### UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY AND

POLLUTION PREVENTION



## MEMORANDUM

DATE :

SUBJECT: December 29,2014



## Cb l orpyrifos : Updated Occupational and Residential Exposu r e Assessment for Registration Review

PC Code: 059101


## Petition No.: NA



## TXRNo.: NA 

## DP Barcode: D424484 

## Registration Nos.: NA 

## Regulatory Action: Regi stration Re v iew


## Risk Assessment Type: Single

Chemical Aggregate



## MRIDN o .: NA 

## CAS No.: 2921-88

- 2

FROM: Wade Britton, MPH, Indu stria l Hygienist

Risk Assessment Branch V (RABV)

Health Effects Divi sio n (HED; 7509P)

Office of Pesticide Programs

THROUGH: Michael Metzger

, Chief

TO: RABV and RABVII/HED (7509P)

And



# · - L

_

. Kelly O'Rourke, ExpoSAC Reviewer 

# fjl''- Lata Venkateshwara

, ExpoSAC Reviewer
Exposure Science Advisory Committee (ExpoSAC) / HED

Kevin Costello

, Branch Chief

Joel Wolf, Chemical Review Manager

Risk Management and Implementation Branch II (RM IBII)

Pesticide Re-evaluation Division (PRD; 7508P)

Office of Pesticide Programs

## Page 2 of 227

## Page 3 of 227

The purpose of this memorandum is to update the previous assessment completed June 2011, Chlorpyrifos: Occupational and Residential Exposure Assessment (W. Britton, D388165) . This

document reflects the following changes : use of the physiologically based pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic (PBPK

- PD ) model submitted by DowAgroSciences to predict the potential risks from chlorpyrifos exposures ; refinement of use patterns based on a master use summary document developed for chlorpyrifos in cooperation with chlorpyrifos registrants (Appendix A) ; consideration of an updated

hazard characterization based on the use of the PBPK

- PD model; and updates to applicabl e EPA exposure assessment policies

. 1



### Note: This memorandum was reviewed by the Exposure Science Advisory Committee (ExpoSAC) on

12/11/2014

.

1 

### http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/science/handler

- exposure

- data.html

, http://www.epa.gov/pesticides /science/post

app

- exposure

- data.html , and http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/science/residential

- exposure

- sop.html

## Page 4 of 227

Table of Contents



## 1.0 Executive Summary

................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 6

2.0 Risk Assessment Conclusions and Recommendations

................................ ...................... 12

2.1 Summary of Risk Estimates

................................ ................................ ........................... 12

2.2 Data Deficiencies and Requirements

................................ ................................ ............. 12

3.0 Hazard Characterization

................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 13

4.0 Use Profile

................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 16

5.0 Residential Exposure and Risk Estimates

................................ ................................ .......... 17

5.1 Residential Handler Exposure/Risk Estimates

................................ ............................... 18

5.2 Residential Post

- application Exposure/Risk Estimates

................................ .................. 18

5.3 Residential Risk Estimates and Recommendations for Aggregate Assessment

............ 24

5.4 Residential Bystander Post

- Application Inhalation Exposure

................................ ....... 25

5.5 Residential Dose Reconstruction for the Columbia Cohort

................................ ........... 27

6.0 Occupational Exposure and Ri sk Estimates

................................ ................................ ...... 30

6.1 Occupational Handler Exposure/Risk Estimates

................................ ............................ 30

6.2 Commercial Seed Treatment

................................ ................................ .......................... 36

6.3 Occupational Post

- application Exposure/Risk Estimates

................................ .............. 37

6.3.1 Occupational Post

- application Inhalation Exposure/Risk Estim ates

.......................... 37

6.3.2 Occupational Post

- application Dermal Exposure/Risk Estimates

.............................. 38

6.4 Occupational Post

- application Dermal Exposure/Risk Estimates: Chlorpyrifos Oxon

.... 40

Appendix A: Chlorpyrifos Master Label Use Document

................................ ............................ 42

Appendix B: Residential Post

- Application Dermal Steady State Exposure and Risk Estimates from Golfing

- Post

- application Dermal Algorithm

................................ ................................ ..... 88

Appendix C: Residential Post

- application Dermal, Inhalation, and Hand

- to

- Mouth Exposures and Risks from Chlorpyrifos Mosquitocide Application

- 2012 Residential SOP Algorithms; Use of Well Mixed Box Model; AgDisp (V8.2.6) Inputs

................................ ................................ .... 92

Appendix D. Summaries of Adult and Childr en 1 to < 2 Years Old Spray Drift Risk Estimates and Buffers for Chlorpyrifos

................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 99

Appendix E: Detailed Background Information on Columbia Cohort Dose Reconstruction

.... 118

Appendix F: Summary of Occupational Handler Risk Estimates

................................ ............. 132

Appendix G: Dermal and Inhalation Unit Exposures Use for Chlorpyrifos Occupational Handler

Assessment

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 161

Appendix H: Summary of Chlorpyrifos Seed Treatment and Secondary Handler Exposure and

Risks

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 167

## Page 5 of 227

Appendix I: Occupational Post

- application Exposure Data Summaries

................................ ... 179

Appendix J: Summary of Occupational Post

- Application Risks

................................ ............... 197

## Page 6 of 227

1.0 Executive Summary

Chlorpyrifos (0,0

- diethyl

- 0

- 3,5,6

- trichloro

- 2

- pyridyl phosphorothioate) is a broad

- spectrum, organophosphate (OP) insecticide that was first registered in 1965 to control folia r

- and soil

- borne insect pests on a variety of food crops (including fruit and nut trees, many types of fruits and vegetables, and grain crops) and feed crops. Currently registered uses of chlorpyrifos result in the potential for occupational and residential exposures. Chlorpyrifos is formulated as a granular, microencapsulate d liquid

, soluble concentrate liquid , water dispersible granular in water soluble packets (WSP)

, and as wettable powder packaged in WSP . It is also included in paints, cattle ear tags and single use insect bait stations. A wide variety of mixing and application techniques have been identified for chlorpyrifos

associated with its agricultural use such as aerial and tractor

- drawn equipment, open and closed mixing/loading, and applications via hand hel d equipment. Applications of chlorpyrifos also include soil incorporated/directed uses, drench/dip, and seed treatments

. In 2001, all chlorpyrifos residential uses were voluntarily cancelled except for ant and roach baits in child

- resistant packaging. H owever, uses remain for that could result in non

- dietary exposure in the general population including a public health mosquito adulticide for aerial and ground

- based fogger and for golf course turf applications.

In addition to including currently label ed exposure scenarios

, a separate assessment was conducted to

consider a retrospective dose reconstruction of the exposures which could have potentially occurred as a result of previous chlorpyrifos use in indoor residential environments (e.g., broadcast , aerosol and crack and crevice sprays). This is an important element of the interpretation of the results for the Columbia University cohort which is discussed in detail in the associated risk assessment document and in the 2012

FIFRA SAP

. 2



### Exposure Dat a

It is a gency policy to use the best available data to assess exposure. Chemical

- spec ific dislodgeable foliar

residue (DFR) studies were used for the assessment of occupational post

- application exposure to chlorpyrifos including: emulsifiable concentrat e formulations on sugarbeets, pecans, citrus, sweet corn, cotton, and turf; wettable powder formulations on almonds, apples, pecans, cauliflower, tomato and turf; granular formulations on sweet corn and turf; a total release aerosol formulation on ornamen tals; and a microencapsulated liquid formulation on ornamentals.

Several sources of generic data were used in this assessment as surrogate data including: Pesticide Handlers Exposure Database Version 1.1 (PHED 1.1); the Agricultural Handler Exposure Task Force (AHETF) database; the Outdoor Residential Exposure Task Force (ORETF) database; the Agricultural Reentry Task Force (ART F) database; ExpoSAC Policy 14 [Standard Operatin g Procedures ( SOPs ) for Seed Treatment] ; HED’s 2012 Residential SOPs for Residential Pesticide Exposure Assessment : Lawns/Turf , Outdoor Fogging/Misting Systems

, registrant

- submitted exposure monitoring studies MRID s 44180401 , 44301301

, 44793301, 44829601, 42974501, 43062701, 44748101, 44748102, 46722701, and

46722702

, and published literature stud ies . Some of these data are proprietary, and subject to the data protection provisions of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act ( FIFRA).

Hazard

The hazard assessment for chlorpyrifos has undergone significant change since the 2011 preliminary human health risk assessment. While cholinesterase inhibition remains the endpoint of concern for chlorpyrifos, how it has been considered has been altered based on the use of the PBPK

- PD model. In typical risk assessmen ts, points of departure (PoDs) are derived from laboratory animal studies, and inter

-

2 

### http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/meetings/2012/041012meeting.html

## Page 7 of 227

and intra

- species extrapolation is accomplished by use of 10X factors. In the case of chlorpyrifos and the oxon, the PBPK

- PD model provides the opportunity to use a data

- derived approach (USEPA, 2014). Specifically, the PBPK

- PD model accounts for PK and PD characteristics to derive age, duration, and

route

- specific human equivalent doses or concentrations, depending on the route of exposure, which serve

as the Poin ts of Departure (PODs) for risk assessment purposes. Consistent with EPA’s cholinesterase policy, acetyl cholinesterase (AChE) inhibition at a level of 10% is considered an adverse effect which is used as the threshold of regulation. The PBPK

- PD model wa s used to define what dose level results in

10% red blood cell ( RBC ) AChE inhibition following 21 sequential days of exposure for a variety of occupational and residential scenarios and lifestages. Once defined, margins of exposure (MOEs) were

calculated using typical exposure assessment methods which use these scenario

- and lifestage

- specific PoDs and direct comparison to applicable exposures.

Use of the PBPK

- PD model also impacts how uncertainty factors are defined for risk assessment; a total

uncert ainty factor of 4 0X was applied [1X f or interspecies extrapolation, 4 X for intraspecies variation, 10X FQPA safety factor] for all populations assessed but adults (females). For adults (females), a total uncertainty factor of 100X was applied [ 1 X f or inte rspecies extrapolation, 10 X for intraspecies variation, 10X FQPA safety factor]. Typically, the a gency uses animal studies for selection of PoDs and, as such, retains a 10X interspecies factor for extrapolation of the animal data to assess human health. H owever, with use of the PBPK

- PD model which accounts for the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic differences between animals and humans to derive PoDs, it is appropriate to reduce the interspecies factor

to 1X.

For all populations but women who may be p regnant, a 4X uncertainty factor has been retained for

variation within in the hum an population. Typically, the a gency retains a 10X factor to account for this variation. However, for this assessment EPA’s Data

- Derived Extrapolation Factor (DDEF) guidanc e (USEPA, 2014), in conjunction with the PBPK

- PD model, was used to calculate a DDEF intra

- species extrapolation. In this approach, administered doses leading to the response level of interest (10% change in RBC AChE inhibition) are compared between a meas ure of average response and response at the tail of the distribution representing sensitive individuals. Based on the 99 th 

### percentile of the distributions, the

DDEF for intra

- species extrapolation is 4X for chlorpyrifos and 5X for the oxon (Dow, 2014b ). F or this revised risk assessment, the 99th percentile is being used to account for variation of sensitivity (i.e., the

intra

- species factor used in the risk assessment is 4X for chlorpyrifos and 5X for the oxon for all groups except women who are pregnant o r may become pregnant for whom the 10X intra

- species factor was retained).

While the current PBPK

- PD model accounts for age

- related growth from infancy to adulthood by using polynomial equations to describe tissue volumes and blood flows as a function of age, the model does not include any descriptions on physiological, anatomical and biochemical changes associated with pregnancy. Due to the uncertainty in extrapolating the current model predictions among women of child bearing age, the a gency is applying the standard 10X intra

- species extrapolation factor for women of childbearing age. For all other relevant populations, the a gency has reliable data to reduce the standard

10x intra

- species factor.

For all populations assessed including infants, children, youths, and women of childbearing age, the FQPA 10X safety factor is retained. The 10X FQPA safety factor was retained based on the conclusion that, given the totality of evidence, chlorpyrifos likely played a role in the neurodevelopmental outc omes reported by the Columbia University investigators but uncertainties such as the lack of an established MOA/AOP for neurodevelopmental effects and the exposure to multiple AChE

- inhibiting pesticides precludes definitive causal inference. However, ther e is sufficient uncertainty in the human dose

response relationship for neurodevelopmen tal effects which prevents the a gency from reducing or

## Page 8 of 227

removing the statutory 10X FQPA Safety Factor

. 3



### Like other OPs, chlorpyrifos exhibits a phenomenon known as ste ady state AChE inhibition. After repeated dosing at the same dose level, the degree of inhibition comes into equilibrium with the production of new, uninhibited enzyme. At this point, the amount of AChE inhibition at a given dose

remains consistent across duration. In general, OPs reach steady state within 2

- 3 weeks but this can vary among OPs. Thus, for most of the human health risk assessments for the OPs, the agency is focusing on the critical durations range from a single day up to 21 days ( i.e. , the a pproximate time to reach steady state for most OPs).

Residential Handler Exposure and Risk

Based upon review of all chlorpyrifos registered uses, only the roach bait products can be applied by a homeowner in a residential setting; however, a quantitative exposure/risk assessment for application of the roach bait products was not conducted becaus e the potential for these types of handler exposure s are negligible. With roach bait stations the active ingredient is contained with in the bait station, therefore limiting contact with the active ingredient in the product.

Residential Post

- application Exposure and Risk

Chlorpyrifos can be used in areas frequented by the general population including ant mounds, golf

courses , and as an aerial or ground

- based mosquito adulticide applied by a public agency made in

residential areas. As a result, individuals could be exposed by entering these areas if they have been previously treated. Post

- application exposure from ant mound treatments, which are applied by professional only, was not quantitatively assessed because contact with the mound is not anticipated.

The assessment of steady state golfer post

- application exposures (dermal only) to chlorpyrifos treated turf for the lifestages adults, children 6 to < 11 year s old, and youths 11 to < 16 year s old, results in no risks of concern (i.e

., children 6 to < 11 and youth 11 to < 16 years old, MOEs are ≥ 4 0 ; adults, MOEs are ≥ 100 ). For the assessment of post

- application exposures from public health mosquitocide applications, no

combined risks of concern were identified for adults (dermal an d inhalation) and children 1 to < 2 years

old (dermal, incidental oral, and inhalation)

.

Residential Bystander Post

- Application Inhalation Exposure

In the 2011 occupational and residential exposure assessment the potential risks to bystanders from spray drift and exposure from volatilization were identified as possible concerns. The potential risks from spray drift and the impact of potential risk reduc tion measures were assessed in July 2012. 4 

### To increase

prote ction for children and other bystanders, chlorpyrifos technical registrants voluntarily agreed to lower application rates and to other spray drift mitigation measures. 5 

### As of December 2012 , spray drift mitigation measures and use restrictions appear on al l chlorpyrifos agricultural product labels. Because

the use of the PBPK

- PD model impacts spray drift risk estimates

, an updated assessment was conducted.

3 

### The decision on the FQPA safety factor is described in greater detail in the 2014 Chlorpyrifos Final Human Health Risk Assessment, D424485. Please also refer to this document regarding how the PBPK

- PD model was considered and implemented.

4 

### J. Dawson, W. Britton, R. Bohaty, N. Mallampalli, and A. Grube. Chlorpyrifos : Evaluation of the Potential Risks from Spray Drift and the Impact of Potential Risk Reduction Measures. 7/13/12. U.S. EPA Office of Che mical Safety and Pollution Prevention

. D399483, D39 9485.

5 

### R. Keigwin. Spray Drift Mitigation Decision for Chlorpyrifos (059101). 7/2012. U.S. EPA Office of Che mical Safety and Pollution Prevention

. EPA

- HQ

- OPP

- 2008

- 0850

- 0103.

## Page 9 of 227

The resulting buffer distances (feet) necessary to reach the level of concern for adults and childre n 1 to < 2 years old (i.e., adults, MOEs are ≥ 100; children 1 to < 2 years old, MOEs are ≥ 4 0) with use of certain application rates, nozzle droplet types, and application methods range from 0 to 25 feet and are less than those previously predicted

.

In January 2013, a preliminary assessment of the potential risks from volatilization was conducted

. 6 

### The assessment evaluated the potential risks to bystanders, or those who live and/or work in proximity to treated fields, from inhalation exposure to vapor phase chlorpyrifos and chlorpyrifos

- oxon emitted from fields following application of chlorpyrifos. The results of the January 2013 assessment indicated that offsite concentrations of chlorpyrifos and chlorpyrifos

- oxon may exceed the target concentration based on the toxicological endpoints used at that time. 7



### Following the release of the preliminary volatilization assessment, Dow AgroSciences LLC conducted two, high quality nose

- only vapor phase inhalation studies for both chlorpyrifos and chlorpyrifos

- o xon. 8 

### These data sought to address the uncertainty of using an aerosol based chlorpyrifos toxicity study, as was done in the preliminary assessment, to assess the potential risks from field volatization.

These toxicity studies indicate there is no ha zard when exposed to chlorpyrifos or its oxon in its vapor phase since at saturated concentrations no statistically significant inhibition of AChE activity was measured in RBC, plasma, lung, or brain at any time after the six

- hour exposure period in either study.

Because these new studies demonstrated that no toxicity occurred even at the saturation concentration

, which is the highest physically achievable concentration

, then there is no risk potential

, as risk is a function of both exposure and hazard. By extension, if there is no risk due to exposure to chlorpyrifo s or chlorpyrifos oxon, only a qualitative risk assessment was completed for volatilization. In June 2014, the January 2013 volatilization assessment was revised to reflect these findings. 9



### Dose Reconstruction for Potential Exposures in Columbia University Cohort

In an effort to better understand the potential exposure patterns in the Columbia University study cohort and their influence on the health outcomes identified in the research, a separate dose reconstruction residential exposure analysis was conducted for pregnant women and young children (i.e., 1 to < 2 years old). The exposure patterns and potential health outcomes could not be adequately defined for EPA’s

6 

### R. Bohaty, C. Peck, A. Lowit, W. Britton, N. Mallampalli, A. Grube. Chlor pyrifos: Preliminary Evaluation of the

Potential Risks from Volatilization. 1/31/13. U.S. EPA Office of Che mical Safety and Pollution Prevention

. D399484, D400781.

7 

### EPA MRID # 48139303 : Acute Inhalatio n Exposure of Adult Crl:CD(SD) Rates to P articulate C hlorpyrifos

A erosols: Kinetics of Concentration

- Dependent Cholinesterase ( ACHE ) Inhibition in Red Blood Cells, Plasma, Brain and Lung; Authors: J. A. Hotchkiss, S. M. Krieger, K. A. Brzak, and D. L. Rick; Sponsor: Dow AgroSciences

LLC

. 8 

### W. Irw in. Review of Nose

- Only Inhalation of Chlorpyrifos Vapor: Limited Toxicokinetics and Determination of

Time

- Dependent Effects on Plasma, Red Blood Cell, Brain and Lung Cholinesterase Activity in Femal CD(SD): Crl

Rats . U.S. EPA Office of Che mical Safety an d Pollution Prevention

. 6/25/14 . D411959. TXR# 0056694. EPA

MRID# 49119501.

W. Irwin. Review of Nose

- Only Inhalation of Chlorpyrifos

- Oxon Vapor: Limited Toxicokinetics and Determination

of Time

- Dependent Effects on Plasma, Red Blood Cell, Brain, and Lung Cholinesterase Activity in Female CD(SD):Crl Rats . U.S. EPA Office of Che mical Safety and Pollution Prevention

. 6/25/14 . D415447. TXR#

0056869. EPA MRID# 49210101.

9 

### W. Britton. W. Irwin. J. Dawson. A. Lowit. E. Mendez. Chlorpyrifos: Reevaluation of the Potential Risks from Volatilization in Consideration of Chlorpyrifos Parent and Oxon Vapor Inhalation Toxicity Studies. 6/25/2014. U.S.

EPA Office of Che mical Safety and Pollution Prevention

. D 417105.

## Page 10 of 227

purposes based on the available information presented in the Columbia University research. In orde r to further evaluate the chlorpyrifos exposure potential within the Columbia study cohort, the products likely used during the time of study conduct served as the basis for the analysis. EPA’s 2012 Standard Operating Procedures for Residential Pesticide Exposure Assessment 10 

### were used as the ba sis of this

exercise to estimate exposures. The resulting exposures were then evaluated using the PBPK

- PD model to quantify peak RBC AChE inhibition for the Columbia study cohort.

Resulting p eak RBC AChE inhibition for pregnant women was 0.45%. For children 1 to < 2 years old, peak RBC AChE inhibition was 2.7%. Overall, the dose reconstruction results support a conclusion that indoor application of chlorpyrifos, when used as allowed prior to cancellation from the residential marketplace in 2000, likely would not have resulted in RBC AChE inhibition greater than 10% in pregnant women or young children. These findings are pertinent to the weight

- of

- evidence discussion for the FQPA 10X Safety F actor.

Occupational Handler Exposure and Risk

Steady state exposure and risks were calculated for occupational handlers of chlorpyrifos for a variety of exposure scenarios at differing levels of personal protection and with engineering controls

. PBPK

- P D modeled PoDs (dermal and inhalation) specific for occupational exposure scenario assessment were used

to estimate handler risks. For the chlorpyrifos occupational risk assessment, the residue of concern is the parent chlorpyrifos . Exposure to the oxon is only an issue under very limited circumstances in greenhouses for postapplication workers.

Current labels generally require that handlers use normal work clothing (i.e., long sleeved shirt and pants, shoes and socks) and coveralls, chemical resistant gloves, and dust/mist respirators. Also, some products are marketed in engineering controls such as WSPs . In order to determine what level of personal protection is required to alleviate risk concerns and to ascertain if label modifications are needed, steady state exposure and risk estimates were calculated for occupational handlers of chlorpyrifos for a variety of scenarios at differing levels of personal protection including engineering controls.

Of the 285 total occupational handler exposure scena rios assess ed, 132 are not of concern (i.e., MOEs are ≥ 100) at the levels of personal protection (clothing or equipment) or engineering controls currently required by product labeling for these scenarios. Risks of concern for 27 additional exposure scena rios could potentially be mitigated if additional personal protective equipment or engineering controls are

used. Risks of concern were estimated for 126 exposure scenarios and remain a concern regardless of the levels of personal protection and engineeri ng controls considered. These risks could be mitigated using the highest level of personal protection available and by modification to other label requirements such as application rate or, in some cases, deleting certain types of application equipment.

Co mmercial Seed Treatment

Steady state exposure and risks were calculated for occupational handlers performing seed treatment activities in commercial settings and for occupational secondary handlers from planting chlorpyrifos

treated seeds. Of the 68 expo sure scenarios assessed, 36 resulted in risk estimates which were not of concern (i.e., MOEs are ≥ 100) at the level of personal protection currently required by product label s

. Secondary handler (seed planter) scenarios were also evaluated and none are o f concern when compared to current label personal protection requirements. For the remaining 32 seed treatment scenarios, MOEs

were < 100 at all level s of personal protection considered and, therefore, are of potential concern.

10 

### http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/sc ience/USEPA

- OPP

- HED_Residential%20SOPs_Oct2012.pdf

## Page 11 of 227

Occupational Post

- application Exposure and Risk

S teady state occupational post

- application exposures and risks were assessed for any crops where hand labor is anticipated following applications of chlorpyrifos

. The assessment was completed using 7 chlorpyrifos DFR st udies. The studies encompass the use of five different formulat ions and twelve different crops. These data were used to evaluate post

- application worker risks from all applicable crops

and have been extrapolated to other groups based on the nature of the crop and application method. Chlorpyrifos parent compound is the residue of concern for occupational post

- application exposures;

however , it may be possible that the formation of the oxon is greater and its deactivation slower in greenhouses when compare d to the outdoor environment. Occupational post

- application assessments were performed for: 1) exposures to the parent compound chlorpyrifos in outdoor environments (uses other than greenhouse), 2) exposures to the parent chlorpyrifos (only) in greenhouse s and 3) exposures to both the parent and the oxon metabolite in greenhouses.

Current labels require a Restricted Entry Interval (REI) of 24 hours from most crops and activities, but in some cases such as tree fruit, REIs are up to 5 days after applicatio n. All post

- application worker risks have been updated in the current assessment. Results indicate that no REI increase is required for the majority of outdoor environment crops and commodities with a labeled REI (i.e., 43 of 55 total). However, for 12 crops, activities such as irrigation, hand harvesting, scouting, and thinning result in risks of concern up to as many as 10 days following application. For the assessment of post

- application exposures to parent chlorpyrifos (only) from ornamental product ion in greenhouses, 4 formulations were assessed: emulsifiable concentrate, microencapsulated liquid, wettable powder in WSP, and total release fogger. An REI increase of up to 5 days may be needed to alleviate risks from with use of the

emulsifiable conc entrate, wettable powder in WSP

, and total release fogger formulations. For the microencapsulated liquid formulation, the estimated REIs range from 0 to > 35 days after treatment (the completion of the monitoring period) dependent on the exposure activity considered.

Due to uncertainty regarding the formation of chlorpyrifos oxon in greenhouses, HED also estimated risks for reentry into treated greenhous es (all 4 formulations) for the parent chlorpyrifos plus chlorpyrifos oxon using a total toxic residue approach. The total toxic residue approach was conducted with use of chlorpyrifos DFR studies and an assumed daily fraction, 5%, of chlorpyrifos oxon. When the total toxic residue approach is used to evaluate risks from exposure to the oxon with use of the emulsifiable concentrate, wettable powder in WSP, and total release fogger formulations, results indicate that an REI increase up to 6 days may be nee ded to alleviate risk concerns. For the microencapsulated liquid formulation, REIs range from 3 to > 35 days after treatment (the completion of the monitoring period) dependent on the exposure activity considered.

Human Studies Review

This risk assessment relies in part on data from studies in which adult human subjects were intentionally exposed to a pesticide or other chemical. These data, which include studies from PHED 1.1; the AHETF database; the Outdoor Residential Exposure Task Force (ORETF) database; the ARTF database; ExpoSAC Policy 14 (SOPs for Seed Treatment); the 2012 Residential SOPs: Lawns/Turf, Outdoor Fogging/Misting Systems; registrant

- submitted exposure monitoring studies MRID s 44180401

, 44301301

, 44793301, 44829601, 4 2974501, 43062701, 44748101, 44748102, 46722701, and 46722702; and published literature studies are (1) subject to ethics review pursuant to 40 CFR 26, (2) have received that review, and (3) are compliant with applicable ethics requirements. For certain s tudies, the ethics review may have included review by the Human Studies Review Board. Descriptions of data sources, as well as guidance on their use, can be found at the a gency.

## Page 12 of 227

2.0 Risk Assessment Conclusions and Recommendations

2.1 Summary of Risk E stimates

Residential post

- application exposures from golfing and from following public health mosquitocide applications are not of concern for all lifestages assessed ( i.e., children 6 to < 11 and youth 11 to < 16 years old, MOEs are ≥ 4 0; adults, MOEs are ≥ 100 ).

For the assessment of residential bystander exposures from spray drift, the resulting buffer distances (feet) necessary to reach the level of concern for adults and children 1 to < 2 years old (i.e., adults, MOEs are ≥
100; children 1 to < 2 years old, MOEs are ≥ 40) with use of certain application rates, nozzle droplet types, and application methods range from 0 to 25 feet.

Of the 285 total occupational handler exposure scenarios assess ed, 132 are not of concern (i.e., M OEs are ≥ 100) at the levels of personal protection (clothing or equipment) or engineering controls currently required by product labeling for these scenarios. Risks of concern for 27 additional exposure scenarios could potentially be mitigated if additio nal personal protective equipment or engineering controls are

used. Risks of concern were estimated for 126 exposure scenarios and remain a concern regardless of the levels of personal protection and engineering controls considered.

Of the 68 exposure scenarios assessed, 36 resulted in risk estimates which were not of concern (i.e., MOEs are ≥ 100) at the level of personal protection currently required by product label s . Secondary handler (seed planter) scenarios were also evaluated and none are of concern when compared to current label personal protection requirements. For the remaining 32 seed treatment scenarios, MOEs were < 100

at all level s of personal protection considered and, therefore, are of potential concern.

For the assessment of o ccupational post

- application exposures, estimated risks indicate that no REI increase is required for the majority of outdoor environment crops and commodities with a labeled REI (i.e., 43 of 55 total). However, for 12 crops, activities such as irriga tion, hand harvesting, scouting, and thinning result in risks of concern up to as many as 10 days following application. For the assessment of

post

- application exposures to parent chlorpyrifos (only) from ornamental production in greenhouses, 4

formulatio ns were assessed: emulsifiable concentrate, microencapsulated liquid, wettable powder in WSP, and total release fogger. An REI increase of up to 5 days may be needed to alleviate risks from with use of the emulsifiable concentrate, wettable powder in WSP

, and total release fogger formulations. For the microencapsulated liquid formulation, the estimated REIs range from 0 to > 35 days after treatment (the completion of the monitoring period) dependent on the exposure activity considered.

Due to uncertain ty regarding the formation of chlorpyrifos oxon in greenhouses, HED also estimated risks for reentry into treated greenhouses (all 4 formulations) for the parent chlorpyrifos plus chlorpyrifos oxon using a total toxic residue approach. The total toxic res idue approach was conducted with use of chlorpyrifos DFR studies and an assumed daily fraction, 5%, of chlorpyrifos oxon. When the total toxic residue approach is used to evaluate risks from exposure to the oxon with use of the emulsifiable

concentrate, w ettable powder in WSP, and total release fogger formulations, results indicate that an REI increase up to 6 days may be needed to alleviate risk concerns. For the microencapsulated liquid formulation, REIs range from 3 to > 35 days after treatment (the co mpletion of the monitoring period) dependent on the exposure activity considered.

2.2 Data Deficiencies and Requirements

HED has considered all data sources available for the assessment of occupational and residential risk s

.

## Page 13 of 227

No new data are required for chlorpyrifos; however, data gaps are identified for the evaluation o f chlorpyrifos oxon. In the 2011 occupational and residential exposure assessment, a dditional studies were

re commended to address uncertainties regarding the formation of chlorpyrifos ox on and its decay following applications in greenhouses. To date, no additional data have been submitted.

In accordance with 40CFR158, the following data are required for all occupational or residential pesticide

uses: DFR data are required for all occu pational (e.g., crop, nursery, greenhouse use sites) or residential (e.g., ornamental and vegetable gardens, pick your own farms, retail tree farms) uses that could result in

post

- application exposure to foliage; and turf transferable residue ( TTR) data ar e required for all occupational (e.g., sod farms, golf courses, parks, and recreational areas) or residential turf uses that could result in post

- application exposure to turf. No DFR and TTR data deficiencies have been identified for chlorpyrifos based on the availability of all required studies.

3.0 Hazard Characterization

Chlorpyrifos is a member of the OP class of pesticides. Like other OPs, the initiating event in the adverse outcome pathw ay (AOP)/ mode of action (MOA) involves inhibition of the enzyme AChE via phosphorylation of the serine residue at the active site of the enzyme. This inhibition leads to accumulation of acetylcholine and ultimately to neurotoxicity in the central and/or peripheral nervous

system (see Figure 1). For chlorpyrifo s, AChE inhibition is the most sensitive endpoint in the toxicology database in multiple species, durations, lifestages, and routes of exposure

.

Figure 1. Adverse outcome pathway for OPs



### Like other OPs, chlorpyrifos exhibits a phenomenon known as steady state AChE inhibition. After repeated dosing at the same dose level, the degree of inhibition comes into equilibrium with the production of new, uninhibited enzyme. At this point, the amount of AChE inhibition at a given dose remains consistent across duration. In general, OPs reach steady state within 2

- 3 weeks but this can vary among OPs. Thus, for most OPs, the a gency believes that the critical exposure durations range from a single day up to 21 days (i.e., the approximate time to reach steady state for most OPs).

The hazard assessment for chlorpyrifos has undergone significant change since the 2011 preliminary

human health risk a ssessment. While RBC AChE inhibition remains the endpoint of concern for chlorpyrifos, how it has been considered has been altered based on the use of the PBPK

- PD model. In typical risk assessments, points of departure (PoDs) are derived directly from laboratory animal studies,

and inter

- and intra

- species extrapolation /variation is accounted for by use of 10X factors. In the case of chlorpyrifos and the oxon, the PBPK

- PD model provides the opportunity to use a data

- derived approach (USEPA, 2014) . Specifically, the PBPK

- PD model accounts for PK and PD characteristics to derive age, duration, and route specific human equivalent doses (Table 3.0 below)

. Consistent with risk assessments

for other AChE

- inhibiting chemicals, AChE inhibition at a leve l of 10% is considered an adverse effect.

The PBPK

- PD model was run to determine the exposure level (dose), or PoD, resulting in 10% RBC AChE inhibition following 21

- day exposures for a variety of occupational and residential exposure

scenarios and lifest ages. Once defined, a margin of exposure (MOE) was calculated with use this

scenario

- and lifestage

- specific PoD by comparison to exposure estimates (doses) quantified with use of standard occupational and residential exposure assessment methodologies. Target

Tissue Dose Phosphorylation

of the Active Site

of AChE Neurotoxicity

Accumulation of Acetylc holine

## Page 14 of 227

Separate PoDs have been calculated for occupational and residential exposures by varying inputs on types of exposures and populations exposed. Specifically, the following characteristics have been evaluated: exposure duration; exposure route; body weig hts which vary by lifestage; exposure duration (hours per day, days per week); and dermal surface area exposed. The following summarizes the inputs used for

derivation of PBPK

- PD modeled occupational and residential age, duration, and ro ute specific PoD s :

 Exposure duration: 21

- day (steady state);

 Exposure route: occupational, dermal and inhalation; residential, dermal, incidental oral, and

inhalation ;

 Body weights: children 1 to < 2 years old, 11 kg; children 6 to < 11 years old, 32 kg; youth 11 to < 16

yea rs old, 57 kg; adults (females), 69 kg. For adults when an endpoint is not sex

- specific (i.e., the endpoints are based on developmental or fetal effects) a body weight of 80 kg is typically used in risk

assessment ; however , in this case, a female

- s pecific body weight was used. While the endpoint of concern, RBC AChE inhibition, is not sex

- specific, the female body weight was used due to concerns for pregnant women related to the application of the 10X FQPA safety factor based on findings in the

Col umbia University cohort and the related uncertainty ;

 Exposure duration: occupational, 8 hours/day, 5 days/week; residential golfer, 4 hours/day, 7 days/week; residential exposures following public health mosquitocide application, 1.5 hours/day (dermal and incidental oral exposures from turf), 1.0 hours/day (inha lation exposures), 7 days/week;

 Dermal surface area exposed: residential, 50% (t

- shirt and shorts); occupational, 100% (even

distribution across the entire body surface area); and

 a daily shower is assumed following occupational and residential exposures.

### Table 3.0. Points of Departure Calculated Using PBPK

- PD Model Corresponding to 10% RBC AChE Inhibition

RA Type Exposure Pathway

(all chlorpyrifos unless noted) Infants < 1 yr old Children 1 to < 2 years old Children 6 to < 11 years old Children 11 to < 16 years old Females

13

– 49 yrs old

Acute Steady

State (21 day) Acute Steady

State (21 day) Acute Steady

State (21 day) Acute Steady

State (21 day) Acute Steady

State (21 day)

Dietary Drinking Water

(oxon conc, ppb ) 1,183 217 3,004 548 7,700 1,358 4,988 878 5,285 932

Food ( ug/kg/day ) 600 103 581 99 530 90 475 80 467 78

Residential (Golfers) Dermal ( ug/kg/day ) 22,750 13,950 11,890

Residential (Mosquitocide Application) Dermal

( ug/kg/day ) 134,250 23,600

Oral ( ug/kg/day ) 101

Inhalation (conc n . in air mg/m3 ) 2.37 6.15

Occupational Dermal

( ug/kg/day ) 3,630

Inhalation (ug/kg/day ) 138

### Use of the PBPK

- PD model also impacts how uncertainty factors are defined for risk assessment; a total

uncertainty factor of 4 0X was applied [1X f or interspecies extrapolation, 4 X for intraspecies variation

, 10X FQPA safety factor ] for all populations assessed but adults (females)

. For adults (females), a total uncertainty factor of 100X was applied [ 1 X f or interspecies extrapolation, 10 X for intraspecies variation, 10X FQPA safety factor]. Typically, the a gency uses animal studies for selection of PoDs and, as such,

retains a 10X interspecies factor for extrapolation of the animal data to assess human health. However,

with use of the PBPK

- PD model which accounts for the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic differences between animals and humans to derive PoDs, it is appropriate to reduce the interspecies factor

to 1X.

For all populations but women who may be pregnant, a 4 X uncertainty factor has been retained for

variation within in the hu m an population. Typically, the a gency retains a 10X facto r to account for this variation. However, for this assessment EPA’s Data

- Derived Extrapolation Factor (DDEF) guidance (USEPA, 2014), in conjunction with the PBPK

- PD model, was used to calculate a D DEF intra

- species extrapolation. In this approach, administered doses leading to the response level of interest (10% change in RBC AChE inhibition) are compared between a measure of average response and response at the tail of the distribution representing sensitive individuals. Based on the 99 th 

### percentile of the distributions, the

DDEF for intra

- species extrapolation is 4X for chlorpyrifos and 5X for the oxon (Dow, 2014b ). For this revised risk assessment, the 99th percentile is being used to account for variation of sensitivity (i.e., the

intra

- species factor used in the risk assessment is 4X for chlorpyrifos and 5X for the oxon for all groups except women who are pregnant or may become pregnant for whom the 10X intra

- species factor was retained).

While the current PBPK

- PD model accounts for age

- related growth from infancy to adulthood by using polynomial equations to describe tissue volumes and blood flows as a function of age, the model does not include any descriptions on physiological, anatomica l and biochemical changes associated with pregnancy. Due to the uncertainty in extrapolating the current model predictions among women of child bearing age, the a gency is applying the standard 10X intra

- species extrapolation factor for women of

childbeari ng age. For all other relevant populations, the a gency has reliable data to reduce the standard

10x intra

- species factor.

For all populations assessed including infants, children, youths, and women of childbearing age

, the FQPA 10X safety factor is retained . The 10X FQPA safety factor was retained based on the conclusion that, given the totality of evidence

, chlorpyrifos likely played a role in the neurodevelopmental outcomes reported by the Columbia University investigators but uncertainties such a s the lack of an established MOA/AOP for neurodevelopmental effects and the exposure to multiple AChE

- inhibiting pesticides precludes definitive causal inference. However, there is sufficient uncertainty in the human dose

response relationship for neurode velopmen tal effects which prevents the a gency from reducing or removing the statutory 10X FQPA Safety Factor

. 11



### 4.0 Use Profile

Chlorpyrifos is a broad

- spectrum, OP insecticide that was first registered in 1965 to control foliar

- and

soil

- borne insect pests on a variety of food and feed crops. Targeted pests include aphids, cockroa ches

, cutworms, fleas, grasshoppers, ticks, etc. Chlorpyrifos is manufactured as granular (G)

, microencapsulated liquid (ME) , soluble concentrate/liquids (EC or LC) , water dispersible granular (WDG) in WSP and wettable powder (WP) packaged in WSP formulations, as well as impregnated

11 

### The decision on the FQPA safety factor is described in greater detail in the 2014 Chlorpyrifos Final Human Health Risk Assessment, D424485 . Please also refer to this document regarding how the PBPK

- PD m odel was considered and implemented.

## Page 17 of 227

paints, cattle ear tags, insect bait stations and total release foggers. Registered use sites include the following uses: food crops, including fruit and nut trees, many types of fruits and vegetables, and grain crops; and non

- food crops such as forage, golf course turf, industrial sites, greenhouse and nursery production, sod farms, and wood products. Public health uses include aerial and groun d

- based fogger treatments to control mosquitoes. There are a wide range of application rates.

In order to seek clarificat ion of chlorpyrifos usage, the a gency collaborated with chlorpyrifos registrants to compile a master use summary document reflectiv e of the use profile of all active product labels. The document, among other information, presents all registered uses of chlorpyrifos and corresponding maximum single application rates, equipment types, re

- entry intervals (REIs), etc. HED believes that the detailed information on application rates and use patterns presented in Appendix A will be implemented on all chlorpyrifos labels and is the basis of the occupational and residential risk assessment. If, for any reason, the final chlorpyrifos labels c ontained higher application rates, the actual risks posed by those products may exceed the risk estimated in this assessment.

5.0 Residential Exposure and Risk Estimates

The 2011 residential assessment has been updated to reflect the use of the PBPK

- PD m odeling approach and HED’s 2012 Residential SOPs for Residential Pesticide Exposure Assessment. In 1997, the registrant, Dow AgroSciences, voluntarily agreed to cancel chlorpyrifos registrations for indoor broadcast use and direct pet treatments, except p et collars. In December 2001, the majority of the remaining chlorpyrifos residential products, except for fully contained ant baits in child resistant packaging and limited public health uses, were subject to voluntary phase out/cancellation. Current chlo rpyrifos

homeowner uses include a granular ant mound use and roach bait in child

- resistant packaging. Additionally, chlorpyrifos is labeled for public health aerial and ground

- based fogger ULV mosquito

adulti cide applications and for golf course turf applications.

A residential assessment was conducted in 2011 due to the potential for post

- application exposure from entering areas previously treated with chlorpyrifos. Post

- application exposure is anticipated from playing golf on chlorpyrifos

- treated courses and from exposures which can occur following aerial and ground

based ULV mosquito adulticide use. The potential for residential exposure from the roach bait product is negligible. Residential exposures from the ant mound use are also negligible since these products can only be applied professionally and direct exposure with treated ant mounds is not anticipated

.

In addition to the assessment of residential exposure, the potential for post

- application exposures to residential bystanders who liv e on, work in

, or frequent areas adjacent to treated fields from spray drift

and volatilization were also considered previously in 2011. The potential risks from spray drift and the impact of potential risk reduction measures were assessed in a July 2012 memorandum. To increase protection for children and other bystanders, chlorpyrifos technical registrants voluntarily agreed to lower application rates and other spray drift mitigation measures

. The spray drift risk assessment results have

be updated herei n because of the implications associated with the use of the PBPK

- PD modeling approach. In January 2013, a preliminary assessment of the potential risks from volatilization was conducted. However, this assessment was revised following submission of two v apor phase inhalation toxicity studies which indicate no adverse effects occurred even at the saturation concentration for chlorpyrifos and chlorpyrifos oxon

.

This assessment also includes a retrospective dose reconstruction of the exposures which could have potentially occurred as a result of previous widespread chlorpyrifos uses in indoor residential

environments.

## Page 18 of 227

5.1 Residential Handler Exposure/Risk Estimates

HED uses the term “handlers” to describe those individuals who are involved in the pesticide application process. HED believes that there are distinct tasks related to applications and that exposures can vary depending on the specifics of each task. Residential handlers are addressed somewhat differently by HED

as homeowners are assume d to complete all elements of an application without use of any protective equipment.

Based upon review of all chlorpyrifos registered uses, only the roach bait products can be applied by a

homeowner in a residential setting but the application of roach b ait products h as not quantitatively

assessed because these exposure s are negligible. The roach bait product is designed such that the active ingredient is contained within a bait station which eliminate s the potential for contact with the chlorpyrifos containing bait material

.

5.2 Residential Post

- application Exposure/Risk Estimates

There is the potential for post

- application exposure s as a result of being in an environment that has been previously treated with chlorpyrifos

. Chlorpyrifos can be us ed in areas frequented by the general population including golf courses and as an aerial and ground

- based ULV mosquito adulti cide applications made directly in residential areas. The 2011 document assessed these uses. Post

- application exposure from resid ential ant mound treatment was assessed qualitatively as addressed above because negligible exposures are anticipated.

The residential post

- application exposure scenarios and application rates assessed in 2011 remain unchanged. However, the PBPK

- PD mo del has been used for PoD derivation and the methods used to assess these exposure scenario s have changed and, as a result, post

- application exposures have been updated. The updated post

- application exposure assessment reflects the following changes inclu ding: 1)

use of the 2012 Standard Operating Procedures for Residential Pesticide Exposure Assessment 12



### , 2) use of the AgDISP model for estimation of airborne concentrations and residue dissipation following chlorpyrifos mosquito adulticide applications

, 3) updated methodology for determining the airborne concentration of active ingredient following ground

- based mosquito adulti cide application s, and 4 ) use of updated body weights for all residential populations assessed.

The lifestages selected for each post

- application scenario are based on an analysis provided in the 2012 Residential SOPs. While not the only lifestage potentially exposed for these post

- application scenarios, the lifestage that is included in the quantitative assessment is health prote ctive for the exposures and risk

estimates for all who are potentially exposed.

The quantitative exposure/risk assessment for residential post

- application exposures is based on the following scenarios:

Golf Course Use (EC and G formulations)

 Adult pos t

- application dermal exposure from contact with treated turf while golfing.

 Youth 11 to < 16 years old post

- application dermal exposure from contact with treated turf while golfing.

 Children 6 to < 11 years old post

- application dermal exposure from contac t with treated turf while golfing.

12 

### http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/science/USEPA

- OPP

- HED_Residential%20SOPs_Oct2012.pdf

## Page 19 of 227

Public Health Mosquito Adulti cide Use (aerial and ground applications)

 Adult post

- application dermal exposure from contact with turf following the deposition of chlorpyrifos residues from public health mosquito adultici de application.

 Adult post

- application inhalation exposure from airborne chlorpyrifos following public health mosquito adulticide application.

 Children 1 to < 2 years old post

- application dermal exposure from contact with turf following the deposition of chlorpyrifos residues from public health mosquito adulticide application.

 Children 1 to < 2 years old post

- application incidental oral (hand

- to

- mouth) exposur e from contact with turf following the deposition of chlorpyrifos residues from public health mosquito

adulticide application.

 Children 1 to < 2 years old post

- application incidental oral (object

- to

- mouth) exposure from contact with toys containing residue s from turf following the deposition of chlorpyrifos residues from public health mosquito adulticide application.

 Children 1 to < 2 years old post

- application inhalation exposure from airborne chlorpyrifos following public health mosquito adulticide application.

Residential Post

- application Exposure Data and Assumptions

A series of assumptions and exposure factors served as the basis for completing the residential post

application risk assessment. Each assumption and factor used for the assessment of exposures to golfers, and from public health mosquitocide applications can be found in Appendix B and C, respectively.

Exposure Duration: Residential post

- application exposures to chlorpyrifos are assumed to be steady state (i.e., 21 days or longe r).

The application of mosquitocide in residential areas may result in the potential for post

- application inhalation exposures. The aerosolized particulate remaining following application is assumed to persist for no longer than one hour in proximity o f the application source and, accordingly, would be most appropriately defined as acute in duration

. However, this assessment assumes that post

- application inhalation exposures are steady state which is a highly conservative approach given how in frequentl y mosquitocides are repeatedly applied to the same locations and how rapidly aerosols dissipate after these types of applications . The parameters used to define this exposure scenario in the PBPK

- PD model conservatively reflect daily, repeated one hour exposures for 21 days.

Body Weights: The body weights assumed for this assessment differ from those used in 2011 occupational and residential exposure assessment and are based on the recommendation s of the 2012

Residential SOPs.

The standard body weights are as follows: youth 11 to < 16 years old, 57 kg; children 6 to < 11 years old, 32 kg; and children 1 to < 2 years old, 11 kg. For adults when an endpoint is not sex

- specific (i.e., the endpoin ts are based on developmental or fetal effects) a body weight of 80 kg is typically used in risk assessment. However, in this case, a female

- specific body weight of 69 kg was used. While the endpoint of concern, RBC AChE inhibition, is not sex

- specific, the female body weight was used due to concerns for pregnant women related to the application of the 10X FQPA safety factor based on findings in the Columbia University cohort and the related uncertainty

.

## Page 20 of 227

Golf Course Use

Post

- application exposures from golfing have been assessed using the 2012 Residential SOPs and with use of exposure data from a che mical

- specific TTR study. The study was conducted with an emulsifiable

concentrate, a granular, and a wettable powder formulation. Only the emulsifiab le concentrate and granular data were used because there are no currently registered wettable powder formulations . The study was conducted in 3 state s , California, Indiana and Mississippi, with use of the emulsifiable concentrate and wettable powder formu lations. The granular formulation was used in California only. The liquid applications were made at a nominal application r ate of 4 lb ai/A, and the granular applications were made at a nominal application rate of 2 lb ai/A. Exposure was estimated by no rmalizing Day 0 TTR measures from study application rates to the current maximum application rate allowable by the label. Single applications were made to the treatment plots using tractor mounted boom sprayers for the liquid applications and either a tra ctor mounted air spreader or tractor mounted spreader for the granular applications. Duplicate samples were collected using the California roller technique at the following intervals: one day prior to the application, just after the application (

- 2.5 hour s after application), and days 1, 2, 4, and 7 after application. Samples were analyzed for residues of chlorpyrifos. Chlorpyri fos oxon

residues were not anal yzed. The overall average concurrent recovery was 98% ±3%. The LOD and LOQ were reported as 0.0 01 μg/cm 2 

### and 0.003 μg/cm 2 

### respectively. The field study samples did not require correction for field fortification recovery since av erage field fortification recoveries (corrected for concurrent recovery), at each fortification level were greater than 90% at all sites.

Average TT R values are provided below in Table 5.2.1

.

Table 5.2.1. Summary of Actual Average TTR Values on Turf After One Broadcast Foliar Application of Chlorpyrifos

Sampling

Interval (Days) Actual Ave rage TT R ( μg/cm 2 )

Dursban® Pro (Emulsifiable Concentrate) Dursban® 2.5G ( G ranular) Dursban® 1F ( G ranular)

CA IN MS CA IN MS CA IN MS

After 1 st (Only) Application

0 0.124 0.090 0.146 <LOQ <LOQ <LOQ 0.052 <LOQ <LOQ

1 0.039 0.011 0.009 <LOQ <LOQ <LOQ 0.02 <LOQ <LOQ

2 0.01 0.005 <LOQ <LOQ <LOQ <LOQ 0.011 0.003 0.01

4 0.004 <LOQ <LOQ <LOQ <LOQ <LOQ 0.004 0.003 <LOQ

7 <LOQ <LOQ <LOQ <LOQ <LOQ < LOQ <LOQ <LOQ <LOQ

Notes: <LOQ reported when all samples at the reported location and time met that criteria. LOQ = 0.003 μg/cm 2

Residues were corrected for concurrent recoveries. Application rates were a nominal 4 lb ai/A for liquid applications (Dursban® Pro and Dursban® 50W ) and 2.0 lb ai/A for granular applications (Dursban® 2.5G and Dursban® 1F).



### Public Health Mosquito A dulticide Use

The post

- application exposure potential f rom public health m osquito adulticide applications ha s been considered for both ground based truck foggers and also from aerial applications. For assessment of the mosquito adulticide use
, the algorithms and inputs presented in the 2012 Residential SOPs, Lawns/Turf section were used coupled with the available TTR data described above. The deposition of chlorpyrifos from these applications are not based on the application rate alone

, but als o using the AgDISP (v8.2.6) model or empirical data to determine how much pesticide is deposited on residential lawns as a result of mosquito adulticide treatments at the maximum application rates for each

. The TTR data are then used to

determine the frac tion of the total residue deposited following the mosquitocide application which can result in exposures to impacted individual s . I nhalation exposures are estimated using AgDrift for aerial applications

, and a recently developed, Well Mixed Box Model appr oach based on the Residential SOPs

## Page 21 of 227

for outdoor foggers.

Ground

- based Foggers

In the study conducted by Moore et al., [ Downwind Drift and Deposition of Malathion on Human Targets

From Ground Ultra

- Low Volume Mosquito Sprays : J.C. Moore, J.C. Dukes, J.R. C lark, J. Malone, C.F. Hallmon, and P.G. Hester; Journal of the American Mosquito Control Association; Vol. 9, No. 2 (June, 1993)] both human exposure and deposition was quantified over 5 separate application events. A 91 percent formulation of malathion w as applied in April and May of 1989 in the early evening (a time of day for relative atmospheric stability). A Leco HD ULV cold aerosol generator (Lowndes Engineering Company, Valdosta Georgia) was used to make each application. The application parameter s included a fluid flow rate of 4.3 fluid ounces per minute, a vehicle ground speed of 10 mph, and a nominal application rate of 0.05 lb ai/acre (i.e., equates to a deposition rate of 0.51 μg/cm 2 

### ). Deposition was

monitored at three locations downwind from the treatment area (i.e., 15.2 m, 30.4 m, and 91.2 m). For the events considered in the deposition calculations, “average amounts of malathion deposited on ground level at 15.2, 30.4, and 91.2 m were not significantly different.” The percentage of the a pplication rate reported to have deposited ranged from 1 to 14 percent. The mean deposition value for all measurements was 4.3 percent (n=35, CV=98).

In the study conducted by Tietze et al., [ Mass Recovery of Malathion in Simulated Open Field Mosquito

Ad ulticide Tests : N.S. Tietze, P.G. Hester, and K.R. Shaffer; Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology; 26: 473

- 477 (1994)] only deposition was quantified over 6 separate application events (i.e., one event was not included in deposition calcul ations “due to negative air stability”). The application parameters were similar to that used by Moore et al . A 95 percent formulation of malathion was applied from May to August of 1993. A Leco 1600 ULV cold aerosol generator (Lowndes Engineering Compa ny, Valdosta Georgia) was also used to make each application. The application parameters included a fluid flow rate of 4.3 fluid ounces per minute, a vehicle ground speed of 10 mph, and a nominal application rate of 0.057 lb ai/acre (i.e., equates to a de position rate of 0.58 μg/cm 2 

### ). Deposition was monitored at four locations downwind from the treatment area (i.e., 5 m, 25 m, 100 m and 500 m). For the events considered in the deposition calculations, “malathion mass deposited differed significantly betw een the 500 m site and the three closer sites (df = 3; F

- value = 3.42; P<0.05).” The percentage of the application rate reported to have deposited (not including 500 m samples which were much less) ranged up to 5.8 percent. The mean deposition value for all measurements was 3.8 percent.

After considering the data that are available in the Tietze et al. and Moore et al. papers, an off

- target deposition rate of 5 percent of the application rate was used by HED to evaluate ground

- based ULV applications (i.e., 5 percent of the target application rate deposits on turf ). A value slightly higher than the

mean values for both studies was selected because of the variability in the data and the limited number of data points. The adjusted application rate was then used to define TTR levels by scaling the available TTR data as appropriate.

In order to calculate airborne concentra tions from ULV truck fogger applications, HED used the 2012 Residential SOPs for Outdoor Fogging/Misting Systems, with minimal modification to the well

- mixed box (WMB) model. The WMB model allows for the estimation of air concentrations in the breathing

z ones of adults and children for use in calculating the post

- application inhalation exposure to individuals residing in areas being treated by ground application of chlorpyrifos. This methodology is a modification of the previous method used in the 2011 oc cupational and residential exposure assessment to evaluate

post

- application inhalation exposure resulting from truck mounted mosquito fogger. The revised methodology more accurately accounts for dilution using the WMB model. The WMB model input

parameters and the algorithms used to estimate residential post

- application exposures can be found in Appendix C

.

## Page 22 of 227

Aerial Application

D eposition and air concentrations from aerial ULV applications was modeled us ing the AgDISP (v8.2.6)

model which is currently recommended for assessment of mosquito adulticide applications

. Ag DISP predicts the motion of spray material released from aircraft, and determines the amount of application volume that remained aloft and the amount of the resulting droplets deposited on the surfaces in the

treatment area

, as well as downwind from the treatment area. The model also allows for the estimation of air concentrations in the breathing zones of adults and children for use in calculating the post

- application

inhalation risks to i ndividuals residing in areas being treated by aerial application of chlorpyrifos

. The input parameters used as the basis for AgDISP (v8.2.6) calculations are presented in Appendix C of this

document.

The following outputs of the AgDISP (v8.2.6) model w ere used in conjunction with the 2012 Residential SOPs to assess post

- application exposures following mosquito adulticide application: the aerial fraction

of the mosquito adulticide application rate applied (0.010 lb ai/A) is 0.35 (i.e., 35 percent of app lication rate is deposited on turf); and the airborne concentration at the breathing height of adults and children of chlorpyrifos 1 hour following aerial mosquito adulticide application is 0.00060 mg/m 3



### . Figures 2 and 3 below present the estimated aerial chlorpyrifos residue fraction deposited on turf, and aerial airborne

concentration for the 1 hour following mosquito adulticide applications, respectively.

Figure 2 . Estimated c hlorpyrifos d eposition downwind from the field edge from a erial t reatment of m osquito

a dulticide at release height of 300 feet.

## Page 23 of 227

Figure 3 . Estimated c hlorpyrifos a ir c oncentration at the field edge from a erial t reatmen t of m osquito

adulticide at a release height of 300 feet.



