Document ID: EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0038-0008
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2006-02-15T05:00Z

UNITED
STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
WASHINGTON,
D.
C.
20460
OFFICE
OF
PREVENTION,
PESTICIDES
AND
TOXIC
SUBSTANCES
August
24,
2005
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
Review
of
Triadimefon
Incident
Reports
DP
Barcode
D321089,
Chemical
109901
(
includes
127201,
triadimenol)

FROM:
Monica
S.
Hawkins,
M.
P.
H.,
Environmental
Health
Scientist
Chemistry
and
Exposure
Branch
Health
Effects
Division
(
7509C)

THRU:
Jerome
Blondell,
Ph.
D.,
Health
Statistician
Chemistry
and
Exposure
Branch
Health
Effects
Division
(
7509C)

TO:
Richard
Griffin,
Biologist
Reregistration
Branch
2
Health
Effects
Division
(
7509C)

BACKGROUND
The
following
data
bases
have
been
consulted
for
the
poisoning
incident
data
on
the
active
ingredient
Triadimefon
and
Triadimenol
(
109901
and
127201):

1)
OPP
Incident
Data
System
(
IDS)
­
reports
of
incidents
from
various
sources,
including
registrants,
other
federal
and
state
health
and
environmental
agencies
and
individual
consumers,
submitted
to
OPP
since
1992.
Reports
submitted
to
the
Incident
Data
System
represent
anecdotal
reports
or
allegations
only,
unless
otherwise
stated.
Typically
no
conclusions
can
be
drawn
implicating
the
pesticide
as
a
cause
of
any
of
the
reported
health
effects.
Nevertheless,
sometimes
with
enough
cases
and/
or
documentation
risk
mitigation
measures
may
be
suggested.

2)
Poison
Control
Centers
­
as
the
result
of
a
data
purchase
by
EPA,
OPP
received
Poison
Control
Center
data
covering
the
years
1993
through
1998
for
all
pesticides.
Most
of
the
national
Poison
Control
Centers
(
PCCs)
participate
in
a
national
data
collection
system,
the
Toxic
Exposure
Surveillance
System
which
obtains
data
from
about
65­
70
centers
at
hospitals
and
universities.
PCCs
provide
telephone
consultation
for
individuals
and
health
care
providers
on
suspected
poisonings,
involving
drugs,
household
products,
pesticides,
etc.
2
3)
California
Department
of
Pesticide
Regulation
­
California
has
collected
uniform
data
on
suspected
pesticide
poisonings
since
1982.
Physicians
are
required,
by
statute,
to
report
to
their
local
health
officer
all
occurrences
of
illness
suspected
of
being
related
to
exposure
to
pesticides.
The
majority
of
the
incidents
involve
workers.
Information
on
exposure
(
worker
activity),
type
of
illness
(
systemic,
eye,
skin,
eye/
skin
and
respiratory),
likelihood
of
a
causal
relationship,
and
number
of
days
off
work
and
in
the
hospital
are
provided.

4)
National
Pesticide
Information
Center
(
NPIC)
­
NPIC
is
a
toll­
free
information
service
supported
by
OPP.
A
ranking
of
the
top
200
active
ingredients
for
which
telephone
calls
were
received
during
calendar
years
1984­
1991,
inclusive
has
been
prepared.
The
total
number
of
calls
was
tabulated
for
the
categories
human
incidents,
animal
incidents,
calls
for
information,
and
others.

5)
National
Institute
of
Occupational
Safety
and
Health's
Sentinel
Event
Notification
System
for
Occupational
Risks
(
NIOSH
SENSOR)
performs
standardized
surveillance
in
seven
states
from
1998
through
2002.
States
included
in
this
reporting
system
are
Arizona,
California,
Florida,
Louisiana,
Michigan,
New
York,
Oregon,
Texas,
and
Washington.
Reporting
is
very
uneven
from
state
to
state
because
of
the
varying
cooperation
from
different
sources
of
reporting
(
e.
g.,
workers
compensation,
Poison
Control
Centers,
emergency
departments
and
hospitals,
enforcement
investigations,
private
physicians,
etc.).
Therefore,
these
reports
should
not
be
characterized
as
estimating
the
total
magnitude
of
poisoning.
The
focus
is
on
occupationallyrelated
cases
not
residential
or
other
non­
occupational
exposures.
However,
the
information
collected
on
each
case
is
standardized
and
categorized
according
the
certainty
of
the
information
collected
and
the
severity
of
the
case.

