Document ID: EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-1199-0005
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2008-09-08T04:00Z

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460      

	OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDE

	AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES

	

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 MEMORANDUM

Date:  3/31/2008

SUBJECT:	Ingredient:  Uniconazole-P

		Title:  Acute, Chronic and Cancer Aggregate Dietary (Food and Drinking
Water) Exposure Analyses for the Section 3 Registration Action

      

 

PC Code:  128976  	DP Barcode:  D348937  

MRID No.:  None	Registration No.:  59639-37

Petition No.:  7E7268	Regulatory Action:  Section 3

Assessment Type:  Single Chemical/Aggregate	Reregistration Case No.: 
None

TXR No.:  None	CAS No.:  83657-17-4

	          	

FROM:	Douglas Dotson, Ph.D., Chemist

RAB2/Health Effects Division (7509P)

THROUGH:	Thurston Morton, Chemist

David Hrdy, Senior Scientist

Dietary Exposure Science Advisory Council (DESAC)

Health Effects Division (7509P)

and

Richard Loranger, Ph.D., Branch Senior Scientist

RAB2/Health Effects Division (7509P)

TO:		Edward Scollon, Ph.D, Toxicologist

		RAB2/Health Effects Division (7509P)

and

Shaja Brothers/Barbara Madden, PM Team 5

RIMUERB/Registration Division (7505P)

Executive Summary

Acute and chronic aggregate dietary exposure analyses were performed for
uniconazole-P using the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model, DEEM-FCID™,
Version 2.03.  This Model uses food consumption data from the U.S.
Department of Agriculture’s Continuing Surveys of Food Intakes by
Individuals (CSFII) from 1994-1996 and 1998.  The analyses were
performed to support a Section 3 request for the proposed use on Crop
Group 8, Fruiting Vegetables (Except Cucurbits).

   

Acute Dietary Exposure Results and Characterization

An acute dietary exposure analysis was performed for the population
subgroup Females 13-49 only.  This population subgroup is the only one
for which an acute dietary endpoint was selected.  The acute analysis
was unrefined.  In tolerance petition number 7E7268, the registrant
requested a tolerance for only one crop group:  fruiting vegetables,
Crop Group 8.  As a result, the analysis included fruiting vegetables
and drinking water only.  The recommended fruiting vegetable tolerance
(0.01 ppm) was used for fruiting vegetables.  A conservative value was
also used for drinking water.  The model-estimated surface water value
of 0.0031 ppm was greater than the model-estimated groundwater value of
0.000076 ppm.  As a result, the surface water concentration was used.  A
percent crop treated value of 100% was assumed for all fruiting
vegetables.  The acute dietary risk estimate for Females 13-49 at the
95th percentile of exposure is 0.4% of the aPAD (on both a per capita
basis as well as a per user basis).  Therefore, the dietary risk
estimate for this population subgroup is below HED’s level of concern.

Chronic Dietary (Food and Drinking Water) Exposure Results and
Characterization

The chronic dietary exposure analysis was also unrefined.  The
recommended tolerance of 0.01 ppm was used for fruiting vegetables.  A
conservative value was also used for drinking water.  The
model-estimated surface water value of 0.0015 ppm was greater than the
model-estimated groundwater value of 0.000076 ppm.  As a result, the
surface water concentration was used.  A percent crop treated value of
100% was assumed for all fruiting vegetables.  The chronic dietary risk
estimates for the general U.S. population and all population subgroups
are below HED’s level of concern.  The general U.S. population and all
subgroups utilize <1% of the cPAD.  The most highly exposed population
subgroup is All Infants (<1 year), which utilizes 0.6% of the cPAD.  The
general U.S. population utilizes 0.2% of the cPAD. 

Cancer Dietary Exposure Results and Characterization

Uniconazole was classified by the HED Carcinogenicity Peer Review
Committee (CPRC) as a Group C, possible human carcinogen.  The CPRC
recommended the reference dose (RfD) approach for risk assessment, and
concluded that the chronic RfD would be protective of all chronic
effects including carcinogenicity.  As a result, the chronic dietary
exposure analysis is adequate to assess cancer risk.  The general U.S.
population utilizes <1% of the cPAD.  Therefore, cancer risk is not of
concern to HED.