### Summary of Residential Post

- application Non

- Cancer Exposure and Risk Estimates

Residential post

- application risk estimates for the golf course and public health mosquitocide use s can be

found in Ap pendices B and C

, respectively. A summary of risk estimates is presented in Table 5.2.2

below

.

The assessment of steady state golfer post

- application exposures (dermal only) to chlorpyrifos treated turf for the lifestages adults, children 6 to < 11 years old, and youths 11 to < 16 years old, results in no risks of concern (i.e., children 6 to < 11 and youth 11 to < 16 years old, MOEs are ≥ 4 0; adults, MOEs are ≥ 100). For the assessment of post

- application exposures from public health mosquitocide applications, no combined risks of concern were identified for adults (dermal and inhalation) and chi ldren 1 to < 2 years old (dermal, incidental oral, and inhalation).

Table 5.2.2

. Residential Post

- application Non

- cancer Exposure and Risk Estimates for Chlorpyrifos

.

Lifestage Post

- application Exposure

Scenario Application

Rate 1 State

(TTR
Data) Dose

(mg/kg/day) 3 MOEs 4 Combined

Routes 5 Combined

MOEs 6
Use Site Route of

Exposure

Adult (Females)

Golf Course

Turf Dermal 1.0
(Emulsifiable
Concentrate) CA 0.010 1, 2 00

NA NA

IN 0.0069 1,7 00

MS 0.012 1,0 00

Mean 0.0095 1,2 00

Youths 11

to < 16

y ea rs old CA 0.010 1,4 00

IN 0.0069 2,0 00

MS 0.012 1,2 00

Mean 0.0096 1,5 00

Children

6 to < 11 CA 0.012 1,9 00

IN 0.0082 2,8 00

## Page 24 of 227

Table 5.2.2

. Residential Post

- application Non

- cancer Exposure and Risk Estimates for Chlorpyrifos

.

Lifestage Post

- application Exposure

Scenario Application

Rate 1 State

(TTR
Data) Dose

(mg/kg/day) 3 MOEs 4 Combined

Routes 5 Combined

MOEs 6 Use Site Route of

Exposure
years old MS 0.014 1,6 00

Mean 0.011 2,0 00

Adult
(Females)

1.0
(Granular) CA 0.0088 1,4 00

Youths 11

to < 16

yea rs old 0.0088 1,6 00

Children

6 to < 11 years old 0.010 2,2 00

Adult
(Females)

Aerial and

Ground Based

ULV Mosquitocide Application s Dermal

0.010
(Aerial) MS 0.00052 46 ,000 X
8,400 Inhalation NA 0.00060 (mg/m 3 ) 10,300 X

Children

1 to < 2

y ea rs old Dermal MS 0.00088 150 ,000 X

2,300 Inhalation NA 2 0.00060 (mg/m 3 ) 4,000 X

Hand

- to

- Mouth MS 0.000018 5,600 X
Object

- to

- Mouth MS 6.1 x10

- 6 180,000 NA NA
Soil Ingestion NA 2 1. 3 x10

- 6 4,900,000 NA NA

Adult
(Females) Dermal

0.010
(Ground) MS 0.000074 320,000 X

1,200 Inhalation NA 0.0051 (mg/m 3 ) 1,200 X

Children

1 to < 2 years old Dermal MS 0.00013 1,100,000 X

460 Inhalation NA 2 0.0051 (mg/m 3 ) 460 X

Hand

- to

- Mouth MS 2. 8 x10

- 6 39,000 X
Object

- to

- Mouth MS 8.6 x10

- 7 1,300,000 NA NA
Soil Ingestion NA 2 1.7x10

- 8 34,000,000 NA NA

1 Based on the maximum application rates registered for golf course turf and ULV mosquito adulticide uses.

2 The airborne concentrations of chlorpyrifos following ULV mosquito adulticide applications was determined with use of the AgDISP (v8.2.6) model.

3 Dose (mg/kg/day) equations for golfing and mosquitocide applications are provided in Appendices B and C

, respectively

. For calculation of doses (i.e., dermal, hand

- to

- mouth, and object

- to

- mouth) from exposure to ULV mosquito adulticide

, TTR data was used. The MS TTR data was selected for use because it is the worst case and, as a result, most protective of human health. Additionally, the fraction of chlorpyrifos residue deposited following mosquitocide application, 35% (0.35), was determined

with use of the AgDISP (v8.2.6) model and used for dose calculation. The fraction of chlorpyrifos deposited followin g ground ULV application, 5% (0.050), is based on surrogate exposure data (malathion). For dose estimation from exposures to golfing on treated turf, on the TTR data was used. Doses have been presented for all State sites, including the mean of all State sites.

4 MOE = POD (mg/kg/day) ÷ Dose (mg/kg/day).

5 X indicates the exposure s cena rio is included in the combined MOE.

6 Combined MOE = 1 ÷ (1/dermal MOE) + (1/inhalation MOE) + (1/incidental oral MOE), where applicable. NA = Not applicable.



### 5.3 Residential Risk Estimates and Recommendations for Aggregate Assessment

In accordance with the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA), HED must consider and aggregate (add) pesticide exposures and risks from three major sources: food, drinking water, and resi dential exposures.

Table 5.3 below presents the residential risk estimates that are recommended for use in the aggregate

assessm ent for chlorpyrifos.

Under FQPA, the use of chlorpyrifos as a mosquito adulticide protects public health from disease vecto rs

## Page 25 of 227

and, thus, is considered a use of significant public health importance. While FQPA requirements encourage the safe and necessary use of methods to combat and control pests of public health importance, public health uses are subject to special considera tion (i.e., benefits assessment) and, as a matter of policy, not recommended for aggregate risk assessment.

 The recommended residential exposure for use in the adult aggregate assessment is dermal post

application exposure from golfing on treated turf.

 The recommended residential exposure for use in the youth 11 to < 16 years old aggregate assessment is dermal post

- application exposure from golfing on treated turf.

 The recommended residential exposure for use in the children 6 to < 1 1 years old aggregate assessment is dermal post

- application exposure from golfing on treated turf.

Table 5.3. Recommendations for the Residential Steady State Exposures for the Chlorpyrifos Aggregate

Assessment

Lifestage Exposure

Scenario Dose (mg/ kg/ day) 1 

### MOE 2



### Dermal Inhalation Oral Total Dermal Inhalation Oral Total

Adult

Females

Golfing on

Treated Turf 0.012 NA NA 0.012 1,0 00 NA NA 1,0 00

Youth 11 to < 16 years

old 0.012 NA NA 0.012 1,2 00 NA NA 1,2 00

Children 6 to < 11 years

old 0.014 NA NA 0.014 1, 6 00 NA NA 1,6 00

1 Dose = the highest dose for each applicable lifestage of all residential scenarios assessed. Total = dermal + inhalation + incidental oral (where applicable).

2 MOE = the MOEs associated with the highest residential doses. Total = 1 ÷ (1/Dermal MOE) + (1/Inhalation MOE) + (1/Incidental Oral MOE), where applicable

.



### 5.4 Residential Bystander Post

- Application Inhalation Exposure

In the 2011 occupational and residential exposure assessment the potential risks to bystanders from spray drift and exposure from volatilization were identified as possible concerns. Spray drift is the movement of aerosols and volatile components away from the treated area during the application process . The potential risks from spray drift and the impact of potential risk reduction measures were assessed in July

2012. 13 

### This evaluation supplemented the 2011 assessment where limited monitoring data indicate risks to bystanders. To increase protection f or children and other bystanders, chlorpyrifos technical registrants voluntarily agreed to lower application rates and to other spray drift mitigation measures. 14 

### As of

December 2012 , spray drift mitigation measures and use restrictions appear on all chlor pyrifos agricultural product labels. Because the use of the PBPK

- PD model impacts the PoDs, and thus spray drift risk estimates , an updated assessment was conducted.

Table 5.4 presents the buffer distances (feet) necessary to reach the level of concern for adults and children 1 to < 2 years old (i.e., adults, MOEs are ≥ 100; children 1 to < 2 years old, MOEs are ≥ 4 0) with use of certain application rates, nozzle droplet types, and application methods. The estimated buffer

distances are less than those agreed to by the technical registrants in July 2012. All drift risk estimates are

pr esented in Appendix D

.

13 

### J. Dawson, W. Britton, R. Bohaty, N. Mallampalli, and A. Grube. Chlorpyrifos : Evaluation of the Potential Risks from Spray Drift and the Impact of Potential Risk Reduction Measures. 7/13/12. U.S. EPA Office of Che mical Safety and Pollution Prevention

. D399483, D399485.

14 

### R. Keigwin. Spray Drift Mitigation Decision for Chlorpyrifos (059101). 7/20/12. U.S. EPA Office of Che mical Safety and Pollution Prevention

. EPA

- HQ

- OPP

- 2008

- 0850

- 0103.

## Page 26 of 227

Table 5.4 . Summary of Spray Drift Buffers for Chlorpyrifos 1

Application

Rate (lb ai/A) Nozzle

Droplet Type Adult Buffer Summary Children 1 to < 2 Years Old Buffer Summary (Dermal + Incidental Oral)

Buff ers Necessary to reach MOE of 100

(Feet) Buf fers Necessary to reach MOE of 4 0

(Feet)

Aerial Groundboom Airblast Aerial Groundboom Airblast

6.0

Medium or

Coarse NA 2 NA 0 NA NA 25

4.3 NA 0 0 NA 0 10

4.0 NA 0 0 NA 0 10

3.76 NA 0 0 NA 0 10

3.0 Coarse or

Very Coarse NA 0 0 NA 0 0

3.0 Medium NA 0 0 NA 0 0

2.3 Coarse or

Very Coarse 50 0 0 0 0 0

2.3 Medium 100 0 0 10 0 0

2.0 Coarse or

Very Coarse 25 0 0 0 0 0

2.0 Medium 75 0 0 0 0 0

1.5 Coarse or

Very Coarse 25 0 0 0 0 0

1.5 Medium 50 0 0 0 0 0

1.0 Coarse or

Very Coarse 10 0 0 0 0 0

1.0 Medium 25 0 0 0 0 0



### 1 Per December 2012 spray drift mitigation memorandum, aerial application of greater than 2 lb ai/A is only permitted for Asian Citrus Psylla control, up to 2.3 lb ai/A.

2 NA is not allowable.



### In January 2013, a preliminary assessment of the potential risks from volatilization was conducted

. 15 

### The assessment evaluated the potential risks to bystanders, or those who live and/or work in proximity to treated fields, from inhalation exposure to vapor phase chlorpyrifos and chlorpyrifos

- oxon emitted from

fie lds following application of chlorpyrifos. The results of the January 2013 assessment indicated that offsite concentrations of chlorpyrifos and chlorpyrifos

- oxon may exceed the target concentration based on the toxicological endpoints used at that time. 16



### One significant area of uncertainty described in the preliminary assessment was the use of the aerosolized chlorpyrifos inhalation toxicity study

-- as opposed to chlorpyrifos vapor

-- for evaluation of lung AChE resulting from field volatilization. Beca use field volatilization is the production and release of vapor into the atmosphere after sprays have settled on treated soils and plant canopies, it is well accepted that the vapor, rather than the aerosol, is the relevant form for evaluation of bystander volatilization exposures. However, EPA lacked chlorpyrifos vapor data at the time it conducted the preliminary volatilization assessment in 2013. Following the release of the preliminary volatilization assessment, Dow AgroSciences LLC conducted two, hig h quality nose

- only vapor phase inhalation studies for both

15 

### R. Bohaty, C. Peck, A. Lowit, W. Britton, N. Mallampalli, A. Grube. Chlorpyrifos: Preliminary Evaluation of the

Potential Risks from Volatilization. 1/31/13. U.S. EPA Office of Che mical Safety and Pollution Prevention

. D399484, D400781.

16 

### EPA MRID # 48139303 : Acute Inhalatio n Exposure of Adult Crl:CD(SD) Rates to P articulate C hlorpy rifos

A erosols: Kinetics of Concentration

- Dependent Cholinesterase ( ACHE ) Inhibition in Red Blood Cells, Plasma, Brain and Lung; Authors: J. A. Hotchkiss, S. M. Krieger, K. A. Brzak, and D. L. Rick; Sponsor: Dow AgroSciences

LLC

.

## Page 27 of 227

chlorpyrifos and chlorpyrifos

- oxon 17 

### to address this uncertainty.

In June 2014, a re

- evaluation of the 2013 preliminary volatilization assessment was conducted to present the results of the vapor studies and their impact. In the vapor studies, female rats were administered a saturated vapor, meaning that the test subjec ts received the highest possible concentration of chlorpyrifos or chlorpyrifos

- oxon which can saturate the air in a closed system. At these saturated concentrations, no statistically significant inhibition of AChE activity was measured in RBC, plasma, lung , or brain at any

time after the six

- hour exposure period in either study. Under actual field conditions, indications are that exposures to vapor phase chlorpyrifos and its oxon would be much lower as discussed in the January 2013 preliminary volatilizati on assessment.

Because these new studies demonstrated that no toxicity occurred even at the saturation concentration, which is the highest physically achievable concentration, then there is no risk potential, as risk is a function of both exposure and h azard. By extension, if there is no risk due to exposure to chlorpyrifos or chlorpyrifos oxon, only a qualitative risk assessment was completed for volatilization. In June 2014, the January 2013 volatilization assessment was revised to reflect these fin dings. 18



### 5.5 Residential Dose Reconstruction for the Columbia Cohort

The information presented by researchers associated with the Columbia University cohort indicate that pregnant women and children were exposed to chlorpyrifos. The researchers have at tributed neurodevelopmental effects to chlorpyrifos exposures, perhaps at levels lower than those at which AChE inhibition would be experienced. As such, one of the resulting key uncertainties is whether or not these individuals could also have experience d AChE inhibition at levels exceeding 10%, which is the regulatory threshold for adverse effects for cholinesterase inhibiting pesticides. Whether these exposures occurred is key for informing the decision to retain the 10X FQPA safety factor. EPA has co mpleted this dose reconstruction exercise to quantify the exposures possibly experienced in the cohort and the associated

level of RBC AChE inhibition. It should also be noted that in 2012, the FIFRA SAP recommended the

a gency conduct a dose reconstruction analysis to aid in informing this science question. This section summarizes the dose reconstruction analysis which was conducted.

The Columbia University studies included some information regarding the potential for residential

exposures, but they were incomplete regarding details of individual exposure events. To further inform the Columbia investigator’s exposure analyses

, the dose reconstruction analysis estimate d the possible exposure patterns for those in the co hort based on the then allowable indoor use s of chlorpyrifos at the time. Where available, c hemica l

- specific information was used in conjunction with the 2012 Residential

SOPs. Chlorpyrifos

- specific exposure data included post

- application air monitoring used to quantify inhalation exposures from indoor broadcast and crack and crevice applications. Also, chlorpyrifos

specific residue data representing a number of exposure pathways were used including from carpets and

17 

### W. Irwin. Review of Nose

- Only Inhalation of Chlorpyrifos Vapor: Limited Toxicokinetics and Determination of

Time

- Dependent Effects on Plasma, Red Blood Cell, Brain and Lung Cholinesterase Activity in Femal CD(SD): Crl

Rats . U.S. EPA Office of Che mical Safety and Pollution Preven tion

. 6/25/14 . D411959. TXR# 0056694. EPA

MRID# 49119501.

W. Irwin. Review of Nose

- Only Inhalation of Chlorpyrifos

- Oxon Vapor: Limited Toxicokinetics and Determination

of Time

- Dependent Effects on Plasma, Red Blood Cell, Brain, and Lung Cholinesterase Activity in Female CD(SD):Crl Rats . U.S. EPA Office of Che mical Safety and Polluti on Prevention

. 6/25/14 . D415447. TXR#

0056869. EPA MRID# 49210101.

18 

### W. Britton. W. Irwin. J. Dawson. A. Lowit. E. Mendez. Chlorpyrifos: Reevaluation of the Potential Risks from Volatilization in Consideration of Chlorpyrifos Parent and Oxon Vapor Inhala tion Toxicity Studies. 6/25/2014. U.S.

EPA Office of Che mical Safety and Pollution Prevention

. D 417105.

## Page 28 of 227

hard surfaces. These were used for es timation of post

- application dermal and incidental oral exposures. The algorithms, assumptions, and inputs used to conduct the dose reconstruction analysis are detailed in Appendix E

.

Prior to 2000, chlorpyrifos was one of the most widely used insectic ides for indoor pest control, so there are many possible ways which exposures could have occurred as a result of its use. Based on a review of residential products available at the time, it is likely that those in the Columbia study cohort could potential ly have experienced exposures from the following chlorpyrifos products/uses: broadcast ready to use (RTU) sprays; surface sprays ; crack and crevice sprays; and foggers/bombs. Some of these were specifically intended for use by pest control operators whil e others were products marketed for personal use. These chlorpyrifos residential products were registered as either a 0.5% or 1% active ingredient formulation and the1 % formulation was assumed for all to ensure the assessment was health protective. Expos ure estimates for all applicable scenarios were calculated and used as the basis for determining the level of possible RBC AChE associated with each. The scenarios which were considered include:

 Pregnant mothers who may have purchased a chlorpyrifos consumer aerosol can product and applied it in their homes;

 Exposures to pregnant mothers who may have had contact with chlorpyrifos residues in their

homes following an indoor application ; and

 Exposures to children 1 to < 2 years old who may have contact with residues in their homes following an indoor application

.

Use of the PBPK

- PD model

T he PBPK

- PD model was used to estimate the potential level of cholinesterase inhibition (% RBC AChE) attributable to the daily dose estimates that result in the highes t exposure potential. In order to model the potential health outcomes in a manner reflective of these exposures, a series of inputs were used that correspond to those used to quantify the daily dose estimates. The following exposure characteristics

were used: number of days exposed; body weights which vary by lifestage; daily exposure duration (hours per day, days per week); and the fraction of the dermal surface area exposed.

The dose reconstruction exercise was modeled for a subsequent 14 day post

- application duration. The daily dose estimated with the 2012 Standard Operating Procedures for Residential Pesticide Exposure Assessment for the day of application was inputted into the PBPK

- PD model. Dermal exposure was modeled assuming that chlorp yrifos residues dissipated at a rate of 10% per day. A 14 day period was

used as the basis of the PBPK

- PD modeling to ensure it adequately addressed the time it takes for the ACHE enzyme inhibition to reach a steady state.

For the adult and children 1 t o < 2 years old age groups, the appropriate body weights were obtained for modeling purposes from the Exposure Factors Handbook 19 

### (USEPA, 2011). The mean adult female bodyweight reflective of all trimesters of pregnancy, 75 kg, was assumed for pregnant wom en to reflect the population of interest from the Columbia cohort being evaluated (Exposure Factors Handbook: adult

and adult female: Tables 8

- 3 through 8

- 5; body weight of pregnant women: Table 8

- 29). For children 1 to < 2 years old, the body weight was s et to 11 kg ( Exposure Factors Handbook, Table 8

- 3, mean body weight for the 1 to < 2 year old age group).

For the evaluation of adult handler exposures (dermal and inhalation) it was assumed that the application event continued for 1 hour daily and tha t it occurred each day of the 14 day exposure period. The 2012 Residential SOPs makes no recommendation regarding the daily exposure duration for handlers. It was

19 

### http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/risk/recordisplay.cfm?deid=236252

## Page 29 of 227

assumed that 1 hour is a high end estimate of the time required to make an aerosol can appl ication. For the evaluation of adults and children 1 < 2 years old post

- application exposures (i.e., adults: dermal; children: dermal and incidental oral), the daily exposure duration was assumed to be 2 hours daily and that it occurs each day in the 14 d ay exposure period. This exposure duration is consistent with that recommended in the 2012 Residential SOPs for exposures on hard surfaces. For adults and children 1 to < 2 years old inhalation exposures, it was assumed that the exposure duration was 2 h ours on the day of application (Day 0) and was not repeated because the exposure source (i.e., aerosols from an application event) occurred only once on the first day of the exposure period. This is consistent with the available monitoring data and consis tent with the 2012 Residential SOPs, the Day 0 air monitoring measures were followed by a marked drop to negligible levels by the following day.

For all dose reconstruction dermal exposures to chlorpyrifos, the fraction of skin in contact with chlorpyri fos was 50% which reflected uncovered skin areas for children wearing shorts and a tee shirt. No shower (i.e., washing off the chlorpyrifos) was assumed to occur for the 14 day exposure duration

modeled.

Summary of Dose Reconstruction Risk Estimates

The exposure scenarios with the highest associated risks are presented below. For residential handler assessment, the application of an aerosol can resulted in the greatest risk potential. Results for pregnant
women who applied a 1% formulation aerosol s pray can are presented in Table 5.5.1

. Peak % RBC AChE inhibition estimated for pregnant women from combined dermal and inhalation exposures occurring from product application is 0.0012%.

For the assessment of indoor post

- application exposures for adul ts and children 1 to < 2 years old, exposures from indoor broadcast application s result in the highest risk estimates. Results for pregnant

women and children 1 to < 2 years old exposed from contact to residues following broadcast application s to hard sur faces in their homes are presented in Table 5.5.2 and Table 5.5.3 , respectively

. Peak cholinesterase inhibition for pregnant women resulting from combined dermal and inhalation exposure s occurring from contact with previously treated indoor areas i s 0.45%

. For children 1 to < 2 years old

, peak cholinesterase inhibition associated with combined dermal, incidental oral, and inhalation exposures from being in previously treated areas is 2.7%.

Overall, the dose reconstruction results support a conclusion t hat indoor application of chlorpyrifos, when used as allowed prior to cancellation from the residential marketplace in 2000, likely would not have resulted in RBC AChE inhibition greater than 10% in pregnant women or young children. These findings

are per tinent to the weight

- of

- evidence discussion for the FQPA 10X Safety Factor.

Ta ble 5.5.1 . Residential Handler ( Pregnant Women in the Columbia Cohort) Estimated Exposures and Predicted % ChE Inhibition (Route

- specific and Combined)

Exposure

Scenario Formulation Amount

Handled Dermal Dose

(mg/kg/day) Dermal:

Peak

% ChE

Inhibition Inhalation

Dose (mg/kg/day) Inhalation:

Peak

% ChE

Inhibition Combined

Peak

% ChE

Inhibition

Broadcast Ready to Use:

1 % Aerosol Spray Can 1 can 0.049 0.0007% 0.030 0.0008% 0.0012%

a. Derma l Dose = Dermal Unit Exposure (370 mg/lb ai) × Application Rate (0.010 lb ai/can) × Area Treated or Amount Handled (cans/day)

b. Inhalation Dose = Inhalation Unit Exposure (3.0 m g/lb ai) × Application Rate ( 0.010 lb ai/can ) × Area Treated or Amount Handled ( cans/day )

## Page 30 of 227

Table 5.5.2 . Residential Post

- application ( Pregnant Women in the Columbia Cohort ) Estimated Dermal and

Inhalation Exposures and Predicted % ChE Inhibition (Route

- specific and Combined)

Exposure

Scenario Formulation Dermal Dose (mg/kg/day) Dermal:

Peak

% ChE

Inhibition Airborne

Concentration of Chlorpyrifos (mg/m 3 ) Inhalation:

Peak

% ChE

Inhibition Combined:

Peak

% ChE

Inhibition

Broadcast (Hard Surfaces) 1% PCO

Application

or RTU 1 16

oz can 0.71 0.45% 0.092 0.0049% 0.45%

* See Appendix E for the algorithms and inputs used to estimate post

- application dermal exposures.



### Table 5.5.3 . Residential Post

- application ( Children 1 to < 2 years old in the Columbia Cohort) Estimated Dermal

and Inhalation Exposures and Predicted % RBC A ChE Inhibition (Route

- specific and Combined)

Exposure

Scenario Formulatio

n Dermal

Dose (mg/kg/day) Dermal:

Peak

% ChE

Inhibition HTM

Dose (mg/kg/day) HTM Peak

% ChE

Inhibition (mg/day) Airborne

Concn. of Chlorpyrifos (mg/m3) Inhalation:

Peak

% ChE

Inhibition Combined:

Peak

% ChE

Inhibition

Broadcast (Hard Surfaces) 1% PCO

Application

or RTU 1 16

oz can 1.3 0.14% 0.10 2.2% 0.092 0.014% 2.7%

* See Appendix E for the algorithms and inputs used to estimate post

- application dermal , (HTM) hand

- to

- mouth, and (OTM) object

- to

- mouth exposures /doses

.



### 6.0 Occupational Exposure and Risk Estimates

6.1 Occupational Handler Exposure/Risk Estimates

T he term handlers is used to describe those individuals who are involved in the pesticide application

process. T here are distinct job functions or tasks related to applications and exposures can vary depending on the specifics of each task. Job requirements (amount of a c he mical used in each application), the kinds of equipment used, the target being treated, and the level of protection used by a handler can cause exposure levels to differ in a manner specific to each application event.

Based on the anticipated use patt erns and current labeling, types of equipment and techniques that can potentially be used, occupational handler exposure is expected from chlorpyrifos use. Current labels generally require that handlers use normal work clothing (i.e., long sleeved shirt a nd pants, shoes and socks) and coveralls, chemical resistant gloves, and dust/mist respirators. Also, some products are marketed in engineering controls such as water soluble packets. In order to determine what level of personal protection is required to alleviate risk concerns and to ascertain if label modifications are needed, steady state exposure and risk estimates were calculated for occupational handlers of chlorpyrifos for a variety of scenarios at differing levels of personal protection including engineering controls.

The 2011 occupational exposure assessment has been updated based on a number of chang es that have occurred since that time, including the following: 1) use of the PBPK

- PD model submitted by DowAgroSciences for prediction of the pot ential risks from occupational chlorpyrifos exposures 2) inclusion of use patterns based on a master use summary document developed for chlorpyrifos in cooperation with chlorpyrifos registrants 3) use of revised guidance for all of the currently recommende d

## Page 31 of 227

unit exposures for standard EPA occupational handler exposure scenarios 20



### , Occupational Pesticide Handler Unit Exposure Surrogate Reference Table

– Revised March 2013 4) use of the revised seed treatment policy, Interim Guidance (SOP 15.1) Amount of Commercial Seed Treated per Day, as was updated March 21, 2013 and 5 ) use of updated adult (female) body weight.

The updated quantitative exposure/risk assessment developed for occupational handlers is bas e d on the following scenarios:

Mixer/Loaders:

(1a) Liquids for Aerial/ Ch e migation Applications (1b) Liquids for Airblast Applications (1c) Liquids for Groundboom Applications (1d) Liquids for Wide Area Aerial Applications (1e) Liquids for Wide Area Ground Applications (2a) Wettable Powder (in WSP) for Aerial/ Ch e migation Applications (2b) Wettable Powder (in WSP) for Airblast Applications (2c) Wettable Powder (in WSP) for Groundboom Applications (3a) Granulars for Aerial Applications (3b) Granulars for Trac tor Drawn Spreader Applications (3c) Granulars with SmartBox® for Aerial Applications (3d ) Granulars with SmartBox® for Tractor Drawn Spreader Applications (4a) Water Dispersible Granulars (in WSP) for Aerial/ Chemigation Applications (4b) Water Dispersibl e Granulars (in WSP) for Airblast Applications (4c) Water Dispersible Granulars (in WSP) for Groundboom Applications

Applicators:

(5a) Aerial Liquid Applications (5b) Wide Area Aerial Applications (5c) Aerial Granular Applications (6a) Airblast Applicati ons (6b) Wide Area Ground Applications (7a) Groundboom Applications (7b) Tractor D rawn Granular Applications (7c) Tractor Drawn Granular Spreader Applications with SmartBox® (8) Paint Brush/Roller Applications (9) Cattle Ear Tag Applications (10) Bait Station Applications (11) Total Release Fogger

Mixer/Loader/Applicators:

(12a) Liquid: Manually Pressurized Handwand (12b) Liquid: Wettable Powder (in WSP) for Manually Pressurized Handwand (12c) Liquid: Microencapsulated for Manually Pressurized Handw and (12d) Liquid: Backpack Sprayer (12e) Liquid: Wettable Powder (in WSP) for Backpack Sprayer (12f) Liquid: Microencapsulated for Backpack Sprayer

20 

### http://www.epa.gov/opp00001/science/handler

- exposure

- data.html

## Page 32 of 227

(12g ) Liquid: Mechanically Pressurized Handgun (12h ) Liquid: Wettable Powder (in WSP) for Mechanically Pr essurized Handgun (12i ) Liquid: Microencapsulated for Mechanically Pressurized Handgun (13a) Granulars: Hand Dispersal (13b) Granulars: Rotary Spreader (13c) Granulars: Spoon (13d) Granulars: Belly Grinder (14a) Water Dispersible Granular (in WSP): Manu ally Pressurized Handwand (14b) Water Dispersible Granular (in WSP): Backpack Sprayer (14c) Water Dispersible Granular (in WSP): Mechanically Pressurized Handgun

Flaggers:

(15a) Flagging for Aerial Spray Applications (15b) Flagging for Aerial Granular Applications

Occupational Handler Exposure Data and Assumptions

A series of assumptions and exposure factors served as the basis for completing the occupational handler

risk assessments.

Application Rates: HED assumes the maximum application rates allowed by labels in its risk assessments. The updated occupational assessment was conducted with use of the maximum labeled rates for all registered uses assessed. The master use summary document can be referenc ed in Appendix A

.

Body weights: For adults when an endpoint is not sex

- specific a body weight of 80 kg is typically used in risk assessment. However, in this case, a female

- specific body weight of 69 kg was used. While the endpoint of concern, RBC AChE inhibition, is not sex

- specific, the female body weight was used due to concerns for pregnant women related to the application of the 10X FQPA safety factor based on findings in the Columbia University cohort and the related uncertainty.

Unit Exposures: It is the policy of HED to use the best available data to assess handler exposure. Sources of generic handler data, used as surrogate data in the absence of che mical

- specific data, include PHED 1.1, the AHETF database, the ORETF database, or other registr ant

- submitted occupational exposure studies. Some of these data are proprietary (e.g., AHETF data), and subject to the data protection provisions of FIFRA. The standard values recommended for use in predicting handler exposure that are used in this updat ed assessment, known as “unit exposures”, are outlined in the “Occupational Pesticide Handler Unit Exposure Surrogate Reference Table 21 

### ”, which, along with additional information on HED policy on use of surrogate data, including descriptions of the variou s sources, can be found at the a gency website

. 22



### Area Treated or Amount Handled: For the updated assessment, the daily areas treated were defined for each handler scenario (in appropriate units) by determining the amount that can be reasonably treated in a single day (e.g., acres, square feet, or gallons per day). When possible, the assumptions for daily areas

treated are taken from the HED Science Advisory Committee on Exposure (ExpoSAC) Policy 9.1: Standard Values for Daily Acres Treated in Agriculture, wh ich was completed on July 5, 2000. However,

standard values are not available for numerous scenarios. The area treated assumptions identified in the

2011 occupational and residential exposure assessment as largely the same as used for the updated except

21 

### Available: http://www.epa.gov/opp00 001/science/handler

- exposure

- table.pdf

22 

### Available: http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/science/handler

- exposure

- data.html

## Page 33 of 227

for the following changes:

 Paint Roller/Brush: the 2011 assessment assumed 110 gallons for treatment of sewer manhole covers, the current assumes 20 gallons for coverage of 50 manholes; 3 gallons applie d for all other uses as was done previously;

 Fire Ant Mounds: the previous assessment assumed 25 mounds were treated, the current assumes that an area of 1,000 square feet is treated.

Exposure Duration: As described previously, the steady state approac h is used and is appropriate for chlorpyrifos given the toxicological and exposure profile. The steady state approa ch accounts for the

short

- term exposure duration, as well as for workers that are exposed over longer periods of time (i.e.,

intermediate

- ter m exposures).

Mitigation/Personal Protective Equipment: Estimates of dermal and inhalation exposure were calculated for various levels of personal protective equipment (PPE). The lowest tier is designated as the baseline exposure scenario (i.e., long

- sl eeve shirt, long pants, shoes, socks, and no respirator). If risks are of concern at baseline attire, then increasing levels of PPE (e.g., gloves, double

- layer body protection, and respirators) are evaluated. If risks remain a concern with maximum PPE, t hen engineering controls (e.g., enclosed cabs or cockpits, water

- soluble packaging, and closed mixing/loading systems) are evaluated. This approach is used to ensure that the lowest level of risk mitigation that provides adequate protection is selected, s ince the addition of PPE and engineering controls involves an additional expense to the user

and

– in the case of PPE

– also involves an additional burden to the user due to decreased comfort and dexterity and increased heat stress and respiratory stress.

An assessment of handler exposure from the use of chlorpyrifos total release foggers was not performed because dermal and inhalation exposure is expected to be negligible based on the use pattern for this method of application. A total release fogger is a n aerosol pesticide device designed to automatically release its total content in one operation for the purpose of creating a permeating fog within a space to deliver the pesticide throughout the space. Therefore, total release aerosols do not need any ot her application equipment (PR NOTICE 98

- 6, 1998).

Furthermore, the total release fogger product (EPA Reg. No. 499

- 405) directions state that once cans are activated to, “leave greenhouse at once,” and that, “all human occupants must be removed before

tr eatment.” In accordance with a common integrated pest management (IPM) and preventive safety practice, if multiple foggers are to be activated, the chlorpyrifos total release fogger label directs the use to “start with the can farthest away from the exit door.”

The assessment of handler exposure from the use of chlorpyrifos ear tag and roach bait stations were also not conducted. Dermal exposure is expected to be negligible if gloves are worn, and inhalation exposure from these uses is not anticipated.

Exposure Data for Handler Exposure Scenarios: HED uses unit exposures to assess handler exposures to pesticides. Unit exposures are estimates of the amount of exposure to an active ingredien t a handler receives while performing various handler tasks and are expressed in terms of micrograms or milligrams of active ingredient per pounds of active ingredient handled. HED has developed a series of unit exposures that are unique for each scenario typically considered in our assessments (i.e., there are different unit exposures for different types of application equipment, job functions, and levels of protection). The current assessment make sue of the document, Occupational Pesticide Handler Unit Exposure Surrogate Reference Table

– Revised March 2013 , was publically released to provide guidance for all of the currently recommended unit exposures for standard EPA occupational handler exposure

## Page 34 of 227

scenarios

. 23 

### A summary of all exposure data used to conduct the occupational handler risk asses sment is presented in Appendix G

.

In ad dition to this surrogate data, one non

- che mical specific exposure study was used for the updated

assessment. The exposure study was used to assess the use of SmartBox ® technology for the mixing/loading of granular formulations for aerial and ground applications , and the application by ground equipment. Separate data evaluation record s (DER s ) were completed for the mixing/loading 24 

### and applicator 25 

### studies . A summary of the study is presented below.

MRID 44180401

- Chlorethoxyfos Loader Exposure Study During Loading of Fortress 5G Granular Insecticide Using the SmartBox ® System During Planting in the Midwest : The purpose of the study was to determine the exposure to chlorethoxyfos from workers performing loading operations using

Fortress 5G/SmartBox ® product containers in the Midwest. The 5G product is delivered solely through

closed

- handling and application SmartBox ® system. L oader exposure to Fortress 5G in the SmartBox ® is based on the use of a long

- sleeved shirt, long pants, shoes plus socks and chemical

- resistant gloves.

The study monitored occupational handlers preparing and applying Chlorethoxyfos to corn at planting i n the Midwest. In the study, loaders set up one load of twelve Smartbox® systems each containing 50 pounds of formulation for a single twelve row corn planter set on 30” row spacing. The complete work cycle for each monitoring unit included removing twelve used Smartbox® product containers from the planter, the replacement of twelve full product containers, and opening the valves to fill the Smartbox® reservoirs from the full product containers. Each loader monitoring unit (MU) was exposed to 600 pounds

of product formulation or 30 pounds of active ingredient.

During loading operations, using twelve row planters, three individual workers were monitored for dermal and respiratory exposure to chlorethoxyfos. A total of 15 MUs were obtained at 3 sites. All

p articipants were local farmers or farm workers and were previously experienced in the ground application of pesticides.

Results indicate loader dermal exposure below the level of detection (LOD) and negligible respiratory exposure to chlorethoxyfos re gardless of wind direction or work habits. The majority of dosimeter samples had no detectable residues ; therefore, actual exposures may be significantly less than calculated exposures since samples below the level of quantitation (LOQ) were assumed to b e 1⁄2 the LOQ. Resp iratory chlorethoxyfos exposure was estimated to be 0.003 μg/lb ai handled, and dermal exposure was estimated to be 0.2 μg/lb ai handled.

MRID 44301301

- Chlorethoxyfos Applicator Exposure Study during Application of Fortress® 5G

Granula r Insecticide using the Smartbox® System during Corn Planting in the Midwest: The purpose of this study was to monitor chlorethoxyfos exposure to applicators who were operating enclosed

- cab

tr actors while applying Fortress 5G/ SmartBox ®. The granular inse cticide was applied at the maximum label rate of 3.25 lb of formulation per acre of corn. Indvidual workers were monitored for dermal and inhalation exposure to chlorethoxyfos. The experiment was conducted at three sites as required by the guidelines. A ll sites were in Illinois; two of the three are at the same street address. The sites are reported to be typical of site s where Fortress® 5G is used. The study was conducted in the time

- frame of

23 

### http://www.epa.gov/opp00001/science/handler

- exposure

- data.html

24 

### L. LaSota. Evaluation of Loader Exposure Data Submitted as a Part of the Conditional Registration of Fortress

5G (Chlorethoxyfos). EPA MRID: 44180401. 1/23/1997. D232274.

25 

### J. Arthur. Review of “Chlorethoxyfos Applicator Exposure Study during Application of Fortress® 5G Granular Insecticide using the Smartbox  System during Corn Planting in the Midwest.” EPA MRI D: 443013

- 01. 7/27/1998.

D238361.

## Page 35 of 227

the typical corn

- planting season in the midwestern corn bel t (mid

- april through late May).

Applicators primarily remained in the enclosed cab tractors and wore appropriate personal protective clothing; long sleeve shirt, long pants, shoes and socks. In addition, under their work clothes, each applicator wore a l ong

- sleeved t

- shirt and ankle

- length underwear tights as whole

- body dosimeters. Those occasions where the worker exited the enclosed cab to perform routine, but non

- pesticide

- loading functions (eg, to perform seed corn loading) were recorded, including a description of the activity and

duration.

The average corn

- planting acreage per day is reported to be 125 to 150, with a maximum of 180 acres.

This estimate is based on the use of a 12

- row planter set for 30

- inch wide rows. At this setting, the

recomm ended rate of formula application is 3.25 lb per acre. If 180 acres are covered at 3.25 lb per acre with a formulation containing 5% active ingredient (a.i.), then a maximum potential chlorethoxyfos exposure could amount to 29.25 lb a.i./day. In this stu dy, an average of 45.3 acres were covered per monitoring unit (MU)

.

Applicator inhalation exposure was monitored with a standard personal air sampling pump (Gilian Model

HFS

- 133A) calibrated at a standard 2 liters per minute. One such sampler was attached to each worker to collect breathing zone samples during all applicator activities (including outside the enclosed cab), while another identical pump always remaine d inside the cab collecting samples.

No measurable dermal residues were found from the monitoring of chlorethoxyfos applicators. All samples were below the level of quantitation (LOQ) for the matrix used. Calcu lations used one half the LOQ . Using dermal residue values based on one half of the LOQ for samples of hands, neck/face, lower body and upper body results in a total of 6 ug per MU. Combining this residue amount with the average amount applied per MU (147 lb formulation, or 7.4 lb a .i.) results in a dermal unit exposure of 0.81 ug a.i./lb a.i. applied.

Estimated Inhalation Chlorethoxyfos Exposure. The average calculated pump filter residue from airborne chlorethoxyfos was 0.06 ug per s ample (see table below). When adjusted to a br eathing rate of 29 liters per minute (lpm), t his residue value results in a total of 0.87 ug per MU ( [0.06 ug  2 lpm] x 29 l pm = 0.87 ug). Combining this residue amount with the average amount applied per MU (147 lb formula tion,

or 7.4 lb a.i.) results in a respiratory unit exposure of 0.12 ug a.i./lb a.i. applied.

Summary of Occupational Handler Exposure Data Gaps: Consistent with the 2011 occupational and residential exposure assessment , no new data gaps have been identified for the assessment of oc cupational handler exposure/risk in addition to those identified in the Registration Eligibility Decision (RED) for chlorpyrifos (finalized 7/31/06; IRED issued 2/2002). Based on a 90

- day progress report submitted (August 28, 2003) by the technical regist rant, Dow AgroSciences, many of the data requirements are anticipated to be supported by the generation of data by the Agricultural Handlers Exposure Task Force (AHETF). These data requirements include exposure data for :

 seed treatment uses;

 mixing wet table powders for aerial/chemigation application;

 loading and applying granulars for aerial application;

 groundboom application; and

 h uman flaggers for aerial application.

AHETF data for groundboom application and for mixing/loading liquid formulations have been submitted and reviewed by HED and used to estimate exposure/risk for occupational handlers from the exposure

## Page 36 of 227

scenario and, therefore, satisfy the data requirement. AHETF data for seed treatment and planting treated

seed has been sub mitted and is currently under review by HED. The requirement for exposure data for mixing wettable powders for aerial/chemigation applications should be waived because the formulation is no longer supported by the registrant. An exposure study for loading granular formulations is being planned under AHETF. A study protocol was submitted and reviewed by the Human Studies Review Board (HSRB) November 2014. It does not appear, however, that flaggers are being supported by DAS as part of their prior response to the data requirements.

O ccupational Handler Non

- Cancer Exposure and Risk Estimate Equations

The algorithms used to estimate non

- cancer exposure and dose for occupational handlers are the same as those presented in the 2011 occupational and residenti al exposure assessment (Section 2.1.4).

Combining Exposures/Risk Estimates:

Dermal and inhalation risk estimates were combined in this assessment, since the toxicological effects,

RBC A ChE inhibition, for these exposure routes were similar.

Summary of Occupational Handler Non

- Cancer Exposure s and Risk Estimates

Steady state exposure and risks were calculated for occupational handlers of chlorpyrifos for a variety of exposure scenarios at differing levels of personal protection and with engineering controls and are presented in Appendix F of this document

. PBPK

- PD modeled PoDs (dermal and inhalation) specific for occupational assessment were used to estimate handler risks. Of the 285 total occupational handler exposure scenarios assess ed, 132 are n ot of concern (i.e., MOEs are ≥ 100) at the levels of personal protection (clothing or equipment) or engineering controls currently required by product labeling for these

scenarios. Risks of concern for 27 additional exposure scenarios could potentially b e mitigated if additional personal protective equipment or engineering controls are used. Risks of concern were estimated for 126 exposure scenarios and remain a concern regardless of the levels of personal protection and engineering controls considered. These risks could be mitigated using the highest level of personal protection available and by modification to other label requirements such as application rate or, in some cases, deleting certain types of application equipment.

6.2 Commercial Seed Treat ment

Based upon the registered seed treatment uses of chlorpyrifos, occupational handler exposure is expected

for individuals involved in commercial seed treatment. Post

- application exposure to agricultural workers is not expected. No chemical

- specific handler exposure data were submitted in support of this use

pattern.

An assessment of chlorpyrifos commercial seed treatment was conducted in 2011

. All occupational exposure scenarios assessed, algorithms, and unit exposures used (taken from HED ExpoSAC Policy 14: SOPs for Seed Treatment) are the same as were used previously in the 2011 occupational and residential

exposure assessment (Section 2.3) fo r the assessment of commercial seed treatment. However, the assessment of occupational seed treatment uses has bee n updated to reflect the use of the guidance document, Interim Guidance (SOP 15.1) Amount of Commercial Seed Treated per Day, updated March

2 1, 2013, as well as the updated default adult (female) body weight

. Also, seed treatment risk was

estimated with use of PBPK

- PD modeled PoDs (dermal and inhalation) specific for occupational

assessment.

The steady state approach is appropriate for the assessment of commercial seed treatment with

## Page 37 of 227

chlorpyrifos given the toxicological and exposure profile. The steady state endpoint selection for chlorpyrifos accounts for HED’s traditional short

- term exposure duration endpoint selection, as well as being a ppropriately health protective for workers that are exposed over longer periods of time (i.e.,

intermediate

- term exposures).

Summary of Commercial Seed Treatment Exposures and Risk Estimates

Steady state exposure and risks calculated for occupational han dlers performing seed treatment activities in commercial settings and for occupational secondary handlers from planting chlorpyrifos

- treated seeds are presented in Appendix H which accompanies this document.

Of the 68 exposure scenarios assessed, 36 res ulted in risk estimates which were not of concern (i.e., MOEs are ≥ 100) at the level of personal protection currently required by product label s . Secondary handler (seed planter) scenarios were also evaluated and none are of concern when compared to current

label s. For the remaining 32 seed treatment scenarios, MOEs were < 100 at all level s of personal protection considered and, therefore, are of potential concern.

6. 3 Occupational Post

- application Exposure/Risk Estimates

HED us es the term post

- application to describe exposures that occur when individuals are present in an environment that has been previously treated with a pesticide (also referred to as re

- entry exposure). Such exposures may occur when workers enter previously treated areas to perform job functions, including activities related to crop production, such as scouting for pests or harvesting. Post

- application exposure levels vary over time and depend on such things as the type of activity, the nature of the crop or target that was treated, the type of pesticide application, and the chemical ’s degradation properties. In addition, the timing of pesticide applications, relative to harvest activities, can greatly reduce the potential for post

- application exposure. Chl orpyrifos parent compound is the residue of concern for occupational

post

- application dermal exposures; however , it may be possible that the formation of the oxon is greater and its deactivation slower in greenhouses when compared to the outdoor environmen t and that an assessment may be needed for exposure to the oxon in greenhouse settings. Occupational post

application assessments were performed for: 1) exposures to the parent compound chlorpyrifos in outdoor environments (uses other than greenhouse), 2) exposures to the parent chlorpyrifos (only) in greenhouses and 3) exposures to both the parent and the oxon metabolite in greenhouses.

An update of the occupational post

- application exposure assessment is required based on use of the following: 1) a PBP K

- PD modeled dermal PoD specific for occupational assessment 2) the master use

summary document 3) the updated adult (female) default body weight 4) the changes relating to agricultural transfer coefficients (TC) as described in the Science Advisory Council for Exposure (ExpoSA C) Policy 3

– Revised March 2013

. 26



### 6. 3 .1 Occupational Post

- application Inhalation Exposure/Risk Estimates

There are multiple potential sources of post

- application inhalation exposure to individuals performing

post

- application activities in previously treated fields. These potential sources include volatilization of pesticides and resuspension of dusts and/or particulates that contain pesticides. As described in Section
5.4, a quantitative risk assessment is not required for c hlorpyrifos or chlorpyrifos oxon due to the lack of toxicity from the vapor phase of these chemicals, even at the saturation concentration.

26 

### http://www.epa.gov/opp00001/science/exposac

- policy

- 3

- march2013.pdf

## Page 38 of 227

The Worker Protection Standard for Agricultural Pesticides contains requirements for protecting workers

from inhalation exposures during and after greenhouse applications through the use of ventilation requirements.[40 CFR 170.110, (3) (Restrictions associated with pesticide applications)]

.

6. 3 .2 Occupational Post

- application Dermal Exposure/Risk Estimates

Occu pational Post

- application Dermal Exposure Data and Assumptions

A series of assumptions and exposure factors served as the basis for completing the occupational post

application risk assessments. The majority of assumptions and exposure factor detailed in the 2011 exposure assessment are the same, except for changes relating to agricultural transfer coefficients (TC) as

described in the Science Advisory Council for E xposure (ExpoSAC) Policy 3

– Revised March 201 3 and the standard adult body weight assumptions.

Post

- application Exposure Data : The 2011 occupational and residential exposure assessment made use of

7 Chemical

- specific DFR studies in support of the re

- reg istration of chlorpyrifos that encompass the use of 5 different formulations and 12 different crops. Specifically, the DFR studies examine the use of 1) emulsifiable concentrate formulations on sugarbeets, pecans, citrus, sweet corn, cotton, and turf; 2)

w ettable powder formulations on almonds, apples, pecans, cauliflower, tomato and turf; 3) granular formulations on sweet corn and turf; 4) a total release aerosol formulation on ornamentals; and 5) a microencapsulated liquid formulation on ornamentals. The submitted studies were reviewed by HED. Despite limitations, HED recommended the use of all or some of the data in the studies to assess post

application risks to chlorpyrifos except for the tomato DFR data. Summaries for all DFR studies can be

referen ced in Appendix I of this document.

The current assessment makes use of the same DFR data and crop pairings as was done for the 2011 occupational and residential exposure assessment . For example, DFR data for an individual crop was applied to that spe cific crop, as well as to crops in the same crop grouping (e.g., cauliflower data was used for cauliflower and all other cole crops). For other crops in which no crop

- specific or crop group

- specific data are available, the DFR data for the crop deemed the closest match were used as surrogates to calculate potential exposure (e.g., cauliflower data were also used for strawberries, cranberries, and leafy vegetables). Additionally, whenever possible, a label use was assessed using DFR data for the same

formu lation type. A full description of the criteria for selection of DFR data for assessment of post

application exposures to individual crops/crop groupings can be referenced in Section 2.4.3 of the 2011 occupational and residential exposure assessment

.

Th e DFR data were extrapolated to the currently labeled crops as follows:

Cauliflower (MRID 42974501): Berry: Low Vegetable: Head and Stem Brassica Vegetable: Leafy

Citrus (MRID 43062701): Tree Fruit: Evergreen

Ornamental/Nurseries

Vine/Trellis

Apple (MRID 44748101): Tree Fruit: Deciduous (Pome and Stone Fruit)

## Page 39 of 227

Forestry

Ornamentals/Nurseries

Almond and Pecan (MRID 44748101):

Tree Nuts

Cotton ( MRID 44748102): Field and Row Crops: Low to Medium (Fiber, Legume Vegetable, Non

- grass Animal Feeds) Vegeta ble: Fruiting Stalk and Stem Vegetable

Sugarbeet (MRID 44748102): Field and Row Crops: Low to Medium Ornamentals (Outdoor Only) Vegetable: Root and Tuber Stalk and Stem Vegetable

Sweet Corn

– Emulsifiable Concentrate and Granular Formulation (MRID 447481 02): Field and Row Crops: Tall

Turf (MRID 44829601):

Turf

Greenhouse Ornamentals

– Total Release Aerosol Formulation (MRID 46722701): Greenhouse Use (All Liquid Formulations)

Greenhouse Ornamentals

– Microencapsulated Liquid Formulation (MRID 46722702) : Greenhouse Use (Microencapsulated Liquid Formulation Only)

Summary of Occupational Post

- application Dermal Exposure and Risk Estimates

Steady state occup ational post

- application dermal risk estimates are presented in Appendix J which accompanies this document based on the PBPK

- PD model predicted dermal PoD.

Current labels require a Restricted Entry Interval (REI) of 24 hours from most crops and activities, but in some cases such as tree fruit, REIs are up to 5 days after application. The p ost

- application worker

assessment results indicate that no REI increase is required for the majority of outdoor environment crops and commodities with a labeled REI (i.e., 43 of 55 total). However, for 12 crops, activities such as irrig ation, hand harvesting, scouting, and thinning result in risks of concern up to as many as 10 days following application.

For the assessment of post

- application exposures to parent chlorpyrifos (only) from ornamental production in greenhouses, 4 formula tions were assessed: emulsifiable concentrate, microencapsulated liquid, wettable powder in WSP, and total release fogger. An REI increase of up to 5 days may be needed to alleviate risks from with use of the emulsifiable concentrate, wettable powder in W SP and total release fogger formulations. For the microencapsulated liquid formulation, the estimated REIs range from 0 to > 35 days after treatment (the completion of the monitoring period) dependent on the exposure activity

considered.

## Page 40 of 227

6.4 Occupation al Post

- application Dermal Exposure/Risk Estimates: Chlorpyrifos Oxon

Chlorpyrifos is activated by desulfuration, reacting in bioactivation to the more toxic and potent acetyl cholinesterase (A AhE ) inhibitor, chlorpyrifos oxon. The oxon is highly unstable due to rapid deactivation through hydrolytic cleavage by a process called dearylation which releases TCP. In the 2011 occupational and residential exposure assessment , the exposure potential for post

- application occupational and residential exposure s to chlorpyrifos oxon was considered

. Workers reentering an

indoor environment (i.e., gree n houses) previously treated with chlorpyrifos could potentially be exposed

to the ox on as chlorpyrifo s degrades

. Available exposure data in dicate chlorpyrifos oxon may form in

indoor environments. 27 

### Toxicity adjustment factors (TAFs), were developed for the 2011 preliminary

human health risk assessment 28 

### to estimate the potency of chlorpyrifos oxon relative to chlorpyrifos.

HED determined the oxon to be between 11.9 (acute) and 18X (chronic) times more toxic than the parent.

Dermal exposure to the oxon on foliar surfaces from reentry into an outdoor environment (e.g., field crops and orchards) previously treated with chlorpyrifos is not anticipated and, therefore, has not been assessed. No occupational exposure studies (handler, post

- application

, or DFR) were identified that quantified the

levels of oxon present in the environment

. However, a search of open literature for the 2011 assessment resulted in 4 plant metabolism studies which measured surface residues. Three plant metabolism studies 29



### measured leaf surface residue s of the oxon in outdoor environments that were either well below the

pa rent, not detectable, or detected at a level just above the level of detection (LOD). The potential for exposure to the oxon is further minimized due to rapid deactivation of the oxon to TCP. Further, the dietary exposure risk assessment 30 

### conducted in su pport of registration review concludes the following, “all residues in food are assumed to be parent chlorpyrifos since the chlorpyrifos oxon is not typically found in foods, in monitoring data, or crop field trials.”

The 4 th 

### plant metabolism study, a to mato and green bean greenh ouse metabolism study

, was less

definitive than the other three plant metabolism studies regarding oxon presence

. HED is concerned that the formation of the oxon may be greater and its deactivation to TCP slower in greenhouses wh en compared to the outdoor environment. The study results indicate that oxon is from 9 to 14X less than the parent from fruit analyzed on the day of application in flat and asymmetric roof greenhouses. The proportion of oxon to parent is less for all day s which measurable levels were observed (all but 8 and 15 days after application). The oxon was detected until day 5 with levels between 5 and 6X below that of the parent. It should be noted that residues of chlorpyrifos and oxon were measured from analy sis of whole fruit samples. HED typically assesses occupational post

- application exposure and risk based upon the potential for transfer from surface residues. The whole fruit samples

, which include surface residues, as well as residues which may have be en contained within the fruit sample

, likely impact the oxon presence

. Regardless, t he 2011 occupational and residential exposure assessment recommended additional data to measure the chlorpyrifos and oxon residues on leaf surfaces following treatment with a liquid formulation in greenhouses in order to a ddress these uncertainties and more accurately address the risk potential for

27 

### J.L. Martinez Vidal, et al. 1998. Diminution of Chlorpyrifos and C hlo r pyrifos Oxon in Tomatoes and Green

Beans Grown in Greenhouses. J. of Ag ric. and Food Chem. 46 (4), 1440

– 1444

. 28 

### D. Drew. Chlorpyrifos: Preliminary Human Health Risk Assessment for Registration Review . 6/30/11. U.S.

EPA Office of Che mical Safety and Pollution Prevention

. D388070.

29 29 

### Iwata, Y. et al. 1983. Chlorpyrifos Applied to California Citrus: Residue Levels on Foliage and On and In Fruit. J. Agric. Food Chem. 31(3), 603

- 610.

H. Jin and G.R. Webster. 1997. Persistence, Penetration, and Surf ace Availability of Chlorpyrifos, Its Oxon, and
3,5,6

- Trichloro

- 2

- pyridinol in Elm Bark . 45(12), 4871

- 4876. R. Putnam, et al. 2003. The Persistence and Degradation of Chlorthalonil and Chlorpyrifos in a Cranberry Bog. J. Agric. Food Chem. 51(1), 170

- 176.

30 

### D. Drew. Chlorpyrifos: Acute and Steady State Dietary (Food Only) Exposure Analysis to Support Registration

Review. 12/18/2014. U.S. EPA Office of Che mical Safety and Pollution Prevention

. D 424486.

## Page 41 of 227

e xposure from occupational reentry into greenhouses treated with chlorpyrifos

. To date , no data has been

submitted to address these uncertainties

. As a result, HED has conducted an assessment of occupational

post

- application exposures in greenhouses that uses conservative assumptions of oxon formation

.

