June
15,
2001
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
REVISED
OCCUPATIONAL
EXPOSURE
ASSESSMENT
FOR
THE
REREGISTRATION
ELIGIBILITY
DECISION
DOCUMENT
FOR
DISULFOTON
FROM:
Richard
Griffin
Reregistration
Branch
2
Health
Effects
Division
(
7509C)

TO:
Christina
Scheltema
Reregistration
Branch
3
Special
Review
and
Reregistration
Division
(
7508W)

THRU:
Al
Nielsen,
Branch
Senior
Scientist
Reregistration
Branch
2
Health
Effects
Division
(
7509C)

Please
find
attached
the
revised
occupational
exposure
and
risk
assessment
for
disulfoton.
Please
note
that
there
are
unresolved
data
compensation
issues
related
to
the
Agency
 
s
use
of
proprietary
data
to
assess
the
risks
for
handler
scenarios
involving
loading/
applying
granular
formulations
with
a
pump­
or
gravity­
feed
backpack
spreader.

The
following
changes
necessitated
this
revised
occupational
exposure
and
risk
assessment
for
disulfoton:

1)
The
registrant
notified
the
Agency
that
it
would
not
support
several
crops
and
use­
patterns
that
were
included
in
the
original
risk
assessment;
2)
The
registrant
notified
the
Agency
that
it
was
reducing
the
maximum
supported
application
rate
for
several
crops;
3)
The
REVISED
(
3
nd
)
Report
of
the
Hazard
Identification
Assessment
Review
Committee
for
disulfoton
issued
January
18,
2001
established
the
short­
term
dermal
NOAEL
for
use
in
occupational
and
residential
risks
assessments
at
0.5
mg/
kg/
day
based
on
a
newly
submitted
3­
day
dermal
rat
study
 
the
previous
short­
­
term
dermal
NOAEL
for
such
assessments
was
0.4
mg/
kg/
day;
4)
The
Health
Effects
Division
on
August
7,
2000
adopted
revised
Policy
3.1
from
the
Science
Advisory
Council
for
Exposure
that
presents
interim
transfer
coefficients
(
TC)
for
agricultural
or
commercial
activities
for
use
in
post
application
exposure
assessments;
5)
The
Health
Effects
Division
on
June
23,
2000
adopted
revised
Policy
9
from
the
Science
Advisory
Council
for
Exposure
that
provides
standard
values
for
the
number
of
acres
that
can
be
treated
in
a
single
day
by
various
types
of
agricultural
equipment;
6)
Newly
available
and
better
quality
ORETF
data
for
the
push­
type
granular
spreader
equipment
is
used
in
place
of
the
PHED
data
set
for
this
scenario;
7)
Additional
exposure
scenarios
were
added
because
proprietary
data
became
available
to
assess
applying
granular
formulation
with
backpack
equipment;
8)
Newly
available
proprietary
data
were
used
to
assess
the
exposure
from
the
occupational
scenario
for
applying
granular
with
a
bucket
and
spoon
 
previously
PHED
data
for
applying
granular
bait
by
hand
was
used
as
a
surrogate
for
this
scenario;

DP
Barcode:
D275169
Pesticide
Chemical
Codes:
032501
EPA
Reg
Nos.
:
4­
153,
4­
253,
4­
420,
16­
171,
70­
236,
192­
74,
192­
119,
192­
126,
192­
164,
239­
2134,
572­
346,
769­
908,
802­
426,
869­
76,
869­
223,
904­
138,
3125­
83,
3125­
116,
3125­
152,
3125­
172,
3125­
307,
3125­
517,
5887­
67,
5887­
171,
7401­
4,
4701­
26,
7401­
235,
7401­
323,
9404­
3,
8660­
125,
8660­
191,
11474­
17,
32802­
32,
34704­
475,
42057­
51,
46260­
2,
46260­
12,
46260­
35,
59144­
23;
SLNs
for
3125­
172:
­
WA­
850036;
­
ID­
850016;
­
MT­
800004;
­
OR­
8000034;
­
NM­
880001;
NC­
880001;
­
NC­
920011;
­
WA­
980004;
SLNs
for
3125­
307:
­
CA­
840192;
­
WA840036;
­
CA­
760019;
­
CA­
770036;
­
CA­
770036;
­
CA­
810044;
­
TX­
900004;
­
OR­
910027;
­
TX­
860007;
­
WA­
920026;

PHED:
Yes,
Version
1.1
EXPOSURE
AND
RISK
ASSESSMENT/
CHARACTERIZATION
Purpose
In
this
document,
which
is
for
use
in
EPA'
s
development
of
the
Disulfoton
Reregistration
Eligibility
Decision
Document
(
RED)
,
EPA
presents
the
results
of
its
review
of
the
potential
human
health
effects
of
occupational
exposure
to
disulfoton.
This
memorandum
revises
the
occupational
exposure
section
of
the
February
7,
2000
memorandum
titled
 
Revised
Occupational
and
Residential
Exposure
Assessment
and
Recommendations
for
the
Reregistration
Eligibility
Decision
Document
for
Disulfoton
 
and
the
August
24,
,
2000
memorandum
titled
 
Amendment
to
the
the
Disulfoton
Occupational
and
Residential
Exposure
and
Risk
Assessment.
 
1,2
Criteria
for
Conducting
Exposure
Assessments
An
occupational
exposure
assessment
is
required
for
an
active
ingredient
if
(
1)
certain
toxicological
criteria
are
triggered
and
(
2)
there
is
potential
exposure
to
handlers
(
mixers,
loaders,
applicators,
etc.
)
during
use
or
to
persons
entering
treated
sites
after
application
is
complete.
For
disulfoton,
both
criteria
are
met.

Summary
of
Toxicity
Concerns
Relating
to
Occupational
Exposure
Acute
Toxicology
Categories
Table
1
below
presents
the
acute
toxicity
categories
based
on
the
active
ingredient
as
outlined
in
the
Hazard
Identification
document.
3
Table
1:
Acute
Toxicity
Categories
for
Disulfoton
Guideline
No.
Study
Type
MRID
#
.
Results
Toxicity
Category
81­
1
Acute
Oral
Acc#
072293
LD50
=
M:
6.
2
mg/
kg;
F:
1.
9
mg/
kg
I
81­
2
Acute
Dermal
Acc#
07793
LD50
=
M:
15.
9
mg/
kg;
F:
3.
6
mg/
kg
I
81­
3
Acute
Inhalation
Acc#
258569
LC50
=
M:
0.
06
mg/
L;
F:
0.
89
mg/
L
I
81­
4
Primary
Eye
Irritation
None
Data
requirement
waived.
N/
A
81­
5
Primary
Skin
Irritation
None
Data
requirement
waived.
N/
A
81­
6
Dermal
Sensitization
None
Data
requirement
waived.
N/
A
81­
7
Acute
Delayed
Neurotoxicity
00129384
Equivocal.
NA
81­
8
Acute
Neurotoxicity
42755801
Reversible
neurotoxic
signs
consistent
with
the
cholinesterase
inhibition
1.
5
mg/
kg
in
females
and
5.
0
mg/
kg
in
males.
N/
A
1
Occupational
and
Residential
Endpoints
of
Concern
The
revised
Hazard
Identification
document
for
disulfoton,
indicates
that
there
are
toxicological
endpoints
of
concern
for
occupational
exposure.
The
endpoints
used
in
assessing
the
risks
for
disulfoton
are
presented
in
the
following
Table
2.
3
Table
2:
Endpoints
for
Assessing
Occupational
Risks
for
Disulfoton
Test
Results
Short­
term
Dermal
Exposure
(
1
to
7
days)
0.
5
mg/
kg/
day
based
on
a
3­
day
dermal
study
in
rats
(
Target
MOE
=
100)

Intermediate­
term
Dermal
Exposure
(
1
week
to
several
months)
0.03
mg/
kg/
day
based
on
a
special
6­
month
cholinesterase
inhibition
feeding
study
(
Target
MOE
=
100)

Inhalation
Exposure
(
All­
time
periods)
0.
00016
mg/
L
or
0.045
mg/
kg/
day
based
on
a
90­
day
inhalation
study
in
rats
(
Target
MOE
=
100)

Dermal
Absorption
(
intermediate­
term
dermal
endpoint
only)
36%

Inhalation
Absorption
100%

SUMMARY
OF
USE
PATTERN
AND
FORMULATIONS
Type
of
pesticide/
target
pests
Disulfoton,
(
O,
O­
Diethyl
S­
[
2­
(
ethylthio)
ethyl
]
phosphorodithioate)
)
is
a
selective
systemic
organophosphate
insecticide
used
to
control
a
variety
of
sucking
insects.
Examples
of
the
type
of
insects
that
disulfoton
controls
include,
but
are
not
limited
to,
the
following:
4
C
vegetables
and
field
crops:
aphids,
leafhoppers,
Mexican
bean
beetle
larvae,
mites,
thrips
and
potato
psyllid,
grasshoppers,
flea
beetles,
southern
potato
wireworms,
root
aphids,
green
peach
aphids,
Colorado
potato
beetles,
hessian
fly;
and
C
ornamental
shrubs,
trees
and
rose
bushes:
aphids,
birch
leaf
miner,
elm
leaf
beetle,
European
elm
scale,
lace
bug,
leafhoppers,
mites,
thrips,
whiteflies,
birch
leafminers,
camellia
scale,
holly
leafminer,
leafhoppers,
mimosa
webworm,
pine
tip
moth,
soft
scale,
spider
mites,
tea
scale,
thrips
and
whiteflies.

Formulation
types
and
percent
active
ingredient
for
occupational
products
2
Disulfoton
is
formulated
as
a
technical
product
(
98.5
percent
active
ingredient)
.
It
is
formulated
for
occupational
use
as
an
emulsifiable
concentrate
(
85,
23,
and
17.5
percent
active
ingredient)
,
and
as
a
granular
(
15,
10,
6.5,
2,
1,
0.625,
0.5,
and
0.37
percent)
.
It
is
often
formulated
in
combination
with
fertilizers.
4
Registered
use
sites
for
occupational
products
4,5
C
Agricultural
Crops
(
food
and
feed
crops)
,
including
peppers,
broccoli,
Brussels
sprouts,
cabbage,
Chinese
cabbage,
cauliflower,
clover
grown
for
seed
(
SLN
only)
,
lettuce,
asparagus
(
SLN
only)
,
radishes
grown
for
seed
(
SLN
only)
,
barley,
wheat,
cotton,
peanuts
(
SLN
only)
,
peas,
sorghum,
soybeans,
white/
Irish
potatoes,
dried,
lima,
and
snap
beans,
lentils,
and
tobacco;

In
the
original
assessment,
the
following
crops
were
included,
however,
they
are
no
longer
being
supported
by
Bayer
and
other
registrants
and
have
been
dropped
from
this
revised
assessment:
spinach,
black
and
red
raspberries,
tomatoes,
field
corn,
oats,
triticale,
sweet
corn,
sugar
beets,
popcorn,
and
strawberries
(
propagating
plants
only)

C
Nut
Trees
and
Non­
Bearing
Fruit
Trees:
coffee
trees;

In
the
original
assessment,
the
following
crops
were
included,
however,
they
are
no
longer
being
supported
by
Bayer
and
other
registrants
and
have
been
dropped
from
this
revised
assessment:
pecan
trees
and
nonbearing
apple,
crabapple,
pear,
apricot,
cherry,
peach,
plum
and
prune
trees.

C
Forest
Trees:
poplars
grown
for
pulp
(
SLN
only)
;

C
Ornamental
Flowers/
Groundcover,
including
annuals
and
bulbs;

C
Ornamental
Shrubs
and
Trees,
including
Christmas
trees;
and
C
Potted
Plants:
outdoor
only
In
the
original
assessment,
indoor
(
i.
e.
,
greenhouse)
potted
plants
were
included,
however
greenhouse
uses
are
no
longer
being
supported
by
Bayer
and
other
registrants
and
have
been
dropped
from
this
revised
assessment.
.
Occupational
Application
Rates
4,5
C
Emulsifiable
Concentrate
formulations:
4.0
lb/
A
tobacco
(
Reg
#
3125­
307)
3.0
lb/
A
potatoes:
foliar
OR,
WA,
ID
UT
(
Reg
#
3125­
307)
;
potatoes:
soil
(
Reg
#
3125­
307)
;
poplars
grown
for
pulpwood
(
Reg
#
3125­
307­
­
OR­
910027)
2.5
lb/
A
peas
and
lentils
(
Reg
#
3125­
307)

3
2.0
lb/
A
beans:
dry,
snap,
lima
(
Reg
#
3125­
307)
;
cabbage
(
Reg
#
3125­
307)
;
lettuce
(
Reg
#
3125­
307)
;
peppers
(
Reg
#
3125­
307)
;
radish
grown
for
seed
(
Reg
#
3125­
307­
WA­
920026)
;
1.0
lb/
A
asparagus
(
Reg
#
3125­
307­
CA­
840192)
;
barley
(
Reg
#
3125­
307)
;
broccoli
(
Reg
#
3125­
307)
;
Brussels
sprouts
(
Reg
#
3125­
307)
;
cauliflower
(
Reg
#
3125­
307)
;
cotton
(
Reg
#
3125­
307)
;
sorghum
(
Reg
#
3125­
307)
;
wheat
(
Reg
#
3125­
307)
;
0.75
lb/
A
wheat
(
Reg
#
3125­
307)
0.5
lb/
A
sorghum
(
Reg
#
3125­
307)
;
potatoes:
foliar
(
Reg
#
3125­
307)
0.2
lb/
A
cotton
(
Reg
#
3125­
307­
TX­
860007)

C
Granular
formulations:
109
lb/
A
field­
grown
ornamental
shrubs
(
Reg
#
3125­
172)
based
on
the
assumption
that
the
shrubs
are
two
feet
tall
and
occupy
two
square
feet
(
i.
e.
,
roses)
;
78
lb/
A
Christmas
trees
(
Reg
#
3125­
172)
based
on
the
assumption
that
the
trunk
is
2
inches
in
diameter
and
trees
are
planted
at
1700
per
acre;
37
lb/
A
field­
grown
ornamental
trees
(
Reg
#
3125­
172)
based
on
the
assumption
that
the
trunk
is
2
inches
in
diameters
and
trees
are
planted
at
800
per
acre;
29
lb/
A
field­
grown
flowers
and
groundcover
(
Reg
#
3125­
172)
11
lb/
A
field­
grown
ornamental
trees
and
shrubs:
injection
(
Reg
#
3125­
172)
and
lower
rate
for
noninjection
(
Reg
#
3125­
172)
8.3
lb/
A
coffee
trees
(
Reg
#
3125­
172)
based
on
the
assumption
that
the
trees
are
8
feet
tall
and
are
planted
435
trees
per
acre
4.5
lb/
A
Christmas
trees
(
(
Reg
#
3125­
172­
NC­
880001)
4.0
lb/
A
tobacco
(
Reg
#
3125­
172)
;
3.0
lb/
A
potatoes:
soil
(
Reg
#
3125­
172)
;
2.5
lb/
A
peas
and
lentils
(
Reg
#
3125­
172)
;
2.0
lb/
A
peanuts
(
Reg
#
3125­
172­
NC­
920011)
;
peppers
(
Reg
#
3125­
172)
;
radish
grown
for
seed
(
Reg
#
3125­
172­
WA­
920027)
;
1.5
lb/
A
cabbage
(
Reg
#
3125­
172)
;
1.0
lb/
A
barley
(
Reg
#
3125­
172)
;
beans:
dry,
snap,
lima:
(
Reg
#
3125­
172)
;
broccoli
(
Reg
#
3125­
172)
;
Brussels
sprouts
(
Reg
#
3125­
172)
;
cauliflower
(
Reg
#
3125­
172)
;
clover
grown
for
seed
(
Reg
#
3125­
172­
WA­
980004)
;
cotton
(
Reg
#
3125­
172)
;
peanuts
(
Reg
#
3125­
172)
;
sorghum
(
Reg
#
3125­
172)
;
soybeans
(
Reg
#
3125­
172)
;
wheat
(
Reg
#
3125­
172)
;
0.2
lb/
day
potted
ornamentals
(
Reg
#
3125­
172)
;
based
on
the
assumption
that
350
pots
that
are
12
inches
in
diameter
are
treated
each
day.

Application
Methods,
Types
of
Equipment
Used,
and
Size
of
Area
Treated
4,5
EPA
estimates
the
area
treated
per
day
based
on
the
type
of
equipment
used
on
a
specific
crop.
Acres
treated
per
day
values
are
based
on
HED
Exposure
SAC
Policy
#
009
 
Standard
4
Values
for
Daily
Acres
Treated
in
Agriculture,
 
revised
June
23,
,
2000,
or
best
professional
judgment
when
data
is
not
available.

C
For
aerial
equipment
(
mix/
load,
apply)
the
daily
acres
treated
is
1200
acres
per
day
for
barley,
cotton
(
SLN)
,
sorghum,
and
wheat;
flagging
for
such
crops
is
given
as
350
and
1200
acres
per
day;
for
aerial
equipment
(
mix/
load,
apply,
and
flag)
for
all
other
crops
is
350
acres
per
day;

C
For
chemigation
equipment
the
daily
acres
treated
is
350
acres
for
broccoli,
Brussels
sprouts,
cabbage,
cauliflower,
cotton,
lettuce,
poplars
grown
for
pulp,
and
potatoes;

C
For
groundboom
spray
equipment
(
mix/
load
and
apply)
the
daily
acres
treated
is
200
acres
per
day
for
barley,
cotton,
sorghum,
and
wheat;
groundboom
spray
equipment
for
all
other
crops
is
80
acres
per
day;

C
For
tractor­
drawn
granular
equipment
(
load
and
apply)
the
daily
acres
treated
is
200
acres
per
day
for
barley,
cotton,
sorghum,
soybeans,
and
wheat;
tractor­
drawn
granular
equipment
for
coffee
and
all
ornamental
crops
is
40
acres
per
day;
the
assumption
for
other
crops
is
80
acres
per
day;

C
For
push­
type
granular
equipment
(
load/
apply)
the
daily
acres
treated
is
5
acres
per
day
for
ornamental
shrubs,
trees,
Christmas
trees,
flowers,
and
groundcover;

C
For
bellygrinder
granular
equipment
(
load/
apply)
the
daily
acres
treated
is
5
acres
per
day
for
ornamental
shrubs,
trees,
Christmas
trees,
flowers,
and
groundcover;

C
For
pump­
feed
and
gravity
feed
backpack
granular
spreaders
and
scoop/
bucket
techniques
(
load/
apply)
,
the
daily
acres
treated
ranges
from
5
to
10
acres
per
day
for
ornamental
shrubs,
trees,
Christmas
trees,
coffee
trees,
flowers,
and
groundcover;
for
applying
to
individual
potted
plants,
the
amount
treated
is
350
pots
per
day.

OCCUPATIONAL
RISK
ASSESSMENT
AND
CHARACTERIZATION
Occupational
Handler
Exposures
Scenarios
HED
has
determined
that
occupational
handlers
are
likely
to
be
exposed
during
disulfoton
use.
The
anticipated
use
patterns
and
current
labeling
indicate
several
major
exposure
scenarios
based
on
the
types
of
equipment
that
potentially
can
be
used
to
make
disulfoton
applications.
These
scenarios
include:
(
1a)
mixing,
loading
liquid
formulations
(
emulsifiable
concentrates)
for
aerial
application;
(
1b)
mixing,
loading
liquid
formulations
(
emulsifiable
concentrates)
for
chemigation
application;
(
1c)
mixing,
loading
liquid
formulations
(
emulsifiable
concentrates)
for
groundboom
application;
(
2a)
loading
granulars
for
aerial
application;
(
2b)
loading
granulars
for
tractor­
drawn
spreader
application;
(
3)
applying
sprays
with
aircraft;
(
4)
applying
granulars
with
aircraft;
(
5)
applying
sprays
with
a
groundboom;
(
6)
applying
granulars
5
with
a
tractor­
drawn
spreader;
(
7)
loading
and
applying
granulars
with
a
push­
type
granular
spreader;
(
8)
loading
and
applying
granulars
using
a
belly
grinder;
(
9a)
loading
and
applying
granulars
with
a
pump­
feed
backpack
spreader;
(
9b)
loading
and
applying
granulars
with
a
gravity­
feed
backpack
spreader;
(
10)
loading
and
applying
granulars
with
a
scoop
and
bucket;
(
11)
flagging
during
aerial
spray
applications;
and
(
12)
flagging
during
aerial
granular
applications.
Loading
and
applying
granulars
with
a
motorcycle
or
all­
terrain
vehicle
equipped
with
a
spreader
is
another
known
application
method
for
ornamentals,
including
Christmas
trees,
however
no
data
are
available
to
assess
this
scenario.

Handler
Exposure
Data
­
Surrogate
Pesticide
Handler
Exposure
Database
(
PHED)

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

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

Once
the
data
for
a
given
exposure
scenario
have
been
selected,
the
data
are
normalized
(
i.
e.
,
divided
by)
by
the
amount
of
pesticide
handled
resulting
in
standard
unit
exposures
(
milligrams
of
exposure
per
pound
of
active
ingredient
handled)
.
Following
normalization,
the
data
are
statistically
summarized.
The
distribution
of
exposure
values
for
each
body
part
(
e.
g.
,
chest
upper
arm)
is
categorized
as
normal,
lognormal,
or
 
other
 
(
(
i.
e.
,
neither
normal
nor
lognormal)
.
A
central
tendency
value
is
then
selected
from
the
distribution
of
the
exposure
values
for
each
body
part.
These
values
are
the
arithmetic
mean
for
normal
distributions,
the
geometric
mean
for
lognormal
distributions,
and
the
median
for
all
 
other
 
distributions.
.
Once
selected,
the
central
tendency
values
for
each
body
part
are
composited
into
a
 
best
fit
 
exposure
value
representing
the
entire
body.

The
unit
exposure
values
calculated
by
PHED
generally
range
from
the
geometric
mean
to
the
median
of
the
selected
data
set.
While
data
from
PHED
provide
the
best
available
information
on
handler
exposures,
it
should
be
noted
that
some
aspects
of
the
included
studies
(
e.
g.
,
duration,
acres
treated,
pounds
of
active
ingredient
handled)
may
not
accurately
represent
labeled
uses
in
all
cases.
HED
has
developed
a
series
of
tables
of
standard
unit
exposure
values
for
many
occupational
scenarios
that
can
be
utilized
to
ensure
consistency
in
exposure
assessments
(
PHED
Surrogate
Exposure
Guide,
August
1998)
.
6
6
In
the
revised
assessment
for
occupational
handlers,
PHED
data
are
used
to
assess
exposure
to
scenarios
(
1)
through
(
6)
,
(
8)
,
(
11)
,
and
(
12)
.

Outdoor
Residential
Exposure
Task
Force
(
ORETF)

The
handler
exposure
data
for
loading/
applying
granules
with
push­
type
spreader
equipment
used
in
this
revised
occupational
and
residential
assessment
are
from
the
Outdoor
Residential
Exposure
Task
Force
(
ORETF)
.
7
The
task
force
recently
submitted
proprietary
data
to
the
Agency
on
hose­
end
sprayers,
push­
type
granular
spreaders,
and
handgun
sprayers
(
MRID
#
44972201)
.
The
ORETF
data
were
used
in
this
assessment
in
place
of
PHED
data
for
the
 
loading/
applying
granulars
using
a
push­
type
spreader
 
scenario.
.
The
ORETF
data
were
designed
to
replace
the
present
PHED
data
with
higher­
confidence,
higher
quality
data
that
contains
more
replicates
than
the
PHED
data
for
those
scenarios.
6,7
Proprietary
Studies
Worker
Exposure
Study
During
Application
In
Banana
Plantation
With
Temik
10G
,
EPA
MRID
451672­
01:
8
In
the
revised
occupational
risk
assessment,
EPA
used
data
from
the
aldicarb
(
Temik)
study
to
assess
exposures
and
risks
to
handlers
applying
granulars
with
a
pump
feed
backpack
sprayer.
In
the
original
assessment,
no
data
were
available
to
assess
this
exposure
scenario.

Exposure
during
the
application
of
a
granular
formulation
of
the
insecticide,
aldicarb
(
i.
e.
,
Temik
10G)
,
was
monitored
during
granular
backpack
application
to
bananas
for
control
of
insects,
mites,
and
nematodes.
A
total
of
12
mixer/
loader/
applicator
events
during
granular
backpack
(
i.
e.
,
a
specialized
pump­
feed
device
manufactured
by
Swissmex
Rapid)
application
to
bananas
were
monitored
during
August
of
1998
on
the
island
of
Martinique
is
in
the
French
West
Indies.
Weather
was
typical
of
the
application
season
in
that
it
was
hot,
humid,
and
rainy
at
points.

Monitoring
was
completed
using
whole
body
dosimeters,
handwashes,
facial
wipes,
and
personal
sampling
pumps
equipped
with
XAD
resin/
filter
combination
samplers.
Temik
10G
was
supplied
in
22
pound
boxes
which
was
loaded
directly
into
the
backpack
devices
(
i.
e.
,
4
to
8
boxes
were
used
per
replicate)
.
The
application
rate
for
aldicarb
used
in
this
study
is
20
grams
of
Temik
10G
(
i.
e.
,
2
grams
ai/
plant)
which
is
equivalent
to
about
3.56
lb
ai/
acre
at
approximately
2000
plants
per
acre.
The
numbers
of
acres
treated
ranged
from
approximately
2.5
to
5
acres.
The
pounds
of
active
ingredient
handled
ranged
from
8.8
up
to
17.6
per
replicate.
Each
applicator
wore
the
whole
body
dosimeters
covered
by
a
cotton
coverall,
Tyvek
gloves
supplied
with
the
Temik
10G
formulation,
and
an
apron
on
their
backs
between
their
backs
and
the
backpack
applicator.
The
Tyvek
gloves
were
changed
with
each
box
of
Temik
10G
used.
In
many
instances,
the
gloves
were
compromised
because
they
were
ripped.
In
one
case,
the
gloves
filled
with
rainwater.
In
many
other
cases,
when
the
whole
body
dosimeters
were
removed,
they
were
found
to
be
wet
and
muddy.

Analysis
of
aldicarb
and
its
sulfoxide
and
sulfone
degradates
was
completed.
The
7
residue
levels
were
added
together
to
obtain
total
exposure
levels.
The
limits
of
quantification
(
LOQ)
were
1.0
F
g
per
sample
for
the
whole­
body
dosimeters
and
handwashes
(
600
mL
volume)
.
The
LOQ
for
the
facial
wipes
was
0.10
F
g
per
sample
and
0.050
0.10
F
g
per
sample
for
the
air
filters.
Field
and
laboratory
recovery
data
were
generated
for
all
media
for
all
residues
measured
(
i.
e.
,
parent
and
metabolites)
.
Field
recovery
data
were
generated
in
a
manner
that
addressed
field
sampling,
field
storage,
transport,
laboratory
storage,
and
analysis.
Residues
were
corrected
for
the
overall
average
field
recovery
for
each
residue/
matrix
combination.
Generally,
recovery
data
were
adequate
for
all
media/
residue
combinations.
If
the
PHED
grading
criteria
are
applied
all
residue/
matrix
combinations
(
except
facial
wipes
with
sulfone
residues)
have
at
least
grade
 
B
 
data
and
in
many
cases
the
data
meet
the
grade
 
A
 
criteria.
.
The
grade
 
B
 
criteria
require
laboratory
recovery
data
with
an
average
of
at
least
80
percent
and
a
coefficient
of
variation
of
25
or
less
accompanied
with
field
recoveries
that
are
at
least
50
percent
but
not
exceeding
120
percent.
The
grade
 
A
 
criteria
require
laboratory
recovery
data
with
an
average
of
at
least
90
percent
and
a
coefficient
of
variation
of
15
or
less
accompanied
with
field
recoveries
that
are
at
least
70
percent
but
not
exceeding
120
percent.

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

Unit
Exposure
Values
Type
(
mg
exp.
/
lb
ai
handled)
(
mg
exp.
/
hour)
(
mg
exp.
/
kg
body
weight/
day)
Dermal
Inhalation
Dermal
Inhalation
Dermal
Inhalation
Geo.
Mean
0.0995
0.0042
0.3979
0.0169
0.0409
0.0017
Worker
Exposure
Study
During
Application
of
Regent
20GR
In
Banana
Plantation
,
EPA
MRID
452507­
02
9
In
the
revised
occupational
risk
assessment,
EPA
used
data
from
the
fipronil
(
Regent
20
GR)
study
to
assess
exposures
and
risks
to
handlers
loading
and
applying
granulars
with
a
gravity
feed
backpack
sprayer.
In
the
original
assessment,
no
data
were
available
to
assess
this
exposure
scenario.
In
addition,
in
the
revised
occupational
risk
assessment,
EPA
used
data
from
the
fipronil
study
to
assess
exposures
and
risks
to
occupational
handlers
loading
and
applying
granulars
using
a
scoop
and
bucket.
In
the
original
assessment,
PHED
data
for
applying
granulars
by
hand
were
used.
However,
this
proprietary
study
is
being
substituted
for
the
PHED
data
because
the
study
data
is
higher­
confidence
and
higher
quality.
The
Agency
notes
that
unit
exposure
values
derived
from
the
fipronil
study
and
used
in
place
of
PHED
data
for
the
disulfoton
assessment
are
range­
finding
estimates
only.

Exposure
during
the
application
of
a
granular
formulation
of
the
insecticide,
fipronil
(
i.
e.
,
Regent
20GR)
,
was
monitored
during
granular
gravity­
feed
backpack
(
i.
e.
,
Horstine
Farmery
8
Microspread
®
)
applications
and
spoon
applications
to
bananas
for
control
of
insects,
mites,
and
nematodes.
A
total
of
18
mixer/
loader/
applicator
events
during
granular
backpack
(
i.
e.
,
a
specialized
gravity­
feed
device
manufactured
by
Horstine
Farmery)
or
spoon
application
to
bananas
were
monitored
during
applications
on
three
different
days
in
June,
1994
on
the
same
banana
plantation
in
Cameroon.
The
18
replicates
were
distributed
over
the
3
sampling
days
as
follows:
6
spoon/
hand
applications
on
day
1;
4
spoon/
hand
applications
on
day
2;
and
8
backpack
events
on
day
3.
Weather
was
typical
of
the
application
season
in
that
it
was
hot
and
humid.
Monitoring
was
completed
using
whole
body
dosimeters,
cotton
gloves,
cotton
caps,
and
personal
sampling
pumps
equipped
with
filters.
Regent
20GR
was
supplied
in
22
pound
boxes
which
was
loaded
directly
into
the
backpack
devices
or
buckets
for
the
spoon
applicators.
The
application
rate
for
fipronil
used
in
this
study
is
7.5
grams
of
Regent
20GR
(
i.
e.
,
0.15
grams
ai/
plant)
which
is
equivalent
to
about
0.26
lb
ai/
acre
(
0.00033
lb
ai/
plant)
at
approximately
800
plants
per
acre.
The
numbers
of
acres
treated
ranged
from
approximately
0.75
to
1
acre.
The
pounds
of
active
ingredient
handled
ranged
from
about
a
quarter
to
half
a
pound
per
replicate.

Each
applicator
wore
whole
body
dosimeters
that
also
served
as
the
normal
work
clothing.
PVC
gloves
were
also
worn
over
cotton
gloves
which
served
as
the
dosimeters.
A
protection
factor
of
50
percent
was
used
by
the
Agency
to
calculate
exposure
levels
under
a
layer
of
normal
work
clothing.
Dosimeter
samples
were
segmented
into
arms,
legs,
and
torso
for
analysis.

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

Unit
exposure
values
were
calculated
using
the
data
from
the
study
and
a
commercial
spreadsheet
program.
The
exposures
that
were
calculated
were
normalized
by
the
amount
of
chemical
used,
the
duration
of
the
application
interval,
and
by
the
body
weight
of
the
individual
applicators
(
see
table
below)
.
The
values
are
based
on
a
50
percent
clothing
penetration
factor
and
are
separated
for
each
equipment
type
monitored
in
this
study.
For
each
normalization
factor,
the
arithmetic
mean,
geometric
mean,
and
various
percentiles
were
calculated.
No
analyses
were
completed
with
these
data
to
ascertain
the
exact
type
of
distribution.
The
Agency
typically
uses
the
best
fit
values
from
the
Pesticide
Handlers
Exposure
Database
which
are
9
representations
of
the
central
tendency.
Considering
the
standard
practice,
the
Agency
will
use
the
geometric
mean
for
risk
assessment
purposes.

