CHEMICAL UPDATE WORKSHEET - Michigan · CHEMICAL UPDATE WORKSHEET 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin(DD) (1746-01-6) 3 (B) Toxicity Values/Benchmarks . Part 201 Value Updated Value

CHEMICAL UPDATE WORKSHEET

Chemical Name: 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin(DD) CAS #: 1746-01-6 Revised By: RRD Toxicology Unit

Revision Date: September 24, 2015

(A) Chemical-Physical Properties Part 201 Value Updated Value Reference Source Comments

Molecular Weight (g/mol) 322 321.98 EPI EXP

Physical State at ambient temp Solid Solid MDEQ

Melting Point (˚C) 579 305.00 EPI EXP

Boiling Point (˚C) --- NA NA

Solubility (ug/L) 0.019 0.2 EPI EXP

Vapor Pressure (mmHg at 25˚C) 7.372E-10 1.50E-09 EPI EXP

HLC (atm-m³/mol at 25˚C) 9.20E-6 5.00E-05 PP EST

Log Kow (log P; octanol-water) 7.04 6.80 EPI EXP

Koc (organic carbon; L/Kg) 8.33E+6 2.491E+05 EPI EST

Ionizing Koc (L/kg) NR NA NA

Diffusivity in Air (Di; cm2/s) 0.047 2.57E-02 W9 EST

Diffusivity in Water (Dw; cm2/s) 8.0E-6 6.76E-06 W9 EST

CHEMICAL UPDATE WORKSHEET 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin(DD) (1746-01-6)

2

Part 201 Value Updated Value Reference Source Comments Soil Water Partition Coefficient (Kd; inorganics) NR NR NA NA

Flash Point (˚C) NA 4 PC EXP

Lower Explosivity Level (LEL; unit less) NA NA NA NA

Critical Temperature (K) NA NA NA

Enthalpy of Vaporization (cal/mol) NA NA NA

Density (g/mL, g/cm3) 1.8 PC EXP

EMSOFT Flux Residential 2 m (mg/day/cm2) 1.23E-08 3.54E-07 EMSOFT EST

EMSOFT Flux Residential 5 m (mg/day/cm2) 1.23E-08 3.54E-07 EMSOFT EST

EMSOFT Flux Nonresidential 2 m (mg/day/cm2) 1.38E-08 4.45E-07 EMSOFT EST

EMSOFT Flux Nonresidential 5 m (mg/day/cm2) 1.38E-08 4.45E-07 EMSOFT EST


3

(B) Toxicity Values/Benchmarks

Part 201 Value Updated Value Source*/Reference/Date

Comments/Notes/Issues

Reference Dose (RfD) (mg/kg/day) -- 7.0E-10 IRIS, 2012

RfD details

Tier 1 Source: IRIS: Basis: IRIS is a Tier 1 source. Critical Studies: 1) Baccarelli, A; Giacomini, SM; Corbetta, C; Landi, MT; Bonzini, M; Consonni, D; Grillo, P; Patterson, DG; Pesatori, AC; Bertazzi, PA. (2008). Neonatal thyroid function in Seveso 25 years after maternal exposure to dioxin. PLoS Med 5: e161. 2) Mocarelli, P; Gerthoux, PM; Patterson, DG, Jr; Milani, S; Limonata, G; Bertona, M; Signorini, S; Tramacere, P; Colombo, L; Crespi, C; Brambilla, P; Sarto, C; Carreri, V; Sampson, EJ; Turner, WE; Needham, LL. (2008). Dioxin exposure, from infancy through puberty, produces endocrine disruption and affects human semen quality. Environ Health Perspect 116: 70-77. Methods: Human epidemiologic studies; the studies are of a human population that was exposed to TCDD through an industrial accident in Seveso, Italy in 1976. For both studies, PBPK modeling was used to estimate continuous daily oral intakes from TCDD (lipid adjusted) serum concentrations (LASC). Critical effects: Decreased sperm count and motility in men exposed to TCDD as boys (Mocarelli et al., 2008) and increased thyroid stimulating hormones (TSH) in neonates (Baccarelli et al., 2008) End point or Point of Departure (POD): LOAELADJ = 2.0E-8 mg/kg-day (0.02 ng/kg-day) for decreased sperm count and motility; LOAELADJ =0.02 ng/kg-day for increased TSH. Uncertainty Factors: UF = 30 (3 for intraspecies variability and 10 for LOAEL to NOAEL extrapolation) Source and date: IRIS, Last revision date - 2/17/2012

