**RE-REGISTRATION ELIGIBILITY DOCUMENT**

**ENVIRONMENTAL FATE AND EFFECTS SCIENCE CHAPTER**

Environmental Fate and Ecological Risk Assessment

for

**Mefluidide (PC Code 114001)**

**CAS \# 53780-34-0**

AND

**Mefluidide-DEA (PC Code 114002)**

**CAS \# 53780-36-2**

AND

**Mefluidide-K (PC Code 114003)**

**CAS #83601-83-6**

**Environmental Fate and Effects Division Team Members**

Marie Janson, Environmental Scientist

James Hetrick, Senior Chemist

**Branch Reviewers**

Ed Odenkirchen, Senior Biologist

**Branch Chief Approval**

Nancy Andrews, Branch Chief

**Date of Approval: 6/07/07**

**TABLE OF CONTENTS**

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1 Nature of Chemical
Stressor............................................................\....4

1.2 Potential Risks to Non-target
Organisms.......................................\... .......5

1.3 Conclusions - Exposure
Characterization................................................9

1.4 Conclusions - Effects
Characterization..................................................10

1.5 Uncertainties and Data
Gaps..............................................................12

2 PROBLEM FORMULATION

2.1 Stressor Source and
Distribution................................................\...\...\.....13

2.1.1 Environmental Fate
Summary................................................\...14

2.1.2 Pesticide Type, Class and Mode of
Action....................................14

2.1.3 Use
Characterization..............................................................14

2.2 Assessment
Endpoints..................................................................\...15

2.2.1 Ecosystems at
Risk............................................................\....15

2.2.2 Ecological
Effects.................................................................16

2.3 Conceptual
Model.........................................................................18

2.3.1 Conceptual Model
Diagram....................................................18

2.3.2 Terrestrial
Environment......................................................\...20

2.3.3 Aquatic
Environment.........................................................\...20

2.4 Risk
Hypotheses**\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\....21**

3 ANALYSIS

3.1 Use
Characterization......................................................................
22

3.2 Exposure
Characterization................................................................22

3.2.1 Environmental Fate
Summary................................................\...22

3.2.2 Measures of Aquatic
Exposure..................................................24

3.2.2.1 Aquatic Exposure
Modeling..............................................................24

3.2.3 Measures of Terrestrial
Exposure...............................................27

3.2.3.1 Terrestrial Exposure
Modeling...........................................................28

3.3 Ecological Effects
Characterization.....................................................32

3.3.1 Aquatic and Terrestrial Effects
Characterization.............................32

3.3.1.1 Aquatic
Animals.....................................................................\...35

3.3.1.2 Terrestrial
Animals..................................................................\...39

4 RISK CHARACTERIZATION

4.1 Risk Estimation - Integration of Exposure and Effects
Data.....................\....46

4.1.1 Non-target Aquatic Animals and
Plants....................................\...49

4.1.1.1 Freshwater Fish and
Invertebrates................................................... 50

4.1.1.2 Estuarine/Marine Fish and
Invertebrates...............................................50

4.1.1.3 Aquatic
Plants........................................................................
51

4.1.2 Non-target Terrestrial
Animals................................................ 52

4.1.2.1
Birds......................................................................................53

4.1.2.2
Mammals..............................................................................\...55

4.1.2.3 Plants
...................................................................................58

4.1.3 RQs Based on Mean Kenaga
Residues........................................61

4.2 Risk Description- Interpretation of Direct
Effects.................................\....62

4.2.1 Risks to Aquatic Organisms and
Plants....................................\....62

4.2.2 Risks to Terrestrial Organisms and
Plants.................................\....62

4.2.4 Federally Threatened and Endangered (Listed)
Species....................68

4.2.4.1 Action Area
............................................................................68

4.2.4.2 Taxonomic Groups Potentially at
Risks...............................................68

4.3 Description of Assumptions, Limitations, Uncertainties, and Data
Gaps......\...74

4.3.1 Assumptions and Limitations Related to Exposure for all
Taxa............\....76

4.3.2 Assumptions and Limitations Related to Exposure for Aquatic
Species .....76

4.3.2 Assumptions and Limitations Related to Exposure for Terrestrial
Species\...77

References.......................................................................................\...84

APPENDIX A. Data Requirements for
Mefluidide..........................................85

APPENDIX B. Bibliography for Environmental Fate and Chemical
Structures........86

APPENDIX C. Aquatic Exposure Modeling Assessment - PRZM/EXAMS
Outputs..87

APPENDIX D. Terrestrial Exposure Modeling Assessment- TREX and
TerrPlant.....99

APPENDIX E. Ecological Effects Characterization for
Mefluidide..................\...114

APPENDIX F. Guideline Sequence Bibliography for Ecological
Effects..............134

APPENDIX G. Risk Quotient
Method...................................................\....138

APPENDIX H. ECOTOX
Results............................................................140

**1. Executive Summary**

1.1 Nature of Stressor

> Mefluidide is a post-emergent, anilide growth regulator used to
> control ornamental and non-ornamental woody plants, ground cover,
> hedges trees, turf grasses, grass and broadleaf weeds. It is also
> registered for growth control of low maintenance turf on
> rights-of-ways, airports, and industrial sites. It is formulated as
> the mefluidide, diethanolamine salt of mefluidide (mefluidide-DEA),
> and potassium salt of mefluidide (mefluidide-K). Based on the ionic
> nature of mefluidide-K and mefluidide-DEA and two unreviewed
> dissociation studies, mefluidide-K and mefluidide-DEA will dissociate
> rapidly and completely to form mefluidide acid. The two unreviewed
> dissociation studies (MRIDs 422833-01 and 42282001) indicated
> mefluidide-K completely dissociated in 7 minutes and mefluidide-DEA
> completely dissociated in 3 minutes. Mefluidide acid is in
> equilibrium[^1] with mefluidide (Figure 1). In order to assess the
> environmental fate and effects of mefluidide-K, mefluidide-DEA,
> mefluidide, the risk assessment strategy was to bridge the
> environmental fate and ecological toxicity data for the mefluidide,
> mefluidide-K, and mefluidide-DEA to the formation of mefluidide acid.
> For purposes of this assessment, mefluidide acid will be used as an
> analog for mefluidide, mefluidide-DEA and mefluidide-K.

**Figure 1. Enol-Keto Equilibrium of Mefluidide-K and Mefluidide**

The acetamide functional group in mefluidide exhibits in a enol-keto
equilibrium with mefluidide acid . This equilibrium is expected to favor
the formation of the keto form (mefluidide) over the enol form
(mefluidide acid) (Morrison and Boyd, 1976).

2.  Potential Risk to Non Target Organisms

Number range CHAPTERThis screening-level (Level I) risk assessment
focused on the use of mefluidide-K, mefluidide-DEA, and mefluidide on
ornamental and turf areas. Results suggest that levels of mefluidide in
the environment, when compared with measured toxicity for the most
sensitive organisms of selected taxa, are likely to result in direct
risks to listed and non-listed species from several different taxa.
Indirect risks are also identified for listed and non-listed non-target
organisms.

For the aquatic assessment, estimated environmental concentrations
(EECs) in surface water were calculated for mefluidide acid using the
Tier II PRZM/EXAMS models and employing maximum label application rates
for mefluidide, mefluidide-K, mefluidide-DEA. Turf application scenarios
in Florida and Pennsylvania were modeled for the exposure assessment.

This screening level risk assessment shows that use of **mefluidide is
below the Agency's level of concern for direct acute (listed and
non-listed) and chronic toxic exposure to aquatic freshwater and
estuarine marine organisms and acute aquatic plants**. In contrast, the
use of **mefluidide** **is above the Agency's level of concern for
direct acute (listed and nonlisted) and chronic toxic exposure to
mammals, birds and acute (listed and nonlisted) exposure to terrestrial
and semi aquatic plants.**

The following toxicity data was not available for Agency review^3^:

-   Chronic freshwater fish (72-5)

-   Chronic freshwater invertebrates (72-4 b)

-   Chronic estuarine marine fish (72-4 a)

-   Chronic estuarine marine invertebrates (72-4 b)

-   Seedling emergence (123-1 a)

-   Chronic bird (74-1)

-   (EC~05~ or NOAEC) was not provided for vascular and nonvascular
    plants (123-2)

-   In the absence of data, EFED:

    -   Used available toxicity data of propanil[^2] a structurally
        similar anilide herbicide

    -   Assumed that EC~25~ toxicity values for terrestrial plants
        (vegetative vigor) are equivalent to (seedling emergence)
        measurement endpoints

    -   Used available data from mefluidide mammal toxicity data to
        evaluate chronic toxicity to birds.

        The Tier I terrestrial plant model, TERRPLANT, was used to
        assess risks to terrestrial and semi-aquatic plants. LOCs were
        exceeded for both terrestrial and semi-aquatic plants (monocots
        and dicots) for both spray and granular applications. All the
        above modeled scenarios with T-REX and TERRPLANT are summarized
        in APPENDIX D. Specific direct risks of concern to non-target
        terrestrial organisms are summarized as follows:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Mammalian Acute Listed** LOCs were exceeded for 15 g and 35 g
    mammals exposed to application rates for mefluidide-DEA and
    mefluidide-K (1.0 lb ae/A at 3 applications) consuming short grass,
    broadleaf plants, or small insects and 1000 g mammals that consume
    short grass.

-   **Mammalian Acute Listed** LOCs were exceeded for the LD~50~s/sq-ft
    for 15g and 35 g mammals based on one granular application of
    mefluidide at 0.5 lbs ae/acre.

-   **Mammalian Acute Restricted Use** LOCs were exceeded for 15 g and
    35 g mammals that consume short grass exposed to application rates
    for mefluidide-DEA and mefluidide-K ( 1.0 lb ae/A at 3
    applications).

-   **Mammalian Acute Restricted Use** LOCs were exceeded for the
    LD~50~s/sq-ft for small and medium-sized mammals based on one
    granular application of mefluidide at 0.5lbs ae/acre.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Mammalian Chronic** LOCs (dose-based) were exceeded for 15 g
    mammals that consume short grass exposed to application rates for
    mefluidide-DEA and mefluidide-K (1.0 lb ae/A at 3 applications)

-   **Avian Acute Listed** LOCs were exceeded for 20 g birds that
    consume short grass, tall grass and broadleaf plants and small
    insects and 100 g birds that consume short grass for the 1.0 lb ae/A
    modeled scenario. Non-definitive toxicity endpoints do not allow for
    calculations of definitive RQs, however the ratio of non- definitive
    endpoints (EECs) in this case results in acute RQs ranging from
    \<0.0 to \<0.25.

-   **Avian Acute Listed** LOCs were exceeded for the LD~50~s/sq-ft for
    20 g birds based on one granular application of mefluidide at 0.5
    lbs ae/acre.

-   **Avian Acute Restricted Use** LOCs were exceeded for 20 g birds
    that consume short grass for the 1.0 lba ae/A application rate
    modeled scenario. Non-definitive toxicity endpoints do not allow for
    calculations of definitive RQs, however the ratio of non- definitive
    endpoints (EECs) in this case results in acute RQs of \< 0.25.

-   **Avian Acute Restricted Use** LOCs were exceeded for the
    LD~50~s/sq-ft for 20 g birds based on one granular application of
    mefluidide at 0.5 lbs ae/acre.

-   **Avian Chronic** LOCs (dietary-based) exceedances occurred for
    birds for the 1.0 lb ae/A modeled scenario. Non-definitive toxicity
    endpoints do not allow for calculations of definitive RQs, however
    the ratio of non- definitive endpoints (EECs) in this case results
    in acute RQs ranging from 2.9 to 6.32.

-   **Terrestrial and Semi-aquatic Plants (Listed Species and Non-Listed
    Species)** LOCs were exceeded for monocots and dicots with the 1.0
    lb ae/A spray applications of mefluidide-K and mefluidide-DEA. LOCs
    were exceeded for dicots and monocots (granular applications) with
    0.5 lb ae/acre of mefluidide. Dicots demonstrated more sensitivity
    than monocots in all application scenarios.

A summary of the potential for direct and indirect effects to listed
species, summarized by taxonomic group, is provided in **Table 1.1**.

The results of this risk assessment suggest that the patterns of
mefluidide use are such that they coincide in time and space to areas
frequented by avian and mammalian wildlife. These areas have been
demonstrated as use by wildlife as sources of food and cover. The
potentially problematic wildlife food items suggested by this risk
assessment are likely to be present in and around the treated areas. In
addition, there is potential for indirect effects to all taxonomic
groups due to changes in habitat caused by vegetation changes. Some uses
of mefluidide may not pose a threat for avian and mammalian wildlife,
such as industrial sites that are not frequented by wildlife

+---------------------+----------------------------+------------------+
| Table 1. 1 Listed   |                            |                  |
| Species Risks       |                            |                  |
| Associated With     |                            |                  |
| Direct or Indirect  |                            |                  |
| Effects Due to      |                            |                  |
| Applications of     |                            |                  |
| Mefluidide          |                            |                  |
+=====================+============================+==================+
| **Listed Taxonomy** | **Direct Effects**         | **Indirect       |
|                     |                            | Effects**        |
+---------------------+----------------------------+------------------+
| **Terrestrial and   | **Yes**                    | **Yes ^c^**      |
| semi-aquatic plants |                            |                  |
| -- monocots**       |                            |                  |
+---------------------+----------------------------+------------------+
| **Terrestrial and   | **Yes**                    | **Yes ^c^**      |
| semi-aquatic plants |                            |                  |
| -- dicots**         |                            |                  |
+---------------------+----------------------------+------------------+
| **Terrestrial       | **None**                   | **Yes ^c^**      |
| invertebrates**     |                            |                  |
+---------------------+----------------------------+------------------+
| **Birds**           | **Yes (acute estimated     | **Yes            |
|                     | values), Yes(chronic       | ^c,d,\ e\ ^**    |
|                     | estimated values),**       |                  |
+---------------------+----------------------------+------------------+
| **Terrestrial phase | **Yes (acute estimated     | **Yes ^c,\ e^**  |
| amphibians**        | values), Yes(chronic       |                  |
|                     | estimated values),**       |                  |
+---------------------+----------------------------+------------------+
| **Reptiles**        | **Yes (acute estimated     | **Yes            |
|                     | values), Yes(chronic       | ^c,d,\ e^**      |
|                     | estimated values),**       |                  |
+---------------------+----------------------------+------------------+
| **Mammals**         | **Yes (acute and           | **Yes            |
|                     | chronic)**                 | ^c,\ d,\ e^**    |
+---------------------+----------------------------+------------------+
| **Aquatic vascular  | **None Acute and None      | **Yes ^c^**      |
| plants**            | (EC~05~ estimated          |                  |
|                     | values)**                  |                  |
+---------------------+----------------------------+------------------+
| **Aquatic           | **None Acute and None      | **Yes ^c^**      |
| non-vascular plants | (EC~05~ estimated          |                  |
| ^a^**               | values)**                  |                  |
+---------------------+----------------------------+------------------+
| **Freshwater fish** | **None(acute),             | **Yes ^c^**      |
|                     | None(chronic estimated     |                  |
|                     | values)**                  |                  |
+---------------------+----------------------------+------------------+
| **Aquatic phase     | **None(acute),             | **Yes ^c^**      |
| amphibians**        | Unknown(chronic) ^b^**     |                  |
+---------------------+----------------------------+------------------+
| **Freshwater        | **None (acute), None       | **Yes ^c^**      |
| crustaceans**       | (chronic estimated         |                  |
|                     | values)**                  |                  |
+---------------------+----------------------------+------------------+
| **Mollusks**        | **None (acute), None       | **Yes ^c^**      |
|                     | chronic estimated values** |                  |
+---------------------+----------------------------+------------------+
| **Marine/estuarine  | **None (acute), None       | **Yes ^c^**      |
| fish**              | (chronic estimated         |                  |
|                     | values)**                  |                  |
+---------------------+----------------------------+------------------+
| **^a^ At the        |                            |                  |
| present time no     |                            |                  |
| aquatic             |                            |                  |
| non-vascular plants |                            |                  |
| are included in     |                            |                  |
| Federal listings of |                            |                  |
| threatened and      |                            |                  |
| listed species. The |                            |                  |
| taxonomic group is  |                            |                  |
| included here for   |                            |                  |
| the purposes of     |                            |                  |
| evaluating          |                            |                  |
| potential           |                            |                  |
| contributions to    |                            |                  |
| indirect effects to |                            |                  |
| other taxonomy and  |                            |                  |
| as a record of      |                            |                  |
| exceedances should  |                            |                  |
| future listings of  |                            |                  |
| non-vascular        |                            |                  |
| aquatic plants      |                            |                  |
| warrant additional  |                            |                  |
| evaluation of       |                            |                  |
| Federal actions.**  |                            |                  |
|                     |                            |                  |
| **^b^ Terrestrial   |                            |                  |
| phase amphibians    |                            |                  |
| and reptiles        |                            |                  |
| estimated using     |                            |                  |
| birds as            |                            |                  |
| surrogates. Aquatic |                            |                  |
| amphibians          |                            |                  |
| estimated using     |                            |                  |
| freshwater fish as  |                            |                  |
| surrogates.**       |                            |                  |
|                     |                            |                  |
| **^c^ Listed and    |                            |                  |
| Non-listed LOC      |                            |                  |
| exceeded for        |                            |                  |
| terrestrial and     |                            |                  |
| semi-aquatic        |                            |                  |
| plants.**           |                            |                  |
|                     |                            |                  |
| **^d^ Listed,       |                            |                  |
| Restricted Use, and |                            |                  |
| Acute LOC exceeded  |                            |                  |
| for some feeding    |                            |                  |
| guilds and size     |                            |                  |
| classes of birds.** |                            |                  |
|                     |                            |                  |
| **^e^ Listed,       |                            |                  |
| Restricted Use, and |                            |                  |
| Chronic LOC         |                            |                  |
| exceeded for some   |                            |                  |
| feeding guilds and  |                            |                  |
| size classes of     |                            |                  |
| mammals.**          |                            |                  |
+---------------------+----------------------------+------------------+

2.  Conclusions Exposure Characterization

The risk assessment strategy is designed to bridge the environmental
fate and effects data for the mefluidide-K and mefluidide-DEA,
mefluidide to mefluidide acid. Based on the ionic nature of mefluidide-K
and mefluidide-DEA and two unreviewed dissociation studies, mefluidide-K
and mefluidide-DEA will dissociate rapidly and completely to form
mefluidide acid. The two unreviewed dissociation studies (MRIDs
422833-01 and 42282001) indicated mefluidide-K completely dissociated in
7 minutes and mefluidide-DEA completely dissociated in 3 minutes. The
reported pKa for mefluidide acid (4.6) occurs at pH\~7, with 50% or
greater dissociation at pHs ≤ 4.6. Mefluidide acid is in equilibrium[^3]
with mefluidide (Figure 1). The only degradation product identified for
mefluidide was 5-amino-2,4-dimethyltrifluoromethanesulfonilide.
Mefluidide is moderately persistent and mobile in soil. Number range
CHAPTEREstimated environmental concentrations (EECs) in surface water
were calculated for mefluidide acid using the Tier II PRZM/EXAMS models
with the maximum proposed application rates for mefluidide,
mefluidide-K, and mefluidide-DEA on turf. Estimated concentrations are
expressed in acid equivalence because mefluidide acid is a common
intermediate compound among mefluidide, mefluidide-K, and
mefluidide-DEA. Peak (1‑in-10 year) surface water EECs were
approximately 7.054 μg ae/L and 10.573 μg ae/L for the Pennsylvania Turf
and Florida turf scenarios, respectively.

Routes of exposure evaluated in this risk assessment focused on runoff
and spray drift from ground spray with mefluidide applied at application
rates of mefluidide-K and mefluidide-DEA and runoff from granular
applications with mefluidide.

For the terrestrial assessment, EECs for mefluidide were calculated
using the terrestrial Tier I model T‑REX using the maximum application
rate for mefluidide, mefluidide-K, and mefluidide-DEA. Modeling was
based on a foliar half-life of 4 days, 3 applications per season and 42
day interval. Upper bound dietary EECs for mefluidide-DEA and
mefluidide-K application rate of 1.0 lb ae/A (spray application) were
240.17 mg ae /kg on short grass, 110.08 mg ae /kg on tall grass, 135.09
mg ae /kg on broadleaf plants, or small insects and 15.01 mg ae /kg for
fruits, pods, seeds, and large insects.

For a single granular application of mefluidide at the maximum
application rate, 0.5 lbs ae/acre, the EEC was calculated as 5.21 mg
ae/sq ft. This LD~50~ / sq ft approach can only be applied for single
applications. Since the chemical is not incorporated into the soil
immediately after application, it is assumed that 100% of the material
is available to birds and mammals (USEPA 1992).

1.4 Conclusions Effects Characterization

The risk assessment strategy is designed to bridge the environmental
fate and effects data for the mefluidide-K and mefluidide-DEA,
mefluidide to mefluidide acid. Therefore, the most sensitive endpoint
for the three mefluidide compounds (mefluidide, mefluidide-K,
mefluidide-DEA) was selected to represent all mefluidide compounds for
aquatic and terrestrial organisms in each category. Most of the toxicity
endpoints are within one order of magnitude when comparing the
mefluidide and mefluidide-DEA. There was an incomplete toxicity database
on mefluidide-K to allow for comparisons of toxicity.

^**Table\ 1.2,\ 1.3\ and\ 1.4**\ provides\ a\ summary\ of\ acute\ and\ chronic\ toxicity\ data\ used\ for\ risk\ quotient\ calculation\ for\ mefluidide-K,\ mefluidide-DEA\ and\ mefluidide\ application.^

+------------------------------+------------+----------+--------------+---+
| **Table 1.2: Summary of      |            |          |              |   |
| endpoints (LC~50~ or EC~50~, |            |          |              |   |
| mg ae/L) for Aquatic         |            |          |              |   |
| Toxicity used in RQ          |            |          |              |   |
| calculations for Mefluidide  |            |          |              |   |
| ^1^**                        |            |          |              |   |
+------------------------------+------------+----------+--------------+---+
| **TAXONOMIC GROUP**          | **Acute    | *        | **MRID/**    |   |
|                              | endpoint** | *Chronic |              |   |
|                              |            | en       | **Estimated  |   |
|                              |            | dpoint** | value**      |   |
+------------------------------+------------+----------+--------------+---+
| Acute freshwater fish        | \>68.47\*  |          | MRID         |   |
|                              |            |          |              |   |
|                              | Rainbow    |          | 418937-02    |   |
|                              | Trout      |          |              |   |
+------------------------------+------------+----------+--------------+---+
| Chronic freshwater fish      |            | \>0.26   | Estimated    |   |
|                              |            | 7**^2^** | value acute  |   |
|                              |            |          | to chronic   |   |
|                              |            |          | ratio        |   |
+------------------------------+------------+----------+--------------+---+
| Acute freshwater inverts     | \>77.25\*  |          | MRID         |   |
|                              |            |          |              |   |
|                              | Daphnid    |          | 418937-03    |   |
+------------------------------+------------+----------+--------------+---+
| Chronic freshwater inverts   |            | \>5.5    | Estimated    |   |
|                              |            | 4**^2^** | value acute  |   |
|                              |            |          | to chronic   |   |
|                              |            |          | ratio        |   |
+------------------------------+------------+----------+--------------+---+
| Acute estuarine/marine fish  | \>84.75\*  |          | MRID         |   |
|                              |            |          |              |   |
|                              | Sheepshead |          | 425623-03    |   |
|                              | minnow     |          |              |   |
+------------------------------+------------+----------+--------------+---+
| Chronic estuarine/marine     |            | \>0.26   | Estimated    |   |
| fish                         |            | 7**^2^** | value acute  |   |
|                              |            |          | to chronic   |   |
|                              |            |          | ratio        |   |
+------------------------------+------------+----------+--------------+---+
| Acute estuarine/marine       | 67\*       |          | MRID         |   |
| inverts                      |            |          |              |   |
|                              | Eastern    |          | 425624-01    |   |
|                              | oyster     |          |              |   |
+------------------------------+------------+----------+--------------+---+
| Chronic estuarine/marine     |            | \>5.5    | Estimated    |   |
| inverts                      |            | 4**^2^** | value acute  |   |
|                              |            |          | to chronic   |   |
|                              |            |          | ratio        |   |
+------------------------------+------------+----------+--------------+---+

^1^For terrestrial plants data evaluating mefluidide-K, mefluidide-DEA
and mefluidide have been bridged for

the terrestrial risk assessment. \*most sensitive species tested

^2^ acute to chronic ratio from propanil extrapolation

+----------------------+-----------+---------+------------------------+
| **Table 1.3: Summary |           |         |                        |
| of endpoints (LC~50~ |           |         |                        |
| or EC~50~, mg ae/L   |           |         |                        |
| aquatic organisms)   |           |         |                        |
| for Plant Toxicity   |           |         |                        |
| used in RQ           |           |         |                        |
| calculations for     |           |         |                        |
| Mefluidide^1^**      |           |         |                        |
+----------------------+-----------+---------+------------------------+
| **TAXONOMIC GROUP**  | **Acute   | **NOAEC |                        |
|                      | e         | or      |                        |
|                      | ndpoint** | E       |                        |
|                      |           | C~05~** |                        |
+----------------------+-----------+---------+------------------------+
| Acute vascular plant | 0.515\*   |         | MRID 435266-01         |
|                      |           |         |                        |
|                      | Lemna     |         | Tier I (8% growth      |
|                      |           |         | stimulation)           |
|                      |           |         |                        |
|                      |           |         | Used this value as     |
|                      |           |         | EC~50~                 |
+----------------------+-----------+---------+------------------------+
| Vascular             |           | \>0.29  | Estimated value acute  |
| plant(EC~05~)        |           | **^2^** | to chronic ratio       |
+----------------------+-----------+---------+------------------------+
| Acute non-vascular   | 0.629\*   |         | MRID 435266-05         |
| plant                |           |         |                        |
|                      | Navicula  |         | Tier I (11.5% growth   |
|                      |           |         | reduction)             |
|                      |           |         |                        |
|                      |           |         | Used this value as     |
|                      |           |         | EC~50~                 |
+----------------------+-----------+---------+------------------------+
| Non-vascular         |           | \>0.786 | Estimated value acute  |
| plant(EC~05~)        |           | **^2^** | to chronic ratio       |
+----------------------+-----------+---------+------------------------+
| Terrestrial Plant:   | M         | Mon     | MRID 435496-01         |
|                      | onocot:\* | ocot:\* |                        |
| Vegetative Vigor     | Sorghum   | Sorghum |                        |
|                      |           |         |                        |
|                      | EC~25~    | NOAEC   |                        |
|                      | 0.105 lb  | 0.045   |                        |
|                      | ae/A      | lb ae/A |                        |
|                      |           |         |                        |
|                      | Dicot:\*  | D       |                        |
|                      | Mustard   | icot:\* |                        |
|                      | EC~25~    | Mustard |                        |
|                      | 0.0054 lb |         |                        |
|                      | ae/A      | NOAEC   |                        |
|                      |           | 0.0029  |                        |
|                      |           | lb ae/A |                        |
+----------------------+-----------+---------+------------------------+
| Terrestrial Plant:   | Monocot:  | M       | Estimated value from   |
|                      |           | onocot: | vegetative vigor study |
| Seedling Emergence   | Sorghum   | Sorghum | MRID 435496-01         |
|                      |           |         |                        |
|                      | EC~25~    | NOAEC   |                        |
|                      | 0.105 lb  | 0.045   |                        |
|                      | ae/A      | lb ae/A |                        |
|                      |           |         |                        |
|                      | Dicot:\*  | D       |                        |
|                      | Mustard   | icot:\* |                        |
|                      | EC~25~    | Mustard |                        |
|                      | 0.0054 lb |         |                        |
|                      | ae/A      | NOAEC   |                        |
|                      |           | 0.0029  |                        |
|                      |           | lb ae/A |                        |
+----------------------+-----------+---------+------------------------+

^1^For terrestrial plants data evaluating mefluidide-K, mefluidide-DEA
and mefluidide have been bridged for the terrestrial risk assessment.

^2^ acute to chronic ratio from propanil extrapolation

\*most sensitive species tested

+----------------------+-----------+---------+------------------------+
| **Table 1.4: Summary |           |         |                        |
| of endpoints (LD~50~ |           |         |                        |
| or LC~50~ mg ae/kg)  |           |         |                        |
| for Terrestrial      |           |         |                        |
| Toxicity data used   |           |         |                        |
| in RQ calculations   |           |         |                        |
| for Mefluidide^1^**  |           |         |                        |
+----------------------+-----------+---------+------------------------+
| **TAXONOMIC GROUP**  | **Acute   | **      |                        |
|                      | e         | Chronic |                        |
|                      | ndpoint** | end     |                        |
|                      |           | point** |                        |
+----------------------+-----------+---------+------------------------+
| Acute Avian          | \>1500\*  |         | MRID 416019-01         |
|                      |           |         |                        |
|                      | Bobwhite  |         | Used this              |
|                      | quail     |         | non-definitive         |
|                      |           |         | endpoint as LD50       |
+----------------------+-----------+---------+------------------------+
| Chronic Avian        |           | 38      | Estimated value acute  |
|                      |           |         | to chronic ratio based |
|                      |           |         | on mefluidide mammal   |
|                      |           |         | data                   |
+----------------------+-----------+---------+------------------------+
| Acute Dietary Avian  | \>3750\*  |         |                        |
+----------------------+-----------+---------+------------------------+
| Acute mammal         | 829.8\*   |         | MRID 00047116          |
|                      |           |         |                        |
|                      | mouse     |         |                        |
+----------------------+-----------+---------+------------------------+
| Chronic mammal       |           | 102\*   | MRID 00082748          |
|                      |           |         |                        |
|                      |           | rat     |                        |
+----------------------+-----------+---------+------------------------+

^1^For terrestrial plants data evaluating mefluidide-K, mefluidide-DEA
and mefluidide have been bridged for the terrestrial risk assessment.

^2^ acute to chronic ratio from propanil extrapolation

\*most sensitive species tested

##  Uncertainties, Assumptions, Limitations, and Data Gaps

-   Ecotoxicity data for chronic risks to birds exposed to mefluidide
    were not available. Therefore, EFED calculated estimates for
    measurement endpoints for chronic toxicity to birds by evaluating
    the available data from mammal toxicity data (acute and chronic) and
    extrapolating the findings to available data for mefluidide,
    mefluidide-DEA and mefluidide-K to estimate possible effects
    measurement endpoints. These extrapolated endpoints are uncertain
    and are not considered complete substitutes for missing effects
    data. Additional information on these estimated values are provided
    in Appendix E. Submission of a chronic bird study would quantify
    risks associated with exposure of mefluidide to birds.

-   The magnitude of toxicity to terrestrial plants is uncertain because
    only one terrestrial vegetative vigor plant study was available and
    conducted on fresh weight and not dry weight as required by EPA
    guidelines. To estimate possible effects measurement endpoints for
    seedling emergence, EFED assumed that EC~25~ toxicity values for
    terrestrial plants (vegetative vigor) are equivalent to (seedling
    emergence) measurement endpoints for mefluidide, mefluidide-DEA and
    mefluidide-K. These estimated endpoints are uncertain and are not
    considered complete substitutes for missing effects data. Additional
    information on these estimated values are provided in Appendix E.
    Submission of seedling emergence toxicity data based on dry weight
    will quantify risks associated with exposure of mefluidide to
    terrestrial plants.

-   The available dietary toxicity studies on avian species failed to
    established definitive acute LD~50~ values (i.e., the lethality
    values exceed the highest dose tested). Therefore, Number range
    CHAPTERuse of this value adds uncertainty and may overestimate risk
    to avian species. Submission of a acute bird study with definitive
    LD~50~ values would quantify risks associated with exposure of
    mefluidide to birds.

-   Exposure estimates for this screening level risk assessment focused
    on the mefluidide, mefluidide-K and mefluidide-DEA. Information or
    data is not available to evaluate degradates as a potentially
    significant contributor to aquatic risk and which may affect the
    outcome of risk conclusions are not considered in this risk
    characterization. Therefore, this assessment may require further
    analysis to evaluate degradates as a potential contributor to
    aquatic risk.

-   In all cases, EFED concluded that resulting estimated risk
    quotients, had they been based on definitive effects measurement
    endpoints, would not trigger concerns for acute or chronic risks to
    freshwater fish, chronic estuarine marine fish, chronic estuarine
    marine invertebrates, chronic freshwater invertebrates, vascular
    plants (EC~05~ or NOAEC) and non-vascular plants (EC~05~ or NOAEC).
    In contrast, EFED concluded that resulting estimated risk quotients
    for terrestrial organisms would trigger concerns for chronic risks
    to birds and (listed and nonlisted) terrestrial and semi aquatic
    plants.

1.  **Problem Formulation**

Problem formulation is used to establish the direction and scope of an
ecological risk assessment. According to the Guidelines for Ecological
Risk Assessment (USEPA, 1998), problem formulation consists of defining
the problem and purpose for the assessment, and developing a plan for
analyzing and characterizing risk. The critical components of the
problem formulation are selection of the assessment endpoints,
formulation of risk hypotheses and the conceptual model, and development
of an analysis plan. The analysis plan and supporting rationale are
aimed at determining whether the uses of mefluidide as a growth
regulator to control ornamental and non-ornamental woody plants, ground
cover, hedges trees, turf grasses, grass and broadleaf weeds, turf on
rights-of-ways, airports, and industrial sites could result in exposures
that cause unreasonable adverse effects (risk) to non-target organisms
including those federally listed as threatened or endangered (hereafter
referred to as "listed"). The maximum application rate for mefluidide
applied as ground spray is 1.0 lb ae/A for mefluidide-K and
mefluidide-DEA. The maximum application rate for mefluidide, as a
granular formulation, is 0.5 lb ae/A. Mefluidide, mefluidide-K,
mefluidide-DEA can be applied 3 times per season.

**2.1 Stressor Source and Distribution**

1.  Environmental Fate Summary

Based on the review of the environmental fate data, mefluidide is
moderately persistent and mobile in terrestrial environments. Possible
routes of dissipation for mefluidide are photodegradation on soil
surfaces, microbial mediated degradation, leaching, and runoff. There
are no aerobic aquatic metabolism data to assess the environmental fate
of mefluidide in aquatic environments.

Because a bridging strategy was employed to link mefluidide-K,
mefluidide-DEA, mefluidide to mefluidide acid, exposure estimates for
this screening level risk assessment focused on mefluidide acid.
Environmental fate data were not available to evaluate exposure for
mefluidide degradation products.

2.1.2 Pesticide Type, Class and Mode of Action

Mefluidide is an herbicide in the anilide chemical class. The mode of
action is through inhibiting plant cell division, stem elongation and
seed head development.

2.1.3 Use Characterization

Mefluidide is used to control ornamental and non-ornamental woody
plants, ground cover, hedges trees, turf grasses, grass and broadleaf
weeds. It is also registered for growth control of low maintenance turf
on rights-of-ways, airports, and industrial sites. There are multiple
active ingredient products that contain an additional plant growth
regulator and herbicides such as, paclobutrazol, imazapyr, and
imazethapyr. Current formulations include; granular, liquid-ready to
use, and soluble concentrate/liquid. Mefluidide can be applied as a band
treatment, broadcast, spot treatment, and spray. The equipment used to
apply mefluidide includes; backpack sprayer, boom sprayer, ground
equipment, hand held sprayer, handgun, hose-end sprayer, power sprayer,
pressure sprayer, and spreader.

The highest use areas for mefluidide include South Carolina, North
Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia, California, Nevada, Arizona, and New
Mexico. The maximum application rate for mefluidide applied as ground
sprays is 1.0 lb ae/A for mefluidide-K and mefluidide-DEA. The maximum
application rate for mefluidide, as a granular formulation, is 0.5 lb
ae/A. Mefluidide, mefluidide-K, mefluidide-DEA can be applied 3 times
per season.

The uses that will be included in the re-registration assessment are;
agricultural/farm structures/buildings and equipment,
agricultural/nonagricultural uncultivated areas/soils, airports/landing
fields, commercial industrial lawns, commercial institutional/industrial
premises/equipment (indoor/outdoor), golf course turf, hospitals/medical
institutions premises (human veterinary), household domestic dwellings
outdoor premises, industrial areas (outdoor), nonagricultural outdoor
buildings/structures, nonagricultural rights-of-way/fencerows/hedgerows,
ornamental and or shade trees, ornamental ground cover, ornamental
herbaceous plants, ornamental lawns and turf, ornamental non-flowering
plants, ornamental woody shrubs and vines, paths/patios, paved area
(private roads/sidewalks), recreational areas, and residential lawns.

2.2 Assessment Endpoints

2.2.1 Ecosystems Potentially at Risk

Ecosystems potentially at risk are expressed in terms of the selected
assessment endpoints. The typical assessment endpoints for
screening-level pesticide ecological risks are reduced survival and
reproductive and growth impairment for both aquatic and terrestrial
animal species. Aquatic animal species of potential concern include
freshwater fish and invertebrates, estuarine/marine fish and
invertebrates, and amphibians. Terrestrial animal species of potential
concern include birds, mammals, and beneficial insects. For both aquatic
and terrestrial animal species, direct acute and direct chronic
exposures are considered. In order to protect threatened and listed
species, all assessment endpoints are measured at the individual level.
Although endpoints are measured at the individual level, they provide
insight about risks at higher levels of biological organization (e.g.
populations and communities). For example, pesticide effects on
individual survivorship have important implications for both population
rates of increase and habitat carrying capacity.

For terrestrial and semi-aquatic plants, the screening assessment
endpoint is the perpetuation of populations of non-target species (crops
and non-crop plant species). Existing testing requirements have the
capacity to evaluate emergence of seedlings and vegetative vigor. The
endpoints of seedling emergence (estimated endpoint) and vegetative
vigor may not address all terrestrial and semi-aquatic plant life cycle
components, it is assumed that impacts at emergence and in active growth
have the potential to impact individual ability to compete and
reproductive success.

For aquatic plants, the assessment endpoint is the maintenance and
growth of standing crop or biomass. Measurement endpoints for this
assessment endpoint focus on vascular plants (*Lemna gibba*) and
non-vascular plants (i.e., green algae) growth rates and biomass
measurements.

The ecological relevance of selecting the above-mentioned assessment
endpoints is as follows: (1) complete exposure pathways exist for these
receptors; (2) the receptors may be potentially sensitive to pesticides
in affected media and in residues on plants, seeds, and insects; and (3)
the receptors could potentially inhabit areas where pesticides are
applied, or areas where runoff and/or spray drift may impact the sites
because suitable habitat is available.

**2.2.2 Ecological Effects**

Each assessment endpoint requires one or more "measures of ecological
effect," which are defined as changes in the attributes of an assessment
endpoint itself or changes in a surrogate entity or attribute in
response to exposure to a pesticide. Ecological measurement endpoints
for the screening level risk assessment are based on a suite of
registrant-submitted toxicity studies performed on a limited number of
organisms in the following broad groupings:

-   Birds (mallard duck and bobwhite quail), also used as a surrogate

for terrestrial phase amphibians and reptiles (no chronic data submitted
on birds),

-   Mammals (chronic data on laboratory rat, acute data on laboratory
    mouse),

-   Freshwater Fish (bluegill sunfish and rainbow trout), also used as a
    surrogate

for aquatic phase amphibians. (no chronic data submitted on freshwater
fish)

-   Freshwater invertebrates (waterflea) (no chronic data submitted on
    freshwater

invertebrates),

-   Estuarine/marine fish (no chronic data on estuarine/marine fish
    submitted),

-   Estuarine/marine invertebrates (no chronic data on estuarine/marine
    invertebrates

submitted),

-   Aquatic plants (freshwater and estuarine/marine).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Terrestrial Plants ( vegetative vigor, no data submitted on seedling
    emergence)

    Within each of these very broad taxonomic groups, an acute and
    chronic endpoint is selected from the available test data, as the
    data sets allow. Additional ecological effects data were available
    for other taxa and have been incorporated into the risk
    characterization as other lines of evidence, including acute contact
    and oral toxicity on honeybees and acute risk to earthworm.

    A complete discussion of all toxicity data available for this risk
    assessment and the resulting measurement endpoints selected for each
    taxonomic group are included in Section 3 of this document. A
    summary of the assessment and measurement endpoints selected to
    characterize potential ecological risks associated with exposure to
    mefluidide is provided in Table 2.2.

+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Table 2.2 Summary of Assessment   |                                   |
| Endpoints and Measures of Effect  |                                   |
| for Mefluidide, Mefluidide-DEA^1^ |                                   |
| and Mefluidide-K^1^               |                                   |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| **Assessment Endpoint**           | **Measures of Effect**            |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| 1\. Abundance (i.e., survival,    | 1a. Bobwhite quail acute oral     |
| reproduction, and growth) of      | LD~50~                            |
| individuals and populations of    |                                   |
| birds                             | 1b. Bobwhite quail and mallard    |
|                                   | duck subacute dietary LC~50~      |
|                                   |                                   |
|                                   | 1c. NOAEC estimated value         |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| 2\. Abundance (i.e., survival,    | 2a. Laboratory mouse acute oral   |
| reproduction, and growth) of      | LD~50~                            |
| individuals and populations of    |                                   |
| mammals                           | 2b. Laboratory rat LD~50~         |
|                                   |                                   |
|                                   | 2c. Laboratory rat chronic NOAEC  |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| 3\. Survival of individuals and   | 3a. Rainbow trout and bluegill    |
| communities of freshwater fish    | sunfish acute LC~50~              |
| and invertebrates                 |                                   |
|                                   | 3b. Water flea acute EC~50~       |
|                                   |                                   |
|                                   | 3\. NOAEC estimated values        |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| 4\. Survival of individuals and   | 4 a. Sheepshead minnow LC~50~     |
| communities of estuarine/marine   |                                   |
| fish and invertebrates            | 4 b. Eastern oyster EC~50~        |
|                                   |                                   |
|                                   | 4 d. NOAEC estimated values       |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| 5\. Survival of beneficial insect | 5a. Honeybee acute contact LD~50~ |
| populations                       |                                   |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| 6\. Maintenance and growth of     | 6a. Vascular plant (i.e.,         |
| individuals and populations of    | *Lemna*) EC~50~ values for growth |
| aquatic plants from standing crop | rate and biomass measurements     |
| or biomass                        |                                   |
|                                   | 6b. Non-vascular plant (i.e.,     |
|                                   | *Navicula*) EC~50~ values for     |
|                                   | growth rate and biomass           |
|                                   | measurements                      |
|                                   |                                   |
|                                   | 6c.EC05s estimated values for     |
|                                   | vascular and non-vascular plants  |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| 7\. Maintenance and growth of     | 7a. Vegetative Vigor EC~25~       |
| individuals and populations of    | values for growth rate and        |
| terrestrial plants from standing  | biomass measurements              |
| crop or biomass                   |                                   |
|                                   | 7\. Seedling Emergence EC~25~     |
|                                   | estimated values for growth rate  |
|                                   | and biomass measurements          |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+

LD~50~ = Lethal dose to 50% of the test population.

LC~50~ = Lethal concentration to 50% of the test population.

EC~50~/EC~25~ = Effect concentration to 50%/25% of the test population.

NOAEC = No observed adverse effect level.

LOAEC = Lowest observed adverse effect level.

^1^ The risk assessment strategy is designed to bridge the environmental
fate and effects data for the mefluidide-K and mefluidide-DEA to
mefluidide. Therefore, the most sensitive endpoint for the three
mefluidide compounds (mefluidide, mefluidide-K, mefluidide-DEA) was
selected to represent all mefluidide compounds for aquatic and
terrestrial organisms in each category.

3.  Conceptual Model

    In order for a chemical to pose an ecological risk, it must reach
    ecological receptors in biologically significant concentrations. An
    exposure pathway is the means by which a contaminant moves in the
    environment from a source to an ecological receptor. For an
    ecological exposure pathway to be complete, it must have a source, a
    release mechanism, an environmental transport medium, a point of
    exposure for ecological receptors, and a feasible route of exposure.
    In addition, the potential mechanisms of transformation (i.e., which
    degradates may form in the environment, in which media, and how
    much) must be known, especially for a chemical whose
    metabolites/degradates are of greater toxicological concern. In this
    assessment, mefluidide is only assessed. The assessment of
    ecological exposure pathways, therefore, includes an examination of
    the source and potential migration pathways for constituents, and
    the determination of potential exposure routes (e.g., ingestion,
    inhalation, and dermal absorption).

    The source and mechanism of release of mefluidide and its salts is
    ground application (spray and granular) and is an herbicide growth
    regulator used to control ornamental and non-ornamental woody
    plants, ground cover, hedges trees, turf grasses, grass and
    broadleaf weeds. It is also registered for growth control of low
    maintenance turf on rights-of-ways, airports, and industrial sites.
    The conceptual model and subsequent analysis of exposure and effects
    are all based on mefluidide. Surface water runoff from the areas of
    application is assumed to follow topography. Additional release
    mechanisms include spray drift, and wind erosion, which may
    potentially transport site-related contaminants to the surrounding
    air. Potential emission of volatile compounds is not considered as a
    viable release mechanism for mefluidide of because of a low Henry's
    Constant (2.27E^-7^ atm m^3^/mol). The conceptual model shown in
    **Figure 2.1** generically depicts the potential source of
    mefluidide, release mechanisms, abiotic receiving media, and
    biological receptor types.

2.3.1 Conceptual Model Diagram

The conceptual model employs a bridging strategy to account for the
dissociation of mefluidide-K and mefluidide-DEA with the formation of
form mefluidide acid. Additionally, mefluidide is in a keto-enol
equilibrium with mefluidide acid. Therefore, the conceptual model is
focused on the fate and disposition of mefluidide acid in the
environment, and mode of application (e.g., ground spray and granular
application). A conceptual model (**Figure 2.1**) was developed that
represents the possible relationships between the stressor, ecological
endpoints, and the measurement endpoints. Risk to non-target animals is
also possible from dermal contact or inhalation, but because these are
not considered in the risk assessment, they are not shown in the diagram
below.

**Figure 2.1) Conceptual Model^1^**

^1^ Shaded areas in the conceptual model are not assessed in the risk
assessment.

2.3.2 Number range CHAPTERTerrestrial Environment

The highest mefluidide residue levels are expected to be located on the
surface soil and on foliage (e.g., short and tall grasses, broadleaf
weeds), seeds, and insects on the treated agriculture field immediately
following ground spraying.

While spray drift may result in transport of mefluidide to off-target
field surface soil, foliage, and insects, the highest concentrations for
these media are still expected to be those in the treated field. Birds,
mammals, reptiles, and amphibians that ingest foliage, insects and/or
soil invertebrates from either the treated area or from spray drift
impacted areas are potentially exposed to mefluidide residues in their
diet. Endpoints were included that represented reduced survival, growth,
and reproduction in these taxonomic groups from dietary exposure.
Because toxicity data for reptiles and terrestrial-phase amphibians are
rarely available, risk assessment results for birds were used as
surrogates to assess risks to reptiles and terrestrial-phase amphibians
(USEPA 2004).

These animals may also be exposed to mefluidide by other exposure routes
not accounted for in this risk assessment, such as incidental ingestion
of the soil; dermal contact with the surface of the foliage or soil,
direct impingement of sprayed material on the body at time of
application , residues on dust particulates; and/or ingestion of
residues in drinking water sources such as dew that form on plants and
soil, puddles on the field or in spray drift impacted areas at the time
of application or which form after a rain event, and/or surface water in
spray drift and runoff impacted areas. Because of the low octanol/water
partitioning coefficient (log K~ow~=1.97; K~ow~=94.5) and a low Henry's
Constant of (2.27E^-7^ atm m^3^/mol) concerns for dermal and inhalation
exposure would be minimal. Additional exposure pathways and routes
following application includes uptake of mefluidide by plants from soil
which can then be ingested by wildlife and which can then be ingested by
other wildlife (i.e., food chain transfer).

Mefluidide may reach off-field terrestrial or riparian/wetland
vegetation environments in spray drift at the time of application.
Following a rain event mefluidide, may also reach off-field terrestrial
or riparian/wetland vegetation environments in sheet and channel flow
runoff.

2.3.3 Aquatic Environment

Direct application of mefluidide to streams, lakes, and ponds is
forbidden by the product label. The highest mefluidide residue levels
are expected to be located in surface waters adjacent to treated
agricultural fields at the time of application due to spray drift and/or
from runoff after a rain event.

Because mefluidide is moderately persistent in soils and has a low soil:
water partition coefficient, there is high likelihood of transport by
runoff. Exposure estimates for this screening level risk assessment
focused on mefluidide. Information or data was not available to evaluate
degradates as a potentially significant contributor to aquatic risk and
is not considered in this risk characterization. Fish, amphibians, and
aquatic invertebrates that live in aquatic environments are potentially
exposed to mefluidide residues in surface water by direct contact of
their integument (covering of the body or a part such skin, gill
membranes, cuticle, etc.) and via uptake through their gills or
integument. Assessment endpoints were selected to assess reduced
survival, growth, and reproduction in these taxonomic groups from
combined direct contact with integument and uptake across the gill or
integument. Because toxicity data for amphibians are rarely available,
addressing risks for fish were used as a surrogate to assess risks to
amphibians (USEPA 2004). Aquatic plants may be potentially exposed by
contact with mefluidide residues in surface water or through sorption
and uptake through roots from water compartments or across cell walls.

