Document ID: EPA-HQ-OPP-2002-0138-0005
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2002-07-31T04:00Z

UNITED
STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
WASHINGTON,
D.
C.
20460
OFFICE
OF
PREVENTION,
PESTICIDES
AND
TOXIC
SUBSTANCES
May
29,
2002
Memorandum
SUBJECT:
Carbaryl:
Occupational
and
Residential
Exposure
Assessment
and
Recommendations
for
the
Reregistration
Eligibility
Decision
Document.
PC
Code
056801;
Submission
No.
S533427
;DP
Barcode:
D281418.

FROM:
Jeffrey
L.
Dawson,
Chemist/
Risk
Assessor
Reregistration
Branch
1
Health
Effects
Division
(7509C)

THROUGH:
Whang
Phang,
PhD,
Senior
Scientist
Reregistration
Branch
1
Health
Effects
Division
(7509C)

TO:
Anthony
Britten,
Chemical
Review
Manager
Reregistration
Branch
Special
Review
and
Registration
Division
Reviewers:
Science
Advisory
Committee
on
Exposure;
Alan
Nielsen.
Risk
Assessment
Review
Committee
(June
6,
2001
Report)

This
document
presents
updated
occupational
and
residential
exposures/
risks
which
have
been
calculated
due
to
recent
changes
in
the
hazard
assessment
for
carbaryl
(April
25,
2002
HIARC
Meeting)
and
changes
in
the
FQPA
safety
factor
from
10
to
1
based
on
recent
policy
changes
(April
3,
2002
FQPA
SFC
Report).
Several
modifications
to
the
exposure
assessment
have
also
been
incorporated
due
to
recent
changes
in
Exposure
SAC
Policy
(e.
g.,
how
risks
from
pet
use
products
are
calculated,
the
use
of
ARTF
data
from
greenhouses,
and
mosquito
control
applications),
the
submission
of
a
Sevin
XLR
Label
for
mosquito
control,
and
changes
in
the
short­
term/
intermediateterm
exposure
duration
interface
from
7
days
to
30
days.
Also
included
in
this
document
is
a
sitespecific
assessment
of
risks
associated
with
a
Section
24C
(SLN
WA­
900013)
where
carbaryl
is
intended
to
control
Ghost
and
Mud
Shrimp
in
oyster
beds.
Table
of
Contents
Executive
Summary..............................................................
4
1.0
Occupational
and
Residential
Exposure/
Risk
Assessment
.........................
12
1.1
Purpose
..............................................................
12
1.2
Criteria
for
Conducting
Exposure
Assessments
..............................
12
1.3
Summary
of
Hazard
Concerns
.........................................
12
1.
4
Incident
Reports....................................................
14
1.
5
Summary
of
Use
Patterns
and
Formulations
..............................
14
1.5.1
End­
Use
Products
............................................
15
1.5.2
Mode
of
Action
and
Targets
Controlled
...........................
17
1.5.3
Registered
Use
Categories
and
Sites
.............................
18
1.5.4
Application
Parameters
.......................................
22
2.0
Occupational
Exposures
and
Risks
..........................................
25
2.1
Occupational
Handler
Exposures
and
Risks
.................................
25
2.1.1
Handler
Exposure
Scenarios
....................................
26
2.1.2
Data
and
Assumptions
For
Handler
Exposure
Scenarios
..............
30
2.1.3
Occupational
Handler
Exposure
and
Non­
Cancer
Risk
Estimates
.......
45
2.1.4
Occupational
Handler
Exposure
and
Risk
Estimates
for
Cancer.
........
56
2.1.5
Summary
of
Risk
Concerns
and
Data
Gaps
for
Handlers
..............
62
2.1.6
Recommendations
For
Refining
Occupational
Handler
Risk
Assessment
.
63
2.2
Occupational
Postapplication
Exposures
and
Risks
........................
63
2.2.1
Occupational
Postapplication
Exposure
Scenarios
...................
63
2.2.2
Data
and
Assumptions
for
Occupational
Postapplication
Exposure
Scenarios
...........................................................
69
2.2.3
Occupational
Postapplication
Exposure
and
Noncancer
Risk
Estimates
.
.
77
2.2.4
Occupational
Postapplication
Exposure
and
Risk
Estimates
for
Cancer
...........................................................
86
2.2.5
Summary
of
Occupational
Postapplication
Risk
Concerns
and
Data
Gaps
...........................................................
92
2.2.6
Recommendations
For
Refining
Occupational
Postapplication
Risk
Assessment..................................................
93
2.
3
Occupational
Risk
Characterization
....................................
93
2.3.1
Handler
Characterization
.......................................
93
2.3.2
Postapplication
Characterization
.................................
95
3.0
Residential
and
Other
Non­
Occupational
Exposures
and
Risks
.....................
97
3.1
Residential
Handler
Exposures
and
Risks
................................
97
3.1.1
Handler
Exposure
Scenarios
....................................
98
3.1.2
Data
and
Assumptions
For
Handler
Exposure
Scenarios
..............
99
3.1.3
Residential
Handler
Exposure
and
Non­
Cancer
Risk
Estimates
........
108
3.1.4
Residential
Handler
Exposure
and
Risk
Estimates
for
Cancer
.........
113
3.1.5
Summary
of
Risk
Concerns
and
Data
Gaps
for
Handlers
.............
117
3.1.6
Recommendations
For
Refining
Residential
Handler
Risk
Assessment
.
.
117
3.2
Residential
Postapplication
Exposures
and
Risks
.........................
117
3.2.1
Residential
Postapplication
Exposure
Scenarios
....................
118
3.2.2
Data
and
Assumptions
for
Residential
Postapplication
Exposure
Scenarios
..........................................................
123
3.2.3
Residential
Postapplication
Exposure
and
Noncancer
Risk
Estimates
.
.
.
129
3.2.4
Residential
Postapplication
Exposure
and
Risk
Estimates
for
Cancer
.
.
.
142
3.2.5
Summary
of
Residential
Postapplication
Risk
Concerns
and
Data
Gaps
.
144
3.2.6
Recommendations
For
Refining
Residential
Postapplication
Risk
Assessment
..........................................................
146
3.
3
Residential
Risk
Characterization
.....................................
146
3.3.1
Handler
Characterization
......................................
146
3.3.2
Postapplication
Characterization
................................
147
Appendix
A:
Use
Information
For
Carbaryl
Appendix
B:
Carbaryl
Occupational
Handler
Exposure
Data
Appendix
C:
Carbaryl
Occupational
Handler
Risk
Assessment
Appendix
D:
Carbaryl
Residue
Dissipation
(DFR
&
TTR)
Data
Appendix
E:
Carbaryl
Occupational
Postapplication
Risk
Assessment
Appendix
F:
Carbaryl
Residential
Handler
Exposure
Data
Appendix
G:
Carbaryl
Residential
Handler
Risk
Assessment
Appendix
H:
Carbaryl
Residential
Postapplication
Risk
Assessment
For
Turf
Uses
Appendix
I:
Carbaryl
Residential
Postapplication
Risk
Assessment
For
Garden/
Ornamental
Uses
Appendix
J:
Carbaryl
Residential
Postapplication
Risk
Assessment
For
Pet
Uses
Appendix
K:
Determination
of
Deposition
Factors
For
Carbaryl
Mosquito
Control
Uses
Appendix
L:
Carbaryl
Residential
Postapplication
Risk
Assessment
For
Mosquito
Control
Appendix
M:
Carbaryl
Residential
Postapplication
Risk
Assessment
For
Oyster
Bed
Uses
4
Executive
Summary
Carbaryl
[1­
napthyl
methylcarbamate]
is
one
of
the
most
widely
used
broadspectrum
insecticides
in
agriculture,
professional
turf
management,
professional
ornamental
production,
and
in
the
residential
pet,
lawn
and
garden
markets.
Carbaryl
formulations
include
baits,
dusts,
pet
collars,
flowable
concentrates,
emulsifiable
concentrates,
granulars,
soluble
concentrates,
and
wettable
powders.
Carbaryl
is
used
in
agriculture
to
control
pests
on
terrestrial
food
crops
including
fruit
and
nut
trees
(e.
g.,
apples,
pears,
almonds,
walnuts,
and
citrus),
many
types
of
fruit
and
vegetables
(e.
g.,
cucumbers,
tomatoes,
lettuce,
blackberries,
and
grapes),
and
grain
crops
(e.
g.,
corn,
rice,
sorghum,
and
wheat).
Carbaryl
is
also
used
for
direct
animal
treatments
to
control
pests
on
poultry
and
companion
animals
such
as
dogs
and
cats.
There
are
other
uses
for
ornamentals
and
turf,
including
production
facilities
such
as
greenhouses,
golf
courses,
and
residential
sites
that
can
be
treated
by
professional
applicators
(e.
g.,
annuals,
perennials,
shrubs).
Carbaryl
can
also
be
used
by
homeowners
on
lawns,
for
home
and
garden
uses,
and
on
companion
animals.
There
are
no
labels
for
indoor
uses
such
as
crack­
and­
crevice
treatments
of
a
residence.
In
agriculture,
groundboom,
airblast,
and
aerial
applications
are
typical.
Other
applications
can
also
be
made
using
handheld
equipment
such
as
low
pressure
handwand
sprayers,
backpack
sprayers,
and
turfguns.
Homeowners
can
also
use
other
types
of
application
equipment
including
trigger
sprayers,
hose­
end
sprayers,
and
ready­
to­
use
dust
packaging.
Carbaryl
also
has
more
specialized
uses
that
can
lead
to
exposures
in
the
general
population
which
were
considered
in
this
assessment
such
as
an
adulticide
for
mosquito
control
and
for
Ghost
and
Mud
shrimp
control
in
oyster
beds
in
Washington
State.

A
number
of
studies
were
considered
in
the
development
of
the
carbaryl
risk
assessment
that
include
scenario­
and/
or
chemical­
specific
handler
exposure
data
for
occupational
uses
and
also
for
residential
uses.
Chemical­
specific
residue
dissipation
data
were
also
considered
for
agricultural
crops,
turf,
and
the
oyster
bed
uses.
The
occupational
handler
exposure
studies
that
were
used,
quantified:
exposure
to
pet
groomers
using
a
carbaryl
containing
shampoo;
exposure
during
application
of
a
granular
with
two
different
backpack
devices
and
spoons;
application
with
a
trigger
sprayer;
and
application
to
turf
with
high
volume/
low
pressure
handgun
for
liquid
sprays
and
a
granular
spreader.
There
are
no
data
compensation
issues
associated
with
any
of
these
data.
In
all
other
cases,
occupational
handler
exposure
was
addressed
using
PHED
(Pesticide
Handlers
Exposure
Database).
The
occupational
postapplication
assessment
was
completed
using
5
different
residue
dissipation
studies
on
4
crops
and
turf.
The
dislodgeable
foliar
residue
(DFR)
dissipation
studies
were
all
conducted
by
the
Agricultural
Reentry
Task
Force
(ARTF)
using
carbaryl
on
cabbage,
olives,
sunflowers,
and
tobacco.
Again,
there
are
no
data
compensation
issues
associated
with
the
DFR
data
because
Aventis
is
a
member
of
the
ARTF.
The
sunflower
and
tobacco
data
were
used
only
to
assess
risks
for
their
specific
crop
groups
because
of
aerial
application
with
the
sunflowers
and
due
to
various
features
of
the
tobacco
crop
(e.
g.,
leaf
type
and
shape).
The
olive
and
cabbage
data
were
generally
used
to
complete
the
assessments
for
all
tree
crops
and
all
other
crops,
respectively.
The
turf
transferable
residue
(TTR)
data
were
generated
by
the
Aventis
Corporation
at
sites
in
California,
Georgia,
and
Pennsylvania.
These
chemical­
specific
dissipation
data
were
all
used
in
conjunction
with
the
Agency's
revised
policy
on
transfer
coefficients
to
calculate
postapplication
exposures
and
risks
(August
7,
2000/
Policy
003.1).
All
of
the
studies
used
by
the
5
Agency
to
assess
occupational
risks
were
considered
to
be
the
best
source
of
data
available
for
the
scenario
where
it
was
used.
These
recent
studies
are
all
considered
high
quality
based
on
current
Agency
guidance.
The
oyster
bed
uses
were
evaluated
using
sediment
and
water
concentration
data
generated
by
the
Washington
State
Department
of
Ecology
or
the
Shoalwater
Creek
Indian
Tribe.

A
number
of
other
studies
were
submitted
by
the
Aventis
Corporation
that
focused
on
quantifying
exposures
during
the
application
of
homeowner
products.
Three
studies
used
carbarylcontaining
products
to
quantify
exposures
during
application
of
a
dust
to
dogs,
application
of
various
products
to
gardens
(i.
e.,
dusts,
trigger
sprayer,
and
liquid
application
with
hose­
end
sprayer
or
low
pressure
handwand),
and
application
of
a
liquid
to
trees
and
shrubs
using
a
hose­
end
sprayer
or
low
pressure
handwand
sprayer.
In
addition
to
these
studies,
which
were
all
conducted
by
the
Aventis
Corporation,
an
additional
study
completed
by
the
ORETF
that
quantified
exposures
during
granular
application
to
turf
with
a
rotary
spreader
and
during
liquid
spray
application
to
turf
with
a
hose­
end
sprayer
was
used.
Aventis
is
a
member
of
the
ORETF
so
there
are
no
data
compensation
issues
associated
with
the
use
of
this
study.
For
postapplication
exposures,
Aventis
also
submitted
a
study
which
quantified
dermal
exposure
on
turf
using
oxadiazon
(Ronstar
formulation).
The
Agency
did
not
use
this
study
in
the
risk
assessment
because
of
technical
issues
including
levels
of
transferability
compared
to
the
carbaryl
TTR
data
and
the
dormant
timing
of
the
application
which
is
not
typical
for
carbaryl.
In
cases
where
chemical­
or
scenario­
specific
data
were
unavailable,
the
Agency
relied
on
guidance
provided
in
the
SOPs
For
Residential
Exposure
Assessment
and
various
supporting
documents.

This
risk
assessment
incorporates
the
recent
revisions
by
the
HIARC
and
reconsideration
of
the
FQPA
safety
factor
based
on
recently
revised
policies.
Calculations
have
been
completed
for
short­
term
and
intermediate­
term
exposures
for
all
occupational
scenarios.
Chronic
exposures
have
also
been
calculated
for
a
limited
number
of
scenarios
in
the
ornamental/
greenhouse
industry
where
such
exposure
patterns
might
be
expected.
Risks
for
residential
handlers
are
considered
to
be
shortterm
in
nature
only
because
homeowner
uses
are
expected
to
be
infrequent.
Residential
postapplication
risks
have
been
calculated
based
on
short­
term
and
intermediate­
term
exposures
because
repeated
postapplication
exposures
are
likely
while
they
are
not
for
handlers
based
on
use
patterns.
Cancer
risks
were
calculated
for
all
adults
scenarios
using
a
linear,
low­
dose
extrapolation
approach
(LADD
or
Lifetime
Average
Daily
Dose
and
Q1*).
The
short­
and
intermediate­
term
dermal
risk
assessments
for
carbaryl
were
based
on
a
21­
day
dermal
toxicity
study
in
rats
that
used
technical
material
where
decreases
in
red
blood
cell
and
brain
cholinesterase
were
observed
(NOAEL
=
20
mg/
kg/
day).
The
short­
term
inhalation
and
nondietary
ingestion
risk
assessments
for
carbaryl
were
based
on
a
developmental
neurotoxicity
study
in
rats
where
alterations
in
FOB
parameters
on
the
first
day
of
dosing
were
observed
(NOAEL
=
1
mg/
kg/
day).
The
results
of
this
study
were
applied
to
short­
term
exposure
durations
of
up
to
30
days.
The
intermediate­
term
inhalation
and
non­
dietary
ingestion
risk
assessments
for
carbaryl
are
based
on
a
subchronic
neurotoxicity
study
in
(NOAEL
=
1
mg/
kg/
day).
The
effects
that
were
observed
and
selected
as
the
basis
for
the
endpoint
used
in
risk
assessment
included
decreases
in
plasma,
red
blood
cell,
whole
blood
and
brain
cholinesterase
activity
and
changes
in
functional
observational
battery
(FOB)
parameters.
The
results
of
this
study
were
applied
to
exposure
durations
greater
than
30
days
up
to
several
months.
The
chronic
risk
assessments
for
carbaryl
were
based
on
a
1
year
dog
feeding
study
6
(LOAEL
=
3.1
mg/
kg/
day).
The
effects
that
were
observed
and
selected
as
the
basis
for
the
endpoint
used
in
risk
assessment
included
decreases
in
plasma,
and
brain
cholinesterase
activity.
The
results
of
this
study
were
applied
to
chronic
exposure
durations
and
to
all
routes
of
exposure
(i.
e.,
dermal,
inhalation,
and
non­
dietary
ingestion).
Carbaryl
was
classified
as
a
Class
C
carcinogen
and
was
assessed
for
carcinogenic
risk
from
exposure
using
a
linear,
low
dose
extrapolation
approach
with
a
Q1*
of
8.75
x
10
­4
(mg/
kg/
day)
­1
.
A
dermal
absorption
factor
of
12.7
percent
was
selected
from
a
rat
dermal
absorption
study
using
radiolabeled
14
C.
A
100
percent
inhalation
absorption
factor
was
used
to
convert
all
inhalation
exposures
to
an
oral
equivalent
inhalation
dose.

The
Agency's
level
of
concern
for
noncancer
risks
(i.
e.,
target
level
for
MOEs
or
Margins
of
Exposure)
is
defined
by
the
uncertainty
factors
that
are
applied
to
the
assessment.
The
Agency
applies
a
factor
of
100
in
cases
to
account
for
inter­
species
extrapolation
to
humans
from
the
animal
test
species
and
to
account
for
intra­
species
sensitivity.
In
cases
where
a
NOAEL
was
not
identified
and
a
LOAEL
was
used
for
risk
assessments,
an
additional
uncertainty
factor
of
3
was
applied
for
chronic
exposures.
Based
on
the
requirements
of
the
1996
Food
Quality
Protection
Act,
the
Agency
must
also
consider
sensitive
populations
in
its
non­
occupational
risk
assessments.
The
Agency
reduced
the
FQPA
safety
factor
to
1x
for
non­
occupational
exposures
to
carbaryl
because
there
are
no
residual
concerns
regarding
pre­
or
post­
natal
toxicity
or
with
the
completeness
of
the
toxicity
or
exposure
databases.
The
total
uncertainty
factors
that
have
been
applied
to
different
noncancer
risk
assessments
include
100
for
short­
term
and
intermediate­
term
occupational
scenarios.
Chronic
occupational
exposures,
which
are
very
limited
in
scope,
have
an
uncertainty
factor
of
300
because
a
LOAEL
from
the
chronic
dog
study
has
been
used
for
risk
assessment
purposes.
Since
the
FQPA
safety
factor
is
1x,
all
residential
scenarios
have
the
same
factors
applied
to
each
duration
of
exposure
as
well.
Cancer
risk
levels
were
evaluated
based
on
1996
Agency
guidance
by
then
office
director
Dan
Barolo
that
stipulates
a
risk
concern
ranging
from
1x10
­4
to
1x10
­6
for
occupational
settings
and
1x10
­6
for
residential
settings.

For
occupational
handlers,
most
scenarios
have
risks
associated
with
them
that
meet
or
exceed
the
Agency's
uncertainty
factors
for
noncancer
risk
assessments
(i.
e.,
100
for
short­
term
and
intermediate­
term
and
300
for
chronic)
and
requirements
for
cancer
risk
results
(i.
e.,
range
of
1x10
­6
to
1x10
­4
as
defined
by
Office
Director
Barolo
in
1996)
at
some
level
of
personal
protection.
Current
carbaryl
labels
typically
require
that
handlers
wear
long
pants,
long­
sleeved
shirts,
and
gloves.
Respirators
are
generally
not
required.
For
most
scenarios,
the
noncancer
risks
for
this
personal
protection
ensemble
do
not
meet
Agency
risk
requirements
and
additional
levels
of
personal
protection
are
required
to
achieve
Agency
risk
targets.
In
fact,
in
many
cases
engineering
controls
such
as
closed
loading
systems
or
closed
cab
tractors
are
needed.
The
Agency
does
have
risk
concerns
over
the
use
of
carbaryl
in
some
agricultural
and
other
occupational
settings
(i.
e.,
MOEs
at
any
level
of
personal
protection
are
<100
or
<300,
depending
on
the
duration).
As
would
be
expected,
these
scenarios
with
the
highest
associated
risk
also
have
high
daily
chemical
use
based
on
application
rates
or
high
acreages
treated
or
the
exposures
for
the
scenarios
in
question
are
relatively
high.
Generally,
the
areas
that
appear
to
be
problematic
include:
large
acreage
aerial
and
chemigation
applications
in
agriculture
or
for
wide
area
treatments
such
as
mosquito
control;
airblast
applications
at
higher
rates;
pet
grooming;
and
the
use
of
certain
handheld
equipment
for
applications
to
turf
or
gardens
(e.
g.,
bellygrinder).
This
general
trend
was
essentially
the
same
for
7
both
short­
term
and
intermediate­
term
exposures.
Risks
for
corresponding
scenarios
based
on
cancer
concerns
were
generally
less
than
noncancer
results
across
all
scenarios.
In
fact,
in
all
but
one
scenario,
cancer
risks
were
<1x10
­4
at
current
carbaryl
label
requirements
of
single
layer
clothing,
gloves,
and
no
respirator
for
both
private
growers
and
commercial
applicators.
Higher
levels
of
personal
protection
reduce
this
risk
to
<1x10
­4
for
all
scenarios
in
both
populations.
If
a
1x10
­6
risk
level
is
specified
as
a
concern,
results
are
similar
in
that
risks
for
a
majority
of
scenarios
are
<1x10
­6
at
current
label
requirements.
In
fact,
only
8
of
the
128
scenarios
considered
for
private
applicators
have
cancer
risks
>1x10
­6
(and
less
than
1x10
­4
)
even
when
the
most
protective
ensembles
of
either
protective
clothing
or
engineering
controls
are
considered.
For
commercial
applicators,
results
indicate
that
risks
for
about
half
of
the
scenarios
considered
are
<1x10
­6
at
current
label
requirements
and
that
only
21
of
the
128
scenarios
considered
have
cancer
risks
>1x10
6
(and
less
than
1x10
­4
)
even
when
the
most
protective
ensembles
of
either
protective
clothing
or
engineering
controls
are
considered.
Several
data
gaps
were
also
identified
in
many
different
use
areas
that
include:
dust
use
for
animal
grooming
and
in
agriculture;
various
specialized
hand
equipment
application
methods
(e.
g.,
powered
backpack,
power
hand
fogger,
and
tree
injection);
and
nursery
operations
such
as
seedling
dips.

Current
label
requirements
specify
12
hour
Restricted
Entry
Intervals
(REIs)
while
PreHarvest
Intervals
(PHIs)
are
less
than
7
days
for
most
crops
with
some
as
long
as
28
days.
For
all
but
the
lowest
exposure
scenarios
in
some
crops,
MOEs
do
not
meet
or
exceed
required
uncertainty
factors
until
several
days
after
application.
If
short­
term
risks
are
considered,
MOEs
meet
or
exceed
the
Agency
uncertainty
factor
generally
in
the
range
of
3
to
5
days
after
application
for
lower
to
medium
exposure
activities
and
from
8
to
12
days
after
application
in
most
higher
exposure
scenarios.
If
intermediate­
term
risks
are
considered,
MOEs
are
not
of
concern
based
on
a
30
day
average
exposures
except
for
higher
level
exposures
such
as
harvesting
in
some
crops.
Chronic
exposures
are
of
concern
for
the
cut
flower
industry
but
not
for
other
general
greenhouse
and
nursery
production
activities
based
on
the
most
recent
ARTF
data.
Cancer
risks
were
calculated
for
private
growers
and
professional
farmworkers
with
the
only
difference
being
the
annual
frequency
of
exposure
days.
Cancer
risks
for
private
growers
and
commercial
farmworkers
are
generally
in
the
10
­8
to
10
­6
range
on
the
day
of
application.
If
a
1x10
­4
cancer
risk
is
the
target,
the
current
REI
would
be
adequate
for
all
scenarios
considered
in
the
assessment.
If
a
1x10
­6
cancer
risk
is
used,
then
durations
longer
than
the
current
REI
should
be
considered
for
some
cases
which
are
not
considered
low
to
medium
exposures.
It
should
be
noted
that
the
cancer
risk
calculations
are
less
restrictive
than
noncancer
risk
estimates
for
the
same
scenarios
in
all
cases.

Many
mechanized
or
partially
mechanized
processes
are
possibly
associated
with
the
use
of
carbaryl
that
may
limit
or
eliminate
exposures
(e.
g.,
combines
for
grain
harvest).
Mechanized
practices
can
be
divided
into
fully
mechanized
activities
that
meet
the
definition
of
"No
contact"
in
the
Agency's
Worker
Protection
Standard
(WPS)
and
mechanically
assisted
practices
with
potential
for
exposure.
In
the
case
of
fully
mechanized
activities,
the
Agency
does
not
complete
a
quantitative
exposure
assessment
but
applies
criteria
outlined
in
the
Agency's
Worker
Protection
Standard
(WPS).
In
cases
of
partially
mechanized
activities
where
the
potential
for
exposure
exists,
the
Agency
assesses
the
resulting
exposures
similarly
to
those
resulting
from
hand
labor
activities.
The
Agency
also
acknowledges
that
there
is
some
potential
for
exposure
because
individuals
8
engaged
in
fully
mechanized
activities
have
short­
term
excursions
from
the
protected
area
for
various
reasons
(e.
g.,
unclogging
machinery
or
equipment
inspection
for
breakage).
In
these
cases,
the
WPS
§
170.112(
c)
Exception
for
short­
term
activities
applies.
Several
data
gaps
exist
such
as
an
incomplete
DFR
database
and
a
lack
of
exposure
data
on
partially
mechanized
cultural
practices
where
there
is
a
potential
for
exposure.
Additionally,
because
of
the
number
and
breadth
of
carbaryl
uses,
there
may
be
many
exposure
pathways
where
the
transfer
coefficient
approach
is
not
an
appropriate
model
(e.
g.,
hand
transplanting
where
no
foliar
contact
occurs)
that
have
not
been
quantitatively
addressed
due
to
a
lack
of
data.

For
residential
handlers,
MOEs
associated
with
most
scenarios
(40
of
52
considered)
are
generally
not
of
concern
because
they
exceed
the
Agency's
uncertainty
factors
for
noncancer
risk
assessments
(i.
e.,
MOE
=
100).
The
scenarios
of
concern
involve
the
use
of
dusts
(in
gardens
and
on
pets)
and
for
some
liquid
sprays
on
gardens.
Cancer
risks
were
calculated
for
a
single
day
of
use
then
the
allowable
annual
number
of
days
exposure
was
defined
based
on
a
cancer
risk
limit
of
1x10
6
.
Based
on
a
single
day
of
exposure,
cancer
risks
for
most
scenarios
are
in
the
10
­8
to
10
­10
range
although
there
is
one
scenario
where
the
risks
slightly
exceed
1x10
­6
(dusting
dogs
­
1.09x10
­6
)
even
for
a
single
day
of
use.
It
should
be
noted
that
there
are
5
scenarios
where
the
allowable
days
per
year
of
exposure
is
less
than
or
equal
to
5
which
should
be
considered
in
conjunction
with
the
use/
usage
data
from
Aventis
that
indicates
5
uses
per
year
is
the
84
th
percentile.
The
database
for
carbaryl
is
fairly
complete
compared
to
many
other
chemicals.
Recent,
high
quality
data
generated
by
the
Aventis
Corporation
and
the
ORETF,
of
which
Aventis
is
a
member,
have
been
used
to
address
the
key
residential
uses
of
carbaryl
on
lawns,
flower
and
vegetable
gardens,
and
pets.
Use
and
usage
inputs
also
appear
to
be
essentially
consistent
with
the
information
provided
by
the
Aventis
Corporation
at
the
1998
SMART
meeting.
No
key
data
gaps
have
been
identified
by
the
Agency
at
this
time
for
residential
handlers.
However,
it
is
likely
that
there
are
scenarios
that
remain
unaddressed
by
the
Agency
at
this
time
due
to
a
lack
of
data
or
other
meta
information.
The
Agency
will
address
other
appropriate
scenarios
as
they
are
identified.

The
Agency
considered
a
number
of
residential
postapplication
exposure
scenarios
for
different
segments
of
the
population
including
toddlers,
youth­
aged
children
and
adults.
Short­
term
and
intermediate­
term
noncancer
risks
were
calculated
for
all
scenarios.
Additionally,
cancer
risks
were
calculated
for
the
exposure
scenarios
involving
adults.
In
residential
settings,
the
Agency
does
not
use
REIs
or
other
mitigation
approaches
to
limit
exposures
because
they
are
viewed
as
impractical
and
not
enforceable.
As
such,
risk
estimates
on
the
day
of
application
are
the
key
concern.
9
The
Agency
considered
a
number
of
exposure
scenarios
for
products
that
can
be
used
in
the
residential
environment
representing
different
segments
of
the
population
including
toddlers,
youthaged
children
and
adults.
Short­
term
and
intermediate­
term
noncancer
MOEs
were
calculated
for
all
scenarios.
Chronic
exposures
from
pet
collars
were
also
considered.
Additionally,
cancer
risks
were
calculated
for
the
exposure
scenarios
involving
adults
where
methods
are
currently
available.
Cancer
risks
were
not
calculated
for
children
per
Agency
policy.
In
residential
settings,
the
Agency
does
not
use
REIs
or
other
mitigation
approaches
to
limit
exposures
because
they
are
viewed
as
impractical
and
not
enforceable.
As
such,
risk
estimates
on
the
day
of
application
are
the
key
concern.

The
Agency
has
short­
term
risk
concerns
for
exposures
to
adults
doing
heavy
yardwork,
for
toddlers
playing
on
treated
lawns,
and
for
toddlers
that
have
contact
with
treated
pets.
Activities
associated
with
home
gardening
(e.
g.,
harvesting)
and
golfing
for
adults,
home
gardening
for
youthaged
children
or
any
age
or
activity
considered
in
the
adulticide
mosquito
control
or
oyster
assessment
do
not
have
risk
concerns
even
on
the
day
of
application
(i.
e.,
MOEs
$
100
on
the
day
of
application).
For
adults,
the
MOEs
for
heavy
yardwork
do
not
meet
or
exceed
risk
targets
(i.
e.,
MOE
=
100)
up
to
5
days
after
application.
For
toddlers,
the
Agency
has
concerns
for
pet
treatments
and
also
for
lawn
uses.
In
fact,
pet
uses
never
reach
acceptable
levels
even
30
days
after
application
and
not
until
18
days
at
the
maximum
application
rate
considered
on
turf.
Toddler
MOEs
from
pet
and
turf
uses
represent
total
exposures
from
many
pathways.
For
the
pet
uses,
dermal
and
hand­
tomouth
exposures
essentially
both
equally
contribute
to
the
overall
estimate.
For
the
turf
uses,
dermal
and
hand­
to­
mouth
exposures
are
also
the
key
contributors
to
the
overall
estimates.

The
Agency
does
not
have
intermediate­
term
risk
concerns
for
adults
and
youth­
aged
children
for
any
of
the
uses
considered
including
lawncare,
home
gardens,
golfing,
and
any
aspect
of
adulticide
mosquito
control.
In
contrast,
the
Agency
does
have
intermediate­
term
risk
concerns
for
all
toddler
exposure
scenarios
considered
(i.
e.,
pet
treatments
and
lawncare
uses).
As
with
the
short­
term
MOEs,
pet
and
turf
uses
represent
total
exposures
where
the
significant
contributions
to
overall
exposures
are
again
made
equally
from
the
dermal
and
hand­
to­
mouth
exposure
pathways.

Cancer
risks
were
calculated
only
for
adults
and
were
found
to
be
in
the
10
­8
to
10
­11
range,
regardless
of
the
scenarios
considered,
on
the
day
of
application
(e.
g.,
lawncare,
golfing
and
gardening).
Risks
did
not
exceed
1x10
­6
on
the
day
of
application
for
any
scenario
considered.
All
postapplication
cancer
risks
were
calculated
based
on
an
annual
frequency
of
1
exposure
per
year.
It
is
likely
that
additional
events
could
occur
but
data
linking
postapplication
activities
and
carbaryl
use
patterns
are
not
available.
To
address
this
issue,
the
Agency
calculated
the
number
of
exposures
that
can
occur
under
a
cancer
risk
ceiling
of
1x10
­6
and
determined
that
from
20
days
per
year
to
exposures
every
day
of
the
year
could
occur
depending
upon
the
scenario.
Results
indicate
most
activities
can
occur
from
every
day
of
the
year
even
at
residue
levels
present
on
the
day
of
application..
10
Unlike
many
residential
risk
assessments,
the
postapplication
residential
assessment
for
carbaryl
is
based
on
a
number
of
chemical­
specific
studies
that
have
been
used
to
calculate
risks
from
turf
uses
(e.
g.,
TTR
study)
and
in
gardens
(i.
e.,
DFR
data).
There
are
no
transferable
residue
data
available
for
pet
uses
which
is
a
key
data
gap.
Additional
data
could
potentially
be
used
to
refine
risk
estimates
for
the
other
settings
such
as
additional
DFR
data
on
different
crops
and
TTR
data
which
are
more
appropriate
for
hand­
to­
mouth
and
object­
to­
mouth
exposures.

The
Agency
combines
or
aggregates
risks
resulting
from
exposures
to
individual
chemicals
when
it
is
likely
they
can
occur
simultaneously
based
on
the
use
pattern
and
the
behavior
associated
with
the
exposed
population.
For
carbaryl,
the
Agency
has
combined
risk
values
(i.
e.,
MOEs)
for
different
kinds
of
exposures
associated
with
the
turf
(dermal,
hand­
to­
mouth,
object­
to­
mouth,
and
soil
ingestion)
and
pet
scenarios
(dermal
and
hand­
to­
mouth).
These
represent
the
standard
set
of
exposures
that
are
typically
added
together
when
chemicals
are
used
on
turf
or
on
pets
because
it
is
logical
they
can
co­
occur.
Typically,
the
Agency
only
adds
exposures
from
different
exposure
scenarios
together
(e.
g.,
spraying
and
gardening)
when
risks
from
both
are
not
already
a
concern.
For
carbaryl,
there
are
risk
concerns
for
many
residential
handler
scenarios
already
so
the
Agency
did
not
add
risk
values
from
any
postapplication
exposure
together
with
applicator
risks.

It
should
also
be
noted
that
the
Agency
considered
other
sources
of
information
in
the
development
of
this
assessment.
For
example,
carbaryl
residues
were
identified
in
the
Agency
study
entitled
Pesticide
Exposure
in
Children
Living
in
Agricultural
Areas
along
the
United
States­
Mexico
Border
Yuma
County,
Arizona.
Preliminary
results
of
this
study
indicate
that
carbaryl
residues
were
identified
in
the
dust
of
20
percent
of
the
152
houses
sampled
and
in
approximately
24
percent
of
25
samples
collected
in
6
schools
in
the
same
region.
Also,
in
a
1995
study
conducted
by
the
Centers
For
Disease
Control,
1000
adults
were
monitored
via
urine
collection.
One
of
the
analytes
measured
in
that
study
(1­
napthol)
is
a
potential
metabolite
of
carbaryl
as
well
as
of
napthalene
and
napropamide.
This
metabolite
was
identified
in
86
percent
of
the
1000
adults
monitored
where
the
mean
value
was
17
ppb
and
the
99
th
percentile
was
290
ppb.
These
values
were
not
used
quantitatively
in
the
risk
assessment
for
carbaryl
because
of
the
uncertainties
associated
with
them
such
as
it
cannot
be
clearly
defined
if
carbaryl
or
the
other
chemicals
with
common
metabolites
were
the
key
contributors
to
the
measured
dose
levels.
The
Agency
instead
considers
them
a
qualitative
indicator
that
exposures
in
the
general
population
are
likely
to
occur.
Risk
estimates
using
controlled
study
data
are
protective
when
considered
in
light
of
the
available
monitoring
data.
[Note:
The
Aventis
Corporation
is
in
the
process
of
conducting
a
biomonitoring
study
with
children
who
live
in
households
where
carbaryl
has
been
used.
Preliminary
results
indicate
that
levels
at
the
highest
percentiles
of
the
distribution
are
similar
to
those
predicted
in
the
Agency's
turf
risk
assessments
for
toddlers
which
are
intended
to
represent
the
higher
percentiles
of
the
exposure
distribution.
A
more
detailed
analysis
will
be
completed
upon
submission.]

A
total
of
16
different
studies
were
used
by
the
Agency
to
calculate
carbaryl
risks.
Most
used
carbaryl
(some
handler
studies
did
not)
and
were
scenario­
specific.
Each
study
is
considered
to
be
the
best
source
of
information
for
the
scenario
in
which
it
was
used.
Each
of
the
traditional
carbaryl
exposure
studies
are
considered
to
be
high
quality
and
essentially
the
current
state
of
the
art.
There
appear
to
be
some
data
quality
issues
associated
with
the
Washington
State
water
and
11
sediment
monitoring
data.
Where
data
were
not
available,
the
Agency
used
PHED,
the
most
current
policy
for
transfer
coefficients,
and
the
most
current
approaches
for
calculating
residential
exposures
in
the
assessment.
The
Agency
also
extensively
incorporated
the
use
and
usage
information
supplied
by
the
Aventis
Corporation
at
the
1998
SMART
meeting.
The
information
provided
at
that
meeting
essentially
confirm
the
Agency
interpretation
of
carbaryl
use
patterns
which
is
a
key
element
in
the
development
of
a
risk
assessment.

This
risk
assessment
applied
the
latest
exposure
data,
toxicology
information,
and
use
data.
The
overall
results
indicate
that
the
Agency
has
risk
concerns
for
essentially
every
marketplace
where
carbaryl
is
used.
Occupational
handler
risks
can
be
mitigated
through
the
use
of
additional
protective
measures
over
and
above
the
current
label
such
as
engineering
controls
(e.
g.,
closed
cabs
or
loading
systems).
Current
label
REIs
are
12
hours.
For
almost
every
crop/
activity
combination
considered
except
some
low
exposure
activities,
the
current
REI
appears
to
be
inadequate.
Residential
handler
and
postapplication
risks
also
are
of
concern
across
many
areas.
12
1.0
Occupational
and
Residential
Exposure/
Risk
Assessment
1.1
Purpose
This
document
is
the
occupational
and
residential
non­
dietary
exposure
and
risk
assessment
for
carbaryl
which
will
be
used
in
the
reregistration
process.

1.2
Criteria
for
Conducting
Exposure
Assessments
An
occupational
and/
or
residential
exposure
assessment
is
required
for
an
active
ingredient
if
(1)
certain
toxicological
criteria
are
triggered
and
(2)
there
is
a
potential
for
exposure
to
handlers
(mixers,
loaders,
applicators)
during
use
or
to
persons
entering
treated
sites
after
application
is
complete.
Toxicological
endpoints
were
selected
for
short­,
intermediate­,
and
long­
term
exposures
(e.
g.,
NOAEL
for
short­
and
intermediate­
term
dermal
exposures
is
20.0
mg/
kg/
day
based
on
a
21­
day
dermal
administration
toxicity
study
in
rats).
Additionally,
carbaryl
has
been
classified
as
a
Group
C
possible
human
carcinogen
(i.
e.,
Q1*
=
8.75
x
10
­4
(mg/
kg/
day)
­1
).
There
is
a
significant
potential
for
exposure
in
a
variety
of
agricultural,
commercial,
and
residential
settings.
Therefore,
risk
assessments
are
required
for
occupational
and
residential
handlers
and
for
occupational
and
residential
postapplication
exposures
that
can
occur
as
a
result
of
carbaryl
use.

1.3
Summary
of
Hazard
Concerns
The
toxicological
endpoints
that
were
used
to
complete
the
occupational
and
residential
risk
assessments
are
summarized
below
and
in
Table
1
which
has
been
extracted
from
the
latest
HIARC
document
detailing
the
April
2002
meeting,
the
revised
Q1*
memo
of
November
8,
2001
(Brunsman,
TXR
No.
0050265),
and
the
latest
FQPA
SFC
committee
report
from
April
2002.
Effects
were
identified
at
different
durations
of
exposure
ranging
from
short­
term
(up
to
30
days)
to
chronic
durations
(every
working
day).
Carbaryl
was
classified
as
a
Class
C
carcinogen
and
is
assessed
for
carcinogenic
risk
using
a
linear,
low
dose
extrapolation
approach
with
a
Q1*
of
8.75
x
10
­4
(mg/
kg/
day)
­1
.

Carbaryl
is
a
widely
used
carbamate
insecticide
where
the
use
patterns
can
vary
widely
ranging
from
shorter­
term
exposures
through
uses
on
virtually
every
working
day.
As
such,
when
the
HIARC
recently
evaluated
the
carbaryl
hazard
database,
endpoints
were
selected
to
address
each
duration
of
exposure.
Exposures
can
occur
to
occupational
users
and
the
general
population
so
both
were
considered
in
this
assessment.

The
short­
and
intermediate­
term
dermal
risk
assessments
for
carbaryl
are
based
on
NOAEL
of
20.0
mg/
kg/
day
defined
in
a
dermal
toxicity
study
in
rats
(MRID
45630601)
based
on
decreases
in
RBC
and
brain
cholinesterase
in
males
and
females.
The
short­
term
inhalation
and
nondietary
ingestion
risk
assessments
for
carbaryl
are
based
on
a
NOAEL
of
1.0
mg/
kg/
day
defined
in
a
developmental
neurotoxicity
study
in
rats
(MRIDs
44393701,
45456701,
45456702,
and
45456703)
based
on
decreased
body
weight
gain,
alterations
in
FOB
measurements,
and
cholinesterase
inhibition
(plasma,
whole
blood,
and
brain).
The
LOAEL
for
this
study
was
observed
at
10
13
mg/
kg/
day.
The
results
of
this
study
were
applied
to
exposure
durations
of
up
to
30
days
and
have
been
applied
only
to
the
inhalation
and
nondietary
ingestion
routes
of
exposure.
The
intermediateterm
inhalation
and
nondietary
risk
assessments
for
carbaryl
(i.
e.,
durations
that
exceed
30
days
but
are
not
chronic
in
nature)
are
based
on
a
NOAEL
of
1.0
mg/
kg/
day
that
was
defined
in
a
subchronic
neurotoxicity
study
in
rats
(MRID
441226­
01).
The
LOAEL
for
this
study
is
also
10
mg/
kg/
day.
The
effects
that
were
observed
and
selected
as
the
basis
for
the
endpoint
used
in
risk
assessment
included
decreases
in
plasma,
whole
blood,
red
blood
cell,
and
brain
cholinesterase
activity
and
FOB
changes.
The
results
of
this
study
were
also
applied
only
to
the
inhalation
and
nondietary
ingestion
routes
of
exposure.
The
chronic
risk
assessments
for
carbaryl
are
based
on
a
1
year
dog
feeding
study
(MRIDs
401667­
01
and
420228­
01).
The
effects
that
were
observed
and
selected
as
the
basis
for
the
endpoint
used
in
risk
assessment
included
decreases
in
plasma,
and
brain
cholinesterase
activity.
A
NOAEL
was
not
defined
in
the
study
so
the
endpoint
that
was
selected
was
the
LOAEL.
The
results
of
this
study
were
applied
to
chronic
exposure
durations
and
have
been
applied
to
all
routes
of
exposure
(i.
e.,
dermal,
inhalation,
and
non­
dietary
ingestion).

A
dermal
absorption
factor
of
12.7
percent
was
selected
from
a
rat
dermal
absorption
study
using
radiolabeled
14
C;
this
value
was
used
to
calculate
the
oral
equivalent
dermal
dose
for
noncancer
chronic
duration
exposures
and
for
the
calculation
of
cancer
risks.
No
inhalation
toxicity
studies
were
selected
for
risk
assessment
purposes
so
a
route­
to­
route
extrapolation
was
used
to
address
risks
from
inhalation
exposures.
No
inhalation
absorption
study
was
conducted,
therefore
a
100
percent
inhalation
absorption
factor
is
used
to
convert
all
inhalation
exposures
to
an
oral
equivalent
inhalation
dose.

The
Agency's
level
of
concern
for
noncancer
risks
(i.
e.,
target
level
for
MOEs)
is
defined
by
the
uncertainty
factors
that
are
applied
to
the
assessment.
The
Agency
applies
a
factor
of
100
in
cases
to
account
for
inter­
species
extrapolation
to
humans
from
the
animal
test
species
and
to
account
for
intra­
species
sensitivity.
In
cases
where
a
NOAEL
is
not
identified
and
LOAEL
values
have
to
be
used
for
risk
assessments,
the
Agency
generally
applies
an
additional
factor
of
3
as
was
done
with
carbaryl
for
chronic
duration
exposures.
Based
on
the
requirements
of
the
1996
Food
Quality
Protection
Act,
the
Agency
must
also
consider
sensitive
populations
in
its
non­
occupational
risk
assessments.
The
Agency
removed
the
FQPA
1x
safety
factor
for
non­
occupational
exposures
to
carbaryl
(April
3,
2002
FQPA
SFC
report).

Table
1.
Endpoints
for
Assessing
Non­
Dietary
Risks
for
Carbaryl
Type
of
Exposure
Study
Dose
Endpoint
UF
Short­
and
Intermediateterm
Dermal
(1
day
to
several
months)
21
Dermal
Toxicity
Study
Using
Technical
Grade
Carbaryl
­
Rats
(MRID
45630601)
20
mg/
kg/
day
(NOAEL)
Significant
decreases
in
RBC
and
brain
chlolinesterase
(ChE)
100
for
residential
and
100
for
occupational
Short­
term
Inhalation
&
Non­
dietary
Ingestion
(1
to
30
days)
Developmental
Neurotoxicity
Study
­
Rats
(MRIDs
44393701,
45456701,
45456702,
45456703)
&
Acute
Neurotoxicity
Study
­
Rats
(MRIDs
438452­
01/
04)
1
mg/
kg/
day
(NOAEL)
Decreased
body
weight
gain;
FOB
changes;
and
decreases
in
plasma,
RBC,
whole
blood,
and
brain
cholinesterase
(ChE)
100
for
residential
and
100
for
occupational
Table
1.
Endpoints
for
Assessing
Non­
Dietary
Risks
for
Carbaryl
Type
of
Exposure
Study
Dose
Endpoint
UF
14
Intermediate­
term
Inhalation
&
Non­
dietary
Ingestion
(30
days
to
several
months)
Subchronic
Neurotoxicity
Study
­
Rats
(MRID
441226­
01)
1
mg/
kg/
day
(NOAEL)
Decreases
in
plasma,
RBC
and
brain
cholinesterase
(ChE)
and
FOB
changes
100
for
residential,
and
100
for
occupational
Chronic
Dermal
&
Inhalation
Dog
Chronic
Toxicity
(MRID
401667­
01
and
420228­
01)
3.1
mg/
kg/
day
(LOAEL)
Decreases
in
brain
cholinesterase
(ChE)
in
females
300
for
residential,
and
300
for
occupational
Dermal
Absorption
Rat
Dermal
Absorption
Study
12.7
percent
Inhalation
Absorption
100%
inhalation
absorption
value
­
no
study
available
Q1*
0.
000875
Based
on
increased
incidence
of
hemangiomas/
hemangiosarcomas
in
male
mice
A
series
of
acute
toxicity
tests
were
also
conducted
using
carbaryl
(i.
e.,
outside
of
the
rat
study
which
is
discussed
above).
The
results
indicate
that
carbaryl
is
a
category
III
toxicant
via
the
oral
and
dermal
routes
and
a
category
IV
toxicant
via
inhalation.
It
is
also
a
category
IV
eye
and
skin
irritant.
Results
were
negative
for
dermal
sensitization
and
delayed
acute
neurotoxicity
in
hens.

1.4
Incident
Reports
An
incidence
report
has
been
completed
by
the
Agency.
It
is
considered
with
the
information
included
in
this
document
in
the
overall
human
health
risk
assessment
for
carbaryl.
The
identifying
information
for
the
incident
report
(i.
e.,
date
and
author,
etc.)
is
included
in
the
overall
human
health
risk
assessment.

1.5
Summary
of
Use
Patterns
and
Formulations
Carbaryl
products
are
described
in
this
section.
Additionally,
available
information
that
describes
the
manner
in
which
registered
carbaryl
end­
use
products
are
used
is
provided
in
this
section
(e.
g.
use
categories/
sites,
application
methods
and
application
rates).
For
more
detailed
information,
please
refer
to
Appendix
A
of
this
document.
Appendix
A
contains
the
Quantitative
Usage
Analysis
For
Carbaryl
produced
in
1998
by
the
Biological
and
Economic
Analysis
Division
and
the
Use
Profile
Report
For
Carbaryl
also
produced
in
1998
by
the
Biological
and
Economic
Analysis
Division.
15
1.5.1
End­
Use
Products
Carbaryl
(1­
naphthyl
N­
methyl­
carbamate)
is
a
broad­
spectrum
carbamate
insecticide
marketed
in
a
variety
of
end­
use
products
for
both
occupational
and
homeowner
use.
End­
use
product
names
include
Adios,
Bugmaster,
Carbamec,
Carbamine,
Crunch,
Denapon,
Dicarbam,
Hexavin,
Karbaspray,
Nac,
Rayvon,
Septene,
Sevin,
Tercyl,
Tornado,
Thinsec,
and
Tricarnam.
Use
sites
include
but
are
not
limited
to:
fruit
and
nut
trees;
vegetable
crops;
field
and
forage
crops;
grapes;
forestry;
lawns
and
other
turf
such
as
golf
courses;
ornamental
trees,
shrubbery,
annuals,
and
perennials;
wide
area
treatment
targets
such
as
residential
mosquito
adulticide
uses;
poultry
production
facilities;
and
companion
animals
(e.
g.,
dogs
and
cats).

Table
2
summarizes
the
technical
and
manufacturing
products
with
their
respective
EPA
registration
numbers.

Table
2:
Technical
and
Manufacturing
Carbaryl
Products
Formulation
EPA
Reg.
No.
(%
active
ingredient)

Technical
34704­
707
(99%);
264­
324
(99%),­
325
(97.5%);
19713­
75
(99%)

Manufacturing
Product
264­
328
(80%);
769­
971
(80%);
19713­
369
(50
%);
4816­
270
(97.5%),­
407
(1%)

Based
on
a
review
(2/
27/
01)
of
the
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs
–
Reference
Files
System
(REFS),
there
are
307
active
product
labels.
Carbaryl
formulations
include
dusts,
emulsifiable
concentrates,
soluble
concentrates;
water
dispersible
granulars;
flowable
concentrates;
wettable
powders;
granulars;
baits;
pet
dips
and
pet
shampoos;
aerosol
sprays;
ready­
to­
use
pump
sprayers;
and
pet
collars
(i.
e.,
treated
articles).
Table
3
outlines
the
formulations
and
EPA
registration
numbers
for
labels
of
carbaryl
end­
use
products
according
to
REFs.
Many
of
the
products
described
in
Table
3
can
be
used
in
a
variety
of
settings
ranging
from
agriculture
and
commercial
facilities
to
residential
areas.
Some
products
are
marketed
in
a
single
marketplace
while
others
are
sold
for
use
in
each
setting.
From
sales
information
provided
by
the
Aventis
Corporation
at
the
SMART
meeting
with
EPA
on
September
24,
1998
approximately
34
percent
of
carbaryl
end­
use
products
are
used
in
the
homeowner/
residential
setting
while
59
percent
is
used
in
agriculture.
The
remaining
7
percent
is
used
in
nursery,
landscape
and
golf
course
industries.
16
Table
3:
End­
Use
Product
Formulations
and
EPA
Reg.
Number.

Formulation
Type
EPA
Registration
Number
(Percent
Active
Ingredient)

Emulsifiable
Concentrates
&
Flowable
Concentrates
7401­
83,­
210
(25%),­
208(
13%);
19713­
49(
43.4%),­
89
(22.5%),
­131(
49%);
51036­
66(
43.3%),­
123(
22.5%);
10163­
60
(43.7%
),­
134(
80%);
10107­
42
(43.4%),­
44
(23.4%);
11715­
207,­
209,­
229
(42.6%);
33955­
533
(23.4%);
67517­
31(
5%);
9779­
260
(43.4%);
8660­­
133
(11.7%);
264­
321
(40%),
­333
(44.1%),
­334(
22.5%),
335
­349
(43%),
­422
(48%)
;
2217­
366
(50%),
600
(23.4%);
4­
59(
0.5%),­
122
(0.
3%);­
237
(22.5%);
192­
174
(21.3%);
239­
2628(
21.3%);
270­
286
(23%);
407­
383
(24%);
5905­
251
(40.38%);
5887­
102,­
162
(0.
3%)
0;
769­
493(
42.85%),­
573
(23%),
­648,­
865,­
883
(21.3%);
28293­
222(
21.3%);
59144­
6
(21.3%);
46515­
35
(11.7%);
16­
76
(21.3%);
34704­
447(
43%);
8660­
70
(24.4%);
909­
103(
21.3%);
46515­
36(
21.3%);
7401­
38,
­62
(5%),
386
(13.5);
802­
585
(21.3%);
50383­
10
(22.5%);
54705­
4
(41.2%);
16­
76
SLNs:
CO8800­
1300,
FL8900­
3700,
HI9700­
0300,
NC9600­
0300,
OH9600­
0300,OR9500­
0600,PA9600­
0200,
VA9500­
0100,
WA9700­
2200
Wettable
Powders
&
Soluble
Granules
33955­
450
(50%);
51036­
151(
80%);
19713
­50
(80%),­
52(
50%),
­363
(85%),
­84
(95%);
10163­
133
(80%);
9779­
294(
90%);
8660­
60
(50%);
5905­
517
(80%);
264­
314
(50%),
­315
(85%),­
316
(80%),
­427
(39.7%),
­526
(80%);
5481­
65
(50%),
242
(0.
5%),
271
(50%);
5887­
86
(50%);
2217­
389
(50%);
4­
157
(13.5%),
387
(50%);
769­
574
(80%),­
868
(50%),­
919
(21.3),­
920,
­834,­
972
(50%);
70­
285
(50%);
1386­
445;
34704­
350(
50%),­
619
(80%);
1386­
455;
16­
99(
50%);
407­
287(
50%);
228­
249(
5%)

SLNs:
CA7802­
070,
CA8100­
5900,
CA8300­
0700,
CA8300­
0701,
CA8300­
0702,
FL8900­
3600,
HI9600­
0900,
NC8200­
0700,
NC8700­
0702,
WA9000­
1300
Dusts
67517­
32
(10%);
9198­
141
(2.
37%),­
147(
5%),­
148(
10%);
4­
29
(1.
25%),­
143
(5%),­
413,
­415;
16­
12
(2%),­
98
(10%),­
121(
5%),­
127(
2%);
239­
1349,­
1513
(10%),
­2181
(5%);
270­
272
(5%);
70­
165
(10%),­
166(
5%);
16­
27
(5%);
67572­
16
(5%),­
36
(10%);
59144­
3
(5%),­
5
(10%);
50383­
16
(5%);
49585­
4,­
24
(5%),­
26(
10%);
435763
5%);
34911­
6
(5%);
28293­
6,­
10,
­301,­
302(
5%),­
14(
12.5%),­
18,­
102,­
301
(10%),­
237(
5%);
19713­
53,212
10%),­
213(
5%),­
244(
80%);
829­
128
(5%),­
131(
1.75%),­
142(
50%),­
200(
10%);
2217­
383,­
572
(5%);
272475
(5%);
2781­
25(
5%);
769­
559,­
611,­
613,­
642,­
647,­
906
(5%),­
835(
1.75%),­
229,­
612,­
665(
10%),
614
12.5%);
655­
788(
5%),­
789
(10%);
11715­
250(
12.5%),­
255,
­294(
5%),­
292(
10%);
9779­
74
(5%);
8660­
72,234
5%),­
241(
10%);
7401­
69,­
310(
5%),­
291(
1.75),­
334(
2%),­
81,­
166,­
154(
10%);
5887­
43(
5%);
5481­
275,282
321(
2%),­
58,­
98,­
253,­
283,­
316,­
451
(5%),­
312,­
323(
7.5%),­
108,­
277,­
294(
10%),­
190(
46%);
4758­
7,
32
34(
5%);
4306­
10(
5%);
3342­
100(
5%);
5887­
77(
0.3%);
2935­
193
(5%),­
320(
10%);
3342­
51(
5%),­
53(
2%),
56
1.75%),­
69(
10%);
2393­
375(
5%);
1386­
451,­
630(
5%)­
633(
10%);
869­
118(
5%).­
180(
10%);
802­
442(
5%);
572­
107(
5%);
192­
70(
5%);
228­
251,­
252(
5%);
51036­
13(
10%),­
48(
5%);
33955­
462(
5%);
10163­
124(
10%);
10159­
2(
5%);
10107­
43(
10%),­
45(
5%);
9779­
81(
10%),­
61(
50%);
36272­
14(
5%);
37425­
13(
12.5%);
497843
12.5%);
71949­
11(
10%),­
10(
5%)

Granular
28293­
233
(6.
3%);
9198­
142
(3.
5%);
5887­
94,­
170
(5%);
769­
728
(5%),
­970*(
3.5%),­
976(
2%);
59144­
26*(
1%),
27*
(2%);
34704­
289(
10%),­
373*
(5%);
32802­
58(
3.9%),­
59*
(1.
43);
10404­
61*(
6.3%),
62*(
4%);
8378­
31*(
4.3%),­
36*(
1.43%);
5481­
89(
10%),­
90,­
97*(
5%),­
95*(
4%),
­
100*(
5%);
264­
430*(
7%);
90983
5%);
869­
228*(
2%);
9779­
156*(
5%);
8660­
28*
(1%);
7401­
43(
3.34%),­
51(
1.8%);
192­
199
(2%);
4142
4.6%);
572­
204(
8%);
802­
351(
5%);
264­
429(
7%);
5905­
169(
10%),
180(
180%);
9198­
106(
6.2%),
139
4.6%),­
143(
4%),­
144(
4.55%),­
145(
6.3%),­
146(
8%);
19713­
334(
10%);
51036­
225(
5%);
67572­
81(
1%)

Bait
67650­
2
(2%);;
61282­
4,­
21(
10.04%),­
16,­
22
(5%);
42057­
39
(4%);
32802­
51
(5%);
10370­
152
(5%);
8278­
3
(5%);
769­
729,­
730
(5%);
802­
493
(5%);
31282­
22*
(5%);
4­
333*
(5%);
1386­
655*(
5%);
10107­
143*
(5%);
869­
119(
5%);
7401­
72*(
4%),­
148
(2%),­
265(
4%);
8119­
5
(5%);
239­­
2514
(5%);
70­
244(
5%);
829182
4.25%),­
285
(5%);
961­
290(
7.15%),­
355(
5.93%);
264­
312
(10%),­
320(
5%);
2393­
209(
5%);
6973­
10(
4%);
7729­
7(
5%);
8660­
111(
5%),­
188(
4.55%);
10163­
32(
5%);
11656­
20(
4%),­
21(
5%);
28293­
235(
5%);
34704­
23,483
5%);
49399­
1(
2%),­
2(
5%);
51036­
61(
5%),,­
185,­
210(
13%),­
204,­
227(
1.3%),­
286(
10%);
59639­
52,60
5%);
2935­
366(
5%);
19713­
494(
5%);
34911­
8(
4%);
67572­
56(
4%);
71949­
12(
5%)

SLNs:
FL9200­
0800
Dips,
Shampoos
28293­
8(
60%);
2097­
8
(0.
5%)

Pet
collars
(treated
articles)
2724­
272
(8.
5%),
273
(16%)
Table
3:
End­
Use
Product
Formulations
and
EPA
Reg.
Number.

Formulation
Type
EPA
Registration
Number
(Percent
Active
Ingredient)

17
Ready
to
Use
Pump
Sprayers
&
Aerosol
Cans
1910­
2
(1%);
67572­
75
(0.
126%);
9444­
98,­
190
(0.
5%);
769­
977(
0.126%);
8119­
3
(5%);
28293­
97
(0.
5%)

1.5.2
Mode
of
Action
and
Targets
Controlled
Carbaryl
(1­
naphthyl
methylcarbamate)
belongs
to
the
carbamate
class
of
pesticides.
Like
the
other
carbamates,
carbaryl
antagonizes
acetylcholine
and
competes
for
binding
sites
on
the
enzyme
cholinesterase.
In
agriculture
and
residential/
recreational
areas,
carbaryl
is
used
as
a
contact
insecticide
recommended
for
use
against
pests
in
a
variety
of
settings.
These
pests
include
(i.
e.,
based
on
information
provided
on
labels
and
in
the
Use
Profile
Report
included
as
Appendix
A
of
this
document):

°
On
Fruit
Trees
and
Nut
Trees:
apple
aphid,
apple
maggot,
apple
mealybug,
apple
rust
mite,
apple
sucker,
bagworms,
California
pearlslug,
codling
moth,
eastern
tent
caterpillar,
European
apple
sawfly,
eyespotted
bud
moth,
fruittree
leafroller,
green
fruitworm,
Japanese
beetle,
lesser
appleworm,
lygusbugs,
orange
tortrix,
pear
leaf
blister
mite,
pear
psylla,
pear
rust
mite,
periodical
cicada,
plum
curculio,
redbanded
leafroller,
scale
insects,
tarnished
plant
bug,
tentiform
leafminers.
White
apple
leafhopper,
wooly
apple
aphid,
navel
orangeworm,
peach
twig
borer,
san
Jose
scale,
European
raspberry
aphid,
omnivorous
leafroller,
raspberry
sawfly,
rose
chafer,
snowy
rose
tree
cricket,
blueberry
maggot,
sherry
fruitworm,
cranberry
fruitworm,
European
fruit
lecanium,
chestnut
weevil,
avocado
leafroller,
california
orangedog,
citrus
cutworm
citrus
root
weevil,
fullers
rose
beetle,
orange
tortrix,
western
tussock
moth,
west
Indian
sugarcane
borer,
filbert
aphid,
filbert
leafroller,
filbertworm,
eight
spotted
forester,
grape
berry
moth,
grape
leaffolder,
grape
leafhopper,
June
beetles,
saltmarsh
caterpillar,
western
grapeleaf
skeletonizer,
western
yello­
striped
armyworm,
olive
scale,
apple
pendemis,
cucumber
beetles,
European
earwig,
lesser
peach
tree
borer,
oriental
fruit
moth,
peach
twig
borer,
tarnished
plant
bug,
tussock
moth,
black
margined
aphid,
fall
webworm,
pecan
leaf
phylloxera,
pecan
nut
casebearer,
pecan
spittlebug,
pecan
stem
phylloxera,
pecan
weevil,
twig
girdler,
walnut
caterpillar,
calico
scale.

°
On
Terrestrial
Food
and
Feed
Crops:
blister
beetles,
Mexican
bean
beetles
alfalfa
caterpillar,
beanleaf
beetle,
cucumber
beetle,
grasshoppers,
green
cloverworm,
japanese
beetle,
leafhoppers,
three
cornered
alfalfa
hopper,
thrips,
velvetbean
caterpillar,
alfalfa
weevil
larvae,
armyworm,
cloverhead
weevil,
cotton
fleahopper,
cotton
leafworm,
flea
beetle,
striped
blister
beetle,
boll
weevil,
bollworms,
cotton
leafperforator,
plant
bugs,
saltmarsh
caterpillar,
corn
earworm,
corn
rootworm
adults,
southwestern
corn
borer,
japanese
beetle,
European
corn
borer,
cutworms,
Egyptian
alfalfa
weevil
larvae,
Essex
skipper,
European
alfalfa
beetle,
fall
armyworm,
lygus
bugs,
webworms,
yellowstriped
armyworm,
asparagus
beetle,
apache
cicada,
stinkbugs,
tarnished
plant
bug,
webworm,
cowpea
curculio,
aster
leafhoppers,
harlequin
bug,
imported
cabbageworm,
melonworm,
18
pickleworm,
squash
bugs,
pink
bollworm,
range
caterpillars,
thrips,
white
grubs,
white
fringed
beetle
adult,
Colorado
potato
beetle,
pea
leaf
weevil,
tomato
fruitworm,
tomato
hornworm,
grape
colaspis,
sweet
potatoweevil;,
tortoise
beetles,
green
June
beetle
grubs,
budworms,
cereal
leaf
beetle
(except
in
CA).

°
On
Ornamentals:
blister
beetle,
flea
beetle,
boxelder
bug,
japanese
beetle,
June
beetle,
lace
bug,
leafhopper,
leafroller,
mealybug,
plant
bug,
psyllids,
rose
aphid
thrips,
apple
aphid,
bagworm,
birch
leafminer,
cankerworm,
eastern
spruce
gall
aphid,
elm
leaf
aphid,
elm
leaf
beetle,
gypsy
moth,
mimosa
webworm,
oak
leafminer,
orange
tortrix,
periodical
cicada,
puss
caterpillar,
rose
aphid,
rose
slug,
sawfly,
scale,
tent
caterpillar,
thrips,
willow
leaf
beetle.

°
On
Lawns/
Turf:
ants,
bluegrass
billbug,
chinch
bug,
cut
worm,
crane
fly,
earwig,
European
chafer,
fall
armyworm,
fleas,
green
June
beetle,
leafhopper,
millipedes,
mosquitoes,
sod
webworms
(lawn
moths),
ixoides
spp.(
deer
tick,
bear
tick,
black
legged
tick),
amblyomma
spp.(
lone
star
tick).

°
Poultry:
northern
fowl
mite,
chicken
mite,
lice,
fleas,
bedbugs,
fowl
ticks.

°
In
and
Around
Buildings:
indoors:
ants,
crickets,
firebrats,
silverfish,
bees,
wasps,
brown
dog
ticks,
fleas,
carpenter
ants,
scorpions,
centipedes,
earwigs,
millipedes,
cockroaches,
spiders.

°
Outdoors:
ants,
bees,
wasps,
brown
dog
ticks,
carpenter
ants,
centipedes,
cockroaches,
crickets,
earwigs,
firebrats,
fire
ants
(mound
treatment),
silverfish,
fleas
millipedes,
scorpions
and
spiders.

°
Public
Health/
Wide
Area:
mosquitoes.

°
Dogs
and
cats:
fleas
and
ticks,
on
animal
and
in
bedding/
housing.

1.5.3
Registered
Use
Categories
and
Sites
An
analysis
of
the
current
labeling
and
available
use
information
was
completed
using
the
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs–
Label
Use
Information
System
(LUIS)
in
addition
to
REFs.
Carbaryl
is
registered
for
use
in
a
variety
of
occupational
and
homeowner/
residential
scenarios.
For
reasons
of
clarity
in
the
risk
assessment
process,
the
use
patterns
have
been
described
in
a
manner
that
delineates
occupational
from
homeowner/
residential
uses.

Occupational
Use
Sites
Occupational
populations
are
potentially
exposed
while
making
carbaryl
applications
to
the
following
targets
or
after
contact
with
the
treated
targets
after
previous
carbaryl
applications.
The
following
list
is
a
summary
of
occupational
use
sites
as
described
in
the
Carbaryl
Use
Profile
prepared
by
Don
Atwood
of
the
Biological
and
Economic
Analysis
Division
in
November
of
1998
19
(see
Appendix
A).
[Note:
Modifications
to
the
Use
Profile
have
been
made
based
on
label
deletions
and
modifications
since
November
of
1998.]

Terrestrial
Food
Crop
Cucurbits
­
cucumber,
melons,
Chinese
okra,
pumpkin,
and
squash
Flavoring
and
Spice
Crops
­
dill
Fruiting
Vegetables
­
tomato,
eggplant
and
pepper
Grain
Crops
­
prosso
millet
Leafy
and
Stem
Vegetables
­
beets,
broccoli,
brussels
sprouts,
cabbage,
chinese
cabbage,
cauliflower,
celery,
Swiss
chard,
collards,
dandelion,
endive
(escarole),
hanover
salad,
kale,
kohlrabi,
lettuce
(head,
crisphead
types,
leaf
types),
mustard,
parsley,
rhubarb,
and
spinach
Miscellaneous
Fruits
­
olive
Miscellaneous
Vegetables
­
asparagus
Nut
Crops
­
almond,
chestnut,
filbert
(hazelnut),
pecan,
pistachio,
and
walnut
(english/
black)
Pome
Fruits
­
crabapple,
pear,
and
quince
Root
Crop
Vegetables
­
beets,
carrot
(including
tops),
horseradish,
radish,
rutabaga,
salsify,
and
sweet
potato
Small
Fruits
­
blackberry,
blueberry,
boysenberry,
caneberries,
cranberry,
dewberry,
loganberry,
raspberry
(black,
red),
and
strawberry
Specialized
Field
Crops
­
okra
Stone
Fruits
­
apricot,
cherry,
nectarine,
peach,
plum,
and
prune
Terrestrial
Food+
Feed
Crop
Citrus
Fruits
­grapefruit,
lemon,
lime,
orange,
tangerine
Crops
Grown
for
Oil
­
field
corn,
flax,
and
sunflower
Miscellaneous
Fruits
­
longan
and
mango
Fiber
Crops
­
flax
Fruiting
Vegetables
­
tomato
Grain
Crops
­
field
corn,
rice,
sorghum
and
wheat
Groups
of
Agricultural
Crops
Which
Cross
Established
Crop
Groupings
­
cotton,
peanuts,
peas,
sorghum,
soybeans,
and
vegetables
Leafy
and
Stem
Vegetables
­
mustard
and
turnip
Nut
Crops
­
almond,
chesnuts,
filberts,
pecans,
pistachios
and
walnuts
Pome
Fruits
­
apple,
pears,
loquats,
crabapples
and
oriental
pears
Root
Crop
Vegetables
­
parsnip,
white/
irish
potato,
salsify,
and
turnip
Seed
and
Pod
Vegetables
­
beans
(dried
type),
succulent
beans
(lima
and
snap),
cowpea/
blackeyed
pea,
cowpea/
sitao,
lentils,
peanuts,
peas
(dried
type),
field
peas,
southern
peas,
succulent
peas,
and
soybeans
(edible)
Small
Fruits
­
grapes,
caneberries,
blueberries,
cranberries
and
strawberries
Specialized
Field
Crops
­
popcorn,
sweet
corn,
and
sunflower
Sugar
Crops
­
sugar
beet
20
Terrestrial
Feed
Crop
Forage
Grasses
­
corn,
grass
forage/
fodder/
hay,
millet
(proso),
pastures,
rangeland,
rice,
sorghum,
and
wheat
Forage
Legumes
and
Other
Nongrass
Forage
Crops
­
alfalfa,
clover,
cotton,
and
trefoil
Grain
Crops
­
proso
millet
Groups
of
Agricultural
Crops
Which
Cross
Established
Crop
Groupings
­
grasses
grown
for
seed
Terrestrial
non­
food
crop
Agricultural
Uncultivated
Areas
­
Agricultural
fallow/
idleland
and
Agricultural
rights­
of
way/
fencerows/
hedgerows
Commercial/
Industrial/
Institutional
Premises
and
Equipment
Commercial/
Institutional/
Industrial
premises/
Equipment
(Outdoor)
Fiber
Crops
Forest
Trees
­
christmas
tree
plantations
Groups
of
Agricultural
Crops
Which
Cross
Established
Crop
Groupings
­
Fruits
(unspecified)
Nonagricultural
Uncultivated
Areas
­
Outdoor
buildings/
structures,
rights­
ofway
fencerows/
hedgerows,
uncultivated
areas/
soils,
and
recreational
areas
Ornamental
Lawns
and
Turf
­
commercial/
industrial
lawns,
golf
course
turf,
Ornamental
sod
farm
(turf),
and
recreational
area
lawns
Specialized
Field
Crops
­
tobacco
Wide
Area/
General
Outdoor
Treatments
­
fencerows/
hedgerows,
urban
areas,
and
wide
area/
general
outdoor
treatment
(public
health
use)

Terrestrial
non­
food+
outdoor
residential
Nonagricultural
Uncultivated
Areas
­
rights­
of­
way/
fencerows/
hedgerows
Ornamental
Herbaceous
Plants
Ornamental
Lawns
and
Turf
Ornamental
Nonflowering
Plants
Ornamental
Woody
Shrubs
and
Vines
Ornamental
and/
or
Shade
Trees
Wide
Area/
General
Outdoor
Treatments
­
fencerows/
hedgerows
Terrestrial+
Greenhouse
non­
food
crop
Ornamental
Herbaceous
Plants
Ornamental
Woody
Shrubs
and
Vines
Ornamental
and/
or
Shade
Trees
Animal
Uses
Poultry
(chickens,
ducks,
geese,
game
birds,
turkeys)
Livestock
(cattle,
sheep,
horses,
etc.)
21
Pets
(cats
and
dogs)

Aquatic
food
crop
Aquatic
Sites
­
commercial
fishery
water
systems
Grain
Crops
­
rice
Small
Fruits
­
cranberry
Fish
&
Shellfish
Uses
­
oyster
beds
Aquatic
non­
food
industrial
Aquatic
Sites
­
Drainage
systems
Forestry
Forest
Trees
­
forest
plantings
(reforestation
programs,
tree
farms,
tree
plantations,
etc),
forest
trees
(all
or
unspecified),
maple
(forest),
and
shelterbelt
plantings
Homeowner/
Residential
Use
Sites
Residential
and
non­
occupational
use
sites
include
those
labeled
for
outdoor
applications
such
as
on
lawns,
gardens,
and
ornamentals
as
well
as
for
use
on
companion
animals
such
as
dogs
or
cats.
There
are
no
labels
that
allow
indoor
premise
treatments
(e.
g.,
crack
and
crevice
or
broadcast).
Carbaryl
can
be
purchased
and
used
by
homeowners
in
residential
settings.
It
can
also
be
used
by
professionals
such
as
LCOs
(Lawn
Care
Operators)
in
residential
settings.
Exposures
can
also
occur
as
a
result
of
uses
in
other
areas
frequented
by
the
general
population
such
as
parks
and
recreational
areas,
treated
Christmas
tree
plantations,
and
forests.
Veterinary
clinic
uses
can
also
result
in
exposures
due
to
contact
with
treated
animals.
The
following
is
a
list
of
use
sites
in
the
residential
environment.

°
Trees:
fruits,
nuts,
and
shade/
ornamental;

°
Lawns
and
Ornamentals:
lawns,
house
perimeter,
shrubs
and
flowers;

°
Vegetables:
beans,
berries,
broccoli,
brussels
sprouts,
cabbage,
carrots,
cauliflower,
corn,
cowpeas,
cucumbers,
eggplant,
herbs,
lettuce,
melon,
okra,
onions,
peas,
peppers,
potatoes,
summer
squash,
tomatoes;

°
Pets:
dogs,
cats,
and
housing/
bedding;
and
°
Fire
Ant
Mounds
22
1.5.4
Application
Parameters
Application
parameters
are
generally
defined
by
the
physical
nature
of
the
use
site,
the
physical
nature
of
the
formulation
(e.
g.,
formula
and
packaging),
by
the
equipment
required
to
deliver
the
chemical
to
the
use
site,
and
by
the
application
rate
required
to
achieve
an
efficacious
dose.
As
such,
the
application
parameters
for
major
crop
groups
or
application
targets
have
been
summarized
by
identifying
the
maximum
application
rates
for
each
group
and
the
equipment
that
can
be
used
to
make
applications.
All
of
the
information
presented
below
are
summarized
from
the
Agency's
QUA
and
Use
Profile
documents
included
as
Appendix
A,
from
the
SMART
meeting
information
provided
to
the
Agency
on
September
24,
1998
by
the
Aventis
Corporation,
from
current
carbaryl
labels,
and
from
the
use
summary
used
in
the
dietary
exposure
aspect
of
the
risk
assessment.

Selected
crop
groupings
and
application
targets
along
with
corresponding
typical
(if
available)
and
maximum
application
rates
that
are
used
in
the
risk
assessment
are
presented
in
Table
4
below.
Additionally,
the
equipment
that
can
be
used
to
make
applications
are
also
discussed
below
for
each
crop
group
considered.
The
Agency
could
not
quantitatively
address
the
use
of
carbaryl
in
every
specific
crop
or
setting
in
its
risk
assessment
because
of
the
associated
level
of
complexity
that
would
be
added
to
the
risk
assessment
process.
Instead,
representative
crops
or
targets
were
selected
that
were
used
as
the
basis
for
the
assessment.
A
broad
range
of
rates
were
used
to
ensure
that
use
scenarios
would
be
addressed
in
the
range
of
values
selected.

