DOCSLIB.ORG

Carbaryl Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment Revised Final Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Carbaryl Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment Revised Final Report SERA TR-052-01-05a Carbaryl Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment Revised Final Report Submitted to: Paul Mistretta, COR USDA/Forest Service, Southern Region 1720 Peachtree RD, NW Atlanta, Georgia 30309 USDA Forest Service Contract: AG-3187-C-06-0010 USDA Forest Order Number: AG-43ZP-D-06-0009 SERA Internal Task No. 52-01 Submitted by: Patrick R. Durkin and Cynthia King Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc. 5100 Highbridge St., 42C Fayetteville, New York 13066-0950 Fax: (315) 637-0445 E-Mail: [email protected] Home Page: www.sera-inc.com February 9, 2008 Table of Contents Table of Contents............................................................................................................................ ii List of Figures................................................................................................................................. v List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. v List of Attachments........................................................................................................................ vi List of Appendices ......................................................................................................................... vi COMMON UNIT CONVERSIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS................................................... ix CONVERSION OF SCIENTIFIC NOTATION ............................................................................ x EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... xi 1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 1 2. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION..................................................................................................... 4 2.1. OVERVIEW ....................................................................................................................... 4 2.2. CHEMICAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMERCIAL FORMULATIONS....................... 4 2.3. APPLICATION METHODS.............................................................................................. 5 2.3.1. Leaf Beetles ................................................................................................................. 5 2.3.2. Bark Beetles................................................................................................................. 6 2.4. MIXING AND APPLICATION RATES ............................................................................ 6 2.4.1. Leaf Beetles ................................................................................................................. 6 2.4.2. Bark Beetles................................................................................................................. 7 2.5. USE STATISTICS............................................................................................................ 10 3. HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT............................................................................. 12 3.1. HAZARD IDENTIFICATION......................................................................................... 12 3.1.1. Overview.................................................................................................................... 12 3.1.2. Mechanism of Action................................................................................................. 12 3.1.3. Pharmacokinetics and Metabolism ............................................................................ 15 3.1.3.1. General Considerations....................................................................................... 15 3.1.3.2. Dermal Absorption.............................................................................................. 15 3.1.3.3. Excretion............................................................................................................. 17 3.1.4. Acute Oral Toxicity ................................................................................................... 18 3.1.5. Subchronic or Chronic Systemic Toxic Effects......................................................... 19 3.1.6. Effects on Nervous System........................................................................................ 20 3.1.7. Effects on Immune System ........................................................................................ 21 3.1.8. Effects on Endocrine System..................................................................................... 22 3.1.9. Reproductive and Teratogenic Effects....................................................................... 23 3.1.9.1. Developmental (Teratology) Studies ................................................................... 23 3.1.9.2. Reproduction Studies........................................................................................... 24 3.1.9.3. Developmental Neurotoxicity.............................................................................. 24 3.1.10. Carcinogenicity and Mutagenicity........................................................................... 25 3.1.11. Irritation and Sensitization (Effects on the Skin and Eyes) ..................................... 25 3.1.12. Systemic Toxic Effects from Dermal Exposure ...................................................... 26 3.1.13. Inhalation Exposure ................................................................................................. 