UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION A GENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY

AND POLLUTION PREVENTION

August 9 , 2011

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Summary of Human Health Effects Data for the THPS Registration Review Decision Document.

PC Code(s): 129058 DP Barcode(s)/No(s): D383 029

Decision No.: 440830 1 Registration No(s).: 464

- 8126, 464

- 8127,464

- 8129,

4564

- 15,4564

- RA,4564

- 17, 4564

- 18, 4564

- 19, 4564

- 20, 10707

- 57, 33677

- 33, 33677

- 5, 33677

- 6, 33677

- 7,

82932

- 1, 8 61 30

- 2 Petition No(s).: NA Regulatory Action: Human Health Registration

Review Risk Assess Type: Multiple Chemicals Case No(s).: 5034

TXR No.: NA CAS No(s): 55566

- 30

- 8 Tetrakis (hydroxymethyl) phosphonium sulfate

MRID No(s).: NA 40 CFR: None

FROM: Nathan Mottl

, Bi ologist Risk Assessment and Science Support Branch (RASSB) Antimicrobials Division (7510 P )

TO: Eliza Blair , C hemical Review Manager Regulatory Management Branch II Antimicrobials Division (7510 P )

Lance Wormell

, Team Leader Regulatory Manageme nt Branch II Antimicrobials Division (7510 P )

THRU: Nader Elkassabany , Branch Chief Risk Assessment and Science Support Branch (RASSB) Antimicrobials Division (7510 P )Page | 2 Executive Summary

The Antimicrobial Division ( AD ) Regist ration Review Team has e valuated the status
of the human health assessments for the active ingredient Tetrakis (hydroxymethyl) phosphonium sulfate (THPS) (PC Code 129058 ) for the purposes of registration review

. THPS was first registered in 1995 and a Registration Eligibility Dec ision (RED) document has not yet been initiated . A RED is not require d for chemicals registered after November 1, 1984. This document examines the hazard and exposure databases for the registered antimicrobial uses and the applicable human health risk asse ssments the Agency expects to conduct. The antimicrobial use categories for THPS include material preservatives uses, and the industrial processes and water systems uses

THPS is also used to control bacteria, fungi, and algae in industrial and/or

commerc ial recirculating cooling systems, industrial process water, heat transfer systems, oil field operations, oil and gas pipelines, drilling muds, and packer fluids as well as a preservative in water based coatings, pigments, and slurries. There are currentl y 15 registered products. The concentration of active ingredient is between 20% and 78%.

THPS is also registered as surface disinfectant foam product (EPA Reg 82932

- 1).

T HPS disinfects inanimate non

- porous surfaces such as floors, walls, rails, chairs, shower stalls, urinals, bathtubs, and non

- food contact surfaces including tables and counters. THPS may be used as a disinfectant in homes, schools, hospitals, cafeterias, restaurants, offices, industrial and commercial buildings, and exterior of structure s, areas of mass gathering such as stadiums and convention centers or can be used outdoors on vehicles, farm equipment, and poultry premises.

THPS is most often used as a microbiocide/slim ic ide that is used to control bacteria, fungi, and algae in the m anufacture of paper and paperboard products and adhesives that

do not contact food

. However, some e nd use product s can also be used on emulsions that are applied to food

- contact paper and paperboard

. Therefore, indirect dietary exposure to

food could be expected based on the use. An FDA clearance was not identified. Although likely to be infrequent, dietary exposures via drinking water may occur and assessments

will be needed based on release to surface water from recirculating cooling towers. Upon

recei pt and review of the environmental fate data the Agency anticipates requiring, the Agency will determine the need for a down

- the

- drain drinking water assessment.

The Agency has reasons to believe that THPS may be a formaldehyde releaser (see

D383030 for a dditional details)

. According to a recent EPA review (D383030), t he formula of this chemical is such that it is likely to release formaldehyde because it contains hydroxymethyl group, which is an essential part which will produce formaldehyde , and the degr adation products in aquatic medium are t rihydroxymethyl

p hosphine (THP) molecules which are formed by releasing two formaldehyde ( HCHO )

molecules

.

The Agency does not have the emissions (e.g. air chamber) data to estimate potential

concentrations of form aldehyde released in to air under various conditions

. The AgencyPage | 3 will likely need further data to determine the extent of the THPS degrad ation i n air to
form formaldehyde and THP

. If EPA identifies that THPS is in fact a formaldehyde releaser, EPA may als o need to develop additional inhalation risk assessments to assess the contribution of formaldehyde on the overall aggregate risk from all sources

.

There are no pesticide food use tolera nces for the active ingredient for these indoor

nonfood uses nor ar e any tolerances needed since the paper and paperboard use is supported by FDA under Section 409 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). However, exemptions and regulations for food additives under Section 409 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) do not relieve the registrant of meeting the standard under Section 408 as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA). “Under Section 408, a determination of safety for residues of a pesticide that may be in food is required, an d as defined in Section 408(b)(2)(ii), “that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for

which there is reliable information.”

The primary source of information for this assessment is the Agency risk assessments and supporting documents to support registration, which were finalized in 1995. The purpose of this screen is to determine whether sufficient data are available to support registration review, identify applicable exposure scenarios, and to report whether new human health assessments are needed to support the registration review process.

