2,4­
D
Dietary
Exposure
Assessment
DP
Barcode:
D287661
PC
Code:
030001
Page:
1
of
23
UNITED
STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
WASHINGTON,
D.
C.
20460
OFFICE
OF
PREVENTION,
PESTICIDES
AND
TOXIC
SUBSTANCES
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
3/
1/
04
SUBJECT:
2,4­
D.
Acute
and
Chronic
Dietary
Exposure
Assessments
for
the
Reregistration
Eligibility
Decision.

PC
Code:
030001
DP
Barcodes:
D287661
and
D293132
FROM:
William
J.
Hazel,
Ph.
D.,
Chemist
Reregistration
Branch
1
Health
Effects
Division
(
7509C)

THROUGH:
Christina
Swartz,
Chemist
Leung
Cheng,
Ph.
D.,
Chemist
Dietary
Exposure
Science
Advisory
Council
(
DESAC)
Health
Effects
Division
(
7509C)

and
Whang
Phang,
Ph.
D.,
Branch
Senior
Scientist
Reregistration
Branch
1
Health
Effects
Division
(
7509C)

TO:
William
J.
Hazel,
Ph.
D.,
Chemist/
Risk
Assessor
Reregistration
Branch
1
Health
Effects
Division
(
7509C)

Executive
Summary
Acute
and
chronic
dietary
risk
assessments
were
conducted
using
the
Dietary
Exposure
Evaluation
Model
(
DEEM
 
­
FCID
,
Version
1.33)
and
the
Lifeline
 
model
(
Version
2.0),
which
use
food
consumption
data
from
the
USDA's
Continuing
Surveys
of
Food
Intakes
by
Individuals
(
CSFII)
from
1994­
1996
and
1998.
The
DEEM
 
­
FCID
outputs
were
compared
with
dietary
assessments
generated
using
Lifeline
 
.
The
analyses
were
performed
to
support
the
2,4­
D
Dietary
Exposure
Assessment
DP
Barcode:
D287661
PC
Code:
030001
Page:
2
of
23
2,4­
D
Reregistration
Eligibility
Decision.

Acute
Dietary
Exposure
Results
and
Characterization
Fairly
conservative
assumptions
were
used
to
generate
the
slightly
refined
acute
dietary
assessment:
tolerance­
level
exposure
values
for
most
commodities,
the
highest
field
trial
residue
value
for
citrus
commodities,
and
100%
crop
treated
(%
CT).
Note
that
½
of
the
average
LOD
from
PDP
monitoring
data
was
used
for
milk
in
all
earlier
assessments;
it
was
confirmed
that
all
more
recent
PDP/
milk
samples
also
did
not
contain
detectable
2,4­
D
residues.
Acute
dietary
(
food)
risks
at
the
95th
percentile
of
exposure
consumed
9.8­
33%
of
the
aPAD
using
the
DEEM
model
and
14­
42%
of
the
aPAD
using
the
Lifeline
model.
Risk
to
the
general
U.
S.
population
was
17%
of
the
aPAD
using
both
DEEM
and
Lifeline.
Risk
to
children
1­
2
years
of
age,
the
most
highly
exposed
population
subgroup
using
DEEM,
was
33%
of
the
aPAD
(
30%
using
Lifeline).
Risk
to
females
13­
49
years
of
age,
although
not
the
most
highly
exposed
population
subgroup,
was
31%
of
the
aPAD
using
DEEM
and
42%
of
the
aPAD
using
Lifeline.
These
acute
dietary
(
food)
risks
are
all
less
than
the
Agency's
level
of
concern
(
100%
of
the
aPAD).

Chronic
Dietary
Exposure
Results
and
Characterization
The
chronic
dietary
assessment
was
moderately
refined,
making
use
of
the
following:
tolerancelevel
exposure
values
for
most
commodities;
averages
of
field
trial
data
and
processing
study
factors
for
small
grains,
citrus,
and
sugarcane
sugar
and
molasses;
%
CT
information
for
all
commodities;
and
the
highest
observed
groundwater
monitoring
concentration
for
drinking
water.
As
in
the
case
of
the
acute
assessment,
½
of
the
average
LOD
from
PDP
monitoring
data
was
used
for
milk.
Chronic
dietary
(
food
only)
risks
consumed
2.5­
6.9%
of
the
cPAD
using
DEEM.
Risk
to
the
general
U.
S.
population
was
3.4%
of
the
cPAD
using
DEEM.
Risk
to
children
1­
2
years
of
age,
the
most
highly
exposed
population
subgroup,
was
6.9%
of
the
cPAD
using
DEEM.
In
a
forward
calculation
adding
2,4­
D
exposure
from
drinking
water
to
the
diet,
chronic
dietary
risks
increased
to
7.6­
24%
of
the
cPAD
using
DEEM
and
6­
22%
of
the
cPAD
using
Lifeline.
Chronic
dietary
exposure
to
2,4­
D
(
food
plus
water
sources)
leads
to
risks
that
are
less
than
the
Agency's
level
of
concern
(
100%
of
the
cPAD)
for
all
population
subgroups.

I.
Introduction
Dietary
risk
assessment
incorporates
both
exposure
and
toxicity
of
a
given
pesticide.
For
acute
and
chronic
assessments,
the
risk
is
expressed
as
a
percentage
of
a
maximum
acceptable
dose
(
i.
e.,
the
dose
that
HED
has
concluded
will
result
in
no
unreasonable
adverse
health
effects).
This
dose
is
referred
to
as
the
population
adjusted
dose
(
PAD).
The
PAD
is
equivalent
to
the
Reference
Dose
(
RfD)
divided
by
the
special
FQPA
Safety
Factor.

For
acute
and
non­
cancer
chronic
exposures,
HED
is
concerned
when
estimated
dietary
risk
exceeds
100%
of
the
PAD.
HED
is
generally
concerned
when
estimated
cancer
risk
exceeds
one
in
one
million
(
i.
e.,
the
risk
exceeds
1
x
10­
6).
References
describing
the
acute
and
chronic
risk
2,4­
D
Dietary
Exposure
Assessment
DP
Barcode:
D287661
PC
Code:
030001
Page:
3
of
23
assessments
in
more
detail
are
available
on
the
EPA/
pesticides
web
site:
"
Available
Information
on
Assessing
Exposure
from
Pesticides,
A
User's
Guide,"
6/
21/
2000,
web
link:
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
fedrgstr/
EPA­
PEST/
2000/
July/
Day­
12/
6061.
pdf
;
or
see
EPA/
OPP/
HED
SOP
99.6
(
8/
20/
99).

The
most
recent
dietary
risk
assessment
for
2,4­
D
was
conducted
by
Jennifer
Tyler
(
5/
20/
02;
D280885)
to
support
a
Section
3
registration
for
2,4­
D
on
soybean.
The
current
assessment
for
the
RED
is
virtually
unchanged
from
the
5/
20/
02
risk
assessment
except
that
reassessed
tolerance
values
and
more
recent
percent
crop
treated
information
have
been
used.
As
it
has
been
determined
in
the
RED
that
a
Category
3
situation
exists
for
poultry
and
swine,
i.
e.,
there
is
no
reasonable
expectation
of
residues
of
2,4­
D
in
tissues
and
eggs
transferring
from
feed,
these
commodities
have
also
been
deleted
from
the
exposure
calculations.
The
details
of
the
generation
of
anticipated
residues
have
not
been
presented
in
this
memorandum
because
they
have
been
repeated
numerous
times
over
the
past
several
years,
most
recently
in
the
5/
20/
02
J.
Tyler
review
(
D280885).
The
reassessed
tolerance
values
from
the
Residue
Chemistry
Chapter
of
the
RED
are
incorporated
into
the
acute
and
chronic
R98
files
(
attached)
and
the
revised
%
CT
figures
are
presented
as
an
attachment
as
well
as
in
the
chronic
R98
file.

II.
Residue
Information
2,4­
D
Tolerances:


2,4­
D
tolerances
have
been
established
in
numerous
plant
commodities,
crop
groups,
processed
products,
livestock
commodities,
fish,
shellfish,
and
potable
water
at
40
CFR
§
180.142.
These
tolerances
reflect
one
or
more
of
the
following:
preharvest
applications
to
food
and
feed
crops,
postharvest
treatment
of
citrus,
and
use
of
2,4­
D
on
irrigation
ditch
banks
and
many
types
of
quiescent
and
slow­
moving
bodies
of
water
by
federal,
state,
and
local
agencies.


HED's
Metabolism
Assessment
Review
Committee
(
MARC)
determined
that
the
residue
of
toxicological
concern
to
be
included
in
crop
and
livestock
tolerances
and
in
dietary
risk
assessments
(
food
and
water)
is
2,4­
D,
both
free
and
conjugated,
determined
as
the
acid
(
W.
Hazel,
TXR#
0052264,
D293119,
12/
3/
03).


Tolerances
currently
range
from
0.05
ppm
(
eggs,
poultry,
and
strawberry)
to
1000
ppm
(
grass
forage
and
hay).
Note
that
livestock
tolerances
currently
include
2,4­
dichlorophenol
but
that
this
residue
will
be
deleted
as
it
is
no
longer
considered
to
be
of
regulatory
utility.
A
time­
limited
tolerance,
with
a
12/
31/
03
expiration
date,
is
listed
at
40
CFR
§
180.142(
b)
for
2,4­
D
residues
in
wild
rice
at
0.1
ppm
in
association
with
a
Section
18
emergency
exemption.
Depending
on
the
commodity
and
the
type
of
use,
multiple
tolerances
have
been
established
in/
on
the
same
commodity;
for
example,
tolerances
in
citrus
fruits
have
been
established
at
0.1
ppm
from
application
to
irrigation
ditch
banks,
1.0
ppm
from
treatment
of
quiescent
or
slow­
moving
bodies
of
water,
and
5.0
ppm
due
to
a
combination
of
preharvest
and
postharvest
applications.
A
single
reassessed
tolerance
has
been
selected
for
each
commodity
that
will
encompass
the
combined
residues
from
all
use
patterns.


