Dichlorvos (DDVP) Risk Characterization Document - California ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

APPENDIX E (continued) ONCOGENICITY POTENCY CALCULATIONS Mononuclear leukemia in male rats dosed <strong>DDVP</strong> by gavage for 2 years POLYNOMIAL DEGREE SELECTED BY PROGRAM, (POLY-DEGREE=0) MONTE CARLO TEST USED IN SELECTION #RESPONSES #RESPONSES GROUP DOSE OBSERVED/#ANIMALS PREDICTED 1 0.00000 11/ 50 11.76 2 2.90000 20/ 50 17.67 3 5.70000 21/ 50 22.51 CHI-SQUARE GOODNESS OF FIT STATISTIC IS .72309 P-VALUE FOR THE MONTE CARLO TEST IS .2950000000 FORM OF PROBABILITY FUNCTION: P(DOSE) = 1 - exp( -Q0 - Q1 * D - Q2 * D^2 ) MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATES OF DOSE COEFFICIENTS Q( 0) = .268176327600 Q( 1) = 5.789349370575E-02 Q( 2) = .000000000000 MAXIMUM VALUE OF THE LOG-LIKELIHOOD IS -94.3688180916 CALCULATIONS ARE BASED UPON EXTRA RISK GLOBAL 86 LOWER CONFIDENCE LIMITS ON DOSE FOR FIXED RISK ********************************************************* LOWER BOUND CONFIDENCE COEFFICIENTS FOR RISK MLE DOSE ON DOSE LIMIT SIZE CONFIDENCE LIMIT ---- -------- ----------- ---------- ---------------- 1.00000E-06 1.72731E-05 9.86160E-06 95.0% Q( 0) = .20214 Q( 1) = .10140 Q( 2) = .00000
APPENDIX E (continued) ONCOGENICITY POTENCY CALCULATIONS Combined forestomach papilloma and/or carcinoma in female mice dosed <strong>DDVP</strong> by gavage for 2 years POLYNOMIAL DEGREE SELECTED BY PROGRAM, (POLY-DEGREE=0) MONTE CARLO TEST USED IN SELECTION #RESPONSES #RESPONSES GROUP DOSE OBSERVED/#ANIMALS PREDICTED 1 0.00000 5/ 44 4.67 2 14.3000 6/ 44 6.52 3 28.6000 19/ 48 18.83 CHI-SQUARE GOODNESS OF FIT STATISTIC IS 7.76347E-02 P-VALUE FOR THE MONTE CARLO TEST IS .4450000000 FORM OF PROBABILITY FUNCTION: P(DOSE) = 1 - exp( -Q0 - Q1 * D - Q2 * D^2 - Q3 * D^3 ) MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATES OF DOSE COEFFICIENTS ------------------------------------------------------------ Q( 0) = .112255443366 Q( 1) = .000000000000 Q( 2) = .000000000000 Q( 3) = 1.648741402970E-05 MAXIMUM VALUE OF THE LOG-LIKELIHOOD IS -65.3646193952 CALCULATIONS ARE BASED UPON EXTRA RISK GLOBAL 86 LOWER CONFIDENCE LIMITS ON DOSE FOR FIXED RISK ********************************************************* LOWER BOUND CONFIDENCE COEFFICIENTS FOR RISK MLE DOSE ON DOSE LIMIT SIZE CONFIDENCE LIMIT ---- -------- ----------- ---------- ---------------- 1.00000E-06 .39290 8.93870E-05 95.0% Q( 0) = 8.80886E-02 Q( 1) = 1.11873E-02 Q( 2) = 0.00000 Q( 3) = 2.89517E-06
Page 1 and 2:
DICHLORVOS (DDVP) RISK CHARACTERIZA
Page 3 and 4:
transmitter of signals from the ner
Page 5 and 6:
Contributors and Acknowledgments Pr
Page 7 and 8:
List of Tables Pages 1. The acute t
Page 9 and 10:
hematocrit) in rats. From studies w
Page 11 and 12:
II. INTRODUCTION The human health r
Page 13 and 14:
food service facilities); hand-held
Page 15 and 16:
G. ENVIRONMENTAL FATE Summary: DDVP
Page 17 and 18:
III. TOXICOLOGY PROFILE Pharmacokin
Page 19 and 20:
Inhalation - Rat Carworth Farm stra
Page 21 and 22:
DIMETHYL PHOSPHATE Oral - Rat Rats
Page 23 and 24:
B. ACUTE TOXICITY Summary: The acut
Page 25 and 26:
Oral - Human One hundred and eight
Page 27 and 28:
Table 1. The acute toxicity of DDVP
Page 29 and 30:
Table 1. The acute toxicity of DDVP
Page 31 and 32:
Table 2. Selected no-observed-effec
Page 33 and 34:
dose-related manner. At a dosage of
Page 35 and 36:
pretreatment levels, respectively.