Leaching (infiltration/percolation) may result in transport of
mefluidide through the soil column into groundwater which may, in some
circumstances, flow into a surface water body. However, groundwater and
surface water interactions are not in the exposure estimates for
evaluating ecological risks.

Bioaccumulation of mefluidide in fish tissue is not expected due to a
low octanol water partitioning coefficient (log K~ow~=1.97; K~ow~=94.5).
Mefluidide was not found to substantially accumulate (BCF = 0 to 1.11)
in catfish tissues during bioconcentration studies (Accession Number
226851).

2.4 Risk Hypothesis

-   Terrestrial vertebrates (birds, mammals, reptiles, terrestrial-phase
    amphibians) are subject to adverse direct effects such as reduced
    survival, growth, and reproduction when exposed to mefluidide
    residues as a result of labeled use of the pesticide.

-   Non-target terrestrial plants are subject to adverse effects such as
    reductions in vegetative vigor and seedling emergence when exposed
    to mefluidide residues as a result of labeled use of the pesticide.

-   Aquatic invertebrates, fish, and amphibians in surface waters
    (freshwater or saltwater) receiving spray drift or runoff from
    treated fields following mefluidide application are subject to
    adverse effects such as reduced reproduction, growth, and survival
    when exposed to mefluidide residues as a result of labeled use of
    the pesticide. Aquatic plants may be potentially exposed by contact
    with mefluidide residues in surface water or through sorption and
    uptake through roots from water compartments or across cell walls.

3 ANALYSIS

3.1 Use Characterization

Mefluidide is used to control ornamental and non-ornamental woody
plants, ground cover, hedges trees, turf grasses, grass and broadleaf
weeds. It is also registered for growth control of low maintenance turf
on rights-of-ways, airports, and industrial sites. There are multiple
active ingredient products that contain an additional plant growth
regulator and herbicides such as, paclobutrazol, imazapyr, and
imazethapyr. Current formulations include; granular, liquid-ready to
use, and soluble concentrate/liquid. Mefluidide can be applied as a band
treatment, broadcast, spot treatment, and spray. The equipment used to
apply mefluidide includes; backpack sprayer, boom sprayer, ground
equipment, hand held sprayer, hose-end sprayer, power sprayer, pressure
sprayer, and spreader.

The highest use areas for mefluidide include South Carolina, North
Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia, California, Nevada, Arizona, and New
Mexico. The maximum application rate for mefluidide applied as ground
spray is 1.0 lb ae/A for mefluidide-K and mefluidide-DEA. The maximum
application rates for mefluidide, as a granular formulation, is 0.5 lb
ae/A. Mefluidide, mefluidide-K and mefluidide-DEA can be applied 3 times
per season.

The uses that will be included in the reregistration assessment are:
agricultural/farm structures/buildings and equipment,
agricultural/nonagricultural uncultivated areas/soils, airports/landing
fields, commercial industrial lawns, commercial institutional/industrial
premises/equipment (indoor/outdoor), golf course turf, hospitals/medical
institutions premises (human veterinary), household domestic dwellings
outdoor premises, industrial areas (outdoor), nonagricultural outdoor
buildings/structures, nonagricultural rights-of-way/fencerows/hedgerows,
ornamental and or shade trees, ornamental ground cover, ornamental
herbaceous plants, ornamental lawns and turf, ornamental non-flowering
plants, ornamental woody shrubs and vines, paths/patios, paved area
(private roads/sidewalks), recreational areas, and residential lawns.

3.2 Exposure Characterization

3.2.1 Environmental Fate and Transport Characterization

The risk assessment strategy is designed to bridge the environmental
fate data for the mefluidide-K, mefluidide-DEA, mefluidide to mefluidide
acid. Based on the ionic nature of mefluidide-K and mefluidide-DEA and
two unreviewed dissociation studies, mefluidide-K and mefluidide-DEA
will dissociate rapidly and completely to form mefluidide acid. The two
unreviewed dissociation studies (MRIDs 422833-01 and 42282001) indicated
mefluidide-K completely dissociated in 7 minutes and mefluidide-DEA
completely dissociated in 3 minutes. The reported pKa for mefluidide
acid is 4.6. These data suggest complete dissociation of mefluidide acid
is expected to occur at pH\~7 (Figure 2), with 50% or greater
dissociation at pHs ≤ 4.6. Mefluidide exhibits an enol-keto equilibrium
with mefluidide acid (Figure 1).

**Figure 2: Fraction of Undissociated Mefluidide as a Function of pH**

![](media/image1.wmf)

Possible routes of dissipation for mefluidide are photodegradation on
soil surfaces, microbial mediated degradation, leaching, and runoff.
Mefluidide is not prone to abiotic hydrolysis or photolysis in sterile
buffer solutions within the environmentally relevent pH range of 4 to 9
(Accession No. 226846, MRID 42935401). There are data showing mefluidide
undergoes rapid photodegradation (t~1/2~ = 2 to 3 days) in natural well
water (Accession No. 226851). On soil surfaces, mefluidide photodegraded
with a half-life of

4.85 days. Nine unidentified photodegradation products were detected in
the soil (MRID 43040801).

Mefluidide in aerobic soils degraded with a half-life of 12 days (MRID
43162201). The only degradation product was
5-amino-2,4-dimethyltrifluoromethanesulfonilide. It was found at a
maximum daily concentration of 2.8% of applied mefluidide at 22 days
post-treatment. Diethanolamine is a degradation product of
mefluidide-DEA. Non-extractable radiolabeled mefluidide residues
accounted for 32 to 37% are 366 days post-treatment. Evolved CO~2~
accounted for 20.9% at 366 days posttreatment mefluidide was stable (t
~1/2~ \> 1 year) in anaerobic environments (MRID 43120001).

Mefluidide has Freundlich adsorption coefficients of 0.22 (1/n=0.35) in
sand, 0.14 (1/n=0.95) in silt loam soil, 0.083 (1/n=1.3) in clay soil,
and 0.11 (1/n=1.0) in sand sediment (MRID 42998201). There was no
relationship of soil OC content and Kd. Aged residues of mefluidide were
detected in the leachate of aged residue soil column leaching studies
(MRID 43020801).

Mefluidide dissipated with a half-life of 2.0 to 3.3 days in warm-season
turf soil in Georgia and 1.2 to 1.4 days in cool-season grass soil in
Missouri (MRID 43276802 and 43276801). It was not detected in soil
samples at depths greater than 6 inches. Degradation products were not
evaluated in the field dissipation studies. Mefluidide dissipated from
grass foliage at half-lives of 1.7 to 6.91 days (upper 90^th^ percentile
of mean half-life=4.0414 day, k=0.1715 days^-1).^

Bioaccumulation of mefluidide in fish tissue is not expected due to a
low octanol water partitioning coefficient (log Kow=1.97; Kow=94.5). It
also was not found to substantially accumulate (BCF = 0 to 1.11) in
catfish tissues during bioaccumulation studies (Accession Number
226851).

There are no environmental fate data on 5-amino-2,
4-dimethyltrifluoro-methane-sulfonilide. Diethanolamine (DEA) degrades
rapidly (t~1/2~= 1.7 to 5.8 days) in aerobic soil and water environments
(MRID 43685901, 43685902, 44439401). In contrast, DEA is persistent
(t~1/2~= 990 days) in anaerobic aquatic environments (MRID 43882901).
Degradation products of diethanolamine are glycine, ethanolamine, and
CO~2~.

3.2.2 Measures of Aquatic Exposure

3.2.2.1 Aquatic Exposure Modeling

PRZM (3.12 beta) and EXAM (2.97.5) using PE4V01.pl (August 13, 2003)
were used to estimate mefluidide residue concentrations in surface
water. Because mefluidide use is associated with turf, the aquatic
exposure assessment was conducted using the PA and FL turf scenarios.
These use scenarios were selected to represent of rights-of-way,
residential turf, industrial areas with turf (i.e., airports, etc.), and
golf courses. It is important to note that all mefluidide uses (i.e.,
spot treatments, etc.) were expressed on a lbs ae/A basis. This approach
is expected to be conservative because it assumes 100% of the watershed
is treated with mefluidide. Application rates of mefluidide are
expressed in acid equivalence to address the bridging of mefluidide-K,
mefluidide-DEA, mefluidide to the assigned stressor (the two forms of
mefluidide: enol/keto; same molecular weight). Table 3.4 contains a
summary of the various labled application rates which suggests that the
maximum rate is that of mefluidide-DEA. Foliar dissipation half-lives
for mefluidide were estimated from field dissipation studies for
warm-season and cool season grasses (MRID 43276801 and MRID 43276802).
PRZM /EXAMS input parameters for mefluidide are shown in **Table 3.1**.
Estimated environmental concentrations are shown in **Table 3.2.**

+-------------------------------+-----------+--------------------------+
| **Table 3.1. Input Parameters |           |                          |
| for Mefluidide Acid for       |           |                          |
| PRZM/EXAMS Modeling for       |           |                          |
| Aquatic Exposure Assessment** |           |                          |
+-------------------------------+-----------+--------------------------+
| **Variable Description**      | **Input   | **Source of              |
|                               | Value**   | Info/Reference**         |
+-------------------------------+-----------+--------------------------+
| Application date(s)           | 15/05     | Product label            |
| (day/mo/yr)                   |           |                          |
+-------------------------------+-----------+--------------------------+
| Number of Applications        | 3         | Label Recommendation     |
+-------------------------------+-----------+--------------------------+
| Application Interval (days)   | 42 days   | Label Recommendation     |
+-------------------------------+-----------+--------------------------+
| Incorporation depth (cm)      | Default=0 | Product label            |
+-------------------------------+-----------+--------------------------+
| Application rate (kg a.e.     | Acid-     | Bead Use Closure         |
| ha^-1^)                       | 0.56      | Memorandum               |
|                               |           |                          |
|                               | DEA salt- |                          |
|                               | 1.12      |                          |
|                               |           |                          |
|                               | K salt-   |                          |
|                               | 1.12      |                          |
+-------------------------------+-----------+--------------------------+
| Application efficiency        | 0.99      | Spray Drift Task Force   |
| (fraction)                    |           | Data                     |
+-------------------------------+-----------+--------------------------+
| Spray drift fraction: For     | 0.01      | Spray Drift Task Force   |
| aquatic ecological exposure   |           | Data                     |
| assessment, use 0.05 for      |           |                          |
| aerial spray; 0.01 for ground |           |                          |
| spray. For drinking water     |           |                          |
| assessment, use 0.16 for      |           |                          |
| aerial 0.064 for ground       |           |                          |
| spray.                        |           |                          |
+-------------------------------+-----------+--------------------------+
| Foliar extraction (frac./cm   | 0.5 is    | Default or field data    |
| rain)                         | the       |                          |
|                               | default   |                          |
|                               | unless    |                          |
|                               | field     |                          |
|                               | data is   |                          |
|                               | available |                          |
+-------------------------------+-----------+--------------------------+
| Decay rate on foliage (       | T~1/      | Derived as 90^th^        |
| days-1)                       | 2~=4.0414 | percentile of the mean   |
|                               | days      | foliar dissipation       |
|                               |           | half-life from field     |
|                               | Rate      | dissipation studies.     |
|                               | constant  | This value also used for |
|                               | =         | terrestrial modeling     |
|                               | 0         | (MRID 43276801 MRID      |
|                               | .1715/day | 43276802).               |
+-------------------------------+-----------+--------------------------+
| Volatilization rate from      | 0.0 is    | Default or field data    |
| foliage (day-1)               | the       |                          |
|                               | default   |                          |
|                               | unless    |                          |
|                               | field     |                          |
|                               | data is   |                          |
|                               | available |                          |
+-------------------------------+-----------+--------------------------+
| Plant uptake factor (frac. of | 0.0       | Default                  |
| evap)                         |           |                          |
+-------------------------------+-----------+--------------------------+
| Aerobic soil metabolism       | T~1/2~    | MRID 43162201            |
| Half-life (days**)**          | =36 days  |                          |
|                               |           |                          |
|                               | E         |                          |
|                               | stimation |                          |
|                               | = 3 X 12  |                          |
|                               | days      |                          |
+-------------------------------+-----------+--------------------------+
| Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism  | Stable    | MRID 43120001            |
| Half-life (days)              |           |                          |
+-------------------------------+-----------+--------------------------+
| Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism    | 72 days   | No Data Available        |
| Half-life (days)              |           |                          |
|                               | Es        |                          |
|                               | timation= |                          |
|                               | 2 X 36    |                          |
|                               | days      |                          |
+-------------------------------+-----------+--------------------------+
| Photodegradation in Water     | Stable    | MRID 42935401            |
| Half-life (days)              |           |                          |
+-------------------------------+-----------+--------------------------+
| Adsorption Soil: Water        | 0.073     | MRID 42998201            |
| Partitioning Coefficients     | (lowest   |                          |
|                               | non-sand  |                          |
|                               | Kd)\*     |                          |
+-------------------------------+-----------+--------------------------+
| Molecular Weight (grams/mole) | 310.6     | Calculated for           |
|                               |           | Mefluidide structure     |
+-------------------------------+-----------+--------------------------+
| Henry's Constant (atm         | 2.27E^-7^ | EFED One Liner           |
| m^3^/mol)                     |           |                          |
+-------------------------------+-----------+--------------------------+
| Vapor Pressure (torr)         | 1E-4      | EFED One Liner           |
+-------------------------------+-----------+--------------------------+
| Solubility (mg/L)             | 180       | EFED One Liner           |
+-------------------------------+-----------+--------------------------+
| Chemical Application Method   | 2         | Foliar Application       |
+-------------------------------+-----------+--------------------------+

Acid equivalence was calculated using the following equations:

Mefluidide-DEA= 310 g/mole (MW mefluidide)/415.24 g/mole (MW
mefluidide-DEA)=0.75\*concentration of ai

Mefluidide-K= 310 g/mole (MW mefluidide)/348.29 g/mole (MW
mefluidide-K)=0.89\*concentration of ai

Mefluidide = 310 g/mole (MW mefluidide)/310 g/mole (MW mefluidide acid)=
1.0\* concentration of ai

\*there was no relationship of soil OC content. Therefore the lowest
non-sand Kd was used.

The 1 in 10 year peak concentration for mefluidide is not expected to
exceed 10.573 μg/L. The 1 in 10 year 21-day and 60-day average
concentrations are not expected to exceed 9.623 μg/L and 8.448 μg/L,
respectively. A major uncertainty in the assessment is the persistence
of mefluidide acid in aerobic aquatic environments. This assessment was
conducted using an estimated aerobic aquatic half-life of 72 days
(Guidance for Chemistry and Management Practice Input Parameters for Use
in Modeling the Environmental Fate and Transport of Pesticides, Version
2, 11/7/2000). Because this estimated half-life was designed to
approximate upper 90^th^ percentile of the mean half-life, it is
anticipated to be a conservative estimate of mefluidide acid persistence
in aquatic environments.

Table 3.2 Tier II Estimated Environmental Concentrations for Mefluidide
Acid

  -------------- ---------------- --------------- -------------- --------------
  **Scenario**   **Chemical**     **1 in 10 year                 
                                  Concentration                  
                                  (ug ae/L)**                    

                                  **Peak**        **21 day       **60 day
                                                  average**      average**

  FL Turf        Mefluidide       4.835           4.399          3.890

                 Mefluidide-DEA   10.573          9.623          8.448

                 Mefluidide-K     10.573          9.623          8.448

  PA Turf        Mefluidide       3.031           2.900          2.638

                 Mefluidide-DEA   7.054           6.738          6.265

                 Mefluidide-K     7.054           6.738          6.265
  -------------- ---------------- --------------- -------------- --------------

3.2.2.1 Monitoring Data

NAWQA surface or ground water monitoring data were not found for
mefluidide, mefluidide-K and mefluidide-DEA.

3.2.3 Measures of Terrestrial Exposure

The measures of exposure for terrestrial receptors in Agency ecological
risk assessments can be obtained from monitoring data, field studies,
GIS analysis, and exposure modeling. The TREX (v.1.3.1) model was used
to generate measures of exposure for terrestrial organisms that may come
in contact with areas where mefluidide may be used. This assessment
focuses on all methods of exposure for terrestrial birds and mammals as
a result of spray and granular applications of mefluidide. Other routes
of exposure, primarily dermal, inhalation, and incidental soil ingestion
were not evaluated in this assessment. The degree to which these routes
of exposure may be important compared to exposure from dietary ingestion
is an uncertainty. Even though these routes of exposure may be important
to the overall risk assessment, they require more analyses and data than
those available for a screening-level assessment. However, inhalation is
not likely to be an important exposure pathway because of the low Henrys
Constant of mefluidide (2.27E-7 atm m^3^/mole). Dermal exposure is not
likely to be an important exposure pathway because of the low
octanol/water partitioning coefficient (log K~ow~=1.97; K~ow~=94.5).
Mammalian toxicity studies for both inhalation and dermal exposure to
mefluidide indicate low acute toxicity are summarized in Appendix E.
Incidental soil ingestion is another possible route of exposure;
available data suggests that up to 15% of the diet can consist of
incidentally ingested soil depending on the species and feeding strategy
(Beyer et al, 1994). Because mefluidide is moderately persistent in
soils, incidental soil ingestion is a possible exposure pathway.

Exposure of free-ranging receptors is a function of the timing and
extent of pesticide application with respect to the location and
behavior of identified receptors. EFED's terrestrial exposure model
generates exposure estimates assuming that the receptor is present on
the use site at the time that pesticide levels are their highest.

The maximum pesticide residue concentration on food items is calculated
from both initial applications and additional applications taking into
account pesticide degradation between applications. In this assessment,
three applications of mefluidide per season are applied as recommended
by the label. Because mefluidide dissipates rapidly from turf foliage
(t~1/2~ = 4 days) and the application intervals are long (42 days), the
likelihood for carry-over of mefluidide residues between applications is
low.

The current approach to screening-level terrestrial exposure estimation
does not directly relate the timing of exposure to critical or sensitive
population, community, or ecosystem processes. Therefore, it is
difficult to address the temporal and spatial co-occurrence of
mefluidide use based on application timing, application location and
sensitive ecological processes. However, it is worth noting that
pesticides are frequently used from spring through fall, which are times
of active migrating, feeding, and reproduction for many wildlife
species. The increased energy demands associated with these activities
(as opposed to hibernation, for example) can increase the potential for
exposure to pesticide contaminated food items since agricultural areas
can represent a concentrated source of relatively easily obtained,
high-energy food items. In this assessment, the spatial extent of
exposure for terrestrial animal species is limited to the use area only.

It is assumed that given the typically lower metabolic demands of
reptiles and amphibians compared to birds, exposure to birds would be
greater due to higher relative food consumption. While this assumption
is likely true, there are no supported relationships regarding the
relative toxicity of a compound to birds and herpetofauna.

3.2.3.1 Terrestrial Exposure Modeling

Birds and Mammals

Estimated exposure concentrations for terrestrial receptors were
determined using

the standard screening-level exposure model, TREX (v.1.3.1) (US
EPA,2006). Maximum exposure levels were calculated for spray
applications of mefluidide using maximum proposed application rates,
maximum number of applications, and minimum application intervals for
all proposed uses (**Table 3.3**). These exposure estimates are based on
a database of pesticide residues on wildlife food sources associated
with a specified application rate. Essentially, for a single
application, there is a linear relationship between the amount of
pesticide applied and the amount of pesticide residue present on a given
food item. These relationships for the various food items are determined
from the Kenaga nomogram as modified by Fletcher (Hoerger and Kenaga,
1972; Fletcher et al., 1994). TREX (v.1.3.1) is a simulation model that,
in addition to incorporating the nomogram relationship, also includes
pesticide degradation in the estimation of EECs. These EEC values from
the TREX model are summarized in Appendix D

TREX calculates pesticide residues on each type of food item on a daily
interval for one year. A first order decay function is used to calculate
the residue concentration at each day based on the concentrations
present from both the initial and additional applications. The
first-order rate equation is: C~t~ = C~i~e^-kt^ Where *C~t~* is
concentration at time t (days; t= 0 initially), *C~i~* is initial
concentration after application, *k* is the foliar dissipation
half-life, and *t* is time in days. The initial concentration, *C~i~*,
is determined by multiplying the application rate by a constant specific
to a food item**.**

For the ornamental turf control application for mefluidide-DEA and
mefluidide-K at 1.0 lb a.e. of pesticide per acre the upper-bound, food
item concentration (ppm) is: 240.17 for short grass, 110.08 for tall
grass, 135.09 for broadleaf plants and small insects, and 15.01 for
fruits, pods, and large insects.

###  

The dose-based EECs (mg/kg-bw) derived above are compared with LD~50~ or
NOAEL (mg/kg-bw) values from acceptable or supplemental toxicity studies
that are adjusted for the size of the animal tested compared with the
size of the animal being assessed (e.g., 20-gram bird). These exposure
values are presented as mass of pesticide consumed per kg body weight of
the animal being assessed (mg/kg-bw). EECs and toxicity values are
relative to the animal's body weight (mg residue/kg bw) because
consumption of the same mass of pesticide residue results in a higher
body burden in smaller animals compared with larger animals. For birds,
only acute values (LD~50~s) are adjusted because dose-based risk
quotients are not calculated for the chronic risk estimation. Adjusted
mammalian LD~50~s and reproduction NOAELs (mg/kg-bw) are used to
calculate dose-based acute and chronic risk quotients for 15 g, 35 g,
and 1000 g mammals. The test weight value for the acute laboratory mouse
(20 g), (Lehman,A.J.1975), replaced the (350 g) laboratory rat value in
the TREX modeled equations. Equations and calculations for adjusted
LD~50s~ (mammals and birds) are summarized in Appendix D.

In many cases, an empirically determined foliar dissipation half-life
value is not available, in which case the default value of 35 days is
used (Willis and McDowell, 1987**).** However, a 4 day foliar
dissipation half life was estimated from field dissipation studies on
warm-season and cool season grasses (MRID 43276801 and 43276802). The
food item concentration on any given day is the sum of all
concentrations up to that day taking into account the first-order
degradation. The initial application is on day 0 (t = 0) and runs for
365 days. Over the 365 day run, the highest residue concentration is
used in calculations of the RQ.

**Table 3.3** lists exposure estimates for birds and animals obtained
from TREX simulations for all the proposed uses of mefluidide at maximum
label rates. Importantly, TREX considers exposure only in the area where
mefluidide is applied. The underlying assumption is that most, if not
all, of the applied pesticide will settle in the use area. However,
depending on weather conditions and type of application, spray drift of
pesticides may occur, increasing the likelihood of wildlife exposure
outside the use area.

+------------+------------------+------------------+------------------+
| **Table    |                  |                  |                  |
| 3.3        |                  |                  |                  |
| Estimates  |                  |                  |                  |
| of Foliar  |                  |                  |                  |
| residues   |                  |                  |                  |
| of         |                  |                  |                  |
| Mefluidide |                  |                  |                  |
| for        |                  |                  |                  |
| proposed   |                  |                  |                  |
| uses       |                  |                  |                  |
| (dietary   |                  |                  |                  |
| based      |                  |                  |                  |
| EECs)^1^** |                  |                  |                  |
+============+==================+==================+==================+
| **Use**    | **Application    | **Food Items**   | **Upper Bound    |
|            | Rate lbs. ae/A** |                  | EEC (mg/kg)**    |
|            |                  |                  |                  |
|            | **(# app /       |                  |                  |
|            | interval,        |                  |                  |
|            | days)**          |                  |                  |
+------------+------------------+------------------+------------------+
| Ornamental | 1.0              | Short grass      | 240.17           |
| Turf       |                  |                  |                  |
|            | 3 per season     |                  |                  |
| Ground     |                  |                  |                  |
| sprays     | 42               |                  |                  |
|            |                  |                  |                  |
| (          | Day interval     |                  |                  |
| Mefluidide |                  |                  |                  |
| salts      |                  |                  |                  |
| only)      |                  |                  |                  |
+------------+------------------+------------------+------------------+
|            |                  | Tall grass       | 110.08           |
+------------+------------------+------------------+------------------+
|            |                  | Broadleaf        | 135.09           |
|            |                  | plants/small     |                  |
|            |                  | insects          |                  |
+------------+------------------+------------------+------------------+
|            |                  | Fruits, pods,    | 15.01            |
|            |                  | seeds, and large |                  |
|            |                  | insects          |                  |
+------------+------------------+------------------+------------------+

^1^Predicted maximum residues for specified application rates are based
on Hoerger and Kenaga (1972) as modified by Fletcher *et al.* (1994).

The residues or estimated environmental concentrations (EECs) on food
items may be compared directly with subacute dietary toxicity data or
converted to an ingested whole body dose (single oral dose), as is the
case for small mammals and birds. Single-oral dose estimates represent,
for many pesticides, an exposure scenario where absorption of the
pesticide is maximized over a single ingestion event. Subacute dietary
estimates provide for possible effects of the dietary matrix and more
extended time of gut exposure on pesticide absorption across the gut.
However dietary exposure endpoints are limited in their utility because
the current food ingestion estimates are uncertain and may not be
directly comparable from laboratory conditions to field conditions. The
EEC is converted to an oral dose by multiplying the EEC by the
percentage of body weight consumed as estimated through allometric
relationships. These consumption-weighted EECs (i.e. EEC equivalent
dose) are determined for each food source and body size for mammals (15,
35, and 1000 g) and birds (20, 100, and 1000 g).. The EEC equivalent
doses, formulas and calculations for adjusted body weights for birds and
mammals based on 1.0 lb ae/A from TREX for turf are summarized in
**Appendix D**.

A second approach for calculation of acute RQs for birds and mammals is
the LD~50~ per ft^2^ method. This method is used to address the exposure
from granular pesticides (i.e., mefluidide). EECs for this approach are
calculated from the application rate (lbs ae/acre) and converted to mg
ae/sq ft using the formula:

lbs ae/acre \* (453590 mg/lb) \* (acre/43560 sq ft) = mg ae/sq ft.

Because the chemical is not incorporated into the soil immediately after
application, it is assumed that 100% of the material is available to
birds and mammals (USEPA 1992). For a single application of mefluidide
at 0.5 lbs ae/acre, the EEC was calculated at 5.21 mg ae/sq ft. This
approach can only be applied for single applications.

Terrestrial Plants

Terrestrial and semi-aquatic plants may be exposed to pesticides from
runoff, spray drift or volatilization. Semi-aquatic plants are those
that inhabit low-laying wet areas that may be dry at certain times of
the year. The runoff scenario in TERRPLANT 1.2.1 is: (1) based on a
pesticide\'s water solubility and the amount of pesticide present on the
soil surface and its top one centimeter, (2) characterized as \"sheet
runoff\" (one treated acre to an adjacent acre) for dry areas, (3)
characterized as \"channel runoff\" (10 acres to a distant low-lying
acre) for semi-aquatic or wetland areas, and (4) based on percent runoff
values of 0.01, 0.02, and 0.05 for water solubilities of \<10, 10-100,
and \>100 ppm, respectively. Spray drift is assumed as (1) 1% for ground
application, (2) 5% for aerial, airblast, forced air, and spray
chemigation applications, and (3) 0% for granular applications.
Currently, EFED derives plant exposure concentrations from a single,
maximum application rate only. EECs are calculated using the approach
outlined in the text box below. The EECs for terrestrial plants for a
single application of Mefluidide at the maximum label rate for
ornamental turf are presented in **Table 3.4**

+-----------+---------+---------------+---------------+--------------+
| **Table   |         |               |               |              |
| 3.4 EECs  |         |               |               |              |
| for       |         |               |               |              |
| Granular  |         |               |               |              |
| and Spray |         |               |               |              |
| App       |         |               |               |              |
| lications |         |               |               |              |
| to        |         |               |               |              |
| Te        |         |               |               |              |
| rrestrial |         |               |               |              |
| Plants    |         |               |               |              |
| Near      |         |               |               |              |
| M         |         |               |               |              |
| efluidide |         |               |               |              |
| Use Areas |         |               |               |              |
| from      |         |               |               |              |
| TerrPlant |         |               |               |              |
| (v        |         |               |               |              |
| 1.2       |         |               |               |              |
| .1)^1^.** |         |               |               |              |
+===========+=========+===============+===============+==============+
| **Ap      | **Appl  | **EECs (lbs.  |               |              |
| plication | ication | a.e A)**      |               |              |
| Rate, lbs | m       |               |               |              |
| a.e./A**  | ethod** |               |               |              |
+-----------+---------+---------------+---------------+--------------+
|           |         | **Total       | **Total       | **Drift      |
|           |         | Loading to    | Loading to    | EEC**        |
|           |         | Adjacent      | Semi-Aquatic  |              |
|           |         | Areas (sheet  | Areas         |              |
|           |         | runoff +      | (channelized  |              |
|           |         | drift)**      | runoff +      |              |
|           |         |               | drift)**      |              |
+-----------+---------+---------------+---------------+--------------+
| 1.0 lb    | ground  | 0.06          | 0.51          | 0.01         |
| ae/A      | spray   |               |               |              |
|           |         |               |               |              |
| Turf      |         |               |               |              |
+-----------+---------+---------------+---------------+--------------+
| 0.5 lb    | g       | 0.03          | 0.255         | 0.0050       |
| ae/A      | ranular |               |               |              |
|           |         |               |               |              |
| Turf      |         |               |               |              |
+-----------+---------+---------------+---------------+--------------+

^1^ For terrestrial plant (seedling emergence and vegetative vigor)
toxicity assessments, data evaluating mefluidide-K, mefluidide-DEA and
mefluidide toxicity have been bridged. Therefore, the most sensitive
Mefluidide endpoint was selected to represent terrestrial plants for all
application scenarios.

^a^ EECs for spray turf applications in this table were calculated for
the maximum labeled application rates of (1.2 lbs ae/acre) and (1.0 lbs
ae/acre) for mefluidide-DEA and mefluidide-K respectively..

**^1^**The runoff factor of 0.05 was used based on solubility of 180

Because mefluidide is a spray applied herbicide, a more in-depth spray
drift exposure assessment utilizing Tier I AgDRIFT^®^ (version 2.01)
modeling is also provided to better characterize potential exposure of
terrestrial plants. AgDRIFT^®^ utilizes empirical data to estimate
off-site deposition of aerial and ground applied pesticides, and acts as
a tool for evaluating the potential of buffer zones to protect sensitive
habitats from undesired exposures. AgDrift provided 90^th^ percentiles
estimates based on the distribution of field measurements at 10 to 900,
feet distances from the edge of field. **Table 3.5** contains EECs at
several distances from the edge of the field.

+-----------------------+--------------+------------------------------+
| **Table 3.5 Estimated |              |                              |
| environmental         |              |                              |
| concentrations (EECs) |              |                              |
| Deposition (lb        |              |                              |
| ae./acre) at          |              |                              |
| Specified Buffer      |              |                              |
| Distance From Edge of |              |                              |
| Field (feet)** **from |              |                              |
| off-target            |              |                              |
| terrestrial exposure  |              |                              |
| to Mefluidide through |              |                              |
| spray**               |              |                              |
|                       |              |                              |
| **drift derived from  |              |                              |
| Tier I AgDRIFT^®^     |              |                              |
| (version 2.01) at     |              |                              |
| varying distance from |              |                              |
| the edge of field.**  |              |                              |
+-----------------------+--------------+------------------------------+
| **Buffer Distance**   | **1.0 lb     |                              |
|                       | ae/A**       |                              |
| **From Edge of Field  |              |                              |
| (feet)**              |              |                              |
+-----------------------+--------------+------------------------------+
| 10                    | 0.0923       |                              |
+-----------------------+--------------+------------------------------+
| 20                    | 0.0437       |                              |
+-----------------------+--------------+------------------------------+
| 40                    | 0.0218       |                              |
+-----------------------+--------------+------------------------------+
| 60                    | 0.0149       |                              |
+-----------------------+--------------+------------------------------+
| 80                    | 0.0115       |                              |
+-----------------------+--------------+------------------------------+
| 100                   | 0.0095       |                              |
+-----------------------+--------------+------------------------------+
| 140                   | 0.007        |                              |
+-----------------------+--------------+------------------------------+
| 180                   | 0.0056       |                              |
+-----------------------+--------------+------------------------------+
| 200                   | 0.0051       |                              |
+-----------------------+--------------+------------------------------+
| 250                   | 0.0042       |                              |
+-----------------------+--------------+------------------------------+
| 500                   | 0.0021       |                              |
+-----------------------+--------------+------------------------------+
| 900                   | 0.0011       |                              |
+-----------------------+--------------+------------------------------+
| \* Ground application |              |                              |
| assumed conditions of |              |                              |
| low boom, ASAE very   |              |                              |
| fine to fine droplet  |              |                              |
| size, and 90^th^      |              |                              |
+-----------------------+--------------+------------------------------+

3.3 Ecological Effects Characterization

3.3.1 Aquatic and Terrestrial Effects Characterization

In screening-level ecological risk assessments, effects characterization
describes the types of effects a pesticide can produce in an animal or
plant. This characterization is based on registrant-submitted studies
and an ECOTOX database search that describe acute and chronic effects
toxicity information for various aquatic and terrestrial animals and
plants. In addition, a review of Ecological Incident Information System
(EIIS) was conducted to further refine the characterization of potential
ecological effects. **Tables 3.6,** **3.7,** **3.8,** summarize the most
sensitive ecological toxicity endpoints for aquatic organisms,
terrestrial organisms, and aquatic and terrestrial plants, respectively,
which were used for risk characterization. Discussions of the effects of
mefluidide-K, mefluidide-DEA and mefluidide on aquatic and terrestrial
taxonomic groups are presented below. Concentrations of mefluidide are
expressed in acid equivalence to address the bridging of mefluidide-K,
mefluidide-DEA, mefluidide to mefluidide acid.

Acid equivalence was calculated using the following equations:

Mefluidide-DEA= 310 g/mole (MW mefluidide)/415.24 g/mole (MW
mefluidide-DEA)=0.75 \*concentration of ai

Mefluidide-K= 310 g/mole (MW mefluidide)/348.29 g/mole (MW
mefluidide-K)=0.89 \*concentration of ai

Mefluidide acid = 310 g/mole (MW mefluidide)/310 g/mole (MW mefluidide
acid)= 1.0 \*concentration of ai

**Appendix E** summarizes the results of all of the registrant-submitted
toxicity studies for this risk assessment. Also, a search of the ECOTOX
database was completed on mefluidide. Results of Ecotox search are
listed in Appendix H. For mammals, toxicity studies are limited to the
laboratory rat. Estuarine/marine testing is limited to a crustacean, a
mollusk, and a fish. Also, no available data was available for reptiles
or amphibians. The risk assessment assumes that avian and reptilian and
terrestrial-phase amphibian toxicities are similar. The same assumption
is used for fish and aquatic-phase amphibians. The most sensitive
ecological toxicity endpoints for aquatic organisms, terrestrial
organisms, and aquatic and terrestrial plants were used for risk
characterization.

. **Table 3.6, .3.7 and 3.8** provides a summary of acute and chronic
toxicity data used for risk quotient calculation for mefluidide-K,
mefluidide-DEA and mefluidide application.

+--------------------------+--------------+-----------+---------------+---+
| **Table 3.6: Summary of  |              |           |               |   |
| endpoints (LC~50~ or     |              |           |               |   |
| EC~50~, mg ae/L) for     |              |           |               |   |
| Aquatic Toxicity used in |              |           |               |   |
| RQ calculations for      |              |           |               |   |
| Mefluidide ^1^**         |              |           |               |   |
+--------------------------+--------------+-----------+---------------+---+
| **TAXONOMIC GROUP**      | **Acute      | **Chronic | **MRID/**     |   |
|                          | endpoint**   | e         |               |   |
|                          |              | ndpoint** | **Estimated   |   |
|                          |              |           | value**       |   |
+--------------------------+--------------+-----------+---------------+---+
| Acute freshwater fish    | \>68.47\*    |           | MRID          |   |
|                          |              |           |               |   |
|                          | Rainbow      |           | 418937-02     |   |
|                          | Trout        |           |               |   |
+--------------------------+--------------+-----------+---------------+---+
| Chronic freshwater fish  |              | \>0.267   | Estimated     |   |
|                          |              |           | value acute   |   |
|                          |              |           | to chronic    |   |
|                          |              |           | ratio         |   |
+--------------------------+--------------+-----------+---------------+---+
| Acute freshwater inverts | \>77.25\*    |           | MRID          |   |
|                          |              |           |               |   |
|                          | Daphnid      |           | 418937-03     |   |
+--------------------------+--------------+-----------+---------------+---+
| Chronic freshwater       |              | \>5.54    | Estimated     |   |
| inverts                  |              |           | value acute   |   |
|                          |              |           | to chronic    |   |
|                          |              |           | ratio         |   |
+--------------------------+--------------+-----------+---------------+---+
| Acute estuarine/marine   | \>84.75\*    |           | MRID          |   |
| fish                     |              |           |               |   |
|                          | Sheepshead   |           | 425623-03     |   |
|                          | minnow       |           |               |   |
+--------------------------+--------------+-----------+---------------+---+
| Chronic estuarine/marine |              | \>0.267   | Estimated     |   |
| fish                     |              |           | value acute   |   |
|                          |              |           | to chronic    |   |
|                          |              |           | ratio         |   |
+--------------------------+--------------+-----------+---------------+---+
| Acute estuarine/marine   | 67\*         |           | MRID          |   |
| inverts                  |              |           |               |   |
|                          | Eastern      |           | 425624-01     |   |
|                          | oyster       |           |               |   |
+--------------------------+--------------+-----------+---------------+---+
| Chronic estuarine/marine |              | \>5.54    | Estimated     |   |
| inverts                  |              |           | value acute   |   |
|                          |              |           | to chronic    |   |
|                          |              |           | ratio         |   |
+--------------------------+--------------+-----------+---------------+---+

**^1^** For fish and invertebrates data evaluating mefluidide-K,
mefluidide-DEA and mefluidide have been bridged

for the runoff risk assessment.

^\*\ most\ sensitive\ species\ tested^

+------------------+-----------+----------+---------------------------+
| **Table 3.7:     |           |          |                           |
| Summary of       |           |          |                           |
| endpoints        |           |          |                           |
| (LC~50~ or       |           |          |                           |
| EC~50~, mg ae/L) |           |          |                           |
| for Plant        |           |          |                           |
| Toxicity used in |           |          |                           |
| RQ calculations  |           |          |                           |
| for              |           |          |                           |
| Mefluidide^1^**  |           |          |                           |
+------------------+-----------+----------+---------------------------+
| **TAXONOMIC      | **Acute   | **NOAEC  |                           |
| GROUP**          | e         | or       |                           |
|                  | ndpoint** | EC~05~** |                           |
+------------------+-----------+----------+---------------------------+
| Acute vascular   | 0.515\*   |          | MRID 435266-01            |
| plant            |           |          |                           |
|                  | Lemna     |          | Tier I (8% growth         |
|                  |           |          | stimulation)              |
|                  |           |          |                           |
|                  |           |          | Used this value as        |
|                  |           |          | **EC~50~,**               |
+------------------+-----------+----------+---------------------------+
| Vascular         |           | \>0.29   | Estimated value acute to  |
| plant(EC~05~)    |           |          | chronic ratio             |
+------------------+-----------+----------+---------------------------+
| Acute            | 0.629\*   |          | MRID 435266-05            |
| non-vascular     |           |          |                           |
| plant            | Navicula  |          | Tier I (11.5% growth      |
|                  |           |          | reduction)                |
|                  |           |          |                           |
|                  |           |          | Used this value as        |
|                  |           |          | **EC~50~,**               |
+------------------+-----------+----------+---------------------------+
| Non-vascular     |           | \>0.786  | Estimated value acute to  |
| plant(EC~05~)    |           |          | chronic ratio             |
+------------------+-----------+----------+---------------------------+
| Terrestrial      | M         | Mo       | MRID 435496-01            |
| Plant:           | onocot:\* | nocot:\* |                           |
|                  | Sorghum   | Sorghum  |                           |
| Vegetative Vigor |           |          |                           |
|                  | EC~25~    | NOAEC    |                           |
|                  | 0.105 lb  | 0.045 lb |                           |
|                  | ae/A      | ae/A     |                           |
|                  |           |          |                           |
|                  | Dicot:\*  | Dicot:\* |                           |
|                  | Mustard   | Mustard  |                           |
|                  | EC~25~    |          |                           |
|                  | 0.0054 lb | NOAEC    |                           |
|                  | ae/A      | 0.0029   |                           |
|                  |           | lb ae/A  |                           |
+------------------+-----------+----------+---------------------------+
| Terrestrial      | Monocot:  | Monocot: | Estimated value from      |
| Plant:           |           | Sorghum  | vegetative vigor study    |
|                  | Sorghum   |          | MRID 435496-01            |
| Seedling         |           | NOAEC    |                           |
| Emergence        | EC~25~    | 0.045 lb |                           |
|                  | 0.105 lb  | ae/A     |                           |
|                  | ae/A      |          |                           |
|                  |           | Dicot:\* |                           |
|                  | Dicot:\*  | Mustard  |                           |
|                  | Mustard   |          |                           |
|                  | EC~25~    | NOAEC    |                           |
|                  | 0.0054 lb | 0.0029   |                           |
|                  | ae/A      | lb ae/A  |                           |
+------------------+-----------+----------+---------------------------+

^1^For aquatic and terrestrial plants data evaluating mefluidide-K,
mefluidide-DEA and mefluidide have been

bridged for the terrestrial and runoff risk assessment.

\*most sensitive species tested

+---------------------+-----------+---------+--------------------------+
| **Table 3.8:        |           |         |                          |
| Summary of          |           |         |                          |
| endpoints (LD~50~   |           |         |                          |
| or LC~50~ mg ae/kg) |           |         |                          |
| for Terrestrial     |           |         |                          |
| Toxicity data used  |           |         |                          |
| in RQ calculations  |           |         |                          |
| for Mefluidide^1^** |           |         |                          |
+---------------------+-----------+---------+--------------------------+
| **TAXONOMIC GROUP** | **Acute   | **      |                          |
|                     | e         | Chronic |                          |
|                     | ndpoint** | end     |                          |
|                     |           | point** |                          |
+---------------------+-----------+---------+--------------------------+
| Acute Avian         | \>1500\*  |         | MRID 416019-01           |
|                     |           |         |                          |
|                     | Bobwhite  |         | Used this non-definitive |
|                     | quail     |         | endpoint as LD50         |
+---------------------+-----------+---------+--------------------------+
| Chronic Avian       |           | 38      | Estimated value acute to |
|                     |           |         | chronic ratio based on   |
|                     |           |         | mammal data              |
+---------------------+-----------+---------+--------------------------+
| Acute Dietary Avian | \>3750\*  |         |                          |
+---------------------+-----------+---------+--------------------------+
| Acute mammal        | 829.8\*   |         | MRID 00047116            |
|                     | mouse     |         |                          |
+---------------------+-----------+---------+--------------------------+
| Chronic mammal      |           | 102\*   | MRID 00082748            |
|                     |           | rat     |                          |
+---------------------+-----------+---------+--------------------------+

^1^For terrestrial plants data evaluating mefluidide-K, mefluidide-DEA
and mefluidide have been bridged for the

terrestrial risk assessment.

\*most sensitive species tested

3.3.1.1 Aquatic Animals

*Acute Toxicity to Freshwater Fish*

There are no acute toxicity studies for mefluidide-K or mefluidide for
bluegill sunfish (*Lepomis macrochirus*) (warm water species) or cold
water species, rainbow trout (*Oncorhynchus mykiss*).

Mefluidide-DEA is practically non-toxic to the cold water species,
rainbow trout (*Oncorhynchus mykiss*), with a non-definitive 96-hour
LC~50~ of \>68.47 mg ae/L and a NOAEC of 68.47 mg ae/L (MRID 418937-02).
No mortalities or sublethal signs of toxicity in rainbow trout were
observed with test material in any of the tested concentrations. The
mean measured concentrations were 15.2, 12.5, 24.4, 45.2, and 91.3 mg ai
/L. (11.4, 9.3, 18.3, 33.9 and 68.4 mg ae/L).

Mefluidide-DEA is practically non-toxic to the warm water species,
bluegill sunfish (*Lepomis macrochirus )* with a non-definitive 96-hour
LC~50~ of \>70.80 mg ae/L and a NOAEC of 70.80 mg ae/L (MRID 418937-01).
No mortalities or sublethal signs of toxicity in bluegill sunfish were
observed with test material in any of the tested concentrations. The
mean measured concentrations were 14.6, 19.7, 32.4, 58.3 and 94.4 mg ai
/L(10.9, 14.7, 24.3, 43.7 and 70.8 mg ae/L).

The most conservative non-definitive LC~50~ of \> 68.47 mg ae/L for
mefluidide was determined from the rainbow trout fish study with
mefluidide-DEA. Both studies were classified as acceptable based on
guidelines §72-1(a) and §72-1(c) testing requirements. These results are
summarized in Table E1.

The non-definitive LC50 of \>68.47 mg ae/L was selected for evaluating
freshwater fish for the runoff risk assessment of mefluidide-K,
mefluidide-DEA and mefluidide.

*Acute Toxicity to Estuarine/ Marine Fish*

Mefluidide is practically non-toxic to sheepshead minnow (*Cyprinodon
variegatus*), with a non-definitive 96-hour LC~50~ of \>130 mg ae/L and
a NOAEC of 130 mg ae/L (MRID 425624-03). No mortalities or sublethal
signs of toxicity in sheephead minnow were observed with test material
in any of the tested concentrations. The mean measured concentrations
were 19, 28, 45, 80, and 130 mg ae /L**.**

Mefluidide-DEA is practically non-toxic to sheepshead minnow
(*Cyprinodon variegatus*), with a non-definitive 96-hour LC~50~ of
\>84.75 mg ae/L and a NOAEC of 84.75 mg ae/L (MRID 425623-03). No
mortalities or sublethal signs of toxicity in sheephead minnow were
observed with test material in any of the tested concentrations. The
mean measured concentrations were 16, 28, 34, 68, and 113 mg ai /L (12,
21, 25.5, 51 and 84.7 mg ae/L).

The non-definitive LC50 of \>84.75 mg ae/L was selected for evaluating
estuarine marine fish exposed to mefluidide-K, mefluidide-DEA and
mefluidide for the runoff risk assessment .

*Chronic Toxicity to Freshwater Fish and Estuarine/Marine Fish*

No studies evaluating the chronic toxicity of mefluidide to freshwater
or estuarine/marine fish have been submitted to the Agency. Due to lack
of submitted chronic studies for freshwater fish estimated acute to
chronic ratios (ACRs) were derived from the propanil analog. Therefore,
the chronic NOAEC of \> 0.267 mg ae/L value for freshwater fish was
estimated from the propanil analog. Calculations and endpoints used to
determine ACRs are summarized in Appendix E

Mefluidide is practically non-toxic to estuarine marine fish and
slightly toxic to estuarine marine invertebrates on an acute basis. The
lowest acute LC~50~ values reported for estuarine marine fish and
invertebrates are \>84.75 and (57.75 and 67 mg ae/L), respectively.

There are insufficient data to establish a definitive toxicity endpoint
for estuarine/marine fish and invertebrate chronic effects for
mefluidide and DEA salt acid equivalents for mefluidide. There is also
little available data to compare to other anilide herbicides for this
taxonomic group   For the purposes of this risk assessment, it was
assumed that estuarine marine fish were at least as sensitive as
freshwater fish in terms of chronic toxicity.  Therefore, the estimated
endpoint for freshwater fish (NOAEC \>0.267 mg ae/L) was used to
estimate a chronic effects endpoint for estuarine/marine fish. The
multiple assumptions involving extrapolations across species (fathead
minnow and rainbow trout), data from a single analog (propanil) and
across freshwater and estuarine/marine conditions suggests that this
estimate maybe highly uncertain. (For more information, please see
source data in Appendix E for other anilide herbicide).

*Acute Toxicity to Freshwater Invertebrates*

Mefluidide-DEA is practically non-toxic to the waterflea (*Daphnia
magna)*, with a non-definitive 48-hr EC~50~ \>77.25mg ae/L and a NOAEC
of 77.25mg ae/L (MRID 418937-03). Mean measured concentrations were
16.2, 28.0, 41.8, 68.0 and 103 mg ai/L. (12.1, 21, 31.3, 51 and 77.2 mg
ae/L). One mortality for freshwater invertebrates occurred at the 51mg
ae/L. This death was not considered treatment related due to 100%
survival in the 77.2 mg ae/L concentration. This study is classified as
acceptable according to the §72-2 guideline requirements.

The non-definitive LC~50~ of 77.25 mg ae/L was selected for evaluating
freshwater invertebrates exposed to mefluidide-K, mefluidide-DEA, and
mefluidide for the runoff risk assessment.

The results of these tests are summarized in Appendix E, Table E2.

*Acute Toxicity to Estuarine/ Marine Invertebrates*

Mefluidide is practically non-toxic to the estuarine marine mysid
(*Mysidopsis bahia)*, with a 96-hr EC~50~ 133 mg ae/L and a NOAEC of 47
mg ae/L (MRID 425624-02). Mean measured concentrations were 16.2, 28.0,
47, 80 and 133 mg ae/L. One mortality for estuarine marine invertebrates
occurred at the 28 mg ae/L treatment level. However, this death was not
considered treatment related. By the end of the study 50% mortality had
occurred in the 133 mg ae/L treatment group. This study is classified as
acceptable according to the §72-3 guideline requirements.