I.	Introduction

Dietary risk assessment incorporates both exposure and toxicity of a
given pesticide.  For acute and chronic assessments, the risk is
expressed as a percentage of a maximum acceptable dose (i.e., the dose
which HED has concluded will result in no unreasonable adverse health
effects).  This dose is referred to as the population adjusted dose
(PAD).  The PAD is equivalent to the point of departure (e.g., NOAEL,
LOAEL) divided by the required uncertainty or safety factors.

For uniconazole, HED is concerned when estimated dietary risk exceeds
100% of the PAD for acute, chronic, and cancer exposure scenarios. 
References that discuss the acute and chronic risk assessments in more
detail are available on the EPA/pesticides website:  “Available
Information on Assessing Exposure from Pesticides, A User’s Guide,”
6/21/2000, web link:      HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-PEST/2000/July/Day-12/6061.pdf" 
http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-PEST/2000/July/Day-12/6061.pdf  ; or see
SOP 99.6 (8/20/1999).

The proposed use of uniconazole-P on fruiting vegetables is the first
food use for the chemical.  As a result, this dietary exposure analysis
is the first analysis to be performed for it.

II.	Residue Information

As the proposed use on fruiting vegetables is the first food use for
uniconazole-P, there are no tolerances listed for it in the 40CFR.  The
residue of concern for risk assessment is parent uniconazole-P, its
R-enantiomer, and the Z-isomer.  The analytical method for uniconazole-P
does not distinguish between the parent enantiomers and the Z-isomer. 
As a result, the field trial values and, therefore, the recommended
tolerance account for the Z-isomer.  Uniconazole contains a triazole
ring and can potentially be metabolized to 1,2,4 triazole, triazole
alanine, and triazole acetic acid.  These compounds result from the
metabolism of other triazole pesticides as well, however.  Separate
dietary exposure analyses were prepared for these metabolites (D347252
and D347253, W. Cutchin, 12/19/07).  The dietary exposure analyses for
the triazole metabolites are adequate to cover the use of uniconazole-P
on fruiting vegetable bedding plants for several reasons.  First, the
triazole fungicide myclobutanil may be used on tomatoes at a rate of
0.50 lb ai/acre and on peppers and other members of Crop Group 8 at a
rate of 0.125 lb ai/acre.  The molecular weights of myclobutanil and
uniconazole are very comparable (myclobutanil MW=289 g/mole and
uniconazole MW=291).  The equivalent application rates of uniconazole
would be 0.50 and 0.126 lb ai/acre on tomatoes and peppers,
respectively.  However, the proposed application rate of uniconazole to
fruiting vegetables is only 0.018 lb ai/acre.  The myclobutanil
application rates are therefore 28x and 7x the uniconazole-P application
rates to tomatoes and peppers, respectively.  Second, the proposed use
of uniconazole is an early season application to bedding plants prior to
fruit being present.  Finally, uniconazole is proposed for greenhouse
use on bedding plants that are primarily intended for homeowner use. 
Although plants treated with uniconazole-P may be used for commercial
fruiting vegetable production, that is not the intended use.  For these
reasons, residues of the triazole metabolites will be much lower from
the greenhouse use of uniconazole than they are from the field
application of myclobutanil and, as stated above, the dietary exposure
analyses for the triazole metabolites are adequate to cover the use of
uniconazole-P on fruiting vegetable bedding plants.

In the tomato and pepper field trials, the residue values were all below
the limit of detection of 0.005 ppm.  HED is recommending in favor of
establishing the tolerance at the LOQ of 0.01 ppm.  Therefore, a value
of 0.01 ppm was entered for all fruiting vegetable commodities. 
Although a tolerance is not requested for okra, that crop was included
in this analysis because DEEM has it as a member of the fruiting
vegetable crop group.  No processing studies were submitted for
tomatoes.  As a result, the following DEEM Version 7.81 default
processing factors were used for the specified commodities:  tomato
juice (1.5), tomato paste (5.4), tomato puree (3.3), and dried tomatoes
(14.3).  

 Drinking Water Data

The estimated drinking water concentration (EDWC) used in the dietary
risk assessment was provided by the Environmental Fate and Effects
Division (EFED, D346559, M. Corbin, 2/12/2008).  The EDWC was
incorporated directly into this dietary assessment in the food
categories “water, direct, all sources” and “water, indirect, all
sources.”  The EDWCs for uniconazole were generated with the FIRST
Model for surface water and the SCI-GROW Model for groundwater.  EDWCs
reflect exposure to parent only.  The peak surface water value was
0.0031 ppm and the annual average surface water value was 0.0015 ppm. 
The groundwater value was 0.000076 ppm.  As the surface water values
were greater than the groundwater value, the surface water values were
used in both the acute and chronic assessments.

