Document ID: EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0339-0002
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2006-04-26T04:00Z

DRAFT
Alkyl
Dimethyl
Benzyl
Ammonium
Chloride
(
ADBAC)

Preliminary
Risk
Assessment
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs
Antimicrobials
Division
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
1801
South
Bell
St.
Arlington,
VA
22202
Date:
April
20,
2006
Page
2
of
64
TABLE
OF
CONTENTS
1.0
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
.................................................................................................................................
3
2.0
PHYSICAL
AND
CHEMICAL
PROPERTIES
.............................................................................................
9
3.0
ENVIRONMENTAL
FATE..............................................................................................................................
12
4.0
HAZARD
CHARACTERIZATION................................................................................................................
13
4.1
HAZARD
PROFILE
.............................................................................................................................................
13
4.2
FQPA
CONSIDERATIONS..................................................................................................................................
15
4.3
DOSE­
RESPONSE
ASSESSMENT
........................................................................................................................
16
4.4
ENDOCRINE
DISRUPTION
.................................................................................................................................
17
5.0
EXPOSURE
ASSESSMENT
AND
CHARACTERIZATION.....................................................................
17
5.1
SUMMARY
OF
REGISTERED
USES.....................................................................................................................
18
5.2
DIETARY
EXPOSURE
AND
RISK
........................................................................................................................
18
5.3
DRINKING
WATER
EXPOSURES
AND
RISKS......................................................................................................
20
5.4
RESIDENTIAL
EXPOSURE/
RISK
PATHWAY
.......................................................................................................
21
6.0
AGGREGATE
RISK
ASSESSMENT
AND
RISK
CHARACTERIZATION
..........................................
24
6.1
ACUTE
AND
CHRONIC
AGGREGATE
RISKS
......................................................................................................
25
6.2
SHORT­
AND
INTERMEDIATE­
TERM
AGGREGATE
EXPOSURES
AND
RISKS.....................................................
25
7.0
CUMULATIVE
EXPOSURE
AND
RISK.....................................................................................................
28
8.0
OCCUPATIONAL
EXPOSURE
ASSESSMENT
.........................................................................................
28
8.1
OCCUPATIONAL
HANDLER
EXPOSURES
...........................................................................................................
28
8.2
OCCUPATIONAL
POST­
APPLICATION
EXPOSURES............................................................................................
31
8.2.1
Hand
Sanitizing
..........................................................................................................................................
32
8.2.2
Fogging
(
Food
Processing
Plant
and
Hatchery)
......................................................................................
32
8.3
WOOD
PRESERVATION
.....................................................................................................................................
33
8.3.1
Non­
Pressure
Treatment
Scenarios
(
Handler
and
Post­
application)......................................................
33
8.3.1.1
Scenarios
Assessed
by
Worker
Function
...........................................................................................................
33
8.3.1.2
Scenarios
Assessed
for
Exposure
from
Applications
to
Existing
Homes
(
Handler).........................................
36
8.3.2
Pressure
Treatment
Scenarios
(
Handler
and
Post­
Application)..............................................................
37
8.4
DATA
LIMITATIONS/
UNCERTAINTIES
..............................................................................................................
37
9.0
INCIDENT
REPORTS......................................................................................................................................
39
10.0
ENVIRONMENTAL
RISK
..............................................................................................................................
41
11.0
REFERENCES
...................................................................................................................................................
47
INCIDENCE
REPORTS..................................................................................................................................................
52
APPENDIX
A:
MASTER
ADBAC
LABEL..................................................................................................................
53
Page
3
of
64
1.0
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
This
document
provides
a
risk
assessment
of
the
Group
II
Quat
Cluster.
The
Group
II
Quat
Cluster
group
consists
of
structurally
similar
quaternary
ammonium
compounds
("
quats")
that
are
characterized
by
having
positively
charged
nitrogen
covalently
bonded
to
three
alkyl
group
substituents
and
a
benzyl
substituent.
In
finished
form,
these
quats
are
salts
with
the
positively
charged
nitrogen
(
cation)
balanced
by
a
negatively
charged
molecule
(
anion).
The
most
common
anion
for
the
quats
in
this
cluster
is
chloride.
However,
other
anions,
such
as
saccharinate
and
bromide
are
also
used.
The
group
will
be
referred
to
as
ADBAC
(
alkyl
dimethyl
benzyl
ammonium
chloride)
in
this
document.

ADBAC
is
the
active
ingredient
in
numerous
types
of
products.
The
products
are
mainly
disinfectants,
sanitizers,
and
deodorants
that
are
used
in
agricultural,
food
handling,
commercial/
institutional/
industrial,
residential
and
public
access,
and
medical
settings.
Examples
of
registered
uses
for
ADBAC
in
these
settings
include
application
to
indoor
and
outdoor
hard
surfaces
(
e.
g.,
walls,
floors,
tables,
toilets,
and
fixtures),
eating
utensils,
laundry,
carpets,
agricultural
tools
and
vehicles,
egg
shells,
hands
and
gloves,
shoes,
milking
equipment
and
udders,
humidifiers,
RV
tanks,
medical
instruments,
human
remains,
ultrasonic
tanks,
reverse
osmosis
units,
and
water
storage
tanks.
There
are
also
ADBAC­
containing
products
that
are
used
in
residential
and
commercial
swimming
pools,
in
aquatic
areas
such
as
decorative
ponds,
decorative
fountains,
and
agricultural
watering
lines,
and
in
industrial
process
and
water
systems
such
as
once­
through
and
re­
circulating
cooling
waters
systems,
cooling
towers,
evaporative
condensers,
pasteurizers,
drilling
mud
and
packer
fluids,
oil
well
injection
and
wastewater
systems,
and
in
pulp
and
paper
products,
water,
and
chemicals.
Additionally,
ADBAC­
containing
products
are
used
for
wood
preservation
through
non­
pressure
and
pressure­
treatment
treatments.
There
are
registered
uses
for
fogging
and/
or
air
deodorization
in
both
occupational
and
residential
settings.
Products
containing
ADBAC
are
formulated
as
liquid
ready­
to­
use,
soluble
concentrate,
pressurized
liquid,
and
water
soluble
packaging.
The
percentage
of
ADBAC
in
the
various
end­
use
products
ranges
from
0.06%
to
80%
as
reported
in
the
Master
Label
spreadsheet
(
Appendix
A).
Residential
products
such
as
EPA
Reg.
No.
10324­
45
ranged
up
to
50%
ADBAC
for
swimming
pools
and
spas.

The
durations
and
routes
of
exposure
evaluated
in
this
assessment
include
short­
term
(
ST),
intermediate­
term
(
IT),
and
in
some
instances
long­
term
(
LT)
inhalation
exposures,
ST
dermal
exposures,
and
ST
oral
exposures.
The
inhalation
endpoint
(
all
durations)
is
based
on
an
oral
NOAEL
of
3
mg/
kg/
day
from
a
developmental
toxicity
study
in
rabbits.
The
adverse
effect
for
this
endpoint
is
based
on
clinical
signs
of
toxicity
in
maternal
rabbits.
For
the
incidental
oral
exposures,
the
ST
and
IT
endpoints
are
based
on
adverse
effects
of
decreased
bodyweight
and
food
consumption
in
a
developmental
toxicity
study
in
rats
(
NOAEL
=
10
mg/
kg/
day).
No
short­
term
dermal
endpoint
for
systemic
effects
was
selected
for
ADBAC,
since
no
systemic
effects
were
identified.
However,
short­
and
intermediate­
term
dermal
irritation
endpoints
were
identified.
The
short­
term
endpoint
was
determined
from
a
21­
day
dermal
toxicity
in
guinea
pigs
where
a
denuded
non­
vascularized
epidermal
layer
was
observed
at
40
mg
ai/
kg/
day.
The
NOEAL
from
this
study
is
20
mg
ai/
kg/
day
which
is
equivalent
to
333
ug
ai/
cm2.
The
Page
4
of
64
intermediate­
term
dermal
endpoint
was
determined
from
90­
day
dermal
toxicity
in
rats.
The
NOAEL
from
this
study
is
20
mg
ai/
kg/
day
which
is
equivalent
to
80
µ
g
ai/
cm2.
The
endpoint
is
the
highest
dose
tested
before
irritation
became
significant.
Because
the
effect
is
localized
skin
irritation,
a
skin
concentration
(
µ
g/
cm2)
of
exposure,
rather
then
a
dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
was
used
to
assess
the
dermal
risk
concerns.
No
body
weight
is
needed
for
the
dermal
irritation
endpoint,
since
no
systemic
dose
is
calculated.
Note:
Although
the
dose
of
20
mg/
kg/
day
is
the
same
for
both
dermal
studies,
the
concentration
of
the
skin
of
the
animal
was
different
in
each
study
because
of
the
difference
in
the
size
of
the
skin
area
dosed
and
the
total
amount
of
chemical
applied
(
i.
e.,
body
weights
differed).
Because
the
toxicological
endpoint
for
inhalation
is
female­
specific,
a
body
weight
of
60
kilograms
is
used
in
the
assessment.
The
Agency's
level
of
concern
(
LOC)
for
occupational
and
residential
ADBAC
dermal,
inhalation
and
oral
exposures
is
100
(
i.
e.,
a
margin
of
exposure
(
MOE)
less
than
100
exceeds
the
Agency's
level
of
concern).
The
level
of
concern
is
based
on
10x
for
interspecies
extrapolation
and
10x
for
intraspecies
extrapolation.

The
acute
toxicity
categories
(
Tox
Cat)
for
ADBAC
include:
acute
oral
Tox
Cat
II,
acute
dermal
Tox
Cat
II,
acute
inhalation
Tox
Cat
II,
and
primary
eye
and
skin
irritation
Tox
Cat
I.
ADBAC
is
not
a
dermal
sensitizer.

Dietary
Risk
Summary
For
dietary
uses,
ADBAC
can
be
used
as
a
disinfectant
or
sanitizer
on
counter
tops,
utensils,
appliances,
tables,
refrigerators,
on
animal
premises
and/
or
farms,
and
in
mushroom
premises.
The
use
of
ADBAC
as
an
antimicrobial
product
on
food
or
feed
contact
surfaces,
agricultural
commodities,
poultry
premises
including
hatcheries
and
application
to
food­
grade
eggs
may
result
in
pesticide
residues
in
human
food.
Residues
from
treated
surfaces,
such
as
food
utensils,
countertops,
equipment,
and
appliances
can
migrate
to
food
coming
into
contact
with
the
treated
and
rinsed
surfaces
and
can
be
ingested
by
humans.

Acute
dietary
risks
were
not
assessed
because
an
endpoint
appropriate
for
acute
dietary
assessment
was
not
identified
in
the
available
database
for
ADBAC.
For
indirect
and
direct
food
contact
along
with
drinking
water
exposures,
the
percent
of
the
chronic
population
adjusted
dose
(%
cPAD)
is
3.5
percent
for
adults
and
10.3
percent
for
children.
Therefore,
the
dietary
risks
are
not
of
concern
for
ADBAC.

Residential
Risk
Summary
Dermal
For
the
residential
handler
dermal
exposure
and
risk
assessment,
dermal
risks
were
calculated
by
comparing
residues
on
the
surface
of
the
skin
to
the
short­
term
dermal
irritation
endpoint.
Residues
on
the
surface
of
the
skin
(
dermal
irritation
exposure)
were
determined
using
hand
unit
exposures
from
CMA/
PHED
adjusted
for
the
surface
area
of
the
hand
(
mg/
lb
ai/
cm2),
application
rates,
and
use
amounts.
The
dermal
MOEs
were
above
the
target
MOE
of
100
for
all
scenarios
Page
5
of
64
except
for
the
wiping
and
low
pressure
spray
on
carpets
(
MOEs
=
76
and
72,
respectively).
Therefore,
the
risks
for
these
two
scenarios
exceed
AD's
level
of
concern.

The
residential
post­
application
dermal
risks
were
assessed
by
comparing
the
surface
residue
on
the
skin
(
dermal
irritation
exposure)
to
the
short­
term
dermal
endpoint.
It
was
assumed
that
during
the
exposure
period
the
skin
repeatedly
contacts
the
treated
surface
until
a
steady­
state
concentration
of
residues
is
achieved
on
the
skin.
The
short­
term
endpoint
was
used
because
it
was
assumed
that
exposure
does
not
occur
daily;
for
all
of
the
residential
scenarios,
the
postapplication
dermal
MOEs
were
above
the
target
MOE
of
100;
therefore,
the
risks
do
not
exceed
the
level
of
concern.

Inhalation
For
the
residential
handler
inhalation
assessment,
the
inhalation
risks
were
calculated
by
comparing
the
daily
doses
to
the
short­
term
inhalation
endpoint.
The
inhalation
MOEs
were
above
the
target
MOE
of
100
for
all
scenarios.

For
the
residential
post­
application
exposure
and
risk
assessment,
the
MOEs
were
above
the
target
MOEs
for
all
scenarios
except
for
the
humidifier
use.
This
use
is
of
concern.
The
MOEs
for
the
humidifier
use
are
as
follows:
ST/
IT
8­
hr
MOE
=
71
for
adults
and
11
for
children;
ST/
IT
24­
hr
MOE
=
10
for
adults
and
4
for
children
Incidental
Oral
For
the
residential
post­
application
incidental
oral
assessment,
the
MOEs
were
above
the
target
MOE
of
100
for
all
scenarios;
therefore,
the
risks
do
not
exceed
AD's
level
of
concern.

Aggregate
Risk
Summary
An
acute
dietary
endpoint
was
not
identified
for
ADBAC.
Therefore,
an
acute
dietary
aggregate
risk
assessment
was
not
conducted.
The
chronic
dietary
aggregate
risk
assessment
includes
direct
and
indirect
food
contact
uses
as
well
as
drinking
water
exposures.
Based
on
the
results
of
the
chronic
aggregate
assessment,
the
%
cPAD
for
adults
and
children
are
3.5%
and
10.3%,
respectively.
Therefore,
the
chronic
dietary
aggregate
risks
are
not
of
concern
(
i.
e.,
less
then
100
%
of
cPAD).

Since
the
ADBAC
toxicity
endpoints
for
the
oral,
dermal,
and
inhalation
routes
of
exposure
are
based
on
different
toxic
effects,
these
three
routes
of
exposure
are
not
aggregated
together
for
the
short­
and
intermediate­
term
aggregate
assessment.
Instead,
the
short­
and
intermediate­
term
aggregate
assessment
is
based
solely
on
the
co­
occurrence
of
the
same
route
of
exposures.
Aggregate
risks
were
calculated
using
the
total
MOE
approach.
Only
the
short­
term
aggregate
is
presented
because
the
endpoints
for
incidental
oral
as
well
as
inhalation
are
identical
for
the
shortand
intermediate­
term
durations.
Moreover,
only
a
short­
term
dermal
exposure
duration
was
identified.
The
aggregate
risks
are
not
of
concern
for
adults
for
any
of
the
three
routes
of
exposure,
except
dermal.
The
aggregate
adult
MOE
is
2,800
for
oral,
42
for
dermal
(
10%
ADBAC)
and
95
(>
10%
ADBAC),
and
630
for
inhalation,
which
is
greater
than
the
target
of
100.
Page
6
of
64
For
children,
the
aggregate
risk
estimate
for
each
of
the
routes
of
exposure
are
also
above
the
target
MOE
of
100
(
MOE=
220
for
the
oral
route,
180
for
the
dermal
route,
and
no
co­
occurrence
for
the
inhalation
route)
and
thus
are
not
of
concern.
It
is
important
to
note,
however,
that
some
of
the
individual
risks
for
scenarios
not
included
in
the
aggregate
are
of
concern
by
themselves
(
e.
g.,
the
humidifier
use).

Occupational
Risk
Summary
Dermal
ADBAC
dermal
irritation
exposures
and
risks
were
not
estimated
for
occupational
handler
exposures.
Instead,
dermal
irritation
exposures
and
risks
will
be
mitigated
using
default
personal
protective
equipment
requirements
based
on
the
toxicity
of
the
end­
use
product.
To
minimize
dermal
exposures,
the
minimum
PPE
required
for
mixers,
loaders,
and
others
exposed
to
end­
use
products
containing
concentrations
of
ADBAC
that
result
in
classification
of
category
I,
II,
or
III
for
skin
irritation
potential
will
be
long­
sleeve
shirt,
long
pants,
shoes,
socks,
chemical­
resistant
gloves,
and
chemical­
resistant
apron.
Once
diluted,
if
the
concentration
of
ADBAC
in
the
diluted
solution
would
result
in
classification
of
toxicity
category
IV
for
skin
irritation
potential,
then
the
chemical­
resistant
gloves
and
chemical­
resistant
apron
can
be
eliminated
for
applicators
and
others
exposed
to
the
dilute.
Note
that
chemical­
resistant
eyewear
will
be
required
if
the
end­
use
product
is
classified
as
category
I
or
II
for
eye
irritation
potential.

Dermal
irritation
exposures
are
assumed
to
be
negligible
for
all
post­
application
occupational
scenarios,
except
those
associated
with
wood
preservation
and
hand
sanitization.
As
with
occupational
handlers,
dermal
irritation
exposures
and
risks
from
post­
application
activities
in
a
wood
preservation
treatment
facility
will
be
mitigated
using
default
personal
protective
equipment
requirements
based
on
the
toxicity
of
the
end­
use
product.
For
construction
workers
handling
treated
wood
and
for
the
hand
sanitization
scenario,
the
calculated
MOEs
are
above
the
target
MOE
of
100.

Inhalation
For
the
occupational
handler
inhalation
exposure
and
risk
assessment,
the
MOEs
were
above
the
target
MOE
of
100
for
all
scenarios
except
for
the
following
scenarios
listed
below.

 
Agricultural
fogging
(
mixing
and
loading):
ST/
IT
Inhalation
MOE
=
26
 
Medical
premises,
mopping:
ST/
IT
Inhalation
MOE
=
95
 
Pulp
and
paper,
liquid
pump:
ST/
IT
Inhalation
MOE
=
14
 
Once­
through
cooling
water,
metering
pump:
Using
the
average
flow
rate
for
high
flow
streams
(
153
MGD)
the
ST
Inhalation
MOE
=
50
for
initial
applications
and
the
IT
MOE
=
95
for
maintenance
applications;
however,
using
the
average
flow
rate
for
low
flow
streams
(
5.9
MGD)
the
ST
Inhalation
MOE
=
1,300
for
initial
applications
and
the
IT
MOE
=
2,500
for
maintenance
applications.
 
Small
process
water
systems,
liquid
pour:
ST/
IT
Inhalation
MOE
=
6
Page
7
of
64
 
Wood
Preservation
(
non­
pressure
treatment),
blender/
sprayer
operator:
ST/
IT/
LT
Inhalation
MOE
=
84
 
Wood
Preservation
(
existing
homes),
airless
sprayer:
ST/
IT/
LT
Inhalation
MOE
=
17
For
the
inhalation
post­
application
exposure
and
risk
assessment,
the
MOEs
were
above
the
target
MOE
of
100
for
all
scenarios
except
for
the
following
scenarios
listed
below.

 
Fogging
in
a
hatchery:
The
8­
hr
MOE
from
0
to
8
hours
(
immediately
after
fogging)
=
0.5;
however,
the
8­
hr
MOE
from
2
to
10
hours
(
2
hour
re­
entry
interval)
=
1,500.
 
Fogging
in
a
food
processing
plant:
The
8­
hr
MOE
from
2
to
10
hours
(
2
hour
re­
entry
interval)
=
1.
The
difference
in
the
MOEs
for
hatcheries
versus
food
processing
plants
is
the
assumed
ventilation
rate
(
hatcheries
assigned
a
higher
rate).

Environmental
Risk
Summary
ADBAC
is
immobile
and
persistent;
while
it
is
not
likely
to
leach
to
groundwater,
it
may
enter
surface
water
through
sediment
runoff.
The
available
soil
mobility
study
shows
that
ADBAC
has
a
strong
tendency
to
bind
to
sediment/
soil
with
Freundlich
Kads
values
of
6,172
for
sand
soil,
10,797
for
silt
loam,
5,123
for
sandy
loam
soil,
and
32,429
for
clay
loam.
The
corresponding
Koc
values
are
6,171,657
for
sand
soil,
2,159,346
for
silt
loam,
640,389
for
sandy
loam
soil,
and
1,663,039
for
clay
loam.
There
are
no
guideline
data
for
aerobic
soil
degradation
of
ADBAC.
Because
of
its
strong
adsorption
to
soils,
the
potential
to
reach
aquatic
water
bodies
via
runoff
or
leaching
is
limited.
ADBAC
may,
however,
be
transported
off­
site
to
aquatic
water
bodies
as
entrained
sediment
or
via
spray
drift
during
aerial
or
ground
spray
applications.
ADBAC
is
hydrolytically
stable
under
over
the
pH
5­
9
range.
ADBAC
is
also
stable
to
photodegradation.
Major
degradates
were
not
identified
in
any
of
the
available
studies.

Aquatic
metabolism
studies
under
aerobic
and
anaerobic
conditions
indicate
that
ADBAC
is
stable
to
microbial
degradation.
ADBAC
did
not
degrade
in
flooded
sand
loam
soil
that
was
incubated
at
24­
27
°
C
in
the
dark
for
up
to
30
days
in
an
aerobic
aquatic
metabolism
study.
Under
anaerobic
conditions,
ADBAC
was
found
to
be
very
resistant
to
degradation,
with
a
calculated
half­
life
of
1,815
days.

There
is
moderate
potential
for
bioaccumulation
of
ADBAC
in
freshwater
fish.
Maximum
bioconcentration
factors
(
BCF)
were
33X
for
edible
tissues
(
muscle,
skin),
160X
for
nonedible
tissues
(
viscera,
head,
carcass),
and
79X
for
whole
fish
tissues.
ADBAC
is
not
expected
to
pose
a
major
concern
for
bioconcentration
in
aquatic
organisms.

ADBAC
is
categorized
as
highly
toxic
to
fish
(
LC50
=
280
µ
g
ai/
L)
and
very
highly
toxic
to
aquatic
invertebrates
(
LC50
=
5.9
µ
g
ai/
L)
on
an
acute
exposure
basis.
Chronic
effects
were
seen
in
fish
at
a
concentration
of
32.2
µ
g
ai/
L
and
a
no
observable
adverse
effect
concentration
(
NOAEC)
of
4.15
µ
g
ai/
L
was
established
for
aquatic
invertebrates.
Estimated
environmental
concentrations
(
EECs)
for
aquatic
ecosystems
were
calculated
using
the
aquatic
exposure
model
PRZM/
EXAMS
(
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
oppefed1/
models/
water/
index.
htm).
For
the
use
of
Page
8
of
64
ADBAC
on
nursery
ornamentals,
risk
quotients
(
RQs)
for
freshwater
fish
ranged
from
1.99
to
5.26,
exceeding
the
acute
risk
level
of
concern
(
LOC)
of
0.5
by
up
to
ten­
fold.
RQs
for
freshwater
invertebrates
range
from
94.41
to
249.66,
exceeding
the
acute
risk
LOC
by
greater
than
180­
fold.
The
chronic
risk
LOC
(
1.0)
is
exceeded
many­
fold
for
freshwater
fish
(
RQs
10­
28)
and
for
freshwater
invertebrates
(
RQs
87­
222).
For
the
turf
and
golf
course
uses,
acute
risk
RQs
for
freshwater
fish
range
from
0.06
to
0.91,
exceeding
at
least
the
endangered
species
LOC
(
0.05)
and
the
acute
risk
LOC
in
some
scenarios.
Acute
risk
RQs
for
freshwater
invertebrates
range
from
2.3
to
10.6,
exceeding
the
acute
risk
LOC.
The
other
uses
(
ornamental
ponds,
pools
and
puddles)
of
ADBAC
are
not
thought
to
result
in
appreciable
exposure
to
aquatic
ecosystems.

ADBAC
is
categorized
as
moderately
toxic
to
birds
on
an
acute
basis
(
LC50
=
136
mg/
kgbw
with
no
chronic
data
available.
ADBAC
is
categorized
as
slightly
toxic
to
mammals
on
an
acute
basis
(
LD50
=
430
mg/
kg­
bw)
and
a
chronic
NOAEC
of
44
mg/
kg/
day
was
established.
Terrestrial
EECs
for
animal
exposure
for
the
nursery
ornamental
and
turf/
golf
course
uses
were
calculated
with
the
TREX
terrestrial
exposure
model
(
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
oppefed1/
models/
terrestrial/
index.
htm).
The
acute
risk
LOC
for
terrestrial
animals
is
0.5
and
the
endangered
species
LOC
is
0.1.
The
chronic
LOC
for
terrestrial
animals
is
1.0.
For
nursery
ornamentals,
acute
avian
RQs
ranged
from
19
to
2101,
exceeding
the
acute
LOC
up
to
4000­
fold.
Chronic
avian
RQs
could
not
be
calculated
to
the
lack
of
toxicity
data,
but
chronic
risk
is
presumed.
Mammalian
acute
RQs
for
the
nursery
use
range
from
1.2
to
182
and
chronic
RQs
range
from
11
to
1782.
For
the
turf
and
golf
course
use,
acute
avian
RQs
range
from
0.11
to
12.35,
exceeding
at
least
the
endangered
species
LOC
for
all
size
classes
and
forage
items.
Again,
chronic
RQs
cannot
be
calculated,
but
chronic
risk
to
avian
species
is
presumed.
Acute
risk
mammalian
RQs
from
the
turf/
golf
course
use
ranged
from
0.01
to
7.9,
with
exceedance
of
at
least
the
endangered
species
LOC
for
all
mammal
size
classes
foraging
on
short
grass,
tall
grass
and
broadleaf
plants
and
small
insects.
Chronic
RQs
for
mammals
are
range
from
0.07
to
77.2,
but
exceed
the
LOC
for
all
mammal
size
classes
foraging
on
short
grass,
tall
grass
and
broadleaf
plants
and
small
insects.