TRIADIMEFON
REVIEW
I.
Incident
Data
System
There
were
six
reports
related
to
triadimefon
found
in
the
Incident
Data
System
and
none
related
to
triadimenol
alone.

Incident#
2774­
1
A
pesticide
incident
occurred
in
1995,
when
the
product
was
applied
aerially
to
a
field
that
was
adjacent
to
a
bystander.
The
individual
reported
skin
irritation.
No
further
information
on
the
disposition
of
the
case
was
reported.

Incident#
4117­
1
A
pesticide
incident
occurred
in
1996,
when
the
product
was
applied
to
cedar
trees
at
the
rear
of
a
property
while
lawn
maintenance
workers
mowed
the
lawn
at
the
front
of
the
property.
One
or
more
of
the
workers
reported
nausea.
No
further
information
on
the
disposition
of
the
case
was
reported.
3
Incident#
13703­
9
A
pesticide
incident
occurred
in
2002,
when
the
product
was
applied
to
a
lawn.
A
seven
year
old
girl
played
on
the
lawn
and
later
reported
a
rash,
hives,
welts,
and
pruritus.
No
further
information
on
the
disposition
of
the
case
was
reported.

Incident#
14286­
14
A
pesticide
incident
occurred
in
2003,
when
a
man
inhaled
the
product
and
reported
throat
irritation,
nasal
irritation,
and
myalgia.
He
was
later
treated
by
a
physician.
No
further
information
on
the
disposition
of
the
case
was
reported.

Incident#
15473­
14
A
pesticide
incident
occurred
in
2004,
when
a
woman
used
the
product.
Three
days
later,
she
reported
a
rash
and
pruritus
and
was
treated
by
a
physician.
No
further
information
on
the
disposition
of
the
case
was
reported.

Incident#
15473­
17
A
pesticide
incident
occurred
in
2004,
when
the
product
was
applied
to
grass.
Two
days
later,
a
two
year
old
girl
reported
a
rash
and
was
treated
by
a
physician.
No
further
information
on
the
disposition
of
the
case
was
reported.

Two­
thirds
of
the
cases
listed
above
reported
rash
or
other
skin­
related
symptoms
II.
Poison
Control
Center
Data
­
1993
through
2003
There
were
nine
reports
of
occupational
exposure
to
triadimefon
and
46
non­
occupational
exposures
from
1993
through
2003.
There
were
just
two
exposures
reported
from
any
type
of
exposure
triadiemenol
but
neither
of
them
had
medical
outcome
recorded
or
required
medical
care
and
they
will
not
be
discussed
any
further.
Of
the
46
non­
occupational
exposures,
13
occurred
in
children
under
six
years
of
age.
Of
the
total
20
cases
with
medically
determined
outcome,
11
reported
minor
medical
outcome.
Of
the
total
54
exposures
to
triadimefon,
just
four
were
seen
in
a
health
care
facility
and
none
required
hospitalization.
A
review
of
symptoms
did
revealed
almost
exclusively
irritation
effects
(
including
rash
and
erythema)
to
skin,
mouth,
throat,
and
eyes.
These
effects
were
reported
a
total
of
24
times
with
some
patients
reporting
two
or
more
of
these
symptoms.
There
were
four
cases
reporting
headache
and
two
reported
cough.
No
other
significant
symptoms
were
reported.

III.
California
Data
­
1982
through
2002
Detailed
descriptions
of
304
cases
submitted
to
the
California
Pesticide
Illness
Surveillance
Program
(
1982­
2003)
were
reviewed.
In
52
of
these
cases,
triadimefon
was
used
alone
or
were
judged
to
be
responsible
for
the
health
effects.
Only
cases
with
a
definite,
probable
or
possible
relationship
were
reviewed.
Table
1
presents
the
types
of
illnesses
reported
by
year.
4
Table
2
gives
the
total
number
of
workers
that
took
time
off
work
as
a
result
of
their
illness
and
how
many
were
hospitalized
and
for
how
long.

Table
1.
Cases
Due
to
Triadimefon
Compounds
in
California
Reported
by
Type
of
Illness
and
Year,
1982­
2003.

