Terbacil
Dietary
Exposure
Assessment
DP
Number:
D324644
PC
Code:
012701
Page:
1
of
10
UNITED
STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
WASHINGTON,
D.
C.
20460
OFFICE
OF
PREVENTION,
PESTICIDES
AND
TOXIC
SUBSTANCES
MEMORANDUM
Date:
21­
December­
2005
Subject:
Terbacil
­
Chronic
Dietary
Exposure
Assessments.
PC
Code:
012701.
DP
Barcode:
D324644.
Registration:
3E6640.
Decision:
354086
From/
To:
Tom
Bloem,
Chemist
Registration
Action
Branch
1/
Health
Effects
Division
(
RAB1/
HED;
7509C)

Through:
Sheila
Piper,
Chemist
Christina
Swartz,
RAB2
Branch
Chief
Dietary
Exposure
Science
Advisory
Committee
(
DESAC)
Secondary
Review
PV
Shah,
Ph.
D.,
RAB1
Branch
Senior
Scientist
RAB1/
HED
(
7509C)

Executive
Summary
Chronic
dietary
risk
assessments
were
conducted
using
the
Dietary
Exposure
Evaluation
Model
­
Food
Consumption
Intake
Database
(
DEEM­
FCID
 
,
ver.
2.03)
model.
The
DEEM­
FCID
incorporates
consumption
data
from
the
United
States
Department
of
Agriculture
(
USDA)
Continuing
Surveys
of
Food
Intakes
by
Individuals
(
CSFII;
1994­
1996
and
1998).
The
chronic
dietary
analysis
incorporated
tolerance
level
residues,
100%
crop
treated,
and
DEEM
(
ver
7.81)
default
processing
factors
for
all
registered/
proposed
crops.
The
SCI­
GROW
(
Screening
Concentration
in
Ground
Water)
modeled
water
estimate
was
assumed
for
all
water
sources
(
direct
and
indirect).
Although
rotational
crop
tolerances
are
not
currently
established,
based
on
the
available
field
rotational
crop
data
and
application
rates,
residues
in/
on
crops
rotated
into
alfalfa,
sugarcane,
and
mint
fields
which
were
treated
with
terbacil
are
possible
(
alfalfa,
sugarcane,
and
mint
are
registered
crops).
Therefore,
the
analysis
incorporated
conservative
residue
estimates
for
cereal
grains
and
soybean
(
crops
which
are
commonly
rotated
with
alfalfa,
sugarcane,
and
mint).
The
chronic
dietary
exposure
estimates
were
#
99%
the
cPAD
and
are
therefore
less
than
HED's
level
of
concern
(
all
infants
<
1­
year
were
the
most
highly
exposed
population
subgroup).

HED
notes
that
the
assessment
assumes,
based
on
cultural
practices,
that
only
cereal
grains
and
soybean
are
rotated
into
alfalfa,
sugar
cane,
and
mint
fields
while
the
registered
application
scenario
for
these
crops
permits
the
rotation
of
any
crop.
When
the
residue
estimates
used
to
generate
the
dietary
exposure
estimates
are
taken
in
total
(
SCI­
GROW
drinking
water
estimates;
tolerance
level
residue,
and
100%
crop
treated
for
all
registered/
proposed
crops),
HED
concludes
that
exposure
to
terbacil
is
likely
to
be
significantly
lower
than
the
estimates
provided
in
this
document.
Terbacil
Dietary
Exposure
Assessment
DP
Number:
D324644
PC
Code:
012701
Page:
2
of
10
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
which
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
Food
Quality
Protection
Act
(
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
which
discuss
the
acute
and
chronic
risk
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
SOP
99.6
(
8/
20/
99).

The
most
recent
dietary
risk
assessment
for
terbacil
was
conducted
as
part
of
the
HED
Reregistration
Eligibility
Decision
(
RED)
Document
(
J.
Arthur,
7­
July­
1997).

II.
Residue
Information
Residues
of
Concern
in
Plants
and
Livestock:
Table
1
is
a
summary
of
the
residues
of
concern
in
plants,
livestock,
rotational
crops,
and
drinking
water
for
tolerances
expression
and/
or
risk
assessment
(
see
attachment
1
for
structures;
see
risk
assessment
for
rationale
­
D313756
(
in
draft)).