Tolerances
have
been
reassessed
in
the
Residue
Chemistry
Chapter
of
the
RED
(
W.
Hazel,
2,4­
D
Dietary
Exposure
Assessment
DP
Barcode:
D287661
PC
Code:
030001
Page:
4
of
23
3/
1/
04,
D287660).
Many
tolerances
have
been
reassessed
at
lower
levels
although
some
are
at
higher
levels.
This
assessment
utilized
the
reassessed
tolerance
values
when
tolerancelevel
values
were
used
as
the
exposure
component
of
risk.

Residue
Data
used
for
Acute
and
Chronic
Assessments:


Reassessed
tolerance­
level
residues
were
used
as
exposure
values
for
all
commodities
in
the
acute
assessment
with
the
exception
of
citrus
and
milk.
For
citrus,
the
highest
field
trial
residue
value
was
used.
For
milk,
½
the
LOD
of
PDP
monitoring
data
was
used.
It
was
assumed
that
100%
of
all
crops
had
been
treated.
The
current
acute
dietary
assessment
for
the
RED
is
virtually
unchanged
from
that
conducted
by
Jennifer
Tyler
(
5/
20/
02;
D280885)
to
support
a
Section
3
registration
for
use
of
2,4­
D
on
soybean
except
that
reassessed
tolerance
values
have
been
used
rather
than
the
tolerance
values
at
40
CFR
180.142.
The
acute
dietary
exposure
assessment
is
considered
to
be
slightly
refined.


In
the
chronic
dietary
assessment,
tolerance­
level
exposure
values
were
used
for
most
commodities
except
in
the
case
of
small
grains,
citrus,
and
sugarcane
sugar
and
molasses
for
which
averages
of
field
trial
data
and
processing
study
factors
were
used;
in
the
case
of
milk,
½
the
LOD
of
PDP
monitoring
data
was
also
used.
All
exposure
values
were
adjusted
for
%
CT.
The
maximum
of
groundwater
monitoring
samples
was
used
in
a
forward
calculation,
i.
e.,
included
directly
in
the
calculation
of
total
dietary
risk.
The
current
assessment
for
the
RED
is
virtually
unchanged
from
that
conducted
by
Jennifer
Tyler
(
5/
20/
02;
D280885)
to
support
a
Section
3
registration
for
use
of
2,4­
D
on
soybean
except
that
reassessed
tolerance
values
and
updated
%
CT
figures
have
been
used.
This
chronic
dietary
assessment
is
considered
to
be
moderately
refined.


Percent
crop
treated
(%
CT)
data
were
not
applied
to
the
acute
assessment.
In
the
chronic
assessment,
tolerances
or
anticipated
residues
in
all
crop
commodities
were
adjusted
by
%
CT
data
(
A.
Halvorson
of
BEAD,
8/
9/
01).
Note
that
the
8/
9/
01
BEAD
report
presented
use
on
grapefruit
to
be
1%
(
avg.)
and
2%
(
est.
max.).
However,
updated
figures
for
%
CT
of
8%
and
19%
CT,
respectively,
were
provided
in
a
later
e­
mail
to
reflect
increased
use
on
grapefruit
in
the
2001
season).
The
8%
figure
was
used
for
grapefruit
in
the
chronic
assessment.
In
the
case
of
wheat,
a
weighted
average
%
CT
was
used
to
account
for
the
different
frequencies
of
use
on
spring
(
51%)
and
winter
(
15%)
wheat;
the
weighted
average
wheat
%
CT
used
in
the
chronic
assessment
was
27%.


Factors
from
processing
studies
were
applied
to
small
grains
(
wheat
study,
MRID
43693701),
sugarcane
(
MRID
00068889),
and
citrus
(
MRID
43870302).
The
DEEM
7.81
default
concentration
factors
were
used
for
other
commodities,
as
appropriate.


To
further
refine
the
2,4­
D
dietary
exposure
and
risk
estimates,
HED
could
apply
%
CT
figures
to
the
acute
dietary
exposure
assessment
and
calculate
anticipated
residue
values
for
asparagus,
barley,
wheat,
and
oats
which
are
the
major
contributors
to
the
acute
dietary
exposure.
However,
HED
will
not
perform
these
resource­
intensive
refinements
at
this
time
as
the
2,4­
D
Task
Force
II
is
currently
conducting
a
highly
refined
CARES
aggregate
assessment
which
will
soon
be
evaluated
by
HED
and
compared
to
a
refined
aggregate
assessment
conducted
by
HED
using
Lifeline.
2,4­
D
Dietary
Exposure
Assessment
DP
Barcode:
D287661
PC
Code:
030001
Page:
5
of
23
IIIa.
DEEM­
FCID
 
Program
and
Consumption
Information
Acute
and
chronic
dietary
exposure
assessments
for
2,4­
D
were
conducted
using
the
Dietary
Exposure
Evaluation
Model
software
with
the
Food
Commodity
Intake
Database
(
DEEMFCID
 
,
Version
1.33),
which
incorporates
consumption
data
from
USDA's
Continuing
Surveys
of
Food
Intakes
by
Individuals
(
CSFII),
1994­
1996
and
1998.
The
1994­
96,
98
data
are
based
on
the
reported
consumption
of
more
than
20,000
individuals
over
two
non­
consecutive
survey
days.
Foods
"
as
consumed"
(
e.
g.,
apple
pie)
are
linked
to
EPA­
defined
food
commodities
(
e.
g.
apples,
peeled
fruit
­
cooked;
fresh
or
N/
S;
baked;
or
wheat
flour
­
cooked;
fresh
or
N/
S,
baked)
using
publicly
available
recipe
translation
files
developed
jointly
by
USDA/
ARS
and
EPA.
For
chronic
exposure
assessment,
consumption
data
are
averaged
for
the
entire
U.
S.
population
and
within
population
subgroups,
but,
for
acute
exposure
assessment,
consumption
data
are
retained
as
individual
events.
Based
on
analysis
of
the
1994­
96,
98
CSFII
consumption
data,
which
took
into
account
dietary
patterns
and
survey
respondents,
HED
concluded
that
it
is
most
appropriate
to
report
risk
for
the
following
population
subgroups:
the
general
U.
S.
population,
all
infants
(<
1
year
old),
children
1­
2,
children
3­
5,
children
6­
12,
youth
13­
19,
adults
20­
49,
females
13­
49,
and
adults
50+
years
old.

For
chronic
dietary
exposure
assessment,
an
estimate
of
the
residue
level
in
each
food
or
foodform
(
e.
g.,
orange
or
orange
juice)
on
the
food
commodity
residue
list
is
multiplied
by
the
average
daily
consumption
estimate
for
that
food/
food
form.
The
resulting
residue
consumption
estimate
for
each
food/
food
form
is
summed
with
the
residue
consumption
estimates
for
all
other
food/
food
forms
on
the
commodity
residue
list
to
arrive
at
the
total
average
estimated
exposure.
Exposure
is
expressed
in
mg/
kg
body
weight/
day
and
as
a
percent
of
the
cPAD.
This
procedure
is
performed
for
each
population
subgroup.

For
acute
exposure
assessments,
individual
one­
day
food
consumption
data
are
used
on
an
individual­
by­
individual
basis.
The
reported
consumption
amounts
of
each
food
item
can
be
multiplied
by
a
residue
point
estimate
and
summed
to
obtain
a
total
daily
pesticide
exposure
for
a
deterministic
exposure
assessment,
or
"
matched"
in
multiple
random
pairings
with
residue
values
and
then
summed
in
a
probabilistic
assessment.
The
resulting
distribution
of
exposures
is
expressed
as
a
percentage
of
the
aPAD
on
both
a
user
(
i.
e.,
those
who
reported
eating
relevant
commodities/
food
forms)
and
a
per­
capita
(
i.
e.,
those
who
reported
eating
the
relevant
commodities
as
well
as
those
who
did
not)
basis.
In
accordance
with
HED
policy,
per
capita
exposure
and
risk
are
reported
for
all
tiers
of
analysis.
However,
for
tiers
1
and
2,
significant
differences
in
user
vs.
per
capita
exposure
and
risk
are
identified
and
noted
in
the
risk
assessment.

III
b.
Lifeline
 
Program
and
Consumption
Information
Acute
and
chronic
dietary
exposure
estimates
were
also
conducted
using
the
Lifeline
 
model
(
Version
2.0).
These
Lifeline
 
assessments
were
conducted
using
the
same
consumption
data
as
the
DEEM­
FCID
 
(
CSFII,
1994­
1996
and
1998
consumption
data
with
FCID).
Lifeline
 
uses
2,4­
D
Dietary
Exposure
Assessment
DP
Barcode:
D287661
PC
Code:
030001
Page:
6
of
23
the
recipe
file
to
relate
RACs
to
foods
"
as­
eaten."
Lifeline
 
converts
the
RAC
residues
into
food
residues
by
randomly
selecting
a
RAC
residue
value
from
the
"
user
defined"
residue
distribution
(
created
from
the
residue,
percent
crop
treated,
and
processing
factor
data),
and
calculating
a
net
residue
for
that
food
based
on
the
ingredients'
mass
contribution
to
that
food
item.
For
example,
`
apple
pie'
will
have
a
residue
distribution
based
on
the
residues
provided
for
apples
(
adjusted
by
the
appropriate
processing
factors
and
percent
crop
treated),
as
well
as
the
residues
for
each
of
the
other
ingredients
in
the
apple
pie
recipe
for
which
there
may
be
tolerances.
Lifeline
 
calculates
dietary
exposure
from
`
apple
pie'
based
on
the
amount
eaten,
and
the
residue
drawn
from
the
`
apple
pie'
residue
distribution
for
that
eating
occasion.

