilized 31% of the aPAD. 

Chronic Dietary Exposure Assessment

The chronic analysis was a refined determination which used average residues based on field trial 

studies for crops, tolerance levels for livestock commodities, and relevant %CT data for several 

existing uses. The chronic risk estimates for dicamba are below the Agency’s level of concern for 

the general U.S. population and all population subgroups. The most highly exposed population 

subgroup is children ages 1-2 with a risk estimate for dicamba for food and water of 42% of the 

cPAD. 

Cancer Dietary Exposure Assessment

Dicamba is classified as not likely to be carcinogenic to humans; therefore, a cancer dietary 

assessment was not performed.

I. Introduction

Dietary risk assessment incorporates both exposure and toxicity of a given pesticide. For acute and 

chronic assessments, the risk is expressed as a percentage of a maximum acceptable dose (i.e., the 

dose that HED has concluded will result in no unreasonable adverse health effects). This dose is 

referred to as the population adjusted dose (PAD). The PAD is equivalent to the point of departure 

(POD, NOAEL, LOAEL, e.g.) divided by the required uncertainty or safety factors.

For acute and non-cancer chronic exposures, HED is concerned when estimated dietary risk 

exceeds 100% of the PAD. References that discuss the acute and chronic risk assessments in more 
Dicamba Aggregate Dietary Exposure Assessment DP No. D410346

Page 3 of 27

detail are available on the EPA/pesticides web site: “Available Information on Assessing 

Exposure from Pesticides, A User’s Guide,” 21-JUN-2000, web link: 

http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-PEST/2000/July/Day-12/6061.pdf ; or see SOP 99.6 (20-AUG1999).

The most recent dietary exposure analysis was conducted in support of the Section 3 registration of 

dicamba on sweet corn (D347355, S. J. Levy, 01/16/2008).

II. Residue Information

Monsanto has submitted petitions PP#2F8067 and PP#0F7725 requesting Section 3 registration for 

the amended use of dicamba on dicamba-tolerant cotton and soybeans, respectively. In addition, 

BASF has also requested registration of its Engenia herbicide, a new N,N-Bis-(3-aminopropyl) 

methylamine (BAPMA) salt formulation of dicamba on conventional crops, as well as on dicambatolerant cotton and soybeans. Dicamba is registered for pre-plant application on conventional

crops but not for post-emergence treatment because injury could occur if it were to come in contact 

with the roots, stems, or foliage of these plants. To enable post-emergence application, Monsanto 

has developed a dicamba-tolerant variety of cotton and soybean capable of receiving treatment up

to seven days before harvest.

Dicamba is a selective benzoic acid herbicide registered for controlling a wide variety of broadleaf 

weeds and woody plants prior to their emergence. Dicamba is available in a number of forms with 

registered uses maintained on a wide variety of crop and livestock commodities. Permanent 

tolerances are established under 40 CFR §180.227(a)(1) for dicamba and its 3,6-dichloro-5-

hydroxybenzoic acid (5-OH dicamba) metabolite. Additional tolerances are established under 40 

CFR §180.227(a)(2) for dicamba and its 3,6-dichloro-2-hydroxybenzoic acid (also known as 3,6-

diclorosalicyclic acid or DCSA) metabolite, as well as under 40 CFR §180.227(a)(3) for dicamba, 

5-OH dicamba, and the DCSA metabolite. HED has recommended for the following tolerances on 

the human foods of the subject commodities which calls for the cotton tolerance to be increased 

from 0.2 to 0.3 ppm and the soybean tolerance to remain at 10.0 ppm based on the residue data 

submitted. 

Cotton, undelinted seed ....................................................................3.0 ppm

 Soybean, seed .................................................................................10.0 ppm

In consultation with the HED Residues of Concern Knowledgebase Subcommittee (ROCKS) cochairs on March 18, 2013, the residues of concern were determined for both tolerance setting and 

risk assessment purposes (D410934, A. Kamel, 06/03/2013). Newly submitted metabolism studies 

for dicamba-tolerant cotton and soybean supports including parent, 5-OH dicamba, as well as the 

DCSA metabolite as the residues of concern for tolerance expression in these crops. For risk 

assessment, the residues of concern in cotton will be those which are being established for 

tolerance expression. However, soybean will include parent, 5-OH dicamba, DCSA, as well as the 

DCGA metabolite for risk assessment. The residues of concern for dicamba are summarized 

below in Table 1. 
Dicamba Aggregate Dietary Exposure Assessment DP No. D410346

Page 4 of 27

Table 1. Dicamba Residues of Concern.

Matrix Tolerance Expression Residues for Risk Assessment

Barley, corn, grasses, oats, proso 

millet, sorghum, sugarcane, and 

wheat

Dicamba + 5-OH dicamba Dicamba + 5-OH dicamba

Asparagus Dicamba + DCSA1 Dicamba + DCSA

Cotton Dicamba + 5-OH dicamba + DCSA Dicamba + 5-OH dicamba + DCSA

Soybeans, and aspirated grain 

fractions (AGFs)

Dicamba + 5-OH dicamba + DCSA Dicamba + 5-OH dicamba + DCSA

+ DCGA2

Livestock Dicamba + DCSA Dicamba + DCSA

Drinking Water NA3 Dicamba + DCSA

1

 DCSA also referred to as 3,6-dichloro-2-hydroxybenzoic acid or as 3,6-dichlorosalicylic acid.

2

 DCGA is also referred to as 2,5-dichloro-3,6- dihydroxybenzoic acid.

3

 NA – Not Applicable.

Residue Data used for Acute and Chronic Assessments:

For the acute assessment, tolerance-level residues, 100% CT data, and DEEM-FCID (ver. 7.81)

default processing factors were used. The chronic analysis did require refinement so average 

residue values were used for crops, as well as relevant %CT data. Monsanto has submitted 

adequate crop field trial data to support the registration of the requested amended uses of dicamba 

on dicamba-tolerant cotton (D408384, P. Savoia, 03/29/2016) and soybeans (D384422, A. Kamel, 

04/17/2013). In regard to the registration of the new BAPMA salt formulation, BASF has 

submitted adequate bridging data for demonstrating product equivalency (D402514 & D421306, P. 

Savoia, 03/29/2016). The tolerance limits established for dicamba are presented below along with 

corresponding average residue values derived from the supporting field trials studies. It is 

important to note that translated field trial residue data were used for a few of the cereal grains 

(millet, oat, rye, and teff). 

180.227 Dicamba; tolerances for residues.

(a) General. (1) Tolerances are established for the residues of the herbicide dicamba (3,6-

dichloro-o-anisic acid), including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the commodities in the 

table below. Compliance with the tolerance levels is to be determined by measuring only the sum 

of the residues of dicamba (3,6-dichloro-o-anisic acid) and its metabolite, 3,6-dichloro-5-hydroxyo-anisic acid, calculated as the stoichiometric equivalent of dicamba, in or on the following 

commodities:

Commodity Tolerance

(ppm)

Average Residue 

(ppm)1

Barley, grain 6.0 1.3

Corn, field, grain 0.1 0.01

Corn, pop, grain2 0.1 0.01

Corn, sweet, kernel plus cob with husks removed 0.04 0.02

Millet, proso, grain3 2.0 0.4

Oat, grain3 2.0 0.4

Rye, grain3 2.0 0.4

Sorghum, grain, grain 4.0 1.5

Sugarcane, cane 0.3 0.14

Sugarcane, molasses 5.0 3.4
Dicamba Aggregate Dietary Exposure Assessment DP No. D410346

Page 5 of 27

Commodity Tolerance

(ppm)

Average Residue 

(ppm)1

Teff, grain4 6.0 1.3

Wheat, grain 2.0 0.4

1 Residue Values are based on the field trial datasets used for tolerance reassessment as cited in the Residue Chemistry Chapter 

made in support of the 2005 RED (D317699, C. Olinger, 12/20/2005).

2 Field corn data are used for translation.

3 Wheat data are used for translation.

4 Barley data are used for translation.

(2) Tolerances are established for residues of the herbicide dicamba, 3,6-dichloro-o-anisic 

acid, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the commodities in the table below. 

Compliance with the tolerance levels is to be determined by measuring only the residues of 

dicamba (3,6-dichloro-o-anisic acid) and its metabolite, 3,6-dichloro-2-hydroxybenzoic acid, 

calculated as the stoichiometric equivalent of dicamba, in or on the following commodities:

Commodity Tolerance

(ppm)

Average 

Residue (ppm)1

Asparagus 4.0 1.0

Cattle, fat 0.3 ND2

Cattle, kidney 25.0 ND

Cattle, meat 0.25 ND

Cattle, meat byproducts, except kidney 3.0 ND

Goat, fat 0.3 ND

Goat, kidney 25.0 ND

Goat, meat 0.25 ND

Goat, meat byproducts, except kidney 3.0 ND

Hog, fat 0.3 ND

Hog, kidney 25.0 ND

Hog, meat 0.25 ND

Hog, meat byproducts, except kidney 3.0 ND

Horse, fat 0.3 ND

Horse, kidney 25.0 ND

Horse, fat 0.05 ND

Horse, meat 0.25 ND

Horse, meat byproducts, except kidney 3.0 ND

Milk 0.2 ND

Sheep, fat 0.3 ND

Sheep, kidney 25.0 ND

Sheep, meat 0.25 ND

Sheep, meat byproducts, except kidney 3.0 ND

1 Residue Values are based on the field trial datasets used for tolerance reassessment as cited in the Residue Chemistry Chapter 

made in support of the 2005 RED (D317699, C. Olinger, 12/20/2005).

