530R86105
UALITY
ADVISORY
PROPACHLOR
Criteria and Standards Di
i v i s i D n
Office of Water Regulations and Standards
United Stat
es
Environmental Protection Rgency
MRRCH 1 S 8 G
-------
WATER QUALITY ADVISORY
Number 9 .
PROPACHLOR
Criteria and Standards Division
Office of Water Regulations and Standards
United States Environmental Protection Agency
The advisory concentration for Propachlor in ambient water for the
0 protection of freshwater aquatic life is estimated to be 8 ug/L. There
\ was no review of saltwater data, so there is no advisory concentration
.^ for the protection of saltwater aquatic organisms. Care should be
taken in the application of this advisory, with consideration of its
derivation, as stated in the attached support document.
A value given to protect aquatic life can be derived from no
observed effect levels (NOEL), the lowest concentration found in the
data which has been observed to cause acute or chronic toxicity or
other experimental data which may be applicable. When there is no
^ valid experimental evidence, a value may be derived from a model which
'. - uses structure-activity relationships (SAR) as its basis. The advisory
concentrations should be used with caution, since they are derived
from minimal experimental evidence, or in the case of SAR derived
values, no data on the specific chemical.
The advisory concentration for Propachlor in ambient water for the
protection of human health is estimated to be 466 ug/L, based on data
and information which are available to U.S. EPA. Care should be taken
in the application of this advisory, with consideration of its
derivation, as stated in the attached support document.
An advisory concentration can be derived from a number of sources:
The Office of Drinking Water Health Effects Advisories; Acceptable
Daily Intake(ADI) values from EPA; Office of Pesticides and Toxic
Substances risk assessments; Carcinogen Assessment Group(CAG) cancer
risk estimates; risk estimates derived from the open literature; or
other sources which will be given in the support document. The
advisory concentrations derived from these sources will vary in
confidence and usefulness, based on the amount and quality of data
used as well as the assumptions behind the original estimates. The
user is advised to read the background information carefully to
determine the strengths or deficiencies of the values given in the
advisory.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5, Library (PL-12J)
77 West Jackson Boulevard, 12th Floor
Chicago, 1L 60604-3590
-------
HUMAN HEALTH AND AQUATIC LIFE
LITERATURE SEARCH AND
DATA EVALUATION FOR
PROPACHLOR
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF WATER REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS
CRITERIA AND STANDARDS DIVISION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION 1
SCOPE OF SEARCH 2
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 2
Aquatic Toxicity 2
Health Effects 5
CRITERIAEVALUATIONANDRECOMMENDATION 6
Aquatic Toxicity 11
Health Effects 11
REFERENCES 15
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Summary of Aquatic Toxicity Literature
Review of Propachlor 3
Table 2. Summary of Health Effects Literature
Review of Propachlor 7
Table 3. Data Requirements Calculation of Aquatic Life
Interim CriteriaPropachlor 13
Table 4. Data Requirements for Calculation of Human Health
Interim CriteriaPropachlor 14
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Summary of Toxicity Data on Propachlor 4
-------
HUMAN HEALTH AND AQUATIC LIFE
LITERATURE SEARCH AND DATA EVALUATION
FOR
PROPACHLOR
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF WATER REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS
CRITERIA AND STANDARDS DIVISION
INTRODUCTION
Propachlor is classified as a chloroacetamide, a group of herbi-
cides which also includes CDAA and alachlor. The chemical name is 2-
chloro-N-isopropylacetanilide (McEwen and Stephenson, 1979). The
product goes by the commercial names Ramrod and Bexton. Major produ-
cers are Monsanto Company, United States; Dow Chemical Company, United
States; and Shen Hong Agricultural Chemical Company, Ltd., Taiwan.