Table
1.
Residues
for
Tolerance
Expression
and
Risk
Assessment
Matrix
Residues
included
for
Risk
Assessment
Residues
included
in
the
Tolerance
Expression
Plants
terbacil
and
metabolites
A,
B,
and
C
terbacil
and
metabolites
A,
B,
and
C
Livestock
terbacil
and
metabolites
A,
B,
and
C
terbacil
and
metabolites
A,
B,
and
C
Rotational
Crops
terbacil;
metabolites
A,
B,
and
C;
and
3­
tert­
butyl­
6­
methyluracil
terbacil;
metabolites
A,
B,
and
C;
and
3­
tert­
butyl­
6­
methyluracil
Drinking
Water
terbacil
and
the
following
photodegradates:
(
1)
5­
chloro­
6­
methyluracil;
(
2)
3­
tert­
butyl­
6­
methyluracil,
and
(
3)
6­
chloro­
2,3­
dihydro­
3,3,7­
trimethyl­
5H
oxazolo
(
3,2­
a)­
pyrimidine­
5­
one
not
applicable
Established/
Recommended
Tolerances:
Tolerances
are
currently­
established
for
the
combined
residues
of
terbacil
and
its
metabolites
3­
tert­
butyl­
5­
chloro­
6­
hydroxymethyluracil
(
metabolite
A),
6­
chloro­
2,3­
dihydro­
7­
hydroxymethyl
3,3­
dimethyl­
5H­
oxazolo
(
3,2­
a)
pyrimidin­
5­
one
(
metabolite
B),
and
6­
chloro­
2,3­
dihydro­
3,3,7­
trimethyl­
5H­
oxazolo
(
3,2­
a)
pyrimidin­
5­
one
(
metabolite
C),
calculated
as
terbacil,
in/
on
alfalfa,
apple,
asparagus,
blueberry,
caneberry,
peach,
peppermint,
spearmint,
strawberry,
and
sugarcane
ranging
from
0.1­
2.0
ppm
(
40
CFR
180.209).
A
time
limited
tolerance
in/
on
watermelon
is
also
established
at
0.4
ppm
(
expires
30­
Jun­
2007;
Section
18
registration).
Tolerances
in/
on
livestock
are
not
currently
established.

The
petitioner
is
proposing
a
Section
3
registration
for
application
of
terbacil
to
watermelon.
HED
has
reviewed
the
data
associated
with
this
petition
and
recommended
for
the
establishment
of
a
tolerance
of
1.0
ppm
for
the
combined
residues
of
terbacil
and
metabolites
A,
B,
and
C
in/
on
Terbacil
Dietary
Exposure
Assessment
DP
Number:
D324644
PC
Code:
012701
Page:
3
of
10
watermelon
(
see
residue
chemistry
summary
document
­
D313911
(
in
draft)).
Plant
Residues
Used
in
the
Chronic
Dietary
Risk
Assessment:
The
chronic
dietary
analyses
incorporated
tolerance
level
residues,
100%
crop
treated,
and
DEEM
(
ver
7.81)
default
processing
factors
for
all
proposed/
registered
commodities
(
acute
and
cancer
assessments
are
unnecessary).

Of
the
registered/
proposed
crops,
alfalfa
(
2
x
1.2
lb
ai/
acre),
mint
(
2
x
1.2
lb
ai/
acre),
strawberry
(
1
x
0.3
lb
ai/
acre),
sugar
cane
(
1
x
3.2
lb
ai/
acre),
and
watermelon
(
1
x
0.15
lb
ai/
acre)
are
crops
which
are
rotated
(
application
rates
for
the
registered
crops
attained
from
the
HED
RED
(
D.
Miller,
18­
Dec­
1996)).
Currently,
there
are
no
rotational
crop
tolerances;
however,
based
on
the
available
field
rotational
crop
data
(
MRIDs
43221501
and
00011948;
see
below
for
a
summary),
residues
in/
on
crops
rotated
into
alfalfa,
mint,
and
sugar
cane
fields
which
were
treated
with
terbacil
are
possible.
Based
on
the
available
field
rotational
crop
data,
the
dietary
analysis
assumed
a
residue
of
1.0
ppm
for
cereal
grains
and
soybean
(
these
crops
are
commonly
rotated
into
alfalfa,
mint,
and
sugarcane
fields;
D212427,
D.
Miller,
12­
Dec­
1996
and
communication
from
B.
Schneider).
Based
on
the
tolerances
for
the
primary
crops
(
0.1­
2.0
ppm),
HED
anticipates
that
the
1.0
ppm
residue
estimate
is
conservative.