In drinking water, the residues of concern for risk assessment are
parent uniconazole and 1,2,4-triazole.  The drinking water
concentrations of the triazole metabolites are not being included in
these dietary exposure analyses.  They were included in the dietary
exposure analyses that were prepared for the metabolites (D347252 and
D347253, W. Cutchin, 12/19/07).  The EDWCs used in the dietary exposure
analyses were based on myclobutanil application to golf courses (Memo,
D320682, I. Maher, 2/28/2006).  The application rate is considerably
higher than the proposed application rate of uniconazole to fruiting
vegetable bedding plants (10.4 lb ai/A as opposed to 0.0018 lb ai/A).   

IV.	DEEM-FCID™ Program and Consumption Information

Acute and chronic dietary exposure assessments for uniconazole were
conducted using the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model software with the
Food Commodity Intake Database DEEM-FCID™, Version 2.03 which
incorporates consumption data from USDA’s Continuing Surveys of Food
Intakes by Individuals (CSFII), 1994-1996 and 1998.  The 1994-96, 98
data are based on the reported consumption of more than 20,000
individuals over two non-consecutive survey days.  Foods “as
consumed” (e.g., apple pie) are linked to EPA-defined food commodities
(e.g. apples, peeled fruit - cooked; fresh or N/S; baked; or wheat flour
- cooked; fresh or N/S, baked) using publicly available recipe
translation files developed jointly by USDA/ARS and EPA.  For chronic
exposure assessment, consumption data are averaged for the entire U.S.
population and within population subgroups, but for acute exposure
assessment are retained as individual consumption events.  Based on
analysis of the 1994-96, 98 CSFII consumption data, which took into
account dietary patterns and survey respondents, HED concluded that it
is most appropriate to report risk for the following population
subgroups: the general U.S. population, all infants (<1 year old),
children 1-2, children 3-5, children 6-12, youth 13-19, adults 20-49,
females 13-49, and adults 50+ years old.

For acute exposure assessments, individual one-day food consumption data
are used on an individual-by-individual basis.  The reported consumption
amounts of each food item can be multiplied by a residue point estimate
and summed to obtain a total daily pesticide exposure for a
deterministic exposure assessment, or “matched” in multiple random
pairings with residue values and then summed in a probabilistic
assessment.  The resulting distribution of exposures is expressed as a
percentage of the aPAD on both a user (i.e., those who reported eating
relevant commodities/food forms) and a per-capita (i.e., those who
reported eating the relevant commodities as well as those who did not)
basis.  In accordance with HED policy, per capita exposure and risk are
reported for all tiers of analysis.  However, for tiers 1 and 2,
significant differences in user vs. per capita exposure and risk are
identified and noted in the risk assessment.

For chronic dietary exposure assessment, an estimate of the residue
level in each food or food-form (e.g., orange or orange juice) on the
food commodity residue list is multiplied by the average daily
consumption estimate for that food/food form to produce a residue intake
estimate.  The resulting residue intake estimate for each food/food form
is summed with the residue intake estimates for all other food/food
forms on the commodity residue list to arrive at the total average
estimated exposure.  Exposure is expressed in mg/kg body weight/day and
as a percent of the cPAD.  This procedure is performed for each
population subgroup.

V.	Toxicological Information

The HED risk assessment team selected endpoints for dietary exposure
assessment.  The endpoints that were selected are summarized in Table 1
below.  The FQPA Safety Factor for uniconazole was reduced to 1x.



Table 1.  Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for Uniconazole
for Use in Dietary Human Health Risk Assessments

Exposure/

Scenario	Point of Departure	Uncertainty/FQPA Safety Factors	RfD, PAD,
Level of Concern for Risk Assessment	Study and Toxicological Effects

Acute Dietary

(Females 13-49 years of age)	NOAEL = 5 mg/kg/day	UFA= 10x

UFH=10x

FQPA SF= 1x

	Acute RfD = 0.05 mg/kg/day

aPAD = 0.05 mg/kg/day	Prenatal Developmental Toxicity - rat

LOAEL = 25 mg/kg/day based on increased incidence of 14th rib

Chronic Dietary (All Populations)	NOAEL= 2 mg/kg/day	UFA= 10x

UFH= 10x

FQPA SF= 1x

	Chronic RfD = 0.02

mg/kg/day

cPAD = 0.02 mg/kg/day	Chronic Oral (Capsule) Toxicity - dog

LOAEL = 20 mg/kg/day based on the increased absolute and relative liver
weight changes in males supported by histological and enzyme changes in
the liver

Cancer (oral, dermal, inhalation)	Uniconazole was classified by the HED
Carcinogenicity Peer Review Committee as a Group C, possible human
carcinogen.  The CPRC recommended the reference dose (RfD) approach for
risk assessment, and concluded that the chronic RfD would be protective
of all chronic effects including carcinogenicity.

