Page
1
of
177
UNITED
STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
WASHINGTON,
D.
C.
20460
OFFICE
OF
PREVENTION,
PESTICIDES
AND
TOXIC
SUBSTANCES
June
21,
2006
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
Arsenic:
Final
Occupational
and
Residential
Exposure
Assessment
for
the
Reregistration
Eligibility
Decision
Document
for
DMA,
CAMA,
MSMA,
and
DSMA.

FROM:
Charles
Smith,
Environmental
Scientist
Reregistration
Branch
2
Health
Effects
Division
(
7509P)

TO:
Charles
Smith,
Risk
Assessor/
Environmental
Scientist
Reregistration
Branch
2
Health
Effects
Division
(
7509P)

THROUGH:
Alan
Nielsen,
Branch
Senior
Scientist
Reregistration
Branch
2
Health
Effects
Division
(
7509P)

DP
Barcode:
D329696
Pesticide
Chemical
Codes:
DMA:
012501
CAMA:
013806
MSMA:
013803
DSMA:
013802
The
attached
review
of
the
Human
Health
Assessment
for
the
organic
arsenic
RED
document
was
generated
as
part
of
Phase
4
of
the
public
participation
process.
The
Health
Effects
Division's
(
HED)
Final
chapter
reflects
the
comments
received
during
the
Phase
3
public
comment
period.
This
occupational
and
residential
exposure
assessment
document
includes
the
potential
individual
chemical
contributions
to
human
health
risk
of
cacodylic
acid
and
its
salt,
monosodium
methanearsonate
(
MSMA),
disodium
methanearsonate
(
DSMA),
and
calcium
acid
methanearsonate
(
CAMA).

This
assessment
relies
in
part
on
data
from
studies
in
which
adult
human
subjects
were
intentionally
exposed
to
a
pesticide.
These
studies,
listed
below,
have
been
determined
to
Page
2
of
177
require
a
review
of
their
ethical
conduct.
The
listed
studies
have
either
received
the
appropriate
review
or
are
in
the
process
of
being
ethically
reviewed.

Carbaryl
Mixer/
Loader/
Applicator
Exposure
Study
During
Application
of
RP­
2
Liquid
(
21%),
Sevin
Ready
to
Use
Insect
Spray
or
Sevin
10
Dust
to
Home
Garden
Vegetables.
MRID
444598­
01
D.
Merricks.
(
1997).

Integrated
Report
for
Evaluation
of
Potential
Exposures
to
Homeowners
and
Professional
Lawn
Care
Operators
Mixing,
Loading,
and
Applying
Granular
and
Liquid
Pesticides
to
Residential
Lawns.
MRID
449722­
01.
D.
Klonne.
(
1999).

The
PHED
Task
Force,
1995.
The
Pesticide
Handler
Exposure
Database
(
PHED),
Version
1.1.
Task
Force
members
Health
Canada,
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
and
the
National
Agricultural
Chemicals
Association,
released
February
1995.
Page
3
of
177
Preface
The
Food
Quality
Protection
Act
of
1996
requires
that
EPA's
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs
review
the
safety
of
all
existing
pesticide
tolerances
(
the
legal
limit
set
on
the
maximum
amount
of
pesticides
that
may
remain
in
or
on
foods)
by
August
2006.
As
part
of
this
reassessment
process,
the
risk
assessment
on
the
organic
arsenical
pesticides
is
being
updated.
There
are
four
registered
organic
arsenical
pesticides:
cacodylic
acid
(
dimethylarsinic
acid,
DMA)
and
its
sodium
salt
(
sodium
cacodylate);
monosodium
methanearsonate
(
MSMA);
disodium
methanearsonate
(
DSMA);
and
calcium
acid
methanearsonate
(
CAMA).
One
other
organic
arsenical,
arsanilic
acid
(
PC
129005),
is
not
included
in
this
assessment.
Arsanilic
acid
is
a
plant
growth
regulator
with
a
registration
(
expiration
02/
28/
2001)
for
experimental
use
(
180.550)
in
Florida
on
grapefruit.
For
ease
of
discussion
the
sodium
salt
of
cacodylic
acid
and
cacodylic
acid
are
treated
as
one
and
will
be
referred
to
as
dimethylarsonic
acid
(
DMA),
and
MSMA,
DSMA,
and
CAMA
will
be
referred
to
as
monomethylarsonic
acid
(
MMA).
Some
of
the
reference
materials
also
refer
to
MMA
as
methylarsonic
acid
(
MAA).
In
cases
where
chemical­
specific
uses,
risks,
or
other
issues
are
being
discussed,
the
specific
pesticide
name
(
MSMA,
DSMA,
and
CAMA)
will
be
used.
DMA
and
MMA
can
occur
as
two
different
valence
states.
Unless
noted,
DMA
and
MMA
refer
to
the
+
5
valence
state
(
e.
g.,
DMAV,
MMAV).
Page
4
of
177
OCCUPATIONAL
AND
RESIDENTIAL
EXPOSURE/
RISK
ASSESSMENT
AND
CHARACTERIZATION
Executive
Summary
Cacodylic
acid
or
dimethylarsenic
acid
(
DMA)
is
a
cotton
defoliant
and
is
also
an
herbicide
used
in
agricultural,
commercial,
and
residential
settings
for
the
postemergent
control
of
annual
grasses
and
broadleaf
weeds.
It
is
registered
as
a
liquid
concentrate,
a
pressurized
liquid,
and
a
ready­
to­
use
solution;
and
is
applied
using:
aircraft,
groundboom
sprayer,
rights­
ofway
sprayer,
handgun
sprayer,
low
pressure
handwand
sprayer,
ready­
to­
use
"
trigger
pump"
sprayer,
garden
hose
end
sprayer,
and
sprinkling
can.

Calcium
acid
methanearsonate
(
CAMA)
is
an
organic
arsenical
herbicide
registered
for
postemergent
weed
control
on
lawns
and
turfgrass.
CAMA
is
formulated
as
a
liquid
concentrate
and
a
ready­
to­
use
solution.
CAMA
is
applied
by
commercial
applicators
using
a
low­
pressure
handwand
sprayer
or
handgun
sprayer.
It
is
applied
by
homeowner
applicators
using
a
low
pressure
handwand
sprayer,
hose­
end
sprayer,
and
ready­
to­
use
"
trigger
pump"
sprayer.

Monosodium
methanearsonate
(
MSMA)
is
an
organic
arsenical
herbicide
registered
for
weed
control
on
cotton,
under
trees,
vines
and
shrubs,
and
for
lawn
care.
MSMA
technical
is
formulated
as
a
liquid
concentrate,
and
a
ready­
to­
use
liquid.
MSMA
is
applied
by
aircraft,
groundboom,
rights­
of­
way
sprayer,
turf
handgun
sprayer,
and
low
pressure
handwand
sprayer.

Disodium
methanearsonate
(
DSMA)
is
an
organic
arsenical
herbicide
registered
for
weed
control
on
cotton,
under
trees,
vines
and
shrubs,
and
for
lawn
care.
DSMA
is
formulated
as
a
liquid
concentrate,
and
a
wettable
powder.
DSMA
is
applied
by
aircraft,
groundboom,
rights­
ofway
sprayer,
turf
handgun
sprayer,
and
low
pressure
handwand
sprayer.

The
toxicity
endpoints
for
methanearsonic
acid
(
MMA)
were
selected
for
assessing
risks
from
exposures
following
applications
of
CAMA,
MSMA,
and
DSMA.
This
was
based
on
the
knowledge
that
the
calcium
and
sodium
ions
disassociate
once
the
calcium
salt
and
sodium
salts
are
dissolved
in
water
and
CAMA,
MSMA
and
DSMA
become
MMA
as
soon
as
dissolved
in
water.
DMA
has
separate
toxicity
endpoints
from
MMA,
except
the
inhalation
endpoint
selected
for
both
DMA
and
MMA
is
the
same.
Since
there
was
no
inhalation
endpoint
available
for
MMA,
the
inhalation
endpoint
for
DMA
was
used
as
a
conservative
surrogate.

HED
has
determined
that
there
are
potential
exposures
to
mixers,
loaders,
applicators,
and
other
handlers
during
the
usual
use­
patterns
associated
with
DMA,
CAMA,
MSMA,
and
DSMA.
Based
on
the
use
patterns,
10
occupational
exposure
scenarios
were
identified
for
DMA,
four
occupational
exposure
scenarios
were
identified
for
CAMA,
8
occupational
exposure
scenarios
were
identified
for
DSMA,
and
8
occupational
exposure
scenarios
were
identified
for
MSMA.
Calculations
of
non­
cancer
risk
based
on
dermal
and
inhalation
exposure
indicate
that
the
dermal
and
inhalation
MOEs
are
more
than
100
with
maximum
risk
reduction
measures
for
all
of
the
short
and
intermediate
term
occupational
exposure
scenarios
listed
above.
Page
5
of
177
HED
has
determined
that
there
are
potential
exposures
to
postapplication
occupational
workers
during
usual
use­
patterns
associated
with
DMA.
For
lawn
applications
using
DMA,
the
calculated
MOE
ranges
from
22
to
47
on
day
0
(
12
hours
following
application),
and
the
target
MOE
is
not
reached
until
a
week
to
two
weeks
after
application
(
depending
on
the
postapplication
activity).
All
other
postapplication
scenarios
(
for
CAMA,
DSMA,
MSMA,
and
DMA)
have
risks
below
HED's
level
of
concern
on
day
0
(
12
hours
following
application).

HED
has
determined
that
there
are
potential
exposures
to
residential
mixer,
loader,
and
applicators
during
the
usual
use­
patterns
associated
with
DMA,
CAMA,
MSMA
and
DSMA.
Based
on
the
use
patterns,
five
residential
exposure
scenarios
were
identified
for
DMA,
three
residential
exposure
scenarios
were
identified
for
CAMA,
three
residential
exposures
were
identified
for
DSMA,
and
three
residential
handler
exposure
scenarios
were
identified
for
MSMA.
For
residential
handlers,
all
non­
cancer
risks
are
not
of
concern.

The
following
residential
postapplication
scenarios
were
identified:
dermal
exposure
from
residue
on
lawns
(
adult
and
toddler),
hand­
to­
mouth
transfer
of
residues
on
lawns
(
toddler),
ingestion
of
pesticide
residue
on
treated
grass
(
toddler),
and
incidental
ingestion
of
soil
from
pesticide­
treated
residential
areas
(
toddler).
There
are
a
few
risk
concerns
for
DMA,
CAMA,
MSMA
and
DSMA
as
they
are
currently
used
in
the
residential
environment.
The
target
level
of
concern
for
DMA
incidental
oral
scenarios
is
30
(
i.
e.,
MOEs
 
30
is
not
of
concern
to
HED),
since
the
endpoint
is
an
BMDL10.
Short­
term
incidental
oral
MOEs
for
DMA
for
toddlers
were
<
30
for
the
hand­
to­
mouth
activity
and
object­
to­
mouth
activities
on
turf.
The
endpoint
used
to
assess
these
incidental
oral
exposures
(
BMDL10)
comes
from
data
measured
at
10
weeks
of
DMA
exposure
in
the
feed
to
female
rats
(
Arnold
et
al,
1999).
However,
Cohen
et
al,
(
2001)
shows
that
regenerative
proliferation
occurred
as
early
as
1
week
into
the
DMA
exposure.
HED
believes
that
using
the
Arnold
(
1999)
study
(
with
the
Cohen
2001
study
as
characterization)
in
conjunction
with
Day
0
DMA
residues
(
calculated
from
the
labeled
application
rates),
constitutes
the
use
of
the
best
available
data
and
that
the
results
can
be
considered
conservative
for
risk
assessment
purposes.

Calculated
aggregated
risks
to
toddlers
(
i.
e.,
hand
to
mouth
activity,
object
to
mouth
activity
on
treated
turf
plus
incidental
soil
ingestion
of
pesticide
residue
from
treated
turf
areas)
are
of
concern
for
applications
of
DMA
at
both
assessed
application
rates
and
for
CAMA
at
the
highest
assessed
application
rate
of
4.4
lb
ai/
acre.
The
target
level
of
concern
for
DMA
incidental
oral
scenarios
is
30
(
i.
e.,
MOE
 
30
is
not
of
concern
to
HED),
since
the
endpoint
is
a
BMDL10.
The
aggregated
risks
from
DMA
treatment
at
both
application
rates
are
of
concern,
with
MOEs
of
3
for
both
use
rates.
The
target
level
of
concern
for
incidental
ingestion
scenarios
for
CAMA,
DSMA,
and
MSMA
is
100
(
i.
e.,
MOE
 
100
is
not
of
concern
to
HED.)
A
postapplication
aggregated
MOE
of
85
was
determined
when
assessing
risks
following
treatment
with
CAMA
at
4.4
lb
ai/
acre.
Application
at
the
two
lower
use
rates
for
CAMA
resulted
in
MOEs
which
were
above
the
level
of
concern.
Aggregate
MOEs
calculated
for
DSMA
and
MSMA
were
above
the
target
level
of
100.
Page
6
of
177
TABLE
OF
CONTENTS
1.0
OCCUPATIONAL
AND
RESIDENTIAL
EXPOSURE/
RISK
ASSESSMENT.............................
8
1.1
Purpose...................................................................................................................................
8
1.2
Criteria
for
Conducting
Exposure
Assessments
.......................................................................
8
1.3
Summary
of
Toxicity
Concerns
Relating
to
Occupational
and
Residential
Exposures
..............
8
1.4
Incident
Reports....................................................................................................................
15
1.5
Summary
of
Physical
and
Chemical
Properties
of
DMA,
CAMA,
MSMA,
and
DSMA
.........
17
1.6
Summary
of
Use
Pattern
and
Formulations............................................................................
25
1.6.1
Occupational­
Use
and
Homeowner­
Use
Products..............................................................
25
1.6.2
Type
of
Pesticide/
Targeted
Pest
........................................................................................
26
1.6.3
Formulation
Types
and
Percent
Active
Ingredient
.............................................................
28
1.6.4
Registered
Use
Sites
.........................................................................................................
28
1.6.5
Application
Rates
.............................................................................................................
30
1.6.6
Method
and
Types
of
Equipment
Used
for
Mixing,
Loading
and
Application
.................
32
1.6.7
Timing
and
Frequency
of
Application
...............................................................................
33
2.0
OCCUPATIONAL
EXPOSURE
AND
RISKS............................................................................
33
2.1
Occupational
Handler
Exposures
and
Risk
Estimates
............................................................
33
2.1.1.1
Assumptions
for
Handler
Exposure
Scenarios
...............................................................
35
2.1.1.2
Exposure
Data
for
Handler
Exposure
Scenarios
............................................................
35
2.1.2
Occupational
Handler
Exposure
Scenarios
........................................................................
38
2.1.3
Non­
cancer
Occupational
Handler
Exposure
and
Assessment............................................
40
2.1.3.1
Non­
cancer
Occupational
Handler
Exposure
and
Risk
Calculations...............................
40
2.1.3.2
Occupational
Non­
cancer
Risk
Summary
(
using
PHED
and
ORETF
data)
....................
41
2.1.4
Cancer
Occupational
Handler
Exposure
and
Risk
Assessment...........................................
63
2.1.5
Summary
of
Risk
Concerns
and
Data
Gaps
for
Occupational
Handlers..............................
63
2.1.5.1
Summary
of
Risk
Concerns
..........................................................................................
63
2.1.5.2
Summary
of
Data
Gaps.................................................................................................
65
2.1.6
Recommendations
for
Refining
Occupational
Handler
Risk
Assessment
...........................
65
2.2
Occupational
Postapplication
Exposures
and
Non­
Cancer
Risk
Estimates..............................
65
2.2.1
Occupational
Postapplication
Exposure
Scenarios
.............................................................
65
2.2.2
Data/
Assumptions
for
Postapplication
Exposure
Scenarios................................................
68
2.2.3
Occupational
Postapplication
Exposure
and
Noncancer
Risk
Estimates
.............................
69
2.2.4
Noncancer
Risk
Summary.................................................................................................
69
2.2.5
Occupational
Postapplication
Exposure
and
Risk
Estimates
for
Cancer
.............................
71
2.2.6
Summary
of
Occupational
Postapplication
Risk
Concerns
and
Data
Gaps
.........................
72
2.2.7
Recommendations
for
Refining
Occupational
Postapplication
Risk
Assessment
................
72
3.0
RESIDENTIAL
HANDLER
EXPOSURES
AND
NON­
CANCER
RISK
ESTIMATES.............
72
3.1
Residential
Handler
Exposures
and
Risks
..............................................................................
72
3.1.1
Handler
Exposure
Scenarios
.............................................................................................
72
3.1.2
Data
and
Assumptions
for
Handler
Exposure
Scenarios.....................................................
74
3.1.3
Residential
Handler
Exposure
and
Non­
Cancer
Risk
Estimates
.........................................
77
3.1.4
Residential
Handler
Exposure
and
Risk
Estimates
for
Cancer............................................
80
3.1.5
Summary
of
Risk
Concerns
and
Data
Gaps
for
Handlers
...................................................
80
3.1.6
Recommendations
for
Refining
Residential
Handler
Risk
Assessment
..............................
81
3.2
Residential
Postapplication
Exposures
and
Assumptions
.......................................................
81
3.2.1
Residential
Postapplication
Exposure
Scenarios
................................................................
81
3.2.2
Data
and
Assumptions
for
Residential
Postapplication
Exposure
Scenarios
.......................
83
3.2.3
Residential
Postapplication
Exposure
and
Noncancer
Risk
Estimates
...............................
86
3.2.4
Residential
Postapplication
Exposure
Characterization......................................................
93
3.2.5
Residential
Postapplication
Exposure
to
Inorganic
Arsenic...........................................
94
Page
7
of
177
3.2.6
Residential
Postapplication
Exposure
and
Risk
Estimates
for
Cancer.................................
96
3.2.7
Summary
of
Residential
Postapplication
Risk
Concerns
and
Data
Gaps.............................
97
3.2.8
Recommendations
for
Refining
Residential
Postapplication
Risk
Assessments..................
97
Appendix
A
­­
DMA
Occupational
Handler
Exposures
and
Risks
........................................................
100
Appendix
B
 
DMA
Residential
Handler
Exposure
and
Risk
Appendices
............................................
111
Appendix
C
 
DMA
Residential
Postapplication
Exposure
and
Risk
Appendices
.................................
114
Appendix
D
 
CAMA
Occupational
Handler
Exposures
and
Risks
......................................................
121
Appendix
E
 
CAMA
Residential
Handler
Exposure
and
Risk
Appendices
..........................................
127
Appendix
F
 
CAMA
Residential
Postapplication
Exposure
and
Risk
Appendices
...............................
130
Appendix
G
 
DSMA
Occupational
Handler
Exposure
and
Risk
Appendices
.......................................
137
Appendix
H
 
DSMA
Residential
Handler
Exposure
and
Risk
Appendices
..........................................
145
Appendix
I
 
DSMA
Residential
Postapplication
Exposure
and
Risk
Appendices
................................
147
Appendix
J
 
MSMA
Occupational
Handler
Exposure
and
Risk
Appendices
.......................................
153
Appendix
K
 
MSMA
Residential
Handler
Exposure
and
Risk
Appendices
.........................................
165
Appendix
L
 
MSMA
Residential
Postapplication
Exposure
and
Risk
Appendices...............................
167
Appendix
M
 
Assumptions.................................................................................................................
173
Page
8
of
177
1.0
OCCUPATIONAL
AND
RESIDENTIAL
EXPOSURE/
RISK
ASSESSMENT
1.1
Purpose
In
this
document,
which
is
for
use
in
EPA's
development
of
the
organic
arsenicals
Reregistration
Eligibility
Decision
Document
(
RED),
EPA
presents
the
results
of
its
review
of
the
potential
human
health
effects
of
occupational
and
residential
exposure
to
the
arsenicals,
including
dimethylarsenic
acid
(
cacodylic
acid
or
DMA)),
calcium
acid
methanearsonate
(
CAMA),
monosodium
methanearsonate
(
MSMA)
and
disodium
methanearsonate
(
DSMA).

1.2
Criteria
for
Conducting
Exposure
Assessments
An
occupational
and/
or
residential
exposure
assessment
is
required
for
an
active
ingredient
if
(
1)
certain
toxicological
criteria
are
triggered
and
(
2)
there
is
potential
exposure
to
handlers
(
mixers,
loaders,
applicators,
etc.)
during
use
or
to
persons
entering
treated
sites
after
application
is
complete.
For
the
arsenicals,
both
criterion
are
met.

1.3
Summary
of
Toxicity
Concerns
Relating
to
Occupational
and
Residential
Exposures
Acute
Toxicology
DMA
Table
1
presents
the
acute
toxicity
categories
as
outlined
in
the
Cacodylic
Acid
 
Reevaluation
­
Report
of
the
Hazard
Identification
Assessment
Review
Committee
(
USEPA,
1999a).

Table
1:
DMA
Acute
Toxicity
Categories
Study
Type
Toxicity
Category
Acute
Oral
Toxicity
III
Acute
Dermal
Toxicity
III
Acute
Inhalation
Toxicity
IV
Primary
Eye
Irritation
III
Primary
Dermal
Irritation
IV
Dermal
Sensitization
not
a
sensitizer
Page
9
of
177
CAMA
Table
2
presents
the
acute
toxicity
categories
as
outlined
in
the
Methanearsonic
Acid
and
its
Sodium
and
Calcium
Salts
­
Report
of
the
Hazard
Identification
Assessment
Review
Committee
(
December
13,
2000).
CAMA
is
classified
as
category
IV
for
acute
oral,
acute
dermal,
acute
inhalation,
and
primary
skin
irritation
potential.
For
primary
eye
irritation
potential,
CAMA
is
classified
as
Category
III.
Results
were
negative
for
dermal
sensitization.

Table
2:
CAMA
Acute
Toxicity
Categories
Study
Type
Toxicity
Category
Acute
Oral,
rat
IV
Acute
Dermal,
rat
IV
Acute
Inhalation,
rat
IV
Primary
Eye
Irritation,
rabbit
III
Primary
Skin
Irritation,
rabbit
IV
Dermal
Sensitization,
rabbit
none
*
Acute
oral
studies
listed
in
table
represent
a
formulation
with
10.3%
a.
i.

MSMA
Tables
3
presents
the
acute
toxicity
categories
for
MSMA
as
outlined
in
the
MSMA
and
DSMA
­
Report
of
the
Hazard
Identification
Assessment
Review
Committee
(
HIARC).
MSMA
is
classified
as
category
II
for
acute
oral,
category
III
for
acute
dermal,
and
as
category
III
for
inhalation
toxicity.
It
is
classified
as
category
III
for
eye
irritation
potential
and
for
skin
irritation
potential.
Results
were
negative
for
dermal
sensitization.

Table
3:
MSMA
(
37­
38%
a.
i.)
Acute
Toxicity
Categories
Study
Type
Toxicity
Category
Acute
Oral
Toxicity
II
Acute
Dermal
Toxicity
III
Acute
Inhalation
Toxicity
III
Primary
Eye
Irritation
III
Primary
Dermal
Irritation
III
Dermal
Sensitization
not
a
sensitizer
Page
10
of
177
DSMA
Tables
4
presents
the
acute
toxicity
categories
as
outlined
in
the
MSMA
and
DSMA
­
Report
of
the
Hazard
Identification
Assessment
Review
Committee
(
HIARC).
DSMA
is
classified
as
category
III
for
acute
oral
and
dermal,
and
as
category
IV
for
inhalation
toxicity.
It
is
classified
as
category
III
for
eye
irritation
potential
and
category
IV
for
skin
irritation
potential.
Results
were
negative
for
dermal
sensitization.

Table
4:
DSMA
(
technical
81­
83%
ai)
Acute
Toxicity
Categories
Study
Type
Toxicity
Category
Acute
Oral
Toxicity
III
Acute
Dermal
Toxicity
III
Acute
Inhalation
Toxicity
IV
Primary
Eye
Irritation
III
Primary
Dermal
Irritation
IV
Dermal
Sensitization
not
a
sensitizer
Non­
Cancer
Endpoints
of
Concern
DMA
The
endpoints,
and
associated
uncertainty
factors,
used
in
assessing
the
risks
for
DMA
acid
are
presented
in
Table
5.
Page
11
of
177
Table
5:
DMA
Summary
of
Toxicological
Doses
and
Endpoints
for
Use
in
Human
Risk
Assessments
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
49
and
general
population)
NOAEL
=
12
mg/
kg/
day
UF
=
100
Acute
RfD
=
0.12
mg/
kg/
day
Developmental
Toxicity
­
Rat
(
40625701)
LOAEL
=
36
mg/
kg/
day
based
on
decreased
fetal
weights,
shorter
crownrump
length,
the
suggestion
of
diaphragmatic
hernia
and
delayed/
lack
of
ossification
of
numerous
bones.

Developmental
Toxicity
­
Rabbit
(
40663301)
LOAEL
=
48
mg/
kg/
day
based
on
mortality,
abortions,
body
weight
loss
and
reduced
food
consumption.

Chronic
Dietary
(
all
populations)
BMDL10
=
0.43
mg/
kg/
day
UF
=
30
Chronic
RfD
=
0.014
mg/
kg/
day
BMD10
of
0.92
mg/
kg/
day
for
BrdU
labeling
from
Arnold
et
al
(
1999)

Incidental
Oral
Short­
Term
(
1
­
30
days)

Intermediate­
Term
(
1
­
6
months)
BMDL10
=
0.43
mg/
kg/
day
LOC
=
30
BMD10
of
0.92
mg/
kg/
day
for
BrdU
labeling
from
Arnold
et
al
(
1999)

Dermal
Short­
Term
(
1
­
30
days)

Intermediate­
Term
(
1
­
6
months)
Dermal
NOAEL=
300
mg/
kg/
day
LOC
=
100
21­
Day
Dermal
­
Rabbit
(
41872801)
LOAEL
=
1000
mg/
kg/
day
based
on
decreased
body
weight
gain
in
females,
and
decreased
testicular
weights,
hypospermia,
and
tubular
hypoplasia
in
males.

Dermal
Long­
Term
(>
6
months)
Not
required
Inhalation
Short­
Term
(
1
­
30
days)

Intermediate­
Term
(
1
­
6
months)
Inhalation
NOAEL=
0.01
mg/
L
(
4.38
mg/
kg/
day,
adjusted)
LOC
=
100
90­
Day
Inhalation
­
Rat
(
44700301)
LOAEL
=
0.034
mg/
kg/
L
(
14.95
mg/
kg/
day)
based
on
presence
of
moderate
and
marked
intracytoplasmic
eosinophilic
granules
(
IEG)
in
the
nasal
turbinate
cells
of
male
and
female
rats.

Inhalation
Long­
Term
(>
6
months)
Not
required
Cancer
(
oral)
Classification:
not
carcinogenic
up
to
doses
resulting
in
regenerative
proliferation
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
Page
12
of
177
CAMA,
DSMA,
and
MSMA
CAMA,
DSMA,
and
MSMA
all
breakdown
to
methanearsonic
acid
(
MMA)
when
mixed
with
water;
therefore,
the
toxicological
endpoints
for
MMA
were
used
in
the
risk
assessment
for
assessing
handler
and
postapplication
exposures.
The
endpoints,
and
associated
uncertainty
factors,
used
in
assessing
the
risks
for
CAMA,
MSMA,
and
DSMA
are
presented
in
Table
6.

Table
6:
MMA
Summary
of
Toxicological
Doses
and
Endpoints
for
Use
in
Human
Risk
Assessments
for
CAMA,
MSMA,
and
DSMA
Exposure
Scenario
Dose
Used
in
Risk
Assessment,
UF
Level
of
Concern
for
Risk
Assessment
Study
and
Toxicological
Effects
Acute
Dietary
(
general
population)
NOAEL
=
10
mg/
kg
UF
=
100
Acute
RfD
&
PAD
=
0.1
mg/
kg
Chronic
Toxicity
in
Dog,
MMA
study
(
MRID
No.
40546101)
LOAEL
=
40
mg/
kg/
day
based
on
clinical
signs
of
diarrhea
and
vomiting
observed
in
the
first
of
week
of
dosing
with
2­
5
hours
of
each
days
dosing.

Chronic
Dietary
(
all
populations)
NOAEL=
3.2
mg/
kg/
day
UF
=
100
Chronic
RfD
&
PAD
=
0.03
mg/
kg/
day
Chronic
Toxicity
Rat,
MMA
study
(
MRID
No.
41669001)
Rat
LOAEL
=
27.2
mg/
kg/
day
for
males
and
32.9
mg/
kg/
day
for
females
based
on
decreased
body
weights,
diarrhea,
body
weight
gains,
food
consumption,
histopathology
of
gastrointestinal
tract
and
thyroid.

Incidental
Oral
Short­
Term
(
1
­
30
days)
NOAEL=
7
mg/
kg/
day
LOC
=
100
Rabbit
developmental
toxicity
study
(
MRID
15939001)
LOAEL
=
12
mg/
kg/
day,
based
on
decreased
body
weight,
food
consumption
(
during
the
dosing
period),
and
abortions.

Incidental
Oral
Intermediate­
Term
(
1
­
6
months)
NOAEL=
3.2
mg/
kg/
day
LOC
=
100
Chronic
Rat
study
(
MRID
41669001)

LOAEL
=
27.2
mg/
kg/
day
for
males
and
32.9
mg/
kg/
day
for
females
based
on
decreased
body
weights,
diarrhea.

Dermal
Short­
Term
(
1
­
30
days)
Intermediate­
Term
(
1
­
6
months)
Dermal
NOAEL=
1000
mg/
kg/
day
LOC
=
100
21­
Day
Dermal
Toxicity
in
Rabbit,
MMA
study
(
MRID
no.
41872701)
LOAEL
>
1000
mg/
kg/
day.

Dermal
Long­
Term
(>
6
months)
Not
applicable
Inhalation
Short­
Term
(
1
­
30
days)

Intermediate­
Term
(
1
­
6
months)
Inhalation
NOAEL=
0.01
mg/
L
(
4.38
mg/
kg/
day,
adjusted)
LOC
=
100
90­
Day
Inhalation
­
Rat
(
44700301)
LOAEL
=
0.034
mg/
kg/
L
(
14.95
mg/
kg/
day)
based
on
presence
of
moderate
and
marked
intracytoplasmic
eosinophilic
granules
(
IEG)
in
the
nasal
turbinate
cells
of
male
and
female
rats.

Cancer
Classification:
"
not
likely
human
carcinogen"

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
Page
13
of
177
FQPA
Safety
Factor
DMA
Acceptable
developmental
studies
in
rats
and
rabbits
along
with
a
two­
generation
reproductive
toxicity
study
are
available
for
DMA.
Developmental
toxicity
was
noted
only
at
doses
resulting
in
maternal
toxicity;
NOAELs
were
established
for
maternal
and
developmental
toxicity.
As
such,
results
of
developmental
and
reproductive
toxicities
studies
provided
no
indication
of
increased
susceptibility
of
rat
or
rabbit.
Changes
in
organ
weights
for
reproductive
organs
(
e.
g.,
ovarian
weight
changes
without
pathological
changes
in
the
reproductive
toxicity
study)
and
testicular
pathology
(
dermal
study
only)
were
noted
only
at
very
high
doses
and
were
not
replicated
in
other
studies.
The
toxicology
database
is
considered
complete
for
the
evaluation
of
sensitivity
of
the
developing
young.
As
the
developing
nervous
system
does
not
appear
to
be
a
target
organ
for
DMA,
a
developmental
neurotoxicity
study
is
not
required.
Regarding
potential
thyroid
toxicity,
a
comparative
thyroid
study
in
adult
and
juvenile
animals
is
not
expected
to
provide
endpoints
more
sensitive
than
the
bladder
mode
of
action
studies
currently
available.
The
bladder
is
a
sensitive
target
organ
and
special
mode
of
action
studies
provide
health
protective
endpoints
for
DMA
toxicity
at
low
doses.
Thus,
a
comparative
thyroid
study
in
juvenile
and
adult
animals
is
not
required.
Based
on
the
overall
weight
of
the
evidence,
a
hazard­
based
FQPA
factor
is
not
needed
for
DMA.

MMA
(
CAMA,
DSMA,
MSMA
)

Acceptable
developmental
studies
in
rats
and
rabbits
along
with
a
two­
generation
reproductive
toxicity
study
are
available
for
MMA.
Results
of
developmental
and
reproductive
toxicity
studies
provided
no
indication
of
increased
susceptibility
of
rat
or
rabbit.
The
toxicology
database
is
considered
complete
for
the
evaluation
of
sensitivity
of
the
developing
young.
A
developmental
neurotoxicity
study
is
not
required.
As
described
below,
toxicity
to
gastrointestinal
tract
and
kidney
provide
the
critical
effects
for
MMA
following
oral
exposures.
These
effects
are
more
sensitive
than
toxicities
noted
in
other
studies,
including
developmental
and
reproductive
toxicity.
Therefore,
a
hazard­
based
FQPA
factor
is
not
needed
for
MMA.

Dermal
Route
(
non­
cancer)

DMA:
For
liquid
formulations,
the
short­
and
intermediate­
term
(
non­
cancer)
dermal
risk
assessment
for
DMA
is
based
on
a
NOAEL
of
300
mg/
kg/
day
from
a
21­
day
dermal
toxicity
study
in
rabbits.
Long­
term
exposures
to
DMA
(
i.
e.,
greater
than
6
months)
are
not
expected
for
current
registered
uses.

CAMA,
DSMA,
and
MSMA:
The
short­
and
intermediate­
term
(
non­
cancer)
dermal
risk
assessment
for
CAMA,
DSMA,
and
MSMA
is
based
on
endpoints
for
MMA
since
all
three
chemicals
convert
to
MMA
in
water.
For
MMA,
the
dermal
endpoint
is
based
on
a
NOAEL
of
1000
mg/
kg/
day
from
a
21­
day
dermal
toxicity
study
in
rabbits.
No
systemic
toxicity
or
dermal
irritation
were
observed
at
the
limit
dose
of
1000
mg/
kg/
day.
Long­
term
exposures
to
CAMA,
DMSA,
and
MSMA
(
i.
e.,
greater
than
6
months)
are
not
expected
for
current
registered
uses.
Page
14
of
177
Inhalation
Route
(
non­
cancer)

DMA:
For
liquid
formulations,
the
short­
and
intermediate­
term
(
non­
cancer)
inhalation
risk
assessment
for
DMA
is
based
on
a
NOAEL
of
0.01
mg/
L
(
4.38
mg/
kg/
day),
which
was
defined
in
a
90­
day
inhalation
study
in
rats.
The
NOAEL
was
based
on
the
presence
of
moderate
and
marked
intracytoplasmic
eosinophilic
granules
(
IEG)
in
the
cells
of
the
nasal
turbinates.
Long­
term
exposures
to
DMA
(
i.
e.,
greater
than
6
months)
are
not
expected
for
current
registered
uses.

CAMA,
DSMA,
and
MSMA:
The
short­
and
intermediate­
term
(
non­
cancer)
inhalation
risk
assessment
for
CAMA,
DSMA,
and
MSMA
is
based
on
endpoints
for
DMA
since
no
inhalation
endpoint
is
available
for
MMA.
For
DMA,
the
inhalation
endpoint
is
based
on
a
NOAEL
of
0.01
mg/
L
(
4.38
mg/
kg/
day),
which
was
defined
in
a
90­
day
inhalation
study
in
rats.
The
NOAEL
was
based
on
the
presence
of
moderate
and
marked
intracytoplasmic
eosinophilic
granules
(
IEG)
in
the
cells
of
the
nasal
turbinates.
Long­
term
exposures
to
CAMA,
DSMA,
and
MSMA
(
i.
e.,
greater
than
6
months)
are
not
expected
for
current
registered
uses.

Oral
Route
(
non­
cancer)

DMA:
For
liquid
formulations,
the
short­
and
intermediate­
term
(
non­
cancer)
incidental
oral
risk
assessment
for
DMA
is
based
on
a
BMDL10
of
0.43
mg/
kg/
day,
which
was
defined
in
an
open
literature
study
(
Arnold
et
al,
1999).
Long­
term
exposures
to
DMA
(
i.
e.,
greater
than
6
months)
are
not
expected
for
current
registered
uses.

CAMA,
DMSA,
and
MSMA:
The
short­
term
(
non­
cancer)
incidental
oral
risk
assessment
for
CAMA,
DSMA,
and
MSMA
is
based
on
endpoints
for
MMA
since
all
three
chemicals
convert
to
MMA
in
water.
For
MMA,
the
incidental
oral
endpoint
is
based
on
a
NOAEL
of
7.0
mg/
kg/
day,
which
was
defined
in
a
rabbit
developmental
toxicity
study.
Long­
term
exposures
to
CAMA,
DSMA,
and
MSMA
(
i.
e.,
greater
than
6
months)
are
not
expected
for
current
registered
uses.

Non­
cancer
Level
of
Concern
(
LOC)

HED's
level
of
concern
(
LOC)
for
DMA,
CAMA,
MSMA,
and
DSMA
occupational
and
residential
dermal
and
inhalation
exposures
is
100
(
i.
e.,
a
margin
of
exposure
(
MOE)
less
than
100
exceeds
HED's
level
of
concern).
The
level
of
concern
is
based
on
10X
to
account
for
interspecies
extrapolation
to
humans
from
the
animal
test
species
and
10X
to
account
for
intraspecies
sensitivity.
For
incidental
oral
exposures,
HED's
LOC
for
MMA
is
100,
but
for
DMA
is
30,
due
to
the
use
of
a
BMDL10.

Body
Weight
Since
the
adverse
effects
for
the
dermal
and
inhalation
endpoints
are
based
on
studies
where
the
effects
were
observed
in
both
males
and
females,
the
body
weight
of
an
average
adult
male
(
i.
e.,
70
kg)
was
used
to
estimate
dermal
and
inhalation
exposure.
Page
15
of
177
Aggregation
The
dermal
and
inhalation
margins
of
exposure
were
not
combined
for
the
toddler
postapplication
residential
MMA
and
DMA
risk
assessments
because
the
toxicity
endpoints
for
the
dermal
and
inhalation
routes
of
exposure
are
based
on
different
toxicological
effects.
The
postapplication
assessments
involving
incidental
oral
ingestion
by
toddlers
(
hand­
to­
mouth,
object­
to­
mouth,
and
soil
ingestion)
are
aggregated
for
MMA
and
DMA.
Dermal
postapplication
exposure
was
not
aggregated
with
the
incidental
oral
scenarios
since
the
endpoints
have
different
toxicological
effects.

Cancer
Determination
DMA
As
described
in
the
special
issue
paper
for
DMA,
the
mode
of
action
for
the
development
of
bladder
tumors
in
rats
has
been
established
and
supports
a
nonlinear
doseresponse
assessment.
This
mode
of
action
is
expected
to
be
functional
in
humans.
A
key
step
in
this
mode
of
action
is
that
sufficient
DMAIII
is
available
at
the
target
site
to
cause
cell
killing.
This
cytotoxicity
must
be
sustained
to
result
in
regenerative
proliferation.
Each
of
these
key
steps
is
necessary
for
the
development
of
bladder
tumors.
As
regenerative
proliferation
is
expected
to
be
the
rate­
limiting
step
in
the
development
of
the
DMA
induced
bladder
tumors,
DMA
is
considered
not
carcinogenic
up
to
doses
resulting
in
regenerative
proliferation.

CAMA,
MSMA,
and
DSMA
The
Hazard
Identification
Assessment
Review
Committee
(
HIARC)
classified
CAMA,
DSMA,
and
MSMA
as
"
not
likely"
a
human
carcinogen.
1
Although
the
parathyroid
adenomas
described
above
in
rats
were
outside
of
the
historical
controls
(
0.1%
for
both
sexes),
the
tumors
are
not
a
concern
because
of
the
following
rationale:
1)
Only
the
benign
tumors
were
increased
in
incidence.
2)
Pair­
wise
significance
was
not
attained
for
either
sex.
A
significant
trend
test
was
observed
only
for
males.
3)
An
increase
in
tumor
incidence
was
not
observed
in
mice.
4)
The
acceptable
genetic
toxicology
studies
indicate
that
MMA
is
not
mutagenic
in
bacteria
(
Salmonella
typhimurium
)
or
cultured
mammalian
cells
(
Chinese
hamster
ovary).
Similarly,
MMA
did
not
induce
unscheduled
DNA
synthesis
(
UDS)
in
primary
rat
hepatocytes.

1.4
Incident
Reports
OPP
draws
from
4
different
databases
to
determine
what,
if
any,
poisoning
incidents
have
occurred
that
can
be
related
to
pesticidal
use.
A
summary
of
the
databases
follows.

1)
Office
of
Pesticide
Program's
Incident
Data
System
(
IDS)
­
includes
reports
of
incidents
from
various
sources,
including
required
Federal
Insecticide
Fungicide
and
Rodenticide
Act
(
FIFRA)
Section
6
(
a)
(
2)
registrants,
other
federal
and
state
health
and
environmental
agencies
and
Page
16
of
177
individual
consumers,
submitted
to
the
Agency
since
1992.
Reports
submitted
to
the
IDS
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)
American
Association
of
Poison
Control
Centers
(
AAPCC)
­
as
the
result
of
Data­
Call­
Ins
issued
in
1993,
the
Agency
received
Poison
Control
Center
data
covering
the
years
1985
through
1992
for
28
organophosphate
and
carbamate
chemicals.
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
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
Pesticide
Illness
Surveillance
Program
­
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
is
provided.

4)
National
Pesticide
Telecommunications
Network
(
NPTN)
­
NPTN
is
a
toll­
free
information
service
supported
by
the
Agency's
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs.
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.

DMA
Incidents
For
the
purposes
of
this
assessment
the
focus
was
on
those
human
incidents
that
are
directly,
or
probably,
related
to
exposures
to
DMA
or
sodium
cacodylate
per
se.
Drawing
from
four
data
sources,
there
were
reported
poisoning
incidents
involving
children
<
6
years
of
age,
but
none
were
hospitalized,
and
no
specifics
were
given
about
the
activity
associated
with
the
exposures.
Incidents
reported
for
adults
involved
both
agricultural
and
non­
agricultural
uses,
and
resulted
in
days
off
from
work
and,
in
a
few
cases,
hospitalization.
The
symptoms
ranged
from
systemic,
to
skin
and
eye
irritation,
to
respiratory
system
effects.
Some
cases
involved
multiple
symptoms.
The
uses
included
lawn,
turf,
ornamentals,
weeds,
and
cotton.
For
more
details
see
Allen
2000a.

CAMA
Incidents
HED
searched
the
same
four
databases
for
evidence
of
poisoning
incidents
connected
with
the
use
of
CAMA
and
found
none.
Currently,
CAMA
has
no
agricultural
uses.
See
Allen
2001.
Page
17
of
177
MSMA
and
DSMA
Incidents
HED
searched
the
four
databases
discussed
above
for
reports
of
incidents
occurring
resulting
from
exposures
to
MSMA
or
DSMA.
There
were
incidents
reported
for
both
MSMA
and
DSMA,
involving
both
adults
and
children.
Most
were
treated
on
an
outpatient
basis
but
a
few
required
hospitalization.
Some
reports
described
symptoms
such
as
dizziness,
sinusitis,
rhinitis,
memory
loss,
numbness,
tingling,
rash,
and
fever,
after
aerial
applications,
but
many
were
nonspecific
about
the
source
of
exposure.
Other
reports
described
effects
such
as
systemic
allergic
symptoms,
nausea,
dizziness,
and
eye
irritation
for
both
agricultural
and
non­
agricultural
uses.
Specific
details
may
be
found
in
Allen
2000b.

There
are
only
scattered
reports
for
MSMA
and
DSMA
among
the
four
data
systems
used
by
the
Agency's
epidemiology
group
to
evaluate
human
poisoning
incidents.
The
sparsity
of
data
could
be
due
to
low
usage,
and/
or
poor
reporting
to
surveillance
programs.