Anticipated Data Needs

The Antimicrobial Division (AD) anticip ates the need for additional human health data

for THPS

.

**•** A 90

- day i nhalation toxicity study (Series 870.3465) will be needed.

Risk Assessments

The Agency will conduct several risk assessment for THPS. The risk assessments are

outlined below:

**•** Occup ational exposures to THPS are likely a result of exposures from open pour and pump liquid exposures to mixer/loaders.

**•** Since THPS is also formulated into preservative coatings, pigments and slurries, the Agency also assumed that THPS is an in

- can preserva t ive in paints, thus triggering the need for occupational and residential risk assessments from the application of paint (e.g. brush/roller, and airless sprayer) is expected.

**•** Since THPS has a disinfectant use, the Agency will need to do assessments such

as (1) applying disinfectant by hand wiping surfaces, (2) applying the disinfectant by hand by dipping tools/implements into dilute disinfectant solution, (3) applying the disinfectant by mopping surfaces, (4) applying the disinfectant with

hand

- held, high p ressure spray equipment, (5) applying the disinfectant withPage | 4 hand

- held, low pressure spray equipment, and (6) applying with a trigger pump

sprayer.

**•** If formaldehyde is present in sufficient quantities in THPS formulated paint and

disinfectant s , then an inhal ation post

- application assessment would likely be needed to assess the inhalation risks of formaldehyde

**•** EPA will likely reevaluate the indirect food uses (e.g. paper and paperboard, water based coatings, disinfectants, pigments etc.) and will conduct a new acute and chronic dietary assessment during registration review.

**•** Since the product is used in commercial recirculating cooling water systems, the Agency anticipates that the effluent wastewater could discharge directly to surface water. As a result, the Agency would need to model environmental concentrations in the surface water and develop a drinking water human health risk assessment.

**•** During registration review, the Agency anticipates that additional environmental fate data will also be needed [see Env ironmental Fate and Ecological Assessment (D383030) to assess the need to conduct a down the drain drinking water human

health risk assessment.

**•** The Agency expects to conduct an aggregate risk assessment that will include residential, dietary and drinking w ater exposures.

Section 1. Chemical Identity

The available data indicates that THPS is practically insoluble in water, soluble in commercial solvents, and has low vapor pressures (~1E

- 5 mm Hg)

. Table 1 presents the identity of THPS

.

Table 1

. Chemical Identity of THPS

Common

Name Tetrakis (hydroxymethyl)phosphonium sulfate (THPS)

CAS name Tetrakis (hydroxymethyl)phosphonium sulfate

PC Code 129058 CAS registry

number 55566

- 30

- 8

Registration

Review Case

No. 5034Page | 5 Structure

Section 2. Toxicology

The Agency reviewed the toxicity database for THPS

. Most of the available data was submitted during the i nitial registration in 1995. No new toxicity studies have been

submitted since the first registration.

Acute Toxicity

T he acute toxicity data are considered adequate for reregistation and for registration

review. According to Agency records , the combin ed acute LD50 is 575 (519

- 637) mg/kg and is assigned as oral toxicity category III (MRID 4382001). The acute dermal LD50 is >2000 mg/kg and is assigned as a dermal toxicity category III (MRID 42236306). The acute inhalation LC50 is 0.591mg/L(combined) an d is assigned as an inhalation toxicity category III (MRID 46659905). THPS is a primary eye irritant and the toxicity category assigned is toxicity category I for eye irritation (MRID 46659906). However, it should be noted that it is rated toxicity categ ory IV for dermal irritation (MRID 46659907). THPS is classified as a strong dermal sensitizer in the guinea pig (MRID 43282003). ). However, EPA noted in their review (D257896), that “THPS is a significant eye irritant, and, although it does not display d ermal irritation after a single exposure, a 28

- day dermal toxicity in rats (MRID 42236310) has demonstrated significant dermal irritation after five applications of the technical test material (75% a.i.).

Sub

- chronic Toxicity

Dermal Toxicity

A 28

- day dermal range

- finding rat study was conducted at doses of 25, 25 0, or 500 mg/kg/day (MRID 422363

- 10). Due to severe irritation at the application sites, all mid

and high

- dose animals were euthanatized after 4

- days of treatment . At 25 mg/kg/day

there was a 25% reduction in male body weight, an effect which may be due to primary toxicity or could have been a secondary effect due to dermal irritation. The dermalPage | 6 irritation induced included moderate to severe erythema and edema. Additional dermal

tests were waived based on the irritation effects for the mid and high dose level rats

.

EPA noted in their review that this finding was inconsistent with the results of the acute dermal toxicity study (Toxicity Category III) , which indicated that the LD50 was >2,0 00 mg/kg and also the primary dermal irritation study which concluded the compound was non

- irritating (Toxicity Category IV

Inhalation Toxicity

There are no inhalation toxicity studies available. A 90

- day i nhalation toxicity study ( Series 870.3465) will likely be needed to assess aerosolized exposure of paint and disinfectant spray

.