Unit
Exposure
Values
For
Single
Layer
Clothing
and
Gloves
Type
(
mg
exp.
/
lb
ai
handled)
(
mg
exp.
/
hour)
(
mg
exp.
/
kg
body
weight/
day)
Dermal
Inhalation
Dermal
Inhalation
Dermal
Inhalation
Applications
with
a
Spoon
Geo.
Mean
1.978
0.045
0.246
0.006
0.014
0.0003
Applications
with
a
Horstine
Farmery
Microspread
Geo.
Mean
0.598
0.044
0.056
0.004
0.003
0.0002
Occupational
Handler
Exposure
Scenario
Data
and
Assumptions
An
exposure
assessment
for
each
scenario
was
developed,
where
appropriate
data
are
available,
using
the
Pesticide
Handlers
Exposure
Database
(
PHED)
Version
1.1,
6
ORETF
data,
7
and
proprietary
data.
8,9
Appendix
Table
5
summarizes
the
caveats
and
parameters
specific
to
the
surrogate
data
used
for
each
scenario
and
corresponding
exposure/
risk
assessment.
These
caveats
include
the
source
of
the
data
and
an
assessment
of
the
overall
quality
of
the
data.
The
assessment
of
data
quality
is
based
on
the
number
of
observations
and
the
available
quality
control
data.
The
quality
control
data
are
based
on
a
grading
criteria
established
by
the
PHED
task
force.
6
The
following
assumptions
and
factors
were
used
in
order
to
complete
this
occupational
exposure
assessment:

C
Average
body
weight
of
an
adult
handler
is
70
kg.

C
Average
work
day
interval
represents
an
8
hour
workday
(
e.
g.
,
the
acres
treated
or
volume
of
spray
solution
prepared
in
a
typical
day
are
based
on
an
8
hour
workday)
.

C
Calculations
are
completed
at
the
maximum
application
rates
for
specific
crops
recommended
by
the
available
disulfoton
labels
to
estimate
reasonable
worse­
case
risk
levels
associated
with
the
various
use
patterns.

C
Due
to
a
lack
of
scenario­
specific
data,
HED
often
calculates
unit
exposure
values
using
generic
protection
factors
(
PF)
that
are
applied
to
represent
various
risk
mitigation
options
(
i.
e.
,
the
use
of
Personal
Protective
Equipment
(
PPE)
and
engineering
controls)
.
PPE
protection
factors
include
those
representing
a
double
layer
of
clothing
(
50
percent
PF)
,
chemical
resistant
gloves
(
90
percent
PF)
and
respiratory
protection
(
80
percent
PF)
for
use
of
dust/
mist
mask.
Engineering
controls
are
generally
assigned
a
PF
of
98
percent.

Occupational
Handler
Exposure
and
Risk
Estimates
The
calculations
of
daily
dermal
and
inhalation
exposure,
short­
term
and
intermediate­
term
doses,
and
dermal,
inhalation,
and
total
short­
and
intermediate­
term
MOEs
were
made
10
using
the
following
formulae.

Potential
daily
dermal
exposure
is
calculated
using
the
following
formula:

Daily
Dermal
Exposure
mg
ai
'
Unit
Exposure
mg
ai
xUse
Rate
lb
ai
x
Daily
Acres
Treated
A
day
lb
ai
A
day
The
potential
short­
term
and
intermediate­
term
dermal
doses
were
calculated
using
the
following
formulae:

Short
&
term
Daily
Dermal
Dose
mg
ai
'
Short
&
term
Daily
Dermal
Exposure
mg
ai
x
1
kg
/
day
day
Body
Weight
(
kg
)

Interm
&
term
Daily
Dermal
Dose
mg
ai
'
Interm
&
term
Daily
Dermal
Exposure
mg
ai
x
DermalAbsorption
(
0.
36)
x
1
kg
/
day
day
BW
(
kg
)

The
short­
term
MOEs
were
calculated
using
a
NOAEL
of
0.5
mg/
kg/
day.
The
intermediate­
term
MOEs
were
calculated
using
a
NOAEL
of
0.03
mg/
kg/
day
assuming
36
percent
dermal
absorption.

Potential
daily
inhalation
exposure
was
calculated
using
the
following
formula:

Daily
Inhalation
Exposure
mg
ai
'

day
1
mg
A
Unit
Exposure
F
gai
x
Conversion
Factor
1,
000
F
g
xUse
Rate
lb
A
ai
x
Daily
Acres
Treated
day
lb
ai
The
potential
short­
term
and
intermediate­
term
inhalation
doses
were
calculated
using
the
following
formulae:

Short
&
term
Daily
Inhalation
Dose
mg
ai
'
Short
&
term
Daily
Inhalation
Exposure
mg
ai
x
1
kg
/
day
day
Body
Weight
(
kg
)

Intermediate
&
term
Daily
Inhalation
Dose
mg
ai
'
Intermediate
&
term
Daily
Inhalation
Exposure
mg
ai
x
1
kg
/
day
day
Body
Weight
(
kg
)

For
disulfoton,
the
inhalation
doses
were
calculated
using
a
70
kg
body
weight
and
an
inhalation
absorption
rate
of
100
percent.

Occupational
handler
exposure
assessments
are
completed
by
EPA
using
a
baseline
exposure
scenario
and,
if
required,
increasing
levels
of
risk
mitigation
(
PPE
and
engineering
11
controls)
to
achieve
an
appropriate
margin
of
exposure
(
MOE)
.
The
baseline
scenario
represents
a
handler
wearing
long
pants,
a
long­
sleeved
shirt,
and
no
chemical­
resistant
gloves.
Table
3
below
presents
a
summary
of
occupational
handler
risks
of
disulfoton
by
crop.
The
Appendix
Tables
1
through
5
present
risk
assessment
calculations
for
the
occupational
handling
of
disulfoton.
Appendix
Table
1
presents
the
dermal,
inhalation,
and
total
short­
and
intermediate­
term
risks
at
baseline
attire.
Appendix
Table
2
presents
the
occupational
dermal,
inhalation,
and
total
short­
term
risks
when
wearing
PPE
risk
mitigation.
Appendix
Table
3
presents
the
occupational
dermal,
inhalation,
and
total
intermediate­
term
risks
when
wearing
PPE
risk
mitigation
Appendix
Table
4
presents
the
dermal,
inhalation,
and
total
short­
and
intermediate­
term
risks
when
engineering
controls
(
e.
g.
,
closed
systems
for
mixing/
loading,
enclosed
cab
for
applying
or
flagging,
and
enclosed
cockpit
for
aerial
applications
are
used.
Appendix
Table
5
summarizes
the
caveats
and
parameters
specific
to
the
surrogate
data
used
for
each
scenario
and
corresponding
exposure/
risk
assessment.

Engineering
Controls
for
Mixing
and
Loading
The
engineering
control
available
for
mixing
and
loading
pesticides
is
a
closed
system.
In
the
Worker
Protection
Standard
for
Agricultural
Pesticides
(
WPS)
­
­
40
CFR
Parts
156
and
170,
closed
systems
are
defined
as
systems
designed
by
the
manufacturer
to
enclose
the
pesticide
to
prevent
it
from
contacting
handlers
or
other
people
while
it
is
being
handled.
Such
systems
must
function
properly
and
be
used
and
maintained
in
accordance
with
the
manufacturer'
s
written
operating
instructions.
Under
the
WPS,
when
correctly
using
a
closed
system
to
mix
and/
or
load
pesticides,
handlers
need
not
wear
all
the
personal
protective
equipment
listed
on
the
pesticide
labeling
for
handlers,
but
must
wear
at
least:
long­
sleeved
shirt
and
long
pants,
shoes
and
socks,
and
chemical­
resistant
gloves
specified
on
the
pesticide
labeling
for
mixing,
loading,
and
other
handling
tasks.
If
the
formulation
is
a
liquid,
a
chemical­
resistant
apron
is
also
required.
The
gloves
and
chemical­
resistant
apron
are
required
to
protect
the
mixers/
loaders
in
case
the
closed
systems
breaks
down.
When
using
a
closed
system
for
liquid
formulations
that
operates
under
pressure,
handlers
may
wear
the
reduced
PPE
specified
above,
but
must
add
protective
eyewear
even
if
the
handler
PPE
does
not
require
protective
eyewear.
NOTE:
Under
the
WPS,
when
reduced
PPE
is
worn
because
a
closed
system
is
being
used,
handlers
must
be
provided
all
PPE
specified
on
the
labeling
for
handlers
and
have
such
PPE
immediately
available
for
use
in
a
emergency,
such
as
a
spill
or
equipment
break­
down.

Closed
Mixing/
Loading
Systems
for
Liquid
Formulations.
There
are
various
types
of
closed
systems
currently
available
for
use
with
liquid
formulations:

C
Water­
Soluble
Packaging
:
One
closed
system
is
a
type
of
packaging
system
where
the
liquid
pesticide
is
formulated
by
the
registrant
into
a
gel
and
packaged
into
water­
soluble
packets.
When
used
correctly,
water­
soluble
packaging
qualifies
as
a
closed
loading
system
under
the
WPS.
Water­
soluble
packaging
provides
both
dermal
and
inhalation
protection
and
is
reflected
in
the
risk
assessment
for
mixing/
loading
liquid
formulations
under
the
columns
for
engineering
controls
with
inhalation
protection
(
i.
e.
,
engineering
control
inhalation)
.
Handlers
handling
a
product
while
it
is
enclosed
in
intact
water­
soluble
packets
are
permitted
to
wear
the
reduced
PPE
described
above,
as
long
as
12
the
full
required
PPE
is
immediately
available.

C
Mechanical
Closed
Mixing
System
:
Another
type
of
closed
system
for
liquid
formulations
is
a
mechanical
system
operated
by
the
users
that
consists
of
a
probe
that
is
inserted
into
the
pesticide
container
(
either
by
puncturing
the
container
or
through
the
container'
s
opening)
and
seals
tightly
to
the
pesticide
container
to
prevent
leaks.
A
transfer
pump
may
be
used
to
move
the
pesticide
from
its
original
container
to
the
sprayer
tank
or
the
closed­
system
equipment
may
be
connected
to
the
pressure
system
of
the
sprayer
itself.
Some
type
of
metering
device
is
used
to
measure
the
quantity
of
pesticide
being
transferred.
This
type
of
system
provides
both
dermal
and
respiratory
protection
and
is
reflected
in
the
risk
assessment
for
mixing/
loading
liquid
formulations
under
the
columns
for
engineering
controls
with
inhalation
protection
(
i.
e.
,
engineering
control
inhalation)
.
Handlers
using
this
closed
system
are
permitted
to
wear
reduced
PPE
describe
above,
as
long
as
the
full
required
PPE
is
immediately
available.
NOTE:
If
the
closed
mixing
system
does
not
automatically
rinse
the
container
for
return
to
the
tank,
a
handler
wearing
full
PPE
must
rinse
the
container
and
add
the
rinsate
to
the
spray
tank.

C
Mechanical
Transfer
System
:
A
mechanical
transfer
system
usually
does
not
meet
the
definition
of
a
closed
system
under
the
WPS,
unless
inhalation
exposure
is
not
a
concern.
A
Mechanical
Transfer
System
is
designed
by
the
manufacturer
to
transfer
liquid
pesticide
in
a
manner
that
prevents
the
liquid
(
but
not
necessarily
any
vapor)
from
contacting
handlers
or
other
people
during
the
transfer.
Often
the
systems
are
equipped
with
dry­
disconnect
fittings.
However,
a
probe
and
pump
system
without
dry­
disconnect
fittings
also
is
a
mechanical
transfer
system.
This
type
of
system
provides
both
dermal
and
respiratory
protection
and
is
reflected
in
the
risk
assessment
for
mixing/
loading
liquid
formulations
under
the
columns
for
engineering
controls
with
no
inhalation
protection
(
i.
e.
,
baseline
inhalation)
.
If
inhalation
is
not
a
concern
for
mixers
and
loaders,
the
Agency
may
determine
that
a
mechanical
transfer
system
(
particularly
coupled
with
a
dry­
disconnect
system
­
­
see
below)
,
when
functioning
correctly
and
used
and
maintained
in
accordance
with
the
manufacturer'
s
written
operating
instructions,
qualifies
as
a
closed
system
and
permit
handlers
using
this
system
to
wear
reduced
PPE
described
above,
as
long
as
the
full
required
PPE
is
immediately
available.

C
Dry­
Disconnect
System
:
A
dry­
disconnect
systems
does
not
meet
the
definition
of
a
closed
system
under
the
WPS
unless
it
is
part
of
a
mechanical
closed
system.
Dry­
disconnect
systems
are
fittings
designed
by
the
manufacturer
to
minimize
pesticide
leakage
at
each
hose
disconnect
point.
These
systems
are
often
used
in
conjunction
with
mechanical
transfer
systems.
Dry­
disconnect
systems
greatly
reduce
leakage
of
liquid
when
connecting
pipes
or
hoses
are
uncoupled
from
equipment
or
from
other
pipes
or
hoses.

13
Closed
Loading
Systems
for
Granular
Formulations
.
Currently,
the
only
engineering
control
for
loading
granular
formulations
are
proprietary
systems
with
proprietary
names,
such
as
 
LockNLoad
 
or
 
Smartbox.
 
These
closed
systems
are
a
type
of
packaging
system
where
the
granular
pesticide
is
packaged
by
the
registrant
into
specially
designed
containers
that
fit
onto
specific
application
equipment.
When
used
correctly,
these
granular
packaging
systems
qualify
as
a
closed
loading
system
under
the
WPS.
Such
packaging
systems
provides
both
dermal
and
inhalation
protection
and
are
reflected
in
the
risk
assessment
for
loading
granular
formulations
into
tractor­
drawn
spreader
equipment
under
the
columns
for
engineering
controls
with
inhalation
protection
(
i.
e.
,
engineering
control
inhalation)
.
Handlers
handling
a
granulars
in
these
special
packing
systems
are
permitted
to
wear
the
reduced
PPE
described
above,
as
long
as
the
full
required
PPE
is
immediately
available.
NOTE:
currently,
the
Agency
is
unaware
of
any
closed
systems
for
granular
formulations
that
are
compatible
with
aerial
application
equipment.
However,
EPA
believes
that
such
systems
are
feasible
and
reflected
them
in
the
disulfoton
risk
assessment
to
promote
the
development
of
closed
systems
for
loading
granular
formulations
into
aerial
equipment.
When
developed,
such
packaging
systems
are
expected
to
provide
both
dermal
and
inhalation
protection
and
are
reflected
in
the
risk
assessment
for
loading
granular
formulations
into
aerial
equipment
under
the
columns
for
engineering
controls
with
inhalation
protection
(
i.
e.
,
engineering
control
inhalation)
.

Engineering
Controls
for
Application
Enclosed
Cockpits
for
Aerial
Application
.
The
engineering
control
available
for
applying
pesticides
in
aerial
equipment
is
an
enclosed
cockpit.
The
Agency
assumes
that
an
enclosed
cockpit
provides
dermal
and
inhalation
protection
and
it
is
reflected
in
the
risk
assessment
for
aerial
application
under
the
columns
for
engineering
controls
with
inhalation
protection
(
i.
e.
,
engineering
control
inhalation)
.
In
the
Worker
Protection
Standard
for
Agricultural
Pesticides
(
WPS)
­
­
40
CFR
Parts
156
and
170,
applicators
in
an
enclosed
cockpit
need
not
wear
all
the
PPE
listed
on
the
pesticide
labeling,
but
must
wear
at
least:
long­
sleeved
shirt,
and
long
pants,
shoes,
and
socks.
In
addition,
such
applicators
must
(
1)
wear
chemical­
resistant
gloves
when
entering
or
leaving
an
aircraft
contaminated
by
pesticide
residues,
and
(
2)
store
used
gloves
in
a
closed,
chemical­
resistant
container,
such
as
a
plastic
bag,
to
prevent
contamination
of
the
inside
of
the
cockpit.

Enclosed
Cabs
for
Motorized
Ground
Application.
The
engineering
control
available
for
applying
pesticides
in
motorized
ground
equipment
is
an
enclosed
cab.
In
the
Worker
Protection
Standard
for
Agricultural
Pesticides
(
WPS)
­
­
40
CFR
Parts
156
and
170,
an
enclosed
cab
must
have
a
nonporous
barrier
that
totally
surrounds
the
occupants
and
prevents
contact
with
pesticides
outside
of
the
cab.
If
inhalation
is
not
a
concern
for
ground
applicators
(
i.
e.
,
no
inhalation
protection
is
required)
,
any
enclosed
cab
that
surrounds
occupants
with
a
nonporous
barrier
meets
the
definition
of
enclosed
cab.
Enclosed
cabs
that
provide
dermal
protection
only
are
reflected
in
the
risk
assessment
for
ground
equipment
application
(
i.
e.
,
groundboom
and
tractor­
drawn
spreader)
under
the
columns
for
engineering
controls
with
no
inhalation
protection
(
i.
e.
,
baseline
inhalation)
.
If
the
risks
with
no
inhalation
protection
are
of
concern,
then
the
occupants
of
the
enclosed
cabs
must
either
wear
the
appropriate
type
of
respirator
or
use
an
enclosed
cab
that
provides
the
appropriate
level
of
respiratory
protection.
The
risks
for
such
14
situations
are
reflected
in
the
risk
assessment
for
ground
equipment
application
under
the
columns
for
engineering
controls
with
inhalation
protection
(
i.
e.
,
engineering
control
inhalation)
.
Some
enclosed­
cab
systems
provide
respiratory
protection
equivalent
to
a
dust/
mist
filtering
respirator
and
could,
therefore,
be
used
as
a
substitute
when
that
type
of
respirator
is
specified
on
the
product
labeling.
Other
enclosed­
cab
systems
are
equipped
to
remove
organic
vapors
as
well
as
dusts
and
mists
and
could
be
used
as
a
substitute
when
either
the
dust/
mist
filtering
respirator
or
an
organic­
vapor­
removing
respirator
is
specified
on
the
product
labeling.
Enclosed
cabs
that
provide
respiratory
protection
must
have
a
properly
functioning
ventilation
system
that
is
used
and
maintained
according
to
the
manufacturer'
s
written
operating
instructions.
The
cab
must
be
declared
in
writing
by
the
manufacturer
or
by
a
governmental
agency
to
provide
at
least
as
much
respiratory
protection
as
the
type
of
respirator
listed
on
the
pesticide
labeling.
NOTE:
Occupants
of
enclosed
cabs
need
not
wear
all
the
PPE
listed
on
the
pesticide
labeling,
but
must
wear
at
least:
long­
sleeved
shirt
and
long
pants,
shoes
and
socks.
They
must
also
wear
a
respirator
inside
the
enclosed
cab
if
a
respirator
is
listed
on
the
labeling
for
ground
equipment
applicators,
unless
the
enclosed
cab
provides
respiratory
protection
equivalent
to
the
type
of
respirator
required.
In
any
enclosed
cab
where
reduced
PPE
is
worn,
handlers
must:
(
1)
keep
immediately
available
all
PPE
listed
on
the
labeling
for
the
type
of
task
being
performed,
(
2)
wear
the
PPE
if
it
is
necessary
to
leave
the
cab
and
contact
pesticide­
treated
surfaces
in
the
treated
area,
(
3)
take
off
PPE
that
was
worn
in
the
treated
area
before
reentering
the
cab,
and
(
4)
store
all
PPE
in
a
chemical­
resistant
container,
such
as
a
plastic
bag,
to
prevent
contamination
of
the
inside
of
the
cab.

Engineering
Controls
for
Flagging
The
engineering
controls
available
for
flagging
to
support
aerial
applications
is
enclosed
cabs
and
mechanical
or
remote
flaggers.
The
enclosed
cab
engineering
control
is
the
same
as
the
enclosed
cab
described
under
Enclosed
Cabs
for
Motorized
Ground
Application
.
By
definition,
mechanical
flaggers
and
other
remote
flagging
devices
do
not
result
in
significant
exposures
to
humans.

15
TABLE
3:
SUMMARY
OF
HANDLER
RISKS
FOR
DISULFOTON
BY
CROP
Crop
Handler
Scenario
Application
Rate
/
Area
Treated
a,
b
Baseline
Total
MOE
c
(
UF=
100)
PPE
(
Gloves)

Total
MOE
c
(
UF=
100)
PPE
(
Gloves
+
Double
Layers)

Total
MOE
c
(
UF=
100)
Engineering
Controls
Total
MOE
c
(
UF=
100)

Short­
T
Inter.
­
T
Short­
T
Inter.
­
T
Short­
T
Inter.
­
T
Short­
T
Inter.
­
T
No
R
Resp
No
R
Resp
No
R
Resp
No
R
Resp
No
I
Inh
No
I
Inh
Tobacco
Mixing/
loading
liquid
formulation
for
aerial
application
4
lb/
A
&
350
A
0.
0086
0.
0014
0.
69
0.
97
0.
17
0.
18
0.
82
1.
3
0.
22
0.
24
1.
1
2.
6
0.
39
0.
4
8
Applying
sprays
with
aircraft
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NF
4.3
NF
0.
8
1
Flagging
for
aerial
spray
applications
1.
7
0.
36
N
\
A
N
\
A
N
\
A
N
\
A
1.
8
NG
2.
3
NG
0.
39
NG
0.
41
NG
6.
1
84
4.
8
18
Loading
granular
formulations
for
aerial
application
4
lb/
A
&
350
A
0.
92
0.
36
0.
97
2.
3
0.
41
0.
55
1.
1
3.
5
0.
64
1
NF
46
NF
18
Applying
granules
with
aircraft
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NF
1.5
NF
1
Flagging
for
aerial
granular
applications
5.6
1.
4
N
\
A
N
\
A
N
\
A
N
\
A
7.
7
NG
13
NG
2.
2
NG
2.
5
NG
15
280
12
68
Mixing/
loading
liquid
formulation
for
groundboom
application
4
lb/
A
&
80
A
0.
038
0.
0063
3
4.
3
0.
72
0.
78
3.
6
5.
6
0.
95
1
5
11
1.
7
2.
1
Applying
sprays
with
groundboom
equipment
4.
9
1.
2
4.
9
7
1.
2
1.
3
5.
7
8.
6
1.
5
1.
6
8.
3
20
2.
9
3.
6
Loading
granular
formulations
for
ground
application
4
lb/
A
&
80
A
4
1.
6
4.
2
10
1.
8
2.
4
4.
9
15
2.
8
4.
5
NF
200
NF
78
Applying
granules
with
tractor­
drawn
spreader
4.
7
1.
5
5.
3
11
1.
9
2.
4
6.
2
16
2.
8
3.
9
7.
1
24
4.
2
7.
3
Asparagus
(
SLN)
Mixing/
loading
liquid
formulation
for
aerial
application
1
lb/
A
&
350
0.
034
0.
0057
2.
8
3.
9
0.
66
0.
71
3.
3
5.
1
0.
87
0.
96
4.
6
11
1.
5
1.
9
Applying
sprays
with
aircraft
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NF
17
NF
3.3
Flagging
for
aerial
spray
applications
6.
7
1.
4
N
\
A
N
\
A
N
\
A
N
\
A
7.
2
NG
9.
3
NG
1.
6
NG
1.
6
NG
24
340
19
72
Mixing/
loading
liquid
formulation
for
groundboom
application
1
lb/
A
&
80
0.
15
0.
025
12
17
2.
9
3.
1
14
22
3.
8
4.
2
20
46
6.
7
8.
3
Applying
sprays
with
groundboom
equipment
20
4.
7
20
28
4.
7
5.
1
23
35
5.
9
6.
5
33
80
11
14
Barley
Mixing/
loading
liquid
formulation
for
aerial
application
1
lb/
A
&
1200
A
0.
01
0.
0017
0.
8
1.
1
0.
19
0.
21
0.
96
1.
5
0.
25
0.
28
1.
3
3.
1
0.
45
0.
5
6
Applying
sprays
with
aircraft
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NF
5.1
NF
0.
9
5
Flagging
for
aerial
spray
applications
1
lb/
A
&
1200
A
2
0.
42
N
\
A
N
\
A
N
\
A
N
\
A
2.
1
NG
2.
7
NG
0.
46
NG
0.
48
NG
7.
1
98
5.
6
21
16
TABLE
3:
SUMMARY
OF
HANDLER
RISKS
FOR
DISULFOTON
BY
CROP
continued
Crop
Handler
Scenario
Application
Rate
/
Area
Treated
a,
b
Baseline
Total
MOE
c
(
UF=
100)
PPE
(
Gloves)

Total
MOE
c
(
UF=
100)
PPE
(
Gloves
+
Double
Layers)

Total
MOE
c
(
UF=
100)
Engineering
Controls
Total
MOE
c
(
UF=
100)

Short­
T
Inter.
­
T
Short­
T
Inter.
­
T
Short­
T
Inter.
­
T
Short­
T
Inter.
­
T
No
R
Resp
No
R
Resp
No
R
Resp
No
R
Resp
No
I
Inh
No
I
Inh
1
lb/
A
&
350
A
6.
7
1.
4
N
\
A
N
\
A
N
\
A
N
\
A
7.
2
NG
9.
3
NG
1.
6
NG
1.
6
NG
24
340
19
72
Loading
granular
formulations
for
aerial
application
1
lb/
A
&
1200
A
1.
1
0.
42
1.
1
2.
7
0.
48
0.
65
1.
3
4.
1
0.
74
1.
2
NF
53
NF
21
Applying
granules
with
aircraft
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NF
1.8
NF
1.
2
Flagging
for
aerial
granular
applications
1
lb/
A
&
1200
A
6.
5
1.
6
N
\
A
N
\
A
N
\
A
N
\
A
8.
9
NG
15
NG
2.
6
NG
2.
9
NG
17
330
15
79
1
lb/
A
&
350
A
5.
6
1.
4
N
\
A
N
\
A
N
\
A
N
\
A
7.
7
NG
13
NG
2.
2
NG
2.
5
NG
15
280
12
22
Mixing/
loading
liquid
formulation
for
groundboom
application
1
lb/
A
&
200
A
0.
06
0.
01
5.
8
8.
9
1.
2
1.
2
4.
8
6.
8
1.
5
1.
7
8
18
2.
7
3.
3
Applying
sprays
with
groundboom
equipment
7.
9
1.
9
7.
9
11
1.
9
2
9.
1
14
2.
4
2.
6
13
32
4.
6
5.
7
Loading
granular
formulations
for
ground
application
1
lb/
A
&
200
A
6.
4
2.
5
6.
8
16
2.
9
3.
9
7.
9
24
4.
5
7.
2
NF
320
NF
130
Applying
granules
with
tractor­
drawn
spreader
7.
5
2.
4
8.
5
18
3.
1
3.
8
10
25
4.
5
6.
3
11
39
6.
7
12
Soybeans
Loading
granular
formulations
for
ground
application
1
lb/
A
&
200
A
6.
4
2.
5
6.
8
16
2.
9
3.
9
7.
9
24
4.
5
7.
2
NF
320
NF
120
Applying
granules
with
tractor­
drawn
spreader
7.
5
2.
4
8.
5
18
3.
1
3.
8
10
25
4.
5
6.
3
11
39
6.
7
12
Wheat
Mixing/
loading
liquid
formulation
for
aerial
application
0.
75/
A
&
1200
A
0.
013
0.
0022
1.
1
1.
5
0.
26
0.
28
1.
3
2
0.
34
0.
37
1.
8
4.
1
0.
6
0.
7
4
Applying
sprays
with
aircraft
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NF
6.8
NF
1.
3
Flagging
for
aerial
spray
applications
0.
75/
A
&
1200
A
2.6
0.
56
N
\
A
N
\
A
N
\
A
N
\
A
2.
8
NG
3.
6
NG
0.
61
NG
0.
64
NG
9.
5
130
7.
5
28
0.
75/
A
&
350
A
9
1.
9
N
\
A
N
\
A
N
\
A
N
\
A
9.
6
NG
12
NG
2.
1
NG
2.
2
NG
32
450
26
95
Loading
granular
formulations
for
aerial
application
1
lb/
A
&
1200
A
1.
1
0.
42
1.
1
2.
7
0.
48
0.
65
1.
3
4.
1
0.
74
1.
2
NF
53
NF
21
Applying
granules
with
aircraft
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NF
1.8
NF
1.
2
1
lb/
A
&
1200
A
6.
5
1.
6
N
\
A
N
\
A
N
\
A
N
\
A
8.
9
NG
15
NG
2.
6
NG
2.
9
NG
17
330
15
79
Flagging
for
aerial
granular
applications
17
TABLE
3:
SUMMARY
OF
HANDLER
RISKS
FOR
DISULFOTON
BY
CROP
continued
Crop
Handler
Scenario
Application
Rate
/
Area
Treated
a,
b
Baseline
Total
MOE
c
(
UF=
100)
PPE
(
Gloves)

Total
MOE
c
(
UF=
100)
PPE
(
Gloves
+
Double
Layers)

Total
MOE
c
(
UF=
100)
Engineering
Controls
Total
MOE
c
(
UF=
100)

Short­
T
Inter.
­
T
Short­
T
Inter.
­
T
Short­
T
Inter.
­
T
Short­
T
Inter.
­
T
No
R
Resp
No
R
Resp
No
R
Resp
No
R
Resp
No
I
Inh
No
I
Inh
1
lb/
A
&
350
A
5.
6
1.
4
N
\
A
N
\
A
N
\
A
N
\
A
7.
7
NG
13
NG
2.
2
NG
2.
5
NG
15
280
12
68
Mixing/
loading
liquid
formulation
for
groundboom
application
1
lb/
A
&
200
A
0.
06
0.
01
4.
8
6.
8
1.
2
1.
2
5.
8
8.
9
1.
5
1.
7
8
18
2.
7
3.
3
Applying
sprays
with
groundboom
equipment
7.
9
1.
9
7.
9
11
1.
9
2
9.
1
14
2.
4
2.
6
13
32
4.
6
5.
7
Loading
granular
formulations
for
ground
application
1
lb/
A
&
200
A
6.
4
2.
5
6.
8
16
2.
9
3.
9
7.
9
24
4.
5
7.
2
NF
320
NF
130
Applying
granules
with
tractor­
drawn
spreader
7.
5
2.
4
8.
5
18
3.
1
3.
8
10
25
4.
5
6.
3
11
39
6.
7
12
Sorghum
Mixing/
loading
liquid
formulation
for
aerial
application
0.
5/
A
&
1200
A
0.
02
0.
0033
1.
6
2.
3
0.
39
0.
41
1.
9
3
0.
51
0.
56
2.
7
6.
1
0.
9
1.
1
Applying
sprays
with
aircraft
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NF
10
NF
1.9
Flagging
for
aerial
spray
applications
0.
5/
A
&
1200
A
3.
9
0.
83
N
\
A
N
\
A
N
\
A
N
\
A
4.
2
NG
5.
4
NG
0.
91
NG
0.
96
NG
14
200
11
42
0.
5/
A
&
350
A
13
2.
9
N
\
A
N
\
A
N
\
A
N
\
A
14
NG
19
NG
3.
1
NG
3.
3
NG
49
670
38
140
Loading
granular
formulations
for
aerial
application
1
lb/
A
&
1200
A
1.
1
0.
42
1.
1
2.
7
0.
48
0.
65
1.
3
4.
1
0.
74
1.
2
NF
53
NF
21
Applying
granules
with
aircraft
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NF
1.8
NF
1.
2
Flagging
for
aerial
granular
applications
1
lb/
A
&
1200
A
6.
5
1.
6
N
\
A
N
\
A
N
\
A
N
\
A
8.
9
NG
15
NG
2.
6
NG
2.
9
NG
17
330
15
79
1
lb/
A
&
350
A
22
5.
5
N
\
A
N
\
A
N
\
A
N
\
A
31
NG
52
NG
8.
9
NG
10
NG
58
1100
50
270
Mixing/
loading
liquid
formulation
for
groundboom
application
1
lb/
A
&
200
A
0.
06
0.
01
4.
8
6.
8
1.
2
1.
2
5.
8
8.
9
1.
5
1.
7
8
18
2.
7
3.
3
Applying
sprays
with
groundboom
equipment
7.
9
1.
9
7.
9
11
1.
9
2
9.
1
14
2.
4
2.
6
13
32
4.
6
5.
7
Loading
granular
formulations
for
ground
application
1
lb/
A
&
200
A
6.
4
2.
5
6.
8
16
2.
9
3.
9
7.
9
24
4.
5
7.
2
NF
320
NF
130
Applying
granules
with
tractor­
drawn
spreader
7.
5
2.
4
8.
5
18
3.
1
3.
8
10
25
4.
5
6.
3
11
39
6.
7
12
Potatoes
(
foliar)
Mixing/
loading
liquid
formulation
for
aerial
application
0.
5/
lbA
&
0.
069
0.
011
5.
5
7.
8
1.
3
1.
4
6.
6
10
1.
7
1.
9
9.
1
21
3.
1
3.
8
350
A
18
TABLE
3:
SUMMARY
OF
HANDLER
RISKS
FOR
DISULFOTON
BY
CROP
continued
Crop
Handler
Scenario
Application
Rate
/
Area
Treated
a,
b
Baseline
Total
MOE
c
(
UF=
100)
PPE
(
Gloves)

