Page
1
of
97
DRAFT
Didecyl
Dimethyl
Ammonium
Chloride
(
DDAC)

Occupational
and
Residential
Exposure
Assessment
(
DP
Barcode
323309)

Office
of
Pesticide
Programs
Antimicrobials
Division
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
1801
South
Bell
St.
Arlington,
VA
22202
Date:
April
18,
2006
Page
2
of
97
TABLE
OF
CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY............................................................................................................................................
3
1.0
INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................................................
9
1.1
Purpose........................................................................................................................................................
9
1.2
Criteria
for
Conducting
Exposure
Assessments
.........................................................................................
9
1.3
Chemical
Identification
.............................................................................................................................
11
1.4
Physical/
Chemical
Properties
...................................................................................................................
12
2.0
USE
INFORMATION..................................................................................................................................
12
2.1
Formulation
Types
and
Percent
Active
Ingredient
..................................................................................
12
2.2
Summary
of
Use
Pattern
and
Formulations
.............................................................................................
12
3.0
SUMMARY
OF
TOXICITY
DATA............................................................................................................
13
3.1
Acute
Toxicity...........................................................................................................................................
13
3.2
Summary
of
Toxicity
Endpoints................................................................................................................
13
3.3
FQPA
Considerations
...............................................................................................................................
15
4.0
RESIDENTIAL
EXPOSURE
ASSESSMENT
............................................................................................
15
4.1
Summary
of
Registered
Uses
....................................................................................................................
15
4.2
Residential
Exposure.................................................................................................................................
15
4.2.1
Residential
Handler
Exposures
.......................................................................................................
17
4.2.2
Residential
Post­
application
Exposures..........................................................................................
20
4.2.3
Data
Limitations/
Uncertainties
.......................................................................................................
36
5.0
RESIDENTIAL
AGGREGATE
RISK
ASSESSMENT
AND
CHARACTERIZATION...........................
37
6.0
OCCUPATIONAL
EXPOSURE
ASSESSMENT.......................................................................................
37
6.1
Occupational
Handler
Exposures
.............................................................................................................
40
6.2
Occupational
Post­
application
Exposures
................................................................................................
44
6.3
Wood
Preservation....................................................................................................................................
47
6.3.1
Non­
Pressure
Treatment
Scenarios
(
Handler
and
Post­
application)
.............................................
47
6.3.2
Pressure
Treatment
Scenarios
(
Handler
and
Post­
Application).....................................................
51
6.4
Data
Limitations/
Uncertainties
.................................................................................................................
54
7.0
REFERENCES
..............................................................................................................................................
56
APPENDIX
A:
Master
DDAC
Label...........................................................................................................................
58
APPENDIX
B:
Summary
of
CMA
and
PHED
Data....................................................................................................
71
APPENDIX
C:
Input/
Output
from
Residential
MCCEM
Modeling............................................................................
74
APPENDIX
D:
Input/
Output
from
Occupational
MCCEM
Modeling........................................................................
86
APPENDIX
E:
Calculation
of
DDAC
Unit
Exposure
Values
....................................................................................
95
Page
3
of
97
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
This
document
is
the
Occupational
and
Residential
Exposure
Chapter
of
the
Reregistration
Eligibility
Decision
(
RED)
document
for
the
Group
I
Quat
Cluster.
It
addresses
the
potential
risks
to
humans
that
result
from
the
use
of
chemicals
in
this
group
in
occupational
and
residential
settings.
Group
I
Quat
Cluster
is
a
group
of
structurally
similar
quaternary
ammonium
compounds
("
quats")
that
are
characterized
by
having
a
positively
charged
nitrogen
covalently
bonded
to
two
alkyl
group
substituents
(
at
least
one
C8
or
longer)
and
two
methyl
substituents.
In
finished
form,
these
quats
are
salts
with
the
positively
charged
nitrogen
(
cation)
balanced
by
a
negatively
charged
molecule
(
anion).
The
anion
for
the
quats
in
this
cluster
is
chloride
or
bromide.
In
this
document,
the
Group
I
Quat
Cluster
will
be
referred
to
as
DDAC
(
didecyl
dimethyl
ammonium
chloride).

DDAC
is
the
active
ingredient
in
numerous
types
of
products.
The
products
are
mainly
disinfectants
and
deodorants
that
are
used
in
agricultural,
food
handling,
commercial/
institutional/
industrial,
residential
and
public
access,
and
medical
settings
(
Use
Site
Categories
I,
II,
III,
IV,
and
V
respectively).
Examples
of
registered
uses
for
DDAC
in
these
settings
include
application
to
indoor
and
outdoor
hard
surfaces
(
e.
g.,
walls,
floors,
tables,
toilets,
and
fixtures),
eating
utensils,
laundry,
carpets,
agricultural
tools
and
vehicles,
egg
shells,
shoes,
milking
equipment
and
udders,
humidifiers,
medical
instruments,
human
remains,
ultrasonic
tanks,
reverse
osmosis
units,
and
water
storage
tanks.
There
are
also
DDAC­
containing
products
that
are
used
in
residential
and
commercial
swimming
pools
(
Use
Site
Category
XI),
in
aquatic
areas
(
Use
Site
Category
XII)
such
as
decorative
ponds
and
decorative
fountains,
and
in
industrial
process
and
water
systems
(
Use
Site
Category
VIII)
such
as
re­
circulating
cooling
water
systems,
drilling
muds
and
packer
fluids,
oil
well
injection
and
wastewater
systems.
Additionally,
DDAC­
containing
products
are
used
for
wood
preservation
(
Use
Site
Category
X)
through
non­
pressure
and
pressure­
treatment
methods.
There
are
registered
uses
for
fogging
in
occupational
settings.
Products
containing
DDAC
are
formulated
as
liquid
ready­
to­
use,
soluble
concentrate,
pressurized
liquid,
and
water
soluble
packaging.
The
percentage
of
DDAC
in
the
various
end­
use
products
ranges
from
0.08%
to
80%
as
reported
in
the
Master
Label
spreadsheet
(
Appendix
A).
Residential
products
such
as
EPA
Reg.
No.
10324­
69
range
up
to
50%
DDAC
for
swimming
pools
and
spas.

The
durations
and
routes
of
exposure
evaluated
in
this
assessment
include
short­
term
(
ST),
intermediate­
term
(
IT),
and
in
some
instances
long­
term
(
LT)
inhalation
exposures,
ST
dermal
exposures,
and
ST
oral
exposures.
The
ST
inhalation
endpoint
and
the
ST
oral
endpoint
is
based
on
a
NOAEL
of
10
mg/
kg/
day
from
a
prenatal
developmental
toxicity
study
in
rats.
The
LOAEL
(
20
mg/
kg/
day)
was
based
largely
on
increased
incidence
of
skeletal
variations
in
females.
The
developmental
study
does
not
indicate
increased
susceptibility
from
in
utero
and
postnatal
exposure
to
DDAC.
The
IT/
LT
inhalation
endpoint
is
also
based
on
a
10
mg/
kg/
day
but
from
a
chronic
toxicity
study
in
dogs.
No
short­
term
dermal
endpoint
for
systemic
effects
was
selected
for
DDAC,
since
no
systemic
effects
were
identified.
However,
a
short­
term
dermal
irritation
endpoint
was
identified.
The
short­
term
dermal
endpoint
for
the
technical
grade
active
ingredient
(
TGAI)
containing
80%
ai
diluted
to
0.1%
DDAC
as
a
test
material
(
2
mg/
kg/
day
which
is
equivalent
to
8
µ
g/
cm2)
was
determined
from
a
LOAEL
of
6
mg/
kg/
day
based
on
increased
clinical
and
gross
findings
(
erythema,
edema,
exfoliation,
excoriation,
and
ulceration).
A
21­
day
dermal
toxicity
study
was
also
conducted
using
a
0.13%
ai
formulation.
No
short­
term
dermal
endpoint
was
identified
for
this
formulation
Page
4
of
97
because
no
irritation
or
systemic
effects
were
identified
up
to
and
including
the
limit
dose
of
1,000
mg/
kg/
day.
Intermediate­
or
long­
term
dermal
irritation
endpoints
were
not
identified
for
DDAC.
Because
the
effect
to
the
skin
is
a
localized
skin
irritation,
a
skin
concentration
(
µ
g/
cm2)
of
exposure,
rather
then
a
dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
was
used
to
assess
the
dermal
risk
concerns.
No
body
weight
is
needed
for
the
dermal
irritation
endpoint,
since
no
systemic
dose
is
calculated.
Since
the
toxicological
endpoint
for
inhalation
is
female­
specific,
a
body
weight
of
60
kilograms
is
used
in
the
assessment.
This
represents
the
body
weight
of
an
adult
female.
They
Agency's
level
of
concern
(
LOC)
for
occupational
and
residential
DDAC
dermal,
inhalation
and
oral
exposures
is
100
(
i.
e.,
a
margin
of
exposure
(
MOE)
less
than
100
exceeds
the
level
of
concern).
The
level
of
concern
is
based
on
10x
for
interspecies
extrapolation
and
10x
for
intraspecies
extrapolation.

The
dermal
and
inhalation
margins
of
exposure
were
not
combined
for
the
DDAC
risk
assessment
because
the
toxicity
endpoints
for
the
dermal
and
inhalation
routes
of
exposure
are
based
on
different
toxicological
effects.
No
cancer
endpoint
was
identified;
therefore,
cancer
risks
are
not
assessed.

This
occupational
and
residential
assessment
was
based
on
examination
of
product
labels
describing
uses
for
the
product.
There
are
many
end­
use
products
that
contain
DDAC;
therefore,
only
labels
on
the
Master
Label
developed
by
AD
and
the
registrants
were
reviewed.
It
has
been
determined
that
exposure
to
handlers
can
occur
in
a
variety
of
occupational
and
residential
environments.
Additionally,
post­
application
exposures
are
likely
to
occur
in
these
settings.
The
representative
scenarios
selected
by
the
Antimicrobials
Division
(
AD)
for
assessment
were
evaluated
using
maximum
application
rates
as
stated
on
the
product
labels.
The
representative
scenarios
are
believed
to
represent
high­
end
uses
resulting
in
dermal,
inhalation,
and
incidental
oral
exposures.

To
assess
most
handler
risks,
AD
used
surrogate
unit
exposure
data
from
the
Chemical
Manufacturers
Association
(
CMA)
antimicrobial
exposure
study
and
the
Pesticide
Handlers
Exposure
Database
(
PHED).
Postapplication/
bystander
exposures
were
assessed
using
EPA's
Health
Effects
Division's
(
HED)
Standard
Operating
Procedures
(
SOPs)
for
Residential
Exposure
Assessment,
MCCEM
(
Multi­
Chamber
Concentration
and
Exposure
Model),
and
Swim
Model.
Additionally,
handler
and
post­
application
exposures
resulting
from
wood
preservation
activities
were
assessed
using
surrogate
data
from
the
studies
Measurement
and
Assessment
of
Dermal
and
Inhalation
Exposures
to
Didecyl
Dimethyl
Ammonium
Chloride
(
DDAC)
Used
in
the
Protection
of
Cut
Lumber
(
Phase
III)
(
Bestari
et
al.,
1999,
MRID
455243­
04)
and
"
Assessment
of
Potential
Inhalation
and
Dermal
Exposure
Associated
with
Pressure
Treatment
of
Wood
with
Arsenical
Wood
Products"
(
ACC,
2002a).
Residential
Handler
Risk
Summary
Dermal
For
the
residential
handler
dermal
exposure
and
risk
assessment,
dermal
risks
were
calculated
by
comparing
residues
on
the
surface
of
the
skin
to
the
short­
term
dermal
irritation
endpoints.
Dermal
residential
handler
exposures
were
not
assessed
for
products
containing
less
than
1%
DDAC.
Residues
on
the
surface
of
the
skin
(
dermal
irritation
exposure)
were
determined
using
hand
unit
exposures
from
CMA
and/
or
PHED
adjusted
for
the
surface
area
of
the
hand
(
mg/
lb
ai/
cm2),
application
rates,
and
use
amounts.
The
dermal
Page
5
of
97
MOEs
were
below
the
target
MOE
of
100
for
all
scenarios
except
the
humidifier
and
swimming
pool
applications.

Inhalation
For
the
residential
handler
inhalation
assessment,
the
inhalation
risks
were
calculated
by
comparing
the
daily
doses
to
the
short­
term
inhalation
endpoint.
The
inhalation
MOEs
were
above
the
target
MOE
of
100
for
all
scenarios.

Residential
Post­
Application/
Bystander
Risk
Summary
Dermal
The
residential
post­
application
dermal
risks
were
assessed
by
comparing
the
surface
residue
on
the
skin
(
dermal
skin
irritation
exposure)
to
the
short­
term
dermal
endpoint.
It
was
assumed
that
during
the
exposure
period
the
skin
repeatedly
contacts
the
treated
surface
until
a
steady­
state
concentration
of
residues
is
achieved
on
the
skin.
For
residential
scenarios,
the
post­
application
dermal
MOEs
were
above
the
target
MOE
of
100
for
the
laundered
clothing
(
assuming
1%
residue
transfer)
but
below
the
target
MOE
for
the
following:

 
Wearing
clothes
treated
with
a
fabric
spray:
ST
dermal
MOE
=
less
than
or
equal
to
1
using
both
a
100%
clothing
to
skin
transfer
factor
and
a
5%
clothing
to
skin
transfer
factor.
 
Dermal
contact
on
floors
(
MOE
=
33)
and
carpets
(
MOE
=
45).
 
There
are
no
wipe
data
available
to
assess
the
children's
dermal
contact
to
treated
decks
and/
or
play
sets.
Based
on
hand
measurements
of
workers
at
the
treatment
plants,
dermal
risks
may
be
of
concern
and
therefore
a
wipe
study
is
warranted.

Inhalation
For
the
residential
post­
application
inhalation
exposure
and
risk
assessment,
the
MOEs
were
below
the
target
MOE
of
100
for
the
following
scenario:

 
Humidifier:
ST/
IT
8­
hr
Inhalation
MOE
=
27
for
adults
and
8
for
children;
ST/
IT
24­
hr
Inhalation
MOE
=
11
for
adults
and
5
for
children
Incidental
Oral
For
the
residential
post­
application
incidental
oral
assessment,
the
MOEs
were
above
the
target
MOE
of
100
for
all
scenarios
except
the
following:

 
Mouthing
on
clothes
treated
with
a
fabric
spray:
ST
oral
MOE
=
12
Occupational
Handler
Risk
Summary
Dermal
DDAC
dermal
irritation
exposures
and
risks
were
not
estimated
for
occupational
handler
exposures.
Instead,
dermal
irritation
exposures
and
risks
will
be
mitigated
using
default
personal
protective
equipment
requirements
based
on
the
toxicity
of
the
end­
use
product.
To
minimize
dermal
exposures,
the
minimum
PPE
required
for
mixers,
loaders,
and
others
exposed
to
end­
use
products
containing
concentrations
of
DDAC
that
result
in
classification
of
category
I,
II,
or
III
for
skin
irritation
potential
will
be
long­
sleeve
shirt,
long
Page
6
of
97
pants,
shoes,
socks,
chemical­
resistant
gloves,
and
chemical­
resistant
apron.
Once
diluted,
if
the
concentration
of
DDAC
in
the
diluted
solution
would
result
in
classification
of
toxicity
category
IV
for
skin
irritation
potential,
then
the
chemical­
resistant
gloves
and
chemicalresistant
apron
can
be
eliminated
for
applicators
and
others
exposed
to
the
dilute.
Note
that
chemical­
resistant
eyewear
will
be
required
if
the
end­
use
product
is
classified
as
category
I
or
II
for
eye
irritation
potential.

Inhalation
For
the
occupational
handler
inhalation
exposure
and
risk
assessment,
the
MOEs
were
above
the
target
MOE
of
100
for
all
scenarios.

A
confirmatory
inhalation
toxicity
study
may
be
warranted
because
inhalation
MOEs
were
below
1,000
for
the
following
scenarios:

 
Small
process
water
systems,
liquid
pour:
ST/
IT
Inhalation
MOE
=
130
 
Agricultural
fogging,
mixing
and
loading:
ST/
IT
Inhalation
MOE
=
110
 
Medical
premises,
mopping:
ST/
IT
Inhalation
MOE
=
280
 
Wood
Preservation
(
non­
pressure
treatment),
blender/
sprayer:
ST/
IT/
LT
Inhalation
MOE
=
280
Occupational
Post­
Application/
Bystander
Risk
Summary
Dermal
Dermal
irritation
exposures
are
assumed
to
be
negligible
for
all
post­
application
occupational
scenarios,
except
those
associated
with
wood
preservation.
As
with
occupational
handlers,
dermal
irritation
exposures
and
risks
from
post­
application
activities
in
a
wood
preservation
treatment
facility
will
be
mitigated
using
default
personal
protective
equipment
requirements
based
on
the
toxicity
of
the
end­
use
product.
For
construction
workers
handling
treated
wood
the
MOEs
are
potentially
of
concern.
A
wipe
study
on
treated
wood
will
be
needed
to
refine
these
potential
exposures.

Inhalation
For
the
occupational
inhalation
post­
application
exposure
and
risk
assessment,
the
MOEs
were
above
the
target
MOE
of
100
for
all
scenarios
except
for
the
following
scenarios
listed
below.

 
Fogging
in
a
food
processing
plant:
The
8­
hr
MOE
from
2
to
10
hours
(
2
hour
reentry
interval)
=
8.

A
confirmatory
inhalation
toxicity
study
may
be
warranted
because
the
inhalation
MOE
was
below
1,000
(
additional
10x
uncertainty
factor
is
considered
because
of
the
lack
of
an
inhalation
route­
specific
toxicological
endpoint)
for
the
following
scenarios:

 
Fogging
in
a
hatchery:
The
8­
hr
MOE
from
0
to
8
hours
(
entering
immediately
after
fogging)
=
120.
 
Non­
pressure
treatment
wood
preservation,
clean­
up
worker:
ST/
IT/
LT
Inhalation
MOE
=
990
Page
7
of
97
Data
Limitations
and
Uncertainties:

There
are
a
number
of
uncertainties
associated
with
this
assessment
and
these
have
been
reiterated
from
Sections
4.2.3
(
residential)
and
6.4
(
occupational)
respectively.

The
data
limitations
and
uncertainties
associated
with
the
residential
handler
and
postapplication
exposure
assessments
include
the
following:

 
Surrogate
dermal
and
inhalation
unit
exposure
values
were
taken
from
the
proprietary
Chemical
Manufacturers
Association
(
CMA)
antimicrobial
exposure
study
(
USEPA,
1999:
DP
Barcode
D247642)
or
from
the
Pesticide
Handler
Exposure
Database
(
USEPA,
1998)
(
See
Appendix
B
for
summaries
of
these
data
sources).
Most
of
the
CMA
data
are
of
poor
quality
therefore,
AD
requests
that
confirmatory
monitoring
data
be
generated
to
support
the
values
used
in
these
assessments.
 
The
quantities
handled/
treated
were
estimated
based
on
information
from
various
sources,
including
HED's
Standard
Operating
Procedures
(
SOPs)
for
Residential
Exposure
Assessments
(
USEPA
2000
and
2001).
In
certain
cases,
no
standard
values
were
available
for
some
scenarios.
Assumptions
for
these
scenarios
were
based
on
AD
estimates
and
could
be
further
refined
from
input
from
registrants.
 
Some
labels
for
products
which
can
be
used
by
homeowners
in
residential
settings,
as
well
as
by
workers
in
occupational
settings,
indicate
that
low
pressure
sprayers
can
be
used
for
application
of
the
disinfectant
to
hard,
non­
porous
surfaces
such
as
floors
and
walls.
A
low
pressure
spray
scenario
was
not
assessed
for
the
residential
scenario
because
it
is
not
a
typical
cleaning
method
for
homeowners.
 
In
this
assessment,
incidental
ingestion
and
dermal
exposures
to
treated
wood
were
estimated
using
DDAC
data
from
an
occupational
exposure
study.
The
degree
of
uncertainty
(
under­
or
overestimation)
associated
with
using
the
DDAC
hand
residue
data
for
dermal
and
oral
exposure
from
contacting
treated
lumber
are
unknown.
The
amount
of
residue
measured
on
the
test
subjects
hands
is
variable
and
are
influenced
by
the
duration
of
exposure,
how
often
wood
is
contacted,
and
the
degree
of
contact
(
i.
e.,
do
the
hand
residues
from
the
DDAC
study
mimic
a
child's
play
activity
on
decks
and
playsets?).
A
wipe
study
on
treated
wood
is
needed
to
refine
these
estimates.
 
Available
data
to
assess
the
levels
of
DDAC
in
soil
contaminated
with
DDAC­
treated
wood
do
not
exist
at
this
time.
In
addition,
leaching
data
were
also
not
available.
Because
of
this
data
gap,
EPA
was
not
able
to
accurately
predict
dermal
and
incidental
ingestion
residential
post­
application
exposures
to
soil
contaminated
with
DDAC­
treated
wood.

The
data
limitations
and
uncertainties
associated
with
the
occupational
handler
and
postapplication
exposure
assessments
include:

 
Surrogate
dermal
and
inhalation
unit
exposure
values
were
taken
from
the
proprietary
Chemical
Manufacturers
Association
(
CMA)
antimicrobial
exposure
study
(
USEPA,
1999:
DP
Barcode
D247642)
or
from
the
Pesticide
Handler
Exposure
Database
(
USEPA,
1998)
(
See
Appendix
B
for
summaries
of
these
data
sources).
Since
the
CMA
data
are
of
poor
quality,
the
Agency
requests
that
confirmatory
data
be
submitted
to
support
the
occupational
scenarios
assessed
in
this
document.
 
Unit
exposures
are
not
available
for
some
of
the
specific
scenarios
that
are
prescribed
for
DDAC,
including
open
loading
into
oil­
well/
field
environments
Page
8
of
97
o
The
CMA
data
used
for
oil­
well
uses
are
based
on
open
pouring
of
a
material
preservative.
Although
these
data
are
only
represented
by
2
replicates
each,
the
exposure
values
are
similar
to
open
loading
of
pesticides
in
PHED.
Furthermore,
there
are
no
representative
unit
exposure
data
for
chemical
metering
into
secondary
recovery
oil
operations.
Since
the
volume
of
water
being
treated
in
secondary
recovery
operations
is
so
large,
the
available
CMA
data
can
not
be
reliably
extrapolated
because
they
are
based
on
activities
that
handle
much
lower
volumes
and
possibly
different
techniques.
Therefore,
it
was
assumed
that
if
the
open
pour
handling
activities
for
the
other
oil
well
operations
resulted
in
MOEs
that
are
not
of
concern,
then
the
MOEs
for
the
closed
system
chemical
metering
into
secondary
recovery
operations
would
also
be
not
of
concern.
AD
requests
that
confirmatory
data
be
conducted
to
show
that
this
is
accurate.
 
For
the
wood
preservative
pressure
treatment
scenarios,
CCA
exposure
data
were
used
for
lack
of
DDAC­
specific
exposure
data.
Limitations
and
uncertainties
associated
with
the
use
of
these
data
include:
o
The
assumption
was
made
that
exposure
patterns
for
workers
at
treatment
facilities
using
CCA
would
be
similar
to
exposure
patterns
for
workers
at
treatment
facilities
using
DDAC,
and
therefore
the
exposures
could
be
used
as
surrogate
data
for
workers
that
treat
wood
with
DDAC.
o
For
environmental
modeling,
it
was
assumed
that
the
leaching
process
from
the
DDAC
treated
wood
would
be
similar
to
that
of
CCA.
However,
due
to
the
lack
of
real
data
for
DDAC
­
treated
wood,
it
is
not
possible
to
verify
this
assumption.
 
The
quantities
handled/
treated
were
estimated
based
on
information
from
various
sources,
including
HED's
Standard
Operating
Procedures
(
SOPs)
for
Residential
Exposure
Assessments
(
USEPA
2000
and
2001)
and
personal
communication
with
experts.
In
particular,
the
use
information
for
oil­
well
uses
and
cooling
water
tower
uses
are
based
on
personal
communication
with
biocide
manufacturers
for
these
types
of
uses.
The
individuals
contacted
have
experience
in
these
operations
and
their
estimates
are
believed
to
be
the
best
available
without
undertaking
a
statistical
survey
of
the
uses.
In
certain
cases,
no
standard
values
were
available
for
some
scenarios.
Assumptions
for
these
scenarios
were
based
on
AD
estimates
and
could
be
further
refined
from
input
from
registrants.
 
The
percent
active
ingredient
in
solution
for
the
pressure
treatment
of
lumber
needs
to
be
refined
by
the
registrant.
The
labels
only
provided
a
retention
rate.
For
this
assessment,
the
application
rate
on
the
master
label
was
used,
which
is
the
same
as
the
application
rate
for
non­
pressure
treatment
of
lumber.
Page
9
of
97
1.0
INTRODUCTION
1.1
Purpose
In
this
document,
the
Antimicrobials
Division
(
AD)
presents
the
results
of
its
review
of
the
potential
human
health
effects
of
occupational
and
residential
exposure
to
DDAC.
This
information
is
for
use
in
EPA's
development
of
the
DDAC
Reregistration
Eligibility
Decision
(
RED)
document.

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
DDAC,
both
criteria
are
met.
Toxicological
endpoints
were
selected
for
short­
and
intermediate­
term
dermal,
inhalation,
and
incidental
oral
exposures
to
DDAC.
There
is
a
significant
potential
for
exposure
in
a
variety
of
occupational
and
residential
settings.
Therefore,
risk
assessments
are
required
for
occupational
and
residential
handlers
as
well
as
for
occupational
and
residential
postapplication
exposures
that
can
occur
as
a
result
of
DDAC
use.

In
this
document,
handler
scenarios
were
assessed
by
using
unit
exposure
data
to
estimate
occupational
and
residential
handlers'
exposures.
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
(
1
mg
=
1,000
µ
g)
of
active
ingredient
per
pounds
of
active
ingredient
handled.
A
series
of
unit
exposures
have
been
developed
that
are
unique
for
each
scenario
typically
considered
in
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
USEPA
and
international
organizations
such
as
Health
Canada
and
OECD
(
Organization
for
Economic
Cooperation
and
Development).

Using
surrogate
unit
exposure
data,
maximum
application
rates
from
labels,
and
EPA
estimates
of
daily
amount
handled,
exposures
and
risks
to
handlers
were
assessed.
The
exposure/
risks
were
calculated
using
the
following
equations:

Daily
Exposure:
Daily
dermal
and
inhalation
handler
exposures
are
estimated
for
each
applicable
handler
task
with
the
application
rate,
quantity
treated/
handled
in
a
day,
and
the
applicable
inhalation
unit
exposure
using
the
following
formula:

Daily
Inhalation
Exposure:
E
=
UE
x
AR
x
AT
(
Eq.
1a)

Where:
E
=
Amount
(
mg
ai/
day)
inhaled
that
is
available
for
inhalation
absorption;
UE
=
Hand
unit
exposure
value
(
mg
ai/
lb
ai)
derived
from
August
1998
PHED
data
or
from
1992
CMA
data;
Page
10
of
97
AR
=
Maximum
application
rate
based
on
a
logical
unit
treatment,
such
as
acres
(
A),
square
feet
(
sq.
ft.),
gallons
(
gal),
or
cubic
feet
(
cu.
ft).
Maximum
values
are
generally
used
(
lb
ai/
A,
lb
ai/
sq
ft,
lb
ai/
gal,
lb
ai/
cu
ft);
and
AT
=
Normalized
application
area
based
on
a
logical
unit
treatment
such
as
acres
(
A/
day),
square
feet
(
sq
ft/
day),
gallons
(
gal/
day),
or
cubic
feet
(
cu.
ft./
day).

Daily
Dermal
Skin
Irritation
Exposure:
E
=
UEhand/
SAhand
x
AR
x
AT
(
Eq.
1b)

Where:
E
=
Amount
(
mg
ai/
cm2)
deposited
on
the
surface
of
the
skin;
UEhand
=
Unit
exposure
value
(
mg
ai/
lb
ai)
derived
from
August
1998
PHED
data
or
from
1992
CMA
data;
SAhand
=
Surface
area
of
two
hands
(
820
cm2);
AR
=
Maximum
application
rate
based
on
a
logical
unit
treatment,
such
as
acres
(
A),
square
feet
(
sq.
ft.),
gallons
(
gal),
or
cubic
feet
(
cu.
ft).
Maximum
values
are
generally
used
(
lb
ai/
A,
lb
ai/
sq
ft,
lb
ai/
gal,
lb
ai/
cu
ft);
and
AT
=
Normalized
application
area
based
on
a
logical
unit
treatment
such
as
acres
(
A/
day),
square
feet
(
sq
ft/
day),
gallons
(
gal/
day),
or
cubic
feet
(
cu.
ft./
day).

Daily
Dose:
The
inhalation
dose
is
calculated
by
normalizing
the
daily
exposure
by
body
weight
and
adjusting,
if
necessary,
with
an
appropriate
absorption
factor.
An
absorption
factor
of
100%
was
used
for
inhalation
exposures.
A
daily
dose
is
not
calculated
for
dermal
exposures,
because
the
dermal
endpoint
selected
is
based
on
irritation
effects,
not
systemic
effects.
Daily
dose
was
calculated
using
the
following
formula:

Daily
Dose:
ADD
=
E
x
ABS
(
Eq.
2)
BW
Where:
ADD
=
Average
daily
dose
or
the
absorbed
dose
received
from
exposure
to
a
chemical
in
a
given
scenario
(
mg
active
ingredient/
kg
body
weight/
day);
E
=
Amount
(
mg
ai/
day)
inhaled
that
is
available
for
inhalation
absorption;
ABS
=
A
measure
of
the
amount
of
chemical
that
crosses
a
biological
boundary
such
as
lungs
(%
of
the
total
available
absorbed);
and
BW
=
Body
weight
determined
to
represent
the
population
of
interest
in
a
risk
assessment
(
kg).

Margins
of
Exposure:
Non­
cancer
inhalation
risks
for
each
applicable
handler
scenario
are
calculated
using
a
Margin
of
Exposure
(
MOE).
This
is
the
ratio
of
the
daily
inhalation
dose
or
dermal
exposure
to
the
toxicological
endpoint
of
concern.

Margins
of
Exposure
(
inhalation):
MOE
=
NOAEL
or
LOAEL
(
Eq.
3a)
ADD
Where:
MOE
=
Margin
of
exposure,
value
used
to
represent
risk
or
how
close
a
chemical
exposure
is
to
being
a
concern
(
unitless);
NOAEL
or
LOAEL
=
Systemic
toxicity
level
where
no
observed
adverse
effects
(
NOAEL)
or
where
the
lowest
observed
adverse
effects
(
LOAEL)
occurred
in
the
study
(
mg
ai/
kg
body
weight/
day);
and
ADD
=
Average
daily
inhalation
dose
in
a
given
scenario
(
mg
ai/
kg
body
weight/
day).

Margins
of
Exposure
(
dermal):
MOE
=
NOAEL
or
LOAEL
(
Eq.
3b)
E
Page
11
of
97
Where:
MOE
=
Margin
of
exposure,
value
used
to
represent
risk
or
how
close
a
chemical
exposure
is
to
being
a
concern
(
unitless);
NOAEL
or
LOAEL
=
Irritation
toxicity
level
where
no
observed
adverse
effects
(
NOAEL)
or
where
the
lowest
observed
adverse
effects
(
LOAEL)
occurred
in
the
study
(:
g/
cm2);
and
E
=
Dermal
skin
irritation
exposure
in
a
given
scenario
(:
g/
cm2).

In
addition
to
the
target
MOEs
presented
in
Table
3.2
that
were
used
for
the
analysis,
a
series
of
assumptions
and
exposure
factors
served
as
the
basis
for
completing
the
handler
risk
assessment.
Each
general
assumption
and
factor
for
both
residential
and
occupational
assessments
is
detailed
below.
Assumptions
specific
to
the
use
site
category
are
listed
in
each
separate
section
of
this
document.
The
general
assumptions
and
factors
include:

 
DDAC
products
are
widely
used
and
have
a
large
number
of
use
patterns
that
are
difficult
to
completely
capture
in
this
document.
As
such,
AD
has
patterned
this
risk
assessment
on
a
series
of
likely
representative
scenarios
for
each
use
site
that
are
believed
by
AD
to
represent
the
vast
majority
of
DDAC
uses.
 
