Dichlorvos (DDVP) Risk Characterization Document - California ...
Dichlorvos (DDVP) Risk Characterization Document - California ... Dichlorvos (DDVP) Risk Characterization Document - California ...
C. CHRONIC EXPOSURE A chronic exposure assessment using residues equal to the established tolerances for individual or combinations of commodities has not been conducted because it is highly improbable, that an individual would habitually consume single or multiple commodities with pesticide residues at the tolerance levels. Support for this conclusion comes from FDA and DPR (formerly CDFA) pesticide monitoring programs which indicate that less than one percent of all sampled commodities have residue levels at or above the established tolerance (CDFA and DPR, 1989-1991). 79
VII. CONCLUSIONS The toxicological risk of potential exposure to DDVP was evaluated for occupational, residential, dietary and combined uses based on the inhibition of brain ChE activity, clinical signs, and the finding of mononuclear leukemia in animal studies. Using the conventional benchmark levels, a margin of safety of at least 100 for non-oncogenic effects and a risk level of 1 x 10 -6 or less for oncogenic effects are generally considered sufficiently protective of human health. The exposure levels of only a few groups meet those benchmark levels. The groups which have exposure levels which do not meet the benchmark levels are: all people occupationally exposed to DDVP alone and in combination with home exposure on an acute, chronic, and lifetime basis; people exposed through residential use on an acute, chronic, and lifetime basis; and the general population exposed through the diet on a potentially lifetime basis. 80
- 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: VI. TOLERANCE ASSESSMENT A. BACKGRO
- 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
- Page 119: APPENDIX E (continued) ONCOGENICITY
VII. CONCLUSIONS<br />
The toxicological risk of potential exposure to <strong>DDVP</strong> was evaluated for occupational, residential,<br />
dietary and combined uses based on the inhibition of brain ChE activity, clinical signs, and the finding<br />
of mononuclear leukemia in animal studies. Using the conventional benchmark levels, a margin of<br />
safety of at least 100 for non-oncogenic effects and a risk level of 1 x 10 -6 or less for oncogenic effects<br />
are generally considered sufficiently protective of human health. The exposure levels of only a few<br />
groups meet those benchmark levels. The groups which have exposure levels which do not meet the<br />
benchmark levels are: all people occupationally exposed to <strong>DDVP</strong> alone and in combination with<br />
home exposure on an acute, chronic, and lifetime basis; people exposed through residential use on<br />
an acute, chronic, and lifetime basis; and the general population exposed through the diet on a<br />
potentially lifetime basis.<br />
80
Change language