Propachlor acts as a selective herbicide by reducing cell elonga-
tion and cell division through inhibition of protein synthesis (Rejto
et al., 1984). It has been suggested that propachlor prevents the
activation of amino acids and amino acyl-tRNA formation or interferes
with the transfer of amino acyl-tRNA to the polypeptide. Selectivity
of propachlor is based on the plant's ability to metabolize or detoxi-
fy the compound (Jaworski, 1969). Propachlor can be applied to crops
under three different application regimes: pre-emergence soil sur-
face, early post-emergence, and preplant incorporated with furrow
irrigation. Propachlor has been used for selective weed control for
corn, sorghum, soybeans, cotton, and peanuts (McEwen and Stephenson,
1979). It is especially effective against a wide spectrum of grassy
weeds such as foxtail, bromegrass, cheatgrass and crabgrass, and
certain broadleaf weeds such as pigweed and lambsquarter (Jaworski,
1969) .
Propachlor was introduced in 1965, and its use surpassed that of
CDAA. Lower volatility, lower water solubility, and greater activity
accounted for its popularity. Propachlor ranks second to atrazine in
total volume sold for use on corn.
Propachlor is nonpersistent and degrades rapidly in both soil and
aquatic environments (Yu et al., 1975; McEwen and Stephenson, 1979).
Bioaccumulation in aquatic organisms and in crops is minimal (Yu et
al., 1975; Zhukova and Shirko, 1979). Mammalian toxicity is low;
however, acute toxicity to fish is high (WSSA, 1979).
-------
Propachlor is a light-tan colored solid with the following physi-
cal properties:
Molecular Weight: 211.69
Melting Point: 67-76°c
Vapor Pressure: 2.3 x I0~4mm Hg at 25°C
Boiling Point: 110°C at 0.03 mm Hg
Solubility in Water 700 mgl at 20°C
Decomposition Temperature 170°C
(WSSA, 1979; Windholz et al.f 1983)
SCOPE OF SEARCH
Sources were identified through a computerized literature search
of TOXLINE, TOXBACK, NTIS, and Toxicology Data Base focusing on con-
trolled, dose-response laboratory studies from 1965 to 1985.
Information was also sought on the quality assurance/quality con-
trol measures employed including use of controls, replicate treat-
ments, and chemical analysis of test concentrations. Other informa-
tion such as bioaccumulation/biomagnification, food chain, ecological,
and health effects data were obtained where available.
Studies were evaluated with respect to guidelines established by
the U.S. EPA in "Guidelines and Methodology Used in Preparation of
Health Effect Assessment Chapters of the Consent Decree Water Quality
Criteria Documents" (FR 45:79347, November 28, 1980) and " Guidelines
for Deriving Numerical National Water Quality Criteria for the
Protection of Aquatic Life and Their Uses" (Stephan et al., 1985).
The search was not intended to be exhaustive; however, it was intended
to be thorough in its coverage of accessible, relevant data sources
required for meaningful criteria development.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Aquatic Toxicity
Acute toxicity tests with fish indicate that fish are very sensi-
tive to propachlor. The 96-hour LC50 (median lethal concentration)
value was 0.49 ppm for fathead minnows and 1.30 ppm for bluegill
fingerlings (Table 1, Figure 1). Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP)
has noted 96 hour LC50 concentrations of 0.167mg/L for rainbow trout,
>1.4mg/L (ppm) for bluegill sunfish and 0.23mg/L for channel catfish
in an unpublished registration standard science chapter.
A model ecosystem experiment demonstrated that propachlor is rapi-
dly degraded, and that bioaccumuiation in aquatic organisms is minimal
(Yu et al., 1975). Labeled propachlor was applied to the base of 7-
-------
o>
u
c
Ol
u
v
in
£
"> C <»».
s
u
i
o
X O -4J
«-> C 10
u
V
Q.
01
i- E
o
.0
»- *> m
,
O « 4)
Oi v> 4j r
o 10
.
U "O O
ai «
i- i-
*J U
*
u oi
x u
o oJ
ai
c
8 I I
I ^ *
E O
* = *
* 01 :
f at u i
c o
o u
a,
T3 L.
I-
o
II Z
S"
u at
-------
o
fI
o
O
O
O
o
§
»-H
1
O .
M
U
m
ol
O
in
o
IT)
0*
01
X
o
"O
oc
o
10
(J
-------
day-old sorghum plants at a rate of 0.5 Ib/acre. Analysis of water
after 33 days revealed the existence of seven metabolites and 0.4
percent of the parent compound. However, neither the parent compound
nor any degradation products was detected in organisms. Snails,
however, contained an unknown metabolite which was not identified.
