UNITED
STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
WASHINGTON,
D.
C.
20460
OFFICE
OF
PREVENTION,
PESTICIDES
AND
TOXIC
SUBSTANCES
March
9,
2004
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
Review
of
Triflularin
Incident
Reports
DP
Barcode
D300064,
Chemical#
036101
FROM:
Jerome
Blondell,
Ph.
D.,
Health
Statistician
Chemistry
and
Exposure
Branch
Health
Effects
Division
(
7509C)

Monica
S.
Hawkins,
M.
P.
H.,
Environmental
Health
Scientist
Chemistry
and
Exposure
Branch
Health
Effects
Division
(
7509C)

THRU:
Francis
B.
Suhre,
Chief
Chemistry
and
Exposure
Branch
Health
Effects
Division
(
7509C)

TO:
Richard
Griffin,
Biologist
Reregistration
Branch
2
Health
Effects
Division
(
7509C)

BACKGROUND
The
following
data
bases
have
been
consulted
for
the
poisoning
incident
data
on
the
active
ingredient
Triflularin
(
PC
Code:
036101):

1)
OPP
Incident
Data
System
(
IDS)
­
reports
of
incidents
from
various
sources,
including
registrants,
other
federal
and
state
health
and
environmental
agencies
and
individual
consumers,
submitted
to
OPP
since
1992.
Reports
submitted
to
the
Incident
Data
System
represent
anecdotal
reports
or
allegations
only,
unless
otherwise
stated.
Typically
no
conclusions
can
be
drawn
implicating
the
pesticide
as
a
cause
of
any
of
the
reported
health
effects.
Nevertheless,
sometimes
with
enough
cases
and/
or
enough
documentation
risk
mitigation
measures
may
be
suggested.

2)
Poison
Control
Centers
­
as
the
result
of
a
data
purchase
by
EPA,
OPP
received
Poison
2
Control
Center
data
covering
the
years
1993
through
1998
for
all
pesticides.
Most
of
the
national
Poison
Control
Centers
(
PCCs)
participate
in
a
national
data
collection
system,
the
Toxic
Exposure
Surveillance
System
which
obtains
data
from
about
65­
70
centers
at
hospitals
and
universities.
PCCs
provide
telephone
consultation
for
individuals
and
health
care
providers
on
suspected
poisonings,
involving
drugs,
household
products,
pesticides,
etc.

3)
California
Department
of
Pesticide
Regulation
­
California
has
collected
uniform
data
on
suspected
pesticide
poisonings
since
1982.
Physicians
are
required,
by
statute,
to
report
to
their
local
health
officer
all
occurrences
of
illness
suspected
of
being
related
to
exposure
to
pesticides.
The
majority
of
the
incidents
involve
workers.
Information
on
exposure
(
worker
activity),
type
of
illness
(
systemic,
eye,
skin,
eye/
skin
and
respiratory),
likelihood
of
a
causal
relationship,
and
number
of
days
off
work
and
in
the
hospital
are
provided.

4)
National
Pesticide
Telecommunications
Network
(
NPTN)
­
NPTN
is
a
toll­
free
information
service
supported
by
OPP.
A
ranking
of
the
top
200
active
ingredients
for
which
telephone
calls
were
received
during
calendar
years
1984­
1991,
inclusive
has
been
prepared.
The
total
number
of
calls
was
tabulated
for
the
categories
human
incidents,
animal
incidents,
calls
for
information,
and
others.

TRIFLULARIN
REVIEW
I.
Incident
Data
System
Incident#
865­
1
A
pesticide
incident
occurred
in
1994,
when
a
thirty­
three
year
old
man
ingested
two
to
three
ounces
of
the
product.
The
man
was
taken
to
the
emergency
room
three
to
four
hours
later
and
he
reported
nausea,
vomiting,
dizziness,
and
increased
salivation.
No
further
information
on
the
disposition
of
the
case
was
reported.

Incident#
1263­
3
A
pesticide
incident
occurred
in
1994,
whenan
individual
reported
pruritus,
rash,
dermal
irritation
and
pain.
No
further
information
on
the
disposition
of
the
case
was
reported.

Incident#
1327­
1
A
pesticide
incident
occurred
in
1994,
when
an
adult
male
farmer
used
the
product
for
an
unknown
number
of
years.
The
farmer
reported
chronic
fatigue,
brain
fog,
nasal
congestion,
episodes
of
anger
and
screaming
outbreaks,
and
bursitis.
No
further
information
on
the
disposition
of
the
case
was
reported.