Complete


4



Tier 2 Sources: PPRTV: No PPRTV record is available at this time. MRL: No MRL record is available at this time. Tier 3Sources: MDEQ: Per DEQ-CCD, RRD has no RfD value at this time. Per CCD, WRD (3/1/1995) derived an RfD = 1.3E-9 mg/kg-day based on a NOAEL (reproductive effects) of 1.3E-07 mg/kg/d in Rhesus monkeys exposed orally for 7 and 24 months (UF=100) (Bowman, 1989).

Oral Cancer Slope Factor (CSF) (mg/kg-day)-1)

7.5E+4 7.5E+4 MDEQ, 1995

CSF details

Per RRD: Based on Pathology Working Group (PWG) reevaluation of Kociba liver and tumor data. Considering the insignificant difference between this and the old SF (1.56E+5) and USEPA's current review of dioxin data, they have not adopted the new SF, but consider it scientifically valid.

Tier 3 Source: MDEQ: Basis: MDEQ CSF was selected as it used a reevaluation of Kociba liver and tumor data and USEPA has not updated a CSF value or determined if TCDD is a threshold or non-threshold carcinogen to date. Although TERA was based on a more recent NTP rodent study (2006) it was not selected because the most recent EPA draft evaluation has been based on human data but has not been provided as a final document. See details below. Tier 1 and 2 Sources: IRIS: Per IRIS (2012): USEPA has not finalized Volume 2 (TCDD cancer assessment and uncertainty analysis). (6/27/13) Recommendation is to use the historical cancer slope factor until USEPA completes its cancer assessment. PPRTV: No PPRTV record is available at this time. MRL: NA; MRLs are for non-cancer effects only. Tier 3 Sources: MDEQ-RRD, 10/11/1995 (this is the date in CCD): Per July 12, 1990 cancer slope factor justification: the slope factor of 7.5E+4 (mg/kg-day)-1 represents the total significant tumor risk including the Pathology Working Group re-evaluated female

Complete


5



SWQD also considers it scientifically valid but are not adopting it for similar reasons. Since it is based on current pathology criteria it is being used here. It represents total significant tumor risk in female rats (Kociba et al., 1978). *All other dioxin isomers identified on site should be converted to TEF equivalents and compared to the criteria for TCDD. RD calculation date: 10/11/95.

rat liver pathology. The original tumor data is from Kociba, 1978. WRD uses the same CSF dated 3/1/1995. Critical Study: Kociba RJ et al. 1978. Results of a two-year chronic toxicity and oncogenicity study of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin in rats. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 46: 279-303 HEAST 1997: CSF= 1.5E+5 (mg/kg-day)-1.

Critical Studies: 1) Kociba RJ et al. 1978. Results of a two-year chronic toxicity and oncogenicity study of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin in rats. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 46: 279-303. 2) USEPA. 1985. Health assessment document for polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin. Prepared by the Office of Health and Environmental Assessment. Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office. Cincinnati, OH. USEPA 600/8-84-014F NTIS PB86-122546. 3) USEPA. 1984. Health assessment for 2,3,7,8-TCDD. Prepared by the Office of Health and Environmental Assessment. Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office. Cincinnati, OH for the Office Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, DC. 4) USEPA. 1989. Carcinogen risk assessment verification endeavor (CRAVE) work group. Methods: 720 day rat study, Oral exposure Critical Endpoint: tumors

California OEHHA 2011: CSF= 1.3E+5 (mg/kg-day)-1.