In order to account for the formation of and potential increased toxicity from exposure to chlorpyrifos

oxon, a total toxic residue approach was applied which combines chlorpyrifos and chlorpyrifos oxon (expressed as toxicity equivalents)

. The total toxic residue approach 31 

### estimates the chlorpyrifos oxon equivalent residues by 1) assuming a specific fraction of the measured chlorpyrifos dislodgeable foliar residues are available as the oxon and 2) factor ing in the relative potency of chlorpyri fos oxon with use of

a TAF. It was conservatively assume d that 5% (0.05) of the total chlorpyrifos present as DFR in greenhouses is available for worker contact during post

- application activities. This assumption is based on a review of available TTR and DFR data for other OPs where both the parent and metabolite were measured in residue samples. Five percent was found to be the high

- end value for the percent of parent that metabolized during the course of the res idue studies. The chronic TAF (which is appropriate for steady state assessment) of 18 was derived from BMD analysis of inhibition of RBC AChE in adult female rats (adult male rats not examined) observed in the repeated phase of the CCA study. Once predic ted, these total toxic (dislodgeable foliar) residues are used to estimate exposures from post

application activities in greenhouse and risks are estimated with used of the steady state PoD for occupational exposures, 4.9 mg/kg/day.

Summary of Occupati onal Post

- application Dermal Exposure and Risk Estimates with Use of Total Toxic Residue Approach

Due to uncertainty regarding the formation of chlorpyrifos oxon in greenhouses, HED also estimated risks for reentry into treated greenhouses (all 4 formulations) for the parent chlorpyrifos plus chlorpyrifos oxon using a total toxic residue approach. Whe n the total toxic residue approach is used to evaluate risks from exposure to the oxon with use of the emulsifiable concentrate, wettable powder in WSP, and total release fogger formulations, results indicate that an REI increase up to 6 days may be needed to alleviate risk concerns. For the microencapsulated liquid formulation, REIs range from 3 to > 35 days after treatment (the completion of the monitoring period) dependent on the exposure activity considered.

31 

### Total DFR (μg/cm 2 

### ) = [ Chlorpyrifos DFR (μg/cm 2 

### ) * TAF] + [ Chlorpyrifos DFR (μg/cm 2 

### )]

## Page 42 of 227

Appendix A: Chlorpyrifos Master Label Use Document

## Table A.1. Summary of Current Chlorpyrifos Usage

Crop/Site Residential Agricultural Forestry 

### Timing; Application Type Method/

Equipment Maximum

Single Application Rate by

Formulation 1


### (lb a.i./A) Maximum

Application Rate Maximum

Application

Number PHI (days) 3 REI (hours)

3 MRI (days)

3 

### Geographic

Restrictions Comments
Per

Year

lb

a.i./A Per

CC 2



### lb a.i./A Per

Year Per

CC 2



### AGRICULT

URAL FARM

PREMISES

Livestock housing and holding areas (such as hog barns, empty chicken houses, dairy areas, milkrooms, calf hutches, calving pens and parlors).  Indoor general surface spray backpack

sprayer; high

and low sprayer (pressure or volume) 0.075 lb a.i./

1000 ft sq

1.2
EC, ME [14.4]

NS NA 12 NA NA NS NS Only permitted

for use in poultry houses

ALFALFA

 At plant groundboom 1.0

G 1.0 1.0 [1]

NS 1 21 24 [10]

NS Missouri

only Lower PHI

permitted for

EC rates 0.33 lb a.i./A (7 d) and

0.67 lb a.i./A (14 d) e.g. Reg.

No. 62719

- 591

Stand is in production 3

- 5 years. Planted 1⁄4” to 1⁄2” deep.

 Foliar aerial or ground/ broadcast, chemigation 1.0

EC [4.0]

NS 4.0 [4]

NS 4 21 24 10 Lower PHI permitted for

EC rates 0.33 lb a.i./A (7 d) and

## Page 44 of 227 Table A.1. Summary of Current Chlorpyrifos Usage

Crop/Site Residential Agricultural Forestry 

### Timing; Application Type Method/

Equipment Maximum

Single Application Rate by

Formulation 1


### (lb a.i./A) Maximum

Application Rate Maximum

Application

Number PHI (days) 3 REI (hours)

3 MRI (days)

3 

### Geographic

Restrictions Comments
Per

Year

lb

a.i./A Per

CC 2



### lb a.i./A Per

Year Per

CC 2



### 0.67 lb a.i./A (14 d) e.g. , Reg.

No. 62719

- 591

Multiple harvests (or cuttings) per year when used

for feed/fodder

and 1 harvest per year when grown for seed. Cuttings occur about every 30 days. Only 1 crop cycle per year but up to 9 cuttings, varies by geography.

Total 1.0 5.0 5.0 [5]

NS 5 21 24 [10]

NS Represents

Missouri

scenario

otherwise 4.0 lb a.i./A per is

max. ALMOND

 dormant/ delayed

dormant ; broadcast aircraft, airblast 2.0
WDG, WP 2.0 NA 1 NA NA 24 10 Restricted

use in

California.

## Page 45 of 227 Table A.1. Summary of Current Chlorpyrifos Usage

Crop/Site Residential Agricultural Forestry 

### Timing; Application Type Method/

Equipment Maximum

Single Application Rate by

Formulation 1


### (lb a.i./A) Maximum

Application Rate Maximum

Application

Number PHI (days) 3 REI (hours)

3 MRI (days)

3 

### Geographic

Restrictions Comments
Per

Year

lb

a.i./A Per

CC 2



### lb a.i./A Per

Year Per

CC 2



###  foliar ;

broadcast aircraft, airblast 2.0 WDG,WP 6.0 NA 3 NA 14 10

 pre

- plant,

foliar;

trunk spray/drenc h or pre

plant dip handheld,

backpack, drench/dip, handgun, and low pressure

hand wand 2.5

(3.0/100 gal)

WDG 2.5 NA 1 NA 14 NS

 Dormant/

delayed dormant; foliar;

orchard

floors

broadcast ground boom,

handgun, chemigation 4.0

EC* 4.0 NA 2 NA 14 10 Restricted

use in

California. Only one

dormant application

can be made.

Total

-- 4.0 14.5 NA 7 NA 14 NS Excludes

nursery applications (See general “Fruits” listing)

APPLE

 dormant/ delayed

dormant ; broadcast aircraft, airblast 2.0

EC

2.0

WDG

1.5

WP 2 2.0 1 1 NA 24/

4 d 10d Reflects spray drift mitigation

measures.

 pre

- plant,

foliar;

trunk spray/drenc handheld,

backpack, drench/dip, handgun, and 1.5

(1.5 lb ai/100 gal)

WDG 1.5 NA 1 1 28 4d NS Use permitted in

states east of

the Rockies

## Page 46 of 227 Table A.1. Summary of Current Chlorpyrifos Usage

Crop/Site Residential Agricultural Forestry 

### Timing; Application Type Method/

Equipment Maximum

Single Application Rate by

Formulation 1


### (lb a.i./A) Maximum

Application Rate Maximum

Application

Number PHI (days) 3 REI (hours)

3 MRI (days)

3 

### Geographic

Restrictions Comments
Per

Year

lb

a.i./A Per

CC 2



### lb a.i./A Per

Year Per

CC 2



### h or pre

plant dip ; ground low pressure

hand wand except Mississippi.

Total 2.0 3.5 2

ASPARAGUS  Foliar, pre

harvest;

broadcast aircraft, ground

boom 1.0

EC, WDG 1.0 1.0 1 1 1 24 10

 Postharvest,

broadcast aircraft, ground

boom 1.0

EC, WDG 2.0 2.0 2 1 1 24 10

granular soil

band treatment ground boom 1.5

G 3.0 3.0 2 2 180 24 [10]

NS Permitted in California, the Midwest,

and the

Pacific

Northwest

19713

- 505,

19713

- 521,

5481

- 525,

62719

- 34,

83222

- 34 Do not apply

more than 3.0 lb

a.i./A between

harvests.

Total 1.5

G 3.0 G

2.0 3.0 G

2.0 3 3 1 24 10

BEANS

 Preplant;

Seed

treatment Seed Treatment 0.016

- 0.348

0.000798 lb

ai/lb seed

ME NS [0.348]

NS NS [1]

NS NS NS NS ME is SLN only for ID Italics highlight

the range of application rates depending

## Page 47 of 227 Table A.1. Summary of Current Chlorpyrifos Usage

Crop/Site Residential Agricultural Forestry 

### Timing; Application Type Method/

Equipment Maximum

Single Application Rate by

Formulation 1


### (lb a.i./A) Maximum

Application Rate Maximum

Application

Number PHI (days) 3 REI (hours)

3 MRI (days)

3 

### Geographic

Restrictions Comments
Per

Year

lb

a.i./A Per

CC 2



### lb a.i./A Per

Year Per

CC 2



### 0.013

- 0.272

0.000625 lb

ai/lb seed

WP

0.012

- 0.253

0.00058 lb

ai/lb seed

EC on the number of seeds per lb

and the number of seeds planted

per acre. Seeding rate

information provide by

BEAD. 4



### BEEF/RANGE/

FEEDER

CATTLE (MEAT)/

DAIRY

CATTLE (NON

LACTATING) Summer, late fall, spring; impregnated collar/tag Animal

treatment (ear tag) 0.0066

lb/animal [0.0099

]

NS NA 3 NA NS NS NS Reg. No.

39039

- 6 Cattle ear tags

are assumed to

last 4

- 6 months Two tags per

animal at

0.0033 lb

a.i ./tag in the

summer and

one tag per
animal at

0.0033 lb a.i./A.

BEETS (UNSPECIFIED;

TABLE OR SUGAR)

“grown for seed”  At plant, soil

band

treatment Ground boom 1.0

EC NS 1 NS 1 24 Allowed in Oregon

Court

ordered

buffer of 60 ft for ground chlorpyrifos application Minimum

Incorporation: 2

inches

## Page 48 of 227 Table A.1. Summary of Current Chlorpyrifos Usage

Crop/Site Residential Agricultural Forestry 

### Timing; Application Type Method/

Equipment Maximum

Single Application Rate by

Formulation 1


### (lb a.i./A) Maximum

Application Rate Maximum

Application

Number PHI (days) 3 REI (hours)

3 MRI (days)

3 

### Geographic

Restrictions Comments
Per

Year

lb

a.i./A Per

CC 2



### lb a.i./A Per

Year Per

CC 2



### is required

for “ affected waterways”.

 Preplant, soil

incorporated

treatment Broadcast/

ground boom 1.9

EC NS

(2.8 ID) NS 1 NS Allowed in Oregon and

Idaho OR

- 09007;

62719

- 591

ID

- 090002;

62719

- 591

Total 1.9 NS NS NS NS 24 One or the other type of application.

SUGAR BEETS  Preplant, soil incorporated

treatment Broadcast/

ground boom 1.0

EC

2.0

G 3.0 2.0 1 1 NA 24 10 Minimum Incorporation: 1

inch

 At plant, soil

band

treatment Broadcast/

ground boom 1.0

EC, WDG

2.0

G 3.0 2.0 1 1 30 24 10

 Postplant,

soil band Broadcast/

ground boom 2.0

G 3.0 2.0 1 1 30 24 10

 Post

emergence band

treatment;
broadcast Broadcast/

ground boom 1.0

EC, WDG 3.0 1.0 3 1 30 24 10

 broadcast Aircraft, ground boom, chemigation 1.0

EC, WDG 3.0 1.0 3 1 30 24 10 EC is not for

use in MS

Total 1.0 4.0 [4.0] 3 [3] 30 24 10 One granular

## Page 49 of 227 Table A.1. Summary of Current Chlorpyrifos Usage

Crop/Site Residential Agricultural Forestry 

### Timing; Application Type Method/

Equipment Maximum

Single Application Rate by

Formulation 1


### (lb a.i./A) Maximum

Application Rate Maximum

Application

Number PHI (days) 3 REI (hours)

3 MRI (days)

3 

### Geographic

Restrictions Comments
Per

Year

lb

a.i./A Per

CC 2



### lb a.i./A Per

Year Per

CC 2



### EC

2.0

G NS NS application at

2.0 a.i./A and two liquid applications at

1.0 a.i ./A per year. Also assumed per crop cycle.

CARROT

Grown for Seed (INCLUDING TOPS)

 Foliar pre

bloom

broadcast aircraft, ground

boom 0.94

EC 0.94 1 1 1 7 24 NA Oregon and Washington

Court

ordered

buffer of 60 ft for ground

and 300 ft

for aerial application is required

for “ affected waterways”. OR090011

SLN Expires:

12/31/2018

WA090011 SNL Expires:

12/31/2016

Carrots take

two years to produce seed.

All commercial production of

the carrot (vegetable) takes place in the first year when the plant

is nowhere near blooming.

CHERRIES  dormant/ delayed aircraft, airblast 2.0
WDG, EC 2.0 NA 1 NA NS 24 10

## Page 50 of 227 Table A.1. Summary of Current Chlorpyrifos Usage

Crop/Site Residential Agricultural Forestry 

### Timing; Application Type Method/

Equipment Maximum

Single Application Rate by

Formulation 1


### (lb a.i./A) Maximum

Application Rate Maximum

Application

Number PHI (days) 3 REI (hours)

3 MRI (days)

3 

### Geographic

Restrictions Comments
Per

Year

lb

a.i./A Per

CC 2



### lb a.i./A Per

Year Per

CC 2



### dormant ; broadcast 1.5

WP

 foliar ;

broadcast airblast 4.0

EC 10.0 NA 5 NA 14 24 10 Tart cherry only

aircraft 2.0 Reflects spray drift mitigation

 Foliar, post

harvest;

trunk spray/drenc

h handheld,

backpack, drench/dip, handgun, and low pressure

hand wand 2.5

(3.0/100 gal)
WDG, EC 2.5 NA 1 NA 2 24 [10]

NS Only some

labels specify a

10 d MRI.

Total --

4.0 4.5 (sweet)

1 4 .5 (tart only) 6 Excludes

nursery applications (See general “Fruits” listing)

The foliar applications only apply to tart cherries, thus, sweet cherry scenarios ( e.g. , Pacific NW) annual application rate

would be 4.5 lb total a.i./year.

CHRISTMAS  foliar ; helicopter, 1.0 3.0 NA 3 NA [0] 24 7 Aerial

## Page 51 of 227 Table A.1. Summary of Current Chlorpyrifos Usage

Crop/Site Residential Agricultural Forestry 

### Timing; Application Type Method/

Equipment Maximum

Single Application Rate by

Formulation 1


### (lb a.i./A) Maximum

Application Rate Maximum

Application

Number PHI (days) 3 REI (hours)

3 MRI (days)

3 

### Geographic

Restrictions Comments
Per

Year

lb

a.i./A Per

CC 2



### lb a.i./A Per

Year Per

CC 2



### TREE

PLANTATIONS broadcast orchard blast EC, WDG, WP NS applications

via helicopter are only permitted in Washington and Oregon.

 post harvest;

Stump

Treatment handheld,

backpack, drench/dip, handgun, and low pressure

hand wand 2.5

(3.0/100 gal)
EC, WDG 2.5 NA 1 NA NA 7

Total 2.5 5.5 4

CITRUS

 foliar ; broadcast airblast, ground

boom 6.0

WP, WSP, EC 7.5 NA 2 NA 35 (21

for

low

rate s) 5d 30

(10

for

low

rates ) 6.0 lb a.i. /A is only permitted in

California

and Arizona.

The max single rate in

other states

is restricted

to 4 lb a.i./A.

 aircraft 2.3 WP, WSP, EC 21 5 10 Florida, California,

and potentially

Texas Aerial

application used

to control psyllid, the

vector for citrus greening.

## Page 52 of 227 Table A.1. Summary of Current Chlorpyrifos Usage

Crop/Site Residential Agricultural Forestry 

### Timing; Application Type Method/

Equipment Maximum

Single Application Rate by

Formulation 1


### (lb a.i./A) Maximum

Application Rate Maximum

Application

Number PHI (days) 3 REI (hours)

3 MRI (days)

3 

### Geographic

Restrictions Comments
Per

Year

lb

a.i./A Per

CC 2



### lb a.i./A Per

Year Per

CC 2



### Reflects spray drift mitigation

 foliar;

orchard

floors

broadcast ground boom,

chemigation, handheld, backpack, drench/dip, handgun, and low pressure

hand wand 1.0

G*, WSP, EC 3.0 NA 3 NA 28 24/

5 d 10

Total

-- 6.0 10.5 5 Registered labels permit

both foliar and soil applications

in the same

orchard.

Total excludes

nursery applications (See general “Fruits” listing)

CLOVER (GROWN FOR SEED)  Preplant Ground boom 1.9

EC 1.9 1.9 1 1 NS 24 NA Use only permitted in Oregon. OR

- 0900100;

master label:

62719

- 591

 Post

- Plant

Foliar aircraft and

ground boom Either a preplant or post plant application is

allowed.

## Page 53 of 227 Table A.1. Summary of Current Chlorpyrifos Usage

Crop/Site Residential Agricultural Forestry 

### Timing; Application Type Method/

Equipment Maximum

Single Application Rate by

Formulation 1


### (lb a.i./A) Maximum

Application Rate Maximum

Application

Number PHI (days) 3 REI (hours)

3 MRI (days)

3 

### Geographic

Restrictions Comments
Per

Year

lb

a.i./A Per

CC 2



### lb a.i./A Per

Year Per

CC 2



### COLE CROPS (EXCLUDES

CAULIFLOWE

R AND  Preplant, soil incorporated

treatment Ground boom

2.0
EC, WDG, G 4.0 2.0 2 1

30

24 10 Min. incorporation:

2 inches

BRUSSELS SPROUTS)  At plant, soil

band

treatment Ground boom 1 One granular application permitted per

year.  Post plant Ground boom 1

 Foliar

Established Plantings,

soil sidedress

treatment Ground boom 1

 Foliar,

broadcast Aircraft, ground

boom, chemigation 1.0

EC, WDG, WP 4.0 3.0 4 3 21 10 Multiple crops

per year are possible in

some locations.

Total 8.0 5 6 4 Some labels

restrict the yearly application rate

to 3 lb a.i./A.

The maximum number of crops per year is 2.

BRUSSELS

SPROUTS  At plant, soil

band

treatment Ground boom 2.0
EC; G 2.0 [2.0]

NS 2 1 21

## Page 54 of 227 Table A.1. Summary of Current Chlorpyrifos Usage

Crop/Site Residential Agricultural Forestry 

### Timing; Application Type Method/

Equipment Maximum

Single Application Rate by

Formulation 1


### (lb a.i./A) Maximum

Application Rate Maximum

Application

Number PHI (days) 3 REI (hours)

3 MRI (days)

3 

### Geographic

Restrictions Comments
Per

Year

lb

a.i./A Per

CC 2



### lb a.i./A Per

Year Per

CC 2



###  Preplant, soil

incorporated

treatment Ground boom 24 10 Minimum incorporation is

2 inches

 Postplant,

soil application Ground boom 2.25 EC, G 2.25 [2.25]

NS

 Foliar

broadcast Aircraft,

Ground boom 1.0

EC [5.3]

NS 3.0 NS 3 10 83222

- 20,

84930

- 7,

86363

- 3 specify

a 7 day MRI.

All other labels specify a 10 day

MRI.

The PHI stated

84930

- 7 is conflicting [p. 4 (21 days and p. 19 (30 days)]

Total 2.3 5.3 NS 21 24 7 Assume one application of either at plant, preplant, or postplant

followed with

additional foliar applications.

CAULI

FLOWER  At plant, soil

band

treatment Ground boom 2.0

EC

2.3

G 2.0

EC

2.25

G NS [1]

NS 1 21 3d 10 Only one granular application.

## Page 55 of 227 Table A.1. Summary of Current Chlorpyrifos Usage

Crop/Site Residential Agricultural Forestry 

### Timing; Application Type Method/

Equipment Maximum

Single Application Rate by

Formulation 1


### (lb a.i./A) Maximum

Application Rate Maximum

Application

Number PHI (days) 3 REI (hours)

3 MRI (days)

3 

### Geographic

Restrictions Comments
Per

Year

lb

a.i./A Per

CC 2



### lb a.i./A Per

Year Per

CC 2



###  Preplant, soil

incorporated

treatment Ground boom 2.3

G

2.0

EC 2.3 NS [1]

NS 1 30,

EC,

21

G Minimum incorporation is

2 inches

 Postplant,

soil application Ground boom

 Foliar

broadcast aircraft, ground

boom 1.0

EC [5.3]

NS 3.0 NS 3 21 10

Total 2.3 5.3 [5.3]

NS NS [4]

NS 21 24 10 Assume one application at either plant, preplant, or postplant

followed with

additional foliar applications.

COMMERCIAL

/INSTITUTION

AL/

INDUSTRIAL

PREMISES/ EQUIP. (INDOOR)

Non

- food areas of manufacturing, industrial, and food processing plants; warehouses; ship holds; railroad Broadcast Product

Container 0.4373 lb

a.i./100 sq ft

190.5

G NS NA NS NA NA NS NS For treatment of

fire ants

Crack and

Crevice/Void Sprayer/

Injection 0.0625 lb

a.i./1000 sq ft

2.7

ME NS NA NS NA NA NS NS 499

- 419

Crack and Crevice/Spot Sprayer/

Injection 0.0424 lb/gal

ME NS NA NS NA NA NS 7

## Page 56 of 227 Table A.1. Summary of Current Chlorpyrifos Usage

Crop/Site Residential Agricultural Forestry 

### Timing; Application Type Method/

Equipment Maximum

Single Application Rate by

Formulation 1


### (lb a.i./A) Maximum

Application Rate Maximum

Application

Number PHI (days) 3 REI (hours)

3 MRI (days)

3 

### Geographic

Restrictions Comments
Per

Year

lb

a.i./A Per

CC 2



### lb a.i./A Per

Year Per

CC 2



### boxcars.

COMMERCIAL

/INSTITUTION

AL

/INDUSTRIAL PREMISES/EQ

UIP. (OUTDOOR)

Outdoor

commercial use

around non

- food

areas of manufact

uring, industrial,

and food processing plants; warehouses; ship holds; railroad

boxcars Soil

broadcast

Low and High

Pressure, Backpack, Handgun Sprayers 0.0247 lb

a.i./1000 sq ft

1.1

ME NS NA NS NA NA NS NS

Directed

spray 0.1132 lb a.i./1000 sq ft

4.9

ME NS NA NS NA NA NS NS Specific to:

Inside and

outside dumpsters and

other trash holding containers, trash

corrals and

other trash

storage areas.

Crack and

Crevice/void/ general

outdoor 0.0424 lb/gal

ME NS NA NS NA NA NS 7

CONIFERS

AND

DECIDUOUS TREES;  ? foliar ; broadcast Ground boom 1.0

EC 3 NA 6 NA 7 24 7

PLANTATION,

NURSERY  ? foliar; stump

treatment backpack,

drencher, low pressure hand

wand 0.3

EC 0.3 NA 1 NA 7 24 7

Total 1.0 3 NA 6 NA 7 24 7 The total

number of applications

## Page 57 of 227 Table A.1. Summary of Current Chlorpyrifos Usage

Crop/Site Residential Agricultural Forestry 

### Timing; Application Type Method/

Equipment Maximum

Single Application Rate by

Formulation 1


### (lb a.i./A) Maximum

Application Rate Maximum

Application

Number PHI (days) 3 REI (hours)

3 MRI (days)

3 

### Geographic

Restrictions Comments
Per

Year

lb

a.i./A Per

CC 2



### lb a.i./A Per

Year Per

CC 2



### assumed is

either 3 foliar applications or

2 foliar applications with one stump

treatment.

CORN (ALL)  Preplant ground/ soil incorporated

conservation tillage, in furrow, broadcast, chemigation,

soil band 3.0

EC

2.0

G

3.0 3.0 NS 3 NA

24/

5

EC 10 19713

- 520,

19713

- 599,

33658

- 26,

34704

- 857,

72693

- 11,

83222

- 20

The minimum incorporation depth is 2

inches.

soil incorporated

aerial

conservation tillage 2.0

EC, G

 ground/

conservation tillage, in furrow, broadcast, chemigation,

soil band 1.0

EC

2.0

G 3.0 3.0 NS 3 21 10 19713

- 520

## Page 58 of 227 Table A.1. Summary of Current Chlorpyrifos Usage

Crop/Site Residential Agricultural Forestry 

### Timing; Application Type Method/

Equipment Maximum

Single Application Rate by

Formulation 1


### (lb a.i./A) Maximum

Application Rate Maximum

Application

Number PHI (days) 3 REI (hours)

3 MRI (days)

3 

### Geographic

Restrictions Comments
Per

Year

lb

a.i./A Per

CC 2



### lb a.i./A Per

Year Per

CC 2



###  Storage or

preplant seed

treatment Seed treatment 0.001

- 0.021

0.000625 lb

a.i./ lb seed

WP

0.1

- 1.9

0.058 lb a.i./ lb

seed

FC [?]

NS [1.9]

NS [?]

NS 1 NS NS NS Italics highlight the range of application rates depending

on the number of seeds per lb

and the number of seeds planted

per acre. Seeding rate

information provide by

BEAD. 4



###  At plant soil incorporated,

conservation tillage 2.0

G [?]

NS 3.0 [?]

NS 3 21 24 10

 Post

emergence Aerial or

ground, broadcast, chemigation 1.5

EC

1.0

WDG NS 3.0 NS 3 21

24/

5d (EC 10 A brush on max single rate is permitted at 1.0 lb ai/a (72693

- 11)

 Foliar Aerial or ground/ broadcast, granule, seed

and chemigation 1.5

EC 3.0 3.0 NS 3 21 10

Total 3.0 8.1 8.1 NS 4 21 10 Two granular applications are

## Page 59 of 227 Table A.1. Summary of Current Chlorpyrifos Usage

Crop/Site Residential Agricultural Forestry 

### Timing; Application Type Method/

Equipment Maximum

Single Application Rate by

Formulation 1


### (lb a.i./A) Maximum

Application Rate Maximum

Application

Number PHI (days) 3 REI (hours)

3 MRI (days)

3 

### Geographic

Restrictions Comments
Per

Year

lb

a.i./A Per

CC 2



### lb a.i./A Per

Year Per

CC 2



### allowed with a

maximum single rate of

1.0 lb a.i./A or one granular application at 2

lb a.i./A.

Total with seed

treatment
PHI: 21 d

except
Delaware and Florida (7 d)

COTTON  Storage or preplant seed

treatment Seed treatment 0.8

- 2.2

0.00116 lb/lb

seed

EC [2.2]

NS [2.2]

NS [1]

NS 1 NS NS NS 264

- 932

Rates in italics highlight the potential range of application rates depending

on the number of seeds per lb

and the num ber of seeds planted

per acre. Seeding rate

information provide by

BEAD. 2



###  Foliar aerial, chemigation, 1.0

EC, WDGP 3 3.0 3 3 14 24 10 Except MS

## Page 60 of 227 Table A.1. Summary of Current Chlorpyrifos Usage

Crop/Site Residential Agricultural Forestry 

### Timing; Application Type Method/

Equipment Maximum

Single Application Rate by

Formulation 1


### (lb a.i./A) Maximum

Application Rate Maximum

Application

Number PHI (days) 3 REI (hours)

3 MRI (days)

3 

### Geographic

Restrictions Comments
Per

Year

lb

a.i./A Per

CC 2



### lb a.i./A Per

Year Per

CC 2



### ground boom

Total 1.0 3.2 3.2 3 3 14 24 10 1.6 lb a.i./A is max single rate (seed treatment)

Total with seed

treatment 1 crop cycle per year assumed

CRANBERRY  Foliar aircraft, ground

boom/

broadcast and chemigation 1.5

EC, WDG 3.0 NA 2 NA 60 24 10 Not for use

in Mississippi. Do not apply to

bogs when

flooded.

CUCUMBER  Storage or preplant seed

treatment Commercial

seed treatment 0.4

0.0005 8 lb/lb

seed

EC NS 0.1 2 1 NS NS NS Seeding rate

information provide by

BEAD. 2



### 264

- 932,

62719

- 221,

CA040004 Per registrant 2 CCs per year

FIGS  dormant/ delayed

dormant ; soil application ground boom 2.0
WDG, EC 2.0 NA 1 NA 217 4 d NS Use is

restricted to

California only. Incorporation to

3 inches is suggested but not required following application.

FILBERTS/

HAZELNUT  dormant/ delayed

dormant ; aircraft, airblast 2.0

WP 2.0 NA 1 NA 14 24 10

## Page 61 of 227 Table A.1. Summary of Current Chlorpyrifos Usage

Crop/Site Residential Agricultural Forestry 

### Timing; Application Type Method/

Equipment Maximum

Single Application Rate by

Formulation 1


### (lb a.i./A) Maximum

Application Rate Maximum

Application

Number PHI (days) 3 REI (hours)

3 MRI (days)

3 

### Geographic

Restrictions Comments
Per

Year

lb

a.i./A Per

CC 2



### lb a.i./A Per

Year Per

CC 2



### broadcast

 foliar ;

broadcast aircraft, airblast 2.0
WDG, WP, EC 6.0 NA 3 NA 14 10 Some labels specify a

retreatment
interval of 10 days.

Total 2.0 6.0 NS 3.0 NA 14 24 10 Excludes

nursery applications (See general “Fruits” listing)

FOOD

PROCESSING

PLANT

PREMISES (NONFOOD CONTACT) When needed, crack

and crevice

treatment,
spot

treatment 0.0424 lb/ gal

ME NS NA NS NA NA NS 7 53883

- 264,

84575

- 3 Spot Treatment:

Do not exceed two square feet per individual

spot

. FOREST

PLANTINGS (REFORESTAT

ION PROGRAMS) (TREE FARMS,

TREE  Foliar,

broadcast ground boom 1.0

EC 6.0 NA 6 NA

24 7

PLANTATION, ETC.)  Foliar, stump

treatment direct spray,

drencher 0.34

EC 6.0 NA [18]

NS NA 7

FOREST

TREES (SOFTWOODS,  Foliar,

broadcast ground boom,

drencher 0.61

EC 3.6 NA NS NA 24 7

## Page 62 of 227 Table A.1. Summary of Current Chlorpyrifos Usage

Crop/Site Residential Agricultural Forestry 

### Timing; Application Type Method/

Equipment Maximum

Single Application Rate by

Formulation 1


### (lb a.i./A) Maximum

Application Rate Maximum

Application

Number PHI (days) 3 REI (hours)

3 MRI (days)

3 

### Geographic

Restrictions Comments
Per

Year

lb

a.i./A Per

CC 2



### lb a.i./A Per

Year Per

CC 2



### CONIFERS)

 Foliar, stump

treatment direct spray [3.6]

2.4 lb a.i./100 gal

EC 3.6 NA NS NA 7 Application rate is provided as a

dilution factor.

FRUITS &

NUTS

Non

- bearing (not

to bear fruit within 1 year)

fruit trees in

nurseries (includes: almonds, citrus, filbert, apple, cherry, nectarine, peach, pear, plum, prune).  Foliar

- Non

bearing

nursery broadcast High/low

volume spay/

hand held sprayer/power

sprayer 4.0

EC 4.0 NA NS NA 14 NS 7 For nectarines and peaches,

the use is

restricted to one application of

no more than 3 lb a.i./A per cc. For apples, the

max rate is 2 lb a.i./A per crop cycle and the

use is restricted to 1 application (either canopy or trunk drench)

per year. Example label,

62719

- 254

 Foliar

- Non

bearing nursery trunk

drench drencher, high

and low

pressure sprayer 2.0

WDG 2.0 NA NS 1 14 7

Total 4.0 6.0 Maximum Single Rates: 3.0 (nectarines

## Page 63 of 227 Table A.1. Summary of Current Chlorpyrifos Usage

Crop/Site Residential Agricultural Forestry 

### Timing; Application Type Method/

Equipment Maximum

Single Application Rate by

Formulation 1


### (lb a.i./A) Maximum

Application Rate Maximum

Application

Number PHI (days) 3 REI (hours)

3 MRI (days)

3 

### Geographic

Restrictions Comments
Per

Year

lb

a.i./A Per

CC 2



### lb a.i./A Per

Year Per

CC 2



### and peaches)

2.0 (apples)

Maximum Yearly Rates: 3.0 (nectarines and peaches) 2.0 (apples)

GINSENG (MEDCINAL)

 Preplant,

post

emergence Ground, soil

broadcast 2.0

G 2.0 NA 1 NA 365 24 NA Permitted in Michigan

and

Wisconsin MI110006,WI1

10003)

Minimum incorporation: 4

inches Application

should be followed by

rainfall or

overhead watering.

Valid until June
29, 2016.

GOLF COURSE

TURF When needed, soil

broadcast/

spot

treatment Ground, low

pressure 1.0

EC 2.0 NA 2 NA

24 NS

Foliar, broadcast, Ground boom,

handgun, low pressure and backpack 1.0

EC, G, B 2.0 NA 2 NA NS Chemigation

not allowed for

the EC

formulation.

## Page 64 of 227 Table A.1. Summary of Current Chlorpyrifos Usage

Crop/Site Residential Agricultural Forestry 

### Timing; Application Type Method/

Equipment Maximum

Single Application Rate by

Formulation 1


### (lb a.i./A) Maximum

Application Rate Maximum

Application

Number PHI (days) 3 REI (hours)

3 MRI (days)

3 

### Geographic

Restrictions Comments
Per

Year

lb

a.i./A Per

CC 2



### lb a.i./A Per

Year Per

CC 2



### Tractor drawn spreader, push type spreader, belly grinder 1.0

G [24
]

NS 7

Mound

treatment Granule

applicator 1.0

G 2.0 NS 2 NS NS 7

Total 2.0 2.0 NA 2 NA NS NS

GRAPES

 Dormant/ Delayed

Dormant (pre

- bloom) Ground boom,

broadcast,

drench high/low spray

volume 1.0

WDG, EC 1.0 1 1 NA 35

24 NS East of the

continental divide only. Do not use in

conjunction

with soil

surface applications for grape borer

control.

 2.0

EC 2.0 1 1 NA 35 Permitted in Colorado, Idaho, and Washington CO080008,

ID090004,

WA090002

Master label:

62719

- 591

 Foliar Ground/ broadcast, basal spray and drench (soil treatment) 2.25

EC 2.25 1 1 NA 35 NS Permitted

east of the

continental

divide.

 1.0

EC 3.0 3 3 NA 35 NS California CA080010

 Postharvest,

dormant/ Ground boom,

broadcast 2.0

EC 2.0 1 1 NA NS NS California CA080009

## Page 65 of 2 27 Table A.1. Summary of Current Chlorpyrifos Usage

Crop/Site Residential Agricultural Forestry 

### Timing; Application Type Method/

Equipment Maximum

Single Application Rate by

Formulation 1


### (lb a.i./A) Maximum

Application Rate Maximum

Application

Number PHI (days) 3 REI (hours)

3 MRI (days)

3 

### Geographic

Restrictions Comments
Per

Year

lb

a.i./A Per

CC 2



### lb a.i./A Per

Year Per

CC 2



### delayed

dormant

Total 2.25 2.25 1 35 24 NS Permitted

east of the

continental

divide.

2.0 5.0 4 NS NS California

GRASS

FORAGE/

FODDER/HAY  Foliar,

broadcast Aircraft, ground

boom, chemigation 1.0

EC 3.0 NA 3 NA NS 24 Permitted in Nevada, Oregon, Washington,

and Idaho NV080004,

NV940002,
OR090009, WA090010,

ID090003

GREENHOUSE

 early evening, aerosol, fog or fumigation Total release

fogger 0.029

0.0066 lb a.i./1000 sq. ft

PL NS NA NS NA NS NS 2

HOUSEHOLD/

DOMESTIC

DWELLINGS

INDOOR

PREMISES  When needed Bait station 0.0003 lb/bait

station NS NA NS NA NA NS NS 9688

- 67

HYBRID

COTTONWOO

D/ POPLAR

PLANTATIONS

 Foliar, dormant, delayed dormant;

broadcast High volume

(dilute)

Low volume (concentrate) 1.9

EC [2.0]

NS 6.0 [1]

NS 3 24 7 Washington WA090004

Energy wood plantations may

be harvested as often as every

2

- 3 years; pulpwood 5

- 10 years; and saw

## Page 66 of 227 Table A.1. Summary of Current Chlorpyrifos Usage

Crop/Site Residential Agricultural Forestry 

### Timing; Application Type Method/

Equipment Maximum

Single Application Rate by

Formulation 1


### (lb a.i./A) Maximum

Application Rate Maximum

Application

Number PHI (days) 3 REI (hours)

3 MRI (days)

3 

### Geographic

Restrictions Comments
Per

Year

lb

a.i./A Per

CC 2



### lb a.i./A Per

Year Per

CC 2



### timber 15

- 20

years. (Arkansas production guide). In Washington the crop takes 2

- 8

years LEGUME

VEGETABLES  Preplant, soil

treatment Ground boom 1.0
EC, WDG 1.0 NA 1 NA NS

24 NA No MRI

because application only

once a year  At planting,

soil treatment Ground boom 1.0
EC, WDG 1.0 NA 1 NA NS NA

Total 1.0 1.0 NA 1 NA NS 24 NS Assumed either a preplant or an at plant

treatment.

MINT/

PEPPERMINT/

SPEARMINT  Preplant soil incorporated Aerial or

ground/

broadcast 2.0

EC, WDG [2.0]

NS 2.0 [1]

NS 1 90

24 NA No use in Mississippi. 19713

- 599,

33658

- 26,

34704

- 857,

67760

- 28,

84229

- 25,

84930

- 7,

OR940027

MRI NA due to

once per crop cycle application

 Post

emergence, Chemigation,

ground/ airblast 2.0

EC 2.0 2.0 [1]

NS 2 90 NS No use in Mississippi. Postharvest

application

## Page 67 of 227 Table A.1. Summary of Current Chlorpyrifos Usage

Crop/Site Residential Agricultural Forestry 

### Timing; Application Type Method/

Equipment Maximum

Single Application Rate by

Formulation 1


### (lb a.i./A) Maximum

Application Rate Maximum

Application

Number PHI (days) 3 REI (hours)

3 MRI (days)

3 

### Geographic

Restrictions Comments
Per

Year

lb

a.i./A Per

CC 2



### lb a.i./A Per

Year Per

CC 2



### Postharvest,

Foliar retreatment not specified on

some labels.

Total 2.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 3 90 24 NS Labels allow one growing

season application including pre

plant and one

post

- harvest application per

season.

MOSQUITO CONTROL;

HOUSEHOLD/

DOMESTIC

DWELLINGS

OUTDOOR PREMISES;

RECREATION

AL AREAS  When needed;

broadcast Ultra low

volume air and ground 0.01

EC 0.26 NA 26 NS NA NS 24 h In Florida: Do not apply by aircraft

unless approved by

the Florida Dept of Ag. Aerial

applications may be made at

altitudes ranging from

75

- 300 ft (see

labels for specific s). For use by federal, state,

tribal or local

government officials or by

persons certified in the appropriate

category or authorized by

## Page 68 of 227 Table A.1. Summary of Current Chlorpyrifos Usage

Crop/Site Residential Agricultural Forestry 

### Timing; Application Type Method/

Equipment Maximum

Single Application Rate by

Formulation 1


### (lb a.i./A) Maximum

Application Rate Maximum

Application

Number PHI (days) 3 REI (hours)

3 MRI (days)

3 

### Geographic

Restrictions Comments
Per

Year

lb

a.i./A Per

CC 2



### lb a.i./A Per

Year Per

CC 2



### the state or

tribal lead regulatory

agency. NECTARINE

 dormant/ delayed

dormant

broadcast airblast,

handgun 3.0

WDG, EC

3.0 NA 1 NA NS

24/

4d 10 83222

- 20 others

at 2 lb a.i./a

Aircraft 2.0

WDG, EC Updated to reflect spray drift mitigation.

 pre

- plant,

foliar;

trunk spray/drenc h or pre

plant dip Handgun, low

pressure backpack, dip 2.5

(3.0/100 gal)
WDG, EC 2.5 NA 1 NA 14 5 There is no application

retreatment
interval specified on

some of the

label. The application rate is provided as a

dilution factor.

Total 3.0 5.5 NA 2 NA Some labels

limit the

amount a.i./ A

per year. Multiple types of applications

can occur such as preplant,

trunk drench and dormant, delayed

## Page 69 of 227 Table A.1. Summary of Current Chlorpyrifos Usage

Crop/Site Residential Agricultural Forestry 

### Timing; Application Type Method/

Equipment Maximum

Single Application Rate by

Formulation 1


### (lb a.i./A) Maximum

Application Rate Maximum

Application

Number PHI (days) 3 REI (hours)

3 MRI (days)

3 

### Geographic

Restrictions Comments
Per

Year

lb

a.i./A Per

CC 2



### lb a.i./A Per

Year Per

CC 2



### dormant applications.

Excludes

nursery applications (See general “Fruits” listing)

NONAGRICUL

TURAL

OUTDOOR

BUILDINGS/ST

RUCTURES

to and around

outside surfaces

of nonresidential buildings and

structures.
Permitted areas of

use include fences, pre

construction foundations, refuse dumps, outside of walls,

and other areas where pests

congregate or
have been seen Outdoor general

surfac e/ Band (may be

better if

called perimeter) Ground sprayer/

band sprayer 1.0

EC NS NA NS NA NA NS NS

NURSERY

STOCK: : Dormant/ Delayed high spray 3.0

EC 3.0 NA 1 NA 24 NS

## Page 70 of 227 Table A.1. Summary of Current Chlorpyrifos Usage

Crop/Site Residential Agricultural Forestry 

### Timing; Application Type Method/

Equipment Maximum

Single Application Rate by

Formulation 1


### (lb a.i./A) Maximum

Application Rate Maximum

Application

Number PHI (days) 3 REI (hours)

3 MRI (days)

3 

### Geographic

Restrictions Comments
Per

Year

lb

a.i./A Per

CC 2



### lb a.i./A Per

Year Per

CC 2



### Ornamental nursery stock annuals, perennials and woody plants being grown in the field, in ball and burlap or in

containers

outdoor and in greenhouses Dormant

Preplant Ground boom,

soil incorporated 4.0

EC, WP NS NA NS NA

foliar, soil

directed Tractor drawn

spreader, push type spreader, belly grinder, gravity fed backpack,

spoon 1.1

G

Total 4.0 CBD 3

ONI ONS  Post plant (seeding)

Broadcast Ground boom 1.0

EC 1.0

NS 2

NS 60 24 NS

 At plant, soil

drench or basal spray Ground boom 1.0
EC, WDG, G 1.0 1 2 inch incorporation

Total 2.0 2.0 2 60 24 NS

ORNAMENTAL  Foliar Ground boom, 2.0 2.0 NA [2] NA NS 24 NS Some labels

## Page 71 of 227 Table A.1. Summary of Current Chlorpyrifos Usage

Crop/Site Residential Agricultural Forestry 

### Timing; Application Type Method/

Equipment Maximum

Single Application Rate by

Formulation 1


### (lb a.i./A) Maximum

Application Rate Maximum

Application

Number PHI (days) 3 REI (hours)

3 MRI (days)

3 

### Geographic

Restrictions Comments
Per

Year

lb

a.i./A Per

CC 2



### lb a.i./A Per

Year Per

CC 2



### AND/OR SHADE TREES,

HERBACEOUS

PLANTS broadcast air blast, handgun, low and high pressure hand

wands EC, WP

1.0
G, B NS include a MRI of 7 days.

 Dormant

/Delayed

Dormant Handgun, low

pressure and backpack 3.0

EC 3.0 NA 1 NA NS 7 Low volume spray permitted

for concentrated

solutions and

lower rates.

ORNAMENTAL

LAWNS AND TURF, SOD FARMS (TURF)  When needed, broadcast, soil or spot

treatment ground boom

(WP only), high pressure hand

wand 3.76

EC, WP 7.52 NA 2 NA NS 24 NS

 NS Tractor drawn spreader, push type spreader, belly grinder 1.0

B 2.0 NA 2 NA NS 24 NS Bait is used for

fire ant control.

ORNAMENTAL

NON

FLOWERING

PLANTS  Foliar, broadcast,

soil drench Chemigation,

ground boom, low and high

pressure handwand, handgun, backpack

sprayer, sprinkling can 0.007/gal

ME NS NA 12 NA NA 24 NS Application rate provided as a

dilution factor.

Restricted

use

— occupational only

ORNAMENTAL

WOODY Foliar

broadcast Ground boom,

air blast, 2.0

EC, WDG 2.0 NA [1]

NS NA NS 24 NS Several labels

do not restrict

## Page 72 of 227 Table A.1. Summary of Current Chlorpyrifos Usage

Crop/Site Residential Agricultural Forestry 

### Timing; Application Type Method/

Equipment Maximum

Single Application Rate by

Formulation 1


### (lb a.i./A) Maximum

Application Rate Maximum

Application

Number PHI (days) 3 REI (hours)

3 MRI (days)

3 

### Geographic

Restrictions Comments
Per

Year

lb

a.i./A Per

CC 2



### lb a.i./A Per

Year Per

CC 2



### SHRUBS AND

VINES handgun, low and high

pressure

sprayer, backpack 0.01 lb/gal

EC 0.01

lb/gal the application

rate in lb a.i./A. Examples

include 16.5

lb/100 gal (228

- 625) and 1.0 lb/100 gal (829

- 280).

Dormant/ delayed

dormant 1.0

EC 0.005 lb/gal

EC 1.0 NA [1]

NS NA

Preharvest Tractor drawn

spreader, push type spreader, belly grinder 6.0

G 6.0 NA [1]

NS NA

Preplant, potted,

bailed

- and burlapped,

containerized groundboom,

handgun, low and high

pressure

sprayer, backpack,

drench 1.0

EC NS 1 NS 1

Pretransplant groundboom 4.0

WP [48.0]

NS 4 12 4

Total 6.0

G

4.0

WP CBD CBD

PEACH  dormant/ airblast 3.0 3.0 NA 1 NA 10 24/ NS 83222

- 20 (all

## Page 73 of 227 Table A.1. Summary of Current Chlorpyrifos Usage

Crop/Site Residential Agricultural Forestry 

### Timing; Application Type Method/

Equipment Maximum

Single Application Rate by

Formulation 1


### (lb a.i./A) Maximum

Application Rate Maximum

Application

Number PHI (days) 3 REI (hours)

3 MRI (days)

3 

### Geographic

Restrictions Comments
Per

Year

lb

a.i./A Per

CC 2



### lb a.i./A Per

Year Per

CC 2



### delayed

dormant

broadcast EC

2.0

WDG 4d other labels

restrict to 2 lb ai/a)

aircraft, 2.0

EC

2.0

WDG NS Updated to reflect spray drift mitigation.

 Post

- harvest

broadcast airblast 2.5 (3.0/100 gal)

EC 2.5

NA 1 NA NA NS Permitted in Georgia and

South

Carolina GA0400001,

SC040001 SLN Expires:

aircraft 2.0

(3.0/100 gal)

EC 2.0 GA0400001,

SC040001 SLN Expires: Updated to reflect spray drift mitigation

 pre

- plant,

foliar;

trunk spray/drenc h or pre

plant dip ; ground handheld,

backpack, drench/dip, handgun, and low pressure

hand wand 2.5

(3.0/100 gal)

WDG 2.5 NA 1 NA 14 5 NS Some labels do not specify

minimum

retreatment
interval.

Total 3.0 5.5 NA 3 NA NA 24 NS It is possible that multiple types of applications can

occur such as soil, foliar and/or post

3.0 8.0 NA 3 NA NA 24 NS Permitted in Georgia and

South

Carolina

## Page 74 of 227 Table A.1. Summary of Current Chlorpyrifos Usage

Crop/Site Residential Agricultural Forestry 

### Timing; Application Type Method/

Equipment Maximum

Single Application Rate by

Formulation 1


### (lb a.i./A) Maximum

Application Rate Maximum

Application

Number PHI (days) 3 REI (hours)

3 MRI (days)

3 

### Geographic

Restrictions Comments
Per

Year

lb

a.i./A Per

CC 2



### lb a.i./A Per

Year Per

CC 2



### harvest and

dormant/ delayed

dormant applications.

Excludes

nursery applications (See general “Fruits” listing)

PEANUT

 Preplant

Aerial or ground/

broadcast 2.0

EC, WDG [4.0]

NS 4.0 [2]

NS 2 NA 24 10 Do not apply

aerial in Mississippi Assumes one

crop cycle per

year.  At plant,

postplant 4.0

G [4.0]

NS 4.0 2 2 21 24 10

 At pegging 2.0

G
EC, WDG [4.0]

NS 4.0 2 [2]

NS 21 24 10

Total 4.0

G

2.0 EC, WDG 4.0 4.0 2 2 10 24 10

PEAR

 dormant/ delayed

dormant

broadcast aircraft, airblast 2.0
WDG, EC 2.0 NA 1 NA NA 24 NA Restricted

use in

California. 83222

- 20

allows 3.0 lb

a.i./ A; however, this

does not match

the 2001 RED.

 Post

- harvest

broadcast aircraft, airblast 2.0
WDG, EC 2.0 NA 1 NA NA 24 NS Permitted in California,

## Page 75 of 227 Table A.1. Summary of Current Chlorpyrifos Usage

Crop/Site Residential Agricultural Forestry 

### Timing; Application Type Method/

Equipment Maximum

Single Application Rate by

Formulation 1


### (lb a.i./A) Maximum

Application Rate Maximum

Application

Number PHI (days) 3 REI (hours)

3 MRI (days)

3 

### Geographic

Restrictions Comments
Per

Year

lb

a.i./A Per

CC 2



### lb a.i./A Per

Year Per

CC 2



### Oregon and Washington.

Total 2.0 WDG, EC 4.0 NA 2 NA NA 24 NS Multiple types of applications may occur in within a year in California, Oregon and Washington such as a post

harvest application and a dormant, delayed

dormant.

Excludes

nursery applications (See general “Fruits” listing)

PEAS

 Preplant Seed

treatment Seed Treatment 0.30

0.000625 lb/lb

seed

WP

0.28

0.00058 lb/lb

seed

EC NS NS NS NS NS NS NS There is a range of potential application rates depending

on the number of seeds per lb

and the number of seeds planted

per acre. Seeding

## Page 76 of 227 Table A.1. Summary of Current Chlorpyrifos Usage

Crop/Site Residential Agricultural Forestry 

### Timing; Application Type Method/

Equipment Maximum

Single Application Rate by

Formulation 1


### (lb a.i./A) Maximum

Application Rate Maximum

Application

Number PHI (days) 3 REI (hours)

3 MRI (days)

3 

### Geographic

Restrictions Comments
Per

Year

lb

a.i./A Per

CC 2



### lb a.i./A Per

Year Per

CC 2



### information provide by

BEAD. 2



### PECANS

 dormant/ delayed

dormant

broadcast aircraft, airblast 2.0
EC, WDG 2.0 NA 1 NA 14

24 10 66222

- 19 and

66222

- 233

 foliar ;

broadcast airblast 4.3
EC, WDG

6.3 NA 3 NA 14 10 Some labels require a 28 d

PHI

aircraft 2.0

EC, WDG Updated to reflect spray drift mitigation.

 foliar;

orchard

floors

broadcast Ground boom,

chemigation 4.3

EC, WDG 4.3 NA 2 NA 14 10

Total 4.3 12.6 NA 6 NA 14 24 10 Considers multiple type of applications ( e.g. , dormant, foliar broadcast,

and orchard floor) but excluding

nursery For nursery applications (See general “Fruits” listing)

## Page 77 of 227 Table A.1. Summary of Current Chlorpyrifos Usage

Crop/Site Residential Agricultural Forestry 

### Timing; Application Type Method/

Equipment Maximum

Single Application Rate by

Formulation 1


### (lb a.i./A) Maximum

Application Rate Maximum

Application

Number PHI (days) 3 REI (hours)

3 MRI (days)

3 

### Geographic

Restrictions Comments
Per

Year

lb

a.i./A Per

CC 2



### lb a.i./A Per

Year Per

CC 2



### PEPPER  Foliar Ground

broadcast 1.0

WDG [8]

NS 8.0 [8]

NS 8 7 24 10 Permitted in

Florida FL040005; 1

crop cycle per

year.

PINEAPPLE  Postplant Ground boom,

broadcast 2.0

EC 6.0 6.0 3 NA 365 24 30 Permitted in

Hawaii HI090001

SNL Expires: March 29,

2014.

Do not make applications beyond three

months after planting.

PLUM/

PRUNE  dormant/ delayed

dormant ; broadcast Aircraft,

airblast 2.0

EC, WDG 2.0 NA 1 NA NA

24/

4d 10

 foliar;

trunk spray/drenc

h handheld,

backpack, drench/dip, handgun, and low pressure

hand wand 2.5

3.0/100 gal

WDG 2.5 NA 1 NA NA 10

Total 2.5 4.5 NA 2 NA Excludes

nursery applications (See general “Fruits” listing)

POULTRY

LITTER  When needed,

animal Sprayer 0.07126 a.i./1000 sq ft

3.1 NS NA NS NA NA NS 53883

- 264,

84575

- 3

## Page 78 of 227 Table A.1. Summary of Current Chlorpyrifos Usage

Crop/Site Residential Agricultural Forestry 

### Timing; Application Type Method/

Equipment Maximum

Single Application Rate by

Formulation 1


### (lb a.i./A) Maximum

Application Rate Maximum

Application

Number PHI (days) 3 REI (hours)

3 MRI (days)

3 

### Geographic

Restrictions Comments
Per

Year

lb

a.i./A Per

CC 2



### lb a.i./A Per

Year Per

CC 2



### bedding/litter

treatment. ME

PUMPKIN

 Preplant Seed

treatment Seed treatment 0.3

0.00058 lb /lb

seed

WP [0.3]

NS [1]

NS [1]

NS 1 NS NS NS California

maximum single rate

0.000625 lb

a.i./lb. There is a range

of potential application rates depending

on the number of seeds per lb

and the number of seeds planted

per acre. Seeding

information provide by

BEAD. 4



### RADISH

 Foliar Broadcast ground 1.0

EC NS 1 NS 1 NS 24 NS permitted in Oregon OR090012 on

radish grown

for seed.

Label valid

until December 31, 2012. (per registrant SLN still valid)

 Preplant Soil incorporation ground 3.0

EC 12.0 3 4 1 NS NS 10

 At plant/post

plant In furrow

drench/

treatment 3.0

EC

2.8

G [15.0]

NS 3 [5]

NS 1 30,

EC,

7, 24 10 Only one granular application permitted.

## Page 79 of 227 Table A.1. Summary of Current Chlorpyrifos Usage

Crop/Site Residential Agricultural Forestry 

### Timing; Application Type Method/

Equipment Maximum

Single Application Rate by

Formulation 1


### (lb a.i./A) Maximum

Application Rate Maximum

Application

Number PHI (days) 3 REI (hours)

3 MRI (days)

3 

### Geographic

Restrictions Comments
Per

Year

lb

a.i./A Per

CC 2



### lb a.i./A Per

Year Per

CC 2



### G

Total 3.0 [22.0]

NS 2 [9]

NS Only one preplant or at plant application is

assumed.

RIGHTS OF WAY, ROAD

MEDIANS When needed, soil

broadcast Granular or low

pressure wand 1.0

EC, G, Bait [2.0]

NS NA 2 NA NA NS 7 Apply when

needed

RUTABAGA

 Preplant Chemigation,

Groundboom 2.4

EC, WDG [4.8]

NS 2.4
[2]

NS 1 30 24 10

Aerial 2.0

EC, WDG 2.0 Updated to reflect spray drift mitigation.

 At plant/post

plant In furrow

drench/

treatment 2.4

EC, G WDG 4.8 2.4 [2]

NS 1 7 24 10 Disallowed

in California

and Arizona. Two crop

cycles per year

Total 2.4 [9.6]

NS 4.8 [4]

NS 2 24 10

SEWER

MANHOLE

COVERS AND

WALLS When needed Low pressure 0.31

lb/manhole

RTU NS NA NS NA NA NA NS 3 pints product/

manhole

SEED

ORCHARD

TREES  foliar ; broadcast Ground boom 1.0

EC 3.0 3.0 NS NA 30 24 7 62719

- 575,

62719

- 615

 High volume

sprayer 2.5

0.01

a.i./tree 2.5 NS [1]

NS NA 30 24 7 Cone worm

treatment (62719

- 575 and

## Page 80 of 227 Table A.1. Summary of Current Chlorpyrifos Usage

Crop/Site Residential Agricultural Forestry 

### Timing; Application Type Method/

Equipment Maximum

Single Application Rate by

Formulation 1


### (lb a.i./A) Maximum

Application Rate Maximum

Application

Number PHI (days) 3 REI (hours)

3 MRI (days)

3 

### Geographic

Restrictions Comments
Per

Year

lb

a.i./A Per

CC 2



### lb a.i./A Per

Year Per

CC 2



### 0.02 EC 62719

- 615)

Treatment of 1000 trees per

acre would

results in an single application rate

of 10 lb a.i./a.

