Overview
of
Carbaryl
Risk
Assessment
Introduction
This
document
summarizes
EPA's
human
health
and
ecological
risk
findings
and
conclusions
for
the
carbamate
pesticide
carbaryl,
as
presented
fully
in
the
revised
documents,
"Human
Health
Risk
Assessment:
Carbaryl"
dated
July
30,
2002
and
"Environmental
Fate
and
Ecological
Risk
Assessment
for
the
Reregistration
of
Carbaryl"
dated
August
17,
2002.
The
purpose
of
this
overview
is
to
help
the
reader
identify
the
key
features
and
findings
of
these
risk
assessments
and
better
understand
EPA's
conclusions.
We
developed
this
overview
in
response
to
comments
and
requests
from
the
public
which
indicated
that
the
risk
assessments
were
difficult
to
understand,
that
they
were
too
lengthy,
and
that
it
was
not
easy
to
compare
the
assessments
for
different
chemicals
due
to
differing
formats.

Carbaryl
is
a
carbamate
insecticide,
and
it
has
been
determined
that
N­
methyl
carbamates
share
a
common
mechanism
of
toxicity:
the
inhibition
of
cholinesterase.
As
required
by
the
Food
Quality
Protection
Act
(FQPA),
EPA
will
consider
the
cumulative
risks
from
food,
water
and
non­
occupational
exposure
resulting
from
all
relevant
uses
of
the
group
of
N­
methyl
carbamates.
The
risk
estimates
summarized
in
this
document,
however,
are
for
carbaryl
alone.

Use
Profile
Carbaryl
(1­
naphthyl
methylcarbamate)
is
one
of
the
most
widely
used
broad­
spectrum
insecticides
in
agriculture,
professional
turf
management,
professional
ornamental
production,
and
in
residential
pet,
lawn,
and
garden
markets.

Based
on
sales
information
provided
by
the
technical
registrant
Aventis
in
September
1998,
it
appears
that
approximately
34%
of
carbaryl
is
used
by
homeowners
in
residential
settings,
59%
is
used
in
agriculture,
and
the
remaining
7%
is
used
in
the
nursery,
landscape
and
golf
course
industries.
According
to
Aventis,
this
information
still
reflects
current
trends.

C
Technical
Registrants.
The
technical
registrants
are
Aventis,
which
provided
the
primary
data
for
reregistration,
and
Burlington
Scientific
Corporation.
Aventis
is
now
owned
by
Bayer
CropScience,
and
is
still
corresponding
with
EPA
as
Aventis,
which
is
the
legally
recorded
name
on
EPA
pesticide
registrations.

C
Agricultural
Uses.
Carbaryl
is
used
in
agriculture
to
control
pests
on
terrestrial
food
crops,
including
fruit
and
nut
trees
(e.
g.,
apples,
pears,
almonds,
walnuts,
and
citrus),
many
types
of
fruits
and
vegetables
(e.
g.,
cucumbers,
tomatoes,
lettuce,
blackberries,
and
grapes),
and
grain
crops
(e.
g.,
corn,
rice,
sorghum,
and
wheat).
Use
Profile...

2
Based
on
the
Aventis
sales
data
cited
above,
approximately
3.9
million
pounds
of
active
ingredient
was
sold
to
the
agricultural
market.
Based
on
available
usage
information
for
the
years
1987
through
1996,
an
annual
estimate
of
carbaryl
total
domestic
usage
in
agriculture
averaged
approximately
2.5
million
pounds
of
active
ingredient
for
over
1.5
million
acres
treated.
Its
largest
agricultural
markets
(measured
as
the
percentage
of
pounds
active
ingredient
used
annually)
are
pecans
(12%),
apples
(9%),
grapes
(6%),
oranges
(5%),
alfalfa
(5%),
and
corn
(4%).
Most
of
this
use
was
in
Arkansas,
California,
Georgia,
Illinois,
Indiana,
Michigan,
Mississippi,
Ohio,
Oklahoma,
and
Texas.
Crops
with
a
high
percentage
of
the
total
U.
S.
planted
acres
treated
include
Chinese
cabbage
(57%),
asparagus
(43%),
cranberries
(39%),
Brussels
sprouts
(33%),
apples
(23%),
and
blueberries
(22%).

C
Residential
Uses.
Carbaryl
is
used
by
homeowners
for
lawncare,
gardening
(vegetables
and
ornamentals),
and
petcare.
Apart
from
petcare,
there
are
no
labels
for
indoor
uses.
Carbaryl
accounted
for
approximately
9%
of
the
total
residential
insecticide
market
and
was
ranked
fourth
on
the
list
behind
the
pyrethroids,
chlorpyrifos,
and
diazinon
(the
latter
two
are
now
being
removed
from
residential
markets,
so
changes
in
market
share
are
expected).
Dusts
(65%)
and
liquid
concentrates
(25%)
account
for
most
carbaryl
sales
in
the
residential
market
of
2
million
pounds
per
year.

C
Other
uses.
Carbaryl
is
used
for
ornamentals
and
turf,
including
production
facilities,
such
as
greenhouses
and
sod
farms.
It
is
used
on
golf
courses
and
on
residential
sites
treated
by
professional
applicators
(e.
g.,
annuals,
perennials,
and
shrubs).
Carbaryl
is
also
labeled
for
use
as
a
mosquito
adulticide,
and
EPA
has
assessed
the
risks
from
this
use.
Another
carbaryl
application
examined
in
the
risk
assessment
is
a
special
local
need
use
to
control
burrowing
shrimp
on
oyster
beds
in
Washington
State.

C
Formulations.
Carbaryl
formulations
include
baits,
dusts,
aerosol
sprays,
ready­
to­
use
pump
sprayers,
pet
collars,
pet
dips
and
shampoos,
flowable
concentrates,
emulsifiable
concentrates,
granulars,
soluble
concentrates,
water
dispersible
granules,
and
wettable
powders.

C
Methods
of
Application.
Typical
application
methods
in
agriculture
include
groundboom,
airblast,
chemigation,
and
aerial.
Carbaryl
can
also
be
applied
using
handheld
equipment
such
as
low
and
high
pressure
handwand
sprayers,
backpack
sprayers,
compressed
air
sprayers,
and
turfguns.
Homeowners
can
apply
carbaryl
with
equipment
that
includes
trigger
sprayers,
hose
end
sprayers,
ready­
to­
use
dust
packaging,
belly
grinders,
push­
type
spreaders,
and
outdoor
foggers.

C
Application
Rates.
Carbaryl
rates
vary
depending
on
the
crop.
For
most
of
agriculture,
maximum
seasonal
rates
range
from
1
to
16
pounds
active
ingredient
per
acre.
Examples
of
high
rate
applications
are
tree
nut
crops
and
golf
courses.
Examples
of
low
rate
applications
are
certain
field
and
row
crops.
Depending
on
the
crop,
the
maximum
number
of
carbaryl
applications
per
season
can
range
from
1
to
8.
The
maximum,
single
application
rate
for
carbaryl
is
for
California
citrus
only,
specified
on
the
label
as
up
to
16
lb
ai/
acre.
3
Human
Health
Risk
Assessment
Dietary
Risk
from
Food
Carbaryl
risks
from
food
consumption
are
summarized
in
Table
1
below.
Risks
less
than
100%
of
the
Population
Adjusted
Dose
(PAD),
either
acute
(aPAD)
or
chronic
(cPAD),
are
not
of
concern
to
the
Agency.
The
aPAD
is
the
dose
at
which
a
person
could
be
exposed
on
any
given
day
and
no
adverse
health
effects
would
be
expected.
The
cPAD
is
the
dose
at
which
an
individual
could
be
exposed
over
the
course
of
a
lifetime
and
no
adverse
health
effects
would
be
expected.
For
the
cancer
dietary
assessment,
risks
less
than
1
x
10
­6
are
not
of
concern
to
the
Agency.

Table
1.
Summary
of
Dietary
Exposure
and
Risk
for
Carbaryl
(including
Carbamate
Market
Basket
Survey
Data)

Population
Subgroup
Acute
(99.9
percentile)
Chronic
Cancer
Exposure
(mg/
kg/
day)*
%
aPAD
Exposure
(mg/
kg/
day)
%
cPAD
Risk
U.
S.
Population
0.
004580
46
0.000032
<1
2.8x
10
­8
Infants
(<
1
year
old)
0.007272
73
0.000054
<1
NA
Children
1­
6
0.
007546
75
0.000057
<1
NA
*mg/
kg/
day=
milligrams
per
kilogram
per
day.

The
acute
and
chronic
(noncancer)
dietary
food
risks
are
not
of
concern
to
the
Agency;
risks
are
less
than
100%
of
both
the
aPAD
and
cPAD.
Cancer
dietary
risk
is
also
not
of
concern
to
the
Agency
as
the
risk
to
the
general
population
of
2.8
x
10
­8
is
less
than
1
x
10
­6
.
Below
is
a
more
detailed
discussion
of
the
dietary
(food)
risk
estimates
in
Table
1.

Acute
Dietary
(Food)
Risk
Acute
dietary
(food)
risk
is
calculated
considering
what
is
eaten
in
one
day.
In
this
instance,
that
includes
the
full
range
of
consumption
values
as
well
as
the
range
of
residue
values
in
food.

C
For
carbaryl,
EPA
conducted
a
Tier
3/
4
dietary
risk
assessment,
which
is
currently
the
most
highly
refined
assessment
possible.
Dietary
exposure
was
determined
considering
the
level
of
carbaryl
residues
on
food
commodities
and
their
potential
consumption
by
multiple
subpopulations,
including
infants
and
children.
Acute
dietary
risk
was
then
calculated
by
comparing
dietary
exposure
to
the
aPAD.

C
As
shown
in
Table
1,
risk
estimates
for
all
commodities
are
less
than
100%
of
the
aPAD
for
all
subpopulations
when
considering
the
99.9th
percentile
of
exposure.
The
highest
exposed
Dietary
Risk
from
Food...

4
subpopulation
(children
1­
6
years)
is
at
75%
of
the
aPAD,
and
the
general
population
is
at
46%
of
the
aPAD.