Critical Study: NTP 1982. Carcinogenesis bioassay of 2,3,7,8 tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (cas no. 1746-01-6) in osborne-mendel rats and B6C3f1 mice (gavage study). NTP-80-31. NIH publication 82-1765. Methods: Fifty rats and mice of each sex were given TCDD suspended in a vehicle of 9:1 corn oil-acetone 2 days per week for 104 weeks at doses of 0.01, 0.05, or 0.5 μg/kg/wk for rats and male mice and 0.04, 0.2, or 2.0 μg/kg/wk for female mice.


6



Critical effect: liver tumors in male mice Source and date: California OEHHA Toxicity Criteria Database. Updated 2011.

Minnesota 2015: CSF= 1.4E+06 (mg/kg-day)-1. Developed by MN DOH’s Risk Assessment Advice 3/16/2004. Extrapolated from oral slope. Further detail not provided. New Jersey DEP: CSF= 1.5E+5 (mg/kg-day)-1 developed for groundwater based on HEAST 1997. TERA 2011: nonlinear toxicity value= 1E-7 mg/kg-day. A linear value was also calculated = 4.0E+5 (mg/kg/day)-1.

Critical Study: NTP (National Toxicology Program). (2006). NTP technical report on the toxicology and carcinogenesis studies of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) (CAS no. 1746-01-6) in female Harlan Sprague-Dawley rats (gavage studies). (NTP TR 521; NIH Publication No. 06-4468). Research Triangle Park, NC. TERA Source Document: Simon T., Aylward L.L., Kirman C.R., Rowlands J.C. and Budinsky R.A. 2009. Estimates of Cancer Potency of 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo(p)dioxin Using Linear and Nonlinear Dose-Response Modeling and Toxicokinetics. Toxicol. Sci. 112(2): 490-506. Methods: NTP (2006) was one of a series of two-year cancer bioassays for dioxin-like chemicals in female Harlan Sprague-Dawley rats. Groups of 53 or 54 female rats by depositing solutions of TCDD dissolved in corn oil through tubes directly into their stomachs five days a week for two years. Daily doses of TCDD were 3, 10, 22, 46, or 100 nanograms (ng) per kilogram of body weight

Tumor type: As indicated, the most prominent responses were remarkable histological changes in the liver grouped under the term hepatopathy, cholangiocarcinoma and hepatocellular adenoma. Point of Departure (POD): BMD01[HEC] 1.3E-6 mg/kg-d Source and date: Report of the ITER Review Meeting on Literature Risk

http://oehha.ca.gov/risk/ChemicalDB/index.asp

http://www.tera.org/Peer/ITERReview/ITER%20Review%20Meeting%201%20Final%20Report.pdf


7



Values for Decabromodiphenyl Ether, TCDD, and Acrylamide. February 2011

Other Tier 3: No value is available at this time from these Tier 3 sources/databases: NTP ROC, health and environmental agencies of Massachusetts, New York, and Texas, WHO (IARC), WHO (IPCS/INCHEM), Canada, The Netherlands (RIVM), ECHA (REACH) and OECD HPV.

Reference Concentration (RfC) or Initial Threshold Screening Level (ITSL) (µg/m³)