Although
the
algae
control
and
mosquitocide
uses
are
intended
for
waterbodies
that
are
disconnected
from
the
larger
watershed,
making
exposure
to
fish
and
nontarget
invertebrates
unlikely,
these
uses
result
in
potential
exposure
to
amphibians
utilizing
these
waterbodies
for
some
portion
of
their
lifecycle
and
to
birds
and
mammals
utilizing
these
waterbodies
as
a
source
of
drinking
water.
The
mosquito
control
use,
with
an
initial
concentration
of
200
ppm
in
the
target
waterbody
represents
the
greatest
risk
to
terrestrial
animals
(
algal
control
initial
target
concentration
is
5
ppm).
At
this
concentration,
RQs
for
amphibians
are
0.71
for
acute
risk
and
6.2
for
chronic
risk,
both
of
which
exceed
the
LOC.
RQs
for
birds
using
these
waterbodies
for
drinking
water
range
from
0.09
to
0.32,
based
on
size
class.
Smaller
birds
face
greater
acute
risk.
Chronic
risk
to
birds
is
presumed.
Neither
acute
nor
chronic
mammalian
acute
RQs
exceed
the
LOCs
at
the
200
ppm
initial
concentration.
However,
due
to
the
persistence
of
ADBAC,
the
concentrations
in
the
target
waterbodies
could
become
much
higher
than
the
initial
concentrations,
leading
to
exposure
beyond
that
accounted
for
in
the
risk
assessment.

ADBAC
Ecotox
Summary
For
AD­
Specific
Uses:
Page
9
of
64
ADBAC
is
registered
as
an
antimicrobial
for
several
indoor
use
patterns
and
for
uses
having
potential
for
environmental
exposure
such
as
once­
through
cooling
towers
and
antisapstain
wood
preservation.

Only
minimal
environmental
exposure
is
expected
to
occur
from
routine
use
of
ADBAC
for
indoor
uses
to
control
microorganisms.
Breakdown
of
ADBAC
via
sewage
treatment
is
rapid
and
well
documented
in
the
literature.

Tier
I
modeling
for
the
once­
through
cooling
tower
use
indicates
that
ADBAC
will
result
in
acute
and
chronic
risk
to
non­
endangered
and
endangered/
threatened
and
freshwater
fish,
and
acute
risk
to
other
aquatic
animals
at
all
3
dosages
modeled
(
2.0
to
10.0
ppm).
This
model
does
not
account
for
degradation
making
a
final
risk
assessment
difficult
without
confirmatory
data
or
higher
tier
modeling.

An
antisapstain
wood
preservation
model
was
used
to
predict
environmental
concentrations
of
ADBAC
following
application.
Fish
and
algae
are
not
expected
to
be
impacted,
however,
non­
endangered
and
endangered/
threatened
aquatic
invertebrates
are
expected
to
be
adversely
affected
by
surface
runoff.
The
use
of
impervious
barriers
under
and
on
top
of
treated
wood,
and
the
installation
of
berms
to
prevent
surface
water
runoff
from
the
storage
area
are
recommended
to
mitigate
aquatic
organism
exposure.

2.0
PHYSICAL
AND
CHEMICAL
PROPERTIES
The
Group
II
Quat
Cluster
(
ADBAC),
is
comprised
of
a
group
of
structurally
similar
quaternary
ammonium
compounds
("
quats")
that
are
characterized
by
having
positively
charged
nitrogen
covalently
bonded
to
three
alkyl
group
substituents
and
a
benzyl
substituent.
In
finished
form,
these
quats
are
salts
with
the
positively
charged
nitrogen
(
cation)
balanced
by
a
negatively
charged
molecule
(
anion).
The
most
common
anion
for
the
quats
in
this
cluster
is
chloride.
However,
other
anions,
such
as
saccharinate
and
bromide
are
also
used.

Currently,
there
are
21
active
ingredients
included
in
the
group.
Table
2.1
below
provides
the
common
chemical
name,
active
ingredient
code,
CAS
number,
chemical
structure
and
number
of
registered
product
for
each
compound.

Table
2.1.
Active
Ingredients
in
the
Group
II
Quat
Cluster
Identified
by
the
AIJV
Product
Code
CAS
RN
Name
Structure
Chain
Lengths
69104
53516­
76­
0
ADBAC
N+

CH3
CH3
R
Cl­
R
=
C12
(
5%)
C14
(
60%)
C16
(
30%)
C
18
(
5%)
Page
10
of
64
Table
2.1.
Active
Ingredients
in
the
Group
II
Quat
Cluster
Identified
by
the
AIJV
Product
Code
CAS
RN
Name
Structure
Chain
Lengths
69105
68424­
85­
1
ADBAC
N+

CH3
CH3
R
Cl­
R
=
C12
(
40%)
C14
(
50%)
C16
(
10%)

69106
8001­
54­
5
ADBAC
N+

CH3
CH3
R
Cl­
R
=
C12
(
50%)
C14
(
30%)
C16
(
17%)
C18
(
3%)

69107
139­
08­
2
ADBAC
N+

CH3
CH3
R
Cl­
R
=
C12
(
1%)
C14
(
98%)
C16
(
1%)

69119
73049­
75­
9
Dialkyl
Methyl
BAC
N
+

R
CH3
R
Cl­
R
=
C12
(
5%)
C14
(
60%)
C16
(
30%)
C18
(
5%)

69137
68424­
85­
1
ADBAC
N+

CH3
CH3
R
Cl­
R
=
C12
(
25%)
C14
(
60%)
C16
(
15%)

69140
61789­
71­
7
ADBAC
N+

CH3
CH3
R
Cl­
R
=
C8­
10
(
2.5%)
C14
(
61%)
C16
(
23%)
C18
(
2.5%)

69141
68424­
85­
1
ADBAC
N+

CH3
CH3
R
Cl­
R
=
C12
(
14%)
C14
(
58%)
C16
(
28%)

69157
68424­
85­
1
ADBAC
N+

CH3
CH3
R
Cl­
R
=
C12
(
65%)
C14
(
25%)
C16
(
10%)

69175
68391­
01­
5
ADBAC
N+

CH3
CH3
R
Cl­
R
=
C12
(
67%)
C14
(
25%)
C16
(
7%)
C18
(
1%)

69189
68391­
01­
5
ADBAC
N+

CH3
CH3
R
Cl­
R
=
C12
(
61%)
C14
(
23%)
C16
(
11%)
C18
(
5%)

69184
68424­
85­
1
ADBAC
N+

CH3
CH3
R
Cl­
R
=
C12
(
3%)
C14
(
95%)
C16
(
2%)

69192
85409­
22­
9
ADBAC
N+

CH3
CH3
R
Cl­

R
=
C12
(
70%)
C14
(
30%)

69194
68424­
85­
1
ADBAC
N+

CH3
CH3
R
Cl­
R
=
C12
(
5%)
C14
(
90%)
C16
(
5%)
Page
11
of
64
Table
2.1.
Active
Ingredients
in
the
Group
II
Quat
Cluster
Identified
by
the
AIJV
Product
Code
CAS
RN
Name
Structure
Chain
Lengths
128928
63449­
41­
2
ADBAC
N+

CH3
CH3
R
Cl­
R
=
C8
 
Not
specified
C10
 
Not
specified
C12
(
67%)
C14
(
25%)
C16
(
7%)
C18
 
Not
specified
69171
68989­
01­
5
ADBA
Saccharinate
N+

R
CH3
R
O
­
N
S
O
O
R
=
C12
(
40%)
C14
(
50%)
C16
(
10%)

69154
85409­
23­
0
ADEBAC
N
+

CH3
CH3
R
Cl­
H3C
R
=
C12
(
68%)
C14
(
32%)

69111
8045­
21­
4
ADEBAC
N
+

CH3
CH3
R
Cl­
H3C
R
=
C12
(
50%)
C14
(
30%)
C16
(
17%)
C18
(
3%)

69122
121­
54­
0
Diisobutylphenoxyethyoxyethyl
dimethyl
benzyl
ammonium
chloride
[
Benzethonium
Chloride]
CH3
H3C
O
O
N+

H3C
CH3
CH3
H3C
CH3
Cl­

69129
1399­
80­
0
Methyl
dodecyl
benzyl
tri
methyl
ammonium
chloride
­
80%

Methyl
dodecyl
xylene
bis
tri
methyl
ammonium
chloride
 
20%

69134
25155­
18­
4
Diisobutyl
cresoxyethoxyethyl
dimethyl
benzyl
ammonium
chloride
monohydrate
Page
12
of
64
Table
2.2
shows
physical/
chemical
characteristics
that
have
been
reported
for
ADBAC.

Table
2.2.
Physical/
Chemical
Properties
of
ADBAC
Parameter
ADBAC
Molecular
Weight
377.83
Density
0.9429
g/
cm3
at
25
C
Boiling
Point
Could
not
be
established
Water
Solubility
Completely
soluble
Vapor
Pressure
3.53E­
12
mmHg
3.0
ENVIRONMENTAL
FATE
ADBAC
is
used
primarily
as
a
disinfectant,
a
sanitizer,
or
as
a
microbicide/
microbiostat.
It
also
serves
as
an
algaecide,
bactericide/
bacteriostat,
fungicide/
fungistat,
insecticide,
miticide,
virucide,
defoliant,
feeding
depressant,
repellent
and
tuberculocide.
Use
sites
for
ADBAC
include
agricultural
premises
and
equipment,
food
handling,
commercial,
industrial
and
institutional
settings,
residential
areas
or
areas
of
public
access,
pets
and
kennels,
medical
facilities,
swimming
pools,
aquatic
areas,
and
industrial
water
systems.
ADBAC
is
also
used
as
a
wood
preservative.
As
an
agricultural
pesticide,
ADBAC
is
used
for
ornamental
plants,
shrubs,
and
vines.
Some
of
the
required
guideline
studies
for
an
environmental
fate
assessment
have
been
submitted.
The
Agency
is
using
the
available
environmental
fate
studies
for
fate
assessment
of
ADBAC
to
fulfill
the
reregistration
requirements.
Because
of
its
use
as
a
wood
preservative,
an
aqueous
availability
study
evaluating
the
leachability
of
ADBAC
from
treated
wood
is
required.
However,
no
data
have
been
submitted
to
the
Agency.

ADBAC
is
hydrolytically
stable
under
abiotic
and
buffered
conditions
over
the
pH
5­
9
range.
The
calculated
half­
lives
for
ADBAC
were
379
days
at
pH
9,
150­
183
days
at
pH
5
and
pH
7.
ADBAC
is
also
stable
to
photodegradation
in
pH
7
buffered
aqueous
solutions.
However,
in
the
presence
of
a
photosensitizer
(
e.
g.,
acetone),
ADBAC
has
been
shown
to
degrade
with
an
estimated
half­
life
of
7.1
days.

Aquatic
metabolism
studies
under
aerobic
and
anaerobic
conditions
indicate
that
ADBAC
is
stable
to
microbial
degradation.
ADBAC
did
not
degrade
in
flooded
sand
loam
soil
that
was
incubated
at
24­
27
E
C
in
the
dark
for
up
to
30
days
in
an
aerobic
aquatic
metabolism
study.
Under
anaerobic
conditions,
ADBAC
was
found
to
be
very
resistant
to
degradation
with
a
Page
13
of
64
calculated
half­
life
of
1,815
days.
However,
a
report
on
the
biodegradability
of
ADBAC
prepared
by
the
Registrant
concluded
that
the
degree
of
ADBAC
biodegradability
is
variable
and
is
influenced
by
the
chemical
concentration,
alkyl
chain
length,
the
presence
of
anionic
moieties
and
the
quantity
and
characteristics
of
the
microbial
population.
According
to
this
report,
ADBAC
is
biodegradable
and
environmentally
acceptable.
This
report
was
based
on
information
from
the
open
literature,
unpublished
sources,
and
meeting
proceedings
and
has
not
been
reviewed
by
the
Agency.

ADBAC
is
immobile
in
soil.
The
available
soil
mobility
study
shows
that
ADBAC
has
a
strong
tendency
to
bind
to
sediment/
soil
with
Freundlich
Kads
values
were
6,172
for
the
sand
soil,
10,797
for
the
silt
loam,
5,123
for
the
sandy
loam
soil,
and
32,429
for
the
clay
loam
and
the
corresponding
Koc
values
were
6,171,657
for
the
sand
soil,
2,159,346
for
the
silt
loam,
640,389
for
the
sandy
loam
soil,
and
1,663,039
for
the
clay
loam.
Because
of
its
strong
adsorption
to
soils,
ADBAC
is
not
expected
to
contaminate
surface
and
ground
waters.

Bioaccumulation
of
ADBAC
in
freshwater
fish
is
not
likely
to
occur.
Maximum
bioconcentration
factors
(
BCF)
were
33X
for
edible
tissues
(
muscle,
skin),
160X
for
nonedible
tissues
(
viscera,
head,
carcass),
and
79X
for
whole
fish
tissues.
During
depuration,
ADBAC
residues
were
2.4
ppm
in
edible
tissues,
3.7
ppm
in
whole
fish
tissues,
and
5.3
ppm
in
nonedible
tissues.
ADBAC
is
not
expected
to
pose
a
concern
for
bioconcentration
in
aquatic
organisms.

4.0
HAZARD
CHARACTERIZATION
4.1
Hazard
Profile
In
an
acute
oral
toxicity
study
(
MRID
45109204),
the
acute
oral
LD50
of
ADBAC
(
82.26%
a.
i.)
was
determined
to
be
304.5
mg/
kg
(
both
sexes
combined)
and
was
assigned
Toxicity
Category
II.
In
an
acute
dermal
toxicity
study
(
MRID
45109202),
the
acute
dermal
LD50
of
ADBAC
(
82.26%
a.
i.)
was
determined
to
be
930
mg/
kg
(
both
sexes
combined)
and
was
assigned
Toxicity
Category
II.
In
an
acute
inhalation
toxicity
study
(
MRID
44885201),
the
acute
LC50
of
ADBAC
(
82.26%
a.
i.)
was
determined
to
be
0.054
<
LC50
<
0.51
mg/
L
and
was
assigned
a
Toxicity
Category
II.
The
primary
eye
irritation
study
was
waived
and
assigned
a
Toxcity
Category
I
for
technical
grade
ADBAC
(
80%
a.
i).
For
primary
dermal
irritation
(
MRID
45109201),
ADBAC
(
82.26%
a.
i.)
was
corrosive
to
rabbits
(
Toxicity
Category
I).
In
a
dermal
sensitization
study
(
MRID
45109203),
ADBAC
(
82.26%
a.
i.)
was
not
a
sensitizer
to
guinea
pigs.
In
a
photoallergy
(
light)
sensitization
study
(
MRID
40958501
and
MRID
44825002),
ADBAC
(
80%
a.
i.)
was
not
a
photosensitizer.

In
a
subchronic
oral
toxicity
study
in
rats
(
MRID
40746601),
ADBAC
is
found
to
also
have
a
low
order
of
toxicity,
in
that
manifestations
of
toxicity
are
non­
specific
(
decreased
body
weight
gain,
food
consumption),
and
occur
at
relatively
high
doses
(
greater
than
50
mg/
kg/
day
in
males,
greater
than
300
mg/
kg/
day
in
females).
This
result
is
also
obtained
from
chronic
toxicity
studies
in
rats
and
mice,
where
effects
were
also
non
­
specific
(
decreased
body
weight
gain
and
Page
14
of
64
food
consumption),
and
occurred
at
relatively
high
doses.
In
a
21­
day
dermal
toxicity
study
in
guinea
pigs
(
MRID
41105801),
no
significant
systemic
effects
were
observed
using
a
chemical
mixture
of
4%
ADBAC/
6%
DDAC,
but
denuding
of
the
epidermal
layer
was
observed
at
the
highest
tested,
1000
mg/
kg/
day.
In
a
90­
day
dermal
toxicity
study
in
rats
(
MRID
41499601)
using
technical
grade
ADBAC
,
dermal
applications
of
ADBAC
(
81.09%
a.
i.)
to
rats
did
not
elicit
systemic
or
dermal
toxicity
up
to
the
highest
dose
tested,
20
mg/
kg/
day,
before
dermal
irritation
became
significant.

ADBAC
has
been
examined
for
effects
on
development
of
the
mammalian
fetus
and
effects
on
reproductive
function.
In
developmental
studies
with
rats
(
range­
finding
MRID
42645101
and
main
study
MRID
42351501)
and
rabbits
(
range­
finding
MRID
42734401
and
main
study
MRID
42392801),
developing
fetuses
showed
no
increased
sensitivity
to
the
toxicity
of
ADBAC
in
relation
to
adult
animals.
In
a
2­
generation
reproductive
toxicity
study
(
MRID
41385001),
effects
on
rat
pups
were
observed
in
the
absence
of
maternal
toxicity,
raising
some
concern
for
the
effects
of
ADBAC
on
reproductive
function.
However,
the
effects
observed
were
non­
specific
(
decreased
pup
body
weight
and
weight
gain
during
lactation),
and
there
were
no
effects
of
ADBAC
on
reproductive
indices.

In
a
chronic
toxicity
study
in
dogs
(
MRID
43221101),
groups
of
4
male
and
female
beagle
dogs
per
group
received
either
0,
120,
400,
or
1200
ppm
(
0,
3.79,
13.1,
or
33.8
mg/
kg/
day
in
males
and
0,
3.67,
14.6,
or
38.6
mg/
kg/
day
in
females)
alkyl
dimethyl
benzyl
ammonium
chloride
[
ADBAC,
80%
a.
i.]
as
a
direct
dietary
admix
for
one
year.
Systemic
toxicity
was
observed
at
400
ppm
and
above
in
female
dogs
and
at
1200
ppm
in
males
as
reduced
body
weight
gain
(
approximately
10%
reduction)
after
52
weeks
of
exposure.
Food
consumption
was
decreased
in
the
1200
ppm
males
and
females
for
the
entire
study
period
(
approximately
15%
reduction
in
males
and
5%
reduction
in
females).
Based
on
the
data
in
this
study,
the
Systemic
Toxicity
NOAEL
was
120
ppm
(
3.79
mg/
kg/
day
in
males,
3.67
mg/
kg/
day
in
females)
and
the
LOAEL
was
400
ppm
(
13.1
mg/
kg/
day
in
males,
14.6
mg/
kg/
day
in
females)
based
on
reduced
body
weight
gain.

ADBAC
has
been
tested
for
carcinogenicity
in
long
term
studies
with
both
rats
(
MRID
41947501)
and
mice
(
MRID
41765201).
In
both
studies,
tested
to
adequate
dose
levels,
ADBAC
was
negative
for
induction
of
tumors
in
both
species.
This
result
is
supported
by
results
of
testing
in
a
battery
of
mutagenicity
studies,
including
an
HGPRT/
CHO
for
ward
mutation
assay
(
MRID
42290801,
reformat
of
MRID
41012701),
an
in
vivo
bone
marrow
chromosome
aberration
assay
(
MRID
40311101,
supplement
MRID
43037701),
and
an
unscheduled
DNA
synthesis
(
UDS)
assay
(
MRID
42290802,
reformat
of
41012601),
which
show
ADBAC
to
be
negative
for
mutagenic
effects.

The
metabolism
of
ADBAC
was
investigated
in
MRID
41087701.
The
majority
of
administered
radioactive
ADBAC
is
eliminated
in
feces
from
oral
administration.
Intravenous
administration
also
shows
elimination
of
a
significant
proportion
of
ADBAC
in
feces,
indicating
elimination
through
the
bile.
Tissue
retention
of
orally
administered
radioactivity
is
negligible.
Page
15
of
64
Acute
toxicity
data
for
ADBAC
are
summarized
below
(
Table
4.1)

Table
4.1.
Acute
Toxicity
of
ADBAC.

Guideline
Number
Test
Substance
MRID
Results
Toxicity
Category
870.1100
Acute
oral,
rat
BQ451­
8
Biocide
(
Purity
82.26%)
45109204
LD50
=
304.5
mg/
kg
(
combined)

LD50
=
510.9
mg/
kg
(
males)
LD50
=
280.8
mg/
kg
(
females)
II
870.1200
Acute
dermal,
rat
BQ451­
8
Biocide
(
Purity
82.26%)
45109202
LD50
=
930
mg/
kg
(
combined)

LD50
=
1100
mg/
kg
(
males)
LD50
=
704
mg/
kg
(
females)
II
870.1300
Acute
inhalation,
rat
(
Purity
82.26%)
44885201
0.054
<
LC50
<
0.51
mg/
L
II
870.2400
Primary
Eye
Irritation
Waived
N/
A
I
870.2500
Primary
Dermal
Irritation,
,
rabbit
BQ451­
8
Biocide
(
Purity
82.26%)
45109201
Corrosive
I
870.2600
Dermal
sensitization,
guinea
pigs
BQ451­
8
Biocide
(
Purity
82.26%)
45109201
Not
a
dermal
sensitizer
N/
A
4.2
FQPA
Considerations
Under
the
Food
Quality
Protection
Act
(
FQPA),
P.
L.
104­
170,
which
was
promulgated
in
1996
as
an
amendment
to
the
Federal
Insecticide,
Fungicide,
and
Rodenticide
Act
(
FIFRA)
and
the
Federal
Food,
Drug
and
Cosmetic
Act
(
FFDCA),
the
Agency
was
directed
to
"
ensure
that
there
is
a
reasonable
certainty
that
no
harm
will
result
to
infants
and
children"
from
aggregate
exposure
to
a
pesticide
chemical
residue.
The
law
further
states
that
in
the
case
of
threshold
effects,
for
purposes
of
providing
this
reasonable
certainty
of
no
harm,
"
an
additional
tenfold
Page
16
of
64
margin
of
safety
for
the
pesticide
chemical
residue
and
other
sources
of
exposure
shall
be
applied
for
infants
and
children
to
take
into
account
potential
pre­
and
post­
natal
toxicity
and
completeness
of
the
data
with
respect
to
exposure
and
toxicity
to
infants
and
children.
Notwithstanding
such
requirement
for
an
additional
margin
of
safety,
the
Administrator
may
use
a
different
margin
of
safety
for
the
pesticide
residue
only
if,
on
the
basis
of
reliable
data,
such
margin
will
be
safe
for
infants
and
children."

The
Agency
(
USEPA,
2006)
has
decided
that
the
FQPA
safety
factor
be
removed
for
ADBAC,
based
upon
the
existence
of
a
complete
developmental
and
reproductive
toxicity
database
and
the
lack
of
evidence
for
increased
susceptibility
in
these
data.

4.3
Dose­
Response
Assessment
Table
4.2
summarizes
the
toxicological
endpoints
for
ADBAC
(
USEPA,
2006).

Table
4.2
Summary
of
Toxicological
Endpoints
for
ADBAC
Exposure
Scenario
Dose
Used
in
Risk
Assessment
(
mg/
kg/
day)
Target
MOE
or
UF,
Special
FQPA
SF
for
Risk
Assessment
Study
and
Toxicological
Effects
Acute
Dietary
(
general
population;
females
13+)
An
acute
dietary
endpoint
was
not
identified
in
the
data
base.
This
risk
assessment
is
not
required
FQPA
SF
=
1
UF
=
100
(
10x
inter­
species
extrapolation,
10x
intra­
species
variation)
Chronic
toxicity/
carcinogenicity
 
rat
MRID
41947501
LOAEL
=
88
mg/
kg/
day,
based
on
decreased
body
weight
and
weight
gain
Chronic
Dietary
NOAEL
=
44
mg/
kg/
day
Chronic
RfD
=
0.44
mg/
kg/
day
Incidental
Oral
(
short­
term)
NOAEL
=
10
mg/
kg/
day
FQPA
SF
=
1
UF
=
100
(
10x
inter­
species
extrapolation,
10x
intra­
species
variation)
Developmental
Toxicity
 
Rat,
MRID
42351501
LOAEL
=
30
mg/
kg/
day,
based
on
decreased
body
weight
and
food
consumption
Incidental
Oral
(
intermediate­
term)
NOAEL
=
10
mg/
kg/
day
FQPA
SF
=
1
UF
=
100
(
10x
inter­
species
extrapolation,
10x
intra­
species
variation)
Developmental
Toxicity
 
Rat,
MRID
42351501
LOAEL
=
30
mg/
kg/
day,
based
on
decreased
body
weight
and
food
consumption
Short­
Term
Dermal
(
formulated
product
(
4%
ai))
NOAEL=
20
mg
a.
i./
kg/
day
(
333
µ
g/
cm2)
a
FQPA
SF
=
1
UF
=
100
(
10x
inter­
species
extrapolation,
10x
intra­
species
variation)
21­
day
dermal
toxicity­
guinea
pigs
MRID
41105801
LOAEL
=
40
mg
a.
i./
kg/
day,
based
on
denuded
non­
vascularized
epidermal
layer
Page
17
of
64
Table
4.2
Summary
of
Toxicological
Endpoints
for
ADBAC
Exposure
Scenario
Dose
Used
in
Risk
Assessment
(
mg/
kg/
day)
Target
MOE
or
UF,
Special
FQPA
SF
for
Risk
Assessment
Study
and
Toxicological
Effects
Short­
Term
dermal
(
technical
grade
a.
i.
(
80%
ai))
NOAEL
=
20
mg
ai/
kg/
day
(
80
µ
g
ai/
cm2)
b
UF
=
100
(
10x
inter­
species
extrapolation,
10x
intra­
species
variation)
90­
day
dermal
toxicity
in
rats
MRID
41499601
20
mg
ai/
kg/
day
is
the
highest
dose
tested
before
irritation
became
significant
at
day
43.