C
EPA
calculated
the
aPAD
and
dietary
risk
levels
for
carbaryl
using
the
following
data:

­
For
the
acute
dietary
assessment,
the
acute
No
Observed
Adverse
Effect
Level
(NOAEL)
is
1
mg/
kg/
day
from
a
developmental
neurotoxicity
study
in
rats.
Increased
incidence
of
neurological
(functional
observational
battery)
changes
were
observed
on
the
first
day
of
dosing
in
maternal
animals
at
a
Lowest
Observed
Adverse
Effect
Level
(LOAEL)
of
10
mg/
kg/
day.

­
The
uncertainty
factor
(UF)
is
100
for
acute
dietary
risk,
based
on
a
10x
for
standard
uncertainties
in
applying
animal
studies
to
humans
(interspecies
extrapolation)
and
a
10x
for
varying
effects
among
individuals
(intraspecies
variability).

­
The
acute
reference
dose
(acute
RfD)
is
0.01
mg/
kg/
day,
calculated
by
dividing
the
NOAEL
(1
mg/
kg/
day)
by
the
UF
(100).

­
The
10x
Food
Quality
Protection
Act
Safety
Factor
(FQPA
SF)
was
removed
(i.
e.,
is
1x)
for
all
population
subgroups.
The
Agency
determined
that
this
safety
factor
is
adequate
to
protect
infants
and
children
because
there
are
no
residual
uncertainties
in
the
exposure
databases,
the
toxicology
database
is
complete,
and
the
endpoint
and
NOAELs/
LOAEL
for
risk
assessment
were
well
defined.
In
the
toxicology
database,
no
quantitative
or
qualitative
evidence
of
increased
susceptibility
in
rat
or
rabbit
fetuses
following
in
utero
exposure
in
the
standard
developmental
studies
was
observed.
There
was
a
low
level
of
concern
for
evidence
of
susceptibility
seen
in
the
developmental
neurotoxicity
study,
and
there
was
evidence
of
increased
susceptibility
in
offspring
in
the
2­
generation
reproduction
study.
However,
the
Agency
believes
that
the
acute
and
chronic
RfDs
would
be
protective
of
these
effects
so
the
FQPA
SF
was
reduced
to
1x.

­
The
aPAD
is
0.01
mg/
kg/
day,
calculated
by
dividing
the
acute
RfD
(0.01
mg/
kg/
day)
by
the
FQPA
SF.
Since
the
FQPA
SF
is
1x,
the
aPAD
and
the
acute
RfD
are
identical.

­
The
acute
dietary
exposure
analysis
is
based
on
the
Dietary
Exposure
Evaluation
Model
(DEEM™),
that
uses
exposure
and
consumption
data
to
calculate
risk
as
a
percentage
of
the
PAD.
The
DEEM™
analysis
evaluated
individual
food
consumption
as
reported
by
respondents
in
the
USDA
1989­
1992
Continuing
Surveys
for
Food
Intake
by
Individual
(CSFII).
For
acute
dietary
risk
assessments,
the
entire
distribution
of
consumption
events
for
individuals
is
multiplied
by
a
randomly
selected
distribution
of
residues
(probabilistic
analysis,
referred
to
as
"Monte
Carlo"
)
to
obtain
a
distribution
of
exposures.

­
The
CSFII
also
has
data
for
the
years
1994
through
1998.
Although
these
data
are
not
yet
routinely
used
in
individual
chemical
assessments,
EPA
has
developed
risk
estimates
for
Dietary
Risk
from
Food...

5
carbaryl
using
these
data.
The
risk
estimates
are,
in
general,
slightly
higher
than
those
using
the
1989­
1992
data,
but
still
resulted
in
exposures
less
than
100%
of
the
aPAD.

­
The
anticipated
pesticide
residues
on
food
are
extensively
refined
for
the
acute
dietary
assessment
and
were
derived
from:
(1)
the
Carbamate
Market
Basket
Survey
(CMBS),
which
was
translated
to
similar
commodities
when
feasible;
(2)
monitoring
data
from
USDA's
Pesticide
Data
Program
(PDP);
(3)
FDA's
Surveillance
Monitoring
Program;
(4)
the
percentage
of
the
crop
treated
(estimated
maximum
percentage);
and
(5)
data
from
crop
field
trials
where
there
were
insufficient
PDP
or
FDA
monitoring
data.
Field
trial
data
were
used
for
the
following
commodities:
garden
beets,
turnips,
mustards,
dried
beans,
almonds,
pecans,
walnuts,
field
corn
grain,
rice,
flax
seed,
okra,
olive,
peanuts,
pistachio,
and
sunflower.

­
The
Carbamate
Market
Basket
Survey
(CMBS)
is
an
industry­
sponsored,
year
long,
national
survey
of
carbamate
residues
on
selected
food
commodities
purchased
at
grocery
stores.
The
CMBS
collected
up
to
400
single­
serve
samples
for
8
different
crops
(apple,
banana,
broccoli,
grape,
lettuce,
orange,
peach
and
tomato).
Residue
data
from
a
market
basket
survey
are
generally
considered
to
provide
a
close
approximation
to
residues
potentially
found
at
the
"dinner
plate."
Survey
data
are
generally
considered
the
most
appropriate
data
source
for
use
in
pesticide
risk
and
exposure
assessment.

Information
from
the
CMBS
is
being
used
in
carbamate
dietary
risk
assessments
in
conjunction
with
all
other
available
field
trial
and
monitoring
data.
It
is
acknowledged
that
the
sample
preparation
protocol
used
by
the
CMBS
introduces
a
degree
of
uncertainty
into
the
reported
survey
results.
The
protocol
(hand­
rubbing
certain
commodities
during
the
rinsing
process)
created
a
potential
for
residue
loss
prior
to
analysis;
however,
the
degree
to
which
this
step
had
an
effect
on
residue
levels
cannot
be
quantified.
The
Agency
believes
these
survey
data
are
useful
to
the
carbaryl
dietary
risk
assessment,
as
they
tend
to
support
PDP
monitoring
data
findings
of
detectable
residues
on
commodities
important
to
the
diets
of
infants
and
children.

EPA
also
conducted
a
separate
assessment
using
solely
the
PDP/
FDA
monitoring
data
and
field
trial
data
for
a
better
understanding
of
the
overall
risks.
Use
of
this
data
set
provides
higher
risk
estimates
than
those
based
on
inclusion
of
the
CMBS
carbaryl
data.
For
example,
using
only
PDP/
FDA
and
field
trial
data,
exposure
for
all
infants
(less
than
1
year
old)
is
133%
of
the
aPAD,
and
exposure
for
children
1
through
6
is
110%
of
the
aPAD.
Dietary
Risk
from
Food...

6
Chronic
Dietary
(Food)
Risk
Chronic
(noncancer)
dietary
risk
from
food
is
calculated
by
using
the
average
consumption
value
for
foods
and
average
residue
values
on
those
foods
over
a
70­
year
lifetime.
As
previously
shown
in
Table
1,
dietary
exposure
for
all
populations
is
less
than
1%
of
the
cPAD,
and
therefore
not
of
concern
to
the
Agency.

C
EPA
calculated
the
cPAD
and
dietary
risk
levels
for
carbaryl
using
the
following
data:

­
EPA
used
the
Lowest
Observed
Adverse
Effect
Level
(LOAEL)
of
3.1
mg/
kg/
day
for
the
chronic
dietary
assessment
based
on
a
1­
year
chronic
toxicity
feeding
study
in
dogs.
Decreases
in
plasma
and
brain
cholinesterase
were
observed
in
females
at
this
dose.
Because
the
LOAEL
dose
was
the
lowest
dose
tested,
a
NOAEL
was
not
established.

­
The
uncertainty
factor
(UF)
is
300,
based
on
a
10x
for
standard
uncertainties
in
applying
animal
studies
to
humans
(interspecies
extrapolation)
and
a
10x
for
varying
effects
among
individuals
(intraspecies
variability),
as
well
as
a
3x
for
the
added
uncertainty
of
using
a
LOAEL
instead
of
a
NOAEL.

­
The
chronic
reference
dose
(chronic
RfD)
is
0.01
mg/
kg/
day,
calculated
by
dividing
the
LOAEL
(3.1
mg/
kg/
day)
by
the
UF
(300).

­
The
10x
Food
Quality
Protection
Act
safety
factor
(FQPA
SF)
was
removed
(i.
e.,
is
1x)
for
all
population
subgroups,
as
discussed
in
the
acute
dietary
section.
The
Agency
determined
that
this
safety
factor
was
adequate
to
protect
infants
and
children
because
there
are
no
residual
uncertainties
in
the
exposure
databases,
the
toxicology
database
is
complete,
and
the
endpoint
and
NOAELs/
LOAEL
for
risk
assessment
were
well
defined.

­
The
cPAD
is
0.01
mg/
kg/
day,
calculated
by
dividing
the
chronic
RfD
(0.01
mg/
kg/
day)
by
the
FQPA
SF.
Because
the
FQPA
SF
is
1x,
the
cPAD
and
the
chronic
RfD
are
identical.

­
The
chronic
dietary
exposure
analysis
is
based
on
the
Dietary
Exposure
Evaluation
Model
(DEEM™),
which
incorporates
exposure
and
consumption
data
to
calculate
risk
as
a
percentage
of
the
cPAD.
The
DEEM™
analysis
evaluated
individual
food
consumption
as
reported
by
respondents
in
the
USDA
1989­
1992
Continuing
Surveys
for
Food
Intake
by
Individual
(CSFII).
For
chronic
dietary
risk
assessments,
a
3­
day
average
consumption
for
each
subpopulation
is
combined
with
average
residues
in
commodities
to
determine
average
exposures.
Using
the
1994­
1998
CSFII
data
does
not
alter
the
results.

­
The
anticipated
pesticide
residues
on
food
are
extensively
refined
for
the
chronic
dietary
assessment
for
food
and
derived
from:
(1)
monitoring
data
from
USDA's
Pesticide
Data
Dietary
Risk
from
Food...

7
Program
(PDP);
(2)
FDA's
Surveillance
Monitoring
Program;
(3)
the
percentage
of
the
crop
treated
(weighted
average);
and
(4)
data
from
crop
field
trials
where
there
were
insufficient
PDP
or
FDA
monitoring
data.
Field
trial
data
were
used
for
the
following
commodities:
garden
beets,
turnips,
mustards,
dried
beans,
almonds,
pecans,
walnuts,
field
corn
grain,
rice,
flax
seed,
okra,
olive,
peanuts,
pistachio,
and
sunflower.
CMBS
data
are
not
used
for
chronic
dietary
assessment
because
they
reflect
single­
serving
residue
values.