Lifeline
 
models
the
individual's
dietary
exposures
over
a
season
by
selecting
a
new
CSFII
diary
each
day
from
a
set
of
similar
individuals
based
on
age,
season,
and
socioeconomic
attributes.
Lifeline
 
groups
CSFII
diaries
based
on
the
respondents'
age
and
the
season
during
which
the
food
diary
was
recorded.
The
Lifeline
 
model
estimates
acute
exposure
based
on
the
acute
1­
day
dietary
dose
drawn
randomly
from
an
age­
specific
seasonal
exposure
profile
of
1000
individuals.
The
Lifeline
 
chronic
dietary
exposure
estimate
is
based
on
an
average
daily
exposure
from
a
profile
of
1000
individuals
over
a
one­
year
period.
Further
information
regarding
the
Lifeline
 
model
can
be
found
at
the
following
web
site:
www.
theLifeline
 
group.
org.

IV.
Toxicological
Information
The
doses
and
toxic
effects
to
be
used
in
dietary
risk
assessment
on
2,4­
D
are
presented
in
Table
1
which
was
excerpted
from
the
Toxicology
Chapter
of
the
2,4­
D
RED
(
L.
Taylor,
8/
19/
03,
TXR
#
0052068,
D287658).
The
HIARC
met
4/
8/
03
to
select
the
hazard
endpoints
and
uncertainty
factors
subsequently
summarized
in
the
chapter
noted
above.
Note
that
a
5/
1/
03
HIARC
report
(
TXR
#
0051866)
has
been
issued
to
summarize
the
4/
8/
03
proceedings
but
that
this
report
will
be
superseded
by
an
upcoming
revised
HIARC
report
which
will
contain
corrected
uncertainty
factors
in
the
endpoint
selection
table
as
well
as
some
additional
characterization.

Table
1.
Summary
of
Toxicological
Dose
and
Endpoints
for
2,4­
D.
2,4­
D
Dietary
Exposure
Assessment
DP
Barcode:
D287661
PC
Code:
030001
Page:
7
of
23
Exposure
Scenario
Dose
Used
in
Risk
Assessment,
UF
Special
FQPA
SF*
and
Level
of
Concern
for
Risk
Assessment
Study
and
Toxicological
Effects
Acute
Dietary
(
Females
13­
50
years
of
age)
NOAEL
=
25
mg/
kg/
day
UF
=
1000
Acute
RfD
=
0.025
mg/
kg/
day
FQPA
SF
=
1X
aPAD
=
acute
RfD(
0.025)
FQPA
SF
(
1)

=
0.025
mg/
kg/
day
rat
developmental
toxicity
study
LOAEL
=
75
mg/
kg/
day
based
on
skeletal
malformations
and
skeletal
variations
Acute
Dietary
(
General
population
including
infants
and
children)
NOAEL
=
67
mg/
kg/
day
UF
=
1000
Acute
RfD
=
0.067
mg/
kg/
day
FQPA
SF
=
1X
aPAD
=
acute
RfD
(
0.067)
FQPA
SF
(
1)

=
0.067mg/
kg/
day
acute
neurotoxicity
study
in
rats
LOAEL
=
227
mg/
kg/
day
based
on
gait
abnormalities
Chronic
Dietary
(
All
populations)
NOAEL=
5
mg/
kg/
day
UF
=
1000
Chronic
RfD
=
0.005
mg/
kg/
day
FQPA
SF
=
1X
cPAD
=
chronic
RfD
(
0.005)
FQPA
SF
(
1)

=
0.005
mg/
kg/
day
rat
chronic
toxicity
study
LOAEL
=
75
mg/
kg/
day
based
on
decreased
bodyweight
gain
(
females)
and
food
consumption
(
females),
alterations
in
hematology
[
decreased
RBC,
HCT,
and
HGB
(
females),
platelets
(
both
sexes)]
and
clinical
chemistry
parameters
[
increased
creatinine
(
both
sexes),
alanine
and
aspartate
aminotransferases
(
males),
alkaline
phosphatase
(
both
sexes),
decreased
T4
(
both
sexes),
glucose
(
females),
cholesterol
(
both
sexes),
and
triglycerides
(
females)],
increased
thyroid
weights
(
both
sexes
at
study
termination),
and
decreased
testes
and
ovarian
weights
.

Cancer
(
oral,
dermal,
inhalation)
Classification:
Group
D
[
not
classifiable
as
to
human
carcinogenicity]

UF
=
uncertainty
factor,
FQPA
SF
=
Special
FQPA
safety
factor,
NOAEL
=
no
observed
adverse
effect
level,
LOAEL
=
lowest
observed
adverse
effect
level,
PAD
=
population
adjusted
dose
(
a
=
acute,
c
=
chronic),
RfD
=
reference
dose,
MOE
=
margin
of
exposure,
LOC
=
level
of
concern,
NA
=
Not
Applicable
V.
Results/
Discussion
As
stated
above,
for
acute
and
chronic
assessments,
HED
is
concerned
when
dietary
risk
exceeds
100%
of
the
PAD.
A
comparison
was
made
of
the
DEEM­
FCID
 
and
Lifeline
 
estimates
of
dietary
exposure
of
the
U.
S.
population
and
various
population
subgroups.
The
results
reported
in
Table
2
are
for
the
general
U.
S.
Population,
all
infants
(<
1
year
old),
children
1­
2,
children
3­
5,
children
6­
12,
youth
13­
19,
females
13­
49,
adults
20­
49,
and
adults
50+
years.
Cancer
risk,
determined
for
the
general
U.
S.
population
only,
is
not
applicable
to
2,4­
D.

Results
of
Acute
Dietary
Exposure
Analysis
As
the
acute
dietary
assessment
was
only
slightly
refined,
acute
dietary
exposure
was
estimated
at
the
95th
percentile
of
exposure
only.
Results
of
the
Lifeline
 
analysis
are
consistent
with
DEEM­
FCID
 
results.
Exposure
and
risk
estimates
are
reported
in
Table
2.
2,4­
D
Dietary
Exposure
Assessment
DP
Barcode:
D287661
PC
Code:
030001
Page:
8
of
23
Results
of
Chronic
Dietary
Exposure
Analysis
The
results
of
the
chronic
dietary
exposure
analysis
are
reported
in
summary
Table
2
below.
Results
of
the
Lifeline
 
analysis
are
fully
consistent
with
DEEM­
FCID
 
results.

Results
of
Cancer
Dietary
Exposure
Analysis
A
cancer
assessment
is
not
applicable
to
2,4­
D
at
this
time
as
the
acid,
salts,
and
esters
of
2,4­
D
have
been
determined
to
fall
in
Group
D,
i.
e.,
not
classifiable
as
to
human
carcinogenicity.
Note
that
issues
have
been
surfacing
with
Canada's
PMRA
that
may
trigger
qualitative
(
and
perhaps
quantitative)
assessments
of
cancer
risk
associated
with
exposure
to
the
diethanolamine
(
DEA)
salt
of
2,4­
D.
Indications
at
this
time
are
that
any
potential
carcinogenicity
is
due
to
the
DEA
moiety
itself.

Table
2.
Summary
of
Dietary
Exposure
and
Risk
for
2,4­
D.

Population
Subgroup
DEEM
or
Lifeline
Acute
Dietary
(
food
only)
(
95th
Percentile)
Chronic
Dietary
(
food
only)
Chronic
Dietary
(
food
+
drinking
water
at
15
ppb)

Dietary
Exposure
(
mg/
kg/
day)
%
aPAD
Dietary
Exposure
(
mg/
kg/
day)
%
cPAD
Dietary
Exposure
(
mg/
kg/
day)
%
cPAD
General
U.
S.
Population
DEEM
Lifeline
0.01171
0.0111
17
17
0.000168
0.000159
3.4
3.2
0.000484
0.00039
9.7
8
All
Infants
(<
1
year
old)
DEEM
Lifeline
0.012766
0.0129
19
19
0.000139
0.000124
2.8
2.5
0.001176
0.0091
24
18
Children
1­
2
years
old
DEEM
Lifeline
0.022134
0.0204
33
30
0.000346
0.000316
6.9
6.7
0.000815
0.00108
16
22
Children
3­
5
years
old
DEEM
Lifeline
0.02061
0.0192
31
29
0.000295
0.000276
5.9
5.5
0.000735
0.00085
15
17
Children
6­
12
years
old
DEEM
Lifeline
0.014632
0.0134
22
20
0.000214
0.000190
4.3
3.8
0.000517
0.00049
10
10
Youth
13­
19
years
old
DEEM
Lifeline
0.00914
0.0098
14
15
0.000151
0.000136
3
2.7
0.00038
0.00032
7.6
6
Adults
20­
49
years
old
DEEM
Lifeline
0.008645
0.0094
13
14
0.00016
0.000148
3.2
2.9
0.000455
0.00034
9.1
7
Adults
50+
years
old
DEEM
Lifeline
0.006563
0.009
9.8
14
0.000127
0.000149
2.5
3.0
0.000438
0.00034
8.8
7
Females
13­
49
years
old
DEEM
Lifeline
0.007675
0.0105
31
42
0.000137
0.000159
2.7
3.2
0.000431
0.00038
8.6
8
VI.
Characterization
of
Inputs/
Outputs
The
acute
dietary
exposure
analysis
for
2,4­
D
was
only
slightly
refined
by
the
use
of
the
highest
field
trial
residue
values
for
citrus
and
½
of
the
average
LOD
from
PDP
monitoring
data
for
milk.
Reassessed
tolerance­
level
exposure
values
were
used
for
most
commodities
and
100
%
CT
was
used
for
all
foods.
Processing
factors
from
2,4­
D­
specific
studies
were
not
used
although
the
default
factors
in
DEEM
were
applied.
Only
minimal
data
translation
occurred
(
citrus
and
small
2,4­
D
Dietary
Exposure
Assessment
DP
Barcode:
D287661
PC
Code:
030001
Page:
9
of
23
grains)
but
these
are
standard
HED
translations.
Thus,
the
acute
dietary
exposure
assessment
is
quite
conservative
and
it
does
not
underestimate
exposure
and
risk
to
2,4­
D.