-- 2.0E-6 MDEQ, 2012

RfC/ITSL details NA

Tier 3 Source: MDEQ: Basis: MDEQ value preferred as it is based on human reproductive studies. See details below. Tier 1 and 2 Sources: IRIS: Per IRIS (2/17/2012), no value at this time. PPRTV: No PPRTV record is available at this time. MRL: No MRL record is available at this time. Tier 3 Sources: MDEQ-AQD, 4/5/2012: The ITSL is based on USEPAs IRIS chronic oral RfD of 7.0E-10 mg/kg-day. Using Rule 232(1)(b), ITSL = 7.0E-10 mg/kg-day x 70 kg/20 m3 = 2.0E-9 mg/m3 = 2.0E-6 µg/m3. Based on an annual averaging time. Critical Study: Mocarelli et al., (2008) and Baccarelli et al., (2008) Methods: human epidemiology studies in Seveso, Italy Critical effect: decreased sperm count and motility in men exposed to TCDD as boys and increased TSH in neonates End point or Point of Departure (POD): LOAELADJ = 2.0E-8 mg/kg-day (0.02 ng/kg-day) for decreased sperm count and motility; LOAELADJ =0.02 ng/kg-day for

Complete

http://www.tera.org/Peer/ITERReview/ITER%20Review%20Meeting%201%20Final%20Report.pdf


8



increased TSH. Uncertainty Factors: UF = 3,000 (10 each for intraspecies variability, interspecies extrapolation and use of a subchronic study, and 3 for database deficiencies) California OEHHA 2011: chronic Reference Exposure Level (REL) = 4.0E-5 µg/m³.

Critical Study: Kociba. RJ. DG Keyes. JE Bower et al. 1978. Results of a Two-Year Chronic Toxicity and Oncogenicity Study of 2.3.7.B-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-Dioxin in Rats. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 46(2): 279-303. Methods: Sprague-Dawley rats of both sexes (50/treatment group/sex). Continuous dietary exposure starting at seven weeks of age for 2 years. Oral reference exposure level 10 pg./kg/day route-to-route extrapolation 3,500 μg/m3 per mg/kg/day inhalation reference exposure level 40 pg./m3 (0.00004 μg/m3). Critical effect: Increased mortality, decreased weight gain, depression of hematologic measures, increased urinary excretion of porphyrins and delta-aminolevulinic acid, increased serum activities of alkaline phosphatase, gamma-glutamyl transferase and glutamic-pyruvic transaminase, gross and histopathological changes in the liver, lymphoid tissue, lung and vascular tissues Point of Departure: 22 ppt in diet (0.001 μg/kg/day) Source and date: Cal OEHHA Chronic RELs and toxicity summaries using the previous version of the Hot Spots Risk Assessment guidelines (OEHHA 1999) page 90.

Minnesota 2015: RfC= 4.00E-08 mg/m³ based on CALEPA REL 2/2000. Listed as “appropriate as a screening level”. Details follow California OEHHA 2011 as listed above. Other Tier 3: No value is available at this time from these Tier 3 sources/databases: HEAST, NTP ROC, health and environmental agencies of Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Texas, WHO (IARC), WHO

http://oehha.ca.gov/air/hot_spots/2008/AppendixD3_final.pdf

http://oehha.ca.gov/air/hot_spots/2008/AppendixD3_final.pdf


9



(IPCS/INCHEM), Canada, The Netherlands (RIVM), ECHA (REACH) and OECD HPV.

Inhalation Unit Risk Factor (IURF) ((µg/m3)-1)

4.4E+1 4.4E+1 MDEQ, 1992

IURF details

Potency is based on EPA's CAG 1985 oral slope factor of 1.56 E5 (mg/kg)-1. Reviewed by DNR's TSG 7/12/90. 5/29/92 - awaiting USEPA review to be completed before updating. CCD/AQD, 5/29/1992.

Tier 3 Source: MDEQ: Basis: The MDEQ IURF was selected as USEPA has not updated an IURF value or determined if TCDD is a threshold or non-threshold carcinogen to date. See details below. Tier 1 and 2 Sources: IRIS: Per IRIS (2/17/2012), no value at this time. USEPA announced in 2011 that Volume 2 (cancer assessment and uncertainty analysis) will be finalized “as expeditiously as possible”. PPRTV: No PPRTV record is available at this time. MRL: NA; MRLs are for non-cancer effects only. Tier 3 Sources: MDEQ-AQD: Basis: based on USEPA's CAG 1985 oral slope factor of 1.56 E5 (mg/kg)-1. Reviewed by DNR's Toxics Steering Group 7/12/1990. Source and date: MDEQ-CCD/AQD, 5/29/1992 HEAST 1997: IURF= 3.3E-5 (pg./m3)-1 = 3.3E-11 (µg/m³)-1. An Absorption Factor of 75% is used to calculate the Unit risk from the slope factor..