Cancer
Dietary
(Food)
Risk
Cancer
dietary
risk
from
food
is
also
calculated
by
using
the
average
consumption
values
for
food
and
average
residue
values
for
those
foods
over
a
70­
year
lifetime.
The
chronic
exposure
value
is
multiplied
by
a
linear
low­
dose
response
factor
(Q1*),
based
on
animal
studies,
to
determine
the
lifetime
cancer
risk
estimate.
For
cancer
dietary
exposure,
risk
estimates
less
than
than
1
x
10
­6
(1
in
1
million)
are
not
of
concern
to
the
Agency.

C
Carbaryl
is
classified
as
"likely
to
be
carcinogenic
to
humans,"
based
on
vascular
tumors
in
mice
(males).
The
unit
risk,
or
Q1*
value,
is
8.75
x
10
­4
(mg/
kg/
day)
­1
.

C
The
maximum
estimated
lifetime
cancer
dietary
(food)
risk
of
2.8
X
10
­8
for
the
general
US
population
is
not
of
concern.
Use
of
the
1994­
1998
CSFII
has
no
impact
on
the
overall
results.

Dietary
Risk
from
Drinking
Water
Drinking
water
exposure
to
pesticides
can
occur
through
surface
and
ground
water
contamination.
EPA
considers
both
acute
(one
day)
and
chronic
(lifetime)
drinking
water
risks
and
uses
either
modeling
or
actual
monitoring
data,
if
available
and
of
sufficient
quality,
to
estimate
those
risks.
To
determine
the
allowable
carbaryl
exposure
from
drinking
water,
or
the
Drinking
Water
Level
of
Comparison
(DWLOC),
EPA
first
looks
at
how
much
of
the
overall
allowable
dietary
risk
is
contributed
by
food.
For
carbaryl,
EPA
calculated
food
risk
including
the
results
of
the
Carbamate
Market
Basket
Survey.
The
DWLOC
is
the
amount
of
allowable
risk
left
for
exposure
through
drinking
water.
The
DWLOC
is
then
compared
to
a
drinking
water
estimated
environmental
concentration
(drinking
water
EEC).
If
the
DWLOC
is
higher
than
the
drinking
water
EEC,
then
the
risk
is
not
of
concern
to
the
Agency.
Below
is
a
discussion
of
the
drinking
water
EECs
for
carbaryl,
followed
by
a
comparison
of
the
DWLOCs
to
the
drinking
water
EECs
to
assess
risks.
Dietary
Risk
from
Drinking
Water...

8
Estimated
Environmental
Concentrations
for
Carbaryl
C
Carbaryl
is
fairly
mobile,
but
is
not
likely
to
persist
or
accumulate
in
the
environment.
As
such,
it
is
difficult
for
monitoring
studies
to
detect
peak
concentrations
that
can
occur.
EPA
determined
that
currently
available
monitoring
studies
for
carbaryl
are
limited
in
this
regard,
and
did
not
use
them
to
define
peak
values
for
carbaryl.
Instead,
EPA
used
computer
modeling
to
estimate
drinking
water
EECs
from
ground
and
surface
water
that
could
be
expected
from
normal
agricultural
use.
Modeling
is
designed
to
provide
a
high­
end
estimate
of
exposure.

C
A
primary
degradate
of
carbaryl
is
1­
naphthol.
The
Agency
is
not,
however,
concerned
about
levels
of
1­
naphthol
in
drinking
water
for
this
assessment.
Due
to
the
limited
persistence
of
1­
naphthol,
it
is
not
expected
to
be
found
in
significant
concentrations
resulting
from
carbaryl
applications,
and
even
if
found,
it
is
not
a
cholinesterase
inhibitor
nor
is
it
expected
to
be
carcinogenic.

C
Drinking
water
EECs
for
surface
water
were
estimated
using
computer
modeling
with
PRZM/
EXAMS
software,
scenarios
using
an
Index
Reservoir,
and
a
Percent
Crop
Area
factor.
Drinking
water
EECs
from
modeling
vary
depending
on
different
scenarios
for
geographic
location,
crop,
and
pesticide
application
rates.

C
Drinking
water
EECs
for
surface
water
were
estimated
using
five
crop
scenarios:
(1)
Ohio
Sweet
Corn,
(2)
Ohio
Field
Corn,
(3)
Oregon
Apples,
(4)
Minnesota
Sugar
Beets,
and
(5)
Florida
Citrus.
These
scenarios
were
selected
to
represent
the
range
of
crops
and
use
rates
likely
to
result
in
higher
environmental
concentrations.
These
scenarios
were
also
modeled
at
different
application
rates:
label
maximum
application
rate,
average
application
rate
(based
on
EPA's
data
review),
and
reported
maximum
application
rate
(from
DOANE
survey
data).

C
Drinking
water
EECs
for
groundwater
were
estimated
using
the
SCI­
GROW
computer
model
based
on
the
upper­
end
agricultural
application
rate
for
carbaryl
use
on
citrus.
SCI­
GROW
provides
a
screening
value
to
use
in
determining
exposure
and
the
potential
risk
to
human
health.

Modeled
Risk
Estimates
The
DWLOCs
and
drinking
water
EECs
for
carbaryl
are
presented
in
Table
2.
Drinking
water
EECs
that
are
higher
than
DWLOCs
are
bolded.
Dietary
Risk
from
Drinking
Water...

9
Table
2.
DWLOCs
for
Combined
Food
and
Drinking
Water
Exposure
and
Drinking
Water
EECs
for
Carbaryl
at
the
Maximum
Label
Application
Rate
Population
Subgroup
Acute
DWLOCs
and
Drinking
Water
EECs
(ppb)
for
Surface
Water
Drinking
Water
EEC
(ppb)
for
Ground
Water
DWLOC
Drinking
water
EECs
(Modeling)
at
Maximum
Label
Application
Rates
Florida
Citrus
Oregon
Apples
Ohio
Sweet
Corn
Ohio
Field
Corn
Sugar
Beets
U.
S.
Population
188
494
144
37
30
19
0.8
All
Infants
(<
1yr)
27
494
144
37
30
19
Children
1­
6
27
494
144
37
30
19
Children
7­
12
38
494
144
37
30
19
Chronic
(noncancer)
DWLOCs
and
Drinking
Water
EECs
(ppb)
for
Surface
Water
U.
S.
Population
349
28
9
3
2
2
All
Infants
(<
1yr)
100
28
9
3
2
2
Children
1­
6
99
28
9
3
2
2
Children
7­
12
100
28
9
3
2
2
Cancer
DWLOCs
and
Drinking
Water
EECs
(ppb)
for
Surface
Water
U.
S.
Population
39
28
9
3
2
2
Acute
Drinking
Water
Risk
Estimates
for
Surface
Water
C
For
surface
water,
using
the
label
maximum
application
rates
for
carbaryl
in
the
model,
acute
drinking
water
EECs
exceed
the
DWLOCs
for
infants
(less
than
1
year)
and
children
(1
to
6
years)
for
combined
food
and
drinking
water
exposure
in
four
of
the
five
scenarios,
with
modeled
drinking
water
EECs
for
surface
water
ranging
from
30
ppb
for
Ohio
Field
Corn
to
approximately
500
ppb
for
Florida
Citrus.
Only
the
EECs
for
Minnesota
Sugar
Beets
(19
ppb)
were
less
that
than
the
DWLOCs
for
all
population
subgroups.

C
The
Agency
has
also
assessed
drinking
water
concentrations
based
on
average
application
rates
(based
on
usage
data)
and
reported
maximum
application
rates
(based
DOANE
survey
data).
These
rates
are
generally
lower
than
the
maximum
label
application
rate,
resulting
in
less
exposure
and
fewer
risks
of
concern.
Dietary
Risk
from
Drinking
Water...

10
C
The
highest
carbaryl
drinking
water
EEC
for
surface
water
(494
ppb),
which
is
from
the
maximum
label
application
rate
on
Florida
citrus,
is
presented
with
the
notation
that
the
majority
of
drinking
water
in
Florida
(greater
than
90%)
is
derived
from
ground
water.
Therefore,
potential
high
surface
water
concentrations
would
not
necessarily
indicate
widespread,
high
exposure.
The
aggregate
risk
assessment
therefore
uses
for
comparison
the
next
highest
drinking
water
EEC,
Oregon
apples
at
the
label
maximum
application
rate
(144
ppb).

Chronic
Drinking
Water
Risk
Estimates
Surface
Water
C
Chronic
(noncancer)
and
cancer
drinking
water
risk
estimates
from
surface
water
are
significantly
less
than
the
DWLOCs
and
are
not
of
concern
for
combined
food
and
drinking
water
exposures.
Chronic
(noncancer)
drinking
water
EECs
for
surface
water
range
from
0.7
to
28
ppb
for
both
average
and
maximum
rates,
significantly
less
than
the
chronic
DWLOCs
for
carbaryl.
Cancer
drinking
water
EECs
are
also
significantly
less
than
the
cancer
DWLOCs.

Drinking
Water
Risk
Estimates
for
Groundwater
C
The
modeled
drinking
water
EEC
for
groundwater
is
0.8
ppb,
and
is
significantly
less
than
the
acute
and
chronic
(cancer
and
noncancer)
DWLOCs
for
combined
food
and
drinking
water
exposure.

Monitoring
Data
C
EPA
lacks
a
targeted
drinking
water
monitoring
study
for
carbaryl
to
compare
with
the
screening­
level
modeling
results
presented
above.
Carbaryl
is
the
second
most
widely
detected
insecticide
in
surface
water,
based
on
the
USGS
NAWQA
database,
with
a
significant
portion
apparently
transported
to
streams.
Out
of
5220
surface
water
samples
analyzed,
about
21%
(1082)
had
detections
greater
than
the
minimum
detection
limit.
The
maximum
observed
concentration
for
carbaryl
in
surface
water
from
the
non­
targeted
USGS
NAWQA
study
is
5.5
ppb.
The
maximum
observed
concentration
from
a
California
state
surface
water
database
is
8.4
ppb,
cited
in
EPA's
environmental
risk
assessment
for
carbaryl.
Both
differ
significantly
from
the
494
ppb
peak
value
from
computer
modeling.
The
registrant
submitted
interim
results
from
an
ongoing
targeted
monitoring
study
of
carbaryl
surface
water
concentrations.
However,
the
interim
data
are
not
sufficient
to
serve
as
the
basis
for
the
drinking
water
EECs
in
this
risk
assessment.

