Application for the Reassessment of a Hazardous Substance under ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Hazard Class/SubclassHazardclassificationMethod of classificationReferenceSubclass 6.8Developmental toxicityNo(Rat, developmental)(Rabbit, develop.)GLP: US EPA, 40 CFR Part 160;Tyl (1990a and 1990b) inAPVMA, 2008aUSEPA, ATSDR, WHOKlimisch score 2 = reliable withrestrictionsSubclass 6.8 Category CInsufficientdata for CInsufficient data for Classification onlactation effects (C)APVMA, USEPA,ATSDR, WHOSubclass 6.9 Target organsystemic toxicity – Singleexposure (Oral)Subclass 6.9 Target organsystemic toxicity – Singleexposure (Dermal)Subclass 6.9 Target organsystemic toxicity – Singleexposure (Inhalation)Subclass 6.9 Target organsystemic toxicity – Repeatexposure (Oral)6.9A LOAEL = 35 mg/kg b.w., based onclinical signs of neurotoxicity (FOB)(peak effect 15 mins)US EPA Guideline Series 81-8 (1991);GLP: US EPA, 40 CFR Part 160;Klimisch score 2 = reliable withrestrictions6.9B LOAEL = 150 mg/kg b.w., based onclinical signs of neurotoxicity;Guideline: No information;GLP: No information;Klimisch score 2 = reliable withrestrictions6.9A LOAEL = 0.23-1.926 mg/L, based onclinical signs of neurotoxicity;Guideline: OECD 403?;GLP: Yes;Klimisch score 2 = reliable withrestrictions6.9A LOAEL = 3.2 ppm (equivalent to 0.08mg/kg b.w./day) based on inhibition ofRBC ChE activity in males(Dog, 2-Yr Dietary)Lamb (1993a) inAPVMA, 2008aUSEPA, ATSDR, WHOTierfarm (1969b) inAPVMA, 2008aPauluhn (1984) inAPVMA, 2008aJolley et al. (1967) inAPVMA, 2008aLOAEL = 1.0 mg/kg b.w./day, basedon inhibition of plasma and RBC ChEactivities.US EPA; 40 CFR Part 160;Markiewicz (1990) inAPVMA, 2008aUSEPA, ATSDR, WHODichlorvos reassessment – application Page 264 of 436
Hazard Class/SubclassHazardclassificationMethod of classificationReferenceUS EPA (Subdivision F, series 158,83-1) (Dog, 52-Wk Capsule)Klimisch score 2 = reliable withrestrictionsSubclass 6.9 Target organsystemic toxicity – Repeatexposure (Dermal)InsufficientdataNo adequate studies were reportedAPVMA, USEPA,ATSDR, WHOSubclass 6.9 Target organsystemic toxicity – Repeatexposure (Inhalation)APVMA: APVMA, 2008a;USEPA: USEPA, 2006a;ATSDR: ATSDR, 1997;WHO: WHO, 1988 & 1993.6.9A LOAEL = 0.5 mg/m3 (approximatelyequal to 2.5 mg/kg/ b.w./day) based onthe inhibition of plasma and RBC ChEactivity;GLP: NoGuideline: NoKlimisch score 2 = reliable withrestrictionsBlair et al. (1974 &1976) in APVMA, 2008aUSEPA, ATSDR, WHOThe level of detail in the APVMA Chemical Review (2008a), the US EPAReregistration Eligibility Decision for Dichlorvos (2006a), the ATSDR ToxicologicalProfile (1997) and WHO reports (1988 & 1993), should give adequate assurance thatthe proposed Classifications are robust, based on the documents cited in the Referencesection.Key Studies for AOEL benchmark:Critical NOAEL/LOAEL used for occupational exposure health benchmarks (mg/kgb.w./day)AcuteShort-term(1 day) a (1-30 Days a )Study Type(Reference)Intermediate(Seasonal, 1-6Months a )US EPA (2006a) Dermal BMDL 10 Dermal LOAEL = Rat acute oral (Twomey, 2002) bDichlorvos reassessment – application Page 265 of 436
Page 1 and 2:
Application for the Reassessment of
Page 3 and 4:
6.1 Evaluation of options to streng
Page 5 and 6:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARYIn briefERMA New Z
Page 7 and 8:
Aerosol containing 50 g/kgdichlorvo
Page 9 and 10:
ERMA New Zealand‘s recommendation
Page 11 and 12:
26 - 29Outdoor public space usage30
Page 13 and 14:
Substance details1-8,11-16,20-25,30
Page 15 and 16:
1.2.3 In 2008, the Environmental Ri
Page 17 and 18:
Table 1. Dichlorvos-containing subs
Page 19 and 20:
public environments and use for bio