DAS: 1000 is a bit high, typically for

orchards 312

trees per acre

 foliar; stump

treatment backpack,

drencher, low pressure hand wand, 0.3

EC 0.3 1.0 NS NA 30 24 7 62719

- 575,

62719

- 615

Total 1.0 5.8 3 NS NA 30 24 7 The total

number of applications

assumed is

either three

foliar applications or

two foliar applications with one stump

treatment.

SORGHUM

GRAIN  Seed

Treatment Seed treatment [0.0009]

0.01

- 0.01 0.01 [1]

NS 1 NA NS NS 264

- 932

## Page 81 of 227 Table A.1. Summary of Current Chlorpyrifos Usage

Crop/Site Residential Agricultural Forestry 

### Timing; Application Type Method/

Equipment Maximum

Single Application Rate by

Formulation 1


### (lb a.i./A) Maximum

Application Rate Maximum

Application

Number PHI (days) 3 REI (hours)

3 MRI (days)

3 

### Geographic

Restrictions Comments
Per

Year

lb

a.i./A Per

CC 2



### lb a.i./A Per

Year Per

CC 2



### 0.0024 lb ai/

100 lbs seed

EC

 Preplant Soil

Directed Ground

Spreader/T

Band 1.5

G 1.5 1.5 [1]

NS 1 60 24 10

 Foliar/Post

emergent Ground, Aerial,

Chemigation 1.0

EC, WDG 1.5 [1.5]

NS [1]

NS 3 30 24 10 PHI varies

across labels

Total 3.3

G

1.0 EC, WDG 3.01 3.01 [3]

CBD 3 30 24 10 One crop cycle

per year.

SOYBEAN  foliar , post

emergence soil broadcast broadcast

ground, aerial, chemigation 1.0

EC, WDG 3.0 3.0 3 3 28 24 14 One crop cycle

per year.

 At plant/post

plant

treatment;
soil band ground boom 2.2

G

1.0 EC 3.0 3.0 1 (G), 3 (EC) 1 (G),

3 (EC) 28 24 10

Total 1.0 EC, WDG

2.2

G 3.0 3.0 3 3 One crop cycle

per year.

STRAW

BERRIES  Pre

- plant Aerial or ground/

broadcast 2.0

EC 2.0 NS 1 NS NA 24 10 No use in Mississippi 33658

- 26

## Page 82 of 227 Table A.1. Summary of Current Chlorpyrifos Usage

Crop/Site Residential Agricultural Forestry 

### Timing; Application Type Method/

Equipment Maximum

Single Application Rate by

Formulation 1


### (lb a.i./A) Maximum

Application Rate Maximum

Application

Number PHI (days) 3 REI (hours)

3 MRI (days)

3 

### Geographic

Restrictions Comments
Per

Year

lb

a.i./A Per

CC 2



### lb a.i./A Per

Year Per

CC 2



###  Foliar Aerial or ground/ broadcast, foliar

spray 1.0

EC, WDG 2.0 NS 2 NS 21

24 10 Two applications (2 lb ai) for all products per cc.

 Post harvest Ground directed

spray 1.0

EC, WDG 2.0 NS 2 NS 21 14

Total 2.0 4.0 3 One preplant application and

two foliar

and/or postharvest application permitted per

year. SUNFLOWER  At plant

Aerial/ground 2.0

G 3.0 3.0 [1]

NS 1 42

24 10 Per registrant 1

cc per year

 Preplant 2.0
EC, WDG 3.0 3.0 [1]

NS 1 42 10 2 inches min incorporation

 Post

emergent or
foliar 1.5
EC, WDG 3.0 3.0 [2]

NS 2 42 10

Total 2.0 5.0 5.0 3 3 Assumed either an at plant or preplant application

followed with

two foliar applications.

## Page 83 of 227 Table A.1. Summary of Current Chlorpyrifos Usage

Crop/Site Residential Agricultural Forestry 

### Timing; Application Type Method/

Equipment Maximum

Single Application Rate by

Formulation 1


### (lb a.i./A) Maximum

Application Rate Maximum

Application

Number PHI (days) 3 REI (hours)

3 MRI (days)

3 

### Geographic

Restrictions Comments
Per

Year

lb

a.i./A Per

CC 2



### lb a.i./A Per

Year Per

CC 2



### One crop cycle

per year

SWEET

POTATO  Preplant, soil

broadcast Aircraft, ground

boom 2.1

G, EC, WDG

2.1 NS 1 1 125 24 LA090002, MS080007,

NC090001 permits 60

PHI Aircraft 2.0

G, EC, WDG Updated to reflect spray drift mitigation.

TOBACCO  Preplant Aircraft, ground

boom 2.0

EC, G, WDG 2.0 NS 1 1 7 24 NA

TRITICALE  Storage

Commercial Slurry Seed

Treatment Seed treatment 0.003

0.0024 lb ai/

100 lbs seed

EC [0.003]

NS [1]

NS [1]

NS [1]

NS NA [10

]

NS [10]

NS 264

- 932

Seeding

information provide by

BEAD. 4 

### One crop cycle

per year.

TURNIP  Preplant soil incorporation/ ground boom, handgun 2.3

G, WDG [4.6]

NS 2.3 [2]

NS 1 30 24 10 Minimum incorporation:

2 inches.

 Postplant Soil incorporation/ ground boom, handgun 2.3

G, WDGP [4.6]

NS 2.3 [2]

NS 1 30 24 10 Minimum incorporation:

2 inches.

Total 2.3 4.6 2.3 2 1 30 24 10 Assumed either a preplant or postplant application. Two crop cycles per year

## Page 84 of 227 Table A.1. Summary of Current Chlorpyrifos Usage

Crop/Site Residential Agricultural Forestry 

### Timing; Application Type Method/

Equipment Maximum

Single Application Rate by

Formulation 1


### (lb a.i./A) Maximum

Application Rate Maximum

Application

Number PHI (days) 3 REI (hours)

3 MRI (days)

3 

### Geographic

Restrictions Comments
Per

Year

lb

a.i./A Per

CC 2



### lb a.i./A Per

Year Per

CC 2



### UTILITIES

For use in and

around

telecommunicatio ns, power, utilities

and railroad

systems equipment: Buried cables,

cable television pedestals, cables, pad

- mounted electric power transformers, telephone cables, underground vaults,

telecommunicatio ns equipment,

power and utilities equipment When needed,

broadcast Product

container 190.5

G

0.44 lba.i./100 sq ft (see comments) NS NS NS NS NS NS NS Applications permitted as needed. Reg.

Nos. 13283

- 14,

13283

- 17

Broadcast product onto the ground covering the

area of t he pad location, plus a

two foot perimeter

around the

outside of the pad location.

WALNUTS

 dormant/ delayed

dormant ; broadcast Aircraft,

airblast 2.0

EC, WDG 2.0 NA 1 NA 14

24 10 62719

- 301 (12 lb a.i./A)

 foliar ;

broadcast aircraft,

airblast, chemigation 2.0

EC, WDG 4.0 NA 2 NA 14 10 Some labels do not specify

retreatment
interval.

 foliar; Ground boom, 4.0 4.0 NA 1 NA 14 10

## Page 85 of 227 Table A.1. Summary of Current Chlorpyrifos Usage

Crop/Site Residential Agricultural Forestry 

### Timing; Application Type Method/

Equipment Maximum

Single Application Rate by

Formulation 1


### (lb a.i./A) Maximum

Application Rate Maximum

Application

Number PHI (days) 3 REI (hours)

3 MRI (days)

3 

### Geographic

Restrictions Comments
Per

Year

lb

a.i./A Per

CC 2



### lb a.i./A Per

Year Per

CC 2



### orchard

floors

broadcast chemigation EC, WDG

Total 4.0 10.0 4 Excluding

nursery applications;

includes dormant, foliar broadcast, and

orchard floor. For nursery applications (See general “Fruits” listing)

WIDE AREA/

GENERAL

OUTDOOR

TREATMENT

For ants and other misc. pests.   when needed,

Broadcast Ground sprayer 0.5084 lb ai/100 gal

EC [1.02]

NS NA 2 NA NA

NS NS 66222

- 19

when needed,

Drench Drench 1 NS NA NS NA NA NS 228

- 624
[1]

8.2 lb a.i/100 gal EC NS NA NS NA NA NS 228

- 625

Total [1] NS NA NS NA NA

WHEAT

 Slurry Seed

Treatment Seed treatment 0.003

0.0024 lb ai/

100 lbs seed

EC [0.006]

NS 1 [2]

NS 1 NA NA NA Only for use in AZ, CA,
CO, ID, KS, MN, MO,
NE, NM,
NV, ND, OK, OR, Seeding

information provide by

BEAD. 4



###  Foliar, soil

treatment Ground,

broadcast 0.5

EC [8.0]

NS 4.0 [2]

NS 1 14/

28 24 14 PHI: 14 forage or hay, 28 grain

or straw

## Page 86 of 227 Table A.1. Summary of Current Chlorpyrifos Usage

Crop/Site Residential Agricultural Forestry 

### Timing; Application Type Method/

Equipment Maximum

Single Application Rate by

Formulation 1


### (lb a.i./A) Maximum

Application Rate Maximum

Application

Number PHI (days) 3 REI (hours)

3 MRI (days)

3 

### Geographic

Restrictions Comments
Per

Year

lb

a.i./A Per

CC 2



### lb a.i./A Per

Year Per

CC 2



###  Post

emergence foliar Ground, Aerial,

Chemigation 1.0

EC [4.0]

NS 2.0 [4]

NS 2 14/

28 NS SD, TX, UT,

WA and WY Label states 1.0

lb ai/A for

cereal leaf

beetles and then

state max rate
0.5 lb ai/A in restriction).

Some labels

restrict n o more than 2 applications per crop/season

PHI 14 forage or hay, 28 grain

or straw

Total [1]

4.0

EC [12.006

] [6.003]

5.0 [8]

NS [4]

2 MO otherwise 2.0 plus seed

treatment

WOOD

PROTECTION

TREATMENT

TO

BUILDINGS/

PRODUCTS

OUTDOOR When needed,

Wood

surface

treatment Low pressure

handwand,

backback

sprayer, paintbrush 16.65

lb/10,000 sq ft 0.17 lb a.i./gal

EC NS NA NS NA NS NS NS

0.08 lb ai/gal
EC, RTU EC,

ME NS NA NS NA NS NS NS Apply 1 gal per 100 sq ft of

wood

## Page 87 of 227 Table A.1. Summary of Current Chlorpyrifos Usage

Crop/Site Residential Agricultural Forestry 

### Timing; Application Type Method/

Equipment Maximum

Single Application Rate by

Formulation 1


### (lb a.i./A) Maximum

Application Rate Maximum

Application

Number PHI (days) 3 REI (hours)

3 MRI (days)

3 

### Geographic

Restrictions Comments
Per

Year

lb

a.i./A Per

CC 2



### lb a.i./A Per

Year Per

CC 2



### 1. EC

- emulsifiable concentrate; WDG

– water dispersible granular in water soluble packet; WP

– wettable power in water soluble packet; B

– bait (granular), G

– granular; ME

– microencapsulated; RTU

– ready to use.

2. Reported as per crop cycle or per season

3. PHI

– Preharvest interval; REI

– reentry interval; MRI

– Minimum retreatment interval

4. Becker, J.; Ratnayake, S. Acres Planted per Day and Seeding Rates of Crops Grown in the U nited States, U.S. EPA OPP/BEAD, 2011; example calculations provided below: Beans: 0.00058 lb a.i./lb seed / 960 seeds/lb seed x 418,176 seeds/A [pgs. 19, 81 (beans, succulent)]

Corn: 0.000 625 lb a.i./lb seed / 1,800 seeds/lb seed x 59,739 seeds/A [pgs. 24 , 81 (corn, sweet)] Cotton: 0.00116 lb a.i./lb seed / 4,500 seeds/lb seed x 85,00 seeds/A [pgs. 13, 81] Cucumber: 0.00058 lb a.i./lb seed / 12,000 seeds/lb seed x 80,418 seeds/A [pgs. 25, 81]

Peas: 0.000 625 lb a.i./lb seed / 1,361 seeds/lb seed x 653,400 seeds/A [pgs. 34, 82] Pumpkin : 0.00058 lb a.i./lb seed / 1,600 seeds/lb seed x 7,260 seeds/A [pgs. 37, 82] Sorghum: 0.001 lb a.i./lb seed / 11,000 seeds/lb seed x 100,000 seeds/A [pgs. 16, 39] Triticale: 0.003 lb a.i./100 lb seed / 109 lb seed/A [pg.16]

Wh eat: 0.003 lb a.i./100 lb seed /116 lb seed/A [pg. 16] [ ] indicate assumptions that are made when the information is not specified but can be inferred

## Appendix B: Residential Post

- Application Dermal Steady State Exposure and Risk

Estimates from Golfing

- Post

- application Dermal Algorithm

## Page 89 of 227

Table B.1 . Residential Post

- Application Dermal Steady State Exposure and Risk Estimates from Golfing

Scenario App

.

Rate (lb ai/A) State TTR 1

(μg/cm2 ) Exposure

Time (hr) Population TC (cm 2 /hr) Daily

Exposure 2 (mg/kg/ day) MOE

Emulsifiable Concentrate Formulation

Golfing on

Treated Turf 1.0 CA 0.029

1.0 Adults 5,300 0.010 1,200

Youths 11 to <16 yr old 4,400 0.010 1,400

Children 6 to <11 yr old 2,900 0.012 1,900

IN 0.023 Adults 5,300 0.0069 1,700

Youths 11 to <16 yr old 4,400 0.0069 2,000

Children 6 to <11 yr old 2,900 0.0082 2,800

MS 0.038 Adults 5,300 0.012 1,000

Youths 11 to <16 yr old 4,400 0.012 1,200

Children 6 to <11 yr old 2,900 0.014 1,600

Mean

All

States 0.031 Adults 5,300 0.0095 1,200

Youths 11 to <16 yr old 4,400 0.0096 1,500

Children 6 to <11 yr old 2,900 0.011 2,000

Granular Formu l ation

Golfing on

Treated Turf 1.0

CA 0.029

1.0 Adults 5,300 0.0088 1,400

Youths 11 to <16 yr old 4,400 0.0088 1,600

Children 6 to <11 yr old 2,900 0.010 2,200

0.25 0.0071 Adults 5,300 0.0022 5,400

Youths 11 to <16 yr old 4,400 0.0022 6,300

Children 6 to <11 yr old 2,900 0.0026 8,800

1 TT R derived by using average D ay 0 tu rf TTR residue data from TTR study (MRID 44829601 ) . The study was conducted using emulsifiable

concentrate application rate s of 3.8 lb a

. i

. /A , CA; 3.98 lb ai/A, IN; 3.83 lb ai/A, MS; and a mean value of 3.83 l b ai/A. The granular formulation (CA only) was conducted at a rate of 1.8 lb ai/A. Application rates have been adjusted for TTR calculation Adjusted TTR (μg/cm 2 ) = [(Product Application Rate (lb ai/A)) ÷ (TTR Study Application Rate (lb ai/A) x (Measured Study TTR ( μg/cm 2 )]

2 Daily Exposure = [ Adjusted TT R (μg/cm 2 ) x (0.001 mg/μg) x Dermal Transfer Coefficient x Dermal Absorption Factor ( 100 %) x Exposure Time ( 4 hr)]

3 MOE = PBPK

- modeled Po D (mg/kg/day) ÷ Dose (mg/kg/day).

## Page 90 of 227

Post

- application Dermal Exposure Algorithm

– Physical Activities on Turf

Exposure resulting from contacting previously treated turf while performing physical activities is calculated as shown below. Residential post

- application exposure assessment must include

calculatio n of exposure on the day of application. Therefore, though an assessment can present exposures for any day “t” following the application, it must include “day 0” exposure.

E = TTRt * CF1 * TC * ET

where:

E = exposure (mg/day);

TTRt = turf transferable residue on day t (μg/cm 2 

## ); CF1 = weight unit conversion factor (0.001 mg/μg); TC = transfer coefficient (cm 2 

## /hr); and ET = exposure time (hr/day).

If chemical

- specific TTR data are available, then surface residues from the day of application

should be used (assume that individuals could be exposed to residues immediately after application). TTR data available for the liquid and granular formulations of chlorpyrifos were

used.

Dermal absorbed doses are calculated as:

where:

D = dose (mg/kg

- day);

E = exposure (mg/day);

AF = absorption factor (dermal); and

BW = body weight (kg).

Table B.2. Turf (Physical Activities)

-- Inputs for Residential Post

- application Dermal Exposure

Algorithm Notation Exposure Factor (units) Point Estimate(s)

AR Application rate (lb ai/A)

- Liquid 1 .0

Application rate (lb ai/A)

- Granular 1.0 and 0.25

TTR The measured residue

level anticipated to

transfer from treated turf to the exposed individual EC (Mississippi) 0.146
EC (California) 0.124
EC (Indiana) 0.090
EC (Mean) 0.120
Granules (California) 0.052

TC Transfer

Coefficient (cm 2 

### /hr) L/WP/WDG Adults 180,000
Children 1 < 2 years old 49,000

Granules Adults 200,000

## Page 91 of 227

Table B.2. Turf (Physical Activities)

-- Inputs for Residential Post

- application Dermal Exposure

Algorithm Notation Exposure Factor (units) Point Estimate(s)

Children 1 < 2 years old 54,000

ET Exposure Time

(hours per day) Adults 1.5 Children 1 < 2 years old 1.5

BW Body Weight (kg) Adults 69

Children 1 < 2 years old 11 L/WP/WDG = Liquids/Wettable Powders/Water

- dispersible Granules

## Page 92 of 227

Appendix C : Residential Post

- application Dermal, Inhalation, and Hand

- to

- Mouth Exposures and Risks from Chlorpyrifos Mosquitocide Application

- 2012 Residential SOP Algorithms ; Use of Well Mixed Box Model; AgDisp (V8.2.6) Inputs

## Page 93 of 227

Table C.1 . Residential Post

- application Inhalation Steady State Exposure Estimates
Resulting from Chlorpyrifos Mosquitocide Application



## Population Air Concentration Estimate (mg/m 3 

## ) MOE 2



## Aerial ULV (100 ft release height)

– AGDISP Model

Adults 0.00060 1 

## 10,300

Children 1 to <2 years old 3,800

ULV Truck Fogger

– WMB Model

Adults 0.0051 1,200

Children 1 to <2 years old 460

1 Air concentration estimate produced from AGDISP model v8.2.6 at breathing height of adults and children.

2 MOE = PoD (mg/kg/day) ÷ Dose (mg/kg/day).

3 PoD determined with use of PBPK modeling.



## Table C.2 : Residential Post

- application Dermal Steady State Exposure Estimates Resulting from Chlorpyrifos Mosquitocide Application

Use

Site Application

Rate (lb ai/A) AGDISP

Deposition

Fraction 1 

### TTR

Deposition

Fraction 2 

### Adjusted

TTR 3 

### (ug/ cm 2 

### ) Transfer

Coefficient 4


### (cm 2 

### /hr) Dermal Dose 5



### (mg/ kg/ day) MOE 6,7



### Adult s
Air

0.010 0.35

0.0034 0.00013
180,000 0.00052 46,000

Ground 0.05 0.000019 0.000074 320,000

Child ren 1 to < 2 years old

Air

0.010 0.35

0.0034 0.00013
49,000 0.00088 150,000

Ground 0.05 0.000019 0.00013 1,100,000

1 Aerial fraction of mosquitocide application rate deposited on turf as determined using AgDISP model v8.2.6. Ground fraction of mosquitocide application rate deposited on turf as determined using two literature studies conducted to determine residue transfer following ground applications of malathion mosquitocide.

2 Fraction of deposited chlorpyrif os anticipated to transfer to exposed individual as dete rmined from chlorpyrifos TTR

st udy. The recommended fraction, 0.34% ( 0.0034 ) , is representative of the maximum residue transfer observed for all sites (MS data is highest) for the liquid (EC) formula ted product.

3 TTR t = AR (0.010 lb ai/A) x TTR Deposition Fraction (0.0034) x (1

- F D ) t x CF2 (4.54 x 10 8 μg/lb) x CF3 (2.47 x 10

- 8

A/cm 2 ) x AgDISP Deposition Fraction (0.35 or 0.05)

4 Transfer Coefficient (cm 2 /hr) = See Turf SOP In Appendix B

5 Dermal Dose (mg/ kg/ day) = [ ( TTR t * CF1 ( 0.001 mg/μg) * TC * ET (1.5 hrs)) ] ÷ BW (kg)

6 MOE = POD (mg/kg/day) ÷ Dose (mg/kg/day)

7 PoD determined with use of PBPK modeling.

## Page 94 of 227 Table C.3 : Residential Post

- application Steady State Incidental Oral Exposure Estimates Resulting from Chlorpyrifos Mosquitocide Application

Lifestage Post

- application Exposure Scenario Application

Rate (mg ai) Dermal

Exposure (mg/day) 1 

### Exposure

Time (hours/day) 2 

### Incidental Oral

Dose (mg/kg/day) 3 

### MOE 4 

### Use Site Route of Exposure

Children

1 to < 2

Years Old Aerial

Mosquitocide Application Hand

- to

- Mouth

0.010 0.010

1.5 0.000018 5,600

Object

- to

- Mouth 5.5x10

- 7 

### 180,000
Soil Ingestion 1.2x10

- 7 

### 4,900,000

Ground Mosquitocide Application Hand

- to

- Mouth

0.0014 2.6x10

- 6 

### 39,000

Object

- to

- Mouth 7.9x10

- 8 

### 1,300,000
Soil Ingestion 1.7x10

- 8 

### 34,000,000

1 Dermal exposure (mg/day) as calculated for children’s aerial and ground based ULV applications using the algorithms described in Table XX above, and as described below in this Appendix.

2 Daily exposure time as recommended in the 2012 Residential SOPs for t ime spent outdoors on treated turf.

3 Incidental Oral Dose estimated using the algorithms as described below in this Appendix.

4 MOE = POD (mg/kg/day) ÷ Dose (mg/kg/day)



## Post

- application Dermal and Incidental Oral Exposure Algorithms

Post

- application Derm al Exposure Algorithm

– Physical Activities on Turf

Exposure resulting from contacting turf while performing physical activities following deposition from aerial and ground based ULV mosquitocide applications is calculated as shown

below.

E = TTRt * CF 1 * TC * ET

where:

E = exposure (mg/day); TTRt = turf transferable residue on day t (μg/cm 2 

## ); CF1 = weight unit conversion factor (0.001 mg/μg); TC = transfer coefficient (cm 2 

## /hr); and ET = exposure time (hr/day).

Chemical

- specific TTR data are available. Surface residues from the day of application were used (assuming that individuals could be exposed to residues immediately after application).

TTR t 

## = AR * F * (1

- FD) t 

## * CF2 * CF3

where:

TTRt = turf transferable residue on day t (μg/cm 2 

## ); AR = application rate (lbs ai/ft 2 

## or lb ai/acre); F = fraction of ai as transferable residue following application (unitless); FD = fraction of residue that dissipates daily (unitless);

t = post

- application d ay on which exposure is being assessed; CF2 = weight unit conversion factor (4.54 x 10 8 

## μg/lb); and CF3 = area unit conversion factor (1.08 x 10

- 3 

## ft 2 

## / cm 2 

## or 2.47 x 10

- 8 

## acre/cm 2 

## ).

## Page 95 of 227

Dermal absorbed doses are calculated as:

where :
D = dose (mg/kg

- day);

E = exposure (mg/day);

AF = absorption factor (dermal); and

BW = body weight (kg).

Table C.4 : Turf (Physical Activities)

-- Inputs for Residential Post

- application Dermal Exposure

Algorithm Notation Exposure Factor (units) Point Estimate(s)

AR Application rate (mass active ingredient per unit area) 0.010 lb ai/A

F D 

### Fraction of ULV ground

- based application deposited on turf (malathion data) 0.05

Fraction of fixed wing ULV application deposited on turf

( AgDISP (v8.2.6)) 0.35

F AR 

### Fraction of AR as TTR following application (per

chlorpyrifos specific TTR data

– MS data set provides

the most protective fraction) 0 .0034 (0.34%)

TC Transfer

Coefficient (cm 2 

### /hr) L/WP/WDG Adults 180,000
Children 1 < 2 years old 49,000

Granules Adults 200,000

Children 1 < 2 years old 54,000

ET Exposure Time

(hours per day) Adults 1.5 Children 1 < 2 years old 1.5

BW Body Weight (kg) Adults 69

Children 1 < 2 years old 11 L/WP/WDG = Liquids/Wettable Powders/Water

- dispersible Granules



## Post

- application Hand

- to

- Mouth Exposure Algorithm

– Physical Activities on Turf

Exposure from hand

- to

- mouth activity is calculated as follows (based on the algorithm utilized in

the SHEDS

- Multimedia model ):

E = [HR * ( F

M 

## * SA H 

## ) * (ET * N_Replen) * (1

- (1

- SE ) (Freq_HtM/N

- Replen) 

## )]

where:

E = exposure (mg/day); HR = hand residue loading (mg/cm 2 

## ); FM = fraction hand surface area mouthed / event (fraction/event); SAH = typical surface area of one hand (cm 2 

## ); ET = exposure time (hr/day);

## Page 96 of 227

N_Replen = number of replenishment intervals per hour (intervals/hour); SE = saliva extraction factor (i.e., mouthing removal efficiency); and Freq_HtM = number of hand

- to

- mouth contacts events per hour (events/hour).

and

where:

HR = hand residue loading (mg/cm 2 

## );

Fai hands 

## = fraction ai on hands compared to total surface residue from dermal transfer coefficient study (unitless); DE = dermal exposure (mg); and

SA H 

## = typical surface area of one hand (cm 2 

## ).

Dose, normalized to body weight, is calculated as:

where:

D = dose (mg/kg

- day);

E = exposure (mg/day); and

BW = body weight (kg).

Table C.5 : Turf (Physical Activities)

– Inputs for Residential Post

- application Hand

- to

- Mouth Exposure Algorithm

Notation Exposure Factor (units) Point Estimate(s)

Fai hands 

### Fraction of ai on hands

from dermal transfer coefficient study (unitless) Liquid formulations 0.06

DE Dermal exposure (mg) Calculated

SA H 

### Typical surface area of one hand (cm 2 

### ), children 1 < 2 years old 150

HR Residue available on the hands (mg/cm 2 

### ) Calculated via (DE * Fai hands 

### )/SA H



### F M 

### Fraction hand surface area mouthed (fraction/event) 0.127

N_Replen Replenishment intervals per hour (intervals/hr) 4

ET Exposure time (hrs/day) 1.5

SE Saliva extraction factor (unitless) 0.48

Freq_HtM Hand

- to

- mouth events per hour (events/hr) 13.9

## Page 97 of 227

Table C.5 : Turf (Physical Activities)

– Inputs for Residential Post

- application Hand

- to

- Mouth Exposure Algorithm

Notation Exposure Factor (units) Point Estimate(s)

BW Body Weight

(kg) Children 1 < 2 years

old 11



## Post

- application Inhalation Exposure Algorithm for Truck Mounted ULV

– Well

Mixed Box Model

The following algorithm is used to determine post

- application inhalation exposure to truck mounted fogger sprays:

where : [Air] = air concentration (mg/m 3 

## );

AR = application rate (mg ai/day); Q = airflow through the treated area (m 3 

## /hour); and

T = time ( duration) of exposure (hours).

Application rate for WMB analysis can be calculated as follows:

AR* = AR * CF1* CF2 * CF3

where:

AR* = application rate (mg ai/400 ft 2 

## )

AR = application rate (lb ai/A)

CF1 = unit conversion factor ( 454 g/lb)

CF2 = unit conversion factor (400ft 2 

## / 43560 ft2 per acre) CF3 = unit conversion factor ( 1000mg/g)

The airflow through the treated space can be calculated as follows:

Q = AV *CF1* CF2 * A
cross

- section



## where : Q = airflow thro ugh treated space (m 3 

## /hr);

AV = air velocity (m/s);

CF1 = time unit conversion factor (60 seconds/1 minute);

CF2 = time unit conversion factor (60 minutes / hour); and

A
cross

- section 

## = cross

- section of outdoor space treated (m 2 

## ).

## Page 98 of 227

Table C.6 : Truck Mounted Mosquito Vector Control Fogger

– Inputs for Residential Post

- application Inhalation Exposure Algorithm

Notation Exposure Factor (units) Point Estimate(s)

AR Application rate (lb ai/A) 0.010

A
cross

- section 

### Cross sectional area of area treated (m 2 

### ) 15

AV Air velocity (m/s) 0.1

Q Airflow through treated area (m 3 

### /hr) 5,400

A.I. Percent ai in product (%) 19 .4 %

T Exposure duration (hours)

[equivalent to duration of inhalation toxicity

study] 1.5



## AgDisp Inputs (v8.2.6):

 Application method: Aerial

 Aircraft: Air Tractor AT

- 401

 Release height: 300 ft

 Spray lines: 20 reps

 Application technique:

o Nozzles: 3; vertical distance of nozzles from wing: 0 ft; horizontal distance from wing, 0,

- 18.7 ft; and horizontal distance limit: 76.3 percent.

o Drop size distribution: User defined, D V0.5 

## : 60.2 μm; and relative span: 1.4.

 Swath width: 500 ft

 Meteorology:

o Wind type: single height

o Wind speed: 1 mph

o Wind direction:

- 90 deg

o Temperature: 85 F°

o Relative humidity: 90%

 Spray material: chlorpyrifos; spray volume rate: 0.0068 gal/A; Active solution: 19.36 % of tank mix; fraction of solution that is nonvolatile: 1.

 Atmospheric stability: overcast

 Surface:

o Upslope angle: 0 deg

o Sideslope angle: 0 deg

 Transport:

o Distance: 0 ft.

## Page 99 of 227

Appendix D. Summaries of Adult and Children 1 to < 2 Years Old Spray Drift Risk Estimates and Buffers for Chlorpyrifos

## Table D.1. Summary of Adult Spray Drift Risk Estimates and Required Buffers for Chlorpyrifos : LOC is an MOE = 100

Crop/

Rate Group Spray

Type/

Nozzle Configurat

ion App

.

Rate (lb ai/A) Es t. or

Adjusted

TTR (ug/cm2) At

Edge 10 Feet 25 Feet 50 Feet 75 Feet 100

Feet 125

Feet 150 Feet 200

Feet 250

Feet 300

Feet

Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE

Airblast Sparse

6.0 0.23 180 320 600 1,300 2,400 3,900 5,900 8,200 15,000 24,000 33,000

Normal 8,800 13,000 20,000 29,000 44,000 53,000 66,000 88,000 88,000 130,000 130,000

Dense 620 950 1,500 2,600 3,900 5,400 6,800 8,200 11,000 15,000 18,000

Vineyard 3,300 6,400 12,000 22,000 33,000 44,000 53,000 66,000 88,000 130,000 130,000

Ground

- boom High

Boom Very fine to

Fine

4.3 0.16 200 400 660 1,100 1,500 1,800 2,200 2,600 3,300 4,600 5,300

Low Boom Very fine

to Fine 430 1,100 1,800 2,800 3,700 4,600 5,300 6,100 7,400 9,200 12,000

High Boom

Fine to

Medium/

Coarse 750 1,900 2,800 4,100 5,300 6,100 7,400 7,400 9,200 12,000 12,000

Low Boom

Fine to

Medium/

Coarse 1,100 3,100 4,600 6,100 7,400 9,200 12,000 12,000 18,000 18,000 18,000

Airblast Sparse 260 440 830 1,800 3,300 5,400 8,200 11,000 20,000 33,000 46,000

Normal 12,000 18,000 28,000 41,000 61,000 74,000 92,000 120,000 120,000 180,000 180,000

Dense 870 1,300 2,100 3,700 5,500 7,500 9,400 11,000 16,000 20,000 25,000

Vineyard 4,600 9,000 17,000 31,000 46,000 61,000 74,000 92,000 120,000 180,000 180,000

## Page 101 of 227

Table D.1. Summary of Adult Spray Drift Risk Estimates and Required Buffers for Chlorpyrifos : LOC is an MOE = 100

Crop/

Rate Group Spray

Type/

Nozzle Configurat

ion App

.

Rate (lb ai/A) Es t. or

Adjusted

TTR (ug/cm2) At

Edge 10 Feet 25 Feet 50 Feet 75 Feet 100

Feet 125

Feet 150 Feet 200

Feet 250

Feet 300

Feet

Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE

Ground

- boom High

Boom Very fine to

Fine

4.0 0.15 210 430 710 1,100 1,600 2,000 2,300 2,800 3,600 4,900 5,700

Low Boom Very fine

to Fine 470 1,200 2,000 3,000 4,000 4,900 5,700 6,600 7,900 9,900 13,000

High Boom

Fine to

Medium/

Coarse 810 2,100 3,000 4,400 5,700 6,600 7,900 7,900 9,900 13,000 13,000

Low Boom

Fine to

Medium/

Coarse 1,200 3,300 4,900 6,600 7,900 9,900 13,000 13,000 20,000 20,000 20,000

Airblast Sparse 280 470 890 2,000 3,600 5,800 8,800 12,000 22,000 36,000 49,000

Normal 13,000 20,000 30,000 44,000 66,000 79,000 99,000 130,000 130,000 200,000 200,000

Dense 940 1,400 2,300 4,000 5,900 8,100 10,000 12,000 17,000 22,000 26,000

Vineyard 4,900 9,600 18,000 33,000 49,000 66,000 79,000 99,000 130,000 200,000 200,000

Ground

boom High

Boom Very fine to

Fine

3.76 0.14 230 450 750 1,200 1,700 2,100 2,500 3,000 3,800 5,300 6,000

Low Boom Very fine

to Fine 500 1,300 2,100 3,200 4,200 5,300 6,000 7,000 8,400 11,000 14,000

High Boom

Fine to

Medium/

Coarse 860 2,200 3,200 4,700 6,000 7,000 8,400 8,400 11,000 14,000 14,000

Low Boom

Fine to

Medium/

Coarse 1,300 3,500 5,300 7,000 8,400 11,000 14,000 14,000 21,000 21,000 21,000

## Page 102 of 227

Table D.1. Summary of Adult Spray Drift Risk Estimates and Required Buffers for Chlorpyrifos : LOC is an MOE = 100

Crop/

Rate Group Spray

Type/

Nozzle Configurat

ion App

.

Rate (lb ai/A) Es t. or

Adjusted

TTR (ug/cm2) At

Edge 10 Feet 25 Feet 50 Feet 75 Feet 100

Feet 125

Feet 150 Feet 200

Feet 250

Feet 300

Feet

Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE

Airblast Sparse 290 500 950 2,100 3,800 6,200 9,400 13,000 23,000 38,000 53,000

Normal 14,000 21,000 32,000 47,000 70,000 84,000 110,000 140,000 140,000 210,000 210,000

Dense 1,000 1,500 2,400 4,200 6,300 8,600 11,000 13,000 18,000 23,000 28,000

Vineyard 5,300 10,000 19,000 35,000 53,000 70,000 84,000 110,000 140,000 210,000 210,000

Ground

- boom High

Boom Very fine to

Fine

3.0 0.11 280 570 940 1,500 2,100 2,600 3,100 3,800 4,800 6,600 7,500

Low Boom Very fine

to Fine 620 1,600 2,600 4,100 5,300 6,600 7,500 8,800 11,000 13,000 18,000

High Boom

Fine to

Medium/

Coarse 1,100 2,800 4,100 5,900 7,500 8,800 11,000 11,000 13,000 18,000 18,000

Low Boom

Fine to

Medium/

Coarse 1,600 4,400 6,600 8,800 11,000 13,000 18,000 18,000 26,000 26,000 26,000

Airblast Sparse 370 630 1,200 2,600 4,800 7,800 12,000 16,000 29,000 48,000 66,000

Normal 18,000 26,000 41,000 59,000 88,000 110,000 130,000 180,000 180,000 260,000 260,000

Dense 1,200 1,900 3,000 5,300 7,900 11,000 14,000 16,000 23,000 29,000 35,000

Vineyard 6,600 13,000 24,000 44,000 66,000 88,000 110,000 130,000 180,000 260,000 260,000

Aerial Fine to

Medium

2.3 0.088 270 330 410 530 700 910 1,100 1,300 1,700 2,000 2,500

Medium to

Coarse 330 440 600 840 1,200 1,600 2,000 2,400 3,300 4,300 5,300

Coarse to Very

Coarse 380 550 840 1,300 1,900 2,500 3,100 3,800 5,300 6,900 8,600

## Page 103 of 227

Table D.1. Summary of Adult Spray Drift Risk Estimates and Required Buffers for Chlorpyrifos : LOC is an MOE = 100

Crop/

Rate Group Spray

Type/

Nozzle Configurat

ion App

.

Rate (lb ai/A) Es t. or

Adjusted

TTR (ug/cm2) At

Edge 10 Feet 25 Feet 50 Feet 75 Feet 100

Feet 125

Feet 150 Feet 200

Feet 250

Feet 300

Feet

Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE

Very Fine

to Fine 180 200 230 260 300 350 390 440 540 640 720

AT401, M, 10 mph,

37% SD 290 380 480 660 880 1,100 1,400 1,600 2,100 2,600 3,300

WASP, M, 10 mph,

37% SD 320 400 530 800 1,100 1,400 1,700 2,000 2,600 3,300 3,800

AT401, C, 10 mph,

25% SD 350 490 690 1,000 1,500 1,900 2,400 2,900 4,000 5,300 6,300

WASP, C, 10 mph,

25% SD 400 570 820 1,300 1,800 2,500 3,000 3,800 5,300 6,900 7,600

AT401, VC, 10 mph, 20%

SD 390 600 960 1,600 2,200 3,000 3,800 4,900 6,900 8,600 11,000

WASP, VC, 10 mph, 20%

SD 500 780 1,200 1,900 2,800 3,600 4,900 5,700 8,600 9,800 11,000

Ground

boom High

Boom Very fine to

Fine 370 740 1,200 2,000 2,800 3,400 4,000 4,900 6,300 8,600 9,800

Low Boom Very fine

to Fine 810 2,100 3,400 5,300 6,900 8,600 9,800 11,000 14,000 17,000 23,000

High Boom

Fine to

Medium/

Coarse 1,400 3,600 5,300 7,600 9,800 11,000 14,000 14,000 17,000 23,000 23,000

Low Boom

Fine to

Medium/

Coarse 2,100 5,700 8,600 11,000 14,000 17,000 23,000 23,000 34,000 34,000 34,000

## Page 104 of 227

Table D.1. Summary of Adult Spray Drift Risk Estimates and Required Buffers for Chlorpyrifos : LOC is an MOE = 100

Crop/

Rate Group Spray

Type/

Nozzle Configurat

ion App

.

Rate (lb ai/A) Es t. or

Adjusted

TTR (ug/cm2) At

Edge 10 Feet 25 Feet 50 Feet 75 Feet 100

Feet 125

Feet 150 Feet 200

Feet 250

Feet 300

Feet

Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE

Airblast Sparse 480 820 1,600 3,400 6,300 10,000 15,000 21,000 38,000 63,000 86,000

Normal 23,000 34,000 53,000 76,000 110,000 140,000 170,000 230,000 230,000 340,000 340,000

Dense 1,600 2,500 3,900 6,900 10,000 14,000 18,000 21,000 30,000 38,000 46,000

Vineyard 8,600 17,000 31,000 57,000 86,000 110,000 140,000 170,000 230,000 340,000 340,000

Aerial Fine to

Medium

2 0.076 310 380 470 610 810 1,000 1,300 1,500 1,900 2,300 2,800

Medium to

Coarse 370 510 690 960 1,400 1,800 2,300 2,700 3,800 4,900 6,100

Coarse to Very

Coarse 430 640 960 1,500 2,100 2,800 3,600 4,400 6,100 7,900 9,900

Very Fine

to Fine 210 230 260 300 350 400 450 510 620 730 830

AT401, M, 10 mph,

37% SD 340 430 560 750 1,000 1,300 1,600 1,900 2,500 3,000 3,800

WASP, M, 10 mph,

37% SD 360 460 610 920 1,300 1,600 2,000 2,300 3,000 3,800 4,400

AT401, C, 10 mph,

25% SD 400 560 800 1,200 1,700 2,200 2,700 3,300 4,700 6,100 7,200

WASP, C, 10 mph,

25% SD 460 650 940 1,500 2,100 2,800 3,400 4,400 6,100 7,900 8,800

AT401,
VC, 10 mph, 20%

SD 450 690 1,100 1,800 2,600 3,400 4,400 5,700 7,900 9,900 13,000

WASP,
VC, 10 mph, 20% 570 900 1,400 2,200 3,200 4,200 5,700 6,600 9,900 11,000 13,000

## Page 105 of 227

Table D.1. Summary of Adult Spray Drift Risk Estimates and Required Buffers for Chlorpyrifos : LOC is an MOE = 100

Crop/

Rate Group Spray

Type/

Nozzle Configurat

ion App

.

Rate (lb ai/A) Es t. or

Adjusted

TTR (ug/cm2) At

Edge 10 Feet 25 Feet 50 Feet 75 Feet 100

Feet 125

Feet 150 Feet 200

Feet 250

Feet 300

Feet

Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE

SD

Ground

boom High

Boom Very fine to

Fine 420 850 1,400 2,300 3,200 4,000 4,700 5,700 7,200 9,900 11,000

Low Boom Very fine

to Fine 930 2,500 4,000 6,100 7,900 9,900 11,000 13,000 16,000 20,000 26,000

High Boom

Fine to

Medium/

Coarse 1,600 4,200 6,100 8,800 11,000 13,000 16,000 16,000 20,000 26,000 26,000

Low Boom

Fine to

Medium/

Coarse 2,400 6,600 9,900 13,000 16,000 20,000 26,000 26,000 40,000 40,000 40,000

Airblast Sparse 550 950 1,800 4,000 7,200 12,000 18,000 25,000 44,000 72,000 99,000

Normal 26,000 40,000 61,000 88,000 130,000 160,000 200,000 260,000 260,000 400,000 400,000

Dense 1,900 2,800 4,500 7,900 12,000 16,000 20,000 25,000 34,000 44,000 53,000

Vineyard 9,900 19,000 36,000 66,000 99,000 130,000 160,000 200,000 260,000 400,000 400,000

Aerial Fine to

Medium

1.5 0.057 410 500 620 820 1,100 1,400 1,700 2,000 2,600 3,100 3,800

Medium to

Coarse 500 680 920 1,300 1,800 2,400 3,000 3,600 5,000 6,600 8,100

Coarse to Very

Coarse 580 850 1,300 2,000 2,900 3,800 4,800 5,900 8,100 11,000 13,000

Very Fine

to Fine 280 310 350 400 470 540 600 680 830 980 1,100

AT401, M, 10 mph,

37% SD 450 580 740 1,000 1,400 1,800 2,200 2,500 3,300 4,100 5,000

## Page 106 of 227

Table D.1. Summary of Adult Spray Drift Risk Estimates and Required Buffers for Chlorpyrifos : LOC is an MOE = 100

Crop/

Rate Group Spray

Type/

Nozzle Configurat

ion App

.

Rate (lb ai/A) Es t. or

Adjusted

TTR (ug/cm2) At

Edge 10 Feet 25 Feet 50 Feet 75 Feet 100

Feet 125

Feet 150 Feet 200

Feet 250

Feet 300

Feet

Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE

WASP, M, 10 mph,

37% SD 480 620 820 1,200 1,700 2,200 2,600 3,100 4,100 5,000 5,900

AT401, C, 10 mph,

25% SD 530 750 1,100 1,600 2,200 2,900 3,600 4,400 6,200 8,100 9,600

WASP, C, 10 mph,

25% SD 620 870 1,300 2,000 2,800 3,800 4,600 5,900 8,100 11,000 12,000

AT401, VC, 10 mph, 20%

SD 600 920 1,500 2,400 3,400 4,600 5,900 7,500 11,000 13,000 18,000

WASP, VC, 10 mph, 20%

SD 760 1,200 1,900 2,900 4,200 5,600 7,500 8,800 13,000 15,000 18,000

Ground

boom High

Boom Very fine to

Fine 560 1,100 1,900 3,000 4,200 5,300 6,200 7,500 9,600 13,000 15,000

Low Boom Very fine

to Fine 1,200 3,300 5,300 8,100 11,000 13,000 15,000 18,000 21,000 26,000 35,000

High Boom

Fine to

Medium/

Coarse 2,200 5,600 8,100 12,000 15,000 18,000 21,000 21,000 26,000 35,000 35,000

Low Boom

Fine to

Medium/

Coarse 3,200 8,800 13,000 18,000 21,000 26,000 35,000 35,000 53,000 53,000 53,000

Airblast Sparse 740 1,300 2,400 5,300 9,600 16,000 23,000 33,000 59,000 96,000 130,000

Normal 35,000 53,000 81,000 120,000 180,000 210,000 260,000 350,000 350,000 530,000 530,000

Dense 2,500 3,800 6,000 11,000 16,000 22,000 27,000 33,000 46,000 59,000 70,000

## Page 107 of 227

Table D.1. Summary of Adult Spray Drift Risk Estimates and Required Buffers for Chlorpyrifos : LOC is an MOE = 100

Crop/

Rate Group Spray

Type/

Nozzle Configurat

ion App

.

Rate (lb ai/A) Es t. or

Adjusted

TTR (ug/cm2) At

Edge 10 Feet 25 Feet 50 Feet 75 Feet 100

Feet 125

Feet 150 Feet 200

Feet 250

Feet 300

Feet

Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE

Vineyard 13,000 26,000 48,000 88,000 130,000 180,000 210,000 260,000 350,000 530,000 530,000

Aerial Fine to

Medium

1 0.038 620 760 940 1,200 1,600 2,100 2,500 2,900 3,900 4,700 5,700

Medium to

Coarse 750 1,000 1,400 1,900 2,700 3,600 4,500 5,500 7,500 9,900 12,000

Coarse to Very

Coarse 860 1,300 1,900 3,000 4,300 5,700 7,200 8,800 12,000 16,000 20,000

Very Fine

to Fine 420 470 520 600 700 800 900 1,000 1,200 1,500 1,700

AT401, M, 10 mph,

37% SD 680 860 1,100 1,500 2,000 2,600 3,200 3,800 4,900 6,100 7,500

WASP, M, 10 mph,

37% SD 730 930 1,200 1,800 2,500 3,200 4,000 4,700 6,100 7,500 8,800

AT401, C, 10 mph,

25% SD 800 1,100 1,600 2,400 3,400 4,400 5,500 6,600 9,300 12,000 14,000

WASP, C, 10 mph,

25% SD 930 1,300 1,900 3,000 4,200 5,700 6,900 8,800 12,000 16,000 18,000

AT401, VC, 10 mph, 20%

SD 900 1,400 2,200 3,600 5,100 6,900 8,800 11,000 16,000 20,000 26,000

WASP, VC, 10 mph, 20%

SD 1,100 1,800 2,800 4,400 6,300 8,300 11,000 13,000 20,000 23,000 26,000

Ground

boom High

Boom Very fine to

Fine 850 1,700 2,800 4,500 6,300 7,900 9,300 11,000 14,000 20,000 23,000

Low Boom 1,900 4,900 7,900 12,000 16,000 20,000 23,000 26,000 32,000 40,000 53,000

## Page 108 of 227

Table D.1. Summary of Adult Spray Drift Risk Estimates and Required Buffers for Chlorpyrifos : LOC is an MOE = 100

Crop/

Rate Group Spray

Type/

Nozzle Configurat

ion App

.

Rate (lb ai/A) Es t. or

Adjusted

TTR (ug/cm2) At

Edge 10 Feet 25 Feet 50 Feet 75 Feet 100

Feet 125

Feet 150 Feet 200

Feet 250

Feet 300

Feet

Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE

Very fine

to Fine High Boom

Fine to

Medium/

Coarse 3,200 8,300 12,000 18,000 23,000 26,000 32,000 32,000 40,000 53,000 53,000

Low Boom

Fine to

Medium/

Coarse 4,800 13,000 20,000 26,000 32,000 40,000 53,000 53,000 79,000 79,000 79,000

Airblast Sparse 1,100 1,900 3,600 7,900 14,000 23,000 35,000 49,000 88,000 140,000 200,000

Normal 53,000 79,000 120,000 180,000 260,000 320,000 400,000 530,000 530,000 790,000 790,000

Dense 3,700 5,700 9,000 16,000 24,000 32,000 41,000 49,000 69,000 88,000 110,000

Vineyard 20,000 39,000 72,000 130,000 200,000 260,000 320,000 400,000 530,000 790,000 790,000

## Table D.2 . Summary of Children 1 to < 2 Years Old Spray Drift Risk Estimates and Required Buffers for Chlorpyrifos : LOC

is an MOE = 40

Crop/

Rate Group Spray

Type/

Nozzle Configurat

ion App

.

Rate (lb ai/A) Es t. or

Adjusted

TTR (ug/cm2) At

Edge 10 Feet 25 Feet 50 Feet 75 Feet 100

Feet 125 Feet 150

Feet 200

Feet 250 Feet 300 Feet

Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE

Airblast Sparse

6.0 0.23 22 37 70 160 280 460 690 970 1,700 2,800 3,900

Normal 1,000 1,600 2,400 3,500 5,200 6,200 7,800 10,000 10,000 16,000 16,000

Dense 74 110 180 310 460 630 800 970 1,400 1,700 2,100

Vineyard 390 760 1,400 2,600 3,900 5,200 6,200 7,800 10,000 16,000 16,000

Ground

- boom High

Boom Very fine to

Fine

4.3 0.16 23 47 77 120 170 220 260 310 390 540 620

Low Boom Very fine

to Fine 51 140 220 330 430 540 620 720 870 1,100 1,400

High Boom

Fine to

Medium/

Coarse 89 230 330 480 620 720 870 870 1,100 1,400 1,400

Low Boom

Fine to

Medium/

Coarse 130 360 540 720 870 1,100 1,400 1,400 2,200 2,200 2,200

Airblast Sparse 30 52 98 220 390 640 960 1,400 2,400 3,900 5,400

Normal 1,400 2,200 3,300 4,800 7,200 8,700 11,000 14,000 14,000 22,000 22,000

Dense 100 160 250 430 650 890 1,100 1,400 1,900 2,400 2,900

Vineyard 540 1,100 2,000 3,600 5,400 7,200 8,700 11,000 14,000 22,000 22,000

Ground

- boom High

Boom Very fine to

Fine 4.0 0.15 25 50 83 130 190 230 270 330 420 580 670

## Page 110 of 227

Table D.2 . Summary of Children 1 to < 2 Years Old Spray Drift Risk Estimates and Required Buffers for Chlorpyrifos : LOC

is an MOE = 40

Crop/

Rate Group Spray

Type/

Nozzle Configurat

ion App

.

Rate (lb ai/A) Es t. or

Adjusted

TTR (ug/cm2) At

Edge 10 Feet 25 Feet 50 Feet 75 Feet 100

Feet 125 Feet 150

Feet 200

Feet 250 Feet 300 Feet

Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE

Low Boom Very fine

to Fine 55 150 230 360 470 580 670 780 930 1,200 1,600

High Boom

Fine to

Medium/

Coarse 95 250 360 520 670 780 930 930 1,200 1,600 1,600

Low Boom

Fine to

Medium/

Coarse 140 390 580 780 930 1,200 1,600 1,600 2,300 2,300 2,300

Airblast Sparse 32 56 110 230 420 690 1,000 1,500 2,600 4,200 5,800

Normal 1,600 2,300 3,600 5,200 7,800 9,300 12,000 16,000 16,000 23,000 23,000

Dense 110 170 270 470 700 950 1,200 1,500 2,000 2,600 3,100

Vineyard 580 1,100 2,100 3,900 5,800 7,800 9,300 12,000 16,000 23,000 23,000

Ground

boom High

Boom Very fine to

Fine

3.76 0.14 27 53 89 140 200 250 290 350 450 620 710

Low Boom Very fine

to Fine 58 160 250 380 500 620 710 830 990 1,200 1,700

High Boom

Fine to

Medium/

Coarse 100 260 380 550 710 830 990 990 1,200 1,700 1,700

Low Boom

Fine to

Medium/

Coarse 150 410 620 830 990 1,200 1,700 1,700 2,500 2,500 2,500

## Page 111 of 227

Table D.2 . Summary of Children 1 to < 2 Years Old Spray Drift Risk Estimates and Required Buffers for Chlorpyrifos : LOC

is an MOE = 40

Crop/

Rate Group Spray

Type/

Nozzle Configurat

ion App

.

Rate (lb ai/A) Es t. or

Adjusted

TTR (ug/cm2) At

Edge 10 Feet 25 Feet 50 Feet 75 Feet 100

Feet 125 Feet 150

Feet 200

Feet 250 Feet 300 Feet

Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE

Airblast Sparse 35 59 110 250 450 730 1,100 1,600 2,800 4,500 6,200

Normal 1,700 2,500 3,800 5,500 8,300 9,900 12,000 17,000 17,000 25,000 25,000

Dense 120 180 280 500 740 1,000 1,300 1,600 2,200 2,800 3,300

Vineyard 620 1,200 2,300 4,100 6,200 8,300 9,900 12,000 17,000 25,000 25,000

Ground

- boom High

Boom Very fine to

Fine

3.0 0.11 33 67 110 180 250 310 370 440 570 780 890

Low Boom Very fine

to Fine 73 190 310 480 620 780 890 1,000 1,200 1,600 2,100

High Boom

Fine to

Medium/

Coarse 130 330 480 690 890 1,000 1,200 1,200 1,600 2,100 2,100

Low Boom

Fine to

Medium/

Coarse 190 520 780 1,000 1,200 1,600 2,100 2,100 3,100 3,100 3,100

Airblast Sparse 43 75 140 310 570 910 1,400 1,900 3,500 5,700 7,800

Normal 2,100 3,100 4,800 6,900 10,000 12,000 16,000 21,000 21,000 31,000 31,000

Dense 150 220 360 620 930 1,300 1,600 1,900 2,700 3,500 4,100

Vineyard 780 1,500 2,800 5,200 7,800 10,000 12,000 16,000 21,000 31,000 31,000

Aerial Fine to

Medium

2.3 0.088 32 39 48 63 83 110 130 150 200 240 290

Medium to

Coarse 38 52 71 99 140 180 230 280 390 510 620

Coarse to Very

Coarse 44 65 99 150 220 290 370 450 620 810 1,000

## Page 112 of 227

Table D.2 . Summary of Children 1 to < 2 Years Old Spray Drift Risk Estimates and Required Buffers for Chlorpyrifos : LOC

is an MOE = 40

Crop/

Rate Group Spray

Type/

Nozzle Configurat

ion App

.

Rate (lb ai/A) Es t. or

Adjusted

TTR (ug/cm2) At

Edge 10 Feet 25 Feet 50 Feet 75 Feet 100

Feet 125 Feet 150

Feet 200

Feet 250 Feet 300 Feet

Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE

Very Fine

to Fine 22 24 27 31 36 41 46 52 64 75 85

AT401, M, 10 mph,

37% SD 35 44 57 77 100 140 170 190 250 310 390

WASP, M, 10 mph,

37% SD 37 47 63 94 130 170 200 240 310 390 450

AT401, C, 10 mph,

25% SD 41 58 82 120 170 230 280 340 480 620 740

WASP, C, 10 mph,

25% SD 47 67 97 150 210 290 350 450 620 810 900

AT401, VC, 10 mph, 20%

SD 46 71 110 180 260 350 450 580 810 1,000 1,400

WASP, VC, 10 mph, 20%

SD 59 92 140 230 320 430 580 680 1,000 1,200 1,400

Ground

boom High

Boom Very fine to

Fine 43 87 140 230 320 410 480 580 740 1,000 1,200

Low Boom Very fine

to Fine 95 250 410 620 810 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 2,000 2,700

High Boom

Fine to

Medium/

Coarse 170 430 620 900 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,600 2,000 2,700 2,700

Low Boom

Fine to

Medium/ 250 680 1,000 1,400 1,600 2,000 2,700 2,700 4,100 4,100 4,100

## Page 113 of 227

Table D.2 . Summary of Children 1 to < 2 Years Old Spray Drift Risk Estimates and Required Buffers for Chlorpyrifos : LOC

is an MOE = 40

Crop/

Rate Group Spray

Type/

Nozzle Configurat

ion App

.