Mefluidide-DEA is practically non-toxic to the estuarine marine mysid
(*Mysidopsis bahia)*, with a 96-hr EC~50~ \>94.5mg ae/L and a NOAEC of
31.5 mg ae/L (MRID 425623-02). Mean measured concentrations were 15, 26,
42, 75 and 126 mg ai/L

(11.25, 19.5, 31.5, 56.2 and 94.5 mg ae/L). One mortality to estuarine
marine mysid occurred at the 52.2 mg ae/L treatment level and 2
mortalities occurred in the 94.5 mg ae/L treatment level. No other
mortalities or sublethal effects occurred during the test. This study is
classified as acceptable according to the §72-3 guideline requirements.

Mefluidide is practically slightly toxic to the estuarine marine eastern
oyster (*Crassostrea virginica )* for shell deposition, with a 96-hr
EC~50~ 67 mg ae/L and a NOAEC of \<12 mg ae/L (MRID 425624-01). Mean
measured concentrations were 12, 21, 34, 55 and 99 mg ae/L. There were
no mortalities or observations of sublethal effects during the test. The
length measurements indicated shell growth inhibition ranging from 16.7%
in the 12 mg ae/L group to 73% in the 99 mg ae/L This study is
classified as acceptable according to the §72-3 guideline requirements.

Mefluidide-DEA is slightly toxic to the estuarine marine eastern oyster
(*Crassostrea virginica)* for shell deposition with a 96-hr EC~50~ 57.75
mg ae/L and a NOAEC of \<10.5 mg ae/L (MRID 425623-01). Mean measured
concentrations were 14, 23, 37, 61 and 98 mg ai/L.(10.5, 17.25, 27.75,
45.75 and 73.5 mg ae/L). The length measurements indicated shell growth
inhibition ranging from 11% in the 10.5 mg ae/L group to 71% in the 73.5
mg ae/L. This study had 3 study deficiencies which results in a
supplemental study. There was less than the recommended shell growth in
the control animals, contamination was present in the control groups and
the flow rate in the test chambers was less than recommended. However,
adequate dose response occurred in the study. Contamination of the
control solutions was evident, but this contamination was intermittent
and well below the NOEC. Also the results of the study correlate well
with the oyster shell deposition study done with TGAI (MRID 425624-01).
This study is classified as supplemental according to the §72-3
guideline requirements.

The EC50 of 67 mg ae/L was selected for evaluating estuarine marine
invertebrates exposed to mefluidide-K, mefluidide-DEA and mefluidide for
the runoff risk assessment. The most sensitive endpoint EC50 57.75 mg
ae/L was not selected due to study deficiencies as described above.

The results of these tests are summarized in Appendix E, **Table E2**.

*Chronic Toxicity to Estuarine/Marine Invertebrates*

No studies were submitted to the Agency evaluating the chronic toxicity
of mefluidide-DEA, mefluidide-K and mefluidide to freshwater and
estuarine marine invertebrates. Due to lack of submitted chronic studies
for freshwater invertebrates estimated acute to chronic ratios (ACRs)
were derived from the Propanil analog. Therefore, the chronic NOAEC of
\>5.54 mg ae/L value for freshwater invertebrates was estimated from the
propanil analog. Calculations and endpoints used to determine ACRs are
summarized in Appendix D

There are insufficient data to establish a definitive toxicity endpoint
for estuarine/marine invertebrate chronic effects for the acid and DEA
salt acid equivalents for mefluidide. There is also little available
data to compare to other anilide herbicides for this taxonomic group  
For the purposes of this risk assessment, it was assumed that estuarine
marine invertebrates were at least as sensitive as freshwater
invertebrates in terms of chronic toxicity.  Therefore, the estimated
endpoint for freshwater invertebrates (NOAEC \>5.54 mg ae/L) was used to
estimate a chronic effects endpoint for estuarine/marine invertebrates.
The multiple assumptions involving extrapolations with data from a
single analog (Propanil) and across freshwater and estuarine/marine
conditions suggests that this estimate maybe highly uncertain (see
source data in Appendix E for other anilide herbicide).

*Aquatic Plant Toxicity*

No studies were submitted to the Agency evaluating the acute toxicity of
mefluidide-K and mefluidide to aquatic plants. For mefluidide-DEA, the
dosage tested for *Lemna gibba* (freshwater vascular plant) was 0.515 mg
ae/L with stimulation of 8% frond growth for a Tier I study (MRID
435266-05). The dosage tested for *Selenastrum capricornutum* was 0.561
mg ae/L caused an 8% growth reduction in the exposed algal population
for a Tier I study (MRID 435266-03). For the other two species of
freshwater non-vascular plants (i.e.*, Navicula pelliculosa* and
*Anabaena flos-aquae*), Tier I studies resulted in (0.629 mg ae/L) 11.5%
growth reduction and (0.543 mg ae/L) 4.3% growth reduction, respectively
(MRIDs 435266-01 and 435266-04). For the estuarine/marine non-vascular
plant (*Skeletonema costatum*), the dosage tested was 0.575 mg ae/L
which resulted in no adverse effects for this Tier I study (MRID
4435266-02). All of the above Tier I studies are classified as
acceptable according to the 122-2 guideline requirements.

The experimental procedures and dose calculation procedures for the
range finding tests, for the above Tier I studies are basically the same
as are those for the final or definitive studies. The results of the
definitive or final aquatic plant tests are one order of magnitude more
toxic than the range finding tests. The results for both sets of studies
do not show any inhibition levels above 50%.

Due to lack of submitted aquatic plant studies for vascular and
non-vascular plants, NOAEC or EC~05~ values were estimated acute to
chronic ratios (ACRs) from the propanil analog. An EC~05~ was estimated
at \>0.029 value for vascular plants and \>0.786 mg ae/L for
non-vascular plants. The multiple assumptions involving extrapolations
with data from a single analog (propanil) suggests that this estimate
maybe highly uncertain. Calculations and endpoints used to determine
ACRs are summarized in Appendix E.

Peak EECs from the PRZM/EXAMS turf modeled scenarios ranged from
0.003031 mg ae/L to 0.010573 mg ae/L. The Tier I study for *Navicula
pelliculosa* resulted in (0.629 mg ae/L) 11.5% growth reduction. In
contrast, the Tier I study for *Lemna gibba* resulted in (0.515 mg ae/L)
8% frond growth.

The results of the above studies and the range-finding tests are
provided in **Table E4.**

2.  *Terrestrial Animals*

> *Acute oral gavage bird*

For mefluidide, an acute single-dose oral toxicity study was performed
using the bobwhite quail (*Colinus virginianus*). The 58.2% ai compound
was adjusted to 100% ai at dosing. Thirty birds were used at one dose
level of 2000 mg ae/ kg. The LD~50~ value was \>2000mg ae/kg-bw. The
results of this study categorize mefluidide as practically non-toxic to
birds on a acute oral basis. However, this study is classified as
Supplemental for an avian dietary LD ~50~ study because it is unclear
what material (TGAI, formulated product, or formulation intermediate)
was tested. No statistics were performed due to lack of mortality and no
signs of toxicity were observed. (MRID 416021-01)

For mefluidide-DEA, an acute single-dose oral toxicity study was
performed using the bobwhite quail (*Colinus virginianus*). The 21.5% ai
compound was adjusted to 100% ai at dosing. Thirty birds were used at
one dose level of 1500 mg ae/ kg. The LD~50~ value was \>1500mg
ae/kg-bw. The results of this study categorize mefluidide-DEA as
practically non-toxic to birds on an acute oral basis. However, this
study does not fulfill the requirement in support of registration and is
classified as Supplemental for an avian dietary LD ~50~ study because it
is unclear what material (TGAI, formulated product, or formulation
intermediate) was tested. No statistics were performed due to lack of
mortality and no signs of toxicity were observed (MRID 416019-01).

The above studies are summarized in **Table E5**.

*Sub acute (dietary) Toxicity to Birds*

For mefluidide, one dietary toxicity study was performed using the
mallard duck (*Anas platyrhynchos*). The 58.2% ai compound was adjusted
to 100% ai at dosing. Thirty birds were used at one dose level of 5000
mg ae/ kg diet. In the mallard duck study, the non-definitive LC~50~ was
\>5000 mg ae/kg diet. The results of this study categorize mefluidide as
practically non-toxic to birds on a dietary basis. However, this study
is classified as Supplemental for an avian dietary LC~50~ study because
it is unclear what material (TGAI, formulated product, or formulation
intermediate) was tested. No statistics were performed due to lack of
mortality and no signs of toxicity were observed. (MRID416021-03)

For mefluidide, one dietary toxicity study was performed using the
bobwhite quail (*Colinus virginianus*). The 58.2% ai compound was
adjusted to 100% ai at dosing. Thirty birds were used at one dose level
of 5000 mg ae/ kg diet. In the bobwhite quail study, the non-definitive
LC~50~ was \>5000 mg ae/kg diet. The results of this study categorize
mefluidide as practically non-toxic to birds on a dietary basis.
However, this study is classified as Supplemental for an avian dietary
LC~50~ study because it is unclear what material (TGAI, formulated
product, or formulation intermediate) was tested. No statistics were
performed due to lack of mortality and no signs of toxicity were
observed. (MRID 416021-02).

For mefluidide-DEA, one dietary toxicity study was performed using the
mallard duck (*Anas platyrhynchos*). The 21.5% ai compound was adjusted
to 100% ai at dosing. Thirty birds were used at one dose level of 3750mg
ae/ kg diet. In the mallard duck study, the non-definitive LC~50~ was
\>3750 mg ae/ kg diet. The results of this study categorize mefluidide
as practically non-toxic to birds on a dietary basis. However, this
study is classified as Supplemental for an avian dietary LC~50~ study
because it is unclear what material (TGAI, formulated product, or
formulation intermediate) was tested. No statistics were performed due
to lack of mortality and no signs of toxicity were observed.
(MRID416019-03)

For mefluidide-DEA, one dietary toxicity study was performed using the
bobwhite quail (*Colinus virginianus*). The 21.5% ai compound was
adjusted to 100% ai at dosing. Thirty birds were used at one dose level
of 3750 mg ae/ kg diet. In the bobwhite quail study, the non-definitive
LC~50~ was \>5000 mg ae/ kg diet. The results of this study categorize
mefluidide-DEA as practically non-toxic to birds on a dietary basis.
However, this study is classified as Supplemental for an avian dietary
LC~50~ study because it is unclear what material (TGAI, formulated
product, or formulation intermediate) was tested. No statistics were
performed due to lack of mortality and no signs of toxicity were
observed. (MRID416019-02)

The LC~50~ of 3750 mg ae/kg diet was selected for evaluating birds on a
sub acute dietary basis exposed to mefluidide-K, mefluidide-DEA and
mefluidide for the terrestrial risk assessment.

The above studies were classified as supplemental according to Guideline
§71-2 requirement for subacute avian dietary testing and are summarized
in Table E6.

*Chronic Toxicity to Birds*

No studies were submitted to the Agency evaluating the chronic toxicity
of mefluidide-DEA, mefluidide-K and mefluidide to birds. There are
insufficient data to establish a definitive toxicity endpoint for
chronic effects to birds for the acid and DEA salt acid equivalents for
mefluidide. There is also no available chronic avian data from other
anilide herbicides for this taxonomic group to extrapolate acute to
chronic ratios.   For the purposes of this risk assessment, it was
assumed that birds are similar in toxicity responses as mammals in terms
of chronic toxicity.  Therefore, acute to chronic ratios (ACRs) were
derived from mefluidide laboratory rat and laboratory mouse data to
determine the estimated chronic NOAEC of 38 mg ae/kg value for birds.
Calculations and endpoints used to determine ACRs are summarized in
Appendix E. The assumptions involving extrapolations with data from
different terrestrial species suggests that this estimate maybe highly
uncertain.

*Acute Oral Toxicity to Mammals*

Wild mammal testing is required on a case-by-case basis, depending on
the results of lower tier laboratory mammalian studies, intended use
pattern and pertinent environmental fate characteristics. In most cases,
rat or mouse toxicity values obtained from the Agency\'s Health Effects
Division (HED) substitute for wild mammal testing.

An acute oral toxicity study with the laboratory mouse for mefluidide
resulted in a LD~50~ value of 829.8 ae mg/kg bw (MRID 00047116). This
study is acceptable and satisfies guideline requirements for acute oral
toxicity in rodents (81-1). Mefluidide is toxicity Category II. The data
are summarized in **Table E9.**

Additional acute oral toxicity studies with the laboratory mouse and
laboratory rat resulted in LD~50~ values based on mefluidide ranged from
1920.2 ae mg/kg bw to \>4000 ae mg/kg bw. Mefluidide toxicity was
classified as Category III .

The LD~50~ of 829.8 mg ae/kg bw was selected for evaluating mammals on a
acute dietary basis exposed to mefluidide-K, mefluidide-DEA and
mefluidide for the terrestrial risk assessment.

The data are summarized in **Table E9.**

*Subchronic and Developmental/Chronic Toxicity to Mammals*

[Multi-Generation Reproduction Laboratory Rat Toxicity
Study]{.underline}

In a three-generation reproduction study (MRID 00082748), MBR 12325
(Mefluidide; 93% a.i., Lot #25) was administered in the diet to 20 male
and 40 female Charles River CD® rats/dose group at dose levels of 0,
600, 1800, or 6000 ppm (equivalent to Males/Females - 0/0, 34/60,
102/183, and 346/604 mg ae/kg bw/day)

There were no effects on food consumption, organ weights, gross
pathology, or histopathology. Numerous absolute and relative (to bw)
organ weights in the 6000 ppm parents were significantly (p\<0.05)
different from the controls, however, none of these differences were
corroborated by any macroscopic or microscopic findings indicating these
decreases were most likely not related to treatment. Thus, it is likely
that they were attributable to decreased body weights at this dose.

The only deaths included one 6000 ppm F1 female, one 6000 ppm F2 male,
and one 1800 ppm F2 female. It was stated that macroscopic and
microscopic findings in these animals were unremarkable. Therefore,
these deaths were considered incidental and were not treatment related.
At 6000 ppm, body weights were decreased by 1-8% in males and 1-12% in
females throughout the study in the P generation, attaining significance
(p\<0.05) at Week 18 in the males and Weeks 8, 18, 19, and 27 in the
females. In the F1 generation at this dose, body weights were decreased
throughout the study in the males (decr. 13-21%) and females (decr.
10-21%), attaining significance (p\<0.01) at Weeks 27, 37, and 56 in
both sexes. Similarly in the F2 generation, body weights were decreased
throughout the study in the 6000 ppm males (decr. 14-21%) and females
(decr. 11-23%), attaining significance (p\<0.01) at Weeks 57, 66, and 85
in both sexes. At 1800 ppm, only minor and infrequent decreases in body
weights were noted. There were no treatment-related findings at 600 ppm.

The parental systemic LOAEL is 6000 ppm (346/604 mg ae/kg bw/day in
males/females), based on decreased body weights in both sexes in all
generations. The parental systemic NOAEL is 1800 ppm (102/183 mg ae/kg
bw/day in males/females). This study is acceptable/guideline and
satisfies the guideline requirement for a three-generation reproductive
study (OPPTS 870.3800; OECD 416) in rats.

[Developmental Toxicity Study in Laboratory Rats]{.underline}:

In a developmental toxicity study (MRID 42026102), mefluidide-DEA
(28.78% a.i. Lot \# JB0624)) in distilled water was administered to
pregnant Sprague Dawley Crl:CD BR VAF/Plus (25/dose) by gavage at dose
levels of 0, 50, 200 or 400 mg/kg bw/day (adjusted doses for 100 %
purity were 0, 14, 58, or 115 mg/kg/day, respectively) from days 6
through 15 of gestation. Animals were checked daily for clinical signs,
mortality. Body weights were measured on gestation day 0, 6, 9, 12, 16
and 20. Unscheduled deaths, scheduled sacrifice and c-sections were
subjected to gross necropsy examination. Each fetus was examined for
external/visceral/skeletal anomalies, sexed and then weighed. Evidence
of maternal toxicity included transient clinical signs (tremors, dark
material around the nose, urine stain and reddish vaginal discharge),
decreased body weight gain (11-61%), decreased food consumption and
mortality (2/25 females) observed at the 400 mg ai/kg/day levels No
external malformations or developmental variations were observed
associated with any fetus. Fetal toxicity was manifested by increase in
the number of early resorptions which resulted in increase in mean
postimplantation loss at 400 mg ai/kg/day dose.

The maternal NOAEL was 200 mg ai/kg/day (adjusted to 58 mg/kg/day) and
the LOAEL at 400 mg ai/kg/day (adjusted to 115 mg/kg/day) based on
clinical signs (tremors, dark material around the nose, urine stain and
reddish vaginal discharge), decreased body weight gain, decreased food
consumption and mortality (2/25 females).

The developmental toxicity NOAEL was 200 mg/kg/day (adjusted to 58
mg/kg/day), the LOAEL was 400 mg ai/kg/day (adjusted to 115 mg/kg/day)
based on increase in the number of early resorptions and increase in
mean postimplantation loss.

The NOAEC of 102 mg ae/kg bw was selected for evaluating mammals on a
chronic/reproductive basis exposed to mefluidide-K, mefluidide-DEA and
mefluidide for the terrestrial risk assessment.

This developmental toxicity study is classified acceptable/Guideline and
it does satisfy the guideline requirement for a developmental toxicity
study (OPPTS 870.3700; OECD 414) in the rat.

*Acute Toxicity to Non-target Insects (Honey Bee)*

Acute contact toxicity of mefluidide-DEA on the honey bee (*Apis
mellifera*) was tested and the data are summarized in Table E8. In the
acute contact test, the non-definitive LD~50~ value was \>18.75 µg
ae/bee and the NOAEC was 9.37µg ae/bee. Mortality ranged between 6 and
14% with doses 1.6, 3.1, 6.3, 12.5 and 25 *ug* ai/bee (1.2, 2.3, 4.7,
9.3, and 18.75 *ug* ae /bee). Mortality at the four lowest test levels
was determined to be non-treatment related. Mortality at the highest
level was 14%. Mefluidide-DEA is categorized as practically non-toxic to
honeybees on an acute contact basis. This study is classified as
acceptable according to guideline 141-1 (MRID 425628-01).

Acute contact toxicity of mefluidide-K on the honey bee (*Apis
mellifera*) was tested and the data are summarized in Table E8. In the
acute contact test, the non-definitive LD~50~ value was \>22.25µg ae/bee
and the NOAEC was 22.25µg ae/bee. Mortality ranged between 6 and 14%
with doses 1.6, 3.1, 6.3, 12.5, 25 *ug* ai/bee (1.4, 2.7, 5.6, 11.1 and
22.25 *ug* ae/bee). Mortality at all treatment levels was determined not
to be treatment related since clinical observations were similar between
control and treated bees and the surviving bees at the lowest dosage
appeared normal throughout the test. Mefluidide-K is categorized as
practically non-toxic to honeybees on an acute contact basis. This study
is classified as acceptable according to guideline 141-1 (MRID
425628-02).

*Terrestrial Plant*

**Number range CHAPTER** A Tier II vegetative vigor study was conducted
for ten species using mefluidide-DEA and the data are summarized in
Tables E12 and E13. For the vegetative vigor study, the most sensitive
monocot was sorghum with an EC~25~ of 0.105 lbs ae/A and a NOAEC of
0.045 lbs ae/A, and the most sensitive dicot was mustard, with an EC~25~
of 0.00547 lbs ae/A and a NOAEC of 0.0029 lbs ae/acre. For both monocots
and dicots, the most sensitive parameter was shoot fresh weight.
Symptoms of toxicity included stunting, chlorosis, necrosis and
distortion. This study was originally classified as acceptable, however
this study will be reviewed for a possible classification of
Supplemental because this study was based on fresh weight instead of dry
weight which is required according to guideline 123-1 (MRID 435496-01).

Seedling emergence toxicity data was not available and data was not
available from other anilide analogs to derive EC~25~ values. To
estimate possible effects measurement endpoints for seedling emergence,
EFED assumed that EC~25~ toxicity values for vegetative vigor are equal
to seedling emergence measurement endpoints for mefluidide,
mefluidide-DEA and mefluidide-K. Therefore, the most sensitive seedling
emergence EC~25~ estimated values are 0.105 and 0.0054 lb ae/acre for
monocots and dicots, respectively. The NOEC estimated values for
seedling emergence are 0.045 and 0.0029 lb ae/acre for monocots and
dicots, respectively. **Number range CHAPTER**

*Earthworms*

No earthworm studies were submitted to the Agency. However, Ecotox data
indicates that mefluidide is non-toxic to earthworms (Ref #39542 Potter
DA; Spicer PG;Redmond CT; Powell AJ (1994) Toxicity of Pesticides to
Earthworms in Kentucky Bluegrass Turf). Two evaluations were conducted
in the spring and the fall of 1992. Earthworm populations were sampled
at 1 and 3 weeks after treatment. The application rate of mefluidide
applied to the plots were 0.56 ai/ha of Embark 2S which resulted in 0%
and 17 % reduction of earthworms in the spring and fall respectively
after the 3 week treatments.

Number range CHAPTER*Review of Incident Data*

A review of the EIIS database for ecological incidents involving
mefluidide**,** mefluidide-DEA and mefluidide-K was completed on
December 28, 2006. There were no incidences reported for mefluidide**,**
mefluidide-DEA and mefluidide-K in the EIIS database.

Incident reports submitted to EPA since approximately 1994 have been
tracked by assignment of I #s in an Incident Data System (IDS),
microfiched, and then entered to a second database (in EFED), the
Ecological Incident Information System (EIIS). An effort has also been
made to enter information to EIIS on incident reports received prior to
establishment of current databases. Incident reports are often not
received in a consistent format (e.g., states and various labs usually
have their own formats), may involve multiple incidents involving
multiple chemicals in one report, and may report on only part of a given
incident investigation (e.g., residues).

It is believed that the EFED database contains reports of only a small
portion of plant and animal wildlife incidents that actually occur as a
result of pesticide use. Mortality incidents must be seen, reported,
investigated, and had investigation reports submitted to EPA to have the
potential to get entered into a database. Incidents often are not seen,
especially if the affected organisms are inconspicuous or few people are
systematically looking, for example. Incidents seen may not get reported
to appropriate authorities capable of investigating the incident because
the finder may not know of the importance of reporting incidents, may
not know who to call, or may not feel they have the time or desire to
call, for example. Incidents reported may not be investigated if
resources are limited or may not get investigated thoroughly. Reports of
investigated incidents often do not get submitted to EPA, since
reporting by states is voluntary and some investigators may believe that
they don't have the resources to submit incident reports to EPA.

Number range CHAPTER*Review of ECOTOX Data*Number range CHAPTER

A search of the ECOTOX from a Duluth review was completed on 7/ 5/06 for
mefluidide. Six studies were reviewed with reference numbers 39542,
71019, 74741, 82489, 82719 and 82721. Studies with reference numbers
71019, 74741, 82489 were not incorporated in the assessment. The
references to the above referenced studies and studies that were not
accepted by OPP are posted in Appendix H.

Ecotox data indicates that mefluidide is non-toxic to earthworms (Ref
#39542 Potter DA; Spicer PG; Redmond CT; Powell AJ (1994) Toxicity of
Pesticides to Earthworms in Kentucky Bluegrass Turf). Two evaluations
were conducted in the spring and the fall of 1992. Earthworm populations
were sampled at 1 and 3 weeks after treatment. The application rate of
mefluidide applied to the plots were 0.56 ai/ha of Embark 2S which
resulted in 0% and 17 % reduction of earthworms in the spring and fall
respectively after the 3 week treatments. (ref#39542)

Ecotox data indicates that mefluidide is non-toxic to grazing cattle
based on weight gain. Twelve Hereford heifers were used in a grazing
experiment to determine intake and digestibility of tall fescue forage
treated with mefluidide. Additionally, steer and heifer performance were
evaluated after grazing tall fescue pastures or consuming hay harvested
from pastures treated with mefluidide. Two forage plots were sprayed
with 0.28kg ai/ha when tall fescue herbage was 10 cm in height. Steers
grazing mefluidide--treated herbage had greater total weight gains than
untreated fields during a 168 d study (86 vs 69 kg). Heifers fed hay
harvested from mefluidide treated pastures also exhibited similar
improvements in gain (49 vs 38 kg) because of increased forage
consumption (8.3 vs. 7.3 kg/d) greater forage OM digestibility (65 vs.
61%). Greater weight gains were attributed to a increased nitrogen
content, lowered NDF neutral detergent fiber content (NDF) and increased
OM digestibility from herbage available( ref#82719) A similar study
(ref#82721) for effects of mefluidide on grazing cow--calf performance
on smooth brome pastures also resulted in improved calf performance on
treated mefluidide fields with 0.28kg ai/ha of mefluidide. Mefluidide
sprayed on fields produced 26 kg/ha more cow gain than the controlled
smooth brome pastures.

4 RISK CHARACTERIZATION

Risk characterization is the integration of exposure and effects
characterization to determine the ecological risk from the use of
mefluidide and the likelihood of effects on aquatic life, wildlife, and
plants based on varying pesticide-use scenarios. The risk
characterization provides a estimation and a description of the risk;
articulates risk assessment assumptions, limitations, and uncertainties;
synthesizes an overall conclusion; and provides the risk managers with
information to support regulatory decision making.

**4.1. Risk Estimation** **- Integration of Exposure and Effects Data**

Results of the exposure and toxicity effects data are used to evaluate
the likelihood of adverse ecological effects on non-target species. For
the assessment of mefluidide risks, the risk quotient (RQ) method is
used to compare exposure and toxicity values. Estimated environmental
concentrations (EECs) are divided by acute and chronic toxicity values.
The resulting RQs are compared to the Agency's levels of concern (LOCs).
These LOCs are the Agency's interpretive policy and are used to analyze
potential risk to non-target organisms and the need to consider
regulatory action. These criteria are used to indicate when a
pesticide's use as directed on the label has the potential to cause
adverse effects on non-target organisms.

A summary of toxicity values used to calculate RQs is provided in
**Table 4.1 and 4.2** and **4.3** more detailed discussion of mefluidide
toxicity can be found in section **3.3 and Appendix D.**

+--------------------------+--------------+-----------+---------------+---+
| **Table 4.1: Summary of  |              |           |               |   |
| endpoints (LC~50~ or     |              |           |               |   |
| EC~50~, mg ae/L) for     |              |           |               |   |
| Aquatic Toxicity used in |              |           |               |   |
| RQ calculations for      |              |           |               |   |
| Mefluidide ^1^**         |              |           |               |   |
+--------------------------+--------------+-----------+---------------+---+
| **TAXONOMIC GROUP**      | **Acute      | **Chronic | **MRID/**     |   |
|                          | endpoint**   | e         |               |   |
|                          |              | ndpoint** | **Estimated   |   |
|                          |              |           | value**       |   |
+--------------------------+--------------+-----------+---------------+---+
| Acute freshwater fish    | \>68.47\*    |           | MRID          |   |
|                          |              |           |               |   |
|                          | Rainbow      |           | 418937-02     |   |
|                          | Trout        |           |               |   |
+--------------------------+--------------+-----------+---------------+---+
| Chronic freshwater fish  |              | \>0.267   | Estimated     |   |
|                          |              |           | value acute   |   |
|                          |              |           | to chronic    |   |
|                          |              |           | ratio         |   |
+--------------------------+--------------+-----------+---------------+---+
| Acute freshwater inverts | \>77.25\*    |           | MRID          |   |
|                          |              |           |               |   |
|                          | Daphnid      |           | 418937-03     |   |
+--------------------------+--------------+-----------+---------------+---+
| Chronic freshwater       |              | \>5.54    | Estimated     |   |
| inverts                  |              |           | value acute   |   |
|                          |              |           | to chronic    |   |
|                          |              |           | ratio         |   |
+--------------------------+--------------+-----------+---------------+---+
| Acute estuarine/marine   | \>84.75\*    |           | MRID          |   |
| fish                     |              |           |               |   |
|                          | Sheepshead   |           | 425623-03     |   |
|                          | minnow       |           |               |   |
+--------------------------+--------------+-----------+---------------+---+
| Chronic estuarine/marine |              | \>0.267   | Estimated     |   |
| fish                     |              |           | value acute   |   |
|                          |              |           | to chronic    |   |
|                          |              |           | ratio         |   |
+--------------------------+--------------+-----------+---------------+---+
| Acute estuarine/marine   | 67\*         |           | MRID          |   |
| inverts                  |              |           |               |   |
|                          | Eastern      |           | 425624-01     |   |
|                          | oyster       |           |               |   |
+--------------------------+--------------+-----------+---------------+---+
| Chronic estuarine/marine |              | \>5.54    | Estimated     |   |
| inverts                  |              |           | value acute   |   |
|                          |              |           | to chronic    |   |
|                          |              |           | ratio         |   |
+--------------------------+--------------+-----------+---------------+---+

**^1^** For fish and invertebrates data evaluating mefluidide-K,
mefluidide-DEA and mefluidide have been bridged

for the runoff risk assessment.

\*most sensitive species

+----------------------+-----------+---------+------------------------+
| **Table 4.2: Summary |           |         |                        |
| of endpoints (LC~50~ |           |         |                        |
| or EC~50~, mg ae/L)  |           |         |                        |
| for Plant Toxicity   |           |         |                        |
| used in RQ           |           |         |                        |
| calculations for     |           |         |                        |
| Mefluidide^1^**      |           |         |                        |
+----------------------+-----------+---------+------------------------+
| **TAXONOMIC GROUP**  | **Acute   | **NOAEC |                        |
|                      | e         | or      |                        |
|                      | ndpoint** | E       |                        |
|                      |           | C~05~** |                        |
+----------------------+-----------+---------+------------------------+
| Acute vascular plant | 0.515\*   |         | MRID 435266-01         |
|                      |           |         |                        |
|                      | Lemna     |         | Tier I(8% growth       |
|                      |           |         | stimulation)           |
|                      |           |         |                        |
|                      |           |         | Used this value as     |
|                      |           |         | **EC~50~,**            |
+----------------------+-----------+---------+------------------------+
| Vascular plant       |           | \>0.29  | Estimated value acute  |
| (EC~05~ )            |           |         | to chronic ratio       |
+----------------------+-----------+---------+------------------------+
| Acute non-vascular   | 0.629\*   |         | MRID 435266-05         |
| plant                |           |         |                        |
|                      | Navicula  |         | Tier I(11.5% growth    |
|                      |           |         | reduction)             |
|                      |           |         |                        |
|                      |           |         | Used this value as     |
|                      |           |         | **EC~50~,**            |
+----------------------+-----------+---------+------------------------+
| Non-vascular plant ( |           | \>0.786 | Estimated value acute  |
| EC~05~               |           |         | to chronic ratio       |
+----------------------+-----------+---------+------------------------+
| Terrestrial Plant:   | M         | Mon     | MRID 435496-01         |
|                      | onocot:\* | ocot:\* |                        |
| Vegetative Vigor     | Sorghum   | Sorghum |                        |
|                      |           |         |                        |
|                      | EC~25~    | NOAEC   |                        |
|                      | 0.105 lb  | 0.045   |                        |
|                      | ae/A      | lb ae/A |                        |
|                      |           |         |                        |
|                      | Dicot:\*  | D       |                        |
|                      | Mustard   | icot:\* |                        |
|                      | EC~25~    | Mustard |                        |
|                      | 0.0054lb  |         |                        |
|                      | ae/A      | NOAEC   |                        |
|                      |           | 0.0029  |                        |
|                      |           | lb ae/A |                        |
+----------------------+-----------+---------+------------------------+
| Terrestrial Plant:   | Monocot:  | M       | Estimated value from   |
|                      |           | onocot: | vegetative vigor study |
| Seedling Emergence   | Sorghum   | Sorghum | MRID 435496-01         |
|                      |           |         |                        |
|                      | EC~25~    | NOAEC   |                        |
|                      | 0.105 lb  | 0.045   |                        |
|                      | ae/A      | lb ae/A |                        |
|                      |           |         |                        |
|                      | Dicot:\*  | D       |                        |
|                      | Mustard   | icot:\* |                        |
|                      | EC~25~    | Mustard |                        |
|                      | 0.0054lb  |         |                        |
|                      | ae/A      | NOAEC   |                        |
|                      |           | 0.0029  |                        |
|                      |           | lb ae/A |                        |
+----------------------+-----------+---------+------------------------+

^1^For terrestrial plants data evaluating mefluidide-K, mefluidide-DEA
and mefluidide have

been bridged for the terrestrial risk assessment. \*most sensitive
species tested

+----------------------+-----------+---------+------------------------+
| **Table 4.3: Summary |           |         |                        |
| of endpoints (LD~50~ |           |         |                        |
| or LC~50~ mg ae/kg)  |           |         |                        |
| for Terrestrial      |           |         |                        |
| Toxicity data used   |           |         |                        |
| in RQ calculations   |           |         |                        |
| for Mefluidide^1^**  |           |         |                        |
+----------------------+-----------+---------+------------------------+
| **TAXONOMIC GROUP**  | **Acute   | **      |                        |
|                      | e         | Chronic |                        |
|                      | ndpoint** | end     |                        |
|                      |           | point** |                        |
+----------------------+-----------+---------+------------------------+
| Acute Avian          | \>1500\*  |         | MRID 416019-01         |
|                      |           |         |                        |
|                      | Bobwhite  |         | Used this              |
|                      | quail     |         | non-definitive         |
|                      |           |         | endpoint as LD50       |
+----------------------+-----------+---------+------------------------+
| Chronic Avian        |           | 38      | Estimated value acute  |
|                      |           |         | to chronic ratio based |
|                      |           |         | on mammal data         |
+----------------------+-----------+---------+------------------------+
| Acute Dietary Avian  | \>3750\*  |         |                        |
+----------------------+-----------+---------+------------------------+
| Acute mammal         | 829.8\*   |         | MRID 00047116          |
|                      |           |         |                        |
|                      | mouse     |         |                        |
+----------------------+-----------+---------+------------------------+
| Chronic mammal       |           | 102\*   | MRID 00082748          |
|                      |           |         |                        |
|                      |           | rat     |                        |
+----------------------+-----------+---------+------------------------+

^1^For terrestrial plants data evaluating mefluidide-K, mefluidide-DEA
and mefluidide have

been bridged for the terrestrial risk assessment. \*most sensitive
species tested

**4.1.1 Non-target Aquatic Animals and Plants**

Routes of exposure evaluated in this risk assessment focused on runoff
and/or spray drift for mefluidide--K, mefluidide-DEA and mefluidide.
Tier II PRZM/EXAM modeling was used to estimate mefluidide acid
concentrations in surface water. The runoff assessment considered the
maximum label application rates. Because the mefluidide can be used on
general turf areas including residential and agricultural areas, the
runoff modeling was conducted using the PA turf and FL turf scenarios.
More importantly, mefluidide labels allow broadcast applications as well
as spot treatments. Application rates, therefore, were expressed on lbs
ae/A regardless of the recommend application treatment. This approach is
expected to be conservative because it assumes 100% of the watershed is
treated with mefluidide. Concentrations of mefluidide are expressed in
acid equivalence to address the bridging of mefluidide-K,
mefluidide-DEA, mefluidide to mefluidide acid. Foliar dissipation
half-lives were incorporated in the modeling to address mefluidide
dissipation from the foliage of warm-season and cool season grasses.
PRZM /EXAMS input parameters for mefluidide are shown in **Table 3.1**.
Estimated environmental concentrations are shown in **Table 3.2.**

The 1-in-10 year peak EECs were compared to acute toxicity endpoints to
derive acute RQs for mefluidide. For aquatic vascular and non‑vascular
plants, 1-in-10 year peak EECs were compared to acute EC~50~ values to
derive acute non‑listed species RQs. NOAEC values for vascular and
non‑vascular plants were estimated to derive listed species RQs for
these taxonomic groups. RQs for listed and non-listed aquatic vascular
and non‑vascular plants are summarized in **Table 4.2.**

4.1.1.1 *Freshwater Fish and Invertebrates*

Risk quotients for mefluidide-K, mefluidide-DEA and mefluidide were
\<0.0001 for acute freshwater fish and invertebrates based on the
non-definitive EC~50~ of \>68.47 mg ae/L for freshwater fish and \>77.25
mg ae/L for freshwater invertebrates. Acute risk quotients for
freshwater fish and invertebrates are summarized in **TABLE 4.4.**

Risk quotients for mefluidide-K, mefluidide-DEA and mefluidide were
\<0.001 for chronic freshwater fish and invertebrates based on the
non-definitive estimated NOAEC values of \>0.267 mg ae/L for freshwater
fish and \>5.54 mg ae/L for freshwater invertebrates. Chronic RQs for
mefluidide freshwater fish and invertebrates were derived from estimated
values due to lack of toxicity data and are summarized in **Appendix
D.**

No LOC exceedances occurred for acute and chronic risks to freshwater
fish and invertebrates for all application scenarios.

+------------------------------+-----------+------+---------+--------+
| > **Table 4.4. Aquatic acute |           |      |         |        |
| > freshwater fish and        |           |      |         |        |
| > Invertebrate RQs for       |           |      |         |        |
| > Mefluidide-K,              |           |      |         |        |
| > Mefluidide-DEA and         |           |      |         |        |
| > Mefluidide applications by |           |      |         |        |
| > Ground (G) Spray and       |           |      |         |        |
| > Granular(GR) for the       |           |      |         |        |
| > aquatic runoff             |           |      |         |        |
| > assessment^1,2,3^**        |           |      |         |        |
+------------------------------+-----------+------+---------+--------+
| **Application Scenario**     |           |      |         |        |
+------------------------------+-----------+------+---------+--------+
|                              |           |      | **Fresh | **     |
|                              |           |      | water   | Freshw |
|                              |           |      | I       | ater** |
|                              |           |      | nverteb |        |
|                              |           |      | rates** | **     |
|                              |           |      |         | Fish** |
+------------------------------+-----------+------+---------+--------+
|                              |           | *    | **Acute | *      |
|                              |           | *Acu | RQs**   | *Acute |
|                              |           | te** |         | RQs**  |
|                              |           |      | **(EC50 |        |
|                              |           | **   | \>77.25 | *      |
|                              |           | EECs | mg      | *(EC50 |
|                              |           | mg   | ae/     | \      |
|                              |           | ae   | L)^2^** | >68.47 |
|                              |           | /L** |         | mg     |
|                              |           |      |         | ae/L   |
|                              |           |      |         | )^2^** |
+------------------------------+-----------+------+---------+--------+
| Ornamental Turf              | m         | 0.00 | 0.      | 0.0    |
|                              | efluidide | 4835 | 0000625 | 000706 |
| (FLTurf PRISM scenario)      | (GR)      |      |         |        |
|                              |           |      |         |        |
| 3 applications per season (  |           |      |         |        |
| interval of 6 weeks apart)   |           |      |         |        |
+------------------------------+-----------+------+---------+--------+
|                              | mef       | 0.01 | 0.      | 0.0    |
|                              | luidide-K | 0573 | 0001368 | 001544 |
|                              | and       |      |         |        |
|                              | meflu     |      |         |        |
|                              | idide-DEA |      |         |        |
|                              | (G)       |      |         |        |
+------------------------------+-----------+------+---------+--------+
| Ornamental Turf              | m         | 0.00 | 0.      | 0.0    |
|                              | efluidide | 3031 | 0000392 | 000442 |
| ( PA Turf PRISM scenario)    | (GR)      |      |         |        |
|                              |           |      |         |        |
| 3 applications per season (  |           |      |         |        |
| interval of 6 weeks apart)   |           |      |         |        |
|                              |           |      |         |        |
| .                            |           |      |         |        |
+------------------------------+-----------+------+---------+--------+
|                              | mef       | 0.00 | 0.      | 0.     |
|                              | luidide-K | 7054 | 0000913 | 000103 |
|                              | and       |      |         |        |
|                              | meflu     |      |         |        |
|                              | idide-DEA |      |         |        |
|                              | (G)       |      |         |        |
+------------------------------+-----------+------+---------+--------+

^1^ The below notation will be used to denote values that exceed the
Levels of Concern (LOC)

\* exceeds LOC for acute risk to listed fish or invertebrate species (RQ
≥ 0.05)

\*\* exceeds LOCs for acute risk to listed fish or invertebrate species
and restricted use (RQ ≥ 0.1)

4.1.1.2 *Estuarine/Marine Fish and Invertebrates*

Risk quotients for mefluidide-K, mefluidide-DEA and mefluidide were
\<0.0001 for acute estuarine marine fish aquatic-phase amphibians based
on the non-definitive EC~50~ of \>84.75 mg ae/L. No LOC exceedances
occurred for acute risks to estuarine/ marine invertebrates with an
EC~50~ of 67 mg ae/L and RQs \<0.0001 for all application scenarios.
Acute risk quotients for estuarine marine fish and invertebrates are
summarized in **TABLE 4.5.**

There are insufficient data to establish a definitive toxicity endpoint
for estuarine/marine fish and invertebrate chronic effects for
mefluidide and mefluidide-DEA. For the purposes of this risk assessment,
it was assumed that estuarine marine fish were at least as sensitive as
freshwater fish in terms of chronic toxicity.  Therefore, the estimated
endpoint for freshwater fish (NOAEC \>0.267 mg ae/L) was used to
estimate a chronic effects endpoint for estuarine/marine fish.
Therefore, based on the estimated NOAEC of \>0.267 mg ae/L no
exceedances occurred for chronic estuarine marine fish and
invertebrates. These estimated RQ values are summarized in **Appendix
D.**

+------------------------------+-----------+-------+---------+--------+
| > **Table 4.5. Aquatic       |           |       |         |        |
| > Estuarine Marine fish and  |           |       |         |        |
| > Invertebrate RQs for       |           |       |         |        |
| > Mefluidide-K,              |           |       |         |        |
| > Mefluidide-DEA and         |           |       |         |        |
| > Mefluidide applications by |           |       |         |        |
| > Ground (G) Spray and       |           |       |         |        |
| > Granular(GR) for the       |           |       |         |        |
| > aquatic runoff             |           |       |         |        |
| > assessment^1,2,3^**        |           |       |         |        |
+------------------------------+-----------+-------+---------+--------+
| **Application Scenario**     |           |       |         |        |
+------------------------------+-----------+-------+---------+--------+
|                              |           |       | **E/M   | *      |
|                              |           |       | I       | *E/M** |
|                              |           |       | nverteb |        |
|                              |           |       | rates** | **     |
|                              |           |       |         | Fish** |
+------------------------------+-----------+-------+---------+--------+
|                              |           | **Ac  | **Acute | *      |
|                              |           | ute** | RQs**   | *Acute |
|                              |           |       |         | RQs**  |
|                              |           | *     | **(EC50 |        |
|                              |           | *EECs | 67 mg   | *      |
|                              |           | mg    | ae/     | *(EC50 |
|                              |           | a     | L)^2^** | \      |
|                              |           | e/L** |         | >84.75 |
|                              |           |       |         | mg     |
|                              |           |       |         | ae/L   |
|                              |           |       |         | )^2^** |
+------------------------------+-----------+-------+---------+--------+
| Ornamental Turf              | m         | 0.0   | 0.      | 0.     |
|                              | efluidide | 04835 | 0000721 | 000057 |
| (FLTurf PRISM scenario)      | (GR)      |       |         |        |
|                              |           |       |         |        |
| 3 applications per season (  |           |       |         |        |
| interval of 6 weeks apart)   |           |       |         |        |
+------------------------------+-----------+-------+---------+--------+
|                              | mef       | 0.0   | 0.      | 0.0    |
|                              | luidide-K | 10573 | 0001578 | 001247 |
|                              | and       |       |         |        |
|                              | meflu     |       |         |        |
|                              | idide-DEA |       |         |        |
|                              | (G)       |       |         |        |
+------------------------------+-----------+-------+---------+--------+
| Ornamental Turf              | m         | 0.0   | 0.      | 0.0    |
|                              | efluidide | 03031 | 0000452 | 000357 |
| ( PA Turf PRISM scenario)    | (GR)      |       |         |        |
|                              |           |       |         |        |
| 3 applications per season (  |           |       |         |        |
| interval of 6 weeks apart)   |           |       |         |        |
|                              |           |       |         |        |
| .                            |           |       |         |        |
+------------------------------+-----------+-------+---------+--------+
|                              | mef       | 0.0   | 0.      | 0.0    |
|                              | luidide-K | 07054 | 0001052 | 000832 |
|                              | and       |       |         |        |
|                              | meflu     |       |         |        |
|                              | idide-DEA |       |         |        |
|                              | (G)       |       |         |        |
+------------------------------+-----------+-------+---------+--------+

^1^ The below notation will be used to denote values that exceed the
Levels of Concern (LOC)

\* exceeds LOC for acute risk to listed fish or invertebrate species (RQ
≥ 0.05)

\*\* exceeds LOCs for acute risk to listed fish or invertebrate species
and restricted use (RQ ≥ 0.1)

3.  *Aquatic Plants*

Although no EC~50~ values were available from aquatic plant studies, RQs
were calculated for aquatic plants based on a EC~50~ values \>0.515 mg
ae/L for vascular plants and \>0.629 mg ae/L for non-vascular plants. RQ
values were \<0.1 for all modeled scenarios.

Risk quotients for mefluidide-K, mefluidide-DEA and mefluidide were
\<0.1 for vascular and non-vascular plants based on the non-definitive
estimated EC~05~ values of \>0.029 mg ae/L for vascular plants and
\>0.786 mg ae/L for non-vascular plants.

No LOC exceedances occurred for acute listed and non-listed risks to
vascular and non-vascular plants for all application scenarios.

**Table 4.6** lists the RQs for aquatic vascular and non-vascular plants
potentially exposed to mefluidide-K, mefluidide-DEA and mefluidide. No
LOC exceedances (RQs \<0.1) occurred for vascular and non-vascular
plants.

+------------+------+--------+-------+---------+----------+----------+
| **Table    |      |        |       |         |          |          |
| 4.6.       |      |        |       |         |          |          |
| Aquatic    |      |        |       |         |          |          |
| Plant RQs  |      |        |       |         |          |          |
| for        |      |        |       |         |          |          |
| Mef        |      |        |       |         |          |          |
| luidide-K, |      |        |       |         |          |          |
| Mefl       |      |        |       |         |          |          |
| uidide-DEA |      |        |       |         |          |          |
| and        |      |        |       |         |          |          |
| Mefluidide |      |        |       |         |          |          |
| ap         |      |        |       |         |          |          |
| plications |      |        |       |         |          |          |
| by Ground  |      |        |       |         |          |          |
| (G) Spray  |      |        |       |         |          |          |
| and        |      |        |       |         |          |          |
| Gr         |      |        |       |         |          |          |
| anular(GR) |      |        |       |         |          |          |
| for the    |      |        |       |         |          |          |
| aquatic    |      |        |       |         |          |          |
| runoff     |      |        |       |         |          |          |
| asses      |      |        |       |         |          |          |
| sment^1^** |      |        |       |         |          |          |
+------------+------+--------+-------+---------+----------+----------+
| **A        |      | **EECs | **Vas | **V     | **Non-   | **Non-   |
| pplication |      | to     | cular | ascular | vascular | vascular |
| Scenario** |      | cal    | P     | Plants  | Plants   | Plants   |
|            |      | culate | lants | (li     | RQs      | RQs      |
|            |      | Acute  | RQs ( | sted)** | EC~50~   | (EC~05   |
|            |      | RQs mg | EC50  |         | (\>0.629 | ~\>0.786 |
|            |      | ae/L** | \>    | **RQs   | mg       | mg ae/L) |
|            |      |        | 0.515 | (EC~05  | ae       | ^2^**    |
|            |      |        | mg    | ~\>0.29 | /L)^2^** |          |
|            |      |        | ae    | mg      |          |          |
|            |      |        | /L)** | ae/L)** |          |          |
+------------+------+--------+-------+---------+----------+----------+
| Ornamental | me   | 0.     | 0.00  | 0.      | 0        | 0        |
| Turf       | flui | 004835 | 93883 | 0166724 | .0076868 | .0061513 |
|            | dide |        |       |         |          |          |
| (FLTurf    | (GR) |        |       |         |          |          |
| PRZM       |      |        |       |         |          |          |
| scenario)  |      |        |       |         |          |          |
|            |      |        |       |         |          |          |
| 3          |      |        |       |         |          |          |
| ap         |      |        |       |         |          |          |
| plications |      |        |       |         |          |          |
| per season |      |        |       |         |          |          |
| ( interval |      |        |       |         |          |          |
| of 6 weeks |      |        |       |         |          |          |
| apart)     |      |        |       |         |          |          |
+------------+------+--------+-------+---------+----------+----------+
|            | mefl | 0.     | 0.    | 0.      | 0        | 0        |
|            | uidi | 010573 | 02053 | 0364586 | .0168092 | .0134516 |
|            | de-K |        |       |         |          |          |
|            | and  |        |       |         |          |          |
|            | me   |        |       |         |          |          |
|            | flui |        |       |         |          |          |
|            | dide |        |       |         |          |          |
|            | -DEA |        |       |         |          |          |
|            | (G)  |        |       |         |          |          |
+------------+------+--------+-------+---------+----------+----------+
| Ornamental | me   | 0.     | 0.00  | 0.      | 0        | 0        |
| Turf       | flui | 003031 | 58854 | 0104517 | .0048187 | .0038562 |
|            | dide |        |       |         |          |          |
| ( PA Turf  | (GR) |        |       |         |          |          |
| PRZM       |      |        |       |         |          |          |
| scenario)  |      |        |       |         |          |          |
|            |      |        |       |         |          |          |
| 3          |      |        |       |         |          |          |
| ap         |      |        |       |         |          |          |
| plications |      |        |       |         |          |          |
| per season |      |        |       |         |          |          |
| ( interval |      |        |       |         |          |          |
| of 6 weeks |      |        |       |         |          |          |
| apart)     |      |        |       |         |          |          |
|            |      |        |       |         |          |          |
| .          |      |        |       |         |          |          |
+------------+------+--------+-------+---------+----------+----------+
|            | mefl | 0.     | 0.0   | 0.      | 0        | 0        |
|            | uidi | 007054 | 13697 | 0243241 | .0112146 | .0089745 |
|            | de-K |        |       |         |          |          |
|            | and  |        |       |         |          |          |
|            | me   |        |       |         |          |          |
|            | flui |        |       |         |          |          |
|            | dide |        |       |         |          |          |
|            | -DEA |        |       |         |          |          |
|            | (G)  |        |       |         |          |          |
+------------+------+--------+-------+---------+----------+----------+

^1^ The below notation will be used to denote values that exceed the
Levels of Concern (LOC)

\* exceeds LOC for acute risk to aquatic plant species (RQ
[\>]{.underline} 1.0, calculated as acute EEC /EC50 )

\*\*exceeds LOC for acute risk to listed aquatic plant species (RQ
[\>]{.underline} 1.0, calculated as acute EEC /NOAEC)

\*\*\*exceeds LOC for acute risk to listed aquatic plant species (RQ
[\>]{.underline} 1.0, calculated as acute EEC /NOAEC),

However, currently there are no listed non-vascular plants.