In
order
to
further
refine
the
analysis,
HED
incorporated
percent
crop
treated
estimates
of
43%
for
field
corn,
46%
for
soybean,
and
44%
for
wheat.
These
estimates
were
based
on
the
acreage
estimates
(
see
page
75
of
OPPTS
860.1500)
for
field
corn
(
63,300,000
acres),
soybean
(
59,200,000
acres),
and
wheat
(
61,700,000
acres)
as
compared
to
the
combined
acreage
for
alfalfa,
sugar
cane,
and
mint
(
26,952,000
acres).
Since
the
combined
alfalfa,
sugar
cane,
and
mint
acreage
is
43%
of
the
field
corn
acreage,
no
more
than
43%
of
the
field
corn
will
have
terbacil
residues
(
same
rationale
for
soybean
and
wheat).

MRID
43221501
(
HED
RED,
D.
Miller,
18­
Dec­
1996)
presented
data
concerning
the
magnitude
of
terbacil
and
metabolites
A,
B,
and
C
in/
on
beet
(
root
and
tops),
wheat,
and
lettuce
following
a
bare
soil
application
at
5.0
lb
ai/
acre
(
1.6­
2.1x
the
alfalfa,
mint
and
sugar
cane
application
rate)
and
a
2­
year
plant­
back
interval
(
PBI;
2­
year
PBI
is
specified
for
these
crops).
Due
to
phytotoxicity,
neither
immature
nor
mature
wheat
and
lettuce
plants
could
be
harvested
for
residue
analysis.
Phytotoxicity
was
also
observed
for
beets
with
severe
reduction
in
harvest
yield
noted
and
only
small
samples
of
immature
and
mature
beets
harvested.
Terbacil
residues
were
0.19
ppm
in/
on
immature
beet
(
whole
plant),
0.07
ppm
in/
on
mature
beet
top,
and
<
0.05
ppm
in/
on
mature
beet
root.
Metabolites
A,
B,
and
C
were
<
0.05
ppm
in/
on
all
mature
and
immature
beet
samples.

MRID
00011948
(
EFED
review,
23­
July­
1981)
presented
data
concerning
the
magnitude
of
terbacil
and
metabolite
A
in/
on
beet
(
root
and
tops),
sunflower
(
seed),
and
cabbage
following
ten
annual
applications
of
terbacil
at
1.0
lb
ai/
acre
(
10­
month
and
PBI;
silt
loam
soil;
0.3­
0.4x
the
alfalfa,
mint
and
sugar
cane
application
rate)
and
three
annual
applications
of
terbacil
at
1.0­
2.0
lb
ai/
acre
(
2­
year
PBI;
muck
soil;
2.0
lb
ai/
acre
the
1st
year
and
1.0
lb
ai/
acre
for
the
2nd
and
3rd
years;
0.3­
0.4x
the
alfalfa,
mint
and
sugar
cane).
Residues
of
terbacil
and
metabolite
A
were
<
LOQ
in/
on
all
samples
excluding
cabbage
grown
in
muck
(
2­
year
PBI)
where
terbacil
residues
of
0.18
ppm
were
found.
Terbacil
Dietary
Exposure
Assessment
DP
Number:
D324644
PC
Code:
012701
Page:
4
of
10
Water
Residues
Used
in
the
Chronic
Dietary
Risk
Assessments:
Surface
and
ground
estimated
drinking
water
concentrations
were
generated
using
the
Pesticide
Root
Zone
Model­
Exposure
Analysis
Modeling
System
(
PRZM­
EXAMS)
and
SCI­
GROW
models,
respectively
(
screening
level
assessment;
EFED
document
­
D313755,
I.
Abdel­
Saheb,
20­
Dec­
2005).
The
models
were
run
assuming
a
single
application
at
3
lb
ai/
acre
(
highest
registered/
proposed
rate).
The
SCI­
GROW
model
resulted
in
a
point
estimate
of
111
ppb
and
PRZM­
EXAMS
resulted
in
a
1
in
10
year
annual
mean
concentration
of
25.4
ppb
for
the
drinking
water
residues
of
concern.
Therefore,
the
chronic
analysis
assumed
a
point
drinking
water
estimate
of
111
ppb.