Table
4:
Representative
Application
Rates
Considered
in
Risk
Assessment
Crop
or
Target
Occupational
Products
Residential
Products
lb
ai/
1000
ft
2
(units
may
vary)
lb
ai/
A/
acre
(units
may
vary)
max.
apps/
season
lb
ai/
season
Average
Rates
Alfalfa,
clover,
trefoil
1.
5
1/
cutting
1.
5/
cutting
1.
1
Asparagus
2
4
­
postharvest
3
­
broadcast
2
­
postharvest
6
­
broadcast
10
­
postharvest
0.9
0.
023
­0.
094
Beans
(fresh
&
dried),
cowpeas,
peas
1.5
4
6
0.
9
0.012­
0.047
Beets,
carrot,
horseradish,
radish,
parsnip
2
­
foliar
2.2
­
soil
broadcast
6
­
foliar
4
­
soil
6
0.
8
0.012­
0.047
Blueberries
2
­
foliar
0.5
lb/
1000
ft
2
­
soil
5
10
1.
7
0.012­
0.047
Cole
Crops
(broccoli,
brussel
sprouts,
cabbage,
cauliflower,
chinese
cabbage,
collards,
kale,
kohlrabi,
mustard
greens)
2
­
foliar
2.2
­
soil
broadcast
4
6
0.8
0.
012­
0.047
Caneberries
2
­
foliar
2.2
­
soil
broadcast
5
4
10
Not
specified
1.7
0.
012­
0.047
Celery,
Dandelion
2
­
foliar
2.2
­
soil
broadcast
4
6
1.0
0.
012­
0.047
Citrus
16
(foliar
in
CA
only)
10
(foliar
in
FL
only)
7.5
­
foliar
1
lb/
100
gal.
1
Not
specified
8
Not
specified
20
Not
specified
20
Not
specified
2.7
to
3.4
(lemons
&
oranges)
0.023­
0.176
Table
4:
Representative
Application
Rates
Considered
in
Risk
Assessment
Crop
or
Target
Occupational
Products
Residential
Products
lb
ai/
1000
ft
2
(units
may
vary)
lb
ai/
A/
acre
(units
may
vary)
max.
apps/
season
lb
ai/
season
Average
Rates
23
Corn
(field
and
pop)
2
4
8
1.
0
0.012­
0.047
Corn
(sweet)
2
­
foliar
2.2
­
soil
broadcast
8
4
16
Not
specified
1.3
0.
012­
0.047
Cranberry
2
5
10
2.0
0.
012­
0.047
Cucurbits
(cucumber,
melon,
pumpkin,
squash)
1
6
6
1.
1
0.012­
0.047
Fruiting
Vegetable
(tomato,
eggplant,
pepper)
2
7
8
1.
0
0.012­
0.047
Grapes
2
5
10
1.4
0.
012­
0.047
Grasses
Grown
For
Seed
1.5
2
3
0.
8
(based
on
hay)
Leafy
Vegetable
(head
and
leaf
lettuce,
endive,
mustard
green)
2
­
foliar
2.2
­
soil
broadcast
5
4
6
Not
specified
1.1
0.
012­
0.047
Nuts
(almond,
chestnut,
pecan,
pistachio,
walnut,
etc.),
foliar
or
dormant/
delayed
5
4
15
2.5
(pecans)
0.047­
0.12
Nuts
(almond,
chestnut,
pecan,
walnut),
foliar
in
CA
1
lb
ai/
100
gal
Not
specified
Not
specified
Not
specified
0.047­
0.12
Ornamental
2.2
or
2%
solution
­
­
1.
5
0.023
Oyster
beds
(SLN
only)
10
Not
specified
Not
specified
­
Peanut
2
5
8
0.
8
0.012­
0.047
Pome
fruit
3
8
15
1.
2
(based
on
apples)
0.012­
0.07
Poultry
1/
1000
ft
2
broiler
0.64­
0.76/
100
layers
­­­

Potatoes
&
Tubers
(turnips)
2
6
6
0.8
Rangeland
pastures
1
1
1
0.
9
Rice
1.5
2
4
1.
1
Right
of
Way
1.
5
3
0.
4
Sorghum
2
4
6
1.
1
Stone
fruit
(apricot,
cherry,
nectarine,
peach,
plum/
prune),
foliar
or
dormant/
delayed
3
4
­
CA
only
3
foliar
&
1
dormant/
delayed
14
1.1
0.
047­
0.12
Stone
fruit
(apricot,
cherry,
nectarine,
peach,
plum/
prune),
foliar
1
lb
ai/
100
gal
Not
specified
Not
specified
Not
specified
0.047­
0.12
Strawberries
2
5
10
1.4
0.
012­
0.047
Sugar
beets
1.
5
to
2
2
to
4
4
1.3
0.
012­
0.047
Sweet
Potatoes
2
foliar
8
lb/
100
gal
drip
8
foliar
Not
specified
8
foliar
1.2
1.6
foliar
Not
specified
0.012­
0.047
Sunflower
1.
5
2
3
0.7
0.
012­
0.047
Tobacco
2
4
8
1.
1

Tree
farm
1
­
2
0.
7

Turf/
golf
8
­
liquids
9
­
granulars
­
0.
8/
1000sf
2
to
4
0.
047
to
0.25
(lawns)
[max
levels
for
different
products]
Wheat,
flax
1.5
2
3
0.
8

Ants
2%
sol
­
­
­
2%
sol
Mosquito
Control
2
­
­
­

Outdoor
Banding
2%
sol
­
­
­
2%
sol
Table
4:
Representative
Application
Rates
Considered
in
Risk
Assessment
Crop
or
Target
Occupational
Products
Residential
Products
lb
ai/
1000
ft
2
(units
may
vary)
lb
ai/
A/
acre
(units
may
vary)
max.
apps/
season
lb
ai/
season
Average
Rates
24
Domestic
Animals
(e.
g.,
cats/
dogs)
Dust
0.2
lb
ai/
dog
Sha.
0.01
lb
ai/
dog
­
­
­
Dust
0.2
lb
ai/
dog
Sha.
0.01
lb
ai/
dog
Domestic
Animals
(e.
g.,
cats/
dogs)
1.3
oz/
dog
collar
­
­
­
1.3
oz/
dog
collar
°
Tree
Crops:
The
application
rate
for
commercial
crops
is
between
2
to
6
lb
ai
per
acre
for
most
crops.
Citrus
rates
are
higher
at
16
lb
ai
per
acre
(CA
only).
Equipment
for
commercial
use
is
airblast,
aerial
and
chemigation.

°
Grapes:
The
application
rate
for
commercial
crops
is
2
lb
ai
per
acre.
Equipment
for
commercial
use
is
airblast,
over
the
row
groundboom,
power
duster,
aerial
and
chemigation.

°
Field,
forage,
fiber,
small
fruit
(i.
e.,
berries)
and
vegetable
crops:
The
application
rate
for
commercial
crops
is
1
to
2
lb
ai
per
acre.
Equipment
for
commercial
use
is
groundboom,
aerial
and
chemigation.

°
Non
crop
areas:
The
application
rate
for
commercial
area
is
1
lb
ai
per
acre.
Equipment
is
groundboom,
aerial
and
right
of
way
sprayer.

°
Ornamentals:
The
application
rate
for
commercial
area
is
2.2
lb
ai
per
acre.
Equipment
for
commercial
use
is
low­
pressure
handwand,
backpack,
high­
pressure
handwand
and
airblast/
mist
blower.

°
Lawn
Care
(professional
certified
operator
(pco)):
The
application
rate
for
pco
applicators
is
up
to
8
lb
ai
per
acre.
The
application
equipment
is
hand­
held
power
sprayers
and
granular
spreaders.

°
Evergreens
in
large
stands:
the
application
rate
for
commercial
crops
is
1
lb
per
acre
or
1.8
lb
ai
per
1000
square
feet
to
the
seed,
mound
or
trunk.
Equipment
used
for
commercial
areas
is
airblast,
aerial,
and
high­
pressure
handwand.

°
Poultry:
The
application
rates
for
commercial
poultry
production
vary
from
0.0048
lb
ai
per
bird,
to
0.08
lb
ai
per
1000
square
feet
and
are
also
reported
as
1
lb
ai
per
3.1
gallons.
Application
equipment
for
commercial
production
includes,
compressed
air
sprayer,
fogger,
backpack
sprayer
and
mist
blower
and
power
sprayers.

°
Homeowner
fruits
and
nuts:
0.0039
lb
ai
per
gallon
or
up
to
0.8
lb
ai
per
5
trees.
Application
equipment
includes,
hose­
end
sprayer
and
hand
held
pump
sprayer.
25
°
Homeowner
vegetables:
The
application
rate
for
homeowner
vegetable
gardens
is
0.0026
lb
ai
per
20
foot
row.
The
application
equipment
includes,
hose­
end
sprayer,
hand
held
pump
sprayer,
hand
held
dusters
and
shaker
cans.

°
Homeowner
lawn
care:
Maximum
application
rates
range
from
2
lb
ai/
acre
(0.047
lb
ai/
1000
ft2)
up
to
almost
11
lb
ai
per
acre
(0.25
lb
ai/
1000
ft2)
depending
upon
the
product/
packaging
and
the
pest.
For
the
vast
majority
of
products
(e.
g.,
professional
application
to
residential
lawns
that
could
result
in
postapplication
exposures
and
open
packaging
for
homeowners)
the
maximum
application
rates
are
8
lb
ai/
acre
for
liquids
and
9
lb
ai/
acre
for
granules.
Equipment
for
homeowner
use
is
hose­
end
sprayer,
granular
spreader,
and
belly
grinder.

°
Homeowner
ornamentals:
The
application
rate
for
homeowner
ornamentals
is
0.02
lb
ai
per
gallon
of
water
or
0.5
lb
ai
per
50
shrubs.
Equipment
for
homeowner
is
hose­
end
or
hand
held
pump
sprayers.

°
Pets:
Pet
care
products
are
applied
via
containers
(i.
e.,
powders
and
dusts
by
shake
can,
ready
to
use
and
pressurized
containers)
and
rubbed
in
by
hand.
Application
rate
is
made
by
the
handler.
Shampoos
also
are
applied
in
the
same
manner.
Pet
collar
application
rate
is
1
collar
per
animal
and
each
collar
contains
16
percent
ai.
Application
equipment
is
a
pet
collar.

°
Pet
bedding:
Applications
are
made
to
cover
bedding
by
dusters
or
spray
formulas
including
pressurized
sprays.

2.0
Occupational
Exposures
and
Risks
It
has
been
determined
there
is
a
potential
for
exposure
in
both
occupational
and
residential/
homeowner
scenarios
from
handling
carbaryl
products
during
the
application
process
(i.
e.,
mixer/
loaders,
applicators,
flaggers
and
mixer/
loader/
applicators)
and
from
entering
areas
previously
treated
with
carbaryl
(e.
g.,
postapplication
worker
exposure).
As
a
result,
risk
assessments
have
been
completed
for
both
occupational
handler
and
postapplication
scenarios
as
well
as
residential
handler
and
postapplication
scenarios.
This
section
includes
the
occupational
aspects
of
the
risk
assessment.
Occupational
handler
exposures
and
risks
are
addressed
in
Section
2.1:
Occupational
Handler
Exposures
and
Risks
while
occupational
post­
application
worker
risks
are
presented
and
summarized
in
Section
2.2:
Occupational
Post­
Application
Exposures
and
Risks.
The
calculated
risks
are
characterized
in
Section
2.3:
Occupational
Risk
Characterization.

2.1
Occupational
Handler
Exposures
and
Risks
The
Agency
uses
the
term
"Handlers"
to
describe
those
individuals
who
are
involved
in
the
pesticide
application
process.
The
agency
believes
that
there
are
distinct
job
functions
or
tasks
related
to
applications
and
that
exposures
can
vary
depending
on
the
specifics
of
each
task.
Job
requirements
(e.
g.,
amount
of
chemical
to
be
used
in
an
application),
the
kinds
of
equipment
used,
26
the
crop
or
target
being
treated,
and
the
circumstances
of
the
user
(e.
g.,
the
level
of
protection
used
by
an
applicator)
can
cause
exposure
levels
to
differ
in
a
manner
specific
to
each
application
event.
The
scenarios
that
serve
as
the
basis
for
the
risk
assessment
are
presented
in
Section
2.1.1:
Handler
Exposure
Scenarios.
The
exposure
data
and
assumptions
that
have
been
used
for
the
calculations
are
presented
in
Section
2.1.2:
Data
and
Assumptions
For
Handler
Exposure
Scenarios.
The
calculations
and
the
algorithms
that
have
been
used
for
the
noncancer
elements
of
the
risk
assessment
as
well
as
the
risk
values
are
presented
in
Section
2.1.3:
Handler
Exposure
and
NonCancer
Risk
Estimates
while
the
analogous
information
using
the
Q1*
for
cancer
estimates
are
presented
in
Section
2.1.4:
Handler
Exposure
and
Risk
Estimates
For
Cancer.
Section
2.1.5:
Summary
of
Risk
Concerns
and
Data
Gaps
For
Handlers
presents
the
overall
risk
picture
for
carbaryl.
Finally,
recommendations
are
presented
in
Section
2.1.6:
Recommendations
For
Refining
Occupational
Handler
Risk
Assessment.

2.1.1
Handler
Exposure
Scenarios
Exposure
scenarios
can
be
thought
of
as
ways
of
categorizing
the
kinds
of
exposures
that
occur
related
to
the
use
of
a
chemical.
The
use
of
scenarios
as
a
basis
for
exposure
assessment
is
very
common
as
described
in
the
U.
S.
EPA
Guidelines
For
Exposure
Assessment
(U.
S.
EPA;
Federal
Register
Volume
57,
Number
104;
May
29,
1992).
The
purpose
of
this
section
is
to
describe
the
exposure
scenarios
that
were
used
by
the
Agency
in
the
assessment
for
carbaryl
handlers
and
to
explain
how
the
scenarios
were
defined.
Information
from
the
current
labels;
use
and
usage
information;
toxicology
data;
and
exposure
data
were
all
key
components
in
the
developing
the
exposure
scenarios.

The
first
step
in
the
handler
risk
assessment
process
is
to
identify
the
kinds
of
individuals
that
are
likely
to
be
exposed
to
carbaryl
during
the
application
process.
In
order
to
do
this
in
a
consistent
manner,
the
Agency
has
developed
a
series
of
general
descriptions
for
tasks
that
are
associated
with
pesticide
applications.
Common
tasks
(as
an
example)
can
include:
preparation
of
dilute,
waterbased
spray
solutions
for
application;
transferring
or
loading
dilute
spray
solutions
into
sprayers
for
application;
and
making
applications
with
specific
types
of
equipment
such
as
a
groundboom
or
airblast
sprayer.
Tasks
associated
with
occupational
pesticide
use
(i.
e.,
for
"handlers")
can
generally
be
categorized
using
one
of
the
following
terms:

C
Occupational
Mixer/
loaders:
these
individuals
perform
tasks
in
preparation
for
an
application.
For
example,
they
would
prepare
dilute
spray
solutions
and/
or
load/
transfer
solid
materials
(e.
g.,
granulars)
or
dilute
spray
solutions
into
application
equipment
such
as
a
groundboom
tractor
or
planter
prior
to
application.

C
Occupational
Applicators:
these
individuals
operate
application
equipment
during
the
release
of
a
pesticide
product
into
the
environment.
These
individuals
can
make
applications
using
equipment
such
as
groundboom
sprayers
or
tractor­
drawn
spreaders
for
granular
materials.
C
Occupational
Mixer/
loader/
applicators:
these
individuals
are
involved
in
the
entire
pesticide
application
process
(i.
e.,
they
do
all
job
functions
related
to
a
pesticide
application
27
event).
These
individuals
would
prepare
a
dilute
spray
solution
and
then
also
apply
the
solution.
The
Agency
always
considers
some
exposures
to
be
mixer/
loader/
applicator
exposures
because
of
the
equipment
used
and
the
logistics
associated
with
such
applications.
For
example,
if
one
uses
a
small
handheld
device
such
as
a
1
gallon
low
pressure
handwand
sprayer
it
is
anticipated
that
one
individual
will
mix
a
spray
solution
and
then
apply
the
solution
because
of
labor
and
logistical
considerations.

C
Occupational
Flaggers:
these
individuals
guide
aerial
applicators
during
the
release
of
a
pesticide
product
onto
an
intended
target.

Next,
assessors
must
understand
how
exposures
to
carbaryl
occur
(i.
e.,
frequency
and
duration)
and
how
the
patterns
of
these
occurrences
can
cause
the
effects
of
the
chemical
to
differ
(referred
to
as
dose
response).
Wherever
possible,
use
and
usage
data
determine
the
appropriateness
of
certain
types
of
risk
assessments
(e.
g.,
a
chronic
risk
assessment
is
not
warranted
for
a
vast
majority
of
carbaryl
uses
because
chronic
duration
exposure
patterns
do
not
occur).
Other
parameters
are
also
defined
from
use
and
usage
data
such
as
application
rates
and
application
frequency.
The
Agency
always
completes
risk
assessments
using
maximum
application
rates
for
each
scenario
because
what
is
possible
under
the
label
(the
legal
means
of
controlling
pesticide
use)
must
be
evaluated,
for
complete
stewardship,
in
order
to
ensure
there
are
no
concerns
for
each
specific
use.
Additionally,
whenever
the
Agency
has
additional
information
such
as
typical
application
rates
for
some
crops,
as
in
this
case,
it
uses
the
information
to
further
evaluate
the
overall
risks
associated
with
the
use
of
the
chemical
in
order
to
allow
for
a
more
informed
risk
management
decision.
In
this
case,
average
application
rates
(considered
to
be
the
same
as
typical
rates
for
the
purposes
of
this
assessment)
defined
in
the
recent
Quantitative
Usage
Analysis
were
available
for
some
crops
and
integrated
into
the
assessment.

A
chemical
can
produce
different
effects
based
on
how
long
a
person
is
exposed,
how
frequently
exposures
occur,
and
the
level
of
exposure.
It
is
likely
that
carbaryl
exposures
can
occur
in
a
variety
of
patterns.
The
Agency
believes
that
occupational
carbaryl
exposures
can
occur
over
a
single
day
or
up
to
weeks
at
a
time
even
though
each
crop
or
application
target
is
generally
treated
only
a
few
times
per
season.
Intermittent
exposures
over
several
weeks
are
also
anticipated.
Some
applicators
may
apply
carbaryl
over
a
period
of
weeks
because
they
need
to
cover
large
acreages,
they
may
be
custom
or
professional
applicators
that
are
completing
a
number
of
applications
within
a
region,
or
they
may
be
applying
carbaryl
over
a
period
of
several
days
(e.
g.,
a
veterinary
assistant
who
dips
dogs
periodically
over
a
period
of
several
weeks).
The
Agency
classifies
exposures
up
to
30
days
as
short­
term
and
exposures
greater
than
30
days
up
to
several
months
as
intermediate­
term.
The
Agency
completes
both
short­
and
intermediate­
term
assessments
for
occupational
scenarios
in
essentially
all
cases
because
these
kinds
of
exposures
are
likely
and
acceptable
use
and
usage
data
are
not
available
to
justify
deleting
intermediate­
term
scenarios.
For
carbaryl,
the
agency
has
completed
both
short­
term
assessment
and
intermediate­
term
assessments
because
of
likely
extended
periods
of
exposure
in
segments
of
the
user
population.
[Note:
The
dermal
toxicity
study
NOAEL
has
been
applied
to
both
durations
and
the
NOAELs
from
the
studies
used
to
evaluate
inhalation
exposures
are
the
same
number
so
the
results
for
both
short­
term
and
intermediate­
term
risks
are
numerically
identical.]
Long­
term
or
chronic
exposures
(essentially
every
working
day
over
a
year)
28
can
also
occur
for
some
chemicals
including
an
anticipated
small
number
of
carbaryl
users,
particularly
in
the
greenhouse
and
floriculture
industry.
These
have
been
addressed
as
appropriate.
Finally,
cancer
risks
have
also
been
calculated
using
a
amortized
lifetime
dose
(LADD)
and
linear,
low
dose
extrapolation
(i.
e.,
the
Q1*).

The
toxicity
of
chemicals
can
also
vary
based
on
the
route
of
exposure
or
how
a
chemical
enters
the
body.
For
example,
exposures
to
the
skin
can
result
in
a
different
toxic
effect
and/
or
severity
of
reaction
than
exposures
via
inhalation.
The
effects
of
a
chemical
can
also
vary
for
different
durations
of
exposure.
The
toxicology
database
for
carbaryl
indicates
that
the
Agency
consider
exposures
to
the
skin
combined
with
exposures
via
inhalation
because
the
effects
and
the
dose
levels
at
which
effects
occur
are
the
same
regardless
of
whether
it
is
deposited
on
the
skin
or
it
is
inhaled
(e.
g.,
cholinesterase
inhibition
was
the
effect
noted
for
the
inhalation
endpoint
defined
in
the
acute
neurotoxicity
study
and
for
the
dermal
endpoint
defined
in
the
21
day
dermal
toxicity
study
used
for
the
short­
term
risk
assessment).
This
is
also
true
for
all
different
durations
of
exposure
as
similar
effects
were
observed
in
all
toxicity
studies
selected
as
the
source
of
the
endpoints
used
for
risk
assessment
purposes.
[Note:
For
further
information
regarding
the
toxicity
endpoints,
see
Section
1.3:
Summary
of
Toxicity
Concerns
Relating
To
Occupational/
Residential
Exposures.]

Occupational
handler
exposure
assessments
are
completed
by
the
Agency
using
different
levels
of
personal
protection.
The
Agency
typically
evaluates
all
exposures
with
a
tiered
approach.
The
lowest
tier
is
represented
by
the
baseline
exposure
scenario
followed
by
increasing
the
levels
of
personal
protection
represented
by
personal
protective
equipment
or
PPE
(e.
g.,
gloves,
extra
clothing,
and
respirators)
and
engineering
controls
(e.
g.,
closed
cabs
and
closed
loading
systems).
This
approach
is
always
used
by
the
Agency
in
order
to
be
able
to
define
label
language
using
a
riskbased
approach
and
not
based
on
generic
requirements
for
label
language.
[Note:
Current
labels
mostly
require
single
layer
clothing,
chemical­
resistant
gloves,
and
no
respirator.]
In
addition,
the
minimal
level
of
adequate
protection
for
a
chemical
is
generally
considered
by
the
Agency
to
be
the
most
practical
option
for
risk
reduction
(i.
e.,
over­
burdensome
risk
mitigation
measures
are
not
considered
a
practical
alternative).
The
levels
of
protection
that
formed
the
basis
for
the
calculations
in
this
assessment
include
(which
were
combined
to
obtain
8
different
scenarios):

C
Baseline:
Represents
typical
work
clothing
or
a
long­
sleeved
shirt
and
long
pants
with
no
respiratory
protection.
No
chemical­
resistant
gloves
are
included
in
this
scenario.

C
Minimum
Personal
Protective
Equipment
(PPE):
Represents
the
baseline
scenario
with
the
use
of
chemical­
resistant
gloves
and
a
dust/
mist
respirator
with
a
protection
factor
of
5.

C
Maximum
Personal
Protective
Equipment
(PPE):
Represents
the
baseline
scenario
with
the
use
of
an
additional
layer
of
clothing
(e.
g.,
a
pair
of
coveralls),
chemical­
resistant
gloves,
and
an
air
purifying
respirator
with
a
protection
factor
of
10.
C
Engineering
Controls:
Represents
the
use
of
an
appropriate
engineering
control
such
as
a
closed
tractor
cab
or
closed
loading
system
for
granulars
or
liquids.
Engineering
controls
are
not
applicable
to
handheld
application
methods
which
have
no
known
devices
that
can
be
used
to
routinely
lower
the
exposures
for
these
methods.
29
It
has
been
determined
that
exposure
to
pesticide
handlers
is
likely
during
the
occupational
use
of
carbaryl
in
a
variety
of
environments
including
agriculture,
commercial/
industrial
premises,
and
in
residential
environments.
The
anticipated
use
patterns
and
current
labeling
indicate
28
major
occupational
exposure
scenarios
based
on
the
types
of
equipment
and
techniques
that
can
potentially
be
used
to
make
carbaryl
applications.
The
quantitative
exposure/
risk
assessment
developed
for
occupational
handlers
is
based
on
these
scenarios.
[Note:
The
scenario
numbers
correspond
to
the
tables
of
risk
calculations
included
in
the
occupational
risk
calculation
aspects
of
the
appendices.]

Mixing/
Loading
(1a)
Dry
Flowable
for
Aerial/
Chemigation
in
Agriculture;
(1b)
Dry
Flowable
for
Airblast;
(1c)
Dry
Flowable
for
Groundboom;
(1d)
Dry
Flowable
for
High
Pressure
Handwand
and
Right
of
Way
Sprayers;
(1e)
Dry
Flowable
for
LCO
Applications;
(1f)
Dry
Flowable
for
Aerial
Wide
Area
Uses;
(2a)
Granular
for
Aerial;
(2b)
Granular
for
Broadcast
Spreader;
(3a)
Liquids
for
Aerial/
Chemigation;
(3b)
Liquids
for
Airblast;
(3c)
Liquids
for
Groundboom;
(3d)
Liquids
for
High
Pressure
Handwand
and
Right
of
Way
Sprayers;
(3e)
Liquids
for
LCO
Applications;
(3f)
Liquids
for
Aerial
Wide
Area
Uses;
(3g)
Liquids
for
Ground
Wide
Area
Uses;
(4a)
Wettable
Powder
for
Aerial/
Chemigation;
(4b)
Wettable
Powder
for
Airblast;
(4c)
Wettable
Powder
for
Groundboom;
(4d)
Wettable
Powder
for
High
Pressure
Handwand
and
Right
of
Way
Sprayers;
(4e)
Wettable
Powder
for
LCO
Applications;
(4f)
Wettable
Powder
for
Aerial
Wide
Area
Uses;

Applicator:
(5a)
Aerial/
Liquid
Application;
(5b)
Aerial/
Liquid
Wide
Area
Application;
(5c)
Aerial/
Granular
Application;
(6a)
Airblast
Application;
(6b)
Wide
Area
Ground
Fogger
(Airblast
as
surrogate);
(7)
Groundboom
Application;
(8)
Solid
Broadcast
Spreader
Application;
(9)
Aerosol
Can
Application;
(10)
Trigger
Sprayer
(RTU)
Application;
(11)
Right­
of­
Way
Sprayer
Application;
(12)
High
Pressure
Handwand
Application;
30
(13)
Veterinary
Technician/
Animal
Groomer
Liquid
Application;
(14)
Veterinary
Technician/
Animal
Groomer
Dust
Application;
(15)
Granulars/
Bait
and
Pellets
Dispersed
by
Hand;
(16)
Granulars/
Bait
and
Pellets
Dispersed
with
Spoon;

Mixer/
Loader/
Applicator:
(17)
Low
Pressure/
High
Volume
Turfgun
Application;
(18a)
Wettable
powder,
Low
pressure
handwand;
(18b)
Liquid:
Low
Pressure
Handwand;
(19)
Backpack;
(20)
Granular
Belly
Grinder;
(21)
Push­
type
Granular
Spreader;
(22)
Handheld
Fogger;
(23)
Powered
Backpack;
(24)
Granular
Backpack;
(25)
Tree
Injection;
(26)
Drenching/
Dipping
Seedlings
For
Propagation;
(27)
Sprinkler
Can;

Flaggers:
(28a)
Flagging
For
Liquid
Sprays;
and
(28b)
Flagging
For
Granular
Applications.

2.1.2
Data
and
Assumptions
For
Handler
Exposure
Scenarios
A
series
of
assumptions
and
exposure
factors
served
as
the
basis
for
completing
the
occupational
handler
risk
assessments.
Each
assumption
and
factor
is
detailed
below
on
an
individual
basis.
In
addition
to
these
values,
exposure
values
were
used
to
calculate
risk
estimates.
Mostly,
these
values
were
taken
from
the
Pesticide
Handlers
Exposure
Database
(PHED).
In
other
cases,
chemical­
specific
data
were
submitted
to
support
the
reregistration
of
carbaryl.
Both
PHED
and
the
individual
studies
are
presented
below.
31
The
assumptions
and
factors
used
in
the
risk
calculations
include:

C
Carbaryl
is
one
of
the
most
widely
used
pesticide
chemicals.
It
has
an
extraordinary
number
of
use
patterns
that
are
impossible
to
completely
capture
in
this
document.
As
such,
the
Agency
has
patterned
this
risk
assessment
on
a
series
of
likely
representative
scenarios
that
are
believed
by
the
Agency
to
represent
the
vast
majority
of
carbaryl
uses.
Refinements
to
the
assessment
will
be
made
as
more
detailed
information
about
carbaryl
use
patterns
become
available.

C
The
carbaryl
80
S
label
EPA
Reg
264­
316
has
a
24(
c)
label
(SLN
WA­
900013)
that
allows
application
to
oyster
beds
to
control
ghost
and
mud
shrimp.
The
application
rate
is
8
lb
ai/
acre
based
on
information
from
Bob
Merkel
of
the
Washington
State
Department
of
Agriculture
(WSDA)
[contained
in
email
from
CRM
Anthony
Britten
of
1/
3/
02].
WSDA
information
also
indicates
that
applications
are
completed
with
helicopters
over
a
3
day
period
in
July
and
that
approximately
800
acres
are
treated
usually
with
3
aircraft.
Beds
are
treated
with
10
gallons
of
spray
solution
per
acre
at
a
concentration
of
0.8
lb
ai/
gallon.
With
this
information,
the
Agency
calculated
that
approximately
89
acres
would
be
treated
per
day
by
each
helicopter
and
that
711
lb
ai
would
also
be
used.
The
Agency
did
not
calculate
risks
specifically
for
this
scenario.
However,
the
Agency
considered
a
wide
range
of
aerial
application
scenarios
in
this
assessment.
For
all
formulations
and
for
pilots,
the
vegetable
scenario
based
on
2
lb
ai/
acre
and
350
acres
treated
per
day
(i.
e.,
700
lb
ai
applied
per
day)
yields
essentially
the
same
risk
numbers
that
would
be
associated
with
treating
oyster
beds.
As
a
result,
please
refer
to
the
aerial
vegetable
scenarios
to
obtain
risk
estimates
for
treating
oyster
beds.

C
Average
body
weight
of
an
adult
handler
is
70
kg
because
the
toxicity
endpoint
values
used
for
the
assessments
are
appropriate
for
average
adult
body
weight
representing
the
general
population.
This
is
the
case
because
none
of
the
effects
identified
in
the
selected
toxicity
studies
were
sex
specific
(i.
e.,
NOAELs
selected
by
HIARC
were
the
same
for
males
and
females).

C
All
analyses
were
completed
using
chemical­
specific
exposure
data
or
data
that
were
deemed
to
be
a
source
of
acceptable
surrogate
exposure
data
for
the
scenario
in
question.
Several
handler
assessments
were
completed
using
"low
quality"
PHED
data
due
to
the
lack
of
a
more
acceptable
dataset.
Additionally,
in
some
cases,
no
empirical
data
were
available
for
the
scenario
but
an
exposure
assessment
approach
was
developed
based
on
an
approach
outlined
in
the
SOPs
For
Residential
Exposure
Assessment.
In
these
cases,
the
assumptions
and
approached
included
in
the
SOPs
served
as
the
basis
for
the
assessment
(e.
g.,
some
pet
uses).
The
PHED
unit
exposure
values
range
between
the
geometric
mean
and
the
median
of
the
available
exposure
data.
Factors
derived
from
the
SOPs
For
Residential
Exposure
Assessment
are
generally
considered
to
be
conservative.
When
data
from
other
studies
were
used,
the
appropriate
statistical
measure
of
central
tendency
was
used
(see
each
study
summary
below
for
data
descriptor).
32
C
Several
generic
protection
factors
were
used
to
calculate
handler
exposures.
The
protection
factors
used
for
clothing
layers
(i.
e.,
50%)
and
gloves
(90%)
have
not
been
completely
evaluated
by
the
Agency.
Additionally,
the
Agency
uses
a
98%
reduction
factor
to
estimate
exposures
that
involve
the
use
of
engineering
controls.
There
is
an
ongoing
project
through
NAFTA
to
address
the
issue
of
protection
factors
(a
draft
document
assessing
protection
factors
using
PHED
has
been
completed).
The
results
of
this
effort
show
that
the
protection
factors
being
currently
used
by
the
Agency
are
within
those
predicted
in
the
analysis.
The
values
used
for
respiratory
protection
(i.
e.,
PF
5
or
PF
10)
are
based
on
the
NIOSH
Respirator
Decision
Logic.

C
Exposure
factors
used
to
calculate
daily
exposures
to
handlers
are
based
on
applicable
data
if
available.
For
lack
of
appropriate
data,
values
from
a
scenario
deemed
similar
enough
by
the
assessor
might
be
used.
As
a
example,
mixer/
loader/
applicator
data
for
hose­
end
sprayers
were
used
to
assess
sprinkler
can
applications.
The
nature
of
these
application
methods
are
believed
to
be
similar
enough
to
bridge
the
data.
There
are
other
instances
where
the
Agency
has
bridged
specific
data
to
represent
other
scenarios.

C
Separate
short­
term,
intermediate­
term,
and
chronic
risk
assessments
were
completed
for
the
noncancer
endpoints
based
on
the
toxicity
endpoints
that
were
identified.
The
Agency
believes
that
there
are
exposure
scenarios
that
fit
each
of
these
categories.
All
noncancer
scenarios
are
expected
to
be
short­
or
intermediate­
term
in
nature.
The
Agency
only
anticipates
a
limited
number
of
scenarios
that
are
chronic
in
nature
which
are
included
in
the
greenhouse
and
ornamental
industry.
The
Agency
also
calculated
cancer
risks
for
private
growers
(i.
e.,
those
growers
who
would
treat
their
own
fields)
and
for
more
frequent
carbaryl
users
such
as
a
commercial
applicator.
The
range
in
the
cancer
risk
assessments
is
intended
to
address
the
large
population
of
growers
who
likely
complete
their
own
applications
but
also
to
address
likely
smaller,
more
highly
exposed
commercial
applications.
The
Agency
has
used
a
value
of
30
application
events
per
year
for
all
commercial
applicator
scenarios
and
10
days
per
year
to
account
for
private
growers
(i.
e.,
1/
3rd
of
the
analogous
professional
job
function,
this
is
also
used
for
the
postapplication
risk
assessment).
These
values
are
supported
by
the
data
included
in
the
University
of
California
studies
of
seasonal
labor
in
California
and
the
recent
Department
of
Labor
National
Agricultural
Worker
Survey
(NAWS).

C
The
exposure
duration
(i.
e.,
years
per
lifetime)
values
used
by
the
Agency
in
the
cancer
risk
assessment
are
consistent
with
those
used
for
other
chemicals
(i.
e.,
35
working
years
and
70
year
lifetime).
33
C
In
many
scenarios
it
is
likely
that
a
grower
would
mix,
load,
and
apply
chemicals
all
in
one
day
because
of
limited
labor,
efficiency,
or
many
other
reasons.
In
most
cases,
however,
the
Agency
considers
mixing/
loading,
and
application
as
separate
job
functions.
This
is
done
primarily
due
to
a
lack
of
data
that
allows
additivity
between
tasks
to
be
appropriately
assessed.
Also,
this
approach
allows
for
more
flexibility
in
the
risk
management
process.
For
example,
if
a
closed
loading
system
might
be
required
for
mixer/
loaders
but
engineering
controls
might
not
be
required
to
reduce
applicator
exposures.
If
combined
exposure
estimates
were
considered,
engineering
controls
might
have
been
required
for
both
tasks.

C
The
Agency
has
evaluated
scenarios
that
may
be
limited
in
nature
such
as
flagging
during
aerial
applications
because
engineering
controls
(i.
e.,
Global
Positioning
Satellite
technology)
are
now
predominantly
used
as
indicated
by
the
1998
National
Agricultural
Aviation
Association
(NAAA)
survey
of
their
membership.
It
appears,
however,
flaggers
are
still
used
in
approximately
10
to
15
percent
of
aerial
application
operations.
In
cases
like
these,
the
Agency
strongly
encourages
the
use
of
the
engineering
control
system
but
will
continue
to
evaluate
risks
for
flaggers
and
any
other
population
where
a
clear
exposure
pathway
exists
until
the
potential
for
exposure
is
eliminated.

C
The
Agency
always
considers
the
maximum
application
rates
allowed
by
labels
in
its
risk
assessments
in
order
to
be
able
to
consider
what
is
legally
possible
based
on
the
label.
If
additional
information
such
as
average
or
typical
rates
are
available,
these
values
are
used
as
well
in
order
to
allow
risk
managers
to
make
a
more
informed
risk
management
decision.
Average
application
rates
were
available
from
the
SMART
meeting
and
BEAD's
QUA.
These
data
indicate
that
in
most
cases,
average
application
rates
differ
from
maximum
application
rates
on
average
by
a
factor
of
two.
For
example,
when
interpreting
the
results
of
the
cancer
assessment,
the
small
differences
generally
seen
in
the
available
rates
should
be
considered
along
with
the
overall
magnitude
of
the
cancer
risk
results.
However,
it
should
be
noted
that
because
there
appears
to
be
little
difference
between
the
typical
and
maximum
application
rates,
overall
risk
results
are
not
expected
to
be
sensitive
to
changes
in
this
parameter.

C
The
average
occupational
workday
is
assumed
to
be
8
hours.
The
daily
areas
to
be
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,
animals).
The
factors
used
for
the
carbaryl
assessment
are
the
same
as
those
detailed
in
the
Health
Effects
Division
Science
Advisory
Committee
on
Exposure
Policy
9:
Standard
Values
for
Daily
Acres
Treated
in
Agriculture
which
was
completed
on
July
5,
2000.
The
following
daily
volumes
handled
and
acres,
excerpted
from
the
policy,
to
be
treated
in
each
occupational
scenario
include:

C
Aerial
applications:
1200
acres
for
large
field
crops
and
forest
treatments,
350
acres
for
other
field
crops,
and
7500
acres
for
mosquito
control
adulticide
applications;
C
Groundboom:
200
acres
for
large
field
crops
(e.
g.,
wheat
and
corn),
80
acres
treated
for
other
field
crop
groundboom
applications,
and
40
acres
on
golf
course
turf;
C
Airblast:
40
acres
treated
for
agricultural
applications;
34
C
Ground
fogger:
3000
acres
for
mosquito
control
(airblast
as
surrogate);
C
8
pet
animals
treated
per
day
for
veterinary
and
professional
groomer
uses;
C
1000
gallons
of
spray
solution
prepared
when
mixing/
loading
liquids
for
high
pressure
handwand
application
or
making
the
application;
C
40
gallons
when
mixing/
loading/
applying
liquids
with
a
backpack
sprayer
or
a
low
pressure
handwand
sprayer;
C
10
mounds
per
day
treated
for
fire
ant
applications.
[Note:
The
veterinary
and
fireant
treatments
are
not
included
in
the
policy
but
represent
values
that
have
been
used
by
the
Agency
in
previous
assessments.
Some
carbaryl
use
patterns
may
not
be
summarized
above,
refer
to
Policy
9
for
further
information.]

C
For
direct
pet
animal
treatments,
Agency
policy
outlined
in
the
Residential
SOPs,
was
used
to
define
the
amount
of
chemical
applied
in
animal
treatments.
For
pet
treatments,
the
SOPs
prescribe
that
½
of
a
container
is
used
to
treat
each
animal.
Dusts
and
liquid
shampoos
for
carbaryl
are
available
in
a
6
ounce
bottle
(0.5%
solution)
and
a
4
lb
container
(10%
dust).

C
Currently
the
Agency
has
no
exposure
monitoring
data
on
dust
applications
to
crops
in
agriculture.
There
are
other
data
gaps
that
have
been
identified
for
carbaryl
applications.
Each
is
identified
in
the
calculation
tables
and
is
also
noted
in
the
summary
of
risk
calculations.

C
Ultra­
low
volume
applications
for
uses
such
as
mosquito
control
adulticides
were
considered
using
a
large
acreage
estimate
to
aerial
applicators.
The
mosquito
adulticide
uses
that
were
evaluated
in
the
same
manner
as
other
chemicals
used
for
that
purpose
(e.
g.,
the
same
acreage
estimates
were
used
as
for
other
chemicals
like
fenthion
and
naled).

C
The
impact
of
using
large
area
(i.
e.,
acreage)
estimates
should
be
considered
when
interpreting
the
results
such
as
with
the
scenarios
intended
to
address
wide
area
treatments.
For
wide
area
treatments,
the
Agency
considered
large
acreage
aerial
applications
but
did
not
quantitatively
consider
ground/
truck
fogging
which
is
another
likely
application
method.
In
the
past,
the
Agency
has
used
airblast
application
exposure
data
to
address
this
scenario.
However,
already
given
the
complexity
of
the
handler
risk
assessment
and
the
rangefinder
nature
of
using
airblast
data,
the
Agency
has
not
completed
these
calculations.
A
qualitative
estimate
of
risks
can
be
made
by
considering
the
airblast
results
for
agriculture
and
adjusting
the
risk
values
as
appropriate
for
acres
treated
(3000
acres/
day
for
ground
foggers)
and
application
rate.

The
Agency
uses
a
concept
known
as
unit
exposure
as
the
basis
for
the
scenarios
used
to
assess
handler
exposures
to
pesticides.
Unit
exposures
numerically
represent
the
exposures
one
would
receive
related
to
an
application.
They
are
generally
presented
as
(mg
active
ingredient
exposure/
pounds
of
active
ingredient
handled).
The
Agency
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
unit
exposure
concept
has
been
established
in
the
scientific
literature
and
also
35
through
various
exposure
monitoring
guidelines
published
by
the
U.
S.
EPA
and
international
organizations
such
as
Health
Canada
and
OECD
(Organization
For
Economic
Cooperation
and
Development).
The
concept
of
unit
exposures
can
be
illustrated
by
the
following
example.
If
an
individual
makes
an
application
using
a
groundboom
sprayer
with
either
10
pounds
of
chemical
A
or
10
pounds
of
chemical
B
using
the
same
application
equipment
and
protective
measures,
the
exposures
to
chemicals
A
and
B
would
be
similar.
The
unit
exposure
in
both
cases
would
be
1/
10th
of
the
total
exposure
(measured
in
milligrams)
received
during
the
application
of
either
chemical
A
or
chemical
B
(i.
e.,
milligrams
on
the
skin
after
applying
10
pounds
of
active
ingredient
divided
by
10
pounds
of
active
ingredient
applied).

The
unit
exposure
values
that
were
used
in
this
assessment
were
based
on
one
carbarylspecific
occupational
handler
exposure
monitoring
study
during
professional
dog
grooming,
three
other
studies
which
were
used
as
sources
of
surrogate
exposure
information
that
are
not
currently
included
in
the
Pesticide
Handler
Exposure
Database
(PHED)
Version
1.1
August
1998,
and
PHED
itself.
A
brief
summary
of
these
studies
is
provided
below
in
this
section.
Along
with
these
data,
unit
exposures
from
PHED
were
used
to
complete
remaining
aspects
of
this
risk
assessment.
Each
is
discussed
and
summarized
below.

Occupational
Handler
Exposure
Studies:
A
total
of
five
studies
are
described
in
this
section.
One
study
monitored
carbaryl
use
during
professional
dog
grooming
activities.
The
other
studies
were
not
completed
with
carbaryl
but
were
completed
with
other
active
ingredients
and
used
as
a
source
of
surrogate
exposure
information
for
various
carbaryl
use
patterns.
Each
study
can
be
identified
with
the
following
information.
A
summary
of
each
is
also
provided
below.

°"
Dermal
Exposure
and
Inhalation
Exposure
to
Carbaryl
by
Commercial
Pet
Groomers
During
Applications
of
Adams
™
Carbaryl
Shampoo."
EPA
MRID
446584­
01,
September
1998
Report
dated
August
10,
1998;
Author;
Thomas
C.
Mester,
Ph.
D.
Sponsor:
Pfizer
Animal
Health.

°"
Worker
Exposure
Study
During
Application
In
Banana
Plantation
With
Temik
10G,
RP
Study
SA
98337,
EPA
MRID
451672­
01,
Vol.
3
of
4"
EPA
MRID
451672­
01;
November
1999
Report;
Author:
Michel
Urtizberea;
Sponsor:
Aventis
Crop
Protection;
EPA
DER
Completed
on
10/
17/
00
(DP
Barcode
D267546).

°"
Worker
Exposure
Study
During
Application
Of
Regent
20GR
In
Banana
Plantation,
(RP
Study
94/
136
­
Amended,
EPA
MRID
452507­
01,
Vol.
4
of
4,
Analytical
Lab.
CP/
Man/
ENH/
338/
95/
0072)"
EPA
MRID
452507­
02;
June
1996
Report;
Author:
P.
G.
Pontal;
Sponsor:
Aventis
Crop
Protection;
EPA
DER
Completed
on
1/
05/
01
(DP
Barcode
270065).
36
°"
Exposure
of
Applicators
to
Propoxur
During
Trigger­
Pump
Spray
Applications
of
a
Liquid
Product
"
EPA
MRID
410547­
01;
November
1,
1988;
Author:
R.
D.
Knarr,
Ph.
D.,
CIH;
Sponsor:
Bayer
Corporation;
EPA
review
(9/
29/
89)
by
Versar,
Inc.
for
PHED
purposes
under
Contract
68­
02­
4254,
Task
220.

°"
Integrated
Report
For
Evaluation
of
Potential
Exposures
To
Homeowners
and
Professional
Lawncare
Operators
Mixing,
Loading,
and
Applying
Granular
And
Liquid
Pesticides
To
Residential
Lawns
"
EPA
MRID
449722­
01;
October
10,
1999;
Author:
Dennis
R.
Klonne,
Ph.
D.;
Sponsor:
Outdoor
Residential
Exposure
Task
Force;
EPA
Review
by
Gary
Bangs
(April
30,
2001).

[Note
to
Chemical
Review
Manager:
There
are
no
data
compensation
issues
associated
with
the
use
of
non­
ORETF
data
included
in
MRIDs
451672­
01
and
452507­
01
as
these
studies
were
sponsored
and
submitted
by
the
Aventis
Corporation
and
the
propoxur
trigger
sprayer
study
has
a
signed
PHED
data
waiver
but
just
has
not
been
included
into
PHED
at
this
time.
Appendix
B
contains
the
data
excerpted
from
MRID
446585­
01
in
various
tables
which
is
a
carbaryl­
specific
study
recently
completed
by
the
Aventis
Corporation.
Data
from
the
other
referenced
studies
are
not
included
in
Appendix
B
because
separate
reviews
exist
for
each
which
can
be
independently
referenced.
Some
of
the
handler
exposure
data
used
in
this
assessment
are
from
the
Outdoor
Residential
Exposure
Task
Force
(ORETF).
There
is
also
no
data
compensation
issue
associated
with
the
use
of
the
ORETF
data
in
the
carbaryl
risk
assessment
because
the
Aventis
Corporation,
the
registrant
for
carbaryl,
is
a
member
of
the
ORETF.
The
task
force
recently
submitted
proprietary
data
to
the
Agency
on
hose­
end
sprayers,
push­
type
granular
spreaders,
and
handgun
sprayers
(MRID
#
44972201).
The
ORETF
data
were
used
in
this
assessment
in
place
of
PHED
data.
The
ORETF
data
were
designed
to
replace
the
present
PHED
data
with
higher­
confidence,
higher
quality
data
that
contains
more
replicates
than
the
PHED
data
for
those
scenarios.
Finally,
the
Agency
identified
several
occupational
exposure
studies
from
the
literature
by
investigators
such
as
Popendorf
and
Wolfe.
These
data
have
not
been
used
by
the
Agency
quantitatively
in
this
assessment
because
of
several
issues
but
were
qualitatively
considered
and
also
used
to
confirm
the
currently
used
exposure
data.]

MRID
446584­
01
(carbaryl­
specific
dog
groomer
data):
The
data
collected
reflect
the
dermal
and
respiratory
exposure
of
commercial
pet
groomers
applying
the
end
use
product,
Adams®
Carbaryl
Flea
and
Tick
Shampoo
containing
0.50
percent
carbaryl.
These
data
meet
most
of
the
criteria
specified
in
Series
875
Occupational
and
Residential
Exposure
Test
Guidelines.
The
data
are
of
sufficient
scientific
quality
to
be
used
in
the
reregistration
of
carbaryl.
The
protocol
was
reviewed
by
the
then
Occupational
and
Residential
Exposure
Branch
of
the
Health
Effects
Division.
The
protocol
was
accepted
as
written
with
the
stipulation
that
protective
latex
gloves
not
be
worn
by
groomers
because
"this
protocol
was
required
as
a
worst
case
estimate
of
exposure.
Therefore,
the
use
of
gloves
in
this
study
needs
to
be
deleted"
(From
George
Tompkins
to
Michael
Metzger,
dated
November
26,
1996).
In
this
study,
applications
of
Adams®
Carbaryl
Flea
and
Tick
Shampoo
were
made
by
professional
pet
groomers
to
8
dogs
at
2
sites
in
Georgia.
A
total
of
16
replicates
were
monitored
for
dermal
and
inhalation
exposure.
Eight
dogs
of
various
sizes
and
hair
lengths
were
shampooed
during
each
replicate.
Dermal
exposure
was
monitored
with
face
and
neck
swabs,
100
37
percent
cotton
union
suit
dosimeter
worn
underneath
a
short­
sleeved
t­
shirt,
long
pants
and
a
65/
35
polyester
cotton
long­
sleeved
smock
(i.
e.,
represents
a
short­
sleeved
shirt
under
a
long­
sleeved
coat/
smock).
Hand
exposure
was
quantified
using
handwash
rinses
(no
protective
gloves
were
worn).
Inhalation
exposure
was
monitored
using
personal
air
pumps
with
XAD2
resin
tubes.

Between
373.3
to
3719.95
mg
carbaryl
(average
use
was
1360
mg
ai)
was
used
to
shampoo
8
dogs.
According
to
label
directions,
the
application
rate
is
a
subjective
determination
by
the
individual
groomers
based
on
amount
needed
to
create
the
desired
lather.
The
dogs
were
wetted,
shampooed
to
a
lather
(lather
remained
on
dogs
for
5
minutes)
and
rinsed.
It
is
not
clear
how
many
or
which
of
the
dogs
got
further
post­
shampoo
attention
such
as
grooming
or
drying.

After
completing
8
dog
shampoos
the
dosimeters
were
collected.
Face/
neck
swabs
and
2
hand
rinses
were
performed
along
with
collection
of
the
100
percent
cotton
union
suit.
Only
wholebody
dosimeter
values
were
adjusted
for
field
recovery
(87
percent).
No
other
samples
were
corrected
for
recovery
as
the
field
and
laboratory
recoveries
generally
were
>90
percent.
Dermal
exposures
ranged
between
0.88
mg
and
17
mg
ai
and
inhalation
exposures
range
between
0.05
µg
(non­
detect)
and
1.96
µg
ai.
The
limit
of
detection
(LOD)
was
0.010
µg/
ml.
The
limit
of
quantitation
(LOQ)
was
1
µg
per
whole
body
dosimeter,
0.10
µg/
ml
for
50
ml
hand
wash
aliquot,
0.10
µg
per
facial
wipe,
0.10
µg
per
resin
tube,
and
0.10
µg
for
glass
fiber
filter/
support
pad.
Table
5
contains
the
results
which
have
been
normalized
based
on
each
of
the
following
factors:

°
mg
ai
exposed
per
lb
ai
handled;
°
ai
exposed
per
hour,
and
°
mg
ai
per
lb
dog
shampooed.
°
The
geometric
mean
of
the
normalized
numbers
was
used
in
reregistration
calculations
because
it
is
a
measure
of
central
tendency.

Even
though
the
study
protocol
was
approved
prior
to
completion
of
the
field
work,
the
following
factors
should
be
considered
when
interpreting
these
results.
In
this
task,
direct
contact
of
the
dipping
solution
with
the
hands
represents
a
major
potential
source
of
exposure.
Therefore,
obtaining
accurate
hand
exposure
estimates
is
critical
in
defining
the
risks
for
this
use.
The
study
measured
the
amount
of
carbaryl
left
on
the
hands
after
8
shampoos
and
rinses
using
an
aqueous
handwash
method.
Shampoo
was
applied,
a
lather
was
created
and
rinsed
off
with
a
large
degree
of
hand
contact
with
the
shampoo
and
water
stream.
Carbaryl
repeatedly
contacted
the
hand
for
the
duration
of
the
grooming
and
some
was
removed
during
the
rinsing
of
each
dog.
Because
of
this
potential
flux
of
residues
off
and
on
the
groomer's
hands
and
the
presence
of
surfactants
which
may
impact
dermal
absorption
levels,
the
handwash
method
may
underestimate
exposures.
This
study
should
not
be
used
for
residential
exposure
assessments
because
protective
clothing
(i.
e.,
smock
and
long
pants)
were
worn
over
the
whole­
body
dosimeters
and
adjusting
the
data
using
negative
protection
factors
which
is
generally
not
considered
appropriate.
38
Table
5:
Unit
Exposure
Values
Obtained
From
Professional
Dog
Groomer
Study
(MRID
446584­
01)

Dermal
Inhalation
Unit
Arithmetic
Mean
Geometric
Mean
Median
Unit
Arithmetic
Mean
Geometric
Mean
Median
mg
ai
/
lb
ai
handled
1900
1800
1800
µg
ai
/
lb
ai
handled
24
12
19
mg
ai
/
hour
application
1.6
1.
1
1.1
µg
ai
/
hour
application
0.20
0.96
0.21
mg
ai
/
lb
of
dog
treated
0.18
0.13
0.14
µg
ai
/
lb
of
dog
treated
0.020
0.011
0.020
Appendix
B
contains
the
data
excerpted
from
MRID
446585­
01.
Data
from
none
of
the
other
studies
are
included
in
Appendix
B
because
separate
reviews
exist
for
each
of
the
other
studies
which
can
be
independently
referenced.

EPA
MRID
45167201
(Temik
granular
backpack
study):
A
total
of
12
mixer/
loader/
applicator
events
during
granular
backpack
(i.
e.,
a
specialized
device
manufactured
by
Swissmex
Rapid)
application
to
bananas
were
monitored
during
August
of
1998
on
the
island
of
Martinique
which
is
in
the
French
West
Indies.
Weather
was
typical
of
the
application
season
in
that
it
was
hot,
humid,
and
rainy
at
points.
Monitoring
was
completed
using
whole
body
dosimeters,
handwashes,
facial
wipes,
and
personal
sampling
pumps
equipped
with
XAD
resin/
filter
combination
samplers.
Temik
10G
was
supplied
in
22
pound
boxes
which
was
loaded
directly
into
the
backpack
devices
(i.
e.,
4
to
8
boxes
were
used
per
replicate).
The
application
rate
for
aldicarb
used
in
this
study
is
20
grams
of
Temik
10G
(i.
e.,
2
grams
ai/
plant)
which
is
equivalent
to
about
3.56
lb
ai/
acre
at
approximately
2000
plants
per
acre.
The
numbers
of
acres
treated
ranged
from
approximately
2.5
to
5
acres.
The
pounds
of
active
ingredient
handled
ranged
from
8.8
up
to
17.6
per
replicate.
Each
applicator
wore
the
whole
body
dosimeters
covered
by
a
cotton
coverall,
Tyvek
gloves
supplied
with
the
Temik
10G
formulation,
and
an
apron
on
their
backs
between
their
backs
and
the
backpack
applicator.
The
Tyvek
gloves
were
changed
with
each
box
of
Temik
10G
used.
In
many
instances,
the
gloves
were
compromised
because
they
were
ripped.
In
one
case,
the
gloves
filled
with
rainwater.
In
many
other
cases,
when
the
whole
body
dosimeters
were
removed,
they
were
found
to
be
wet
and
muddy.

Analysis
of
aldicarb
and
its
sulfoxide
and
sulfone
degradates
was
completed.
The
residue
levels
were
added
together
to
obtain
total
exposure
levels.
The
limits
of
quantification
(LOQ)
were
1.0
µg
per
sample
for
the
whole­
body
dosimeters
and
handwashes
(600
mL
volume).
The
LOQ
for
the
facial
wipes
was
0.10
µg
per
sample
and
0.050
0.10
µg
per
sample
for
the
air
filters.

Field
and
laboratory
recovery
data
were
generated
for
all
media
for
all
residues
measured
(i.
e.,
parent
and
metabolites).
Field
recovery
data
were
generated
in
a
manner
that
addressed
field
sampling,
field
storage,
transport,
laboratory
storage,
and
analysis.
Residues
were
corrected
for
the
overall
average
field
recovery
for
each
residue/
matrix
combination.
Generally,
recovery
was
adequate
for
all
media/
residue
combinations.
If
the
PHED
grading
criteria
are
applied,
all
residue/
matrix
combinations
(except
facial
wipes
with
sulfone
residues)
have
at
least
grade
"B"
data
and
in
many
cases
the
data
meet
the
grade
"A"
criteria.
The
grade
"B"
criteria
require
laboratory
recovery
data
with
an
average
of
at
least
80
percent
and
a
coefficient
of
variation
of
25
or
less
39
accompanied
with
field
recoveries
that
are
at
least
50
percent
but
not
exceeding
120
percent.
The
grade
"A"
criteria
require
laboratory
recovery
data
with
an
average
of
at
least
90
percent
and
a
coefficient
of
variation
of
15
or
less
accompanied
with
field
recoveries
that
are
at
least
70
percent
but
not
exceeding
120
percent.

Unit
exposure
values
were
calculated
using
the
data
from
the
study
and
a
commercial
spreadsheet
program
(Table
6).
The
exposures
that
were
calculated
were
normalized
by
the
amount
of
chemical
used,
the
duration
of
the
application
interval,
and
by
the
body
weight
of
the
individual
applicators.
For
each
calculation,
the
arithmetic
mean,
geometric
mean,
and
various
percentiles
were
calculated.
No
analyses
were
completed
with
these
data
to
ascertain
the
exact
type
of
distribution.
The
Agency
typically
uses
the
best
fit
values
from
the
Pesticide
Handlers
Exposure
Database
which
are
representations
of
the
central
tendency.
Considering
the
standard
practice,
the
Agency
will
use
the
geometric
mean
for
risk
assessment
purposes.
The
other
values
are
presented
for
comparative
purposes.

Table
6:
Unit
Exposure
Values
Obtained
From
Granular
Backpack
Application
Study
(MRID
451672­
01)

Type
(mg
exp./
lb
ai
handled)
(mg
exp./
hour)
(mg
exp./
kg
body
weight/
day)
Dermal
Inhalation
Dermal
Inhalation
Dermal
Inhalation
Arith.
Mean
0.1391
0.0046
0.5473
0.0179
0.0585
0.0018
Geo.
Mean
0.0995
0.0042
0.3979
0.0169
0.0409
0.0017
25th
%tile
0.0474
0.0031
0.2511
0.0134
0.0220
0.0015
75th
%tile
0.1691
0.0062
0.7436
0.0229
0.0765
0.0023
90th
%tile
0.2217
0.0068
0.8489
0.0264
0.0947
0.0027
95th
%tile
0.3510
0.0076
1.2119
0.0282
0.1390
0.0028
99th
%tile
0.4722
0.0083
1.5594
0.0298
0.1805
0.0030
EPA
MRID
452507­
01
(Fipronil
Spoon
Application
Study):
A
total
of
18
mixer/
loader/
applicator
events
during
granular
backpack
(i.
e.,
a
specialized
device
manufactured
by
Horstine
Farmery)
or
spoon
application
to
bananas
were
monitored
during
applications
on
three
different
days
in
June,
1994
on
the
same
banana
plantation
in
Cameroon.
[Note:
Only
the
spoon
application
data
included
in
this
study
are
used
in
the
carbaryl
risk
assessment
as
backpack
granular
applications
have
been
assessed
using
the
data
presented
above.]
The
18
replicates
were
distributed
over
the
3
sampling
days
as
follows:
6
spoon/
hand
applications
on
day
1;
4
spoon/
hand
applications
on
day
2;
and
8
backpack
events
on
day
3.
Weather
was
typical
of
the
application
season
in
that
it
was
hot
and
humid.
Monitoring
was
completed
using
whole
body
dosimeters,
cotton
gloves,
cotton
caps,
and
personal
sampling
pumps
equipped
with
filters.
Regent
20GR
was
supplied
in
22
pound
boxes
which
was
loaded
directly
into
the
backpack
devices
or
buckets
for
the
spoon
applicators.
The
application
rate
for
fipronil
used
in
this
study
is
7.5
grams
of
Regent
20GR
(i.
e.,
0.15
grams
ai/
plant)
which
is
equivalent
to
about
0.26
lb
ai/
acre
(0.00033
lb
ai/
plant)
at
approximately
800
plants
per
acre.
The
numbers
of
acres
treated
ranged
from
approximately
0.75
to
1
acre.
The
pounds
of
active
ingredient
handled
ranged
from
about
a
quarter
to
half
a
pound
per
replicate.
Each
40
applicator
wore
whole
body
dosimeters
that
also
served
as
the
normal
work
clothing.
PVC
gloves
were
also
worn
over
cotton
gloves
which
served
as
the
dosimeters.
A
protection
factor
of
50
percent
was
used
by
the
Agency
to
calculate
exposure
levels
under
a
layer
of
normal
work
clothing.
Dosimeter
samples
were
segmented
into
arms,
legs,
and
torso
for
analysis.

Analysis
of
fipronil
residues
was
completed
with
gas
chromatography
and
electron
capture
detection.
The
limits
of
quantification
(LOQ)
were
9.7
µg
per
sample
for
all
media
used.
The
limit
of
detection
(LOD)
varied
for
each
media.
The
LOD
for
the
cotton
gloves
was
0.5
µg
per
sample,
0.10
µg
per
sample
for
the
air
filters,
and
2.0
to
4.0
µg
per
sample
for
the
whole
body
dosimeters
depending
upon
the
sample
analyzed.
Field
and
laboratory
recovery
data
were
generated
for
all
media.
Field
recovery
data
were
generated
in
a
manner
that
addressed
field
sampling,
field
storage,
transport,
laboratory
storage,
and
analysis.
However,
the
laboratory
recovery
data
were
indeterminate
because
the
sample
media
could
not
be
identified
for
each
reported
result.
The
overall
recovery
values
do
appear
to
be
quantitative.
Residues
were
corrected
for
the
overall
average
field
recovery
for
each
residue/
matrix
combination.
Generally,
recovery
was
adequate
for
all
media/
residue
combinations
(i.
e.,
all
correction
factors
were
greater
than
85
percent).
If
the
PHED
grading
criteria
are
applied
and
the
overall
laboratory
recovery
averages
are
used
all
residue/
matrix
combinations
are
considered
grade
"A"
data.
The
grade
"A"
criteria
require
laboratory
recovery
data
with
an
average
of
at
least
90
percent
and
a
coefficient
of
variation
of
15
or
less
accompanied
with
field
recoveries
that
are
at
least
70
percent
but
not
exceeding
120
percent.

Unit
exposure
values
were
calculated
using
the
data
from
the
study
and
a
commercial
spreadsheet
program.
The
exposures
that
were
calculated
were
normalized
by
the
amount
of
chemical
used,
the
duration
of
the
application
interval,
and
by
the
body
weight
of
the
individual
applicators
(see
table
below).
The
values
are
based
on
a
50
percent
clothing
penetration
factor
and
are
separated
for
each
equipment
type
monitored
in
this
study.
For
each
normalization
factor,
the
arithmetic
mean,
geometric
mean,
and
various
percentiles
were
calculated.
No
analyses
were
completed
with
these
data
to
ascertain
the
exact
type
of
distribution.
The
Agency
typically
uses
the
best
fit
values
from
the
Pesticide
Handlers
Exposure
Database
which
are
representations
of
the
central
tendency.
Considering
the
standard
practice,
the
Agency
will
use
the
geometric
mean
for
risk
assessment
purposes.
The
other
values
are
presented
for
comparative
purposes.

Table
7:
Unit
Exposure
Values
Obtained
From
Granular
Spoon
Application
Study
(MRID
452507­
01)
Type
(mg
exp./
lb
ai
handled)
(mg
exp./
hour)
(mg
exp./
kg
body
weight/
day)
Dermal
Inhalation
Dermal
Inhalation
Dermal
Inhalation
Applications
with
a
Spoon
Arith.
Mean
2.875
0.106
0.433
0.016
0.025
0.001
Geo.
Mean
1.978
0.045
0.246
0.006
0.014
0.0003
Median
1.889
0.039
0.221
0.005
0.011
0.0003
25th
%tile
0.990
0.024
0.104
0.003
0.006
0.0001
75th
%tile
4.140
0.066
0.677
0.007
0.035
0.0004
90th
%tile
6.113
0.316
0.999
0.052
0.059
0.003
95th
%tile
7.276
0.402
1.190
0.066
0.072
0.004
99th
%tile
8.207
0.471
1.342
0.077
0.082
0.005
41
EPA
MRID
410547­
01
(Propoxur
trigger
sprayer
study):
A
total
of
15
applicator
events
during
residential
applications
using
a
hand­
operated
trigger
pump
sprayer,
attached
with
an
18
inch
hose
to
half
gallon
cans
containing
0.95
percent
propoxur,
were
completed
in
this
study.
The
study
was
completed
between
October
26
and
November
1,
1988
in
the
Kansas
City
Missouri
metro
area.
Each
person
monitored
in
the
study
was
a
Bayer
(the
sponsor
corporation)
employee.
Three
employees
were
used
to
complete
all
replicates.
In
each
replicate,
"each
applicator
used
a
separate
one­
half
gallon
can
of
Raid
for
each
house.
The
cap
was
removed
from
the
top
of
the
can
and
the
hose
sprayer
was
attached
by
inserting
the
dip
tube
into
the
can
and
tightening
the
screw
cap.
The
sprayer
was
primed
by
pumping
the
trigger.
The
applicator
treated
the
outside
of
the
home
in
areas
where
pests
were
likely
to
be
found,
such
as
screens,
door
and
window
frames,
foundation
walls,
patios,
porches,
stoops,
and
decks.
When
the
application
was
completed,
the
hose
sprayer
was
secured
under
the
handle
of
the
can."
The
data
included
in
the
study
indicate
that
exposure
durations
ranged
from
9
to
21
minutes
per
replicate
and
the
amount
of
active
ingredient
handled
ranged
from
0.16
to
0.4
oz
(i.
e.,
0.01
to
0.025
lb
ai).
Dermal
(nonhand)
exposure
monitoring
during
each
replicate
was
completed
using
gauze
sponges
held
in
"aluminized
paper
holders"
with
an
open
sampling
surface
area
of
24.6
cm
2
while
hand
exposures
were
quantified
with
the
handwash
technique
(2
­
200
mL
aliquots
of
ethanol
per
hand
for
a
total
volume
of
800
mL
per
person).
Inhalation
exposures
were
monitored
using
standard
personal
sampling
pumps
operating
a
1
liter
per
minute
with
quartz
microfiber
filters.
Samples
were
collected
in
this
study
to
represent
exposures
when
a
person
was
wearing
normal
work
clothing
(i.
e.,
long
pants
and
long­
sleeved
shirts)
and
chemical­
resistant
gloves.

Analysis
of
propoxur
residues
was
completed
with
high
performance
liquid
chromatography,
post­
column
derivatization,
and
fluorescence
detection.
The
limits
of
quantification
(LOQ)
were
10
µg
per
sample
for
the
handwash
solutions,
0.1
µg/
sample
for
the
inhalation
filters,
and
0.03
µg/
cm
2
for
the
dermal
patch
samples.
Field
and
laboratory
recovery
data
were
generated
for
all
media.
This
study
was
reviewed
in
September
1989
under
EPA
contract
68­
02­
4254
by
Versar.
The
values
used
for
regulatory
purposes
have
been
excerpted
from
that
review
(including
recovery
results).
Average
laboratory
recovery
for
all
media
ranged
from
99.2
to
109
percent
while
the
coefficients
of
variation
for
each
media
were
generally
less
than
5
(i.
e.,
for
the
patches,
the
CV
=
16.5).
Patches
and
filters
were
fortified
at
1
µg/
sample
while
hand
rinses
were
fortified
at
either
200
or
1000
µg/
sample.
Average
field
recovery
results
ranged
from
90.3
to
102.2
percent
while
coefficients
of
variation
also
were
generally
less
than
5
(i.
e.,
inside
patch
CV=
6.9).
Patches
were
fortified
at
levels
from
1
to
50
µg/
sample,
hand
rinses
were
fortified
at
200
µg/
sample,
and
filters
were
fortified
at
0.2
µg/
sample.

Unit
exposure
values
were
calculated
using
the
data
from
the
study
and
a
commercial
spreadsheet
program.
The
exposures
that
were
calculated
were
normalized
by
the
amount
of
chemical
used
by
individual
applicators
(Table
8).
42
Table
8:
Unit
Exposure
Values
Obtained
From
Propoxur
Trigger
Pump
Sprayer
Study
(MRID
410547­
01)
Type
(mg
exp./
lb
ai
handled)
Dermal
Inhalation
Geometric
Mean
13.5
0.
123
Unit
exposure
values
excerpted
from
Versar
PHED
Data
review
under
Contract
68­
02­
4254
(9/
29/
89).

EPA
MRID
449722­
01
(ORETF
Handler
Studies):
A
report
was
submitted
by
the
ORETF
(Outdoor
Residential
Exposure
Task
Force)
that
presented
data
in
which
the
application
of
various
products
used
on
turf
by
homeowners
and
lawncare
operators
(LCOs)
was
monitored.
All
of
the
data
submitted
in
this
report
were
completed
in
a
series
of
studies.
The
two
studies
that
monitored
LCO
exposure
scenarios
used
a
granular
spreader
(ORETF
Study
OMA001)
and
a
low
pressure,
high
volume
turf
handgun
(ORETF
Study
OMA002)
are
summarized
below.

OMA001:
A
loader/
applicator
study
was
performed
by
the
Outdoor
Residential
Exposure
Task
Force
(ORETF)
using
Dacthal
(active
ingredient
DCPA,
dimethyl
tetrachloroterephthalate)
as
a
surrogate
compound
to
determine
"generic"
exposures
of
lawn
care
operators
(LCOs)
applying
a
granular
pesticide
formulation
to
residential
lawns.
Surrogate
chemicals
were
chosen
by
the
Task
Force
for
their
representativeness
based
on
physical
chemical
properties
and
other
factors.
Dacthal,
which
was
the
surrogate
chemical
used
for
the
granular
spreader
and
low­
pressure
hand
gun
sprayer
studies,
has
a
molecular
weight
of
331.97
and
a
vapor
pressure
of
1.6
x
10
­6
,
and
is
believed
to
be
an
appropriate
surrogate
for
many
relatively
nonvolatile
pesticides.
The
study
was
designed
to
simulate
a
typical
work
day
for
a
LCO
applying
granular
pesticide
formulation
to
home
lawns.
Each
LCO
replicate
involved
loading
and
applying
approximately
3.3
lb
ai
(360
lb
formulated
product)
over
a
period
of
about
4
hours
to
15
simulated
residential
lawns
(6480
ft
2
each)
with
a
rotary
type
spreader.
The
average
industry
application
rate
of
2
lb
ai/
acre
was
simulated
(actual
rate
achieved
was
about
1.9
lb
ai/
acre).
The
monitoring
period
included
driving,
placing
the
spreader
onto
and
off
of
the
truck,
carrying
and
loading
the
formulation
in
the
spreader,
and
the
actual
application.
Incidental
activities
such
as
repairs,
cleaning
up
spills,
and
disposing
of
empty
bags
were
monitored.
A
total
of
40
replicates
(individual
application
events)
were
monitored
using
passive
dosimetry
(inner
and
outer
whole
body
dosimeters,
hand
washes,
face/
neck
wipes,
and
personal
inhalation
monitors
with
OVS
tubes).
The
inner
samples
represent
a
single
layer
of
clothing.
Inhalation
exposure
was
calculated
using
an
assumed
respiratory
rate
of
17
Lpm
for
light
work
(NAFTA,
1999),
the
actual
sampling
time
for
each
individual,
and
the
pump
flow
rate.
In
20
of
the
replicates,
the
subjects
wore
chemical­
resistant
gloves
while
in
the
remaining
replicates,
no
gloves
were
worn.
No
gloves
were
worn
in
any
replicate
while
driving.
All
results
were
normalized
for
the
amount
of
active
ingredient
handled.
Nearly
all
samples
(for
every
body
part
and
for
inhalation)
were
above
the
level
of
quantitation
(LOQ)
for
dacthal.
Where
results
were
less
43
than
the
reported
LOQ,
½
LOQ
value
was
used
for
calculations,
and
no
recovery
corrections
were
applied.
The
overall
laboratory
recoveries
(83­
101%)
and
field
recoveries
(73­
98%).
The
unit
exposure
values
are
presented
in
Table
9
below.
[Note
the
inhalation
exposure
value
is
a
median
because
the
data
were
found
to
be
neither
normally
nor
lognormally
distributed.
All
dermal
values
are
geometric
means
as
the
data
were
lognormally
distributed.]

OMA002:
A
mixer/
loader/
applicator
study
was
performed
by
the
Outdoor
Residential
Exposure
Task
Force
(ORETF)
using
Dacthal
as
a
surrogate
compound
to
determine
"generic"
exposures
to
individuals
applying
a
pesticide
to
turf
with
a
low­
pressure
"nozzle
gun"
or
"hand
gun"
sprayer.
Dermal
and
inhalation
exposures
were
estimated
using
wholebody
passive
dosimeters
and
breathing­
zone
air
samples
on
OVS
tubes.
Inhalation
exposure
was
calculated
using
an
assumed
respiratory
rate
of
17
Lpm
for
light
work
(NAFTA,
1999),
the
actual
sampling
time
for
each
individual,
and
the
pump
flow
rate.
All
results
were
normalized
for
lb
ai
handled.
A
total
of
90
replicates
were
monitored
using
17
different
subjects.
Four
different
formulations
of
dacthal
[75%
wettable
powder
(packaged
in
4lb
and
24
lb
bags),
75%
wettable
powder
in
water
soluble
bags
(3
lb
bag),
75%
water
dispersible
granules
(
2
lb
bag)
and
55%
liquid
flowable
(2.5
Gal
container)]
were
applied
by
five
different
LCOs
to
actual
residential
lawns
at
each
site
in
three
different
locations
(Ohio,
Maryland,
and
Georgia)
for
a
total
of
fifteen
replicates
per
formulation.
An
additional
ten
replicates
at
each
site
were
monitored
while
they
performed
spray
application
only
using
the
75
percent
wettable
powder
formulation.
A
target
application
rate
of
2
lb
ai/
acre
was
used
for
all
replicates
(actual
rate
achieved
was
about
2.2
lb
ai/
acre).
Each
replicate
treated
a
varying
number
of
actual
client
lawns
to
attain
a
representative
target
of
2.5
acres
(1
hectare)
of
turf.
The
exposure
periods
averaged
five
hours
twenty­
one
minutes,
five
hours
thirty­
nine
minutes,
and
six
hours
twenty­
four
minutes,
in
Ohio,
Maryland
and
Georgia,
respectively.
Average
time
spent
spraying
at
all
sites
was
about
two
hours.
All
mixing,
loading,
application,
adjusting,
calibrating,
and
spill
clean
up
procedures
were
monitored,
except
for
typical
end­
of­
day
clean­
up
activities,
e.
g.
rinsing
of
spray
tank,
etc.
Dermal
exposure
was
measured
using
inner
and
outer
whole
body
dosimeters,
hand
washes,
face/
neck
washes,
and
personal
air
monitoring
devices.
All
test
subjects
wore
one­
piece,
100
percent
cotton
inner
dosimeters
beneath
100
percent
cotton
long­
sleeved
shirt
and
long
pants,
rubber
boots
and
nitrile
gloves.
Gloves
are
typically
worn
by
most
LCOs,
and
required
by
many
pesticide
labels
for
mixing
and
loading.
Overall,
residues
were
highest
on
the
upper
and
lower
leg
portions
of
the
dosimeters
In
general,
concurrent
lab
spikes
produced
mean
recoveries
in
the
range
of
78­
120
percent,
with
the
exception
of
OVS
sorbent
tube
sections
which
produced
mean
recoveries
as
low
as
65.8
percent.
Adjustment
for
recoveries
from
field
fortifications
were
performed
on
each
dosimeter
section
or
sample
matrix
for
each
study
participant,
using
the
mean
recovery
for
the
closest
field
spike
level
for
each
matrix
and
correcting
the
value
to
100
percent.
The
unit
exposure
values
are
presented
in
Table
9
below.
[Note
the
data
were
found
to
be
lognormally
distributed.
As
a
result,
all
exposure
values
are
geometric
means.]
44
Table
9:
Unit
Exposure
Values
Obtained
From
ORETF
LCO
Studies
(MRID
449722­
01)
Type
(mg
exp./
lb
ai
handled)
Dermal
Inhalation
Single
Layer,
No
Gloves
Single
Layer,
Gloves
Double
Layer,
Gloves
LCO
Push
Granular
Spreader
0.35
0.22
0.11
0.0071
LCO
Turfgun
(WP
Formulation)
No
Data
0.65
0.36
0.0066
All
unit
exposure
values
are
geometric
means
except
inhalation
value
for
granular
spreader.
Double
layer
value
calculated
using
a
50%
protection
factor.
Turfgun,
no
glove
data
were
not
back
calculated
using
a
90
percent
protection
factor
as
it
is
deemed
unreliable.
WP
formulation
in
WSP
packaging
used
for
turfgun
assessment
as
the
unit
exposures
for
this
scenario
were
slightly
higher
than
for
the
other
scenarios
and
deemed
representative
of
current
products/
packaging.

Pesticide
Handler
Exposure
Database
(PHED)
Version
1.1
(August
1998):
Chemical­
specific
data
for
assessing
human
exposures
during
pesticide
handling
activities
were
submitted
to
the
Agency
in
support
of
one
occupational
exposure
scenario
for
the
reregistration
of
carbaryl.
It
is
the
policy
of
HED
to
combine
submitted
chemical­
specific
data
with
that
from
the
Pesticide
Handlers
Exposure
Database
(PHED)
Version
1.1
when
appropriate
to
assess
handler
exposures
for
regulatory
actions
4
.
The
scenario/
chemical­
specific
study
submitted
has
no
corresponding
scenario
in
PHED,
therefore,
unit
exposure
values
from
the
study
are
used
to
calculate
exposure
and
risk
for
the
use
pattern.
For
all
other
remaining
scenarios,
data
from
PHED
were
used
to
complete
the
assessment.

PHED
was
designed
by
a
task
force
of
representatives
from
the
U.
S.
EPA,
Health
Canada,
the
California
Department
of
Pesticide
regulation,
and
member
companies
of
the
American
Crop
Protection
Association.
PHED
is
a
software
system
consisting
of
two
parts
­­
a
database
of
measured
exposure
values
for
workers
involved
in
the
handling
of
pesticides
under
actual
field
conditions
and
a
set
of
computer
algorithms
used
to
subset
and
statistically
summarize
the
selected
data.
Currently,
the
database
contains
values
for
over
1,700
monitored
individuals
(i.
e.,
replicates)

Users
select
criteria
to
subset
the
PHED
database
to
reflect
the
exposure
scenario
being
evaluated.
The
subsetting
algorithms
in
PHED
are
based
on
the
central
assumption
that
the
magnitude
of
handler
exposures
to
pesticides
are
primarily
a
function
of
activity
(e.
g.,
mixing/
loading,
applying),
formulation
type
(e.
g.,
wettable
powders,
granulars),
application
method
(e.
g.,
aerial,
groundboom),
and
clothing
scenarios
(e.
g.,
gloves,
double
layer
clothing).