There was no evidence that propachlor or its degradation products was
magnified in the food chain as total radioactivity in algae, mosquito,
and fish decreased in that order from 0.21 to 0.015 ppm.
Strateva (1976) recommended a maximum permissible concentration of
1 ppm in waters supporting fish. However, no additional information
regarding basis for this recommendation or data used in obtaining this
value was provided.
Office Office of Pesticide Programs of U.S. EPA characterizes
propachlor as highly toxic to coldwater fish, and highly to moderately
toxic to warmwater fish and freshwater invertebrates.
Health Effects
Mammalian toxicity of propachlor is low (McEwen and Stephenson,
1979). LD50 (median lethal dose) values ranged from 290 to >5010
mg/kg and varied with species tested and route of exposure (Table 2).
Acute oral LD50 values for rats ranged from 710 to 1,800 mg/kg. Let-
hal doses caused weakness, salivation, tremors, collapse, and coma.
Inhalation studies on rats with Satecid (65 percent propachlor) repor-
ted an LC50 value of 6,000 mg/m3 after a 4-hour exposure period and a
14-day observation period (Holnar and Paksy, 1978). The acute oral
LD50 value for the mouse is 290 mg/kg and for the rabbit ranges from
392 to >5,010 mg/kg. Dermal application of propachlor to both species
produces strong irritating effects on skin and eye mucosa, erythema,
edema, and penetrating ulcer (Lehotsky et al., 1979). The percuta-
neous LD50 value for the rabbit was 380 mg/kg in this study.
A NOEL of 13.3 mg/kg/day was obtained for the dog after a 90-day
exposure period (Federal Register, 1982). A NOEL of 10 mg/kg/day for
cattle and 5 mg/kg/day for sheep was obtained after a 10-day exposure
period (Palmer, 1972).
A no observed effect level (NOEL) of 13.3 mg/kg/day was obtained
for rats after a 90-day exposure period (Federal Register, 1982).
Results from a chronic study indicated that there is a low-cumulative
and high adaptive effect with clinical changes (weight loss, changes
in peripheral blood, redox processes, and protein metabolism) and
pathomorphological dystrophic changes in the liver and kidneys.
Disturbances in liver function were also observed after dermal
application of 50-500 mg/kg propachlor. Dermal application of Ramrod
in solution at a 0.5-1 percent concentration, however, was nontoxic
after a 90-day exposure period. Adamis and Lehotzky (1980) studied
the effect of propachlor at 10 ug/L 7 x 106 cells on rat peritoneal
macrophages and found that lactate dehydrogenase activity decreased
while membrane permeability increased, which was suggested to be the
basis for the development of toxic skin reactions.
-------
Several studies provided evidence of the mutagenic properties of
propachlor (NIOSH, 1979; Gentile et al., 1977; Gopalan et al.; 1981;
Lippens et al., 1983; Plewa et al., 1984). Positive mutagenic effects
were reported in a rat sperm morphology test (672 ppm) and mouse
cytogenetic analyses (10 ppm). Propachlor caused anaphase bridge
formation, chromosome condensation, and mitostatic effects in Vicia
faba. Propachlor following plant activation caused a significant
increase in the mitotic gene conversion in Saccharomyces cerevisiae.
There was no effect on induction of sex-linked recessive lethals in
Drosophila melanoqaster or induction of mutation in Salmonella typhi-
murium with or without rat liver 59 microcomal activation.
Information on the carcinogenicity of propachlor was not found;
however, information regarding the effect of propachlor on cancer cell
growth was available. Propachlor at a concentration of 3 x 10 M
inhibited cell proliferation of L1210 mouse leukemia cells by 50
percent. This effect was reversible when cells were cleansed of
propachlor. Inhibition of protein synthesis by propachlor was sugges-
ted as the mechanism of action (Zilkah et al., 1981). Studies using
flow cytometric analysis found that propachlor caused lizio cells to
accumulate in the GI phase of the cell cycle.