Page 21 and 22:
available to it. In preparing this
Page 23 and 24:
3.3 International regulatory positi
Page 25 and 26:
3.6 Classification3.6.1 The HSNO cl
Page 27 and 28:
Hazard Class /SubclassClassificatio
Page 29 and 30:
Hazard Class /SubclassClassificatio
Page 31 and 32:
Rates:Fogging: 13 ml / litre (water
Page 33 and 34:
BV2 SurfaceInsecticideBV2 SurfaceIn
Page 35 and 36:
Table 7.Dichlorvos outdoor and indo
Page 37 and 38:
Scenario Crop/Use Method Rate Appli
Page 39 and 40:
humidity conditions. The higher res
Page 41 and 42:
4.3 EnvironmentIdentification of ad
Page 43 and 44:
4.3.9.3 Aquatic environment - Groun
Page 45 and 46:
is considered to be highly improbab
Page 47 and 48:
RiskGroupRQ range Level of risk Use
Page 49 and 50:
RiskGroupRQ range Level of risk Use
Page 51 and 52:
assessment, as the Use Scenario inc
Page 53 and 54:
Nonnegligible1 < RQ < 10Nonnegligib
Page 55 and 56:
Table 12.LifecycleStageImport,manuf
Page 57 and 58:
LifecycleStageUse -bystanderUseScen
Page 59 and 60:
Table 13.Identification of benefici
Page 61 and 62:
value that can be attributed to dic
Page 63 and 64:
outbreak, MAF‘s ability to demons
Page 65 and 66:
the duty of the Crown is not merely
Page 67 and 68:
5.1.7.1 J. Hicking stated that dich
Page 70 and 71:
Table 14. Comparative of hazard cla
Page 72 and 73:
Crop Pest Active ingredient Preharv
Page 74 and 75:
Crop Pest Active ingredient Preharv
Page 76 and 77:
SECTION 6- PROPOSALS TO MANAGE RISK
Page 78 and 79:
Assessment was carried out with spe
Page 80 and 81:
6.1.11 Controls to protect bystande
Page 82 and 83:
Table 16Effect of additional contro
Page 84 and 85:
Use Scenario Receptor Level of Risk
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
have, and notes the following as ar
Page 108 and 109:
Table 18Summary of benefits associa
Page 110 and 111:
UseScenariosAssessment ofEffectOutc
Page 112 and 113:
Substance detailsHSR000126DDVPInsec
Page 114 and 115:
Table 22.there are no practicable r
Page 116:
7.4 Preliminary Recommendations7.4.
Page 119 and 120:
method and LOQ)Water (principle ofm
Page 121 and 122:
Appendix B: Environmental Fate of d
Page 123 and 124:
Bioconcentration factor Gnathopogon
Page 125 and 126:
Table C.2:Scenarios used in exposur
Page 127 and 128:
Scenario 3: Vegetables - 1 applicat
Page 129 and 130:
FIELD AND STANDARD POND HALFLIFE VA
Page 131 and 132:
insectivorous bird7 Passionfruit Sm
Page 133 and 134:
4 Leafyvegetables(BBCH ≥50)4 Leaf
Page 135 and 136:
summer)7 passionfruit(BBCH 10-19)7
Page 137 and 138:
Ground (lowboom)0.03 0.03 1.07 1.07
Page 139 and 140:
Appendix D: Ecotoxicity of dichlorv
Page 141 and 142:
ioaccumulationClearance timeLevel o
Page 143 and 144:
Table D.5:Toxicity to terrestrial i
Page 145 and 146:
Appendix E: Risk Assessment: Enviro
Page 147 and 148:
Aquatic organsimsTable E.3:Environm
Page 149 and 150:
12345Crop type Table I.1 (Annex 1)
Page 151 and 152:
7 passionfruit(BBCH 20-39)7 passion
Page 153 and 154:
Fruit (tree) 2052 70759 >50Passionf
Page 155 and 156:
Appendix F: Human Toxicity of dichl
Page 157 and 158:
CONTENTS:Title Page 11 Purpose 2Con
Page 159 and 160:
2 SUBSTANCE IDENTIFICATIONIUPAC nam
Page 161 and 162:
However, dichlorvos has genotoxic p
Page 163 and 164:
4 ABSORPTION, DISTRIBUTION, METABOL
Page 165 and 166:
aerosol cans (230-330 g dichlorvos)
Page 167 and 168:
4.3 Metabolism:found in tissues of
Page 169 and 170:
dose of 1.0 mg/kg bw, a single gava
Page 171 and 172:
eports. LD 50 = 46.4 mg/kg b.w. is
Page 173 and 174:
6 ACUTE DERMAL 6.1HSNO Classificati
Page 175 and 176:
7 ACUTE INHALATION 6.1HSNO Classifi
Page 177 and 178:
measured and it was not possible to
Page 179 and 180:
8 SKIN IRRITATION 6.3 & CORROSION 8
Page 181 and 182:
9 EYE IRRITATION 6.4 & CORROSION 8.
Page 183 and 184:
10 RESPIRATORY SENSITISATION 6.5AHS
Page 185 and 186:
Justification for Classification: U
Page 187 and 188:
12 MUTAGENICITY 6.6HSNO Classificat
Page 189 and 190:
ERMA New Zealand CONFIDENTIAL Repor
Page 191 and 192:
The ATSDR (1997) reported:“Dichlo
Page 193 and 194:
•ATSDR (1997): http://www.atsdr.c
Page 195 and 196:
13 CARCINOGENICITY 6.7HSNO Classifi
Page 197 and 198:
fibroadenomas were observed in 6 (1
Page 199 and 200:
• Sex/Numbers:• Test material:
Page 201 and 202:
The NTP Peer Review concluded that:
Page 203 and 204:
concurrent studies for comparison w
Page 205 and 206:
The APVMA (2008a) reported a chroni
Page 207 and 208:
was exposed. The estimated daily in
Page 209 and 210:
14 REPRODUCTIVE TOXICITY 6.8HSNO Cl
Page 211 and 212:
ppm during premating days, signific
Page 213 and 214: Toxicology, Chemistry and Life Scie
Page 215 and 216: addition, there was an increase in
Page 217 and 218: • Maternal toxicity NOAEL =• Ma
Page 219 and 220: Research Triangle Park, North Carol
Page 221 and 222: 16 REPRODUCTIVE OR DEVELOPMENTAL TO
Page 223 and 224: 17 SPECIFIC TARGET ORGAN TOXICITY 6
Page 225 and 226: There was a significant dose-relate
Page 233 and 234: KEY STUDY:• Type of study:• Spe
Page 235 and 236: BACKGROUND:The APVMA (2008a) also r
Page 237 and 238: cholinesterases can only be estimat
Page 241 and 242: Ltd, Sittingbourne Research Center,
Page 243 and 244: 23 OTHER POTENTIAL TOXIC ENDPOINTS2
Page 245 and 246: ―Results“Mortalities and clinic
Page 247 and 248: 1984). QA study. Study conducted ac
Page 249 and 250: “No information was located on im
Page 251 and 252: “Comment: These incidents clearly
Page 253 and 254: 25 ACCEPTABLE OPERATOR EXPOSURE LEV
Page 255 and 256: to pretreatment activity). When the
Page 257 and 258: cholinesterase inhibition in health
Page 259 and 260: protect agricultural workers who ha
Page 261 and 262: Wash: refers to skin washes; Dressi
Page 263: Hazard Class/SubclassHazardclassifi
Page 267 and 268: REFERENCES:APVMA, 2008a. ―DICHLOR
Page 269 and 270: Appendix 1:APVMA - Summary of bench
Page 271 and 272: “Inhalational NOEL for Occupation
Page 273 and 274: activity). In fact, treatment was s
Page 275 and 276: LAST PAGEDichlorvos reassessment -
Page 277 and 278: Dichlorvos:Occupational, Bystander,
Page 279 and 280: CONTENTS:Title Page 11 Purpose 2Con
Page 281 and 282: 3ACTIVITY SCENARIOS3.1 Table (I) su
Page 283 and 284: access of bystanders to treated are
Page 285 and 286: can reduce dermal exposures to mixe
Page 287 and 288: contaminated with, respectively 0.0
Page 289 and 290: The modelling is based upon dischar
Page 291 and 292: Table II: Occupational Exposure Est
Page 293 and 294: Table III: Occupational Exposure Es
Page 295 and 296: Operation / RPE / PPETable IV: Occu
Page 297 and 298: 1.25L product/ha; work rate, 1.25 h
Page 299 and 300: Application: Air-hose RPE + chem. r
Page 301 and 302: Application: Half-face RPE + overal
Page 303 and 304: P for RPE (% penetration): none, 1
Page 305 and 306: Table X: Occupational Exposure Esti
Page 307 and 308: provided: work day exposure is limi
Page 309 and 310: 5POST-APPLICATION OR RE-ENTRY WORKE
Page 311 and 312: D = DFR x TC x DA x WR x AR x P / B
Page 313 and 314: Re-entry into out-door crops (Scena
Page 315 and 316:
Re-entry into treated glasshouses d
