Sethoxydim Risk Assessment
Worksheet F13b (continued)
Yüklə 4,8 Kb. Pdf görüntüsü
|
Upper 1.57e-09 Worksheet F13b (continued): Consumption of contaminated vegetation by a large bird, chronic off-site exposure scenario. Time-weighted Average Concentration on Vegetation (C TWA ): C 0 (1 - e -k T ) ÷ (k T) Central 0.01239 mg/kg Lower 0.0022 Upper 0.08094 Proportion of diet contaminated (P D ) Central 1.0 unitless 100% of time spent feeding near site Lower 1.0 Upper 1.0 Dose estimates (D): P D × C TWA × A ÷ W Central 3.92e-03 mg/kg bw Lower 7.04e-04 Upper 2.56e-02 WS-64 Worksheet F14: Consumption of contaminated insects by a small bird, acute exposure scenario. [InsCSBA] Verbal Description: A small insectivorous bird (10g) consumes insects shortly after application of the chemical - i.e. no dissipation or degradation is considered. The contaminated food accounts for 100% of the diet. Residue estimates in insects are based on relationships for seed containing pods and forage crops from Hoerger and Kenaga (1972) summarized in Worksheet A05a. Parameters/Assumptions Value Units Source/Reference Body weight (W) 0.01 kg N/A Caloric requirement (KR) 12.53587 kcal/day U.S. EPA/ORD 1993, Eq. 3-35, p. 3-22 above based on following equation: kcal/day = 3.12 × W(g) 0.604 Caloric content of insects (dry weight, KCD) 4.3 kcal/g U.S. EPA/ORD 1993, p. 3-5 Water content of insects (proportion, PW) 1 0.65 unitless U.S. EPA/ORD 1993, p. 4-13 Caloric content of insects (wet weight, KCW) 1.505 kcal/g KCD × (1-PW) Food consumed per day (wet weight, A) 0.0083 kg (KR ÷ KCW)/1000 g/kg Duration of exposure (T) 1 day N/A Application rates (R) Central 0.3 lb/acre APPL.Typ Lower 0.09375 APPL.Low Upper 0.375 APPL.Hi Residue rates (rr) Central 45 mg/kg per HK.BLT lb/acre applied Lower 45 HK.BLT Upper 135 HK.BLU Conc. in Vegetation (C): R × rr Central 13.5 mg/kg Lower 4.21875 Upper 50.625 Drift (Drift) Central 1 unitless Direct spray on-site Lower 1 Upper 1 Proportion of Diet Contaminated (Prop) Central 1 unitless Assume feeding exclusively on-site. Lower 1 Upper 1 Dose estimates (D): Drift × Prop × C × A ÷ W Central 1.12e+01 mg/kg bw Lower 3.51e+00 Upper 4.22e+01 1 Average of beetles (61%) and grasshoppers (69%) from U.S. EPA/ORD 1993, Table 4-1, p. 4-13. WS-65 Worksheet G01: Summary of Exposure Scenarios for Terrestrial Animals. Dose (mg/kg/day) Worksheet Scenario Central Lower Upper Acute/Accidental Exposures Direct spray small mammal, first-order absorption small animal, 100% absorption bee, 100% absorption Contaminated vegetation small mammal large mammal large bird Contaminated water small mammal, spill stream Contaminated insects small bird Contaminated fish predatory bird, spill Longer-term Exposures 1.90e-01 7.27e+00 4.81e+01 3.75e-01 5.16e+00 8.08e+00 3.99e-01 8.78e-03 1.12e+01 9.81e-01 2.55e-02 2.27e+00 1.50e+01 1.17e-01 1.61e+00 2.52e+00 6.21e-02 2.74e-04 3.51e+00 7.63e-02 5.29e-01 9.09e+00 6.01e+01 1.00e+00 1.82e+01 2.85e+01 9.97e-01 2.74e-02 4.22e+01 3.68e+00 F01 F02a F02b F03 F10 F12 F05 F06 F14 F08 Contaminated vegetation small mammal, on site off-site large mammal, on site off-site large bird, on site off-site Contaminated water small mammal Contaminated fish predatory bird 1.80e-03 1.82e-05 7.44e-02 2.51e-03 1.17e-01 3.92e-03 3.51e-05 5.04e-04 2.82e-04 1.63e-06 7.75e-03 4.50e-04 1.21e-02 7.04e-04 2.74e-07 1.97e-06 9.66e-03 1.81e-04 8.76e-01 1.64e-02 1.37e+00 2.56e-02 6.59e-05 1.42e-03 F04a F04b F11a F11b F13a F13b F07 F09 WS-66 Worksheet G02: Summary of quantitative risk characterization for terrestrial animals 1 Hazard Quotient 2 