Several case reports have shown that exposure to propachlor causes
skin irritation in humans. Workers engaged in propachlor production
or application have developed eczema and dermatitis (Jung, 1979;
Dombay and Farkasdy, 1978). One death was attributed to propachlor
exposure; however, no information regarding the circumstances was
provided (Done, 1979).
-------
o
0
0
oc
a.
^
5
a
i£i
j^
UJ
ct
UJ
S
H-
>o r;
* c «
"^ * y
» 3 in
3 ^i *^
0.
1/1
12.
"33
-J tfl f-
£ o -o
3 0. 0>
C
o
11
41
jjj
u
41
o
41
U.
^
X
J
O
41
U
J?
>^
r
§
00
,^'
o
Q*
-J
)O
ac
i-
41 ^- --
Ch m
o\ v en IQ 41 01
4*! C t
1^ 4-> r-> 1. 4J
0 ^ £ £
u-
4-1 4^
It- C C
0 41 41 4)
-~ I- > U U
i 41 m -O 1)
E W jC « O 41 41 O £ .4) ^-41
SjCOUO- JTUJ3^-4J Ik |U
ucn *^ CLO ti^4)
O 41 *^ *^ O) f B ^R C C
^^ 10 l^ y u *^ ^L tt O v> ^- O ifc- O
*- «» OC^«ll« O O-»-
k 4> 4-i
C O ^»-*~ ) ft) JS C 4) w» 41 « b4->a.«e c u o ei.
41 > JZ in in Wl OUJST9 O *J O *-
U > 4-» « U en Cn*O ai£ ^ 4-I4IO 4-f4t
J3^T3UUJ=f^-CCjEC OOO *O O
^
O
J=
0 ^
as ac oi ct u o. oe
Z Z Z Z |0 Z
ac o.
X
m
to
>e i« q eg
i. u t. E E
OOO 41 1)
O O
in o in in
41 41 >> >i X
u u l~
<
cn ot
^J ^J J>
Ol O> T3
cn
00 -^
»« m ~^
r^ o* on
O O «J '^
O° o" O ro
^ _J Z r+
/
>*
*^>
fO -^
" «
* f- C
> r-^ * 00
o a^ r-..
e »-^ i- cy»
*- « ~*
O
^ ^5 ^
V 9
j= w «
K O T3 ^
0 « *
4J a in
e o 3
O L. « C
c a. u
|
u
41
X
H5~ o >,
O *J T3
ac -o jz "3
z u >«r
U "3 t 1
41 d 41
4J O in L.
o
Oj
c
^
6
c
cn
i=
» i
<». -o
o
M U
O 1-
U"> 3
0
0
V. C
u ""
in T:
o u
L.
- o
a a.
JZ 41
*-> u.
41
I 4^
0
II Z
O II
a of
-en
-------
OI
c
c
o
cj
01
u
c
u
01
O)
ac
3
W>
4lL
^
>> S "T
- s *
Is-
Q.
="? E
|£*
c
I/I 4->
01 «J
1 i.
3
O
1-
3 "J
X J
UJ
VI
W I/I
<- li
<- 01
UJ O.
*« 01
at I
X
, .. oi
* u u la .'
:£§ 5s Is >"s A 2 ll Is ^s fs JK
2a>a ° 3! <7< « >-> E L. C O "O 1. 3J=«
?*A CQ.k.4-1 OUOI*V iVk.OI
4->o 4-*wtxo. 4-ioiuv cn^c
"-!- >, c o> o< «a
lO t- C fl OI -O L J?^ c l«
^O 1. O «n c t .i O « -
O OO>*~£o> OC &4M* OI JC w k.
^ U*^O)OO>O ^^"E2*tc cnuO
O & t/) 0)O?*^OI3 l/)l/lvlA)Ct XO c 10 o
tttt ttttastttt tttt* u^^jc
zzzzz ZZ^V_QIO
oi oi u o.
<-« E O
« i- « 1.
oi * a. a
U L.
a.