Developmental Toxicity

In a prenatal developmental toxicity study (MRID 422364

- 14) of rats, THPS was admin istered by gavage to 3 groups of 2 4 rats/dose at dose levels of 15, 30 and 60 mg/kg/day, respectively, from gestation day s (GD) 6 to 15. Maternal toxicity was noted

in the 3 0 mg/kg/day and 60 mg/kg/day groups in the form of salivation and brown staining , liver mottling, body weight gain, and pale livers. At the high dose, severe distress, body weight gain, liver mottling was also noticed. Evaluation of developmental toxicity in the progeny of the high dose female rats revealed a decrease in body weight of the liter, and a n increase in the number of fetuses born with e xtra thoracolumbar ribs. The

maternal NOAEL is 15 mg/kg/day

In another prenatal developmental toxicity study (MRID 41615002 ) in rabbits

, THPS

was administered orally at 6, 18, and 60 mg/kg/day from days 6

- 15 of gestation. There

was an increase incidence of external/malformation s in high dose rats. These include eye abnormalities, limb malformations, and cardiac malformations. The increase in skeletal variations was significantly increased. The maternal and developmental NOAEL was 18 mg/kg/day.

Mutagen i city

T he Agency identified several mutagenicity studies . The studies all did not indicate that THPS was mutagenic. The mutagenic battery included two acceptable in vitro

ames test s ( MRID 44135505 and MRID 4 6659908 ) (GDLN 870.51 0 0)

, two acceptable

in vitro mammalian cell gene mutation studies (MRID 44135502 and MRID 44135504) (GDLN 870.5300), and two acceptable in v itr o cytogenetics test s in Chinese hamster

ovaries (MRID 42236318 and MRID 44135503) (GDLN 870.5375) . In addition

, an in

vivo unsched uled DNA synthesis test in rat hepatocytes (MRID 4223617 and 43312201) (GDLN 870.5550) and a gene mutation study in Salmonella and E. Coli (MRID 42236316) (GDLN 870.5140) w ere also submitted

.

Chronic/ CarcinogenicityPage | 7 A National Toxicology Program (NTP ) study dosed rats and mice with oral gavage administration at doses 0, 5, 10 mg/kg/day of THPS for 104 weeks. Liver effects such as cytoplasmic vacuolation was noted in both male and female rats and cystic degeneration

of the liver were noted in male an d female mice . Other effects noted were hyperplasia of the bone marrow, leukemia , adenomas of the anterior pituitary, focal hyperplasia in the adrenal medulla. The NTP concluded there was no evidence of carcinogenicity

.

Reproduction

The submitted study ( MRID 45320801 and MRID 45615801) examined the effect of THPS on reproduction and fertility in rats at dose levels of 0, 1.0, 7.5, and 15.0 mg/kg over two generations. Organ weights were affected at the 15 mg/kg/day dose level, and

included an increase i n liver weight for P generation females and F1 generation males and females. The increase in liver weight corresponded with histopathological alterations at the 15 mg/kg/day dose level, which included periportal hepatocyte enlargement, periportal hepatocy te vacuolation, bile duct proliferation, and focal hepatocyte necrosis. These effects were observed also at the 7.5 mg/kg/day dose and were considered

treatment

- related, as there was a dose

- response between the 7.5 and 15.0 mg/kg/day dose

levels. Reprodu ctive performance and fertility were not significantly affected in parental animals of either generation. Although viability index was in the range of 70

- 80%, this value is not atypical for the rat. The NOAEL assigned for systemic effects was 1 mg/kg/day , based upon the histological alterations of the liver observed in both parental generations at the 7.5 mg/kg/day dose. The reproductive toxicity NOAEL is provisionally determined to be > 15 mg/kg/day, and the reproductive toxicity LOAEL is provisionally determined to be > 15 mg/kg/day, as there were no significant effects observed in offspring at any dose level tested in this study.

Toxicology of Formaldehyde

Since the release of formaldehyde may be a ssociated with the use of THPS , the exposure and risk associated with the formaldehyde released as a result of registered

THPS uses must be assessed. The characterization of formaldehyde toxicity and the selection of endpoints for risk assessment were included in the Formaldehyde RED

.

At the time of the RED, there was uncertainty regarding the approach for the assessment of the cancer risks and it was anticipated that these uncertainties would be resolved upon completion of the IRIS update for formaldehyde. As an interim measure,

the cancer risks we re presented as range based on the existing IRIS unit risk and the

results of CIIT model runs.

There were also uncertainties regarding the selection of the non

- cancer endpoint because an evaluation of formaldehyde was also being conducted by OPPT and NCEA to evaluate a petition regarding formaldehyde emissions from pressed wood. As discussed

in the Response to Public Comments on the F ormaldehyde Preliminary Risk

Assessment (EPA, 2009) t he following disclaimer was provided for the non

- cancer formaldehy de inhalation endpoint that was selected by OPP for use in the RED:Page | 8 OPP developed the formaldehyde inhalation noncancer toxicological endpoint used in this RED through the established reregistration process, which includes stakeholder consultation and pu blic comment. However, the result has not been subjected to an interagency review or external peer review. Because of time constraints imposed by statutory deadline, OPP could not consider all available peer

reviewed science (for example, the intentional human dosing toxicity studies). Thus, this value should be considered an interim value, developed solely for the purposes of this determination and subject to future revision and subsequent peer review and should not be used in other contexts as EPA's op inion of the best available science on

the non

- cancer effects of formaldehyde.