Total
MOE
c
(
UF=
100)
PPE
(
Gloves
+
Double
Layers)

Total
MOE
c
(
UF=
100)
Engineering
Controls
Total
MOE
c
(
UF=
100)

Short­
T
Inter.
­
T
Short­
T
Inter.
­
T
Short­
T
Inter.
­
T
Short­
T
Inter.
­
T
No
R
Resp
No
R
Resp
No
R
Resp
No
R
Resp
No
I
Inh
No
I
Inh
Applying
sprays
with
aircraft
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NF
35
NF
6.5
Flagging
for
aerial
spray
applications
13
2.
9
N
\
A
N
\
A
N
\
A
N
\
A
14
NG
19
NG
3.
1
NG
3.
3
NG
49
670
38
140
Mixing/
loading/
applying
liquid
formulation
through
chemigation
(
OR,

WA,
ID,
UT)
3.
0
lb/
A
&

350
A
0.
011
0.
0019
0.
92
1.
3
0.
22
0.
24
1.
1
1.
7
0.
29
0.
32
1.
5
3.
5
0.
51
0.
6
3
Mixing/
loading
liquid
formulation
for
groundboom
application
0.
5
lb/
A
&
80
A
0.
3
0.
05
24
34
5.
8
6.
2
29
44
7.
6
8.
4
40
92
13
17
Applying
sprays
with
groundboom
equipment
39
9.
5
39
56
9.
5
10
46
69
12
13
66
160
23
29
Potatoes
(
soil­
directed)
Mixing/
loading
liquid
formulation
for
groundboom
application
3
lb/
A
&
80
A
0.
05
0.
0084
4
5.
7
0.
96
1
4.
8
7.
4
1.
3
1.
4
6.
6
15
2.
2
2.
8
Applying
sprays
with
groundboom
equipment
6.
6
1.
6
6.
6
9.
3
1.
6
1.
7
7.
6
12
2
2.
2
11
27
3.
8
4.
8
Loading
granular
formulations
for
aerial
application
3
lb/
A
&
350
A
1.
2
0.
48
1.
3
3.
1
0.
55
0.
74
1.
5
4.
6
0.
85
1.
4
NF
61
NF
24
Applying
granules
with
aircraft
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NF
2.1
NF
1.
4
Flagging
for
aerial
granular
applications
7.5
1.
8
N
\
A
N
\
A
N
\
A
N
\
A
10
NG
17
NG
3
NG
3.
4
NG
19
370
17
90
Loading
granular
formulations
for
ground
application
3
lb/
A
&
80
A
5.
3
2.
1
5.
7
14
2.
4
3.
2
6.
5
20
3.
7
6
NF
270
NF
100
Applying
granules
with
tractor­
drawn
spreader
6.
3
2
7.
1
15
2.
6
3.
2
8.
3
21
3.
8
5.
2
9.
4
32
5.
6
9.
7
Cotton
(
SLN)
Mixing/
loading
liquid
formulation
for
aerial
application
0.
2
lb/
A
&

1200
A
0.
05
0.
0084
4
5.
7
0.
96
1
4.
8
7.
4
1.
3
1.
4
6.
6
15
2.
2
2.
8
Applying
sprays
with
aircraft
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NF
25
NF
4.7
Flagging
for
aerial
spray
applications
0.
2
lb/
A
&

1200
A
34
7.
2
N
\
A
N
\
A
N
\
A
N
\
A
36
NG
46
NG
7.
8
NG
8.
2
NG
120
1700
96
360
0.
2
lb/
A
&

350
A
9.8
2.
1
N
\
A
N
\
A
N
\
A
N
\
A
11
NG
14
NG
2.
3
NG
2.
4
NG
35
490
28
100
Cotton
Mixing/
loading/
applying
liquid
formulation
through
chemigation
1
lb/
A
&

350
A
0.
034
0.
0057
2.
8
3.
9
0.
66
0.
71
3.
3
5.
1
0.
87
0.
96
4.
6
11
1.
5
1.
9
Mixing/
loading
liquid
formulation
for
groundboom
application
1
lb/
A
&
200
A
0.
06
0.
01
4.
8
6.
8
1.
2
1.
2
5.
8
8.
9
1.
5
1.
7
8
18
2.
7
3.
3
19
TABLE
3:
SUMMARY
OF
HANDLER
RISKS
FOR
DISULFOTON
BY
CROP
continued
Crop
Handler
Scenario
Application
Rate
/
Area
Treated
a,
b
Baseline
Total
MOE
c
(
UF=
100)
PPE
(
Gloves)

Total
MOE
c
(
UF=
100)
PPE
(
Gloves
+
Double
Layers)

Total
MOE
c
(
UF=
100)
Engineering
Controls
Total
MOE
c
(
UF=
100)

Short­
T
Inter.
­
T
Short­
T
Inter.
­
T
Short­
T
Inter.
­
T
Short­
T
Inter.
­
T
No
R
Resp
No
R
Resp
No
R
Resp
No
R
Resp
No
I
Inh
No
I
Inh
Applying
sprays
with
groundboom
equipment
7.
9
1.
9
7.
9
11
1.
9
2
9.
1
14
2.
4
2.
6
13
32
4.
6
5.
7
Loading
granular
formulations
for
ground
application
1
lb/
A
&
200
A
6.
4
2.
5
6.
8
16
2.
9
3.
9
7.
9
24
4.
5
7.
2
NF
320
NF
130
Applying
granules
with
tractor­
drawn
spreader
7.
5
2.
4
8.
5
18
3.
1
3.
8
10
25
4.
5
6.
3
11
39
6.
7
12
Poplars
Grown
for
Pulpwood
(
SLN)
Mixing/
loading/
applying
liquid
formulation
through
chemigation
3
lb/
A
&
350
A
0.
011
0.
0019
0.
92
1.
3
0.
22
0.
24
1.
1
1.
7
0.
29
0.
32
1.
5
3.
5
0.
51
0.
6
3
Mixing/
loading
liquid
formulation
for
groundboom
application
3
lb/
A
&
80
A
0.
05
0.
0084
4
5.
7
0.
96
1
4.
8
7.
4
1.
3
1.
4
6.
6
15
2.
2
2.
8
Applying
sprays
with
groundboom
equipment
6.
6
1.
6
6.
6
9.
3
1.
6
1.
7
7.
6
12
2
2.
2
11
27
3.
8
4.
8
Cabbage
Mixing/
loading/
applying
liquid
formulation
through
chemigation
2
lb/
A
&
350
A
0.
017
0.
0029
1.
4
1.
9
0.
33
0.
36
1.
6
2.
5
0.
43
0.
48
2.
3
5.
3
0.
77
0.
9
5
Mixing/
loading
liquid
formulation
for
groundboom
application
2
lb/
A
&
80
A
0.
075
0.
013
6
8.
5
1.
4
1.
6
7.
2
11
1.
9
2.
1
10
23
3.
4
4.
2
Applying
sprays
with
groundboom
equipment
9.
8
2.
4
9.
8
14
2.
4
2.
6
11
17
2.
9
3.
2
17
40
5.
7
7.
2
Loading
granular
formulations
for
ground
application
1.
5
lb/
A
&
80
A
11
4.
2
11
27
4.
8
6.
5
13
41
7.
4
12
NF
530
NF
210
Applying
granules
with
tractor­
drawn
spreader
13
4
14
30
5.
2
6.
4
17
42
7.
6
10
19
64
11
19
Lettuce
Mixing/
loading/
applying
liquid
formulation
through
chemigation
2
lb/
A
&
350
A
0.
017
0.
0029
1.
4
1.
9
0.
33
0.
36
1.
6
2.
5
0.
43
0.
48
2.
3
5.
3
0.
77
0.
9
5
Mixing/
loading
liquid
formulation
for
groundboom
application
2
lb/
A
&
80
A
0.
075
0.
013
6
8.
5
1.
4
1.
6
7.
2
11
1.
9
2.
1
10
23
3.
4
4.
2
Applying
sprays
with
groundboom
equipment
9.
8
2.
4
9.
8
14
2.
4
2.
6
11
17
2.
9
3.
2
17
40
5.
7
7.
2
Broccoli,
Brussels
sprouts,
cauliflower
Mixing/
loading/
applying
liquid
formulation
through
chemigation
1
lb/
A
&
350
A
0.
034
0.
0057
2.
8
3.
9
0.
66
0.
71
3.
3
5.
1
0.
87
0.
96
4.
6
11
1.
5
1.
9
Mixing/
loading
liquid
formulation
for
groundboom
application
1
lb/
A
&
80
A
0.
15
0.
025
12
17
2.
9
3.
1
14
22
3.
8
4.
2
20
46
6.
7
8.
3
Applying
sprays
with
groundboom
equipment
20
4.
7
20
28
4.
7
5.
1
23
35
5.
9
6.
5
33
80
11
14
20
TABLE
3:
SUMMARY
OF
HANDLER
RISKS
FOR
DISULFOTON
BY
CROP
continued
Crop
Handler
Scenario
Application
Rate
/
Area
Treated
a,
b
Baseline
Total
MOE
c
(
UF=
100)
PPE
(
Gloves)

Total
MOE
c
(
UF=
100)
PPE
(
Gloves
+
Double
Layers)

Total
MOE
c
(
UF=
100)
Engineering
Controls
Total
MOE
c
(
UF=
100)

Short­
T
Inter.
­
T
Short­
T
Inter.
­
T
Short­
T
Inter.
­
T
Short­
T
Inter.
­
T
No
R
Resp
No
R
Resp
No
R
Resp
No
R
Resp
No
I
Inh
No
I
Inh
Loading
granular
formulations
for
ground
application
1
lb/
A
&
80
A
16
6.
3
17
41
7.
3
9.
7
20
61
11
18
NF
800
NF
310
Applying
granules
with
tractor­
drawn
spreader
19
6
21
44
7.
7
9.
5
25
64
11
16
28
96
17
29
Peas,
Lentils
Mixing/
loading
liquid
formulation
for
groundboom
application
2.
5
lb/
A
&
80
A
0.
06
0.
01
4.
8
6.
8
1.
2
1.
2
5.
8
8.
9
1.
5
1.
7
8
18
2.
7
3.
3
Applying
sprays
with
groundboom
equipment
7.
9
1.
9
7.
9
11
1.
9
2
9.
1
14
2.
4
2.
6
13
32
4.
6
5.
7
Loading
granular
formulations
for
aerial
application
2.
5
lb/
A
&
350
A
1.
5
0.
58
1.
6
3.
7
0.
66
0.
89
1.
8
5.
6
1
1.
7
NF
73
NF
29
Applying
granules
with
aircraft
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NF
2.5
NF
1.
6
Flagging
for
aerial
granular
applications
9
2.
2
N
\
A
N
\
A
N
\
A
N
\
A
12
NG
21
NG
3.
6
NG
4
NG
23
450
20
110
Loading
granular
formulations
for
ground
application
2.
5
lb/
A
&
80
A
6.
4
2.
5
6.
8
16
2.
9
3.
9
7.
9
24
4.
5
7.
2
NF
320
NF
130
Applying
granules
with
tractor­
drawn
spreader
7.
5
2.
4
8.
5
18
3.
1
3.
8
10
25
4.
5
6.
3
11
39
6.
7
12
Beans
(
dry,

snap,
lima)
Mixing/
loading
liquid
formulation
for
groundboom
application
2
lb/
A
&
80
A
0.
075
0.
013
6
8.
5
1.
4
1.
6
7.
2
11
1.
9
2.
1
10
23
3.
4
4.
2
Applying
sprays
with
groundboom
equipment
9.
8
2.
4
9.
8
14
2.
4
2.
6
11
17
2.
9
3.
2
17
40
5.
7
7.
2
Loading
granular
formulations
for
ground
application
1
lb/
A
&
80
A
16
6.
3
17
41
7.
3
9.
7
20
61
11
18
NF
800
NF
310
Applying
granules
with
tractor­
drawn
spreader
19
6
21
44
7.
7
9.
5
25
64
11
16
28
96
17
29
Peppers,
Radish
grown
for
seed
(
SLN)
Mixing/
loading
liquid
formulation
for
groundboom
application
2
lb/
A
&
80
A
0.
075
0.
013
6
8.
5
1.
4
1.
6
7.
2
11
1.
9
2.
1
10
23
3.
4
4.
2
Applying
sprays
with
groundboom
equipment
9.
8
2.
4
9.
8
14
2.
4
2.
6
11
17
2.
9
3.
2
17
40
5.
7
7.
2
Loading
granular
formulations
for
ground
application
2
lb/
A
&
80
A
8
3.
2
8.
5
20
3.
6
4.
8
9.
8
30
5.
6
9
NF
400
NF
160
Applying
granules
with
tractor­
drawn
spreader
9.
4
3
11
22
3.
9
4.
8
12
32
5.
7
7.
8
14
48
8.
4
15
21
TABLE
3:
SUMMARY
OF
HANDLER
RISKS
FOR
DISULFOTON
BY
CROP
continued
Crop
Handler
Scenario
Application
Rate
/
Area
Treated
a,
b
Baseline
Total
MOE
c
(
UF=
100)
PPE
(
Gloves)

Total
MOE
c
(
UF=
100)
PPE
(
Gloves
+
Double
Layers)

Total
MOE
c
(
UF=
100)
Engineering
Controls
Total
MOE
c
(
UF=
100)

Short­
T
Inter.
­
T
Short­
T
Inter.
­
T
Short­
T
Inter.
­
T
Short­
T
Inter.
­
T
No
R
Resp
No
R
Resp
No
R
Resp
No
R
Resp
No
I
Inh
No
I
Inh
Peanuts
(
SLN)
Loading
granular
formulations
for
aerial
application
2
lb/
A
&
350
A
1.
8
0.
72
1.
9
4.
7
0.
83
1.
1
2.
2
7
1.
3
2.
1
NF
91
NF
36
Applying
granules
with
aircraft
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NF
3.1
NF
2
Flagging
for
aerial
granular
applications
11
2.
7
N
\
A
N
\
A
N
\
A
N
\
A
15
NG
26
NG
4.
4
NG
5
NG
29
560
25
140
Loading
granular
formulations
for
ground
application
2
lb/
A
&
80
A
8
3.
2
8.
5
20
3.
6
4.
8
9.
8
30
5.
6
9
NF
400
NF
160
Applying
granules
with
tractor­
drawn
spreader
9.
4
3
11
22
3.
9
4.
8
12
32
5.
7
7.
8
14
48
8.
4
15
Peanuts
Loading
granular
formulations
for
ground
application
1
lb/
A
&
80
A
16
6.
3
17
41
7.
3
9.
7
20
61
11
18
NF
800
NF
310
Applying
granules
with
tractor­
drawn
spreader
19
6
21
44
7.
7
9.
5
25
64
11
16
28
96
17
29
Clover
grown
for
seed
(
SLN)
Loading
granular
formulations
for
aerial
application
1
lb/
A
&
350
A
3.
7
1.
4
3.
9
9.
4
1.
7
2.
2
4.
5
14
2.
5
4.
1
NF
180
NF
72
Applying
granules
with
aircraft
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NF
6.2
NF
4.
1
Flagging
for
aerial
granular
applications
22
5.
4
N
\
A
N
\
A
N
\
A
N
\
A
31
NG
52
NG
8.
9
NG
10
NG
58
1100
50
270
Loading
granular
formulations
for
ground
application
1
lb/
A
&
80
A
16
6.
3
17
41
7.
3
9.
7
20
61
11
18
NF
800
NF
310
Applying
granules
with
tractor­
drawn
spreader
19
6
21
44
7.
7
9.
5
25
64
11
16
28
96
17
29
Field
Grown
Ornamental
Shrubs
Loading
granular
formulations
for
ground
application
109
lb/
A
&
40
A
0.
29
0.
12
0.
31
0.
75
0.
13
0.
18
0.
36
1.
1
0.
2
0.
33
NF
15
NF
5.
7
Applying
granules
with
tractor­
drawn
spreader
0.
35
0.
11
0.
39
0.
81
0.
14
0.
18
0.
46
1.
2
0.
21
0.
29
0.
52
1.
8
0.
31
0.
5
3
Loading/
Applying
with
Push
Type
Spreader
109
lb/
A
&
5
A
0.
15
0.
029
0.
21
0.
27
0.
046
0.
048
0.
33
0.
51
0.
086
0.
095
NF
NF
NF
NF
Loading/
Applying
with
Bellygrinder
109
lb/
A
&
1
A
0.
03
0.
0053
0.
032
0.
034
0.
0057
0.
0057
0.
05
0.
055
0.
0092
0.
0094
NF
NF
NF
NF
Loading/
Applying
with
Pump
Feed
Backpack
Spreader
109
lb/
A
&
10
A
ND
ND
0.
57
AP
1.
7
AP
0.
3
AP
0.
46
AP
ND
ND
ND
ND
NF
NF
NF
NF
109
lb/
A
&
5
A
ND
ND
1.
1
AP
3.
3
AP
0.
6
AP
0.
93
AP
ND
ND
ND
ND
NF
NF
NF
NF
Loading/
Applying
with
Gravity
Feed
Backpack
Spreader
109
lb/
A
&
10
A
ND
ND
0.
029
0.
046
0.
0079
0.
0087
ND
ND
ND
ND
NF
NF
NF
NF
109
lb/
A
&
5
A
ND
ND
0.
059
0.
092
0.
016
0.
017
ND
ND
ND
ND
NF
NF
NF
NF
22
TABLE
3:
SUMMARY
OF
HANDLER
RISKS
FOR
DISULFOTON
BY
CROP
continued
Crop
Handler
Scenario
Application
Rate
/
Area
Treated
a,
b
Baseline
Total
MOE
c
(
UF=
100)
PPE
(
Gloves)

Total
MOE
c
(
UF=
100)
PPE
(
Gloves
+
Double
Layers)

Total
MOE
c
(
UF=
100)
Engineering
Controls
Total
MOE
c
(
UF=
100)

Short­
T
Inter.
­
T
Short­
T
Inter.
­
T
Short­
T
Inter.
­
T
Short­
T
Inter.
­
T
No
R
Resp
No
R
Resp
No
R
Resp
No
R
Resp
No
I
Inh
No
I
Inh
Loading/
Applying
with
Scoop
and
Bucket
109
lb/
A
&
10
A
ND
ND
0.
013
0.
015
0.
0026
0.
0027
ND
ND
ND
ND
NF
NF
NF
NF
109
lb/
A
&
5
A
ND
ND
0.
026
0.
031
0.
0051
0.
0053
ND
ND
ND
ND
NF
NF
NF
NF
Field
Grown
Ornamental
Trees
Loading
granular
formulations
for
ground
application
37
lb/
A
&
40
A
0.
87
0.
34
0.
92
2.
2
0.
39
0.
52
1.
1
3.
3
0.
6
0.
98
NF
43
NF
17
Applying
granules
with
tractor­
drawn
spreader
1
0.
33
1.
2
2.
4
0.
42
0.
52
1.
3
3.
4
0.
61
0.
85
1.
5
5.
2
0.
91
1.
6
Loading/
Applying
with
Push
Type
Spreader
37
lb/
A
&
5
A
0.
44
0.
087
0.
62
0.
8
0.
13
0.
14
0.
98
1.
5
0.
25
0.
28
NF
NF
NF
NF
Loading/
Applying
with
Bellygrinder
37
lb/
A
&
1
A
0.
088
0.
016
0.
095
0.
1
0.
017
0.
017
0.
15
0.
16
0.
027
0.
028
NF
NF
NF
NF
Loading/
Applying
with
Pump
Feed
Backpack
Spreader
37
lb/
A
&
10
A
ND
ND
1.
7
AP
4.9
AP
0.89
AP
1.4
AP
ND
ND
ND
ND
NF
NF
NF
NF
37
lb/
A
&
5
A
ND
ND
3.
3
AP
9.8
AP
1.8
AP
2.7
AP
ND
ND
ND
ND
NF
NF
NF
NF
Loading/
Applying
with
Gravity
Feed
Backpack
Spreader
37
lb/
A
&
10
A
ND
ND
0.
087
0.
14
0.
023
0.
026
ND
ND
ND
ND
NF
NF
NF
NF
37
lb/
A
&
5
A
ND
ND
0.
17
0.
27
0.
046
0.051
ND
ND
ND
ND
NF
NF
NF
NF
Loading/
Applying
with
Scoop
and
Bucket
37
lb/
A
&
10
A
ND
ND
0.
038
0.
045
0.
0076
0.
0078
ND
ND
ND
ND
NF
NF
NF
NF
37
lb/
A
&
5
A
ND
ND
0.
076
0.
09
0.
015
0.
016
ND
ND
ND
ND
NF
NF
NF
NF
Field
Grown
Ornamental
Flowers
and
Groundcover
Loading
granular
formulations
for
ground
application
29
lb/
A
&
40
A
1.
1
0.
44
1.
2
2.
8
0.
5
0.
67
1.
4
4.
2
0.
77
1.
2
NF
55
NF
22
Applying
granules
with
tractor­
drawn
spreader
1.
3
0.
41
1.
5
3.
1
0.
53
0.
66
1.
7
4.
4
0.
78
1.
1
2
6.
6
1.
2
2
Loading/
Applying
with
Push
Type
Spreader
29
lb/
A
&
5
A
0.
56
0.
11
0.
8
1
0.
17
0.
18
1.
2
1.
9
0.
32
0.
36
NF
NF
NF
NF
Loading/
Applying
with
Bellygrinder
29
lb/
A
&
1
A
0.
11
0.
02
0.
12
0.
13
0.
021
0.
022
0.
19
0.
21
0.
035
0.
035
NF
NF
NF
NF
Loading/
Applying
with
Pump
Feed
Backpack
Spreader
29
lb/
A
&
10
A
ND
ND
2.
1
AP
6.2
AP
1.1
AP
1.7
AP
ND
ND
ND
ND
NF
NF
NF
NF
29
lb/
A
&
5
A
ND
ND
4.
3
AP
12
AP
2.3
AP
3.5
AP
ND
ND
ND
ND
NF
NF
NF
NF
Loading/
Applying
with
Gravity
Feed
Backpack
Spreader
29
lb/
A
&
10
A
ND
ND
0.
11
0.
17
0.
03
0.
033
ND
ND
ND
ND
NF
NF
NF
NF
29
lb/
A
&
5
A
ND
ND
0.
22
0.
35
0.
059
0.065
ND
ND
ND
ND
NF
NF
NF
NF
Loading/
Applying
with
Scoop
and
Bucket
29
lb/
A
&
10
A
ND
ND
0.
048
0.
057
0.
0097
0.
01
ND
ND
ND
ND
NF
NF
NF
NF
29
lb/
A
&
5
A
ND
ND
0.
097
0.
11
0.
019
0.
02
ND
ND
ND
ND
NF
NF
NF
NF
Field
Grown
Flowers
&

Groundcover
(
lower
rate)
Loading
granular
formulations
for
ground
application
11
lb/
A
&
40
A
2.
9
1.
1
3.
1
7.
4
1.
3
1.
8
3.
6
11
2
3.
3
NF
150
NF
57
Applying
granules
with
tractor­
drawn
spreader
3.
4
1.
1
3.
9
8.
1
1.
4
1.
7
4.
5
12
2.
1
2.
9
5.
2
18
3.
1
5.
3
23
TABLE
3:
SUMMARY
OF
HANDLER
RISKS
FOR
DISULFOTON
BY
CROP
continued
Crop
Handler
Scenario
Application
Rate
/
Area
Treated
a,
b
Baseline
Total
MOE
c
(
UF=
100)
PPE
(
Gloves)

Total
MOE
c
(
UF=
100)
PPE
(
Gloves
+
Double
Layers)

Total
MOE
c
(
UF=
100)
Engineering
Controls
Total
MOE
c
(
UF=
100)

Short­
T
Inter.
­
T
Short­
T
Inter.
­
T
Short­
T
Inter.
­
T
Short­
T
Inter.
­
T
No
R
Resp
No
R
Resp
No
R
Resp
No
R
Resp
No
I
Inh
No
I
Inh
Loading/
Applying
with
Push
Type
Spreader
11
lb/
A
&
5
A
1.
5
0.
29
2.
1
2.
7
0.
45
0.
48
3.
3
5
0.
86
0.
94
NF
NF
NF
NF
Loading/
Applying
with
Bellygrinder
11
lb/
A
&
1
A
0.
3
0.
052
0.
32
0.
34
0.
056
0.
057
0.
5
0.
55
0.
091
0.
093
NF
NF
NF
NF
Loading/
Applying
with
Pump
Feed
Backpack
Spreader
11
lb/
A
&
10
A
ND
ND
5.
6
AP
16
AP
3
AP
4.6
AP
ND
ND
ND
ND
NF
NF
NF
NF
11
lb/
A
&
5
A
ND
ND
11
AP
33
AP
6
AP
9.2
AP
ND
ND
ND
ND
NF
NF
NF
NF
Loading/
Applying
with
Gravity
Feed
Backpack
Spreader
11
lb/
A
&
10
A
ND
ND
0.
29
0.
46
0.
078
0.086
ND
ND
ND
ND
NF
NF
NF
NF
11
lb/
A
&
5
A
ND
ND
0.
58
0.
91
0.
16
0.
17
ND
ND
ND
ND
NF
NF
NF
NF
Loading/
Applying
with
Scoop
and
Bucket
11
lb/
A
&
10
A
ND
ND
0.
13
0.
15
0.
025
0.026
ND
ND
ND
ND
NF
NF
NF
NF
11
lb/
A
&
5
A
ND
ND
0.
25
0.
3
0.051
0.053
ND
ND
ND
ND
NF
NF
NF
NF
Field
Grown
Ornamental
Trees
&
Shrubs
(
Injection)
Loading
granular
formulations
for
ground
application
11
lb/
A
&
40
A
2.
9
1.
1
3.
1
7.
4
1.
3
1.
8
3.
6
11
2
3.
3
NF
150
NF
57
Applying
granules
with
tractor­
drawn
spreader
3.
4
1.
1
3.
9
8.
1
1.
4
1.
7
4.
5
12
2.
1
2.
9
5.
2
18
3.
1
5.
3
Loading/
Applying
with
Push
Type
Spreader
11
lb/
A
&
5
A
1.
5
0.
29
2.
1
2.
7
0.
45
0.
48
3.
3
5
0.
86
0.
94
NF
NF
NF
NF
Loading/
Applying
with
Bellygrinder
11
lb/
A
&
1
A
0.
3
0.
052
0.
32
0.
34
0.
056
0.
057
0.
5
0.
55
0.
091
0.
093
NF
NF
NF
NF
Loading/
Applying
with
Pump
Feed
Backpack
Spreader
11
lb/
A
&
10
A
ND
ND
5.
6
AP
16
AP
3
AP
4.6
AP
ND
ND
ND
ND
NF
NF
NF
NF
11
lb/
A
&
5
A
ND
ND
11
AP
33
AP
6
AP
9.2
AP
ND
ND
ND
ND
NF
NF
NF
NF
Loading/
Applying
with
Gravity
Feed
Backpack
Spreader
11
lb/
A
&
10
A
ND
ND
0.
29
0.
46
0.
078
0.086
ND
ND
ND
ND
NF
NF
NF
NF
11
lb/
A
&
5
A
ND
ND
0.
58
0.
91
0.
16
0.
17
ND
ND
ND
ND
NF
NF
NF
NF
Loading/
Applying
with
Scoop
and
Bucket
11
lb/
A
&
10
A
ND
ND
0.
13
0.
15
0.
025
0.026
ND
ND
ND
ND
NF
NF
NF
NF
11
lb/
A
&
5
A
ND
ND
0.
25
0.
3
0.051
0.053
ND
ND
ND
ND
NF
NF
NF
NF
Potted
Ornamentals
Loading/
Applying
with
Pump
Feed
Backpack
Spreader
0.2
lb
ai/
day
ND
ND
3100
AP
9100
AP
1600
AP
2500
AP
ND
ND
ND
ND
NF
NF
NF
NF
Loading/
Applying
with
Gravity
Feed
Backpack
Spreader
ND
ND
160
250
43
47
ND
ND
ND
ND
NF
NF
NF
NF
Loading/
Applying
with
Scoop
and
Bucket
ND
ND
70
83
14
14
ND
ND
ND
ND
NF
NF
NF
NF
Chrismas
Trees
Loading
granular
formulations
for
ground
application
78
lb/
A
&
50
A
0.
33
0.
13
0.
35
0.
84
0.
15
0.
2
0.
4
1.
3
0.
23
0.
37
NF
16
NF
6.
4
Applying
granules
with
tractor­
drawn
spreader
0.
39
0.
12
0.
44
0.
91
0.
16
0.
2
0.
51
1.
3
0.
23
0.
32
0.
58
2
0.
35
0.
6
24
TABLE
3:
SUMMARY
OF
HANDLER
RISKS
FOR
DISULFOTON
BY
CROP
continued
Crop
Handler
Scenario
Application
Rate
/
Area
Treated
a,
b
Baseline
Total
MOE
c
(
UF=
100)
PPE
(
Gloves)

Total
MOE
c
(
UF=
100)
PPE
(
Gloves
+
Double
Layers)

Total
MOE
c
(
UF=
100)
Engineering
Controls
Total
MOE
c
(
UF=
100)