Based
on
the
adverse
effects
for
the
endpoints,
the
average
body
weight
of
a
female
adult
handler
(
60
kg)
was
used
for
the
inhalation
risk
assessment.
 
Exposure
factors
used
to
calculate
daily
exposures
to
handlers
were
based
on
applicable
data,
if
available.
When
appropriate
data
were
lacking,
values
from
a
scenario
deemed
similar
were
used.
 
The
maximum
application
rates
allowed
by
labels
were
assumed.

1.3
Chemical
Identification
The
Group
I
Quat
Cluster
(
DDAC)
is
a
group
of
structurally
similar
quaternary
ammonium
compounds
("
quats")
that
are
characterized
by
having
a
positively
charged
nitrogen
covalently
bonded
to
two
alkyl
group
substituents
(
at
least
one
C8
or
longer)
and
two
methyl
substituents.
In
finished
form,
these
quats
are
salts
with
the
positively
charged
nitrogen
(
cation)
balanced
by
a
negatively
charged
molecule
(
anion).
The
anion
for
the
quats
in
this
cluster
is
chloride
or
bromide.

Currently,
there
are
4
active
ingredients
identified
by
the
Agency
that
are
registered
and
included
in
Case
Number
350.
Table
1.1
below
provides
the
common
chemical
name,
active
ingredient
code,
CAS
number,
and
chemical
structure.

Table
1.1.
Active
Ingredients
in
the
Group
I
Quat
Cluster
Identified
by
the
AIJV
Prod
Code
CAS
RN
Name
Structure
Chain
Lengths
69149
7173­
51­
5
Didecyl
Dimethyl
Ammonium
Chloride
(
DDAC)
N+

CH3
CH3
R
Cl­
R
R
=
C10
69166
5538­
94­
3
Dioctyl
Dimethyl
Ammonium
Chloride
N+

CH3
CH3
R
Cl­
R
R
=
C8
Page
12
of
97
Table
1.1.
Active
Ingredients
in
the
Group
I
Quat
Cluster
Identified
by
the
AIJV
Prod
Code
CAS
RN
Name
Structure
Chain
Lengths
69165
32426­
11­
2
Octyl
Decyl
Dimethyl
Ammonium
Chloride
N+

CH3
CH3
R1
Cl­
R2
R1
=
C8
(
variable
%)
R2
=
C10
(
variable
%)

69146
84540­
07­
8
Alkyl
Dimethyl
Ethyl
Ammonium
Bromide
N+

CH3
CH3
R
Br­
H3C
R
=
C12
(
5%)
C14
(
90%)
C16
(
5%)

1.4
Physical/
Chemical
Properties
Table
1.2
shows
physical/
chemical
characteristics
that
have
been
reported
for
DDAC.

Table
1.2.
Physical/
Chemical
Properties
of
DDAC
Parameter
DDAC
Molecular
Weight
362.08
Density
0.9216
g/
cm3
at
25
C
Boiling
Point
NA
Water
Solubility
Completely
soluble
Vapor
Pressure
2.33E­
11
mmHg
2.0
USE
INFORMATION
2.1
Formulation
Types
and
Percent
Active
Ingredient
The
products
containing
DDAC
as
the
active
ingredient
(
a.
i)
are
formulated
as
liquid
ready­
to­
use,
soluble
concentrate,
pressurized
liquid,
and
water
soluble
packaging.
Concentrations
of
DDAC
in
these
products
range
from
0.08%
to
80%
as
reported
on
the
Master
Label
spreadsheet
(
Appendix
A).

2.2
Summary
of
Use
Pattern
and
Formulations
The
Agency
determines
potential
exposures
to
handlers
of
the
product
by
identifying
exposure
scenarios
from
the
various
application
methods
that
are
plausible,
given
the
label
uses.
These
scenarios
are
identified
in
Appendix
A.
Based
on
a
review
of
product
labels,
DDAC
is
the
active
ingredient
in
products
used
in
the
following
use
site
categories:
I
(
Agricultural
premises
and
equipment),
II
(
Food
handling/
storage
establishments
premises
and
equipment),
III
(
Commercial,
institutional
and
industrial
premises
and
equipment),
IV
(
Residential
and
public
access
premises),
V
(
Medical
premises
and
equipment),
VIII
(
Industrial
processes
and
water
systems),
X
(
Wood
preservatives),
XI
(
Swimming
pools),
and
XII
(
Aquatic
Areas).
Page
13
of
97
From
the
scenarios
in
Appendix
A,
AD
selected
representative
exposure
scenarios
to
assess
the
labeled
uses
of
DDAC
in
this
document.
These
scenarios
were
selected
to
be
representative
of
the
vast
majority
of
uses
and
are
believed
to
provide
high­
end
degrees
of
dermal,
inhalation,
or
incidental
ingestion
exposure.
The
representative
scenarios
assessed
in
this
document
are
shown
in
Table
4.1
(
residential)
and
Table
6.1
(
occupational).

3.0
SUMMARY
OF
TOXICITY
DATA
3.1
Acute
Toxicity
The
acute
toxicity
data
for
DDAC
are
summarized
below
in
Table
3.1
(
USEPA,
2006).

Table
2.
Acute
Toxicity
Profile
for
DDAC
Guideline
Number
Study
Type/
Test
substance
(%
a.
i.)
MRID
Number/
Citation
Results
Toxicity
Category
870.1100
(
§
81­
1)
Acute
oral,
rat
(
Purity
65%)
MRID
41394404
LD50
=
262
mg/
kg
(
combined)
II
870.1100
(
§
81­
1)
Acute
oral,
rat
(
Purity
80%)
MRID
42296101
LD50
=
238
mg/
kg
(
combined)
II
870.1200
(
§
81­
2)
Acute
dermal,
rabbit
(
Purity
65%)
MRID
42053801
LD50
=
2930
mg/
kg
(
combined)
III
870.1300
(
§
81­
3)
Acute
inhalation,
rat
(
Purity
not
reported)
MRID
00145074
TRID
455201010
LC50
=
0.07
mg/
L
(
combined)
I
870.2400
(
§
81­
4)
Primary
eye
irritation,
rabbit
(
Purity
80%
a.
i.)
MRID
42161602
Corrosive.
I
870.2500
(
§
81­
5)
Primary
dermal
irritation,
rabbit
(
Purity
80%)
MRID
42161601
Corrosive.
I
870.2600
(
§
81­
6)
Dermal
sensitization,
guinea
pigs
(
Purity
80%)
MRID
46367601
Not
a
sensitizer.
NA
3.2
Summary
of
Toxicity
Endpoints
Table
3.2
summarizes
the
toxicological
endpoints
for
DDAC
(
USEPA,
2006).
The
specific
MRID
numbers
for
toxicity
studies
are
referenced
in
USEPA
2006
and
not
repeated
in
this
document.

Table
3.2
Summary
of
Toxicological
Endpoints
for
DDAC
Exposure
Scenario
Dose
Used
in
Risk
Assessment
(
mg/
kg/
day)
Target
MOE/
UF,
Special
FQPA
SF
for
Risk
Assessment
Study
and
Toxicological
Effects
NOAEL(
developmenta
l)
=
10
mg/
kg/
day
FQPA
SF
=
1
UF
=
100
(
10x
inter­
species
extrapolation,
10x
intra­
species
variation)
Prenatal
Developmental
Toxicity
­
Rat
MRID
41886701
LOAEL
=
20
mg/
kg/
day
based
on
increased
incidence
of
skeletal
variations.
Acute
Dietary
(
Females
13­
50)

Acute
RfD
=
0.1
mg/
kg/
day
(
for
Females
age
13­
50)
Page
14
of
97
Table
3.2
Summary
of
Toxicological
Endpoints
for
DDAC
Exposure
Scenario
Dose
Used
in
Risk
Assessment
(
mg/
kg/
day)
Target
MOE/
UF,
Special
FQPA
SF
for
Risk
Assessment
Study
and
Toxicological
Effects
Acute
Dietary
(
general
population)
An
acute
dietary
endpoint
was
not
identified
in
the
data
base.
This
risk
assessment
is
not
required
NOAEL
=
10
mg/
kg/
day
FQPA
SF
=
1
UF
=
100
(
10x
inter­
species
extrapolation,
10x
intra­
species
variation
Chronic
Toxicity
Study
­
Dog
MRID
41970401
LOAEL
=
20
mg/
kg/
day
based
on
increased
incidence
of
clinical
signs
in
males
and
females
and
decreased
total
cholesterol
levels
in
females.
Chronic
Dietary
(
general
population)

Chronic
RfD
=
0.1
mg/
kg/
day
Non­
Dietary
Exposures
Incidental
Oral
Short­
Term
NOAEL
(
developmental)
=
10
mg/
kg/
day
Target
MOE
=
100
(
10x
interspecies
extrapolation,
10x
intraspecies
variation)
FQPA
SF
=
1
Prenatal
Developmental
Toxicity
­
Rat
MRID
41886701
LOAEL
=
20
mg/
kg/
day
based
on
increased
incidence
of
skeletal
variations.

Incidental
Oral
Intermediate­
Term
NOAEL
=
10
mg/
kg/
day
Target
MOE
=
100
(
10x
interspecies
extrapolation,
10x
intraspecies
variation)
FQPA
SF
=
1
Chronic
Toxicity
Study
­
Dog
MRID
41970401
LOAEL
=
20
mg/
kg/
day
based
on
increased
incidence
of
clinical
signs
in
males
and
females
and
decreased
total
cholesterol
levels
in
females.

Dermal,
Short­
term
(
formulated
product,
0.13%
a.
i.)
No
endpoint
identified.
No
dermal
or
systemic
effects
identified
in
the
21­
day
dermal
toxicity
study
(
MRID
45656601)
up
to
and
including
the
limit
dose
of
1000
mg/
kg/
day
Dermal,
Short­
term
(
TGAI
80%
diluted
to
0.1%
ai)
NOAEL(
dermal)
=
2
mg
ai/
kg/
day
(
4
µ
g
ai/
cm2)
a
Target
MOE
=
100
(
10x
interspecies
extrapolation,
10x
intraspecies
variation)
90­
day
Dermal
Toxicity
­
Rat
MRID
41305901
LOAEL
=
6
mg
ai/
kg/
day
based
on
increased
clinical
and
gross
findings
(
erythema,
edema,
exfoliation,
excoriation,
and
ulceration)

Dermal,
Intermediateand
Long­
term
(
formulated
product)
No
appropriate
endpoint
identified.
Page
15
of
97
Table
3.2
Summary
of
Toxicological
Endpoints
for
DDAC
Exposure
Scenario
Dose
Used
in
Risk
Assessment
(
mg/
kg/
day)
Target
MOE/
UF,
Special
FQPA
SF
for
Risk
Assessment
Study
and
Toxicological
Effects
Inhalation,
Short­
Term
NOAEL
b
=
10
mg/
kg/
day
Target
MOE
=
100
(
10x
interspecies
extrapolation,
10x
intraspecies
variation)
FQPA
SF
=
1
Prenatal
Developmental
Toxicity
­
Rat
MRID
41886701
LOAEL
=
20
mg/
kg/
day
based
on
increased
incidence
of
skeletal
variations.

Inhalation,
Intermediate­
and
Long­
Term
NOAEL
b
=
10
mg/
kg/
day
Target
MOE
=
100
(
10x
interspecies
extrapolation,
10x
intraspecies
variation)
FQPA
SF
=
1
Chronic
Toxicity
Study
­
Dog
MRID
41970401
LOAEL
=
20
mg/
kg/
day
based
on
increased
incidence
of
clinical
signs
in
males
and
females
and
decreased
total
cholesterol
levels
in
females.

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.
a
Short­
term
dermal
endpoint
=
(
2
mg/
kg
rat
x
0.2
kg
rat
x
1000
ug/
mg)
/
50
cm2
area
of
rat
dosed
=
8
µ
g/
cm2.
b
an
additional
uncertainty
factor
of
10x
is
used
for
route
extrapolation
from
an
oral
endpoint
to
determine
if
a
confirmatory
study
is
warranted.

3.3
FQPA
Considerations
The
Agency
(
USEPA,
2006)
decided
that
the
FQPA
safety
factor
be
removed
for
DDAC,
based
upon
the
existence
of
a
complete
developmental
and
reproductive
toxicity
database
and
the
lack
of
evidence
for
increased
susceptibility
in
these
data.

4.0
RESIDENTIAL
EXPOSURE
ASSESSMENT
4.1
Summary
of
Registered
Uses
Products
containing
DDAC
can
be
used
as
general
cleaners,
disinfectants,
and
deodorizers.
These
products
are
primarily
for
use
on
indoor
surfaces
such
as
hard
floors,
carpets,
walls,
bathroom
fixtures,
trash
cans,
toilet
bowls,
and
household
contents.
Additionally,
other
uses
in
the
home
include
liquid
laundry
deodorizers
that
are
added
to
the
final
rinse
of
the
wash
cycle,
algaecide/
bacteriocides
that
are
added
to
portable
humidifiers
and
swimming
pools,
and
deodorizers
that
are
sprayed
on
fabric.
Residents
may
also
be
exposed
to
items
that
have
been
treated
with
DDAC
in
occupational
settings,
such
as
dimensional
lumber
for
decks
and
play
sets.
Appendix
A
presents
a
summary
of
all
exposure
scenarios
that
may
occur
in
residential
settings
based
on
examination
of
product
labels.
Table
4.1
identifies
the
representative
exposure
scenarios
assessed
in
this
document.

4.2
Residential
Exposure
The
exposure
scenarios
assessed
in
this
document
for
the
representative
uses
selected
by
AD
are
shown
in
Table
4.1.
The
table
also
shows
the
maximum
application
rate
associated
Page
16
of
97
with
the
representative
use
and
the
EPA
Registration
number
for
the
corresponding
product
label.
It
should
be
noted
that
for
the
calculation
of
application
rates
in
which
the
density
of
the
product
is
noted
as
8.34
lb/
gal,
the
product
is
assumed
to
have
the
density
of
water
because
no
product­
specific
density
is
available.
Handler
exposures
were
assessed
for
the
application
of
DDAC
to
indoor
hard
surfaces,
carpets,
humidifiers,
and
swimming
pools.
Post­
application
exposures
were
assessed
for
dermal
and/
or
oral
contact
with
treated
surfaces
including
hard
floors,
carpets,
textiles,
lumber,
and
pool
water.
Post­
application/
bystander
inhalation
exposures
were
assessed
for
the
humidifier
use.
DDAC
has
a
low
vapor
pressure,
and
therefore,
inhalation
exposure
is
to
the
aerosol
generation.

Table
4.1.
Representative
Uses
Associated
with
Residential
Exposure
Representative
Use
Application
Method
Exposure
Scenario
Registration
#
Application
Rate
Indoor
Hard
Surfaces
 
Mopping
 
Wiping
 
Trigger
pump
spray
ST
Handler:
adult
dermala
and
inhalation
ST
Post­
app:
child
incidental
ingestion
and
dermal
>
10%
ai
10324­
134
1
to
10%
ai
10324­
80
<
1%
ai
NAb
>
10%
ai
0.0200
lb
a.
i./
gal
(
2
oz
product/
gal
water
x
15.36%
a.
i.
x
8.34
lb/
gal
x
1
gal/
128
oz)

1
to
10%
ai
0.0043
lb
ai/
gal
(
3.3%
ai
x
8.34
lb/
gal
x
2
oz/
gal
x
1
gal/
128
oz)

Carpets
 
Low
pressure
spray
ST
Handler:
adult
dermala
and
inhalation
ST
Post­
app:
child
incidental
ingestion
and
dermal
>
10%
ai
10324­
108
1
to
10%
ai
10324­
81
<
1%
ai
NAb
>
10%
ai
0.0085
lb
ai/
gal
13.02%
ai
x
8.34
lb/
gal
x
1
oz/
gal
x
1
gal
/
128
oz)

1
to
10%
ai
0.0088
lb
ai/
gal
(
4.5%
ai
x
8.34
lb/
gal
x
3
oz/
gal
x
1
gal/
128
oz)
Swimming
pool
 
Liquid
pour
ST
Handler:
adult
dermala
and
inhalation
ST
Post­
app:
ingestion
(
child
and
adult)
>
10%
ai
10324­
69
1
to
10%
ai
1839­
133
<
1%
ai
No
products
HANDLERS
>
10%
ai
Heavy
algae:
0.000017
lb
ai/
gal
(
3
ppm)
(
50.0%
x
5.25
oz/
10,000
gal
x
8.34
lb/
gal
x
1
gal/
128
oz)

1
to
10%
ai
Winterizing:
0.0000167
lb
ai/
gal
(
10.0%
x
128
oz/
50,000
gal
x
8.34
lb/
gal
x
1
gal/
128
oz)

POST­
APPLICATION
Heavy
algae:
0.0000488
lb
ai/
gal
(
6
ppm)
Page
17
of
97
Table
4.1.
Representative
Uses
Associated
with
Residential
Exposure
Representative
Use
Application
Method
Exposure
Scenario
Registration
#
Application
Rate
(
50.0%
x
15
oz/
10,000
gal
x
8.34
lb/
gal
x
1
gal/
128
oz)
Contacting
Preserved
Wood
 
NAc
ST
Post­
app:
child
incidental
ingestion
and
dermal
6836­
212
NA
Wearing
clothing
and
diapers
treated
during
final
rinse
cycle
of
wash
 
NAd
ST
Post­
app:
adult
dermal;
child
incidental
ingestion
and
dermal
1677­
109
0.000733
lb
ai/
lbs
dry
fabric
(
50.0%
x
2.25
oz/
100
lbs
dry
fabric
x
8.34
lb/
gal
x
1
gal/
128
oz)

Wearing
clothing
treated
with
fabric
spray
 
NAe
ST
Post­
app:
adult
dermal;
child
incidental
ingestion
and
dermal
3573­
69
0.011
lb
ai/
gal
(
0.13%
ai
x
8.34
lb/
gal)

Humidifier
 
Liquid
pour
ST
Handler:
adult
dermala
and
inhalation
ST
Post­
app:
child
and
adult
inhalation
10324­
80
0.0043
lb
ai/
gal
(
3.3%
ai
x
8.34
lb/
gal
x
2
oz/
gal
x
1
gal/
128
oz)

a
The
dermal
risks
are
based
on
the
short­
term
dermal
endpoint
(
i.
e.,
rat
study)
regardless
of
the
percent
active
ingredient
in
the
product.
b
Application
rates
for
products
with
<
1%
ai
are
not
needed
because
dermal
irritation
exposures
are
not
assessed
for
products
with
<
1%
ai
and
the
inhalation
exposures
are
assessed
with
the
maximum
application
for
all
products.
c
The
handlers
scenarios
were
not
assessed
because
the
products
can
only
be
used
by
occupational
handlers.
d
Handler
exposures
for
application
to
laundry
are
represented
by
the
application
to
humidifiers.
e
Handler
exposures
were
not
assessed
because
products
contain
<
1%
ai.

4.2.1
Residential
Handler
Exposures
The
residential
handler
scenarios
described
in
Table
4.1
were
assessed
to
determine
dermal
and
inhalation
exposures.
The
scenarios
were
assessed
using
PHED
and
CMA
data
and
the
equations
in
Section
1.2,
"
Criteria
for
Conducting
Risk
Assessment."
A
summary
of
the
PHED
and
CMA
data
sets
are
presented
in
Appendix
B.

Unit
Exposure
Values:
Unit
exposure
values
were
taken
from
the
PHED
data
presented
in
HED's
Residential
SOPs
(
USEPA,
1997)
and
from
the
CMA
data
from
the
EPA
memorandum
Evaluation
of
Chemical
Manufacturers
Association
Antimicrobial
Exposure
Assessment
Study
(
USEPA,
1999).
Page
18
of
97
$
For
the
mopping
scenario,
the
CMA
dermal
(
hand)
and
inhalation
unit
exposure
values
for
ungloved
mopping
were
used
(
52
mg/
lb
a.
i.
and
2.38
mg/
lb
a.
i.,
respectively).
After
normalization
for
the
surface
area
of
the
hand
(
820
cm2),
the
dermal
unit
exposure
value
is
0.063
mg/
lb
a.
i/
cm2.
These
values
are
based
on
data
collected
from
six
replicates
mopping
floors
and
receiving
exposure
via
contact
with
the
mop
or
with
the
bucket.

$
For
the
wiping
scenario,
the
CMA
dermal
(
hand)
and
inhalation
unit
exposure
values
for
ungloved
wiping
were
used
(
1,100
mg/
lb
a.
i.
and
67.3
mg/
lb
a.
i.,
respectively).
After
normalization
for
the
surface
area
of
the
hand
(
820
cm2),
the
dermal
unit
exposure
value
is
1.34
mg/
lb
a.
i/
cm2.
These
values
are
based
on
data
collected
from
six
replicates
(
dental
technicians)
who
used
a
finger
pump
sprayer
to
apply
the
product
and
then
wiped
the
surfaces
with
a
paper
towel.

$
For
trigger
pump
scenarios,
the
PHED
dermal
(
hand)
and
inhalation
unit
exposure
values
are
106
mg/
lb
a.
i.
and
2.4
mg/
lb
a.
i.,
respectively.
After
normalization
for
the
surface
area
of
the
hand
(
820
cm2),
the
dermal
unit
exposure
value
is
0.129
mg/
lb
a.
i/
cm2.
The
values
are
based
on
homeowners
applying
an
insecticide
packaged
in
an
aerosol
can
to
baseboards
in
kitchens
and
are
representative
of
a
handler
wearing
short
pants
and
a
short
sleeve
shirt,
with
no
gloves.

$
For
low
pressure
handwand,
the
CMA
dermal
(
hand)
and
inhalation
unit
exposure
values
for
ungloved
use
of
a
low
pressure
spray
are
132
and
0.681
mg/
lb
a.
i.,
respectively.
After
normalization
for
the
surface
area
of
the
hand
(
820
cm2),
the
dermal
unit
exposure
value
is
0.161
mg/
lb
a.
i/
cm2.
The
values
are
based
on
data
collected
from
eight
replicates
who
hand
sprayed
carpet
using
200
psi,
then
used
a
push
broom
rake
to
raise
the
carpet
nap.

$
For
liquid
pour
in
swimming
pool
and
humidifier
scenarios,
the
cooling
tower
CMA
data
for
liquid
pour
was
used
for
dermal
exposures.
This
set
of
data
was
used
because
no
other
CMA
data
sets
represent
ungloved
replicates
pouring
liquid.
The
dermal
hand
unit
exposure
value
is
0.196
mg/
lb
a.
i.
After
normalization
for
the
surface
area
of
the
hand
(
820
cm2),
the
dermal
unit
exposure
value
is
0.000239
mg/
lb
a.
i/
cm2.
For
inhalation
exposures,
the
CMA
preservative
data
were
used
for
swimming
pool
exposures.
The
inhalation
unit
exposure
is
0.00346
mg/
lb
a.
i.
and
is
based
on
2
replicates.
Although
this
unit
exposure
is
based
on
minimal
replicates,
the
exposure
value
is
similar
to
the
one
found
in
PHED
for
a
similar
scenarios.
For
the
humidifier
tank
scenario,
CMA
data
for
liquid
pour
of
disinfectants
were
used.
The
inhalation
unit
exposure
value
is
1.89
mg/
lb
a.
i.
The
value
is
based
on
data
collected
from
two
gloved
replicates
involving
pouring
a
disinfectant
product
from
a
jug
into
sterilization
trays
designed
for
dental
instruments,
adding
water
and
instruments
to
the
tray,
removing
the
instruments,
and
discarding
the
old
solution.

Quantity
handled/
treated:
The
quantities
handled/
treated
were
estimated
based
on
information
from
various
sources,
including
the
Antimicrobial
Division's
estimates.

$
For
mopping
scenarios,
it
is
assumed
that
1
gallon
of
diluted
solution
is
used.

$
For
wiping
and
trigger
pump
spray
scenarios,
it
is
assumed
that
0.5
liter
(
0.13
gal)
of
diluted
solution
is
used.

$
For
low
pressure
hand
wand,
it
was
assumed
that
2
gallons
are
used
in
all
indoor
applications.
Page
19
of
97
$
For
liquid
pour
in
swimming
pool
scenario,
it
was
assumed
that
a
residential
pool
contains
20,000
gallons
of
water.

$
For
liquid
pour
in
humidifier
scenario,
it
was
assumed
that
a
humidifier
with
a
11
gallon
tank
would
be
treated,
based
on
Holmes
Model#
HM4600­
U­
11.
This
humidifier
releases
11
gallons/
1,700
ft2/
24
hours
(
http://
www.
holmesproducts.
com/
estore/
product.
aspx?
CatalogId=
3&
CategoryId=
112
0&
ProductId=
582).

Duration
of
Exposure:
The
duration
of
exposure
for
most
homeowner
exposures
is
believed
to
be
best
represented
by
the
short­
term
duration
(
1
to
30
days).
The
reason
that
short
term
duration
was
chosen
to
be
assessed
is
because
the
different
handler
and
post­
application
scenarios
are
assumed
to
be
episodic,
not
daily.
In
addition,
homeowners
are
assumed
to
use
different
products
with
varying
activities,
not
exclusively
DDAC
treated
products.

Results
The
resulting
short­
term
exposures
and
MOEs
for
the
representative
residential
handler
scenarios
are
presented
in
Tables
4.2
(
inhalation)
and
4.3
(
dermal).
The
calculated
inhalation
MOEs
are
above
the
target
MOE
of
100
for
all
scenarios.
The
calculated
dermal
MOEs
are
above
the
target
MOE
of
100
for
all
scenarios.
A
confirmatory
inhalation
toxicity
study
may
be
warranted
because
inhalation
MOE
was
below
1,000
for
the
wiping
scenario
(
MOE
=
820).
The
dermal
MOEs
were
below
the
target
MOE
of
100
for
all
scenarios
except
for
the
humidifier
and
swimming
pool
applications.

Table
4.2
Short­
Term
Residential
Handler
Inhalation
Exposures
and
MOEs
Exposure
Scenario
Application
Method
Application
Method
Application
Ratea
(
lb
ai/
gallon)
Quantity
Handled/
Treated
per
dayb
(
gallons)
Unit
Exposure
(
mg/
lb
a.
i.)
Absorbed
Daily
Dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
c
MOE
d
(
Target
MOE
=
100)

Mopping
0.020
1
2.38
0.00079
13,000
Wiping
0.020
0.13
67.3
0.0029
3,400
Application
to
indoor
hard
surfaces
Trigger
Spray
0.020
0.13
2.4
0.00010
96,000
Application
to
Carpets
Low
Pressure
Spray
0.0088
2
0.681
0.012
50,000
Application
to
Swimming
Pools
Liquid
Pour
0.000017
20,000
0.00346
0.00002
510,000
Application
to
Humidifers
Liquid
Pour
0.0043
11
1.89
0.0015
6,700
a
Application
rates
are
the
maximum
application
rates
determined
from
EPA
registered
labels
for
DDAC.
b
Amount
handled
per
day
values
are
estimates
or
label
instructions.
c
Absorbed
Daily
dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
=
[
unit
exposure
(
mg/
lb
a.
i.)
x
application
rate
(
lb
ai/
gal)
x
quantity
treated
(
gal/
day)
x
absorption
factor
(
1.0
for
inhalation)]/
Body
weight
(
60
kg
for
inhalation).
d
MOE
=
NOAEL
/
Absorbed
Daily
Dose.
[
Where
short­
term
NOAEL
=
10
mg/
kg/
day
for
inhalation].
Target
MOE
=
100.
Page
20
of
97
Table
4.3
Short­
Term
Residential
Handler
Dermal
Risks
Exposure
Scenario
Application
Method
Application
Ratea
(
lb
ai/
gal)
Quantity
Handled/
Treated
per
dayb
(
gallon)
Hand
Unit
Exposure
Adjusted
for
Surface
Area
(
mg/
lb
ai/
cm2)
c
Dermal
Skin
Irritation
Exposure
d
(:
g/
cm2)
MOE
e
(
Target
MOE
=
100)

Products
with
<
1%
DDAC
No
dermal
endpoint
identified
for
products
with
<
1%
DDAC
Products
with
1
to
10%
DDAC
(
NOAEL
=
8
µ
g/
cm2)

Mopping
0.0043
1
0.063
0.273
29
Wiping
0.0043
0.13
1.341
0.750
11
Application
to
indoor
hard
surfaces
Trigger
Spray
0.0043
0.13
0.129
0.072
110
Application
to
Carpets
Low
Pressure
Spray
0.0088
2
0.161
2.832
3
Humidifier
Liquid
Pour
0.0043
11
0.000239
0.011
710
Application
to
swimming
pools
Liquid
Pour
0.000017
20,000
0.000239
0.080
98
Products
with
>
10%
DDAC
(
NOAEL
=
8
µ
g/
cm2)

Mopping
0.020
1
0.063
1.27
6
Wiping
0.020
0.13
1.341
3.49
2
Application
to
indoor
hard
surfaces
Trigger
Spray
0.020
0.13
0.129
0.34
24
Application
to
Carpets
Low
Pressure
Spray
0.0085
2
0.161
2.731
3
Application
to
swimming
pools
Liquid
Pour
0.000017
20,000
0.000239
0.08
98
a
Application
rates
are
the
maximum
application
rates
determined
from
EPA
registered
labels
for
DDAC.
b
Amount
handled
per
day
values
are
estimates
or
label
instructions.
c
Unit
Exposure
(
mg/
lb
ai/
cm2)
=
Hand
unit
exposure
from
PHED
or
CMA
(
mg/
lb
ai)
/
surface
area
of
hand
(
820
cm2).
d
Dermal
Skin
Irritation
Exposure
(:
g/
lb
ai/
cm2)
=
Unit
Exposure
(
mg/
lb
ai/
cm2)
x
Application
Rate
(
lb
ai/
gal)
x
Quantity
Treated
(
gal/
day)
x
1,000
:
g/
mg
e
MOE
=
NOAEL
(:
g/
cm2)/
Dermal
Skin
Irritation
Exposure
(:
g/
cm2).
[
Where
short­
term
dermal
NOAEL
=
8
µ
g/
cm2].
Target
MOE
=
100.

4.2.2
Residential
Post­
application
Exposures
For
the
purposes
of
this
screening
level
assessment,
post­
application
scenarios
have
been
developed
that
encompass
multiple
products,
but
still
represent
a
high
end
exposure
scenario
for
all
products
represented.
As
shown
in
Table
4.1,
representative
post­
application
scenarios
assessed
include
crawling
on
treated
hard
surfaces,
carpets,
and
treated
lumber
such
as
decks/
play
sets
(
dermal
and
incidental
oral
exposure
to
children),
wearing
treated
clothing
from
wash
treatment
and
from
spray
treatment
(
dermal
exposure
to
adults
and
children
and
incidental
oral
exposure
to
children),
using
portable
humidifiers
(
adult
and
child
inhalation
exposure),
and
swimming
in
treated
pools
(
adult
and
child
incidental
ingestion).