VI.	Results/Discussion 

As stated above, for acute and chronic assessments, HED is concerned
when dietary risk exceeds 100% of the PAD.  The DEEM-FCID™ analyses
estimate the dietary exposure of the U.S. population and various
population subgroups.  The results of the acute analysis reported in
Table 2 are for the population subgroup Females 13-49.  The results of
the chronic analysis reported in Table 3 are for the general U.S.
Population, all infants (<1 year old), children 1-2, children 3-5,
children 6-12, youth 13-19, females 13-49, adults 20-49, and adults 50+
years.  Cancer risk is determined for the general U.S. population only. 
In this case, the chronic dietary risk estimate is protective of cancer
effects.

Results of Acute Dietary Exposure Analysis

The results of the acute dietary exposure analysis for Females 13-49 are
reported in Table 2.  The dietary risk estimate for this population
subgroup, 0.4% aPAD at the 95th percentile of exposure, is below HED’s
level of concern.  The %aPAD value is 0.4 on both a per capita basis as
well as a per user basis.

Table 2.  Results of Acute Dietary Exposure Analysis

Population Subgroup	

aPAD (mkd)*	

95th Percentile	

99th Percentile	

99.9th Percentile

Exposure (mkd)	

% aPAD	

Exposure (mkd)	

% aPAD	

Exposure (mkd)	

% aPAD

Females 13-49 years old 	

0.05	

0.000182	

<1	

0.000272	

<1	

0.000486	

<1

*mkd: milligram per kilogram per day

Results of Chronic Dietary Exposure Analysis

The results of the chronic dietary exposure analysis are reported in
Table 3.  The chronic dietary risk estimates for the general U.S.
population and all population subgroups are below HED’s level of
concern.  The general U.S. population and all subgroups utilize <1% of
the cPAD.  The most highly exposed population subgroup is All Infants
(<1 year), which utilizes 0.6% of the cPAD.  The general U.S. population
utilizes 0.2% of the cPAD.

Results of Cancer Dietary Exposure Analysis

Uniconazole was classified by the HED Carcinogenicity Peer Review
Committee as a Group C, possible human carcinogen.  The CPRC recommended
the RfD approach for risk assessment and concluded that the chronic RfD
would be protective of all chronic effects including carcinogenicity. 
As a result, the chronic dietary exposure analysis is adequate to assess
cancer risk.  The general U.S. population utilizes <1% of the cPAD. 
Therefore, cancer risk is not of concern to HED.

Table 3.  Summary of Dietary Exposure and Risk for Uniconazole

Population Subgroup*	

Acute Dietary

(95th Percentile)	

Chronic Dietary	

Cancer

	

Dietary Exposure (mg/kg/day)	

% aPAD	

Dietary Exposure

(mg/kg/day)	

% cPAD	

Dietary Exposure

(mg/kg/day)	

Risk

General U.S. Population	N/A

	N/A

	

0.000050	<1	

Chronic RfD is protective of cancer effects

	

Chronic RfD is protective of cancer effects

All Infants (< 1 year old)

	

0.000114	<1

Children 1-2 years old

	

0.000091	<1

Children 3-5 years old

	

0.000084	<1

Children 6-12 years old

	

0.000057	<1

Youth 13-19 years old

	

0.000042	<1

Adults 20-49 years old

	

0.000045	<1

Adults 50+ years old

	

0.000044	<1

Females 13-49 years old	0.000182	<1	0.000044	<1

VII.	Characterization of Inputs/Outputs

Conservative values were used for food residue levels, percent crop
treated estimates, and drinking water concentrations.  Further
refinements could be made to the analysis, but they are not necessary at
the present time. 

Conclusions

Acute and chronic dietary risk assessments were performed for
uniconazole based on conservative assumptions.  The acute dietary risk
estimate for the population subgroup Females 13-49 is below HED’s
level of concern.  The chronic dietary risk estimates for the general
U.S. population and all population subgroups are also below HED’s
level of concern.  The chronic dietary exposure analysis is protective
of cancer effects.  The cancer risk to the general U.S. population is
below HED’s level of concern.  Previous risk assessments performed for
the triazole metabolites are protective of any dietary risk that might
result from exposure to these compounds through the greenhouse use of
uniconazole on fruiting vegetables.