Short­
T
Inter.
­
T
Short­
T
Inter.
­
T
Short­
T
Inter.
­
T
Short­
T
Inter.
­
T
No
R
Resp
No
R
Resp
No
R
Resp
No
R
Resp
No
I
Inh
No
I
Inh
Loading/
Applying
with
Push
Type
Spreader
78
lb/
A
&
5
A
0.
21
0.
041
0.
3
0.
38
0.
064
0.
067
0.
46
0.
71
0.
12
0.
13
NF
NF
NF
NF
Loading/
Applying
with
Bellygrinder
78
lb/
A
&
1
A
0.
042
0.
0074
0.
045
0.
048
0.
0079
0.
008
0.
07
0.
077
0.
013
0.
013
NF
NF
NF
NF
Loading/
Applying
with
Pump
Feed
Backpack
Spreader
78
lb/
A
&
10
A
ND
ND
0.
79
AP
2.3
AP
0.42
AP
0.65
AP
ND
ND
ND
ND
NF
NF
NF
NF
78
lb/
A
&
5
A
ND
ND
1.
6
AP
4.6
AP
0.84
AP
1.3
AP
ND
ND
ND
ND
NF
NF
NF
NF
Loading/
Applying
with
Gravity
Feed
Backpack
Spreader
78
lb/
A
&
10
A
ND
ND
0.
041
0.
064
0.
011
0.
012
ND
ND
ND
ND
NF
NF
NF
NF
78
lb/
A
&
5
A
ND
ND
0.
082
0.
13
0.
022
0.
024
ND
ND
ND
ND
NF
NF
NF
NF
Loading/
Applying
with
Scoop
and
Bucket
78
lb/
A
&
10
A
ND
ND
0.
018
0.
021
0.
0036
0.
0037
ND
ND
ND
ND
NF
NF
NF
NF
78
lb/
A
&
5
A
ND
ND
0.
036
0.
043
0.
0072
0.
0074
ND
ND
ND
ND
NF
NF
NF
NF
Christmas
Trees
(
SLN)
Loading
granular
formulations
for
ground
application
4.
5
lb/
A
&
50
A
5.
7
2.
2
6
15
2.
6
3.
4
7
22
4
6.
4
NF
280
NF
110
Applying
granules
with
tractor­
drawn
spreader
6.
7
2.
1
7.
6
16
2.
8
3.
4
8.
9
23
4
5.
6
10
34
6
10
Loading/
Applying
with
Push
Type
Spreader
4.
5
lb/
A
&
5
A
3.
6
0.
71
5.
1
6.
6
1.
1
1.
2
8
12
2.
1
2.
3
NF
NF
NF
NF
Loading/
Applying
with
Bellygrinder
4.
5
lb/
A
&
1
A
0.
73
0.
13
0.
78
0.
82
0.
14
0.
14
1.
2
1.
3
0.
22
0.
23
NF
NF
NF
NF
Loading/
Applying
with
Pump
Feed
Backpack
Spreader
4.5
lb/
A
&
10
A
ND
ND
14
AP
40
AP
7.3
AP
11
AP
ND
ND
ND
ND
NF
NF
NF
NF
4.5
lb/
A
&
5
A
ND
ND
27
AP
80
AP
15
AP
22
AP
ND
ND
ND
ND
NF
NF
NF
NF
Loading/
Applying
with
Gravity
Feed
Backpack
Spreader
4.5
lb/
A
&
10
A
ND
ND
0.
71
1.
1
0.19
0.21
ND
ND
ND
ND
NF
NF
NF
NF
4.
5
lb/
A
&
5
A
ND
ND
1.
4
2.
2
0.
38
0.
42
ND
ND
ND
ND
NF
NF
NF
NF
Loading/
Applying
with
Scoop
and
Bucket
4.5
lb/
A
&
10
A
ND
ND
0.
31
0.
37
0.
062
0.064
ND
ND
ND
ND
NF
NF
NF
NF
4.
5
lb/
A
&
5
A
ND
ND
0.
62
0.
74
0.
12
0.
13
ND
ND
ND
ND
NF
NF
NF
NF
Coffee
Trees
Loading
granular
formulations
for
ground
application
8.
3
lb/
A
&
80
A
1.
9
0.
76
2
4.
9
0.
87
1.
2
2.
4
7.
3
1.
3
2.
2
NF
96
NF
38
Applying
granules
with
tractor­
drawn
spreader
2.
3
0.
72
2.
6
5.
3
0.
93
1.
1
3
7.
7
1.
4
1.
9
3.
4
12
2
3.
5
Loading/
Applying
with
Pump
Feed
Backpack
Spreader
8.3
lb/
A
&
10
A
ND
ND
7.
4
AP
22
AP
4
AP
6.1
AP
ND
ND
ND
ND
NF
NF
NF
NF
8.
.
3
lb/
A
&
5
A
ND
ND
15
AP
44
AP
7.9
AP
12
AP
ND
ND
ND
ND
NF
NF
NF
NF
Loading/
Applying
with
Gravity
Feed
Backpack
Spreader
8.
3
lb/
A
&
10
A
ND
ND
0.
39
0.
6
0.
1
0.
11
ND
ND
ND
ND
NF
NF
NF
NF
8.3
lb/
A
&
5
A
ND
ND
0.
77
1.
2
0.21
0.23
ND
ND
ND
ND
NF
NF
NF
NF
Loading/
Applying
with
Scoop
and
8.
3
lb/
A
&
10
A
ND
ND
0.
17
0.
2
0.
034
0.
035
ND
ND
ND
ND
NF
NF
NF
NF
Bucket
25
TABLE
3:
SUMMARY
OF
HANDLER
RISKS
FOR
DISULFOTON
BY
CROP
continued
Crop
Handler
Scenario
Application
Rate
/
Area
Treated
a,
b
Baseline
Total
MOE
c
(
UF=
100)
PPE
(
Gloves)

Total
MOE
c
(
UF=
100)
PPE
(
Gloves
+
Double
Layers)

Total
MOE
c
(
UF=
100)
Engineering
Controls
Total
MOE
c
(
UF=
100)

Short­
T
Inter.
­
T
Short­
T
Inter.
­
T
Short­
T
Inter.
­
T
Short­
T
Inter.
­
T
No
R
Resp
No
R
Resp
No
R
Resp
No
R
Resp
No
I
Inh
No
I
Inh
8.3
lb/
A
&
5
A
ND
ND
0.
34
0.
4
0.067
0.07
ND
ND
ND
ND
NF
NF
NF
NF
Note
:
Short­
T
indicates
short­
term
exposure
and
risk
Inter­
T
indicates
intermediate­
term
exposure
and
risk
No
R
indicates
no
respirator
Resp
indicates
use
of
a
dust/
mist
respirator
No
I
indicates
no
inhalation
protection
was
provided
by
the
engineering
control
Inh
indicates
that
inhalation
protection
was
provided
by
the
engineering
control
AP
indicates
that
an
apron
was
worn
on
the
backs
of
applicators.

ND
indicates
no
data
 
an
exposure
scenario
was
identified,
,
but
there
are
no
acceptable
data
to
complete
assessment.

NF
indicates
that
no
engineering
controls
are
feasible
for
this
exposure
scenario.

NG
indicates
no
gloves
were
added
for
this
scenario.

N/
A
indicates
that
the
personal
protective
equipment
are
not
applicable
or
not
appropriate
for
this
scenario.

Footnotes:
a
Application
rates
are
based
on
maximum
values
found
on
various
labels
or
proposed
by
registrant.
In
most
scenarios,
a
range
of
maximum
application
rates
is
used
to
represent
the
range
of
rates
for
different
crops/
sites/
uses.
Most
application
rates
upon
which
the
analysis
is
based
are
presented
as
lb
ai/
A.
In
the
case
of
ornamentals
in
pots,
the
application
rate
is
presented
as
lb
ai/
day)
.
Specific
application
rates
and
the
corresponding
EPA
Reg.
numbers
that
are
intended
as
examples
of
each
exposure
assessment
scenario
are
presented
below:

4.0
lb/
A
EC
formulations:
tobacco
(
Reg
#
3125­
307)

3.
0
lb/
A
EC
formulations:
potatoes:
foliar
OR,
WA,
ID
UT
(
Reg
#
3125­
307)
;
potatoes:
soil
(
Reg
#
3125­
307)
;
poplars
grown
for
pulpwood
(
Reg
#
3125­
307­
­
OR­
910027)

2.5
lb/
A
EC
formulations:
peas
and
lentils
(
Reg
#
3125­
307)

2.
0
lb/
A
EC
formulations:
beans:
dry,
snap,
lima
(
Reg
#
3125­
307)
;
cabbage
(
Reg
#
3125­
307)
;
lettuce
(
Reg
#
3125­
307)
;
peppers
(
Reg
#
3125­
307)
;
radish
grown
for
seed
(
Reg
#
3125­
307­
WA­
920026)
;

1.
0
lb/
A
EC
formulations:
asparagus
(
SLN)
(
Reg
#
3125­
307­
CA­
840192)
;
barley
(
Reg
#
3125­
307)
;
broccoli
(
Reg
#
3125­
307)
;
Brussels
sprouts
(
Reg
#
3125­
307)
;

cauliflower
(
Reg
#
3125­
307)
;
cotton
(
Reg
#
3125­
307)
;
sorghum
(
Reg
#
3125­
307)
;
wheat
(
Reg
#
3125­
307)
;

0.
75
lb/
A
EC
formulations:
wheat
(
Reg
#
3125­
307)

0.
5
lb/
A
EC
formulations:
sorghum
(
Reg
#
3125­
307)
;
potatoes:
foliar
(
Reg
#
3125­
307)

0.
2
lb/
A
EC
formulations:
cotton
(
(
Reg
#
3125­
307­
TX­
860007)

109
lb/
A
Granular
formulations:
field­
grown
ornamental
shrubs
(
Reg
#
3125­
172)
based
on
the
assumption
that
the
shrubs
are
two
feet
tall
and
occupy
two
square
feet
(
i.
e.
,
roses)
;

78
lb/
A
Granular
formulations:
Christmas
trees
(
Reg
#
3125­
172)
based
on
the
assumption
that
the
trunk
is
2
inches
in
diameter
and
are
planted
1700
trees
per
acre;

37
lb/
A
Granular
formulations:
field­
grown
ornamental
trees
(
Reg
#
3125­
172)
based
on
the
assumption
that
the
trunk
is
2
inches
in
diameters
and
are
planted
800
trees
per
acre;

29
lb/
A
Granular
formulations:
field­
grown
flowers
and
groundcover
(
Reg
#
3125­
72)

11
lb/
A
Granular
formulations:
field­
grown
ornamental
trees
and
shrubs:
injection
(
Reg
#
3125­
172)
and
field­
grown
flowers
and
groundcover
(
Reg
#
3125­
72)

8.
3
lb/
A
Granular
formulations:
coffee
trees
(
Reg
#
3125­
172)
based
on
the
assumption
that
the
trees
are
8
feet
tall
and
are
planted
435
trees
per
acre
4.
5
lb/
A
Granular
formulations:
Christmas
trees
(
(
Reg
#
3125­
172­
NC­
880001)

4.0
lb/
A
Granular
formulations:
tobacco
(
Reg
#
3125­
172)
;

3.
0
lb/
A
Granular
formulations:
potatoes:
soil
(
Reg
#
3125­
172)
;

2.5
lb/
A
Granular
formulations:
peas
and
lentils
(
Reg
#
3125­
172)
;

2.
0
lb/
A
Granular
formulations:
peanuts
(
Reg
#
3125­
172­
NC­
920011)
;
peppers
(
Reg
#
3125­
172)
;
radish
grown
for
seed
(
(
Reg
#
3125­
172­
WA­
920027)
;

1.
5
lb/
A
Granular
formulations:
cabbage
(
Reg
#
3125­
172)
;

1.
0
lb/
A
Granular
formulations:
barley
(
Reg
#
3125­
172)
;
beans:
dry,
snap,
lima:
(
Reg
#
3125­
172)
;
broccoli
(
Reg
#
3125­
172)
;
Brussels
sprouts
(
Reg
#
3125­
172)
;
cauliflower
26
TABLE
3:
SUMMARY
OF
HANDLER
RISKS
FOR
DISULFOTON
BY
CROP
continued
(
Reg
#
3125­
172)
;
clover
grown
for
seed
(
Reg
#
3125­
172­
WA­
980004)
;
cotton
(
Reg
#
3125­
172)
;
peanuts
(
Reg
#
3125­
172)
;
sorghum
(
Reg
#
3125­
172)
;
soybeans
(
Reg
#
3125­
172)
;
wheat
(
Reg
#
3125­
172)
;

0.
2
lb/
day
Granular
formulations:
potted
ornamentals
(
Reg
#
3125­
172)
;
based
on
the
assumption
that
350
pots
that
are
12
inches
in
diameter
are
treated
each
day;

b
Amount
handled
per
day
values
are
based
on
HED
Exposure
SAC
Policy
#
009
 
Standard
Values
for
Daily
Acres
Treated
in
Agriculture,
 
revised
June
23,
2000,
or
best
professional
judgment
when
data
is
not
available.
27
Summary
of
Concerns
for
Occupational
Handlers,
Data
Gaps,
and
Confidence
in
Exposure
and
Risk
Estimates
EPA
established
an
uncertainty
factor
of
100
for
dermal
and
inhalation
risks.
Margins
of
exposure
(
MOEs)
less
than
100
are
of
concern
to
the
Agency.
Both
short­
and
intermediate­
term
risks
are
assessed
for
occupational
handlers.
Since
the
short­
term
dermal
endpoint
is
based
on
a
3­
day
dermal
study,
EPA
believes
that
intermediate­
term
risks
are
triggered
for
most
handler
scenarios,
particularly
by
commercial
(
for­
hire)
applicators.

Occupational
Handler
Scenarios
with
Risk
Concerns
The
results
of
the
risk
assessment
for
occupational
handlers
indicates
that
total
short­
term
risks
are
of
concern
at
maximum
feasible
mitigation
through
personal
protective
equipment
or
engineering
controls,
as
applicable,
for:

 
mixing/
loading
liquid
formulations
for
all
crops
and
scenarios;
 
loading
granular
formulations
for
all
aerial
application
scenarios,
except
applications
to
clover
grown
for
seed;
 
loading
granular
formulations
for
all
ground
application
scenarios
where
the
application
rate
is
greater
than
16.5
pounds
active
ingredient
per
acre
and
application
is
to
40
acres
per
day
and
where
the
application
is
greater
than
8.3
pounds
per
acre
and
application
is
to
80
acres
per
day;
 
applying
sprays
or
granules
aerially;
 
applying
sprays
with
groundboom
equipment,
except
applications
where
the
application
rate
is
0.5
pounds
active
ingredient
per
acre
and
application
is
to
80
acres
per
day;
 
applying
granules
with
tractor­
drawn
spreaders;
 
loading/
applying
with
a
push
type
granular
spreader
for
all
crops
and
scenarios;
 
loading/
applying
with
a
bellygrinder
granular
spreader
for
all
crops
and
scenarios;
 
loading/
applying
with
a
pump­
feed
backpack
granular
spreader
for
all
crops
and
scenarios,
except
applications
to
potted
ornamentals;
 
loading/
applying
with
a
gravity­
feed
backpack
granular
spreader
for
all
crops
and
scenarios,
except
applications
to
potted
ornamentals;
 
loading/
applying
granular
formulation
with
a
scoop
and
bucket
for
all
crops
and
scenarios;
 
flagging
for
aerial
applications
only
when
flagging
to
support
aerial
spray
applications
for
applications
at
4
pounds
active
ingredient
per
acre
and
application
is
to
350
acres
per
day.

The
results
of
the
risk
assessment
for
occupational
handlers
indicates
that
total
intermediate­
term
risks
are
of
concern
at
maximum
feasible
mitigation
through
personal
protective
equipment
or
engineering
controls,
as
applicable,
for:

 
mixing/
loading
liquid
formulations
for
all
crops
and
scenarios;
 
loading
granular
formulations
for
all
aerial
application
scenarios,
except
where
the
application
rate
is
1
pound
active
ingredient
per
acre
and
application
is
to
350
acres
per
day;

28
 
loading
granular
formulations
for
all
ground
application
scenarios
where
the
application
rate
is
greater
than
4.5
pounds
active
ingredient
per
acre
and
application
is
to
50
acres
per
day
and
where
the
application
is
greater
than
3
pounds
per
acre
when
application
is
to
80
acres
per
day;
 
applying
sprays
or
granular
aerially;
 
applying
sprays
with
groundboom
equipment;
 
applying
granules
with
tractor­
drawn
spreaders;
 
loading/
applying
with
a
push
type
granular
spreader
for
all
crops
and
scenarios;
 
loading/
applying
with
a
bellygrinder
granular
spreader
for
all
crops
and
scenarios;
 
loading/
applying
with
a
pump­
feed
backpack
granular
spreader
for
all
crops
and
scenarios;
except
applications
to
potted
ornamentals;
 
loading/
applying
with
a
gravity­
feed
backpack
granular
spreader
for
all
crops
and
scenarios;
 
loading/
applying
granular
formulation
with
a
scoop
and
bucket
for
all
crops
and
scenarios;
 
flagging
to
support
aerial
spray
applications,
except
where
the
application
rate
is
0.5
pound
active
ingredient
per
acre
and
application
is
to
350
acres
per
day;
 
flagging
to
support
aerial
granular
applications,
where
the
application
rate
is
greater
than
2.5
pounds
active
ingredient
per
acre
and
application
is
to
350
acres
per
day
and
where
the
application
is
greater
than
0.5
pounds
per
acre
when
application
is
to
1200
acres
per
day;

Data
Quality
and
Confidence
in
Assessment
Several
issues
must
be
considered
when
interpreting
the
occupational
exposure
risk
assessment.
Confidence
in
the
exposure
data
is
also
listed
in
Appendix
6,
as
low
(
L)
,
medium
(
M)
or
high
(
H)
.
These
include:

C
Several
handler
assessments
were
completed
using
 
low
quality
 
PHED
data
due
to
the
lack
of
a
more
acceptable
data
set.
C
Several
generic
protection
factors
were
used
to
calculate
handler
exposures.
These
protection
factors
have
not
been
completely
evaluated
and
accepted
by
HED.
C
Factors
used
to
calculate
daily
exposures
to
handlers
(
e.
g.
,
acres
treated
per
day
and
potted
plants
treated
per
day)
are
based
on
the
best
professional
judgement,
due
to
a
lack
of
pertinent
use
data.

29
Post­
Application
Exposures
and
Risks
Occupational
Postapplication
Exposure
Scenarios,
Data,
and
Assumptions
HED
has
determined
that
there
are
potential
postapplication
occupational
exposures
to
individuals
entering
treated
areas:

 
following
foliar
applications
for
the
purpose
of
weeding,
irrigating,
scouting
and
other
non­
harvesting
activities
associated
with
low­
growing
or
immature
field
crops;

 
following
soil­
directed
applications
for
the
purpose
of
weeding,
irrigating,
scouting,
transplanting,
harvesting,
and
pruning
of
various
food,
feed,
fiber,
forestry,
and
ornamental
crops.

Data
Source
Descriptions
for
Occupational
Scenarios
Considered
Chemical­
specific
postapplication
exposure
data
following
foliar
applications
to
potatoes
have
been
submitted
in
support
of
the
reregistration
of
disulfoton,
however
HED
has
found
these
studies
to
be
unacceptable.
10
In
addition
to
the
other
concerns
about
the
disulfoton­
specific
postapplication
study,
the
Agency
found
no
indication
that
known
disulfoton
toxic
degradates
(
i.
e.
,
disulfoton
sulfoxide,
disulfoton
sulfone,
D­
oxygen
analog
sulfoxide,
and
D­
oxygen
analog
sulfone)
had
been
considered
in
assessing
the
residues.
In
lieu
of
acceptable
disulfoton­
specific
data,
a
surrogate
rangefinder
postapplication
exposure
assessment
was
conducted
to
determine
potential
occupational
postapplication
risks
from
disulfoton.
Since
EPA
believes
that
the
applicable
postapplication
tasks
for
the
crops
with
foliar­
directed
applications
are
likely
to
be
of
short­
term
duration
(
i.
e.
,
1
to
7
days)
,
the
short­
term
dermal
endpoint
of
0.5
mg/
kg/
day
was
used
to
assess
postapplication
risks
following
foliar
applications
of
disulfoton.
An
intermediate­
term
dermal
endpoint
of
0.03
mg/
kg/
day
(
with
a
36
percent
dermal
absorption
value)
is
also
available
for
disulfoton
and
would
likely
be
the
appropriate
endpoint
to
assess
some
postapplication
risks
following
soil­
directed
applications
of
disulfoton
to
some
food,
feed,
fiber,
and
ornamental
crops.
However,
post­
application
risks
following
soil­
directed
applications
of
disulfoton
cannot
be
evaluated
at
this
time.

Occupational
Postapplication
Exposure
and
Risk
Estimates
Foliar
applications:
For
postapplication
exposures
following
applications
of
disulfoton
to
foliage,
EPA
roughly
estimated
the
exposures
and
risks
to
postapplication
workers
and
handlers
(
scouts)
using
an
assumption
that
20
percent
of
the
initial
application
remained
as
a
dislodgeable
residue
on
foliar
surfaces
immediately
following
application
and
the
residue
degraded
into
nontoxic
by­
products
at
a
rate
of
10
percent
per
day.
Transfer
coefficients
and
activities
are
derived
from
the
Science
Advisory
Council
for
Exposure:
Policy
Memo
#
003.1
"
Agricultural
Transfer
Coefficients,
"
May
7,
1998
and
revised
August
7,
2000.
The
equations
used
for
the
calculations
are
presented
below.

Dislodgeable
foliar
residues
(
DFRs)
were
calculated
as
follows:

30
DFR
F
g
'
AR
lb
ai
xCF
F
g
/
cm
2
x
F
x
(
1
&
DR
)
t
cm
2
A
lb
ai
/
A
Where:
AR
=
Application
rate
CF
=
Conversion
factor
(
11.2
ug
per
cm
2
per
lb
ai
per
acre)
F
=
Fraction
retained
on
foliage
(
20
percent)
DO
=
Daily
dissipation
rate
(
10
percent
per
day)
t
=
Days
after
treatment
Daily
Dermal
Doses
were
calculated
as
follows:

(
DFR
(
F
g
/
cm
2
)
xTc
(
cm
2
/
hr
)
xCF
1
mg
xED
(
hrs
/
day
)
)
Dose
(
mg
/
kg
/
d
)
'

BW
(
kg
)
1,000
F
g
Where:
DFR
=
Dislodgeable
foliar
residue
(
F
g/
cm
2
)
Tc
=
Transfer
coefficient
for
the
activity
of
concern;
CF
=
Conversion
factor
(
i.
e.
,
1
mg/
1,000
F
g)
ED
=
Exposure
duration;
8
hours
worked
per
day
BW
=
body
weight
(
70
kg)

MOEs
were
calculated
as
follows:

MOE
'
NOEL
(
mg
/
kg
/
day
)
Dose
(
mg
/
kg
/
day
)

Where:
NOAEL
=
0.5
mg/
kg/
day
Dose
=
calculated
daily
dermal
dose
Soil­
Directed
applications:
At
this
time,
EPA
has
no
chemical­
specific
or
surrogate
data
on
which
to
base
a
postapplication
exposure
and
risk
assessment
following
soil­
directed
applications
of
disulfoton.
EPA
is
aware
that
disulfoton
degrades
under
some
conditions
to
byproducts
(
i.
e.
,
(
i.
e.
,
disulfoton
sulfoxide,
disulfoton
sulfone,
D­
oxygen
analog
sulfoxide,
and
D­
oxygen
analog
sulfone)
that
may
be
equally
toxic
as
the
parent
disulfoton.
However,
the
percent
of
the
parent
that
degrades
to
the
toxic
byproducts
is
not
known
nor
does
EPA
know
the
rate
at
which
the
toxic
degradates
will
breakdown
to
nontoxic
byproducts.
EPA
is
aware
that
disulfoton
residues
may
persist
in
soils
for
relatively
long
periods
following
application,
but
no
specific
data
indicating
the
degradation
curve
is
available.
For
these
reasons,
the
Agency
is
31
concerned
about
exposures
by
workers
and
handlers
(
scouts)
to
disulfoton
residues
in
the
soil,
particularly
when
applications
rates
for
some
crops
and
scenarios
range
to
more
than
100
pounds
active
ingredient
per
acre.
EPA
believes
that
contact
with
treated
soil
could
result
in
risks
of
concern
to
postapplication
workers
and
handlers
(
scouts)
.
To
facilitate
the
assessment
of
risks
postapplication
workers
following
soil­
directed
applications
of
disulfoton,
additional
data
would
be
necessary.

Summary
of
Postapplication
Risks
Foliar
applications:
The
uncertainty
factor
for
postapplication
risks
to
disulfoton
is
100;
.
therefore,
an
MOE
of
100
or
greater
is
considered
not
a
concern.
Based
on
the
rough
estimate
of
postapplication
exposures
and
risks,
assumptions,
Table
4
summarizes
the
occupational
postapplication
risks
following
foliar
applications
of
disulfoton.
The
MOEs
are
of
concern
at
day
one
(
i.
e.
,
24
hours)
for
all
crops,
except
for
foliar
applications
to
cotton
at
an
application
rate
of
0.2
pounds
active
ingredient
per
acre.
For
the
remaining
crops,
the
postapplication
day
when
risks
are
no
longer
a
concern
range
from
day
13
following
application
to
more
than
day
30
following
application,
depending
on
the
application
rate,
the
timing
of
application,
and
the
applicable
activity.

32
Table
4:
Summary
of
Occupational
PostApplication
Risks
Following
Foliar
Applications
of
Disulfoton
Crop
Application
Rate
Tasks
of
Concern
1
Timing
of
Application
Transfer
Coefficient
1
Day
After
Treatment
Dislodgeable
Foliar
Residue
2
Dose
3
MOE
4
(
UF=
100)

Asparagus
1.0
Irrigating,
scouting,
thinning,
weeding
immature
or
low
foliage
plants
fern
stage
(
3
per
year;
120
DTH)
300
1
2.
019
0.0692
6.5
26
0.145
0.0050
101
Barley
1.0
after
tillering
(
30
DTH)
100
1
2.
019
0.0231
20
16
0.416
0.0048
105
Cotton
(
SLN)
0.2
Before
boll
opens
(
30
DTH)
100
1
0.
404
0.0046
108
Potatoes
(
East
of
Rockies)
0.5
When
pest
appears
(
3
per
season;
30
DTH)
300
1
1.
010
0.0346
14
20
0.136
0.0047
107
Potatoes
(
OR,
ID,
UT,
WA
only)
3.0
As
needed
(
1
per
season;
60
DTH)
300
1
6.
058
0.2077
2.4
30
0.285
0.0098
51
Sorghum
0.5
scouting,
irrigation,
weeding
mature
or
full
foliage
plants
As
needed
(
2
per
season;
7
DTH)
1000
1
1.
01
0.
1154
4.3
30
0.048
0.0054
92
Wheat
0.75
Irrigating,
scouting,
thinning,
weeding
immature
or
low
foliage
plants
Post­
plant
(
after
tillering;
30
DTH)
100
1
1.
515
0.0173
29
13
0.428
0.0049
102
Wheat
(
SLN)
1.0
Two
per
season
(
30
DTH)
100
1
2.
019
0.0231
20
16
0.416
0.0048
105
Footnotes:
1
Transfer
coefficient
and
activities
from
Science
Advisory
Council
for
Exposure:
Policy
Memo
#
003.1
"
Agricultural
Transfer
Coefficients,
"
May
7,
1998
and
revised
August
7,
2000.
2
Dislodgeable
foliar
residue
(
F
g/
cm
2
)
is
based
on
the
assumption
that
20
percent
of
the
application
rate
is
on
the
foliar
surface
at
day
0
and
the
active
ingredient
(
including
any
toxic
degradates)
degrades
at
a
rate
of
10
percent
per
day.
3
Absorbed
dermal
dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
is
the
dislodgeable
foliar
residue
(
F
g/
cm
2
)
x
transfer
coefficient
(
cm
2
/
hr)
x
conversion
factor
(
1
mg/
1,000
F
g)
x
exposure
time
(
8
hrs)
x
dermal
absorption
(
100%
)
/
body
weight(
70
kg)
.
4
Margin
of
Exposure
(
MOE)
is
short­
term
dermal
NOAEL
(
0.5
mg/
kg/
day)
/
absorbed
dermal
dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
.

33
References
1)
Becker,
J.
(
2000)
Revised
Occupational
and
Residential
Exposure
Assessment
and
Recommendations
for
the
Reregistration
Eligibility
Decision
Document
for
Disulfoton.
Washington,
D.
C.
:
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs.
February
7,
2000.

2)
Becker,
J.
(
2000)
Amendment
to
the
the
Disulfoton
Occupational
and
Residential
Exposure
and
Risk
Assessment.
Washington,
D.
C.
:
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs.
August
24,
2000.

3)
U.
S.
EPA
(
2001)
Disulfoton:
Revised
(
3
rd
)
Report
of
Hazard
Identification
Assessment
Review
Committee.
April
10,
2001.

4)
Disulfoton
Labels.

5)
U.
S.
EPA
(
1998)
Disulfoton
LUIS
Table
for
Exposure
Assessors
(
PRD
report
dated
11/
06/
96
and
report
run
date
02/
04/
98)
.

6)
U.
S.
EPA
(
1998)
PHED
Surrogate
Exposure
Guide,
Version
1.1.
Washington,
D.
C.
:
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs.
August
1998.

7)
Bangs,
G.
(
2001)
Summary
of
HED
 
s
Reviews
of
Outdoor
Residential
Exposure
Task
Force
(
ORETF)
Chemical
Handler
Exposure
Studies;
MRID
449722­
01.
Memorandum
from
Gary
Bangs
(
HED)
to
Demson
Fuller
(
Special
Review
and
Reregistration
Division)
,
April
30,
2001.

8)
Dawson,
J.
(
2001)
Aldicarb.
Review
of
aldicarb
(
Temik
10G)
granular
backpack
mixer/
loader/
applicator
study
(
MRID
451672­
01)
in
bananas
as
a
source
of
surrogate
data
for
ethoprop
exposure
and
assessment.
Washington,
D.
C.
:
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs.
October
17,
2000.

9)
Dawson,
J.
(
2001)
Ethoprop.
Review
of
fipronil
granular
mixer/
loader/
applicator
study
(
MRID
452507­
01)
in
bananas
as
a
source
of
surrogate
data
and
accompanying
ethoprop
risk
assessment.
Washington,
D.
C.
:
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs.
January
5,
2001.

10)
Versar,
Inc.
1999.
Review
of
the
DFR
Study
­
Dissipation
of
Dislodgeable
Foliar
Disulfoton
Residues
from
Di­
Syston
®
8
Treated
Potatoes
(
MRID
No.
446880­
01)
.
January
4,
1999.