Short­
Term
Dermal
(
technical
grade
a.
i.)
No
endpoint
identified
from
the
available
data
on
dermal
irritation.
Dermal
irritation
in
the
90­
day
dermal
toxicity
study
was
not
evident
until
day
43
(
MRID
41499601).

Long­
Term
Dermal
(
TGAI)
No
appropriate
endpoint
identified.
No
systemic
effects
observed
up
to
20
mg/
kg/
day,
highest
dose
of
technical
grade
that
could
be
tested
without
irritation
effects.

Inhalationc
(
Any
time
point)
NOAEL=
3
mg/
kg/
day
MOE
=
100c
UF
=
100
(
10x
inter­
species
extrapolation,
10x
intra­
species
variation)

Note:
an
additional
10x
is
used
for
route
extrapolation
to
determine
if
a
confirmatory
study
is
needed
Developmental
Toxicity
 
rabbit,
MRID
42392801
LOAEL
=
9
mg/
kg/
day,
based
on
clinical
signs
of
toxicity
in
maternal
rabbits
UF
=
uncertainty
factor,
FQPA
SF
=
FQPA
safety
factor,
NOAEL
=
no
observed
adverse
effect
level,
LOAEL
=
lowest
observed
adverse
effect
level,
RfD
=
reference
dose,
MOE
=
margin
of
exposure,
LOC
=
Level
of
concern,
NA
=
Not
Applicable.
a
Formulated­
based
dermal
endpoint
=
(
20
mg
a.
i./
kg
guinea
pig
x
0.43
kg
guinea
pig
x
1000
ug/
mg)
/
25.8cm2
area
of
guinea
pig
dosed
=
333
µ
g
ai/
cm2
.
b
TGAI­
based
dermal
endpoint
=
(
20
mg
ai/
kg
rat
x
0.2
kg
rat
x
1000
ug/
mg)
/
50cm2
area
of
rat
dosed
=
80
µ
g
ai/
cm2
.
caAn
additional
uncertainty
factor
of
10x
is
applied
for
use
of
an
oral
endpoint
for
route­
to­
route
extrapolation
to
determine
if
a
confirmatory
inhalation
toxicity
study
is
warranted.

4.4
Endocrine
Disruption
EPA
is
required
under
the
FFDCA,
as
amended
by
FQPA,
to
develop
a
screening
program
to
determine
whether
certain
substances
(
including
all
pesticide
active
and
other
ingredients)
"
may
have
an
effect
in
humans
that
is
similar
to
an
effect
produced
by
a
naturally
occurring
estrogen,
or
other
such
endocrine
effects
as
the
Administrator
may
designate."
Following
recommendations
of
its
Endocrine
Disruptor
and
Testing
Advisory
Committee
(
EDSTAC),
EPA
determined
that
there
was
a
scientific
basis
for
including,
as
part
of
the
program,
the
androgen
and
thyroid
hormone
systems,
in
addition
to
the
estrogen
hormone
system.
EPA
also
adopted
EDSTAC's
recommendation
that
the
Program
include
evaluations
of
potential
effects
in
wildlife.
For
pesticide
chemicals,
EPA
will
use
FIFRA
and,
to
the
extent
that
effects
in
wildlife
may
help
determine
whether
a
substance
may
have
an
effect
in
humans,
FFDCA
authority
to
require
the
wildlife
evaluations.
As
the
science
develops
and
resources
allow,
screening
of
additional
hormone
systems
may
be
added
to
the
Endocrine
Disruptor
Screening
Program
(
EDSP).

5.0
EXPOSURE
ASSESSMENT
AND
CHARACTERIZATION
Page
18
of
64
5.1
Summary
of
Registered
Uses
For
dietary
uses,
ADBAC
can
be
used
as
a
disinfectant
or
sanitizer
on
counter
tops,
utensils,
appliances,
tables,
refrigerators,
on
animal
premises
and/
or
farms,
and
in
mushroom
premises.
The
use
of
ADBAC
as
an
antimicrobial
product
on
food
or
feed
contact
surfaces,
agricultural
commodities,
poultry
premises
including
hatcheries
and
application
to
food­
grade
eggs
may
result
in
pesticide
residues
in
human
food.
Residues
from
treated
surfaces,
such
as
food
utensils,
countertops,
equipment,
and
appliances
can
migrate
to
food
coming
into
contact
with
the
treated
and
rinsed
surfaces
and
can
be
ingested
by
humans.

Products
containing
ADBAC
can
be
used
as
general
cleaners,
disinfectants,
and
deodorizers
in
the
home.
These
products
are
primarily
for
use
on
indoor
surfaces
such
as
hard
floors,
carpets,
walls,
bathroom
fixtures,
trash
cans,
toilet
bowls,
and
household
contents.
Additionally,
other
uses
in
the
home
include
aerosol
air
deodorizing
products,
liquid
laundry
deodorizers
that
are
added
to
the
final
rinse
of
the
wash
cycle,
algaecide/
bactericides
that
are
added
to
portable
humidifiers
and
RV
holding
tanks,
disinfectants
for
musical
instrument
mouthpieces
and
reeds,
swimming
pools,
and
decorative
ponds
and
fountains.
Residents
may
also
be
exposed
to
items
that
have
been
treated
with
ADBAC
in
occupational
settings,
such
as
dimensional
lumber
for
decks
and
play
sets.
Appendix
A
presents
the
master
label
summary
of
representative
uses
for
ADBAC.

The
non
antimicrobial
uses
of
ADBAC
are
assessed
in
a
separate
memorandum
by
the
Health
Effects
Division
(
USEPA
2006a).
The
uses
include
agricultural
and
homeowner
uses
on
lawns,
ornamentals,
etc.

5.2
Dietary
Exposure
and
Risk
In
the
absence
of
data
for
residues
of
ADBAC
on
treated
food
contact
surfaces,
the
Agency
estimated
residue
levels
that
may
occur
in
food
from
the
application
rates
on
food
contact
surfaces.
In
addition,
the
food
and
bottling
and
packaging
uses
are
also
included.
Dietary
exposures
from
poultry
hatcheries,
mushroom
houses
and
hydroponic
uses
are
expected
to
be
much
lower
than
the
dietary
exposures
resulting
from
the
surface
disinfectant
and
sanitizing
uses;
therefore,
these
uses
were
not
assessed
separately.

To
estimate
the
Estimated
Daily
Intake
(
EDI)
to
treated
surfaces,
an
FDA
(
FDA,
2003)
model
was
used
in
lieu
of
residue
data.
The
maximum
application
rate
for
ADBAC
in
food
handling
establishments
from
the
various
labeled
ready­
to­
use
products
is
0.0017
pounds
per
gallon
of
treatment
solution.
The
results
of
the
EDI
calculations
presented
in
this
assessment
are
based
on
food
contacting
2,000
cm2
or
4,000
cm2
(
50%
and
100%
of
the
FDA
worst
case
scenario,
for
countertops
and
utensils,
respectively)
of
treated
surfaces,
and
that
10%
of
the
pesticide
migrate
to
food.
The
use
of
the
10%
transfer
rate,
instead
of
the
use
of
a
100%
transfer
rate
that
is
used
in
the
FDA
Sanitizer
Solution
Guidelines,
requires
the
submission
of
confirmatory
data
to
establish
the
reliability
of
the
use
of
the10%
transfer
rate.
These
daily
estimates
were
conservatively
used
to
assess
chronic
dietary
risks
(
i.
e.,
percent
chronic
population
adjusted
dose
or
%
cPAD).
Acute
dietary
risks
were
not
assessed
because
an
acute
toxicity
value
was
not
Page
19
of
64
identified.
The
%
cPAD
does
not
exceed
100%.
The
estimated
EDI
and
%
cPAD
for
food
contact
surfaces
are
presented
in
Table
5.1.

Table
5.1:
Calculated
EDIs
and
cPAD
for
Utensils
and
Countertops
Utensils
Countertops
Aggregate
Exposure
Group
EDI
(
mg/
day)
DDD
(
mg/
kg/
d)
%
aPADa
%
cPADa
EDI
(
mg/
day)
DDD
(
mg/
kg/
d)
%
aPADa
%
cPADa
EDI
(
mg/
day)
DDD
(
mg/
kg/
d)
%
aPADa
%
cPADa
Adult
males
0.0815
0.00116
NA
0.265
0.170
0.00243
NA
0.552
0.252
0.00359
NA
0.817
Adult
females
0.0815
0.00136
NA
0.309
0.170
0.00284
NA
0.645
0.252
0.00419
NA
0.953
Children
0.0815
0.00543
NA
1.23
0.170
0.0113
NA
2.58
0.252
0.0168
NA
3.81
a
%
PAD
=
exposure
(
DDD)
/(
cPAD)
x
100.
EDI
is
the
estimated
daily
intake
(
mg/
day).
DDD
is
the
dietary
daily
dose
(
mg/
kg/
day).

The
maximum
application
rate
for
ADBAC
for
bottling/
packing
of
food
is
0.0103
lbs
a.
i
per
gallons
of
solution.
EDI
estimates
were
calculated
using
an
approach
similar
to
that
used
for
treated
food­
contact
surfaces
and
food
utensils.
Exposure
was
assumed
to
occur
through
the
ingestion
of
three
food
products
that
might
be
packaged
with
treated
material:
milk,
egg
products,
and
beverages
(
alcoholic
and
non­
alcoholic).
The
calculated
%
cPAD
did
not
exceed
100%.
The
results
of
the
EDI
and
%
cPAD
are
presented
in
Table
5.2.

Table
5.2:
Calculated
EDIs
and
cPAD
for
Representative
Dairy
and
Beverage
Consumption
Food
Type
Exposure
Group
EDI
(
mg/
day)
DDD
(
mg/
kg/
d)
%
aPAD
%
cPAD
Adult
Male
3.31x10­
4
0.0753
Adult
Female
0.0232
3.86x10­
4
0.0878
Milk
Childa
0.0149
9.96x10­
4
0.226
Adult
Male
3.06x10­
9
7.00x10­
7
Adult
Female
2.14x10­
7
3.57x10­
9
8.00x10­
7
Egg
product
Child
a
1.38x10­
7
9.20x10­
9
2.00x10­
6
Adult
Male
0.00169
0.385
Adult
Female
0.118
0.00197
0.449
Beverages,
nonalcoholic
Childa
0.0763
0.00509
1.16
Adult
Male
2.14x10­
5
0.00490
Beverages,
alcoholic,
beer
Adult
Female
0.00150
2.50x10­
5
NA
0.00570
Page
20
of
64
5.3
Drinking
Water
Exposures
and
Risks
As
an
outdoor
pesticide,
ADBAC
is
used
on
nursery
ornamentals,
turf,
and
for
mosquito
control
in
ponds
and
puddles
and
as
an
algaecide
in
decorative
pools.
For
the
mosquito
control
use
and
the
algaecide
use
on
decorative
pools,
the
labels
suggest
that
the
use
sites
(
water
bodies)
are
ornamental
and
periodic
in
nature
and
as
such
disconnected
from
the
larger
watershed.
Therefore,
for
the
purposes
of
this
assessment
these
uses
were
not
considered
potential
sources
of
drinking
water
exposure.
This
assessment
only
considered
the
labeled
turf
and
nursery
uses
for
ADBAC.
Foliar
spray,
drench
and
"
dribble"
applications
are
allowed.

Tier
1
surface
water
and
groundwater
modeling
was
conducted
for
the
labeled
nursery
ornamental
use
(
EPA
Reg.
No.
58044­
3,
53642­
1),
which
represents
the
highest
use
rate
of
all
labeled
uses
with
an
application
rate
of
302
lbs.
a.
i./
A
and
a
maximum
of
3
applications
per
year.
Since
the
tier
I
models
are
not
dependent
on
"
crop"
type,
the
EDWCs
determined
for
the
nursery
ornamental
use
are
also
protective
of
all
other
uses
with
lower
application
rates.
The
recommended
estimated
drinking
water
concentrations
(
EDWCs)
for
the
human
health
risk
assessment
are
in
Table
5.3
and
are
based
on
the
nursery
ornamental
use
pattern.
There
were
no
major
degradates
of
ADBAC
in
the
laboratory
studies.
(
EFED
Memo,
2006
by
Marietta
Echeverria
to
Jacqueline
Campbell­
McFarlane:
Tier
I
Drinking
Water
Assessment
for
alkyl*
dimehtyl
benzyl
ammonium
chloride
(
50%
C14,
40%
C12,
10%
C10)
(
ADBAC)
and
Didecyl
dimethyl
ammonium
chloride,
(
DDAC))

An
acute
oral
toxicological
endpoint
was
not
established
for
ADBAC.
Therefore,
only
the
chronic
drinking
water
exposure
is
calculated.
The
adult
chronic
drinking
water
dose
is
0.009
mg/
kg/
day
(
i.
e.,
average
EDWC
331
ug/
L
x
2
L/
day
consumption
x
1/
70
kg
BW).
The
children
chronic
drinking
water
dose
is
0.022
mg/
kg/
day
(
i.
e.,
average
EDWC
331
ug/
L
x
1
L/
day
consumption
x
1/
15
kg
BW).
There
are
no
drinking
water
concerns
with
ADBAC
as
the
concentrations
are
much
lower
than
LOC.

Table
5.3.
Tier
I
Estimated
Drinking
Water
Concentrations
(
EDWCs)
Based
on
Aerial
Application
of
ADBAC
on
Nursery
Ornamentals
Drinking
Water
Source
(
Model)
Use
rate
(
lbs
ai/
A/
year)
EDWC
(
ppb)

Surface
water
(
FIRST)

Acute
(
peak)

­
Chronic
(
annual
average)
906
13,129
331
Groundwater
(
SCIGROW)
906
5.4
Page
21
of
64
5.4
Residential
Exposure/
Risk
Pathway
The
exposure
scenarios
assessed
in
this
document
for
the
representative
antimicrobial
uses
selected
by
the
Agency
to
represent
the
residential
risks
include:

 
Indoor
hard
surfaces
(
e.
g.,
mopping,
wiping,
trigger
pump
sprays);
 
Air
deodorizer;
 
Carpets;
 
Swimming
pools;
 
RV
holding
tanks;
 
Wood
preservative;
 
Textiles
(
e.
g.,
diapers
treated
during
washing);
 
Musical
instrument
mouthpieces;
and
 
Humidifiers.

Exposure
Data
and
Assumptions
The
residential
handler
scenarios
were
assessed
to
determine
dermal
and
inhalation
exposures.
Surrogate
dermal
and
inhalation
unit
exposure
values
were
taken
from
the
PHED
data
presented
in
HED's
Residential
SOPs
(
USEPA,
1997)
and
from
the
CMA
data
from
the
EPA
memorandum
Evaluation
of
Chemical
Manufacturers
Association
Antimicrobial
Exposure
Assessment
Study
(
USEPA,
1999).
Specific
surrogate
data
used
in
determining
the
dermal
and
inhalation
exposures
are
reported
below:

$
For
the
mopping,
wiping,
low
pressure
hand
wand,
liquid
pour
in
swimming
pool
and
RV
holding
tank
scenarios
the
CMA
data
were
used;
and
$
For
aerosol
spray
and
trigger
pump
scenarios
the
PHED
data
were
used.

The
quantities
handled/
treated
for
the
handler
scenarios
were
estimated
based
on
information
from
various
sources,
including
Antimicrobial
Division
estimates.

$
For
mopping
scenarios,
it
is
assumed
that
1
gallon
of
diluted
solution
is
used.

$
For
wiping
and
trigger
pump
spray
scenarios,
it
is
assumed
that
0.5
liter
(
0.13
gal)
of
diluted
solution
is
used.

$
For
aerosol
sprays,
it
is
assumed
that
one
can
is
used.
The
net
weight
of
the
can
was
not
provided
on
the
label;
therefore,
it
was
assumed
that
the
can
contained
16­
oz
of
product.

$
For
low
pressure
hand
wand,
it
was
assumed
that
2
gallons
are
used
in
all
indoor
applications.

$
For
liquid
pour
in
swimming
pool
scenario,
it
was
assumed
that
a
residential
pool
contains
20,000
gallons
of
water.

$
For
liquid
pour
in
RV
holding
tank
scenario,
it
was
assumed
that
one
tank
would
be
treated.
The
product
label
states
a
maximum
application
rate
of
4
oz
(
0.031
gallons)
product
per
tank.
Page
22
of
64
Post­
application
scenarios
have
been
developed
that
encompass
multiple
products,
but
still
represent
a
high
end
exposure
scenario
for
all
products
represented.
Representative
postapplication
scenarios
assessed
include
crawling
on
treated
hard
surfaces,
carpets,
and
treated
lumber
such
as
decks/
play
sets
(
dermal
and
incidental
oral
exposure
to
children),
wearing
treated
clothing
(
dermal
exposure
to
adults
and
children
and
incidental
oral
exposure
to
children),
using
air
deodorizers
(
adult
and
child
inhalation
exposure),
using
portable
humidifiers
(
adult
and
child
inhalation
exposure),
swimming
in
treated
pools
(
adult
and
child
incidental
ingestion),
and
using
treated
instrument
mouthpieces
and
reeds
(
child
and
adult
incidental
exposure).
Data
sources
and
methodologies
include
the
HED
Residential
SOPs
(
USEPA
2000,
2001),
Human
and
Environmental
Risk
Assessment
(
HERA)
Guidance
Document
(
2003
and
2005),
the
DDAC
wood
preservative
task
force
study
(
MRID
455243­
04),
the
Multi­
Chamber
Concentration
and
Exposure
Model
(
MCCEM),
and
the
SWIMODEL.

Since
no
toxicological
endpoint
of
concern
was
identified
for
dermal
systemic
adverse
effects,
both
the
handler
and
the
post­
application
dermal
risks
were
assessed
using
the
short­
term
toxicological
endpoint
for
dermal
irritation.
The
duration
of
exposure
for
most
homeowner
handler
exposures
is
believed
to
be
best
represented
by
the
short­
term
duration
(
1
to
30
days).
The
reason
that
short
term
duration
was
chosen
to
be
assessed
is
because
the
different
handler
and
post­
application
scenarios
are
assumed
to
be
episodic,
not
daily.

Risk
Characterization
A
summary
of
the
residential
handler
inhalation
risks
are
presented
in
Table
5.4.
Although
the
inhalation
endpoint
represents
short­,
intermediate­,
and
long­
term
durations,
the
exposure
duration
of
most
homeowner
applications
of
cleaning
products
is
believed
to
be
best
represented
by
the
short­
term
duration.
The
inhalation
toxicological
endpoint
is
based
on
an
oral
study
because
a
route­
specific
inhalation
study
is
not
available.
The
calculated
inhalation
MOEs
are
above
the
target
MOE
of
100.
The
dermal
MOEs
are
presented
in
Table
5.5.
The
dermal
MOEs
are
above
the
target
MOE
of
100,
except
for
the
wiping
and
low
pressure
spray
on
carpets
(
MOEs
=
76
and
72,
respectively).

Table
5.4
Short­
Term
Residential
Handler
Inhalation
Exposures
and
MOEs
Exposure
Scenario
Application
Method
Application
Method
Application
Ratea
Quantity
Handled/
Treated
per
dayb
MOE
c
(
Target
MOE
=
100)

Mopping
0.025
lb
ai/
gal
1
gallon
3,000
Wiping
0.025
lb
ai/
gal
0.13
gallon
820
Application
to
indoor
hard
surfaces
Trigger
Spray
0.025
lb
ai/
gal
0.13
gallon
23,000
Air
deodorization
Aerosol
Spray
0.2%
ai
by
weight
1
can
(
1
lb)
38,000
Application
to
Carpets
Low
Pressure
Spray
0.014
lb
ai/
gal
2
gallons
9,200
Application
to
Swimming
Pools
Liquid
Pour
0.000052
lb
ai/
gal
20,000
gallons
50,000
Application
to
RV
holding
tanks
Liquid
Pour
0.834
lb
ai/
gal
0.031
gal
(
1
tank
at
4
oz
product/
tank)
3,700
a
Application
rates
are
the
maximum
application
rates
determined
from
EPA
registered
labels
for
ADBAC.
b
Amount
handled
per
day
values
are
estimates
or
label
instructions.
Page
23
of
64
c
MOE
=
NOAEL
/
Absorbed
Daily
Dose.
[
Where
short­
term
NOAEL
=
3
mg/
kg/
day
for
inhalation].
Target
MOE
=
100.

Table
5.5
Short­
Term
Residential
Handler
Dermal
Risks
Exposure
Scenario
Application
Method
Application
Ratea
(
lb
ai/
gal)
Quantity
Handled/
Treated
per
dayb
Hand
Unit
Exposure
Adjusted
for
Surface
Area
(
mg/
lb
ai/
cm2)
c
Dermal
Skin
Irritation
Exposure
d
(:
g/
cm2)
MOE
e
(
Target
MOE
=
100)

Products
with
#
10%
ADBAC
(
NOAEL
=
333
ug/
cm2)

Mopping
0.025
lb
ai/
gal
1
gallon
0.063
1.587
210
Wiping
0.025
lb
ai/
gal
0.13
gallon
1.341
4.363
76
Application
to
indoor
hard
surfaces
Trigger
Spray
0.025
lb
ai/
gal
0.13
gallon
0.129
0.420
790
Air
deodorization
Aerosol
Spray
0.2%
ai
by
weight
1
can
(
1
lb)
0.129
0.259
1,300
Application
to
Carpets
Low
Pressure
Spray
0.014
lb
ai/
gal
2
gallons
0.161
4.615
72
Application
to
RV
holding
tanks
Liquid
Pour
0.834
lb
ai/
gal
0.031
gal
(
1
tank
at
4
oz
product/
tank)
0.000239
0.0062
54,000
Products
with
>
10%
ADBAC
(
NOAEL
=
333
ug/
cm2)

Mopping
0.0070
lb
ai/
gal
1
gallon
0.063
0.44
760
Wiping
0.0070
lb
ai/
gal
0.13
gallon
1.341
1.22
270
Application
to
indoor
hard
surfaces
Trigger
Spray
0.014
lb
ai/
gal
0.13
gallon
0.129
0.24
1,400
Application
to
swimming
pools
Liquid
Pour
0.000052
lb
ai/
gal
20,000
gallons
0.000239
0.25
1,300
a
Application
rates
are
the
maximum
application
rates
determined
from
EPA
registered
labels
for
ADBAC.
b
Amount
handled
per
day
values
are
estimates
or
label
instructions.
c
Unit
Exposure
(
mg/
lb
ai/
cm2)
=
Unit
Exposure
from
PHED
or
CMA
(
mg/
lb
ai)
/
surface
area
of
hand
(
820
cm2).
d
Dermal
Skin
Irritation
Exposure
(:
g/
lb
ai/
cm2)
=
Unit
Exposure
(
mg/
lb
ai/
cm2)
x
Application
Rate
(
lb
ai/
gal)
x
Quantity
Treated
(
gal/
day)
x
1,000
:
g/
mg
e
MOE
=
NOAEL
(:
g/
cm2)/
Surface
Residue
on
Skin
(:
g/
cm2).
[
Where
short­
term
dermal
formulated­
based
NOAEL
=
333
µ
g
/
cm2
Target
MOE
=
100.

A
summary
of
the
residential
post
application
are
presented
in
Table
5.6.
Although
the
inhalation
endpoint
represents
short­,
intermediate­,
and
long­
term
durations,
the
exposure
duration
of
most
homeowner
applications
of
cleaning
products
is
believed
to
be
best
represented
by
the
short­
term
duration.
The
inhalation
toxicological
endpoint
is
based
on
an
oral
study
because
a
route­
specific
inhalation
study
is
not
available.
The
calculated
dermal
and
incidental
oral
MOEs
are
above
the
target
MOE
of
100
except
for
the
dermal
MOEs
for
the
child
playing
on
a
treated
deck/
play
set.
The
inhalation
MOEs
are
above
the
target
MOE
of
100
for
all
scenarios,
except
the
humidifier.
The
24­
hour
inhalation
MOEs
for
adults
and
children
are
10
and
4,
respectively.

Table
5.6.
Short­
term
Residential
Post
Application
Risks
for
Adults
and
Children.
Page
24
of
64
Exposure
Scenario
Dermal
MOE
Incidental
Ingestion
MOE
Inhalation
MOE
Child
playing
on
floor
1,100
610
NA
Child
playing
on
carpet
1,200
330
NA
Clothing
(
100%
residue
transfer)
210
adults
and
children
1900
NA
240
average
Child
playing
on
decks/
play
sets
110
max
360
NA
5,700
adults
Air
deodorizer
NA
NA
1,800
children
Swimming
NA
Ranges
from
500
to
5,600
for
adults
and
children
NA
Adult
10
(
24­
hrs)
Humidifiers
NA
NA
Child
4
(
24­
hrs)
Instrument
mouthpiece/
reed
NA
No
data
NA
NA
=
not
assessed
because
negligible
exposure
is
assumed
by
that
route
for
the
exposure
for
the
scenario
of
concern.