3 *
15 ^ S °
« E wKsoe^E oc«»lT
1-1- !- 1. Z 4-> E S 1- ^
Od OO 311 o"^
0 u |
0) g-
01 01 >, X
"33 -5-5
u u
< «t o o
en o* 01 jc en b' us
1 1 1 ff r 5glr
O U t. 01 '«
A c PJ js £ in
0 O 0 «> O i tj «n _i
u*> uiuiOin ^wiu^uj
O OO_jO oioorno
' _j _/ £ _j a: 13 z - z
4 i/i
01 01
C en
O u
i* OJ
o >-
o **-
OI
o -o
J= 0)
OI t-
4)
C J3
n O
5 o
*7
II
O UJ
£i
-------
u
&l
3
c
2
c
o
ii
.
UJ
_J
g
01
(J
c
Ol
k.
01
**
ec
I? v,
s»s
fc 01
1st
aS"
£
VI
^
01 °
~=s
i * E
* o -5
§& Ol
x. 3C
QM
C
o
I/I *J
Ol *J
r U
0
01
1. _
VI **
0 J
Ul
M
Ol
i*- 01
UJ O.
JC
I/I
0 Ol
Ol t
X
u o - * ^ ~i
*O «O 10 10 C CD iC
k. k. * Ol
VI vi Ol Ol c Ol
w X J3 *f* /-\ 1Q
oi CM i/> « 10 > rs. oit»- vim
E ^* O - ' O ^^» «^r^ f^ *OOl CCO
^2 ~ oi oi o.* 0101
a. rvr^e*^ 'c'^oz S'*
»^ -* O (J _I
^_^
a oi * it^ *o ifr. jc
5 c o > O 6 o o *»
O ^ fc. OlOlE lO ^^
o oi oi o>u->o>i_5.c6i- c »
oi*o£ > > 'ou4-*csj ^&Ok-jc ocn
VIOI*' k. k. «»- ^ (J T3 O U - VI C Ol
3 f 4 Ol Ol O 4^ ^ ** ^^ 4^ 1^ C A' ^^ *** kr
OL.OI v> vi ^-o c^^ko u o>ou UV3
ok,-o ja ja 1*^50 ooio 3 «> k. 9 af?.
11 O O u O u ** » -O Ol 3 *J *- "O O Ol
Ol T3 36 *-> »-» C-O*J«I»- C U O
01*0 c >> >i o vi 10 x * vioi uo
D « *J «< u. c k. > c i- e c 10 k.
v» E Ol CO JOWVU O,
O "0 O 5. UE >«-> .. O k. T3 VI
T) C "J tt O. Ol Ol C U O> 4-> Ol Ol O. C *< Ol C VI
&--*-x oicvj w -***ou ^k-u oi 4J p- - a. o oi e «
en u O 4^ a en c o. vi «o g *j en*' o>
o c 3*j oi *j oeoo- oioo. oe**5 oi 3 j=
x o « jr « z: a. »o « vi g z K B
_j
Ul
O III 1 I
Z III 1 f
4-> U
VI
Ol «->
c vi E
>i 01 tU V 3
OOVi>v loT
E'B**rfv-EVI J3 »~3
u o >, v> 5 ID g
oij=u>ik.> <*- 01
oi a. a « oi c JT
v>k.oi«ojrk. « pa
*- ovicooi £»
+J -«-iE3 oi X ui » is?
"U
^
V
*0 GO
$2
"
GL
o>
1
I/I
k. C C 1
wo « e
> u O *»
^ ** u c
i > «
Se«
VI « O «
k. »- k. IX
w u vi u L, «->
SI ££$:.
4J
vi ^Ko to »
J ^ I f!j x en tt
u *lkf7 oi
Q, fs^' *^
k, « : * k. x u u
o k oi o
-------
c
0;
a<
xs a<
C
* I .c
CJ1 X *J
O> 01 0)
01
VI
X O
k *- w
o a. u
C U l_
o o> 01
5
c
UJ Of M « 1
01 a i-
o o) u
o 01 ^-
o! u
Q a <3
:^£ £S
U k. ^.
! a» o **'
' *J O
I
I
c
Ol
X v>
J3 4J k.
o u
*J O
*"- *
c in
01 CC~
> i. 0.