Section 3. Dietary Assessment

Dietary

A dietary risk assessment was conducted during registration to examine the indirect

food use exposures for food contact paper and pap er board . According to the dietary risk

assessment, THPS fulfilled the FIFRA/FQPA requirement of no harm” a registration

decision (D257896 and D281630 ) and EPA concluded that dietary r isks were acceptable. Although a dietary risk assessment has been done during registration, EPA will likely

reevaluate the indirect food use s (e.g. paper and paperboard, water based coatings, pigments, et c .) and exposures and toxicological endpoint and conduct a new acute and

chronic dietary assessment during registration rev iew.

Drinking Water

Since THPS is used in industrial process water, heat transfer systems, oil field operations, oil and gas pipelines, drilling muds, and packer fluid, the Agency expects that

it could migrate to groundwater and surface water and then on to drinking water

. Although likely to be infrequent, dietary exposures via drinking water may occur in the

event of a down

- the

- drain discharge. The c ontaminated water could pass through wastewater treatment facilities into the drinking water or may be discharged directly to

surface water which is later treated . Howeve r, at this time there are no environmental fate data to determine whether THPS can pass through wastewater treatment facilities into drinking water or migrate into residential groundwater w ells as a result of its current use patterns. Upon receipt and review of the environmental fate data the Agency anticipates requiring, the Agency will determine the need for a down

- the

- drain drinking water

assessment.

In addition, since the product is us ed in commercial recirculating cooling water systems, the Agency anticipates that the effluent wastewater could discharge directly to surface water. As a result, t he Agency would need to model environmental concentrations and develop a drinking water risk assessment

.

Section 4 . Occupational /Residential ExposurePage | 9 An occupational and/or residential exposure assessment is required for an active ingredient if (1) certain toxicological criteria are triggered and (2) there is potential exposure to handlers (m ixers, loaders, applicators, etc.) during use or to persons entering treated sites after application is complete. For THPS , the Agency needs to select toxicological endpoints before a risk assessment can be conducted. The Agency also anticipates needing to conduct occupational dermal and inhalation risk assessments once

the needed exposure data has been submitted, reviewed, and accepted by the Agency.

Based on the available use information, AD concludes that there is potential exposure to occupational handlers from open pour/pump liquid applications for the uses in industrial processes and water systems uses and material preservative uses . In addition,

since THPS is found as a material preservative in water based coatings, pigments and

slurries

. , EPA t ypically assumes that THPS could also be used as an in

- can preserv ative in paints even though this application is not stated in the existing registered labels

. The Agency will need to confirm whether or not the manufacturer of paints is allowed. Currently the label does not prohibit this use.

The Agency confirmed that one disinfectant product exists (EPA Reg 82932

- 1). Based on this use, the Agency will need to assess more exposure scenarios. Since THPS has a disinfectant use, the Agency will need to do a ssessments such as (1) applying disinfectant by hand wiping surfaces, (2) applying the disinfectant by hand by dipping tools/implements into dilute disinfectant solution, (3) applying the disinfectant by mopping surfaces, (4) applying the disinfectant with hand

- held, high pressure spray equipment, (5) applying the disinfectant with hand

- held, low pressure spray equipment, and (6) applying with a trigger pump sprayer.

Until the labels prohibit the paint use , the Agency will assume THPS could be used on pai nts. Therefore, both occupational and residential application techniques typically associated with painting exposures (pump/pour liquids, brush/roller, and airless sprayer)

will be assessed using the labeled rates typically used to preserve the water based coatings, pigments, and slurries

. AD will assess residential handler exposure to paints assessing applications to brush/roller and airless sprayer.

Product use data provided by the registrant will be useful to clarify whether THPS

added to water base d coatings, pigments, and slurries are later formulated into paints. Based on product use data, the Agency may later decide to refine the risk assessment
scenarios and to refine ex posure assessment assumptions. If label prohibitions on paint use are put in to effec t then the Agency anticipates that painting exposure data will not be

necessary

.

T he Agency anticipates that there also may be a potential inhalation occupational and

residential post

- application exposure assessment to the degrad ate formaldehyde based on the paint and disinfectant uses

. Other inhalation post

- application exposures to THPS or from formaldehyde for use s such as oil drilling are expected to be minimal. Dermal post

application exposures for water

- treatment and other material preservati on uses such paper manufacturing or oil drilling are likely to be minimal for THPS or formaldehyde.

Hander ExposurePage | 10 Occupational Handlers

The Agency identified potential occupational handler exposures for THPS from existing registered uses on the label . The potential occupational handler risk assessments (both short

- term (1

- 30 days) and intermediate

- term (>30 days) ) by scenario that the Agency expects to conduct during registration review include:

Short

- term and Intermediate

- term Exposures

**•** Mixing/loa ding liquids for water treatment and wastewater systems (closed and open pour) , and oil field operations for short

- term and intermediate

- term dermal

and inhalation exposure ;

**•** Mixing/loading liquids for material preservatives in slurries (closed and open

pou r) such as paper and paperboard or paint for short

- term and intermediate

- term

exposures ;

Short

- term Exposures

**•** Application of in

- can preservative in paints (brush/roller and airless sprayer) resulting in dermal and inhalation exposures

.

