National Academies Press: OpenBook

Review of California's Risk-Assessment Process for Pesticides (2015)

Chapter: Appendix D: Pesticide Toxicity Estimates of the Department of Pesticide Regulation and the US Environmental Protection Agency Used to Generate Bottom Histogram of Figure 3-3

Get This Book
Visit NAP.edu/10766 to get more information about this book, to buy it in print, or to download it as a free PDF.
« Previous: Appendix C: Technical Recommendations for Department of Pesticide Regulation Risk Assessments
Page 55 Cite
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Pesticide Toxicity Estimates of the Department of Pesticide Regulation and the US Environmental Protection Agency Used to Generate Bottom Histogram of Figure 3-3." National Research Council. 2015. Review of California's Risk-Assessment Process for Pesticides. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21664.
×
Save
Cancel

Appendix D

Pesticide Toxicity Estimates of the Department of Pesticide Regulation and the US Environmental Protection Agency Used to Generate Bottom Histogram of Figure 3-3

Toxicity Estimates from Pesticide Assessments Completed by DPR in 2004–2014 and from EPA

Pesticide Toxicity Estimatesa EPA:DPR Ratiob
DPR NOEL, mg/kg-day EPA NOEL, mg/kg-day
2010–2014
SIMAZINE (2014)

Acute, dietary

 5 30 6

Acute, nondietary

 5 6.25 1.3

Subchronic

 0.56 1.18 2.1

Chronic

 0.52 1.18 2.3

Carcinogen (threshold)

 2.9 No DPR higher potency
PHOSPHINE (2013)

Acute, inhalation

 5 ppm 5 ppm 1

Subchronic, inhalation

 1 3 3

Chronic, inhalation

 1 3 3

Carcinogen

 No No Same
CARBARYL (2012)

Acute, oral

 1 1.1 1.1

Acute, dermal

 20 86 4.3

Acute, inhalation

 1 1.1 1.1

Carcinogen (Q*)

 9.72 × 10-3 8.75 × 10-4 DPR 11× higher potency
PROPARGITE (2012)

Acute, oral

 2 8 4

Acute, inhalation

 5 5 1

Subchronic, dermal

 1 4 4

Subchronic, inhalation

 0.5 5 10

Chronic, oral

 3.8 4 1.1

Carcinogen (Q*)

 2.6 × 10-2 3.3 × 10-2 Same (0.5–2.0)
METHYL PARATHION (2010)

Acute, dermal

 0.025 0.1 4

Subchronic, inhalation

 0.03 0.11 3.7

Subchronic, dermal

 0.03 0.1 3.3

Chronic

 0.02 0.02 1

Carcinogen

 No No Same
Page 56 Cite
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Pesticide Toxicity Estimates of the Department of Pesticide Regulation and the US Environmental Protection Agency Used to Generate Bottom Histogram of Figure 3-3." National Research Council. 2015. Review of California's Risk-Assessment Process for Pesticides. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21664.
×
Save
Cancel
2004–2009
ENDOSULFAN (2008)

Acute, oral

 0.7 1.5 2.1

Acute, dermal

 0.7 1.25 1.8

Acute, inhalation

 0.194 0.2 1

Subchronic, dermal

 1.18 1.25 1.1

Subchronic, inhalation

 0.194 0.2 1

Chronic, oral

 0.57 0.6 1

Carcinogen

 No No Same
METHIDATHION (2007)

Acute, oral

 0.18 0.2 1.1

Acute, dermal

 0.18 20 111

Subchronic

 0.18 0.2 1.1

Chronic

 0.15 0.15 1

Carcinogen

 0.53 No DPR higher potency
CARBOFURAN (2006)

Acute

 0.01 0.08 8

Subchronic

 0.1 0.08 0.8

Chronic

 0.1 0.025 (300) 0.083

Carcinogen

 No No Same
METAM SODIUM (2004)

Acute

 1 4.22 4.2

Subchronic

 0.2 0.1 0.5

Chronic

 0.1 0.1 1

Carcinogen (Q*)

 1.85 × 10-1 1.98 × 10-1 Same (0.5–2.0)
AZINPHOSMETHYL (2004)

Acute, oral/dermal

 0.75 (10) 1 0.13

Subchronic, oral

 0.25 (30) 0.149 0.18

Chronic

 0.15 (30) 0.149 0.3

Carcinogen (Q*)

 No No Same
METHAMIDIPHOS (2001/2007)

Acute, oral

 0.3 0.3 (300) 0.33

Acute, dermal

 3 0.75 0.25

Subchronic, dermal

 0.75 0.75 1

Chronic, oral

 0.02 0.03 (300) 0.5

Carcinogen (Q*)

 No No Same

aValues obtained from G. Patterson, California Department of Pesticide Regulation, personal communication, July 1, 2014. Target MOEs were 100 except where noted in parentheses.
bThe ratio includes allowance for MOEs that differ from 100 (NOEL/MOE [EPA] ÷ NOEL/MOE [DPR]). Abbreviations: DPR, Department of Pesticide Regulation; EPA, US Environmental Protection Agency; MOE, margin of exposure; NOEL, no-observed-effect level; Q*, cancer potency factor.

Page 55 Cite
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Pesticide Toxicity Estimates of the Department of Pesticide Regulation and the US Environmental Protection Agency Used to Generate Bottom Histogram of Figure 3-3." National Research Council. 2015. Review of California's Risk-Assessment Process for Pesticides. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21664.
×
Save
Cancel
Page 55
Page 56 Cite
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Pesticide Toxicity Estimates of the Department of Pesticide Regulation and the US Environmental Protection Agency Used to Generate Bottom Histogram of Figure 3-3." National Research Council. 2015. Review of California's Risk-Assessment Process for Pesticides. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21664.
×
Save
Cancel
Page 56
Review of California's Risk-Assessment Process for Pesticides Get This Book
×
Review of California's Risk-Assessment Process for Pesticides
Buy Paperback | $35.00 Buy Ebook | $28.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

The California Department of Pesticide Regulation(DPR)conducts human health risk assessments as part of its mission to ensure the protection of workers and public health in the state. The risk assessments identify potential health hazards posed by pesticides, characterize dose-response relationships, and estimate exposure to characterize potential risks to humans. Over the last decade, advances in methods of scientific and technical analysis have led to improvements in the risk-assessment process that have made them more rigorous, transparent, and useful to risk managers. In light of the advances, the California legislature asked DPR to arrange an independent peer review of the agency's risk-assessment practices to ensure that they are scientifically and technically credible.

Review of California's Risk-Assessment Process for Pesticides examines DPR's processes of hazard identification, exposure assessment, dose-response analysis, and risk characterization to determine whether they are consistent with best practices. This report also evaluates the methods used for setting priorities among pesticides for risk assessment and identifies possible options for improving efficiency and productivity. Recommendations of this report will help to make the process more transparent and defensible.

READ FREE ONLINE

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!