^2^ EC~50~ or NOAEC estimated calculations are summarized in Appendix E

4.1.2 Non-target Terrestrial Animals

EECs were calculated for all ornamental turf labeled uses with
application rates ranging from 0.5 to 1.0 lb ae/A. Risk quotients are
based on the most sensitive studies that yielded the lowest toxicity
values. For this assessment, the lowest LD~50~ and NOAEC values were
used for birds and the lowest LD~50~ and NOAEL were used for mammals
(based on lab rat and mouse studies).

1.  *Birds*

    *Avian Risk*

    The EEC's for terrestrial exposure were derived from the Kenaga
    nomograph, as modified by Fletcher et al. (1994), based on a large
    set of field residue data. The EECs were calculated by the T-REX
    Version 1.3.1 model and corresponding avian acute and chronic risk
    quotients are based on the most sensitive subacute dietary LC~50~,
    single oral dose LD~50~, and NOAEC for birds.

    Calculations for single-oral dose risk quotients are based on a
    Northern bobwhite quail oral acute LD~50~ of 1500 mg ae/kg-bw. RQs
    for oral dose-based scenarios are calculated by dividing the
    consumption-weighted equivalent dose by the body weight-adjusted
    LD~50~. The avian LD~50~ is adjusted for body weight according to
    the following equation:

    $$\text{Adjusted  Avian LD}_{\text{50}}(\text{mg/kg bw}) = \text{LD}_{\text{50}}(\text{mg/kg bw}) \ast \left( \frac{\text{AW }(g)}{\text{TW }(g)} \right)^{1\text{.}\text{15} - 1}$$

    (USEPA, 2006)

    The assessed weight (AW) is the body weight of the wildlife species
    of concern. An adjusted LD~50~ is calculated for three weight
    classes of birds (20, 100, and 1000 g). The test weight (TW) is the
    body weight of the species used in the toxicity study. In this case,
    the weight of the bobwhite quail is estimated to be 178 g. The
    adjusted LD~50~ is 1080, 1375, and 1943 mg ae/kg-bwt for the weight
    classes 20, 100, and 1000 g birds, respectively.

*Foliar Summary for Mefluidide-K and Mefluidide-DEA*

1.  Acute RQs were calculated for birds based on the non-definitive
    LD~50~ value of \>1500 mg ae/kg-bw. No mortality occurred at the
    single dose treatment level (1500 mg ae/kg-bw) for the Tier I Acute
    Toxicity to Bobwhite quail study MRID 416019-01. RQ values ranged 0
    to 0.25 for the 1.0 lb ae/A ornamental turf modeled scenario. RQs
    are summarized in **Appendix D.** summarizes the avian dietary-based
    chronic RQs for foliar uses of mefluidide-K and mefluidide-DEA.
    Chronic RQs were estimated for birds based on the non-definitive
    LD~50~ value of 38 mg ae/kg. Chronic dietary-based exceedances
    occurred for birds for the 1.0 lb ae/A modeled scenario with risk
    quotients ranging from 2.9 to 6.32. Chronic estimated NOAEC values
    and calculations are summarized in **Appendix E.**

**Table 4.7** summarizes the avian dose-based acute RQs for foliar uses
of mefluidide-K and mefluidide-DEA.

For mefluidide-DEA and mefluidide-K, acute restricted use and/or listed
species risk LOCs are exceeded for 20 g birds that consume short grass,
tall grass, and broadleaf plants and small insects for the 1.0 ae/A
application rate modeled scenario with acute RQs of \<0.25.

For mefluidide-DEA and mefluidide-K, acute risk to listed species LOCs
are exceeded for 20 g birds that consume short grass, tall grass, and
broadleaf plants and small insects and 100 g birds that consume short
grass for the 1.0 lb ae/A application rate modeled scenario with acute
RQs ranging from \<0.11 to \<0.25.

**Table 4.8** summarizes the avian dietary-based chronic RQs for foliar
uses of mefluidide-K and mefluidide-DEA. Chronic dietary-based
exceedances occurred for birds for the 1.0 lb ae/A modeled scenario with
risk quotients ranging from 2.9 to 6.32. Risk quotients based on dietary
exposure levels are provided for comparison purposes.

+--------+----------+------+-------+--------+-----------+-----------+
| *      |          |      |       |        |           |           |
| *Table |          |      |       |        |           |           |
| 4.7.   |          |      |       |        |           |           |
| Avian  |          |      |       |        |           |           |
| dose   |          |      |       |        |           |           |
| -based |          |      |       |        |           |           |
| acute  |          |      |       |        |           |           |
| RQ     |          |      |       |        |           |           |
| values |          |      |       |        |           |           |
| for    |          |      |       |        |           |           |
| pr     |          |      |       |        |           |           |
| oposed |          |      |       |        |           |           |
| uses   |          |      |       |        |           |           |
| of     |          |      |       |        |           |           |
| M      |          |      |       |        |           |           |
| efluid |          |      |       |        |           |           |
| ide-K, |          |      |       |        |           |           |
| Me     |          |      |       |        |           |           |
| fluidi |          |      |       |        |           |           |
| de-DEA |          |      |       |        |           |           |
| and    |          |      |       |        |           |           |
| Mefl   |          |      |       |        |           |           |
| uidide |          |      |       |        |           |           |
| based  |          |      |       |        |           |           |
| on a   |          |      |       |        |           |           |
| bo     |          |      |       |        |           |           |
| bwhite |          |      |       |        |           |           |
| quail  |          |      |       |        |           |           |
| LD~50~ |          |      |       |        |           |           |
| \>     |          |      |       |        |           |           |
| 1500   |          |      |       |        |           |           |
| mg     |          |      |       |        |           |           |
| ae/kg  |          |      |       |        |           |           |
| -bw    |          |      |       |        |           |           |
| and    |          |      |       |        |           |           |
| upper  |          |      |       |        |           |           |
| -bound |          |      |       |        |           |           |
| Kenaga |          |      |       |        |           |           |
| values |          |      |       |        |           |           |
| ^1^.** |          |      |       |        |           |           |
+========+==========+======+=======+========+===========+===========+
| *      | **App    | **   | *     |        |           |           |
| *Use** | lication | Body | *Mamm |        |           |           |
|        | Rate     | Wei  | alian |        |           |           |
|        | lbs.     | ght, | Acute |        |           |           |
|        | ae/A**   | g**  | Risk  |        |           |           |
|        |          |      | Q     |        |           |           |
|        | **(# app |      | uotie |        |           |           |
|        | /        |      | nts** |        |           |           |
|        | i        |      | (u    |        |           |           |
|        | nterval, |      | pper- |        |           |           |
|        | days)**  |      | bound |        |           |           |
|        |          |      | K     |        |           |           |
|        |          |      | enaga |        |           |           |
|        |          |      | resi  |        |           |           |
|        |          |      | dues) |        |           |           |
+--------+----------+------+-------+--------+-----------+-----------+
|        |          |      | **    | **Tall | **        | **Fruit   |
|        |          |      | Short | G      | Broadleaf | s/pods/** |
|        |          |      | Gr    | rass** | Pla       |           |
|        |          |      | ass** |        | nts/Small | **seeds** |
|        |          |      |       |        | Insects** |           |
|        |          |      |       |        |           | **large   |
|        |          |      |       |        |           | insects** |
+--------+----------+------+-------+--------+-----------+-----------+
| Orna   | 1.0      | 20   | \<0.2 | \<     | \<0.14\*  | \<0.02    |
| mental |          |      | 5\*\* | 0.12\* |           |           |
| Turf   | 3 per    |      |       |        |           |           |
|        | season   |      |       |        |           |           |
| (mefl  |          |      |       |        |           |           |
| uidide | 42       |      |       |        |           |           |
| salts  |          |      |       |        |           |           |
| only)  | day      |      |       |        |           |           |
|        | interval |      |       |        |           |           |
| Ground |          |      |       |        |           |           |
| spray  |          |      |       |        |           |           |
+--------+----------+------+-------+--------+-----------+-----------+
|        |          | 100  | \<0   | \<0.05 | \<0.06    | \<0.01    |
|        |          |      | .11\* |        |           |           |
+--------+----------+------+-------+--------+-----------+-----------+
|        |          | 1000 | \     | \<0.02 | \<0.02    | \<0.00    |
|        |          |      | <0.04 |        |           |           |
+--------+----------+------+-------+--------+-----------+-----------+

^1^

^1^ For avian toxicity assessments, data evaluating Mefluidide-K,
Mefluidide-DEA and Mefluidide toxicity have been bridged because
toxicity is expected to come from the benzene ring of mefluidide.
Therefore, the most sensitive Mefluidide endpoint was selected to
represent avian for all application scenarios.

\* exceeds LOC for acute risk to listed species (RQ ≥ 0.1)

\*\* exceeds LOCs for acute risk to listed species and restricted use
(RQ ≥ 0.2)

+-----------+---------------+--------------+--------------+----------+
| **Table   |               |              |              |          |
| 4.8.      |               |              |              |          |
| Avian     |               |              |              |          |
| diet      |               |              |              |          |
| ary-based |               |              |              |          |
| chronic   |               |              |              |          |
| RQ values |               |              |              |          |
| for       |               |              |              |          |
| Mef       |               |              |              |          |
| luidide-K |               |              |              |          |
| and       |               |              |              |          |
| Meflu     |               |              |              |          |
| idide-DEA |               |              |              |          |
| based on  |               |              |              |          |
| an        |               |              |              |          |
| estimated |               |              |              |          |
| NOAEC of  |               |              |              |          |
| 38.0 mg/  |               |              |              |          |
| ae kg and |               |              |              |          |
| up        |               |              |              |          |
| per-bound |               |              |              |          |
| Kenaga    |               |              |              |          |
| resid     |               |              |              |          |
| ues^1^.** |               |              |              |          |
+===========+===============+==============+==============+==========+
| **Use**   | **Application | **Food       | **Upper      | *        |
|           | Rate lbs.     | Items**      | Bound EEC    | *Chronic |
|           | ai/A**        |              | (mg/kg)      | RQ**     |
|           |               |              | ^2^**        |          |
|           | **(# app /    |              |              | **(EEC/  |
|           | interval,     |              |              | NOAEC)** |
|           | days)**       |              |              |          |
+-----------+---------------+--------------+--------------+----------+
| O         | 1.0           | Short grass  | 240.17       | 6.32\*   |
| rnamental |               |              |              |          |
| Turf      | 3 per season  |              |              |          |
|           |               |              |              |          |
| (m        | 42            |              |              |          |
| efluidide |               |              |              |          |
| salts     | day interval  |              |              |          |
| only)     |               |              |              |          |
|           |               |              |              |          |
| Ground    |               |              |              |          |
| spray     |               |              |              |          |
+-----------+---------------+--------------+--------------+----------+
|           |               | Tall grass   | 110.08       | 2.90\*   |
+-----------+---------------+--------------+--------------+----------+
|           |               | Broadleaf    | 135.09       | 3.56\*   |
|           |               | plants/small |              |          |
|           |               | insects      |              |          |
+-----------+---------------+--------------+--------------+----------+
|           |               | Fruits,      | 15.01        | 0.40     |
|           |               | pods, seeds, |              |          |
|           |               | and large    |              |          |
|           |               | insects      |              |          |
+-----------+---------------+--------------+--------------+----------+

^1^ For avian toxicity assessments, data evaluating Mefluidide-K,
Mefluidide-DEA and Mefluidide toxicity have been bridged because
toxicity is expected to come from the benzene ring of mefluidide.
Therefore, the most sensitive Mefluidide endpoint was selected to
represent avian for all application scenarios.

\* exceeds LOC for chronic risk to listed species (RQ ≥ 1.0)

LD~50~/sq ft Summary

Mefluidide is the only proposed granular application. Based on one
application of mefluidide at 0.5lbs ae/acre, LOC exceedances occurred
for small-sized 20 g birds for acute restricted use and/or listed
species (RQ=0.24). LD~50~s/sq-ft can be interpreted as the number of
lethal doses (LD~50~s) that are available within one square foot
immediately after application. EFED does not currently assess chronic
risks to birds from granular applications. The acute RQs for LD~50~/sq
ft based on a single application of mefluidide are summarized in
**Appendix D**

1.  *Mammals*

*Mammalian Risk*

EECs and corresponding mammalian acute and chronic RQs for Mefluidide
application were determined using the T-REX Version 1.3.1 model.
Calculations for mammalian organisms oral dose-based risk quotients were
based on an acute laboratory mouse LD~50~ value of 829.8 mg ae/kg bw and
a chronic reproductive effect (NOAEC) observed at 102 mg ae/kg bw/day .
Oral dose-based RQ values were calculated by dividing the
consumption-weighted equivalent dose by the body weight-adjusted LD~50~.
The mammalian LD~50~ is adjusted for body weight according the following
equation:

$\text{Adjusted Mammalian LD}_{\text{50}}(\text{mg/kg bw}) = \text{LD}_{\text{50}} \ast \left( \frac{\text{TW }(g)}{\text{AW }(g)} \right)^{0\text{.}\text{25}}$

(USEPA, 2006)

The assessed weight (AW) is the body weight of the wildlife species. An
adjusted LD~50~ is calculated for each weight class of mammal (15, 35,
and 1000 g). The test weight (TW) is the weight of the species used in
the toxicity study. In this case, the average weight of the laboratory
mouse was 20 g; however, T-REX assumes the average weight is 350 g.
Therefore, the TW was adjusted to a mouse weighing 20 g in the model
instead of 350 g rat weight. However, the assumed 350 g TW for the rat
was used for the chronic oral dose-based RQ calculations, the NOAEC (102
mg ae/kg bw/day) was converted to a NOAEL (2040 mg ae/kg diet) based on
a standard FDA lab rat conversion.

*Foliar Summary for Mefluidide-K and Mefluidide-DEA*

**Table 4.9** summarizes the mammalian dose-based acute RQs for foliar
uses of mefluidide-K and mefluidide-DEA.

For mefluidide-DEA and mefluidide-K, acute restricted use and/or listed
species acute risk LOCs are exceeded for 15 g and 35 g mammals that
consume short grass for the 1.0 lb ae/A application rate modeled
scenario with acute RQs ranging from 0.22 to 0.26.

Acute risk to listed species are exceeded for 15 and 35 g sized mammals
that consume short grass, tall grass, broadleaf plants and small insects
and 1000 g mammals that consume short grass for the 1.0 lb ae/A
application rate modeled scenario with acute RQs ranging from 0.10 to
0.26.

**Table 4.10** summarizes the mammalian dose-based chronic RQs for
foliar uses of mefluidide-K and mefluidide-DEA. The chronic LOC is
exceeded for 15 g mammals that consume short grass with an RQ of 1.02
for the 1.0 lb ae/A modeled scenario.

**Table 4.11** summarizes the mammalian dietary-based chronic RQs for
foliar uses of mefluidide-K and mefluidide-DEA. No chronic dietary-based
exceedances occurred for mammals for the1.0 lb ae/A modeled scenario.
Risk quotients based on dietary exposure levels are provided for
comparison purposes.

+-------+--------+-----+------+-------+---------+---------+--------+
| **    |        |     |      |       |         |         |        |
| Table |        |     |      |       |         |         |        |
| 4.9.  |        |     |      |       |         |         |        |
| Mamm  |        |     |      |       |         |         |        |
| alian |        |     |      |       |         |         |        |
| dose- |        |     |      |       |         |         |        |
| based |        |     |      |       |         |         |        |
| acute |        |     |      |       |         |         |        |
| RQ    |        |     |      |       |         |         |        |
| v     |        |     |      |       |         |         |        |
| alues |        |     |      |       |         |         |        |
| for   |        |     |      |       |         |         |        |
| pro   |        |     |      |       |         |         |        |
| posed |        |     |      |       |         |         |        |
| uses  |        |     |      |       |         |         |        |
| of    |        |     |      |       |         |         |        |
| Me    |        |     |      |       |         |         |        |
| fluid |        |     |      |       |         |         |        |
| ide-K |        |     |      |       |         |         |        |
| and   |        |     |      |       |         |         |        |
| Mefl  |        |     |      |       |         |         |        |
| uidid |        |     |      |       |         |         |        |
| e-DEA |        |     |      |       |         |         |        |
| based |        |     |      |       |         |         |        |
| on a  |        |     |      |       |         |         |        |
| mouse |        |     |      |       |         |         |        |
| L     |        |     |      |       |         |         |        |
| D~50~ |        |     |      |       |         |         |        |
| =     |        |     |      |       |         |         |        |
| 829.8 |        |     |      |       |         |         |        |
| mg    |        |     |      |       |         |         |        |
| ae/kg |        |     |      |       |         |         |        |
| -bw   |        |     |      |       |         |         |        |
| and   |        |     |      |       |         |         |        |
| u     |        |     |      |       |         |         |        |
| pper- |        |     |      |       |         |         |        |
| bound |        |     |      |       |         |         |        |
| K     |        |     |      |       |         |         |        |
| enaga |        |     |      |       |         |         |        |
| va    |        |     |      |       |         |         |        |
| lues^ |        |     |      |       |         |         |        |
| 1^.** |        |     |      |       |         |         |        |
+=======+========+=====+======+=======+=========+=========+========+
| **    | *      | **B | **M  |       |         |         |        |
| Use** | *Appli | ody | amma |       |         |         |        |
|       | cation | W   | lian |       |         |         |        |
|       | Rate   | eig | A    |       |         |         |        |
|       | lbs.   | ht, | cute |       |         |         |        |
|       | ae/A** | g** | Risk |       |         |         |        |
|       |        |     | Quo  |       |         |         |        |
|       | **(#   |     | tien |       |         |         |        |
|       | app /  |     | ts** |       |         |         |        |
|       | int    |     | (upp |       |         |         |        |
|       | erval, |     | er-b |       |         |         |        |
|       | d      |     | ound |       |         |         |        |
|       | ays)** |     | Ke   |       |         |         |        |
|       |        |     | naga |       |         |         |        |
|       |        |     | r    |       |         |         |        |
|       |        |     | esid |       |         |         |        |
|       |        |     | ues) |       |         |         |        |
+-------+--------+-----+------+-------+---------+---------+--------+
|       |        |     | **S  | *     | **Br    | **      | **S    |
|       |        |     | hort | *Tall | oadleaf | Fruits/ | eeds** |
|       |        |     | Gra  | Gr    | Plant   | pods/** |        |
|       |        |     | ss** | ass** | s/Small |         | **(    |
|       |        |     |      |       | In      | **      | graniv |
|       |        |     |      |       | sects** | seeds** | ore)** |
|       |        |     |      |       |         |         |        |
|       |        |     |      |       |         | **large |        |
|       |        |     |      |       |         | in      |        |
|       |        |     |      |       |         | sects** |        |
+-------+--------+-----+------+-------+---------+---------+--------+
| Ornam | 1.0    | 15  | 0.26 | 0     | 0.14\*  | 0.02    | 0.00   |
| ental |        |     | \*\* | .12\* |         |         |        |
| Turf  | 3 per  |     |      |       |         |         |        |
|       | season |     |      |       |         |         |        |
| (     |        |     |      |       |         |         |        |
| meflu | 42     |     |      |       |         |         |        |
| idide |        |     |      |       |         |         |        |
| salts | day    |     |      |       |         |         |        |
| only) | in     |     |      |       |         |         |        |
|       | terval |     |      |       |         |         |        |
| G     |        |     |      |       |         |         |        |
| round |        |     |      |       |         |         |        |
| spray |        |     |      |       |         |         |        |
+-------+--------+-----+------+-------+---------+---------+--------+
|       |        | 35  | 0.22 | 0     | 0.12\*  | 0.01    | 0.00   |
|       |        |     | \*\* | .10\* |         |         |        |
+-------+--------+-----+------+-------+---------+---------+--------+
|       |        | 1   | 0.   | 0.05  | 0.07    | 0.01    | 0.00   |
|       |        | 000 | 12\* |       |         |         |        |
+-------+--------+-----+------+-------+---------+---------+--------+

^1^ For mammal toxicity assessments, data evaluating Mefluidide-K,
Mefluidide-DEA and Mefluidide toxicity have been bridged because
toxicity is expected to come from the benzene ring of mefluidide.
Therefore, the most sensitive Mefluidide endpoint was selected to
represent mammals for all application scenarios.

\* exceeds LOC for acute risk to listed species (RQ ≥ 0.1)

\*\* exceeds LOCs for acute risk to listed species and restricted use
(RQ ≥ 0.2)

+-------+---------+-----+------+-------+----------+----------+-------+
| **    |         |     |      |       |          |          |       |
| Table |         |     |      |       |          |          |       |
| 4.10. |         |     |      |       |          |          |       |
| Mamm  |         |     |      |       |          |          |       |
| alian |         |     |      |       |          |          |       |
| dose- |         |     |      |       |          |          |       |
| based |         |     |      |       |          |          |       |
| ch    |         |     |      |       |          |          |       |
| ronic |         |     |      |       |          |          |       |
| RQ    |         |     |      |       |          |          |       |
| v     |         |     |      |       |          |          |       |
| alues |         |     |      |       |          |          |       |
| for   |         |     |      |       |          |          |       |
| pro   |         |     |      |       |          |          |       |
| posed |         |     |      |       |          |          |       |
| uses  |         |     |      |       |          |          |       |
| of    |         |     |      |       |          |          |       |
| Me    |         |     |      |       |          |          |       |
| fluid |         |     |      |       |          |          |       |
| ide-K |         |     |      |       |          |          |       |
| and   |         |     |      |       |          |          |       |
| Mefl  |         |     |      |       |          |          |       |
| uidid |         |     |      |       |          |          |       |
| e-DEA |         |     |      |       |          |          |       |
| based |         |     |      |       |          |          |       |
| on a  |         |     |      |       |          |          |       |
| rat   |         |     |      |       |          |          |       |
| re    |         |     |      |       |          |          |       |
| produ |         |     |      |       |          |          |       |
| ctive |         |     |      |       |          |          |       |
| NOAEC |         |     |      |       |          |          |       |
| of    |         |     |      |       |          |          |       |
| 102   |         |     |      |       |          |          |       |
| mg    |         |     |      |       |          |          |       |
| ae    |         |     |      |       |          |          |       |
| /kg-b |         |     |      |       |          |          |       |
| w/day |         |     |      |       |          |          |       |
| and   |         |     |      |       |          |          |       |
| u     |         |     |      |       |          |          |       |
| pper- |         |     |      |       |          |          |       |
| bound |         |     |      |       |          |          |       |
| K     |         |     |      |       |          |          |       |
| enaga |         |     |      |       |          |          |       |
| resi  |         |     |      |       |          |          |       |
| dues^ |         |     |      |       |          |          |       |
| 1^.** |         |     |      |       |          |          |       |
+=======+=========+=====+======+=======+==========+==========+=======+
| **    | **Appl  | **B | **M  |       |          |          |       |
| Use** | ication | ody | amma |       |          |          |       |
|       | Rate    | W   | lian |       |          |          |       |
|       | lbs.    | eig | A    |       |          |          |       |
|       | ae/A**  | ht, | cute |       |          |          |       |
|       |         | g** | Risk |       |          |          |       |
|       | **(#    |     | Quo  |       |          |          |       |
|       | app /   |     | tien |       |          |          |       |
|       | in      |     | ts** |       |          |          |       |
|       | terval, |     | (upp |       |          |          |       |
|       | days)** |     | er-b |       |          |          |       |
|       |         |     | ound |       |          |          |       |
|       |         |     | Ke   |       |          |          |       |
|       |         |     | naga |       |          |          |       |
|       |         |     | r    |       |          |          |       |
|       |         |     | esid |       |          |          |       |
|       |         |     | ues) |       |          |          |       |
+-------+---------+-----+------+-------+----------+----------+-------+
|       |         |     | **S  | *     | **B      | **Fru    | **Se  |
|       |         |     | hort | *Tall | roadleaf | its/pods | eds** |
|       |         |     | Gra  | Gr    | Plan     | /seeds** |       |
|       |         |     | ss** | ass** | ts/Small |          | **(gr |
|       |         |     |      |       | I        | **large  | anivo |
|       |         |     |      |       | nsects** | i        | re)** |
|       |         |     |      |       |          | nsects** |       |
+-------+---------+-----+------+-------+----------+----------+-------+
| Ornam | 1.0     | 15  | 1.   | 0.47  | 0.57     | 0.06     | 0.01  |
| ental |         |     | 02\* |       |          |          |       |
| Turf  | 3 per   |     |      |       |          |          |       |
|       | season  |     |      |       |          |          |       |
| (     |         |     |      |       |          |          |       |
| meflu | 42      |     |      |       |          |          |       |
| idide |         |     |      |       |          |          |       |
| salts | day     |     |      |       |          |          |       |
| only) | i       |     |      |       |          |          |       |
|       | nterval |     |      |       |          |          |       |
| G     |         |     |      |       |          |          |       |
| round |         |     |      |       |          |          |       |
| spray |         |     |      |       |          |          |       |
+-------+---------+-----+------+-------+----------+----------+-------+
|       |         | 35  | 0.87 | 0.40  | 0.49     | 0.05     | 0.01  |
+-------+---------+-----+------+-------+----------+----------+-------+
|       |         | 1   | 0.47 | 0.21  | 0.26     | 0.03     | 0.01  |
|       |         | 000 |      |       |          |          |       |
+-------+---------+-----+------+-------+----------+----------+-------+

^1^ For mammal toxicity assessments, data evaluating Mefluidide-K,
Mefluidide-DEA and Mefluidide toxicity have been bridged because
toxicity is expected to come from the benzene ring of mefluidide.
Therefore, the most sensitive Mefluidide endpoint was selected to
represent mammals for all application scenarios.

**\***exceeds the chronic risk LOC (RQ [\>]{.underline} 1.0) for
non-listed and listed species.

+-----------+---------------+--------------+--------------+----------+
| **Table   |               |              |              |          |
| 4.11.     |               |              |              |          |
| Mammalian |               |              |              |          |
| diet      |               |              |              |          |
| ary-based |               |              |              |          |
| chronic   |               |              |              |          |
| RQ values |               |              |              |          |
| for       |               |              |              |          |
| Mef       |               |              |              |          |
| luidide-K |               |              |              |          |
| and       |               |              |              |          |
| Meflu     |               |              |              |          |
| idide-DEA |               |              |              |          |
| based on  |               |              |              |          |
| a rat     |               |              |              |          |
| rep       |               |              |              |          |
| roductive |               |              |              |          |
| NOAEC of  |               |              |              |          |
| 2040      |               |              |              |          |
| m         |               |              |              |          |
| g/kg-diet |               |              |              |          |
| and       |               |              |              |          |
| up        |               |              |              |          |
| per-bound |               |              |              |          |
| Kenaga    |               |              |              |          |
| resid     |               |              |              |          |
| ues^1^.** |               |              |              |          |
+===========+===============+==============+==============+==========+
| **Use**   | **Application | **Food       | **Upper      | *        |
|           | Rate lbs.     | Items**      | Bound EEC    | *Chronic |
|           | ai/A**        |              | (mg/kg)      | RQ**     |
|           |               |              | ^2^**        |          |
|           | **(# app /    |              |              | **(EEC/  |
|           | interval,     |              |              | NOAEC)** |
|           | days)**       |              |              |          |
+-----------+---------------+--------------+--------------+----------+
| O         | 1.0           | Short grass  | 240.17       | 0.12     |
| rnamental |               |              |              |          |
| Turf      | 3 per season  |              |              |          |
|           |               |              |              |          |
| (m        | 42            |              |              |          |
| efluidide |               |              |              |          |
| salts     | day interval  |              |              |          |
| only)     |               |              |              |          |
|           |               |              |              |          |
| Ground    |               |              |              |          |
| spray     |               |              |              |          |
+-----------+---------------+--------------+--------------+----------+
|           |               | Tall grass   | 110.08       | 0.05     |
+-----------+---------------+--------------+--------------+----------+
|           |               | Broadleaf    | 135.09       | 0.07     |
|           |               | plants/small |              |          |
|           |               | insects      |              |          |
+-----------+---------------+--------------+--------------+----------+
|           |               | Fruits,      | 15.01        | 0.01     |
|           |               | pods, seeds, |              |          |
|           |               | and large    |              |          |
|           |               | insects      |              |          |
+-----------+---------------+--------------+--------------+----------+

^1^ For mammal toxicity assessments, data evaluating Mefluidide-K,
Mefluidide-DEA and Mefluidide toxicity have been bridged because
toxicity is expected to come from the benzene ring of mefluidide.
Therefore, the most sensitive Mefluidide endpoint was selected to
represent mammals for all application scenarios.

^2^ estimated chronic diet concentration equivalent based on reported
chronic dose

**\***exceeds the chronic risk LOC (RQ [\>]{.underline} 1.0) for
non-listed and listed species.

*LD~50~/sq ft Summary*

Mefluidide is the only proposed granular application. Based on one
application of mefluidide at 0.5lbs ae/acre, acute restricted use and/or
listed species acute risk LOC exceedances occurred for the LD~50~s/sq-ft
for small and medium-sized mammals. The RQs are 0.39 and 0.21 for small
and medium mammals, respectively. LD~50~s/sq-ft can be interpreted as
the number of lethal doses (LD~50~s) that are available within one
square foot immediately after application. EFED does not currently
assess chronic risks to mammals from granular applications. The acute
RQs for LD~50~/sq ft based on a single application of mefluidide are
summarized in **Appendix D.** Calculations for LD~50~/sq ft are based on
the acute laboratory mouse LD~50~ value of 829.8 mg ae/kg bw, adjusted
to an average weight of 20 g. The calculations for food intake for a 20
gram size class mouse are summarized in **Appendix D**. The LD50
approach is only applied to a single application.

2.   *Plants*

*Non-target Terrestrial Plants in Dryland and Semi-aquatic Areas*

An analysis indicates exceedance of the Acute Risk LOC for listed and
non-endangered monocots and dicots in dryland and semi-aquatic areas
located adjacent to treated areas, both as a result of combined runoff
and spray drift, and from spray drift alone for mefluidide-DEA and
mefluidide-K.

For terrestrial plants, only one vegetative vigor toxicity study was
submitted for plants based on fresh weight exposed to mefluidide-DEA.
These data were bridged with mefluidide and mefluidide-K.

Risk to terrestrial plants from spray drift alone is evaluated by
comparing the estimated exposure from drift to the most sensitive EC~25~
calculated from vegetative vigor laboratory tests. The most sensitive
vegetative vigor EC~25~ values were 0.105 and 0.0054 lb ae/acre for
monocots and dicots, respectively. The NOAEC values were 0.045 and
0.0029 lb ae/acre for monocots and dicots, respectively. Wet weight was
the most sensitive endpoint for monocots and dicots in the vegetative
vigor studies used to evaluate risk to terrestrial plants.

Seedling emergence toxicity data was not available and data was not
available from other anilide analogs to derive EC~25~ values. To
estimate possible effects measurement endpoints for seedling emergence,
EFED assumed that EC~25~ toxicity values for vegetative vigor are equal
to seedling emergence measurement endpoints for mefluidide,
mefluidide-DEA and mefluidide-K. Therefore, the most sensitive seedling
emergence EC~25~ estimated values are 0.105 and 0.0054 lb ae/A for
monocots and dicots, respectively. The NOEC estimated values for
seedling emergence are 0.045 and 0.0029 lb ae/A for monocots and dicots,
respectively. These values are used to calculate risk quotients for
exposure from combined runoff and spray drift to adjacent fields.

Because RQs based on the EC~25~ values exceed the acute LOC, and
exposure can be expected which would cause greater than a 25% effect,
risk to listed plants is also a concern. Because RQs based on the NOAEC
values exceed the acute LOC, and exposure can be expected which would
cause potential risks to listed plants. Risk quotients with which to
evaluate listed plant risks from a result of combined runoff and spray
drift, and from spray drift alone for mefluidide, mefluidide-DEA and
mefluidide-K were calculated with the above NOAEC values from the
vegetative vigor studies.

Spray applications with 1.0lb ae/A demonstrated the highest RQ
exceedances followed by granular applications with 0.5 lb ae/A. Dicots
demonstrated more sensitivity than monocots in most application
scenarios with exposure to mefluidide, mefluidide-DEA and mefluidide-K.

(**Table 4.12)** summarizes vegetative vigor and seedling emergence
terrestrial plant RQs for foliar and granular uses of mefluidide-K,
mefluidide-DEA and mefluidide from a result of combined runoff and spray
drift, and from spray drift alone. Risk quotients were exceeded for
ground spray (1.0 lb ae/A) and granular applications (0.5 lb ae/A) for
monocots and dicots. Dicots demonstrated more sensitivity than monocots
in all application scenarios with exposure to mefluidide-K and
mefluidide-DEA with all TERR Plant modeled scenarios.

+------+-----+--------+-------------+---+--------+-------------+-----+
| **T  |     |        |             |   |        |             |     |
| able |     |        |             |   |        |             |     |
| 4    |     |        |             |   |        |             |     |
| .12. |     |        |             |   |        |             |     |
| Su   |     |        |             |   |        |             |     |
| mmar |     |        |             |   |        |             |     |
| ized |     |        |             |   |        |             |     |
| Ter  |     |        |             |   |        |             |     |
| rest |     |        |             |   |        |             |     |
| rial |     |        |             |   |        |             |     |
| P    |     |        |             |   |        |             |     |
| lant |     |        |             |   |        |             |     |
| Risk |     |        |             |   |        |             |     |
| Q    |     |        |             |   |        |             |     |
| uoti |     |        |             |   |        |             |     |
| ents |     |        |             |   |        |             |     |
| for  |     |        |             |   |        |             |     |
| Mef  |     |        |             |   |        |             |     |
| luid |     |        |             |   |        |             |     |
| ide, |     |        |             |   |        |             |     |
| Me   |     |        |             |   |        |             |     |
| flui |     |        |             |   |        |             |     |
| dide |     |        |             |   |        |             |     |
| -DEA |     |        |             |   |        |             |     |
| and  |     |        |             |   |        |             |     |
| M    |     |        |             |   |        |             |     |
| eflu |     |        |             |   |        |             |     |
| idid |     |        |             |   |        |             |     |
| e-K^ |     |        |             |   |        |             |     |
| a,\  |     |        |             |   |        |             |     |
| b,\  |     |        |             |   |        |             |     |
| c,\  |     |        |             |   |        |             |     |
| d^** |     |        |             |   |        |             |     |
+======+=====+========+=============+===+========+=============+=====+
| **Sc |     | *      |             |   | *      |             |     |
| enar |     | *Acute |             |   | *Acute |             |     |
| io** |     | No     |             |   | listed |             |     |
|      |     | n-enda |             |   | RQs**  |             |     |
|      |     | ngered |             |   |        |             |     |
|      |     | RQs**  |             |   |        |             |     |
+------+-----+--------+-------------+---+--------+-------------+-----+
|      |     | **ad   | **s         | * | **ad   | **s         | **d |
|      |     | jacent | emi-aquatic | * | jacent | emi-aquatic | rif |
|      |     | to**   | areas**     | d | to**   | areas**     | t** |
|      |     |        |             | r |        |             |     |
|      |     | **t    |             | i | **t    |             |     |
|      |     | reated |             | f | reated |             |     |
|      |     | s      |             | t | s      |             |     |
|      |     | ites** |             | * | ites** |             |     |
|      |     |        |             | * |        |             |     |
+------+-----+--------+-------------+---+--------+-------------+-----+
| **Gr |     |        |             |   |        |             |     |
| ound |     |        |             |   |        |             |     |
| s    |     |        |             |   |        |             |     |
| pray |     |        |             |   |        |             |     |
| app  |     |        |             |   |        |             |     |
| lica |     |        |             |   |        |             |     |
| tion |     |        |             |   |        |             |     |
| (1.0 |     |        |             |   |        |             |     |
| lbs  |     |        |             |   |        |             |     |
| ae   |     |        |             |   |        |             |     |
| /acr |     |        |             |   |        |             |     |
| e)** |     |        |             |   |        |             |     |
+------+-----+--------+-------------+---+--------+-------------+-----+
|      | M   | 0.571  | 4.86\*\*    | 0 | 1.33\* | 11.33\*     | 0   |
|      | ono |        |             | . |        |             | .22 |
|      | cot |        |             | 1 |        |             |     |
|      |     |        |             | 0 |        |             |     |
+------+-----+--------+-------------+---+--------+-------------+-----+
|      | Di  | 11.    | 94.44\*\*   | 1 | 2      | 175.86\*    | 3.4 |
|      | cot | 11\*\* |             | . | 0.69\* |             | 5\* |
|      |     |        |             | 8 |        |             |     |
|      |     |        |             | 5 |        |             |     |
|      |     |        |             | \ |        |             |     |
|      |     |        |             | * |        |             |     |
+------+-----+--------+-------------+---+--------+-------------+-----+
| **   |     |        |             |   |        |             |     |
| Gran |     |        |             |   |        |             |     |
| ular |     |        |             |   |        |             |     |
| gr   |     |        |             |   |        |             |     |
| ound |     |        |             |   |        |             |     |
| app  |     |        |             |   |        |             |     |
| lica |     |        |             |   |        |             |     |
| tion |     |        |             |   |        |             |     |
| (0.5 |     |        |             |   |        |             |     |
| lbs  |     |        |             |   |        |             |     |
| a    |     |        |             |   |        |             |     |
| e/ac |     |        |             |   |        |             |     |
| re)* |     |        |             |   |        |             |     |
| *^e^ |     |        |             |   |        |             |     |
+------+-----+--------+-------------+---+--------+-------------+-----+
|      | M   | 0.24   | 2.38\*\*    | n | 0.56   | 5.56\*      | n/a |
|      | ono |        |             | / |        |             |     |
|      | cot |        |             | a |        |             |     |
+------+-----+--------+-------------+---+--------+-------------+-----+
|      | Di  | 4.     | 46.3\*\*    | n | 8.62\* | 86.21\*     | n/a |
|      | cot | 63\*\* |             | / |        |             |     |
|      |     |        |             | a |        |             |     |
+------+-----+--------+-------------+---+--------+-------------+-----+

^1^ For terrestrial plant (seedling emergence and vegetative vigor)
toxicity assessments, data evaluating Mefluidide-K, Mefluidide-DEA and
Mefluidide toxicity have been bridged. Therefore, the most sensitive
Mefluidide endpoint was selected to represent terrestrial plants for all
application scenarios.

^a^ RQs for spray turf applications in this table were calculated for
the maximum labeled application rates of (1.2 lbs ae/acre) and (1.0 lbs
ae/acre) for mefluidide-DEA and mefluidide-K respectively..

^b^ Acute non-endangered toxicity thresholds (EC~25~) were (0.105,
0.0054, 0.105, 0.0054)ae/acre for seedling emergence monocot, seedling
emergence dicot, vegetative vigor monocot, and vegetative vigor dicot,
respectively. EFED assumed that EC~25~ toxicity values for terrestrial
plants (vegetative vigor) are equal to (seedling emergence) measurement
endpoints for Mefluidide, Mefluidide-DEA and Mefluidide-K due to lack of
submitted data.

^c^ Acute listed toxicity thresholds (NOAEC) were (0.045, 0.0029, 0.045,
0.0029) lb ai/acre for seedling emergence monocot, seedling emergence
dicot, vegetative vigor monocot, and vegetative vigor dicot,
respectively. EFED assumed that NOAEC toxicity values for terrestrial
plants (vegetative vigor) are equal to (seedling emergence) measurement
endpoints for Mefluidide, Mefluidide-DEA and Mefluidide-K due to lack of
submitted data.

\* indicates an exceedance of the listed Species Level of Concern (LOC).

\*\*indicates an exceedance of the Acute Risk LOC.

^d^RQs for ground granular applications in this table were calculated
for the maximum labeled application rate of 0.5lbs ae/acre. Drift RQs
are not applicable for granular applications.

Spray drift is an important factor in characterizing the risk of
Mefluidide to non-target plants. Spray drift exposure from ground
application is assumed to be 1% of the application rate and the EECs and
RQs were calculated using EFED's TerrPlant.xls model (Version 1.2.1).
The AgDrift Tier 1 model (ground application, very fine to fine droplet
size and low boom height for turf application) was used to determine
what conditions are represented by a 1% spray drift exposure from ground
application. AgDrift provided 90^th^ percentile estimates based on the
distribution of field measurements at 10 to 900 feet distances from the
edge of field (Table 3.5). The 90^th^ percentile drift estimates from
AgDrift for 1.0 lb ae/A ground application was 0.51% of applied at a
distance of 200 ft from the edge of the field for turf applications. LOC
exceedences did not occur with a 200 foot or above buffer size for both
listed and non-listed dicots for the 1.0 lb ae/A application scenario.
RQs were calculated for buffers from 10 to 900 feet are summarized in
Appendix D.

4.1.3 RQs Based on Mean Kenaga Residues

For this risk assessment, the RQ that were compared to the LOCs were
calculated using maximum EECs derived from the Kenaga nomograph. Risk
quotients were also calculated using mean EECs to determine the extent
of the risk to mammals. RQs were based on both single oral dose and
dietary studies for mammals.

***Birds***

Acute RQs were calculated for birds based on the non-definitive LD~50~
value of \>1500 mg ae/kg-bwt . No mortality occurred at the single dose
treatment level (1500 mg ae/kg-bw) for the Tier I Acute Toxicity to
Bobwhite quail study MRID 416019-01. When mean residues were assumed, RQ
values ranged from 0 to \<0.09 for the 1.0 lb ae/A ornamental turf
modeled scenario. Based on the mean kenaga assessment, no acute LOC
exceedances occurred for birds for the 1.0 lb ae/A application scenario.

Based on the chronic estimated value of NOAEC of 38 mg/ ae kg diet, when
mean residues were assumed, RQ values ranged from 0.18 to 2.23 for the
1.0 lb ae/A ornamental turf modeled scenario. Based on the mean Kenaga
assessment, chronic LOC exceedances for birds occurred for the1.0 lb
ae/A ornamental turf modeled scenario. RQs are summarized in APPENDIX D.

***Mammals***

When mean residues were assumed:

-   **Mammalian Acute listed** LOCs were no longer exceeded for the 1 lb
    ae/A modeled scenario.

-   **Mammalian Acute Restricted Use** LOCs were no longer exceeded for
    15 g and 35 g mammals for the 1.0 lb ae/A modeled scenario.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Mammalian Chronic** LOCs (dose-based) were no longer exceeded for
    the 15 g and 35 g size mammals for the 1.0 lb ae/A application
    scenario.

    **4.2. Risk Description -- Interpretation of Direct Effects**

    1.  ***Risks to Aquatic Organisms and Plants***

        Based on the risk hypothesis terrestrial organisms (birds,
        mammals, reptiles, terrestrial-phase amphibians and plants) and
        aquatic organisms (invertebrates, fish, amphibians and plants)
        in surface waters (freshwater or saltwater) are subject to
        adverse effects when exposed to mefluidide residues as a result
        of labeled use of the pesticide. Routes of exposure evaluated in
        this risk assessment focused on runoff and spray drift from
        ground spray with mefluidide applied at application rates of 1.0
        lb ae/A (mefluidide-K and mefluidide-DEA) and runoff from
        granular applications with 0.5 lb ae/A mefluidide.

No LOCs were exceeded for acute effects onNumber range CHAPTER
freshwater and estuarine marine fish, aquatic invertebrates,
non-vascular and vascular aquatic plants in water bodies adjacent to
ornamental turf in areas treated with mefluidide DEA, mefluidide K and
mefluidide.

No LOC exceedances occurred for chronic freshwater fish, chronic
estuarine marine fish, chronic estuarine marine invertebrates, chronic
freshwater invertebrates, vascular plants and non-vascular plants. 

**4.2.2 *Risks to Terrestrial Organisms and Plants***

Direct application of mefluidide-K, mefluidide-DEA, and mefluidide to
the field leads to the conclusion that exposure is likely to terrestrial
organisms that are foraging or nesting in or near the treated field.
Number range CHAPTERBirds and mammals in treated fields may be exposed
to spray and granular applications of pesticides by ingesting material
directly with the diet. When pesticides are applied as a granular
formulation, the exposure estimate is assumed to account for all methods
of exposure. They may also be exposed by other routes, such as
incidental ingestion of contaminated soil, dermal contact with treated
plant surfaces and soil during activities in the treated areas, direct
impingement of sprayed material on the body at the time of application,
preening activities, inhalation of pesticide vapor and contaminated
particulate, and ingestion of drinking water contaminated by the
pesticide.

1\. *Birds*

Six acute dietary studies were considered in determining the risk for
birds following

applications of mefluidide, mefluidide-K, and mefluidide-DEA to
ornamental turf. Also, no mortality occurred at the highest levels for
all six dietary studies. No toxic effects were identified for the above
studies. Acute RQs were calculated for birds based on the non-definitive
LD~50~ value of \>1500 mg ae/kg-bw. RQ values ranged from 0 to \<0.25
for the 1.0 ae/A ornamental turf modeled scenario. The available dietary
toxicity studies on avian species failed to establishe definitive acute
LD~50~ values (i.e., the lethality values exceed the highest dose
tested). Therefore, Number range CHAPTERuse of this value adds
uncertainty and may overestimate risk to avian species. Therefore, when
the LD~50~ value of \>1500 mg ae/kg-bw was applied to the TREX model it
resulted in LOC exceedances for acute listed for 20 and 100g birds and
restricted use for 20 g birds for mefluidide-DEA and mefluidide-K (1.0
lb ae/A at 3 spray applications). The LD~50~ value of 5000 mg ae/bw if
applied to the above modeled scenario would result in no acute LOC
exceedances for birds. Based on the mean kenaga assessment, no acute LOC
exceedances occurred for birds (1.0 lbae/A at 3 spray applications).

Chronic RQs were estimated for birds based on the non-definitive NOAEC
value of

38 mg ae/kg. Chronic dietary-based exceedances occurred for birds for
the 1.0 lb ae/A modeled scenario with risk quotient exceedances ranging
from 2.90 to 6.32. Chronic estimated NOAEC values and calculations are
summarized in **Appendix E.**

Due to the high degree of uncertainty based on the estimated NOAEC value
38 mg ae/kg and the non-definitive LD~50~ value of \>1500 lb ae/A. Acute
and chronic avian studies with definitive LD~50~ and NOAEC values would
quantify the uncertainties of avian risk.

.

LD~50~/sq ft Summary

Mefluidide is the only proposed granular application. Based on one
application of mefluidide at 0.5lbs ae/acre, acute restricted use and/or
listed species acute risk LOC exceedances occurred for the LD~50~s/sq-ft
for small and medium-sized mammals. The RQs are 0.39 and 0.21 for small
and medium mammals, respectively. LD~50~s/sq-ft can be interpreted as
the number of lethal doses (LD~50~s) that are available within one
square foot immediately after application. EFED does not currently
assess chronic risks to birds from granular applications. The acute RQs
for LD~50~/sq ft based on a single application of mefluidide are
summarized in **Appendix D**

2.  *Mammals*

Two dietary studies were considered in determining the risk for mammals
following the application of mefluidide, mefluidide-K and
mefluidide-DEA.

Based on this analysis, it is likely that listed and non-listed mammals
that feed on grasses and broadleaf plants and small insects are at risk
from acute exposure due to spray applications of mefluidide-K and
mefluidide-DEA residues for turf modeled scenarios. Also, it is likely
that listed and non-listed mammals that feed on grasses and broadleaf
plants or small insects are at risk from chronic exposure due to
mefluidide-DEA and mefluidide-K residues based on the ornamental turf
(1.0 lb ae/A) modeled scenario.

Based on one granular application of mefluidide (0.5 lb ae/A) acute
listed and restricted use LOCs were exceeded for small and medium sized
mammals.

*3. Non-Target Insects and Earthworms*

EFED currently does not quantify risks to terrestrial non-target
insects. Risk quotients, therefore, are not calculated for these
organisms. Because mefluidide, mefluidide-K and mefluidide-DEA are
practically non-toxic to honey bees (96-hr acute contact LD~50~ \> 18.75
µg ae/bee, MRID 425628-01, LD~50~ \> 22.25 µg ae/bee, MRID 425628-02),
the risk are not likely to have adverse effects on pollinators and other
beneficial insects.