6.0
AGGREGATE
RISK
ASSESSMENT
AND
RISK
CHARACTERIZATION
In
order
for
a
pesticide
registration
to
continue,
it
must
be
shown
that
the
use
does
not
result
in
"
unreasonable
adverse
effects
on
the
environment".
Section
2
(
bb)
of
FIFRA
defines
this
term
to
include
"
a
human
dietary
risk
from
residues
that
result
from
a
use
of
a
pesticide
in
or
on
any
food
inconsistent
with
standard
under
section
408..."
of
FFDCA.
Consequently,
even
though
no
pesticide
tolerances
have
been
established
for
ADBAC,
the
standards
of
FQPA
must
still
be
met,
including
"
that
there
is
reasonable
certainty
that
no
harm
will
result
from
aggregate
exposure
to
pesticide
chemical
residue,
including
all
anticipated
dietary
exposures
and
other
exposures
for
which
there
are
reliable
information."
Aggregate
exposure
is
the
total
exposure
to
a
single
chemical
(
or
its
residues)
that
may
occur
from
dietary
(
i.
e.,
food
and
drinking
water),
residential,
and
other
non­
occupational
sources,
and
from
all
known
or
plausible
exposure
routes
(
oral,
dermal,
and
inhalation).
Aggregate
risk
assessment
were
conducted
for
short­
term
(
1­
30
days),
intermediate­
term
(
1­
6
months)
and
chronic
(
several
months
to
lifetime)
exposures.
An
acute
endpoint
was
not
identified
for
ADBAC,
and
therefore,
an
acute
aggregate
dietary
assessment
was
not
necessary.

In
performing
aggregate
exposure
and
risk
assessments,
the
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs
has
published
guidance
outlining
the
necessary
steps
to
perform
such
assessments
(
General
Principles
for
Performing
Aggregate
Exposure
and
Risk
Assessments,
November
28,
2001;
available
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
pesticides/
trac/
science/
aggregate.
pdf).
Steps
for
deciding
whether
to
perform
aggregate
exposure
and
risk
assessments
are
listed,
which
include:
identification
of
toxicological
endpoints
for
each
exposure
route
and
duration;
identification
of
potential
exposures
for
each
pathway
(
food,
water,
and/
or
residential);
reconciliation
of
durations
and
pathways
of
exposure
with
durations
and
pathways
of
health
effects;
determination
of
which
possible
residential
exposure
scenarios
are
likely
to
occur
together
within
a
given
time
frame;
determination
of
magnitude
and
duration
of
exposure
for
all
exposure
combinations;
Page
25
of
64
determination
of
the
appropriate
technique
(
deterministic
or
probabilistic)
for
exposure
assessment;
and
determination
of
the
appropriate
risk
metric
to
estimate
aggregate
risk.

6.1
Acute
and
Chronic
Aggregate
Risks
An
acute
toxicological
endpoint
was
not
identified
for
ADBAC.
Therefore,
an
acute
aggregate
risk
assessment
was
not
conducted.
The
chronic
aggregate
risk
assessment
includes
dietary
and
drinking
water
exposures.
Chronic
dietary
risk
estimates
from
direct
and
indirect
food
uses
are
presented
in
Section
5.2.
Drinking
water
exposure
estimates
are
presented
in
Section
5.3.
Table
6­
1
presents
a
summary
of
these
exposures,
including
the
aggregate
indirect
and
direct
dietary
exposure
(
i.
e.,
all
direct
and
indirect
food
contact
exposures)
as
well
as
a
total
dietary
aggregate
exposure
estimate
(
i.
e.,
drinking
water
plus
direct/
indirect
dietary
exposures).
Based
on
the
results
of
the
chronic
aggregate
assessment,
the
%
cPAD
for
adults
and
children
are
3.5%
and
10.3%,
respectively.
Therefore,
the
chronic
dietary
risks
are
not
of
concern
(
i.
e.,
less
then
100
%
of
cPAD).

Table
6­
1.
ADBAC
Chronic
Aggregate
Exposures
and
Risks
(
cPAD)

Chronic
Dietary
Exposures
(
mg/
kg/
day)

Exposure
Routes
Indirect
Dietary
Exposuresa
Direct
Food
Contact
Dietary
Exposuresa
Drinking
Water
Exposures
Aggregate
Dietary
Exposuresb
%
cPAD
(
MOE)

Adults
Oral
Ingestion
0.0042
0.0024
0.009
0.0066
3.5%
(
2,800)

Children
Oral
Ingestion
0.017
0.0061
0.022
0.023
10.3
(
980)
a
Dietary
(
indirect
+
direct
food
contact)
exposures
are
presented
in
Tables
5.1
and
5.2.
b
Aggregate
Dietary
Exposures
=
indirect
dietary
+
direct
food
contact
+
drinking
water
exposures.
c
%
cPAD
(
percent
chronic
population
adjusted
dose)
=
(
aggregate
exposures
/
cPAD)
x
100.
Where
cPAD
=
NOAEL
44
mg/
kg/
day
/
100x
uncertainty
factor
=
0.44
mg/
kg/
day.
MOE
=
NOAEL
of
44
mg/
kg/
day
/
aggregate
dietary
exposures
mg/
kg/
day.

6.2
Short­
and
Intermediate­
Term
Aggregate
Exposures
and
Risks
Short­
and
intermediate­
term
aggregate
exposures
and
risks
were
assessed
for
adults
and
children
that
could
be
exposed
to
ADBAC
residues
from
the
use
of
products
in
non­
occupational
environments.
The
short­
and
intermediate­
term
aggregate
risks
account
for
pesticide
exposures
from
the
diet,
drinking
water,
and
residential
uses.
The
following
list
summarizes
all
of
the
potential
sources
of
ADBAC
exposures
for
adults
and
children.

Adult
ADBAC
exposure
sources:

handling
of
cleaning
products
containing
ADBAC
dioxide
as
an
active
ingredient
during
wiping,
mopping,
and
spraying
activities;

applying
products
containing
ADBAC
to
lawns/
ornamentals;
Page
26
of
64

applying
ADBAC
as
an
air
deodorizer
using
an
aerosol
spray;

applying
ADBAC
to
carpets
using
a
low
pressure
sprayer;

applying
ADBAC
to
swimming
pools
via
open
pouring;

applying
ADBAC
to
RV
holding
tanks
via
open
pouring;

contacting
pressure
treated
wood;

wearing
treated
clothing;

use
of
ADBAC
in
humidifiers;
and

eating
food
having
ADBAC
residues
from
indirect
or
direct
food
contact.

Child
ADBAC
exposure
sources:

post­
application
exposures
to
cleaning
product
residues
containing
ADBAC
that
are
used
on
hard
surfaces
(
e.
g,
floors/
carpets);

breathing
air
treated
with
an
air
deodorizer
or
humidifier;

swimming
in
treated
pools;

contacting
pressure
treated
wood;

wearing
treated
clothing/
diapers;

eating
food
having
ADBAC
residues
from
indirect
or
direct
food
contact.

The
use
patterns
of
the
products
and
probability
of
co­
occurrence
must
be
considered
when
selecting
scenarios
for
incorporation
in
the
aggregate
assessment.
Table
6­
2
summarizes
the
scenarios
included
in
the
short­
and
intermediate­
term
aggregate
assessments.

Table
6­
2.
Exposure
Scenarios
Included
in
the
Aggregate
Assessments
Short­
term
(
ST)
Aggregate
Intermediate­
Term
(
IT)
Aggregate
Adults

chronic
dietary
(
direct
and
indirect)

handling
cleaning
products
(
wipe
+
trigger
pump
spray)

wearing
treated
clothing

humidifier
Oral:
ST
and
IT
endpoints
are
the
same
for
both
durations.

Dermal:
ST
endpoint
only.

Inhalation:
All
durations
same
endpoint.

Children

chronic
dietary
 
(
direct
and
indirect)

post­
application
to
cleaning
product
on
carpets
(
dermal
and
oral)

wearing
treated
clothing

humidifier
Oral:
ST
and
IT
endpoints
are
the
same
for
both
durations.

Dermal:
ST
endpoint
only.

Inhalation:
All
durations
same
endpoint.

The
chronic
dietary
exposures
were
used
in
both
the
short­
and
intermediate­
term
aggregate
assessment
because
chronic
dietary
exposures
occur
nearly
every
day
(
as
opposed
to
acute
dietary
exposures
occurring
on
a
one­
time
basis).
Therefore,
short­
or
intermediate­
term
non­
dietary
exposures
have
a
much
higher
probability
to
co­
occur
with
the
chronic
dietary
intake.

Cleaning
activities
in
a
residential
setting
occur
on
a
short­
term
basis.
However,
the
ADBAC­
containing
cleaning
products
are
also
labeled
for
use
in
institutional
settings
such
as
daycare
facilities
where
cleaning
activities
can
occur
on
an
intermediate­
term
basis.
Therefore,
Page
27
of
64
children
could
have
exposure
to
cleaning
product
residues
on
a
more
continuous
basis
in
a
day
care
facility,
thus,
these
post­
application
scenarios
were
included
in
the
intermediate­
term
aggregate
assessment.

Since
the
ADBAC
toxicity
endpoints
for
the
oral,
dermal,
and
inhalation
routes
of
exposure
are
based
on
different
toxic
effects,
these
three
routes
of
exposure
are
not
aggregated
together.
Instead,
the
aggregate
assessment
is
based
solely
on
the
co­
occurrence
of
the
same
route
of
exposures.
Aggregate
risks
were
calculated
using
the
total
MOE
approach
outlined
in
OPP
guidance
for
aggregate
risk
assessment
(
August
1,
1999,
Updated
"
Interim
Guidance
for
Incorporating
Drinking
Water
Exposure
into
Aggregate
Risk
Assessments").
Table
6­
3
presents
a
summary
of
the
short­
and
intermediate­
term
aggregate
risks
(
i.
e.,
MOEs).
The
short­
and
intermediate­
term
aggregate
is
identical
because
the
endpoints
for
incidental
oral
as
well
as
inhalation
are
identical
for
the
short­
and
intermediate­
term
durations.
Only
a
short­
term
dermal
endpoint
was
identified
(
i.
e.,
no
intermediate­
and/
or
long­
term
dermal
endpoints
were
identified).
The
aggregate
risks
are
not
of
concern
for
adults
for
any
of
the
three
routes
of
exposure
except
for
the
dermal
route,
as
the
total
aggregate
MOE
is
2,800
for
oral,
42
(<
10%
ADBAC)
and
95
(>
10%
ADBAC)
for
dermal,
and
630
for
inhalation,
which
is
greater
than
the
target
of
100.
For
children,
the
aggregate
risk
estimate
for
each
of
the
routes
of
exposure
are
also
above
the
target
MOE
of
100
(
MOE=
220
for
the
oral
route,
180
for
the
dermal
route,
and
no
co­
occurrence
for
the
inhalation
route)
and
thus
are
not
of
concern.
It
is
important
to
note,
however,
that
some
of
the
individual
risks
for
scenarios
not
included
in
the
aggregate
are
of
concern
by
themselves
(
e.
g.,
the
humidifier
use).

Table
6­
3.
Short­
and
Intermediate­
term
Aggregate
Risk
(
MOE)
Assessment
Exposure
Routes
Chronic
Dietary
MOE
Cleaning
Product
MOEs
(
Adult
Applicators
&
Children
Playing)
Humidifier
MOE
Wearing
Treated
Clothing
MOE
Route­
Specific
Aggregate
MOE
Adults
Oral
Ingestion
2,800
NA
NA
NA
2,800
Dermal
(
ST
only)
<
10%
ai
210
(
mop)
76
(
wipe)
790
(
spray)
42
Dermal
(
ST
only)
>
10%
ai
NA
760
(
mop)
270
(
wipe)
1,400
(
spray)
NA
210
95
Inhalation
NA
3,000
(
mop)
820
(
wipe)
23,000
(
spray)
Not
included,
risk
of
concern
NA
630
Children
Oral
Ingestion
980
330
(
hand­
to­
mouth
carpets)
NA
1,900
220
Dermal
(
ST
only)
NA
1,200
(
playing
on
carpets)
NA
210
(
100%
180
Page
28
of
64
Table
6­
3.
Short­
and
Intermediate­
term
Aggregate
Risk
(
MOE)
Assessment
Exposure
Routes
Chronic
Dietary
MOE
Cleaning
Product
MOEs
(
Adult
Applicators
&
Children
Playing)
Humidifier
MOE
Wearing
Treated
Clothing
MOE
Route­
Specific
Aggregate
MOE
residue
transfer)

Inhalation
NA
NA
Not
included,
risk
of
concern
NA
No
cooccurrence
Aggregate
MOE
=
1/((
1/
MOEsame
route)
+
(
1/
MOE
same
route)
+
etc)

7.0
CUMULATIVE
EXPOSURE
AND
RISK
Another
standard
of
section
408
of
the
FFDCA
which
must
be
considered
in
making
an
unreasonable
adverse
effect
determination
is
that
the
Agency
considers
"
available
information"
concerning
the
cumulative
effects
of
a
particular
pesticide's
residues
and
"
other
substances
that
have
a
common
mechanism
of
toxicity."

Unlike
other
pesticides
for
which
EPA
has
followed
a
cumulative
risk
approach
based
on
a
common
mechanism
of
toxicity,
EPA
has
not
made
a
common
mechanism
of
toxicity
finding
as
to
ADBAC
and
any
other
substances
and
ADBAC
does
not
appear
to
produce
a
toxic
metabolite
produced
by
other
substances.
For
the
purposes
of
this
tolerance
action,
therefore,
EPA
has
not
assumed
that
ADBACs
has
a
common
mechanism
of
toxicity
with
other
substances.
For
information
regarding
EPA's
efforts
to
determine
which
chemicals
have
a
common
mechanism
of
toxicity
and
to
evaluate
the
cumulative
effects
of
such
chemicals,
see
the
policy
statements
released
by
EPA's
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs
concerning
common
mechanism
determinations
and
procedures
for
cumulating
effects
from
substances
found
to
have
a
common
mechanism
on
EPA's
website
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
pesticides/
cumulative/.

8.0
OCCUPATIONAL
EXPOSURE
ASSESSMENT
Potential
occupational
handler
exposure
can
occur
in
various
use
sites,
which
include:
agricultural
premises,
industrial
processes
and
water
systems,
food
handling
premises,
commercial/
institutional/
industrial
premises,
medical
premises,
swimming
pools,
and
aquatic
areas.
Additionally,
occupational
exposure
can
occur
during
the
preservation
of
wood.
For
the
preservation
of
wood,
the
procedure
for
treatment
can
occur
in
different
ways,
such
that
multiple
worker
functions
were
analyzed.
Due
to
the
complexity
of
the
wood
preservative
analysis,
the
results
for
handler
and
post­
application
exposures
are
presented
separately
in
Section
7.3.

8.1
Occupational
Handler
Exposures
Page
29
of
64
ADBAC
dermal
irritation
exposures
and
risks
were
not
estimated
for
occupational
handler
exposures.
Instead,
dermal
irritation
exposures
and
risks
will
be
mitigated
using
default
personal
protective
equipment
requirements
based
on
the
toxicity
of
the
end­
use
product.
To
minimize
dermal
exposures,
the
minimum
PPE
required
for
mixers,
loaders,
and
others
exposed
to
end­
use
products
containing
concentrations
of
DDAC
that
result
in
classification
of
category
I,
II,
or
III
for
skin
irritation
potential
will
be
long­
sleeve
shirt,
long
pants,
shoes,
socks,
chemical­
resistant
gloves,
and
chemical­
resistant
apron.
Once
diluted,
if
the
concentration
of
ADBAC
in
the
diluted
solution
would
result
in
classification
of
toxicity
category
IV
for
skin
irritation
potential,
then
the
chemical­
resistant
gloves
and
chemical­
resistant
apron
can
be
eliminated
for
applicators
and
others
exposed
to
the
dilute.
Note
that
chemical­
resistant
eyewear
will
be
required
if
the
end­
use
product
is
classified
as
category
I
or
II
for
eye
irritation
potential.

Inhalation
exposures
and
risks
were
presented
based
on
the
oral
toxicity
endpoint
(
i.
e.,
route­
specific
inhalation
study
not
available).
The
surrogate
unit
exposure
values
were
taken
from
the
proprietary
Chemical
Manufacturers
Association
(
CMA)
antimicrobial
exposure
study
(
USEPA,
1999:
DP
Barcode
D247642)
or
from
the
Pesticide
Handler
Exposure
Database
(
USEPA,
1998).
The
specific
inhalation
unit
exposures
and
quantity
of
ADBAC
handled
are
provided
in
the
Occupational
and
Residential
Exposure
chapter
for
ADBAC.

The
inhalation
MOEs
were
calculated
for
the
short­
and
intermediate­
term
durations
for
occupational
handlers
using
the
oral
endpoint.

Risk
Characterization
The
resulting
inhalation
exposures
and
MOEs
for
the
representative
occupational
handler
scenarios
are
presented
in
Table
8.1.
The
calculated
MOEs
were
above
the
target
MOE
of
100
for
all
scenarios,
except
those
listed
below.

 
Agricultural
fogging
(
mixing
and
loading):
ST/
IT
Inhalation
MOE
=
26
 
Medical
premises,
mopping:
ST/
IT
Inhalation
MOE
=
95
 
Pulp
and
paper,
liquid
pump:
ST/
IT
Inhalation
MOE
=
33
 
Once­
through
cooling
water,
metering
pump:
Using
the
average
flow
rate
for
high
flow
streams
(
153
MGD)
the
ST
Inhalation
MOE
=
50
for
initial
applications
and
the
IT
MOE
=
95
for
maintenance
applications;
however,
using
the
average
flow
rate
for
low
flow
streams
(
5.9
MGD)
the
ST
Inhalation
MOE
=
1,300
for
initial
applications
and
the
IT
MOE
=
2,500
for
maintenance
applications.
 
Small
process
water
systems,
liquid
pour:
ST/
IT
Inhalation
MOE
=
6.

Table
8.1
Short­
,
Intermediate­
and
Long­
Term
Inhalation
Risks
Associated
with
Occupational
Handlers
Page
30
of
64
Exposure
Scenario
Method
of
Application
Inhalation
Unit
Exposure
(
mg/
lb
a.
i.)
Application
Rate
Quantity
Handled/
Treated
per
day
Inhalation
Daily
Dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
a
Inhalation
MOEb,
c
(
Target
MOE
=
100)

Agricultural
Premises
and
Equipment
(
Use
Site
Category
I)

Mop
2.38
0.012
lb
ai/
gal
2
gallons
0.00091
3,300
High
pressure/
high
volume
spray
0.12
0.017
lb
ai/
gal
40
gallons
0.0014
2,200
Low
pressure
hand
wand
0.681
0.017
lb
ai/
gal
10
gallons
0.002
1,500
Trigger
pump
sprayer
1.3
0.017
lb
ai/
gal
0.26
gallons
0.000098
31,000
Application
to
hard
surfaces,
equipment,
and
vehicles
Wipe
67.3
0.017
lb
ai/
gal
0.26
gallons
0.0051
590
Fogging
(
mix/
load
only)
Liquid
pour
1.89
2.46E­
05
lb/
ft3
150,000
ft3
0.12
26
Food
Handling/
Storage
Establishments
Premises
And
Equipment
(
Use
Site
Category
II)

Low
pressure
hand
wand
0.681
0.0176
lb
ai/
gal
2
gallons
0.0004
7,500
Mop
2.38
0.0176
lb
ai/
gal
2
gallons
0.0014
2,100
Wipe
67.3
0.0176
lb
ai/
gal
0.26
gallons
0.0051
580
Trigger
pump
sprayer
1.3
0.025
lb
ai/
gal
0.26
gallons
0.00014
21,000
Application
to
indoor
hard
surfaces
(
including
dishes,
utensils,
equipment)

Immersion,
Flooding,
Circulation
1.89
0.00325
lb
ai/
gal
2
gallons
0.0002
15,000
Commercial,
Institutional
and
Industrial
Premises
and
Equipment
(
Use
Site
Category
III
)

Low
pressure
hand
wand
0.681
0.0283
lb
ai/
gal
2
gallons
0.00064
4,700
Mop
2.38
0.0283
lb
ai/
gal
2
gallons
0.0022
1,300
Wipe
67.3
0.0283
lb
ai/
gal
0.26
gallons
0.0083
360
Trigger
pump
sprayer
1.3
0.0283
lb
ai/
gal
0.26
gallons
0.00016
19,000
Application
to
indoor
hard
surfaces
Immersion
1.89
0.025
lb
ai/
gal
2
gallons
0.0016
1,900
Air
deodorization
Aerosol
spray
1.3
0.20%
a.
i.
by
weight
3.0
lbs
0.00013
23,000
Application
to
carpets
Liquid
pour
0.00346
0.141
lb
ai/
gal
32
gallons
0.00026
12,000
Medical
Premises
and
Equipment
(
Use
Site
Category
V)

Application
to
hard
surfaces
Mop
2.38
0.0176
lb
ai/
gal
45
gallons
0.031
95
Application
to
dental
instruments
Immersion
(
Liquid
pour)
1.89
0.0209
lb
ai/
gal
2
gallons
0.0013
2,300
Industrial
Processes
and
Water
Systems
(
Use
Site
Category
VIII)

Pulp
and
Paper
Metering
pump
0.000265
41.7
lb
ai/
ton
paper
500
tons
0.092
33
Papermaking
Chemicals
Metering
pump
0.000265
0.0019
lb
ai/
gal
additive
1,000
gallons
8.5E­
6
350,000
Initial
Dose
(
ST):
8.86E­
5
lb
ai/
gal
water
5,900,000
gallons
0.0023
ST=
1300
Once­
through
Cooling
Water
System
­
Power
plant
Metering
pump
0.000265
Maintenance
Dose
(
IT):
4.69E­
5
lb
ai/
gal
5,900,000
gallons
0.0012
IT=
2,500
Page
31
of
64
Table
8.1
Short­
,
Intermediate­
and
Long­
Term
Inhalation
Risks
Associated
with
Occupational
Handlers
Exposure
Scenario
Method
of
Application
Inhalation
Unit
Exposure
(
mg/
lb
a.
i.)
Application
Rate
Quantity
Handled/
Treated
per
day
Inhalation
Daily
Dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
a
Inhalation
MOEb,
c
(
Target
MOE
=
100)

Initial
Dose
(
ST):
8.86E­
5
lb
ai/
gal
water
153,000,000
gallons
0.06
ST
=
50
Maintenance
Dose
(
IT):
4.69E­
5
lb
ai/
gal
153,000,000
gallons
0.032
IT=
95
Liquid
pour
0.45
6.67
lb
ai/
gal
product
10
gallons
0.5
6
Initial
Dose
(
ST):
3.34E­
4
lb
ai/
gal
water
20,000
gallons
0.00048
ST=
6,200
Small
process
water
systems:
Recirculating
cooling
tower/
evaporative
condenser/
pasteurizers
Metering
pump
0.00432
Maintenance
Dose
(
IT):
1.25E­
4
lb
ai/
gal
water
20,000
gallons
0.00018
IT=
17,000
5.6
gallons
ST
=
0.00032
ST
=
9,300
Oil
field
operations
­
drilling
mud
and
packing
fluids
Liquid
pour
0.00346
1.00
lb
ai/
gal
product
2.8
gallons
IT
=
0.00016
IT
=
19,000
100
gallons
0.00017
18,000
Metal/
wood
cooling
tower
surface
spray
High
Pressure
Sprayer
0.12
0.00084
lb
ai/
gal
water
1,000
gallons
0.0017
1,800
Swimming
Pools
(
Use
Site
Category
X)

Winterizing
Dose
(
ST):

0.000052
lb
ai/
gal
200,000
gallons
0.0006
ST
=
5,000
Application
to
swimming
pools
Liquid
pour
0.00346
Maintenance
Dose
(
IT/
LT):

0.0000098
lb
ai/
gal
200,000
gallons
0.00011
IT/
LT
=
27,000
ST
=
short­
term,
IT
=
intermediate­
term,
LT
=
long­
term,
N/
A=
No
data
available
a
Daily
dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
=
[
unit
exposure
(
mg/
lb
a.
i.)
x
absorption
factor
(
1.0
for
inhalation)
x
application
rate
x
quantity
treated
/
Body
weight
(
60
kg
for
inhalation).
b
MOE
=
NOAEL
(
mg/
kg/
day)
/
Absorbed
Daily
Dose
[
Where
NOAEL
=
3
mg/
kg/
day
for
all
inhalation
exposure
durations].
Target
MOE
=
100.
c
The
MOEs
refer
to
short­
term
and
intermediate­
term
duration
unless
indicated
otherwise.