2 ND – Not Determined.

(3) Tolerances are established for residues of the herbicide dicamba, 3,6-dichloro-o-anisic 

acid, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the commodities in the table below. 

Compliance with the tolerance levels is to be determined by measuring only the residues of 

dicamba (3,6-dichloro-o-anisic acid) and its metabolites, 3,6-dichloro-5-hydroxy-o-anisic acid, and 

3,6-dichloro-2-hydroxybenzoic acid, calculated as the stoichiometric equivalent of dicamba, in or 

on the following commodities:
Dicamba Aggregate Dietary Exposure Assessment DP No. D410346

Page 6 of 27

Commodity Tolerance

(ppm)

Average Residue 

(ppm)

Soybean, seed 10.0 1.11, 2

Cotton, undelinted seed3 3.0 0.54

1 Residue Values are based on the field trial datasets made on conventional soybeans used for tolerance reassessment as cited in the 

Residue Chemistry Chapter made in support of the 2005 RED (D317699, C. Olinger, 12/20/2005).

2 The field trial data acquired for dicamba-tolerant soybeans which include the additional DCGA required for risk assessment yield 

total residue concentrations which are 10-fold lower on average and are not used for assessment since the conventional crop data 

provide a more conservative estimation (D384422, A. Kamel, 04/17/2013).

3 Recommended tolerance level (D408384, P. Savoia, 03/29/2016).

4 Residue Values are based on the field trial datasets used for tolerance establishment requested in the current petition (D408384, P. 

Savoia, 03/29/2016).

Fish: To determine whether or not residues are present in fish, HED now routinely checks USDA 

Pesticide Data Program (PDP) monitoring data regardless of the pesticide’s uses and 

physicochemical properties. For this assessment, a search of the USDA PDP database found that 

there were no samples of catfish analyzed for the residues of dicamba from 2008 through 2010, 

and no samples were analyzed for salmon in 2013. As a result, residues in fish were not included 

in this dietary exposure and risk assessment.

III. Percent Crop Treated Information

For the existing uses attributed to dicamba, BEAD provided a compilation of percent crop treated 

(%CT) data presented in Attachment 1 to aid in the refinement of the chronic dietary risk 

assessment ( D427534, J. Alsadek, 06/25/2015). The following average percent crop treated 

estimates were used in the chronic dietary risk assessment for the following crops that are currently 

registered for dicamba: asparagus: 5%; barley: 5%; corn: 10%; oats: 2.5%; sorghum: 15%; 

sugarcane: 20%; sweet corn: 1%; and wheat: 10%. One hundred percent crop treated was assumed 

for all other applicable crops (100 %CT).

IV. Drinking Water Data

The Environmental Fate and Effects Division (EFED) provided the Attachment 2 updated drinking 

water estimates for use in this dietary risk assessment (D404824, R. Baris, 03/28/2013). This 

assessment remains current since no new fate data have been submitted and it was derived with the 

latest models used by EFED for estimating pesticide residues in drinking water (personal 

communication, M. Corbin, 08/19/2015). For this determination, EFED conducted a Tier I PRZM 

GW drinking water assessment from groundwater sources for the proposed new uses. Residues of 

concern for drinking water for risk assessment purposes were the parent and its DCSA metabolite. 

Table 2 provides the modeling estimates for drinking water summarized from surface water and 

ground water sources. For the purposes of this assessment, the highest (most conservative) PRZMGW values were used for the acute (329 ppb parent + 0.041 ppb DCSA) and chronic (187 ppb 

parent + 0.041 ppb DCSA) assessments. The combined estimated drinking water residues for peak 

concentration (used in the acute assessment) and chronic were 329 and 187 ug/L (ppb), 

respectively. The model and its description are available at the EPA internet site: 

http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/. 

Table 2. DICAMBA (parent only) Preliminary Cotton Runs for Dicamba (PCA corrected – 0.87)

Model Use/Scenario Acute (ug/L) Chronic (ug/L) 30-year average

(ug/L)

SW 

(PRZM/EXAMS)

CAcotton_wirrgSTD.txt 7.72 6.62 1.07

MScottonSTD.txt 53.37 44.5 6.52

NCcottonSTD.txt 32.14 27.32 4.24
Dicamba Aggregate Dietary Exposure Assessment DP No. D410346

Page 7 of 27

Table 2. DICAMBA (parent only) Preliminary Cotton Runs for Dicamba (PCA corrected – 0.87)

Groundwater Peak Post breakthrough 

average

30-year average

PRZM-GW 

(no pca applied)

GAcoastal 41.9 28.2 24.9

DELMARVA 192 121 117

FLCitrus 238 161 155

FLPotato 56.8 19.2 18.1

NCcoastal 65.3 32.6 29.3

WIsands 329 187 158

SCIGROW -- 0.0015 -- --

Note: the highest estimates are in bold.

Table 3. DCSA (PCA corrected – 0.87)

Model Use/Scenario Acute (ug/L) Chronic (ug/L) 30-year average

(ug/L)

SW 

(PRZM/EXAMS)

MScottonSTD.txt 2.97 2.59 0.63

Groundwater Peak Post breakthrough 

average

30-year average

PRZM-GW 

(no pca applied)

GAcoastal* 4.47E-5 3.93E-5 2.38E-5

DELMARVA 1.94E-4 1.65E-4 4.45E-5

FLCitrus 0.041 0.041 0.018

FLPotato* 5.71E-11 3.67E-11 3.114E-11

NCcoastal 7.31E-5 3.64E-5 2.59E-5

WIsands* 8.3E-4 7.66e-4 3.67E-4

SCIGROW -- 0.0059 -- --

*100 year simulation

Note: the highest estimates are in bold.

In regard to the registration of the new Engenia herbicide, the BAPMA counter ion is known to 

have greater toxicity than the dicamba active ingredient. Because it is not possible to delineate 

exposure between the dicamba and BAPMA portion of the molecule when this end-use product is 

applied, drinking water estimates must be adequately protective. To ensure the dicamba drinking 

water estimates are protective, EFED has examined drinking water exposures for dicamba versus 

the BAPMA counter ion (personal communication, W. Eckel, 07/15/2015). EFED used the 

Mississippi (MS) cotton scenario, a benchmark high-runoff scenario, to compare exposures from 

applications of the BAPMA end-use product. This modeling found the 365-day average 

concentrations for dicamba-acid and BAPMA were comparable at 11 ppb and 11.8 ppb, 

respectively, for the Index Reservoir. The drinking water estimates provided are considered to be 

protective since the lowest adverse effect doses were selected for assessment. 

 

V. DEEM-FCIDTM Program and Consumption Information

The dicamba acute and chronic dietary exposure assessments were conducted using the Dietary 

Exposure Evaluation Model software with the Food Commodity Intake Database DEEM-FCID, 

Version 3.16, which incorporates 2003-2008 consumption data from USDA’s NHANES/WWEIA. 

The data are based on the reported consumption of more than 20,000 individuals over two nonconsecutive survey days. Foods “as consumed” (e.g., apple pie) are linked to EPA-defined food 

commodities (e.g., apples, peeled fruit - cooked; fresh or N/S; baked; or wheat flour - cooked; 

fresh or N/S, baked) using publicly available recipe translation files developed jointly by 

USDA/ARS and EPA. For chronic exposure assessment, consumption data are averaged for the 

entire U.S. population and within population subgroups. However, for acute exposure assessment, 

consumption data are retained as individual consumption events. Based on analysis of the 2003-

2008 WWEIA consumption data, which took into account dietary patterns and survey respondents, 

HED concluded that it is most appropriate to report risk for the following population subgroups: 

the general U.S. population, all infants (<1 year old), children 1-2, children 3-5, children 6-12, 
Dicamba Aggregate Dietary Exposure Assessment DP No. D410346

Page 8 of 27

youth 13-19, adults 20-49, females 13-49, and adults 50-99 years old.

For a chronic dietary exposure assessment, an estimate of the residue level in each food or foodform (e.g., orange or orange juice) on the food commodity residue list is multiplied by the average 

daily consumption estimate for that food/food form to produce a residue intake estimate. The 

resulting residue intake estimate for each food/food form is summed with the residue intake 

estimates for all other food/food forms on the commodity residue list to arrive at the total average 

estimated exposure. Exposure is expressed in mg/kg body weight/day and as a percent of the 

cPAD. This procedure is performed for each population subgroup.