Ecotox data indicates that mefluidide is non-toxic to earthworms (Ref
#39542 Potter DA; Spicer PG; Redmond CT; Powell AJ (1994) Toxicity of
Pesticides to Earthworms in Kentucky Bluegrass Turf). Two evaluations
were conducted in the spring and the fall of 1992. Earthworm populations
were sampled at 1 and 3 weeks after treatment. The application rate of
mefluidide applied to the plots were 0.56 ai/ha of Embark 2S which
resulted in 0% and 17 % reduction of earthworms in the spring and fall
respectively after the 3 week treatments.

3.  *Terrestrial Plants*

    Ground spray and granular applications were modeled for both
    monocots and dicots from combined runoff and drift and drift only
    scenarios. Only one vegetative vigor toxicity study was submitted
    for terrestrial plants based on fresh weight basis exposed to
    mefluidide-DEA. These data were bridged with mefluidide and
    mefluidide-K. Seedling emergence toxicity data were not available to
    evaluate exposure of terrestrial plants to mefluidide from combined
    runoff and drift. In addition, data were not available from other
    anilide analogs to derive estimated EC~25~ values. To estimate
    possible effects measurement endpoints for seedling emergence, EFED
    assumed that EC~25~ toxicity values for vegetative vigor are equal
    to seedling emergence measurement endpoints for mefluidide,
    mefluidide-DEA and mefluidide-K.

    Levels of concerns are exceeded for acute non-listed and listed
    monocots and dicots for ground applications for turf modeled
    scenarios. For the ornamental turf (1.0 lb ae/A) modeled scenario,
    RQs ranged from 0.10 to 175.86 (ground spray applications) for
    monocots and dicots from combined runoff and spray drift. For the
    ornamental turf (0.5 lb ae/A) modeled scenario, RQs ranged from 0.24
    to 86.21 (granular applications) for monocots and dicots from
    runoff.

    For the ornamental turf (1.0 lb ae/A) modeled scenario RQs ranged
    from 0.1 to 3.45 (ground spray applications) for monocots and dicots
    from spray drift only.

    Levels of concerns are exceeded for acute non-listed and listed
    monocots and dicots from granular turf applications. For the
    ornamental turf (0.5 lb ae/A) modeled scenario, RQs were 46.3 for
    non-listed dicots, 86.2 for listed dicots, 2.38 for non-listed
    monocots and 5.56 for listed monocots.

An analysis of the results indicates exceedance of the Acute Risk LOC
for listed and non-listed monocots and dicots in dryland and
semi-aquatic areas located adjacent to treated areas, both as a result
of combined runoff and spray drift, and from spray drift alone for
mefluidide, mefluidide-DEA and mefluidide-K.

Spray applications with 1.0 lb ae/acre demonstrated the highest RQ
exceedances followed by granular applications with 0.5 lb ae/A. Dicots
demonstrated more sensitivity than monocots in most application
scenarios with exposure to mefluidide, mefluidide-DEA and mefluidide-K.
Due to the high degree of uncertainty based on the estimated seedling
emergence EC25 value, submission of a seedling emergence toxicity study
based on dry weight would quantify uncertainties as a result of
terrestrial plants exposed to mefluidide from combined runoff and spray
drift.

5.  *Endocrine Disruption Assessment*

No studies were submitted for mefluidide-K, mefluidide-DEA and
mefluidide that indicated endocrine disruption.

The degradates of mefluidide-K, mefluidide-DEA and mefluidide have not
been identified as possessing the potential for endocrine disruption. In
addition, the registrant has not submitted, nor has the Agency
requested, studies on the potential for endocrine disruption for any of
these degradates resulting from the use of mefluidide. Until such time
as the Agency determines that any of these degradates have the potential
to be an endocrine disruptor, this risk assessment has not included an
evaluation of the relative risk of mefluidide-K, mefluidide-DEA and
mefluidide, degradates for endocrine disruption and as such is a source
of uncertainty in this assessment.

EPA is required under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA),
as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA), to develop a
screening program to determine whether certain substances (including all
pesticide active and other ingredients) *\"may have an effect in humans
that is similar to an effect produced by a naturally occurring estrogen,
or other such endocrine effects as the Administrator may designate.\"*
Following the recommendations of its Endocrine Disruptor Screening and
Testing Advisory Committee (EDSTAC), EPA determined that there were
scientific bases for including, as part of the program, the androgen and
thyroid hormone systems, in addition to the estrogen hormone system. EPA
also adopted EDSTAC's recommendation that the Program include
evaluations of potential effects in wildlife. For pesticide chemicals,
EPA will use The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA) and, to the extent that effects in wildlife may help determine
whether a substance may have an effect in humans, FFDCA authority to
require the wildlife evaluations. As the science develops and resources
allow, screening of additional hormone systems may be added to the
Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP). When the appropriate
screening and/or testing protocols being considered under the Agency's
EDSP have been developed, mefluidide-K, mefluidide-DEA and mefluidide
may be subjected to additional screening and/or testing to better
characterize effects related to endocrine disruption.

6\. *Potential for Avian and Mammalian Exposure in Space and Time*

In order for chemical residues in potential wildlife food items to
result in direct adverse effects in a mammalian population, the
organisms must be exposed to those food items at locations and at times
when the residues are present. There are a number of important questions
that must be considered:

1.  Are the residues present at locations where wildlife might feed?

2.  Are the residues present in food items at times when wildlife might
    use the areas?

3.  Are the residues likely to be around long enough to result in
    exposure sufficient to trigger the expected adverse responses?

Mefluidide formulations are for use on: agricultural/farm
structures/buildings and equipment, agricultural/nonagricultural
uncultivated areas/soils, airports/landing fields, commercial industrial
lawns, commercial institutional/industrial premises/equipment
(indoor/outdoor), golf course turf, hospitals/medical institutions
premises (human veterinary), household domestic dwellings outdoor
premises, industrial areas (outdoor), nonagricultural outdoor
buildings/structures, nonagricultural rights-of-way/fencerows/hedgerows,
ornamental and or shade trees, ornamental ground cover, ornamental
herbaceous plants, ornamental lawns and turf, ornamental nonflowering
plants, ornamental woody shrubs and vines, paths/patios, paved area
(private roads/sidewalks), recreational areas, and residential lawns.

One category of ornamental turf that mefluidide is used on is golf
courses. Golf courses are recognized as having strong potential for
providing quality habitat to many wildlife species (Stangel and Distler
2002). For example, Audubon International has more than 2,200 golf
courses enrolled in its Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary System Program for
Golf Courses providing education and assistance to golf course managers
promoting environmental stewardship, conservation of biological
diversity, and sustainable resource management. Audubon International
has also been awarded a grant from Wildlife Links to create a database
for information on wildlife habitat on golf courses.

Across 24 golf courses in the northern coast of South Carolina, a total
of 5,362 birds, 82 species, and 30 neotropical migratory birds species
were recorded at 599 point count stations over a two year study (Crum et
al. 2003). Crum et al. (2003) report that the majority of birds
associated with less developed landscapes (i.e. golf courses with less
habitat disturbance) were woodland breeding species, while urban
breeding species were found primarily on golf courses in which the
majority of native vegetation had either been removed or replaced with
ornamental vegetation, or contained a high level of human disturbance
including residential and non-residential structures. The large number
of species observed on golf courses in this small geographic area of the
US indicates that a wide variety of birds will utilize golf courses.
Because of the large number of species represented, it is likely that
some population of birds will be on the golf course year-round and that
bird breeding seasons will be spread throughout much of the year. In
another study, Merola-Zwartjes and DeLong (2005) compared a number of
golf courses in the Albuquerque, New Mexico, area with paired natural
areas to see whether golf courses have the potential of acting as
surrogate riparian habitats for Southwestern birds. They concluded that
golf courses do have the potential to support riparian bird communities,
but that their conservation potential can be enhanced through the
addition of habitat complexity and structure utilizing native plants.

Sod farms are also registered for application with mefluidide-K,
mefluidide-DEA, mefluidide. One example of a bird species that utilizes
sod farms is the mountain plover who is attracted to manmade landscapes
(e.g., sod farms and cultivated fields) that mimic their natural habitat
associations, or sites with little vegetative cover (e.g., other
agricultural lands and alkali flats)
(http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-IMPACT/2002/December/Day-05/i30801.htm,
accessed 01 October 2006). Land management practices on cultivated
fields may include periods when fields are fallow, idle, or barren. If
these fields remain fallow, idle, or barren during April and May,
mountain plovers may choose these fields for nesting. Sod farms are
often listed as popular sites for birding enthusiasts.

(e.g.,http://home.comcast.net/\~ehoward24/localbirdingsites.html,
http://www.crbo.net/SpecialtyBirds.html, accessed on 01 October 2006).

An example of wildlife use of roadsides is provided by the Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources
(http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/roadsidesforwildlife/index.html, accessed on
01 October 2006). Researchers have found that over 40 species of birds
and mammals utilize roadsides for shelter, nesting, and food. Roadsides
receive almost continuous nesting use from April through August.
Roadsides also provide the right combination of abundant food and cover
for birds that nest in cavities or in trees near roads. Examples of
birds and mammals documented to use roadsides in Minnesota are:
cottontail rabbit, white-tailed jackrabbit, short-tailed shrew,
woodchuck, meadow vole, meadow jumping mouse, ring-necked pheasant, gray
(Hungarian) partridge, mallard, blue-winged teal, pintail, and upland
sandpiper. Disturbance of roadside cover by early mowing, farm tillage,
grazing, \"blanket\" spraying, or vehicle and tractor encroachment
during the peak nesting months (May, June, July) will significantly
lower production for species that use roadsides for nesting.

Based on a 4 day foliar half-life with LOC exceedances for mammals and
birds for the 1.0 and 0.5 lb ae/A application scenarios, residues are
likely to result in exposure sufficient to trigger the expected adverse
responses.

This analysis suggests that the patterns of mefluidide uses are such
that they coincide in time and space to areas frequented by mammalian
wildlife. These areas have been of demonstrated use by wildlife as
sources of food and cover. Finally, the potentially problematic wildlife
food items suggested by the risk assessment of mefluidide are likely to
be present in and around the treated areas.

**4.2.4 Federally Threatened and Endangered (Listed)**

**Species Concerns**

> *4.2.4.1 Action Area*

For listed species assessment purposes, the action area is considered to
be the area affected directly or indirectly by the Federal action and
not merely the immediate area involved in the action. At the initial
screening-level, the risk assessment considers broadly described
taxonomic groups and so conservatively assumes that listed species
within those broad groups are collocated with the pesticide treatment
area. This means that terrestrial plants and wildlife are assumed to be
located on or adjacent to the treated site and aquatic organisms are
assumed to be located in a surface water body adjacent to the treated
site. The assessment also assumes that the listed species are located
within an assumed area which has the relatively highest potential
exposure to the pesticide, and that exposures are likely to decrease
with distance from the treatment area.

2.  *Taxonomic Groups Potentially at Risk*

Based on available screening level information, the greatest concerns
for direct Mefluidide ecological risks lie with effects to terrestrial
and semi-aquatic plants as well as acute and chronic effects to birds
and mammals. The screening-level risk assessment for Mefluidide has
identified potential concerns for direct effects on the following listed
species categories: birds, mammals, and terrestrial and semi-aquatic
plants (both monocots and dicots). Since birds are used as a surrogate
for reptiles and terrestrial phase amphibians, they are also considered
to be of concern.

The LOCATES database was not used for this assessment to identify
specific listed and threatened species at risk from exposure to
Mefluidide. Because of its widespread use on non-crop areas and because
it is used throughout the United States, the search of the database
could not be restricted by crop or geographic area. Therefore, all
species within each of the categories listed above would be identified
as being at risk through the LOCATES database.

*Probit Slope Analysis*

Screening-level acute listed LOCs are exceeded for terrestrial organisms
potentially exposed to residues by Mefluidide applications. The Agency
uses the dose response relationship from the toxicity study used for
calculating the RQ to estimate the probability of acute effects
associated with an exposure equivalent to the EEC. This information
serves as a guide to establish the need for and extent of additional
analysis that may be performed using Services-provided "species
profiles" as well as evaluations of the geographical and temporal nature
of the exposure to ascertain if a "not likely to adversely affect"
determination can be made. The degree to which additional analyses are
performed is commensurate with the predicted probability of adverse
effects from the comparison of the dose response information with the
EECs. The greater the probability that exposures will produce effects on
a taxa, the greater the concern for potential indirect effects for
listed species dependant upon that taxa, and therefore, the more
intensive the analysis on the potential listed species of concern, their
locations relative to the use site, and information regarding the use
scenario (e.g., timing, frequency, and geographical extent of pesticide
application).

The Agency uses the probit dose response relationship as a tool for
providing additional information on the listed animal species acute
levels of concern. The acute listed Species LOCs of 0.1 and 0.05 are
used for terrestrial and aquatic animals, respectively. As part of the
risk characterization, an interpretation of acute LOCs for listed
species is discussed. This interpretation is presented in terms of the
chance of an individual event (i.e., mortality or immobilization) should
exposure at the estimated environmental concentration actually occur for
a species with sensitivity to Mefluidide on par with the acute toxicity
endpoint selected for RQ calculation. To accomplish this interpretation,
the Agency uses the slope of the dose response relationship available
from the toxicity study used to establish the acute toxicity measurement
endpoints for each taxonomic group. The individual effects probability
associated with the LOCs is based on the mean estimate of the slope and
an assumption of a probit dose response relationship. In addition to a
single effects probability estimate based on the mean, upper and lower
estimates of the effects, probabilities are also provided to account for
variance in the slope. The upper and lower bounds of the effects
probability are based on available information on the 95% confidence
interval of the slope. Confidence in the applicability of the assumed
probit dose response relationship for predicting individual event
probabilities is also relevant. Studies with good probit fit
characteristics (i.e., statistically appropriate for the data set) are
associated with a high degree of confidence. Conversely, a low degree of
confidence is associated with data from studies that do not
statistically support a probit dose response relationship. In addition,
confidence in the data set may be reduced by high variance in the slope
estimate (i.e., large 95% confidence intervals), despite good probit fit
characteristics.

The individual effect probabilities for aquatic organisms were
calculated based on an Excel spreadsheet tool IECV1.1 (Individual Effect
Chance Model Version 1.1) The model allows for such calculations by
entering the mean slope estimate (and the 95% confidence bounds of that
estimate) as the slope parameter for the spreadsheet. For all species
event probability was calculated for the exceeded LOC based on a default
slope assumption of 4.5 due to studies that do not statistically support
a probit dose response relationship with confidence intervals of 2 and 9
as per original Agency assumptions of typical slope cited in Urban and
Cook (1986).

The corresponding estimated chance of individual mortality associated
with the terrestrial listed Species LOC 0.10 for terrestrial species
located near ornamental turf (1.0 lb ae/A) areas exposed to mefluidide
is approximately **1 in 2.94E+05 for mammals.** Probit analysis was not
conducted for birds because the LD~50~ was greater than 1500 mg ae/kg-bw
in the Bobwhite quail study (MRID 416019-01) and there were no
mortalities reported.

However, based on the screening level assessment, the acute risk
quotients for mammals are as high as 0.26, above the acute listed LOC of
0.05. The probability of individual mortality based on the calculated
RQs is 1 in 236 for potentially exposed mammals (based on the LD~50~
study). Table 4.7 summarizes information on the Probability of
Individual Mortality for Mammals and Birds.

+-------+--------+-----+-----+------+--------+-------------+---------+
| **    |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| Table |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| 4.7N  |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| umber |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| range |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| CH    |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| APTER |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| P     |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| robab |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| ility |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| of    |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| Indiv |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| idual |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| Mort  |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| ality |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| for   |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| Birds |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| and   |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| Ma    |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| mmals |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| at    |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| the   |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| Hi    |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| ghest |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| RQs   |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| and   |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| A     |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| pplic |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| ation |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| Rate  |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| (     |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| 1.0lb |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| ae/A) |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| Me    |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| fluid |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| ide** |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
+-------+--------+-----+-----+------+--------+-------------+---------+
| *     | **Type | **E | **R | **Pr | **95%  | **          | **MRID  |
| *Spec | of     | C50 | Q** | obit | Conf   | Probability | Source  |
| ies** | a      | LD5 |     | Slo  | idence | of          | of      |
|       | pplica | 0** |     | pe** | Inte   | Individual  | Probit  |
|       | tion** |     |     |      | rval** | Mortality   | Slope** |
|       |        |     |     |      |        | at the RQ   |         |
|       |        |     |     |      |        | in this     |         |
|       |        |     |     |      |        | A           |         |
|       |        |     |     |      |        | ssessment** |         |
+-------+--------+-----+-----+------+--------+-------------+---------+
| Bob   | Orna   | \>1 |     | n/a  |        |             | 41      |
| white | mental | 500 |     |      |        |             | 6019-01 |
| quail |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| L     | Turf   |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| D~50~ |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
+-------+--------+-----+-----+------+--------+-------------+---------+
| Lab   | Orna   | 82  | 0.  | def  | d      | 1 in 236    | 0       |
| mouse | mental | 9.8 | 26\ | ault | efault |             | 0047116 |
| L     |        |     | *\* | =    | 2-9    | (95%        |         |
| D~50~ | Turf   |     |     | 4.5  |        | confidence  |         |
|       |        |     |     |      |        | interval 1  |         |
|       |        |     |     |      |        | in 8.27 and |         |
|       |        |     |     |      |        | 1 in 1.43   |         |
|       |        |     |     |      |        | E+ 07)      |         |
+-------+--------+-----+-----+------+--------+-------------+---------+
| ^1^   |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| For   |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| t     |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| erres |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| trial |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| avian |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| tox   |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| icity |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| as    |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| sessm |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| ents, |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| data  |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| evalu |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| ating |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| tox   |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| icity |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| data  |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| have  |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| been  |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| bri   |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| dged. |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| There |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| fore, |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| the   |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| most  |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| sens  |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| itive |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| meflu |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| idide |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| end   |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| point |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| for   |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| birds |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| was   |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| sel   |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| ected |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| to    |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| repr  |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| esent |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| all   |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| three |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| Meflu |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| idide |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| fo    |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| rmula |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| tions |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| for   |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| birds |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| for   |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| all   |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| a     |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| pplic |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| ation |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| scen  |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| arios |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| For   |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| t     |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| erres |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| trial |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| m     |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| ammal |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| tox   |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| icity |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| as    |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| sessm |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| ents, |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| data  |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| evalu |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| ating |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| tox   |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| icity |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| data  |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| have  |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| been  |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| bri   |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| dged. |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| Also  |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| the   |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| most  |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| sens  |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| itive |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| meflu |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| idide |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| end   |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| point |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| for   |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| ma    |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| mmals |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| was   |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| sel   |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| ected |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| to    |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| repr  |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| esent |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| all   |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| three |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| Meflu |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| idide |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| fo    |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| rmula |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| tions |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| for   |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| ma    |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| mmals |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| for   |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| all   |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| a     |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| pplic |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| ation |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| scena |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| rios. |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
|       |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| \*    |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| ex    |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| ceeds |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| LOC   |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| for   |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| acute |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| risk  |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| to    |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| l     |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| isted |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| sp    |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| ecies |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| (aq   |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| uatic |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| LOC = |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| 0.05, |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| t     |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| erres |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| trial |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| LOC = |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| 0.10) |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
|       |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| \*\*  |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| ex    |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| ceeds |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| LOCs  |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| for   |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| acute |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| risk  |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| to    |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| l     |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| isted |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| sp    |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| ecies |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| and   |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| restr |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| icted |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| use   |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| (aq   |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| uatic |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| LOC = |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| 0.1,  |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| t     |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| erres |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| trial |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| LOC = |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| 0.20) |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
|       |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| \     |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| *\*\* |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| ex    |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| ceeds |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| LOCs  |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| for   |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| acute |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| risk, |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| acute |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| risk  |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| to    |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| l     |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| isted |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| spe   |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| cies, |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| and   |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| restr |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| icted |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| use   |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| (LOC  |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| =     |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
| 0.5)  |        |     |     |      |        |             |         |
+-------+--------+-----+-----+------+--------+-------------+---------+

The corresponding estimated chance of individual mortality associated
with the aquatic species listed Species LOC of 0.05 for potentially
exposed **estuarine marine invertebrates** located near ornamental turf
(1.0 lb ae/A) is approximately **1 in 4.18E\*8.** Probit analysis was
not conducted for freshwater fish because the LC~50~ was greater than
68.47 mg ae/L in the rainbow trout study (MRID 418937-02) and there were
no mortalities reported. Probit analysis was not conducted for
freshwater invertebrates because the LC~50~ was greater than 77.25 mg
ae/L in the Daphnia study (MRID 418937-03) and there were no mortalities
reported.

Based on the screening level assessment, the highest acute risk quotient
for estuarine marine invertebrates is 0.0001, two orders of magnitude
below the acute listed LOC of 0.05. The probability of individual
mortality based on the calculated RQs is 1 in 1.03E+72 for potentially
exposed invertebrates (based on the LC~50~ study) Table 4.8 summarizes
information on the Probability of Individual Mortality for fish and
aquatic invertebrates.

+------+--------+-----+----+-----+---------+---------------+---------+
| **T  |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| able |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| 4.8  |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| Pro  |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| babi |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| lity |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| of   |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| In   |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| divi |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| dual |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| M    |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| orta |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| lity |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| for  |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| fish |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| and  |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| aqu  |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| atic |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| i    |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| nver |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| tebr |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| ates |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| at   |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| the  |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| Hig  |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| hest |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| RQs  |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| and  |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| App  |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| lica |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| tion |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| Rate |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| (1.0 |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| a    |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| e/A) |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| Mefl |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| uidi |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| de** |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
+------+--------+-----+----+-----+---------+---------------+---------+
| **S  | **Type | **L | ** | **  | **95%   | **Probability | **MRID  |
| peci | of     | C50 | RQ | Pro | Con     | of Individual | Source  |
| es** | A      | LD5 | ** | bit | fidence | Mortality at  | of      |
|      | pplica | 0** |    | S   | Int     | the RQ in     | Probit  |
|      | tion** |     |    | lop | erval** | this          | Slope** |
|      |        | **  |    | e** |         | Assessment**  |         |
|      |        | EC5 |    |     |         |               |         |
|      |        | 0** |    |     |         |               |         |
+------+--------+-----+----+-----+---------+---------------+---------+
| FW   | Orna   | \   |    | n/a |         |               | 41      |
| Rai  | mental | >68 |    |     |         |               | 8937-02 |
| nbow | turf   | .47 |    |     |         |               |         |
| t    |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| rout |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
+------+--------+-----+----+-----+---------+---------------+---------+
| FW   | Orna   | \   |    | n/a |         |               | 41      |
| Dap  | mental | >77 |    |     |         |               | 8937-03 |
| hnid | turf   | .25 |    |     |         |               |         |
+------+--------+-----+----+-----+---------+---------------+---------+
| EM   | Orna   | \   |    | n/a |         |               | 42      |
|      | mental | >84 |    |     |         |               | 5623-03 |
| Sh   | turf   | .75 |    |     |         |               |         |
| eeps |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| head |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| mi   |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| nnow |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
+------+--------+-----+----+-----+---------+---------------+---------+
| EM   | Orna   | 67  | 0. | d   | default | 1 in 1.03E+72 | 42      |
|      | mental |     | 00 | efa | 2-9     |               | 5624-01 |
| Eas  | turf   |     | 01 | ult |         | (95%          |         |
| tern |        |     |    | =   |         | confidence    |         |
| oy   |        |     |    | 4.5 |         | interval 1 in |         |
| ster |        |     |    |     |         | 1.61E+15 and  |         |
|      |        |     |    |     |         | 1 in          |         |
|      |        |     |    |     |         | 2.39E+283)    |         |
+------+--------+-----+----+-----+---------+---------------+---------+
| **^  |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| 1^** |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| For  |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| ter  |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| rest |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| rial |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| a    |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| vian |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| toxi |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| city |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| asse |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| ssme |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| nts, |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| data |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| ev   |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| alua |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| ting |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| toxi |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| city |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| data |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| have |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| been |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| brid |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| ged. |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| Th   |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| eref |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| ore, |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| the  |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| most |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| s    |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| ensi |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| tive |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| me   |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| flui |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| dide |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| endp |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| oint |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| for  |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| b    |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| irds |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| was  |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| sele |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| cted |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| to   |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| r    |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| epre |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| sent |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| all  |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| t    |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| hree |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| Me   |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| flui |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| dide |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| form |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| ulat |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| ions |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| for  |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| b    |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| irds |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| for  |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| all  |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| app  |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| lica |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| tion |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| s    |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| cena |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| rios |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| For  |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| ter  |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| rest |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| rial |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| ma   |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| mmal |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| toxi |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| city |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| asse |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| ssme |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| nts, |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| data |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| ev   |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| alua |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| ting |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| toxi |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| city |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| data |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| have |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| been |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| brid |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| ged. |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| Also |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| the  |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| most |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| s    |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| ensi |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| tive |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| me   |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| flui |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| dide |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| endp |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| oint |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| for  |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| mam  |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| mals |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| was  |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| sele |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| cted |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| to   |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| r    |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| epre |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| sent |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| all  |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| t    |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| hree |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| Me   |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| flui |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| dide |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| form |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| ulat |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| ions |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| for  |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| mam  |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| mals |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| for  |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| all  |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| app  |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| lica |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| tion |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| sc   |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| enar |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| ios. |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
|      |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| \*   |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| exc  |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| eeds |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| LOC  |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| for  |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| a    |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| cute |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| risk |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| to   |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| li   |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| sted |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| spe  |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| cies |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| (aqu |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| atic |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| LOC  |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| =    |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| 0    |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| .05, |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| ter  |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| rest |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| rial |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| LOC  |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| =    |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| 0    |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| .10) |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
|      |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| \*\* |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| exc  |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| eeds |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| LOCs |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| for  |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| a    |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| cute |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| risk |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| to   |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| li   |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| sted |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| spe  |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| cies |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| and  |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| re   |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| stri |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| cted |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| use  |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| (aqu |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| atic |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| LOC  |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| =    |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| 0.1, |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| ter  |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| rest |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| rial |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| LOC  |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| =    |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| 0    |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| .20) |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
|      |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| \*   |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| \*\* |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| exc  |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| eeds |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| LOCs |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| for  |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| a    |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| cute |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| r    |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| isk, |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| a    |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| cute |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| risk |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| to   |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| li   |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| sted |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| spec |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| ies, |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| and  |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| re   |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| stri |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| cted |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| use  |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| (LOC |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| =    |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
| 0.5) |        |     |    |     |         |               |         |
+------+--------+-----+----+-----+---------+---------------+---------+

*Indirect Effects Analysis*

The Agency acknowledges that pesticides have the potential to exert
indirect effects upon the listed organisms by, for example, perturbing
forage or prey availability, altering the extent of nesting habitat,
etc. In conducting a screen for indirect effects, direct effect LOCs for
each taxonomic group are used to make inferences concerning the
potential for indirect effects upon listed species that rely upon
non-endangered organisms in these taxonomic groups as resources critical
to their life cycle. There are acute and chronic direct effects for
mammals, birds and acute direct effects for terrestrial plants (monocot
and dicot).

Indirect effects are possible for terrestrial animals that are dependent
on terrestrial monocots and dicot plants for food and/or shelter.
Therefore, there is potential for adverse effects to those species that
rely either on a specific plant species or multiple plant species. Also,
plant indirect effects may be limited to general habitat modification,
host plant loss, and competition. If the available plant material is
impacted due to the effects of mefluidide, this may have negative
effects not only on the herbivorous animals, but throughout the food
chain. Also, depending on the severity of impact to the plant
communities (edge and riparian vegetation), community assemblages and
ecosystem stability may be altered (i.e. reduced bird and mammal
populations in edge habitats; reduced riparian vegetation resulting in
increased light penetration and temperature in aquatic habitats).

Acute listed LOCs were exceeded for 20 g and 100 g birds and acute
restricted use LOCs were exceeded for 20 g birds that were exposed to
and consumed various feed items. Consequently, there may be a concern
for potential indirect effects to listed species dependent upon birds
that consume feed items (short and tall grasses, broadleaf plants, and
small insects) contaminated with mefluidide residues; such as predatory
birds and mammals.

Acute listed and acute restricted use LOCs were exceeded for mammals (15
g and 35 g) and acute listed LOCs were exceeded for 1000 g mammals that
consumed various feed items. The results of the probit dose analysis for
mouse indicated a **1 in 236 for mammals** chance of mortality based on
the maximum use scenario and RQ of 0.26 for small mammals consuming
mefluidide. Consequently, there may be a concern for potential indirect
effects to listed species dependent upon mammals that consume feed items
(short and tall grasses, broadleaf plants, and small insects)
contaminated with mefluidide residues; such as predatory birds and
mammals.

There are potential concerns for indirect effects on aquatic organisms
(fish, invertebrates, and plants) due to the potential for changes in
the habitat adjacent to water bodies. Shading of water bodies that
provides temperature regulation of the water could be reduced, thus
altering the habitat by increasing water temperature. This change in
temperature could affect the abundance and/or diversity of aquatic
plants and organisms in the adjacent water bodies. Furthermore, the
reduction of upstream riparian vegetation that would otherwise supply
downstream habitats could result not only in a loss of a significant
component of food for aquatic herbivores and detritivores, but also of
habitat (i.e. leaf packs, materials for case-building for
invertebrates). These concerns are not only for freshwater systems, but
also for estuarine/marine systems. As an example, many golf courses are
located on or near coastal areas.

Again, the LOCATES database was not used for this assessment to identify
specific listed and threatened species at risk from indirect effects to
Mefluidide-K, mefluidide-DEA and mefluidide. Because of its widespread
use on non-crop areas and because it is used throughout the United
States, the search of the database could not be restricted by crop or
geographic area. Therefore, further co-location analysis is recommended
once the locations of mefluidide use can be identified.

**Number range CHAPTER***Critical Habitat for Listed Species*

In the evaluation of pesticide effects on designated critical habitat,
consideration is given to the physical and biological features
(constituent elements) of a critical habitat identified by the U.S Fish
and Wildlife and National Marine Fisheries Services as essential to the
conservation of a listed species and which may require special
management considerations or protection. The evaluation of impacts for a
screening level pesticide risk assessment focuses on the biological
features that are constituent elements and is accomplished using the
screening-level taxonomic analysis (RQs) and listed species levels of
concern (LOCs) that are used to evaluate direct and indirect effects to
listed organisms.

The screening-level risk assessment for mefluidide has identified
potential concerns for direct effects on the following listed species
categories: small and medium birds, small, medium and large mammals, and
terrestrial and semi-aquatic plants (both monocots and dicots). Since
birds are used as a surrogate for reptiles and terrestrial phase
amphibians, they are also considered to be of concern. In light of the
potential for both direct effects, the next step for EPA and the
Service(s) is to identify which listed species and critical habitat are
potentially implicated.

Analytically, the identification of such species and critical habitat
can occur in either of two ways. First, the Agencies could determine
whether the action area overlaps critical habitat or the occupied range
of any listed species. If so, EPA would examine whether the pesticide\'s
potential impacts on non-endangered species would affect the listed
species indirectly or directly affect a constituent element of the
critical habitat. Alternatively, the Agencies could determine which
listed species depend on biological resources, or have constituent
elements that fall into the taxa that may be directly or indirectly
impacted by a pesticide. Then EPA would determine whether or not use of
the pesticide overlaps the critical habitat or the occupied range of
those listed species. At present, the information reviewed by EPA is not
sufficient to permit use of either analytical approach to make a
definitive identification of species that are potentially impacted
indirectly or critical habitats that are potentially impacted directly
by the use of pesticides. EPA and the Service(s) are working together to
conduct the necessary analysis.

Because of the large number of species that are potentially impacted,
critical habitats will not be analyzed in this assessment. Therefore, it
is the continued responsibility of the EPA and the Service(s) to make
these assessments before final regulatory decisions are made.

Species with identified critical habitats are listed at:

> <http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/CriticalHabitat.do?listings=0&nmfs=1>
>
> (Fish and Wildlife Service)
>
> <http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/CriticalHabitat.do?listings=0&nmfs=2>
>
> (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). A critical habitat
> mapper for a subset of listed species is available at:
> [http://ecos.fws.gov/imf/imf.jsp?site=ecos]{.underline}.

3.  **Description of Assumptions, Limitations, Uncertainties, Strengths
    and**

**Data Gaps**

*1. Uncertainties and data gaps associated with the environmental fate*

*and toxicity data*

> Exposure estimates for this screening level risk assessment focused on
> the mefluidide, mefluidide-K and mefluidide-DEA. Degradation products
> were not considered in the exposure assessment. There are no
> environmental fate data on the degradation products of mefluidide,
> mefluidide-K and mefluidide-DEA. More importantly,
> 5-amino-2,4-dimethyltrifluoromethane-sulfonilide is a minor
> degradation product of mefluidide. Diethanolamine (DEA) degrades
> rapidly (t~1/2~= 1.7 to 5.8 days) in aerobic soil and water
> environments (MRID 43685901, 43685902, 44439401). In contrast, DEA is
> persistent (t~1/2~= 990 days) in anaerobic aquatic environments (MRID
> 43882901). Degradation products of diethanolamine are glycine,
> ethanolamine, and CO~2~. Therefore, the potential mechanisms of
> transformation (i.e., which degradates may form in the environment, in
> which media, and how much) must be known, especially for a chemical
> whose metabolites/degradates such as DEA are of greater toxicological
> concern.

Additional uncertainty results from the lack of information and/or data
in several components of this ecological risk assessment as follows:

-   Ecotoxicity data for chronic risks to freshwater fish and freshwater
    invertebrates exposed to mefluidide were not available. However,
    estimated values were derived from only one anilide (propanil)
    herbicide to obtain effects measurement endpoints. A range of
    anilide herbicides was not available to extrapolate endpoints.
    Therefore, these extrapolated endpoints are uncertain and are not
    considered complete substitutes for missing effects data. Additional
    information on these estimated values are provided in Appendix E.
    However, EFED concluded that resulting estimated risk quotients, had
    they been based on definitive effects measurement endpoints, would
    not trigger concerns for chronic risks to these taxonomic groups.

-   Ecotoxicity data for chronic risks to estuarine marine fish and
    estuarine marine invertebrates exposed to mefluidide were not
    available. However, assuming ACRs from the freshwater fish and
    invertebrates are similar to the estuarine marine species. No
    chronic exceedances would occur for estuarine marine fish or
    invertebrates with RQs \<0.01. These extrapolated endpoints are
    uncertain and are not considered complete substitutes for missing
    effects data. RQ calculations for chronic risks to estuarine marine
    fish and estuarine marine invertebrates are summarized in
    Appendix E. However, EFED concluded that resulting estimated risk
    quotients, had they been based on definitive effects measurement
    endpoints, would not trigger concerns for chronic risks to these
    taxonomic groups.

-   Ecotoxicity data for chronic risks to birds exposed to mefluidide
    were not available. Therefore, EFED calculated estimates for
    measurement endpoints for chronic toxicity to birds by evaluating
    the available data from mammal toxicity data (acute and chronic) and
    extrapolating the findings to available data for mefluidide,
    mefluidide-DEA and mefluidide-K to estimate possible effects
    measurement endpoints. These extrapolated endpoints are uncertain
    and are not considered complete substitutes for missing effects
    data. Additional information on these estimated values are provided
    in Appendix E. Submission of a chronic bird study would quantify
    risks associated with exposure of mefluidide to birds.

-   The magnitude of toxicity to terrestrial plants is uncertain because
    only one terrestrial vegetative vigor plant study was available and
    conducted on fresh weight and not dry weight as required by EPA
    guidelines. Also, no other terrestrial plant toxicity studies
    (seedling emergence and vegetative vigor) were available to estimate
    an EC25 values. Ecotoxicity data for terrestrial plants (seedling
    emergence) exposed to mefluidide were not available. To estimate
    possible effects measurement endpoints for seedling emergence, EFED
    assumed that EC~25~ toxicity values for terrestrial plants
    (vegetative vigor) are equivalent to (seedling emergence)
    measurement endpoints for mefluidide, mefluidide-DEA and
    mefluidide-K. These estimated endpoints are uncertain and are not
    considered complete substitutes for missing effects data. Additional
    information on these estimated values are provided in Appendix E.
    Submission of seedling emergence toxicity data based on dry weight
    will quantify risks associated with exposure of mefluidide to
    terrestrial plants.

-   NOAEC or EC~05~ values were not available to calculate (listed)
    aquatic vascular plants exposed to mefluidide. However, estimated
    values were derived from only one anilide herbicide to obtain
    effects measurement endpoints. A range of anilide herbicides was not
    available to extrapolate endpoints. Therefore, these extrapolated
    endpoints are uncertain and are not considered complete substitutes
    for missing effects data. Additional information on these estimated
    values are provided in Appendix E. However, EFED concluded that
    resulting estimated risk quotients, had they been based on
    definitive effects measurement endpoints, would not trigger concerns
    for chronic risks to these taxonomic groups

-   The available dietary toxicity studies on avian species failed to
    established definitive acute LD~50~ values (i.e., the lethality
    values exceed the highest dose tested). Therefore, Number range
    CHAPTERuse of this value adds uncertainty and may overestimate risk
    to avian species. Therefore, when the LD~50~ value of \>1500 mg
    ae/kg-bw was applied to the TREX model it resulted in LOC
    exceedances for Acute listed (20 and 100 g birds) and Restricted Use
    (100 g birds) for mefluidide-DEA and mefluidide-K (1.0 lb ae/A at 3
    applications). The LD~50~ value of 5000 mg ae/bw if applied to the
    above modeled scenario would result in no acute LOC exceedances for
    birds.

    4.3.1 Assumptions and Limitations Related to Exposure to All Taxa

There are a number of areas of uncertainty in the aquatic and
terrestrial risk assessments. The toxicity assessment for terrestrial
and aquatic animals is limited by the number of species tested in the
available toxicity studies. Use of toxicity data on representative
species does not provide information on the potential variability in
susceptibility to acute and chronic exposures.

2.  Assumptions and Limitations Related to Exposure to Aquatic

    Species

***PRZM/EXAMS standard runoff model***

Number range CHAPTERAlthough there are uncertainties and limitations
with the use of the PRZM/EXAMS standard runoff scenario for a regional
aquatic exposure assessment, it is designed to represent pesticide
exposure from an agricultural watershed impacting a vulnerable aquatic
environment. Extrapolating the risk conclusions from this standard small
water body scenario may either underestimate or overestimate the
potential risks.

Major uncertainties with the standard runoff scenario are associated
with the physical construct of the watershed and representation of
vulnerable aquatic environments for different geographic regions. The
phyisco-chemical properties (pH, redox conditions, etc.) of the standard
small water body are based on a Georgia farm pond. These properties are
likely to be regionally specific because of local hydrogeological
conditions. Any alteration in water quality parameters may impact the
environmental behavior of the pesticide. The small water body represents
a well mixed, static water body. Because the small water body is a
static water body (no flow through); it does not account for pesticide
removal through flow through or accidental water releases. However, the
lack of water flow in the small water body provides an environmental
condition for accumulation of persistent pesticides. The assumption of
uniform mixing does not account for stratification due to thermoclines
(e.g., seasonal stratification in deep water bodies). Additionally, the
physical construct of the standard runoff scenario assumes a watershed
water body area ratio of 10. This ratio is recommended to maintain a
sustainable pond in the Southeastern United States. The use of higher
watershed water body ratios (as recommended for sustainable ponds in
drier regions of the United States) may lead to higher pesticide
concentrations when compared to the standard watershed water body ratio.

The standard small water body scenario assumes uniform environmental and
management conditions exist over the standard 10 hectare watershed.
Soils can vary substantially across even small areas, and thus, this
variation is not reflected in the model simulations. Additionally, the
impact of unique soil characteristics (e.g., fragipan) and soil
management practices (e.g., tile drainage) are not considered in the
standard runoff scenario. The assumption of uniform site and management
conditions is not expected to represent some site-specific conditions.
Extrapolating the risk conclusions from the standard small water body
scenario to other aquatic habitats (e.g., marshes, streams, creeks, and
shallow rivers, intermittent aquatic areas) may either underestimate or
overestimate the potential risks in those habitats.

Number range CHAPTERCurrently, crop sites for PRZM/EXAMS modeling are
chosen to represent sites which produce high-end, but not unrealistic or
worst-case, EECs for that crop. The EECs in this analysis are accurate
only to the extent that the site represents a hypothetical high-end
exposure site. It should be remembered that while the standard pond
would be expected to generate lower EECs than shallow water bodies near
agricultural fields that receive most of their water as runoff from use
sites that have been treated with mefluidide.

***4.3.3 Assumptions and Limitations Related to Exposure to
Terrestrial***

Species

Residue concentration

The data available to support the exposure assessment for mefluidide is
substantially complete, with the exception of a chronic bird study,
which is an input variable for Tier 1 modeling of risks to birds and
mammals (i.e., T-REX Model). EFED is confident that the estimated foliar
half-life of 4 days derived from the two field dissipation studies on
warm and cool season turf soil are acceptable (MRID 43276802 and
43276801). Therefore, EFED used the 4 day half-life for aquatic and
terrestrial modeling in this assessment.

EFED also identified alternative foliar half lives and applications to
identify LOC exceedances. To assess risks to terrestrial animals, the
Tier I terrestrial model, T‑REX, was used with maximum application rates
(1 and 3 applications), foliar half-lives (4 day and 35 day) and values
derived from upper bound and mean kenaga assessments.

To obtain an upper and lower bound estimates, both the estimated foliar
half-life (4 days) and the default foliar half-life (35 days) with 1 and
3 applications resulted in acute LOC exceedances for both mammals and
birds from both the upperbound and mean kenaga assessments. Chronic dose
based exceedances for mammals did not exceed from the mean kenaga
assessment for the 1.0 lb ae/A application scenario. The 35 day foliar
half life with 3 applications resulted in RQ values approximately 61%
higher than the single application rates for mammals. EFED is confident
that the estimated foliar half-life of 4 days derived from the two field
dissipation studies on warm and cool season turf soil is acceptable
(MRID 43276802 and 43276801). Therefore, EFED will use the 4 day
half-life for aquatic and terrestrial modeling in this assessmen**t**.
Based on acute RQ values for the upper bound kenaga values for mammals,
LOC exceedances for acute mammals would occur for the 1.0 lb ae/A
modeled scenario. However, acute exceedences for mammals did not exceed
from the mean kenaga assessment for the 1.0 lb ae/A application
scenario. These RQ values are summarized in Appendix D.

Variation in habitat and dietary requirements

For screening terrestrial risk assessments, a generic bird or mammal is
assumed to occupy either the treated field or adjacent areas receiving
pesticide at a rate commensurate with the treatment rate on the field.
The habitat and feeding requirements of the modeled species and the
wildlife species may be different. It is assumed that species occupy,
exclusively and permanently, the treated area being modeled. This
assumption leads to a maximum level of exposure in the risk assessment.

Number range CHAPTERThe acute studies have a fixed exposure period, not
allowing for the differences in response of individuals to different
durations of exposure. Further, for the acute oral study, Mefluidide is
administered in a single dose which does not mimic wild birds' exposure
through multiple feedings. Also, it does not account for the effect of
different environmental matrices on the absorption rate of the chemical
into the animal. Because exposure occurs over several days, both the
accumulated dose and elimination of the chemical from the body for the
duration of the exposure determine the exact exposure to wildlife,
however they are not taken into account in the screening assessment.
There was also no assumption of an effect of repeated doses that change
the tolerance of an individual to successive doses. EFED is confident
based on the acceptable bird and mammal toxicity studies and
conservative modeling procedures that the above assumptions pertaining
to variations in habitat and dietary requirements do not effect the
certainty of the risk conclusions.

Number range CHAPTER*Variation in diet composition*

The risk assessment and calculated RQs assume 100% of the diet is
relegated to single food types foraged only from treated fields. The
assumption of 100% diet from a single food type may be realistic for
acute exposures based on this assessment, but diets are likely to be
more variable over longer periods of time. This assumption is likely to
be conservative and will tend to overestimate potential risks for
chronic exposure. These large animals (e.g., deer and geese) will tend
to forage from a variety of areas and move on and off of treated fields.
Small animals (e.g., mice, voles, and small birds) may have home ranges
smaller than the size of a treated area and will have little or no
opportunity to obtain foodstuffs that have not been treated with
mefluidide. Even if their home range does cover area outside the treated
field, mefluidide may have drifted or runoff to areas adjacent to the
treated area.

*Exposure routes other than dietary*

Screening-level risk assessments for spray applications of pesticides
consider dietary exposure to terrestrial organisms. Other exposure
routes are possible for animals residing in or moving through treated
areas. These routes include ingestion of contaminated drinking water,
ingestion of contaminated soils, preening/grooming, and dermal contact.
Preening exposures, involving the oral ingestion of material from the
feathers remains an unquantified, but potentially important, exposure
route. If toxicity is expected through any of these other routes of
exposure, then the risks of a toxic response to mefluidide is
underestimated in this risk assessment. Other routes of exposure, not
considered in this assessment, are discussed below:

> Incidental soil ingestion exposure

This risk assessment does not consider incidental soil ingestion.
Available data suggests that up to 15% of the diet can consist of
incidentally ingested soil depending on the species and feeding strategy
(Beyer et al, 1994). Because mefluidide is moderately persistent in
soils, incidental soil ingestion is a possible exposure pathway.

> Inhalation exposure

The screening risk assessment does not consider inhalation exposure
however, due to the low Henrys Constant of mefluidide (2.27E-7 atm
m^3^/mole) inhalation is not likely to be an important exposure pathway.
Also, mammalian toxicity studies for inhalation exposure to mefluidide
indicate low acute toxicity Appendix E.

Based on the acceptable mammal toxicity studies and low Henrys Constant
of mefluidide the above assumptions pertaining to inhalation exposure do
not effect the certainty of the risk conclusions.

Dermal Exposure

The screening assessment does not consider dermal exposure. Dermal
exposure may occur through three potential sources: (1) direct
application of spray to terrestrial wildlife in the treated area or
within the drift footprint, (2) incidental contact with contaminated
vegetation, or (3) contact with contaminated water or soil.

The low octanol/water partitioning coefficient with a Kow value of (log
Kow=1.97; Kow=94.5 indicates the potential for mefluidide to be absorbed
via dermal exposure is not likely to be an important exposure pathway.
Also, mammalian toxicity studies for mefluidide indicate low acute
toxicity by dermal exposure routes Appendix E.

The available measured data related to wildlife dermal contact with
pesticides are extremely limited. The Agency is actively pursuing
modeling techniques to account for dermal exposure via direct
application of spray and by incidental contact with vegetation. EFED is
confident based on the acceptable mammal toxicity studies and low
octanol/water partitioning coefficient of mefluidide that the above
assumptions pertaining to dermal exposure do not effect the certainty of
the risk conclusions.

> Drinking Water Exposure

Drinking water exposure to a pesticide active ingredient may be the
result of consumption of surface water or consumption of the pesticide
in dew or other water on the surfaces of treated vegetation. Given that
Mefluidide is soluble in water there exists the potential to dissolve in
runoff and puddles on the treated field may contain the chemical.
Consumption of drinking water would appear to be inconsequential if
water concentrations were equivalent to the concentrations from
PRZM/EXAMS; however, concentrations in puddled water sources on treated
fields may be higher than concentrations in modeled small water body.
Given that this exposure route is not included in the assessment,
overall risk may be underestimated.

> *Dietary Intake - Differences between Laboratory and*
>
> *Field Conditions*

Number range CHAPTERThere are several aspects of the dietary test that
introduce uncertainty into calculation of the LC~50~ value (Mineau,
Jobin, and Baril, 1996; ECOFRAM, 1999). The endpoint of this test is
reported as the concentration mixed with food that produces a response
rather than as the dose ingested. Although food consumption sometimes
allows for the estimate of a dose, calculations of the mg/kg/day are
confounded by undocumented spillage of feed and how consumption is
measured over the duration of the test. Usually, if measured at all,
food consumption is estimated once at the end of the five-day exposure
period. Further, group housing of birds undergoing testing only allows
for a measure of the average consumption per day for a group;
consumption estimates can be further confounded if birds die within a
treatment group. The exponential growth of young birds also complicates
the estimate of the dose; controls often nearly double in size over the
duration of the test. Since weights are only taken at the initiation of
the exposure period and at the end, the dose per body weight (mg/kg) is
difficult to estimate with any precision. The interpretation of this
test is also confounded because the response of birds is not only a
function of the intrinsic toxicity of the pesticide, but also the
willingness of the birds to consume treated food.

Further, the acute and chronic characterization of risk rely on
comparisons of wildlife dietary residues with LC~50~ or NOAEC values
expressed in concentrations of pesticides in laboratory feed. These
comparisons assume that ingestion of food items in the field occurs at
rates commensurate with those in the laboratory. Although the screening
assessment process adjusts dry-weight estimates of food intake to
reflect the increased mass in fresh-weight wildlife food intake
estimates, it does not allow for gross energy and assimilative
efficiency differences between wildlife food items and laboratory feed.
On gross energy content alone, direct comparison of a laboratory dietary
concentration- based effects threshold to a fresh-weight pesticide
residue estimate would result in an underestimation of field exposure by
food consumption by a factor of 1.25 - 2.5 for most food items. Only for
seeds would the direct comparison of dietary threshold to residue
estimate lead to an overestimate of exposure.