Critical Study: Kociba. RJ. DG Keyes. JE Bower et al. 1978. Results of a Two-Year Chronic Toxicity and Oncogenicity Study of 2.3.7.B-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-Dioxin in Rats. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 46(2): 279-303. Methods: 720 day rat study, Oral exposure Critical Endpoint: tumors

Complete


10



California OEHHA 2011 (CALEPA): IURF= 38 (µg/m3)-1 based on the oral CSF described above.

Critical Study: NTP 1982. Carcinogenesis bioassay of 2,3,7,8- tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (cas no. 1746-01-6) in osborne-mendel rats and B6C3f1 mice (gavage study). NTP-80-31. NIH publication 82-1765. Methods: Fifty rats and mice of each sex were given TCDD suspended in a vehicle of 9:1 corn oil-acetone 2 days per week for 104 weeks at doses of 0.01, 0.05, or 0.5 μg/kg/wk for rats and male mice and 0.04, 0.2, or 2.0 μg/kg/wk for female mice. Critical effect: liver tumors in male mice Source and date: California OEHHA Toxicity Criteria Database. Updated 2011.

Minnesota 2015: IURF= 4.00E+02 (µg/m3)-1 extrapolated from Minnesota CSF = 1.4E+6 (mg/kg/day)-1. Developed by Minnesota Dept of Health Risk Assessment Advise (3/16/2004). New Jersey DEP 2011: IURF= 3.8E+01 (µg/m3)-1 based on CALEPA 2009. Other Tier 3: No value is available at this time from these Tier 3 sources/databases: NTP ROC, health and environmental agencies of Massachusetts, New York, and Texas, WHO (IARC), WHO (IPCS/INCHEM), Canada, The Netherlands (RIVM), ECHA (REACH) and OECD HPV.

Mutagenic Mode of Action (MMOA)? (Y/N)

-- NO USEPA, 2014

MMOA Details -- NA

Not listed as a carcinogen with mutagenic MOA in the USEPA OSWER List.

Developmental or Reproductive Effector? (Y/N)

No

YES- both oral and inhalation. The RfD and RfC/ITSL are based on a reproductive-developmental effect.

Oral Exposure Pathways- Full Term Exposure Inhalation Exposure Pathways- Full Term Exposure

MDEQ, 2015

http://oehha.ca.gov/risk/ChemicalDB/index.asp


11



Developmental or Reproductive Toxicity Details

NA

Critical effects: Decreased sperm count and motility in men exposed to TCDD as boys (Mocarelli et al., 2008) and increased thyroid stimulating hormones (TSH) in neonates (Baccarelli et al., 2008) Critical Studies: 1) Baccarelli, A; Giacomini, SM; Corbetta, C; Landi, MT; Bonzini, M; Consonni, D; Grillo, P; Patterson, DG; Pesatori, AC; Bertazzi, PA. (2008). Neonatal thyroid function in Seveso 25 years after maternal exposure to dioxin. PLoS Med 5: e161. 2) Mocarelli, P; Gerthoux, PM; Patterson, DG, Jr; Milani, S; Limonata, G; Bertona, M; Signorini, S; Tramacere, P; Colombo, L; Crespi, C; Brambilla, P; Sarto, C; Carreri, V; Sampson, EJ; Turner, WE; Needham, LL. (2008). Dioxin exposure, from infancy through puberty, produces endocrine disruption and affects human semen quality. Environ Health Perspect 116: 70-77. Method(s): Human epidemiologic studies; the studies are of a human population that was exposed to TCDD through an industrial accident in Seveso, Italy in 1976. For both studies, PBPK modeling was used to estimate continuous daily oral intakes from TCDD (lipid adjusted) serum concentrations (LASC).