For an acute exposure assessment, individual one-day food consumption data are used on an 

individual-by-individual basis. The reported consumption amounts of each food item can be 

multiplied by a residue point estimate and summed to obtain a total daily pesticide exposure for a 

deterministic exposure assessment, or “matched” in multiple random pairings with residue values 

and then summed in a probabilistic assessment. The resulting distribution of exposures is 

expressed as a percentage of the aPAD on both a user (i.e., only those who reported eating relevant 

commodities/food forms) and a per-capita (i.e., those who reported eating the relevant 

commodities as well as those who did not) basis. In accordance with HED policy, per capita 

exposure and risk are reported for analyses performed at all levels of refinement. However, for 

deterministic assessments, any significant differences in user vs. per capita exposure and risk are 

specifically identified and noted in the risk assessment.

VI. Toxicological Information

The Risk Assessment Branch (RAB) V/VII toxicologists have re-evaluated the dicamba database 

and have updated the endpoints as necessary for this assessment. For this action there are several 

compounds to consider which include dicamba acid, the dicamba metabolites (DCSA, 5-OH 

dicamba, and DCGA), and the dicamba BAPMA counter ion. The toxicological database is 

sufficient for assessing the toxicity of and characterizing the hazards of dicamba. Separate 

assessments of dicamba acid, the dicamba metabolites (DCSA, 5-OH dicamba, and DCGA), and 

the dicamba BAPMA counter ion were not needed because the lowest adverse effect doses were 

selected for assessment. The toxicological doses and endpoints for dicamba for use in the dietary 

assessment are summarized in Table 4.

Table 4. Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for Dicamba Used for Dietary Exposure 

Assessment.

Exposure

Scenario

Point of Departure FQPA SF* and Level of 

Concern for Risk 

Assessment

Study and Toxicological Effects

Acute Dietary

(General population 

including infants and 

children

NOAEL = 29 mg/kg/day

Acute RfD = 0.29

mg/kg/day

UFA=10x

UFH=10x

FQPA SF = 1X

aPAD = acute RfD

 FQPA SF

= 0.29 mg/kg/day

Dicamba BAPMA Rat 

Developmental Study

Maternal

NOAEL is 29 mg/kg/day in dams 

(20 as acid form).

LOAEL is 86 mg/kg/day in dams, 

based on ataxia, unsteady gait and 

convulsions (60 as acid form).

Developmental

NOAEL.288 mg/kg/day (200 as acid 

equivalent).

Acute Dietary

(Females 13-49 years of 

age)

N/A N/A No developmental toxicity attributed 

to acute exposure
Dicamba Aggregate Dietary Exposure Assessment DP No. D410346

Page 9 of 27

Table 4. Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for Dicamba Used for Dietary Exposure 

Assessment.

Exposure

Scenario

Point of Departure FQPA SF* and Level of 

Concern for Risk 

Assessment

Study and Toxicological Effects

Chronic Dietary

(All populations)

Offspring NOAEL= 4 

mg/kg/day

Chronic RfD = 

0.04 mg/kg/day

UFA=10x

UFH=10x

FQPA SF = 1X

cPAD = chronic RfD

 FQPA SF

= 0.04 mg/kg/day

Reproductive study in rats 

with DCSA metabolite.

Offspring LOAEL = 37 mg/kg/day 

based on decreased pup weights in 

F1 generation on PND 14 and 21 

(both sexes) and PND 18 (females).

Cancer (Oral, dermal, 

inhalation)

Dicamba is classified as not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.

Point of Departure (POD) = A data point or an estimated point that is derived from observed dose-response data and 

used to mark the beginning of extrapolation to determine risk associated with lower environmentally relevant human 

exposures. NOAEL = no observed adverse effect level. LOAEL = lowest observed adverse effect level. UF = 

uncertainty factor. PAD = population adjusted dose (a = acute, c = chronic). RfD = reference dose. MOE = margin of 

exposure. LOC = level of concern. N/A = not applicable.

VII. Results/Discussion 

As stated above, for acute and chronic assessments, HED is concerned when dietary risk exceeds 

100% of the PAD. The following summarizes the DEEM-FCID (ver. 3.16) chronic exposure 

analyses. Acute and chronic aggregate (food + water) analyses were performed using DEEMFCID estimating the dietary exposure of the U.S. population and various population subgroups. 

The results are summarized in Table 5. The resulting acute food and water risk estimates were less 

than HED’s level of concern (<100% aPAD) for the general U.S. population and all population 

sub-groups; All infants < 1 year old had the highest acute dietary risk at 31% of the aPAD. The 

resulting chronic food and water exposure estimates were less than HED’s level of concern

(<100% cPAD) for the general U.S. population and all population sub-groups; children 1-2 years 

old had the highest dietary risk at 42% of the cPAD. 
Dicamba Aggregate Dietary Exposure Assessment DP No. D410346

Page 10 of 27

Table 5. Summary of Dietary (Food and Drinking Water) Exposure and Risk for 

Dicamba.

Population Subgroup

Acute Dietary1

(95

th Percentile) Chronic Dietary2

Dietary Exposure 

(mg/kg/day) % aPAD Dietary Exposure(mg/kg/day) % cPAD

General U.S. Population 0.042760 15 0.006319 16

All Infants (< 1 year old) 0.088733 31 0.014024 35

Children 1-2 years old 0.075295 26 0.016988 42

Children 3-5 years old 0.065788 23 0.011948 30

Children 6-12 years old 0.047142 16 0.007618 19

Youth 13-19 years old 0.032166 11 0.004936 12

Adults 20-49 years old 0.035172 12 0.005526 14

Adults 50-99 years old 0.029776 10 0.005340 13

Females 13-49 years old N/A3 N/A 0.005465 14

1 Acute dietary analysis derived from a 0.29 mg/kg/day aPAD for the general population.

2 Chronic dietary analysis derived from a 0.04 mg/kg/day cPAD for the general population.

3 N/A – not applicable, no endpoint was concluded for this population subgroup. 

4 Highest exposures found for each assessment are noted in bold.

VIII.Characterization of Inputs/Outputs

HED has conducted a highly conservative, health protective assessment for the requested amended 

use of dicamba on dicamba-tolerant cotton and soybean. Tolerance level residues for all 

commodities along with 100% CT were used in the acute dietary exposure assessments. A refined 

chronic dietary exposure assessment was performed which used average residues from field trial 

studies for crops, tolerance levels for livestock commodities, and relevant %CT data. A critical 

commodity contribution analysis was conducted for the most highly exposed population subgroup, 

children 1-2 years of age. This analysis shows that water and milk are the dietary risk drivers of 

dicamba comprising approximately 35%, and 21% of the total chronic exposure, respectively. The 

use of anticipated residues, empirical processing factors, and additional %CT data would refine 

further HED’s exposure and risk estimates for dicamba. 

IX. Conclusions

Unrefined acute and refined chronic aggregate (food + water) dietary risk assessments were

conducted for dicamba using DEEM-FCID (ver. 3.16) modeling. The acute assessment used 

tolerance-level residues, 100% CT data, and DEEM-FCID (ver. 7.81) default processing factors 

for analysis. The chronic analysis did require refinement so average residue values from field trial 

studies were used for crops as well as relevant %CT data. The resulting acute aggregate risk 

estimate was less than HED’s level of concern. For the general U.S. population and all population 

subgroups in the acute analysis all dietary risk estimates were ≤31% aPAD. The resulting chronic 

aggregate exposure estimate was less than HED’s level of concern. For the general U.S. 

population, the cPAD was 16% while the most highly-exposed population subgroup in the chronic 

analysis was Children 1-2 years old (42% cPAD). 
Dicamba Aggregate Dietary Exposure Assessment DP No. D410346

Page 11 of 27

References

DP No.: D347355

Subject: Dicamba: Acute and Chronic Aggregate Dietary (Food and Drinking Water) 

Exposure and Risk Assessments for the Proposed Section 3 Registration Action on 

Sweet Corn. 

From: S. J. Levy

To: M. Clock-Rust and D. Rosenblatt

Dated: 01/16/2008

MRID No.: None

DP No.: D410934

Subject: Residues of Concern in Dicamba Tolerant Crops.

From: A. Kamel

To: M. Walsh

Dated: 06/13/2013

MRID No.: None

DP No.: D408384

Subject: Dicamba. Section 3 Registration for the Amended Use of Dicamba on DicambaTolerant Cotton. Summary of Analytical Chemistry and Residue Data. 

From: P. Savoia

To: W. Irwin, K. Montague, and M. Walsh

Dated: 03/29/2016

MRID No.: 48728701-48728704

DP No.: D384422

Subject: Dicamba. New Use of Dicamba on Dicamba-Tolerant Soybean. Petition for 

Establishment of New Tolerances for Soybean Forage and Soybean Hay. Residue 

Chemistry Summary.