Scenario Central Lower Upper Acute/Accidental Exposures Direct spray small mammal, first-order absorption 1.1e-03 1.4e-04 2.9e-03 small animal, 100% absorption 4.0e-02 1.3e-02 5.1e-02 bee, 100% absorption 4.5e-01 1.4e-01 5.6e-01 Contaminated vegetation small mammal 2.1e-03 6.5e-04 5.6e-03 large mammal 2.9e-02 9.0e-03 1.0e-01 large bird 1.6e-02 5.0e-03 5.7e-02 Contaminated water small mammal, spill 2.2e-03 3.4e-04 5.5e-03 small mammal, stream 4.9e-05 1.5e-06 1.5e-04 Contaminated insects small bird 2.2e-02 7.0e-03 8.4e-02 Contaminated fish predatory bird, spill 2.0e-03 1.5e-04 7.4e-03 Longer-term Exposures Contaminated vegetation small mammal, on site 2.0e-04 3.1e-05 1.1e-03 off-site 2.0e-06 1.8e-07 2.0e-05 large mammal, on site 8.3e-03 8.6e-04 9.7e-02 off-site 2.8e-04 5.0e-05 1.8e-03 large bird, on site 1.2e-02 1.2e-03 1.4e-01 off-site 3.9e-04 7.0e-05 2.6e-03 Contaminated water small mammal 3.9e-06 3.1e-08 7.3e-06 Contaminated fish predatory bird 5.0e-05 2.0e-07 1.4e-04 Toxicity Indices 3 Acute toxicity value for mammal - NOAEL 180 mg/kg Chronic toxicity value for mammal - NOAEL 9 mg/kg/day Acute toxicity value for bird - NOAEL 500 mg/kg Chronic toxicity value for birds 10 mg/kg/day Toxicity value for bee -NOAEL 107 mg/kg 1 See Worksheet G01 (Table 4-1 in text) for summary of exposure assessment. 2 Estimated dose ÷ toxicity index 3 See Section 4.3. for a discussion of the dose-response assessments WS-67 Worksheet G03: Quantitative Risk Characterization for Aquatic Species. Risk Quotients Central Lower Upper Endpoint Fish Acute 5.0e-02 1.6e-03 1.6e-01 Mortality Chronic 2.0e-04 1.6e-06 3.8e-04 Aquatic Invertebrates Acute 2.3e-02 7.2e-04 7.2e-02 Mortality Chronic 9.2e-05 7.2e-07 1.7e-04 Aquatic Plants Acute 2.4e-01 7.5e-03 7.5e-01 EC 50 Chronic 9.6e-04 7.5e-06 1.8e-03 Exposures (mg/L) Central Lower Upper Worksheet Acute 0.060 0.0019 0.19 F06 Stream Longer-term 0.00024 0.0000019 0.00045 F09 Toxicity values (mg/L) Value (mg/L) Endpoint Section Fish, acute 1.2 Mortality 4.3.3.2. Fish, chronic 1.2 No data found. Acute value 4.3.3.2. used. Aquatic Invertebrates, acute 2.6 Mortality 4.3.3.3 Aquatic Invertebrates, chronic 2.6 No data found. Acute value 4.3.3.3 used. Aquatic plants 0.25 4.3.3.4. SPECIAL NOTE: All risk characterizations are based on toxicity of formulated product, POAST. Sethoxydim is much less toxic to aquatic species than is POAST. WS-68 Worksheet G04: Summary of Exposure Assessment and Risk Characterization for Terrestrial Plants from Runoff [TerrPlntRU]. Application rate 0.375 lb/acre Highest FS rate, Section 2.4. Sensitive Species (Lowest 0.059 lb/acre Section 4.3.2.4. NOEC, preemergence ryegrass) Tolerant Species (Highest 0.235 lb/acre Section 4.3.2.4. NOEC, preemergence corn) Annual Rainfall Clay Loam Sand Proportion lost in Runoff 5 0.000000 0.00 0.00 10 0.0000003 0.010 0.013 15 0.011 0.03 0.030 20 0.023 0.055 0.046 25 0.036 0.079 0.061 50 0.098 0.18 0.12 100 0.20 0.32 0.20 150 0.29 0.40 0.25 200 0.35 0.45 0.29 250 0.41 0.49 0.33 Functional Off-site Application Rate 1 5 0.00e+00 0.00e+00 0.00e+00 10 1.13e-07 0.00e+00 4.88e-03 15 4.13e-03 0.00e+00 1.13e-02 20 8.63e-03 0.00e+00 1.73e-02 25 1.35e-02 0.00e+00 2.29e-02 50 3.68e-02 0.00e+00 4.50e-02 100 7.50e-02 0.00e+00 7.50e-02 150 1.09e-01 0.00e+00 9.38e-02 200 1.31e-01 0.00e+00 1.09e-01 250 1.54e-01 0.00e+00 1.24e-01 Sensitive Species -Hazard Quotient 2 5 0.0e+00 0.0e+00 0.0e+00 10 1.9e-06 0.0e+00 8.3e-02 15 7.0e-02 0.0e+00 1.9e-01 20 1.5e-01 0.0e+00 2.9e-01 25 2.3e-01 0.0e+00 3.9e-01 50 6.2e-01 0.0e+00 7.6e-01 100 1.3e+00 0.0e+00 1.3e+00 150 1.8e+00 