1.5
Summary
of
Physical
and
Chemical
Properties
of
DMA,
CAMA,
MSMA,
and
DSMA
Table
7:
Product
Chemistry
Data
Summary
for
Cacodylic
Acid
OPPTS
Guideline
Numbers
Data
Requirements:
Cacodylic
Acid
[
TGAI]
PC
012501
CAS#
75­
60­
5
Master
Record
Identification
[
MRID]
or
Reference
Are
Data
Requirements
Fulfilled?
Results
or
*
Data
Gap
830.1550
Product
Identity
and
Composition
NO
*
DATA
GAP
830.1600
Description
of
Materials
Used
to
Produce
the
Product
NO
*
DATA
GAP
830.1620
Description
of
Production
Process
NO
*
DATA
GAP
830.1650
Description
of
Formulation
Process
NO
*
DATA
GAP
830.1670
Discussion
of
Formation
of
Impurities
NO
*
DATA
GAP
830.1700
Preliminary
Analysis
41608302,
42614501
YES
830.1750
Certified
Limits
NO
*
DATA
GAP
830.1800
Enforcement
Analytical
Method
NO
*
DATA
GAP
830.1900
Submittal
of
Samples
NO
*
DATA
GAP
830.6302
Color
40957813,
42473801
YES
WHITE
830.6303
Physical
State
40957813,
42473801
YES
CRYSTALLINE
SOLID
830.6304
Odor
40957813,
42473801
YES
NO
ODOR
830.6313
Stability
to
normal
and
elevated
temperatures,
metals
and
metal
ions
NO
*
DATA
GAP
830.7000
pH
40957813,
42473801
YES
830.7050
UV/
VIS
absorption
NO
*
DATA
GAP
830.7200
Melting
Point/
Melting
Range
42397101
YES
192
º
C
 
194
º
C
830.7220
Boiling
Point/
Boiling
Point
Range
NOT
APPLICABLE
SEE
GUIDELINE
830.7220
830.7300
Density/
Relative
Density/
Bulk
Density
40957813,
42473801
YES
1.10
g
/
mL
830.7370
Dissociation
Constant
42403501
YES
6.17
AT
25
º
C
830.7550
Partition
coefficient
(
n­
octanol
/
water)
shake
flask
method
42397101
YES
K
O/
W
=
<
0.028
AT
25
º
C
830.7560
Partition
coefficient
(
n­
octanol
/
water)
generator
column
method
SEE
GUIDELINE
830.7550
830.7570
Partition
coefficient
(
n­
octanol
/
water)
estimation
by
liquid
chromatography
SEE
GUIDELINE
830.7550
830.7840
Water
Solubility:
Column
Elution
Method;
Shake
Flask
Method
42397101
YES
102
g
/
100mL
830.7860
Water
solubility
generator
column
method
SEE
GUIDELINE
830.7840
830.7950
Vapor
pressure
NO
*
DATA
GAP
Page
18
of
177
Table
8:
Product
Chemistry
Data
Summary
for
Sodium
Cacodylate
OPPTS
Guideline
Numbers
Data
Requirements
Sodium
Cacodylate
[
TGAI]
PC
012502
CAS#
124­
65­
2
Master
Record
Identification
[
MRID]
or
Reference
Are
Data
Requirements
Fulfilled?
Results
or
*
Data
Gap
830.1550
Product
Identity
and
Composition
NO
*
DATA
GAP
830.1600
Description
of
Materials
Used
to
Produce
the
Product
NO
*
DATA
GAP
830.1620
Description
of
Production
Process
NO
*
DATA
GAP
830.1650
Description
of
Formulation
Process
NO
*
DATA
GAP
830.1670
Discussion
of
Formation
of
Impurities
NO
*
DATA
GAP
830.1700
Preliminary
Analysis
41608302,
42614501
YES
830.1750
Certified
Limits
NO
*
DATA
GAP
830.1800
Enforcement
Analytical
Method
NO
*
DATA
GAP
830.1900
Submittal
of
Samples
NO
*
DATA
GAP
830.6302
Color
40957813,
42473801
YES
WHITE
830.6303
Physical
State
40957813,
42473801
YES
CRYSTALLINE
SOLID
830.6304
Odor
40957813,
42473801
YES
NO
ODOR
830.6313
Stability
to
normal
and
elevated
temperatures,
metals
and
metal
ions
42403501
YES
STABLE
830.7000
pH
42473801
YES
830.7050
UV/
VIS
absorption
NO
*
DATA
GAP
830.7200
Melting
Point/
Melting
Range
42403501
YES
77
oC
 
79.5
oC
830.7220
Boiling
Point/
Boiling
Point
Range
NOT
APPLICABLE
830.7300
Density/
Relative
Density/
Bulk
Density
40957813,
42473801
YES
1.10
g
/
mL
830.7370
Dissociation
Constant
42403501
YES
6.21
at
25
oC
830.7550
Partition
coefficient
(
n­
octanol
/
water)
shake
flask
method
NOT
APPLICABLE
CRBS
8865,
D170691
12/
12/
1991
A.
Perfetti
830.7560
Partition
coefficient
(
n­
octanol
/
water)
generator
column
method
830.7570
Partition
coefficient
(
n­
octanol
/
water)
estimation
by
liquid
chromatography
SEE
GUIDELINE
830.7550
830.7840
Water
Solubility:
Column
Elution
Method;
Shake
Flask
Method
42397101
YES
82
g
/
100
mL
830.7860
Water
solubility
generator
column
method
SEE
GUIDELINE
830.7840
830.7950
Vapor
pressure
NO
*
DATA
GAP
Page
19
of
177
Table
9:
Product
Chemistry
Data
Summary
for
DiSodium
Methanearsonic
Salt
OPPTS
Guideline
Numbers
Luxembourg­
Pamol,
Inc.
Data
Requirements:
DSMA
[
TGAI]
PC
013802
CAS#
144­
21­
8
Master
Record
Identification
[
MRID]
Are
Data
Requirements
Fulfilled?
Results
or
*
Deficiency
830.1550
Product
Identity
and
Composition
NO
*
Data
Gap
830.1600
Description
of
Materials
Used
to
Produce
the
Product
42388301,
44150401
YES
830.1620
Description
of
Production
Process
42388301,
44150401
YES
830.1650
Description
of
Formulation
Process
NO
*
Data
Gap
830.1670
Discussion
of
Formation
of
Impurities
NO
*
Data
Gap
830.1700
Preliminary
Analysis
42053701,
45053702
YES
830.1750
Certified
Limits
NO
*
Data
Gap
830.1800
Enforcement
Analytical
Method
NO
*
Data
Gap
830.1900
Submittal
of
Samples
NO
*
Data
Gap
830.6302
Color
42451102
YES
WHITE
830.6303
Physical
State
42451102
YES
CRYSTALINE
SOLID
830.6304
Odor
42451102
YES
No
Odor
830.6313
Stability
to
normal
and
elevated
temperatures,
metals
and
metal
ions
NO
*
Data
Gap
830.7000
pH
41982002
YES
830.7050
UV/
VIS
absorption
NO
*
Data
Gap
830.7200
Melting
Point/
Melting
Range
41982001
YES
>
300
º
C
830.7220
Boiling
Point/
Boiling
Point
Range
NOT
APPLICABLE
830.7300
Density/
Relative
Density/
Bulk
Density
42451102
YES
830.7370
Dissociation
Constant
41976201
YES
830.7550
Partition
coefficient
(
n­
octanol
/
water)
shake
flask
method
41976202
YES
Log
P
O/
W
<
1
830.7560
Partition
coefficient
(
n­
octanol
/
water)
generator
column
method
SEE
GUIDELINE
830.7550
830.7570
Partition
coefficient
(
n­
octanol
/
water)
estimation
by
liquid
chromatography
SEE
GUIDELINE
830.7550
830.7840
Water
Solubility:
Column
Elution
Method;
Shake
Flask
Method
41602502
YES
830.7860
Water
solubility,
generator
column
method
SEE
GUIDELINE
830.7840
830.7950
Vapor
pressure
42120701
YES
0.0000001
mm
Hg
at
25
°
C
Page
20
of
177
Table
10:
Product
Chemistry
Data
Summary
for
DiSodium
Methanearsonic
Salt
OPPTS
Guideline
Numbers
APC
Holdings
Data
Requirements:
DSMA
[
TGAI]
PC
013802
CAS#
144­
21­
8
Master
Record
Identification
[
MRID]
Are
Data
Requirements
Fulfilled?
Results
or
*
Deficiency
830.1550
Product
Identity
and
Composition
NO
*
DATA
GAP
830.1600
Description
of
Materials
Used
to
Produce
the
Product
42361001
YES
830.1620
Description
of
Production
Process
42361001
YES
830.1650
Description
of
Formulation
Process
NO
*
DATA
GAP
830.1670
Discussion
of
Formation
of
Impurities
42053701
YES
830.1700
Preliminary
Analysis
42053702
YES
830.1750
Certified
Limits
NO
*
DATA
GAP
830.1800
Enforcement
Analytical
Method
NO
*
DATA
GAP
830.1900
Submittal
of
Samples
NO
*
DATA
GAP
830.6302
Color
42451102
YES
830.6303
Physical
State
42451102
YES
830.6304
Odor
42451102
YES
NO
ODOR
830.6313
Stability
to
normal
and
elevated
temperatures,
metals
and
metal
ions
NO
*
DATA
GAP
830.7000
pH
41982002
YES
830.7050
UV/
VIS
absorption
NO
*
DATA
GAP
830.7200
Melting
Point/
Melting
Range
41982001
YES
830.7220
Boiling
Point/
Boiling
Point
Range
SEE
GUIDELINE
830.7200
830.7300
Density/
Relative
Density/
Bulk
Density
42451102
YES
830.7370
Dissociation
Constant
41976201
YES
830.7550
Partition
coefficient
(
n­
octanol
/
water)
shake
flask
method
41976202
YES
830.7560
Partition
coefficient
(
n­
octanol
/
water)
generator
column
method
830.7570
Partition
coefficient
(
n­
octanol
/
water)
estimation
by
liquid
chromatography
SEE
GUIDELINE
830.7550
830.7840
Water
Solubility:
Column
Elution
Method;
Shake
Flask
Method
41602502
YES
830.7860
Water
solubility,
generator
column
method
SEE
GUIDELINE
830.7840
830.7950
Vapor
pressure
42120701
YES
Page
21
of
177
Table
11:
Product
Chemistry
Data
Summary
for
DiSodium
Methanearsonic
Salt
OPPTS
Guideline
Numbers
GB
Biosciences
Corporation
Data
Requirements:
81%
DSMA
FI
[
Technical]
PC
013802
CAS#
144­
21­
8
Master
Record
Identification
[
MRID]
Are
Data
Requirements
Fulfilled?
Results
or
*
Deficiency
830.1550
Product
Identity
and
Composition
42051902
YES
CSF
09/
23/
1991
830.1600
Description
of
Materials
Used
to
Produce
the
Product
NO
*
DATA
GAP
830.1620
Description
of
Production
Process
NO
*
DATA
GAP
830.1650
Description
of
Formulation
Process
NO
*
DATA
GAP
830.1670
Discussion
of
Formation
of
Impurities
NO
*
DATA
GAP
830.1700
Preliminary
Analysis
NO
*
DATA
GAP
830.1750
Certified
Limits
42051902,
CSF
09/
23/
1991
YES
830.1800
Enforcement
Analytical
Method
NO
*
DATA
GAP
830.1900
Submittal
of
Samples
NO
*
DATA
GAP
830.6302
Color
NO
*
DATA
GAP
830.6303
Physical
State
NO
*
DATA
GAP
830.6304
Odor
NO
*
DATA
GAP
830.6313
Stability
to
normal
and
elevated
temperatures,
metals
and
metal
ions
NO
*
DATA
GAP
830.7000
pH
NO
*
DATA
GAP
830.7050
UV/
VIS
absorption
NO
*
DATA
GAP
830.7200
Melting
Point/
Melting
Range
NO
*
DATA
GAP
830.7220
Boiling
Point/
Boiling
Point
Range
NO
*
DATA
GAP
830.7300
Density/
Relative
Density/
Bulk
Density
NO
*
DATA
GAP
830.7370
Dissociation
Constant
NO
*
DATA
GAP
830.7550
Partition
coefficient
(
n­
octanol
/
water)
shake
flask
method
NO
*
DATA
GAP
830.7560
Partition
coefficient
(
n­
octanol
/
water)
generator
column
method
NO
*
DATA
GAP
830.7570
Partition
coefficient
(
n­
octanol
/
water)
estimation
by
liquid
chromatography
NO
*
DATA
GAP
830.7840
Water
Solubility:
Column
Elution
Method;
Shake
Flask
Method
NO
*
DATA
GAP
830.7860
Water
solubility,
generator
column
method
NO
*
DATA
GAP
830.7950
Vapor
pressure
NO
*
DATA
GAP
Page
22
of
177
Table
12:
Product
Chemistry
Data
Summary
for
MonoSodium
Methanearsonic
Salt
OPPTS
Guideline
Numbers
Luxembourg­
Pamol,
Inc
Data
Requirements:
MSMA
[
TGAI]
PC
013803
CAS#
2163­
80­
6
Master
Record
Identification
[
MRID]
Are
Data
Requirements
Fulfilled?
Results
or
*
Deficiency
830.1550
Product
Identity
and
Composition
NO
*
DATA
GAP
830.1600
Description
of
Materials
Used
to
Produce
the
Product
NO
*
DATA
GAP
830.1620
Description
of
Production
Process
41602701,
42387801
YES
830.1650
Description
of
Formulation
Process
NO
*
DATA
GAP
830.1670
Discussion
of
Formation
of
Impurities
41602701,
42387801
YES
830.1700
Preliminary
Analysis
42387802
YES
830.1750
Certified
Limits
NO
*
DATA
GAP
830.1800
Enforcement
Analytical
Method
NO
*
DATA
GAP
830.1900
Submittal
of
Samples
NO
*
DATA
GAP
830.6302
Color
41610001,
42451101
YES
WHITE
830.6303
Physical
State
41610001,
42451101
YES
CRYSTALLINE
830.6304
Odor
41610001,
42451101
YES
NO
ODOR
830.6313
Stability
to
normal
and
elevated
temperatures,
metals
and
metal
ions
41610001,
42378601
YES
830.7000
pH
41610001,
42378601
YES
830.7050
UV/
VIS
absorption
NO
*
DATA
GAP
830.7200
Melting
Point/
Melting
Range
41789501
YES
830.7220
Boiling
Point/
Boiling
Point
Range
NOT
APPLICABLE
830.7300
Density/
Relative
Density/
Bulk
Density
42451101
YES
1.65
g/
mL
at
25
º
C
830.7370
Dissociation
Constant
41610001
YES
830.7550
Partition
coefficient
(
n­
octanol
/
water)
shake
flask
method
830.7560
Partition
coefficient
(
n­
octanol
/
water)
generator
column
method
830.7570
Partition
coefficient
(
n­
octanol
/
water)
estimation
by
liquid
chromatography
NO
*
DATA
GAP
830.7840
Water
Solubility:
Column
Elution
Method;
Shake
Flask
Method
41610001
YES
830.7860
Water
solubility,
generator
column
method
SEE
GUIDELINE
830.7840
830.7950
Vapor
pressure
41610001,
41651901
YES
0.00001
Pa
Page
23
of
177
Table
13:
Product
Chemistry
Data
Summary
for
MonoSodium
Methanearsonic
Salt
OPPTS
Guideline
Numbers
APC
Holdings,
Inc.
Data
Requirements:
MSMA
[
TGAI]
PC
013803
CAS#
2163­
80­
6
Master
Record
Identification
[
MRID]
Are
Data
Requirements
Fulfilled?
Results
or
*
Deficiency
830.1550
Product
Identity
and
Composition
NO
*
DATA
GAP
830.1600
Description
of
Materials
Used
to
Produce
the
Product
41702001
YES
830.1620
Description
of
Production
Process
41702001
YES
830.1650
Description
of
Formulation
Process
NO
*
DATA
GAP
830.1670
Discussion
of
Formation
of
Impurities
42474101
YES
830.1700
Preliminary
Analysis
41702002,
42474101
YES
830.1750
Certified
Limits
NO
*
DATA
GAP
830.1800
Enforcement
Analytical
Method
NO
*
DATA
GAP
830.1900
Submittal
of
Samples
NO
*
DATA
GAP
830.6302
Color
41610001
YES
830.6303
Physical
State
41610001
YES
830.6304
Odor
41610001
YES
NO
ODOR
830.6313
Stability
to
normal
and
elevated
temperatures,
metals
and
metal
ions
41610001,
4237801
YES
830.7000
pH
41610001,
4237801
YES
830.7050
UV/
VIS
absorption
NO
*
DATA
GAP
830.7200
Melting
Point/
Melting
Range
41789501
YES
830.7220
Boiling
Point/
Boiling
Point
Range
SEE
GUIDELINE
830.7200
830.7300
Density/
Relative
Density/
Bulk
Density
42451101
YES
830.7370
Dissociation
Constant
41610001
YES
830.7550
Partition
coefficient
(
n­
octanol
/
water)
shake
flask
method
830.7560
Partition
coefficient
(
n­
octanol
/
water)
generator
column
method
830.7570
Partition
coefficient
(
n­
octanol
/
water)
estimation
by
liquid
chromatography
NO
*
DATA
GAP
830.7840
Water
Solubility:
Column
Elution
Method;
Shake
Flask
Method
41610001
YES
830.7860
Water
solubility,
generator
column
method
SEE
GUIDELINE
830.7840
830.7950
Vapor
pressure
41610001,
41651901
YES
Page
24
of
177
Table
14:
Product
Chemistry
Data
Summary
for
MonoSodium
Methanearsonic
Salt
OPPTS
Guideline
Numbers
GB
Biosciences
Corporation
Data
Requirements:
MSMA
59%
[
Technical]
PC
013803
CAS#
2163­
80­
6
Master
Record
Identification
[
MRID]
Are
Data
Requirements
Fulfilled?
Results
or
*
Deficiency
830.1550
Product
Identity
and
Composition
42153501
YES
830.1600
Description
of
Materials
Used
to
Produce
the
Product
42081201
YES
830.1620
Description
of
Production
Process
42081201
YES
830.1650
Description
of
Formulation
Process
NO
*
DATA
GAP
830.1670
Discussion
of
Formation
of
Impurities
41608101
YES
830.1700
Preliminary
Analysis
41608101
YES
830.1750
Certified
Limits
NO
*
DATA
GAP
830.1800
Enforcement
Analytical
Method
NO
*
DATA
GAP
830.1900
Submittal
of
Samples
NO
*
DATA
GAP
830.6302
Color
NO
*
DATA
GAP
830.6303
Physical
State
NO
*
DATA
GAP
830.6304
Odor
NO
*
DATA
GAP
830.6313
Stability
to
normal
and
elevated
temperatures,
metals
and
metal
ions
41610001,
42378601
YES
830.7000
pH
NO
*
DATA
GAP
830.7050
UV/
VIS
absorption
NO
*
DATA
GAP
830.7200
Melting
Point/
Melting
Range
41789501
YES
830.7220
Boiling
Point/
Boiling
Point
Range
SEE
GUIDELINE
830.7200
830.7300
Density/
Relative
Density/
Bulk
Density
NO
*
DATA
GAP
830.7370
Dissociation
Constant
41610001
YES
830.7550
Partition
coefficient
(
n­
octanol
/
water)
shake
flask
method
830.7560
Partition
coefficient
(
n­
octanol
/
water)
generator
column
method
830.7570
Partition
coefficient
(
n­
octanol
/
water)
estimation
by
liquid
chromatography
NO
*
DATA
GAP
830.7840
Water
Solubility:
Column
Elution
Method;
Shake
Flask
Method
41610001
YES
830.7860
Water
solubility,
generator
column
method
SEE
GUIDELINE
830.7840
830.7950
Vapor
pressure
41610001,
41651901
YES
Page
25
of
177
Table
15:
Product
Chemistry
Data
Summary
for
Calcium
Methanearsonate
OPPTS
Guideline
Numbers
APC
Holding
Company
Data
Requirements:
CAMA
[
TGAI]
PC
013806
CAS#
5902­
95­
4
Master
Record
Identification
[
MRID]
Are
Data
Requirements
Fulfilled?
Results
or
*
Deficiency
830.1550
Product
Identity
and
Composition
NO
*
DATA
GAP
830.1600
Description
of
Materials
Used
to
Produce
the
Product
42913801
YES
830.1620
Description
of
Production
Process
42913801
YES
830.1650
Description
of
Formulation
Process
NO
*
DATA
GAP
830.1670
Discussion
of
Formation
of
Impurities
42913801
YES
830.1700
Preliminary
Analysis
42825901
YES
830.1750
Certified
Limits
NO
*
DATA
GAP
830.1800
Enforcement
Analytical
Method
NO
*
DATA
GAP
830.1900
Submittal
of
Samples
NO
*
DATA
GAP
830.6302
Color
42807602
YES
830.6303
Physical
State
42807603
YES
830.6304
Odor
42807604
YES
830.6313
Stability
to
normal
and
elevated
temperatures,
metals
and
metal
ions
42807609
YES
830.7000
pH
42807608
YES
830.7050
UV/
VIS
absorption
NO
*
DATA
GAP
830.7200
Melting
Point/
Melting
Range
42807605
YES
830.7220
Boiling
Point/
Boiling
Point
Range
SEE
GUIDELINE
830.7200
830.7300
Density/
Relative
Density/
Bulk
Density
42807606
YES
830.7370
Dissociation
Constant
Memo
YES
MEMO
09/
29/
1995,
07/
29/
1993,
A.
SMITH
830.7550
Partition
coefficient
(
n­
octanol
/
water)
shake
flask
method
830.7560
Partition
coefficient
(
n­
octanol
/
water)
generator
column
method
830.7570
Partition
coefficient
(
n­
octanol
/
water)
estimation
by
liquid
chromatography
NO
*
DATA
GAP
830.7840
Water
Solubility:
Column
Elution
Method;
Shake
Flask
Method
42807607
YES
830.7860
Water
solubility,
generator
column
method
SEE
GUIDELINE
830.7840
830.7950
Vapor
pressure
NO
*
DATA
GAP
1.6
Summary
of
Use
Pattern
and
Formulations
1.6.1
Occupational­
Use
and
Homeowner­
Use
Products
At
this
time,
products
containing
DMA,
CAMA,
MSMA
and
DSMA
are
intended
for
both
occupational
and
homeowner
uses.
DMA
is
an
organic
arsenical
cotton
defoliant
and
herbicide
registered
for
weed
control
under
non­
bearing
citrus
trees,
around
buildings,
and
sidewalks
and
for
lawn
renovation.
CAMA
is
an
organic
arsenical
herbicide
registered
for
postemergent
weed
control
on
lawns.
Both
MSMA
and
DSMA
are
organic
arsenical
herbicides
registered
for
weed
control
on
cotton,
for
turfgrass
and
lawns,
and
under
trees,
vines,
and
shrubs.
Page
26
of
177
The
MAA
(
Methanearsonic
Acid)
Research
Task
Force
consists
of
the
primary
registrants
for
DMA,
CAMA,
DSMA,
and
MSMA,
which
are
Luxembourg­
Pamol,
Inc.,
Zeneca
Agricultural
Products/
GP
Biosciences,
Drexel/
APC
Holdings,
and
Albaugh
Inc.
This
Task
Force
provided
a
Master
Label
review
that
contains
maximum
application
rates
and
use
parameters
for
each
active
ingredient.
This
assessment
examines
exposures
using
the
maximum
application
rates
obtained
from
the
Master
Label
(
ML).

1.6.2
Type
of
Pesticide/
Targeted
Pest
DMA
DMA
(
cacodylic
acid,
dimethylarsenic
acid)
is
used
as
a
cotton
defoliant.
It
also
is
an
herbicide
used
in
agricultural,
commercial
and
residential
settings
for
the
postemergent
control
of
annual
grasses
and
broadleaf
weeds,
which
include
(
but,
are
not
limited
to)
the
following:

 
Annual
Grass:
Annual
Bluegrass,
Annual
Bromegrass,
Annual
Ryegrass,
Bahiagrass,
Barnyard
grass,
Bentgrass,
Bermuda
grass,
Carpet
grass,
Crabgrass,
Giant
Foxtail,
Goosegrass,
Green
Foxtail,
Kentucky
Bluegrass,
Kikuyugrass,
Lovegrass,
Madien
Cane,
Napiergrass,
Nimblewill,
Nutgrass,
Panicum,
Pepeergrasss,
Poa
Annua,
Sandbur,
Saint
Augustinegrass,
Timothy,
Velvetgrass,
Watergrass,
Wild
Barley,
Wild
Oats,
Witchgrass,
Yellow
Foxtail.

 
Annual
Broadleaf
Weeds:
Bendweed,
Brassbuttons,
Buckhorn,
Burr
Clover,
Butter
Cup,
Cat
Tails,
Cats­
ear,
Chickweed,
Chicory,
Cocklebur,
Common
Plantain,
Common
Ragweed,
Course
Fescues,
Creeping
Beagarweed,
Dandeloins,
Dichondria,
Docks,
Dogbane,
Dog
Fennel,
Dollarweed,
English
Daisy,
Fine
Fescues,
Fleabane,
Florida
Pusley,
Frenchweed,
Galingsoga,
Hawkweed,
Healall,
Henbit,
Knotweed,
Kochia,
Lambsquarters,
Mallow,
Milkweed,
Moneywort,
Morning
Glory,
Mullein,
Nightshade,
Oxalis,
Pegweed,
Pigweed,
Posion
Ivy,
Posion
Oak,
Prostrate
Spruge,
Puncture
Vine,
Purslane,
Shattercane,
Sheep
Sorrel,
Shepard's
Purse,
Smart
Weed,
Spanish
Needles,
Speedwell,
Spotted
Spruge,
Stich
Wart,
Stinging
Nettle,
Thistle,
Wild
Aster,
Wild
Carrot,
Wild
Mustard,
Wild
Onion,
Wild
Radish,
Wintercress,
Witchweed,
Velvetleaf,
Vervains,
Yarrow,
Yellow
Wood
Sorrel.

 
Perennial
Weeds:
Bermuda
grass,
Dallis
Grass,
Johnsongrass,
Nutsedge,
Quackgrass,
Yellow
Nutsedge.

CAMA
CAMA
is
a
selective
herbicide
used
in
commercial
and
residential
settings
for
postemergent
weed
control
of
annual
grasses
and
broadleaf
weeds,
which
include
(
but,
are
not
limited
to)
the
following:

 
Grasses:
Bahiagrass,
Barnyard
grass,
Carpetgrass,
Centipedegrass
,
Crabgrass,
Crowfootgrass,
Dallisgrass,
Foxtail,
Goosegrass,
Johnsongrass,
Lovegrass,
Nutgrass,
Page
27
of
177
Nutsedge,
Paspalum,
Saint
Augustine
Grass,
Sandbur,
Sedge,
Vaseygrass
and
Witchgrass.

 
Weeds:
Chickweed,
Dandelions,
Knotweed,
and
Puncture
Vine.

DSMA
DSMA
is
a
selective
herbicide
used
in
agricultural,
commercial,
and
residential
settings
for
post­
emergent
weed
control
of
annual
grasses
and
broadleaf
weeds,
which
include
(
but,
are
not
limited
to)
the
following:

 
Grasses:
Bahiagrass,
Barnyard
grass,
Brachiaria,
Carpetgrass,
Centipedegrass
,
Crabgrass,
Crowfootgrass,
Dallisgrass,
Foxtail,
Goosegrass,
Guineagrass,
Johnsongrass,
Lemongrass,
Lovegrass,
Nutgrass,
Nutsedge,
Panicum,
Paspalum,
Peppergrass,
Ryegrass,
Saint
Augustine
grass,
Sandbur,
Sedge,
Signalgrass,
Watergrass,
Wild
Oats,
and
Witchgrass.

 
Weeds:
Aster,
Bedstraw,
Beggarweed,
Bindweed,
Blackgum,
Black
Medic,
Bullnettle,
Burclover,
Burdock,
Buttonweed,
Carpetweed,
Carelessweed,
Chickweed,
Chicory,
Clover,
Cocklebur,
Coffeeweed,
Dandeloins,
Dayflower,
Dock,
Fiddleneck,
Goathead,
Gooseberry,
Groundcherry,
Hairy
Beggarticks,
Healall,
Henbit,
Ironweed,
Ivy,
Jimsonweed,
Knotweed,
Lambsquarters,
Lespedeza,
Mallow,
Malva,
Morning
Glory,
Mustard,
Pigweed,
Plantain,
Posion
Ivy,
Posion
Oak,
Puncture
Vine,
Oxalis,
Punturevine,
Purslane,
Pusley,
Ragweed,
Sesbania,
Shepherdspurse,
Sicklepod,
Sida,
Smartweed,
Sourwood,
Speedwell,
Spurge,
Teaweed,
Tules,
Tumbleweed,
Velvetleaf,
Wild
Carrot,
Wild
Garlic,
Wild
Lettuce,
Wild
Onion,
Wood
Sorrel,
Yarrow.

MSMA
MSMA
is
a
selective
herbicide
used
in
agricultural,
commercial,
and
residential
settings
for
post­
emergent
weed
control
of
annual
grasses
and
broadleaf
weeds,
which
include
(
but,
are
not
limited
to)
the
following:

 
Grasses:
Bahiagrass,
Barnyard
grass,
Brachiaria,
Carpetgrass,
Centipedegrass
,
Crabgrass,
Crowfootgrass,
Dallisgrass,
Foxtail,
Goosegrass,
Guineagrass,
Johnsongrass,
Lemongrass,
Lovegrass,
Nutgrass,
Nutsedge,
Panicum,
Paspalum,
Peppergrass,
Ryegrass,
Saint
Augustine
grass,
Sandbur,
Sedge,
Signalgrass,
Watergrass,
Wild
Oats,
and
Witchgrass.

 
Weeds:
Aster,
Bedstraw,
Beggarweed,
Bindweed,
Blackgum,
Black
Medic,
Bullnettle,
Burclover,
Burdock,
Buttonweed,
Carpetweed,
Carelessweed,
Chickweed,
Chicory,
Clover,
Cocklebur,
Coffeeweed,
Dandeloins,
Dayflower,
Dock,
Fiddleneck,
Goathead,
Gooseberry,
Groundcherry,
Hairy
Beggarticks,
Healall,
Henbit,
Ironweed,
Ivy,
Jimsonweed,
Knotweed,
Lambsquarters,
Lespedeza,
Mallow,
Malva,
Morning
Glory,
Mustard,
Pigweed,
Plantain,
Posion
Ivy,
Posion
Oak,
Puncture
Vine,
Oxalis,
Punturevine,
Purslane,
Pusley,
Ragweed,
Sesbania,
Shepherdspurse,
Sicklepod,
Sida,
Smartweed,
Page
28
of
177
Sourwood,
Speedwell,
Spurge,
Teaweed,
Tules,
Tumbleweed,
Velvetleaf,
Wild
Carrot,
Wild
Garlic,
Wild
Lettuce,
Wild
Onion,
Wood
Sorrel,
Yarrow.

1.6.3
Formulation
Types
and
Percent
Active
Ingredient
DMA
DMA
is
formulated
as
a
liquid
concentrate
(
0.6
to
4.9
percent
active
ingredient),
a
pressurized
liquid
(
0.21
percent
active
ingredient),
and
a
ready­
to­
use
solution
(
0.09
to
0.39
percent
active
ingredient).

CAMA
CAMA
is
formulated
as
a
liquid
concentrate
(
8.4­
10.3%
active
ingredient)
and
a
readyto
use
solution
(
0.5
percent
active
ingredient).

DSMA
DSMA
is
formulated
as
a
liquid
concentrate
(
12.5­
36.9%)
and
a
wettable
powder
(
63­
81%)

MSMA
MSMA
technical
is
formulated
as
a
liquid
concentrate
(
7.2­
58.2%)
and
a
ready­
to­
use
liquid
(
0.4­
2.5%).

1.6.4
Registered
Use
Sites
Occupational­
Use
Sites
DMA
 
Agricultural
Crops:
cotton
and
non­
bearing
citrus
trees
(
grapefruit,
lemons,
limes,
oranges,
and
tangerines).
 
Ornamentals:
evergreen,
shrubs,
and
deciduous
ornamentals.
 
Lawn
Renovation.
 
Non­
Crop
Areas:
drainage
systems,
vacant
lots,
storage
areas,
recreational
areas,
around
buildings,
fences,
walls,
flower
beds,
and
gardens,
railroad,
highway
and
utility
rights­
of­
way,
pre­
paving
areas,
parking
lots,
brick
and
gravel
walks,
patios,
curbs,
gutters,
industrial
sites,
sidewalks,
and
driveways.
Page
29
of
177
CAMA
 
Turf
(
including
residential
lawns,
parks,
athletic
fields
and
golf
courses)

DSMA
 
Agricultural
Crops:
cotton,
non­
bearing
vineyards
and
orchards,
grass
grown
for
seed.
 
Turfgrass:
lawns
and
ornamental
turf
and
turf
grown
for
sod.
 
Non­
crop
areas:
drainage
systems,
vacant
lots,
storage
areas,
recreational
areas,
around
buildings,
fences,
walls,
flower
beds,
and
gardens,
railroad,
highway
and
utility
rights­
of­
way,
pre­
paving
areas,
parking
lots,
brick
and
gravel
walks,
patios,
curbs,
gutters,
industrial
sites,
sidewalks,
and
driveways.

MSMA
 
Agricultural
Crops:
cotton,
non­
bearing
vineyards
and
orchards,
grass
grown
for
seed.
 
Turfgrass:
lawns
and
ornamental
turf
and
turf
grown
for
sod.
 
Non­
crop
areas:
drainage
systems,
vacant
lots,
storage
areas,
recreational
areas,
around
buildings,
fences,
walls,
flower
beds,
and
gardens,
railroad,
highway
and
utility
rights­
of­
way,
pre­
paving
areas,
parking
lots,
brick
and
gravel
walks,
patios,
curbs,
gutters,
industrial
sites,
sidewalks,
and
driveways.

Residential/
Non­
occupational
Use
Sites:

DMA
 
Ornamentals:
evergreen,
shrubs,
and
deciduous
ornamentals.
 
Lawn
Renovation.
 
Non­
Crop
Areas:
around
buildings,
fences,
walls,
flower
beds,
and
gardens,
brick
and
gravel
walks,
patios,
curbs,
gutters,
sidewalks,
and
driveways.

CAMA
 
Turfgrass:
Lawns
and
ornamental
turf.

DSMA
 
Turfgrass:
Lawns
and
ornamental
turf.

MSMA
 
Turfgrass:
Lawns
and
ornamental
turf.
Page
30
of
177
1.6.5
Application
Rates
The
crop
groupings
with
their
corresponding
range
of
application
rates
are
summarized
in
Table
16
for
DMA,
Table
17
for
CAMA,
Table
18
for
DSMA,
and
Table
19
for
MSMA.
In
a
memo
dated
December
9,
2005,
master
labels
were
provided
for
all
of
the
organic
arsenic
chemicals
by
the
MAA
Research
Task
Force
and
the
rates
from
these
master
labels
were
used
in
the
assessment.
Note
that
much
higher
rates
are
found
on
some
current
end­
use
product
labels
and
these
higher
rates
will
need
to
be
reduced
to
the
levels
on
the
MAA
Research
Task
Force
master
labels.

Table
16:
DMA
Maximum
Application
Rates
obtained
from
the
Master
Label
Application
Master
Label
Maximum
Application
Rate
(
lb
ai/
A)
Applications
Per
Year
Cotton
Preconditioning
for
defoliation
0.3
1
Cotton
defoliation
0.8
1
Cotton
defoliation
0.6
2
Lawns
and
Ornamental
Turf
Lawn
renovation
7.3
2
Lawn
edging
7.72
4
Ornamentals
Ornamentals
7.3
6
Non­
Crop
Areas
Non­
crop
7.3
6
Nonbearing
Citrus
Ground
directed
4.96
3
Table
17:
CAMA
Maximum
Application
Rates
obtained
from
the
Master
Label
Timing
of
Application/
Use
Site
Master
Label
Maximum
Application
Rate
(
lb
ai/
A)
MMA
equivalent
(
lb
ai/
A)
Applications
Per
Year
Turfgrass,
Lawns
and
Ornamental
Turf
&
Turf
Grown
for
Sod
By
ground
only
on
athletic
fields,
golf
courses
(
no
greens),
parks
(
Bentgrass)
2.5
2.2
2
By
ground
on
well
established
actively
growing
turf
(
Grasses
other
than
Bent)
5
4.4
2
By
ground
on
established
Bermudagrass
&
zoysiagrass
4.182
3.6
4
Note:
One
broadcast
application
per
year.
All
additional
applications
are
to
be
spot
treatment
only.
In
Florida
all
applications
 
spot
treatment
only.
Page
31
of
177
Table
18:
DSMA
Maximum
Application
Rates
obtained
from
the
Master
Label
Timing
of
Application
Master
Label
Maximum
Application
Rate
(
lb
ai/
A)
MMA
equivalent
(
lb
ai/
A)
Maximum
Number
of
Applications
Per
Crop
Cotton
By
ground
or
air:
pre­
plant
or
post­
plant
(
up
to
cracking)
2.268
1.7
1
By
ground
or
air:
post­
emergent
(
as
over
the
top
broadcast
spray)
2.268
1.7
1
By
ground:
post­
emergent
(
directed
spray
application)
2.268
1.7
2
By
ground:
post­
emergent
(
directed
band
application)­
based
on
40
inch
row
spacing)
2.268
1.7
2
Grasses
Grown
for
Seed
in
Pacific
Northwest
only
(
Ryegrass,
Fescue,
and
Bluegrass)
Pacific
Northwest
apply
before
boot
stage
4.4
3.3
1
Lawns,
Ornamental
Turf,
and
Sod
Farms
By
ground
on
well
established
actively
growing
turf
3.293
2.5
4
Sod
Farms
3.293
2.5
4
Nonbearing
Orchards
and
Vineyards
Ground
directed
4.85
3.7
3
Noncrop
Areas
Ground
application
5.1
3.9
4
Table
19:
MSMA
Maximum
Application
Rates
obtained
from
the
Master
Label
Timing
of
Application
Master
Label
Maximum
Application
Rate
(
lb
ai/
A)
MMA
equivalent
(
lb
ai/
A)
Maximum
Number
of
Applications
Per
Crop
Cotton
By
ground
or
air:
pre­
plant
or
post­
plant
(
up
to
cracking)
2.0
1.7
1
1.875
1.6
1
By
ground
or
air:
post­
emergent
(
as
over
the
top
broadcast
spray)
0.9375
0.8
2
By
ground:
post­
emergent
(
directed
spray
application)
2.0
1.7
2
Grasses
Grown
for
Seed
in
Pacific
Northwest
only
(
Ryegrass,
Fescue,
and
Bluegrass)
Pacific
Northwest
apply
before
boot
stage
6.16
5.3
1
Lawns,
Ornamental
Turf,
and
Sod
Farms
By
ground
only
on
athletic
fields,
golf
courses
(
no
greens),
parks
2.6136
2.3
4
By
ground
on
well
established
actively
growing
turf
2.178
1.9
4
By
ground
on
established
Bermudagrass
&
zoysiagrass
3.9204
3.4
4
Sod
Farms
3.9204
3.4
4
Nonbearing
Orchards
and
Vineyards
Ground
directed
4
3.5
3
Noncrop
Areas
Ground
application
4.5
3.9
4
Page
32
of
177
1.6.6
Method
and
Types
of
Equipment
Used
for
Mixing,
Loading
and
Application
DMA
 
Agricultural
Crops:
equipment
includes
aircraft,
groundboom
sprayer,
low
pressure
handwand
sprayer,
and
handgun
sprayer.
 
General
Weeds
or
Undesirable
Grasses:
Equipment
for
commercial
use
includes:
handgun
sprayer,
low
pressure
handwand
sprayer,
and
rights­
of­
way
sprayer.
Equipment
for
residential
use
includes:
low
pressure
handwand
sprayer,
hose­
end
sprayer,
trigger
pump
sprayer,
and
sprinkler
can.
 
Lawn
and
Turf
Renovation:
Equipment
for
commercial
use
includes:
handgun
sprayer
and
low
pressure
handwand
sprayer.
Equipment
for
residential
use
includes:
low
pressure
handwand
sprayer
and
hose­
end
sprayer.
 
Non­
bearing
Citrus
Trees:
Equipment
for
commercial
use
includes:
groundboom
sprayer,
handgun
sprayer,
low
pressure
handwand.

CAMA
According
to
the
occupational
use
label,
the
product
is
applied
using
a
fixed
boom
sprayer
(
i.
e.
groundboom);
however,
HED
has
also
assessed
occupational
exposures
for
handgun
applications,
because
handguns
are
a
typical
application
method
for
applications
to
turfgrass
by
occupational/
commercial
applicators.
The
application
equipment
for
homeowner
liquid
concentrate
formulations
are:
hose­
end
sprayer
and
low
pressure
handwand
sprayers.
Homeowner
ready­
to­
use
formulations
are
applied
with
trigger
pump
sprayers.

DSMA
 
Cotton
­­
Equipment
for
commercial
use
includes:
groundboom
sprayer
and
aerial
application.
 
General
Weeds
or
Undesirable
Grasses
­­
Equipment
for
commercial
use
includes:
turf
handgun
sprayer,
low
pressure
hand
wand,
groundboom
sprayer
application,
and
rights­
of­
way
sprayer.
Equipment
for
residential
use
includes:
low
pressure
hand
wand,
hose
end
sprayer
and
ready­
to­
use
hose
end
sprayer.
 
Non­
bearing
Vineyards
and
Orchards
­­
Equipment
for
commercial
use
includes:
turf
handgun
sprayer,
and
low
pressure
handwand.

MSMA
 
Cotton
­­
Equipment
for
commercial
use
includes:
groundboom
sprayer
and
aerial
application.
 
General
Weeds
or
Undesirable
Grasses
­­
Equipment
for
commercial
use
includes:
turf
handgun
sprayer,
low
pressure
hand
wand,
groundboom
sprayer
application,
and
rights­
of­
way
sprayer.
Equipment
for
residential
use
includes:
low
pressure
hand
wand,
hose
end
sprayer
and
ready­
to­
use
hose
end
sprayer.
Page
33
of
177
 
Non­
bearing
Vineyards
and
Orchards
­­
Equipment
for
commercial
use
includes:
turf
handgun
sprayer,
and
low
pressure
handwand.
 
Forestry
­­
Equipment
for
commercial
use
includes:
Hypo­
Hatchet
Injector
1.6.7
Timing
and
Frequency
of
Application
DMA
is
typically
applied
postemergent
at
any
time
of
the
year,
but
for
best
results
it
should
be
applied
during
warm,
sunny
weather.
Depending
on
the
use­
pattern,
DMA
can
be
applied
up
to
four
times
per
year.

CAMA
is
most
effective
when
applied
to
weeds
during
hot
summer
weather,
but
has
worked
effectively
at
temperatures
as
low
as
70oF
on
day
with
high
humidity.
Apply
to
weeds
when
actively
growing.
Two
applications,
5
to
7
days
apart,
are
usually
required
for
the
complete
killing
of
weeds.

MSMA
and
DSMA
are
typically
applied
post­
emergent
at
any
time
of
the
year,
but
for
best
results
it
should
be
applied
during
warm,
sunny
weather.
For
weed
control
on
cotton,
they
are
usually
applied
twice
a
year
and
for
weed
control
on
non­
bearing
vineyards
and
orchards,
they
are
usually
applied
three
times
a
year.
For
weed
control
on
turfgrass,
they
are
usually
applied
four
times
a
year.

2.0
OCCUPATIONAL
EXPOSURE
AND
RISKS
2.1
Occupational
Handler
Exposures
and
Risk
Estimates
HED
uses
the
term
"
handlers"
to
describe
those
individuals
who
are
involved
in
the
pesticide
application
process.
HED
believes
that
there
are
distinct
job
functions
or
tasks
related
to
applications
and
that
exposures
can
vary
depending
on
the
specifics
of
each
task.
Job
requirements
(
e.
g.,
amount
of
chemical
to
be
used
in
an
application),
the
kinds
of
equipment
used,
the
target
being
treated,
and
the
level
of
protection
used
by
a
handler
can
cause
exposure
levels
to
differ
in
a
manner
specific
to
each
application
event.

HED
uses
exposure
scenarios
to
describe
the
various
types
of
handler
exposures
that
may
occur
for
a
specific
active
ingredient.
The
use
of
scenarios
as
a
basis
for
exposure
assessment
is
very
common
as
described
in
the
U.
S.
EPA
Guidelines
for
Exposure
Assessment
(
U.
S.
EPA;
Federal
Register
Volume
57,
Number
104;
May
29,
1992).
Information
from
the
current
labels,
use
and
usage
information,
toxicology
data,
and
exposure
data
were
all
key
components
in
the
development
of
the
exposure
scenarios.
HED
has
developed
a
series
of
general
descriptions
for
tasks
that
are
associated
with
pesticide
applications.
Tasks
associated
with
occupational
pesticide
handlers
are
categorized
using
one
of
the
following
terms:

 
Mixers
and/
or
Loaders:
these
individuals
perform
tasks
in
preparation
for
an
application.
For
example,
prior
to
application,
mixer/
loaders
would
mix
the
chemical
and
load
it
into
the
holding
tank
of
the
airplane
or
groundboom.
Page
34
of
177
 
Applicators:
these
individuals
operate
application
equipment
during
the
release
of
a
pesticide
product
into
the
environment.
These
individuals
can
make
applications
using
equipment
such
as
airplanes
or
groundboom.

 
Mixer/
Loader/
Applicators
and
or
Loader/
Applicators:
these
individuals
are
involved
in
the
entire
pesticide
application
process
(
i.
e.,
they
do
all
job
functions
related
to
a
pesticide
application
event).
These
individuals
would
transfer
the
chemical
into
the
application
equipment
and
then
also
apply
the
pesticide.

 
Flaggers:
these
individuals
provide
ground
support
to
aerial
applicators
by
indicating
where
the
swath
ends
and
the
next
one
should
begin.

A
chemical
can
produce
different
effects
based
on
how
long
a
person
is
exposed,
how
frequently
exposures
occur,
and
the
level
of
exposure.
HED
classifies
exposures
up
to
30
days
as
short­
term
and
exposures
greater
than
30
days
up
to
several
months
as
intermediate­
term.
HED
completes
both
short­
and
intermediate­
term
assessments
for
occupational
scenarios
in
essentially
all
cases,
because
these
kinds
of
exposures
are
likely
and
acceptable
use/
usage
data
are
not
available
to
justify
deleting
intermediate­
term
scenarios.
Based
on
use
data
and
label
instructions,
HED
believes
that
occupational
MMA
and
DMA
exposures
may
occur
over
a
single
day
or
up
to
weeks
at
a
time
for
many
use­
patterns
and
that
intermittent
exposures
over
several
weeks
also
may
occur.
Some
applicators
may
apply
MMA
(
CAMA,
MSMA,
and/
or
DSMA)
or
DMA
over
a
period
of
weeks,
because
they
are
custom
or
commercial
applicators
who
are
completing
a
number
of
applications
for
a
number
of
different
clients.
Long­
term
handler
exposures
are
not
expected
to
occur
for
MMA
and
DMA.

Other
parameters
are
also
defined
from
use
and
usage
data
such
as
application
rates
and
application
frequency.
HED
always
completes
non­
cancer
risk
assessments
using
maximum
application
rates
for
each
in
order
to
ensure
there
are
no
concerns
for
each
specific
use.

Occupational
handler
exposure
assessments
are
completed
by
HED
using
different
levels
of
risk
mitigation.
Typically,
HED
uses
a
tiered
approach.
The
lowest
tier
is
designated
as
the
baseline
exposure
scenario
(
i.
e.,
long­
sleeve
shirt,
long
pants,
shoes,
socks,
and
no
respirator).
If
risks
are
of
concern
at
baseline
attire,
then
increasing
levels
of
personal
protective
equipment
or
PPE
(
e.
g.,
gloves,
double­
layer
body
protection,
and
respirators)
are
evaluated.
If
risks
remain
a
concern
with
maximum
PPE,
then
engineering
controls
(
e.
g.,
enclosed
cabs
or
cockpits,
watersoluble
packaging,
and
closed
mixing/
loading
systems)
are
evaluated.
This
approach
is
used
to
ensure
that
the
lowest
level
of
risk
mitigation
that
provides
adequate
protection
is
selected,
since
the
addition
of
PPE
and
engineering
controls
involves
an
additional
expense
to
the
user
and
 
in
the
case
of
PPE
 
also
involves
an
additional
burden
to
the
user
due
to
decreased
comfort
and
dexterity
and
increased
heat
stress
and
respiratory
stress.
Page
35
of
177
2.1.1
Data
and
Assumptions
For
Handler
Exposure
Scenarios
2.1.1.1
Assumptions
for
Handler
Exposure
Scenarios
A
series
of
assumptions
and
exposure
factors
served
as
the
basis
for
completing
the
occupational
handler
risk
assessments.
Each
assumption
and
factor
is
detailed
below
on
an
individual
basis.
The
assumptions
and
factors
used
in
the
risk
calculations
include:

 
Occupational
handler
exposure
estimates
were
based
on
surrogate
data
from:
(
1)
the
Pesticide
Handlers
Exposure
Database
(
PHED)
and
(
2)
the
Outdoor
Residential
Exposure
Task
Force
(
ORETF).

 
The
toxicological
endpoint
of
concern
for
dermal
and
inhalation
risks
are
from
studies
where
the
effects
were
observed
in
males
and
females,
therefore,
the
average
body
weight
of
an
adult
male
handler
(
i.
e.,
70
kg)
is
used
to
complete
the
dermal
and
inhalation
noncancer
risk
assessment.

 
Generic
protection
factors
(
PFs)
were
used
to
calculate
exposures
when
data
were
not
available.
For
example,
an
80
percent
protection
factor
was
assumed
for
the
use
of
a
respirator
equipped
with
a
dust/
mist
filter.

 
For
non­
cancer
assessments,
HED
assumes
the
maximum
application
rates
allowed
by
the
master
labels
in
its
risk
assessments
(
see
Tables
8,
9,
10,
and
11).

 
The
average
occupational
workday
is
assumed
to
be
8
hours.

 
The
daily
areas
treated
were
defined
for
each
handler
scenario
(
in
appropriate
units)
by
determining
the
amount
that
can
be
reasonably
treated
in
a
single
day
(
e.
g.,
acres,
square
feet,
or
gallons
per
day).
When
possible,
the
assumptions
for
daily
areas
treated
are
taken
from
the
Health
Effects
Division
Science
Advisory
Committee
on
Exposure
SOP
#
9:
Standard
Values
for
Daily
Acres
Treated
in
Agriculture,
which
was
completed
on
July
5,
2000.
However,
no
standard
values
are
available
for
numerous
scenarios.
Assumptions
for
these
scenarios
are
based
on
HED
estimates
and
could
be
further
refined
from
input
from
affected
sectors
(
see
Table
4).

2.1.1.2
Exposure
Data
for
Handler
Exposure
Scenarios
HED
uses
unit
exposure
to
assess
handler
exposures
to
pesticides.
Unit
exposures
are
estimates
of
the
amount
of
exposure
to
an
active
ingredient
a
handler
receives
while
performing
various
handler
tasks
and
are
expressed
in
terms
of
micrograms
or
milligrams
of
active
ingredient
per
pounds
of
active
ingredient
handled.
HED
has
developed
a
series
of
unit
exposures
that
are
unique
for
each
scenario
typically
considered
in
our
assessments
(
i.
e.,
there
are
different
unit
exposures
for
different
types
of
application
equipment,
job
functions,
and
levels
of
protection).
The
unit
exposure
concept
has
been
established
in
the
scientific
literature
and
also
through
various
exposure
monitoring
guidelines
published
by
the
U.
S.
EPA
and
Page
36
of
177
international
organizations
such
as
Health
Canada
and
OECD
(
Organization
for
Economic
Cooperation
and
Development).

Pesticide
Handler
Exposure
Database
(
PHED)
Version
1.1
(
August
1998):
PHED
was
designed
by
a
task
force
of
representatives
from
the
U.
S.
EPA,
Health
Canada,
the
California
Department
of
Pesticide
regulation,
and
member
companies
of
the
American
Crop
Protection
Association.
PHED
is
a
software
system
consisting
of
two
parts
 
a
database
of
measured
exposures
for
workers
involved
in
the
handling
of
pesticides
under
actual
field
conditions
and
a
set
of
computer
algorithms
used
to
subset
and
statistically
summarize
the
selected
data.
Currently,
the
database
contains
values
for
over
1,700
monitored
individuals
(
i.
e.,
replicates).

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

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

The
unit
exposures
calculated
by
PHED
generally
range
from
the
geometric
mean
to
the
median
of
the
selected
data
set.
To
add
consistency
and
quality
control
to
the
values
produced
from
this
system,
the
PHED
Task
Force
has
evaluated
all
data
within
the
system
and
has
developed
a
set
of
grading
criteria
to
characterize
the
quality
of
the
original
study
data.
The
assessment
of
data
quality
is
based
on
the
number
of
observations
and
the
available
quality
control
data.
These
evaluation
criteria
and
the
caveats
specific
to
each
exposure
scenario
are
summarized
in
Appendix
M.
While
data
from
PHED
provide
the
best
available
information
on
handler
exposures,
it
should
be
noted
that
some
aspects
of
the
included
studies
(
e.
g.,
duration,
acres
treated,
pounds
of
active
ingredient
handled)
may
not
accurately
represent
labeled
uses
in
all
cases.
HED
has
developed
a
series
of
tables
of
standard
unit
exposure
for
many
occupational
scenarios
that
can
be
utilized
to
ensure
consistency
in
exposure
assessments.
Unit
exposures
are
used
which
represent
different
levels
of
personal
protection
as
described
above.
Protection
factors
were
used
to
calculate
unit
exposures
for
varying
levels
of
personal
protection
if
data
were
not
available.
Page
37
of
177
ORETF
Handler
Studies
(
MRID
449722­
01):
A
report
was
submitted
by
the
ORETF
(
Outdoor
Residential
Exposure
Task
Force)
that
presented
data
in
which
the
application
of
various
products
used
on
turf
by
homeowners
and
lawncare
operators
(
LCOs)
was
monitored.
All
of
the
data
submitted
in
this
report
were
completed
in
a
series
of
studies.

OMA002:
LCO
Spray
Applications
with
a
Low
Pressure
Handgun
(
MRID
449722­
01):
A
mixer/
loader/
applicator
study
was
performed
by
the
Outdoor
Residential
Exposure
Task
Force
(
ORETF)
using
Dacthal
as
a
surrogate
compound
to
determine
"
generic"
exposures
to
individuals
applying
a
pesticide
to
turf
with
a
low­
pressure
"
nozzle
gun"
or
"
handgun"
sprayer.
Dermal
and
inhalation
exposures
were
estimated
using
whole­
body
passive
dosimeters
and
breathing­
zone
air
samples
on
OVS
tubes.
Inhalation
exposure
was
calculated
using
an
assumed
respiratory
rate
of
17
liters
per
minute
for
light
work
(
NAFTA,
1999),
the
actual
sampling
time
for
each
individual,
and
the
pump
flow
rate.
All
results
were
normalized
for
pounds
active
ingredient
handled.