Since
no
toxicological
endpoint
of
concern
was
identified
for
dermal
systemic
adverse
effects,
post­
application
dermal
risks
were
assessed
using
the
toxicological
endpoint
of
concern
for
dermal
irritation.
The
residential
post­
application
dermal
risks
were
assessed
by
comparing
the
surface
residue
on
the
skin
(
dermal
skin
irritation
exposure)
to
the
short­
term
dermal
irritation
endpoint.
It
was
assumed
that
during
the
exposure
period,
the
skin
repeatedly
contacts
the
treated
surface
until
a
steady­
state
concentration
of
residues
is
achieved
on
the
skin.
Page
21
of
97
4.2.2.1
Hard
Surface
Floor
and
Carpets
Dermal
Exposure
to
Children
from
Treated
Hard
Floors
and
Carpets
Exposure
Calculations
There
is
the
potential
for
dermal
exposure
to
toddlers
crawling
on
hard
floors
and
carpets
after
mopping
or
cleaning
with
DDAC.
Risks
were
calculated
for
children
contacting
treated
floors
in
residential
homes.
To
determine
toddler
exposure
to
floor
residues,
the
following
equation
was
used:

E
=
AR
x
DTF
x
DRF
x
CF1
X
CF2
(
Eq.
4)

Where:

E
=
Dermal
skin
irritation
exposure
(
µ
g/
cm2);
AR
=
Application
rate
(
lb/
ft2);
DTF
=
Dermal
transfer
factor
(
fraction,
unitless);
DRF
=
Disinfectant
fraction
remaining
on
floor
(
unitless);
CF1
=
Conversion
factor
(
4.54x108
µ
g/
lb);
CF2
=
Conversion
factor
(
0.00108
ft2/
cm2);

Assumptions
Due
to
limited
data,
a
number
of
conservative
assumptions
have
been
made:

$
No
transferable
residue
data
were
available
that
could
be
used
to
estimate
the
transfer
of
DDAC
from
the
floor
to
skin.
Therefore,
it
is
assumed
that
10%
of
the
deposition
rate
is
available
for
dermal
transfer
from
hard
floors
and
5%
of
the
deposition
rate
is
available
for
dermal
transfer
from
carpets
(
USEPA,
2000
and
2001).

$
No
data
could
be
found
regarding
the
quantity
of
solution
residue
left
on
the
floor
after
treatment.
As
a
conservative
measure,
it
has
been
assumed
that
25%
of
the
cleaning
solution
remains
on
the
floor
after
the
final
cleaning/
mopping.

$
For
mopping
on
hard
floors,
the
labels
did
not
provide
information
on
the
volume
of
disinfectant
to
be
used
for
cleaning
floors.
It
was
assumed
that
the
diluted
treatment
solution
was
applied
at
a
rate
of
1
gallon
per
1,000
sq.
ft.
The
maximum
application
rate
on
the
product
labels
for
application
to
hard
surfaces
is
0.020
lb
ai/
gal
(
see
Table
4.1)
for
a
residential
setting.
Therefore,
the
application
rate
used
in
the
postapplication
hard
floor
scenarios
was
0.000020
lb
ai/
ft2.
For
carpets,
the
labels
stated
that
1
gallon
of
diluted
treatment
solution
should
be
applied
at
a
rate
of
1
gallon
per
300
to
500
sq.
ft
for
rotary
floor
machines.
Using
a
rate
of
1
gallon
solution
per
300
sq.
ft.
and
a
maximum
application
rate
of
0.0088
lb
ai/
gal
(
see
Table
4.1),
the
application
rate
used
in
the
post­
application
carpet
scenarios
was
0.0000293
lb
ai/
ft2.

$
It
was
assumed
that
the
exposed
toddler
plays
regularly
on
the
treated
floor.
In
a
residential
home,
short­
term
exposure
duration
is
most
likely
since
homeowners
are
expected
to
clean
the
floor
only
intermittently.
Results
The
calculation
of
the
short­
term
dermal
doses
and
MOEs
are
shown
in
Table
4.4.
Page
22
of
97
The
dermal
MOEs
are
below
the
target
MOE
of
100
(
MOE
=
33
for
hard
surfaces
and
45
for
carpets).

Table
4.4.
Short­
term
Dermal
Risks
Associated
with
Post­
application
Exposure
from
a
Treated
Hard
Surface
Floor
and
Carpet
Exposure
Scenario
Application
Rate
(
lb
ai/
sq
ft)
Product
remaining
after
applying
Percent
Transfer
Residue
Dermal
skin
irritation
exposure
a
(
µ
g/
cm2)
MOE
Hard
surface
0.000020
25%
10%
0.245
33
Carpet
0.0000293
25%
5%
0.180
45
a
Dermal
skin
irritation
exposure
(
µ
g/
cm2)
=
(
Application
rate,
lb/
ft2)
x
(
conversion
factor,
4.54
E8
µ
g/
lb)
x
(
conversion
factor,
0.00108
ft2
/
cm2)
x
(
product
remaining
after
mopping,
25%)
x
(
dermal
transfer
factor,
10%
for
hard
surface
and
5%
for
carpets)
b.
MOE
=
NOAEL
(
µ
g/
cm2)
/
Surface
Residue
on
skin
(
µ
g/
cm2).
Short­
term
dermal
NOAEL
is
8
µ
g/
cm2.
Target
MOE
=
100.

Child
Incidental
Ingestion
Exposure
to
Treated
Hard
Floors
and
Carpets
Exposure
Calculations
In
addition
to
dermal
exposure,
toddlers
crawling
on
treated
hard
floors
will
also
be
exposed
to
DDAC
via
incidental
oral
exposure
through
hand­
to­
mouth
activity.
To
calculate
incidental
ingestion
exposure
to
these
chemicals
due
to
hand­
to­
mouth
transfer,
the
scenarios
established
in
the
Standard
Operating
Procedures
(
SOPs)
for
Residential
Exposure
Assessments
(
USEPA
2000
and
2001)
were
used.
These
scenarios
use
assumptions
are
similar
to
those
used
in
calculating
exposures
due
to
dermal
contact
of
DDAC
from
toddlers
crawling
on
treated
floors.
Risks
were
calculated
for
children
contacting
treated
floors
in
residential
homes
and
in
commercial
day
care
centers.
Typically
the
day
care
center
scenario
is
assessed
as
the
intermediate­
term
duration
because
the
frequency
of
cleaning
is
assumed
to
be
greater
than
that
of
the
residential
setting.
However,
for
DDAC,
the
short­
and
intermediate­
term
incidental
oral
endpoints
are
identical.
The
following
equations
were
used
to
determine
risks
from
hand­
to­
mouth
transfer
of
pesticide
residues
to
toddlers:

PDRnorm=
SR
x
DTF
x
SA
x
FQ
x
ET
x
SE
x
CF1
(
Eq.
5)
BW
Where:

PDRnorm
=
Potential
dose
rate
(
mg/
kg/
day);
SR
=
Indoor
Surface
Residue
(
µ
g/
cm2);
DTF
=
Dermal
transfer
factor
(
unitless
fraction);
SA
=
Surface
area
of
the
hands
that
contact
both
the
treated
area,
and
the
individuals
mouth
(
cm2/
event);
FQ
=
Frequency
of
hand­
to­
mouth
events
(
events/
hr);
SE
=
Saliva
extraction
efficiency
(
unitless
fraction);
ET
=
Exposure
time
(
hrs/
day);
CF1
=
Unit
conversion
factor
(
0.001
mg/:
g);
and
BW
=
Body
weight
(
kg)
SR=
AR
x
DRF
x
CF2
x
CF3
Where:
Page
23
of
97
SR
=
Surface
residue
on
floor
(
µ
g/
cm2);
AR
=
Application
rate
(
lb
ai/
ft2);
DRF
=
Disinfectant
fraction
remaining
on
floor
(
25%);
CF2
=
Unit
conversion
factor
(
4.54x108
µ
g/
lb);
and
CF3
=
Unit
conversion
factor
(
0.00108
ft2/
cm2)

Assumptions
Due
to
limited
data,
a
number
of
conservative
assumptions
have
been
made:

$
Toddlers
(
3
years
old)
were
used
to
represent
the
1
to
6
year
old
age
group
and
are
assumed
to
weigh
15
kg,
the
median
for
male
and
female
toddlers
(
USEPA
2000
and
2001).

$
Based
on
the
SOP,
it
is
assumed
that
the
surface
area
used
for
each
hand­
to­
mouth
event
is
20
cm2,
and
that
there
are
20
events
per
hour
for
short­
term
exposures
(
90th
percentile
(
USEPA
2000
and
2001)).

$
For
hard
floors,
the
exposure
time
is
4
hours/
day,
based
on
the
time
spent
in
the
kitchen
and
bathroom
for
adults.
For
carpets,
the
exposure
time
is
8
hours/
day
based
on
the
total
amount
of
time
spent
indoors
for
young
children
and
subtracting
the
amount
of
time
spent
sleeping,
eating,
and
bathing
(
USEPA
2000
and
2001).

$
The
saliva
extraction
efficiency
is
50%
(
USEPA
2000
and
2001)

$
No
data
could
be
found
regarding
the
quantity
of
solution
residue
left
on
the
floor
after
treatment.
As
a
conservative
measure,
it
has
been
assumed
that
25%
of
the
cleaning
solution
remains
after
the
final
mopping
or
cleaning.

$
No
transferable
residue
data
were
available
that
could
be
used
to
estimate
the
transfer
of
DDAC
from
the
floor
to
skin.
Therefore,
it
was
assumed
that
10%
of
the
deposition
rate
is
available
for
dermal
transfer
from
hard
floors
and
5%
of
the
deposition
rate
is
available
for
dermal
transfer
from
carpets
(
USEPA
2000
and
2001).

Results
The
calculation
of
the
short­
term
oral
doses
and
MOEs
are
shown
in
Table
4.5.
The
oral
MOEs
are
above
the
target
MOE
of
100
(
MOE
=
760
for
hard
floors
and
520
for
carpets).
Note:
The
short­
term
duration
is
protective
of
the
intermediate­
term
exposures
at
a
day
care
facility
because
the
toxicity
data
are
identical.

Table
4.5.
Short­
term
Incidental
Oral
Risks
Associated
with
Post­
application
Exposure
from
a
Treated
Hard
Surface
Floor
and
Carpet
Exposure
Scenario
Appl.
Rate
(
lb
ai/
sq
ft)
Percent
transferable
residue
Product
remaining
after
applying
Surface
area
mouthed
(
cm2/
event)
Exposure
Frequency
(
events/
hr)
Saliva
Extraction
Factor
Exposure
Time
(
hrs/
day)
Surface
Residue
on
floor
a
(
µ
g/
cm2)
Potential
Dose
Rateb
(
mg/
kg
/
day)
Incidental
Oral
MOEc
Hard
Surface
0.000020
10%
25%
20
20
50%
4
2.45
0.013
760
Carpet
0.000029
3
5%
25%
20
20
50%
8
3.60
0.019
520
a
Surface
residue
on
floor
(
µ
g/
cm2)
=
(
application
rate,
lb
ai/
ft2)
x
(
Disinfectant
fraction
remaining
on
floor,
25%)
x
(
conversion
factor
to
convert
lb
to
µ
g,
4.54E+
08
µ
g/
lb)
x
(
conversion
factor
to
convert
ft2
to
cm2,
1.08E­
03
ft2/
cm2)
b
Potential
Dose
Rate
(
mg/
kg/
day)
=
[(
Surface
residue
on
floor,
µ
g/
cm2)
x
(
transferable
residue,
0.10
for
hard
floors
and
0.05
for
carpets)
x
(
exposure
time,
4
hrs/
day
for
hard
floors
and
8hrs/
day
for
carpets)
x
(
surface
area
of
hands,
20
cm2/
event)
x
(
exposure
frequency,
20
events/
hr)
x
(
product
remaining
after
applying,
25%)
x
(
extraction
by
saliva,
50
%)
x
(
conversion
factor
to
convert
:
g
to
mg,
0.001
mg/
µ
g)]/(
body
weight,
15
kg)
Page
24
of
97
c
MOE
=
NOAEL
(
mg/
kg/
day)
/
potential
dose
rate
(
mg/
kg/
day)
[
Where
oral
NOAEL
=
10
mg/
kg/
day
for
short­
term].
Target
MOE
=
100.

4.2.2.2
Textiles
Dermal
Exposure
to
Laundered
Clothing­
Adult
and
Child
Exposure
Calculations
Some
DDAC
fabric
softener/
sanitizing
products
are
added
to
the
final
rinse
cycle
water
to
provide
self­
sanitizing
and
bacteriostatic
activity
against
odor­
causing
organisms.
To
determine
dermal
skin
irritation
exposure
to
treated
clothing,
the
guidance
provided
in
Human
and
Environmental
Risk
Assessment
(
HERA)
Guidance
Document
(
2003,
2005)
was
used.
The
following
equation,
modified
from
the
basic
equation
provided
in
HERA
(
2003),
is
used
to
calculate
dermal
exposure:

Dermal
Skin
Irritation
Exposure
(
µ
g/
cm2)
=
AR
x
F
x
FD
x
F1
x
F2
x
CF1
(
Eq.
6)

Where:

AR
=
Application
rate
in
mg
a.
i./
mg
weight
of
fabric;
F
=
Weight
fraction
of
the
chemical
left
on
the
clothing
after
the
final
spin;
FD
=
Fabric
density
(
mg/
cm2);
F1
=
Weight
fraction
transferred
from
clothing
to
skin;
F2
=
Weight
fraction
remaining
on
skin;
and
CF1
=
Conversion
factor,
1,000
µ
g/
mg.

Assumptions
 
The
application
rate
is
0.000733
mg
a.
i/
mg
weight
of
fabric,
based
on
product
label
#
1677­
109.
 
In
HERA
(
2003),
it
was
determined
that
2.5%
of
the
chemical
in
the
laundry
detergent
remains
after
the
final
rinse
cycle.
It
is
assumed
that
a
washing
machine
containing
laundry,
detergent,
and
water
would
go
through
an
agitation
period,
then
spin
dry,
then
refill
with
fresh
water
for
rinsing,
agitate,
and
then
spin
dry
again.
Assuming
that
the
fraction
of
chemical
removed
during
each
spin
dry
cycle
is
the
same,
then:

Mf
/
Mi
=
Xspin
2
=
0.025
(
Eq.
7)

Where:
Mf
=
Mass
of
chemical
remaining
on
clothing
after
the
final
rinse,
Mi
=
Mass
of
chemical
originally
added
to
laundry
machine,
and
Xspin
=
Fraction
of
chemical
remaining
after
each
spin
cycle.

The
quantity
Xspin
is
squared
because
the
laundry
and
the
detergent
undergo
two
spin
cycles.
For
assessment
of
fabric
softener/
sanitizer,
the
fraction
of
chemical
remaining
will
be
equivalent
to
Xspin,
since
the
fabric
softener/
sanitizer,
which
is
applied
during
the
rinse
Page
25
of
97
cycle,
will
only
undergo
one
spin
cycle.
Taking
the
square
root
of
both
sides
of
Equation
7
gives
an
Xspin
value
of
0.158,
or
15.8%.

 
The
fabric
density
is
10
mg/
cm2,
which
is
the
value
provided
in
HERA
(
2003)
for
mixed
cotton
and
synthetics.

 
No
leaching
data
were
available
that
could
be
used
to
estimate
a
flux
rate
of
the
chemical
from
clothing.
Exposures
were
calculated
using
a
conservative
transfer
factor
of
100%,
which
assumes
that
all
residues
are
transferable
from
clothing
surfaces
to
the
skin,
and
using
HERA's
value
of
1%
transfer
(
HERA,
2003).

 
No
dissipation
data
were
available;
therefore,
the
amount
of
DDAC
remaining
on
the
skin
is
assumed
to
be
100
percent.

Results
The
resulting
short­
term
dermal
exposures
and
MOEs
are
presented
in
Table
4.6.
The
dermal
MOE
was
above
the
target
MOE
of
100
assuming
the
1%
transfer,
and
therefore,
not
of
concern.
A
confirmatory
study
to
determine
the
percent
transfer
is
warranted
as
the
MOE
estimated
assuming
100%
transfer
is
of
concern.

Table
4.6.
Short­
and
Intermediate­
term
Dermal
Post­
application
Exposure
and
MOE
for
Contacting
Laundered
Clothing
 
Adult
and
Child
Parameter
Value
Rational
Application
rate
0.000733
mg
a.
i/
mg
weight
of
fabric
See
Table
4.1
Weight
fraction
of
residue
remaining
after
final
spin
15.8%
Eq.
7
Fabric
density
10
mg/
cm2
Mixed
cotton
and
synthetics
(
HERA
2003)
Residue
transfer
factor
from
clothing
to
skin
1%
and
100%
HERA
2003
and
EPA
assumption
Weight
fraction
remaining
on
skin
100%
HERA,
2003
Dermal
Exposurea
1%
=
0.0116
µ
g/
cm2
100%
=
1.16
µ
g/
cm2
Eq.
6
Dermal
NOAEL
4
µ
g/
cm2
Dermal
endpoint
selected
Dermal
Short­
term
MOEb
1%
=
690
100%
=
7
Eq.
3b
(
Target
MOE
=
100)

a
Dermal
Exposure
(
µ
g/
cm2)
=(
Application
rate,
0.000733
mg
a.
i/
mg
weight
of
fabric)
x
(
residue
left
after
spin
cycle,
15.8%)
x
(
fabric
density,
10
mg/
cm2)
x
(
weight
fraction
transferred
from
clothing
to
skin)
x
(
weight
fraction
remaining
on
skin)
x
(
conversion
factor,
1000
µ
g/
mg)
b
MOE
=
NOAEL
(
µ
g/
cm
2
)
/
dermal
exposure
(
µ
g/
cm
2
)
[
Where
short­
term
dermal
NOAEL
=
8
µ
g/
cm
2
].
Target
MOE
=
100.

Incidental
Oral
Exposure
to
Laundered
Clothing­
Adult
and
Child
Exposure
Calculations
Oral
exposure
associated
with
toddlers
mouthing
clothing
was
assessed
using
an
equation
similar
to
that
used
for
assessing
dermal
exposure
to
laundered
clothing:

Oral
Exposure
(
mg/
kg/
day)
=
AR
x
F
x
FD
x
Smouthed
x
SE
(
Eq.
8)
Page
26
of
97
BW
Where:
AR
=
Application
rate
in
mg
a.
i./
mg
weight
of
fabric;
F
=
Weight
fraction
of
the
chemical
left
on
the
clothing
after
the
final
spin;
FD
=
Fabric
density
(
mg/
cm2);
Smouthed
=
Surface
area
of
fabric
that
is
mouthed
(
cm2);
SE
=
Saliva
extraction
factor;
and
BW
=
Body
weight
(
kg).

Assumptions
 
The
surface
area
of
fabric
mouthed
is
100
cm2
(
HERA,
2003).
 
The
saliva
extraction
factor
is
50%
(
USEPA
2000
and
2001).
 
Assumptions
regarding
fabric
density
and
weight
fraction
of
chemical
left
after
final
spin
are
identical
to
those
used
for
the
assessment
of
dermal
exposure
to
laundered
clothing.

Results
The
resulting
short­
term
oral
exposure
and
MOE
are
presented
in
Table
4.7.
The
oral
MOE
was
above
the
target
MOE
of
100.

Table
4.7.
Short­
term
Incidental
Oral
Postapplication
Exposure
and
MOE
for
Contacting
Laundered
Clothing
 
Child
Parameter
Value
Rational
Application
rate
0.000733
mg
a.
i/
mg
weight
of
fabric
See
Table
4.1
Weight
fraction
of
residue
remaining
after
final
spin
15.8%
HERA
2005
Fabric
density
10
mg/
cm2
Mixed
cotton
and
synthetics
(
HERA
2003)
Surface
area
of
clothing
available
for
mouthing
100
cm2
HERA
2003
Saliva
Extraction
Factor
50%
USEPA
2000
and
2001
Body
weight
15
kg
EPA
1997,
median
body
weight
Oral
Exposurea
0.00386
mg/
kg/
day
Eq.
8
Oral
NOAEL
10
mg/
kg/
day
Oral
endpoint
selected
Short­,
intermediate­
term
MOEb
2,600
Eq.
3
a
Oral
Exposure
(
mg/
kg/
day)
=
(
Application
rate,
0.000733
mg
a.
i/
mg
weight
of
fabric)
x
(
residue
left
after
spin
cycle,
15.8%)
x
(
fabric
density,
10
mg/
cm2)
x
(
surface
area
mouthed,
100
cm2)
x
(
Saliva
extraction
factor,
50%)
/
(
body
weight,
kg)
b
MOE
=
NOAEL
(
mg/
kg/
day)
/
potential
daily
dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
[
Where
short­
term
oral
NOAEL
=
10
mg/
kg/
day].
Target
MOE
=
100.

Dermal
Exposure
to
Clothing
Treated
with
Fabric
Spray
Exposure
Calculations
There
is
the
potential
for
dermal
exposure
to
children
wearing
clothing
treated
with
a
trigger­
pump
spray
product
containing
antimicrobials.
The
product
label
(
3573­
69)
indicates
to
spray
fabric
until
damp
and
to
allow
surface
to
dry
before
use.
The
dermal
skin
irritation
exposure
is
calculated
using
following
equation
and
assumptions:
Page
27
of
97
E
=
C
x
TR
(
Eq.
9)

Where:
E
=
Dermal
Skin
irritation
Exposure
(:
g/
cm2);
and
C
=
Concentration
on
clothing
(:
g
ai/
cm2).
TR
=
Transferable
residue
from
clothing
to
skin
(%);

C
=
A
x
WF
x
CF
Where:
C
=
Concentration
on
clothing
(:
g
ai/
cm2);
A
=
Water
absorption
rate
of
Whatman
absorbent
materials
(
198
mg/
cm2);
WF
=
Weight
fraction
of
product
(%
ai);
and
CF
=
Conversion
factor
(
1,000
:
g/
mg).

Assumptions
 
Whatman,
Inc.
sells
"
absorbent
sinks",
reels
of
absorbent
materials
for
use
in
laboratories
(
Whatman,
2005).
One
of
their
products,
CF7,
is
composed
of
100%
cotton
and
is
1.9
mm­
thick.
This
product
has
a
stated
water
absorption
rate
of
198
mg/
cm2.
Since
1.9
mm
seems
a
reasonable
thickness
for
clothing,
and
it
is
assumed
that
the
spray
product
is
used
until
the
clothing
is
thoroughly
wet
(
conservative
assumption),
an
application
rate
of
198
mg
product/
cm2
is
assumed
unless
product
specific
data
are
submitted.
 
If
data
are
not
available
from
which
a
transfer
factor
could
be
estimated,
potential
doses
are
calculated
using
a
conservative
transfer
factor
of
100%,
which
assumes
that
all
residues
are
transferable
from
clothing
surfaces.
Potential
doses
can
also
be
calculated
using
a
less
conservative
transfer
factor
of
5%,
which
is
based
on
the
amount
of
residue
assumed
to
be
transferable
from
carpeted
surfaces
(
USEPA,
2001)
but
confirmatory
data
will
be
requested
to
support
this
assumption.

Results
The
resulting
short­
term
oral
exposure
and
MOE
are
presented
in
Table
4.8.
The
dermal
MOEs
were
below
the
target
MOE
of
100
for
both
the
100%
and
5%
transfer
factors
(
MOEs
are
less
than
or
equal
to
1).

Table
4.8.
Short­
term
Dermal
Risks
Associated
with
Post­
application
Exposure
from
a
Clothing
Treated
with
a
Fabric
Spray
Weight
fraction
of
product
(%
ai)
Water
absorption
rate
of
Whatman
absorbent
materials
(
mg/
cm2);
Concentration
of
Clothing
(
µ
g/
cm2)
Percent
Transfer
Residue
Dermal
skin
irritation
exposure
a
(
µ
g/
cm2)
MOE
(
Target
MOE
=
100)
0.0013
198
257
100%
257
<
1
0.0013
198
257
5%
12.9
1
a
Concentration
on
clothing
(
µ
g/
cm2)
=
%
active
ingredient
/
100
*
Product
absorption
rate
(
198
mg/
cm2)*
conversion
factor
(
1,000
µ
g/
mg)
b
Dermal
Skin
Irritation
Exposure
(
µ
g/
cm2)
=
(
concentration
on
clothing,
µ
g/
cm2)
*
(
percent
transferable
residue
from
textile).
Page
28
of
97
c
MOE
=
NOAEL
(
µ
g/
cm2)
/
Dermal
Skin
Irritation
Exposure
(
µ
g/
cm2)
[
Where
short­
term
dermal
NOAEL
=
8
µ
g/
cm2.
Target
MOEs
=
100.

Incidental
Oral
Exposure
to
Children
Mouthing
Clothing
Treated
with
Fabric
Spray
Exposure
Calculations
There
is
the
potential
for
incidental
oral
exposure
to
children
from
mouthing
textiles
treated
with
a
trigger­
pump
spray
product
containing
DDAC.

Potential
doses
are
calculated
as
follows:

PDD
=
C
x
SA
x
SE
(
Eq.
10)
BW
where:
PDD
=
potential
daily
dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
C
=
concentration
on
clothing
(
mg/
cm2)
SE
=
saliva
extraction
efficiency
(%)
SA
=
Surface
area
mouthed
(
cm2/
day)
BW
=
body
weight
(
kg)

Assumptions
 
The
concentration
of
the
chemical
on
clothing
was
determined
using
same
methodology
as
discussed
in
the
previous
section,
post­
application
dermal
exposure
to
textiles.
 
The
surface
area
of
textiles
mouthed
by
children
is
100
cm2
(
HERA
2003).
 
The
saliva
extraction
efficiency
is
50%
(
USEPA
2000
and
2001).
 
Toddlers
(
3
years
old)
are
used
to
represent
the
1
to
6
year
old
age
group.
For
threeyear
olds,
the
median
body
weight
is
15
kg
(
USEPA
1997).

Results
Table
4.9
shows
the
calculation
of
the
oral
dose
and
oral
MOE
for
children
mouthing
treated
textiles.
The
MOE
value
is
below
the
target
MOE
of
100
(
MOE
=
12).

Table
4.9.
Short­
term
Post­
application
Incidental
Oral
Exposures
and
MOEs
for
Children
Contacting
Clothing
Treated
with
a
Fabric
Spray
%
a.
i.
Product
absorption
rate
(
mg/
cm2)
Concentration
on
clothinga
(
mg/
cm2)
Area
mouthed
(
cm2/
day)
Saliva
Extraction
Factor
Potential
daily
dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
Incidental
Oral
MOEc
0.13
198
0.257
100
50%
0.857
12
a
Concentration
on
clothing
(
mg
ai/
cm2)
=
%
active
ingredient/
100
*
Product
absorption
rate
(
198
mg/
cm2)
b
Potential
Daily
Dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
=
(
Concentration
on
clothing,
mg/
cm2)
*
(
area
mouthed,
cm2/
day)
*
(
saliva
extraction
factor,
unitless
fraction)
/
(
body
weight,
kg).
c
MOE
=
NOAEL
(
mg/
kg/
day)
/
absorbed
potential
daily
dose
[
Where
short­
term
oral
NOAEL
=
10
mg/
kg/
day].
Target
MOE
=
100.
Page
29
of
97
4.2.2.3
Treated
Lumber
Scenarios
The
Agency
is
concerned
that
there
are
potential
residential
post­
application
exposure
to
children
and
adults
exposed
to
DDAC
treated
wood.
The
potential
outdoor
residential
post­
application
exposure
pathways
considered
are
outlined
below:

Children
°
Dermal
contact
with
DDAC­
treated
wood
products
(
e.
g.,
residential
playground
equipment,
utility
poles,
posts,
decks,
shingles,
fencing,
lumber,
piers,
etc.);

°
Incidental
ingestion
due
to
hand­
to­
mouth
contact
with
DDAC­
treated
wood
products;

°
Incidental
ingestion
of
soil
contaminated
with
DDAC;

°
Dermal
contact
with
soil
contaminated
with
DDAC
(
e.
g.,
soil
contaminated
by
treated
decks
and
playground
equipment);
and
Adults
°
Dermal
contact
with
wood
from
construction
of
decks
and
playground
equipment;

°
Incidental
ingestion
with
wood
from
construction
of
decks
and
playground
equipment.

Currently,
there
are
no
study
data
that
can
be
used
to
estimate
either
exposure
to
adults
during
construction
of
wood
decks
or
to
children
exposed
to
treated
wood.
Incidental
ingestion
exposure
for
adults
is
expected
to
be
negligible
and
dermal
contact
for
adults
is
expected
to
be
lower
than
children
for
crawling
on
wood
decks.
Because
children
exhibit
a
more
intense
play
contact
on
surfaces
and
have
a
higher
surface
area
to
body
weight
ratio,
they
would
generally
be
considered
to
represent
the
maximum
exposed
individual.

Available
data
to
assess
the
levels
of
DDAC
in
soil
contaminated
with
DDAC­
treated
wood
do
not
exist
at
this
time.
In
addition,
leaching
data
were
also
not
available.
Because
of
this
data
gap,
EPA
was
not
able
to
estimate
dermal
and
incidental
ingestion
residential
postapplication
exposures
to
soil
contaminated
with
DDAC­
treated
wood.

In
this
assessment,
incidental
ingestion
and
dermal
exposures
to
children
from
contact
with
treated
wood
were
estimated
using
DDAC
exposure
data
from
an
occupational
exposure
study,
"
Measurement
and
Assessment
of
Dermal
and
Inhalation
Exposures
to
Didecyl
Dimethyl
Ammonium
Chloride
(
DDAC)
Used
in
the
Protection
of
Cut
Lumber
(
Phase
III)"
(
Bestari
et
al.,
1999,
MRID
455243­
04).
The
data
were
used
for
the
following
pathways:
outdoor
residential
dermal
contact
with
DDAC­
treated
wood
products
(
e.
g.,
residential
playground
equipment,
utility
poles,
posts,
decks,
shingles,
fencing,
lumber,
piers,
etc.);
and
outdoor
residential
incidental
ingestion
due
to
hand­
to­
mouth
contact
with
pressure­
treated
wood
products.
The
DDAC
study
measured
dermal
and
inhalation
exposures
for
various
worker
functions/
positions
for
individuals
handling
DDAC­
containing
wood
preservatives
for
non­
pressure
treatment
application
methods
and
for
individuals
that
could
then
come
into
contact
with
the
preserved
wood.
Page
30
of
97
Outdoor
Residential
Dermal
Contact
with
DDAC­
treated
Wood
Products
Potential
risks
resulting
from
children's
dermal
contact
with
DDAC­
treated
wood
are
assessed
using
maximum
and
average
worker
residue
data
for
hands
available
in
the
DDAC
study.
The
data
in
Table
4.10
were
used
to
approximate
the
residues
transferred
from
treated
wood
to
skin.
No
other
data
are
available
(
e.
g.,
no
wipe
data).
The
data
from
the
following
job
descriptions
in
the
DDAC
study
were
chosen
because
of
the
possibility
of
the
contact
with
dry
treated
wood.
The
average
and
maximum
concentrations
of
these
data
(
1.4
and
3.0
:
g/
cm2)
were
assumed
to
be
the
dermal
skin
irritation
exposure.
The
results
indicate
that
the
dermal
MOEs
are
below
the
target
MOE.
However,
these
estimates
are
only
reported
as
a
range
finder
to
determine
if
a
wipe
study
is
warranted.
Based
on
the
results
the
wipe
study
is
warranted.

 
End
Stacker
­
Operates
an
automated
stacking
system
at
the
end
of
the
conveyor.
Lumber
stacked
into
loads.

 
Stickman
­
Places
sticks
between
stacks
of
wood
manually.
At
some
mills,
this
is
done
automatically
by
end
stacker
operator.

 
Tallyman
­
Staples
information
sheet
on
to
wood.
May
come
in
contact
with
treated
lumber.
(
Note:
there
were
two
reps
available
for
tallyman)

Table
4.10.
Hand
Residue
Data
for
DDAC
for
Handling
of
Dry
Wood
Job
Description
Total
Hand
Residue
Data
(
µ
g/
cm2)
End
Stacker
1.2
Stickman
0.6
Tallyman
0.8
Tallyman
3.0
Average
1.4
Dermal
Skin
Irritation
Exposurea
(
µ
g/
cm2)
1.4
and
3.0
MOEb
(
Target
MOE
=
100)
6
average
and
3
maximum
a
Dermal
Skin
Irritation
Exposurea
(
µ
g/
cm2)=
1.4
and
3.0
µ
g/
cm2
average
and
maximum
hand
residues,
respectively
b
MOE
=
NOAEL
(
µ
g/
cm2)
/
dermal
skin
irritation
exposure
(
µ
g/
cm2).
Dermal
NOAEL
is
8
µ
g/
cm2.
Target
MOE
=
100.