Year
Illness
Type
Systemica
Eye
Skin
Respiratoryb
Combinationc
Total
1982
­
­
1
­
­
1
1983
1
1
1
­
­
3
1984
2
5
4
­
­
11
1985
3
3
5
­
­
11
1986
1
3
­
­
­
4
1987
9
3
1
­
­
13
1988
­
­
2
­
­
2
1989
2
­
­
­
­
2
1990
­
­
­
­
­
0
1991
­
­
­
­
­
0
1992
­
­
­
­
­
0
1993
­
­
1
­
­
1
1994
­
1
­
­
­
1
1995
­
­
­
­
­
0
1996
­
­
­
­
­
0
1997
1
­
­
­
­
1
1998
1
­
1
­
­
2
1999
­
­
­
­
­
0
2000­
3
­
­
­
­
­
0
Total
20
16
16
0
0
52
a
Category
includes
cases
where
skin,
eye,
or
respiratory
effects
were
also
reported.
b
Category
not
used
until
1990.
Prior
respiratory
cases
classified
as
systemic.
c
Category
includes
combined
irritative
effects
to
eye,
skin,
and
respiratory
system.

Table
2.
Number
of
Persons
Disabled
(
taking
time
off
work)
or
Hospitalized
for
Indicated
Number
of
Days
After
Exposure
in
California,
1982­
2003.

Time
period
Number
of
Persons
Disabled
Number
of
Persons
Hospitalized
One
day
3
­

Two
days
0
­
5
3­
5
days
3
­

6­
10
days
0
­

more
than
10
days
0
­

Unknown
3
­

Indefinite
­
­

A
variety
of
worker
activities
were
associated
with
exposure
to
triadimefon
as
illustrated
in
Table
3
below.

Table
3.
Illnesses
by
Activity
Categories
for
Triadimefon
Compounds
Exposure
in
California,
1982­
2003
Activity
Category
Illness
Category
Systemica
Eye
Skin
Respiratoryb
Combinationc
Total
Applicator
3
6
4
­
­
13
Mixer/
Loader
2
1
­
­
­
3
Field
residue
9
6
11
­
­
26
Drift
3
2
­
­
­
5
Other
3
1
1
­
­
5
Total
20
16
16
0
0
52
a
Category
includes
cases
where
skin,
eye,
or
respiratory
effects
were
also
reported.
b
Category
not
used
until
1990.
Prior
respiratory
cases
classified
as
systemic.
c
Category
includes
combined
irritative
effects
to
eye,
skin,
and
respiratory
system.

The
majority
of
triadimefon
incidents
(
92%)
occurred
prior
to
1990.
Most
of
the
triadimefon
cases
(
73%)
involved
use
on
grapes
which
is
a
labor
intensive
crop
involving
high
exposure
to
foliar
residues.
Foliar
residues
accounted
for
half
of
the
illnesses
and
nearly
half
of
the
systemic
illnesses.
Although
most
of
the
symptoms
appeared
to
be
minor,
skin
and
eye
irritation,
and
rash
were
among
the
most
common
topical
symptoms.
The
most
common
systemic
effects
included
nausea,
headache,
sneezing,
congestion,
difficulty
breathing
and
other
allergictype
reactions.
There
were
three
reports
of
vomiting.
6
IV.
National
Pesticide
Information
Center
On
the
list
of
the
top
200
chemicals
for
which
NPIC
received
calls
from
1984­
1991
inclusively,
Triadimefon
was
not
reported
to
be
involved
in
human
incidents.

V.
NIOSH
SENSOR
Out
of
5,899
reported
cases
from
1998­
2003,
one
involved
Triadimefon.
However,
this
case
was
a
duplicate
of
a
California
case
included
in
the
discussion
above.

VI.
Scientific
Literature
No
scientific
literature
was
found
concerning
human
poisoning
or
other
adverse
effects
from
exposure
to
Triadimefon.

VII.
Conclusion
Both
California
and
Poison
Control
Center
data
show
a
clear
pattern
of
irritative,
but
usually
minor
symptoms
from
exposure
to
triadimefon.
Irritation
to
skin,
eyes,
and
respiratory
passage
occur
readily
among
unprotected
handlers
(
applicators
and
mixer/
loaders)
and
among
those
who
have
substantial
contact
with
foliage
such
as
grape
harvesters
and
tenders.
It
was
unclear
whether
triadimefon
might
also
be
a
sensitizer,
contributing
to
allergic­
type
reactions.

VIII.
Recommendations
Protection
for
skin
and
eyes
is
recommended
for
handlers
of
triadimefon
and
any
field
workers
that
will
experience
substantial
or
prolonged
contact
with
treated
plants.

cc:
Triadimefon
file
(
109901)
David
J.
Miller
(
7509C)
Diane
Sherman
(
7508C)