III
Program
and
Consumption
Information
Chronic
dietary
exposure
assessments
were
conducted
using
the
DEEM­
FCID
 
(
Ver.
2.03),
which
incorporates
consumption
data
from
USDA's
CSFII
(
1994­
1996
and
1998).
The
1994­
96,
98
data
are
based
on
the
reported
consumption
of
more
than
20,000
individuals
over
two
nonconsecutive
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.
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.
Terbacil
Dietary
Exposure
Assessment
DP
Number:
D324644
PC
Code:
012701
Page:
5
of
10
IV.
Toxicological
Information
Table
3
is
a
summary
of
the
endpoints
chosen
for
human
health
dietary
risk
assessment;
the
Food
Quality
Protection
Act
Safety
Factor
(
FQPA
SF)
was
reduced
to
1x
based
on
the
following
considerations
(
see
risk
assessment
for
rationale
­
D313756
(
in
draft)):
(
1)
there
are
no
concerns
for
increased
susceptibility
for
infants
and
children,
(
2)
there
are
well
established
NOAELs
and
LOAELs
in
the
developmental
and
reproduction
studies,
(
3)
the
environmental
fate
database
is
adequate,
and
(
4)
the
conservative
residue
assumptions
used
in
this
assessment.

Table
3.
Summary
of
Toxicological
Dose
and
Endpoints
for
Terbacil
Dietary
Exposure
Assessment
Exposure
Scenario
Dose
Used
in
Risk
Assessment,
UF
FQPA
SF*
and
Endpoint
for
Risk
Assessment
Study
and
Toxicological
Effects
Acute
Dietary
­
General
Population
(
including
infants
and
children)
aRfD
=
Not
established.
An
appropriate
endpoint
attributable
to
a
single
dose
was
not
identified.

Chronic
Dietary
(
All
populations)
NOAEL=
1.4
mg/
kg/
day
UF
=
100
cRfD
=
0.014
mg/
kg/
day
FQPA
SF
=
1x
cPAD
=
chronic
RfD
÷
FQPA
SF
=
0.014
mg/
kg/
day
Combined
Chronic
Toxicity/
Carcinogenicityrat
LOAEL
=
83
mg/
kg/
day,
based
on
decreased
body
weight
and
body
weight
gain
in
females.

Cancer
Classification:
Not
likely
to
be
carcinogenic
to
humans;
cancer
risk
assessment
is
not
required
V.
Results/
Discussion
The
chronic
dietary
exposure
estimates
were
#
99%
the
cPAD
and
are
therefore
less
than
HED's
level
of
concern
(
all
infants
children
<
1
years
old
were
the
most
highly
exposed
population
subgroup).
Table
4
is
a
summary
of
the
chronic
dietary
exposure
analyses
(
acute
and
cancer
exposure
assessments
are
unnecessary).