The
chronic
dietary
assessment
was
moderately
refined,
making
use
of
the
following:
reassessed
tolerance­
level
exposure
values
for
most
commodities;
averages
of
field
trial
data
and
processing
study
factors
for
small
grains,
citrus,
and
sugarcane
sugar
and
molasses;
%
CT
information
for
all
commodities.
As
in
the
case
of
the
acute
assessment,
½
of
the
average
LOD
from
PDP
monitoring
data
was
used
for
milk
and
the
same
data
translations
were
made.
As
in
the
case
of
the
acute
assessment,
the
chronic
dietary
exposure
assessment
is
quite
conservative
and
it
does
not
underestimate
exposure
and
risk
to
2,4­
D.

VII.
Conclusions
Acute
and
chronic
dietary
exposure
and
risk
assessments
were
conducted.
The
acute
assessment
was
slightly
refined
and
the
chronic
assessment
was
moderately
refined.
For
the
acute
analyses,
results
have
been
reported
at
the
95th
percentile
of
exposure.
For
both
types
of
analyses,
risks
were
below
the
Agency's
levels
of
concern
for
the
general
U.
S.
population
and
all
other
population
subgroups
using
both
DEEM­
FCID
 
or
Lifeline
 
.
Children
(
1­
2
years)
is
the
most
highly
exposed
population
subgroup
in
both
assessments
(
food
only)
with
acute
risk
being
33%
of
the
aPAD
and
chronic
risk
being
6.9%
of
the
cPAD;
using
Lifeline,
this
population
subgroup
has
an
acute
dietary
risk
of
30%
of
the
cPAD.
Upon
aggregation
of
food
and
water
sources
of
dietary
exposure
via
a
forward
calculation
using
DEEM,
the
most
highly
exposed
population
subgroup
is
All
infants
(<
1
year)
which
has
a
chronic
dietary
risk
of
24%
of
the
cPAD.
Using
Lifeline,
this
population
subgroup
has
a
chronic
dietary
risk
of
18%
of
the
cPAD.

VIII.
List
of
Attachments
1.
Percent
Crop
Treated
Memo
from
BEAD
(
p.
12)
2.
2,4­
D
DEEM
chronic
input
file
(
p.
15);
Lifeline
available
electronically
3.
2,4­
D
DEEM
chronic
output
file
(
p.
18);
Lifeline
available
electronically
4.
2,4­
D
DEEM
acute
input
file
(
p.
20);
Lifeline
available
electronically
5.
2,4­
D
DEEM
acute
output
file
(
p.
23);
Lifeline
available
electronically
6.
2,4­
D
DEEM
chronic
input
file:
Drinking
water
only
(
p.
24);
Lifeline
available
electronically
7.
2,4­
D
DEEM
chronic
output
file:
Drinking
water
only
(
p.
25);
Lifeline
available
electronically
cc:
HED/
RRB1:
L.
Taylor,
T.
Dole;
SRRD:
Mark
Seaton,
Tom
Myers
RDI:
DESAC:
1/
13/
04;
W.
Phang:
3/
1/
04
W.
Hazel:
CM2:
rm.
722J:
wjh:
305­
7677:
3/
1/
04
2,4­
D
Dietary
Exposure
Assessment
DP
Barcode:
D287661
PC
Code:
030001
Page:
10
of
23
Attachment
1.
Percent
Crop
Treated
memo
from
BEAD
Quantitative
Usage
Analysis
for
2,4­
D
Case
Number:
0073
Date:
8­
9­
01
Analyst:
Alan
Halvorson
Based
on
pesticide
usage
information
mainly
for
1992
through
2000
for
agriculture
and
1993
through
1999
for
non­
agriculture,
total
annual
domestic
usage
of
2,4­
D
is
approximately
46
million
pounds
active
ingredient
(
a.
i.),
with
30
million
pounds
a.
i.
(
66%)
used
by
agriculture
and
16
million
pounds
a.
i.
(
34%)
used
by
non­
agriculture.
In
terms
of
pounds
a.
i.,
total
2,4­
D
usage
is
allocated
mainly
to
pasture/
rangeland
(
24%),
lawn
by
householder
with
fertilizer
(
12%),
Spring
wheat
(
8%),
Winter
wheat
(
7%),
lawn/
garden
by
lawn
care
operators/
landscape
maintenance
contractors
(
7%),
lawn
by
householder
alone
(
without
fertilizer)
(
6%),
field
corn
(
6%),
soybeans
(
4%),

summer
fallow
(
3%),
hay
other
than
alfalfa
(
3%)
and
roadways
(
3%).
Agricultural
sites
with
at
least
10%
of
U.
S.
acreage
treated
include
Spring
wheat
(
51%),
filberts
(
49%),
sugarcane
(
36%),
barley
(
36%),
seed
crops
(
29%),
apples
(
20%),
rye
(
16%),
Winter
wheat
(
15%),

cherries
(
15%),
oats
(
15%),
millet
(
15%),
rice
(
13%),
soybeans
(
12%)
and
pears
(
10%).
For
agriculture,
rates
per
application
and
rates
per
year
are
generally
less
than
1.50
pounds
a.
i.
per
acre
and
2.00
pounds
a.
i.
per
acre,
respectively.

2,4­
D
Case
#:
0073
AI
#:
various(*)
EPA
QUANTITATIVE
USAGE
ANALYSIS
Analyst:
Alan
Halvorson
8­
9­
01
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

Acres
Acres
Treated
(
000)
%
Crop
Treated
Lb
AI
Appl'd
(
000)
Avg
Applic
Rates/
Acre
States
of
Most
Usage
(
000)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
(%
of
total
lb
ai
Site
Grown
Est
Est
Est
lb
ai/
#
appl/
lb
ai/
used
by
these
states)

Avg
Max
Avg
Max
Avg
Max
year
year
appl
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

Alfalfa
23,704
46
139
0.2%
0.6%
23
69
0.50
1.0
0.48
GA
AR
TX
MT
WA
ID
56%

Barley
5,914
2,138
2,550
36%
43%
1,008
1,290
0.47
1.0
0.46
ND
MT
­

Beans/
Peas,
Dry
2,133
20
60
1%
3%
12
30
0.59
1.0
0.59
MN
WA
UT
MI
ID
FL
83%

Canola/
Rapeseed
1,281
10
19
1%
2%
6
11
0.58
1.0
0.58
­

Corn,
Field
75,241
6,413
8,720
9%
12%
2,938
3,660
0.46
1.0
0.44
IL
IN
OH
IA
MN
NE
68%

Cotton
13,793
173
345
1%
3%
117
234
0.68
1.0
0.67
SC
TX
LA
GA
85%

Fallow,
Summer
22,879
1,549
2,239
7%
10%
1,386
2,003
0.89
1.3
0.69
KS
CO
ND
WA
MT
SD
83%

Flax
143
6
13
4%
9%
3
7
0.50
1.0
0.50
ND
MN
100%

General
Farm
Use
­
­
­
­
­
1,082
1,623
­
­
­
­

­
Bldgs/
Structures
­
­
­
­
­
184
276
­
­
­
­

­
Roads/
Ditches/
Misc
­
­
­
­
­
447
670
­
­
­
­

­
Lots/
Farmsteads
22,876
601
901
3%
4%
451
676
0.75
1.0
0.75
IA
ID
UT
NE
KS
OR
47%

Hay,
Other
33,777
1,921
2,634
6%
8%
1,330
1,824
0.69
1.1
0.60
TX
OK
KS
­

Millet
318
48
73
15%
23%
21
35
0.44
1.0
0.44
SD
ND
NE
86%
2,4­
D
Dietary
Exposure
Assessment
DP
Barcode:
D287661
PC
Code:
030001
Page:
11
of
23
Oats
4,036
611
780
15%
19%
284
380
0.46
1.0
0.46
SD
TX
­

Pasture/
Rangeland
469,536
15,024
22,536
3%
5%
10,914
16,371
0.73
1.2
0.62
­

­
Pastured
Cropland
63,545
3,875
5,167
6%
8%
2,600
3,467
0.67
1.0
0.67
TX
OK
KS
IA
AR
MO
62%