00
01 VI
kJ 1_
VI 01
" J£
VI L.
c o
o x
* *
n O) X
O O 01
O L. *>X
_ -° '
O O
S .eS
01 C M I
o n i
- OJ
j a
I/I
01
v> «
§3 ₯
01
o^
01
OJ
u
oi a
vi -
O 01
o
X
10
-------
Aquatic Toxicity
Little information on aquatic toxicity is available. Results of
two aquatic tests with fish were reported in the literature, but no
information on methodology used was provided. Strateva (1976) recom-
mended a water quality standard of 1 ppm in waters supporting fish,
but no documentation for this standard was provided. A water quality
advisory of 8 ug/L is proposed, using the 96-hour LC50 concentration
of 0.167 ppm for rainbow trout reported by OPP, denied by 2, then by
10 to'give an approximate safe chronic value.
Table 3 lists the data items required by EPA guidelines (Stephan
et al., 1985) for the application of formulae to be used to obtain
component values for aquatic life criteria development. The current
lack of appropriate data prevents calculation of an Aquatic Life
Criterion until further information is obtained (Table 3). Acute
toxicity tests are needed for a salmonid, a warm water species commer-
cially or recreationally important, another family in the phylum
Chordata, a planktonic crustacean, a benthic crustacean, an insect, a
phylum other than Arthropoda/Chordata, and another family of insect.
Acute-chronic ratios are needed for a fish, an invertebrate, and an
acutely sensitive freshwater animal species. Acceptable test results
from a test with a freshwater algae and a vascular plant are needed in
addition to a bioaccumulation factor for a freshwater species.
Health Effects
According to a tolerance and exemption notice published by U.S.
EPA on propachlor (FR 47:28230, June 30, 1982), an acceptable daily
intake (ADI) level can be derived from the no observed effect level
(NOEL) reported by Monsanto in a 90-day feeding study of dogs. A
water quality criterion can be derived from the ADI by taking into
account the fact that 2 liters of water is the assumed daily consum-
ption rate of a 70 kg man. U.S. EPA currently recommends the use of
chronic toxicity studies for deriving long-term exposure criterion for
water quality. No observed adverse effect levels (NOAEL) or lowest
observed adverse effect levels (LOAEL) are also the ideal basis for
deriving criterion. Using-the NOEL from the 90-day feeding study, the
ADI is calculated as follows:
ADI = (13.3 mq/kg/day) (70 kg) = 0.931 mg/day
1000
where: 13.3 mg/kg/day = NOEL from 90-day study
70 kg = assumed weight of a man
1,000 = uncertainty factor.
11
-------
The uncertainty factor of 1,000 is justified on the basis that there
are no long-term or acute toxicity data for humans, and there are only
scanty results (e.g., no chronic toxicity studies) on experimental
animals with no indication of carcinogenicity (FR 45:79353, November
28, 1980). The water quality advisory (A) for propachlor is calcu-
lated as follows:
A = 0.931 mg/day = 0.466 mg/L
2 I/day
where: 0.931 mg/day = ADI
2 I/day = assumed water consumption rate of 70 kg man.
This advisory does not take into account additional exposures that
could occur through consumption of contaminated fish, becuase no
bioconcentration factor was found in this literature search. The Yu
et al., (1975). Model ecosystem study showed little biomagnification,
and, based on this one would not expect the advisory to be
significantly different if consumption of fish were included.
Additional information on the health effects of propachlor is still
needed to completely fulfill guideline requirements (Table 4). NOAEL
and LOAEL values are needed for several species to refine the ADI
estimate. Teratology, and reproductive studies also are needed.
Chronic toxicity assays also are appropriate to confirm the ADI esti-
mate.
12
-------
TABLE 3. DATA REQUIREMENTS FOR CALCULATION OF AQUATIC LIFE
INTERIM CRITERIA PROPACHLOR
Data Requirements Available Data Acceptability
Aquatic Toxicity for Propachlor of Available Data
Acute test results from tests on:
A salmonid (class Osteichthyes) NO
A warm water species YES NO
commercially or recreationally
important (class Osteichthyes)
Another family in the phylum YES NO
Chordata (fish, amphibian, etc.)
A planktonic crustacean NO
(cladoceran, copepod, etc.)
Benthic crustacean (ostracod, NO
isopod, scud, crayfish, etc.)