From: A. Kamel

To: K. Montague, and M. Walsh

Dated: 04/17/2013

MRID No.: 47899501, 47899523, & 47899524

DP No.: D402514 & D421306

Subject: Dicamba. Bridging Data Demonstrating DGA (diglycolamine), BAPMA (N,N-Bis-

(3-aminopropyl) methylamine) and DETA (diethylenetriamine) Salt Product 

Equivalency, and the Independent Laboratory Validation of the BASF Method 

Developed for Determining Dicamba Residues in Crops. Abbreviated Residue 

Chemistry Review.

From: P. Savoia

To: W. Irwin, K. Montague, and M. Walsh

Dated: 03/29/2016

MRID No.: 49379301-49379305

-
Dicamba Aggregate Dietary Exposure Assessment DP No. D410346

Page 12 of 27

DP No.: D427534

Subject: Updated Screening Level Usage Analysis (SLUA) Report for Dicamba Case, PC # 

(029801, 029802, 029803, 029806, 128931, 129043, and 128944), DP # 427534.

From: J. Alsadek

To: K. Montague

Dated: 06/25/2015

MRID No.: None

DP No.: D404824

Subject: Drinking Water Exposure Assessment for the Section 3 New Use of Dicamba 

Diglycolamine Salt (DGA) and its Degradate 3,6-dichlorosalicylic acid (DCSA) 

on Dicamba-Tolerant Cotton.

From: R. Baris

To: M. Walsh

Dated: 03/28/2013

MRID No.: None

X. List of Attachments

1. Attachment 1: BEAD Memo on Projected Percent Crop Treated Estimates for Dicamba.

2. Attachment 2: EFED Memo on the Estimation of Drinking Water Residues.

3. Attachment 3: Acute Residue Data File of Inputs.

4. Attachment 4: Acute Dietary Assessment Results File.

5. Attachment 5: Chronic Residue Data File of Inputs.

6. Attachment 6: Chronic Dietary Assessment Results File.

7. Attachment 7: Critical Commodity Contribution Analysis for Children 1-2 yrs.
Dicamba Aggregate Dietary Exposure Assessment DP No. D410346

Page 13 of 27

ATTACHMENT 1

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON D.C., 20460

JUN.25 2015

.

OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY

AND POLLUTION PREVENTION

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Updated Screening Level Usage Analysis (SLUA) Report for Dicamba Case, PC #

(029801, 029802, 029803, 029806, 128931, 129043, and 128944), DP # (427534)

FROM: THRU:

Jihad Alsadek, Ph.D., Economist A - ,

Science and Information Analysis Branch

Diann Sims, Chief

Science Information and Analysis Branch

Biological and Economic Analysis Division (7503P)

TO: Kathryn Montague, Risk Manager

HerbicideBranch

Registration Division (7505P)

This memorandum transmits an updated Screening Level Usage Analysis (SLUA) report for the

dicamba case (previously completed in 2012). The usage data in the updated SLUA (2015) are

an amalgamation of USDA/NASS and Private Pesticide Market Research data from 2004 to 

2013.

The current SLUA shows an increase in usage, in pounds a.i. and percent crop treated on several

crops (canola, com, dry beans/peas, fallow, sorghum, soybeans, sugarcane, and sunflowers) as

well as a decrease in pounds a.i. and percent crop treated, on peanuts only. The usage data for 

the remaining crops did not change with the addition of the most recent usage data in the 2015

SLUA.

For questions, comments and other usage information requests, please contact me at 703..:308-

8140.

cc. Grant Rowland

Pete Savoia
Dicamba Aggregate Dietary Exposure Assessment DP No. D410346 Page 14 of 27

Dicamba Case (029801,029802, 029803,029806, 128931, 129043, and 128944)

ScreeningLevelUsageAnalysis(SLUA)

Date: June 24, 2015

What is a Screening Level Usage Analysis (SLUA)?

• Available estimates of pesticide usage data for a particular active ingredient that is used on

agricultural crops in the United States.

• Pesticide usage data obtained from various sources. The data are then merged, averaged, and

rounded so that the presented information is not proprietary, business confidential, or trade secret.

What doesit contain?

• Pesticide usage data for a single active ingredient only.

• Agricultural use sites (crops) that the pesticide isreported to be used on.

• Available pesticide usage information from U.S. statesthat produce 80% or more of a crop, in most

cases, or less than 80%, in rare cases, depending on the scope of the survey and available resources.

• Annual percent of crop treated (average & maximum) for each agricultural crop.

• Average annual pounds of the pesticide applied for each agricultural crop (i.e., for the states

surveyed, not for the entire United States).

What assumptions can I make about the reported data?

• Average pounds of active ingredient applied - Values are calculated by merging pesticide usage

data sources together; averaging across all observations, then rounding. Note: If the estimated value

is less than 500, then that value is labeled <500. Estimated values between 500 & <1,000,000 are

rounded to 1 significant digit. Estimated values of 1,000,000 or greater are rounded to 2 significant

digits.)

• Average percent of crop treated - Values are calculated by merging data sources together;

averaging by year, averaging across all years, & rounding to the nearest multiple of 5. Note: Ifthe

estimated value isless than 2.5, then the value islabeled <2.5. Ifthe estimated value isless than 1,

then the value islabeled <1.

• Maximum percent of crop treated - Value isthe single maximum value reported across all data

sources, across all years, & rounded up to the nearest multiple of 5. Note: Ifthe estimated value is

less than 2.5, then the value is labeled <2.5.

What are the data-sources used?

• USDA-NASS (United States Department of Agriculture's National Agricultural Statistics Service) -

pesticide usage datafrom2004 to2013.

• Private pesticide market research -pesticide usage data from 2004 to 2013.

• California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) Pesticide Use Reporting (PUR) data for

2004 to 2012.

What are the limitations to the data?

• Additional registered uses may exist but are not included because the available surveys do not report

usage (e.g., small acreage crops).

• Lack of reported usage data for the pesticide on a crop does not imply zero usage.

• Usage data on a particular site may be noted in data sources, but not quantified. In these instances,

the site would not be reported in the SLUA.

• Non-agricultural use sites (e.g., turf, post-harvest, mosquito control, etc.) are not reported in the 

SLUA. A separate request must be made to receive these estimates.

• Some sites show some use, even though they are not on the label. This usage could be due to 

various factors, including, but not limited to Section 18requests, existing stocks of the chemical,

data collection errors, and experimental use permits (EUPs).
Page 15 of 27

Date: June 24, 2015

Screening Level Estimates of Agricultural Uses of Dicamba Case (029801,029802,

029803,029806,

128931, 129043, and 128944)*

Sorted

Alphabetically

Reporting

Years: 2004-

2013

AnnualAverage Percent Crop Treated

Crop Lbs. A.I. Avera2e Maximum

1 Alfalfa+ 2,000 <1 <2.5

2 Asparagus <500 5 10

3 Barley 20,000 5 10

4 Canola+ 2,000 <2.5 10

5 Com 1,500,000 10 15

6 Cotton 200,000 5 15

7 Dry Beans/Peas+ 3,000 <2.5 <2.5

8 Fallow 500,000 15 35

9 Oats 6,000 <2.5 <2.5

10 Pasture 600,000 <2.5 5

11 Peanuts+ 1,000 <1 <2.5

12 Pecans+ 1,000 <2.5 <2.5

13 Rice 3,000 <1 <2.5

14 Sorghum 200,000 15 25

15 Soybeans 100,000 <2.5 <2.5

16 Squash+ <500 <2.5 <2.5

17 Sugarcane 40,000 20 25

18 Sunflowers+ 9,000 5 10

19 Sweet Com <500 <1 <2.5

20 Wheat 500,000 10 25

All numbers are rounded.

<500: less than 500 pounds ofactive ingredients.

<2.5: less than 2.5 percent of crop is treated.

<1: less than 1 percent of crop is treated.

* These PC codes (029804, 029805, 029807, 029808, 129042 and 408200) have no registered products.

+: Crops not known to be listed on active end use product registrations or as Section 18 emergency exemptions when

this report was

run.