Another
finding
in
the
NAWQA
data
is
that
streams
draining
urban
areas
showed
more
frequent
detections
and
higher
concentrations
than
streams
draining
agricultural
or
mixed
land
use
areas.
EPA
has
limited
tools
for
assessing
the
effects
of
pesticide
use
in
urban
and
suburban
settings
on
surface
water
and
groundwater
quality,
and
may
need
additional
data
to
provide
estimates
of
the
distribution
of
possible
exposures.
11
Residential
Risks
Use
Summary
C
Residents
can
receive
nondietary
exposures
to
carbaryl
by
mixing,
loading,
or
applying
pesticides
(residential
handler
exposure),
or
by
re­
entering
an
area
after
treatment
(residential
post­
application
exposure)
by
homeowners
or
commercial
pest
control
applicators.
Residential
exposures
are
broadly
defined
to
include
all
non­
dietary,
nonoccupational
exposures,
including
recreational
activities
like
golfing,
and
any
other
exposures
than
can
occur
in
the
general
population.

C
Carbaryl
has
a
wide
variety
of
residential
uses,
including
lawns,
gardens,
ornamentals,
and
pets.
Other
than
pet
treatment,
there
are
no
registered
indoor
uses.
Carbaryl
is
used
on
golf
courses,
and
may
be
used
in
public
areas,
such
as
schools
or
parks.
Although
EPA
is
not
aware
of
public
health
uses
of
carbaryl
in
state
or
local
mosquito
control
programs,
it
is
labeled
as
a
mosquito
adulticide,
which
EPA
did
consider
in
the
risk
assessment.
There
is
also
potential
exposure
from
carbaryl
used
in
Washington
State
to
control
burrowing
shrimp
in
oyster
beds.
EPA
also
considered
this
special
local
need
(FIFRA
24c)
use
on
oyster
beds
in
the
risk
assessment.

C
Both
homeowners
(and
professional
applicators)
can
apply
carbaryl
by
many
methods,
including
trigger
sprayers,
hose­
end
sprayers,
granular
spreaders,
ready­
to­
use
dust
packaging,
low
pressure
handwand
sprayers,
backpack
sprayers,
and
turfguns.

C
Residential
handlers
may
be
exposed
to
carbaryl
residues
via
the
dermal
(skin)
and
inhalation
routes.
Post­
application
exposures
to
carbaryl
for
adults
are
most
likely
through
the
skin,
whereas
children
may
also
receive
oral
exposures
from
mouthing
behaviors
(i.
e.,
hand­
tomouth
object­
to­
mouth,
and
soil
ingestion).

Noncancer
Toxicity
Summary
C
To
estimate
noncancer
residential
risks,
the
Agency
calculates
the
ratio
of
the
NOAEL
selected
for
risk
assessment
to
the
exposure.
This
margin
of
exposure
(MOE=
NOAEL/
exposure)
is
compared
to
a
target
MOE.
The
total
target
MOE
is
based
on
uncertainty
factors
(UFs)
that
are
routinely
applied
to
residential
risk
assessments:
10x
to
account
for
interspecies
extrapolation
and
10x
to
account
for
intraspecies
variations,
plus
any
additional
safety
factor
retained
due
to
concerns
unique
to
the
protection
of
infants
and
children
under
FQPA.
An
MOE
less
than
100
is
generally
of
concern
to
the
Agency.

C
For
carbaryl,
the
10x
FQPA
SF
has
been
removed
(i.
e.,
is
1x),
for
reasons
explained
above
in
the
acute
dietary
section.
Therefore,
the
target
MOE
for
short­
and
intermediate­
term
exposures
is
100.
For
long­
term
exposures,
the
target
MOE
is
300,
because
the
lowest
dose
tested
in
the
long­
term
study
was
the
LOAEL,
and
a
3x
uncertainty
factor
was
added
to
account
for
uncertainties
from
using
a
LOAEL
in
place
of
a
NOAEL.
The
only
residential
long­
term
assessment
for
residential
use
is
the
postapplication
exposure
of
toddlers
to
pet
collars.
Residential
Risk...

12
C
The
NOAELs
and
LOAELs
used
in
the
residential
risk
assessment
are
summarized
below:

­
Short­
and
intermediate­
term
dermal
risk
assessments
for
carbaryl
are
based
on
a
NOAEL
of
20
mg/
kg/
day
from
a
28­
day
dermal
toxicity
study
in
rats
using
technical
grade
carbaryl.
Decreases
in
red
blood
cell
cholinesterase
in
males
and
females,
and
decreases
in
brain
cholinesterase
in
males,
were
observed
at
the
systemic
LOAEL
of
50
mg/
kg/
day.

­
Short­
term
inhalation
and
incidental,
nondietary
ingestion
risk
assessments
for
carbaryl
are
based
on
a
NOAEL
of
1
mg/
kg/
day
from
a
developmental
neurotoxicity
study
in
rats.
Increased
incidence
of
neurological
(functional
observational
battery)
changes
and
cholinesterase
inhibition
(red
blood
cell,
plasma,
whole
blood,
and
brain)
were
observed
at
the
LOAEL
of
10
mg/
kg/
day.
Since
an
oral
study
was
used
for
these
risk
assessments,
a
100%
absorption
factor
was
applied
to
extrapolate
for
the
inhalation
assessments.

­
Intermediate­
term
inhalation
risk
assessments
for
carbaryl
are
based
on
a
NOAEL
of
1
mg/
kg/
day
from
a
subchronic
neurotoxicity
study
in
rats.
Increased
incidence
of
neurological
function
changes
and
cholinesterase
inhibition
(red
blood
cell,
plasma,
whole
blood,
and
brain)
were
observed
at
the
LOAEL
of
10
mg/
kg/
day.
Since
an
oral
study
was
used
for
these
risk
assessments,
a
100%
absorption
factor
was
applied
to
extrapolate
for
the
inhalation
assessments.

­
The
long­
term
(greater
than
6
month)
exposure
assessment
for
pet
collars
is
based
on
a
3.1
mg/
kg/
day
LOAEL
from
a
1­
year
chronic
toxicity
feeding
study
in
dogs.
Decreases
in
plasma
and
brain
cholinesterase
in
females
were
observed
at
this
dose.
Because
the
LOAEL
dose
was
the
lowest
dose
tested,
a
NOAEL
was
not
determined.
Therefore,
the
target
MOE
is
300
(which
includes
a
3x
uncertainty
factor
for
use
of
a
LOAEL
in
place
of
a
NOAEL).
Since
an
oral
study
was
used
for
these
risk
assessments,
a
12.7%
absorption
factor
was
used
to
extrapolate
for
the
dermal
assessments.

Noncancer
Risks
for
Residential
Handlers
C
EPA
assessed
only
short­
term
(1
to
30
day)
exposures
for
residential
handlers.
Intermediate­
term
exposures
(30
days
to
several
months)
are
unlikely
because
of
the
sporadic
nature
of
applications
by
homeowners.

C
Maximum
label
application
rates
and
use
information
specific
to
residential
products
served
as
the
basis
for
the
risk
calculations.
If
additional
information
was
available,
such
as
average
or
typical
rates,
EPA
used
these
values
to
allow
for
a
more
informed
risk
management
decision.
In
most
cases,
these
rates
differed
from
maximum
application
rates
by
about
a
factor
of
two.

C
Exposure
values
in
this
assessment
were
based
on
three
carbaryl­
specific
residential
handler
studies.
EPA
also
used
two
other
sources
of
surrogate
information:
a
study
from
the
Outdoor
Residential
Risk...

13
Residential
Exposure
Task
Force,
of
which
Aventis
is
a
member,
and
the
Pesticide
Handlers
Exposure
Database
(PHED).

C
EPA
assessed
17
major
residential
handler
exposure
scenarios,
based
on
anticipated
use
patterns
and
current
labeling
for
carbaryl,
as
well
as
the
types
of
equipment
and
techniques
used
by
homeowners
to
apply
carbaryl.
Most
of
the
17
scenarios
include
more
than
one
site/
area/
rate
combination.
Table
3
presents
the
scenarios
EPA
considered
and
their
associated
risk
estimates.
Of
these
scenarios,
8
are
of
concern
(MOEs
are
less
100),
and
these
scenarios
and
MOEs
are
shown
in
bold.
In
all
cases,
dermal
exposure
is
the
primary
contributor
to
risk.