Rate (lb ai/A) Es t. or

Adjusted

TTR (ug/cm2) At

Edge 10 Feet 25 Feet 50 Feet 75 Feet 100

Feet 125 Feet 150

Feet 200

Feet 250 Feet 300 Feet

Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE

Coarse

Airblast Sparse 57 97 180 410 740 1,200 1,800 2,500 4,500 7,400 10,000

Normal 2,700 4,100 6,200 9,000 14,000 16,000 20,000 27,000 27,000 41,000 41,000

Dense 190 290 460 810 1,200 1,700 2,100 2,500 3,500 4,500 5,400

Vineyard 1,000 2,000 3,700 6,800 10,000 14,000 16,000 20,000 27,000 41,000 41,000

Aerial Fine to

Medium

2 0.076 36 45 55 72 95 120 150 170 230 270 330

Medium to

Coarse 44 60 81 110 160 210 270 320 440 580 720

Coarse to Very

Coarse 51 75 110 180 250 330 420 520 720 930 1,200

Very Fine

to Fine 25 27 31 36 41 47 53 60 73 86 98

AT401, M, 10 mph,

37% SD 40 51 66 89 120 160 190 220 290 360 440

WASP, M, 10 mph,

37% SD 43 55 72 110 150 190 230 270 360 440 520

AT401, C, 10 mph,

25% SD 47 66 94 140 200 260 320 390 550 720 850

WASP, C, 10 mph,

25% SD 55 77 110 180 250 330 410 520 720 930 1,000

AT401, VC, 10 mph, 20%

SD 53 81 130 210 300 410 520 670 930 1,200 1,600

WASP, 68 110 160 260 370 490 670 780 1,200 1,300 1,600

## Page 114 of 227

Table D.2 . Summary of Children 1 to < 2 Years Old Spray Drift Risk Estimates and Required Buffers for Chlorpyrifos : LOC

is an MOE = 40

Crop/

Rate Group Spray

Type/

Nozzle Configurat

ion App

.

Rate (lb ai/A) Es t. or

Adjusted

TTR (ug/cm2) At

Edge 10 Feet 25 Feet 50 Feet 75 Feet 100

Feet 125 Feet 150

Feet 200

Feet 250 Feet 300 Feet

Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE

VC, 10 mph, 20%

SD

Ground

boom High

Boom Very fine to

Fine 50 100 170 270 370 470 550 670 850 1,200 1,300

Low Boom Very fine

to Fine 110 290 470 720 930 1,200 1,300 1,600 1,900 2,300 3,100

High Boom

Fine to

Medium/

Coarse 190 490 720 1,000 1,300 1,600 1,900 1,900 2,300 3,100 3,100

Low Boom

Fine to

Medium/

Coarse 280 780 1,200 1,600 1,900 2,300 3,100 3,100 4,700 4,700 4,700

Airblast Sparse 65 110 210 470 850 1,400 2,100 2,900 5,200 8,500 12,000

Normal 3,100 4,700 7,200 10,000 16,000 19,000 23,000 31,000 31,000 47,000 47,000

Dense 220 330 530 930 1,400 1,900 2,400 2,900 4,100 5,200 6,200

Vineyard 1,200 2,300 4,200 7,800 12,000 16,000 19,000 23,000 31,000 47,000 47,000

Aerial Fine to

Medium

1.5 0.057 48 60 74 96 130 160 200 230 300 370 440

Medium to

Coarse 59 80 110 150 210 280 360 430 590 780 960

Coarse to Very 68 100 150 230 340 440 570 690 960 1,200 1,600

## Page 115 of 227

Table D.2 . Summary of Children 1 to < 2 Years Old Spray Drift Risk Estimates and Required Buffers for Chlorpyrifos : LOC

is an MOE = 40

Crop/

Rate Group Spray

Type/

Nozzle Configurat

ion App

.

Rate (lb ai/A) Es t. or

Adjusted

TTR (ug/cm2) At

Edge 10 Feet 25 Feet 50 Feet 75 Feet 100

Feet 125 Feet 150

Feet 200

Feet 250 Feet 300 Feet

Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE

Coarse

Very Fine

to Fine 33 37 41 47 55 63 71 80 98 120 130

AT401, M, 10 mph,

37% SD 53 68 88 120 160 210 250 300 390 480 590

WASP, M, 10 mph,

37% SD 57 73 96 140 200 250 310 370 480 590 690

AT401, C, 10 mph,

25% SD 63 88 130 190 260 350 430 520 730 960 1,100

WASP, C, 10 mph,

25% SD 73 100 150 230 330 440 540 690 960 1,200 1,400

AT401, VC, 10 mph, 20%

SD 71 110 170 280 400 540 690 890 1,200 1,600 2,100

WASP, VC, 10 mph, 20%

SD 90 140 220 350 500 650 890 1,000 1,600 1,800 2,100

Ground

boom High

Boom Very fine to

Fine 67 130 220 360 500 620 730 890 1,100 1,600 1,800

Low Boom Very fine

to Fine 150 390 620 960 1,200 1,600 1,800 2,100 2,500 3,100 4,100

High Boom

Fine to

Medium/

Coarse 250 650 960 1,400 1,800 2,100 2,500 2,500 3,100 4,100 4,100

## Page 116 of 22 7

Table D.2 . Summary of Children 1 to < 2 Years Old Spray Drift Risk Estimates and Required Buffers for Chlorpyrifos : LOC

is an MOE = 40

Crop/

Rate Group Spray

Type/

Nozzle Configurat

ion App

.

Rate (lb ai/A) Es t. or

Adjusted

TTR (ug/cm2) At

Edge 10 Feet 25 Feet 50 Feet 75 Feet 100

Feet 125 Feet 150

Feet 200

Feet 250 Feet 300 Feet

Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE

Low Boom

Fine to

Medium/

Coarse 380 1,000 1,600 2,100 2,500 3,100 4,100 4,100 6,200 6,200 6,200

Airblast Sparse 87 150 280 620 1,100 1,800 2,800 3,900 6,900 11,000 16,000

Normal 4,100 6,200 9,600 14,000 21,000 25,000 31,000 41,000 41,000 62,000 62,000

Dense 290 450 710 1,200 1,900 2,500 3,200 3,900 5,400 6,900 8,300

Vineyard 1,600 3,000 5,700 10,000 16,000 21,000 25,000 31,000 41,000 62,000 62,000

Aerial Fine to

Medium

1 0.038 73 89 110 140 190 250 300 350 450 550 670

Medium to

Coarse 88 120 160 230 320 420 530 640 890 1,200 1,400

Coarse to Very

Coarse 100 150 230 350 500 670 850 1,000 1,400 1,900 2,300

Very Fine

to Fine 50 55 61 71 83 95 110 120 150 170 200

AT401, M, 10 mph,

37% SD 80 100 130 180 240 310 380 440 580 720 890

WASP, M, 10 mph,

37% SD 86 110 140 220 300 380 470 550 720 890 1,000

AT401, C, 10 mph,

25% SD 94 130 190 280 400 520 640 780 1,100 1,400 1,700

WASP, C, 10 mph,

25% SD 110 150 220 350 490 670 810 1,000 1,400 1,900 2,100

AT401,
VC, 10 mph, 20%

SD 110 160 260 420 600 810 1,000 1,300 1,900 2,300 3,100

## Page 117 of 227

Table D.2 . Summary of Children 1 to < 2 Years Old Spray Drift Risk Estimates and Required Buffers for Chlorpyrifos : LOC

is an MOE = 40

Crop/

Rate Group Spray

Type/

Nozzle Configurat

ion App

.

Rate (lb ai/A) Es t. or

Adjusted

TTR (ug/cm2) At

Edge 10 Feet 25 Feet 50 Feet 75 Feet 100

Feet 125 Feet 150

Feet 200

Feet 250 Feet 300 Feet

Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE Dermal

MOE

WASP,
VC, 10 mph, 20%

SD 140 210 330 520 750 980 1,300 1,600 2,300 2,700 3,100

Ground

boom High

Boom Very fine to

Fine 100 200 330 530 750 930 1,100 1,300 1,700 2,300 2,700

Low Boom Very fine

to Fine 220 580 930 1,400 1,900 2,300 2,700 3,100 3,700 4,700 6,200

High Boom

Fine to

Medium/

Coarse 380 980 1,400 2,100 2,700 3,100 3,700 3,700 4,700 6,200 6,200

Low Boom

Fine to

Medium

/Coarse 570 1,600 2,300 3,100 3,700 4,700 6,200 6,200 9,300 9,300 9,300

Airblast Sparse 130 220 420 930 1,700 2,700 4,100 5,800 10,000 17,000 23,000

Normal 6,200 9,300 14,000 21,000 31,000 37,000 47,000 62,000 62,000 93,000 93,000

Dense 440 670 1,100 1,900 2,800 3,800 4,800 5,800 8,100 10,000 12,000

Vineyard 2,300 4,500 8,500 16,000 23,000 31,000 37,000 47,000 62,000 93,000 93,000

## Appendix E: Detailed Background Information on Columbia Cohort Dose Reconstruction

## Page 119 of 227

Introduction

In order to better understand the possible exposure patterns in the Columbia University study cohort and their influence on the health outcomes identified in the research, an analysis was conducted to supplement the exposure metrics reported by the Columbi a investigators. The goal was to predict potential exposures which could have occurred to pregnant women and young children who may have been exposed to chlorpyrifos through other pathways not addressed in the research then determine their potential for a ssociated cholinesterase inhibition.

Chlorpyrifos, at the time, was one of the most widely used insecticides for indoor pest control so there are many possible ways which exposures could have occurred as a result of these types of uses (e.g., use of a t otal release fogger, aerosol can sprays, or crack and crevice treatment by a pest control operator). This analysis was based on the Agency’s SOPs for Residential Exposure

Assessment 32 

## which describe, on a scenario basis, specific algorithms and data used t o predict the potential exposures which could have occurred to individuals in the cohort. Once complete, the resulting dose estimates were used to evaluate the potential level of cholinesterase inhibition which could be attributed to them using the PBPK

- P D model. The scenarios which were

considered include:

 Pregnant mothers who may have purchased a consumer aerosol can product and applied it in their homes;

 Exposures to pregnant mothers who may have had contact with residues in their homes

after a previous treatment which leads to exposure; and

 Exposures to young children (aged 1 to 2 years old) who may have contact with residues in their homes after a previous treatment which leads to exposure.

This appendix describes the details of those calculat ions.

Use Profile

In order to evaluate the chlorpyrifos exposure potential for the Columbia study cohort, it was first necessary to define what chlorpyrifos products would have been in use during the time of study conduct which spanned from 1998 to 2004

. In 1997, the registrant, Dow AgroSciences, voluntarily agreed to cancel chlorpyrifos registrations for indoor broadcast use and direct pet treatments, except pet collars. In December 2001, the majority of the remaining chlorpyrifos residential products

-- except for fully contained ant baits in child resistant packaging and limited public health uses

-- were subject to voluntary phase out/cancellation. This analysis reconstructed the potential exposures for those in the cohort between the years 1997

- 200 1 based on the chlorpyrifos uses that remained after the voluntary cancellation in 1997 and the phase out in 2001. The exposure questionnaire

- based reported use from the Columbia publications was also used to inform this process . Per the publications, pe st control measures were used by 92% of respondents, whether by housing superintendent, pest control operator (PCO), or by themselves. Of these, respondents reported that 39% were by PCO, 26% by spray can, and 5% foggers/bombs. The majority reported regu lar use of a pesticide product, at least once per

32 

### http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/science/residential

- exposure

- sop.html

## Page 120 of 227

month. Unfortunately, while these data help inform the types of products used, they do not allow for the determination of what pesticide active ingredient(s) were used. Multiple active ingredients were in regular use during this time period including, chlorpyrifos, diazinon, and propoxur, among others. For the purpose of the dose reconstruction exercise, it was assumed that only chlorpyrifos applications occurred. Considering all the available informatio n, the potential for chlorpyrifos exposures from use of the following chlorpyrifos product types were assessed: broadcast ready to use (RTU) sprays applied by individual themselves and not professional applicators ; surface sprays applied by individuals ; cr ack and crevice sprays applied by individuals themselves or professional pest control applicators ; and foggers/bombs applied by

individuals . These chlorpyrifos residential products contained either 0.5% or 1% active ingredient. The latter was assumed to ensure an assessment reflective of the highest potential exposures, or those most likely to result in the greatest % RBC A ChE inhibition.

Exposure Assessment Methods

With the products and application rates defined, the 2012 Standard Operating Procedures for Residential Pesticide Exposure Assessment 33 

## were used to assess the exposures that may have

occurred from the se indoor residential chlorpyrifos uses. Based on the use patterns of the defined products, it is expect ed that exposures occurred either from the application (handling) of products by those in the cohort or after applications from being in contact with previously treated

indoor environments.

A series of assumptions and exposure factors serve as the basis for completing residential

handler an d post

- application exposure assessment:

 maximum application rates allowed by labels in its risk assessments are assumed;

 the use of personal protective equipment is not considered in residential risk

assessments;

 residential assessments are based on the assumption that individuals are wearing shorts,

short

- sleeved shirts, socks, and shoes;

 adults are assumed to perform all pesticide applications;

 the mean female bodyweight reflective of all trimesters of pregnancy, 75 kg, was assumed for pregnant women t o reflect the population of interest from the Columbia cohort being evaluated which was derived from the EPA Exposure Factors Handbook

2011 Edition 34 

## (adult and adult female: Tables 8

- 3 through 8

- 5; body weight of pregnant

women: Table 8

- 29).

 the most protective index lifestage which serves as the basis for evaluating young children’s indoor exposures are children 1 to < 2 years old as described in in the 2012
Residential SOPs;

 the body weight used to evaluate exposures to children 1 to < 2 years old is 11 kilograms.

For residential handler exposure assessment, the following assumptions and exposure factors apply:

33 

### http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/science/USEPA

- OPP

- HED_Residential%20SOPs_Oct2012.pdf

34 

### http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/risk/recordisplay.cfm?deid=236252

## Page 121 of 227

 a broadcast application of an aerosol can is considered and the entire contents of the can (16 oz.) are applied at once, half the contents of the spray can are applied for crack and crevice applications, and a quarter of the can contents for a space spray application.

For residential post

- application exposure assessment, the following assumptions and exposure factors apply:

 inhalation exposures are expected to occur up to 2 hours following application by which time the aerosolized particulate is assumed to have settled and, as a result, after that time frame exposures are assumed to be negligible;

Use of the PBPK

- PD Model

O nce complete, the PBPK

- PD model was used to estimate the potential level of cholinesterase

inhibition (% RBC AChE) attributable to the daily dose estimates that result in the highest exposure potential . In order to model the potential health outcomes in a manner reflective of these exposures , a series of inputs were used that c orrespond to those used to quantify the daily dose estimates. The following exposure characteristics were used : number of days exposed; body weights which vary by lifestage; daily exposure duration (hours per day, days per week) ; and the fraction of the dermal surface area exposed

.

The dose reconstruction exercise was modeled for a subsequent 14 day post

- application duration. The daily dose estimated with the 2012 Standard Operat ing Procedures for Residential Pesticide Exposure Assessment for the day of application was inputted into the PBPK

- PD model. Dermal exposure was modeled assuming that chlorpyrifos residues dissipate d at a rate of 10% per day

. A 14 day period was used as the basis of the PBPK

- PD modeling to ensure it adequately

addressed the time it takes for the ACHE enzyme inhibition to reach a steady state.

For the adult and children 1 to < 2 years old age groups, the appropriate body weights were

obtained for modelin g purposes from the Exposure Factors Handbook 35 

## (USEPA, 2011). The mean adult female bodyweight reflective of all trimesters of pregnancy, 75 kg, was assumed for pregnant women to reflect the population of interest from the Columbia cohort being evaluated (Exposure Factors Handbook: adult and adult female: Tables 8

- 3 through 8

- 5; body weight of pregnant women: Table 8

- 29). For children 1 to < 2 years old, the body weight was set to 11 kg ( Exposure Factors Handbook, Table 8

- 3, mean body weight for the 1 to < 2 year old age group).

For the evaluation of adult handler exposures (dermal and inhalation) it was assumed that the application event continued for 1 hour daily and that it occurred each day of the 14 day exposure period. The 2012 Residential SOPs m akes no recommendation regarding the daily exposure duration for handlers. It was assumed that 1 hour is a high end estimate of the time required to make an aerosol can application. For the evaluation of adults and children 1 < 2 years old post

applicati on exposures (i.e., adults: dermal; children: dermal and incidental oral), the daily exposure duration was assumed to be 2 hours daily and that it occurs each day in the 14 day exposure period. This exposure duration is consistent with that recommended in the 2012 Residential SOPs for exposures on hard surfaces. For adults and children 1 to < 2 years old

35 

### http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/risk/recordisplay.cfm?deid=236252

## Page 122 of 227

inhalation exposures, it was assumed that the exposure duration was 2 hours on the day of application (Day 0) and was not repeated because the exposure s ource (i.e., aerosols from an application event) occurred only once on the first day of the exposure period. This is consistent with the available monitoring data and consistent with the 2012 Residential SOPs, the Day 0 air monitoring measures were follow ed by a marked drop to negligible levels by the following day.

For all dose reconstruction dermal exposures to chlorpyrifos, the fraction of skin in contact with chlorpyrifos was 50% which reflected uncovered skin areas for children wearing shorts and a tee
shirt . No shower (i.e., washing off the chlorpyrifos) was assumed to occur for the 14 day exposure duration modeled.

Residential Handler Exposure Scenarios

The residential handling of chlorpyrifos residential products are expected to have occurred for some percentage of the Columbia cohort population, these are anticipated to have resulted in dermal and inhalation exposures. Dermal and inhalation residential handler exposures are predicted by use of a factor known as the unit exposure. Unit expos ure is the ratio, for a given formulation and application equipment, of an individual’s exposure the amount of active ingredient handled (AaiH), expressed as mass active ingredient exposure per mass active ingredient handled (e.g., mg/lb ai). For the dose reconstruction assessment, unit exposure data were used as recommended in the 2012 Residential SOPs for ready

- to

- use (RTU) aerosol cans ( dermal, 3 70 mg/ lb ai; inhalation, 3.0 mg /lb ai ) . Residential handler exposures from application of fogger formulatio ns were not assessed which is consistent with the 2012 Residential SOPs

. Fogger product labels typically direct the user to activate the device and evacuate the treated area

and not to re

- enter for several hours. Therefore, it is assumed that handler exp osure from fogger application is not expected.

The exposure assessment for chlorpyrifos Columbia cohort handler exposures is based on the following exposure scenarios:

 Adult dermal exposure from broadcast application of a RTU spray can;

 Adult inhalatio n exposure from broadcast application of a RTU spray can;

 Adult dermal exposure from crack and crevice application of a RTU spray can;

 Adult inhalation exposure from crack and crevice application of a RTU spray can;

 Adult dermal exposure from space spray application of a RTU spray can;

 Adult inhalation exposure from space spray application of a RTU spray can.

Handler Exposure Algorithm

Daily dermal and inhalation exposure (mg/day) for residential pesticide handlers, for a given

formulation

- application me thod combination, is estimated by multiplying the formulation

application method

- specific unit exposure by an estimate of the amount of active ingredient handled in a day, using the equation below:

E = UE * AR * A

where:

## Page 123 of 227

E = exposure (mg/day);

UE = unit exposure (dermal, 370 mg/ lb ai; inhalation, 3.0 mb/lb ai); AR = application rate (e.g., lb ai/can); and A = area treated or amount handled (broadcast, 1 can/day; crack and crevice, 0.5 can/day; space spray, 0.25 can/day).

Residential Handler Exposure/Cho linesterase Inhibition Summary

Worst

- case results of this analysis are presented below representing pregnant women who potentially made a broadcast application of an aerosol spray can (Table E.1 ). Peak % RBC AChE inhibition estimated for pregnant women from combined dermal and inhalation exposures occurring from product application is 0.0012%.

Table E.1 . Residential Handler ( Pregnant Women in the Columbia Cohort) Estimated Exposures and Predicted % ChE Inhibition (Route

- specific and Combined)

Exposure

Scenario Formulation Amount

Handled Dermal Dose

(mg/kg/day) Dermal:

Peak

% ChE

Inhibition Inhalation

Dose (mg/kg/day) Inhalation:

Peak

% ChE

Inhibition Combined

Peak

% ChE

Inhibition

Broadcast Ready to Use:

1 % Aerosol Spray Can 1 can 0.049 0.0007% 0.030 0.0008% 0.0012%

a. Dermal Exposure = Dermal Unit Exposure (370 mg/lb ai) × Application Rate (0.010 lb ai/can) × Area Treated or Amount Handled (cans/day) b. Inhalation Exposure = Inhalation Unit Exposure (3.0 mg/lb ai) × Application Rate (0.010 lb ai/can) × Area Treated or Amount Handled (cans/day)



## Residential Post

- application Exposure Scenarios

The use of indoor residential chlorpyrifos products are anticipated to have resulted in the potential for post

- application exposures from publi c housing residents in the Columbia study cohort being in a previously treated environment. Based on the product use profile, residents may have been exposed via inhalation to the aerosols resulting from application or by means of contact following settli ng of product contents following settling on indoor surfaces or flooring.

The exposure assessment for chlorpyrifos Columbia cohort post

- application exposures is based on the following exposure scenarios:

 Adult dermal contact with residues deposited on flooring (carpeted and hard) from broadcast application of RTU spray can;

 Adult inhalation of aerosolized particulates following broadcast application of RTU spray

can;

 Adult dermal contact with residues deposited on flooring (carpeted and hard) from space spray application of RTU spray can;

 Adult inhalation of aerosolized particulates following space spray application of RTU

spray can;

 Adult dermal contact with residues deposited on flooring (carpeted and hard) from crack and crevice RTU spray can or PCO a pplication;

## Page 124 of 227

 Adult inhalation of aerosolized particulates following crack and crevice application of RTU spray can;

 Children 1 to < 2 years old dermal contact with residues deposited on flooring (carpeted and hard) from broadcast application of RTU spray ca n;

 Children 1 to < 2 years old incidental oral (hand

- to

- mouth) ingestion of residues deposited on flooring (carpeted and hard) from broadcast application of RTU spray can that have transferred to children’s hands;

 Children 1 to < 2 years old incidental oral (object

- to

- mouth) ingestion of residues deposited on toys in contact with flooring (carpeted and hard) treated by broadcast application of RTU spray can;

 Children 1 to < 2 years old inhalation of aerosolized particulate following broadcast applicatio n of RTU spray can;

 Children 1 to < 2 years old dermal contact with residues deposited on flooring (carpeted and hard) from space spray application of RTU spray can;

 Children 1 to < 2 years old incidental oral (hand

- to

- mouth) ingestion of residues deposite d on flooring (carpeted and hard) from space spray application of RTU spray can that have transferred to children’s hands;

 Children 1 to < 2 years old incidental oral (object

- to

- mouth) ingestion of residues deposited on toys in contact with flooring (carp eted and hard) treated by space spray application of RTU spray can;

 Children 1 to < 2 years old inhalation of aerosolized particulate following space spray application of RTU spray can;

 Children 1 to < 2 years old dermal contact with residues deposited on flooring (carpeted and hard) from crack and crevice RTU spray can or PCO applications;

 Children 1 to < 2 years old incidental oral (hand

- to

- mouth) ingestion of residues deposited on flooring (carpeted and hard) from crack and crevice RTU spray can or PCO

a pplications that have transferred to children’s hands;

 Children 1 to < 2 years old incidental oral (object

- to

- mouth) ingestion of residues deposited on toys in contact with flooring (carpeted and hard) treated by crack and crevice RTU spray can or PCO app lications;

Since all exposure routes ( dermal, inhalation, and incidental oral ) share a common toxicological endpoint, RBC AChE inhibition, risk estimates should been combined. The incidental oral scenarios (i.e., hand

- to

- mouth and object

- to

- mouth) should be considered inter

- related and it is likely that they occur interspersed amongst each other across time. Combining these scenarios with the dermal exposure scenario would be unrealistic because of the conservative nature of

each individual assessment. Therefore, the post

- application exposure scenarios that were combined for children 1 < 2 years old are the dermal and hand

- to

- mouth scenarios. This combination should be considered a protective estimate of children’s exposure to pesticides used

indoors.

The lifestages selected for each post

- application scenario are based on an analysis provided as an Appendix in the 2012 Residential SOPs. While not the only lifestage potentially exposed for these post

- application scenarios, the lifestage that is included in the quantitative assessment is health protective for the exposures and risk estimates for any other potentially exposed lifestage.

## Page 125 of 227

Post

- application Exposure Data

The 2012 Residential SOPs relied on exposure data from Agency submitted studies in order to establish many of the inputs necessary for estimation of post

- application indoor exposures.

Where chemical

- specific exposure data are available, these data were relied upon as a more accurate measure of exposures from chlorpyrifos and are described be low. In the absence of these data, exposure inputs are based on the use of available exposure data as recommended in

the 2012 Residential SOPs.

Exposure Data Used for Dermal and Incidental Oral Exposure Assessment: No chemical

specific deposition data were available for the indoor chlorpyrifos products assessed. Therefore, as recommended by the 2012 Residential SOPs, default deposited residue values were used based on the type of application to be made whether it be a broadcast, crack and crevice, or space spay application. For broadcast applications only, residue values were influenced by the percent spray applied (i.e., the higher the percent spray, the higher the residue values). The higher, 1% chlorpyrifos spray formulation was assumed for post

- a pplication assessment of broadcast exposures. The default values used are based on an analysis of available residue deposition data from Agency submitted studies and literature studies. A summary of the recommended values are presented in the 2012 Residen tial SOPs.

The transfer coefficent (TC) input used for calculation of post

- application exposures is a measure

of surface

- to

- skin residue transfer derived from concurrent measures of exposure and surface residue. Per the 2012 Residential SOPs, no studies were available that measure both exposure and surface residue with subjects performed typical indoor activities. Therefore, the transfer coefficients used for indoor scenarios are derived from information provided in three different studies: 1) two studi es which measured exposure and surface residues while subjects performed a Jazzercise routine (Krieger, 2000 and Selim, 2004) and 2) a study which measured biomonitoring doses which adults performed scripted activities for 4 hours on carpets (Vaccaro,

1991 ). Of these studies, the Krieger study was conducted using chlorpyrifos.

As for the fraction of residue available for transfer input, a complete dataset was compiled for chlorpyrifos based on available chemical

- specific data (Beamer et al., 2009). Ther efore, the chlorpyrifos

- specific residue fractions anticipated to transfer for both carpets and hard surfaces were used for estimation of post

- application dermal and incidental oral exposures.

Exposure Data Used for Inhalation Exposure Assessment: In order to best represent the potential for inhalation exposures following use of the indoor chlorpyrifos products assessed, a review of available literature studies and registrant

- submitted exposure data was conducted. The following exposure data sources were identified and used:

Indoor broadcast applications

–

 Fenske, R., et al (1990). Potential Exposure and Health Risks of Infants following Indoor Residential Pesticide Applications. American Journal of Public Health. 80 (6): 689

- 693.

 Lu, C. and Fenske, R (1998). Air and Surface Chlorpyrifos Residues following Residential Broadcast and Aerosol Pesticide Applications. Environmental Science

## Page 126 of 227 and Technology. 32 (10): 1386

- 1390.

 EPA MRID: 42887201. Contardi, J. (1993). An Evaluation of th e Appropriate Drying Time via Air Monitoring, Dislodgable Residue Determination, and Carpet Weight Loss, After Applying Dursban LO Insecticide to a Carpeted Surface: Unpublished study prepared by Dow Chemical Co., Health and Environmental Sciences. 29 pp.

Indoor crack and crevice applications

–

 Byrne, S.L., Shurdut, B.A. and Saunders, D.G. (1998). Potential Chlorpyrifos Exposure to Residents following Standard Crack and Crevice Treatment. 106 (11): 725

- 731.

 Hore, P. et al. (2005). Children’s Residential Exposures to Chlorpyrifos: Application of CPPAES Field Measurements of Chlorpyrifos and TCPy within

MENTOR/SHEDS

– Pesticides Model. Science of the Total Environment. 336 (2

- 3): 525

- 537.

 Stout II, D.M. and Mason, M.A. (2003). The Distribution of Chlorp yrifos following a Crack and Crevice Type Application in the US EPA Indoor Air Quality Research House. Atmospheric Environment. 37 (39

- 40): 5539

- 5549.

 EPA MRID 44458201: Byrne, S.; Saunders, D.; Cook, W. et al. (1998) Residential Exposure to Chlorpyrifo s from Reentry to Structures Treated with Crack and Crevice and Spot Applications of Dursban Pro. Unpublished study prepared by Dow AgroSciences. 133 pp.

Based on a review of the available data and consistent with the 2012 Residential SOPs, the day of ap plication (Day 0) air monitoring measures were significant, followed by a marked drop to negligible levels by the following day. Therefore, HED made use only of day of application air monitoring measures for purpose of post

- application exposure assessment . All studies referenced were based on 0.5% chlorpyrifos formulated products. In order to address the potential for use of the 1% chlorpyrifos product formulations available at the time, all air monitoring measures were doubled. The broadcast exposure d ata are intended for use in assessing the potential inhalation exposures/doses anticipated to occur from both broadcast and space spray applications; the crack and crevice exposure data were used only for that application type. The resulting mean day of ap plication air monitoring measures are presented in Table E.2

below.

Table E.2 . Airborne Concentrations of Chlorpyrifos from Open Literature and Registrant

- submitted Studies Resulting from Indoor Broadcast and Crack and Crevice Applications Study Chlorp ryrifos Concentration (mg/m 3 

### )

Broadcast Fenske, R., et al (1990) 0.18 Lu, C. and Fenske, R (1998) 0.088

EPA MRID: 42887201 0.031 Average (All Studies) 0.092

Crack and Crevice Byrne, S.L., Shurdut, B.A. and Saunders, D.G. (1998) 0.0010

Hore, P. et al. (2005). 0.00057 Stout II, D.M. and Mason, M.A. (2003) 0.00086

EPA MRID 44458201 0.0011

## Page 127 of 227

Table E.2 . Airborne Concentrations of Chlorpyrifos from Open Literature and Registrant

- submitted Studies Resulting from Indoor Broadcast and Crack and Crevice Applications Study Chlorp ryrifos Concentration (mg/m 3 

### ) Average (All Studies) 0.00089



## Post

- Application Algorithms for All Scenarios

Post

- Application Dermal Exposure Algorithm (hard surfaces and carpets)

The algorithm to calculate exposure is as follows:

E = TR ∗ TC ∗ ET ∗ CF 1

where :
E = exposure (mg/day);

TR = indoor surface transferable residue (μg/cm 2 

## );

TC = transfer coefficient (cm 2 

## /hr);

ET = exposure time (hr/day); and

CF1 = conversion factor (0.001 mg/μg).

If chemical

- specific TR data are available, this is preferred and should be used to calculate exposure. However, if chemical

- specific TR data are not available, then TR can be calculated using the following formula:

TR = DepR ∗ F ai



## where :
TR = indoor surface transferable residue (μg/cm 2 

## );
DepR = deposited residue (  g/cm 2 

## ), based on (in order of preference):

(1) Chemical

- specific residue deposition data (  g/cm 2 

## ), (2) Application rate (lb ai/area), or
(3) Default residue based on type of application (  g/cm 2 

## ); and

F ai 

## = fraction of ai available for transfer from carpet or hard surface (unitless).

Absorbed dermal dose, normalized to body weight, are calculated as:

D = E ∗ AF

BW

where :
D = dose (mg/kg

- day);

E = exposure (mg/day);

AF = absorption factor; and

BW = body weight (kg).

## Page 128 of 227

Table E.3. Indoor Environments (Hard Surfaces and Carpets)

– Inputs for Residential Post

- application Dermal Exposure Algorithm

Notation Exposure Factor (units) Point Estimate(s)

TR Transferable residue
(  g/cm 2 

### ) Estimated: DepR * F ai



### DepR Deposited residue
(  g/cm 2 

### ) Estimated based on default residue related to type of application

F ai 

### Fraction of DepR as TR

following application Carpets 0.020 a



### Hard surfaces 0.13 a



### TC Transfer Coefficient

(cm 2 

### /hr) Adult 6,800

Children 1 < 2 years old 1,800

ET Exposure Time (hrs/day) Adults Carpets 8

Hard

Surfaces 2

Children 1 < 2 years old Carpets 4

Hard

Surfaces 2

BW Body weight (kg) Adult 80 Children 1 < 2 years old 11

a. Chlopyrifos

- specific as identified (Table 7

- 8) in the 2012 Residential SOPs.



## Post

- application Hand

- to

- Mouth Exposure Algorithm

Exposure from hand

- to

- mouth activity is calculated as follows (based on algorithm utilized in

SHEDS

- Multimedia):

E = [ HR ∗ ( F

M 

## ∗ SA H 

## ) ∗ ( ET ∗ N

_ Replen ) ∗ ( 1

− ( 1

− SE ) Freq

_ HtM

N

_ Replen 

## ) ]

where:

E = exposure (mg/day);

HR = hand residue loading (mg/cm 2 

## );

F M 

## = fraction hand surface area mouthed / event (fraction/event);

ET = exposure time (hr/day);

SA H 

## = surface area of one hand (cm 2 

## ); N_Replen = number of replenishment intervals per hour (intervals/hour);

SE = saliva extraction factor (i.e., mouthing removal efficiency); and Freq_HtM = number of hand

- to

- mouth contacts events per hour (events/hour).

a nd

HR = Fai h ands 

## ∗ DE

SA H 

## ∗ 2

## Page 129 of 227

where :
HR = hand residue loading (mg/cm 2 

## );

Fai hands 

## = fraction ai on hands compared to total surface residue from jazzercise

study (unitless);

DE = dermal exposure (mg); and

SA H 

## = typical surface area of one hand (cm 2 

## ).

Table E.4. Indoor Environments

– Inputs for Residential Post

- application Hand

- to

Mouth Exposure

Algorithm

Notation Exposure Factor (units) Point Estimate(s)

Fai hands 

### Fraction of ai on hands from jazzercise study (unitless) 0.15

DE Dermal exposure calculated in Section Error! Reference source not found. (mg) Calculated

HR Residue available on the hands (mg/cm 2 

### ) Calculated

SA H 

### Surface area of one hand

(cm 2 

### ) Children 1 < 2 years old 150

AR Application rate (mass active ingredient per unit area) 1% formulation

F M 

### Fraction of hand mouthed per event (fraction/event) 0.13

N_Replen Replenishment intervals per hour (intervals/hr) 4

ET Exposure time

(hours per day) Children 1 < 2 years old Carpets 4

Hard Surfaces 2

SE Saliva extraction factor (fraction) 0.48

Freq_HtM Hand

- to

- mouth events

per hour (events/hr) Children 1 < 2 years old 20

BW Body Weight

(kg) Children 1 < 2 years old 11



## Post

- application Object

- to

- Mouth Exposure Algorithm

Exposure from object

- to

- mouth activity is calculated as follows (based on algorithm utilized in

SHEDS

- Multimedia):

E = OR ∗ CF 1 ∗ SAM O 

## ∗ ( ET ∗ N

_ Replen ) ∗ ( 1

− ( 1

− SE ) Freq

_ OtM

N

_ Replen 

## )

## Page 130 of 227

where:

E = exposure (mg/day);

OR = chemical residue loading on an object (  g/cm 2 

## );

CF1 = weight unit conversion factor (0.001 mg/  g);

SAM O 

## = area of the object surface that is mouthed (cm 2 

## /event);

ET = exposure time (hr/day); N_Replen = number of replenishment intervals per hour (intervals/hour);

SE = saliva extraction factor (i.e., mo uthing removal efficiency); and Freq_OtM = number of object

- to

- mouth contact events per hour (events/hour).

and

OR = DepR ∗ F O



## where :

OR = chemical residue loading on the object (μg/cm 2 

## ); DepR = deposited residue (μg/cm 2 

## ); and

F O 

## = fraction of residue transferred to an object (unitless).

Table E.5. Indoor Environments

– Inputs for Residential Post

- application Object

- to

Mouth Exposure

Algorithm

Notation Exposure Factor (units) Point Estimate(s)

AR Application rate

(mass active ingredient per unit area) [input]

F O 

### Fraction of residue

transferred to an object Carpets 0.020 a



### Hard surfaces 0.13 a



### SAM O 

### Surface area of object mouthed (cm 2 

### /event) 10

N_Replen Replenishment intervals per hour (intervals/hour) 4

SE O 

### Saliva extraction factor 0.48

ET Exposure Time

(hours per day) Children 1 <

2 years old Carpets 4

Hard Surfaces 2

Freq_OtM Object

- to

- mouth events

per hour (events/hour) Children 1 < 2 years old 14

BW Body Weight

(kg) Children 1 < 2 years old 11

a. Chlopyrifos

- specific as identified (Table 7

- 8) in the 2012 Residential SOPs.

## Page 131 of 227

Residential Post

- Application Exposure/Cholinesterase Inhibition Summary

The results of this analysis are presented below for pregnant who were potentially exposed from

contact to residues which occur in previously treated area s such as their homes (Table E.6 ). Results for young children (aged 1 to < 2 years old) who are also exposed to residues which occur in previously treated areas such as their homes are presented in Table E .7

. Peak cholinesterase inhibition for pregnant women resulting from combined dermal and inhalation exposures occurring from contact with previously treated indoor areas is 0.45%. For children 1 to < 2 years old, peak cholinesterase inhibition associated with combined dermal, incidental oral, and inhalation exposures from being in previously treated areas is 2.7%.

Table E.6 . Residential Post

- application To Pregnant Women in the Columbia Cohort Estimated Dermal and Inhalation Exposures and Predicted % ChE Inhibition (Route

- specific and Combined)

Exposure

Scenario Formulation Dermal Dose (mg/kg/day) Dermal:

Peak

% ChE

Inhibition Airborne

Concentration of Chlorpyrifos (mg/m 3 ) Inhalation:

Peak

% ChE

Inhibition Combined:

Peak

% ChE

Inhibition

Broadcast (Hard Surfaces) 1% PCO

Application

or RTU 1 16

oz can 0.71 0.45% 0.092 0.0049% 0.45%

* See algorithms and inputs above used to estimate post

- application dermal exposures.



### Table E.7 . Residential Post

- application ( Children 1 to < 2 Years Old in the Columbia Cohort) Estimated Dermal and Inhalation Exposures and Predicted % RBC AChE Inhibition (Route

- specific and Combined)

Exposure

Scenario Formulation Dermal

Dose (mg/kg/day) Dermal:

Peak

% ChE

Inhibition HTM

Dose (mg/kg/day) HTM Peak

% ChE

Inhibition (mg/day) Airborne

Concn. of Chlorpyrifos (mg/m3) Inhalation:

Peak

% ChE

Inhibition Combined:

Peak

% ChE

Inhibition

Broadcast (Hard Surfaces) 1% PCO

Application

or RTU 1 16

oz can 1.3 0.14% 0.10 2.2% 0.092 0.014% 2.7%

* See algorithms and inputs above used to estimate post

- application dermal, (HTM) hand

- to

- mouth, and (OTM) object

- to

- mouth exposures/doses.

## Page 132 of 227

Appendix F: Summary of Occupational Handler Risk Estimates

## Table F.1. Chlorpyrifos Occupational Handler Non

- Cancer Risk Estimates

Exposure

Scenario Crop or Target App.

Rate a (lbai/A) Area

Treated b (A/ day) Total MOE (LOC is an MOE = 10 0)

SL /No G

No R SL/G

NoR DL/G

No R SL/NoG

PF5 R SL/G

PF5 R DL/G

PF5 R SL/No G

PF10 R SL.G

PF10 R DL/G

PF10 R EC

Mixer/Loaders

Mixing/ Loading Liquids

for

Aerial

and/or Chemigation Applications (1a) Tree Nut Orchard

Floors (Pecans) 4.3 350 (Chem. Only) 0.74 3.8 4.8 0.76 4.3 5.5 0.76 4.3 5.6 15

Tree Nut Orchard Floors (Almonds, Walnuts) 4.0 0.79 4.2 5.2 0.81 4.7 6 0.81 4.7 6.1 17

Corn (pre

- plant) 3.0 350 (Chem. Only) 1.1 5.5 6.8 1.1 6.1 7.9 1.1 6.2 8 22

Citrus 2.3

350 1.4 7.2 9.1 1.4 8.1 11 1.4 8.2 11 29

Non

- bearing Fruit and Nut Trees (Nursery), Radish (pre

- plant), Turfgrass (sod or seed) 2.1 1.5 7.9 10 1.5 8.8 12 1.5 9 12 32

Cherries, Hybrid Cottonwood/ Poplar

Plantations Grown for Pulp, Mint (Peppermint and Spearmint), Peanut, Rutabaga, Strawberries (pre

plant), Sunflower (pre

plant), Sweet Potato, Tobacco, Tree Fruits (Apple, Fig (CA only), Nectarine, Peach, Pear, Plum/Prune ), Tree Nuts (Almonds, Filberts, Hazelnuts, Pecans, Walnuts), Turfgrass (Ornamental and Sod Farms) 2.0 1.6 8.2 10 1.6 9.2 12 1.6 9.4 12 33

Clover (grown for seed; foliar), Cranberry, Sunflower (post

- emergence/ foliar) 1.9 1.7 8.7 11 1.7 9.7 13 1.7 9.8 13 35

## Page 134 of 227 Table F.1. Chlorpyrifos Occupational Handler Non

- Cancer Risk Estimates

Exposure

Scenario Crop or Target App.

Rate a (lbai/A) Area

Treated b (A/ day) Total MOE (LOC is an MOE = 10 0)

SL /No G

No R SL/G

NoR DL/G

No R SL/NoG

PF5 R SL/G

PF5 R DL/G

PF5 R SL/No G

PF10 R SL.G

PF10 R DL/G

PF10 R EC

Corn (post

- emergence) 1.5 1,200 (Aerial) 0.61 3.2 4 0.63 3.6 4.6 0.63 3.6 4.7 13

350 (Chem.) 2.1 11 13 2.2 13 15 2.2 13 16 44

Asparagus, Brussel Sprouts, Cauliflower, Cole Crops, Strawberries, Sugarbeets, Radish 1.5 350 2.1 11 13 2.2 13 15 2.2 13 16 44

Alfalfa, Corn (pre

plant), Cotton (except MS), Sorghum, Soybean, Wheat 1.0 1,200 0.93 4.8 6 0.95 5.4 6.9 0.95 5.5 7.1 19

Alfalfa, Citrus Orchard Floor, Corn (pre

- plant), Cotton (except MS), Sorghum, Soybean,

Wheat 1.0 350 (Chem.) 3.1 16 21 3.2 18 24 3.2 19 24 66

Christmas Tree

Plantations 1.0 350 3.1 16 21 3.2 18 24 3.2 19 24 66

Carrots 0.94 3.4 17 22 3.5 19 25 3.5 20 25 71

Ornamental Non

Flowering Plants

- Microencapsulated 0.0070 60 (Chem.) 2600 14000 17000 2700 16000 20000 2700 16000 21000 55,000

Mixing/ Loading Liquids for

Airblast Application (1b) Citrus (CA and AZ) 6.0

40 4.6 24 30 4.7 27 35 4.7 28 35 96

Citrus, Non

- bearing

Fruit and Nut Trees (Nurseries) 4.0 6.9 36 45 7.1 41 52 7.1 41 53 140

Tree Fruits (Nectarine,

Peach

– dormant, delayed dormant) 3.0 9.3 48 60 9.5 54 69 9.5 55 71 190

Cherries, Tree Fruits (Pear; Plum/Prune

- dormant, delayed dormant), Tree Nuts 2.0 14 72 91 14 81 110 14 82 110 290

## Page 135 of 227 Table F.1. Chlorpyrifos Occupational Handler Non

- Cancer Risk Estimates

Exposure

Scenario Crop or Target App.

Rate a (lbai/A) Area

Treated b (A/ day) Total MOE (LOC is an MOE = 10 0)

SL /No G

No R SL/G

NoR DL/G

No R SL/NoG

PF5 R SL/G

PF5 R DL/G

PF5 R SL/No G

PF10 R SL.G

PF10 R DL/G

PF10 R EC

(Almonds, Filberts, Hazelnuts, Pecans, Walnuts)

Ornamental and/or Shade Trees, Ornamental Woody Shrubs and Vines,

Herbaceous Plants 2.0 20 27 150 180 28 160 210 28 170 220 580

Christmas Tree Plantations, Grapes 1.0 40 27 150 180 28 160 210 28 170 220 580

Mixing/ Loading Liquids for

Ground

- boom Application (1c) Tree Nut Orchard

Floors (Pecans) 4.3

80 3.2 17 21 3.3 18 24 3.3 19 25 68

Tree Nut Orchard Floors (Almonds, Walnuts) 4.0 3.5 18 23 3.6 20 26 3.6 21 26 73

Nursery Stock

- preplant (see master label description) 4.0 40 6.9 36 45 7.1 41 52 7.1 41 53 140

Ornamental Lawns and Turf, Sod Farms 3.76 80 3.7 19 24 3.8 21 28 3.8 22 28 77

Corn (pre

- plant) 3.0 200 1.9 9.6 12 1.9 11 13 1.9 11 14 39 Radish (pre

- plant) 3.0

80 4.6 24 30 4.7 27 35 4.7 28 35 96 Rutabaga 2.4 5.8 30 38 5.9 34 43 5.9 34 44 120 Brussel Sprouts (Post

Plants), Grapes (foliar) 2.25 6.1 32 40 6.3 36 46 6.3 36 47 130

Sweet Potato (Pre

plant, Soil Broadcast) 2.1 6.6 35 43 6.8 39 49 6.8 39 50 140

Cotton (except MS)

2.0 200 2.7 15 18 2.8 16 21 2.8 17 22 58

Brussel Sprouts (at plant), Cole Crops, Cauliflower, Figs (CA only), Grapes (dormant, delayed dormant), Mint (Peppermint, Spearmint), Peanut, Pineapple, Strawberries (pre

80 6.9 36 45 7.1 41 52 7.1 41 53 140

## Page 136 of 227 Table F.1. Chlorpyrifos Occupational Handler Non

- Cancer Risk Estimates

Exposure

Scenario Crop or Target App.

Rate a (lbai/A) Area

Treated b (A/ day) Total MOE (LOC is an MOE = 10 0)

SL /No G

No R SL/G

NoR DL/G

No R SL/NoG

PF5 R SL/G

PF5 R DL/G

PF5 R SL/No G

PF10 R SL.G

PF10 R DL/G

PF10 R EC

plant), Sunflower (pre

plant), Tobacco (pre

plant)

Ornamental and/or Shade Trees, Herbaceous Plants, Ornamental Woody

Shrubs and Vines 40 14 72 91 14 81 110 14 82 110 290

Beets (Table, Sugar; At Plant), Clover (Grown for Seed; foliar), Hybrid Cottonwood/Poplar

Plantations 1.9 80 7.3 38 48 7.5 43 55 7.5 43 56 150

Corn (post

- emergence) 1.5 200 3.7 19 24 3.8 21 28 3.8 22 28 77 Cranberry 1.5 80 9.3 48 60 9.5 54 69 9.5 55 71 190
Alfalfa, Cotton, Sorghum Grain, Soybean, Wheat

1.0 200 5.6 29 36 5.7 32 41 5.7 33 42 120

Asparagus, Beets (Table, Sugar

- at plant), Citrus Orchard Floors, Forest Plantings (reforestation, plantation, tree farm),

Grass (forage/fodder/hay), Legume Vegetables, Nonagricultural Outdoor Buildings and Structures, Onions 80 14 72 91 14 81 110 14 82 110 290

Conifers and

Deciduous Trees, Seed

Orchard Trees 60 19 96 120 19 110 130 19 110 140 390

Golf course (fairways, tees, greens) 40 27 150 180 28 160 210 28 170 220 580

Carrots 0.94 80 15 77 92 15 86 110 15 88 110 310

## Page 137 of 227 Table F.1. Chlorpyrifos Occupational Handler Non

- Cancer Risk Estimates

Exposure

Scenario Crop or Target App.

Rate a (lbai/A) Area

Treated b (A/ day) Total MOE (LOC is an MOE = 10 0)

SL /No G

No R SL/G

NoR DL/G

No R SL/NoG

PF5 R SL/G

PF5 R DL/G

PF5 R SL/No G

PF10 R SL.G

PF10 R DL/G

PF10 R EC

Ornamental Non

Flowering Plants

- Microencapsulated 0.0070 40 4000 21000 26000 4100 23000 30000 4100 24000 30000 80000

Mixing/ Loading Liquids for

Wide Area

Aerial Applications (1d) Mosquitocide (not in

FL) 0.01 7,500 15 77 92 15 86 110 15 88 110 310

Mixing/ Loading Liquids for

Wide Area

Ground Applications (1e) Mosquitocide (not in

FL) 0.01 3,000 37 190 240 38 210 280 38 220 280 770

Mixing/ Loading

Wettable Powder (in WSP) for

Aerial Applications (2a) Nursery Stock

–

preplant (see master label description) 4.0 60 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 67

Citrus 2.3 350 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 19

Tree Nuts (Almonds, Filberts/Hazelnuts) 2.0 350 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 22

Ornamental and/or Shade Trees,

Herbaceous Plants 2.0 60 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 130

Tree Fruit (Apples, Cherries) 1.5

350 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 30

Cole Crops (excludes Brussel Sprouts and Cauliflower),

Christmas Tree

Plantations 1.0 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 44

Mixing/ Loading

Wettable Citrus (CA and AZ) 6.0 40 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 67

Citrus 4.0 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 98

Ornamental and/or 2.0 20 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 390

## Page 138 of 227 Table F.1. Chlorpyrifos Occupational Handler Non

- Cancer Risk Estimates

Exposure

Scenario Crop or Target App.

Rate a (lbai/A) Area

Treated b (A/ day) Total MOE (LOC is an MOE = 10 0)

SL /No G

No R SL/G

NoR DL/G

No R SL/NoG

PF5 R SL/G

PF5 R DL/G

PF5 R SL/No G

PF10 R SL.G

PF10 R DL/G

PF10 R EC

Powder (in WSP) for

Airblast Applications (2b) Shade Trees,

Herbaceous Plants Tree Nuts (Almonds, Filberts/Hazelnuts) 2.0

40 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 200

Tree Fruit (Apples, Cherries) 1.5 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 260

Christmas Tree

Plantations 1.0 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 390

Mixing/ Loading

Wettable Powder (in WSP) for

Groundboom Applications (2c) Ornamental Woody

Shrubs and Vines (pre

transplant) 4.0 60 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 67

Ornamental Lawns and Turf, Sod Farms (Turf) 3.76 80 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 51

Citrus Orchard Floors, Cole Crops (excludes Brussel Sprouts and Cauliflower) 1.0 80 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 200

Mixing/ Loading

Granulars for

Aerial Applications (3a) Peanuts 4.0 350 3.4 3.5 3.7 10 11 15 14 16 23 17

Sweet Potato 2.1 6.4 6.6 7.1 20 21 28 27 30 43 32 Corn (pre

- plant) 2.0 1,200 1.9 2 2.1 6 6.7 8.7 7.9 9.1 13 9.6

Sunflower , Tobacco 2.0
350 6.7 6.9 7.5 21 23 29 28 32 46 33

Sod Farms (Turf) 1.0 13 14 15 41 44 58 56 62 91 66

Mixing/ Loading

Granulars for

Tractor

Drawn Spreader Applications (3b) Ornamental Woody

Shrubs and Vines 6.0 60 13 14 15 40 44 57 55 62 91 65

Rutabaga 2.4 80 25 25 27 77 84 110 100 110 160 120 Soybean 2.2 200 11 11 12 33 36 46 45 50 74 53

Sweet Potato 2.1 80 28 29 31 87 96 120 120 130 190 140

Corn 2.0 200 12 12 13 36 40 50 49 55 79 58 Cole Crops (Excludes Brussel Sprouts and Cauliflower), Ginseng, Sugarbeets, Sunflower, Tobacco 2.0 80 30 30 33 92 100 130 120 140 200 140

Sorghum Grain 1.5 200 16 16 18 48 52 68 65 74 110 77 Asparagus 1.5 80 40 41 44 120 130 170 160 180 270 190 Nursery Stock (see 1.1 60 71 74 79 220 240 300 290 330 480 350

## Page 139 of 227 Table F.1. Chlorpyrifos Occupational Handler Non

- Cancer Risk Estimates

Exposure

Scenario Crop or Target App.

Rate a (lbai/A) Area

Treated b (A/ day) Total MOE (LOC is an MOE = 10 0)

SL /No G

No R SL/G

NoR DL/G

No R SL/NoG

PF5 R SL/G

PF5 R DL/G

PF5 R SL/No G

PF10 R SL.G

PF10 R DL/G

PF10 R EC

master label description)

Alfalfa 1.0 200 24 24 26 72 79 100 98 110 160 120
Citrus Orchard Floors, Onions, Ornamental Lawns and Turf, Sod Farms (Turf) 1.0 80 59 61 65 180 200 250 240 270 400 290

Golf Course (Turf), Rights of Way/ Road

Medians 1.0 40 120 120 130 360 400 500 490 550 790 580

Mixer/

Loader

Granulars

with

SmartBox ®

for Aerial Applications (3c) Corn 1.0 1,200 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 720

Mixer/

Loader

Granulars

with

SmartBox ®

for Tractor

Drawn Spreader Applications (3d) Peanuts 4.0

80 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 2800

Radish 2.8 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 4000

Brassica Vegetables, Rutabaga, Radish, Turnip 2.3 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 4900

Sunflowers 2.2 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 5100 Soybeans 2.0 200 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 2200 Sugarbeet, Sweet Potato, Tobacco 2.0 80 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 5600

Sorghum 1.5 200 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 3000 Asparagus 1.5 80 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 7200 Alfalfa, Soybeans 1.0 200 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 4500
Citrus, Onion 1.0 80 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 11000

Mixer/

Loader Water Dispersable

Granulars (in WSP) for Tree Nut Orchard

Floors (Pecans) 4.3

350 (Chem.) No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 10

Tree Nut Orchard Floors (Almonds, Walnuts) 4.0 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 11

## Page 140 of 227 Table F.1. Chlorpyrifos Occupational Handler Non

- Cancer Risk Estimates

Exposure

Scenario Crop or Target App.

Rate a (lbai/A) Area

Treated b (A/ day) Total MOE (LOC is an MOE = 10 0)

SL /No G

No R SL/G

NoR DL/G

No R SL/NoG

PF5 R SL/G

PF5 R DL/G

PF5 R SL/No G

PF10 R SL.G

PF10 R DL/G

PF10 R EC

Aerial and/or

Chem. Applications (4a) Rutabaga 2.4 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 19

Citrus 2.3

350 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 19

Sweet Potato (pre

plant, soil broadcast) 2.1 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 21

Cherries, Tree Nuts (Almond, Filberts/Hazelnuts, Pecans, Walnuts), Tree Fruit (Apple, Nectarines, Peach, Pear, Plum/Prune), Mint (Peppermint, Spearmint), Peanut, Sunflowers, Tobacco 2.0 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 22

Cranberry 1.5 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 30 Corn, Sorghum Grain, Soybean 1.0 1,200 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 13

Asparagus, Sugarbeet, Cole Crops (Except Brussel Sprouts and Cauliflower), Cotton,

Strawberries 1.0 350 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 44

Corn, Sorghum Grain, Soybean, Sugarbeets 1.0 350 (Chem.) No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 44

Mixer/

Loader Water Dispersable Granulars (in WSP) for

Airblast Applications (4b) Citrus (CA and AZ) 6.0

40 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 67

Tree Nuts (Pecans) 4.3 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 91

Citrus 4.0 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 98 Tree Fruits (Nectarines and Peaches) 3.0 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 130

Tree Nuts (Almond, Filberts/Hazelnuts, Walnuts), Tree Fruits (Apples, Cherries, Pears, Plums/Prunes) 2.0 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 200

Ornamental Woody

Shrubs and Vines 2.0 20 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 390

Asparagus, Christmas Tree Plantations, 1.0 40 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 390

## Page 141 of 227 Table F.1. Chlorpyrifos Occupational Handler Non

- Cancer Risk Estimates

Exposure

Scenario Crop or Target App.

Rate a (lbai/A) Area

Treated b (A/ day) Total MOE (LOC is an MOE = 10 0)

SL /No G

No R SL/G

NoR DL/G

No R SL/NoG

PF5 R SL/G

PF5 R DL/G

PF5 R SL/No G

PF10 R SL.G

PF10 R DL/G

PF10 R EC

Sugarbeets

Mixer/

Loader Water Dispersable Granulars (in WSP) for

Ground

- boom Applications (4c) Tree Nut Orchard

Floors (Pecans) 4.3

80 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 46

Tree Nut Orchard Floors (Almonds, Walnuts) 4.0 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 48

Rutabaga 2.4 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 80 Turnip 2.3 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 86 Sweet Potato (pre

plant, soil broadcast) 2.1 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 92

Cole Crops (Excludes

Brussel Sprout and Cauliflower), Figs (CA only), Mint (Peppermint, Spearmint), Peanut, Sunflower, Tobacco 2.0 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 98

Ornamental Woody

Shrubs and Vines 2.0 60 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 130

Cranberry 1.5 80 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 130

Corn, Sorghum Grain, Soybean 1.0 200 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 79

Asparagus, Citrus, Cotton, Grapes (dormant, delayed dormant), Legume Vegetables, Onions, Peppers, Strawberries, Sugarbeets 1.0 80 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 200

Applicators

## Page 142 of 227 Table F.1. Chlorpyrifos Occupational Handler Non

- Cancer Risk Estimates

Exposure

Scenario Crop or Target App.