Incident#
2796­
53
A
pesticide
incident
occurred
in
1994,
when
the
product
was
applied
to
a
field
adjacent
to
an
individual's
home.
The
product
then
drifted
onto
the
individuals'
property.
Specific
symptoms
were
not
mentioned.
No
further
information
on
the
disposition
of
the
case
was
reported.
3
Incident#
2796­
86
A
pesticide
incident
occurred
in
1994,
when
crops
were
sprayed
with
the
product.
An
individual
directly
over­
sprayed
reported
nausea
and
headaches.
No
further
information
on
the
disposition
of
the
case
was
reported.

Incident#
3462­
1
A
pesticide
incident
occurred
in
1996,
when
a
fifty­
two
year
old
man's
back
was
exposed
to
the
product.
He
did
not
immediately
report
burning
of
his
skin
at
the
time.
Later,
the
man
reported
burning
skin
on
his
back
whenever
he
sweats.
No
further
information
on
the
disposition
of
the
case
was
reported.

Incident#
3710­
1
A
pesticide
incident
occurred
in
1996,
when
a
farmer
applied
a
large
amount
of
the
product
for
the
first
time.
The
farmer
reported
a
headache
and
nausea.
No
further
information
on
the
disposition
of
the
case
was
reported.

Incident#
4143­
1
A
pesticide
incident
occurred
in
1996,
when
a
woman
applied
the
product
to
her
garden
and
some
of
it
got
on
her
skin
underneath
the
gloves
she
was
wearing.
Two
weeks
later,
she
reported
dry
and
red
skin
on
her
hand.
No
further
information
on
the
disposition
of
the
case
was
reported.

Incident#
5311­
1
A
pesticide
incident
occurred
in
1991,
when
an
individual
was
exposed
to
the
product
in
a
formulation
facility.
Specific
symptoms
were
not
mentioned,
but
subject
did
receive
unspecified
treatment.
No
further
information
on
the
disposition
of
the
case
was
reported.

Incident#
7587­
156
A
pesticide
incident
occurred
in
1996,
when
a
thirty­
four
year
old
man,
who
is
a
lawn
care
specialist,
treated
a
lawn
with
the
product.
The
product
blew
into
his
face
and
mouth.
Twenty
minutes
later
he
reported
vomiting
and
was
taken
to
a
clinic
for
an
examination.
No
further
information
on
the
disposition
of
the
case
was
reported.

Incident#
7703­
1
A
pesticide
incident
occurred
in
1998,
when
an
individual
reported
ascending
myelopathy.
A
physician
treated
the
patient
but
it
was
not
known
how
the
individual
was
exposed
to
a
discontinued
product.
No
further
information
on
the
disposition
of
the
case
was
reported.

Incident#
8097­
1
A
pesticide
incident
occurred
in
1997,
when
two
fifty­
five
gallon
drums
of
the
product
leaked
in
the
back
of
a
truck
trailer.
The
driver,
who
did
not
wear
personal
protective
equipment,
assisted
with
cleaning
up
the
material
and
reported
skin
and
eye
irritation.
No
further
information
4
on
the
disposition
of
the
case
was
reported.

Incident#
8518­
1
A
pesticide
incident
occurred
in
1999,
when
a
fifty­
seven
year
old
man
applied
the
product
with
a
spreader.
He
reported
a
rash
and
was
later
treated
by
a
physician.
No
further
information
on
the
disposition
of
the
case
was
reported.

Incident#
10413­
5
A
pesticide
incident
occurred
in
2000,
when
a
seventy­
nine
year
old
man
applied
the
product
and
reported
loss
of
muscle
control
and
memory
loss.
Onset
of
symptoms
was
delayed
2­
3
weeks
after
the
application
and
are
unlikely
to
be
related.
No
further
information
on
the
disposition
of
the
case
was
reported.

Incident#
10831­
11
A
pesticide
incident
occurred
in
2000,
when
a
thirty­
six
year
old
woman,
who
has
a
history
of
asthma,
reported
respiratory
irritation
and
shortness
of
breath.
She
was
later
treated
by
a
physician.
The
woman's
neighbor
applied
the
product
on
an
area
of
the
lawn
that
is
common
to
both
houses.
No
further
information
on
the
disposition
of
the
case
was
reported.

