New incident report
Incident Report Number: 2011-4488
Registrant Reference Number: PROSAR Case #: 1-27198977
Registrant Name (Full Legal Name no abbreviations): Syngenta Crop Protection Canada, Inc.
Address: 140 Research Lane, Research Park
City: Guelph
Prov / State: Ontario
Country: Canada
Postal Code: N1G4Z3
Human
Country: CANADA
Prov / State: QUEBEC
PMRA Registration No. 27428 PMRA Submission No. EPA Registration No.
Product Name: Demand CS Insecticide
Yes
Unknown
Site: Res. - In Home / Rés. - à l'int. maison
No
Other
Sex: Male
Age: >19 <=64 yrs / >19 <=64 ans
System
Unknown / Inconnu
No
No
Non-occupational
Contact with treated area
What was the activity? re-entry of primary residence (application site)
None
Skin
Respiratory
Unknown / Inconnu
Unknown / Inconnu
1-27198977- The reporter indicated exposure of her family to an insecticide containing the active ingredient lambda-cyhalothrin. The reporter stated a pest control operator had applied the product to the interior of her home two days prior to her initial contact with the registrant. The caller did not have label information such as the PCP number that might assist in identification of the precise formulation used. She stated she had concerns that the pest control operator had not accurately followed label instructions. She stated both she and her family were present during application and she knows of respiratory and dermal exposure to herself and her husband. She reports the product was diluted, as she observed the pest control operator dilute it, but was unaware of the dilution factor used. She reports she also observed the product applied to her child's toys. The caller's main motive to contact the registrant was to discuss label instructions and appropriate household clean up procedures. She was not eager to discuss the exposure. The caller reported she never developed symptoms following her personal exposure and had followed appropriate decontamination procedures. She did indicate her husband (Subform II, #1) had developed a rash and tingling on his feet following walking through a still wet application area with bare feet. She also stated her small child (Subform II, #2) had experiencing a burning sensation on his face after playing with a toy that had product applied to it and then touching his face. The caller indicated all exposed individuals had appropriately washed and all symptoms had spontaneously abated. The caller was advised of proper decontamination procedures and care for symptoms seen should they recur. She was advised rash would not be expected following exposure to this product and may require consultation with a doctor to discover the cause should it recur or worsen. The caller was connected with technical staff that could discuss the labeling of the product and household clean up procedures. No further information is available.
Minor
Label directions are clear and PCO ignored label directions.
Other
Sex: Male
Age: >1 <=6 yrs / > 1 < = 6 ans
System
Unknown / Inconnu
No
No
Non-occupational
Contact with treated area
What was the activity? re-entry of primary residence (application area)
None
Skin
Unknown / Inconnu
Unknown / Inconnu
1-27198977- The reporter indicated exposure of her family to an insecticide containing the active ingredient lambda-cyhalothrin. The reporter stated a pest control operator had applied the product to the interior of her home two days prior to her initial contact with the registrant. The caller did not have label information such as the PCP number that might assist in identification of the precise formulation used. She stated she had concerns that the pest control operator had not accurately followed label instructions. She stated both she and her family were present during application and she knows of respiratory and dermal exposure to herself and her husband. She reports the product was diluted, as she observed the pest control operator dilute it, but was unaware of the dilution factor used. She reports she also observed the product applied to her child's toys. The caller's main motive to contact the registrant was discus label instructions and appropriate household clean up procedures. She was not eager to discuss the exposure. The caller reported she never developed symptoms following her personal exposure and had followed appropriate decontamination procedures. She did indicate her husband (Subform II, #1) had developed a rash and tingling on his feet following walking through a still wet application area with bare feet. She also stated her small child (Subform II, #2) had experiencing a burning sensation on his face after playing with a toy that had product applied to it and then touching his face. The caller indicated all exposed individuals had appropriately washed and all symptoms had spontaneously abated. The caller was advised of proper decontamination procedures and care for symptoms seen should they recur. She was advised rash would not be expected following exposure to this product and may require consultation with a doctor to discover the cause should it recur or worsen. The caller was connected with technical staff that could discuss the labeling of the product and household clean up procedures. No further information is available.
Minor