**•** Application of i n

- can preservative in disinfectant solution (trigger pump sprayer,

hand

- held high pressure sprayer, hand

- held low pressure sprayer, mopping).

**•** Since THPS has a disinfectant use, the Agency will need to do assessments such as (1) applying disinfectant by han d wiping surfaces, (2) applying the disinfectant by hand by dipping tools/implements into dilute disinfectant solution, (3) applying the disinfectant by mopping surfaces, (4) applying the disinfectant with

hand

- held, high pressure spray equipment, (5) appl ying the disinfectant with

hand

- held, low pressure spray equipment, and (6) applying with a trigger pump

sprayer.

The methods of direct application include liquid pour and liquid pump

, brush/roller, low pressure spray, high pressure spray, mop, trigger pump spray, and airless sprayer of paint

.

Residential Handlers

Residential handler exposure (dermal and inhalation) can occur through the application of THPS preservative coatings via paintbrush /roller or sprayer application for painting , applying with a trigger pump sprayer, and mopping . The Agency expects to conduct residential handler risk assessments for these scenarios and the Agency is likely

to conduct risk assessment s only of short

- term duration (1

- 30 days).

Postapplication Exposure

Although th e vapor pressure of THPS is relatively low ( 1.7 x 10 - 3 Pa at 25 °C [ 1.3E

- 5

torr at 25 °C ] ), the Agency has concerns that THPS can hydrolyze to form formaldehyde.Page | 11 If this is the case , the Agency anticipates the need to evaluate formaldehyde exposure

resulti ng from the use of THPS treated paints and disinfectants and assess the postapplication inhalation risk from interior applications involving latex primer/paint and

disinfectants . However, the Agency at this time does not have data to ascertain the actual

a mount of formaldehyde in the preserved paint and disinfectants based on the current

lack of hydrolysis data or air monitoring data. The Agency will require chamber tests to identify emissions of THPS and formaldehyde. Actual THPS and formaldehyde

monitorin g data or air chamber studies could be used to refine the exposures and risks

estimated in this assessment. Without actual air monitoring data or hydrolysis data , AD may need to assume that 100% formaldehyde formation may occur from releases of

THPS

. A st udy is needed to ascertain the actual amount of formaldehyde formation in the preserved paint needed in order to estimate a more accurate exposure values. Dermal

post

- application exposures for uses such as water

- treatment and material preservation are

like ly to be minimal.

There are potential inhalation concerns to persons reentering areas that have been

treated with THPS disinfectant , especially following high pressure spray applications and other applications in enclosed areas. Dermal and incidental ora l postapplication exposures may occur from children crawling on treated floors, or hand

- to

- mouth exposure from counter tops and floors.

Section 5

. Aggregate and Cumulative Exposure

In examining aggregate exposure, EPA takes into account the available an d reliable information concerning exposures to pesticide residues in food and drinking water, and

non

- occupational pesticide exposures

. F ood exposures of concern are not anticipated as a

concern based on the fact that THPS is not expected to be introduced into the food; t here are no food use tolerances, no registered food uses and no indirect food uses.

The Agency expect s that it will need to conduct a residential assessment to examine application exposure to paint

. In addition, a dietary assessment will also be conducted

based on indirect food uses and as well as a drinking water assessment

. The Agency expects to conduct an aggregate risk a ssessment that will include residential , dietary and drinking water exposures

.

Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA re quires that, when considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency consider "available information” concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and "other

substances that have a common mechanism of toxi city.” EPA has not yet determined

whether THPS has a common mechanism with other compounds , consequently a cumulative assessment will not be performed

.

Section 6 . Endocrine Disruption

As required by FIFRA and FFDCA, EPA reviews numerous studies to assess potential adverse outcomes from exposure to chemicals. Collectively, these studies include acute, subchronic and chronic toxicity, including assessments of carcinogenicity,Page | 12 neurotoxicity, developmental, reproductive, and general or systemic toxicity. The se studies include endpoints which may be susceptible to endocrine influence

, including effects on endocrine target organ histopathology, organ weights, estrus cyclicity, sexual maturation, fertility, pregnancy rates, reproductive loss, and sex ratios in o ffspring. For ecological hazard assessments, EPA evaluates acute tests and chronic studies that assess growth, developmental and reproductive effects in different taxonomic groups. As part

of its registration decision

, EPA reviewed these data and selecte d the most sensitive endpoints for relevant risk assessment scenarios from the existing hazard database. However, as required by FFDCA section 408(p), THPS is subject to the endocrine screening part of the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP).

E P A has developed the EDSP to determine whether certain substances (including pesticide active and other ingredients) may have an effect in humans or wildlife similar to an effect produced by a “naturally occurring estrogen, or other such endocrine effects a s the Administrator may designate.” The EDSP employs a two

- tiered approach to making the statutorily required determinations. Tier 1 consists of a battery of 11 screening assays to identify the potential of a chemical substance to interact with the estrog en, androgen, or thyroid (E, A, or T) hormonal systems. Chemicals that go through Tier 1 screening and are found to have the potential to interact with E, A, or T hormonal systems will proceed to the next stage of the EDSP where EPA will determine which, if any, of the Tier 2 tests are necessary based on the available data. Tier 2 testing is designed to identify any adverse endocrine

- related effects caused by the substance, and establish a

dose

- response relationship between the dose and the E, A, or T effe ct.