List of Attachments:

Attachment 1:  Residue Input File for Acute Analysis

Attachment 2:  Results of Acute Dietary Exposure Analysis

Attachment 3:  Residue Input File for Chronic Analysis

Attachment 4:  Results of Chronic Dietary Exposure Analysis

Attachment 1:  Residue Input File for Acute Analysis

Acute NOAEL:  5 mg/kg/day

Acute PAD:    0.05 mg/kg/day

DEEM-FCID Version 2.03

Filename: C:\Documents and Settings\ddotson\My
Documents\DEEMFCID\Uniconazole\UniconAC.R98

Date created/last modified: 02-12-2008/16:49:33/8

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

  EPA    Crop                                   Def Res     Adj.Factors 
 Comment

  Code    Grp  Commodity Name                    (ppm)       #1    #2   

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

08001480 8    Eggplant                           0.010000   1.000  1.000
 

08002340 8    Okra                               0.010000   1.000  1.000
 

08002700 8    Pepper, bell                       0.010000   1.000  1.000
 

08002701 8    Pepper, bell-babyfood              0.010000   1.000  1.000
 

08002710 8    Pepper, bell, dried                0.010000   1.000  1.000
 

08002711 8    Pepper, bell, dried-babyfood       0.010000   1.000  1.000
 

08002720 8    Pepper, nonbell                    0.010000   1.000  1.000
 

08002721 8    Pepper, nonbell-babyfood           0.010000   1.000  1.000
 

08002730 8    Pepper, nonbell, dried             0.010000   1.000  1.000
 

08003740 8    Tomatillo                          0.010000   1.000  1.000
 

08003750 8    Tomato                             0.010000   1.000  1.000
 

08003751 8    Tomato-babyfood                    0.010000   1.000  1.000
 

08003760 8    Tomato, paste                      0.010000   5.400  1.000
 

08003761 8    Tomato, paste-babyfood             0.010000   5.400  1.000
 

08003770 8    Tomato, puree                      0.010000   3.300  1.000
 

08003771 8    Tomato, puree-babyfood             0.010000   3.300  1.000
 

08003780 8    Tomato, dried                      0.010000  14.300  1.000
 

08003781 8    Tomato, dried-babyfood             0.010000  14.300  1.000
 

08003790 8    Tomato, juice                      0.010000   1.500  1.000
 

86010000 O    Water, direct, all sources         0.003100   1.000  1.000
 

86020000 O    Water, indirect, all sources       0.003100   1.000  1.000
 

Attachment 2:  Results of Acute Dietary Exposure Analysis

NOAEL:  5 mg/kg/day

aPAD:   0.05 mg/kg/day

DEEM-FCID Version 2.03 (1994-98 data)

Adjustment factor #2 NOT used.

Residue file: UniconAC.R98    

Analysis Date: 02-12-2008/16:51:36

Residue file dated: 02-12-2008/16:49:33/8

Daily totals for food and food form consumption used.

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

Summary calculations (per capita):

      95th Percentile             99th Percentile             99.9th
Percentile

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

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

Females 13-49 yrs:

  0.000182    0.36   27424    0.000272    0.54   18376    0.000486   
0.97   10293  

Attachment 3:  Residue Input File for Chronic Analysis

Chronic NOAEL:  2 mg/kg/day

Chronic PAD:    0.02 mg/kg/day

DEEM-FCID Version 2.03

Filename: C:\Documents and Settings\ddotson\My
Documents\DEEMFCID\Uniconazole\UniconCHR.R98