State Drinking Water Standard (SDWS) (ug/L)

3.0E-5 3.0E-5 SDWA, 1976

SDWS details SDWA, 1976 MI Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) 1976 PA 399

Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level (SMCL) (ug/L)

-- NO SDWA, 1976 and USEPA SMCL List

SMCL details NA MI Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) 1976 PA 399 and USEPA SMCL List

Is there an aesthetic value for drinking water? (Y/N)

NO Not evaluated. NA

Aesthetic value (ug/L) NA NA NA


12



Aesthetic Value details NA

Phytotoxicity Value? (Y/N) NO Not evaluated. NA

Phytotoxicity details NA NA NA

Others


13

(C) Chemical-specific Absorption Factors

Part 201 Value Update Source/Reference/Dates


Gastrointestinal absorption efficiency value (ABSgi)

--- 1.0

MDEQ, 2015/USEPA RAGS-E

ABSgi details RAGS E (EPA, 2004) Default Value

Skin absorption efficiency value (AEd)

--- 0.03 USEPA RAGS-E

AEd details RAGS E (EPA, 2004) Default Value

Ingestion Absorption Efficiency (AEi)

0.5 MDEQ, 2015

AEi Details

Relative Source Contribution for Water (RSCW)

0.2 MDEQ, 2015

Relative Source Contribution for Soil (RSCS)

1.0 MDEQ, 2015

Relative Source Contribution for Air (RSCA)

1.0 MDEQ, 2015

Others


14

(D) Rule 57 Water Quality Values and GSI Criteria

Current GSI value (g/L) 1.0E-5 (M); 3.1E-9

Updated GSI value (g/L) 1.0E-5 (M); 3.1E-9

Rule 57 Drinking Water Value (g/L) 1.0E-5 (M); 8.6E-9

Rule 57 Value

(g/L) Verification Date

Human Non-cancer Values- Drinking water source (HNV-drink) 6.7E-8 7/1997

Human Non-Cancer Values- Non-drinking water sources (HNV-Non-drink) 6.7E-8 7/1997

Wildlife Value (WV) 3.1E-9 7/1997

Human Cancer Values for Drinking Water Source (HCV-drink) 8.6E-9 7/1997

Human Cancer values for non-drinking water source (HCV-Non-drink) 8.6E-9 7/1997

Final Chronic Value (FCV) ID* (3.1E-9) 9/1997

Aquatic maximum value (AMV) ID* (3.1E-9) 9/1997

Final Acute Value (FAV) ID* (3.1E-9) 9/1997

Sources: 1. MDEQ Surface Water Assessment Section Rule 57 website 2. MDEQ Rule 57 table

http://www.michigan.gov/deq/0,1607,7-135-3313_3686_3728-11383--,00.html

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/deq/wb-swas-rule57_210455_7.xls


15

(E) Target Detection Limits (TDL)

Value Source

Target Detection Limit – Soil (g/kg) 0.001 MDEQ, 2015

Target Detection Limit – Water (g/L) 0.00001 MDEQ, 2015

Target Detection Limit – Air (ppbv) NA MDEQ, 2015

Target Detection Limit – Soil Gas (ppbv) NA MDEQ, 2015


16

CHEMICAL UPDATE WORKSHEET ABBREVIATIONS: CAS # - Chemical Abstract Service Number. Section (A) Chemical-Physical Properties Reference Source(s): CRC Chemical Rubber Company Handbook of Chemistry

and Physics, 95th edition, 2014-2015 EMSOFT USEPA Exposure Model for Soil-Organic Fate and

Transport (EMSOFT) (EPA, 2002) EPA2001 USEPA (2001) Fact Sheet, Correcting the Henry’s

Law Constant for Soil Temperature. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, D.C.