Table
3.
Carbaryl
Noncancer
MOEs
for
Combined
Short­
term
Residential
Handler
Dermal
and
Inhalation
Exposures
#
Scenario
Descriptor
Use
Site
Amount
of
Carbaryl
Used
(lb
ai/
event)
Combined
Dermal
and
Inhalation
MOEs
1
Garden:
Ready­
to­
Use
Trigger
Sprayer
Vegetables/
Ornamentals
0.012
to
0.00075
2100
to
33730
2
Garden/
Ornamental
Dust
Vegetables/
Ornamentals
0.4
to
0.079
21
to
85
0.079*
107
3
Garden:
Hose­
End
Sprayer
General
Use
(2%
soln)
2
21
Fire
Ants
0.75
55
Other
Uses:
Perimeter
Nuisance
Pests,
Vegetables,
Vegetables/
Ornamentals,
0.26
to
0.012
158
to
3427
4
Garden:
Low
Pressure
Handwand
General
Use
(2%
soln),
Perimeter
Nuisance
Pests,
Vegetables,
Ornamentals,
Fire
Ant
0.19
to
0.012
193
to
3056
5
Trees/
Ornamentals:
Low
Pressure
Handwand
Ornamentals,
Pome
Fruits,
Nuts/
Stone
Fruits,
Citrus
0.176
to
0.023
142
to
1084
6
Trees/
Ornamentals:
Hose
End
Sprayer
Ornamentals,
Pome
Fruits,
Nuts/
Stone
Fruits,
Citrus
0.5*
72
0.176
to
0.023
204
to
1559
7
Garden:
Backpack
Sprayer
General
Use
(2%
soln),
Perimeter
Nuisance
Pests,
Vegetables,
Vegetables/
Ornamentals,
Fire
Ants
0.19
to
0.012
1293
to
20468
8
Lawn
Care:
Hose
End
Sprayer
Lawn
(broadcast)
5
25
Lawn
(spot)
0.
25
495
9
Dogs:
Dusting
Dog
0.0026
142
0.1
4
0.05
7
10
Dogs:
Liquid
Application
Dog
0.001
14000000*

11
Granular
&
Baits
Lawn
Care:
Belly
Grinder
Lawn
(spot)
0.21
60
0.1
126
Residential
Risk...

#
Scenario
Descriptor
Use
Site
Amount
of
Carbaryl
Used
(lb
ai/
event)
Combined
Dermal
and
Inhalation
MOEs
14
12
Granular
&
Baits
Lawn
Care:
Push­
Type
Spreader
Lawn
(broadcast)
4.2
to
2
477
to
1003
13
Granulars
&
Baits
By
Hand
Ornamentals
and
Gardens
0.
21
15
14
Aerosol
Various
0.08
65
15
Collars:
Pet
Dog
0.013
10800000*

16
Sprinkler
Can
(Source:
Scenario
6)
Ornamentals
(2%
solution)
0.1
359
17
Ornamental
Paint
On
Ornamentals
(2%
solution)
0.02
297
*Average
use
rate
based
on
exposure
study
data.
**
These
scenarios
reflect
dermal
MOEs
only,
and
are
based
on
EPA's
SOPs
for
Residential
Exposure
Assessment
as
opposed
to
monitoring
data.

Noncancer
Risks
for
Residential
Postapplication
Exposures
Several
carbaryl­
specific
studies
were
used
in
developing
this
assessment,
including
a
turf
transferable
residue
study
conducted
in
California,
Georgia,
and
Pennsylvania
at
approximately
8
lb
ai/
acre.
This
study
was
conducted
using
the
standard
protocol
from
the
Outdoor
Residential
Exposure
Task
Force.
The
Agricultural
Reentry
Task
Force
conducted
several
dislodgeable
foliar
residue
studies
with
carbaryl.
The
olive
pruning
and
cabbage
weeding
studies
were
used
in
the
home
garden
risk
assessments.

EPA
assessed
the
risks
from
postapplication
exposure
to
carbaryl
residues
for
the
following
populations:
Adult
Residential
(homeowner);
Youth­
aged
children
(10­
12
years
old);
and
Toddlers
(3­
year
olds).
EPA
considered
short­
(1
to
30
days)
and
intermediate­
term
(30
days
to
several
months)
exposures.
The
only
long­
term
exposure
considered
(greater
than
6
months)
is
for
pet
collar
uses.

Adult
Residential
Postapplication
C
EPA
assessed
the
following
5
scenarios
for
adult
residential
postapplication
exposures:
residential
turf
for
lawncare
and
after
mosquito
control;
recreational
swimming
and
beach
activity
(following
oyster
bed
treatments);
golfing;
home
garden
exposure
to
deciduous
trees;
and
home
garden
exposure
to
fruiting
vegetables.
Within
each
scenario,
ranges
of
exposure
were
evaluated
for
different
application
rates,
duration
of
exposure,
and
postapplication
activities
(e.
g.,
weeding,
harvesting).
Of
the
5
scenarios,
only
1
is
of
concern:
short­
term
risks
from
lawncare
(i.
e.,
heavy
yardwork).

C
On
the
day
of
application,
the
short­
term
MOE
for
lawncare
is
43
at
an
application
rate
of
8
lb
ai/
acre.
After
about
5
days,
residues
dissipate
below
the
level
of
concern.
At
a
lower
application
rate
of
4
lb
ai/
acre,
the
MOE
on
the
day
of
application
is
88,
and
it
takes
about
1
day
for
residues
to
dissipate
below
the
level
of
concern.
All
the
remaining
MOEs
are
greater
than
500,
with
most
in
the
thousands
to
tens
of
thousands.
Similarly,
all
intermediate­
term
exposures
for
residential
turf
are
greater
than
400.
Residential
Risk...

15
Youth­
aged
Children
(10
to
12
year­
olds)
C
Children
of
this
age
can
help
with
garden
maintenance,
and
therefore
are
considered
for
postapplication
activities
related
to
fruiting
vegetables
and
fruit
trees
(such
as
weeding
and
harvesting).
The
MOEs
for
these
activities,
both
short
and
intermediate­
term,
were
all
greater
than
100
on
the
day
of
application,
and
therefore
not
of
concern.
The
lowest
MOEs
are
approximately
650
for
high
exposures
from
deciduous
trees
and
980
for
high
exposures
from
fruiting
vegetables;
the
rest
of
the
MOEs
are
significantly
greater
than
1000.

Toddlers
(3
year­
olds)
C
Toddlers
were
selected
as
a
representative
population
for
turf
and
companion
animal
risk
assessments
to
provide
the
most
conservative
risk
estimates.
Exposures
from
turf
were
evaluated
separately
for
lawncare
uses
and
after
mosquito
control.
Beach
activity
following
oyster
bed
treatment
was
also
evaluated.
The
assessment
is
based
on
combined
risk
estimates
for
several
routes
of
exposure:
dermal,
hand­
to­
mouth,
object­
to­
mouth,
and
soil
ingestion.

C
Pet
treatments
result
in
short­
term
risks
of
concern
for
toddlers,
(MOE
less
than100)
even
30
days
after
application,
regardless
of
whether
the
formulation
used
was
a
dust,
liquid
or
collar.
Hand­
to­
mouth
and
dermal
exposures
are
approximately
equal
contributors
to
the
overall
estimates
for
each
product
type.
Intermediate­
term
risk
concerns
for
pet
treatments
are
similar
to
the
short­
term
risk
concerns.
One
use,
pet
collars,
is
assessed
as
a
long­
term
exposure,
and
is
also
of
concern
for
toddlers
(MOE=
43).
Pet
collars
are
assumed
to
be
worn
by
pets
all
of
the
time
so
long­
term
exposures
to
toddlers
may
occur.

C
Treated
turf
exposures
(from
products
labeled
for
direct
application
to
turf)
also
result
in
short­
term
risks
of
concern
for
toddlers.
The
MOEs
are
less
than
100
on
the
day
of
application
for
both
rates
considered,
4
lb
ai/
acre
(MOE=
11)
and
8
lb
ai/
acre
(MOE=
5).
These
applications
required
14
days
and
18
days,
respectively,
to
reach
the
target
MOE.
Intermediate­
term
risks
to
toddlers
improve,
based
on
30­
day
average
exposures
and
the
dissipation
rate
for
carbaryl,
but
the
MOEs
(91
and
45,
respectively)
are
still
of
concern.
Dermal
and
hand­
to­
mouth
exposures
are
the
key
contributors,
while
soil
ingestion
and
object­
to­
mouth
exposures
were
a
minor
contributors
to
the
total
risk
estimates.

C
Turf
exposures
following
application
of
carbaryl
as
a
mosquito
adulticide
are
not
of
concern,
regardless
of
how
applications
are
made
(i.
e.,
by
ground
or
air).
Both
short­
term
(on
the
day
of
application)
and
intermediate­
term
MOEs
are
equal
to
or
greater
than
the
target
MOE
of
100.
The
lowest
MOEs
are
approximately
450
for
aerial
application
and
850
for
ground
application,
with
the
remaining
MOEs
ranging
from
the
thousands
to
more
than
one
hundred
thousand.

C
Postapplication
risks
for
toddlers
playing
on
the
beach
after
oyster
bed
treatment
with
carbaryl
are
not
of
concern
to
the
Agency.
Short­
term
MOEs
are
greater
than
100,
even
if
the
highest
monitored
sediment
concentration
value
from
any
study
available
to
the
Agency
was
used
as
the
basis
for
the
calculations.
The
intermediate­
term
results
were
similar.
The
lowest
MOE
is
in
the
tens
of
thousands.
Residential
Risk...

16
Cancer
Risks
for
Residential
Handlers
C
Carbaryl
is
classified
as
"likely
to
be
carcinogenic
to
humans,"
based
on
increased
incidence
of
vascular
tumors
in
mice.
Cancer
risks
are
calculated
by
multiplying
the
Lifetime
Average
Daily
Dose
(LADD),
which
represents
dermal
and
inhalation
exposure
amortized
over
a
lifetime,
by
the
Q1*
or
unit
risk,
which
is
a
quantitative
dose
response
factor.
The
Q1*
for
carbaryl
is
8.75
x
10
­4
(mg/
kg/
day)
­1
.

C
For
the
17
handler
scenarios
considered
in
EPA's
residential
handler
assessment,
cancer
risks
are
not
of
concern
to
the
Agency;
the
risks
are
equal
to
or
less
than
1x10
­6
(most
are
in
the
10
­
8
or
10
­10
range)
when
evaluating
a
single
application
per
year.

C
EPA
also
calculated,
for
each
scenario,
the
maximum
number
of
days
of
exposure
per
year
that
could
occur
with
estimated
risks
still
at
or
below
the
1
x
10
­6
risk
level
(i.
e.,
not
of
concern).
There
are
5
scenarios
where
the
maximum
number
of
exposures
at
or
below
the
1
x
10
­6
risk
level
is
5
days
or
fewer
.

Cancer
Risks
for
Residential
Postapplication
Exposures
C
Postapplication
cancer
risks
were
calculated
only
for
adults
and
considered
the
same
scenarios
used
for
assessing
noncancer
risks.

C
For
all
scenarios
on
turf,
cancer
risks
are
not
of
concern
to
the
Agency;
risks
were
in
the
10
­8
range
or
less
on
the
day
of
application
when
evaluating
a
single
reentry
event
per
year
during
lawncare
activities.
Risks
from
home
gardening,
golfing,
mosquito
control,
or
oyster
bed
treatment,
are
also
not
of
concern;
they
were
in
the
10
­9
to
10
­12
range
when
evaluating
a
single
reentry
event
per
year
on
the
day
of
application.