Insect (mayfly, dragonfly, NO
damselfly, stonefly, mosquito, etc.)
Phylum other than Arthropoda/ NO
Chordata (Rotifera, Annelida,
Mollusca)
Another family of insect NO
Acute-chronic ratios with species from
three different families:
One fish NO
One invertebrate NO
Acutely sensitive freshwater NO
animal species
Acceptable test results from a test with:
Freshwater algae NO
A vascular plant NO
Bioaccumulation factor with a fresh- NO
water species (if a maximum permissible
tissue concentration is available)
13
-------
TABLE 4. DATA REQUIREMENTS FOR CALCULATION OF HUMAN
HEALTH INTERIM CRITERIA PROPACHLOR
Data Requirements
Human Health Effects
Non-Threshold:
Available Data
for Propachlor
Acceptability
of Available Data
a
Carcinogen NO
Tumor incidence tests (Incidence of NA'
tumor formation significantly more
than the control for at least one
dose level), or
Data set which give the highest NA
estimate of carcinogenetic risk, or
Lifetime average exposure tests, or NA
Human epidemiology studies
(if available, not required)
Threshold:
Non-carcinogens YES
Noobserved adverseeffeet level N0°
(at least 90-day), or
Lowest observed effect level NO
Lowest observed adverse effect level NO
Acceptable Daily Intake: YES
Daily water consumption YES
Daily fish consumption YES
_ (b)
Bioconcentration factor NO
Non-fish dietary intake NO
Daily intake by inhalation NO
Threshold Limit Value:
(Based on 8-hour time-weighted NO
average concentrations in air)
Inhalation Studies:
Available pharmacokinetic data NO
Measurements of absorption efficiency NO
Comparative excretion data NO
a) NA - Not applicable.
b) NOEL is available (EPA approved).
YES
(EPA approved)
YES
(EPA approved
assumption)
YES
(EPA approved)
assumption)
14
-------
REFERENCES
Adamis, Z., and K. Lehotzky. 1980. Study of the cytotoxic effect of
propachlor on peritoneal macrophages in vitro. Equeszsegtudomany,
23 (3):295-299. (Hungarian, Abstract in English)
Bainova, A., T. Burkova, A. M. Khailova. 1977. Determination of
dermal toxicity of Ramrod, 20(3):234-240. (Abstract)
Dombay,. Z., and J. Farkasdy. 1978. Problems of safety technique and
of occupational safety as related to propachlor and its formulations.
In: Konferenz verber Sicherheitstechnik der Landwirtschaftlichen
Chemisierung. Vortraege, pp. 49-58. (German, Abstract in English)
Done, A. K. 1979. The toxic emergency. Emer. Med., 11(4) :186-187.
Federal Register. 1982. Tolerances and exemptions from tolerances for
pesticide chemicals on raw agricultural commodities. FR 47:28380.
Federal Register. 1980. Guidelines and methodology used in prepara-
tion of health effect assessment chapters of the consent decree water
quality criteria documents. FR 45:79347-79353.
Gentile, J. M., E. D. Wagner, and M. J. Plewa. 1977. The detection
of weak recombinogenic activities in the herbicides alachlor and
propachlor using a plant-activation bioassay. Mut. Res., 48(1) :113-
115.
Gopalan, H.N.B. and G.D.E. Njagi. 1981. Mutagenicity testing of
pesticides. 3. Drosophila: Recessive sex-linked lethals. Genetics,
97:544.
Heise, H., A. Mattheus, and T. Puskeiler. 1983. The irritant and
sensitizing properties of the herbicide propachlor. 2. Gesamte Hyg.
Ihre Grenzgeb., 29(2):675-677. (German Abstract in English)
Holhar, J., and K. A. Paksy. 1978. Evaluation of the acute toxicity
of inhaled pesticides in experimental animals, in: Konferenz ueber
Sicherheitstechnik der Landwirtschaftlichen Chemisierung. Vortraege,
pp. 179-193. (German, Abstract in English)
Jaworski, E. G. 1969. Analysis of the mode of action of herbicidal
alphachloroacetamides. J. Agr. Food Chem., 17(2) :165-170.