Differences in assimilative efficiency between laboratory and wild diets
suggest that current screening assessment methods do not account for a
potentially important aspect of food requirements. Depending upon
species and dietary matrix, bird assimilation of wild diet energy ranges
from 23 - 80%, and mammal\'s assimilation ranges from 41 - 85% (U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1993). If it is assumed that laboratory
chow is formulated to maximize assimilative efficiency (e.g., a value of
85%), a potential for underestimation of exposure may exist by assuming
that consumption of food in the wild is comparable with consumption
during laboratory testing. In the screening process, exposure may be
underestimated because metabolic rates are not related to food
consumption.

Finally, the screening procedure does not account for situations where
the feeding rate may be above or below requirements to meet free living
metabolic requirements. Gorging behavior is a possibility under some
specific wildlife scenarios (e.g., bird migration) where the food intake
rate may be greatly increased. Kirkwood (1983) has suggested that an
upper-bound limit to this behavior might be the typical intake rate
multiplied by a factor of 5. In contrast is the potential for avoidance,
operationally defined as animals responding to the presence of noxious
chemicals in their food by reducing consumption of treated dietary
elements. This response is seen in nature where herbivores avoid plant
secondary compounds.

In the absence of additional information, the acute oral LD~50~ test
provides the best estimate of acute effects for chemicals where exposure
can be considered to occur over relative short feeding periods, such as
the diurnal feeding peaks common to avian species (ECOFRAM, 1999**).**
EFED is confident based on the acceptable bird and mammal toxicity
studies that the above assumptions pertaining laboratory and field
conditions do not effect the certainty of the risk conclusions.

*Assumptions and Limitations Related to Effects Assessment*

EFED has identified gaps in the effects dataset for mefluidide,
mefluidide-DEA and mefluidide-K.  These data gaps prevent the
establishment of definitive effects measurement endpoints for the
following taxonomic groups for mefluidide, mefluidide-DEA and
mefluidide-K: Chronic freshwater fish, chronic estuarine marine fish,
chronic estuarine marine invertebrates, chronic freshwater
invertebrates, vascular plants (EC~05~ or NOAEC) and non-vascular plants
(EC~05~ or NOAEC).   Therefore, EFED calculated estimates for
measurement endpoints for these taxonomic groups by evaluating the
available data from other anilide herbicides (Propanil) and
extrapolating the findings to available data for mefluidide,
mefluidide-DEA and mefluidide-K to estimate possible effects measurement
endpoints. Other anilide herbicides that were considered for data were
Chloranocryl, Monalide and Pentanochlor, however no information was
available for these chemicals. Therefore, Propanil was used to estimate
acute to chronic ratios for mefluidide. EFED then compared estimated
environmental concentrations for surface waters with these endpoints.
 In all cases, EFED concluded that resulting estimated risk quotients,
had they been based on definitive effects measurement endpoints, would
not trigger concerns for acute or chronic risks to these taxonomic
groups.  In fact, the RQ estimates are multiple orders of magnitude
below Agency LOCs.  However, estimated values were derived from only one
anilide herbicides to obtain effects measurement endpoints. A range of
anilide herbicides was not available to extrapolate endpoints.
Therefore, these extrapolated endpoints are uncertain and are not
considered complete substitutes for missing effects data.

EFED has identified gaps in the effects dataset for mefluidide,
mefluidide-DEA and mefluidide-K.  These data gaps prevent the
establishment of definitive effects measurement endpoints for the
following taxonomic groups for mefluidide, mefluidide-DEA and
mefluidide-K: birds (chronic) and terrestrial plants (seedling
emergence).   Therefore, EFED calculated estimates for measurement
endpoints for chronic toxicity to birds by evaluating the available data
from mammal toxicity data (acute and chronic) and extrapolating the
findings to available data for mefluidide, mefluidide-DEA and
mefluidide-K to estimate possible effects measurement endpoints.

To estimate possible effects measurement endpoints for seedling
emergence, EFED assumed that EC~25~ toxicity values for terrestrial
plants (vegetative vigor) are equivalent to (seedling emergence)
measurement endpoints for mefluidide, mefluidide-DEA and mefluidide-K.
Therefore, these estimated endpoints are uncertain and are not
considered complete substitutes for missing effects data.

*Age class and sensitivity of effects thresholds*

It is generally recognized that test organism age may have a significant
impact on the observed sensitivity to a toxicant. The screening risk
assessment acute toxicity data for fish are collected on juvenile fish
between 0.1 and 5 grams. Aquatic invertebrate acute testing is performed
on recommended immature age classes (e.g., first instar for daphnids,
second instar for amphipods, stoneflies and mayflies, and third instar
for midges). Similarly, acute dietary testing with birds is also
performed on juveniles, with mallard being 5-10 days old and quail 10-14
days old.

Testing of juveniles may overestimate toxicity of older age classes for
pesticidal active ingredients, such as Mefluidide, that act directly
(without metabolic transformation) because younger age classes may not
have the enzymatic systems associated with detoxifying xenobiotics. The
screening risk assessment has no current provisions for a generally
applied method that accounts for this uncertainty. In so far as the
available toxicity data may provide ranges of sensitivity information
with respect to age class, the risk assessment uses the most sensitive
life-stage information as the conservative screening endpoint. However,
EFED is confident based on all the acceptable aquatic and terrestrial
toxicity studies that the above assumptions pertaining to age
sensitivity does not effect the certainty of the risk conclusions.

*Use of the Most Sensitive Species Tested*

Although the screening risk assessment relies on a selected toxicity
endpoint from the most sensitive species tested, it does not necessarily
mean that the selected toxicity endpoint reflect sensitivity of the most
sensitive species existing in a given environment. The relative position
of the most sensitive species tested in the distribution of all possible
species is a function of the overall variability among species to a
particular chemical. In the case of listed species, there is uncertainty
regarding the relationship of the listed species\' sensitivity and the
most sensitive species tested.

The Agency is not limited to a base set of surrogate toxicity
information in establishing risk assessment conclusions. The Agency also
considers toxicity data on non-standard test species when available.
EFED is confident based on the acceptable aquatic and terrestrial
toxicity studies that the above assumptions pertaining to the most
sensitive species tested does not effect the certainty of the risk
conclusions.

**REFERENCES**

Beyer, W.N. 1994. Estimates of soil ingestion by wildlife. J Wildlife
Manage 58(2):375--382.

Crum, J. R., F. W. Thomas, and J. N. Rogers III. 2003. Agronomic and
engineering properties of USGA putting greens. *USGA Turfgrass and
Environmental Research Online* 2(15): 1-9.

ECOFRAM. 1999. ECOFRAM Terrestrial Draft Report. Ecological Committee on
FIFRA Risk Assessment Methods. USEPA, Washington, DC.

Number range CHAPTERFletcher, J.S., J.E. Nellessen, and T.G. Pfleeger.
1994. Literature review and evaluation of the EPA food-chain (Kenaga)
nomogram, an instrument for estimating pesticide residues on plants.
Environ. Tox. Chem. 13:1383-1391.

Hoerger, F., and E.E. Kenaga. 1972. Pesticide residues on plants:
Correlation of representative data as a basis for estimation of their
magnitude in the environment. In F. Coulston and F. Korte, eds.,
*Environmental Quality and Safety: Chemistry, Toxicology, and
Technology,* Georg Thieme Publ, Stuttgart, West Germany, pp. 9-28.

Gibson, L. R. and M. Liebman. 2002. Course Material for *Principles of
Weed Science*, Agronomy 317, Iowa State University. Website accessed 17
July 2006,
http://www.agron.iastate.edu/courses/Agron317/Herbicide_mode_of_action.htm.

Kirkwood JK. 1983. Minireview. A limit to metabolisable energy intake in
mammals and birds. Comp Biochem Physiol A 75(1):1-3.

Lehman,A.J.1975. Appraisal of the Safety of Chemicals in Foods, Drugs
and Cosmetics. Association of Food and Drug Officials of the United
States

Merola-Zwartjes, M., and J. P. DeLong. 2005. Southwestern golf courses
provide needed riparian habitat for birds. *USGA Turfgrass and
Environmental Research Online* 4(14): 1-18

Mineau, P., B. T. Collins, and A. Baril. 1996. On the use of scaling
factors to improve interspecies extrapolation of acute toxicity in
birds. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology. 24:24-29.

Stangel, P., and K. Distler. 2002. Golf courses for wildlife: Looking
beyond the turf. *USGA Turfgrass and Environmental Research Online*
1(2):1-6.

Urban DJ & Cook NJ (1986) Hazard Evaluation Division Standard Evaluation
Procedure: Ecological risk assessment. EPA 540/9-85-001. Office of
Pesticide Programs, United States Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C

**Appendix A Ecological Data Requirements**

+----+----+--------------+---------------------------+---------------+
| ** |    |              |                           |               |
| Ec |    |              |                           |               |
| ol |    |              |                           |               |
| og |    |              |                           |               |
| ic |    |              |                           |               |
| al |    |              |                           |               |
| E  |    |              |                           |               |
| ff |    |              |                           |               |
| ec |    |              |                           |               |
| ts |    |              |                           |               |
| Da |    |              |                           |               |
| ta |    |              |                           |               |
| Re |    |              |                           |               |
| qu |    |              |                           |               |
| ir |    |              |                           |               |
| em |    |              |                           |               |
| en |    |              |                           |               |
| ts |    |              |                           |               |
| f  |    |              |                           |               |
| or |    |              |                           |               |
| M  |    |              |                           |               |
| ef |    |              |                           |               |
| lu |    |              |                           |               |
| id |    |              |                           |               |
| id |    |              |                           |               |
| e^ |    |              |                           |               |
| 1^ |    |              |                           |               |
| ** |    |              |                           |               |
+----+----+--------------+---------------------------+---------------+
| *  |    | **Data       | **Species / MRID**        | **Study       |
| *G |    | R            |                           | Cla           |
| ui |    | equirement** |                           | ssification** |
| de |    |              |                           |               |
| li |    |              |                           |               |
| ne |    |              |                           |               |
| \# |    |              |                           |               |
| ** |    |              |                           |               |
+----+----+--------------+---------------------------+---------------+
| 71 | 85 | Avian Oral   | Northern Bobwhite Quail   | Supplemental  |
| -1 | 0. | LD~50~       | (416019-01 )              |               |
|    | 21 |              |                           |               |
|    | 00 |              | Mallard duck Not          |               |
|    |    |              | submitted                 |               |
+----+----+--------------+---------------------------+---------------+
| 71 | 85 | Avian        | Northern Bobwhite Quail   | Supplemental  |
| -2 | 0. | Dietary      | (416019-02)               |               |
|    | 22 | LC~50~       |                           |               |
|    | 00 |              |                           |               |
+----+----+--------------+---------------------------+---------------+
|    |    |              | Mallard duck (416019-03)  | Supplemental  |
+----+----+--------------+---------------------------+---------------+
| 71 | 85 | Avian        | Not submitted             | Estimated     |
| -4 | 0. | Reproduction |                           | values        |
|    | 23 |              |                           |               |
|    | 00 |              |                           |               |
+----+----+--------------+---------------------------+---------------+
| 81 |    | Acute Mammal | Laboratory mouse          | Acceptable    |
| -1 |    |              | (00047116)                |               |
+----+----+--------------+---------------------------+---------------+
| 83 |    | Chronic      | Laboratory rat (00082748) | Acceptable    |
| -4 |    | Mammal       |                           |               |
+----+----+--------------+---------------------------+---------------+
| 72 | 85 | Freshwater   | Rainbow Trout Coldwater   | Acceptable    |
| -1 | 0. | Fish LC~50~  | species Freshwater fish   |               |
|    | 10 |              |                           |               |
|    | 75 |              | (418937-02)               |               |
+----+----+--------------+---------------------------+---------------+
|    |    |              | Bluegill sunfish          | Acceptable    |
|    |    |              | Warmwater species         |               |
|    |    |              | Freshwater fish           |               |
|    |    |              |                           |               |
|    |    |              | (418937-01)               |               |
+----+----+--------------+---------------------------+---------------+
| 72 | 85 | Freshwater   | Water flea                | Acceptable    |
| -2 | 0. | Invertebrate |                           |               |
|    | 10 | Acute LC~50~ | Freshwater Invertebrate   |               |
|    | 10 |              | (418937-03)               |               |
+----+----+--------------+---------------------------+---------------+
| 7  | 85 | Estu         | Sheepshead minnow         | Acceptable    |
| 2- | 0. | arine/Marine |                           |               |
| 3( | 10 | Fish LC~50~  | (425623-03)               |               |
| a) | 75 |              |                           |               |
+----+----+--------------+---------------------------+---------------+
| 7  | 85 | Estu         | Eastern Oyster            | Acceptable    |
| 2- | 0. | arine/Marine | (425624-01)               |               |
| 3( | 10 | I            |                           |               |
| b) | 25 | nvertebrates |                           |               |
|    |    | EC~50~       |                           |               |
+----+----+--------------+---------------------------+---------------+
| 7  | 85 | Fish Early   | Not submitted             | Estimated     |
| 2- | 0. | Life-Stage   |                           | values        |
| 4( | 14 |              |                           |               |
| a) | 00 |              |                           |               |
+----+----+--------------+---------------------------+---------------+
| 7  | 85 | Aquatic      | Not submitted             | Estimated     |
| 2- | 0. | Invertebrate |                           | values        |
| 4( | 13 | Life-Cycle   |                           |               |
| b) | 00 |              |                           |               |
|    |    |              |                           |               |
|    | 85 |              |                           |               |
|    | 0. |              |                           |               |
|    | 13 |              |                           |               |
|    | 50 |              |                           |               |
+----+----+--------------+---------------------------+---------------+
| 72 | 85 | Freshwater   | Not submitted             | Estimated     |
| -5 | 0. | Fish Full    |                           | values        |
|    | 15 | Life-Cycle   |                           |               |
|    | 00 |              |                           |               |
+----+----+--------------+---------------------------+---------------+
| 12 | 85 | Seedling     | Not submitted             | Estimated     |
| 3- | 0. | Emergence    |                           | values        |
| 1( | 42 |              |                           |               |
| a) | 25 |              |                           |               |
+----+----+--------------+---------------------------+---------------+
| 12 | 85 | Vegetative   | Most sensitive monocot:   | Supplemental  |
| 3- | 0. | Vigor (Tier  | Onion                     |               |
| 1( | 42 | II)          |                           |               |
| b) | 50 |              | Most sensitive dicot:     |               |
|    |    |              | cabbage, lettuce          |               |
|    |    |              |                           |               |
|    |    |              | ( 435496-01 )             |               |
+----+----+--------------+---------------------------+---------------+
| 1  | 85 | Aquatic      | *Navicula pelliculosa*    | Acceptable    |
| 23 | 0. | Plant Growth | Tier I [Nonvascular       |               |
| -2 | 44 | (Tier II)    | Pla                       |               |
|    | 00 |              | nt]{.underline}(435266-05 |               |
|    |    |              | )                         |               |
+----+----+--------------+---------------------------+---------------+
| 1  | 85 | Aquatic      | *Lemna gibba* Tier I      | Acceptable    |
| 23 | 0. | Plant Growth | [Vascular                 |               |
| -2 | 44 | (Tier II)    | Plant]{.underline}(       |               |
|    | 00 |              | 435266-01 )               |               |
+----+----+--------------+---------------------------+---------------+
| 1  | 85 | Honey Bee    | Honeybee ( 425628-01 )    | Acceptable    |
| 41 | 0. | Acute        |                           |               |
| -1 | 30 | Contact      |                           |               |
|    | 20 | LD~50~       |                           |               |
+----+----+--------------+---------------------------+---------------+

**[Appendix B Bibliography for Environmental Fate and Selected Chemical
Structures]{.underline}**

**[Bibliography]{.underline}**

**Morrison Robert T. and R. N. Boyd. 1973. Organic Chemistry 3^rd^
edition. Allyn and Bacon, Inc., Boston.**

**[Chemical Stuctures for Mefluidide]{.underline}**

![](media/image2.wmf){width="1.6354166666666667in"
height="1.3465277777777778in"}
![](media/image3.wmf){width="1.5208333333333333in"
height="1.3138888888888889in"}
![](media/image4.wmf){width="1.9569444444444444in"
height="1.5770833333333334in"}

**Mefluidide a.i Mefluidide-K a.i Mefluidide-DEA a.i**

![](media/image5.wmf){width="1.5097222222222222in"
height="1.2416666666666667in"}
![](media/image6.wmf){width="1.4993055555555554in" height="1.23125in"}

Mefluidide acid (Enol form) Mefluidide (Keto form)

![](media/image7.png){width="1.5020833333333334in"
height="0.9541666666666667in"}**Propanil analog**

**Appendix C Aquatic Exposure Modeling Assessment PRZM-EXAMS model
outputs**

**PRZM-EXAMS SIMULATIONS**

**FL TURF mefluidide-DEA**

stored as MefluDEA.out

Chemical: Mefluidide

PRZM environment: FLturfC.txt modified Monday, 16 June 2003 at 13:48:06

EXAMS environment: pond298.exv modified Thuday, 29 August 2002 at
16:33:30

Metfile: w12834.dvf modified Wedday, 3 July 2002 at 09:04:28

Water segment concentrations (ppb)

Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

1961 6.522 6.393 5.844 4.781 4.142 1.629

1962 2.048 2.006 1.904 1.621 1.473 1.009

1963 10.33 10.1 9.353 7.649 6.617 2.702

1964 3.237 3.164 3.003 2.477 2.159 1.513

1965 1.479 1.45 1.332 1.139 1.112 0.679

1966 16.06 15.7 14.25 11.58 10.03 4.671

1967 3.069 3.035 2.896 2.614 2.409 1.701

1968 8.56 8.38 7.675 6.287 5.45 2.273

1969 5.46 5.357 5.124 4.396 3.892 1.956

1970 2.4 2.345 2.128 1.816 1.765 1.048

1971 6.952 6.81 6.223 5.131 4.881 2.576

1972 2.756 2.706 2.502 2.233 2.031 1.15

1973 2.109 2.069 1.968 1.866 1.792 0.9159

1974 5.179 5.102 4.72 3.909 3.396 1.445

1975 3.035 2.971 2.726 2.251 2.01 1.233

1976 12.62 12.39 11.53 9.825 8.995 4.192

1977 1.88 1.837 1.714 1.619 1.523 1.118

1978 1.602 1.565 1.421 1.337 1.278 0.6743

1979 1.461 1.427 1.304 1.145 1.04 0.5849

1980 5.023 4.929 4.5 3.632 3.132 1.623

1981 1.565 1.529 1.387 1.276 1.222 0.7967

1982 5.846 5.753 5.376 4.844 4.576 2.162

1983 2.743 2.703 2.492 2.398 2.317 1.295

1984 10.6 10.42 9.653 8.537 8.545 3.988

1985 1.841 1.806 1.697 1.559 1.529 1.038

1986 1.867 1.84 1.679 1.404 1.239 0.6823

1987 2.407 2.354 2.14 1.739 1.515 0.7955

1988 1.338 1.309 1.194 1.038 1.003 0.5808

1989 1.267 1.239 1.126 0.9689 0.9342 0.4958

1990 1.281 1.251 1.198 0.9955 0.953 0.5079

Sorted results

Prob. Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

0.032258064516129 16.06 15.7 14.25 11.58 10.03 4.671

0.0645161290322581 12.62 12.39 11.53 9.825 8.995 4.192

0.0967741935483871 10.6 10.42 9.653 8.537 8.545 3.988

0.129032258064516 10.33 10.1 9.353 7.649 6.617 2.702

0.161290322580645 8.56 8.38 7.675 6.287 5.45 2.576

0.193548387096774 6.952 6.81 6.223 5.131 4.881 2.273

0.225806451612903 6.522 6.393 5.844 4.844 4.576 2.162

0.258064516129032 5.846 5.753 5.376 4.781 4.142 1.956

0.290322580645161 5.46 5.357 5.124 4.396 3.892 1.701

0.32258064516129 5.179 5.102 4.72 3.909 3.396 1.629

0.354838709677419 5.023 4.929 4.5 3.632 3.132 1.623

0.387096774193548 3.237 3.164 3.003 2.614 2.409 1.513

0.419354838709677 3.069 3.035 2.896 2.477 2.317 1.445

0.451612903225806 3.035 2.971 2.726 2.398 2.159 1.295

0.483870967741936 2.756 2.706 2.502 2.251 2.031 1.233

0.516129032258065 2.743 2.703 2.492 2.233 2.01 1.15

0.548387096774194 2.407 2.354 2.14 1.866 1.792 1.118

0.580645161290323 2.4 2.345 2.128 1.816 1.765 1.048

0.612903225806452 2.109 2.069 1.968 1.739 1.529 1.038

0.645161290322581 2.048 2.006 1.904 1.621 1.523 1.009

0.67741935483871 1.88 1.84 1.714 1.619 1.515 0.9159

0.709677419354839 1.867 1.837 1.697 1.559 1.473 0.7967

0.741935483870968 1.841 1.806 1.679 1.404 1.278 0.7955

0.774193548387097 1.602 1.565 1.421 1.337 1.239 0.6823

0.806451612903226 1.565 1.529 1.387 1.276 1.222 0.679

0.838709677419355 1.479 1.45 1.332 1.145 1.112 0.6743

0.870967741935484 1.461 1.427 1.304 1.139 1.04 0.5849

0.903225806451613 1.338 1.309 1.198 1.038 1.003 0.5808

0.935483870967742 1.281 1.251 1.194 0.9955 0.953 0.5079

0.967741935483871 1.267 1.239 1.126 0.9689 0.9342 0.4958

0.1 10.573 10.388 9.623 8.4482 8.3522 3.8594

Average of yearly averages: 1.56783666666667

Inputs generated by pe4.pl - 8-August-2003

Data used for this run:

Output File: MefluDEA

Metfile: w12834.dvf

PRZM scenario: FLturfC.txt

EXAMS environment file: pond298.exv

Chemical Name: Mefluidide

Description Variable Name Value Units Comments

Molecular weight mwt 310.6 g/mol

Henry\'s Law Const. henry 2.27E-7 atm-m\^3/mol

Vapor Pressure vapr 1E-4 torr

Solubility sol 180 mg/L

Kd Kd 0.073 mg/L

Koc Koc mg/L

Photolysis half-life kdp days Half-life

Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacw 72 days Halfife

Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacs days Halfife

Aerobic Soil Metabolism asm 36 days Halfife

Hydrolysis: pH 7 days Half-life

Method: CAM 2 integer See PRZM manual

Incorporation Depth: DEPI cm

Application Rate: TAPP 1.12 kg/ha

Application Efficiency: APPEFF 0.99 fraction

Spray Drift DRFT 0.01 fraction of application rate applied to pond

Application Date Date 1-4 dd/mm or dd/mmm or dd-mm or dd-mmm

Interval 1 interval 42 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

Interval 2 interval 42 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

Record 17: FILTRA

IPSCND 1

UPTKF

Record 18: PLVKRT

PLDKRT 0.1715

FEXTRC 0.5

Flag for Index Res. Run IR Pond

Flag for runoff calc. RUNOFF none none, monthly or total(average of
entire run)

**FL TURF mefluidide-K**

stored as MefluK.out

Chemical: Mefluidide

PRZM environment: FLturfC.txt modified Monday, 16 June 2003 at 13:48:06

EXAMS environment: pond298.exv modified Thuday, 29 August 2002 at
16:33:30

Metfile: w12834.dvf modified Wedday, 3 July 2002 at 09:04:28

Water segment concentrations (ppb)

Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

1961 6.522 6.393 5.844 4.781 4.142 1.629

1962 2.048 2.006 1.904 1.621 1.473 1.009

1963 10.33 10.1 9.353 7.649 6.617 2.702

1964 3.237 3.164 3.003 2.477 2.159 1.513

1965 1.479 1.45 1.332 1.139 1.112 0.679

1966 16.06 15.7 14.25 11.58 10.03 4.671

1967 3.069 3.035 2.896 2.614 2.409 1.701

1968 8.56 8.38 7.675 6.287 5.45 2.273

1969 5.46 5.357 5.124 4.396 3.892 1.956

1970 2.4 2.345 2.128 1.816 1.765 1.048

1971 6.952 6.81 6.223 5.131 4.881 2.576

1972 2.756 2.706 2.502 2.233 2.031 1.15

1973 2.109 2.069 1.968 1.866 1.792 0.9159

1974 5.179 5.102 4.72 3.909 3.396 1.445

1975 3.035 2.971 2.726 2.251 2.01 1.233

1976 12.62 12.39 11.53 9.825 8.995 4.192

1977 1.88 1.837 1.714 1.619 1.523 1.118

1978 1.602 1.565 1.421 1.337 1.278 0.6743

1979 1.461 1.427 1.304 1.145 1.04 0.5849

1980 5.023 4.929 4.5 3.632 3.132 1.623

1981 1.565 1.529 1.387 1.276 1.222 0.7967

1982 5.846 5.753 5.376 4.844 4.576 2.162

1983 2.743 2.703 2.492 2.398 2.317 1.295

1984 10.6 10.42 9.653 8.537 8.545 3.988

1985 1.841 1.806 1.697 1.559 1.529 1.038

1986 1.867 1.84 1.679 1.404 1.239 0.6823

1987 2.407 2.354 2.14 1.739 1.515 0.7955

1988 1.338 1.309 1.194 1.038 1.003 0.5808

1989 1.267 1.239 1.126 0.9689 0.9342 0.4958

1990 1.281 1.251 1.198 0.9955 0.953 0.5079

Sorted results

Prob. Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

0.032258064516129 16.06 15.7 14.25 11.58 10.03 4.671

0.0645161290322581 12.62 12.39 11.53 9.825 8.995 4.192

0.0967741935483871 10.6 10.42 9.653 8.537 8.545 3.988

0.129032258064516 10.33 10.1 9.353 7.649 6.617 2.702

0.161290322580645 8.56 8.38 7.675 6.287 5.45 2.576

0.193548387096774 6.952 6.81 6.223 5.131 4.881 2.273

0.225806451612903 6.522 6.393 5.844 4.844 4.576 2.162

0.258064516129032 5.846 5.753 5.376 4.781 4.142 1.956

0.290322580645161 5.46 5.357 5.124 4.396 3.892 1.701

0.32258064516129 5.179 5.102 4.72 3.909 3.396 1.629

0.354838709677419 5.023 4.929 4.5 3.632 3.132 1.623

0.387096774193548 3.237 3.164 3.003 2.614 2.409 1.513

0.419354838709677 3.069 3.035 2.896 2.477 2.317 1.445

0.451612903225806 3.035 2.971 2.726 2.398 2.159 1.295

0.483870967741936 2.756 2.706 2.502 2.251 2.031 1.233

0.516129032258065 2.743 2.703 2.492 2.233 2.01 1.15

0.548387096774194 2.407 2.354 2.14 1.866 1.792 1.118

0.580645161290323 2.4 2.345 2.128 1.816 1.765 1.048

0.612903225806452 2.109 2.069 1.968 1.739 1.529 1.038

0.645161290322581 2.048 2.006 1.904 1.621 1.523 1.009

0.67741935483871 1.88 1.84 1.714 1.619 1.515 0.9159

0.709677419354839 1.867 1.837 1.697 1.559 1.473 0.7967

0.741935483870968 1.841 1.806 1.679 1.404 1.278 0.7955

0.774193548387097 1.602 1.565 1.421 1.337 1.239 0.6823

0.806451612903226 1.565 1.529 1.387 1.276 1.222 0.679

0.838709677419355 1.479 1.45 1.332 1.145 1.112 0.6743

0.870967741935484 1.461 1.427 1.304 1.139 1.04 0.5849

0.903225806451613 1.338 1.309 1.198 1.038 1.003 0.5808

0.935483870967742 1.281 1.251 1.194 0.9955 0.953 0.5079

0.967741935483871 1.267 1.239 1.126 0.9689 0.9342 0.4958

0.1 10.573 10.388 9.623 8.4482 8.3522 3.8594

Average of yearly averages: 1.56783666666667

Inputs generated by pe4.pl - 8-August-2003

Data used for this run:

Output File: MefluK

Metfile: w12834.dvf

PRZM scenario: FLturfC.txt

EXAMS environment file: pond298.exv

Chemical Name: Mefluidide

Description Variable Name Value Units Comments

Molecular weight mwt 310.6 g/mol

Henry\'s Law Const. henry 2.27E-7 atm-m\^3/mol

Vapor Pressure vapr 1E-4 torr

Solubility sol 180 mg/L

Kd Kd 0.073 mg/L

Koc Koc mg/L

Photolysis half-life kdp days Half-life

Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacw 72 days Halfife

Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacs days Halfife

Aerobic Soil Metabolism asm 36 days Halfife

Hydrolysis: pH 7 days Half-life

Method: CAM 2 integer See PRZM manual

Incorporation Depth: DEPI cm

Application Rate: TAPP 1.12 kg/ha

Application Efficiency: APPEFF 0.99 fraction

Spray Drift DRFT 0.01 fraction of application rate applied to pond

Application Date Date 1-4 dd/mm or dd/mmm or dd-mm or dd-mmm

Interval 1 interval 42 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

Interval 2 interval 42 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

Record 17: FILTRA

IPSCND 1

UPTKF

Record 18: PLVKRT

PLDKRT 0.1715

FEXTRC 0.5

Flag for Index Res. Run IR Pond

Flag for runoff calc. RUNOFF none none, monthly or total(average of
entire run)

**FL TURF mefluidide**

stored as Mefluacidi.out

Chemical: Mefluidide

PRZM environment: FLturfC.txt modified Monday, 16 June 2003 at 13:48:06

EXAMS environment: pond298.exv modified Thuday, 29 August 2002 at
16:33:30

Metfile: w12834.dvf modified Wedday, 3 July 2002 at 09:04:28

Water segment concentrations (ppb)

Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

1961 2.705 2.623 2.395 1.959 1.697 0.6036

1962 0.4867 0.4819 0.4621 0.4172 0.3845 0.2598

1963 4.628 4.521 4.186 3.424 2.962 1.119

1964 1.063 1.039 0.9768 0.8114 0.7087 0.5198

1965 0.2023 0.2004 0.1923 0.1746 0.1613 0.0877

1966 7.509 7.344 6.666 5.416 4.692 2.106

1967 1.435 1.419 1.354 1.222 1.126 0.6051

1968 3.711 3.633 3.324 2.724 2.361 0.8962

1969 2.254 2.212 2.11 1.748 1.51 0.7417

1970 0.6738 0.6621 0.6153 0.5286 0.4994 0.2943

1971 2.902 2.842 2.597 2.132 1.999 1.053

1972 0.8825 0.8664 0.8012 0.6593 0.5722 0.3381

1973 0.7281 0.7167 0.6819 0.5861 0.5181 0.2195

1974 1.999 1.973 1.825 1.513 1.314 0.4854

1975 0.9183 0.8987 0.8271 0.6841 0.5946 0.3775

1976 5.849 5.746 5.348 4.478 4.143 1.863

1977 0.7792 0.773 0.7472 0.6889 0.6377 0.3198

1978 0.3362 0.3306 0.3074 0.2628 0.2355 0.1042

1979 0.209 0.2042 0.1856 0.1521 0.1322 0.05641

1980 1.927 1.886 1.725 1.393 1.199 0.5759

1981 0.3447 0.3422 0.3319 0.306 0.2846 0.157

1982 2.621 2.58 2.411 2.08 1.908 0.8387

1983 0.9113 0.8994 0.8361 0.7669 0.7557 0.396

1984 4.858 4.774 4.423 3.942 3.914 1.755

1985 0.6437 0.6381 0.615 0.5619 0.5184 0.2808

1986 0.3765 0.3696 0.3383 0.2763 0.2394 0.09841

1987 0.6123 0.5988 0.544 0.4412 0.3805 0.1559

1988 0.1109 0.1099 0.1057 0.09663 0.08981 0.04412

1989 0.02912 0.02866 0.02658 0.02215 0.01923 0.009001

1990 0.08553 0.08355 0.07587 0.0616 0.05313 0.01983

Sorted results

Prob. Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

0.032258064516129 7.509 7.344 6.666 5.416 4.692 2.106

0.0645161290322581 5.849 5.746 5.348 4.478 4.143 1.863

0.0967741935483871 4.858 4.774 4.423 3.942 3.914 1.755

0.129032258064516 4.628 4.521 4.186 3.424 2.962 1.119

0.161290322580645 3.711 3.633 3.324 2.724 2.361 1.053

0.193548387096774 2.902 2.842 2.597 2.132 1.999 0.8962

0.225806451612903 2.705 2.623 2.411 2.08 1.908 0.8387

0.258064516129032 2.621 2.58 2.395 1.959 1.697 0.7417

0.290322580645161 2.254 2.212 2.11 1.748 1.51 0.6051

0.32258064516129 1.999 1.973 1.825 1.513 1.314 0.6036

0.354838709677419 1.927 1.886 1.725 1.393 1.199 0.5759

0.387096774193548 1.435 1.419 1.354 1.222 1.126 0.5198

0.419354838709677 1.063 1.039 0.9768 0.8114 0.7557 0.4854

0.451612903225806 0.9183 0.8994 0.8361 0.7669 0.7087 0.396

0.483870967741936 0.9113 0.8987 0.8271 0.6889 0.6377 0.3775

0.516129032258065 0.8825 0.8664 0.8012 0.6841 0.5946 0.3381

0.548387096774194 0.7792 0.773 0.7472 0.6593 0.5722 0.3198

0.580645161290323 0.7281 0.7167 0.6819 0.5861 0.5184 0.2943

0.612903225806452 0.6738 0.6621 0.6153 0.5619 0.5181 0.2808

0.645161290322581 0.6437 0.6381 0.615 0.5286 0.4994 0.2598

0.67741935483871 0.6123 0.5988 0.544 0.4412 0.3845 0.2195

0.709677419354839 0.4867 0.4819 0.4621 0.4172 0.3805 0.157

0.741935483870968 0.3765 0.3696 0.3383 0.306 0.2846 0.1559

0.774193548387097 0.3447 0.3422 0.3319 0.2763 0.2394 0.1042

0.806451612903226 0.3362 0.3306 0.3074 0.2628 0.2355 0.09841

0.838709677419355 0.209 0.2042 0.1923 0.1746 0.1613 0.0877

0.870967741935484 0.2023 0.2004 0.1856 0.1521 0.1322 0.05641

0.903225806451613 0.1109 0.1099 0.1057 0.09663 0.08981 0.04412

0.935483870967742 0.08553 0.08355 0.07587 0.0616 0.05313 0.01983

0.967741935483871 0.02912 0.02866 0.02658 0.02215 0.01923 0.009001

0.1 4.835 4.7487 4.3993 3.8902 3.8188 1.6914

Average of yearly averages: 0.5460257

Inputs generated by pe4.pl - 8-August-2003

Data used for this run:

Output File: Mefluacidi

Metfile: w12834.dvf

PRZM scenario: FLturfC.txt

EXAMS environment file: pond298.exv

Chemical Name: Mefluidide

Description Variable Name Value Units Comments

Molecular weight mwt 310.6 g/mol

Henry\'s Law Const. henry 2.27E-7 atm-m\^3/mol

Vapor Pressure vapr 1E-4 torr

Solubility sol 180 mg/L

Kd Kd 0.073 mg/L

Koc Koc mg/L

Photolysis half-life kdp days Half-life

Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacw 72 days Halfife

Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacs days Halfife

Aerobic Soil Metabolism asm 36 days Halfife

Hydrolysis: pH 7 days Half-life

Method: CAM 2 integer See PRZM manual

Incorporation Depth: DEPI cm

Application Rate: TAPP 0.56 kg/ha

Application Efficiency: APPEFF 1.00 fraction

Spray Drift DRFT 0.0 fraction of application rate applied to pond

Application Date Date 1-4 dd/mm or dd/mmm or dd-mm or dd-mmm

Interval 1 interval 42 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

Interval 2 interval 42 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

Record 17: FILTRA

IPSCND 1

UPTKF

Record 18: PLVKRT

PLDKRT 0.1715

FEXTRC 0.5

Flag for Index Res. Run IR Pond

Flag for runoff calc. RUNOFF none none, monthly or total(average of
entire run)

**PA TURF mefluidide-DEA**

stored as MefluDEA.out

Chemical: Mefluidide

PRZM environment: PAturfC.txt modified Satday, 12 October 2002 at
16:27:02

EXAMS environment: pond298.exv modified Thuday, 29 August 2002 at
16:33:30

Metfile: w14737.dvf modified Wedday, 3 July 2002 at 09:06:12

Water segment concentrations (ppb)

Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

1961 1.508 1.481 1.375 1.288 1.184 0.6653

1962 1.894 1.864 1.74 1.627 1.567 1.027

1963 1.689 1.663 1.549 1.395 1.353 0.9127

1964 1.64 1.616 1.507 1.342 1.309 0.861

1965 1.606 1.582 1.477 1.306 1.277 0.8369

1966 1.618 1.591 1.472 1.321 1.274 0.8173

1967 2.52 2.478 2.31 2.014 1.848 1.149

1968 3.188 3.157 3.052 2.893 2.82 1.641

1969 1.823 1.795 1.677 1.549 1.499 1.083

1970 10.34 10.26 9.907 9.204 8.608 4.205

1971 5.302 5.247 5.022 4.55 4.182 2.656

1972 2.679 2.641 2.464 2.311 2.18 1.537

1973 10.43 10.25 9.455 7.943 7.066 3.655

1974 4.838 4.792 4.605 4.369 4.183 2.896

1975 7.102 7.045 6.814 6.374 5.981 3.199

1976 5.928 5.872 5.64 5.283 4.982 2.834

1977 2.329 2.298 2.172 2.051 2.021 1.455

1978 5.93 5.872 5.592 5.087 4.753 2.412

1979 2.673 2.634 2.47 2.386 2.27 1.662

1980 1.753 1.726 1.601 1.465 1.403 0.9518

1981 2.388 2.359 2.239 2.1 1.963 1.108

1982 2.107 2.078 1.943 1.781 1.701 1.123

1983 1.87 1.84 1.719 1.599 1.527 0.9895

1984 6.622 6.507 6.052 5.134 4.63 2.621

1985 2.641 2.607 2.468 2.323 2.243 1.695

1986 2.182 2.148 2.018 1.904 1.816 1.182

1987 3.103 3.066 2.944 2.855 2.755 1.587

1988 2.9 2.866 2.718 2.551 2.358 1.403

1989 3.313 3.275 3.116 2.887 2.683 1.541

1990 2.244 2.208 2.074 1.949 1.867 1.252

Sorted results

Prob. Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

0.032258064516129 10.43 10.26 9.907 9.204 8.608 4.205

0.0645161290322581 10.34 10.25 9.455 7.943 7.066 3.655

0.0967741935483871 7.102 7.045 6.814 6.374 5.981 3.199

0.129032258064516 6.622 6.507 6.052 5.283 4.982 2.896

0.161290322580645 5.93 5.872 5.64 5.134 4.753 2.834

0.193548387096774 5.928 5.872 5.592 5.087 4.63 2.656

0.225806451612903 5.302 5.247 5.022 4.55 4.183 2.621

0.258064516129032 4.838 4.792 4.605 4.369 4.182 2.412

0.290322580645161 3.313 3.275 3.116 2.893 2.82 1.695

0.32258064516129 3.188 3.157 3.052 2.887 2.755 1.662

0.354838709677419 3.103 3.066 2.944 2.855 2.683 1.641

0.387096774193548 2.9 2.866 2.718 2.551 2.358 1.587

0.419354838709677 2.679 2.641 2.47 2.386 2.27 1.541

0.451612903225806 2.673 2.634 2.468 2.323 2.243 1.537

0.483870967741936 2.641 2.607 2.464 2.311 2.18 1.455

0.516129032258065 2.52 2.478 2.31 2.1 2.021 1.403

0.548387096774194 2.388 2.359 2.239 2.051 1.963 1.252

0.580645161290323 2.329 2.298 2.172 2.014 1.867 1.182

0.612903225806452 2.244 2.208 2.074 1.949 1.848 1.149

0.645161290322581 2.182 2.148 2.018 1.904 1.816 1.123

0.67741935483871 2.107 2.078 1.943 1.781 1.701 1.108

0.709677419354839 1.894 1.864 1.74 1.627 1.567 1.083

0.741935483870968 1.87 1.84 1.719 1.599 1.527 1.027

0.774193548387097 1.823 1.795 1.677 1.549 1.499 0.9895

0.806451612903226 1.753 1.726 1.601 1.465 1.403 0.9518

0.838709677419355 1.689 1.663 1.549 1.395 1.353 0.9127

0.870967741935484 1.64 1.616 1.507 1.342 1.309 0.861

0.903225806451613 1.618 1.591 1.477 1.321 1.277 0.8369

0.935483870967742 1.606 1.582 1.472 1.306 1.274 0.8173

0.967741935483871 1.508 1.481 1.375 1.288 1.184 0.6653

0.1 7.054 6.9912 6.7378 6.2649 5.8811 3.1687

Average of yearly averages: 1.69858333333333

Inputs generated by pe4.pl - 8-August-2003

Data used for this run:

Output File: MefluDEA

Metfile: w14737.dvf

PRZM scenario: PAturfC.txt

EXAMS environment file: pond298.exv

Chemical Name: Mefluidide

Description Variable Name Value Units Comments

Molecular weight mwt 310.6 g/mol

Henry\'s Law Const. henry 2.27E-7 atm-m\^3/mol

Vapor Pressure vapr 1E-4 torr

Solubility sol 180 mg/L

Kd Kd 0.073 mg/L

Koc Koc mg/L

Photolysis half-life kdp days Half-life

Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacw 72 days Halfife

Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacs days Halfife

Aerobic Soil Metabolism asm 36 days Halfife

Hydrolysis: pH 7 days Half-life

Method: CAM 2 integer See PRZM manual

Incorporation Depth: DEPI cm

Application Rate: TAPP 1.12 kg/ha

Application Efficiency: APPEFF 0.99 fraction

Spray Drift DRFT 0.01 fraction of application rate applied to pond

Application Date Date 1-4 dd/mm or dd/mmm or dd-mm or dd-mmm

Interval 1 interval 42 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

Interval 2 interval 42 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

Record 17: FILTRA

IPSCND 1

UPTKF

Record 18: PLVKRT

PLDKRT 0.1715

FEXTRC 0.5

Flag for Index Res. Run IR Pond

Flag for runoff calc. RUNOFF none none, monthly or total(average of
entire run)

**PA TURF mefluidide-K**

stored as MefluK.out

Chemical: Mefluidide

PRZM environment: PAturfC.txt modified Satday, 12 October 2002 at
15:27:02

EXAMS environment: pond298.exv modified Thuday, 29 August 2002 at
15:33:30

Metfile: w14737.dvf modified Wedday, 3 July 2002 at 08:06:12

Water segment concentrations (ppb)

Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

1961 1.508 1.481 1.375 1.288 1.184 0.6653

1962 1.894 1.864 1.74 1.627 1.567 1.027

1963 1.689 1.663 1.549 1.395 1.353 0.9127

1964 1.64 1.616 1.507 1.342 1.309 0.861

1965 1.606 1.582 1.477 1.306 1.277 0.8369

1966 1.618 1.591 1.472 1.321 1.274 0.8173

1967 2.52 2.478 2.31 2.014 1.848 1.149

1968 3.188 3.157 3.052 2.893 2.82 1.641

1969 1.823 1.795 1.677 1.549 1.499 1.083

1970 10.34 10.26 9.907 9.204 8.608 4.205

1971 5.302 5.247 5.022 4.55 4.182 2.656

1972 2.679 2.641 2.464 2.311 2.18 1.537

1973 10.43 10.25 9.455 7.943 7.066 3.655

1974 4.838 4.792 4.605 4.369 4.183 2.896

1975 7.102 7.045 6.814 6.374 5.981 3.199

1976 5.928 5.872 5.64 5.283 4.982 2.834

1977 2.329 2.298 2.172 2.051 2.021 1.455

1978 5.93 5.872 5.592 5.087 4.753 2.412

1979 2.673 2.634 2.47 2.386 2.27 1.662

1980 1.753 1.726 1.601 1.465 1.403 0.9518

1981 2.388 2.359 2.239 2.1 1.963 1.108

1982 2.107 2.078 1.943 1.781 1.701 1.123

1983 1.87 1.84 1.719 1.599 1.527 0.9895

1984 6.622 6.507 6.052 5.134 4.63 2.621

1985 2.641 2.607 2.468 2.323 2.243 1.695

1986 2.182 2.148 2.018 1.904 1.816 1.182

1987 3.103 3.066 2.944 2.855 2.755 1.587

1988 2.9 2.866 2.718 2.551 2.358 1.403

1989 3.313 3.275 3.116 2.887 2.683 1.541

1990 2.244 2.208 2.074 1.949 1.867 1.252

Sorted results

Prob. Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

0.032258064516129 10.43 10.26 9.907 9.204 8.608 4.205

0.0645161290322581 10.34 10.25 9.455 7.943 7.066 3.655

0.0967741935483871 7.102 7.045 6.814 6.374 5.981 3.199

0.129032258064516 6.622 6.507 6.052 5.283 4.982 2.896

0.161290322580645 5.93 5.872 5.64 5.134 4.753 2.834

0.193548387096774 5.928 5.872 5.592 5.087 4.63 2.656

0.225806451612903 5.302 5.247 5.022 4.55 4.183 2.621

0.258064516129032 4.838 4.792 4.605 4.369 4.182 2.412

0.290322580645161 3.313 3.275 3.116 2.893 2.82 1.695

0.32258064516129 3.188 3.157 3.052 2.887 2.755 1.662

0.354838709677419 3.103 3.066 2.944 2.855 2.683 1.641

0.387096774193548 2.9 2.866 2.718 2.551 2.358 1.587

0.419354838709677 2.679 2.641 2.47 2.386 2.27 1.541

0.451612903225806 2.673 2.634 2.468 2.323 2.243 1.537

0.483870967741936 2.641 2.607 2.464 2.311 2.18 1.455

0.516129032258065 2.52 2.478 2.31 2.1 2.021 1.403

0.548387096774194 2.388 2.359 2.239 2.051 1.963 1.252

0.580645161290323 2.329 2.298 2.172 2.014 1.867 1.182

0.612903225806452 2.244 2.208 2.074 1.949 1.848 1.149

0.645161290322581 2.182 2.148 2.018 1.904 1.816 1.123

0.67741935483871 2.107 2.078 1.943 1.781 1.701 1.108

0.709677419354839 1.894 1.864 1.74 1.627 1.567 1.083

0.741935483870968 1.87 1.84 1.719 1.599 1.527 1.027

0.774193548387097 1.823 1.795 1.677 1.549 1.499 0.9895

0.806451612903226 1.753 1.726 1.601 1.465 1.403 0.9518

0.838709677419355 1.689 1.663 1.549 1.395 1.353 0.9127

0.870967741935484 1.64 1.616 1.507 1.342 1.309 0.861

0.903225806451613 1.618 1.591 1.477 1.321 1.277 0.8369

0.935483870967742 1.606 1.582 1.472 1.306 1.274 0.8173

0.967741935483871 1.508 1.481 1.375 1.288 1.184 0.6653

0.1 7.054 6.9912 6.7378 6.2649 5.8811 3.1687

Average of yearly averages: 1.69858333333333

Inputs generated by pe4.pl - 8-August-2003

Data used for this run:

Output File: MefluK

Metfile: w14737.dvf

PRZM scenario: PAturfC.txt

EXAMS environment file: pond298.exv

Chemical Name: Mefluidide

Description Variable Name Value Units Comments

Molecular weight mwt 310.6 g/mol

Henry\'s Law Const. henry 2.27E-7 atm-m\^3/mol

Vapor Pressure vapr 1E-4 torr

Solubility sol 180 mg/L

Kd Kd 0.073 mg/L

Koc Koc mg/L

Photolysis half-life kdp days Half-life

Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacw 72 days Halfife

Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacs days Halfife

Aerobic Soil Metabolism asm 36 days Halfife

Hydrolysis: pH 7 days Half-life

Method: CAM 2 integer See PRZM manual

Incorporation Depth: DEPI cm

Application Rate: TAPP 1.12 kg/ha

Application Efficiency: APPEFF 0.99 fraction

Spray Drift DRFT 0.01 fraction of application rate applied to pond

Application Date Date 1-4 dd/mm or dd/mmm or dd-mm or dd-mmm

Interval 1 interval 42 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

Interval 2 interval 42 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

Record 17: FILTRA

IPSCND 1

UPTKF

Record 18: PLVKRT

PLDKRT 0.1715

FEXTRC 0.5

Flag for Index Res. Run IR Pond

Flag for runoff calc. RUNOFF none none, monthly or total(average of
entire run)

**PA TURF mefluidide**

stored as Mefluacid.out

Chemical: Mefluidide

PRZM environment: PAturfC.txt modified Satday, 12 October 2002 at
16:27:02

EXAMS environment: pond298.exv modified Thuday, 29 August 2002 at
16:33:30

Metfile: w14737.dvf modified Wedday, 3 July 2002 at 09:06:12

Water segment concentrations (ppb)

Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

1961 0.2013 0.1977 0.1837 0.1572 0.141 0.06874

1962 0.3033 0.3007 0.291 0.265 0.243 0.1292

1963 0.06957 0.06934 0.06838 0.06625 0.06425 0.03723

1964 0.02459 0.0244 0.02365 0.02181 0.0201 0.01287

1965 0.006556 0.006535 0.006445 0.006245 0.006063 0.003507

1966 0.001198 0.001194 0.001178 0.001142 0.001107 0.0007252

1967 0.5128 0.5042 0.4697 0.4045 0.3667 0.1522

1968 0.9759 0.9672 0.9291 0.8587 0.7887 0.3996

1969 0.2438 0.243 0.2397 0.2322 0.2251 0.1299

1970 4.701 4.666 4.505 4.108 3.775 1.704

1971 1.972 1.952 1.868 1.635 1.465 0.9264

1972 0.6406 0.6321 0.5955 0.5166 0.4622 0.3636

1973 4.493 4.414 4.073 3.421 3.043 1.441

1974 1.962 1.943 1.868 1.697 1.565 1.058

1975 3.083 3.059 2.958 2.691 2.461 1.205

1976 2.504 2.481 2.382 2.164 1.981 1.031

1977 0.5919 0.5865 0.5663 0.5151 0.5046 0.333

1978 2.308 2.287 2.179 1.926 1.775 0.8143

1979 0.6768 0.6705 0.6519 0.6315 0.6109 0.4296

1980 0.184 0.1834 0.1809 0.1753 0.17 0.09462

1981 0.5482 0.5415 0.5138 0.4424 0.3929 0.1747

1982 0.3024 0.2988 0.2824 0.246 0.2211 0.149

1983 0.21 0.2082 0.2015 0.1855 0.1727 0.09921

1984 2.558 2.513 2.339 1.984 1.768 0.9311

1985 0.8114 0.8088 0.7976 0.7681 0.7392 0.4633

1986 0.4099 0.4043 0.3805 0.3328 0.2998 0.1956

1987 1.062 1.053 1.014 0.9196 0.8384 0.3995

1988 0.7952 0.7858 0.7451 0.6441 0.5769 0.3123

1989 0.9959 0.9843 0.9364 0.8137 0.7298 0.3742

1990 0.4174 0.4126 0.3863 0.3501 0.3269 0.2328

Sorted results

Prob. Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

0.032258064516129 4.701 4.666 4.505 4.108 3.775 1.704

0.0645161290322581 4.493 4.414 4.073 3.421 3.043 1.441

0.0967741935483871 3.083 3.059 2.958 2.691 2.461 1.205

0.129032258064516 2.558 2.513 2.382 2.164 1.981 1.058

0.161290322580645 2.504 2.481 2.339 1.984 1.775 1.031

0.193548387096774 2.308 2.287 2.179 1.926 1.768 0.9311

0.225806451612903 1.972 1.952 1.868 1.697 1.565 0.9264

0.258064516129032 1.962 1.943 1.868 1.635 1.465 0.8143

0.290322580645161 1.062 1.053 1.014 0.9196 0.8384 0.4633

0.32258064516129 0.9959 0.9843 0.9364 0.8587 0.7887 0.4296

0.354838709677419 0.9759 0.9672 0.9291 0.8137 0.7392 0.3996

0.387096774193548 0.8114 0.8088 0.7976 0.7681 0.7298 0.3995

0.419354838709677 0.7952 0.7858 0.7451 0.6441 0.6109 0.3742

0.451612903225806 0.6768 0.6705 0.6519 0.6315 0.5769 0.3636

0.483870967741936 0.6406 0.6321 0.5955 0.5166 0.5046 0.333

0.516129032258065 0.5919 0.5865 0.5663 0.5151 0.4622 0.3123

0.548387096774194 0.5482 0.5415 0.5138 0.4424 0.3929 0.2328

0.580645161290323 0.5128 0.5042 0.4697 0.4045 0.3667 0.1956

0.612903225806452 0.4174 0.4126 0.3863 0.3501 0.3269 0.1747

0.645161290322581 0.4099 0.4043 0.3805 0.3328 0.2998 0.1522

0.67741935483871 0.3033 0.3007 0.291 0.265 0.243 0.149

0.709677419354839 0.3024 0.2988 0.2824 0.246 0.2251 0.1299

0.741935483870968 0.2438 0.243 0.2397 0.2322 0.2211 0.1292

0.774193548387097 0.21 0.2082 0.2015 0.1855 0.1727 0.09921

0.806451612903226 0.2013 0.1977 0.1837 0.1753 0.17 0.09462

0.838709677419355 0.184 0.1834 0.1809 0.1572 0.141 0.06874

0.870967741935484 0.06957 0.06934 0.06838 0.06625 0.06425 0.03723

0.903225806451613 0.02459 0.0244 0.02365 0.02181 0.0201 0.01287

0.935483870967742 0.006556 0.006535 0.006445 0.006245 0.006063 0.003507

0.967741935483871 0.001198 0.001194 0.001178 0.001142 0.001107 0.0007252

0.1 3.0305 3.0044 2.9004 2.6383 2.413 1.1903

Average of yearly averages: 0.455540073333333

Inputs generated by pe4.pl - 8-August-2003

Data used for this run:

Output File: Mefluacid

Metfile: w14737.dvf

PRZM scenario: PAturfC.txt

EXAMS environment file: pond298.exv

Chemical Name: Mefluidide

Description Variable Name Value Units Comments

Molecular weight mwt 310.6 g/mol

Henry\'s Law Const. henry 2.27E-7 atm-m\^3/mol

Vapor Pressure vapr 1E-4 torr

Solubility sol 180 mg/L

Kd Kd 0.073 mg/L

Koc Koc mg/L

Photolysis half-life kdp days Half-life

Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacw 72 days Halfife

Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacs days Halfife

Aerobic Soil Metabolism asm 36 days Halfife

Hydrolysis: pH 7 days Half-life

Method: CAM 2 integer See PRZM manual

Incorporation Depth: DEPI cm

Application Rate: TAPP 0.56 kg/ha

Application Efficiency: APPEFF 1.00 fraction

Spray Drift DRFT 0.00 fraction of application rate applied to pond

Application Date Date 1-4 dd/mm or dd/mmm or dd-mm or dd-mmm

Interval 1 interval 42 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

Interval 2 interval 42 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

Record 17: FILTRA

IPSCND 1

UPTKF

Record 18: PLVKRT

PLDKRT 0.1715

FEXTRC 0.5

Flag for Index Res. Run IR Pond

Flag for runoff calc. RUNOFF none none, monthly or total(average of
entire run)

**Appendix D Terrestrial Exposure Modeling TREX and Terrplant**

**TREX MODEL OUTPUTS**

**TREX (Version 1.3.1)**

2006

As part of the terrestrial assessment, EFED modeled exposure
concentrations of Mefluidide, Mefluidide-K and Mefluidide-DEA to
non-target animals following the proposed application rates provided by
the registrant. For terrestrial birds and mammals, estimates of initial
levels of Mefluidide, Mefluidide-K and Mefluidide-DEA residues on
various food items, which may be contacted or consumed by wildlife, were
determined using the Kenega-Fletcher nomogram followed by a first order
decline model TREX 1.3.1. Upper bound and Mean Kenega-Fletcher values
were used for RQ calculations.