Under FFDCA section 408(p), the Agency must screen all pesticide chemicals. Between October 2009 and February 2010, EPA issued test orders/data call

- ins for the first group of 67 chemicals, which contains 58 pesticide active ingredients and 9 inert

i ngredients. THPS is not among the group of 58 pesticide active ingredients on the initial list to be screened under the EDSP. Accordingly, as part of registration review,

EPA will issue future EDSP orders/data call

- ins, requiring the submission of EDSP screening assays for THPS. For further information on the status of the EDSP, the policies and procedures, the list of 67 chemicals, future lists, the test guidelines and the Tier 1 screening battery, please visit our website: http://www.epa.gov/endo/

.

Section 7

. Incidents

There has been one reported human incidents in the OPP database that has been associated with exposure to THPS and appears to be a result of a misuse

.

Section 8 . Anticipated Data Needs

The Antimicrobial Division (AD) anticipates the need for additional human health

data for THPS . The Agency expects to need the following toxicology study (utility and rationale provided in Appendix A).

Toxicology Data NeedsPage | 13 AD anticipate s that a 90

- day i nha lation toxicity study (Series 870.3465) will be

needed.

Occupational and Residential Exposure Data Needs

AD anticipates the need for the following occupational and residential exposure

data for THPS :

**•** Dermal Exposure (Outdoor and Indoor) (GDLN 875.1100 and 875.1200) ;

**•** Inhalation Exposure (Outdoor and Indoor) (GDLN 875.1300 and 875.1400) ;

**•** Data Reporting and Calculations (GDLN 875.1600) ; and

**•** Product Use Information (GDLN 875.1700)

.

Post Application Exposure Data Needs

If sufficient quantities of THPS deg radate are identified in a hydrolysis study, the Agency may also need air monitoring data and will likely call in the following data to examine THPS and formaldehyde inhalation exposure. The studies anticipated as needed would

be:

**•** (GDLN 875.2500 ) Inhalatio n Exposure ;

**•** (GDLN 875.2300) Indoor Surface Residue Dissipation;

**•** (GDLN 875.2700 ) Product Use Information , and

**•** (GDLN 875.2900 Data Reporting and Calculations

.

Section 9 . Tolerances

There are no pesticide food use tolerances for the active ingredient for these indoor nonfood uses nor are any tolerances needed since this use is supported by FDA under Section 409 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). However, exemptions and regulations for food additives under Section 409 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) do not relieve the registrant of meeting the standard under Section 408 as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA).

It should be noted that a food contact substance notification (FCN No. 955) was submitted b y the registrant to FDA on 6/17/2010 to allow THPS at levels not to exceed 400 ppm in water based coatings, starches, pigments, and filler substances. THPS is also

registered by FDA in 21 CFR §176.300 as a slim i cide in paper/paperboard at a m aximum

use le vel of 84 mg/kg in the pulp slurry. The additive may also be added to water, which when introduced into the pulp slurry, results in a concentration in the pulp slurry not to exceed 84 mg/kg. The registered labels with paper and paperboard uses state that the concentrations of THPS in the registered p aper and paperboard products cannot exceed

84 ppm.

Section 10 . Overall Conclusions

The Agency reviewed the hazard and exposure databases for THPS and anticipate s that additional toxicology and exposure data will be needed

. In addition, the AgencyPage | 14 anticipates additional environmental fate data will also be needed [ see Environmental Fate and Ecological Assessment (D383030)] to assess the need to conduct a down the drain drinking water assessment

. Depending on the outcome of the review and acceptance of the new exposure and toxicological data, the Agency anticipates the need

t o conduct new occupational and residential handler assessments . Depending on the outcome of the review and acceptable of new environmenta l data and water modeling, the Agency anticipates the need to conduct new drinking water assessments for registration

review

. If formaldehyde is present in sufficient quantities in THPS formulated paint

, then an inhalation postapplication assessment would likely be needed to assess the inhalation risks of formaldehyde

. Finally, t he EPA also anticipates that dietary and

aggregate assessment s will be needed to ensure that THPS registration review case meet s the safety standards established by FFDCA, as amend ed by FQPA.

Section 1 1 . Reference

D383030. Summary of the Tetrakis (hydroxymethyl) phosphonium sulfate (THPS) Product Chemistry, Environmental Fate, and Ecotoxicity Data for the Registration Review Decision Document. Memorandum from Najm Shamim, U.S. EPA to Eliza Blair, U.S. EPA. January 1 2 , 2011.