Page 317 and 318:
acceptable 240 minutes after applic
Page 319 and 320:
Re-entry into treated glasshouses u
Page 321 and 322:
Table XVII: Re-entry into glasshous
Page 323 and 324:
lowest use rate (52 mg/m 3 ; 1300g
Page 325 and 326:
DA = percentage dermal absorption [
Page 327 and 328:
Re-entry into treated enclosed indu
Page 329 and 330:
nature of the building itself, not
Page 331 and 332:
Conclusions on re-entry worker expo
Page 333 and 334:
6BYSTANDER & RESIDENT EXPOSURE & RI
Page 335 and 336:
Children’s incidental ingestion o
Page 337 and 338:
Table XX: Spray driftExposure throu
Page 339 and 340:
Exposure through contactwithcontami
Page 341 and 342:
Conclusions on bystander and reside
Page 343 and 344:
Table XXIII: Dichlorvos Use Scenari
Page 345 and 346:
mixing/loading. Mixing/loading fogg
Page 347 and 348:
7.23 Re-entry for ventilation of in
Page 349 and 350:
REFERENCES:APVMA, 2008a. ―DICHLOR
Page 351 and 352:
Appendix 1:Occupational Exposure Es
Page 353 and 354:
FactorExposure (μg/kg a.i. handled
Page 355 and 356:
Inhalation exposure from cylinder c
Page 357 and 358:
[0.01875 x {(0.018 x 0.05) + (2.68
Page 359 and 360:
With half-face respirator (protecti
Page 361 and 362:
With full-body chemical resistant c
Page 363 and 364:
Appendix 4:Occupational Exposure Es
Page 365 and 366:
With overalls and gloves (protectio
Page 367 and 368:
The Dermal Exposure (D) is 2.06 μg
Page 369 and 370:
TTR = turf transferable residues -
Page 371 and 372:
F = fraction of residue retained on
Page 373 and 374:
TTR = transferable residues - the E
Page 375 and 376:
Public Space ApplicationsScenario (
Page 377 and 378:
ERMA New Zealand‟s comment on the
Page 379 and 380:
Enclosed SpaceAgricultural UseOutdo
Page 381 and 382:
Appendix H: Qualitative Descriptors
Page 383 and 384:
1.3. The likelihood applies to the
Page 385 and 386:
Appendix I: Data from which classif
Page 387 and 388:
Endpoint Units * Dichlorvos Propoxu
Page 389 and 390:
Toxicity mixture calculationsSubcla
Page 391 and 392:
Subclass 9.3 -Ecotoxicity to terres
Page 393 and 394:
Table J.1:Existing controls for dic
Page 395 and 396:
TrackingcontrolsIdentification cont
Page 397 and 398:
Table J.2:Summary of default contro
Page 399 and 400:
Hazardous Substances (Classes 1 to
Page 401 and 402:
Hazardous Substances (Classes 6, 8,
Page 403 and 404:
Hazardous Substances (Classes 6, 8,
Page 405 and 406:
(a) means piping that—(i) is conn
Page 407 and 408:
Code I29 Regs 51, 52 Signage requir
Page 409 and 410:
Non-HSNO Act controlsAgricultural C
Page 411 and 412:
Appendix K: Overseas regulatory act
Page 413 and 414:
Product Use Further details ofuseSu
Page 415 and 416:
Risk assessment identified concerns
Page 417 and 418:
Current usesFormulations:Methods of
Page 419 and 420:
CanadaStatusPMRA are undertaking a
Page 421 and 422:
Appendix L: Parties consulted durin
Page 423 and 424:
Animal Products Act 19995. The purp
Page 425 and 426:
14. Regulatory control of these pro
Page 427 and 428:
Zealand‘s trade in primary produc
Page 429 and 430:
processed and stored. It employs ve
Page 431 and 432:
may be taken to risk management in
Page 433 and 434:
Appendix A• Agricultural Compound
Page 435 and 436:
Appendix O: ReferencesACVM (2010) h
show all

Application for the Reassessment of a Hazardous Substance under ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?