26 3.1.14. Inerts and Adjuvants ................................................................................................ 27 3.1.15. Impurities and Metabolites .................................................................................. 28 3.1.15.1. Metabolites........................................................................................................ 28 3.1.15.2. Impurities ........................................................................................................... 28 3.1.16. Toxicological Interactions ....................................................................................... 28 ii Table of Contents (continued) 3.2. EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT ........................................................................................... 30 3.2.1. Overview.................................................................................................................... 30 3.2.2. Workers...................................................................................................................... 31 3.2.2.1. General Exposures .............................................................................................. 32 3.2.2.2. Accidental Exposures.......................................................................................... 34 3.2.3. General Public............................................................................................................ 36 3.2.3.1.1. Applications for Bark Beetle Prevention ...................................................... 36 3.2.3.1.2. Likelihood and Magnitude of Exposure ....................................................... 37 3.2.3.1.1. Summary of Assessments ............................................................................. 38 3.2.3.2. Direct Spray ........................................................................................................ 39 3.2.3.3. Dermal Exposure from Contaminated Vegetation.............................................. 39 3.2.3.4. Contaminated Water ............................................................................................ 39 3.2.3.4.1. Accidental Spill............................................................................................ 40 3.2.3.4.2. Accidental Direct Spray/drift for a Pond or Stream...................................... 40 3.2.3.4.3. Standard GLEAMS Modeling ..................................................................... 41 3.2.3.4.4. GLEAMS Modeling At Specific Sites.......................................................... 43 3.2.3.4.5. Other Modeling Efforts................................................................................. 44 3.2.3.4.6. Monitoring Data............................................................................................ 45 3.2.3.4.7. Concentrations in Water Used for Risk Assessment .................................... 45 3.2.3.5. Oral Exposure from Contaminated Fish .............................................................. 47 3.2.3.6. Dermal Exposure from Swimming in Contaminated Water................................ 47 3.2.3.7. Oral Exposure from Contaminated Vegetation.................................................... 48 3.3. DOSE-RESPONSE ASSESSMENT ................................................................................ 49 3.3.1. Overview.................................................................................................................... 49 3.3.2. Acute RfD .................................................................................................................. 49 3.3.3. Chronic RfD............................................................................................................... 51 3.3.4. Carcinogenicity.......................................................................................................... 52 3.3.5. Dose-Severity Relationships...................................................................................... 53 3.4. RISK CHARACTERIZATION........................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Propoxur United States Environmental Protection Agency
    United States Prevention, Pesticides EPA738-R-97-009 Environmental Protection And Toxic Substances August 1997 Agency (7508W) Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) PROPOXUR UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES CERTIFIED MAIL Dear Registrant: I am pleased to announce that the Environmental Protection Agency has completed its reregistration eligibility review and decisions on the pesticide chemical case propoxur. The enclosed Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) contains the Agency's evaluation of the data base of this chemical, its conclusions of the potential human health and environmental risks of the current product uses, and its decisions and conditions under which these uses and products will be eligible for reregistration. The RED includes the data and labeling requirements for products for reregistration. It may also include requirements for additional data (generic) on the active ingredient to confirm the risk assessments. To assist you with a proper response, read the enclosed document entitled "Summary of Instructions for Responding to the RED." This summary also refers to other enclosed documents which include further instructions. You must follow all instructions and submit complete and timely responses. The first set of required responses is due 90 days from the receipt of this letter. The second set of required responses is due 8 months from the date of receipt of this letter. Complete and timely responses will avoid the Agency taking the enforcement action of suspension against your products. If you have questions on the product specific data requirements or wish to meet with the Agency, please contact the Special Review and Reregistration Division representative Bonnie Adler (703) 308-8523.
