UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY AND POLLUT ION PREVENTION

MEMORANDUM Date: March 25, 2015 SUBJECT: Furfural: Tier I Review of Human Incidents

PC Code: 043301 DP Barcode: 0426362 Decision No.: 498470 P etit ion No.: NA Risk Assessment Type: NA TXRNo.: NA MRID No .: NA Registration No.: NA Regulatory Action : NA Case No.: NA CAS No.: 98-01

- 1 40CFR: NA Ver.Apr.08
FROM: Eli zabeth Evans, Environmental Protection Specialist**~** 

### C
. > Toxicology and Epidemiology Branch**~** Health Effects Division (7509P) and Shanna Recore, Industrial Hygieni st Toxicol ogy and Epidemiology Branch Health Effec t Division (7509P) 

# /J jy J//I_**1fi ?_~<** **S** THROUGH: David Mi ller, Acting Branch Chief 

## {fki Toxicology and Epidemiology Branch Health Effects Division (7509P) TO: Kelly O'Rourke, Risk Assessor Ri sk Assessment Branch IV Health Effects Division (7509P) and Jo lene Truji llo , Chemica l Review Manager Risk Management 

### & Implementation Branch 5 Pe sticide Re-evaluation Divi sion (7508P) Summary and Conclusions Because there were no incident cases reported for furfural to either ID S or SENSOR-Pesticides , there does not appear to be a concern at this time that would warrant further investigation. The
Page 1 of4Agency will continue to monitor the incident information and if a concern is trig gered, additional analysis will be included in the risk assessment. Detailed Review I. 

### ACTION REQUESTED This review is intended to fulfill our requirement to docket summaries of incident data that were reported to the Agency, as well as to ensure human incident data and the Agricultural Health Study (AHS) are part of the problem formulation phase of registration review. Reports of adverse health effects allegedly due to a specific pesticide exposure 

### (i.e., an " i ncident") are largely self-reported and therefore, generally speaking, neither exposure to a pesticide or reported symptom (or the connection between the two) is validated or otherwise confirmed
. Typically , causation cannot be determined based on incident data. However, incident information can be an important source of feedback to the Agency: incidents of severe outcome, or a suggested pattern or trend among less severe incidents, can signal the Agency to further investigate a particular chemical or product. Observational epidemiology studies relate the ri sk of disease, 

### e.g . , cancer, and exposure to an agent such as a pesticide product in the general population or specific sub-groups like pesticide applicators. 

### II. BACKGROUND Furfural is used as a fumigant to control root infesting plant parasitic nematodes and fungal plant diseases in greenhouse soil used for growing ornamentals and other non-food commodities. The technical formulation (Furfural Technical) contains 99.7% furfural and is for u se in formu latin g end-use products. The end-use product contains 90% furfural in a liquid formulation (Multiguard Protect) and is applied to growing media and/or soils in greenhouses for cut flowers, cut greens, transplants, propagative materials, ornamentals and other non- food/ non-feed commodities. For this evaluation, both the OPP Incident Data System (IDS) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (CDC/NIOSH) Sentinel Event Notification System for Occupational Ri sk-Pesticides (SENSOR) databases were consulted for pesticide incident data on the active ingredient furfural (pc code: 043301). The purpose of the database search is to identify potential patterns in the frequency and severity of the health effects attributed to furfural exposure. Furfural is not included in the AHS, and therefore this study does not provide information for this report. 

### III. RESULTS/DISCUSSION
a. IDS (Incident Data System) OPP's IDS includes reports of alleged human health incidents from various source s, including mandatory Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) Section 6(a)(2) reports from registrants, other federal and state health and environmental agencies, and individual consumers. Since 1992, OPP has compiled these reports in IDS. IDS contains reports from across the U.S. and most incidents have all relevant product information recorded. Reports
Page 2 of 4submitted to the IDS represent anecdotal reports or allegations on ly, unless otherwise stated in the report. ID S records incidents in one of two modules: Main IDS and Aggregate IDS:

o Main IDS contains incidents resulting in higher severity outcomes and provides more detail with regard to case specifics. This system stores incident data for death, major and moderate incidents, and it includes information about the location, date and nature of the incident. Main IDS incidents involving only one active ingredient (as opposed to pesticide products with multiple active ingredients) are considered to provide more certain information about the potential effects of exposure from the pe sticide.

o Aggregate IDS contains incidents resulting in less severe human incidents (minor, unknown, or no effects outcomes). These are reported by registrants only as counts in what are aggregate summaries. For the Main IDS , from January 1 , 2010 to December 30, 2014, there were no incidents reported involving furfural. In Aggregate ID S, from January 1, 2010 to December 30, 2014, there were no incidents reported invo lving furfural. b. SENSOR-Pesticid es The SENSOR-Pesticides database covers 12 states from 1998-2011 , although reporting varies from state to state. Cases of pesticide-related illnesses are ascertained from a variety of sources, including: reports from local Poison Control Centers, state Department of Labor workers' compensation claims when reported by physicians, reports from State Departments' of Agricu lture, and physician reports to state Departments of Health. Although both occupational and non-occupational incidents are included in the database, SENSOR-Pesticides focuses on occupational pesticide incidents , and is of particular value in providing that informa tion
. The state coordinator at each of the 12 respective state Departments of Health conducts case followup activities such as obtaining medical records to verify symptoms and severity. Using standardized protocol and case definitions derived from poison center reporting, the state SENSOR-Pesticide coordinator enters the incident information into the state-based system which is sent to NIOSH annually to be aggregated. A review of SENSOR-Pesticides 1998-2011 identifies no cases for furfural (pc code 04330 l ).

c. Agricu ltural Health Study (AHS) Th e AHS is a high quality, prospective epidemiology study evaluating the link between pesticide use and various health outcomes including cancer. The AHS includes private and commercial pesticide applicators and their spouses. Ifthere are AHS findings relevant to a particular pesticide goi ng through registration review , the Agency will ensure they are considered in the problem formulation/scoping phase of the process and, if appropriate, 

### fully reviewed in the risk assessment phase of the process. The AHS includes information on use of 80 different pesticide
Page 3of4active ingredients commonly used in agriculture. Furfural is not included in the AHS, and therefore this study does not provide information for this report. 

### IV. CONCLUSION Because there were no incident cases reported for furfural to either IDS or SENSOR

-Pesticides, there does not appear to be a concern at this time that would warrant further investigation. The Agency will continue to monitor the incident information and if a concern is triggered, additional analysis will be included in the risk assessment.

Page 4of4