#  T-REX Calculations and Results

##  Risk Estimation Based on Dietary Residue Concentrations (Foliar Spray)

The methods used by T-REX to estimate risk from consumption of selected
contaminated food items is described below. For this analysis, T-REX
calculates EECs and risk quotients based on both the upper bound and
mean residue concentrations as presented by Hoerger and Kenaga (1972)
and modified by Fletcher *et al*. (1994). These concentrations are
determined using nomograms that relate application rate of a pesticide
to residues remaining on dietary items of terrestrial organisms. The
results of the upper bound and mean residue levels are presented in
separate tabs ("upper bound Kenaga" and "mean Kenaga"); however, the
methods used to calculate EECs and risk quotients are equivalent. Based
on the estimated dietary residue concentrations from the upper bound and
mean Kenaga values, T-REX calculates the associated doses for various
size classes of birds and mammals.

T-REX estimates the following: (1) residue concentrations on selected
food items (mg/kg-dietary item); (2) dose-based EECs (mg/kg-bw) from
dietary concentrations on selected food items; (3) adjusted toxicity
values; and (4) risk quotients.

***Calculation of dietary concentrations on selected food items***

The spreadsheet calculates the pesticide residue concentrations on each
selected food item on a daily interval for one year. When multiple
applications are modeled, residue concentrations resulting from the
final application and remaining residue from previous applications are
summed. The maximum concentration calculated out of the 365 days is
returned as the EEC used to estimate potential risk to birds and mammals
as described below. Dissipation of a chemical applied to foliar surfaces
for single or multiple applications is calculated assuming a first order
decay rate from the following first order rate equation:

C~t~ = C~0~e^-kt^

or in log form:

ln(C~t~) = ln(C~0~)(-kT)

Where:

C~t~ = concentration, parts per million (ppm), at time T.

> C~0~ = concentration (ppm), present initially (on day zero) on the
> surface of selected food items. C~0~ is calculated by multiplying the
> application rate, in pounds active ingredient per acre, by 240 for
> short grass, 110 for tall grass, and 135 for broad-leafed plants/small
> insects and 15 for fruits/pods/large insects for upper bound residue
> levels. Mean residue levels are derived by multiplying the application
> rate by 85 for short grass, 36 for tall grass, and 45 for broad-leafed
> plants/small insects and 7 for fruits/pods/seeds/large insects.
> Residue levels are based on work by Hoerger and Kenaga (1972) as
> modified by Fletcher *et al*. (1994). Additional applications are
> converted from pounds active ingredient per acre to ppm on the plant
> surface and the additional mass added to the mass of the chemical
> still present on the surfaces on the day of application.
>
> k = Exponential rate constant = ln 2 ÷ foliar dissipation half-life.
> This value is in cell Q16 of the upper bound and mean Kenaga
> worksheets of TREX. If the foliar dissipation data submitted to EFED
> are found scientifically valid and statistically robust for a specific
> pesticide, the 90% upper confidence limit of the mean half-lives
> should be used. When scientifically valid, statistically robust data
> are not available, EFED recommends the using a default foliar
> dissipation half-life value of 35 days. The use of the 35-day
> half-life is based on the highest reported value (36.9 days), as
> reported by Willis and McDowell (1987). However in this assessment a 4
> day foliar half life was used.
>
> t = time, in days, since the start of the simulation. The initial
> application is on day 0. The simulation is designed to run for 365
> days.

The dietary concentrations estimated using the above methodology may be
used directly to calculate risk quotients, but may also be used to
calculate dose-based EECs (mg/kg-bw) for various size classes of mammals
and birds .

**Calculating EEC Equivalent Doses based on Estimated Dietary
Concentrations on Selected Bird and Mammal Food Items**

EECs (mg/kg-bw) for various size classes of mammals and birds may be
calculated based on the dietary residue concentrations derived using the
equations presented above. To allow for this type of analysis, the EECs
and toxicity values are adjusted based on food intake and body weight
differences so that they are comparable for a given weight class of
animal. The size classes assessed are small (20-gram), medium
(100-gram), and large (1000-gram) birds, and small (15-gram), medium
(35-gram), and large (1000-gram) mammals. Equations used to calculate
food intake (grams/day) and to adjust toxicity values for dose-based
risk quotients are presented below.

**Calculating Food Intake for Different Size Classes of Birds and
Mammals:**

Daily food intake (g/day) is assumed to correlate with body weight using
the following empirically derived equation (U.S. EPA, 1993):

Avian consumption

![](media/image8.wmf)

where:

*F* = food intake in grams of fresh weight per day (g/day)

*BW* = body mass of animal (g)

*W* = mass fraction of water in the food (EFED value = 0.8 for birds and
herbivorous mammals, 0.1 for granivorous mammals)

Based on this equation, a 20-gram bird would consume 22.8 grams of food
daily (114% of its body weight), a 100-gram bird would consume 65 grams
of food daily (65% of its body weight daily), and 1000-gram bird would
consume 290 grams of food daily (29% of its body weight). These data,
together with the residue concentrations (mg/kg-food item) on selected
food items calculated from the Kenaga nomogram, are used to estimate the
dose (mg/kg-bw) of residue consumed by the three size classes of birds
as discussed below. Using a small (20-gram) bird as an example, a
dietary concentration of 100 mg/kg-diet (ppm) x 1.14 kg diet/kg bw
(114%) would result in an equivalent dose-based EEC of 114 mg/kg-bw.
T-REX calculates food intake based on dry weight and wet weight of food
items. The dose-based assessment uses the wet weight food consumption
values by assuming that dietary items are 80% water by weight. However,
if dietary items of a species being assessed are known, then a refined
dose-based EEC can be calculated using appropriate water fractions of
the food items.

A similar relationship between body weight and food intake has been
derived for mammals (U.S. EPA 1993):

Mammalian food consumption (g/day)

![](media/image9.wmf)

where:

*F* = food intake in grams of fresh weight per day (g/day)

*BW* = body mass of animal (g)

*W* = mass fraction of water in the food (EFED value = 0.8 for birds and
herbivorous mammals, 0.1 for granivorous mammals)

The scaling factors result in a percent body weight consumed presented
in the following table for each weight class of mammal. These values are
used in the same manner described for birds to calculate dose-based EECs
(mg/kg-bw). Note the difference in food intake of grainivores compared
with herbivores and insectivores. This is caused by the difference in
the assumed mass fraction of water in their diets.

+--------------------+--------------------------+----------------------+
| **Organism and     | #### Food intake         | **Percent body       |
| body weight**      |                          | weight consumed      |
|                    | **(g day^-1^)*^a^***     | (day^-1^) *^a^***    |
+--------------------+--------------------------+----------------------+
| 15 g               | 14.3 / 3.2               | 95 / 21              |
+--------------------+--------------------------+----------------------+
| 35 g               | 23 / 5.1                 | 66 / 15              |
+--------------------+--------------------------+----------------------+
| 1000 g             | 150 / 34                 | 15 / 3               |
+--------------------+--------------------------+----------------------+

> ^a^ The first number in this column is specific to
> herbivores/insectivores. The second number is for granivores. These
> groups have markedly different consumption requirements.

T-REX calculates food intake based on dry weight and wet weight of food
items (wet weight is used for RQ calculations). The dose-based
assessment uses the wet weight food consumption values by assuming that
dietary items are 80% water by weight (10% for granivores). However, if
dietary items of a species being assessed are known, then a refined
dose-based EEC can be calculated using appropriate water fractions of
the food items.

### 

### **Calculating Adjusted Toxicity Values**

The dose-based EECs (mg/kg-bw) derived above are compared with LD~50~ or
NOAEL (mg/kg-bw) values from acceptable or supplemental toxicity studies
that are adjusted for the size of the animal tested compared with the
size of the animal being assessed (e.g., 20-gram bird). These exposure
values are presented as mass of pesticide consumed per kg body weight of
the animal being assessed (mg/kg-bw). EECs and toxicity values are
relative to the animal's body weight (mg residue/kg bw) because
consumption of the same mass of pesticide residue results in a higher
body burden in smaller animals compared with larger animals. For birds,
only acute values (LD~50~s) are adjusted because dose-based risk
quotients are not calculated for the chronic risk estimation. Adjusted
mammalian LD~50~s and reproduction NOAELs (mg/kg-bw) are used to
calculate dose-based acute and chronic risk quotients for 15-, 35-, and
1000-gram mammals. The following equations are used for the adjustment
(U.S. EPA 1993):

Adjusted avian LD~50~: ![](media/image10.wmf)

where:

*Adj. LD~50~* = adjusted LD~50~ (mg/kg-bw) calculated by the equation

*LD~50~* = endpoint reported from bird study (mg/kg-bw)

*TW* = body weight of tested animal (178g bobwhite; 1580g mallard; 350g
rat)

*AW* = body weight of assessed animal (*avian*: 20g, 100g, and 1000g)

x = Mineau scaling factor for birds; EFED default 1.15

Adjusted mammalian NOAELs and LD~50~s (note that the same equation is
used to adjust the NOAEL): ![](media/image11.wmf)

where:

*Adj. NOAEL or LD~50~* = adjusted NOAEL or LD~50~ (mg/kg-bw)

*NOAEL or LD~50~* = endpoint reported from animal study (mg/kg-bw)

*TW* = body weight of tested animal (350g for chronic mammal based on
the rat ) TREX does not incorporate in the model different mammal TW.
Therefore, the above calculation was used and incorporated in model
(replaced the 350 g to 20 g in the formula equations) with the TW of 20
g for acute mammal based on the laboratory mouse with 829.8mg ae/kg bw
LD~50~ to derive the adjusted toxicity values for acute mammals for each
body weight class.

*AW* = body weight of assessed animal (15g, 35g, 1000g)

###  **Calculating Risk Quotients**

Two types of risk quotients are calculated by T-REX based on the
estimated dietary residue concentrations determined from the Kenaga
nomogram: (1) dietary based RQs; and (2) dose based RQs. These RQs are
not equivalent. Dietary risk quotients are calculated by directly
comparing the concentration of a pesticide administered (or estimated to
be administered) to experimental animals in the diet in a toxicity study
to the concentration estimated to be on selected food items. These risk
quotients do not account for the fact that smaller-sized animals need to
consume more food relative to their body weight than larger animals or
that differential amounts of food are consumed depending on the water
content and nutritive value of the food. The dose-based risk quotients
do account for these factors. The dose-based RQs incorporate the
ingestion rate-adjusted exposure from the various food items to the
different weight classes of birds and the weight class-scaled toxicity
endpoints. Formulas presented in Table 1 are used to calculate
dose-based and dietary based risk quotients:

  --------------- --------------- ------------- ---------------------------------------
  **Table 1.                                    
  Formulas used                                 
  to calculate                                  
  dose- and                                     
  dietary-based                                 
  risk                                          
  quotients.**                                  

  **Duration**    **Dose or       **Surrogate   **Equation**
                  Dietary RQ**    Organism**    

  Acute           Dose-based      Birds and     Acute Daily Exposure (mg/kg-bw) /
                                  mammals       adjusted LD~50~ (mg/kg-bw)

                  Dietary-based   Birds         *Kenaga* EEC (mg/kg-food item) / LC~50~
                                                (mg/kg-diet)

  Chronic         Dietary-based   Birds and     EEC (mg/kg-food item) / NOAEC
                                  mammals       (mg/kg-diet)

                  Dose-based      Mammals only  EEC (mg/kg-bw) / Adjusted NOAEL
                                                (mg/kg-bw)
  --------------- --------------- ------------- ---------------------------------------

These risk quotients are compared to the Agency's LOCs to determine if
risk is greater than EFED's concern level.

**Granular LD50 per square foot**

+---------------------+------------------------------------------------+
| **Mammalian LD50    |                                                |
| per Square Foot 0.5 |                                                |
| lbs ae A**          |                                                |
|                     |                                                |
| Based on acute      |                                                |
| mouse LD~50~ 829.8  |                                                |
| mg /kg bw, 4 day    |                                                |
| half life, 42 day   |                                                |
| interval and 3      |                                                |
| applications per    |                                                |
| season              |                                                |
+---------------------+------------------------------------------------+
| **Size Class\       |                                                |
| (grams)**           |                                                |
+---------------------+------------------------------------------------+
|                     | **Broadcast**                                  |
|                     |                                                |
|                     | **LD50 per Square Foot**                       |
+---------------------+------------------------------------------------+
|                     |                                                |
+---------------------+------------------------------------------------+
| 15                  | 0.39                                           |
+---------------------+------------------------------------------------+
| 35                  | 0.21                                           |
+---------------------+------------------------------------------------+
| 1000                | 0.02                                           |
+---------------------+------------------------------------------------+
|                     |                                                |
+---------------------+------------------------------------------------+

**Upper Bound and Mean Kenaga 1.0 lbs ae/A application Rate based on
acute mouse LD~50~ 829.8 mg/kg bw, 4 day half life, 42 day interval and
3 applications per season**

<table>
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 13%" />
<col style="width: 13%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="12"><p><strong>Upper 90th Percentile Kenaga, Acute
Mammalian Dose-Based Risk Quotients 1.0 Lbs ae/A</strong></p>
<p>Based on acute mouse LD<sub>50</sub> 829.8, 4 day half life, 42 day
interval and 3 applications per season</p></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td rowspan="3"><strong>Size Class<br />
(grams)</strong></td>
<td rowspan="3"><strong>Adjusted<br />
LD50</strong></td>
<td colspan="10"><strong>EECs and RQs</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="2"><strong>Short Grass</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>Tall Grass</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>Broadleaf Plants/<br />
Small Insects</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>Fruits/Pods/<br />
Seeds/<br />
Large Insects</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>Granivore</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>EEC</strong></td>
<td><strong>RQ</strong></td>
<td><strong>EEC</strong></td>
<td><strong>RQ</strong></td>
<td><strong>EEC</strong></td>
<td><strong>RQ</strong></td>
<td><strong>EEC</strong></td>
<td><strong>RQ</strong></td>
<td><strong>EEC</strong></td>
<td><strong>RQ</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>15</td>
<td>891.68</td>
<td>228.98</td>
<td>0.26</td>
<td>104.95</td>
<td>0.12</td>
<td>128.80</td>
<td>0.14</td>
<td>14.31</td>
<td>0.02</td>
<td>3.18</td>
<td>0.00</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>35</td>
<td>721.46</td>
<td>158.26</td>
<td>0.22</td>
<td>72.53</td>
<td>0.10</td>
<td>89.02</td>
<td>0.12</td>
<td>9.89</td>
<td>0.01</td>
<td>2.20</td>
<td>0.00</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>1000</td>
<td>312.05</td>
<td>36.69</td>
<td>0.12</td>
<td>16.82</td>
<td>0.05</td>
<td>20.64</td>
<td>0.07</td>
<td>2.29</td>
<td>0.01</td>
<td>0.51</td>
<td>0.00</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

<table>
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 12%" />
<col style="width: 14%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="12"><p><strong>Mean Kenaga, Acute Mammalian Dose-Based Risk
Quotients 1.0 Lbs ae/A</strong></p>
<p>Based on acute mouse LD<sub>50</sub> 829.8, 4 day half life, 42 day
interval and 3 applications per season</p></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td rowspan="3"><strong>Size Class<br />
(grams)</strong></td>
<td rowspan="3"><strong>Adjusted<br />
LD50</strong></td>
<td colspan="10"><strong>EECs and RQs</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="2"><strong>Short Grass</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>Tall Grass</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>Broadleaf Plants/<br />
Small Insects</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>Fruits/Pods/<br />
Seeds/<br />
Large Insects</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>Granivore</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>EEC</strong></td>
<td><strong>RQ</strong></td>
<td><strong>EEC</strong></td>
<td><strong>RQ</strong></td>
<td><strong>EEC</strong></td>
<td><strong>RQ</strong></td>
<td><strong>EEC</strong></td>
<td><strong>RQ</strong></td>
<td><strong>EEC</strong></td>
<td><strong>RQ</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>15</td>
<td>891.68</td>
<td>80.81</td>
<td>0.091</td>
<td>34.22</td>
<td>0.038</td>
<td>42.78</td>
<td>0.048</td>
<td>6.65</td>
<td>0.007</td>
<td>1.47</td>
<td>0.00</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>35</td>
<td>721.46</td>
<td>56.14</td>
<td>0.078</td>
<td>23.78</td>
<td>0.033</td>
<td>29.72</td>
<td>0.041</td>
<td>4.62</td>
<td>0.006</td>
<td>1.05</td>
<td>0.00</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>1000</td>
<td>312.05</td>
<td>12.76</td>
<td>0.041</td>
<td>5.40</td>
<td>0.017</td>
<td>6.75</td>
<td>0.022</td>
<td>1.05</td>
<td>0.003</td>
<td>0.21</td>
<td>0.00</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

**Upper Bound and Mean Kenaga 1.0 lbs ae/A application Rate based on
Chronic rat NOAEL 102 mg ae/A, 4 day half life, 42 day interval and 3
applications per season**

<table>
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 1%" />
<col style="width: 10%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 10%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="10"><p><strong>Upper 90th Percentile Kenega, Chronic
Mammalian Dietary Based Risk Quotients</strong></p>
<p>1.0 lbs ae/A application Rate based on Chronic rat NOAEL 102 mg ae/A,
4 day half life, 42 day interval and 3 applications per season</p></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="2" rowspan="3"><strong>NOAEC (ppm)</strong></td>
<td colspan="8"><strong>EECs and RQs</strong></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="2"><strong>Short Grass</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>Tall Grass</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>Broadleaf Plants/<br />
Small Insects</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>Fruits/Pods/<br />
Seeds/<br />
Large Insects</strong></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>EEC</strong></td>
<td><strong>RQ</strong></td>
<td><strong>EEC</strong></td>
<td><strong>RQ</strong></td>
<td><strong>EEC</strong></td>
<td><strong>RQ</strong></td>
<td><strong>EEC</strong></td>
<td><strong>RQ</strong></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="2">2040</td>
<td>240.17</td>
<td>0.12</td>
<td>110.08</td>
<td>0.05</td>
<td>135.09</td>
<td>0.07</td>
<td>15.01</td>
<td>0.01</td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="10">Size class not used for dietary risk quotients</td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="2"> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="13"><p><strong>Upper 90th Percentile Kenega, Chronic
Mammalian Dose-Based Risk Quotients</strong></p>
<p>1.0 lbs ae/A application Rate based on Chronic rat NOAEL 102 mg ae/A,
4 day half life, 42 day interval and 3 applications per season</p></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td rowspan="3"><strong>Size Class<br />
(grams)</strong></td>
<td colspan="2" rowspan="3"><strong>Adjusted NOAEL</strong></td>
<td colspan="10"><strong>EECs and RQs</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="2"><strong>Short Grass</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>Tall Grass</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>Broadleaf Plants/<br />
Small Insects</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>Fruits/Pods/<br />
Seeds/<br />
Large Insects</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>Granivore</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>EEC</strong></td>
<td><strong>RQ</strong></td>
<td><strong>EEC</strong></td>
<td><strong>RQ</strong></td>
<td><strong>EEC</strong></td>
<td><strong>RQ</strong></td>
<td><strong>EEC</strong></td>
<td><strong>RQ</strong></td>
<td><strong>EEC</strong></td>
<td><strong>RQ</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>15</td>
<td colspan="2">224.18</td>
<td>228.98</td>
<td>1.02</td>
<td>104.95</td>
<td>0.47</td>
<td>128.80</td>
<td>0.57</td>
<td>14.31</td>
<td>0.06</td>
<td>3.18</td>
<td>0.01</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>35</td>
<td colspan="2">181.38</td>
<td>158.26</td>
<td>0.87</td>
<td>72.53</td>
<td>0.40</td>
<td>89.02</td>
<td>0.49</td>
<td>9.89</td>
<td>0.05</td>
<td>2.20</td>
<td>0.01</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>1000</td>
<td colspan="2">78.45</td>
<td>36.69</td>
<td>0.47</td>
<td>16.82</td>
<td>0.21</td>
<td>20.64</td>
<td>0.26</td>
<td>2.29</td>
<td>0.03</td>
<td>0.51</td>
<td>0.01</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

<table>
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 10%" />
<col style="width: 10%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 12%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 12%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="9"><p><strong>Mean Kenega, Chronic Mammalian Dietary Based
Risk Quotients</strong></p>
<p>1.0 lbs ae/A application Rate based on Chronic rat NOAEL 102 mg ae/A,
4 day half life, 42 day interval and 3 applications per season</p></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td rowspan="3"><strong>NOAEC (ppm)</strong></td>
<td colspan="8"><strong>EECs and RQs</strong></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="2"><strong>Short Grass</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>Tall Grass</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>Broadleaf Plants/<br />
Small Insects</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>Fruits/Pods/<br />
Seeds/<br />
Large Insects</strong></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>EEC</strong></td>
<td><strong>RQ</strong></td>
<td><strong>EEC</strong></td>
<td><strong>RQ</strong></td>
<td><strong>EEC</strong></td>
<td><strong>RQ</strong></td>
<td><strong>EEC</strong></td>
<td><strong>RQ</strong></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>2040</td>
<td>85.06</td>
<td>0.04</td>
<td>36.02</td>
<td>0.018</td>
<td>45.03</td>
<td>0.022</td>
<td>7.00</td>
<td>0.003</td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="9">Size class not used for dietary risk quotients</td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="12"><p><strong>Mean Kenega, Chronic Mammalian Dose-Based
Risk Quotients</strong></p>
<p>1.0 lbs ae/A application Rate based on Chronic rat NOAEL 102 mg ae/A,
4 day half life, 42 day interval and 3 applications per season</p></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td rowspan="3"><strong>Size Class<br />
(grams)</strong></td>
<td rowspan="3"><strong>Adjusted NOAEL</strong></td>
<td colspan="10"><strong>EECs and RQs</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="2"><strong>Short Grass</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>Tall Grass</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>Broadleaf Plants/<br />
Small Insects</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>Fruits/Pods/<br />
Seeds/<br />
Large Insects</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>Granivore</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>EEC</strong></td>
<td><strong>RQ</strong></td>
<td><strong>EEC</strong></td>
<td><strong>RQ</strong></td>
<td><strong>EEC</strong></td>
<td><strong>RQ</strong></td>
<td><strong>EEC</strong></td>
<td><strong>RQ</strong></td>
<td><strong>EEC</strong></td>
<td><strong>RQ</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>15</td>
<td>224.18</td>
<td>80.81</td>
<td>0.36</td>
<td>34.22</td>
<td>0.153</td>
<td>42.78</td>
<td>0.191</td>
<td>6.65</td>
<td>0.030</td>
<td>1.47</td>
<td>0.01</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>35</td>
<td>181.38</td>
<td>56.14</td>
<td>0.31</td>
<td>23.78</td>
<td>0.131</td>
<td>29.72</td>
<td>0.164</td>
<td>4.62</td>
<td>0.025</td>
<td>1.05</td>
<td>0.01</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>1000</td>
<td>78.45</td>
<td>12.76</td>
<td>0.163</td>
<td>5.40</td>
<td>0.069</td>
<td>6.75</td>
<td>0.086</td>
<td>1.05</td>
<td>0.013</td>
<td>0.21</td>
<td>0.00</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

Avian Granular LD50 per square foot

+-----------------+------------+---------------------------------------+
| **Avian LD50    |            |                                       |
| per Square Foot |            |                                       |
| 0.5 lbs ae A**  |            |                                       |
|                 |            |                                       |
| Based on acute  |            |                                       |
| bird LD~50~     |            |                                       |
| \>1500 mg ae    |            |                                       |
| /kg bw, 4 day   |            |                                       |
| half life, 42   |            |                                       |
| day interval    |            |                                       |
| and 3           |            |                                       |
| applications    |            |                                       |
| per season      |            |                                       |
+-----------------+------------+---------------------------------------+
| **Size Class\   | **Adjusted |                                       |
| (grams)**       | LD50**     |                                       |
+-----------------+------------+---------------------------------------+
|                 |            | **Broadcast**                         |
|                 |            |                                       |
|                 |            | **LD50 per Square Foot**              |
+-----------------+------------+---------------------------------------+
|                 |            |                                       |
+-----------------+------------+---------------------------------------+
| 20              | 1080.64    | 0.24                                  |
+-----------------+------------+---------------------------------------+
| 100             | 1375.71    | 0.04                                  |
+-----------------+------------+---------------------------------------+
| 1000            | 1943.25    | 0.00                                  |
+-----------------+------------+---------------------------------------+

**Upper Bound and Mean Kenaga 1.0 lbs ae/A application Rate based on
acute avian LD~50~ \>1500 mg/kg bw, 4 day half life, 42 day interval and
3 applications per season**

<table style="width:100%;">
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 14%" />
<col style="width: 15%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 10%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="10"><p><strong>Upper 90th Percentile Kenaga, Acute Avian
Dose-Based Risk Quotients</strong></p>
<p>1.0 lbs ae/A application Rate based on acute bird LD50 &gt;1500 mg
ae/kg bw, 4 day half life, 42 day interval and 3 applications per
season</p></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td rowspan="3"><strong>Size Class<br />
(grams)</strong></td>
<td rowspan="3"><strong>Adjusted<br />
LD50</strong></td>
<td colspan="8"><strong>EECs and RQs</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="2"><strong>Short Grass</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>Tall Grass</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>Broadleaf Plants/<br />
Small Insects</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>Fruits/Pods/<br />
Seeds/<br />
Large Insects</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>EEC</strong></td>
<td><strong>RQ</strong></td>
<td><strong>EEC</strong></td>
<td><strong>RQ</strong></td>
<td><strong>EEC</strong></td>
<td><strong>RQ</strong></td>
<td><strong>EEC</strong></td>
<td><strong>RQ</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>20</td>
<td>1080.64</td>
<td>273.52</td>
<td>0.25</td>
<td>125.37</td>
<td>0.12</td>
<td>153.86</td>
<td>0.14</td>
<td>17.10</td>
<td>0.02</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>100</td>
<td>1375.71</td>
<td>155.98</td>
<td>0.11</td>
<td>71.49</td>
<td>0.05</td>
<td>87.74</td>
<td>0.06</td>
<td>9.75</td>
<td>0.01</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>1000</td>
<td>1943.25</td>
<td>69.83</td>
<td>0.04</td>
<td>32.01</td>
<td>0.02</td>
<td>39.28</td>
<td>0.02</td>
<td>4.36</td>
<td>0.00</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

<table>
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 10%" />
<col style="width: 4%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 2%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 1%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 3%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 2%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="17"><p><strong>Upper 90th Percentile Kenega, Subacute Avian
Dietary Based Risk Quotients</strong></p>
<p>1.0 lbs ae/A application</p></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td rowspan="3"><strong>LC50</strong></td>
<td colspan="16"><strong>EECs and RQs</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="3"><strong>Short Grass</strong></td>
<td colspan="4"><strong>Tall Grass</strong></td>
<td colspan="5"><strong>Broadleaf Plants/<br />
Small Insects</strong></td>
<td colspan="4"><strong>Fruits/Pods/<br />
Seeds/<br />
Large Insects</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="2"><strong>EEC</strong></td>
<td><strong>RQ</strong></td>
<td colspan="3"><strong>EEC</strong></td>
<td><strong>RQ</strong></td>
<td colspan="3"><strong>EEC</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>RQ</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>EEC</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>RQ</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>3750</td>
<td colspan="2">240.17</td>
<td>0.06</td>
<td colspan="3">110.08</td>
<td>0.03</td>
<td colspan="3">135.09</td>
<td colspan="2">0.04</td>
<td colspan="2">15.01</td>
<td colspan="2">0.00</td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="19"><p><strong>Mean Kenaga, Acute Avian Dose-Based Risk
Quotients</strong></p>
<p>1.0 lbs ae/A application Rate based on acute bird &gt;1500 mg ae/kg
bw, 4 day half life, 42 day interval and 3 applications per
season</p></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="2" rowspan="3"><strong>Size Class<br />
(grams)</strong></td>
<td colspan="3" rowspan="3"><strong>Adjusted<br />
LD50</strong></td>
<td colspan="14"><strong>EECs and RQs</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="4"><strong>Short Grass</strong></td>
<td colspan="3"><strong>Tall Grass</strong></td>
<td colspan="4"><strong>Broadleaf Plants/<br />
Small Insects</strong></td>
<td colspan="3"><strong>Fruits/Pods/<br />
Seeds/<br />
Large Insects</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>EEC</strong></td>
<td colspan="3"><strong>RQ</strong></td>
<td><strong>EEC</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>RQ</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>EEC</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>RQ</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>EEC</strong></td>
<td><strong>RQ</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="2">20</td>
<td colspan="3">1080.64</td>
<td>96.97</td>
<td colspan="3">0.090</td>
<td>41.07</td>
<td colspan="2">0.038</td>
<td colspan="2">51.34</td>
<td colspan="2">0.048</td>
<td colspan="2">7.99</td>
<td>0.007</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="2">100</td>
<td colspan="3">1375.71</td>
<td>55.29</td>
<td colspan="3">0.040</td>
<td>23.42</td>
<td colspan="2">0.017</td>
<td colspan="2">29.27</td>
<td colspan="2">0.021</td>
<td colspan="2">4.55</td>
<td>0.003</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="2">1000</td>
<td colspan="3">1943.25</td>
<td>24.67</td>
<td colspan="3">0.013</td>
<td>10.45</td>
<td colspan="2">0.005</td>
<td colspan="2">13.06</td>
<td colspan="2">0.007</td>
<td colspan="2">2.03</td>
<td>0.001</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+-------+
| *     |       |       |       |       |       |       |      |       |
| *Mean |       |       |       |       |       |       |      |       |
| Ke    |       |       |       |       |       |       |      |       |
| nega, |       |       |       |       |       |       |      |       |
| Sub   |       |       |       |       |       |       |      |       |
| acute |       |       |       |       |       |       |      |       |
| Avian |       |       |       |       |       |       |      |       |
| Di    |       |       |       |       |       |       |      |       |
| etary |       |       |       |       |       |       |      |       |
| Based |       |       |       |       |       |       |      |       |
| Risk  |       |       |       |       |       |       |      |       |
| Q     |       |       |       |       |       |       |      |       |
| uotie |       |       |       |       |       |       |      |       |
| nts** |       |       |       |       |       |       |      |       |
|       |       |       |       |       |       |       |      |       |
| 1.0   |       |       |       |       |       |       |      |       |
| lbs   |       |       |       |       |       |       |      |       |
| ae/A  |       |       |       |       |       |       |      |       |
| a     |       |       |       |       |       |       |      |       |
| pplic |       |       |       |       |       |       |      |       |
| ation |       |       |       |       |       |       |      |       |
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+-------+
| **L   | *     |       |       |       |       |       |      |       |
| C50** | *EECs |       |       |       |       |       |      |       |
|       | and   |       |       |       |       |       |      |       |
|       | RQs** |       |       |       |       |       |      |       |
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+-------+
|       | **    |       | *     |       | *     |       | **F  |       |
|       | Short |       | *Tall |       | *Broa |       | ruit |       |
|       | Gr    |       | Gr    |       | dleaf |       | s/Po |       |
|       | ass** |       | ass** |       | Pla   |       | ds/\ |       |
|       |       |       |       |       | nts/\ |       | See  |       |
|       |       |       |       |       | Small |       | ds/\ |       |
|       |       |       |       |       | Inse  |       | L    |       |
|       |       |       |       |       | cts** |       | arge |       |
|       |       |       |       |       |       |       | I    |       |
|       |       |       |       |       |       |       | nsec |       |
|       |       |       |       |       |       |       | ts** |       |
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+-------+
|       | **    | *     | **    | *     | **    | *     | **E  | *     |
|       | EEC** | *RQ** | EEC** | *RQ** | EEC** | *RQ** | EC** | *RQ** |
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+-------+
| 3750  | 85.06 | 0.023 | 36.02 | 0.010 | 45.03 | 0.012 | 7.00 | 0.002 |
+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+-------+

**Upper Bound and Mean Kenaga 1.0 lbs ae/A application Rate based on
Chronic bird NOAEL= 38 mg ae/kg, 4 day half life, 42 day interval and 3
applications per season**

+------------+-------+-----+-------+-----+-------+-----+-------+-----+
| **Upper    |       |     |       |     |       |     |       |     |
| 90th       |       |     |       |     |       |     |       |     |
| Percentile |       |     |       |     |       |     |       |     |
| Kenega,    |       |     |       |     |       |     |       |     |
| Chronic    |       |     |       |     |       |     |       |     |
| Avian      |       |     |       |     |       |     |       |     |
| Dietary    |       |     |       |     |       |     |       |     |
| Based Risk |       |     |       |     |       |     |       |     |
| Q          |       |     |       |     |       |     |       |     |
| uotients** |       |     |       |     |       |     |       |     |
|            |       |     |       |     |       |     |       |     |
| 1.0 lbs    |       |     |       |     |       |     |       |     |
| ae/A       |       |     |       |     |       |     |       |     |
| a          |       |     |       |     |       |     |       |     |
| pplication |       |     |       |     |       |     |       |     |
| Rate based |       |     |       |     |       |     |       |     |
| on chronic |       |     |       |     |       |     |       |     |
| bird = 38  |       |     |       |     |       |     |       |     |
| mg ae/kg , |       |     |       |     |       |     |       |     |
| 4 day half |       |     |       |     |       |     |       |     |
| life, 42   |       |     |       |     |       |     |       |     |
| day        |       |     |       |     |       |     |       |     |
| interval   |       |     |       |     |       |     |       |     |
| and 3      |       |     |       |     |       |     |       |     |
| ap         |       |     |       |     |       |     |       |     |
| plications |       |     |       |     |       |     |       |     |
| per season |       |     |       |     |       |     |       |     |
+------------+-------+-----+-------+-----+-------+-----+-------+-----+
| **NOAEC    | *     |     |       |     |       |     |       |     |
| (ppm)**    | *EECs |     |       |     |       |     |       |     |
|            | and   |     |       |     |       |     |       |     |
|            | RQs** |     |       |     |       |     |       |     |
+------------+-------+-----+-------+-----+-------+-----+-------+-----+
|            | **    |     | *     |     | *     |     | **Fru |     |
|            | Short |     | *Tall |     | *Broa |     | its/P |     |
|            | Gr    |     | Gr    |     | dleaf |     | ods/\ |     |
|            | ass** |     | ass** |     | Pla   |     | Se    |     |
|            |       |     |       |     | nts/\ |     | eds/\ |     |
|            |       |     |       |     | Small |     | Large |     |
|            |       |     |       |     | Inse  |     | Inse  |     |
|            |       |     |       |     | cts** |     | cts** |     |
+------------+-------+-----+-------+-----+-------+-----+-------+-----+
|            | **    | **R | **    | **R | **    | **R | **    | **R |
|            | EEC** | Q** | EEC** | Q** | EEC** | Q** | EEC** | Q** |
+------------+-------+-----+-------+-----+-------+-----+-------+-----+
| 38         | 2     | 6   | 1     | 2   | 1     | 3   | 15.01 | 0   |
|            | 40.17 | .32 | 10.08 | .90 | 35.09 | .56 |       | .40 |
+------------+-------+-----+-------+-----+-------+-----+-------+-----+

+--------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+-----+------+
| **Mean       |      |      |      |      |      |      |     |      |
| Kenega,      |      |      |      |      |      |      |     |      |
| Chronic      |      |      |      |      |      |      |     |      |
| Avian        |      |      |      |      |      |      |     |      |
| Dietary      |      |      |      |      |      |      |     |      |
| Based Risk   |      |      |      |      |      |      |     |      |
| Quotients**  |      |      |      |      |      |      |     |      |
|              |      |      |      |      |      |      |     |      |
| 1.0 lbs ae/A |      |      |      |      |      |      |     |      |
| application  |      |      |      |      |      |      |     |      |
| Rate based   |      |      |      |      |      |      |     |      |
| on Chronic   |      |      |      |      |      |      |     |      |
| bird = 38 mg |      |      |      |      |      |      |     |      |
| ae/A, 4 day  |      |      |      |      |      |      |     |      |
| half life,   |      |      |      |      |      |      |     |      |
| 42 day       |      |      |      |      |      |      |     |      |
| interval and |      |      |      |      |      |      |     |      |
| 3            |      |      |      |      |      |      |     |      |
| applications |      |      |      |      |      |      |     |      |
| per season   |      |      |      |      |      |      |     |      |
+--------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+-----+------+
| **NOAEC      | **   |      |      |      |      |      |     |      |
| (ppm)**      | EECs |      |      |      |      |      |     |      |
|              | and  |      |      |      |      |      |     |      |
|              | R    |      |      |      |      |      |     |      |
|              | Qs** |      |      |      |      |      |     |      |
+--------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+-----+------+
|              | **S  |      | **   |      | **B  |      | **F |      |
|              | hort |      | Tall |      | road |      | rui |      |
|              | Gra  |      | Gra  |      | leaf |      | ts/ |      |
|              | ss** |      | ss** |      | Plan |      | Pod |      |
|              |      |      |      |      | ts/\ |      | s/\ |      |
|              |      |      |      |      | S    |      | S   |      |
|              |      |      |      |      | mall |      | eed |      |
|              |      |      |      |      | I    |      | s/\ |      |
|              |      |      |      |      | nsec |      | La  |      |
|              |      |      |      |      | ts** |      | rge |      |
|              |      |      |      |      |      |      | Ins |      |
|              |      |      |      |      |      |      | ect |      |
|              |      |      |      |      |      |      | s** |      |
+--------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+-----+------+
|              | **E  | **   | **E  | **   | **E  | **   | *   | **   |
|              | EC** | RQ** | EC** | RQ** | EC** | RQ** | *EE | RQ** |
|              |      |      |      |      |      |      | C** |      |
+--------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+-----+------+
| 38           | 8    | 2    | 3    | 0    | 4    | 1    | 7   | 0    |
|              | 5.06 | .238 | 6.02 | .948 | 5.03 | .185 | .00 | .184 |
+--------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+-----+------+

**TERRPLANT MODEL**

**(November 9, 2005; version 1.2.1)**

Terrestrial plant exposure characterization employs runoff and spray
drift scenarios contained in OPP's Terrplant model. Exposure
calculations are based on a pesticide's water solubility and the amount
of pesticide present on the surface soil within the first inch of depth.
For dry areas, the loading of pesticide active ingredient or acid
equivalent from runoff to an adjacent non-target area is assumed to
occur from one acre of treatment to one acre of non-target area. For
terrestrial plants inhabiting semi-aquatic (wetland) areas, runoff is
considered to occur from a larger source area with active ingredient
loading originating from 10 acres of treated area to a single acre of
non-target wetland. Default spray drift assumptions are 1% for ground
applications and 5% for aerial, forced air (i.e., air pressure within a
spray tank that forces the spray liquid through the boom nozzles), and
chemigation applications. Predicted EECs resulting from spray drift and
aerial applications are derived for non-granular applications only.