Outdoor
Residential
Hand­
to­
Mouth
Contact
with
DDAC­­
treated
Wood
Products
Potential
risks
from
a
child's
hand­
to­
mouth
activities
are
also
assessed
using
worker
residue
data
for
hands
that
are
available
in
the
DDAC
study.
The
most
appropriate
hand
values
to
estimate
potential
residues
of
a
child
playing
on
treated
decks/
playground
structures
are
for
the
"
dry"
strata
test
subjects
(
as
defined
above).
These
test
subjects
handled
the
dry
treated
wood
from
the
non
pressure
treatments.
Of
the
20
test
subjects
measured
for
handling
"
dry"
wood
in
the
DDAC
study,
19
had
detectable
hand
values
(
one
value
non­
detect)
ranging
from
0.04
to
3.0
µ
g/
cm2
(
DDAC
study
page
104).
The
highest
value
(
most
conservative)
(
3.0
µ
g/
cm2)
represents
the
"
Tallyman"
that
wore
no
gloves
(
DDAC
study
page
189).

The
daily
hand­
to­
mouth
dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
is
estimated
using
the
following
equation:
Page
31
of
97
Oral
Dose
t=
Handt
x
Hand
SA
x
SEF
x
Frequency
x
CF1
x
ET
(
Eq.
11)
BW
Where:

Handt
=
DDAC
highest
hand
residue
detected
(
i.
e.,"
Tallyman"
working
with
dry
wood
(
µ
g/
cm2)),
Hand
SA
=
hand
surface
area
(
cm2/
event),
SEF
=
saliva
extraction
factor
(
unitless),
Frequency
=
frequency
of
exposure
event
(
events/
hr),
ET
=
exposure
time
(
hr/
day),
CF1
=
conversion
factor
(
0.001
mg/
µ
g),
and
BW
=
body
weight
(
kg).
In
addition
to
the
hand
residue
value
from
the
DDAC
study,
the
following
inputs
are
used
in
the
hand­
to­
mouth
estimate:

 
The
palmar
surface
area
of
3
fingers
of
a
toddler,
20
cm2,
is
used
to
estimate
handmouthing
as
opposed
to
whole
hand
mouthing
(
USEPA
2001).
 
The
rate
of
hand­
to­
mouth
activity
for
outdoor
playing
is
7
events
per
hour
based
on
Freeman
et.
al
(
2001)
at
the
95th
percentile.
 
The
exposure
time
(
ET)
is
2
hours
and
is
consistent
with
the
Agency's
CCA
assessment
for
time
playing
outdoors.
Although
the
2
hour
duration
represents
"
outdoor"
time,
it
is
used
as
a
conservative
estimate
for
playing
on
decks
and
playsets.
 
The
saliva
extraction
factor
(
SEF)
is
0.5
and
is
based
on
the
assumption
of
50
percent
removal
efficiency
of
residues
from
hands
by
human
saliva
(
USEPA
2001).
 
The
mean
body
weight
of
a
child
at
age
3
is
15
kg.

The
results
of
the
hand­
to­
mouth
estimates
are
presented
in
Table
4.11.
The
estimated
short­
term
MOE
for
the
hand­
to­
mouth
exposure
is
above
the
target
MOE
of
100
(
MOE
=
360)
and
is
not
of
concern.
Because
the
dermal
and
oral
endpoints
represent
different
toxicological
effects,
an
aggregate
of
the
dermal
(
discussed
above)
and
oral
MOEs
are
not
appropriate.

Table
4.11:
Residential
Post­
application
Incidental
Oral
Exposures
with
DDAC­
treated
Wood
Product
Hand
concentration
from
DDAC
Study
(
µ
g/
cm2)
Finger
surface
area
(
cm2)
Exposure
Frequency
for
outdoor
playing
(
events/
hr)
Saliva
Extraction
Factor
Exposure
Time
(
hrs/
day)
Average
Daily
Oral
Dose
a
(
mg/
kg/
day)
Incidental
Oral
MOEb
(
Target
MOE
=
100)

3.0
20
7
0.5
2
0.028
360
a
Average
Daily
Oral
Dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
=
[
handt
(
3
µ
g/
cm2
)
x
Hand
SA
(
20
cm2)
x
SEF
(
0.5)
x
Frequency
(
7
events/
hr)
x
Exposure
Time
(
2
hrs/
day)
x
0.001
mg/
µ
g]
/
BW
(
15
kg)
b
MOE
=
NOAEL
(
mg/
kg/
day)
/
daily
dose
(
mg/
kg/
day).
For
oral,
NOAEL
is
10
mg/
kg/
day.
Target
MOE
=
100.

4.2.2.4
Swimming
Pools
There
are
post­
application
exposures
associated
with
use
of
DDAC
products
in
swimming
pools
and
spas.
For
swimming
pools,
only
incidental
oral
exposures
are
assessed
in
this
document.
Dermal
and
inhalation
exposures
are
expected
to
be
negligible
due
to
the
low
Page
32
of
97
concentration
of
DDAC
in
pool
water
and
the
low
vapor
pressure
of
DDAC.
Because
the
amount
of
exposure
will
most
likely
be
greater
for
swimming
pools
than
for
spas,
swimming
pool
scenarios
were
evaluated
to
represent
the
high­
end
exposures
associated
with
use
of
DDAC
in
pools
and
spas.

The
SWIMODEL
3.0
was
developed
by
EPA
as
a
screening
tool
to
conduct
exposure
assessments
of
pesticides
found
in
swimming
pools
and
spas
(
Versar,
2003).
The
SWIMODEL
uses
well­
accepted
screening
exposure
assessment
equations
to
calculate
the
total
worst­
case
exposure
for
swimmers
expressed
as
a
mass­
based
intake
value
(
mg/
event).
The
model
focuses
on
potential
chemical
intakes
only
and
does
not
take
into
account
metabolism
or
excretion
of
the
chemical
of
concern.
Detailed
information
and
the
downloadable
executable
file
are
available
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
oppad001/
swimodel.
htm.
For
this
assessment,
the
actual
model
was
not
used,
however,
the
same
equations
as
provided
in
the
SWIMODEL
User's
Manual
(
version
3.0)
were
used
in
a
spreadsheet
format
to
estimate
post
application
incidental
oral
and
inhalation
exposures
for
use
of
DDAC
in
swimming
pools.

It
should
be
noted
that
this
exposure
assessment
identifies
short­
term
(
1­
30
days)
and
intermediate­
term
(
1­
6
months)
noncancer
exposure
doses
based
on
the
reported
toxicology
endpoints
for
DDAC.
Because
of
the
shorter
exposure
durations
of
these
toxicological
endpoints,
conservative
event­
based
exposure
assumptions
are
used
to
calculate
upper
bound
daily
dose
estimates.
The
noncancer
doses
are
not
amortized
over
a
lifetime.

Post­
application
Incidental
Ingestion
Exposure
through
Swimming
Pool
Use
The
following
equation
was
used
to
calculate
incidental
ingestion
doses:

PDR
=
Cw
x
IR
x
ET
(
Eq.
12)
BW
Where:

PDR
=
Potential
dose
rate
(
mg/
kg/
day);
Cw
=
Chemical
concentration
in
pool
water
(
mg/
L);
IR
=
Ingestion
rate
of
pool
water
(
L/
hr);
ET
=
Exposure
time
(
hrs/
day);
and
BW
=
Body
weight
(
kg).

Assumptions
 
For
short­
term
exposures,
it
was
assumed
that
the
concentration
in
water
after
shock
treatment
is
6.00
ppm
(
6.0
mg
DDAC/
L).
This
concentration
is
based
on
the
application
of
7.5
oz
to
the
pool
skimmers/
lines
per
day
(
regardless
of
the
pool
volume)
for
two
consecutive
days
to
treat
heavy
algae
contamination
as
per
label
10324­
69.
Thus
the
pool
concentration
would
be
15
oz
(
for
two
days
of
treatment)
per
pool.
EPA
uses
a
20,000
gallon
pool
volume
for
the
assessment.
It
is
likely
that
the
DDAC
concentration
in
water
would
decrease
after
the
24
to
48
hour
waiting
period
specified
in
the
label
but
AD
does
not
have
data
to
indicate
the
dissipation
of
DDAC
in
pool
water.
Page
33
of
97
 
The
ingestion
rate
is
based
on
the
value
used
in
EPA's
Residential
SOPs
(
USEPA
2000)
and
an
EPA
pilot
study
as
discussed
in
ACC's
swimmer
survey
(
ACC,
2002b).

 
Exposure
time
for
non­
competitive
swimmers
is
based
on
the
summary
statistics
from
the
National
Human
Activity
Pattern
Survey
(
NHAPS)
(
USEPA,
1996)
whereas
competitive
swimmer
exposure
time
data
are
based
on
the
Agency's
review
of
the
American
Chemistry
Council
(
ACC)
study
(
ACC,
2002b).

 
The
assumed
body
weight
is
60
kg
for
adults,
48
kg
for
children
(
age
11­
14
years),
and
30
kg
for
children
(
age
7­
10
years).

Table
4.12.
Parameters
for
Swimming
Ingestion
Exposure
and
Dose
Estimate
Population
Adult
Child
7­
10
yrs
Child
11­
14
yrs
Type
of
Swimmer
Competitive
Non­
Competitive
Competitive
Non­
Competitive
Competitive
Non­
Competitive
Cw
(
mg/
L)
 
Short
term
exposure
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
IR
(
L/
hr)
0.0125
0.0125
0.05
0.05
0.025
0.05
ET(
hr/
day)
3
2a
1
3a
2
2.6a
BW(
kg)
60
60
30
30
48
48
a
90th
percentile
values
Short­
term
MOE
values
were
calculated
for
ingestion
of
swimming
pool
water
and
are
presented
in
Table
4.13.
The
calculations
for
short­
term
incidental
ingestion
of
DDAC
indicate
no
risk
concern
for
the
non­
competitive
or
competitive
swimming
pool
scenarios
(
i.
e.,
MOE>
100).

Table
4.13.
Short­
Term
Ingestion
Dose
and
MOE
for
Residential
Swimming
Post­
Application
Use
Type
Scenario
Description
Ingestion
Dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
Ingestion
MOE
a
Adult,
Competitive
0.0038
2,700
Adult,
Non­
Competitive
0.0025
4,000
Child
(
7­
10
yrs),
Competitive
0.0100
1,000
Child
(
7­
10
yrs),
Non­
Competitive
0.030
330
Child
(
11­
14
yrs),
Competitive
0.0063
1,600
Swimming
Pool
Child
(
11­
14
yrs),
Non­
Competitive
0.0163
620
aMOE
=
NOAEL
(
mg/
kg/
day)/
Ingestion
Dose
(
mg/
kg/
day).
Short­
term
Oral
NOAEL
=
10
mg/
kg/
day.
Target
MOE
=
100
4.2.2.5
Humidifiers
Page
34
of
97
Inhalation
Exposures
for
Portable
Humidifiers
­
Adult
and
Child
Inhalation
exposures
to
DDAC
used
in
portable
humidifiers
may
also
occur.
To
determine
potential
inhalation
risk,
the
Multi­
Chamber
Concentration
and
Exposure
Model
(
MCCEM
v1.2)
was
used
to
provide
a
screening­
level
estimate
of
potential
inhalation
risk
to
adults
and
children.
MCCEM
estimates
average
and
peak
indoor
air
concentrations
of
chemicals
released
from
products
or
materials
in
houses,
apartments,
townhouses,
or
other
residences.
It
estimates
inhalation
exposures
to
chemicals,
calculated
as
single
day
doses,
chronic
average
daily
doses,
or
lifetime
average
daily
doses.
All
dose
estimates
calculated
by
MCEMM
are
potential
doses;
they
do
not
account
for
actual
absorption
into
the
body.
Assumptions
 
The
entire
house
is
being
humidified;
therefore,
a
single
chamber
model
was
run.
 
A
person
is
exposed
to
the
release
for
either
8­
hours
a
day
or
24­
hours
a
day.
 
The
inhalation
rates
for
the
8­
hour
exposure
period
are
based
on
the
sedentary
activities
(
0.5
m3/
hr
for
adults
and
0.4
m3/
hr
for
children).
The
inhalation
rates
for
the
24­
hour
exposure
period
are
based
on
the
chronic
inhalation
rates
(
13.3
m3/
day
for
adults
and
8.3
m3/
day
for
children)
(
USEPA
1997).
 
For
the
8­
hr
exposure
duration
assessment,
the
MOE
was
calculated
using
concentrations
from
0
to
8
hours
after
the
humidifier
was
turned
on.
For
the
24­
hr
exposure
assessment,
it
was
assumed
that
the
humidifier
had
already
been
running
for
the
previous
day;
therefore,
the
concentrations
from
24
to
48
hours
after
the
fogger
was
turned
on
were
used.
 
Release
of
the
product
occurs
at
a
steady
state
throughout
the
day
(
constant
emission
rate
from
one
source).
 
The
label
indicated
that
2
oz
of
product
should
be
used
per
gallon.
The
label
did
not
provide
information
on
the
quantity
of
solution
that
is
released
per
hour.
A
release
rate
of
11
gallons/
1,700
ft2/
24
hours
was
used
in
this
assessment
based
on
the
Holmes
Model#
HM4600U.
(
http://
www.
holmesproducts.
com/
estore/
product.
aspx?
CatalogId=
3&
CategoryId=
112
0&
ProductId=
582).
It
was
assumed
that
11
gallons
of
the
dilute
solution
would
be
released
into
the
generic
MCCEM
house
(
approximately
1,800
ft2
assuming
8
ft
ceilings)
over
a
24­
hour
period.
Based
on
an
application
rate
of
0.0043
lb
ai/
gal,
approximately
0.895
g
ai/
hr
would
be
emitted
into
the
house.
 
It
was
assumed
that
100%
of
the
product
is
inhalable.

Results
The
resulting
short­
and
intermediate­
term
inhalation
exposure
and
MOE
for
the
representative
post­
application
inhalation
scenarios
are
presented
in
Table
4.14
and
4.15.
The
8­
hr
and
the
24­
hr
MOEs
for
children
and
adults
are
below
the
target
MOE
of
100.

Table
4.14.
Short­
and
Intermediate­
term
Post­
application
Exposures
and
MOEs
for
Adults
and
Children
in
Houses
Being
Humidified
(
8­
hr
Exposure
Duration)
Parameter
Value
Rationale
Page
35
of
97
Adult
Child
Housea
Generic
House
(
1­
chamber)
A
portable
humidifier
that
humidifies
the
entire
house
Activity
Schedule
Average
concentration
starting
at
0
hour
through
8
hours
EPA
Assumption
Air
Exchange
Rate
0.18/
hr
MCCEM
default
Application
Rate
0.0043
lb
ai/
gal
Chemical
specific
product
label
Quantity
Dilute
Used
11
gallons/
24
hours
Holmes
Model#
HM4600­
U
Emission
Ratea
0.895
gram
ai/
hr
Application
rate
(
lb
ai/
gal)
*
Use
amount
(
gal/
hr)
*
CF
(
g/
lb)

Body
Weighta
60
kg
15
kg
Average
body
weights
for
adults
and
young
children
Inhalation
Ratea
12
m3/
day
(
0.5
m3/
hr)
9.6
m3/
day
(
0.4
m3/
hr)
Sedentary
rate
for
adults
and
young
children
(
USEPA,
1997)

MCCEM
Outputs
Average
Concentration
over
8­
hrs
(
mg/
m3)
5.59
5.59
Average
of
MCCEM­
calculated
air
concentrations
from
0
to
8
hrs
Dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
0.373
1.19
Average
Conc.
*
8
hrs
*
Inhal.
Rate
/
BW
Inhalation
short­
and
intermediate­
term
MOEb
27
8
NOAEL
(
10
mg/
kg/
day)
/
Dose
a
Used
as
MCCEM
input.
Default
values
from
MCCEM
were
used
for
all
inputs
not
listed
in
the
table
above.
b
MOE
=
NOAEL
(
mg/
kg/
day)
/
daily
dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
[
Where
short­,
intermediate­
term
inhalation
NOAEL
=
10
mg/
kg/
day].
Target
MOE
=
100.

Table
4.15.
Short­
and
Intermediate­
term
Post­
application
Exposures
and
MOEs
for
Adults
and
Children
in
Houses
Being
Humidified
(
24­
hr
Exposure
Duration)

Value
Parameter
Adult
Child
Rationale
Housea
Generic
House
(
1­
chamber)
A
portable
humidifier
that
humidifies
the
entire
house
Activity
Schedule
Average
concentration
starting
at
24
hour
through
48
hours
EPA
Assumption
Air
Exchange
Rate
0.18/
hr
MCCEM
default
Application
Rate
0.0043
lb
ai/
gal
Chemical
specific
product
label
Quantity
Dilute
Used
11
gallons/
24
hours
Holmes
Portable
Humidifier
Model#
HM1285
Emission
Ratea
0.895
gram
ai/
hr
Application
rate
(
lb
ai/
gal)
*
Use
amount
(
gal/
hr)
*
CF
(
g/
lb)
Page
36
of
97
Table
4.15.
Short­
and
Intermediate­
term
Post­
application
Exposures
and
MOEs
for
Adults
and
Children
in
Houses
Being
Humidified
(
24­
hr
Exposure
Duration)

Value
Parameter
Adult
Child
Rationale
Body
Weighta
60
kg
15
kg
Average
body
weights
for
adults
and
young
children
Inhalation
Ratea
13.3
m3/
day
8.3
m3/
day
Chronic
rate
for
adults
and
young
children
(
USEPA,
1997)

MCCEM
Outputs
Average
Concentration
over
24
hrs
(
mg/
m3)
12.2
12.2
Average
of
MCCEM­
calculated
air
concentrations
from
24
to
48
hrs
Dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
0.90
2.24
Average
Conc.
*
24
hrs
*
Inhal.
Rate
/
BW
Inhalation
short­,
intermediate­
term
MOEb
11
5
NOAEL
(
10
mg/
kg/
day)
/
Dose
a
Used
as
MCCEM
input.
Default
values
from
MCCEM
were
used
for
all
inputs
not
listed
in
the
table
above.
b
MOE
=
NOAEL
(
mg/
kg/
day)
/
potential
daily
dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
[
Where
short­,
intermediate­
term
inhalation
NOAEL
=
10
mg/
kg/
day].
Target
MOE
=
100.

4.2.3
Data
Limitations/
Uncertainties
There
are
several
data
limitations
and
uncertainties
associated
with
the
residential
handler
and
post­
application
exposure
assessments.
These
include
the
following:

 
Surrogate
dermal
and
inhalation
unit
exposure
values
were
taken
from
the
proprietary
Chemical
Manufacturers
Association
(
CMA)
antimicrobial
exposure
study
(
USEPA,
1999:
DP
Barcode
D247642)
or
from
the
Pesticide
Handler
Exposure
Database
(
USEPA,
1998)
(
See
Appendix
B
for
summaries
of
these
data
sources).
Most
of
the
CMA
data
are
of
poor
quality,
therefore,
AD
requests
that
confirmatory
monitoring
data
be
generated
to
support
the
values
used
in
these
assessments.
 
The
quantities
handled/
treated
were
estimated
based
on
information
from
various
sources,
including
HED's
Standard
Operating
Procedures
(
SOPs)
for
Residential
Exposure
Assessments
(
USEPA
2000
and
2001).
In
certain
cases,
no
standard
values
were
available
for
some
scenarios.
Assumptions
for
these
scenarios
were
based
on
AD
estimates
and
could
be
further
refined
from
input
from
registrants.
 
Some
labels
for
products
which
can
be
used
by
homeowners
in
residential
settings,
as
well
as
by
workers
in
occupational
settings,
indicate
that
low
pressure
sprayers
can
be
used
for
application
of
the
disinfectant
to
hard,
non­
porous
surfaces
such
as
floors
and
walls.
A
residential
low
pressure
spray
scenario
was
not
assessed
for
the
residential
scenario
because
it
is
not
a
typical
cleaning
method
for
homeowners.
 
At
this
time,
the
Agency
does
not
have
exposure
data
to
assess
oral
exposures
to
children
and
adults
from
using
treated
mouthpieces
and
reeds;
therefore,
the
Agency
is
requesting
residue
data
from
treated
mouthpieces
and
reeds.
 
In
this
assessment,
incidental
ingestion
and
dermal
exposures
to
treated
wood
were
estimated
using
DDAC
data
from
the
occupational
exposure
study.
The
degree
of
uncertainty
(
under­
or
overestimation)
associated
with
using
the
DDAC
hand
residue
data
for
dermal
and
oral
exposure
from
contacting
treated
lumber
are
unknown.
The
amount
of
residue
measured
on
the
test
subjects
hands
is
variable
and
are
influenced
by
Page
37
of
97
the
duration
of
exposure,
how
often
wood
is
contacted,
and
the
degree
of
contact
(
i.
e.,
do
the
hand
residues
from
the
DDAC
study
mimic
a
child's
play
activity
on
decks
and
playsets?).
 
Available
data
to
assess
the
levels
of
DDAC
in
soil
contaminated
with
DDAC­
treated
wood
do
not
exist
at
this
time.
In
addition,
leaching
data
were
also
not
available.
Because
of
this
data
gap,
EPA
was
not
able
to
estimate
dermal
and
incidental
ingestion
residential
post­
application
exposures
to
soil
contaminated
with
DDAC­
treated
wood.

5.0
RESIDENTIAL
AGGREGATE
RISK
ASSESSMENT
AND
CHARACTERIZATION
 
To
be
determined
in
the
risk
assessment.

6.0
OCCUPATIONAL
EXPOSURE
ASSESSMENT
The
exposure
scenarios
assessed
in
this
document
for
the
representative
uses
selected
by
AD
are
shown
in
Table
6.1.
The
table
also
shows
the
maximum
application
rate
associated
with
the
representative
use
and
the
appropriate
EPA
Registration
number
for
the
product
label.
It
should
be
noted
that
for
the
calculation
of
application
rates
in
which
8.34
lb
a.
i./
gal
is
noted,
the
product
is
assumed
to
have
the
density
of
water
because
no
product­
specific
density
is
available.
Appendix
A
presents
a
summary
of
all
exposure
scenarios
that
may
occur
in
occupational
settings
based
on
examination
of
product
labels.

Potential
occupational
handler
exposure
can
occur
in
various
use
sites,
which
include:
agricultural
premises,
industrial
processes
and
water
systems,
food
handling
premises,
commercial/
institutional/
industrial
premises,
medical
premises,
swimming
pools,
and
aquatic
areas.
Additionally,
occupational
exposure
can
occur
during
the
preservation
of
wood.
For
the
preservation
of
wood,
the
procedure
for
treatment
can
occur
in
different
ways,
such
that
multiple
worker
functions
were
analyzed.
Due
to
the
complexity
of
the
wood
preservative
analysis,
the
results
for
handler
and
post­
application
exposures
are
presented
separately
in
Section
6.3.

Table
6.1.
Representative
Exposure
Scenarios
Associated
with
Occupational
Exposures
to
DDAC
Representative
Use
Method
of
Application
Exposure
Scenario
Registration
#
Application
Rate
Agricultural
Premises
(
Use
Category
I)

General
Disinfectant
for
Hard
Surfaces,
Equipment,
Vehicles
 
Low
pressure
handwand
 
High
Pressure
Spray
 
Wiping
surface
 
Trigger
pump
spray
 
Mopping
ST/
IT
Handler:
Inhalation
10324­
81
0.0094
lb
ai/
gal
(
4.5%
a.
i.
x
3.2
fl.
oz/
gal
water
x
1
gal/
128
fl.
oz
x
8.34
lb/
gal
Florist
use)

Deodorize
garbage
cans
4.25
oz/
gal
or
0.013
lb
ai/
gal
Typical
rate
0.78
oz/
gal
or
0.0023
lb
ai/
gal
Page
38
of
97
Table
6.1.
Representative
Exposure
Scenarios
Associated
with
Occupational
Exposures
to
DDAC
Representative
Use
Method
of
Application
Exposure
Scenario
Registration
#
Application
Rate
Fogger
 
Liquid
pour
ST/
IT
Handler
(
mix/
load
only):
Inhalation
ST
Postapplication
inhalation
10324­
81
0.22
lb
ai/
gal
(
4.5%
a.
i.
x
74.8
fl.
oz/
gal
water
x
1
gal/
128
fl.
oz
x
8.34
lb/
gal)

Food
Handling
(
Use
Category
II)

 
Low
pressure
handwand
 
Mop
 
Wipe
 
Trigger
pump
sprayer
ST/
IT
Handler:
inhalation
10324­
134
0.0200
lb
a.
i./
gal
(
2
oz
product/
gal
water
x
15.36%
a.
i.
x
8.34
lb/
gal
x
1
gal/
128
oz)
Indoor
Hard
Surfaces
(
including
dishes,
utensils,
equipment)

 
Flood
 
Immersion
 
Circulation
(
Liquid
pour)
ST/
IT
Handler:
inhalation
1839­
173
0.00196
lb
ai/
gal
(
4.5%
a.
i.
x
0.78
oz
product/
gal
water
x
8.34
lb/
gal
x
1gal/
128oz)

Fogger
 
Liquid
pour
ST
Postapplication
Inhalation
10324­
80
0.0065
lb
ai/
gal
(
3.3%
ai
x
8.34
lb
ai/
gal
x
3
oz/
gal
x
1
gal/
128
oz)

Commercial/
Industrial/
Institutional
Premises
(
Use
Category
III)

 
Low
pressure
handwand
 
Mop
 
Wipe
 
Trigger
pump
sprayer
ST/
IT
Handler:
inhalation
10324­
134
0.0200
lb
a.
i./
gal
(
2
oz
product/
gal
water
x
15.36%
a.
i.
x
8.34
lb/
gal
x
1
gal/
128
oz)
Indoor
Hard
Surfaces
 
Liquid
pour
ST/
IT
Handler:
inhalation
10324­
80
0.0043
lb
a.
i./
gal
(
2
oz
/
gal
water
x
3.3%
a.
i.
x
8.34
lb/
gal
x
1
gal/
128
oz)

Carpets
 
Truck
mounted
extraction
machines
(
Liquid
pour)
ST/
IT
Handler:
Inhalation
1839­
67
0.102
lb
ai/
gal
(
13.02%
a.
i.
x12
oz
product/
gal
water
x
8.34
lb/
gal
x
1gal/
128oz)

Medical
Premises
(
Use
Category
V)
Indoor
Hard
Surfaces
 
Mop
ST/
IT
Handler:
inhalation
10324­
134
0.0200
lb
a.
i./
gal
(
2
oz
product/
gal
water
x
15.36%
a.
i.
x
8.34
lb/
gal
x
1
gal/
128
oz)

Industrial
processes
and
water
systems
(
Use
Category
VIII)
Oil
field
operations
­
drilling
mud
and
packing
fluidsa
 
Liquid
Pour
ST/
IT
Handler:
Inhalation
1839­
179
1.50
lb
ai/
gal
product
(
18%
a.
i.
x
8.34
lb/
gal
product)
Small
process
water
systems
(
i.
e.,
evaporative
 
Liquid
Pour
ST/
IT
Handler:
Inhalation
1839­
129
4.17
lb
ai/
gal
product
(
50%
ai
x
8.34
lb
ai/
gal)
Page
39
of
97
Table
6.1.
Representative
Exposure
Scenarios
Associated
with
Occupational
Exposures
to
DDAC
Representative
Use
Method
of
Application
Exposure
Scenario
Registration
#
Application
Rate
condensers,
water
scrubbing,
wastewater
treatment,
pasteurizers,
auxiliary
service
water,
recirculating
cooling
water)
 
Metered
pump
ST/
IT
Handler:
Inhalation
10707­
46
Maximum
0.0015
lb
ai/
gal
or
1,000
ppm
(
18%
ai
x
8.34
lb
ai/
gal
x
1,000
gal/
1,000,000
gal)
Maintenance
0.00015
lb
ai/
gal
or
100
ppm
(
18%
ai
x
8.34
lb
ai/
gal
x
100
gal/
1,000,000
gal)

Wood
Preservation
(
Use
Category
X)
Non­
pressure
treatment
of
wood
and
wood
products
in
wood
treatment
facilities
Handler
Worker
Functions
 
Diptank
Operators
 
Blender/
spray
operators
 
Chemical
operators
Post­
Application
Worker
Functions
 
Graders
 
Trim
saw
operators
 
Clean­
up
crews
 
Construction
Workers
ST/
IT/
LT
Handler:
inhalation
ST/
IT/
LT
Postapplication
dermal
and
inhalation
6836­
212
Diptank
operators
and
blender/
spray
operators:
3%
ai
solution
All
other
worker
functions:
80%
ai
in
product
Pressure
treatment
of
wood
and
wood
products
in
wood
treatment
facilities
Handler
Worker
Functions
 
Treatment
assistant
 
Treatment
operator
Post­
Application
Worker
Functions
 
Tram
setter,
stacker
operator,
loader
operator,
supervisor,
test
borer,
and
tallyman
ST/
IT/
LT
Handler:
inhalation
ST/
IT/
LT
Postapplication
dermal
inhalation
6836­
212
3%
aib
Swimming
Pools
(
Use
Category
XI)
c
Swimming
pools/
Spas
 
Liquid
pour
ST/
IT
Handler:
inhalation
10324­
69
1839­
133
Maintenance
(
IT/
LT):
0.00000417
lb
ai/
gal
(
10.0%
x
1
quart/
50,000
gal
x
8.34
lb/
gal
x
1
gal/
4
quarts)

Heavy
algae
(
ST):
0.000017
lb
ai/
gal
(
50.0%
x
5.25
oz/
10,000
gal
x
8.34
lb/
gal
x
1
gal/
128
oz)
a
For
the
secondary
recovery
application,
the
biocide
is
meter
pumped
into
the
produced
water
before
it
is
reinjected
into
the
formation
or
well.
Since
the
biocide
is
added
via
metering
pump
(
continuous
or
batch)
in
the
secondary
recovery
systems,
the
drilling
rig
worker
handling
the
biocide
via
open
pouring
is
expected
to
have
a
Page
40
of
97
higher
exposure
than
the
secondary
recovery
worker.
Additionally,
the
current
CMA
data
are
not
representative
of
handling
the
large
volume
assumed
in
this
scenario.
b
The
application
rate
for
pressure
treated
wood
preservation
is
based
on
the
master
label.
The
actual
label
only
provides
a
retention
rate.
c
The
swimming
pool
scenario
also
represents
the
decorative
pond/
fountain
scenario
in
the
aquatic
area
use
site
category
because
the
application
rates
are
very
similar.

6.1
Occupational
Handler
Exposures
The
occupational
handler
scenarios
included
in
Table
6.1
were
assessed
to
determine
inhalation
exposures.
The
general
assumptions
and
equations
that
were
used
to
calculate
occupational
handler
inhalation
risks
are
provided
in
Section
1.2,
Criteria
for
Conducting
the
Risk
Assessment.
The
majority
of
the
scenarios
were
assessed
using
CMA
data
and
Equations
1­
3.
However,
for
the
occupational
scenarios
in
which
CMA
data
were
insufficient,
other
data
and
methods
were
applied.

DDAC
dermal
irritation
exposures
and
risks
were
not
estimated
for
occupational
handler
exposures.
Instead,
dermal
irritation
exposures
and
risks
will
be
mitigated
using
default
personal
protective
equipment
requirements
based
on
the
toxicity
of
the
end­
use
product.
To
minimize
dermal
exposures,
the
minimum
PPE
required
for
mixers,
loaders,
and
others
exposed
to
end­
use
products
containing
concentrations
of
DDAC
that
result
in
classification
of
category
I,
II,
or
III
for
skin
irritation
potential
will
be
long­
sleeve
shirt,
long
pants,
shoes,
socks,
chemical­
resistant
gloves,
and
chemical­
resistant
apron.
Once
diluted,
if
the
concentration
of
DDAC
in
the
diluted
solution
would
result
in
classification
of
toxicity
category
IV
for
skin
irritation
potential,
then
the
chemical­
resistant
gloves
and
chemicalresistant
apron
can
be
eliminated
for
applicators
and
others
exposed
to
the
dilute.
Note
that
chemical­
resistant
eyewear
will
be
required
if
the
end­
use
product
is
classified
as
category
I
or
II
for
eye
irritation
potential.