Incident#
12362­
107
A
pesticide
incident
occurred
in
2001,
when
an
individual
used
the
product
and
reported
blood
in
their
stool.
No
further
information
on
the
disposition
of
the
case
was
reported.

Incident#
12937­
6
A
pesticide
incident
occurred
in
2002,
when
a
forty­
nine
year
old
woman
reported
eye
irritation
and
pain,
lacrimation,
diaphoresis,
chills,
photophobia,
and
malaise.
The
product
was
applied
to
a
field
adjacent
to
her
home
and
drifted
20
feet.
No
further
information
on
the
disposition
of
the
case
was
reported.

Incident#
12937­
16
A
pesticide
incident
occurred
in
2002,
when
a
fifty­
seven
year
old
woman
reported
hives,
welts,
and
shortness
of
breath.
The
woman
touched
tools
that
had
the
product
on
them.
No
further
information
on
the
disposition
of
the
case
was
reported.

Incident#
13059­
8
A
pesticide
incident
occurred
in
2002,
when
a
man
reported
shortness
of
breath,
dizziness,
fever,
and
chest
tightness.
The
man
adjusted
the
applicator
and
some
of
it
got
into
his
face.
He
went
to
the
emergency
room
and
was
treated
by
a
physician.
No
further
information
on
the
disposition
of
the
case
was
reported.

Incident#
13241­
12
A
pesticide
incident
occurred
in
2002,
when
a
forty­
nine
year
old
woman
reported
eye
and
skin
irritation
and
pain,
malaise,
and
diaphoresis.
The
woman
was
accidentally
sprayed
with
the
product.
No
further
information
on
the
disposition
of
the
case
was
reported.
5
Incident#
13879­
1
A
pesticide
incident
occurred
in
2002,
when
a
woman
reported
seizures
and
upper
respiratory
problems.
The
property
next
to
the
woman's
home
was
sprayed
with
the
product.
No
further
information
on
the
disposition
of
the
case
was
reported.

Incident#
13890­
1
A
pesticide
incident
occurred
in
2003,
when
a
twenty­
five
year
old
woman
reported
swollen
lips
and
edema.
The
product
blew
into
the
woman's
face.
No
further
information
on
the
disposition
of
the
case
was
reported.

Incident#
13890­
2
A
pesticide
incident
occurred
in
2003,
when
a
nine
year
old
girl
reported
nausea,
hives,
and
welts
a
day
after
the
product
was
applied
to
a
lawn.
No
further
information
on
the
disposition
of
the
case
was
reported.

Incident#
13890­
3
A
pesticide
incident
occurred
in
2003,
when
a
seventy­
six
year
old
man,
who
did
not
wear
gloves,
reported
pruritus
and
a
rash
after
he
spread
the
product
with
his
left
hand.
No
further
information
on
the
disposition
of
the
case
was
reported.

Incident#
14100­
1
A
pesticide
incident
occurred
in
2003,
when
a
thirty­
four
year
old
woman
reported
hives
and
welts
after
using
the
product.
The
woman
was
treated
by
a
physician.
No
further
information
on
the
disposition
of
the
case
was
reported.

Incident#
14198­
93
A
pesticide
incident
occurred
in
2003,
when
a
woman
used
the
product
and
reported
itchy
skin
and
difficulty
breathing.
No
further
information
on
the
disposition
of
the
case
was
reported.

Incident#
14199­
1
A
pesticide
incident
occurred
in
2003,
when
a
woman
reported
a
rash.
The
woman
was
working
in
her
flower
garden.
She
then
spread
the
product
with
her
hands
into
the
soil
and
used
them
to
wipe
off
her
forehead.
No
further
information
on
the
disposition
of
the
case
was
reported.

Incident#
14199­
2
A
pesticide
incident
occurred
in
2003,
when
a
man,
who
did
not
wear
gloves,
reported
numbness,
diarrhea,
dizziness,
headaches,
and
nausea.
No
further
information
on
the
disposition
of
the
case
was
reported.