Once
the
data
for
a
given
exposure
scenario
have
been
selected,
the
data
are
normalized
(i.
e.,
divided
by)
by
the
amount
of
pesticide
handled
resulting
in
standard
unit
exposures
(milligrams
of
exposure
per
pound
of
active
ingredient
handled).
Following
normalization,
the
data
are
statistically
summarized.
The
distribution
of
exposure
values
for
each
body
part
(e.
g.,
chest
upper
arm)
is
categorized
as
normal,
lognormal,
or
"other"
(i.
e.,
neither
normal
nor
lognormal).
A
central
tendency
value
is
then
selected
from
the
distribution
of
the
exposure
values
for
each
body
part.
These
values
are
the
arithmetic
mean
for
normal
distributions,
the
geometric
mean
for
lognormal
distributions,
and
the
median
for
all
"other"
distributions.
Once
selected,
the
central
tendency
values
for
each
body
part
are
composited
into
a
"best
fit"
exposure
value
representing
the
entire
body.
45
The
unit
exposure
values
calculated
by
PHED
generally
range
from
the
geometric
mean
to
the
median
of
the
selected
data
set.
To
add
consistency
and
quality
control
to
the
values
produced
from
this
system,
the
PHED
Task
Force
has
evaluated
all
data
within
the
system
and
has
developed
a
set
of
grading
criteria
to
characterize
the
quality
of
the
original
study
data.
The
assessment
of
data
quality
is
based
on
the
number
of
observations
and
the
available
quality
control
data.
These
evaluation
criteria
and
the
caveats
specific
to
each
exposure
scenario
are
summarized
in
Appendix
C,
Table
C1.
While
data
from
PHED
provide
the
best
available
information
on
handler
exposures,
it
should
be
noted
that
some
aspects
of
the
included
studies
(e.
g.,
duration,
acres
treated,
pounds
of
active
ingredient
handled)
may
not
accurately
represent
labeled
uses
in
all
cases.
HED
has
developed
a
series
of
tables
of
standard
unit
exposure
values
for
many
occupational
scenarios
that
can
be
utilized
to
ensure
consistency
in
exposure
assessments.
Unit
exposures
are
used
which
represent
different
levels
of
personal
protection
as
described
above.
Protection
factors
were
used
to
calculate
unit
exposure
values
for
varying
levels
of
personal
protection
if
data
were
not
available.

2.1.3
Occupational
Handler
Exposure
and
Non­
Cancer
Risk
Estimates
The
occupational
handler
exposure
and
non­
cancer
risk
calculations
are
presented
in
this
section.
Noncancer
risks
were
calculated
using
the
Margin
of
Exposure
(MOE)
which
is
a
ratio
of
the
body
burden
to
the
toxicological
endpoint
of
concern.
Body
burden
values
are
calculated
by
first
calculating
exposures
by
considering
application
parameters
(i.
e.,
rate
and
area
treated)
along
with
unit
exposure
levels.
Exposures
were
then
normalized
by
body
weight
and
adjusted
for
absorption
factors
as
appropriate
to
calculate
dose
levels
(i.
e.,
body
burdens).
MOEs
were
then
calculated.

Daily
Exposure:
The
daily
exposure,
daily
dose
and
hence
the
risks,
to
handlers
were
calculated
as
described
below.
The
first
step
was
to
calculate
daily
exposure
(dermal
or
inhalation)
using
the
following
formula:

Daily
Exposure
(mg
ai/
day)
=

Unit
Exposure
(mg
ai/
lb
ai)
x
Application
Rate
(lb
ai/
A)
x
Daily
Acres
Treated
(A/
day)

Where:

Daily
Exposure
=
Amount
deposited
on
the
surface
of
the
skin
that
is
available
for
dermal
absorption
or
amount
that
is
inhaled,
also
referred
to
as
potential
dose
(mg
ai/
day);
Unit
Exposure
=
Normalized
exposure
value
derived
from
August
1998
PHED
Surrogate
Exposure
Table
and
various
referenced
exposure
studies
noted
above
(mg
ai/
lb
ai);
Application
Rate
=
Normalized
application
rate
based
on
a
logical
unit
treatment
such
as
acres
or
gallons,
maximum
and
typical
values
are
generally
used
(lb
ai/
A);
and
Daily
Acres
Treated
=
Normalized
application
area
based
on
a
logical
unit
treatment
such
as
acres
(A/
day)
or
gallons
per
day
can
be
substituted
(gal/
day).
46
Inhalation
exposure
values
were
calculated
in
a
similar
manner.
The
only
difference
is
that
unit
exposure
values
representing
the
inhalation
route
were
used
that
were
calculated
using
PHED
and
standard
human
breathing
rates
(29
liters/
minute
and
an
8
hour
exposure).
[Note:
In
some
cases,
the
above
equation
has
been
substituted
by
an
algorithm
excerpted
from
the
Agency's
SOPs
For
Residential
Exposure
Assessment
(chapter
9)
that
calculates
exposures
based
on
the
percent
of
active
ingredient
applied
(e.
g.,
pet
treatment
calculations).
It
should
also
be
noted
that
HED
has
agreed
to
use
the
NAFTA
recommended
values
for
breathing
rate
rather
than
the
existing
rate
in
Series
875
Group
A
(i.
e.,
previously
known
as
Subdivision
U).
Series
875
Group
A
recommends
an
inhalation
rate
of
29
L/
min.
The
new
NAFTA
recommended
inhalation
rates
are
8.3,
16.7,
and
26.7
L/
min
for
sedentary
activities
(e.
g.,
driving
a
tractor),
light
activities
(e.
g.,
flaggers
and
mixer/
loaders
<
50
lb
containers),
and
moderate
activities
(e.
g.,
loading
>
50
lb
containers,
handheld
equipment
in
hilly
conditions),
respectively.
These
inhalation
reduction
factors
are
3.5
for
tractor
drivers,
1.7
for
mixer/
loaders
and
flaggers,
and
1.1
for
handheld
equipment.
These
changes
in
exposure
factors
will
be
programmed
into
the
next
version
of
the
handler
exposure
data
base
and
are
characterized
in
this
document
for
regulatory
risk
management
decisions.]

Daily
Dose:
Daily
dose
(inhalation
or
dermal)
was
then
calculated
by
normalizing
the
daily
dermal
exposure
value
by
body
weight
and
accounting
for
dermal
absorption
(i.
e.,
a
biologically
available
dose
resulting
from
dermal
exposure
was
then
calculated).
For
adult
handlers
using
carbaryl,
an
average
adult
body
weight
of
70
kg
was
used
for
all
exposure
scenarios
because
all
scenarios
were
occupational
and
the
toxic
effect
was
seen
in
males
and
females.
Additionally,
a
dermal
absorption
factor
of
12.7
percent
was
used
for
all
chronic
duration
dermal
calculations
based
on
an
absorption
study
in
rats.
A
21­
day
dermal
administration
toxicity
study
in
rats
was
used
to
calculate
risks
for
short­
and
intermediate­
term
dermal
exposure.
In
cases
such
as
this,
a
default
value
of
100
percent
is
used
in
the
calculation.
It
should
also
be
noted
that
there
is
no
specific
inhalation
absorption
factor
that
is
available
for
carbaryl.
Therefore,
a
factor
of
100
percent
has
been
used
for
all
calculations.
Daily
dose
was
calculated
using
the
following
formula:

Where:

Average
Daily
Dose
=
The
amount
as
absorbed
dose
received
from
exposure
to
a
pesticide
in
a
given
scenario
(mg
pesticide
active
ingredient/
kg
body
weight/
day,
also
referred
to
as
ADD);
Daily
Exposure
=
Amount
deposited
on
the
surface
of
the
skin
that
is
available
for
dermal
absorption
or
amount
that
is
inhaled,
also
referred
to
as
potential
dose
(mg
ai/
day);
Absorption
Factor
=
A
measure
of
the
flux
or
amount
of
chemical
that
crosses
a
biological
boundary
such
as
the
skin
(%
of
the
total
available
absorbed);
and
Body
Weight
=
Body
weight
determined
to
represent
the
population
of
interest
in
a
risk
assessment
(kg).

The
handler
exposure
assessment
does
not
include
any
dietary
or
drinking
water
inputs.
47
Margins
of
Exposure:
Finally,
the
calculations
of
daily
dermal
dose
and
daily
inhalation
dose
received
by
handlers
were
then
compared
to
the
appropriate
endpoint
(i.
e.,
NOAEL
or
LOAEL)
to
assess
the
total
risk
to
handlers
for
each
exposure
route
within
the
scenarios.
Short­
and
intermediate­
term
dermal
MOEs
were
calculated
using
a
NOAEL
of
20.0
mg/
kg/
day
defined
in
the
rat
21
day
dermal
toxicity
study
(Table
1).
Short­
term
inhalation
MOEs
were
calculated
using
a
NOAEL
of
1.0
mg/
kg/
day
defined
in
the
rat
developmental
neurotoxicity
and
rat
acute
neurotoxicity
studies
(Table
1).
Intermediate­
term
inhalation
MOEs
were
calculated
using
a
NOAEL
of
1.0
mg/
kg/
day
defined
in
a
subchronic
neurotoxicity
study
in
rats.
Additionally,
when
required
for
a
limited
number
of
scenarios,
chronic
dermal
and
inhalation
MOEs
were
calculated
using
a
LOAEL
of
3.1
mg/
kg/
day
that
was
defined
in
a
1
year
dog
feeding
study.
All
MOE
values
were
calculated
separately
for
dermal
and
inhalation
exposure
levels
using
the
formula
below:

Where:

MOE
=
Margin
of
exposure,
value
used
by
the
Agency
to
represent
risk
or
how
close
a
chemical
exposure
is
to
being
a
concern
(unitless);
ADD
=
(Average
Daily
Dose)
or
the
amount
as
absorbed
dose
received
from
exposure
to
a
pesticide
in
a
given
scenario
(mg
pesticide
active
ingredient/
kg
body
weight/
day);
and
NOAEL
or
LOAEL
=
Dose
level
in
a
toxicity
study,
where
no
observed
adverse
effects
occurred
(NOAEL)
in
the
study
or
the
lowest
dose
level
where
an
adverse
effect
occurred
(LOAEL)
in
the
study
(mg
pesticide
active
ingredient/
kg
body
weight/
day).

It
is
important
to
present
risk
values
for
each
route
of
exposure
(i.
e.,
dermal
or
inhalation)
in
each
scenario
because
it
makes
determining
appropriate
risk
mitigation
measures
easier.
For
example,
if
overall
risks
are
driven
by
dermal
exposures
and
not
inhalation,
it
would
not
advisable
to
require
respirators
as
they
may
marginally
reduce
overall
risks.
It
is
also
important
to
present
overall
risk
estimates
for
each
scenario
considered
by
calculating
total
MOEs.
A
total
MOE
was
calculated
because
common
toxicity
endpoints
were
used
to
calculate
dermal
and
inhalation
risks
for
each
exposure
duration.
The
following
formula
is
used
to
calculate
total
MOE
values
by
combining
the
route­
specific
MOEs:

MOE
total
=
1/((
1/
MOE
a)
+
(1/
MOE
b)
+....
(1/
MOE
n))

Where:

MOE
a,
MOE
b,
and
MOE
n
represent
MOEs
for
each
exposure
route
of
concern
A
margin
of
exposure
(MOE)
uncertainty
factor
of
100
is
considered
an
appropriate
risk
level
for
the
short­
and
intermediate­
term
risk
assessments
because
a
NOAEL
was
used
as
the
basis
for
the
48
assessment.
A
margin
of
exposure
(MOE)
uncertainty
factor
of
300
is
considered
an
appropriate
risk
level
for
the
chronic
risk
assessment
because
a
LOAEL
was
selected
from
the1
year
dog
feeding
study
as
the
basis
for
the
assessment.

Noncancer
Risk
Summary:
All
of
the
noncancer
risk
calculations
for
occupational
carbaryl
handlers
completed
in
this
assessment
are
included
in
Appendix
C
(Tables
1
­
9).
The
specifics
of
each
of
table
included
in
Appendix
C
are
described
below.
A
summary
of
the
results
for
each
exposure
scenario
is
also
provided
below
(please
refer
to
Appendix
C
for
more
details).

C
Appendix
C/
Table
1:
Sources
of
Exposure
Data
Used
in
the
Occupational
Carbaryl
Handler
Exposure
and
Risk
Calculations
Describes
the
sources
and
quality
of
the
exposure
data
used
in
all
of
the
occupational
handler
calculations.

C
Appendix
C/
Table
2:
Input
Parameters
For
Carbaryl
Occupational
Handler
Exposure
and
Risk
Calculations
Presents
the
numerical
unit
exposure
values
and
other
factors
used
in
the
occupational
handler
risk
assessments.

C
Appendix
C/
Table
3:
Margins
of
Exposure
For
Carbaryl
Occupational
Handler
Risk
Assessment
At
The
Baseline
Level
of
Personal
Protection
Risk
values
are
presented
for
each
exposure
duration
considered
in
the
assessment
(i.
e.,
short­,
intermediate­,
and
chronic
duration
exposures).
Represents
typical
work
clothing
or
a
long­
sleeved
shirt
and
long
pants
with
no
respiratory
protection.
No
chemical­
resistant
gloves
are
included
in
this
scenario.
Note
that
some
scenarios
have
no
baseline
dermal
exposure
values
(see
notes
on
Tables
1
and
2).
[Note:
The
calculations
from
this
table
have
been
used
to
develop
the
summary
in
Tables
7,
8,
and
9.]

C
AppendixC/
Table
4:
Margins
of
Exposure
For
Carbaryl
Occupational
Handler
Risk
Assessment
At
The
Minimum
Level
of
Personal
Protection
Risk
values
are
presented
for
each
exposure
duration
considered
in
the
assessment
(i.
e.,
short­,
intermediate­,
and
chronic
duration
exposures).
Represents
the
baseline
scenario
with
the
use
of
chemical­
resistant
gloves
and
PF
5
respirators.
[Note:
The
calculations
from
this
table
have
been
used
to
develop
the
summary
in
Tables
7,
8,
and
9.]

C
Appendix
C/
Table
5:
Margins
of
Exposure
For
Carbaryl
Occupational
Handler
Risk
Assessment
At
The
Maximum
Level
of
Personal
Protection
Risk
values
are
presented
for
each
exposure
duration
considered
in
the
assessment
(i.
e.,
short­,
intermediate­,
and
chronic
duration
exposures).
Represents
the
baseline
scenario
with
the
use
of
an
additional
layer
of
clothing
(e.
g.,
a
pair
of
coveralls),
chemical­
resistant
gloves,
and
a
PF
10
respirator.
[Note:
The
calculations
from
this
table
have
been
used
to
develop
the
summary
in
Tables
7,
8,
and
9.]

C
Appendix
C/
Table
6:
Margins
of
Exposure
For
Carbaryl
Occupational
Handler
Risk
Assessment
Using
Engineering
Controls
Risk
values
are
presented
for
each
exposure
duration
considered
in
the
assessment
(i.
e.,
short­,
intermediate­,
and
chronic
duration
49
exposures).
Represents
the
use
of
an
appropriate
engineering
control
such
as
a
closed
tractor
cab
or
closed
loading
system
for
granulars
or
liquids.
Engineering
controls
are
not
applicable
to
handheld
application
methods
there
are
no
known
devices
that
can
be
used
to
routinely
lower
the
exposures
for
these
methods.
[Note:
The
calculations
from
this
table
have
been
used
to
develop
the
summary
in
Tables
7,
8,
and
9.]

C
Appendix
C/
Table
7:
Combined
Short­
Term
Margins
Of
Exposure
For
Carbaryl
Occupational
Handler
Risk
Assessment
Presents
combined
dermal
and
inhalation
MOEs
with
each
possible
combination
of
dermal
and
respiratory
protection
considered
in
this
assessment.
Results
for
exposure
durations
#
30
days
are
only
included
in
this
table
based
on
the
use
of
the
developmental
neurotoxicity
and
acute
neurotoxicity
studies
in
rats
to
define
the
NOAEL
for
this
duration.
[Note:
See
tables
3
through
6
for
calculations
of
specific
MOE
values.]

C
Appendix
C/
Table
8:
Combined
Intermediate­
Term
Margins
Of
Exposure
For
Carbaryl
Occupational
Handler
Risk
Assessment
Presents
combined
dermal
and
inhalation
MOEs
with
each
possible
combination
of
dermal
and
respiratory
protection
considered
in
this
assessment.
Results
for
exposure
durations
>30
days
up
to
several
months
are
only
included
in
this
table
based
on
the
use
of
a
subchronic
neurotoxicity
study
in
rats
to
define
the
NOAEL
for
this
duration.
[Note:
See
tables
3
through
6
for
calculations
of
specific
MOE
values.]

C
Appendix
C/
Table
9:
Combined
Chronic
Margins
Of
Exposure
For
Carbaryl
Occupational
Handler
Risk
Assessment
Presents
combined
dermal
and
inhalation
MOEs
with
each
possible
combination
of
dermal
and
respiratory
protection
considered
in
this
assessment.
Results
for
exposures
that
occur
essentially
each
working
are
only
included
in
this
table
based
on
the
use
of
a
chronic
dog
feeding
study
to
define
the
LOAEL
for
this
duration.
[Note:
See
tables
3
through
6
for
calculations
of
specific
MOE
values.]

Tables
1
through
6
of
Appendix
C
provide
the
inputs
and
illustrate
how
the
calculations
were
performed
to
define
the
noncancer
risks
(i.
e.,
Margins
of
Exposure
or
MOEs)
for
carbaryl
handlers.
The
exposure
data
and
other
factors
which
were
used
represent
the
best
sources
of
data
currently
available
to
the
Agency
for
completing
these
kinds
of
assessments.
For
example,
maximum
application
rates
were
derived
directly
from
carbaryl
labels.
The
recent
use
and
usage
report
was
also
reviewed
to
define
average
application
rates
for
each
crop
or
group
of
crops
considered.
Exposure
factors
(e.
g.,
body
weight,
amount
treated
per
day,
protection
factors,
etc.)
are
all
standard
values
that
have
been
used
by
the
Agency
over
several
years
and
are
derived
from
peer
reviewed
sources
whenever
possible
(e.
g.,
Exposure
Factors
Handbook).
The
unit
exposure
values
are
the
best
available
estimates
of
exposure.
Some
unit
exposure
values
are
high
quality
while
others
represent
low
quality,
but
the
best
available,
data.
Data
quality
should
be
considered
in
the
interpretation
of
the
uncertainties
associated
with
each
risk
value
presented.
Please
identify
these
scenarios
based
on
information
provided
in
Appendix
C/
Table
1.
Additionally,
it
should
be
noted
that
the
animal
grooming
scenario
with
dusts
calculations
were
based
on
the
SOPs
For
Residential
Exposure
Assessment
(i.
e.,
10%
of
applied
is
considered
equivalent
to
the
dermal
exposure).
This
50
calculation
should
be
considered
only
as
a
rangefinder.

Tables
7,
8,
and
9
in
Appendix
C
provide
the
overall
results
of
the
risk
assessment
for
each
distinct
exposure
duration
considered
because
they
contain
the
combined
risk
values
for
each
scenario
using
several
combinations
of
personal
protection
(e.
g.,
short­
term
combined
MOEs
are
presented
in
Table
7).
When
protective
measures
are
used
to
reduce
risks
it
is
appropriate
to
consider
how
each
method
will
reduce
the
associated
risks
and
the
burden
associated
with
the
use
of
that
method
(e.
g.,
gloves
are
thought
to
routinely
reduce
risks
from
dermal
exposures
by
90
percent
based
on
the
Agency
protection
factor
for
gloves).
It
should
be
noted
that
there
were
several
scenarios
which
were
identified
for
which
no
appropriate
exposure
data
are
known
to
exist.
These
include:

C
Animal
Grooming
Dust
Application;
C
Dust
applications
in
agriculture
(not
included
on
handler
tables
in
Appendix
C
but
considered
a
major
data
gap);
C
Handheld
Fogging
For
Mosquito
and
Other
Pest
Treatments;
C
Power
Backpack
Application;
C
Tree
Injection;
and
C
Drenching/
dipping
seedlings
[Note:
The
mixing/
loading
component
only
of
this
scenario
has
been
addressed
quantitatively.]

Short­
term
and
Intermediate­
term
Risk
Summary:
Short­
term
and
intermediate­
term
risks
were
calculated
for
different
exposure
scenarios
at
different
levels
of
personal
protection
as
illustrated
in
Tables
7
and
8
of
Appendix
C,
respectively.
The
results
and
trends
for
both
the
short­
term
and
intermediate­
term
calculations
are
identical
because
all
exposure
inputs
were
similar
and
the
NOAEL
values
of
20
mg/
kg/
day
for
dermal
exposures
and
1
mg/
kg/
day
for
inhalation
exposures
are
the
same
for
both
durations.
The
only
difference
is
the
source
of
the
NOAELs
selected
for
the
inhalation
risk
assessment.
The
short­
term
values
were
determined
based
on
rat
developmental
neurotoxicity
and
acute
neurotoxicity
studies
while
the
intermediate­
term
NOAEL
was
defined
using
a
subchronic
neurotoxicity
study
in
rats.
Therefore,
for
economy,
the
results
for
both
shortand
intermediate­
term
occupational
handlers
have
been
summarized
together
in
this
section.
[Note:
If
risk
estimates
were
altered
because
of
additional
data
or
other
reason,
then
separate
sections
would
be
presented
as
appropriate.]

In
most
scenarios,
MOEs
meet
or
exceed
the
required
uncertainty
factor
of
100
at
some
level
of
personal
protection.
For
the
most
part,
current
label
requirements
for
personal
protection
(single
layer
clothing,
gloves,
and
no
respirator)
appear
to
be
generally
inadequate
for
most
scenarios
except
51
for
operations
where
exposures
and/
or
the
amount
of
chemical
used
is
low.
Table
10
summarizes
the
results
for
short­
term
and
intermediate­
term
occupational
handlers.
[Note:
Scenarios
where
MOEs
are
still
of
concern
(i.
e.,
<100)
for
any
personal
protection
considered
are
highlighted
and
the
minimum
required
PPE
is
also
highlighted
if
it
exceeds
current
label
requirements.]

Table
10:
Summary
of
Short­/
Intermediate­
Term
Occupational
Handler
Noncancer
Risks
Scenario
Rate
(lb
ai/
acre)

[unless
noted]
Area
Treated
(acres/
day)

[unless
noted]
Risk
Summary
MOEs
Min.
Req.
PPE
Mixer/
Loaders
1a
Dry
Flowable:
Aerial/
Chemigation
1­
2
(wheat/
corn)
2­
5
(veg.,
stone
fruit,
24C
on
oysters)
1200
350
363­
726
498­
1244
EC
EC
1b
Dry
Flowable:
Airblast
7.5­
16
(various
fruit
&
nut
trees)
5
(nuts)
1.1­
3
(pome
&
stone
fruit,
grapes)
40
40
40
1360­
2902
101
143­
391
EC
SL/
GL/
PF5
Baseline
1c
Dry
Flowable:
Groundboom
1.5­
2
(wheat/
corn)
2
(strawberry/
veg)
8
(turf/
golf
courses)
4
(turf/
golf
courses)
200
80
40
40
2177­
2902
107
2721
108
EC
Baseline
EC
Baseline
1d
Dry
Flowable:
High
Press
HW/
ROW
Sprayer
4
lb
ai/
100
gal
(poultry)
1000
gal
430
Baseline
1e
Dry
Flowable:
Low
press./
High
Vol.
Turfgun
4
­8
(LCO
on
turf)
5
430­
860
Baseline
1f
Dry
Flowable:
Wide
area
aerial
2
(rangeland/
forestry)
7500
58
MOE
<
100
2a
Granular:
Aerial
Application
2
(corn)
2
(corn)
1200
350
688
146
EC
SL/
GL/
PF5
2b
Granular:
Solid
broadcast
spreader
1.5
(wheat/
corn)
2
(wheat/
corn)
2
(vegetables)
6
(turf/
golf
courses)
9
(turf/
golf
courses)
200
200
80
40
40
110
256
206
138
284
Baseline
SL/
GL/
PF5
Baseline
Baseline
SL/
GL/
PF5
3a
Liquid:
Aerial/
Chemigation
1.5­
2
(wheat,
max
corn)
1
(avg.
corn)
5
(stone
fruit)
2
(vegetables)
1200
1200
350
350
57­
76
114
78
103
All
MOEs
<
100
EC
MOE<
100
DL/
GL/
PF10
3b
Liquid:
Airblast
Application
16
(Citrus­
24C
in
California)
7.5
(Citrus)
5
(Nuts)
1.1­
3
(Grapes,
pome
&
stone
fruit)
40
40
40
40
100
168
149
248­
677
DL/
GL/
PF10
SL/
GL/
PF5
SL/
GL/
NR
SL/
GL/
NR
3c
Liquid:
Groundboom
1.5
(wheat)
2
(corn)
2
(strawberries)
8
(turf/
golf
courses)
4
(turf/
golf
courses)
200
200
80
40
40
168
126
186
157
186
SL/
GL/
PF5
SL/
GL/
PF5
SL/
GL/
NR
SL/
GL/
PF5
SL/
GL/
NR
3d
Liquid:
High
Press
HW/
ROW
Sprayer
4
lb
ai/
100
gal
(poultry)
1000
gal
745
SL/
GL/
NR
Table
10:
Summary
of
Short­/
Intermediate­
Term
Occupational
Handler
Noncancer
Risks
Scenario
Rate
(lb
ai/
acre)

[unless
noted]
Area
Treated
(acres/
day)

[unless
noted]
Risk
Summary
MOEs
Min.
Req.
PPE
52
3e
Liquid:
Low
press./
High
Vol.
Turfgun
4
­8
(LCO
on
turf)
5
745­
1489
SL/
GL/
NR
3f
Liquid:
Wide
area
aerial
2
(Range/
Forestry)
0.016
(Mosquito
adulticide)
0.15
(Mosquito
adulticide)
1
(Mosquito
adulticide)
7500
7500
7500
7500
9
248
121
18
MOE
<
100
SL/
GL/
NR
EC
MOE
<
100
3g
Liquid:
Wide
area
ground
0.016
(Mosquito
adulticide)
0.15
(Mosquito
adulticide)
1
(Mosquito
adulticide)
3000
3000
3000
621
112
45
SL/
GL/
NR
SL/
GL/
PF5
MOE
<
100
4a
Wettable
Powders:
Aerial
1­
2
(Wheat/
corn)
5
(stone
fruit)
2
(vegetables)
1200
350
350
40­
80
55
137
All
MOEs
<
100
MOE
<
100
EC
4b
Wettable
Powders:
Airblast
16
(Citrus­
24C
in
California)
1.1­
7.5
(Citrus,
nuts,
grapes,
pome
&
stone
fruit)
40
40
150
320­
2180
EC
EC
4c
Wettable
Powders:
Groundboom
1.5­
2
(wheat/
corn)
2
(strawberries)
4­
8
(turf/
golf
courses)
200
80
40
240­
320
599
299­
599
EC
EC
EC
4d
Wettable
Powders:
High
Press
HW/
ROW
Sprayer
4
lb
ai/
100
gal
(poultry)
1000
gal
102
SL/
GL/
PF5
4e
Wettable
Powders:
Low
press./
High
Vol.
Turfgun
4
(LCO
on
turf)
8
(LCO
on
turf)
5
5
102
205
SL/
GL/
PF5
SL/
GL/
PF5
4f
Wettable
Powders:
Wide
area
aerial
2
(Range/
Forestry)
7500
6
MOE<
100
Applicators
5a
Aerial:
Agricultural
uses,
liquid
sprays
1­
1.5
(wheat/
avg.
corn)
2
(max
corn)
5
(stone
fruit)
2
(vegetables,
24C
on
oysters)
1200
1200
350
350
113­
170
85
116
292
EC
MOE<
100
EC
EC
5b
Aerial:
Wide
area
uses,
liquid
sprays
2
(Range/
Forestry)
0.016­
0.15
(Mosquito
adulticide)
1
(Mosquito
adulticide)
7500
7500
7500
14
181­
1700
27
MOE<
100
EC
MOE<
100
5c
Aerial:
Agricultural
uses,
granular
applications
2
(corn)
2
(corn)
1200
350
21
72
MOE<
100
MOE<
100
6a
Airblast:
Agricultural
uses
16
(Citrus
24C
in
California)
2­
7.5
(Citrus,
nuts,
grapes,
pome
&
max.
stone
fruit)
1.1
(avg.
stone
fruit)
40
40
40
105
224­
841
123
EC
EC
SL/
GL/
PF5
6b
Airblast:
Wide
area
uses,
liquid
sprays
0.016
(Mosquito
adulticide)
0.15
(Mosquito
adulticide)
1
(Mosquito
adulticide)
3000
3000
3000
113
150
22
SL/
GL/
PF5
EC
MOE<
100
Table
10:
Summary
of
Short­/
Intermediate­
Term
Occupational
Handler
Noncancer
Risks
Scenario
Rate
(lb
ai/
acre)

[unless
noted]
Area
Treated
(acres/
day)

[unless
noted]
Risk
Summary
MOEs
Min.
Req.
PPE
53
7
Groundboom
1.5­
2
(Wheat,
corn)
2
(Strawberries)
4­
8
(Turf/
golf
course)
200
80
40
122­
162
304
152­
304
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
8
Solid
broadcast
spreader
(granular)
1.
5­
2
(Wheat,
corn)
2
(Strawberries)
4­
8
(Turf/
golf
course)
200
80
40
103­
138
258
115­
172
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
9
Aerosol
Can
0.
01
lb
ai/
can
2
cans
324
Baseline
10
Trigger
pump
sprayer
0.
01
lb
ai/
can
1
can
8772
SL/
GL/
NR
11
Right
of
way
sprayer
1.
5
lb
ai/
100
gallons
1000
gallons
199
SL/
GL/
NR
12
High
pressure
handwand
4
lb
ai/
100
gallons
1000
gallons
66
MOE<
100
13
Animal
groomer,
liquid
application
0.01
lb
ai/
dog
8
dogs
9.7
MOE<
100
14
Animal
groomer,
dust
application
(see
App
C/
Table
3)
0.2
lb
ai/
dog
8
dogs
8750
Baseline
(dermal
exp
only)

15
Granulars
&
baits
applied
by
hand
9
(Ornamentals
&
gardens)
1
3.8
MOE<
100
16
Granulars
&
baits
applied
by
spoon
9
(Ornamentals
&
garderns)
1
75.1
MOE<
100
Mixerr/
Loader/
Applicators
17
Low
pressure,
high
volume
turfgun
(ORETF
Data)
8
(LCO
Use
on
turf)
4
(LCO
Use
on
turf)
5
5
94
104
MOE<
100
SL/
GL/
PF5
18a
Wettable
powder,
low
pressure
handwand
1
lb
ai/
1000
ft
2
(poultry
house)
2%
solution
(ornamentals)
20,000
ft
2
40
gallons
8.3
135
MOE<
100
SL/
GL/
PF5
18b
Liquids,
low
pressure
handwand
1
lb
ai/
1000
ft
2
(poultry
house)
2%
solution
(ornamentals)
20,000
ft
2
40
gallons
127
1699
SL/
GL/
PF5
SL/
GL/
NR
19
Backpack
sprayer
1
lb
ai/
1000
ft
2
(poultry
house)
2%
solution
(ornamentals)
20,000
ft
2
40
gallons
42
565
MOE<
100
Baseline
20
Granular,
bellygrinder
9
(Turf)
1
27
MOE<
100
21
Granular,
push­
type
spreader
9
(Turf)
5
124
SL/
GL/
PF5
22
Handheld
fogger
No
data
No
data
No
data
No
data
23
Power
backpack
No
data
No
data
No
data
No
data
24
Granular,
backpack
9
(Ornamentals)
1
1562
DL/
GL/
NR
25
Tree
injection
No
data
No
data
No
data
No
data
26
Drench/
dipping
forestry/
ornamentals
1.5
lb
ai/
100
gallons
(Ornamental/
seedling
dip)
100
gallons
199
SL/
GL/
NR
27
Sprinkler
can
2%
solution
(Ornamentals)
10
gallons
226
Baseline
Table
10:
Summary
of
Short­/
Intermediate­
Term
Occupational
Handler
Noncancer
Risks
Scenario
Rate
(lb
ai/
acre)

[unless
noted]
Area
Treated
(acres/
day)

[unless
noted]
Risk
Summary
MOEs
Min.
Req.
PPE
54
Flaggers
28a
Flagger:
liquid
sprays
2
(Corn)
2
(Vegetables)
1200
350
249
111
EC
Baseline
28b
Flagger:
granular
applications
2
(Corn)
2
(Vegetables)
1200
350
101
345
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
=
Long
pants,
long­
sleeved
shirts,
no
gloves
SL
=
Single
layer
clothing
with
or
without
gloves
(GL
or
NG)
DL
=
Double
layer
clothing
(i.
e.,
coveralls
over
SL)
with
or
without
gloves
(GL
or
NG)
EC
=
Engineering
controls
NR
=
No
respirator
PF5
=
Protection
factor
5
respirator
PF10
=
Protection
factor
10
respirator
Current
label
=
SL/
GL/
NR
Min.
Req.
PPE
=
level
of
PPE
where
MOEs
>
100,
where
current
label
is
exceeded
or
no
adequate
PPE
is
found,
results
are
bold.
MOEs
which
never
exceed
100
are
for
highest
feasible
type
of
mitigation
(e.
g.,
engineering
control
in
most
cases).

Chronic
Risk
Summary:
MOEs
were
calculated
for
only
a
limited
number
of
exposure
ornamental
use
scenarios
where
the
Agency
believes
that
this
kind
of
exposure
pattern
may
exist.
These
calculations
were
also
completed
at
different
levels
of
personal
protection
as
illustrated
in
Table
11
(Table
9
of
Appendix
C
summarized
below).
For
most
scenarios
(3
of
5),
MOEs
meet
or
exceed
the
required
uncertainty
factor
of
300
at
some
level
of
personal
protection.
The
granular
hand
application
scenarios
are
problematic.
The
uncertainty
factor
of
300
is
required
for
the
chronic
exposure
scenarios
because
a
LOAEL
and
not
a
NOAEL
was
used
for
risk
assessment
purpose
as
defined
in
a
chronic
dog
feeding
study
using
carbaryl.
It
is
Agency
policy
to
apply
an
additional
factor
of
3
to
the
overall
uncertainty
factor
when
using
a
LOAEL
for
risk
assessment
purposes.

Table
11:
Summary
of
Chronic
Occupational
Handler
Noncancer
Risks
Scenario
Rate
(lb
ai/
acre)

[unless
noted]
Area
Treated
(acres/
day)

[unless
noted]
Risk
Summary
MOEs
Min.
Req.
PPE
Applicators
15
Granulars
&
baits
applied
by
hand
9
(Ornamentals
&
gardens)
1
4.7
MOE<
300
16
Granulars
&
baits
applied
by
spoon
9
(Ornamentals
&
garderns)
1
92.6
MOE<
300
Mixer/
Loader/
Applicators
18a
Wettable
powder,
low
pressure
handwand
2%
solution
(ornamentals)
40
gallons
302
DL/
GL/
PF10
18b
Liquids,
low
pressure
handwand
2%
solution
(ornamentals)
40
gallons
3206
SL/
GL/
NR
Table
11:
Summary
of
Chronic
Occupational
Handler
Noncancer
Risks
Scenario
Rate
(lb
ai/
acre)

[unless
noted]
Area
Treated
(acres/
day)

[unless
noted]
Risk
Summary
MOEs
Min.
Req.
PPE
55
19
Backpack
sprayer
2%
solution
(ornamentals)
40
gallons
781
Baseline
Baseline
=
Long
pants,
long­
sleeved
shirts,
no
gloves
SL
=
Single
layer
clothing
with
or
without
gloves
(GL
or
NG)
DL
=
Double
layer
clothing
(i.
e.,
coveralls
over
SL)
with
or
without
gloves
(GL
or
NG)
EC
=
Engineering
controls
NR
=
No
respirator
PF5
=
Protection
factor
5
respirator
PF10
=
Protection
factor
10
respirator
Current
label
=
SL/
GL/
NR
Min.
Req.
PPE
=
level
of
PPE
where
MOEs
>
300,
where
current
label
is
exceeded
or
no
adequate
PPE
is
found,
results
are
bold.
MOEs
which
never
exceed
300
are
for
highest
feasible
type
of
mitigation
(e.
g.,
PPE
in
most
cases).

2.1.4
Occupational
Handler
Exposure
and
Risk
Estimates
for
Cancer.

The
occupational
handler
exposure
and
cancer
risk
calculations
are
presented
in
this
section.
Cancer
risks
were
calculated
using
a
linear
low­
dose
extrapolation
approach
in
which
a
Lifetime
Average
Daily
Dose
(LADD)
is
first
calculated
and
then
compared
with
a
Q1*
that
has
been
calculated
for
carbaryl
based
on
dose
response
data
in
the
appropriate
toxicology
study
(Q1*
=
8.75
x
10
­4
(mg/
kg/
day)
­1
).
Absorbed
average
daily
dose
(ADD)
levels
were
used
as
the
basis
for
calculating
the
LADD
values.
Section
2.1.3
above
describes
how
the
ADD
values
were
first
calculated
for
the
noncancer
MOE
calculations.
These
values
also
serve
as
the
basis
for
the
cancer
risk
estimates.
Dermal
and
inhalation
ADD
values
were
first
added
together
to
obtain
combined
ADD
values.
LADD
values
were
then
calculated
and
compared
to
the
Q1*
to
obtain
cancer
risk
estimates.

Lifetime
Average
Daily
Dose:
After
the
development
of
the
ADD
values,
the
next
step
required
to
calculate
the
carcinogenic
risk
is
to
amortize
these
values
over
the
working
lifetime
of
occupational
handlers
based
on
use
patterns,
this
results
in
the
LADD
for
that
use.
Product
labels
limit
use
to
every
7
to
10
days
or
a
seasonal
"lb
ai
per
acre"
limit.
Also,
according
to
available
use/
usage
data,
on
average,
carbaryl
is
applied
more
than
once
per
year
for
most
crops.
Based
on
this
information
and
due
to
the
number
and
variety
of
target
insects
and
crops
registered
for
carbaryl
applications,
the
Agency
considered
two
distinct
populations
in
the
cancer
risk
assessment
including
private
growers
at
10
use
events
per
year
and
commercial
applicators
that
would
have
a
more
frequent
use
pattern
of
30
days
per
year.
Finally,
a
35
year
career
and
a
70
year
lifespan
was
used
to
complete
the
calculations.
LADD
values
were
calculated
using
the
following
equation:

LADD
ADD
TreatmentFrequency
Days
year
WorkingDuration
Lifetime
=
×
×
365
/
Where:

Lifetime
Average
Daily
Dose
=
The
amount
as
absorbed
dose
received
from
exposure
to
a
56
pesticide
in
a
given
scenario
over
a
lifetime
(mg
pesticide
active
ingredient/
kg
body
weight/
day,
also
referred
to
as
LADD);
Average
Daily
Dose
=
The
amount
as
absorbed
dose
received
from
exposure
to
a
pesticide
in
a
given
scenario
on
a
daily
basis
(mg
pesticide
active
ingredient/
kg
body
weight/
day,
also
referred
to
as
ADD);
Treatment
Frequency
=
The
annual
frequency
of
an
application
by
an
individual
(days/
year);
Working
Duration
=
The
amount
of
a
lifetime
that
an
individual
spends
engaged
in
a
career
involving
pesticide
exposure
(35
years);
Lifetime
=
The
average
life
expectancy
of
an
individual
(70
years).

Cancer
Risks
:
Finally,
cancer
risk
calculations
were
completed
by
comparing
the
LADD
values
calculated
above
to
the
Q1*
for
carbaryl
(Q1*
=
8.75
x
10
­4
(mg/
kg/
day)
­1
,
see
Table
1
for
further
information).
The
Agency
considered
more
typical
users
in
these
calculations
(i.
e.,
private
growers
at
10
events
per
year)
as
well
as
more
frequent
users
that
might
represent
commercial
applicators
(i.
e.,
30
events
per
year).
Cancer
risk
values
were
calculated
using
the
following
equation:

Risk
LADD
Q
=
×
1
*
Where:

Risk
=
Probability
of
excess
cancer
cases
over
a
lifetime
(unitless);
Lifetime
Average
Daily
Dose
=
The
amount
as
absorbed
dose
received
from
exposure
to
a
pesticide
in
a
given
scenario
over
a
lifetime
(mg
pesticide
active
ingredient/
kg
body
weight/
day,
also
referred
to
as
LADD);
and
Q1*
=
Quantitative
dose
response
factor
used
for
linear,
lowdose
response
cancer
risk
calculations
(mg/
kg/
day)
­1
.

The
Agency
has
defined
a
range
of
acceptable
cancer
risks
based
on
a
policy
memorandum
issued
in
1996
by
then
office
director,
Mr.
Dan
Barolo.
This
memo
refers
to
a
predetermined
quantified
"level
of
concern"
for
occupational
carcinogenic
risk.
In
summary,
this
policy
memo
indicates
occupational
carcinogenic
risks
that
are
1
x
10
­6
or
lower
require
no
risk
management
action.
For
those
chemicals
subject
to
reregistration,
the
Agency
is
to
carefully
examine
uses
with
estimated
risks
in
the
10
­6
to
10
­4
range
to
seek
ways
of
cost­
effectively
reducing
risks.
If
57
carcinogenic
risks
are
in
this
range
for
occupational
handlers,
increased
levels
of
personal
protection
would
be
warranted
as
is
commonly
applied
with
noncancer
risk
estimates
(e.
g.,
additional
PPE
or
engineering
controls).
Carcinogenic
risks
that
remain
above
1.0
x
10
­4
at
the
highest
level
of
mitigation
appropriate
for
that
scenario
remain
a
concern.

Cancer
Risk
Summary
All
of
the
cancer
risk
calculations
for
occupational
carbaryl
handlers
completed
in
this
assessment
are
included
in
Appendix
C
(Tables
10
and
11).
The
specifics
of
each
of
table
included
in
Appendix
C
are
described
below.
A
brief
summary
of
the
results
for
each
exposure
scenario
is
also
provided
below.

C
Appendix
C/
Table
10:
Carbaryl
Occupational
Handler
Risks
For
Private
Growers
Presents
cancer
risks
for
combined
dermal
and
inhalation
for
private
growers
(i.
e.,
10
applications
per
year)
with
each
possible
combination
of
dermal
and
respiratory
protection
considered
in
this
assessment.

C
Appendix
C/
Table
11:
Carbaryl
Occupational
Handler
Risks
For
Commercial
Applicators
Presents
cancer
risks
for
combined
dermal
and
inhalation
for
commercial
applicators
(i.
e.,
30
applications
per
year)
with
each
possible
combination
of
dermal
and
respiratory
protection
considered
in
this
assessment.

Tables
1
through
6
of
Appendix
C
should
also
be
considered
as
they
illustrate
how
the
route­
specific
ADD
values
were
calculated
which
are
the
basis
for
the
cancer
risk
values.
These
route­
specific
ADD
values
were
added
and
applied
to
the
Q1*
value
to
calculate
the
cancer
risks
as
described
above.

Cancer
risks
for
private
growers
(i.
e.,
10
applications
per
year)
were
calculated
for
different
exposure
scenarios
at
different
levels
of
personal
protection
(Table10
of
Appendix
C).
All
scenarios
for
private
growers
have
risks
that
are
<1x10
­4
at
some
level
of
personal
protection
specified
in
the
Barolo
memo.
In
fact,
for
all
but
one
scenario
(Scen
4f:
Mixing/
loading
Wettable
Powders
for
wide
area
aerial
applications)
cancer
risks
are
<1x10
­4
at
current
label
requirements
for
personal
protection.
If
a
1x10
­6
risk
level
is
specified
as
a
concern,
results
are
similar
in
that
risks
for
a
majority
of
scenarios
are
<1x10
­6
at
current
label
requirements.
In
fact,
only
8
of
the
128
scenarios
considered
for
private
applicators
have
cancer
risks
>1x10
­6
(and
less
than
1x10
­4
)
even
when
the
most
protective
ensembles
of
either
protective
clothing
or
engineering
controls
are
considered.
As
with
the
risks
calculated
for
private
growers,
cancer
risks
for
commercial
applicators
(i.
e.,
30
applications
per
year)
were
calculated
for
different
exposure
scenarios
at
different
levels
of
personal
protection
(Table
11
of
Appendix
C).
Again,
risks
for
all
but
one
scenario
(Scen
4f:
Mixing/
loading
Wettable
Powders
for
wide
area
aerial
applications)
are
less
than
the
1x10
­4
level
specified
in
the
Barolo
memo
at
current
label
requirements
for
personal
protection
(i.
e.,
risks
for
this
scenario
are
<
1x10
­4
if
additional
protective
clothing
or
equipment
is
used).
If
a
1x10
­6
risk
level
is
specified
as
a
concern
for
commercial
applicators,
results
indicate
that
risks
for
about
half
of
the
scenarios
considered
are
<1x10
­6
at
current
label
requirements
and
that
only
21
of
the
128
scenarios
considered
have
cancer
risks
>1x10
­6
(and
less
than
1x10
­4
)
even
when
the
most
protective
ensembles
of
either
protective
clothing
or
engineering
controls
are
considered.
In
58
general,
the
cancer
risk
estimates
would
lead
to
less
restrictive
measures
when
compared
to
the
noncancer
results.
Table
12
below
provides
a
summary
of
the
cancer
risks
that
have
been
calculated
for
private
growers
and
commercial
applicators.

Table
12:
Summary
of
Occupational
Handler
Cancer
Risks
For
Private
Growers
and
Commercial
Applicators
Scenario
Rate
(lb
ai/
acre)

[unless
noted]
Area
Treated
(acres/
day)

[unless
noted]
Risk
Summary
Private
Growers
Commercial
Applicators
Risk
Min.
Req.
PPE
Risk
Min.
Req.
PPE
Mixer/
Loaders
1a
Dry
Flowable:
Aerial/
Chemigation
1­
2
(wheat/
corn)
5
(stone
fruit)
2
(vegetables,
24C
on
oysters)
1200
350
350
3.7
to
7.4x10
­8
5.4x10
­8
1.0x10
­6
EC
EC
SL/
GL/
PF10
1.1
to
2.2x10
­7
1.6x10
­7
6.5x10
­8
EC
EC
EC
1b
Dry
Flowable:
Airblast
16
(Citrus,
24C
in
CA)
1.1­
7.5
(grapes,
various
fruit
&
nut
trees)
40
40
1.0x10­
6
6.9x10
­8
to
4.7x10
­7
Baseline
Baseline
5.9x10
­8
1.4
to
9.3x10
­7
EC
DL/
GL/
PF10
1c
Dry
Flowable:
Groundboom
2
(corn)
1.5
(wheat)
2
(strawberry/
veg)
8
(turf/
golf
courses)
4
(turf/
golf
courses)
200
200
80
40
40
4.7x10
­7
6.3x10
­7
2.5x10
­7
5.0x10
­7
2.5x10
­7
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
1.0x10
­6
3.7x10
­8
7.5x10
­7
1.0x10
­6
7.5x10
­7
DL/
GL/
NR
EC
Baseline
DL/
GL/
PF5
Baseline
1d
Dry
Flowable:
High
Press
HW/
ROW
Sprayer
4
lb
ai/
100
gal
(poultry)
1000
gal
6.3x10
­8
Baseline
1.9x10
­7
Baseline
1e
Dry
Flowable:
Low
press./
High
Vol.
Turfgun
4
­8
(LCO
on
turf)
5
3.1
to
6.3x10
­8
Baseline
9.4x10
­8
to
1.9x10
­7
Baseline
1f
Dry
Flowable:
Wide
area
aerial
2
(rangeland/
forestry)
7500
4.6x10
­7
EC
1.4x10
­6
All
<
1x10
­6
2a
Granular:
Aerial
Application
2
(corn)
2
(corn)
1200
350
5.0x10
­7
3.3x10
­7
SL/
GL/
PF5
Baseline
9.5x10
­7
9.9x10
­7
DL/
GL/
PF5
Baseline
2b
Granular:
Solid
broadcast
spreader
1.5­
2
(wheat/
corn)
2
(vegetables)
6­
9
(turf/
golf
courses)
200
80
40
1.4
to
1.9x10
­7
7.6x10
­8
1.1
to
1.7x10
­7
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
4.3
to
5.7x10
­7
2.3x10
­7
3.4
to
5.1x10
­7
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
3a
Liquid:
Aerial/
Chemigation
1
(avg.
corn)
1.5
(wheat)
2
(corn)
5
(stone
fruit)
2
(vegetables)
1200
1200
1200
350
350
9.7x10
­7
9.9x10
­7
8.5x10
­7
9.5x10
­7
4.9x10
­7
SL/
GL/
PF5
DL/
GL/
PF5
SL/
GL/
NR
SL/
GL/
PF5
SL/
GL/
NR
1.1x10
­6
1.4x10
­6
7.2x10
­7
1.1x10
­6
8.6x10
­7
All
<
1x10
­6
All
<
1x10
­6
EC
All
<
1x10
­6
DL/
GL/
PF5
3b
Liquid:
Airblast
Application
16
(citrus,
24C
in
CA)
1.1­
7.5
(grapes,
various
fruit
&
nut
trees)
40
40
4.5x10
­7
3.1x10
­8
to
2.1x10
­7
SL/
GL/
NR
SL/
GL/
NR
1.0x10­
6
9.3x10
­8
to
6.4x10
­7
SL/
GL/
PF5
SL/
GL/
NR
3c
Liquid:
Groundboom
1.5­
2
(wheat/
corn)
2
(strawberries)
4­
8
(turf/
golf
courses)
200
80
40
2.1
to
2.8x10
­7
1.1x10
­7
1.1
to
2.3x10
­7
SL/
GL/
NR
SL/
GL/
NR
SL/
GL/
NR
6.4
to
8.5x10
­7
3.4x10
­7
3.4
to
6.8x10
­7
SL/
GL/
NR
SL/
GL/
NR
SL/
GL/
NR
3d
Liquid:
High
Press
HW/
ROW
Sprayer
4
lb
ai/
100
gal
(poultry)
1000
gal
2.8x10
­8
SL/
GL/
NR
8.5x10
­8
SL/
GL/
NR
3e
Liquid:
Low
press./
High
Vol.
Turfgun
4
­8
(LCO
on
turf)
5
1.4
to
2.8x10
­8
SL/
GL/
NR
4.2
to
8.5x10
­8
SL/
GL/
NR
Table
12:
Summary
of
Occupational
Handler
Cancer
Risks
For
Private
Growers
and
Commercial
Applicators
Scenario
Rate
(lb
ai/
acre)

[unless
noted]
Area
Treated
(acres/
day)

[unless
noted]
Risk
Summary
Private
Growers
Commercial
Applicators
Risk
Min.
Req.
PPE
Risk
Min.
Req.
PPE
59
3f
Liquid:
Wide
area
aerial
2
(Range/
Forestry)
0.016
(Mosquito
adulticide)
0.15
(Mosquito
adulticide)
1
(Mosquito
adulticide)
7500
7500
7500
7500
3.0x10
­6
8.5x10
­8
7.9x10
­7
1.5x10
­6
All
<
1x10
­6
SL/
GL/
NR
SL/
GL/
NR
All
<
1x10
­6
9.1x10
­6
2.5x10
­7
6.8x10
­7
4.5x10
­6
All
<
1x10
­6
SL/
GL/
NR
EC
All
<
1x10
­6
3g
Liquid:
Wide
area
ground
0.016
(Mosquito
Adulticide)
0.15
(Mosquito
adulticide)
1
(Mosquito
adulticide)
3000
3000
3000
3.4x10
­8
3.2x10
­7
6.0x10
­7
SL/
GL/
NR
SL/
GL/
NR
EC
1.0x10
­7
9.5x10
­7
1.8x10
­6
SL/
GL/
NR
SL/
GL/
NR
All
<
1x10
­6
4a
Wettable
Powders:
Aerial
1.5
(Wheat)
2
(Corn
­
max)
1
(Corn
­
typ)
5
(stone
fruit)
2
(vegetables)
1200
1200
1200
350
350
4.6x10
­7
6.1x10
­7
3.1x10
­7
4.4x10
­7
1.8x10
­7
EC
EC
EC
EC
EC
1.4x10
­6
1.8x10
­6
9.2x10
­7
1.3x10
­6
5.3x10
­7
All
<
1x10
­6
All
<
1x10
­6
EC
All
<
1x10
­6
EC
4b
Wettable
Powders:
Airblast
16
(Citrus­
24C
in
California)
7.5
(Citrus)
5
(Nuts)
3
(Pome
&
stone
fruit)
2
(Grapes)
1.1(
Avg.
stone
fruit)
40
40
40
40
40
40
1.6x10
­7
7.6x10
­8
1.0x10
­6
6.2x10
­7
8.8x10
­7
4.9x10
­7
EC
EC
SL/
GL/
PF5
SL/
GL/
PF5
SL/
GL/
NR
SL/
GL/
NR
4.9x10
­7
2.3x10
­7
1.5x10
­7
9.2x10
­8
1.0x10
­6
5.7x10
­7
EC
EC
EC
EC
DL/
GL/
PF5
DL/
GL/
PF5
4c
Wettable
Powders:
Groundboom
1.5
(wheat)
2
(corn)
2
(strawberries)
8
(turf/
golf
courses)
4
(turf/
golf
courses)
200
200
80
40
40
7.6x10
­8
1.0x10
­7
8.3x10
­7
8.1x10
­8
8.3x10
­7
EC
EC
SL/
GL/
PF5
EC
SL/
GL/
PF5
2.3x10
­7
3.1x10
­7
1.2x10
­7
2.4x10
­7
1.2x10
­7
EC
EC
EC
EC
EC
4d
Wettable
Powders:
High
Press
HW/
ROW
Sprayer
4
lb
ai/
100
gal
(poultry)
1000
gal
4.4x10
­7
SL/
GL/
NR
5.2x10
­7
DL/
GL/
PF5
4e
Wettable
Powders:
Low
press./
High
Vol.
Turfgun
4
(LCO
on
turf)
8
(LCO
on
turf)
5
5
2.2x10
­7
4.4x10
­7
SL/
GL/
NR
SL/
GL/
NR
6.6x10
­7
6.2x10
­7
SL/
GL/
NR
SL/
GL/
PF5
4f
Wettable
Powders:
Wide
area
aerial
2
(Range/
Forestry)
7500
3.8x10
­6
All
<
1x10
­6
1.1x10
­5
All
<
1x10
­6
Applicators
5a
Aerial:
Agricultural
uses,
liquid
sprays
1­
2
(wheat/
corn)
5
(stone
fruit)
2
(vegetables,
24C
on
oysters)
1200
350
350
1.6
to
3.2x10
­7
2.3x10
­7
9.2x10
­8
EC
EC
EC
4.7
to
9.5x10
­7
6.9x10
­7
2.8x10
­7
EC
EC
EC
5b
Aerial:
Wide
area
uses,
liquid
sprays
2
(Range/
Forestry)
0.016
(Mosquito
adulticide)
0.15
(Mosquito
adulticide)
1
(Mosquito
adulticide)
7500
7500
7500
7500
2.0x10
­6
1.6x10
­8
1.5x10
­7
9.8x10
­7
All
<
1x10
­6
EC
EC
EC
5.9x10
­6
4.7x10
­8
4.4x10
­7
3.0x10
­6
All
<
1x10
­6
EC
EC
All
<
1x10
­6
5c
Aerial:
Agricultural
uses,
granular
applications
2
(corn)
2
(corn)
1200
350
6.2x10
­7
1.8x10
­7
EC
EC
1.9x10
­6
5.5x10
­7
All
<
1x10
­6
EC
6a
Airblast:
Agricultural
uses
16
(Citrus
24C
in
California)
7.5
(Citrus)
5
(Nuts)
3
(Pome
&
stone
fruit)
2
(Grapes)
1.1
(Avg
pome
&
stone
fruit)
40
40
40
40
40
40
2.7x10
­7
1.3x10
­7
9.9x10
­7
1.0x10
­6
6.9x10
­7
3.8x10
­7
EC
EC
DL/
GL/
PF5
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
8.2x10
­7
3.9x10
­7
2.6x10
­7
1.5x10
­7
1.0x10
­7
7.9x10
­7
EC
EC
EC
EC
EC
SL/
GL/
NR
Table
12:
Summary
of
Occupational
Handler
Cancer
Risks
For
Private
Growers
and
Commercial
Applicators
Scenario
Rate
(lb
ai/
acre)

[unless
noted]
Area
Treated
(acres/
day)

[unless
noted]
Risk
Summary
Private
Growers
Commercial
Applicators
Risk
Min.
Req.
PPE
Risk
Min.
Req.
PPE
60
6b
Airblast:
Wide
area
fogger
0.016
(Mosquito
adulticide)
0.15
(Mosquito
adulticide)
1
(Mosquito
adulticide)
3000
3000
3000
4.1x10
­7
1.9x10
­7
1.3x10
­6
Baseline
EC
All
<
1x10
­6
8.6x10
­7
5.8x10
­7
3.9x10
­6
SL/
GL/
NR
EC
All
<
1x10
­6
7
Groundboom
1.5­
2
(Wheat/
corn)
2
(Strawberries)
8
(Turf/
golf
course)
4
(Turf/
golf
course)
200
80
40
40
1.3
to
1.7x10
­7
6.9x10
­8
1.4x10
­7
6.9x10
­8
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
3.9
to
5.2x10
­7
2.1x10
­7
4.1x10
­7
2.1x10
­7
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
8
Solid
broadcast
spreader
(granular)
1.5­
2
(Wheat/
corn)
2
(Strawberries)
4­
8
(Turf/
golf
course)
200
80
40
1.3
to
1.7x10
­7
6.7x10
­8
1.0
to
1.5x10
­7
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
3.8
to
5.0x10
­7
2.0x10
­7
3.0
to
4.5x10
­7
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
9
Aerosol
Can
0.01
lb
ai/
can
2
cans
8.7x10
­8
Baseline
2.6x10
­7
Baseline
10
Trigger
pump
sprayer
0.01
lb
ai/
can
1
can
3.1x10
­9
SL/
GL/
NR
9.4x10
­9
SL/
GL/
NR
11
Right
of
way
sprayer
1.5
lb
ai/
100
gallons
1000
gallons
4.3x10
­7
Baseline
4.1x10
­7
SL/
GL/
NR
12
High
pressure
handwand
4
lb
ai/
100
gallons
1000
gallons
6.6x10
­7
SL/
GL/
PF5
1.1x10
­6
All
<
1x10
­6
13
Animal
groomer,
liquid
application
0.01
lb
ai/
dog
8
dogs
3.1x10
­6
All
<
1x10
­6
9.4x10
­6
All
<
1x10
­6
14
Animal
groomer,
dust
application
0.2
lb
ai/
dog
8
dogs
3.5x10
­9
Baseline
1.0x10
­8
Baseline
15
Granulars
&
baits
applied
by
hand
9
(Ornamentals
&
gardens)
1
8.0x10
­6
All
<
1x10
­6
2.4x10
­5
All
<
1x10
­6
16
Granulars
&
baits
applied
by
spoon
9
(Ornamentals
&
garderns)
1
4.6x10
­7
SL/
GL/
NR
1.2x10
­6
All
<
1x10
­6
Mixerr/
Loader/
Applicators
17
Low
pressure,
high
volume
turfgun
(ORETF
Data)
8
(LCO
Use
on
turf)
4
(LCO
Use
on
turf)
5
5
3.1x10
­7
6.1x10
­7
SL/
GL/
NR
SL/
GL/
NR
9.7x10
­7
9.2x10
­7
DL/
GL/
PF5
SL/
GL/
NR
18a
Wettable
powder,
low
pressure
handwand
1
lb
ai/
1000
ft
2
(poultry
house)
2%
solution
(ornamentals)
20,000
ft
2
40
gallons
3.1x10
­6
3.0x10
­7
All
<
1x10
­6
SL/
GL/
NR
9.2x10
­6
9.0x10
­7
All
<
1x10
­6
SL/
GL/
NR
18b
Liquids,
low
pressure
handwand
1
lb
ai/
1000
ft
2
(poultry
house)
2%
solution
(ornamentals)
20,000
ft
2
40
gallons
2.1x10
­7
1.2x10
­8
SL/
GL/
PF5
SL/
GL/
NR
6.2x10
­7
3.5x10
­8
SL/
GL/
PF5
SL/
GL/
NR
19
Backpack
sprayer
1
lb
ai/
1000
ft
2
(poultry
house)
2%
solution
(ornamentals)
20,000
ft
2
40
gallons
7.0x10
­7
4.8x10
­8
DL/
GL/
PF5
Baseline
2.2x10
­6
1.4x10
­7
All
<
1x10
­6
Baseline
20
Granular,
bellygrinder
9
(Turf)
1
1.1x10
­6
All
<
1x10
­6
3.4x10
­6
All
<
1x10
­6
21
Granular,
push­
type
spreader
9
(Turf)
5
4.0x10
­7
Baseline
8.2x10
­7
SL/
GL/
NR
22
Handheld
fogger
No
data
No
data
No
data
No
data
No
data
No
data
23
Power
backpack
No
data
No
data
No
data
No
data
No
data
No
data
24
Granular,
backpack
9
(Ornamentals)
1
1.9x10
­8
DL/
GL/
NR
5.8x10
­8
DL/
GL/
NR
25
Tree
injection
No
data
No
data
No
data
No
data
No
data
No
data
Table
12:
Summary
of
Occupational
Handler
Cancer
Risks
For
Private
Growers
and
Commercial
Applicators
Scenario
Rate
(lb
ai/
acre)

[unless
noted]
Area
Treated
(acres/
day)

[unless
noted]
Risk
Summary
Private
Growers
Commercial
Applicators
Risk
Min.
Req.
PPE
Risk
Min.
Req.
PPE
61
26
Drench/
dipping
forestry/
ornamentals
1.5
lb
ai/
100
gallons
(Ornamental/
seedling
dip)
100
gallons
1.1x10
­7
SL/
GL/
NR
3.2x10
­7
SL/
GL/
NR
27
Sprinkler
can
2%
solution
(Ornamentals)
10
gallons
1.3x10
­7
Baseline
4.0x10
­7
Baseline
Flaggers
28a
Flagger:
liquid
sprays
2
(Corn)
2
(Vegetables)
1200
350
7.2x10
­7
2.1x10
­7
Baseline
Baseline
3.5x10
­7
6.3x10
­7
EC
Baseline
28b
Flagger:
granular
applications
2
(Corn)
2
(Vegetables)
1200
350
2.1x10
­7
6.1x10
­8
Baseline
Baseline
6.2x10
­7
1.8x10
­7
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
=
Long
pants,
long­
sleeved
shirts,
no
gloves
SL
=
Single
layer
clothing
with
or
without
gloves
(GL
or
NG)
DL
=
Double
layer
clothing
(i.
e.,
coveralls
over
SL)
with
or
without
gloves
(GL
or
NG)
EC
=
Engineering
controls
NR
=
No
respirator
PF5
=
Protection
factor
5
respirator
PF10
=
Protection
factor
10
respirator
Current
label
=
SL/
GL/
NR
Min.
Req.
PPE
=
level
of
PPE
where
cancer
risks
>
1x10
­6
,
where
current
label
is
exceeded
or
no
adequate
PPE
is
found,
results
are
bold.
Risks
which
never
exceed
1x10
­6
are
for
highest
feasible
type
of
mitigation
(e.
g.,
engineering
control
in
most
cases).

2.1.5
Summary
of
Risk
Concerns
and
Data
Gaps
for
Handlers
Generally,
most
scenarios
have
risks
associated
with
them
that
meet
or
exceed
the
Agency's
uncertainty
factors
for
noncancer
risk
assessments
(i.
e.,
100
for
short­
term
and
intermediate­
term
and
300
for
chronic)
and
requirements
for
cancer
risk
results
(i.
e.,
range
of
1x10
­6
to
1x10
­4
as
defined
by
Office
Director
Barolo
in
1996)
at
some
level
of
personal
protection.
Current
carbaryl
labels
typically
require
that
handlers
wear
long
pants,
long­
sleeved
shirts,
and
gloves.
Respirators
are
generally
not
required.
For
most
scenarios,
the
noncancer
risks
for
this
personal
protection
ensemble
do
not
meet
Agency
risk
requirements
and
additional
levels
of
personal
protection
are
required
to
achieve
Agency
risk
targets.
In
fact,
in
many
cases
engineering
controls
such
as
closed
loading
systems
or
closed
cab
tractors
are
needed.
The
Agency
does
have
risk
concerns
over
the
use
of
carbaryl
in
some
agricultural
and
other
occupational
settings
(i.
e.,
MOEs
at
any
level
of
personal
protection
are
<100
or
<300,
depending
on
the
duration).
As
would
be
expected,
these
scenarios
with
the
highest
associated
risk
also
have
high
daily
chemical
use
amounts
based
on
application
rates
or
high
acreages
treated
or
the
exposures
for
the
scenarios
in
question
are
relatively
high.
Generally,
the
areas
that
appear
to
be
problematic
include:
large
acreage
aerial
and
chemigation
applications
in
agriculture
or
for
wide
area
treatments
such
as
mosquito
control;
airblast
applications
at
higher
rates;
pet
grooming;
and
the
use
of
certain
handheld
equipment
for
applications
to
turf
or
gardens
(e.
g.,
bellygrinder).
This
general
trend
was
essentially
the
same
regardless
of
the
noncancer
toxicity
endpoints
which
were
considered
(e.
g.,
short­
term,
intermediate­
term).
Risks
for
corresponding
scenarios
based
on
cancer
concerns
were
generally
less
than
noncancer
results
across
all
scenarios.
In
fact,
in
all
but
one
scenario,
cancer
risks
were
<1x10
­4
at
current
carbaryl
label
requirements
of
single
layer
clothing,
gloves,
and
no
respirator.
62
Several
data
gaps
were
also
identified
in
many
different
use
areas
that
include:
dust
use
for
animal
grooming
and
in
agriculture;
various
specialized
hand
equipment
application
methods
(e.
g.,
powered
backpack,
power
hand
fogger,
and
tree
injection);
and
nursery
operations
such
as
seedling
dips.

2.1.6
Recommendations
For
Refining
Occupational
Handler
Risk
Assessment
In
order
to
refine
this
occupational
risk
assessment,
data
on
actual
use
patterns
including
rates,
timing,
and
acreages
treated
would
better
characterize
carbaryl
risks.
Exposure
studies
for
many
equipment
types
that
lack
data
or
that
are
not
well
represented
in
PHED
(e.
g.,
because
of
low
replicate
numbers
or
data
quality)
should
also
be
considered
based
on
the
data
gaps
identified
above
and
based
on
a
review
of
the
quality
of
the
data
used
in
this
assessment.
Risk
managers
should
consider
that
the
risks
associated
with
current
label
requirements
for
personal
protection
generally
do
not
meet
Agency
risk
targets.

2.2
Occupational
Postapplication
Exposures
and
Risks
The
Agency
uses
the
term
"postapplication"
to
describe
exposures
to
individuals
that
occur
as
a
result
of
working
in
an
environment
that
has
been
previously
treated
with
a
pesticide
(also
referred
to
as
reentry
exposure).
The
agency
believes
that
there
are
distinct
job
functions
or
tasks
related
to
the
kinds
of
activities
that
occur
in
previously
treated
areas
such
as
harvesting
vegetables
in
a
treated
field.
Job
requirements
(e.
g.,
the
kinds
of
jobs
to
cultivate
a
crop),
the
nature
of
the
crop
or
target
that
was
treated,
and
the
how
chemical
residues
degrade
in
the
environment
can
cause
exposure
levels
to
differ
over
time.
Each
factor
has
been
considered
in
this
assessment.
The
scenarios
that
serve
as
the
basis
for
the
risk
assessment
are
presented
in
Section
2.2.1:
Occupational
Postapplication
Exposure
Scenarios.
The
exposure
data
and
assumptions
that
have
been
used
for
the
calculations
are
presented
in
Section
2.2.2:
Data
and
Assumptions
For
Occupational
Postapplication
Exposure
Scenarios.
The
calculations
and
the
algorithms
that
have
been
used
for
the
noncancer
elements
of
the
risk
assessment
as
well
as
the
calculated
risk
values
are
presented
in
Section
2.2.3:
Occupational
Postapplication
Exposure
and
Noncancer
Risk
Estimates
while
the
analogous
information
using
the
Q1*
for
cancer
estimates
are
presented
in
Section
2.2.4:
Occupational
Postapplication
Exposure
and
Risk
Estimates
For
Cancer.
Section
2.2.5:
Summary
of
Occupational
Postapplication
Risk
Concerns
and,
Data
Gaps
presents
the
overall
risk
picture
for
carbaryl.
Finally,
recommendations
are
presented
in
Section
2.2.6:
Recommendations
For
Refining
Occupational
Postapplication
Risk
Assessment.

2.2.1
Occupational
Postapplication
Exposure
Scenarios
Carbaryl
uses
are
extremely
varied
as
it
can
be
used
in
agriculture,
on
ornamentals,
on
turf
(golf
courses
and
lawns)
and
on
companion
animals
(e.
g.,
on
dogs
and
cats).
As
a
result,
a
wide
array
of
individuals
can
potentially
be
exposed
by
working
in
areas
that
have
been
previously
treated.
The
Agency
is
concerned
about
these
kinds
of
exposures
one
could
receive
in
the
workplace.
The
purpose
of
this
section
is
to
explain
how
postapplication
exposure
scenarios
were
developed
for
each
occupational
setting
where
carbaryl
can
be
used.
Exposure
scenarios
can
be
thought
of
as
ways
of
categorizing
the
kinds
of
exposures
that
occur
related
to
the
use
of
a
63
chemical.
The
use
of
scenarios
as
a
basis
for
exposure
assessment
is
very
common
as
described
in
the
U.
S.
EPA
Guidelines
For
Exposure
Assessment
(U.
S.
EPA;
Federal
Register
Volume
57,
Number
104;
May
29,
1992).

The
agency
uses
a
concept
known
as
the
transfer
coefficient
to
numerically
represent
the
post­
application
exposures
one
would
receive
(i.
e.,
generally
presented
as
cm
2
/hour).
The
transfer
coefficient
concept
has
been
established
in
the
scientific
literature
and
through
various
exposure
monitoring
guidelines
published
by
the
U.
S.
EPA
and
international
organizations
such
as
Health
Canada
and
OECD
(Organization
For
Economic
Cooperation
and
Development).
The
establishment
of
transfer
coefficients
also
forms
the
basis
of
the
work
of
the
Agricultural
Reentry
Task
Force,
of
which,
Aventis
is
a
member.
The
transfer
coefficient
is
essentially
a
measure
of
the
contact
with
a
treated
surface
one
would
have
while
doing
a
task
or
activity.
These
values
are
defined
by
calculating
the
ratio
of
an
exposure
for
a
given
task
or
activity
to
the
amount
of
pesticide
on
leaves
(or
other
surfaces)
that
can
rub
off
on
the
skin
resulting
in
an
exposure.
For
postapplication
exposures,
the
amounts
that
can
rub
off
on
the
skin
are
measured
using
techniques
that
specifically
determine
the
amount
of
residues
on
treated
leaves
or
other
surfaces
(referred
to
as
transferable
residues)
rather
than
the
total
residues
contained
both
on
the
surface
and
absorbed
into
treated
leaves.
Transfer
coefficients
can
be
illustrated
by
the
following
example.
Consider
two
vegetable
fields
where
the
amount
of
chemical
on
treated
leaf
surfaces
that
can
rub
off
on
the
skin
is
the
same.
One
field
has
been
treated
with
chemical
A
while
the
other
field
has
been
treated
in
a
similar
manner
with
chemical
B.
If
an
individual
harvests
the
same
vegetables
for
a
day
in
each
field,
the
exposures
the
individual
would
receive
would
be
similar.
The
transfer
coefficient
would
also
be
similar
for
each
field
and
chemical
because
the
ratio
of
exposure
to
residue
would
be
the
same.
If
the
same
individual
would
do
another
activity
in
those
fields
such
as
scout
the
vegetables
for
pests
or
tie
the
vegetables,
the
exposures
would
be
different
as
would
the
resulting
transfer
coefficients
because
the
activity
that
resulted
in
the
exposures
is
different.
In
this
example,
three
distinct
transfer
coefficients
could
be
determined
for
vegetable
crops:
harvesting;
scouting;
and
tying.
The
Agency
has
developed
a
series
of
standard
transfer
coefficients
that
are
unique
for
variety
of
job
tasks
or
activities
that
are
used
in
lieu
of
chemical­
and
scenario­
specific
data.

As
with
the
handler
risk
assessment
process,
the
first
step
in
the
post­
application
risk
assessment
process
is
to
identify
the
kinds
of
individuals
that
are
likely
to
be
exposed
to
carbaryl
after
application.
In
order
to
do
this
in
a
consistent
manner,
the
Agency
has
developed
a
series
of
general
descriptions
for
tasks
that
are
associated
with
post­
application
exposures.
The
Agency
also
considers
whether
or
not
individuals
are
exposed
to
pesticides
as
part
of
their
employment
(referred
to
as
occupational
risk
assessments).
Common
examples
include:
agricultural
harvesters,
scouting
activities
in
agriculture,
crop
maintenance
tasks
(e.
g.,
irrigating,
hoeing
and
weeding),
and
turf
maintenance
(golf
course
mowing
and
sod
harvesting).
64
The
next
step
in
the
risk
assessment
process
is
to
define
how
and
when
chemicals
are
applied
in
order
to
determine
the
level
of
transferable
residues
to
which
individuals
could
be
exposed
over
time.
Wherever
available,
use
and
usage
data
are
included
in
this
process
to
define
values
such
as
application
rates
and
application
frequency.
The
Agency
always
completes
risk
assessments
using
maximum
application
rates
for
each
scenario
because
what
is
possible
under
the
label
(the
legal
means
of
controlling
pesticide
use)
must
be
evaluated,
for
complete
stewardship,
in
order
to
ensure
the
Agency
has
no
concern
for
the
specific
use.
Additionally,
whenever
the
Agency
has
additional
information,
such
as
typical
or
average
application
rates
or
frequency
data,
it
uses
the
information
to
further
evaluate
the
overall
risks
associated
with
the
use
of
the
chemical.
In
order
to
define
the
amount
of
transferable
residues
to
which
individuals
can
be
exposed,
the
Agency
relies
on
chemical­
and
crop­
specific
studies
as
described
in
the
Agency
guidelines
for
exposure
data
collection
(Series
875,
Occupational
and
Residential
Exposure
Test
Guidelines:
Group
B
Postapplication
Exposure
Monitoring
Test
Guidelines).
The
Agency
has
also
developed
a
standard
modeling
approach
that
can
also
be
used
to
predict
transferable
residues
over
time
in
lieu
of
chemical­
and
scenario­
specific
data
(best
described
in
the
Agency's
SOPs
For
Residential
Exposure
Assessment).
All
scenarios
were
evaluated
using
carbaryl­
specific
DFR
dissipation
data.

Next,
assessors
must
understand
how
exposures
to
carbaryl
occur
(i.
e.,
frequency
and
duration)
and
how
the
patterns
of
these
occurrences
can
alter
the
effects
of
the
chemical
in
the
population
after
being
exposed
(referred
to
as
dose
response).
The
Agency
believes
that
carbaryl
exposures
can
occur
from
over
a
single
day
up
to
every
working
day
depending
on
the
crop
and
industry
being
considered.
This
is
supported
by
the
fact
that
several
areas
within
a
work
environment
may
be
treated
at
different
times.
For
example,
parts
of
agricultural
fields
in
a
localized
area
might
be
treated
over
several
weeks
because
of
an
infestation
with
a
concurrent
need
for
hand
labor
activities.
Therefore,
individuals
working
in
those
fields
might
be
exposed
from
contact
with
treated
foliage
over
an
extended
period
of
time
that
could
be
categorized
as
an
intermediate­
term
exposure
as
they
work
on
different
sections
of
fields.
Three
different
types
of
noncancer
risk
calculations
were
required
for
each
exposure
duration
considered.
The
durations
of
exposure
that
were
considered
for
noncancer
toxicity
were
short­
term
(
30
days),
intermediateterm
(30
days
up
to
several
months),
and
chronic
(every
working
day).
A
complete
array
of
calculations
was
completed
for
all
identified
exposure
scenarios
using
the
short­
and
intermediateterm
endpoints
because
the
Agency
believes
that
carbaryl
uses
fit
the
criteria
for
both
of
these
durations.
The
only
calculations
that
were
completed
using
the
chronic
endpoint
were
limited
and
those
associated
with
the
greenhouse
and
floriculture
industries
where
these
kinds
of
exposures
may
occur.
Cancer
risks
were
also
calculated
using
a
linear,
low­
dose
extrapolation
model
(i.
e.,
Q1*)
for
both
private
growers
(i.
e.,
10
days
per
year)
and
for
those
who
may
more
actively
use
carbaryl
such
as
a
professional
farmworker
(i.
e.,
30
days
per
year).
Inhalation
exposures
are
thought
to
be
negligible
in
outdoor
postapplication
scenarios
because
of
the
low
vapor
pressure
and
due
to
the
infinite
dilution
expected
outdoors.
As
such,
inhalation
postapplication
exposures
are
not
considered
in
this
assessment.

The
use
of
personal
protective
equipment
or
other
types
of
equipment
to
reduce
exposures
for
post­
application
workers
is
not
considered
a
viable
alternative
for
the
regulatory
process
except
in
specialized
situations
(e.
g.,
a
rice
scout
will
wear
rubber
boots
in
flooded
paddies).
This
is
described
in
some
detail
in
the
Agency's
Worker
Protection
Standard
(40CFR170).
As
such,
an
65
administrative
approach
is
used
by
the
Agency
to
reduce
the
risks
and
is
referred
to
as
the
Restricted
Entry
Interval
or
REI.
The
REI
is
a
measure
of
the
amount
of
time
required
to
pass
after
application
of
a
pesticide
before
engaging
in
a
task
or
activity
in
a
treated
field.
Postapplication
risk
levels
are
generally
calculated
in
the
risk
assessment
process
on
a
chemical­,
crop­,
and
activityspecific
basis.
To
establish
REIs,
the
Agency
considers
postapplication
risks
on
varying
days
after
application.
[Note:
Current
labels
specify
REIs
of
12
hours
after
application
for
all
crop/
cultural
practice
combinations
while
Pre­
Harvest
Intervals
(PHIs)
are
less
than
7
days
for
most
crops
with
some
as
long
as
28
days.]