    [Show full text]
  • Carbamate Pesticides Aldicarb Aldicarb Sulfoxide Aldicarb Sulfone
    Connecticut General Statutes Sec 19a-29a requires the Commissioner of Public Health to annually publish a list setting forth all analytes and matrices for which certification for testing is required. Connecticut ELCP Drinking Water Analytes Revised 05/31/2018 Microbiology Total Coliforms Fecal Coliforms/ E. Coli Carbamate Pesticides Legionella Aldicarb Cryptosporidium Aldicarb Sulfoxide Giardia Aldicarb Sulfone Carbaryl Physicals Carbofuran Turbidity 3-Hydroxycarbofuran pH Methomyl Conductivity Oxamyl (Vydate) Minerals Chlorinated Herbicides Alkalinity, as CaCO3 2,4-D Bromide Dalapon Chloride Dicamba Chlorine, free residual Dinoseb Chlorine, total residual Endothall Fluoride Picloram Hardness, Calcium as Pentachlorophenol CaCO3 Hardness, Total as CaCO3 Silica Chlorinated Pesticides/PCB's Sulfate Aldrin Chlordane (Technical) Nutrients Dieldrin Endrin Ammonia Heptachlor Nitrate Heptachlor Epoxide Nitrite Lindane (gamma-BHC) o-Phosphate Metolachlor Total Phosphorus Methoxychlor PCB's (individual aroclors) Note 1 PCB's (as decachlorobiphenyl) Note 1 Demands Toxaphene TOC Nitrogen-Phosphorus Compounds Alachlor Metals Atrazine Aluminum Butachlor Antimony Diquat Arsenic Glyphosate Barium Metribuzin Beryllium Paraquat Boron Propachlor Cadmium Simazine Calcium Chromium Copper SVOC's Iron Benzo(a)pyrene Lead bis-(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate Magnesium bis-(ethylhexyl)adipate Manganese Hexachlorobenzene Mercury Hexachlorocyclopentadiene Molybdenum Nickel Potassium Miscellaneous Organics Selenium Dibromochloropropane (DBCP) Silver Ethylene Dibromide (EDB)
    [Show full text]
  • Bmps) for Wildland Stewardship
    Best Management Practices (BMPs) for Wildland Stewardship Protecting Wildlife When Using Herbicides for Invasive Plant Management California Invasive Plant Council & Pesticide Research Institute ontrolling invasive plants is often a high priority when protecting wildlife habitat, and those working to protect Cwildlife from invasive plants want to be sure their approach is safe for wildlife. This manual of Best Management Practices focuses on how land managers can best protect wildlife when using herbicides to control invasive plants. While any invasive plant control method can potentially impact wildlife, chemical control methods are the focus of this report. The toxicology information presented shows data on herbicides most commonly used for invasive plant management in California natural areas. The Best Management Practices are drawn from methods used by experienced land managers. Along with providing guidance for land managers, this document is designed to inform the interested public about how herbicides are used to control invasive plants in natural areas. ©2015 California Invasive Plant Council Available at www.cal-ipc.org Cite this report as: Cal-IPC. 2015. Best Management Practices for Wildland Stewardship: Protecting Wildlife When Using Herbicides for Invasive Plant Management. Cal-IPC Publication 2015-1. California Invasive Plant Council, Berkeley, CA. Available: www.cal-ipc.org Cover photos: Large photo: American goldfinch by Gary Kramer, USFWS Top small photo: Herbicide applicator by Jim Dempsey, California State Parks Bottom small photo: Pacific tree frog by Sandy DeSimone, Audubon Starr Ranch Contents 1. Introduction . 1 Wildland Stewardship, Invasive Plant Management and Wildlife . 1 The Importance of Best Management Practices . 3 2. Invasive Plant Management and Wildlife .
    [Show full text]
  • 488 Subpart A—Organic Pesticide Chemicals Manufacturing
    § 455.11 40 CFR Ch. I (7–1–12 Edition) chemical products and be considered a this subpart are applicable to dis- ‘‘stand-alone’’ PFPR facility. charges resulting from the manufac- ture of the following organic active in- [43 FR 17776, Apr. 25, 1978, as amended at 50 FR 40701, Oct. 4, 1985; 51 FR 44911, Dec. 15, gredients: Aldrin, BHC, Captan, 1986; 58 FR 50689, Sept. 28, 1993; 61 FR 57548, Chlordane, DDD, DDE, DDT, Dichloran, Nov. 6, 1996] Dieldrin, Endosulfan, Endrin, Hepta- chlor, Lindane, Methoxychlor, Mirex, Subpart A—Organic Pesticide PCNB, Toxaphene, Trifluralin, Chemicals Manufacturing Azinphos Methyl, Demeton-O, Demeton-S, Diazinon, Disulfoton, Mal- Subcategory athion, Parathion Methyl, Parathion Ethyl, Aminocarb, Carbaryl, SOURCE: 43 FR 44846, Sept. 29, 1978, unless Methiocarb, Mexacarbate, Propoxur, otherwise noted. Barban, Chlorpropham, Diuron, Fenuron, Fenuron-TCA, Linuron, § 455.11 Compliance date for pretreatment standards for existing Monuron, Monuron-TCA, Neubron, sources (PSES). Propham, Swep, 2,4-D, Dicamba, Silvex, 2,4,5-T, Siduron, Perthane, and All discharges subject to Dicofol. pretreatment standards for existing (c) The intermediates used to manu- sources (PSES) in subparts A and B of facture the active ingredients and ac- this part must comply with the stand- tive ingredients used solely in experi- ards no later than September 28, 1993. mental pesticides are excluded from [61 FR 57549, Nov. 6, 1996] coverage in this subpart. Insecticidal pathogenic organisms such as Bacillus § 455.20 Applicability; description of thuringiensis, insect growth hormones, the organic pesticide chemicals plant extracts such as pyrethrins; sex manufacturing subcategory. attractants and botanicals such as Ro- (a) For the purpose of calculating and tenone are also excluded from BPT applying effluent limitations for COD, coverage in this subpart.