A
total
of
90
replicates
were
monitored
using
17
different
subjects.
Four
different
formulations
of
dacthal
[
75%
wettable
powder
(
packaged
in
4
and
24
pound
bags),
75%
wettable
powder
in
water
soluble
bags
(
3
pound
bag),
75%
water
dispersible
granules
(
2
pound
bag)
and
55%
liquid
flowable
(
2.5
gallon
container)]
were
applied
by
five
different
LCOs
to
actual
residential
lawns
at
each
site
in
three
different
locations
(
Ohio,
Maryland,
and
Georgia)
for
a
total
of
fifteen
replicates
per
formulation.
An
additional
ten
replicates
at
each
site
were
monitored
while
they
performed
spray
application
only
using
the
75
percent
wettable
powder
formulation.
A
target
application
rate
of
2
pounds
active
ingredient
was
used
for
all
replicates
(
actual
rate
achieved
was
about
2.2
pounds
active
ingredient
per
acre).
Each
replicate
treated
a
varying
number
of
actual
client
lawns
to
attain
a
representative
target
of
2.5
acres
(
1
hectare)
of
turf.
The
exposure
periods
averaged
five
hours
twenty­
one
minutes,
five
hours
thirty­
nine
minutes,
and
six
hours
twenty­
four
minutes,
in
Ohio,
Maryland
and
Georgia,
respectively.
Average
time
spent
spraying
at
all
sites
was
about
two
hours.
All
mixing,
loading,
application,
adjusting,
calibrating,
and
spill
clean
up
procedures
were
monitored,
except
for
typical
end­
ofday
clean­
up
activities,
e.
g.
rinsing
of
spray
tank,
etc.
Dermal
exposure
was
measured
using
inner
and
outer
whole
body
dosimeters,
hand
washes,
face/
neck
washes,
and
personal
air
monitoring
devices.
All
test
subjects
wore
one­
piece,
100
percent
cotton
inner
dosimeters
beneath
100
percent
cotton
long­
sleeved
shirt
and
long
pants,
rubber
boots
and
nitrile
gloves.
Gloves
are
typically
worn
by
most
LCOs,
and
required
by
many
pesticide
labels
for
mixing
and
loading.

Overall,
residues
were
highest
on
the
upper
and
lower
leg
portions
of
the
dosimeters.
In
general,
concurrent
lab
spikes
produced
mean
recoveries
in
the
range
of
78­
120
percent,
with
the
exception
of
OVS
sorbent
tube
sections
which
produced
mean
recoveries
as
low
as
65.8
percent.
Adjustment
for
recoveries
from
field
fortifications
were
performed
on
each
dosimeter
section
or
sample
matrix
for
each
study
participant,
using
the
mean
recovery
for
the
closest
field
spike
level
for
each
matrix
and
correcting
the
value
to
100
percent.
The
unit
exposure
values
are
presented
below
in
Table
20.
[
Note
the
data
were
found
to
be
lognormally
distributed.
As
a
result,
all
exposure
values
are
geometric
means.]
Page
38
of
177
Table
20:
Unit
Exposure
Values
Obtained
for
LCO
Spray
Applications
with
a
Low
Pressure
Handgun
from
ORETF
Handgun
Studies
(
MRID
449722­
01)
Total
Dermal
Unit
Exposure1
(
mg/
lb
ai)
Application
Method4
Single
Layer,
No
Gloves
Single
Layer,
Gloves
Double
Layer,
Gloves
3
Inhalation
Unit
Exposure1,2
(
ug/
lb
ai)

LCO
Handgun
Spray
Mixer/
Loader/
Applicator
Liquid
Flowable
No
Data
0.45
0.245
1.8
LCO
Handgun
Spray
Mixer/
Loader/
Applicator
Water
Dispersable
Granule
No
Data
0.58
0.37
22
LCO
Handgun
Spray
Mixer/
Loader/
Applicator
Wettable
Powder
in
Water
Soluble
Bags
No
Data
0.58
0.37
7.2
LCO
Handgun
Spray
Mixer/
Loader/
Applicator
Wettable
Powder
No
Data
0.80
0.43
64
LCO
Handgun
Spray
Applicator
Only
Wettable
Powder
No
Data
0.74
0.40
1.0
1
Unit
exposure
values
reported
are
geometric
means.
2
Air
concentration
(
mg/
m3/
lb
ai)
calculated
using
NAFTA
`
99
standard
breathing
rate
of
17
lpm
(
1
m3/
hr).
3
Exposure
calculated
using
OPP/
HED
50%
protection
factor
(
PF)
for
cotton
coveralls
on
torso,
arms,
and
legs.
4
All
commercial
handlers
wore
long
pants,
long­
sleeved
shirt,
nitrile
gloves
and
shoes.

2.1.2
Occupational
Handler
Exposure
Scenarios
It
has
been
determined
that
exposure
to
pesticide
handlers
is
likely
during
the
occupational
use
of
MMA
or
DMA
on
agricultural
crops,
non­
crop
areas
and
on
turfgrass.
The
anticipated
use
patterns
and
current
labeling
indicate
occupational
exposure
scenarios
based
on
the
types
of
equipment
and
techniques
that
can
potentially
be
used
for
MMA
or
DMA
applications.
The
quantitative
exposure/
risk
assessment
developed
for
occupational
handlers
is
based
on
the
following
scenarios.

DMA
Mixer/
Loaders:
(
1a)
Mixing/
loading
liquids
for
aerial
application
(
PHED);
(
1b)
Mixing/
loading
liquids
for
ground
application
(
PHED);
(
1c)
Mixing/
loading
liquids
to
support
LCO
handgun
applications
(
PHED);
(
1d)
Mixing/
loading
liquids
for
rights­
of­
way
application
(
PHED);

Applicators:
(
2)
Applying
sprays
with
aerial
equipment
(
PHED);
(
3)
Applying
liquids
with
groundboom
sprayer
(
PHED);
(
4)
Applying
sprays
with
a
handgun
sprayer
(
PHED);
(
5)
Applying
sprays
with
rights­
of­
way
sprayer
(
PHED);

Flaggers:
(
6)
Flagging
sprays
for
aerial
application
(
PHED);
Page
39
of
177
Mixer/
Loader/
Applicators:
(
7)
Mixing/
loading/
applying
liquids
with
low
pressure
handwand
sprayer
(
ORETF);
(
8)
Mixing/
loading/
applying
liquids
with
a
handgun
sprayer
(
LCO
ORETF);
(
9)
Applying
ready­
to­
use
liquids
with
a
trigger­
pump
sprayer
(
ORETF);
and
(
10)
Mixing/
loading/
applying
liquids
with
a
watering
can
(
ORETF
hose­
end
data).

CAMA
Mixer/
Loaders:
(
1a)
Liquid
Formulations
for
Groundboom
Applications
(
PHED);
(
1b)
Liquid
Formulations
for
LCO
Handgun
Applications
(
PHED);

Applicators:
(
2)
Groundboom
Spray
Applications
(
PHED);
(
3)
Handgun
Sprayer
Applications
(
PHED);
and
Mixer/
Loader/
Applicators:
(
4)
Liquid
Formulations:
Handgun
Sprayer
(
ORETF).

DSMA
Mixer/
Loaders:
(
1a)
liquids
for
aerial
application
(
PHED);
(
1b)
liquids
for
ground
application
(
PHED);
(
1c)
liquids
to
support
LCO
handgun
applications
(
PHED);
(
1d)
liquids
for
rights­
of­
way
application
(
PHED);

Applicators:
(
2)
sprays
with
aerial
equipment
(
PHED);
(
3)
sprays
with
groundboom
sprayer
(
PHED);
(
4)
sprays
with
a
turf
handgun
sprayer
(
PHED);
(
5)
sprays
with
rights­
of­
way
sprayer
(
PHED);

Flaggers:
(
6)
flagging
for
aerial
sprays
applications
(
PHED);

Mixer/
Loader/
Applicators:
(
7)
liquids
with
low
pressure
handwand
(
ORETF);
and
(
8)
liquids
with
a
handgun
sprayer
(
LCO
ORETF
data).

MSMA
Mixer/
Loaders:
(
1a)
liquids
for
aerial
application
(
PHED);
(
1b)
liquids
for
ground
application
(
PHED);
Page
40
of
177
(
1c)
liquids
to
support
LCO
handgun
applications
(
PHED);
(
1d)
liquids
for
rights­
of­
way
application
(
PHED);

Applicators:
(
2)
sprays
with
aerial
equipment
(
PHED);
(
3)
sprays
with
groundboom
sprayer
(
PHED);
(
4)
sprays
with
a
turf
handgun
sprayer
(
PHED);
(
5)
sprays
with
rights­
of­
way
sprayer
(
PHED);

Flaggers:
(
6)
flagging
for
aerial
sprays
applications
(
PHED);

Mixer/
Loader/
Applicators:
(
7)
liquids
with
low
pressure
handwand
(
ORETF);
and
(
8)
liquids
with
a
handgun
sprayer
(
LCO
ORETF
data).

2.1.3
Non­
cancer
Occupational
Handler
Exposure
and
Assessment
2.1.3.1
Non­
cancer
Occupational
Handler
Exposure
and
Risk
Calculations
Daily
Exposure:
Daily
dermal
or
inhalation
handler
exposures
are
estimated
for
each
applicable
handler
task
with
the
application
rate,
the
area
treated
in
a
day,
and
the
applicable
dermal
or
inhalation
unit
exposure
using
the
following
formula:

Daily
Exposure
(
mg
ai/
day)
=
Unit
Exposure
(
mg
ai/
lb
ai
handled)
x
Application
Rate
(
lbs
ai/
area)
x
Daily
Area
Treated
(
area/
day)

Where:

Daily
Exposure
=
Amount
(
mg
or
µ
g
ai/
day)
deposited
on
the
surface
of
the
skin
that
is
available
for
dermal
absorption
or
amount
inhaled
that
is
available
for
inhalation
absorption;
Unit
Exposure
=
Unit
exposure
value
(
mg
or
µ
g
ai/
lb
ai)
derived
from
August
1998
PHED
data,
from
ORETF
data,
from
CMA
data,
and
from
Proprietary
data;
Application
Rate
=
Normalized
application
rate
based
on
a
logical
unit
treatment,
such
as
acres,
square
feet,
or
gallons.
Maximum
values
are
generally
used
(
lb
ai/
A,
lb
ai/
sq
ft,
lb
ai/
gal);
and
Daily
Area
Treated
=
Normalized
application
area
based
on
a
logical
unit
treatment
such
as
acres
(
A/
day),
square
feet
(
sq
ft/
day),
gallons
per
day
(
gal/
day).

Daily
Dose:
The
daily
dermal
or
inhalation
dose
is
calculated
by
normalizing
the
daily
exposure
by
body
weight
and
adjusting,
if
necessary,
with
an
appropriate
dermal
or
inhalation
absorption
factor.
For
all
dermal
and
inhalation
exposure
scenarios
for
MMA
and
DMA,
an
average
male
and
female
body
weight
of
70
kilograms
was
used,
since
the
toxicological
endpoint
is
not
sex­
specific.
Daily
dose
was
calculated
using
the
following
formula:
Page
41
of
177
Average
Daily
Dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
=
Daily
Exposure
(
mg
ai/
day)
x
(
Absorption
Factor
(%/
100)
/
Body
Weight
(
kg)

Where:

Average
Daily
Dose
=
Absorbed
dose
received
from
exposure
to
a
pesticide
in
a
given
scenario
(
mg
pesticide
active
ingredient/
kg
body
weight/
day);
Daily
Exposure
=
Amount
(
mg
ai/
day)
deposited
on
the
surface
of
the
skin
that
is
available
for
dermal
absorption
or
amount
inhaled
that
is
available
for
inhalation
absorption;
Absorption
Factor
=
A
measure
of
the
amount
of
chemical
that
crosses
a
biological
boundary
such
as
the
skin
or
lungs
(%
of
the
total
available
absorbed);
and
Body
Weight
=
Body
weight
determined
to
represent
the
population
of
interest
in
a
risk
assessment
(
kg).

Margins
of
Exposure:
Non­
cancer
dermal
and
inhalation
risks
for
each
applicable
handler
scenario
are
calculated
using
a
Margin
of
Exposure
(
MOE),
which
is
a
ratio
of
the
daily
dose
to
the
toxicological
endpoint
of
concern.
All
MOE
values
were
calculated
separately
for
dermal
and
inhalation
exposure
levels
using
the
formula
below:

MOE=
NOAEL
or
LOAEL
(
mg/
kg/
day)
/
Average
Daily
Dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)

Where:

MOE
=
Margin
of
Exposure,
value
used
by
HED
to
represent
risk
or
how
close
a
chemical
exposure
is
to
being
a
concern
(
unitless);
ADD
=
Average
Daily
Dose
or
the
absorbed
dose
received
from
exposure
to
a
pesticide
in
a
given
scenario
(
mg
pesticide
active
ingredient/
kg
body
weight/
day);
and
NOAEL
or
LOAEL
=
Dose
level
in
a
toxicity
study,
where
no
observed
adverse
effects
(
NOAEL)
or
where
the
lowest
observed
adverse
effects
(
LOAEL)
occurred
in
the
study
Risk
values
are
presented
for
each
route
of
exposure
(
i.
e.,
dermal
or
inhalation)
in
each
scenario,
because
risk
mitigation
measures
are
specific
to
the
route
of
exposure.
A
total
MOE
was
not
calculated
for
MMA
or
DMA
because
the
dermal
and
inhalation
toxicological
endpoints
of
concern
are
based
on
different
adverse
effects.

2.1.3.2
Occupational
Non­
cancer
Risk
Summary
(
using
PHED
and
ORETF
data)

Tables
21,
22,
23
and
24
present
the
risk
assessments
for
short
and
intermediate­
term
dermal
and
inhalation
exposures
at
baseline,
with
additional
personal
protective
equipment,
and
with
engineering
controls,
for
DMA,
CAMA,
MSMA,
and
DSMA,
respectively.
Page
42
of
177
Table
21:
DMA
Occupational
Handler
Short­
and
Intermediate­
term
Dermal
and
Inhalation
Exposure
and
Risks
MOEs
Baseline
PPE
Engineering
Controls
Exposure
Scenario
Crop
or
Target
Application
Rate
(
lb
ai/
A)
Area
Treated
Daily
(
acres)
Dermal
Inhalation
Dermal
 

single
layer
w/
gloves
Dermal
 

double
layer
w/
gloves
Inhalation
 

80%
Respirator
Dermal
Inhalation
Mixer/
Loader
Cotton
(
defoliation)
0.8
1200
7.5
270
950
1300
1300
2500
3800
Mixing/
Loading
Liquid
Concentrates
for
Aerial
Applications
(
1a)
Cotton
(
preconditioning
for
defoliation)
0.3
1200
20
710
2500
3400
3500
6800
10000
Cotton
(
defoliation)
0.8
200
45
1600
5700
7700
8000
15000
23000
Cotton
(
preconditioning
for
defoliation)
0.3
200
120
4300
15000
21000
21000
41000
62000
Non­
crop
7.3
100
9.9
350
1300
1700
1800
3300
5100
Mixing/
Loading
Liquids
Concentrates
for
Groundboom
Applications
(
1b)
Non­
bearing
citrus
orchards
4.96
80
18
640
2300
3100
3200
6200
9300
Page
43
of
177
Table
21:
DMA
Occupational
Handler
Short­
and
Intermediate­
term
Dermal
and
Inhalation
Exposure
and
Risks
MOEs
Baseline
PPE
Engineering
Controls
Exposure
Scenario
Crop
or
Target
Application
Rate
(
lb
ai/
A)
Area
Treated
Daily
(
acres)
Dermal
Inhalation
Dermal
 

single
layer
w/
gloves
Dermal
 

double
layer
w/
gloves
Inhalation
 

80%
Respirator
Dermal
Inhalation
Lawn
edging
7.72
100
9.4
330
1200
1600
1700
3200
4800
Mixing/
Loading
Liquid
Concentrates
to
Support
LCO
Handgun
Applications
(
mixing/
loading
supports
20
LCOs)
(
1c)
Lawn
renovation
7.3
100
9.9
350
1300
1700
1800
3300
5100
Mixing/
Loading
Liquid
Concentrates
to
Support
Rights
of
Way
(
1d)
Non­
crop
7.3
80
12
440
1600
2100
2200
4200
6300
Applicator
Cotton
(
defoliation)
0.8
1200
No
Data
No
Data
No
Data
No
Data
No
Data
4400
4700
Applying
Sprays
via
Aerial
Equipment
(
2)
Cotton
(
preconditioning
for
defoliation)
0.3
1200
No
Data
No
Data
No
Data
No
Data
No
Data
12000
13000
Page
44
of
177
Table
21:
DMA
Occupational
Handler
Short­
and
Intermediate­
term
Dermal
and
Inhalation
Exposure
and
Risks
MOEs
Baseline
PPE
Engineering
Controls
Exposure
Scenario
Crop
or
Target
Application
Rate
(
lb
ai/
A)
Area
Treated
Daily
(
acres)
Dermal
Inhalation
Dermal
 

single
layer
w/
gloves
Dermal
 

double
layer
w/
gloves
Inhalation
 

80%
Respirator
Dermal
Inhalation
Cotton
(
defoliation)
0.8
200
9400
2600
9400
12000
13000
26000
45000
Cotton
(
preconditioning
for
defoliation)
0.3
200
25000
6900
25000
32000
35000
70000
120000
Non­
crop
7.3
100
2100
570
2100
2600
2800
5800
9800
Applying
Sprays
via
Groundboom
Equipment
(
3)
Non­
bearing
citrus
orchards
4.96
80
3800
1000
3800
4800
5200
11000
18000
Lawn
edging
7.72
5
No
Data
5700
1600
2900
28000
No
Data
No
Data
Applying
Sprays
via
Handgun
Equipment
(
4)
Lawn
renovation
7.3
5
No
Data
6000
1700
3000
30000
No
Data
No
Data
Applying
Sprays
via
Rights
of
Way
Equipment
(
5)
Non­
crop
7.3
80
28
130
92
120
670
No
Data
No
Data
Page
45
of
177
Table
21:
DMA
Occupational
Handler
Short­
and
Intermediate­
term
Dermal
and
Inhalation
Exposure
and
Risks
MOEs
Baseline
PPE
Engineering
Controls
Exposure
Scenario
Crop
or
Target
Application
Rate
(
lb
ai/
A)
Area
Treated
Daily
(
acres)
Dermal
Inhalation
Dermal
 

single
layer
w/
gloves
Dermal
 

double
layer
w/
gloves
Inhalation
 

80%
Respirator
Dermal
Inhalation
Flagger
Cotton
(
defoliation)
0.8
350
6800
3100
No
Data
7500
16000
340000
160000
Flagging
for
Aerial
Sprays
Applications
(
6)
Cotton
(
preconditio
ning
for
defoliation)
0.3
350
18000
8300
No
Data
20000
42000
910000
420000
Mixer/
Loader/
Applicator
Non­
bearing
citrus
orchards
4.96
5
56
4600
2600
No
Data
23000
NF
NF
Lawn
edging
7.72
5
36
2900
1600
No
Data
15000
NF
NF
Lawn
renovation
7.3
5
38
3100
1700
No
Data
16000
NF
NF
Mixing/
Loading/

Applying
Liquid
Concentrates
with
Low
Pressure
Handwand
(
ORETF)
(
7)
Non­
crop
7.3
5
38
3100
1700
No
Data
16000
NF
NF
Page
46
of
177
Table
21:
DMA
Occupational
Handler
Short­
and
Intermediate­
term
Dermal
and
Inhalation
Exposure
and
Risks
MOEs
Baseline
PPE
Engineering
Controls
Exposure
Scenario
Crop
or
Target
Application
Rate
(
lb
ai/
A)
Area
Treated
Daily
(
acres)
Dermal
Inhalation
Dermal
 

single
layer
w/
gloves
Dermal
 

double
layer
w/
gloves
Inhalation
 

80%
Respirator
Dermal
Inhalation
Non­
bearing
citrus
orchards
4.96
5
No
Data
6900
1900
3500
34000
NF
NF
Lawn
edging
7.72
5
No
Data
4400
1200
2200
22000
NF
NF
Lawn
renovation
7.3
5
No
Data
4700
1300
2300
23000
NF
NF
Mixing/
Loading/

Applying
Liquid
Concentrates
with
a
Handgun
Sprayer
(
LCO
ORETF
data)
(
8)
Non­
crop
7.3
5
No
Data
4700
1300
2300
23000
NF
NF
Applying
Ready
to
Use
Formulations
via
Trigger­
Pump
Sprayer
(
ORETF)
(
9)
Non­
crop
0.00017
1000
3000
96000
70000
No
Data
480000
NF
NF
Page
47
of
177
Table
21:
DMA
Occupational
Handler
Short­
and
Intermediate­
term
Dermal
and
Inhalation
Exposure
and
Risks
MOEs
Baseline
PPE
Engineering
Controls
Exposure
Scenario
Crop
or
Target
Application
Rate
(
lb
ai/
A)
Area
Treated
Daily
(
acres)
Dermal
Inhalation
Dermal
 

single
layer
w/
gloves
Dermal
 

double
layer
w/
gloves
Inhalation
 

80%
Respirator
Dermal
Inhalation
Lawn
edging
0.00018
1000
11000
100000
No
Data
No
Data
510000
NF
NF
Mixing/
Loading/

Applying
Liquids
with
a
Watering
Can
(
using
ORETF
residential
hoseend
data)
(
10)
Lawn
renovation
0.00017
1000
11000
110000
No
Data
No
Data
540000
NF
NF
Page
48
of
177
Table
22:
CAMA
Occupational
Handler
Short­
and
Intermediate­
term
Dermal
and
Inhalation
Exposure
and
Risks
MOEs
Baseline
PPE
Engineering
Controls
Exposure
Scenario
Crop
or
Target
App
Rate
of
CAMA
(
lb
ai/
acre)
App
Rate
of
MMA
(
lb
ai/
acre)
Area
Treated
Daily
(
acres)
Dermal
Inh
Dermal
 

single
layer
w/
gloves
Dermal
 

double
layer
w/
gloves
Inhalation
 

80%
R
Dermal
Inh
Mixer/
Loader
Lawn
and
ornamental
turf
(
on
grasses
other
than
Bent)
5
4.4
40
140
1500
17000
23000
7300
46000
21000
Lawn
and
ornamental
turf
(
on
Bermuda
and
Zoysia
grass)
4.182
3.7
40
160
1700
21000
28000
8700
55000
25000
Mixing/
Loading
Liquids
Concentrates
for
Groundboom
Applications
(
1a)
Lawn
and
ornamental
turf
(
on
bentgrass)
2.5
2.2
40
270
2900
35000
47000
15000
92000
42000
Lawn
and
ornamental
turf
(
on
grasses
other
than
Bent)
5
4.4
100
55
580
6900
9400
2900
18000
8400
Lawn
and
ornamental
turf
(
on
Bermuda
and
Zoysia
grass)
4.182
3.7
100
66
690
8300
11000
3500
22000
10000
Mixing/
Loading
Liquid
Concentrates
for
LCO
Handgun
Applications
(
1b)
Lawn
and
ornamental
turf
(
on
bentgrass)
2.5
2.2
100
110
1300
14000
19000
5800
37000
17000
Page
49
of
177
Table
22:
CAMA
Occupational
Handler
Short­
and
Intermediate­
term
Dermal
and
Inhalation
Exposure
and
Risks
MOEs
Baseline
PPE
Engineering
Controls
Exposure
Scenario
Crop
or
Target
App
Rate
of
CAMA
(
lb
ai/
acre)
App
Rate
of
MMA
(
lb
ai/
acre)
Area
Treated
Daily
(
acres)
Dermal
Inh
Dermal
 

single
layer
w/
gloves
Dermal
 

double
layer
w/
gloves
Inhalation
 

80%
R
Dermal
Inh
Applicator
Lawn
and
ornamental
turf
(
on
grasses
other
than
Bent)
5
4.4
40
28000
2400
28000
36000
12000
80000
40000
Lawn
and
ornamental
turf
(
on
Bermuda
and
Zoysia
grass)
4.182
3.7
40
34000
2800
34000
43000
14000
95000
48000
Applying
Sprays
via
Groundboom
Equipment
(
2)
Lawn
and
ornamental
turf
(
on
bentgrass)
2.5
2.2
40
57000
4700
57000
72000
24000
160000
81000
Lawn
and
ornamental
turf
(
on
grasses
other
than
Bent)
5
4.4
5
ND
10000
9400
17000
50000
NF
NF
Lawn
and
ornamental
turf
(
on
Bermuda
and
Zoysia
grass)
4.182
3.7
5
ND
12000
11000
20000
59000
NF
NF
Applying
Sprays
via
Handgun
Equipment
(
3)
Lawn
and
ornamental
turf
(
on
bentgrass)
2.5
2.2
5
ND
20000
19000
33000
100000
NF
NF
Page
50
of
177
Table
22:
CAMA
Occupational
Handler
Short­
and
Intermediate­
term
Dermal
and
Inhalation
Exposure
and
Risks
MOEs
Baseline
PPE
Engineering
Controls
Exposure
Scenario
Crop
or
Target
App
Rate
of
CAMA
(
lb
ai/
acre)
App
Rate
of
MMA
(
lb
ai/
acre)
Area
Treated
Daily
(
acres)
Dermal
Inh
Dermal
 

single
layer
w/
gloves
Dermal
 

double
layer
w/
gloves
Inhalation
 

80%
R
Dermal
Inh
Mixer/
Loader/
Applicator
Lawn
and
ornamental
turf
(
on
grasses
other
than
Bent)
5
4.4
5
No
Data
7700
7100
13000
39000
NF
NF
Lawn
and
ornamental
turf
(
on
Bermuda
and
Zoysia
grass)
4.182
3.7
5
No
Data
9300
8500
16000
46000
NF
NF
Mixing/
Loading/
Applying
Liquid
Concentrates
with
a
Handgun
Sprayer
(
LCO
ORETF
data)

(
4)
Lawn
and
ornamental
turf
(
on
bentgrass)
2.5
2.2
5
No
Data
15000
14000
26000
77000
NF
NF
Page
51
of
177
Table
23:
DSMA
Occupational
Handler
Short­
and
Intermediate­
term
Dermal
and
Inhalation
Exposure
and
Risks
MOEs
Baseline
PPE
Engineering
Controls
Exposure
Scenario
Crop
or
Target
App
Rate
of
DSMA
(
lb
ai/
acre)
App
Rate
of
MMA
(
lb
ai/
acre)
Area
Treated
Daily
(
acres)
Dermal
Inh
Dermal
 

single
layer
w/
gloves
Dermal
 

double
layer
w/
gloves
Inhalation
 

80%
R
Dermal
Inh
Mixer/
Loader
Mixing/
Loading
Liquid
Concentrates
for
Aerial
Applications
(
1a)
Cotton
(
pre­
plant
or
post­
plant
up
to
cracking)
2.268
1.7
1200
12
120
1500
2000
620
3900
1800
Cotton
(
postemergent
directed
spray)
2.268
1.7
200
70
740
8800
12000
3700
24000
11000
Grass
grown
for
seed
4.4
3.3
80
90
950
11000
15000
4800
30000
14000
Turf
for
sod
farms
3.293
2.5
80
120
1300
15000
21000
6400
41000
18000
Lawns
and
Ornamental
Turf
3.293
2.5
40
240
2600
31000
41000
13000
82000
37000
Nonbearing
Fruit,
Nut,

&
Vineyards
4.85
3.7
80
82
870
10000
14000
4300
28000
13000
Mixing/
Loading
Liquids
Concentrates
for
Groundboom
Applications
(
1b)
Noncrop
Areas
5.1
3.88
100
62
660
7800
11000
3300
21000
9500
Page
52
of
177
Table
23:
DSMA
Occupational
Handler
Short­
and
Intermediate­
term
Dermal
and
Inhalation
Exposure
and
Risks
MOEs
Baseline
PPE
Engineering
Controls
Exposure
Scenario
Crop
or
Target
App
Rate
of
DSMA
(
lb
ai/
acre)
App
Rate
of
MMA
(
lb
ai/
acre)
Area
Treated
Daily
(
acres)
Dermal
Inh
Dermal
 

single
layer
w/
gloves
Dermal
 

double
layer
w/
gloves
Inhalation
 

80%
R
Dermal
Inh
Mixing/
Loading
Liquid
Concentrates
to
Support
LCO
Handgun
Applications
(
mixing/
loadin
g
supports
20
LCOs)
(
1c)
Lawns
and
Ornamental
Turf
(
well
established
actively
growing
turfgrass)
3.293
2.5
100
96
1000
12000
16000
5100
32000
15000
Mixing/
Loading
Liquid
Concentrates
to
Support
Rights
of
Way
(
1d)
Noncrop
Areas
5.1
3.88
80
78
820
9800
13000
4100
26000
12000
Applicator
Applying
Sprays
via
Aerial
Equipment
(
2)
Cotton
2.268
1.7
1200
No
Data
No
Data
No
Data
No
Data
No
Data
6800
2200
Cotton
2.268
1.7
200
14000
1200
14000
18000
6000
41000
21000
Grass
grown
for
seed
4.4
3.3
80
19000
1500
19000
24000
7700
52000
27000
Applying
Sprays
via
Groundboom
Equipment
(
3)
Turf
on
sod
farms
3.293
2.5
80
25000
2100
25000
32000
10000
70000
36000
Page
53
of
177
Table
23:
DSMA
Occupational
Handler
Short­
and
Intermediate­
term
Dermal
and
Inhalation
Exposure
and
Risks
MOEs
Baseline
PPE
Engineering
Controls
Exposure
Scenario
Crop
or
Target
App
Rate
of
DSMA
(
lb
ai/
acre)
App
Rate
of
MMA
(
lb
ai/
acre)
Area
Treated
Daily
(
acres)
Dermal
Inh
Dermal
 

single
layer
w/
gloves
Dermal
 

double
layer
w/
gloves
Inhalation
 

80%
R
Dermal
Inh
Lawns
and
Ornamental
Turf
(
well
established
actively
growing
turfgrassgolf
courses
3.293
2.5
40
50000
4100
50000
63000
21000
140000
71000
Nonbearing
Fruit
&
Nut
Orchards
&

Vineyards
4.85
3.7
80
17000
1400
17000
22000
7000
47000
24000
Applying
Sprays
via
Groundboom
Equipment
(
3)

Cont.
Noncrop
Areas
5.1
3.88
100
13000
1100
13000
16000
5300
36000
18000
Applying
Sprays
via
Handgun
Equipment
(
4)
Lawns
and
Ornamental
Turf
(
well
established
actively
growing
turfgrass)
3.293
2.5
5
No
Data
17000
16000
29000
87000
NF
NF
Applying
Sprays
via
Rights
of
Way
Equipment
(
5)
Noncrop
Areas
5.10
3.88
80
170
250
580
780
1300
NF
NF
Flagger
Flagging
for
Aerial
Sprays
Applications
(
6)
Cotton
2.268
1.7
350
11000
1500
No
Data
12000
7300
530000
73000
Page
54
of
177
Table
23:
DSMA
Occupational
Handler
Short­
and
Intermediate­
term
Dermal
and
Inhalation
Exposure
and
Risks
MOEs
Baseline
PPE
Engineering
Controls
Exposure
Scenario
Crop
or
Target
App
Rate
of
DSMA
(
lb
ai/
acre)
App
Rate
of
MMA
(
lb
ai/
acre)
Area
Treated
Daily
(
acres)
Dermal
Inh
Dermal
 

single
layer
w/
gloves
Dermal
 

double
layer
w/
gloves
Inhalation
 

80%
R
Dermal
Inh
Mixer/
Loader/
Applicator
Mixing/
Loading/
Applying
Liquid
Concentrates
with
Low
Pressure
Handwand
(
ORETF)
(
7)
Lawns
and
Ornamental
Turf
(
well
established
actively
growing
turfgrass)
3.293
2.5
5
280
6900
13000
No
Data
34000
NF
NF
Lawns
and
Ornamental
Turf
(
well
established
actively
growing
turfgrass)
3.293
2.5
5
No
Data
14000
12000
23000
68000
NF
NF
Mixing/
Loading/
Applying
Liquid
Concentrates
with
a
Handgun
Sprayer
(
LCO
ORETF
data)

(
8)
Nonbearing
Fruit
&
Nut
Orchards
&

Vineyards
4.85
3.7
5
No
Data
9200
8400
15000
46000
NF
NF
Page
55
of
177
Table
24:
MSMA
Occupational
Handler
Short­
and
Intermediate­
term
Dermal
and
Inhalation
Exposure
and
Risks
MOEs
Baseline
PPE
Engineering
Controls
Exposure
Scenario
Crop
or
Target
App
Rate
of
MSMA
(
lb
ai/
acre)
App
Rate
of
MMA
(
lb
ai/
acre)
Area
Treated
Daily
(
acres)
Dermal
Inh
Dermal
 

single
layer
w/
gloves
Dermal
 

double
layer
w/
gloves
Inhalation
 

80%
R
Dermal
Inh
Mixer/
Loader
Cotton
(
pre­
plant
or
post­
plant
up
to
cracking)
2
1.7
1200
12
120
1500
2000
620
3900
1800
Mixing/
Loading
Liquid
Concentrates
for
Aerial
Applications
(
1a)
Cotton
(
postemergent
over
the
top
broadcast
spray)
0.9375
0.8
1200
25
260
3100
4200
1300
8400
3800
Cotton
(
postemergent
directed
spray)
2
1.7
200
70
740
8800
12000
3700
24000
11000
Cotton
(
postemergent
directed
band
application)
0.9375
0.8
200
150
1600
19000
25000
7900
50000
23000
Mixing/
Loading
Liquids
Concentrates
for
Groundboom
Applications
(
1b)
Grass
grown
for
seed
6.16
5.3
80
57
600
7100
9700
3000
19000
8700
Page
56
of
177
Table
24:
MSMA
Occupational
Handler
Short­
and
Intermediate­
term
Dermal
and
Inhalation
Exposure
and
Risks
MOEs
Baseline
PPE
Engineering
Controls
Exposure
Scenario
Crop
or
Target
App
Rate
of
MSMA
(
lb
ai/
acre)
App
Rate
of
MMA
(
lb
ai/
acre)
Area
Treated
Daily
(
acres)
Dermal
Inh
Dermal
 

single
layer
w/
gloves
Dermal
 

double
layer
w/
gloves
Inhalation
 

80%
R
Dermal
Inh
Turf
on
sod
farms
3.9204
3.4
80
89
940
11000
15000
4700
30000
14000
Lawns
and
Ornamental
Turf
(
athletic
fields,
golf
courses,
parks)
2.6136
2.3
40
270
2800
34000
46000
14000
91000
41000
Lawns
and
Ornamental
Turf
(
established
Bermuda
grass
and
zoysia
grass
3.9204
3.4
40
180
1900
23000
31000
9500
60000
27000
Nonbearing
Fruit,
Nut,
&

Vineyards
4
3.5
80
87
920
11000
15000
4600
29000
13000
Mixing/
Loading
Liquids
Concentrates
for
Groundboom
Applications
(
Cont.)
(
1b)
Noncrop
Areas
4.5
3.9
100
62
660
7800
11000
3300
21000
9500
Page
57
of
177
Table
24:
MSMA
Occupational
Handler
Short­
and
Intermediate­
term
Dermal
and
Inhalation
Exposure
and
Risks
MOEs
Baseline
PPE
Engineering
Controls
Exposure
Scenario
Crop
or
Target
App
Rate
of
MSMA
(
lb
ai/
acre)
App
Rate
of
MMA
(
lb
ai/
acre)
Area
Treated
Daily
(
acres)
Dermal
Inh
Dermal
 

single
layer
w/
gloves
Dermal
 

double
layer
w/
gloves
Inhalation
 

80%
R
Dermal
Inh
Lawns
and
Ornamental
Turf
(
athletic
fields,
golf
courses,
parks)
2.6136
2.3
100
110
1100
13000
18000
5700
36000
16000
Lawns
and
Ornamental
Turf
(
well
established
actively
growing
turfgrass)
2.178
1.9
100
130
1400
16000
22000
6800
43000
20000
Mixing/
Loading
Liquid
Concentrates
to
Support
LCO
Handgun
Applications
(
mixing/
loadin
g
supports
20
LCOs)
(
1c)
Lawns
and
Ornamental
Turf
(
established
Bermuda­
grass
and
zoysia
grass
3.9204
3.4
100
71
750
9000
12000
3800
24000
11000
Page
58
of
177
Table
24:
MSMA
Occupational
Handler
Short­
and
Intermediate­
term
Dermal
and
Inhalation
Exposure
and
Risks
MOEs
Baseline
PPE
Engineering
Controls
Exposure
Scenario
Crop
or
Target
App
Rate
of
MSMA
(
lb
ai/
acre)
App
Rate
of
MMA
(
lb
ai/
acre)
Area
Treated
Daily
(
acres)
Dermal
Inh
Dermal
 

single
layer
w/
gloves
Dermal
 

double
layer
w/
gloves
Inhalation
 

80%
R
Dermal
Inh
Mixing/

Loading
Liquid
Concentrates
to
Support
Rights
of
Way
(
1d)
Noncrop
Areas
4.5
3.9
80
78
820
9800
13000
4100
26000
12000
Applicator
Cotton
2
1.7
1200
No
Data
No
Data
No
Data
No
Data
No
Data
6700
2200
Applying
Sprays
via
Aerial
Equipment
(
2)
Cotton
0.9375
0.8
1200
No
Data
No
Data
No
Data
No
Data
No
Data
14000
4600
Cotton
2
1.7
200
14000
1200
14000
18000
6000
40000
21000
Cotton
0.9375
0.8
200
31000
2600
31000
39000
13000
86000
44000
Grass
grown
for
seed
6.16
5.3
80
12000
970
12000
15000
4900
33000
17000
Applying
Sprays
via
Groundboom
Equipment
(
3)
Turf
on
sod
farms
3.9204
3.4
80
18000
1500
18000
23000
7600
52000
26000
Page
59
of
177
Table
24:
MSMA
Occupational
Handler
Short­
and
Intermediate­
term
Dermal
and
Inhalation
Exposure
and
Risks
MOEs
Baseline
PPE
Engineering
Controls
Exposure
Scenario
Crop
or
Target
App
Rate
of
MSMA
(
lb
ai/
acre)
App
Rate
of
MMA
(
lb
ai/
acre)
Area
Treated
Daily
(
acres)
Dermal
Inh
Dermal
 

single
layer
w/
gloves
Dermal
 

double
layer
w/
gloves
Inhalation
 

80%
R
Dermal
Inh
Lawns
and
Ornamental
Turf
(
athletic
fields,
golf
courses,
parks)
2.6136
2.3
40
55000
4600
55000
70000
23000
150000
79000
Lawns
and
Ornamental
Turf
(
well
established
actively
growing
turfgrass­
golf
courses)
2.178
1.9
40
66000
5500
66000
85000
28000
190000
95000
Lawns
and
Ornamental
Turf
(
established
bermudagrass
and
zoysia
grass­
golf
courses)
3.9204
3.4
40
37000
3100
37000
47000
15000
100000
53000
Nonbearing
Fruit
&
Nut
Orchards
&

Vineyards
4
3.5
80
18000
1500
18000
23000
7500
51000
26000
Applying
Sprays
via
Groundboom
Equipment
(
Cont.)
(
3)
Noncrop
Areas
4.5
3.9
100
13000
1100
13000
16000
5300
36000
18000
Page
60
of
177
Table
24:
MSMA
Occupational
Handler
Short­
and
Intermediate­
term
Dermal
and
Inhalation
Exposure
and
Risks
MOEs
Baseline
PPE
Engineering
Controls
Exposure
Scenario
Crop
or
Target
App
Rate
of
MSMA
(
lb
ai/
acre)
App
Rate
of
MMA
(
lb
ai/
acre)
Area
Treated
Daily
(
acres)
Dermal
Inh
Dermal
 

single
layer
w/
gloves
Dermal
 

double
layer
w/
gloves
Inhalation
 

80%
R
Dermal
Inh
Lawns
and
Ornamental
Turf
(
athletic
parks,
golf
courses,
parks)
2.6136
2.3
5
No
Data
19000
18000
33000
97000
NF
NF
Lawns
and
Ornamental
Turf
(
well
established
actively
growing
turfgrass)
2.178
1.9
5
No
Data
23000
22000
39000
120000
NF
NF
Applying
Sprays
via
Handgun
Equipment
(
4)
Lawns
and
Ornamental
Turf
(
established
bermudagrass
and
zoysia
grass)
3.9204
3.4
5
No
Data
13000
12000
22000
65000
NF
NF
Applying
Sprays
via
Rights
of
Way
Equipment
(
5)
Noncrop
Areas
4.5
3.9
80
170
250
580
780
1300
NF
NF
Page
61
of
177
Table
24:
MSMA
Occupational
Handler
Short­
and
Intermediate­
term
Dermal
and
Inhalation
Exposure
and
Risks
MOEs
Baseline
PPE
Engineering
Controls
Exposure
Scenario
Crop
or
Target
App
Rate
of
MSMA
(
lb
ai/
acre)
App
Rate
of
MMA
(
lb
ai/
acre)
Area
Treated
Daily
(
acres)
Dermal
Inh
Dermal
 

single
layer
w/
gloves
Dermal
 

double
layer
w/
gloves
Inhalation
 

80%
R
Dermal
Inh
Flagger
Cotton
2
1.7
350
11000
1400
No
Data
12000
7200
530000
72000
Flagging
for
Aerial
Sprays
Applications
(
6)
Cotton
0.9375
0.8
350
22000
3100
No
Data
25000
15000
1100000
150000
Mixer/
Loader/
Applicator
Lawns
and
Ornamental
Turf
(
athletic
fields,
golf
courses,
parks)
2.6136
2.3
5
360
8700
16000
No
Data
43000
NF
NF
Lawns
and
Ornamental
Turf
(
well
established
actively
growing
turfgrass)
2.178
1.9
5
430
10000
19000
No
Data
52000
NF
NF
Mixing/
Loading/
Applying
Liquid
Concentrates
with
Low
Pressure
Handwand
(
ORETF)
(
7)
Lawns
and
Ornamental
Turf
(
established
bermudagrass
and
zoysia
grass)
3.9204
3.4
5
240
5800
11000
No
Data
29000
NF
NF
Page
62
of
177
Table
24:
MSMA
Occupational
Handler
Short­
and
Intermediate­
term
Dermal
and
Inhalation
Exposure
and
Risks
MOEs
Baseline
PPE
Engineering
Controls
Exposure
Scenario
Crop
or
Target
App
Rate
of
MSMA
(
lb
ai/
acre)
App
Rate
of
MMA
(
lb
ai/
acre)
Area
Treated
Daily
(
acres)
Dermal
Inh
Dermal
 

single
layer
w/
gloves
Dermal
 

double
layer
w/
gloves
Inhalation
 

80%
R
Dermal
Inh
Lawns
and
Ornamental
Turf
(
athletic
fields,
golf
courses,
parks)
2.6136
2.3
5
No
Data
15000
14000
25000
75000
NF
NF
Lawns
and
Ornamental
Turf
(
well
established
actively
growing
turfgrass)
2.178
1.9
5
No
Data
18000
17000
30000
90000
NF
NF
Lawns
and
Ornamental
Turf
(
established
bermudagrass
and
zoysia
grass)
3.9204
3.4
5
No
Data
10000
9200
17000
50000
NF
NF
Mixing/
Loading/
Applying
Liquid
Concentrates
with
a
Handgun
Sprayer
(
LCO
ORETF
data)

(
8)
Nonbearing
Fruit
&
Nut
Orchards
&

Vineyards
(
MSMA)
4
3.5
5
No
Data
9900
9000
17000
49000
NF
NF
Page
63
of
177
2.1.4
Cancer
Occupational
Handler
Exposure
and
Risk
Assessment
No
cancer
endpoints
of
concern
for
DMA,
CAMA,
DSMA,
and
MSMA
were
identified
therefore
cancer
risks
to
handlers
were
not
assessed.

2.1.5
Summary
of
Risk
Concerns
and
Data
Gaps
for
Occupational
Handlers
2.1.5.1
Summary
of
Risk
Concerns
For
the
dermal
and
inhalation,
short
and
intermediate
term
exposure,
the
level
of
concern
or
target
MOE
is
100.
The
calculated
dermal
and
inhalation
risks
were
not
combined
for
shortterm
or
for
intermediate
term
because
the
dermal
and
inhalation
endpoints
were
based
on
different
toxicological
effects.
There
are
no
occupational
handler
scenarios
for
MMA
or
DMA
that
have
risks
associated
with
them
that
are
above
HED's
level
of
concern
for
non­
cancer
risk
assessments
at
some
level
of
mitigation.

For
inhalation
exposure,
all
scenarios
for
all
of
the
organic
arsenical
active
ingredients
exceeded
the
level
of
concern
at
baseline
level
of
mitigation.
For
dermal
exposure,
the
following
scenarios
are
below
the
level
of
concern
at
baseline
level
of
mitigation,
but
are
above
the
level
of
concern
with
personal
protective
equipment
(
i.
e.,
single
layer
plus
gloves):

DMA
 
Mixing/
Loading
Liquid
Concentrates
for
Aerial
Applications
o
Cotton
(
defoliation)
(
MOE
=
7.5
at
baseline)
o
Cotton
(
pre­
conditioning
for
defoliation)
(
MOE
=
20
at
baseline)
 
Mixing/
Loading
Liquid
Concentrates
for
Groundboom
Applications
o
Cotton
(
defoliation)
(
MOE
=
45
at
baseline)
o
Non­
crop
(
MOE
=
9.9
at
baseline)
o
Non­
bearing
citrus
orchards
(
MOE
=
18
at
baseline)
 
Mixing/
Loading
Liquid
Concentrates
to
Support
LCO
Handgun
Applications
(
mixing/
loading
supports
20
LCOs)
o
Lawn
edging
(
MOE
=
9.4
at
baseline)
o
Lawn
renovation
(
MOE
=
9.9
at
baseline)
 
Mixing/
Loading
Liquid
Concentrates
to
Support
Rights
of
Way
o
Non­
crop
(
MOE
=
12
at
baseline)
 
Applying
Sprays
via
Rights
of
Way
Equipment
o
Non­
crop
(
MOE
=
28
at
baseline);
This
scenario
also
is
of
concern
with
single
layer
plus
gloves
with
an
MOE
of
92,
but
with
double
layer
plus
gloves,
the
risk
is
not
a
concern
(
MOE
>
100)
 
Mixing/
Loading/
Applying
Liquid
Concentrates
with
Low
Pressure
Handwand
(
ORETF)
o
Non­
bearing
citrus
orchards
(
MOE
=
56
at
baseline)
o
Lawn
edging
(
MOE
=
36
at
baseline)
o
Lawn
renovation
(
MOE
=
38
at
baseline)
Page
64
of
177
o
Non­
crop
(
MOE
=
38
at
baseline)

CAMA
 
Mixing/
Loading
Liquid
Concentrates
to
Support
LCO
Handgun
Applications
(
mixing/
loading
supports
20
LCOs)
o
Lawn
and
ornamental
turf
(
on
grasses
other
than
Bent)
(
MOE
=
55
at
baseline)
o
Lawn
and
ornamental
turf
(
on
Bermuda
and
Zoysia
grass)
(
MOE
=
66
at
baseline)

DSMA
 
Mixing/
Loading
Liquid
Concentrates
for
Aerial
Applications
o
Cotton
(
pre­
plant
or
post­
plant
up
to
cracking)
(
MOE
=
12
at
baseline)
 
Mixing/
Loading
Liquid
Concentrates
for
Groundboom
Applications
o
Cotton
(
post­
emergent
directed
spray)
(
MOE
=
70
at
baseline)
o
Grass
grown
for
seed
(
MOE
=
90
at
baseline)
o
Non­
crop
Areas
(
MOE
=
62
at
baseline)
 
Mixing/
Loading
Liquid
Concentrates
to
Support
LCO
Handgun
Applications
(
mixing/
loading
supports
20
LCOs)
o
Lawns
and
Ornamental
Turf
(
well
established
actively
growing
turfgrass)
(
MOE
=
96
at
baseline)
 
Mixing/
Loading
Liquid
Concentrates
to
Support
Rights
of
Way
o
Non­
crop
Areas
(
MOE
=
78
at
baseline)

MSMA
 
Mixing/
Loading
Liquid
Concentrates
for
Aerial
Applications
o
Cotton
(
pre­
plant
or
post­
plant
up
to
cracking)
(
MOE
=
12
at
baseline)
o
Cotton
(
post­
emergent
over
the
top
broadcast
spray)
(
MOE
=
25
at
baseline)
 
Mixing/
Loading
Liquid
Concentrates
for
Groundboom
Applications
o
Cotton
(
post­
emergent
directed
spray)
(
MOE
=
70
at
baseline)
o
Grass
grown
for
seed
(
MOE
=
57
at
baseline)
o
Turf
on
sod
farms)
(
MOE
=
89
at
baseline)
o
Nonbearing
Fruit,
Nut,
&
Vineyards
(
MOE
=
87
at
baseline)
o
Nonbearing
Fruit,
Nut,
&
Vineyards
(
MOE
=
82
at
baseline)
o
Non­
crop
Areas
(
MOE
=
62
at
baseline)
 
Mixing/
Loading
Liquid
Concentrates
to
Support
LCO
Handgun
Applications
(
mixing/
loading
supports
20
LCOs)
o
Lawns
and
Ornamental
Turf
(
established
Bermuda­
grass
and
zoysia
grass)
(
MOE
=
71
at
baseline)
 
Mixing/
Loading
Liquid
Concentrates
to
Support
Rights
of
Way
o
Non­
crop
Areas
(
MOE
=
78
at
baseline)
Page
65
of
177
2.1.5.2
Summary
of
Data
Gaps
There
are
no
data
gaps
associated
with
the
occupational
handler
scenarios.

2.1.6
Recommendations
for
Refining
Occupational
Handler
Risk
Assessment
In
order
to
refine
this
occupational
risk
assessment,
data
on
actual
use
patterns
including
rates,
timing,
and
areas
treated
would
better
characterize
MMA
and
DMA
risks.
Exposure
studies
for
many
equipment
types
that
lack
data
or
that
are
not
well
represented
in
PHED
(
e.
g.,
because
of
low
replicate
numbers
or
data
quality)
should
also
be
considered
based
on
the
data
gaps
identified
above
and
based
on
a
review
of
the
quality
of
the
data
used
in
this
assessment.