0.0e+00 1.6e+00 200 2.2e+00 0.0e+00 1.8e+00 250 2.6e+00 0.0e+00 2.1e+00 Tolerant Species - Hazard Quotient 2 5 0.0e+00 0.0e+00 0.0e+00 10 4.8e-07 0.0e+00 2.1e-02 15 1.8e-02 0.0e+00 4.8e-02 20 3.7e-02 0.0e+00 7.3e-02 25 5.7e-02 0.0e+00 9.7e-02 50 1.6e-01 0.0e+00 1.9e-01 100 3.2e-01 0.0e+00 3.2e-01 150 4.6e-01 0.0e+00 4.0e-01 200 5.6e-01 0.0e+00 4.6e-01 250 6.5e-01 0.0e+00 5.3e-01 1 The functional off-site application rate is calculated as the nominal application rate (specified above after the worksheet title) multiplied by the proportion lost in runoff. 2 The hazard quotient is calculated as the functional off-site application rate divided by the NOEC value. The NOEC’s are specified above on the lines following the application rate. WS-69 Worksheet G05: Summary of Exposure Assessment and Risk Characterization for Terrestrial Plants from Drift and Wind Erosion [TerrPlntWind]. Most Sensitive Plant Least Sensitive Plant (corn) (several) Post-emergence NOEC, 0.006 0.03 Section 3.2.4. lb/acre Application Rate, lb/acre 0.375 Highest FS use. Section 2.4 Estimates of the proportion of offsite drift Distance (feet) Drift 1 Terrestrial Drift based on AGDRIFT using a low 25 0.0187 boom ground sprayer. 50 0.0101 See section 4.2.3.2 for discussion. 100 0.0058 300 0.0024 500 0.0015 900 0.0008 Estimates of functional offsite application rate Distance (feet) Rate (lb/acre) 25 0.0070125 Calculated as the product of the application rate 50 0.0037875 and the estimated 100 0.002175 proportion of offsite drift. 300 0.0009 500 0.0005625 900 0.0003 Hazard Quotient - Sensitive Species 25 1.2e+00 Calculated as the offsite application rate divided 50 6.3e-01 by the NOEC for the 100 3.6e-01 most sensitive species. 300 1.5e-01 500 9.4e-02 900 5.0e-02 Hazard Quotient - Tolerant Species 25 2.3e-01 Calculated as the offsite application rate divided 50 1.3e-01 by the NOEC for the least 100 7.3e-02 sensitive species. 300 3.0e-02 500 1.9e-02 900 1.0e-02 WS-70 STANDARD REFERENCES FOR WORKSHEETS {Boxenbaum and D’Souza. 1990} Boxenbaum J; D'Souza R. 1990. Interspecies pharmacokinetic scaling, biological design and neoteny. Adv. Drug Res. 19: 139-195. {Burnmaster. 1998} Burnmaster DE. 1998. Lognormal distribution for total water intake and tap water intake by pregnant and lactating women in the United States. Risk Analysis. 18(5): 215-219 {Durkin et al. 1995} Durkin PR; Rubin L; Withey J; Meylan W. 1995. Methods of assessing dermal absorption with emphasis on uptake from contaminated vegetation. Toxicol. Indust. Health. 11(1): 63-79. {Harris and Solomon. 1992} Harris SA; Solomon KR. 1992. Human exposure to 2,4-D following controlled activities on recently sprayed turf. J. Environ. Sci. Health. B27(1): 9-22. {Hoerger and Kenaga. 1972} Hoerger F; Kenaga EE. 1972. Pesticide residues on plants: Correlation of representative data as a basis for estimation of their magnitude in the environment. In: Environmental Quality and Safety, Volume I: Global Aspects of Toxicology and Technology as Applied to the Environment. F. Coulston and F. Kerte (eds.). Academic Press, New York, NY. pp. 9-28. {ICRP. 1975} ICRP (International Commission on Radiologic Protection). 1975. Report of the Task Group on Reference Man. Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) Publ. No. 23. Pergamon Press, New York, NY. {Manugistics. 1995} Manugistics. 1995. Statgraphics Plus for Windows. Version 3. Available from Manugistics, Inc. Rockville, Maryland. {Mason and Johnson. 