11)
U.
S.
EPA
(
2001)
Recommended
Revisions
to
the
Standard
Operating
Procedures
(
SOPs)
for
Residential
Exposure
Assessments,
Science
Advisory
Council
for
Exposure
Policy
No.
12.
Washington,
D.
C.
:
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs.
February
22,
2001.

cc:
RRB2
Files
APPENDIX
HANDLER
EXPOSURE
AND
RISK
SUMMARY
TABLES
FOR
REVISED
OCCUPATIONAL
EXPOSURE
ASSESSMENT
FOR
THE
REREGISTRATION
ELIGIBILITY
DECISION
DOCUMENT
FOR
DISULFOTON
Table
1:
Occupational
Handler
Short­
and
Intermediate­
Term
Exposures
and
Risks
at
Baseline
Attire
Exposure
Scenario
Crop
Type
Application
Rate
a
Amount
Handled
b
(
acres
unless
specified)
Baseline
Dermal
Unit
Exposure
(
mg/
lb
ai)
c
Baseline
Inhalation
Unit
Exposure
(
ug/
lb
ai)
d
Short­
Term
Baseline
Dermal
Dose
e
Intermediat
e­
Term
Baseline
Dermal
Dose
f
Baseline
Short­
Term
Dermal
MOE
g
Baseline
Intermediate­
Term
Dermal
MOE
h
Baseline
Inhalatio
n
Dose
i
Baseline
Inhalation
MOE
j
Baseline
Short­
Term
Dermal
+

Inhalation
MOE
k
Baseline
Intermediate­
Term
Dermal
+
Inhalation
MOE
k
MIXER/
LOADER
Mixing/
Loading
Liquid
Formulations
for
Aerial
Application
(
1a)
tobacco
4
350
2.9
1.
2
58
21
0.
0086
0.0014
0.024
1.
9
0.
0086
0.0014
asparagus
(
SLN)
1
350
15
5.
2
0.
034
0.
0057
0.
006
7.
5
0.
034
0.
0057
barley
1
1200
50
18
0.
01
0.
0017
0.
021
2.
2
0.
01
0.
0017
wheat
0.
75
1200
37
13
0.
013
0.
0022
0.
015
2.
9
0.
013
0.
0022
sorghum
0.
5
1200
25
8.
9
0.
02
0.
0034
0.
01
4.
4
0.
02
0.
0033
potatoes
(
foliar)
0.
5
350
7.
3
2.
6
0.
069
0.
011
0.
003
15
0.
069
0.
011
cotton
(
SLN)
0.
2
1200
9.
9
3.
6
0.
05
0.
0084
0.
0041
11
0.
05
0.
0084
Mixing/
Loading
Liquid
Formulations
for
Chemigation
Application
(
1b)
potatoes
(
foliar)
­

OR,
WA,
ID,
UT
3
350
44
16
0.
011
0.
0019
0.
018
2.
5
0.
011
0.
0019
poplars
grown
for
pulpwood
(
SLN)
3
350
44
16
0.
011
0.
0019
0.
018
2.
5
0.
011
0.
0019
cabbage,
lettuce
2
350
29
10
0.
017
0.
0029
0.
012
3.
8
0.
017
0.
0029
broccoli,
brussels
sprouts,
cauliflower,
cotton
1
350
15
5.
2
0.
034
0.
0057
0.
006
7.
5
0.
034
0.
0057
Mixing/
Loading
Liquid
Formulations
for
Groundboom
Application
(
1c)
tobacco
4
80
13
4.
8
0.038
0.
0063
0.0055
8.2
0.
038
0.0063
poplars
grown
for
pulpwood
(
SLN)
3
80
9.
9
3.
6
0.
05
0.
0084
0.
0041
11
0.
05
0.
0084
potatoes
(
soil)
3
80
9.
9
3.
6
0.
05
0.
0084
0.
0041
11
0.
05
0.
0084
peas,
lentils
2.5
80
8.
3
3
0.
06
0.
01
0.
0034
13
0.06
0.01
beans(
dry,

snap,
lima)
,
lettuce,

peppers,
radish
grown
for
seed,

cabbage
2
80
6.
6
2.
4
0.
075
0.
013
0.
0027
16
0.
075
0.
013
wheat,
barley,
cotton,
sorghum
1
200
8.
3
3
0.
06
0.
01
0.
0034
13
0.
06
0.
01
asparagus
(
SLN)
,

broccoli,
brussels
sprouts,
cauliflower
1
80
3.
3
1.
2
0.
15
0.
025
0.
0014
33
0.
15
0.
025
potatoes
(
foliar)
0.
5
80
1.
7
0.
6
0.
3
0.
05
0.
00069
66
0.
3
0.
05
Loading
Granular
Formulations
for
Aerial
Application
(
2a)
tobacco
4
350
0.0084
1.7
0.
17
0.
06
3
0.5
0.
034
1.3
0.
92
0.
36
potatoes
(
soil)
3
350
0.
13
0.
045
4
0.
66
0.
026
1.
8
1.
2
0.
48
peas,
lentils
2.5
350
0.11
0.
038
4.8
0.
79
0.
021
2.1
1.
5
0.58
peanuts
(
SLN)
2
350
0.
084
0.
03
6
0.
99
0.
017
2.
6
1.
8
0.
72
clover
grown
for
seed
(
SLN)
1
350
0.
042
0.
015
12
2
0.
0085
5.
3
3.
7
1.
4
1
Table
1:
Occupational
Handler
Short­
and
Intermediate­
Term
Exposures
and
Risks
at
Baseline
Attire
continued
Exposure
Scenario
Crop
Type
Application
Rate
a
Amount
Handled
b
(
acres
unless
specified)
Baseline
Dermal
Unit
Exposure
(
mg/
lb
ai)
c
Baseline
Inhalation
Unit
Exposure
(
ug/
lb
ai)
d
Short­
Term
Baseline
Dermal
Dose
e
Intermediat
e­
Term
Baseline
Dermal
Dose
f
Baseline
Short­
Term
Dermal
MOE
g
Baseline
Intermediate­
Term
Dermal
MOE
h
Baseline
Inhalatio
n
Dose
i
Baseline
Inhalation
MOE
j
Baseline
Short­
Term
Dermal
+

Inhalation
MOE
k
Baseline
Intermediate­
Term
Dermal
+
Inhalation
MOE
k
barley,
sorghum,
wheat
1
1200
0.
14
0.
052
3.
5
0.
58
0.
029
1.
5
1.
1
0.
42
Loading
Granular
Formulations
for
Ground
Application
(
2b)
field­
grown
ornamental
shrubs
109
40
0.
52
0.
19
0.
96
0.
16
0.
11
0.
42
0.
29
0.
12
field­
grown
ornamental
trees
37
40
0.
18
0.
064
2.
8
0.
47
0.
036
1.
3
0.
87
0.
34
field­
grown
flowers
&
groundcover
29
40
0.
14
0.
05
3.
6
0.
6
0.
028
1.
6
1.
1
0.
44
field­
grown
ornamental
trees
and
shrubs
(
inject)
and
flowers
&

groundcover
11
40
0.
053
0.
019
9.
5
1.
6
0.
011
4.
2
2.
9
1.
1
coffee
trees
8.
3
80
0.
08
0.
029
6.
3
1
0.
016
2.
8
1.
9
0.
76
Christmas
trees
78
50
0.
47
0.
17
1.
1
0.
18
0.
095
0.
48
0.
33
0.
13
Christmas
trees
(
SLN)
4.
5
50
0.
027
0.
0097
19
3.
1
0.
0055
8.
2
5.
7
2.
2
tobacco
4
80
0.
038
0.014
13
2.2
0.
0078
5.8
4
1.6
potatoes
(
soil)
3
80
0.
029
0.
01
17
2.
9
0.
0058
7.
7
5.
3
2.
1
peas,
lentils
2.5
80
0.
024
0.
0086
21
3.5
0.
0049
9.3
6.
4
2.5
peppers,
peanuts
(
SLN)
,
radish
grown
for
seed
(
SLN)
2
80
0.
019
0.
0069
26
4.
3
0.
0039
12
8
3.
2
cabbage
1.
5
80
0.
014
0.
0052
35
5.
8
0.
0029
15
11
4.
2
barley,
cotton,

sorghum,
soybeans,
wheat
1
200
0.
024
0.
0086
21
3.
5
0.
0049
9.
3
6.
4
2.
5
peanuts,
beans
(
dry,

snap,
lima)
,
brussels
sprout,
cauliflower,
broccoli,
clover
grown
for
seed
(
SLN)
1
80
0.
0096
0.
0035
52
8.
7
0.
0019
23
16
6.
3
APPLICATOR
Applying
Sprays
with
an
Airplane
(
3)
tobacco
4
350
No
Data
See
Engineering
Controls
asparagus
(
SLN)
1
350
barley
1
1200
wheat
0.
75
1200
sorghum
0.
5
1200
potatoes
(
foliar)
0.
5
350
2
Table
1:
Occupational
Handler
Short­
and
Intermediate­
Term
Exposures
and
Risks
at
Baseline
Attire
continued
Exposure
Scenario
Crop
Type
Application
Rate
a
Amount
Handled
b
(
acres
unless
specified)
Baseline
Dermal
Unit
Exposure
(
mg/
lb
ai)
c
Baseline
Inhalation
Unit
Exposure
(
ug/
lb
ai)
d
Short­
Term
Baseline
Dermal
Dose
e
Intermediat
e­
Term
Baseline
Dermal
Dose
f
Baseline
Short­
Term
Dermal
MOE
g
Baseline
Intermediate­
Term
Dermal
MOE
h
Baseline
Inhalatio
n
Dose
i
Baseline
Inhalation
MOE
j
Baseline
Short­
Term
Dermal
+

Inhalation
MOE
k
Baseline
Intermediate­
Term
Dermal
+
Inhalation
MOE
k
cotton
(
SLN)
0.
2
1200
Applying
Granulars
with
an
Airplane
(
4)
tobacco
4
350
No
Data
See
Engineering
Controls
potatoes
(
soil)
3
350
peas,
lentils
2.5
350
peanuts
(
SLN)
2
350
barley,
sorghum,
wheat
1
1200
clover
grown
for
seed
(
SLN)
1
350
Applying
with
a
Groundboom
(
5)
tobacco
4
80
0.
014
0.74
0.064
0.023
7.8
1.
3
0.0034
13
4.9
1.
2
poplars
grown
for
pulpwood
(
SLN)
3
80
0.
048
0.
017
10
1.
7
0.
0025
18
6.
6
1.
6
potatoes
(
soil)
3
80
0.
048
0.
017
10
1.
7
0.
0025
18
6.
6
1.
6
peas,
lentils
2.5
80
0.
04
0.
014
13
2.1
0.
0021
21
7.9
1.
9
beans(
dry,
snap,

lima)
,
lettuce,
peppers,
radish
grown
for
seed,

cabbage
2
80
0.
032
0.
012
16
2.
6
0.
0017
27
9.
8
2.
4
wheat,
barley,
cotton,
sorghum
1
200
0.
04
0.
014
13
2.
1
0.
0021
21
7.
9
1.
9
asparagus
(
SLN)
,

broccoli,
brussels
sprouts,
cauliflower
1
80
0.
016
0.
0058
31
5.
2
0.
00085
53
20
4.
7
potatoes
(
foliar)
0.
5
80
0.
008
0.
0029
63
10
0.
00042
110
39
9.
5
Applying
Granulars
with
a
Tractor
Drawn
Spreader
(
6)
field­
grown
ornamental
shrubs
109
40
0.
0099
1.
2
0.
62
0.
22
0.
81
0.
14
0.
075
0.
6
0.
35
0.
11
field­
grown
ornamental
trees
37
40
0.
21
0.
075
2.
4
0.
4
0.
025
1.
8
1
0.
33
field­
grown
flowers
&
groundcover
29
40
0.
16
0.
059
3
0.
51
0.
02
2.
3
1.
3
0.
41
field­
grown
ornamental
trees
&

shrubs
(
inject)
and
flowers
&

groundcover
11
40
0.
062
0.
022
8
1.
3
0.
0075
6
3.
4
1.
1
coffee
trees
8.
3
80
0.
094
0.
034
5.
3
0.
89
0.
011
4
2.
3
0.
72
Christmas
trees
78
50
0.
55
0.
2
0.
91
0.
15
0.
067
0.
67
0.
39
0.
12
Christmas
trees
(
SLN)
4.
5
50
0.
032
0.
011
16
2.
6
0.
0039
12
6.
7
2.
1
tobacco
4
80
0.
045
0.016
11
1.8
0.
0055
8.2
4.
7
1.5
3
Table
1:
Occupational
Handler
Short­
and
Intermediate­
Term
Exposures
and
Risks
at
Baseline
Attire
continued
Exposure
Scenario
Crop
Type
Application
Rate
a
Amount
Handled
b
(
acres
unless
specified)
Baseline
Dermal
Unit
Exposure
(
mg/
lb
ai)
c
Baseline
Inhalation
Unit
Exposure
(
ug/
lb
ai)
d
Short­
Term
Baseline
Dermal
Dose
e
Intermediat
e­
Term
Baseline
Dermal
Dose
f
Baseline
Short­
Term
Dermal
MOE
g
Baseline
Intermediate­
Term
Dermal
MOE
h
Baseline
Inhalatio
n
Dose
i
Baseline
Inhalation
MOE
j
Baseline
Short­
Term
Dermal
+

Inhalation
MOE
k
Baseline
Intermediate­
Term
Dermal
+
Inhalation
MOE
k
potatoes
(
soil)
3
80
0.
034
0.
012
15
2.
5
0.
0041
11
6.
3
2
peas,
lentils
2.5
80
0.
028
0.01
18
2.9
0.
0034
13
7.5
2.
4
peppers,
peanuts
(
SLN)
,
radish
grown
for
seed
(
SLN)
2
80
0.
023
0.
0081
22
3.
7
0.
0027
16
9.
4
3
cabbage
1.
5
80
0.
017
0.
0061
29
4.
9
0.
0021
22
13
4
barley,
cotton,

sorghum,
soybeans,
wheat
1
200
0.
028
0.
01
18
2.
9
0.
0034
13
7.
5
2.
4
peanuts,
beans
(
dry,

snap,
lima)
,
brussels
sprout,
cauliflower,
broccoli,
clover
grown
for
seed­
SLN
1
80
0.
011
0.
0041
44
7.
4
0.
0014
33
19
6
MIXER/
LOADER/
APPLICATOR
Loading/
Applying
with
a
Push
Type
Spreader
l
(
ORETF)
(
7)
field­
grown
ornamental
shrubs
109
5
0.
35
7.
5
2.
7
0.
98
0.
18
0.
031
0.
058
0.
77
0.
15
0.
029
field­
grown
ornamental
trees
37
5
0.
93
0.
33
0.
54
0.
09
0.
02
2.
3
0.
44
0.
087
field­
grown
flowers
&
groundcover
29
5
0.
73
0.
26
0.
69
0.
11
0.
016
2.
9
0.
56
0.
11
field­
grown
ornamental
trees
&

shrubs
(
inject)
and
flowers
&

groundcover
11
5
0.
28
0.
099
1.
8
0.
3
0.
0059
7.
6
1.
5
0.
29
Christmas
trees
78
5
2
0.
7
0.
26
0.
043
0.
042
1.
1
0.
21
0.
041
Christmas
trees
(
SLN)
4.
5
5
0.
11
0.
041
4.
4
0.
74
0.
0024
19
3.
6
0.
71
Loading/
Applying
with
a
Bellygrinder
(
PHED)
(
8)
field­
grown
ornamental
shrubs
109
1
10
62
16
5.
6
0.
032
0.
0054
0.
097
0.
47
0.
03
0.
0053
field­
grown
ornamental
trees
37
1
5.
3
1.
9
0.
095
0.
016
0.
033
1.
4
0.
088
0.
016
field­
grown
flowers
&
groundcover
29
1
4.
1
1.
5
0.
12
0.
02
0.
026
1.
8
0.
11
0.
02
field­
grown
ornamental
trees
&

shrubs
(
inject)
and
flowers
&

groundcover
11
1
1.
6
0.
57
0.
32
0.
053
0.
0097
4.
6
0.
3
0.
052
4
Table
1:
Occupational
Handler
Short­
and
Intermediate­
Term
Exposures
and
Risks
at
Baseline
Attire
continued
Exposure
Scenario
Crop
Type
Application
Rate
a
Amount
Handled
b
(
acres
unless
specified)
Baseline
Dermal
Unit
Exposure
(
mg/
lb
ai)
c
Baseline
Inhalation
Unit
Exposure
(
ug/
lb
ai)
d
Short­
Term
Baseline
Dermal
Dose
e
Intermediat
e­
Term
Baseline
Dermal
Dose
f
Baseline
Short­
Term
Dermal
MOE
g
Baseline
Intermediate­
Term
Dermal
MOE
h
Baseline
Inhalatio
n
Dose
i
Baseline
Inhalation
MOE
j
Baseline
Short­
Term
Dermal
+

Inhalation
MOE
k
Baseline
Intermediate­
Term
Dermal
+
Inhalation
MOE
k
Christmas
trees
78
1
11
4
0.
045
0.
0075
0.
069
0.
65
0.
042
0.
0074
Christmas
trees
(
SLN)
4.
5
1
0.
64
0.
23
0.
78
0.
13
0.
004
11
0.
73
0.
13
Loading/
Applying
Granulars
with
a
Pump

Feed
Backpack
Spreader
m
(
Aldicarb)

(
9a)
field­
grown
ornamental
shrubs
109
10
No
Data
See
PPE
4.
2
No
Data
See
PPE
0.
065
0.
69
No
Data
See
PPE
5
0.
033
1.
4
field­
grown
ornamental
trees
37
10
0.
022
2
5
0.
011
4.
1
field­
grown
flowers
&
groundcover
29
10
0.
017
2.
6
5
0.
0087
5.
2
field­
grown
ornamental
trees
&

shrubs
(
inject)
and
flowers
&

groundcover
11
10
0.
0066
6.
8
5
0.
0033
14
coffee
trees
8.3
10
0.
005
9
5
0.
0025
18
Christmas
trees
78
10
0.
047
0.
96
5
0.
023
1.
9
Christmas
trees
(
SLN)
4.
5
10
0.
0027
17
5
0.
0014
33
potted
ornamentals
0.
2
lb
ai/
day
­
0.
000012
3800
Loading/
Applying
Granular
with
a
Gravity­

Feed
Backpack
Spreader
n
(
Fipronil)
(
9b)
field­
grown
ornamental
shrubs
109
10
No
Data
See
PPE
44
No
Data
See
PPE
0.
69
0.
066
No
Data
See
PPE
5
0.
34
0.
13
field­
grown
ornamental
trees
37
10
0.
23
0.
19
5
0.
12
0.
39
field­
grown
flowers
&
groundcover
29
10
0.
18
0.
25
5
0.
091
0.
49
field­
grown
ornamental
trees
&

shrubs
(
inject)
and
flowers
&

groundcover
s
11
10
0.
069
0.
65
5
0.
035
1.
3
coffee
trees
8.3
10
0.
052
0.
86
5
0.
026
1.
7
Christmas
trees
78
10
0.
49
0.
092
5
0.
25
0.
18
Christmas
trees
(
SLN)
4.
5
10
0.
028
1.
6
5
0.
014
3.
2
potted
ornamentals
0.
2
lb
ai/
day
­
0.
00013
360
5
Table
1:
Occupational
Handler
Short­
and
Intermediate­
Term
Exposures
and
Risks
at
Baseline
Attire
continued
Exposure
Scenario
Crop
Type
Application
Rate
a
Amount
Handled
b
(
acres
unless
specified)
Baseline
Dermal
Unit
Exposure
(
mg/
lb
ai)
c
Baseline
Inhalation
Unit
Exposure
(
ug/
lb
ai)
d
Short­
Term
Baseline
Dermal
Dose
e
Intermediat
e­
Term
Baseline
Dermal
Dose
f
Baseline
Short­
Term
Dermal
MOE
g
Baseline
Intermediate­
Term
Dermal
MOE
h
Baseline
Inhalatio
n
Dose
i
Baseline
Inhalation
MOE
j
Baseline
Short­
Term
Dermal
+

Inhalation
MOE
k
Baseline
Intermediate­
Term
Dermal
+
Inhalation
MOE
k
Scoop
and
Bucket
o
(
Fipronil)
(
10)
field­
grown
ornamental
shrubs
109
10
No
Data
See
PPE
45
No
Data
See
PPE
0.
7
0.
064
No
Data
See
PPE
5
0.
35
0.
13
field­
grown
ornamental
trees
37
10
0.
24
0.
19
5
0.
12
0.
38
field­
grown
flowers
&
groundcover
29
10
0.
19
0.
24
5
0.
093
0.
48
field­
grown
ornamental
trees
&

shrubs
(
inject)
and
flowers
&

groundcover
s
11
10
0.
071
0.
64
5
0.
035
1.
3
coffee
trees
8.3
10
0.
053
0.
84
5
0.
027
1.
7
Christmas
trees
78
10
0.
5
0.
09
5
0.
25
0.
18
Christmas
trees
(
SLN)
4.
5
10
0.
029
1.
6
5
0.
014
3.
1
potted
ornamentals
0.
2
lb
ai/
day
­
0.
00013
350
FLAGGER
Flagging
Aerial
Spray
Applications
(
11)
tobacco
4
350
0.011
0.35
0.22
0.
079
2.3
0.
38
0.
007
6.4
1.
7
0.36
asparagus
(
SLN)
,

barley
1
350
0.
055
0.
02
9.
1
1.
5
0.
0018
26
6.
7
1.
4
barley
1
1200
0.
19
0.
068
2.
7
0.
44
0.
006
7.
5
2
0.
42
wheat
0.
75
1200
0.
14
0.
051
3.
5
0.
59
0.
0045
10
2.
6
0.
56
sorghum
0.
5
1200
0.
094
0.
034
5.
3
0.
88
0.
003
15
3.
9
0.
83
potatoes
(
foliar)
.

sorghum
0.
5
350
0.
028
0.
0099
18
3
0.
00088
51
13
2.
9
cotton
(
SLN)
0.
2
350
0.
011
0.
004
45
7.
6
0.
00035
130
34
7.
2
Flagging
Granular
Applications
(
12)
tobacco
4
350
0.0028
0.15
0.056
0.02
8.9
1.
5
0.003
15
5.6
1.
4
potatoes
(
soil)
3
350
0.
042
0.
015
12
2
0.
0023
20
7.
5
1.
8
peas,
lentils
2.5
350
0.035
0.013
14
2.4
0.
0019
24
9
2.
2
peanuts
(
SLN)
2
350
0.
028
0.
01
18
3
0.
0015
30
11
2.
7
clover
grown
for
seed
(
SLN)
,
barley,

sorghum,
wheat
1
350
0.
014
0.
005
36
6
0.
00075
60
22
5.
4
barley,
sorghum,
wheat
1
1200
0.
048
0.
017
10
1.
7
0.
0026
18
6.
5
1.
6
6
Table
1:
Occupational
Handler
Short­
and
Intermediate­
Term
Exposures
and
Risks
at
Baseline
Attire
continued
Footnotes:
a
Application
rates
are
based
on
maximum
values
found
on
various
labels
or
proposed
by
registrant.
In
most
scenarios,
a
range
of
maximum
application
rates
is
used
to
represent
the
range
of
rates
for
different
crops/
sites/
uses.
Most
application
rates
upon
which
the
analysis
is
based
are
presented
as
lb
ai/
A.
In
the
case
of
ornamentals
in
pots,
the
application
rate
is
presented
as
lb
ai/
day)
.
Specific
application
rates
and
the
corresponding
EPA
Reg.
numbers
that
are
intended
as
examples
of
each
exposure
assessment
scenario
are
presented
below:

4.0
lb/
A
EC
formulations:
tobacco
(
Reg
#
3125­
307)

3.
0
lb/
A
EC
formulations:
potatoes:
foliar
OR,
WA,
ID
UT
(
Reg
#
3125­
307)
;
potatoes:
soil
(
Reg
#
3125­
307)
;
poplars
grown
for
pulpwood
(
Reg
#
3125­
307­
­
OR­
910027)

2.5
lb/
A
EC
formulations:
peas
and
lentils
(
Reg
#
3125­
307)

2.
0
lb/
A
EC
formulations:
beans:
dry,
snap,
lima
(
Reg
#
3125­
307)
;
cabbage
(
Reg
#
3125­
307)
;
lettuce
(
Reg
#
3125­
307)
;
peppers
(
Reg
#
3125­
307)
;
radish
grown
for
seed
(
Reg
#
3125­
307­
WA­
920026)
;

1.
0
lb/
A
EC
formulations:
asparagus
(
SLN)
(
Reg
#
3125­
307­
CA­
840192)
;
barley
(
Reg
#
3125­
307)
;
broccoli
(
Reg
#
3125­
307)
;
Brussels
sprouts
(
Reg
#
3125­
307)
;
cauliflower
(
Reg
#
3125­
307)
;
cotton
(
Reg
#
3125­
307)
;
sorghum
(
Reg
#
3125­
307)
;
wheat
(
Reg
#
3125­
307)
;

0.
75
lb/
A
EC
formulations:
wheat
(
Reg
#
3125­
307)

0.
5
lb/
A
EC
formulations:
sorghum
(
Reg
#
3125­
307)
;
potatoes:
foliar
(
Reg
#
3125­
307)

0.
2
lb/
A
EC
formulations:
cotton
(
(
Reg
#
3125­
307
TX
860007)

109
lb/
A
Granular
formulations:
field­
grown
ornamental
shrubs
(
Reg
#
3125­
172)
based
on
the
assumption
that
the
shrubs
are
two
feet
tall
and
occupy
two
square
feet
(
i.
e.
,
roses)
;

78
lb/
A
Granular
formulations:
Christmas
trees
(
Reg
#
3125­
172)
based
on
the
assumption
that
the
trunk
is
2
inches
in
diameter
and
are
planted
1700
trees
per
acre;

37
lb/
A
Granular
formulations:
field­
grown
ornamental
trees
(
Reg
#
3125­
172)
based
on
the
assumption
that
the
trunk
is
2
inches
in
diameters
and
are
planted
800
trees
per
acre;

29
lb/
A
Granular
formulations:
field­
grown
flowers
and
groundcover
(
Reg
#
3125­
172)

11
lb/
A
Granular
formulations:
field­
grown
ornamental
trees
and
shrubs:
injection
(
Reg
#
3125­
172)

8.
3
lb/
A
Granular
formulations:
coffee
trees
(
Reg
#
3125­
172)
based
on
the
assumption
that
the
trees
are
8
feet
tall
and
are
planted
435
trees
per
acre
4.
5
lb/
A
Granular
formulations:
Christmas
trees
(
(
Reg
#
3125­
172­
NC­
880001)

4.0
lb/
A
Granular
formulations:
tobacco
(
Reg
#
3125­
172)
;

3.
0
lb/
A
Granular
formulations:
potatoes:
soil
(
Reg
#
3125­
172)
;

2.5
lb/
A
Granular
formulations:
peas
and
lentils
(
Reg
#
3125­
172)
;

2.
0
lb/
A
Granular
formulations:
peanuts
(
Reg
#
3125­
172­
NC­
920011)
;
peppers
(
Reg
#
3125­
172)
;
radish
grown
for
seed
(
(
Reg
#
3125­
172­
WA­
920027)
;

1.
5
lb/
A
Granular
formulations:
cabbage
(
Reg
#
3125­
172)
;

1.
0
lb/
A
Granular
formulations:
barley
(
Reg
#
3125­
172)
;
beans:
dry,
snap,
lima:
(
Reg
#
3125­
172)
;
broccoli
(
Reg
#
3125­
172)
;
Brussels
sprouts
(
Reg
#
3125­
172)
;
cauliflower
(
Reg
#
3125­
172)
;
clover
grown
for
seed
(
Reg
#
3125­
172­
WA­
980004)
;
cotton
(
Reg
#
3125­
172)
;
peanuts
(
Reg
#
3125­
172)
;
sorghum
(
Reg
#
3125­
172)
;
soybeans
(
Reg
#
3125­
172)
;
wheat
(
Reg
#
3125­
172)
;

0.
2
lb/
day
Granular
formulations:
potted
ornamentals
(
Reg
#
3125­
172)
;
based
on
the
assumption
that
350
pots
that
are
12
inches
in
diameter
are
treated
each
day;

b
Amount
handled
per
day
values
are
based
on
HED
Exposure
SAC
Policy
#
009
 
Standard
Values
for
Daily
Acres
Treated
in
Agriculture,
 
revised
June
23,
2000,
or
best
professional
judgment
when
data
is
not
available.

c
Unless
otherwise
footnoted,
baseline
dermal
unit
exposure
values
are
from
PHED
Surrogate
Exposure
Guide,
draft
version
August,
1998.
Baseline
dermal
exposure
assumes
long
pants,
long
sleeved
shirt,
no
gloves,

open
mixing/
loading,
open
cab/
tractor.
(
See
Exposure
Scenarios
Descriptions
Table
for
further
information.
)

d
Unless
otherwise
footnoted,
inhalation
unit
exposure
values
are
from
PHED
Surrogate
Exposure
Guide,
draft
version
August,
1998.
Baseline
inhalation
exposure
assessed
as
a
no
respirator
scenario
.

e
Short­
term
baseline
dermal
dose
(
mg/
kg/
d)
=
[
unit
dermal
exposure
(
mg/
lb
ai)
*
application
rate
(
lb
ai/
acre)
*
daily
acres
treated
*
dermal
absorption
(
100%
)
]
/
body
weight
(
70
kg)
.

f
Intermediate­
term
baseline
dermal
dose
(
mg/
kg/
d)
=
[
unit
dermal
exposure
(
mg/
lb
ai)
*
application
rate
(
lb
ai/
acre)
*
daily
acres
treated
*
dermal
absorption
(
36%
)
]
/
body
weight
(
70
kg)
.

g
Short­
term
dermal
MOE
=
NOAEL
(
0.
5
mg/
kg/
d)
/
short­
term
daily
dermal
dose.
Uncertainty
Factor
=
100.

h
Intermediate­
term
dermal
MOE
=
NOAEL
(
0.
03
mg/
kg/
day)
/
intermediate­
term
daily
dermal
dose.
.
Uncertainty
Factor
=
100.

i
Baseline
Inhalation
Dose
(
mg/
kg/
d)
=
(
unit
exposure
(
F
g/
lb
ai)
*
(
1mg/
1000
F
g)
conversion
*
appl.
rate
(
lb
ai/
A)
*
acres
treated/
day)
/
body
weight
(
70
kg)
[Note:
application
rate
and
acres
treated/
day
are
replaced
by
pounds
handled
per
day
for
ornamentals
in
pots
scenario.

j
Baseline
inhalation
MOE
=
NOAEL
(
0.
045
mg/
kg/
day)
/
short­
term
inhalation
dose.
Uncertainty
Factor
=
100.

k
Total
Baseline
Short­
or
Intermediate­
term
MOE
=
1
1
1
%

dermal
MOE
inhalation
MOE
l
Unit
exposure
values
from
Outdoor
Residential
Exposure
Task
Force
study:
ORETF
Study
Number
OMA001.
 
Exposure
of
Professional
Lawn
Care
Workers
During
the
Mixing,
Loading
and
Application
of
Granular
Turf
Pesticides
Utilizing
a
Surrogate
Compound
 
.
Values
from
EPA
memo
dated
April
30,
2001
using
same
standard
clothing
assumptions
as
for
PHED
(
footnotes
c
and
d)
.
Geometric
mean
is
used
for
dermal
values
and
median
is
used
for
inhalation
value.

m
Unit
exposure
values
from
a
loader/
applicator
study
using
passive
dosimetry
and
pump­
feed
backpack
equipment
to
load
and
apply
aldicarb
granules
to
the
soil
at
the
base
of
banana
trees.
MRID
#
451672­
01
Worker
Exposure
Study
During
Application
in
Banana
Plantation
with
Temik
10G
.
Applicators
wore
baseline
attire
plus
Tyvek
gloves
and
a
back
apron.
Geometric
mean
is
used
for
dermal
and
inhalation
values.

7
Table
1:
Occupational
Handler
Short­
and
Intermediate­
Term
Exposures
and
Risks
at
Baseline
Attire
continued
n
Unit
exposure
values
from
a
loader/
applicator
study
using
passive
dosimetry
and
gravity­
feed
backpack
equipment
to
load
and
apply
fipronil
granules
to
the
soil
at
the
base
of
banana
trees.
MRID
#
452507­
02
Worker
Exposure
Study
During
Application
of
Regent
10GR
in
Banana
Plantation.
Applicators
wore
baseline
attire
plus
PVC
gloves.
Geometric
mean
is
used
for
dermal
and
inhalation
values.

o
Unit
exposure
values
from
a
loader/
applicator
study
using
passive
dosimetry
and
handheld
bucket
and
scoop
equipment
to
load
and
apply
fipronil
granules
to
the
soil
at
the
base
of
banana
trees.
MRID
#
452507­
02
Worker
Exposure
Study
During
Application
of
Regent
10GR
in
Banana
Plantation.
Applicators
wore
baseline
attire
plus
PVC
gloves.
Geometric
mean
is
used
for
dermal
and
inhalation
values.