Page 37 and 38:
Table 3. Selected no-observed-effec
Page 39 and 40:
Gavage - Rat In a study conducted b
Page 41 and 42:
ate (Appendix D) and the assumption
Page 43 and 44:
Gavage - Mouse In a study conducted
Page 45 and 46:
Capsules - Dog DDVP (97.3-99.5% pur
Page 47 and 48:
Table 9. The no-observed-effect lev
Page 49 and 50:
Mice exposed to DDVP by inhalation
Page 51 and 52:
F. REPRODUCTIVE TOXICITY Summary: E
Page 53 and 54:
Table 11. The dosages and the inhib
Page 55 and 56:
G. DEVELOPMENTAL TOXICITY Summary:
Page 57 and 58:
levels not verified, too few pregna
Page 59 and 60:
H. NEUROTOXICITY Summary: Possible
Page 61 and 62:
IV. RISK ASSESSMENT A. HAZARD IDENT
Page 63 and 64:
Acute Toxicity Inhalation The criti
Page 65 and 66:
ates were not statistically signifi
Page 67 and 68: In mice, there were dose-related in
Page 69 and 70: B. EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT The exposure
Page 71 and 72: The U.S. Department of Agriculture
Page 73 and 74: Acute Exposure Estimates of potenti
Page 75 and 76: Table 19. Commodity contribution of
Page 77 and 78: C. RISK CHARACTERIZATION The potent
Page 79 and 80: Table 23. The margins of safety for
Page 81 and 82: Table 25. The margins of safety of
Page 83 and 84: label between treatment and the ava
Page 85 and 86: VI. TOLERANCE ASSESSMENT A. BACKGRO
Page 87 and 88: VII. CONCLUSIONS The toxicological
Page 89 and 90: Bomhard, E., and M. Rinke, 1994. Fr
Page 91 and 92: DPR, 1992. Sampling for pesticide r
Page 93 and 94: Horn, K.-H., B. Teichmann, and T. S
Page 95 and 96: NTP (National Toxicology Program),
Page 97 and 98: TAS, 1992a. Exposure 4 . Detailed
Page 99 and 100: Warf Institute Inc., 1977c. Acute e
Page 101 and 102: APPENDIX A U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTE
Page 103 and 104: APPENDIX B Department of Pesticide
Page 105 and 106: TABLE 2: Percent DDVP Dermal Absorp
Page 107 and 108: RESIDENT EXPOSURES Environmental mo
Page 109 and 110: post-treatment, respectively. Glove
Page 111 and 112: Ross, J.H., H.R. Fong, , T. Thongsi
Page 113 and 114: APPENDIX C NALED TOXICOLOGY OF NALE
Page 115 and 116: APPENDIX D CALCULATION EQUATIONS 1.
Page 117: APPENDIX E ONCOGENICITY POTENCY CAL
show all

Dichlorvos (DDVP) Risk Characterization Document - California ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?