C
The
Agency
calculated,
for
each
scenario,
the
maximum
number
of
days
of
exposure
per
year
which
could
occur
and
risks
would
be
at
or
below
1
x
10
­6
(i.
e.,
not
of
concern).
Values
range
from
20
to
over
365
days
per
year,
while
most
exceed
365
days
per
year
even
on
the
day
of
application.

Aggregating
Risks
from
Food,
Drinking
Water
and
Residential
Uses
Aggregate
risks
for
dietary
exposures
from
food
and
drinking
water
were
described
earlier.
This
section
describes
the
aggregate
(combined)
risk
from
food,
drinking
water
and
residential
exposures.

EPA
generally
does
not
calculate
aggregate
risks
when
dietary
or
residential
risks
are
already
of
concern.
In
this
case,
however,
EPA
did
generate
an
aggregate
risk
assessment
to
help
inform
risk
management
decisions.
Aggregating
Risks...

17
The
purpose
of
the
aggregate
assessment
is
to
identify
risks
that
become
a
concern
when
combined
with
others.
Therefore,
residential
risks
already
known
to
be
of
concern
alone
are
not
part
of
this
aggregate
assessment
for
carbaryl.
Instead,
EPA
selected
representative
scenarios
where
residential
risks
alone
are
not
already
of
concern.

These
scenarios
include
both
postapplication
and
handler
exposures.
Postapplication
exposures
include:
mosquito
control;
swimming/
beach
activity
(after
oyster
bed
treatments);
golfing;
and
garden
harvest.
The
handler
scenarios
are
mostly
at
the
average
application
rate
based
on
study
data.
The
maximum
application
rates
for
these
scenarios
were
not
used
because
they
are
already
of
concern
by
themselves.
The
handler
scenarios
selected
include:
application
of
dusts
to
gardens
and
pets;
hose
end
sprayer;
liquid
spray
spot
lawn
treatments;
and
broadcast
application
of
granulars
to
lawns.

C
After
aggregating
the
dietary
(food)
and
residential
exposures
not
already
of
concern,
EPA
determined,
for
each
assessed
activity,
the
DWLOC
(i.
e.,
the
allowable
room
left
for
drinking
water
exposure).

C
EPA
compared
the
calculated
DWLOCs
to
the
chronic
drinking
water
EECs
from
both
surface
water
and
ground
water.
For
drinking
water
EECs
from
surface
water,
results
from
carbaryl
use
on
Florida
citrus
and
Oregon
apples
were
used
for
comparison
with
the
DWLOC
because
they
are
the
two
highest
drinking
water
EECs
for
carbaryl.

Short­
term
Aggregate
Risks
C
For
those
scenarios
that
are
not
residential
risk
concerns
alone,
all
DWLOCs
are
greater
than
the
chronic
drinking
water
EECs
(i.
e.,
are
not
of
concern),
except
for
the
DWLOC
(19
ppb)
for
adults
using
garden
dust
use
at
the
average
application
rate,
which
is
less
than
the
EEC
(28
ppb)
from
carbaryl
use
on
Florida
citrus
use.
The
DWLOC,
however,
is
greater
than
the
chronic
drinking
water
EECs
for
ground
water
(EEC
of
0.8
ppb),
or
for
surface
water
from
the
Oregon
apple
use
(9
ppb).

Intermediate­
term
Aggregate
Risks
C
EPA
did
not
calculate
separate
intermediate­
term
aggregate
risk
estimates.
The
results
would
essentially
be
the
same
as
the
short­
term
aggregate
risk
estimates
because
the
hazard
inputs
are
numerically
identical.
Intermediate­
term
postapplication
exposures,
though,
would
be
lower,
because
they
represent
a
30­
day
average
rather
than
the
single­
day
higher
exposure
estimate
used
for
short­
term
exposures.

Cancer
Aggregate
Risks
C
Aggregate
cancer
risks
are
not
of
concern
for
any
subpopulation
regardless
of
the
source
of
drinking
water,
even
considering
the
high­
end
drinking
water
EECs
for
Florida
citrus.
For
the
cancer
risks,
EPA
used
the
same
adult
scenarios
as
the
short­
term
risk
assessment.
18
Occupational
Risk
C
The
occupational
risk
assessment
addresses
on
the
job
risks
to
pesticide
workers
who
may
be
exposed
to
carbaryl
when
mixing,
loading,
or
applying
a
pesticide
(i.
e.,
handlers),
and
when
entering
treated
sites
for
routine
tasks
(postapplication).

C
Occupational
noncancer
risk
is
being
measured
using
the
same
MOE
approach,
and
the
same
NOAELs
and
LOAELs,
as
are
used
in
the
residential
assessment
(see
the
Toxicology
Summary
heading
in
the
residential
section).
However,
the
occupational
assessment
does
not
consider
a
FQPA
SF
for
sensitive
populations
(infants
or
children).

Noncancer
Risks
for
Occupational
Handlers
Use
Scenarios
C
The
Agency
identified
28
major
occupational
exposure
scenarios
based
on
the
equipment
and
techniques
that
could
be
used
for
carbaryl
applications,
and
within
these
scenarios
there
are
128
different
crop/
rate/
acres
combinations.
These
scenarios
represent
short­
term
(1
to
30
days)
and
intermediate­
term
(30
days
to
several
months)
exposures.
A
few
scenarios
were
also
assessed
for
long­
term
exposures
(more
than
180
days),
mostly
in
the
greenhouse
and
floriculture
industry
where
long­
term
exposures
could
be
expected.
All
scenarios
present
the
combined
risk
from
dermal
and
inhalation
exposures.

C
Occupational
handler
risk
assessments
were
conducted
considering
eight
levels
of
personal
protection
based
on
different
combinations
of
the
following:
(1)
baseline
protection
(typical
work
clothing
or
a
long­
sleeved
shirt
and
long
pants,
no
respiratory
protection
and
no
chemical­
resistant
gloves);
(2)
minimum
personal
protective
equipment
(baseline
scenario
with
the
use
of
chemicalresistant
gloves
and
a
dust/
mist
respirator
with
a
protection
factor
of
5);
(3)
maximum
personal
protective
equipment
(baseline
scenario
with
the
use
of
an
additional
layer
of
clothing
(e.
g.,
a
pair
of
coveralls),
chemical­
resistant
gloves,
and
an
air
purifying
respirator
with
a
protection
factor
of
10);
and
(4)
engineering
controls
(e.
g.,
closed
tractor
cab
or
closed
loading
system
for
granulars
or
liquids).
Current
labels
mostly
specify
single­
layer
clothing,
chemical­
resistant
gloves,
and
no
respirator.

C
The
maximum
application
rates
allowed
by
labels
were
used
in
the
risk
assessments.
If
additional
information
was
available,
such
as
average
or
typical
rates,
these
values
were
used
as
well
for
a
better
understanding
of
the
overall
risks.

C
The
unit
exposure
values
(mg
ai
exposure/
lb
ai
handled)
used
in
this
assessment
were
predominantly
based
on
the
Pesticide
Handlers
Exposure
Database
(PHED).
In
addition
to
PHED,
five
exposure
studies
were
used
by
the
Agency
to
estimate
exposures
for:
(1)
professional
dog
groomers;
(2)
granular
products
using
a
backpack
application
device
(two
studies);
(3)
a
ready­
to­
use
trigger
sprayer;
and
(4)
professional
lawncare
operators
using
granular
and
liquid
products.
Occupational
Risk...

19
Risk
Summary
Short­
term
and
Intermediate­
term
risks.
The
risk
assessment
for
short­
and
intermediate­
term
occupational
exposures
are
similar
because
the
toxicity
endpoints
(NOAELs)
are
numerically
the
same,
and
the
target
MOE
of
100
is
the
same
for
both
durations.

C
Out
of
the
total
of
128
crop/
rate/
area
combinations
assessed,
110
crop/
rate/
area
combinations
resulted
in
MOEs
that
meet
or
exceed
the
target
MOE
of
100
at
some
level
of
personal
protective
equipment
(PPE)
or
engineering
controls,
but
usually
at
a
higher
level
than
that
specified
on
the
current
label.

C
The
remaining
crop/
rate/
acerage
combinations
resulted
in
MOEs
that
are
less
than
the
target
MOE,
even
at
the
highest
practical
levels
of
PPE
and
engineering
controls.
Of
these,
8
are
aerial
uses;
2
are
wide
area
ground
uses;
3
are
granulars
and
baits
applied
by
spoon,
hand,
or
bellygrinder;
2
are
for
hand­
held
devices;
and
1
is
for
an
animal
groomer
using
a
liquid
application.
Also,
2
crop/
rate/
area
combinations
for
poultry
use
were
assessed;
however,
Aventis
has
since
submitted
a
letter
to
EPA
requesting
voluntary
cancellation
of
the
poultry
use.

C
Table
4
below
summarizes
these
remaining
noncancer
risks
of
concern
for
occupational
handlers
for
short­
and
intermediate­
term
exposure
durations
that
do
not
meet
the
target
MOE,
even
after
considering
the
highest
level
of
PPE
and
engineering
controls.

Table
4.
Noncancer
Risks
of
Concern
for
Occupational
Handlers,
Short­
and
IintermediateTerm
Durations
at
Highest
Level
of
PPE
Practical
Scenario
Rate
(lb
ai/
acre)

[unless
noted]
Area
Treated
(acres/
day)

[unless
noted]
Risk
Summary:
Combined
Dermal/
Inhalation
MOEs
Mixer/
Loaders
1f
Dry
Flowable:
Wide
area
aerial
2
(rangeland/
forestry)
7500
58
3a
Liquid:
Aerial/
Chemigation
1.5­
2
(wheat,
max
corn)
5
(stone
fruit)
1200
350
57­
76
78
3f
Liquid:
Wide
area
aerial
2
(Range/
Forestry)
1
(Mosquito
adulticide)
7500
7500
9
18
3g
Liquid:
Wide
area
ground
1
(Mosquito
adulticide)
3000
45
4a
Wettable
Powders:
Aerial
1­
2
(Wheat/
corn)
5
(stone
fruit)
1200
350
40­
80
55
4f
Wettable
Powders:
Wide
area
aerial
2
(Range/
Forestry)
7500
6
Occupational
Risk...