SLUA data sources include:

USDA-NASS (United States Department of Agriculture's National Agricultural

Statistics Service) Private Pesticide Market Research

These results reflect amalgamated data developed by the Agency and are releasable to the public.
Dicamba Aggregate Dietary Exposure Assessment DP No. D410346

Page 16 of 27

ATTACHMENT 2

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON D.C., 20460

OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY

AND POLLUTION PREVENTION

PC Code: 128931

DP Barcodes: 404824

MEMORANDUM March 28, 2013

SUBJECT: Drinking Water Exposure Assessment for the Section 3 New Use of Dicamba 

Diglycoamine Salt (DGA) and its Degradate 3,6-dichlorosalicylic acid (DCSA) on 

Dicamba-tolerant Cotton

TO: Peter Salvia, Risk Assessor

William Irwin, Toxicologist

Michael Metzger, Branch Chief

Risk Assessment Branch 5

Health Effects Division (7509P)

AND

Michael Walsh, Risk Manager Reviewer

Kathryn Montague, Risk Manager (RM23)

Registration Division (7505P)

FROM: Reuben Baris, Environmental Scientist

Environmental Risk Branch 6

Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P)

THROUGH: Mark Corbin, Chief

Environmental Risk Branch 6

Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P)

This memo summarizes the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWC) for dicamba 

diglycoamine salt (DGA) formulation and its degradate 3,6-dichlorosalicylic acid (DCSA) in surface 

water and groundwater in support of the human health dietary risk assessment for the Section 3 New 

Use on herbicide(dicamba)-tolerant cotton. Dicamba acid is formed by the dissociation of the 

following dicamba salts: dimethylamine, sodium, diglycolamine, isopropylamine, and potassium and 

as such this assessment presents all results as dicamba acid-equivalents (a.e.). All data for dicamba 

DGA salt were bridged from the acid supported by a dissociation study, field study, and TEP plant 
Dicamba Aggregate Dietary Exposure Assessment DP No. D410346

Page 17 of 27

data indicating that the salt is not significantly different than the acid. Results from an acceptable 

dissociation rate study (MRID 43288001) showed that dicamba salts (sodium, potassium, 

dimethylamine, isopropylamine, and diglycolamine) reach essentially 100% dissociation within 75 

seconds of the time of mixing with pure water. The EDWCs listed in Table 1 summarize the results in 

surface water and groundwater resulting from a single pre-emergent spray application and two overthe-top foliar applications (a total of 2.0 lbs a.e./A) to cotton. The soybean use was previously 

assessed by EFED in USEPA (2010; D378447). The EDWCs for soybean are summarized from 

USEPA (2010) (D378447) and also included in Table 1 as a courtesy to HED; the cotton EDWCs 

summarized in Table 1 are recommended for use in the HED human health dietary risk assessment 

for the dicamba use.

A Tier II screening-level drinking water exposure assessment was conducted for the proposed Section 

3 New Use of the diglycolamine salt (DGA) formulation, expressed as dicamba acid-equivalent (ae), 

on dicamba-tolerant cotton. EDWCs in PRZM/EXAMS modeling resulting from use on cotton varied 

by the scenario used; acute 90th percentile 1-in-10 year concentrations ranged from 7.72 to 53.37 

μg/L, the highest concentration reported from the Mississippi cotton scenario. Similarly for soybean, 

the highest concentration reported in USEPA, 2010 (D378447) was from the Mississippi soybean 

scenario; although slightly lower than the cotton EDWC. Chronic and 30-year average concentrations 

were also highest from the Mississippi scenarios for both soybean and cotton; results from additional 

scenarios are included in the Attachment to this memorandum. Tables 2 and 3 summarize the inputs 

used to conduct surface and groundwater modeling.

Surface water and groundwater monitoring data from the United States Geological Survey

(USGS) NAWQA program1 were reviewed to provide some context to the EDWCs presented in 

Table 1. Note that analyses were only performed for the parent dicamba acid. Of the samples 

analyzed for dicamba, 275 (3.3%) out of 8,301 surface water samples had positive detections of 

dicamba; 15 (<1%) out of 6,434 samples in groundwater. The maximum concentration detected in 

surface water samples was 1.76 μg/L in the Rocky Creek at State Hwy 587 at Citrus Park, 

Hillsborough County, Florida. The maximum estimated concentration detected in the filter 

groundwater was 4.03 μg/L in urban area (SH:UR-18) in Shelby, Tennessee. The surface water 

concentrations ranged from 0.0094 to 1.76 μg/L, while groundwater concentrations ranged from 

0.008 to 4.03 μg/L. Most of the data in NAWQA is non-targeted (i.e., study was not specifically 

designed to capture dicamba concentrations in high-use areas). Typically, sampling frequencies 

employed in monitoring studies are insufficient to capture and report actual peak exposure values. 

Coupled with the fact that these data are not necessarily temporally or spatially correlated with 

dicamba application times and/or areas limit the utility of these data in estimating drinking water 

concentrations for risk assessment. However, the maximum groundwater concentration reported is 

greater than the previously estimated concentration using SCIGROW, therefore EFED recommends 

the use PRZM-GW EDWC in the human health dietary risk assessment, reported in Table 1.

 

1 U.S. Geological Survey. 2001.
Dicamba Aggregate Dietary Exposure Assessment DP No. D410346

Page 18 of 27

Table 1. EDWCs for drinking water exposure assessment based on the proposed dicamba DGA 

salt uses on dicamba-tolerant soybean and cotton*

Dicamba

Model Use/Scenario Acute

(ug/L)

Chronic

(ug/L)

30-year average

(ug/L)

Surface Water**

(PRZM/EXAMS)

MScottonSTD.txt 53.37 44.5 6.52

MSsoybeanSTD.txt† 36.8† 5.16† 1.88†

Groundwater

Peak

(ug/L)

Post 

breakthrough 

average

(ug/L)

30-year average

(ug/L)

PRZM-GW 

(no pca applied) WIsands.scn 329 187 158

SCIGROW -- 1.5E-3

†

-- --

DCSA

Model Use/Scenario Acute

(ug/L)

Chronic

(ug/L)

30-year average

(ug/L)

Surface Water**

(PRZM/EXAMS) MScottonSTD.txt 2.97 2.59 0.63

Groundwater

Peak

(ug/L)

Post 

breakthrough 

average

(ug/L)

30-year average

(ug/L)

PRZM-GW 

(no pca applied) FLCitrus.scn 0.041 0.041 0.018

SCIGROW -- 5.9E-3 -- --

*Bold values indicate maximum value of the scenarios run. Recommended for use in dietary risk assessment.

**PCA corrected using all-agriculture PCA = 87%.

†Results from USEPA, 2010 (D378447).

‡100 year simulation, throughputs were <1.0 for 30 year simulation.

Table 2. Environmental fate input parameters for Dicamba used in PRZM/EXAMS and 

PRZM-GW for calculating surface water and groundwater EDWCs.

Parameter Value Source/Reference Comments

Application rate 1.12 kg a.e./ha

0.56 kg a.e./ha

0.56 kg a.e./ha

Proposed Label 1.0 lb a.e./A pre-emergent (Apr. 16)

0.5 lb a.e./A (May 25, May 28)

Interval between 

applications

3 days Proposed Label --

Application Method Ground spray Proposed Label --

Molecular weight 

(g/mol)

221

Solubility @ 25oC 

(mg/L)

6100

Vapor Pressure (torr) 3.41x10-5

Organic Carbon 

Partitioning Coefficient 

(Koc, mL/g oc)

13.4 MRID 42774101 Mean Koc. Also used as a groundwater 

input.

Aerobic Soil Metabolism 

half-life (days)

18 MRID 43245207 Upper 90th Percentile on the mean. Ground 

water input.
Dicamba Aggregate Dietary Exposure Assessment DP No. D410346

Page 19 of 27

Aerobic Aquatic 

Metabolism half-life 

(days)

72.9 MRID 43758509 3x a single half-life of 24.3 days was used 

(USEPA, 2009)

Anaerobic aquatic 

metabolism half-life 

(days)

423 MRID 43245208 A single acceptable value (141 days). 3x a 

single value was used (USEPA, 2009)

Hydrolysis half-life 

(days, pH 7)

0 MRID 40547902 Stable. Also used in groundwater modeling.

Aqueous photolysis halflife (days)105 MRID 42774102 --

Table 3. Environmental fate input parameters for DCSA used in PRZM/EXAMS and PRZMGW for calculating surface water and groundwater EDWCs.

Parameter Value Source/Reference Comments

Application rate 0.18 kg a.e./ha

0.09 kg a.e./ha

0.09 kg a.e./ha

Adjusted application 

rate for formation of 

degradate.

pre-emergent (Apr. 16); (May 25, May 28)

[(MW degradate)/(MW parent)] x Max % 

formation x application rate = 207/221 x 

0.174 x 1.12 kg/ha = 0.18

Interval between 

applications

3 days Proposed Label --

Application Method Ground spray Proposed Label --

Molecular weight 

(g/mol)

207

Solubility @ 25oC 

(mg/L)

112 MRID 43095301

Vapor Pressure (torr) 3.41x10-5-- For dicamba

Organic Carbon 

Partitioning Coefficient 

(Koc, mL/g oc)

1208 MRID 43095301 Mean Koc. Also used as a groundwater 

input.

Aerobic Soil Metabolism 

half-life (days)

24.6 MRID 43245207 Single value of 8.2 days, multiplied by 3 to 

account for potential variability in 

degradation in different soil types. Also 

used as a groundwater input.

Aerobic Aquatic 

Metabolism half-life 

(days)

49.2 -- No acceptable data, therefore per USEPA, 

2009, assumed 2x the ASM t 1⁄2 (24.6 days).

Anaerobic aquatic 

metabolism half-life 

(days)

0 MRID 43245208 Stable.

Hydrolysis half-life 

(days, pH 7)

0 MRID 43245208 Stable. Also used in groundwater modeling.

Aqueous photolysis halflife (days)105 MRID 42774102 No data for DCSA, therefore assumed value 

is equal to dicamba.
Dicamba Aggregate Dietary Exposure Assessment DP No. D410346

Page 20 of 27

References:

USEPA. 2010. Drinking Water Assessment for Dicamba and its Degradate, 3,6-dichlorosalicylic

acid (DCSA), for New Food Use on Dicamba-Tolerant Soybean. (Tolerance # 0F7725). 