    [Show full text]
  • Pesticides May Reduce Lettuce Yield Frank V
    High-value crops such as strawberries, tain classes of insecticides on lettuce photo- usually clearly visible. Insecticides applied at broccoli, and iceberg lettuce often receive synthesis, transpiration, and productivity. normal rates and under the right environ- “preventive” or “insurance” pesticide treat- mental conditions may subtly damage a plant ments, which may result in weekly scheduled Insecticides but remain unobserved, because symptoms applications of insecticides. Many times such Insecticides in the various “classes,” such are not visible. treatments are unwarranted economically as chlorinated hydrocarbons (DDT, endrin, During the last few years, plant physiolo- and may reduce yields by detrimental effects and methoxychlor), organophosphates gists at University of California, Riverside, on the plants. Decreases in strawberry yields (guthion, parathion, and methyl-parathion), have developed the dual isotope porometer, due to preventive insecticide treatments in the carbamates (malathion and methomyl), and which provides accurate, simultaneous mea- absence of economically significant pest synthetic pyrethroids (fenvalerate and per- surements of a plant’s photosynthesis and populations have been reported. Research methrin), differ in their effects on plants. Ad- transpiration rates in the field. Entomologists supported by the California Iceberg Lettuce ditionally, the rates, number, and timing of have used the instrument to measure effects Research Advisory Board indicated that head applications may alter a compound’s effect
    [Show full text]
  • Impact of Pesticide Use on Health in Developing Countries
    Impact of pesticide use on health in developing countries Proceedings of a symposium held in Ottawa, Canada, 1 7-20 September 1990 IDRC CRDI International Development Research Centre Centre de recherches pour le devetoppement international 1 March 1993 Dear Reader/Librarian, IDRC is a public corporation created by the Canadian parliament in 1970 to help developing countries find viable solutions to their problems through research. At the 1992 Earth Summit, IDRC's mandate was broadened to emphasize sustainable development issues. As part of IDRC's strengthened commitment to global action and harüony, we are pleased to send you a complimentary copy of our most recent publication: The impact of pesticide use on health in developing countries (March 1993, 352 pages, 0-88936-560-1, $17.95). The first part of this book presents a brief survey of the global situation and the results of twelve epidemiological studies carried out by researchers from Africa, Latin America, Asia and the Middle East. These focus on poisonings resulting from organophosphates, herbicides, and pyrethroids. The second part illustrates the role of the process of development, production, spraying techniques and legislation in protecting the health of workers. A discussion of the benefits and modalities of access to pertinent information for the prevention of pesticide poisonings is provided in the third section. Finally, in the fourth section, consideration is given to the advantages and disadvantages of certain alternatives to the use of synthetic pesticides in agriculture and public health, such as botanical pesticides and integrated pest management strategies. We hope this book is a valuable addition to your collection.
    [Show full text]
  • Review of the Mammalian Toxicology
    REVIEW OF THE MAMMALIAN TOXICOLOGY AND METABOLISM/TOXICOKINETICS OF FENTHION The APVMA Review of Fenthion © Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority 2012 ISBN 978-0-9873591-5-5 (electronic) This document was originally published in 2005 as part of the preliminary review findings report for Part 1 of the fenthion review. It was subsequently updated in 2007, and revised in 2008. Ownership of intellectual property rights in this publication Unless otherwise noted, copyright (and any other intellectual property rights, if any) in this publication is owned by the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA). Creative Commons licence With the exception of the Coat of Arms, this publication is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia Licence. This is a standard form agreement that allows you to copy, distribute, transmit and adapt this publication provided that you attribute the work. A summary of the licence terms is available from www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/deed.en. The full licence terms are available from www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/legalcode. The APVMA’s preference is that you attribute this publication (and any approved material sourced from it) using the following wording: Source: Licensed from the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia Licence. This report was prepared for the APVMA by the Department of Health and Aging Office of Chemical Safety. In referencing this document the Department of Health and Aging Office of Chemical Safety should be cited as the author and the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority as the publisher and copyright owner.