Chemical: Uniconazole

Date created/last modified: 02-12-2008/16:48:50/8

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

  EPA    Crop                                   Def Res     Adj.Factors 
 Comment

  Code    Grp  Commodity Name                    (ppm)       #1    #2   

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

08001480 8    Eggplant                           0.010000   1.000  1.000
 

08002340 8    Okra                               0.010000   1.000  1.000
 

08002700 8    Pepper, bell                       0.010000   1.000  1.000
 

08002701 8    Pepper, bell-babyfood              0.010000   1.000  1.000
 

08002710 8    Pepper, bell, dried                0.010000   1.000  1.000
 

08002711 8    Pepper, bell, dried-babyfood       0.010000   1.000  1.000
 

08002720 8    Pepper, nonbell                    0.010000   1.000  1.000
 

08002721 8    Pepper, nonbell-babyfood           0.010000   1.000  1.000
 

08002730 8    Pepper, nonbell, dried             0.010000   1.000  1.000
 

08003740 8    Tomatillo                          0.010000   1.000  1.000
 

08003750 8    Tomato                             0.010000   1.000  1.000
 

08003751 8    Tomato-babyfood                    0.010000   1.000  1.000
 

08003760 8    Tomato, paste                      0.010000   5.400  1.000
 

08003761 8    Tomato, paste-babyfood             0.010000   5.400  1.000
 

08003770 8    Tomato, puree                      0.010000   3.300  1.000
 

08003771 8    Tomato, puree-babyfood             0.010000   3.300  1.000
 

08003780 8    Tomato, dried                      0.010000  14.300  1.000
 

08003781 8    Tomato, dried-babyfood             0.010000  14.300  1.000
 

08003790 8    Tomato, juice                      0.010000   1.500  1.000
 

86010000 O    Water, direct, all sources         0.001500   1.000  1.000
 

86020000 O    Water, indirect, all sources       0.001500   1.000  1.000

  

Attachment 4:  Results of Chronic Analysis

Chronic NOAEL:  2 mg/kg/day

Chronic PAD:    0.02 mg/kg/day

DEEM-FCID Version 2.03  (1994-98 data)

Adjustment factor #2 NOT used.

Residue file name: C:\Documents and Settings\ddotson\My
Documents\DEEMFCID\Uniconazole\UniconCHR.R98

Analysis Date 02-12-2008/16:52:28     Residue file dated:
02-12-2008/16:48:50/8

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

                    Total exposure by population subgroup

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

                                                    Total Exposure

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

          Population                         mg/kg             Percent
of   

           Subgroup                       body wt/day             Rfd   
   

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

U.S. Population (total)                     0.000050                
0.2%

U.S. Population (spring season)             0.000049                
0.2%

U.S. Population (summer season)             0.000052                
0.3%

U.S. Population (autumn season)             0.000049                
0.2%

U.S. Population (winter season)             0.000049                
0.2%

Northeast region                            0.000048                
0.2%

Midwest region                              0.000051                
0.3%

Southern region                             0.000047                
0.2%

Western region                              0.000055                
0.3%

Hispanics                                   0.000058                
0.3%

Non-hispanic whites                         0.000049                
0.2%

Non-hispanic blacks                         0.000048                
0.2%

Non-hisp/non-white/non-black                0.000057                
0.3%

All infants (< 1 year)                      0.000114                
0.6%

Nursing infants                             0.000042                
0.2%

Non-nursing infants                         0.000141                
0.7%

Children 1-6  yrs                           0.000085                
0.4%

Children 7-12 yrs                           0.000054                
0.3%

Females 13-19 (not preg or nursing)         0.000041                
0.2%

Females 20+ (not preg or nursing)           0.000045                
0.2%

Females 13-50 yrs                           0.000047                
0.2%

Females 13+ (preg/not nursing)              0.000047                
0.2%

Females 13+ (nursing)                       0.000057                
0.3%

Males 13-19 yrs                             0.000042                
0.2%

Males 20+ yrs                               0.000044                
0.2%

Seniors 55+                                 0.000043                
0.2%

Children 1-2 yrs                            0.000091                
0.5%

Children 3-5 yrs                            0.000084                
0.4%

Children 6-12 yrs                           0.000057                
0.3%

Youth 13-19 yrs                             0.000042                
0.2%

Adults 20-49 yrs                            0.000045                
0.2%

Adults 50+ yrs                              0.000044                
0.2%

萏֠萑褐葞֠葠褐摧祕D

	

9

Y

]

Ž

³

´

V

W

]

v

Ž

’

°

±

µ

¸

º

È

Ð

Ü

ß

ã

,´

µ

Ý

$

&

D

F

L

R

h

p

†

Š

Ž

²

â

ä

æ

æ

@

@

@

@

h

h

h

h

@

h

h

&

@

 hÖ

 hÖ

@

@

摧ㅑᔀFemales 13-49 yrs                           0.000044         
       0.2%

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

Uniconazole	Dietary Exposure and Risk Assessment	DP Number: 348937	

PC Code:  128976		

________________________________________________________________________
______________

 PAGE   

Page   PAGE  9  of   NUMPAGES  12