8.2
Occupational
Post­
application
Exposures
Except
for
the
post­
application
scenarios
assessed
for
hand
washes
in
Section
8.2.1,
fogging
in
Section
8.2.2,
and
wood
preservatives
in
Section
8.3,
occupational
post­
application
dermal
and
inhalation
exposures
are
assumed
to
be
negligible.
Page
32
of
64
8.2.1
Hand
Sanitizing
ADBAC­
containing
products
can
be
used
as
a
hand
sanitizer
in
occupational
settings.
In
this
scenario,
a
worker
washes
and
rinses
their
hands
and
then
applies
the
ADBAC­
containing
solution
(
water­
based)
to
the
hands.
The
hands
are
not
rinsed
after
contact
with
the
solution.
The
exposure
to
the
hands
was
estimated
using
the
film
thickness.
The
film
thickness
of
a
sanitizing
solution
(
or
water)
could
not
be
located
so
the
film
thickness
of
bath
oil
was
used
as
a
screening
level
or
conservative
estimate.
The
film
thickness
of
bath
oil
is
5.94
mg/
cm2
(
Bryan,
1988)
and
EPA
Reg.
No.
507­
3'
s
labeled
rate
is
0.0201
percent
ai
(
0.0017
lb
ai/
gal).
Based
on
this
information
the
surface
residue
of
ADBAC
on
the
hands
is
1.19
µ
g/
cm2
and
the
dermal
MOE
is
260.

8.2.2
Fogging
(
Food
Processing
Plant
and
Hatchery)

Post­
application
inhalation
exposures
only
were
assessed
for
entry
into
a
building
(
hatchery
and
food
processing
plant)
after
a
fogging
application,
because
dermal
post
application
is
presumed
to
be
negligible.
The
inhalation
exposure
assessment
was
conducted
using
the
Multi­
Chamber
Concentration
and
Exposure
Model
(
MCCEM
v1.2).
MCCEM
estimates
average
and
peak
indoor
air
concentrations
of
chemicals
released
from
products
or
materials
in
houses,
apartments,
townhouses,
or
other
residences.
Although
the
data
libraries
contained
in
MCCEM
are
limited
to
residential
settings,
the
model
can
be
used
to
assess
other
indoor
environments.
MCCEM
has
the
capability
to
estimate
inhalation
exposures
to
chemicals,
calculated
as
single
day
doses,
chronic
average
daily
doses,
or
lifetime
average
daily
doses.
(
All
dose
estimates
are
potential
doses;
they
do
not
account
for
actual
absorption
into
the
body.)

The
product,
EPA
Reg
#
10324­
118
(
21.7%
ai)
with
a
maximum
application
rate
of
0.011
lb
ai/
gal,
was
assessed
for
fogging
use
in
a
food
processing
plant.
The
label
states
to
fog
one
quart
of
the
diluted
product
per
1,000
cubic
feet.
All
labels
which
can
be
used
for
fogging
in
food
processing
areas
indicate
that
all
personnel
must
vacate
the
room
during
fogging
and
for
a
minimum
of
2
hours
after
fogging.
Therefore,
exposure
was
calculated
for
a
person
entering
the
food
processing
plant
2
hours
after
all
the
applied
fogger
has
been
deployed.

The
product,
EPA
Reg
#
10324­
118
(
21.7%
ai)
with
a
maximum
application
rate
of
0.27
lb
ai/
gal,
was
assessed
for
fogging
use
in
hatcheries
and
incubators.
After
fogging,
the
label
states
that
the
building
should
be
well
ventilated,
but
does
not
indicate
that
personnel
should
vacate
the
room.
The
only
label
with
agricultural
fogging
uses
which
indicates
that
personnel
should
vacate
the
room
after
fogging
is
EPA
Reg#
10324­
111
(
maximum
application
rate
of
0.192
lb
ai/
gal).
This
label
states
to
"
well"
ventilate
the
room
after
fogging
and
not
to
enter
until
2
hours
after
fogging.
Therefore,
exposure
was
calculated
for
a
person
entering
the
building
immediately
after
all
the
applied
fogger
has
been
deployed
and
2
hours
after
all
the
applied
fogger
has
been
deployed.

The
MOE
for
fogging
in
the
food
processing
plant
(
2­
hr
re­
entry
interval)
was
below
the
target
MOE
of
100.
For
fogging
in
hatcheries,
the
8­
hr
MOE
was
below
the
target
MOE
of
100
immediately
after
fogging
and
was
above
the
target
MOE
of
100
2
hours
after
fogging.
The
risks
Page
33
of
64
of
concern
for
the
food
processing
plant
are
attributed
to
the
low
air
changes
per
hour
assumed
(
i.
e.,
0.18
ACH
as
a
default
parameter
in
MCCEM
to
represent
low
air
flow)
in
the
assessment.
This
assessment
can
be
refined
with
additional
information
on
air
flows
in
food
processing
plants.
For
the
poultry
barn,
ventilation
rate
was
obtained
from
Jacobson
(
2005).
The
assessment
for
food
processing
plants
could
be
refined
if
a
more
accurate
ventilation
rate
could
be
obtained.
Additional
suggested
label
language
to
assure
proper
ventilation
includes:

­­
ten
air
exchanges,
or
­­
2
hours
of
mechanical
ventilation
(
i.
e.,
fans),
or
­­
4
hours
of
passive
ventilation
(
i.
e.,
windows,
vents),
or
­­
11
hours
of
no
ventilation
followed
by
1
hour
of
mechanical
ventilation,
or
­­
11
hours
of
no
ventilation
followed
by
2
hours
of
passive
ventilation,
or
­­
24
hours
of
no
ventilation
8.3
Wood
Preservation
ADBAC
is
used
in
products
that
are
intended
to
preserve
wood
through
both
nonpressure
treatment
methods
and
pressure
treatment
methods.
It
is
also
intended
for
use
on
existing
homes
(
wood
shingles
or
shake
roofs
and
siding)
by
spray
or
brush.
Section
8.3.1
presents
the
exposure
analysis
for
the
handler
and
post­
application
scenarios
for
non­
pressure
treatment
scenarios
and
Section
8.3.2
presents
the
exposure
analysis
for
the
handler
and
postapplication
scenarios
for
pressure
treatment
scenarios.
Dermal
irritation
exposures
from
postapplication
activities
in
the
wood
preservation
treatment
facility
will
be
mitigated
using
default
personal
protective
equipment
requirements
based
on
the
toxicity
of
the
end­
use
product.
Therefore,
only
inhalation
exposures
and
risks
are
presented.

8.3.1
Non­
Pressure
Treatment
Scenarios
(
Handler
and
Post­
application)

8.3.1.1
Scenarios
Assessed
by
Worker
Function
The
proprietary
study,
"
Measurement
and
Assessment
of
Dermal
and
Inhalation
Exposures
to
Didecyl
Dimethyl
Ammonium
Chloride
(
DDAC)
Used
in
the
Protection
of
Cut
Lumber
(
Phase
III)"
(
Bestari
et
al.,
1999,
MRID
455243­
04)
identified
various
worker
functions/
positions
for
individuals
that
handle
DDAC­
containing
wood
preservatives
for
nonpressure
treatment
application
methods
and
for
individuals
that
could
then
come
into
contact
with
the
preserved
wood.
The
worker
functions/
positions
identified
in
the
DDAC
study
are
presented
below.
It
was
assumed
that
similar
tasks
are
performed
when
handling
ADBAC
products
and
ADBAC
treated­
wood,
therefore,
these
same
functions
were
assessed
for
ADBAC.

Handler:
 
Blender/
spray
operators
are
workers
that
add
the
wood
preservative
into
a
blender/
sprayer
system
for
composite
wood
via
closed­
liquid
pumping.
 
Diptank
Operators
can
be
in
reference
to
wood
being
lowered
into
the
treating
solution
through
an
automated
process
(
i.
e.,
elevator
diptank,
forklift
diptank).
This
scenario
can
also
Page
34
of
64
occur
in
a
smaller
scale
treatment
facility
in
which
the
worker
can
manually
dip
the
wood
into
the
treatment
solution.
 
Chemical
operators
for
a
spray
box
system
consist
of
chemical
operators,
chemical
assistants,
chemical
supervisors,
and
chemical
captains.
These
individuals
maintain
a
chemical
supply
balance
along
with
flushing
and
cleaning
spray
nozzles.

Post­
application:
 
Graders,
positioned
right
after
the
spray
box,
grade
dry
lumber
by
hand
(
i.
e.
detect
faults).
In
the
DDAC
study,
graders
graded
wet
lumber;
therefore,
the
exposures
to
graders
using
ADBAC
are
worst­
case
scenarios.
 
Millwrights
repair
all
conveyer
chains
and
general
up­
keep
of
the
mill.
 
Clean­
up
crews
perform
general
cleaning
duties
at
the
mill.
 
Trim
saw
operators
operate
the
hula
trim
saw
and
consist
of
operators
and
strappers.
In
the
DDAC
study,
hula
trim
saw
operators
handled
dry
lumber.
 
Construction
workers
install
treated
plywood,
oriented
strand
board,
medium
density
fiberboard,
and
others.

As
very
little
chemical
specific
data
were
available
regarding
typical
exposures
to
ADBAC
as
a
wood
preservative,
surrogate
data
were
used
to
estimate
exposure
risks.
The
blender/
spray
operator
position
was
assessed
using
CMA
unit
exposure
data
and
the
remaining
handler
and
post­
application
positions
were
assessed
using
data
from
the
DDAC
study
(
Bestari
et
al.,
1999).
This
study
is
proprietary;
therefore,
data
compensation
needs
to
be
addressed
for
use
of
these
data
in
this
exposure
assessment.

Blender/
Spray
Operators
The
inhalation
exposures
and
risks
to
the
composite
wood
blender/
spray
operators
are
reported
in
Table
8.6.
The
inhalation
MOE
is
below
the
target
MOE
of
100
for
short­,
intermediate­,
and
long­
term
inhalation
exposures
(
MOE
=
84).

Table
8.6.
Short­,
Intermediate­,
and
Long­
Term
Inhalation
Exposures
and
MOEs
for
Blender/
Spray
Operator
Exposure
Scenario
Inhalation
Unit
Exposurea
(
mg/
lb
ai)
Application
Rate
(%
ai
in
solution/

day)
Wood
Slurry
Treatedb
(
lb/
day)
Daily
Dosec
(
mg/
kg/
day)
ST/
IT/
LT
MOEd
(
Target
MOE
=
100)
Occupational
Handler
Blender/
spray
operator
0.000403
3
178,000
0.036
84
ST
=
Short­
term
duration;
IT
=
Intermediate­
term
duration;
and
LT
=
long­
term.
a.
Inhalation
unit
exposure:
Baseline.
b.
Wood
slurry
treated
=
(
8
batches/
day
x
7,000
gallons/
batch
x
0.003785
m3/
gallon
x
380
kg/
m3
x
2.2
lb/
kg)
c.
Daily
Dose
=
unit
exposure
(
mg/
lb
ai)
x
App
Rate
(%
ai/
day)
x
Quantity
treated
(
lb/
day)
x
absorption
factor
(
100%
for
inhalation)
/
BW
(
60
kg)
d.
MOE
=
NOAEL
(
mg/
kg/
day)/
Daily
dose
[
Where
ST/
IT/
LT
NOAEL
=
3
mg/
kg/
day
for
inhalation.
Target
MOE
=
100.

Chemical
Operators,
Graders,
Millwrights,
Clean­
up
Crews,
and
Trim
Saw
Operators
Page
35
of
64
The
inhalation
exposures
(
all
durations)
to
chemical
operators,
graders,
millwrights,
trim
saw
operators,
and
clean­
up
crews
are
presented
in
Table
8.7.
The
inhalation
MOEs
are
above
the
target
MOE
of
100
for
all
worker
functions.
Any
dermal
irritation
exposures
from
post­
application
activities
will
be
mitigated
using
default
personal
protective
equipment
requirements
based
on
the
toxicity
of
the
end­
use
product.

Table
8.7.
Short­,
Intermediate,
and
Long­
Term
Inhalation
Exposures
and
MOEs
for
Wood
Preservative
Chemical
Operators,
Graders,
Trim
Saw
Operators,
and
Clean­
Up
Crews
(
Handler
and
Post­
application
Activities)

Exposure
Scenarioa
(
number
of
volunteers)
Inhalation
UEb
(
mg/
day)
Conversion
Ratioc
Daily
Dosed
(
mg/
kg/
day)
MOEe
(
Target
MOE
=
100)

Occupational
Handlers
Chemical
Operator
(
n=
11)
0.0281
0.625
0.000292
10,000
Occupational
Post­
Application
Grader
(
n=
13)
0.0295
0.625
0.000307
9,800
Trim
Saw
(
n=
2)
0.061
0.625
0.00063
4,800
Millwright
(
n=
3)
0.057
0.625
0.00059
5,100
Clean­
Up
(
n=
6)
0.60
0.625
0.0063
480
ST
=
Short­
term
duration,
IT
=
Intermediate­
term
duration,
LT
=
Long­
term
duration
a.
The
exposure
scenario
represents
a
worker
wearing
short­
sleeved
shirts,
cotton
work
trousers,
and
cotton
glove
dosimeter
gloves
under
chemical
resistant
gloves.
Volunteers
were
grouped
according
to
tasks
they
conducted
at
the
mill.
b.
Inhalation
unit
exposures
are
from
Bestari
et.
al.
(
1999).
Refer
to
Table
E­
1
in
Appendix
E
for
the
calculation
of
the
dermal
and
inhalation
exposures.
Inhalation
exposure
(
mg/
day)
was
calculated
using
the
following
equation:
Air
concentration
(
µ
g/
m3)
x
Inhalation
rate
(
1.0
m3/
hr)
x
Sample
duration
(
8
hr/
day)
x
Unit
conversion
(
1
mg/
1000
µ
g).
The
inhalation
rate
is
from
USEPA,
1997.
c.
Conversion
Ratio
=
50%
ADBAC
/
80%
DDAC
d.
Daily
dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
=
exposure
(
mg/
day)
x
conversion
ratio
(
0.625)
x
absorption
factor
(
100%
for
inhalation)/
body
weight
(
60
kg).
e.
MOE
=
NOAEL
(
mg/
kg/
day)/
Daily
dose
[
Where
inhalation
NOAEL
=
3
mg/
kg/
day].
Target
MOE
=
100.

Diptank
Operators
Exposures
to
diptank
operators
were
also
assessed
using
surrogate
data
from
the
DDAC
study
(
Bestari
et
al.,
1999).
The
diptank
scenario
assessment
was
conducted
differently
than
for
the
other
job
functions
because
the
concentration
of
DDAC
in
the
diptank
solution
was
provided.
The
exposure
data
for
diptank
operators
were
converted
into
Aunit
exposures@
in
terms
of
mg
a.
i.
for
each
1%
of
concentration
of
the
product.
Table
8.8
provides
the
short­,
intermediate­
and
long­
term
inhalation
dose
and
MOEs
for
diptank
operators.
The
inhalation
MOE
is
above
the
target
MOE
of
100
and,
therefore,
is
not
of
concern.

Table
8.8.
Short­,
Intermediate­,
and
Long­
Term
Inhalation
Exposures
and
MOEs
for
Diptank
Operator
(
Handler
Activity)
Page
36
of
64
Exposure
Scenarioa
(
number
of
replicates)
Inhalation
Unit
Exposureb
(
mg
DDAC/
1%
solution)
App
Rate
(%
a.
i.
in
solution/
day)
Daily
Dosec
(
mg/
kg/
day)
MOEd
Occupational
Handler
Dipping,
with
gloves
(
n=
7)
0.046
3
0.0023
1,300
a
The
exposure
scenario
represents
a
worker
not
wearing
a
respirator.
b
Inhalation
unit
exposures
are
from
DDAC
study
(
MRID
455243­
04).
Refer
to
Table
E­
2
in
Appendix
E
for
the
inhalation
unit
exposure
calculations.
Inhalation
exposure
(
mg)
was
calculated
using
the
following
equation:
Air
concentration
(
mg/
m3)
x
Inhalation
rate
(
1.0
m3/
hr)
x
Sample
Duration
(
8
hr).
The
inhalation
rate
is
from
USEPA,
1997.
c
Daily
dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
=
unit
exposure
(
mg/
1%
ai
solution)
x
percent
active
ingredient
in
solution
(
3%
ai)
x
absorption
factor
(
100%
for
inhalation)
/
body
weight
(
60
kg).
d
MOE
=
NOAEL
(
mg/
kg/
day)
/
Daily
dose
[
Where
inhalation
NOAEL
=
3
mg/
kg/
day.
Target
MOE
=
100.

Construction
workers
Potential
risks
resulting
from
construction
worker
dermal
contact
with
ADBAC­
treated
wood
are
assessed
in
the
same
manner
as
potential
risks
resulting
from
children's
dermal
contact
with
ADBAC­
treated
play
sets
and
decks
(
Section
4.2.2.3).
The
risks
were
calculated
using
average
worker
residue
data
for
hands
available
in
the
DDAC
study.
Hand
residue
data
from
the
end
stacker,
stickman,
and
tallyman
workers
were
used
because
of
the
possibility
of
the
contact
with
dry
treated
wood.
The
maximum
and
average
values
of
these
data
(
3.0
and
1.4
:
g/
cm2)
were
assumed
to
be
the
dermal
skin
irritation
exposure.
As
shown
in
Table
4.8,
the
dermal
MOEs
for
the
maximum
and
average
hand
residues
are
110
and
240,
respectively,
which
are
above
the
target
MOE
of
100.

8.3.1.2
Scenarios
Assessed
for
Exposure
from
Applications
to
Existing
Homes
(
Handler)

Applications
to
wood
roofs,
shingles,
and
siding
of
existing
homes
can
be
made
by
brush
and
spray
methods.
The
airless
spray
method
was
assessed
because
it
represents
high­
end
exposure.
The
inhalation
unit
exposure
value
was
taken
from
PHED
(
0.83
mg/
lb
a.
i.)
and
the
amount
of
treatment
solution
used
was
assumed
to
be
50
gallons
(
EPA/
AD
assumption
for
painting).
The
calculated
inhalation
MOE
is
shown
in
Table
8.9
for
all
durations
of
exposure.
The
MOE
is
below
the
target
MOE
of
100
(
MOE
=
17).

Table
8.9.
Short­,
Intermediate,
and
Long­
Term
Inhalation
Exposures
and
MOEs
for
Spray
and
Brush
Preservative
Treatment
to
Exterior
of
Existing
Homes
Exposure
Site
Application
Equipment
App.
Rate
(
lb
ai/
dilute
gallon)
Quantity
Handled/
Treated
per
day
(
gallons)
Baseline
Inhalation
Unit
Exposure
(
mg/
lb
ai)
Daily
Dosesa
(
mg/
kg/
day)
MOEb
(
Target
MOE
=
100)
Page
37
of
64
Exterior
of
Existing
Homes
Airless
Spray
0.25
50
0.83
10
17
a
Daily
dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
=
unit
exposure
(
mg/
lb
ai)
x
quantity
handled
(
gallons)
x
absorption
factor
(
100%
for
inhalation)
/
body
weight
(
60
kg).
b
MOE
=
NOAEL
(
mg/
kg/
day)
/
Daily
dose
[
Where
inhalation
NOAEL
=
3
mg/
kg/
day
for
all
durations].
Target
MOE
=
100.

8.3.2
Pressure
Treatment
Scenarios
(
Handler
and
Post­
Application)

ADBAC
may
be
used
to
treat
wood
and
wood
products
using
pressurized
application
methods
such
as
double
vacuum.
According
to
the
product
labels,
the
maximum
retention
rate
is
0.6
lb/
ft3.
An
application
rate
was
not
provided
on
the
product
labels;
therefore,
an
application
rate
of
3%
ai
solution
was
used
in
this
assessment,
based
on
the
master
label.
ADBAC­
specific
exposure
data
are
not
available
for
assessment
of
pressure
treatment
exposure.
Therefore,
the
assessment
relies
on
surrogate
chromated
copper
arsenate
(
CCA)
data
(
ACC,
2002b)
and
was
based
on
the
approach
used
in
a
previous
exposure
assessment
(
USEPA,
2003).

The
estimated
inhalation
exposures
and
risks
for
ADBAC
are
presented
in
Table
8.10.
The
calculated
inhalation
MOEs
are
above
the
target
MOE
of
100
for
all
scenarios.

Table
8.10.
Short­,
Intermediate­,
and
Long­
Term
Inhalation
Exposures
and
MOEs
for
Pressure
Treatment
Handler
and
Post­
application
Scenarios
Exposure
Scenario
Inhalation
Unit
Exposurea
(
µ
g
As/
ppm)
Application
Rate
(%
ai
solution)
Daily
Dosesb
(
mg/
kg/
day)
Inhalation
MOEsc
(
Target
MOE
=
100)
Occupational
Handler
Treatment
Operator
(
TO)
0.00257
3
0.0013
2,300
Treatment
Assistant
(
TA)
0.000802
3
0.00040
7,500
Occupational
Post­
application
All
(
Tram
setter,
stacker
operator,
loader
operator,
supervisor,
test
borer,
and
tallyman)
0.00160
3
0.00080
3,800
a.
Unit
exposure
values
taken
from
CCA
study
and
are
shown
in
Table
6.11.
b.
Daily
Dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
=
Unit
Exposure
(
µ
g
As/
ppm)
x
[%
ADBAC
in
solution
(
3)
x
10,000
(
parts
per
million
conversion)]
x
(
0.001
mg/
µ
g)
x
absorption
factor
(
100%
for
inhalation)
/
Body
weight
(
60
kg).
c.
MOE
=
NOAEL
(
mg/
kg/
day)
/
Daily
dose
[
Where
inhalation
NOAEL
=
3
mg/
kg/
day
for
all
durations.
Target
MOE
=
100.

8.4
Data
Limitations/
Uncertainties
There
are
several
data
limitations
and
uncertainties
associated
with
the
occupational
handler
and
post
application
exposure
assessments.
These
include:
Page
38
of
64
 
Surrogate
dermal
and
inhalation
unit
exposure
values
were
taken
from
the
proprietary
Chemical
Manufacturers
Association
(
CMA)
antimicrobial
exposure
study
(
USEPA,
1999:
DP
Barcode
D247642)
or
from
the
Pesticide
Handler
Exposure
Database
(
USEPA,
1998).
Since
the
CMA
data
are
of
poor
quality,
the
Agency
requests
that
confirmatory
data
be
submitted
to
support
the
occupational
scenarios
assessed
in
this
document.
 
Unit
exposures
are
not
available
for
some
of
the
specific
scenarios
that
are
prescribed
for
ADBAC.
These
scenarios
include
the
following:
open
loading
into
oil­
well/
field
environments
and
metering
into
once­
through
cooling
water
systems
at
power
plants.
o
The
CMA
data
used
for
oil­
well
uses
are
based
on
open
pouring
of
a
material
preservative.
Although
these
data
are
only
represented
by
2
replicates
each,
the
exposure
values
are
similar
to
open
loading
of
pesticides
in
PHED.
Furthermore,
there
are
no
representative
unit
exposure
data
for
chemical
metering
into
secondary
recovery
oil
operations.
Since
the
volume
of
water
being
treated
in
secondary
recovery
operations
is
so
large,
the
available
CMA
data
can
not
be
reliably
extrapolated
because
they
are
based
on
activities
that
handle
much
lower
volumes
and
possibly
different
techniques.
Therefore,
it
was
assumed
that
if
the
open
pour
handling
activities
for
the
other
oil
well
operations
resulted
in
MOEs
that
are
not
of
concern,
then
the
MOEs
for
the
closed
system
chemical
metering
into
secondary
recovery
operations
would
also
be
not
of
concern.
The
Agency
requests
that
confirmatory
data
be
conducted
to
show
that
this
is
accurate.
o
The
CMA
data
used
for
once­
through
cooling
water
systems
at
power
plants
are
based
on
closed
metering
for
pulp
and
paper.
The
pulp
and
paper
unit
exposures
were
deemed
more
appropriate
than
the
cooling
water
tower
data
because
of
the
large
volume
of
water
treated
in
once­
through
cooling
water
systems
at
power
plants.
However,
the
CMA
data
for
pulp
and
paper
still
does
not
reliably
represent
the
large
volume
of
water
treated
in
a
once­
through
cooling
water
system
and
the
possibly
different
techniques
used
to
treat
the
water.
 
For
the
wood
preservative
pressure
treatment
scenarios,
CCA
exposure
data
were
used
for
lack
of
ADBAC­
specific
exposure
data
and
for
the
wood
preservative
non­
pressure
treatment
scenarios,
DDAC
exposure
data
were
used
for
the
lack
of
ADBAC­
specific
exposure
data.
Limitations
and
uncertainties
associated
with
the
use
of
these
data
include:
o
The
assumption
was
made
that
exposure
patterns
for
workers
at
treatment
facilities
using
CCA
and
DDAC
would
be
similar
to
exposure
patterns
for
workers
at
treatment
facilities
using
ADBAC,
and
therefore
the
exposures
could
be
used
as
surrogate
data
for
workers
that
treat
wood
with
ADBAC.
o
For
environmental
modeling,
it
was
assumed
that
the
leaching
process
from
the
ADBAC
treated
wood
would
be
similar
to
that
of
CCA
and
DDAC.
However,
due
to
the
lack
of
real
data
for
ADBAC
­
treated
wood,
it
is
not
possible
to
verify
this
assumption.
 