Unit
Exposure
Values
(
UE):
Inhalation
unit
exposure
values
were
taken
from
the
proprietary
Chemical
Manufacturers
Association
(
CMA)
antimicrobial
exposure
study
(
USEPA
1999:
DP
Barcode
D247642)
or
from
the
Pesticide
Handler
Exposure
Database
(
USEPA
1998).

$
For
the
liquid
pour
scenarios,
the
unit
exposure
depends
on
the
material
being
treated.
The
following
CMA
unit
exposures
were
available
and
used
for
the
assessment
of
the
risk
associated
with
the
treatment
of
the
specified
materials.
o
Swimming
pools,
carpets,
and
oilfield
operations
(
drilling
muds
and
packer
fluids):
CMA
preservative
data
(
gloved).
The
inhalation
unit
exposure
is
0.00346
mg/
lb
a.
i.
and
is
based
on
2
replicates.
Although
this
unit
exposure
is
based
on
minimal
replicates,
the
exposure
value
is
similar
to
the
one
found
in
PHED
for
a
similar
scenarios.
o
Indoor
hard
surfaces
(
immersion,
flooding,
circulation
and
liquid
pour)
in
Use
Site
Categories
II
and
III:
The
inhalation
unit
exposure
value
for
disinfectant
liquid
pour
(
1.89
mg/
lb
a.
i.)
was
used.
o
Small
process
water
systems:
CMA
cooling
tower
data
(
gloved).
The
inhalation
unit
exposure
is
0.450
mg/
lb
a.
i.
and
is
based
on
5
replicates.

$
For
the
mopping
scenarios,
the
CMA
inhalation
unit
exposure
value
for
ungloved
mopping
was
used
(
2.38
mg/
lb
a.
i.).
This
value
is
based
on
data
collected
from
six
Page
41
of
97
replicates
in
which
the
applicator
mopped
the
floor
and
received
exposure
via
contact
with
the
mop
or
with
the
bucket.

$
For
the
wiping
scenarios,
the
CMA
inhalation
unit
exposure
value
for
ungloved
wiping
was
used
(
67.3
mg/
lb
a.
i.).
This
value
is
based
on
data
collected
from
six
replicates
(
dental
technicians)
who
used
a
finger
pump
sprayer
to
apply
the
product
and
then
wiped
the
surfaces
with
a
paper
towel
$
For
the
low
pressure
handwand
scenario,
the
CMA
inhalation
unit
exposure
value
for
low
pressure
spray
was
used
(
0.681
mg/
lb
a.
i.).
This
value
is
based
on
data
collected
from
eight
replicates
in
which
the
applicator
hand
sprayed
carpet
using
200
psi,
then
used
a
push
broom
rake
to
raise
the
carpet
nap
$
For
the
trigger
pump
spray
scenarios,
the
PHED
inhalation
unit
exposure
value
for
aerosol
applications
(
PHED
scenario
10)
was
used.
The
inhalation
unit
exposure
is
1.3
mg/
lb
a.
i.

$
For
the
liquid/
metering
pump
scenarios,
the
unit
exposure
depends
on
the
material
being
treated.
The
following
CMA
unit
exposures
were
available
and
used
for
the
assessment
of
the
risk
associated
with
the
treatment
of
the
specified
materials.
o
Small
process
water
systems:
CMA
cooling
tower
data.
The
inhalation
unit
exposure
is
0.00432
mg/
lb
a.
i.
and
is
based
on
4
replicates.

$
For
the
high­
pressure/
high
volume
spray
and
medium
pressure
spray
scenarios,
the
PHED
inhalation
unit
exposure
value
for
liquid/
open
pour/
high
pressure
spray
(
PHED
scenario
35)
was
used
(
0.12
mg/
lb
a.
i.).

$
For
airless
sprayer
scenarios,
the
occupational
PHED
inhalation
unit
exposure
value
for
airless
sprayer
application
(
PHED
scenario
23)
was
used.
The
inhalation
exposure
value
is
0.83
mg/
lb
a.
i.

$
For
the
fogging,
ULV/
mist
sprayer
and
automated
system
scenarios,
it
was
assumed
that
most
of
the
exposure
to
the
handler
will
be
due
to
preparing
the
fogger,
and
that
the
handler
leaves
the
room
immediately
after
fogging
commences.
Therefore,
the
available
CMA
disinfectant
liquid
pour
inhalation
unit
exposure
value
was
used.
The
inhalation
unit
exposure
value
is
1.89
mg/
lb
a.
i.,
respectively.
This
value
is
based
on
data
collected
from
two
gloved
replicates
involving
pouring
a
disinfectant
product
from
a
jug
into
sterilization
trays
designed
for
dental
instruments,
adding
water
and
instruments
to
the
tray,
removing
the
instruments,
and
discarding
the
old
solution.

$
For
the
brush/
roller
scenario,
the
occupational
PHED
inhalation
unit
exposure
value
for
paintbrush
applications
was
used
(
single
layer
of
clothing).
The
inhalation
exposure
value
is
0.28
mg/
lb
a.
i.

Quantity
handled/
treated:
The
quantity
handled/
treated
values
were
estimated
based
on
information
from
various
sources.
The
following
assumptions
were
made:

 
For
the
liquid
pour
scenarios,
the
quantity
of
the
chemical
that
is
handled
depends
on
the
material
that
is
being
treated.
The
following
values
were
used
for
the
different
materials:
o
Swimming
pools:
200,000
gallons.
o
Indoor
hard
surfaces
(
immersion,
flooding,
circulation,
and
liquid
pour):
2
gallons.
o
Carpets:
32
gallons,
based
on
label
1839­
81
(
solution
is
metered
at
4
gallons
per
hour,
assuming
an
8­
hour
shift).
o
Oil
field
operations
(
drilling
muds
and
packer
fluids):
The
following
use
information
was
used
to
estimate
the
amount
of
ai
handled
per
day
during
oil
Page
42
of
97
well
activities.
Biocide
is
typically
added
directly
to
drilling
rig
mud
tanks
via
open
pouring.
Over
a
3
to
6
week
period,
while
a
13,000
ft
well
is
being
drilled,
1
to
2
drums
(
1
drum
=
42
gallons)
of
biocide
may
be
used
if
microbiological
problems
are
encountered.
Therefore,
the
short­
term
exposure
assessment
used
5.6
gallons
for
the
amount
of
biocide
handled
per
day
by
the
drilling
rig
worker
[
i.
e.,
(
2
drums
x
42
gal/
drum)
/
(
5
days/
week
x
3
weeks)
=
5.6
gal/
day].
The
intermediate­
term
exposure
assessment
used
2.8
gallons
for
the
amount
of
biocide
handled
per
day
by
the
drilling
rig
worker
[
i.
e.,
(
2
drums
x
42
gal/
drum)
/
(
5
days/
week
x
6
weeks)
=
2.8
gal/
day].
Although
crew
changes
may
occur
in
drilling
rig
operations,
typically
a
designated
customer
representative
is
responsible
for
the
biocide
feeding.
Therefore,
one
person
would
be
involved
with
the
biocide
application
activities
on
a
daily
basis.
o
Small
process
water
systems:
Workers
in
small
systems
could
manually
pour
up
to
5
to
10
gallons
of
biocide
into
the
system,
but
larger
systems
would
utilize
chemical
pumps
in
order
to
save
time
and
labor
expense.
However,
for
DDAC
the
application
rate
is
low
(
16
oz
product/
1000
gallons
of
water),
and
therefore,
the
maximum
amount
used
for
closed
systems
is
assumed
for
open
pour.
Therefore,
AD
assumed
that
workers
handle
2.5
gallons
of
biocide
per
day
when
making
open
pour
applications.

$
For
the
liquid/
metering
pump
scenarios
the
quantity
that
is
handled
depends
on
the
material
that
is
being
treated.
The
following
values
were
used
for
the
different
materials:
o
Small
process
water
systems:
AD
has
assumed
that
20,000
gallons
of
water
are
treated
daily
when
chemical
pump
applications
are
made.
 
For
the
mopping
scenarios,
it
was
assumed
that
two
gallons
of
solution
are
used
in
the
agricultural,
food
handling,
and
commercial/
institutional/
industrial
settings
and
45
gallons
are
used
in
the
medical
setting.
The
medical
setting
use
amount
is
based
on
a
janitor
cleans
approximately
28
hospital
rooms
a
day
and
changing
the
cleaning
water
every
three
rooms
(
Helwig
2003).
 
For
the
wiping
and
trigger
pump
spray
scenarios,
it
was
assumed
that
1
liter
or
0.26
gallons
were
used.
 
For
the
fogging
scenario
in
the
agricultural
use
site
category,
it
was
assumed
that
150,000
ft3
is
treated,
based
on
the
estimated
dimensions
of
a
poultry
barn
(
300
ft
x
50
ft
x
10
ft).
As
the
label
directions
only
state
to
fog
for
one
minute
on
maximum
output
per
4,000
ft3
and
does
not
provide
the
amount
of
treatment
solution
to
use
per
cubic
foot,
AD
assumed
that
the
maximum
fogger
output
is
0.42
gallons/
min
(
25
gal/
hr).
This
value
is
the
maximum
output
for
the
Mistermax
fogger
which
is
used
to
dispense
fungicides,
insecticides,
germicides
and
disinfectants
as
wettable
powders,
emulsifiable
concentrates,
flowables
or
liquids
in
a
variety
of
applications
such
as
greenhouses,
warehouses,
food
processing
plants,
and
swine/
poultry
houses
(
http://
bugsource.
com/
mistermax.
html).
 
For
the
low­
pressure
handwand
scenario,
it
was
assumed
that
40
gallons
of
solution
are
used
in
agricultural
scenarios
(
USEPA
2001)
and
2
gallons
are
used
in
all
other
applications.
 
For
the
high­
pressure
spray
scenario,
it
was
assumed
that
40
gallons
of
solution
are
used.

Duration
of
Exposure:
The
MOEs
were
calculated
for
the
short­
and
intermediate­
term
durations
for
occupational
handlers
using
the
appropriate
endpoints
in
Table
3.2.
Exposure
Calculations
and
Results
Page
43
of
97
The
resulting
inhalation
exposures
and
MOEs
for
the
representative
occupational
handler
scenarios
are
presented
in
Table
6.2.
The
calculated
MOEs
were
above
the
target
MOE
of
100
for
all
scenarios.

A
confirmatory
inhalation
toxicity
study
may
be
warranted
because
inhalation
MOEs
were
below
1,000
for
the
following
scenarios:

 
Small
process
water
systems,
liquid
pour:
ST/
IT
Inhalation
MOE
=
130
 
Agricultural
fogging,
mixing
and
loading:
ST/
IT
Inhalation
MOE
=
110
 
Medical
premises,
mopping:
ST/
IT
Inhalation
MOE
=
280
 
Wood
Preservation
(
non­
pressure
treatment),
blender/
sprayer:
ST/
IT/
LT
Inhalation
MOE
=
280
Table
6.2
Short­
,
Intermediate­
and
Long­
Term
Inhalation
Risks
Associated
with
Occupational
Handlers
Exposure
Scenario
Method
of
Application
Inhalation
Unit
Exposure
(
mg/
lb
a.
i.)
Application
Rate
Quantity
Handled/
Treated
per
day
Inhalation
Daily
Dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
a
Inhalation
MOEb,
c
(
Target
MOE
=
100)

Agricultural
Premises
and
Equipment
(
Use
Site
Category
I)

Mop
2.38
0.0094
lb
ai/
gal
2
gallons
0.0075
13,000
High
pressure/
high
volume
spray
0.12
0.0094
lb
ai/
gal
40
gallons
0.00075
13,000
Low
pressure
handwand
0.681
0.0094
lb
ai/
gal
40
gallons
0.0043
2,300
Trigger
pump
sprayer
1.3
0.0094
lb
ai/
gal
0.26
gallons
0.000052
190,000
Application
to
hard
surfaces,
equipment,
and
vehicles
Wipe
67.3
0.0094
lb
ai/
gal
0.26
gallons
0.0027
3,600
Fogging
(
mix/
load
only)
Liquid
pour
1.89
1.88E­
05
lb/
ft3
150,000
ft3
0.089
110
Food
Handling/
Storage
Establishments
Premises
And
Equipment
(
Use
Site
Category
II)

Low
pressure
handwand
0.681
0.0200
lb
ai/
gal
2
gallons
0.00045
22,000
Mop
2.38
0.0200
lb
ai/
gal
2
gallons
0.0016
6,300
Wipe
67.3
0.0200
lb
ai/
gal
0.26
gallons
0.0058
1,700
Trigger
pump
sprayer
1.3
0.0200
lb
ai/
gal
0.26
gallons
0.00011
89,000
Application
to
indoor
hard
surfaces
Immersion,
Flooding,
Circulation
1.89
0.00196
lb
ai/
gal
2
gallons
0.00012
81,000
Commercial,
Institutional
and
Industrial
Premises
and
Equipment
(
Use
Site
Category
III
)

Low
pressure
handwand
0.681
0.0200
lb
ai/
gal
2
gallons
0.00045
22,000
Mop
2.38
0.0200
lb
ai/
gal
2
gallons
0.0016
6,300
Wipe
67.3
0.0200
lb
ai/
gal
0.26
gallons
0.0058
1,700
Trigger
pump
sprayer
1.3
0.0200
lb
ai/
gal
0.26
gallons
0.00011
89,000
Application
to
indoor
hard
surfaces
Liquid
pour
1.89
0.0043
lb
ai/
gal
2
gallons
0.00027
37,000
Application
to
carpets
Liquid
pour
0.00346
0.102
lb
ai/
gal
32
gallons
0.00019
53,000
Page
44
of
97
Table
6.2
Short­
,
Intermediate­
and
Long­
Term
Inhalation
Risks
Associated
with
Occupational
Handlers
Exposure
Scenario
Method
of
Application
Inhalation
Unit
Exposure
(
mg/
lb
a.
i.)
Application
Rate
Quantity
Handled/
Treated
per
day
Inhalation
Daily
Dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
a
Inhalation
MOEb,
c
(
Target
MOE
=
100)

Medical
Premises
and
Equipment
(
Use
Site
Category
V)

Application
to
hard
surfaces
Mop
2.38
0.0200
lb
ai/
gal
45
gallons
0.036
280
Industrial
Processes
and
Water
Systems
(
Use
Site
Category
VIII)

Liquid
pour
0.45
4.17
lb
ai/
gal
product
2.5
gallons
0.078
130
Initial
Dose
(
ST):
1.50E­
03lb
ai/
gal
water
20,000
gallons
0.0022
ST
=
4,600
Small
process
water
systems:
Recirculating
cooling
tower
Metering
pump
0.00432
Maintenance
Dose
(
IT):
1.50E­
04lb
ai/
gal
water
20,000
gallons
0.00022
IT
=
46,000
5.6
gallons
0.00048
ST
=
21,000
Oil
field
operations
­
drilling
mud
and
packing
fluids
Liquid
pour
0.00346
1.50
lb
ai/
gal
product
2.8
gallons
0.00024
IT
=
41,000
Swimming
Pools
(
Use
Site
Category
X)
d
Heavy
algae
Dose
(
ST):

0.000017
lb
ai/
gal
200,000
gallons
0.00020
ST=
15,000
Application
to
swimming
pools
Liquid
pour
0.00346
Maintenance
Dose
(
IT/
LT):

0.00000417
lb
ai/
gal
200,000
gallons
0.000048
IT=
210,000
ST
=
short­
term,
IT
=
intermediate­
term,
LT
=
long­
term,
N/
A=
No
data
available
a
Daily
dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
=
[
unit
exposure
(
mg/
lb
a.
i.)
x
absorption
factor
(
1.0
for
inhalation)
x
application
rate
x
quantity
treated
/
Body
weight
(
60
kg
for
inhalation).
b
MOE
=
NOAEL
(
mg/
kg/
day)
/
Absorbed
Daily
Dose
[
Where
NOAEL
=
10
mg/
kg/
day
for
all
inhalation
exposure
durations].
Target
MOE
=
100.
c
The
MOEs
refer
to
short­
term
and
intermediate­
term
duration
unless
indicated
otherwise.
d.
The
swimming
pool
scenario
also
represents
the
decorative
pond/
fountain
scenario
in
the
aquatic
area
use
site
category
because
the
application
rates
are
very
similar.

6.2
Occupational
Post­
application
Exposures
Except
for
the
post­
application
scenarios
assessed
for
fogging
and
wood
preservatives
in
Section
6.3,
occupational
post­
application
exposures
are
assumed
to
be
negligible.

Fogging
(
Food
Processing
Plant
and
Hatchery)
Post­
application
inhalation
exposures
only
were
assessed
for
entry
into
a
building
(
hatchery
and
food
processing
plant)
after
a
fogging
application,
because
dermal
post
application
is
presumed
to
be
negligible.
The
inhalation
exposure
assessment
was
conducted
using
the
Multi­
Chamber
Concentration
and
Exposure
Model
(
MCCEM
v1.2).
MCCEM
estimates
average
and
peak
indoor
air
concentrations
of
chemicals
released
from
products
or
materials
in
houses,
apartments,
townhouses,
or
other
residences.
Although
the
data
libraries
contained
in
MCCEM
are
limited
to
residential
settings,
the
model
can
be
used
to
assess
other
Page
45
of
97
indoor
environments.
MCCEM
has
the
capability
to
estimate
inhalation
exposures
to
chemicals,
calculated
as
single
day
doses,
chronic
average
daily
doses,
or
lifetime
average
daily
doses.
(
All
dose
estimates
are
potential
doses;
they
do
not
account
for
actual
absorption
into
the
body.)

The
product,
EPA
Reg
#
10324­
80
(
3.3%
ai)
with
a
maximum
application
rate
of
0.0065
lb
ai/
gal,
was
assessed
for
fogging
use
in
a
food
processing
plant.
The
label
states
to
fog
one
quart
of
the
diluted
product
per
1,000
cubic
feet.
All
labels
which
can
be
used
for
fogging
in
food
processing
areas
indicate
that
all
personnel
must
vacate
the
room
during
fogging
and
for
a
minimum
of
2
hours
after
fogging.
Therefore,
exposure
was
calculated
for
a
person
entering
the
food
processing
plant
2
hours
after
all
the
applied
fogger
has
been
deployed.

The
product,
EPA
Reg
#
10324­
108
(
13.02%
ai)
with
a
maximum
application
rate
of
0.181
lb
ai/
gal,
was
assessed
for
fogging
use
in
hatcheries
and
incubators.
After
fogging,
the
label
states
that
the
building
should
be
well
ventilated
and
not
to
enter
until
2
hours
after
fogging,
unless
wearing
a
self­
contained
respirator
and
long
pants/
long
sleeves.
The
remaining
labels
for
fogging
use
in
hatchery
rooms
and
incubator
indicate
re­
entry
intervals
of
0
to
2
hours.
Therefore,
exposure
was
calculated
for
a
person
entering
the
building
immediately
after
all
the
applied
fogger
has
been
deployed
and
2
hours
after
all
the
applied
fogger
has
been
deployed
Assumptions
used
to
calculate
inputs
for
MCCEM
and
the
calculated
exposure
values
are
presented
in
Table
6.3
for
food
processing
plants
and
in
Table
6.4
for
hatcheries.
The
following
assumptions
were
made:

 
The
area
being
fogged
is
a
one­
chamber
barn
with
dimensions
of
300
ft
x
50
ft
x10
ft
(
AD
standard
assumption).
 
For
the
food
processing
plant,
the
air
exchange
rate
is
0.18
per
hour
(
MCCEM
default
based
on
a
residential
home).
For
a
hatchery,
the
air
exchange
rate
is
4
per
hour
based
on
the
rate
for
a
poultry
barn
(
Jacobson,
2005).
 
Fogging
occurs
instantaneously,
so
that
the
entire
mass
of
product
is
mixed
homogeneously
with
the
indoor
air
as
soon
as
fogging
commences.
 
It
is
assumed
that
all
of
the
aerosols
are
inhalable
and/
or
respirable.

Table
6.3.
Short
and
Intermediate
Term
Inhalation
Risks
Associated
with
Post­
application
Exposure
to
DDAC
After
Fogging
a
Food
Processing
Plant
Parametera
Value
Rationale
Dimensions
300x50x10
ft,
15,000
ft2
floor
area,
150,000
ft3
(
4,248
m3)
volume
EPA
Assumption
Air
Changes
per
Hour
(
ACH)*
0.18/
hr
EPA
Assumption
Activity
Pattern*
8­
hr
average
concentration
starting
at
expiration
of
2­
hr
REI
Based
on
product
=

s
re­
entry
interval
(
10324­
80)
Concentration
of
Fogging
Liquid
0.0065
lb
ai/
gal
Product
Label
(
See
Table
6.1)
Use
rate
1
quart/
1,000
ft3
Product
label
Amount
applied
to
room
0.0258
g
ai/
m3
(
Use
rate)
x
(
Concentration)
Body
Weight
60
kg
EPA
Assumption
Page
46
of
97
Table
6.3.
Short
and
Intermediate
Term
Inhalation
Risks
Associated
with
Post­
application
Exposure
to
DDAC
After
Fogging
a
Food
Processing
Plant
Parametera
Value
Rationale
Inhalation
Rate
1.0
m3/
hr
NAFTA
Light
Activity
for
Adults
(
USEPA,
1997)
MCCEM
Output
Average
Concentration
over
8­
hrs
(
mg/
m3)
2­
hr
re­
entry:
9.74
Average
of
MCCEM­
calculated
air
concentrations
from
Hour
2
to
Hour
10
for
2­
hr
REI
8­
hr
Dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
2­
hr
re­
entry:
1.30
Average
Conc.
*
8
hrs
*
Inhal.
Rate
/
BW
8­
hr
short­
term
MOE
2­
hr
re­
entry:
7
NOAEL
(
10
mg/
kg/
day)
/
Dose
*
Used
as
MCCEM
input.
Default
values
from
MCCEM
were
used
for
all
inputs
not
listed
in
the
table
above
Table
6.4.
Short
and
Intermediate
Term
Inhalation
Risks
Associated
with
Post­
application
Exposure
to
DDAC
After
Fogging
a
Hatchery
Parameter
Value
Rationale
Barn
Dimensions*
300x50x10
ft,
15,000
ft2
floor
area,
150,000
ft3
(
4,248
m3)
volume
EPA
Assumption
Air
Changes
per
Hour
(
ACH)*
4/
hr
Jacobson,
2005
Activity
Pattern*
8­
hr
average
concentration
starting
at
expiration
of
0­
hr
re­
entry
interval
and
2­
hr
re­
entry
interval
Based
on
product
=

s
re­
entry
interval
Application
Rate
of
Fogging
Liquid
0.181
lb
ai/
gal.
(
Note:
Max
rate
0.22
lb
ai/
gal)
Product
Label
(
See
Table
6.1)

Use
rate
0.42
gal/
4,000
ft3
Product
label
states
to
fog
1
min/
4,000
ft3.
Output
of
0.42
gal/
min
from
http://
bugsource.
com/
mistermax.
html
Mass
applied
to
barn
0.301
g
ai/
m3
(
application
rate)
x
(
use
rate)
Body
Weight
60
kg
EPA
Assumption
Inhalation
Rate
1.0
m3/
hr
NAFTA
Light
Activity
for
Adults
(
USEPA,
1997)
MCCEM
Output
Average
Concentration
over
8­
hrs
(
mg/
m3)
0­
hr
Re­
entry:
0.62
2­
hr
Re­
entry:
0.0114
Average
of
MCCEM­
calculated
air
concentrations
from
Hour
0
to
Hour
8
for
0­
hr
re­
entry
and
Hour
2
to
Hour
10
for
2­
hr
re­
entry
8­
hr
Dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
0­
hr
Re­
entry:
0.083
2­
hr
Re­
entry:
0.0015
Average
Conc.
*
8
hrs
*
Inhal.
Rate
/
BW
8­
hr
short­
term
MOE
0­
hr
Re­
entry:
120
2­
hr
Re­
entry:
6,600
NOAEL
(
10
mg/
kg/
day)
/
Dose
A
detailed
report
is
presented
in
Appendix
D,
including
hourly
air
concentrations.
Based
on
MCCEM
output,
8­
hr
MOE
values
were
calculated.
The
MOE
for
fogging
in
the
food
processing
plant
(
2­
hr
re­
entry
interval)
was
below
the
target
MOE
of
100
(
MOE
=
8).
For
fogging
in
hatcheries,
the
8­
hr
MOE
immediately
following
release
and
after
a
2
hr
reentry
were
above
the
target
MOE
of
100
(
MOE
=
120
and
6,600,
respectively).
Because
the
8­
hr
MOE
for
entering
a
hatchery
immediately
after
fogging
is
below
1,000,
the
Agency
may
request
a
confirmatory
inhalation
toxicity
study.
The
risks
of
concern
for
the
food
processing
plant
are
attributed
to
the
low
air
changes
per
hour
assumed
(
i.
e.,
0.18
ACH)
in
the
assessment.
For
the
poultry
barn,
ventilation
rate
was
obtained
from
Jacobson
(
2005).
The
Page
47
of
97
assessment
for
food
processing
plants
could
be
refined
if
a
more
accurate
ventilation
rate
could
be
obtained.

6.3
Wood
Preservation
DDAC
is
used
in
products
that
are
intended
to
preserve
wood
through
both
nonpressure
treatment
methods
and
pressure
treatment
methods.
The
exposure
scenarios
assessed
in
this
document
for
the
representative
wood
preservation
uses
selected
by
AD
are
shown
in
Table
6.1.
Section
6.3.1
presents
the
exposure
analysis
for
the
handler
and
post­
application
scenarios
for
non­
pressure
treatment
scenarios
and
Section
6.3.2
presents
the
exposure
analysis
for
the
handler
and
post­
application
scenarios
for
pressure
treatment
scenarios.

Dermal
irritation
exposures
from
post­
application
activities
in
the
wood
preservation
treatment
facility
will
be
mitigated
using
default
personal
protective
equipment
requirements
based
on
the
toxicity
of
the
end­
use
product.
Therefore,
only
inhalation
exposures
and
risks
are
presented.

6.3.1
Non­
Pressure
Treatment
Scenarios
(
Handler
and
Post­
application)

The
proprietary
study,
"
Measurement
and
Assessment
of
Dermal
and
Inhalation
Exposures
to
Didecyl
Dimethyl
Ammonium
Chloride
(
DDAC)
Used
in
the
Protection
of
Cut
Lumber
(
Phase
III)"
(
Bestari
et
al.,
1999,
MRID
455243­
04)
identified
various
worker
functions/
positions
for
individuals
that
handle
DDAC­
containing
wood
preservatives
for
nonpressure
treatment
application
methods
and
for
individuals
that
could
then
come
into
contact
with
the
preserved
wood.
The
worker
functions/
positions
identified
in
the
DDAC
study
are
presented
below.

Handler:
 
Blender/
spray
operators
are
workers
that
add
the
wood
preservative
into
a
blender/
sprayer
system
for
composite
wood
via
closed­
liquid
pumping.
 
Diptank
Operators
can
be
in
reference
to
wood
being
lowered
into
the
treating
solution
through
an
automated
process
(
i.
e.,
elevator
diptank,
forklift
diptank).
This
scenario
can
also
occur
in
a
smaller
scale
treatment
facility
in
which
the
worker
can
manually
dip
the
wood
into
the
treatment
solution.
 
Chemical
operators
for
a
spray
box
system
consist
of
chemical
operators,
chemical
assistants,
chemical
supervisors,
and
chemical
captains.
These
individuals
maintain
a
chemical
supply
balance
along
with
flushing
and
cleaning
spray
nozzles.

Post­
application:
 
Graders,
positioned
right
after
the
spray
box,
grade
dry
lumber
by
hand
(
i.
e.
detect
faults).
In
the
DDAC
study,
graders
graded
wet
lumber;
therefore,
the
exposures
to
graders
using
DDAC
are
worst­
case
scenarios.
 
Millwrights
repair
all
conveyer
chains
and
general
up­
keep
of
the
mill.
 
Clean­
up
crews
perform
general
cleaning
duties
at
the
mill.
 
Trim
saw
operators
operate
the
hula
trim
saw
and
consist
of
operators
and
strappers.
In
the
DDAC
study,
hula
trim
saw
operators
handled
dry
lumber.
 
Construction
workers
install
treated
plywood,
oriented
strand
board,
medium
density
fiberboard,
and
others.
Page
48
of
97
The
blender/
spray
operator
position
was
assessed
using
CMA
unit
exposure
data
and
the
remaining
handler
and
post­
application
positions
were
assessed
using
data
from
the
DDAC
study
(
Bestari
et
al.,
1999).

Blender/
Spray
Operators
The
inhalation
exposures
and
risks
to
the
composite
wood
blender/
spray
operators
were
assessed
using
Equations
1
through
3
in
Section
1.2.
The
surrogate
unit
exposures
were
taken
from
the
CMA
study
(
USEPA,
1999b).
Specifically,
the
liquid
pump
preservative
unit
exposures
were
used
in
this
assessment.
The
inhalation
unit
exposure
is
0.000403
mg/
lb
ai.
These
values
are
based
on
two
replicates.
The
quantity
of
the
wood
being
treated
was
derived
from
other
wood
preservative
estimates
(
USEPA,
2004)
for
the
amount
of
wood
slurry
treated
because
no
chemical
specific
data
were
available
for
DDAC.
It
was
assumed
that
batches
of
wood
slurry
are
treated
in
10,000
gallon
tanks,
and
that
eight
batches
of
wood
slurry
are
treated
per
day
(
one
per
hour
for
an
8­
hr
work
shift).
Additionally,
it
was
assumed
that
each
batch
requires
3,000
gallons
of
preservatives
and
the
remainder
volume
of
the
tank
consists
of
wood
slurry
(
7,000
gallons
of
wood
slurry
per
batch).
Since
wood
chips
have
a
density
of
approximately
380
kg/
m3
(
SIMetric,
2005),
the
total
amount
of
wood
slurry
treated
per
day
would
be
178,000
lbs
(
8
batches/
day
x
7,000
gallons/
batch
x
0.003785
m3/
gallon
x
380
kg/
m3
x
2.2
lb/
kg).
The
assumptions
used
for
batch
sizes
and
the
quantity
of
preservative
needed
are
consistent
with
an
assessment
performed
previously
by
the
EPA
(
USEPA
2003).
The
DDAC
assessment
was
conducted
using
an
application
rate
of
3%
ai
solution.

Table
6.5
provides
the
inhalation
doses
and
MOEs
for
the
workers
adding
the
preservative
to
the
wood
slurry.
The
inhalation
MOE
is
above
the
target
MOE
of
100
for
short­,
intermediate­,
and
long­
term
inhalation
exposures
(
MOE
=
280).
However,
the
MOE
is
below
1,000;
therefore,
the
Agency
may
request
a
confirmatory
inhalation
toxicity
study.

Table
6.5.
Short­,
Intermediate­,
and
Long­
Term
Inhalation
Exposures
and
MOEs
for
Blender/
Spray
Operator
Exposure
Scenario
Inhalation
Unit
Exposurea
(
mg/
lb
ai)
Application
Rate
(%
ai
in
solution/

day)
Wood
Slurry
Treatedb
(
lb/
day)
Daily
Dosec
(
mg/
kg/
day)
ST/
IT/
LT
MOEd
(
Target
MOE
=
100)
Occupational
Handler
Blender/
spray
operator
0.000403
3
178,000
0.036
280
ST
=
Short­
term
duration;
IT
=
Intermediate­
term
duration;
and
LT
=
long­
term.
a.
Inhalation
unit
exposure:
Baseline.
b.
Wood
slurry
treated
=
(
8
batches/
day
x
7,000
gallons/
batch
x
0.003785
m3/
gallon
x
380
kg/
m3
x
2.2
lb/
kg)
c.
Daily
Dose
=
unit
exposure
(
mg/
lb
ai)
x
App
Rate
(%
ai/
day)
x
Quantity
treated
(
lb/
day)
x
absorption
factor
(
100%
for
inhalation)
/
BW
(
60
kg)
d.
MOE
=
NOAEL
(
mg/
kg/
day)/
Daily
dose
[
Where
ST/
IT/
LT
NOAEL
=
10
mg/
kg/
day
for
inhalation.
Target
MOE
=
100.