8
Table
2:
Occupational
Handler
Short­
Term
Exposures
and
Risks
with
Personal
Protective
Equipment
Exposure
Scenario
Crop
Type
Application
Rate
a
Acres
Treated
b
Dermal
(
gloves)
Unit
Exposure
c
(
mg/
lb
ai)
Dermal
(
gloves,
double
layers)
Unit
Exposure
c
(
mg/
lb
ai)
Dermal
(
gloves)
MOE
d
Dermal
(
gloves,
double
layers)
MOE
d
Inhalation
(
respirator)
Unit
Exposure
e
(
ug/
lb
ai)
Inhalation
(
no
respirator)
MOE
f
Inhalation
(
respirator)
MOE
g
Dermal
(
gloves)
+

Inhalation
(
no
respirator)
MOE
h
Dermal
(
gloves)
+

Inhalation
(
respirator)
MOE
h
Dermal
(
gloves,
double
layers)
+

Inhalation
(
no
respirator)
MOE
h
Dermal
(
gloves,
double
layers)
+

Inhalation
(
respirator)
MOE
h
MIXER/
LOADER
Mixing/
Loading
Liquid
Formulations
for
Aerial
Application
(
1a)
tobacco
4
350
0.023
0.017
1.1
1.
5
0.
24
1.9
9.
4
0.69
0.97
0.82
1.3
asparagus
(
SLN)
1
350
4.
3
5.
9
7.
5
38
2.
8
3.
9
3.
3
5.
1
barley
1
1200
1.
3
1.
7
2.
2
11
0.
8
1.
1
0.
96
1.
5
wheat
0.
75
1200
1.
7
2.
3
2.
9
15
1.
1
1.
5
1.
3
2
sorghum
0.
5
1200
2.
5
3.
4
4.
4
22
1.
6
2.
3
1.
9
3
potatoes
(
foliar)
0.
5
350
8.
7
12
15
75
5.
5
7.
8
6.
6
10
cotton
(
SLN)
0.
2
1200
6.
3
8.
6
11
55
4
5.
7
4.
8
7.
4
Mixing/
Loading
Liquid
Formulations
for
Chemigation
Application
(
1b)
potatoes
(
foliar)
­

OR,
WA,
ID,
UT
3
350
1.
4
2
2.
5
13
0.
92
1.
3
1.
1
1.
7
poplars
grown
for
pulpwood
(
SLN)
3
350
1.
4
2
2.
5
13
0.
92
1.
3
1.
1
1.
7
cabbage,
lettuce
2
350
2.
2
2.
9
3.
8
19
1.
4
1.
9
1.
6
2.
5
broccoli,
brussels
sprouts,
cauliflower,
cotton
1
350
4.
3
5.
9
7.
5
38
2.
8
3.
9
3.
3
5.
1
Mixing/
Loading
Liquid
Formulations
for
Groundboom
Application
(
1c)
tobacco
4
80
4.
8
6.4
8.
2
41
3
4.
3
3.6
5.
6
poplars
grown
for
pulpwood
(
SLN)
3
80
6.
3
8.
6
11
55
4
5.
7
4.
8
7.
4
potatoes
(
soil)
3
80
6.
3
8.
6
11
55
4
5.
7
4.
8
7.
4
peas,
lentils
2.5
80
7.
6
10
13
66
4.8
6.
8
5.8
8.
9
beans(
dry,
snap,

lima)
,
lettuce,
peppers,
radish
grown
for
seed,

cabbage
2
80
9.
5
13
16
82
6
8.
5
7.
2
11
wheat,
barley,
cotton,
sorghum
1
200
7.
6
10
13
66
4.
8
6.
8
5.
8
8.
9
asparagus
(
SLN)
,

broccoli,
brussels
sprouts,
cauliflower
1
80
19
26
33
160
12
17
14
22
potatoes
(
foliar)
0.
5
80
38
51
66
330
24
34
29
44
Loading
Granular
Formulations
for
Aerial
Application
(
2a)
tobacco
4
350
0.0069
0.0034
3.6
7.
4
0.34
1.3
6.
6
0.97
2.3
1.
1
3.5
potatoes
(
soil)
3
350
4.
8
9.
8
1.
8
8.
8
1.
3
3.
1
1.
5
4.
6
peas,
lentils
2.5
350
5.8
12
2.
1
11
1.6
3.
7
1.8
5.
6
peanuts
(
SLN)
2
350
7.
2
15
2.
6
13
1.
9
4.
7
2.
2
7
9
Table
2
Occupational
Handler
Short­
Term
Exposures
and
Risks
with
Personal
Protective
Equipment
continued
Exposure
Scenario
Crop
Type
Application
Rate
a
Acres
Treated
b
Dermal
(
gloves)
Unit
Exposure
c
(
mg/
lb
ai)
Dermal
(
gloves,
double
layers)
Unit
Exposure
c
(
mg/
lb
ai)
Dermal
(
gloves)
MOE
d
Dermal
(
gloves,
double
layers)
MOE
d
Inhalation
(
respirator)
Unit
Exposure
e
(
ug/
lb
ai)
Inhalation
(
no
respirator)
MOE
f
Inhalation
(
respirator)
MOE
g
Dermal
(
gloves)
+

Inhalation
(
no
respirator)
MOE
h
Dermal
(
gloves)
+

Inhalation
(
respirator)
MOE
h
Dermal
(
gloves,
double
layers)
+

Inhalation
(
no
respirator)
MOE
h
Dermal
(
gloves,
double
layers)
+

Inhalation
(
respirator)
MOE
h
clover
grown
for
seed
(
SLN)
1
350
14
29
5.
3
26
3.
9
9.
4
4.
5
14
barley,
sorghum,
wheat
1
1200
4.
2
8.
6
1.
5
7.
7
1.
1
2.
7
1.
3
4.
1
Loading
Granular
Formulations
for
Ground
Application
(
2b)
field­
grown
ornamental
shrubs
109
40
1.
2
2.
4
0.
42
2.
1
0.
31
0.
75
0.
36
1.
1
field­
grown
ornamental
trees
37
40
3.
4
7
1.
3
6.
3
0.
92
2.
2
1.
1
3.
3
field­
grown
flowers
&
groundcover
29
40
4.
4
8.
9
1.
6
8
1.
2
2.
8
1.
4
4.
2
field­
grown
ornamental
trees
and
shrubs
(
inject)

and
flowers
&

groundcover
11
40
12
23
4.
2
21
3.
1
7.
4
3.
6
11
coffee
trees
8.
3
80
7.
6
16
2.
8
14
2
4.
9
2.
4
7.
3
Christmas
trees
78
50
1.
3
2.
6
0.
48
2.
4
0.
35
0.
84
0.
4
1.
3
Christmas
trees
(
SLN)
4.
5
50
23
46
8.
2
41
6
15
7
22
tobacco
4
80
16
32
5.
8
29
4.2
10
4.
9
15
potatoes
(
soil)
3
80
21
43
7.
7
39
5.
7
14
6.
5
20
peas,
lentils
2.5
80
25
51
9.
3
46
6.8
16
7.
9
24
peppers,
peanuts
(
SLN)
,
radish
grown
for
seed
(
SLN)
2
80
32
64
12
58
8.
5
20
9.
8
30
cabbage
1.
5
80
42
86
15
77
11
27
13
41
barley,
cotton,

sorghum,
soybeans,
wheat
1
200
25
51
9.
3
46
6.
8
16
7.
9
24
peanuts,
beans
(
dry,

snap,
lima)
,

brussels
sprout,
cauliflower,
broccoli,
clover
grown
for
seed
(
SLN)
1
80
63
130
23
120
17
41
20
61
APPLICATOR
10
Table
2
Occupational
Handler
Short­
Term
Exposures
and
Risks
with
Personal
Protective
Equipment
continued
Exposure
Scenario
Crop
Type
Application
Rate
a
Acres
Treated
b
Dermal
(
gloves)
Unit
Exposure
c
(
mg/
lb
ai)
Dermal
(
gloves,
double
layers)
Unit
Exposure
c
(
mg/
lb
ai)
Dermal
(
gloves)
MOE
d
Dermal
(
gloves,
double
layers)
MOE
d
Inhalation
(
respirator)
Unit
Exposure
e
(
ug/
lb
ai)
Inhalation
(
no
respirator)
MOE
f
Inhalation
(
respirator)
MOE
g
Dermal
(
gloves)
+

Inhalation
(
no
respirator)
MOE
h
Dermal
(
gloves)
+

Inhalation
(
respirator)
MOE
h
Dermal
(
gloves,
double
layers)
+

Inhalation
(
no
respirator)
MOE
h
Dermal
(
gloves,
double
layers)
+

Inhalation
(
respirator)
MOE
h
Applying
Sprays
with
an
Airplane
(
3)
tobacco
4
350
No
Data
See
Engineering
Controls
asparagus
(
SLN)
1
350
barley
1
1200
wheat
0.
75
1200
sorghum
0.
5
1200
potatoes
(
foliar)
0.
5
350
cotton
(
SLN)
0.
2
1200
Applying
Granulars
with
an
Airplane
(
4)
tobacco
4
350
No
Data
See
Engineering
Controls
potatoes
(
soil)
3
350
peas,
lentils
2.5
350
peanuts
(
SLN)
2
350
barley,
sorghum,
wheat
1
1200
clover
grown
for
seed
(
SLN)
1
350
Applying
with
a
Groundboom
(
5)
tobacco
4
80
0.
014
0.011
7.8
9.
9
0.15
13
66
4.9
7
5.7
8.
6
poplars
grown
for
pulpwood
(
SLN)
3
80
10
13
18
88
6.
6
9.
3
7.
6
12
potatoes
(
soil)
3
80
10
13
18
88
6.
6
9.
3
7.
6
12
peas,
lentils
2.5
80
13
16
21
110
7.9
11
9.
1
14
beans(
dry,
snap,

lima)
,
lettuce,
peppers,
radish
grown
for
seed,

cabbage
2
80
16
20
27
130
9.
8
14
11
17
wheat,
barley,
cotton,
sorghum
1
200
13
16
21
110
7.
9
11
9.
1
14
asparagus
(
SLN)
,

broccoli,
brussels
sprouts,
cauliflower
1
80
31
40
53
260
20
28
23
35
potatoes
(
foliar)
0.
5
80
63
80
110
530
39
56
46
69
Applying
Granulars
with
a
Tractor
Drawn
Spreader
(
6)
field­
grown
ornamental
shrubs
109
40
0.
0072
0.
042
1.
1
1.
9
0.
24
0.
6
3
0.
39
0.
81
0.
46
1.
2
11
Table
2
Occupational
Handler
Short­
Term
Exposures
and
Risks
with
Personal
Protective
Equipment
continued
Exposure
Scenario
Crop
Type
Application
Rate
a
Acres
Treated
b
Dermal
(
gloves)
Unit
Exposure
c
(
mg/
lb
ai)
Dermal
(
gloves,
double
layers)
Unit
Exposure
c
(
mg/
lb
ai)
Dermal
(
gloves)
MOE
d
Dermal
(
gloves,
double
layers)
MOE
d
Inhalation
(
respirator)
Unit
Exposure
e
(
ug/
lb
ai)
Inhalation
(
no
respirator)
MOE
f
Inhalation
(
respirator)
MOE
g
Dermal
(
gloves)
+

Inhalation
(
no
respirator)
MOE
h
Dermal
(
gloves)
+

Inhalation
(
respirator)
MOE
h
Dermal
(
gloves,
double
layers)
+

Inhalation
(
no
respirator)
MOE
h
Dermal
(
gloves,
double
layers)
+

Inhalation
(
respirator)
MOE
h
field­
grown
ornamental
trees
37
40
3.
3
5.
6
1.
8
8.
9
1.
2
2.
4
1.
3
3.
4
field­
grown
flowers
&
groundcover
29
40
4.
2
7.
2
2.
3
11
1.
5
3.
1
1.
7
4.
4
field­
grown
ornamental
trees
&

shrubs
(
inject)
and
flowers
&

groundcover
11
40
11
19
6
30
3.
9
8.
1
4.
5
12
coffee
trees
8.3
80
7.
3
13
4
20
2.
6
5.3
3
7.7
Christmas
trees
78
50
1.
2
2.
1
0.
67
3.
4
0.
44
0.
91
0.
51
1.
3
Christmas
trees
(
SLN)
4.
5
50
22
37
12
58
7.
6
16
8.
9
23
tobacco
4
80
15
26
8.
2
41
5.3
11
6.
2
16
potatoes
(
soil)
3
80
20
35
11
55
7.
1
15
8.
3
21
peas,
lentils
2.5
80
24
42
13
66
8.
5
18
10
25
peppers,
peanuts
(
SLN)
,
radish
grown
for
seed
(
SLN)
2
80
30
52
16
82
11
22
12
32
cabbage
1.
5
80
41
69
22
110
14
30
17
42
barley,
cotton,

sorghum,
soybeans,
wheat
1
200
24
42
13
66
8.
5
18
10
25
peanuts,
beans
(
dry,

snap,
lima)
,

brussels
sprout,
cauliflower,
broccoli,
clover
grown
for
seed­
SLN
1
80
61
100
33
160
21
44
25
64
MIXER/
LOADER/
APPLICATOR
Loading/
Applying
with
a
Push
Type
Spreader
i
(
ORETF)
(
7)
field­
grown
ornamental
shrubs
109
5
0.
22
0.
11
0.
29
0.
58
1.
5
0.
77
3.
9
0.
21
0.
27
0.
33
0.
51
field­
grown
ornamental
trees
37
5
0.
86
1.
7
2.
3
11
0.
62
0.
8
0.
98
1.
5
12
Table
2
Occupational
Handler
Short­
Term
Exposures
and
Risks
with
Personal
Protective
Equipment
continued
Exposure
Scenario
Crop
Type
Application
Rate
a
Acres
Treated
b
Dermal
(
gloves)
Unit
Exposure
c
(
mg/
lb
ai)
Dermal
(
gloves,
double
layers)
Unit
Exposure
c
(
mg/
lb
ai)
Dermal
(
gloves)
MOE
d
Dermal
(
gloves,
double
layers)
MOE
d
Inhalation
(
respirator)
Unit
Exposure
e
(
ug/
lb
ai)
Inhalation
(
no
respirator)
MOE
f
Inhalation
(
respirator)
MOE
g
Dermal
(
gloves)
+

Inhalation
(
no
respirator)
MOE
h
Dermal
(
gloves)
+

Inhalation
(
respirator)
MOE
h
Dermal
(
gloves,
double
layers)
+

Inhalation
(
no
respirator)
MOE
h
Dermal
(
gloves,
double
layers)
+

Inhalation
(
respirator)
MOE
h
field­
grown
flowers
&
groundcover
29
5
1.
1
2.
2
2.
9
14
0.
8
1
1.
2
1.
9
field­
grown
ornamental
trees
&

shrubs
(
inject)
and
flowers
&

groundcover
11
5
2.
9
5.
8
7.
6
38
2.
1
2.
7
3.
3
5
Christmas
trees
78
5
0.
41
0.
82
1.
1
5.
4
0.
3
0.
38
0.
46
0.
71
Christmas
trees
(
SLN)
4.
5
5
7.
1
14
19
93
5.
1
6.
6
8
12
Loading/
Applying
with
a
Bellygrinder
(
PHED)
(
8)
field­
grown
ornamental
shrubs
109
1
9.
3
5.
7
0.
035
0.
056
12
0.
47
2.
4
0.
032
0.
034
0.
05
0.
055
field­
grown
ornamental
trees
37
1
0.
1
0.
17
1.
4
7.
1
0.
095
0.
1
0.
15
0.
16
field­
grown
flowers
&
groundcover
29
1
0.
13
0.
21
1.
8
9.
1
0.
12
0.
13
0.
19
0.
21
field­
grown
ornamental
trees
&

shrubs
(
inject)
and
flowers
&

groundcover
11
1
0.
34
0.
56
4.
6
24
0.
32
0.
34
0.
5
0.
55
Christmas
trees
78
1
0.
048
0.
079
0.
65
3.
4
0.
045
0.
048
0.
07
0.
077
Christmas
trees
(
SLN)
4.
5
1
0.
84
1.
4
11
58
0.
78
0.
82
1.
2
1.
3
Loading/
Applying
Granulars
with
a
Pump­
Feed
Backpack
Spreader
j
(
Aldicarb
)
(
9a)
field­
grown
ornamental
shrubs
109
10
0.
01
with
apron
on
back
No
Data
3.
2
(
apron)
No
Data
0.
84
0.
69
3.
4
0.
57
(
apron)
1.
7
(
apron)
No
Data
No
Data
5
6.
4
(
apron)
1.
4
6.
9
1.
1
(
apron)
3.
3
(
apron)

field­
grown
ornamental
trees
37
10
9.
5
(
apron)
2
10
1.
7
(
apron)
4.
9
(
apron)

5
19
(
apron)
4.
1
20
3.
3
(
apron)
9.
8
(
apron)

field­
grown
flowers
&
groundcover
29
10
12
(
apron)
2.
6
13
2.
1
(
apron)
6.
2
(
apron)

5
24
(
apron)
5.
2
26
4.
3
(
apron)
12
(
apron)

field­
grown
ornamental
trees
&

shrubs
(
inject)
and
flowers
&

groundcover
11
10
32
(
apron)
6.
8
34
5.
6
(
apron)
16
(
apron)

5
64
(
apron)
14
68
11
(
apron)
33
(
apron)

coffee
trees
8.
3
10
42
(
apron)
9
45
7.
4
(
apron)
22
(
apron)

5
84
(
apron)
18
90
15
(
apron)
44
(
apron)

13
Table
2
Occupational
Handler
Short­
Term
Exposures
and
Risks
with
Personal
Protective
Equipment
continued
Exposure
Scenario
Crop
Type
Application
Rate
a
Acres
Treated
b
Dermal
(
gloves)
Unit
Exposure
c
(
mg/
lb
ai)
Dermal
(
gloves,
double
layers)
Unit
Exposure
c
(
mg/
lb
ai)
Dermal
(
gloves)
MOE
d
Dermal
(
gloves,
double
layers)
MOE
d
Inhalation
(
respirator)
Unit
Exposure
e
(
ug/
lb
ai)
Inhalation
(
no
respirator)
MOE
f
Inhalation
(
respirator)
MOE
g
Dermal
(
gloves)
+

Inhalation
(
no
respirator)
MOE
h
Dermal
(
gloves)
+

Inhalation
(
respirator)
MOE
h
Dermal
(
gloves,
double
layers)
+

Inhalation
(
no
respirator)
MOE
h
Dermal
(
gloves,
double
layers)
+

Inhalation
(
respirator)
MOE
h
Christmas
trees
78
10
4.
5
(
apron)
0.
96
4.
8
0.
79
(
apron)
2.
3
(
apron)

5
9
(
apron)
1.
9
9.
6
1.
6
(
apron)
4.
6
(
apron)

Christmas
trees
(
SLN)
4.
5
10
78
(
apron)
17
83
14
(
apron)
40
(
apron)

5
160
(
apron)
33
170
27
(
apron)
80
(
apron)

Potted
ornamentals
0.
2
lb
ai/
day
­
18000
(
apron)
3800
19000
3100
(
apron)
9100
(
apron)

Loading/
Applying
Granular
with
a
Gravity­
Feed
Backpack
Spreader
k
(
Fipronil)
(
9b)
field­
grown
ornamental
shrubs
109
10
0.
6
No
Data
0.
054
No
Data
8.
8
0.
066
0.
33
0.
029
0.
046
No
Data
No
Data
5
0.
11
0.
13
0.
66
0.
059
0.
092
field­
grown
ornamental
trees
37
10
0.
16
0.
19
0.
97
0.
087
0.
14
No
Data
No
Data
5
0.
32
0.
39
1.
9
0.
17
0.
27
field­
grown
flowers
&
groundcover
29
10
0.
2
0.
25
1.
2
0.
11
0.
17
5
0.
4
0.
49
2.
5
0.
22
0.
35
field­
grown
ornamental
trees
&

shrubs
(
inject)
and
flowers
&

groundcover
11
10
0.
53
0.
65
3.
3
0.
29
0.
46
5
1.
1
1.
3
6.
5
0.
58
0.
91
coffee
trees
8.3
10
0.
7
0.86
4.3
0.
39
0.
6
5
1.
4
1.
7
8.
6
0.
77
1.
2
Christmas
trees
78
10
0.
075
0.
092
0.
46
0.
041
0.
064
5
0.
15
0.
18
0.
92
0.
082
0.
13
Christmas
trees
(
SLN)
4.
5
10
1.
3
1.
6
8
0.
71
1.
1
5
2.
6
3.
2
16
1.
4
2.
2
Potted
ornamentals
0.
2
lb
ai/
day
­
290
360
1800
160
250
Scoop
and
Bucket
l
(
Fipronil)

(
10)
field­
grown
ornamental
shrubs
109
10
2
No
Data
0.
016
No
Data
9
0.
064
0.
32
0.
013
0.
015
5
0.
032
0.
13
0.
64
0.
026
0.
031
field­
grown
ornamental
trees
37
10
0.
047
0.
19
0.
95
0.
038
0.
045
5
0.
095
0.
38
1.
9
0.
076
0.
09
field­
grown
flowers
&
groundcover
29
10
0.
06
0.
24
1.
2
0.
048
0.
057
5
0.
12
0.
48
2.
4
0.
097
0.
11
field­
grown
ornamental
trees
&

shrubs
(
inject)
and
flowers
&

groundcover
11
10
0.
16
0.
64
3.
2
0.
13
0.
15
5
0.
32
1.
3
6.
4
0.
25
0.
3
coffee
trees
8.3
10
0.
21
0.
84
4.
2
0.17
0.2
5
0.
42
1.
7
8.
4
0.
34
0.
4
Christmas
trees
78
10
0.
022
0.
09
0.
45
0.
018
0.
021
14
Table
2
Occupational
Handler
Short­
Term
Exposures
and
Risks
with
Personal
Protective
Equipment
continued
Exposure
Scenario
Crop
Type
Application
Rate
a
Acres
Treated
b
Dermal
(
gloves)
Unit
Exposure
c
(
mg/
lb
ai)
Dermal
(
gloves,
double
layers)
Unit
Exposure
c
(
mg/
lb
ai)
Dermal
(
gloves)
MOE
d
Dermal
(
gloves,
double
layers)
MOE
d
Inhalation
(
respirator)
Unit
Exposure
e
(
ug/
lb
ai)
Inhalation
(
no
respirator)
MOE
f
Inhalation
(
respirator)
MOE
g
Dermal
(
gloves)
+

Inhalation
(
no
respirator)
MOE
h
Dermal
(
gloves)
+

Inhalation
(
respirator)
MOE
h
Dermal
(
gloves,
double
layers)
+

Inhalation
(
no
respirator)
MOE
h
Dermal
(
gloves,
double
layers)
Inhalation
(
respirator)
MOE
h
5
0.
045
0.
18
0.
9
0.
036
0.
043
Christmas
trees
(
SLN)
4.
5
10
0.
39
1.
6
7.
8
0.
31
0.
37
5
0.
78
3.
1
16
0.
62
0.
74
Potted
ornamentals
0.
2
lb
ai/
day
­
88
350
1800
70
83
FLAGGER
Flagging
Aerial
Spray
Applications
(
11)
tobacco
4
350
Not
applicable
0.
01
double
layers
only;
no
gloves
Not
applicable
2.
5
(
no
gloves)
0.
07
6.
4
32
Not
applicable
Not
applicable
1.
8
no
gloves)
2.
3
no
gloves)

asparagus
(
SLN)
,

barley
1
350
10
no
gloves)
26
130
7.
2
no
gloves)
9.
3
no
gloves)

barley
1
1200
2.
9
no
gloves)
7.
5
38
2.
1
(
no
gloves)
2.
7
no
gloves)

wheat
0.
75
1200
3.
9
no
gloves)
10
50
2.
8
no
gloves)
3.
6
no
gloves)

sorghum
0.
5
1200
5.
8
no
gloves)
15
75
4.
2
no
gloves)
5.
4
no
gloves)

potatoes
(
foliar)
,

sorghum
0.
5
350
20
no
gloves)
51
260
14
no
gloves)
19
no
gloves)

cotton
(
SLN)
0.
2
350
50
no
gloves)
130
640
36
no
gloves)
46
no
gloves)

Flagging
Granular
Applications
(
12)
tobacco
4
350
Not
applicable
0.
0016
double
layers
only;
no
gloves
Not
applicable
16
no
gloves)
0.
03
15
75
Not
applicable
Not
applicable
7.
7
no
gloves)
13
no
gloves)

potatoes
(
soil)
3
350
21
(
no
gloves)
20
100
10
no
gloves)
17
no
gloves)

peas,
lentils
2.5
350
25
gloves)
24
120
12
no
gloves)
21
no
gloves)

peanuts
(
SLN)
2
350
31
(
no
gloves)
30
150
15
no
gloves)
26
no
gloves)

clover
grown
for
seed
(
SLN)
,
barley,

sorghum,
wheat
1
350
63
no
gloves)
60
300
31
no
gloves)
52
no
gloves)

barley,
sorghum,
wheat
1
1200
18
no
gloves)
18
88
8.
9
no
gloves)
15
no
gloves)
+

(
(

(
(
(

(
(

(
(
(

(
(
(

(
(
(

(
(
(

(
(
(

(
(

(
no
(
(

(
(

(
(
(

(
(
(

Footnotes:
a
Application
rates
are
based
on
maximum
values
found
on
various
labels
or
proposed
by
registrant.
In
most
scenarios,
a
range
of
maximum
application
rates
is
used
to
represent
the
range
of
rates
for
different
crops/
sites/
uses.

Most
application
rates
upon
which
the
analysis
is
based
are
presented
as
lb
ai/
A.
In
the
case
of
ornamentals
in
pots,
the
application
rate
is
presented
as
lb
ai/
day)
.
Specific
application
rates
and
the
corresponding
EPA
Reg.

numbers
that
are
intended
as
examples
of
each
exposure
assessment
scenario
are
presented
in
the
table
indicating
risks
at
baseline
attire.

15
Table
2
Occupational
Handler
Short­
Term
Exposures
and
Risks
with
Personal
Protective
Equipment
continued
b
Amount
handled
per
day
values
are
based
on
HED
Exposure
SAC
Policy
#
009
 
Standard
Values
for
Daily
Acres
Treated
in
Agriculture,
 
revised
June
23,
2000,
or
best
professional
judgment
when
data
is
not
available.

c
Unless
otherwise
footnoted,
personal
protective
equipment
dermal
unit
exposure
values
are
from
PHED
Surrogate
Exposure
Guide,
draft
version
August,
1998.
PPE
dermal
exposure
assumes
long
pants,
long
sleeved
shirt,

plus
gloves
and/
or
double­
layer
body
protection;
open
mixing/
loading,
open
cab/
tractor.
(
See
Exposure
Scenarios
Descriptions
Table
for
further
information.
)

d
Short­
term
dermal
MOE
=
NOAEL
(
0.
5
mg/
kg/
day
/
short­
term
PPE
daily
dermal
dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
,
where
daily
dermal
dose
=
[
unit
dermal
exposure
(
mg/
lb
ai)
*
application
rate
(
lb
ai/
acre)
*
daily
acres
treated
*
dermal
absorption
(
100%
)
]
/
body
weight
(
70
kg)
.
[
Note:
application
rate
and
acres
treated/
day
are
replaced
by
pounds
handled
per
day
for
ornamentals
in
pots
scenario.
]
Uncertainty
Factor
=
100.

e
Unless
otherwise
footnoted,
personal
protective
equipment
inhalation
unit
exposure
values
are
from
PHED
Surrogate
Exposure
Guide,
draft
version
August,
1998
representing
use
of
a
dust
mist
respirator
­
­
calculated
using
an
80%
protection
factor
from
baseline
inhalation
exposure
values.

f
Baseline
Inhalation
MOE
from
table
indicating
risks
at
baseline
attire
(
no
respirator)

g
PPE
Inhalation
MOE
=
NOAEL
(
0.
045
mg/
kg/
day)
/
PPE
inhalation
dose,
where
daily
PPE
inhalation
dose
=
(
unit
exposure
(
F
g/
lb
ai)
*
(
1mg/
1000
F
g)
conversion
*
appl.
rate
(
lb
ai/
A)
*
acres
treated/
day)
/
body
weight
(
70
kg)
[
Note:
application
rate
and
acres
treated/
day
are
replaced
by
pounds
handled
per
day
for
ornamentals
in
pots
scenario.
]
Uncertainty
Factor
=
100.

h
Total
PPE
Short­
term
MOE
=
1
1
1
%

dermal
MOE
inhalation
MOE
i
Unit
exposure
values
from
Outdoor
Residential
Exposure
Task
Force
study:
ORETF
Study
Number
OMA001.
 
Exposure
of
Professional
Lawn
Care
Workers
During
the
Mixing,
Loading
and
Application
of
Granular
Turf
Pesticides
Utilizing
a
Surrogate
Compound
 
.
Values
from
EPA
memo
dated
April
30,
2001
using
same
standard
PPE
assumptions
as
for
PHED
(
footnotes
c
and
e)
.
Geometric
mean
is
used
for
dermal
values
and
median
is
used
for
inhalation
value.

j
Unit
exposure
values
from
a
loader/
applicator
study
using
passive
dosimetry
and
pump­
feed
backpack
equipment
to
load
and
apply
aldicarb
granules
to
the
soil
at
the
base
of
banana
trees.
MRID
#
451672­
01
Worker
Exposure
Study
During
Application
in
Banana
Plantation
with
Temik
10G
.
Applicators
wore
baseline
attire
plus
Tyvek
gloves
and
a
back
apron.
Geometric
mean
is
used
for
dermal
and
inhalation
values.

k
Unit
exposure
values
from
a
loader/
applicator
study
using
passive
dosimetry
and
gravity­
feed
backpack
equipment
to
load
and
apply
fipronil
granules
to
the
soil
at
the
base
of
banana
trees.
MRID
#
452507­
02
Worker
Exposure
Study
During
Application
of
Regent
10GR
in
Banana
Plantation.
Applicators
wore
baseline
attire
plus
PVC
gloves.
Geometric
mean
is
used
for
dermal
and
inhalation
values.

l
Unit
exposure
values
from
a
loader/
applicator
study
using
passive
dosimetry
and
handheld
bucket
and
scoop
equipment
to
load
and
apply
fipronil
granules
to
the
soil
at
the
base
of
banana
trees.
MRID
#
452507­
02
Worker
Exposure
Study
During
Application
of
Regent
10GR
in
Banana
Plantation.
Applicators
wore
baseline
attire
plus
PVC
gloves.
Geometric
mean
is
used
for
dermal
and
inhalation
values.