Table
4.
Summary
of
Chronic
Dietary
Exposure
and
Risk
for
Terbacil
(
drinking
water
included)

Population
Subgroup
Chronic
cPAD
(
mg/
kg/
day)
Exposure
(
mg/
kg/
day)
%
aPAD
General
U.
S.
Population
0.01
0.005584
40
All
Infants
(<
1
year
old)
0.013823
99
Children
1­
2
years
old
0.013161
94
Children
3­
5
years
old
0.011751
84
Children
6­
12
years
old
0.007500
54
Youth
13­
19
years
old
0.004892
35
Adults
20­
49
years
old
0.004650
33
Adults
50+
years
old
0.004184
30
Females
13­
49
years
old
0.004510
32
Terbacil
Dietary
Exposure
Assessment
DP
Number:
D324644
PC
Code:
012701
Page:
6
of
10
VI.
Characterization
of
Inputs/
Outputs
The
chronic
dietary
analysis
incorporated
tolerance
level
residues,
100%
crop
treated,
and
DEEM
(
ver
7.81)
default
processing
factors
for
all
proposed/
registered
commodities
(
acute
and
cancer
assessments
are
unnecessary).
The
chronic
analysis
also
assumed
the
tier
1
SCI­
GROW
screening
level
terbacil
ground
water
concentration
for
all
water
sources
(
direct
and
indirect).
The
ground
water
estimate
was
generated
using
the
highest
registered/
proposed
application
rate.

Currently,
there
are
no
rotational
crop
tolerances;
however,
based
on
the
available
field
rotational
crop
data,
residues
in/
on
crops
rotated
into
alfalfa,
mint,
and
sugar
cane
fields
which
were
treated
with
terbacil
are
possible
(
these
are
registered
crops).
Based
on
the
available
field
rotational
crop
data,
the
dietary
analysis
assumed
a
residue
of
1.0
ppm
for
cereal
grains
and
soybean
(
these
crops
are
commonly
rotated
into
alfalfa,
mint,
and
sugarcane
fields;
D212427,
D.
Miller,
12­
Dec­
1996
and
communication
from
B.
Schneider).
Based
on
the
tolerances
for
the
primary
crops
(
0.1­
2.0
ppm),
HED
anticipates
that
the
1.0
ppm
residue
estimate
is
conservative.
HED
notes
that
the
assessment
assumes,
based
on
cultural
practices,
that
only
cereal
grains
and
soybean
are
rotated
into
alfalfa,
sugar
cane,
and
mint
fields.
The
registered
application
scenario
for
these
crops
permits
the
rotation
of
any
crop
into
alfalfa,
sugar
cane,
and
mint
fields.

HED
concludes
that
when
the
analysis
is
taken
in
total,
the
dietary
exposure
estimates
provided
in
this
document
are
unlikely
to
underestimate
exposure
to
terbacil.
HED
notes
that
the
analysis
resulted
in
exposure
estimates
for
non­
nursing
infants
of
120%
cPAD
(
HED
does
not
generally
report
the
results
for
this
subgroup
due
to
insufficient
sampling
in
the
CSFII).
HED
anticipates
that
if
a
refined
dietary
exposure
analysis
were
conducted
(
i.
e.
analysis
incorporated
percent
crop
treated
estimates,
drinking
water
monitoring
data,
and
average
field
trial
or
market
basket
residue
data),
dietary
exposure
estimates
for
all
of
populations,
including
non­
nursing
infants,
would
be
significantly
lower.

VII.
Conclusions
The
DEEM­
FCID
(
ver
2.03)
chronic
exposure
estimates
are
less
than
HED's
level
of
concern
(
drinking
water
estimates
were
incorporated).

VIII.
List
of
Attachments
Attachment
1:
DEEM­
FCID
 
chronic
exposure
estimates
Attachment
2:
DEEM­
FCID
 
chronic
residue
file
Attachment
3:
chemical
structures
T.
Bloem:
806R:
CM#
2:(
703)
605­
0217:
7590C
Terbacil
Dietary
Exposure
Assessment
DP
Number:
D324644
PC
Code:
012701
Page:
7
of
10
Attachment
1:
DEEM­
FCID
 
chronic
exposure
estimates
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Ver.
2.00
DEEM­
FCID
Chronic
analysis
for
TERBACIL
(
1994­
98
data)
Residue
file
name:
C:\
bloem\
terbacil\
012701c.
R98
Adjustment
factor
#
2
used.
Analysis
Date
02­
07­
2006/
15:
06:
29
Residue
file
dated:
02­
07­
2006/
15:
05:
08/
8
Reference
dose
(
RfD,
Chronic)
=
.014
mg/
kg
bw/
day
COMMENT
1:
acute
&
cancer
assessments
are
unecessary;
cPAD
=
0.014,
1x
FQPA
SF
===============================================================================
Total
exposure
by
population
subgroup
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