2.2
Occupational
Postapplication
Exposures
and
Non­
Cancer
Risk
Estimates
HED
uses
the
term
"
postapplication"
to
describe
exposures
to
individuals
that
occur
as
a
result
of
being
in
an
environment
that
has
been
previously
treated
with
a
pesticide
(
also
referred
to
as
reentry
exposure).
HED
believes
that
there
are
distinct
job
functions
or
tasks
related
to
the
kinds
of
activities
that
occur
in
previously
treated
areas.
Job
requirements
(
e.
g.,
the
kinds
of
jobs
to
cultivate
a
crop),
the
nature
of
the
crop
or
target
that
was
treated,
and
how
the
chemical
residues
degrade
in
the
environment
can
cause
exposure
levels
to
differ
over
time.
Each
factor
has
been
considered
in
this
assessment.

2.2.1
Occupational
Postapplication
Exposure
Scenarios
Currently,
DMA
is
registered
for
use
on
cotton,
turfgrass
and
lawns.
CAMA
is
registered
for
use
on
turfgrass
and
lawns,
and
the
occupational
label
for
CAMA
prohibits
use
on
turf
being
grown
for
sale,
commercial
use
as
sod,
commercial
seed
production,
or
for
research
purposes.
MSMA
and
DSMA
uses
are
varied
as
it
can
be
used
on
agricultural
crops
(
i.
e.
cotton
and
sod
farms)
and
in
a
variety
of
other
outdoor
occupational
settings
(
i.
e.,
rights­
of­
way,
golf
course
turf).
As
a
result,
a
wide
array
of
individuals
can
potentially
be
exposed
by
working
in
areas
that
have
been
previously
treated.
HED
is
concerned
about
the
kinds
of
exposures
one
could
receive
in
the
workplace.

HED
uses
a
concept
known
as
the
transfer
coefficient
to
numerically
represent
the
postapplication
exposures
one
would
receive
(
generally
presented
as
cm2/
hour).
The
transfer
coefficient
concept
has
been
established
in
the
scientific
literature
and
through
various
exposure
monitoring
guidelines
published
by
the
U.
S.
EPA
and
international
organizations
such
as
Health
Canada
and
the
Organization
For
Economic
Cooperation
and
Development.
The
establishment
of
transfer
coefficients
also
forms
the
basis
of
the
work
of
the
Agricultural
Reentry
Task
Force.
A
transfer
coefficient
is
a
measure
of
the
residue
transferred
from
a
treated
surface
to
a
person
who
is
doing
a
task
or
activity
in
a
treated
area.
These
values
are
the
ratio
of
an
exposure
for
a
given
task
or
activity
to
the
amount
of
pesticide
residue
on
treated
surfaces
available
for
transfer.
Page
66
of
177
HED
has
developed
a
series
of
standard
transfer
coefficients
that
are
unique
for
variety
of
job
tasks
or
activities
that
are
used
in
lieu
of
chemical­
and
scenario­
specific
data.

To
develop
a
postapplication
assessment,
HED
considers
the
types
of
tasks
and
activities
that
individuals
are
likely
to
doing
in
areas
recently
treated
with
a
pesticide.
For
consistency
within
postapplication
assessments,
HED
has
developed
a
list
of
tasks
commonly
associated
with
specific
crops
or
use­
patterns,
which
are
likely
to
result
in
postapplication
exposures.
Postapplication
pesticide
exposures
that
result
from
an
individual's
employment
are
considered
occupational
exposures.
Common
examples
include:
crop
maintenance
tasks
(
e.
g.,
irrigating,
weeding,
and
mowing)
and
crop
advisor
tasks
(
e.
g.,
scouting).

HED
considers
how
and
when
a
pesticide
is
applied
to
estimate
the
level
of
transferable
residues
to
which
individuals
could
be
exposed
over
time.
Label
directions
and
other
use
data
are
considered
to
determine
application
rates
and
application
frequency.
HED
completes
noncancer
postapplication
risk
assessments
using
maximum
application
rates
for
each
scenario.
When
postapplication
noncancer
risks
are
a
concern
using
maximum
application
rates,
HED
may
also
consider
typical
application
rates
or
application
frequency,
to
further
evaluate
the
overall
risks
associated
with
the
use
of
the
pesticide.
To
estimate
the
amount
of
transferable
residues
on
a
treated
surface,
HED
uses,
when
possible,
chemical­
and
crop­
specific
studies
as
described
in
HED
guidelines
for
exposure
data
collection
(
Series
875,
Occupational
and
Residential
Exposure
Test
Guidelines:
Group
B
­
Postapplication
Exposure
Monitoring
Test
Guidelines).
For
postapplication
exposures,
unique
techniques
are
used
to
measure
the
amount
of
pesticide
residue
on
a
treated
surface
available
for
possible
transfer.
These
techniques
are
distinct
from
those
which
measure
total
pesticide
residue
on
a
treated
surface
and
absorbed
into
a
treated
entity.
When
appropriate
chemical­
and
crop­
specific
transferable
residue
data
are
unavailable,
HED
also
has
developed
a
standard
modeling
approach
to
predict
transferable
residues
over
time
(
best
described
in
HED's
SOPs
For
Residential
Exposure
Assessment).

HED
also
must
consider
the
likely
frequency
and
duration
of
postapplication
occupational
exposures
to
DMA
and
MMA.
Short­
term
(
 
30
days)
always
are
considered
in
these
assessments.
Intermediate­
term
(
greater
than
30
days
to
several
months)
exposure
durations
are
appropriate
for
postapplication
occupational
exposures
scenarios
where
the
pesticide
is
reapplied
several
times
over
a
growing
season,
or
the
pesticide
residues
persist
for
relatively
long
periods
of
time,
or
the
crop
or
use­
pattern
is
such
that
occupational
postapplication
workers
may
be
exposed
to
several
different
treated
areas
in
the
course
of
their
work.
For
example,
migrant
and
seasonal
workers
may
move
from
farm
to
farm
and
be
exposed
several
weeks
to
several
months
or
different
fields
or
greenhouses
on
an
individual
establishment
may
be
treated
over
a
period
of
weeks
due
to
differing
levels
of
infestation
or
staggered
crop
cycles.
For
DMA
and
MMA,
the
exposure
durations
for
noncancer
postapplication
risk
assessment
were
short­
term
(
 
30
days)
and
intermediate­
term
(
greater
than
30
days
up
to
several
months).
However,
since
the
dermal
toxicological
endpoint
of
concern
is
the
same
for
short­
and
intermediate­
term
exposures,
the
short­
and
intermediate­
term
postapplication
risks
are
numerically
identical.
Inhalation
exposures
are
thought
to
be
negligible
in
outdoor
postapplication
scenarios,
since
DMA
and
MMA
have
low
vapor
pressure
and
the
dilution
factor
outdoors
is
considered
infinite.
Page
67
of
177
HED
has
used
the
basic
approach
described
above
since
the
mid
1980s
for
calculating
postapplication
risks
to
pesticides.
From
that
time
to
the
present,
several
revisions
and
modifications
were
made
to
Agency
policies
as
data,
which
warranted
such
changes,
became
available.
In
1995,
the
Agency
issued
a
Data
Call­
In
for
postapplication
agricultural
data
that
prompted
the
formation
of
the
Agricultural
Reentry
Task
Force
(
ARTF).
This
task
force
has
generated
a
number
of
exposure
studies
and
associated
documents
that
are
currently
under
review.
The
work
of
the
ARTF
is
not
yet
complete;
however,
sufficient
data
were
available
from
the
group
that
warranted
a
significant
interim
change
in
Agency
policy
related
to
the
data
which
were
already
available
as
the
efforts
of
the
ARTF
paralleled
a
push
for
tolerance
reassessment
stipulated
by
the
timelines
established
by
FQPA.
As
a
result
of
the
need
for
the
revision
and
using
the
latest
data,
the
Agency
developed
a
revised
policy
on
August
7,
2000
entitled
Policy
003.1
Science
Advisory
Council
for
Exposure
Policy
Regarding
Agricultural
Transfer
Coefficients.
The
revision
to
this
policy
entailed
linking
worker
activities
to
more
specific
crop/
agronomic
groupings
and
making
better
use
of
the
available
occupational
postapplication
exposure
data.
In
the
new
policy,
transfer
coefficients
were
selected
to
represent
the
activities
associated
with
18
distinct
crop/
agronomic
groupings
based
on
different
types
of
vegetables,
trees,
berries,
vine/
trellis
crops,
turf,
field
crops,
and
bunch/
bundle
crops
(
e.
g.,
tobacco).

Within
each
agronomic
group,
a
variety
of
cultural
practices
are
required
to
maintain
the
included
crops.
These
practices
are
varied
and
typically
involve
light
to
heavy
contact
with
immature
plants
as
well
as
with
more
mature
plants.
HED
selected
transfer
coefficient
values
in
its
revision
of
Policy
003
to
represent
this
range
of
exposures
within
each
agronomic
group.
In
the
policy,
transfer
coefficients
were
placed
in
1
of
5
generic
categories
based
on
the
exposures
relative
to
that
group.
These
5
categories
include:
very
low
exposure,
low
exposure,
medium
exposure,
high
exposure,
and
very
high
exposure.
Numerical
values
were
not
necessarily
assigned
to
each
category
for
each
crop
group.
Selections
depended
upon
the
actual
agronomic
practices
that
were
identified
for
each
group
(
i.
e.,
some
groups
had
2
assigned
transfer
coefficients
while
others
had
5).
The
transfer
coefficient
values
which
have
been
used
are
excerpted
directly
from
Agency
Policy
003.1
In
addition
to
transfer
coefficients,
occupational
postapplication
exposures
to
workers
are
estimated,
in
general,
using
transferable
turf
residue,
dislodgeable
foliar
residue
or
soil
transferable
residue
values.
Transferable
turf
residues
(
TTRs)
are
the
amounts
of
pesticide
available
on
the
turf
surface
that
can
potentially
be
transferred
to
the
skin
of
workers
who
contact
treated
turf.
TTRs
are
measured
using
techniques
that
specifically
determine
the
amount
of
residues
on
the
surface
treated
leaves
or
other
plant
surfaces.
In
order
to
define
the
amount
of
transferable
residues
to
which
individuals
can
be
exposed,
whenever
possible
HED
relies
on
chemical­
and
crop­
specific
studies
as
described
in
HED
guidelines
for
exposure
data
collection
(
Series
875,
Occupational
and
Residential
Exposure
Test
Guidelines:
Group
B
­
Postapplication
Exposure
Monitoring
Test
Guidelines).
However,
when
no
chemical­
and
crop­
specific
studies
are
available,
HED
uses
a
standard
modeling
approach
to
predict
transferable
residues
over
time
(
best
described
in
HED's
SOPs
for
Residential
Exposure
Assessment).

The
registrant
has
submitted
one
turf
transferable
residue
study
in
support
of
the
reregistration
of
MSMA,
titled
Determination
of
Transferable
Residues
from
Turf
Treated
with
Page
68
of
177
Monosodium
Methanearsonate
(
MRID
No.
449589­
01).
The
average
TTR
values
for
the
New
York
site,
the
North
Carolina
site
and
the
California
site
on
the
day
of
application
were
0.0752,
0.0360,
0.368
µ
g/
cm2
respectively.
The
highest
residue
value
of
0.368
µ
g/
cm2
from
the
CA
site
was
previously
used
as
a
screening
level
assessment.

HED
analyzed
the
raw
data
in
a
study
review
(
USEPA:
Sandvig,
9/
5/
00)
using
all
individual
data
replicates
(
not
averages)
after
the
second
application
as
follows:
(
1)
for
NY:
DAT­
0
through
DAT­
7,
(
2)
for
NC:
DAT­
0
through
DAT­
28;
(
3)
for
CA:
DAT­
6
hrs
through
DAT­
25
collected
after
application
#
2.
Since
the
majority
of
the
field
recoveries
were
above
90%
for
the
fortification
level,
2
ug/
sample,
closest
to
the
amount
of
residue
found
on
the
grass,
data
was
not
corrected
for
field
fortified
recovery
In
accordance
with
EPA
guidance,
first
order
dissipation
kinetics
were
assumed.
A
linear
regression
was
performed
and
obtained
the
following
dissipation
half­
life
values:
1)
New
York:
0.74
days
(
R2=
0.78);
2)
North
Carolina:
9.4
days
(
R2=
0.21);
and
3)
California:
5.48
days
(
R2=
0.36).
Since
the
regression
from
the
natural
log
transformed
data
produced
low
values
(
showing
that
the
data
may
not
be
linear),
actual
turf
transferable
residue
(
TTR)
data
from
the
MSMA
turfgrass
study
is
being
used
in
this
ORE
chapter.

In
a
memo
dated
February
9,
2000
(
USEPA:
Sandvig)
HED
denied
a
request
by
Luxenbourg­
Pamol,
Inc.
to
use
the
MSMA
turf
transferable
residue
data
as
surrogate
data
for
DMA.
The
assumption
that
DMA
has
the
same
transferability
as
MSMA
cannot
be
made
based
on
similar
chemical,
physical,
and
toxicological
properties.
Further,
the
dissipation
rates
of
MSMA
and
DMA
have
not
been
shown
to
be
the
same.
HED
still
agrees
with
this
decision.
As
a
result,
HED
has
used
the
MSMA
TTR
study
to
assess
occupational
postapplication
exposures
to
MSMA,
DSMA,
and
CAMA.
DMA
occupational
postapplication
exposures
were
evaluated
using
HED's
default
assumptions
that
20
percent
of
the
initial
application
is
available
for
transfer
on
day
0
(
i.
e.,
12
hours
after
application)
and
that
the
residue
dissipates
at
a
rate
of
10
percent
per
day.

2.2.2
Data/
Assumptions
for
Postapplication
Exposure
Scenarios
A
series
of
assumptions
and
exposure
factors
served
as
the
basis
for
completing
the
occupational
postapplication
worker
risk
assessments.
Each
assumption
and
factor
is
detailed
below
on
an
individual
basis.
In
addition
to
these
values,
transfer
coefficient
values
were
used
to
calculate
risk
estimates.
The
transfer
coefficients
were
taken
from
HED's
revised
policy
entitled
Policy
003.1
Science
Advisory
Council
for
Exposure
Policy
Regarding
Agricultural
Transfer
Coefficients
(
August
7,
2000).
The
assumptions
and
factors
used
in
the
risk
calculations
are
presented
below:

 
There
are
many
factors
that
are
common
to
handler
and
postapplication
risk
assessments
such
as
body
weights,
duration,
and
application
rates.
See
Section
2.1.1.1
for
these
values.
In
the
postapplication
risk
assessment,
maximum
application
rates
were
considered.
Page
69
of
177
 
Levels
of
Concern:
HED
has
established
levels
of
concern
(
LOC)
for
occupational
postapplication
risks
 
margins
of
exposure
of
less
than
100
for
occupational
non­
cancer
dermal
and
inhalation
risks
are
a
concern.

 
Exposures
were
calculated
to
reflect
actual
TTR
values
over
time
coupled
with
surrogate
transfer
coefficients
as
outlined
in
HED's
revised
policy.

2.2.3
Occupational
Postapplication
Exposure
and
Noncancer
Risk
Estimates
Occupational
non­
cancer
risks
were
calculated
using
a
Margin
of
Exposure
(
MOE),
which
is
a
ratio
of
the
daily
dose
to
the
toxicological
endpoint
of
concern.

Daily
Exposure:
Daily
dermal
exposures
were
calculated
on
each
postapplication
day
after
application
using
the
following
equation
(
see
equation
D2­
20
from
Series
875­
Occupational
and
Residential
Test
Guidelines:
Group
B­
Postapplication
Exposure
Monitoring
Test
Guidelines
and
Residential
SOP
3.2:
Postapplication
Dermal
Potential
Doses
from
Pesticide
Residues
on
Gardens):

DE(
t)
(
mg/
day)
=
(
TR(
t)
(
µ
g/
cm2)
x
TC
(
cm2/
hr)
x
Hr/
Day)/
1000
(
µ
g/
mg)

Where:

DE(
t)
=
Daily
exposure
or
amount
deposited
on
the
surface
of
the
skin
at
time
(
t)
attributable
for
activity
in
a
previously
treated
area,
also
referred
to
as
potential
dose
(
mg
ai/
day);
TR(
t)
=
Transferable
residues
that
can
either
be
dislodgeable
foliar
or
turf
transferable
residue
at
time
"
t"
(
µ
g/
cm2);
TC
=
Transfer
Coefficient
(
cm2/
hour);
and
Hr/
day
=
Exposure
duration
meant
to
represent
a
typical
workday
(
hours).

Note
that
the
(
TR(
t))
input
may
represent
levels
on
the
day
of
application
in
the
case
of
short­
term
risk
calculations.

Daily
Dose
and
Margins
of
Exposure:
The
manner
in
which
daily
postapplication
dermal
exposures
were
calculated
is
inherently
different
than
with
handler
exposures.
However,
once
daily
exposures
are
calculated,
the
calculation
of
daily
absorbed
dose
and
the
resulting
Margin
of
Exposures
use
the
same
algorithms
that
are
described
above
for
the
handler
exposures
(
See
Section
2.1.3).
These
calculations
are
completed
for
each
day
or
appropriate
block
of
time
after
application.

2.2.4
Noncancer
Risk
Summary
For
non­
cancer
risks,
the
calculated
MOE
exceeds
the
target
MOE
on
day
0
(
i.
e.,
12
hours
following
application)
for
all
crops/
use
sites
for
DMA,
CAMA,
DSMA,
and
MSMA,
except
for
the
application
of
DMA
to
turf.
For
lawn
applications
using
DMA,
the
calculated
Page
70
of
177
MOEs
range
from
22
to
47
on
day
0
(
12
hours
following
application)
depending
on
the
application
rate
and
postapplication
task
being
performed.

Tables
25
 
28
present
a
summary
of
occupational
postapplication
risks
associated
with
use
of
DMA,
CAMA,
DSMA,
and
MSMA,
respectively.

Table
25:
DMA
Summary
of
Occupational
Postapplication
Risks
Crop
Grouping
Application
rate
(
lb
ai/
acre)
Transfer
Coefficient
Day
after
Application
when
MOE
 
100
MOE
at
Day
0
1500
(
irrigating,
scouting,
hand
weeding)
12
hours
980
0.8
2500
(
hand
harvesting)
12
hours
2,600
1500
(
irrigating,
scouting,
hand
weeding)
12
hours
590
Cotton
1
0.3
2500
(
hand
harvesting)
12
hours
1,600
3400
(
mowing)
8
45
7.7
6800
(
hand
weeding,
transplanting,
hand
or
mechanical
harvesting)
14
22
3400
(
mowing)
7
47
Turf
1
7.3
6800
(
hand
weeding,
transplanting,
hand
or
mechanical
harvesting)
13
24
1
Using
standard
HED
assumptions.

Table
26:
CAMA
Summary
of
Occupational
Postapplication
Risks
Crop
Grouping
Application
rate
(
lb
ai/
acre)
Transfer
Coefficient
Day
after
Application
when
MOE
 
100
MOE
at
Day
0
3400
(
mowing)
0
(
6
hours)
3,600
5
6800
(
hand
weeding,
transplanting,
hand
or
mechanical
harvesting)
0
(
6
hours)
4,300
3400
(
mowing)
0
(
6
hours)
7,200
4.182
6800
(
hand
weeding,
transplanting,
hand
or
mechanical
harvesting)
0
(
6
hours)
1,800
3400
(
mowing)
0
(
6
hours)
2,100
Turf
1
2.5
6800
(
hand
weeding,
transplanting,
hand
or
mechanical
harvesting)
0
(
6
hours)
3,600
1
Using
actual
California
TTR
study
data
from
MRID
449589­
01.
Page
71
of
177
Table
27:
DSMA
Summary
of
Occupational
Postapplication
Risks
Crop
Grouping
Application
rate
(
lb
ai/
acre)
Transfer
Coefficient
Day
after
Application
when
MOE
 
100
MOE
at
Day
0
1500
(
irrigating,
scouting,
hand
weeding)
0
(
12
hours)
1,500
Cotton1
2.268
2500
(
hand
harvesting)
0
(
12
hours)
900
3400
(
mowing)
0
(
12
hours)
6,300
Turf
2
3.293
6800
(
hand
weeding,
transplanting,
hand
or
mechanical
harvesting)
0
(
12
hours)
3,100
1
Using
standard
HED
assumptions.
2
Using
actual
California
TTR
study
data
from
MRID
449589­
01.

Table
28:
MSMA
Summary
of
Occupational
Postapplication
Risks
Crop
Grouping
Application
rate
(
lb
ai/
acre)
Transfer
Coefficient
REI
MOE
at
Day
0
1500
(
irrigating,
scouting,
hand
weeding)
0
(
12
hours)
17,000
2
2500
(
hand
harvesting)
0
(
12
hours)
10,000
1500
(
irrigating,
scouting,
hand
weeding)
0
(
12
hours)
18,000
1.875
2500
(
hand
harvesting)
0
(
12
hours)
11,000
1500
(
irrigating,
scouting,
hand
weeding)
0
(
12
hours)
36,000
Cotton
1
0.9375
2500
(
hand
harvesting)
0
(
12
hours)
22,000
3400
(
mowing)
0
(
12
hours)
4,600
3.9204
6800
(
hand
weeding,
transplanting,
hand
or
mechanical
harvesting)
0
(
12
hours)
2,300
3400
(
mowing)
0
(
12
hours)
7,000
2.6136
6800
(
hand
weeding,
transplanting,
hand
or
mechanical
harvesting)
0
(
12
hours)
3,500
3400
(
mowing)
0
(
12
hours)
8,400
Turf
2
2.178
6800
(
hand
weeding,
transplanting,
hand
or
mechanical
harvesting)
12
hours
4,200
1
Using
standard
HED
assumptions.
2
Using
actual
California
TTR
study
data
from
MRID
449589­
01.

2.2.5
Occupational
Postapplication
Exposure
and
Risk
Estimates
for
Cancer
Since
no
toxicological
endpoint
of
concern
was
identified
for
cancer,
cancer
risks
from
occupational
postapplication
exposures
were
not
assessed.
Page
72
of
177
2.2.6
Summary
of
Occupational
Postapplication
Risk
Concerns
and
Data
Gaps
There
are
several
occupational
postapplication
scenario
for
DMA
that
has
risks
associated
with
it
that
are
above
HED's
level
of
concern
for
non­
cancer
risk
assessments.
There
are
no
occupational
postapplication
scenarios
for
MMA
or
DMA
that
have
data
gaps.

2.2.7
Recommendations
for
Refining
Occupational
Postapplication
Risk
Assessment
To
refine
this
occupational
risk
assessment,
data
on
actual
use
patterns
including
rates,
timing,
and
the
kinds
of
tasks
that
are
required
to
produce
agricultural
commodities
and
other
products
would
better
characterize
MMA
and
DMA
risks.
Exposure
studies
for
many
cultural
practices
that
lack
data
or
that
are
not
well
represented
in
the
revised
transfer
coefficient
policy
should
also
be
considered
based
on
the
data
gaps
identified
above.

3.0
RESIDENTIAL
HANDLER
EXPOSURES
AND
NON­
CANCER
RISK
ESTIMATES
It
has
been
determined
there
is
a
potential
for
exposure
in
residential
settings
during
the
application
process
for
homeowners
who
use
products
containing
DMA,
CAMA,
DSMA,
or
MSMA.
There
is
also
a
potential
for
exposure
from
entering
DMA,
CAMA,
DSMA,
or
MSMAtreated
areas,
such
as
lawns
and
golf
courses.
Risk
assessments
have
been
completed
for
both
residential
handler
and
postapplication
scenarios.

In
addition
to
homeowner
uses
in
residential
settings,
DMA,
CAMA,
DSMA,
and
MSMA
products
are
labeled
for
weed
control
at
residential
settings,
which
is
applied
by
occupational
applicators,
but
may
result
in
postapplication
exposures
in
residential
settings.
These
potential
postapplication
exposures
to
homeowners
also
have
been
considered
in
this
assessment.

3.1
Residential
Handler
Exposures
and
Risks
HED
uses
the
term
"
handlers"
to
describe
those
individuals
who
are
involved
in
the
pesticide
application
process.
HED
believes
that
there
are
distinct
tasks
related
to
applications
and
that
exposures
can
vary
depending
on
the
specifics
of
each
task
as
was
described
above
for
occupational
handlers
3.1.1
Handler
Exposure
Scenarios
Scenarios
are
used
to
define
risks
based
on
the
U.
S.
EPA
Guidelines
for
Exposure
Assessment
(
U.
S.
EPA;
Federal
Register
Volume
57,
Number
104;
May
29,
1992).
Assessing
exposures
and
risks
resulting
from
residential
uses
is
very
similar
to
assessing
occupational
exposures
and
risks,
with
the
following
exceptions:
Page
73
of
177
 
Residential
handler
exposure
scenarios
are
considered
to
be
short­
term
only,
due
to
the
infrequent
use
patterns
associated
with
homeowner
products.

 
A
tiered
approach
for
personal
protection
using
increasing
levels
of
PPE
is
not
used
in
residential
handler
risk
assessments.
Homeowner
handler
assessments
are
based
on
the
assumption
that
individuals
are
wearing
shorts,
short­
sleeved
shirts,
socks,
and
shoes.

 
Homeowner
handlers
are
expected
to
complete
all
tasks
associated
with
the
use
of
a
pesticide
product
including
mixing/
loading
if
needed
as
well
as
the
application.

 
Label
use­
rates
and
use­
information
specific
to
residential
products
serve
as
the
basis
for
the
risk
calculations.

 
Area/
volumes
of
spray
or
chemical
used
in
the
risk
assessment
are
based
on
HED's
guidance
specific
to
residential
use­
patterns.

HED
has
determined
that
there
is
potential
exposure
to
residential
mixer,
loader,
and
applicators
during
the
usual
use­
patterns
associated
with
DMA,
CAMA,
DSMA
and
MSMA.

DMA:
Based
on
the
use
patterns,
five
major
residential
exposures
were
identified
for
DMA:

Mixers/
Loaders/
Applicators
(
1)
Mixing/
loading/
applying
sprays
with
a
low
pressure
handwand
sprayer
(
ORETF);
(
2)
Mixing/
loading/
applying
sprays
with
a
hose
end
sprayer
(
ORETF);
(
3)
Mixing/
loading/
applying
sprays
ready­
to­
use
formulations
with
a
hose­
end
sprayer
(
ORETF);
(
4)
Mixing/
loading/
applying
sprays
with
a
watering
can
(
ORETF
hose­
end
data);
and
(
5)
Mixing/
loading/
applying
ready­
to­
use
formulations
with
a
trigger­
pump
sprayer
(
ORETF).

The
duration
of
exposure
for
residential
populations
is
assumed
to
be
short­
term
only,
since
lawn
renovation
occurs
only
once
a
year,
every
five
years
or
more
and
weed
control
occurs
about
once
a
month
during
the
weed
growing
season
of
3
months.

CAMA
The
anticipated
use
patterns
and
current
labeling
indicate
three
residential
handler
exposure
scenarios
based
on
the
types
of
equipment
and
techniques
that
can
potentially
be
used
to
make
CAMA
applications.
The
quantitative
exposure/
risk
assessment
developed
for
residential
handlers
is
based
on
these
scenarios.
Page
74
of
177
Mixer/
Loader/
Applicators:
(
1)
Mixing/
loading/
applying
sprays
with
a
low
pressure
handwand
sprayer
(
ORETF);
(
2)
Mixing/
loading/
applying
sprays
with
a
hose
end
sprayer
(
ORETF);
and
(
3)
Mixing/
loading/
applying
ready­
to­
use
formulations
with
a
trigger­
pump
sprayer
(
ORETF).

DSMA
Based
on
the
use
patterns,
the
following
three
residential
exposure
scenarios
were
identified
for
DSMA:

Mixer/
Loader/
Applicators:
(
1)
Mixing/
loading/
applying
sprays
with
a
low
pressure
handwand
sprayer
(
ORETF);
(
2)
Mixing/
loading/
applying
sprays
with
a
hose
end
sprayer
(
ORETF);
and
(
3)
Mixing/
loading/
applying
sprays
ready­
to­
use
formulations
with
a
hose­
end
sprayer
(
ORETF).

MSMA
Based
on
the
use
patterns,
the
following
three
residential
exposure
scenarios
were
identified
for
MSMA:

Mixer/
Loader/
Applicators:
(
1)
Mixing/
loading/
applying
sprays
with
a
low
pressure
handwand
sprayer
(
ORETF);
(
2)
Mixing/
loading/
applying
sprays
with
a
hose
end
sprayer
(
ORETF);
and
(
3)
Mixing/
loading/
applying
sprays
ready­
to­
use
formulations
with
a
hose­
end
sprayer
(
ORETF).

3.1.2
Data
and
Assumptions
for
Handler
Exposure
Scenarios
A
series
of
assumptions
and
exposure
factors
served
as
the
basis
for
completing
the
residential
handler
risk
assessments.
Each
assumption
and
factor
is
detailed
below.
In
addition
to
these
factors,
unit
exposure
values
were
used
to
calculate
risk
estimates.
These
unit
exposure
values
were
taken
from
the
Outdoor
Residential
Exposure
Task
Force
(
ORETF)
studies.
Both
PHED
and
ORETF
studies
are
presented
below.

Assumptions
and
Factors:
The
assumptions
and
factors
used
in
the
risk
calculations
include:

 
Exposure
factors
used
to
calculate
daily
exposures
to
handlers
were
based
on
applicable
data,
if
available.
When
appropriate
data
is
unavailable,
values
from
a
scenario
deemed
similar
might
be
used.

 
HED
always
considers
the
maximum
application
rates
allowed
by
labels
in
its
risk
assessments.
If
additional
information
such
as
average
or
typical
rates
is
available,
these
values
also
may
be
used
to
allow
risk
managers
to
make
a
more
informed
risk
Page
75
of
177
management
decision.
Average/
typical
application
rates
were
not
available
for
residential
scenarios.

 
Residential
risk
assessments
are
based
on
estimates
of
what
homeowners
would
typically
treat,
such
as
the
size
of
a
lawn
or
the
size
of
a
garden.
The
factors
used
for
the
DMA
assessment
were
from
the
Health
Effects
Division
Science
Advisory
Committee
Policy
12:
Recommended
Revisions
to
the
Standard
Operating
Procedures
for
Residential
Exposure
Assessment
which
was
completed
on
February
22,
2001,
and
on
professional
judgment.
The
daily
volumes
handled
and
area
treated
used
in
each
residential
scenario
are
provided
in
Table
2
of
that
policy
recommendation.

Residential
Handler
Exposure
Studies:
The
unit
exposure
values
that
were
used
in
this
assessment
were
based
on
the
Outdoor
Residential
Exposure
Task
Force
studies,
the
Pesticide
Handler
Exposure
Database
(
PHED,
Version
1.1
August
1998),
and
two
proprietary
studies.
[
Note:
PHED
and
some
ORETF
studies
are
described
above
in
Section
2.1.1.]

ORETF
Handler
Studies
­­
OMA001­
OMA004
(
MRID
449722­
01)
A
report
was
submitted
by
the
ORETF
(
Outdoor
Residential
Exposure
Task
Force)
that
presented
data
in
which
the
application
of
various
products
used
on
turf
by
homeowners
and
lawncare
operators
(
LCOs)
was
monitored.
All
of
the
data
submitted
in
this
report
were
completed
in
a
series
of
studies.

OMA004:
Homeowner
Liquid
Applications
with
a
Ready­
to­
use
Hose­
end
Sprayer
and
a
Dial
Type
Hose­
end
Sprayer
(
MRID
449722­
01):
A
mixer/
loader/
applicator
study
was
performed
by
the
Outdoor
Residential
Exposure
Task
Force
(
ORETF)
using
diazinon
(
25%
EC)
as
a
surrogate
compound
to
determine
"
generic"
exposures
to
individuals
applying
a
pesticide
to
turf
with
a
garden
hose­
end
sprayer.
Surrogate
chemicals
were
chosen
by
the
Task
Force
for
their
representativeness
based
on
physical
chemical
properties
and
other
factors.
The
study
was
designed
to
simulate
a
typical
application
event
for
a
homeowner
applying
pesticides
to
home
lawns
via
a
hose­
end
sprayer.
Each
replicate
monitored
the
test
subject
treating
5,000
square
feet
of
turf
at
a
nominal
application
rate
of
4
pounds
active
ingredient
per
acre
and
handling
a
total
of
0.5
pounds
active
ingredient
per
replicate.
The
average
time
per
replicate
was
75
minutes.
A
total
of
60
replicates
were
monitored
using
30
test
subjects
(
two
replicates
each).
Thirty
applicator
replicates
were
monitored
using
a
ready­
to­
use
(
RTU)
product
(
Bug­
B­
Gon)
packaged
in
a
32
fl.
oz.
screw­
on
container.
These
containers
were
attached
to
garden
hose­
ends.
An
additional
30
mixer/
loader/
applicator
replicates
were
monitored
using
Diazinon
Plus
also
packaged
in
32
fl.
oz.
plastic
bottles.
This
product
required
the
test
subjects
to
pour
the
product
into
dial­
type
sprayers
(
DTS)
that
were
attached
to
garden
hose­
ends.

Dermal
and
inhalation
exposures
were
monitored
using
passive
dosimetry
(
inner
and
outer
whole
body
dosimeters,
hand
washes,
face/
neck
wipes,
and
personal
inhalation
monitors
with
OVS
tubes).
The
inner
samples
represent
a
single
layer
of
clothing.
Inhalation
exposure
was
calculated
using
an
assumed
respiratory
rate
of
17
liters
per
minute
for
light
work
(
NAFTA,
1999),
the
actual
sampling
time
for
each
individual,
and
the
pump
flow
rate.
No
gloves
were
worn
in
any
replicate.
All
results
were
normalized
for
the
amount
of
active
ingredient
Page
76
of
177
handled.
The
QA/
QC
data
are
within
an
acceptable
range
and
the
study
results
are
corrected
for
field
recoveries.
The
unit
exposure
values
are
presented
below.
[
Note:
All
values
are
geometric
means
as
the
data
were
lognormally
distributed.]
The
unit
exposure
values
used
in
the
residential
assessment
are
presented
in
Table
29.

Table
29:
Unit
Exposure
Values
for
Homeowner
Spray
Applications
with
a
Ready­
touse
Hose­
end
Sprayer
and
a
Dial
Type
Hose­
end
Sprayer
(
MRID
449722­
01)

Total
Dermal
Unit
Exposure1
(
mg/
lb
ai)

Scenario
Monitored
Short
Pants,
Short
Sleeves
Long
Pants,
Short
Sleeves
Long
Pants,
Long
Sleeves
Inhalation
Unit
Exposure1,2
(
Fg/
lb
ai)

Homeowner
Spray
Applications
with
a
Ready­
to­
use
Hose­
end
Sprayer
2.6
0.45
0.26
11
Homeowner
Spray
Applications
with
a
Dial
Type
Hose­
end
Sprayer
(
Mix­
yourown
11
6.2
5.6
17
1
Unit
exposure
values
reported
are
geometric
means.
2
Air
concentration
(
mg/
m3/
lb
ai)
calculated
using
NAFTA
>

99
standard
breathing
rate
of
17
lpm
(
1
m3/
hr).

OMA006:
Homeowner
Liquid
Application
to
Garden
with
a
Dial
type
Sprayer,
a
Low
Pressure
Handwand
and
a
Ready­
to­
use
Bottle
(
MRID
444598­
01)
Report
OMA006
presented
data
in
which
the
application
of
various
products
used
on
vegetable
gardens
by
homeowners
was
monitored.
The
unit
exposure
values
used
in
the
residential
assessment
are
presented
in
Table
30.

Table
30.
Unit
Exposure
Values
for
Homeowner
Spray
Application
to
Garden
with
a
Dial
type
Sprayer,
a
Low
Pressure
Handwand
and
a
Hose­
End
Sprayer
Obtained
From
ORETF
Study
(
MRID
444598­
01)
Total
Dermal
Unit
Exposure1
(
mg/
lb
ai)
Short
Pants,
Short
Sleeves
Long
Pants,
Short
Sleeves
Long
Pants,
Long
Sleeves
Scenario
Monitored
Gloves
No
Gloves
Gloves
No
Gloves
Gloves
No
Gloves
Inhalation
Unit
Exposure1
(
Fg/
lb
ai)

Homeowner
Spray
Applications
with
a
Low
Pressure
Handwand
Sprayer
10.5
38
0.78
17
0.33
15
2.7
Homeowner
Spray
Applications
with
a
Readyto
Use
Sprayer
11
54
2.8
45
1.8
42
19
Homeowner
Spray
Applications
with
a
Hoseend
Sprayer
15
34
0.5
18
0.10
17
0.82
All
unit
exposures
are
geometric
means
Page
77
of
177
3.1.3
Residential
Handler
Exposure
and
Non­
Cancer
Risk
Estimates
Noncancer
risks
were
calculated
using
the
Margin
of
Exposure
(
MOE)
as
described
in
Section
2.1.3.
Assessing
exposures
and
risks
resulting
from
residential
uses
is
very
similar
to
assessing
occupational
exposures
and
risks,
except
as
described
in
Section
3.1.1.
The
other
major
difference
with
residential
risk
assessments
is
that
the
uncertainty
factor
which
defines
the
level
of
risk
concern
has
the
additional
FQPA
safety
factor
applied.
In
the
case
of
DMA,
CAMA,
DSMA,
and
MSMA,
it
was
decided
by
HED
that
the
factor
should
be
1X.
Therefore,
the
overall
uncertainty
factor
applied
to
DMA,
CAMA,
DSMA,
and
MSMA
for
residential
handler
risk
assessments
is
100,
which
is
based
on
the
FQPA
safety
factor
of
1X
along
with
the
10X
for
inter­
species
extrapolation
and
10X
for
intra­
species
sensitivity.

The
residential
exposure
and
risk
estimates
associated
with
the
use
of
DMA,
CAMA,
DSMA,
and
MSMA
are
presented
in
Tables
31
 
34.

Table
31:
DMA
Residential
Handler
Short­
and
Intermediate­
term
Dermal
and
Inhalation
Exposure
and
Risks
Baseline
Unit
Exposures
Baseline
MOEs
Exposure
Scenario
Crop
or
Target
Application
Rate
(
lb
ai/
acre)
Area
Treated
Daily
(
acres)
Dermal
(
mg/
lb
ai)
Inhalation
(
ug/
lb
ai)
Dermal
Inhalation
Mixer/
Loader/
Applicator
Lawn
edging
7.72
0.5
38
2.7
140
29000
Mixing/
Loading/
Apply
ing
Liquid
Concentrates
with
Low
Pressure
Handwand
(
ORETF)
(
1)
Lawn
renovation
7.3
0.5
38
2.7
150
31000
Lawn
edging
7.72
0.5
11
17
490
4700
Lawn
renovation
7.3
0.5
11
17
520
4900
Mixing/
Loading/
Apply
ing
Liquid
Concentrates
with
Hose­
End
Sprayer
(
Residential
ORETF
data)
(
2)
Non­
crop
7.3
0.5
11
17
520
4900
Lawn
edging
7.72
0.5
2.6
11
2100
7200
Lawn
renovation
7.3
0.5
2.6
11
2200
7600
Loading/
Applying
Liquid
Concentrates
with
RTU
Hose­
End
Sprayer
(
Residential
ORETF
data)
(
3)
Non­
crop
7.3
0.5
2.6
11
2200
7600
Lawn
edging
0.00018
1000
11
16
11000
110000
Mixing/
Loading/
Apply
ing
Liquid
Concentrates
with
a
Watering
Can
(
using
ORETF
residential
hose­
end
data)
(
4)
Lawn
renovation
0.00017
1000
11
16
11000
110000
Lawn
edging
0.00018
1000
54
19
2200
91000
Lawn
renovation
0.00017
1000
54
19
2300
96000
Applying
Ready
to
Use
Formulations
via
Trigger­
Pump
Sprayer
(
ORETF)
(
5)
Non­
crop
0.00017
1000
54
19
2300
96000
Page
78
of
177
Table
32:
CAMA
Residential
Handler
Short­
and
Intermediate­
term
Dermal
and
Inhalation
Exposure
and
Risks
Baseline
Unit
Exposure
Baseline
MOEs
Exposure
Scenario
Crop
or
Target
App
Rate
(
lb
ai/
A)
App
Rate
of
MMA
(
lb
ai/
A)
Area
Treated
Daily
(
acres)
Dermal
(
mg/
lb
ai)
Inhalation
(
ug/
lb
ai)
Dermal
Inhalation
Mixer/
Loader/
Applicator
Lawn
and
ornamental
turf
(
on
grasses
other
than
Bent)
5
4.4
0.5
38
2.7
840
52000
Lawn
and
ornamental
turf
(
on
Bermuda
and
Zoysia
grass)
4.182
3.7
0.5
38
2.7
1000
62000
Mixing/
Loading/
Applying
Liquid
Concentrates
with
Low
Pressure
Handwand
(
ORETF)
(
1)
Lawn
and
ornamental
turf
(
on
bentgrass)
2.5
2.2
0.5
38
2.7
1700
100000
Lawn
and
ornamental
turf
(
on
grasses
other
than
Bent)
5
4.4
0.5
11
17
2900
8200
Lawn
and
ornamental
turf
(
on
Bermuda
and
Zoysia
grass)
4.182
3.7
0.5
11
17
3500
9800
Mixing/
Loading/
Applying
Liquid
Concentrates
with
Hose­
End
Sprayer
(
Residential
ORETF
data)
(
2)
Lawn
and
ornamental
turf
(
on
bentgrass)
2.5
2.2
0.5
11
17
5800
16000
Lawn
and
ornamental
turf
(
on
grasses
other
than
Bent)
5
4.4
0.023
54
19
13000
160000
Lawn
and
ornamental
turf
(
on
Bermuda
and
Zoysia
grass)
4.182
3.7
0.023
54
19
15000
190000
Applying
Ready
to
Use
Formulations
via
Trigger­
Pump
Sprayer
(
ORETF)
(
3)

Lawn
and
ornamental
turf
(
on
bentgrass)
2.5
2.2
0.023
54
19
26000
320000
Page
79
of
177
Table
33:
DSMA
Residential
Handler
Short­
and
Intermediate­
term
Dermal
and
Inhalation
Exposure
and
Risks
Baseline
Unit
Exposure
Baseline
MOEs
Exposure
Scenario
Crop
or
Target
App
Rate
of
DSMA
(
lb
ai/
acre)
App
Rate
of
MMA
(
lb
ai/
acre)
Area
Treated
Daily
(
acres)
Dermal
(
mg/
lb
ai)
Inhalation
(
ug/
lb
ai)
Dermal
Inhalation
Mixer/
Loader/
Applicator
Mixing/
Loading/
Applying
Liquid
Concentrates
with
Low
Pressure
Handwand
(
ORETF)
(
1)
lawns
and
ornamental
turf
3.293
2.5
0.5
38
2.7
1500
91000
Mixing/
Loading/
Applying
Liquid
Concentrates
via
Hose­
End
Sprayer
(
ORETF
data)
(
2)
lawns
and
ornamental
turf
3.293
2.5
0.5
11
17
5100
14000
Loading/
Applying
Liquid
Concentrates
with
RTU
Hose­
End
Sprayer
(
Residential
ORETF
data)
(
3)
lawns
and
ornamental
turf
3.293
2.5
0.5
2.6
11
21000
22000
Page
80
of
177
Table
34:
MSMA
Residential
Handler
Short­
and
Intermediate­
term
Dermal
and
Inhalation
Exposure
and
Risks
Baseline
Unit
Exposure
Baseline
MOEs
Exposure
Scenario
Crop
or
Target
App
Rate
of
MSMA
(
lb
ai/
acre)
App
Rate
of
MMA
(
lb
ai/
acre)
Area
Treated
Daily
(
acres)
Dermal
(
mg/
lb
ai)
Inhalation
(
ug/
lb
ai)
Dermal
Inhalation
Mixer/
Loader/
Applicator
lawns
and
ornamental
turf
3.9204
3.4
0.5
38
2.7
1100
67000
lawns
and
ornamental
turf
2.6136
2.3
0.5
38
2.7
1600
100000
Mixing/
Loading/
Applying
Liquid
Concentrates
with
Low
Pressure
Handwand
(
ORETF
­­
ground
directed)
(
1)
lawns
and
ornamental
turf
2.178
1.9
0.5
38
2.7
2000
120000
lawns
and
ornamental
turf
3.9204
3.4
0.5
11
17
3800
11000
lawns
and
ornamental
turf
2.6136
2.3
0.5
11
17
5600
16000
Mixing/
Loading/
Applying
Liquid
Concentrates
with
Hose­
End
Sprayer
(
Residential
ORETF
data)
(
2)
lawns
and
ornamental
turf
2.178
1.9
0.5
11
17
6800
19000
3.9204
3.4
0.5
2.6
11
16000
17000
2.6136
2.3
0.5
2.6
11
24000
25000
Loading/
Applying
Liquid
Concentrates
with
RTU
Hose­
End
Sprayer
(
Residential
ORETF
data)
(
3)
lawns
and
ornamental
turf
2.178
1.9
0.5
2.6
11
29000
30000
3.1.4
Residential
Handler
Exposure
and
Risk
Estimates
for
Cancer
No
cancer
endpoints
of
concern
for
DMA,
CAMA,
DSMA,
and
MSMA
were
identified,
therefore
cancer
risks
to
residential
handlers
were
not
assessed.

3.1.5
Summary
of
Risk
Concerns
and
Data
Gaps
for
Handlers
All
noncancer
risks
(
i.
e.,
MOEs)
to
handlers
associated
with
the
scenarios
are
not
of
concern,
because
they
exceed
HED's
uncertainty
factor
of
100
for
DMA,
CAMA,
MSMA,
and
DSMA.
Page
81
of
177
3.1.6
Recommendations
for
Refining
Residential
Handler
Risk
Assessment
In
order
to
refine
this
residential
risk
assessment,
more
data
on
actual
use
patterns
including
rates,
timing,
and
areas
treated
would
better
characterize
DMA,
CAMA,
MSMA
and
DSMA
risks.
Exposure
studies
for
many
equipment
types
that
lack
data
or
that
are
not
well
represented
in
PHED
(
e.
g.,
because
of
low
replicate
numbers
or
data
quality)
should
also
be
considered
based
on
the
data
gaps
identified
above
and
based
on
a
review
of
the
quality
of
the
data
used
in
this
assessment.

3.2
Residential
Postapplication
Exposures
and
Assumptions
HED
uses
the
term
"
postapplication"
to
describe
exposures
to
individuals
that
occur
as
a
result
of
being
in
an
environment
that
has
been
previously
treated
with
a
pesticide.
DMA,
CAMA,
MSMA
and
DSMA
can
be
used
in
many
areas
that
can
be
frequented
by
the
general
population
including
residential
areas
(
e.
g.,
home
lawns
and
gardens).
As
a
result,
individuals
can
be
exposed
by
entering
these
areas
if
they
have
been
previously
treated.

All
of
these
arsenic
compounds
are
expected
to
accumulate
in
the
soil
and
not
degrade
over
time.
In
order
to
estimate
exposures
over
a
year,
it
was
assumed
that
applications
would
take
place
four
times
per
year
and
the
total
amount
that
would
be
applied
over
a
year
was
used
to
calculate
exposures
to
DMA,
CAMA,
MSMA
and
DSMA.

3.2.1
Residential
Postapplication
Exposure
Scenarios
A
wide
array
of
individuals
of
varying
ages
can
potentially
be
exposed
to
DMA,
CAMA,
MSMA
and
DSMA
when
they
are
in
areas
that
have
been
previously
treated.
Postapplication
exposure
scenarios
were
developed
for
each
residential
setting
where
DMA,
CAMA,
MSMA
and
DSMA
can
be
used.
The
scenarios
likely
to
result
in
postapplication
exposures
are
as
follows:

 
Dermal
exposure
from
residue
on
lawns
(
adult
and
toddler);
 
Hand­
to­
mouth
transfer
of
residues
on
lawns
(
toddler);
 
Ingestion
of
pesticide
treated
grass
(
toddler);
and
 
Incidental
ingestion
of
soil
from
pesticide­
treated
residential
areas
(
toddler).

HED
relies
on
a
standardized
approach
for
completing
residential
risk
assessments
that
is
based
on
current
labels
and
guidance
contained
in
the
following
five
documents:

 
Series
875,
Residential
and
Residential
Exposure
Test
Guidelines:
Group
B
­
Postapplication
Exposure
Monitoring
Test
Guidelines
(
V
5.4,
Feb.
1998)
This
document
provides
general
risk
assessment
guidance
and
criteria
for
analysis
of
residue
dissipation
data.
Page
82
of
177
 
Standard
Operating
Procedures
For
Residential
Exposure
Assessment
(
Dec.
1997)
This
document
provides
the
overarching
guidance
for
developing
residential
risk
assessments
including
scenario
development,
algorithms,
and
values
for
inputs.

 
Science
Advisory
Council
For
Exposure
Policy
12
(
Feb.
2001):
Recommended
Revisions
To
The
Standard
Operating
Procedures
(
SOPs)
For
Residential
Exposure
Assessment
This
document
provides
additional,
revised
guidance
for
completing
residential
exposure
assessments.

 
Overview
of
Issues
Related
To
The
Standard
Operating
Procedures
For
Residential
Exposure
Assessment
(
August
1999
Presentation
To
The
FIFRA
SAP)
This
document
provides
rationale
for
Agency
changes
in
SOPs.

When
the
guidance
in
current
labels
and
these
documents
is
considered,
it
is
clear
that
HED
should
consider
children
of
differing
ages
as
well
as
adults
in
its
assessments.
It
is
also
clear
that
different
age
groups
should
be
considered
in
different
situations.
The
populations
that
were
considered
in
the
assessment
include:

 
Residential
Adults:
these
individuals
are
members
of
the
general
population
that
are
exposed
to
chemicals
by
engaging
in
activities
at
their
residences
(
e.
g.,
in
their
lawns
or
gardens)
and
also
in
areas
not
limited
to
their
residence
(
e.
g.,
golf
courses
or
parks)
previously
treated
with
a
pesticide.
These
kinds
of
exposures
are
attributable
to
a
variety
of
activities
and
are
usually
addressed
by
HED
in
risk
assessments
by
considering
a
representative
activity
as
the
basis
for
the
exposure
calculation.