Peanuts
1,416
25
50
2%
4%
18
30
0.73
1.0
0.70
MS
AL
GA
TX
81%

Potatoes
1,291
9
26
1%
2%
1
4
0.17
1.8
0.10
ND
CA
FL
ID
OR
MT
82%

Rice
3,231
431
562
13%
17%
404
527
0.94
1.0
0.92
LA
AR
MS
87%

Rye
298
48
63
16%
21%
24
30
0.50
1.0
0.50
GA
SC
ND
MN
NE
SD
85%

Seed
Crops
1,383
401
501
29%
36%
220
275
0.55
1.0
0.55
OR
CA
MT
MO
FL
WA
82%

Sorghum
9,077
1,061
1,415
12%
16%
534
667
0.50
1.1
0.46
KS
NE
TX
OK
SD
MO
83%

Soybeans
70,993
3,659
5,165
5%
7%
1,708
2,410
0.47
1.0
0.46
IL
IN
IA
OH
MO
NE
80%

Sugarcane
939
340
500
36%
53%
335
490
0.99
1.3
0.75
LA
FL
100%

Sunflowers
2,040
27
80
1%
4%
14
50
0.52
1.0
0.50
KS
MN
SD
ND
90%

Wheat,
Spring­
A
18,903
9,684
12,105
51%
64%
3,786
4,733
0.39
1.1
0.37
ND
MT
83%

Wheat,
Winter­
A
42,403
6,564
10,130
15%
24%
3,330
5,140
0.51
1.1
0.48
KS
MT
WA
CO
OK
SD
63%

Wild
Rice
26
2
3
8%
10%
0.4
0.6
0.20
1.0
0.20
MN
100%

Woodland
60,478
629
1,259
1%
2%
397
794
0.63
1.0
0.63
OR
ND
KS
MT
WA
CO
59%

Almonds
583
40
60
7%
10%
51
70
1.30
1.3
1.00
CA
100%

Apples
477
94
170
20%
36%
129
250
1.38
1.1
1.21
WA
NY
PA
MI
ME
VA
70%

Apricots
23
1
2
5%
8%
2
3
1.88
1.4
1.39
­

Asparagus
77
7
12
9%
15%
10
20
1.32
1.2
1.10
MI
CA
WA
95%

Beans/
Peas,
Vegetable
667
3
8
0.4%
1.2%
3
8
1.00
1.2
0.84
WA
OR
CA
NY
WI
85%

­
Beans,
Lima
46
1
2
2%
4%
2
3
1.80
1.2
1.50
­

­
Peas,
Green
272
1
3
0.4%
1.1%
1
3
0.99
1.2
0.83
WA
­

Blueberries
62
0.1
0.3
0.2%
0.5%
0.1
0.2
0.51
1.1
0.46
MI
OR
NJ
100%

Cherries
105
16
25
15%
24%
18
30
1.09
1.2
0.91
OR
MI
UT
WA
87%

Cranberries
32
2
3
6%
9%
4
6
2.00
1.1
1.83
WI
WA
OR
100%

Filberts
31
15
18
49%
58%
26
35
1.69
2.7
0.64
OR
100%

Grapefruit­
B
165
2
3
8%
19%
0.6
1.1
0.34
1.6
0.21
CA
FL
100%

Grapes
1,006
5
15
1%
2%
4
13
0.87
1.2
0.73
CA
WA
90%

Lemons
72
0.4
1.1
0.5%
1.5%
0.4
1.1
1.06
2.9
0.37
CA
100%

Nectarines
34
2
3
6%
10%
1
1
0.39
1.4
0.29
­

Oranges
940
21
66
2%
7%
7
20
0.32
1.2
0.27
CA
88%

Peaches
158
12
19
8%
12%
16
25
1.29
1.4
0.95
CA
SC
PA
NJ
MI
WA
75%

Pears
70
7
10
10%
14%
11
15
1.49
1.4
1.10
CA
OR
WA
88%

Pecans
496
12
25
3%
5%
12
20
1.00
1.2
0.81
TX
GA
KS
AR
86%

Pistachios
100
3
5
3%
5%
3
5
1.00
1.2
0.80
­

Prunes/
Plums
151
12
25
8%
17%
13
25
1.13
1.2
0.94
CA
83%

Strawberries
47
2
3
4%
7%
3
5
1.28
1.1
1.18
PA
OH
NY
WI
NC
MI
67%

Sweet
Corn
678
20
34
3%
5%
10
15
0.51
1.0
0.48
MN
ID
NE
WI
UT
CT
54%

Walnuts
229
14
20
6%
9%
29
40
2.13
2.2
0.98
CA
96%

TOTAL
AGRICULTURE
30,249
43,298
Aquatic
Areas
­
­
­
­
­
512
800
­
­
­
­

Electric
Utilities
­
­
­
­
­
164
425
­
­
­
­

Forestland
­
­
­
­
­
136
201
­
­
­
­

Golf
Courses
­
­
­
­
­
414
500
­
­
­
­
2,4­
D
Dietary
Exposure
Assessment
DP
Barcode:
D287661
PC
Code:
030001
Page:
12
of
23
Horticulture
­
­
­
­
­
18
35
­
­
­
­

Indus
Facil/
Pipelines
­
­
­
­
­
406
1,150
­
­
­
­

Institutional
Turf
­
­
­
­
­
654
1,000
­
­
­
­

Lawn/
Gardn
by
LCO/
LMC
­
­
­
­
­
3,294
4,000
­
­
­
­

Lawn
by
Hsehld,
Alone
­
­
­
­
­
2,757
3,000
­
­
­
­

Lawn
by
Hsehld
w/
Fert
­
­
­
­
­
5,512
6,000
­
­
­
­

Railroads
­
­
­
­
­
213
300
­
­
­
­

Roadways
­
­
­
­
­
1,319
1,600
­
­
­
­

Turf
Farms
­
­
­
­
­
351
500
­
­
­
­

TOTAL
NON­
AGRICULTURE
15,751
19,511
GRAND
TOTAL
46,000
62,809
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

(*)
Registrant­
supported
active
ingredients
are
30001,
30004,
30016,
30019,
30025,
30035,
30053,
30063
and
30066.

A.
A
weighted
average
of
27%
for
spring
+
winter
wheat
was
calculated
by
W.
Hazel
(
HED)
for
use
in
the
chronic
assessment.

B.
The
8%
and
19%
figures
were
provided
by
BEAD
in
2003
to
reflect
increased
2,4­
D
use
in
2001.
The
original
QUA
presented
figures
of
1%
and
2%.

NOTES
ON
TABLE
DATA
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

­
Usage
data
primarily
cover
1992
­
2000
for
agriculture
and
1993
­
1999
for
non­
agriculture.

­
Calculations
of
the
above
numbers
may
not
appear
to
agree
with
each
other
because
they
are
displayed
as
rounded.

­
A
dash(­)
indicates
that
information
is
not
readily
available
or
is
not
applicable.

­
Sub­
categories
under
a
crop
group
are
usually
not
exhaustive.

CROP/
SITE
GROUPS
AND
DEFINITIONS
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

­
Institutional
turf
consists
of
maintained
turf
of
educational
facilities,
cemeteries
and
parks.

­
LCO
=
lawn
care
operators.

­
LMC
=
landscape
maintenance
contractors.

DATA
SOURCES
­­­­­­­­­­­­

­
US
EPA,
proprietary
data,
1993
­
1999.

­
USDA/
NASS,
Agricultural
Chemical
Usage
­­

­
Field
Crops
Summary,
1998
­
2000.

­
Fruits
and
Nuts
Summary,
1999.

­
Livestock
and
General
Farm
Summary,
1997.

­
Vegetables
Summary,
1998.