Rate a (lbai/A) Area

Treated b (A/ day) Total MOE (LOC is an MOE = 10 0)

SL /No G

No R SL/G

NoR DL/G

No R SL/NoG

PF5 R SL/G

PF5 R DL/G

PF5 R SL/No G

PF10 R SL.G

PF10 R DL/G

PF10 R EC

Aerial Liquid Application (5a) Citrus 2.3

350 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 140

Non

- bearing Fruit and Nut Trees (Nursery), Radish (pre

- plant), Sweet Potato (pre

plant) 2.1 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 150

Cherries, Mint (Peppermint and Spearmint), Peanut, Rutabaga, Strawberries (pre

plant), Sunflower (pre

plant), Tobacco, Tree Fruits (Apple, Fig (CA only), Nectarine, Peach, Pear, Plum/Prune), Tree Nuts (Almonds, Filberts/Hazelnuts, Pecans, Walnuts), Turfgra ss (Ornamental and Sod Farms) 2.0 350 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 160

Ornamental and/or Shade Trees,

Herbaceous Plants 60 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 940

Clover (grown for seed; foliar), Cranberry, Hybrid Cottonwood/ Poplar

Plantations Grown for Pulp , Sunflower (post

- emergence/ foliar) 1.9 350 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 170

Corn (post

- emergence) 1.5 1,200 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 63 Asparagus, Brussel Sprouts, Cauliflower, Cole Crops, 1.5 350 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 220

## Page 143 of 227 Table F.1. Chlorpyrifos Occupational Handler Non

- Cancer Risk Estimates

Exposure

Scenario Crop or Target App.

Rate a (lbai/A) Area

Treated b (A/ day) Total MOE (LOC is an MOE = 10 0)

SL /No G

No R SL/G

NoR DL/G

No R SL/NoG

PF5 R SL/G

PF5 R DL/G

PF5 R SL/No G

PF10 R SL.G

PF10 R DL/G

PF10 R EC

Strawberries, Sugarbeets, Radish
Alfalfa, Corn (pre

plant), Cotton (except MS), Sorghum, Soybean, Wheat

1.0 1,200 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 94

Christmas Tree Plantations, Cole Crops (excludes Brussel Sprouts and Cauliflower) 350 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 320

Carrots 0.94 350 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 350

Wide Area

Aerial Applications (5b) Mosquitocide (not in

FL) 0.010 7,500 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 1500

Aerial

Granular Applications (5c) Peanuts 4.0

350 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 5

Sweet Potato 2.1 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 9.4

Sunflower , Tobacco 2.0 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 9.5

Sod Farms (Turf) 1.0 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 20

Airblast Applications (6a) See Table F.2 below

.

Wide Area

Ground Applications (6b) Mosquitocide (not in

FL) 0.010 3,000 4.4 4.9 5.2 4.4 4.9 5.2 4.7 5.3 5.6 510

Ground

- boom Applications (7a) Tree Nut Orchard

Floors (Pecans) 4.3

80 8.3 29 34 9.1 41 51 9.2 43 54 110

Tree Nut Orchard

Floors (Almonds, Walnuts) 4.0 8.9 31 36 9.7 44 54 9.8 46 58 120

Nursery Stock

– pre

plant (see master label description) 40 18 63 72 20 87 110 20 92 110 250

## Page 144 of 227 Table F.1. Chlorpyrifos Occupational Handler Non

- Cancer Risk Estimates

Exposure

Scenario Crop or Target App.

Rate a (lbai/A) Area

Treated b (A/ day) Total MOE (LOC is an MOE = 10 0)

SL /No G

No R SL/G

NoR DL/G

No R SL/NoG

PF5 R SL/G

PF5 R DL/G

PF5 R SL/No G

PF10 R SL.G

PF10 R DL/G

PF10 R EC

Ornamental Lawns and Turf, Sod Farms (Turf) 3.76 80 9.8 33 39 11 47 58 11 49 62 130

Corn (pre

- plant) 3.0 200 4.8 17 19 5.2 23 29 5.2 25 31 67 Radish (pre

- plant)

80 12 42 49 13 58 73 13 62 78 170 Rutabaga 2.4 15 53 60 17 73 88 17 77 94 210 Turnip 2.3 15 54 63 17 76 96 17 80 100 220 Brussel Sprouts (Post

Plant), Grapes (foliar) 2.25 16 56 65 18 77 96 18 82 100 220

Sweet Potato (pre

plant, soil broadcast) 2.1 17 60 70 19 84 110 19 88 110 240

Cotton (except MS) 2.0 200 7.2 25 29 7.8 35 44 7.9 37 47 99

Brussel Sprouts (At Plant), Cole Crops, Cauliflower, Figs (CA only), Grapes (dormant, delayed dormatnt), Mint (Peppermint, Spearmint), Peanut, Pineapple, Strawberries (Pre

plant), Sunflower (Pre

plant), Tobacco (Pre

plant) 2.0 80 18 63 72 20 87 110 20 92 110 250

Ornamental and/or Shade Trees, Herbaceous Plants, Ornamental Woody

Shrubs and Vines 2.0 40 36 120 150 39 170 220 40 180 230 500

Beets (table, sugar;

pre

- plant), Clover (grown for seed; foliar), Hybrid Cottonwood/Poplar

Plantations 1.9 80 19 64 75 21 90 110 21 95 120 260

Corn (post

- emergence) 1.5 200 9.8 33 39 11 47 58 11 49 62 130 Cranberry 1.5 80 23 83 98 25 120 150 26 120 160 330

## Page 145 of 227 Table F.1. Chlorpyrifos Occupational Handler Non

- Cancer Risk Estimates

Exposure

Scenario Crop or Target App.

Rate a (lbai/A) Area

Treated b (A/ day) Total MOE (LOC is an MOE = 10 0)

SL /No G

No R SL/G

NoR DL/G

No R SL/NoG

PF5 R SL/G

PF5 R DL/G

PF5 R SL/No G

PF10 R SL.G

PF10 R DL/G

PF10 R EC

Alfalfa, Cotton, Sorghum Grain, Soybean, Wheat

1.0 200 14 50 58 16 70 87 16 74 92 200

Asparagus, Beets (table, sugar; at plant), Citrus Orchard Floors, Cole Crops (excludes brussel sprouts and cauliflower), Cotton, Forest Plantings (reforestation, plantation, tree farm), Grapes (dormant, delayed dormant),

Grass (forage/fodder/hay), Legume V egetables, Nonagricultural Outdoor Buildings and
Structures, Onions, Peppers, Strawberries 80 36 120 150 39 170 220 40 180 230 500

Conifers and Deciduous Trees, Seed

Orchard Trees 60 48 170 190 52 230 290 52 250 310 670

Golf Course (fairways,

tees, greens) 40 72 250 290 78 350 440 79 370 470 990

Carrots 0.94 80 38 130 150 41 190 230 42 200 240 530

Forest Trees (softwoods, conifers) 0.61 80 78 250 280 64 290 360 64 300 380 820

Tractor

Drawn

Granular Spreader Applications (7b) Ornamental Woody

Shrubs and Vines 6.0 60 17 18 19 43 52 67 53 67 96 89

Peanuts 4.0

80 19 20 22 48 57 74 60 76 110 100

Radish 2.8 27 29 31 68 85 110 84 110 150 140 Rutabaga 2.4 31 33 36 80 97 130 99 130 180 170 Cauliflower (post

plant), Turnip 2.3 33 35 38 86 100 130 110 130 180 180

Brussel Sprouts (post

plant) 2.25 33 36 39 86 100 130 110 130 190 180

## Page 146 of 227 Table F.1. Chlorpyrifos Occupational Handler Non

- Cancer Risk Estimates

Exposure

Scenario Crop or Target App.

Rate a (lbai/A) Area

Treated b (A/ day) Total MOE (LOC is an MOE = 10 0)

SL /No G

No R SL/G

NoR DL/G

No R SL/NoG

PF5 R SL/G

PF5 R DL/G

PF5 R SL/No G

PF10 R SL.G

PF10 R DL/G

PF10 R EC

Soybean 2.2 200 14 15 16 35 42 55 43 55 79 73

Sweet Potato 2.1 80 36 38 42 92 110 140 110 150 200 190

Corn 2.0 200 15 16 18 39 46 60 48 61 86 81 Cole Crops (Except Cauliflower), Ginseng, Sugarbeets, Sunflower, Tobacco 2.0 80 38 41 44 98 120 150 120 150 210 200

Sorghum Grain 1.5 200 20 21 23 51 62 79 63 82 110 110 Asparagus 1.5 80 50 54 58 130 150 200 160 200 280 260 Nursery Stock (see

Master Label description) 1.1 60 91 98 110 230 280 360 290 370 520 490

Alfalfa 1.0 200 31 32 35 79 92 120 98 120 170 160
Citrus Orchard Floors, Onions, Ornamenal Lawns and Turf, Sod Farms (Turf) 1.0 80 76 80 87 200 230 300 240 300 430 400

Golf Course (Turf), Rights

- of

- way, Road

Medians 1.0 40 150 160 180 390 460 600 480 610 860 810

Tractor

Drawn

Granular Spreader Applications

With

SmartBox® (7c) Peanuts 4.0

80 No Data 200 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data

Radish 2.8 No Data 280 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data
Brassica Vegetables, Rutabaga, Radish, Turnip 2.3 No Data

340 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data

Sunflowers 2.2 No Data 360 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data
Soybeans 2.0 200 No Data 160 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data
Sugarbeet, Sweet Potato, Tobacco 2.0 80 No Data 400 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data

Sorghum 1.5 200 No Data 210 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data

Asparagus 1.5 80 No Data 530 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data

Alfalfa, Soybeans 1.0 200 No Data 320 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data

Citrus, Onion 1.0 80 No Data 790 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data

Paint

Brush/Roller Applications Wood Protection

Treatment 0.17 (lb ai/ gallon) 3

gallons 2.6 16 17 2.7 20 21 2.7 20 21 No Data

## Page 147 of 227 Table F.1. Chlorpyrifos Occupational Handler Non

- Cancer Risk Estimates

Exposure

Scenario Crop or Target App.

Rate a (lbai/A) Area

Treated b (A/ day) Total MOE (LOC is an MOE = 10 0)

SL /No G

No R SL/G

NoR DL/G

No R SL/NoG

PF5 R SL/G

PF5 R DL/G

PF5 R SL/No G

PF10 R SL.G

PF10 R DL/G

PF10 R EC

(8) Sewer Manhole Walls 0.080 (lb ai/ gallon) 20

gallons 0.84 5 5.3 0.86 6.1 6.7 0.87 6.3 6.9 No Data

Structural (warehouses, FHE) 3 gallons 5.6 33 35 5.8 41 44 5.8 42 45 No Data

Ear Tag Applications (9) Cattle 0.0030 100 Exposures assumed to be negligible.

Bait Station Applications (10) Roach Control 0.00040 100 Exposures assumed to be negligible.

Total Release Fogger (11) Greenhouse

Production (Bedding Plants, Cut Flowers, Flowering Hanging Baskets, Potted Flowers, Ornamentals) 0.029 4 cans Exposures assumed to be negligible.

Mixers/Loaders/Applicators Exposure

Scenario Crop or Target App.

Rate a (lb ai/ gallon ) Area

Treated b (gallon/ day) SL/No

G

No R SL/G

NoR DL/G

No R SL/No G

PF5 R SL/G

PF5 R DL/G

PF5 R SL/No

G

PF10 R SL.G

PF10 R DL/G

PF10 R EC

Liquid: Manually

Pressurized

Handwand

– Concentrate (12a) Wood Protection

Treatment 0.17

40 0.37 30 32 0.37 63 70 0.37 73 82 No Data

Nursery (Pine Seedlings) 0.16 0.39 32 34 0.39 67 76 0.39 77 90 No Data

Wide Area/ General

Outdoor Treatment 0.082 0.75 63 66 0.76 130 150 0.76 150 170 No Data

Christmas Tree Plantations, Conifers and Deciduous Trees; Grapes, Plantation Nurseries, Seed 0.030 2.1 170 180 2.1 360 400 2.1 410 470 No Data

## Page 148 of 227 Table F.1. Chlorpyrifos Occupational Handler Non

- Cancer Risk Estimates

Exposure

Scenario Crop or Target App.

Rate a (lbai/A) Area

Treated b (A/ day) Total MOE (LOC is an MOE = 10 0)

SL /No G

No R SL/G

NoR DL/G

No R SL/NoG

PF5 R SL/G

PF5 R DL/G

PF5 R SL/No G

PF10 R SL.G

PF10 R DL/G

PF10 R EC

Orchard Trees

Forest Trees (softwoods, conifers) 0.024 2.6 210 230 2.6 450 510 2.6 510 590 No Data

Golf Course Turf, Mounds/Nests, Non

Agricultural Outdoor Buildings and Structures, Ornamental Woody Shrubs and

Vines 0.010 6.3 520 540 6.3 1100 1200 6.3 1300 1400 No Data

Ornamental Lawns and Turf, Sod Farms (Turf) 3.76 (lb ai/A)

0.023 A

(spot treatment) 29 2400 2500 29 4900 5500 29 5700 6500 No Data

Ornamental and/or Shade Trees,

Herbaceous Plants 2 (lb ai/A) 54 4500 4700 54 9500 11000 54 11000 12000 No Data

Golf Course Turf,

Non

- Agricultural Outdoor Buildings and

Structures 1 (lb ai/A) 110 9000 9500 110 18000 21000 110 21000 25000 No Data

Liquid: Manually

Pressurized

Handwand

- Wettable

Powder in WSP (12b) Ornamental Lawns

and Turf, Sod Farms (Turf) 3.76 (lb ai/A) 0.023 A

(spot treatment) 29 2400 2500 29 4900 5500 29 5700 6500 No Data

Ornamental and/or Shade Trees,

Herbaceous Plants 2 (lb ai/A) 54 4500 4700 54 9500 11000 54 11000 12000 No Data

Liquid: Manually

Pressurized

Handwand

– Microen

capsulated (12c) Indoor and Outdoor

Commercial/

Institutional/ Industrial (C&C) 0.042

40 2.6 3.9 4.2 4.3 10 12 4.6 13 16 No Data

Ornamental Woody

Shrubs and Vines 0.010 6.3 520 540 6.3 1100 1200 6.3 1300 1400 No Data

Ornamental Non

Flowering Plants 0.0070 8.8 720 760 8.9 1500 1700 8.9 1800 2000 No Data

Outdoor

Commercial/Institutio

nal/Industrial Premises 0.00011 (lb ai/
1,000 22 1800 1900 22 3800 4200 22 4400 5000 No Data

## Page 149 of 227 Table F.1. Chlorpyrifos Occupational Handler Non

- Cancer Risk Estimates

Exposure

Scenario Crop or Target App.

Rate a (lbai/A) Area

Treated b (A/ day) Total MOE (LOC is an MOE = 10 0)

SL /No G

No R SL/G

NoR DL/G

No R SL/NoG

PF5 R SL/G

PF5 R DL/G

PF5 R SL/No G

PF10 R SL.G

PF10 R DL/G

PF10 R EC

(direct spray) sq ft)

Agricultural Farm

Premises 0. 00007

5 (lb ai/
1,000 sq ft) 33 2700 2900 33 5700 6300 33 6600 7500 No Data

Poultry Litter 0.00007 1(lb ai/
1,000 sq ft) 35 2900 3100 35 6000 6700 35 6900 7900 No Data

Liquid: Backpack Sprayers

- Liquid

Concentrate (12d) Wood Protection

Treatment, Rights

- of

way 0.17

40 11 11 15 14 14 21 15 15 22 No Data

Wide Area/ General

Outdoor Treatment 0.082 9.1 9.1 19 9.2 9.2 19 9.2 9.2 19 No Data

Christmas Tree Plantations, Tree Fruit (Cherries)

– foliar,

stump treatment

0.030 12 14 21 15 18 30 16 18 32 No Data

Seed Orchard Trees

– foliar, stump treatment 12 14 21 15 18 30 16 18 32 No Data

Tree Fruit (Cherries)

– drench/soil

- , ground

directed 25 25 50 25 25 51 25 25 51 No Data

Forest Trees (softwoods, conifers)

- foliar

0.024 16 17 26 19 22 38 19 22 40 No Data

Forest Trees (softwoods, conifers)

- drench/soil

- , ground

directed 32 32 62 32 32 63 32 32 63 No Data

Grapes

- foliar

0.023 16 18 28 20 23 39 20 23 42 No Data

Grapes

- drench/soil

- , ground

- directed 33 33 65 33 33 66 33 33 66 No Data

Golf Course Turf 0.010 37 42 63 45 53 89 46 54 94 No Data

## Page 150 of 227 Table F.1. Chlorpyrifos Occupational Handler Non

- Cancer Risk Estimates

Exposure

Scenario Crop or Target App.

Rate a (lbai/A) Area

Treated b (A/ day) Total MOE (LOC is an MOE = 10 0)

SL /No G

No R SL/G

NoR DL/G

No R SL/NoG

PF5 R SL/G

PF5 R DL/G

PF5 R SL/No G

PF10 R SL.G

PF10 R DL/G

PF10 R EC

Ornamental Lawns and Turf, Sod Farms (Turf) 3.76 (lb ai/A) 0.023 A 350 350 690 350 350 700 350 350 700 No Data

Ornamental and/or
Shade Trees,

Herbaceous Plants 2.0 (lb ai/A) 5 A 1.5 1.7 2.5 1.8 2.1 3.6 1.8 2.1 3.8 No Data

0.023 A (spot treatment) 320 370 550 390 460 780 400 470 820 No Data

Outdoor

Commercial/Institutio

nal/Industrial Premises (see master label description), Non

Agricultural Outdoor Buildings and

Structures 1.0 (lb ai/A) 5 A 6.1 6.1 12 6.1 6.1 12 6.1 6.1 12 No Data

0.023 A (spot treatment) 1300 1300 2600 1300 1300 2600 1300 1300 2600 No Data

Liquid: Backpack Sprayer

– Wettable

Powder in WSP (12e) Onramental Woody

Shrubs and Vines 0.00040 40 930 1100 1600 1100 1300 2200 1200 1400 2400 No Data

Onramental Woody Shrubs and Vines (pre

transplant), 4.0 (lb ai/A) 0.023 A

(spot treatment) 330 330 650 330 330 660 330 330 660 No Data

Ornamental Lawns and Turf, Sod Farms (Turf) 3.76 (lb ai/A) 350 350 690 350 350 700 350 350 700 No Data

Ornamental and/or Shade Trees,

Herbaceous Plants 2.0 (lb ai/A) 5 A 1.93 1.64 0.923 2.4 2.8 4.7 2.5 3 5.1 No Data

Liquid: Backpack Sprayer

– Microencapsu lated (12f) Ornamental Woody

Shrubs and Vines 0.10

40 37 42 63 45 53 89 46 54 94 No Data

Ornamental Non

flowering Plants 0.0070 53 60 88 64 75 130 66 77 130 No Data

Outdoor

Commercial/Institutio

nal/Industrial Premises 0.00013 (lb ai/
1,000 1,000 sq ft 230 230 460 230 230 470 230 230 470 No Data

## Page 151 of 227 Table F.1. Chlorpyrifos Occupational Handler Non

- Cancer Risk Estimates

Exposure

Scenario Crop or Target App.

Rate a (lbai/A) Area

Treated b (A/ day) Total MOE (LOC is an MOE = 10 0)

SL /No G

No R SL/G

NoR DL/G

No R SL/NoG

PF5 R SL/G

PF5 R DL/G

PF5 R SL/No G

PF10 R SL.G

PF10 R DL/G

PF10 R EC

(see master label description) sq ft)

Agricultural Farm Premises (see master label description) 0.00007

5 (lb ai/
1,000 sq ft) 400 400 800 400 400 810 400 400 810 No Data

Poultry Litter 0.00007 1(lb ai/
1,000 sq ft) 1100 1100 1500 1300 1300 2000 1400 1400 2100 No Data

Liquid: Mechanically

Pressurized Handgun

– Concentrate (12g) Wide Area/ General

Outdoor Treatment 0.082

1,000 sq ft 2.1 6.2 8 2.3 7.4 10 2.3 7.6 11 No Data

Christmas Tree Plantations, Conifers and Deciduous Trees; Plantation, Nursery, Nectarines, Seed

Orchard Trees

– foliar,

stump treatment 0.03 5.9 17 21 6.3 20 27 6.3 20 28 No Data

Grapes, Ornamental Woody Shrubs and

Vines

- foliar 0.03 5.9 17 21 6.3 20 27 6.3 20 28 No Data

Tree Fruit (Nectarines)

– drench/soil

- , ground

directed 0.03 5.9 17 21 6.3 20 27 6.3 20 28 No Data

Forest Trees (softwoods, conifers)

– foliar, stump treatment 0.024 7.4 21 26 7.9 26 34 7.9 26 35 No Data

Golf Course Turf 0.010 21 27 50 22 28 55 22 28 55 No Data

Tree Nuts (Almonds)

– foliar, orchard floors 4.0 (lb ai/A) 8.9 25 32 9.5 30 40 9.5 31 42 No Data

Ornamental Lawns and Turf, Sod Farms (Turf)

- foliar 3.76 (lb ai/A) 5 A 11 30 27 12 33 29 12 34 30 No Data

Tree Fruit (Nectarines)

- foliar 3.0 12 34 43 13 41 54 13 42 56 No Data

## Page 152 of 227 Table F.1. Chlorpyrifos Occupational Handler Non

- Cancer Risk Estimates

Exposure

Scenario Crop or Target App.

Rate a (lbai/A) Area

Treated b (A/ day) Total MOE (LOC is an MOE = 10 0)

SL /No G

No R SL/G

NoR DL/G

No R SL/NoG

PF5 R SL/G

PF5 R DL/G

PF5 R SL/No G

PF10 R SL.G

PF10 R DL/G

PF10 R EC

Grapes

– drench/soil

- , ground

- directed 2.25 16 45 57 17 54 72 17 56 74 No Data

Ornamental and/or

Shade Trees

Herbaceous Plants 2.0 18 51 63 19 61 80 19 62 83 No Data

Seed Orchard Trees 0.020 1800 5100 6300 1900 6100 8000 1900 6200 8300 No Data

Liquid: Mechanically

Pressurized Handgun

– Wettable

Powder in WSP (12h) Ornamental Woody

Shrubs and Vines 0.00040 1,000 sq ft 440 1300 1600 470 1500 2100 480 1600 2100 No Data

Ornamental Lawns and Turf, Sod Farms (Turf) 3.76 (lb ai/A)

5 Acres 9.3 27 34 9.8 32 43 9.9 33 44 No Data

Ornamental and/or Shade Trees,

Herbaceous Plants 2.0 (lb ai/A) 18 51 63 19 61 80 19 62 83 No Data

Liquid: Mechanically

Pressurized Handgun

– Microencapsu lated (12i) Outdoor

Commercial/Institutio

nal/Industrial Premises (see master label description) 0.042

1000 4.2 12 15 4.4 14 19 4.5 15 19 No Data

Ornamental Non

flowering Plants 0.010 18 51 63 19 61 80 19 62 83 No Data

Granule:

Hand Dispersal (13a) Commercial/Institutio

nal/Industrial Premises, Utilities (Pad) 191 (lb ai/A) 0.023 A

(spot treatment) 0.49 0.68 1.1 0.54 0.77 1.3 0.54 0.79 1.4 No Data

Golf Course (Turf)

, Sod Farm (Turf) 1 (lb ai/A) 90 130 210 98 150 250 99 150 260 No Data

Granule: Rotary Spreader (13b) Ornamental Woody

Shrubs and Vines 6.0 (lb ai/A)

5

Acres 12 17 21 17 29 46 18 32 53 No Data

Nursery Stock (see

master label description) 1.1 (lb ai/A) 63 90 110 90 160 250 94 170 290 No Data

Golf Course Turf,

Ornamental and/or 1.0 (lb 70 100 130 99 170 280 100 190 320 No Data

## Page 153 of 227 Table F.1. Chlorpyrifos Occupational Handler Non

- Cancer Risk Estimates

Exposure

Scenario Crop or Target App.

Rate a (lbai/A) Area

Treated b (A/ day) Total MOE (LOC is an MOE = 10 0)

SL /No G

No R SL/G

NoR DL/G

No R SL/NoG

PF5 R SL/G

PF5 R DL/G

PF5 R SL/No G

PF10 R SL.G

PF10 R DL/G

PF10 R EC

Shade Trees, Herbaceous Plants,

Ornamental Lawns and Turf, Sod Farms (Turf) ai/A)

Granule: Spoon (13c) Nursery Stock (see

master label description) 1.1 (lb ai/A) 1400 1600 2100 2100 2700 4500 2200 3000 5200 No Data

Golf Course Turf (Mounds), Ornamental and/or Shade Trees,

Herbaceous Plants

, Sod Farm (Turf) 1.0 (lb ai/A) 1500 1700 2300 2300 3000 4900 2400 3300 5700 No Data

Granule: Belly Grinder (13d) Ornamental Woody

Shrubs and Vines 6.0 (lb ai/A)

1

Acre 3.6 3.8 5.7 4.1 4.3 6.9 4.1 4.4 7.1 No Data

Nursery Stock (see

master label description) 1.1 (lb ai/A) 20 21 31 22 24 38 23 25 39 No Data

Golf Course Turf,

Ornamental and/or Shade Trees, Herbaceous Plants,

Ornamental Lawns and Turf, Sod Farms (Turf) 1.0 (lb ai/A) 21 23 34 24 26 42 25 27 43 No Data

Water Dispersable

Granule in

WSP: Manually

Pressurized

Handwand (14a) Christmas Tree

Plantations, Tree Fruits (Cherries, Nectarines, Peaches, Plum/Prunes); Tree Nuts (Almonds)

– pre

plant 0.030

40 2.1 170 180 2.1 360 400 2.1 410 470 No Data

Tree Nuts (Apple)

- pre

- plant 0.015 4.2 340 360 4.2 710 770 4.2 820 910 No Data

Ornamental Woody

Shrubs and Vines

- foliar 2.0 (lb a/A) 0.023 A

(spot treatment) 54 4500 4700 54 9500 11000 54 11000 12000 No Data

## Page 154 of 227 Table F.1. Chlorpyrifos Occupational Handler Non

- Cancer Risk Estimates

Exposure

Scenario Crop or Target App.

Rate a (lbai/A) Area

Treated b (A/ day) Total MOE (LOC is an MOE = 10 0)

SL /No G

No R SL/G

NoR DL/G

No R SL/NoG

PF5 R SL/G

PF5 R DL/G

PF5 R SL/No G

PF10 R SL.G

PF10 R DL/G

PF10 R EC

Fruits and Nuts (non

bearing, see master label description)

– foliar, trunk spray,

drench 54 4500 4700 54 9500 11000 54 11000 12000 No Data

Grapes (Pre

- Bloom) 1.0 (lb ai/A) 110 9000 9500 110 18000 21000 110 21000 25000 No Data

Water Dispersable

Granule in

WSP: Backpack (14b) Christmas Tree

Plantations, Tree Fruits (Cherries), Tree Nuts (Almond), Tree Fruit (Nectarine, Peach, Plum/Prune)

- foliar

0.030

40 12 14 21 15 18 30 16 18 32 No Data

Christmas Tree Plantations, Tree Fruits (Cherries), Tree Nuts (Almond), Tree Fruit (Nectarine, Peach, Plum/Prune)

– drench/ soil

- , ground

directed 25 25 50 25 25 51 25 25 51 No Data

Fruit and Nut (Non

bearing, Nursery)

- foliar

0.020 19 21 31 23 26 45 23 27 47 No Data

Fruit and Nut (Non

bearing, Nursery)

- drench/ soil

- , ground

directed 38 38 75 38 38 76 38 38 76 No Data

Tree Fruits (Apple)

- foliar 0.015 25 28 42 30 35 60 31 36 63 No Data

Tree Fruits (Apple)

– trunk spray, drench 50 50 98 50 50 100 50 50 100 No Data

Grapes (pre

- bloom)

- foliar 0.010 37 42 63 45 53 89 46 54 94 No Data

Grapes (pre

- bloom)

– drench/ soil

- , ground

75 75 150 76 76 150 76 76 150 No Data

## Page 155 of 227 Table F.1. Chlorpyrifos Occupational Handler Non

- Cancer Risk Estimates

Exposure

Scenario Crop or Target App.

Rate a (lbai/A) Area

Treated b (A/ day) Total MOE (LOC is an MOE = 10 0)

SL /No G

No R SL/G

NoR DL/G

No R SL/NoG

PF5 R SL/G

PF5 R DL/G

PF5 R SL/No G

PF10 R SL.G

PF10 R DL/G

PF10 R EC

directed

Ornamental Woody

Shrubs and Vines 2.0 (lb ai/A) 5 A 1.5 1.7 2.5 1.8 2.1 3.6 1.8 2.1 3.8 No Data

Water Dispersable

Granule in

WSP: Mechanically

Pressurized Handgun (14c) Christmas Tree

Plantations, Tree Fruits (Cherries), Tree

Nuts (Almond), Tree Fruit (Nectarine, Peach, Plum/Prune)

– foliar, drench/ soil

- , ground

- directed 0.030

1000 5.9 17 21 6.3 20 27 6.3 20 28 No Data

Tree Fruit (Apples) 0.015 12 34 43 13 41 54 13 42 56 No Data Grapes 0.010 18 51 63 19 61 80 19 62 83 No Data

Ornamental Woody

Shrubs and Vines 2.0 (lb ai/A) 5 A 18 51 63 19 61 80 19 62 83 No Data

Flaggers

Citrus 2.3

350 15 15 16 24 23 25 26 24 27 No Data

Non

- bearing Fruit and Nut Trees (Nursery), Radish (pre

- plant), Sweet Potato (pre

plant) 2.1 17 16 17 26 24 27 29 26 29 No Data

Cherries, Mint (Peppermint and Spearmint),

Ornamental and/or Shade Trees,
Herbaceous Plants, Peanut, Rutabaga, Strawberries (pre

plant), Sunflower (pre

plant), Tobacco, Tree Fruits (Apple, Fig (CA only), Nectarine, 2 18 17 18 27 26 29 30 28 31 No Data

## Page 156 of 227 Table F.1. Chlorpyrifos Occupational Handler Non

- Cancer Risk Estimates

Exposure

Scenario Crop or Target App.

Rate a (lbai/A) Area

Treated b (A/ day) Total MOE (LOC is an MOE = 10 0)

SL /No G

No R SL/G

NoR DL/G

No R SL/NoG

PF5 R SL/G

PF5 R DL/G

PF5 R SL/No G

PF10 R SL.G

PF10 R DL/G

PF10 R EC

Peach, Pear, Plum/Prune), Tree Nuts (Alm onds, Filberts/Hazelnuts, Pecans, Walnuts), Turfgrass (Ornamental and Sod Farms),

Ornamental and/or Shade Trees,

Herbaceous Plants Clover (grown for seed; foliar), Cranberry, Hybrid Cottonwood/ Poplar

Plantations Grown for Pulp, Sunflower (post

emergence/ foliar) 1.9 19 18 19 29 27 31 31 29 33 No Data

Asparagus, Brussel Sprouts, Cauliflower, Cole Crops, Corn (post

- emergence), Strawberries, Sugarbeets, Radish 1.5 24 23 24 37 35 38 40 37 41 No Data

Alfalfa, Christmas Tree Plantations, Cole Crops (excludes Brussel Sprouts and Cauliflower), Corn (pre

- plant), Cotton (except MS), Sorghum, Soybean,

Wheat 1 35 34 36 56 52 57 60 56 62 No Data

Carrots 0.94 38 36 39 59 55 61 64 59 66 No Data

Flagger: Granule (15b) Peanuts 4.0

350 27 27 32 51 51 74 57 58 88 No Data

Sweet Potato 2.1 50 50 62 94 94 140 110 110 170 No Data Corn (pre

- plant), Sunflower, Tobacco 2.0 54 54 65 100 100 150 110 110 180 No Data

Turf (Sod Farms) 1.0 110 110 130 200 200 300 230 230 360 No Data

### SL/NoG/NoR = single layer clothing, no glove, no respirator; SL/G/NoR = single layer clothing, gloves, no

respirator; DL/G/NoR = double layer clothing, gloves, no respirator; SL/NoG/PF5R = single layer clothing, no glove s, PF5 respirator; SL/G/PF5R = single layer, gloves, PF respirator; D/G/PF5R = double layer clothing, gloves, PF5 respirator; SL/NoG/PF10R = single layer clothing, no gloves, PF10 respirator; SL/G/PF10R = single layer clothing, gloves, PF10 respirator; DL/ G/PF10R = double layer clothing, gloves, PF10 respirator; EC = engineering

controls

## Table F.2. Chlorpyrifos Occupational Handler Airblast Non

- Cancer Risk Estimates

Exposure

Scenario Crop or Target App.

Rate 1
(lbai/A) Area

Treated 2 (A/ day) Total MOE 3 (LOC = 10 0)

SL /No G

No R SL/G

NoR DL/G

No R SL/NoG

PF5 R SL/G

PF5 R DL/G

PF5 R SL/No G

PF10 R SL.G

PF10 R DL/G

PF10 R EC

Applicators

Airblast Applications (6a) 

### Citrus (CA and AZ) 6.0

40 0.55 0.61 0.65 0.55 0.61 0.65 0.59 0.65 0.7 64



### Tree Nuts (Pecans) 4.3 0.77 0.85 0.91 0.77 0.85 0.91 0.81 0.91 0.97 89



### Citrus 4.0 0.83 0.92 1 0.83 0.92 1 0.88 0.98 1.1 98



### Tree Fruits (nectarines, peaches

– dormant, delayed dormant) 3.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.3 1.4 1100



### Tree Nuts (almonds, filberts/hazelnuts, walnuts), Tree Fruits (apples, cherries, pears, plums/prunes)
2.0 1.7 1.9 1.9 1.7 1.9 1.9 1.8 2 2.1 190



### Ornamental Woody Shrubs and Vines,

Ornamental and/or Shade Trees,

Herbaceous Plants 20 3.3 3.6 3.9 3.3 3.6 3.9 3.5 3.9 4.2 380



### Asparagus,

Christmas Tree Plantations, Grapes, Sugarbeets 1.0 40 3.3 3.6 3.9 3.3 3.6 3.9 3.5 3.9 4.2 380

## Page 159 of 227 Table F.2 . Chlorpyrifos Occupational Handler Airblast Non

- Cancer Risk Estimates

Exposure

Scenario Crop or Target App.

Rate a (lbai/A) Area

Treated b (A/ day) Total MOE (LOC = 10 0)

SL/G/

CRH

No R DL/G

CRH

No R SL/G

CRH

PF5 R DL/G

CRH

PF5 R SL/G

CRH

PF10 R DL/G

CRH

PF10R

Airblast Applications (6a) 

### Citrus (CA and AZ) 6.0

40 3.1 3.9 3.1 3.9 4.6 6.8



### Tree Nuts (Pecans) 4.3 4.3 5.5 4.3 5.5 6.4 9.2



### Citrus 4.0 4.7 6 4.7 6 6.9 10



### Tree Fruits (nectarines, peaches

– dormant, delayed dormant) 3.0 6.2 8 6.2 8 9.2 14



### Tree Nuts (almonds, filberts/hazelnuts, walnuts), Tree Fruits (apples, cherries,

pears, plums/prunes) 2.0 9.4 12 9.4 12 14 20



### Ornamental Woody Shrubs and Vines,

Ornamental and/or Shade Trees,

Herbaceous Plants 20 18 24 18 24 27 41



### Asparagus,

Christmas Tree Plantations, Grapes, Sugarbeets 1.0 40 18 24 18 24 27 41

### SL/NoG/NoR = single layer clothing, no glove, no respirator; SL/G/NoR = single layer clothing, gloves, no

respirator; DL/G/NoR = double layer clothing, gloves, no respirator; SL/NoG/PF5R = single layer clothing, no gloves, PF5 respirator; SL /G/PF5R = single layer, gloves, PF respirator; D/G/PF5R = double layer clothing, gloves, PF5 respirator; SL/NoG/PF10R = single layer clothing, no gloves, PF10 respirator; SL/G/PF10R = single layer clothing, gloves, PF10 respirator; DL/G/PF10R = double laye r clothing, gloves, PF10 respirator; EC = engineering

controls

## Page 161 of 227

Appendix G: Dermal and Inhalation Unit Exposures Use for Chlorpyrifos Occupational

Handler Assessment

## Table G. 1. Dermal and Inhalation Unit Exposures Used for Chlorpyrifos Occupational Handler Exposure and Risk Assessment

Exposure Scenario Dermal Unit Exposures (μg/lb ai) Inhalation Unit Exposures (μg/lb ai)

SL/No G SL/G DL/G SL/G/CRH DL/G/CRH EC No

- R PF5 R PF10 R EC Mixing/Loading Liquids for Aerial and/or Chemigation Applications (1a)

220 37.6 29.1 No Data No Data 8.6 0.219 0.0438 0.0219 0.083 Mixing/Loading Liquids for Airblast Application (1b) Mixing/Loading Liquids for

Groundboom Application (1c) Mixing/Loading Liquids for

Wide Area Aerial Applications (1d) Mixing/Loading Liquids for

Wide Area Ground Applications (1e) Mixing/Loading Wettable Powder (in WSP) for Aerial Applications (2a)

No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 9.8 No Data No Data No Data 0.24 Mixing/Loading Wettable Powder (in WSP) for Airblast Applications (2b) Mixing/Loading Wettable Powder (in WSP) for Groundboom Applications (2c) Mixing/Loading Granulars for Aerial Applications (3a)

8.4 6.9 3.4 No Data No Data 8.6 1.7 0.34 0.17 0.083 Mixing/Loading Granulars for Tractor Drawn Spreader Applications (3b)

Mixer/Loader Granulars

with SmartBox ® for Aerial Applications (3c) No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 0.20 No Data No Data No Data 0.003 Mixer/Loader Granulars

with SmartBox ® for Tractor Drawn Spreader

## Page 163 of 227

Table G. 1. Dermal and Inhalation Unit Exposures Used for Chlorpyrifos Occupational Handler Exposure and Risk Assessment

Exposure Scenario Dermal Unit Exposures (μg/lb ai) Inhalation Unit Exposures (μg/lb ai)

SL/No G SL/G DL/G SL/G/CRH DL/G/CRH EC No

- R PF5 R PF10 R EC Applications (3d)

MRID: 44180401

Mixer/Loader Water Dispersable Granulars (in WSP) for Aerial and/or Chem. Applications (4a)

No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 9.8 No Data No Data No Data 0.24 Mixer/Loader Water Dispersable Granulars (in WSP) for Airblast Applications (4b)

Mixer/Loader Water Dispersable Granulars (in WSP) for Ground

- boom Applications (4c) Aerial Liquid Application (5a) No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 2.08 No Data No Data No Data 0.0049 Wide Area Aerial Applications (5b)

Aerial Granular Applications (5c) No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 1.7 No Data No Data No Data 1.3

Airblast Applications (6a)
1,770 1,590 1,480 215 141 14.6 4.71 0.942 0.471 0.068 Wide Area Ground Applications (6b)

Ground

- boom Applications (7a) 78.6 16.1 12.6 No Data No Data 5.1 0.34 0.068 0.034 0.043

Tractor Drawn Granular Spreader Applications (7b) 9.9 7.2 4.2 No Data No Data 2 1.2 0.24 0.12 0.22

Tractor Drawn Granular Spreader Applications with SmartBox® (7c)

MRID 44301301 No Data 0.81 No Data No Data No Data No Data 0.12 No Data No Data No Data

Paint Brush/Roller Applications (8) 180,000 24,000 22,000 No Data No Data No Data 280 56 28 No Data

Ear Tag Applications (9) Exposures assumed to be negligible. Bait Station Applications (10)

## Page 164 of 227

Table G. 1. Dermal and Inhalation Unit Exposures Used for Chlorpyrifos Occupational Handler Exposure and Risk Assessment

Exposure Scenario Dermal Unit Exposures (μg/lb ai) Inhalation Unit Exposures (μg/lb ai)

SL/No G SL/G DL/G SL/G/CRH DL/G/CRH EC No

- R PF5 R PF10 R EC Total Release Fogger (11) Liquid: Manually

Pressurized Handwand

– Concentrate (12a) 100,000 430 365 No Data No Data No Data 30 6 3 No Data

Liquid: Manually

Pressurized Handwand

- Wettable Powder in WSP (12b) Liquid: Manually

Pressurized Handwand

– Microencapsulated (12c)

- Crack and Crevice 29,000 8,600 6,200 No Data No Data No Data 1,100 220 110 No Data

Liquid: Manually

Pressurized Handwand

– Microencapsulated (12c)

- -

- Broadcast 100,000 430 365 No Data No Data No Data 30 6 3 No Data

Liquid: Backpack Sprayers

- Liquid Concentrate (12d)

- Spot,

Drench/Soil/Ground

Directed 8,260 8,260 4,120 No Data No Data No Data 2.58 0.516 0.258 No Data

Liquid: Backpack Sprayers

- Liquid Concentrate (12d)

- Broadcast, Foliar 13,200 11,200 6,230 No Data No Data No Data 140 28 14 No Data

Liquid: Backpack Sprayer

– Wettable Powder in WSP (12e) 8,260 8,260 4,120 No Data No Data No Data 2.58 0.516 0.258 No Data

Liquid: Backpack Sprayer

– Microencapsulated (12f)

- Ornamentals 13,200 11,200 6,230 No Data No Data No Data 140 28 14 No Data

Liquid: Backpack Sprayer

– Microencapsulated (12f)

- Outdoor Premises 8,260 8,260 4,120 No Data No Data No Data 2.58 0.516 0.258 No Data

Liquid: Backpack Sprayer

– Microencapsulated (12f)

- Poultry 2,510 2,500 1,600 No Data No Data No Data 30 6 3 No Data

## Page 165 of 227

Table G. 1. Dermal and Inhalation Unit Exposures Used for Chlorpyrifos Occupational Handler Exposure and Risk Assessment

Exposure Scenario Dermal Unit Exposures (μg/lb ai) Inhalation Unit Exposures (μg/lb ai)

SL/No G SL/G DL/G SL/G/CRH DL/G/CRH EC No

- R PF5 R PF10 R EC Liquid: Mechanically Pressurized Handgun

– Concentrate (12g)

- Ornamentals, Golf Course 1,140 880 450 No Data No Data No Data 1.9 0.38 0.19 No Data

Liquid: Mechanically Pressurized Handgun

– Concentrate (12g)

- Broadcast, Foliar

1,300 390 290 No Data No Data No Data 3.9 0.78 0.39 No Data Liquid: Mechanically Pressurized Handgun

– Wettable Powder in WSP (12h) Liquid: Mechanically Pressurized Handgun

– Microencapsulated (12i) Granule: Hand Dispersal (13a) 104,000 71,000 40,280 No Data No Data No Data 470 94 47 No Data

Granule: Rotary Spreader (13b) 440 240 130 No Data No Data No Data 10 2 1 No Data

Granule: Spoon (13c) 4,170 3,030 1,580 No Data No Data No Data 121 24.2 12.1 No Data Granule: Belly Grinder (13d) 10,000 9,300 5,700 No Data No Data No Data 62 12.4 6.2 No Data

Water Dispersable Granule in WSP: Manually

Pressurized Handwand (14a) 100,000 430 365 No Data No Data No Data 30 6 3 No Data

Water Dispersable Granule in WSP: Backpack (14b)

- Drench/Soil/Ground

Directed 8,260 8,260 4,120 No Data No Data No Data 2.58 0.516 0.258 No Data

Water Dispersable Granule in WSP: Backpack (14b)

- Broadcast, Foliar 13,200 11,200 6,230 No Data No Data No Data 140 28 14 No Data

Water Dispersable Granule in WSP: Mechanically Pressurized Handgun (14c) 1,300 390 290 No Data No Data No Data 3.9 0.78 0.39 No Data

## Page 166 of 227

Table G. 1. Dermal and Inhalation Unit Exposures Used for Chlorpyrifos Occupational Handler Exposure and Risk Assessment

Exposure Scenario Dermal Unit Exposures (μg/lb ai) Inhalation Unit Exposures (μg/lb ai)

SL/No G SL/G DL/G SL/G/CRH DL/G/CRH EC No

- R PF5 R PF10 R EC Flagger: Liquid Sprays (15a) 11 12 10.6 No Data No Data No Data 0.35 0.07 0.035 No Data

Flagger: Granule (15b) 2.75 2.73 1.59 No Data No Data No Data 0.15 0.03 0.015 No Data

## Appendix H : Summary of Chlorpyrifos Seed Treatment and Secondary Handler Exposure

and Risk s

### Table H. 1. Summary of Chlorpyrifos Commercial Seed Treatment Steady State Combined (Dermal and Inhalation) Exposure/Risk

Exposure

Scenario Crop App.

Rate a 

### (lb ai/

lb seed) Amount

Treated b


### (lb seed/ per day) Amount

Handled per Day c 

### (lb ai/day) Level of Personal Protection

– LOC is an MOE = 100

SL/NG/

NR d 

### SL/G/

NR e 

### SL/G/

PF5 f 

### SL/G/

PF10 g 

### DL/G/

NR h 

### DL/G/

PF5 i 

### DL/G/

PF10 j



### Liquid (EC)

Loader/Applicator

Loading/ Applying Liquid for

Seed

Treatment (1) Beans (Field,
Green, Kidney, Corn (Sweet), Lima, Navy, Snap, String, Wax) , Peas 0.00058 281,250

(ST) 163 No Data 48 57 62 64 78 81

200,000

(IT) 116 No Data 68 80 87 90 109 114

Corn (All) 0.00058 339,500

(ST) 197 No Data 40 47 51 53 64 67

240,000

(IT) 139 No Data 56 67 73 75 91 95

Cotton (Delinted) 0.0012 339,500

(ST) 407 No Data 19 23 25 26 31 33

240,000

(IT) 288 No Data 27 32 35 36 44 46

Cucumber 0.00058 3,000

(S/IT) 1.7 No Data 4,500 5,300 5,800 6,000 7,300 7,600

Pumpkin 0.00058 3,000

(S/IT) 1.7 No Data 4,500 5,300 5,800 6,000 7,300 7,600

Sorghum Grain, 0.000024 360,000

(ST) 9 No Data 910 1,100 1,200 1,200 1,500 1,500

## Page 169 of 227

Table H. 1. Summary of Chlorpyrifos Commercial Seed Treatment Steady State Combined (Dermal and Inhalation) Exposure/Risk

Exposure

Scenario Crop App.

Rate a 

### (lb ai/

lb seed) Amount

Treated b


### (lb seed/ per day) Amount

Handled per Day c 

### (lb ai/day) Level of Personal Protection

– LOC is an MOE = 100

SL/NG/

NR d 

### SL/G/

NR e 

### SL/G/

PF5 f 

### SL/G/

PF10 g 

### DL/G/

NR h 

### DL/G/

PF5 i 

### DL/G/

PF10 j



### Triticale,

Wheat 180,000

(IT) 4 No Data 1,800 2,200 2,300 2,400 2,900 3,100

Sewer

Sewing

Seeds after

Seed

treatment (2) Beans (Field,

Green, Kidney, Lima, Navy, Snap, String, Wax) , Corn (Sweet), Peas 0.00058 281,250

(ST) 163 130 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data

200,000

(IT) 116 180 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data

Corn (All) 0.0058 339,500

(ST) 197 100 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data

240,000

(IT) 139 150 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data

Cotton (Delinted) 0.0012 339,500

(ST) 407 50 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data

240,000

(IT) 288 71 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data

Cucumber 0.00058 3,000

(S/IT) 1.7 12,000 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data

Pumpkin 0.00058 3,000

(S/IT) 1.7 12,000 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data

Sorghum Grain, 0.000024 360,000

(ST) 9 2,400 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data

## Page 170 of 227

Table H. 1. Summary of Chlorpyrifos Commercial Seed Treatment Steady State Combined (Dermal and Inhalation) Exposure/Risk

Exposure

Scenario Crop App.

Rate a 

### (lb ai/

lb seed) Amount

Treated b


### (lb seed/ per day) Amount

Handled per Day c 

### (lb ai/day) Level of Personal Protection

– LOC is an MOE = 100

SL/NG/

NR d 

### SL/G/

NR e 

### SL/G/

PF5 f 

### SL/G/

PF10 g 

### DL/G/

NR h 

### DL/G/

PF5 i 

### DL/G/

PF10 j



### Triticale,

Wheat 180,000

(IT) 4 4,700 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data

Bagger 800,000

Bagging

Seeds after

Seed

treatment (3) Beans (Field,

Green, Kidney, Lima, Navy, Snap, String, Wax)

, Corn (Sweet), Peas 0.00058 281,250

(ST) 163 120 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data

200,000

(IT) 116 160 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data

Corn (All) 0.0058 339,500

(ST) 197 96 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data

240,000

(IT) 139 140 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data

Cotton (Delinted) 0.0012 339,500

(ST) 407 46 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data

240,000

(IT) 288 65 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data

Cucumber 0.00058 3,000

(S/IT) 1.7 11,000 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data

Pumpkin 0.00058 3,000

(S/IT) 1.7 11,000 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data

Sorghum Grain, Triticale, 0.000024 360,000

(ST) 9 2,200 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data

## Page 171 of 227

Table H. 1. Summary of Chlorpyrifos Commercial Seed Treatment Steady State Combined (Dermal and Inhalation) Exposure/Risk

Exposure

Scenario Crop App.

Rate a 

### (lb ai/

lb seed) Amount

Treated b


### (lb seed/ per day) Amount

Handled per Day c 

### (lb ai/day) Level of Personal Protection

– LOC is an MOE = 100

SL/NG/

NR d 

### SL/G/

NR e 

### SL/G/

PF5 f 

### SL/G/

PF10 g 

### DL/G/

NR h 

### DL/G/

PF5 i 

### DL/G/

PF10 j



### Wheat 180,000

(IT) 4 4,400 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data

Multiple Activities Worker 800,000

Multiple

Activities

for Seed

treatment (4) Beans (Field,

Green, Kidney, Lima, Navy, Snap, String, Wax) , Corn (Sweet), Peas 0.00058 281,250

(ST) 163 No Data 18 24 30 33 52 61

200,000

(IT) 116 No Data 26 34 43 47 73 86

Corn (All) 0.00058 339,500

(ST) 197 No Data 15 20 25 28 43 50

240,000

(IT) 139 No Data 21 29 36 39 61 71

Cotton (Delinted) 0.0012 339,500

(ST) 407 No Data 7 10 12 13 21 24

240,000

(IT) 288 No Data 10 14 17 19 30 34

Cucumber 0.00058 3,000

(S/IT) 1.7 No Data 1,700 2,300 2,900 3,100 4,900 5,700

Pumpkin 0.00058 3,000

(S/IT) 1.7 No Data 1,700 2,300 2,900 3,100 4,900 5,700

Sorghum Grain, 0.000024 360,000

(ST) 9 No Data 350 460 580 630 1,000 1,200

## Page 172 of 227

Table H. 1. Summary of Chlorpyrifos Commercial Seed Treatment Steady State Combined (Dermal and Inhalation) Exposure/Risk

Exposure

Scenario Crop App.

Rate a 

### (lb ai/

lb seed) Amount

Treated b


### (lb seed/ per day) Amount

Handled per Day c 

### (lb ai/day) Level of Personal Protection

– LOC is an MOE = 100

SL/NG/

NR d 

### SL/G/

NR e 

### SL/G/

PF5 f 

### SL/G/

PF10 g 

### DL/G/

NR h 

### DL/G/

PF5 i 

### DL/G/

PF10 j



### Triticale,

Wheat 180,000

(IT) 4 No Data 690 920 1,200 1,300 2,000 2,300

Liquid (Microencapsulated)

Loader/ Applicator

Loading/ Applying Liquid (Micro

encaps.)

for

Seed

Treatment (5) Beans (Field,

Green, Kidney, Lima, Navy, Snap, String, Wax) 0.000798 281,250 (ST) 224 No Data 35 41 45 47 56 59

200,000 (IT) 160 No Data 49 58 63 66 79 83

Sewer

Sewing

Seeds after

Seed

Treatment (6) Beans (Field,

Green, Kidney, Lima, Navy, Snap, String, Wax) 0.000798 281,250 (ST) 224 91 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data

200,000 (IT) 160 130 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data

Bagger

Bagging

Seeds after

Seed

Treatment (7) Beans (Field,

Green, Kidney, Lima, Navy, Snap, String, Wax) 0.000798 281,250 (ST) 224 84 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data

200,000 (IT) 160 120 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data

## Page 173 of 227

Table H. 1. Summary of Chlorpyrifos Commercial Seed Treatment Steady State Combined (Dermal and Inhalation) Exposure/Risk

Exposure

Scenario Crop App.

Rate a 

### (lb ai/

lb seed) Amount

Treated b


### (lb seed/ per day) Amount

Handled per Day c 

### (lb ai/day) Level of Personal Protection

– LOC is an MOE = 100

SL/NG/

NR d 

### SL/G/

NR e 

### SL/G/

PF5 f 

### SL/G/

PF10 g 

### DL/G/

NR h 

### DL/G/

PF5 i 

### DL/G/

PF10 j



### Multiple Activities Worker

Multiple

Activities

for

Seed

Treatment (8) Beans (Field,

Green, Kidney, Lima, Navy, Snap, String, Wax) 0.000798 281,250 (ST) 224 No Data 13 18 22 24 38 44

200,000 (IT) 160 No Data 19 25 31 34 53 62

Wettable Powder in Water Soluble Packaging (WSP)

Loader/ Applicator

Loading/ Applying Liquid (Micro

encaps.)

for

Seed

Treatment (9) Beans (Field,

Green, Kidney, Lima, Navy, Snap, String, Wax) , Peas

0.00063 281,250

(ST) 176 No Data 45 53 57 60 72 75

200,000

(IT) 125 No Data 63 74 81 84 101 106

Corn (All) 339,500

(ST) 212 No Data 37 44 48 49 60 62

240,000

(IT) 150 No Data 52 62 67 70 84 88

Cucumber,

Pumpkin 3,000

(S/IT) 1.9 No Data 4,200 5,000 5,400 5,600 6,800 7,100

## Page 174 of 227

Table H. 1. Summary of Chlorpyrifos Commercial Seed Treatment Steady State Combined (Dermal and Inhalation) Exposure/Risk

Exposure

Scenario Crop App.

Rate a 

### (lb ai/

lb seed) Amount

Treated b


### (lb seed/ per day) Amount

Handled per Day c 

### (lb ai/day) Level of Personal Protection

– LOC is an MOE = 100

SL/NG/

NR d 

### SL/G/

NR e 

### SL/G/

PF5 f 

### SL/G/

PF10 g 

### DL/G/

NR h 

### DL/G/

PF5 i 

### DL/G/

PF10 j



### Sewer 3,000

(S/IT)

Sewing

Seeds after

Seed

Treatment (10) Beans (Field,

Green, Kidney, Lima, Navy, Snap, String, Wax) , Peas

0.00063 281,250

(ST) 176 120 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data

200,000

(IT) 125 160 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data

Corn (All) 339,500

(ST) 212 96 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data

240,000

(IT) 150 140 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data

Cucumber,

Pumpkin 3,000

(S/IT) 1.9 11,000 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data

Bagger

Bagging

Seeds after

Seed

Treatment (11) Beans (Field,

Green, Kidney

, Lima, Navy, Snap, String, Wax) , Peas 0.00063 281,250

(ST) 176 110 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data

200,000

(IT) 125 150 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data

Corn (All) 339,500

(ST) 212 89 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data

## Page 175 of 227

Table H. 1. Summary of Chlorpyrifos Commercial Seed Treatment Steady State Combined (Dermal and Inhalation) Exposure/Risk

Exposure

Scenario Crop App.