The
quantities
handled/
treated
were
estimated
based
on
information
from
various
sources,
including
HED's
Standard
Operating
Procedures
(
SOPs)
for
Residential
Exposure
Assessments
(
USEPA,
2000
and
2001),
and
personal
communication
with
experts.
In
particular,
the
use
information
for
the
pulp
and
paper
processing,
oil­
well
uses,
and
cooling
water
tower
uses
are
based
on
personal
communication
with
biocide
manufacturers
for
these
Page
39
of
64
types
of
uses.
The
individuals
contacted
have
experience
in
these
operations
and
their
estimates
are
believed
to
be
the
best
available
without
undertaking
a
statistical
survey
of
the
uses.
In
certain
cases,
no
standard
values
were
available
for
some
scenarios.
Assumptions
for
these
scenarios
were
based
on
AD
estimates
and
could
be
further
refined
from
input
from
registrants.
For
example,
the
quantities
handled/
treated
for
the
application
of
ADBAC
to
the
surface
of
metal/
wood
cooling
towers
could
be
refined.
 
The
percent
active
ingredient
in
solution
for
the
pressure
treatment
of
lumber
needs
to
be
refined
by
the
Registrant.
The
labels
only
provided
a
retention
rate.
For
this
assessment,
the
application
rate
on
the
master
label
was
used,
which
is
the
same
as
the
application
rate
for
non­
pressure
treatment
of
lumber.
 
The
type
of
spray
equipment
to
be
used
was
not
specifically
mentioned
on
the
labels
for
some
scenarios,
such
as
for
surface
sprays
to
metal
and
wood
cooling
water
towers.
Therefore,
these
scenarios
were
assessed
using
the
PHED
airless
spray
unit
exposures,
which
represents
high­
end
exposure.
In
these
cases,
the
appropriate
application
equipment
could
be
further
refined.

9.0
INCIDENT
REPORTS
To
review
the
evidence
of
health
effects
in
humans
resulting
from
exposure
to
QAC
as
stated
in
the
PR
Notice
88­
1
(
February
26,
1988),
the
Agency
has
clustered
Quats
into
four
categories:

Group
I.
Alkyl
or
hydroxyalkyl
(
straight
chain)
substituted
quats;
Group
II
Non­
halogenated
benzyl
substituted
quats;
Group
III.
Di­
and
tri­
chlorobenzyl
substituted
quats;
and
Group
IV.
Quats
with
unusual
substituents
However
for
the
available
incident
information,
it
is
difficult
to
differentiate
the
specific
members
of
the
Quats
involved
in
each
incident.
Therefore,
all
the
Quats
are
discussed
together.

The
Agency
consulted
the
following
databases
for
poisoning
incident
data
for
ADBAC:

(
1)
OPP
Incident
Data
System
(
IDS)
­
The
Incident
Data
System
of
The
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs
(
OPP)
of
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA)
contains
reports
of
incidents
from
various
sources,
including
registrants,
other
federal
and
state
health
and
environmental
agencies
and
individual
consumers,
submitted
to
OPP
since
1992.
Reports
submitted
to
the
Incident
Data
System
represent
anecdotal
reports
or
allegations
only,
unless
otherwise
stated.
Typically
no
conclusions
can
be
drawn
implicating
the
pesticide
as
a
cause
of
any
of
the
reported
health
effects.
Nevertheless,
sometimes
with
enough
cases
and/
or
enough
documentation
risk
mitigation
measures
may
be
suggested.
(
2)
California
Department
of
Pesticide
Regulation
(
1982­
2004)
­
California
has
collected
uniform
data
on
suspected
pesticide
poisonings
since
1982.
Physicians
are
required,
by
statute,
to
report
to
their
local
health
officer
all
occurrences
of
illness
Page
40
of
64
suspected
of
being
related
to
exposure
to
pesticides.
The
majority
of
the
incidents
involve
workers.
Information
on
exposure
(
worker
activity),
type
of
illness
(
systemic,
eye,
skin,
eye/
skin
and
respiratory),
likelihood
of
a
causal
relationship,
and
number
of
days
off
work
and
in
the
hospital
are
provided.
(
3)
National
Pesticide
Telecommunications
Network
(
NPTN)
­
NPTN
is
a
toll­
free
information
service
supported
by
OPP.
A
ranking
of
the
top
200
active
ingredients
for
which
telephone
calls
were
received
during
calendar
years
1984­
1991,
inclusive,
has
been
prepared.
The
total
number
of
calls
was
tabulated
for
the
categories
human
incidents,
animal
incidents,
calls
for
information,
and
others
(
4)
Published
Incident
Reports
­
Some
incident
reports
associated
with
Quats
related
human
health
hazard
are
published
in
the
scientific
literature.

There
are
many
incident
reported
associated
with
exposure
to
end­
use
products
containing
Quats.
Dermal,
ocular
and
inhalation
are
the
primary
routes
of
exposure.
Most
of
the
incidences
are
related
to
irritation.
Allergic
type
reaction
is
also
been
reported
in
some
incidents.
Although
risk
associated
with
eye
exposure
is
not
assessed
in
the
risk
assessment
process,
symptoms
associated
with
eye
are
most
commonly
reported
associated
with
Quats
exposure.
The
most
common
symptoms
reported
for
cases
of
ocular
exposure
were
eye
irritation/
burning,
eye
pain,
conjunctivitis,
swelling
eye
and
swelling
of
eyelid.

The
most
common
symptoms
reported
for
cases
of
inhalation
exposure
were
respiratory
irritation/
burning,
irritation
to
mouth/
throat/
nose,
coughing/
choking,
chest
pain,
disorientation,
dizziness,
shortness
of
breath.

The
most
common
symptoms
reported
for
cases
of
dermal
exposure
were
skin
irritation/
burning,
rash,
itching,
and
blistering.
Allergic
type
reactions
including
hives
and
allergic
contact
dermatitis
have
also
been
reported.

Although
oral
exposure
is
considered
a
minor
route
of
exposure
for
Quats
use,
irritation
to
mouth/
throat/
nose,
vomiting/
nausea/
abdominal
pain,
dizziness,
and
headache
have
been
reported
in
the
cases
of
ingestion.
Page
41
of
64
10.0
ENVIRONMENTAL
RISK
ADBAC
is
categorized
as
highly
toxic
to
fish
(
LC50
=
280
µ
g
ai/
L)
and
very
highly
toxic
to
aquatic
invertebrates
(
LC50
=
5.9
µ
g
ai/
L)
on
an
acute
exposure
basis.
Chronic
effects
were
seen
in
fish
at
a
concentration
of
32.2
µ
g
ai/
L
and
a
no
observable
adverse
effect
concentration
(
NOAEC)
of
4.15
µ
g
ai/
L
was
established
for
aquatic
invertebrates.
The
results
of
the
dietary
avian
studies
categorized
ADBAC
as
moderately
toxic
to
birds
on
an
acute
basis
(
LC50
=
136
mg/
kg­
bw,
with
no
chronic
data
available.
ADBAC
is
categorized
as
slightly
toxic
to
mammals
on
an
acute
basis
(
LD50
=
430
mg/
kg­
bw)
and
a
chronic
NOAEC
of
44
mg/
kg/
day
was
established.

Data
Gaps:
The
following
data
requirements
were
outstanding
for
the
currently
registered
used
of
ADBAC:
850.4225
­
Seedling
emergence
using
rice
850.4250­
Vegetative
vigor
using
rice
850.4400
­
Lemna
gibba
850.5400
­
Algal
toxicity,
4
species:
green
alga
Selenastrum
capricornutum
or
Pseudokirshneriella
subcapitata,
blue­
green
cyanobacteria
Anabeana
flos­
aquae,
freshwater
diatom
Navicula
pelliculosa,
marine
diatom
Skeletonema
costatum).
850.1055
­
Acute
Eastern
Oyster
embryo
larvae
testing
850.1300­
Chronic
Daphnia
magna
testing
Monitoring
and/
or
Tier
II
modeling
of
once­
through
cooling
tower
and
antisapstain
uses
to
establish
EEC's
for
risk
assessment.

ADBAC
INDOOR
USES
For
certain
use
categories,
the
Agency
assumes
there
will
be
minimal
environmental
exposure,
and
only
a
minimal
toxicity
data
set
is
required
(
Overview
of
the
Ecological
Risk
Assessment
Process
in
the
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
­
Endangered
and
Threatened
Species
Effects
Determinations,
1/
23/
04,
Appendix
A,
Section
IIB,
pg.
81).
The
majority
of
ADBAC
uses
are
spray
applications
to
indoor
surfaces,
truck
interiors,
kennels,
institutional
areas,
household
areas,
recirculating
cooling
towers,
evaporative
condensers,
pulp/
paper
mills,
swimming
pools
and
spas,
and
oil
field
mud
treatments
that
fall
into
this
category
for
the
following
reasons:

1.
The
amount
that
will
actually
reach
the
environment
is
very
small
based
on
usage
data
and
use
patterns
(
no
homeowner/
residential
use
for
bathrooms)
and
containment
methods
(
retaining
ponds,
recirculation,
low
residual
upon
release).

2.
Breakdown
in
the
environment
and
via
sewage
treatment
is
rapid
and
well
documented
in
the
literature
(
See
Environmental
Fate
Chapter
for
more
detail).
The
agency
requires
the
following
label
statement:
"
Do
not
discharge
effluent
containing
this
Page
42
of
64
product
into
lakes,
streams,
ponds,
estuaries,
oceans,
or
other
waters
unless
in
accordance
with
the
requirements
of
a
National
Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
System
(
NPDES)
permit
and
the
permitting
authorities
are
notified
in
writing
prior
to
discharge.
Do
not
discharge
effluent
containing
this
product
to
sewer
systems
without
previously
notifying
the
local
sewage
treatment
plant
authority.
For
guidance
contact
your
State
Water
Board
or
Regional
Office
of
the
EPA."

Chemicals
in
these
categories,
therefore,
do
not
undergo
a
full
screening­
level
risk
assessment
and
are
considered
to
fall
under
a
Ano
effect@
determination
(
NE)
for
endangered
species.

For
indoor
uses
identified
above,
the
agency
requires
three
acute
ecotoxicity
tests
for
hazard
labeling
purposes.
These
studies
include:
one
acute
bird,
one
acute
fish,
and
one
acute
invertebrate.
The
Bobwhite
quail
LD50
was
>
100
mg/
Kg,
therefore,
no
environmental
hazard
statement
for
protection
of
birds
or
mammals
is
necessary
for
indoor
use
labels.
ADBAC
is
"
very
highly
toxic"
to
freshwater
and
estuarine/
marine
aquatic
invertebrates,
oysters,
and
shrimp;
and
"
highly
toxic"
to
freshwater
and
estuarine/
marine
fish.
Therefore,
the
following
environmental
hazard
statement
is
required
on
indoor
use
labels:
"
This
pesticide
is
toxic
to
fish,
aquatic
invertebrates,
oysters,
and
shrimp."
This
statement
is
required
as
a
precaution
in
the
event
that
a
spill
occurs.

ADBAC
USES
HAVING
POTENTIAL
FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL
EXPOSURE
Ornamental
Nursery
Plants
Expected
environmental
concentrations
(
EECs)
of
ADBAC
resulting
from
runoff
following
application
to
ornamentals
in
nurseries
were
calculated
using
available
ecotoxicity
data
and
the
EPA
aquatic
exposure
model
PRZM/
EXAMS.
Risk
quotients
(
RQs)
for
freshwater
fish
ranged
from
1.99
to
5.26,
exceeding
the
acute
risk
level
of
concern
(
LOC)
of
0.5
by
up
to
tenfold
RQs
for
freshwater
invertebrates
ranged
from
94.41
to
249.66,
exceeding
the
acute
risk
LOC
by
greater
than
180­
fold.
The
chronic
risk
LOC
(
1.0)
is
exceeded
many­
fold
for
freshwater
fish
(
RQs
10­
28)
and
for
freshwater
invertebrates
(
RQs
87­
222).
Using
the
EPA
terrestrial
animal
exposure
model
(
TERX),
acute
avian
RQs
ranged
from
19
to
2101,
exceeding
the
acute
LOC
up
to
4000­
fold.
Chronic
avian
RQs
could
not
be
calculated
due
to
the
lack
of
toxicity
data,
but
chronic
risk
is
presumed.
Mammalian
acute
RQs
for
the
nursery
use
range
from
1.2
to
182
and
chronic
RQs
range
from
11
to
1782.

Turf
and
Golf
Courses
Expected
EECs
of
ADBAC
resulting
from
runoff
following
application
to
turf
and
golf
courses
were
calculated
using
available
ecotoxicity
data
and
the
EPA
aquatic
exposure
model
PRZM/
EXAMS.
Risk
quotients
for
freshwater
fish
range
from
0.06
to
0.91,
exceeding
the
endangered
species
and
acute
risk
LOCs.
Acute
risk
RQs
for
freshwater
invertebrates
range
from
2.3
to
10.6,
exceeding
the
acute
risk
LOC.
Using
the
EPA
terrestrial
animal
exposure
model
(
TERX),
acute
avian
RQs
range
from
0.11
to
12.35,
exceeding
the
endangered
species
LOC
for
Page
43
of
64
all
size
classes
and
forage
items.
Chronic
RQs
cannot
be
calculated,
but
chronic
risk
to
avian
species
is
presumed.
Acute
risk
mammalian
RQs
from
the
turf/
golf
course
use
ranged
from
0.01
to
7.9,
with
exceedance
of
the
endangered
species
LOC
for
all
mammal
size
classes
foraging
on
short
grass,
tall
grass,
broadleaf
plants
and
small
insects.
Chronic
RQs
for
mammals
range
from
0.07
to
77.2,
and
exceed
the
LOC
for
all
mammal
size
classes
foraging
on
short
grass,
tall
grass,
broadleaf
plants
and
small
insects.
(
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
oppefed1/
models/
terrestrial/
index.
htm).

Ornamental
Ponds,
Pools,
and
Puddles
Other
outdoor
uses
of
ADBAC
on
ornamental
ponds,
pools
and
puddles
are
not
expected
to
result
in
appreciable
exposure
to
aquatic
ecosystems
due
to
their
limited
size
and
containment
of
ADBAC
within
the
structure
through
use
of
impermeable
materials.
(
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
oppefed1/
models/
water/
index.
htm).

Algae
Control
and
Mosquitocide
Although
the
algae
control
and
mosquitocide
uses
are
intended
for
waterbodies
that
are
disconnected
from
the
larger
watershed
to
reduce
nontarget
environmental
exposure,
these
uses
result
in
potential
exposure
to
amphibians
in
treated
water
for
a
portion
of
their
lifecycle
and
to
birds
and
mammals
utilizing
treated
waterbodies
for
drinking
water.
The
mosquito
control
use
having
an
initial
concentration
of
200
ppm
ADBAC
represents
the
greatest
risk
to
terrestrial
animals.
The
algal
control
initial
target
concentration
is
5
ppm
ADBAC.
At
200
ppm,
RQs
for
amphibians
are
0.71
for
acute
risk
and
6.2
for
chronic
risk,
both
of
which
exceed
the
LOCs
for
acute
high
risk,
endangered
species,
and
chronic
risk.
RQs
for
birds
drinking
treated
water
range
from
0.09
to
0.32.
Smaller
birds
face
greater
acute
risk.
Chronic
risk
to
birds
is
presumed.
Neither
acute
nor
chronic
mammalian
acute
RQs
exceed
the
LOCs
at
the
200
ppm
initial
concentration.

Once­
through
Cooling
Tower
Use
Tier
I
once­
through
cooling
tower
modeling
indicates
that
ADBAC
use
will
result
in
acute
and
chronic
risk
to
non­
endangered
and
endangered/
threatened
freshwater
fish
and
acute
risk
to
other
aquatic
animals
at
all
3
dosages
modeled:
2.0
ppm,
5.0
ppm,
and
10.0ppm.
High
water
flow,
intermittent
dosing
at
10.0
ppm
had
less
acute
and
chronic
impact
on
non­
endangered
freshwater
fish
than
medium
to
low
stream
flow.
However,
LOC's
for
all
aquatic
animals
were
triggered
at
the
2.0
ppm
dosage
using
continuous
dosing
regardless
of
high,
medium,
or
low
stream
flow.
Green
algae
were
not
adversely
affected
except
from
use
of
continuous
dosing
in
combination
with
low
stream
flow
conditions.
The
continuous
dosing,
low
flow
nontarget
plant
LOC
is
triggered
at
all
3
dosages
modeled.
The
aquatic
plant
risk
assessment
is
incomplete
due
to
a
number
of
outstanding
studies.
The
agency
is
not
aware
of
any
endangered
or
threatened
green
algae.
Direct
ADBAC
exposure
to
terrestrial
animals
is
not
expected
to
occur
from
the
oncethrough
cooling
tower
use.

The
high
vs
medium
vs
low
water
flow
rate
is
based
on
size
of
the
facility.
Generally,
Page
44
of
64
higher
flow
(
e.
g.,
>
1000
MGD)
facilities
would
use
more
ADBAC
than
smaller
facilities,
however,
the
receiving
water
("
reach")
data
varies
for
each
facility.
Other
model
uncertainties
include
the
use
of
7Q10
rainfall
conditions
(
the
worst­
case
drought
of
a
10
year
period),
stream
flow
rate
and
ADBAC
fate
properties
(
dissipation,
degradation,
and
1/
2
life
were
not
considered
in
this
Tier
I
model
but
should
be
considered
in
higher
tier
modeling).
Field
monitoring
is
suggested
in
the
absence
of
a
higher
Tier
model.
Further
assessment
is
required
prior
to
making
an
agency
endangered
species
determination
or
proposing
risk
mitigation
measures.

Antisapstain
Wood
Treatment
Use
The
maximum
amount
of
leachate
from
antisapstain
treated
wood
per
the
Krahn
and
Strub,
1990
model
totaled
3.92
ppb.
The
lowest
predicted
amount
of
leachate
was
1.02
ppb
and
the
typical
amount
was
1.57
ppb.
LC50
values
for
fish
range
from
280
to
860
ppb,
and
for
estuarine
invertebrates
range
from
55
to
92
ppb.
Freshwater
invertebrates
are
the
most
sensitive
aquatic
animals
to
ADBAC
with
an
acute
EC50
of
5.9
ppb,
and
a
chronic
NOAEC
of
4.1
ppb.
Terrestrial
animal
species
are
not
expected
to
be
directly
impacted
by
this
ADBAC
use.
Nontarget
aquatic
species
(
fish,
invertebrates,
green
algae)
are
not
expected
to
be
at
risk
(
acute
or
chronic)
based
on
LOCs.
Endangered/
threatened
fish
and
green
algae
species
are
not
expected
to
be
at
risk
from
ADBAC
antisapstain
use.
However,
freshwater
and
marine
aquatic
invertebrates
are
expected
to
be
at
risk
from
ADBAC
antisapstain
use
unless
methods
are
used
to
prevent
runoff
from
the
treatment
site
(
Ex.
store
treated
wood
indoors,
cover
treated
wood
and
use
berms
or
plastic
barriers
in
outdoor
storage
areas).
ADBAC
is
tightly
adsorbed
to
clay
and
organic
matter
which
greatly
reduces
potential
for
ADBAC
to
leach
downward
through
soil
to
groundwater
or
move
via
surface
runoff.
The
Tier
I
screening
model
is
only
intended
as
a
screening­
level
model,
and,
as
such,
has
inherent
uncertainties
and
limitations
which
may
result
in
inaccurate
exposure
estimations.
Further
refinements
to
the
model
are
recommended
before
any
regulatory
action
is
taken
regarding
the
antisapstain
uses
of
ADBAC.
An
environmental
monitoring
study
of
runoff
from
antisapstain
treatment
facilities
is
needed
to
address
the
potential
risks
and
to
provide
EECs
for
use
in
a
refined
risk
assessment.
The
Agency
defers
making
an
endangered
species
determination
for
the
antisapstain
uses
of
ADBAC
until
after
environmental
monitoring
data
and/
or
model
refinements
are
completed.

Endangered
Species
Considerations
Section
7
of
the
Endangered
Species
Act,
16
U.
S.
C.
Section
1536(
a)(
2),
requires
all
federal
agencies
to
consult
with
the
National
Marine
Fisheries
Service
(
NMFS)
for
marine
and
andronomus
listed
species,
or
the
United
States
Fish
and
Wildlife
Services
(
FWS)
for
listed
wildlife
and
freshwater
organisms,
if
they
are
proposing
an
"
action"
that
may
affect
listed
species
or
their
designated
habitat.
Each
federal
agency
is
required
under
the
Act
to
insure
that
any
action
they
authorize,
fund,
or
carry
out
is
not
likely
to
jeopardize
the
continued
existence
of
a
listed
species
or
result
in
the
destruction
or
adverse
modification
of
designated
critical
habitat.
To
jeopardize
the
continued
existence
of
a
listed
species
means
"
to
engage
in
an
action
that
reasonably
would
be
expected,
directly
or
indirectly,
to
reduce
appreciably
the
likelihood
of
both
the
survival
and
recovery
of
a
listed
species
in
the
wild
by
reducing
the
reproduction,
numbers,
or
Page
45
of
64
distribution
of
the
species."
50
C.
F.
R.
'
402.02.

To
facilitate
compliance
with
the
requirements
of
the
Endangered
Species
Act
subsection
(
a)(
2)
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs
has
established
procedures
to
evaluate
whether
a
proposed
registration
action
may
directly
or
indirectly
reduce
appreciably
the
likelihood
of
both
the
survival
and
recovery
of
a
listed
species
in
the
wild
by
reducing
the
reproduction,
numbers,
or
distribution
of
any
listed
species
(
U.
S.
EPA
2004).
After
the
Agency=
s
screening­
level
risk
assessment
is
performed,
if
any
of
the
Agency=
s
Listed
Species
LOC
Criteria
are
exceeded
for
either
direct
or
indirect
effects,
a
determination
is
made
to
identify
if
any
listed
or
candidate
species
may
co­
occur
in
the
area
of
the
proposed
pesticide
use.
If
determined
that
listed
or
candidate
species
may
be
present
in
the
proposed
use
areas,
further
biological
assessment
is
undertaken.
The
extent
to
which
listed
species
may
be
at
risk
then
determines
the
need
for
the
development
of
a
more
comprehensive
consultation
package
as
required
by
the
Endangered
Species
Act.

The
endangered
species
Alternative
Consultation
Agreement
(
ACA)
with
NMFS,
and
FWS
will
take
time
to
implement
fully,
depending
on
available
resources.
The
Agency
is
currently
preparing
risk
assessments
with
the
services
on
9
high
priority
agricultural
pesticides.
Endangered
species
assessments
of
antimicrobial
and
additional
agricultural
pesticides
will
commence
in
2008
under
the
Registration
Review
program.

.
Page
46
of
64
Page
47
of
64
11.0
REFERENCES
American
Chemistry
Council
(
ACC).
2002a.
Assessment
of
Potential
Inhalation
and
Dermal
Exposure
Associated
With
Pressure
Treatment
of
Wood
with
Arsenical
Wood
Products.
MRID
4550211­
01.

American
Chemistry
Council
(
ACC).
2002b.
An
Analysis
of
the
Training
Patterns
and
Practices
of
Competitive
Swimmers.
Prepared
by
Richard
Reiss.
Sciences
International,
Inc.
Alexandria,
Virginia.
December
9,
2002.

American
Chemical
Council
(
ACC),
2005.
Slimicide
Use
in
Papermaking
(
Powerpoint
Presentation).
ACC
Biocides
Council,
September
17,
2003.

Bestari
KT,
Macey
K,
Soloman
KR,
Tower
N.
1999.
Measurement
and
Assessment
of
Dermal
and
Inhalation
Exposures
to
Didecyl
Dimethyl
Ammonium
Chloride
(
DDAC)
Used
in
the
Protection
of
Cut
Lumber
(
Phase
III).
MRID
455243­
04.

Bryan,
Elizabeth.
1988.
Methods
for
Estimating
Retention
of
Liquid
on
Hands.
Volume
13
of
Methods
for
Assessing
Exposure
to
Chemical
Substances.
EPA
560/
5­
85­
017
CEC,
2001.
Residential
Manual
for
Compliance
with
California's
2001
Energy
Efficiency
Standards.
http://
www.
energy.
ca.
gov/
title24/
residential_
manual/
index.
html,
viewed
January
2005.

DOE.
1997.
Energy
Information
Administration:
Profile
of
Commercial
Buildings
in
1995.
http://
www.
eia.
doe.
gov/
emeu/
cbecs/
char95/
profile.
html
Echeverria,
Marieatta,
2006.
Tier
I
Drinking
Water
Assessment
for
Alkyl*
dimethyl
benzyl
ammonium
chloride
*(
50%
C14,
40%
C12,
10%
C16)(
ADBAC)
and
didecyl
dimethyl
ammonium
chloride
(
DDAC),
DP
Barcodes:
325482
and
325483.

FDA.
2003.
"
Sanitizing
Solutions:
Chemistry
Guidelines
for
Food
Additive
Petitions."
http://
www.
cfsan.
fda.
gov/~
dms/
opa­
cg3a.
html.
Last
accessed
June
9,
2003.

Freeman,
N
,
Jimenez
M,
Reed
KJ,
Gurunathan
S,
Edwards
RD,
Roy
A,
Adgate
JL,
Pellizzari
ED,
Quackenboss
J,
Sexton
K,
Lioy
PJ,
2001.
Quantitative
analysis
of
chilren's
microactivity
patterns:
The
Minnesota
Children's
Pesticide
Exposure
Study.
Journal
of
Exposure
Analysis
and
Environmental
Epidemiology.
11(
6):
501­
509.

Helwig,
D.
(
2003)
Personal
Communication
between
D.
Helwig
(
Johnson
Diversy,
Inc)
and
K.
Riley
(
Versar,
Inc.),
November
11,
2003.