    [Show full text]
  • For Methyl Parathion
    UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON D.C., 20460 OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES MEMORANDUM DATE: July 31, 2006 SUBJECT: Finalization of Interim Reregistration Eligibility Decisions (IREDs) and Interim Tolerance Reassessment and Risk Management Decisions (TREDs) for the Organophosphate Pesticides, and Completion of the Tolerance Reassessment and Reregistration Eligibility Process for the Organophosphate Pesticides FROM: Debra Edwards, Director Special Review and Reregistration Division Office of Pesticide Programs TO: Jim Jones, Director Office of Pesticide Programs As you know, EPA has completed its assessment of the cumulative risks from the organophosphate (OP) class of pesticides as required by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996. In addition, the individual OPs have also been subject to review through the individual- chemical review process. The Agency’s review of individual OPs has resulted in the issuance of Interim Reregistration Eligibility Decisions (IREDs) for 22 OPs, interim Tolerance Reassessment and Risk Management Decisions (TREDs) for 8 OPs, and a Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) for one OP, malathion.1 These 31 OPs are listed in Appendix A. EPA has concluded, after completing its assessment of the cumulative risks associated with exposures to all of the OPs, that: (1) the pesticides covered by the IREDs that were pending the results of the OP cumulative assessment (listed in Attachment A) are indeed eligible for reregistration; and 1 Malathion is included in the OP cumulative assessment. However, the Agency has issued a RED for malathion, rather than an IRED, because the decision was signed on the same day as the completion of the OP cumulative assessment.
    [Show full text]
  • Organophosphate Poisoning : a Review
    120 Sinha and Sharma Med J Indones Organophosphate poisoning : A review Parmod K. Sinha, Ashok Sharma Abstrak Pestisida organofosfat digunakan secara luas di seluruh dunia. Keracunan oleh bahan ini merupakan masalah kesehatan masyarakat, terutama di negara berkembang. Zat neurotoksik organofosfat merupakan bahan yang dianggap mengancam dalam bidang militer dan terorisme. Mekanisme toksisitas bahan ini adalah dengan cara menghambat asetilkolinesterase yang mengakibatkan menumpuknya neurotransmitor asetilkolin dan terjadi rangsangan terus-menerus pada reseptor asetilkolin pada sistem saraf sentral maupun perifer. Selain krisis kolinergik, organofosfat dapat menimbulkan berbagai sindrom neurologis, baik akut maupun kronik. Sedangkan gejala peralihan ( intermediate) terjadi 1-4 hari setelah krisis kolinergik teratasi. Pengobatan standar terdiri dari reaktivasi asetilkolinesterase dengan antidot golongan oksim (prolidoksim, oksidoksime, HI-6 dan HLo7), dan pengendalian efek biokimia asetilkolin dengan menggunakan atropin. Golongan oksim yang baru HI-6 dan Hlo7 merupakan reaktivator asetilkolinesterase yang lebih cocok dan efektif untuk keracunan akut dan berat dibandingkan dengan prolidoksim dan obidoksim. Penderita yang mendapat pengobatan segera, biasanya dapat sembuh dari toksisitas akut, namun gejala neurologis ikutan dapat saja terjadi. (Med J Indones 2003; 12: 120-6) Abstract Organophosphate pesticides are used extensively worldwide, and poisoning by these agents, particularly in developing nations is a public health problem. Organophosphorous
    [Show full text]
  • 3-27-2017 Nerve Agents
    Week of March 13, 2017 – Nerve Agents Last month, on February 13, Kim Jong-nam, the exiled half-brother of North Korea's ruler, Kim Jong Un, was murdered by having the nerve agent, VX-gas, sprayed into his face while at Malaysia’s Kuala Lumpur International Airport. According to the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), VX is the most toxic nerve agent ever synthesized. The CFR (founded in 1921) is a United States 4900-member organization, nonprofit, publisher, and think tank specializing in U.S. foreign policy and international affairs. The median lethal dose (LD50) of VX due to skin contact (not ingestion) for humans is estimated to be about 10 mg or 0.00035 ounces (that’s about 1/20 of a drop of liquid!). The median lethal airborne concentration (LC50) for this material, for which humans would inhale, is estimated to be 30 – 50 milligrams per cubic meter for only one minute! Typically, inhalation exposures are measured over an 8-hour time period. Yet, the effectiveness of VX is measured as an airborne exposure contaminant within a minute time period! VX is one a of number of chemical substances that is classified as a nerve agent. The principal nerve agents are sarin (GB), soman (GD), tabun (GA), and VX. They are manmade compounds that have been manufactured for the sole purpose to be used in chemical warfare. Nerve agents are organophosphorus compounds and therefore, are similar in mechanism of action as a number of pesticides; some of the most notable being malathion, parathion, and diazinon. As its name implies, these chemicals have a phosphorus atom connected to an organic molecule; the molecular variations of these materials are quite numerous.