16
Table
3:
Occupational
Handler
Intermediate­
Term
Exposures
and
Risks
with
Personal
Protective
Equipment
Exposure
Scenario
Crop
Type
Application
Rate
a
Acres
Treated
b
Dermal
(
gloves)
Unit
Exposure
c
(
mg/
lb
ai)
Dermal
(
gloves,
double
layers)
Unit
Exposure
c
(
mg/
lb
ai)
Dermal
(
gloves)
MOE
d
Dermal
(
gloves,
double
layers)
MOE
d
Inhalation
(
respirator)
Unit
Exposure
e
(
ug/
lb
ai)
Inhalation
(
baseline)
MOE
f
Inhalation
(
respirator)
MOE
g
Dermal
(
gloves)
+

Inhalation
(
baseline)
MOE
h
Dermal
(
gloves)
+

Inhalation
(
respirator)
MOE
h
Dermal
(
gloves,
double
layers)
+

Inhalation
(
baseline)
MOE
h
Dermal
(
gloves,
double
layers)
+

Inhalation
(
respirator)
MOE
h
MIXER/
LOADER
Mixing/
Loading
Liquid
Formulations
for
Aerial
Application
(
1a)
tobacco
4
350
0.023
0.017
0.18
0.25
0.24
1.9
9.
4
0.17
0.18
0.22
0.24
asparagus
(
SLN)
1
350
0.
72
0.
98
7.
5
38
0.
66
0.
71
0.
87
0.
96
barley
1
1200
0.
21
0.
29
2.
2
11
0.
19
0.
21
0.
25
0.
28
wheat
0.
75
1200
0.
28
0.
38
2.
9
15
0.
26
0.
28
0.
34
0.
37
sorghum
0.
5
1200
0.
42
0.
57
4.
4
22
0.
39
0.
41
0.
51
0.
56
potatoes
(
foliar)
0.
5
350
1.
4
2
15
75
1.
3
1.
4
1.
7
1.
9
cotton
(
SLN)
0.
2
1200
1.
1
1.
4
11
55
0.
96
1
1.
3
1.
4
Mixing/
Loading
Liquid
Formulations
for
Chemigation
Application
(
1b)
potatoes
(
foliar)
­

OR,
WA,
ID,
UT
3
350
0.
24
0.
33
2.
5
13
0.
22
0.
24
0.
29
0.
32
poplars
grown
for
pulpwood
(
SLN)
3
350
0.
24
0.
33
2.
5
13
0.
22
0.
24
0.
29
0.
32
cabbage,
lettuce
2
350
0.
36
0.
49
3.
8
19
0.
33
0.
36
0.
43
0.
48
broccoli,
brussels
sprouts,
cauliflower,
cotton
1
350
0.
72
0.
98
7.
5
38
0.
66
0.
71
0.
87
0.
96
Mixing/
Loading
Liquid
Formulations
for
Groundboom
Application
(
1c)
tobacco
4
80
0.
79
1.
1
8.2
41
0.
72
0.
78
0.
95
1
poplars
grown
for
pulpwood
(
SLN)
3
80
1.
1
1.
4
11
55
0.
96
1
1.
3
1.
4
potatoes
(
soil)
3
80
1.
1
1.
4
11
55
0.
96
1
1.
3
1.
4
peas,
lentils
2.5
80
1.
3
1.7
13
66
1.
2
1.2
1.
5
1.7
beans(
dry,
snap,

lima)
,
lettuce,
peppers,
radish
grown
for
seed,

cabbage
2
80
1.
6
2.
1
16
82
1.
4
1.
6
1.
9
2.
1
wheat,
barley,
cotton,
sorghum
1
200
1.
3
1.
7
13
66
1.
2
1.
2
1.
5
1.
7
asparagus
(
SLN)
,

broccoli,
brussels
sprouts,
cauliflower
1
80
0.
023
0.
017
3.
2
4.
3
0.
24
33
160
2.
9
3.
1
3.
8
4.
2
potatoes
(
foliar)
0.
5
80
6.
3
8.
6
66
330
5.
8
6.
2
7.
6
8.
4
17
Table
3:
Occupational
Handler
Intermediate­
Term
Exposures
and
Risks
with
Personal
Protective
Equipment
continued
Exposure
Scenario
Crop
Type
Application
Rate
a
Acres
Treated
b
Dermal
(
gloves)
Unit
Exposure
c
(
mg/
lb
ai)
Dermal
(
gloves,
double
layers)
Unit
Exposure
c
(
mg/
lb
ai)
Dermal
(
gloves)
MOE
d
Dermal
(
gloves,
double
layers)
MOE
d
Inhalation
(
respirator)
Unit
Exposure
e
(
ug/
lb
ai)
Inhalation
(
baseline)
MOE
f
Inhalation
(
respirator)
MOE
g
Dermal
(
gloves)
+

Inhalation
(
baseline)
MOE
h
Dermal
(
gloves)
+

Inhalation
(
respirator)
MOE
h
Dermal
(
gloves,
double
layers)
+

Inhalation
(
baseline)
MOE
h
Dermal
(
gloves,
double
layers)
+

Inhalation
(
respirator)
MOE
h
Loading
Granular
Formulations
for
Aerial
Application
(
2a)
tobacco
4
350
0.0069
0.0034
0.6
1.
2
0.34
1.3
6.
6
0.41
0.55
0.64
1
potatoes
(
soil)
3
350
0.
81
1.
6
1.
8
8.
8
0.
55
0.
74
0.
85
1.
4
peas,
lentils
2.5
350
0.97
2
2.
1
11
0.66
0.89
1
1.
7
peanuts
(
SLN)
2
350
1.
2
2.
5
2.
6
13
0.
83
1.
1
1.
3
2.
1
clover
grown
for
seed
(
SLN)
1
350
2.
4
4.
9
5.
3
26
1.
7
2.
2
2.
5
4.
1
barley,
sorghum,
wheat
1
1200
0.
7
1.
4
1.
5
7.
7
0.
48
0.
65
0.
74
1.
2
Loading
Granular
Formulations
for
Ground
Application
(
2b)
field­
grown
ornamental
shrubs
109
40
0.
19
0.
39
0.
42
2.
1
0.
13
0.
18
0.
2
0.
33
field­
grown
ornamental
trees
37
40
0.
57
1.
2
1.
3
6.
3
0.
39
0.
52
0.
6
0.
98
field­
grown
flowers
&

groundcover
29
40
0.
73
1.
5
1.
6
8
0.
5
0.
67
0.
77
1.
2
field­
grown
ornamental
trees
and
shrubs
(
inject)
and
flowers
&

groundcover
11
40
1.
9
3.
9
4.
2
21
1.
3
1.
8
2
3.
3
coffee
trees
8.
3
80
1.
3
2.
6
2.
8
14
0.
87
1.
2
1.
3
2.
2
Christmas
trees
78
50
0.
22
0.
44
0.
48
2.
4
0.
15
0.
2
0.
23
0.
37
Christmas
trees
(
SLN)
4.
5
50
3.
8
7.
6
8.
2
41
2.
6
3.
4
4
6.
4
tobacco
4
80
2.
6
5.4
5.
8
29
1.8
2.
4
2.8
4.
5
potatoes
(
soil)
3
80
3.
5
7.
1
7.
7
39
2.
4
3.
2
3.
7
6
peas,
lentils
2.5
80
4.
2
8.6
9.
3
46
2.9
3.
9
4.5
7.
2
peppers,
peanuts
(
SLN)
,
radish
grown
for
seed
(
SLN)
2
80
5.
3
11
0.
34
12
58
3.
6
4.
8
5.
6
9
cabbage
1.
5
80
7
14
15
77
4.
8
6.
5
7.
4
12
barley,
cotton,
sorghum,
soybeans,
wheat
1
200
4.
2
8.
6
9.
3
46
2.
9
3.
9
4.
5
7.
2
18
Table
3:
Occupational
Handler
Intermediate­
Term
Exposures
and
Risks
with
Personal
Protective
Equipment
continued
Exposure
Scenario
Crop
Type
Application
Rate
a
Acres
Treated
b
Dermal
(
gloves)
Unit
Exposure
c
(
mg/
lb
ai)
Dermal
(
gloves,
double
layers)
Unit
Exposure
c
(
mg/
lb
ai)
Dermal
(
gloves)
MOE
d
Dermal
(
gloves,
double
layers)
MOE
d
Inhalation
(
respirator)
Unit
Exposure
e
(
ug/
lb
ai)
Inhalation
(
baseline)
MOE
f
Inhalation
(
respirator)
MOE
g
Dermal
(
gloves)
+

Inhalation
(
baseline)
MOE
h
Dermal
(
gloves)
+

Inhalation
(
respirator)
MOE
h
Dermal
(
gloves,
double
layers)
+

Inhalation
(
baseline)
MOE
h
Dermal
(
gloves,
double
layers)
+

Inhalation
(
respirator)
MOE
h
peanuts,
beans
(
dry,
snap,
lima)
,

brussels
sprout,
cauliflower,
broccoli,
clover
grown
for
seed
(
SLN)
1
80
11
21
23
120
7.
3
9.
7
11
18
APPLICATOR
Applying
Sprays
with
an
Airplane
(
3)
tobacco
4
350
No
Data
See
Engineering
Controls
asparagus
(
SLN)
1
350
barley
1
1200
wheat
0.
75
1200
sorghum
0.
5
1200
potatoes
(
foliar)
0.
5
350
cotton
(
SLN)
0.
2
1200
Applying
Granulars
with
an
Airplane
(
4)
tobacco
4
350
No
Data
See
Engineering
Controls
potatoes
(
soil)
3
350
peas,
lentils
2.5
350
peanuts
(
SLN)
2
350
barley,
sorghum,
wheat
1
1200
clover
grown
for
seed
(
SLN)
1
350
Applying
with
a
Groundboom
(
5)
tobacco
4
80
0.
014
0.011
1.3
1.
7
0.15
13
66
1.2
1.
3
1.5
1.
6
poplars
grown
for
pulpwood
(
SLN)
3
80
1.
7
2.
2
18
88
1.
6
1.
7
2
2.
2
potatoes
(
soil)
3
80
1.
7
2.
2
0.
15
18
88
1.
6
1.
7
2
2.
2
peas,
lentils
2.5
80
2.
1
2.7
21
110
1.9
2
2.4
2.
6
beans(
dry,
snap,

lima)
,
lettuce,
peppers,
radish
grown
for
seed,

cabbage
2
80
2.
6
3.
3
0.
15
27
130
2.
4
2.
6
2.
9
3.
2
wheat,
barley,
cotton,
sorghum
1
200
2.
1
2.
7
21
110
1.
9
2
2.
4
2.
6
19
Table
3:
Occupational
Handler
Intermediate­
Term
Exposures
and
Risks
with
Personal
Protective
Equipment
continued
Exposure
Scenario
Crop
Type
Application
Rate
a
Acres
Treated
b
Dermal
(
gloves)
Unit
Exposure
c
(
mg/
lb
ai)
Dermal
(
gloves,
double
layers)
Unit
Exposure
c
(
mg/
lb
ai)
Dermal
(
gloves)
MOE
d
Dermal
(
gloves,
double
layers)
MOE
d
Inhalation
(
respirator)
Unit
Exposure
e
(
ug/
lb
ai)
Inhalation
(
baseline)
MOE
f
Inhalation
(
respirator)
MOE
g
Dermal
(
gloves)
+

Inhalation
(
baseline)
MOE
h
Dermal
(
gloves)
+

Inhalation
(
respirator)
MOE
h
Dermal
(
gloves,
double
layers)
+

Inhalation
(
baseline)
MOE
h
Dermal
(
gloves,
double
layers)
+

Inhalation
(
respirator)
MOE
h
asparagus
(
SLN)
,

broccoli,
brussels
sprouts,
cauliflower
1
80
5.
2
6.
6
53
260
4.
7
5.
1
5.
9
6.
5
potatoes
(
foliar)
0.
5
80
10
13
110
530
9.
5
10
12
13
Applying
Granulars
with
a
Tractor
Drawn
Spreader
(
6)
field­
grown
ornamental
shrubs
109
40
0.
0072
0.
0042
0.
19
0.
32
0.
24
0.
6
3
0.
14
0.
18
0.
21
0.
29
field­
grown
ornamental
trees
37
40
0.
55
0.
94
1.
8
8.
9
0.
42
0.
52
0.
61
0.
85
field­
grown
flowers
&

groundcover
29
40
0.
7
1.
2
2.
3
11
0.
53
0.
66
0.
78
1.
1
field­
grown
ornamental
trees
&
shrubs
(
inject)

and
flowers
&

groundcover
11
40
1.
8
3.
2
6
30
1.
4
1.
7
2.
1
2.
9
coffee
trees
8.
3
80
1.
2
2.
1
4
20
0.
93
1.
1
1.
4
1.
9
Christmas
trees
78
50
0.
21
0.
36
0.
67
3.
4
0.
16
0.
2
0.
23
0.
32
Christmas
trees
(
SLN)
4.
5
50
3.
6
6.
2
12
58
2.
8
3.
4
4
5.
6
tobacco
4
80
2.
5
4.3
8.
2
41
1.9
2.
4
2.8
3.
9
potatoes
(
soil)
3
80
3.
4
5.
8
11
55
2.
6
3.
2
3.
8
5.
2
peas,
lentils
2.5
80
4.
1
6.9
13
66
3.
1
3.8
4.
5
6.3
peppers,
peanuts
(
SLN)
,
radish
grown
for
seed
(
SLN)
2
80
5.
1
8.
7
16
82
3.
9
4.
8
5.
7
7.
8
cabbage
1.
5
80
6.
8
12
22
110
5.
2
6.
4
7.
6
10
barley,
cotton,
sorghum,
soybeans,
wheat
1
200
4.
1
6.
9
13
66
3.
1
3.
8
4.
5
6.
3
peanuts,
beans
(
dry,
snap,
lima)
,

brussels
sprout,
cauliflower,
broccoli,
clover
grown
for
seed­
SLN
1
80
10
17
33
160
7.
7
9.
5
11
16
20
Table
3:
Occupational
Handler
Intermediate­
Term
Exposures
and
Risks
with
Personal
Protective
Equipment
continued
Exposure
Scenario
Crop
Type
Application
Rate
a
Acres
Treated
b
Dermal
(
gloves)
Unit
Exposure
c
(
mg/
lb
ai)
Dermal
(
gloves,
double
layers)
Unit
Exposure
c
(
mg/
lb
ai)
Dermal
(
gloves)
MOE
d
Dermal
(
gloves,
double
layers)
MOE
d
Inhalation
(
respirator)
Unit
Exposure
e
(
ug/
lb
ai)
Inhalation
(
baseline)
MOE
f
Inhalation
(
respirator)
MOE
g
Dermal
(
gloves)
+

Inhalation
(
baseline)
MOE
h
Dermal
(
gloves)
+

Inhalation
(
respirator)
MOE
h
Dermal
(
gloves,
double
layers)
+

Inhalation
(
baseline)
MOE
h
Dermal
(
gloves,
double
layers)
+

Inhalation
(
respirator)
MOE
h
MIXER/
LOADER/
APPLICATOR
Loading/
Applying
with
a
Push
Type
Spreader
i
(
ORETF)

(
7)
field­
grown
ornamental
shrubs
109
5
0.
22
0.
11
0.
049
0.
097
1.
5
0.
77
3.
9
0.
046
0.
048
0.
086
0.
095
field­
grown
ornamental
trees
37
5
0.
14
0.
29
2.
3
11
0.
13
0.
14
0.
25
0.
28
field­
grown
flowers
&

groundcover
29
5
0.
18
0.
37
2.
9
14
0.
17
0.
18
0.
32
0.
36
field­
grown
ornamental
trees
&
shrubs
(
inject)

and
flowers
&

groundcover
11
5
0.
48
0.
96
7.
6
38
0.
45
0.
48
0.
86
0.
94
Christmas
trees
78
5
0.
068
0.
14
1.
1
5.
4
0.
064
0.
067
0.
12
0.
13
Christmas
trees
(
SLN)
4.
5
5
1.
2
2.
4
19
93
1.
1
1.
2
2.
1
2.
3
Loading/
Applying
with
a
Bellygrinder
(
PHED)
(
8)
field­
grown
ornamental
shrubs
109
1
9.
3
5.
7
0.
0058
0.
0094
12
0.
47
2.
4
0.
0057
0.
0057
0.
0092
0.
0094
field­
grown
ornamental
trees
37
1
0.
017
0.
028
1.
4
7.
1
0.
017
0.
017
0.
027
0.
028
field­
grown
flowers
&

groundcover
29
1
0.
022
0.
035
12
1.
8
9.
1
0.
021
0.
022
0.
035
0.
035
field­
grown
ornamental
trees
&
shrubs
(
inject)

and
flowers
&

groundcover
11
1
0.
057
0.
093
4.
6
24
0.
056
0.
057
0.
091
0.
093
Christmas
trees
78
1
0.
008
0.
013
0.
65
3.
4
0.
0079
0.
008
0.
013
0.
013
Christmas
trees
(
SLN)
4.
5
1
0.
14
0.
23
11
58
0.
14
0.
14
0.
22
0.
23
Loading/
Applying
Granulars
with
a
Pump­
Feed
Backpack
Spreader
j
(
Aldicarb)
(
9a)
field­
grown
ornamental
shrubs
109
10
0.
01
No
Data
0.
54
No
Data
0.
84
0.
69
3.
4
0.
3
(
apron)
0.
46
(
apron)
No
Data
No
Data
5
1.
1
1.
4
6.
9
0.
6
(
apron)
0.
93
(
apron)

field­
grown
ornamental
trees
37
10
1.
6
2
10
0.
89
(
apron)
1.
4
(
apron)

5
3.
2
4.
1
20
1.
8
(
apron)
2.
7
(
apron)

field­
grown
flowers
&

groundcover
29
10
2
2.
6
13
1.
1
(
apron)
1.
7
(
apron)

5
4
5.
2
26
2.
3
(
apron)
3.
5
(
apron)

21
­


Table
3:
Occupational
Handler
Intermediate­
Term
Exposures
and
Risks
with
Personal
Protective
Equipment
continued
Exposure
Scenario
Crop
Type
Application
Rate
a
Acres
Treated
b
Dermal
(
gloves)
Unit
Exposure
c
(
mg/
lb
ai)
Dermal
(
gloves,
double
layers)
Unit
Exposure
c
(
mg/
lb
ai)
Dermal
(
gloves)
MOE
d
Dermal
(
gloves,
double
layers)
MOE
d
Inhalation
(
respirator)
Unit
Exposure
e
(
ug/
lb
ai)
Inhalation
(
baseline)
MOE
f
Inhalation
(
respirator)
MOE
g
Dermal
(
gloves)
+

Inhalation
(
baseline)
MOE
h
Dermal
(
gloves)
+

Inhalation
(
respirator)
MOE
h
Dermal
(
gloves,
double
layers)
+

Inhalation
(
baseline)
MOE
h
Dermal
(
gloves,
double
layers)
+

Inhalation
(
respirator)
MOE
h
field­
grown
ornamental
trees
&
shrubs
(
inject)

and
flowers
&

groundcover
11
10
5.
3
6.
8
34
3
(
apron)
4.
6
(
apron)

5
11
14
68
6
(
apron)
9.
2
(
apron)

coffee
trees
8.
3
10
7
9
45
4
(
apron)
6.
1
(
apron)

5
14
18
90
7.
9
(
apron)
12
(
apron)

Christmas
trees
78
10
0.
75
0.
96
4.
8
0.
42
0.
65
5
1.
5
1.
9
9.
6
0.
84
1.
3
Christmas
trees
(
SLN)
4.
5
10
13
17
83
7.
3
11
5
26
33
170
15
22
Potted
ornamentals
0.
2
lb
ai/
day
2900
3800
19000
1600
2500
22
­


Table
3:
Occupational
Handler
Intermediate­
Term
Exposures
and
Risks
with
Personal
Protective
Equipment
continued
Exposure
Scenario
Crop
Type
Application
Rate
a
Acres
Treated
b
Dermal
(
gloves)
Unit
Exposure
c
(
mg/
lb
ai)
Dermal
(
gloves,
double
layers)
Unit
Exposure
c
(
mg/
lb
ai)
Dermal
(
gloves)
MOE
d
Dermal
(
gloves,
double
layers)
MOE
d
Inhalation
(
respirator)
Unit
Exposure
e
(
ug/
lb
ai)
Inhalation
(
baseline)
MOE
f
Inhalation
(
respirator)
MOE
g
Dermal
(
gloves)
+

Inhalation
(
baseline)
MOE
h
Dermal
(
gloves)
+

Inhalation
(
respirator)
MOE
h
Dermal
(
gloves,
double
layers)
+

Inhalation
(
baseline)
MOE
h
Dermal
(
gloves,
double
layers)
+

Inhalation
(
respirator)
MOE
h
Loading/
Applying
Granular
with
a
Gravity­
Feed
Backpack
Spreader
k
(
Fipronil)
(
9b)
field­
grown
ornamental
shrubs
109
10
0.
6
No
Data
0.
0089
No
Data
8.
8
0.
066
0.
33
0.
0079
0.
0087
No
Data
No
Data
5
0.
018
0.
13
0.
66
0.
016
0.
017
field­
grown
ornamental
trees
37
10
0.
026
0.
19
0.
97
0.
023
0.
026
5
0.
053
0.
39
1.
9
0.
046
0.
051
field­
grown
flowers
&

groundcover
29
10
0.
034
0.
25
1.
2
0.
03
0.
033
No
Data
No
Data
5
0.
067
0.
49
2.
5
0.
059
0.
065
field­
grown
ornamental
trees
&
shrubs
(
inject)

and
flowers
&

groundcover
11
10
0.
088
0.
65
3.
3
0.
078
0.
086
5
0.
18
1.
3
6.
5
0.
16
0.
17
coffee
trees
8.3
10
0.
12
0.
86
4.
3
0.1
0.
11
5
0.
23
1.
7
8.
6
0.
21
0.
23
Christmas
trees
78
10
0.
012
0.
092
0.
46
0.
011
0.
012
5
0.
025
0.
18
0.
92
0.
022
0.
024
Christmas
trees
(
SLN)
4.
5
10
0.
22
1.
6
8
0.
19
0.
21
5
0.
43
3.
2
16
0.
38
0.
42
Potted
ornamentals
0.
2
lb
ai/
day
49
360
1800
43
47
23
­


Table
3:
Occupational
Handler
Intermediate­
Term
Exposures
and
Risks
with
Personal
Protective
Equipment
continued
Exposure
Scenario
Crop
Type
Application
Rate
a
Acres
Treated
b
Dermal
(
gloves)
Unit
Exposure
c
(
mg/
lb
ai)
Dermal
(
gloves,
double
layers)
Unit
Exposure
c
(
mg/
lb
ai)
Dermal
(
gloves)
MOE
d
Dermal
(
gloves,
double
layers)
MOE
d
Inhalation
(
respirator)
Unit
Exposure
e
(
ug/
lb
ai)
Inhalation
(
baseline)
MOE
f
Inhalation
(
respirator)
MOE
g
Dermal
(
gloves)
+

Inhalation
(
baseline)
MOE
h
Dermal
(
gloves)
+

Inhalation
(
respirator)
MOE
h
Dermal
(
gloves,
double
layers)
+

Inhalation
(
baseline)
MOE
h
Dermal
(
gloves,
double
layers)
+

Inhalation
(
respirator)
MOE
h
Scoop
and
Bucket
l
(
Fipronil)
(
10)
field­
grown
ornamental
shrubs
109
10
2
No
Data
0.
0027
No
Data
9
0.
064
0.
32
0.
0026
0.
0027
No
Data
No
Data
5
0.
0054
0.
13
0.
64
0.
0051
0.
0053
field­
grown
ornamental
trees
37
10
0.
0079
0.
19
0.
95
0.
0076
0.
0078
5
0.
016
0.
38
1.
9
0.
015
0.
016
field­
grown
flowers
&

groundcover
29
10
0.
01
0.
24
1.
2
0.
0097
0.
01
5
0.
02
0.
48
2.
4
0.
019
0.
02
field­
grown
ornamental
trees
&
shrubs
(
inject)

and
flowers
&

groundcovers
11
10
0.
027
0.
64
3.
2
0.
025
0.
026
5
0.
053
1.
3
6.
4
0.
051
0.
053
coffee
trees
8.
3
10
0.
035
0.
84
4.
2
0.
034
0.
035
5
0.
07
1.
7
8.
4
0.
067
0.
07
Christmas
trees
78
10
0.
0037
0.
09
0.
45
0.
0036
0.
0037
5
0.
0075
0.
18
0.
9
0.
0072
0.
0074
Christmas
trees
(
SLN)
4.
5
10
0.
065
1.
6
7.
8
0.
062
0.
064
5
0.
13
3.
1
16
0.
12
0.
13
Potted
ornamentals
0.
2
lb
ai/
day
15
350
1800
14
14
FLAGGER
Flagging
Aerial
Spray
Applications
(
11)
tobacco
4
350
not
applicable
0.
01
double
layers
only;

no
gloves
not
applicable
0.
42
(
no
gloves)
0.
07
6.
4
32
not
applicable
not
applicable
0.
39
(
no
gloves)
0.
41
(
no
gloves)

asparagus
(
SLN)
,

barley
1
350
1.
7
(
no
gloves)
26
130
1.
6
(
no
gloves)
1.
6
(
no
gloves)

barley
1
1200
0.
49
(
no
gloves)
7.
5
38
0.
46
(
no
gloves)
0.
48
(
no
gloves)

wheat
0.
75
1200
0.
65
(
no
gloves)
10
50
0.
61
(
no
gloves)
0.
64
(
no
gloves)

sorghum
0.
5
1200
0.
97
(
no
gloves)
15
75
0.
91
(
no
gloves)
0.
96
(
no
gloves)

potatoes
(
foliar)
0.
5
350
3.
3
(
no
gloves)
51
260
3.
1
(
no
gloves)
3.
3
(
no
gloves)

cotton
(
SLN)
0.
2
350
8.
3
(
no
gloves)
130
640
7.
8
(
no
gloves)
8.
2
(
no
gloves)

24
Table
3:
Occupational
Handler
Intermediate­
Term
Exposures
and
Risks
with
Personal
Protective
Equipment
continued
Exposure
Scenario
Crop
Type
Application
Rate
a
Acres
Treated
b
Dermal
(
gloves)
Unit
Exposure
c
(
mg/
lb
ai)
Dermal
(
gloves,
double
layers)
Unit
Exposure
c
(
mg/
lb
ai)
Dermal
(
gloves)
MOE
d
Dermal
(
gloves,
double
layers)
MOE
d
Inhalation
(
respirator)
Unit
Exposure
e
(
ug/
lb
ai)
Inhalation
(
baseline)
MOE
f
Inhalation
(
respirator)
MOE
g
Dermal
(
gloves)
+

Inhalation
(
baseline)
MOE
h
Dermal
(
gloves)
+

Inhalation
(
respirator)
MOE
h
Dermal
(
gloves,
double
layers)
+

Inhalation
(
baseline)
MOE
h
Dermal
(
gloves,
double
layers)
+

Inhalation
(
respirator)
MOE
h
Flagging
Granular
Applications
(
12)
tobacco
4
350
not
applicable
0.
0016
double
layers
only;

no
gloves
not
applicable
2.
6
0.
03
15
75
not
applicable
not
applicable
2.
2
(
no
gloves)
2.
5
(
no
gloves)

potatoes
(
soil)
3
350
3.
5
20
100
3
(
no
gloves)
3.
4
(
no
gloves)

peas,
lentils
2.5
350
4.2
24
120
3.6
(
no
gloves)
4
(
no
gloves)

peanuts
(
SLN)
2
350
5.
2
30
150
4.
4
(
no
gloves)
5
(
no
gloves)

clover
grown
for
seed
(
SLN)
,

barley,
sorghum,
wheat
1
350
10
60
300
8.
9
(
no
gloves)
10
(
no
gloves)

barley,
sorghum,
wheat
1
1200
3
18
88
2.
6
(
no
gloves)
2.
9
(
no
gloves)

Footnotes:
a
Application
rates
are
based
on
maximum
values
found
on
various
labels
or
proposed
by
registrant.
In
most
scenarios,
a
range
of
maximum
application
rates
is
used
to
represent
the
range
of
rates
for
different
crops/
sites/
uses.
Most
application
rates
upon
which
the
analysis
is
based
are
presented
as
lb
ai/
A.
In
the
case
of
ornamentals
in
pots,
the
application
rate
is
presented
as
lb
ai/
day)
.
Specific
application
rates
and
the
corresponding
EPA
Reg.
numbers
that
are
intended
as
examples
of
each
exposure
assessment
scenario
are
presented
in
the
table
indicating
risks
at
baseline
attire.

b
Amount
handled
per
day
values
are
based
on
HED
Exposure
SAC
Policy
#
009
 
Standard
Values
for
Daily
Acres
Treated
in
Agriculture,
 
revised
June
23,
2000,
or
best
professional
judgment
when
data
is
not
available.

c
Unless
otherwise
footnoted,
personal
protective
equipment
dermal
unit
exposure
values
are
from
PHED
Surrogate
Exposure
Guide,
draft
version
August,
1998.
PPE
dermal
exposure
assumes
long
pants,
long
sleeved
shirt,

plus
gloves
and/
or
double­
layer
body
protection;
open
mixing/
loading,
open
cab/
tractor.
(
See
Exposure
Scenarios
Descriptions
Table
for
further
information.
)

d
Intermediate­
term
dermal
MOE
=
NOAEL
(
0.
03
mg/
kg/
day
/
intermediate­
term
PPE
daily
dermal
dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
,
where
daily
dermal
dose
=
[
unit
dermal
exposure
(
mg/
lb
ai)
*
application
rate
(
lb
ai/
acre)
*
daily
acres
treated
*
dermal
absorption
(
36%
)
]
/
body
weight
(
70
kg)
.
[
Note:
application
rate
and
acres
treated/
day
are
replaced
by
pounds
handled
per
day
for
ornamentals
in
pots
scenario.
]
Uncertainty
Factor
=
100.

e
Unless
otherwise
footnoted,
personal
protective
equipment
inhalation
unit
exposure
values
are
from
PHED
Surrogate
Exposure
Guide,
draft
version
August,
1998
representing
use
of
a
dust
mist
respirator
­
­
calculated
using
an
80%
protection
factor
from
baseline
inhalation
exposure
values.

f
Baseline
inhalation
MOE
from
table
indicating
risks
at
baseline
attire
(
no
respirator)

g
PPE
Inhalation
MOE
=
NOAEL
(
0.
045
mg/
kg/
day)
/
PPE
inhalation
dose,
where
daily
PPE
inhalation
dose
=
(
unit
exposure
(
F
g/
lb
ai)
*
(
1mg/
1000
F
g)
conversion
*
appl.
rate
(
lb
ai/
A)
*
acres
treated/
day)
/
body
weight
(
70
kg)
[
Note:
application
rate
and
acres
treated/
day
are
replaced
by
pounds
handled
per
day
for
ornamentals
in
pots
scenario.
]
Uncertainty
Factor
=
100.

h
Total
PPE
Intermediate­
term
MOE
=
1
1
1
%

dermal
MOE
inhalation
MOE
i
Unit
exposure
values
from
Outdoor
Residential
Exposure
Task
Force
study:
ORETF
Study
Number
OMA001.
 
Exposure
of
Professional
Lawn
Care
Workers
During
the
Mixing,
Loading
and
Application
of
Granular
Turf
Pesticides
Utilizing
a
Surrogate
Compound
 
.
Values
from
EPA
memo
dated
April
30,
2001
using
same
standard
PPE
assumptions
as
for
PHED
(
footnotes
c
and
e)
.
Geometric
mean
is
used
for
dermal
values
and
median
is
used
for
inhalation
value.

j
Unit
exposure
values
from
a
loader/
applicator
study
using
passive
dosimetry
and
pump­
feed
backpack
equipment
to
load
and
apply
aldicarb
granules
to
the
soil
at
the
base
of
banana
trees.
MRID
#
451672­
01
Worker
Exposure
Study
During
Application
in
Banana
Plantation
with
Temik
10G
.
Applicators
wore
baseline
attire
plus
Tyvek
gloves
and
a
back
apron.
Geometric
mean
is
used
for
dermal
and
inhalation
values.

k
Unit
exposure
values
from
a
loader/
applicator
study
using
passive
dosimetry
and
gravity­
feed
backpack
equipment
to
load
and
apply
fipronil
granules
to
the
soil
at
the
base
of
banana
trees.
MRID
#
452507­
02
Worker
Exposure
Study
During
Application
of
Regent
10GR
in
Banana
Plantation.
Applicators
wore
baseline
attire
plus
PVC
gloves.
Geometric
mean
is
used
for
dermal
and
inhalation
values.

Unit
exposure
values
from
a
loader/
applicator
study
using
passive
dosimetry
and
handheld
bucket
and
scoop
equipment
to
load
and
apply
fipronil
granules
to
the
soil
at
the
base
of
banana
trees.
MRID
#
452507­
02
Worker
Exposure
Study
During
Application
of
Regent
10GR
in
Banana
Plantation.
Applicators
wore
baseline
attire
plus
PVC
gloves.
Geometric
mean
is
used
for
dermal
and
inhalation
values.

25
Table
4:
Occupational
Handler
Short­
and
Intermediate­
Term
Exposures
and
Risks
with
Engineering
Controls
Exposure
Scenario
Crop
Type
Application
Rate
a
Acres
Treated
b
Dermal
Engineering
Control
Unit
Exposure
c
(
mg/
lb
ai)
Inhalation
Engineering
Control
Unit
Exposure
d
(
ug/
lb
ai)
Short­
Term
Dermal
Engineering
Control
MOE
e
Intermediate­
Term
Dermal
Engineering
Control
MOE
f
Baseline
Inhalation
(
no
respirator)
MOE
g
Inhalation
Engineering
Control
MOE
h
Combined
Short­
Term
Eng.
Control
Dermal
+
Eng.