 
Residential
Children:
children
are
members
of
the
general
population
that
can
also
be
exposed
in
their
residences
(
e.
g.,
on
lawns
and
other
residential
turfgrass
areas).
These
kinds
of
exposures
are
attributable
to
a
variety
of
activities
such
as
playing
outside.
Toddlers
have
been
selected
as
the
sentinel
(
representative)
population
for
the
turf
assessment.
Youth­
aged
children
(
ages
10
to
12)
are
considered
the
sentinel
population
for
a
golfing
assessment,
because
it
is
likely
that
children
of
this
age
would
be
playing
golf.
Children
are
addressed
by
HED
in
risk
assessments
by
considering
representative
activities
for
each
age
group
in
an
exposure
calculation.

The
SOPs
for
Residential
Exposure
Assessment
define
several
scenarios
that
apply
to
uses
specified
in
current
labels.
These
scenarios
served
as
the
basis
for
the
residential
postapplication
assessment
along
with
the
modifications
to
them
and
the
additional
data
and
approaches
described
above.
HED
used
this
guidance
to
define
the
exposure
scenarios
that
essentially
include
dermal
and
nondietary
ingestion
exposure
to
toddlers
on
treated
lawns
and
dermal
exposure
to
adults
and
youth
on
treated
lawns.
The
SOPs
and
the
associated
scenarios
are
presented
below:
Page
83
of
177
 
Dose
from
dermal
exposure
on
treated
turf:
Postapplication
dermal
dose
calculations
for
toddlers
from
playing
on
treated
turf,
for
youth
and
adults
playing
golf
on
treated
turf,
and
for
adults
mowing
and
exercising
on
treated
turf.

 
Dose
from
hand­
to­
mouth
activity
from
treated
turf:
Postapplication
dose
calculations
for
toddlers
from
incidental
nondietary
ingestion
of
pesticide
residues
on
treated
turf
from
hand­
to­
mouth
transfer
(
i.
e.,
those
residues
that
are
swallowed
when
toddlers
get
pesticide
residues
on
their
hands
from
touching
treated
turf
and
then
put
their
hands
in
their
mouth).

 
Dose
from
object­
to­
mouth
activity
from
treated
turf:
Postapplication
dose
calculations
for
toddlers
from
incidental
nondietary
ingestion
of
pesticide
residues
on
treated
turf
from
object­
to­
mouth
transfer
(
i.
e.,
those
residues
that
are
swallowed
when
toddlers
put
treated
turf
in
their
mouths).

 
Dose
from
soil
ingestion
activity
from
treated
turf:
Postapplication
dose
calculations
for
toddlers
from
incidental
nondietary
ingestion
of
pesticide
residues
from
ingesting
soil
in
a
treated
turf
area
(
i.
e.,
those
soil
residues
that
are
swallowed
when
toddlers
get
pesticide
residues
on
their
hands
from
touching
treated
soil
and
then
put
their
hands
in
their
mouth).

The
detailed
residential
postapplication
calculations
are
presented
in
the
appendices
of
this
document.

3.2.2
Data
and
Assumptions
for
Residential
Postapplication
Exposure
Scenarios
Assumptions
and
Exposure
Factors
A
series
of
assumptions
and
exposure
factors
served
as
the
basis
for
completing
the
residential
postapplication
risk
assessments.
The
assumptions
and
factors
used
in
the
risk
calculations
are
consistent
with
current
Agency
policy
for
completing
residential
exposure
assessments
(
i.
e.,
SOPs
for
Residential
Exposure
Assessment).
The
values
used
in
this
assessment
include:

 
There
are
many
factors
that
are
common
to
the
occupational
and
residential
postapplication
risk
assessments,
such
as
body
weights
for
adults,
and
analysis
of
residue
dissipation
data.
Please
refer
to
the
assumptions
and
factors
in
Section
2.1.2
for
further
information
concerning
these
common
values.

 
HED
combines
risks
resulting
from
exposures
to
individual
applications
when
it
is
likely
they
can
occur
simultaneously
based
on
the
use
pattern
and
the
behavior
associated
with
the
exposed
population.
The
toxicological
endpoints
used
in
assessing
risks
must
have
the
same
toxicological
effect
in
order
for
the
risks
to
be
aggregated.
For
DMA,
CAMA,
DSMA,
and
MSMA,
HED
has
combined
risks
Page
84
of
177
(
i.
e.,
MOEs)
for
different
kinds
of
exposures
for
the
following
scenario:
for
toddlers
on
turf
 
hand­
to­
mouth
plus
object­
to­
mouth
plus
soil
ingestion.

 
The
measured
TTR
levels
quantified
in
MRID
449589­
01
(
used
above
in
the
occupational
postapplication
assessment
for
MMA)
have
not
been
used
to
complete
the
short­
term
dermal
exposure
calculations
as
the
0­
day
transferability
was
<
1
percent
of
the
application
rate.
Studies
where
transferability
is
less
than
1
percent
are
not
used
for
residential
postapplication
risk
assessment
purposes
because
the
transfer
coefficients
used
by
the
Agency
for
defining
exposures
are
based
on
Jazzercize
studies
in
which
TTR
values
were
measured
by
techniques
where
transferability
is
generally
in
the
1
to
5
percent
range.
In
these
cases,
HED
utilizes
the
assumptions
explained
below
taken
from
HED's
standard
operating
procedures.

 
The
endpoint
used
to
assess
these
incidental
oral
exposures
(
BMDL10)
comes
from
data
measured
at
10
weeks
of
DMA
exposure
in
the
feed
to
female
rats
(
Arnold
et
al,
1999).
However,
Cohen
et
al,
(
2001)
shows
that
regenerative
proliferation
occurred
as
early
as
1
week
into
the
DMA
exposure.
HED
believes
that
using
the
Arnold
(
1999)
study
(
with
the
Cohen
2001
study
as
characterization),
constitutes
the
use
of
the
best
available
data
and
that
results
calculated
using
this
endpoint
can
be
considered
conservative
for
risk
assessment
purposes.

 
Exposures
to
adults
and
children
on
treated
turf
have
been
addressed
using
the
latest
HED
standard
operating
procedures
for
this
scenario
including:
o
the
transfer
coefficients
used
are
those
presented
during
the
1999
Agency
presentation
before
the
FIFRA
Science
Advisory
Panel
that
have
been
adopted
in
routine
practice
by
HED;
o
3
year
old
toddlers
are
expected
to
weigh
15
kilograms
(
representing
an
average
weight
from
years
one
to
six);
o
hand­
to­
mouth
exposures
are
based
on
a
frequency
of
20
events/
hour
and
a
surface
area
per
event
of
20
cm2,
representing
the
palmar
surfaces
of
three
fingers;
o
saliva
extraction
efficiency
is
50
percent
meaning
that
every
time
the
hand
goes
in
the
mouth
approximately
½
of
the
residues
on
the
hand
are
removed;
o
object­
to­
mouth
exposures
are
based
on
a
25
cm2
surface
area;
o
exposure
durations
for
turfgrass
scenarios
are
estimated
to
be
2
hours
based
on
information
in
HED's
Exposure
Factors
Handbook;
o
soil
residues
are
contained
in
the
top
centimeter
and
soil
density
is
0.67
mL/
gram;
and
o
hand­
and
object­
to­
mouth,
and
soil
ingestion
are
combined
to
represent
an
overall
risk
from
exposure
to
turf.

 
Postapplication
residential
risks
are
based
on
maximum
application
rates
or
values
specified
in
the
SOPs
for
Residential
Exposure
Assessment.
Page
85
of
177
 
The
Jazzercize
approach
is
the
basis
for
the
dermal
transfer
coefficients
as
described
in
HED's
Series
875
guidelines,
SOPs
for
Residential
Exposure
Assessment,
and
the
1999
FIFRA
SAP
Overview
document.
Page
86
of
177
3.2.3
Residential
Postapplication
Exposure
and
Noncancer
Risk
Estimates
Noncancer
risks
were
calculated
using
the
Margin
of
Exposure
(
MOE)
approach,
which
is
a
ratio
of
the
body
burden
to
the
toxicological
endpoint
of
concern.
Exposures
were
calculated
by
considering
the
potential
sources
of
exposure
(
i.
e.,
TTRs
on
lawns),
then
calculating
dermal
and
nondietary
ingestion
exposures.

Dermal
exposures
and
risks
from
lawn
uses
were
calculated
in
the
same
manner
as
described
above
in
Section
2.2.3.
Along
with
calculating
these
dermal
exposures,
other
aspects
of
the
turf
exposure
scenarios
were
calculated
such
as
the
dose
from
nondietary
ingestion.
The
algorithms
used
for
each
type
of
calculation
are
presented
below
which
have
not
been
previously
addressed
in
Section
2.2.3.

Nondietary
Ingestion
Exposure
from
Treated
Turf:
Nondietary
ingestion
exposure
from
treated
turf
was
calculated
using
the
following
equations.
These
values
were
then
used
to
calculate
MOEs.

Dermal
Exposure
from
Treated
Lawns
(
adult
and
toddler)

The
approach
used
to
calculate
the
dermal
doses
that
are
attributable
to
exposure
from
contacting
treated
lawns
is:

ADD
=
(
TTR0
*
ET
*
TC
*
DA
*
CF1)
/
BW
Where:
ADD
=
average
daily
dose
(
mg/
kg/
day);
TTRt
=
turf
transferable
residue
on
day
"
0"
(
µ
g/
cm2).
TTR
=
application
rate
(
µ
g/
cm2)
*
fraction
of
ai
retained
on
foliage
(
5%
for
turf
activities,
20%
for
gardening
activities)
;
ET
=
exposure
time
(
2
hr/
day);
TC
=
transfer
coefficient
(
14,500
cm2/
hr
for
adults
and
5,200
cm2/
hr
for
toddlers);
DA
=
dermal
absorption
factor;
CF1
=
weight
unit
conversion
factor
to
convert
µ
g
units
to
mg
for
the
daily
exposure
(
0.001
mg/
µ
g);
and
BW
=
body
weight
(
70
kg
for
adults
and
15
kg
for
toddlers).
Page
87
of
177
Hand­
to­
mouth
Transfer
of
Pesticide
Residues
on
Lawns
(
toddler)

The
approach
used
to
calculate
the
nondietary
ingestion
exposures
that
are
attributable
to
hand­
to­
mouth
behavior
on
treated
turf
is:

ADD
=
(
TTR0
*
SA
*
FQ
*
ET
*
SE
*
CF1)
/
BW
Where:
ADD
=
average
daily
dose
(
mg/
kg/
day);
TTRt
=
turf
transferable
residue
on
day
"
0"
(
µ
g/
cm2);
TTR
=
application
rate
(
µ
g/
cm2)
*
fraction
of
ai
retained
on
foliage
(
5%)
;
SA
=
surface
area
of
the
hands
(
20
cm2/
event);
FQ
=
frequency
of
hand­
to­
mouth
activity
(
20
events/
hr);
ET
=
exposure
time
(
2
hr/
day);
SE
=
extraction
by
saliva
(
50%);
CF1
=
weight
unit
conversion
factor
to
convert
µ
g
units
in
the
TTR
value
to
mg
for
the
daily
exposure
(
0.001
mg/
µ
g);
and
BW
=
body
weight
(
15
kg).

Object­
to­
mouth
Transfer
of
Pesticide
Residues
on
Lawns
(
toddler)

The
approach
used
to
calculate
doses
that
are
attributable
to
object­
to­
mouth
behavior
on
treated
turf
that
is
represented
by
a
child
mouthing
on
a
handful
of
turf
is:

ADD
=
(
TTR0
*
IgR*
CF1)
/
BW
Where:
ADD
=
average
daily
dose
(
mg/
kg/
day);
TTRt
=
turf
transferable
residue
on
day
"
0"
(
µ
g/
cm2);
TTR
=
application
rate
(
µ
g/
cm2)
*
fraction
of
ai
retained
on
foliage
(
20%)
IgR
=
ingestion
rate
of
grass
(
25
cm2/
day);
CF1
=
weight
unit
conversion
factor
to
convert
the
µ
g
of
residues
on
the
grass
to
mg
to
provide
units
of
mg/
day
(
1E­
3
mg/
µ
g);
and
BW
=
body
weight
(
15
kg).

Incidental
Ingestion
of
Soil
from
Pesticide­
Treated
Residential
Areas
(
toddler)

The
approach
used
to
calculate
doses
that
are
attributable
to
soil
ingestion
is:

ADD
=
(
SR0
*
IgR
*
CF1)
/
BW
Where:
ADD
=
average
daily
dose
(
mg/
kg/
day);
SR0t
=
soil
residue
on
day
"
0"
(
0.0022
µ
g/
g);
IgR
=
ingestion
rate
of
soil
(
100
mg/
day);
CF1
=
weight
unit
conversion
factor
to
convert
the
µ
g
of
residues
on
the
soil
to
grams
to
provide
units
of
mg/
day
(
1E­
6
g/
µ
g);
and
BW
=
body
weight
(
15
kg).

and
Page
88
of
177
SRt
=
AR
*
F
*
CF2
*
CF3
*
CF4
Where:
AR
=
application
rate
(
lb
ai/
acre);
F
=
fraction
of
ai
available
in
uppermost
cm
of
soil
(
1
fraction/
cm)
(
100%);
CF2
=
volume
to
weight
unit
conversion
factor
to
convert
the
volume
units
(
cm3)
to
weight
units
for
the
SR
value
(
U.
S.
EPA,
1992)
(
0.67
cm3/
g
soil);
CF3
=
area
unit
conversion
factor
to
convert
the
surface
are
units
(
acres)
in
the
application
rate
to
cm2
(
2.47E­
8
acre/
cm2);
and
CF4
=
weight
unit
conversion
factor
to
convert
the
lbs
ai
in
the
application
rate
to
µ
g
(
4.54E8
µ
g/
lb).

Noncancer
Risk
Summary
Adults
Tables
35
­
38
present
the
postapplication
MOE
values
calculated
for
adults
after
lawn
and
home
garden
applications
of
DMA,
CAMA,
DSMA
and
MSMA.
For
the
lawn
and
scenarios
for
DMA,
CAMA,
DSMA,
and
MSMA,
short­
term
MOEs
are
>
100
for
all
scenarios.

Table
35
DMA
Adult
Residential
Risk
Estimates
for
Postapplication
Exposure
Exposure
Scenario
Route
of
Exposure
Application
Type
Application
Rate
(
lb
ai/
acre)
MOE
at
Day
0
Spray
 
Lawn
Edging
7.72
170
Residential
Turf
(
High
Contact
Activities)
Spray
 
Broadcast
7.3
180
Spray
 
Lawn
Edging
7.72
710
Residential
Turf
(
Mowing)
Spray
 
Broadcast
7.3
750
Spray
 
Lawn
Edging
7.72
180
Home
Garden
(
Ornamentals)
Spray
 
Broadcast
7.3
190
Spray
 
Lawn
Edging
7.72
2,400
Golfer
Dermal
Spray
 
Broadcast
7.3
2,600
Table
36:
CAMA
Adult
Residential
Risk
Estimates
for
Postapplication
Exposure
Exposure
Scenario
Route
of
Exposure
Formulation
CAMA
Application
Rate
(
lb
ai/
acre)
MOE
at
Day
0
4.4
980
3.7
1,200
Residential
Turf
(
High
Contact
Activities)
2.2
2,000
4.4
4,200
3.7
5,000
Residential
Turf
(
Mowing)
2.2
8,300
4.4
1,100
3.7
1,300
Home
Garden
(
Ornamentals)
2.2
2,100
4.4
14,000
3.7
17,000
Golfer
Dermal
Liquid
2.2
28,000
Page
89
of
177
Table
37:
DSMA
Adult
Residential
Risk
Estimates
for
Postapplication
Exposure
Exposure
Scenario
Route
of
Exposure
Formulation
DSMA
Application
Rate
(
lb
ai/
acre)
MOE
at
Day
0
Residential
Turf
(
High
Contact
Activities)
2.5
1,700
Residential
Turf
(
Mowing)
2.5
7,300
Home
Garden
(
Ornamentals)
2.5
1,900
Golfer
Dermal
Spray
2.5
25,000
Table
38:
MSMA
Adult
Residential
Risk
Estimates
for
Postapplication
Exposure
Exposure
Scenario
Route
of
Exposure
Formulation
MSMA
Application
Rate
(
lb
ai/
acre)
MOE
at
Day
0
Residential
Turf
(
High
Contact
Activities)
3.4
1,300
Residential
Turf
(
Mowing)
3.4
5,400
Home
Garden
(
Ornamentals)
3.4
1,400
Golfer
Dermal
Spray
3.4
18,000
Youths
(
11­
12
years
old)

Risks
(
MOEs)
to
youths
were
calculated
for
postapplication
activities
following
the
application
of
DMA,
CAMA,
DSMA,
and
MSMA
to
home
lawns.
Tables
39
­
42
summarize
the
risk
assessment
for
youths.
Short­
term
MOEs
for
DMA,
CAMA,
DSMA,
and
MSMA
for
these
youths
were
>
100
for
all
scenarios
considered.

Table
39.
DMA
Youths
Residential
Risk
Estimates
for
Postapplication
Exposure
Exposure
Scenario
Route
of
Exposure
Formulation
Application
Rate
(
lb
ai/
acre)
MOE
at
Day
0
Spray
 
Lawn
Edging
7.72
400
Residential
Turf
(
Mowing)
Spray
 
Broadcast
7.3
420
Spray
 
Lawn
Edging
7.72
410
Home
Garden
(
Ornamentals)
Spray
 
Broadcast
7.3
430
Spray
 
Lawn
Edging
7.72
1,400
Golfer
Dermal
Spray
 
Broadcast
7.3
1,400
Page
90
of
177
Table
40:
CAMA
Youths
Residential
Risk
Estimates
for
Postapplication
Exposure
Exposure
Scenario
Route
of
Exposure
Formulation
CAMA
Application
Rate
(
lb
ai/
acre)
MOE
at
Day
0
4.4
2,300
3.7
2,800
Residential
Turf
(
Mowing)
2.2
4,600
4.4
2,400
3.7
2,800
Home
Garden
(
Ornamentals)
2.2
4,800
4.4
7,900
3.7
9,400
Golfer
Dermal
Spray
2.2
16,000
Table
41:
DSMA
Youths
Residential
Risk
Estimates
for
Postapplication
Exposure
Exposure
Scenario
Route
of
Exposure
Formulation
DSMA
Application
Rate
(
lb
ai/
acre)
MOE
at
Day
0
Residential
Turf
(
Mowing)
2.5
4,100
Home
Garden
(
Ornamentals)
2.5
4,200
Golfer
Dermal
Spray
2.5
14,000
Table
42:
MSMA
Youths
Residential
Risk
Estimates
for
Postapplication
Exposure
Exposure
Scenario
Route
of
Exposure
Formulation
MSMA
Application
Rate
(
lb
ai/
acre)
MOE
at
Day
0
Residential
Turf
(
Mowing)
3.4
3,000
Home
Garden
(
Ornamentals)
3.4
3,100
Golfer
Dermal
Spray
3.4
10,000
Toddler
(
3
year
old)

Risks
(
MOEs)
to
toddlers
were
calculated
for
postapplication
risks
following
the
application
of
DMA,
CAMA,
DSMA,
and
MSMA
to
home
lawns.
Tables
43
 
46
summarize
the
risk
assessment
for
toddlers.
The
target
level
of
concern
for
DMA,
CAMA,
DSMA,
and
MSMA
dermal
scenarios
and
for
CAMA,
DSMA,
and
MSMA
incidental
oral
scenarios
is
100
(
i.
e.,
MOEs
 
100
is
not
of
concern
to
HED).
The
target
level
of
concern
for
DMA
incidental
oral
scenarios
is
30
(
i.
e.,
MOEs
 
30
is
not
of
concern
to
HED),
since
the
endpoint
is
an
BMDL10.
Short­
term
incidental
oral
MOEs
for
DMA
for
toddlers
were
<
30
for
the
hand­
to­
mouth
activity
and
object­
to­
mouth
activities
on
turf.
Short­
term
incidental
oral
MOEs
for
incidental
soil
ingestion
of
DMA
were
greater
than
30
and
not
a
concern
to
HED.
Short­
term
dermal
MOEs
for
DMA
were
>
100
and
were
not
a
concern
to
HED.
Short­
term
dermal
and
incidental
oral
MOEs
for
CAMA,
DSMA,
and
MSMA
for
toddlers
were
>
100
for
all
scenarios
considered.
Page
91
of
177
Table
43:
DMA
Toddler
Residential
Risk
Estimates
for
Postapplication
Exposure
Exposure
Scenario
Route
of
Exposure
Formulation
Application
Rate
(
lb
ai/
A)
MOE
­­
Day
0
Spray
 
Lawn
Edging
7.72
100
Residential
Turf
(
High
Contact
Activities)
Dermal
Spray
 
Broadcast
7.3
110
Spray
 
Lawn
Edging
7.72
4
Hand
to
Mouth
Activity
on
Turf
Spray
 
Broadcast
7.3
4
Spray
 
Lawn
Edging
7.72
15
Object
to
Mouth
Activity
on
Turf
Spray
 
Broadcast
7.3
16
Spray
 
Lawn
Edging
7.72
1,100
Incidental
Soil
Ingestion
Oral
Spray
 
Broadcast
7.3
1,200
Table
44:
CAMA
Toddler
Residential
Risk
Estimates
for
Postapplication
Exposure
Exposure
Scenario
Route
of
Exposure
Formulation
CAMA
Application
Rate
(
lb
ai/
A)
MOE
­­
Day
0b
4.4
580
3.7
700
Residential
Turf
(
High
Contact
Activities)
Dermal
2.2
1,200
4.4
110
3.7
130
Hand
to
Mouth
Activity
on
Turf
2.2
210
4.4
430
3.7
510
Object
to
Mouth
Activity
on
Turf
2.2
850
4.4
32,000
3.7
38,000
Incidental
Soil
Ingestion
Oral
Spray
2.2
64,000
Table
45:
DSMA
Toddler
Residential
Risk
Estimates
for
Postapplication
Exposure
Exposure
Scenario
Route
of
Exposure
Formulation
DSMA
Application
Rate
(
lb
ai/
A)
MOE
­­
Day
0b
Residential
Turf
(
High
Contact
Activities)
Dermal
2.5
1,000
Hand
to
Mouth
Activity
on
Turf
2.5
190
Object
to
Mouth
Activity
on
Turf
2.5
750
Incidental
Soil
Ingestion
Oral
Spray
2.5
56,000
Table
46:
MSMA
Toddler
Residential
Risk
Estimates
for
Postapplication
Exposure
Exposure
Scenario
Route
of
Exposure
Formulation
MSMA
Application
Rate
(
lb
ai/
A)
MOE
­­
Day
0b
Residential
Turf
(
High
Contact
Activities)
Dermal
3.4
760
Hand
to
Mouth
Activity
on
Turf
3.4
140
Object
to
Mouth
Activity
on
Turf
3.4
550
Incidental
Soil
Ingestion
Oral
Spray
3.4
41,000
Page
92
of
177
Combined
Risk
Assessment
for
Residential
Scenarios
HED
combines
risk
values
resulting
from
separate
postapplication
exposure
scenarios
when
it
is
likely
they
can
occur
simultaneously
based
on
the
use­
pattern
and
the
behavior
associated
with
the
exposed
population.
In
the
case
of
the
DMA,
CAMA,
DSMA,
and
MSMA
the
dermal
and
incidental
oral
ingestion
toxicological
endpoints
do
not
have
the
same
toxicological
effect
therefore
dermal
and
oral
doses
were
not
aggregated.
An
aggregate
of
incidental
oral
exposures
were
combined,
including
hand
to
mouth,
object
to
mouth,
and
soil
ingestion
doses
for
toddlers.
Tables
47
­
50
present
a
summary
of
the
combined
MOE
estimates
for
DMA,
CAMA,
DSMA,
and
MSMA,
respectively.

The
combined
risk
assessment
for
exposures
to
toddlers
following
home
lawn
applications
was
calculated:

Combined
MOE
=
NOAEL/(
ADDhand­
to­
mouth
+
ADDobject­
to­
mouth
+
ADDincidental
soil
ingestion)

Calculated
aggregated
risks
to
toddlers
(
i.
e.,
hand
to
mouth
activity,
object
to
mouth
activity
on
treated
turf
plus
incidental
soil
ingestion
of
pesticide
residue
from
treated
turf
areas)
are
of
concern
for
applications
of
DMA
at
both
application
rates
and
for
CAMA
at
the
highest
application
rate
of
4.4
lb
ai/
acre.
The
target
level
of
concern
for
DMA
incidental
oral
scenarios
is
30
(
i.
e.,
MOE
 
30
is
not
of
concern
to
HED),
since
the
endpoint
is
a
BMDL10.
The
aggregated
risks
from
DMA
treatment
at
both
application
rates
are
of
concern,
with
MOEs
of
3
for
both
use
rates.
The
target
level
of
concern
for
incidental
ingestion
scenarios
for
CAMA,
DSMA,
and
MSMA
is
100
(
i.
e.,
MOE
 
100
is
not
of
concern
to
HED.)
A
postapplication
aggregated
MOE
of
85
was
determined
when
assessing
risks
following
treatment
with
CAMA
at
4.4
lb
ai/
acre.
Application
at
the
two
lower
use
rates
for
CAMA
resulted
in
MOEs
which
were
above
the
level
of
concern.
Aggregate
MOEs
calculated
for
DSMA
and
MSMA
were
above
the
target
level
of
100.

Table
47:
DMA
Residential
Scenarios
for
Combined
Risk
Estimates
­
Toddlers
Margins
of
Exposure
(
MOEs)

Postapplication
Exposure
Scenario
Short­
Term
(
Non­
Dietary)
Total
Non­
Dietary
Risk
Turf
Hand
to
Mouth
4
Object
to
Mouth
15
Turf:
Lawn
Edging
(
7.72
lb
ai/
acre)
Incidental
Soil
Ingestion
1,100
3
Hand
to
Mouth
4
Object
to
Mouth
16
Toddler
Turf:
Broadcast
(
7.3
lb
ai/
acre)
Incidental
Soil
Ingestion
1,200
3
Page
93
of
177
Table
48:
CAMA
Residential
Scenarios
for
Combined
Risk
Estimates
­
Toddlers
Margins
of
Exposure
(
MOEs)
(
UF=
100)
Postapplication
Exposure
Scenario
Short­
Term
(
Non­
Dietary)
Total
Non­
Dietary
Risk
Turf
Hand
to
Mouth
110
Object
to
Mouth
430
Turf
(
4.4
lb
ai/
acre)
Incidental
Soil
Ingestion
32,000
85
Hand
to
Mouth
130
Object
to
Mouth
510
Turf
(
3.7
lb
ai/
acre)
Incidental
Soil
Ingestion
38,000
101
Hand
to
Mouth
210
Object
to
Mouth
850
Toddler
Turf
(
2.2
lb
ai/
acre)
Incidental
Soil
Ingestion
64,000
170
Table
49:
DSMA
Residential
Scenarios
for
Combined
Risk
Estimates
­
Toddlers
Margins
of
Exposure
(
MOEs)
(
UF=
100)
Postapplication
Exposure
Scenario
Short­
Term
(
Non­
Dietary)
Total
Non­
Dietary
Risk
Turf
Hand
to
Mouth
190
Object
to
Mouth
750
Toddler
Turf
(
2.5
lb
ai/
acre)
Incidental
Soil
Ingestion
56,000
149
Table
50:
MSMA
Residential
Scenarios
for
Combined
Risk
Estimates
­
Toddlers
Margins
of
Exposure
(
MOEs)
(
UF=
100)
Postapplication
Exposure
Scenario
Short­
Term
Oral
(
Non­
Dietary)
Total
Non­
Dietary
Risk
Turf
Hand
to
Mouth
140
Object
to
Mouth
550
Toddler
Turf
(
3.4
lb
ai/
acre)
Incidental
Soil
Ingestion
41,000
110
3.2.4
Residential
Postapplication
Exposure
Characterization
HED
considered
a
number
of
exposure
scenarios
for
products
that
can
be
used
in
the
residential
environment
representing
different
segments
of
the
population
including
toddlers,
youth­
aged
children,
and
adults.
Short­
term
noncancer
MOEs
were
calculated
for
all
scenarios.
Cancer
risks
were
not
calculated,
since
no
toxicological
endpoint
for
Page
94
of
177
cancer
was
selected.
In
residential
settings,
HED
does
not
use
restricted­
entry
intervals
or
other
mitigation
approaches
to
limit
postapplication
exposures,
because
they
are
viewed
as
impractical
and
not
enforceable.
As
such,
risk
estimates
on
the
day
of
application
are
the
key
concern.

In
the
assessment
for
residential
postapplication
exposure
and
risk,
there
are
risks
of
concern
for
DMA
and
CAMA,
as
they
are
currently
used
in
a
residential
environment.
In
the
assessment
for
residential
postapplication
exposure
and
risk,
there
are
risks
of
concern
for
DMA,
as
they
are
currently
used
in
a
residential
environment.
The
endpoint
used
to
assess
these
incidental
oral
exposures
(
BMDL10)
comes
from
data
measured
at
10
weeks
of
DMA
exposure
in
the
feed
to
female
rats
(
Arnold
et
al,
1999).
However,
Cohen
et
al,
(
2001)
shows
that
regenerative
proliferation
occurred
as
early
as
1
week
into
the
DMA
exposure.
HED
believes
that
using
the
Arnold
(
1999)
study
(
with
the
Cohen
2001
study
as
characterization)
in
conjunction
with
Day
0
DMA
residues
(
calculated
from
the
labeled
application
rates),
constitutes
the
use
of
the
best
available
data
and
that
the
results
can
be
considered
conservative
for
risk
assessment
purposes.

In
order
to
refine
this
residential
assessment,
data
on
actual
use
patterns
including
rates,
timing,
and
the
kinds
of
tasks
performed
are
required
to
better
characterize
DMA,
CAMA,
DSMA,
and
MSMA
risks.

3.2.5
Residential
Postapplication
Exposure
to
Inorganic
Arsenic
The
Federal
Government
and
most
states
have
established
limits
and/
or
screening
levels
for
"
total
arsenic"
(
unspeciated)
exposure
from
a
variety
of
sources;
drinking
water,
air,
and
soil.
Typically
in
monitoring
programs,
arsenic
is
measured
and
reported
as
total
arsenic,
regardless
of
what
species,
or
mixture
of
species,
may
be
present.
These
limits
or
screening
levels
are
established
based
on
risks
(
cancer)
from
exposure
to
iAs
and
technically
feasible
clean­
up
levels.
As
mentioned
previously,
the
differing
species
(
DMA,
MMA,
iAs)
of
arsenic
have
dissimilar
toxicities
and
target
organs;
iAs
being
the
most
toxic.
An
extensive
review
of
the
literature,
as
well
as
limited
speciated
monitoring
data,
have
shown
that
exposure
to
iAs
can
occur
from
the
registered
uses
of
the
organic
arsenics
as
well
as
from
background
residues
already
in
the
soil,
given
time
and
under
environmental
conditions
that
favor
the
transformation
to
iAs.
In
some
media
(
food,
water,
soil)
and
in
some
parts
of
the
United
States,
the
likelihood
of
exposure
to
iAs
is
higher
than
in
others.
Under
FQPA,
the
Agency
is
required
to
consider
all
potential
sources
of
exposure
to
the
organic
arsenics,
and
their
metabolites
and/
or
transformation
products.
Since
the
limits
and/
or
screening
levels
are
established
for
total
arsenic
(
all
species
included)
and
there
is
potential
for
transformation
and
exposure
to
iAs
from
the
registered
uses
of
the
organic
arsenics,
an
analysis
for
potential
risks
from
exposure
to
iAs
was
performed,
which
included
a
comparison
of
estimated
exposures
from
registered
uses
to
existing
regulatory
limits
or
screening
levels.

The
active
ingredients
DMA,
CAMA,
DSMA,
and
MSMA
are
all
organic
species
of
arsenic.
Since
inorganic
arsenic
is
an
element,
it
is
not
subject
to
biological
or
Page
95
of
177
chemical
degradation
in
the
environment.
CAMA,
DSMA,
and
MSMA
are
salts
of
MMA
and
quickly
covert
to
MMA
when
mixed
in
water
before
application.
Following
application,
under
certain
conditions,
MMA
converts
to
DMA
and/
or
to
iAs.
Similarly,
following
application,
under
certain
conditions,
DMA
converts
to
iAs.
Data
available
to
date
indicate
that
MMA
and
DMA
are
stable
in
the
environment
when
they
remain
on
the
outside
of
the
treated
foliage
of
plants.
They
transform
to
other
species
in
the
environment
only
when
inside
a
plant
or
in
the
soil,
suggesting
microbial
or
enzymatic
involvement.
Therefore,
for
the
purposes
of
HED's
assessment
of
occupational
and
residential
postapplication
exposures
and
risks,
the
dermal
and
incidental
oral
exposures
to
foliar
surfaces
are
conducted
using
the
form
that
was
applied
(
i.
e.,
MMA
when
CAMA,
DSMA,
or
MSMA
was
applied
or
DMA
when
DMA
was
applied).
Postapplication
inhalation
exposures
are
not
a
concern
due
to
the
low
vapor
pressure
of
the
organic
and
inorganic
forms
and
the
infinite
dilution
in
outdoor
environments.

HED
must
consider
the
possible
in­
soil
conversion
of
MMA
to
DMA
or
to
iAs
and
the
possible
conversion
of
DMA
to
iAs
to
appropriately
assess
the
range
of
potential
risks
from
postapplication
dermal
exposures
to
the
soil
(
i.
e.,
in
harvesting/
transplanting
sod
or
lawn
renovation)
and
from
postapplication
incidental
oral
exposures
to
toddlers
ingesting
soil.
Several
factors
appear
to
influence
the
conversion
of
organic
arsenic
to
the
inorganic
form
in
soil,
including
soil
organic
matter,
soil
moisture,
soil
temperature
and
the
concentration
and
species
of
the
arsenic
in
the
soil.

HED
generally
assumes
a
degradation
curve
where
the
pesticide
residues
degrade
over
time
to
nontoxic
byproducts
when
assessing
postapplication
exposure
and
risk.
However,
with
the
organic
arsenical
herbicides,
the
metabolites,
when
formed,
may
be
more
toxic
than
the
initial
residue
(
i.
e.,
iAs
is
more
toxic
than
DMA
and
MMA).
Also,
for
most
pesticides,
residues
typically
degrade
over
time
to
nondetectable
levels.
However,
arsenic
in
its
inorganic
form
does
not
degrade
and
evidence
indicates
that
it
may
build
up
in
soil
over
time
as
applications
are
repeated.

For
postapplication
dermal
exposures
and
incidental
ingestion
of
soil,
HED
is
concerned
both
about
the
build
up
of
arsenicals
in
the
soil
(
of
any
species)
and
the
possible
transformation
in
soil
to
more
toxic
forms.
At
this
time,
because
of
the
dynamic
and
variable
nature
of
transformation,
HED
does
not
have
sufficient
data
to
estimate
either
the
percent
of
conversion
from
one
form
of
arsenic
to
another
(
i.
e.,
from
a
less
toxic
to
more
toxic
form)
or
the
amount
of
time
necessary
for
the
conversion
to
take
place.
Consequently,
it
is
not
possible
at
this
time
to
perform
a
refined
quantitative
risk
assessment
from
soil
treated
repeatedly
with
organic
arsenical
herbicides.
HED
notes
that
incidental
ingestion
of
soil
by
toddlers
results
in
risks
not
of
concern
when
assessed
for
exposures
following
a
single
application
of
either
MMA
or
DMA.
Even
assuming
that
all
residues
from
four
applications
per
year
(
maximum
allowed)
converted
to
iAs
in
the
soil
and
that
all
of
the
iAs
was
100%
bioavailable
from
the
soil
 
both
very
conservative
assumptions
 
the
risks
would
not
be
a
concern
when
compared
to
dermal
and
incidental
oral
endpoints
established
for
iAs
by
EPA/
OPP's
Antimicrobial
Division
(
Chen
2001).
However,
the
potential
risks
to
toddlers
incidentally
ingesting
soil
from
an
area
that
had
been
treated
with
compounds
that
transformed
to
iAs
for
several
years
Page
96
of
177
might
be
a
concern,
depending
on
the
amount
of
arsenic
that
remained
on­
site
(
versus
runoff
or
leaching)
and
the
degree
of
conversion
to
the
more
toxic
iAs
that
had
occurred.
Likewise,
the
risks
to
adults
dermally
exposed
while
performing
tasks
involving
high
contact
with
the
soil,
such
as
turf
transplanting
or
harvesting,
would
not
be
a
concern
assuming
established
soil
adherence
factors
for
dermal
exposures,
and
that
all
residues
from
four
applications
per
year
(
maximum
allowed)
converted
to
iAs
in
the
soil
and
were
100
percent
bioavailable
from
the
soil.
However,
the
risks
to
adults
contacting
soil
from
an
area
that
had
been
treated
with
compounds
that
transformed
to
iAs
for
several
years
might
be
a
concern,
depending
on
the
amount
of
arsenic
that
remained
on­
site
(
versus
runoff
or
leaching)
and
the
degree
of
conversion
to
the
more
toxic
iAs
that
has
occurred.

HED
has
also
attempted
to
estimate
arsenic
levels
in
soil
and
then
compare
these
values
to
the
Office
of
Solid
Waste
and
Emergency
Response's
(
OSWER)
arsenic
soil
screening
levels
(
SSLs).
SSLs
are
not
national
clean­
up
standards
and
SSLs
alone
do
not
define
"
unacceptable"
levels
of
contaminants
in
soil.
Screening
refers
to
the
process
of
identifying
and
defining
areas,
contaminants,
and
conditions,
at
a
particular
site
that
do
not
require
further
Federal
attention.
Generally,
at
sites
where
contaminant
concentrations
fall
below
SSLs,
no
further
action
or
study
is
warranted
under
the
Comprehensive
Environmental
Response,
Compensation,
and
Liability
Act
(
CERCLA),
commonly
known
as
"
Superfund."
When
contaminant
concentrations
equal
or
exceed
SSLs,
further
study
or
investigation,
but
not
necessarily
clean­
up,
is
warranted.
Detailed
information
on
SSLs
is
available
at:
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
superfund/
resources/
soil.

The
SSL
for
total
arsenic
(
unspeciated)
is
0.4
ppm.
State
cleanup
levels
for
total
arsenic
vary
by
state
and
site
from
0.1
ppm
to
200
ppm
depending
on
land
use
(
i.
e.,
residential,
industrial,
agricultural,
recreational),
background
level,
and
other
factors.
The
arsenic
SSL
is
based
on
a
value
that
corresponds
to
a
10­
6
excess
risk
level
using
the
iAs
cancer
slope
factor.
This
"
target"
hazard
quotient
is
used
to
calculate
the
0.4
ppm
total
arsenic
soil
screening
level,
below
which,
it
is
unlikely
that
sensitive
populations
will
experience
adverse
health
effects
resulting
from
exposure
to
total
arsenic.

In
order
to
estimate
arsenic
levels
in
soil,
HED
assumed
that
all
residues
from
an
application
of
either
MMA
or
DMA
converted
to
iAs
and
were
100%
bioavailable
from
the
soil
(
both
very
conservative
assumptions).
In
all
cases,
after
one
application,
the
arsenic
levels
in
soil
exceeded
the
0.4
ppm
SSL
for
total
arsenic.
HED
believes
the
possibility
of
exceeding
the
arsenic
SSL
would
increase
with
the
number
of
arsenic
applications
as
arsenic
in
its
inorganic
form
does
not
degrade
and
evidence
indicates
that
it
may
build
up
in
soil
overtime
as
applications
are
repeated.
More
detailed
information
regarding
arsenic
transformation,
mobility,
and
soil
buildup
can
be
found
in
Moore
2006.

3.2.6
Residential
Postapplication
Exposure
and
Risk
Estimates
for
Cancer
Residential
postapplication
cancer
risks
were
not
assessed
for
DMA,
CAMA,
DSMA,
or
MSMA
because
no
cancer
endpoints
of
concern
were
identified.
Page
97
of
177
3.2.7
Summary
of
Residential
Postapplication
Risk
Concerns
and
Data
Gaps
HED
considered
a
number
of
exposure
scenarios
for
products
that
can
be
used
in
the
residential
environment
representing
different
segments
of
the
population
including
toddlers,
youth­
aged
children,
and
adults.
Short­
term
noncancer
MOEs
were
calculated
for
all
scenarios.
Cancer
risks
were
not
calculated,
since
no
toxicological
endpoint
for
cancer
was
selected.
In
residential
settings,
HED
does
not
use
restricted­
entry
intervals
or
other
mitigation
approaches
to
limit
postapplication
exposures,
because
they
are
viewed
as
impractical
and
not
enforceable.
As
such,
risk
estimates
on
the
day
of
application
are
the
key
concern.

In
the
assessment
for
residential
postapplication
exposure
and
risk,
there
are
a
few
risk
concerns
for
DMA
and
CAMA
as
they
are
currently
used
in
a
residential
environment.

3.2.8
Recommendations
for
Refining
Residential
Postapplication
Risk
Assessments
In
order
to
refine
this
residential
assessment,
data
on
actual
use
patterns
including
rates,
timing,
and
the
kinds
of
tasks
performed
are
required
to
better
characterize
DMA,
CAMA,
DSMA,
and
MSMA
risks.
Page
98
of
177
References
Arnold
et
al.,
1999.

Franzblau,
A.
and
Lilis,
R.
1989.
Acute
Arsenic
Intoxication
from
Environmental
Arsenic
Exposure.
Archives
of
Envir.
Health
44(
6).
385­
390.
MRID
45496802.

Mizuta,
N,
Mizuta,
et
al.
1956.
An
Outbreak
of
Acute
Arsenic
Poisoning
Caused
by
Arsenic
Carbaryl
Mixer/
Loader/
Applicator
Exposure
Study
During
Application
of
RP­
2
Liquid
(
21%),
Sevin
Ready
to
Use
Insect
Spray
or
Sevin
10
Dust
to
Home
Garden
Vegetables.
MRID
444598­
01
D.
Merricks.
(
1997).

Containing
Soy­
Sauce
(
Shoyu).
A
Clinical
Report
of
220
Cases.
Bull
Yamaguchi
Med
Sch
4(
2­
3):
131­
149.
MRID
45496803.

Integrated
Report
for
Evaluation
of
Potential
Exposures
to
Homeowners
and
Professional
Lawn
Care
Operators
Mixing,
Loading,
and
Applying
Granular
and
Liquid
Pesticides
to
Residential
Lawns.
MRID
449722­
01.
D.
Klonne.
(
1999).

U.
S.
EPA
1996.
Non­
Dietary
Cancer
Risk
Policy.
Daniel
Brown.
August
14,
1996.

U.
S.
EPA
1997.
Draft
Standard
Operating
Procedures
(
SOPs)
for
Residential
Exposure
Assessments.
December
1997
with
revisions
stated
in
Overview
of
Issues
Related
to
The
Standard
Operating
Procedures
for
Residential
Exposure
Assessments.
Presented
to
the
FIFRA
Scientific
Advisory
Panel
on
September
21,
1999.

U.
S.
EPA
1998.
PHED
Surrogate
Exposure
Guide.
Version
1.1.
Health
Effects
Division,
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs,
August
1998.