Memorandum from I. Maher to C. Ollinger. DP Barcode: 378447. USEPA, Office of Pesticide 

Programs, Washington, DC 20460.

U.S. Geological Survey. 2001. National Water Information System (NWISWeb): U.S. 

Geological Survey database, accessed March 27, 2013, at http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/data.

Attachment.

Table A-1. EDWCs for drinking water exposure assessment based on the proposed dicamba 

DGA salt uses on dicamba-tolerant soybean and cotton for all scenarios modeled*

Dicamba

Model Use/Scenario Acute

(ug/L)

Chronic

(ug/L)

30-year average

(ug/L)

SW**

(PRZM/EXAMS)

CAcotton_wirrgSTD.txt 7.72 6.62 1.07

MScottonSTD.txt 53.37 44.5 6.52

NCcottonSTD.txt 32.14 27.32 4.24

MSsoybeanSTD.txt† 36.8† 5.16† 1.88†

Groundwater

Peak

(ug/L)

Post 

breakthrough 

average

(ug/L)

30-year average

(ug/L)

PRZM-GW 

(no pca applied)

GAcoastal 41.9 28.2 24.9

DELMARVA 192 121 117

FLCitrus 238 161 155

FLPotato 56.8 19.2 18.1

NCcoastal 65.3 32.6 29.3

WIsands 329 187 158

SCIGROW -- 1.5E-3

†

-- --

DCSA

Model Use/Scenario Acute

(ug/L)

Chronic

(ug/L)

30-year average

(ug/L)

SW**

(PRZM/EXAMS)

MScottonSTD.txt 2.97 2.59 0.63

Groundwater

Peak

(ug/L)

Post 

breakthrough 

average

(ug/L)

30-year average

(ug/L)

PRZM-GW 

(no pca applied)

GAcoastal‡ 4.47E-5 3.93E-5 2.38E-5

DELMARVA 1.94E-4 1.65E-4 4.45E-5

FLCitrus 0.041 0.041 0.018

FLPotato‡ 5.71E-11 3.67E-11 3.114E-11

NCcoastal 7.31E-5 3.64E-5 2.59E-5

WIsands‡ 8.3E-4 7.66E-4 3.67E-4

SCIGROW -- 5.9E-3 -- --

*Bold values indicate maximum value of the scenarios run. Recommended for use in dietary risk assessment.

**PCA corrected using all-agriculture PCA = 87%.

†Results from USEPA, 2010 (D378447).

‡100 year simulation, throughputs were <1.0 for 30 year simulation.
Dicamba Aggregate Dietary Exposure Assessment DP No. D410346

Page 21 of 27

ATTACHMENT 3

Filename: E:\Dicamba Dietary\BAPMA Registration 2015\128931_Dicamba_Acute_Input File_Unrefined_BAPMA 

Action_Sept 2015_Food and Drinking Water_.TXT

Chemical: Dicamba (029801, 029802, 029806, 128931, 128944, and 129043)

RfD(Chronic): .04 mg/kg bw/day NOEL(Chronic): 4 mg/kg bw/day

RfD(Acute): .29 mg/kg bw/day NOEL(Acute): 29 mg/kg bw/day

Date created/last modified: 10-15-2015/11:33:52 Program ver. 3.16, 03-08-d

Comment: Ground Water Parent and Metabolite Residues Combined for all Crops; No Acute Endpt for 

Females 13-49: Unrefined Tolerance Level Assessment for Acute_BAPMA Action_Sept 2015 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 EPA Crop Def Res Adj.Factors Comment

 Code Grp Commodity Name (ppm) #1 #2 

---------- ---- ------------------------------- ---------- ------ ------ -------

0600347000 6 Soybean, seed 10.000000 1.000 1.000 

0600349000 6 Soybean, soy milk 10.000000 1.000 1.000 

0600349001 6 Soybean, soy milk-babyfood or in 10.000000 1.000 1.000 

0600350000 6 Soybean, oil 10.000000 1.000 1.000 

0600350001 6 Soybean, oil-babyfood 10.000000 1.000 1.000 

0603348000 6C Soybean, flour 10.000000 1.000 1.000 

0603348001 6C Soybean, flour-babyfood 10.000000 1.000 1.000 

1500025000 15 Barley, pearled barley 6.000000 1.000 1.000 

1500025001 15 Barley, pearled barley-babyfood 6.000000 1.000 1.000 

1500026000 15 Barley, flour 6.000000 1.000 1.000 

1500026001 15 Barley, flour-babyfood 6.000000 1.000 1.000 

1500027000 15 Barley, bran 6.000000 1.000 1.000 

1500120000 15 Corn, field, flour 0.100000 1.000 1.000 

1500120001 15 Corn, field, flour-babyfood 0.100000 1.000 1.000 

1500121000 15 Corn, field, meal 0.100000 1.000 1.000 

1500121001 15 Corn, field, meal-babyfood 0.100000 1.000 1.000 

1500122000 15 Corn, field, bran 0.100000 1.000 1.000 

1500123000 15 Corn, field, starch 0.100000 1.000 1.000 

1500123001 15 Corn, field, starch-babyfood 0.100000 1.000 1.000 

1500124000 15 Corn, field, syrup 0.100000 1.500 1.000 

1500124001 15 Corn, field, syrup-babyfood 0.100000 1.500 1.000 

1500125000 15 Corn, field, oil 0.100000 1.000 1.000 

1500125001 15 Corn, field, oil-babyfood 0.100000 1.000 1.000 

1500126000 15 Corn, pop 0.100000 1.000 1.000 

1500127000 15 Corn, sweet 0.040000 1.000 1.000 

1500127001 15 Corn, sweet-babyfood 0.040000 1.000 1.000 

1500226000 15 Millet, grain 2.000000 1.000 1.000 

1500231000 15 Oat, bran 2.000000 1.000 1.000 

1500232000 15 Oat, flour 2.000000 1.000 1.000 

1500232001 15 Oat, flour-babyfood 2.000000 1.000 1.000 

1500233000 15 Oat, groats/rolled oats 2.000000 1.000 1.000 

1500233001 15 Oat, groats/rolled oats-babyfood 2.000000 1.000 1.000 

1500328000 15 Rye, grain 2.000000 1.000 1.000 

1500329000 15 Rye, flour 2.000000 1.000 1.000 

1500344000 15 Sorghum, grain 4.000000 1.000 1.000 

1500345000 15 Sorghum, syrup 4.000000 1.000 1.000 

1500401000 15 Wheat, grain 2.000000 1.000 1.000 

1500401001 15 Wheat, grain-babyfood 2.000000 1.000 1.000 

1500402000 15 Wheat, flour 2.000000 1.000 1.000 

1500402001 15 Wheat, flour-babyfood 2.000000 1.000 1.000 

1500403000 15 Wheat, germ 2.000000 1.000 1.000 

1500404000 15 Wheat, bran 2.000000 1.000 1.000 

2003128000 20C Cottonseed, oil 3.000000 1.000 1.000 

2003128001 20C Cottonseed, oil-babyfood 3.000000 1.000 1.000 

3100044000 31 Beef, meat 0.250000 1.000 1.000 

3100044001 31 Beef, meat-babyfood 0.250000 1.000 1.000 

3100045000 31 Beef, meat, dried 0.250000 1.920 1.000 

3100046000 31 Beef, meat byproducts 3.000000 1.000 1.000 

3100046001 31 Beef, meat byproducts-babyfood 3.000000 1.000 1.000 

3100047000 31 Beef, fat 0.300000 1.000 1.000 

3100047001 31 Beef, fat-babyfood 0.300000 1.000 1.000 

3100048000 31 Beef, kidney 25.000000 1.000 1.000 

3100049000 31 Beef, liver 3.000000 1.000 1.000 

3100049001 31 Beef, liver-babyfood 3.000000 1.000 1.000 

3200169000 32 Goat, meat 0.250000 1.000 1.000 

3200170000 32 Goat, meat byproducts 3.000000 1.000 1.000 
Dicamba Aggregate Dietary Exposure Assessment DP No. D410346