­
NCFAP,
circa
1992
&
circa
1997.
2,4­
D
Dietary
Exposure
Assessment
DP
Barcode:
D287661
PC
Code:
030001
Page:
13
of
23
Attachment
2.
Chronic
2,4­
D
Input
File
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Ver.
1.30
DEEM­
FCID
Chronic
analysis
for
2,4­
D
1994­
98
data
Residue
file:
C:\
BHAZEL\
2.4_
D\
DEEMfiles\
Chronic.
RED.
2.4_
D..
R98
Adjust.
#
2
used
Analysis
Date
01­
07­
2004
Residue
file
dated:
01­
07­
2004/
08:
31:
17/
8
Reference
dose
(
RfD)
=
0.005
mg/
kg
bw/
day
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
Food
Crop
Residue
Adj.
Factors
Comment
EPA
Code
Grp
Food
Name
(
ppm)
#
1
#
2
­­­­­­­­
­­­­
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
­­­­­­­­­­
­­­­­­
­­­­­­
95000190
O
Asparagus
5.000000
1.000
0.090
15000250
15
Barley,
pearled
barley
0.012000
1.000
0.360
15000251
15
Barley,
pearled
barley­
babyfood
0.012000
1.000
0.360
15000260
15
Barley,
flour
0.012000
1.000
0.360
15000261
15
Barley,
flour­
babyfood
0.012000
1.000
0.360
15000270
15
Barley,
bran
0.012000
1.000
0.360
21000440
M
Beef,
meat
0.050000
1.000
1.000
21000441
M
Beef,
meat­
babyfood
0.050000
1.000
1.000
21000450
M
Beef,
meat,
dried
0.050000
1.920
1.000
21000460
M
Beef,
meat
byproducts
0.050000
1.000
1.000
21000461
M
Beef,
meat
byproducts­
babyfood
0.050000
1.000
1.000
21000470
M
Beef,
fat
0.050000
1.000
1.000
21000471
M
Beef,
fat­
babyfood
0.050000
1.000
1.000
21000480
M
Beef,
kidney
0.050000
1.000
1.000
21000490
M
Beef,
liver
0.050000
1.000
1.000
21000491
M
Beef,
liver­
babyfood
0.050000
1.000
1.000
15000650
15
Buckwheat
0.012000
1.000
1.000
15000660
15
Buckwheat,
flour
0.012000
1.000
1.000
15001200
15
Corn,
field,
flour
0.050000
1.000
0.090
15001201
15
Corn,
field,
flour­
babyfood
0.050000
1.000
0.090
15001210
15
Corn,
field,
meal
0.050000
1.000
0.090
15001211
15
Corn,
field,
meal­
babyfood
0.050000
1.000
0.090
15001220
15
Corn,
field,
bran
0.050000
1.000
0.090
15001230
15
Corn,
field,
starch
0.050000
1.000
0.090
15001231
15
Corn,
field,
starch­
babyfood
0.050000
1.000
0.090
15001240
15
Corn,
field,
syrup
0.050000
1.500
0.090
15001241
15
Corn,
field,
syrup­
babyfood
0.050000
1.500
0.090
15001250
15
Corn,
field,
oil
0.050000
1.000
0.090
15001251
15
Corn,
field,
oil­
babyfood
0.050000
1.000
0.090
15001260
15
Corn,
pop
0.050000
1.000
0.150
15001270
15
Corn,
sweet
0.050000
1.000
0.030
15001271
15
Corn,
sweet­
babyfood
0.050000
1.000
0.030
80001570
F
Fish­
freshwater
finfish
0.100000
1.000
1.000
80001580
F
Fish­
freshwater
finfish,
farm
ra
0.100000
1.000
1.000
80001610
F
Fish­
shellfish,
crustacean
110­
Uncooked;
Fresh
or
N/
S;
Cook
Meth
N/
S
1.000000
1.000
1.000
210­
Cooked;
Fresh
or
N/
S;
Cook
Meth
N/
S
1.000000
1.000
1.000
211­
Cooked;
Fresh
or
N/
S;
Baked
1.000000
1.000
1.000
212­
Cooked;
Fresh
or
N/
S;
Boiled
1.000000
1.000
1.000
213­
Cooked;
Fresh
or
N/
S;
Fried
1.000000
1.000
1.000
2,4­
D
Dietary
Exposure
Assessment
DP
Barcode:
D287661
PC
Code:
030001
Page:
14
of
23
215­
Cooked;
Fresh
or
N/
S;
Boiled/
baked
1.000000
1.000
1.000
221­
Cooked;
Frozen;
Baked
1.000000
1.000
1.000
230­
Cooked;
Dried;
Cook
Meth
N/
S
1.600000
1.000
1.000
231­
Cooked;
Dried;
Baked
1.600000
1.000
1.000
240­
Cooked;
Canned;
Cook
Meth
N/
S
1.000000
1.000
1.000
242­
Cooked;
Canned;
Boiled
1.000000
1.000
1.000
80001620
F
Fish­
shellfish,
mollusc
110­
Uncooked;
Fresh
or
N/
S;
Cook
Meth
N/
S
1.000000
1.000
1.000
210­
Cooked;
Fresh
or
N/
S;
Cook
Meth
N/
S
1.000000
1.000
1.000
211­
Cooked;
Fresh
or
N/
S;
Baked
1.000000
1.000
1.000
212­
Cooked;
Fresh
or
N/
S;
Boiled
1.000000
1.000
1.000
213­
Cooked;
Fresh
or
N/
S;
Fried
1.000000
1.000
1.000
221­
Cooked;
Frozen;
Baked
1.000000
1.000
1.000
232­
Cooked;
Dried;
Boiled
1.600000
1.000
1.000
240­
Cooked;
Canned;
Cook
Meth
N/
S
1.000000
1.000
1.000
242­
Cooked;
Canned;
Boiled
1.000000
1.000
1.000
250­
Cooked;
Cured
etc;
Cook
Meth
N/
S
1.000000
1.000
1.000
23001690
M
Goat,
meat
0.050000
1.000
1.000
23001700
M
Goat,
meat
byproducts
0.050000
1.000
1.000
23001710
M
Goat,
fat
0.050000
1.000
1.000
23001720
M
Goat,
kidney
0.050000
1.000
1.000
23001730
M
Goat,
liver
0.050000
1.000
1.000
10001800
10
Grapefruit
0.060000
1.000
0.080
10001810
10
Grapefruit,
juice
0.060000
0.120
0.080
24001890
M
Horse,
meat
0.050000
1.000
1.000
10001990
10
Lemon
0.410000
1.000
0.010
10002000
10
Lemon,
juice
0.410000
0.110
0.010
10002001
10
Lemon,
juice­
babyfood
0.410000
0.110
0.010
10002010
10
Lemon,
peel
0.410000
1.000
0.010
27002220
D
Milk,
fat
0.004000
1.000
1.000
27002221
D
Milk,
fat
­
baby
food/
infant
for
0.004000
1.000
1.000
27012230
D
Milk,
nonfat
solids
0.004000
1.000
1.000
27012231
D
Milk,
nonfat
solids­
baby
food/
in
0.004000
1.000
1.000
27022240
D
Milk,
water
0.004000
1.000
1.000
27022241
D
Milk,
water­
babyfood/
infant
form
0.004000
1.000
1.000
27032251
D
Milk,
sugar
(
lactose)­
baby
food/
0.004000
1.000
1.000
15002260
15
Millet,
grain
0.012000
1.000
0.150
15002310
15
Oat,
bran
0.012000
3.600
0.150
15002320
15
Oat,
flour
0.012000
1.000
0.150
15002321
15
Oat,
flour­
babyfood
0.012000
1.000
0.150
15002330
15
Oat,
groats/
rolled
oats
0.012000
1.000
0.150
15002331
15
Oat,
groats/
rolled
oats­
babyfood
0.012000
1.000
0.150
10002400
10
Orange
0.050000
1.000
0.020
10002410
10
Orange,
juice
0.050000
0.100
0.020
10002411
10
Orange,
juice­
babyfood
0.050000
0.100
0.020
10002420
10
Orange,
peel
0.050000
1.000
0.020
15003230
15
Rice,
white
0.500000
1.000
0.130
15003231
15
Rice,
white­
babyfood
0.500000
1.000
0.130
15003240
15
Rice,
brown
0.500000
1.000
0.130
15003241
15
Rice,
brown­
babyfood
0.500000
1.000
0.130
2,4­
D
Dietary
Exposure
Assessment
DP
Barcode:
D287661
PC
Code:
030001
Page:
15
of
23
15003250
15
Rice,
flour
0.500000
1.000
0.130
15003251
15
Rice,
flour­
babyfood
0.500000
1.000
0.130
15003260
15
Rice,
bran
0.500000
1.000
0.130
15003261
15
Rice,
bran­
babyfood
0.500000
1.000
0.130
15003280
15
Rye,
grain
0.012000
1.000
0.160
15003290
15
Rye,
flour
0.012000
0.100
0.160
26003390
M
Sheep,
meat
0.050000
1.000
1.000
26003391
M
Sheep,
meat­
babyfood
0.050000
1.000
1.000
26003400
M
Sheep,
meat
byproducts
0.050000
1.000
1.000
26003410
M
Sheep,
fat
0.050000
1.000
1.000
26003411
M
Sheep,
fat­
babyfood
0.050000
1.000
1.000
26003420
M
Sheep,
kidney
0.050000
1.000
1.000
26003430
M
Sheep,
liver
0.050000
1.000
1.000
15003440
15
Sorghum,
grain
0.200000
1.000
0.130
15003450
15
Sorghum,
syrup
0.200000
1.000
0.130
95003620
O
Sugarcane,
sugar
0.011000
0.350
0.360
95003621
O
Sugarcane,
sugar­
babyfood
0.011000
0.350
0.360
95003630
O
Sugarcane,
molasses
0.011000
7.000
0.360
95003631
O
Sugarcane,
molasses­
babyfood
0.011000
7.000
0.360
10003690
10
Tangerine
0.050000
1.000
0.040
10003700
10
Tangerine,
juice
0.050000
0.130
0.040
15004010
15
Wheat,
grain
0.012000
1.000
0.270
15004011
15
Wheat,
grain­
babyfood
0.012000
1.000
0.270
15004020
15
Wheat,
flour
0.012000
0.100
0.270
15004021
15
Wheat,
flour­
babyfood
0.012000
0.100
0.270
15004030
15
Wheat,
germ
0.012000
0.300
0.270
15004040
15
Wheat,
bran
0.012000
3.600
0.270
15004050
15
Wild
rice
0.050000
1.000
0.080
2,4­
D
Dietary
Exposure
Assessment
DP
Barcode:
D287661
PC
Code:
030001
Page:
16
of
23
Attachment
3.
Chronic
2,4­
D
Output
File.