The
Agency
has
used
the
basic
approach
described
above
since
the
mid
1980s
for
calculating
postapplication
risks
to
pesticides.
From
that
time
to
the
present,
several
revisions
and
modifications
were
made
to
Agency
policies
as
data
which
warranted
such
changes
became
available.
In
1995,
the
Agency
issued
a
Data
Call­
In
for
postapplication
agricultural
data
that
prompted
the
formation
of
the
Agricultural
Reentry
Task
Force
(ARTF),
of
which
Aventis
is
a
member.
This
task
force
has
generated
a
number
of
exposure
studies
and
associated
documents
that
are
currently
under
review
by
the
Agency.
The
work
of
the
ARTF
is
not
yet
complete,
however,
sufficient
data
were
available
from
the
group
that
warranted
a
significant
interim
change
in
Agency
policy
related
to
the
data
which
were
already
available
as
the
efforts
of
the
ARTF
paralleled
the
Agency
push
for
tolerance
reassessment
stipulated
by
the
timelines
established
by
FQPA.
As
a
result
of
the
need
for
the
revision
and
using
the
latest
data,
the
Agency
developed
a
revised
policy
on
August
7,
2000
entitled
Policy
003.1
Science
Advisory
Council
For
Exposure
Policy
Regarding
Agricultural
Transfer
Coefficients.
The
revision
to
this
policy
entailed
linking
worker
activities
to
more
specific
crop/
agronomic
groupings
and
making
better
use
of
the
available
occupational
postapplication
exposure
data.
In
the
new
policy,
transfer
coefficients
were
selected
to
represent
the
activities
associated
with
18
distinct
crop/
agronomic
groupings
based
on
different
types
of
vegetables,
trees,
berries,
vine/
trellis
crops,
turf,
field
crops,
and
bunch/
bundle
crops
(e.
g.,
tobacco).
In
this
new
scheme
which
the
Agency
uses
to
develop
scenarios
for
occupational
postapplication
exposures,
carbaryl
uses
were
identified
in
all
of
the
crop
groupings
in
the
policy.
These
crop
groups
include:

C
Low
Berry
(e.
g.,
lowbush
blueberries,
cranberries,
strawberries);
C
Bunch/
bundle
(e.
g.,
bananas,
hops,
tobacco);
C
Field/
row
crops,
low/
medium
(e.
g.,
alfalfa,
barley,
beans,
cotton,
peanuts,
peas);
C
Field/
row
crops,
tall
(e.
g.,
corn,
sorghum,
sunflowers);
C
Cut
flowers
(e.
g.,
floriculture
crops);
C
Sugarcane;
C
Trees/
fruit,
deciduous
(e.
g.,
apples,
apricots,
cherry,
peaches,
pears);
C
Trees/
fruit,
evergreen
(e.
g.,
avocados,
Christmas
trees,
citrus);
C
Trees/
nut
(e.
g.,
almonds,
hazelnuts,
macadamia,
pecans,
walnuts);
C
Turf/
sod
(e.
g.,
golf
courses,
sod
farms);
C
Vegetable/
root
(e.
g.,
beets,
carrots,
onions,
potatoes,
turnips);
C
Vegetable/
cucurbit
(e.
g.,
cantelope,
cucumber,
squash,
watermelon);
C
Vegetable/
fruiting
(e.
g.,
eggplant,
pepper,
tomato,
okra);
C
Vegetable/
head
and
stem
brassica
(e.
g.,
brocolli,
cauliflower,
brussel
sprouts,
cauliflower);
C
Vegetables/
leafy
(e.
g.,
collards,
greens,
lettuce,
parsley,
spinach,
napa);
66
C
Vegetables/
stem
and
stalk
(e.
g.,
artichoke,
asparagus,
pineapple);
C
Vine/
trellis
(e.
g.,
blackberries,
blueberries,
grapes,
kiwi,
raspberries);
and
C
Nursery
crops
(e.
g.,
container
and
B&
B
ornamentals).

Within
each
agronomic
group,
a
variety
of
cultural
practices
are
required
to
maintain
the
included
crops.
These
practices
are
varied
and
typically
involve
light
to
heavy
contact
with
immature
plants
as
well
as
with
more
mature
plants.
The
Agency
selected
transfer
coefficient
values
in
its
revision
of
Policy
003
to
represent
this
range
of
exposures
within
each
agronomic
group.
In
the
policy,
transfer
coefficients
were
placed
in
1
of
5
generic
categories
based
on
the
exposures
relative
to
that
group.
These
5
categories
include:
very
low
exposure,
low
exposure,
medium
exposure,
high
exposure,
and
very
high
exposure.
Numerical
values
were
not
necessarily
assigned
to
each
category
for
each
crop
group.
Selections
depended
upon
the
actual
agronomic
practices
that
were
identified
by
the
Agency
for
each
group
(i.
e.,
some
groups
had
2
assigned
transfer
coefficients
while
others
had
5).
Carbaryl
can
be
used
in
each
of
the
agronomic
crop
groupings
described
above.
As
such,
all
agronomic
crop
group/
transfer
coefficients
were
used
to
calculate
postapplication
risks
for
carbaryl.
[Note:
Specific
transfer
coefficient
values
are
included
in
Appendix
E
of
this
document
which
contains
all
of
the
calculations.
The
transfer
coefficient
values
which
have
been
used
are
excerpted
directly
from
Agency
policy
003.
The
nursery
crop
group
data
have
not
yet
been
formally
included
in
EPA
Policy
3.
However,
the
studies
in
this
area
submitted
by
ARTF
have
been
reviewed
and
used
since
they
will
be
integrated
into
Policy
3
in
a
short
timeframe.]

The
revised
policy
on
transfer
coefficients
has
been
significantly
expanded
to
more
closely
link
job
practices
to
one
of
18
crop/
agronomic
groups
as
indicated
above.
It
has
also
more
clearly
defined
the
scope
of
the
policy
as
the
types
of
tasks/
job
functions
that
should
be
addressed
using
transfer
coefficients
are
more
clearly
defined
and
described.
The
policy
also
describes
which
kinds
of
jobs
result
in
exposures
that
cannot
be
addressed
with
transfer
coefficients
such
as
hand
harvesting
asparagus
(i.
e.,
because
there
is
no
foliar
contact)
or
those
that
are
of
special
concern
such
as
vacuuming
while
harvesting
tree
nuts.
The
revised
policy
also
describes
in
more
detail
those
exposures
that
are
considered
to
be
negligible
as
outlined
in
HED
Exposure
SAC
Policy
11:
Mechanized
Agricultural
Practices
and
Post­
Application
Exposure
Assessments
(e.
g.,
mechanical
harvesting).
It
should
be
noted
that
mechanical
harvesting
and
other
similar
low/
no
exposure
activities
should
be
addressed
by
the
guidance
contained
in
Policy
11
which
is
based
on
the
Worker
Protection
Standard
guidance
for
such
activities
(40CFR
170).
If
there
are
exposures
that
are
of
special
concern,
then
additional
data
or
characterization
in
the
risk
mitigation
phase
of
the
reregistration
process
should
be
considered.
Exposures
that
are
thought
to
be
out
of
the
scope
of
Policy
003
for
carbaryl
are
presented
below.
A
discussion
of
associated
mechanized
practices
is
also
provided.
67
2.2.2
Data
and
Assumptions
for
Occupational
Postapplication
Exposure
Scenarios
A
series
of
assumptions
and
exposure
factors
served
as
the
basis
for
completing
the
occupational
postapplication
worker
risk
assessments.
Each
assumption
and
factor
is
detailed
below
on
an
individual
basis.
In
addition
to
these
values,
transfer
coefficient
values
were
used
to
calculate
risk
estimates.
Several
chemical­
specific
residue
dissipation
studies
were
also
submitted
which
were
used
in
the
development
of
the
risk
values
.
The
transfer
coefficients
were
taken
from
the
Agency's
revised
policy
entitled
Policy
003.1
Science
Advisory
Council
For
Exposure
Policy
Regarding
Agricultural
Transfer
Coefficients
(August
7,
2000).
Each
of
these
factors
are
presented
below.

The
assumptions
and
factors
used
in
the
risk
calculations
include:

C
There
are
many
factors
that
are
common
to
handler
and
postapplication
risk
assessments
such
as
body
weights,
duration,
and
ranges
of
application
rates.
Please
refer
to
the
assumptions
and
factors
in
Section
2.1.2
for
further
information
concerning
these
values
which
are
common
to
both
handler
and
postapplication
risk
assessments.
In
the
postapplication
risk
assessment,
generally
only
maximum
application
rates
were
considered
because
of
the
complexity
of
the
calculations
(i.
e.,
short­
term,
intermediate­
term,
chronic,
and
cancer
endpoints
for
each
of
the
agronomic
groups
contained
in
Policy
003).
[Note:
The
transfer
coefficient
in
Policy
003
for
tree
fruit
thinning
has
been
reduced
since
the
issuance
of
the
policy
from
8000
cm2/
hour
to
3000
cm2/
hour
based
on
a
re­
evaluation
of
the
data
from
the
cited
study.
This
modification
has
been
made
in
the
tree
fruit
group
and
any
other
scenarios
which
have
used
this
value.]

C
The
available
dislodgeable
foliar
residue
and
turf
transferable
residue
data
for
were
used
to
complete
all
postapplication
risk
assessments.
The
chemical­
specific
residue
data
are
described
in
detail
below
and
summarized
in
Appendix
D.
These
data
indicate
that
the
percent
of
transferability
averages
approximately
16
percent
of
the
application
rate
for
the
agricultural
crops
using
the
Iwata
aqueous
solution/
leaf
punch
method
and
approximately
1.1
percent
for
the
turf
measurements
taken
using
the
new
ORETF
roller
method.
Given
these
values,
the
Agency
has
used
them
for
all
postapplication
crops
and
scenarios
as
the
transferability
is
in
the
appropriate
range
for
use
in
risk
assessments.

C
Aventis
Crop
Science
is
in
the
process
of
conducting
a
biomonitoring
study
for
carbaryl
during
apple
and
peach
thinning
and
harvesting
activities.
Based
on
discussions
with
Aventis
scientists,
it
appears
the
preliminary
results
of
this
study
essentially
confirm
the
dose
levels
calculated
in
the
Agency's
assessment
of
these
practices.
A
complete
review
of
these
data
will
be
completed
once
they
have
been
submitted
to
the
Agency.
68
C
The
use
of
common
engineering
controls
as
well
as
personal
protective
equipment
or
clothing
is
not
considered
a
practical
solution
for
mitigating
postapplication
worker
risks
as
described
in
the
Agency's
Worker
Protection
Standard
(40CFR170).
Of
course,
when
well
recognized
mechanized
options
are
available
such
as
for
harvesting
the
Agency
considers
them
in
the
overall
risk
picture
for
each
applicable
crop/
chemical/
cultural
practice
combination
(i.
e.,
mechanized
operations
are
also
discussed
in
40CFR170
and
in
the
Agency's
recently
revised
transfer
coefficient
policy
003).
In
lieu
of
PPE
or
engineering
controls
to
mitigate
risks,
the
Agency
uses
an
administrative
approach
by
establishing
Restricted­
Entry
Intervals
which
are
essentially
the
time
it
takes
for
chemical
residues
to
dissipate
to
levels
where
jobs
can
be
done
at
exposure
levels
that
are
not
a
concern.

C
Exposures
were
calculated
to
reflect
chemical­
specific
residue
dissipation
rates
over
time
coupled
with
surrogate
transfer
coefficients
as
outlined
in
the
Agency's
revised
policy.
Carbaryl
is
used
in
virtually
every
aspect
of
agriculture
but
only
4
dislodgeable
foliar
residue
studies
were
submitted
that
meet
current
Agency
guidelines
for
sampling
techniques
and
data
quality.
Studies
identified
in
the
literature
such
as
those
completed
by
Zweig
on
strawberries
in
1984
(t1/
2
=
4.1
days)
and
Iwata
in
1979
on
lemons
and
oranges
at
11.5
lb
ai/
acre
(t1/
2
=
14
days
and
t1/
2
=
22
days,
respectively)
were
considered
qualitatively
by
the
Agency
to
confirm
the
more
current
data.
[Note:
The
Iwata
data
indicate
a
longer
½
life
than
seen
in
the
current
data.
This
is
probably
due
to
the
high
application
rate
compared
to
the
current
carbaryl
labels.]
The
chemical­
specific
dissipation
data
used
in
this
current
assessment
were
generated
in
studies
completed
by
the
ARTF
as
part
of
their
data
generation
effort.
These
studies
were
conducted
using
Iwata's
DFR
sampling
method
on
tobacco,
olives,
sunflowers,
and
cabbage.
A
turf
transferable
residue
(TTR)
study
was
also
completed
by
the
ORETF
using
the
new
roller
method.
The
Agency
uses
transfer
coefficients
in
different
agronomic
groups
as
described
above
to
complete
risk
assessments.
The
5
DFR
and
TTR
studies
were
used
as
the
transferable
residue
source
term
for
each
of
these
groups.
These
data
were
extrapolated
to
other
groups
based
on
the
nature
of
the
crop
and
application
method.
For
example,
the
olive
data
were
used
to
calculate
risks
for
all
tree
crops
because
airblast
(which
was
used
in
the
olive
study)
would
be
the
application
method
of
choice
for
tree
crops,
the
rates
are
similar,
and
the
plant
canopies
are
similar
(i.
e.,
can
impact
light
and
precipitation
levels
which
in
turn
impact
DFRs).
A
more
complete
description
of
how
the
data
have
been
used
is
provided
below.

C
As
described
in
the
handler
section
and
throughout
the
document,
short­
term
noncancer
risks
were
calculated
by
comparing
single
day
exposures.
This
same
approach
was
used
in
the
postapplication
assessment
where
single
day
exposures
based
on
the
dissipation
of
carbaryl
residues
were
calculated
to
complete
the
short­
term
risk
assessment
(i.
e.,
single
day
risks
were
calculated
based
on
daily
DFR
dissipation
values
over
time).
The
intermediate
and
chronic
postapplication
risk
calculations,
however,
differ
from
the
handler
calculations
for
these
extended
periods.
In
a
handler
assessment,
the
exposures
are
the
same
from
day
to
day
because
there
is
no
residue
dissipation
involved
(i.
e.,
if
one
sprays
whether
it
is
the
1
st
or
the
50
th
day
in
a
row
using
the
same
equipment,
the
exposures
would
be
similar
because
the
source
of
exposure
is
similar).
In
postapplication
assessments,
the
source
term
is
expected
to
diminish
because
of
residue
dissipation.
Hence,
for
the
intermediate­
term
and
chronic
69
postapplication
risk
assessments,
averages
based
on
DFR
dissipation
and
an
appropriate
duration
for
the
endpoint
were
used
to
calculate
postapplication
risks.
In
the
intermediateterm
assessment,
a
30
day
average
was
used
to
calculate
risks
because
the
HIARC
identified
exposures
longer
than
30
days
as
intermediate­
term
in
nature.
In
the
chronic
assessment,
a
30
day
average
was
used
based
on
the
likelihood
that
carbaryl
could
be
sprayed
at
least
once
a
month
in
the
ornamental
industry
(which
are
the
only
scenarios
identified
as
chronic
by
the
Agency).
There
are
many
approaches
that
can
be
used
in
the
calculation
of
intermediateterm
postapplication
risks
including
using
single
day
dose
levels
like
in
the
short­
term
assessment
and
just
comparing
them
to
the
intermediate­
term
endpoint.
This
is
effective
as
a
screening
approach
but
is
unlikely
to
actually
occur
based
on
simple
probability
(e.
g.,
finding
a
freshly
treated
field
30
days
in
a
row
would
be
less
likely
than
working
in
a
field
where
residues
are
dissipating
over
time).

C
Risks
were
calculated
using
the
generic
transfer
coefficients
that
represent
many
different
types
of
cultural
practices.
Transfer
coefficients
are
thought
to
be
generic
(i.
e.,
specific
to
a
crop/
activity
combination
but
independent
of
the
chemical
used
to
generate
them).
Several
values,
however,
included
in
the
Agency's
revised
policy
were
developed
using
carbaryl
data.
Because
carbaryl
can
be
used
so
widely,
every
crop/
cultural
practice
combination
represented
by
different
transfer
coefficients
included
in
the
Agency
policy
was
completed.

C
A
pseudo­
first
order
kinetics
analysis
was
used
to
analyze
carbaryl
residue
dissipation
over
time
as
outlined
in
the
Agency's
draft
Series
875
Postapplication
Exposure
Monitoring
Guidelines.
A
more
sophisticated
curve­
fitting
approach
was
not
warranted
because
the
correlation
coefficients
in
the
analysis
were
appropriate
and
the
data
have
been
used
generically
to
extrapolate
to
a
variety
of
other
crops
where
decay
rates
and
mechanisms
may
differ
(i.
e.,
any
sophistication
gained
with
a
curve
fitting
technique
would
be
lost
in
an
extrapolation
to
another
crop).

C
When
the
Agency
extrapolated
the
available
DFR
data
to
other
crops,
it
adjusted
the
data
for
differences
in
application
rate
using
a
simple
proportional
approach.
This
approach
seems
to
be
the
most
appropriate
given
the
data
which
are
available.
This
approach
is
commonly
used
in
Agency
postapplication
risk
assessments.

C
The
exposure
frequency
values
for
the
postapplication
cancer
risk
assessment
are
intended
to
consider
the
exposures
of
professional
farmworkers
and
those
growers/
users
who
do
their
own
hand
labor
(e.
g.,
harvesting
as
well
as
other
cultural
activities)
concurrently
with
carbaryl
applications.
As
a
result,
cancer
risks
for
all
postapplication
scenarios
have
been
assessed
using
30
days
per
year
for
professional
farmworkers
and
1/
3rd
of
that
for
private
growers
analogous
to
the
handler
assessment
completed
above.

C
In
postapplication
cancer
risk
assessments,
the
Agency
uses
a
tiered
approach.
In
this
case
LADD
(Lifetime
Average
Daily
Dose)
levels
were
calculated
by
amortizing
single
day
exposures
which
are
the
same
values
used
in
the
short­
term
assessment
over
a
lifetime
using
the
10
and
30
days
per
year
frequency
values.
This
may
introduce
a
level
of
conservatism
into
the
assessment.
However,
it
does
not
appear
that
cancer
risks
would
drive
decisions
for
70
postapplication
exposure
scenarios
because
of
the
concerns
for
reentry
workers
from
noncancer
risks.
Therefore,
the
analysis
was
not
refined
further.
Potential
refinements
may
have
included
the
use
of
an
average
exposure
to
amortize
over
a
lifetime
or
the
area
under
the
appropriate
DFR
curve
could
be
integrated
and
amortized.

Postapplication
Studies:
A
total
of
five
studies
are
described
in
this
section..
One
study,
conducted
by
the
Aventis
Corporation,
quantifies
carbaryl­
specific
turf
transferable
residues
in
3
different
states.
The
other
studies
were
all
conducted
by
the
ARTF
for
use
in
defining
generic
transfer
coefficients.
Carbaryl
is
one
of
the
compounds
that
was
selected
by
the
ARTF
as
a
surrogate
chemical
for
their
efforts.
These
studies
quantified
residue
dissipation
and
exposure
during
tobacco
harvesting,
during
scouting
in
sunflowers,
while
weeding
cabbage,
and
while
pruning
olive
trees.
The
DFR
component
of
those
studies
has
been
extracted
for
chemical­
specific
use
in
this
risk
assessment.
The
transfer
coefficients
used
in
this
assessment
are
from
Agency's
interim
transfer
coefficient
policy
developed
by
HED's
Science
Advisory
Council
for
Exposure
using
proprietary
data
from
the
Agricultural
Re­
entry
Task
Force
(ARTF)
database
(policy
#
3.1).
Each
study
can
be
identified
with
the
following
information.
Detailed
information
is
provided
in
Tables
1
through
8
of
Appendix
D.
Tables
1
through
7
contain
results
from
individual
studies
while
Table
8
contains
a
summary
of
the
critical
data
and
statistical
results.
The
studies
which
have
been
used
in
this
assessment
are
identified
below
followed
by
a
brief
summary
of
each:

C
"Determination
of
Dermal
and
Inhalation
Exposure
To
Reentry
Workers
During
Harvesting
In
Tobacco,
Study
Number:
ARF024"
EPA
MRID
450059­
11;
Report
dated
July
20,
1999;
Authors;
Dennis
R.
Klonne,
Susan
C.
Artz,
Cassie
Prochaska,
Aaron
Rotondaro;
Sponsor:
Agricultural
Reentry
Task
Force;
Performing
Laboratories:
Field
Grayson
Research
LLC
and
Analytical
­
Morse
Laboratories.

C
"Determination
of
Dermal
and
Inhalation
Exposure
To
Reentry
Workers
During
Pruning
of
Olive
Trees,
Study
Number:
ARF033"
EPA
MRID
451751­
02;
Report
dated
February
8,
2000;
Authors;
Dennis
R.
Klonne,
Randy
Fuller,
Richard
Honeycutt;
Sponsor:
Agricultural
Reentry
Task
Force;
Performing
Laboratories:
Field
­
HERAC,
Inc.
and
Analytical
­
Morse
Laboratories.

C
"Determination
of
Dermal
and
Inhalation
Exposure
To
Reentry
Workers
During
Scouting
in
Sunflower,
Study
Number:
ARF022"
EPA
MRID
450059­
09;
Report
dated
September
28,
1999;
Authors;
Dennis
R.
Klonne,
Eric
Bruce,
Susan
Artz,
Casey
Howell;
Sponsor:
Agricultural
Reentry
Task
Force;
Performing
Laboratories:
Field
­
ABC
Laboratories
and
Analytical
­
Maxim
Technologies.
71
C
"Determination
of
Dermal
and
Inhalation
Exposure
To
Reentry
Workers
During
Weeding
In
Cabbage,
Study
Number:
ARF037"
EPA
MRID
451917­
01;
Report
dated
May
30,
2000;
Authors;
Dennis
R.
Klonne,
Randy
Fuller,
Tami
Belcher;
Sponsor:
Agricultural
Reentry
Task
Force;
Performing
Laboratories:
Field
­
Excel
Research
Services
and
Analytical
­
Maxim
Technologies.

C
"Carbaryl:
Determination
of
Transferable
Residues
From
Turf
Treated
With
Dragon®
Sevin®
Liquid"
EPA
MRID
451143­
01;
Report
dated
November
4,
1999;
Author;
Thomas
C.
Mester;
Sponsor:
Aventis
Corporation;
Performing
Laboratory:
ABC
Laboratories.

[Note
to
Risk
Managers:
There
are
no
data
compensation
issue
associated
with
the
use
of
the
ARTF
data
in
the
carbaryl
risk
assessment
because
the
Aventis
Corporation,
the
registrant
for
carbaryl,
is
a
member
of
the
ARTF.
The
task
force
has
submitted
proprietary
data
that
were
generated
using
carbaryl.
It
is
the
intention
of
HED's
Science
Advisory
Council
for
Exposure
that
the
transfer
coefficient
policy
will
be
periodically
updated
to
incorporate
additional
information
about
agricultural
practices
in
crops
and
new
data
on
transfer
coefficients.
Much
of
this
information
will
originate
from
exposure
studies
currently
being
conducted
by
the
ARTF,
from
further
analysis
of
studies
already
submitted
to
the
Agency,
and
from
studies
in
the
published
scientific
literature.]

MRID
450059­
11
(tobacco
DFR
data):
This
study
contained
a
human
exposure
element
which
was
reviewed
separately
by
the
Agency
during
the
development
of
the
revised
policy
003
on
transfer
coefficients.
The
DFR
component
of
the
data
only
has
been
summarized
below
for
use
in
the
carbaryl
risk
assessment.
The
field
phase
of
this
study
was
conducted
at
a
single
site
near
Zebulon,
North
Carolina
which
is
in
a
major
growing
region
for
flue­
cured
tobacco.
The
field
phase
of
the
study
was
conducted
during
the
period
from
July
1
to
August
13,
1998.
Sample
analyses
were
completed
by
October,
1998.
A
tractor
mounted
groundboom
sprayer
was
used
to
make
2
applications
of
Sevin
XLR
Plus,
a
liquid
flowable
formulation,
8
days
apart
at
an
application
rate
of
2
lb
ai/
acre.
Spray
volume
was
20
gallons
of
water
per
acre.
The
tobacco
plants
were
approximately
4.5
feet
tall
and
were
spaced
approximately
2
feet
within
each
row
while
the
rows
were
spaced
4
feet
apart
(i.
e.,
~5400
plants/
acre).
No
significant
precipitation
was
observed
in
this
study
until
at
least
7
days
after
application.

Triplicate
DFR
samples
were
collected
out
to
35
days
after
the
last
application
using
the
Iwata
method
(i.
e.,
a
total
surface
area
sampled
of
400
cm2/
sample
collected
with
a
1
inch
diameter
Birkestrand
leaf
punch
and
dislodged
with
a
0.01
percent
Aerosol
solution).
The
Limit
of
Quantitation
(LOQ)
in
this
study
was
1
µg/
sample
or
0.0025
µg/
cm
2
.
There
were
still
measurable
residues
35
days
after
application.
The
percent
transferability
of
the
0
day
sample
was
19
percent
of
the
application
rate.
Average
field
recovery
over
all
fortification
levels
was
114
percent
with
a
coefficient
of
variation
of
6.1.
The
results
of
the
study
are
presented
in
detail
in
Table
1
of
Appendix
D.
The
results
of
the
pseudo­
first
order
statistical
analysis
of
the
data
presented
in
Appendix
D
are
summarized
below
in
Table
13.
72
Table
13:
Tobacco
DFR
Dissipation
Data
(MRID
450059­
11)
Location
App.
Rate
(lb
ai/
acre)
App.
Method
Corr.
Coeff.
Slope
(Ln
TTR
vs.
t)
[T0]
(µg/
cm
2
)
T1/
2
(days)
Day
0
(%
trans.)
NC
2
Groundboom
0.957
­0.205
4.26
3.4
19.0
MRID
451751­
02
(olive
DFR
data):
This
study
contained
a
human
exposure
element
which
was
reviewed
separately
by
the
Agency
during
the
development
of
the
revised
policy
003
on
transfer
coefficients.
The
DFR
component
of
the
data
only
has
been
summarized
below
for
use
in
the
carbaryl
risk
assessment.
The
field
phase
of
this
study
was
conducted
at
a
single
site
near
Terra
Bella,
California
which
is
in
a
major
growing
region
for
olives.
The
field
phase
of
the
study
was
conducted
during
the
period
from
November
2
to
November
17,
1998.
Sample
analyses
were
completed
by
January,
1999.
A
typical
airblast
sprayer
was
used
to
make
a
single
application
of
Sevin
XLR
Plus,
a
liquid
flowable
formulation,
at
an
application
rate
of
7.65
lb
ai/
acre.
Spray
volume
was
758
gallons
of
water
per
acre.
The
olive
trees
were
approximately
20
feet
tall
and
were
spaced
approximately
28
feet
within
each
row
while
the
rows
were
spaced
28
feet
apart
(i.
e.,
~56
trees/
acre).
No
significant
precipitation
was
observed
in
this
study
until
at
least
7
days
after
application.

Triplicate
DFR
samples
were
collected
out
to
14
days
after
application
using
the
Iwata
method
(i.
e.,
a
total
surface
area
sampled
of
400
cm2/
sample
collected
with
a
1
inch
diameter
Birkestrand
leaf
punch
and
dislodged
with
a
0.01
percent
Aerosol
solution).
The
Limit
of
Quantitation
(LOQ)
in
this
study
was
1
µg/
sample
or
0.0025
µg/
cm
2
.
There
were
still
measurable
residues
14
days
after
application.
The
percent
transferability
of
the
0
day
sample
was
3.6
percent
of
the
application
rate.
Average
field
recovery
over
all
fortification
levels
was
109.7
percent
with
a
coefficient
of
variation
of
4.8.
The
results
of
the
study
are
presented
in
detail
in
Table
2
of
Appendix
D.
The
results
of
the
pseudo­
first
order
statistical
analysis
of
the
data
presented
in
Appendix
D
are
summarized
below
in
Table
14.

Table
14:
Olive
DFR
Dissipation
Data
(MRID
451751­
02)
Location
App.
Rate
(lb
ai/
acre)
App.
Method
Corr.
Coeff.
Slope
(Ln
TTR
vs.
t)
[T0]
(µg/
cm
2
)
T1/
2
(days)
Day
0
(%
trans.)
CA
7.65
Airblast
0.913
­0.0988
3.067
7
3.
6
MRID
450059­
09
(sunflower
DFR
data):
This
study
contained
a
human
exposure
element
which
was
reviewed
separately
by
the
Agency
during
the
development
of
the
revised
policy
003
on
transfer
coefficients.
The
DFR
component
of
the
data
only
has
been
summarized
below
for
use
in
the
carbaryl
risk
assessment.
The
field
phase
of
this
study
was
conducted
at
a
single
site
near
Northwood,
North
Dakota
which
is
in
a
major
growing
region
for
sunflowers.
The
field
phase
of
the
study
was
conducted
during
the
period
from
July
20
to
August
25,
1998.
Sample
analyses
were
completed
by
December,
1998.
A
fixed­
wing
aircraft
was
used
to
make
2
applications
of
Sevin
XLR
Plus,
a
liquid
flowable
formulation,
7
days
apart
at
an
application
rate
of
1.5
lb
ai/
acre.
Spray
volume
was
3
gallons
of
water
per
acre.
The
sunflower
plants
were
approximately
4
feet
tall
and
were
spaced
approximately
0.5
feet
within
each
row
while
the
rows
were
spaced
2.5
feet
apart
(i.
e.,
~35000
plants/
acre).
No
significant
precipitation
was
observed
in
this
study
until
at
least
14
days
after
application.

DFR
samples
were
collected
out
to
28
days
after
the
last
application
using
the
Iwata
method
(i.
e.,
a
73
total
surface
area
sampled
of
400
cm2/
sample
collected
with
a
1
inch
diameter
Birkestrand
leaf
punch
and
dislodged
with
a
0.01
percent
Aerosol
solution).
The
Limit
of
Quantitation
(LOQ)
in
this
study
was
1
µg/
sample
or
0.0025
µg/
cm
2
.
There
were
still
measurable
residues
28
days
after
application.
The
percent
transferability
of
the
0
day
sample
was
32
percent
of
the
application
rate.
Average
field
recovery
over
all
fortification
levels
was
93.1
percent
with
a
coefficient
of
variation
of
9.1.
The
results
of
the
study
for
each
site
are
presented
in
detail
in
Table
3
of
Appendix
D.
The
results
of
the
pseudo­
first
order
statistical
analysis
of
the
data
presented
in
Appendix
D
are
summarized
below
in
Table
15.

Table
15:
Sunflower
DFR
Dissipation
Data
(MRID
450059­
09)
Location
App.
Rate
(lb
ai/
acre)
App.
Method
Corr.
Coeff.
Slope
(Ln
TTR
vs.
t)
[T0]
(µg/
cm
2
)
T1/
2
(days)
Day
0
(%
trans.)
ND
1.5
FW
Aerial
0.986
­0.134
5.35
5.2
31.8
MRID
451917­
01
(cabbage
DFR
data):
This
study
contained
a
human
exposure
element
which
was
reviewed
separately
by
the
Agency
during
the
development
of
the
revised
policy
003
on
transfer
coefficients.
The
DFR
component
of
the
data
only
has
been
summarized
below
for
use
in
the
carbaryl
risk
assessment.
The
field
phase
of
this
study
was
conducted
at
a
single
site
near
Fresno,
California
which
is
in
a
major
growing
region
for
cabbage.
The
field
phase
of
the
study
was
conducted
during
the
period
from
September
29
to
November
10,
1999.
Sample
analyses
were
completed
by
May,
2000.
A
tractor
drawn
groundboom
sprayer
was
used
to
make
2
applications
of
Sevin
XLR
Plus,
a
liquid
flowable
formulation,
7
days
apart
at
an
application
rate
of
2.07
lb
ai/
acre.
Spray
volume
was
31.1
gallons
of
water
per
acre.
The
cabbage
plants
were
approximately
8
to
10
inches
tall
and
were
spaced
approximately
1
feet
within
each
row
while
the
rows
were
spaced
3
feet
apart
(i.
e.,
~15000
plants/
acre).
No
significant
precipitation
was
observed
in
this
study.
All
irrigation
was
in­
furrow
which
is
not
believed
to
impact
DFR
levels.

Triplicate
DFR
samples
were
collected
out
to
35
days
after
the
last
application
using
the
Iwata
method
(i.
e.,
a
total
surface
area
sampled
of
400
cm2/
sample
collected
with
a
1
inch
diameter
Birkestrand
leaf
punch
and
dislodged
with
a
0.01
percent
Aerosol
solution).
The
Limit
of
Quantitation
(LOQ)
in
this
study
was
1
µg/
sample
or
0.0025
µg/
cm
2
.
There
were
still
measurable
residues
35
days
after
application
in
1
of
the
3
samples
collected
while
all
samples
on
day
28
contained
detectable
residues.
The
percent
transferability
of
the
0
day
sample
was
10.9
percent
of
the
application
rate.
Average
field
recovery
over
all
fortification
levels
was
97.2
percent
with
a
coefficient
of
variation
of
8.3.
The
results
of
the
study
for
each
site
are
presented
in
detail
in
Table
4
of
Appendix
D.
The
results
of
the
pseudo­
first
order
statistical
analysis
of
the
data
presented
in
Appendix
D
are
summarized
below
in
Table
16.

Table
16:
Cabbage
DFR
Dissipation
Data
(MRID
451917­
01)
Location
App.
Rate
(lb
ai/
acre)
App.
Method
Corr.
Coeff.
Slope
(Ln
TTR
vs.
t)
[T0]
(µg/
cm
2
)
T1/
2
(days)
Day
0
(%
trans.)
CA
2.07
Groundboom
0.956
­0.190
2.46
3.6
10.6
74
MRID
451143­
01
(turf
transferable
residue
data):
A
TTR
study
was
conducted
at
individual
sites
in
three
states
using
the
ORETF
roller
sampling
method.
The
locations
were
in
California,
Georgia,
and
Pennsylvania.
Tall
fescue
was
the
variety
in
California
and
Pennsylvania.
Bermudagrass
was
the
variety
in
Georgia.
Field
work
took
place
over
three
week
intervals
at
each
site.
Applications
were
made
and
samples
were
collected
essentially
in
October
of
1998
in
California
and
Georgia
while
the
Pennsylvania
study
was
completed
essentially
in
May
1999.
Two
applications
were
made
7
days
apart
at
each
site.
All
applications
in
this
study
were
completed
at
a
rate
of
8.17
lb
ai/
acre.
In
California
and
Georgia,
applications
were
made
with
typical
groundboom
sprayers
using
approximately
55
and
31
gallons
of
water
per
acre,
respectively.
In
Pennsylvania,
the
applications
were
made
with
a
CO2
powered
sprayer
in
approximately
45
gallons
of
water
per
acre.
All
applications
were
made
using
Dragon
Sevin
Liquid
which
is
a
flowable
concentrate
formulation
that
contains
carbaryl
at
a
nominal
concentration
of
21
percent
by
weight
or
2
lb
ai/
gallon.

There
was
approximately
from
1
inch
up
to
2.7
inches
of
irrigation
water
on
the
day
of
the
final
application
at
each
site.
Additionally,
on
the
day
of
the
final
application,
rain
was
noted
that
ranged
in
accumulations
from
0.2
to
1.23
inches.
California
and
Pennsylvania
also
received
additional
rain
in
the
week
after
the
last
application
(i.
e.,
both
events
<
1
inch).
It
could
not
be
determined,
based
on
the
study
data,
if
the
rain
and
irrigation
events
on
the
day
of
the
last
application
at
each
site
occurred
prior
to
or
after
the
application.
Mowing
events
were
also
noted
in
the
data
except
in
Georgia
where
no
mowing
was
done.
The
other
sites
were
mowed
prior
to
the
last
application
and
at
some
point
at
least
6
days
after
the
last
application.

Triplicate
TTR
samples
were
collected
using
the
ORETF
roller
method
at
8
intervals
out
to
14
days
after
the
last
application.
All
but
two
samples
at
each
site
were
collected
during
the
1
st
week
of
the
study.
The
Limit
of
Quantitation
(LOQ)
for
carbaryl
residues
was
2
µg/
sample
which
is
equivalent
to
0.00035
µg/
cm
2
based
on
a
sample
surface
area
of
5690
cm
2
.
Average
field
recovery
values
across
levels
from
all
sites
was
greater
than
90
percent.
Additionally,
the
variability
in
the
field
recovery
data
as
defined
using
the
coefficient
of
variation
was
also
low
(<
10)
except
for
the
Georgia
site
where
the
CV
was
28.
However,
at
the
Georgia
and
Pennsylvania
sites,
the
dosespecific
recovery
value
that
closest
approximated
the
field
sample
levels
warranted
that
the
results
be
corrected
by
the
investigators
(i.
e.,
119
%
in
Georgia
and
89%
in
Pennsylvania,
respectively).
Residue
levels
were
not
corrected
for
recovery
at
the
California
site.
In
all
cases,
residue
levels
exceeded
the
LOQ
even
at
14
days
after
application.
The
results
of
the
study
for
the
California,
Georgia,
and
Pennsylvania
sites,
respectively,
are
presented
in
Tables
5,
6,
and
7
of
Appendix
D.
The
data
and
the
results
of
the
pseudo­
first
order
statistical
analysis
of
the
data
presented
in
Appendix
D
are
summarized
below
in
Table
17.
75
Table
17:
TTR
Dissipation
Data
Measured
Using
ORETF
Roller
In
3
States
(MRID
451143­
01)
Location
App.
Rate
(lb
ai/
acre)
App.
Method
Corr.
Coeff.
Slope
(Ln
TTR
vs.
t)
[T0]
(µg/
cm
2
)
T1/
2
(days)
Day
0
(%
trans.)
CA
8.17
Groundboom
0.971
­0.543
0.927
1.3
1.
0
GA
8.17
Groundboom
0.887
­0.168
1.12
4.1
1.
2
PA
8.17
CO2
0.984
­0.248
1.12
2.8
1.
2
The
Georgia
data
were
used
to
calculate
short­
term
and
intermediate­
term
risks
because
of
the
added
persistence
(i.
e.
to
consider
a
30
day
average
residue).
Note
that
intermediate­
term
risks
could
not
even
be
calculated
for
PA
and
CA
data
because
of
the
shorter
decay
time.
The
California
data
were
used
to
calculate
cancer
risks
because
of
the
quicker
dissipation
which
may
represent
more
typical
uses.

2.2.3
Occupational
Postapplication
Exposure
and
Noncancer
Risk
Estimates
The
occupational
postapplication
exposure
and
non­
cancer
risk
calculations
are
presented
in
this
section.
Noncancer
risks
were
calculated
using
the
Margin
of
Exposure
(MOE)
which
is
a
ratio
of
the
body
burden
to
the
toxicological
endpoint
of
concern.
Body
burden
values
were
determined
by
first
calculating
exposures
by
considering
transferable
residue
levels
in
areas
where
people
work
(i.
e.,
the
potential
sources
of
exposure)
and
the
kinds
of
jobs
or
tasks
required
to
produce
agricultural
commodities
or
to
maintain
other
areas
such
as
golf
courses.
These
factors
are
represented
by
DFR
or
TTR
concentrations
and
transfer
coefficients.
Exposures
were
calculated
by
multiplying
these
factors
by
an
8
hour
work
day.
Exposures
are
then
normalized
by
body
weight
and
adjusted
for
dermal
absorption
to
calculate
absorbed
dose
(i.
e.,
body
burdens).
MOEs
were
then
calculated.
Postapplication
risks
diminish
over
time
because
carbaryl
residues
eventually
dissipate
in
the
environment.
As
a
result
risk
values
were
calculated
over
time
based
on
changing
residue
levels.

Dissipation
Kinetics:
The
first
step
in
the
postapplication
risk
assessment
was
to
complete
an
analysis
of
the
available
dislodgeable
foliar
and
turf
transferable
residue
(DFR)
data.
All
residue
data
generated
in
the
referenced
studies
are
summarized
in
Appendix
D
as
well
as
in
Tables
13
through
17
above.
As
discussed
in
Section
2.2.2
above,
data
from
the
4
DFR
studies
were
used
to
calculate
risks
for
all
agronomic
crop
groups.
Best
fit
DFR
levels
were
calculated
based
on
empirical
data
using
the
equation
D2­
16
from
Series
875­
Occupational
and
Residential
Test
Guidelines:
Group
B­
Postapplication
Exposure
Monitoring
Test
Guidelines.
The
summary
of
the
available
chemical­
specific
DFR
data,
presented
in
tables
13
through
17
above,
were
developed
based
on
a
semilog
regression
of
the
empirical
dissipation
data
using
a
commercial
spreadsheet
linear
regression
function.
Half­
lives
were
calculated
using
the
algorithm
(T1/
2
=
­Ln
2/
slope).
The
results
of
those
statistical
analyses
were
used
to
calculate
best
fit
concentrations
over
time
using
the
following
pseudo­
first
order
equation:
76
Where:

Cenvir(
t)
=
dislodgeable
foliar
or
turf
transferable
residue
concentration
(
g/
cm
2
)
that
represents
the
amount
of
residue
on
the
surface
of
a
contacted
leaf
surface
that
is
available
for
dermal
exposure
at
time
(t);
Cenvir(
o)
=
dislodgeable
foliar
or
turf
transferable
residue
concentration
(
g/
cm
2
)
that
represents
the
amount
of
residue
on
the
surface
of
a
contacted
leaf
surface
that
is
available
for
dermal
exposure
at
time
(0);
e
=natural
logarithms
base
function;
PAIt
=
postapplication
interval
or
dissipation
time
(e.
g.,
days
after
treatment
or
DAT);
and
M
=
slope
of
line
generated
during
linear
regression
of
data
[ln(
Cenvir)
versus
postapplication
interval
(PAI)].

In
cases
where
no
chemical­
specific
residue
dissipation
data
are
available,
the
Agency
typically
uses
a
generic
dissipation
model
to
complete
risk
calculations.
In
this
case,
the
Agency
determined
that
it
is
more
appropriate,
however,
to
extrapolate
using
carbaryl­
specific
dissipation
data
in
the
risk
assessment
for
other
currently
labelled
crops
than
it
is
to
use
the
generic
dissipation
model.
This
approach
is
consistent
with
current
Agency
policies
for
generating
transferable/
dislodgeable
residue
data.
The
existing
residue
data
were
extrapolated
to
the
currently
labelled
crops
as
follows:

C
Tobacco
DFR
Data:
These
data
have
been
used
to
complete
all
assessments
for
the
crop/
activity
combinations
included
in
the
bunch/
bundle,
sugarcane,
and
vine/
trellis
agronomic
crop
groups
defined
in
the
Agency's
revised
transfer
coefficient
policy
003.
This
extrapolation
was
completed
because
of
similarities
in
application
methods
between
the
study
and
selected
crop
groups,
the
crop
canopy,
and
application
rates
(i.
e.,
between
the
study
and
current
labels).

C
Olive
DFR
Data:
These
data
have
been
used
to
complete
all
assessments
for
the
crop/
activity
combinations
included
in
all
of
the
tree
fruit
and
nut
crop
groups
defined
in
the
Agency's
revised
transfer
coefficient
policy
003.
This
extrapolation
was
completed
because
of
similarities
in
application
methods
between
the
study
and
selected
crop
groups,
the
crop
canopy,
and
application
rates
(i.
e.,
between
the
study
and
current
labels).

C
Sunflower
DFR
Data:
These
data
have
been
used
to
complete
all
assessments
for
the
crop/
activity
combinations
in
the
tall
field/
row
crop
group
defined
in
the
Agency's
revised
transfer
coefficient
policy
003.
No
extrapolation
was
required
in
this
assessment.
An
additional
consideration
was
that
the
cabbage
study
was
based
on
groundboom
application
and
not
aerial
application.
Groundboom
applications
are
thought
to
be
much
more
prevalent
in
the
overall
use
pattern
for
carbaryl.
77
C
Cabbage
DFR
Data:
These
data
have
been
used
to
complete
all
assessments
for
the
crop/
activity
combinations
included
in
the
berry,
cut
flower,
low/
medium
field
and
row,
and
all
vegetable
(i.
e.,
stem/
stalk,
brassica,
leafy,
fruiting,
cucurbits,
root)
agronomic
crop
groups
defined
in
the
Agency's
revised
transfer
coefficient
policy
003.
This
extrapolation
was
completed
because
of
similarities
in
application
methods
between
the
study
and
selected
crop
groups,
the
crop
canopy,
and
application
rates
(i.
e.,
between
the
study
and
current
labels).

C
Turf
TTR
Data:
These
data
have
been
used
to
complete
all
assessments
for
the
crop/
activity
combinations
for
the
turf
agronomic
crop
group
defined
in
the
Agency's
revised
transfer
coefficient
policy
003.
No
extrapolation
was
required
in
this
assessment.

Daily
Exposure:
The
next
step
in
the
risk
assessment
process
was
to
calculate
dermal
exposure
values
(remembering
that
inhalation
exposures
are
not
assessed
for
these
scenarios)
on
each
post­
application
day
after
application
using
the
following
equation
(see
equation
D2­
20
from
Series
875­
Occupational
and
Residential
Test
Guidelines:
Group
B­
Postapplication
Exposure
Monitoring
Test
Guidelines
and
Residential
SOP
3.2:
Postapplication
Dermal
Potential
Doses
From
Pesticide
Residues
On
Gardens):

DE(
t)
(mg/
day)
=
(TR(
t)
(µg/
cm
2
)
x
TC
(cm
2
/hr)
x
Hr/
Day)/
1000
(µg/
mg)

Where:

DE(
t)
=
Daily
exposure
or
amount
deposited
on
the
surface
of
the
skin
at
time
(t)
attributable
for
activity
in
a
previously
treated
area,
also
referred
to
as
potential
dose
(mg
ai/
day);
TR(
t)
=
Transferable
residues
that
can
either
be
dislodgeable
foliar
or
turf
transferable
residue
at
time
(t)
where
the
longest
duration
is
dictated
by
the
decay
time
observed
in
the
studies
(µg/
cm
2
);
TC
=
Transfer
Coefficient
(cm
2
/hour);
and
Hr/
day
=
Exposure
duration
meant
to
represent
a
typical
workday
(hours).

Note
that
the
(TR(
t))
input
may
represent
levels
on
a
single
day
after
application
in
the
case
of
shortterm
risk
calculations.
For
intermediate­
term
calculations,
rolling
7
day
average
concentrations
were
calculated
based
on
the
applicability
of
the
toxicology
data
(i.
e.,
intermediate­
term
endpoint
is
applied
to
exposures
>30
days).
In
the
limited
number
of
chronic
calculations,
a
30
day
average
was
also
used
based
on
a
likely
frequency
between
applications.

Daily
Dose
and
Margins
of
Exposure:
The
use
of
dissipation
data
and
the
manner
in
which
daily
postapplication
dermal
exposure
values
were
calculated
are
inherently
different
than
with
handler
exposures.
Once
daily
exposure
values
are
calculated,
the
calculation
of
daily
absorbed
dose
and
the
resulting
Margin
of
Exposure
values
use
the
same
algorithms
that
are
described
above
for
the
handler
exposures
(See
Section
2.1.3).
These
calculations
are
completed
for
each
day
or
appropriate
block
of
time
after
application.
78
Noncancer
Risk
Summary:
All
of
the
noncancer
risk
calculations
for
occupational
carbaryl
handlers
completed
in
this
assessment
are
included
in
Appendix
E.
The
specifics
of
each
of
table
included
in
Appendix
E
are
described
below.
A
summary
of
the
results
for
each
crop/
activity
combination
considered
for
each
timeframe
is
also
provided
below.

C
Appendix
E/
Table
1:
Inputs
For
Carbaryl
Occupational
Postapplication
Risk
Assessment
Presents
the
numerical
unit
exposure
values
and
other
factors
used
in
the
occupational
handler
risk
assessments.

C
Appendix
E/
Table
2:
Carbaryl
Occupational
Postapplication
Noncancer
Risk
Assessment
For
Low
Berry
Crop
Group
Risk
values
are
presented
for
each
exposure
duration
considered
in
the
assessment
(i.
e.,
short­
term
and
intermediate­
term
duration
exposures,
respectively).

C
Appendix
E/
Table
4:
Carbaryl
Occupational
Postapplication
Noncancer
Risk
Assessment
For
Bunch/
Bundle
Crop
Group
Risk
values
are
presented
for
each
exposure
duration
considered
in
the
assessment
(i.
e.,
short­
term
and
intermediate­
term
duration
exposures,
respectively).

C
Appendix
E/
Table
6:
Carbaryl
Occupational
Postapplication
Noncancer
Risk
Assessment
For
Short/
Medium
Field
Row
Crop
Group
Risk
values
are
presented
for
each
exposure
duration
considered
in
the
assessment
(i.
e.,
short­
term
and
intermediate­
term
duration
exposures,
respectively).
C
Appendix
E/
Table
8:
Carbaryl
Occupational
Postapplication
Noncancer
Risk
Assessment
For
Tall
Field
Row
Crop
Group
Risk
values
are
presented
for
each
exposure
duration
considered
in
the
assessment
(i.
e.,
short­
term
and
intermediate­
term
duration
exposures,
respectively).

C
Appendix
E/
Table
10:
Carbaryl
Occupational
Postapplication
Noncancer
Risk
Assessment
For
Cut
Flower
Crop
Group
Risk
values
are
presented
for
each
exposure
duration
considered
in
the
assessment
(i.
e.,
short­
term
and
intermediate­
term
duration
exposures,
respectively).
[Note:
Table
10
also
contains
chronic
risk
values.]

C
Appendix
E/
Table
12:
Carbaryl
Occupational
Postapplication
Noncancer
Risk
Assessment
For
Sugarcane
Crop
Group
Risk
values
are
presented
for
each
exposure
duration
considered
in
the
assessment
(i.
e.,
short­
term
and
intermediate­
term
duration
exposures,
respectively).

C
Appendix
E/
Table
14:
Carbaryl
Occupational
Postapplication
Noncancer
Risk
Assessment
For
Deciduous
Tree
Crop
Group
Risk
values
are
presented
for
each
exposure
duration
considered
in
the
assessment
(i.
e.,
short­
term
and
intermediate­
term
duration
exposures,
respectively).

C
Appendix
E/
Table
16:
Carbaryl
Occupational
Postapplication
Noncancer
Risk
79
Assessment
For
Evergreen
Tree
Crop
Group
Risk
values
are
presented
for
each
exposure
duration
considered
in
the
assessment
(i.
e.,
short­
term
and
intermediate­
term
duration
exposures,
respectively).

C
Appendix
E/
Table
18:
Carbaryl
Occupational
Postapplication
Noncancer
Risk
Assessment
For
Tree
Nut
Crop
Group
Risk
values
are
presented
for
each
exposure
duration
considered
in
the
assessment
(i.
e.,
short­
term
and
intermediate­
term
duration
exposures,
respectively).

C
Appendix
E/
Table
20:
Carbaryl
Occupational
Postapplication
Noncancer
Risk
Assessment
For
Turf
Risk
values
are
presented
for
each
exposure
duration
considered
in
the
assessment
(i.
e.,
short­
term
and
intermediate­
term
duration
exposures,
respectively).

C
Appendix
E/
Table
22:
Carbaryl
Occupational
Postapplication
Noncancer
Risk
Assessment
For
Root
Vegetable
Crop
Group
Risk
values
are
presented
for
each
exposure
duration
considered
in
the
assessment
(i.
e.,
short­
term
and
intermediate­
term
duration
exposures,
respectively).

C
Appendix
E/
Table
24:
Carbaryl
Occupational
Postapplication
Noncancer
Risk
Assessment
For
Cucurbit
Vegetable
Crop
Group
Risk
values
are
presented
for
each
exposure
duration
considered
in
the
assessment
(i.
e.,
short­
term
and
intermediate­
term
duration
exposures,
respectively).

C
Appendix
E/
Table
26:
Carbaryl
Occupational
Postapplication
Noncancer
Risk
Assessment
For
Fruiting
Vegetable
Crop
Group
Risk
values
are
presented
for
each
exposure
duration
considered
in
the
assessment
(i.
e.,
short­
term
and
intermediate­
term
duration
exposures,
respectively).

C
Appendix
E/
Table
28:
Carbaryl
Occupational
Postapplication
Noncancer
Risk
Assessment
For
Brassica
Vegetable
Crop
Group
Risk
values
are
presented
for
each
exposure
duration
considered
in
the
assessment
(i.
e.,
short­
term
and
intermediate­
term
duration
exposures,
respectively).

C
Appendix
E/
Table
30:
Carbaryl
Occupational
Postapplication
Noncancer
Risk
Assessment
For
Leafy
Vegetable
Crop
Group
Risk
values
are
presented
for
each
exposure
duration
considered
in
the
assessment
(i.
e.,
short­
term
and
intermediate­
term
duration
exposures,
respectively).

C
Appendix
E/
Table
32:
Carbaryl
Occupational
Postapplication
Noncancer
Risk
Assessment
For
Root
Vegetable
Crop
Group
Risk
values
are
presented
for
each
exposure
duration
considered
in
the
assessment
(i.
e.,
short­
term
and
intermediate­
term
duration
exposures,
respectively).
C
Appendix
E/
Table
34:
Carbaryl
Occupational
Postapplication
Noncancer
Risk
Assessment
For
Vine
Crop
Group
Risk
values
are
presented
for
each
exposure
duration
80
considered
in
the
assessment
(i.
e.,
short­
term
and
intermediate­
term
duration
exposures,
respectively).

C
Appendix
E/
Table
36:
Carbaryl
Occupational
Postapplication
Noncancer
Risk
Assessment
For
Nursery
Stock
Crop
Group
Risk
values
are
presented
for
each
exposure
duration
considered
in
the
assessment
(i.
e.,
short­
term
and
intermediate­
term
duration
exposures,
respectively).
[Note:
Table
36
also
contains
chronic
risk
values.]

It
should
be
noted
that
there
were
several
scenarios
for
which
no
appropriate
exposure
data
are
known
to
exist
or
ongoing
transfer
coefficient
studies
have
not
yet
been
submitted
(e.
g.,
ARTF
nursery
and
ornamental
data).
The
scope
of
the
Agency's
revised
policy
003
for
transfer
coefficients
should
also
be
considered
as
it
only
quantitatively
addresses
risks
where
the
transfer
coefficient
model
is
appropriate
(i.
e.,
where
foliar
contact
is
known
to
exist).
There
are
many
kinds
of
potential
exposure
pathways
that
do
not
involve
foliar
contact
that
have
not
been
addressed
in
this
risk
assessment
(as
defined
in
policy
003,
refer
to
that
document
for
a
complete
list).
The
scenarios
include:

C
Transplanting
many
crops
including
in
the
ornamental
and
forestry
industry;

C
Thinning
some
crops
such
as
hops;

C
Some
partially
mechanized
operations
that
also
involve
human
contact
(e.
g.,
cotton
harvesting
where
module
builders
and
trampers
are
used,
see
below);
C
Hand
weeding
some
crops
such
as
wheat;

C
Various
operations
with
Christmas
trees
such
as
pruning
or
baling;
and
C
Various
operations
with
nut
production
such
as
sweeping
for
harvest.

[Note:
Additional
DFR
data
on
different
crops
could
refine
exposure
and
risk
estimates.]

Mechanized
practices
can
be
divided
into
fully
mechanized
activities
that
meet
the
definition
of
"No
contact"
in
the
Agency's
Worker
Protection
Standard
(WPS)
and
mechanically
assisted
practices
with
potential
for
exposure.
In
the
case
of
fully
mechanized
activities,
the
Agency
does
not
complete
a
quantitative
exposure
assessment
but
addresses
these
types
of
potential
exposures
qualitatively
by
allowing
early
entry
as
described
in
the
WPS.
81
"A
worker
may
enter
a
treated
area
during
a
restricted­
entry
interval
if
the
agricultural
employer
assures
that
both
of
the
following
are
met:
(1)
The
worker
will
have
no
contact
with
anything
that
has
been
treated
with
the
pesticide
to
which
the
restricted­
entry
interval
applies
including,
but
not
limited
to,
soil,
water,
air,
or
surfaces
of
plants;
and
(2)
no
such
entry
is
allowed
until
any
inhalation
exposure
level
listed
in
the
labeling
has
been
reached
or
any
ventilation
criteria
established
by
§
170.110
(c)(
3)
or
in
the
labeling
have
been
met."

In
cases
of
partially
mechanized
activities
where
the
potential
for
exposure
exists,
the
Agency
assesses
the
resulting
exposures
similarly
to
those
resulting
from
hand
labor
activities
for
"high
exposure
potential"
activities
(i.
e.,
transfer
coefficients
are
used
to
represent
exposures
associated
with
the
activity).
Partially
mechanized
activities
with
"low
exposure
potential"
are
assessed
qualitatively.
Available
use
and
usage
information
have
been
used
to
characterize
the
predominance
of
these
activities
that
meet
the
fully
mechanized
("
No
contact")
and
the
mechanically
assisted
definitions
in
the
risk
assessment
to
allow
risk
managers
flexibility
in
their
decisions
with
regard
to
various
segments
of
the
exposed
population
for
carbaryl.
The
Agency
also
acknowledges
that
there
is
some
potential
for
exposure
because
individuals
engaged
in
fully
mechanized
activities
have
short­
term
excursions
from
the
protected
area
for
various
reasons
(e.
g.,
unclogging
machinery
or
equipment
inspection
for
breakage).
In
these
cases,
the
WPS
§
170.112(
c)
Exception
for
short­
term
activities
applies.

The
level
of
concern
for
all
assessments
is
established
by
the
uncertainty
factor
that
is
associated
with
a
specific
duration
of
exposure.
Uncertainty
factors
are
defined
for
occupational
exposures
under
FIFRA
and
account
for
intra­
species
sensitivity
and
inter­
species
extrapolation.
In
other
cases,
like
carbaryl,
additional
factors
can
also
be
required
(i.
e.,
3x)
because
a
Lowest
Observed
Adverse
Effect
Level
(i.
e.,
LOAEL)
has
been
selected
as
the
dose
level
upon
which
the
risk
assessment
is
based
and
not
on
the
No
Observed
Adverse
Effect
Level
(i.
e.,
NOAEL).
In
this
case,
three
distinct
durations
of
exposure
were
considered
for
postapplication
workers
including:
short­
term
(
30
days),
intermediate­
term
(>
30
days
to
several
months),
and
chronic
(essentially
every
working
day).
The
toxicological
endpoints
and
uncertainty
factors
which
have
been
applied
to
each
exposure
duration
are
those
described
in
Section
1.3/
Table
1.
The
results
for
each
exposure
duration
are
presented
separately
below.

Noncancer
short­
term,
intermediate­
term,
and
chronic
risks
were
calculated
for
different
crop
groups
as
described
above.
Table
18
below
provides
a
summary
of
these
risks
for
each
crop/
activity
combination
considered.
For
each
crop
group/
activity
combination,
the
short­
term
MOE
value
at
the
current
REI
of
12
hours
is
presented
(i.
e.,
the
Day
0
MOE)
as
well
as
the
number
of
days
required
for
short­
term
MOEs
to
reach
the
Agency's
uncertainty
factor
of
100.
Additionally,
the
intermediate­
term
and
chronic
MOEs
which
have
been
calculated
using
30
day
average
exposures
based
on
the
dissipation
of
carbaryl
residues
are
also
included.
The
uncertainty
factor
for
intermediate­
term
exposures
is
100
and
for
chronic
exposures
is
300.
82
Current
label
requirements
specify
12
hour
REIs.
For
all
but
the
lowest
exposure
scenarios
in
some
crops,
short­
term
MOEs
are
of
concern
(i.
e.,
less
than
the
required
uncertainty
factor
of
100)
at
the
current
REI.
Generally,
short­
term
MOEs
meet
or
exceed
the
Agency
uncertainty
factor
in
the
range
of
3
to
5
days
for
lower
to
medium
exposure
activities
and
from
8
to
12
days
after
application
in
most
higher
exposure
scenarios.
Intermediate­
term
MOEs
are
not
of
concern
generally
for
low
to
medium
level
exposures
but
are
of
concern
for
higher
level
exposures
such
as
harvesting
in
some
crops.
Chronic
exposures
are
of
concern
for
the
cut
flower
industry
but
not
for
general
greenhouse
and
nursery
production
activities.

Table
18:
Summary
of
Carbaryl
Noncancer
Postapplication
Worker
Risks
Crop
Group
Result
Type
Exposure
Descriptor
(See
Appendix
E)

Very
Low
Low
Medium
High
Very
High
Low
Berry
ST
MOE
Day
0
NA
184
NA
49
NA
Days
For
ST
MOE
>
UF
NA
0
NA
4
NA
IT
30
Day
Avg
MOE
NA
991
NA
264
NA
Bunch/
Bundle
ST
MOE
Day
0
NA
411
32
21
NA
Days
For
ST
MOE
>
UF
NA
0
6
8
NA
IT
30
Day
Avg
MOE
NA
2365
182
118
NA
Low
/Med.
Field/
Row
Crops
ST
MOE
Day
0
NA
982
65
39
NA
Days
For
ST
MOE
>
UF
NA
0
3
5
NA
IT
30
Day
Avg
MOE
NA
5286
352
211
NA
Tall
Field/
Row
Crops
ST
MOE
Day
0
NA
245
61
25
<1
Days
For
ST
MOE
>
UF
NA
0
4
11
+30
IT
30
Day
Avg
MOE
NA
970
242
97
6
Cut
Flowers
ST
MOE
Day
0
NA
30
18
11
NA
Days
For
ST
MOE
>
UF
NA
7
9
12
NA
IT
30
Day
Avg
MOE
NA
159
99
57
NA
Chronic
MOE
NA
194
121
69
NA
Sugarcane
ST
MOE
Day
0
NA
NA
55
27
NA
Days
For
ST
MOE
>
UF
NA
NA
3
7
NA
IT
30
Day
Avg
MOE
NA
NA
315
158
NA
Decid.
Fruit
Trees
ST
MOE
Day
0
1455
146
NA
49
NA
Days
For
ST
MOE
>
UF
0
0
NA
8
NA
IT
30
Day
Avg
MOE
4450
445
NA
148
NA
Table
18:
Summary
of
Carbaryl
Noncancer
Postapplication
Worker
Risks
Crop
Group
Result
Type
Exposure
Descriptor
(See
Appendix
E)

Very
Low
Low
Medium
High
Very
High
83
Evergreen
Fruit
Trees
ST
MOE
Day
0
582
58
19
NA
NA
Days
For
ST
MOE
>
UF
0
6
17
NA
NA
IT
30
Day
Avg
MOE
1780
178
59
NA
NA
Nut
Trees
ST
MOE
Day
0
NA
175
NA
35
NA
Days
For
ST
MOE
>
UF
NA
0
NA
11
NA
IT
30
Day
Avg
MOE
NA
534
NA
107
NA
Turf/
Sod
ST
MOE
Day
0
NA
312
NA
10
NA
Days
For
ST
MOE
>
UF
NA
0
NA
14
NA
IT
30
Day
Avg
MOE
NA
1505
NA
46
NA
Root
Veg.
ST
MOE
Day
0
NA
245
49
29
NA
Days
For
ST
MOE
>
UF
NA
0
4
7
NA
IT
30
Day
Avg
MOE
NA
1322
264
159
NA
Cucurbit
Veg.
ST
MOE
Day
0
NA
147
49
29
NA
Days
For
ST
MOE
>
UF
NA
0
4
7
NA
IT
30
Day
Avg
MOE
NA
793
264
159
NA
Fruiting
Veg.
ST
MOE
Day
0
NA
147
105
74
NA
Days
For
ST
MOE
>
UF
NA
0
0
2
NA
IT
30
Day
Avg
MOE
NA
793
566
396
NA
Brassica
ST
MOE
Day
0
NA
37
18
15
NA
Days
For
ST
MOE
>
UF
NA
6
9
11
NA
IT
30
Day
Avg
MOE
NA
198
99
79
NA
Leafy
Veg.
ST
MOE
Day
0
NA
147
49
29
NA
Days
For
ST
MOE
>
UF
NA
0
4
7
NA
IT
30
Day
Avg
MOE
NA
793
264
159
NA
Stem/
stalk
Veg.
ST
MOE
Day
0
NA
137
82
41
NA
Days
For
ST
MOE
>
UF
NA
0
1
5
NA
IT
30
Day
Avg
MOE
NA
788
473
236
NA
Table
18:
Summary
of
Carbaryl
Noncancer
Postapplication
Worker
Risks
Crop
Group
Result
Type
Exposure
Descriptor
(See
Appendix
E)

Very
Low
Low
Medium
High
Very
High
84
Vine/
trellis
ST
MOE
Day
0
NA
147
74
15
7
Days
For
ST
MOE
>
UF
NA
0
2
11
14
IT
30
Day
Avg
MOE
NA
793
396
79
40
Nursery/
Ornamentals
ST
MOE
Day
0
NA
669
421
184
NA
Days
For
ST
MOE
>
UF
NA
0
0
0
NA
IT
30
Day
Avg
MOE
NA
3604
2266
991
NA
Chronic
MOE
NA
4399
2765
1210
NA
ST
=
Short­
term,
IT
=
Intermediate­
term,
30
Day
Avg.=
Average
exposure
level
over
30
day
interval.
NA
=
Exposure
descriptor
not
applicable
for
that
crop
group.
UF
=
uncertainty
factor
or
target
MOE
of
100.

2.2.4
Occupational
Postapplication
Exposure
and
Risk
Estimates
for
Cancer
The
occupational
exposure
and
cancer
risk
calculations
for
postapplication
workers
are
presented
in
this
section.
Cancer
risks
were
calculated
using
a
linear
low­
dose
extrapolation
approach
in
which
a
Lifetime
Average
Daily
Dose
(LADD)
is
first
calculated
and
then
compared
with
a
Q1*
that
has
been
calculated
for
carbaryl
based
on
dose
response
data
in
the
appropriate
toxicology
study
(Q1*
=
8.75
x
10
­4
(mg/
kg/
day)
­1
).
Absorbed
average
daily
dose
(ADD)
levels
were
used
as
the
basis
for
calculating
the
LADD
values.
Section
2.1.3
above
describes
how
the
ADD
values
were
first
calculated
for
the
noncancer
MOE
calculations.
These
values
also
serve
as
the
basis
for
the
cancer
risk
estimates.
Dermal
and
inhalation
ADD
values
were
first
added
together
to
obtain
combined
ADD
values.
LADD
values
were
then
calculated
and
compared
the
Q1*
to
obtain
cancer
risk
estimates.

LADD
and
Cancer
Risk
Calculations:
The
use
of
dissipation
data
and
the
manner
in
which
daily
postapplication
dermal
exposure
values
were
calculated
are
inherently
different
than
with
handler
exposures.
Once
daily
exposure
values
are
calculated,
the
calculation
of
LADD
(Lifetime
Average
Daily
Dose)
and
the
resulting
cancer
risks
use
the
same
algorithms
that
are
described
above
for
the
handler
exposures
(See
Section
2.1.4).

To
reiterate,
occupational
carcinogenic
risks
that
are
1
x
10
­6
or
lower
require
no
risk
management
action
based
on
the
1996
Barolo
memo.
For
those
chemicals
subject
to
reregistration,
the
Agency
is
to
carefully
examine
uses
with
estimated
risks
in
the
10
­6
to
10
­4
range
to
seek
ways
of
cost­
effectively
reducing
risks.
If
carcinogenic
risks
are
in
this
range
for
postapplication
workers,
an
increase
in
time
after
application
prior
to
allowing
a
reentry
activity
would
be
warranted
as
is
commonly
applied
to
noncancer
risk
estimates.
85
Cancer
Risk
Summary
All
of
the
cancer
risk
calculations
for
carbaryl
postapplication
workers
are
included
in
Appendix
E
(various
tables).
The
specifics
of
each
of
table
included
in
Appendix
E
are
summarized
below.

C
Appendix
E/
Table
1:
Inputs
For
Carbaryl
Occupational
Postapplication
Risk
Assessment
Presents
the
numerical
unit
exposure
values
and
other
factors
used
in
the
occupational
handler
risk
assessments.

C
Appendix
E/
Table
3:
Carbaryl
Occupational
Postapplication
Cancer
Risk
Assessment
For
Low
Berry
Crop
Group
Risk
values
are
presented
for
each
exposure
duration
considered
in
the
assessment
(i.
e.,
short­
term
and
intermediate­
term
duration
exposures,
respectively).

C
Appendix
E/
Table
5:
Carbaryl
Occupational
Postapplication
Cancer
Risk
Assessment
For
Bunch/
Bundle
Crop
Group
Risk
values
are
presented
for
each
exposure
duration
considered
in
the
assessment
(i.
e.,
short­
term
and
intermediate­
term
duration
exposures,
respectively).

C
Appendix
E/
Table
7:
Carbaryl
Occupational
Postapplication
Cancer
Risk
Assessment
For
Short/
Medium
Field
Row
Crop
Group
Risk
values
are
presented
for
each
exposure
duration
considered
in
the
assessment
(i.
e.,
short­
term
and
intermediate­
term
duration
exposures,
respectively).

C
Appendix
E/
Table
9:
Carbaryl
Occupational
Postapplication
Cancer
Risk
Assessment
For
Tall
Field
Row
Crop
Group
Risk
values
are
presented
for
each
exposure
duration
considered
in
the
assessment
(i.
e.,
short­
term
and
intermediate­
term
duration
exposures,
respectively).

C
Appendix
E/
Table
11:
Carbaryl
Occupational
Postapplication
Cancer
Risk
Assessment
For
Cut
Flower
Crop
Group
Risk
values
are
presented
for
each
exposure
duration
considered
in
the
assessment
(i.
e.,
short­
term
and
intermediate­
term
duration
exposures,
respectively).

C
Appendix
E/
Table
13:
Carbaryl
Occupational
Postapplication
Cancer
Risk
Assessment
For
Sugarcane
Crop
Group
Risk
values
are
presented
for
each
exposure
duration
considered
in
the
assessment
(i.
e.,
short­
term
and
intermediate­
term
duration
exposures,
respectively).

C
Appendix
E/
Table
15:
Carbaryl
Occupational
Postapplication
Risk
Assessment
For
Deciduous
Tree
Crop
Group
Risk
values
are
presented
for
each
exposure
duration
considered
in
the
assessment
(i.
e.,
short­
term
and
intermediate­
term
duration
exposures,
respectively).

C
Appendix
E/
Table
17:
Carbaryl
Occupational
Postapplication
Cancer
Risk
Assessment
86
For
Evergreen
Tree
Crop
Group
Risk
values
are
presented
for
each
exposure
duration
considered
in
the
assessment
(i.
e.,
short­
term
and
intermediate­
term
duration
exposures,
respectively).

C
Appendix
E/
Table
19:
Carbaryl
Occupational
Postapplication
Cancer
Risk
Assessment
For
Tree
Nut
Crop
Group
Risk
values
are
presented
for
each
exposure
duration
considered
in
the
assessment
(i.
e.,
short­
term
and
intermediate­
term
duration
exposures,
respectively).

C
Appendix
E/
Table
21:
Carbaryl
Occupational
Postapplication
Cancer
Risk
Assessment
For
Turf
Risk
values
are
presented
for
each
exposure
duration
considered
in
the
assessment
(i.
e.,
short­
term
and
intermediate­
term
duration
exposures,
respectively).

C
Appendix
E/
Table
23:
Carbaryl
Occupational
Postapplication
Cancer
Risk
Assessment
For
Root
Vegetable
Crop
Group
Risk
values
are
presented
for
each
exposure
duration
considered
in
the
assessment
(i.
e.,
short­
term
and
intermediate­
term
duration
exposures,
respectively).

C
Appendix
E/
Table
25:
Carbaryl
Occupational
Postapplication
Cancer
Risk
Assessment
For
Cucurbit
Vegetable
Crop
Group
Risk
values
are
presented
for
each
exposure
duration
considered
in
the
assessment
(i.
e.,
short­
term
and
intermediate­
term
duration
exposures,
respectively).

C
Appendix
E/
Table
27:
Carbaryl
Occupational
Postapplication
Cancer
Risk
Assessment
For
Fruiting
Vegetable
Crop
Group
Risk
values
are
presented
for
each
exposure
duration
considered
in
the
assessment
(i.
e.,
short­
term
and
intermediate­
term
duration
exposures,
respectively).

C
Appendix
E/
Table
29:
Carbaryl
Occupational
Postapplication
Cancer
Risk
Assessment
For
Brassica
Vegetable
Crop
Group
Risk
values
are
presented
for
each
exposure
duration
considered
in
the
assessment
(i.
e.,
short­
term
and
intermediate­
term
duration
exposures,
respectively).

C
Appendix
E/
Table
31:
Carbaryl
Occupational
Postapplication
Cancer
Risk
Assessment
For
Leafy
Vegetable
Crop
Group
Risk
values
are
presented
for
each
exposure
duration
considered
in
the
assessment
(i.
e.,
short­
term
and
intermediate­
term
duration
exposures,
respectively).

C
Appendix
E/
Table
33:
Carbaryl
Occupational
Postapplication
Cancer
Risk
Assessment
For
Root
Vegetable
Crop
Group
Risk
values
are
presented
for
each
exposure
duration
considered
in
the
assessment
(i.
e.,
short­
term
and
intermediate­
term
duration
exposures,
respectively).
C
Appendix
E/
Table
35:
Carbaryl
Occupational
Postapplication
Cancer
Risk
Assessment
For
Vine
Crop
Group
Risk
values
are
presented
for
each
exposure
duration
considered
in
87
the
assessment
(i.
e.,
short­
term
and
intermediate­
term
duration
exposures,
respectively).

C
Appendix
E/
Table
37:
Carbaryl
Occupational
Postapplication
Cancer
Risk
Assessment
For
Nursery
Stock
Crop
Group
Risk
values
are
presented
for
each
exposure
duration
considered
in
the
assessment
(i.
e.,
short­
term
and
intermediate­
term
duration
exposures,
respectively).

Cancer
risks
for
private
growers
(i.
e.,
10
exposures/
year)
and
commercial
farmworkers
(i.
e.,
30
exposures/
year)
were
calculated
for
different
crop
groups
as
described
above
and
summarized
in
Table
19
below.
Within
each
crop
group,
differing
transfer
coefficients
were
used
to
represent
various
types
of
cultural
practices.
Current
label
requirements
specify
12
hour
REIs.
For
all
scenarios,
cancer
risks
are
<1x10
­4
on
the
day
of
application
(i.
e.,
at
the
current
REI).
Likewise,
cancer
risks
are
<1x10
­6
on
the
day
of
application
for
most
crop/
activity
scenarios
with
private
growers
and
also
for
low
to
medium
exposures
for
commercial
farmworkers.
In
fact,
risks
for
all
scenarios
were
in
the
10
­6
range
in
all
but
three
scenarios
for
commercial
farmworkers
participating
in
very
high
exposure
activities
(e.
g.,
sweetcorn
handharvesting)
on
the
day
of
application.
In
these
three
cases,
risks
were
in
the
10
­5
range
on
the
day
of
application.
For
private
growers,
it
takes
up
to
approximately
5
days
for
risks
to
decline
to
<1x10
­6
for
crop/
activity
combinations
that
exceed
1x10
­6
on
the
day
of
application.
For
commercial
farmworkers,
it
takes
up
to
approximately
8
days
for
risks
to
reach
the
target
level
of
concern
of
<1x10
­6
.
The
1996
Barolo
memo
which
focused
on
cancer
risk
management
should
be
considered
in
the
interpretation
of
these
results.
Current
label
requirements
appear
to
be
adequate
for
all
postapplication
cancer
risks
if
the
10
­4
range
is
used
for
risk
management.
If
the
10
­6
risk
range
is
considered,
it
also
appears
that
the
current
REI
appears
adequate
to
address
cancer
risks
for
many
crop/
activity
combinations.
However,
for
higher
exposure
situations,
longer
duration
REIs
are
predicted.
In
all
cases,
REIs
predicted
based
on
cancer
risks
are
less
restrictive
or
similar
(i.
e.,
within
a
day
or
two
for
commercial
farmworkers)
than
those
predicted
based
on
the
noncancer
effects
of
carbaryl.
In
no
cases
do
cancer
risks
indicate
more
restrictive
REIs
than
for
noncancer
risks
calculated
for
the
corresponding
crop/
activity
exposure
scenario.