U.
S.
EPA
1999a.
Cacodylic
Acid:
Hazard
Identification
Committee
Report.
June
10,
1999.

U.
S.
EPA
1999b.
Cacodylic
Acid
­
Ad
Hoc
Meeting
of
the
Cancer
Assessment
Review
Committee.
December
14,
1999.

U.
S.
EPA
2000a.
FQPA
Committee
memo
on
Cacodylic
Acid.
January
5,
2000.

USEPA
2000b.
Request
to
Use
MSMA
Turf
Transferable
Residue
Data
as
Surrogate
Data
for
Cacodylic
Acid
and
Sodium
Cacodylate
in
Lieu
of
Conducting
Studies
(
PC
Code
012501
and
DP
Barcode
258787).
Renee
SAndvig.
February
9,
2000.
Page
99
of
177
U.
S.
EPA.
2001.
Inorganic
Arsenic
Report
of
the
Hazard
Identification
Assessment
Review
Committee.
August
21,
2001.
Page
100
of
177
Appendix
A
­­

DMA
Occupational
Handler
Exposures
and
Risks
Page
101
of
177
Table
A1.
DMA
Occupational
Dermal
Exposures
and
Risks
Dermal
Unit
Exposures
(
mg/
lb
ai)
Dermal
Dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
Dermal
MOEg
Exposure
Scenario
Crop
or
Target
Application
Rate
of
DMAa
(
lb
ai/
acre)
Area
Treated
Dailyb
(
acres)
Baselinec
PPE­
w/
Glovesd
PPE­
double
layer
w/
glovese
Eng
Conf
Baseline
PPEw
gloves
PPE­
double
layer
w/
gloves
Eng
Cont
Baseline
PPEw
gloves
PPE­
double
layer
w/
gloves
Eng
Cont
Mixer/
Loader
Cotton
(
defoliation)
0.8
1200
2.9
0.023
0.017
0.0086
40
0.32
0.23
0.12
7.5
950
1300
2500
Mixing/
Loading
Liquid
Concentrates
for
Aerial
Applications
(
1a)
Cotton
(
preconditionin
g
for
defoliation)
0.3
1200
2.9
0.023
0.017
0.0086
15
0.12
0.087
0.044
20
2500
3400
6800
Cotton
(
defoliation)
0.8
200
2.9
0.023
0.017
0.0086
6.6
0.053
0.039
0.02
45
5700
7700
15000
Cotton
(
preconditionin
g
for
defoliation)
0.3
200
2.9
0.023
0.017
0.0086
2.5
0.02
0.015
0.0074
120
15000
21000
41000
Non­
crop
7.3
100
2.9
0.023
0.017
0.0086
30
0.24
0.18
0.09
9.9
1300
1700
3300
Mixing/
Loading
Liquids
Concentrates
for
Groundboom
Applications
(
1b)
Non­
bearing
citrus
orchards
4.96
80
2.9
0.023
0.017
0.0086
16
0.13
0.096
0.049
18
2300
3100
6200
Page
102
of
177
Table
A1.
DMA
Occupational
Dermal
Exposures
and
Risks
Dermal
Unit
Exposures
(
mg/
lb
ai)
Dermal
Dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
Dermal
MOEg
Exposure
Scenario
Crop
or
Target
Application
Rate
of
DMAa
(
lb
ai/
acre)
Area
Treated
Dailyb
(
acres)
Baselinec
PPE­
w/
Glovesd
PPE­
double
layer
w/
glovese
Eng
Conf
Baseline
PPEw
gloves
PPE­
double
layer
w/
gloves
Eng
Cont
Baseline
PPEw
gloves
PPE­
double
layer
w/
gloves
Eng
Cont
Lawn
edging
7.72
100
2.9
0.023
0.017
0.0086
32
0.25
0.19
0.095
9.4
1200
1600
3200
Mixing/
Loading
Liquid
Concentrates
to
Support
LCO
Handgun
Applications
(
mixing/
loading
supports
20
LCOs)
(
1c)
Lawn
renovation
7.3
100
2.9
0.023
0.017
0.0086
30
0.24
0.18
0.09
9.9
1300
1700
3300
Mixing/
Loading
Liquid
Concentrates
to
Support
Rights
of
Way
(
1d)
Non­
crop
7.3
80
2.9
0.023
0.017
0.0086
24
0.19
0.14
0.072
12
1600
2100
4200
Applicator
Cotton
(
defoliation)
0.8
1200
No
Data
No
Data
No
Data
0.005
No
Data
No
Data
No
Data
0.069
No
Data
No
Data
No
Data
4400
Applying
Sprays
via
Aerial
Equipment
(
2)
Cotton
(
preconditionin
g
for
defoliation)
0.3
1200
No
Data
No
Data
No
Data
0.005
No
Data
No
Data
No
Data
0.026
No
Data
No
Data
No
Data
12000
Applying
Sprays
via
Groundboom
Equipment
(
3)
Cotton
(
defoliation)
0.8
200
0.014
0.014
0.011
0.005
0.032
0.032
0.025
0.011
9400
9400
12000
26000
Page
103
of
177
Table
A1.
DMA
Occupational
Dermal
Exposures
and
Risks
Dermal
Unit
Exposures
(
mg/
lb
ai)
Dermal
Dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
Dermal
MOEg
Exposure
Scenario
Crop
or
Target
Application
Rate
of
DMAa
(
lb
ai/
acre)
Area
Treated
Dailyb
(
acres)
Baselinec
PPE­
w/
Glovesd
PPE­
double
layer
w/
glovese
Eng
Conf
Baseline
PPEw
gloves
PPE­
double
layer
w/
gloves
Eng
Cont
Baseline
PPEw
gloves
PPE­
double
layer
w/
gloves
Eng
Cont
Cotton
(
preconditionin
g
for
defoliation)
0.3
200
0.014
0.014
0.011
0.005
0.012
0.012
0.0094
0.0043
25000
25000
32000
70000
Non­
crop
7.3
100
0.014
0.014
0.011
0.005
0.15
0.15
0.11
0.052
2100
2100
2600
5800
Non­
bearing
citrus
orchards
4.96
80
0.014
0.014
0.011
0.005
0.079
0.079
0.062
0.028
3800
3800
4800
11000
Lawn
edging
7.72
5
No
Data
0.34
0.19
Not
Feasible
No
Data
0.19
0.1
No
Data
No
Data
1600
2900
No
Data
Applying
Sprays
via
Handgun
Equipment
(
4)
Lawn
renovation
7.3
5
No
Data
0.34
0.19
Not
Feasible
No
Data
0.18
0.099
No
Data
No
Data
1700
3000
No
Data
Applying
Sprays
via
Rights
of
Way
Equipment
(
5)
Non­
crop
7.3
80
1.3
0.39
0.29
Not
Feasible
11
3.3
2.4
No
Data
28
92
120
No
Data
Flagger
Cotton
(
defoliation)
0.8
350
0.011
Not
applicable
0.01
0.00022
0.044
No
Data
0.04
0.00088
6800
No
Data
7500
340000
Flagging
for
Aerial
Sprays
Applications
(
6)
Cotton
(
preconditionin
g
for
defoliation)
0.3
350
0.011
Not
applicable
0.01
0.00022
0.017
No
Data
0.015
0.00033
18000
No
Data
20000
910000
Mixer/
Loader/
Applicator
Page
104
of
177
Table
A1.
DMA
Occupational
Dermal
Exposures
and
Risks
Dermal
Unit
Exposures
(
mg/
lb
ai)
Dermal
Dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
Dermal
MOEg
Exposure
Scenario
Crop
or
Target
Application
Rate
of
DMAa
(
lb
ai/
acre)
Area
Treated
Dailyb
(
acres)
Baselinec
PPE­
w/
Glovesd
PPE­
double
layer
w/
glovese
Eng
Conf
Baseline
PPEw
gloves
PPE­
double
layer
w/
gloves
Eng
Cont
Baseline
PPEw
gloves
PPE­
double
layer
w/
gloves
Eng
Cont
Non­
bearing
citrus
orchards
4.96
5
15
0.33
Data
available
Not
Feasible
5.3
0.12
No
Data
Not
Feasible
56
2600
No
Data
Not
Feasible
Lawn
edging
7.72
5
15
0.33
Data
available
Not
Feasible
8.3
0.18
No
Data
Not
Feasible
36
1600
No
Data
Not
Feasible
Lawn
renovation
7.3
5
15
0.33
Data
available
Not
Feasible
7.8
0.17
No
Data
Not
Feasible
38
1700
No
Data
Not
Feasible
Mixing/
Loading/

Applying
Liquid
Concentrates
with
Low
Pressure
Handwand
(
ORETF)
(
7)
Non­
crop
7.3
5
15
0.33
Data
available
Not
Feasible
7.8
0.17
No
Data
Not
Feasible
38
1700
No
Data
Not
Feasible
Non­
bearing
citrus
orchards
4.96
5
No
Data
0.45
0.245
Not
Feasible
No
Data
0.16
0.087
Not
Feasible
No
Data
1900
3500
Not
Feasible
Mixing/
Loading/

Applying
Liquid
Concentrates
with
a
Handgun
Sprayer
(
LCO
ORETF
data)
(
8)
Lawn
edging
7.72
5
No
Data
0.45
0.245
Not
Feasible
No
Data
0.25
0.14
Not
Feasible
No
Data
1200
2200
Not
Feasible
Page
105
of
177
Table
A1.
DMA
Occupational
Dermal
Exposures
and
Risks
Dermal
Unit
Exposures
(
mg/
lb
ai)
Dermal
Dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
Dermal
MOEg
Exposure
Scenario
Crop
or
Target
Application
Rate
of
DMAa
(
lb
ai/
acre)
Area
Treated
Dailyb
(
acres)
Baselinec
PPE­
w/
Glovesd
PPE­
double
layer
w/
glovese
Eng
Conf
Baseline
PPEw
gloves
PPE­
double
layer
w/
gloves
Eng
Cont
Baseline
PPEw
gloves
PPE­
double
layer
w/
gloves
Eng
Cont
Lawn
renovation
7.3
5
No
Data
0.45
0.245
Not
Feasible
No
Data
0.23
0.13
Not
Feasible
No
Data
1300
2300
Not
Feasible
Non­
crop
7.3
5
No
Data
0.45
0.245
Not
Feasible
No
Data
0.23
0.13
Not
Feasible
No
Data
1300
2300
Not
Feasible
Applying
Ready
to
Use
Formulations
via
Trigger­
Pump
Sprayer
(
ORETF)

(
9)
Non­
crop
0.00017
1000
42
1.8
Data
available
Not
Feasible
0.1
0.0043
No
Data
Not
Feasible
3000
70000
No
Data
Not
Feasible
Lawn
edging
0.00018
1000
11
No
Data
No
Data
Not
Feasible
0.028
No
Data
No
Data
No
Data
11000
No
Data
No
Data
Not
Feasible
Mixing/
Loading/

Applying
Liquids
with
a
Watering
Can
(
using
ORETF
residential
hoseend
data)
(
11)
Lawn
renovation
0.00017
1000
11
No
Data
No
Data
Not
Feasible
0.026
No
Data
No
Data
No
Data
11000
No
Data
No
Data
Not
Feasible
a
Application
rates
are
the
maximum
application
rates
determined
from
EPA
registered
labels
for
DMA
b
Amount
handled
per
day
values
are
HED
estimates
of
acres
or
gallons
or
other
area/
amount
treated
per
day
based
on
industry
sources
and
HED
estimates.

c
Baseline
is
long­
sleeve
shirt,
long
pants,
shoes,
socks
and
no
gloves
and
no
respirator
d
Single
layer
w/
gloves
is
baseline
attire
plus
chemical­
resistant
gloves.

e
Double
layer
w/
gloves
is
coveralls
worn
over
long­
sleeve
shirt
and
long
pants,
plus
chemical­
resistant
gloves.

f
Engineering
control
is
closed
mixing/
loading
system,
enclosed
cab,
or
enclosed
cockpit.

g
Dermal
MOE
=
NOAEL
(
300
mg/
kg/
day)
/
dermal
daily
dose
(
mg/
kg/
day),
where
dermal
dose
=
daily
unit
exposure
(
mg/
lb
ai)
x
application
rate
x
amount
handled
per
day
/
body
weight
(
70
kg
adult).
Page
106
of
177
Table
A2.
DMA
Occupational
Inhalation
Exposures
and
Risks
Inhalation
Unit
Exposures
(
ug/
lb
ai)
Inhalation
Dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
Inhalation
MOEg
Exposure
Scenario
Crop
or
Target
Application
Rate
of
DMAa
(
lb
ai/
acre)
Area
Treated
Dailyb
(
acres)
Baselinec
80%

PPE­
Rd
90%

PPE­
Re
Eng
Conf
Baseline
80%
PPER
90%
PPER
Eng
Cont
Baseline
80%
PPER
90%
PPER
Eng
Cont
Mixer/
Loader
Cotton
(
defoliation)
0.8
1200
1.2
0.24
0.12
0.083
0.016
0.0033
0.0016
0.0011
270
1300
2700
3800
Mixing/
Loading
Liquid
Concentrates
for
Aerial
Applications
(
1a)
Cotton
(
preconditioning
for
defoliation)
0.3
1200
1.2
0.24
0.12
0.083
0.0062
0.0012
0.00062
0.00043
710
3500
7100
10000
Cotton
(
defoliation)
0.8
200
1.2
0.24
0.12
0.083
0.0027
0.00055
0.00027
0.00019
1600
8000
16000
23000
Cotton
(
preconditioning
for
defoliation)
0.3
200
1.2
0.24
0.12
0.083
0.001
0.00021
0.0001
0.000071
4300
21000
43000
62000
Non­
crop
7.3
100
1.2
0.24
0.12
0.083
0.013
0.0025
0.0013
0.00087
350
1800
3500
5100
Mixing/
Loading
Liquids
Concentrates
for
Groundboom
Applications
(
1b)
Non­
bearing
citrus
orchards
4.96
80
1.2
0.24
0.12
0.083
0.0068
0.0014
0.00068
0.00047
640
3200
6400
9300
Page
107
of
177
Table
A2.
DMA
Occupational
Inhalation
Exposures
and
Risks
Inhalation
Unit
Exposures
(
ug/
lb
ai)
Inhalation
Dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
Inhalation
MOEg
Exposure
Scenario
Crop
or
Target
Application
Rate
of
DMAa
(
lb
ai/
acre)
Area
Treated
Dailyb
(
acres)
Baselinec
80%

PPE­
Rd
90%

PPE­
Re
Eng
Conf
Baseline
80%
PPER
90%
PPER
Eng
Cont
Baseline
80%
PPER
90%
PPER
Eng
Cont
Lawn
edging
7.72
100
1.2
0.24
0.12
0.083
0.013
0.0026
0.0013
0.00092
330
1700
3300
4800
Mixing/
Loading
Liquid
Concentrates
to
Support
LCO
Handgun
Applications
(
mixing/
loading
supports
20
LCOs)
(
1c)
Lawn
renovation
7.3
100
1.2
0.24
0.12
0.083
0.013
0.0025
0.0013
0.00087
350
1800
3500
5100
Mixing/
Loading
Liquid
Concentrates
to
Support
Rights
of
Way
(
1d)
Non­
crop
7.3
80
1.2
0.24
0.12
0.083
0.01
0.002
0.001
0.00069
440
2200
4400
6300
Applicator
Cotton
(
defoliation)
0.8
1200
No
Data
No
Data
No
Data
0.068
No
Data
No
Data
No
Data
0.00093
No
Data
No
Data
No
Data
4700
Cotton
(
preconditioning
for
defoliation)
0.3
1200
No
Data
No
Data
No
Data
0.068
No
Data
No
Data
No
Data
0.00035
No
Data
No
Data
No
Data
13000
Cotton
(
defoliation)
0.8
200
0.74
0.148
0.074
0.043
0.0017
0.00034
0.00017
0.000098
2600
13000
26000
45000
Applying
Sprays
via
Aerial
Equipment
(
2)

Applying
Sprays
via
Groundboom
Equipment
(
3)
Cotton
(
preconditioning
for
defoliation)
0.3
200
0.74
0.148
0.074
0.043
0.00063
0.00013
0.000063
0.000037
6900
35000
69000
120000
Page
108
of
177
Table
A2.
DMA
Occupational
Inhalation
Exposures
and
Risks
Inhalation
Unit
Exposures
(
ug/
lb
ai)
Inhalation
Dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
Inhalation
MOEg
Exposure
Scenario
Crop
or
Target
Application
Rate
of
DMAa
(
lb
ai/
acre)
Area
Treated
Dailyb
(
acres)
Baselinec
80%

PPE­
Rd
90%

PPE­
Re
Eng
Conf
Baseline
80%
PPER
90%
PPER
Eng
Cont
Baseline
80%
PPER
90%
PPER
Eng
Cont
Non­
crop
7.3
100
0.74
0.148
0.074
0.043
0.0077
0.0015
0.00077
0.00045
570
2800
5700
9800
Non­
bearing
citrus
orchards
4.96
80
0.74
0.148
0.074
0.043
0.0042
0.00084
0.00042
0.00024
1000
5200
10000
18000
Lawn
edging
7.72
5
1.4
0.28
0.14
Not
Feasible
0.00077
0.00015
0.00077
No
Data
5700
28000
57000
No
Data
Applying
Sprays
via
Handgun
Equipment
(
4)
Lawn
renovation
7.3
5
1.4
0.28
0.14
Not
Feasible
0.00073
0.00015
0.00073
No
Data
6000
30000
60000
No
Data
Applying
Sprays
via
Rights
of
Way
Equipment
(
5)
Non­
crop
7.3
80
3.9
0.78
0.39
Not
Feasible
0.033
0.0065
0.0033
No
Data
130
670
1300
No
Data
Flagger
Cotton
(
defoliation)
0.8
350
0.35
0.07
0.035
0.007
0.0014
0.00028
0.00014
0.000028
3100
16000
31000
160000
Flagging
for
Aerial
Sprays
Applications
(
6)
Cotton
(
preconditioning
for
defoliation)
0.3
350
0.35
0.07
0.035
0.007
0.00053
0.00011
0.000053
0.000011
8300
42000
83000
420000
Mixer/
Loader/
Applicator
Mixing/
Loading/

Applying
Liquid
Concentrates
with
Low
Pressure
Handwand
(
ORETF)
(
7)
Non­
bearing
citrus
orchards
4.96
5
2.7
0.54
0.27
Not
Feasible
0.00096
0.00019
0.000096
Not
Feasible
4600
23000
46000
Not
Feasible
Page
109
of
177
Table
A2.
DMA
Occupational
Inhalation
Exposures
and
Risks
Inhalation
Unit
Exposures
(
ug/
lb
ai)
Inhalation
Dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
Inhalation
MOEg
Exposure
Scenario
Crop
or
Target
Application
Rate
of
DMAa
(
lb
ai/
acre)
Area
Treated
Dailyb
(
acres)
Baselinec
80%

PPE­
Rd
90%

PPE­
Re
Eng
Conf
Baseline
80%
PPER
90%
PPER
Eng
Cont
Baseline
80%
PPER
90%
PPER
Eng
Cont
Lawn
edging
7.72
5
2.7
0.54
0.27
Not
Feasible
0.0015
0.0003
0.00015
Not
Feasible
2900
15000
29000
Not
Feasible
Lawn
renovation
7.3
5
2.7
0.54
0.27
Not
Feasible
0.0014
0.00028
0.00014
Not
Feasible
3100
16000
31000
Not
Feasible
Non­
crop
7.3
5
2.7
0.54
0.27
Not
Feasible
0.0014
0.00028
0.00014
Not
Feasible
3100
16000
31000
Not
Feasible
Non­
bearing
citrus
orchards
4.96
5
1.8
0.36
0.18
Not
Feasible
0.00064
0.00013
0.000064
Not
Feasible
6900
34000
69000
Not
Feasible
Lawn
edging
7.72
5
1.8
0.36
0.18
Not
Feasible
0.00099
0.0002
0.000099
Not
Feasible
4400
22000
44000
Not
Feasible
Mixing/
Loading/

Applying
Liquid
Concentrates
with
a
Handgun
Sprayer
(
LCO
ORETF
data)
(
8)
Lawn
renovation
7.3
5
1.8
0.36
0.18
Not
Feasible
0.00094
0.00019
0.000094
Not
Feasible
4700
23000
47000
Not
Feasible
Page
110
of
177
Table
A2.
DMA
Occupational
Inhalation
Exposures
and
Risks
Inhalation
Unit
Exposures
(
ug/
lb
ai)
Inhalation
Dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
Inhalation
MOEg
Exposure
Scenario
Crop
or
Target
Application
Rate
of
DMAa
(
lb
ai/
acre)
Area
Treated
Dailyb
(
acres)
Baselinec
80%

PPE­
Rd
90%

PPE­
Re
Eng
Conf
Baseline
80%
PPER
90%
PPER
Eng
Cont
Baseline
80%
PPER
90%
PPER
Eng
Cont
Non­
crop
7.3
5
1.8
0.36
0.18
Not
Feasible
0.00094
0.00019
0.000094
Not
Feasible
4700
23000
47000
Not
Feasible
Applying
Ready
to
Use
Formulations
via
Trigger­
Pump
Sprayer
(
ORETF)

(
9)
Non­
crop
0.00017
1000
19
3.8
1.9
Not
Feasible
0.000045
0.0000091
0.0000045
Not
Feasible
96000
480000
960000
Not
Feasible
Lawn
edging
0.00018
1000
17
3.4
1.7
Not
Feasible
0.000043
0.0000086
0.0000043
No
Data
100000
510000
1000000
Not
Feasible
Mixing/
Loading/

Applying
Liquids
with
a
Watering
Can
(
using
ORETF
residential
hoseend
data)
(
11)
Lawn
renovation
0.00017
1000
17
3.4
1.7
Not
Feasible
0.000041
0.0000081
0.0000041
No
Data
110000
540000
1100000
Not
Feasible
a
Application
rates
are
the
maximum
application
rates
determined
from
EPA
registered
labels
for
DMA
b
Amount
handled
per
day
values
are
HED
estimates
of
acres,
miles,
or
feet
treated
per
day
based
on
industry
sources
and
HED
estimates.

c
Baseline
is
no
respirator
d
80%
Respirator
is
quarter­
face
dust/
mist
respirator
(
that
provides
an
80%
protection
factor).

e
90%
Respirator
is
half­
face
dust/
mist
respirator
(
that
provides
a
90%
protection
factor).

f
Engineering
control
is
closed
mixing/
loading
system
or
enclosed
cockpit.

g
Inhalation
MOE
=
NOAEL
(
4.38
mg/
kg/
day)
/
inhalation
daily
dose
(
mg/
kg/
day),
where
inhalation
dose
=
daily
unit
exposure
(
mg/
lb
ai)
x
application
rate
x
amount
handled
per
day
/
body
weight
(
70
kg
adult)
Page
111
of
177
Appendix
B
 

DMA
Residential
Handler
Exposure
and
Risk
Appendices
Page
112
of
177
Table
B1.
DMA
Residential
Handler
Exposures
and
Risks
Baseline
Unit
Exposure
Baseline
Dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
Baseline
MOE
Exposure
Scenario
Crop
or
Target
Applicatio
n
Ratea
(
lb
ai/
acre)
Area
Treated
Dailyb
(
lb
ai/
acre)
Dermalc(
mg/

lb
ai)
Inhalationd
(
ug/
lb
ai)
Dermal
Inhalation
Dermale
Inhalationf
Mixer/
Loader/
Applicator
Lawn
edging
7.72
0.5
38
2.7
2.1
0.00015
140
29000
Lawn
renovation
7.3
0.5
38
2.7
2
0.00014
150
31000
Mixing/
Loading/
Applying
Liquid
Concentrates
with
Low
Pressure
Handwand
(
ORETF­­
gardens)
(
1)
Non­
crop
7.3
0.5
38
2.7
2
0.00014
150
31000
Lawn
edging
7.72
0.5
11
17
0.61
0.00094
490
4700
Lawn
renovation
7.3
0.5
11
17
0.57
0.00089
520
4900
Mixing/
Loading/
Applying
Liquid
Concentrates
with
Hose­
End
Sprayer
(
Residential
ORETF
data)

(
2)
Non­
crop
7.3
0.5
11
17
0.57
0.00089
520
4900
Lawn
edging
7.72
0.5
2.6
11
0.14
0.00061
2100
7200
Lawn
renovation
7.3
0.5
2.6
11
0.14
0.00057
2200
7600
Loading/
Applying
Liquid
Concentrates
with
RTU
Hose­
End
Sprayer
(
Residential
ORETF
data)

(
3)
Non­
crop
7.3
0.5
2.6
11
0.14
0.00057
2200
7600
Lawn
edging
0.00018
1000
11
16
0.028
0.000041
11000
110000
Mixing/
Loading/
Applying
Liquid
Concentrates
with
a
Watering
Can
(
using
ORETF
residential
hose­
end
data)
(
4)
Lawn
renovation
0.00017
1000
11
16
0.026
0.000038
11000
110000
Lawn
edging
0.00018
1000
13.5
123
0.034
0.00031
8800
14000
Lawn
renovation
0.00017
1000
13.5
123
0.032
0.00029
9300
15000
Applying
Ready
to
Use
Formulations
via
Trigger­
Pump
Sprayer
(
using
Propoxur
study)
(
5)
Non­
crop
0.00017
1000
13.5
123
0.032
0.00029
9300
15000
Page
113
of
177
Table
B1.
DMA
Residential
Handler
Exposures
and
Risks
Baseline
Unit
Exposure
Baseline
Dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
Baseline
MOE
Exposure
Scenario
Crop
or
Target
Applicatio
n
Ratea
(
lb
ai/
acre)
Area
Treated
Dailyb
(
lb
ai/
acre)
Dermalc(
mg/

lb
ai)
Inhalationd
(
ug/
lb
ai)
Dermal
Inhalation
Dermale
Inhalationf
Lawn
edging
0.00018
1000
54
19
0.14
0.000048
2200
91000
Lawn
renovation
0.00017
1000
54
19
0.13
0.000045
2300
96000
Applying
Ready
to
Use
Formulations
via
Trigger­
Pump
Sprayer
(
ORETF)
(
6)
Non­
crop
0.00017
1000
54
19
0.13
0.000045
2300
96000
a
Application
rates
are
the
maximum
application
rates
determined
from
EPA
registered
labels
for
cacodylic
acid
b
Amount
handled
per
day
values
are
HED
estimates
of
acres,
square
feet,
or
gallons
applied
based
on
the
Standard
Operating
Procedures
for
Residential
Assessments,

industry
sources,
and
HED
estimates.

c
Baseline
Dermal
is
short­
sleeve
shirt,
short
pants,
shoes,
socks
and
no
gloves
d
Baseline
Inhalation:
no
respirator.

e
Dermal
MOE
=
NOAEL
(
300
mg/
kg/
day)
/
dermal
daily
dose
(
mg/
kg/
day),
where
dermal
dose
=
daily
unit
exposure
(
mg/
lb
ai)
x
application
rate
x
amount
handled
per
day
x
dermal
absorption
factor
/
body
weight
(
70
kg
adult).

f
Inhalation
MOE
=
NOAEL
(
4.38
mg/
kg/
day)
/
inhalation
daily
dose
(
mg/
kg/
day),
where
inhalation
dose
=
daily
unit
exposure
(
mg/
lb
ai)
x
application
rate
x
amount
handled
per
day
/
body
weight
(
70
kg
adult).
Page
114
of
177
Appendix
C
 

DMA
Residential
Postapplication
Exposure
and
Risk
Appendices
Page
115
of
177
Table
C1
­
Oral
Exposure
from
Hand­
to­
Mouth
Activity
on
DMA
Treated
Turf
Exposure
Scenario
Formulation
Application
Rate
(
lb
ai/
acre)
Fraction
AI
Transferable
Surface
area
of
hands
(
cm2)
Exposure
Frequency
(
events/
hr)
Saliva
Extraction
Factor
Exposure
Time
(
hrs/
day)
Body
Weight
(
kg)
Average
Daily
Oral
Dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
Incidental
Oral
MOE
7.72
5%
20
20
50%
2
15
0.115
4
Hand
to
Mouth
Spray
7.3
5%
20
20
50%
2
15
0.109
4
Average
Daily
Oral
Dose
Oral
Dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
=
AR
(
mg/
cm2)
x
SAhand
(
cm2)
x
EXT
x
FQ(
events/
hr)
x
ET(
hrs/
day)

BW
(
kg)

Where:

Rmg/
cm2
=
application
rate
(
mg/
cm2)

F
=
fraction
of
residue
transferable
from
treated
turf
(%)

SAhand
=
surface
area
of
1
to
3
fingers
(
cm2)

EXT
=
extraction
rate
by
saliva
(%)

FQ
=
frequency
of
hand­
to­
mouth
events
(
events/
hour)

ET
=
exposure
duration
(
hours/
day)

BW
=
body
weight
(
kg)

Assumptions:

F
­
The
fraction
of
residue
transferable
from
turf
is
5%

SA
­
The
surface
area
of
1
to
3
fingers
is
20
cm2
FQ
­
The
frequency
of
hand­
to­
mouth
events
is
20
events
per
hour
EXT
­
The
extraction
rate
by
saliva
is
50%.

ET
­
The
time
spent
outdoors
is
2
hours/
day
BW
­
Body
weight
of
a
toddler
is
15
kg
Application
Rate
(
mg/
cm2)
=
AR
(
lb
ai/
A)
*
CF1
*
CF2
Where:

APlb/
A
=
application
rate
(
lb
ai/
A)

CF1
=
weight
unit
conversion
factor
to
convert
the
lbs
ai
in
the
application
rate
to
mg
(
4.54
x
105
mg/
lb)

CF2
=
area
unit
conversion
factor
to
convert
the
surface
area
units
(
acres)
in
the
application
rate
to
cm2
(
2.47
x
10­
8
acre/
cm2)
Page
116
of
177
Table
C2
­
Oral
Exposure
from
Mouthing
DMA
Treated
Turf
Exposure
Scenario
Formulation
Application
Rate
(
lb
ai/
acre)
Fraction
AI
Transferable
Body
Weight
(
kg)
Surface
area
of
turf
mouthed
(
cm2)
Average
Daily
Oral
Dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
Incidental
Oral
MOE
7.72
20%
15
25
0.029
15
Object
to
Mouth
(
Tier
3)
Spray
7.3
20%
15
25
0.027
16
Average
Daily
Oral
Dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
=
AR
(
mg/
cm2)
x
F
x
SA
(
cm2)

BW
(
kg)

Where:

ADOD
=
oral
dose
on
day
of
application
(
mg/
kg/
day)

ARmg/
cm2
=
application
rate
(
mg/
cm2)

F
=
fraction
of
residue
transferable
from
treated
turf
(%)

SA
=
surface
area
of
turf
mouthed
(
cm2/
day)

BW
=
body
weight
(
kg)

Assumptions:

SA
­
The
surface
area
of
turf
mouthed
is
25
cm2/
day
F
­
The
fraction
of
residue
transferable
from
treated
turf
is
20%

BW
­
Body
weight
of
a
toddler
is
15
kg
Application
Rate
(
mg/
cm2)
=
AR
(
lb
ai/
A)
*
CF1
*
CF2
Where:

APlb/
A
=
application
rate
(
lb
ai/
A)

CF1
=
weight
unit
conversion
factor
to
convert
the
lbs
ai
in
the
application
rate
to
mg
(
4.54
x
105
mg/
lb)

CF2
=
area
unit
conversion
factor
to
convert
the
surface
area
units
(
acres)
in
the
application
rate
to
cm2
(
2.47
x
10­
8
acre/
cm2)
Page
117
of
177
Table
C3
­
Oral
Exposure
to
DMA
from
Incidental
Soil
Ingestion
Exposure
Scenario
Formulation
Application
Rate
(
lb
ai/
acre)
%
of
rate
in
uppermost
1
cm
of
soil
Ingestion
Rate
(
mg/
day)
Body
Weight
(
kg)
Soil
Residue
(
ug/
g)
Average
Daily
Dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
Incidental
Oral
MOE
7.72
100%
100
15
58.0
0.00039
1,100
Soil
Ingestion
Spray
7.3
100%
100
15
54.8
0.00037
1,200
Average
Daily
Oral
Dose
=
AR
(
mg/
cm2)
x
F
(
cm)
x
IgR(
mg/
day)
x
SDF
(
cm3/
mg)

BW
(
kg)

Where:

ADOD
=
oral
dose
on
day
of
application
(
mg/
kg/
day)

ARmg/
cm2
=
application
rate
(
mg/
cm2)

F
=
fraction
or
residue
retained
on
uppermost
1
cm
of
soil
(%)
(
note:
this
is
an
adjustment
from
surface
area
to
volume)

SDF
=
soil
density
factor
­­
volume
of
soil
(
cm3)
per
microgram
of
soil;

IgR
=
ingestion
rate
of
soil
(
mg/
day)

BW
=
body
weight
(
kg)

Assumptions:

F
­
fraction
or
residue
retained
on
uppermost
1
cm
of
soil
is
100
percent
based
on
soil
incorporation
into
top
1
cm
of
soil
after
application
(
1.0/
cm)

SDF
=
soil
density
factor
­­
volume
of
soil
(
cm3)
per
gram
of
soil;
to
weight
6.7
x
10­
4
cm3/
mg
soil)

IgR
­
ingestion
rate
of
soil
is
100
mg/
day
BW
­
body
weight
of
a
toddler
is
15
kg
Application
Rate
(
mg/
cm2)
=
AR
(
lb
ai/
A)
*
CF1
*
CF2
Where:

APlb/
A
=
application
rate
(
lb
ai/
A)

CF1
=
weight
unit
conversion
factor
to
convert
the
lbs
ai
in
the
application
rate
to
mg
(
4.54
x
105
mg/
lb)

CF2
=
area
unit
conversion
factor
to
convert
the
surface
area
units
(
acres)
in
the
application
rate
to
cm2
(
2.47
x
10­
8
acre/
cm2)
Page
118
of
177
Table
C4.
Dermal
Exposure
from
DMA
Treated
Turfgrass
Exposure
Scenario
Formulation
Age
Group
Exposed
Application
Rate
(
lb
ai/
acre)
Default
transferable
residue
(%)
Hours
of
Exposure
Transfer
Coefficient
(
cm2/
hr)
Absorbed
Dermal
Dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
Dermal
MOE
7.72
1.8
170
Adult
7.3
14,500
1.7
180
7.72
3
100
High
Contact
Lawn
Activities
Spray
Toddler
7.3
5%
2
5,200
2.8
110
7.72
0.42
710
Adult
7.3
0.4
750
7.72
0.75
400
Mowing
Turf
Spray
Youths
(
10­
12
yrs)
7.3
5%
2
3400
0.71
420
7.72
1.7
180
Adult
7.3
0.67
10,000
1.6
190
7.72
0.73
410
Gardening
Spray
Youths
(
10­
12
yrs)
7.3
20%
0.33
5,000
0.69
430
7.72
0.12
2,400
Adult
7.3
0.12
2,600
7.72
0.22
1,400
Golfer
Spray
Youths
(
10­
12
yrs)
7.3
5%
4
500
0.21
1,400
Average
Daily
Dermal
Dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
=
TTR
(
mg/
cm2)
x
TC
(
cm2/
hr)
x
ET
(
hr/
day)
x
DA
(%)

BW
(
kg)

Where:

ADDD
=
Dermal
exposure
at
on
day
of
application
attributable
for
activity
in
a
previously
treated
area
(
mg/
kg/
day)

ARmg/
cm2
=
application
rate
(
mg/
cm2)

F
=
fraction
of
residue
transferable
from
treated
turf
(%)

TC
=
Transfer
Coefficient
(
cm2/
hour);

ET
=
Exposure
Time
(
hours/
day);

DA
=
Dermal
Absorption
(
5);
and
BW
=
Body
Weight
(
kg)

Assumptions:

F
­
fraction
of
residue
transferable
from
treated
turf
is
5%;
dislodgeable
from
garden
foliage
is
20%;
Page
119
of
177
TC
­
The
assumed
transfer
coefficients
(
TCs)
for
adults
and
children
performing
short­
term
high
contact
activities
on
treated
turf
are
14,500
and
5,200
cm2/
hour,
respectively.
The
assumed
transfer
coefficients
(
TCs)
for
adults
and
children
performing
short­
term
high
contact
activities
in
treated
gardens
are
10,000
and
5,000
200
cm2/
hour,
respectively.
Golfing,
mowing
and
other
low
contact
activities
were
assumed
to
have
a
TC
of
500
cm2/
hour.

ET
­
exposure
time
for
high
contact
activities
on
residential
lawns
is
2
hours;
exposure
time
for
adults
and
children
while
gardening
are
0.67
and
0.33
hours,
respectively.;
exposure
time
while
golfing
is
4
hours.

DA
­
Dermal
absorption
is
30%

BW
­
body
weight
for
a
toddler
is
15
kg;
for
a
youth
is
39
kg;
for
an
adult
is
70
kg.

Application
Rate
(
mg/
cm2)
=
AR
(
lb
ai/
A)
*
CF1
*
CF2
Where:

APlb/
A
=
application
rate
(
lb
ai/
A)

CF1
=
weight
unit
conversion
factor
to
convert
the
lbs
ai
in
the
application
rate
to
mg
(
4.54
x
105
mg/
lb)

CF2
=
area
unit
conversion
factor
to
convert
the
surface
area
units
(
acres)
in
the
application
rate
to
cm2
(
2.47
x
10­
8
acre/
cm2)
Page
120
of
177
Table
C5
 
Combined
DMA
Incidental
Oral
Exposures
to
Toddlers
from
Postapplication
Exposures
to
Treated
Turf
Exposure
Scenario
Application
Type
Application
Rate
(
lb
ai/
acre)
Hand
to
Mouth
Average
Daily
Oral
Dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
Object
to
Mouth
Average
Daily
Oral
Dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
Soil
Ingestion
Average
Daily
Oral
Dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
Combined
Average
Daily
Oral
Dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
Combined
Incidental
Oral
MOE
7.72
0.115
0.029
0.00039
0.145
3
Toddler
on
Turf
Spray
7.3
0.109
0.027
0.00037
0.137
3
Page
121
of
177
Appendix
D
 

CAMA
Occupational
Handler
Exposures
and
Risks
Page
122
of
177
Table
D1.
CAMA
Dermal
Occupational
Handler
Exposures
and
Risks
Dermal
Unit
Exposures
(
mg/
lb
ai)
Dermal
Dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
Dermal
MOEh
Exposure
Scenario
Crop
or
Target
Application
Rate
of
CAMAa
(
lb
ai/
acre)
Application
Rate
of
MAAb
(
lb
ai/
acre)
Area
Treated
Dailyc
(
acres)
Baseline
d
PPE­
w/
Glovese
PPE­
double
layer
w/
glovesf
Eng
Cong
Baseline
PPEw
gloves
PPE­
double
layer
w/
gloves
Eng
Cont
Baseline
PPEw
gloves
PPE­
double
layer
w/
gloves
Eng
Cont
Mixer/
Loader
Lawn
and
ornamental
turf
(
on
grasses
other
than
Bent)
5
4.4
40
2.9
0.023
0.017
0.0086
7.3
0.058
0.043
0.022
140
17000
23000
46000
Lawn
and
ornamental
turf
(
on
Bermuda
and
Zoysia
grass)
4.182
3.7
40
2.9
0.023
0.017
0.0086
6.1
0.048
0.036
0.018
160
21000
28000
55000
Mixing/
Loading
Liquids
Concentrates
for
Groundboom
Applications
(
1)
Lawn
and
ornamental
turf
(
on
bentgrass)
2.5
2.2
40
2.9
0.023
0.017
0.0086
3.6
0.029
0.021
0.011
270
35000
47000
92000
Lawn
and
ornamental
turf
(
on
grasses
other
than
Bent)
5
4.4
100
2.9
0.023
0.017
0.0086
18
0.14
0.11
0.054
55
6900
9400
18000
Lawn
and
ornamental
turf
(
on
Bermuda
and
Zoysia
grass)
4.182
3.7
100
2.9
0.023
0.017
0.0086
15
0.12
0.089
0.045
66
8300
11000
22000
Mixing/
Loading
Liquid
Concentrates
to
Support
LCO
Handgun
Applications
(
mixing/
loadin
g
supports
20
LCOs)
(
1b)
Lawn
and
ornamental
turf
(
on
bentgrass)
2.5
2.2
100
2.9
0.023
0.017
0.0086
9.1
0.072
0.053
0.027
110
14000
19000
37000
Page
123
of
177
Table
D1.
CAMA
Dermal
Occupational
Handler
Exposures
and
Risks
Dermal
Unit
Exposures
(
mg/
lb
ai)
Dermal
Dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
Dermal
MOEh
Exposure
Scenario
Crop
or
Target
Application
Rate
of
CAMAa
(
lb
ai/
acre)
Application
Rate
of
MAAb
(
lb
ai/
acre)
Area
Treated
Dailyc
(
acres)
Baseline
d
PPE­
w/
Glovese
PPE­
double
layer
w/
glovesf
Eng
Cong
Baseline
PPEw
gloves
PPE­
double
layer
w/
gloves
Eng
Cont
Baseline
PPEw
gloves
PPE­
double
layer
w/
gloves
Eng
Cont
Applicator
Lawn
and
ornamental
turf
(
on
grasses
other
than
Bent)
5
4.4
40
0.014
0.014
0.011
0.005
0.035
0.035
0.028
0.013
28000
28000
36000
80000
Lawn
and
ornamental
turf
(
on
Bermuda
and
Zoysia
grass)
4.182
3.7
40
0.014
0.014
0.011
0.005
0.029
0.029
0.023
0.011
34000
34000
43000
95000
Applying
Sprays
via
Groundboom
Equipment
(
2)
Lawn
and
ornamental
turf
(
on
bentgrass)
2.5
2.2
40
0.014
0.014
0.011
0.005
0.018
0.018
0.014
0.0063
57000
57000
72000
160000
Lawn
and
ornamental
turf
(
on
grasses
other
than
Bent)
5
4.4
5
No
Data
0.34
0.19
Not
Feasible
No
Data
0.11
0.06
No
Data
No
Data
9400
17000
No
Data
Lawn
and
ornamental
turf
(
on
Bermuda
and
Zoysia
grass)
4.182
3.7
5
No
Data
0.34
0.19
Not
Feasible
No
Data
0.089
0.05
No
Data
No
Data
11000
20000
No
Data
Applying
Sprays
via
Handgun
Equipment
(
3)
Lawn
and
ornamental
turf
(
on
bentgrass)
2.5
2.2
5
No
Data
0.34
0.19
Not
Feasible
No
Data
0.053
0.03
No
Data
No
Data
19000
33000
No
Data
Page
124
of
177
Table
D1.
CAMA
Dermal
Occupational
Handler
Exposures
and
Risks
Dermal
Unit
Exposures
(
mg/
lb
ai)
Dermal
Dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
Dermal
MOEh
Exposure
Scenario
Crop
or
Target
Application
Rate
of
CAMAa
(
lb
ai/
acre)
Application
Rate
of
MAAb
(
lb
ai/
acre)
Area
Treated
Dailyc
(
acres)
Baseline
d
PPE­
w/
Glovese
PPE­
double
layer
w/
glovesf
Eng
Cong
Baseline
PPEw
gloves
PPE­
double
layer
w/
gloves
Eng
Cont
Baseline
PPEw
gloves
PPE­
double
layer
w/
gloves
Eng
Cont
Mixer/
Loader/
Applicator
Lawn
and
ornamental
turf
(
on
grasses
other
than
Bent)
5
4.4
5
No
Data
0.45
0.245
Not
Feasible
No
Data
0.14
0.077
Not
Feasible
No
Data
7100
13000
Not
Feasible
Lawn
and
ornamental
turf
(
on
Bermuda
and
Zoysia
grass)
4.182
3.7
5
No
Data
0.45
0.245
Not
Feasible
No
Data
0.12
0.064
Not
Feasible
No
Data
8500
16000
Not
Feasible
Mixing/
Loading/
Applying
Liquid
Concentrates
with
a
Handgun
Sprayer
(
LCO
ORETF
data)

(
4)
Lawn
and
ornamental
turf
(
on
bentgrass)
2.5
2.2
5
No
Data
0.45
0.245
Not
Feasible
No
Data
0.071
0.039
Not
Feasible
No
Data
14000
26000
Not
Feasible
a
Application
rates
are
the
maximum
application
rates
determined
from
EPA
registered
labels
for
CAMA
b
Application
Rate
of
MMA
=
(
MW
of
MAA/
MW
of
CAMA
*
Application
Rate
of
CAMA)

c
Amount
handled
per
day
values
are
HED
estimates
of
acres
or
gallons
or
other
area/
amount
treated
per
day
based
on
industry
sources
and
HED
estimates.

d
Baseline
is
long­
sleeve
shirt,
long
pants,
shoes,
socks
and
no
gloves
and
no
respirator
e
Single
layer
w/
gloves
is
baseline
attire
plus
chemical­
resistant
gloves.

f
Double
layer
w/
gloves
is
coveralls
worn
over
long­
sleeve
shirt
and
long
pants,
plus
chemical­
resistant
gloves.

g
Engineering
control
is
closed
mixing/
loading
system,
enclosed
cab,
or
enclosed
cockpit.

h
Dermal
MOE
=
NOAEL
(
1000
mg/
kg/
day)
/
dermal
daily
dose
(
mg/
kg/
day),
where
dermal
dose
=
daily
unit
exposure
(
mg/
lb
ai)
x
application
rate
x
amount
handled
per
day
/
body
weight
(
70
kg
adult).
Page
125
of
177
Table
D2.
CAMA
Inhalation
Occupational
Handler
Exposures
and
Risks
Inhalation
Unit
Exposures
(
ug/
lb
ai)
Inhalation
Dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
Inhalation
MOEh
Exposure
Scenario
Crop
or
Target
Application
Rate
of
CAMAa
(
lb
ai/
acre)
Application
Rate
of
MAAb
(
lb
ai/
acre)
Area
Treated
Dailyc
(
acres)
Baseline
d
80%

PPE­
Re
90%

PPE­
Rf
Eng
Cong
Baseline
80%
PPER
90%
PPER
Eng
Cont
Baseline
80%

PPE­
R
90%

PPE­
R
Eng
Cont
Mixer/
Loader
Lawn
and
ornamental
turf
(
on
grasses
other
than
Bent)
5
4.4
40
1.2
0.24
0.12
0.083
0.003
0.0006
0.0003
0.00021
1500
7300
15000
21000
Lawn
and
ornamental
turf
(
on
Bermuda
and
Zoysia
grass)
4.182
3.7
40
1.2
0.24
0.12
0.083
0.0025
0.0005
0.00025
0.00017
1700
8700
17000
25000
Mixing/
Loading
Liquids
Concentrates
for
Groundboom
Applications
(
1)
Lawn
and
ornamental
turf
(
on
bentgrass)
2.5
2.2
40
1.2
0.24
0.12
0.083
0.0015
0.0003
0.00015
0.0001
2900
15000
29000
42000
Lawn
and
ornamental
turf
(
on
grasses
other
than
Bent)
5
4.4
100
1.2
0.24
0.12
0.083
0.0075
0.0015
0.00075
0.00052
580
2900
5800
8400
Lawn
and
ornamental
turf
(
on
Bermuda
and
Zoysia
grass)
4.182
3.7
100
1.2
0.24
0.12
0.083
0.0063
0.0013
0.00063
0.00044
690
3500
6900
10000
Mixing/
Loading
Liquid
Concentrates
to
Support
LCO
Handgun
Applications
(
mixing/
loading
supports
20
LCOs)
(
1b)
Lawn
and
ornamental
turf
(
on
bentgrass)
2.5
2.2
100
1.2
0.24
0.12
0.083
0.0038
0.00075
0.00038
0.00026
1200
5800
12000
17000
Applicator
Lawn
and
ornamental
turf
(
on
grasses
other
than
Bent)
5
4.4
40
0.74
0.148
0.074
0.043
0.0019
0.00037
0.00019
0.00011
2400
12000
24000
40000
Lawn
and
ornamental
turf
(
on
Bermuda
and
Zoysia
grass)
4.182
3.7
40
0.74
0.148
0.074
0.043
0.0016
0.00031
0.00016
0.00009
2800
14000
28000
48000
Applying
Sprays
via
Groundboom
Equipment
(
2)
Lawn
and
ornamental
turf
(
on
bentgrass)
2.5
2.2
40
0.74
0.148
0.074
0.043
0.00093
0.00019
0.000093
0.000054
4700
24000
47000
81000
Page
126
of
177
Table
D2.
CAMA
Inhalation
Occupational
Handler
Exposures
and
Risks
Inhalation
Unit
Exposures
(
ug/
lb
ai)
Inhalation
Dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
Inhalation
MOEh
Exposure
Scenario
Crop
or
Target
Application
Rate
of
CAMAa
(
lb
ai/
acre)
Application
Rate
of
MAAb
(
lb
ai/
acre)
Area
Treated
Dailyc
(
acres)
Baseline
d
80%

PPE­
Re
90%

PPE­
Rf
Eng
Cong
Baseline
80%
PPER
90%
PPER
Eng
Cont
Baseline
80%

PPE­
R
90%

PPE­
R
Eng
Cont
Lawn
and
ornamental
turf
(
on
grasses
other
than
Bent)
5
4.4
5
1.4
0.28
0.14
Not
Feasible
0.00044
0.000088
0.000044
No
Data
10000
50000
10000
No
Data
Lawn
and
ornamental
turf
(
on
Bermuda
and
Zoysia
grass)
4.182
3.7
5
1.4
0.28
0.14
Not
Feasible
0.00037
0.000074
0.000037
No
Data
12000
59000
120000
No
Data
Applying
Sprays
via
Handgun
Equipment
(
3)
Lawn
and
ornamental
turf
(
on
bentgrass)
2.5
2.2
5
1.4
0.28
0.14
Not
Feasible
0.00022
0.000044
0.000022
No
Data
20000
100000
20000
No
Data
Mixer/
Loader/
Applicator
Lawn
and
ornamental
turf
(
on
grasses
other
than
Bent)
5
4.4
5
1.8
0.36
0.18
Not
Feasible
0.00057
0.00011
0.000057
Not
Feasible
7700
39000
77000
Not
Feasible
Lawn
and
ornamental
turf
(
on
Bermuda
and
Zoysia
grass)
4.182
3.7
5
1.8
0.36
0.18
Not
Feasible
0.00047
0.000095
0.000047
Not
Feasible
9300
46000
93000
Not
Feasible
Mixing/
Loading/

Applying
Liquid
Concentrates
with
a
Handgun
Sprayer
(
LCO
ORETF
data)
(
4)
Lawn
and
ornamental
turf
(
on
bentgrass)
2.5
2.2
5
1.8
0.36
0.18
Not
Feasible
0.00028
0.000057
0.000028
Not
Feasible
15000
77000
150000
Not
Feasible
a
Application
rates
are
the
maximum
application
rates
determined
from
EPA
registered
labels
for
CAMA
b
Application
Rate
of
MMA
=
(
MW
of
MAA/
MW
of
CAMA
*
Application
Rate
of
CAMA)

c
Amount
handled
per
day
values
are
HED
estimates
of
acres,
miles,
or
feet
treated
per
day
based
on
industry
sources
and
HED
estimates.

d
Baseline
is
no
respirator
e
80%
Respirator
is
quarter­
face
dust/
mist
respirator
(
that
provides
an
80%
protection
factor).

f
90%
Respirator
is
half­
face
dust/
mist
respirator
(
that
provides
a
90%
protection
factor).

g
Engineering
control
is
closed
mixing/
loading
system
or
enclosed
cockpit.

h
Inhalation
MOE
=
NOAEL
(
4.38
mg/
kg/
day)
/
inhalation
daily
dose
(
mg/
kg/
day),
where
inhalation
dose
=
daily
unit
exposure
(
mg/
lb
ai)
x
application
rate
x
amount
handled
per
day
/
body
weight
(
70
kg
adult)
Page
127
of
177
Appendix
E
 

CAMA
Residential
Handler
Exposure
and
Risk
Appendices
Page
128
of
177
Table
E1.
CAMA
Residential
Handler
Exposures
and
Risks
Baseline
Unit
Exposure
Baseline
Dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
Baseline
MOE
Exposure
Scenario
Crop
or
Target
Application
Ratea
(
lb
ai/
acre)
Application
Rate
of
MMAb
(
lb
ai/
acre)
Area
Treated
Dailyc
(
acres)
Dermald
(
mg/
lb
ai)
Inhalatione
(
ug/
lb
ai)
Dermal
Inhalation
Dermalf
Inhalationg
Mixer/
Loader/
Applicator
Lawn
and
ornamental
turf
(
on
grasses
other
than
Bent)
5
4.4
0.5
38
2.7
1.2
0.000085
840
52000
Lawn
and
ornamental
turf
(
on
Bermuda
and
Zoysia
grass)
4.182
3.7
0.5
38
2.7
1
0.000071
1000
62000
Mixing/
Loading/
Applying
Liquid
Concentrates
with
Low
Pressure
Handwand
(
ORETF)
(
1)
Lawn
and
ornamental
turf
(
on
bentgrass)
2.5
2.2
0.5
38
2.7
0.6
0.000042
1700
100000
Lawn
and
ornamental
turf
(
on
grasses
other
than
Bent)
5
4.4
0.5
11
17
0.35
0.00053
2900
8200
Lawn
and
ornamental
turf
(
on
Bermuda
and
Zoysia
grass)
4.182
3.7
0.5
11
17
0.29
0.00045
3500
9800
Mixing/
Loading/
Applying
Liquid
Concentrates
with
Hose­
End
Sprayer
(
Residential
ORETF
data)

(
2)
Lawn
and
ornamental
turf
(
on
bentgrass)
2.5
2.2
0.5
11
17
0.17
0.00027
5800
16000
Page
129
of
177
Table
E1.
CAMA
Residential
Handler
Exposures
and
Risks
Baseline
Unit
Exposure
Baseline
Dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
Baseline
MOE
Exposure
Scenario
Crop
or
Target
Application
Ratea
(
lb
ai/
acre)
Application
Rate
of
MMAb
(
lb
ai/
acre)
Area
Treated
Dailyc
(
acres)
Dermald
(
mg/
lb
ai)
Inhalatione
(
ug/
lb
ai)
Dermal
Inhalation
Dermalf
Inhalationg
Lawn
and
ornamental
turf
(
on
grasses
other
than
Bent)
5
4.4
0.023
54
19
0.078
0.000027
13000
160000
Lawn
and
ornamental
turf
(
on
Bermuda
and
Zoysia
grass)
4.182
3.7
0.023
54
19
0.065
0.000023
15000
190000
Applying
Ready
to
Use
Formulations
via
Trigger­

Pump
Sprayer
(
ORETF)

(
3)
Lawn
and
ornamental
turf
(
on
bentgrass)
2.5
2.2
0.023
54
19
0.039
0.000014
26000
320000
a
Application
rates
are
the
maximum
application
rates
determined
from
EPA
registered
labels
for
CAMA
b
Application
Rate
of
MMA
=
(
MW
of
MMA/
MW
of
CAMA
*
Application
Rate
of
CAMA)

c
Amount
handled
per
day
values
are
HED
estimates
of
acres,
square
feet,
or
gallons
applied
based
on
the
Standard
Operating
Procedures
for
Residential
Assessments,

industry
sources,
and
HED
estimates.

d
Baseline
Dermal
is
short­
sleeve
shirt,
short
pants,
shoes,
socks
and
no
gloves
e
Baseline
Inhalation:
no
respirator.

f
Dermal
MOE
=
NOAEL
(
1000
mg/
kg/
day)
/
dermal
daily
dose
(
mg/
kg/
day),
where
dermal
dose
=
daily
unit
exposure
(
mg/
lb
ai)
x
application
rate
x
amount
handled
per
day
x
dermal
absorption
factor
/
body
weight
(
70
kg
adult).

g
Inhalation
MOE
=
NOAEL
(
4.38
mg/
kg/
day)
/
inhalation
daily
dose
(
mg/
kg/
day),
where
inhalation
dose
=
daily
unit
exposure
(
mg/
lb
ai)
x
application
rate
x
amount
handled
per
day
/
body
weight
(
70
kg
adult).
Page
130
of
177
Appendix
F
 

CAMA
Residential
Postapplication
Exposure
and
Risk
Appendices
Page
131
of
177
Table
F1
­
Oral
Exposure
from
Hand­
to­
Mouth
Activity
on
CAMA
Treated
Turf
Exposure
Scenario
Formulation
Application
Rate
(
lb
ai/
acre)
Fraction
AI
Transferable
Surface
area
of
hands
(
cm2)
Exposure
Frequency
(
events/
hr)
Saliva
Extraction
Factor
Exposure
Time
(
hrs/
day)
Body
Weight
(
kg)
Average
Daily
Oral
Dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
Incidental
Oral
MOE
4.4
5%
20
20
50%
2
15
0.066
110
3.7
5%
20
20
50%
2
15
0.055
130
Hand
to
Mouth
Spray
2.2
5%
20
20
50%
2
15
0.033
210
Average
Daily
Oral
Dose
Oral
Dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
=
AR
(
mg/
cm2)
x
SAhand
(
cm2)
x
EXT
x
FQ(
events/
hr)
x
ET(
hrs/
day)

BW
(
kg)

Where:

ADOD
=
oral
dose
on
day
of
application
(
mg/
kg/
day)

ARmg/
cm2
=
application
rate
(
mg/
cm2)

F
=
fraction
of
residue
transferable
from
treated
turf
(%)

SAhand
=
surface
area
of
1
to
3
fingers
(
cm2)

EXT
=
extraction
rate
by
saliva
(%)

FQ
=
frequency
of
hand­
to­
mouth
events
(
events/
hour)

ET
=
exposure
duration
(
hours/
day)

BW
=
body
weight
(
kg)

Assumptions:

F
­
The
fraction
of
residue
transferable
from
turf
is
5%

SA
­
The
surface
area
of
1
to
3
fingers
is
20
cm2
FQ
­
The
frequency
of
hand­
to­
mouth
events
is
20
events
per
hour
EXT
­
The
extraction
rate
by
saliva
is
50%.