HERA,
2003.
Human
and
Environmental
Risk
Assessment,
Guidance
Document
Methodology,
April
22,
2002
(
http://
www.
heraproject.
com/
files/
Guidancedocument.
pdf).
Page
48
of
64
HERA,
2005.
Human
and
Environmental
Risk
Assessment,
Guidance
Document
Methodology,
February
2005
(
http://
www.
heraproject.
com).

Kiernan,
Brian,
and
Echeverria
Marieatta,
2006.
Ecological
Risk
Assessment
in
support
of
the
Antimicrobials
Division's
Reregistration
of
ADBAC
and
DDAC.
DP
Barcodes:
D322872
and
D325481
MCCEM
V
1.2
The
Multi­
Chamber
Concentration
and
Exposure
Model
(
MCCEM)
Model
Version
1.2.
Prepared
for
the
US
EPA
Office
of
Pollution
Prevention
and
Toxics.
Prepared
by
Versar,
Inc.
and
Wilkes
Technologies,
LLC.

Jacobson,
Larry.
2005.
Professor
and
Extension
Engineer
at
University
of
Minnesota.

SIMetric.
2005.
http://
www.
simetric.
co.
uk/
si_
materials.
htm
Last
viewed
November
9,
2005.

USAID.
2005.
"
ANNEX
III:
Recommended
Energy
Allowance
Tables."
November
2005.
http://
www.
usaid.
gov/
our_
work/
humanitarian_
assistance/
ffp/
crg/
annex­
3.
htm.
Last
viewed
January
23,
2006.

USEPA.
Undated.
RISK.
Version
1.9.27.
Developed
by
Dr.
Les
Sparks
of
USEPA/
NRMRL/
APPCD.

USEPA.
1996.
Office
of
Research
and
Development,
Descriptive
Statistics
Tables
from
a
Detailed
Analysis
of
the
National
Human
Activity
Pattern
(
NHAPS)
Data;
EPA/
600/
R­
96/
148,
July
1996.
Data
Collection
Period
October
1992
­
September
1994
.

USEPA.
1997.
Exposure
Factors
Handbook.
Volume
I­
II.
Office
of
Research
and
Development.
Washington,
D.
C.
EPA/
600/
P­
95/
002Fa.
August
1997.

USEPA.
1998.
PHED
Surrogate
Exposure
Guide.
Estimates
of
Worker
Exposure
from
the
Pesticide
Handler
Exposure
Database
Version
1.1.
Washington,
DC:
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency.

USEPA.
1999.
Evaluation
of
Chemical
Manufacturers
Association
Antimicrobial
Exposure
Assessment
Study
(
Amended
on
8
December
1992).
Memorandum
from
Siroos
Mostaghimi,
PH.
D.,
USEPA
to
Julie
Fairfax,
USEPA.
Dated
November,
4
1999.
DP
Barcode
D247642.

USEPA.
2000.
Residential
SOPs.
EPA
Office
of
Pesticide
ProgramsBHuman
Health
Effects
Division.
Dated
April
5,
2000.

USEPA.
2001.
HED
Science
Advisory
Council
for
Exposure.
Policy
Update,
November
12.
Recommended
Revisions
to
the
Standard
Operating
Procedures
(
SOPs)
for
Residential
Exposure
Assessment,
February
22,
2001.
Page
49
of
64
USEPA.
2003.
Assessment
of
the
Proposed
Bardac
Wood
Preservative
Pressure
Treatment
Use.
Memorandum
from
Tim
Leighton
and
Siroos
Mostaghimi.
February
11,
2003.

USEPA.
2004.
Occupational
and
Residential
Exposure
Assessment
for
Carboquat
WP­
50.
Memorandum
from
Siroos
Mostaghimi,
USEPA
to
Welma
Noble,
USEPA.
Dated
November
4,
2004.
DP
Barcodes
D303714
and
D303938.

USEPA.
2005.
Dietary
Assessment
of
Chlorine
Dioxide,
Sodium
Chlorite
From
Their
Use
As
Indirect
Food
Contact
Sanitizers/
Disinfectants
(
Hard
Surface
Sanitizers).
Memorandum
from
Najm
Shamim,
USEPA
to
Melba
Morrow
and
Jennifer
Slotnick,
USEPA.
Dates
August
15,
2005.

USEPA.
2006.
Alkyl
dimethyl
benzyl
ammonium
chloride
(
ADBAC)
 
Report
of
the
Antimicrobials
Division
Toxicity
Endpoint
Committee
(
ADTC)
and
the
Hazard
Identification
Assessment
Review
Committee
(
HIARC).
January
9,
2006.

USEPA
2006.
Alkyl
dimethyl
benzyl
ammonium
chloride
(
ADBAC):
Occupational
and
Residential
Exposure
Assessment
for
the
Reregistration
Eligibility
Decision
Document.
DP
Barcode
D326917.
Dated
February
27,
2006.

Toxicology
References
45109204
(
MRID)
Bonnette,
K.
(
1998)
An
Acute
Oral
Toxicity
Study
in
Rats
with
BQ
451­
8:
Lab
Project
Number:
3192.32.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Springborn
Laboratories.
90
p.

45109202
(
MRID)
Moore,
G.
(
1999)
Acute
Dermal
Toxicity
Study
in
Rats:
Albemarle
BQ451­
8
Biocide:
Lab
Project
Number:
7466:
P322.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Product
Safety
Labs.
25
p.

44885201
(
MRID)
Wnorowski,
G.
(
1999)
Acute
Inhalation
Toxicity
Study
in
Rats:
Albemarle
BQ451­
8
Biocide:
Lab
Project
Number:
7467:
P330.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Product
Safety
Labs.
30
p.

40919701
(
MRID)
Kreuzmann,
J.
(
1988)
Repeated
Eye
Instillation
Study
in
Rabbits:
Alkyl
dimethyl
benzyl
ammonium
chloride
(
ADBAC):
Study
No.:
88­
3336­
21.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Hill
Top
Biolabs,
Inc.
20
p.

44825001
(
MRID)
Kreuzmann,
J.
(
1999)
Repeated
Eye
Instillation
Study
in
Rabbits
of
Alkyl
Dimethyl
Benzyl
Ammonium
Chloride
(
ADBAC):
Report
Amendment:
Lab
Project
Number:
88­
3336­
21.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Hill
Top
Research,
Inc.
4
p.

45109201
(
MRID)
Moore,
G.
(
1999)
Primary
Skin
Irritation
Study
in
Rabbits:
Albemarle
BQ451­
8
Biocide:
Lab
Project
Number:
7468:
P326.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Product
Page
50
of
64
Safety
Labs.
15
p.

45109203
(
MRID)
Moore,
G.
(
1999)
Dermal
Sensitization
Study
in
Guinea
Pigs
(
Buehler
Method):
Albemarle
BQ451­
8
Biocide:
Lab
Project
Number:
7469:
P328.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Product
Safety
Labs.
24
p.

40958501
(
MRID)
Kreuzmann,
J.
(
1989)
Photoallergy
Study
in
Guinea
Pigs:
Study
No.
88­
3226­
21.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Hill
Top
Biolabs,
Inc.
63
p.

44825002
(
MRID)
Kreuzmann,
J.
(
1999)
Photoallergy
Study
in
Guinea
Pigs
with:
Alkyl
Dimethyl
Benzyl
Ammonium
Chloride
(
ADBAC):
Report
Amendment:
Lab
Project
Number:
88­
3226­
21.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Hill
Top
Research,
Inc.
4
p.

40746601
(
MRID)
Van
Miller,
J.;
Weaver,
E.
(
1988)
Ninety­
day
Dietary
Toxicity
Study
with
Alkyl
Dimethyl
Benzyl
Ammonium
Chloride
(
ADBAC)
in
Rats:
Project
ID:
51­
503.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Bushy
Run
Re­
search
Center.
300
p.

41105801
(
MRID)
Rose,
G.
(
1989)
Acute
Toxicology
(
EP):
HS­
Sanitizing
Carpet
Shampoo:
Project
ID:
B6­
27.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Envirocon.
36
p.

41499601
(
MRID)
Gill,
M.;
Wagner,
C.
(
1990)
Ninety­
day
Subchronic
Dermal
Toxicity
Study
with
Alkyl
Dimethyl
Benzyl
Ammonium
Chloride
(
ABDAC)
in
Rats:
Lab
Project
I.
D.:
52­
623.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Union
Carbide
Bushy
Run
Research
Center.
264
p.

42645101
(
MRID)
Chun,
J.;
Fisher,
L.
(
1993)
Developmental
Toxicity
Dose
Rang­
Finding
Study
of
Alkyl
Dimethyl
Benzyl
Ammonium
Chloride
(
ADBAC)
Administered
by
Gavage
to
CD
Rats:
Lab
Project
Number:
54­
613.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Bushy
Run
Research
Center
(
BRRC).
104
p.

42351501
(
MRID)
Neeper­
Bradley,
T.
(
1992)
Developmental
Toxicity
Evaluation
II
of
Alkyl
Dimethyl
Benzyl
Ammonium
Chloride
(
ADBAC)
Administered
by
Gavage
to
CD
Rats:
Lab
Project
Number:
91N0031.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Union
Carbide
Chemicals
and
Plastics
Co.,
Inc.
Bushy
Run
Research
Center.
281
p.

42734401
(
MRID)
Chun,
J.;
Neeper­
Bradley,
T.
(
1993)
Developmental
Toxicity
Dose
Range­
Finding
Study
of
ADBAC
Administered
by
Gavage
to
New
Zealand
White
Rabbits:
Lab
Project
Number:
54­
603.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Union
Carbide.
118
p.

42392801
(
MRID)
Neeper­
Bradley,
T.;
Kubena,
M.
(
1992)
Developmental
Toxicity
Evaluation
of
Alkyl
Dimethyl
Benzyl
Ammonium
Chloride
(
ADBAC)
Administered
by
Gavage
to
New
Zealand
White
Rabbits:
Lab
Project
Number:
91N0032.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Union
Carbide.
179
p.

41385001
(
MRID)
Neeper­
Bradley,
T.
(
1990)
Two­
generation
Reproduction
Study
in
Sprague
Page
51
of
64
Dawley
(
CD)
Rats
with
Alkyl
Dimethyl
Benzyl
Ammonium
Chloride
(
ADBAC)
Administered
in
the
Diet:
Project
Report
52­
52­
254:
Project
Nos.
87­
37­
97105;
87­
37­
97109.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Bushy
Run
Research
Center.
492
p.

43221101
(
MRID)
Goldenthal,
E.
(
1994)
Evaluation
of
ADBAC
in
a
One­
Year
Chronic
Dietary
Toxicity
Study
in
Dogs:
Lab
Project
Number:
638­
004.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
International
Research
and
Development
Corp.
355
p.

41765201
(
MRID)
Gill,
M.;
Hermansky,
S.;
Wagner,
C.
(
1991)
Chronic
Dietary
Oncogenicity
Study
with
Alkyl
Dimethyl
Benzyl
Ammonium
Chloride
(
ADBAC)
in
Mice:
Lab
Project
Number:
53­
515.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Bushy
Run
Research
Center.
1083
p.

41947501
(
MRID)
Gill,
M.;
Hermansky,
S.;
Wagner,
C.
(
1991)
Chronic
Dietary
Toxicity/
Oncogenicity
Study
with
Alkyl
Dimethyl
Benzyl
Ammonium
Chloride
(
ADBAC)
in
Rats:
Lab
Project
Number:
53­
543.
Unpublished
Study
prepared
by
Bushy
Run
Research
Center.
1671
p.

42290801
(
MRID)
McKeon,
M.
(
1992)
Genotoxicity
Test
on
Alkyl
Dimethyl
Benzyl
Ammonium
Chloride
(
ADBAC)
in
the
Assay
for
Unscheduled
DNA
Synthesis
in
Rat
Liver
Primary
Cell
Cultures:
Lab
Project
Number:
14778­
0­
447.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Hazleton
Washington,
Inc.
51
p.

41012701
(
MRID)
Young,
R.
(
1989)
Mutagenicity
Test
on
Alkyl
Dimethyl
Benzyl
Ammonium
Chloride:
In
the
CHO/
HGPRT
Forward
Mutation
Assay:
HLA
Study
No.
10238­
0­
435.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Hazleton
Laboratories
America,
Inc.
67
p.

40311101
(
MRID)
Kallersen,
T.
(
1985)
Assessment
of
the
Mutagenic
Activity
of
Hya­
mine
3500
in
the
Mouse
Micronucleus
Test:
Lab.
No.
10753.
Un­
published
study
prepared
by
Scantox
Labs
Ltd.
17
p.

43037701
(
MRID)
Schoenig,
G.
(
1993)
Response
to
EPA
Data
Evaluation
Review
for
Study
Entitled:
"
Chromosome
Aberrations
in
vivo­­
Mouse
Micronucleus
Test":
Lab
Project
Number:
10753.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
SCANTOX
Biologisk
Laboratorium
A/
S.
7
p.

42290802
(
MRID)
McKeon,
M.
(
1989)
Alkyl
Dimethyl
Benzyl
Ammonium
Chloride
(
ADBAC)
in
the
Rat
Primary
Hepatocyte
Unscheduled
DNA
Synthesis
Assay:
An
Addendum:
Lab
Project
Number:
10238­
0­
447.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Hazleton
Laboratories
America,
Inc.
11
p.

41012601
(
MRID)
Cifone,
M.
(
1989)
Mutagenicity
Test
on
Alkyl
Dimethyl
Benzyl
Ammonium
Chloride:
In
the
Rat
Primary
Hepatocyte
Unscheduled
DNA
Synthesis
Assay:
HLA
Study
No.
10238­
0­
447.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Hazleton
Laboratories
America,
Inc.
56
p.

40990701
(
MRID)
Selim,
S.
(
1989)
Absorption,
Distribution,
Metabolism
and
Excretion
Studies
of
Alkyl
Dimethyl
Benzyl
Ammonium
Chloride
(
ADBAC)
in
the
Rat:
BTC
Study
No.
P01359.
Page
52
of
64
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Biological
Test
Center.
247
p.

41087701
(
MRID)
Lin,
P.;
Selim,
S.
(
1989)
Addendum
to
Report
Entitled
"
Absorption,
Distribution,
Metabolism
and
Excretion
Studies
of
Alkyl
Dimethyl
Benzyl
Ammonium
Chloride
(
ADBAC)
in
the
Rat"
MRID
40990701:
Study
No.
P01359.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Biological
Test
Center.
44
p.

44783401
(
MRID)
Mazur,
P.
(
1999)
Absorption,
Distribution,
Metabolism
and
Excretion
(
ADME)
Studies
of
Alkyl
Dimethyl
Benzyl
Ammonium
Chloride
(
ADBAC)
in
the
Rat
and
Addendum:
Lab
Project
Number:
P01359.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
ADBAC
Quat
Joint
Venture/
Chemical
Specialities
Manufacturers
Assoc.
4
p.

USEPA
(
1999):
Alkyl
dimethylbenzyl
ammonium
chloride
(
ADBAC)
 
Report
of
the
Hazard
Identification
Assessment
Review
Committee,
Office
of
Prevention,
Pesticides,
and
Toxic
Substances.

USEPA
(
2000):
Memorandum
on
Sterilex
®
Ultra­
Kleen
for
Dental
Unit
Water
lines:
Request
for
Risk
Assessment.
Submission
S572183.

Incidence
Reports
Dibo,
M.
and
Brasch,
J.
2001.
Occupational
allergic
contact
dermatitis
from
N,
N­
bis93­
aminoprpyl)
dodecylamine
and
dimethyldidecylammonium
chloride
in
two
hospital
staff.
Contact
Dermatitis.
45(
1):
40.

Mehler,
L.
2005.
Personal
Communication.
California
Department
of
Pesticide
Regulation
Oriandini,
A.;
Viotti,
G.
Martinoli,
C;
and
Magno,
L.
1990.
Allergic
Contact
Conjunctivities
from
synthetic
detergenets
in
nurse.
Contact
Dermatitis.
23:
376­
377.

Preller,
L.;
Doekers,
G.;
Heederik,
D.;
Vermulen,
R.;
Vogelzang,
P.
F.
J,
and
Boleij,
J.
S.
M.
1996.
Disinfinfectant
use
as
a
risk
factor
for
atopic
sensitization
and
symptoms
consistent
with
asthma:
an
epidemiological
study.
European
Respiratory
Journal:
9
(
7)
1407­
1413.

Shmunes,
E.
and
Levy,
E.
J.
1972.
Quaternary
ammonium
compound
contact
dermatitis
from
deodorant.
Arch
Dermatol.
105(
1)
91­
93.