Table
19:
Summary
of
Carbaryl
Cancer
Postapplication
Worker
Risks
Crop
Group
Result
Type
Exposure
Descriptor
(From
Policy
003/
See
Appendix
E)

Very
Low
Low
Medium
High
Very
High
Low
Berry
Private
Grower
Day
0
Risk
NA
1.7
x
10
­7
NA
6.2x
10
­7
NA
Private
Grower
Days
<
1x10
­6
NA
0
NA
0
NA
Com..
Farmworker
Day
0
Risk
NA
5.0
x
10
­7
NA
1.9x
10
­6
NA
Com..
Farmworker
Days
<
1x10
­6
NA
0
NA
4
NA
Table
19:
Summary
of
Carbaryl
Cancer
Postapplication
Worker
Risks
Crop
Group
Result
Type
Exposure
Descriptor
(From
Policy
003/
See
Appendix
E)

Very
Low
Low
Medium
High
Very
High
88
Bunch/
Bundle
Private
Grower
Day
0
Risk
NA
7.4
x
10
­8
9.6x
10
­7
1.5x
10
­6
NA
Private
Grower
Days
<
1x10
­6
NA
0
0
2
NA
Com..
Farmworker
Day
0
Risk
NA
2.2
x
10
­7
2.9x
10
­6
4.4x
10
­6
NA
Com..
Farmworker
Days
<
1x10
­6
NA
0
5
8
NA
Low
/Med.
Field/
Row
Crops
Private
Grower
Day
0
Risk
NA
3.1x
10
­8
4.7x
10
­7
7.8x
10
­7
NA
Private
Grower
Days
<
1x10
­6
NA
0
0
0
NA
Com..
Farmworker
Day
0
Risk
NA
9.3x
10
­8
1.4x
10
­6
2.3x
10
­6
NA
Com..
Farmworker
Days
<
1x10
­6
NA
0
2
5
NA
Tall
Field/
Row
Crops
Private
Grower
Day
0
Risk
NA
1.2
x
10
­7
5.0
x
10
­7
1.2
x
10
­6
2.1
x
10
­5
Private
Grower
Days
<
1x10
­6
NA0
0
223
Com..
Farmworker
Day
0
Risk
NA
3.7
x
10
­7
1.5
x
10
­6
3.7
x
10
­6
8.5
x
10
­5
Com..
Farmworker
Days
<
1x10
­6
NA
0
3
10
31
Cut
Flowers
Private
Grower
Day
0
Risk
NA
1.0
x
10
­6
1.7
x
10
­6
2.9
x
10
­6
NA
Private
Grower
Days
<
1x10
­6
NA
0
3
6
NA
Com..
Farmworker
Day
0
Risk
NA
3.1
x
10
­6
5.0
x
10
­6
8.7
x
10
­6
NA
Com..
Farmworker
Days
<
1x10
­6
NA
6
9
12
NA
Sugarcane
Private
Grower
Day
0
Risk
NA
NA
5.6
x
10
­7
1.1
x
10
­6
NA
Private
Grower
Days
<
1x10
­6
NA
NA
0
1
NA
Com..
Farmworker
Day
0
Risk
NA
NA
1.7
x
10
­6
3.3
x
10
­6
NA
Com..
Farmworker
Days
<
1x10
­6
NA
NA
3
6
NA
Decid.
Fruit
Trees
Private
Grower
Day
0
Risk
2.1
x
10
­8
2.1
x
10
­7
NA
6.3
x
10
­7
NA
Private
Grower
Days
<
1x10
­6
0
0NA0NA
Com..
Farmworker
Day
0
Risk
6.3
x
10
­8
6.3
x
10
­7
NA
1.9
x
10
­6
NA
Com..
Farmworker
Days
<
1x10
­6
0
0NA6NA
Evergreen
Fruit
Trees
Private
Grower
Day
0
Risk
5.2
x
10
­8
5.2
x
10
­7
1.6
x
10
­6
NA
NA
Private
Grower
Days
<
1x10
­6
0
0
5
NA
NA
Com..
Farmworker
Day
0
Risk
1.6
x
10
­7
1.6
x
10
­6
4.7
x
10
­6
NA
NA
Com..
Farmworker
Days
<
1x10
­6
0
5
16
NA
NA
Nut
Trees
Private
Grower
Day
0
Risk
NA
1.7
x
10
­7
NA
8.7
x
10
­7
NA
Table
19:
Summary
of
Carbaryl
Cancer
Postapplication
Worker
Risks
Crop
Group
Result
Type
Exposure
Descriptor
(From
Policy
003/
See
Appendix
E)

Very
Low
Low
Medium
High
Very
High
89
Private
Grower
Days
<
1x10
­6
NA
0
NA
0
NA
Com..
Farmworker
Day
0
Risk
NA
5.7
x
10
­7
NA
2.6
x
10
­6
NA
Com..
Farmworker
Days
<
1x10
­6
NA
0
NA
10
NA
Turf/
Sod
Private
Grower
Day
0
Risk
NA
8.1
x
10
­8
NA
2.7
x
10
­6
NA
Private
Grower
Days
<
1x10
­6
NA
0
NA
2
NA
Com..
Farmworker
Day
0
Risk
NA
2.4
x
10
­7
NA
8.0
x
10
­6
NA
Com..
Farmworker
Days
<
1x10
­6
NA
0
NA
4
NA
Root
Veg.
Private
Grower
Day
0
Risk
NA
1.2
x
10
­7
6.2
x
10
­7
1.0
x
10
­6
NA
Private
Grower
Days
<
1x10
­6
NA
0
0
0
NA
Com..
Farmworker
Day
0
Risk
NA
3.7
x
10
­7
1.9
x
10
­6
3.1
x
10
­6
NA
Com..
Farmworker
Days
<
1x10
­6
NA
0
4
6
NA
Cucurbit
Veg.
Private
Grower
Day
0
Risk
NA
2.1
x
10
­7
6.2
x
10
­7
1.0
x
10
­6
NA
Private
Grower
Days
<
1x10
­6
NA
0
0
0
NA
Com..
Farmworker
Day
0
Risk
NA
6.2
x
10
­7
1.9
x
10
­6
3.1
x
10
­6
NA
Com..
Farmworker
Days
<
1x10
­6
NA
0
4
6
NA
Fruiting
Veg.
Private
Grower
Day
0
Risk
NA
2.1
x
10
­7
2.9
x
10
­7
4.1
x
10
­7
NA
Private
Grower
Days
<
1x10
­6
NA
0
0
0
NA
Com..
Farmworker
Day
0
Risk
NA
6.2
x
10
­7
8.7
x
10
­7
1.2
x
10
­6
NA
Com..
Farmworker
Days
<
1x10
­6
NA
0
0
1
NA
Brassica
Private
Grower
Day
0
Risk
NA
8.3
x
10
­7
1.7
x
10
­6
2.1
x
10
­6
NA
Private
Grower
Days
<
1x10
­6
NA
0
3
4
NA
Com..
Farmworker
Day
0
Risk
NA
2.5
x
10
­6
5.0
x
10
­6
6.2
x
10
­6
NA
Com..
Farmworker
Days
<
1x10
­6
NA
5
9
10
NA
Leafy
Veg.
Private
Grower
Day
0
Risk
NA
2.1
x
10
­7
6.2
x
10
­7
1.0
x
10
­6
NA
Private
Grower
Days
<
1x10
­6
NA
0
0
0
NA
Com..
Farmworker
Day
0
Risk
NA
6.2
x
10
­7
1.9
x
10
­6
3.1
x
10
­6
NA
Com..
Farmworker
Days
<
1x10
­6
NA
0
4
6
NA
Stem/
stalk
Veg.
Private
Grower
Day
0
Risk
NA
2.2
x
10
­7
3.7
x
10
­7
7.4
x
10
­7
NA
Private
Grower
Days
<
1x10
­6
NA
0
0
0
NA
Table
19:
Summary
of
Carbaryl
Cancer
Postapplication
Worker
Risks
Crop
Group
Result
Type
Exposure
Descriptor
(From
Policy
003/
See
Appendix
E)

Very
Low
Low
Medium
High
Very
High
90
Com..
Farmworker
Day
0
Risk
NA
6.7
x
10
­7
1.1
x
10
­6
2.2
x
10
­6
NA
Com..
Farmworker
Days
<
1x10
­6
NA
0
1
4
NA
Vine/
trellis
Private
Grower
Day
0
Risk
NA
2.1
x
10
­7
4.1
x
10
­7
2.1
x
10
­6
4.1
x
10
­6
Private
Grower
Days
<
1x10
­6
NA0
0
4
8
Com..
Farmworker
Day
0
Risk
NA
6.2
x
10
­7
1.2
x
10
­6
6.2
x
10
­6
1.2
x
10
­5
Com..
Farmworker
Days
<
1x10
­6
NA
0
1
10
13
Nursery/
Ornamentals
Private
Grower
Day
0
Risk
NA
4.5
x
10
­8
7.2
x
10
­8
1.7
x
10
­7
NA
Private
Grower
Days
<
1x10
­6
NA
0
0
0
NA
Com..
Farmworker
Day
0
Risk
NA
1.4
x
10
­7
2.2
x
10
­7
5.0
x
10
­7
NA
Com..
Farmworker
Days
<
1x10
­6
NA
0
0
0
NA
NA
=
Exposure
descriptor
not
applicable
for
that
crop
group.

2.2.5
Summary
of
Occupational
Postapplication
Risk
Concerns
and
Data
Gaps
Current
label
requirements
specify
12
hour
REIs.
For
all
but
the
lowest
exposure
scenarios
in
some
crops,
MOEs
do
not
meet
or
exceed
required
uncertainty
factors
until
several
days
after
application.
If
short­
term
risks
are
considered,
MOEs
meet
or
exceed
the
Agency
uncertainty
factor
generally
in
the
range
of
3
to
5
days
after
application
for
lower
to
medium
exposure
activities
and
from
8
to
12
days
after
application
in
most
higher
exposure
scenarios.
If
intermediate­
term
risks
are
considered,
MOEs
are
not
of
concern
based
on
a
30
day
average
exposures
except
for
higher
level
exposures
such
as
harvesting
in
some
crops.
Chronic
exposures
are
of
concern
for
the
cut
flower
industry
but
not
for
other
general
greenhouse
and
nursery
production
activities
based
on
the
most
recent
ARTF
data.

Cancer
risks
were
calculated
for
private
growers
and
professional
farmworkers
with
the
only
difference
being
the
annual
frequency
of
exposure
days.
Cancer
risks
for
private
growers
and
commercial
farmworkers
are
generally
in
the
10
­8
to
10
­6
range
on
the
day
of
application.
If
a
1x10
­4
cancer
risk
is
the
target,
the
current
REI
would
be
adequate
for
all
scenarios
considered
in
the
91
assessment.
If
a
1x10
­6
cancer
risk
is
used,
then
durations
longer
than
the
current
REI
should
be
considered
for
some
cases
which
are
not
considered
low
to
medium
exposures.
It
should
be
noted
that
the
cancer
risk
calculations
are
less
restrictive
than
noncancer
risk
estimates
for
the
same
scenarios
in
all
cases.

The
Agency
has
used
the
latest
information
to
complete
this
postapplication
risk
assessment
for
carbaryl.
Several
data
gaps
exist
such
as
a
lack
of
exposure
data
on
mechanized
or
partially
mechanized
cultural
practices
where
there
is
a
potential
for
exposure.
Additionally,
because
of
the
number
and
breadth
of
carbaryl
uses,
there
may
be
many
exposure
pathways
where
the
transfer
coefficient
approach
is
not
an
appropriate
model
(e.
g.,
hand
transplanting
where
no
foliar
contact
occurs)
that
have
not
been
quantitatively
addressed
due
to
a
lack
of
data.

2.2.6
Recommendations
For
Refining
Occupational
Postapplication
Risk
Assessment
To
refine
this
occupational
risk
assessment,
data
on
actual
use
patterns
including
rates,
timing,
and
the
kinds
of
tasks
that
are
required
to
produce
agricultural
commodities
and
other
products
would
better
characterize
carbaryl
risks.
Exposure
studies
for
many
cultural
practices
that
lack
data
or
that
are
not
well
represented
in
the
revised
transfer
coefficient
policy
should
also
be
considered
based
on
the
data
gaps
identified
above.
Risk
managers
should
consider
that
the
risks
associated
with
the
current
label
REI
generally
do
not
meet
Agency
risk
targets.

2.3
Occupational
Risk
Characterization
2.3.1
Handler
Characterization
The
occupational
handler
assessment
for
carbaryl
is
complex
in
that
three
different
types
of
noncancer
risk
calculations
were
required
based
on
the
recently
selected
endpoints.
The
durations
of
exposure
that
were
considered
for
noncancer
toxicity
were
short­
term
(
30
days),
intermediateterm
(30
days
up
to
several
months),
and
chronic
(every
working
day).
A
complete
array
of
calculations
was
completed
for
all
identified
exposure
scenarios
using
the
short­
and
intermediateterm
endpoints
because
the
Agency
believes
that
carbaryl
uses
fit
the
criteria
for
both
of
these
durations.
The
only
calculations
that
were
completed
using
the
chronic
endpoint
were
limited
and
those
associated
with
the
greenhouse
and
floriculture
industries
where
these
kinds
of
exposures
may
occur.
Cancer
risks
were
also
calculated
using
a
linear,
low­
dose
extrapolation
model
(i.
e.,
Q1*)
for
both
private
growers
(i.
e.,
10
application
days
per
year)
and
for
those
who
may
more
actively
use
carbaryl
such
as
a
commercial
applicator
(i.
e.,
30
application
days
per
year).
Cancer
calculations
were
completed
as
well
for
every
scenario
that
has
been
identified
for
both
private
growers
and
commercial
applicators.
For
all
of
the
different
types
of
endpoints
selected
(except
chronic
where
a
limited
number
of
calculations
were
completed),
the
Agency
identified
exposures
that
fit
into
28
different
scenarios
which
are
defined
based
on
the
equipment
used
to
make
applications
or
the
type
of
formulation
used.
Within
each
of
these
categories,
different
application
rates
and
acres
treated
values
were
considered
to
evaluate
the
broad
range
of
applications
that
may
occur
with
each
kind
of
equipment
(e.
g.,
a
groundboom
may
be
used
for
turf
or
agriculture).
All
totaled,
128
different
crop/
rate/
acres
combinations
were
considered
within
the
28
scenarios
for
the
short­
and
92
intermediate­
term
toxicity
categories
plus
4
chronic
crop/
rate/
acre
combinations.
The
overall
result
is
that
4
sets
of
128
calculations
each
(516
total
calculations)
were
completed
for
occupational
carbaryl
handlers.
Finally,
it
should
be
noted
that
each
calculation
was
completed
at
different
levels
of
personal
protection
to
allow
for
a
more
informed
risk
management
decision.
Even
given
the
scope
of
the
calculations
that
have
already
been
completed,
it
is
likely
that
there
are
some
uses
of
carbaryl
that
have
not
been
quantitatively
addressed
in
this
document
either
through
lack
of
exposure
data
or
other
information
and
because
carbaryl
is
such
a
widely
used
chemical.
These
scenarios
will
be
addressed
by
the
Agency
when
they
are
identified
as
carbaryl
progresses
through
the
reregistration
process.
Readers
are
also
encouraged
to
evaluate
novel
scenarios
by
considering
the
range
of
estimates
already
completed
as
it
is
likely
that
many
uses
could
be
quantitatively
assessed
by
reviewing
those
calculations
as
a
wide
array
of
chemical
use
combinations
and
equipment
types
have
already
been
considered.

The
data
that
were
used
in
the
carbaryl
occupational
handler
risk
assessment
represent
the
best
data
and
approaches
that
are
currently
available.
While
some
of
the
data
which
have
been
used
may
not
be
of
optimal
quality,
they
represent
the
best
available
data
for
the
scenario
in
question.
In
many
cases,
the
Pesticide
Handlers
Exposure
Database
(PHED)
was
used
to
develop
the
unit
exposure
values.
The
quality
of
the
data
included
in
PHED
vary
widely
from
scenarios
that
meet
guideline
requirements
for
studies
to
others
where
a
limited
number
of
poor
quality
datapoints
are
available.
The
results
for
each
scenario
should
be
reviewed
in
the
context
of
the
quality
of
these
data.
In
addition
to
PHED,
the
Agency
used
a
number
of
studies
to
define
unit
exposure
values.
Generally,
the
quality
of
these
studies
is
excellent.
Most,
except
for
the
trigger
sprayer
data,
are
very
recent
and
based
on
the
newest
analytical
requirements
and
monitoring
techniques.
PHED
unit
exposure
values
represent
a
central
tendency
of
the
data
(i.
e.,
geometric
mean,
median
or
arithmetic
mean
depending
upon
the
distribution
of
the
data).
As
such,
the
values
based
on
the
recent
studies
also
are
measures
of
central
tendency
(e.
g.,
the
geometric
means
were
selected
from
each
study
for
assessment
purposes
in
most
cases).
Along
with
the
unit
exposure
values
used
in
the
assessment,
other
inputs
include
application
rates
and
daily
acres
treated
values.
Selected
application
rates
represent
a
range
for
each
major
market
in
which
carbaryl
is
used
including
agriculture,
turf
(lawncare,
golf
courses,
etc.),
ornamentals,
and
for
wide
area
applications
such
as
mosquito
control.
Many
application
rates
also
represent
maximum
amounts
that
are
allowed
by
the
label
for
certain
settings.
Where
available,
average
use
rates
were
also
used
to
provide
for
a
more
informed
risk
management
decision.
The
application
rates
that
were
selected
for
use
in
the
risk
assessment
were
defined
based
on
labels,
information
provided
by
the
Aventis
Corporation
at
the
September
24,
1998
SMART
Meeting
for
carbaryl,
and
based
on
various
analyses
of
carbaryl
use
patterns
completed
by
the
Agency's
Biological
and
Economic
Analysis
Division.
The
other
key
input
for
completing
handler
risk
assessments
used
for
defining
how
much
chemical
can
be
used
in
a
day
is
how
much
can
be
treated
in
a
day
which
is
generally
expressed
as
the
number
of
acres
treated
per
day.
The
values
that
were
used
for
this
parameter
represent
the
latest
Agency
thinking
on
this
issue.
In
fact,
the
Science
Advisory
Council
For
Exposure
recently
updated
the
policy
for
these
inputs
(July
2000
Exposure
SAC
Policy
9:
Standard
Values
for
Daily
Acres
Treated
in
Agriculture).
These
most
recent
values
have
been
used
for
the
calculations.

In
addition
to
the
key
sources
of
information
considered
above,
there
are
many
underlying
factors
that
may
impact
the
overall
results
of
a
risk
assessment.
For
example,
the
protection
factors
93
used
for
adding
additional
levels
of
dermal
and
respiratory
protection
may
impact
the
overall
risk
picture.
The
factors
used
in
this
assessment
by
the
Agency
are
the
ones
that
have
been
used
for
several
years.
Other
such
factors
may
include
the
fact
that
average
application
rates
have
been
generally
used
to
represent
typical
application
rates
to
calculate
ranges
of
risks
when
it
is
clear
that
the
two
values
could
differ
greatly.
The
Agency
has
taken
this
approach
because
the
data
required
to
define
typical
application
rates
within
each
crop
are
generally
unavailable.
There
are
also
exposure
monitoring
issues
that
should
be
considered.
For
example,
in
many
cases
the
data
included
in
PHED
are
based
on
the
use
of
cotton
gloves
for
hand
exposure
monitoring
which
are
thought
by
many
to
overestimate
exposure
because
they
potentially
retain
residues
more
than
human
skin
would
over
time
(i.
e.,
they
may
act
like
a
sponge
compared
to
the
actual
hand).
A
similar
issue
was
noted
with
the
carbaryl­
specific
dog
grooming
study
that
used
the
handwash
approach
to
monitor
exposure
after
shampooing
several
dogs.
These
intangible
elements
of
the
risk
assessment
reflect
many
of
the
hidden
uncertainties
associated
with
exposure
data.
The
overall
impacts
of
these
uncertainties
is
hard
to
quantify.
The
factor
to
again
consider
is
that
the
Agency
used
the
best
available
data
to
complete
the
risk
assessment
for
carbaryl.

In
summary,
the
Agency
believes
that
the
risk
values
presented
in
this
occupational
assessment
represent
the
highest
quality
results
that
could
be
produced
given
the
exposure,
use,
and
toxicology
data
that
are
available.
Certainly
risk
managers
and
other
interested
parties
should
consider
the
quality
of
individual
inputs
when
interpreting
the
results
and
make
decisions
accordingly.
It
is
difficult
to
ascertain
where
on
a
distribution
the
values
which
have
been
calculated
fall
because
the
distributional
data
for
exposure,
application
rates,
acres
treated
and
many
other
parameters
are
unrefined.
The
Agency
does
believe,
however,
that
the
risks
represent
conservative
estimates
of
exposure
because
maximum
application
rates
are
coupled
with
large
acreage
estimates
to
define
risk
estimates
that
likely
fall
in
the
upper
percentiles
of
the
actual
exposure
distributions.
Additionally,
risk
estimates
are
thought
to
be
conservative
even
when
measures
of
central
tendency
are
combined
because
values
that
would
be
considered
to
be
in
the
lower
percentile
aspect
of
any
input
parameter
have
not
been
used
in
the
calculations.

2.3.2
Postapplication
Characterization
Like
the
occupational
handler
risk
assessment
discussed
above,
the
postapplication
worker
risk
assessment
for
carbaryl
is
also
complex
in
that
three
different
types
of
noncancer
risk
calculations
were
required
based
on
the
recently
selected
endpoints
along
with
cancer
risk
calculations
using
a
linear,
low­
dose
extrapolation
model.
For
all
of
the
different
types
of
endpoints
selected
(except
chronic
where
a
limited
number
of
calculations
were
completed),
the
Agency
identified
exposures
that
fit
into
18
different
crop
groups
which
are
defined
essentially
based
on
the
nature
of
the
crop
where
a
work
activity
would
take
place.
Within
each
of
these
crop
groups,
ranges
of
transfer
coefficients
were
considered
to
reflect
differences
in
exposures
that
would
be
associated
with
the
variety
of
cultural
practices
that
are
required
to
produce
the
crop/
product.
All
totaled,
54
different
cultural
practices
were
considered
within
the
18
crop
groups
for
each
toxicity
category.
The
overall
result
is
that
4
sets
of
54
calculations
each
(216
plus
a
few
chronic
values)
were
completed
for
postapplication
workers.
Finally,
it
should
be
noted
that
each
calculation
was
completed
at
different
days
after
application
to
reflect
residue
dissipation
over
time
in
the
environment
and
to
allow
for
a
more
informed
risk
management
decision.
Even
given
the
scope
of
94
the
calculations
that
have
already
been
completed,
it
is
likely
that
there
are
some
uses
of
carbaryl
that
have
not
been
quantitatively
addressed
in
this
document
either
through
lack
of
exposure
data
or
other
information
and
because
carbaryl
is
such
a
widely
used
chemical.
These
scenarios
will
be
addressed
by
the
Agency
when
they
are
identified
as
carbaryl
progresses
through
the
reregistration
process.
Readers
are
also
encouraged
to
evaluate
novel
scenarios
by
considering
the
range
of
estimates
already
completed
as
it
is
likely
that
many
uses
could
be
quantitatively
assessed
by
reviewing
existing
calculations
as
a
wide
array
of
crop/
activity
combinations
have
already
been
considered.

The
data
that
were
used
in
the
carbaryl
postaapplication
worker
risk
assessment
represent
the
best
data
and
approaches
that
are
currently
available.
The
latest
Agency
transfer
coefficient
values
have
been
used
to
complete
this
assessment
including
the
recently
submitted
ARTF
studies
on
greenhouse
workers.
Most
of
the
values
in
the
current
Agency
policy
are
based
on
the
work
of
the
Agricultural
Reentry
Task
Force
(ARTF)
of
which,
Aventis
is
a
member.
The
current
Agency
policy
is
interim
in
nature
but
represents
all
of
the
data
that
have
been
submitted
by
the
ARTF
and
evaluated
by
the
Agency.
The
work
of
the
ARTF
is
still
ongoing
so
additional
data
may
become
available
to
refine
the
exposure
estimates
as
more
data
are
submitted
to
the
Agency.
Also,
it
is
possible
that
there
are
exposure
scenarios
that
have
not
been
addressed
by
the
Agency
because
the
transfer
coefficient
model
is
not
appropriate
as
there
is
little
or
no
foliar
contact
associated
with
the
activity.
There
are
also
potentially,
partially
mechanized
activities
that
could
lead
to
exposure
where
the
Agency
has
no
information.
These
will
need
to
be
carefully
considered
in
the
reregistration
process.
In
addition
to
the
exposure
inputs
for
specific
activities
(i.
e.,
transfer
coefficients),
the
Agency
used
4
carbaryl­
specific
DFR
(Dislodgeable
Foliar
Residue)
dissipation
studies
and
a
single
TTR
(Turf
Transferable
Residue)
study
to
calculate
risks
for
all
postapplication
workers
in
every
region
in
the
country.
It
is
standard
practice
for
the
Agency
to
use
these
kinds
of
studies
in
this
manner
but
it
is
likely
that
additional
crop­
and
region­
specific
data
could
be
used
to
further
refine
the
risk
assessment.
Several
other
key
pieces
of
data
and
information
were
considered
in
the
development
of
the
postapplication
risk
values
including
use
and
usage
information
and
exposure
frequency
in
the
cancer
risk
assessment.
For
many
agricultural
crops,
the
maximum
application
rate
is
low
(e.
g.,
1.5
to
2
lb
ai/
acre)
in
many
crops.
As
a
result,
postapplication
risks
were
generally
calculated
at
maximum
rate
levels
because
of
the
already
inherent
complexity
of
the
assessment
and
because
it
is
likely
that
results
may
not
be
extremely
sensitive
to
changes
in
this
value.

In
addition
to
the
key
sources
of
information
considered
above,
there
are
many
underlying
factors
that
may
impact
the
overall
results
of
a
risk
assessment.
For
example,
subtle
differences
between
activities
in
similar
crops
within
each
of
the
18
agronomic
groups
considered
in
the
assessment
may
not
be
accurately
reflected
in
the
current
transfer
coefficient
values.
The
use
of
4
DFR
studies
to
represent
all
crops
and
all
regions
within
the
country
could
lead
to
results
that
do
not
reflect
actual
use
practices
and
conditions
in
some
parts
of
the
country.
Additionally,
the
exposure
frequency
values
that
were
used
for
private
growers
and
professional
farmworkers
tend
to
be
supported
by
available
data
but
could
be
refined
if
data
on
work
patterns
and
regional
carbaryl
use
becomes
available.
As
with
the
handler
assessment
above,
the
intangible
elements
reflect
many
of
the
hidden
uncertainties
associated
with
exposure
data.
The
overall
impacts
of
these
uncertainties
is
hard
to
quantify.
The
factor
to
again
consider
is
that
the
Agency
used
the
best
available
data
to
95
complete
the
risk
assessment
for
carbaryl.

In
summary,
the
Agency
believes
that
the
risk
values
presented
in
this
postapplication
assessment
represent
the
highest
quality
results
that
could
be
produced
given
the
exposure,
use,
and
toxicology
data
that
are
available.
Certainly
risk
managers
and
other
interested
parties
should
consider
the
quality
of
individual
inputs
when
interpreting
the
results
and
make
decisions
accordingly.
It
is
difficult
to
ascertain
where
on
a
distribution
the
values
which
have
been
calculated
fall
because
the
distributional
data
for
exposure,
residue
dissipation
and
many
other
parameters
are
unrefined.
The
Agency
does
believe,
however,
that
the
risks
represent
conservative
estimates
of
exposure
because
maximum
application
rates
are
used
to
define
residue
levels
upon
which
the
risk
calculations
are
based.
Additionally,
risk
estimates
are
thought
to
be
conservative
even
when
measures
of
central
tendency
(e.
g.,
most
transfer
coefficients
are
thought
to
be
central
tendency)
are
used
because
values
that
would
be
considered
to
be
in
the
lower
percentile
aspect
of
any
input
parameter
have
not
been
used
in
the
calculations.

3.0
Residential
and
Other
Non­
Occupational
Exposures
and
Risks
It
has
been
determined
there
is
a
potential
for
exposure
in
residential
settings
during
the
application
process
for
homeowners
who
purchase
and
use
products
containing
carbaryl.
There
is
also
a
potential
for
exposure
from
entering
areas
previously
treated
with
carbaryl
such
as
lawns
where
children
might
play
or
golf
courses
and
homegardens
that
could
lead
to
exposures
for
adults.
Carbaryl
is
also
labeled
for
mosquito
adulticide
use
which
has
been
considered
in
this
assessment.
As
a
result,
risk
assessments
have
been
completed
for
both
residential
handler
and
postapplication
scenarios.
Residential
handler
exposures
and
risks
are
addressed
in
Section
3.1:
Residential
Handler
Exposures
and
Risks
while
residential
post­
application
risks
for
adults
and
children
are
presented
and
summarized
in
Section
3.2:
Residential
Post­
Application
Exposures
and
Risks.
The
calculated
risks
are
characterized
in
Section
3.3:
Residential
Risk
Characterization.

3.1
Residential
Handler
Exposures
and
Risks
The
Agency
uses
the
term
"Handlers"
to
describe
those
individuals
who
are
involved
in
the
pesticide
application
process.
The
agency
believes
that
there
are
distinct
tasks
related
to
applications
and
that
exposures
can
vary
depending
on
the
specifics
of
each
task
as
was
described
above
for
occupational
handlers.
Residential
handlers
are
addressed
somewhat
differently
by
the
Agency
as
homeowners
are
assumed
to
complete
all
elements
of
an
application
with
little
use
of
any
protective
equipment.
The
scenarios
that
serve
as
the
basis
for
the
risk
assessment
are
presented
in
Section
3.1.1:
Handler
Exposure
Scenarios.
The
exposure
data
and
assumptions
that
have
been
used
for
the
calculations
are
presented
in
Section
3.1.2:
Data
and
Assumptions
For
Handler
Exposure
Scenarios.
The
calculations
and
the
algorithms
that
have
been
used
for
the
noncancer
elements
of
the
risk
assessment
as
well
as
the
risk
values
are
presented
in
Section
3.1.3:
Handler
Exposure
and
Non­
Cancer
Risk
Estimates
while
the
analogous
information
using
the
Q1*
for
cancer
estimates
are
presented
in
Section
3.1.4:
Handler
Exposure
and
Risk
Estimates
For
Cancer.
Section
3.1.5:
Summary
of
Risk
Concerns
and
Data
Gaps
For
Handlers
presents
the
overall
risk
picture
for
carbaryl.
Finally,
recommendations
are
presented
in
Section
3.1.6:
Recommendations
For
Refining
Residential
Handler
Risk
Assessment.
96
3.1.1
Handler
Exposure
Scenarios
Scenarios
are
again
used,
as
with
the
occupational
handler
risk
assessment
above,
to
define
risks
based
on
the
U.
S.
EPA
Guidelines
For
Exposure
Assessment
(U.
S.
EPA;
Federal
Register
Volume
57,
Number
104;
May
29,
1992).
The
purpose
of
this
section
is
to
describe
how
the
exposure
scenarios
were
defined.
Much
of
the
process
for
residential
uses
is
identical
to
that
considered
for
the
occupational
assessment
with
a
few
notable
exceptions
that
include:

°
Residential
handler
exposure
scenarios
are
only
considered
to
be
short­
term
in
nature
due
to
the
episodic
uses
associated
with
homeowner
products,
as
a
result,
no
intermediate­
term
or
chronic
assessments
were
completed
for
handlers;

°
A
tiered
approach
for
personal
protection
using
increasing
levels
of
PPE
is
not
used
in
residential
handler
risk
assessments,
rather
than
using
PPE,
homeowner
handler
assessments
are
completed
based
on
individuals
using
shorts
and
short­
sleeved
shirts;

°
Homeowner
handlers
are
expected
to
complete
all
tasks
associated
with
the
use
of
a
pesticide
product
including
mixing/
loading
if
needed
as
well
as
the
application;

°
Label
use
rates
and
use
information
specific
to
residential
products
serve
as
the
basis
for
the
risk
calculations
as
opposed
to
the
rates
used
in
the
occupational
assessment;
and
°
Area/
volumes
of
spray
or
chemical
used
in
the
risk
assessment
are
based
on
Agency
guidance
specific
to
residential
use
patterns.

It
has
been
determined
that
exposure
to
pesticide
handlers
is
likely
during
the
residential
use
of
carbaryl
in
a
variety
of
environments
including
on
lawns,
gardens
and
ornamentals,
and
pets.
The
anticipated
use
patterns
and
current
labeling
indicate
17
major
residential
exposure
scenarios
based
on
the
types
of
equipment
and
techniques
that
can
potentially
be
used
to
make
carbaryl
applications.
The
quantitative
exposure/
risk
assessment
developed
for
residential
handlers
is
based
on
these
scenarios.
[Note:
The
scenario
numbers
correspond
to
the
tables
of
risk
calculations
included
in
the
occupational
risk
calculation
aspects
of
the
appendices.]

(1)
Garden
Uses:
Ready­
to­
use
Trigger
Sprayer;
(2)
Garden
Uses:
Ornamental
Duster;
(3)
Garden
Uses:
Hose­
end
Sprayer;
(4)
Garden
Uses:
Low
Pressure
Handwand;
(5)
Tree/
ornamental
Uses:
Low
Pressure
Handwand;
(6)
Tree/
ornamental
Uses:
Hose­
end
Sprayer;
(7)
Garden
Uses:
Backpack
Sprayer;
(8)
Lawncare
Liquid
Uses:
Hose­
end
Sprayer;
(9)
Pet
(Dog
and
Cat)
Uses:
Dusting;
(10)
Pet
(Dog
and
Cat)
Uses:
Liquid
Application;
(11)
Lawncare
Granular
and
Bait
Uses:
Belly
Grinder;
(12)
Lawncare
Granular
and
Bait
Uses:
Push­
type
Spreader;
97
(13)
Ornamental
and
Garden
Uses:
Granulars
and
Baits
By
Hand;
(14)
Various
Pest
Uses:
Aerosol
Cans;
(15)
Pet
(Dog
and
Cat)
Uses:
Collars;
(16)
Garden
and
Ornamental
Uses:
Sprinkler
Can;
and
(17)
Garden
and
Ornamental
Uses:
Paint­
on.

3.1.2
Data
and
Assumptions
For
Handler
Exposure
Scenarios
A
series
of
assumptions
and
exposure
factors
served
as
the
basis
for
completing
the
residential
handler
risk
assessments.
Each
assumption
and
factor
is
detailed
below.
In
addition
to
these
factors,
unit
exposure
values
were
used
to
calculate
risk
estimates.
Mostly,
these
unit
exposure
values
were
taken
from
the
Pesticide
Handlers
Exposure
Database
(PHED).
In
other
cases,
chemical­
specific
exposure
data
were
submitted
to
support
the
reregistration
of
carbaryl.
Both
PHED
and
the
individual
studies
are
presented
below.
[Note:
Several
of
the
assumptions
and
factors
used
for
the
assessment
are
similar
to
those
used
in
the
occupational
assessment
presented
above.
As
such,
only
factors
that
are
unique
to
the
residential
scenarios
are
presented
below.]

Assumptions
and
Factors:
The
assumptions
and
factors
used
in
the
risk
calculations
include:

C
Carbaryl
is
one
of
the
most
widely
used
pesticide
chemicals.
It
has
an
extraordinary
number
of
use
patterns
that
are
impossible
to
completely
capture
in
this
document.
As
such,
the
Agency
has
patterned
this
risk
assessment
on
a
series
of
likely
representative
scenarios
that
are
believed
to
represent
the
vast
majority
of
carbaryl
uses.
Refinements
to
the
assessment
will
be
made
as
more
detailed
information
about
carbaryl
use
patterns
become
available.

C
Exposure
factors
used
to
calculate
daily
exposures
to
handlers
were
based
on
applicable
data
if
available.
For
lack
of
appropriate
data,
values
from
a
scenario
deemed
similar
enough
by
the
assessor
might
be
used.
As
an
example,
mixer/
loader/
applicator
data
for
hose­
end
sprayers
were
used
to
assess
sprinkler
can
applications.
The
nature
of
these
application
methods
are
believed
to
be
similar
enough
to
bridge
the
data.
There
were
other
instances
where
the
Agency
bridged
specific
data
to
represent
other
scenarios.
See
Appendix
G/
Table
1
for
more
details.
98
C
The
exposure
duration
(i.
e.,
years
per
lifetime)
values
used
by
the
Agency
in
the
cancer
risk
assessment
were
consistent
with
those
used
for
other
chemicals
(i.
e.,
50
years
with
home­
use
chemicals
and
70
year
lifetime).

C
The
Agency
always
considers
the
maximum
application
rates
allowed
by
labels
in
its
risk
assessments
to
consider
what
is
legally
possible
based
on
the
label.
If
additional
information
such
as
average
or
typical
rates
are
available,
these
values
are
also
used
to
allow
risk
managers
to
make
a
more
informed
risk
management
decision.
Average
application
rates
were
available
from
the
SMART
meeting
and
BEAD's
QUA.
These
data
indicated
that
in
most
cases,
average
application
rates
differed
from
maximum
application
rates
on
average
by
a
factor
of
two.
In
some
other
cases,
the
average
application
rates
identified
from
the
studies
conducted
by
Aventis
were
also
used
to
define
"average
study
use
rate
values"
which
were
included
in
the
calculations
to
provide
for
a
more
informed
risk
management
decision.

°
Residential
risk
assessments
were
not
based
on
what
could
be
applied
in
a
typical
workday
like
with
the
occupational
risk
assessments
presented
above.
Instead,
the
Agency
based
calculations
on
what
would
reasonably
be
treated
by
homeowners
such
as
the
size
of
a
lawn,
or
the
size
of
a
garden.
This
information
was
used
by
the
Agency
to
define
chemical
throughput
values
for
handlers
which
in
turn
were
coupled
with
unit
exposure
values
to
calculate
risks.
The
factors
used
for
the
carbaryl
assessment
were
those
dictated
in
the
Health
Effects
Division
Science
Advisory
Committee
Policy
12:
Recommended
Revisions
To
The
Standard
Operating
Procedures
For
Residential
Exposure
Assessment
which
was
completed
on
February
22,
2001.
[Note:
Information
presented
at
SMART
meeting
did
not
include
event­
specific
information
that
would
cause
the
Agency
to
use
different
values
than
those
presented
below.]
The
following
daily
volumes
handled
and
area
treated,
excerpted
from
the
policy
and
used
in
each
residential
scenario,
include:

°
1
container
of
each
ready­
to­
use
non­
pet
product
including
garden
dusts,
trigger
sprayers
and
aerosol
cans
(scenarios
for
25
and
50
%
used
of
the
total
product
volume
were
also
presented
for
the
trigger
sprayer
and
garden
dust
scenarios
to
allow
for
a
more
informed
risk
management
decision);
°
½
container
of
each
ready­
to­
use
pet
products
including
dusts
and
liquid
shampoos;
°
1
pet
collar;
°
100
gallons
of
finished
spray
output
for
hose­
end
sprayers;
°
5
gallons
when
mixing/
loading/
applying
liquids
with
a
backpack
sprayer
or
a
low
pressure
handwand
sprayer,
value
was
also
used
for
sprinkler
can
applications;
°
1
gallon
of
paint­
on
solution
for
ornamental/
garden
uses;
°
20,000
square
feet
is
used
to
represent
the
surface
area
treated
for
broadcast
applications
to
lawns;
°
1000
square
feet
is
used
as
the
treatment
area
for
many
spot
applications
in
lawns,
gardens,
and
ornamentals
(this
value
used
as
appropriate
when
application
rates
were
based
on
a
square
foot
basis
for
spot­
type
treatments);
and
°
5
mounds
per
day
treated
for
fire
ant
applications.
99
°
At
the
September
24,
1998
SMART
Meeting
with
the
Agency,
the
Aventis
Corporation
supplied
data
focused
on
the
use
patterns
for
carbaryl.
The
information
presented
at
that
meeting
supports
the
inputs
used
by
the
Agency
in
this
risk
assessment.
Several
key
factors
have
been
summarized
below
for
residential
users
of
carbaryl:
°
Carbaryl
accounted
for
approximately
9
percent
of
the
residential
insecticide
market
and
was
ranked
4
th
on
the
list
behind
the
pyrtethroids,
chlorpyrifos,
and
diazinon
[Note:
This
may
be
different
in
2001
because
of
registration
changes
for
other
chemicals];
°
The
maximum
turf
application
rate
noted
was
8
lb
ai/
acre
by
lawns/
landscape
services
on
residential
turf;
°
Insect
control
on
vegetables
(~
58%
of
users),
annuals
(~
50%
of
users),
lawns
(~
35%
of
users),
trees/
shrubs
(~
34%
of
users)
account
for
the
majority
of
uses
for
carbaryl;
°
Pet
uses
account
for
~13
percent
of
users;
°
The
annual
frequency
for
use
was
reported
to
be
1
(34
th
%tile)
to
2
times
per
year
(60
th
%tile)
and
5
times
per
year
(84
th
%tile);
°
Aphids,
ants,
fire
ants,
fleas,
and
slugs/
snails
are
the
most
predominantly
controlled
pests
by
residential
carbaryl
users
(~
30%
down
to
15%
of
uses,
respectively);
°
Most
(75%)
of
vegetable
gardens
treated
with
carbaryl
are
<800
ft
2
but
~8
percent
are
between
800
and
1500
ft
2
,
~9
percent
are
between
1500
and
5000
ft
2
,
and
~6
percent
are
greater
than
5000
ft
2
;
°
Tomatoes,
peppers,
cucumbers,
beans,
and
fruit
trees
represent
the
most
treated
garden
plants;
°
Most
(82%)
of
flower
gardens
treated
with
carbaryl
are
<500
ft
2
but
~10
percent
are
between
500
and
1200
ft
2
,
and
~8
percent
are
greater
than
1200
ft
2
;
°
Roses,
shrubs,
and
certain
annuals
represent
the
most
treated
flowering/
ornamental
plants;
and
°
Dusts
(65%)
and
liquid
concentrate
(25%)
account
for
most
carbaryl
sales
in
the
residential
annual
market
of
~2.2M
pounds
active
ingredient
per
year.

°
The
Aventis
Corporation
provided
data
for
freqency
of
annual
use
among
residential
applicators
that
had
been
used
to
calculate
cancer
risks
for
adults
in
the
general
population.
These
data
show
that
the
50
th
percentile
is
between
1
and
2
uses
per
year
so
all
cancer
risks
have
been
calculated
based
on
a
single
use
event
per
year.
Risk
managers
should
consider
this
element
in
their
interpretation
of
the
overall
results.
For
example,
there
might
be
a
smaller
population
of
more
frequent
users
(e.
g.,
84
th
%tile
=
5
times
per
year)
that
maintain
high
frequencies
of
use
over
their
lifetimes
which
is
critical
for
consideration
in
cancer
risk
assessment.
Longitudinal
data,
however,
were
not
available
to
establish
that
such
populations
definitively
exist.
Additionally,
the
Agency
calculated
the
number
of
days
exposure
per
year
that
would
be
required
to
exceed
a
risk
level
of
1.0x10
­6
to
illustrate
an
exposure
limit
in
order
to
allow
for
a
more
informed
risk
management
decision.

°
For
pet
collar
uses,
Agency
policy
outlined
in
the
Residential
SOPs,
was
used
to
define
the
exposure
level
associated
with
putting
the
collar
on
an
animal.
The
SOPs
specify
1
percent
of
the
total
active
ingredient
in
the
collar
is
considered
equal
to
the
exposure.
100
°
For
turf,
the
maximum
application
rate
that
was
indicated
at
the
SMART
meeting
was
8
lb
ai/
acre
even
though
current
labels
allow
for
applications
by
homeowners
at
up
to
11
lb
ai/
acre
for
Lock­
n­
load
type
packages
and
9
lb
ai/
acre
for
granulars.

Residential
Handler
Exposure
Studies:
The
unit
exposure
values
that
were
used
in
this
assessment
were
based
on
three
carbaryl­
specific
residential
handler
studies
which
quantified
exposures
during
pet
treatments
with
a
dust;
applications
to
gardens
using
a
ready­
to­
use
trigger
sprayer,
a
dust,
a
hose­
end
sprayer,
and
a
low­
pressure
handwand;
and
during
applications
to
trees
using
a
low­
pressure
handwand
and
a
hose­
end
sprayer.
Two
other
studies
completed
by
the
Outdoor
Residential
Exposure
Task
Force
and
the
Pesticide
Handler
Exposure
Database
(PHED,
Version
1.1
August
1998)
were
also
used
as
sources
of
surrogate
information.
For
pet
collars
only,
a
scenario
from
the
SOPs
For
Residential
Exposure
Assessment
not
based
on
monitoring
data
was
used
to
calculate
exposures.
A
citation
for
each
study
as
well
as
a
brief
summary
is
provided
below.
[Note:
PHED
is
described
above
in
Section
2.1.2,
refer
to
that
section
for
further
information.]

°
Carbaryl
Applicator
Exposure
Study
During
Application
of
Sevin
®
5
Dust
to
Dogs
By
the
Non­
Professional.
Agrisearch
Study
No.
1517.
EPA
MRID
444399­
01.
Report
date
August
22,
1997;
Authors:
D.
Larry
Merricks,
Ph.
D.,
Sponsor:
Rhone
Poulenc
Ag
Company.

°
Carbaryl
Mixer/
Loader/
Applicator
Exposure
Study
during
Application
of
RP­
2
Liquid
(21%)
Sevin
®
Ready
to
Use
Insect
Spray
or
Sevin
®
10
Dust
to
Home
Garden
Vegetables.
Agrisearch
Study
No.
1519.
EPA
MRID
444598­
01.
Report
dated
August
22,
1998,
Author;
Thomas
C.
Mester,
Ph.
D.,
Sponsor:
Rhone
Poulenc
Ag
Company.

°
Carbaryl
Mixer/
Loader/
Applicator
Exposure
Study
during
Application
of
RP­
2
Liquid
(21%)
to
Fruit
Trees
and
Ornamental
Plants.
Agrisearch
Study
No.
1518.
MRID
445185­
01.
Report
dated
January
23,
1998.
Author
D.
Larry
Merricks,
Ph.
D.,
Sponsor:
Rhone
Poulenc
Ag
Company.

°"
Integrated
Report
For
Evaluation
of
Potential
Exposures
To
Homeowners
and
Professional
Lawncare
Operators
Mixing,
Loading,
and
Applying
Granular
And
Liquid
Pesticides
To
Residential
Lawns
"
EPA
MRID
449722­
01;
October
10,
1999;
Author:
Dennis
R.
Klonne,
Ph.
D.;
Sponsor:
Outdoor
Residential
Exposure
Task
Force;
EPA
Review
by
Gary
Bangs
(April
30,
2001).

[Note
to
Chemical
Review
Manager:
Appendix
F
contains
the
data
excerpted
from
each
of
the
carbaryl­
specific
studies
which
were
recently
completed
by
the
Aventis
Corporation.
Some
of
the
handler
exposure
data
used
in
this
assessment
are
from
the
Outdoor
Residential
Exposure
Task
Force
(ORETF).
There
is
no
data
compensation
issue
associated
with
the
use
of
the
ORETF
data
in
the
carbaryl
risk
assessment
because
the
Aventis
Corporation,
the
registrant
for
carbaryl,
is
a
member
of
the
ORETF.
The
task
force
recently
submitted
proprietary
data
to
the
Agency
on
hoseend
sprayers
and
push­
type
granular
spreaders
for
residential
handlers
(MRID
#
44972201).
The
ORETF
data
were
used
in
this
assessment
in
place
of
PHED
data.
The
ORETF
data
were
designed
to
replace
the
present
PHED
data
with
higher­
confidence,
higher
quality
data
that
contains
more
101
replicates
than
the
PHED
data
for
those
scenarios.
Finally,
the
Agency
identified
several
occupational
exposure
studies
from
the
literature
by
investigators
such
as
Kurtz
and
Bode.
These
data
have
not
been
used
by
the
Agency
quantitatively
in
this
assessment
because
of
several
issues
but
were
qualitatively
considered
and
also
used
to
confirm
the
currently
used
exposure
data.]

MRID
44439901
(Carbaryl
homeowner
dog
dusting
study):
The
objective
of
the
study
was
to
measure
homeowner
dermal
and
respiratory
exposure
to
carbaryl
while
dusting
3
dogs
for
fleas
using
Sevin®
5
Dust.
The
dogs
were
from
a
local
facility
and
varied
in
size
and
fur
length.
The
product
was
supplied
to
the
handlers
in
1
lb.
Ortho
Sevin
®
5
Dust
canisters.
The
handlers
opened
the
can,
shook
the
product
onto
the
dogs
coat
and
rubbed
the
dust
into
the
fur.
The
first
replicate
consisted
of
each
applicator
applying
dust
to
3
dogs
of
varying
size
with
chemical
resistant
gloves
on.
The
first
set
of
monitoring
devices,
handwashes
and
face/
neck
wipes
and
air
monitors
were
taken
and
replaced
with
a
clean
set
of
dosimeters
on
the
same
person
for
the
second
set
of
replicates.
The
second
replicate
was
the
same
handler
applying
Ortho
®
Sevin
®
5
Dust
without
gloves
on
3
dogs.
A
total
of
40
replicates
were
collected,
20
replicates
with
gloves
and
20
replicates
without
gloves.

Each
replicate
wore
inner
and
outer
dosimeters
to
simulate
skin
and
clothing
respectively.
The
inner
dosimeter
layer
consisted
of
100
percent
cotton
long
leg
and
long
sleeved
underwear
worn
beneath
the
outer
dosimeter
of
long
leg
and
long
sleeved
100
percent
cotton
work
clothes.
Each
dosimeter
was
cut
into
six
separate
dermal
body
part
samples
(i.
e.,
lower
and
upper
arms,
lower
and
upper
legs,
front
and
back
torso)
for
a
total
of
480
dermal
samples
for
handlers
with
gloves
and
without
gloves.
The
cloth
dosimeter
parts
(inner
and
outer),
handwashes,
face/
neck
wipes
and
air
monitoring
devices
frozen,
sent
to
a
laboratory
and
analyzed
for
carbaryl.
The
amount
of
product
used
to
dust
3
dogs
averaged
65.3
grams
or
3.51
grams
ai.
On
average
to
dust
3
dogs
required
7
minutes.

Field
fortification
recoveries
for
passive
dosimeters
averaged
>90
percent
for
inner
and
outer
dosimeters.
Face
and
neck
wipe
fortifications
average
87.6
percent.
Inhalation
OVS
tube
field
fortification
averaged
100
percent,
however
one
sample
of
30
was
damaged
in
shipping
and
one
day
does
not
have
field
fortification
data.
Dosimeter
field
fortification
results
that
were
>90
percent
were
not
adjusted,
therefore
only
the
face
and
neck
wipe
were
adjusted
for
field
recovery.
Laboratory
method
validation
for
each
matrix
fell
within
the
acceptable
range
of
70
to
120
percent.
Storage
stability
tests
were
done
and
acceptable.

Unit
exposure
values
were
calculated
using
the
data
from
the
study
and
a
commercial
spreadsheet
program.
The
study
reported
the
total
exposure
to
carbaryl
as
only
the
inner
dosimeter.
Since
this
is
a
residential
product,
inner
dosimeter
upper
arm
and
upper
legs,
front
and
back
torso
were
combined
with
the
outer
dosimeter
lower
arms
and
lower
legs
to
account
for
the
handler
wearing,
a
short­
sleeved
shirt,
short
pants
and
no
gloves.
The
exposures
that
were
calculated
were
normalized
by
the
amount
of
chemical
used
and
by
the
body
weight
of
the
dogs
treated
by
the
individual
applicators.
For
each
calculation,
the
arithmetic
mean,
geometric
mean,
and
median
of
the
data
are
presented
in
Table
20
below.
No
analyses
were
completed
with
these
data
to
ascertain
the
exact
type
of
distribution.
The
Agency
typically
uses
the
best
fit
values
from
the
Pesticide
Handlers
Exposure
Database
which
are
representations
of
the
central
tendency.
Considering
the
102
standard
practice,
the
Agency
will
use
the
geometric
mean
for
risk
assessment
purposes.
The
other
values
are
presented
for
comparative
purposes.

Table
20:
Unit
Exposure
Values
Obtained
From
Carbaryl
Homeowner
Dog
Dusting
Study
(MRID
444399­
01)
Type
(mg
exp./
lb
ai
handled)
(mg
exp./
lb
treated
dog)
Dermal
Inhalation
Dermal
Inhalation
Applications
with
a
dust
to
dogs
Arith.
Mean
3800
33
0.0080
5.0
x
10
­12
Geo.
Mean
3300
25
0.0052
3.8
x
10
­12
Median
3300
27
0.0057
3.9
x
10
­12
MRID
44459801
(Carbaryl
application
to
vegetables
study):
The
data
collected
reflect
the
dermal
and
respiratory
exposure
of
homeowners
mixing,
loading
and
applying
RP­
2
Liquid
(21%),
a
carbaryl
end­
use
product.
Applications
were
made
by
volunteers
to
two
18
foot
rows
of
tomatoes
and
one
18
foot
row
of
cucumber.
The
only
test
field
was
located
in
Florida.
For
this
study,
RP­
2
Liquid
(21%)
exposures
were
monitored
using
hose­
end
sprayers
and
low­
pressure
handwand
sprayers.
Exposures
to
Sevin
®
10
Dust,
using
a
separate
duster
device
that
required
transfer
from
the
package
and
Sevin
®
Ready
To
Use
Insect
Spray
(RTU)
in
a
trigger
sprayer
package
were
also
monitored.
Exposure
for
each
spray
method/
product
combination
was
monitored
using
40
handlers
(replicates).
Of
the
40
replicates
per
spray
method/
product
combination,
20
wore
household
latex
gloves
and
20
performed
tasks
without
gloves.
The
20
dust
product
replicates
loaded
the
dusters
and
applied
without
gloves
only.

Each
replicate
opened
the
end­
use
product,
added
it
to
the
application
implement
(except
the
RTU
product),
adjusted
the
setting
and
applied
it
to
the
vegetable
rows.
After
application
to
the
vegetable
rows,
dosimeters
were
collected.
Inhalation
exposure
was
monitored
with
personal
air
sampling
pumps
with
OVS
tubes
attached
to
the
shirt
collar
in
the
breathing
zone.
Dermal
exposure
was
assessed
by
extraction
of
carbaryl
from
inner
and
outer
100
percent
cotton
dosimeters,
face/
neck
wipes,
and
glove
and
hand
washes.
The
inner
and
outer
dosimeters
were
segmented
into:
lower
and
upper
arms,
lower
and
upper
legs,
front
and
back
torso.

Field
fortification
recoveries
for
passive
dosimeters
averaged
84.3
percent
for
inner
and
77.7
percent
for
outer
dosimeters.
Face
and
neck
wipe
fortifications
average
84.8
percent.
Handwash
and
Inhalation
OVS
tube
field
fortification
averaged
>90
percent.
Inner
and
outer
dosimeter
and
face
and
neck
wipe
residues
were
adjusted
for
field
fortification
results.
Handwash
and
inhalation
residues
were
not
adjusted.

Laboratory
method
validation
for
each
matrix
fell
within
the
acceptable
range
of
70
to
120
percent.
The
limit
of
quantitation
(LOQ)
was
1.0
µg/
sample
for
all
media
except
the
inhalation
monitors
where
the
LOQ
was
0.01
µg/
sample.
The
limit
of
detection
(LOD)
was
0.5
µg/
sample
for
all
media
except
the
inhalation
monitors
where
the
LOQ
was
0.005
µg/
sample.

Dermal
exposure
was
determined
by
adding
the
values
from
the
bare
hand
rinses,
face/
neck
wipes
to
the
outer
dosimeter
lower
legs
and
lower
arms
plus
the
inner
dosimeter
front
and
rear
torso,
upper
legs,
lower
legs,
lower
arms,
and
upper
arms.
This
accounts
for
the
residential
handler
wearing
short­
sleeved
shirt
and
short
pants.
Unit
exposures
for
each
application
method
are
103
presented
below
in
Table
21.

Table
21:
Unit
Exposure
Values
Obtained
From
Carbaryl
Homeowner
Vegetable
Treatment
Study
(MRID
444598­
01)

Scenario
Monitored
Dermal
Unit
Exposure
(mg
ai/
lb
handled)
Inhalation
Unit
Exposure
(µg
ai
/lb
handled)

Geometric
Mean
Median
Geometric
Mean
Median
Hand
Held
Pump­
Spray
38
35
9
11
Hose­
End
Sprayer
34
31
2
2.3
Ready­
to­
Use
Spray
54
53
67
34
Duster
148
140
870
1200
MRID
44518501
(Carbaryl
application
to
trees
and
shrubs
study):
Applications
of
Sevin
Liquid®
Carbaryl
insecticide
[RP­
2
liquid
(21%)]
were
made
by
volunteers
to
two
young
citrus
trees
and
two
shrubs
in
each
replicate
that
was
monitored
in
the
study.
The
test
field
was
located
only
in
Florida.
Twenty
(20)
replicates
were
monitored
using
hose­
end
sprayer
(Ortho®
DIAL
or
Spray®
hose
end
sprayer),
and
20
replicates
were
monitored
using
hand
held
pump
sprayers
(low
pressure
handwands).

Each
replicate
opened
the
end­
use
product,
added
it
to
the
hose­
end
sprayer
or
hand
held
pump
and
then
applied
it
to
the
trees
and
shrubs.
After
application
to
two
trees
and
two
shrubs
dosimeters
were
collected.
Inhalation
exposure
was
monitored
with
personal
air
sampling
pumps
with
OVS
tubes
attached
to
the
shirt
collar
in
the
breathing
zone.
Dermal
exposure
was
assessed
by
extraction
of
carbaryl
from
inner
and
outer
100
percent
cotton
dosimeters.
The
inner
and
outer
dosimeters
were
segmented
into:
lower
and
upper
arms,
lower
and
upper
legs,
front
and
back
torso.
No
gloves
were
worn
therefore
hand
exposure
was
assessed
with
400
ml
handwash
with
0.01
percent
Aerosol
OT­
75
sodium
dioctyl
sulfosuccinate
(OTS).
One
hundred
(100)
percent
cotton
handkerchiefs
wetted
with
25
ml
OTS
were
used
to
wipe
face
and
neck
to
determine
exposure.

Field
fortification
recoveries
for
passive
dosimeters
averaged
88.3
percent
for
inner
and
76.2
percent
for
outer
dosimeters.
Face
and
neck
wipe
fortifications
average
82.5
percent.
Handwash
and
inhalation
OVS
tube
field
fortification
averaged
>90
percent.
Inner
and
outer
dosimeter
and
face
and
neck
wipe
residues
were
adjusted
for
field
fortification
results.
Handwash
and
inhalation
residues
were
not
adjusted.

Laboratory
method
validation
for
each
matrix
fell
within
the
acceptable
range
of
70
to
120
percent.
The
limit
of
quantitation
(LOQ)
was
1.0
µg/
sample
for
all
media
except
the
inhalation
monitors
where
the
LOQ
was
0.01
µg/
sample.
The
limit
of
detection
(LOD)
was
0.5
µg/
sample
for
all
media
except
the
inhalation
monitors
where
the
LOQ
was
0.005
µg/
sample.

For
use
in
reregistration
documents,
the
dermal
exposure
was
calculated
by
adding
the
values
from
the
hand
rinses,
face/
neck
wipes
to
the
outer
dosimeter
lower
legs
and
lower
arms
plus
the
inner
dosimeter
front
and
rear
torso,
upper
legs,
lower
legs,
lower
arms,
and
upper
arms.
This
accounts
for
the
residential
handler
wearing
short­
sleeved
shirt
and
short
pants.
The
results
are
104
summarized
in
Table
22
below.

Table
22:
Unit
Exposure
Values
Obtained
From
Carbaryl
Homeowner
Ornamental
Treatment
Study
(MRID
44518501)
Scenario
Monitored
Hose
End
Pump
Sprayer
Applied
(lb
ai)
Dermal
Exposure
(mg
ai/
lb
handled)
Inhalation
(ug
ai/
lb
handled)
Applied
(lb
ai)
Dermal
Exposure
(mg
ai/
lb
handled)
Inhalation
(ug
ai/
lb
handled)
Geo.
Mean
0.033
39
2.5
0.
017
56
6.5
Median
0.026
44
2.6
0.
018
49
4.3
EPA
MRID
449722­
01
(ORETF
Handler
Studies):
A
report
was
submitted
by
the
ORETF
(Outdoor
Residential
Exposure
Task
Force)
that
presented
data
in
which
the
application
of
various
products
used
on
turf
by
homeowners
and
lawncare
operators
(LCOs)
was
monitored.
All
of
the
data
submitted
in
this
report
were
completed
in
a
series
of
studies.
The
two
studies
that
monitored
homeowner
exposure
scenarios
used
a
granular
spreader
(ORETF
Study
OMA003)
and
a
hose­
end
sprayer
(ORETF
Study
OMA004)
are
summarized
below.

OMA003:
A
total
of
30
volunteer
test
subjects
were
monitored
using
passive
dosimetry
(inner
and
outer
whole
body
dosimeters,
hand
washes,
face/
neck
wipes,
and
personal
inhalation
monitors).
Each
test
subject
carried,
loaded,
and
applied
two
25­
lb
bags
of
fertilizer
(0.89%
active
ingredient)
with
a
rotary
type
spreader
to
a
lawn
(a
turf
farm
in
North
Carolina)
covering
10,000
ft
2
(one
bag
to
each
of
the
two
5000
ft
2
test
plots).
Application
to
each
subplot
continued
until
the
hopper
was
empty.
Each
participant
also
disposed
of
the
empty
bags
at
the
end
of
the
replicate.
The
target
application
rate
was
2
lb
ai/
acre
(actual
rate
achieved
was
about
1.9
lb
ai/
acre).
The
average
application
time
was
22
minutes,
including
loading
the
rotary
push
spreader
and
disposing
of
the
empty
bags.
Approximately
0.45
lb
ai
was
handled
in
each
replicate.
Dermal
exposure
was
measured
using
inner
and
outer
whole
body
dosimeters,
hand
washes,
face/
neck
washes,
and
personal
air
monitoring
devices
with
OVS
tubes.
Overall,
residues
were
highest
on
the
upper
and
lower
leg
portions
of
the
dosimeters.
Inhalation
exposure
was
calculated
using
an
assumed
respiratory
rate
of
17
Lpm
for
light
work
(NAFTA,
1999),
the
actual
sampling
time
for
each
individual,
and
the
pump
flow
rate.
All
results
were
normalized
for
lb
a.
i.
handled.

All
fortified
samples
and
field
samples
collected
on
the
same
study
day
were
stored
frozen
and
analyzed
together,
eliminating
the
need
for
storage
stability
determination.
Seventyseven
percent
(77%)
of
the
face
and
neck
washes
were
below
the
level
of
quantitation
(LOQ)
for
dacthal,
and
ten
percent
(10%)
of
the
air
samples
were
also
at
or
below
the
LOQ.
Where
results
were
less
than
the
reported
LOQ,
½
LOQ
value
was
used
for
calculations,
and
no
recovery
corrections
were
applied.
Lab
spike
recoveries
for
all
matrices
were
in
the
range
of
83­
99
percent.
Mean
field
fortification
recoveries
over
the
four
study
days
for
each
fortification
level
ranged
from
83
to
97
percent.

OMA004:
Dermal
and
inhalation
exposures
were
estimated
using
passive
dosimetry
techniques
(biological
monitoring
data
were
not
collected).
A
total
of
60
replicates
were
monitored
using
30
test
subjects
(two
replicates
each)
during
applications
to
residential
lawns
in
Frederick,
Maryland.
Thirty
applicator
replicates
were
monitored
using
a
ready­
to­
105
use
(RTU)
product
(Bug­
B­
Gon)
packaged
in
a
32
fl.
oz.
screw­
on
container.
These
containers
were
attached
to
garden
hose­
ends.
An
additional
30
mixer/
loader/
applicator
replicates
were
monitored
using
Diazinon
Plus
also
packaged
in
32
fl.
oz.
plastic
bottles.
This
product
required
the
test
subjects
to
pour
the
product
into
dial­
type
sprayers
(DTS)
that
were
attached
to
garden
hose­
ends.

A
nominal
application
rate
of
4
lb
ai/
acre
was
used
for
all
replicates.
Each
replicate
monitored
the
test
subject
treating
5,000
ft
2
of
turf
and
handling
a
total
of
0.5
lb
ai/
replicate.
The
average
time
per
replicate
was
75
minutes.
Dermal
and
inhalation
exposure
were
measured
using
inner
and
outer
whole
body
dosimeters
(long
pants
and
long
sleeved
shirt
over
long
underwear),
hand
washes,
face/
neck
washes,
and
personal
air
monitoring
devices.
Lab­
fortified
dosimeters
had
recoveries
of
87­
103
percent;
field­
fortified
dosimeters
had
a
mean
range
of
79­
104
percent
recovery,
with
very
little
variance.
The
study
results
are
corrected
for
field
recoveries
using
the
correction
factor
for
the
level
of
fortification
closest
to
the
field
result.

The
route­
specific
exposure
data
(dermal
and
inhalation)
from
both
studies
were
lognormally
distributed.
Therefore,
the
geometric
mean
of
the
dermal
and
inhalation
data
should
be
used
for
exposure
assessments.
The
unit
exposure
values
are
presented
in
Table
23
below.

Table
23:
Unit
Exposure
Values
Obtained
From
ORETF
Homeowner
Studies
(MRID
449722­
01)
Scenario
(mg
exp./
lb
ai
handled)
Dermal
Inhalation
Homeowner
Push
Granular
Spreader
0.68
0.00091
Homeowner
Hose­
End
11.0
0.
016
All
unit
exposure
values
are
geometric
means.
Exposure
values
represent
individuals
wearing
shorts
and
short­
sleeved
shirts.
Hose­
end
sprayer
data
for
mix
your
own
(not
the
locking/
no
contact
package)
considered.

3.1.3
Residential
Handler
Exposure
and
Non­
Cancer
Risk
Estimates
The
residential
handler
exposure
and
non­
cancer
risk
calculations
are
presented
in
this
section.
Noncancer
risks
were
calculated
using
the
Margin
of
Exposure
(MOE)
as
described
in
Section
2.1.3.
Much
of
the
process
for
residential
uses
is
identical
to
that
considered
for
the
occupational
assessment
with
a
few
notable
exceptions
as
described
above
in
Section
3.1.1
(e.
g.,
all
are
short­
term
exposures
and
people
wear
shorts
and
short­
sleeved
shirts).
The
other
major
difference
with
residential
risk
assessments
is
that
the
uncertainty
factor
which
defines
the
level
of
risk
concern
also
has
the
additional
FQPA
safety
factor
applied.
In
the
case
of
carbaryl,
in
January
and
February
2002
meetings
of
the
FQPA
Safety
Factor
Committee,
it
was
decided
that
the
factor
should
be
reduced
to
1
based
on
the
recently
revised
FQPA
SFC
standard
operating
procedures.
Therefore,
the
overall
uncertainty
factor
applied
to
carbaryl
for
residential
handler
risk
assessments
is
100
which
is
based
on
the
FQPA
safety
factor
of
1
along
with
the
100
applied
for
inter­
species
extrapolation,
intra­
species
sensitivity,
and
the
use
of
a
NOAEL
for
risk
assessment.

Noncancer
Risk
Summary:
All
of
the
noncancer
risk
calculations
for
occupational
carbaryl
handlers
completed
in
this
assessment
are
included
in
Appendix
G
(Tables
1
­
3).
The
106
specifics
of
each
of
table
included
in
Appendix
G
are
described
below.
A
brief
summary
of
the
results
for
each
exposure
scenario
is
also
provided
below.

C
Appendix
G/
Table
1:
Sources
of
Exposure
Data
Used
In
The
Carbaryl
Homeowner
Handler
Exposure
and
Risk
Calculations
Describes
the
sources
and
quality
of
the
exposure
data
used
in
all
of
the
residential
handler
calculations.

C
Appendix
G/
Table
2:
Input
Parameters
For
Carbaryl
Homeowner
Handler
Exposure
and
Risk
Calculations
Presents
the
numerical
unit
exposure
values
and
other
factors
used
in
the
residential
handler
risk
assessments.

C
Appendix
G/
Table
3:
Carbaryl
MOEs
Attributable
To
Combined
Homeowner
Handler
Dermal
and
Inhalation
Exposures
Risk
values
are
presented
for
each
exposure
scenario
considered
in
the
assessment.
Exposures
represent
individuals
wearing
shortsleeved
shirts
and
short
pants.

The
data
submitted
by
the
Aventis
Corporation
accompanied
by
the
other
data
used
by
the
Agency
have
provided
a
basic
broad
overview
of
the
uses
of
carbaryl
around
a
residential
environment
(i.
e.,
the
database
is
fairly
complete).
As
indicated
above,
however,
it
is
likely
that
carbaryl
can
be
used
in
a
myriad
of
ways
that
have
not
been
identified
in
this
assessment
because
of
different
pests
or
types
of
application
equipment.
The
Agency
will
consider
risks
from
these
additional
scenarios
as
data
become
available.
It
should
also
be
noted
that
there
were
many
other
scenarios
where
medium
to
low
PHED
quality
data
were
used
to
complete
the
assessment.
Data
quality
should
be
considered
in
the
interpretation
of
the
uncertainties
associated
with
each
risk
value
presented.

Short­
term
risks
for
residential
handlers
(intermediate­
term
scenarios
are
not
thought
to
exist
because
of
the
sporadic
nature
of
applications
by
homeowners)
are
presented
in
Table
24
(Appendix
G/
Table
3
summarized
below
for
the
convenience
of
the
reader).
For
most
scenarios
(40
out
of
52),
risks
are
not
of
concern
because
MOEs
exceed
the
required
uncertainty
factor
of
100.
As
expected,
the
scenarios
for
which
MOEs
do
not
meet
or
exceed
100
have
a
relatively
high
unit
exposure
associated
with
them
or
the
amount
of
chemical
used
over
a
day
is
relatively
high
(based
on
high
application
rates
and/
or
high
amounts
of
area
treated).
The
use
of
dusts
in
gardens
and
for
pet
grooming
along
with
some
liquid
sprays
on
ornamentals
appear
to
be
the
most
problematic
scenarios.
Unlike
the
occupational
handler
scenarios,
the
use
of
different
levels
of
personal
107
protective
clothing
and
equipment
is
not
considered
for
residential
handlers
because
of
a
lack
of
availability,
training,
and
maintenance.
[Note:
Scenarios
where
MOEs
are
still
of
concern
(i.
e.,
<100)
for
are
highlighted
in
the
table.]

TABLE
24
CARBARYL
MOEs
ATTRIBUTABLE
TO
COMBINED
SHORT­
TERM
HOMEOWNER
HANDLER
DERMAL
AND
INHALATION
EXPOSURES
SCEN.
SCEN.
DESCRIPTOR
CROP
TYPE
OR
TARGET
EXPOSURE
FACTORS
DERMAL
MOEs
INHALATION
MOEs
COMBINED
MOEs
APPL.
RATE
(lb
ai/
unit)
BASIS
FOR
RATE
(defines
unit
treated)
TREATED
UNITS
ACTIVE
USED
(lb
ai/
event)

1
Garden:
Ready­
to­
Use
Trigger
Sprayer
(MRID
444598­
01)
Vegetables/
Ornamentals
0.003
32
oz
bottle
0.126
%
(769­
977)
0.25
0.00075
34567.9
1393034.8
33730.9
Vegetables/
Ornamentals
0.003
32
oz
bottle
0.126
%
(769­
977)
0.5
0.0015
17284.0
696517.4
16865.4
Vegetables/
Ornamentals
0.003
32
oz
bottle
0.126
%
(769­
977)
1
0.003
8642.0
348258.7
8432.7
Average
Study
Use
Rate
0.012
(lb
ai/
1000
ft2)
1
0.012
2160.5
87064.7
2108.2
2
Garden/
Ornamental
Dust
(MRID
444598­
01)
Vegetables/
Ornamentals
0.4
4
lb
bottle
10%
(239­
1513)
0.25
0.1
94.6
804.6
84.6
Vegetables/
Ornamentals
0.4
4
lb
bottle
10%
(239­
1513)
0.5
0.2
47.3
402.3
42.3
Vegetables/
Ornamentals
0.4
4
lb
bottle
10%
(239­
1513)
1
0.4
23.6
201.1
21.2
Average
Study
Use
Rate
0.079
(lb
ai/
1000
ft2)
1
0.079
119.7
1018.5
107.1
3
Garden:
Hose­
End
(MRID
444598­
01)
General
Use
(2%
soln)
0.02
(lb
ai/
gal
spray
applied)
100
2
20.6
17500.0
20.6
Perimeter
Nuisance
Pest
0.19
(lb
ai/
1000
ft2)
1
0.19
216.7
184210.5
216.5
Vegetables
0.012
(lb
ai/
1000
ft2)
1
0.012
3431.4
2916666.7
3427.3
Vegetables/
Ornamentals
0.023
(lb
ai/
1000
ft2)
1
0.023
1790.3
1521739.1
1788.2
Vegetables
0.047
(lb
ai/
1000
ft2)
1
0.047
876.1
744680.9
875.1
Average
Study
Use
Rate
0.26
(lb
ai/
1000
ft2)
1
0.26
158.4
134615.4
158.2
Fire
Ant
0.0075
(lb
ai/
gal
spray)
100
0.75
54.9
46666.7
54.8
4
Garden:
Low
Pressure
Handwand
(MRID
444598­
01)
General
Use
(2%
soln)
0.02
(lb
ai/
gal
spray
applied)
5
0.1
368.4
77777.8
366.7
Perimeter
Nuisance
Pest
0.19
(lb
ai/
1000
ft2)
1
0.19
193.9
40935.7
193.0
Vegetables
0.012
(lb
ai/
1000
ft2)
1
0.012
3070.2
648148.1
3055.7
Vegetables/
Ornamentals
0.023
(lb
ai/
1000
ft2)
1
0.023
1601.8
338164.3
1594.3
Vegetables
0.047
(lb
ai/
1000
ft2)
1
0.047
783.9
165484.6
780.2
Average
Study
Use
Rate
0.083
(lb
ai/
1000
ft2)
1
0.083
443.9
93708.2
441.8
Fire
Ant
0.0075
(lb
ai/
gal
spray)
5
0.0375
982.5
207407.4
977.8
TABLE
24
CARBARYL
MOEs
ATTRIBUTABLE
TO
COMBINED
SHORT­
TERM
HOMEOWNER
HANDLER
DERMAL
AND
INHALATION
EXPOSURES
SCEN.
SCEN.
DESCRIPTOR
CROP
TYPE
OR
TARGET
EXPOSURE
FACTORS
DERMAL
MOEs
INHALATION
MOEs
COMBINED
MOEs
APPL.
RATE
(lb
ai/
unit)
BASIS
FOR
RATE
(defines
unit
treated)
TREATED
UNITS
ACTIVE
USED
(lb
ai/
event)

108
5
Trees/
Ornamentals:
Low
Pressure
Handwand
(MRID
445185­
01)
Ornamental
0.023
(lb
ai/
1000
ft2)
1
0.176
1087.0
468227.4
1084.4
Pome
Fruit
0.07
(lb
ai/
1000
ft2)
1
0.07
357.1
153846.2
356.3
Nuts/
Stone
Fruit
0.12
(lb
ai/
1000
ft2)
1
0.12
208.3
89743.6
207.9
Citrus
0.176
(lb
ai/
1000
ft2)
1
0.023
142.0
61188.8
141.7
Average
Study
Use
Rate
0.0047
(lb
ai/
gal,
17g
ai/
4
min
at
2GPM)
5
0.024
1063.8
458265.1
1061.4
6
Trees/
Ornamentals:
Hose
End
Sprayer
(MRID
445185­
01)
Ornamental
0.023
(lb
ai/
1000
ft2)
1
0.176
1560.8
1217391.3
1558.8
Pome
Fruit
0.07
(lb
ai/
1000
ft2)
1
0.07
512.8
400000.0
512.2
Nuts/
Stone
Fruit
0.12
(lb
ai/
1000
ft2)
1
0.12
299.1
233333.3
298.8
Citrus
0.176
(lb
ai/
1000
ft2)
1
0.023
204.0
159090.9
203.7
Average
Study
Use
Rate
0.005
(lb
ai/
gal
spray)
100
0.5
71.8
56000.0
71.7
7
Garden:
Backpack
Sprayer
(PHED)
General
Use
(2%
soln)
0.02
(lb
ai/
gal
spray
applied)
5
0.1
2745.1
23333.3
2456.1
Perimeter
Nuisance
Pest
0.19
(lb
ai/
1000
ft2)
1
0.19
1444.8
12280.7
1292.7
Vegetables
0.012
(lb
ai/
1000
ft2)
1
0.012
22875.8
194444.4
20467.8
Vegetables/
Ornamentals
0.023
(lb
ai/
1000
ft2)
1
0.023
11935.2
101449.3
10678.9
Vegetables
0.047
(lb
ai/
1000
ft2)
1
0.047
5840.6
49645.4
5225.8
Average
Study
Use
Rate
0.083
(lb
ai/
1000
ft2)
1
0.083
3307.3
28112.5
2959.2
Fire
Ant
0.0075
(lb
ai/
gal
spray)
5
0.0375
7320.3
62222.2
6549.7
8
Lawn
Care:
Hose
End
Sprayer
(MRID
449722­
01/
ORETF
OMA
004)
Lawn
(broadcast)
0.25
(lb
ai/
1000
ft2)
20
5
25.5
875.0
24.7
Lawn
(spot)
0.25
(lb
ai/
1000
ft2)
1
0.25
509.1
17500.0
494.7
9
Dusting
Dog
(MRID
444399­
01)
Average
Study
Use
Rate
0.0026
(lb
ai/
dog)
1
0.0026
163.2
1076.9
141.7
Dog
(10%
&
1/
2
of
2
lb)
0.1
(lb
ai/
dog)
1
0.1
4.2
28.0
3.7
Dog
(5%
&
1/
2
of
2
lb)
0.05
(lb
ai/
dog)
1
0.05
8.5
56.0
7.4
10
Dogs:
Liquid
Application
Dog
(0.5%
&
1/
2
of
6
oz)
0.001
(lb
ai/
dog)
1
0.001
14000000.0
No
Data
No
Data
11
Granular
&
Baits
Lawn
Care:
Belly
Grinder
Lawn
(spot)
0.21
(lb
ai/
1000
ft2)
1
0.21
60.6
5376.3
59.9
Lawn
(spot)
0.1
(lb
ai/
1000
ft2)
1
0.1
127.3
11290.3
125.9
12
Granular
&
Baits
Lawn
Care:
Push­
Type
Spreader
(MRID
449722­
01/
ORETF
OMA
003)
Lawn
(broadcast)
0.21
(lb
ai/
1000
ft2)
20
4.2
490.2
18315.0
477.4
Lawn
(broadcast)
0.1
(lb
ai/
1000
ft2)
20
2
1029.4
38461.5
1002.6
13
Granulars
&
Baits
By
Hand
Ornamentals
and
Gardens
0.21
(lb
ai/
1000
ft2)
1
0.21
15.5
713.8
15.2
14
Aerosol
Various
0.005
(0.5
%
ai
in
soln./
1
pt
can)
16
0.08
79.5
364.6
65.3
15
Collar
Dog
0.013
(16
%
ai
per
1.3
oz
collar)
1
0.013
10769230.8
No
Data
No
Data
16
Sprinkler
Can
(Source:
Scenario
6)
Ornamentals
(2%
Soln)
0.02
(2%
soln
used
ad
libitum)
5
0.1
359.0
280000.0
358.5
TABLE
24
CARBARYL
MOEs
ATTRIBUTABLE
TO
COMBINED
SHORT­
TERM
HOMEOWNER
HANDLER
DERMAL
AND
INHALATION
EXPOSURES
SCEN.
SCEN.
DESCRIPTOR
CROP
TYPE
OR
TARGET
EXPOSURE
FACTORS
DERMAL
MOEs
INHALATION
MOEs
COMBINED
MOEs
APPL.
RATE
(lb
ai/
unit)
BASIS
FOR
RATE
(defines
unit
treated)
TREATED
UNITS
ACTIVE
USED
(lb
ai/
event)

109
17
Ornamental
Paint
On
Ornamentals
(2%
Soln)
0.02
(2%
soln
used
ad
libitum)
1
0.02
304.3
12323.9
297.0
3.1.4
Residential
Handler
Exposure
and
Risk
Estimates
for
Cancer
The
residential
handler
exposure
and
cancer
risk
calculations
are
presented
in
this
section.
Cancer
risks
were
calculated
using
a
linear,
low­
dose
extrapolation
approach
(Q1*)
using
the
same
formula
as
described
above
in
Section
2.1.4.
In
addition
to
the
cancer
risk
estimates
for
an
annual
frequency
of
1
time
per
year,
the
number
of
days
of
exposure
per
year
required
to
get
a
1x10
­6
cancer
risk
have
been
calculated.
In
this
calculation,
the
1x10
­6
cancer
risk
limit
was
divided
by
the
calculated
cancer
risk
for
each
scenario
for
a
single
day
of
exposure.
Much
of
the
process
for
residential
uses
is
identical
to
that
considered
for
the
occupational
assessment
with
a
few
notable
exceptions
as
described
above
in
Section
3.1.1
(e.
g.,
all
are
short­
term
exposures
and
people
wear
shorts
and
short­
sleeved
shirts).
The
other
major
difference
with
residential
risk
assessments
is
that
the
annual
frequency
of
use
is
lower
for
homeowners
(i.
e.,
1
day
use
per
year
has
been
used
to
complete
the
calculations).