Chemical
Operators,
Graders,
Millwrights,
Clean­
up
Crews,
and
Trim
Saw
Operators
The
inhalation
exposures
to
chemical
operators,
graders,
millwrights,
trim
saw
operators,
and
clean­
up
crews
were
assessed
using
the
exposure
data
from
the
DDAC
study
(
Bestari
et
al.,
1999).
The
DDAC
study
examined
individuals
=

exposure
to
DDAC
while
working
with
antisapstains
and
performing
routine
tasks
at
11
sawmills/
planar
mills
in
Canada.
Page
49
of
97
Inhalation
exposure
monitoring
data
were
gathered
for
each
job
function
of
interest
using
dosimeters
and
personal
sampling
tubes.
Dosimeters
and
personal
air
sampling
tubes
were
analyzed
for
DDAC.
Exposure
data
for
individuals
performing
the
same
job
functions
were
averaged
together
to
determine
job
specific
averages.
Monitoring
was
conducted
using
2
trim
saw
workers,
13
grader
workers,
11
chemical
operators,
3
millwrights,
and
6
clean­
up
staff.

The
individual
inhalation
exposures
from
the
DDAC
study
are
presented
in
Table
E­
1
in
Appendix
E.
The
study
was
conducted
using
a
product
containing
80%
DDAC;
therefore,
the
exposures
do
not
need
to
be
modified
to
account
for
any
differences
in
percent
active
ingredient.
The
lb
ai
handled
by
each
person
or
the
%
ai
in
the
treatment
solution
were
not
provided
for
these
worker
functions
in
the
DDAC
study.

The
following
equation
was
used
to
calculate
daily
dose
for
DDAC:

Daily
Dose
=
DDAC
UE
x
AB
(
Eq.
13)
BW
Where:
DDAC
UE
=
DDAC
inhalation
unit
exposure
(
mg/
day);
AB
=
Absorption
factor
(
100%
inhalation);
and
BW
=
Body
weight
(
60
kg).

In
using
this
methodology,
the
following
assumptions
were
made:

 
DDAC
and
DDAC
end­
use
products
will
be
used
in
similar
quantities.

 
The
procedures
for
applying
both
chemicals
are
similar.

 
The
limits
of
detections
(
LOD)
for
inhalation
residues
from
chemical
operators,
graders,
mill
wrights,
and
clean­
up
staff
replicates
were
not
provided
in
the
DDAC
report.
For
lack
of
better
data,
it
was
assumed
that
the
inhalation
LODs
for
these
worker
positions
are
equal
to
the
LOD
of
the
diptank
operator
replicates
(
5.6
µ
g).
For
all
measurements
below
the
air
concentration
associated
with
this
detection
limit,
half
the
detection
limit
was
used.

 
Air
concentrations
were
reported
in
the
DDAC
study.
To
convert
air
concentrations
(
µ
g/
m3)
into
terms
of
inhalation
unit
exposure
(
mg/
day),
the
air
concentrations
were
multiplied
by
an
inhalation
rate
of
1.0
m3/
hr
for
light
activity
(
USEPA,
1997),
a
sample
duration
of
8
hrs/
day,
and
a
conversion
factor
of
1
mg/
1000
µ
g.
Table
D­
1
in
Appendix
D
presents
the
inhalation
exposures.

Table
6.6
provides
the
short­,
intermediate­,
and
long­
term
inhalation
doses
and
MOEs
for
chemical
operators,
graders,
millwrights,
clean­
up
crews,
and
trim
saw
operators.
The
inhalation
MOEs
are
above
the
target
MOE
of
100
for
all
worker
functions.
Any
dermal
irritation
exposures
from
post­
application
activities
will
be
mitigated
using
default
personal
protective
equipment
requirements
based
on
the
toxicity
of
the
end­
use
product.
Page
50
of
97
It
should
be
noted
that
although
the
target
inhalation
MOE
is
100,
the
MOE
for
the
clean­
crew
workers
is
below
1,000;
therefore,
the
Agency
may
request
a
confirmatory
inhalation
toxicity
study.

 
Wood
Preservation
(
non­
pressure
treatment),
clean­
up
crew:
ST/
IT/
LT
Inhalation
MOE
=
990
Table
6.6.
Short­,
Intermediate,
and
Long­
Term
Inhalation
Exposures
and
MOEs
for
Wood
Preservative
Chemical
Operators,
Graders,
Trim
Saw
Operators,
and
Clean­
Up
Crews
(
Handler
and
Post­
application
Activities)

Exposure
Scenarioa
(
number
of
volunteers)
Inhalation
UEb
(
mg/
day)
Conversion
Ratioc
Daily
Dosed
(
mg/
kg/
day)
MOEe
(
Target
MOE
=
100)

Occupational
Handlers
Chemical
Operator
(
n=
11)
0.0281
NA
0.000468
21,000
Occupational
Post­
Application
Grader
(
n=
13)
0.0295
NA
0.000491
20,000
Trim
Saw
(
n=
2)
0.061
NA
0.00101
9,900
Millwright
(
n=
3)
0.057
NA
0.00095
11,000
Clean­
Up
(
n=
6)
0.60
NA
0.0101
990
ST
=
Short­
term
duration,
IT
=
Intermediate­
term
duration,
LT
=
Long­
term
duration
a.
The
exposure
scenario
represents
a
worker
wearing
short­
sleeved
shirts,
cotton
work
trousers,
and
cotton
glove
dosimeter
gloves
under
chemical
resistant
gloves.
Volunteers
were
grouped
according
to
tasks
they
conducted
at
the
mill.
b.
Inhalation
unit
exposures
are
from
Bestari
et.
al.
(
1999).
Refer
to
Table
E­
1
in
Appendix
E
for
the
calculation
of
the
inhalation
exposures.
Inhalation
exposure
(
mg/
day)
was
calculated
using
the
following
equation:
Air
concentration
(
µ
g/
m3)
x
Inhalation
rate
(
1.0
m3/
hr)
x
Sample
duration
(
8
hr/
day)
x
Unit
conversion
(
1
mg/
1000
µ
g).
The
inhalation
rate
is
from
USEPA,
1997.
c.
A
conversion
ratio
is
not
needed
because
the
maximum
%
active
ingredient
in
the
product
is
the
same
as
the
%
active
ingredient
in
the
DDAC
study.
d.
Daily
dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
=
exposure
(
mg/
day)
x
absorption
factor
(
100%
for
inhalation)/
body
weight
(
60
kg).
e.
MOE
=
NOAEL
(
mg/
kg/
day)/
Daily
dose
[
Where
inhalation
NOAEL
=
10
mg/
kg/
day].
Target
MOE
=
100.

Diptank
Operators
Exposures
to
diptank
operators
were
also
assessed
using
the
data
from
the
DDAC
study
(
Bestari
et
al.,
1999).
The
diptank
scenario
assessment
was
conducted
differently
than
for
the
other
job
functions
because
the
concentration
of
DDAC
in
the
diptank
solution
was
provided.
The
exposure
data
for
diptank
operators
were
converted
into
A
unit
exposures
@

in
terms
of
mg
a.
i.
for
each
1%
of
concentration
of
the
product.
The
calculation
of
the
inhalation
unit
exposure
(
0.046
mg/
1%
solution,
respectively)
is
presented
in
Table
E­
2
in
Appendix
E.
The
air
concentrations
presented
in
the
DDAC
study
were
converted
to
unit
exposures
using
an
inhalation
rate
of
1.0
m3/
hr
(
light
activity)
(
USEPA,
1997)
and
a
sample
duration
of
8
hrs/
day.

The
following
equations
are
used
to
estimate
inhalation
handler
exposure:
Page
51
of
97
Daily
Dose
=
DDAC
UE
x
AI
x
AB
(
Eq.
14)
BW
Where:

DDAC
UE
=
DDAC
inhalation
unit
exposure
(
mg/
1%
in
solution);
AI
=
Percent
active
ingredient
(
3%
ai
in
solution/
day);
AB
=
Absorption
factor
(
100%
for
inhalation);
and
BW
=
Body
weight
(
60
kg).

Table
6.7
provides
the
short­,
intermediate­
and
long­
term
inhalation
dose
and
MOEs
for
diptank
operators.
The
inhalation
MOE
is
above
the
target
MOE
of
100
and,
therefore,
is
not
of
concern.

Table
6.7.
Short­,
Intermediate­,
and
Long­
Term
Inhalation
Exposures
and
MOEs
for
Diptank
Operator
(
Handler
Activity)

Exposure
Scenarioa
(
number
of
replicates)
Inhalation
Unit
Exposureb
(
mg
DDAC/
1%
solution)
App
Rate
(%
a.
i.
in
solution/
day)
Daily
Dosec
(
mg/
kg/
day)
MOEd
Occupational
Handler
Dipping,
with
gloves
(
n=
7)
0.046
3
0.0023
4,300
a
The
exposure
scenario
represents
a
worker
not
wearing
a
respirator.
b
Inhalation
unit
exposures
are
from
DDAC
study
(
MRID
455243­
04).
Refer
to
Table
E­
2
in
Appendix
E
for
inhalation
unit
exposure
calculations.
Inhalation
exposure
(
mg)
was
calculated
using
the
following
equation:
Air
concentration
(
mg/
m3)
x
Inhalation
rate
(
1.0
m3/
hr)
x
Sample
Duration
(
8
hr).
The
inhalation
rate
is
from
USEPA,
1997.
c
Daily
dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
=
unit
exposure
(
mg/
1%
ai
solution)
x
percent
active
ingredient
in
solution
(
3%
ai)
x
absorption
factor
(
100%
for
inhalation)
/
body
weight
(
60
kg).
d
MOE
=
NOAEL
(
mg/
kg/
day)
/
Daily
dose
[
Where
inhalation
NOAEL
=
10
mg/
kg/
day.
Target
MOE
=
100.

Construction
workers
Potential
risks
resulting
from
construction
worker
dermal
contact
with
DDAC­
treated
wood
are
assessed
in
the
same
manner
as
potential
risks
resulting
from
children's
dermal
contact
with
DDAC­
treated
playsets
and
decks
(
Section
4.2.2.3).
The
risks
were
calculated
using
average
worker
residue
data
for
hands
available
in
the
DDAC
exposure
study.
Hand
residue
data
from
the
end
stacker,
stickman,
and
tallyman
workers
were
used
because
of
the
possibility
of
the
contact
with
dry
treated
wood.
The
maximum
and
average
values
of
these
data
(
3.0
and1.4
:
g/
cm2,
respectively)
were
assumed
to
be
the
dermal
skin
irritation
exposure.
As
shown
in
Table
4.10,
the
dermal
MOE
are
less
than
or
equal
to
1
for
maximum
and
average
hand
residues.
A
wood
wipe
study
is
needed
to
refine
these
risk
estimates.

6.3.2
Pressure
Treatment
Scenarios
(
Handler
and
Post­
Application)

DDAC
may
be
used
to
treat
wood
and
wood
products
using
pressurized
application
methods
such
as
double
vacuum.
According
to
the
product
labels,
the
maximum
retention
rate
Page
52
of
97
is
0.6
lb/
ft3.
An
application
rate
was
not
provided
on
the
product
labels;
therefore,
an
application
rate
of
3%
ai
solution
was
used
in
this
assessment,
based
on
the
master
label.
DDAC­
specific
exposure
data
are
not
available
for
assessment
of
pressure
treatment
exposure.
Therefore,
the
assessment
relies
on
surrogate
chromated
copper
arsenate
(
CCA)
data
(
ACC,
2002b)
and
was
based
on
the
approach
used
in
a
previous
exposure
assessment
(
USEPA
2003).

Surrogate
Unit
Exposure
Data
Inhalation
exposures
for
pressure
treatment
uses
are
derived
from
information
in
the
exposure
study
by
the
American
Chemistry
Council
(
2002)
entitled
"
Assessment
of
Potential
Inhalation
and
Dermal
Exposure
Associated
with
Pressure
Treatment
of
Wood
with
Arsenical
Wood
Products"
(
ACC,
2002b).
In
this
study,
a
treatment
solution
of
CCA
was
approximately
0.5
percent.
The
CCA
study
is
the
best
pressure
treatment
data
available
for
a
water
based
solution
to
estimate
exposure
to
DDAC.

The
CCA
study
measured
both
handlers
and
post­
application
activities.
Although
there
is
overlap
in
job
functions,
the
handlers
are
defined
as
being
either
treating
operators
(
TOs)
or
treating
assistants
(
TAs).
The
TOs
were
monitored
at
three
sites
(
A,
B,
and
C)
using
5
replicates
at
each
site.
The
TAs
were
monitored
at
two
sites
(
Sites
A
and
C)
using
5
replicates
at
each
site.
The
post­
application
activities
included:
tram
setter
(
TS)
at
Site
A
(
n=
5);
stacker
operator
(
SO)
at
Site
A
(
n=
4);
loader
operator
(
LO)
at
Sites
A,
B,
C
(
n=
15);
supervisor
(
S)
at
Site
B
(
n=
5);
test
borer
(
TB)
at
Site
C
(
n=
5);
and
the
tallyman
(
TM)
at
Site
C
(
n=
5).
According
to
the
CCA
study,
workers
wore
cotton
long­
sleeved
shirts
and
cotton
trousers
(
or
one­
piece
cotton
coveralls)
over
the
whole­
body
dosimeters
("
plus
additional
shirts
or
jackets
per
typical
practice
at
Site
B")
and
chemical­
resistant
or
work
gloves,
when
appropriate.
Therefore,
the
CCA
study
provides
exposure
data
associated
with
maximum
PPE
(
excluding
respirators).
In
using
the
CCA
study
for
this
DDAC
assessment,
the
TO
and
TA
handlers
are
assessed
separately.
The
post­
application
job
functions,
however,
have
been
combined
into
one
data
set
to
represent
post­
application
activities
because
for
most
activities
the
sample
size
is
small
(
5
 
n
 
15).

The
measured
CCA
inhalation
exposure
values
were
normalized
by
the
treatment
solution
concentration
used
at
each
of
the
3
facilities
(
i.
e.,
unit
exposure
reported
as
µ
g
arsenic/
ppm
treatment
solution).
The
normalization
by
treatment
solution
concentration
was
performed
to
extrapolate
the
measured
exposures
in
the
CCA
study
(
monitored
at
~
0.5%
ai
solution)
to
the
maximum
DDAC
treatment
solution
concentration
(
1%
ai
solution).
Table
6.8
presents
the
inhalation
unit
exposure
values
normalized
to
the
treatment
solution
concentration
in
ppm
for
(
1)
all
sites,
(
2)
treatment
operator
(
TA
handler),
(
3)
treatment
assistant
(
TA
handler),
and
(
4)
all
post­
application
job
functions
(
TS,
SO,
LO,
S,
TB,
TM).

Exposure
Calculations
The
following
equation
was
used
to
estimate
inhalation
handler
exposure:

Daily
Dose
=
UE
x
AI
x
AB
(
Eq.
15)
BW
Page
53
of
97
Where:
UE
=
Unit
exposure
(
mg
As/
ppm);
AI
=
Percent
active
ingredient
(
3%
ai
in
solution);
AB
=
Absorption
factor
(
100%
inhalation);
and
BW
=
Body
weight
(
60
kg).

Results
The
estimated
inhalation
exposures
and
risks
for
DDAC
are
presented
in
Table
6.9.
The
calculated
inhalation
MOEs
are
above
the
target
MOE
of
100
for
all
scenarios.
All
inhalation
MOEs
also
exceed
1,000,
therefore,
a
confirmatory
inhalation
toxicity
study
is
not
warranted
based
on
the
results
of
these
exposure
scenarios.

Table
6.8.
Inhalation
Exposure
Values
from
a
CCA
Pressure
Treatment
Study
(
Exposure
Data
used
as
Surrogate
Unit
Exposures
for
DDAC
Assessment)

Treatment
Solution
Site
%
ppma
Statistic
Air
Concentrationb
(
µ
g
As/
m3/
ppm)
Inhalation
Unit
Exposurec
(
µ
g
As/
ppm)

Average
±
std
0.00013
±
0.00023
0.00104
Median
0.00013
0.00104
90th
percentile
0.00077
0.00617
All
sites
­
All
Data
(
n
=
64)
0.438
to
0.595
4,380
to
5,950
Maximum
0.0011
0.00882
Average
±
std
0.00032
±
0.00038
0.00257
Median
0.00013
0.00104
90th
percentile
0.00092
0.00737
All
sites
­
Handler
Treatment
Operator
(
n
=
15)
0.438
to
0.595
4,380
to
5,950
Maximum
0.0011
0.00882
Average
±
std
0.0001
±
0.00004
0.000802
Median
0.00013
0.00104
90th
percentile
0.00013
0.00104
All
sites
­
Handler
Treatment
Assistant
(
n
=
10)
0.438
to
0.595
4,380
to
5,950
Maximum
0.00014
0.00112
Average
±
std
0.00020
±
0.00025
0.00160
Median
0.00013
0.00104
90th
percentile
0.00050
0.00401
All
sites
 
Postapplication
All
job
functions
(
TS,
SO,
LO,
S,
TB,
TM)
(
n
=
39)
­­
­­

Maximum
0.0011
0.00882
a.
ppm
=
(%
treatment
solution)
*
(
10,000).
b.
Air
concentration
was
calculated
as
µ
g
collected
per
sample
per
ppm
/
(
480
min
per
day
x
2
L/
min).
c.
Inhalation
unit
exposure
=
air
concentration
(
µ
g
As/
m3/
ppm)
x
breathing
rate
for
light
activities
(
0.0167
m3/
min)
x
sample
duration
(
480
min).

Table
6.9.
Short­,
Intermediate­,
and
Long­
Term
Inhalation
Exposures
and
MOEs
for
Pressure
Treatment
Handler
and
Post­
application
Scenarios
Exposure
Scenario
Inhalation
Unit
Exposurea
(
µ
g
As/
ppm)
Application
Rate
(%
ai
solution)
Absorbed
Daily
Dosesb
(
mg/
kg/
day)
Inhalation
MOEsc
(
Target
MOE
=
100)
Occupational
Handler
Page
54
of
97
Treatment
Operator
(
TO)
0.00257
3
0.0013
7,800
Treatment
Assistant
(
TA)
0.000802
3
0.00040
25,000
Occupational
Post­
application
All
(
Tram
setter,
stacker
operator,
loader
operator,
supervisor,
test
borer,
and
tallyman)
0.00160
3
0.00080
13,000
a.
Unit
exposure
values
taken
from
CCA
study
and
are
shown
in
Table
6.11.
b.
Absorbed
Daily
Dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
=
Unit
Exposure
(
µ
g
As/
ppm)
x
[%
DDAC
in
solution
(
3)
x
10,000
(
parts
per
million
conversion)]
x
(
0.001
mg/
µ
g)
x
absorption
factor
(
100%
for
inhalation)
/
Body
weight
(
60
kg).
c.
MOE
=
NOAEL
(
mg/
kg/
day)
/
Daily
dose
[
Where
inhalation
NOAEL
=
10
mg/
kg/
day
for
all
durations.
Target
MOE
=
100.

6.4
Data
Limitations/
Uncertainties
There
are
several
data
limitations
and
uncertainties
associated
with
the
occupational
handler
and
post­
application
exposure
assessments.
These
include:

 
Surrogate
dermal
and
inhalation
unit
exposure
values
were
taken
from
the
proprietary
Chemical
Manufacturers
Association
(
CMA)
antimicrobial
exposure
study
(
USEPA,
1999:
DP
Barcode
D247642)
or
from
the
Pesticide
Handler
Exposure
Database
(
USEPA,
1998)
(
See
Appendix
B
for
summaries
of
these
data
sources).
Since
the
CMA
data
are
of
poor
quality,
the
Agency
requests
that
confirmatory
data
be
submitted
to
support
the
occupational
scenarios
assessed
in
this
document.
 
Unit
exposures
are
not
available
for
some
of
the
specific
scenarios
that
are
prescribed
for
DDAC
including
open
loading
into
oil­
well/
field
environments
o
The
CMA
data
used
for
oil­
well
uses
are
based
on
open
pouring
of
a
material
preservative.
Although
these
data
are
only
represented
by
2
replicates
each,
the
exposure
values
are
similar
to
open
loading
of
pesticides
in
PHED.
Furthermore,
there
are
no
representative
unit
exposure
data
for
chemical
metering
into
secondary
recovery
oil
operations.
Since
the
volume
of
water
being
treated
in
secondary
recovery
operations
is
so
large,
the
available
CMA
data
can
not
be
reliably
extrapolated
because
they
are
based
on
activities
that
handle
much
lower
volumes
and
possibly
different
techniques.
Therefore,
it
was
assumed
that
if
the
open
pour
handling
activities
for
the
other
oil
well
operations
resulted
in
MOEs
that
are
not
of
concern,
then
the
MOEs
for
the
closed
system
chemical
metering
into
secondary
recovery
operations
would
also
be
not
of
concern.
AD
requests
that
confirmatory
data
be
conducted
to
show
that
this
is
accurate.
 
For
the
wood
preservative
pressure
treatment
scenarios,
CCA
exposure
data
were
used
for
lack
of
DDAC­
specific
exposure
data.
Limitations
and
uncertainties
associated
with
the
use
of
these
data
include:
o
The
assumption
was
made
that
exposure
patterns
for
workers
at
treatment
facilities
using
CCA
and
DDAC
would
be
similar
to
exposure
patterns
for
workers
at
treatment
facilities
using
DDAC,
and
therefore
the
exposures
could
be
used
as
surrogate
data
for
workers
that
treat
wood
with
DDAC.
o
For
environmental
modeling,
it
was
assumed
that
the
leaching
process
from
the
Page
55
of
97
DDAC
treated
wood
would
be
similar
to
that
of
CCA
and
DDAC.
However,
due
to
the
lack
of
real
data
for
DDAC
­
treated
wood,
it
is
not
possible
to
verify
this
assumption.
 
The
quantities
handled/
treated
were
estimated
based
on
information
from
various
sources,
including
HED's
Standard
Operating
Procedures
(
SOPs)
for
Residential
Exposure
Assessments
(
USEPA
2000
and
2001),
and
personal
communication
with
experts.
In
particular,
the
use
information
for
oil­
well
uses
and
cooling
water
tower
uses
are
based
on
personal
communication
with
biocide
manufacturers
for
these
types
of
uses.
The
individuals
contacted
have
experience
in
these
operations
and
their
estimates
are
believed
to
be
the
best
available
without
undertaking
a
statistical
survey
of
the
uses.
In
certain
cases,
no
standard
values
were
available
for
some
scenarios.
Assumptions
for
these
scenarios
were
based
on
AD
estimates
and
could
be
further
refined
from
input
from
registrants.
 
The
percent
active
ingredient
in
solution
for
the
pressure
treatment
of
lumber
needs
to
be
refined
by
the
registrant.
The
labels
only
provided
a
retention
rate.
For
this
assessment,
the
application
rate
on
the
master
label
was
used,
which
is
the
same
as
the
application
rate
for
non­
pressure
treatment
of
lumber.
Page
56
of
97
7.0
REFERENCES
American
Chemistry
Council
(
ACC).
2002a.
Assessment
of
Potential
Inhalation
and
Dermal
Exposure
Associated
With
Pressure
Treatment
of
Wood
with
Arsenical
Wood
Products.
MRID
4550211­
01.

American
Chemistry
Council
(
ACC).
2002b.
An
Analysis
of
the
Training
Patterns
and
Practices
of
Competitive
Swimmers.
Prepared
by
Richard
Reiss.
Sciences
International,
Inc.
Alexandria,
Virginia.
December
9,
2002.

Bestari
KT,
Macey
K,
Soloman
KR,
Tower
N.
1999.
Measurement
and
Assessment
of
Dermal
and
Inhalation
Exposures
to
Didecyl
Dimethyl
Ammonium
Chloride
(
DDAC)
Used
in
the
Protection
of
Cut
Lumber
(
Phase
III).
MRID
455243­
04.

CEC,
2001.
Residential
Manual
for
Compliance
with
California's
2001
Energy
Efficiency
Standards.
http://
www.
energy.
ca.
gov/
title24/
residential_
manual/
index.
html,
viewed
January
2005.

DOE.
1997.
Energy
Information
Administration:
Profile
of
Commercial
Buildings
in
1995.
http://
www.
eia.
doe.
gov/
emeu/
cbecs/
char95/
profile.
html
Freeman,
N
,
Jimenez
M,
Reed
KJ,
Gurunathan
S,
Edwards
RD,
Roy
A,
Adgate
JL,
Pellizzari
ED,
Quackenboss
J,
Sexton
K,
Lioy
PJ,
2001.
Quantitative
analysis
of
chilren's
microactivity
patterns:
The
Minnesota
Children's
Pesticide
Exposure
Study.
Journal
of
Exposure
Analysis
and
Environmental
Epidemiology.
11(
6):
501­
509.

Helwig,
D.
(
2003)
Personal
Communication
between
D.
Helwig
(
Johnson
Diversy,
Inc)
and
K.
Riley
(
Versar,
Inc.),
November
11,
2003.

HERA,
2003.
Human
and
Environmental
Risk
Assessment,
Guidance
Document
Methodology,
April
22,
2002
(
http://
www.
heraproject.
com/
files/
Guidancedocument.
pdf).

HERA,
2005.
Human
and
Environmental
Risk
Assessment,
Guidance
Document
Methodology,
February
2005
(
http://
www.
heraproject.
com).

MCCEM
V
1.2
The
Multi­
Chamber
Concentration
and
Exposure
Model
(
MCCEM)
Model
Version
1.2.
Prepared
for
the
US
EPA
Office
of
Pollution
Prevention
and
Toxics.
Prepared
by
Versar,
Inc.
and
Wilkes
Technologies,
LLC.

Jacobson,
Larry.
2005.
Professor
and
Extension
Engineer
at
University
of
Minnesota.

SIMetric.
2005.
http://
www.
simetric.
co.
uk/
si_
materials.
htm
Last
viewed
November
9,
2005.

USEPA.
Undated.
RISK.
Version
1.9.27.
Developed
by
Dr.
Les
Sparks
of
USEPA/
NRMRL/
APPCD.
Page
57
of
97
USEPA.
1996.
Office
of
Research
and
Development,
Descriptive
Statistics
Tables
from
a
Detailed
Analysis
of
the
National
Human
Activity
Pattern
(
NHAPS)
Data;
EPA/
600/
R­
96/
148,
July
1996.
Data
Collection
Period
October
1992
­
September
1994
.

USEPA.
1997.
Exposure
Factors
Handbook.
Volume
I­
II.
Office
of
Research
and
Development.
Washington,
D.
C.
EPA/
600/
P­
95/
002Fa.
August
1997.

USEPA.
1998.
PHED
Surrogate
Exposure
Guide.
Estimates
of
Worker
Exposure
from
the
Pesticide
Handler
Exposure
Database
Version
1.1.
Washington,
DC:
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency.

USEPA.
1999.
Evaluation
of
Chemical
Manufacturers
Association
Antimicrobial
Exposure
Assessment
Study
(
Amended
on
8
December
1992).
Memorandum
from
Siroos
Mostaghimi,
PH.
D.,
USEPA
to
Julie
Fairfax,
USEPA.
Dated
November,
4
1999.
DP
Barcode
D247642.

USEPA.
2000.
Residential
SOPs.
EPA
Office
of
Pesticide
ProgramsBHuman
Health
Effects
Division.
Dated
April
5,
2000.

USEPA.
2001.
HED
Science
Advisory
Council
for
Exposure.
Policy
Update,
November
12.
Recommended
Revisions
to
the
Standard
Operating
Procedures
(
SOPs)
for
Residential
Exposure
Assessment,
February
22,
2001.

USEPA.
2003.
Assessment
of
the
Proposed
Bardac
Wood
Preservative
Pressure
Treatment
Use.
Memorandum
from
Tim
Leighton
and
Siroos
Mostaghimi.
February
11,
2003.

USEPA.
2004.
Occupational
and
Residential
Exposure
Assessment
for
Carboquat
WP­
50.
Memorandum
from
Siroos
Mostaghimi,
USEPA
to
Welma
Noble,
USEPA.
Dated
November
4,
2004.
DP
Barcodes
D303714
and
D303938.