1987} Mason RW; Johnson BL. 1987. Ergonomic factors in chemical hazard control. In: Handbook of Human Factors. Salveny, G; ed. John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY. pp. 772-741. {Mendenhall and Scheaffer. 1973} Mendenhall W; Scheaffer RF. 1973. Mathematical Statistics with Applications. Duxbury Press, North Scituate, Massachusetts. 461 pp. plus appendices. {Ruffle et al. 1994} Ruffle B; Burmaster DE; Anderson PD; Gordon HD. 1994. Lognormal distributions for fish consumption by the general U.S. population. Risk Analy. 14(4): 395-404. {SERA. 1997} SERA (Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc.). 1997. Reevaluation of Methods for Assessing Worker Exposure to Pesticides, SERA TR 96-21-08-01, draft dated December 31, 1997. Prepared under USDA/FS Contract 53-3187-5-12. Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc., Fayetteville, NY. {SERA. 2001} SERA (Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc.). 2001. Preparation of Environmental Documentation and Risk Assessments, SERA MD 2001-01a, draft dated July 2001. Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc., Fayetteville, NY. Available at www.sera-inc.com{} {Teske et al. 2001} Teske ME; Bird SL; Esterly DM; Ray SL; Perry SG. 2001. A User’s Guide for AgDRIFT 2.0: A Tiered Approach for the Assesment of Spray Drift. Continuum Dynamics, Inc. Public Use Version. C.D.I. Report No. 01-01. Available, with executable model at: http://www.agdrift.com/ {} {USDA. 1989a} USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture/Forest Service). 1989a. Final Environmental Impact Statement: Vegetation Management in the Coastal Plain/Piedmont, Management Bulletin R8-MB-23, dated January, 1989. 1213 pp. WS-71 {USDA. 1989b} USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture/Forest Service). 1989b. Draft Environmental Impact Statement: Vegetation Management in the Ozark/Ouachita Mountains, Management Bulletin R8-MB-23, dated June, 1989. 499 pp. {USDA. 1989c} USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture/Forest Service). 1989c. Final Environmental Impact Statement: Vegetation Management in the Appalachian Mountains, Management Bulletin R8-MB-38, dated July, 1989. 1104 pp. {U.S. EPA/OPP. 1999} U.S. EPA/OPP ((U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/Office of Pesticide Programs). 1999. ECOFRAM: Terrestrial ECOFRAM Terrestrial Draft Report. Ecological Committee on FIFRA Risk Assessment Methods(ECOFRAM). Report dated May 10, 1999. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/ ecorisk/terrreport.pdf. {U.S. EPA/ORD. 1992} U.S. EPA/ORD (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/Office of Research and Development). 1992. Dermal Exposure Assessment: Principles and Applications. EPA/600/8-91/011B. Interim Report. Exposure Assessment Group, Office of Health and Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC. {U.S. EPA/ORD. 1993} U.S. EPA/ORD (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/Office of Research and Development). 1993. Wildlife Exposure Factors Handbook. Volumes 1 and 2. EPA/600/R-93/187a,b. Pagination not continuous. Available NTIS: PB94-174778 and PB94-174779. {U.S. EPA/ORD. 1996} U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/Office of Research and Development). 1996. Exposure Factors Handbook. National Center for Environmental Assessment, U.S. EPA, Washington, DC. EPA/600/P-95/002Ba-c. Avail. NTIS: PB97-117683, 97-117691, PB97-117709. {Wolfram Research. 1997} Wolfram Research. 1997. Mathematica Version 3.0.1. Available from Wolfram Research, Inc. Champaign, IL. WS-72 Document Outline
Yüklə 4,8 Kb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|