Cancer
Risk
Summary
All
of
the
cancer
risk
calculations
for
residential
carbaryl
handlers
completed
in
this
assessment
are
included
in
Appendix
G
(Table
4).
The
specifics
of
this
table
as
well
as
a
brief
summary
of
the
results
for
each
exposure
scenario
is
also
provided
below.

C
Appendix
G/
Table
4:
Carbaryl
Cancer
Risks
Attributable
To
Combined
Homeowner
Handler
Dermal
and
Inhalation
Exposures
Presents
cancer
risks
for
combined
dermal
and
inhalation
exposures
considered
in
the
assessment
(i.
e.,
1
time/
year).
Additionally,
the
number
of
days
of
exposure
that
are
allowed
per
year
(i.
e.,
up
to
a
1x10
­6
cancer
risk
limit)
are
also
presented.

Table
25
presents
the
quantitative
risks
associated
with
each
scenario
considered
in
the
assessment.
For
all
but
one
scenario
(i.
e.,
treating
dogs
with
½
bottle
of
10
percent
dust),
cancer
risks
are
less
than
1x10
­6
(most
are
in
the
10
­8
or
10
­10
range)
when
a
single
application
per
year
is
evaluated.
This
table
also
includes
the
allowable
number
of
days
exposure
per
year.
There
are
5
scenarios
where
5
days
or
less
of
exposure
per
year
is
allowable.
These
results
should
be
considered
in
conjunction
with
the
use
and
usage
information
supplied
by
the
Aventis
Corporation
that
indicates
the
50
th
percentile
annual
frequency
of
use
is
between
1
and
2
uses
per
year
and
that
5
uses
per
year
is
at
the
84
th
percentile
(see
Section
3.1.2:
Data
and
Assumptions
For
Handler
Exposure
Scenarios
above).
As
with
the
noncancer
risks,
the
use
of
dusts
in
gardens
and
for
pet
grooming
along
with
some
liquid
sprays
on
ornamentals
appear
to
be
the
most
problematic
scenarios.
[Note:
Scenarios
where
risks
are
still
of
concern
(i.
e.,
<1x10
­6
)
for
are
highlighted
in
the
table.]
110
TABLE
25:
CARBARYL
CANCER
RISKS
ATTRIBUTABLE
TO
COMBINED
HOMEOWNER
HANDLER
DERMAL
AND
INHALATION
EXPOSURES
SCEN.
SCEN.
DESCRIPTOR
CROP
TYPE
OR
TARGET
EXPOSURE
FACTORS
CANCER
RISK
ALLOWED
DAYS/
YR
APPL.
RATE
(lb
ai/
unit)
BASIS
FOR
RATE
(defines
unit
treated)
TREATED
UNITS
ACTIVE
USED
(lb
ai/
event)
1
Garden:
Ready­
to­
Use
Trigger
Sprayer
(MRID
444598­
01)
Vegetables/
Ornamentals
0.003
32
oz
bottle
0.126
%
(769­
977)
0.25
0.00075
1.27e­
10
>365
Vegetables/
Ornamentals
0.003
32
oz
bottle
0.126
%
(769­
977)
0.5
0.
0015
2.54e­
10
>365
Vegetables/
Ornamentals
0.003
32
oz
bottle
0.126
%
(769­
977)
1
0.
003
5.08e­
10
>365
Average
Study
Use
Rate
0.012
(lb
ai/
1000
ft2)
1
0.
012
2.03e­
09
>365
2
Garden/
Ornamental
Dust
(MRID
444598­
01)
Vegetables/
Ornamentals
0.4
4
lb
bottle
10%
(239­
1513)
0.25
0.1
4.
81e­
08
21
Vegetables/
Ornamentals
0.4
4
lb
bottle
10%
(239­
1513)
0.5
0.
2
9.62e­
08
10
Vegetables/
Ornamentals
0.4
4
lb
bottle
10%
(239­
1513)
1
0.
4
1.92e­
07
5
Average
Study
Use
Rate
0.079
(lb
ai/
1000
ft2)
1
0.
079
3.80e­
08
26
3
Garden:
Hose­
End
(MRID
444598­
01)
General
Use
(2%
soln)
0.02
(lb
ai/
gal
spray
applied)
100
2
2.
11e­
07
5
Perimeter
Nuisance
Pest
0.19
(lb
ai/
1000
ft2)
1
0.
19
2.
01e­
08
50
Vegetables
0.012
(lb
ai/
1000
ft2)
1
0.
012
1.27e­
09
>365
Vegetables/
Ornamentals
0.023
(lb
ai/
1000
ft2)
1
0.
023
2.43e­
09
>365
Vegetables
0.047
(lb
ai/
1000
ft2)
1
0.
047
4.97e­
09
201
Average
Study
Use
Rate
0.26
(lb
ai/
1000
ft2)
1
0.
26
2.
75e­
08
36
Fire
Ant
0.
0075
(lb
ai/
gal
spray)
100
0.75
7.93e­
08
13
4
Garden:
Low
Pressure
Handwand
(MRID
444598­
01)
General
Use
(2%
soln)
0.02
(lb
ai/
gal
spray
applied)
5
0.
1
1.18e­
08
85
Perimeter
Nuisance
Pest
0.19
(lb
ai/
1000
ft2)
1
0.
19
2.
25e­
08
45
Vegetables
0.012
(lb
ai/
1000
ft2)
1
0.
012
1.42e­
09
>365
Vegetables/
Ornamentals
0.023
(lb
ai/
1000
ft2)
1
0.
023
2.72e­
09
>365
Vegetables
0.047
(lb
ai/
1000
ft2)
1
0.
047
5.56e­
09
180
Average
Study
Use
Rate
0.083
(lb
ai/
1000
ft2)
1
0.
083
9.82e­
09
102
Fire
Ant
0.
0075
(lb
ai/
gal
spray)
5
0.
0375
4.44e­
09
225
5
Trees/
Ornamentals:
Low
Pressure
Handwand
(MRID
445185­
01)
Ornamental
0.023
(lb
ai/
1000
ft2)
1
0.
176
4.01e­
09
250
Pome
Fruit
0.
07
(lb
ai/
1000
ft2)
1
0.
07
1.
22e­
08
82
Nuts/
Stone
Fruit
0.12
(lb
ai/
1000
ft2)
1
0.
12
2.
09e­
08
48
Citrus
0.176
(lb
ai/
1000
ft2)
1
0.
023
3.06e­
08
33
Average
Study
Use
Rate
0.0047
(lb
ai/
gal,
17g
ai/
4
min
at
2GPM)
5
0.
47
4.
09e­
09
244
TABLE
25:
CARBARYL
CANCER
RISKS
ATTRIBUTABLE
TO
COMBINED
HOMEOWNER
HANDLER
DERMAL
AND
INHALATION
EXPOSURES
SCEN.
SCEN.
DESCRIPTOR
CROP
TYPE
OR
TARGET
EXPOSURE
FACTORS
CANCER
RISK
ALLOWED
DAYS/
YR
APPL.
RATE
(lb
ai/
unit)
BASIS
FOR
RATE
(defines
unit
treated)
TREATED
UNITS
ACTIVE
USED
(lb
ai/
event)

111
6
Trees/
Ornamentals:
Hose
End
Sprayer
(MRID
445185­
01)
Ornamental
0.023
(lb
ai/
1000
ft2)
1
0.
176
2.79e­
09
359
Pome
Fruit
0.
07
(lb
ai/
1000
ft2)
1
0.
07
8.
49e­
09
118
Nuts/
Stone
Fruit
0.12
(lb
ai/
1000
ft2)
1
0.
12
1.
45e­
08
69
Citrus
0.176
(lb
ai/
1000
ft2)
1
0.
023
2.13e­
08
47
Average
Study
Use
Rate
0.005
(lb
ai/
gal
spray)
100
0.025
6.06e­
08
16
7
Garden:
Backpack
Sprayer
(PHED)
General
Use
(2%
soln)
0.02
(lb
ai/
gal
spray
applied)
5
0.
1
1.66e­
09
>365
Perimeter
Nuisance
Pest
0.19
(lb
ai/
1000
ft2)
1
0.
19
3.
15e­
09
317
Vegetables
0.012
(lb
ai/
1000
ft2)
1
0.
012
1.99e­
10
>365
Vegetables/
Ornamentals
0.023
(lb
ai/
1000
ft2)
1
0.
023
3.81e­
10
>365
Vegetables
0.047
(lb
ai/
1000
ft2)
1
0.
047
7.79e­
10
>365
Average
Study
Use
Rate
0.083
(lb
ai/
1000
ft2)
1
0.
083
1.38e­
09
>365
Fire
Ant
0.
0075
(lb
ai/
gal
spray)
5
0.
0375
6.22e­
10
>365
8
Lawn
C
are:
H
ose
E
nd
Sprayer
(MRID
449722­
01/
ORETF
OMA
004)
Lawn
(broadcast)
0.25
(lb
ai/
1000
ft2)
20
5
1.
73e­
07
6
Lawn
(spot)
0.
25
(lb
ai/
1000
ft2)
1
0.
25
8.
64e­
09
116
9
Dusting
Dog
(MRID
444399­
01)
Average
Study
Use
Rate
0.0026
(lb
ai/
dog)
1
0.
0026
2.82e­
08
35
Dog
(10%
&
1/
2
of
2
lb)
0.1
(lb
ai/
dog)
1
0.
1
1.09e­
06
1
Dog
(5%
&
1/
2
of
2
lb)
0.05
(lb
ai/
dog)
1
0.
05
5.
43e­
07
2
10
Dogs:
Liquid
Application
Dog
(0.
5%
&
1/
2
of
6
oz)
0.001
(lb
ai/
dog)
1
0.
001
3.11e­
13
>365
11
Granular
&
Baits
Lawn
Care:
Belly
Grinder
Lawn
(spot)
0.
21
(lb
ai/
1000
ft2)
1
0.
21
7.
21e­
08
14
Lawn
(spot)
0.
1
(lb
ai/
1000
ft2)
1
0.
1
3.43e­
08
29
12
Granular
&
Baits
Lawn
Care:
Push­
Type
Spreader
(MRID
449722­
01/
ORETF
OMA
003)
Lawn
(broadcast)
0.21
(lb
ai/
1000
ft2)
20
4.2
8.
97e­
09
112
Lawn
(broadcast)
0.1
(lb
ai/
1000
ft2)
20
2
4.
27e­
09
234
13
Granulars
&
Baits
By
Hand
Ornamentals
and
Gardens
0.21
(lb
ai/
1000
ft2)
1
0.
21
2.
83e­
07
4
14
Aerosol
Various
0.005
(0.
5
%
ai
in
soln./
1
pt
can)
16
0.08
5.94e­
08
17
15
Collar
Dog
0.013
(16
%
ai
per
1.3
oz
collar)
1
0.
013
4.04e­
13
>365
16
Sprinkler
Can
(Source:
Scenario
6)
Ornamentals
(2%
Soln)
0.02
(2%
soln
used
ad
libitum)
5
0.
1
1.21e­
08
82
17
Ornamental
Paint
On
Ornamentals
(2%
Soln)
0.02
(2%
soln
used
ad
libitum)
1
0.
02
1.
44e­
08
69
112
3.1.5
Summary
of
Risk
Concerns
and
Data
Gaps
for
Handlers
Generally,
MOEs
associated
with
most
scenarios
(40
of
52
considered)
are
not
of
concern
because
they
exceed
the
Agency's
uncertainty
factors
for
noncancer
risk
assessments
(i.
e.,
100
uncertainty
factor).
The
scenarios
of
concern
involve
the
use
of
dusts
in
gardens
and
on
pets
and
some
liquid
sprays
on
gardens.
Cancer
risks
for
most
scenarios
are
in
the
10
­8
to
10
­10
range
although
there
is
one
scenario
where
the
risks
slightly
exceed
1x10
­6
(dusting
dogs
1.09x10
­6
).
It
should
be
noted
that
there
are
5
scenarios
where
the
allowable
days
per
year
of
exposure
is
less
than
or
equal
to
5
which
should
be
considered
in
conjunction
with
the
use/
usage
data
from
Aventis
that
indicates
5
uses
per
year
is
the
84
th
percentile.
The
database
for
carbaryl
is
fairly
complete
compared
to
many
other
chemicals.
Recent,
high
quality
data
generated
by
the
Aventis
Corporation
and
the
ORETF,
of
which
Aventis
is
a
member,
have
been
used
to
address
the
key
residential
uses
of
carbaryl
on
lawns,
flower
and
vegetable
gardens,
and
pets.
Use
and
usage
inputs
also
appear
to
be
essentially
consistent
with
the
information
provided
by
the
Aventis
Corporation
at
the
1998
SMART
meeting.
No
key
data
gaps
have
been
identified
by
the
Agency
at
this
time
for
residential
handlers.
However,
it
is
likely
that
there
are
scenarios
that
remain
unaddressed
by
the
Agency
at
this
time
due
to
a
lack
of
data
or
other
meta
information.
The
Agency
will
address
other
appropriate
scenarios
as
they
are
identified.

3.1.6
Recommendations
For
Refining
Residential
Handler
Risk
Assessment
In
order
to
refine
this
residential
risk
assessment,
more
data
on
actual
use
patterns
including
rates,
timing,
and
areas
treated
would
better
characterize
carbaryl
risks.
Exposure
studies
for
many
equipment
types
that
lack
data
or
that
are
not
well
represented
in
PHED
(e.
g.,
because
of
low
replicate
numbers
or
data
quality)
should
also
be
considered
based
on
the
data
gaps
identified
above
and
based
on
a
review
of
the
quality
of
the
data
used
in
this
assessment.

3.2
Residential
Postapplication
Exposures
and
Risks
The
Agency
uses
the
term
"postapplication"
to
describe
exposures
to
individuals
that
occur
as
a
result
of
being
in
an
environment
that
has
been
previously
treated
with
a
pesticide.
Carbaryl
can
be
used
in
many
areas
that
can
be
frequented
by
the
general
population
including
residential
areas
(e.
g.,
home
lawns
and
gardens),
parks,
athletic
fields,
and
golf
courses.
As
a
result,
individuals
can
be
exposed
by
entering
these
areas
if
they
have
been
previously
treated.
Carbaryl
can
also
be
used
on
companion
animals
which
can
lead
to
exposures
by
contact
with
the
treated
animal.
Finally,
carbaryl
can
also
be
used
as
a
mosquito
adulticide
which
can
result
in
exposures
to
the
general
population
because
it
involves
wide
area,
ultra­
low
volume
spraying
in
residential
areas.
The
Agency
generically
refers
to
these
exposures
as
"residential"
in
nature.
Another
definition
could
be
any
exposures
that
do
not
occur
as
a
result
of
employment
or
exposures
to
the
general
population.
The
scenarios
that
serve
as
the
basis
for
the
risk
assessment
are
presented
in
Section
3.2.1:
Residential
Postapplication
Exposure
Scenarios.
The
exposure
data
and
assumptions
that
have
been
used
for
the
calculations
are
presented
in
Section
3.2.2:
Data
and
Assumptions
For
Residential
Postapplication
Exposure
Scenarios.
The
calculations
and
the
algorithms
that
have
been
used
for
the
noncancer
elements
of
the
risk
assessment
as
well
as
the
calculated
risk
values
are
presented
in
Section
3.2.3:
Residential
Postapplication
Exposure
and
Noncancer
Risk
Estimates
113
while
the
analogous
information
using
the
Q1*
for
cancer
estimates
are
presented
in
Section
3.2.4:
Residential
Postapplication
Exposure
and
Risk
Estimates
For
Cancer.
Section
3.2.5:
Summary
of
Residential
Postapplication
Risk
Concerns
and,
Data
Gaps
presents
the
overall
risk
picture
for
carbaryl.
Finally,
recommendations
are
presented
in
Section
3.2.6:
Recommendations
For
Refining
Residential
Postapplication
Risk
Assessment.

3.2.1
Residential
Postapplication
Exposure
Scenarios
Carbaryl
uses
are
extremely
varied
and
include
home
gardens,
ornamentals,
turf
(golf
courses
and
lawns)
and
companion
animals
(e.
g.,
on
dogs
and
cats).
Carbaryl
also
has
more
limited
uses
that
were
considered
including
as
a
mosquito
adulticide
in
residential
areas
and
for
Ghost/
Mud
shrimp
control
in
Washington.
As
a
result,
a
wide
array
of
individuals
of
varying
ages
can
potentially
be
exposed
when
they
do
activities
in
areas
that
have
been
previously
treated
or
have
contact
with
treated
companion
animals.
The
Agency
is
concerned
about
these
kinds
of
exposures.
The
purpose
of
this
section
is
to
explain
how
postapplication
exposure
scenarios
were
developed
for
each
residential
setting
where
carbaryl
can
be
used.
Exposure
scenarios
can
be
thought
of
as
ways
of
categorizing
the
kinds
of
exposures
that
occur
related
to
the
use
of
a
chemical.
The
use
of
scenarios
as
a
basis
for
exposure
assessment
is
very
common
as
described
in
the
U.
S.
EPA
Guidelines
For
Exposure
Assessment
(U.
S.
EPA;
Federal
Register
Volume
57,
Number
104;
May
29,
1992).

The
processes
that
were
used
by
the
Agency
in
the
development
of
scenarios
for
occupational
exposure
assessment
(Section
2.2.1
above)
are
essentially
the
same
as
those
used
for
residential
exposure
patterns.
There
are
key
differences,
however,
in
the
residential
exposure
assessment
that
include
exposures
were
calculated
for
children
of
differing
ages
as
well
as
adults;
non­
dietary
ingestion
exposures
were
calculated
(i.
e.,
soil
ingestion,
hand­/
object­
to­
mouth);
a
dermal
"hug"
approach
has
been
used
instead
of
transfer
coefficients
to
calculate
exposures
to
companion
animals;
exposures
to
swimmers,
oyster
harvesters,
and
children
playing
on
a
beach
were
calculated;
and
cancer
risks
were
not
calculated
for
children
per
Agency
policy.

The
Agency
relies
on
a
standardized
approach
for
completing
residential
risk
assessments
that
is
based
on
current
carbaryl
labels
and
guidance
contained
in
the
following
five
documents:

°
Series
875,
Residential
and
Residential
Exposure
Test
Guidelines:
Group
B
Postapplication
Exposure
Monitoring
Test
Guidelines
(V
5.4,
Feb.
1998)
This
document
provides
general
risk
assessment
guidance
and
criteria
for
analysis
of
residue
dissipation
data.

°
Standard
Operating
Procedures
For
Residential
Exposure
Assessment
(Dec.
1997)
This
document
provides
the
overarching
guidance
for
developing
residential
risk
assessments
including
scenario
development,
algorithms,
and
values
for
inputs.

°
Science
Advisory
Council
For
Exposure
Policy
003.1
(Aug.
2000):
Agricultural
Transfer
Coefficients
This
document
provides
transfer
coefficients
which
have
been
used
to
assess
exposures
in
home
gardens.
114
°
Science
Advisory
Council
For
Exposure
Policy
12
(Feb.
2001):
Recommended
Revisions
To
The
Standard
Operating
Procedures
(SOPs)
For
Residential
Exposure
Assessment
This
document
provides
additional,
revised
guidance
for
completing
residential
exposure
assessments.

°
Overview
of
Issues
Related
To
The
Standard
Operating
Procedures
For
Residential
Exposure
Assessment
(August
1999
Presentation
To
The
FIFRA
SAP)
This
document
provides
rationale
for
Agency
changes
in
SOPs.
Companion
animal
approach
included
in
document
used
for
risk
assessment.

The
Agency
also
completed
a
specific,
screening
level
risk
assessment
for
Mud
and
Ghost
shrimp
control
in
Washington
State.
The
assessment
considering
swimming
in
areas
that
have
been
treated
as
well
as
oyster
harvesting
for
adults
and
playing
on
a
beach
for
toddlers.
The
calculations
for
these
scenarios
were
based
on
the
Agency's
SOPs
described
above,
the
Agency's
program,
and
data
generated
by
the
Washington
Department
of
Ecology.
The
specific
documents
that
were
consulted
include:

°
RAGS,
Part
A
­
Risk
Assessment
Guidance
For
Superfund,
Volume
1:
Human
Health
Evaluation
Manual
(Part
A),
Interim
Final
(EPA/
540/
1­
89/
002,
December
1989)
This
document
was
consulted
for
overall
guidance
on
how
to
address
risks
from
exposure
to
contaminated
sediments.

°
RAGS,
Part
E
­
Risk
Assessment
Guidance
For
Superfund,
Volume
1:
Human
Health
Evaluation
Manual
(Part
E,
Supplemental
Guidelines
For
Dermal
Risk
Assessment),
Interim
Review
Draft
For
Public
Comment
(EPA/
540/
R/
99/
005,
September
2001)
This
document
was
consulted
for
overall
guidance
on
how
to
address
risks
from
exposure
to
contaminated
sediments.
Specific
soil
adherence
values
were
also
obtained
from
Exhibit
3­
3,
page
3­
18.

°
Carbaryl
Concentrations
In
Willapa
Bay
and
Recommendations
For
Water
Quality
Guidelines
(March
2001,
Pub
No.
01­
03­
005,
Author:
Art
Johnson)
Water
concentration
data
were
obtained
from
this
document.
It
presented
monitoring
data
collected
by
the
Washington
Department
of
Ecology
as
well
as
data
collected
by
the
Shoalwater
Bay
Tribe.

°
Screening
Survey
of
Carbaryl
(Sevin)
and
1­
napthol
Concentrations
in
Willapa
Bay
Sediments
(May
1999,
Pub
No.
99­
323,
Author:
Cynthia
Stonick)
Sediment
and
water
concentration
data
were
obtained
from
this
document.
115
When
the
guidance
in
current
labels
and
these
documents
is
considered,
it
is
clear
that
the
Agency
should
consider
children
of
differing
ages
as
well
as
adults
in
its
assessments.
It
is
also
clear
that
different
age
groups
should
be
considered
in
different
situations.
The
populations
that
were
considered
in
the
assessment
include:

C
Residential
(homeowner)
Adults:
these
individuals
are
members
of
the
general
population
that
are
exposed
to
chemicals
by
engaging
in
activities
at
their
residences
(e.
g.,
in
their
lawns
or
gardens)
and
also
in
areas
not
limited
to
their
residence
(e.
g.,
golf
courses
or
parks)
previously
treated
with
a
pesticide.
These
kinds
of
exposures
are
attributable
to
a
variety
of
activities
and
usually
addressed
by
the
Agency
in
risk
assessments
by
considering
a
representative
activity
as
the
basis
for
the
exposure
calculation.

C
Residential
Children:
children
are
members
of
the
general
population
that
can
also
be
exposed
in
their
residences
(e.
g.,
on
lawns,
in
gardens,
or
from
contact
with
treated
pets)
as
well
as
other
areas
previously
treated
with
a
pesticide
(e.
g.,
parks).
These
kinds
of
exposures
are
attributable
to
a
variety
of
activities
such
as
playing
outside,
home
gardening,
or
playing
with
a
companion
animal.
Toddlers
have
been
selected
as
a
sentinel
(or
representative)
population
for
turf
and
companion
animal
assessments.
Youth­
aged
children
(ages
10
to
12)
are
considered
the
sentinel
population
for
a
fruit
harvesting
assessment
because
it
is
likely
that
children
of
this
age
would
help
with
garden
maintenance.
They
are
usually
addressed
by
the
Agency
in
risk
assessments
by
considering
a
representative
activities
for
each
age
group
in
an
exposure
calculation.

The
SOPs
For
Residential
Exposure
Assessment
define
several
scenarios
that
apply
to
uses
specified
in
current
labels.
These
scenarios
served
as
the
basis
for
the
residential
postapplication
assessment
along
with
the
modifications
to
them
and
the
additional
data/
approaches
described
above.
The
Agency
used
this
guidance
to
define
the
exposure
scenarios
that
essentially
include
child
exposure
on
treated
lawns
(dermal
and
nondietary
ingestion
considered),
child
exposure
in
treated
gardens,
exposure
to
children
from
treated
companion
animals,
and
the
exposure
of
adults
while
doing
gardening,
lawncare,
or
golfing.
The
SOPs
and
the
associated
scenarios
are
presented
below:

C
Dose
from
dermal
exposure
on
treated
turf
calculated
using
SOP
2.2:
Postapplication
dermal
dose
among
toddlers
from
playing
on
treated
turf;

C
Dose
from
ingestion
of
carbaryl
granules
from
treated
turf
calculated
using
SOP
2.3.1:
Postapplication
dose
among
toddlers
from
episodic
nondietary
ingestion
of
pesticide
granules
picked
up
from
treated
turf
(i.
e.,
those
residues
that
end
up
in
the
mouth
from
a
child
touching
turf
and
then
putting
their
hands
in
their
mouth);
116
C
Dose
from
hand­
to­
mouth
activity
from
treated
turf
calculated
using
SOP
2.3.2:
Postapplication
dose
among
toddlers
from
incidental
nondietary
ingestion
of
pesticide
residues
on
treated
turf
from
hand­
to­
mouth
transfer
(i.
e.,
those
residues
that
end
up
in
the
mouth
from
a
child
touching
turf
and
then
putting
their
hands
in
their
mouth);

C
Dose
from
object­
to­
mouth
activity
from
treated
turf
calculated
using
SOP
2.3.3:
Postapplication
dose
among
toddlers
from
incidental
nondietary
ingestion
of
pesticide
residues
on
treated
turf
from
object­
to­
mouth
transfer
(i.
e.,
those
residues
that
end
up
in
the
mouth
from
a
child
mouthing
a
handful
of
treated
turf);

C
Dose
from
soil
ingestion
activity
from
treated
turf
calculated
using
SOP
2.3.4:
Postapplication
dose
among
toddlers
from
incidental
nondietary
ingestion
of
pesticide
residues
from
ingesting
soil
in
a
treated
turf
area
(i.
e.,
those
soil
residues
that
end
up
in
the
mouth
from
a
child
touching
treated
soil
and
turf
then
putting
their
hands
in
their
mouth);

C
Dose
from
dermal
exposure
while
working
in
treated
gardens
or
with
various
trees
(nut,
fruit,
and
ornamentals)
calculated
using
SOPs
3.2
&
4.2:
Postapplication
dermal
dose
among
adults
and
youth­
aged
children
(ages
10
to
12)
while
gardening
[Note:
These
series
of
SOPs
also
call
for
addressing
nondietary
ingestion,
these
types
of
exposures
have
been
included
in
the
turf/
toddler
calculations.
The
transfer
coefficients
used
are
from
updated
Agency.];

C
Postapplication
Potential
Dose
From
Incidental
Nondietary
Ingestion
if
Pesticide
Residues
While
Swimming
calculated
using
SOP
5.2.1:
Postapplication
potential
dose
among
adults
while
swimming
­
the
general
guidance
applies,
updates
to
this
SOP
have
been
completed
in
the
form
of
the
SWIMODEL
(V2.0)
which
was
used
for
this
assessment;

C
Dose
from
dermal
contact
with
treated
pets
calculated
using
SOP
9.2.1:
Postapplication
potential
dose
among
toddlers
from
the
dermal
contact
with
a
treated
pet
and
absorption
through
the
skin
(i.
e.,
residues
that
end
up
as
body
burden
after
deposition
on
and
absorption
through
the
skin);
and
C
Dose
from
hand­
to­
mouth
activity
calculated
using
SOP
9.2.2:
Postapplication
potential
dose
among
toddlers
from
nondietary
ingestion
of
pesticide
residues
on
treated
pets
from
hand­
to­
mouth
transfer
(i.
e.,
those
residues
that
end
up
in
the
mouth
from
a
child
touching
a
pet
and
then
putting
their
hands
in
their
mouth).

The
detailed
residential
postapplication
calculations
are
presented
in
Appendices
H
through
M
of
this
document.
Please
refer
to
them
to
review
the
specifics
of
the
risk
assessment.
Appendix
H
contains
the
turf
risk
assessment
for
adults
and
children.
Appendix
I
contains
the
risk
assessment
for
uses
in
gardens
and
fruit
trees
that
addresses
such
activities
as
harvesting
for
adults
and
youthaged
children.
Appendix
J
presents
the
risks
associated
with
uses
on
pets.
Appendix
K
provides
the
background
information
on
how
deposition
patterns
for
wide
area
applications
such
as
mosquito
adulticides
were
calculated.
Appendix
L
presents
the
risks
that
result
from
the
use
of
carbaryl
as
a
mosquito
adulticide.
This
assessment
is
essentially
the
same
as
that
done
for
turf
with
the
addition
117
of
a
factor
to
account
for
the
limited
amount
of
residues
that
are
deposited
on
turf
because
of
how
mosquito
adulticides
are
applied.
Appendix
M
presents
the
data
and
risk
calculations
used
to
address
carbaryl
use
for
Ghost
and
Mud
Shrimp
control
in
Washington
State.

3.2.2
Data
and
Assumptions
for
Residential
Postapplication
Exposure
Scenarios
A
series
of
assumptions
and
exposure
factors
served
as
the
basis
for
completing
the
residential
postapplication
risk
assessments.
Each
assumption
and
factor
are
detailed
below.
In
addition
to
these
values,
a
study
was
also
submitted
by
the
Aventis
Corporation
which
was
not
used
by
the
Agency
in
this
assessment.
The
study,
however,
is
identified
below
for
recordkeeping
purposes
along
with
the
rationale
for
not
using
it
in
the
assessment.

The
assumptions
and
factors
used
in
the
risk
calculations
are
consistent
with
current
Agency
policy
for
completing
residential
exposure
assessments
(i.
e.,
SOPs
For
Residential
Exposure
Assessment).
[Note:
More
detail
about
the
origin
of
each
factor
can
be
obtained
in
the
SOP
document
and
associated
documents
such
as
the
Agency's
1999
Overview
document
presented
to
the
FIFRA
SAP.]
The
values
used
in
this
assessment
include:

C
There
are
many
factors
that
are
common
to
the
occupational
and
residential
postapplication
risk
assessments
such
as
body
weights
for
adults,
analysis
of
residue
dissipation
data,
and
transfer
coefficients
used
for
the
garden
exposure
scenarios.
Please
refer
to
the
assumptions
and
factors
in
Section
2.1.2
for
further
information
concerning
these
common
values.
[Note:
The
transfer
coefficients
have
not
been
adjusted
for
the
clothing
that
someone
working
in
their
home
garden
might
be
anticipated
to
wear
such
as
shorts
and
short­
sleeved
shirt.]

°
Carbaryl
labels
allow
for
wide
area
applications
in
mosquito
control
(for
adulticides)
and
for
the
control
of
other
pest
species
such
as
black
fly.
When
the
Agency
considers
these
use
patterns
in
risk
assessments,
the
amount
deposited
on
the
turf
is
determined
by
the
using
the
AgDrift
model
for
aerial
applications
(9.5
percent
deposits
on
turf)
and
published
data
from
the
scientific
literature
for
ground
fogger
applications
(5
percent
deposits
on
turf)
as
described
in
Appendix
K.
All
other
components
are
similar
to
a
residential
turf
risk
assessment.
The
Sevin
XLR
label
for
mosquito
and
fly
control
was
key
in
defining
the
input
parameters
for
the
AgDrift
calculations.
This
label
specified
a
range
of
application
rates
from
0.016
to
1
lb
ai/
acre.
The
label
also
indicated
that
the
optimal
droplet
size
range
is
from
8
to
30
µm.
However,
the
label
also
had
specific
requirements
for
aerial
applications
for
droplets
"with
a
calculated
VMD
of
less
than
50
µm"
and
an
allowance
that
"no
more
than
5
percent
of
the
droplets
should
be
larger
than
80
µm."
Once
the
deposition
patterns
have
been
defined,
a
turf­
type
risk
assessment
was
completed
accounting
for
different
deposition
patterns,
compared
to
a
typical
turf
risk
assessment.
Different
deposition
patterns
were
accounted
for
in
the
calculation
of
the
turf
transferable
residues
to
which
adults
and
children
are
exposed.
The
calculations
are
presented
in
Appendix
L.

°
Exposure
frequency
values
used
in
cancer
risk
assessments
for
adults
are
the
same
as
those
used
for
residential
handlers
(1
time
per
year).
However,
the
Agency
does
believe
that
there
118
are
higher
frequency
golfers
(i.
e.,
average
golfers
over
all
ages
play
18
rounds
year)
based
on
a
1992
report
(Golf
Course
Operations,
Cost
of
Doing
Business/
Profitability
by
the
Center
For
Golf
Course
Management).
The
Agency
also
believes
that
individuals
may
reenter
treated
home
gardens
more
than
one
time
per
year.
However,
exact
information
linking
the
timing
of
applications
and
the
frequency
of
reentry
is
not
available.
It
should
be
noted
that
this
issue
is
being
addressed
by
the
Agency
in
the
development
of
calendar­
based,
residential
modeling
programs
such
as
Lifeline.
Therefore,
until
calendar­
based
approaches
are
implemented,
only
single
reentry
events
have
been
considered
in
the
cancer
risk
assessment.
Risk
managers
should
consider
the
likelihood
of
additional
reentry
events
when
interpreting
the
results
of
the
cancer
risk
assessment.
To
refine
these
results,
the
Agency
has
also
calculated
the
number
of
exposure
days
allowed
per
year
to
achieve
a
1x10
­6
cancer
risk
ceiling
just
as
with
the
residential
handler
assessment
above.
Risk
managers
should
also
consider
the
likelihood
of
intermediate­
term
exposures
occurring
for
adults.
The
Agency
calculated
intermediate­
term
postapplication
risks
for
adults
yet,
in
reality,
the
population
where
these
exposures
would
be
expected
is
likely
very
small
except
for
maybe
home
gardeners.
The
Agency
also
calculated
intermediate­
term
exposures
for
youth­
aged
children
and
toddlers
where
the
behaviors
used
as
the
basis
for
the
risk
assessment
are
thought
to
more
likely
occur
on
a
routine
basis
(i.
e.,
the
population
would
be
expected
to
be
larger).

°
The
Agency
combines
or
aggregates
risks
resulting
from
exposures
to
individual
chemicals
when
it
is
likely
they
can
occur
simultaneously
based
on
the
use
pattern
and
the
behavior
associated
with
the
exposed
population.
Within
a
residential
assessment,
this
can
take
two
forms.
The
first
is
to
add
together
risks
for
individual
exposure
scenarios
from
all
likely
sources
of
exposure
such
as
after
an
application
to
turf
or
use
on
a
pet.
For
carbaryl,
the
Agency
has
added
together
risk
values
(i.
e.,
MOEs)
for
different
kinds
of
exposures
within
the
turf
(dermal,
hand­
to­
mouth,
object­
to­
mouth,
and
soil
ingestion)
and
pet
scenarios
(dermal
and
hand­
to­
mouth).
These
represent
the
standard
set
of
exposures
that
are
typically
added
together
when
chemicals
are
used
on
turf
or
on
pets
because
it
is
logical
they
can
co­
occur.
The
second
is
to
add
exposures
from
different
residential
exposure
scenarios
that
can
possibly
co­
occur
such
as
when
a
homeowner
makes
an
application
and
then
checks
their
garden
for
bugs
a
few
hours
later
on
the
same
day.
Typically,
the
Agency
only
adds
exposures
from
different
exposure
scenarios
together
(e.
g.,
spraying
and
gardening)
when
risks
from
both
are
not
already
a
concern.
For
carbaryl,
however,
there
are
risk
concerns
for
many
residential
handler
scenarios
so
the
Agency
did
not
add
risk
values
from
any
postapplication
exposure
together
with
applicator
risks.
119
°
The
frequency
of
retreatment
could
not
be
determined
based
on
information
provided
by
the
Aventis
Corporation
at
the
SMART
meeting
or
other
associated
information.
Labels
generally
specify
a
minimum
interval
of
1
week
between
applications.
The
risk
assessments
are
based
on
five
different
residue
(DFR
or
TTR)
studies.
In
all
studies
except
on
olives,
multiple
applications
were
completed
at
1
week
intervals
so
any
additivity
between
applications
would
also
be
accounted
for
in
the
empirical
data
used
for
risk
assessment.

C
Exposures
to
children
playing
on
treated
turf
as
well
as
adults
on
turf
(lawncare
and
golfing)
have
been
addressed
using
the
latest
Agency
approaches
for
this
scenario
including:
°
5
percent
of
the
application
rate
has
been
used
to
calculate
the
0­
day
residue
levels
used
for
defining
risks
from
hand­
to­
mouth
behaviors,
measured
TTR
values
are
not
used
because
of
differences
in
transferability
versus
what
would
be
expected
during
hand­
to­
mouth
behaviors;
°
20
percent
of
the
application
rate
has
been
used
to
calculate
the
0­
day
residue
levels
used
for
defining
risks
from
object­
to­
mouth
behaviors,
measured
TTR
values
are
not
used
because
of
differences
in
transferability
versus
what
would
be
expected
during
hand­
to­
mouth
behaviors,
a
higher
percent
transfer
has
been
used
for
objectto
mouth
behaviors
because
it
involves
a
teething
action
believed
to
be
more
analogous
to
DFR/
leaf
wash
sample
collection
where
20
percent
is
also
used;
°
the
measured
TTR
levels
quantified
in
MRID
451143­
01
have
been
used
to
complete
the
dermal
exposure
calculations
as
the
0­
day
transferability
was
>
1
percent
of
the
application
rate
for
the
short­
and
intermediate­
term
data
sources,
studies
where
transferability
is
less
than
1
percent
are
not
used
for
risk
assessment
purposes
because
the
transfer
coefficients
used
by
the
Agency
for
defining
exposures
are
based
on
Jazzercize
studies
in
which
TTR
values
were
measured
by
techniques
where
transferability
is
generally
in
the
1
to
5
percent
range
other
than
the
ORETF
roller
method
where
transferability
tends
to
be
lower;
°
short­
and
intermediate­
term
exposures
have
been
calculated
because
play
and
mouthing
behaviors
are
assumed
to
routinely
occur
daily
and
for
extended
periods
such
as
over
30
days,
carbaryl
residues
are
also
expected
to
be
present
based
on
residue
dissipation
data
(i.
e.,
slow
dissipation
rate);
°
in
cases
where
0
day
residues
have
been
calculated
based
on
application
rates
(i.
e.,
hand­/
object­
to­
mouth
residues
and
for
soil
dissipation),
dissipation
over
time
measured
in
the
TTR
study
(i.
e.,
slope
of
decay
curve)
has
been
used
to
predict
TTR
and
soil
levels
over
time,
carbaryl
residues
were
detectable
even
at
14
days
after
application
(i.
e.,
final
sampling
interval)
at
all
sites
in
the
TTR
studies
used
in
this
assessment,
at
14
days
average
residues
at
the
Georgia
and
Pennsylvania
study
sites
were
still
orders
of
magnitude
above
the
quantitation
limit,
this
indicates
that
predicted
residue
levels
for
extended
durations
should
be
considered
appropriate
based
on
the
empirical
data
(e.
g.,
critical
for
consideration
of
intermediate­
term
exposures);
120
°
the
transfer
coefficients
used,
except
golfing,
are
those
presented
at
the
1999
Agency
presentation
before
the
FIFRA
Science
Advisory
Panel
that
have
been
adopted
in
routine
practice
by
the
Agency;
°
transfer
coefficients
have
been
adjusted
for
differences
between
short­
and
intermediate­
term
exposures;
°
adult
golfers
have
been
assessed
using
a
transfer
coefficient
of
500
cm
2
/hour
[Note:
The
Agency
is
currently
developing
a
policy
on
golfer
exposures
and
has
used
this
value
in
other
assessments];
°
3
year
old
toddlers
are
expected
to
weigh
15
kg;
°
hand­
to­
mouth
exposures
are
based
on
a
frequency
of
20
events/
hour
and
a
surface
area
per
event
of
20
cm
2
representing
the
palmar
surfaces
of
three
fingers;
°
saliva
extraction
efficiency
is
50
percent
meaning
that
every
time
the
hand
goes
in
the
mouth
approximately
½
of
the
residues
on
the
hand
are
removed;
°
object­
to­
mouth
exposures
are
based
on
a
25
cm
2
surface
area;
°
exposure
durations
are
expected
to
be
2
hours
based
on
information
in
the
Agency's
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
except
for
golfers
where
the
exposure
duration
for
an
18
hole
round
of
golf
is
4
hours
based
on
a
1992
report
(Golf
Course
Operations,
Cost
of
Doing
Business/
Profitability
by
the
Center
For
Golf
Course
Management);
°
soil
residues
are
contained
in
the
top
centimeter
and
soil
density
is
0.67
mL/
gram;
°
dermal,
hand­
and
object­
to­
mouth,
and
soil
ingestion
are
added
together
to
represent
an
overall
risk
from
exposure
to
turf
while
granular
ingestion
is
considered
to
be
a
much
more
episodic
behavior
and
is
considered
separately
by
the
Agency;
and
°
children
of
various
ages
down
to
the
very
young
(e.
g.,
4
or
5
years
old)
are
currently
playing
golf,
the
Agency
recognizes
that
age
may
impact
exposures
because
of
changes
in
behavior
and
skin
surface
area
to
body
weight
ratios
but
has
not
yet
developed
a
quantitative
approach
for
calculating
their
risks.

C
Exposures
to
children
and
adults
working
in
home
gardens
have
been
addressed
using
the
latest
Agency
approaches
for
this
scenario
including:
°
youth­
aged
children
are
considered
along
with
adults;
°
12
year
old
youth
are
expected
to
weigh
39.1
kg;
°
exposure
durations
are
expected
to
be
40
minutes;
°
Pre­
Harvest
Intervals
(PHIs)
are
less
than
7
days
for
most
crops
with
some
as
long
as
28
days;
°
transfer
coefficients
for
youth
were
calculated
by
adjusting
the
appropriate
adult
transfer
coefficients
by
a
50%
factor
as
has
been
done
by
the
Agency
since
the
inception
of
the
SOPs
For
Residential
Exposure
Assessment;
°
the
updated
transfer
coefficients
specified
in
Agency
policy
003
described
above
in
the
occupational
risk
assessment
have
been
used
rather
than
those
currently
specified
in
the
SOPs
because
they
represent
more
refined
estimates
of
exposure
for
the
fruiting
vegetable
and
deciduous
tree
crop
groups,
these
crop
groups
have
been
used
in
the
SOPs
to
represent
home
garden
exposures;
121
°
the
combination
of
adjusting
transfer
coefficients
for
youth­
aged
children
and
using
appropriate
body
weights
for
the
age
group
results
in
dose
levels
that
are
slightly
lower
than
that
of
adults
in
the
same
activity
(the
TC
reduction
and
body
weight
reduction
is
essentially
a
1:
1
ratio);
and
°
the
DFR
data
used
for
the
assessments
are
the
same
as
those
used
in
the
occupational
risk
assessment
for
the
selected
crop
groups.

C
Exposures
to
children
after
contact
with
treated
pets
have
been
addressed
using
the
latest
Agency
approaches
for
this
scenario
including:
°
only
toddlers
are
considered
because
their
exposures
are
thought
to
be
highest
(i.
e.,
they
are
considered
the
sentinel
population
by
the
Agency);
°
a
equilibrium
approach
based
on
a
single
child
"hug"
of
the
treated
animal
is
used
to
assess
dermal
exposure
as
described
in
the
1999
Agency
SAP
Overview
document
(i.
e.,
the
skin
loads
after
a
single
contact
with
the
treated
animal
and
additional
contacts
don't
proportionally
add
exposures),
the
surface
area
of
the
dermal
hug
is
based
on
a
toddler
skin
surface
area
and
typical
clothing;
°
residue
dissipation
is
5
percent
per
day
for
the
shampoo
and
dust
products
(based
on
data
from
J.
Chambers
at
Mississippi
State
University
on
other
pet
use
products);
°
the
transferability
of
residues
from
fur
is
20
percent;
°
the
active
lifetime
of
a
collar
is
expected
to
be
120
days
based
on
label
statements
which
was
used
by
the
Agency,
a
daily
emission
term
from
the
collar
of
0.000290
mg/
cm
2
/gram
ai/
day
is
also
based
on
measured
data
from
Mississippi
State
University
for
a
pet
collar;
°
risks
are
based
on
an
even
loading
of
residues
across
the
entire
surface
of
a
30
lb
dog
which
has
been
chosen
as
a
representative
animal,
the
animal
surface
area
was
calculated
using
(12.3
*
Body
Weight
(g)
0.65
)
from
the
Agency's
1993
Wildlife
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
(i.
e.,
dog
surface
area
of
5986
cm
2
);
°
the
daily
frequency
of
hand­
to­
mouth
contact
with
dogs
is
40
events
per
day,
in
each
event,
the
palmar
surface
of
the
hands
(i.
e.,
20cm
2
/event)
is
placed
in
the
mouth
of
the
child
contributing
to
nondietary
ingestion
exposure;
and
°
the
Agency
is
currently
in
the
process
of
considering
revisions
in
its
methodologies
for
completing
risk
assessments
for
pet
products,
some
of
the
key
inputs
that
are
potentially
subject
to
modification
include
the
amount
of
residues
which
are
transferable
from
pet
fur,
defining
the
number
of
hand­
to­
mouth
events,
and
evaluating
the
emission
term
for
collars.

°
For
turf,
the
maximum
application
rate
indicated
at
the
SMART
meeting
was
8
lb
ai/
acre
even
though
current
labels
allow
for
applications
by
homeowners
at
up
to
11
lb
ai/
acre
for
Lock­
n­
load
type
packages
and
9
lb
ai/
acre
for
granulars.
The
TTR
study
was
conducted
also,
it
should
be
noted,
at
8
lb
ai/
acre
(see
below
for
more
details).
Based
on
the
design
of
the
TTR
study
and
what
was
indicated
at
the
SMART
meeting,
the
Agency
completed
the
postapplication
assessment
using
the
data
directly
from
the
TTR
study
without
any
adjustment
for
application
rate.
Risks
at
higher
application
rates
would
be
worse
than
those
presented
at
the
8
lb
ai/
A
application
rate
(see
below).
°
For
pet
uses,
the
Agency
is
considering
modifications
in
its
pet
risk
assessment
methods.
122
These
revisions
are
based
on
the
availability
and
interpretation
of
data
from
academic
researchers
and
the
pesticide
industry.
These
data
will
be
used
to
refine
and
better
characterize
risks
associated
with
uses
on
pets
as
they
become
available.

C
Postapplication
residential
risks
are
based
generally
on
maximum
application
rates
or
values
specified
in
the
SOPs
For
Residential
Exposure
Assessment.

C
The
Jazzercise
approach
is
the
basis
for
the
dermal
transfer
coefficients
as
described
in
the
Agency's
Series
875
guidelines,
SOPs
For
Residential
Exposure
Assessment,
and
the
1999
FIFRA
SAP
Overview
document
C
There
are
many
likely
studies
focused
on
carbaryl
in
the
published
literature
or
available
from
various
governmental
Agencies
because
it
is
so
widely
used.
For
example,
the
Agency's
Office
of
Research
and
Development
along
with
other
Agencies
have
funded
a
project
entitled
Pesticide
Exposure
in
Children
Living
in
Agricultural
Areas
along
the
United
States­
Mexico
Border
Yuma
County,
Arizona.
Preliminary
results
of
this
study
indicate
that
carbaryl
residues
were
identified
in
the
dust
of
20
percent
of
the
152
houses
sampled
and
in
approximately
24
percent
in
25
samples
collected
in
6
schools
in
the
same
region.
At
this
point,
the
Agency
has
not
identified
any
data
from
the
literature
or
other
sources
that
would
alter
the
conclusions
of
this
risk
assessment.
As
more
data
become
available,
the
Agency
will
consider
the
information
in
efforts
to
refine
the
assessment
(i.
e.,
use
additional
information
to
alter
numeric
risk
estimates
or
to
characterize
existing
estimates
if
warranted).
With
regard
to
this
specific
example,
current
Agency
policy
is
not
to
use
house
dust
estimates
to
calculate
risks
because
of
a
lack
of
an
appropriate
exposure
model.
Also,
in
a
1995
study
conducted
by
the
Centers
For
Disease
Control
(Hill
et
al)
entitled
Pesticide
Residues
In
Urine
Of
Adults
Living
In
The
United
States:
Reference
Range
Concentrations,
1000
adults
were
monitored
via
urine
collection.
One
of
the
analytes
measured
in
that
study
(1­
napthol)
is
a
potential
metabolite
of
carbaryl
as
well
as
of
napthalene
and
napropamide.
This
metabolite
was
identified
in
86
percent
of
the
1000
adults
monitored
where
the
mean
value
was
17
ppb
and
the
99
th
percentile
was
290
ppb.
These
values
were
not
used
quantitatively
in
the
risk
assessment
for
carbaryl
because
of
the
uncertainties
associated
with
them
such
as
the
exact
contribution
of
each
possible
compound
to
the
overall
levels
and
no
linked
exposure
information.
The
investigators
also
reported
results
for
(2­
napthol)
which
is
also
a
metabolite
of
napthalene
and
indicated
a
common
source
of
exposure
because
1­
napthol
and
2­
napthol
levels
were
similar
based
on
a
Pearson
correlation
of
0.64
(P=
0.0001).
The
mean
for
2­
napthol
is
7.2
ppb
and
the
99
th
percentile
was
54
ppb.
These
levels
were
The
Agency
instead
considers
them
a
qualitative
indicator
that
exposures
in
the
general
population
are
likely
to
occur.

C
The
Aventis
Corporation
is
in
the
process
of
conducting
a
biomonitoring
study
with
children
who
live
in
households
where
carbaryl
has
been
used.
Preliminary
results
indicate
that
levels
at
the
highest
percentiles
of
the
distribution
are
similar
to
those
predicted
in
the
Agency's
turf
risk
assessments
for
toddlers
which
are
intended
to
represent
the
higher
percentiles
of
the
exposure
distribution.
A
more
detailed
analysis
will
be
completed
upon
submission.
Aventis
is
also
a
member
of
the
Residential
Exposure
Joint
Venture
where
the
123
objective
is
to
collect
use
data
for
consumer
products
containing
pesticides.
These
data
will
also
be
considered
if
submitted
to
the
Agency.

C
In
Washington
state,
carbaryl
is
used
under
a
24C
label
(WA­
900013)
to
control
Ghost
and
Mud
shrimp
in
Willapa
Bay.
The
Agency
considered
contact
with
sediments
(e.
g.,
oyster
digging
for
adults
and
playing
on
beach
for
toddlers)
and
water
(adult
swimming)
that
could
contain
carbaryl
residues
using
commonly
accepted
risk
assessment
methods
(i.
e.,
RAGS
Superfund
Guidance
and
SWIMODEL
(V2.0)),
water
monitoring
data,
and
sediment
data.
In
these
assessments,
conservative
inputs
for
sediment
and
water
concentrations
were
used
and
also
conservative
exposure
factors
were
used
to
ensure
the
screening
level
nature
of
the
calculations.
Such
inputs
included
selection
of
the
highest
water
concentration
estimate
from
all
available
data
sources
for
swimmers
and
highest
sediment
concentrations
for
oyster
digging
or
children
playing.
Other
conservative
inputs
included
the
permeation
coefficient
from
the
SWIMODEL,
the
use
of
a
90
th
percentile
value
for
the
duration
of
swimming
for
a
noncompetitive
swimmer
of
3
hours
(which
would
be
expected
to
be
conservative
in
the
areas
where
this
use
occurs),
and
the
entire
surface
area
of
a
toddler
used
for
playing
on
a
beach.
[Note:
The
water
and
sediment
concentration
data
have
been
reviewed
by
the
Agency's
Environmental
Fate
and
Effects
Division
(D279109,
Thomas
Steeger
­
author).]

Postapplication
Study:
One
study,
conducted
by
the
Aventis
Corporation,
which
measured
concurrent
dermal
exposure
using
Jazzercize
and
turf
transferable
residues
of
Ronstar
50WP
(oxadiazon)
was
submitted
for
use
in
the
risk
assessment.
The
use
of
this
study
was
not
accepted
because
it
is
very
specific
to
the
use
of
oxadiazon
on
turf.
In
particular,
the
study
was
conducted
on
a
dormant
grass
and
the
transfer
coefficients
differ
from
those
currently
used
in
standard
Agency
risk
assessments.
In
fact,
the
ORETF,
of
which
Aventis
is
a
member,
considered
this
study
for
purchase
and
use
in
its
generic
approach
to
dermal
exposures
on
turf.
Based
on
essentially
the
same
reasons
as
the
Agency
has
used,
the
study
was
not
purchased.
For
clarification
purposes,
the
following
information
can
be
used
to
identify
the
study:

C
Evaluation
of
Turf
Reentry
Exposure
To
a
Broadcast
Application
of
Ronstar
50WP
EPA
MRID
447425­
01;
Report
dated
January
18,
1995;
Authors:
Leah
Rosenheck
and
Shirley
Sanchez;
Sponsor:
Aventis
Corporation
(formerly
Rhone
Poulenc).

3.2.3
Residential
Postapplication
Exposure
and
Noncancer
Risk
Estimates
The
residential
postapplication
exposure
and
non­
cancer
risk
calculations
are
presented
in
this
section.
Noncancer
risks
were
calculated
using
the
Margin
of
Exposure
(MOE)
which
is
a
ratio
of
the
body
burden
to
the
toxicological
endpoint
of
concern.
Exposures
were
calculated
by
considering
the
potential
sources
of
exposure
(i.
e.,
DFRs
on
garden
plants,
TTRs
on
lawns,
and
transferable
residues
on
treated
pets)
then
calculating
dermal
and
nondietary
ingestion
exposures.
The
major
difference
with
residential
risk
assessments
is
that
the
uncertainty
factor
which
defines
the
level
of
risk
concern
also
has
to
consider
application
of
the
additional
FQPA
safety
factor
specified
by
the
legislation.
In
the
case
of
carbaryl,
in
January
and
February
2002
meetings
of
the
FQPA
Safety
Factor
Committee,
it
was
decided
that
the
FQPA
factor
should
be
reduced
to
1.
Therefore,
the
overall
uncertainty
factor
applied
to
carbaryl
for
residential
postapplication
risk
124
assessments
is
100
which
is
based
on
the
FQPA
safety
factor
of
1
along
with
the
100
applied
for
inter­
species
extrapolation,
intra­
species
sensitivity,
and
the
use
of
a
NOAEL
for
risk
assessment.

Dermal
exposures
and
risks
from
lawn
and
garden
uses
were
calculated
in
the
same
manner
as
described
above
in
Section
2.2.3.
Dermal
exposures
from
treated
pets
were
calculated
using
a
slightly
different
approach
where
a
"hug"
contact
is
expected
to
lead
to
an
equilibrium
concentration
on
the
skin
of
the
affected
individual.
Exposures
to
sediment
and
water
while
swimming
were
calculated
using
a
soil
adherence
approach
analogous
to
that
used
in
Superfund
risk
assessments
and
swimmer
exposures
were
calculated
using
the
SWIMODEL
which
has
been
validated
and
also
brought
before
the
FIFRA
SAP.
Along
with
calculating
these
dermal
exposures,
other
aspects
of
the
turf,
treated
pet,
and
sediment
exposure
scenarios
involved
calculating
dose
from
non­
dietary
ingestion.
The
algorithms
used
for
each
type
of
calculation
are
presented
below
which
have
not
been
previously
addressed
in
Section
2.2.3.

Nondietary
Ingestion
Exposure
From
Treated
Turf:
Nondietary
ingestion
exposure
levels
from
turf
were
calculated
using
the
following
equations.
These
values
were
then
used
to
calculate
MOEs
as
illustrated
above.
The
following
illustrates
the
approach
used
to
calculate
the
nondietary
ingestion
exposures
that
are
attributable
to
hand­
to­
mouth
behavior
on
treated
turf
(SOP
2.3.2):

where:
D
=
dose
from
hand­
to­
mouth
activity
(mg/
day);
TTR
=
Turf
Transferable
Residue
where
dissipation
is
based
on
TTR
study
and
the
0­
day
value
is
based
on
the
5%
initial
transferability
factor
(µg/
cm
2
);
SE
=
saliva
extraction
factor
(%);
SA
=
surface
area
of
the
hands
(cm
2
);
Freq
=
frequency
of
hand­
to­
mouth
events
(events/
hour);
and
Hr
=
exposure
duration
(hours).

The
following
illustrates
the
approach
used
to
calculate
exposures
that
are
attributable
to
object­
to­
mouth
behavior
on
treated
turf
that
is
represented
by
a
child
mouthing
on
a
handful
of
turf
(SOP
2.3.3):

where:
D
=
dose
from
mouthing
activity
(mg/
day);
TTR
=
Turf
Transferable
Residue
where
dissipation
is
based
on
TTR
study
and
the
0­
day
value
is
based
on
the
20%
initial
transferability
factor
(µg/
cm
2
);
and
IgR
=
ingestion
rate
for
mouthing
of
grass
per
day
(cm
2
/day).
The
following
illustrates
the
basics
of
the
approach,
used
to
calculate
exposures
that
are
attributable
to
soil
ingestion
(SOP
2.3.4):
125
where:
D
=
dose
from
soil
ingestion
activity
(mg/
day);
SR
=
Soil
Residue
where
dissipation
is
based
on
TTR
study
and
the
0­
day
value
is
based
on
the
application
rate,
1
cm
depth
of
surface
soil,
and
the
density
of
soil
(µg/
cm
3
);
and
IgR
=
ingestion
rate
for
daily
soil
ingestion
(mg/
day).

Dermal
Exposure
From
Treated
Pets:
Dermal
exposure
from
treated
pets
was
calculated
using
the
following
equation.
These
values
were
then
used
to
calculate
MOEs
as
illustrated
above.
This
approach
is
based
on
the
Agency
presentation
at
the
1999
FIFRA
Science
Advisory
Panel
and
is
detailed
in
the
accompanying
overview
document.

where:
D
=
dose
from
dermal
pet
contact
(mg/
day);
AR
=
application
rate
or
amount
applied
to
animal
in
a
single
treatment
(mg
ai/
animal);
FAR
=
fraction
of
the
application
rate
available
for
dermal
contact
as
transferable
residue
(%/
100);
SApet
=
surface
area
of
a
treated
dog
(cm
2
/animal);
t
=
time
after
application
(days);
DR
=
fractional
dissipation
rate
per
day
(%
per
day/
100);
and
SA
hug
=
surface
area
of
a
child
hug
(cm
2
contact/
hug).

[Note:
For
collars,
the
((
AR/
FAR)/
SApet)
term
is
replaced
with
a
measured
emission
term
of
0.00029
mg/
cm
2
/gram
ai
in
collar/
day
which
is
then
multiplied
by
the
amount
of
active
ingredient
in
the
collar
to
calculate
risks.]

Nondietary
Exposure
From
Treated
Pets:
Nondietary
exposure
from
treated
pets
was
calculated
using
the
following
equation
(SOP
9.2.2).
This
exposure
pathway
occurs
when
children
touch
animals
then
put
their
hands
in
their
mouths.
These
values
were
then
used
to
calculate
MOEs
as
illustrated
above.
126
where:
D
=
nondietary
ingestion
dose
from
with
treated
pets
(mg/
day);
AR
=
application
rate
or
amount
applied
to
animal
in
a
single
treatment
(mg
ai/
animal);
FAR
=
fraction
of
the
application
rate
available
for
dermal
contact
as
transferable
residue
(%/
100);
SApet
=
surface
area
of
a
treated
dog
(cm
2
/animal);
t
=
time
after
application
(days);
DR
=
fractional
dissipation
rate
per
day
(%
per
day/
100);
SAL
=
saliva
extraction
factor
(%
extractability);
SAhands
=
surface
area
of
the
hands
(cm
2
);
Freq
=
frequency
of
hand­
to­
mouth
events
(events/
day).
[Note:
Collar
emissions
are
defined
as
described
above
for
dermal
exposures.]

Mosquito
Control
Applications:
Mosquito
control
and
other
uses
(e.
g.,
black
fly
treatments)
have
been
addressed
using
a
methodology
that
involves
defining
how
much
material
is
deposited
on
the
ground
in
impacted
areas
then
using
the
same
methodology
that
is
used
for
a
turf
risk
assessment.
The
calculations
for
defining
how
much
deposited
on
the
ground
after
such
applications
involved
published
literature
for
ground­
based
techniques
and
the
AgDrift
model
for
aerial
application
methods
(see
Appendix
K
for
further
information).
See
above
for
turf
risk
assessment
calculations.

Ghost
and
Mud
Shrimp
24C
Applications:
Applications
to
Willapa
Bay
in
Washington
state
have
been
addressed
using
the
SWIMODEL
and
guidance
from
RAGS.
The
SWIMODEL
provides
exposure
rates
(mg/
day)
from
several
routes
of
exposure.
Dermal
exposures
were
separated
out
to
apply
the
NOAEL
from
the
21
day
dermal
rat
study
(i.
e.,
20
mg/
kg/
day)
using
a
simple
proportion.
All
other
calculations
were
similar
to
other
scenarios
for
MOEs
and
dose.

Sediment
exposures
included
a
dermal
component
for
adults
and
toddlers
and
a
hand­
tomouth
component
for
toddlers.
Dermal
exposures
to
sediments
were
calculated
using
the
following:

where:
D
=
potential
dose
from
dermal
sediment
contact
(mg/
kg/
day);
Sed
=
concentration
of
carbaryl
in
sediment
(µg/
kg
or
ppb),
varies
over
time
with
concentration
data
obtained
from
WA
state
reports
and
linear
extrapolation
between
Day
2
and
Day
30
data;
Adh
=
soil
adherence
factor
(mg/
cm
2
);
SA
=
surface
area
of
the
body
parts
contacted
(cm
2
);
and
BW
=
body
weight
(kg).
127
Nondietary
ingestion
exposures
that
are
attributable
to
hand­
to­
mouth
behavior
for
toddlers
on
beaches
were
calculated
as
follows:

where:
D
=
dose
from
hand­
to­
mouth
activity
(mg/
kg/
day);
Sed
=
concentration
of
carbaryl
in
sediment
(µg/
kg
or
ppb),
varies
over
time
with
concentration
data
obtained
from
WA
state
reports
and
linear
extrapolation
between
Day
2
and
Day
30
data;
SE
=
saliva
extraction
factor
(%);
SA
=
surface
area
of
the
hands
(cm
2
);
Adh
=
soil
adherence
factor
(mg/
cm
2
);
and
BW
=
body
weight
(kg).

Noncancer
Risk
Summary:
All
of
the
noncancer
risk
calculations
for
the
various
residential
carbaryl
assessments
are
included
in
Appendices
H,
I,
J,
K,
L
and
M
for
the
turf,
home
garden,
pet,
mosquito
control
and
oyster
bed
scenarios,
respectively.
[Note:
Both
Appendices
K
and
L
pertain
to
mosquito
control.]
The
specifics
of
each
of
table
included
in
these
Appendices
are
described
below.
A
summary
of
the
results
for
each
scenario
considered
for
each
timeframe
is
also
provided
below.

C
Appendix
H/
Table
1
:
Carbaryl
Postapplication
Residential
Turf
Risk
Assessment
Inputs
Contains
each
numerical
input
utilized
in
the
calculation
of
the
residential
postapplication
risk
values.

C
Appendix
H/
Table
2
:
Residue
Levels
Used
For
Carbaryl
Residential
Risk
Assessment
On
Turf
Presents
the
turf
transferable
residue
values
used
for
the
dermal,
hand­
to­
mouth,
object­
to­
mouth,
and
soil
ingestion
risk
assessments.
Includes
daily
values
which
have
been
used
for
short­
term
exposures
and
30
day
average
values
which
have
been
used
for
intermediate­
term
exposures.

C
Appendix
H/
Table
3:
Adult
Noncancer
Risk
Values
For
Carbaryl
Residential
Risk
Assessment
on
Turf
Presents
the
risks
for
short­
term
and
intermediate­
term
adult
dermal
exposures
in
on
turf
while
engaged
in
high
contact
activity
such
as
heavy
lawncare
("
On
Residential
Turf")
or
while
playing
golf
on
a
treated
course.

C
Appendix
H/
Table
5:
Toddler
Dermal
Risk
Values
For
Carbaryl
on
Turf
Presents
the
risks
for
short­
term
and
intermediate­
term
toddler
dermal
exposures
in
on
turf
while
engaged
in
high
contact
activity.

C
Appendix
H/
Table
6:
Toddler
Hand­
to­
Mouth
Risk
Values
For
Carbaryl
on
Turf
Presents
the
risks
for
short­
term
and
intermediate­
term
toddler
hand­
to­
mouth
exposures
in
on
turf
while
engaged
in
high
contact
activity.

C
Appendix
H/
Table
7:
Toddler
Object­
to­
Mouth
Risk
Values
For
Carbaryl
on
Turf
128
Presents
the
risks
for
short­
term
and
intermediate­
term
toddler
object­
to­
mouth
exposures
in
on
turf
while
engaged
in
high
contact
activity.

°
Appendix
H/
Table
8:
Toddler
Soil
Ingestion
Risk
Values
For
Carbaryl
on
Turf
Presents
the
risks
for
short­
term
and
intermediate­
term
toddler
soil
ingestion
exposures
in
on
turf
while
engaged
in
high
contact
activity.

°
Appendix
H/
Table
9:
Toddler
Aggregate
Risk
Values
For
Carbaryl
on
Turf
Presents
the
risks
for
short­
term
and
intermediate­
term
toddler
aggregate
exposures
in
on
turf
while
engaged
in
high
contact
activity.

C
Appendix
I/
Table
1:
Carbaryl
Postapplication
Residential
Garden
and
Tree
Use
Risk
Assessment
Inputs
Presents
the
numerical
unit
exposure
values
and
other
factors
used
in
the
tree
and
garden
postapplication
risk
assessments.

C
Appendix
I/
Table
2:
Carbaryl
Residential
Postapplication
Adult
Risk
Assessment
For
Deciduous
Tree
Crop
Group
Risk
values
are
presented
for
each
exposure
duration
considered
in
the
assessment
(i.
e.,
short­
term
and
intermediate­
term
duration
exposures,
respectively).

C
Appendix
I/
Table
4:
Carbaryl
Residential
Postapplication
Youth
Risk
Assessment
For
Deciduous
Tree
Crop
Group
Risk
values
are
presented
for
each
exposure
duration
considered
in
the
assessment
(i.
e.,
short­
term
and
intermediate­
term
duration
exposures,
respectively).

C
Appendix
I/
Table
5:
Carbaryl
Residential
Postapplication
Adult
Risk
Assessment
For
Fruiting
vegetable
Crop
Group
Risk
values
are
presented
for
each
exposure
duration
considered
in
the
assessment
(i.
e.,
short­
term
and
intermediate­
term
duration
exposures,
respectively).

C
Appendix
I/
Table
7:
Carbaryl
Residential
Postapplication
Youth
Risk
Assessment
For
Fruiting
vegetable
Crop
Group
Risk
values
are
presented
for
each
exposure
duration
considered
in
the
assessment
(i.
e.,
short­
term
and
intermediate­
term
duration
exposures,
respectively).

C
Appendix
J/
Table
1:
Carbaryl
Residential
Pet
Risk
Assessment
For
Toddlers
Presents
the
risks
for
short­
term
and
intermediate­
term
toddler
exposure
after
contact
with
treated
pets.

C
Appendix
K:
Determination
of
Deposition
Factors
For
Carbaryl
Mosquito
Control
Uses
Presents
the
calculations
and
the
data
used
to
determine
the
amount
of
residues
deposited
in
treated
residential
areas
after
mosquito
control
applications
by
air
and
ground.

C
Appendix
L/
Table
1
:
Carbaryl
Postapplication
Residential
Mosquito
Control
Risk
129
Assessment
Inputs
Contains
each
numerical
input
utilized
in
the
calculation
of
the
residential
mosquito
control
postapplication
risk
values.

C
Appendix
L/
Table
2
:
Residue
Levels
Used
For
Carbaryl
Residential
Risk
Assessment
On
Turf
After
Aerial
Mosquito
Control
Application
Presents
the
turf
transferable
residue
values
used
for
the
dermal,
hand­
to­
mouth,
object­
to­
mouth,
and
soil
ingestion
risk
assessments.
Includes
daily
values
which
have
been
used
for
short­
term
exposures
and
30
day
average
values
which
have
been
used
for
intermediate­
term
exposures.
These
values
have
been
adjusted
for
deposition
from
ULV
aerial
application.

C
Appendix
L/
Table
3
:
Residue
Levels
Used
For
Carbaryl
Residential
Risk
Assessment
On
Turf
After
Ground
Mosquito
Control
Application
Presents
the
turf
transferable
residue
values
used
for
the
dermal,
hand­
to­
mouth,
object­
to­
mouth,
and
soil
ingestion
risk
assessments.
Includes
daily
values
which
have
been
used
for
short­
term
exposures
and
30
day
average
values
which
have
been
used
for
intermediate­
term
exposures.
These
values
have
been
adjusted
for
deposition
from
ULV
ground
application.

C
Appendix
L/
Table
4:
Adult
Noncancer
Risk
Values
For
Carbaryl
Residential
Risk
Assessment
on
Turf
After
Aerial
Mosquito
Control
Application
Presents
the
risks
for
short­
term
and
intermediate­
term
adult
dermal
exposures
in
on
turf
while
engaged
in
high
contact
activity
such
as
heavy
lawncare
("
On
Residential
Turf")
or
while
playing
golf
on
a
treated
course
after
the
area
has
been
treated
for
mosquito
control
using
aerial
equipment.

C
Appendix
L/
Table
5:
Adult
Noncancer
Risk
Values
For
Carbaryl
Residential
Risk
Assessment
on
Turf
After
Ground
Mosquito
Control
Application
Presents
the
risks
for
short­
term
and
intermediate­
term
adult
dermal
exposures
in
on
turf
while
engaged
in
high
contact
activity
such
as
heavy
lawncare
("
On
Residential
Turf")
or
while
playing
golf
on
a
treated
course
after
the
area
has
been
treated
for
mosquito
control
using
ground
equipment.

C
Appendix
L/
Table
8:
Toddler
Dermal
Risk
Values
For
Carbaryl
on
Turf
After
Aerial
Mosquito
Control
Application
Presents
the
risks
for
short­
term
and
intermediate­
term
toddler
dermal
exposures
on
turf
while
engaged
in
high
contact
activity
after
the
area
has
been
treated
for
mosquito
control
using
aerial
equipment.

C
Appendix
L/
Table
9:
Toddler
Dermal
Risk
Values
For
Carbaryl
on
Turf
After
Ground
Mosquito
Control
Application
Presents
the
risks
for
short­
term
and
intermediate­
term
toddler
dermal
exposures
on
turf
while
engaged
in
high
contact
activity
after
the
area
has
been
treated
for
mosquito
control
using
ground
equipment.
130
C
Appendix
L/
Table
10:
Toddler
Hand­
to­
Mouth
Risk
Values
For
Carbaryl
on
Turf
After
Aerial
Mosquito
Control
Application
Presents
the
risks
for
short­
term
and
intermediate­
term
toddler
hand­
to­
mouth
exposures
in
on
turf
while
engaged
in
high
contact
activity
after
the
area
has
been
treated
for
mosquito
control
using
aerial
equipment.

C
Appendix
L/
Table
11:
Toddler
Hand­
to­
Mouth
Risk
Values
For
Carbaryl
on
Turf
After
Ground
Mosquito
Control
Application
Presents
the
risks
for
short­
term
and
intermediate­
term
toddler
hand­
to­
mouth
exposures
in
on
turf
while
engaged
in
high
contact
activity
after
the
area
has
been
treated
for
mosquito
control
using
ground
equipment.

C
Appendix
L/
Table
12:
Toddler
Object­
to­
Mouth
Risk
Values
For
Carbaryl
on
Turf
After
Aerial
Mosquito
Control
Application
Presents
the
risks
for
short­
term
and
intermediate­
term
toddler
object­
to­
mouth
exposures
in
on
turf
while
engaged
in
high
contact
activity
after
the
area
has
been
treated
for
mosquito
control
using
aerial
equipment.

C
Appendix
L/
Table
13:
Toddler
Object­
to­
Mouth
Risk
Values
For
Carbaryl
on
Turf
After
Ground
Mosquito
Control
Application
Presents
the
risks
for
short­
term
and
intermediate­
term
toddler
object­
to­
mouth
exposures
in
on
turf
while
engaged
in
high
contact
activity
after
the
area
has
been
treated
for
mosquito
control
using
ground
equipment.

°
Appendix
L/
Table
14:
Toddler
Soil
Ingestion
Risk
Values
For
Carbaryl
on
Turf
After
Aerial
Mosquito
Control
Application
Presents
the
risks
for
short­
term
and
intermediateterm
toddler
soil
ingestion
exposures
in
on
turf
while
engaged
in
high
contact
activity
after
the
area
has
been
treated
for
mosquito
control
using
aerial
equipment.

°
Appendix
L/
Table
15:
Toddler
Soil
Ingestion
Risk
Values
For
Carbaryl
on
Turf
After
Ground
Mosquito
Control
Application
Presents
the
risks
for
short­
term
and
intermediateterm
toddler
soil
ingestion
exposures
in
on
turf
while
engaged
in
high
contact
activity
after
the
area
has
been
treated
for
mosquito
control
using
ground
equipment.

°
Appendix
L/
Table
16:
Toddler
Aggregate
Risk
Values
For
Carbaryl
on
Turf
After
Aerial
Mosquito
Control
Application
Presents
the
risks
for
short­
term
and
intermediateterm
toddler
aggregate
exposures
in
on
turf
while
engaged
in
high
contact
activity
after
the
area
has
been
treated
for
mosquito
control
using
aerial
equipment.

°
Appendix
L/
Table
17:
Toddler
Aggregate
Risk
Values
For
Carbaryl
on
Turf
After
Ground
Mosquito
Control
Application
Presents
the
risks
for
short­
term
and
intermediate­
term
toddler
aggregate
exposures
in
on
turf
while
engaged
in
high
contact
activity
after
the
area
has
been
treated
for
mosquito
control
using
ground
equipment.

°
Appendix
M/
Table
1:
Summary
of
Carbaryl
Data
From
Ecology's
Post­
Spray
Samples
(July
31
­August
4,
2000)
Presents
summary
water
data
for
monitoring
conducted
by
the
Washington
State
Department
of
Ecology
in
Willapa
Bay
during
2000.
131
°
Appendix
M/
Table
2:
Summary
of
Carbaryl
Data
From
Shoalwater
Bay
Tribe
(July
17
&
19,
2000)
Presents
summary
water
data
for
monitoring
conducted
by
the
Shoalwater
Bay
Indian
Tribe
in
Willapa
Bay
during
2000.
[Note:
These
data
were
used
as
summarized
from
2001
Washington
State
Dept
of
Ecology
Report.]

°
Appendix
M/
Table
3:
Carbaryl
and
1­
napthol
Concentrations
In
Willapa
Bay
PostSpray
Sediment
Presents
summary
sediment
data
for
monitoring
conducted
by
the
Washington
State
Department
of
Ecology
in
Willapa
Bay
during
1999.

°
Appendix
M/
Table
4:
Carbaryl
Concentrations
In
Day
60
Willapa
Bay
Pore
Water
Presents
summary
water
data
for
monitoring
conducted
60
days
after
spraying
by
the
Washington
State
Department
of
Ecology
in
Willapa
Bay
during
1999.
[Note:
Samples
were
collected
in
this
study
at
2
and
30
days
after
sampling
which
were
not
reported
due
to
analytical
problems.]

°
Appendix
M/
Table
5:
Carbaryl
Oyster
Harvest/
Beach
Play
Risk
Assessment
For
Adults
and
Toddlers
Presents
noncancer
and
cancer
risk
estimates
for
adults
and
toddlers
while
oyster
harvesting
or
playing
on
a
beach.
This
assessment
is
based
on
dermal
contact
with
contaminated
sediment
and
hand­
to­
mouth
behavior
for
toddlers.
The
highest
sediment
concentration
detected
in
any
data
available
to
the
Agency
was
used
to
assure
screening
level
nature
of
assessment.

°
Appendix
M/
Table
6:
Carbaryl
Oyster
Harvest/
Beach
Play
Risk
Assessment
For
Adults
and
Toddlers
Presents
noncancer
and
cancer
risk
estimates
for
adults
if
they
were
to
swim
in
Willapa
Bay.
All
calculations
were
completed
with
the
Agency's
SWIMODEL
(V2.0).
Results
and
model
inputs
are
included
in
this
table.

The
Agency
has
addressed
residential
postapplication
exposures
to
carbaryl
using
the
standard
set
of
scenarios
that
are
prescribed
in
current
guidance.
There
are
many
issues
associated
with
the
development
of
these
scenarios
and,
in
general,
residential
exposure
methods.
Readers
should
refer
to
the
guidance
documents
that
are
presented
above
for
further
information
concerning
the
development
of
scenarios
for
residential
exposure
assessment
purposes.
The
uncertainty
factors
are
similar
to
those
applied
to
the
residential
handler
assessments
described
above
(i.
e.,
100
for
both
short­
term
and
intermediate­
term
exposures).