D257896 . Tetrakis (hydroxymethyl) phosphonium sulfate (THPS) . Risk assessment for use of the active ingredient in manufacturer of food contact paper. Memorandum from T. McMahon, Ph.D. to M.Swindell, U.S. EP A.Appendix A: Toxicity Guideline Study Justifications

Guideline Numbers: 870. 3465 Study Titles: 90

- day I nhalation T oxicity S tudy Rationale for Requiring the Data The Agency does not have a full picture of the potential effects which THPS could occu r as a result of exposure via the inhalation route. The needed study which was not previously available would provide insight into concerns regarding toxicity via the inhalation route. It may also provide a toxicity endpoint applicable to an inhalation r isk assessment. The Agency previously used an oral toxicological endpoint from a maternal toxicity endpoint from a developmental study and assumed 100% absorption. Inhalation exposure is high for workers who apply paint through airless sprayers and brushes

. These applicators would likely to be exposed to aerosols from paint applications. In addition, a n inhalation study is required to address uncertainties around the inhalation toxicity to refine the Agency’s risk assessment. Currently for inhalation exp osures an extra 10 X uncertainty factor is added for a lack of an inhalation toxicity endpoint. The study may result in a change in how risks are quantified and removal of a 10X uncertainty. The data would allow the Agency to conclude more definitively wh ether or not there would be any concerns for inhalation toxicity in the rat. This would provide a more complete hazard characterization of THPS in regards to the potential risks to the U.S. general population.

Practical Utility of the Data

How will da ta be used? An inhalation study may result in changes to the endpoints and how the risks are quantified.

How could the data impact the Agency’s future decision

- making? The study would form the foundation for hazard characterization and toxicity endpoint s selection for risk assessment through all exposure routes (oral, inhalation, and dermal). The data would allow the Agency to conclude more definitively whether or not there would be any concerns for

inhalation toxicity in rodent species. It is possible that the database uncertainty factor be reduced or removed, resulting in different magnitude of the value of the endpoint used for regulation. . In many cases, toxicity observed via the inhalation route is higher than toxicity observed via oral

exposure, which means that the route

- to

- route extrapolation used in the RED risk assessment

could have resulted in an underestimation of risks from inhalation

. It is particularly important to properly assess inhalation risks for THPS because there is high inhalatio n exposure for workers applying paints.Page | 16 Appendix B: Exposure Guideline Study Justifications

Guideline Numbers: 875.1100 and 875.1200 Study Titles: Dermal Exposure (Indoor and Outdoor) Rationale for Requiring the Data
Note: Dermal exposure data a re needed for both residential and occupational uses. The selection of an outdoor versus an indoor site is based on the high end exposure scenario. In almost all cases, repeating an exposure study for the same scenario outdoors and indoors is not necessa ry.

The potential for dermal exposure is very likely for exposure scenarios involving open pouring liquids and painting applications . The existing CMA data base and PHED for these scenarios are limited in scope for QA/QC and number of monitoring units. EPA presented the need for additional handler exposure data to the January 2007 Science Advisory Panel (SAP) as well as to the April 2007 Human Studies Review Board (HSRB) and both groups agreed that additional data

are warranted.

The criteria for the de rmal exposure data are based on the potential for dermal exposure from the labeled uses (e.g., occupational workers using paints and leather working fluids ) and evidence of toxicity. If the toxicological endpoints from THPS are used to assess the risks, t here is an endpoint

selected for the dermal route

Practical Utility of the Data

1. How will the data be used?

The dermal exposure data will be used to assess dermal exposures from open pouring of preservatives and application of paints and disinfectan ts . For occupational uses, the dermal exposure data will be used to assess the short

- , and intermediate

- term exposures. The dermal exposure data will be used to determine the accuracy of the dermal risks to both residence and occupational workers.

2. H ow could the data impact the Agency’s future decision

- making?

If risks warrant mitigation, the dermal exposure data will provide the types of mitigation necessary such as chemical resistant gloves or closed systems for commercial uses, or potential remova l of

uses from the label.

Guideline Numbers: 875.1300 and 875.1400 Study Titles: Inhalation Exposure (Indoor and Outdoor) Rationale for Requiring the Data
Note: Inhalation exposure data are needed for both residential and occupational uses. The

sele ction of an outdoor versus an indoor site is based on the high end exposure scenario (for inhalation the selection is typically indoors). In almost all cases, repeating an exposure study for the same scenario outdoors and indoors is not necessary.

The in halation exposure route is very important for exposure scenarios such application of paints where aerosols would be generated. In addition, inhalation exposures from application are evident in exposure studies in the Pesticide Handlers Exposure Database ( PHED). The significance of these exposures is directly affected by the severity of the inhalation toxicological endpoint of concern. At this point in time, no toxicological data are available to assess the inhalation risk. The existing Chemical Manufactu rer Association (CMA) data base and PHED for these scenarios are limited in scope for QA/QC and number of monitoring units. EPA presented the need for additional handler exposure data to the January 2007 Science Advisory Panel (SAP) as well as toPage | 17 the Apri l 2007 Human Studies Review Board (HSRB) and both groups agreed that additional data

are warranted.

The criteria for the inhalation exposure data are based on the potential for respiratory exposure from the labeled uses (e.g., exposure to application of paints ) and evidence of toxicity. If no toxicological endpoints of concern were identified, then the inhalation exposure data would not be

needed.

Practical Utility of the Data

1. How will the data be used?

The inhalation exposure data would be used to assess the residential short

- term duration of painting with a paint brush/roller and an airless sprayer. For occupational uses, the inhalation exposure data

would be used to assess the short

- and intermediate

- term as well as pouring a preservative in

m anufacturing settings, and preservation of leather preservative solutions).

2. How could the data impact the Agency’s future decision

- making?

If risks warrant mitigation, the inhalation exposure data will provide the types of mitigation necessary such as dust mist respirators, full face respirators or closed systems for commercial uses, or potential removal of uses from the label.