Total
Exposure
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
Population
mg/
kg
Percent
of
Subgroup
body
wt/
day
Rfd
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
­­­­­­­­­­­­­
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
U.
S.
Population
(
total)
0.005584
39.9%

U.
S.
Population
(
spring
season)
0.005673
40.5%
U.
S.
Population
(
summer
season)
0.005984
42.7%
U.
S.
Population
(
autumn
season)
0.005356
38.3%
U.
S.
Population
(
winter
season)
0.005317
38.0%

Northeast
region
0.005443
38.9%
Midwest
region
0.005705
40.8%
Southern
region
0.005236
37.4%
Western
region
0.006132
43.8%

Hispanics
0.006273
44.8%
Non­
hispanic
whites
0.005388
38.5%
Non­
hispanic
blacks
0.005533
39.5%
Non­
hisp/
non­
white/
non­
black
0.007306
52.2%

All
infants
(<
1
year)
0.013823
98.7%
Nursing
infants
0.005954
42.5%
Non­
nursing
infants
0.016809
120.1%
Children
1­
6
yrs
0.011903
85.0%
Children
7­
12
yrs
0.007079
50.6%

Females
13­
19
(
not
preg
or
nursing)
0.004455
31.8%
Females
20+
(
not
preg
or
nursing)
0.004361
31.1%
Females
13­
50
yrs
0.004793
34.2%
Females
13+
(
preg/
not
nursing)
0.004936
35.3%
Females
13+
(
nursing)
0.006202
44.3%

Males
13­
19
yrs
0.005302
37.9%
Males
20+
yrs
0.004579
32.7%
Seniors
55+
0.004148
29.6%

Children
1­
2
yrs
0.013161
94.0%
Children
3­
5
yrs
0.011751
83.9%
Children
6­
12
yrs
0.007500
53.6%
Youth
13­
19
yrs
0.004892
34.9%
Adults
20­
49
yrs
0.004650
33.2%
Adults
50+
yrs
0.004184
29.9%
Females
13­
49
yrs
0.004510
32.2%

­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
Terbacil
Dietary
Exposure
Assessment
DP
Number:
D324644
PC
Code:
012701
Page:
8
of
10
Attachment
2:
DEEM­
FCID
 