Risk
Summary:

Adult
Short­
term
MOEs
only
for
lawncare
(i.
e.,
heavy
yardwork)
exceed
the
Agency's
level
of
concern
on
the
day
of
application
(i.
e.,
43
to
88).
For
this
activity,
it
takes
1
and
5
days,
respectively
at
the
4
and
8
lb
ai/
acre
application
rates,
for
residues
to
dissipate
to
a
point
where
short­
term
MOEs
are
$
100.
In
all
other
scenarios
considered,
short­
term
MOEs
are
$
100
on
the
day
of
application.
These
other
scenarios
include
vegetable
gardening,
golfing,
tending
fruit
trees.
More
localized
exposures
that
occur
after
mosquito
control
or
from
exposures
associated
with
oyster
bed
treatments
are
also
included.
Intermediate­
term
MOEs
were
calculated
using
30
day
average
exposures
and
the
dissipation
rate
for
carbaryl.
In
all
cases,
intermediate­
term
MOEs
are
132
$
100.
Table
26
presents
the
postapplication
MOE
values
calculated
for
adults
after
lawn
and
home
garden
applications
of
carbaryl.

Table
26:
Summary
of
Carbaryl
Noncancer
Postapplication
Residential
MOEs
For
Adults
Scenario
Descriptor
Results
Short­
term
MOE
on
Day
0
Days
Short­
term
MOE
UF
Intermediateterm
MOE
Residential
Turf
(Lawncare)
Max
Rate
at
4
lb
ai/
A
88
1
842
Max
Rate
at
8
lb
ai/
A
43
5
412
Aerial
­
Mosquito
Adulticide
0.016
to
1.0
lb
ai/
A
3700­
231268
0
35463­
2216454
Ground
­
Mosquito
Adulticide
0.016
to
1.0
lb
ai/
A
7031­
439409
0
67380­
4211262
Golfing
Max
Rate
at
4
lb
ai/
A
1274
0
12297
Max
Rate
at
8
lb
ai/
A
624
0
6021
Aerial
­
Mosquito
Adulticide
0.016
to
1.0
lb
ai/
A
53654­
3353387
0
517764­
32360224
Ground
­
Mosquito
Adulticide
0.016
to
1.0
lb
ai/
A
101943­
6371435
0
983751­
61484426
Home
Garden
(Deciduous
Tree)
Very
Low
Exposure
(propping)
17373
0
53139
Low
Exposure
(irrigation,
scout,
weed)
1737
0
5314
High
Exposure
(harvest,
prune,
train,
tie,
thin)
579
0
1771
Home
Garden
(Fruiting
Vegetable)
Low
Exposure
(irrigation,
scout,
thin,
weed)
1758
0
9468
Medium
Exposure
(irrigation,
scout)
1256
0
6763
High
Exposure
(harvest,
prune,
stake,
tie)
879
0
4734
Oyster
Beds
Oyster
Harvest
967137
0
2680745
Swimming
293651
0
No
Data
133
Youth­
aged
children
(10
to
12
years
old)
were
only
considered
in
the
home
garden
scenarios
per
Agency
guidance.
Short­
term
MOEs
for
these
children
were
similar
to
those
calculated
for
adults
in
that
they
were
$
100
for
all
of
the
gardening
scenarios
considered.
Intermediate­
term
MOEs
were
calculated
using
30
day
average
exposures
and
the
dissipation
rate
for
carbaryl.
In
all
cases,
intermediate­
term
MOEs
are
$
100.
Table
27
below
summarizes
the
postapplication
MOE
values
calculated
for
youth
home
garden
applications
of
carbaryl.

Table
27:
Summary
of
Carbaryl
Noncancer
Postapplication
Residential
MOEs
For
Youth­
Aged
Children
Scenario
Descriptor
Results
Short­
term
MOE
on
Day
0
Days
Short­
term
MOE
UF
Intermediateterm
MOE
Home
Garden
(Deciduous
Tree)
Very
Low
Exposure
(propping)
19408
0
59364
Low
Exposure
(irrigation,
scout,
weed)
1941
0
5936
High
Exposure
(harvest,
prune,
train,
tie,
thin)
647
0
1979
Home
Garden
(Fruiting
Vegetable)
Low
Exposure
(irrigation,
scout,
thin,
weed)
1964
0
10577
Medium
Exposure
(irrigation,
scout)
1403
0
7555
High
Exposure
(harvest,
prune,
stake,
tie)
982
0
5289
Toddler
(3
year
old)
MOEs
were
calculated
for
the
lawncare
and
pet
uses
of
carbaryl.
Table
28
presents
a
summary
of
the
MOE
estimates
for
toddlers.
Exposures
were
also
addressed
that
resulted
from
residential
application
of
carbaryl
as
a
mosquito
adulticide.
Toddler
MOEs
from
treated
turf
were
calculated
at
the
lower
and
upper
ends
of
the
maximum
application
rate
range
(i.
e.,
different
maximum
rates
of
4
to
8
lb
ai/
acre
were
specified
for
different
pests).
A
range
of
application
rates
were
also
considered
for
the
mosquito
control
uses.

Short­
term
MOEs
from
exposure
to
treated
turf
(in
products
labeled
for
direct
application
to
turf)
were
<100
on
the
day
of
application
for
both
rates
considered
(i.
e.,
4
and
8
lb
ai/
acre).
In
fact,
short­
term
MOEs
from
individual
pathways
were
not
$
100
for
any
turf
scenario
considered
on
the
day
of
application
except
for
the
soil
ingestion
component
of
the
turf
assessment
which
is
a
very
minor
contributor
to
overall
exposures.
As
a
reminder,
dermal,
hand­
to­
mouth,
and
object­
to­
mouth
exposure
pathways
were
also
considered.
Total
short­
term
MOEs
(all
pathways)
were
$
100
at
the
lower
4
lb
ai/
acre
application
rate
14
days
after
application
and
18
days
at
the
higher
8
lb
ai/
acre
application
rate.
Dermal
and
hand­
to­
mouth
exposures
were
the
key
contributors
while
soil
ingestion
was
a
minor
contributor
to
the
total
MOE
estimates.
See
Appendix
H
for
more
detailed
information
on
how
each
exposure
pathway
contributed
to
the
overall
exposures.
Intermediate­
term
MOEs
were
calculated
using
30
day
average
exposures
and
the
dissipation
rate
for
carbaryl.
For
134
both
rates,
intermediate­
term
MOEs
were
<100.
Exposures
to
toddlers
were
also
considered
after
application
of
carbaryl
as
a
mosquito
adulticide.
Regardless
of
how
applications
are
made
(i.
e.,
by
ground
or
air),
both
short­
term
MOEs
on
the
day
of
application
and
intermediate­
term
MOEs
were
$
100.
See
Appendix
L
for
more
detailed
information
on
how
each
exposure
pathway
contributed
to
the
overall
exposures.

Ingestion
of
carbaryl
granules
is
also
a
potential
source
of
exposure
because
children
can
eat
them
if
they
are
found
in
treated
lawns
or
gardens.
This
scenario
is
considered
an
episodic
scenario
by
the
Agency
(i.
e.,
acute
dietary
endpoints
are
always
used).
The
concentration
of
carbaryl
in
granular
products
ranges
generally
from
2
to
10
percent.
If
this
information
is
coupled
with
the
body
weight
of
a
toddler
(15
kg),
the
endpoint
of
1
mg/
kg/
day
for
short­
term
assessments
(which
is
also
the
same
value
used
for
the
APAD),
and
the
uncertainty
factor
of
100
the
amount
of
formulation
that
can
be
consumed
at
the
uncertainty
factor
MOE
level
can
be
calculated.
The
Agency
generally
presents
these
results
based
on
the
number
of
carbaryl
granules
that
can
be
ingested.
However,
the
number
of
homeowner
formulations
is
extensive
and
impossible
to
characterize
in
that
much
detail
so
a
general
weight
estimate
is
presented.
If
a
2
percent
formulation
is
ingested,
7.5
mg
represents
exposure
at
an
MOE
of
100
(i.
e.,
1.6
x
10
­5
lb).
If
a
10
percent
formulation
is
ingested,
1.5
mg
represents
exposure
at
an
MOE
of
100
(i.
e.,
3.3
x
10
­6
lb).
For
illustrative
purposes,
if
one
considers
a
2
percent
formulation
and
the
density
of
soil
(0.67
mL/
gram,
many
granulars
are
clay
based),
only
0.005
mL
of
formulation
would
need
to
be
ingested
to
have
a
risk
concern
(i.
e.,
7.5
mg
*
1g/
1000mg
*
0.67
mL/
gram).
Note
that
this
volume
is
orders
of
magnitude
less
than
a
teaspoon
of
granular
formulation
(i.
e.,
0.1%
of
a
teaspoon
where
a
tsp.
=
5
mL).

The
assessments
for
pet
uses
considered
dermal
and
nondietary
ingestion
exposures
and
also
calculated
total
MOEs.
Short­
term
MOEs
for
pet
uses
were
<100
even
30
days
after
application
regardless
of
whether
the
formulation
used
was
a
dust,
liquid
or
collar.
This
trend
was
observed
for
each
separate
exposure
pathway
as
well
as
the
total
MOE
estimates.
Hand­
to­
mouth
and
dermal
exposures
are
approximately
equal
contributors
to
the
overall
estimates
for
each
product
type.
The
results
are
similar
for
the
intermediate­
term
MOEs
for
each
scenario.
There
is
one
pet
use
which
is
also
considered
to
be
a
chronic
exposure
by
the
Agency.
Pet
collars
are
assumed
to
be
worn
all
of
the
time
so
chronic
exposure
can
potentially
occur.
The
chronic
MOE
for
pet
collars
mirrors
the
short­
and
intermediate­
term
results.
See
Appendix
J
for
more
detailed
information
on
how
each
exposure
pathway
contributed
to
the
overall
exposures.

The
assessments
for
beach
play
for
toddlers
after
oyster
bed
treatement
considered
dermal
and
nondietary
ingestion
exposures
and
also
calculated
total
MOEs.
Short­
term
MOEs
were
>100
even
if
the
highest
monitored
sediment
concentration
value
from
any
study
available
to
the
Agency
was
used
as
the
basis
for
the
calculations.
The
intermediate­
term
results
were
similar.
See
Appendix
M
for
more
information
on
how
each
pathway
contributed
to
the
overall
exposures.
135
Table
28:
Summary
of
Carbaryl
Noncancer
Postapplication
Residential
Aggregate
MOEs
For
Toddlers
Scenario
Descriptor
Results
Short­
term
MOE
on
Day
0
Days
For
Short­
term
MOE
UF
Intermediateterm
MOE
Chronic
MOE
Pet
Treatments
Liquids
2.0
+30
4
NA
Dusts
0.
02
+30
0.04
NA
Collars
18
+30
18
43
Residential
Turf
(High
Activity)
Max
Rate
at
4
lb
ai/
A
11
14
91
NA
Max
Rate
at
8
lb
ai/
A
5
18
45
NA
Aerial
­
Mosquito
Adulticide
0.016
to
1.0
lb
ai/
A
448­
27983
0
3826­
239095
NA
Ground
­
Mosquito
Adulticide
0.016
to
1.0
lb
ai/
A
851­
53167
0
7269­
454280
NA
Oyster
Beds
Beach
Play
29532
0
81859
NA
3.2.4
Residential
Postapplication
Exposure
and
Risk
Estimates
for
Cancer
The
residential
postapplication
exposure
and
cancer
risk
calculations
are
presented
in
this
section.
Cancer
risks
were
calculated
using
a
linear
low­
dose
extrapolation
approach
in
which
a
Lifetime
Average
Daily
Dose
(LADD)
is
first
calculated
and
then
compared
with
a
Q1*
that
has
been
calculated
for
carbaryl
based
on
dose
response
data
in
the
appropriate
toxicology
study
(Q1*
=
8.75
x
10
­4
(mg/
kg/
day)
­1
).
Absorbed
average
daily
dose
(ADD)
levels
were
used
as
the
basis
for
calculating
the
LADD
values.
Section
2.1.3
above
describes
how
the
ADD
values
were
first
calculated
for
the
noncancer
MOE
calculations.
These
values
also
serve
as
the
basis
for
the
cancer
risk
estimates.
Dermal
and
inhalation
ADD
values
were
first
added
together
to
obtain
combined
ADD
values.
LADD
values
were
then
calculated
and
compared
the
Q1*
to
obtain
cancer
risk
estimates.

LADD
and
Cancer
Risk
Calculations:
The
use
of
dissipation
data
and
the
manner
in
which
daily
postapplication
dermal
exposure
values
were
calculated
were
inherently
different
than
with
handler
exposures.
Once
daily
exposure
values
were
determined,
the
calculation
of
LADD
(Lifetime
Average
Daily
Dose)
and
the
resulting
cancer
risks
use
the
same
algorithms
that
were
described
above
for
the
handler
exposures
(See
Section
2.1.4).

As
mentioned
previously,
the
Agency
has
defined
a
range
of
acceptable
cancer
risks
based
on
a
policy
issued
in
1996.
This
memo
refers
to
a
predetermined
quantified
"level
of
concern"
for
residential
carcinogenic
risk.
In
summary,
residential
carcinogenic
risks
that
are
1
x
10
­6
or
lower
require
no
risk
management
action.
In
addition
to
the
cancer
risk
estimates
for
an
annual
frequency
of
1
time
per
year,
the
number
of
days
of
exposure
per
year
required
to
get
a
1x10
­6
cancer
risk
have
136
been
calculated.
In
this
calculation,
the
1x10
­6
cancer
risk
limit
was
divided
by
the
calculated
cancer
risk
for
each
scenario
for
a
single
day
of
exposure.
This
calculation
would
only
be
completed
for
situations
where
the
cancer
risks
were
less
than
1x10
­6
on
the
day
of
application.

Cancer
Risk
Summary
All
of
the
cancer
risk
calculations
for
the
various
residential
carbaryl
assessments
are
included
in
Appendices
H,
I,
L
and
M
for
the
turf,
home
garden,
mosquito
adulticide,
and
oyster
treatment
scenarios,
respectively.
The
specifics
of
each
of
table
included
in
these
Appendices
are
described
below.
A
summary
of
the
results
for
each
scenario
considered
for
each
timeframe
is
also
provided
below.

C
Appendix
H/
Table
4:
Adult
Cancer
Risk
Values
For
Carbaryl
Residential
Risk
Assessment
on
Turf
Presents
the
risks
for
activities
on
turf
including
lawncare
and
golfing
at
the
two
application
rates
considered
in
the
assessment.

C
Appendix
I/
Tables
3:
Carbaryl
Residential
Postapplication
Adult
Cancer
Risk
Assessment
For
Deciduous
Tree
Crop
Group
Risk
values
are
presented
for
different
activities
in
home
tree
crops.

C
Appendix
I/
Tables
6:
Carbaryl
Residential
Postapplication
Adult
Cancer
Risk
Assessment
For
Fruiting
Vegetable
Crop
Group
Risk
values
are
presented
for
different
activities
in
home
vegetable
gardens.

°
Appendix
M/
Table
5:
Carbaryl
Oyster
Harvest/
Beach
Play
Risk
Assessment
For
Adults
and
Toddlers
Presents
noncancer
and
cancer
risk
estimates
for
adults
and
toddlers
while
oyster
harvesting
or
playing
on
a
beach.
This
assessment
is
based
on
dermal
contact
with
contaminated
sediment
and
hand­
to­
mouth
behavior
for
toddlers.
The
highest
sediment
concentration
detected
in
any
data
available
to
the
Agency
was
used
to
assure
screening
level
nature
of
assessment.

°
Appendix
M/
Table
6:
Carbaryl
Oyster
Harvest/
Beach
Play
Risk
Assessment
For
Adults
and
Toddlers
Presents
noncancer
and
cancer
risk
estimates
for
adults
if
they
were
to
swim
in
Willapa
Bay.
All
calculations
were
completed
with
the
Agency's
SWIMODEL
(V2.0).
Results
and
model
inputs
are
included
in
this
table.

For
all
scenarios
on
turf,
cancer
risks
are
in
the
10
­8
range
or
less
on
the
day
of
application
when
a
single
reentry
event
per
year
during
lawncare
activities
is
evaluated.
For
home
gardening,
golfing
or
from
mosquito
control,
risks
are
slightly
lower
in
the
10
­9
to
10
­12
range
when
a
single
reentry
event
per
year
is
evaluated
on
the
day
of
application.
Table
29
below
summarizes
the
postapplication
risk
values
calculated
for
adults
after
applications
of
carbaryl.
Risk
managers
should
consider
these
values
represent
a
single
reentry
day
into
a
treated
area
over
each
year
of
a
50
year
lifetime
on
the
day
of
application
and
that
the
Agency
lacks
data
to
link
the
annual
frequency
of
reentry
activity
to
residential
applications.
As
with
the
residential
handler
risks
above,
the
Agency
calculated
the
number
of
exposure
days
needed
to
reach
a
risk
level
of
1x10
­6
for
each
scenario
on
the
day
of
application,
values
range
from
20
to
over
365
days
per
year
while
most
exceed
365
days
per
year.
137
Table
29:
Summary
of
Carbaryl
Postapplication
Residential
Cancer
Risks
For
Adults
Scenario
Descriptor
Results
Risk
on
Day
0
Allowed
Days/
Year
Residential
Turf
(Lawncare)
Max
Rate
at
4
lb
ai/
A
2.5
x
10
­8
40
Max
Rate
at
8
lb
ai/
A
5.1
x
10
­8
20
Aerial
­
Mosquito
Adulticide
0.016
to
1.0
lb
ai/
A
9.5
x
10
­12
to
5.9
x
10
­10
>365
Ground
­
Mosquito
Adulticide
0.016
to
1.0
lb
ai/
A
5.0
x
10
­12
to
3.1
x
10
­10
>365
Golfing
Max
Rate
at
4
lb
ai/
A
1.7
x
10
­9
>365
Max
Rate
at
8
lb
ai/
A
3.5
x
10
­9
287
Aerial
­
Mosquito
Adulticide
0.016
to
1.0
lb
ai/
A
6.5
x
10
­13
to
4.1
x
10
­11
>365
Ground
­
Mosquito
Adulticide
0.016
to
1.0
lb
ai/
A
3.4
x
10
­13
to
2.1
x
10
­11
>365
Home
Garden
(Deciduous
Tree)
Very
Low
Exposure
(propping)
2.5
x
10
­10
>365
Low
Exposure
(irrigation,
scout,
weed)
2.5
x
10
­9
>365
High
Exposure
(harvest,
prune,
train,
tie,
thin)
7.5
x
10
­9
133
Home
Garden
(Fruiting
Vegetable)
Low
Exposure
(irrigation,
scout,
thin,
weed)
2.5
x
10
­9
>365
Medium
Exposure
(irrigation,
scout)
3.5
x
10
­9
289
High
Exposure
(harvest,
prune,
stake,
tie)
4.9
x
10
­9
202
Oyster
Beds
Oyster
Harvest
4.
5
x
10
­12
>365
Swimming
6.1
x
10
­12
>365
3.2.5
Summary
of
Residential
Postapplication
Risk
Concerns
and
Data
Gaps
The
Agency
considered
a
number
of
exposure
scenarios
for
products
that
can
be
used
in
the
residential
environment
representing
different
segments
of
the
population
including
toddlers,
youthaged
children
and
adults.
Short­
term
and
intermediate­
term
noncancer
MOEs
were
calculated
for
all
scenarios.
Additionally,
cancer
risks
were
calculated
for
the
exposure
scenarios
involving
adults
where
methods
are
currently
available.
Cancer
risks
were
not
calculated
for
children
per
Agency
policy.
In
residential
settings,
the
Agency
does
not
use
REIs
or
other
mitigation
approaches
to
limit
exposures
because
they
are
viewed
as
impractical
and
not
enforceable.
As
such,
risk
estimates
on
the
day
of
application
are
the
key
concern.
138
The
Agency
has
short­
term
risk
concerns
for
exposures
to
adults
doing
heavy
yardwork,
for
toddlers
playing
on
treated
lawns,
and
for
toddlers
that
have
contact
with
treated
pets.
Activities
associated
with
home
gardening
(e.
g.,
harvesting)
and
golfing
for
adults,
home
gardening
for
youthaged
children
or
any
age
or
activity
considered
in
the
adulticide
mosquito
control
or
oyster
assessment
do
not
have
risk
concerns
even
on
the
day
of
application
(i.
e.,
MOEs
$
100
on
the
day
of
application).
For
adults,
the
MOEs
for
heavy
yardwork
do
not
meet
or
exceed
risk
targets
(i.
e.,
MOE
=
100)
up
to
5
days
after
application.
For
toddlers,
the
Agency
has
concerns
for
pet
treatments
and
also
for
lawn
uses.
In
fact,
pet
uses
never
reach
acceptable
levels
even
30
days
after
application
and
not
until
18
days
at
the
maximum
application
rate
considered
on
turf.
Toddler
MOEs
from
pet
and
turf
uses
represent
total
exposures
from
many
pathways.
For
the
pet
uses,
dermal
and
hand­
to­
mouth
exposures
essentially
both
equally
contribute
to
the
overall
estimate.
For
the
turf
uses,
dermal
and
hand­
to­
mouth
exposures
are
also
the
key
contributors
to
the
overall
estimates.

The
Agency
does
not
have
intermediate­
term
risk
concerns
for
adults
and
youth­
aged
children
for
any
of
the
uses
considered
including
lawncare,
home
gardens,
golfing,
and
any
aspect
of
adulticide
mosquito
control
or
oyster
bed
uses.
In
contrast,
the
Agency
does
have
intermediateterm
risk
concerns
for
all
toddler
exposure
scenarios
considered
(i.
e.,
pet
treatments
and
lawncare
uses).
As
with
the
short­
term
MOEs,
pet
and
turf
uses
represent
total
exposures
where
the
significant
contributions
to
overall
exposures
are
again
made
equally
from
the
dermal
and
hand­
tomouth
exposure
pathways.

Cancer
risks
were
calculated
only
for
adults
and
were
found
to
be
in
the
10
­8
to
10
­12
range,
regardless
of
the
scenarios
considered,
on
the
day
of
application
(e.
g.,
lawncare,
golfing
and
gardening).
Risks
did
not
exceed
1x10
­6
on
the
day
of
application
for
any
scenario
considered.
All
postapplication
cancer
risks
were
calculated
based
on
an
annual
frequency
of
1
exposure
per
year.
It
is
likely
that
additional
events
could
occur
but
data
linking
postapplication
activities
and
carbaryl
use
patterns
are
not
available.
To
address
this
issue,
the
Agency
calculated
the
number
of
exposures
that
can
occur
under
a
cancer
risk
ceiling
of
1x10
­6
and
determined
that
from
20
days
per
year
to
exposures
every
day
of
the
year
could
occur
depending
upon
the
scenario.
Results
indicate
most
activities
can
occur
from
every
day
of
the
year
even
at
residue
levels
present
on
the
day
of
application..

Unlike
many
residential
risk
assessments,
the
postapplication
residential
assessment
for
carbaryl
is
based
on
a
number
of
chemical­
specific
studies
that
have
been
used
to
calculate
risks
from
turf
uses
(e.
g.,
TTR
study)
and
in
gardens
(i.
e.,
DFR
data).
There
are
no
transferable
residue
data
available
for
pet
uses
which
is
a
key
data
gap.
Additional
data
could
potentially
be
used
to
refine
risk
estimates
for
the
other
settings
such
as
additional
DFR
data
on
different
crops
and
TTR
data
which
are
more
appropriate
for
hand­
to­
mouth
and
object­
to­
mouth
exposures.

The
Agency
combines
risks
resulting
from
total
exposures
to
individual
chemicals
when
it
is
likely
they
can
occur
simultaneously
based
on
the
use
pattern
and
the
behavior
associated
with
the
exposed
population.
For
carbaryl,
the
Agency
has
combined
risk
values
(i.
e.,
MOEs)
for
different
kinds
of
exposures
associated
with
the
turf
(dermal,
hand­
to­
mouth,
object­
to­
mouth,
and
soil
139
ingestion)
and
pet
scenarios
(dermal
and
hand­
to­
mouth).
These
represent
the
standard
set
of
exposures
that
are
typically
added
together
when
chemicals
are
used
on
turf
or
on
pets
because
it
is
logical
they
can
co­
occur.
Typically,
the
Agency
only
adds
exposures
from
different
exposure
scenarios
together
(e.
g.,
spraying
and
gardening)
when
risks
from
both
are
not
already
a
concern.
For
carbaryl,
there
are
risk
concerns
for
many
residential
handler
scenarios
already
so
the
Agency
did
not
add
risk
values
from
any
postapplication
exposure
together
with
applicator
risks.

3.2.6
Recommendations
For
Refining
Residential
Postapplication
Risk
Assessment
In
order
to
refine
this
residential
assessment,
data
on
actual
use
patterns
including
rates,
timing,
and
the
kinds
of
tasks
that
are
required
to
better
characterize
carbaryl
risks.
Exposure
studies
for
many
cultural
practices
that
lack
data
or
that
are
not
well
represented
in
the
current
Agency
guidance
should
also
be
considered
based
on
the
data
gaps
identified
above
(e.
g.,
pet
uses).
Risk
managers
should
consider
that
the
risks
associated
with
current
label
generally
do
not
meet
Agency
targets,
especially
for
the
turf,
pet
and
high
exposure
garden
scenarios.

3.3
Residential
Risk
Characterization
3.3.1
Handler
Characterization
The
residential
handler
assessment
for
carbaryl
is
complex
in
that
calculations
were
completed
for
54
different
equipment
and
application
rate
scenarios.
Unlike
the
occupational
assessments,
only
short­
term
exposures
were
considered
for
handlers
because
homeowner
use
patterns
are
not
believed
by
the
Agency
to
lead
to
intermediate­
term
exposures
because
of
their
sporadic
nature.
Cancer
risks
were
also
calculated
using
a
linear,
low­
dose
extrapolation
model
(i.
e.,
Q1*)
for
typical
residential
users
(1
event/
year).
Cancer
risks
were
also
considered
by
calculating
the
number
of
days
exposure
that
would
be
required
per
year
to
achieve
a
cancer
risk
of
1x10
­6
to
illustrate
risk
levels
from
another
perspective.
All
totaled,
when
each
type
of
calculation
is
considered,
108
different
crop/
application
method
calculations
were
completed
for
residential
handlers.

The
data
that
were
used
in
the
in
the
carbaryl
residential
handler
assessment
represent
the
best
data
and
approaches
that
are
currently
available.
For
most
of
the
major
use
patterns,
carbarylspecific
data
or
data
generated
by
the
Outdoor
Residential
Exposure
Task
Force
were
used.
These
data
generally
are
considered
to
be
high
quality
by
the
Agency
and
the
best
source
of
information
available
for
the
scenarios
where
they
were
used.
Carbaryl­
specific
data
were
used
to
address
the
garden
and
tree/
ornamental
scenarios
with
several
types
of
equipment
and
formulations
including
liquid
trigger
sprayers,
dusts,
and
liquid
sprays
using
low
pressure
handwand
and
hose­
end
sprayers.
Carbaryl­
specific
data
were
also
available
for
dusting
dogs.
The
ORETF
data
for
hoseend
sprayer
applications
to
turf
and
granular
applications
to
turf
were
also
used
to
address
those
scenarios.
In
the
remaining
scenarios,
the
Pesticide
Handlers
Exposure
Database
(PHED)
was
used
to
develop
the
unit
exposure
values.
The
quality
of
the
data
included
in
PHED
vary
widely
from
scenarios
that
meet
guideline
requirements
for
studies
to
others
where
a
limited
number
of
poor
quality
datapoints
are
available.
All
data
that
have
been
used
may
not
be
of
optimal
quality
but
140
represent
the
best
available
data.

The
inputs
for
application
rate
and
other
use/
usage
information
(e.
g.,
area
treated
and
frequency
of
use)
used
by
the
Agency
were
supported
by
the
available
carbaryl
labels
and
information
supplied
by
the
Aventis
Corporation
at
the
September
24,
1998
SMART
Meeting.
It
is
also
very
clear
that
because
carbaryl
is
such
as
widely
used
chemical
that
it
is
likely
every
potential
exposure
scenario
has
not
been
captured
because
of
difference
in
use
pattern.
As
more
refined
information
becomes
available
on
carbaryl
use,
the
Agency
will
refine
its
assessment
accordingly.

There
are
also
many
uncertainties
in
the
assessment
that
are
common
with
the
occupational
assessment
as
well.
These
factors
and
their
impacts
on
the
results
should
be
considered
as
well
in
the
interpretation
of
the
results
for
residential
handlers.
Section
2.3.1
provides
a
summary
of
these
issues.

In
summary,
with
respect
to
residential
handler
risks,
the
Agency
believes
that
the
values
presented
in
this
assessment
represent
the
highest
quality
results
that
could
be
produced
given
the
exposure,
use,
and
toxicology
data
that
are
available.
However,
there
are
certain
elements
where
additional
data
are
required.
For
example,
it
is
difficult
to
ascertain
where
on
a
distribution
certain
input
values
may
fall
because
the
distributional
data
for
exposure,
application
rates,
acres
treated
and
many
other
parameters
are
unrefined.

3.3.2
Postapplication
Characterization
Like
the
residential
handler
assessment
discussed
above,
the
postapplication
residential
assessment
for
carbaryl
is
also
complex
in
that
noncancer
MOE
calculations
were
required
based
on
the
recently
selected
endpoints
along
with
cancer
risk
calculations
using
a
linear,
low­
dose
extrapolation
model.
Carbaryl
residues
persist
in
the
environment
as
indicated
in
the
available
DFR
and
TTR
data
for
periods
where
intermediate­
term
as
well
as
short­
term
noncancer
risk
estimates
are
required.
Cancer
risks
were
calculated
only
for
adults
per
current
Agency
policy.

The
general
population
can
be
exposed
through
many
different
pathways
that
result
from
uses
on
lawns
and
turf,
in
gardens,
on
ornamental
plants,
and
from
treated
pets.
People
can
also
be
exposed
from
mosquito
adulticide
applications
and
uses
in
oyster
beds.
Carbaryl
labels
do
not
currently
allow
for
indoor
residential
uses
(e.
g.,
crack
and
crevice).
Settings
where
such
exposures
could
occur
would
include
around
personal
residences
and
in
other
areas
frequented
by
the
general
public
including
parks,
ball
fields,
and
playgrounds.
To
represent
the
wide
array
of
possible
exposures,
the
Agency
relies
on
the
scenarios
that
have
been
defined
in
the
SOPs
For
Residential
Exposure
Assessment
and
accompanying
documents
such
as
the
overview
presented
to
the
FIFRA
Science
Advisory
Panel.
For
turf
uses,
the
Agency
considered
adults
and
toddlers
(3
year
olds)
in
the
assessments.
Adult
activities
included
lawncare/
maintenance
and
also
golfing.
Toddler
MOEs
were
calculated
for
playing
on
turf
(using
exposure
data
from
the
Jazzercize
model)
and
also
addressed
nondietary
ingestion
(hand­/
object­
to­
mouth
and
soil
ingestion).
Exposures
from
tree
and
garden
uses
were
evaluated
by
considering
adults
and
youth­
aged
children
(10
to
12
years
old)
doing
gardening
activities
such
as
weeding
and
harvesting
for
different
crop
groups.
Transfer
coefficients
from
the
fruiting
vegetable
crop
group
and
the
deciduous
tree
crop
group
were
used,
as
141
described
in
the
SOPs
For
Residential
Exposure
Assessment
to
represent
exposures
for
these
scenarios.
MOEs
from
treated
pets
were
evaluated
for
toddlers
again
for
whom
exposures
may
occur
from
dermal
contact
and
hand­
to­
mouth
behavior.
Adulticide
mosquito
applications
were
considered
by
first
defining
how
much
residues
are
deposited
on
the
ground
after
a
mosquito
control
application
then
using
the
same
methods
approaches
from
the
lawncare
assessment
to
address
adults
doing
heavy
yardwork
or
golfing
and
also
children
playing
on
treated
turf.

The
data
that
were
used
in
the
carbaryl
residential
postapplication
assessment
represent
the
best
data
and
approaches
that
are
currently
available.
To
the
extent
possible,
the
Agency
has
attempted
to
use
carbaryl­
specific
data
such
as
with
the
dislodgeable
foliar
residue
(DFR)
data
used
for
the
garden
scenarios
and
the
turf
transferable
residue
(TTR)
data
used
for
the
dermal
component
of
the
turf
scenarios.
When
chemical­
specific
data
were
unavailable,
the
Agency
used
the
current
approaches
for
residential
assessment,
many
of
which
include
recent
upgrades
to
the
SOPs.
For
example,
for
the
toddler
hand­
to­
mouth
calculations,
the
TTR
data
were
not
used
but
a
5
percent
transferability
factor
was
applied
to
calculate
residue
levels
appropriate
for
this
exposure
pathway.
Another
key
approach
to
consider
is
the
use
of
the
dermal
hug
approach
for
pet
products
which
was
proposed
at
the
September
1999
meeting
of
the
FIFRA
Science
Advisory
Panel.
Oyster
bed
uses
were
evaluated
based
on
guidance
from
Superfund
and
the
Agency's
SWIMODEL.
There
are
also
many
embedded
uncertainties
that
should
be
considered
in
the
interpretation
of
this
assessment
such
as
those
associated
with
the
use
of
Jazzercize
and
with
the
nondietary
ingestion
calculations.
Readers
should
consider
these
in
the
interpretation
of
the
overall
risk
estimates.
Readers
should
also
consider
the
screening
nature
of
the
SOPs
For
Residential
Exposure
Assessment
and
how
additional
data
could
refine
the
results.

Finally,
the
Agency
believes
that
the
values
presented
in
this
assessment
represent
the
highest
quality
results
that
could
be
produced
based
on
the
currently
available
postapplication
exposure
data.
Readers
of
this
document
should
consider
the
quality
of
individual
inputs
when
interpreting
the
results
and
make
decisions
accordingly.
It
is
difficult
to
ascertain
where,
on
a
distribution,
the
calculated
values
fall
because
the
distributional
data
for
exposure,
residue
dissipation
and
many
other
parameters
are
unrefined.
The
Agency
does
believe,
however,
that
the
risks
represent
conservative
estimates
of
exposure
because
maximum
application
rates
are
used
to
define
residue
levels
upon
which
the
calculations
are
based.
Additionally,
estimates
are
thought
to
be
conservative
even
when
measures
of
central
tendency
(e.
g.,
most
transfer
coefficients
are
thought
to
be
central
tendency)
are
used
because
values
that
would
be
considered
to
be
in
the
lower
percentile
aspect
of
any
input
parameter
have
not
been
used
in
the
calculations.
Appendix
A:
Use
Information
For
Carbaryl
Quantitative
Usage
Analysis
for
Carbaryl
Case
Number:
0080
PC
Code:
56801
Date:
July
21,
1998
Analyst:
Frank
Hernandez
Based
on
available
pesticide
survey
usage
information
for
the
years
of
1987
through
1996,
an
annual
estimate
of
carbaryl
total
domestic
usage
averaged
approximately
two
and
one
half
million
pounds
active
ingredient
(a.
i.)
for
over
one
and
one
half
million
acres
treated.
Carbaryl
is
an
insecticide
with
its
largest
markets
in
terms
of
total
pounds
active
ingredient
allocated
to
pecans
(12%),
apples
(9%),
grapes(
6%),
oranges
(5%),
alfalfa
(5%),
and
corn
(4%).
Most
of
the
usage
is
in
AR,
CA,
GA,
IL,
IN,
MI,
MS,
OH,
OK,
and
TX.

Crops
with
a
high
percentage
of
the
total
U.
S.
planted
acres
treated
include
avocados
(67%),
Chinese
cabbage
(57%),
asparagus
(43%),
cranberries
(39%),
and
Brussels
sprouts
(33%).

Crops
with
less
than
1
percent
of
the
crop
treated
include
alfalfa,
dry
beans,
canola,
corn,
cotton,
flax,
oats,
pasture,
green
peas,
safflower,
sod,

sorghum,
soybeans,
sugar
cane,
sunflowers,
sweet
corn,
walnuts,
wheat,
and
woodland.

Site
Acres
Grown
(000)
Acres
Treated
(000)
%
of
Crop
Treated
LB
AI
Applied
(000)
Average
Application
Rate
States
of
Most
Usage
Wtd
Avg
Est
Max
Wtd
Avg
Est
Max
Wtd
Avg
Est
Max
lb
ai/
acre/
y
r
#appl
/
yr
lb
ai/

A/
appl
(%
of
total
lb
ai
used
on
this
site)

Alfalfa
23,949
120
263
0.50
1.10
130
365
1.1
1.0
1.1
NE
SD
OK
MT
ND
IL
77%

Almonds
429
7
16
1.72
3.61
16
49
2.1
1.0
2.1
CA
100%

Apples
572
131
175
22.92
30.59
230
282
1.8
1.4
1.2
WA
MI
NY
CA
CT
IN
77%

Asparagus
88
38
77
43.35
86.69
46
117
1.2
1.3
0.9
MI
WA
97%

Avocados
82
55
70
66.93
85.18
1
2
0.0
1.5
0.0
Beans,
Dry
1,802
12
51
0.65
2.86
6
28
0.5
1.0
0.5
CA
ND
CO
88%
Site
Acres
Grown
(000)
Acres
Treated
(000)
%
of
Crop
Treated
LB
AI
Applied
(000)
Average
Application
Rate
States
of
Most
Usage
Wtd
Avg
Est
Max
Wtd
Avg
Est
Max
Wtd
Avg
Est
Max
lb
ai/
acre/
y
r
#appl
/
yr
lb
ai/

A/
appl
(%
of
total
lb
ai
used
on
this
site)

Beans,
Lima,
Fresh
6
1
2
12.49
29.88
1
2
1.1
1.2
0.9
GA
100%

Beans,
Snap,
Fresh
81
11
17
14.12
21.03
16
23
1.4
1.6
0.9
NC
FL
84%

Beans,
Snap,
Proc.
228
24
36
10.39
15.83
28
43
1.2
1.6
0.7
IL
St
OR
83%

Beets
12
2
3
16.87
27.45
1
2
0.5
1.0
0.5
WI
TX
OR
94%

Blackberries
5
1
2
28.39
44.05
2
4
1.7
1.0
1.7
OR
100%

Blueberries
59
13
26
22.43
44.85
26
53
2.0
1.2
1.7
ME
MI
83%

Broccoli
114
5
10
4.43
8.86
4
8
0.8
1.0
0.8
CA
OR
TX
88%

Brussels
Sprouts
3
1
2
33.33
66.67
1
2
1.0
1.1
0.9
Cabbage,
Chinese
9
5
7
57.47
80.46
1
2
0.2
1.1
0.2
CA
90%

Cabbage,
Fresh
84
1
4
1.78
4.40
2
6
1.6
1.6
1.0
NC
NY
84%

Canola
39
0
2
0.31
4.64
0
1
0.5
1.0
0.5
MT
100%

Cantaloupes
113
8
11
7.27
9.39
8
13
0.9
1.1
0.8
CA
IL
GA
TX
83%

Carrots
107
4
6
3.67
5.75
9
23
2.3
2.5
0.9
WI
MI
MN
88%

Cauliflower
58
1
2
1.55
3.60
1
2
1.1
1.0
1.1
OR
CA
WA
83%

Celery
37
1
2
2.97
6.13
2
4
1.8
1.8
1.0
MI
WI
89%

Cherries,
Sweet
47
12
17
25.29
36.45
32
46
2.7
1.4
1.9
WA
MI
CA
84%

Cherries,
Tart
49
6
11
11.79
23.59
13
27
2.3
1.3
1.9
MI
NY
88%
Site
Acres
Grown
(000)
Acres
Treated
(000)
%
of
Crop
Treated
LB
AI
Applied
(000)
Average
Application
Rate
States
of
Most
Usage
Wtd
Avg
Est
Max
Wtd
Avg
Est
Max
Wtd
Avg
Est
Max
lb
ai/
acre/
y
r
#appl
/
yr
lb
ai/

A/
appl
(%
of
total
lb
ai
used
on
this
site)

Citrus,
Other
51
2
3
2.98
5.65
5
12
3.2
1.8
1.8
FL
86%

Collards
11
0
1
3.72
10.13
0
1
0.9
1.0
0.9
NJ
88%

Corn
72,284
82
164
0.11
0.23
110
228
1.3
1.3
1.0
MO
NE
MS
IN
GA
IL
51%

Cotton
12,689
26
77
0.20
0.61
32
94
1.2
1.1
1.1
TN
MS
TX
CA
83%

Cranberries
29
11
24
38.97
83.65
23
48
2.0
1.0
2.0
WI
MA
95%

Cucumbers
146
20
46
14.03
31.83
23
51
1.1
1.0
1.1
NC
OH
SC
NY
VA
DE
73%

Cucumbers,
Proc.
117
5
11
4.69
9.37
7
15
1.3
2.2
0.6
NC
MI
85%

Eggplant
119
11
25
8.87
20.59
22
54
2.0
2.1
1.0
FL
NJ
TX
IL
OR
CA
64%

Flax
188
1
2
0.46
0.91
1
2
1.1
1.0
1.1
ND
100%

Grapefruit
194
8
11
4.05
5.59
18
20
2.3
1.6
1.4
FL
TX
95%

Grapes
825
64
97
7.77
11.81
150
217
2.3
1.7
1.4
NY
CA
OR
PA
MI
AR
77%

Hay,
Other
33,427
91
267
0.27
0.80
87
273
1.0
1.2
0.8
TX
SD
FL
NC
CA
LA
81%

Hazelnuts
(Filberts)
27
1
3
3.90
12.18
3
8
2.5
1.0
2.5
Lemons
63
2
4
2.77
6.55
6
14
3.4
1.3
2.7
CA
91%

Lettuce,
Head
212
7
17
3.08
8.10
8
22
1.3
1.2
1.1
CA
82%

Lots/
Farmsteads/
etc
24,815
58
152
0.23
0.61
60
174
1.0
2.5
0.4
MA
AZ
FL
PA
TX
KY
62%

Melons,
Honeydew
27
5
12
19.09
43.69
4
10
0.9
1.2
0.7
CA
100%
Site
Acres
Grown
(000)
Acres
Treated
(000)
%
of
Crop
Treated
LB
AI
Applied
(000)
Average
Application
Rate
States
of
Most
Usage
Wtd
Avg
Est
Max
Wtd
Avg
Est
Max
Wtd
Avg
Est
Max
lb
ai/
acre/
y
r
#appl
/
yr
lb
ai/

A/
appl
(%
of
total
lb
ai
used
on
this
site)

Nectarines
29
4
7
12.11
24.22
15
30
4.2
1.1
3.8
Oats/
Rye
6,133
8
18
0.13
0.29
6
13
0.7
1.0
0.7
MN
MS
ND
TX
MT
MI
77%

Okra
3
1
3
32.36
94.03
2
6
1.9
1.0
1.9
TX
84%

Olives
32
3
5
9.61
15.42
16
26
5.3
1.0
5.3
CA
100%

Onions,
Dry
157
6
18
3.71
11.36
23
72
4.0
7.0
0.6
MI
100%

Oranges
867
28
42
3.27
4.89
130
194
4.6
1.3
3.4
CA
FL
99%

Other
Crops
2,515
35
43
1.39
1.70
63
156
1.8
1.3
1.4
CA
MA
TX
NJ
WA
MI
75%

Pasture
86,960
27
69
0.03
0.08
25
77
0.9
1.0
0.9
NC
TX
SC
NE
LA
80%

Peaches
212
32
38
15.10
18.05
96
203
3.0
2.9
1.0
GA
CA
TX
OK
SC
MI
68%

Peanuts
1,610
48
96
2.99
5.99
53
107
1.1
1.4
0.8
GA
TX
NC
AL
VA
84%

Pears
78
2
5
2.92
6.43
3
8
1.5
1.5
1.0
WA
OR
CA
PA
NY
OH
73%

Peas,
Dry
249
6
22
2.52
8.97
6
22
1.0
1.0
1.0
WA
ID
TX
93%

Peas,
Green
386
6
28
1.59
7.13
9
40
1.5
1.0
1.5
MN
OR
83%

Peas,
Green,
Proc.
329
2
17
0.62
5.23
3
25
1.5
1.0
1.5
OR
100%

Pecans
488
95
115
19.53
23.51
290
610
3.0
2.2
1.4
GA
TX
OK
MS
AR
84%

Peppers,
Bell
55
6
11
10.15
20.30
9
22
1.5
1.7
0.9
FL
CA
MI
90%

Peppers,
Sweet
77
10
23
12.95
29.95
14
31
1.3
1.0
1.3
CA
FL
KY
LA
IL
80%
Site
Acres
Grown
(000)
Acres
Treated
(000)
%
of
Crop
Treated
LB
AI
Applied
(000)
Average
Application
Rate
States
of
Most
Usage
Wtd
Avg
Est
Max
Wtd
Avg
Est
Max
Wtd
Avg
Est
Max
lb
ai/
acre/
y
r
#appl
/
yr
lb
ai/

A/
appl
(%
of
total
lb
ai
used
on
this
site)

Pistachios
52
9
20
16.84
38.06
32
72
3.6
1.0
3.6
Plums
64
3
6
4.68
9.36
12
23
3.8
1.0
3.8
CA
81%

Potatoes
1,421
24
38
1.70
2.68
34
50
1.4
1.7
0.8
ND
WA
MI
ID
FL
NY
59%

Pumpkins
36
11
20
31.21
56.11
37
66
3.2
1.6
2.0
IL
PA
IN
OH
83%

Raspberries
11
0
1
3.57
9.84
1
3
2.8
1.0
2.8
OR
MI
92%

Rice
2,921
33
40
1.15
1.37
41
58
1.2
1.1
1.1
TX
CA
80%

Safflower
113
1
7
0.98
5.96
0
3
0.4
1.0
0.4
CA
100%

Sod
152
0
7
0.14
4.28
0
15
2.2
1.0
2.2
TX
NH
100%

Sorghum
11,280
23
47
0.21
0.41
31
62
1.3
1.2
1.1
MO
KS
TX
LA
NE
MS
75%

Soybeans
62,879
101
210
0.16
0.33
86
174
0.9
1.0
0.9
MN
NE
SD
MS
NC
IL
60%

Squash
53
6
14
11.25
26.77
8
19
1.4
1.0
1.4
NJ
FL
MI
CA
NY
TX
90%

Strawberries
51
8
12
16.02
23.62
24
55
2.9
2.1
1.4
CA
FL
NC
PA
81%

Sugar
Beets
1,415
23
54
1.60
3.80
34
126
1.5
1.1
1.3
CA
TX
WA
MN
OR
84%

Sugarcane
852
0
1
0.04
0.07
0
0
0.2
1.1
0.1
FL
100%

Sunflower
2,745
11
40
0.40
1.47
8
31
0.7
1.1
0.7
SD
ND
92%

Sweet
Corn,
Fresh
233
9
17
3.84
7.12
28
52
3.1
2.5
1.3
CA
MI
IL
82%

Sweet
Corn,
Proc.
544
3
21
0.49
3.81
8
63
3.0
2.9
1.1
IL
100%
Site
Acres
Grown
(000)
Acres
Treated
(000)
%
of
Crop
Treated
LB
AI
Applied
(000)
Average
Application
Rate
States
of
Most
Usage
Wtd
Avg
Est
Max
Wtd
Avg
Est
Max
Wtd
Avg
Est
Max
lb
ai/
acre/
y
r
#appl
/
yr
lb
ai/

A/
appl
(%
of
total
lb
ai
used
on
this
site)

Sweet
Potatoes
85
16
35
18.47
40.90
25
55
1.6
1.0
1.6
LA
MS
NC
82%

Tobacco
695
10
20
1.50
2.85
18
44
1.7
1.5
1.1
NC
KY
SC
TN
IN
84%

Tomatoes,
Fresh
136
7
15
5.40
10.80
14
35
1.9
2.6
0.7
CA
FL
TX
87%

Tomatoes,
Proc.
329
48
88
14.47
26.86
72
135
1.5
1.3
1.2
CA
97%

Walnuts
205
1
4
0.54
1.82
2
8
2.1
1.1
1.9
CA
100%

Watermelons
258
33
38
12.71
14.79
16
33
0.5
1.0
0.5
FL
IN
MS
TX
GA
76%

Wheat,
Spring
20,799
24
48
0.11
0.23
16
32
0.7
1.0
0.6
ND
MN
MT
88%

Wheat,
Winter
45,854
50
106
0.11
0.23
44
78
0.9
1.0
0.8
KY
NC
TX
WY
OR
MD
67%

Woodland
62,825
31
72
0.05
0.11
26
54
0.8
1.2
0.7
PA
MI
FL
ND
OH
IA
79%

Total
1659.6
2464
2517.2
3926
COLUMN
HEADINGS
Wtd
Avg
=
Weighted
average­­
the
most
recent
years
and
more
reliable
data
are
weighted
more
heavily.

Est
Max
=
Estimated
maximum,
which
is
estimated
from
available
data.

Average
application
rates
are
calculated
from
the
weighted
averages.

NOTES
ON
TABLE
DATA
Usage
data
primarily
covers
1987
­
1996.
Calculations
of
the
above
numbers
may
not
appear
to
agree
because
they
are
displayed
as
rounded
to
the
nearest
1000
for
acres
treated
or
lb.
a.
i.
(Therefore
0
=
<
500)

to
two
decimal
percentage
points
for
%
of
crop
treated.

Other/
Crop
Groups
Citrus,
Other
includes
kumquats,
limes,
tangelos,
and
tangerines.

Other
Crops
include
ornamentals,
popcorn,
rapeseed/
canola,
and
safflower.

SOURCES:
EPA
data,
USDA,
and
National
Center
for
Food
and
Agricultural
Policy.
R.
E.
D.
Use
Profile
Report
A.
Chemical
Overview
Chemical
Name:
Carbaryl
Case
No:
0080
Chemical
Code:
056801
B.
Use
Profile
Type
of
Pesticide:
Acaricide/
Insecticide
and
Plant
regulator
Mode
of
Action:
Acetylcholine
esterase
inhibitor
Use
Sites:
Terrestrial
Food
Crop
Cucurbits
­
Cumber,
Melons,
Chinese
okra,
pumpkin,
and
squash
Flavoring
and
Spice
Crops
­
Dill
Fruiting
Vegetables
­
Eggplant
and
Pepper
Grain
Crops
­
Prosso
millet
Leafy
and
Stem
Vegetables
­
Beets,
Broccoli,
Brussels
sprouts,
Cabbage,
Chinese
cabbage,
Cauliflower,
Celerey,
Swiss
chard,

Collards,
Dandelion,
Endive
(Escarole),
Hanover
Salad,
Kale,
Kohlrabi,
Lettuce
(Head,
Crisphead
types,
Leaf
types),
Mustard,

Parsley,
Rhubarb,
and
Spinach
Miscellaneous
Fruits
­
Avocado,
Olive,
Pricklypear
Miscellaneous
Vegetables
­
Asparagus
Nut
Crops
­
Almond,
Chestnut,
Filbert
(Hazelnut),
Pecan,
Pistachio,
and
Walnut
(English/
black)

Pome
Fruits
­
Crabapple,
pear,
and
quince
Root
Crop
Vegetables
­
Beets,
Carrot
(including
tops),
Horseradish,
Radish,
Rutabaga,
Salsify,
and
Sweet
Potato
Small
Fruits
­
Blackberry,
Blueberry,
Boysenberry,
Caneberries,
Cranberry,
Dewberry,
Loganberry,
Raspberry
(Black,
Red),
and
Strawberry
Specialized
Field
Crops
­
Okra
Stone
Fruits
­
Apricot,
Cherry,
Nectarine,
Peach,
Plum,
and
Prune
Terrestrial
Food+
Feed
Crop
Citrus
Fruits
­
Citrus
fruits
Crops
Grown
for
Oil
­
Field
corn,
Flax,
and
Sunflower
Fiber
Crops
­
Flax
Fruiting
Vegetables
­
Tomato
Grain
Crops
­
Field
corn,
Rice,
Sorghum
and
Wheat
Groups
of
Agricultural
Crops
Which
Cross
Established
Crop
Groupings
­
Cotton,
Peanuts,
Peas,
Sorghum,
Soybeans,
and
Vegetables
Leafy
and
Stem
Vegetables
­
Mustard
and
Turnip
Nut
Crops
­
Almond,
and
Tree
nuts
Pome
Fruits
­
Apple
and
Pome
Fruits
Root
Crop
Vegetables
­
Parsnip,
White/
Irish
potato,
Salsify,
and
Turnip
Seed
and
Pod
Vegetables
­
Beans
(Dried
type),
Succulent
beans
(Lima
and
Snap),
Cowpea/
Blackeyed
pea,
Cowpea/
Sitao,
Lentils,

Peanuts,
Peas
(Dried
type),
Field
peas,
Southern
peas,
Succulent
peas,
and
Soybeans
(edible)

Small
Fruits
­
Grapes
and
Small
fruits
Specialized
Field
Crops
­
Pop
corn,
Sweet
corn,
and
Sunflower
Sugar
Crops
­
Sugar
beet
Terrestrial
Feed
Crop
Forage
Grasses
­
Corn,
Grass
forage/
fodder/
hay,
Millet
(Proso),
Pastures,
Rangeland,
Rice,
Sorghum,
and
Wheat
Forage
Legumes
and
Other
Nongrass
Forage
Crops
­
Alfalfa,
Clover,
Cotton,
and
Trefoil
Grain
Crops
­
Proso
millet
Groups
of
Agricultural
Crops
Which
Cross
Established
Crop
Groupings
­
Grasses
grown
for
seed
Terrestrial
non­
food
crop
Agricultural
Uncultivated
Areas
­
Agricultural
fallow/
idleland
and
Agricultural
rights­
of
way/
fencerows/
hedgerows
Commercial/
Industrial/
Institutional
Premises
and
Equipment
Fiber
Crops
Forest
Trees
­
Christmas
tree
plantations
Groups
of
Agricultural
Crops
Which
CrossEstablished
Crop
Groupings
­
Fruits
(unspecified)

Miscellaneous
Fruits
­
Longan
and
Mango
Nonagricultural
Uncultivated
Areas
­
Outdoor
buildings/
structures,
rights­
of­
way/
fencerows/
hedgerows,
uncultivated
areas/
soils,
and
recreational
areas
Ornamental
Lawns
and
Turf
­
Commercial/
Industrial
lawns,
Golf
course
turf,
Ornamental
sod
farm
(turf),
and
recreational
area
lawns
Specialized
Field
Crops
­
Tobacco
Wide
Area/
General
Outdoor
Treatments
­
Fencerows/
Hedgerows,
Urban
areas,
and
Wide
area/
General
outdoor
treatment
(Public
health
use)

Terrestrial
non­
food+
outdoor
residential
Nonagricultural
Uncultivated
Areas
­
Rights­
of­
way/
Fencerows/
Hedgerows
Ornamental
Herbaceous
Plants
Ornamental
Lawns
and
Turf
Ornamental
Nonflowering
Plants
Ornamental
Woody
Shrubs
and
Vines
Ornamental
and/
or
Shade
Trees
Wide
Area/
General
Outdoor
Treatments
­
Fencerows/
Hedgerows
Terrestrial+
Greenhouse
non­
food
crop
Ornamental
Herbaceous
Plants
Ornamental
Woody
Shrubs
and
Vines
Ornamental
and/
or
Shade
Trees
Aquatic
food
crop
Aquatic
Sites
­
Commercial
fishery
water
systems
Grain
Crops
­
Rice
Small
Fruits
­
Cranberry
Aquatic
non­
food
industrial
Aquatic
Sites
­
Drainage
systems
Forestry
Forest
Trees
­
Forest
plantings
(Reforestation
programs,
tree
farms,
tree
plantations,
etc),
forest
trees
(all
or
unspecified),
maple
(forest),
and
Shelterbelt
plantings
Outodoor
residential
Households/
Domestic
Dwellings
­
Outdoor
premises
Ornamental
Herbaceous
Plants
Ornamental
Lawns
and
Turf
­
Residential
lawns
Pets
­
Pet
living/
sleeping
quarters
Indoor
food
Poultry
­
Egg/
Meat
Indoor
non­
food
Pets
Target
Pests
for
Single
Active
Ingredient:

Invertebrates
(insects
and
related
organisms);

Adelgid
(Cooley
spruce
gall)

Ataenius
(Black
turfgrass
Ants
(Carpenter,
Fire,
Imported
fire)

Aphids
(Apple,
Balsam
twig,
Black
cherry,
Blackmargined,
Cooley
spruce
gall,
Eastern
spruce
gall,
Elm
leaf,
European
raspberry,

Filbert,
Gall,
Mealy
plum,
Rose,
Rosy
apple,
Wooly?,
Wooly
apple)

Appleworm
(Lesser)

Armyworm
(Fall,
True,
Western
yellowstriped,
Yellowstriped)

Bagworm
Bees
Beetle
(Aparagus,
Bean
leaf,
Beet
leaf,
Blister,
Cereal
leaf,
Chafer,
Colorado
potato,
Corn
rootworm,
Cucumber,
Darkling,
Darkling
ground?,
Elm
bark,
Elm
leaf,
Engraver,
European
alfalfa,
Flea,
Fuller
rose,
Green
june,
Ips
engraver,
Japanese,
June,
Litter,

May,
Mexican
bean,
Mountain
pine,
Rose,
Roundheaded
pine,
Sap,
Spruce
bark?,
Spruce?,
Striped
blister,
Sunflower,
Tobacco
flea,
Tortoise,
Western
pine,
Whitefringed,
Willow
leaf)

Billbugs
(Bluegrass)

Borer
(European
corn,
Lesser
peachtree,
Limabean
pod,
Locust,
Olive
ash,
Peach
twig,
Southwestern
corn,
West
Indian
sugarcane
root)

Budworm
(Jack
pine,
Spruce,
Tobacco,
Western
spruce)

Bug
(Bed,
Black
Grass,
Boxelder,
Chinch,
Harlequin,
Lace,
Lygus,
Plant,
Squash,
Stink,
Tarnished
plant)

Cabbageworm
(Imported)
Cankerworm
(Fall,
Spring)

Casebearer
(Pecan
nut)

Caterpillar
(Alfalfa,
Eastern
tent,
Forest
tent,
Oleander,
Painted
lady,
Puss,
Range,
Redhumped,
Saltmarsh,
Spiny
elm,
Spring
elm,

Tent,
Thistle
butterfly,
Velvetbean,
Walnut,
Woolybear)

Centipedes
Chafer
(European,
Rose)

Chiggers
(Redbugs)

Cicada
(Apache,
Periodical)

Clipper
(Strawberry)
Cloverworm
(Green)

Cockroach
(American,
Australian,
Brown,
Smoky
brown)

Colaspis
(Grape)
Crickets
(Mole,
Morman,
Snowy
tree)

Curculio
(Cowpea,
Plum)

Cutworm
(Army,
Citrus,
Cotton,
Western
bean)

Earwigs
(European)
Earworm
(Corn)

Firebrats
Fireworm
(Cranberry,
Yellowheaded)

Fleahopper
(Cotton)

Fleas
Fly
(Cherry
fruit,
European
crane,
Rangeland
crane)

Forester
(Eightspotted)
Fruitworm
(Cherry,
Cranberry,
Green,
Raspberry,
Sparganothis,
Strawberry,
Tomato)

Girdler
(Cranberry,
Twig)

Grasshoppers
Grubs
(White)
Hornworms
(Poinsettia,
Sweet
potato,
Tobacco,
Tomato)

Leafcutter
(Maple)

Leaffolder
(Grape)

Leafhopper
(Aster,
Avocado,
Cotton,
Potato,
Prune,
Redbanded,
Three
cornered
alfalfa,
White
apple)

Leafminer
(Alfalfa
blotch,
Azalea,
Birch,
Boxwood,
Holly,
Oak,
Tentiform)

Leafroller
(Avocado,
Filbert,
Fruittree,
Grape,
Oak,
Omnivorous,
Redbanded,
Strawberry,
Variegated)

Leaftier
(Omnivorous)
Leafworm
(Cotton)

Lecanium
(European
fruit)

Lice
Looper
(Alfalfa,
Pine,
Striped
grass,
Western
hemlock)

Maggot
(Apple,
Blueberry)

Maker
(Hackberry
nipplegall)

Mapleworm
(Greenstriped)
Mealworm
(Lesser)

Mealybug
(Apple,
Cherry)

Melonworm
Midges
(Gall)

Millipedes
Mites
(Apple
rust,
Chicken,
Citrus
rust,
Eriophyid,
Fuschia
gall,
Fuschia?,
Northern
fowl,
Pear
rust,
Pearleaf
blister)

Moth
(Browntail,
Codling,
Cyprus
tip,
Diamondback,
Douglas­
fir
tussock,
European
pine
shoot,
Eyespotted
bud,
Grape
berry,
Gypsy,

Holly
bud,
Lawn,
Lucerne,
Maple
shoot,
Nantucket
pine
tip,
Oak,
Oriental
fruit,
Pitch
pine
tip,
Subtropical
pine
tip,
Sunflower,

Tussock,
Western
tussock)

Mosquito
Needleminers
(Jeffrey
pine,
Spruce)

Notcher
(Little
leaf)

Oakworm
(Orangestriped,
Redhumped)

Orangedog
(California)
Orangeworm
(Navel)

Pandemis
(Apple)

Peanutworm
(Rednecked)

Pearslug
(California)
Phylloxera
(Pecan
leaf?,
Pecan?)

Pickleworm
Pillbug/
Sowbugs
Pinworm
(Tomato)
Prominent
(Saddled)

Psylla
(Pear)
Roseslug
Sawfly
(European
apple,
Pear,
Pine,
Raspberry)
Scale
(Black,
Brown
soft,
Calico,
California
red,
Citricola,
Citrus
Snow,
Forbes,
Frosted,
Lecanium,
Olive,
Oystershell,
Red,
San
Jose,

Yellow)
Scorpions
Shrimp
(Ghost,
Mud,
Tadpole)

Shuckworm
(Hickory)

Silverfish
Skeletonizer
(Oak,
Western
Grapeleaf)

Skipper
(Essex,
Fiery)

Spanworm
(Elm)

Spiders
Spinx
(Catalpa)
Spittlebug
(Meadow,
Pecan,
Pine)

Springtails
Sucker
(Apple)
Suckfly
Thornbug
Thrips
Ticks
(Amblyomma
spp.,
Bear,
Blacklegged,
Brown
dog,
Deer,
Fowl,
Ixodes
spp.,
Lone
star)

Tortrix
(Orange)
Treehoppers
Wasps
(Gall)
Webworm
(Fall,
Lesser,
Mimosa,
Sod)

Weevil
(Alfalfa,
Bluegrass,
Chestnut
nut,
Citrus
root,
Clover
head,
Cotton
boll,
Egyptian
alfalfa,
Hyperodes,
Pea
Leaf?,
Pea?,
Pecan,

Strawberry
bud?,
Strawberry?,
Sugarcane
rootstalk
borer,
Sunflower
stem,
Sweet
potato,
Yellow­
poplar)

Whiteflies
Worm
(Filbert)

Weeds
Aster
Blessed
thistle
Boxelder
Plant
regulator
­
abscission
agen,
flower
inhibitor,
fruit
thinning,
inhibit
fruiting
White
ash
Yellow
poplar
Formulation
Types
Registered
(%
AI):

Technical
Grade
Material
Form
not
identified/
solid
99.0000%

Manufacturing
product
dust
80.0000%

Emulsifiable
concentrate
97.5000%

End
Use
Product
Bait/
solid
10.0400%

Emulsifiable
concentrate
22.5000
to
48.0000%

Flowable
concentrate
43.0000
to
43.4000%

Granular
5.0000
to
7.0000%

Liquid­
ready
to
use
39.7000%

Pelleted/
tableted
5.0000%

Wettable
powder
50.0000
to
85.0000%

Methods
and
Rates
of
Application:

Types
of
Treatment:
Animal
bedding/
litter
treatment;
Animal
treatment
(spray);
Bait
application;
Band
treatment;
Bark
treatment;
Basal
spray
treatment;

Broadcast;
Chemigation;
Dip
treatment;
Directed
spray;
Drench;
Ground
spray;
High
volume
spray
(dilute);
Indoor
general
surface
treatment;
Low
volume
spray
(concentrate);
Mound
drench;
Mound
treatment;
Perimeter
treatment;
Premise
treatment;

Soil
drench
treatment;
Soil
incorporated
treatment
by
irrigation;
Soil
treatment;
Soil/
media
treatment;
Spray;
Surface
treatment;

Trunk
drench;
Ultra
low
volume
Equipment:
Airblast;
Aircraft;
Band
sprayer;
Chest­
mounted
equipment;
Compressed
air
sprayer;
Dip
tank;
Drencher;
Electric
fogger;
Fogger;

Granule
applicator;
Ground;
Hand
held
duster;
Hand
held
sprayer;
High
pressure
sprayer;
High
volume
ground
sprayer;

Hose­
end
sprayer;
Hydraulic
sprayer;
Knapsack
sprayer;
Low
pressure;
Low
pressure
ground
sprayer;
Low
volume
ground
sprayer;
Mechanical
sprayer;
Mist
blower;
Mist
sprayer;
Not
on
label;
Pail;
Power
sprayer;
Pressure
sprayer;
Sprayer;

Spreader;
Sprinklercan;
Sprinkler
irrigation;
Tank
Timing:
Bloom;
Boot;
Containerized;
Cool
weather
(65
­
80
F);
Delayed
dormant;
Dormant;
Foliar;
Fruit
thinning;
Heading;
Nonbearing;

Nurserystock;
Petal
fall;
Pink;
Plant
bed;
Popcorn;
Post­
bloom;
Postharvest;
Prebloom;
Preharvest;
Preplant;
Seed
bed;
Silk;

Tassel;
Transplant;
When
needed
Use
Practice
Limitations:
(that
apply
to
all
uses
on
all
products)
Appendix
B:
Carbaryl
Occupational
Handler
Exposure
Data
Appendix
B/
Table
1:
Field
Recovery
Results
For
MRID
44658401
(Commercial
Pet
Groomers
During
Application
of
Adams
Carbaryl
Shampoo
Matrix
Level
(concentration)
Recovery
Range
(%)
Recovery
Mean
(%)
Recovery
S.
D.

(%)
Coefficient
of
Variation
(%)

Facial
swabs
Low
(0.
10
µg/
ml)
97
­
110
106
5.2
4.
9
Medium
(0.
50
µg/
ml)
96
­
99
97
1.5
1.
5
High
(1.
0
µg/
ml)
93
­
98
95
1.7
1.
8
Hand
Washes
Low
(0.
10
µg/
ml)
100
­
113
106
5.6
5.
3
Medium
(0.
50
µg/
ml)
92
­
100
97
3.1
3.
2
High
(1.
0
µg/
ml)
91
­
104
98
5
5.
1
Whole
body
dosimeters
Low
(1.
0
µg/
ml)
85
­
100
91
5.8
6.
4
Medium
(5.
0
µg/
ml)
82
­
95
87
6.1
7
High
(10
µg/
ml)
81
­
89
83
5
6
Glass
fiber
filter/
support
pad
Low
(1.
0
µg/
ml)
83
­
100
92
7.4
8
Medium
(5.
0
µg/
ml)
68
­
89
80
8.4
11
High
(10
µg/
ml)
85
­
95
91
3.8
4.
2
Appendix
B/
Table
2:
Dermal
Exposures
from
Whole
Body
Dosimeter
Parts
(Adjusted
for
Field
Recovery
Results)
a
For
MRID
44658401
(Commercial
Pet
Groomers
During
Application
of
Adams
Carbaryl
Shampoo)

Replicate
Lower
Arm
(µg)
Upper
Arm
(µg)
Lower
Leg
(µg)
Front
Torso
(µg)
Rear
Torso
(µg)
Total
(mg)

1
7543
185
0.57
1941
1
9.
7
2
6341
157
4
389
3
6.
9
3
1382
232
0.57
43
0.57
1.4
4
2986
3.9
0.
57
65
0.
57
3.
1
5
5441
61
31
6.6
5.
9
5.5
6
1680
589
3
420
0.57
2.7
7
2457
99
1.03
38
0.57
2.6
8
2497
277
8
445
8.2
3.
2
9
1224
7.01
0.57
1.6
0.
57
1.
2
10
14947
30
1330
10
1.8
16.3
11
839
0.34
0.57
0.92
0.57
0.84
12
1730
2518
35
10
1281.6
5.
6
13
4611
12
5.4
1.
4
0.57
4.6
14
4757
29
3.4
166
2.2
5
15
1180
162
15
30
10
1.4
16
763
0.23
0.57
3.9
0.
57
0.
77
Average
3774
260
90
223
82
4.4
Geometric
Mean
2647
35
3.7
30
2
3.1
Median
2477
46
3.2
34
0.
8
3.1
a
Field
recovery
for
100%
cotton
union
suits
averaged
87%.
The
values
in
this
table
represent
the
values
found
in
study
divided
by
0.87.

Example:
Replicate
1
Lower
arm;
6562µg
(actual)
÷
0.87
=
7543µg.

b
Total
(mg)
=(
Lower
Arm
+
Upper
Arm
+
Lower
Leg
+
Front
Torso
+
Back
Torso)
*
1mg/
1000µg.
Appendix
B/
Table
3:
Unit
Exposures
For
MRID
44658401
(Commercial
Pet
Groomers
During
Application
of
Adams
Carbaryl
Shampoo
)

Replicate
No.
ai
used
(mg)
Whole
Body
Dosimeter
(mg)
Hand
Rinses
(mg)
Head
Exposure
(mg)
Total
Dermal
Exposure
(mg)
Inhalation
Exposure
(µg)
mg
ai/
lb
ai
handled
mg
ai/
hr
application
mg
ai/
lb
dog
dermal
inhalation
dermal
inhalation
dermal
inhalation
1
2290
9.76
0.294
0.00897
10.1
1.
96
1994
0.389
3.493
0.00068
0.207
4.04
x
10
­5
2
684
6.918
0.175
0.00533
7.1
0.
05
4714
0.006
2.752
0
0.
623
7.63
x
10
­7
3
916
1.462
0.134
0.0007
1.6
0.
86
793
0.426
0.521
0.00028
0.0382
2.05
x
10
­5
4
2004
3.056
0.248
0.00631
3.31
0.57
750
0.129
1.335
0.00023
0.184
3.17
x
10
­5
5
1640
6.367
0.124
0.00338
6.49
0.65
1795
0.18
2.107
0.00021
0.18
1.81
x
10
­5
6
1204
2.711
0.164
0.00325
2.88
0.54
1086
0.204
0.906
0.00017
0.0847
1.59
x
10
­5
7
659
2.603
0.082
0.0007
2.69
0.59
1852
0.406
0.918
0.0002
0.113
2.47
x
10
­5
8
373
3.28
0.105
0.00208
3.39
0.41
4123
0.499
1.246
0.00015
0.105
1.27
x
10
­5
9
600
1.233
0.062
0.0003
1.3
0.
05
984
0.007
0.323
0
0.
0556
3.72
x
10
­7
10
1747
16.544
0.466
0.012
17
1.4
4423
0.364
4.387
0.00036
0.379
3.12
x
10
­5
11
945
0.841
0.292
0.00163
1.14
0.22
548
0.106
0.36
0.0001
0.0268
5.16
x
10
­6
12
3715
15.329
0.145
0.00806
15.5
0.
97
1889
0.118
3.822
0.00024
0.325
2.04
x
10
­5
13
1132
4.762
0.119
0.01177
4.89
1.18
1962
0.473
0.994
0.00024
0.173
4.17
x
10
­5
14
1148
4.961
0.141
0.00429
5.11
0.05
2020
0.003
1.481
0
0.
312
5.31
x
10
­7
15
706
1.459
0.239
0.00254
1.7
0.
76
1093
0.489
0.561
0.00025
0.096
4.29
x
10
­5
16
1929
0.768
0.107
0.00111
0.88
0.48
207
0.113
0.293
0.00016
0.0362
1.98
x
10
­5
Average
1356
5.1
0.
18
4.
5
5.3
0.
67
1900
0.24
1.6
0.
0002
0.18
2.0
x
10
­5
Geometric
Mean
1148
3.4
0.
16
2.
9
3.6
0.
43
1800
0.12
1.1
0.
00096
0.13
1.1
x
10
­5
Median
1140
3.2
0.
14
3.
3
3.4
0.
58
1800
0.19
1.1
0.
00021
0.14
2.0
x
10
­5
Appendix
C:
Carbaryl
Occupational
Handler
Risk
Assessment
Appendix
C/
Table
1:
Sources
of
Exposure
Data
Used
In
The
Occupational
Carbaryl
Handler
Exposure
And
Risk
Calculations
Exposure
Scenario
(Number)
Data
Source
Standard
Assumptions
(8­
hr
work
day)
Comments
Mixer/
Loader
Descriptors
Mixing/
Loading
Dry
Flowable
Formulations
(1a
through
1f)
PHED
V1.
1
(May
1997
Surrogate
Table)
350
and
1200
acres
for
aerial
applications
(7500
for
wide
area
uses),
40
acres
for
airblast,
80
and
200
acres
for
groundboom
in
agriculture
and
40
acres
on
turf,
5
acres
for
handguns
on
turf,
and
1000
gallons
for
handgun
applications
Baseline:
Hand,
inhalation,
and
dermal
data
=
acceptable
grades.
Hands
=
7
replicates;
Dermal
=
16
to
26
replicates;
and
Inhalation
=
23
replicates.
Low
confidence
in
hand/
dermal
data
because
of
number
of
hand
replicates.
Inhalation
data
are
high
confidence.
No
protection
factor
was
needed
to
define
the
unit
exposure
value.

PPE:
As
appropriate,
the
same
dermal
and
inhalation
data
were
used
as
for
the
baseline
coupled
with
a
50%
protection
factor
to
account
for
an
additional
layer
of
clothing.
Respirator
protection
factors
of
either
5
or
10
applied
to
account
for
the
use
of
either
dust/
mist
masks
or
cannister
type
devices
(e.
g.,
organic
vapor
removing
half
face
device).
Hands
=
acceptable
grades.
Hands
=
21
replicates.
High
confidence
in
all
dermal
data.

Engineering
Controls:
A
protection
factor
of
98%
was
used
to
calculate
exposures
using
the
baseline
exposure
data.
Water
soluble
packet
data
(Scenario
4)
could
also
be
used
to
address
this
scenario.
A
protection
factor
has
been
used
but
the
WSP
rate/
acre
inputs
are
the
same
as
for
DF
formulations
(
refer
to
Scenario
4).

Loading
Granular
Formulations
(2a/
2b)
PHED
V1.
1
(May
1997
Surrogate
Table)
350
and
1200
acres
for
aerial
applications,
80
acres
for
agriculture
and
40
acres
on
turf
Baseline:
Hands
=
all
grades;
dermal
=
ABC
grade;
inhalation
=
acceptable
grade.
Hands
=
10
replicates;
Dermal
=
33
to
78
replicates;
and
inhalation
=
58
replicates.
Low
confidence
in
hand/
dermal
data
because
of
number
of
hand
replicates
and
quality.
Inhalation
data
are
high
confidence.
No
protection
factor
was
needed
to
define
the
unit
exposure
value.

PPE:
Respirator
protection
factors
of
either
5
or
10
applied
to
account
for
the
use
of
either
dust/
mist
masks
or
cannister
type
devices
(e.
g.,

organic
vapor
removing
half
face
device).
Hands
=
acceptable
grades.
Hands
=
45
replicates.
High
confidence
in
hand
data.
Dermal
w/
coveralls
=
ABC
grade.
Dermal
w/
coveralls
=
12
to
59
replicates.
Low
confidence
in
dermal
data
because
of
low
number
of
replicates
and
grades.

Engineering
Controls:
A
98
percent
protection
factor
was
applied
to
the
baseline
data
to
account
for
the
use
of
an
engineering
control
(e.
g.,

closed
loading
system).

Mixing/
Loading
Liquid
Formulations
(3a
through
3f)
PHED
V1.
1
(May
1997
Surrogate
Table)
350
and
1200
acres
for
aerial
applications
(7500
for
wide
area
uses),
40
acres
for
airblast,
80
and
200
acres
for
groundboom
in
agriculture
and
40
acres
on
turf,
5
acres
for
handguns
on
turf,
and
1000
gallons
for
handgun
applications
Baseline:
Hands,
dermal,
and
inhalation
=
acceptable
grades.
Hands
=
53
replicates;
Dermal
=
72
to
122
replicates;
and
Inhalation
=
85
replicates.
High
confidence
in
hand,
dermal,
and
inhalation
data.
No
protection
factor
was
needed
to
define
the
unit
exposures.

PPE:
The
same
dermal
data
are
used
as
for
baseline
coupled
with
a
50%
protection
factor
to
account
for
an
additional
layer
of
clothing.
Hands
=

acceptable
grades.
Hands
=
59
replicates.
High
confidence
in
hand
data.
Respirator
protection
factors
of
either
5
or
10
applied
to
account
for
the
use
of
either
dust/
mist
masks
or
cannister
type
devices
(e.
g.,
organic
vapor
removing
half
face
device).

Engineering
Controls:
Hands,
dermal,
and
inhalation
=
acceptable
grades.
Hands
=
31
replicates;
Dermal
=
16
to
22
replicates;
and
Inhalation
=

27
replicates.
High
confidence
in
hand,
dermal,
and
inhalation
data.
Gloves
were
used
coupled
with
engineering
controls
since
empirical
data
without
gloves
were
not
available
and
back
calculation
of
gloves
to
a
no
glove
scenario
is
believed
to
give
erroneously
high
estimates.

Gloves
are
also
required
by
WPS
based
on
acute
toxicity
concerns.
Appendix
C/
Table
1:
Sources
of
Exposure
Data
Used
In
The
Occupational
Carbaryl
Handler
Exposure
And
Risk
Calculations
Exposure
Scenario
(Number)
Data
Source
Standard
Assumptions
(8­
hr
work
day)
Comments
Mixing/
Loading
Wettable
Powder
Formulations
(4a
through
4f)
PHED
V1.
1
(May
1997
Surrogate
Table)
350
and
1200
acres
for
aerial
applications
(7500
for
wide
area
uses),
40
acres
for
airblast,
80
and
200
acres
for
groundboom
in
agriculture
and
40
acres
on
turf,
5
acres
for
handguns
on
turf,
and
1000
gallons
for
handgun
applications
Baseline:
Hands,
dermal,
and
inhalation
=
ABC
grades.
Hands
=
7
replicates;
Dermal
=
22
to
45
replicates,
and
Inhalation
=
44
replicates.
Low
confidence
in
the
dermal/
hands
data
due
to
the
low
number
of
hand
replicates.
Medium
confidence
in
inhalation
data.
No
protection
factor
was
needed
to
define
the
unit
exposure
value.

