Dichlorvos (DDVP) Risk Characterization Document - California ...
Dichlorvos (DDVP) Risk Characterization Document - California ... Dichlorvos (DDVP) Risk Characterization Document - California ...
Potency values were estimated by fitting the Global 86 model to the incidences of pancreatic adenoma, mononuclear leukemia, and forestomach papilloma or carcinoma identified in the NTP study (Chan, 1989) and are listed in Table 15 (Appendix E). The potency values estimated from experimental animals were extrapolated to humans assuming the interspecies dose equivalence based on the body weight to the 3/4 power (see Equation 4 in Appendix D). Using this assumption, a factor of 1/4 power of the human-to-animal body weight ratio was applied. In this document, the theoretical cancer risk associated with the use of DDVP was assessed based on the incidence of mononuclear cell leukemias found in rats (Chan, 1989). This endpoint was chosen because it was a systemic effect and the result was statistically significant for both the Trend Test and the Fisher's Exact Test. The finding of pancreatic adenoma was not used because of the possible influence of corn oil in the induction and the lack of evidence for malignancy. The finding of forestomach tumors in mice was also not used in this assessment because the human equivalent potency factor was 5-fold lower than that for mononuclear cell leukemias in the rat. While there is no direct counterpart to the rodent forestomach, the human esophagus and possibly the squamous epithelium at the squamocolumnar junction of the cardiac portion of the stomach may be a site for either squamous cell carcinoma or adenocarcinoma (Huff, 1992). Table 15. The maximum likelihood estimates and 95% upper confidence limit for tumors in rodents treated with DDVP a . Maximum Tumor type likelihood estimate (q 1 ) 95% upper confidence limit (q 1 *) animal human b animal human b Pancreatic adenoma 0.097 0.33 0.15 0.52 mg/kg-day -1 Mononuclear leukemia 0.058 0.20 0.10 0.35 mg/kg-day -1 Forestomach papilloma 0.000 0.00 0.011 0.073 mg/kg-day -1 or carcinoma a/ Data were from Chan, 1989. b/ The human equivalent q 1 and q 1 * were calculated by (Appendix D Equation 4 for derivation): q 1 human = q 1 animal x (human body weight/animal body weight) ¼ where the human body weight = 70 kg, rat body weight = 0.5 kg, and mouse body weight = 0.037 kg. For example: for pancreatic adenoma: q 1 human = 0.097 x (70/0.5) ¼ = 0.33 61
B. EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT The exposure of the general population to DDVP is primarily associated with its use in space treatment of agricultural, commercial, and residential buildings. DDVP has limited use on RACs; however, it is used for post-harvest treatment for bulk and packaged commodities, and on livestock. Exposure estimates for various categories of occupational and residential exposures, were based on the information provided by the Worker Health and Safety Branch (Appendix B). There is no seasonal exposure. Occupational Exposure The absorbed daily dosages of DDVP in workers ranged from 9 ug/kg for structural pest control operators (PCOs) to 62 ug/kg for livestock applicators (Table 16). For chronic exposure, the livestock applicators had the highest exposure level at 4.6 ug/kg-day for annual average daily dosage (AADD) and 2.6 ug/kg-day for lifetime average daily dosage (LADD). Residential Exposure Residents were exposed to DDVP in the homes due to direct applications (referred to as structural residents) and from the release of DDVP from indoor foggers, no-pest strips, and flea collars. The absorbed daily dosages ranged from 0.3 ug/kg for pet-owners to 125 ug/kg for children from the use of foggers (Table 16). Children exposed to no-pest strips had the highest chronic exposure levels at 6.6 ug/kg-day for AADD and 3.1 ug/kg-day for LADD. Table 16. Estimated occupational and residential exposures to DDVP a . Absorbed Daily Dosage Exposure AADD b LADD b Exposure type (ug/kg-day) (days/year) (ug/kg-day) (ug/kg-day) Occupational Warehouse worker 12 17 0.6 0.3 Structural PCO 9 30 0.8 0.4 Livestock applicator 62 27 4.6 2.6 Residential Structural (Resident) 10 6 0.2 0.11 Home-use fogger (child) 125 6 2.05 0.88 Home-use fogger (adult) 74 6 1.22 0.70 Pet owner 0.3 60 0.05 0.03 Pest strip (child) 40 60 6.6 3.1 Pest strip (adult) - - - 2.47 c a/ b/ c/ Data were adopted from Appendix B Table 3 (all except fogger exposure) and Table 4 for biological monitoring (fogger exposure). AADD=Annual average daily dosage, and LADD=Lifetime average daily dosage. Adult exposure level was estimated using the ratio of adult/child exposures for home-use fogger: 3.1 x (0.70/0.88) = 2.47 ug/kg-day. This estimate will be used for the calculation of lifetime exposure to pest strips. 62
- 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: In mice, there were dose-related in
- 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 and 118: APPENDIX E ONCOGENICITY POTENCY CAL
Potency values were estimated by fitting the Global 86 model to the incidences of pancreatic<br />
adenoma, mononuclear leukemia, and forestomach papilloma or carcinoma identified in the NTP<br />
study (Chan, 1989) and are listed in Table 15 (Appendix E). The potency values estimated from<br />
experimental animals were extrapolated to humans assuming the interspecies dose equivalence<br />
based on the body weight to the 3/4 power (see Equation 4 in Appendix D). Using this assumption, a<br />
factor of 1/4 power of the human-to-animal body weight ratio was applied.<br />
In this document, the theoretical cancer risk associated with the use of <strong>DDVP</strong> was assessed based on<br />
the incidence of mononuclear cell leukemias found in rats (Chan, 1989). This endpoint was chosen<br />
because it was a systemic effect and the result was statistically significant for both the Trend Test and<br />
the Fisher's Exact Test. The finding of pancreatic adenoma was not used because of the possible<br />
influence of corn oil in the induction and the lack of evidence for malignancy. The finding of<br />
forestomach tumors in mice was also not used in this assessment because the human equivalent<br />
potency factor was 5-fold lower than that for mononuclear cell leukemias in the rat. While there is no<br />
direct counterpart to the rodent forestomach, the human esophagus and possibly the squamous<br />
epithelium at the squamocolumnar junction of the cardiac portion of the stomach may be a site for<br />
either squamous cell carcinoma or adenocarcinoma (Huff, 1992).<br />
Table 15.<br />
The maximum likelihood estimates and 95% upper confidence limit for tumors in<br />
rodents treated with <strong>DDVP</strong> a .<br />
Maximum<br />
Tumor type likelihood estimate (q 1 ) 95% upper confidence limit (q 1 *)<br />
animal human b animal human b<br />
Pancreatic adenoma 0.097 0.33 0.15 0.52 mg/kg-day -1<br />
Mononuclear leukemia 0.058 0.20 0.10 0.35 mg/kg-day -1<br />
Forestomach papilloma 0.000 0.00 0.011 0.073 mg/kg-day -1<br />
or carcinoma<br />
a/ Data were from Chan, 1989.<br />
b/ The human equivalent q 1 and q 1 * were calculated by (Appendix D Equation 4 for derivation):<br />
q 1 human = q 1 animal x (human body weight/animal body weight) ¼<br />
where the human body weight = 70 kg, rat body weight = 0.5 kg, and<br />
mouse body weight = 0.037 kg.<br />
For example: for pancreatic adenoma: q 1 human = 0.097 x (70/0.5) ¼ = 0.33<br />
61