Incident#
14273­
1
A
pesticide
incident
occurred
in
2003,
when
a
fifty­
five
year
old
woman
reported
hives
and
welts
after
using
the
product.
The
woman
worked
in
her
garden
for
several
hours.
No
further
information
on
the
disposition
of
the
case
was
reported.
6
Incident#
14389­
1
A
pesticide
incident
occurred
in
2003,
when
a
woman
reported
numbness
in
her
left
hand.
The
woman
used
the
product
while
working
in
her
garden
for
about
seven
to
ten
days.
No
further
information
on
the
disposition
of
the
case
was
reported.

Of
the
30
incidents
listed
above,
nine
involved
hives,
swelling,
itching,
shortness
of
breath,
or
asthma
suggesting
that
trifluralin
may
cause
an
allergic
reaction
or
asthmatic
reaction
in
susceptible
individuals.
The
other
most
common
complaints
were
dermal
effects
such
as
rash.

II.
Poison
Control
Center
Data
­
1993
through
1998
Results
for
the
years
1993
through
1998
are
presented
below
for
occupational
cases,
nonoccupational
involving
adults
and
older
children,
and
for
children
under
age
six.
Cases
involving
exposures
to
multiple
products
and
cases
with
unrelated
medical
outcome
are
excluded.
Tables
1­
4
present
the
hazard
information
for
trifluralin
compared
with
all
other
pesticides
on
six
measures:
percent
with
symptoms,
percent
with
moderate,
major,
or
fatal
outcome,
percent
with
major
or
fatal
outcome,
percent
of
exposed
cases
seen
in
a
health
care
facility,
and
percent
hospitalized
and
percent
seen
in
a
critical
care
facility.
Table
1
reports
the
number
of
cases
on
which
the
data
derived
in
Tables
2­
4
are
based.
Table
2
presents
this
information
for
occupational
cases,
Table
3
for
non­
occupational
cases
involving
adults
and
older
children
(
six
years
or
older),
and
Table
4
for
children
under
age
six.

Table
1.
Number
of
trifluralin
exposures
reported
to
the
Toxic
Exposure
Surveillance
System
(
AAPCC),
number
with
determined
outcome,
number
seen
in
a
health
care
facility
for
occupational
and
non­
occupational
cases
(
adults
and
children
six
years
and
older)
and
for
children
under
six
years
of
age
only,
1993­
1998
.

Subgroup
Exposures
Outcome
determined
Seen
in
Health
Care
Facility
Occupational:
adults
and
older
children
46
33
26
Non­
occupational:
adults
and
older
children
90
56
27
Children
under
age
six
64
35
4
Table
2.
Comparison
between
trifluralin
and
all
pesticides
for
percent
cases
with
symptomatic
outcome
(
SYM),
moderate
or
more
severe
outcome
(
MOD),
life­
threatening
or
fatal
outcome
(
LIFE­
TH),
seen
in
a
health
care
facility
(
HCF),
hospitalized
(
HOSP),
or
seen
in
an
intensive
care
unit
(
ICU)
reported
to
Poison
Control
Centers,
1993­
1998
for
occupational
cases
only.
7
Pesticide
SYM*
MOD*
LIFE­
TH*
HCF*
HOSP*
ICU*

trifluralin
72.7%
9.1%
0.0%
56.5%
0.0%
0.0%

All
Pesticides
86.0%
18.8%
0.621%
47.0%
6.08%
2.36%

Ratio
0.84
0.48
0.0
1.20
0.0
0.0
*
Symptomatic
cases
based
on
those
cases
with
a
minor,
moderate,
major,
or
fatal
medical
outcome.
Denominator
for
SYM,
MOD,
and
LIFE­
TH
is
the
total
cases
where
medical
outcome
was
determined.
Denominator
for
HCF
is
all
exposures.
Denominator
for
HOSP
and
ICU
is
all
cases
seen
in
a
health
care
facility.

Table
3.
Comparison
between
trifluralin
and
all
pesticides
for
percent
cases
with
symptomatic
outcome
(
SYM),
moderate
or
more
severe
outcome
(
MOD),
life­
threatening
or
fatal
outcome
(
LIFE­
TH),
seen
in
a
health
care
facility
(
HCF),
hospitalized
(
HOSP),
or
seen
in
an
intensive
care
unit
(
ICU)
reported
to
Poison
Control
Centers,
1993­
1998
for
non­
occupational
cases
involving
adults
and
older
children.