    [Show full text]
  • Determination of Organophosphorus Pesticide Residues in Vegetables Using Solid Phase Micro-Extraction Coupled with Gas Chromatography–flame Photometric Detector
    Arabian Journal of Chemistry (2015) xxx, xxx–xxx King Saud University Arabian Journal of Chemistry www.ksu.edu.sa www.sciencedirect.com ORIGINAL ARTICLE Determination of organophosphorus pesticide residues in vegetables using solid phase micro-extraction coupled with gas chromatography–flame photometric detector Haizarul Aida Sapahin, Ahmad Makahleh *, Bahruddin Saad * School of Chemical Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, 11800 Minden, Penang, Malaysia Received 17 July 2014; accepted 9 December 2014 KEYWORDS Abstract An adequate and simple analytical method based on solid-phase microextraction Organophosphorus pesticide; (SPME) followed by gas chromatography–flame photometric detection (GC–FPD) for the determi- Direct immersed-solid phase nation of eleven organophosphorus pesticide residues (i.e., ethoprophos, sulfotep, diazinon, tolclo- microextraction; fos-methyl, fenitrothion, chlorpyrifos, isofenphos, methidathion, ethion, triazophos, leptophos) in Gas chromatography–flame vegetables samples (cabbage, kale and mustard) was developed. Important parameters that influ- photometric detector; ence the extraction efficiency (i.e., fibre type, extraction modes, extraction time, salt addition, Vegetables desorption time and temperature) were systematically investigated. Four types of commercially available fibres (i.e., 50/30 lm divinylbenzene/carboxen/polydimethylsiloxane (DVB/CAR/PDMS), 65 lm polydimethylsiloxane/divinylbenzene (PDMS/DVB), 100 lm polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS), and 85 lm polyacrylate (PA)) were evaluated. PA fibre exhibited the best performance and was used for the rest of the studies. The optimised extraction conditions were: extraction time, 30 min at room temperature; stirring speed, 1275 rpm; salt content, 10% NaCl; desorption time and temper- ature, 11 min at 260 °C; and no pH adjustment of the sample extract. The method was validated over the range 0.1–100 lg/L.
    [Show full text]
  • Chlorpyrifos (Dursban) Ddvp (Dichlorvos) Diazinon Malathion Parathion
    CHLORPYRIFOS (DURSBAN) DDVP (DICHLORVOS) DIAZINON MALATHION PARATHION Method no.: 62 Matrix: Air Procedure: Samples are collected by drawing known volumes of air through specially constructed glass sampling tubes, each containing a glass fiber filter and two sections of XAD-2 adsorbent. Samples are desorbed with toluene and analyzed by GC using a flame photometric detector (FPD). Recommended air volume and sampling rate: 480 L at 1.0 L/min except for Malathion 60 L at 1.0 L/min for Malathion Target concentrations: 1.0 mg/m3 (0.111 ppm) for Dichlorvos (PEL) 0.1 mg/m3 (0.008 ppm) for Diazinon (TLV) 0.2 mg/m3 (0.014 ppm) for Chlorpyrifos (TLV) 15.0 mg/m3 (1.11 ppm) for Malathion (PEL) 0.1 mg/m3 (0.008 ppm) for Parathion (PEL) Reliable quantitation limits: 0.0019 mg/m3 (0.21 ppb) for Dichlorvos (based on the RAV) 0.0030 mg/m3 (0.24 ppb) for Diazinon 0.0033 mg/m3 (0.23 ppb) for Chlorpyrifos 0.0303 mg/m3 (2.2 ppb) for Malathion 0.0031 mg/m3 (0.26 ppb) for Parathion Standard errors of estimate at the target concentration: 5.3% for Dichlorvos (Section 4.6.) 5.3% for Diazinon 5.3% for Chlorpyrifos 5.6% for Malathion 5.3% for Parathion Status of method: Evaluated method. This method has been subjected to the established evaluation procedures of the Organic Methods Evaluation Branch. Date: October 1986 Chemist: Donald Burright Organic Methods Evaluation Branch OSHA Analytical Laboratory Salt Lake City, Utah 1 of 27 T-62-FV-01-8610-M 1.
    [Show full text]