U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Ver.
1.30
DEEM­
FCID
Chronic
analysis
for
2,4­
D
(
1994­
98
data)
Residue
file
name:
C:\
BHAZEL\
2.4_
D\
DEEMfiles\
Chronic.
RED.
2.4_
D..
R98
Adjustment
factor
#
2
used.
Analysis
Date
01­
07­
2004/
08:
38:
13
Residue
file
dated:
01­
07­
2004/
08:
31:
17/
8
Reference
dose
(
RfD,
Chronic)
=
.005
mg/
kg
bw/
day
COMMENT
1:
Chronic
2,4­
D
RED
run
(
w/
o
DW)
==============================================================================
Total
exposure
by
population
subgroup
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
Total
Exposure
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
Population
mg/
kg
Percent
of
Subgroup
body
wt/
day
Rfd
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
­­­­­­­­­­­­­
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
U.
S.
Population
(
total)
0.000168
3.4%

U.
S.
Population
(
spring
season)
0.000176
3.5%
U.
S.
Population
(
summer
season)
0.000155
3.1%
U.
S.
Population
(
autumn
season)
0.000168
3.4%
U.
S.
Population
(
winter
season)
0.000174
3.5%
Northeast
region
0.000197
3.9%
Midwest
region
0.000148
3.0%
Southern
region
0.000152
3.0%
Western
region
0.000191
3.8%
Hispanics
0.000176
3.5%
Non­
hispanic
whites
0.000158
3.2%
Non­
hispanic
blacks
0.000164
3.3%
Non­
hisp/
non­
white/
non­
black
0.000328
6.6%

All
infants
(<
1
year)
0.000139
2.8%

Nursing
infants
0.000058
1.2%
Non­
nursing
infants
0.000169
3.4%
Children
1­
6
yrs
0.000306
6.1%
Children
7­
12
yrs
0.000206
4.1%
Females
13­
19
(
not
preg
or
nursing)
0.000123
2.5%
Females
20+
(
not
preg
or
nursing)
0.000130
2.6%
Females
13­
50
yrs
0.000143
2.9%
Females
13+
(
preg/
not
nursing)
0.000155
3.1%
Females
13+
(
nursing)
0.000157
3.1%
Males
13­
19
yrs
0.000179
3.6%
Males
20+
yrs
0.000168
3.4%
Seniors
55+
0.000124
2.5%

Children
1­
2
yrs
0.000346
6.9%
Children
3­
5
yrs
0.000295
5.9%
Children
6­
12
yrs
0.000214
4.3%
Youth
13­
19
yrs
0.000151
3.0%
Adults
20­
49
yrs
0.000160
3.2%
Adults
50+
yrs
0.000127
2.5%
Females
13­
49
yrs
0.000137
2.7%
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
2,4­
D
Dietary
Exposure
Assessment
DP
Barcode:
D287661
PC
Code:
030001
Page:
17
of
23
2,4­
D
Dietary
Exposure
Assessment
DP
Barcode:
D287661
PC
Code:
030001
Page:
18
of
23
Attachment
4.
Acute
2,4­
D
Input
File.

U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Ver.
1.33
DEEM­
FCID
Acute
analysis
for
2,4­
D
Residue
file
name:
C:\
BHAZEL\
2.4_
D\
DEEMfiles\
Acute.
RED.
2.4_
D.
R98
Analysis
Date
01­
07­
2004
Residue
file
dated:
01­
07­
2004/
07:
53:
44/
8
Reference
dose:
aRfD
=
0.067
mg/
kg
bw/
day
NOEL
=
67
mg/
kg
bw/
day
Comment:
Acute
DEEM
run
for
2,4­
D
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
EPA
Crop
Def
Res
Adj.
Factors
Comment
Code
Grp
Food
Name
(
ppm)
#
1
#
2
­­­­­­­­
­­­­
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
­­­­­­­­­­
­­­­­­
­­­­­­
95000190
O
Asparagus
5.000000
1.000
1.000
15000250
15
Barley,
pearled
barley
2.000000
1.000
1.000
15000251
15
Barley,
pearled
barley­
babyfood
2.000000
1.000
1.000
15000260
15
Barley,
flour
2.000000
1.000
1.000
15000261
15
Barley,
flour­
babyfood
2.000000
1.000
1.000
15000270
15
Barley,
bran
2.000000
1.000
1.000
21000440
M
Beef,
meat
0.050000
1.000
1.000
21000441
M
Beef,
meat­
babyfood
0.050000
1.000
1.000
21000450
M
Beef,
meat,
dried
0.050000
1.920
1.000
21000460
M
Beef,
meat
byproducts
0.050000
1.000
1.000
21000461
M
Beef,
meat
byproducts­
babyfood
0.050000
1.000
1.000
21000470
M
Beef,
fat
0.050000
1.000
1.000
21000471
M
Beef,
fat­
babyfood
0.050000
1.000
1.000
21000480
M
Beef,
kidney
0.050000
1.000
1.000
21000490
M
Beef,
liver
0.050000
1.000
1.000
21000491
M
Beef,
liver­
babyfood
0.050000
1.000
1.000
15000650
15
Buckwheat
2.000000
1.000
1.000
15000660
15
Buckwheat,
flour
2.000000
1.000
1.000
15001200
15
Corn,
field,
flour
0.050000
1.000
1.000
15001201
15
Corn,
field,
flour­
babyfood
0.050000
1.000
1.000
15001210
15
Corn,
field,
meal
0.050000
1.000
1.000
15001211
15
Corn,
field,
meal­
babyfood
0.050000
1.000
1.000
15001220
15
Corn,
field,
bran
0.050000
1.000
1.000
15001230
15
Corn,
field,
starch
0.050000
1.000
1.000
15001231
15
Corn,
field,
starch­
babyfood
0.050000
1.000
1.000
15001240
15
Corn,
field,
syrup
0.050000
1.500
1.000
15001241
15
Corn,
field,
syrup­
babyfood
0.050000
1.500
1.000
15001250
15
Corn,
field,
oil
0.050000
1.000
1.000
15001251
15
Corn,
field,
oil­
babyfood
0.050000
1.000
1.000
15001260
15
Corn,
pop
0.050000
1.000
1.000
15001270
15
Corn,
sweet
0.050000
1.000
1.000
15001271
15
Corn,
sweet­
babyfood
0.050000
1.000
1.000
80001570
F
Fish­
freshwater
finfish
0.100000
1.000
1.000
80001580
F
Fish­
freshwater
finfish,
farm
ra
0.100000
1.000
1.000
80001610
F
Fish­
shellfish,
crustacean
110­
Uncooked;
Fresh
or
N/
S;
Cook
Meth
N/
S
1.000000
1.000
1.000
210­
Cooked;
Fresh
or
N/
S;
Cook
Meth
N/
S
1.000000
1.000
1.000
211­
Cooked;
Fresh
or
N/
S;
Baked
1.000000
1.000
1.000
212­
Cooked;
Fresh
or
N/
S;
Boiled
1.000000
1.000
1.000
213­
Cooked;
Fresh
or
N/
S;
Fried
2,4­
D
Dietary
Exposure
Assessment
DP
Barcode:
D287661
PC
Code:
030001
Page:
19
of
23
1.000000
1.000
1.000
215­
Cooked;
Fresh
or
N/
S;
Boiled/
baked
1.000000
1.000
1.000
221­
Cooked;
Frozen;
Baked
1.000000
1.000
1.000
230­
Cooked;
Dried;
Cook
Meth
N/
S
1.600000
1.000
1.000
231­
Cooked;
Dried;
Baked
1.600000
1.000
1.000
240­
Cooked;
Canned;
Cook
Meth
N/
S
1.000000
1.000
1.000
242­
Cooked;
Canned;
Boiled
1.000000
1.000
1.000
80001620
F
Fish­
shellfish,
mollusc
110­
Uncooked;
Fresh
or
N/
S;
Cook
Meth
N/
S
1.000000
1.000
1.000
210­
Cooked;
Fresh
or
N/
S;
Cook
Meth
N/
S
1.000000
1.000
1.000
211­
Cooked;
Fresh
or
N/
S;
Baked
1.000000
1.000
1.000
212­
Cooked;
Fresh
or
N/
S;
Boiled
1.000000
1.000
1.000
213­
Cooked;
Fresh
or
N/
S;
Fried
1.000000
1.000
1.000
221­
Cooked;
Frozen;
Baked
1.000000
1.000
1.000
232­
Cooked;
Dried;
Boiled
1.600000
1.000
1.000
240­
Cooked;
Canned;
Cook
Meth
N/
S
1.000000
1.000
1.000
242­
Cooked;
Canned;
Boiled
1.000000
1.000
1.000
250­
Cooked;
Cured
etc;
Cook
Meth
N/
S
1.000000
1.000
1.000
23001690
M
Goat,
meat
0.050000
1.000
1.000
23001700
M
Goat,
meat
byproducts
0.050000
1.000
1.000
23001710
M
Goat,
fat
0.050000
1.000
1.000
23001720
M
Goat,
kidney
0.050000
1.000
1.000
23001730
M
Goat,
liver
0.050000
1.000
1.000
10001800
10
Grapefruit
0.079000
1.000
1.000
10001810
10
Grapefruit,
juice
0.079000
0.120
1.000
24001890
M
Horse,
meat
0.050000
1.000
1.000
10001990
10
Lemon
0.605000
1.000
1.000
10002000
10
Lemon,
juice
0.605000
0.110
1.000
10002001
10
Lemon,
juice­
babyfood
0.605000
1.000
1.000
10002010
10
Lemon,
peel
0.605000
1.000
1.000
27002220
D
Milk,
fat
0.004000
1.000
1.000
27002221
D
Milk,
fat
­
baby
food/
infant
for
0.004000
1.000
1.000
27012230
D
Milk,
nonfat
solids
0.004000
1.000
1.000
27012231
D
Milk,
nonfat
solids­
baby
food/
in
0.004000
1.000
1.000
27022240
D
Milk,
water
0.004000
1.000
1.000
27022241
D
Milk,
water­
babyfood/
infant
form
0.004000
1.000
1.000
27032251
D
Milk,
sugar
(
lactose)­
baby
food/
0.004000
1.000
1.000
15002260
15
Millet,
grain
2.000000
1.000
1.000
15002310
15
Oat,
bran
2.000000
1.000
1.000
15002320
15
Oat,
flour
2.000000
1.000
1.000
15002321
15
Oat,
flour­
babyfood
2.000000
1.000
1.000
15002330
15
Oat,
groats/
rolled
oats
2.000000
1.000
1.000
15002331
15
Oat,
groats/
rolled
oats­
babyfood
2.000000
1.000
1.000
10002400
10
Orange
0.050000
1.000
1.000
10002410
10
Orange,
juice
0.050000
0.100
1.000
10002411
10
Orange,
juice­
babyfood
0.050000
0.100
1.000
10002420
10
Orange,
peel
0.050000
1.000
1.000
15003230
15
Rice,
white
0.500000
1.000
1.000
2,4­
D
Dietary
Exposure
Assessment
DP
Barcode:
D287661
PC
Code:
030001
Page:
20
of
23
15003231
15
Rice,
white­
babyfood
0.500000
1.000
1.000
15003240
15
Rice,
brown
0.500000
1.000
1.000
15003241
15
Rice,
brown­
babyfood
0.500000
1.000
1.000
15003250
15
Rice,
flour
0.500000
1.000
1.000
15003251
15
Rice,
flour­
babyfood
0.500000
1.000
1.000
15003260
15
Rice,
bran
0.500000
1.000
1.000
15003261
15
Rice,
bran­
babyfood
0.500000
1.000
1.000
15003280
15
Rye,
grain
2.000000
1.000
1.000
15003290
15
Rye,
flour
2.000000
1.000
1.000
26003390
M
Sheep,
meat
0.050000
1.000
1.000
26003391
M
Sheep,
meat­
babyfood
0.050000
1.000
1.000
26003400
M
Sheep,
meat
byproducts
0.050000
1.000
1.000
26003410
M
Sheep,
fat
0.050000
1.000
1.000
26003411
M
Sheep,
fat­
babyfood
0.050000
1.000
1.000
26003420
M
Sheep,
kidney
0.050000
1.000
1.000
26003430
M
Sheep,
liver
0.050000
1.000
1.000
15003440
15
Sorghum,
grain
0.200000
1.000
1.000
15003450
15
Sorghum,
syrup
0.200000
1.000
1.000
95003620
O
Sugarcane,
sugar
0.050000
1.000
1.000
95003621
O
Sugarcane,
sugar­
babyfood
0.050000
1.000
1.000
95003630
O
Sugarcane,
molasses
0.200000
1.000
1.000
95003631
O
Sugarcane,
molasses­
babyfood
0.200000
1.000
1.000
10003690
10
Tangerine
0.050000
1.000
1.000
10003700
10
Tangerine,
juice
0.050000
0.130
1.000
15004010
15
Wheat,
grain
2.000000
1.000
1.000
15004011
15
Wheat,
grain­
babyfood
2.000000
1.000
1.000
15004020
15
Wheat,
flour
2.000000
1.000
1.000
15004021
15
Wheat,
flour­
babyfood
2.000000
1.000
1.000
15004030
15
Wheat,
germ
2.000000
1.000
1.000
15004040
15
Wheat,
bran
2.000000
1.000
1.000
15004050
15
Wild
rice
0.050000
1.000
1.000
2,4­
D
Dietary
Exposure
Assessment
DP
Barcode:
D287661
PC
Code:
030001
Page:
21
of
23
Attachment
5.
Acute
2,4­
D
Output
File.