.
Page
53
of
64
APPENDIX
A:
Master
ADBAC
Label
Page
54
of
64
EPA
Reg
Number
used
for
Max.
Appl.
Rate
Use
Site
Treatment
Site/
Surfaces
Method
of
Application
Notes
Freq
of
Application
Industrial
processes
and
water
systems
10324­
21
Industrial
Recirc
Water
Systems
Cooling
Tower
Pour/
metered
As
needed
10324­
102
Industrial
Recirc
Water
Systems
Waste
water
treatment
Pour/
metered
As
needed
10324­
102
Industrial
Recirc
Water
Systems
Evaporative
condenser
Pour/
metered
As
needed
6836­
58
Industrial
Recirc
Water
Systems
Pulp/
Paper
Pour/
metered
As
needed
10324­
21
Once­
through
Cooling
As
needed
6836­
234
Food
Contact
Recirc
Water
Brewery
pasteurizers
Pour/
metered
As
needed
1706­
177
Pulp/
Paper
Pour/
metered
As
needed
1757­
99
Industrial
Recirc
Water
Systems
Cooling
Tower
Pour/
metered
As
needed
1839­
179
Oil
Field
injection
and
wastewater
continuous
injection
As
needed
1839­
179
Oil
Field
injection
and
wastewater
batch
treatment
As
needed
1839­
179
Oil
Field
packer
fluids
As
needed
1839­
179
Oil
Field
drilling
muds
As
needed
Swimming
Pools
6836­
310
Swimming
Pool
Weekly
1839­
141
Swimming
Pool
Pour
Weekly
1839­
141
Outside
Spas/
Whirlpools/
Hot
Tub
Bath
Pour
As
needed
Aquatic
Areas
53642­
1
fountains,
water
displays,
decorative
pools,
decorative
ponds,
sewage
treatment
systems,
spas,
standing
water
spray
Mosquito
Control
499­
368
decorative
pools,
fountains,
water
displays
pour
499­
482
nurseries
watering
lines,
watering
tubes,
emitters,
drip
lines,
watering
nozzles
and
hoses
pour,
immerse
Wood
Preservatives
6836­
308
Pressure
Treatment
Lumber
3%
ai
soln
As
needed
6836­
308
Double
vacuum
Lumber
3%
ai
soln
As
needed
1839­
184
Dip/
Brush/
Spray
surface
treatment
Lumber
3%
ai
soln
As
needed
1839­
184
sapstain
control
Lumber
dip,
spray
As
needed
Page
55
of
64
EPA
Reg
Number
used
for
Max.
Appl.
Rate
Use
Site
Treatment
Site/
Surfaces
Method
of
Application
Notes
Freq
of
Application
Agricultural
Premise
and
Equipment
10324­
111
Animal
facilities,
farms,
mushroom
farms,
animal
life
science
laboratories,
animal
quarters,
other
animal
care
facilities,
hatcheries,
stables,
catteries,
stalls,
animal
transportation
vehicles
Dairy/
equine/
hog/
swine/
pou
ltry/
turkey
farms,
hatcheries,
barns,
pens,
stalls,
egg
receiving
area,
egg
holding
area,
setter
room,
tray
dumping
area,
chick
holding
room,
poultry
buildings,
dressing
plants,
offal
rooms,
farrowing
barns
and
areas,
nursery,
blocks,
creep
areas,
hatcheries,
stables,
catteries,
chick
holding
area,
hatchery
room,
chick
processing
area,
chick
loading
area,
offal
rooms,
animal
transportation
vehicles
Floors,
walls,
ceilings,
feed
racks,
mangers,
troughs,
automatic
feeders/
fountains/
waterers,
other
feeding
and
watering
appliances,
halters,
ropes
and
other
types
of
equipment
used
in
handling
and
restraining
animals,
as
well
as
forks,
shovels,
and
scrapers
used
for
removing
litter
and
manure,
feeders,
fountains,
drinkers,
blocks,
chutes,
incubators,
hatchers,
waterers,
feeders,
fountains,
hauling
equipment,
loading
equipment,
kennels,
runs,
cages,
coops,
crates,
pens,
trays,
buggies,
racks,
carts,
egg
flats,
drinkers,
fixtures,
delivery
trucks,
trucks/
trailers,
field
harvesting
equipment,
including
cargo
area,
wheels,
tires,
undercarriage,
hood,
roof,
fenders
and
any
other
part
of
the
transportation
equipment
mop,
wipe
(
cloth,
swab),
pour,
immersion
As
needed
10324­
111
Gloves
immersion
As
needed
6836­
193
hatcheries,
egg
receiving
area
spray
(
RTU
spray/
wipe)
As
needed
1839­
81
hatcheries
hatchery
rooms
fogging
As
needed
10324­
81
hatcheries
incubators,
setters,
hatchers
fogging
every
12
hrs
67517­
15
hatcheries
egg
shell
sanitizing
spray,
immersion,
cloth
1/
batch
of
eggs
1839­
86
Shoe
immersion/
foam
generating
machine/
aerator
As
needed
10324­
140
Animal
facilities,
farms,
mushroom
farms,
animal
life
science
laboratories,
animal
quarters,
other
animal
care
facilities,
hatcheries,
stables,
catteries,
stalls,
animal
transportation
vehicles
Dairy/
equine/
hog/
swine/
pou
ltry/
turkey
farms,
hatcheries,
barns,
pens,
stalls,
egg
receiving
area,
egg
holding
area,
setter
room,
tray
dumping
area,
chick
holding
room,
poultry
buildings,
dressing
plants,
offal
rooms,
farrowing
barns
and
areas,
nursery,
blocks,
creep
areas,
hatcheries,
stables,
catteries,
chick
holding
area,
hatchery
room,
chick
processing
area,
chick
loading
area,
offal
rooms,
animal
transportation
vehicles
Floors,
walls,
ceilings,
feed
racks,
mangers,
troughs,
automatic
feeders/
fountains/
waterers,
other
feeding
and
watering
appliances,
halters,
ropes
and
other
types
of
equipment
used
in
handling
and
restraining
animals,
as
well
as
forks,
shovels,
and
scrapers
used
for
removing
litter
and
manure,
feeders,
fountains,
drinkers,
blocks,
chutes,
incubators,
hatchers,
waterers,
feeders,
fountains,
hauling
equipment,
loading
equipment,
kennels,
runs,
cages,
coops,
crates,
pens,
trays
mop,
cloth,
sponge,
sprayer,
RTU
spray/
wipe
Kills
Canine
parvo
virus
As
needed
Page
56
of
64
EPA
Reg
Number
used
for
Max.
Appl.
Rate
Use
Site
Treatment
Site/
Surfaces
Method
of
Application
Notes
Freq
of
Application
10324­
80
citrus
grove
or
farm
trucks,
vehicles,
equipment,
trailers,
field
harvesting
equipment,
cargo
area,
wheels,
tires,
under
carriage,
hood,
roof,
fenders
trigger
spraying,
dipping,
brushing
Blend
­
Kills
Citrus
canker
As
needed
1839­
81
Animal
facilities,
farms,
mushroom
farms,
animal
life
science
laboratories,
animal
quarters,
other
animal
care
facilities,
hatcheries,
stables,
catteries,
stalls,
animal
transportation
vehicles
Dairy/
equine/
hog/
swine/
pou
ltry/
turkey
farms,
hatcheries,
barns,
pens,
stalls,
egg
receiving
area,
egg
holding
area,
setter
room,
tray
dumping
area,
chick
holding
room,
poultry
buildings,
dressing
plants,
offal
rooms,
farrowing
barns
and
areas,
nursery,
blocks,
creep
areas,
hatcheries,
stables,
catteries,
chick
holding
area,
hatchery
room,
chick
processing
area,
chick
loading
area,
offal
rooms,
animal
transportation
vehicles
Personal
protective
safety
equipment,
protective
headgear,
hard
hats,
half
mask
respirators,
full
face
breathing
apparatus,
gas
masks,
goggles,
spectacles,
face
shields,
hearing
protectors/
ear
muffs
As
needed
1072­
16
stables,
dairies
Dairy
and
Hoof
trimming
equipment
cloth,
mop,
sponge,
sprayer,
immersion
As
needed
507­
3
greenhouses,
nurseries
ornamental
crops
drench
or
spray
Once
or
every
5­
15
days
dependent
on
type
of
crop
507­
3
greenhouses,
nurseries
hands
and
gloves
immersion
as
needed
53642­
1
greenhouses,
nurseries
work
areas,
benches,
pots,
flats,
flower
buckets,
cutting
tools,
greenhouse
glass,
bird
baths,
walkways,
houseplants
Spray,
swab,
immersion
As
needed
53642­
1
greenhouses,
nurseries
lawns,
golf
courses,
commercial
turf
spray
every
10­
14
days
during
warm
season
499­
368
greenhouses,
nurseries
cutting
tools
immersion
499­
368
greenhouses,
nurseries
evaporative
coolers,
cooler
pads
spray
or
swab
every
other
week
Medical
premises
and
equipment
Page
57
of
64
EPA
Reg
Number
used
for
Max.
Appl.
Rate
Use
Site
Treatment
Site/
Surfaces
Method
of
Application
Notes
Freq
of
Application
10324­
111
day­
care
centers,
hospitals,
medical/
dental
offices,
nursing
homes,
other
health
care
institutions,
mortuaries,
autopsy
rooms,
EMS
facilities,
medical
research
facilities,
patient
care
rooms,
recovery
anesthesia
rooms,
operating
rooms
Metal,
stainless
steel,
glazed
porcelain,
glazed
ceramic
tile,
plastic,
granite,
marble,
chrome,
vinyl,
glass,
chrome
plated
intakes,
enameled
surfaces,
painted
woodwork,
Formica,
vinyl
and
plastic
upholstery,
floors,
walls,
toilets,
urinals,
lavatories,
bathrooms,
bathing
areas,
bathtubs,
sinks,
sink
tops,
shower
stalls,
shower
doors/
curtains,
mirrors,
ultrasonic
bath,
whirlpools,
foot
baths,
countertops,
cabinets,
tables,
chairs,
desks,
hospital
beds,
bed
springs,
bed
frames,
traction
devices,
MRI,
CAT,
examining
tables,
scales,
paddles,
wheelchairs,
lifts,
door
knobs,
linen
carts,
hampers,
wheel
chairs,
telephones,
fixtures,
toys,
high
chairs,
cribs,
changing
tables
mop,
wipe
(
cloth,
swab),
pour,
immersion
As
needed
1020­
1
Hospitals
hard/
non
porous
surfaces
(
nonfood
contact)
mop,
brush,
cloth
or
sponge
6836­
193
day­
care
centers,
hospitals,
medical/
dental
offices,
nursing
homes,
other
health
care
institutions,
mortuaries,
autopsy
rooms,
EMS
facilities,
medical
research
facilities,
patient
care
rooms,
recovery
anesthesia
rooms,
operating
rooms
Metal,
stainless
steel,
glazed
porcelain,
glazed
ceramic
tile,
plastic,
granite,
marble,
chrome,
vinyl,
glass,
chrome
plated
intakes,
enameled
surfaces,
painted
woodwork,
Formica,
vinyl
and
plastic
upholstery,
floors,
walls,
toilets,
urinals,
lavatories,
bathrooms,
bathing
areas,
bathtubs,
sinks,
sink
tops,
shower
stalls,
shower
doors/
curtains,
mirrors,
ultrasonic
bath,
whirlpools,
foot
baths,
countertops,
cabinets,
tables,
chairs,
desks,
hospital
beds,
bed
springs,
bed
frames,
traction
devices,
MRI,
CAT,
examining
tables,
scales,
paddles,
wheelchairs,
lifts,
door
knobs,
linen
carts,
hampers,
wheel
chairs,
telephones,
fixtures
spray
(
RTU
spray/
wipe)
As
needed
1839­
81
Hospitals
Carpet
portable
extraction
units,
truck
mounted
extraction
machines,
rotary
floor
machines,
metered,
spray
As
needed
1839­
155
Hospitals
Laundry
pour
@
final
rinse
cycle
As
needed
1839­
110
hospital
Fabric
final
rinse
in
wash
cycle
As
needed
Page
58
of
64
EPA
Reg
Number
used
for
Max.
Appl.
Rate
Use
Site
Treatment
Site/
Surfaces
Method
of
Application
Notes
Freq
of
Application
1190­
48
Hospitals,
Health
Care
facilities,
Medical/
Dental
offices,
Nursing
homes,
operating
rooms,
patient
care
facilities,
clinics,
isolation
wards,
medical
research
facilities,
autopsy
rooms,
ICU
areas,
recovery
anesthesia,
emergency
rooms,
X­
ray
cat
labs,
newborn
nurseries,
orthopedics,
respiratory
therapy,
acute
care
institutions,
alternate
care
institutions,
healthcare
institutions,
restrooms/
bathrooms
floors,
walls,
toilets,
urinals,
lavatories,
bathrooms,
bathing
areas,
bathtubs,
sinks,
sink
tops,
shower
stalls,
shower
doors/
curtains,
mirrors,
ultrasonic
bath,
whirlpools,
foot
baths,
countertops,
cabinets,
tables,
chairs,
desks,
hospital
beds,
bed
springs,
bed
frames,
traction
devices,
MRI,
CAT,
examining
tables,
scales,
paddles,
wheelchairs,
lifts,
door
knobs,
linen
carts,
hampers,
wheel
chairs,
telephones,
garbage
pails/
cans,
fixtures
Wipe,
mop,
spray,
(
cloth)
swab,
brush
As
needed
1839­
81
autopsy
rooms,
funeral
homes,
human
remains
sponge,
wash
cloth,
soft
brush
As
needed
5741­
2
hospitals
walls,
floors,
and
other
hard,
non
porous
mop,
sponge,
or
spray
62401­
6
nursing
homes
walls,
telephones,
chairs,
tables,
sinks,
counters,
appliance
exteriors,
garbage
cans,
stovetops
Presaturated
wipe
As
needed
7211­
10
Medical
Premises
&
Equipment
critical
instruments
immersion
1203­
41
hospitals,
nursing
homes,
clinics
tables,
walls,
ceramic
tiles,
metal
surfaces,
plastic,
asphalt,
finished/
painted
wood
and
glass
spray,
mop,
sponge
As
needed
10324­
80
hospitals,
nursing
homes
air
ducts
spray,
brush,
mop,
wipe,
ULV
or
mist
generating,
automated
spray
odor
causing
bacteria,
fungi,
6
months
Commercial,
institutional,
and
industrial
premises
and
equipment
10324­
111
hair/
nail
salons,
barber
beauty
shops,
tanning
salons,
tattoo
parlors,
veterinary
clinics,
locker
facilities,
shopping
malls,
motels,
hotels,
bookstores,
dressing
rooms,
photo
copy
centers,
bicycle
shopes,
toy
factories,
computer
manufacturing
sites,
burial
vaults,
mausoleums,
jails,
penitentiaries,
transportation
terminals,
Cruise
ships,
airplanes,
schools,
universities,
churches,
libraries,
cosmetic
manufacturing
facilities,
medical
device
manufacturing
facilities,
pharmaceutical
manufacturing
facilities,
bowling
alleys,
crime
scenes,
pet
shops,
grooming
and
breeding
establishments,
zoos,
tack
shops,
atheletic
facilities,
Sport
Arenas,
floors,
walls,
toilets,
urinals,
bathrooms,
bathtubs,
sinks,
countertops,
shower
doors/
curtains,
toilet
seats,
shower
stalls,
ultrasonic
bath,
whirlpools,
barber/
salon
instruments/
tools,
tables,
chairs,
shelves,
telephones,
cabinets,
desks,
tanning
beds,
bed
springs,
door
knobs,
linen
carts,
hampers,
garbage
pails,
telephones,
recycling
equipment,
exercise
equipment,
automobile/
truck
interiors,
garbage
cans/
pails,
metal,
stainless
steel,
glazed
porcelain,
glazed
ceramic
tile,
plastic,
granite,
marble,
chrome,
vinyl,
glass,
chrome
plated
intakes,
enameled
surfaces,
painted
woodwork,
Formica,
vinyl
and
plastic
upholstery,
terrariums,
cages,
and
cage
furniture
mop,
wipe
(
cloth,
swab),
pour,
immersion
As
needed
1839­
81
manufacturing
sites/
facilities
fogging
As
needed
Page
59
of
64
EPA
Reg
Number
used
for
Max.
Appl.
Rate
Use
Site
Treatment
Site/
Surfaces
Method
of
Application
Notes
Freq
of
Application
6836­
193
hair/
nail
salons,
barber
beauty
shops,
tanning
salons,
tattoo
parlors,
veterinary
clinics,
locker
facilities,
shopping
malls,
motels,
hotels,
bookstores,
dressing
rooms,
photo
copy
centers,
bicycle
shopes,
toy
factories,
computer
manufacturing
sites,
burial
vaults,
mausoleums,
jails,
penitentiaries,
transportation
terminals,
Cruise
ships,
airplanes,
schools,
universities,
churches,
libraries,
cosmetic
manufacturing
facilities,
medical
device
manufacturing
facilities,
pharmaceutical
manufacturing
facilities,
bowling
alleys,
crime
scenes,
pet
shops,
grooming
and
breeding
establishments,
zoos,
tack
shops,
atheletic
facilities,
Sport
Arenas,
hair/
nail
salons,
barber
beauty
shops,
tanning
salons,
tattoo
parlors,
veterinary
clinics,
locker
facilities,
shopping
malls,
motels,
hotels,
bookstores,
dressing
rooms,
photo
copy
centers,
bicycle
shopes,
toy
factories,
computer
manufacturing
sites,
burial
vaults,
mausoleums,
jails,
penitentiaries,
transportation
terminals,
Cruise
ships,
airplanes,
schools,
universities,
churches,
libraries,
cosmetic
manufacturing
facilities,
medical
device
manufacturing
facilities,
pharmaceutical
manufacturing
facilities,
bowling
alleys,
crime
scenes,
pet
shops,
grooming
and
breeding
establishments,
zoos,
tack
shops,
atheletic
facilities,
Sport
Arenas,
spray
(
RTU
spray/
wipe)
As
needed
1839­
81
hotels,
motels,
dressing
romms,
bowling
alleys,
salons,
libraries,
office
buildings,
schools,
universities
Carpet
portable
extraction
units,
truck
mounted
extraction
machines,
rotary
floor
machines,
metered,
spray
As
needed
62401­
6
schools,
food
service
establishments
telephones,
walls,
chairs,
tables,
sinks,
counters,
appliance
exteriors,
garbage
cans,
stovetops
Presaturated
wipe
As
needed
1839­
155
hotels,
motels,
dressing
romms,
bowling
alleys,
salons,
libraries,
office
buildings,
schools,
universities
Laundry
pour
@
final
rinse
cycle
As
needed
1839­
110
commercial
Fabric
final
rinse
in
wash
cycle
As
needed
1839­
120
Humidifier
pour
As
needed
1839­
81
Florists/
flower
shops,
greenhouses,
shippers,
packing
areas
flower
buckets,
coolers,
floors
and
walls
of
coolers,
design
and
packing
benches,
garbage
pails
Mop/
wipe,
cloth,
brush,
sponge,
sprayer,
RTU
wipe/
spray
As
needed
Page
60
of
64
EPA
Reg
Number
used
for
Max.
Appl.
Rate
Use
Site
Treatment
Site/
Surfaces
Method
of
Application
Notes
Freq
of
Application
10324­
140
kennels,
breeding
facilities,
tack
shops,
pet
shops,
Floors,
walls,
ceilings,
feed
racks,
mangers,
troughs,
automatic
feeders/
fountains/
waterers,
other
feeding
and
watering
appliances,
halters,
ropes
and
other
types
of
equipment
used
in
handling
and
restraining
animals,
as
well
as
forks,
shovels,
and
scrapers
used
for
removing
litter
and
manure,
feeders,
fountains,
drinkers,
blocks,
chutes,
incubators,
hatchers,
waterers,
feeders,
fountains,
hauling
equipment,
loading
equipment,
kennels,
runs,
cages,
coops,
crates,
pens,
trays
mop,
cloth,
sponge,
sprayer,
RTU
spray/
wipe
Kills
Canine
parvo
virus
As
needed
1839­
85
hair/
nail
salons,
barber
beauty
shops,
tanning
salons,
tattoo
parlors,
veterinary
clinics,
locker
facilities,
shopping
malls,
motels,
hotels,
bookstores,
dressing
rooms,
photo
copy
centers,
bicycle
shopes,
toy
factories,
computer
manufacturing
sites,
burial
vaults,
mausoleums,
jails,
penitentiaries,
transportation
terminals,
Cruise
ships,
airplanes,
schools,
universities,
churches,
libraries,
cosmetic
manufacturing
facilities,
medical
device
manufacturing
facilities,
pharmaceutical
manufacturing
facilities,
bowling
alleys,
crime
scenes,
pet
shops,
grooming
and
breeding
establishments,
zoos,
tack
shops,
atheletic
facilities,
Sport
Arenas,
air
deodorizer/
air
freshener
RTU
spray
As
needed
10324­
111
Sports
Arenas,
exercise
facilities,
amusement
parks,
schools,
day­
care
centers
large
inflatable
non­
porous
plastic
and
rubber
structures
(
animals,
promotional
items,
moonwalk,
slides,
obstacle
course
play
equipment,
exercise
equipment,
wrestling
mats,
bathrooms
mop,
cloth,
sponge,
sprayer
mildewstat
As
needed
5741­
2
schools,
hotels,
restaurants,
commercial,
institutional,
and
industrial
facilities
walls,
floors,
and
hard,
non
porous
mop,
sponge,
or
spray
1839­
81
manufacturing
sites/
facilities
Personal
protective
safety
equipment,
protective
headgear,
hard
hats,
half
mask
respirators,
full
face
breathing
apparatus,
gas
masks,
goggles,
spectacles,
face
shields,
hearing
protectors/
ear
muffs
sponge,
wash
cloth,
soft
brush,
immerse
As
needed
32977­
1
schools
and
music
stuidos
wind
instruments
immersion
As
needed
Page
61
of
64
EPA
Reg
Number
used
for
Max.
Appl.
Rate
Use
Site
Treatment
Site/
Surfaces
Method
of
Application
Notes
Freq
of
Application
1203­
41
Athletic
facilities,
motels,
hotels,
churches,
convents,
transportation
terminals,
tables,
walls,
ceramic
tiles,
metal
surfaces,
plastic,
asphalt,
finished/
painted
wood
and
glass
spray,
mop,
sponge
As
needed
507­
3
industrial
premises
hands
and
gloves
immersion
as
needed
10324­
80
Institutional,
Industrial
premise,
school,
restaurant
air
ducts
spray,
brush,
mop,
wipe,
ULV
or
mist
generating,
automated
spray
odor
causing
bacteria,
fungi,
6
months
Residential
and
public
access
premises
10324­
111
Households,
campgrounds,
playgrounds,
picnic
facilities,
recreational
facilities,
other
public
facilities
Floors,
walls,
windows,
toilets,
bathtubs,
whirlpools,
shower
stalls,
shower
door/
curtain,
sinks,
mirrors,
restroom
fixtures,
cabinets,
tables,
chairs,
desks,
bed
frames,
doorknobs,
garbage
cans/
pails,
picnic
tables,
outdoor
furniture,
telephones,
countertops,
external
surfaces
of
appliances,
tables,
sincks,
shelves,
plastic
chopping
blocks,
metal,
stainless
steel,
glazed
porcelain,
glazed
ceramic
tile,
plastic,
granite,
marble,
chrome,
vinyl,
glass,
chrome
plated
intakes,
enameled
surfaces,
painted
woodwork,
Formica,
vinyl,
plastic
upholstery,
terrariums,
cages,
and
cage
furniture
As
needed
10324­
111
RVs,
motor
homes
RV
Holding
Tank
Pouring
As
needed
6836­
193
Households,
campgrounds,
playgrounds,
picnic
facilities,
recreational
facilities,
other
public
facilities
Floors,
walls,
windows,
toilets,
bathtubs,
whirlpools,
shower
stalls,
shower
door/
curtain,
sinks,
mirrors,
restroom
fixtures,
cabinets,
tables,
chairs,
desks,
bed
frames,
doorknobs,
garbage
cans/
pails,
picnic
tables,
outdoor
furniture,
telephones,
countertops,
external
surfaces
of
appliances,
tables,
sincks,
shelves,
plastic
chopping
blocks,
metal,
stainless
steel,
glazed
porcelain,
glazed
ceramic
tile,
plastic,
granite,
marble,
chrome,
vinyl,
glass,
chrome
plated
intakes,
enameled
surfaces,
painted
woodwork,
Formica,
vinyl,
plastic
upholstery,
terrariums,
cages,
and
cage
furniture
spray
(
RTU
spray/
wipe)
As
needed
Page
62
of
64
EPA
Reg
Number
used
for
Max.
Appl.
Rate
Use
Site
Treatment
Site/
Surfaces
Method
of
Application
Notes
Freq
of
Application
homes
Carpet
portable
extraction
units,
truck
mounted
extraction
machines,
rotary
floor
machines,
metered,
spray
As
needed
1839­
120
homes
Humidifier
pour
As
needed
1839­
85
homes
air
deodorizer/
air
freshener
RTU
spray
As
needed
62401­
6
homes
walls,
telephones,
chairs,
tables,
sinks,
counters,
appliance
exteriors,
garbage
cans,
stovetops
Presaturated
wipe
As
needed
1839­
155
homes
water
softeners
and
reverse
osmosis
units
As
needed
10324­
80
homes
air
ducts
spray,
brush,
mop,
wipe,
ULV
or
mist
generating,
automated
spray
odor
causing
bacteria,
fungi,
6
months
Food
handling/
storage
establishments
premises
and
equipment
10324­
111
restaurants,
bars,
supermarket,
convenience
stores,
pizza
parlors,
meat
and
poultry
processing
plants,
rendering
plants,
fish,
milk,
wine,
citrus
processing
facilities,
institutional
kitchens,
food
storage
areas,
tobacco
processing
facilities,
ood
service
establishments,
food
processing
plants/
facilities,
beverage
processing
plants,
Cafeterias,
Dairies,
Egg
Processing
plants,
Federally
inspected
meat
and
poultry
plants,
Food
Handling
areas,
Food
preparation
areas,
Food
storage
areas,
USDA
inspected
food
processing
facilities,
breweries,
fast
food
operations
floors,
walls,
countertops,
appliances
(
microwaves,
refrigerators,
stove
tops,
freezers,
coolers),
chairs,
tables,
shelves,
picnic
tables,
outdoor
furniture,
racks,
carts,
telephones,
door
knobs,
storage
areas,
potato
storage
areas,
food
storage
areas,
garbage
storage
areas,
cutting
boards,
tanks,
exhaust
fans,
refrigerator
bins,
refrigerated
storage/
display
equipment,
coils
and
drain
pans
of
air
conditioning/
refrigeration
equipment,
heat
pumps,
storage
tanks,
coolers,
ice
chests,
garbage
cans/
pails
metal,
stainless
steel,
glazed
porcelain,
glazed
ceramic
tile,
plastic,
granite,
marble,
chrome,
vinyl,
glass,
chrome
plated
intakes,
enameled
surfaces,
painted
woodwork,
Formica,
vinyl
and
plastic
upholstery
mop,
wipe
(
cloth,
swab),
pour,
immersionmop,
wipe
(
cloth,
swab),
pour,
immersion
As
needed
10324­
111
federally
inspected
meat
and
poultry
plants,
food
processing
facilities,
dairies,
tobacco
processing
facilities,
beverage
processing
facilities
Gloves
immersion
As
needed
507­
3
dairies
and
food
processing
plants
hands
and
gloves
immersion
as
needed
1839­
86
federally
inspected
meat
and
poultry
plants,
food
processing
facilities,
dairies,
tobacco
processing
facilities,
beverage
processing
facilities
Shoe
immersion/
foam
generating
machine/
aerator
As
needed
Page
63
of
64
EPA
Reg
Number
used
for
Max.
Appl.
Rate
Use
Site
Treatment
Site/
Surfaces
Method
of
Application
Notes
Freq
of
Application
6836­
193
restaurants,
bars,
supermarket,
convenience
stores,
pizza
parlors,
meat
and
poultry
processing
plants,
rendering
plants,
fish,
milk,
wine,
citrus
processing
facilities,
institutional
kitchens,
food
storage
areas,
tobacco
processing
facilities,
ood
service
establishments,
food
processing
plants/
facilities,
beverage
processing
plants,
Cafeterias,
Dairies,
Egg
Processing
plants,
Federally
inspected
meat
and
poultry
plants,
Food
Handling
areas,
Food
preparation
areas,
Food
storage
areas,
USDA
inspected
food
processing
facilities,
breweries,
fast
food
operations
floors,
walls,
countertops,
appliances
(
microwaves,
refrigerators,
stove
tops,
freezers,
coolers),
chairs,
tables,
shelves,
picnic
tables,
outdoor
furniture,
racks,
carts,
telephones,
door
knobs,
storage
areas,
potato
storage
areas,
food
storage
areas,
garbage
storage
areas,
cutting
boards,
tanks,
exhaust
fans,
refrigerator
bins,
refrigerated
storage/
display
equipment,
coils
and
drain
pans
of
air
conditioning/
refrigeration
equipment,
heat
pumps,
storage
tanks,
coolers,
ice
chests,
garbage
cans/
pails
metal,
stainless
steel,
glazed
porcelain,
glazed
ceramic
tile,
plastic,
granite,
marble,
chrome,
vinyl,
glass,
chrome
plated
intakes,
enameled
surfaces,
painted
woodwork,
Formica,
vinyl
and
plastic
upholstery
RTU
Spray/
wipe
As
needed
1839­
155
(
FCS)
restaurants,
food
service
establishments,
Bars,
Cafeteria,
convenience
stores,
dairies,
food
handling
areas,
food
preparation
areas,
food
storage
areas
institutional
kitchens,
fast
food
operations
dairy
equipment,
dairy
farm
bulk
milk
tanks,
milking
equipment,
tanks,
piping,
pasteurizers,
cow
udders,
dairy
product
dispensing
equipment,
drinking
glasses,
eating
utensils,
cooking
utensils,
silverware,
glassware,
dishes,
ice
machines,
beverage
dispensing
equipment,
counters,
tables,
cutting
boards,
Slurrpy
machines,
ice
cream
dispensing
equipment,
food
dispensing
equipment,
utensils
and
other
food
contact
articles
spray,
flood,
immersion,
brushing,
RTU
wipe/
spray
As
needed
1839­
51
Food
processing
plants/
facilities
(
including
beverage,
meat,
poultry,
egg,
seafood,
fisheries,
milk,
citrus,
potato,
ice
cream),
Egg
Processing
plants,
Federally
inspected
meat
and
poultry
plants,
Food
Handling
areas,
Food
preparation
areas,
Food
storage
areas,
USDA
inspected
food
processing
facilities,
breweries
storage
tanks,
meat/
poultry/
fruit/
vegetable
conveyers,
tanks,
chopping
block,
countertops,
sinks,
sink
tops,
utensils,
knives,
grinders,
shredders,
cleavers,
ladles,
food
grade
eggs,
ice
machines,
water
coolers,
water
holding
tanks,
pressure
tanks,
refrigerated
storage/
display
equipment,
exhaust
fans,
coils
and
drain
pans
of
air
conditioning/
refrigeration
equipment,
heat
pumps,
storage
tanks,
beer
fermentation
equipment
and
holding
tanks,
blenders,
food
processors,
bottling
or
pre­
mix
dispensing
equipment,
citrus
processing
equipment
(
holding
tanks,
bottles,
cans),
cutting
boards,
coolers,
ice
chests,
ice
machines,
refrigerator
bins,
beer
fermentation
and
storage
tanks
spray,
flood,
immersion,
brushing,
RTU
wipe/
spray
As
needed
1839­
155
water
softeners
and
reverse
osmosis
units
As
needed
Page
64
of
64
EPA
Reg
Number
used
for
Max.
Appl.
Rate
Use
Site
Treatment
Site/
Surfaces
Method
of
Application
Notes
Freq
of
Application
1839­
81
dairies,
beverage
and
food
processing
plants
room
surfaces
fogging
As
needed
1020­
1
food
and
bottling
plant,
dairy
farms,
egg
product
processing
plants
and
milk
plants
walls,
floors,
equipment,
other
hard
nonporous
surfaces
mop,
brush,
cloth
or
sponge
1203­
41
food
processing
plants,
food
service
areas,
institutional
kitchens,
industrial/
hospital
cafeterials,
school
lunchrooms,
canning
plants,
dairies,
and
packing
plants
tables,
walls,
ceramic
tiles,
metal
surfaces,
plastic,
asphalt,
finished/
painted
wood
and
glass
spray,
mop,
sponge
As
needed
10324­
80
food
processing
plants,
food
service
areas,
institutional
kitchens,
industrial/
hospital
cafeterials,
school
lunchrooms,
dairies,
and
packing
plants
air
ducts
spray,
brush,
mop,
wipe,
ULV
or
mist
generating,
automated
spray
odor
causing
bacteria,
fungi,
6
months
Cleaning/
Deodorizing
10324­
118
residential,
commercial,
institutional,
industrial,
garbage
cans,
garbage
trucks,
industrial
waste
receptacles,
garbage
handling
equipment
sprayer,
sponge,
cloth,
Cleaning/
Deodorizing
As
needed
1839­
81
Water/
Smoke
restoration
(
institutional,
industrial,
hospital,
nursing
home)
carpets,
carpet
cushion,
sub
floors,
drywall,
trim,
farm
lumber,
tackless
strip
and
paneling
Mop/
wipe,
cloth,
brush,
sponge,
sprayer
Cleaning/
Deodorizing
As
needed
10324­
118
Sewer
backup/
river
flood
cleanup/
clean
water
source
carpets,
carpet
cushion,
sub
floors,
drywall,
trim,
farm
lumber,
tackless
strip
and
paneling
spray
Cleaning/
Deodorizing
As
needed
5174­
22
schools,
day
care
centers,
restaurants,
cafeterias,
convenience
stores,
kennels,
restrooms,
hospitals,
nursing
homes
hard
non­
porous
surfaces
mop,
sponge,
or
spray
Cleaning/
Deodorizing
As
needed