ET
­
The
time
spent
outdoors
is
2
hours/
day
BW
­
Body
weight
of
a
toddler
is
15
kg
Application
Rate
(
mg/
cm2)
=
AR
(
lb
ai/
A)
*
CF1
*
CF2
Where:

APlb/
A
=
application
rate
(
lb
ai/
A)

CF1
=
weight
unit
conversion
factor
to
convert
the
lbs
ai
in
the
application
rate
to
mg
(
4.54
x
105
mg/
lb)

CF2
=
area
unit
conversion
factor
to
convert
the
surface
area
units
(
acres)
in
the
application
rate
to
cm2
(
2.47
x
10­
8
acre/
cm2)

Table
F2
­
Oral
Exposure
from
Mouthing
CAMA
Treated
Turf
Page
132
of
177
Exposure
Scenario
Formulation
Application
Rate
(
lb
ai/
acre)
Fraction
AI
Transferable
Body
Weight
(
kg)
Surface
area
of
turf
mouthed
(
cm2)
Average
Daily
Oral
Dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
Incidental
Oral
MOE
4.4
20%
15
25
0.016
430
3.7
20%
15
25
0.014
510
Object
to
Mouth
(
Tier
3)
Spray
2.2
20%
15
25
0.008
850
Average
Daily
Oral
Dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
=
AR
(
mg/
cm2)
x
F
x
SA
(
cm2)

BW
(
kg)

Where:

ADOD
=
oral
dose
on
day
of
application
(
mg/
kg/
day)

ARmg/
cm2
=
application
rate
(
mg/
cm2)

F
=
fraction
of
residue
transferable
from
treated
turf
(%)

SA
=
surface
area
of
turf
mouthed
(
cm2/
day)

BW
=
body
weight
(
kg)

Assumptions:

SA
­
The
surface
area
of
turf
mouthed
is
25
cm2/
day
F
­
The
fraction
of
residue
transferable
from
treated
turf
is
20%

BW
­
Body
weight
of
a
toddler
is
15
kg
Application
Rate
(
mg/
cm2)
=
AR
(
lb
ai/
A)
*
CF1
*
CF2
Where:

APlb/
A
=
application
rate
(
lb
ai/
A)

CF1
=
weight
unit
conversion
factor
to
convert
the
lbs
ai
in
the
application
rate
to
mg
(
4.54
x
105
mg/
lb)

CF2
=
area
unit
conversion
factor
to
convert
the
surface
area
units
(
acres)
in
the
application
rate
to
cm2
(
2.47
x
10­
8
acre/
cm2)

Table
F3
­
Oral
Exposure
from
Incidental
Soil
Ingestion
Following
CAMA
Applications
to
Turf
Page
133
of
177
Exposure
Scenario
Formulation
Application
Rate
(
lb
ai/
acre)
%
of
rate
in
uppermost
1
cm
of
soil
Ingestion
Rate
(
mg/
day)
Body
Weight
(
kg)
Soil
Residue
(
ug/
g)
Average
Daily
Dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
Incidental
Oral
MOE
4.4
100%
100
15
33.1
0.00022
32,000
3.7
100%
100
15
27.8
0.00019
38,000
Soil
Ingestion
Spray
2.2
100%
100
15
16.5
0.00011
64,000
Average
Daily
Oral
Dose
=
AR
(
mg/
cm2)
x
F
(
cm)
x
IgR(
mg/
day)
x
SDF
(
cm3/
mg)

BW
(
kg)

Where:

ADOD
=
oral
dose
on
day
of
application
(
mg/
kg/
day)

ARmg/
cm2
=
application
rate
(
mg/
cm2)

F
=
fraction
or
residue
retained
on
uppermost
1
cm
of
soil
(%)
(
note:
this
is
an
adjustment
from
surface
area
to
volume)

SDF
=
soil
density
factor
­­
volume
of
soil
(
cm3)
per
microgram
of
soil;

IgR
=
ingestion
rate
of
soil
(
mg/
day)

BW
=
body
weight
(
kg)

Assumptions:

F
­
fraction
or
residue
retained
on
uppermost
1
cm
of
soil
is
100
percent
based
on
soil
incorporation
into
top
1
cm
of
soil
after
application
(
1.0/
cm)

SDF
=
soil
density
factor
­­
volume
of
soil
(
cm3)
per
gram
of
soil;
to
weight
6.7
x
10­
4
cm3/
mg
soil)

IgR
­
ingestion
rate
of
soil
is
100
mg/
day
BW
­
body
weight
of
a
toddler
is
15
kg
Application
Rate
(
mg/
cm2)
=
AR
(
lb
ai/
A)
*
CF1
*
CF2
Where:

APlb/
A
=
application
rate
(
lb
ai/
A)

CF1
=
weight
unit
conversion
factor
to
convert
the
lbs
ai
in
the
application
rate
to
mg
(
4.54
x
105
mg/
lb)

CF2
=
area
unit
conversion
factor
to
convert
the
surface
area
units
(
acres)
in
the
application
rate
to
cm2
(
2.47
x
10­
8
acre/
cm2)

Table
F4.
Dermal
Exposure
from
CAMA
Treated
Turfgrass
Page
134
of
177
Exposure
Scenario
Formulation
Age
Group
Exposed
Application
Rate
(
lb
ai/
acre)
Default
transferable
residue
(%)
Hours
of
Exposure
Transfer
Coefficient
(
cm2/
hr)
Absorbed
Dermal
Dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
Dermal
MOE
4.4
1
980
3.7
0.86
1,200
Adult
2.2
14,500
0.51
2,000
4.4
1.7
580
3.7
1.4
700
High
Contact
Lawn
Activities
Spray
Toddler
2.2
5%
2
5,200
0.86
1,200
4.4
0.24
4,200
3.7
0.2
5,000
Adult
2.2
0.12
8,300
4.4
0.43
2,300
3.7
0.36
2,800
Mowing
Turf
Spray
Youths
(
10­
12
yrs)
2.2
5%
2
3400
0.22
4,600
4.4
0.94
1,100
3.7
0.79
1,300
Adult
2.2
0.67
10,000
0.47
2,100
4.4
0.42
2,400
3.7
0.35
2,800
Gardening
Spray
Youths
(
10­
12
yrs)
2.2
20%
0.33
5,000
0.21
4,800
4.4
0.07
14,000
3.7
0.059
17,000
Adult
2.2
0.035
28,000
4.4
0.13
7,900
3.7
0.11
9,400
Golfer
Spray
Youths
(
10­
12
yrs)
2.2
5%
4
500
0.063
16,000
Average
Daily
Dermal
Dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
=
TTR
(
mg/
cm2)
x
TC
(
cm2/
hr)
x
ET
(
hr/
day)
x
DA
(%)

BW
(
kg)

Where:

ADDD
=
Dermal
exposure
at
on
day
of
application
attributable
for
activity
in
a
previously
treated
area
(
mg/
kg/
day)

ARmg/
cm2
=
application
rate
(
mg/
cm2)

F
=
fraction
of
residue
transferable
from
treated
turf
(%)

TC
=
Transfer
Coefficient
(
cm2/
hour);
Page
135
of
177
ET
=
Exposure
Time
(
hours/
day);

DA
=
Dermal
Absorption
(
5);
and
BW
=
Body
Weight
(
kg)

Assumptions:

F
­
fraction
of
residue
transferable
from
treated
turf
is
5%;
dislodgeable
from
garden
foliage
is
20%;

TC
­
The
assumed
transfer
coefficients
(
TCs)
for
adults
and
children
performing
short­
term
high
contact
activities
on
treated
turf
are
14,500
and
5,200
cm2/
hour,
respectively.
The
assumed
transfer
coefficients
(
TCs)
for
adults
and
children
performing
short­
term
high
contact
activities
in
treated
gardens
are
10,000
and
5,000
200
cm2/
hour,
respectively.
Golfing,
mowing
and
other
low
contact
activities
were
assumed
to
have
a
TC
of
500
cm2/
hour.

ET
­
exposure
time
for
high
contact
activities
on
residential
lawns
is
2
hours;
exposure
time
for
adults
and
children
while
gardening
are
0.67
and
0.33
hours,
respectively.;
exposure
time
while
golfing
is
4
hours.

DA
­
Dermal
absorption
is
30%

BW
­
body
weight
for
a
toddler
is
15
kg;
for
a
youth
is
39
kg;
for
an
adult
is
70
kg.

Application
Rate
(
mg/
cm2)
=
AR
(
lb
ai/
A)
*
CF1
*
CF2
Where:

APlb/
A
=
application
rate
(
lb
ai/
A)

CF1
=
weight
unit
conversion
factor
to
convert
the
lbs
ai
in
the
application
rate
to
mg
(
4.54
x
105
mg/
lb)

CF2
=
area
unit
conversion
factor
to
convert
the
surface
area
units
(
acres)
in
the
application
rate
to
cm2
(
2.47
x
10­
8
acre/
cm2)
Page
136
of
177
Table
F5
 
Combined
Incidental
Oral
Exposures
to
Toddlers
from
Postapplication
Exposures
to
CAMA
Treated
Turf
Exposure
Scenario
Application
Type
Application
Rate
(
lb
ai/
acre)
Hand
to
Mouth
Average
Daily
Oral
Dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
Object
to
Mouth
Average
Daily
Oral
Dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
Soil
Ingestion
Average
Daily
Oral
Dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
Combined
Average
Daily
Oral
Dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
Combined
Incidental
Oral
MOE
4.4
0.066
0.016
0.00022
0.082
85
3.7
0.055
0.014
0.00019
0.069
101
Toddler
on
Turf
Spray
2.2
0.033
0.008
0.00011
0.041
170
Page
137
of
177
Appendix
G
 

DSMA
Occupational
Handler
Exposure
and
Risk
Appendices
Page
138
of
177
Table
G1.
DSMA
Dermal
Occupational
Handler
Exposures
and
Risks
Dermal
Unit
Exposures
(
mg/
lb
ai)
Dermal
Dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
Dermal
MOEh
Exposure
Scenario
Crop
or
Target
Application
Rate
of
MSMA
or
DSMAa
(
lb
ai/
acre)
Application
Rate
of
MAAb
(
lb
ai/
acre)
Area
Treated
Dailyc
(
acres)
Baselined
PPE­
w/
Glovese
PPE­
double
layer
w/
glovesf
Eng
Cong
Baseline
PPEw
gloves
PPEdouble
layer
w/
gloves
Eng
Cont
Baseline
PPEw
gloves
PPE­
double
layer
w/
gloves
Eng
Cont
Mixer/
Loader
Mixing/
Loading
Liquid
Concentrates
for
Aerial
Applications
(
1a)
Cotton
(
pre­
plant
or
postplant
up
to
cracking)
2.268
1.7
1200
2.9
0.023
0.017
0.0086
85
0.68
0.5
0.25
12
1500
2000
4000
Cotton
(
postemergent
directed
spray)
2.268
1.7
200
2.9
0.023
0.017
0.0086
14
0.11
0.083
0.042
70
8900
12000
24000
Turf
for
sod
farms
3.293
2.5
80
2.9
0.023
0.017
0.0086
8.2
0.065
0.048
0.024
120
15000
21000
41000
Lawns
and
Ornamental
Turf
(
well
established
actively
growing
turfgrass)
3.293
2.5
40
2.9
0.023
0.017
0.0086
4.1
0.033
0.024
0.012
240
31000
41000
82000
Nonbearing
Fruit,
Nut,

&
Vineyards
4.85
3.7
80
2.9
0.023
0.017
0.0086
12
0.096
0.071
0.036
82
10000
14000
28000
Mixing/
Loading
Liquids
Concentrates
for
Groundboom
Applications
(
1b)
Noncrop
Areas
5.1
3.85
100
2.9
0.023
0.017
0.0086
16
0.13
0.094
0.047
63
7900
11000
21000
Page
139
of
177
Table
G1.
DSMA
Dermal
Occupational
Handler
Exposures
and
Risks
Dermal
Unit
Exposures
(
mg/
lb
ai)
Dermal
Dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
Dermal
MOEh
Exposure
Scenario
Crop
or
Target
Application
Rate
of
MSMA
or
DSMAa
(
lb
ai/
acre)
Application
Rate
of
MAAb
(
lb
ai/
acre)
Area
Treated
Dailyc
(
acres)
Baselined
PPE­
w/
Glovese
PPE­
double
layer
w/
glovesf
Eng
Cong
Baseline
PPEw
gloves
PPEdouble
layer
w/
gloves
Eng
Cont
Baseline
PPEw
gloves
PPE­
double
layer
w/
gloves
Eng
Cont
Mixing/
Loading
Liquid
Concentrates
to
Support
LCO
Handgun
Applications
(
mixing/
loadin
g
supports
20
LCOs)
(
1c)
Lawns
and
Ornamental
Turf
(
well
established
actively
growing
turfgrass)
3.293
2.5
100
2.9
0.023
0.017
0.0086
10
0.082
0.06
0.031
97
12000
17000
33000
Mixing/
Loading
Liquid
Concentrates
to
Support
Rights
of
Way
(
1d)
Noncrop
Areas
5.1
3.85
80
2.9
0.023
0.017
0.0086
13
0.1
0.075
0.038
78
9900
13000
26000
Applicator
Applying
Sprays
via
Aerial
Equipment
(
2)
Cotton
2.268
1.7
1200
No
Data
No
Data
No
Data
0.005
No
Data
No
Data
No
Data
0.15
No
Data
No
Data
No
Data
6800
Cotton
2.268
1.7
200
0.014
0.014
0.011
0.005
0.069
0.069
0.054
0.024
15000
15000
19000
41000
Applying
Sprays
via
Groundboom
Equipment
(
3)
Turf
on
sod
farms
3.293
2.5
80
0.014
0.014
0.011
0.005
0.04
0.04
0.031
0.014
25000
25000
32000
70000
Page
140
of
177
Table
G1.
DSMA
Dermal
Occupational
Handler
Exposures
and
Risks
Dermal
Unit
Exposures
(
mg/
lb
ai)
Dermal
Dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
Dermal
MOEh
Exposure
Scenario
Crop
or
Target
Application
Rate
of
MSMA
or
DSMAa
(
lb
ai/
acre)
Application
Rate
of
MAAb
(
lb
ai/
acre)
Area
Treated
Dailyc
(
acres)
Baselined
PPE­
w/
Glovese
PPE­
double
layer
w/
glovesf
Eng
Cong
Baseline
PPEw
gloves
PPEdouble
layer
w/
gloves
Eng
Cont
Baseline
PPEw
gloves
PPE­
double
layer
w/
gloves
Eng
Cont
Lawns
and
Ornamental
Turf
(
well
established
actively
growing
turfgrassgolf
courses)
3.293
2.5
40
0.014
0.014
0.011
0.005
0.02
0.02
0.016
0.0071
50000
50000
64000
140000
Nonbearing
Fruit
&
Nut
Orchards
&

Vineyards
4.85
3.7
80
0.014
0.014
0.011
0.005
0.059
0.059
0.046
0.021
17000
17000
22000
48000
Applying
Sprays
via
Groundboom
Equipment
(
3)

Cont.
Noncrop
Areas
5.1
3.85
100
0.014
0.014
0.011
0.005
0.077
0.077
0.061
0.028
13000
13000
17000
36000
Applying
Sprays
via
Handgun
Equipment
(
4)
Lawns
and
Ornamental
Turf
(
well
established
actively
growing
turfgrass)
3.293
2.5
5
No
Data
0.34
0.19
Not
Feasible
No
Data
0.06
0.034
No
Data
No
Data
17000
30000
No
Data
Applying
Sprays
via
Rights
of
Way
Equipment
(
5)
Noncrop
Areas
5.10
3.85
80
1.3
0.39
0.29
Not
Feasible
5.7
1.7
1.3
No
Data
170
580
780
No
Data
Flagger
Flagging
for
Aerial
Sprays
Applications
(
6)
Cotton
2.268
1.7
350
0.011
Not
applicab
le
0.01
0.00022
0.094
No
Data
0.086
0.0019
11000
No
Data
12000
530000
Page
141
of
177
Table
G1.
DSMA
Dermal
Occupational
Handler
Exposures
and
Risks
Dermal
Unit
Exposures
(
mg/
lb
ai)
Dermal
Dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
Dermal
MOEh
Exposure
Scenario
Crop
or
Target
Application
Rate
of
MSMA
or
DSMAa
(
lb
ai/
acre)
Application
Rate
of
MAAb
(
lb
ai/
acre)
Area
Treated
Dailyc
(
acres)
Baselined
PPE­
w/
Glovese
PPE­
double
layer
w/
glovesf
Eng
Cong
Baseline
PPEw
gloves
PPEdouble
layer
w/
gloves
Eng
Cont
Baseline
PPEw
gloves
PPE­
double
layer
w/
gloves
Eng
Cont
Mixer/
Loader/
Applicator
Mixing/
Loading/
Applying
Liquid
Concentrates
with
Low
Pressure
Handwand
(
ORETF)
(
7)
Lawns
and
Ornamental
Turf
(
well
established
actively
growing
turfgrass)
3.293
2.5
5
15
0.33
Data
available
Not
Feasible
3.5
0.078
No
Data
Not
Feasible
280
13000
No
Data
Not
Feasible
Lawns
and
Ornamental
Turf
(
well
established
actively
growing
turfgrass)
3.293
2.5
5
No
Data
0.45
0.245
Not
Feasible
No
Data
0.08
0.044
Not
Feasible
No
Data
13000
23000
Not
Feasible
Mixing/
Loading/
Applying
Liquid
Concentrates
with
a
Handgun
Sprayer
(
LCO
ORETF
data)

(
8)
Nonbearing
Fruit
&
Nut
Orchards
&

Vineyards
4.85
3.7
5
No
Data
0.45
0.245
Not
Feasible
No
Data
0.12
0.064
Not
Feasible
No
Data
8500
16000
Not
Feasible
a
Application
rates
are
the
maximum
application
rates
determined
from
EPA
registered
labels
for
MSMA/
DSMA
b
Application
Rate
of
MMA
=
(
MW
of
MAA/
MW
of
MSMA
or
DSMA
*
Application
Rate
of
MSMA
or
DSMA)

c
Amount
handled
per
day
values
are
HED
estimates
of
acres
or
gallons
or
other
area/
amount
treated
per
day
based
on
industry
sources
and
HED
estimates.

d
Baseline
is
long­
sleeve
shirt,
long
pants,
shoes,
socks
and
no
gloves
and
no
respirator
e
Single
layer
w/
gloves
is
baseline
attire
plus
chemical­
resistant
gloves.

f
Double
layer
w/
gloves
is
coveralls
worn
over
long­
sleeve
shirt
and
long
pants,
plus
chemical­
resistant
gloves.

g
Engineering
control
is
closed
mixing/
loading
system,
enclosed
cab,
or
enclosed
cockpit.

h
Dermal
MOE
=
NOAEL
(
1000
mg/
kg/
day)
/
dermal
daily
dose
(
mg/
kg/
day),
where
dermal
dose
=
daily
unit
exposure
(
mg/
lb
ai)
x
application
rate
x
amount
handled
per
day
/
body
weight
(
70
kg
adult).
Page
142
of
177
Table
G2.
DSMA
Occupational
Inhalation
Handler
Exposure
and
Risks
Inhalation
Unit
Exposures
(
ug/
lb
ai)
Inhalation
Dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
Inhalation
MOEh
Exposure
Scenario
Crop
or
Target
Application
Rate
of
DSMAa
(
lb
ai/
acre)
Application
Rate
of
MAAb
(
lb
ai/
acre)
Area
Treated
Dailyc
(
acres)
Baselined
80%

PPE­
Re
90%

PPE­
Rf
Eng
Cong
Baseline
80%
PPER
90%
PPER
Eng
Cont
Baseline
80%

PPER
90%

PPE­
R
Eng
Cont
Mixer/
Loader
Mixing/
Loading
Liquid
Concentrates
for
Aerial
Applications
(
1a)
Cotton
(

preplant
or
post­
plant
up
to
cracking)
2.268
1.7
1200
1.2
0.24
0.12
0.083
0.035
0.007
0.0035
0.0024
120
620
1200
1800
Cotton
(
postemergent
directed
spray)
2.268
1.7
200
1.2
0.24
0.12
0.083
0.0059
0.0012
0.00059
0.00041
750
3700
7500
11000
Turf
for
sod
farms
3.293
2.5
80
1.2
0.24
0.12
0.083
0.0034
0.00068
0.00034
0.00024
1300
6400
13000
19000
Lawns
and
Ornamental
Turf
(
well
established
actively
growing
turfgrass)
3.293
2.5
40
1.2
0.24
0.12
0.083
0.0017
0.00034
0.00017
0.00012
2600
13000
26000
37000
Nonbearing
Fruit,
Nut,
&

Vineyards
4.85
3.7
80
1.2
0.24
0.12
0.083
0.005
0.001
0.0005
0.00035
870
4400
8700
13000
Mixing/
Loading
Liquids
Concentrates
for
Groundboom
Applications
(
1b)
Noncrop
Areas
5.1
3.85
100
1.2
0.24
0.12
0.083
0.0066
0.0013
0.00066
0.00046
660
3300
6600
9600
Page
143
of
177
Table
G2.
DSMA
Occupational
Inhalation
Handler
Exposure
and
Risks
Inhalation
Unit
Exposures
(
ug/
lb
ai)
Inhalation
Dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
Inhalation
MOEh
Exposure
Scenario
Crop
or
Target
Application
Rate
of
DSMAa
(
lb
ai/
acre)
Application
Rate
of
MAAb
(
lb
ai/
acre)
Area
Treated
Dailyc
(
acres)
Baselined
80%

PPE­
Re
90%

PPE­
Rf
Eng
Cong
Baseline
80%
PPER
90%
PPER
Eng
Cont
Baseline
80%

PPER
90%

PPE­
R
Eng
Cont
Mixing/
Loading
Liquid
Concentrates
to
Support
LCO
Handgun
Applications
(
1c)
Lawns
and
Ornamental
Turf
(
well
established
actively
growing
turfgrass)
3.293
2.5
100
1.2
0.24
0.12
0.083
0.0043
0.00085
0.00043
0.00029
1000
5100
10000
15000
Mixing/
Loading
Liquid
Concentrates
to
Support
Rights
of
Way
(
1d)
Noncrop
Areas
5.1
3.85
80
1.2
0.24
0.12
0.083
0.0053
0.0011
0.00053
0.00037
830
4100
8300
12000
Applicator
Applying
Sprays
via
Aerial
Equipment
(
2)
Cotton
2.268
1.7
1200
No
Data
No
Data
No
Data
0.068
No
Data
No
Data
No
Data
0.002
No
Data
No
Data
No
Data
2200
Cotton
2.268
1.7
200
0.74
0.148
0.074
0.043
0.0036
0.00072
0.00036
0.00021
1200
6000
12000
21000
Turf
on
sod
farms
3.293
2.5
80
0.74
0.148
0.074
0.043
0.0021
0.00042
0.00021
0.00012
2100
10000
21000
36000
Lawns
and
Ornamental
Turf
(
well
established
actively
growing
turfgrassgolf
courses)
3.293
2.5
40
0.74
0.148
0.074
0.043
0.0011
0.00021
0.00011
0.000061
4200
21000
42000
72000
Nonbearing
Fruit
&
Nut
Orchards
&

Vineyards
4.85
3.7
80
0.74
0.148
0.074
0.043
0.0031
0.00062
0.00031
0.00018
1400
7100
14000
24000
Applying
Sprays
via
Groundboom
Equipment
(
3)
Noncrop
Areas
5.1
3.85
100
0.74
0.148
0.074
0.043
0.0041
0.00081
0.00041
0.00024
1100
5400
11000
19000
Applying
Sprays
via
Handgun
Equipment
(
4)
Lawns
and
Ornamental
Turf
(
well
established
actively
growing
turfgrass)
3.293
2.5
5
1.4
0.28
0.14
Not
Feasible
0.00025
0.00005
0.000025
No
Data
18000
88000
180000
No
Data
Page
144
of
177
Table
G2.
DSMA
Occupational
Inhalation
Handler
Exposure
and
Risks
Inhalation
Unit
Exposures
(
ug/
lb
ai)
Inhalation
Dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
Inhalation
MOEh
Exposure
Scenario
Crop
or
Target
Application
Rate
of
DSMAa
(
lb
ai/
acre)
Application
Rate
of
MAAb
(
lb
ai/
acre)
Area
Treated
Dailyc
(
acres)
Baselined
80%

PPE­
Re
90%

PPE­
Rf
Eng
Cong
Baseline
80%
PPER
90%
PPER
Eng
Cont
Baseline
80%

PPER
90%

PPE­
R
Eng
Cont
Applying
Sprays
via
Rights
of
Way
Equipment
(
5)
Noncrop
Areas
5.10
3.85
80
3.9
0.78
0.39
Not
Feasible
0.017
0.0034
0.0017
No
Data
260
1300
2600
No
Data
Flagger
Flagging
for
Aerial
Sprays
Applications
(
6)
Cotton
2.268
1.7
350
0.35
0.07
0.035
0.007
0.003
0.0006
0.0003
0.00006
1500
7300
15000
73000
Mixer/
Loader/
Applicator
Mixing/
Loading/

Applying
Liquid
Concentrates
with
Low
Pressure
Handwand
(
ORETF)
(
7)
Lawns
and
Ornamental
Turf
(
well
established
actively
growing
turfgrass)
3.293
2.5
5
2.7
0.54
0.27
Not
Feasible
0.00064
0.00013
0.000064
Not
Feasible
6900
34000
69000
Not
Feasible
Lawns
and
Ornamental
Turf
(
well
established
actively
growing
turfgrass)
3.293
2.5
5
1.8
0.36
0.18
Not
Feasible
0.00032
0.000064
0.000032
Not
Feasible
14000
68000
140000
Not
Feasible
Mixing/
Loading/

Applying
Liquid
Concentrates
with
a
Handgun
Sprayer
(
LCO
ORETF
data)

(
8)
Nonbearing
Fruit
&
Nut
Orchards
&

Vineyards
4.85
3.7
5
1.8
0.36
0.18
Not
Feasible
0.00047
0.000094
0.000047
Not
Feasible
9300
46000
93000
Not
Feasible
a
Application
rates
are
the
maximum
application
rates
determined
from
EPA
registered
labels
for
DSMA
b
Application
Rate
of
MMA
=
(
MW
of
MAA/
MW
of
DSMA
*
Application
Rate
of
DSMA)

c
Amount
handled
per
day
values
are
HED
estimates
of
acres,
miles,
or
feet
treated
per
day
based
on
industry
sources
and
HED
estimates.

d
Baseline
is
no
respirator
e
80%
Respirator
is
quarter­
face
dust/
mist
respirator
(
that
provides
an
80%
protection
factor).

f
90%
Respirator
is
half­
face
dust/
mist
respirator
(
that
provides
a
90%
protection
factor).

g
Engineering
control
is
closed
mixing/
loading
system
or
enclosed
cockpit.

h
Inhalation
MOE
=
NOAEL
(
4.38
mg/
kg/
day)
/
inhalation
daily
dose
(
mg/
kg/
day),
where
inhalation
dose
=
daily
unit
exposure
(
mg/
lb
ai)
x
application
rate
x
amount
handled
per
day
/
body
weight
(
70
kg
adult)
Page
145
of
177
Appendix
H
 

DSMA
Residential
Handler
Exposure
and
Risk
Appendices
Page
146
of
177
Table
H1.
DSMA
Residential
Dermal
and
Inhalation
Handler
Exposure
and
Risks
Baseline
Unit
Exposures
Baseline
Doses
(
mg/
kg/

day)
Baseline
MOE
Exposure
Scenario
Crop
or
Target
Application
Rate
of
DSMAa
(
lb
ai/
acre)
Applicatio
n
Rate
of
MAAb
(
lb
ai/
acre)
Area
Treated
Dailyc
(
acres)
Dermald
(
mg/
lb
ai)
Inhalatione
(
ug/
lb
ai)
Dermal
Inhalation
Dermalf
Inhalationg
Mixer/
Loader/
Applicator
Mixing/
Loading/
Applying
Liquid
Concentrates
with
Low
Pressure
Handwand
(
ORETF
­­
ground
directed)

(
1)
lawns
and
ornamental
turf
3.293
2.5
0.5
38
2.7
0.68
0.000048
1500
91000
Mixing/
Loading/
Applying
Liquid
Concentrates
with
Hose­
End
Sprayer
(
Residential
ORETF
data)

(
2)
lawns
and
ornamental
turf
3.293
2.5
0.5
11
17
0.2
0.0003
5100
14000
Loading/
Applying
Liquid
Concentrates
with
RTU
Hose
(
Residential
ORETF
data)
(
3)
lawns
and
ornamental
turf
3.293
2.5
0.5
2.6
11
0.046
0.0002
22000
22000
a
Application
rates
are
the
maximum
application
rates
determined
from
master
labels
for
DSMA
b
Application
Rate
of
MMA
=
(
MW
of
MAA/
MW
of
DSMA
*
Application
Rate
of
DSMA)

c
Amount
handled
per
day
values
are
HED
estimates
of
acres,
square
feet,
or
gallons
applied
based
on
the
Standard
Operating
Procedures
for
Residential
Assessments,

industry
sources,
and
HED
estimates.

d
Baseline
Dermal
is
short­
sleeve
shirt,
short
pants,
shoes,
socks
and
no
gloves
e
Baseline
Inhalation:
no
respirator.

f
Dermal
MOE
=
NOAEL
(
1000
mg/
kg/
day)
/
dermal
daily
dose
(
mg/
kg/
day),
where
dermal
dose
=
daily
unit
exposure
(
mg/
lb
ai)
x
application
rate
x
amount
handled
per
day
x
dermal
absorption
factor
/
body
weight
(
70
kg
adult).

g
Inhalation
MOE
=
NOAEL
(
4.38
mg/
kg/
day)
/
inhalation
daily
dose
(
mg/
kg/
day),
where
inhalation
dose
=
daily
unit
exposure
(
mg/
lb
ai)
x
application
rate
x
amount
handled
per
day
/
body
weight
(
70
kg
adult).
Page
147
of
177
Appendix
I
 

DSMA
Residential
Postapplication
Exposure
and
Risk
Appendices
Page
148
of
177
Table
I1
­
Oral
Exposure
from
Hand­
to­
Mouth
Activity
on
DSMA
Treated
Turf
Exposure
Scenario
Formulation
Application
Rate
(
lb
ai/
acre)
Fraction
AI
Transferable
Surface
area
of
hands
(
cm2)
Exposure
Frequency
(
events/
hr)
Saliva
Extraction
Factor
Exposure
Time
(
hrs/
day)
Body
Weight
(
kg)
Average
Daily
Oral
Dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
Incidental
Oral
MOE
Hand
to
Mouth
Spray
2.5
5%
20
20
50%
2
15
0.037
190
Average
Daily
Oral
Dose
Oral
Dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
=
AR
(
mg/
cm2)
x
SAhand
(
cm2)
x
EXT
x
FQ(
events/
hr)
x
ET(
hrs/
day)

BW
(
kg)

Where:

ADOD
=
oral
dose
on
day
of
application
(
mg/
kg/
day)

ARmg/
cm2
=
application
rate
(
mg/
cm2)

F
=
fraction
of
residue
transferable
from
treated
turf
(%)

SAhand
=
surface
area
of
1
to
3
fingers
(
cm2)

EXT
=
extraction
rate
by
saliva
(%)

FQ
=
frequency
of
hand­
to­
mouth
events
(
events/
hour)

ET
=
exposure
duration
(
hours/
day)

BW
=
body
weight
(
kg)

Assumptions:

F
­
The
fraction
of
residue
transferable
from
turf
is
5%

SA
­
The
surface
area
of
1
to
3
fingers
is
20
cm2
FQ
­
The
frequency
of
hand­
to­
mouth
events
is
20
events
per
hour
EXT
­
The
extraction
rate
by
saliva
is
50%.

ET
­
The
time
spent
outdoors
is
2
hours/
day
BW
­
Body
weight
of
a
toddler
is
15
kg
Application
Rate
(
mg/
cm2)
=
AR
(
lb
ai/
A)
*
CF1
*
CF2
Where:

APlb/
A
=
application
rate
(
lb
ai/
A)

CF1
=
weight
unit
conversion
factor
to
convert
the
lbs
ai
in
the
application
rate
to
mg
(
4.54
x
105
mg/
lb)

CF2
=
area
unit
conversion
factor
to
convert
the
surface
area
units
(
acres)
in
the
application
rate
to
cm2
(
2.47
x
10­
8
acre/
cm2)
Page
149
of
177
Table
I2
­
Oral
Exposure
from
Mouthing
DSMA
Treated
Turf
Exposure
Scenario
Formulation
Application
Rate
(
lb
ai/
acre)
Fraction
AI
Transferable
Body
Weight
(
kg)
Surface
area
of
turf
mouthed
(
cm2)
Average
Daily
Oral
Dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
Incidental
Oral
MOE
Object
to
Mouth
(
Tier
3)
Spray
2.5
20%
15
25
0.009
750
Average
Daily
Oral
Dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
=
AR
(
mg/
cm2)
x
F
x
SA
(
cm2)

BW
(
kg)

Where:

ADOD
=
oral
dose
on
day
of
application
(
mg/
kg/
day)

ARmg/
cm2
=
application
rate
(
mg/
cm2)

F
=
fraction
of
residue
transferable
from
treated
turf
(%)

SA
=
surface
area
of
turf
mouthed
(
cm2/
day)

BW
=
body
weight
(
kg)

Assumptions:

SA
­
The
surface
area
of
turf
mouthed
is
25
cm2/
day
F
­
The
fraction
of
residue
transferable
from
treated
turf
is
20%

BW
­
Body
weight
of
a
toddler
is
15
kg
Application
Rate
(
mg/
cm2)
=
AR
(
lb
ai/
A)
*
CF1
*
CF2
Where:

APlb/
A
=
application
rate
(
lb
ai/
A)

CF1
=
weight
unit
conversion
factor
to
convert
the
lbs
ai
in
the
application
rate
to
mg
(
4.54
x
105
mg/
lb)

CF2
=
area
unit
conversion
factor
to
convert
the
surface
area
units
(
acres)
in
the
application
rate
to
cm2
(
2.47
x
10­
8
acre/
cm2)
Page
150
of
177
Table
I3
­
Oral
Exposure
from
Incidental
Soil
Ingestion
Following
DSMA
Applications
to
Turf
Exposure
Scenario
Formulation
Application
Rate
(
lb
ai/
acre)
%
of
rate
in
uppermost
1
cm
of
soil
Ingestion
Rate
(
mg/
day)
Body
Weight
(
kg)
Soil
Residue
(
ug/
g)
Average
Daily
Dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
Incidental
Oral
MOE
Soil
Ingestion
Spray
2.5
100%
100
15
18.8
0.00013
56,000
Average
Daily
Oral
Dose
=
AR
(
mg/
cm2)
x
F
(
cm)
x
IgR(
mg/
day)
x
SDF
(
cm3/
mg)

BW
(
kg)

Where:

ADOD
=
oral
dose
on
day
of
application
(
mg/
kg/
day)

ARmg/
cm2
=
application
rate
(
mg/
cm2)

F
=
fraction
or
residue
retained
on
uppermost
1
cm
of
soil
(%)
(
note:
this
is
an
adjustment
from
surface
area
to
volume)

SDF
=
soil
density
factor
­­
volume
of
soil
(
cm3)
per
microgram
of
soil;

IgR
=
ingestion
rate
of
soil
(
mg/
day)

BW
=
body
weight
(
kg)

Assumptions:

F
­
fraction
or
residue
retained
on
uppermost
1
cm
of
soil
is
100
percent
based
on
soil
incorporation
into
top
1
cm
of
soil
after
application
(
1.0/
cm)

SDF
=
soil
density
factor
­­
volume
of
soil
(
cm3)
per
gram
of
soil;
to
weight
6.7
x
10­
4
cm3/
mg
soil)

IgR
­
ingestion
rate
of
soil
is
100
mg/
day
BW
­
body
weight
of
a
toddler
is
15
kg
Application
Rate
(
mg/
cm2)
=
AR
(
lb
ai/
A)
*
CF1
*
CF2
Where:

APlb/
A
=
application
rate
(
lb
ai/
A)

CF1
=
weight
unit
conversion
factor
to
convert
the
lbs
ai
in
the
application
rate
to
mg
(
4.54
x
105
mg/
lb)

CF2
=
area
unit
conversion
factor
to
convert
the
surface
area
units
(
acres)
in
the
application
rate
to
cm2
(
2.47
x
10­
8
acre/
cm2)

Table
I4.
Dermal
Exposure
from
DSMA
Treated
Turfgrass
Page
151
of
177
Exposure
Scenario
Formulation
Age
Group
Exposed
Application
Rate
(
lb
ai/
acre)
Default
transferable
residue
(%)
Hours
of
Exposure
Transfer
Coefficient
(
cm2/
hr)
Absorbed
Dermal
Dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
Dermal
MOE
Adult
14,500
0.58
1,700
High
Contact
Lawn
Activities
Toddler
2
5,200
0.97
1,000
Adult
0.14
7,300
Mowing
Turf
Youths
(
10­
12
yrs)
5%
2
3400
0.24
4,100
Adult
0.67
10,000
0.54
1,900
Gardening
Youths
(
10­
12
yrs)
20%
0.33
5,000
0.24
4,200
Adult
0.04
25,000
Golfer
Spray
Youths
(
10­
12
yrs)
2.5
5%
4
500
0.072
14,000
Average
Daily
Dermal
Dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
=
TTR
(
mg/
cm2)
x
TC
(
cm2/
hr)
x
ET
(
hr/
day)
x
DA
(%)

BW
(
kg)

Where:

ADDD
=
Dermal
exposure
at
on
day
of
application
attributable
for
activity
in
a
previously
treated
area
(
mg/
kg/
day)

ARmg/
cm2
=
application
rate
(
mg/
cm2)

F
=
fraction
of
residue
transferable
from
treated
turf
(%)

TC
=
Transfer
Coefficient
(
cm2/
hour);

ET
=
Exposure
Time
(
hours/
day);

DA
=
Dermal
Absorption
(
5);
and
BW
=
Body
Weight
(
kg)

Assumptions:

F
­
fraction
of
residue
transferable
from
treated
turf
is
5%;
dislodgeable
from
garden
foliage
is
20%;

TC
­
The
assumed
transfer
coefficients
(
TCs)
for
adults
and
children
performing
short­
term
high
contact
activities
on
treated
turf
are
14,500
and
5,200
cm2/
hour,
respectively.
The
assumed
transfer
coefficients
(
TCs)
for
adults
and
children
performing
short­
term
high
contact
activities
in
treated
gardens
are
10,000
and
5,000
200
cm2/
hour,
respectively.
Golfing,
mowing
and
other
low
contact
activities
were
assumed
to
have
a
TC
of
500
cm2/
hour.

ET
­
exposure
time
for
high
contact
activities
on
residential
lawns
is
2
hours;
exposure
time
for
adults
and
children
while
gardening
are
0.67
and
0.33
hours,
respectively.;
exposure
time
while
golfing
is
4
hours.

DA
­
Dermal
absorption
is
30%

BW
­
body
weight
for
a
toddler
is
15
kg;
for
a
youth
is
39
kg;
for
an
adult
is
70
kg.
Page
152
of
177
Table
I5
 
Combined
Incidental
Oral
Exposures
to
Toddlers
from
Postapplication
Exposures
to
DSMA
Treated
Turf
Exposure
Scenario
Application
Type
Application
Rate
(
lb
ai/
acre)
Hand
to
Mouth
Average
Daily
Oral
Dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
Object
to
Mouth
Average
Daily
Oral
Dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
Soil
Ingestion
Average
Daily
Oral
Dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
Combined
Average
Daily
Oral
Dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
Combined
Incidental
Oral
MOE
Toddler
on
Turf
Spray
2.5
0.037
0.009
0.00013
0.047
149
Page
153
of
177
Appendix
J
 

MSMA
Occupational
Handler
Exposure
and
Risk
Appendices
Page
154
of
177
Table
J1.
MSMA
Dermal
Occupational
Handler
Exposures
and
Risks
Dermal
Unit
Exposures
(
mg/
lb
ai)
Dermal
Dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
Dermal
MOEh
Exposure
Scenario
Crop
or
Target
Application
Rate
of
MSMAa
(
lb
ai/
acre)
Application
Rate
of
MAAb
(
lb
ai/
acre)
Area
Treated
Dailyc
(
acres)
Baselined
PPE­
w/
Glovese
PPE­
double
layer
w/
glovesf
Eng
Cong
Baseline
PPEw
gloves
PPEdouble
layer
w/
gloves
Eng
Cont
Baseline
PPEw
gloves
PPE­
double
layer
w/
gloves
Eng
Cont
Mixer/
Loader
Cotton
(
pre­
plant
or
postplant
up
to
cracking)
2
1.7
1200
2.9
0.023
0.017
0.0086
85
0.68
0.5
0.25
12
1500
2000
4000
Mixing/
Loading
Liquid
Concentrates
for
Aerial
Applications
(
1a)
Cotton
(
postemergent
over
the
top
broadcast
spray)
0.9375
0.8
1200
2.9
0.023
0.017
0.0086
40
0.32
0.23
0.12
25
3200
4300
8400
Cotton
(
postemergent
directed
spray)
2
1.7
200
2.9
0.023
0.017
0.0086
14
0.11
0.083
0.042
70
8900
12000
24000
Cotton
(
postemergent
directed
band
application)
0.9375
0.8
200
2.9
0.023
0.017
0.0086
6.7
0.053
0.039
0.02
150
19000
26000
51000
Turf
on
sod
farms
3.9204
3.4
80
2.9
0.023
0.017
0.0086
11
0.088
0.065
0.033
90
11000
15000
30000
Mixing/
Loading
Liquids
Concentrates
for
Groundboom
Applications
(
1b)
Lawns
and
Ornamental
Turf
(
athletic
fields,
golf
courses,

parks)
2.6136
2.2
40
2.9
0.023
0.017
0.0086
3.7
0.029
0.033
0.011
270
34000
46000
91000
Page
155
of
177
Table
J1.
MSMA
Dermal
Occupational
Handler
Exposures
and
Risks
Dermal
Unit
Exposures
(
mg/
lb
ai)
Dermal
Dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
Dermal
MOEh
Exposure
Scenario
Crop
or
Target
Application
Rate
of
MSMAa
(
lb
ai/
acre)
Application
Rate
of
MAAb
(
lb
ai/
acre)
Area
Treated
Dailyc
(
acres)
Baselined
PPE­
w/
Glovese
PPE­
double
layer
w/
glovesf
Eng
Cong
Baseline
PPEw
gloves
PPEdouble
layer
w/
gloves
Eng
Cont
Baseline
PPEw
gloves
PPE­
double
layer
w/
gloves
Eng
Cont
Lawns
and
Ornamental
Turf
(
established
Bermudagrass
and
zoysia
grass)
3.9204
3.4
40
2.9
0.023
0.017
0.0086
5.6
0.044
0.024
0.017
180
23000
31000
60000
Nonbearing
Fruit,
Nut,

&
Vineyards
4
3.4
80
2.9
0.023
0.017
0.0086
11
0.09
0.067
0.034
88
11000
15000
30000
Mixing/
Loading
Liquids
Concentrates
for
Groundboom
Applications
(
1b)
Cont.
Noncrop
Areas
4.5
3.9
100
2.9
0.023
0.017
0.0086
16
0.13
0.094
0.047
63
7900
11000
21000
Lawns
and
Ornamental
Turf
(
athletic
fields,
golf
courses,

parks)
2.6136
2.2
100
2.9
0.023
0.017
0.0086
9.3
0.074
0.054
0.028
110
14000
18000
36000
Lawns
and
Ornamental
Turf
(
well
established
actively
growing
turfgrass)
2.178
1.9
100
2.9
0.023
0.017
0.0086
7.7
0.061
0.045
0.023
130
16000
22000
44000
Mixing/
Loading
Liquid
Concentrates
to
Support
LCO
Handgun
Applications
(
mixing/
loadin
g
supports
20
LCOs)
(
1c)
Lawns
and
Ornamental
Turf
(
established
Bermudagrass
and
zoysia
grass)
3.9204
3.4
100
2.9
0.023
0.017
0.0086
14
0.11
0.082
0.041
72
9000
12000
24000
Page
156
of
177
Table
J1.
MSMA
Dermal
Occupational
Handler
Exposures
and
Risks
Dermal
Unit
Exposures
(
mg/
lb
ai)
Dermal
Dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
Dermal
MOEh
Exposure
Scenario
Crop
or
Target
Application
Rate
of
MSMAa
(
lb
ai/
acre)
Application
Rate
of
MAAb
(
lb
ai/
acre)
Area
Treated
Dailyc
(
acres)
Baselined
PPE­
w/
Glovese
PPE­
double
layer
w/
glovesf
Eng
Cong
Baseline
PPEw
gloves
PPEdouble
layer
w/
gloves
Eng
Cont
Baseline
PPEw
gloves
PPE­
double
layer
w/
gloves
Eng
Cont
Mixing/
Loading
Liquid
Concentrates
to
Support
Rights
of
Way
(
1d)
Noncrop
Areas
4.5
3.9
80
2.9
0.023
0.017
0.0086
13
0.1
0.075
0.038
78
9900
13000
26000
Applicator
Cotton
2
1.7
1200
No
Data
No
Data
No
Data
0.005
No
Data
No
Data
No
Data
0.15
No
Data
No
Data
No
Data
6800
Applying
Sprays
via
Aerial
Equipment
(
2)
Cotton
0.9375
0.8
1200
No
Data
No
Data
No
Data
0.005
No
Data
No
Data
No
Data
0.069
No
Data
No
Data
No
Data
15000
Cotton
2
1.7
200
0.014
0.014
0.011
0.005
0.069
0.069
0.054
0.025
15000
15000
19000
41000
Cotton
0.9375
0.8
200
0.014
0.014
0.011
0.005
0.032
0.032
0.025
0.011
31000
31000
40000
87000
Turf
on
sod
farms
3.9204
3.4
80
0.014
0.014
0.011
0.005
0.054
0.054
0.042
0.019
19000
19000
24000
52000
Applying
Sprays
via
Groundboom
Equipment
(
3)
Lawns
and
Ornamental
Turf
(
athletic
fields,
golf
courses,

parks)
2.6136
2.2
40
0.014
0.014
0.011
0.005
0.018
0.018
0.014
0.0064
56000
56000
71000
160000
Page
157
of
177
Table
J1.
MSMA
Dermal
Occupational
Handler
Exposures
and
Risks
Dermal
Unit
Exposures
(
mg/
lb
ai)
Dermal
Dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
Dermal
MOEh
Exposure
Scenario
Crop
or
Target
Application
Rate
of
MSMAa
(
lb
ai/
acre)
Application
Rate
of
MAAb
(
lb
ai/
acre)
Area
Treated
Dailyc
(
acres)
Baselined
PPE­
w/
Glovese
PPE­
double
layer
w/
glovesf
Eng
Cong
Baseline
PPEw
gloves
PPEdouble
layer
w/
gloves
Eng
Cont
Baseline
PPEw
gloves
PPE­
double
layer
w/
gloves
Eng
Cont
Lawns
and
Ornamental
Turf
(
well
established
actively
growing
turfgrassgolf
courses)
2.178
1.9
40
0.014
0.014
0.011
0.005
0.015
0.015
0.012
0.0053
67000
67000
85000
190000
Lawns
and
Ornamental
Turf
(
established
Bermudagrass
and
zoysia
grass­
golf
courses)
3.9204
3.4
40
0.014
0.014
0.011
0.005
0.027
0.027
0.021
0.0096
37000
37000
47000
100000
Nonbearing
Fruit
&
Nut
Orchards
&

Vineyards
4
3.4
80
0.014
0.014
0.011
0.005
0.055
0.055
0.043
0.02
18000
18000
23000
51000
Applying
Sprays
via
Groundboom
Equipment
(
3)