Control
Inhalation
MOE
i
Combined
Interm­
Term
Eng.
Control
Dermal
+
Eng
Control
Inhalation
MOE
i
Combined
Short­
Term
Eng.
Control
Dermal
+

Baseline
Inhalation
MOE
i
Combined
Interm
Term
Eng.
Control
Dermal
+

Baseline
Inhalation
MOE
i
MIXER/
LOADER
Mixing/
Loading
Liquid
Formulations
for
Aerial
Application
(
1a)
tobacco
4
350
0.0086
0.083
2.9
0.
48
1.
9
27
2.6
0.
48
1.
1
0.39
asparagus
(
SLN)
1
350
12
1.
9
7.
5
110
11
1.
9
4.
6
1.
5
barley
1
1200
3.
4
0.
57
2.
2
32
3.
1
0.
56
1.
3
0.
45
wheat
0.
75
1200
4.
5
0.
75
2.
9
42
4.
1
0.
74
1.
8
0.
6
sorghum
0.
5
1200
6.
8
1.
1
4.
4
63
6.
1
1.
1
2.
7
0.
9
potatoes
(
foliar)
0.
5
350
23
3.
9
15
220
21
3.
8
9.
1
3.
1
cotton
(
SLN)
0.
2
1200
17
2.
8
11
160
15
2.
8
6.
6
2.
2
Mixing/
Loading
Liquid
Formulations
for
Chemigation
Application
(
1b)
potatoes
(
foliar)
­

OR,
WA,
ID,
UT
3
350
3.
9
0.
65
2.
5
36
3.
5
0.
63
1.
5
0.
51
poplars
grown
for
pulpwood
(
SLN)
3
350
3.
9
0.
65
2.
5
36
3.
5
0.
63
1.
5
0.
51
cabbage,
lettuce
2
350
5.
8
0.
97
3.
8
54
5.
3
0.
95
2.
3
0.
77
broccoli,
brussels
sprouts,
cauliflower,
cotton
1
350
12
1.
9
7.
5
110
11
1.
9
4.
6
1.
5
Mixing/
Loading
Liquid
Formulations
for
Groundboom
Application
(
1c)
tobacco
4
80
13
2.
1
8.2
120
11
2.1
5
1.7
poplars
grown
for
pulpwood
(
SLN)
3
80
17
2.
8
11
160
15
2.
8
6.
6
2.
2
potatoes
(
soil)
3
80
17
2.
8
11
160
15
2.
8
6.
6
2.
2
peas,
lentils
2.5
80
20
3.
4
13
190
18
3.3
8
2.7
beans
(
dry,
snap,

lima)
,
lettuce,
peppers,
radish
grown
for
seed,

cabbage
2
80
25
4.
2
16
240
23
4.
2
10
3.
4
wheat,
barley,
cotton,
sorghum
1
200
20
3.
4
13
190
18
3.
3
8
2.
7
asparagus
(
SLN)
,

broccoli,
brussels
sprouts,
cauliflower
1
80
51
8.
5
33
470
46
8.
3
20
6.
7
potatoes
(
foliar)
0.
5
80
100
17
66
950
92
17
40
13
26
Table
4:
Occupational
Handler
Short­
and
Intermediate­
Term
Exposures
and
Risks
with
Engineering
Controls
continued
Exposure
Scenario
Crop
Type
Application
Rate
a
Acres
Treated
b
Dermal
Engineering
Control
Unit
Exposure
c
(
mg/
lb
ai)
Inhalation
Engineering
Control
Unit
Exposure
d
(
ug/
lb
ai)
Short­
Term
Dermal
Engineering
Control
MOE
e
Intermediate­
Term
Dermal
Engineering
Control
MOE
f
Baseline
Inhalation
(
no
respirator)
MOE
g
Inhalation
Engineering
Control
MOE
h
Combined
Short­
Term
Eng.
Control
Dermal
+
Eng.

Control
Inhalation
MOE
i
Combined
Interm­
Term
Eng.
Control
Dermal
+
Eng
Control
Inhalation
MOE
i
Combined
Short­
Term
Eng.
Control
Dermal
+

Baseline
Inhalation
MOE
i
Combined
Interm
Term
Eng.
Control
Dermal
+

Baseline
Inhalation
MOE
i
Loading
Granular
Formulations
for
Aerial
Application
(
2a)
tobacco
4
350
0.00017
0.034
150
25
1.3
66
46
18
NF
NF
potatoes
(
soil)
3
350
200
33
1.
8
88
61
24
NF
NF
peas,
lentils
2.5
350
240
39
2.1
110
73
29
NF
NF
peanuts
(
SLN)
2
350
290
49
2.
6
130
91
36
NF
NF
clover
grown
for
seed
(
SLN)
1
350
590
98
5.
3
260
180
72
NF
NF
barley,
sorghum,
wheat
1
1200
170
29
1.
5
77
53
21
NF
NF
Loading
Granular
Formulations
for
Ground
Application
(
2b)
field­
grown
ornamental
shrubs
109
40
47
7.
9
0.
42
21
15
5.
7
NF
NF
field­
grown
ornamental
trees
37
40
140
23
1.
3
63
43
17
NF
NF
field­
grown
flowers
&
groundcover
29
40
180
30
1.
6
80
55
22
NF
NF
field­
grown
ornamental
trees
and
shrubs
(
inject)
11
40
470
78
4.
2
210
150
57
NF
NF
coffee
trees
8.
3
80
310
52
2.
8
140
96
38
NF
NF
Christmas
trees
78
50
53
8.
8
0.
48
24
16
6.
4
NF
NF
Christmas
trees
(
SLN)
4.
5
50
920
150
8.
2
410
280
110
NF
NF
tobacco
4
80
640
110
5.8
290
200
78
NF
NF
potatoes
(
soil)
3
80
860
140
7.
7
390
270
100
NF
NF
peas,
lentils
2.5
80
1000
170
9.3
460
320
130
NF
NF
peppers,
peanuts
(
SLN)
,
radish
grown
for
seed
(
SLN)
2
80
1300
210
12
580
400
160
NF
NF
cabbage
1.
5
80
1700
290
15
770
530
210
NF
NF
barley,
cotton,

sorghum,
soybeans,
wheat
1
200
1000
170
9.
3
460
320
130
NF
NF
27
Table
4:
Occupational
Handler
Short­
and
Intermediate­
Term
Exposures
and
Risks
with
Engineering
Controls
continued
Exposure
Scenario
Crop
Type
Application
Rate
a
Acres
Treated
b
Dermal
Engineering
Control
Unit
Exposure
c
(
mg/
lb
ai)
Inhalation
Engineering
Control
Unit
Exposure
d
(
ug/
lb
ai)
Short­
Term
Dermal
Engineering
Control
MOE
e
Intermediate­
Term
Dermal
Engineering
Control
MOE
f
Baseline
Inhalation
(
no
respirator)
MOE
g
Inhalation
Engineering
Control
MOE
h
Combined
Short­
Term
Eng.
Control
Dermal
+
Eng.

Control
Inhalation
MOE
i
Combined
Interm­
Term
Eng.
Control
Dermal
+
Eng
Control
Inhalation
MOE
i
Combined
Short­
Term
Eng.
Control
Dermal
+

Baseline
Inhalation
MOE
i
Combined
Interm
Term
Eng.
Control
Dermal
+

Baseline
Inhalation
MOE
i
peanuts,
beans
(
dry,

snap,
lima)
,

brussels
sprout,
cauliflower,
broccoli,
clover
grown
for
seed
(
SLN)
1
80
2600
430
23
1200
800
310
NF
NF
APPLICATOR
Applying
Sprays
with
an
Airplane
(
3)
tobacco
4
350
0.005
0.068
5
0.
83
No
Data
33
4.3
0.
81
No
Data
No
Data
asparagus
(
SLN)
1
350
20
3.
3
130
17
3.
3
No
Data
No
Data
barley
1
1200
5.
8
0.
97
39
5.
1
0.
95
No
Data
No
Data
wheat
0.
75
1200
7.
8
1.
3
51
6.
8
1.
3
No
Data
No
Data
sorghum
0.
5
1200
12
1.
9
77
10
1.
9
No
Data
No
Data
potatoes
(
foliar)
0.
5
350
40
6.
7
260
35
6.
5
No
Data
No
Data
cotton
(
SLN)
0.
2
1200
29
4.
9
190
25
4.
7
No
Data
No
Data
Applying
Granulars
with
an
Airplane
(
4)
tobacco
4
350
0.0017
1.3
15
2.
5
No
Data
1.7
1.
5
1
No
Data
No
Data
potatoes
(
soil)
3
350
20
3.
3
2.
3
2.
1
1.
4
No
Data
No
Data
peas,
lentils
2.5
350
24
3.9
2.
8
2.5
1.
6
No
Data
No
Data
peanuts
(
SLN)
2
350
29
4.
9
3.
5
3.
1
2
No
Data
No
Data
barley,
sorghum,
wheat
1
1200
17
2.
9
2
1.
8
1.
2
No
Data
No
Data
clover
grown
for
seed
(
SLN)
1
350
59
9.
8
6.
9
6.
2
4.
1
No
Data
No
Data
Applying
with
a
Groundboom
(
5)
tobacco
4
80
0.
005
0.043
22
3.6
13
230
20
3.6
8.
3
2.9
poplars
grown
for
pulpwood
(
SLN)
3
80
29
4.
9
18
310
27
4.
8
11
3.
8
potatoes
(
soil)
3
80
29
4.
9
18
310
27
4.
8
11
3.
8
peas,
lentils
2.5
80
35
5.
8
21
370
32
5.7
13
4.
6
beans(
dry,
snap,

lima)
,
lettuce,
>

peppers,
radish
grown
for
seed,

cabbage
2
80
44
7.
3
27
460
40
7.
2
17
5.
7
wheat,
barley,
cotton,
sorghum
1
200
35
5.
8
21
370
32
5.
7
13
4.
6
28
Table
4:
Occupational
Handler
Short­
and
Intermediate­
Term
Exposures
and
Risks
with
Engineering
Controls
continued
Exposure
Scenario
Crop
Type
Application
Rate
a
Acres
Treated
b
Dermal
Engineering
Control
Unit
Exposure
c
(
mg/
lb
ai)
Inhalation
Engineering
Control
Unit
Exposure
d
(
ug/
lb
ai)
Short­
Term
Dermal
Engineering
Control
MOE
e
Intermediate­
Term
Dermal
Engineering
Control
MOE
f
Baseline
Inhalation
(
no
respirator)
MOE
g
Inhalation
Engineering
Control
MOE
h
Combined
Short­
Term
Eng.
Control
Dermal
+
Eng.

Control
Inhalation
MOE
i
Combined
Interm­
Term
Eng.
Control
Dermal
+
Eng
Control
Inhalation
MOE
i
Combined
Short­
Term
Eng.
Control
Dermal
+

Baseline
Inhalation
MOE
i
Combined
Interm
Term
Eng.
Control
Dermal
+

Baseline
Inhalation
MOE
i
asparagus
(
SLN)
,

broccoli,
brussels
sprouts,
cauliflower
1
80
88
15
53
920
80
14
33
11
potatoes
(
foliar)
0.
5
80
180
29
110
1800
160
29
66
23
Applying
Granulars
with
a
Tractor
Drawn
Spreader
(
6)
field­
grown
ornamental
shrubs
109
40
0.
0021
0.
22
3.
8
0.
64
0.
6
3.
3
1.
8
0.
53
0.
52
0.
31
field­
grown
ornamental
trees
37
40
11
1.
9
1.
8
9.
7
5.
2
1.
6
1.
5
0.
91
field­
grown
flowers
&
groundcover
29
40
14
2.
4
2.
3
12
6.
6
2
2
1.
2
field­
grown
ornamental
trees
&

shrubs
(
inject)
and
flowers
&

groundcover
11
40
38
6.
3
6
33
18
5.
3
5.
2
3.
1
coffee
trees
8.3
80
25
4.
2
4
22
12
3.
5
3.4
2
Christmas
trees
78
50
4.
3
0.
71
0.
67
3.
7
2
0.
6
0.
58
0.
35
Christmas
trees
(
SLN)
4.
5
50
74
12
12
64
34
10
10
6
tobacco
4
80
52
8.
7
8.2
45
24
7.
3
7.1
4.
2
potatoes
(
soil)
3
80
69
12
11
60
32
9.
7
9.
4
5.
6
peas,
lentils
2.5
80
83
14
13
72
39
12
11
6.
7
peppers,
peanuts
(
SLN)
,
radish
grown
for
seed
(
SLN)
2
80
100
17
16
89
48
15
14
8.
4
cabbage
1.
5
80
140
23
22
120
64
19
19
11
barley,
cotton,

sorghum,
soybeans,
wheat
1
200
83
14
13
72
39
12
11
6.
7
peanuts,
beans
(
dry,

snap,
lima)
,

brussels
sprout,
cauliflower,
broccoli,
clover
grown
for
seed­
SLN
1
80
210
35
33
180
96
29
28
17
MIXER/
LOADER/
APPLICATOR
29
Table
4:
Occupational
Handler
Short­
and
Intermediate­
Term
Exposures
and
Risks
with
Engineering
Controls
continued
Exposure
Scenario
Crop
Type
Application
Rate
a
Acres
Treated
b
Dermal
Engineering
Control
Unit
Exposure
c
(
mg/
lb
ai)
Inhalation
Engineering
Control
Unit
Exposure
d
(
ug/
lb
ai)
Short­
Term
Dermal
Engineering
Control
MOE
e
Intermediate­
Term
Dermal
Engineering
Control
MOE
f
Baseline
Inhalation
(
no
respirator)
MOE
g
Inhalation
Engineering
Control
MOE
h
Combined
Short­
Term
Eng.
Control
Dermal
+
Eng.

Control
Inhalation
MOE
i
Combined
Interm­
Term
Eng.
Control
Dermal
+
Eng
Control
Inhalation
MOE
i
Combined
Short­
Term
Eng.
Control
Dermal
+

Baseline
Inhalation
MOE
i
Combined
Interm
Term
Eng.
Control
Dermal
+

Baseline
Inhalation
MOE
i
Loading/
Applying
with
a
Push
Type
Spreader
(
ORETF)
(
7)
Not
Feasible
Loading/
Applying
with
a
Bellygrinder
(
PHED)
(
8)
Not
Feasible
Loading/
Applying
Granulars
with
a
Pump

Feed
Backpack
Spreader
(
Aldicarb)
(
9a)
Not
Feasible
Loading/
Applying
Granular
with
a
Gravity­

Feed
Backpack
Spreader
(
Fipronil)
(
9b)
Not
Feasible
Scoop
and
Bucket
(
Fipronil)
(
10)
Not
Feasible
FLAGGER
Flagging
Aerial
Spray
Applications
(
11)
tobacco
4
350
0.00022
0.007
110
19
6.4
320
84
18
6.1
4.
8
asparagus
(
SLN)
,

barley
1
350
0.
00022
450
76
26
1300
340
72
24
19
barley
1
1200
0.
00022
130
22
7.
5
380
98
21
7.
1
5.
6
wheat
0.
75
1200
0.
00022
180
29
10
500
130
28
9.
5
7.
5
sorghum
0.
5
1200
0.
00022
270
44
15
750
200
42
14
11
potatoes
(
foliar)
0.
5
350
0.
00022
910
150
51
2600
670
140
49
38
cotton
(
SLN)
0.
2
350
0.
00022
2300
380
130
6400
1700
360
120
96
Flagging
Granular
Applications
(
12)
tobacco
4
350
0.000056
0.003
450
74
15
750
280
68
15
12
potatoes
(
soil)
3
350
0.
000056
600
99
20
1000
370
90
19
17
peas,
lentils
2.5
350
0.000056
710
120
24
1200
450
110
23
20
peanuts
(
SLN)
2
350
0.
000056
890
150
30
1500
560
140
29
25
clover
grown
for
seed
(
SLN)
,
barley,

sorghum,
wheat
1
350
0.
000056
1800
300
60
3000
1100
270
58
50
barley,
sorghum,
wheat
1
1200
0.
000056
520
87
18
880
330
79
17
15
Footnotes:
a
Application
rates
are
based
on
maximum
values
found
on
various
labels
or
proposed
by
registrant.
In
most
scenarios,
a
range
of
maximum
application
rates
is
used
to
represent
the
range
of
rates
for
different
crops/
sites/
uses.
Most
application
rates
upon
which
the
analysis
is
based
are
presented
as
lb
ai/
A.
In
the
case
of
ornamentals
in
pots,
the
application
rate
is
presented
as
lb
ai/
day)
.
Specific
application
rates
and
the
corresponding
EPA
Reg.
numbers
that
are
intended
as
examples
of
each
exposure
assessment
scenario
are
presented
in
the
table
indicating
risks
at
baseline
attire.

30
Table
4:
Occupational
Handler
Short­
and
Intermediate­
Term
Exposures
and
Risks
with
Engineering
Controls
continued
b
Amount
handled
per
day
values
are
based
on
HED
Exposure
SAC
Policy
#
009
 
Standard
Values
for
Daily
Acres
Treated
in
Agriculture,
 
revised
June
23,
2000,
or
best
professional
judgment
when
data
is
not
available.

c
Unless
otherwise
footnoted,
engineering
control
dermal
unit
exposure
values
are
from
PHED
Surrogate
Exposure
Guide,
draft
version
August,
1998.
Engineering
control
dermal
exposure
assumes
long
pants,
long
sleeved
shirt
plus
closed
system
mixing/
loading,
and
enclosed
tractor
cab/
cockpit.
Mixers
and
loaders
wear
gloves.
(
See
Exposure
Scenarios
Descriptions
Table
for
further
information.
)

d
Unless
otherwise
footnoted,
engineering
control
inhalation
unit
exposure
values
are
from
PHED
Surrogate
Exposure
Guide,
draft
version
August,
1998.
Engineering
control
inhalation
exposure
assumes
no
respirator
plus
closed
system
mixing/
loading,
and
enclosed
tractor
cab/
cockpit.
(
See
Exposure
Scenarios
Descriptions
Table
for
further
information.
)

e
Short­
term
dermal
MOE
=
NOAEL
(
0.
5
mg/
kg/
day
/
short­
term
engineering
control
daily
dermal
dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
,
where
daily
dermal
dose
=
[
unit
dermal
exposure
(
mg/
lb
ai)
*
application
rate
(
lb
ai/
acre)
*
daily
acres
treated
*
dermal
absorption
(
100%
)
]
/
body
weight
(
70
kg)
.
Uncertainty
Factor
=
100.

f
Intermediate­
term
dermal
MOE
=
NOAEL
(
0.
03
mg/
kg/
day
/
intermediate­
term
engineering
control
daily
dermal
dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
,
where
daily
dermal
dose
=
[
unit
dermal
exposure
(
mg/
lb
ai)
*
application
rate
(
lb
ai/
acre)
*
daily
acres
treated
*
dermal
absorption
(
36%
)
]
/
body
weight
(
70
kg)
.
Uncertainty
Factor
=
100.

g
Baseline
inhalation
MOE
from
table
indicating
risks
at
baseline
attire
(
no
respirator)

h
Engineering
Control
Inhalation
MOE
=
NOAEL
(
0.
045
mg/
kg/
day)
/
Engineering
control
inhalation
dose,
where
daily
engineering
control
inhalation
dose
=
(
unit
exposure
(
F
g/
lb
ai)
*
(
1mg/
1000
F
g)
conversion
*
appl.

rate
(
lb
ai/
A)
*
acres
treated/
day)
/
body
weight
(
70
kg)
.
Uncertainty
Factor
=
100.

i
Total
Engineering
Control
Short­
and
Intermediate­
term
MOE
=
1
1
1
%

dermal
MOE
inhalation
MOE
31
Table
5:
Exposure
Scenario
Descriptions
for
the
Occupational
Use
of
Disulfoton
continued
Table
5:
Exposure
Scenario
Descriptions
for
the
Occupational
Use
of
Disulfoton
Exposure
Scenario
(
Number)
Data
Source
Standard
Assumptions
a
(
8­
hr
work
day)
Comments
b
MIXER/
LOADER
DESCRIPTORS
Mixing/
Loading
Liquid
Formulations
(
Emulsifiable
Concentrates)
(
1a,
1b,
and
1c)
PHED
V1.1
1200
and
350
acres
for
aerial;
350
acres
for
chemigation;
200
and
80
acres
for
groundboom
application;
Baseline:
Dermal
(
72
to
122
replicates)
;
hand
(
53
replicates)
;
and
inhalation
(
85
replicates)
exposure
values
are
all
based
on
AB
grade
data.
High
confidence
in
the
unit
exposure
value.
No
protection
factors
were
needed
to
define
the
unit
exposure
value.

PPE:
The
same
dermal
and
inhalation
data
are
used
as
for
the
baseline
coupled
with
a
50%

protection
factor
to
account
for
an
additional
layer
of
clothing
and
a
5­
fold
protection
factor
to
account
for
the
use
of
a
dust/
mist
respirator.
Hand
(
59
replicates)
exposure
value
is
based
on
AB
grade
data.
High
confidence
in
the
unit
dermal
exposure
value.

Engineering
Controls:
Dermal
(
31
replicates)
exposure
value
is
based
on
AB
grade
data.

Hand
(
31
replicates)
and
inhalation
(
27
replicates)
exposure
values
are
based
on
AB
grade
data.
High
confidence
in
the
dermal
unit
exposure
value.
Low
confidence
in
inhalation
unit
exposure
value.
Empirical
data
include
the
use
of
chemical­
resistant
gloves.
No
protection
factors
were
needed
to
define
the
unit
exposure
value.

Loading
Granular
Formulations
(
2a
and
2b)
PHED
V1.1
1200
and
350
acres
for
aerial
application,
200
and
80
acres
for
tractor
drawn
spreader
agricultural
application,
and
2
acres
for
ornamental
flowers/
groundcover,
and
trees
Baseline:
Hands
=
All
grade,
dermal
=
ABC
grade,
and
inhalation
=
AB
grade.
Hands
=

10
replicates;
dermal
=
33
to
78
replicates;
and
inhalation
=
58
replicates.
Low
confidence
in
dermal/
hand
data.
High
confidence
in
inhalation
data.

PPE
:
Hands
=
AB
grade,
dermal
=
ABC
grade.
Dermal
=
45
replicates,
hands
=
12­
59
replicates.
Low
confidence
in
dermal
and
hands
data.
A
5­
fold
PF
was
applied
to
the
baseline
inhalation
data
to
account
for
the
use
of
a
dust
mist
respirator.

Engineering
Controls:
Closed
loading
of
granulars.
98%
PF
was
applied
to
baseline
data.

APPLICATOR
DESCRIPTORS
Applying
Liquid
Formulations
(
Emulsifiable
Concentrates)
with
an
Aircraft
(
3)
PHED
V1.1
1200
and
350
acres
for
aerial
Baseline:
No
data
PPE:
No
data
Engineering
Controls:
Hands
=
AB
grade,
dermal
and
inhalation
=
ABC
grade.
Medium
confidence
in
hands/
dermal
and
inhalation
data.
Hands
=
34
replicates,
dermal
=
24­
48
replicates,
and
inhalation
=
23
replicates.

32
Table
5:
Exposure
Scenario
Descriptions
for
the
Occupational
Use
of
Disulfoton
continued
Exposure
Scenario
(
Number)
Data
Source
Standard
Assumptions
a
(
8­
hr
work
day)
Comments
b
Applying
Granulars
with
an
Aircraft
(
4)
PHED
V1.1
1200
and
350
acres
for
aerial
Baseline:
No
data
PPE:
No
data
Engineering
Controls:
Hands
and
inhalation
­
All
grade,
dermal
­
C
grade.
Hands
=
4
replicates,
inhalation
=
13
replicates,
and
dermal
=
0­
13
replicates.
Low
confidence
in
all
data.

Applying
Sprays
with
a
Groundboom
(
5)
PHED
V1.1
200
and
80
acres
in
agricultural
applications
Baseline:
Hand,
dermal,
and
inhalation
=
AB
grades.
Hands
=
29
replicates,
dermal
=

23
to
42
replicates,
and
inhalation
=
22
replicates.
High
confidence
in
hand,
dermal,
and
inhalation
data.

PPE:
The
same
dermal
and
inhalation
data
are
used
as
for
the
baseline
coupled
with
a
50%

protection
factor
to
account
for
an
additional
layer
of
clothing,
and
an
80%
PF
to
account
for
the
use
of
a
dust
mist
respirator,
respectively.
Hands
data
are
ABC
grades
with
21
replicates.
Medium
confidence
in
hands,
and
dermal
data.

Engineering
Controls:
Hands
and
dermal
=
ABC
grade,
inhalation
=
AB
grade.
Hands
=

16
replicates,
dermal
=
20­
31
replicates,
inhalation
=
16
replicates.
Medium
confidence
in
hands
and
dermal
data,
and
high
confidence
in
inhalation
data.

Applying
Granulars
with
a
Tractor­

Drawn
Spreader
(
6)
PHED
V1.1
1200
and
80
acres
for
agricultural
crops,
50
acres
for
Christmas
trees;
and
40
acres
for
ornamentals
Baseline:
Hands,
dermal
and
inhalation
=
AB
grades.
Low
confidence
in
hands,
dermal
and
inhalation
data.
Hands
=
5
replicates,
dermal
=
1­
5
replicates
and
inhalation
=
5
replicates.
PPE:
The
same
hand
and
dermal
data
are
used
as
for
the
baseline
coupled
with
a
90%
PF
to
account
for
chemical
resistant
gloves,
and
a
50%
PF
to
account
for
an
additional
layer
of
clothing,
respectively.
The
same
inhalation
data
are
used
as
for
the
baseline
coupled
with
an
80%
PF
to
account
for
the
use
of
a
dust
mist
respirator.

Engineering
Controls:
Hands,
dermal
and
inhalation
data
are
AB
grades.
Hands
=
24
replicates,
dermal
=
27
to
30
replicates,
and
inhalation
=
2­
30
replicates.
High
confidence
in
hands,
dermal
and
inhalation
data.

MIXER/
LOADER/
APPLICATOR
DESCRIPTORS
33
Table
5:
Exposure
Scenario
Descriptions
for
the
Occupational
Use
of
Disulfoton
continued
Exposure
Scenario
(
Number)
Data
Source
Standard
Assumptions
a
(
8­
hr
work
day)
Comments
b
Loading
and
Applying
Granulars
with
a
Push
Type
Spreader
(
7)
ORETF
Study
OMA001
5
acres
Baseline
:
Hand
(
20
replicates)
,
dermal
(
40
replicates)
and
inhalation
(
40
replicates)
data
were
used
to
establish
unit
exposure
values.

PPE
:
The
same
dermal
and
inhalation
data
are
used
as
for
the
baseline
coupled,
when
needed,
with
a
50%
protection
factor
to
account
for
an
additional
layer
of
clothing
and
a
80%
protection
factor
to
account
for
the
use
of
a
dust/
mist
respirator.

replicates)
data
used
to
establish
exposure
value.

Engineering
Controls
:
Not
available
for
this
scenario.

Loading/
Applying
Granulars
Using
a
Belly
Grinder
(
8)
PHED
V1.
1
1acre
Baseline:
Hands
and
dermal
=
ABC
grades
and
inhalation
=
AB
grade.

confidence
in
hands/
dermal
data
and
high
confidence
in
inhalation
data.

replicates,
dermal
=
29­
45
replicates
and
inhalation
=
40
replicates.

PPE:
=
Gloved
data
for
hands
=
ABC
grade
with
15
replicates.
al
data
are
taken
from
the
baseline
coupled
with
a
50%
protection
factor
to
account
for
an
additional
layer
of
clothing.
PF)
was
applied
to
baseline
inhalation
data
to
account
for
use
of
dust
mist
respirator.

Engineering
Controls:
Not
feasible
Loading/
Applying
Granulars
with
a
Pump­
Feed
Backpack
Spreader
(
9a)
Proprietary
(
aldicarb
study:
MRID
#

451672­
01
5
and
10
acres;
350
pots
Baseline:
No
data
PPE:
Hand
(
with
gloves)
,
dermal,
and
inhalation
=
12
replicates.
ed
on
PHED
grading
criteria)
.
A
5­
fold
protection
factor
(
80%
PF)
was
applied
to
baseline
inhalation
data
to
account
for
use
of
dust
mist
respirator.

Engineering
Controls:
Not
applicable.

Loading/
Applying
Granulars
with
a
Gravity­
Feed
Backpack
Spreader
(
9b)
Proprietary
(
fipronil
study:
MRID
#

452507­
01
5
and
10
acres;
350
pots
Baseline:
No
data
PPE:
Hand
(
with
gloves)
,
dermal,
and
inhalation
=
8
replicates.
ed
on
PHED
grading
criteria)
.
A
5­
fold
protection
factor
(
80%
PF)
was
applied
to
baseline
inhalation
data
to
account
for
use
of
dust
mist
respirator.
Gloved­
hand
(
20
Medium
Hands
=
23
The
derm
A
5­
fold
protection
factor
(
80%
Grade
B
data
(
bas
Grade
A
data
(
bas
Engineering
Controls:
Not
applicable.

34
Table
5:
Exposure
Scenario
Descriptions
for
the
Occupational
Use
of
Disulfoton
continued
Exposure
Scenario
(
Number)
Data
Source
Standard
Assumptions
a
(
8­
hr
work
day)
Comments
b
Loading/
Applying
Granulars
with
a
Scoop
and
Bucket
(
10)
Proprietary
(
fipronil
study:
MRID
#

452507­
01
5
and
10
acres;
350
pots
Baseline:
No
data
PPE:
Hand
(
with
gloves)
,
dermal,
and
inhalation
=
10
replicates.
Grade
A
data
(
based
on
PHED
grading
criteria)
.
A
5­
fold
protection
factor
(
80%
PF)
was
applied
to
baseline
inhalation
data
to
account
for
use
of
dust
mist
respirator.

Engineering
Controls:
Not
applicable.

FLAGGER
DESCRIPTORS
Flagging
Aerial
Spray
Applications
(
11)
PHED
V1.1
350
acres
Baseline:
Hands,
dermal
and
inhalation
data
=
AB
grades.
High
confidence
in
dermal,

hands
and
inhalation.
Hands
=
30
replicates,
Inhalation
=
28
replicates,
and
dermal
=
18­

28
replicates.
PPE:
Dermal
and
hands
=
AB
grade.
Hands
=
6
replicates,
dermal
=
18­
28
replicates.

Low
confidence
for
dermal
and
hands
data.
A
50%
PF
was
applied
to
baseline
data
to
represent
dust
mist
masks.

Engineering
Controls:
Hands
and
dermal
=
ABC
grade,
inhalation
=
AB
grade.

Inhalation
=
16
replicates,
dermal
=
16
replicates,
and
dermal
=
20­
31
replicates.
Medium
confidence
in
hands,
dermal
data,
and
high
confidence
in
inhalation
data.
These
data
are
based
on
groundboom
enclosed
cab
data.

Flagging
Aerial
Granular
Applications
(
12)
PHED
V1.1
350
acres
Baseline:
Hands
and
dermal
=
ABC
grades.
Dermal
=
16­
20
replicates,
and
hands
=
4
replicates.
Dermal
values
based
on
total
deposition
data
assuming
50%
PF
applied
to
no
clothes
values.
Inhalation
=
E
grade
with
4
replicates.
Low
confidence
in
all
values.

PPE:
Dermal
value
based
on
50%
PF
over
baseline
to
account
for
double
layer
of
clothes.

Hands
values
based
on
90%
PF
over
baseline
to
account
for
use
of
gloves,
and
inhalation
values
based
on
50%
PF
over
baseline
to
account
for
use
of
dust
mist
mask.

Engineering
Controls:
Hands,
dermal
and
inhalation
=
AB
grades
with
high
confidence.

Hands
=
24
replicates,
dermal
=
27
to
30
replicates
and
inhalation
=
37
replicates.
All
data
based
on
granular
drop
type
tractor
drawn
spreader
enclosed
cab.

Footnotes:
a
All
Standard
Assumptions
are
based
on
an
8­
hour
work
day
as
estimated
by
HED.

b
All
handler
exposure
assessments
in
this
document
are
based
on
the
"
Best
Available"
data
as
defined
by
the
PHED
SOP
for
meeting
Subdivision
U
Guidelines
(
i.
e.
,
completing
exposure
assessments)
.
Best
available
grades
are
assigned
to
data
as
follows:
matrices
with
A
and
B
grade
data
(
i.
e.
,
Acceptable
Grade
Data)
and
a
minimum
of
15
replicates;
if
35
Table
5:
Exposure
Scenario
Descriptions
for
the
Occupational
Use
of
Disulfoton
continued
not
available,
then
grades
A,
B
and
C
data
and
a
minimum
of
15
replicates;
if
not
available,
then
all
data
regardless
of
the
quality
(
i.
e.
,
All
Grade
Data)
and
number
of
replicates.

High
quality
data
with
a
protection
factor
take
precedence
over
low
quality
data
with
no
protection
factor.
Generic
data
confidence
categories
are
assigned
as
follows:

High
=
grades
A
and
B
and
15
or
more
replicates
per
body
part
Medium
=
grades
A,
B,
and
C
and
15
or
more
replicates
per
body
part
Low
=
any
run
that
included
D
or
E
grade
data
or
has
less
than
15
replicates
per
body
part.

36