chronic
residue
file
Filename:
C:\
bloem\
terbacil\
012701c.
R98
Chemical:
terbacil
RfD(
Chronic):
.014
mg/
kg
bw/
day
NOEL(
Chronic):
1.4
mg/
kg
bw/
day
RfD(
Acute):
0
mg/
kg
bw/
day
NOEL(
Acute):
0
mg/
kg
bw/
day
Date
created/
last
modified:
02­
02­
2006/
15:
21:
07/
8
Program
ver.
2.03
Comment:
acute
&
cancer
assessments
are
unecessary;
cPAD
=
0.014,
1x
FQPA
SF
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
EPA
Crop
Def
Res
Adj.
Factors
Comment
Code
Grp
Commodity
Name
(
ppm)
#
1
#
2
­­­­­­­­
­­­­
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
­­­­­­­­­­
­­­­­­
­­­­­­
­­­­­­­
95000190
O
Asparagus
0.400000
1.000
1.000
95002750
O
Peppermint
2.000000
1.000
1.000
95002760
O
Peppermint,
oil
2.000000
1.000
1.000
95003520
O
Spearmint
2.000000
1.000
1.000
95003530
O
Spearmint,
oil
2.000000
1.000
1.000
95003590
O
Strawberry
0.100000
1.000
1.000
95003591
O
Strawberry­
babyfood
0.100000
1.000
1.000
95003600
O
Strawberry,
juice
0.100000
1.000
1.000
95003601
O
Strawberry,
juice­
babyfood
0.100000
1.000
1.000
95003620
O
Sugarcane,
sugar
0.400000
1.000
1.000
95003621
O
Sugarcane,
sugar­
babyfood
0.400000
1.000
1.000
95003630
O
Sugarcane,
molasses
0.400000
1.000
1.000
95003631
O
Sugarcane,
molasses­
babyfood
0.400000
1.000
1.000
86010000
O
Water,
direct,
all
sources
0.111000
1.000
1.000
86020000
O
Water,
indirect,
all
sources
0.111000
1.000
1.000
06003470
6
Soybean,
seed
1.000000
1.000
0.460
06003480
6
Soybean,
flour
1.000000
1.000
0.460
06003481
6
Soybean,
flour­
babyfood
1.000000
1.000
0.460
06003490
6
Soybean,
soy
milk
1.000000
1.000
0.460
06003491
6
Soybean,
soy
milk­
babyfood
or
in
1.000000
1.000
0.460
06003500
6
Soybean,
oil
1.000000
1.000
0.460
06003501
6
Soybean,
oil­
babyfood
1.000000
1.000
0.460
09013990
9A
Watermelon
1.000000
1.000
1.000
09014000
9A
Watermelon,
juice
1.000000
1.000
1.000
11000070
11
Apple,
fruit
with
peel
0.300000
1.000
1.000
11000080
11
Apple,
peeled
fruit
0.300000
1.000
1.000
11000081
11
Apple,
peeled
fruit­
babyfood
0.300000
1.000
1.000
11000090
11
Apple,
dried
0.300000
8.000
1.000
11000091
11
Apple,
dried­
babyfood
0.300000
8.000
1.000
11000100
11
Apple,
juice
0.300000
1.300
1.000
11000101
11
Apple,
juice­
babyfood
0.300000
1.300
1.000
11000110
11
Apple,
sauce
0.300000
1.000
1.000
11000111
11
Apple,
sauce­
babyfood
0.300000
1.000
1.000
12002600
12
Peach
0.200000
1.000
1.000
12002601
12
Peach­
babyfood
0.200000
1.000
1.000
12002610
12
Peach,
dried
0.200000
7.000
1.000
12002611
12
Peach,
dried­
babyfood
0.200000
7.000
1.000
12002620
12
Peach,
juice
0.200000
1.000
1.000
12002621
12
Peach,
juice­
babyfood
0.200000
1.000
1.000
13010550
13A
Blackberry
0.200000
1.000
1.000
13010560
13A
Blackberry,
juice
0.200000
1.000
1.000
13010561
13A
Blackberry,
juice­
babyfood
0.200000
1.000
1.000
13020570
13B
Blueberry
0.200000
1.000
1.000
13020571
13B
Blueberry­
babyfood
0.200000
1.000
1.000
13010580
13A
Boysenberry
0.200000
1.000
1.000
13011420
13A
Dewberry
0.200000
1.000
1.000
13012080
13A
Loganberry
0.200000
1.000
1.000
13013200
13A
Raspberry
0.200000
1.000
1.000
13013201
13A
Raspberry­
babyfood
0.200000
1.000
1.000
13013210
13A
Raspberry,
juice
0.200000
1.000
1.000
13013211
13A
Raspberry,
juice­
babyfood
0.200000
1.000