Cont.
Noncrop
Areas
4.5
3.9
100
0.014
0.014
0.011
0.005
0.077
0.077
0.061
0.028
13000
13000
16000
36000
Lawns
and
Ornamental
Turf
(
athletic
parks,
golf
courses,

parks)
2.6136
2.2
5
No
Data
0.34
0.19
Not
Feasible
No
Data
0.054
0.03
No
Data
No
Data
18000
33000
No
Data
Applying
Sprays
via
Handgun
Equipment
(
4)
Lawns
and
Ornamental
Turf
(
well
established
actively
growing
turfgrass)
2.178
1.9
5
No
Data
0.34
0.19
Not
Feasible
No
Data
0.045
0.025
No
Data
No
Data
22000
39000
No
Data
Page
158
of
177
Table
J1.
MSMA
Dermal
Occupational
Handler
Exposures
and
Risks
Dermal
Unit
Exposures
(
mg/
lb
ai)
Dermal
Dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
Dermal
MOEh
Exposure
Scenario
Crop
or
Target
Application
Rate
of
MSMAa
(
lb
ai/
acre)
Application
Rate
of
MAAb
(
lb
ai/
acre)
Area
Treated
Dailyc
(
acres)
Baselined
PPE­
w/
Glovese
PPE­
double
layer
w/
glovesf
Eng
Cong
Baseline
PPEw
gloves
PPEdouble
layer
w/
gloves
Eng
Cont
Baseline
PPEw
gloves
PPE­
double
layer
w/
gloves
Eng
Cont
Applying
Sprays
via
Handgun
Equipment
(
4)

Cont.
Lawns
and
Ornamental
Turf
(
established
Bermudagrass
and
zoysia
grass)
3.9204
3.4
5
No
Data
0.34
0.19
Not
Feasible
No
Data
0.082
0.046
No
Data
No
Data
12000
22000
No
Data
Applying
Sprays
via
Rights
of
Way
Equipment
(
5)
Noncrop
Areas
4.5
3.9
80
1.3
0.39
0.29
Not
Feasible
5.7
1.7
1.3
No
Data
170
580
780
No
Data
Flagger
Cotton
2
1.7
350
0.011
N/
A
0.01
0.00022
0.094
No
Data
0.086
0.0019
11000
No
Data
12000
530000
Flagging
for
Aerial
Sprays
Applications
(
6)
Cotton
0.9375
0.8
350
0.011
N/
A
0.01
0.00022
0.044
No
Data
0.04
0.00088
23000
No
Data
25000
1100000
Mixer/
Loader/
Applicator
Lawns
and
Ornamental
Turf
(
athletic
fields,
golf
courses,

parks)
2.6136
2.2
5
15
0.33
Data
available
Not
Feasible
2.8
0.062
No
Data
Not
Feasible
360
16000
No
Data
Not
Feasible
Lawns
and
Ornamental
Turf
(
well
established
actively
growing
turfgrass)
2.178
1.9
5
15
0.33
Data
available
Not
Feasible
2.3
0.051
No
Data
Not
Feasible
430
19000
No
Data
Not
Feasible
Mixing/
Loading/
Applying
Liquid
Concentrates
with
Low
Pressure
Handwand
(
ORETF)
(
7)
Lawns
and
Ornamental
Turf
(
established
Bermudagrass
and
zoysia
grass)
3.9204
3.4
5
15
0.33
Data
available
Not
Feasible
4.2
0.092
No
Data
Not
Feasible
240
11000
No
Data
Not
Feasible
Page
159
of
177
Table
J1.
MSMA
Dermal
Occupational
Handler
Exposures
and
Risks
Dermal
Unit
Exposures
(
mg/
lb
ai)
Dermal
Dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
Dermal
MOEh
Exposure
Scenario
Crop
or
Target
Application
Rate
of
MSMAa
(
lb
ai/
acre)
Application
Rate
of
MAAb
(
lb
ai/
acre)
Area
Treated
Dailyc
(
acres)
Baselined
PPE­
w/
Glovese
PPE­
double
layer
w/
glovesf
Eng
Cong
Baseline
PPEw
gloves
PPEdouble
layer
w/
gloves
Eng
Cont
Baseline
PPEw
gloves
PPE­
double
layer
w/
gloves
Eng
Cont
Lawns
and
Ornamental
Turf
(
athletic
fields,
golf
courses,

parks)
2.6136
2.2
5
No
Data
0.45
0.245
Not
Feasible
No
Data
0.072
0.039
Not
Feasible
No
Data
14000
25000
Not
Feasible
Lawns
and
Ornamental
Turf
(
well
established
actively
growing
turfgrass)
2.178
1.9
5
No
Data
0.45
0.245
Not
Feasible
No
Data
0.06
0.033
Not
Feasible
No
Data
17000
31000
Not
Feasible
Lawns
and
Ornamental
Turf
(
established
Bermudagrass
and
zoysia
grass)
3.9204
3.4
5
No
Data
0.45
0.245
Not
Feasible
No
Data
0.11
0.059
Not
Feasible
No
Data
9200
17000
Not
Feasible
Mixing/
Loading/
Applying
Liquid
Concentrates
with
a
Handgun
Sprayer
(
LCO
ORETF
data)

(
8)
Nonbearing
Fruit
&
Nut
Orchards
&

Vineyards
4
3.4
5
No
Data
0.45
0.245
Not
Feasible
No
Data
0.11
0.06
Not
Feasible
No
Data
9100
17000
Not
Feasible
a
Application
rates
are
the
maximum
application
rates
determined
from
EPA
registered
labels
for
MSMA
b
Application
Rate
of
MMA
=
(
MW
of
MAA/
MW
of
MSMA
*
Application
Rate
of
MSMA)

c
Amount
handled
per
day
values
are
HED
estimates
of
acres
or
gallons
or
other
area/
amount
treated
per
day
based
on
industry
sources
and
HED
estimates.

d
Baseline
is
long­
sleeve
shirt,
long
pants,
shoes,
socks
and
no
gloves
and
no
respirator
e
Single
layer
w/
gloves
is
baseline
attire
plus
chemical­
resistant
gloves.

f
Double
layer
w/
gloves
is
coveralls
worn
over
long­
sleeve
shirt
and
long
pants,
plus
chemical­
resistant
gloves.

g
Engineering
control
is
closed
mixing/
loading
system,
enclosed
cab,
or
enclosed
cockpit.

h
Dermal
MOE
=
NOAEL
(
1000
mg/
kg/
day)
/
dermal
daily
dose
(
mg/
kg/
day),
where
dermal
dose
=
daily
unit
exposure
(
mg/
lb
ai)
x
application
rate
x
amount
handled
per
day
/
body
weight
(
70
kg
adult).
Page
160
of
177
Table
J2.
MSMA
Occupational
Inhalation
Handler
Exposure
and
Risks
Inhalation
Unit
Exposures
(
ug/
lb
ai)
Inhalation
Dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
Inhalation
MOEh
Exposure
Scenario
Crop
or
Target
Application
Rate
of
MSMAa
(
lb
ai/
acre)
Application
Rate
of
MAAb
(
lb
ai/
acre)
Area
Treated
Dailyc
(
acres)
Baseline
d
80%

PPERe
90%

PPERf
Eng
Cong
Baseline
80%
PPER
90%
PPER
Eng
Cont
Baseline
80%

PPE­
R
90%

PPE­
R
Eng
Cont
Mixer/
Loader
Cotton
(
pre­
plant
or
post­
plant
up
to
cracking)
2
1.7
1200
1.2
0.24
0.12
0.083
0.035
0.0071
0.0035
0.0024
120
620
1200
1800
Mixing/
Loading
Liquid
Concentrates
for
Aerial
Applications
(
1a)
Cotton
(
postemergent
over
the
top
broadcast
spray)
0.9375
0.8
1200
1.2
0.24
0.12
0.083
0.017
0.0033
0.0017
0.0011
260
1300
2600
3800
Cotton
(
postemergent
directed
spray)
2
1.7
200
1.2
0.24
0.12
0.083
0.0059
0.0012
0.00059
0.00041
740
3700
7400
11000
Cotton
(
postemergent
directed
band
application)
0.9375
0.8
200
1.2
0.24
0.12
0.083
0.0028
0.00055
0.00028
0.00019
1600
7900
16000
23000
Turf
on
sod
farms
3.9204
3.4
80
1.2
0.24
0.12
0.083
0.0046
0.00092
0.00046
0.00032
950
4700
9500
14000
Lawns
and
Ornamental
Turf
(
athletic
fields,

golf
courses,

parks)
2.6136
2.2
40
1.2
0.24
0.12
0.083
0.0015
0.00031
0.00015
0.00011
2800
14000
28000
41000
Lawns
and
Ornamental
Turf
(
established
bermudagrass
and
zoysia
grass)
3.9204
3.4
40
1.2
0.24
0.12
0.083
0.0023
0.00046
0.00023
0.00016
1900
9500
19000
27000
Nonbearing
Fruit,

Nut,
&
Vineyards
4
3.4
80
1.2
0.24
0.12
0.083
0.0047
0.00094
0.00047
0.00033
930
4700
9300
13000
Mixing/
Loading
Liquids
Concentrates
for
Groundboom
Applications
(
1b)
Noncrop
Areas
4.5
3.9
100
1.2
0.24
0.12
0.083
0.0066
0.0013
0.00066
0.00046
660
3300
6600
9600
Mixing/
Loading
Liquid
Concentrates
to
Support
LCO
Handgun
Applications
Lawns
and
Ornamental
Turf
(
athletic
fields,

golf
courses,

parks)
2.6136
2.2
100
1.2
0.24
0.12
0.083
0.0038
0.00077
0.00038
0.00027
1100
5700
11000
16000
Page
161
of
177
Table
J2.
MSMA
Occupational
Inhalation
Handler
Exposure
and
Risks
Inhalation
Unit
Exposures
(
ug/
lb
ai)
Inhalation
Dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
Inhalation
MOEh
Exposure
Scenario
Crop
or
Target
Application
Rate
of
MSMAa
(
lb
ai/
acre)
Application
Rate
of
MAAb
(
lb
ai/
acre)
Area
Treated
Dailyc
(
acres)
Baseline
d
80%

PPERe
90%

PPERf
Eng
Cong
Baseline
80%
PPER
90%
PPER
Eng
Cont
Baseline
80%

PPE­
R
90%

PPE­
R
Eng
Cont
Lawns
and
Ornamental
Turf
(
well
established
actively
growing
turfgrass)
2.178
1.9
100
1.2
0.24
0.12
0.083
0.0032
0.00064
0.00032
0.00022
1400
6800
14000
20000
(
mixing/
loading
supports
20
LCOs)

(
1c)
Lawns
and
Ornamental
Turf
(
established
bermudagrass
and
zoysia
grass)
3.9204
3.4
100
1.2
0.24
0.12
0.083
0.0058
0.0012
0.00058
0.0004
760
3800
7600
11000
Mixing/
Loading
Liquid
Concentrates
to
Support
Rights
of
Way
(
1d)
Noncrop
Areas
4.5
3.9
80
1.2
0.24
0.12
0.083
0.0053
0.0011
0.00053
0.00037
830
4100
8300
12000
Applicator
Cotton
2
1.7
1200
No
Data
No
Data
No
Data
0.068
No
Data
No
Data
No
Data
0.002
No
Data
No
Data
No
Data
2200
Applying
Sprays
via
Aerial
Equipment
(
2)
Cotton
0.9375
0.8
1200
No
Data
No
Data
No
Data
0.068
No
Data
No
Data
No
Data
0.00094
No
Data
No
Data
No
Data
4700
Cotton
2
1.7
200
0.74
0.148
0.074
0.043
0.0036
0.00073
0.00036
0.00021
1200
6000
12000
21000
Cotton
0.9375
0.8
200
0.74
0.148
0.074
0.043
0.0017
0.00034
0.00017
0.000099
2600
13000
26000
44000
Turf
on
sod
farms
3.9204
3.4
80
0.74
0.148
0.074
0.043
0.0028
0.00057
0.00028
0.00017
1500
7700
15000
26000
Applying
Sprays
via
Groundboom
Equipment
(
3)
Lawns
and
Ornamental
Turf
(
athletic
fields,

golf
courses,

parks)
2.6136
2.2
40
0.74
0.148
0.074
0.043
0.00095
0.00019
0.000095
0.000055
4600
23000
46000
79000
Lawns
and
Ornamental
Turf
(
well
established
actively
growing
turfgrass­
golf
courses)
2.178
1.9
40
0.74
0.148
0.074
0.043
0.00079
0.00016
0.000079
0.000046
5500
28000
55000
95000
Applying
Sprays
via
Groundboom
Equipment
(
3)
Cont.
Lawns
and
Ornamental
Turf
(
established
bermudagrass
and
zoysia
grass­
gofl
courses)
3.9204
3.4
40
0.74
0.148
0.074
0.043
0.0014
0.00028
0.00014
0.000083
3100
15000
31000
53000
Page
162
of
177
Table
J2.
MSMA
Occupational
Inhalation
Handler
Exposure
and
Risks
Inhalation
Unit
Exposures
(
ug/
lb
ai)
Inhalation
Dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
Inhalation
MOEh
Exposure
Scenario
Crop
or
Target
Application
Rate
of
MSMAa
(
lb
ai/
acre)
Application
Rate
of
MAAb
(
lb
ai/
acre)
Area
Treated
Dailyc
(
acres)
Baseline
d
80%

PPERe
90%

PPERf
Eng
Cong
Baseline
80%
PPER
90%
PPER
Eng
Cont
Baseline
80%

PPE­
R
90%

PPE­
R
Eng
Cont
Nonbearing
Fruit
&
Nut
Orchards
&
Vineyards
4
3.4
80
0.74
0.148
0.074
0.043
0.0029
0.00058
0.00029
0.00017
1500
7500
15000
26000
Noncrop
Areas
4.5
3.9
100
0.74
0.148
0.074
0.043
0.0041
0.00082
0.00041
0.00024
1100
5400
11000
18000
Lawns
and
Ornamental
Turf
(
athletic
parks,

golf
courses,

parks)
2.6136
2.2
5
1.4
0.28
0.14
Not
Feasible
0.00022
0.000045
0.000022
No
Data
20000
98000
200000
No
Data
Lawns
and
Ornamental
Turf
(
well
established
actively
growing
turfgrass)
2.178
1.9
5
1.4
0.28
0.14
Not
Feasible
0.00019
0.000037
0.000019
No
Data
23000
120000
230000
No
Data
Applying
Sprays
via
Handgun
Equipment
(
4)
Lawns
and
Ornamental
Turf
(
established
bermudagrass
and
zoysia
grass)
3.9204
3.4
5
1.4
0.28
0.14
Not
Feasible
0.00034
0.000067
0.000034
No
Data
13000
65000
130000
No
Data
Applying
Sprays
via
Rights
of
Way
Equipment
(
5)
Noncrop
Areas
4.5
3.9
80
3.9
0.78
0.39
Not
Feasible
0.017
0.0034
0.0017
No
Data
250
1300
2500
No
Data
Flagger
Cotton
2
1.7
350
0.35
0.07
0.035
0.007
0.003
0.0006
0.0003
0.00006
1500
7300
15000
73000
Flagging
for
Aerial
Sprays
Applications
(
6)
Cotton
0.9375
0.8
350
0.35
0.07
0.035
0.007
0.0014
0.00028
0.00014
0.000028
3100
16000
31000
160000
Mixer/
Loader/
Applicator
Page
163
of
177
Table
J2.
MSMA
Occupational
Inhalation
Handler
Exposure
and
Risks
Inhalation
Unit
Exposures
(
ug/
lb
ai)
Inhalation
Dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
Inhalation
MOEh
Exposure
Scenario
Crop
or
Target
Application
Rate
of
MSMAa
(
lb
ai/
acre)
Application
Rate
of
MAAb
(
lb
ai/
acre)
Area
Treated
Dailyc
(
acres)
Baseline
d
80%

PPERe
90%

PPERf
Eng
Cong
Baseline
80%
PPER
90%
PPER
Eng
Cont
Baseline
80%

PPE­
R
90%

PPE­
R
Eng
Cont
Lawns
and
Ornamental
Turf
(
athletic
fields,

golf
courses,

parks)
2.6136
2.2
5
2.7
0.54
0.27
Not
Feasible
0.0005
0.0001
0.00005
Not
Feasible
8700
43000
87000
Not
Feasible
Lawns
and
Ornamental
Turf
(
well
established
actively
growing
turfgrass)
2.178
1.9
5
2.7
0.54
0.27
Not
Feasible
0.00042
0.000084
0.000042
Not
Feasible
10000
52000
100000
Not
Feasible
Mixing/
Loading/

Applying
Liquid
Concentrates
with
Low
Pressure
Handwand
(
ORETF)

(
7)
Lawns
and
Ornamental
Turf
(
established
bermudagrass
and
zoysia
grass)
3.9204
3.4
5
2.7
0.54
0.27
Not
Feasible
0.00076
0.00015
0.000076
Not
Feasible
5800
29000
58000
Not
Feasible
Lawns
and
Ornamental
Turf
(
athletic
fields,

golf
courses,

parks)
2.6136
2.2
5
1.8
0.36
0.18
Not
Feasible
0.00029
0.000058
0.000029
Not
Feasible
15000
76000
150000
Not
Feasible
Mixing/
Loading/
App
lying
Liquid
Concentrates
with
a
Handgun
Sprayer
(
LCO
ORETF
data)

(
8)
Lawns
and
Ornamental
Turf
(
well
established
actively
growing
turfgrass)
2.178
1.9
5
1.8
0.36
0.18
Not
Feasible
0.00024
0.000048
0.000024
Not
Feasible
18000
91000
180000
Not
Feasible
Page
164
of
177
Table
J2.
MSMA
Occupational
Inhalation
Handler
Exposure
and
Risks
Inhalation
Unit
Exposures
(
ug/
lb
ai)
Inhalation
Dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
Inhalation
MOEh
Exposure
Scenario
Crop
or
Target
Application
Rate
of
MSMAa
(
lb
ai/
acre)
Application
Rate
of
MAAb
(
lb
ai/
acre)
Area
Treated
Dailyc
(
acres)
Baseline
d
80%

PPERe
90%

PPERf
Eng
Cong
Baseline
80%
PPER
90%
PPER
Eng
Cont
Baseline
80%

PPE­
R
90%

PPE­
R
Eng
Cont
Lawns
and
Ornamental
Turf
(
established
bermudagrass
and
zoysia
grass)
3.9204
3.4
5
1.8
0.36
0.18
Not
Feasible
0.00043
0.000086
0.000043
Not
Feasible
10000
51000
100000
Not
Feasible
Nonbearing
Fruit
&
Nut
Orchards
&
Vineyards
4
3.4
5
1.8
0.36
0.18
Not
Feasible
0.00044
0.000088
0.000044
Not
Feasible
9900
50000
99000
Not
Feasible
a
Application
rates
are
the
maximum
application
rates
determined
from
EPA
registered
labels
for
MSMA
b
Application
Rate
of
MMA
=
(
MW
of
MAA/
MW
of
MSMA
*
Application
Rate
of
MSMA)

c
Amount
handled
per
day
values
are
HED
estimates
of
acres,
miles,
or
feet
treated
per
day
based
on
industry
sources
and
HED
estimates.

d
Baseline
is
no
respirator
e
80%
Respirator
is
quarter­
face
dust/
mist
respirator
(
that
provides
an
80%
protection
factor).

f
90%
Respirator
is
half­
face
dust/
mist
respirator
(
that
provides
a
90%
protection
factor).

g
Engineering
control
is
closed
mixing/
loading
system
or
enclosed
cockpit.

h
Inhalation
MOE
=
NOAEL
(
4.38
mg/
kg/
day)
/
inhalation
daily
dose
(
mg/
kg/
day),
where
inhalation
dose
=
daily
unit
exposure
(
mg/
lb
ai)
x
application
rate
x
amount
handled
per
day
/
body
weight
(
70
kg
adult)
Page
165
of
177
Appendix
K
 

MSMA
Residential
Handler
Exposure
and
Risk
Appendices
Page
166
of
177
Table
K1.
MSMA
Residential
Dermal
and
Inhalation
Handler
Exposure
and
Risks
Baseline
Unit
Exposures
Baseline
Doses
(
mg/
kg/

day)
Baseline
MOE
Exposure
Scenario
Crop
or
Target
Application
Rate
of
MSMAa
(
lb
ai/
acre)
Applicatio
n
Rate
of
MAAb
(
lb
ai/
acre)
Area
Treated
Dailyc
(
acres)
Dermald
(
mg/
lb
ai)
Inhalatione
(
ug/
lb
ai)
Dermal
Inhalation
Dermalf
Inhalationg
Mixer/
Loader/
Applicator
3.9204
3.4
0.5
38
2.7
0.91
0.000065
1100
68000
2.6136
2.2
0.5
38
2.7
0.61
0.000043
1600
100000
Mixing/
Loading/
Applying
Liquid
Concentrates
with
Low
Pressure
Handwand
(
ORETF
­­
ground
directed)

(
1)
lawns
and
ornamental
turf
2.178
1.9
0.5
38
2.7
0.51
0.000036
2000
120000
3.9204
3.4
0.5
11
17
0.26
0.00041
3800
11000
2.6136
2.2
0.5
11
17
0.18
0.00027
5700
16000
Mixing/
Loading/
Applying
Liquid
Concentrates
with
Hose­
End
Sprayer
(
Residential
ORETF
data)

(
2)
lawns
and
ornamental
turf
2.178
1.9
0.5
11
17
0.15
0.00023
6800
19000
3.9204
3.4
0.5
2.6
11
0.062
0.00026
16000
17000
2.6136
2.2
0.5
2.6
11
0.042
0.00018
24000
25000
Loading/
Applying
Liquid
Concentrates
with
RTU
Hose­
End
Sprayer
(
Residential
ORETF
data)

(
3)
lawns
and
ornamental
turf
2.178
1.9
0.5
2.6
11
0.035
0.00015
29000
30000
a
Application
rates
are
the
maximum
application
rates
determined
from
EPA
registered
labels
for
MSMA
b
Application
Rate
of
MMA
=
(
MW
of
MAA/
MW
of
MSMA
*
Application
Rate
of
MSMA)

c
Amount
handled
per
day
values
are
HED
estimates
of
acres,
square
feet,
or
gallons
applied
based
on
the
Standard
Operating
Procedures
for
Residential
Assessments,

industry
sources,
and
HED
estimates.

d
Baseline
Dermal
is
short­
sleeve
shirt,
short
pants,
shoes,
socks
and
no
gloves
e
Baseline
Inhalation:
no
respirator.

f
Dermal
MOE
=
NOAEL
(
1000
mg/
kg/
day)
/
dermal
daily
dose
(
mg/
kg/
day),
where
dermal
dose
=
daily
unit
exposure
(
mg/
lb
ai)
x
application
rate
x
amount
handled
per
day
x
dermal
absorption
factor
/
body
weight
(
70
kg
adult).

g
Inhalation
MOE
=
NOAEL
(
4.38
mg/
kg/
day)
/
inhalation
daily
dose
(
mg/
kg/
day),
where
inhalation
dose
=
daily
unit
exposure
(
mg/
lb
ai)
x
application
rate
x
amount
handled
per
day
/
body
weight
(
70
kg
adult).
Page
167
of
177
Appendix
L
 

MSMA
Residential
Postapplication
Exposure
and
Risk
Appendices
Page
168
of
177
Table
L1
­
Oral
Exposure
from
Hand­
to­
Mouth
Activity
on
MSMA
Treated
Turf
Exposure
Scenario
Formulation
Application
Rate
(
lb
ai/
acre)
Fraction
AI
Transferable
Surface
area
of
hands
(
cm2)
Exposure
Frequency
(
events/
hr)
Saliva
Extraction
Factor
Exposure
Time
(
hrs/
day)
Body
Weight
(
kg)
Average
Daily
Oral
Dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
Incidental
Oral
MOE
Hand
to
Mouth
Spray
3.4
5%
20
20
50%
2
15
0.051
140
Average
Daily
Oral
Dose
Oral
Dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
=
AR
(
mg/
cm2)
x
SAhand
(
cm2)
x
EXT
x
FQ(
events/
hr)
x
ET(
hrs/
day)

BW
(
kg)

Where:

ADOD
=
oral
dose
on
day
of
application
(
mg/
kg/
day)

ARmg/
cm2
=
application
rate
(
mg/
cm2)

F
=
fraction
of
residue
transferable
from
treated
turf
(%)

SAhand
=
surface
area
of
1
to
3
fingers
(
cm2)

EXT
=
extraction
rate
by
saliva
(%)

FQ
=
frequency
of
hand­
to­
mouth
events
(
events/
hour)

ET
=
exposure
duration
(
hours/
day)

BW
=
body
weight
(
kg)

Assumptions:

F
­
The
fraction
of
residue
transferable
from
turf
is
5%

SA
­
The
surface
area
of
1
to
3
fingers
is
20
cm2
FQ
­
The
frequency
of
hand­
to­
mouth
events
is
20
events
per
hour
EXT
­
The
extraction
rate
by
saliva
is
50%.

ET
­
The
time
spent
outdoors
is
2
hours/
day
BW
­
Body
weight
of
a
toddler
is
15
kg
Application
Rate
(
mg/
cm2)
=
AR
(
lb
ai/
A)
*
CF1
*
CF2
Where:

APlb/
A
=
application
rate
(
lb
ai/
A)

CF1
=
weight
unit
conversion
factor
to
convert
the
lbs
ai
in
the
application
rate
to
mg
(
4.54
x
105
mg/
lb)

CF2
=
area
unit
conversion
factor
to
convert
the
surface
area
units
(
acres)
in
the
application
rate
to
cm2
(
2.47
x
10­
8
acre/
cm2)
Page
169
of
177
Table
L2
­
Oral
Exposure
from
Mouthing
MSMA
Treated
Turf
Exposure
Scenario
Formulation
Application
Rate
(
lb
ai/
acre)
Fraction
AI
Transferable
Body
Weight
(
kg)
Surface
area
of
turf
mouthed
(
cm2)
Average
Daily
Oral
Dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
Incidental
Oral
MOE
Object
to
Mouth
(
Tier
3)
Spray
3.4
20%
15
25
0.013
550
Average
Daily
Oral
Dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
=
AR
(
mg/
cm2)
x
F
x
SA
(
cm2)

BW
(
kg)

Where:

ADOD
=
oral
dose
on
day
of
application
(
mg/
kg/
day)

ARmg/
cm2
=
application
rate
(
mg/
cm2)

F
=
fraction
of
residue
transferable
from
treated
turf
(%)

SA
=
surface
area
of
turf
mouthed
(
cm2/
day)

BW
=
body
weight
(
kg)

Assumptions:

SA
­
The
surface
area
of
turf
mouthed
is
25
cm2/
day
F
­
The
fraction
of
residue
transferable
from
treated
turf
is
20%

BW
­
Body
weight
of
a
toddler
is
15
kg
Application
Rate
(
mg/
cm2)
=
AR
(
lb
ai/
A)
*
CF1
*
CF2
Where:

APlb/
A
=
application
rate
(
lb
ai/
A)

CF1
=
weight
unit
conversion
factor
to
convert
the
lbs
ai
in
the
application
rate
to
mg
(
4.54
x
105
mg/
lb)

CF2
=
area
unit
conversion
factor
to
convert
the
surface
area
units
(
acres)
in
the
application
rate
to
cm2
(
2.47
x
10­
8
acre/
cm2)
Page
170
of
177
Table
L3
­
Oral
Exposure
from
Incidental
Soil
Ingestion
Following
MSMA
Applications
to
Turf
Exposure
Scenario
Formulation
Application
Rate
(
lb
ai/
acre)
%
of
rate
in
uppermost
1
cm
of
soil
Ingestion
Rate
(
mg/
day)
Body
Weight
(
kg)
Soil
Residue
(
ug/
g)
Average
Daily
Dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
Incidental
Oral
MOE
Soil
Ingestion
Spray
3.4
100%
100
15
25.5
0.00017
41,000
Average
Daily
Oral
Dose
=
AR
(
mg/
cm2)
x
F
(
cm)
x
IgR(
mg/
day)
x
SDF
(
cm3/
mg)

BW
(
kg)

Where:

ADOD
=
oral
dose
on
day
of
application
(
mg/
kg/
day)

ARmg/
cm2
=
application
rate
(
mg/
cm2)

F
=
fraction
or
residue
retained
on
uppermost
1
cm
of
soil
(%)
(
note:
this
is
an
adjustment
from
surface
area
to
volume)

SDF
=
soil
density
factor
­­
volume
of
soil
(
cm3)
per
microgram
of
soil;

IgR
=
ingestion
rate
of
soil
(
mg/
day)

BW
=
body
weight
(
kg)

Assumptions:

F
­
fraction
or
residue
retained
on
uppermost
1
cm
of
soil
is
100
percent
based
on
soil
incorporation
into
top
1
cm
of
soil
after
application
(
1.0/
cm)

SDF
=
soil
density
factor
­­
volume
of
soil
(
cm3)
per
gram
of
soil;
to
weight
6.7
x
10­
4
cm3/
mg
soil)

IgR
­
ingestion
rate
of
soil
is
100
mg/
day
BW
­
body
weight
of
a
toddler
is
15
kg
Application
Rate
(
mg/
cm2)
=
AR
(
lb
ai/
A)
*
CF1
*
CF2
Where:

APlb/
A
=
application
rate
(
lb
ai/
A)

CF1
=
weight
unit
conversion
factor
to
convert
the
lbs
ai
in
the
application
rate
to
mg
(
4.54
x
105
mg/
lb)

CF2
=
area
unit
conversion
factor
to
convert
the
surface
area
units
(
acres)
in
the
application
rate
to
cm2
(
2.47
x
10­
8
acre/
cm2)

Table
L4.
Dermal
Exposure
from
MSMA
Treated
Turfgrass
Page
171
of
177
Exposure
Scenario
Formulation
Age
Group
Exposed
Application
Rate
(
lb
ai/
acre)
Default
transferable
residue
(%)
Hours
of
Exposure
Transfer
Coefficient
(
cm2/
hr)
Absorbed
Dermal
Dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
Dermal
MOE
Adult
14,500
0.79
1,300
High
Contact
Lawn
Activities
Toddler
5%
2
5,200
1.3
760
Adult
0.19
5,400
Mowing
Turf
Youths
(
10­
12
yrs)
5%
2
3,400
0.33
3,000
Adult
0.67
10,000
0.73
1,400
Gardening
Youths
(
10­
12
yrs)
20%
0.33
5,000
0.32
3,100
Adult
0.054
18,000
Golfer
Spray
Youths
(
10­
12
yrs)
3.4
5%
4
500
0.098
10,000
Average
Daily
Dermal
Dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
=
TTR
(
mg/
cm2)
x
TC
(
cm2/
hr)
x
ET
(
hr/
day)
x
DA
(%)

BW
(
kg)

Where:

ADDD
=
Dermal
exposure
at
on
day
of
application
attributable
for
activity
in
a
previously
treated
area
(
mg/
kg/
day)

ARmg/
cm2
=
application
rate
(
mg/
cm2)

F
=
fraction
of
residue
transferable
from
treated
turf
(%)

TC
=
Transfer
Coefficient
(
cm2/
hour);

ET
=
Exposure
Time
(
hours/
day);

DA
=
Dermal
Absorption
(
5);
and
BW
=
Body
Weight
(
kg)

Assumptions:

F
­
fraction
of
residue
transferable
from
treated
turf
is
5%;
dislodgeable
from
garden
foliage
is
20%;

TC
­
The
assumed
transfer
coefficients
(
TCs)
for
adults
and
children
performing
short­
term
high
contact
activities
on
treated
turf
are
14,500
and
5,200
cm2/
hour,
respectively.
The
assumed
transfer
coefficients
(
TCs)
for
adults
and
children
performing
short­
term
high
contact
activities
in
treated
gardens
are
10,000
and
5,000
200
cm2/
hour,
respectively.
Golfing,
mowing
and
other
low
contact
activities
were
assumed
to
have
a
TC
of
500
cm2/
hour.

ET
­
exposure
time
for
high
contact
activities
on
residential
lawns
is
2
hours;
exposure
time
for
adults
and
children
while
gardening
are
0.67
and
0.33
hours,
respectively.;
exposure
time
while
golfing
is
4
hours.

DA
­
Dermal
absorption
is
30%

BW
­
body
weight
for
a
toddler
is
15
kg;
for
a
youth
is
39
kg;
for
an
adult
is
70
kg.
Page
172
of
177
Table
L5
 
Combined
Incidental
Oral
Exposures
to
Toddlers
from
Postapplication
Exposures
to
MSMA
Treated
Turf
Exposure
Scenario
Application
Type
Application
Rate
(
lb
ai/
acre)
Hand
to
Mouth
Average
Daily
Oral
Dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
Object
to
Mouth
Average
Daily
Oral
Dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
Soil
Ingestion
Average
Daily
Oral
Dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
Combined
Average
Daily
Oral
Dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
Combined
Incidental
Oral
MOE
Toddler
on
Turf
Spray
3.4
0.051
0.013
0.00017
0.064
110
Page
173
of
177
Appendix
M
 
Assumptions
Page
174
of
177
Table
M1.
Sources
of
Exposure
Data
Used
In
The
Occupational
Arsenicals
Handler
Exposure
And
Risk
Calculations
Exposure
Scenario
(
Number)
Data
Source
Standard
Assumptions
(
8­
hr
work
day)
a
Commentsb,
c
Mixer/
Loader
Descriptors
Mixing/
Loading
Liquid
Formulations
PHED
V1.1
Aerial:
1200
acres
for
cotton;

Groundboom:
200
acres
for
cotton,
80
acres
for
turf
on
sod
farms,
lawns/

ornamental
turf,
non­
bearing
fruits,
nut
and
vineyards,
100
acres
for
non­
crop
areas,
40
acres
for
lawns/
ornamental
turf;

Handgun
(
LCO):
100
acres
for
lawns
and
ornamental
turf;

Rights
of
way:
80
acres
for
non­
crop
areas
Baseline:
Dermal,
hand,
and
inhalation
=
acceptable
grades.
Hands
=
53
replicates;
Dermal
=
72
to
122
replicates;

and
Inhalation
=
85
replicates.
High
confidence
in
hand,
dermal,
and
inhalation
data.
No
protection
factor
was
needed
to
define
the
unit
exposures.

PPE:
The
same
dermal
data
are
used
as
for
baseline
coupled
with
a
50%
protection
factor
to
account
for
an
additional
layer
of
clothing.
Hands
=
acceptable
grades.
Hands
=
59
replicates.
High
confidence
in
hand
data.
A
respirator
protection
factor
of
5
is
applied
to
estimate
the
use
of
a
quarter­
face
respirator
(
dust/
mist
filtering
only).
A
respirator
protection
factor
of
10
is
applied
to
estimate
the
use
of
a
half­
face
negative
pressure
respirator
or
a
powered
air
purifying
respirator
(
dust/
mist
filtering
and/
or
organic
vapor­
removing).

Engineering
Controls:
Hands,
dermal,
and
inhalation
=
acceptable
grades.
Hands
=
31
replicates;
Dermal
=
16
to
22
replicates;
and
Inhalation
=
27
replicates.
High
confidence
in
hand,
dermal,
and
inhalation
data.
Gloves
were
used
coupled
with
engineering
controls
since
empirical
data
without
gloves
were
not
available
and
back
calculation
of
gloves
to
a
no
glove
scenario
is
believed
to
give
erroneously
high
estimates.

Applying
Descriptors
Applying
Sprays
via
Fixedwing
Aircraft
PHED
V1.1
1200
acres
for
cotton
Engineering
Controls:
Dermal
and
hands
=
AB
grade
and
Inhalation
=
ABC
grade.
Dermal
=
20
to
28
replicates;

Hands
=
34
replicates;
and
Inhalation
=
23
replicates.
High
confidence
in
dermal
and
hand
data.
Medium
confidence
in
inhalation
data.
No
protection
factor
was
needed
to
define
the
unit
exposure
value.

EPA
has
no
data
for
this
scenario,
other
than
enclosed
cockpits
B
the
engineering
control.

Applying
Sprays
via
Groundboom
Sprayer
PHED
V1.1
200
acres
for
cotton;
80
acres
for
turf
on
sod
farms
and
non­
bearing
fruits,
nuts,

and
vineyards;
100
acres
for
non­
crop
areas,
and
40
acres
for
lawn
and
ornamental
turf
Baseline:
Dermal,
hand,
and
inhalation
=
AB
grades.
Dermal
=
23
to
42
replicates;
Hands
=
29
replicates;
and
Inhalation
=
22
replicates.
High
confidence
in
hand,
dermal,
and
inhalation
data.
No
protection
factors
were
needed
to
define
the
unit
exposure
values.

PPE:
The
same
dermal
data
are
used
as
for
baseline
coupled
with
a
50%
protection
factor
to
account
for
an
additional
layer
of
clothing.
Hands
=
ABC
grades.
Hands
=
21
replicates.
Medium
confidence
in
hand
data.
A
respirator
protection
factor
of
5
is
applied
to
estimate
the
use
of
a
quarter­
face
respirator
(
dust/
mist
filtering
only).
A
respirator
protection
factor
of
10
is
applied
to
estimate
the
use
of
a
half­
face
negative
pressure
respirator
or
a
powered
air
purifying
respirator
(
dust/
mist
filtering
and/
or
organic
vapor­
removing).

Engineering
Controls:
Dermal
and
Hands
=
ABC
grade.
Inhalation
=
AB
grades.
Dermal
=
20
to
31
replicates;

Hands
=
16
replicates;
and
inhalation
=
16
replicates.
Medium
confidence
in
the
hand
and
dermal
data.
High
confidence
in
inhalation
data.
No
protection
factor
needed
to
define
the
unit
exposure
value.
Protective
gloves
not
used.
Page
175
of
177
Table
M1.
Sources
of
Exposure
Data
Used
In
The
Occupational
Arsenicals
Handler
Exposure
And
Risk
Calculations
Exposure
Scenario
(
Number)
Data
Source
Standard
Assumptions
(
8­
hr
work
day)
a
Commentsb,
c
Applying
Sprays
via
Handgun
Sprayer
PHED
V1.1
5
acres
for
lawns
and
ornamental
turf
Baseline:
No
data
PPE:
Dermal
and
hands
=
C
grade,
and
inhalation
=
B
grade.
Dermal
=
0
to
14
replicates;
Hands
=
14
replicates;

Inhalation
=
14
replicates.
Low
confidence
for
dermal,
hand,
and
inhalation
data.
Low
confidence
in
inhalation
data.
A
respirator
protection
factor
of
5
is
applied
to
estimate
the
use
of
a
quarter­
face
respirator
(
dust/
mist
filtering
only).
A
respirator
protection
factor
of
10
is
applied
to
estimate
the
use
of
a
half­
face
negative
pressure
respirator
or
a
powered
air
purifying
respirator
(
dust/
mist
filtering
and/
or
organic
vapor­
removing).

Engineering
Controls:
Not
considered
feasible
for
this
exposure
scenario.

Applying
Sprays
via
Rights
of
Way
Sprayer
PHED
V1.1
80
acres
for
non­
crop
areas
Baseline:
Dermal
=
ABC
grade
with
4­
20
replicates;
Hands
=
AB
grade
with
16
replicates;
inhalation
=
A
grade
with
16
replicates.
High
confidence
in
inhalation
data;
low
confidence
in
dermal/
hand
data
due
to
lack
of
dermal
replicates
No
protection
factor
was
required
to
calculate
unit
exposures.

PPE:
The
same
dermal
data
are
used
as
for
baseline
coupled
with
a
50%
protection
factor
to
account
for
an
additional
layer
of
clothing.
Hand
=
AB
grade
with
4
replicates.
Low
confidence
in
hand
data
due
to
the
small
number
of
replicates.
A
respirator
protection
factor
of
5
is
applied
to
estimate
the
use
of
a
quarter­
face
respirator
(
dust/
mist
filtering
only).
A
respirator
protection
factor
of
10
is
applied
to
estimate
the
use
of
a
half­
face
negative
pressure
respirator
or
a
powered
air
purifying
respirator
(
dust/
mist
filtering
and/
or
organic
vapor­
removing).

Engineering
Controls:
:
Not
considered
feasible
for
this
exposure
scenario.

Flagging
Descriptors
Flagging
for
Aerial
Spray
Applications
PHED
V1.1
350
acres
for
cotton
Baseline:
Dermal,
hands,
and
inhalation
=
AB
grades.
Dermal
=
18
to
28
replicates;
Hands
=
30
replicates;
and
Inhalation
=
28
replicates.
High
confidence
in
dermal,
hand,
and
inhalation
data.
No
protection
factor
was
required
to
calculate
unit
exposures.

PPE:
The
same
dermal
data
are
used
as
for
baseline
coupled
with
a
50%
protection
factor
to
account
for
an
additional
layer
of
clothing.
Hand
=
AB
grades.
Hands
=
6
replicates.
Low
confidence
in
hand
data
due
to
the
small
number
of
replicates.
A
respirator
protection
factor
of
5
is
applied
to
estimate
the
use
of
a
quarter­
face
respirator
(
dust/
mist
filtering
only).
A
respirator
protection
factor
of
10
is
applied
to
estimate
the
use
of
a
half­
face
negative
pressure
respirator
or
a
powered
air
purifying
respirator
(
dust/
mist
filtering
and/
or
organic
vapor­
removing).

Engineering
Controls:
The
same
data
are
used
as
for
baseline
coupled
with
a
98%
protection
factor
to
account
for
the
use
of
an
engineering
control
(
e.
g.,
sitting
in
a
vehicle).

Mixing/
Loading/
Applying
Descriptors
Mixing/
Loading/
Applying
Liquid
Concentrates
via
Low
Pressure
Handwand
(
Gardens)
ORETF
Chemical
Handler
Exposure
Studies
­
5
acres
Baseline:
Hands
(
no
gloves)
=
20
replicates;
dermal
=
unknown
replicates;
inhalation
=
unknown
replicates
PPE:
The
same
dermal
data
are
used
as
for
baseline;
gloved
hands
=
20
replicates.
A
respirator
protection
factor
of
5
is
applied
to
estimate
the
use
of
a
quarter­
face
respirator
(
dust/
mist
filtering
only).
A
respirator
protection
factor
of
10
is
applied
to
estimate
the
use
of
a
half­
face
negative
pressure
respirator
or
a
powered
air
purifying
respirator
(
dust/
mist
filtering
and/
or
organic
vapor­
removing).

Engineering
Controls:
Not
considered
feasible
for
this
exposure
scenario.
Page
176
of
177
Table
M1.
Sources
of
Exposure
Data
Used
In
The
Occupational
Arsenicals
Handler
Exposure
And
Risk
Calculations
Exposure
Scenario
(
Number)
Data
Source
Standard
Assumptions
(
8­
hr
work
day)
a
Commentsb,
c
Mixing/
Loading/
Applying
Liquid
Concentrates
via
Handgun
Sprayer
(
ORETF
data)
ORETF
Chemical
Handler
Exposure
Studies
5
acres
Baseline:
Hands
(
no
gloves)
=
no
data;
dermal
=
15
replicates;
inhalation
=
15
replicates
PPE:
:
The
same
dermal
data
are
used
as
for
baseline
coupled
with
a
50%
protection
factor
to
account
for
an
additional
layer
of
clothing;
gloved
hands
=
15
replicates.
A
respirator
protection
factor
of
5
is
applied
to
estimate
the
use
of
a
quarter­
face
respirator
(
dust/
mist
filtering
only).
A
respirator
protection
factor
of
10
is
applied
to
estimate
the
use
of
a
half­
face
negative
pressure
respirator
or
a
powered
air
purifying
respirator
(
dust/
mist
filtering
and/
or
organic
vapor­
removing).

Engineering
Controls:
Not
considered
feasible
for
this
exposure
scenario.

Applying
Ready
to
Use
Formulations
via
Trigger
Pump
Sprayer
ORETF
Chemical
Handler
Exposure
Studies
1000
ft2
Baseline:
Hands
(
no
gloves)
=
20
replicates;
dermal
=
unknown
replicates;
inhalation
=
unknown
replicates
PPE:
The
same
dermal
data
are
used
as
for
baseline;
gloved
hands
=
20
replicates.
A
respirator
protection
factor
of
5
is
applied
to
estimate
the
use
of
a
quarter­
face
respirator
(
dust/
mist
filtering
only).
A
respirator
protection
factor
of
10
is
applied
to
estimate
the
use
of
a
half­
face
negative
pressure
respirator
or
a
powered
air
purifying
respirator
(
dust/
mist
filtering
and/
or
organic
vapor­
removing).

Engineering
Controls:
Not
considered
feasible
for
this
exposure
scenario.

Mixing/
Loading/
Applying
Liquids
with
Watering
Can
(
using
ORETF
hose­
end
sprayer
data)
ORETF
Chemical
Handler
Exposure
Studies
1000
ft2
Baseline:
Hands
(
no
gloves)
=
30
replicates;
dermal
=
30
replicates;
inhalation
=
30
replicates
PPE:
The
same
dermal
data
are
used
as
for
baseline;
gloved
hands
=
no
data.
A
respirator
protection
factor
of
5
is
applied
to
estimate
the
use
of
a
quarter­
face
respirator
(
dust/
mist
filtering
only).
A
respirator
protection
factor
of
10
is
applied
to
estimate
the
use
of
a
half­
face
negative
pressure
respirator
or
a
powered
air
purifying
respirator
(
dust/
mist
filtering
and/
or
organic
vapor­
removing).

Engineering
Controls:
Not
considered
feasible
for
this
exposure
scenario.

 
All
Standard
Assumptions
are
based
on
an
8­
hour
work
day
as
estimated
by
the
Agency.

 
All
handler
exposure
assessments
in
this
document
are
based
on
the
"
Best
Available"
data
as
defined
by
the
HED
SOP
for
meeting
Subdivision
U
Guidelines
(
i.
e.,
completing
exposure
assessments).
Best
available
grades
are
assigned
to
data
as
follows:
matrices
with
A
and
B
grade
data
(
i.
e.,
Acceptable
Grade
Data)
and
a
minimum
of
15
replicates;
if
not
available,
then
grades
A,
B
and
C
data
and
a
minimum
of
15
replicates;
if
not
available,
then
all
data
regardless
of
the
quality
(
i.
e.,
All
Grade
Data)
and
number
of
replicates.
High
quality
data
with
a
protection
factor
take
precedence
over
low
quality
data
with
no
protection
factor.
Generic
data
confidence
categories
are
assigned
as
follows:

High
=
grades
A
and
B
and
15
or
more
replicates
per
body
part
Medium
=
grades
A,
B,
and
C
and
15
or
more
replicates
per
body
part
Low
=
grades
A,
B,
C,
D
and
E
or
any
combination
of
grades
with
less
than
15
replicates.

C
PHED
grading
criteria
do
not
reflect
overall
quality
of
the
reliability
of
the
assessment.
Sources
of
the
exposure
factors
should
also
be
considered
in
the
risk
Page
177
of
177
Table
M2:
Sources
of
Exposure
Data
Used
In
The
Residential
Arsenicals
Handler
Exposure
And
Risk
Calculations
Exposure
Scenario
(
Number)
Data
Source
Standard
Assumptions
(
8­
hr
work
day)
a
Commentsb,
c
Mixer/
Loader/
Applicator
Descriptors
Mixing/
Loading/
Applying
Liquid
Concentrates
with
Low
Pressure
Handwand
ORETF
Chemical
Handler
Exposure
Studies:
Gardens
0.5
acres
Baseline
(
short­
sleeve
shirt
and
short
pants):
Hands
(
no
gloves)
=
20
replicates;
dermal
=
unknown
replicates;

inhalation
=
unknown
replicates
Mixing/
Loading/
Applying
Liquid
Concentrates
with
Hose­
End
Sprayer
ORETF
Chemical
Handler
Exposure
Studies:
Gardens
0.5
acres
Baseline
(
short­
sleeve
shirt
and
short
pants):
Hands
(
no
gloves)
=
20
replicates;
dermal
=
20
replicates;
inhalation
=
20
replicates
Mixing/
Loading/
Applying
Liquid
Concentrates
with
Ready­
to­
Use
Hose­
End
Sprayer
ORETF
Chemical
Handler
Exposure
Studies
0.5
acres
Baseline:
Dermal,
hands
(
no
gloves),
and
inhalation
=
30
replicates;
no
PPE
data
available
for
hands
(
i.
e.,
no
glove
data
available).

Applying
Ready
to
Use
Formulations
via
Trigger
Pump
Sprayer
MRID
410547­
01
1000
ft2
Baseline:
The
only
empirical
data
that
are
available
are
based
on
the
use
of
no
protective
clothing.

Applying
Ready
to
Use
Formulations
via
Trigger
Pump
Sprayer
ORETF
Chemical
Handler
Exposure
Studies
1000
ft2
Baseline:
Hands
(
no
gloves)
=
20
replicates;
dermal
=
unknown
replicates;
inhalation
=
unknown
replicates
PPE
and
Engineering
Controls
data
are
not
required
for
this
assessment.

a
All
Standard
Assumptions
are
based
on
an
8­
hour
work
day
as
estimated
by
HED.
BEAD
data
were
not
available.

b
All
handler
exposure
assessments
in
this
document
are
based
on
the
"
Best
Available"
data
as
defined
by
the
PHED
SOP
for
meeting
Subdivision
U
Guidelines
(
i.
e.,
completing
exposure
assessments).
Best
available
grades
are
assigned
to
data
as
follows:
matrices
with
A
and
B
grade
data
(
i.
e.,
Acceptable
Grade
Data)
and
a
minimum
of
15
replicates;
if
not
available,
then
grades
A,
B
and
C
data
and
a
minimum
of
15
replicates;
if
not
available,
then
all
data
regardless
of
the
quality
(
i.
e.,
All
Grade
Data)
and
number
of
replicates.
High
quality
data
with
a
protection
factor
take
precedence
over
low
quality
data
with
no
protection
factor.
Generic
data
confidence
categories
are
assigned
as
follows:

High
=
grades
A
and
B
and
15
or
more
replicates
per
body
part
Medium
=
grades
A,
B,
and
C
and
15
or
more
replicates
per
body
part
Low
=
grades
A,
B,
C,
D
and
E
or
any
combination
of
grades
with
less
than
15
replicates.

c
PHED
grading
criteria
do
not
reflect
overall
quality
of
the
reliability
of
the
assessment.
Sources
of
the
exposure
factors
should
also
be
considered
in
the
risk
management
decision.