PPE:
The
same
dermal
data
are
used
as
for
baseline
coupled
with
a
50%
protection
factor
to
account
for
an
additional
layer
of
clothing.
Hands
=

ABC
grades.
Hands
=
24
replicates.
Medium
confidence
in
hand
data.
Respirator
protection
factors
of
either
5
or
10
applied
to
account
for
the
use
of
either
dust/
mist
masks
or
cannister
type
devices
(e.
g.,
organic
vapor
removing
half
face
device).

Engineering
Controls:
Dermal
=
AB
grade.
Hand
and
inhalation
=
all
grade.
Hands
=
9
replicates;
dermal
=
6
to
15
replicates;
and
inhalation
=

15
replicates.
Low
confidence
in
the
hand,
dermal,
and
inhalation
data.
No
protection
factor
was
needed
to
define
the
unit
exposure
value.

Engineering
controls
are
water
soluble
packets.
Gloves
were
used
coupled
with
engineering
controls
since
empirical
data
were
available
and
risk
estimates
for
some
scenarios
need
gloves
to
attain
risk
targets.
Gloves
are
also
required
by
WPS
based
on
acute
toxicity
concerns
Applicator
Descriptors
Applying
Sprays
with
a
Fixed­
wing
Aircraft
(5a)
PHED
V1.
1
(May
1997
Surrogate
Table)
350
acres
and
1,200
acres
for
agriculture
and
7500
acres
for
wide
area
uses
Engineering
Controls:
Hands
=
acceptable
grade,
dermal
and
inhalation
=
ABC
grade.
Hands=
34
replicates,
dermal
=
24
to
48
replicates,
and
inhalation
=
23
replicates.
Medium
confidence
in
dermal
and
inhalation
data.
High
confidence
in
hand
data.
No
protection
factor
was
needed
to
define
the
unit
exposure
value.

Engineering
controls
are
the
only
plausible
exposure
scenario
for
this
application
method
as
open­
cab
aircraft
are
not
available
and
not
considered
a
viable
application
tool.
Protective
gloves
not
used.

Applying
Sprays
with
a
Fixed­
wing
Aircraft
(5b)
PHED
V1.
1
(May
1997
Surrogate
Table)
350
acres
and
1,200
acres
for
agriculture
Engineering
Controls:
Hands
and
inhalation
=
all
grade,
dermal
=
C
grade.
Hands=
4
replicates,
dermal
=
0
to
13
replicates,
and
inhalation
=

13
replicates.
Low
confidence
in
all
data.
No
protection
factor
was
needed
to
define
the
unit
exposure
value.

Engineering
controls
are
the
only
plausible
exposure
scenario
for
this
application
method
as
open­
cab
aircraft
are
not
available
and
not
considered
a
viable
application
tool.
Protective
gloves
not
used.

Applying
Sprays
with
an
Airblast
Sprayer
(6)
PHED
V1.
1
(May
1997
Surrogate
Table)
40
acres
Baseline:
Dermal,
hand,
and
inhalation
=
acceptable
grades.
Hands
=
22
replicates,
dermal
=
32
to
49
replicates,
and
inhalation
=
47
replicates.

High
confidence
in
all
data.
No
protection
factor
was
needed
to
define
the
unit
exposure
value.

PPE:
The
same
dermal
data
are
used
as
for
baseline
coupled
with
a
50%
protection
factor
to
account
for
an
additional
layer
of
clothing.
Hands
=

acceptable
grades.
Hands
=
18
replicates.
High
confidence
in
hand
data.
Respirator
protection
factors
of
either
5
or
10
applied
to
account
for
the
use
of
either
dust/
mist
masks
or
cannister
type
devices
(e.
g.,
organic
vapor
removing
half
face
device).

Engineering
Controls:
Hands
and
dermal
=
acceptable
grade,
and
inhalation
=
ABC
grade.
Hands=
20
replicates;
dermal
=
20
to
30
replicates;

and
inhalation
=
9
replicates.
High
confidence
in
hand
and
dermal
data.
Low
confidence
for
inhalation
data.
Gloves
were
used
coupled
with
engineering
controls
since
empirical
data
without
gloves
were
not
available
and
back
calculation
of
gloves
to
a
no
glove
scenario
is
believed
to
give
erroneously
high
(130
:
g/
lb
ai)
estimates
for
a
closed
cab
scenarios.
Appendix
C/
Table
1:
Sources
of
Exposure
Data
Used
In
The
Occupational
Carbaryl
Handler
Exposure
And
Risk
Calculations
Exposure
Scenario
(Number)
Data
Source
Standard
Assumptions
(8­
hr
work
day)
Comments
Applying
Sprays
with
a
Groundboom
Sprayer
(7)
PHED
V1.
1
(May
1997
Surrogate
Table)
80
and
200
acres
for
groundboom
in
agriculture
and
40
acres
on
turf
Baseline:
Hand,
dermal,
and
inhalation
=
acceptable
grades.
Hands
=29
replicates,
dermal
=
23
to
42
replicates,
and
inhalation
=
22
replicates.

High
confidence
in
hand,
dermal,
and
inhalation
data.
No
protection
factors
were
needed
to
define
the
unit
exposure
values.

PPE:
The
same
dermal
data
are
used
as
for
baseline
coupled
with
a
50%
protection
factor
to
account
for
an
additional
layer
of
clothing.
Hands
=

ABC
grades.
Hands
=
21
replicates.
Medium
confidence
in
hand
data.
Respirator
protection
factors
of
either
5
or
10
applied
to
account
for
the
use
of
either
dust/
mist
masks
or
cannister
type
devices
(e.
g.,
organic
vapor
removing
half
face
device).

Engineering
Controls:
Hand
and
dermal
=
ABC
grade.
Inhalation
=
acceptable
grades.
Hands
=
16
replicates;
dermal
=
20
to
31
replicates;
and
inhalation
=
16
replicates.
Medium
confidence
in
the
hand
and
dermal
data.
High
confidence
in
inhalation
data.
No
protection
factor
needed
to
define
the
unit
exposure
value.
Protective
gloves
not
used.

Applying
Granulars
with
a
Tractor
Drawn
Spreader
(8)
PHED
V1.
1
(May
1997
Surrogate
Table)
80
and
200
acres
for
groundboom
in
agriculture
and
40
acres
on
turf
Baseline:
Hand,
dermal,
and
inhalation
=
acceptable
grades.
Hands
=5
replicates,
dermal
=
1
to
5
replicates,
and
inhalation
=
5
replicates.
Low
confidence
in
hand,
dermal,
and
inhalation
data.
No
protection
factors
were
required
to
define
the
unit
exposure
values.

PPE:
As
appropriate,
the
same
dermal,
hand,
and
inhalation
data
are
used
as
for
the
baseline
coupled
with
a
50%
protection
factor
to
account
for
an
additional
layer
of
clothing,
a
90%
protection
factor
to
account
for
the
use
of
chemical
resistant
gloves.
Respirator
protection
factors
of
either
5
or
10
applied
to
account
for
the
use
of
either
dust/
mist
masks
or
cannister
type
devices
(e.
g.,
organic
vapor
removing
half
face
device).

Engineering
Controls:
Hand,
inhalation,
and
dermal
=
acceptable
grades.
Hands
=
17
replicates;
dermal
=
27
to
30
replicates;
and
inhalation
=

37
replicates.
High
confidence
in
all
data.
No
protection
factor
needed
to
define
the
unit
exposure
value.
Protective
gloves
not
used.

Applying
with
Aerosol
Cans
(9)
PHED
V1.
1
(May
1997
Surrogate
Table)
2
cans
Baseline:
Hand,
dermal,
and
inhalation
=
acceptable
grades.
Hands
=
15
replicates;
dermal
=
15
replicates;
and
inhalation
=
15
replicates.
High
confidence
in
all
data.
No
protection
factor
was
needed
to
define
the
unit
exposure
values.

PPE:
The
same
dermal
data
are
used
as
for
baseline
coupled
with
a
50%
protection
factor
to
account
for
an
additional
layer
of
clothing.
Hands
=

acceptable
grades.
Hands
=
15
replicates.
High
confidence
in
hand
data.
Respirator
protection
factors
of
either
5
or
10
applied
to
account
for
the
use
of
either
dust/
mist
masks
or
cannister
type
devices
(e.
g.,
organic
vapor
removing
half
face
device).

Engineering
Controls:
Not
considered
feasible
for
this
exposure
scenario.
Appendix
C/
Table
1:
Sources
of
Exposure
Data
Used
In
The
Occupational
Carbaryl
Handler
Exposure
And
Risk
Calculations
Exposure
Scenario
(Number)
Data
Source
Standard
Assumptions
(8­
hr
work
day)
Comments
Applying
with
Trigger
Pump
Sprayer
(10)
MRID
410547­
01
1
bottle
Single
Layer
Clothing
&
Glove
Scenario
Monitored
In
Study:
Hand,
dermal,
and
inhalation
=
acceptable
grades.
Hands
=
15
replicates;

dermal
=
15
replicates;
and
inhalation
=
15
replicates.
High
confidence
in
all
data.
No
protection
factor
was
needed
to
define
the
unit
exposure
values.

Engineering
Controls:
Not
considered
feasible
for
this
exposure
scenario.

There
are
no
data
compensation
issues
associated
with
this
study
as
there
is
a
signed
PHED
data
waiver.

Applying
with
a
Right
of
Way
Sprayer
(11)
PHED
V1.
1
(May
1997
Surrogate
Table)
1,000
gallons
Baseline:
Hand
and
inhalation
=
acceptable
grades.
Dermal
=
ABC
grades.
Hands
=
16
replicates;
dermal
=
4
to
20
replicates;
and
inhalation
=

16
replicates.
Low
confidence
in
hand
and
dermal
data
due
to
low
number
of
replicates.
High
confidence
in
inhalation
data.
No
protection
factor
was
needed
to
define
the
unit
exposure
values.

PPE:
The
same
dermal
data
are
used
as
for
baseline
coupled
with
a
50%
protection
factor
to
account
for
an
additional
layer
of
clothing.
Hands
=

acceptable
grades.
Hands
=
4
replicates.
Low
confidence
in
hand
data.
Respirator
protection
factors
of
either
5
or
10
applied
to
account
for
the
use
of
either
dust/
mist
masks
or
cannister
type
devices
(e.
g.,
organic
vapor
removing
half
face
device).

Engineering
Controls:
Not
considered
feasible
for
this
exposure
scenario.

Applying
with
a
High
Pressure
Handwand
(12)
PHED
V1.
1
(May
1997
Surrogate
Table)
1,000
gallons
Baseline:
Hand,
dermal,
and
inhalation
=
all
grades.
Hands
=
2
replicates;
dermal
=
9
to
11
replicates;
and
inhalation
=
11
replicates.
Low
confidence
in
hand,
dermal,
and
inhalation
data.
No
protection
factor
was
needed
to
define
the
unit
exposure
values.

PPE:
The
same
dermal
data
are
used
as
for
baseline
coupled
with
a
50%
protection
factor
to
account
for
an
additional
layer
of
clothing.
Hands
=

all
grades.
Hands
=
9
replicates.
Low
confidence
in
hand
data.
Respirator
protection
factors
of
either
5
or
10
applied
to
account
for
the
use
of
either
dust/
mist
masks
or
cannister
type
devices
(e.
g.,
organic
vapor
removing
half
face
device).

Engineering
Controls:
Not
considered
feasible
for
this
exposure
scenario.

Dog
Grooming
With
Shampoo
(13)
MRID
446584­
01
½
of
6
oz
bottle
Clothing
(short­
sleeved
tee­
shirt,
smock
&
long
pants)
&
No
Gloves
Scenario
Monitored
In
Study:
Hand,
dermal,
and
inhalation
=

acceptable
grades.
Hands
=
16
replicates;
dermal
=
16
replicates;
and
inhalation
=
16
replicates.
High
confidence
in
all
data.
No
protection
factor
was
needed
to
define
the
unit
exposure
values.

Engineering
Controls:
Not
considered
feasible
for
this
exposure
scenario.

There
are
no
data
compensation
issues
associated
with
this
study
as
it
was
sponsored
by
Aventis
using
Carbaryl.
Appendix
C/
Table
1:
Sources
of
Exposure
Data
Used
In
The
Occupational
Carbaryl
Handler
Exposure
And
Risk
Calculations
Exposure
Scenario
(Number)
Data
Source
Standard
Assumptions
(8­
hr
work
day)
Comments
Dusting
an
Animal
(14)
SOPs
for
Residential
Exposure
Assessments
(7/
97)
½
of
4
lb
bottle
per
SOPs
The
SOPs
For
Residential
Exposure
Assessment
served
as
the
basis
for
this
assessment
(i.
e.,
the
assumptions
that
were
used
to
predict
exposures
from
pet
use
products
in
which
a
percentage
of
the
application
rate
is
the
predictor
of
potential
dermal
dose).
The
scenario
is
based
on
the
use
of
a
baseline
clothing
scenario.
Calculations
in
which
additional
PPE
are
applied
are
not
appropriate
given
the
basis
for
the
assessment.

Additionally,
the
use
of
engineering
controls
are
not
considered
feasible
for
this
exposure
scenario.

Dispersing
Granulars
&
Baits
By
Hand
(15)
PHED
V1.
1
(May
1997
Surrogate
Table)
1
acre
Baseline:
Values
not
included
because
barehanded
data
were
not
available
and
hand
exposures
are
key
to
this
scenario.

PPE:
Dermal,
hand,
and
inhalation
=
ABC
grades.
Hands
=
15
replicates,
dermal
=
16
replicates,
and
inhalation
=
16
replicates.
Medium
confidence
in
all
data.
The
same
dermal
data
are
used
as
for
baseline
coupled
with
a
50%
protection
factor
to
account
for
an
additional
layer
of
clothing.
Respirator
protection
factors
of
either
5
or
10
applied
to
account
for
the
use
of
either
dust/
mist
masks
or
cannister
type
devices
(e.
g.,

organic
vapor
removing
half
face
device).

Engineering
Controls:
Not
considered
feasible
for
this
exposure
scenario.

Dispersing
Granulars
&
Baits
With
a
Spoon
(16)
MRID
452507­
01
1
acre
Baseline:
Values
not
included
because
barehanded
data
were
not
available
and
hand
exposures
are
key
to
this
scenario.

PPE:
Dermal,
hand,
and
inhalation
=
acceptable
grades.
Hands
=
10
replicates,
dermal
=
10
replicates,
and
inhalation
=
10
replicates.
Low
confidence
in
all
data
because
dernal
dosimeters
were
unprotected
and
the
number
of
replicates.
Protective
gloves
were
worn.
A
50%
protection
factor
to
account
for
a
layer
of
clothing
was
used.
Respirator
protection
factors
of
either
5
or
10
applied
to
account
for
the
use
of
either
dust/
mist
masks
or
cannister
type
devices
(e.
g.,
organic
vapor
removing
half
face
device).

Engineering
Controls:
Not
considered
feasible
for
this
exposure
scenario.

There
are
no
data
compensation
issues
associated
with
this
study
as
it
was
sponsored
by
Aventis.
Appendix
C/
Table
1:
Sources
of
Exposure
Data
Used
In
The
Occupational
Carbaryl
Handler
Exposure
And
Risk
Calculations
Exposure
Scenario
(Number)
Data
Source
Standard
Assumptions
(8­
hr
work
day)
Comments
Mixer/
Loader/
Applicator
Descriptors
Mixing/
Loading/
Applying
Liquid
Sprays
w/
Low
Pressure,
High
Volume
Turfgun
(17)
MRID
449722­
01
5
acres
Baseline:
Values
back­
calculated
using
90%
protection
factor
for
gloves.
Non­
hand
dermal
data
for
single
layer
monitored
(see
PPE).

PPE:
See
EPA
review
for
data
quality
(Bangs,
2001),
data
are
considered
high
quality.
Respirator
protection
factors
of
either
5
or
10
applied
to
account
for
the
use
of
either
dust/
mist
masks
or
cannister
type
devices
(e.
g.,
organic
vapor
removing
half
face
device).
A
50%
protection
factor
to
account
for
an
additional
layer
of
clothing.
Study
monitored
single
layer
clothing
with
gloves.

Engineering
Controls:
Not
considered
feasible
for
this
exposure
scenario.

There
are
no
data
compensation
issues
associated
with
this
study
as
it
was
sponsored
by
ORETF
(Aventis
is
a
member).
Turfgun,
no
glove
data
were
not
back
calculated
using
a
90
percent
protection
factor
as
it
is
deemed
unreliable.
WP
formulation
in
WSP
packaging
used
for
turfgun
assessment
as
the
unit
exposures
for
this
scenario
were
slightly
higher
than
for
the
other
scenarios
and
deemed
representative
of
current
products/
packaging.

Mixing/
Loading/
Applying
Wettable
Powders
with
a
Low
Pressure
Sprayer
(18a)
PHED
V1.
1
(May
1997
Surrogate
Table)
40
gallons
for
ornamentals
and
20,000ft2
for
poultry
houses
Baseline:
The
only
empirical
data
that
are
available
are
based
on
the
use
of
chemical­
resistant
gloves.
It
is
not
appropriate
to
back­
calculate
a
non­
glove
hand
exposure
level
for
this
scenario
as
it
is
considered
an
overestimate
of
exposure
because
the
hands
are
a
key
contributor
to
exposure.

PPE:
Dermal
and
inhalation=
ABC
grades;
and
hands
=
acceptable
grades.
Dermal
=
16
replicates;
hands
=
15
replicates;
and
inhalation
=
16
replicates.
Medium
confidence
in
inhalation,
dermal,
and
hand
data.
A
50%
protection
factor
to
account
for
an
additional
layer
of
clothing.

Respirator
protection
factors
of
either
5
or
10
applied
to
account
for
the
use
of
either
dust/
mist
masks
or
cannister
type
devices
(e.
g.,
organic
vapor
removing
half
face
device).

Engineering
Controls:
Not
considered
feasible
for
this
exposure
scenario.

Mixing/
Loading/
Applying
Liquids
with
a
Low
Pressure
Sprayer
(18b)
PHED
V1.
1
(May
1997
Surrogate
Table)
40
gallons
for
ornamentals
and
20,000ft2
for
poultry
houses
Baseline:
Hands
=
all
grades;
dermal
and
inhalation
=
ABC
grades.
Dermal
=
9
to
80
replicates;
hands
=
70
replicates;
and
inhalation
=
80
replicates.
Medium
confidence
in
inhalation
data.
Low
confidence
in
dermal
and
hand
data.
No
protection
factor
was
needed
to
define
the
unit
exposure
values.

PPE:
The
same
dermal
data
are
used
as
for
baseline
coupled
with
a
50%
protection
factor
to
account
for
an
additional
layer
of
clothing.
Hand
=

10
replicates.
Hands=
ABC
grades
Low
confidence
in
hand
data.
Respirator
protection
factors
of
either
5
or
10
applied
to
account
for
the
use
of
either
dust/
mist
masks
or
cannister
type
devices
(e.
g.,
organic
vapor
removing
half
face
device).

Engineering
Controls:
Not
considered
feasible
for
this
exposure
scenario.
Appendix
C/
Table
1:
Sources
of
Exposure
Data
Used
In
The
Occupational
Carbaryl
Handler
Exposure
And
Risk
Calculations
Exposure
Scenario
(Number)
Data
Source
Standard
Assumptions
(8­
hr
work
day)
Comments
Mixing/
Loading/
Applying
with
a
Backpack
Sprayer
(19)
PHED
V1.
1
(May
1997
Surrogate
Table)
40
gallons
for
ornamentals
and
20,000ft2
for
poultry
houses
Baseline:
Dermal
and
inhalation
=
acceptable
grades.
Dermal
=
9
to
11
replicates
and
inhalation
=
11
replicates.
Low
confidence
in
dermal
and
inhalation
data.
The
only
empirical
data
that
are
available
are
based
on
the
use
of
chemical­
resistant
gloves.
It
is
generally
not
appropriate
to
back­
calculate
a
non­
glove
hand
exposure
levels,
an
extrapolation
has
been
completed
for
this
scenario,
however,
because
the
empirical
data
indicate
that
hands
are
a
minor
contributor
to
overall
exposure
levels.

PPE:
Hands
=
C
grades.
Hands
=
11
replicates.
Low
confidence
in
hand
data.
The
same
dermal
data
are
used
as
for
baseline
coupled
with
a
50%

protection
factor
to
account
for
an
additional
layer
of
clothing.
Respirator
protection
factors
of
either
5
or
10
applied
to
account
for
the
use
of
either
dust/
mist
masks
or
cannister
type
devices
(e.
g.,
organic
vapor
removing
half
face
device).

Engineering
Controls:
Not
considered
feasible
for
this
exposure
scenario.

Loading/
Applying
Granulars
with
a
Belly
Grinder
(20)
PHED
V1.
1
(May
1997
Surrogate
Table)
1
acre
Baseline:
Inhalation
=
acceptable
grades;
dermal
and
hands
=
ABC
grades.
Dermal
=
29
to
45
replicates;
hands
=
23
replicates;
and
inhalation
=

40
replicates.
High
confidence
in
inhalation
data.
Medium
confidence
in
dermal
and
hand
data.
No
protection
factor
was
needed
to
define
the
unit
exposure
values.

PPE:
The
same
dermal
data
are
used
as
for
baseline
coupled
with
a
50%
protection
factor
to
account
for
an
additional
layer
of
clothing.
Hands
=

all
grades.
Hands
=
20
replicates.
Low
confidence
in
hand
data.
Respirator
protection
factors
of
either
5
or
10
applied
to
account
for
the
use
of
either
dust/
mist
masks
or
cannister
type
devices
(e.
g.,
organic
vapor
removing
half
face
device).

Engineering
Controls:
Not
considered
feasible
for
this
exposure
scenario.

Loading/
Applying
granulars
with
a
push
spreader
(21)
PHED
V1.
1
(May
1997
Surrogate
Table)
5
acres
Baseline:
Values
back­
calculated
using
90%
protection
factor
for
gloves.
Non
hand
dermal
data
for
single
layer
monitored
(see
PPE).

PPE:
See
EPA
review
for
data
quality
(Bangs,
2001),
data
are
considered
high
quality.
Respirator
protection
factors
of
either
5
or
10
applied
to
account
for
the
use
of
either
dust/
mist
masks
or
cannister
type
devices
(e.
g.,
organic
vapor
removing
half
face
device).
A
50%
protection
factor
to
account
for
an
additional
layer
of
clothing.
Study
monitored
single
layer
clothing
with
gloves.

Engineering
Controls:
Not
considered
feasible
for
this
exposure
scenario.

There
are
no
data
compensation
issues
associated
with
this
study
as
it
was
sponsored
by
ORETF
(Aventis
is
a
member).

Mixing/
Loading/
Applying
with
a
Handheld
Fogger
(22)
No
Data
No
Data
No
Data
Appendix
C/
Table
1:
Sources
of
Exposure
Data
Used
In
The
Occupational
Carbaryl
Handler
Exposure
And
Risk
Calculations
Exposure
Scenario
(Number)
Data
Source
Standard
Assumptions
(8­
hr
work
day)
Comments
Mixing/
Loading/
Applying
with
a
Handheld
Fogger
(23)
No
Data
No
Data
No
Data
Mixing/
Loading/
Applying
with
a
Granular
Backpack
Applicator
(24)
MRID
451672­
01
1
acre
Clothing
(coverall
and
apron
worn
on
back)
&
Gloves
Scenario
Monitored
In
Study:
High
confidence
in
all
data.
No
protection
factor
was
needed
to
define
the
unit
exposure
values.

Engineering
Controls:
Not
considered
feasible
for
this
exposure
scenario.

There
are
no
data
compensation
issues
associated
with
this
study
as
it
was
sponsored
by
Aventis
using
Carbaryl.

Mixing/
Loading/
Applying
with
a
Tree
Injector
(25)
No
Data
No
Data
No
Data
Drench/
Dipping
Forestry
&

Ornamentals
(26)
PHED
V1.
1
(May
1997
Surrogate
Table)
100
gallons
of
solution
prepared
Addresses
only
solution
preparation
aspects
of
process.
This
has
been
addressed
using
open
mixing
liquid
data
presented
above
in
Scenario
3.

Engineering
controls
are
not
appropriate
for
this
scenario.

Mixing/
Loading/
Applying
with
a
Sprinkler
Can
(27)
PHED
V1.
1
(May
1997
Surrogate
Table)
10
gallons
Scenario
assessed
using
hose­
end
sprayer
data
which
are
believed
to
result
in
similar
exposures.
However,
the
extrapolation
should
be
considered
rangefinder
in
nature.

Baseline:
Inhalation
=
ABC
grades;
dermal
=
C
grade;
and
hands
=
E
grade.
Dermal
=
8
replicates;
hands
=
8
replicates;
and
inhalation
=
8
replicates.
Low
confidence
in
all
data.
Study
monitored
total
deposition.
A
50%
protection
factor
to
account
for
single
layer
of
clothing
was
used
to
define
the
unit
exposure
values.

PPE:
The
same
dermal
data
are
used
as
for
baseline
coupled
with
a
50%
protection
factor
to
account
for
an
additional
layer
of
clothing.
A
90
%

protection
factor
was
used
to
account
for
the
use
of
protective
gloves.
Respirator
protection
factors
of
either
5
or
10
applied
to
account
for
the
use
of
either
dust/
mist
masks
or
cannister
type
devices
(e.
g.,
organic
vapor
removing
half
face
device).

Engineering
Controls:
Not
considered
feasible
for
this
exposure
scenario.
Appendix
C/
Table
1:
Sources
of
Exposure
Data
Used
In
The
Occupational
Carbaryl
Handler
Exposure
And
Risk
Calculations
Exposure
Scenario
(Number)
Data
Source
Standard
Assumptions
(8­
hr
work
day)
Comments
Flagger
Descriptors
Flagging
Aerial
Spray
Applications
(28a)
PHED
V1.
1
(May
1997
Surrogate
Table)
350
acres
and
1,200
acres
Baseline:
Hands,
dermal,
and
inhalation
=
acceptable
grades.
Dermal
=
18
to
28
replicates;
hands
=
30
replicates;
and
inhalation
=
28
replicates.

High
confidence
in
dermal,
hand,
and
inhalation
data.
No
protection
factor
was
required
to
calculate
unit
exposures.

PPE:
The
same
dermal
data
are
used
as
for
baseline
coupled
with
a
50%
protection
factor
to
account
for
an
additional
layer
of
clothing.
Hand
=

acceptable
grades.
Hands=
6
replicates.
Low
confidence
in
hand
data.
Respirator
protection
factors
of
either
5
or
10
applied
to
account
for
the
use
of
either
dust/
mist
masks
or
cannister
type
devices
(e.
g.,
organic
vapor
removing
half
face
device).

Engineering
Controls:
The
same
data
are
used
as
for
baseline
coupled
with
a
98%
protection
factor
to
account
for
the
use
of
an
engineering
control
(e.
g.,
sitting
in
a
vehicle).

Flagging
Aerial
Spray
Applications
(28b)
PHED
V1.
1
(May
1997
Surrogate
Table)
350
acres
and
1,200
acres
Baseline:
Hands
and
inhalation
=
All
grades.
Dermal
=
ABC
grades.
Dermal
=
16
to
20
replicates;
hands
=
4
replicates;
and
inhalation
=
4
replicates.
Low
confidence
in
all
data.
Study
monitored
total
deposition.
A
50%
protection
factor
to
account
for
single
layer
of
clothing
was
used
to
define
the
unit
exposure
values.

PPE:
The
same
dermal
data
are
used
as
for
baseline
coupled
with
a
50%
protection
factor
to
account
for
an
additional
layer
of
clothing
and
a
90%

protection
factor
to
account
for
the
use
of
gloves.
Respirator
protection
factors
of
either
5
or
10
applied
to
account
for
the
use
of
either
dust/
mist
masks
or
cannister
type
devices
(e.
g.,
organic
vapor
removing
half
face
device).

Engineering
Controls:
The
same
data
are
used
as
for
baseline
coupled
with
a
98%
protection
factor
to
account
for
the
use
of
an
engineering
control
(e.
g.,
sitting
in
a
vehicle).

C
All
Standard
Assumptions
are
based
on
an
8­
hour
work
day
as
estimated
by
the
Agency.

C
All
handler
exposure
assessments
in
this
document
are
based
on
the
"Best
Available"
data
as
defined
by
the
PHED
SOP
for
meeting
Subdivision
U
Guidelines
(i.
e.,
completing
exposure
assessments).
Best
available
grades
are
assigned
to
data
as
follows:
matrices
with
A
and
B
grade
data
(i.
e.,
Acceptable
Grade
Data)
and
a
minimum
of
15
replicates;
if
not
available,
then
grades
A,
B
and
C
data
and
a
minimum
of
15
replicates;
if
not
available,

then
all
data
regardless
of
the
quality
(i.
e.,
All
Grade
Data)
and
number
of
replicates.
High
quality
data
with
a
protection
factor
take
precedence
over
low
quality
data
with
no
protection
factor.
Generic
data
confidence
categories
are
assigned
as
follows:

High
=
grades
A
and
B
and
15
or
more
replicates
per
body
part
Medium
=
grades
A,
B,
and
C
and
15
or
more
replicates
per
body
part
Low
=
grades
A,
B,
C,
D
and
E
or
any
combination
of
grades
with
less
than
15
replicates.

C
PHED
grading
criteria
do
not
reflect
overall
quality
of
the
reliability
of
the
assessment.
Sources
of
the
exposure
factors
should
also
be
considered
in
the
risk
management
decision.
Appendix
D:
Carbaryl
Residue
Dissipation
(DFR
&
TTR)

Data
Appendix
E:
Carbaryl
Occupational
Postapplication
Risk
Assessment
Appendix
F:
Carbaryl
Residential
Handler
Exposure
Data
Appendix
F/
Table
1:
Exposure
Data
From
MRID
444399­
01
(Carbaryl
Applicator
Exposure
Study
During
Application
of
Sevin
®
5
Dust
to
Dogs
By
the
Non­
Professional)

Replicate
lb
ai
used
Inner
(µg)
Outer
(µg)
Hand
(µg)
Face/
Neck
(µg)
Total
Dermal
Exposure
a
(mg)
Inhalation
Exposure
(µg)

Upper
Arm
Front
Torso
Back
Torso
Upper
Leg
Lower
Arm
Lower
Leg
1
0.
0034
40.7
217
122
70.7
8810
13100
5770
98.1
28
383
2
0.
016
173
445
230
130
28300
37000
12500
215
79
232
3
0.
0079
21.8
77.7
60.9
56.4
4240
1630
3890
43.5
10
252
4
0.
0042
23.3
43.9
50.9
40.8
4110
13800
5380
26.8
23
244
5
0.
0083
37.6
216
108
64.3
26200
24200
8140
180
59
149
6
0.
0025
16.4
25
38.3
9.
06
2470
541
4940
23.3
8.
1
37.4
7
0.
003
11.7
97.3
99.3
31.4
3150
2570
4490
61.6
11
66.3
8
0.
0068
41.9
111
89.5
21.8
6450
380
10500
43.4
18
170
9
0.
0068
27.2
79.4
215
31.7
3400
345
11600
65.4
16
158
10
0.012
145
648
224
278
67900
11500
11900
263
93
525
11
0.0047
20
79.4
78.1
53.2
12800
581
7300
280
21
244
12
0.022
97.4
454
435
232
44100
8310
24600
73.5
78
486
13
0.0093
50.5
85.6
64.5
42.3
7680
577
4350
31
13
173
14
0.0014
5.03
17.2
16.7
4.
92
1710
133
3870
11.9
5.
8
82.5
15
0.0085
14.8
159
129
18.6
6320
1350
5980
74
14
216
16
0.014
61.7
138
138
40.3
22000
1960
5140
41
30
509
17
0.0069
15.5
110
53
20
15600
1060
4570
33.1
21
209
18
0.0064
16.3
102
91.8
61.7
13500
651
6830
104
21
67.4
19
0.006
5.12
33.2
39.7
13.8
3830
271
9080
20.3
13
37.1
20
0.004
47.3
66.1
121
127
2720
1990
7650
41.8
13
170
Appendix
F/
Table
2:
Exposure
Data
For
Hose­
End
Sprayers
From
MRID
444598­
01
(Mixer
Loader
Applicator
Exposure
to
RP­
2
Liquid
(21%).
Carbaryl
Mixer/
Loader/
Applicator
Exposure
Study
during
Application
of
RP­
2
Liquid
(21%)
Sevin
®
Ready
to
Use
Insect
Spray
or
Sevin
®
10
Dust
to
Home
Garden
Vegetables)

Rep
Carbaryl
Applied
(lb)
Inner
Dosimeter
(µg)
Outer
Dosimeter

Lower
Arm
(µg)
Outer
Dosimeter

Lower
leg
(µg)
Hand
(µg)
Face/
Neck
Wipe
(µg)
Total
Dermal
Exposure
a
(µg)
Inhalation
Exposrue
(µg)

1
0.
11
19.1
71.3
571
2770
0.5
3.
43
0.
24
2
0.
076
3.0
7.
26
2548
1030
0.5
3.
59
0.
07
3
0.
045
8.8
34.1
624
291
0.5
0.
96
0.
07
4
0.
025
10.3
10.9
337
1560
0.5
1.
92
0.
07
5
0.
05
3.
0
1.97
1776
1100
17
2.90
0.07
6
0.
083
15.3
32.9
4080
2170
0.5
6.
30
0.
25
7
0.
047
3.0
3.
01
710
462
0.5
1.
18
0.
15
8
0.
052
9.8
62.5
937
618
0.5
1.
63
0.
23
9
0.
041
4.4
26
320
437
0.5
0.
79
0.
07
10
0.053
6.6
32.2
194
691
0.5
0.
92
0.
07
11
0.07
3.0
0.
5
2008
331
0.5
2.
34
0.
07
12
0.051
183.3
61.9
673
3380
0.5
4.
30
0.
21
13
0.031
3.0
7
28.6
693
0.5
0.
73
0.
07
14
0.075
3.0
44
465
3700
0.5
4.
21
0.
07
15
0.026
6.4
3.
4
130
62.6
0.
5
0.20
0.07
16
0.036
30.7
48.8
2587
4440
58
7.16
0.16
17
0.051
85.1
3037
1969
3240
0.5
8.
33
0.
07
18
0.095
3.0
23.3
422
612
0.5
1.
06
0.
07
19
0.052
10.1
158
537
385
0.5
1.
09
0.
23
20
0.025
3.0
0.
5
22.8
149
0.5
0.
18
0.
07
Appendix
F/
Table
3:
Exposure
Data
For
Low
Pressure
Handwand
Sprayers
From
MRID
444598­
01
(Mixer
Loader
Applicator
Exposure
to
RP­
2
Liquid
(21%).
Carbaryl
Mixer/
Loader/
Applicator
Exposure
Study
during
Application
of
RP­
2
Liquid
(21%)
Sevin
®
Ready
to
Use
Insect
Spray
or
Sevin
®
10
Dust
to
Home
Garden
Vegetables)

Rep
Carbaryl
Applied
(lb)
Inner
Dosimeter
(µg)
Outer
Dosimeter

Lower
Arm
(µg)
Outer
Dosimeter
­Lowel
leg
(µg)
Hand
(µg)
Face/
Neck
Wipe
(µg)
Total
Dermal
Exposure
a
(mg)

1
0.
02
3.
0
20.6
921.0
215.0
0.
5
1.16
2
0.
02
3.
0
15.8
476.0
381.0
0.
5
0.88
3
0.
02
3.
0
14.3
76.7
208.0
0.
5
0.30
4
0.
02
30.0
214.0
485.0
2100.0
9.
8
2.84
5
0.
01
3.
0
2.5
36.8
168.0
0.
5
0.21
6
0.
02
7.
9
84.4
3449.0
165.0
0.
5
3.71
7
0.
02
5.
2
7.7
85.3
235.0
0.
5
0.33
8
0.
02
18.6
41.4
876.0
205.0
0.
5
1.14
9
0.
02
3.
0
9.7
99.4
203.0
0.
5
0.32
10
0.02
10.0
5.
9
259.0
378.0
0.
5
0.65
11
0.02
3.0
2.
1
157.0
50.6
0.
5
0.21
12
0.01
3.0
69.4
64.6
451.0
0.
5
0.59
13
0.02
3.0
9.
9
247.0
1550.0
0.
5
1.81
14
0.02
3.0
5.
4
242.0
219.0
0.
5
0.47
15
0.02
7.9
3.
5
2278.0
100.0
0.
5
2.39
16
0.02
5.6
28.3
245.0
415.0
0.
5
0.69
17
0.02
4.5
0.
5
245.0
203.0
0.
5
0.45
18
0.02
3.0
2.
6
299.0
188.0
0.
5
0.49
19
0.02
16.4
5.
5
47.5
86.3
0.
5
0.16
20
0.02
17.5
328.0
255.0
118.0
0.
5
0.72
Appendix
F/
Table
4:
Exposure
Data
For
Ready­
to­
use
Sprayers
From
MRID
444598­
01
(Mixer
Loader
Applicator
Exposure
to
RP­
2
Liquid
(21%).
Carbaryl
Mixer/
Loader/
Applicator
Exposure
Study
during
Application
of
RP­
2
Liquid
(21%)
Sevin
®
Ready
to
Use
Insect
Spray
or
Sevin
®
10
Dust
to
Home
Garden
Vegetables)

Rep
Carbaryl
Applied
(lb)
Inner
Dosimeter
(µg)
Outer
Dosimeter

Lower
Arm
(µg)
Outer
Dosimeter

Lowel
leg
(µg)
Hand
(µg)
Face/
Neck
Wipe
(µg)
Total
Dermal
Exposure
a
(mg)
Inhalation
Exposure
(µg)

1
0.
0024
3.0
7.
43
21.6
270
0.5
0.
31
0.
66
2
0.
0022
5.5
10.5
33.7
81.9
0.
5
0.13
0.56
3
0.
0028
7.2
10.2
26.1
654
0.5
0.
70
0.
29
4
0.
0025
6.4
13.3
82.9
225
0.5
0.
33
0.
42
5
0.
002
3.0
8.
43
80.8
197
0.5
0.
29
0.
36
6
0.
0022
3.0
7.
92
41.1
150
0.5
0.
20
0.
07
7
0.
002
4.9
5.
5
22
301
0.5
0.
33
0.
36
8
0.
0022
4.3
6.
65
40.4
115
0.5
0.
17
0.
44
9
0.
0021
3.0
0.
5
1.72
44.5
0.
5
0.05
0.07
10
0.0022
3.0
0.
5
2.46
98.1
0.
5
0.11
0.07
11
0.0021
3.0
0.
5
2.3
45.1
0.
5
0.05
0.07
12
0.0022
10.0
2.
29
7.
22
198
0.5
0.
22
0.
19
13
0.0022
3.0
5.
41
3.
51
44.8
0.
5
0.05
0.07
14
0.0021
7.2
2.
46
18.4
16.5
0.
5
0.05
0.23
15
0.002
3.0
3.
84
4.
48
28.2
0.
5
0.04
0.07
16
0.0022
61.8
5.
12
6.
33
392
11.9
0.
48
0.
07
17
0.0022
5.2
2.
23
12.2
3.
67
0.
5
0.02
0.07
18
0.0022
3.0
0.
5
2.54
34.8
0.
5
0.04
0.07
19
0.0022
3.0
4.
39
17.2
67.2
0.
5
0.09
0.07
20
0.0022
3.0
2.
79
18
23.7
0.
5
0.05
0.07
Appendix
F/
Table
5:
Exposure
Data
For
Dust
Applications
From
MRID
444598­
01
(Mixer
Loader
Applicator
Exposure
to
RP­
2
Liquid
(21%).
Carbaryl
Mixer/
Loader/
Applicator
Exposure
Study
during
Application
of
RP­
2
Liquid
(21%)
Sevin
®
Ready
to
Use
Insect
Spray
or
Sevin
®
10
Dust
to
Home
Garden
Vegetables)

Rep
Carbaryl
Applied
(lb)
Inner
Dosimeter
(µg)
Outer
Dosimeter

Lower
Arm
(µg)
Outer
Dosimeter

Lowel
leg
(µg)
Hand
(µg)
Face/
Neck
Wipe
(µg)
Total
Dermal
Exposure
a
(mg)
Inhalation
Exposure
(µg)

1
0.
0033
126.9
296
902
884
3.23
2.22
7.5
2
0.
025
98.9
346
932
13300
23.5
14.70
15.1
3
0.
0072
57.1
112
1281
526
12.5
1.
99
9.
93
4
0.
012
96.5
453
243
719
34.4
1.
55
26.8
5
0.
012
150.0
139
282
1530
5.85
2.11
3.57
6
0.
013
38.4
309
381
488
3.62
1.22
7.94
7
0.
0045
50.4
359
83
568
3.97
1.06
21.9
8
0.
0093
26.0
1815
59.8
228
5.53
2.13
0.07
9
0.
013
86.5
230
95.4
667
15.9
1.
10
27.4
10
0.015
25.0
452
127
413
13.3
1.
03
5.
73
11
0.019
53.1
167
306
1020
7.25
1.55
40.7
12
0.012
21.6
90.9
66.9
2920
1.96
3.10
7.89
13
0.029
77.7
381
587
423
8.95
1.48
57.7
14
0.0026
44.1
227
305
3030
2.35
3.61
37.1
15
0.02
71.4
153
219
351
1.21
0.80
2.51
16
0.0086
165.7
174
624
1440
1.88
2.41
9.34
17
0.03
93.4
275
413
494
6.89
1.28
42.1
18
0.044
82.2
282
949
259
12.7
1.
59
24.9
19
0.013
171.1
1022
133
1500
23.7
2.
85
29.7
20
0.026
36.0
221
65.5
1210
2.52
1.54
6.74
Appendix
F/
Table
6:
Exposure
Data
For
Hose­
End
Sprayers
From
MRID
445185­
01
(Carbaryl
Mixer/
Loader/
Applicator
Exposure
Study
during
Application
of
RP­
2
Liquid
(21%)
to
Fruit
Trees
and
Ornamental
Plants)

Rep
Carbaryl
Applied
(lb)
Inner
Dosimeter
(µg)
Outer
Dosimeter

Lower
Arm
(µg)
Outer
Dosimeter

Lowel
leg
(µg)
Hand
(µg)
Face/
Neck
Wipe
(µg)
Total
Dermal
Exposure
a
(mg)
Inhalation
Exposure
(µg)

1
0.
026
4.5
15
37
128
0.5
0.
19
0.
07
2
0.
02
3.
8
133
1890
227
0.5
2.
45
0.
07
3
0.
066
17.0
995
2218
5480
3.6
8.
71
0.
07
4
0.
053
26.5
193
1230
13200
2.2
14.65
0.15
5
0.
026
3.7
337
348
952
0.5
1.
64
0.
29
6
0.
026
18.5
49
161
82
0.5
0.
31
0.
07
7
0.
02
3.
0
99
220
1060
0.5
1.
38
0.
07
8
0.
022
3.6
78
213
694
0.5
0.
99
0.
07
9
0.
021
4.6
28
87
779
0.5
0.
90
0.
07
10
0.02
4.3
298
226
460
1.9
0.
99
0.
07
11
0.035
10.4
47
119
248
0.5
0.
43
0.
08
12
0.046
5.1
23
72
130
0.5
0.
23
0.
07
13
0.042
3.0
270
181
2060
0.5
2.
52
0.
07
14
0.09
9.1
567
1824
1400
0.5
3.
80
0.
23
15
0.029
3.0
123
193
428
0.5
0.
75
0.
07
16
0.026
11.3
36
181
2850
0.5
3.
08
0.
07
17
0.062
3.0
75
878
643
0.5
1.
60
0.
07
18
0.024
21.5
251
97
1830
0.5
2.
20
0.
07
19
0.073
3.0
180
301
736
0.5
1.
22
0.
07
20
0.024
3.9
9.
4
124
521
0.5
0.
66
0.
07
Appendix
F/
Table
7:
Exposure
Data
For
Low
Pressure
Handwand
Sprayers
From
MRID
445185­
01
(Carbaryl
Mixer/
Loader/
Applicator
Exposure
Study
during
Application
of
RP­
2
Liquid
(21%)
to
Fruit
Trees
and
Ornamental
Plants)

Rep
Carbaryl
Applied
(lb)
Inner
Dosimeter
(µg)
Outer
Dosimeter

Lower
Arm
(µg)
Outer
Dosimeter

Lowel
leg
(µg)
Hand
(µg)
Face/
Neck
Wipe
(µg)
Total
Dermal
Exposure
a
(mg)
Inhalation
Exposure
(µg)

1
0.
018
3.0
5.
6
11
432
0.5
0.
45
0.
07
2
0.
015
6.7
55
467
259
0.5
0.
78
0.
07
3
0.
02
34.0
571
491
1450
20
2.57
0.07
4
0.
019
4.9
34
88
381
0.5
0.
51
0.
07
5
0.
013
5.5
133
1297
3080
0.5
4.
52
0.
07
6
0.
014
8.4
56
147
567
0.5
0.
78
0.
07
7
0.
018
7.5
906
378
825
0.5
2.
12
0.
07
8
0.
02
12.1
95
440
2970
1.2
3.
52
0.
32
9
0.
017
15.2
27
182
524
0.5
0.
75
0.
16
10
0.015
5.0
42
146
414
1.3
0.
61
0.
24
11
0.019
25.2
59
303
493
0.5
0.
88
0.
07
12
0.018
3.0
15
108
139
0.5
0.
27
0.
07
13
0.018
9.0
79
281
271
0.5
0.
64
0.
07
14
0.02
9.5
209
522
917
0.5
1.
66
0.
07
15
0.015
11.4
131
780
247
1.8
1.
17
0.
37
16
0.017
9.2
25
437
864
0.5
1.
33
0.
2
17
0.02
3.0
78
639
198
0.5
0.
92
0.
07
18
0.017
3.0
51
285
267
0.5
0.
61
0.
38
19
0.02
6.9
41
81
373
0.5
0.
50
0.
07
20
0.018
8.9
81
605
436
1.4
1.
13
0.
33
Appendix
G:
Carbaryl
Residential
Handler
Risk
Assessment
Appendix
G/
Table
1:
Residential
Handler
Scenario
Descriptions
for
the
Use
of
Carbaryl
Exposure
Scenario
(Number)
Data
Source
Standard
Assumptions
(8­
hr
work
day)
Comments
a
Mixer/
Loader/
Applicator
Descriptors
Garden:
Ready­
to­
use
trigger
sprayer
(1)
MRID
444598­
01
1/
4
to
1
bottle
(1
bottle
is
SOP
requirement,
others
shown
for
characterization)
A
total
of
40
replicates
were
monitored
in
this
study.
Half
of
the
people
wore
gloves
and
the
other
half
did
not.
The
clothing
scenario
represents
short­
sleeved
shirt,
short
pants,
and
no
gloves.
The
data
are
considered
high
quality
by
the
Agency.

There
are
no
data
compensation
issues
associated
with
this
study
as
it
was
sponsored
by
Aventis
Garden:
Ornamental
Duster
(2)
MRID
444598­
01
1/
4
to
1
bottle
(1
bottle
is
SOP
requirement,
others
shown
for
characterization)
A
total
of
20
replicates
were
monitored
in
this
study.
No
individuals
wore
gloves.
The
clothing
scenario
represents
short

sleeved
shirt,
short
pants,
and
no
gloves.
The
data
are
considered
high
quality
by
the
Agency.

There
are
no
data
compensation
issues
associated
with
this
study
as
it
was
sponsored
by
Aventis
Garden:
Hose­
end
Sprayer
(3)
MRID
444598­
01
1000
ft
2
or
100
gallons
output
(1000ft
2
is
SOP
requirement,
others
shown
for
characterization)
A
total
of
40
replicates
were
monitored
in
this
study.
Half
of
the
people
wore
gloves
and
the
other
half
did
not.
The
clothing
scenario
represents
short­
sleeved
shirt,
short
pants,
and
no
gloves.
The
data
are
considered
high
quality
by
the
Agency.

There
are
no
data
compensation
issues
associated
with
this
study
as
it
was
sponsored
by
Aventis
Garden:
Low
Pressure
Handwand
Sprayer
(4)
MRID
444598­
01
5
gallons
or
1000
ft
2
(5
gallons
is
SOP
requirement,
others
shown
for
characterization)
A
total
of
40
replicates
were
monitored
in
this
study.
Half
of
the
people
wore
gloves
and
the
other
half
did
not.
The
clothing
scenario
represents
short­
sleeved
shirt,
short
pants,
and
no
gloves.
The
data
are
considered
high
quality
by
the
Agency.

There
are
no
data
compensation
issues
associated
with
this
study
as
it
was
sponsored
by
Aventis
Trees
and
Ornamentals:

Low
Pressure
Handwand
Sprayer
(5)
MRID
445185­
01
5
gallons
or
1000
ft
2
(5
gallons
is
SOP
requirement,
others
shown
for
characterization)
A
total
of
20
replicates
were
monitored
in
this
study.
No
individuals
wore
gloves.
The
clothing
scenario
represents
short

sleeved
shirt,
short
pants,
and
no
gloves.
The
data
are
considered
high
quality
by
the
Agency.

There
are
no
data
compensation
issues
associated
with
this
study
as
it
was
sponsored
by
Aventis
Trees
and
Ornamentals:

Hose­
end
Sprayer
(6)
MRID
445185­
01
100
gallons
or
1000
ft
2
(1000
ft
2
is
SOP
requirement,
others
shown
for
characterization)
A
total
of
20
replicates
were
monitored
in
this
study.
No
individuals
wore
gloves.
The
clothing
scenario
represents
short

sleeved
shirt,
short
pants,
and
no
gloves.
The
data
are
considered
high
quality
by
the
Agency.

There
are
no
data
compensation
issues
associated
with
this
study
as
it
was
sponsored
by
Aventis
Mixing/
Loading/
Applying
with
a
Backpack
Sprayer
(7)
PHED
V1.
1
(7/
97
Residential
SOP
Surrogate
Table)
5
gallons
or
1000
ft
2
(5
gallons
is
SOP
requirement,
others
shown
for
characterization)
Inhalation
and
dermal
=
acceptable
grades.
Hand
data
=
C
grade.
Dermal
=
9
to
11
replicates,
hand
=
11
replicates,
and
inhalation
=
11
replicates.
Low
confidence
in
data.
Hand
exposure
values
were
back­
calculated
using
empirical
data
that
were
generated
using
chemical­
resistant
gloves
and
a
90
percent
protection
factor.
An
additional
10x
safety
factor
was
applied
to
the
hand
exposure
value
because
the
calculated
hand
exposure
value
did
not
correspond
to
the
level
expected
given
the
other
dermal
exposure
values
for
the
scenario
(the
10x
factor
addition
was
completed
based
on
instructions
contained
in
the
Residential
SOPs).
Appendix
G/
Table
1:
Residential
Handler
Scenario
Descriptions
for
the
Use
of
Carbaryl
Exposure
Scenario
(Number)
Data
Source
Standard
Assumptions
(8­
hr
work
day)
Comments
a
Lawncare:
Hose­
end
Sprayer
(8)
MRID
­44972201
1000
ft
2
for
spot
treatments
and
20,000ft
2
for
broadcast
applications
A
total
of
60
replicates
were
monitored
in
this
study.
Half
of
the
subjects
used
ready­
to­
use
packaging
while
the
others
used
open
pour.
The
values
used
for
assessment
were
open
pour.
The
clothing
scenario
represents
short­
sleeved
shirt,
short
pants,

and
no
gloves.
The
data
are
considered
high
quality
by
the
Agency.

There
are
no
data
compensation
issues
associated
with
this
study
as
it
was
sponsored
by
Aventis
Dusting
a
Dog
(9)
MRID
444399­
01
½
bottle
of
product
A
total
of
40
replicates
were
monitored
in
this
study.
Half
of
the
people
wore
gloves
and
the
other
half
did
not.
The
clothing
scenario
represents
short­
sleeved
shirt,
short
pants,
and
no
gloves.
The
data
are
considered
high
quality
by
the
Agency.

There
are
no
data
compensation
issues
associated
with
this
study
as
it
was
sponsored
by
Aventis
Dipping
a
Dog
(10)
SOPs
for
Residential
Exposure
Assessments
(7/
97)
½
bottle
of
product
The
SOPs
For
Residential
Exposure
Assessment
served
as
the
basis
for
this
assessment
(i.
e.,
the
assumptions
that
were
used
to
predict
exposures
from
pet
use
products
in
which
a
percentage
of
the
application
rate
is
the
predictor
of
potential
dermal
dose).

The
scenario
is
based
on
the
use
of
a
residential
clothing
scenario
(i.
e.,
short
pants,
short­
sleeved
shirt,
no
gloves,
no
respirator).
Note
that
the
same
value
is
used
as
for
the
occupational
handler
scenarios.
The
refinement
of
the
SOPs
for
Residential
Exposure
Assessment
is
such
that
furhter
delineation
based
on
clothing
scenario
is
not
appropriate
(i.
e.,
to
alter
value
based
on
use
of
short
vs.
long
pants
and
long­
sleeved
vs.
short­
sleeved
shirts).

Lawncare:
Granular
and
Baits
By
Bellygrinder
(11)
SOPs
for
Residential
Exposure
Assessments
(7/
97)
1000
ft
2
for
spot
treatment
Inhalation
=
acceptable
grades.
Hand
and
dermal
data
=
ABC
grade.
Dermal
=
20
to
45
replicates,
hand
=
23
replicates,
and
inhalation
=
40
replicates.
Medium
confidence
in
dermal
and
hand
data.
High
confidence
in
inhalation
data.

Lawncare:
Granular
and
Baits
By
Push­
type
Spreader
(12)
MRID
­44972201
20,000ft
2
for
broadcast
applications
A
total
of
30
replicates
were
monitored
in
this
study.
The
clothing
scenario
represents
short­
sleeved
shirt,
short
pants,
and
no
gloves.
The
data
are
considered
high
quality
by
the
Agency.

There
are
no
data
compensation
issues
associated
with
this
study
as
it
was
sponsored
by
Aventis
Lawncare:
Granular
and
Baits
By
Hand
(13)
SOPs
for
Residential
Exposure
Assessments
(7/
97)
1000
ft
2
for
spot
treatment
Dermal,
hand
and
inhalation
data
=
ABC
grade.
Dermal
=
16
replicates,
hand
=
16
replicates,
and
inhalation
=
16
replicates.

Medium
confidence
in
all
data.

Aerosol
Can
(14)
SOPs
for
Residential
Exposure
Assessments
(7/
97)
1
can
Hand
data
=
acceptable
grades.
Dermal
and
inhalation
data
=
ABC
grade.
Dermal
=
30
replicates,
hand
=
15
replicates,
and
inhalation
=
30
replicates.
Medium
confidence
in
all
data.
Appendix
G/
Table
1:
Residential
Handler
Scenario
Descriptions
for
the
Use
of
Carbaryl
Exposure
Scenario
(Number)
Data
Source
Standard
Assumptions
(8­
hr
work
day)
Comments
a
Flea
Collar
(15)
SOPs
for
Residential
Exposure
Assessments
(7/
97)
1
collar
The
SOPs
For
Residential
Exposure
Assessment
served
as
the
basis
for
this
assessment
(i.
e.,
the
assumptions
that
were
used
to
predict
exposures
from
pet
use
products
in
which
a
percentage
of
the
application
rate
is
the
predictor
of
potential
dermal
dose).

The
scenario
is
based
on
the
use
of
a
residential
clothing
scenario
(i.
e.,
short
pants,
short­
sleeved
shirt,
no
gloves,
no
respirator).
Note
that
the
same
value
is
used
as
for
the
occupational
handler
scenarios.
The
refinement
of
the
SOPs
for
Residential
Exposure
Assessment
is
such
that
furhter
delineation
based
on
clothing
scenario
is
not
appropriate
(i.
e.,
to
alter
value
based
on
use
of
short
vs.
long
pants
and
long­
sleeved
vs.
short­
sleeved
shirts).

Sprinkler
Can
(16)
MRID
445185­
01
5
gallons
Data
from
hose­
end
sprayer
applications
to
trees
and
ornamentals
was
used
to
assess
this
scenario.
The
results
should
be
considered
as
rangefinder
in
nature
to
account
for
the
extrapolation
completed
for
this
assessment.

Ornamental
Paint
On
(17)
SOPs
for
Residential
Exposure
Assessments
(7/
97)
1
gallon
Hand
data
=
acceptable
grade.
Dermal
and
inhalation
data
=
C
grade.
Dermal
=
14
to
15
replicates,
hand
=
15
replicates,
and
inhalation
=
15
replicates.
Low
to
medium
confidence
in
all
data.

a
All
Standard
Assumptions
are
based
on
an
8­
hour
work
day
as
estimated
by
HED.
BEAD
data
were
not
available.

bAll
handler
exposure
assessments
in
this
document
are
based
on
the
"Best
Available"
data
as
defined
by
the
PHED
SOP
for
meeting
Subdivision
U
Guidelines
(i.
e.,
completing
exposure
assessments).
Best
available
grades
are
assigned
to
data
as
follows:
matrices
with
A
and
B
grade
data
(i.
e.,
Acceptable
Grade
Data)
and
a
minimum
of
15
replicates;
if
not
available,
then
grades
A,
B
and
C
data
and
a
minimum
of
15
replicates;
if
not
available,
then
all
data
regardless
of
the
quality
(i.
e.,
All
Grade
Data)
and
number
of
replicates.
High
quality
data
with
a
protection
factor
take
precedence
over
low
quality
data
with
no
protection
factor.
Generic
data
confidence
categories
are
assigned
as
follows:

High
=
grades
A
and
B
and
15
or
more
replicates
per
body
part
Medium
=
grades
A,
B,
and
C
and
15
or
more
replicates
per
body
part
Low
=
grades
A,
B,
C,
D
and
E
or
any
combination
of
grades
with
less
than
15
replicates.

c
PHED
grading
criteria
do
not
reflect
overall
quality
of
the
reliability
of
the
assessment.
Sources
of
the
exposure
factors
should
also
be
considered
in
the
risk
management
decision.
Appendix
H:
Carbaryl
Residential
Postapplication
Risk
Assessment
For
Turf
Uses
Appendix
I:
Carbaryl
Residential
Postapplication
Risk
Assessment
For
Garden/
Ornamental
Uses
Appendix
J:
Carbaryl
Residential
Postapplication
Risk
Assessment
For
Pet
Uses
Appendix
K:
Determination
of
Deposition
Factors
For
Carbaryl
Mosquito
Control
Uses
Background
Information:
Carbaryl
has
been
historically
used
for
the
control
of
insect
pests
such
as
mosquitoes
and
black
flies
in
a
manner
that
has
employed
the
use
of
Ultra­
low
Volume
(ULV)
application
methods
over
wide
areas.
As
the
reregistration
process
has
progressed,
the
labels
for
these
types
of
applications
have
been
reviewed
and
the
Aventis
Corporation
has
submitted
a
draft
label
for
the
Sevin
XLR
(4
lb
ai/
gallon)
product
which
has
been
used
to
develop
the
risk
assessment
for
these
uses.
Aventis
is
interested
in
maintaining
this
use
pattern
even
though
the
marketshare
for
carbaryl
in
this
area
has
declined
in
recent
years
due
to
the
use
of
the
synthetic
pyrethroids
and
other
chemistries.

According
to
the
Sevin
XLR
label,
applications
can
be
made
using
ground,
aerial
or
handheld
equipment
suitable
for
fogging
urban
environments
(e.
g.,
backpack
or
handheld
foggers).
ULV
type
applications
or
thermal
fogging
applications
are
allowable
based
on
the
label.
The
label
indicates
that
the
optimal
droplet
size
is
8
to
30
µm
by
mass
median
diameter
(MMD)
or
volume
median
diameter
(VMD)
calculations
for
ground
fogger
applications.
For
aerial
applications,
the
droplet
spectra
that
is
specified
has
a
calculated
VMD
of
less
than
50
µm
and
no
more
than
5
percent
of
the
droplets
should
be
larger
than
80
µm.

The
label
presents
a
range
of
application
rates
from
0.016
to
1.0
lb
ai/
acre
(i.
e.,
0.016,
0.15,
and
1.0
lb
ai/
acre).
These
use
rates
have
not
been
linked
to
specific
pests
or
pest
pressures
on
the
label.
Applications
can
be
made
using
undiluted
material
or
with
a
1:
1
or
1:
2
dilution
rate.

Agricultural
Engineering
Considerations:
With
few
notable
exceptions
such
as
public
health
scenarios
(e.
g.,
mosquito
control),
the
general
intent
during
most
pesticide
applications
is
to
confine
the
deposition
of
applied
chemicals
to
specific
target
areas
such
as
agricultural
fields.
Economic
concerns,
health
concerns,
environmental
concerns,
and
efficacy
are
the
generally
recognized
rationale
for
limiting
off­
target
deposition.
Pesticide
applicators
can
control
deposition
patterns
through
the
use
of
specific
types
of
equipment
and
by
controlling
application
parameters.
Several
application
parameters
can
potentially
impact
deposition
patterns
of
liquid­
form
pesticides
in
the
environment
during
application
(e.
g.,
nozzle
size,
application
pressure,
vehicle
configuration
and
speed,
meteorological
conditions
including
environmental
stability,
and
physical­
chemical
characteristics
of
the
formulation).

As
indicated
above,
ULV
mosquito
control
applications
serve
as
the
basis
for
this
assessment.
The
general
intent
of
these
types
of
applications
is
antithetical
to
most
pesticide
applications
in
that
spray
drift
is
generally
not
inhibited
but
promoted
in
order
to
broaden
the
effective
treatment
area
and
ensure
that
the
resulting
droplets
stay
aloft
for
as
long
as
possible.
In
fact,
the
efficacy
of
mosquito
adulticide
compounds
is
based
on
droplets
contacting
in­
flight
mosquitos.
As
a
result,
there
are
significant
agricultural
engineering
differences
that
were
considered
by
The
Agency
in
this
assessment.
These
include:

C
Release
heights
for
mosquito
control
aerial
ULV
applications
are
typically
100
to
500
feet
(or
even
higher)
as
opposed
to
most
typical
agricultural
aerial
applications
where
the
release
height
is
generally
as
low
as
the
pilot
can
go
(i.
e.,
often
10
feet
or
less).
Release
height
can
significantly
impact
spray
drift
(i.
e.,
the
higher
the
release,
the
longer
to
time
of
impact
with
target
area,
and
the
more
potential
for
drift).
A
release
height
of
300
feet
was
used
in
this
assessment
(i.
e.,
the
upper
limit
application
height
allowed
in
the
AgDRIFT
model).

C
Nozzle
configurations
are
such
that
extremely
small
droplets
are
released
as
opposed
to
typical
aerial
applications
(i.
e.,
Sevin
XLR
label
specifies
VM
of
50
µm
while
the
values
for
most
agricultural
applications
are
100
µm
or
more).
C
Larger
aircraft
are
generally
used
to
make
malaria
control
applications.
For
example,
Lee
County
Florida,
one
of
the
largest
Florida
mosquito
abatement
districts,
has
a
fleet
of
Douglas
DC3s
and
Huey
Helicopters.
The
DC3
is
a
much
larger
aircraft
than
the
common
agricultural
application
fixed­
wing
aircraft
(e.
g.,
Air
Tractor
AT401).
These
differences
are
significant
when
predicting
deposition
and
were
addressed
in
the
Agency
calculation
of
deposition
after
an
aerial
ULV
application.
The
DC3
was
used
as
the
basis
for
all
AgDRIFT
calculations
completed
by
The
Agency.

Predictive
Tools
and
Data:
The
Agency
has
used
state­
of­
the­
art
tools
in
order
to
calculate
deposition
rates
resulting
from
ground­
based
and
aerial
ULV
applications
as
well
as
to
calculate
the
postapplication
dermal
exposures
that
result
from
entry
into
areas
previously
treated
with
carbaryl
using
these
techniques.
The
Agency
used
AgDrift
V2.01
to
predict
the
amount
of
residues
that
would
deposit
in
residential
areas
after
aerial
ULV
application,
published
data
were
used
to
predict
deposition
after
ground
ULV
applications,
and
the
latest
residential
exposure
assessment
methods
were
used
to
calculate
the
risks
associated
with
these
residues.

The
first
aspect
of
this
exposure/
risk
assessment
required
the
calculation
of
realistic
deposition
rates
from
the
aerial
and
ground­
based
ULV
applications
of
carbaryl
(i.
e.,
addressed
in
this
appendix
­
residential
exposure
methods
are
discussed
in
detail
in
Section
3
of
the
document).
The
Agency
could
have
taken
a
very
simplistic
approach
of
assigning
the
application
rate
as
the
deposition
after
an
application.
However,
The
Agency
did
not
utilize
this
approach
given
the
current
state
of
knowledge
pertaining
to
spray
drift
and
recent
industry
and
agency
efforts
in
this
area
(i.
e.,
this
approach
would
generally
be
considered
as
unrealistic
given
the
intent
of
mosquito
control
applications).
There
are
a
number
of
predictive
tools
and
open
literature
articles
that
pertain
to
this
technical
area.
Given
that
ground­
based
and
aerial
ULV
applications
are
allowable,
models
and
data
were
identified
to
support
a
human
health
exposure/
risk
assessment
for
each
scenario.
[Note:
The
Agency
recognizes
that
there
are
potential
issues
with
the
selection
and
use
of
these
models
in
this
assessment.
As
such,
the
use
of
each
model
for
completing
this
exposure/
risk
assessment
is
appropriately
characterized
(see
below).]

Aerial
ULV:
In
order
to
calculate
deposition
from
aerial
ULV
applications,
The
Agency
used
AgDRIFT
(V
2.01)
which
is
the
model
that
was
developed
as
a
result
of
the
efforts
of
the
Spray
Drift
Task
Force
(SDTF).
The
SDTF
is
a
coalition
of
pesticide
registrants
whose
primary
objectives
were
to
develop
a
comprehensive
database
of
off­
target
drift
information
in
support
of
pesticide
registrations
and
an
appropriate
model
system.
This
model
was
selected
based
on
the
consensus
of
several
experts
in
the
spray
drift
area
because
it
represents
the
current
state­
of­
the­
art.
The
Agency
discussed
the
issue
of
model
selection
with
several
experts
in
the
spray
drift
community
prior
to
selecting
AgDRIFT
(e.
g.,
Sandra
L.
Bird,
U.
S.
EPA;
Steven
G.
Perry,
U.
S.
EPA;
Milton
E.
Teske,
Continuum
Dynamics;
Pat
Skyler,
U.
S.
Forest
Service;
Arnet
Jones,
U.
S.
EPA;
and
Harold
Thistle,
U.
S.
Forest
Service).
The
Agency
considered
using
the
USDA
Forest
Service
Cramer­
BarryGrim
Model
(commonly
referred
to
as
FSCBG).
FSCBG
was
developed
through
support
from
the
U.
S.
Forest
Service,
in
cooperation
with
the
U.
S.
Army,
and
has
been
in
existence
for
over
20
years
in
various
iterations.
Actual
support
and
development
of
FSCBG
was
completed
by
Continuum
Dynamics,
Inc.
located
in
Princeton,
New
Jersey
under
the
technical
direction
of
Milton
E.
Teske.
However,
it
was
decided
that
AgDRIFT
should
be
used
because
it
is
based
on
essentially
the
same
algorithms
as
FSCBG
(personal
communication
with
Milton
E.
Teske
of
Contiuum
Dynamics),
it
has
undergone
extensive
validation
by
the
SDTF,
and
it
is
very
user­
friendly
compared
to
FSCBG.

AgDRIFT
is
a
Microsoft
Windows­
based
personal
computer
program
that
is
provided
to
the
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency's
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs
as
a
product
of
the
Cooperative
Research
and
Development
Agreement
(CRADA)
between
EPA's
Office
of
Research
and
Development
and
the
SDTF.
AgDRIFT
predicts
the
motion
of
spray
material
released
from
aircraft,
including
the
mean
position
of
the
material
and
the
position
variance
about
the
mean
as
a
result
of
turbulent
fluctuations.
AgDRIFT
enhancements
include
a
significant
solution
speed
increase,
an
in­
memory
computation
of
deposition
and
flux
as
the
solution
proceeds,
and
extensive
validation
based
on
180
separate
aerial
treatments
performed
during
field
trials
in
1992
and
1993
by
the
SDTF.

Ground
ULV:
In
contrast
to
the
aerial
ULV
scenario,
the
data
available
to
predict
deposition
patterns
and
resulting
exposures
from
ground­
based
ULV
malaria
applications
are
limited.
In
fact,
The
Agency
utilized
two
published
journal
articles
and
a
preliminary
model
developed
for
the
Environmental
Fate
and
Effects
Division
of
OPP
by
EPA's
Office
of
Research
and
Development
as
the
basis
of
this
effort.
These
documents
include:

Mass
Recovery
of
Malathion
in
Simulated
Open
Field
Mosquito
Adulticide
Tests:
N.
S.
Tietze,
P.
G.
Hester,
and
K.
R.
Shaffer;
Archives
of
Environmental
Contamination
and
Toxicology;
26:
473­
477
(1994).
[Note:
This
document
was
used
as
the
primary
source
of
deposition
rates
resulting
from
ground­
based
ULV
mosquito
applications.]

Downwind
Drift
and
Deposition
of
Malathion
on
Human
Targets
From
Ground
Ultra­
Low
Volume
Mosquito
Sprays:
J.
C.
Moore,
J.
C.
Dukes,
J.
R.
Clark,
J.
Malone,
C.
F.
Hallmon,
and
P.
G.
Hester;
Journal
of
the
American
Mosquito
Control
Association;
Vol.
9,
No.
2
(June,
1993).[
Note:
This
document
was
used
as
the
primary
source
of
deposition
rates
resulting
from
ground­
based
ULV
mosquito
applications
and
as
a
confirmatory
source
of
exposure
data.]

Modeling
of
Deposition
From
Mosquito
Adulticide
Applications:
S.
G.
Perry
and
W.
B.
Petersen
of
EPA/
ORD
for
Arnet
Jones
of
EPA/
OPP
(February
7,
1995).
[Note:
This
is
an
internal
document
that
has
not
been
peer
reviewed.
It
was
used
only
for
confirmatory
purposes
in
this
exposure/
risk
assessment.]

Determination
of
Deposition
Rates:
Deposition
rates
were
determined
for
both
aerial
and
ground­
based
ULV
application
methods
as
a
percentage
of
the
nominal
application
rate
(i.
e.,
how
much
of
the
target
application
rate
actually
deposited
on
outdoor
surfaces
such
as
turf).
The
application
rates
used
to
complete
the
assessment
are
the
range
specified
above.
As
indicated
above,
AgDRIFT
V
2.01
was
used
to
calculate
the
deposition
rate
from
aerial
ULV
applications.
The
following
inputs
were
used
as
the
basis
of
the
AgDRIFT
calculations:

C
AgDRIFT
Model
Tier:
3.

C
Droplet
Size
Distribution:
Dv0.1
=
25.59
µm;
Dv0.5
=
51.0
µm;
Dv0.9
=
74.27
µm;
and
<141
µm
=
100
percent
(developed
to
reflect
droplet
spectrum
requirements
of
Sevin
XLR
label).
[Note:
The
droplet
distribution
was
developed
based
on
the
Sevin
label.
No
proprietary
SDTF
data
were
used
in
the
completion
of
this
assessment.]
C
Spray
Material:
User­
defined
option
(oil
option).
Inputs
include:
nonvolatile
rate
0.5
lb
per
acre,
specific
gravity
1.2
(calculated
based
on
approximately
10
pounds
per
gallon),
spray
rate
0.25
gallons/
acre,
active
ingredient
application
rate
(0.5
lb
ai/
acre),
and
evaporation
rate
(1
µm
2
/deg
C/
sec).
[Note:
Several
of
these
parameters
do
not
exactly
coincide
with
the
Sevin
XLR
label
but
were
used
because
the
Sevin
XLR
label
inputs
exceeded
the
allowable
input
parameters.
These
differences
are
not
expected
to
significantly
effect
the
AgDRIFT
results
because
a
nonvolatile
oil
was
selected,
hence
the
critical
input
is
the
active
ingredient
application
rate.
Additionally,
no
proprietary
SDTF
physical
property
data
were
used
in
the
completion
of
this
assessment.
]

C
Aircraft:
User­
defined
option
(fixed­
wing
option).
Inputs
include:
Douglas
DC3,
wingspan:
94.6
ft
(semispan
47.28
ft),
typical
application
airspeed:
228
mph,
weight:
21397
pounds,
planform
area:
999
ft
2
,
propeller
RPM:
2550,
propeller
radius:
5.81
feet,
engine
vertical
distance:
­4.003
feet,
and
engine
forward
distance:
20.01
feet.
[Note:
DC3­
specific
inputs
were
obtained
from
the
FSCBG
(V4)
aircraft
library.]

C
Nozzles:
User­
defined
option.
Inputs
include
number
of
nozzles:
60,
vertical
distance
of
nozzles
from
wing:
­2.66
feet,
horizontal
distance
from
wing:
­0.82
feet,
and
horizontal
distance
limit:
75
percent.

C
Meteorology:
Inputs
were
not
changed
from
Tier
3
recommendations
of
wind
speed:
2
mph,
wind
direction:
­90
degrees
(perpendicular
to
flight
path),
temperature:
86°
F,
and
relative
humidity:
50
percent.

C
Control:
Inputs
were
altered
from
the
Tier
3
recommendations.
The
parameters
that
were
used
included
a
spray
release
height
of
300
feet,
20
spray
lines
(aircraft
passes)
in
each
application
event,
a
swath
width
of
500
feet,
and
a
swath
displacement
based
on
the
aircraft
centerline.

C
Advanced
Settings:
Inputs
were
not
changed
from
Tier
3
recommendations
of
wind
speed
height
(2
meters),
maximum
compute
time
(600
seconds),
maximum
downwind
distance
(795
meters),
vortex
decay
rate
(0.56
m/
s),
aircraft
drag
coefficient
(0.1),
propeller
efficiency
(0.8),
and
ambient
pressure
(1013
mb).

AgDRIFT
is
capable
of
producing
a
variety
of
useful
outputs.
The
key
for
The
Agency
in
this
assessment
was
to
determine
from
the
model
what
percentage
of
the
application
volume
remained
aloft
and
what
percentage
of
the
resulting
droplets
deposited
on
the
surfaces
in
the
treatment
area
as
well
as
downwind
from
the
treatment
area.
AgDRIFT
is
generally
intended
to
calculate
deposition
rates
in
areas
that
are
downwind
from
the
treatment
area
(i.
e.,
presented
from
the
border
of
the
treatment
area
to
areas
of
interest
downwind).
The
Agency
has
used
the
values
at
the
border
of
the
treatment
area
to
represent
the
deposition
rate
within
the
treated
area.
It
is
clear
from
the
results
that
from
the
edge
of
the
treatment
area
to
2000
feet
downwind,
approximately
9.5
percent
of
the
theoretical
application
is
deposited.
This
value
is
intuitively
consistent
with
what
one
might
suspect
would
occur
considering
the
agricultural
engineering
parameters
associated
with
mosquito
applications
(see
graph
below).
As
indicated
above,
two
published
journal
articles
served
as
the
basis
for
predicting
deposition
rates,
as
a
percentage
of
the
application
rate,
after
ground­
based
ULV
application
for
mosquito
control
(i.
e.,
Tietze,
et
al,
1994
and
Moore,
et
al,
1993).
Both
of
these
studies
were
completed
using
ULV
formulations
of
malathion
(91
and
95
percent).
The
Agency
anticipates
that
the
"behavior"
of
these
formulations
in
the
referenced
studies
would
not
be
significantly
different
from
the
Sevin
XLR
formulation
because
the
physical­
chemical
properties
of
the
malathion
formulations
and
the
nature
of
the
application
would
be
expected
to
be
similar
(i.
e.,
the
Agency
believes
the
malathion
formulations
to
be
acceptable
surrogates
for
Baytex
in
this
analysis).

In
the
study
conducted
by
Moore,
et
al
both
human
exposure
and
deposition
was
quantified
over
5
separate
application
events.
A
91
percent
formulation
of
malathion
was
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
parameters
included
a
fluid
flow
rate
of
4.3
fluid
ounces
per
minute,
a
vehicle
groundspeed
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.,
15.2m,
30.4m,
and
91.2m).
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
application
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
only
deposition
was
quantified
over
6
separate
application
events
(i.
e.,
one
event
was
not
included
in
deposition
calculations
"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
Company,
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
groundspeed
of
10
mph,
and
a
nominal
application
rate
of
0.057
lb
ai/
acre
(i.
e.,
equates
to
a
deposition
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
between
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.

Considering
the
data
that
are
available
in
the
Tietze
et
al
and
Moore
et
al
papers,
an
off­
target
deposition
rate
of
5
percent
was
used
by
The
Agency
to
evaluate
ground­
based
ULV
applications.
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
datapoints.
It
should
be
noted
that
this
value
is
also
consistent
with
the
draft
modeling
assessment
for
ground­
ULV
approaches
completed
by
S.
T.
Perry
and
W.
B.
Petersen
of
EPA's
Office
of
Research
and
Development
(i.
e.,
within
a
factor
of
5).
Perry
and
Petersen
used
"the
INPUFF
Lagrangian
puff
model"
as
the
basis
for
their
assessment
(Petersen
and
Lavdas,
1986:
INPUFF
2.0
­
A
Multiple
Source
Gaussian
Puff
Dispersion
Algorithm,
User's
Guide,
EPA/
600/
8­
86/
024).
Depending
on
the
scenario
selected
from
this
document,
deposition
rates
ranged
from
approximately
2.5
percent
deposition
450
m
downwind
to
15
to
20
percent
deposition
immediately
adjacent
to
the
treatment
zone.

The
following
deposition
rates
presented
as
a
percentage
of
the
application
rate
served
as
the
basis
of
the
postapplication
exposure
calculations
completed
by
The
Agency:

C
Ground­
based
ULV
=
5
percent
of
application
rate,
and
C
Aerial
ULV
=
9.5
percent
of
application
rate.
Appendix
L:
Carbaryl
Residential
Postapplication
Risk
Assessment
For
Mosquito
Control
Appendix
M:
Carbaryl
Residential
Postapplication
Risk
Assessment
For
Oyster
Bed
Uses