Pesticide
SYM*
MOD*
LIFE­
TH*
HCF*
HOSP*
ICU*

trifluralin
76.8%
16.1%
0.0%
30.0%
0.0%
0.0%

All
Pesticides
68.5%
10.5%
0.359%
16.5%
6.24%
2.67%

Ratio
1.12
1.53
0.0
1.82
0.0
0.0
*
Symptomatic
cases
based
on
those
cases
with
a
minor,
moderate,
major,
or
fatal
medical
outcome.
Denominator
for
SYM,
MOD,
and
LIFE­
TH
is
the
total
cases
where
medical
outcome
was
determined.
Denominator
for
HCF
is
all
exposures.
Denominator
for
HOSP
and
ICU
is
all
cases
seen
in
a
health
care
facility.

Table
4.
Comparison
between
trifluralin
and
all
pesticides
for
percent
cases
with
symptomatic
outcome
(
SYM),
moderate
or
more
severe
outcome
(
MOD),
life­
threatening
or
fatal
outcome
(
LIFE­
TH),
seen
in
a
health
care
facility
(
HCF),
hospitalized
(
HOSP),
or
seen
in
an
intensive
care
unit
(
ICU)
for
adults
and
children
six
years
and
older
reported
to
Poison
Control
Centers,
1993­
1998
for
children
under
six
years
old..

Pesticide
SYM*
MOD*
LIFE­
TH*
HCF*
HOSP*
ICU*

trifluralin
11.4%
2.86%
0.0%
6.25%
25.0%
0.0%

All
Pesticides
21.8%
1.40%
0.120%
16.4%
4.78%
1.36%

Ratio
0.52
2.04
0.0
0.38
5.23
0.0
*
Symptomatic
cases
based
on
those
cases
with
a
minor,
moderate,
major,
or
fatal
medical
outcome.
Denominator
for
SYM,
MOD,
and
LIFE­
TH
is
the
total
cases
where
medical
outcome
8
was
determined.
Denominator
for
HCF
is
all
exposures.
Denominator
for
HOSP
and
ICU
is
all
cases
seen
in
a
health
care
facility.

In
general,
trifluralin
is
less
likely
to
cause
minor,
moderate,
or
life­
threatening
symptoms
than
other
pesticides
except
among
non­
occupational
cases
where
moderate
effects
are
more
likely.
There
were
no
major
or
life­
threatening
cases
or
cases
requiring
hospitalization
or
intensive
care
except
for
one
case
involving
a
child
that
was
hospitalized.
The
one
case
that
was
hospitalized
involved
an
ingestion
in
a
2
year
old
that
did
not
develop
any
symptoms.
It
appears
likely
this
case
was
kept
in
the
hospital
overnight
for
observation.
Symptoms
most
commonly
reported
in
ten
or
more
individuals
were
eye
irritation/
pain
(
25
reports),
nausea
(
16
reports),
vomiting
(
13
reports),
and
skin
irritation/
pain
(
10
reports).
Of
the
symptomatic
cases,
onequarter
involved
exposure
to
residue
rather
than
direct
spray
or
spill.

III.
California
Data
­
1982
through
2001
Detailed
descriptions
of
77
cases
submitted
to
the
California
Pesticide
Illness
Surveillance
Program
(
1982­
2001)
were
reviewed.
In
57
of
these
cases,
triflularin
was
used
alone
or
was
judged
to
be
responsible
for
the
health
effects.
Only
cases
with
a
definite,
probable
or
possible
relationship
were
reviewed.
Triflularin
ranked
72nd
as
a
cause
of
systemic
poisoning
in
California
based
on
data
for
1982
through
2001.
Table
1
presents
the
types
of
illnesses
reported
by
year.
Table
2
gives
the
total
number
of
workers
that
took
time
off
work
as
a
result
of
their
illness
and
how
many
were
hospitalized
and
for
how
long.

Table
1.
Cases
Due
to
Triflularin
in
California
Reported
by
Type
of
Illness
and
Year,
1982­
2001.