Scenario
Rate
(lb
ai/
acre)

[unless
noted]
Area
Treated
(acres/
day)

[unless
noted]
Risk
Summary:
Combined
Dermal/
Inhalation
MOEs
20
Applicators
5a
Aerial:
Agricultural
uses,
liquid
sprays
2
(max
corn)
1200
85
5b
Aerial:
Wide
area
uses,
liquid
sprays
2
(Range/
Forestry)
1
(Mosquito
adulticide­
max
rate)
7500
7500
14
27
5c
Aerial:
Agricultural
uses,
granular
applications
2
(corn)
2
(corn)
1200
350
21
72
6b
Airblast:
Wide
area
uses,
liquid
sprays
1
(Mosquito
adulticide
­
max
rate)
3000
22
12
High
pressure
handwand
4
lb
ai/
100
gallons
1000
gallons
66
13
Animal
groomer,
liquid
application
0.
01
lb
ai/
dog
8
dogs
10
15
Granulars
&
baits
applied
by
hand
9
(Ornamentals
&
gardens)
1
4
16
Granulars
&
baits
applied
by
spoon
9
(Ornamentals
&
garderns)
1
75
Mixer/
Loader/
Applicators
17
Low
pressure,
high
volume
turfgun
(ORETF
Data)
8
(LCO
Use
on
turf)
5
94
20
Granular,
bellygrinder
9
(Turf)
1
27
Long­
term
risks.
Only
a
few
occupational
uses
are
expected
to
result
in
long­
term
exposures.
Of
5
scenarios
assessed,
3
meet
or
exceed
the
target
MOE
of
300
at
some
level
of
personal
protection.
The
two
scenarios
that
fail
to
meet
or
exceed
the
target
MOE
are
scenario
15:
granulars
&
baits
applied
by
hand;
and
scenario
16:
granulars
and
baits
applied
by
spoon.
Both
were
assessed
at
the
maximum
application
rate
of
9
lb
ai/
acre.

Noncancer
Risks
for
Occupational
Postapplication
Exposures
C
For
postapplication
exposures,
EPA
calculates
the
minimum
length
of
time
required
following
an
application
before
residues
have
dissipated
to
the
level
where
the
calculated
MOE
reaches
the
target
MOE.
EPA
uses
this
information
to
determine
restricted
entry
intervals
(REIs),
the
time
period
after
which
workers
are
allowed
to
reenter
a
treated
area.
For
carbaryl,
the
current
label
specifies
a
12
hour
REI.

C
At
the
current
REI,
short­
term
MOEs
are
of
concern
(i.
e.,
less
than
100)
for
all
but
the
lowest
exposure
scenarios
in
some
crops.
Table
6
summarizes
the
crop
groups
that
result
in
risks
of
concern
during
short­,
intermediate­
and
long­
term
postapplication
exposures,
and
at
different
levels
of
exposure
depending
on
the
activity
and
contact
with
treated
surfaces.
Occupational
Risk...

21
Table
6.
Noncancer
Risks
of
Concern
for
Occupational
Postapplication
Exposures
Low
Exposure
(e.
g.,
irrigation)
Medium
Exposure
(e.
g.,
scouting)
High
Exposure
(e.
g.,
hand
harvesting)

Short­
term
Exposure
Duration
(1
to
30
days)
Crop
and
#
of
days
to
reach
target
MOE
Cut
Flowers
­
7
Evergreen
Fruit
Trees
­
6
Brassica
­6
Crop
and
#
of
days
to
reach
target
MOE
Cut
Flowers
­
9
Evergreen
Fruit
Trees
­
17
Brassica
­
9
Bunch/
Bundle
Group
­
6
Low/
Medium
Field/
Row
Crops
­3
Tall
Field/
Row
Crops
­
4
Sugarcane
­
3
Root
vegetables
­
4
Curbit
Vegetables
­
4
Leafy
Vegetables
­
4
Stem/
stalk
Vegetables
­
1
Vine/
Trellis
Group
­
2
Crop
and
#
of
days
to
reach
target
MOE
Cut
Flowers
­
12
Evergreen
Fruit
Trees
(No
high
exposure)
Brassica
­
11
Bunch/
Bundle
Group
­
8
Low/
Medium
Field/
Row
Crops
­
5
Tall
Field/
Row
Crops
­
11
Sugarcane
­
7
Root
vegetables
­
7
Curbit
Vegetables
­
7
Leafy
Vegetables
­
7
Stem/
stalk
Vegetables
­
5
Vine/
Trellis
Group
­
11
Low
Berry
­
4
Fruiting
Vegetable
­
2
Deciduous
Fruit
Trees
­
8
Nut
Trees
­
11
Turf/
Sod
­
14
Intermediateterm
Exposure
Duration
(30
days
to
several
months)
None
Crop
(calculated
MOE)

Evergreen
Fruit
Trees
(MOE=
59)
Crop
(calculated
MOE)

Cut
Flowers
(MOE=
57)
Evergreen
Fruit
Trees
(No
high
exposure)
Brassica
(MOE=
79)
Tall
Field/
Row
Crops
(MOE=
97)
Turf/
Sod
(MOE=
46)
Vine/
Trellis
(MOE=
79)

Long­
Term
Exposure
Duration
(greater
than
six
months)
None
None
Crop
(calculated
MOE)

Cut
flower
industry
(MOE=
69).

Cancer
Risks
for
Occupational
Handlers
Occupational
cancer
risks
equal
to
or
less
than
1
x
10
­6
(1
in
1
million)
are
not
of
concern
to
the
Agency.
The
Agency
also
carefully
examines
uses
with
estimated
risks
in
the
10
­6
to
10
­4
range
to
seek
cost­
effective
ways
of
reducing
risks.
If
carcinogenic
risks
are
in
this
range
for
occupational
handlers,
increased
levels
of
personal
protective
equipment
(PPE)
or
engineering
controls
are
added
to
the
extent
practical.
The
Agency
considered
two
distinct
populations
for
the
carbaryl
cancer
risk
assessment:
private
growers,
at
10
applications
per
year,
and
commercial
applicators
at
30
applications
per
year.
Occupational
Risk...

22
Private
growers
(10
applications
per
year).
C
Of
the
128
scenario
combinations
considered
for
private
growers,
all
scenarios
have
risks
less
than
1
x
10
­6
at
some
level
of
PPE
or
engineering
controls,
except
for
8
scenarios
that
have
risks
between
1
x10
­4
and
10
­6
.
Of
these
8
scenarios,
only
1
needed
a
higher
level
of
PPE
than
specified
on
the
current
label
to
have
risks
in
this
range.

Commercial
applicators
(30
applications
per
year)
C
Of
the128
scenario
combinations
considered
for
commercial
applicators,
all
have
risks
less
than
1
x
10
­
6
at
some
level
of
PPE
or
engineering
controls,
except
for
21
scenarios
that
have
risks
between
1
x
10
­4
and
10
­6
.
Of
these
21
scenarios,
only
1
needed
a
higher
level
of
PPE
than
specified
on
the
current
label
to
have
risks
in
this
range.

Cancer
Risks
for
Occupational
Postapplication
Exposures
Based
on
a
10
­6
risk
concern,
the
current
REI
appears
adequate
to
address
cancer
risks
for
many
crop/
activity
combinations.
But
for
higher
exposure
situations,
longer
duration
REIs
are
necessary
for
risks
to
cease
to
be
of
concern
(<
10
­6
).
In
all
cases,
REIs
based
on
cancer
risks
are
less
restrictive
or
similar
(i.
e.,
within
a
day
or
two
of
application
for
commercial
farmworkers)
than
those
based
on
the
noncancer
effects
of
carbaryl.
In
no
cases
do
cancer
risks
indicate
more
restrictive
REIs
than
for
noncancer
risks
calculated
for
the
corresponding
exposure
scenario.

Private
growers
(10
applications
per
year).
C
All
scenarios
have
risks
in
the
10
­6
range,
except
for
one
scenario
(very
high
exposure
for
tall
field/
row
crops),
which
was
in
the
10
­5
range.
All
risks
in
the
10
­6
range
take
up
to
approximately
5
days
to
fall
below
1
x
10
­6
.
The
risk
in
the
10
­5
range
takes
23
days
to
fall
below
1
x
10
­6
.

Commercial
farmworkers
(30
applications
per
year).
C
All
scenarios
had
cancer
risks
in
the10
­6
range
or
less
on
the
day
of
application
at
the
current
REI,
except
for
two
very
high
exposure
activities
(hand
harvesting).
All
risks
in
the
10
­6
range
take
approximately
8
days
to
fall
below
1
x
10
­6
.
The
two
very
high
exposure
activities,
for
tall
field/
row
crops
and
vine/
trellis
crop
groups,
have
risks
in
the
10
­5
range
on
the
day
of
application,
and
take
31
and
13
days,
respectively,
to
fall
below
1
x
10
­6
.

Human
and
Domestic
Animal
Incidents
C
The
Agency
evaluated
reports
of
human
carbaryl
poisonings
and
adverse
reactions
associated
with
its
use
from
the
following
sources:
OPP
Incident
Data
System
(IDS);
Poison
Control
Centers'
Toxic
Exposure
Surveillance
System;
California
Department
of
Pesticide
Regulation;
the
National
Pesticide
Telecommunications
Network,
now
the
National
Pesticide
Information
Center
(NPIC);
open
literature;
and
an
unpublished
study
submitted
by
the
registrant.
Human
and
Domestic
Animal
Incidents...

23
C
The
data
from
IDS
indicated
that
a
majority
of
incidents
associated
with
carbaryl
exposure
involved
dermal
reactions.
A
number
of
other
cases
involved
asthmatics
and
people
who
experienced
hives
and
other
allergic
type
reactions.
According
to
California
data,
about
half
of
the
cases
involved
skin
and
eye
effects
in
handlers.
About
a
quarter
of
the
skin
reactions
were
due
to
workers
who
were
exposed
to
residues
on
crops.
Reports
from
the
literature
are
very
limited
but
tend
to
support
the
finding
that
carbaryl
has
irritant
properties.