USEPA.
2006.
Didecyl
dimethyl
benzyl
ammonium
chloride
(
DDAC)
 
Report
of
the
Antimicrobials
Division
Toxicity
Endpoint
Committee
(
ADTC)
and
the
Hazard
Identification
Assessment
Review
Committee
(
HIARC).
January
9,
2006.
Page
58
of
97
APPENDIX
A:
Master
DDAC
Label
Page
59
of
97
EPA
Reg
Number
used
for
Max.
Appl.
Rate
Use
Site
Treatment
Site/
Surfaces
Method
of
Application
Notes
Freq
of
Application
Industrial
processes
and
water
systems
1839­
129
Industrial
Recirc
Water
Systems
Cooling
Towers
(
including
evaporative
condensers,
dairy
sweetwater
systems,
cooling
canals,
pasteurizers,
tunnel
coolers
and
warmers)
Pour/
metered
1839­
129
(
50%
ai)
Weekly
10707­
46
cooling
water,
disposal
water,
oil
field
operations
slug
treatment
1839­
151
Oil
Field
water
flood
or
salt
water
disposal
oil
field
water
disposal
systems
pour/
metered
1839­
151
As
needed
1839­
179
Oil
Field
injection
and
wastewater
continuous
injection
Blend
with
ADBAC
As
needed
1839­
179
Oil
Field
injection
and
wastewater
batch
treatment
Blend
with
ADBAC
As
needed
1839­
179
Oil
Field
packer
fluids
Blend
with
ADBAC
As
needed
1839­
179
Oil
Field
drilling
muds
Blend
with
ADBAC
As
needed
Swimming
Pools
10324­
69
Swimming
Pool
pour
Once
weekly
1839­
133
Outside
Spas/
Whirlpools/
Hot
Tub
Bath
pour
Weekly
Aquatic
Areas
499­
482
greenhouse/
nurseries,
golf
courses,
recreational
parks,
amusement
parks,
universities,
cemeteries
decorative
fountains,
decorative
pools,
ponds,
water
displays,
standing
waters
dribble,
spray
ring
Blend
with
ADBAC
As
needed
499­
482
greenhouse/
nurseries
irrigation
system,
watering
lines,
drip
lines,
emitters,
watering
nozzles,
and
hoses
immersing
or
running
thru
system
Blend
with
ADBAC
As
needed
Wood
Treatment
6836­
212
Pressure
Treatment
3%
ai
soln
As
needed
6836­
212
Double
vacuum
3%
ai
soln
As
needed
6836­
212
Dip/
Spray
surface
treatment
3%
ai
soln
As
needed
Agricultural
Premises
and
Equipment
Page
60
of
97
EPA
Reg
Number
used
for
Max.
Appl.
Rate
Use
Site
Treatment
Site/
Surfaces
Method
of
Application
Notes
Freq
of
Application
10324­
80
hatcheries,
swine/
poultry/
turkey
farms,
egg
receiving
area,
egg
holding
area,
setter
room,
tray
dumping
area,
chick
holding
room,
poultry
buildings,
dressing
plants,
farrowing
barns
and
areas,
blocks,
creep
areas,
chick
holding
area,
hatchery
room,
chick
processing
area,
and
chick
loading
area
toilets,
urinals,
portable
toilets,
floors,
walls,
ceilings,
feed
racks,
mangers,
troughs,
automatic
feeders/
fountains/
wa
terers,
other
feeding
and
watering
appliances,
halters,
ropes
and
other
types
of
equipment
used
in
handling
and
restraining
animals,
as
well
as
forks,
shovels,
and
scrapers
used
for
removing
litter
and
manure,
blocks,
chutes,
incubators,
hatchers,
glazed
porcelain,
glazed
ceramic
tile,
glass
mop,
wipe,
spray,
immersion
As
needed
10324­
81
hatchery
rooms
fogging
Blend
with
ADBAC
As
needed
10324­
81
incubators
and
hatchers
fogging
Blend
with
ADBAC
Every
12
hrs
10324­
108
Mushroom
Farm
breezeways
and
track
alleys
before
spawning,
inside
and
outside
walls
of
mushroom
houses,
lofts,
floors,
storage
sheds
and
casing
rings
mop,
wipe
Blend
with
ADBAC
As
needed
1839­
167
Mushroom
Farm
breezeways
and
track
alleys
before
spawning,
inside
and
outside
walls
of
mushroom
houses,
lofts,
floors,
storage
sheds
and
casing
rings
cloth,
mop,
sponge,
spray,
immersion
Blend
with
ADBAC
As
needed
1839­
167
Mushroom
Farm
waterproof
footwear
immersion
(
shoe
bath)
Blend
with
ADBAC
As
needed
1839­
167
Citrus
Farm
trucks,
vehicles,
equipment,
trailers,
field
harvesting
equipment,
cargo
area,
wheels,
tires,
under
carriage,
hood,
roof,
fenders
spray,
dip,
brush
Citrus
canker,
Blend
with
ADBAC
As
needed
10324­
117
Animal
housing
facilities
boots
and
shoes
immersion
Blend
with
ADBAC
As
needed
1839­
167
Florists/
flower
shops,
greenhouses,
shippers,
packing
areas
flower
buckets,
coolers,
floors
and
walls
of
coolers,
design
and
packing
benches,
garbage
pails
Mop/
wipe,
cloth,
brush,
sponge,
sprayer
Blend
with
ADBAC
As
needed
241­
74
Greenhouses
ornamental
plants
­
plant
regulator
spray,
drench
Page
61
of
97
EPA
Reg
Number
used
for
Max.
Appl.
Rate
Use
Site
Treatment
Site/
Surfaces
Method
of
Application
Notes
Freq
of
Application
499­
482
greenhouse/
nursuries
work
tables,
benches,
pots,
flats,
knives,
pruning
tools,
floors,
plant
containers,
carts,
transplant
trays,
hanging
baskets,
tray/
pot
holders,
water
collectors,
walkways,
windows
immersion,
spray,
brush
Blend
with
ADBAC
As
needed
48815­
1
farms
fish
aquariums,
tanks,
fish
handling
equipment,
nets,
seines,
traps,
filter
boxes,
pumps,
air
diffusers,
shipping
boxes,
feeding
equipment,
floors,
countertops,
raceways,
garbage
pails,
other
hard
nonporous
surfaces,
holding
tanks,
lavatories.
immersion,
brush,
mop
or
cloth
As
needed
Residential
and
Public
Access
Premises
10324­
134
Homes
floors,
walls,
windows,
toilets,
bathtubs,
shower
stalls,
shower
door/
curtain,
sinks,
mirrors,
restroom
fixtures,
cabinets,
tables,
chairs,
desks,
bed
frames,
doorknobs,
garbage
cans/
pails,
outdoor
furniture,
telephones,
glazed
porcelain,
glazed
ceramic
tile,
glass,
Countertops
(
kitchen/
food
prep);
Internal
(
external)
surfaces
of
appliances
(
refrigerator,
microwave,
freezer);
stovetop;
table
surfaces;
sinks,
shelves,
racks
mop,
wipe,
(
cloth),
spray
Disinfect
Heavy
Duty
Cleaning
As
needed
1839­
175
Home
floors,
walls,
metal
surfaces,
stainless
steel,
glazed
porcelain,
glazed
ceramic
tile,
shower
stalls,
bathtubs,
cabinets,
plastic
surfaces
RTU
wipe/
spray
Blend
with
ADBAC
As
needed
10324­
108
homes
Carpets
Rotary
Floor
Machine
Blend
with
ADBAC
300­
500
sq
ft/
gal
3573­
69
home
Furniture
upholstery,
window
treatments,
clothing,
plush
toys,
shoes/
sneakers,
children
mattresses,
Spray
(
fabric
sanitizer)
As
Needed
Page
62
of
97
EPA
Reg
Number
used
for
Max.
Appl.
Rate
Use
Site
Treatment
Site/
Surfaces
Method
of
Application
Notes
Freq
of
Application
pet
bed,
sports
bag/
equipment,
carpet
3573­
69
homes,
mobile
home,
car,
campgrounds,
trailer,
camper,
boat
floors,
walls,
toilets,
urinals,
bathrooms,
bathtubs,
sinks,
countertops,
shower
doors/
curtains,
toilet
seats,
shower
stalls,
tables,
chairs,
shelves,
telephones,
cabinets,
desks,
bed
springs,
door
knobs,
linen
carts,
hampers,
exercise
equipment,
cat
litter
boxes,
bidets,
diaper
changing
tables,
toys,
high
chairs,
fountains,
synthetic
marbel,
vinyl,
linoleum
,
sealed
granite,
glazed
porcelain,
microwave
oven
exteriors,
marlite,
plastic,
outdoor
furniture,
laundry
hampers,
spray
(
disinfect)
potable
rinse
for
chidren
toys
and
food
contact
10324­
117
Homes
cooking
utensils;
coolers/
ice
chest;
cups;
cutlery;
dishes;
eating
utensils;
glassware
Immersion
Blend
with
ADBAC
As
needed
1836­
167
campgrounds,
playgrounds,
Public
facilites,
mobile
homes,
cars,
campers,
trailers,
trucks
floors,
walls,
toilets,
urinals,
bathrooms,
bathtubs,
sinks,
countertops,
shower
doors/
curtains,
toilet
seats,
shower
stalls,
tables,
chairs,
shelves,
telephones,
cabinets,
desks,
bed
springs,
door
knobs,
linen
carts,
hampers,
exercise
equipment,
automobile/
truck
interiors,
garbage
cans/
pails,
fixtures,
metal,
stainless
steel.
glazed
porcelain,
glazed
ceramic
tile,
plastic,
granite,
marble,
chrome,
vinyl,
glass,
enameled
surfaces,
painted
wood
work,
Formica,
vinyl
and
plastic
upholstery,
chrome
plated
fixtures
cloth,
mop,
sponge,
spray
Blend
with
ADBAC
As
needed
10324­
117
homes
water
softners
and
reverse
osmosis
pour
As
needed
Page
63
of
97
EPA
Reg
Number
used
for
Max.
Appl.
Rate
Use
Site
Treatment
Site/
Surfaces
Method
of
Application
Notes
Freq
of
Application
units
6718­
24
homes
bedframes,
tables,
sinks,
walls,
countertops,
chairs,
other
hard
nonporous
surfaces
cloth,
mop,
spray
As
needed
1839­
178
homes
counters,
stovetops,
sinks,
outside
microwaves,
refrigerator
exteriors,
walls,
appliances,
finished
wood,
cabinets,
floors,
exterior
toilet
bowl
surfaces,
trash
cans,
tubs,
shower
walls,
bathrooms,
door
knobs,
closets,
phones,
car
interiors,
computers,
hand
rails,
switch
plates,
door
frames,
urinals,
desks,
cribs,
changing
tables,
patio
furniture,
dining
room
surfaces
RTU
wipe/
spray
Blend
with
ADBAC
As
needed
48815­
1
homes
fish
aquariums,
tanks,
fish
handling
equipment,
nets,
seines,
traps,
filter
boxes,
pumps,
air
diffusers,
shipping
boxes,
feeding
equipment,
floors,
countertops,
raceways,
garbage
pails,
other
hard
nonporous
surfaces,
holding
tanks,
lavatories.
immersion,
brush,
mop
or
cloth
As
needed
10324­
80
homes
air
ducts
spray,
brush,
mop,
wipe,
ULV
or
mist
generating,
automated
spray
odor
causing
bacteria,
fungi
6
months
Medical
Premises
and
Equipment
Page
64
of
97
EPA
Reg
Number
used
for
Max.
Appl.
Rate
Use
Site
Treatment
Site/
Surfaces
Method
of
Application
Notes
Freq
of
Application
1839­
167
Hospitals,
Health
Care
facilities,
Medical/
Dental
offices,
Nursing
homes,
operating
rooms,
patient
care
facilities,
clinics,
isolation
wards,
medical
research
facilities,
autopsy
rooms,
ICU
areas,
recovery
anesthesia,
emergency
rooms,
X­
ray
cat
labs,
newborn
nurseries,
orthopedics,
respiratory
therapy,
acute
care
institutions,
alternate
care
institutions,
healthcare
institutions,
Funeral
Homes,
mortuaries
floors,
walls,
toilets,
urinals,
lavatories,
bathrooms,
bathing
areas,
bathtubs,
sinks,
sink
tops,
shower
stalls,
shower
doors/
curtains,
mirrors,
ultrasonic
bath,
whirlpools,
foot
baths,
countertops,
cabinets,
tables,
chairs,
desks,
hospital
beds,
bed
springs,
bed
frames,
traction
devices,
MRI,
CAT,
examining
tables,
scales,
paddles,
wheelchairs,
lifts,
door
knobs,
wheel
chairs,
telephones,
garbage
pails/
cans,
fixtures,
metal,
stainless
steel.
glazed
porcelain,
glazed
ceramic
tile,
plastic,
granite,
marble,
chrome,
vinyl,
glass,
enameled
surfaces,
painted
wood
work,
Wipe,
mop,
(
cloth),
swab,
brush,
spray
Blend
with
ADBAC
As
needed
10324­
81
Nurseries
Floors,
walls,
countertops
(
nonkitchen
sinks
(
bathroom),
toilets,
external
surfaces
of
appliances
mop,
wipe
(
cloth)
Blend
with
ADBAC
As
needed
1839­
175
Medical
Institutions,
Hospitals,
and
Nursing
Homes
floors,
walls,
metal
surfaces,
stainless
steel,
glazed
porcelain,
glazed
ceramic
tile,
shower
stalls,
bathtubs,
cabinets,
plastic
surfaces
RTU
wipe/
spray
Blend
with
ADBAC
As
needed
10324­
134
hospitals,
medical/
dental
offices,
nursing
homes
floors,
walls,
windows,
toilets,
bathtubs,
shower
stalls,
shower
door/
curtain,
sinks,
mirrors,
restroom
fixtures,
cabinets,
tables,
chairs,
desks,
bed
frames,
doorknobs,
garbage
cans/
pails,
telephones,
glass,
glazed
porcelain,
glazed
ceramic
tile,
table
surfaces;
sinks,
shelves,
racks
mop,
wipe,
(
cloth),
spray
Disinfect
Heavy
Duty
Cleaning
As
needed
Page
65
of
97
EPA
Reg
Number
used
for
Max.
Appl.
Rate
Use
Site
Treatment
Site/
Surfaces
Method
of
Application
Notes
Freq
of
Application
1839­
167
nursing
homes
and
hospitals
floors,
walls,
windows,
toilets,
bathtubs,
shower
stalls,
shower
door/
curtain,
sinks,
mirrors,
restroom
fixtures,
cabinets,
tables,
chairs,
desks,
bed
frames,
doorknobs,
garbage
cans/
pails,
telephones,
glass,
glazed
porcelain,
glazed
ceramic
tile,
enameled
surfaces,
countertops
(
kitchen/
food
prep);
Internal
external
surfaces
of
appliances
(
refrigerator,
microwave,
freezer);
stovetop,
shelves,
racks
portable
extraction
units,
truck
mounted
extraction
machines,
rotary
floor
machines,
metered,
spray
Blend
with
ADBAC
As
needed
6718­
24
hospitals,
nursing
homes
bedframes,
tables,
sinks,
walls,
countertops,
chairs,
other
hard
nonporous
surfaces
cloth,
mop,
spray
As
needed
1839­
178
hospitals,
day­
care
facilities,
sick
rooms
counters,
stovetops,
sinks,
outside
microwaves,
refrigerator
exteriors,
walls,
appliances,
finished
wood,
cabinets,
floors,
exterior
toilet
bowl
surfaces,
trash
cans,
tubs,
shower
walls,
bathrooms,
door
knobs,
closets,
phones,
car
interiors,
computers,
hand
rails,
switch
plates,
door
frames,
urinals,
desks,
cribs,
changing
tables
RTU
wipe
Blend
with
ADBAC
As
needed
1839­
173
Morgues
and
Funeral
homes
human
remains
sponge,
wash
cloth,
soft
brush
Blend
with
ADBAC
As
needed
10324­
80
hospitals,
nursing
homes
air
ducts
spray,
brush,
mop,
wipe,
ULV
or
mist
generating,
automated
spray
odor
causing
bacteria,
fungi
6
months
Commercial,
Institutional,
and
Industrial
premises
and
equipment
Page
66
of
97
EPA
Reg
Number
used
for
Max.
Appl.
Rate
Use
Site
Treatment
Site/
Surfaces
Method
of
Application
Notes
Freq
of
Application
10324­
134
Athletic/
recreational
facilities,
exercise
facilities,
schools,
colleges,
dressing
rooms,
transportation
terminals,
institutions
floors,
walls,
windows,
toilets,
bathtubs,
shower
stalls,
shower
door/
curtain,
sinks,
mirrors,
restroom
fixtures,
cabinets,
tables,
chairs,
desks,
bed
frames,
doorknobs,
garbage
cans/
pails,
outdoor
furniture,
telephones,
glass,
glazed
porcelain,
glazed
ceramic
tile,
chrome
plated
intakes,
enameled
surfaces,
countertops
(
kitchen/
food
prep);
Internal
(
external)
surfaces
of
appliances
(
refrigerator,
microwave,
freezer);
stovetop;
table
surfaces;
sinks,
shelves,
racks
mop,
wipe,
(
cloth),
spray
Disinfect
Heavy
Duty
Cleaning
As
needed
1839­
167
Athletic/
recreational
facilities,
exercise
facilites,
locker
rooms,
dressing
rooms,
schools,
colleges,
transportation
terminals,
floors,
walls,
toilets,
urinals,
bathrooms,
bathtubs,
sinks,
countertops,
shower
doors/
curtains,
toilet
seats,
shower
stalls,
tables,
chairs,
shelves,
telephones,
cabinets,
desks,
bed
springs,
door
knobs,
garbage
cans/
pails,
fixtures,
metal,
stainless
steel.
glazed
porcelain,
glazed
ceramic
tile,
plastic,
granite,
marble,
chrome,
vinyl,
glass,
enameled
surfaces,
painted
wood
work,
cloth,
mop,
sponge,
spray
Blend
with
ADBAC
As
needed
1839­
167
motels,
hotels,
schools
carpets
portable
extraction
units,
truck
mounted
extraction
machines,
rotary
floor
machines,
metered,
spray
Cleaning
Claim
Blend
with
ADBAC
As
needed
1839­
175
Hotels
and
schools
floors,
walls,
metal
surfaces,
stainless
steel,
glazed
porcelain,
glazed
ceramic
tile,
shower
stalls,
bathtubs,
cabinets,
plastic
surfaces
RTU
wipe/
spray
Blend
with
ADBAC
As
needed
6836­
78
Barber
and
Beauty
Salons
Barber/
Beauty
Instruments
and
Tools
immersion
Blend
with
ADBAC
As
needed
Page
67
of
97
EPA
Reg
Number
used
for
Max.
Appl.
Rate
Use
Site
Treatment
Site/
Surfaces
Method
of
Application
Notes
Freq
of
Application
1839­
178
Barber
and
Beauty
Salons,
Health
clubs,
hotels,
motels,
emergency
vehicles,
transportation
terminals,
correctional
facilities,
factories,
counters,
sinks,
walls,
finished
wood,
cabinets,
floors,
exterior
toilet
bowl
surfaces,
trash
cans,
tubs,
shower
walls,
bathrooms,
door
knobs,
closets,
phones,
car
interiors,
computers,
hand
rails,
switch
plates,
door
frames,
urinals,
desks,
RTU
wipe
Blend
with
ADBAC
As
needed
1839­
167
commercial
florists
flower
buckets,
coolers,
floors
and
walls
of
coolers,
design
and
packing
benches,
garbage
pails
cloth,
mop,
sponge,
spray
Blend
with
ADBAC
As
needed
3573­
69
Hotels,
dorms,
convenience
stores,
recreational
centers,
offices,
motels,
floors,
walls,
toilets,
urinals,
bathrooms,
bathtubs,
sinks,
countertops,
shower
doors/
curtains,
toilet
seats,
shower
stalls,
tables,
chairs,
shelves,
telephones,
cabinets,
desks,
bed
springs,
door
knobs,
linen
carts,
hampers,
exercise
equipment,
bidets,
fountains,
synthetic
marble,
vinyl,
linoleum
,
sealed
granite,
glazed
porcelain,
microwave
oven
exteriors,
marlite,
plastic,
outdoor
furniture,
laundry
hampers,
spray
(
disinfect)
potable
rinse
for
chidren's
toys
and
food
contact
surfaces
1677­
109
Commercial
and
institutional
laundry
mats
clothing
pour
at
final
rinse
or
sour
to
washweel
per
100lbs
fabric
dry
wt
2wk
protect
3wk
protect
30dy
protect
6718­
24
industry
and
schools
bedframes,
tables,
sinks,
walls,
countertops,
chairs,
other
hard
nonporous
surfaces
cloth,
mop,
spray
As
needed
48815­
1
Schools,
Institutional,
and
Industrial
fish
aquariums,
tanks,
fish
handling
equipment,
nets,
seines,
traps,
filter
boxes,
pumps,
air
diffusers,
shipping
boxes,
feeding
equipment,
floors,
countertops,
raceways,
garbage
pails,
other
hard
nonporous
surfaces,
holding
tanks,
lavatories.
immersion,
brush,
mop
or
cloth
As
needed
Page
68
of
97
EPA
Reg
Number
used
for
Max.
Appl.
Rate
Use
Site
Treatment
Site/
Surfaces
Method
of
Application
Notes
Freq
of
Application
10324­
80
Institutional,
Industrial
premise,
school,
restaurant
air
ducts
spray,
brush,
mop,
wipe,
ULV
or
mist
generating,
automated
spray
odor
causing
bacteria,
fungi
6
months
Food
Handling/
Storage
Establishments
premises
and
equipment
1839­
152
Restaurants,
food
service
establishments,
food
processing
plants/
facilities,
beverage
processing
plants,
Bars,
Cafeterias,
Convenience
stores,
supermarkets,
Dairies,
Egg
Processing
plants,
Federally
inspected
meat
and
poultry
plants
,
Food
Handling
areas,
Food
preparation
areas,
Food
storage
areas,
Institutional
kitchens,
USDA
inspected
food
processing
facilities,
breweries,
fast
food
operations
floors,
walls,
countertops,
appliances
(
microwaves,
refrigerators,
stove
tops,
freezers,
coolers),
chairs,
tables,
shelves,
picnic
tables,
outdoor
furniture,
racks,
carts,
telephones,
door
knobs,
storage
areas,
potato
storage
areas,
food
storage
areas,
garbage
storage
areas,
cutting
boards,
tanks,
exhaust
fans,
refrigerator
bins,
refrigerated
storage/
display
equipment,
coils
and
drain
pans
of
air
conditioning/
refriger
ation
equipment,
heat
pumps,
storage
tanks,
coolers,
ice
chests,
garbage
cans/
pails
cloth,
mop,
spray,
flood,
immersion,
As
needed
1839­
175
Restaurants
floors,
walls,
tables,
shelves,
garbage
disposal
areas,
metal
surfaces,
stainless
steel,
glazed
porcelain,
glazed
ceramic
tile,
shower
stalls,
bathtubs,
cabinets,
plastic
surfaces
RTU
spray/
wipe
Blend
with
ADBAC
As
needed
10324­
81
Dairies
and
Food
Processing
Facilities
floors,
walls,
metal
surfaces,
stainless
steel,
glazed
porcelain,
glazed
ceramic
tile,
shower
stalls,
bathtubs,
cabinets,
plastic
surfaces
fogging
Blend
with
ADBAC
As
needed
10324­
134
bottling
and
beverage
plants,
breweries,
tobacco,
egg
processing
plants,
meat/
poultry
processing
plants,
rendering
plants,
fishery/
milk/
citrus/
wine/
ice
cream/
potato
processing
plants,
restaurants
floors,
walls,
tables,
shelves,
garbage
cans,
garbage
disposal
areas,
glazed
porcelain,
glazed
ceramic
tile,
glass
mop,
wipe,
(
cloth),
spray
As
needed
Page
69
of
97
EPA
Reg
Number
used
for
Max.
Appl.
Rate
Use
Site
Treatment
Site/
Surfaces
Method
of
Application
Notes
Freq
of
Application
1839­
178
Restaurants
counters,
stovetops,
sinks,
outside
microwaves,
refrigerators
exteriors,
walls,
appliances,
finished
wood,
cabinets,
floors,
exterior
toilet
bowl
surfaces,
trash
cans,
tubs,
shower
walls,
bathrooms,
door
knobs,
closets,
phones,
computers,
hand
rails,
switch
plates,
door
frames,
urinals,
desks,
dining
room
surfaces
RTU
wipe
Blend
with
ADBAC
As
needed
10324­
117
bottling
and
beverage
plants,
breweries,
tobacco,
egg
processing
plants,
meat/
poultry
processing
plants,
rendering
plants,
fishery/
milk/
citrus/
wine/
ice
cream/
potato
processing
plants,
restaurants
ice
machines,
water
coolers,
counters,
tables,
food
processing
equipment,
food
utensils,
dairy
equipment,
dishes,
silverware,
eating
utensils,
glasses,
sinks,
counters,
refrigerated/
storage
display
equipment
spray,
wipe,
sponge,
immersion
As
needed
10324­
117
bottling
and
beverage
plants,
breweries,
tobacco,
egg
processing
plants,
meat/
poultry
processing
plants,
rendering
plants,
fishery/
milk/
citrus/
wine/
ice
cream/
potato
processing
plants,
water
softners
and
reverse
osmosis
units
pour
As
needed
10324­
117
bottling
and
beverage
plants,
breweries,
tobacco,
egg
processing
plants,
meat/
poultry
processing
plants,
rendering
plants,
fishery/
milk/
citrus/
wine/
ice
cream/
potato
processing
plants,
boots
and
shoes
immersion
Blend
with
ADBAC
As
needed
1839­
173
dairies,
beverage,
and
food
processing
plants
floors,
walls,
countertops,
appliances
(
microwaves,
refrigerators,
stove
tops,
freezers,
coolers),
chairs,
tables,
shelves,
racks,
carts,
telephones,
door
knobs,
storage
areas,
potato
storage
areas,
food
storage
areas,
garbage
storage
areas,
cutting
boards,
tanks,
exhaust
fans,
refrigerator
bins,
refrigerated
storage/
display
equipment,
storage
tanks,
coolers,
ice
chests,
garbage
cans/
pails
fogging
Blend
with
ADBAC
As
needed
Page
70
of
97
EPA
Reg
Number
used
for
Max.
Appl.
Rate
Use
Site
Treatment
Site/
Surfaces
Method
of
Application
Notes
Freq
of
Application
10324­
80
food
processing
plants,
food
service
areas,
institutional
kitchens,
industrial/
hospital
caferias,
school
lunchrooms,
dairies,
and
packing
plants
air
ducts
spray,
brush,
mop,
wipe,
ULV
or
mist
generating,
automated
spray
odor
causing
bacteria,
fungi
6
months
Clean/
Deodorization
1839­
167
Water/
Smoke
restoration
(
institutional,
industrial,
hospital)
carpets,
carpet
cushion,
sub
floors,
drywall,
trim,
farm
lumber,
tackless
strip
and
paneling
Pour,
brush,
spray
Blend
with
ADBAC
As
needed
1839­
167
Sewer
backup/
river
flood
cleanup,
(
clean
water
source)
carpets,
carpet
cushion,
sub
floors,
drywall,
trim,
farm
lumber,
tackless
strip
and
paneling
spray
Blend
with
ADBAC
As
needed
1839­
167
garbage
storage
areas,
pet
areas,
garbage
bins
&
cans
Blend
with
ADBAC
As
needed
71814­
1
hospitals
Medical
waste
pour
blend
w/
ADBAC
Poured
into
machine
Page
71
of
97
APPENDIX
B:
Summary
of
CMA
and
PHED
Data
Page
72
of
97
Chemical
Manufacturers
Association
(
CMA)
Data:
In
response
to
an
EPA
Data
Call­
In
Notice,
a
study
was
undertaken
by
the
Institute
of
Agricultural
Medicine
and
Occupational
Health
of
The
University
of
Iowa
under
contract
to
the
Chemical
Manufacturers
Association.
In
order
to
meet
the
requirements
of
Subdivision
U
of
the
Pesticide
Assessment
Guidelines
(
superseded
by
Series
875.1000­
875.1600
of
the
Pesticide
Assessment
Guidelines),
handler
exposure
data
are
required
from
the
chemical
manufacturer
specifically
registering
the
antimicrobial
pesticide.
The
applicator
exposure
study
must
comply
with
the
assessment
guidelines
for
AApplicator
Exposure
Monitoring@
in
Subdivision
U
and
the
AOccupational
and
Residential
Exposure
Test
Guidelines@
in
Series
875.
For
this
purpose,
CMA
submitted
a
study
on
28
February,
1990,
entitled
"
Antimicrobial
Exposure
Assessment
Study
(
amended
on
December
8,
1992)"
which
was
conducted
by
William
Popendorf,
et
al.
It
was
evaluated
and
accepted
by
Occupational
and
Residential
Exposure
Branch
(
OREB)
of
Health
Effect
Division
(
HED),
Office
of
Pesticides
Program
(
OPP)
of
EPA
in
1990.
The
purpose
of
this
CMA
study
was
to
characterize
exposure
to
antimicrobial
chemicals
in
order
to
support
pesticide
reregistrations
(
CMA,
1992).
The
unit
exposures
presented
in
the
most
recent
EPA
evaluation
of
the
CMA
database
(
USEPA,
1999b)
were
used
in
this
assessment.

The
Agency
determined
that
the
CMA
study
had
fulfilled
the
basic
requirements
of
Subdivision
U
­
Applicator
Exposure
Monitoring.
The
advantages
of
CMA
data
over
other
Asurrogate
data
sets@
is
that
the
chemicals
and
the
job
functions
of
mixer/
loader/
applicator
were
defined
based
on
common
application
methods
used
for
antimicrobial
pesticides.
A
few
of
the
deficiencies
in
the
CMA
data
are
noted
below:

 
The
inhalation
concentrations
were
typically
below
the
detection
limits,
so
the
unit
exposures
for
the
inhalation
exposure
route
could
not
be
accurately
calculated.
 
QA/
QC
problems
including
lack
of
either/
or
field
fortification,
laboratory
recoveries,
and
storage
stability
information.
 
Data
have
an
insufficient
amount
of
replicates.

The
Pesticide
Handlers
Exposure
Database
(
PHED):
The
Pesticide
Handlers
Exposure
Database
(
PHED)
has
been
developed
by
a
Task
Force
consisting
of
representatives
from
Health
Canada,
the
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA),
and
the
American
Crop
Protection
Association
(
ACPA).
PHED
provides
generic
pesticide
worker
(
i.
e.,
mixer/
loader
and
applicator)
exposure
estimates.
The
dermal
and
inhalation
exposure
estimates
generated
by
PHED
are
based
on
actual
field
monitoring
data,
which
are
reported
generically
(
i.
e.,
chemical
specific
names
not
reported)
in
PHED.
It
has
been
the
Agency=
s
policy
to
use
Asurrogate@
or
Ageneric@
exposure
data
for
pesticide
applicators
in
certain
circumstances
because
it
is
believed
that
the
physical
parameters
(
e.
g.,
packaging
type)
or
application
technique
(
e.
g.,
aerosol
can),
not
the
chemical
properties
of
the
pesticide,
attribute
to
exposure
levels.
[
Note:
Vapor
pressures
for
the
chemicals
in
PHED
are
in
the
range
of
E­
5
to
E­
7
mm
Hg.]
Chemical
specific
properties
are
accounted
for
by
correcting
the
exposure
data
for
study
specific
field
and
laboratory
recovery
values
as
specified
by
the
PHED
grading
criteria.

