13.07.2015 Views

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

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

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

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Appendix 6Resident Exposures to Dichlorvos, and Risk Assessment:Exposure through contact with spray drift contaminated surfaces―It is possible that spray drift fallout from applications may be deposited in privategardens adjacent to treated areas, and individuals in such locations may becomeexposed through contact with such deposits. A possible scenario that illustrates asignificant opportunity <strong>for</strong> exposure would be children playing in a garden which hasbeen subject to spray drift fallout. It is possible to estimate such exposures using spraydrift fallout values used <strong>for</strong> aquatic risk assessment purposes (Rautmann et al., 2001)and <strong>the</strong> approach used by <strong>the</strong> United States Environmental Protection Agency toestimate residential exposure from contact with treated lawns (USA EPA 1998 / 1999 /2001). The exposure assessment reported … considers <strong>the</strong> scenario <strong>of</strong> a small childplaying on a lawn …For products which may be applied to crops on more than one occasion <strong>the</strong> <strong>the</strong>oreticalworse case is to consider children‘s exposure from <strong>the</strong> maximum total dose which maybe applied, i.e. to assume that <strong>the</strong>re is no dissipation in foliar residues betweensuccessive treatments. This approach may be refined where data are available to refine<strong>the</strong> estimated residues.‖ [quoted from UK CRD 2008b]The small child playing on a lawn leads to four potential exposures: dermal (skincontact); hand-to-mouth (sucking contacted fingers and thumbs); object-to-mouth(sucking contaminated objects, toys etc.); and, soil/grass ingestion by <strong>the</strong> child.Field crop (boom) sprayersScenarios (1-4): applications at 0.8 kg a.i./ha1) Children‘s dermal exposureSystemic exposures via <strong>the</strong> dermal route were calculated using <strong>the</strong> above drift falloutvalues and <strong>the</strong> following equation <strong>for</strong> boom sprayers:SE(d) = AR x DF x TTR x TC x H x DABWSE(d) = 8 x 0.01 x (0.05 x 0.05) x 5200 x 2 x 0.30 = 0.624 / 15 = 0.0416 μg/kg b.w.15Where:SE(d) = systemic exposure via <strong>the</strong> dermal routeAR = field application rate, 0.8 kg/ha = 8 μg/cm 2DF = drift fallout value, i.e. assumed average <strong>of</strong> 1% from boom sprayerapplicationsDichlorvos reassessment – application Page 368 <strong>of</strong> 436

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!