Page 22 of 27

3200171000 32 Goat, fat 0.300000 1.000 1.000 

3200172000 32 Goat, kidney 25.000000 1.000 1.000 

3200173000 32 Goat, liver 3.000000 1.000 1.000 

3300189000 33 Horse, meat 0.250000 1.000 1.000 

3400290000 34 Pork, meat 0.250000 1.000 1.000 

3400290001 34 Pork, meat-babyfood 0.250000 1.000 1.000 

3400291000 34 Pork, skin 3.000000 1.000 1.000 

3400292000 34 Pork, meat byproducts 3.000000 1.000 1.000 

3400292001 34 Pork, meat byproducts-babyfood 3.000000 1.000 1.000 

3400293000 34 Pork, fat 0.300000 1.000 1.000 

3400293001 34 Pork, fat-babyfood 0.300000 1.000 1.000 

3400294000 34 Pork, kidney 25.000000 1.000 1.000 

3400295000 34 Pork, liver 3.000000 1.000 1.000 

3500339000 35 Sheep, meat 0.250000 1.000 1.000 

3500339001 35 Sheep, meat-babyfood 0.250000 1.000 1.000 

3500340000 35 Sheep, meat byproducts 3.000000 1.000 1.000 

3500341000 35 Sheep, fat 0.300000 1.000 1.000 

3500341001 35 Sheep, fat-babyfood 0.300000 1.000 1.000 

3500342000 35 Sheep, kidney 25.000000 1.000 1.000 

3500343000 35 Sheep, liver 3.000000 1.000 1.000 

3600222000 36 Milk, fat 0.200000 1.000 1.000 

3600222001 36 Milk, fat-baby food/infant formu 0.200000 1.000 1.000 

3600223000 36 Milk, nonfat solids 0.200000 1.000 1.000 

3600223001 36 Milk, nonfat solids-baby food/in 0.200000 1.000 1.000 

3600224000 36 Milk, water 0.200000 1.000 1.000 

3600224001 36 Milk, water-babyfood/infant form 0.200000 1.000 1.000 

3600225001 36 Milk, sugar (lactose)-baby food/ 0.200000 1.000 1.000 

8601000000 86A Water, direct, all sources 0.329041 1.000 1.000 

8602000000 86B Water, indirect, all sources 0.329041 1.000 1.000 

9500019000 O Asparagus 4.000000 1.000 1.000 

9500362000 O Sugarcane, sugar 0.300000 1.000 1.000 

9500362001 O Sugarcane, sugar-babyfood 0.300000 1.000 1.000 

9500363000 O Sugarcane, molasses 5.000000 1.000 1.000 

9500363001 O Sugarcane, molasses-babyfood 5.000000 1.000 1.000 

9500373500 O Teff, flour 6.000000 1.000 1.000 
Dicamba Aggregate Dietary Exposure Assessment DP No. D410346

Page 23 of 27

ATTACHMENT 4

US EPA Ver. 3.18, 03-08-d

DEEM-FCID ACUTE Analysis for DICAMBA (029801, 029802, 029806, 128931, 128944, AND 129043)

 NHANES 2003-2008 2-Day

Residue file: 128931_Dicamba_Acute_Input File_Unrefined_BAPMA Action_Sept 2015_Food and 

Drinking Water.R08

 Adjustment factor #2 used.

Analysis Date: 10-15-2015/11:41:36 Residue file dated: 10-15-2015/11:33:52

NOEL (Acute) = 29.000000 mg/kg body-wt/day

RAC/FF intake summed over 24 hours

Run Comment: "Ground Water Parent and Metabolite Residues Combined for all Cro

ps; No Acute Endpt for Females 13-49: Unrefined Tolerance Level Assessment for 

Acute_BAPMA Action_Sept 2015 "

===============================================================================

Summary calculations--per capita:

--- 95th Percentile---- --- 99th Percentile---- ---99.9th Percentile----

Exposure % aRfD MOE Exposure % aRfD MOE Exposure % aRfD MOE 

---------- ------- -------- ---------- ------- -------- ---------- ------- --------

Total US Population:

 0.042760 14.74 678 0.070910 24.45 408 0.176225 60.77 164 

All Infants:

 0.088733 30.60 326 0.123532 42.60 234 0.430231 148.36 67 

Children 1-2:

 0.075295 25.96 385 0.185363 63.92 156 0.874135 301.43 33 

Children 3-5:

 0.065788 22.69 440 0.147118 50.73 197 0.466474 160.85 62 

Children 6-12:

 0.047142 16.26 615 0.073376 25.30 395 0.287964 99.30 100 

Youth 13-19:

 0.032166 11.09 901 0.050366 17.37 575 0.122480 42.23 236 

Adults 20-49:

 0.035172 12.13 824 0.058497 20.17 495 0.107617 37.11 269 

Adults 50-99:

 0.029776 10.27 973 0.051032 17.60 568 0.138606 47.80 209 

Female 13-49:

 0.032628 11.25 888 0.055286 19.06 524 0.112472 38.78 257 
Dicamba Aggregate Dietary Exposure Assessment DP No. D410346

Page 24 of 27

ATTACHMENT 5

Filename: E:\Dicamba Dietary\BAPMA Registration 2015\128931_Dicamba_Chronic_Input File_Refined with 

Avg Crop Residues_BAPMA Action_Sept 2015_Food and Drinking Water.R08

Chemical: Dicamba (029801, 029802, 029806, 128931, 128944, and 129043)

RfD(Chronic): .04 mg/kg bw/day NOEL(Chronic): 4 mg/kg bw/day

RfD(Acute): .29 mg/kg bw/day NOEL(Acute): 29 mg/kg bw/day

Date created/last modified: 09-24-2015/13:25:16 Program ver. 3.16, 03-08-d

Comment: Ground Water Parent and Metabolite Residues Combined for all Crops; No Acute Endpt 

for Females 13-49; Refined Assessment Using Average Residues, %CT Data & 100%CT for Avg Crop Redisues 

& Livestock Tolerance Values_BAPMA Action_September 2015

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 EPA Crop Def Res Adj.Factors Comment

 Code Grp Commodity Name (ppm) #1 #2 

---------- ---- ------------------------------- ---------- ------ ------ -------

0600347000 6 Soybean, seed 1.100000 1.000 1.000 

0600349000 6 Soybean, soy milk 1.100000 1.000 1.000 

0600349001 6 Soybean, soy milk-babyfood or in 1.100000 1.000 1.000 

0600350000 6 Soybean, oil 1.100000 1.000 1.000 

0600350001 6 Soybean, oil-babyfood 1.100000 1.000 1.000 

0603348000 6C Soybean, flour 1.100000 1.000 1.000 

0603348001 6C Soybean, flour-babyfood 1.100000 1.000 1.000 

1500025000 15 Barley, pearled barley 1.300000 1.000 0.050 

1500025001 15 Barley, pearled barley-babyfood 1.300000 1.000 0.050 

1500026000 15 Barley, flour 1.300000 1.000 0.050 

1500026001 15 Barley, flour-babyfood 1.300000 1.000 0.050 

1500027000 15 Barley, bran 1.300000 1.000 0.050 

1500120000 15 Corn, field, flour 0.010000 1.000 0.100 

1500120001 15 Corn, field, flour-babyfood 0.010000 1.000 0.100 

1500121000 15 Corn, field, meal 0.010000 1.000 0.100 

1500121001 15 Corn, field, meal-babyfood 0.010000 1.000 0.100 

1500122000 15 Corn, field, bran 0.010000 1.000 0.100 

1500123000 15 Corn, field, starch 0.010000 1.000 0.100 

1500123001 15 Corn, field, starch-babyfood 0.010000 1.000 0.100 

1500124000 15 Corn, field, syrup 0.010000 1.500 0.100 

1500124001 15 Corn, field, syrup-babyfood 0.010000 1.500 0.100 

1500125000 15 Corn, field, oil 0.010000 1.000 0.100 

1500125001 15 Corn, field, oil-babyfood 0.010000 1.000 0.100 

1500126000 15 Corn, pop 0.010000 1.000 0.100 

1500127000 15 Corn, sweet 0.020000 1.000 0.010 

1500127001 15 Corn, sweet-babyfood 0.020000 1.000 0.010 

1500226000 15 Millet, grain 0.400000 1.000 1.000 Transl

 Full comment: Translated from wheat

1500231000 15 Oat, bran 0.400000 1.000 0.025 Transl

 Full comment: Translated from wheat

1500232000 15 Oat, flour 0.400000 1.000 0.025 Transl

 Full comment: Translated from wheat

1500232001 15 Oat, flour-babyfood 0.400000 1.000 0.025 Transl

 Full comment: Translated from wheat

1500233000 15 Oat, groats/rolled oats 0.400000 1.000 0.025 Transl

 Full comment: Translated from wheat

1500233001 15 Oat, groats/rolled oats-babyfood 0.400000 1.000 0.025 Transl

 Full comment: Translated from wheat

1500328000 15 Rye, grain 0.400000 1.000 1.000 Transl

 Full comment: Translated from wheat

1500329000 15 Rye, flour 0.400000 1.000 1.000 Transl

 Full comment: Translated from wheat

1500344000 15 Sorghum, grain 1.500000 1.000 0.150 

1500345000 15 Sorghum, syrup 1.500000 1.000 0.150 

1500401000 15 Wheat, grain 0.400000 1.000 0.100 

1500401001 15 Wheat, grain-babyfood 0.400000 1.000 0.100 

1500402000 15 Wheat, flour 0.400000 1.000 0.100 

1500402001 15 Wheat, flour-babyfood 0.400000 1.000 0.100 

1500403000 15 Wheat, germ 0.400000 1.000 0.100 

1500404000 15 Wheat, bran 0.400000 1.000 0.100 

2003128000 20C Cottonseed, oil 0.500000 1.000 1.000 

2003128001 20C Cottonseed, oil-babyfood 0.500000 1.000 1.000 

3100044000 31 Beef, meat 0.250000 1.000 1.000 

3100044001 31 Beef, meat-babyfood 0.250000 1.000 1.000 
Dicamba Aggregate Dietary Exposure Assessment DP No. D410346