Jung, H. D. 1979. Occupational dermatoses due to pesticides. Dtsch.
Gesundheitswes, 34(24):1144-1148. (German, Abstract in English)
Lehotzky, K., J. Szeberenyi, and E. Tatrai. 1979. Local and Systemic
toxic effects of the herbicide propachlor (Satecid 65WD) in experimen-
tal animals. Egesz segtudonany 23(l):89-96. (Hungarian, Abstract in
English)
15
-------
Lippens, R., M. Claeys, C. Wildemauwe, and N. Van Larebeke. 1983.
Mutagenicity studies on 10 pesticides, on trichloroethane, and on
diaminobenzidine. Mutat. Res., 113:277-278.
McEwen, F. L. and G. R. Stephenson. 1979. The use and significance
of pesticides in the environment. John Wiley and Sons, NY, 538 pp.
Morgan, D. P., L. I. Lin, and H. H. Saikaly. 1980. Morbidity and
mortality in workers occupationally exposed to pesticides, 9(3):349-
382.
NIOSH. 1979. National Institute of Science and Health, Registry of
Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances, Vol. 2, p. 292.
Palmer, U. S. 1972. Toxicity of 45 organic herbicides to cattle,
sheep, and chickens. U.S. Dept. Agr. Production Research Report 137,
Washington, pp. 1-41.
Panshina, T. N. 1977. Establishment of maximum permissible concen-
trations and approximate no-effect levels for halogen-substituted
carboxylic acid anil ides in the air of a production sector. Gig. Tr.
Prof. Zabol., (12):30-33. (Russian, Abstract in English)
Plewa, M. J., E. D. Wagner, G. J. Gentile and J. M. Gentile. 1984.
An evaluation of the genotoxic properties of herbicides following
plant and animal activation. Mutat. Res. 136(3) :233-246.
Rejto, M., S. Saltzman, and A. J. Acher. 1984. Photodecomposition of
propachlor. J. Agric. Food Chem., 32(3) :226-230.
Schubert, H. 1979. Allergic contact dermatitis due to propachlor.
Dermatol. Monatsschr., 165(7):495-498. (German, Abstract in English)
Stephan, C. E., D. I. Mount, D. J. Hansen, J. H. Gentile, G. A.
Chapman, and W. A. Brungs. 1985. Guidelines for deriving numerical
national water quality criteria for the protection of aquatic orga-
nisms and their uses. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Research and Development, Environmental Research Laboratories, Duluth,
MN.
Strateva, A. 1976. Experimental substantiation of the maximum permi-
ssible concentrations of propachlor (Ramrod) in water. Gig. Sanit.,
41(4):85-87. (Russian, Abstract in English)
WSSA. 1979. Herbicide Handbook of the Weed Science Society of Ameri-
ca. 4th Ed., Humphrey Press, Inc., Geneva, NY, 293 pp.
Windholz, M. S., S. Budavari, R. F. Blumetti and E. S. Otterbein.
1983. The Merck Index: An Encylcopedia of Chemicals and Drigs, Tenth
Edition. Merck and Company, Inc.
16
-------
-------
Yu, C. C., G. M. Booth, D. j. Hansen, and J. R. Larsen. 1975. Fate
of alachlor and propachlor in a model ecosystem. J. Agric. Food
Chem., 23 (5):877-879.
Zhukova, P. S. and T. S.
and vegetables. Khim.
in English)
Shirko. 1979. Herbicide residues in soil
Selsk. Khoz., 17(6):46-50. (Russian, Abstract
Zilkah, S., M. E. Osband, and R. P. McCaffrey. 1981. Characteriza-
tion of the inhibitory effects of the phytotoxic agent propachlor (a-
chloro-N-isopropylacetanilide), on L1210 cell proliferation. Can.
Lett., 13:241-248.
Zilkah, S., M. Osband, R. McCaffrey, and H. Shapiro. 1985. the
effect of the plant cell inhibitor, propachlor (a-chloro-N-isopropyla-
cetanilide), on the cell cycle of L1210 cells as evaluated by flow
cytometry, Life Sci. 36(22) :2111-2116.
17
-------
|