1.000
15000250
15
Barley,
pearled
barley
1.000000
1.000
1.000
15000251
15
Barley,
pearled
barley­
babyfood
1.000000
1.000
1.000
15000260
15
Barley,
flour
1.000000
1.000
1.000
15000261
15
Barley,
flour­
babyfood
1.000000
1.000
1.000
15000270
15
Barley,
bran
1.000000
1.000
1.000
15000650
15
Buckwheat
1.000000
1.000
1.000
Terbacil
Dietary
Exposure
Assessment
DP
Number:
D324644
PC
Code:
012701
Page:
9
of
10
15000660
15
Buckwheat,
flour
1.000000
1.000
1.000
15001200
15
Corn,
field,
flour
1.000000
1.000
0.430
15001201
15
Corn,
field,
flour­
babyfood
1.000000
1.000
0.430
15001210
15
Corn,
field,
meal
1.000000
1.000
0.430
15001211
15
Corn,
field,
meal­
babyfood
1.000000
1.000
0.430
15001220
15
Corn,
field,
bran
1.000000
1.000
0.430
15001230
15
Corn,
field,
starch
1.000000
1.000
0.430
15001231
15
Corn,
field,
starch­
babyfood
1.000000
1.000
0.430
15001240
15
Corn,
field,
syrup
1.000000
1.500
0.430
15001241
15
Corn,
field,
syrup­
babyfood
1.000000
1.500
0.430
15001250
15
Corn,
field,
oil
1.000000
1.000
0.430
15001251
15
Corn,
field,
oil­
babyfood
1.000000
1.000
0.430
15001260
15
Corn,
pop
1.000000
1.000
1.000
15001270
15
Corn,
sweet
1.000000
1.000
1.000
15001271
15
Corn,
sweet­
babyfood
1.000000
1.000
1.000
15002260
15
Millet,
grain
1.000000
1.000
1.000
15002310
15
Oat,
bran
1.000000
1.000
1.000
15002320
15
Oat,
flour
1.000000
1.000
1.000
15002321
15
Oat,
flour­
babyfood
1.000000
1.000
1.000
15002330
15
Oat,
groats/
rolled
oats
1.000000
1.000
1.000
15002331
15
Oat,
groats/
rolled
oats­
babyfood
1.000000
1.000
1.000
15003230
15
Rice,
white
1.000000
1.000
1.000
15003231
15
Rice,
white­
babyfood
1.000000
1.000
1.000
15003240
15
Rice,
brown
1.000000
1.000
1.000
15003241
15
Rice,
brown­
babyfood
1.000000
1.000
1.000
15003250
15
Rice,
flour
1.000000
1.000
1.000
15003251
15
Rice,
flour­
babyfood
1.000000
1.000
1.000
15003260
15
Rice,
bran
1.000000
1.000
1.000
15003261
15
Rice,
bran­
babyfood
1.000000
1.000
1.000
15003280
15
Rye,
grain
1.000000
1.000
1.000
15003290
15
Rye,
flour
1.000000
1.000
1.000
15003440
15
Sorghum,
grain
1.000000
1.000
1.000
15003450
15
Sorghum,
syrup
1.000000
1.000
1.000
15003810
15
Triticale,
flour
1.000000
1.000
1.000
15003811
15
Triticale,
flour­
babyfood
1.000000
1.000
1.000
15004010
15
Wheat,
grain
1.000000
1.000
0.440
15004011
15
Wheat,
grain­
babyfood
1.000000
1.000
0.440
15004020
15
Wheat,
flour
1.000000
1.000
0.440
15004021
15
Wheat,
flour­
babyfood
1.000000
1.000
0.440
15004030
15
Wheat,
germ
1.000000
1.000
0.440
15004040
15
Wheat,
bran
1.000000
1.000
0.440
15004050
15
Wild
rice
1.000000
1.000
0.440
Terbacil
Dietary
Exposure
Assessment
DP
Number:
D324644
PC
Code:
012701
Page:
10
of
10
N
HN
O
C(
CH3)
3
O
Cl
H3C
N
HN
O
C(
CH3)
3
O
Cl
HOH2C
N
N
O
Cl
HOH2C
O
H3C
CH3
N
N
O
Cl
H3C
O
H3C
CH3
Attachment
3:
chemical
structures
Name
Structure
terbacil
3­
tert­
butyl­
5­
chloro­
6­
methyluracil
5­
chloro­
3­(
1,1­
dimethylethyl)­
6­
methyl­
2,4(
1H,
3H)­
pyrimidinedi
one
metabolite
A
3­
tert­
butyl­
5­
chloro­
6­
hydroxymethyluracil
metabolite
B
6­
chloro­
2,3­
dihydro­
7­
hydroxymethyl­
3,3­
dimethyl­
5Hoxazolo
(
3,2­
a)
pyrimidin­
5­
one
metabolite
C
6­
chloro­
2,3­
dihydro­
3,3,7­
trimethyl­
5H­
oxazolo
(
3,2­
a)
pyrimidin­
5­
one