Year
Illness
Type
Systemica
Eye
Skin
Respiratoryb
Combinationc
Total
1982
1
­
1
­
­
2
1983
­
2
1
­
­
3
1984
1
1
­
­
1
3
1985
1
2
1
­
­
4
1986
1
­
1
­
­
2
1987
1
1
1
­
­
3
1988
1
­
3
­
­
4
1989
2
­
1
­
­
3
9
Year
Illness
Type
Systemica
Eye
Skin
Respiratoryb
Combinationc
Total
1990
­
2
2
­
­
4
1991
­
­
1
­
­
1
1992
­
1
1
­
­
2
1993
1
­
1
­
­
2
1994
2
1
1
­
­
4
1995
8
1
2
­
­
11
1996
­
1
1
­
­
2
1997
1
1
1
­
­
3
1998
­
­
­
­
­
­

1999
­
­
2
­
­
2
2000
2
­
­
­
­
2
2001
­
­
­
­
­
­

Total
22
13
21
­
1
57
a
Category
includes
cases
where
skin,
eye,
or
respiratory
effects
were
also
reported.
b
Category
not
used
until
1990.
Prior
respiratory
cases
classified
as
systemic.
c
Category
includes
combined
irritative
effects
to
eye,
skin,
and
respiratory
system.

Table
2.
Number
of
Persons
Disabled
(
taking
time
off
work)
or
Hospitalized
for
Indicated
Number
of
Days
After
Triflularin
Exposure
in
California,
1982­
2001.

Time
period
Number
of
Persons
Disabled
Number
of
Persons
Hospitalized
One
day
8
­

Two
days
7
­

3­
5
days
2
­

6­
10
days
1
­

more
than
10
days
1
­

Unknown
2
­
10
Indefinite
­
­

A
variety
of
worker
activities
were
associated
with
exposure
to
triflularin
as
illustrated
in
Table
3
below.

Table
3.
Illnesses
by
Activity
Categories
for
Triflularin
Exposure
in
California,
1982­
2001
Activity
Category
Illness
Category
Systemica
Eye
Skin
Respiratoryb
Combinationc
Total
Applicator
4
5
11
­
­
20
Field
Worker
8
2
2
­
­
12
Mixer/
Loader
4
3
3
­
1
11
Other
1
2
3
­
­
6
Routine
Indoor
2
­
­
­
­
2
Unknown
3
1
2
­
­
6
Total
22
13
21
­
1
57
a
Category
includes
cases
where
skin,
eye,
or
respiratory
effects
were
also
reported.
b
Category
not
used
until
1990.
Prior
respiratory
cases
classified
as
systemic.
c
Category
includes
combined
irritative
effects
to
eye,
skin,
and
respiratory
system.

According
to
Table
3,
handlers
(
applicators
and
mixer/
loaders)
were
associated
with
more
exposures
than
any
other
category.
These
illnesses
included
symptoms
of
conjunctivitis,
swollen
arms,
hand,
and
face
and
a
rash,
eye
irritation,
tearing
and
red
eyes,
headache,
skin
irritation,
and
abdominal
pain.
Effects
to
the
skin,
such
as
burning,
itching,
rash,
appeared
to
be
the
most
prevalent
problems
from
exposure
to
trifluralin.

IV.
National
Pesticide
Information
Center
On
the
list
of
the
top
200
chemicals
for
which
NPIC
received
calls
from
1984­
1991
inclusively,
triflularin
was
ranked
53rd
with
75
incidents
in
humans
reported
and
17
in
animals
(
mostly
pets).
11
V.
Scientific
Literature
Pentel
et
al.
(
1994)
reported
on
a
sixty­
one
year
old
man,
who
was
a
laboratory
supervisor
at
a
chemical
pesticide
company
since
1951,
that
was
patch
tested
for
triflularin
along
with
eight
other
pesticides.
The
man
had
a
positive
reaction
to
triflularin.
Exposure
to
this
chemcial
caused
him
to
have
allergic
contact
dermatitis.

VI.
Conclusion
Based
on
California
data
and
the
Incident
Data
System,
it
appears
that
the
majority
of
cases
involved
skin
and
eye
illnesses.
Poison
Control
Center
data
would
tend
to
support
these
results,
dermal
and
ocular
effects
were
some
of
the
most
common
effects
reported.

VII.
Recommendations
Appropriate
protective
clothing
to
protect
the
skin
and
eyes
of
applicators
is
recommended.

References
Pentel
MT,
Andreozzi,
RJ,
Marks,
JG.
1994.
Allergic
contact
dermatitis
from
the
herbicides
trifluralin
and
benefin.
Journal
of
the
American
Academy
of
Dermatology.
31(
6):
1057­
1058.

cc:
Triflularin
file
(
036101)
Shana
Recore,
HED
(
7509C)
John
Pates,
SRRD
(
7508C)