Page 25 of 27

3100045000 31 Beef, meat, dried 0.250000 1.920 1.000 

3100046000 31 Beef, meat byproducts 3.000000 1.000 1.000 

3100046001 31 Beef, meat byproducts-babyfood 3.000000 1.000 1.000 

3100047000 31 Beef, fat 0.300000 1.000 1.000 

3100047001 31 Beef, fat-babyfood 0.300000 1.000 1.000 

3100048000 31 Beef, kidney 25.000000 1.000 1.000 

3100049000 31 Beef, liver 3.000000 1.000 1.000 

3100049001 31 Beef, liver-babyfood 3.000000 1.000 1.000 

3200169000 32 Goat, meat 0.250000 1.000 1.000 

3200170000 32 Goat, meat byproducts 3.000000 1.000 1.000 

3200171000 32 Goat, fat 0.300000 1.000 1.000 

3200172000 32 Goat, kidney 25.000000 1.000 1.000 

3200173000 32 Goat, liver 3.000000 1.000 1.000 

3300189000 33 Horse, meat 0.250000 1.000 1.000 

3400290000 34 Pork, meat 0.250000 1.000 1.000 

3400290001 34 Pork, meat-babyfood 0.250000 1.000 1.000 

3400291000 34 Pork, skin 3.000000 1.000 1.000 

3400292000 34 Pork, meat byproducts 3.000000 1.000 1.000 

3400292001 34 Pork, meat byproducts-babyfood 3.000000 1.000 1.000 

3400293000 34 Pork, fat 0.300000 1.000 1.000 

3400293001 34 Pork, fat-babyfood 0.300000 1.000 1.000 

3400294000 34 Pork, kidney 25.000000 1.000 1.000 

3400295000 34 Pork, liver 3.000000 1.000 1.000 

3500339000 35 Sheep, meat 0.250000 1.000 1.000 

3500339001 35 Sheep, meat-babyfood 0.250000 1.000 1.000 

3500340000 35 Sheep, meat byproducts 3.000000 1.000 1.000 

3500341000 35 Sheep, fat 0.300000 1.000 1.000 

3500341001 35 Sheep, fat-babyfood 0.300000 1.000 1.000 

3500342000 35 Sheep, kidney 25.000000 1.000 1.000 

3500343000 35 Sheep, liver 3.000000 1.000 1.000 

3600222000 36 Milk, fat 0.200000 1.000 1.000 

3600222001 36 Milk, fat-baby food/infant formu 0.200000 1.000 1.000 

3600223000 36 Milk, nonfat solids 0.200000 1.000 1.000 

3600223001 36 Milk, nonfat solids-baby food/in 0.200000 1.000 1.000 

3600224000 36 Milk, water 0.200000 1.000 1.000 

3600224001 36 Milk, water-babyfood/infant form 0.200000 1.000 1.000 

3600225001 36 Milk, sugar (lactose)-baby food/ 0.200000 1.000 1.000 

8601000000 86A Water, direct, all sources 0.187041 1.000 1.000 

8602000000 86B Water, indirect, all sources 0.187041 1.000 1.000 

9500019000 O Asparagus 1.000000 1.000 0.050 

9500362000 O Sugarcane, sugar 0.140000 1.000 0.200 

9500362001 O Sugarcane, sugar-babyfood 0.140000 1.000 0.200 

9500363000 O Sugarcane, molasses 3.400000 1.000 0.200 

9500363001 O Sugarcane, molasses-babyfood 3.400000 1.000 0.200 

9500373500 O Teff, flour 1.300000 1.000 1.000 Transl

 Full comment: Translated from Barley
Dicamba Aggregate Dietary Exposure Assessment DP No. D410346

Page 26 of 27

ATTACHMENT 6

US EPA Ver. 3.16, 03-08-d

DEEM-FCID Chronic analysis for DICAMBA (029801, 029802, 029806, 128931, 128944, AND 129043)

 NHANES 2003-2008 2-day

Residue file name: E:\Dicamba Dietary\BAPMA Registration 2015\128931_Dicamba_Chronic_Input 

File_Refined with Avg Crop Residues_BAPMA Action_Sept 2015_Food and Drinking Water.R08

 Adjustment factor #2 used.

Analysis Date 10-15-2015/11:43:17 Residue file dated: 10-15-2015/11:36:52

Reference dose (RfD, Chronic) = .04 mg/kg bw/day

COMMENT 1: Ground Water Parent and Metabolite Residues Combined for all Crops; No Acute Endpt for 

Females 13-49; Refined Assessment Using Average Residues, %CT Data & 100%CT for Avg Crop Redisues & 

Livestock Tolerance Values_BAPMA Action_September 2015

===============================================================================

 Total exposure by population subgroup

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Total Exposure

 -----------------------------------

 Population mg/kg Percent of 

 Subgroup body wt/day Rfd 

-------------------------------------- ------------- ----------------

Total US Population 0.006319 15.8%

Hispanic 0.006592 16.5%

Non-Hisp-White 0.006373 15.9%

Non-Hisp-Black 0.005361 13.4%

Non-Hisp-Other 0.007169 17.9%

Nursing Infants 0.004789 12.0%

Non-Nursing Infants 0.018149 45.4%

Female 13+ PREG 0.005659 14.1%

Children 1-6 0.013494 33.7%

Children 7-12 0.007114 17.8%

Male 13-19 0.005016 12.5%

Female 13-19/NP 0.004863 12.2%

Male 20+ 0.005297 13.2%

Female 20+/NP 0.005576 13.9%

Seniors 55+ 0.005264 13.2%

All Infants 0.014024 35.1%

Female 13-50 0.005460 13.6%

Children 1-2 0.016988 42.5%

Children 3-5 0.011947 29.9%

Children 6-12 0.007618 19.0%

Youth 13-19 0.004936 12.3%

Adults 20-49 0.005526 13.8%

Adults 50-99 0.005340 13.3%

Female 13-49 0.005465 13.7%

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dicamba Aggregate Dietary Exposure Assessment DP No. D410346

Page 27 of 27

ATTACHMENT 7

US EPA Ver. 3.16, 03-08-d

DEEM-FCID Chronic analysis for DICAMBA (029801, 029802, 029806, 128931, 128944, AND 129043)

 NHANES 2003-2008 2-day

Residue file name: E:\Dicamba Dietary\BAPMA Registration 2015\128931_Dicamba_Chronic_Input 

File_Refined with Avg Crop Residues_BAPMA Action_Sept 2015_Food and Drinking Water.R08

 Adjustment factor #2 used.

Analysis Date 10-15-2015/11:43:22 Residue file dated: 10-15-2015/11:36:52

Reference dose (RfD, Chronic) = .04 mg/kg bw/day

COMMENT 1: Ground Water Parent and Metabolite Residues Combined for all Crops; No Acute Endpt for 

Females 13-49; Refined Assessment Using Average Residues, %CT Data & 100%CT for Avg Crop Redisues & 

Livestock Tolerance Values_BAPMA Action_September 2015

===============================================================================

 Critical Commodity Contribution Analysis for

 Children 1-2

 Total Exposure =.0169885 mg/kg bw/day

 Crop groups with total exposure contribution > 5%

 Foods/Foodforms with exposure contribution > 3%

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Crop group ----------Exposure Analysis--------

 Food mg/kg % of Total Percent 

 Foodform body wt/day Exposure of RfD 

-------------------------------------- ----------- ---------- ----------

Crop Group = (36) Milk

 Milk, nonfat solids (3600223000):

 FoodForm N/S 0.0008510 5.01% 2.13%

 Milk, water (3600224000):

 FoodForm N/S 0.0072998 42.97% 18.25%

-------------------------------------- ----------- ---------- ----------

 Total for crop group 0.0084982 50.02% 21.25%

Crop Group = (86) Water

 Water, direct, all sources (8601000000):

 FoodForm N/S 0.0036343 21.39% 9.09%

 Water, indirect, all sources (8602000000):

 FoodForm N/S 0.0020154 11.86% 5.04%

-------------------------------------- ----------- ---------- ----------

 Total for crop group 0.0056497 33.26% 14.12%

Crop Group = (86A) Direct Water

 Water, direct, all sources (8601000000):

 FoodForm N/S 0.0036343 21.39% 9.09%

-------------------------------------- ----------- ---------- ----------

 Total for crop group 0.0036343 21.39% 9.09%

Crop Group = (86B) Indirect Water

 Water, indirect, all sources (8602000000):

 FoodForm N/S 0.0020154 11.86% 5.04%

-------------------------------------- ----------- ---------- ----------

 Total for crop group 0.0020154 11.86% 5.04%

Total for crop groups listed above: 0.0141479 83.28% 35.4%

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------