PHED
handler
exposure
data
are
generally
provided
on
a
normalized
basis
for
use
in
exposure
assessments.
The
most
common
method
for
normalizing
exposure
is
by
pounds
of
active
ingredient
(
ai)
handled
per
replicate
(
i.
e.,
exposure
in
mg
per
replicate
is
divided
by
the
Page
73
of
97
amount
of
ai
handled
in
that
particular
replicate).
These
unit
exposures
are
expressed
as
mg/
lb
ai
handled.
This
normalization
method
presumes
that
dermal
and
inhalation
exposures
are
linear
based
on
the
amount
of
active
ingredient
handled.
Page
74
of
97
APPENDIX
C:
Input/
Output
from
Residential
MCCEM
Modeling
Humidifier
Page
75
of
97
MCCEM
SUMMARY
REPORT
TITLE:
Humidifier
­
8hrs
­
Adult
RUN
Day
Hour
Min
Length
Days
Hours
Min
Reporting
TIME
Start:
0
0
0
of
Run:
2
0
0
Interval:
60
minutes
HOUSE
Type:
Generic
house
State:
NA
Code:
GN001
Season:
SUMMER
Zones:
2
Infiltration
Rate:
0.18
ACH
EMISSIONS
Source
Zone
Type
Details
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯

1
1
Constant
Emission
Rate
=
0.895
g/
hr
2
3
4
SINKS
Sink
Zone
Model
Details
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯

1
2
3
4
5
6
ACTIVITIES
Primary
Activity
Pattern
is
used
on
days:
1,2,3,4,5,6,7
OVERRIDE
ACTIVITIES:
YES
DOSE
Events/
yr:
Yrs
of
Use:
Weight(
kg):
60
Length
of
Life(
yrs):

MONTE
CARLO:
NO
Number
of
Trials:
1
Seed
No:
Random
OPTIONS
Single
Chamber:
YES
Saturation
Concentration
(
mg/
m
³
)
:
NONE
Output
Concentration
Units:
mg/
m
³

Initial
Concentrations
Units:
mg/
m
³

Zone
1:
0
Zone
2:
0
Zone
3:
0
Zone
4:
0
Outdoors:
0
Page
76
of
97
____________________________________________________________________________
RESULTS
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
LADD:
0.011809
mg/(
kg
day)
LADC:
0.059043
mg/
m
³
ADD:
0.011809
mg/(
kg
day)
ADC:
0.059043
mg/
m
³
Single
Event
Dose:
258.79
mg
Peak
Concentration:
12.191
mg/
m
³
APDR:
2.4298
mg/(
kg
day)
Time
when
APDR
occurred:
1.9587
days
Average
Inhalation
Rate:
12
m
³
/
day
____________________________________________________________________________
Page
77
of
97
MCCEM
SUMMARY
REPORT
TITLE:
Humidifier
­
8hrs
­
Child
RUN
Day
Hour
Min
Length
Days
Hours
Min
Reporting
TIME
Start:
0
0
0
of
Run:
2
0
0
Interval:
60
minutes
HOUSE
Type:
Generic
house
State:
NA
Code:
GN001
Season:
SUMMER
Zones:
2
Infiltration
Rate:
0.18
ACH
EMISSIONS
Source
Zone
Type
Details
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯

1
1
Constant
Emission
Rate
=
0.895
g/
hr
2
3
4
SINKS
Sink
Zone
Model
Details
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯

1
2
3
4
5
6
ACTIVITIES
Primary
Activity
Pattern
is
used
on
days:
1,2,3,4,5,6,7
OVERRIDE
ACTIVITIES:
YES
DOSE
Events/
yr:
Yrs
of
Use:
Weight(
kg):
15
Length
of
Life(
yrs):

MONTE
CARLO:
NO
Number
of
Trials:
1
Seed
No:
Random
OPTIONS
Single
Chamber:
YES
Saturation
Concentration
(
mg/
m
³
)
:
NONE
Output
Concentration
Units:
mg/
m
³

Initial
Concentrations
Units:
mg/
m
³

Zone
1:
0
Zone
2:
0
Zone
3:
0
Zone
4:
0
Outdoors:
0
____________________________________________________________________________
RESULTS
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
LADD:
0.037787
mg/(
kg
day)
LADC:
0.059043
mg/
m
³
ADD:
0.037787
mg/(
kg
day)
Page
78
of
97
ADC:
0.059043
mg/
m
³
Single
Event
Dose:
207.03
mg
Peak
Concentration:
12.191
mg/
m
³
APDR:
7.7754
mg/(
kg
day)
Time
when
APDR
occurred:
1.9587
days
Average
Inhalation
Rate:
9.6
m
³
/
day
____________________________________________________________________________

Humidifier
­
8hrs
Time
(
days)
Time
(
hrs)
Conc
Outdoors
(
mg/
m
³
)
Conc
Zone
1
(
mg/
m
³
)
Conc@
Person(
mg/
m
³
)
0
0
0
0
0
0.0416667
1
7.59E­
59
2.00763
2.00763
0.0833334
2
2.87E­
58
3.68471
3.68471
0.125
3
6.10E­
58
5.08566
5.08566
0.166667
4
1.03E­
57
6.25594
6.25594
0.208334
5
1.52E­
57
7.23354
7.23354
0.25
6
2.09E­
57
8.05018
8.05018
0.291667
7
2.70E­
57
8.73237
8.73237
0.333334
8
3.36E­
57
9.30223
9.30223
0.375
9
4.07E­
57
9.77826
9.77826
0.416667
10
4.80E­
57
10.1759
10.1759
0.458334
11
5.56E­
57
10.5081
10.5081
0.5
12
6.34E­
57
10.7856
10.7856
0.541667
13
7.14E­
57
11.0174
11.0174
0.583334
14
7.96E­
57
11.211
11.211
0.625
15
8.78E­
57
11.3728
11.3728
0.666667
16
9.62E­
57
11.5079
11.5079
0.708334
17
1.05E­
56
11.6208
11.6208
0.750001
18
1.13E­
56
11.7151
11.7151
0.791667
19
1.22E­
56
11.7938
11.7938
0.833334
20
1.31E­
56
11.8596
11.8596
0.875001
21
1.39E­
56
11.9146
11.9146
0.916667
22
1.48E­
56
11.9605
11.9605
0.958334
23
1.57E­
56
11.9989
11.9989
1
24
1.66E­
56
12.0309
12.0309
1.04167
25
1.75E­
56
12.0577
12.0577
1.08333
26
1.83E­
56
12.08
12.08
1.125
27
1.92E­
56
12.0987
12.0987
1.16667
28
2.01E­
56
12.1143
12.1143
1.20833
29
2.10E­
56
12.1273
12.1273
1.25
30
2.19E­
56
12.1382
12.1382
1.29167
31
2.28E­
56
12.1473
12.1473
1.33333
32
2.37E­
56
12.1549
12.1549
1.375
33
2.46E­
56
12.1613
12.1613
1.41667
34
2.55E­
56
12.1666
12.1666
1.45833
35
2.64E­
56
12.171
12.171
1.5
36
2.73E­
56
12.1747
12.1747
1.54167
37
2.81E­
56
12.1778
12.1778
1.58333
38
2.90E­
56
12.1804
12.1804
Page
79
of
97
Humidifier
­
8hrs
Time
(
days)
Time
(
hrs)
Conc
Outdoors
(
mg/
m
³
)
Conc
Zone
1
(
mg/
m
³
)
Conc@
Person(
mg/
m
³
)
1.625
39
2.99E­
56
12.1825
12.1825
1.66667
40
3.08E­
56
12.1843
12.1843
1.70833
41
3.17E­
56
12.1858
12.1858
1.75
42
3.26E­
56
12.1871
12.1871
1.79167
43
3.35E­
56
12.1881
12.1881
1.83333
44
3.44E­
56
12.189
12.189
1.875
45
3.53E­
56
12.1897
12.1897
1.91667
46
3.62E­
56
12.1904
12.1904
1.95833
47
3.71E­
56
12.1909
12.1909
2
48
3.80E­
56
12.1883
12.1883
Adults
8
hr
exposure
duration
concentration
(
0
to
8
hr)
5.59
Time
(
hr)
8
Body
Weight
(
kg)
60
Inhalation
(
m3/
hr)
0.50
Dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
0.373
NOAEL
(
mg/
kg/
day)
10
MOE
27
Children
8
hr
exposure
duration
concentration
(
0
to
8
hr)
5.59
Time
(
hr)
8
Body
Weight
(
kg)
15
Inhalation
(
m3/
hr)
0.40
Dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
1.19
NOAEL
(
mg/
kg/
day)
10
MOE
8.4
Page
80
of
97
MCCEM
SUMMARY
REPORT
TITLE:
Humidifier
­
24hrs
­
Adult
RUN
Day
Hour
Min
Length
Days
Hours
Min
Reporting
TIME
Start:
0
0
0
of
Run:
2
0
0
Interval:
60
minutes
HOUSE
Type:
Generic
house
State:
NA
Code:
GN001
Season:
SUMMER
Zones:
2
Infiltration
Rate:
0.18
ACH
EMISSIONS
Source
Zone
Type
Details
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯

1
1
Constant
Emission
Rate
=
0.895
g/
hr
2
3
4
SINKS
Sink
Zone
Model
Details
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯

1
2
3
4
5
6
ACTIVITIES
Primary
Activity
Pattern
is
used
on
days:
1,2,3,4,5,6,7
OVERRIDE
ACTIVITIES:
YES
DOSE
Events/
yr:
Yrs
of
Use:
Weight(
kg):
60
Length
of
Life(
yrs):

MONTE
CARLO:
NO
Number
of
Trials:
1
Seed
No:
Random
OPTIONS
Single
Chamber:
YES
Saturation
Concentration
(
mg/
m
³
)
:
NONE
Output
Concentration
Units:
mg/
m
³

Initial
Concentrations
Units:
mg/
m
³
Page
81
of
97
Zone
1:
0
Zone
2:
0
Zone
3:
0
Zone
4:
0
Outdoors:
0
____________________________________________________________________________
RESULTS
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
LADD:
0.013088
mg/(
kg
day)
LADC:
0.059043
mg/
m
³
ADD:
0.013088
mg/(
kg
day)
ADC:
0.059043
mg/
m
³
Single
Event
Dose:
286.82
mg
Peak
Concentration:
12.191
mg/
m
³
APDR:
2.6931
mg/(
kg
day)
Time
when
APDR
occurred:
1.9587
days
Average
Inhalation
Rate:
13.3
m
³
/
day
____________________________________________________________________________
Page
82
of
97
MCCEM
SUMMARY
REPORT
TITLE:
Humidifier
­
24hrs
­
Child
RUN
Day
Hour
Min
Length
Days
Hours
Min
Reporting
TIME
Start:
0
0
0
of
Run:
2
0
0
Interval:
60
minutes
HOUSE
Type:
Generic
house
State:
NA
Code:
GN001
Season:
SUMMER
Zones:
2
Infiltration
Rate:
0.18
ACH
EMISSIONS
Source
Zone
Type
Details
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯

1
1
Constant
Emission
Rate
=
0.895
g/
hr
2
3
4
SINKS
Sink
Zone
Model
Details
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯

1
2
3
4
5
6
ACTIVITIES
Primary
Activity
Pattern
is
used
on
days:
1,2,3,4,5,6,7
OVERRIDE
ACTIVITIES:
YES
DOSE
Events/
yr:
Yrs
of
Use:
Weight(
kg):
15
Length
of
Life(
yrs):

MONTE
CARLO:
NO
Number
of
Trials:
1
Seed
No:
Random
OPTIONS
Single
Chamber:
YES
Saturation
Concentration
(
mg/
m
³
)
:
NONE
Output
Concentration
Units:
mg/
m
³

Initial
Concentrations
Units:
mg/
m
³
Page
83
of
97
Zone
1:
0
Zone
2:
0
Zone
3:
0
Zone
4:
0
Outdoors:
0
____________________________________________________________________________
RESULTS
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
LADD:
0.03267
mg/(
kg
day)
LADC:
0.059043
mg/
m
³
ADD:
0.03267
mg/(
kg
day)
ADC:
0.059043
mg/
m
³
Single
Event
Dose:
178.99
mg
Peak
Concentration:
12.191
mg/
m
³
APDR:
6.7225
mg/(
kg
day)
Time
when
APDR
occurred:
1.9587
days
Average
Inhalation
Rate:
8.3
m
³
/
day
____________________________________________________________________________
Page
84
of
97
Humidifier
­
24hrs
Time
(
days)
Time
(
hrs)
Conc
Outdoors
(
mg/
m
³
)
Conc
Zone
1
(
mg/
m
³
)
Conc@
Person(
mg/
m
³
)

0
0
0
0
0
0.041667
1
7.59E­
59
2.00763
2.00763
0.083333
2
2.87E­
58
3.68471
3.68471
0.125
3
6.10E­
58
5.08566
5.08566
0.166667
4
1.03E­
57
6.25594
6.25594
0.208334
5
1.52E­
57
7.23354
7.23354
0.25
6
2.09E­
57
8.05018
8.05018
0.291667
7
2.70E­
57
8.73237
8.73237
0.333334
8
3.36E­
57
9.30223
9.30223
0.375
9
4.07E­
57
9.77826
9.77826
0.416667
10
4.80E­
57
10.1759
10.1759
0.458334
11
5.56E­
57
10.5081
10.5081
0.5
12
6.34E­
57
10.7856
10.7856
0.541667
13
7.14E­
57
11.0174
11.0174
0.583334
14
7.96E­
57
11.211
11.211
0.625
15
8.78E­
57
11.3728
11.3728
0.666667
16
9.62E­
57
11.5079
11.5079
0.708334
17
1.05E­
56
11.6208
11.6208
0.750001
18
1.13E­
56
11.7151
11.7151
0.791667
19
1.22E­
56
11.7938
11.7938
0.833334
20
1.31E­
56
11.8596
11.8596
0.875001
21
1.39E­
56
11.9146
11.9146
0.916667
22
1.48E­
56
11.9605
11.9605
0.958334
23
1.57E­
56
11.9989
11.9989
1
24
1.66E­
56
12.0309
12.0309
1.04167
25
1.75E­
56
12.0577
12.0577
1.08333
26
1.83E­
56
12.08
12.08
1.125
27
1.92E­
56
12.0987
12.0987
1.16667
28
2.01E­
56
12.1143
12.1143
1.20833
29
2.10E­
56
12.1273
12.1273
1.25
30
2.19E­
56
12.1382
12.1382
1.29167
31
2.28E­
56
12.1473
12.1473
1.33333
32
2.37E­
56
12.1549
12.1549
1.375
33
2.46E­
56
12.1613
12.1613
1.41667
34
2.55E­
56
12.1666
12.1666
1.45833
35
2.64E­
56
12.171
12.171
1.5
36
2.73E­
56
12.1747
12.1747
1.54167
37
2.81E­
56
12.1778
12.1778
1.58333
38
2.90E­
56
12.1804
12.1804
1.625
39
2.99E­
56
12.1825
12.1825
1.66667
40
3.08E­
56
12.1843
12.1843
1.70833
41
3.17E­
56
12.1858
12.1858
1.75
42
3.26E­
56
12.1871
12.1871
1.79167
43
3.35E­
56
12.1881
12.1881
1.83333
44
3.44E­
56
12.189
12.189
Page
85
of
97
1.875
45
3.53E­
56
12.1897
12.1897
1.91667
46
3.62E­
56
12.1904
12.1904
1.95833
47
3.71E­
56
12.1909
12.1909
2
48
3.80E­
56
12.1883
12.1883
Adult
24
hr
exposure
duration
concentration
(
24
to
48
hr)
12.2
Time
(
hr)
8
Body
Weight
(
kg)
60
Inhalation
(
m3/
hr)
0.55
Dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
0.90
NOAEL
(
mg/
kg/
day)
10
MOE
11.1
Child
24
hr
exposure
duration
concentration
(
24
to
48
hr)
12.2
Time
(
hr)
8
Body
Weight
(
kg)
15
Inhalation
(
m3/
hr)
0.36
Dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
2.32
NOAEL
(
mg/
kg/
day)
10
MOE
4.3
Page
86
of
97
APPENDIX
D:
Input/
Output
from
Occupational
MCCEM
Modeling
Food
Processing
Plant
and
Hatchery
Page
87
of
97
MCCEM
SUMMARY
REPORT
TITLE:
Food
Processing
RUN
Day
Hour
Min
Length
Days
Hours
Min
Reporting
TIME
Start:
0
0
0
of
Run:
2
0
0
Interval:
60
minutes
HOUSE
Type:
Hypothetical
house
State:
NA
Code:
HY06
Season:
NA
Zones:
1
Infiltration
Rate:
0.18
ACH
EMISSIONS
Source
Zone
Type
Details
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯

1
2
3
4
SINKS
Sink
Zone
Model
Details
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯

1
2
3
4
5
6
ACTIVITIES
Primary
Activity
Pattern
is
used
on
days:
1,2,3,4,5,6,7
OVERRIDE
ACTIVITIES:
YES
Page
88
of
97
DOSE
Events/
yr:
Yrs
of
Use:
Weight(
kg):
60
Length
of
Life(
yrs):

MONTE
CARLO:
NO
Number
of
Trials:
1
Seed
No:
Random
OPTIONS
Single
Chamber:
YES
Saturation
Concentration
(
mg/
m
³
)
:
NONE
Output
Concentration
Units:
mg/
m
³

Initial
Concentrations
Units:
g/
m
³

Zone
1:
0.0258
Zone
2:
0
Zone
3:
0
Zone
4:
0
Outdoors:
0
____________________________________________________________________________

RESULTS
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯

LADD:
0.0065343
mg/(
kg
day)

LADC:
0.016336
mg/
m
³

ADD:
0.0065344
mg/(
kg
day)

ADC:
0.016336
mg/
m
³

Single
Event
Dose:
143.2
mg
Peak
Concentration:
25.761
mg/
m
³

APDR:
2.3554
mg/(
kg
day)

Time
when
APDR
occurred:
1.0003
days
Average
Inhalation
Rate:
24
m
³
/
day
____________________________________________________________________________

Food
Processing
Time
(
days)
Time
(
hrs)
Conc
Outdoors
(
mg/
m
³
)
Conc
Zone
1
(
mg/
m
³
)
Conc@
Person(
mg/
m
³
)

0
0
0
25.8
0
0.041666
7
1
6.38E­
55
21.55
21.55
0.083333
4
2
1.17E­
54
18
18
0.125
3
1.61E­
54
15.0349
15.0349
Page
89
of
97
Food
Processing
Time
(
days)
Time
(
hrs)
Conc
Outdoors
(
mg/
m
³
)
Conc
Zone
1
(
mg/
m
³
)
Conc@
Person(
mg/
m
³
)

0.166667
4
1.99E­
54
12.5582
12.5582
0.208334
5
2.30E­
54
10.4895
10.4895
0.25
6
2.56E­
54
8.76156
8.76156
0.291667
7
2.77E­
54
7.31827
7.31827
0.333334
8
2.95E­
54
6.11273
6.11273
0.375
9
3.10E­
54
5.10578
5.10578
0.416667
10
3.23E­
54
4.26471
4.26471
0.458334
11
3.34E­
54
3.56218
3.56218
0.5
12
3.42E­
54
2.97538
2.97538
0.541667
13
3.50E­
54
2.48525
2.48525
0.583334
14
3.56E­
54
2.07585
2.07585
0.625
15
3.61E­
54
1.7339
1.7339
0.666667
16
3.65E­
54
1.44827
1.44827
0.708334
17
3.69E­
54
1.2097
1.2097
0.750001
18
3.72E­
54
1.01043
1.01043
0.791667
19
3.74E­
54
0.843979
0.843979
0.833334
20
3.76E­
54
0.70495
0.70495
0.875001
21
3.78E­
54
0.588824
0.588824
0.916667
22
3.80E­
54
0.491827
0.491827
0.958334
23
3.81E­
54
0.410808
0.410808
1
24
3.82E­
54
0.343136
0.343136
1.04167
25
3.83E­
54
0.286611
0.286611
1.08333
26
3.83E­
54
0.239398
0.239398
1.125
27
3.84E­
54
0.199962
0.199962
1.16667
28
3.84E­
54
0.167022
0.167022
1.20833
29
3.85E­
54
0.139509
0.139509
1.25
30
3.85E­
54
0.116527
0.116527
1.29167
31
3.86E­
54
0.0973318
0.0973318
1.33333
32
3.86E­
54
0.0812983
0.0812983
1.375
33
3.86E­
54
0.067906
0.067906
1.41667
34
3.86E­
54
0.0567199
0.0567199
1.45833
35
3.86E­
54
0.0473764
0.0473764
1.5
36
3.86E­
54
0.0395721
0.0395721
1.54167
37
3.87E­
54
0.0330534
0.0330534
1.58333
38
3.87E­
54
0.0276085
0.0276085
1.625
39
3.87E­
54
0.0230606
0.0230606
1.66667
40
3.87E­
54
0.0192618
0.0192618
1.70833
41
3.87E­
54
0.0160888
0.0160888
1.75
42
3.87E­
54
0.0134385
0.0134385
1.79167
43
3.87E­
54
0.0112248
0.0112248
1.83333
44
3.87E­
54
0.0093757
0.0093757
1.875
45
3.87E­
54
0.0078313
0.0078313
1.91667
46
3.87E­
54
0.0065412
0.0065412
1.95833
47
3.87E­
54
0.0054637
0.0054637
2
48
3.87E­
54
0.0045637
0.0045637
2­
hr
Reentry
Interval
Page
90
of
97
Food
Processing
Time
(
days)
Time
(
hrs)
Conc
Outdoors
(
mg/
m
³
)
Conc
Zone
1
(
mg/
m
³
)
Conc@
Person(
mg/
m
³
)

8
hr
exposure
duration
concentration
(
2
to
10
hr)
9.74
Time
(
hr)
8
Body
Weight
(
kg)
60
Inhalation
(
m3/
hr)
1.25
Dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
1.62
NOAEL
(
mg/
kg/
day)
10
MOE
6.2
Page
91
of
97
MCCEM
SUMMARY
REPORT
TITLE:
Hatchery
RUN
Day
Hour
Min
Length
Days
Hours
Min
Reporting
TIME
Start:
0
0
0
of
Run:
2
0
0
Interval:
60
minutes
HOUSE
Type:
Hypothetical
house
State:
NA
Code:
HY07
Season:
NA
Zones:
1
Infiltration
Rate:
4
ACH
EMISSIONS
Source
Zone
Type
Details
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
1
2
3
4
SINKS
Sink
Zone
Model
Details
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
1
2
3
4
5
6
ACTIVITIES
Primary
Activity
Pattern
is
used
on
days:
1,2,3,4,5,6,7
OVERRIDE
ACTIVITIES:
YES
DOSE
Events/
yr:
Yrs
of
Use:
Weight(
kg):
60
Length
of
Life(
yrs):

MONTE
CARLO:
NO
Number
of
Trials:
1
Seed
No:
Random
OPTIONS
Single
Chamber:
YES
Saturation
Concentration
(
mg/
m
³
)
:
NONE
Output
Concentration
Units:
mg/
m
³

Initial
Concentrations
Units:
g/
m
³

Zone
1:
0.301
Zone
2:
0
Zone
3:
0
Zone
4:
0
Outdoors:
0
Page
92
of
97
___________________________________________________________________________
RESULTS
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
LADD:
0.0033768
mg/(
kg
day)
LADC:
0.008442
mg/
m
³
ADD:
0.0033768
mg/(
kg
day)
ADC:
0.008442
mg/
m
³
Single
Event
Dose:
74.003
mg
Peak
Concentration:
291.13
mg/
m
³
APDR:
1.2334
mg/(
kg
day)
Time
when
APDR
occurred:
0.41701
days
Average
Inhalation
Rate:
24
m
³
/
day
___________________________________________________________________________

Hatchery
Time
(
days)
Time
(
hrs)
Conc
Outdoors
(
mg/
m
³
)
Conc
Zone
1
(
mg/
m
³
)
Conc@
Person(
mg/
m
³
)

0
0
0
301
0
0.041667
1
4.43E­
53
5.51299
5.51299
0.083333
2
4.51E­
53
0.100974
0.100974
0.125
3
4.51E­
53
0.001849
0.001849
0.166667
4
4.52E­
53
3.39E­
05
3.39E­
05
0.208334
5
4.52E­
53
6.20E­
07
6.20E­
07
0.25
6
4.52E­
53
1.14E­
08
1.14E­
08
0.291667
7
4.52E­
53
2.08E­
10
2.08E­
10
0.333334
8
4.52E­
53
3.81E­
12
3.81E­
12
0.375
9
4.52E­
53
6.98E­
14
6.98E­
14
0.416667
10
4.52E­
53
1.28E­
15
1.28E­
15
0.458334
11
4.52E­
53
2.34E­
17
2.34E­
17
0.5
12
4.52E­
53
4.29E­
19
4.29E­
19
0.541667
13
4.52E­
53
7.86E­
21
7.86E­
21
0.583334
14
4.52E­
53
1.44E­
22
1.44E­
22
0.625
15
4.52E­
53
2.64E­
24
2.64E­
24
0.666667
16
4.52E­
53
4.83E­
26
4.83E­
26
0.708334
17
4.52E­
53
8.84E­
28
8.84E­
28
0.750001
18
4.52E­
53
1.62E­
29
1.62E­
29
0.791667
19
4.52E­
53
2.97E­
31
2.97E­
31
0.833334
20
4.52E­
53
5.43E­
33
5.43E­
33
0.875001
21
4.52E­
53
9.95E­
35
9.95E­
35
0.916667
22
4.52E­
53
1.82E­
36
1.82E­
36
0.958334
23
4.52E­
53
3.34E­
38
3.34E­
38
1
24
4.52E­
53
6.11E­
40
6.11E­
40
1.04167
25
4.52E­
53
1.12E­
41
1.12E­
41
1.08333
26
4.52E­
53
2.05E­
43
2.05E­
43
1.125
27
4.52E­
53
3.76E­
45
3.76E­
45
1.16667
28
4.52E­
53
6.88E­
47
6.88E­
47
1.20833
29
4.52E­
53
1.26E­
48
1.26E­
48
1.25
30
4.52E­
53
2.31E­
50
2.31E­
50
1.29167
31
4.52E­
53
4.68E­
52
4.68E­
52
1.33333
32
4.52E­
53
5.29E­
53
5.29E­
53
1.375
33
4.52E­
53
4.53E­
53
4.53E­
53
Page
93
of
97
1.41667
34
4.52E­
53
4.52E­
53
4.52E­
53
1.45833
35
4.52E­
53
4.52E­
53
4.52E­
53
1.5
36
4.52E­
53
4.52E­
53
4.52E­
53
1.54167
37
4.52E­
53
4.52E­
53
4.52E­
53
1.58333
38
4.52E­
53
4.52E­
53
4.52E­
53
1.625
39
4.52E­
53
4.52E­
53
4.52E­
53
1.66667
40
4.52E­
53
4.52E­
53
4.52E­
53
1.70833
41
4.52E­
53
4.52E­
53
4.52E­
53
1.75
42
4.52E­
53
4.52E­
53
4.52E­
53
1.79167
43
4.52E­
53
4.52E­
53
4.52E­
53
1.83333
44
4.52E­
53
4.52E­
53
4.52E­
53
1.875
45
4.52E­
53
4.52E­
53
4.52E­
53
1.91667
46
4.52E­
53
4.52E­
53
4.52E­
53
1.95833
47
4.52E­
53
4.52E­
53
4.52E­
53
2
48
4.52E­
53
4.52E­
53
4.52E­
53
0
hr
Re­
entry
Interval
8
hr
exposure
duration
concentration
(
0
to
8
hr)
0.62
Time
(
hr)
8
Body
Weight
(
kg)
60
Inhalation
(
m3/
hr)
1.00
Dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
0.083
NOAEL
(
mg/
kg/
day)
10
MOE
120
2­
hr
Reentry
Interval
8
hr
exposure
duration
concentration
(
2
to
10
hr)
0.0114
Time
(
hr)
8
Body
Weight
(
kg)
60
Inhalation
(
m3/
hr)
1.00
Dose
(
mg/
kg/
day)
0.0015
NOAEL
(
mg/
kg/
day)
10
MOE
6,562
Page
94
of
97
Page
95
of
97
APPENDIX
E:
Calculation
of
DDAC
Unit
Exposure
Values
Page
96
of
97
Table
E­
1:
DDAC
Dermal
and
Inhalation
Exposure
Values
for
Chemical
Operators,
Graders,
Millwrights,
Clean­
up
Crews,
and
Trim
Saw
Operatorsa
Chemical
Operator
Grader
Trim
Saw
Operator
Millwright
Cleanup
Crew
Dermal
Inhalation
Dermal
Inhalation
Dermal
Inhalation
Dermal
Inhalation
Dermal
Inhalation
Replicate
Number
Potential
exposure
(
mg)
Air
Concentrationb,

c
(:
g/
m3)
Potential
exposured
(
mg)
Potential
exposure
(
mg)
Air
Concentration
b,
c
(:
g/
m3)
Potential
exposure
d
(
mg)
Potential
exposure
(
mg)
Air
Concentration
b,
c
(:
g/
m3)
Potential
exposure
d
(
mg)
Potential
exposure
(
mg)
Air
Concentration
b,
c
(:
g/
m3)
Potential
exposure
d
(
mg)
Potential
exposure
(
mg)
Air
Concentration
b,
c
(:
g/
m3)
Potential
exposure
d
(
mg)

1
3.5
10.1
0.0808
3.05
2.90
0.0232
0.78
2.83
0.0227
1.31
2.92
0.0233
68.3
2.99145
0.0239
2
6.11
2.80
0.0224
7.47
2.93
0.0234
1.98
12.3
0.0984
29.08
2.83
0.0226
0.720
2.78840
0.0223
3
6.07
2.79
0.0223
1.09
2.91
0.0233
8.03
15.6
0.1248
166
30.3
0.2424
4
46.37
2.82
0.0226
10.51
3.00
0.0240
95.2
412
3.2960
5
0.94
2.93
0.0235
0.61
2.82
0.0226
1.20
2.83585
0.0227
6
22.15
2.83
0.0227
0.98
2.85
0.0228
0.260
2.80989
0.0225
7
21.45
2.77
0.0222
2.63
2.91
0.0233
8
0.22
2.73
0.0218
5.23
2.85
0.0228
9
0.44
2.77
0.0222
0.19
13.20
0.1056
10
0.33
3.14
0.0251
1.47
2.89
0.0231
11
0.29
2.88
0.0230
2.38
2.85
0.0228
12
4.09
2.81
0.0225
13
1.03
2.94
0.0235
Arithmetic
Mean
9.81
3.51
0.0281
3.13
3.68
0.0295
1.38
7.57
0.061
12.8
7.12
0.057
55.3
75.6
0.60
Minimum
0.22
2.73
0.0218
0.19
2.81
0.0225
0.78
2.83
0.0227
1.31
2.83
0.0226
0.260
2.79
0.0223
Maximum
46.4
10.1
0.081
10.51
13.2
0.106
1.98
12.3
0.098
29.1
15.6
0.125
166
412
3.30
a.
"
Measurement
and
Assessment
of
Dermal
and
Inhalation
Exposures
to
Didecyl
Dimethyl
Ammonium
Chloride
(
DDAC)
Used
in
the
Protection
of
Cut
Lumber
(
Phase
III)"
is
the
study
that
values
were
obtained
from
for
this
table
(
Bestari
et
al.,
1999,
MRID
455243­
04).

b.
The
inhalation
LOD
was
not
provided
for
chemical
operators,
graders,
trim
saw
operators,
millwrights,
or
the
clean­
up
crew.
Therefore,
the
LOD
provided
for
the
diptank
operator
(
5.6
:
g)

was
used
for
these
positions.
Residues
less
than
the
LOD
were
adjusted
to
1/
2
LOD.

c.
The
inhalation
limit
of
detection
was
converted
to
:
g/
m3
using
the
following
equation:
air
concentration
(:
g/
m3)
=
5.6
:
g/
[
average
flow
rate
(
L/
min)
*
sampling
duration
(
480
min)
*
1000
L/
m3.
Data
was
obtained
from
Bestari
et
al
(
1999).

d.
DDAC
air
concentrations
were
converted
to
inhalation
exposure
using
the
following
equation:
Air
concentration
(:
g/
m3)
x
inhalation
rate
(
1.0
m3/
hr)
x
Conversion
factor
(
1
mg/
1000
:
g)
x
sample
duration
(
8
hours/
day
Page
97
of
97
Table
E­
2:
Normalization
of
DDAC
Dermal
and
Inhalation
Exposure
Values
for
Diptank
Operatorsa
Worker
ID
Mill
number
Sample
Time
(
min)
DDAC
Conc.
in
Diptank
(%)
Gloves
Dermal
Body
Exposureb
(
mg)
Hand
Exposureb
(
mg)
Total
Dermal
Exposure
(
mg)
Normalized
Total
Dermal
Unit
Exposurec
(
mg/
1
%
solution)
Air
Conc.
d
(
mg/
m3)
Inhalation
Exposuree
(
mg)
Normalized
Inhalation
Unit
Exposurec
(
mg
/
1%
solution)

M7P1A
7
480
0.64
Rubber
0.5
3.44
3.94
6.16
0.003
0.024
0.0375
M7P1B
7
480
0.64
Rubber
0.32
2.02
2.34
3.66
0.003
0.024
0.0375
M8P4A
8
408
0.42
Rubber
0.04f
1.34
1.38
3.29
0.003
0.024
0.057
M8P4B
8
480
0.42
Rubber
0.04f
0.5
0.54
1.29
0.003
0.024
0.057
M8P7
8
480
0.42
Cotton
0.03
0.04
0.07
0.17
0.003
0.024
0.057
M11P9A
11
395
0.63
Leather
0.15
3.33
3.48
5.52
0.003
0.024
0.0381
M11P9B
11
480
0.63
Leather
0.1
0.45
0.55
0.87
0.003
0.024
0.0381
Arithmetic
Mean
0.17
1.59
1.76
2.99
0.0030
0.0240
0.046
Standard
Deviation
0.18
1.39
1.53
2.32
0.0000
0.0000
0.0103
Median
0.10
1.34
1.38
3.29
0.0030
0.0240
0.0381
Geometric
Mean
0.10
0.83
0.99
1.86
0.0030
0.0240
0.045
90%
tile
0.39
3.37
3.66
5.78
0.0030
0.0240
0.057
Maximum
0.50
3.44
3.94
6.16
0.0030
0.0240
0.057
a.
"
Measurement
and
Assessment
of
Dermal
and
Inhalation
Exposures
to
Didecyl
Dimethyl
Ammonium
Chloride
(
DDAC)
Used
in
the
Protection
of
Cut
Lumber
(
Phase
III)"
is
the
study
that
values
were
obtained
from
for
this
table
(
Bestari
et
al.,
1999,
MRID
455243­
04).

b.
DDAC
concentration
that
was
detected
in
the
monitoring
study
(
MRID
#
455243­
04).

c.
Normalization
of
DDAC
data
for
percent
ai
treatment.
Normalized
Unit
Exposure
(
mg/
1%
ai
solution)
=
Exposure
(
mg
DDAC)
/
concentration
in
diptank
solution
(%
DDAC)

d.
All
inhalation
residues
were
<
LOD
(
5.6

g
or
0.0056
mg/
m3).
1/
2
LOD
was
used
in
all
calculations
(
0.003
mg/
m3).
Air
Concentration
(
mg/
m3)
=
5.6

g
/
(~
2
L/
min
flow
rate
x
~
480
min)
x
1000
L/
m3
conversion
x
0.001

g/
mg
=
0.003
mg/
m3
e.
Inhalation
exposure
(
mg)
=
air
concentration
(
mg/
m3)
x
inhalation
rate
(
1.0
m3/
hr)
x
sample
duration
(
8
hours/
day).

f.
Residues
were
<
LOD
for
dermal
samples
M8P4A,
M8P4B.
Sample
size
of
~
11,231
cm2
x
<
0.007
ug/
cm2
=
LOD
of
0.079
mg.
1/
2
LOD
reported
(
i.
e.,
0.04
mg)