Rate a 

### (lb ai/

lb seed) Amount

Treated b


### (lb seed/ per day) Amount

Handled per Day c 

### (lb ai/day) Level of Personal Protection

– LOC is an MOE = 100

SL/NG/

NR d 

### SL/G/

NR e 

### SL/G/

PF5 f 

### SL/G/

PF10 g 

### DL/G/

NR h 

### DL/G/

PF5 i 

### DL/G/

PF10 j



### 240,000

(IT) 150 130 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data

Cucumber,

Pumpkin 3,000

(S/IT) 1.9 10,000 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data

Multiple Activities Worker

Multiple

Activities

for

Seed

Treatment (12) Beans (Field,

Green, Kidney, Lima, Navy, Snap, String, Wax) , Peas

0.00063 281,250

(ST) 176 No Data 17 23 28 31 48 57

200,000

(IT) 125 No Data 24 32 40 43 68 79

Corn (All) 339,500

(ST) 212 No Data 14 19 23 26 40 47

240,000

(IT) 150 No Data 20 26 33 36 57 66

Cucumber,

Pumpkin 3,000

(S/IT) 1.9 No Data 1,600 2,100 2,700 2,900 4,500 5,300

### a. Application rates based on registered labels for chlorpyrifos seed treatment uses.

b. HED default for Amount Treated (lbs seed treated per day) from HED Interim Guidance (SOP 15.1) Amount of Commercial Seed Treated per Day, updated March 21, 2013

. c. Amount Handled per Day (lb ai/ day) = application rate (lb ai/lb seed) x amount treated (lb seed treated/ day)

d. SL/NG/NR = Single layer clothing (long pants, long

- sleeved shirt) no gloves , and no respirator

e. SL/G/NR = Single layer clothin g with gloves and no respirator

f. SL/G/PF5 = Single layer clothing with gloves, protection factor 5 (PF5) respirator

g. SL/G/PF10 = Single layer clothing with gloves, protection factor 10 (PF10) respirator

h. DL/G/NR = Double layer clothing (coveralls ove r SL) with no gloves or respirator

i. DL/G/PF5 = Double layer clothing (coveralls over SL) with gloves, protection factor 5 (PF5) respirator j. DL/G/PF10 = Double layer clothing (coveralls over SL) with gloves, protection factor 10 (PF10) respirator

### Table H. 2. Summary of Chlorpyrifos Steady State Combined (Dermal and Inhalation) Exposure/Risk from Planting Previously Treated Seed s (All

Formulations) Crop Max.

Pounds

Seed

per Acre a 

### Acres

Treated per Day Pounds

of Seed

Treated per Day App.

Rate (lb ai/

lb seed) b 

### Amount

Handled per Day (lb ai/ day) c 

### Level of Personal Protection

– LOC is an MOE = 100

SL/NG/

NR d 

### SL/G/

NR e 

### SL/G/

PF5 f 

### SL/G/

PF10 g 

### DL/G/

NR h 

### DL/G/

PF5 i 

### DL/G/

PF10 j



### Beans 100

80 8,0 00 0.00058 4.6 No Data No Data 200 210 No Data No Data No Data

0.00063 5.0 No Data No Data 190 190 No Data No Data No Data

0.000798 6.4 No Data No Data 150 150 No Data No Data No Data

Peas 150 12,000 0.00058 6.96 No Data No Data 130 140 No Data No Data No Data

0.00063 7.5 No Data No Data 120 130 No Data No Data No Data

Corn ( All ) 15 200 3,000 0.00058 1.7 No Data No Data 540 560 No Data No Data No Data

0.00063 1.9 No Data No Data 500 520 No Data No Data No Data

Cotton 18 3,6 00 0.0012 4.3 No Data No Data 220 220 No Data No Data No Data

Cucumber 5 80 400 0.00058 0.23 No Data No Data 4,000 4,200 No Data No Data No Data
Pumpkin 4 320 0.00063 0.020 No Data No Data 4,700 4,800 No Data No Data No Data

Sorghum 10

200 2,000

0.000024 0.05 No Data No Data 19,000 20,000 No Data No Data No Data

Triticale 100 20,000 0.48 No Data No Data 1,900 2,000 No Data No Data No Data

Wheat 150 30,000 0.72 No Data No Data 1,300 1,300 No Data No Data No Data

### a. Maximum pounds of seed per acre is based on HED SOP 15: Amount of Seed Treated or Planted per Day.

b. Application rates based on registered labels for chlorpyrifos seed treatment uses. c. Amount Handled per Day (lb ai/ day) = application rate (lb ai/lb seed) x amount treated (lb s seed treated/ day)

d. SL/NG/NR = Single layer clothing (long pants, long

- sleeved shirt) no gloves , and no respirator

e. SL/G/NR = Single layer clothing with gloves and no respirator

f. SL/G/PF5 = Single layer clothing with gloves, protection factor 5 (PF5) respirator

g. SL/G/PF10 = Single layer clothing with gloves, protection factor 10 (PF10) respirator

h. DL/G/NR = Double layer clothing (coveralls over SL) with no gloves or respirator

i. DL/G/PF5 = Double layer clothing (coveralls over SL) with gloves, protection factor 5 (PF5) respirator j. DL/G/PF10 = Double layer clothing (coveralls over SL) with gloves, protection factor 10 (PF10) respirator

## Page 179 of 227

Appendix I : Occupational Post

- application Exposure Data Summaries

## Page 180 of 227

MRID 42974501 (Cauliflower and T omato)

This DFR study (MRID 42974501 ), performed in conjunction with a passive dosimetry and biomonitoring study, examined the residues of chlorpyrifos on cauliflower and tomato. Three

test sites were established in Ariz ona for the cauliflower trials and three tests sites were established in Florida for the tomato trials. Each test plot received a single application of Lorsban 50W (a wettable po wder formulation) using tractor

- mounted spray equipment at a
nominal rate of 1 lb ai/A. Samples were taken from the control plot and treated plots using a Birkenstrand leaf punch (producing leaf discs approximately 2.5 cm 2 

## in area) at the following nominal sampling intervals: the day prior to application, following the application , and at day 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 14, 21, and 30 after the application. A total of 50 leaf discs were collected for each sample, totalling 250 cm 2 

## (front and back of 2.5 cm 2 

## singe puch x 50 leaf punches). The residues found within a given plot at a given time interval was the average of 3 samples collected within that plot. Samples were analyzed for residues of chlorpyrifos. A validated LOQ or LOD was not provided. Concurrent and method validation samples were analyzed. The average recoveries

were 110±15.4% and 104±10.3%, respectively. The study corrected the field study samples for method validation recoveries, only if the recoveries were <100%. Field fortification data for the tomato sites were extremely variable, with a range of 12.7% to 990%. The stud y report suggests that either unknown interferences or poor techniques were responsible for the variability. For cauliflower, the overall average recovery was 99.2%. The field study samples were not corrected for field fortification recovery.

The DFR values for cauliflower and tomatoes were reported as an average of three samples. Raw data was not provided. The DFR data for tomatoes were not used in the assessment due to uncertainty in the results based on the extremely variable field fortification re coveries and also

because data from two of the sites were erratic. The three cauliflower sites were located in

Arizona and have similar dissipation rates, therefore average daily DFR values were combined for the three sites and the regression was performe d on the combined DFR values. The result of statistical analysis of the Arizona cauliflower data is presented in Table

Actual average DFR values are provided in Table I. 1

. P redicted values calculated from the regressions are provided in Table I. 2 for cauliflower.

Table I.1

. Summary of Actual DFR Values on C auliflower After One Broadcast Foliar Application Chlorpyrifos

Sampling

Interval (Days) Actual Average DFR ( μg/cm 2 

### )

Lorsban50W (Wettable Powder)

AZ

- Site ABC AZ

- Site DEF AZ

- Site GHI

0 0.392 0.5270 1.24

1 0.508 0.4840 0.769

2 0.501 0.2560 0.341

3 0.368 0.2080 0.40

5 0.169 0.0900 0.304

7 0.142 0.0640 0.118

## Page 181 of 227

Table I.1

. Summary of Actual DFR Values on C auliflower After One Broadcast Foliar Application Chlorpyrifos

Sampling

Interval (Days) Actual Average DFR ( μg/cm 2 

### )

Lorsban50W (Wettable Powder)

AZ

- Site ABC AZ

- Site DEF AZ

- Site GHI

14 0.026 0.0340 0.012

21 0.008 0.002 0.002

30 0.002 0.002 0.002

Notes:

1. LOD and LOQ were not reported.

2. Residues did not require correction for field fortification recovery.

3. The nominal application rate was 1 lb ai/A.



## Table I.2 . Summary of Predicted DFR Values on Caulifl ower After One Broadcast

Foliar Application

Time (Days) Predicted DFR ( μg/cm 2 

### )

Lorsban 50W (Wettable Powder)



### AZ

- Site ABC AZ

- Site DEF AZ

- Site GHI AZ

– All Sites

0 0.5319 0.3769 0.724 (1.2340) 0.526 (0.719)

1 0.5080 0.3090 0.574 (0.7690) 0.427 (0.587)

2 0.361 (0.501) 0.2533 0.4546 0.347 (0.366)

3 0.298 0.2077 0.360 0.281 (0.325)

4 0.245 0.1703 0.285 0.22 9

5 0.202 0.1396 0.226 0.186

6 0.167 0.1145 0.1792 0.150 7

7 0.137 0.0939 0.1420 0.122 4

8 0.113 0.0769 0.1125 0.099 4

9 0.0934 0.0631 0.0892 0.080 7

10 0.0770 0.0517 0.0707 0.0655

11 0.0634 0.0424 0.0560 0.0532

12 0.0523 0.0348 0.0444 0.0432

13 0.0431 0.0285 0.0352 0.035 1

14 0.0355 0.0234 0.0279 0.028 5

15 0.0293 0.0192 0.0221 0.0231

16 0.0241 0.0157 0.0175 0.018 8

17 0.0199 0.0129 0.0139 0.015 3

18 0.0164 0.0106 0.0110 0.012 4

19 0.0135 0.0087 0.0087 0.010 1

20 0.0111 0.0071 0.0069 0.008 2

21 0.00918 0.3769 0.00546 0.0066

22 0.00756 0.3090 0.00433 0.005 4

23 0.00623 0.2533 0.00343 0.004 4

## Page 182 of 227

Table I.2 . Summary of Predicted DFR Values on Caulifl ower After One Broadcast

Foliar Application

Time (Days) Predicted DFR ( μg/cm 2 

### )

Lorsban 50W (Wettable Powder)



### AZ

- Site ABC AZ

- Site DEF AZ

- Site GHI AZ

– All Sites

24 0.00514 0.2077 0.00272 0.00355

25 0.00424 0.1703 0.00215 0.00288

26 0.00349 0.1396 0.00171 0.00234

27 0.00288 0.1145 0.00135 0.0019 0

28 0.00237 0.0939 0.00107 0.00154

29 0.00195 0.0769 0.00085 0.00125

30 0.00161 0.0631 0.00067 0.0010 2

r 2 

### 0.99 0.93 0.93 0.93


### slope

- 0.19

- 0.198

- 0.23

- 0.21



### half

- life (days) 3.59 3.49 2.98 3.33



### Notes:

1. For the risk analysis, the predicted value shown was replaced with the actual value in parentheses (from Table 1) when the actual DFR data from either after the first or second application was higher than the predicted DFR data.

2. The nominal application r ate was 1 lb ai/A.



## MRID 43062701 (Citrus)

This DFR study (MRID 43062701), performed in conjunction with a worker exposure and biomonitoring study, examined the residues of chlorpyrifos on citrus. Three test sites were

established in California (Site No. 2 and 5 in Tulare County and Site No. 6 in Kern County). Lorsban 4E Insecticide (an emulsifiable concentrate formulation), was applied using an airblast spray application to citrus trees. One application was made at each test site at a nominal rate of 6

lb ai/A. At each sampling interval

, duplicate samples were taken from the control plots and duplicate samples from three subplots were taken from the treated plots using a Birkenstrand leaf punch. Leaf samples were collected prior to and follow ing the application and at 1, 4, 5, 7, 14,
21, 35

, and 43 days after the application for Site No. 2, prior to and following the application and at 1, 2, 7, 14, and 40 days after the application for Site No. 5 and prior to and following the application and at 1, 2, 7, 14, 21, and 35 days after the application for Site No. 6. Samples were analyzed for residues of chlorpyrifos. The overall average concurrent recovery for Site No. 2 was 101% ± 17.2% with recoveries ranging from 67.8% to 126% (n=26). The overal l average concurrent recovery for Site No. 5 and No. 6 was 91.8% ± 10.1% with recoveries ranging from 76.6% to 112% (n=29). A validated LOQ was not provided. The limit of detection (LOD) was set at approximately three (3) times the signal noise ratio for a n analytical run. The LOD ranged

from 0.0032 to 0.016 μg/cm 2



## . The field study samples did not require correction for field fortification recovery. Average field fortification recoveries were greater than 100% for Site No.

5 and No. 6. Field fortificatio n data from Site No. 2 indicated that the spiking solutions had degraded causing erratic data for field fortification recoveries, therefore, these recoveries were not used to correct the raw residue data, and Site No. 5 and Site No. 6 field fortification

r ecoveries were applied to Site No. 2 DFRs.

## Page 183 of 227

Actual average DFR values are provided in Table I. 3

. The chlorpyrifos residues on leaves demonstrated a biphasic pattern of dissipation. Residue levels dropped dramatically in the first two days, and then di ssipation of chlorpyrifos was gradual.

Since all the sampling sites are located in California, the average DFR values for each day at each site were used to plot a regression for all the sites combined. Table I.4 provides the predicted values calculate d from the regression of the combined sites

.

Table I.3 . Summary of Actual Average DFR Values on Citrus After One Broadcast Foliar Application of Chlorpyrifos

Sampling

Interval (Days) Actual Average DFR ( μg/cm 2 

### )

Lorsban 4EC (Emulsifiable Concentrate)



### CA

- Site No. 2 CA

- Site No. 5 CA

- Site No. 6

After 1 st 

### (Last) a pplication

0 1.46 1.82 1.48

1 0.212 0.547 0.367

2

-- 0.157 0.082

4 0.096

-- --

5 0.079

-- --

7 0.074 0.008 0.013

14 0.023 0.004 0.005

21 <LOD

-- --

35 <LOD

-- 0.004

40

-- <LOD

--

43 <LOD

-- --
Notes:

1. LOQ not provided. LOD ranged from 0.0032 to 0.016 μg/cm 2



### . 2. Residues did not require correction for field fortification recovery.

3. The nominal application rate was 6 lb ai/A.



## Table I.4 . Sum mary of Predicted DFR Values on Citrus After One Broadcast Foliar Application of Chlorpyrifos

Time (Days) Predicted DFR ( μg/cm 2 

### )

Lorsban 4EC (Emulsifiable Concentrate)



### CA

- Site No. 2 CA

- Site No. 5 CA

- Site No. 6 Combined CA Sites 2, 5, &

6

0 0.171 *

(1.46) 0.189 *

(1.82) 0.227 *

(1.48) 0.228* (1.59)

1 0.150*

(0.212) 0.164*

(0.547) 0.195*

(0.367) 0.197* (0.375)

2 0.131 0.142 0.168 0.170

3 0.115 0.123 0.144 0.147

## Page 184 of 227

Table I.4 . Sum mary of Predicted DFR Values on Citrus After One Broadcast Foliar Application of Chlorpyrifos

Time (Days) Predicted DFR ( μg/cm 2 

### )

Lorsban 4EC (Emulsifiable Concentrate)



### CA

- Site No. 2 CA

- Site No. 5 CA

- Site No. 6 Combined CA Sites 2, 5, &

6

4 0.101 0.106 0.124 0.127

5 0.088 0.0920 0.106 0.110

6 0.078 0.0797 0.0913 0.095

7 0.068 0.0690 0.07842 0.082

8 0.060 0.0598 0.0674 0.071

9 0.052 0.0518 0.0579 0.061

10 0.046 0.0449 0.0497 0.053

11 0.0402 0.0389 0.0427 0.0458

12 0.0352 0.0337 0.0367 0.0396

13 0.0309 0.0292 0.0315 0.0342

14 0.0271 0.0253 0.0271 0.0296

15 0.0237 0.0219 0.0233 0.0256

16 0.0208 0.0190 0.0200 0.0221

17 0.0182 0.0164 0.0172 0.0191

18 0.0160 0.0142 0.0148 0.0165

19 0.0140 0.0123 0.0127 0.0143

20 0.0123 0.0107 0.0109 0.0123

21 0.0108 0.0092 0.00936 0.0107

22 0.0095 0.0080 0.0080 0.0092

23 0.0083 0.0069 0.0069 0.0080

24 0.0073 0.0060 0.0059 0.0069

25 0.0064 0.0052 0.0051 0.0060

26 0.0056 0.0045 0.0044 0.0051

27 0.0049 0.0039 0.0038 0.0045

28 0.0043 0.0034 0.0032 0.0038

29 0.0038 0.0029 0.0028 0.0033

30 0.0033 0.0025 0.0024 0.0029

r 2 

### 0.58 0.55 0.61 0.67

slope

- 0.13

- 0.14

- 0.15

- 0.15

half

- life (days) 5.27 4.83 4.56 4.76

Notes:

## Page 185 of 227

1. For the risk analysis, the predicted value shown was replaced with the actual value in parentheses (from Table 1) when the actual DFR data from either after the first or second application was higher than the predicted DFR data.

2. The nominal application rate was 6 lb ai/A.



## MRID 44748101 (Apples, Almonds, Pecans)

This DFR study (MRID 44748101) examined the residues of chlorpyrifos on apple, almond, and pecan trees. Three test sites were established for each crop in the major crop production areas (1 apple trial each in CA, NY and WA; 3 almond trials in CA; 1 pecan trial each in GA, LA and TX). One treatment plot for the application of Lorsban 50W (wettable powder) was established at all trial sites. For pecans, an additional treatment plot was established for application of Lorsban 4E (emulsifiable concentrate). The test products were applied as two airblast spray applications, each at a nominal rate of 1.5 lb ai/A for apple trees and at 2.0 lb ai/A for almond and pecan trees. The re

- treatment intervals were 7 days for apple trees, 15 days for almond trees,

and 7 days for pecan trees. Applications were made in a spray volume rate of approximately 89

- 109 gallons per acre. At each sampling interval a sample was taken from the control plot and triplicate samples were taken from the treated plot using a Birkenstrand leaf punch. Leaf samples were collected at nominal sampling intervals of prior to each application, at days 0, 2, and 5 days after the first application, and at 0, 1, 2, 4, 7, 14, 21, 28 and 35 days after the second application. Samples were analyzed fo r residues of chlorpyrifos. Concurrent recoveries fell within the acceptable range of 70

- 120 percent. The LOD and LOQ were reported as 0.001 μg/cm 2 

## and 0.003 μg/cm 2 

## respectively. The overall average recoveries of field fortified samples for apple, almo nd, and pecan leaves ranged from 73 to 77 percent for the 5 μg/sample level and from 79 to 87 percent for the 50 μg/sample level. DFR values were calculated by adjusting the

residues for site

- specific field fortification recoveries when the recoveries wer e less than 90%. The adjustment was made using the average recovery for the fortification level closest to the

residue level.

Actual average DFR values are provided in Table I. 5 . Two of the almond sites (CA2 and CA3)

were located in California and hav e similar dissipation rates. Therefore, average daily DFR values were combined for those two sites and the regression was performed on the combined

DFR values. The remaining almond site (CA4) was also located in California, but had much

slower rate of di ssipation from the other two almond sites. Since this may be reflect of different climatological conditions (i.e., more arid climate), the DFR values from this site were not

combined with the other two almond sites. The predicted values calculated from t he regressions are provided in Table I. 6

.

Table I.5 . Summary of Actual Average DFR Values on Apples, Almonds, and Pecans After Two Broadcast Foliar Applications of Chlorpyrifos

Sampling

Interval (Days) Actual Average DFR ( μg/cm 2 

### )

Lorsban WP (Wettable Powder) Lorsban 4EC (Emulsifiable Concentrate)


### Apples Almonds Pecans Pecans

CA NY WA CA2 CA3 CA4 GA LA TX GA LA TX

After 1 st 

### a pplication

## Page 186 of 227

Table I.5 . Summary of Actual Average DFR Values on Apples, Almonds, and Pecans After Two Broadcast Foliar Applications of Chlorpyrifos

Sampling

Interval (Days) Actual Average DFR ( μg/cm 2 

### )

Lorsban WP (Wettable Powder) Lorsban 4EC (Emulsifiable Concentrate)


### Apples Almonds Pecans Pecans

CA NY WA CA2 CA3 CA4 GA LA TX GA LA TX

0 1.34 1.90 2.70 3.13 3.95 3.63 0.150 0.587 0.100 0.0604 0.3985 0.263

2 0.0937 0.124 0.263 0.645 1.12 0.132 0.010 0.024 0.052 0.0140 0.0226 0.0454

5 0.0123 0.016 0.093 0.082 0.105 0.053 0.0038 0.009 0.026 0.0049 0.0098 0.0239

After 2 nd 

### (last) application

0 0.488 1.97 2.56 1.36 3.09 2.20 1.01 0.148 0.097 0.1929 0.1239 0.137

1 0.074 0.806 0.642 0.685 1.48 0.16 0.095 0.041 0.055 0.0170 0.0335 0.0661

2 0.029 0.370 0.221 0.234 0.538 0.243 0.014 0.016 0.045 0.0139 0.0165 0.0396

4 0.0151 0.038 0.0166 0.022 0.119 0.092 <LOQ 0.015 0.025 0.0027 0.0157 0.0207

7 0.0104 0.004 0.0040 0.025 0.008 0.063 <LOQ 0.0081 0.0069 0.0008 0.0070 0.0088

14 <LOQ <LOQ <LOQ <LOQ 0.0057 0.049 <LOQ <LOQ <LOQ 0.0012 0.0030 0.0015

21 <LOQ <LOQ <LOQ <LOQ <LOQ 0.040 <LOQ <LOQ <LOQ 0.0005 0.0005 0.0008

28 <LOQ <LOQ <LOQ <LOQ <LOQ 0.022 <LOQ <LOQ <LOQ 0.0005 0.0005 0.0008

35 <LOQ <LOQ <LOQ <LOQ <LOQ 0.017 0.0051 <LOQ <LOQ 0.0012 0.0005 0.0005

Notes:

1. 

### LOQ = 0.003 μg/cm 2

2. Residues were corrected for field fortification recoveries <90%.

3. The nominal application rate was 1.5 lb ai/A for apple trees (total of 3 lb ai/A) and 2.0 lb ai/A for almond and pecan trees (total of 4 lb ai/A).



## Table I.6 . Summary of Predicted DFR Values on Apples, Almonds, and Pecans After Two Broadcast Foliar Applications of Chlorpyrifos

Time (Days) Predicted DFR ( μg/cm 2 )

Lorsban WP (Wettable Powder) Lorsban 4EC (Emulsifiable Concentrate)

Apple Almonds Pecans Pecans

CA NY WA CA2 & CA3 CA4 GA LA TX GA LA TX

0 0.115 (0.488) 1.10

(1.97) 0.614 (2.70) 0.62 4

(2.22) 0.246

(3.63) 0.621

(1.01) 0.055

(0.587) 0.093

(0.097) 0.0832 ( 0.1929 ) 0.0486

( 0.3985 ) 0.0911

( 0.263 )

1 0.084 0.595

(0.806) 0.367 (0.642) 0.44 8

(1.08) 0.225 0.114 0.043 0.064 0.0319 0.0383 0.0669

2 0.061 0.322

(0.370) 0.219 (0.221) 0.321

(0.386) 0.206 0.021 0.033 0.044 0.0122 0.0302 0.0492

3 0.045 0.174 0.131 0.230 0.189 0.00380 0.026 0.030 0.00468 0.02387 0.03612

4 0.033 0.094 0.078 0.165 0.173 0.00070 0.020 0.021 0.00179 0.01884 0.02653

5 0.024 0.051 0.047 0.11 9 0.159 1.27E

- 04 0.016 0.015 0.00069 0.01487 0.01949

6 0.018 0.028 0.028 0.085 0.146 2.33E

- 05 0.012 0.010 0.000263 0.0117 0.0143

7 0.013 0.015 0.017 0.061 0.133 4.27E

- 06 0.010 0.007 0.000101 0.00926 0.01051

8 0.00944 0.00805 0.0100 0.04 4 0.1223 7.8E

- 07 0.00742 0.005 3.87E

- 05 0.007309 0.00772

## Page 187 of 227

Table I.6 . Summary of Predicted DFR Values on Apples, Almonds, and Pecans After Two Broadcast Foliar Applications of Chlorpyrifos

Time (Days) Predicted DFR ( μg/cm 2 )

Lorsban WP (Wettable Powder) Lorsban 4EC (Emulsifiable Concentrate)

Apple Almonds Pecans Pecans

CA NY WA CA2 & CA3 CA4 GA LA TX GA LA TX

9 0.00691 0.00435 0.0059 0.031 4 0.1121 1.4E

- 07 0.00578 0.003 1.48E

- 05 0.005768 0.00567

10 0.00506 0.00235 0.0036 0.0225 0.1027 2.6E

- 08 0.00451 0.002 5.68E

- 06 0.004553 0.00417

11 0.00370 0.00127 0.0021 0.0161 0.0941 4.8E

- 09 0.00351 0.002 2.18E

- 06 0.003593 0.00306

12 0.00271 0.00069 0.0013 0.011 6 0.0862 8.8E

- 10 0.00274 0.001 8.34E

- 07 0.002836 0.00225

13 0.00198 0.00037 7.6E

- 04 0.00831 0.0790 1.6E

- 10 0.00213 7.4E

- 04 3.19E

- 07 0.002238 0.00165

14 0.00145 0.00020 4.5E

- 04 0.00596 0.0724 2.9E

- 11 0.00166 5.1E

- 04 1.22E

- 07 0.001766 0.00121

15 0.00106 0.00011 2.7E

- 04 0.0042 8 0.0664 5.4E

- 12 0.00130 3.5E

- 04 4.69E

- 08 0.001394 0.000891

16 7.8E

- 04 5.9E

- 05 1.6E

- 04 0.00307 0.0608 9.8E

- 13 0.00101 2.4E

- 04 1.8E

- 08 0.0011 0.000654

17 5.7E

- 04 3.2E

- 05 9.6E

- 05 0.00220 0.0558 1.8E

- 13 7.9E

- 04 1.7E

- 04 6.89E

- 09 0.000868 0.000481

18 4.2E

- 04 1.7E

- 05 5.8E

- 05 0.00158 0.0511 3.3E

- 14 6.1E

- 04 1.2E

- 04 2.64E

- 09 0.000685 0.000353

19 3.0E

- 04 9.3E

- 06 3.4E

- 05 0.00113 0.0468 6.0E

- 15 4.8E

- 04 8.0E

- 05 1.01E

- 09 0.000541 0.000259

20 2.2E

- 04 5.0E

- 06 2.1E

- 05 8.1 E

- 04 0.0429 1.1E

- 15 3.7E

- 04 5.5E

- 05 3.87E

- 10 0.000427 0.000190

21 1.6E

- 04 2.7E

- 06 1.2E

- 05 5.8 E

- 04 0.0393 2.0E

- 16 2.9E

- 04 3.8E

- 05 1.48E

- 10 0.000337 0.000140

22 1.2E

- 04 1.5E

- 06 7.3E

- 06 4.2 E

- 04 0.0360 3.7E

- 17 2.3E

- 04 2.6E

- 05 5.69E

- 11 0.000266 0.000103

23 8.7E

- 05 8.0E

- 07 4.4E

- 06 3.0 E

- 04 0.0330 6.7E

- 18 1.8E

- 04 1.8E

- 05 2.18E

- 11 0.00021 7.55E

- 05

24 6.4E

- 05 4.3E

- 07 2.6E

- 06 2.2 E

- 04 0.0303 1.2E

- 18 1.4E

- 04 1.3E

- 05 8.35E

- 12 0.000166 5.55E

- 05

25 4.7E

- 05 2.3E

- 07 1.6E

- 06 1.5 E

- 04 0.0277 2.3E

- 19 1.1E

- 04 8.6E

- 06 3.2E

- 12 0.000131 4.07E

- 05

26 3.4E

- 05 1.3E

- 07 9.3E

- 07 1.1 E

- 04 0.0254 4.1E

- 20 8.3E

- 05 6.0E

- 06 1.23E

- 12 0.000103 2.99E

- 05

27 2.5E

- 05 6.8E

- 08 5.6E

- 07 7.9E

- 05 0.0233 7.6E

- 21 6.5E

- 05 4.1E

- 06 4.7E

- 13 8.14E

- 05 2.2E

- 05

28 1.8E

- 05 3.7E

- 08 3.3E

- 07 5. 7 E

- 05 0.0213 1.4E

- 21 5.1E

- 05 2.8E

- 06 1.8E

- 13 6.43E

- 05 1.61E

- 05

29 1.3E

- 05 2.0E

- 08 2.0E

- 07 4. 1 E

- 05 0.0196 2.5E

- 22 3.9E

- 05 2.0E

- 06 6.9E

- 14 5.07E

- 05 1.19E

- 05

30 9.8E

- 06 1.1E

- 08 1.2E

- 07 2.9E

- 05 0.0179 4.6E

- 23 3.1E

- 05 1.3E

- 06 2.64E

- 14 4.0E

- 05 8.71E

- 06

31 7.2E

- 06 5.8E

- 09 7.1E

- 08 2.1E

- 05 0.0164 8.5E

- 24 2.4E

- 05 9.3E

- 07 1.01E

- 14 3.16E

- 05 6.4E

- 06

32 5.3E

- 06 3.1E

- 09 4.2E

- 08 1.5E

- 05 0.0151 1.6E

- 24 1.9E

- 05 6.4E

- 07 3.88E

- 15 2.49E

- 05 4.7E

- 06

33 3.8E

- 06 1.7E

- 09 2.5E

- 08 1. 1 E

- 05 0.0138 2.8E

- 25 1.5E

- 05 4.4E

- 07 1.49E

- 15 1.97E

- 05 3.45E

- 06

34 2.8E

- 06 9.2E

- 10 1.5E

- 08 7. 8 E

- 06 0.0126 5.2E

- 26 1.1E

- 05 3.1E

- 07 5.7E

- 16 1.55E

- 05 2.54E

- 06

35 2.1E

- 06 5.0E

- 10 9.0E

- 09 5. 6 E

- 06 0.0116 9.5E

- 27 8.8E

- 06 2.1E

- 07 2.18E

- 16 1.23E

- 05 1.86E

- 06

r 2 0.77 0.93 0.80 0.82 0.6047 0.99 0.80 0.97 0.65 0.80 0.95

slope

- 0.31

- 0.61

- 0.52

- 0.33

- 0.0873

- 0.37

- 0.25

- 1.70

- 0.96

- 0.24

- 0.61

half

- life (days) 2.22 1.13 1.35 2.09 7.94 1.87 2.78 0.41 0.72 2.93 2.25



### Notes:

1. For the risk analysis, the predicted value shown was replaced with the actual value in parentheses (from Table 1) when the actual DFR data from either after the first or second application was higher than the predicted DFR data.

## Page 188 of 227

2. The nominal application r ate was 1.5 lb ai/A for apple trees (total of 3 lb ai/A) and 2.0 lb ai/A for almond and pecan trees (total of 4 lb ai/A).



## MRID 447481

- 02 (Cotton, S ugarbeet, Sweet C orn)

This DFR study (MRID 44748102) examined the residues of chlorpyrifos on cotton, s ugar beet, and sweet corn after application of either Lorsban 4E (emulsifiable concentrate), Lock

- on (emulsifiable concentrate), or Lorsban 15G (granular). Lorsban 4E trials were conducted on all crops. Lock

- on trials were conducted on cotton only and Lo rsban 15G trials were conducted on sweet corn only. Three test sites were established for each crop for each formulation tested. Cotton trials were conducted in California, Texas, Mississippi (Lorsban 4E only) and Arizona (Lock

- on only). Sugar beet trials were conducted in California, Oregon, and Minnesota. Sweet corn trials were conducted in Oregon, Minnesota, and Illinois. Each test site received two broadcast foliar applications of a test product spaced five days apa rt. The application rate used for Lorsban 4E on all crops was 1 lb ai/A. Lock

- on was applied to cotton at 0.5 lb ai/A and Lorsban 15G was applied to sweet corn at 1 lb ai/A. At each sampling interval a sample was taken from the control plot and triplica te samples were taken from the treated plot using a Birkenstrand leaf punch. Leaf samples were collected at sampling intervals of prior to the first application, immediately following the application (within 1

- 2 hours or as soon as the spray had completel y dried or dust had settled on the foliage), and at 1, 2, and 4 days after the first application. Leaf punch samples were also collected immediately following the second application and at 1, 2, 4, 7, 14, 21, and 28 days after the second (final) applicati on. Samples were analyzed for residues of chlorpyrifos. Concurrent recoveries fell within the acceptable range of 70

- 120 percent. The LOD and LOQ were reported as 0.001 μg/cm 2 

## and 0.003 μg/cm 2


## respectively. Field fortifications were collected on thre e sampling events at each test. Average field fortification recoveries (not corrected for laboratory recovery), ranged from 82% to 117%. DFR values were calculated by adjusting the residues for site

- specific field fortification

recoveries when the recover ies were less than 90%. The adjustment was made using the average recovery for the fortification level closest to the residue level.

Actual average DFR values are provided in Table I. 7 and predicted values calculated from the regressions are provided i n Table I. 8 . A regression was not conducted for the granular application on sweet corn at the Minnesota site because all DFR values were <LOQ.

Table I.7 . Summary of Actual Average DFR Values on Cotton, Sugarbeet, and Sweet Corn After

Two Broadcast Foli ar Applications of Chlorpyrifos

Sampling

Interval (Days) Actual Average DFR ( μg/cm 2 

### )

Cotton Sugar beet Sweet Corn

Lorsban 4EC (Emulsifiable Concentrate) Lock

- On (Emulsifiable Concentrate) Lorsban 4E (Emulsifiable Concentrate) Lorsban 4E (Emulsifiable Concentrate) Lorsban 15G ( G ranular)

CA TX MS CA AZ TX CA OR MN OR MN IL OR MN IL

After 1 st a pplication

## Page 189 of 227

Table I.7 . Summary of Actual Average DFR Values on Cotton, Sugarbeet, and Sweet Corn After

Two Broadcast Foli ar Applications of Chlorpyrifos

Sampling

Interval (Days) Actual Average DFR ( μg/cm 2 

### )

Cotton Sugar beet Sweet Corn

Lorsban 4EC (Emulsifiable Concentrate) Lock

- On (Emulsifiable Concentrate) Lorsban 4E (Emulsifiable Concentrate) Lorsban 4E (Emulsifiable Concentrate) Lorsban 15G ( G ranular)

CA TX MS CA AZ TX CA OR MN OR MN IL OR MN IL

0 1.11 0.734 2.93 0.483 0.372 0.831 0.743 0.766 2.32 1.73 2.39 0.330 <LOQ <LOQ 0.0258

1 0.0530 0.0239 0.0147 0.0316 0.0255 0.0179 0.0273 0.0766 0.0666 0.0444 0.0438 0.0121 <LOQ <LOQ <LOQ

2 0.0165 0.0167 0.0087 0.00770 0.010 0.0076 0.0172 0.0166 0.0274 0.0134 0.0148 0.0070 <LOQ <LOQ 0.0043

4 0.0067 0.0090 0.0033 <LOQ 0.0056 <LOQ 0.0090 0.0038 0.0066 <LOQ 0.0040 <LOQ 0.0111 <LOQ 0.0094

After 2 nd (last) a pplication

0 0.602 2.38 0.936 0.424 0.191 1.21 0.870 0.464 0.667 0.527 0.568 2.98 0.213 <LOQ 0.0853

1 0.347 0.0205 0.0046 0.0370 0.0212 0.0222 0.063 0.002 0.044 0.016 0.041 0.019 <LOQ <LOQ <LOQ

2 0.136 0.0061 <LOQ 0.0116 0.0097 0.0048 0.034 0.008 0.030 0.0061 0.0281 0.0083 0.0119 <LOQ <LOQ

4 0.0211 0.0054 <LOQ 0.0061 0.0045 <LOQ 0.016 0.005 0.008 <LOQ 0.0032 0.0041 <LOQ <LOQ 0.0036

7 0.0068 <LOQ <LOQ <LOQ 0.0057 <LOQ 0.006 <LOQ 0.004 <LOQ <LOQ <LOQ <LOQ <LOQ <LOQ

14 <LOQ <LOQ <LOQ <LOQ <LOQ <LOQ <LOQ <LOQ <LOQ <LOQ <LOQ <LOQ <LOQ <LOQ <LOQ

21 <LOQ <LOQ 0.200 <LOQ <LOQ <LOQ <LOQ <LOQ <LOQ <LOQ <LOQ <LOQ <LOQ <LOQ <LOQ

28 <LOQ <LOQ <LOQ <LOQ <LOQ <LOQ <LOQ <LOQ <LOQ <LOQ <LOQ <LOQ <LOQ <LOQ <LOQ



### Notes:

1. LOQ = 0.003 μg/cm 2



### 2. Residues were corrected for field fortification recoveries <90%.

3. Application rates were 1.0 lb ai/A for Lorsban 4E and Lock

- On (total of 2 lb ai/A) and 0.5 lb ia/A for Lorsban 15G (total of 1 lb ai/A).



## Table I.8 . Summary of Predicted DFR Values on Cotton , Sugarbeet, and Sweet Corn After Two Broadcast Foliar Applications of Chlorpyrifos

Time (Days) Predicted DFR ( μg/cm 2 )

Cotton Sugar beet Sweet C orn

Lorsban 4E (Emulsifiable Concentrate) Lock

- On (Emulsifiable Concentrate) Lorsban 4E (Emulsifiable Concentrate) Lorsban 4E (Emulsifiable Concentrate) Lorsban 15G ( G ranular)

CA TX MS CA AZ TX CA OR MN IL MN OR IL OR

0 0.227 (1.11) 0.207

(2.38) 0.456

(2.93) 0.0438

(0.483) 0.287

(0.372) 0.0255

(1.21) 0.137

(0.87) 0.0320 (0.766) 0.113

(2.32) 0.232

(2.98) 0.170

(2.39) 0.165

(1.73) 0.0112 (0.0853) 0.0332

(0.213)

1 0.152 (0.347) 0.0832 0.0185 0.0327 (0.037) 0.0668 0.0215

(0.0222) 0.0961 0.0173

(0.077) 0.0736 0.0898 0.0781 0.044 0.00679 0.0120

2 0.1018 0.0335 0.00075 0.02435 0.0155 0.01814 0.0675 0.0094 0.0480 0.0348 0.0359 0.0117 0.00413 0.00437 (0.0119)

3 0.0681 0.0135 3.03E

- 05 0.01815 0.0036 0.01530 0.0475 0.0051 0.0313 0.0135 0.0165 0.0031 0.00251 0.0016

4 0.0456 0.00542 1.23E

- 06 0.01353 0.00084 0.01291 0.0334 0.0028 0.0205 0.00522 0.00757 0.00082 0.00152 0.0006

5 0.0305 0.00218 4.96E

- 08 0.01009 0.00020 0.01089 0.0235 0.0015 0.0134 0.00202 0.00348 0.00022 0.00093 0.0002

6 0.0204 0.00088 2.01E

- 09 0.00752 4.55E

- 05 0.00919 0.0165 0.00082 0.0087 0.00078 0.00160 5.8E

- 05 0.00056 7.56E

- 05

7 0.0137 0.00035 8.13E

- 11 0.00560 1.06E

- 05 0.00775 0.0116 0.00044 0.0057 0.00030 0.00073 1.5E

- 05 0.00034 2.74E

- 05

8 0.00916 0.00014 3.29E

- 12 0.00418 2.47E

- 06 0.00654 0.00815 0.00024 0.00371 0.00012 3.4E

- 04 4.1E

- 06 0.00021 9.96E

- 06

## Page 190 of 227 Table I.8 . Summary of Predicted DFR Values on Cotton , Sugarbeet, and Sweet Corn After Two Broadcast Foliar Applications of Chlorpyrifos

Time (Days) Predicted DFR ( μg/cm 2 )

Cotton Sugar beet Sweet C orn

Lorsban 4E (Emulsifiable Concentrate) Lock

- On (Emulsifiable Concentrate) Lorsban 4E (Emulsifiable Concentrate) Lorsban 4E (Emulsifiable Concentrate) Lorsban 15G ( G ranular)

CA TX MS CA AZ TX CA OR MN IL MN OR IL OR

9 0.00613 5.73E

- 05 1.33E

- 13 0.00311 5.74E

- 07 0.00551 0.00573 0.00013 0.00242 4.54E

- 05 1.5E

- 04 1.1E

- 06 0.00013 3.61E

- 06

10 0.00410 2.31E

- 05 5.40E

- 15 0.00232 1.34E

- 07 0.00465 0.00403 7.07E

- 05 0.00158 1.76E

- 05 7.1E

- 05 2.9E

- 07 7.68E

- 05 1.31E

- 06

11 0.00275 9.28E

- 06 2.19E

- 16 0.00173 3.11E

- 08 0.00392 0.00283 3.84E

- 05 0.00103 6.81E

- 06 3.3E

- 05 7.7E

- 08 4.7E

- 05 4.75E

- 07

12 0.00184 3.73E

- 06 8.85E

- 18 0.00129 7.23E

- 09 0.00331 0.00199 2.08E

- 05 0.00067 2.64E

- 06 1.5E

- 05 2.0E

- 08 2.8E

- 05 1.72E

- 07

13 0.00123 1.50E

- 06 3.59E

- 19 0.00096 1.68E

- 09 0.00279 0.00140 1.13E

- 05 0.00044 1.02E

- 06 6.9E

- 06 5.4E

- 09 1.7E

- 05 6.26E

- 08

14 0.00082 6.05E

- 07 1.45E

- 20 0.00072 3.92E

- 10 0.00235 0.00098 6.13E

- 06 0.00029 3.95E

- 07 3.2E

- 06 1.4E

- 09 1.0E

- 05 2.27E

- 08

15 0.00055 2.43E

- 07 5.88E

- 22 0.00053 9.11E

- 11 0.00199 0.00069 3.32E

- 06 0.00019 1.53E

- 07 1.5E

- 06 3.8E

- 10 6.4E

- 06 8.24E

- 09

16 0.00037 9.80E

- 08 2.38E

- 23 0.00040 2.12E

- 11 0.00168 0.00049 1.80E

- 06 0.00012 5.93E

- 08 6.7E

- 07 1.0E

- 10 3.9E

- 06 2.99E

- 09

17 0.00025 3.94E

- 08 9.64E

- 25 0.00030 4.93E

- 12 0.00141 0.00034 9.79E

- 07 7.99E

05 2.30E

- 08 3.1E

- 07 2.7E

- 11 2.4E

- 06 1.08E

- 09

18 0.00017 1.59E

- 08 3.90E

- 26 0.00022 1.15E

- 12 0.00119 0.00024 5.31E

- 07 5.22E

05 8.89E

- 09 1.4E

- 07 7.2E

- 12 1.4E

- 06 3.93E

- 10

19 0.00011 6.39E

- 09 1.58E

- 27 0.00016 2.67E

- 13 0.00101 0.00017 2.88E

- 07 3.41E

05 3.44E

- 09 6.5E

- 08 1.9E

- 12 8.7E

- 07 1.43E

- 10

20 7.41E

05 2.57E

- 09 6.40E

- 29 0.00012 6.22E

- 14 0.00085 0.00012 1.56E

- 07 2.22E

05 1.33E

- 09 3.0E

- 08 5.1E

- 13 5.3E

- 07 5.18E

- 11

21 4.96E

05 1.04E

- 09 2.59E

- 30 9.17E

- 05 1.45E

- 14 0.00072 4.89E

05 8.49E

- 08 1.45E

05 5.16E

- 10 1.4E

- 08 1.4E

- 13 3.2E

- 07 1.88E

- 11

22 3.32E

05 4.17E

- 10 1.05E

- 31 6.83E

- 05 3.37E

- 15 0.00060 3.45E

05 4.60E

- 08 9.47E

06 2.00E

- 10 6.3E

- 09 3.6E

- 14 1.9E

- 07 6.82E

- 12

23 2.22E

05 1.68E

- 10 4.25E

- 33 5.09E

- 05 7.83E

- 16 0.00051 2.43E

05 2.50E

- 08 6.18E

06 7.74E

- 11 2.9E

- 09 9.5E

- 15 1.2E

- 07 2.47E

- 12

24 1.49E

05 6.75E

- 11 1.72E

- 34 3.80E

- 05 1.82E

- 16 0.00043 1.71E

05 1.36E

- 08 4.03E

06 3.00E

- 11 1.3E

- 09 2.5E

- 15 7.2E

- 08 8.97E

- 13

25 9.96E

06 2.72E

- 11 6.97E

- 36 2.83E

- 05 4.24E

- 17 0.00036 1.21E

05 7.35E

- 09 2.63E

06 1.16E

- 11 6.1E

- 10 6.7E

- 16 4.4E

- 08 3.25E

- 13

26 6.67E

06 1.09E

- 11 2.82E

- 37 2.11E

- 05 9.87E

- 18 0.00031 8.50E

06 3.99E

- 09 1.72E

06 4.50E

- 12 2.8E

- 10 1.8E

- 16 2.7E

- 08 1.18E

- 13

27 4.46E

06 4.40E

- 12 1.14E

- 38 1.57E

- 05 2.30E

- 18 0.00026 5.99E

06 2.17E

- 09 1.12E

06 1.74E

- 12 1.3E

- 10 4.8E

- 17 1.6E

- 08 4.28E

- 14

28 2.99E

06 1.77E

- 12 4.63E

- 40 1.17E

- 05 5.34E

- 19 0.00022 4.22E

06 1.17E

- 09 7.33E

07 6.74E

- 13 5.9E

- 11 1.3E

- 17 9.8E

- 09 1.55E

- 14

29 2.00E

06 7.13E

- 13 1.87E

- 41 8.74E

- 06 1.24E

- 19 0.00018 2.97E

06 6.37E

- 10 4.78E

07 2.61E

- 13 2.7E

- 11 3.4E

- 18 6.0E

- 09 5.64E

- 15

30 1.34E

06 2.87E

- 13 7.58E

- 43 6.52E

- 06 2.89E

- 20 0.00015 2.09E

06 3.46E

- 10 3.12E

07 1.01E

- 13 1.2E

- 11 8.9E

- 19 3.6E

- 09 2.05E

- 15

r 2 0.82 0.69 0.87 0.65 0.767 0.539 0.74 0.36 0.83 0.69 0.83 0.82 0.440 0.645

slope

- 0.40

- 0.91

- 3.21

- 0.29

- 1.458

- 0.170

- 0.35

- 0.61

- 0.43

- 0.95

- 0.78

- 1.33

- 0.498

- 1.014

half

- life (days) 1.73 0.76 0.22 2.36 0.475 4.073 1.97 1.13 1.62 0.73 0.89 0.52 1.392 0.684



### Notes:

1. For the risk analysis, the predicted value shown was replaced with the actual value in parentheses (from Table 1) when the actual DFR data from either after the first or second application was higher than the predicted DFR data.

2. Application rates were 1.0 lb ai/A for Lorsban 4E and Lock

- On (total of 2 lb ai/A) and 0.5 lb ia/A for Lorsban 15G (total of 1 lb ai/A).



## MRID 44829601 (T urf)

## Page 191 of 227

This DFR study (MRID 44829601) e xamined the residues of chlorpyrifos on turf after application of Dursban Pro ( an emulsifiable concentrate), Dursban 50W (wettable powder), Dursban 2.5G (granular) and Dursban 1F (flowable granular) . Three test sites were established in California, Indiana, and Mississippi, with one test plot for each test substance. Single applications of the test products were made to the treatment plots using tractor mounted boom sprayers for the liquid applications and either a tractor mounted air spreader or tractor mounted spreader for the granular appli cations. The liquid applications were made at a nominal application ate of 4 lb ai/A and the granular applications were made at a nominal application rate of 2 lb ai/A. Actual application rates, determined by analyzing filter paper anchored to the test

p lots for liquid applications and placing plastic pans in the test plots for granular applications, ranged from 95% to 100% for the Dursban Pro application, 97% to 102% for the Dursban 50W application, 91% to 95% for the Dursban 2.5G application and 77% to 86% for the Dursban 1F application. Duplicate samples were collected using the California roller technique at the following intervals: one day prior to the application, just after the application (

- 2.5 hours after application), and days 1, 2, 4, and 7 afte r application. Samples were analyzed for residues of chlorpyrifos. The overall average concurrent recovery was 98%±3%. The LOD and LOQ were reported as 0.001 μg/cm 2 

## and 0.003 μg/cm 2 

## respectively. The field study samples did not require

correction for field fortification recovery. Average field fortification recoveries (corrected for concurrent recovery), at each of three fortification levels were greater than 90% at all sites.

Actual average DFR values (corrected for concurrent recovery) are provided in Table I. 9 and predicted values calculated from the regressions are provided in Table I. 10

. Regression analysis could not be conducted for the trials with Dursban 2.5G because all residues were <LOQ and with Dursban 1F trials in Indiana and Mississippi bec ause there were not enough data points above the LOQ.

Table I.9 . Summary of Actual Average DFR Values on Turf After One Broadcast Foliar Application of Chlorpyrifos

Sampling

Interval (Days) Actual Average DFR ( μg/cm 2 )

Dursban Pro (Emulsifiable Concentrate) Dursban 50W (Wettable Powder) Dursban 2.5G ( G ranular) Dursban 1F ( G ranular)

CA IN MS CA IN MS CA IN MS CA IN MS

After 1 st (Only) Application

0 0.124 0.09 0.146 0.234 0.657 0.351 <LOQ <LOQ <LOQ 0.052 <LOQ <LOQ

1 0.039 0.011 0.009 0.027 0.155 0.032 <LOQ <LOQ <LOQ 0.02 <LOQ <LOQ

2 0.01 0.005 <LOQ 0.012 0.039 0.006 <LOQ <LOQ <LOQ 0.011 0.003 0.01

4 0.004 <LOQ <LOQ <LOQ 0.005 <LOQ <LOQ <LOQ <LOQ 0.004 0.003 <LOQ

7 <LOQ <LOQ <LOQ <LOQ <LOQ <LOQ <LOQ <LOQ <LOQ <LOQ <LOQ <LOQ



### Notes:

1. LOQ = 0.003 μg/cm 2



### 2. Residues were corrected for concurrent recoveries.

3. Application rates were a nominal 4 lb ai/A for liquid applications (Dursban Pro and Dursban 50W ) and 2.0 lb ai/A for granular applications (Dursban 2.5G and Dursban 1F).

## Page 192 of 227

Table I.10 . Summary of Predicted DFR Values on Turf After One Broadcast Foliar Applications of Chlorpyrifos

Time (Days) Predicted DFR ( μg/cm 2 )

Dursban Pro (Emulsifiable Concentrate) Dursban 50W (Wettable Powder) Dursban 1 F ( G ranular)

CA IN MS CA IN MS CA

0 0.0934

(0.124) 0.071

(0.0895) 0.145 0.170 (0.234) 0.566

(0.657) 0.312

(0.351) 0.0432

(0.052)

1 0.0397 0.0167 0.00894 0.0385 0.164 0.0386 0.0212

2 0.0169 0.00395 5.50E

- 04 0.00871 0.0474 0.00478 0.0104

3 0.00718 9.33E

- 04 3.38E

- 05 0.0020 0.0137 5.92E

- 04 0.00511

4 0.00306 2.21E

- 04 2.08E

- 06 4.46E

- 04 0.0040 7.32E

- 05 0.00251

5 0.00130 5.22E

- 05 1.28E

- 07 1.01E

- 04 0.0011 9.06E

- 06 0.00123

6 5.52E

- 04 1.23E

- 05 7.86E

- 09 2.29E

- 05 3.32E

- 04 1.12E

- 06 6.04E

- 04

7 2.35E

- 04 2.92E

- 06 4.83E

- 10 5.17E

- 06 9.60E

- 05 1.39E

- 07 2.97E

- 04

8 9.99E

- 05 6.90E

- 07 2.97E

- 11 1.17E

- 06 2.78E

- 05 1.72E

- 08 1.46E

- 04

9 4.25E

- 05 1.63E

- 07 1.83E

- 12 2.65E

- 07 8.04E

- 06 2.13E

- 09 7.15E

- 05

10 1.81E

- 05 3.86E

- 08 1.12E

- 13 6.00E

- 08 2.33E

- 06 2.63E

- 10 3.51E

- 05

11 7.68E

- 06 9.12E

- 09 6.91E

- 15 1.36E

- 08 6.73E

- 07 3.26E

- 11 1.72E

- 05

12 3.27E

- 06 2.16E

- 09 4.25E

- 16 3.07E

- 09 1.95E

- 07 4.03E

- 12 8.45E

- 06

13 1.39E

- 06 5.10E

- 10 2.61E

- 17 6.95E

- 10 5.63E

- 08 4.99E

- 13 4.15E

- 06

14 5.91E

- 07 1.21E

- 10 1.61E

- 18 1.57E

- 10 1.63E

- 08 6.18E

- 14 2.04E

- 06

15 2.51E

- 07 2.85E

- 11 9.88E

- 20 3.56E

- 11 4.72E

- 09 7.65E

- 15 1.00E

- 06

16 1.07E

- 07 6.74E

- 12 6.08E

- 21 8.06E

- 12 1.36E

- 09 9.46E

- 16 4.91E

- 07

17 4.54E

- 08 1.59E

- 12 3.74E

- 22 1.82E

- 12 3.95E

- 10 1.17E

- 16 2.41E

- 07

18 1.93E

- 08 3.77E

- 13 2.3E

- 23 4.13E

- 13 1.14E

- 10 1.45E

- 17 1.18E

- 07

19 8.22E

- 09 8.91E

- 14 1.41E

- 24 9.35E

- 14 3.30E

- 11 1.79E

- 18 5.80E

- 08

20 3.49E

- 09 2.11E

- 14 8.69E

- 26 2.12E

- 14 9.56E

- 12 2.22E

- 19 2.85E

- 08

21 1.49E

- 09 4.98E

- 15 5.34E

- 27 4.79E

- 15 2.77E

- 12 2.75E

- 20 1.40E

- 08

22 6.32E

- 10 1.18E

- 15 3.28E

- 28 1.08E

- 15 8.00E

- 13 3.40E

- 21 6.86E

- 09

23 2.69E

- 10 2.78E

- 16 2.02E

- 29 2.45E

- 16 2.32E

- 13 4.21E

- 22 3.37E

- 09

24 1.14E

- 10 6.58E

- 17 1.24E

- 30 5.55E

- 17 6.70E

- 14 5.21E

- 23 1.65E

- 09

25 4.86E

- 11 1.56E

- 17 7.64E

- 32 1.26E

- 17 1.94E

- 14 6.45E

- 24 8.12E

- 10

26 2.07E

- 11 3.68E

- 18 4.7E

- 33 2.84E

- 18 5.61E

- 15 7.98E

- 25 3.98E

- 10

27 8.79E

- 12 8.70E

- 19 2.89E

- 34 6.44E

- 19 1.62E

- 15 9.88E

- 26 1.96E

- 10

28 3.74E

- 12 2.06E

- 19 1.78E

- 35 1.46E

- 19 4.70E

- 16 1.22E

- 26 9.60E

- 11

29 1.59E

- 12 4.87E

- 20 1.09E

- 36 3.30E

- 20 1.36E

- 16 1.51E

- 27 4.71E

- 11

30 6.76E

- 13 1.15E

- 20 6.71E

- 38 7.46E

- 21 3.93E

- 17 1.87E

- 28 2.31E

- 11

r2 0.94 0.92 1.00 0.851 0.99 0.98 0.84

slope

- 0.86

- 1.44

- 2.79

- 1.486

- 1.24

- 2.09

- 0.712

half

- life (days) 0.81 0.48 0.25 0.467 0.56 0.33 0.97



### Notes:

## Page 193 of 227

1. For the risk analysis, the predicted value shown was replaced with the actual value in parentheses (from Table 1) when the actual DFR data from either after the first or second application was higher than the predicted DFR data.

2. Application rates were a nominal 4 lb ai/A for liquid applications (Dursban Pro and Dursban 50W ) and 2.0 lb ai/A for granular applications (Dursban 2.5G and Dursban 1F).



## MRID 46722701 (Greenhouse Ornamental

- Total Release Aerosol )

This DFR study (MRID 46722701 ) e xamined the residues of chlorpyrifos on smooth leaf and hairy leaf ornamentals in greenhouses located in Columbia, Missouri after three applications of Duraplex TRTM, a total release aerosol product containing 8.0% chlorpyrifos and 1.6% cyfluthrin. The applications were made at a rate of 2.0 oz formulated product per 1,500 ft 2 

## (0.008 lb ai/1,000 ft 2 

## ), using 7 ± 1

- day intervals. The applications were made according to label recommendations by placing a single aerosol canister in the greenhouse and releasing the entire contents at each application . Treated and control leaf punch samples were collected the afternoon of the day prior to each application, four hours after each application, one day after application numbers 1 and 2, eight hours after the last (third) application, and on days 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 10, 14, 21, 28, and 35 days after the last (third) application

. Concurrent laboratory recoveries of smooth leaf samples ranged from 93.3% to 153% with an overall mean recovery of 116% ± 20.4%. Fortification recoveries for hairy leaf samples ranged from 93.9% to 151% with an overall mean recovery of 103% ± 13.5%. The overall mean field fortification recoveries for the smooth leaf and hairy leaf ornamentals were 96% and 87%, respectively. Only the raw residue values for hairy leaf ornamentals require d correction for an overall field fortification recovery

<90%.