EPA4 USEPA (2004) User’s Guide for Evaluating Subsurface Vapor Intrusion into Buildings. February 22, 2004.

EPI USEPA’s Estimation Programs Interface SUITE 4.1, Copyright 2000-2012

HSDB Hazardous Substances Data Bank MDEQ Michigan Department of Environmental Quality NPG National Institute for Occupational Safety and

Health Pocket Guide to Chemical Hazards PC National Center for Biotechnology Information’s

PubChem database PP Syracuse Research Corporation’s PhysProp database SCDM USEPA’s Superfund Chemical Data Matrix SSG USEPA’s Soil Screening Guidance: Technical

Background Document, Second Edition, 1996 USEPA/EPA United States environmental protection agency’s

Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund Volume I: Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part E, Supplemental Guidance for Dermal Risk Assessment). July, 2004.

W9 USEPA’s User Guide for Water9 Software, Version 2.0.0, 2001

Basis/Comments: EST estimated EXP experimental EXT extrapolated NA not available or not applicable NR not relevant Section (B) Toxicity Values/Benchmarks Sources/References: ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry CALEPA California Environmental Protection Agency CAL DTSC California Department of Toxic Substances Control CAL OEHHA CAEPA Office of Environmental Health Hazard

Assessment CCD MDEQ Chemical Criteria Database ECHA European Chemicals Agency (REACH) OECD HPV Organization for Economic Cooperation and

Development HPV Database HEAST USEPA’s Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables IRIS USEPA’s Integrated Risk Information System MADEP Massachusetts Department of Environmental

Protection MDEQ/DEQ Michigan Department of Environmental Quality DEQ-CCD/AQD MDEQ Air Quality Division DEQ-CCD/RRD MDEQ Remediation and Redevelopment Division DEQ-CCD/WRD MDEQ Water Resources Division MNDOH Minnesota Department of Health


17

NJDEP New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection

NYDEC New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

OPP/OPPT USEPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs PPRTV USEPA’s Provisional Peer Reviewed Toxicity Values RIVM The Netherlands National Institute of Public Health

and the Environment TCEQ Texas Commission on Environmental Quality USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency USEPA OSWER USEPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency

Response USEPA MCL USEPA Maximum Contaminant Level WHO World Health Organization WHO IPCS International Programme on Chemical Safety

(IPCS/INCHEM) WHO IARC International Agency for Research on Cancers NA Not Available. NR Not Relevant. Toxicity terms: BMC Benchmark concentration BMCL Lower bound confidence limit on the BMC BMD benchmark dose BMDL Lower bound confidence limit on the BMD CSF Cancer slope Factor CNS Central nervous system IURF or IUR Inhalation unit risk factor LOAEL Lowest observed adverse effect level LOEL Lowest observed effect level MRL Minimal risk level (ATSDR) NOAEL No observed adverse effect level NOEL No observed effect level

RfC Reference concentration RfD Reference dose p-RfD Provisional RfD aRfD Acute RfD UF Uncertainty factor WOE Weight of evidence Section (C) Chemical-specific Absorption Factors MDEQ Michigan Department of Environmental Quality USEPA RAGS-E United States Environmental Protection Agency’s

Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund Volume I: Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part E, Supplemental Guidance for Dermal Risk Assessment). July, 2004.

Section (D) Rule 57 Water Quality Values and GSI Criteria GSI Groundwater-surface water interface NA A value is not available or not applicable. ID Insufficient data to derive value NLS No literature search has been conducted

Documents

CHEMICAL UPDATE WORKSHEET - Michigan · CHEMICAL UPDATE WORKSHEET 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin(DD) (1746-01-6) 3 (B) Toxicity Values/Benchmarks . Part 201 Value Updated Value