C
The
Poison
Control
Center
cases
involving
nonoccupational
adult
exposure
and
exposures
of
older
children
showed
an
increased
risk
in
five
of
the
six
measures
used
for
comparing
carbaryl
incidents
to
all
other
pesticides.
The
carbaryl
cases
were
almost
twice
as
likely
to
require
serious
health
care
(hospitalization
or
treatment
in
a
critical
care
unit)
and
were
two
and
a
half
times
more
likely
to
experience
major
medical
outcome
(life­
threatening
effects
or
significant
residual
disability)
than
other
pesticides.
This
pattern
of
increased
risk
was
not
seen
among
occupational
reports
or
in
young
children,
which
may
mean
that
careless
handling
by
non­
professionals
is
a
particular
hazard.
In
addition,
five
case
report
studies
suggested
that
carbaryl
may
be
a
cause
of
chronic
neurological
or
psychological
problems.

C
The
incident
reports
on
domestic
animals
in
IDS
were
evaluated.
Based
on
limited
data,
there
is
some
evidence
that
young
kittens
may
be
susceptible
to
adverse
reactions
to
carbaryl.

Ecological
Risk
Assessment
To
estimate
potential
ecological
risk,
EPA
integrates
the
results
of
exposure
and
ecotoxicity
using
the
quotient
method.
Risk
quotients
(RQs)
are
calculated
by
dividing
acute
and
chronic
exposure
estimates
by
ecotoxicity
values
for
various
wildlife
species.
RQs
are
then
compared
to
levels
of
concern
(LOCs);
the
higher
the
RQ,
the
greater
the
potential
risk.

Environmental
Fate
Information
C
Carbaryl
dissipates
in
the
environment
by
abiotic
and
microbially
mediated
degradation.
The
major
degradation
product
is
1­
naphthol,
which
is
further
degraded
to
CO2.
Carbaryl
is
stable
to
hydrolysis
in
acidic
conditions,
but
hydrolyzes
in
neutral
(half­
life=
12
days)
and
alkaline
environments
(pH
9
half­
life=
3.2
hours).
Under
aerobic
conditions
the
compound
degrades
rapidly
by
microbial
metabolism,
with
half­
lives
of
4
to
5
days
in
soil
and
aquatic
environments.
In
anaerobic
environments
metabolism
is
much
slower,
with
half­
lives
on
the
order
of
2
to
3
months.
Carbaryl
is
moderately
mobile
in
the
environment.
Open
literature
information
suggests
that
its
major
degradate,
1­
naphthol,
is
less
persistent
and
less
mobile
than
carbaryl.
Ecological
Risk...

24
Nontarget
Terrestrial
Animal
Risk
Risks
to
Birds
C
The
acute
LOC
for
birds
is
0.5
and
the
chronic
LOC
is
1.0.

C
Nongranular
uses
of
carbaryl
are
not
expected
to
pose
an
acute
risk
to
birds.
Of
the
scenarios
assessed,
none
exceed
the
LOC
for
birds
in
any
weight
class.
Most
nongranular
uses
of
carbaryl
do
pose
a
chronic
risk
for
birds.

C
Granular
uses
of
carbaryl
pose
an
acute
risk
for
20
gram
birds
(highest
RQ
is
4.76).
For
180
gram
birds,
uses
that
exceed
the
LOC
are
for
trees/
ornamentals,
turf
grass,
and
tick
control.
For
1000
gram
birds,
no
granular
uses
exceed
the
LOC.

Risks
to
Mammals
C
The
acute
LOC
for
mammals
is
0.5
and
the
chronic
LOC
is
1.0.

C
Nongranular
uses,
at
the
maximum
label
application
rate,
pose
acute
risks
above
the
LOC
for
mammals
(highest
RQ
is
12).
At
rates
below
the
maximum
label
rate
(i.
e.,
the
maximum
reported
application
rate
and
the
average
application
rate),
most
uses
exceed
the
LOC
for
15
gram
mammals
feeding
on
short
grass
(highest
RQ
is
11).
Practically
all
nongranular
uses
pose
chronic
risks
that
exceed
the
LOC
(highest
RQ
is
48).

C
Granular
uses,
at
maximum
label
rates,
pose
acute
risks
that
exceed
the
LOC
for
15
gram
and
35
gram
mammals
(highest
RQs
are
21.1
and
9.04
respectively),
indicating
that
all
granular
carbaryl
uses
pose
an
acute
risk
to
the
smaller
mammalian
species.
For
1000
gram
mammals,
no
acute
risks
exceed
the
LOC.

Nontarget
Aquatic
Animal
Risk
C
The
acute
LOC
for
aquatic
animals
is
0.5
and
the
chronic
LOC
is
1.0.

C
EPA
examined
risks
to
aquatic
animals
for
estimated
environment
concentrations
in
surface
water
based
on
five
crop
scenarios
for
carbaryl:
apples,
field
corn,
sweet
corn,
citrus
and
sugar
beets.

C
Acute
risks
for
freshwater
fish
exceed
the
LOC
for
use
on
citrus
(highest
RQ
is
1.1).
No
scenario
exceeded
the
chronic
risk
LOC.

C
Acute
risks
for
estuarine/
marine
fish
do
not
exceed
the
LOC
for
any
scenario.
Data
are
not
available
to
assess
chronic
risks.

C
Acute
risks
for
aquatic
invertebrates,
both
freshwater
and
estuarine/
marine,
exceed
the
LOC
for
all
scenarios.
The
acute
RQs
range
from
0.8
to
161.
Chronic
risks
for
freshwater
aquatic
Ecological
Risk...

25
invertebrates
exceed
the
chronic
LOC.
The
chronic
RQs
range
from
1.7
to
91.
No
data
are
available
to
assess
chronic
risks
to
estuarine/
marine
invertebrates.

Risks
to
Honeybees
C
Carbaryl
is
highly
toxic
to
honey
bees.
It
is
one
of
the
pesticides
more
often
implicated
in
bee
mortality
incidents,
ranking
second
and
third
respectively,
in
two
separate
bee
kill
surveys
undertaken
in
1997
by
the
Washington
State
Department
of
Agriculture
and
the
American
Beekeeping
Federation.

Nontarget
Plant
Risk
C
For
terrestrial
plants,
the
carbaryl
label
indicates
that
carbaryl
may
cause
injury
to
tender
foliage
if
applied
when
foliage
is
wet
or
during
high
humidity,
and
carbaryl
may
also
harm
Boston
ivy,
Virginia
creeper,
or
maidenhair
fern.
A
few
reported
incidents
cite
injury
to
vegetable
crops
(potatoes,
tomatoes,
cabbage
and
broccoli).
However,
not
all
guideline
data
are
available
to
fully
assess
carbaryl
risk
to
terrestrial
plants.

C
For
aquatic
plants,
based
on
the
single
core
green
alga
study
available,
the
acute
risk
LOC
is
not
exceeded
for
any
of
the
five
scenarios
modeled,
even
at
maximum
label
rates.
However,
not
all
guideline
data
are
available
to
fully
assess
carbaryl
risk
to
aquatic
plants.

Risks
to
Endangered
Species
C
Acute
endangered
species
LOCs
for
terrestrial
animals
(birds
and
mammals)
is
0.1;
for
aquatic
animals
(freshwater
or
marine/
estuarine
fish
and
invertebrates)
it
is
0.05.

°
Granular
uses
exceed
the
endangered
species
LOC
for
20­
gram
birds,
and
they
also
exceed
the
LOC
for
180­
gram
birds
for
most
agricultural
uses
of
carbaryl.
For
1000­
gram
birds,
RQs
exceed
the
endangered
species
LOC
for
the
trees
and
ornamentals,
turf
grass,
and
tick
control
uses.
Nongranular
uses
of
carbaryl
do
not
exceed
the
avian
endangered
species
LOC
based
on
acute
exposure.

C
The
endangered
species
LOC
for
mammals
is
met
or
exceeded
for
all
uses
at
three
application
rates:
maximum
label,
average
(based
on
usage
data),
and
maximum
reported
(based
on
DOANE
survey).

°
All
carbaryl
uses,
even
at
less
than
maximum
label
rates,
exceed
the
endangered
species
LOC
for
both
freshwater
and
marine/
estuarine
aquatic
invertebrates.
At
less
than
maximum
label
rates,
the
endangered
species
LOC
is
exceeded
for
freshwater
fish
only,
based
on
the
high­
end
citrus
use
scenario,
and
not
exceeded
for
estuarine/
marine
fish
for
any
of
the
five
use
scenarios
modeled.
Ecological
Risk...

26
Ecological
Incident
Data
C
Carbaryl
does
not
rank
high
in
the
list
of
pesticides
responsible
for
bird
or
mammal
mortality,
based
on
information
available
in
the
USEPA
Ecological
Incident
Information
System.
Three
bird
kill
incidents,
classified
as
"probable,"
involved
blackbirds,
ducks,
starlings,
and
grackles
in
Virginia,
New
Jersey,
and
South
Carolina.
Only
two
incidents
involved
small
mammals
(grey
and
ground
squirrels,
mole,
and
rabbit)
in
South
Carolina
and
Virginia.
Numerous
bee
kill
incidents
have
been
recorded
for
carbaryl
in
several
states
including
North
Carolina,
South
Dakota
and
Washington.
Additionally,
several
incidents
on
vegetable
crops,
including
damage
to
potatoes,
tomatoes,
cabbage,
and
broccoli
were
classified
as
"probable."

Summary
of
Pending
Data
Aventis
has
completed
and
is
in
the
process
of
submitting
(in
August
2002)
a
residential
postapplication
biomonitoring
study
for
lawn,
and
either
a
vegetable
garden
or
ornamental
flowers.
Aventis
will
also
submit
(in
October
2002)
a
biomonitoring
study
of
field
workers
during
harvesting
and
hand
thinning
operations
in
apples
and
cherries.
Also,
Aventis
is
a
member
of
the
Residential
Exposure
Joint
Venture
(REJV),
which
is
a
group
of
companies
conducting
a
survey
of
homeowners
to
ascertain
how
consumer
pesticide
products
are
used
(e.
g.,
rate,
frequency,
pests,
etc.).
Aventis
recently
submitted
an
analysis
of
this
data
for
carbaryl,
which
could
be
used
to
refine
the
exposure
estimates
in
this
assessment
by
refining
the
amounts
of
carbaryl
used
per
homeowner
application.
In
September
2002,
Aventis
will
submit
the
final
results
of
their
surface
water
monitoring
study
for
drinking
water.