Actual average DFR values are provided in Table I.1 1 and predicted values calculated from the regressions are provided in Table I. 12 for hairy ornamentals

. For both plant types, dislodgeabl e foliar residues increased initially (to a maximum on 2 days after the last application for the smooth leaf ornamentals and 8 hours after the last application for the hairy leaf ornamentals) and then declined to a relatively steady state until the end of the monitoring period. The average residues on the hairy leaf ornamentals, however, showed a slight increase at the end of the monitoring period. The residues for both plants were very similar, with the hairy ornamental exhibiting slightly higher DFR val ues. Therefore, only the hairy ornamental DFR data was using for risk assessment purposes.

Table I.11 . Summary of Actual DFR Values on Ornamentals (Hairy) After Three Applications of Chlorpyrifos

Sampling Interval (Days) Actual Average DFR ( μg/cm 2 

### )

Hairy Ornamental

After 1 st 

### application

0.167 0.379

1 0.177

7 0.019

After 2 nd 

### application

0.167 0.436

1 0.084

7 0.015

## Page 194 of 227

Table I.11 . Summary of Actual DFR Values on Ornamentals (Hairy) After Three Applications of Chlorpyrifos

Sampling Interval (Days) Actual Average DFR ( μg/cm 2 

### )

Hairy Ornamental

After 3rd (last) application

0.167 0.363

0.333 0.346

1 0.178

2 0.0399

3 0.0217

5 0.0172

7 0.0105

10 0.00685

14 0.00607

21 0.00396

28 0.00302

35 0.00257

Notes:

1. MQL = 0.002 μg/cm 2



### 2. Residues were corrected for concurrent recoveries.

3. Application rate was a nominal 0.008 lb ai/1000 ft 2



## Table I.12 . Summary of Predicted DFR Values on Ornamentals (Hairy) After Three Applications of Chlorpyrifos

Time (Days) Predicted DFR (μg/cm 2 

## )
Duraplex TRTM (Total Release Aerosol)

0 0.0720 (0.436)

1 0.0634 (0.178)

2 0.05594

3 0.04932

4 0.04349

5 0.03835

6 0.03381

7 0.02981

8 0.02628

9 0.02318

10 0.02043

11 0.01802

12 0.01589

13 0.01401

14 0.01235

15 0.01089

16 0.00960

## Page 195 of 227

Table I.12 . Summary of Predicted DFR Values on Ornamentals (Hairy) After Three Applications of Chlorpyrifos

Time (Days) Predicted DFR (μg/cm 2 

## )
Duraplex TRTM (Total Release Aerosol)

17 0.00847

18 0.00746

19 0.00658

20 0.00580

21 0.00512

22 0.00451

23 0.00398

24 0.00351

25 0.00309

26 0.00273

27 0.00240

28 0.00212

29 0.00187

30 0.00165

r 2 

## 0.649
slope

- 0.127

half

- life (days) 5.47

Notes:

1. For the risk analysis, the predicted value shown was replaced with the actual value in parentheses (from Table 1) when the actual DFR data from either after the first or second application was higher than the predicted DFR data.

2. Application rate was a nominal 0.008 lb ai/1000 ft 2



## MRID 46722702 (Greenhouse Ornamental

- Microencapsulated )

This DFR study (MRID 46722702 ) e xamined the residues of chlorpyrifos on smo oth leaf (Philodendron) and hairy leaf ( African Violet) ornamentals in greenhouses located in Columbia, Missouri after three applications of DuraGuard METM insecticide, a microencapsulated formulation containing 20% (w/w) c hlorpyrifos as the active ingredient . The applications were

made at a rate of 0.5 oz. of DuraGuard METM per gallon of water at a rate of 100 gallons per acre (0.626 lbs ai per acre) , using 14 ± 1

- day intervals. The applications were made using a portable gasoline pow ered sprayer at a height of approximately 24 inches above the canopy

. Leaf disk samples were collected from the untreated control ornamentals and the treated ornamentals on the following schedule: immediately before each application, immediately after the spray had dried following each application, one day after application number 1 and 2, and on 0.17 (4 hours), 0.33 (8 hours), 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 10, 14, 21, 28, and 35 days after the third application. For smooth leaf ornamentals, laboratory recoveries ranged from 73 to 134% with an overall mean recovery of 97 ± 19%. For hairy leaf ornamentals, laboratory recoveries ranged from 77 to 113% with an overall mean recovery of 92 ± 11%. The initial set of field fortification samples resulted in poor recoveries (< 70%) due to problems associated with the fortification technique.

## Page 196 of 227

Subsequently, control samples were fortified again and analyzed after 15 and 190 days to assess storage stability. Since only two samples at one concentration were analyzed, it is uncertain if the recoveries obtained from the samples are representative of the field and storage conditions; therefore, the field data were not corrected for the recovery results.

Actual average DFR values are provided in Table I. 13. Chlorpyrifos persisted on bo th smooth and hairy leaf ornamentals with no rapid decline prior to the completion of the monitoring period 35 days following the third application. A regression analysis was not performed because the

data did not follow an exponential decay model.

Tabl e I.13 . Summary of Actual DFR Values on Ornamentals ( Smooth and Hairy) After Three Applications of Chlorpyrifos

Sampling Interval (Days) Actual Average DFR ( μg/cm 2 

### )

Microencapsulated

Smooth Hairy

After 1 st 

### Application

0 0.201 0.382

1 0.898 0.350

14 (pre

- application 2) 0.795 1.085

After 2 nd 

### Application

0 0.828 0.446

1 0.862 0.732

14 (pre

- application 3) 0.921 0.485

After 3rd (last) application

0 0.609 0.409

0.17 0.818 1.22

0.33 0.514 1.37

1 1.52 0.430

2 2.07 0.424

3 0.234 0.364

5 0.211 0.228

7 0.395 0.394

10 0.345 0.239

14 0.343 0.663

21 0.407 0.648

28 0.249 0.461

35 0.248 0.769

Notes:

1. MQL = 0.00476 μg/cm 2



## 2. Application rate was a nominal 0.626 lbs ai per acre

## Page 197 of 227

Appendix J : Summary of Occupational Po st

- Application Risks

### Table J.1 : Spray Applications

- Summary of Steady State Post

- application Risk Assessment for Chlorpyrifos Using

Chlorpyrifos

- Specific DFR Data (Dermal LOC = 100)

Crop Group a Use Site App Rates (lbs. ai/ acre) b Low Medium High

Transfer Coefficient (cm 2 /hr) (and Activity) Estimated Risks

(LOC=100 ) Transfer Coefficient

(cm 2 /hr) (and Activity) Estimated Risks

(LOC=100 ) Transfer Coefficient

(cm 2 /hr) (and Activity) Estimated Risks

(LOC=100 )

DAT c MOE at Day 0 DAT c MOE at Day 0 DAT c MOE at Day 0

BERRY: LOW

DFR: MRID

42974501 (cauliflower WP) Strawberry 1.0 (LC, WDG in WSP) 70

(Canopy Management, Hand Weeding) 0 620 210

- 230 (Scouting, Transplanting) 0 190 1

, 100 (Hand Harvesting) 4 40

Cranberries 1.5 (LC, WDG in

WSP) 70

(Hand Weeding, Hand Pruning (Shears)) 0 410 230 (Transplanting) 0 130 1

, 100 (Hand Harvesting, Scouting) 5 26

FIELD & ROW

CROPS: LOW to

MEDIUM

DFR: MRID

44748102 (sugar beet EC)

Location: OR Clover (grown for

seed) 1.9 (LC) N/A N/A N/A 1

, 100 ( Irrigation, Scouting) 1 20

N/A N/A N/A

FIELD & ROW

CROPS: LOW to

MEDIUM

DFR: MRID

44748102 (sugar beet EC)

Location: MN 1 7

## Page 199 of 227

Table J.1 : Spray Applications

- Summary of Steady State Post

- application Risk Assessment for Chlorpyrifos Using Chlorpyrifos

- Specific DFR Data (Dermal LOC = 100)

Crop Group a Use Site App Rates (lbs. ai/ acre) b Low Medium High

Transfer Coefficient (cm 2 /hr) (and Activity) Estimated Risks

(LOC=100 ) Transfer Coefficient

(cm 2 /hr) (and Activity) Estimated Risks

(LOC=100 ) Transfer Coefficient

(cm 2 /hr) (and Activity) Estimated Risks

(LOC=100 )

DAT c MOE at Day 0 DAT c MOE at Day 0 DAT c MOE at Day 0

FIELD & ROW

CROPS: LOW to

MEDIUM

DFR: MRID 44748102 (sugar beet EC)

Location: OR Perennial Grass Seed

Crops 1.0 (LC) 70 (Hand Weeding and Thinning) 0 580

1

, 100 (Scouting) 1 37

N/A NA NA

FIELD & ROW

CROPS: LOW to

MEDIUM

DFR: MRID 44748102 (sugar beet EC)

Location: MN 0 190 1 12

FIELD & ROW

CROPS: LOW to

MEDIUM ( Nongrass Animal Feeds)

DFR: MRID

44748102 (cotton EC)

Location: TX Alfalfa 1.0 (LC, WDG in WSP) N/A N/A N/A 1

, 100 (Scouting) 1 12

N/A NA NA

1

, 900 (Irrigation) 1 7

FIELD & ROW

CROPS: LOW to

MEDIUM (Fiber) Cotton 1.0 (LC, WDG in WSP) 70

(Hand Weeding) 0 400 Mechanical harvesting (t ramper ) activies are not anticipated to result in significant chlorpyrifos exposures due to the 14 day pre

- harvest interval (PHI).

## Page 200 of 227

Table J.1 : Spray Applications

- Summary of Steady State Post

- application Risk Assessment for Chlorpyrifos Using Chlorpyrifos

- Specific DFR Data (Dermal LOC = 100)

Crop Group a Use Site App Rates (lbs. ai/ acre) b Low Medium High

Transfer Coefficient (cm 2 /hr) (and Activity) Estimated Risks

(LOC=100 ) Transfer Coefficient

(cm 2 /hr) (and Activity) Estimated Risks

(LOC=100 ) Transfer Coefficient

(cm 2 /hr) (and Activity) Estimated Risks

(LOC=100 )

DAT c MOE at Day 0 DAT c MOE at Day 0 DAT c MOE at Day 0

DFR: MRID

44748102 (cotton

EC )

Location: CA 210 (Scouting) 0 130

FIELD & ROW

CROPS: LOW to

MEDIUM (Fiber)

DFR: MRID

44748102 (cotton EC)

Location: TX 70 (Hand Weeding) 0 190

210 (Scouting) 1 63

FIELD & ROW

CROPS: LOW to

MEDIUM (Fiber)

DFR: MRID

44748102 (cotton EC)

Location: MS 70 (Hand Weeding) 0 150

210 (Scouting) 1 51

FIELD & ROW

CROPS: LOW to

MEDIUM

DFR: MRID

44748102 (sugar beet EC)

Location: OR Peppermint,

Spearmint 2 .0 (LC, WDG in

WSP) 70

(Hand Weeding) 0 290 1

, 100 (Scouting) 1 19

N/A N/A N/A 1

, 900 (Irrigation) 1 11

FIELD & ROW

CROPS: LOW to 70 (Hand Weeding) 1 96 1

, 100 (Scouting) 1 6

## Page 201 of 227

Table J.1 : Spray Applications

- Summary of Steady State Post

- application Risk Assessment for Chlorpyrifos Using Chlorpyrifos

- Specific DFR Data (Dermal LOC = 100)

Crop Group a Use Site App Rates (lbs. ai/ acre) b Low Medium High

Transfer Coefficient (cm 2 /hr) (and Activity) Estimated Risks

(LOC=100 ) Transfer Coefficient

(cm 2 /hr) (and Activity) Estimated Risks

(LOC=100 ) Transfer Coefficient

(cm 2 /hr) (and Activity) Estimated Risks

(LOC=100 )

DAT c MOE at Day 0 DAT c MOE at Day 0 DAT c MOE at Day 0

MEDIUM

DFR: MRID

44748102 (sugar beet EC)

Location: MN 1

, 900 (Irrigation) 1 4

FIELD & ROW

CROPS: LOW to

MEDIUM

DFR: MRID

44748102 (sugar beet EC)

Location: CA Wheat 1.0 (LC) 70 (Hand Weeding) 0 510 1

, 100 (Scouting) 1 33

N/A N/A N/A FIELD & ROW

CROPS: LOW to

MEDIUM

DFR: MRID

44748102 (sugar beet EC)

Location: MN 70 (Hand Weeding) 0 190 1

, 100 (Scouting) 1 12

FIELD & ROW

CROPS: LOW to

MEDIUM (Legume Vegetable)

DFR: MRID

44748102 (cotton EC)

Location: MS Soybean 1.0 ( LC, WDG in

WSP ) 70

(Hand Weeding) 0 150 1

, 100 (Scouting) 1 10 N/A N/A N/A

## Page 202 of 227

Table J.1 : Spray Applications

- Summary of Steady State Post

- application Risk Assessment for Chlorpyrifos Using Chlorpyrifos

- Specific DFR Data (Dermal LOC = 100)

Crop Group a Use Site App Rates (lbs. ai/ acre) b Low Medium High

Transfer Coefficient (cm 2 /hr) (and Activity) Estimated Risks

(LOC=100 ) Transfer Coefficient

(cm 2 /hr) (and Activity) Estimated Risks

(LOC=100 ) Transfer Coefficient

(cm 2 /hr) (and Activity) Estimated Risks

(LOC=100 )

DAT c MOE at Day 0 DAT c MOE at Day 0 DAT c MOE at Day 0

FIELD & ROW

CROPS: LOW to

MEDIUM

DFR: MRID

44748102 (sugar beet EC)

Location: CA

Sugar beet 1.0 (LC, WDG in

WSP ) 70

(Hand Weeding) 0 510

1

, 100 ( Hand Harvest ) 1 33

N/A N/A N/A 210 (Scouting) 0 170

FIELD & ROW

CROPS: LOW to

MEDIUM

DFR: MRID

44748102 (sugar beet EC)

Location: OR 70 (Hand Weeding) 0 580

1

, 100 ( Hand Harvest ) 1 37

210 (Scouting) 1 190

FIELD & ROW

CROPS: LOW to

MEDIUM

DFR: MRID

44748102 (sugar beet EC)

Location: MN 70 (Hand Weeding) 0 190

1

, 100 ( Hand Harvest ) 1 12

210 (Scouting) 1 64

FIELD & ROW

CROPS: TALL Corn: Sweet, Field,

including Grown for

Seed 1.5 (LC) 70 (Hand Weeding) 0 100 1,1 00 ( Scouting ) 1 6 8,800 (Detasseling, Hand Harvesting) 3 1

## Page 203 of 227

Table J.1 : Spray Applications

- Summary of Steady State Post

- application Risk Assessment for Chlorpyrifos Using Chlorpyrifos

- Specific DFR Data (Dermal LOC = 100)

Crop Group a Use Site App Rates (lbs. ai/ acre) b Low Medium High

Transfer Coefficient (cm 2 /hr) (and Activity) Estimated Risks

(LOC=100 ) Transfer Coefficient

(cm 2 /hr) (and Activity) Estimated Risks

(LOC=100 ) Transfer Coefficient

(cm 2 /hr) (and Activity) Estimated Risks

(LOC=100 )

DAT c MOE at Day 0 DAT c MOE at Day 0 DAT c MOE at Day 0

DFR: MRID 44748102 (sweet corn EC)

Location: IL 1,900 (Irrigation) 1 4

FIELD & ROW

CROPS: TALL

DFR: MRID

44748102 (sweet corn EC)

Location: MN 70 (Hand Weeding) 0 120 1,1 00 ( Scouting ) 1 8 8,800 (Detasseling, Hand Harvesting) 3 1

1,900 (Irrigation) 1 5

FIELD & ROW

CROPS: TALL

DFR: MRID

44748102 (sweet corn EC)

Location: OR 70 (Hand Weeding) 0 170 1,1 00 ( Scouting ) 1 11 8,800 (Detasseling, Hand Harvesting) 2 1

1,900 (Irrigation) 1 6

FIELD & ROW

CROPS: TALL

DFR: MRID

44748102 (sweet corn EC)

Location: IL Corn: Sweet, Field,

including Grown for

Seed 1.0 ( WDG in

WSP ) 70

(Hand Weeding) 0 150 1,1 00 ( Scouting ) 1 10 8,800 ( Detasseling, Hand Harvesting) 2 1

1,900 (Irrigation) 1 6

FIELD & ROW

CROPS: TALL 70 (Hand Weeding) 0 190 1,1 00 ( Scouting ) 1 12 8,800 (Detasseling, Hand Harvesting) 2 2

## Page 204 of 227

Table J.1 : Spray Applications

- Summary of Steady State Post

- application Risk Assessment for Chlorpyrifos Using Chlorpyrifos

- Specific DFR Data (Dermal LOC = 100)

Crop Group a Use Site App Rates (lbs. ai/ acre) b Low Medium High

Transfer Coefficient (cm 2 /hr) (and Activity) Estimated Risks

(LOC=100 ) Transfer Coefficient

(cm 2 /hr) (and Activity) Estimated Risks

(LOC=100 ) Transfer Coefficient

(cm 2 /hr) (and Activity) Estimated Risks

(LOC=100 )

DAT c MOE at Day 0 DAT c MOE at Day 0 DAT c MOE at Day 0

DFR: MRID

44748102 (sweet corn EC)

Location: MN 1,900 (Irrigation) 1 7

FIELD & ROW

CROPS: TALL

DFR: MRID

44748102 (sweet corn EC)

Location: OR 70 (Hand Weeding) 0 260 1,1 00 ( Scouting ) 1 16 8,800 (Detasseling, Hand Harvesting) 2 2

1,900 (Irrigation) 1 10

FIELD & ROW

CROPS: TALL

DFR: MRID

44748102 (sweet corn EC)

Location: IL Sorghum 1.0 (LC, WDG in WSP) 70

(Hand Weeding) 0 150

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 210 (Scouting) 1 50

FIELD & ROW

CROPS: TALL

DFR: MRID

44748102 (sweet corn EC)

Location: MN 70 (Hand Weeding) 0 190

210 (Scouting) 1 62

FIELD & ROW

CROPS: TALL

DFR: MRID

44748102 (sweet corn EC)

Location: IL Sunflowers 1.5 (LC, WDG in WSP) 90

( Bird Control, Scouting) 1 33 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

## Page 205 of 227

Table J.1 : Spray Applications

- Summary of Steady State Post

- application Risk Assessment for Chlorpyrifos Using Chlorpyrifos

- Specific DFR Data (Dermal LOC = 100)

Crop Group a Use Site App Rates (lbs. ai/ acre) b Low Medium High

Transfer Coefficient (cm 2 /hr) (and Activity) Estimated Risks

(LOC=100 ) Transfer Coefficient

(cm 2 /hr) (and Activity) Estimated Risks

(LOC=100 ) Transfer Coefficient

(cm 2 /hr) (and Activity) Estimated Risks

(LOC=100 )

DAT c MOE at Day 0 DAT c MOE at Day 0 DAT c MOE at Day 0

FIELD & ROW

CROPS: TALL

DFR: MRID

44748102 (sweet corn EC)

Location: MN 90 ( Bird Control, Scouting) 1 42

TREE FRUIT:

DECIDUOUS (Pome Fruits)

DFR: MRID

44748101 (apple WP)

Location: CA

Cherries

(Sour) 4.0

(LC) 230

(Transplanting) 1 38

1,400 (Hand Harvesting 1 6 3,600 (Thinning Fruit) 5 2 580 (Hand Pruning, Scouting, Transplanting) 1 15

TREE FRUIT:

DECIDUOUS (Pome Fruits)

DFR: MRID

44748101 (apple WP)

Location: WA 230 (Transplanting) 2 19

1,400 (Hand Harvesting 4 3 3.600 (Thinning Fruit) 6 1 580 (Hand Pruning, Scouting, Transplanting) 3 8

TREE FRUIT:

DECIDUOUS (Pome Fruits)

DFR: MRID

44748101 (apple WP)

Location: NY 230 (Transplanting) 2 26

1,400 (Hand Harvesting 5 4 3,600 (Thinning Fruit) 6 2 580 (Hand Pruning, Scouting, Transplanting) 3 10

TREE FRUIT:

DECIDUOUS Nectarine, Peach

(dormant, delayed 3.0

(Nectarine, LC 230

(Transplanting) 1 51 No exposure anticipated during N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

## Page 206 of 227

Table J.1 : Spray Applications

- Summary of Steady State Post

- application Risk Assessment for Chlorpyrifos Using Chlorpyrifos

- Specific DFR Data (Dermal LOC = 100)

Crop Group a Use Site App Rates (lbs. ai/ acre) b Low Medium High

Transfer Coefficient (cm 2 /hr) (and Activity) Estimated Risks

(LOC=100 ) Transfer Coefficient

(cm 2 /hr) (and Activity) Estimated Risks

(LOC=100 ) Transfer Coefficient

(cm 2 /hr) (and Activity) Estimated Risks

(LOC=100 )

DAT c MOE at Day 0 DAT c MOE at Day 0 DAT c MOE at Day 0

(Pome Fruits)

DFR: MRID

44748101 (apple WP)

Location: CA dormant) and WDG in WSP; Peach, LC only) 580

(Hand Pruning, Scouting, Transplanting) 1 20 dormant period

TREE FRUIT:

DECIDUOUS (Pome Fruits)

DFR: MRID

44748101 (apple WP)

Location: WA 230 (Transplanting) 1 25

580 (Hand Pruning, Scouting, Transplanting) 2 10

TREE FRUIT:

DECIDUOUS (Pome Fruits)

DFR: MRID

44748101 (apple WP)

Location: NY 230 (Transplanting) 2 35

580 (Hand Pruning, Scouting, Transplanting) 3 14

TREE FRUIT:

DECIDUOUS (Pome Fruits)

DFR: MRID

44748101 (apple WP)

Location: CA Apples, Cherries,

Peaches, Pears, Plums, Prunes and

Nectarines (dormant, delayed dormant) 2.0 (LC, WDG in

WSP)

2.0 (WP in WSP, apples only) 230

(Transplanting) 1 76

No exposure anticipated during dormant period N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 580 (Hand Pruning, Scouting, Transplanting) 1 30

TREE FRUIT:

DECIDUOUS 230 (Transplanting) 1 38

## Page 207 of 227

Table J.1 : Spray Applications

- Summary of Steady State Post

- application Risk Assessment for Chlorpyrifos Using Chlorpyrifos

- Specific DFR Data (Dermal LOC = 100)

Crop Group a Use Site App Rates (lbs. ai/ acre) b Low Medium High

Transfer Coefficient (cm 2 /hr) (and Activity) Estimated Risks

(LOC=100 ) Transfer Coefficient

(cm 2 /hr) (and Activity) Estimated Risks

(LOC=100 ) Transfer Coefficient

(cm 2 /hr) (and Activity) Estimated Risks

(LOC=100 )

DAT c MOE at Day 0 DAT c MOE at Day 0 DAT c MOE at Day 0

(Pome Fruits)

DFR: MRID

44748101 (apple WP)

Location: WA 580 (Hand Pruning, Scouting, Transplanting) 2 15

TREE FRUIT:

DECIDUOUS (Pome Fruits)

DFR: MRID

44748101 (apple WP)

Location: NY 230 (Transplanting) 1 52

580 (Hand Pruning, Scouting, Transplanting) 2 21

TREE FRUIT:

EVERGREEN (Pine trees)

DFR: MRID 43062701 (citrus EC) Conifer s and

Christmas Trees in

Plantations 1.0 (Christmas

Tree, LC, WDG in WSP, WP in
WSP; Conifers, LC only) 580

(Scouting, Shaping) 0 200 1

, 400 (Harvesting) 1 84

NA NA NA

1

, 900 (Irrigation) 1 62

TREE FRUIT:

EVERGREEN (Pine trees)

TT R: MRID

44829601 (turf EC) NA NA NA NA NA NA 6,700 (Harvesting, Seedling Production) 0 130

TREE FRUIT:

EVERGREEN

DFR: MRID 43062701 (citrus EC) Citrus 6.0

- CA and AZ (LC, WDG in WSP, WP in

WSP ) 100

(Hand Weeding , Orchard

Maintenance ) 0 200 580 ( Scouting, Hand Pruning) 1 34

NA NA NA

230 (Transplanting) 1 86 1,400 (Hand Harvesting) 2 14

## Page 208 of 227

Table J.1 : Spray Applications

- Summary of Steady State Post

- application Risk Assessment for Chlorpyrifos Using Chlorpyrifos

- Specific DFR Data (Dermal LOC = 100)

Crop Group a Use Site App Rates (lbs. ai/ acre) b Low Medium High

Transfer Coefficient (cm 2 /hr) (and Activity) Estimated Risks

(LOC=100 ) Transfer Coefficient

(cm 2 /hr) (and Activity) Estimated Risks

(LOC=100 ) Transfer Coefficient

(cm 2 /hr) (and Activity) Estimated Risks

(LOC=100 )

DAT c MOE at Day 0 DAT c MOE at Day 0 DAT c MOE at Day 0

4.0 (LC, WDG in WSP) 100

(Irrigation, Hand Weeding ) 0 300 580 (Scouting, Hand Pruning) 1 51

NA NA NA

230 (Transplanting) 0 130 1,400 (Hand Harvesting) 2 21

Forestry

DFR: MRID

44748101 (apple WP)

Location: WA Hybrid Cottonwood/

Poplar Planations (dormant , delayed

dormant ) 1.9 (LC) 580 (Scouting) 2 16 1,900 (Irrigation (hand set)) 4 5

NA NA NA Forestry

DFR: MRID

44748101 (apple WP)

Location: NY 580 (Scouting) 2 22 1,900 (Irrigation (hand set)) 4 7

Forestry

DFR: MRID

44748101 (apple WP)

Location: CA D eciduous trees

(plantations ) 1.0 (LC) 100 (Hand Weeding) 0 350

NA NA NA N/A N/A N/A 580 (Scouting) 1 61

Forestry

DFR: MRID

44748101 (apple WP)

Location: WA 100 (Hand Weeding) 0 170

580 (Scouting) 1 30

## Page 209 of 227

Table J.1 : Spray Applications

- Summary of Steady State Post

- application Risk Assessment for Chlorpyrifos Using Chlorpyrifos

- Specific DFR Data (Dermal LOC = 100)

Crop Group a Use Site App Rates (lbs. ai/ acre) b Low Medium High

Transfer Coefficient (cm 2 /hr) (and Activity) Estimated Risks

(LOC=100 ) Transfer Coefficient

(cm 2 /hr) (and Activity) Estimated Risks

(LOC=100 ) Transfer Coefficient

(cm 2 /hr) (and Activity) Estimated Risks

(LOC=100 )

DAT c MOE at Day 0 DAT c MOE at Day 0 DAT c MOE at Day 0

Forestry

DFR: MRID

44748101 (apple WP)

Location: NY 100 (Hand Weeding) 0 240

580 (Scouting) 1 41

TREE NUTS

DFR: MRID

44748101 (almond WP)

Location: CA (Arid) Almonds 2.0 (WDG in WSP, WP in WSP) 100

( Orchard Maintenance, Poling ) 0 140

NA NA NA Mechanical Sweeping

Mechanical Windrowing1 NA NA 190 (Mec hanical harvesting

– shaking ) 1 74

230 (Transplanting) 1 61

580 (Scouting ) 2 24

TREE NUTS

DFR: MRID

44748101 (almond WP)

Location: CA (Arid) Almonds (dormant

and delayed dormant) 4 .0 (LC ) 100 ( Orchard Maintenance, Poling ) 1 71

N/A N/A N/A Pruning, Hand (dormant)2 NA NA 230 (Transplanting) 2 31

580 (Scouting ) 3 12

TREE NUTS

DFR: MRID

44748101 (pecan EC) Filberts, Pecans,

Walnuts 2.0 (Pecans,

Walnuts

- LC, WDG in WSP;

Filbert

- LC, WDG in WSP, and WP in WSP) 100

(Orchard Maintenance, Poling) 0 1,200

N/A N/A N/A Mechanical Sweeping

Mechanical Windrowing 1 NA NA 190 (Mechanical harvesting

– tree shaker) 0 630

## Page 210 of 227

Table J.1 : Spray Applications

- Summary of Steady State Post

- application Risk Assessment for Chlorpyrifos Using Chlorpyrifos

- Specific DFR Data (Dermal LOC = 100)

Crop Group a Use Site App Rates (lbs. ai/ acre) b Low Medium High

Transfer Coefficient (cm 2 /hr) (and Activity) Estimated Risks

(LOC=100 ) Transfer Coefficient

(cm 2 /hr) (and Activity) Estimated Risks

(LOC=100 ) Transfer Coefficient

(cm 2 /hr) (and Activity) Estimated Risks

(LOC=100 )

DAT c MOE at Day 0 DAT c MOE at Day 0 DAT c MOE at Day 0

Location: TX 230 (Transplanting) 0 520

580 ( Hand Pruning, Scouting ) 0 210

TREE NUTS

DFR: MRID

44748101 (pecan EC)

Location: LA 100 (Orchard Maintenance, Poling) 0 790

190 (Mechanical harvesting

– tree shaker) 0 410

230 (Transplanting) 0 340

580 ( Hand Pruning, Scouting ) 0 140

TREE NUTS

DFR: MRID

44748101 (pecan EC)

Location: GA 100 (Orchard Maintenance, Poling) 0 1,600

190 (Mechanical harvesting

– tree shaker) 0 850

230 (Transplanting) 0 710

580 ( Hand Pruning, Scouting ) 0 280

TREE NUTS

DFR: MRID

44748101 (pecan EC)

Location: TX Filberts, Walnuts

(dormant and delayed dormant) Walnuts:

2.0 (LC. WDG in

WSP )

Filberts: 2.0 (WP in WSP) 100

(Orchard Maintenance, Poling) 0 1,200

N/A N/A N/A Pruning, Hand (dormant) 2 NA NA 230 (Transplanting) 0 520

580 (Scouting) 0 210

## Page 211 of 227

Table J.1 : Spray Applications

- Summary of Steady State Post

- application Risk Assessment for Chlorpyrifos Using Chlorpyrifos

- Specific DFR Data (Dermal LOC = 100)

Crop Group a Use Site App Rates (lbs. ai/ acre) b Low Medium High

Transfer Coefficient (cm 2 /hr) (and Activity) Estimated Risks

(LOC=100 ) Transfer Coefficient

(cm 2 /hr) (and Activity) Estimated Risks

(LOC=100 ) Transfer Coefficient

(cm 2 /hr) (and Activity) Estimated Risks

(LOC=100 )

DAT c MOE at Day 0 DAT c MOE at Day 0 DAT c MOE at Day 0

TREE NUTS

DFR: MRID

44748101 (pecan EC)

Location: GA 100 (Orchard Maintenance, Poling) 0 1,600

N/A N/A N/A NA NA 230 (Transplanting) 0 710

580 (Scouting) 0 280

ORNAMENTAL

/ NURSERIES

DFR: MRID

44748101 (apple WP)

Location: CA

Deciduous Trees ;

Plantation, Nursery 1 .0 (LC) 230 (Container Moving, Hand Pruning, Tying/Training) 0 150

NA NA NA NA NA NA ORNAMENTAL

/ NURSERIES

DFR: MRID

44748101 (apple WP)

Location: WA 230 (Container Moving, Hand Pruning, Tying/Training) 1 76

ORNAMENTAL

/ NURSERIES

DFR: MRID

44748101 (apple WP)

Location: NY 230 (Container Moving, Hand Pruning, Tying/Training) 0 100

## Page 212 of 227

Table J.1 : Spray Applications

- Summary of Steady State Post

- application Risk Assessment for Chlorpyrifos Using Chlorpyrifos

- Specific DFR Data (Dermal LOC = 100)

Crop Group a Use Site App Rates (lbs. ai/ acre) b Low Medium High

Transfer Coefficient (cm 2 /hr) (and Activity) Estimated Risks

(LOC=100 ) Transfer Coefficient

(cm 2 /hr) (and Activity) Estimated Risks

(LOC=100 ) Transfer Coefficient

(cm 2 /hr) (and Activity) Estimated Risks

(LOC=100 )

DAT c MOE at Day 0 DAT c MOE at Day 0 DAT c MOE at Day 0

ORNAMENTAL

/ NURSERIES

DFR: MRID 43062701 (citrus EC) Nonbearing Fruits

and Nut Trees (almonds, citrus, filbert, cherry, pear, plum/prune) 4.0 (LC) 230 (Container Moving, Hand Pruning, Tying/Training) 0 130 NA NA NA N/A N/A N/A

ORNAMENTAL

/ NURSERIES

DFR: MRID

44748101 (apple WP)

Location: CA Nonbearing Fruit

Trees (peach & nectarine) 3.0 (LC) 230 (Container Moving, Hand Pruning, Tying/Training) 1 51

NA NA NA N/A N/A N/A ORNAMENTAL

/ NURSERIES

DFR: MRID

44748101 (apple WP)

Location: NY 230 (Container Moving, Hand Pruning, Tying/Training) 2 35

ORNAMENTAL

/ NURSERIES

DFR: MRID

44748101 (apple WP)

Location: CA Nonbearing Fruit

Trees (apple) 2.0

(EC) 230

(Container Moving, Hand Pruning, Tying/Training) 1 76

NA NA NA N/A N/A N/A

ORNAMENTAL

/ NURSERIES

DFR: MRID

44748101 (apple 230 (Container Moving, Hand Pruning, Tying/Training) 0 100

## Page 213 of 227

Table J.1 : Spray Applications

- Summary of Steady State Post

- application Risk Assessment for Chlorpyrifos Using Chlorpyrifos

- Specific DFR Data (Dermal LOC = 100)

Crop Group a Use Site App Rates (lbs. ai/ acre) b Low Medium High

Transfer Coefficient (cm 2 /hr) (and Activity) Estimated Risks

(LOC=100 ) Transfer Coefficient

(cm 2 /hr) (and Activity) Estimated Risks

(LOC=100 ) Transfer Coefficient

(cm 2 /hr) (and Activity) Estimated Risks

(LOC=100 )

DAT c MOE at Day 0 DAT c MOE at Day 0 DAT c MOE at Day 0

WP)

Location: NY

ORNAMENTAL

/ NURSERIES

DFR: MRID 43062701 (citrus EC) Conifer in Nurseries 1.0 (LC) 230 (Container Moving, Hand Pruning, Pinching, Tying/Training) 0 510 NA NA NA N/A N/A N/A

FIELD & ROW

CROPS: LOW to

MEDIUM

DFR: MRID 44748102 (sugar

beet EC)

Location: CA

Ornamentals

–

Nurseries and

Greenhouses 2 .0 (LC, WP in

WSP ) 230

(Container Moving, Hand Pruning, Pinching, Tying/Training) 1 78 1,900 (Irrigation) 2 10 4800 ( Hand Harvest Flowers) 5 4

FIELD & ROW

CROPS: LOW to

MEDIUM

DFR: MRID

44748102 (sugar beet EC)

Location: OR 230 (Container Moving, Hand Pruning, Pinching, Tying/Training) 1 89 1,900 (Irrigation) 1 11 4800 ( Hand Harvest Flowers) 2 4

FIELD & ROW

CROPS: LOW to

MEDIUM

DFR: MRID 44748102 (sugar beet EC)

Location: MN 230 (Container Moving, Hand Pruning, Pinching, Tying/Training) 1 29 1,900 (Irrigation) 1 4 4800 ( Hand Harvest Flowers) 3 1

VEGETABLE: Radish 1.0 70 0 510 1

, 100 1 33 N/A N/A N/A

## Page 214 of 227

Table J.1 : Spray Applications

- Summary of Steady State Post

- application Risk Assessment for Chlorpyrifos Using Chlorpyrifos

- Specific DFR Data (Dermal LOC = 100)

Crop Group a Use Site App Rates (lbs. ai/ acre) b Low Medium High

Transfer Coefficient (cm 2 /hr) (and Activity) Estimated Risks

(LOC=100 ) Transfer Coefficient

(cm 2 /hr) (and Activity) Estimated Risks

(LOC=100 ) Transfer Coefficient

(cm 2 /hr) (and Activity) Estimated Risks

(LOC=100 )

DAT c MOE at Day 0 DAT c MOE at Day 0 DAT c MOE at Day 0

ROOT &

TUBER

DFR: MRID 44748102 (sugar beet EC)

Location: CA (LC) (Hand Weeding) (Hand Harvesting)

210 (Scouting) 0 170 1

, 900 (Irrigation) 1 19

VEGETABLE:

ROOT &

TUBER

DFR: MRID 44748102 (sugar beet EC)

Location: MN 70 (Hand Weeding) 0 190 1

, 100 (Hand Harvesting) 1 12

210 (Scouting) 1 64 1

, 900 (Irrigation) 1 7

VEGETABLE:

ROOT &

TUBER

DFR: MRID 44748102 (sugar beet EC)

Location: CA Carrot 0.94 (LC) 70 (Hand Weeding) 0 550 1

, 100 (Hand Harvesting) 1 35

N/A N/A N/A 210 (Scouting) 0 180 1

, 900 (Irrigation) 1 20

VEGETABLE:

ROOT &

TUBER

DFR: MRID 44748102 (sugar beet EC)

Location: MN 70 (Hand Weeding) 0 210 1

, 100 (Hand Harvesting) 1 13

210 (Scouting) 1 68 1

, 900 (Irrigation) 1 8

## Page 215 of 227

Table J.1 : Spray Applications

- Summary of Steady State Post

- application Risk Assessment for Chlorpyrifos Using Chlorpyrifos

- Specific DFR Data (Dermal LOC = 100)

Crop Group a Use Site App Rates (lbs. ai/ acre) b Low Medium High

Transfer Coefficient (cm 2 /hr) (and Activity) Estimated Risks

(LOC=100 ) Transfer Coefficient

(cm 2 /hr) (and Activity) Estimated Risks

(LOC=100 ) Transfer Coefficient

(cm 2 /hr) (and Activity) Estimated Risks

(LOC=100 )

DAT c MOE at Day 0 DAT c MOE at Day 0 DAT c MOE at Day 0

VEGETABLE:

FRUITING

DFR: MRID

44748102 (cotton EC)

Location: CA

Pepper 1.0 ( WDG in

WSP ) 210

(Scouting) 0 130 1

, 100 (Hand Harvesting, Tying) 2 26

N/A N/A N/A

230 (Transplanting) 0 120 1

, 900 (Irrigation) 2 15

VEGETABLE:

FRUITING

DFR: MRID

44748102 (cotton EC)

Location: TX 210 (Scouting) 1 63 1

, 100 (Hand Harvesting, Tying) 1 12

N/A N/A N/A 230 (Transplanting) 1 57 1

, 900 (Irrigation) 1 7

VEGETABLE:

FRUITING

DFR: MRID

44748102 (cotton EC)

Location: MS 210 (Scouting) 0 51 1

, 100 (Hand Harvesting, Tying) 1 10

230 (Transplanting) 0 46 1

, 900 (Irrigation) 1 6

VEGETABLE:

HEAD AND

STEM

BRASSICA

DFR: MRID Cole Crops

(Broccoli, Brussel Sprouts, Cabbage, and Cauliflower) Broccoli :

1.0 (WP in WSP

, WDG in

WSP )

Brussel Sprouts: 230

(Transplanting

– Pruning ) 0 190 1

, 400 (Hand Weeding) 5 31 4

, 200 (Scouting, Hand Harvesting) 10 10

## Page 216 of 227

Table J.1 : Spray Applications

- Summary of Steady State Post

- application Risk Assessment for Chlorpyrifos Using Chlorpyrifos

- Specific DFR Data (Dermal LOC = 100)

Crop Group a Use Site App Rates (lbs. ai/ acre) b Low Medium High

Transfer Coefficient (cm 2 /hr) (and Activity) Estimated Risks

(LOC=100 ) Transfer Coefficient

(cm 2 /hr) (and Activity) Estimated Risks

(LOC=100 ) Transfer Coefficient

(cm 2 /hr) (and Activity) Estimated Risks

(LOC=100 )

DAT c MOE at Day 0 DAT c MOE at Day 0 DAT c MOE at Day 0

42974501 cauliflower WP)

Location: AZ 1.0 (LC)

Cabbage:

1.0 ( LC, WP in

WSP

, WDG

in WSP )

Cauliflower:

1.0 ( LC ) 1

, 900 (Irrigation) 6 23

VEGETABLE:

LEAFY

DFR: MRID

42974501 (cauliflower WP) Cole Crops

( Bok Choy, Collards, Kale, Kohlrabi ) 1.0 (LC, WP in

WSP, WDG in WSP) 210

( Scouting ) 0 210 1

, 100 (Hand Harvesting) 4 40

N/A N/A N/A

230 (Transplanting) 0 190 1

, 900 (Irrigation) 6 23

STALK &

STEM

VEGETABLE

DFR: MRID 44748102 (sugar beet EC) for

asparagus Asparagus 1.0 ( LC, W DG in

WSP ) 210

(Scouting) 0 170 1,100 (Hand Harvesting) 1 33

N/A N/A N/A

230 (Transplanting) 0 160 1

, 900 (Irrigation) 1 19

## Page 217 of 227

Table J.1 : Spray Applications

- Summary of Steady State Post

- application Risk Assessment for Chlorpyrifos Using Chlorpyrifos

- Specific DFR Data (Dermal LOC = 100)

Crop Group a Use Site App Rates (lbs. ai/ acre) b Low Medium High

Transfer Coefficient (cm 2 /hr) (and Activity) Estimated Risks

(LOC=100 ) Transfer Coefficient

(cm 2 /hr) (and Activity) Estimated Risks

(LOC=100 ) Transfer Coefficient

(cm 2 /hr) (and Activity) Estimated Risks

(LOC=100 )

DAT c MOE at Day 0 DAT c MOE at Day 0 DAT c MOE at Day 0

Location: CA

STALK &

STEM

VEGETABLE

DFR: MRID 44748102 (sugar beet EC) for

asparagus

Location: OR 210 (Scouting) 0 190 1,100 (Hand Harvesting) 1 37

230 (Transplanting) 0 180 1

, 900 (Irrigation) 1 22

STALK &

STEM

VEGETABLE

DFR: MRID 44748102 (sugar beet EC) for

asparagus

Location: MN 210 (Scouting) 1 64 1,100 (Hand Harvesting) 1 12

230 (Transplanting) 1 59 1

, 900 (Irrigation) 1 7

STALK &

STEM

VEGETABLE

DFR: MRID

44748102 (cotton EC MS) data for pineapple data Nonbearing

pineapple 2.0 (LC) 70 (Hand Weeding) 0 76

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

210 (Scouting) 1 25

VINE/ TRELLIS

DFR: MRID Grapes

(dormant and dormant delayed) 2.0 (LC) 640 (Hand Weeding, Scouting) 1 92 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

## Page 218 of 227

Table J.1 : Spray Applications

- Summary of Steady State Post

- application Risk Assessment for Chlorpyrifos Using Chlorpyrifos

- Specific DFR Data (Dermal LOC = 100)

Crop Group a Use Site App Rates (lbs. ai/ acre) b Low Medium High

Transfer Coefficient (cm 2 /hr) (and Activity) Estimated Risks

(LOC=100 ) Transfer Coefficient

(cm 2 /hr) (and Activity) Estimated Risks

(LOC=100 ) Transfer Coefficient

(cm 2 /hr) (and Activity) Estimated Risks

(LOC=100 )

DAT c MOE at Day 0 DAT c MOE at Day 0 DAT c MOE at Day 0

43062701 (citrus EC)

Because citrus is LC and apples

are WP Grapes (postharvest

& prior to budbreak)

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

TURF

DFR: MRID

448296

- 01 (turf EC and WP)

Location: CA

Turf for Golf Course 1.0 (LC) NA NA NA NA NA NA 2,500 (Maintenance

– Greens Only) 0 400

3,700 (Maintenance) 0 270

TURF

DFR: MRID

448296

- 01 (turf EC and WP)

Location: IN 2,500 (Maintenance

– Greens Only) 0 560

3,700 (Maintenance) 0 380

TURF

DFR: MRID

448296

- 01 (turf EC and WP)

Location: MS 2,500 (Maintenance

– Greens Only) 0 340

3,700 (Maintenance) 0 230

TURF

DFR: MRID

448296

- 01 (turf

EC and WP)

Location: CA Sod Farm (Turf) 3.76 (LC, WP in WSP) NA NA NA NA NA NA 6,700 ( Maintenace, Harvesting, Slab, Transplanting/ Planting) 1 40

TURF

DFR: MRID

448296

- 01 (turf EC and WP)

Location: IN 6,700 ( Maintenace, Harvesting, Slab, Transplanting/ Planting) 1 56

## Page 219 of 227

Table J.1 : Spray Applications

- Summary of Steady State Post

- application Risk Assessment for Chlorpyrifos Using Chlorpyrifos

- Specific DFR Data (Dermal LOC = 100)

Crop Group a Use Site App Rates (lbs. ai/ acre) b Low Medium High

Transfer Coefficient (cm 2 /hr) (and Activity) Estimated Risks

(LOC=100 ) Transfer Coefficient

(cm 2 /hr) (and Activity) Estimated Risks

(LOC=100 ) Transfer Coefficient

(cm 2 /hr) (and Activity) Estimated Risks

(LOC=100 )

DAT c MOE at Day 0 DAT c MOE at Day 0 DAT c MOE at Day 0

TURF

DFR: MRID

448296

- 01 (turf EC and WP)

Location: MS 6,700 ( Maintenace, Harvesting, Slab, Transplanting/ Planting) 1 34

### 1. Exposure during nut sweeping and windrowing results from contact with soil, for which transfer coefficients are

currently unavailable. Assessment options include requesting exposure data or a qualitative comparison with a post

application exposure scenari o assumed to result in higher exposure. Note that dislodgeable soil residue would be needed for an exposure assessment, as this would be the media contacted by worker’s performing this activity. A study monitoring such exposure is available (Exposure of Wo rkers During Reentry into Pecan Groves Treated with Super

- Tim 80WP, Griffin Corporation, 1994; EPA MRID 43557401), however has yet to be evaluated for

derivation of transfer coefficients. 2. Transfer coefficients for dormant pruning are unavailable. A ssessment options include requesting exposure data or a qualitative comparison with a post

application exposure scenario assumed to result in higher exposure. Note that dislodgeable branch or bark residue would be needed for an exposure assessment, as th is would be the surface contacted by workers performing this activity.

### Table J. 2: Granular

- Summary of Post

- application Risk Assessment for Chlorpyrifos Using Chlorpyrifos

- Specific DFR Data

Crop Groupa Use Site App Rates (lbs. ai/ acre)b Low Medium High

Transfer Coefficient (cm2/hr) (and Activity) Short

- an d

Intermediate

Term Risks (LOC=1 00) Transfer

Coefficient (cm2/hr) (and Activity) Short

- an d

Intermediate

Term Risks (LOC=1 00) Transfer

Coefficient (cm2/hr) (and Activity) Short

- an d

Intermediate

Term Risks (LOC=1 00)

DAT

c MOE at Day 0 DATc MOE at Day

0 DAT

c MOE at Day 0

FIELD & ROW

CROPS: LOW

to MEDIUM (Legume Vegetable)

DFR:

MRID

44748102 (sweet corn G)

Location: IL Soybean 1.0 70 (Hand Weeding) 0 5,200 1

, 100 (Scouting) 0 330 N/A N/A N/A

FIELD & ROW

CROPS: LOW

to MEDIUM

DFR: MRID

44748102 (sweet corn G)

Location: IL Sugar beet 2. 0 70 (Hand Weeding) 0 2

, 600

1100 (Hand Harvesting) 0 170

N/A N/A N/A 210 (Scouting) 0 870

FIELD & RO W

CROPS: LOW

to MEDIUM

DFR: MRID

44748102 (sweet corn G)

Location: OR 70 (Hand Weeding) 0 1,000

1100 (Hand Harvesting) 1 67 210 (Sc outing) 0 350

FIELD & ROW

CROPS: LOW

to MEDIUM

DFR: MRID

44748102 (sweet corn G)

Location: IL Peanuts 4.0 70 (Hand Weeding) 0 1,300

1900 (Irrigation) 1 48 N/A N/A N/A

210 (Scouting) 0 440

## Page 222 of 227

Table J. 2: Granular

- Summary of Post

- application Risk Assessment for Chlorpyrifos Using Chlorpyrifos

- Specific DFR Data

Crop Groupa Use Site App Rates (lbs. ai/ acre)b Low Medium High

Transfer Coefficient (cm2/hr) (and Activity) Short

- an d

Intermediate

Term Risks (LOC=1 00) Transfer

Coefficient (cm2/hr) (and Activity) Short

- an d

Intermediate

Term Risks (LOC=1 00) Transfer

Coefficient (cm2/hr) (and Activity) Short

- an d

Intermediate

Term Risks (LOC=1 00)

DAT

c MOE at Day 0 DATc MOE at Day

0 DAT

c MOE at Day 0

FIELD & ROW

CROPS: TALL

DFR: MRID

44748102 (sweet corn G)

Location: IL Corn, Sweet,

Field, and Grown

for Seed 2.0 70 (Hand Weeding) 0 2,600 1

, 100 (Scouting) 0 170 8,800 (Detasseling , Hand Harvesting) 1 21

1 ,9 00 (Irrigation) 1 97

FIELD &

ROW CROPS:

TALL

DFR: MRID

44748102 (sweet corn G)

Location: OR 70 (Hand Weeding) 0 1,000 1

, 100 (Scouting) 0 67

8,800 (Detasseling , Hand Harvesting 1 8 1900 (Irrigation) 1 39

NURSERY

DFR: MRID

44748102 (sweet corn G)

Location: IL Ornamental

Woody Shrubs

and Vines

- Preharvest 6.0

(Note: All

other

ornamental applications

are either 1.1 or 1.0) 230

(Container Moving) 0 270

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NURSERY

DFR: MRID

44748102 (sweet corn G)

Location: OR 230 (Container Moving) 0 110

## Page 223 of 227

Table J. 2: Granular

- Summary of Post

- application Risk Assessment for Chlorpyrifos Using Chlorpyrifos

- Specific DFR Data

Crop Groupa Use Site App Rates (lbs. ai/ acre)b Low Medium High

Transfer Coefficient (cm2/hr) (and Activity) Short

- an d

Intermediate

Term Risks (LOC=1 00) Transfer

Coefficient (cm2/hr) (and Activity) Short

- an d

Intermediate

Term Risks (LOC=1 00) Transfer

Coefficient (cm2/hr) (and Activity) Short

- an d

Intermediate

Term Risks (LOC=1 00)

DAT

c MOE at Day 0 DATc MOE at Day

0 DAT

c MOE at Day 0

TURF

DFR: MRID

448296

- 01 (turf G and fertilizer)

Location: CA Turf for Sod or

Seed 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 6,700 ( Maintenan

ce,
H arvesting Slab,

T ransplanti ng/

P lanting) 0 180

Golf Course. 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2,500 (Maintenan

ce

– Greens Only) 0 480

3,700 (Maintenan ce) 0 330

### Table J. 3: Microencapsulated

- Summary of Post

- application Risk Assessment for Chlorpyrifos Using Chlorpyrifos

- Specific DFR Data

Crop Group a Use Site App Rates (lbs. ai/ acre) b Low Medium High

Transfer

Coefficient (cm 2 /hr) (and Activity) Short

- an d

Intermediate

Term Risks (LOC=1 00) Transfer

Coefficient (cm 2 /hr) (and Activity) Short

- an d

Intermediate

Term Risks (LOC=1 00) Transfer

Coefficient (cm 2 /hr) (and Activity) Short

- an d

Intermediate

- Term Risks (LOC=1 00)

DAT

c MOE at Day 0 DAT c MOE at Day 0 DAT c MOE at Day 0

NURSERY

DFR: MRID

46722702 (smooth

ornamentals ME) Ornamentals

–

Nurseries and

Greenhouses 0.0070 lb ai/gal

1.4 lb ai/A 230

(Container Moving, Hand Pruning, Pinching 0 74 1,900 (Irrigation) > 35 9 4800 ( Hand Harvest

of Cut Flowers or Foliage) > 35 4

### Table J. 4: Fogger

- Summary of Postapplication Risk Assessment for Chlorpyrifos Using Chlorpyrifos

- Specific

Crop Group a Use Site App Rates (lbs. ai/ acre) b Low Medium High

Transfer

Coefficient (cm 2 /hr) (and Activity) Short

- and

Intermediate

Term Risks ( LOC=1 00) Transfer

Coefficient (cm 2 /hr) (and Activity) Short

- an d

Intermediate

Term Risks (LOC=1 00) Transfer

Coefficient (cm 2 /hr) (and Activity) Short

- an d

Intermediate

- Term Risks (LOC=1 00)

DAT

c MOE at Day 0 DAT c MOE at Day 0 DAT c MOE at Day 0

NURSERY

DFR: MRID

46722701 (hairy

ornamentals

aerosol) Ornamentals

-

Greenhouse 0. 29 230 (Container Moving, Hand Pruning, Pinching 0 370 1,900 (Irrigation) 1 45 4800 ( Hand Harvest

of Cut Flowers or Foliage) 2 18

### Table J.5 : All Formulations

- Summary of Post

- application Risk Assessment for Total Toxic Residue ( Chlorpyrifos + Chlorpyrifos Oxon)

Using Chlorpyrifos

- Specific DFR Data

Crop Group a Use Site App Rates (lbs.

ai/ acre) b Low Medium High

Transfer

Coefficient (cm 2 /hr) (and Activity) Short

- an d

Intermediate

Term Risks (LOC=1 00) Transfer

Coefficient (cm 2 /hr) (and Activity) Short

- an d

Intermediate

Term Risks (LOC=1 00) Transfer

Coefficient (cm 2 /hr) (and Activity) Short

- an d

Intermediate

- Term Risks (LOC=1 00)

DAT

c MOE at Day 0 DAT c MOE at Day 0 DAT c MOE at Day 0

NURSERY

DFR: MRID

46722702 (smooth

ornamentals ME) Ornamentals

–

Nurseries and

Greenhouses 0.0070 lb ai/gal

1.4 lb ai/A 230

(Container Moving, Hand Pruning, Pinching 3 39 1,900 (Irrigation) > 35 5 4800 ( Hand Harvest

of Cut Flowers or Foliage) > 35 2

FIELD & ROW

CROPS: LOW

to MEDIUM

DFR: MRID

44748102 (sugar beet EC)

Location: CA

Ornamentals

–

Nurseries and

Greenhouses 2 .0 (LC, WP in

WSP ) 230

(Container Moving, Hand Pruning, Pinching, Tying/Training) 1 41 1,900 (Irrigation) 4 5 4800 (Harvesting

flowers or foliage grown for cutting) 6 2

FIELD & ROW

CROPS: LOW

to MEDIUM

DFR: MRID

44748102 (sugar beet EC)

Location: OR 230 (Container Moving, Hand Pruning, Pinching, Tying/Training) 1 31 1,900 (Irrigation) 2 4 4800 (Harvesting

flowers or foliage grown for cutting) 2 2

FIELD & ROW

CROPS: LOW

to MEDIUM

DFR: MRID

44748102 (sugar beet EC)

Location: MN 230 (Container Moving, Hand Pruning, Pinching, Tying/Training) 1 10 1,900 (Irrigation) 4 1 4800 (Harvesting

flowers or foliage grown for cutting) 6 0

## Page 227 of 227

Table J.5 : All Formulations

- Summary of Post

- application Risk Assessment for Total Toxic Residue ( Chlorpyrifos + Chlorpyrifos Oxon) Using Chlorpyrifos

- Specific DFR Data

Crop Group a Use Site App Rates (lbs.

ai/ acre) b Low Medium High

Transfer

Coefficient (cm 2 /hr) (and Activity) Short

- an d

Intermediate

Term Risks (LOC=1 00) Transfer

Coefficient (cm 2 /hr) (and Activity) Short

- an d

Intermediate

Term Risks (LOC=1 00) Transfer

Coefficient (cm 2 /hr) (and Activity) Short

- an d

Intermediate

- Term Risks (LOC=1 00)

DAT

c MOE at Day 0 DAT c MOE at Day 0 DAT c MOE at Day 0

NURSERY

DFR: MRID

46722701 (hairy

ornamentals

aerosol) Ornamentals

-

Greenhouse 0. 29 230 (Container Moving, Hand Pruning, Pinching 0 200 1,900 (Irrigation) 2 24 4800 ( Hand Harvest

of Cut Flowers or Foliage) 5 9