Guideline Numbers: 875.1600 Study Title: Data Reporting and Calculations Rationale for Requiring the Data For all exp osure studies this data need is needed to facilitate the review of the data. The study report and all raw data/calculations would be reviewed for the adequacy of the

data.

Practical Utility of the Data

1. How will the data be used?

The data are needed to interpret the dermal and inhalation exposure data collected.

2. How could the data impact the Agency’s future decision

- making?

This data need is triggered if an exposure study is conducted. It would aid the Agency to make accurate interpretations of the studies to develop an accurate and refined risk assessment and refined mitigation.

Guideline Numbers: 875.1700 Study Title: Product Use Information Rationale for Requiring the Data Product use information is a description of how the product is act ually applied; it is not a field study. A description of how this product is used would provide for a comprehensive realistic assessment of its potential applications. The description of the application techniques would be used to define the exposure scen arios to be assessed in the risk

assessment. Practical Utility of the DataPage | 18 1. How will the data be used?

A complete description of product use would ensure that the risk assessment is inclusive of the types of exposures occurring during residential an d occupational use.

2. How could the data impact the Agency’s future decision

- making?

The need for a risk assessment as needed under Registration Review would require that the risk assessor understands how the product is applied.

Guideline Number: 875.2 5 00 Study Title: Inhalation Exposure Rationale for Requiring the Data

The post application inhalation exposure may be required if it is determined t hat the use of these products have the potential to release formadehyde during the product use conditions (e.g., formaldehyde emissions from paint ).

Practical Utility of the Data Guideline Number : 8 75.2300 Study Title: Indoor Surface Residue Dissipation Rationale for Requiring the Data

Based on the use of OBPCP as a hard surface disinfectant for countertops, human contact to treated countertops may occur. There are no data available to estimate e xposure to adults and children from exposure to treated countertops , floors, carpets and clothing with OBPCP

. Practical Utility of the Data

1. How will the data be used? Without data, the Agency will conduct a screening level assessment using a conserva tive surface residue value of 1 mg/cm 2 . Currently, there are no data that can be used to estimate exposure to adults or to children exposed to treated wood. These data will be used to refine the Agency’s risk

assessment and to confirm or refute the Agenc y’s screening level assessment.

2. How could the data impact the Agency’s future decision

- making? Depending on the results of the dislodgeable residue study, the Agency may pursue risk mitigation measures regarding the use of formulated products containi ng OBPCP as the active ingredient in occupational and residential scenarios.Page | 19 1. How will the data be used? The post application inhalation exposure d ata will be used to assess the residential and/or occupational inhalation risks to formaldehyde emissions from paint if released based on product

use. For example, the use of paint and disinfectant is expected to trigger an inhalation postappl ication ass essments.

2. How could the data impact the Agency’s future decision

- making? The inhalation exposure data will be used to determine the accuracy of the post application inhalation risks to occupational bystanders. If risks warrant mitigation, the inhalat ion exposure data will provide the types of mitigation necessary such as respiratory protection from respirators or closed systems for commercial uses to potential removal of uses from the label.

Guideline Number: 875.2700 Study Title: Product Use

Rati onale for Requiring the Data

A description of how products containing THPS are used will provide a comprehensive, realistic assessment of its potential applications. Product use information for the post application data is a description of what type of c onsumer products are treated; it is not a field study (guideline no. 875.2700). A description of what types of consumer products are treated, specifically what types of leather and paints, will provide a comprehensive, realistic assessment of potential po st application exposures. Therefore, these data are required.

Product use information assists EPA to more accurately assess pesticide exposure to applicators by describing how the pesticide is actually used and applied. EPA requires this information becau se differences in use can translate to significant differences in exposure, and thus in risk.

The guideline for post

- application product use information was presented to the FIFRA Science Advisory Panel (SAP) in March 1998. (The draft guideline is availa ble at http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/meetings/1998/march/contents.htm .). T he guideline for applicator product use information should be substantially similar to the one for post

- application.

Practical Utility of the Data

1. How will the data be used?

A complete description of product use would ensure that the risk assessment is inclusive of the types of exposures occurring during residential and occupational use. The li sting of the end use consumer products would be used to define the exposure scenarios to be assessed in the risk assessment. For example, if the use for leather is used to make clothes or if the preservative is used in inks then a postapplication assessme nt may need to be considered.

2. How could the data impact the Agency’s future decision

- making? A complete description of consumer products treated would ensure that the risk assessment is inclusive of the types of exposures occurring during residential use. The need for a risk assessment as needed under Registration Review would require that the risk assessor understands how the product is applied.Page | 20 Guideline Number: 875. 29 00 Data Requirement: Data Reporting and Calculations
Rationale for Requiring the Data For all exposure studies, these data are needed occupationally and in the residential setting to

facilitate the review of the data.
Practical Utility of the Data

1. How will the data be used? The study report and all raw data/calculations w ill be reviewed for the adequacy of the data.

2 . How could the data impact the Agency’s future decision

- making? The data are needed to define and interpret the inhalation and dermal exposure data collected. This data need is triggered any time an expos ure study is conducted. It would aid the Agency to make accurate interpretations of the studies to develop an accurate and refined risk assessment and refined mitigation.