U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Ver.
1.33
DEEM­
FCID
ACUTE
Analysis
for
2,4­
D
(
1994­
98
data)
Residue
file:
Acute.
RED.
2.4_
D.
R98
Adjustment
factor
#
2
NOT
used.
Analysis
Date:
01­
07­
2004/
08:
05:
46
Residue
file
dated:
01­
07­
2004/
07:
53:
44/
8
NOEL
(
Acute)
=
67.000000
mg/
kg
body­
wt/
day
Acute
Pop
Adjusted
Dose
(
aPAD)
varies
with
population;
see
individual
reports
Daily
totals
for
food
and
foodform
consumption
used.
Run
Comment:
"
Acute
DEEM
run
for
2,4­
D
(
w/
o
DW)"
===============================================================================
Summary
calculations
(
per
capita):

95th
Percentile
99th
Percentile
99.9th
Percentile
Exposure
%
aPAD
MOE
Exposure
%
aPAD
MOE
Exposure
%
aPAD
MOE
­­­­­­­­­­
­­­­­­­
­­­­­­­­
­­­­­­­­­­
­­­­­­­
­­­­­­­­
­­­­­­­­­­
­­­­­­­
­­­­­­­­
U.
S.
Population:
0.011710
17.48
5721
0.019118
28.54
3504
0.030303
45.23
2210
All
infants:
0.012766
19.05
5248
0.021943
32.75
3053
0.038072
56.82
1759
Children
1­
2
yrs:
0.022134
33.04
3027
0.030297
45.22
2211
0.053111
79.27
1261
Children
3­
5
yrs:
0.020610
30.76
3250
0.028185
42.07
2377
0.041743
62.30
1605
Children
6­
12
yrs:
0.014632
21.84
4579
0.021236
31.70
3155
0.030377
45.34
2205
Youth
13­
19
yrs:
0.009140
13.64
7330
0.013285
19.83
5043
0.021434
31.99
3125
Adults
20­
49
yrs:
0.008645
12.90
7750
0.013869
20.70
4831
0.023913
35.69
2801
Adults
50+
yrs:
0.006563
9.80
10208
0.010566
15.77
6341
0.020917
31.22
3203
Females
13­
49
yrs:
0.007675
30.70
8729
0.011435
45.74
5859
0.023670
94.68
2830
===============================================================================
2,4­
D
Dietary
Exposure
Assessment
DP
Barcode:
D287661
PC
Code:
030001
Page:
22
of
23
Attachment
6.
Chronic
2,4­
D
Input
File
(
drinking
water
only).

U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Ver.
1.30
DEEM­
FCID
Chronic
analysis
for
2,4­
D
1994­
98
data
Residue
file:
C:\
BHAZEL\
2.4_
D\
DEEMfiles\
Chronic.
RED.
2.4_
D.
DWonly.
R98
Adjust.
#
2
NOT
used
Analysis
Date
01­
07­
2004
Residue
file
dated:
01­
07­
2004/
09:
05:
54/
8
Reference
dose
(
RfD)
=
0.005
mg/
kg
bw/
day
Comment:
2,4­
D
RED
DEEM­
FCIDII
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
Food
Crop
Residue
Adj.
Factors
Comment
EPA
Code
Grp
Food
Name
(
ppm)
#
1
#
2
­­­­­­­­
­­­­
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
­­­­­­­­­­
­­­­­­
­­­­­­
86010000
O
Water,
direct,
all
sources
0.015000
1.000
1.000
86020000
O
Water,
indirect,
all
sources
0.015000
1.000
1.000
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
2,4­
D
Dietary
Exposure
Assessment
DP
Barcode:
D287661
PC
Code:
030001
Page:
23
of
23
Attachment
7.
Chronic
2,4­
D
Output
File
(
drinking
water
only).

U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Ver.
1.30
DEEM­
FCID
Chronic
analysis
for
2,4­
D
(
1994­
98
data)
Residue
file
name:
C:\
BHAZEL\
2.4_
D\
DEEMfiles\
Chronic.
RED.
2.4_
D.
DWonly.
R98
Adjustment
factor
#
2
NOT
used.
Analysis
Date
01­
07­
2004/
09:
08:
26
Residue
file
dated:
01­
07­
2004/
09:
05:
54/
8
Reference
dose
(
RfD,
Chronic)
=
0.005
mg/
kg
bw/
day
COMMENT
1:
2,4­
D
RED
chronic
DW
only
(
15
ppb
GW)
==============================================================================
Total
exposure
by
population
subgroup
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
Total
Exposure
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
Population
mg/
kg
Percent
of
Subgroup
body
wt/
day
Rfd
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
­­­­­­­­­­­­­
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
U.
S.
Population
(
total)
0.000316
6.3%

U.
S.
Population
(
spring
season)
0.000313
6.3%
U.
S.
Population
(
summer
season)
0.000340
6.8%
U.
S.
Population
(
autumn
season)
0.000306
6.1%
U.
S.
Population
(
winter
season)
0.000306
6.1%
Northeast
region
0.000288
5.8%
Midwest
region
0.000320
6.4%
Southern
region
0.000301
6.0%
Western
region
0.000362
7.2%
Hispanics
0.000359
7.2%
Non­
hispanic
whites
0.000308
6.2%
Non­
hispanic
blacks
0.000300
6.0%
Non­
hisp/
non­
white/
non­
black
0.000388
7.8%

All
infants
(<
1
year)
0.001037
20.7%
Nursing
infants
0.000384
7.7%
Non­
nursing
infants
0.001284
25.7%
Children
1­
6
yrs
0.000442
8.8%
Children
7­
12
yrs
0.000287
5.7%
Females
13­
19
(
not
preg
or
nursing)
0.000222
4.4%
Females
20+
(
not
preg
or
nursing)
0.000316
6.3%
Females
13­
50
yrs
0.000306
6.1%
Females
13+
(
preg/
not
nursing)
0.000307
6.1%
Females
13+
(
nursing)
0.000438
8.8%
Males
13­
19
yrs
0.000233
4.7%
Males
20+
yrs
0.000283
5.7%
Seniors
55+
0.000310
6.2%

Children
1­
2
yrs
0.000469
9.4%
Children
3­
5
yrs
0.000440
8.8%
Children
6­
12
yrs
0.000303
6.1%
Youth
13­
19
yrs
0.000229
4.6%
Adults
20­
49
yrs
0.000295
5.9%
Adults
50+
yrs
0.000311
6.2%
Females
13­
49
yrs
0.000294
5.9%
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