<table>
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 11%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 10%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 2%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 12%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="7"><p><strong>TERRPLANT</strong></p>
<p><strong>MEFLUIDIDE-K, MEFLUIDIDE-DEA (1.0 lbs ae/A) GROUND SPRAY
ONLY</strong></p>
<p><strong>Terrestrial Plant EECs and Acute Non Endangered RQs (November
9, 2005; version 1.2.1)</strong></p></td>
<td colspan="6"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td><strong>Input Values</strong></td>
<td colspan="11"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>Application Rate (lb a.e./acre)</strong></td>
<td><strong>1.0</strong></td>
<td colspan="4"><strong>Estimated Environmental Concentrations (EECs)
for NON-GRANULAR formulation applications (lbs a.i./acre)</strong></td>
<td colspan="7"><strong>Risk Quotients (RQs) for NON-GRANULAR
formulation applications</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>Runoff Value (0.01, 0.02, or 0.05 if chemical solubility
&lt;10, 10-100, or &gt;100 ppm, respectively)</strong></td>
<td><strong>0.05</strong></td>
<td rowspan="2"><strong>Application Method</strong></td>
<td rowspan="2"><strong>Total Loading to Adjacent Areas (EEC = Sheet
Runoff +Drift)</strong></td>
<td rowspan="2"><strong>Total Loading to Semi-aquatic Areas (EEC =
Channelized Runoff + Drift)</strong></td>
<td rowspan="2"><strong>DRIFT EEC*</strong></td>
<td colspan="3"><strong>Emergence RQs, Adjacent Areas RQ = EEC/Seedling
Emergence EC25</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>Emergence RQs, Semi-aquatic Areas RQ =
EEC/Seedling Emergence EC25</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><p><strong>Drift RQs</strong></p>
<p><strong>RQ = Drift EEC/</strong></p>
<p><strong>Vegetative Vigor</strong></p>
<p><strong>EC25</strong></p></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td rowspan="2"><strong>Minimum Incorporation Depth (cm)</strong></td>
<td rowspan="2"><strong>0</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>Monocot</strong></td>
<td><strong>Dicot</strong></td>
<td><strong>Monocot</strong></td>
<td><strong>Dicot</strong></td>
<td><strong>Monocot</strong></td>
<td><strong>Dicot</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>Ground Unincorp.</strong></td>
<td><strong>0.600</strong></td>
<td><strong>0.5100</strong></td>
<td><strong>0.100</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>0.571</strong></td>
<td><strong>11.11</strong></td>
<td><strong>4.86</strong></td>
<td><strong>94.44</strong></td>
<td><strong>0.10</strong></td>
<td><strong>1.85</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>Seed Emerg Monocot EC25 (lb a.e./acre)</strong></td>
<td><strong>0.105</strong></td>
<td><strong>Ground Incorp</strong></td>
<td><strong>0.600</strong></td>
<td><strong>0.5100</strong></td>
<td><strong>0.100</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>0.571</strong></td>
<td><strong>11.11</strong></td>
<td><strong>4.86</strong></td>
<td><strong>94.44</strong></td>
<td><strong>0.10</strong></td>
<td><strong>1.85</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>Seed Emerg Dicot EC25 (lb a.e./acre)</strong></td>
<td><strong>0.0054</strong></td>
<td colspan="11"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>Veg Vigor Monocot EC25 (lb a.e./acre)</strong></td>
<td><strong>0.105</strong></td>
<td colspan="11"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>Veg Vigor Dicot EC25 (lb a.e./acre)</strong></td>
<td><strong>0.0054</strong></td>
<td colspan="11"></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

<table>
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 11%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 11%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 2%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 12%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="7"><p><strong>TERRPLANT</strong></p>
<p><strong>MEFLUIDIDE-K, MEFLUIDIDE-DEA (1.0 lbs ae/A) GROUND SPRAY
ONLY</strong></p>
<p><strong>Terrestrial Plant EECs and Acute Endangered RQs (November 9,
2005; version 1.2.1)</strong></p></td>
<td colspan="6"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td><strong>Input Values</strong></td>
<td colspan="11"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>Application Rate (lb a.e./acre)</strong></td>
<td><strong>1.0</strong></td>
<td colspan="4"><strong>Estimated Environmental Concentrations (EECs)
for NON-GRANULAR formulation applications (lbs a.i./acre)</strong></td>
<td colspan="7"><strong>Risk Quotients (RQs) for NON-GRANULAR
formulation applications</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>Runoff Value (0.01, 0.02, or 0.05 if chemical solubility
&lt;10, 10-100, or &gt;100 ppm, respectively)</strong></td>
<td><strong>0.05</strong></td>
<td rowspan="2"><strong>Application Method</strong></td>
<td rowspan="2"><strong>Total Loading to Adjacent Areas (EEC = Sheet
Runoff +Drift)</strong></td>
<td rowspan="2"><strong>Total Loading to Semi-aquatic Areas (EEC =
Channelized Runoff + Drift)</strong></td>
<td rowspan="2"><strong>DRIFT EEC*</strong></td>
<td colspan="3"><strong>Emergence RQs, Adjacent Areas RQ = EEC/Seedling
Emergence EC05 or NOAEC</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>Emergence RQs, Semi-aquatic areas RQ =
EEC/Seedling Emergence EC05 or NOAEC</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><p><strong>Drift RQs</strong></p>
<p><strong>RQ = EEC/</strong></p>
<p><strong>Vegetative Vigor EC05 or NOAEC</strong></p></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td rowspan="2"><strong>Minimum Incorporation Depth (cm)</strong></td>
<td rowspan="2"><strong>0</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>Monocot</strong></td>
<td><strong>Dicot</strong></td>
<td><strong>Monocot</strong></td>
<td><strong>Dicot</strong></td>
<td><strong>Monocot</strong></td>
<td><strong>Dicot</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>Ground Unincorp.</strong></td>
<td><strong>0.600</strong></td>
<td><strong>0.5100</strong></td>
<td><strong>0.100</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>1.333</strong></td>
<td><strong>20.69</strong></td>
<td><strong>11.33</strong></td>
<td><strong>175.86</strong></td>
<td><strong>0.22</strong></td>
<td><strong>3.45</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>Seed Emerg Monocot EC05 or NOAEC (lb
a.e./acre)</strong></td>
<td><strong>0.105</strong></td>
<td><strong>Ground Incorp</strong></td>
<td><strong>0.600</strong></td>
<td><strong>0.5100</strong></td>
<td><strong>0.100</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>1.333</strong></td>
<td><strong>20.69</strong></td>
<td><strong>11.33</strong></td>
<td><strong>175.86</strong></td>
<td><strong>0.22</strong></td>
<td><strong>3.45</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>Seed Emerg Dicot EC05 or NOAEC (lb a.e./acre)</strong></td>
<td><strong>0.0054</strong></td>
<td colspan="11"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>Veg Vigor Monocot EC05 or NOAEC (lbs
a.e./acre)</strong></td>
<td><strong>0.105</strong></td>
<td colspan="11"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>Veg Vigor Dicot EC05 or NOAEC (lb a.e./acre)</strong></td>
<td><strong>0.0029</strong></td>
<td colspan="11"></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

<table>
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 11%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 10%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 2%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 12%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="7"><p><strong>TERRPLANT</strong></p>
<p><strong>MEFLUIDIDE (0.5 lbs ae/A) GRANULAR APPLICATION
ONLY</strong></p>
<p><strong>Terrestrial Plant EECs and Acute Non Endangered RQs (November
9, 2005; version 1.2.1)</strong></p></td>
<td colspan="6"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td><strong>Input Values</strong></td>
<td colspan="11"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>Application Rate (lb a.e./acre)</strong></td>
<td><strong>0.5</strong></td>
<td colspan="4"><strong>Estimated Environmental Concentrations (EECs)
for NON-GRANULAR formulation applications (lbs a.i./acre)</strong></td>
<td colspan="7"><strong>Risk Quotients (RQs) for NON-GRANULAR
formulation applications</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>Runoff Value (0.01, 0.02, or 0.05 if chemical solubility
&lt;10, 10-100, or &gt;100 ppm, respectively)</strong></td>
<td><strong>0.05</strong></td>
<td rowspan="2"><strong>Application Method</strong></td>
<td rowspan="2"><strong>Total Loading to Adjacent Areas (EEC = Sheet
Runoff )</strong></td>
<td rowspan="2"><strong>Total Loading to Semi-aquatic Areas (EEC =
Channelized Runoff )</strong></td>
<td rowspan="2"><strong>DRIFT EEC*</strong></td>
<td colspan="3"><strong>Emergence RQs, Adjacent Areas RQ = EEC/Seedling
Emergence EC25</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>Emergence RQs, Semi-aquatic Areas RQ =
EEC/Seedling Emergence EC25</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><p><strong>Drift RQs</strong></p>
<p><strong>RQ = Drift EEC/</strong></p>
<p><strong>Vegetative Vigor</strong></p>
<p><strong>EC25</strong></p></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td rowspan="2"><strong>Minimum Incorporation Depth (cm)</strong></td>
<td rowspan="2"><strong>0</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>Monocot</strong></td>
<td><strong>Dicot</strong></td>
<td><strong>Monocot</strong></td>
<td><strong>Dicot</strong></td>
<td><strong>Monocot</strong></td>
<td><strong>Dicot</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>Ground Unincorp.</strong></td>
<td><strong>0.0250</strong></td>
<td><strong>0.2500</strong></td>
<td><strong>N/A</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>0.24</strong></td>
<td><strong>4.63</strong></td>
<td><strong>2.38</strong></td>
<td><strong>46.30</strong></td>
<td><strong>N/A</strong></td>
<td><strong>N/A</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>Seed Emerg Monocot EC25 (lb a.e./acre)</strong></td>
<td><strong>0.105</strong></td>
<td colspan="11"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>Seed Emerg Dicot EC25 (lb a.e./acre)</strong></td>
<td><strong>0.0054</strong></td>
<td colspan="11"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>Veg Vigor Monocot EC25 (lb a.e./acre)</strong></td>
<td><strong>0.105</strong></td>
<td colspan="11"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>Veg Vigor Dicot EC25 (lb a.e./acre)</strong></td>
<td><strong>0.0054</strong></td>
<td colspan="11"></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

<table>
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 11%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 11%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 2%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 12%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="7"><p><strong>TERRPLANT</strong></p>
<p><strong>MEFLUIDIDE (0.5 lbs ae/A) GRANULAR APPLICATION
ONLY</strong></p>
<p><strong>Terrestrial Plant EECs and Acute Endangered RQs (November 9,
2005; version 1.2.1)</strong></p></td>
<td colspan="6"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td><strong>Input Values</strong></td>
<td colspan="11"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>Application Rate (lb a.e./acre)</strong></td>
<td><strong>0.5</strong></td>
<td colspan="4"><strong>Estimated Environmental Concentrations (EECs)
for NON-GRANULAR formulation applications (lbs a.i./acre)</strong></td>
<td colspan="7"><strong>Risk Quotients (RQs) for NON-GRANULAR
formulation applications</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>Runoff Value (0.01, 0.02, or 0.05 if chemical solubility
&lt;10, 10-100, or &gt;100 ppm, respectively)</strong></td>
<td><strong>0.05</strong></td>
<td rowspan="2"><strong>Application Method</strong></td>
<td rowspan="2"><strong>Total Loading to Adjacent Areas (EEC = Sheet
Runoff )</strong></td>
<td rowspan="2"><strong>Total Loading to Semi-aquatic Areas (EEC =
Channelized Runoff )</strong></td>
<td rowspan="2"><strong>DRIFT EEC*</strong></td>
<td colspan="3"><strong>Emergence RQs, Adjacent Areas RQ = EEC/Seedling
Emergence EC05 or NOAEC</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>Emergence RQs, Semi-aquatic areas RQ =
EEC/Seedling Emergence EC05 or NOAEC</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><p><strong>Drift RQs</strong></p>
<p><strong>RQ = EEC/</strong></p>
<p><strong>Vegetative Vigor EC05 or NOAEC</strong></p></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td rowspan="2"><strong>Minimum Incorporation Depth (cm)</strong></td>
<td rowspan="2"><strong>0</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>Monocot</strong></td>
<td><strong>Dicot</strong></td>
<td><strong>Monocot</strong></td>
<td><strong>Dicot</strong></td>
<td><strong>Monocot</strong></td>
<td><strong>Dicot</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>Ground Unincorp.</strong></td>
<td><strong>0.0250</strong></td>
<td><strong>0.2500</strong></td>
<td><strong>N/A</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>0.56</strong></td>
<td><strong>8.62</strong></td>
<td><strong>5.56</strong></td>
<td><strong>86.21</strong></td>
<td><strong>N/A</strong></td>
<td><strong>N/A</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>Seed Emerg Monocot EC05 or NOAEC (lb
a.e./acre)</strong></td>
<td><strong>0.105</strong></td>
<td colspan="11"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>Seed Emerg Dicot EC05 or NOAEC (lb a.e./acre)</strong></td>
<td><strong>0.0054</strong></td>
<td colspan="11"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>Veg Vigor Monocot EC05 or NOAEC (lbs
a.e./acre)</strong></td>
<td><strong>0.105</strong></td>
<td colspan="11"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>Veg Vigor Dicot EC05 or NOAEC (lb a.e./acre)</strong></td>
<td><strong>0.0029</strong></td>
<td colspan="11"></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

+----------------+---------------+-------------------+----------------+
| **DRIFT RQs    |               |                   |                |
| for Buffers    |               |                   |                |
| from 10 to 900 |               |                   |                |
| ft RQs=        |               |                   |                |
| (EEC/EC~25~    |               |                   |                |
| )**            |               |                   |                |
|                |               |                   |                |
| **EECs derived |               |                   |                |
| from AGDRIFT   |               |                   |                |
| Table 3.5\***  |               |                   |                |
+----------------+---------------+-------------------+----------------+
| **Buffer       | **1.0 lb      | **RQs Monocot     | **RQs Dicot    |
| distance**     | ae/A**        | (EC25 0.105)**    | (EC25          |
|                |               |                   | 0.0054)**      |
+----------------+---------------+-------------------+----------------+
| 10             | 0.0923        | 0.879             | 17.093         |
+----------------+---------------+-------------------+----------------+
| 20             | 0.0437        | 0.416             | 8.093          |
+----------------+---------------+-------------------+----------------+
| 40             | 0.0218        | 0.208             | 4.037          |
+----------------+---------------+-------------------+----------------+
| 60             | 0.0149        | 0.142             | 2.759          |
+----------------+---------------+-------------------+----------------+
| 80             | 0.0115        | 0.110             | 2.130          |
+----------------+---------------+-------------------+----------------+
| 100            | 0.0095        | 0.905             | 1.759          |
+----------------+---------------+-------------------+----------------+
| 140            | 0.007         | 0.067             | 1.296          |
+----------------+---------------+-------------------+----------------+
| 180            | 0.0056        | 0.053             | 1.037          |
+----------------+---------------+-------------------+----------------+
| **200**        | 0.0051        | 0.049             | 0.944          |
+----------------+---------------+-------------------+----------------+
| 250            | 0.0042        | 0.040             | 0.778          |
+----------------+---------------+-------------------+----------------+
| 500            | 0.0021        | 0.020             | 0.389          |
+----------------+---------------+-------------------+----------------+
| 900            | 0.0011        | 0.011             | 0.204          |
+----------------+---------------+-------------------+----------------+
| \* dicots      |               |                   |                |
| exceed LOCs    |               |                   |                |
| for spray      |               |                   |                |
| drift          |               |                   |                |
+----------------+---------------+-------------------+----------------+

**Appendix E**

**APPENDIX E. Ecological Effects Characterization for Mefluidide,
Mefluidide-DEA and Mefluidide-K**

**310=Molecular Weight of Mefluidide acid**

**415.24 = Molecular Weight of Mefluidide-DEA**

**348.29=Molecular Weight of Mefluidide-K**

The following tables present measures of effect both in terms of active
ingredient and acid equivalents. Conversion from active ingredient to
acid equivalents was made in accordance with molecular weight
differences (MW acid/ MW salt = AE). One gram mole of Mefluidide acid
has a mass of 310.0 and one gram mole of **Mefluidide-DEA** has a mass
of 415.24 grams; therefore one unit of salt would be equivalent to 0.75
units of the acid. Hence, the LC50 values from the toxicity tests with
**Mefluidide-DEA** were converted to acid equivalents by multiplying the
values by 0.75. The same conversion scenario was made Mefluidide-K with
one gram mole of Mefluidide-K equal to 348.29. Therefore, 310 MW
acid/348.29MW potassium salt is equivalent to 0.89. Hence, the LC50
values from the toxicity tests with Mefluidide-K were converted to acid
equivalents by multiplying the values by 0.89.

<table>
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 10%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 10%" />
<col style="width: 10%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 11%" />
<col style="width: 14%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 11%" />
</colgroup>
<thead>
<tr class="header">
<th colspan="10"><strong>Table E-1: Acute Toxicity of Mefluidide to
Freshwater Fish</strong></th>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<th colspan="10"></th>
</tr>
<tr class="header">
<th rowspan="2"><strong>Species</strong></th>
<th rowspan="2"><strong>% a.i. / %ae</strong></th>
<th colspan="2"><strong>96-hr LC<sub>50</sub>, mg/L (confid.
int.)</strong></th>
<th colspan="2"><strong>NOEC (mg/L)</strong></th>
<th rowspan="2"><strong>Study Properties<sup>a</sup></strong></th>
<th rowspan="2"><strong>Toxicity Classification (based on
a.e.)</strong></th>
<th rowspan="2"><strong>MRID</strong></th>
<th rowspan="2"><strong>Status</strong></th>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<th><strong>a.i.</strong></th>
<th><strong>a.e.</strong></th>
<th><strong>a.i.</strong></th>
<th><strong>a.e.</strong></th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="10"><p><strong>Freshwater fish studies were submitted for
114001-Mefluidide and are in review</strong></p>
<p><strong>MRIDs 73635, 80027, 80028 , 87475, 41893801 and 41893802 with
LC50s ranging from &gt; 96.4 mg/L to 1720 mg/L</strong></p>
<p><strong>No freshwater fish studies were submitted for 114003
-Mefluidide potassium salt</strong></p></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="10"><strong>114002- Mefluidide-DEA</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Rainbow trout</td>
<td>28.8</td>
<td>&gt;91.3</td>
<td>&gt;68.47</td>
<td>91.3</td>
<td>68.47</td>
<td>F-T, M</td>
<td>Slightly-toxic</td>
<td>418937-02</td>
<td>Acceptable</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Bluegill sunfish</td>
<td>28.8</td>
<td>&gt;94.4</td>
<td>&gt;70.80</td>
<td>94.4</td>
<td>70.80</td>
<td>F-T, M</td>
<td>Slightly-toxic</td>
<td>418937-01</td>
<td>Acceptable</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

<table style="width:100%;">
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 10%" />
<col style="width: 13%" />
<col style="width: 11%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 10%" />
<col style="width: 13%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 12%" />
</colgroup>
<thead>
<tr class="header">
<th colspan="10"><strong>Table E-2: Acute Toxicity of Mefluidide to
Freshwater Invertebrates</strong></th>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<th rowspan="2"><strong>Species</strong></th>
<th rowspan="2"><strong>% a.i.</strong></th>
<th colspan="2"><strong>48-hr EC<sub>50</sub>, mg/L (confid.
int.)</strong></th>
<th colspan="2"><strong>NOEC (mg/L)</strong></th>
<th rowspan="2"><strong>Study Properties<sup>a</sup></strong></th>
<th rowspan="2"><strong>Toxicity Classification (based on
a.e.)</strong></th>
<th rowspan="2"><strong>MRID</strong></th>
<th rowspan="2"><strong>Status</strong></th>
</tr>
<tr class="header">
<th><strong>a.i.</strong></th>
<th><strong>a.e.</strong></th>
<th><strong>a.i.</strong></th>
<th><strong>a.e.</strong></th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="10"><p><strong>Freshwater invertebrate study was submitted
for 114001-Mefluidide and is in review with MRID 41893803 with and
EC<sub>50</sub> of &gt;111</strong></p>
<p><strong>No freshwater invertebrate studies were submitted for114003
-Mefluidide potassium salt</strong></p></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="10"><strong>114002- Mefluidide-DEA</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Daphnia</td>
<td>28.8%</td>
<td>&gt;103</td>
<td>&gt;77.25</td>
<td>103</td>
<td>77.25</td>
<td>F-T, M</td>
<td>Slightly-toxic</td>
<td>418937-03</td>
<td>Acceptable</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

^a^ M=mean-measured chemical concentrations, N=nominal chemical
concentrations; F-T=flow-through; S=static.

  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  **Table E-3: Chronic                                                                                                    
  (Early-life) Toxicity                                                                                                   
  of Mefluidide to                                                                                                        
  Invertebrates**                                                                                                         
  --------------------- -------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------------- --------------- ---------- ------------
  **Species**           **%      **NOEC                **LOEC                **Study           **Most          **MRID**   **Status**
                        a.i.**   (mg/L)**              (mg/L)**              Properties^a^**   sensitive                  
                                                                                               parameter**                

                                 **a.i.**   **a.e.**   **a.i.**   **a.e.**                                                

  **No Chronic                                                                                                            
  invertebrate studies                                                                                                    
  were submitted for                                                                                                      
  114001-Mefluidide** ,                                                                                                   
  **114002                                                                                                                
  Mefluidide-DEA**                                                                                                        
  **and 114003 -                                                                                                          
  Mefluidide-K**                                                                                                          
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

^a^ M=mean-measured chemical concentrations, N=nominal chemical
concentrations; F-T=flow-through; S=static.

  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  **Table E-1: Acute                                                                                                         
  Toxicity of Mefluidide                                                                                                     
  to Estuarine marine                                                                                                        
  Fish**                                                                                                                     
  ----------------------- ------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------------- ---------------- ----------- ------------
                                                                                                                             

  **Species**             **%     **96-hr               **NOEC                **Study           **Toxicity       **MRID**    **Status**
                          a.i. /  LC~50~,               (mg/L)**              Properties^a^**   Classification               
                          %ae**   mg/L                                                          (based on                    
                                  (confid.                                                      a.e.)**                      
                                  int.)**                                                                                    

                                  **a.i.**   **a.e.**   **a.i.**   **a.e.**                                                  

  **114001-Mefluidide**                                                                                                      

  Sheepshead minnow       58.2    \>130      \>130      130        130        F-T, M            Practically      425624-03   Acceptable
                                                                                                non-toxic                    

  **114002-                                                                                                                  
  Mefluidide-DEA**                                                                                                           

  Sheepshead minnow       28.8    \>113      \>84.75    113        84.75      F-T, M            Slightly-toxic   425623-03   Acceptable
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

<table>
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 12%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 12%" />
<col style="width: 10%" />
<col style="width: 4%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 10%" />
<col style="width: 13%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 12%" />
</colgroup>
<thead>
<tr class="header">
<th colspan="10"><strong>Table E-2: Acute Toxicity of Mefluidide to
Estuarine marine Invertebrates</strong></th>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<th rowspan="2"><strong>Species</strong></th>
<th rowspan="2"><strong>% a.i.</strong></th>
<th colspan="2"><strong>EC<sub>50</sub>, mg/L (confid.
int.)</strong></th>
<th colspan="2"><strong>NOEC (mg/L)</strong></th>
<th rowspan="2"><strong>Study Properties<sup>a</sup></strong></th>
<th rowspan="2"><strong>Toxicity Classification (based on
a.e.)</strong></th>
<th rowspan="2"><strong>MRID</strong></th>
<th rowspan="2"><strong>Status</strong></th>
</tr>
<tr class="header">
<th><strong>a.i.</strong></th>
<th><strong>a.e.</strong></th>
<th><strong>a.i.</strong></th>
<th><strong>a.e.</strong></th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="10"><strong>114001-Mefluidide</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><p>Mysid</p>
<p><em>(Mysidopsis bahia) (96 HR)</em></p></td>
<td>58.2</td>
<td><p>133</p>
<p>(113- 204)</p></td>
<td>133</td>
<td>47</td>
<td>47</td>
<td>F-T, M</td>
<td>Practically non-toxic</td>
<td>425624-02</td>
<td>Acceptable</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Eastern Oyster <em>(Crassostrea virginica)(96 HR)</em></td>
<td>58.2</td>
<td>67</td>
<td>67</td>
<td>&lt;12</td>
<td>&lt;12</td>
<td>F-T, M</td>
<td>Slightly toxic</td>
<td>425624-01</td>
<td>Acceptable</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="10"><p><strong>114002- Mefluidide-DEA</strong></p>
<p><strong>114002- Mefluidide Diethanolamine salt</strong></p></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><p>Mysid</p>
<p><em>(Mysidopsis bahia) (96 HR)</em></p></td>
<td>28.8</td>
<td>&gt;126</td>
<td>&gt;94.5</td>
<td>42</td>
<td>31.5</td>
<td>F-T, M</td>
<td>Practically non-toxic</td>
<td>425623-02</td>
<td>Acceptable</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Eastern Oyster <em>(Crassostrea virginica) (96 HR)</em></td>
<td>28.8</td>
<td>77</td>
<td>57.75</td>
<td>&lt;14</td>
<td>&lt;10.5</td>
<td>F-T, M</td>
<td>Slightly toxic</td>
<td>425623-01</td>
<td>Supplemental</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

^a^ M=mean-measured chemical concentrations, N=nominal chemical
concentrations; F-T=flow-through; S=static.

+--------------+------+------+-------+-----+-------+-----+---------+---+
| **Table E-3: |      |      |       |     |       |     |         |   |
| Acute        |      |      |       |     |       |     |         |   |
| Toxicity of  |      |      |       |     |       |     |         |   |
| Mefluidide   |      |      |       |     |       |     |         |   |
| to Aquatic   |      |      |       |     |       |     |         |   |
| Plants**     |      |      |       |     |       |     |         |   |
+==============+======+======+=======+=====+=======+=====+=========+===+
| **Species**  | *    | **De |       | **M | **In  | **  | **S     |   |
|              | *%a. | fini |       | ost | itial | MRI | tatus** |   |
|              | i.** | tive |       | sen | /mean | D** |         |   |
|              |      | te   |       | sit | mea   |     |         |   |
|              |      | st** |       | ive | sured |     |         |   |
|              |      |      |       | pa  | c     |     |         |   |
|              |      |      |       | ram | oncen |     |         |   |
|              |      |      |       | ete | trati |     |         |   |
|              |      |      |       | r** | ons** |     |         |   |
+--------------+------+------+-------+-----+-------+-----+---------+---+
|              |      | **a. | **a   |     |       |     |         |   |
|              |      | i.** | .e.** |     |       |     |         |   |
+--------------+------+------+-------+-----+-------+-----+---------+---+
| **114002-    |      |      |       |     |       |     |         |   |
| Mefl         |      |      |       |     |       |     |         |   |
| uidide-DEA** |      |      |       |     |       |     |         |   |
+--------------+------+------+-------+-----+-------+-----+---------+---+
| *Navicula    | 28.8 | 831  | .     | 11  | mean  | 435 | Acc     |   |
| pelliculosa* |      | ug   | 629mg | .5% |       | 266 | eptable |   |
|              |      | ai/L | ae/L  | gro |       | -01 |         |   |
| *Tier I (120 |      |      |       | wth |       |     |         |   |
| Hr)*         |      |      |       | red |       |     |         |   |
|              |      |      |       | uct |       |     |         |   |
|              |      |      |       | ion |       |     |         |   |
+--------------+------+------+-------+-----+-------+-----+---------+---+
| *Skeletonema | 28.8 | 7    | .575  | no  | mean  | 435 | Acc     |   |
| costatum*    |      | 67ug | mg    | a   |       | 266 | eptable |   |
|              |      | ai/L | ae/L  | dve |       | -02 |         |   |
| *T           |      |      |       | rse |       |     |         |   |
| ier1(120Hr)* |      |      |       | e   |       |     |         |   |
|              |      |      |       | ffe |       |     |         |   |
|              |      |      |       | cts |       |     |         |   |
+--------------+------+------+-------+-----+-------+-----+---------+---+
| *Lemna gibba | 28.8 | 687  | 0.515 | 8%  | mean  | 435 | Acc     |   |
| TierI        |      | ug   | mg    | gro |       | 266 | eptable |   |
| (14day)*     |      | ai/L | ae/L  | wth |       | -05 |         |   |
|              |      |      |       | st  |       |     |         |   |
|              |      | (8%  |       | imu |       |     |         |   |
|              |      | gr   |       | lat |       |     |         |   |
|              |      | owth |       | ion |       |     |         |   |
|              |      | stim |       |     |       |     |         |   |
|              |      | ulat |       |     |       |     |         |   |
|              |      | ion) |       |     |       |     |         |   |
+--------------+------+------+-------+-----+-------+-----+---------+---+
| *Anabaena    | 28.8 | 725  | 0.543 | 4   | mean  | 435 | Acc     |   |
| flos-aquae*  |      | ug   | mg    | .3% |       | 266 | eptable |   |
|              |      | ai/L | ae/L  | gro |       | -04 |         |   |
| *Tier1(120   |      |      |       | wth |       |     |         |   |
| Hr)*         |      |      |       | red |       |     |         |   |
|              |      |      |       | uct |       |     |         |   |
|              |      |      |       | ion |       |     |         |   |
+--------------+------+------+-------+-----+-------+-----+---------+---+
| *Selenastrum | 28.8 | 749  | 0.561 | 8%  | mean  | 435 | Acc     |   |
| ca           |      | ug   | mg    | gro |       | 266 | eptable |   |
| pricornutum* |      | ai/L | ae/L  | wth |       | -03 |         |   |
|              |      |      |       | red |       |     |         |   |
| *Tier I (120 |      |      |       | uct |       |     |         |   |
| Hr)*         |      |      |       | ion |       |     |         |   |
+--------------+------+------+-------+-----+-------+-----+---------+---+

+---------------------------+-------------+--------------+------------+---+
| **Table E-4: Acute        |             |              |            |   |
| Toxicity of Mefluidide to |             |              |            |   |
| Aquatic Plants**          |             |              |            |   |
+===========================+=============+==============+============+===+
| **Species**               |             |              | **MRID**   |   |
+---------------------------+-------------+--------------+------------+---+
|                           | **Endpoints | **Endpoints  |            |   |
|                           | definitive  | range        |            |   |
|                           | tests**     | finding      |            |   |
|                           |             | tests**      |            |   |
+---------------------------+-------------+--------------+------------+---+
| **114002- Mefluidide-DEA  |             |              |            |   |
| Definitive and Range      |             |              |            |   |
| finding Tessts for Tier I |             |              |            |   |
| studies for aquatic       |             |              |            |   |
| plants**                  |             |              |            |   |
+---------------------------+-------------+--------------+------------+---+
| *Navicula pelliculosa*    | 831 ug ai/L | 1131 ug ai/L | 435266-01  |   |
|                           |             | 5.10%growth  |            |   |
| *Tier I (120 Hr)*         | 11.5%       | stimulation  |            |   |
|                           | growth      |              |            |   |
|                           | reduction   |              |            |   |
+---------------------------+-------------+--------------+------------+---+
| *Skeletonema costatum*    | 767ug ai/L  | 1117 ugai/L  | 435266-02  |   |
|                           |             | 2.5% growth  |            |   |
| *Tier1(120Hr)*            | no adverse  | stimulation  |            |   |
|                           | effects     |              |            |   |
+---------------------------+-------------+--------------+------------+---+
| *Lemna gibba TierI        | 687 ug      | 1084 ug ai/L | 435266-05  |   |
| (14day)*                  | ai/L8%      | 2.6% growth  |            |   |
|                           | growth      | reduction    |            |   |
|                           | stimulation |              |            |   |
+---------------------------+-------------+--------------+------------+---+
| *Anabaena flos-aquae*     | 725 ug ai/L | 1077 ug ai/L | 435266-04  |   |
|                           |             | 26.5%growth  |            |   |
| *Tier1(120 Hr)*           | 4.3% growth | stimulation  |            |   |
|                           | reduction   |              |            |   |
+---------------------------+-------------+--------------+------------+---+
| *Selenastrum              | 749 ug ai/L | 1117 ug ai/L | 435266-03  |   |
| capricornutum*            |             | 8.5% growth  |            |   |
|                           | 4.3% growth | stimulation  |            |   |
| *Tier I (120 Hr)*         | reduction   |              |            |   |
+---------------------------+-------------+--------------+------------+---+

<table>
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 12%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 18%" />
<col style="width: 12%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 11%" />
</colgroup>
<thead>
<tr class="header">
<th colspan="10"><strong>Table E-5: Acute Toxicity of Mefluidide to
Birds (oral administration)</strong></th>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<th rowspan="2"><strong>Species</strong></th>
<th rowspan="2"><strong>% a.i.</strong></th>
<th colspan="2"><strong>LD<sub>50</sub>, mg ai/kg-bw (conf.
interval)</strong></th>
<th colspan="2"><strong>NOEC, mg ai/kg-diet</strong></th>
<th rowspan="2"><strong>Effects</strong></th>
<th rowspan="2"><strong>Toxicity Classification (based on
a.e.)</strong></th>
<th rowspan="2"><strong>MRID</strong></th>
<th rowspan="2"><strong>Status</strong></th>
</tr>
<tr class="header">
<th><strong>a.i.</strong></th>
<th><strong>a.e.</strong></th>
<th><strong>a.i.</strong></th>
<th><strong>a.e.</strong></th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="9"><strong>114001-Mefluidide*</strong></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><p>Bobwhite quail</p>
<p>Tier I</p></td>
<td>58.2</td>
<td>&gt;2000</td>
<td>&gt;2000</td>
<td>&gt;2000</td>
<td>&gt;2000</td>
<td></td>
<td>Practically non-toxic</td>
<td>416021-01</td>
<td>Supplemental</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="9"><strong>114002- Mefluidide_DEA</strong></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><p>Bobwhite quail</p>
<p>Tier I</p></td>
<td>28.8</td>
<td>&gt;2000</td>
<td>&gt;1500</td>
<td>&gt;2000</td>
<td>&gt;1500</td>
<td></td>
<td>Practically non-toxic</td>
<td>416019-01</td>
<td>Supplemental</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

**\*Avian acute oral studies were submitted for 114001-Mefluidide and
are in review MRIDs 7362 with LD ~50~ 4640 mg/kg bw**

<table>
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 11%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 16%" />
<col style="width: 13%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 12%" />
</colgroup>
<thead>
<tr class="header">
<th colspan="10"><strong>Table E-6: Acute Toxicity of Mefluidide to
Birds (dietary administration)</strong></th>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<th rowspan="2"><strong>Species</strong></th>
<th rowspan="2"><strong>% a.i.</strong></th>
<th colspan="2"><strong>LC<sub>50</sub>, mg ai/kg-diet (conf.
interval)</strong></th>
<th colspan="2"><strong>NOEC, mg ai/kg-diet</strong></th>
<th rowspan="2"><strong>Effects</strong></th>
<th rowspan="2"><strong>Toxicity Classification (based on
a.e.)</strong></th>
<th rowspan="2"><strong>MRID</strong></th>
<th rowspan="2"><strong>Status</strong></th>
</tr>
<tr class="header">
<th><strong>a.i.</strong></th>
<th><strong>a.e.</strong></th>
<th><strong>a.i.</strong></th>
<th><strong>a.e.</strong></th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="9"><strong>114001-Mefluidide*</strong></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><p>Mallard duck</p>
<p>(Tier I or limit test)</p></td>
<td>58.2% (adjusted to 100%ai)</td>
<td>&gt;5000</td>
<td>&gt;5000</td>
<td>&gt;5000</td>
<td>&gt;5000</td>
<td>No mortality</td>
<td>Practically non- toxic</td>
<td>416021-03</td>
<td>Supplemental</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><p>Bobwhite quail</p>
<p>(Tier I or limit test)</p></td>
<td>58.2% (adjusted to 100%ai)</td>
<td>&gt;5000</td>
<td>&gt;5000</td>
<td>&gt;5000</td>
<td>&gt;5000</td>
<td>No mortality</td>
<td>Practically non- toxic</td>
<td>416021-02</td>
<td>Supplemental</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="9"><strong>114002- Mefluidide Diethanolamine
salt</strong></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><p>Mallard duck</p>
<p>(Tier I or limit test)</p></td>
<td>28.8% (adjusted to 100%ai)</td>
<td>&gt;5000</td>
<td>&gt;3750</td>
<td>&gt;5000</td>
<td>&gt;3750</td>
<td>No mortality</td>
<td>Practically non- toxic</td>
<td>416019-03</td>
<td>Supplemental</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><p>Bobwhite quail</p>
<p>(Tier I or limit test)</p></td>
<td>28.8% (adjusted to 100%ai)</td>
<td>&gt;5000</td>
<td>&gt;3750</td>
<td>&gt;5000</td>
<td>&gt;3750</td>
<td>No mortality</td>
<td>Practically non- toxic</td>
<td>416019-02</td>
<td>Supplemental</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

**\*Avian acute dietary studies were submitted for 114001-Mefluidide and
are in review MRIDs, 7633 and 7634 with LC~50~s of \>10,000 mg/kg diet**

  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  **Table E-7: Chronic                                                                                                                                                                                                          
  Toxicity of                                                                                                                                                                                                                   
  Mefluidide to Birds**                                                                                                                                                                                                         
  --------------------- ------------ -------- --------------- ---------- ------------ --------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ------------- ----- ---------------- ---------- ----------- -- ------------ ------------ --
  **Species**                        **%      **NOEC (mg                              **LOEC (mg                                       **Effects**                          **MRID**                               **Status**   
                                     a.i.**   ai/kg-diet)**                           ai/kg-diet)**                                                                                                                             

                                              **a.i.**        **a.e.**                **a.i.**                   **a.e.**                                                                                                       

  **No Chronic bird                                                                                                                                                                                                             
  studies were                                                                                                                                                                                                                  
  submitted for                                                                                                                                                                                                                 
  114001-Mefluidide** ,                                                                                                                                                                                                         
  **114002                                                                                                                                                                                                                      
  Diethanolamine salt**                                                                                                                                                                                                         
  **and 114003                                                                                                                                                                                                                  
  -Mefluidide potassium                                                                                                                                                                                                         
  salt**                                                                                                                                                                                                                        

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                

                        **Table E-8:                                                                                                                                                                                            
                        Acute                                                                                                                                                                                                   
                        Contact                                                                                                                                                                                                 
                        Toxicity of                                                                                                                                                                                             
                        Mefluidide                                                                                                                                                                                              
                        to                                                                                                                                                                                                      
                        Non-target                                                                                                                                                                                              
                        Insects**                                                                                                                                                                                               

  **Species**                        **%                                 **Toxicity                                         **NOEL**                       **Toxicity                  **MRID**       **Status**                
                                     a.i.**                              endpoint**                                                                        classification                                                       
                                                                                                                                                           (based on                                                            
                                                                                                                                                           a.e.)**                                                              

                                                                         **a.i.**                     **a.e.**                                                                                                                  

  **114002- Mefluidide                                                                                                                                                                                                          
  Diethanolamine salt**                                                                                                                                                                                                         

  Honey bee                          28.8                                \>25                         \>18.75               12.5                           Practically                 425628-01      Acceptable                
                                                                                                                                                           non-toxic                                                            

  **114003- Mefluidide                                                                                                                                                                                                          
  Potassium salt**                                                                                                                                                                                                              

  Honey bee                          28.8                                \>25                         \>22.25               25                             Practically                 425628-02      Acceptable                
                                                                                                                                                           non-toxic                                                            
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

+--------+--------------+---------+-------------------+--------------+
| *      |              |         |                   |              |
| *Table |              |         |                   |              |
| E 9    |              |         |                   |              |
| Acute  |              |         |                   |              |
| To     |              |         |                   |              |
| xicity |              |         |                   |              |
| of     |              |         |                   |              |
| Mefl   |              |         |                   |              |
| uidide |              |         |                   |              |
| ^a^**  |              |         |                   |              |
+--------+--------------+---------+-------------------+--------------+
| *      | **Study      | *       | **Results         | **Toxicity   |
| *Guide | Type**       | *MRID** | (LD50/LC50)**     | Category**   |
| line** |              |         |                   |              |
|        |              |         |                   |              |
| *      |              |         |                   |              |
| *No.** |              |         |                   |              |
+--------+--------------+---------+-------------------+--------------+
| 87     | Acute Oral   | \>4000  |                   | III          |
| 0.1100 | (female rat) | mg/kg   |                   |              |
|        |              |         |                   |              |
| (81-1) | Mefluidide   | MRID    |                   |              |
|        | tech         | 0       |                   |              |
|        |              | 0047118 |                   |              |
+--------+--------------+---------+-------------------+--------------+
| 87     | Acute Oral   | 1920.2  |                   | III          |
| 0.1100 | (mouse)      | mg/kg   |                   |              |
|        | Mefluidide   |         |                   |              |
| (81-1) | tech         | MRID    |                   |              |
|        |              | 0       |                   |              |
|        |              | 0047117 |                   |              |
+--------+--------------+---------+-------------------+--------------+
| 87     | Acute Oral   | 829.8   |                   | III          |
| 0.1100 | (mouse)      | mg/kg   |                   |              |
|        | Mefluidide   |         |                   |              |
| (81-1) | tech         | MRID    |                   |              |
|        |              | 0       |                   |              |
|        |              | 0047116 |                   |              |
+--------+--------------+---------+-------------------+--------------+

^a^ Status (acceptability) based on HEDs guidelines.

+-------------+------------------------+------------------------------+
| **Table E   |                        |                              |
| 10 Toxicity |                        |                              |
| Profile of  |                        |                              |
| Mefluidide  |                        |                              |
| sub chronic |                        |                              |
| and         |                        |                              |
| de          |                        |                              |
| velopmental |                        |                              |
| toxicity    |                        |                              |
| and its     |                        |                              |
| salts       |                        |                              |
| (114001,    |                        |                              |
| 114002,     |                        |                              |
| 114003)**   |                        |                              |
| ^a^         |                        |                              |
+=============+========================+==============================+
| **Guideline | **MRID                 | **Results**                  |
| No./ Study  | No.(year)/Doses/       |                              |
| type**      | classification**       |                              |
+-------------+------------------------+------------------------------+
| 870.3200    | 00082073, (1977)       | **Dermal LOAEL** = 240       |
|             |                        | mg/kg/day, based on          |
| 82-2        | 0, 1, 3, 10 ml of 2S   | irritation, inflammation and |
|             | formulation/kg/day     | necrosis at test sites.      |
| 21-Day      | (Formulation           |                              |
| Dermal      | containing 24% a.i.,   | **Dermal a NOAELs** were not |
| toxicity -  | equivalent to 0, 240,  | established.                 |
| rabbit      | 720, or 2400 mg        |                              |
|             | mefluidide/kg/day)     |                              |
|             |                        |                              |
|             | (4 rabbits/sex/dose)   |                              |
|             |                        |                              |
|             | **Acce                 |                              |
|             | ptable/Non-guideline** |                              |
|             |                        |                              |
|             | (NOAEL was not         |                              |
|             | observed)              |                              |
|             |                        |                              |
|             | Note: This study       |                              |
|             | assessed the dermal    |                              |
|             | toxicity of 24 %       |                              |
|             | formulation mefluidide |                              |
+-------------+------------------------+------------------------------+
| 870.3700a   | 42097201 (range        | **Maternal LOAEL** = 400     |
|             | finding)               | mg/kg/d based on reduced     |
| 83-3(a)     |                        | gain and food consumption.   |
|             | 42097701 (teratology), | Higher dose in the range     |
| De          | 1991                   | finding study of 600         |
| velopmental |                        | mg/kg/day produced excessive |
| Toxicity    | Range finding: 0, 100, | mortality.                   |
|             | 200, 400, 600 or 800   |                              |
| Gavage      | mg a.i./kg/d           | **Maternal NOAEL** = 200     |
| \[rat\]     |                        | mg/kg/d                      |
|             | Teratology study: 0,   |                              |
|             | 50, 200 or 400 mg      | **Developmental LOAEL** =    |
|             | a.i./kg/d              | 400 mg/kg/d based on slight  |
|             |                        | fetal toxicity as indicated  |
|             | Mefluidide technical   | by a slight nonstatistical   |
|             | 58.2% a.i.             | increase in 14^th^ rib.      |
|             |                        |                              |
|             | **                     | **Developmental NOAEL** =    |
|             | Acceptable/Guideline** | 200 mg/kg/d                  |
+-------------+------------------------+------------------------------+
| 870.3700a   | 42026102, (1991)       | **Maternal LOAEL** = 115 mg  |
|             |                        | a.i./kg/day based on         |
| 83-3(a)     | 0, 50, 200 400 mg      | mortality, clinical signs    |
|             | **diethanolamine salt  | (tremors, stained nose,      |
| De          | of mefluidide**        | urine and vaginal            |
| velopmental | (28.78%)/kg/d          | discharge), decreased body   |
| Toxicity,   |                        | weight and weight gain.      |
| gavage      | (25 females/dose)      |                              |
| \[rat\]     |                        | **Maternal NOAEL** = 58 mg   |
|             | Doses adjusted for 100 | a.i./kg/day),                |
|             | % purity were 0, 14,   |                              |
|             | 58, or 115 mg/kg/day.  | **Developmental LOAEL** =    |
|             |                        | 115 mg a.i./kg/day based on  |
|             | **                     | increased number of early    |
|             | Acceptable/guideline** | resorptions and mean         |
|             |                        | post-implantation loss.      |
|             |                        |                              |
|             |                        | **Developmental NOAEL**: 200 |
|             |                        | mg/kg/day (adjusted to 58    |
|             |                        | mg/kg/day),                  |
+-------------+------------------------+------------------------------+
| No          | 00047138, (1975)       | **LOAEL** = \< 100 mg/kg/day |
| n-guideline |                        | (females), based on          |
|             | 0, 100, 200, 400, 800  | mortality (1/3 deaths) at    |
| 14-Day Oral | mg/kg/d Vistar tech,   | 100 mg/kg/d. Tremors and     |
| gavage      | 93% a.i.               | 100% mortality were noted at |
| \[rabbit\]  |                        | the levels of 200 mg/kg/d    |
|             | 4 females/dose         | and above. Histopathology    |
|             |                        | not reported.                |
|             | range finding          |                              |
|             |                        | **NOAEL**: not established,  |
|             | **Acce                 |                              |
|             | ptable/non-guideline** |                              |
+-------------+------------------------+------------------------------+
| 870.3700b   | 00047139, (1975)       | **Maternal** **LOAEL** = not |
|             |                        | established.                 |
| 83-3(b)     | 0, 15, 30, 60 mg       |                              |
| De          | technical MBR          | **Maternal NOAEL** = 60      |
| velopmental | 12325/kg/d             | mg/kg/day,                   |
| Toxicity,   |                        |                              |
| gavage      | Unacceptable by        | **Developmental LOAE**L =    |
| \[rabbit\]  | itself, however, if    | not established.             |
|             | combined with the      |                              |
|             | 14-day oral study      | **Developmental NOAEL** = 60 |
|             | (00047138), it is      | mg/kg/day,                   |
|             | acceptable.            |                              |
+-------------+------------------------+------------------------------+
| 870.1300    | Acute inhalation --    | \>5.2 mg/L                   |
|             | rat                    |                              |
| (81-3)      |                        | MRID 41888801                |
|             | DEA salt of Mefluidide |                              |
+-------------+------------------------+------------------------------+
| 870.1300    | Acute inhalation --    | \>5.4 mg/L                   |
|             | rat                    |                              |
| (81-3)      |                        | MRID 41964601                |
|             | Mefluidide tech.       |                              |
+-------------+------------------------+------------------------------+
| 870.3800    | 00082748, (1979)       | **The parental systemic      |
|             |                        | LOAEL** = 346/604 mg/kg      |
| (83-4 )     | 0, 600, 1800, 6000     | bw/day (M/F), based on       |
|             | ppm, 93% a.i. (M/F:    | decreased body weights.      |
| 3           | 0/0, 34/60, 102/183,   |                              |
| -generation | 346/604 mg/kg/d)       | **The parental systemic      |
| r           |                        | NOAEL** = 102/183 mg/kg      |
| eproduction | **                     | bw/day in males/females.     |
| \[rat\]     | Acceptable/guideline** |                              |
|             |                        | **The offspring LOAEL** =    |
|             |                        | 346/604 mg/kg bw/day in      |
|             |                        | males/females, based on      |
|             |                        | decreased body weights in    |
|             |                        | both sexes and both litters  |
|             |                        | in all generations. **The    |
|             |                        | offspring NOAEL** = 102/183  |
|             |                        | mg/kg bw/day in              |
|             |                        | males/females.               |
|             |                        |                              |
|             |                        | **The reproductive LOAEL**   |
|             |                        | was not observed.            |
|             |                        |                              |
|             |                        | **The reproductive NOAEL** = |
|             |                        | 346/604 mg/kg bw/day in      |
|             |                        | males/females.               |
+-------------+------------------------+------------------------------+

M = Males; F = Females

^a^ Status (acceptability) based on HEDs guidelines.

+----------+-----+-----+---+----+---+-----------+------+-----------+
| **Table  |     |     |   |    |   |           |      |           |
| E-11:    |     |     |   |    |   |           |      |           |
| Toxicity |     |     |   |    |   |           |      |           |
| of       |     |     |   |    |   |           |      |           |
| Me       |     |     |   |    |   |           |      |           |
| fluidide |     |     |   |    |   |           |      |           |
| to       |     |     |   |    |   |           |      |           |
| Ter      |     |     |   |    |   |           |      |           |
| restrial |     |     |   |    |   |           |      |           |
| Plants   |     |     |   |    |   |           |      |           |
| (ve      |     |     |   |    |   |           |      |           |
| getative |     |     |   |    |   |           |      |           |
| vig      |     |     |   |    |   |           |      |           |
| or)^1^** |     |     |   |    |   |           |      |           |
+==========+=====+=====+===+====+===+===========+======+===========+
| **Most   | **% | **E |   | ** |   | **Most    | **MR | *         |
| S        | a.i | C~2 |   | NO |   | sensitive | ID** | *Status** |
| ensitive | .** | 5~, |   | EC |   | pa        |      |           |
| S        |     | lbs |   | (l |   | rameter** |      |           |
| pecies** |     | ai/ |   | bs |   |           |      |           |
|          |     | acr |   | ai |   |           |      |           |
|          |     | e** |   | /a |   |           |      |           |
|          |     |     |   | cr |   |           |      |           |
|          |     |     |   | e) |   |           |      |           |
|          |     |     |   | ** |   |           |      |           |
+----------+-----+-----+---+----+---+-----------+------+-----------+
|          |     | **  | * | ** | * |           |      |           |
|          |     | a.i | * | a. | * |           |      |           |
|          |     | .** | a | i. | a |           |      |           |
|          |     |     | . | ** | . |           |      |           |
|          |     |     | e |    | e |           |      |           |
|          |     |     | . |    | . |           |      |           |
|          |     |     | * |    | * |           |      |           |
|          |     |     | * |    | * |           |      |           |
+----------+-----+-----+---+----+---+-----------+------+-----------+
| *        |     |     |   |    |   |           |      |           |
| *114002- |     |     |   |    |   |           |      |           |
| Me       |     |     |   |    |   |           |      |           |
| fluidide |     |     |   |    |   |           |      |           |
| Dietha   |     |     |   |    |   |           |      |           |
| nolamine |     |     |   |    |   |           |      |           |
| salt**   |     |     |   |    |   |           |      |           |
+----------+-----+-----+---+----+---+-----------+------+-----------+
| ***      | **  | 0   |   | [0 |   | Shoot     | 4    | ####  Sup |
| Monocot* | 29. | .14 |   | .0 |   | fresh     | 3549 | plemental |
| -S       | 5** |     |   | 6] |   | weight    | 6-01 |           |
| orghum** |     |     |   | {. |   |           |      |           |
|          |     |     |   | un |   |           |      |           |
|          |     |     |   | de |   |           |      |           |
|          |     |     |   | rl |   |           |      |           |
|          |     |     |   | in |   |           |      |           |
|          |     |     |   | e} |   |           |      |           |
+----------+-----+-----+---+----+---+-----------+------+-----------+
| ***      | **  | 0.0 |   | 0. |   | ###       |      |           |
| Dicot* - | 29. | 073 |   | 00 |   | Shoot fre |      |           |
| M        | 5** |     |   | 39 |   | sh weight |      |           |
| ustard** |     |     |   |    |   |           |      |           |
+----------+-----+-----+---+----+---+-----------+------+-----------+

1 Seedling emergence studies were not available for Mefluidide
formulations

**[Calculations for Estimated Endpoints]{.underline}**

Seedling emergence toxicity data was not available and data was not
available from other anilide analogs to derive EC~25~ values. To
estimate possible effects measurement endpoints for seedling emergence,
EFED assumed that EC~25~ toxicity values for vegetative vigor are equal
to seedling emergence measurement endpoints for Mefluidide,
Mefluidide-DEA and Mefluidide-K. Therefore, the most sensitive seedling
emergence EC~25~ estimated values are 0.105 and 0.0054 lb ae/acre for
monocots and dicots, respectively. The NOEC estimated values for
seedling emergence are 0.045 and 0.0029 lb ae/acre for monocots and
dicots, respectively. These values are used to calculate risk quotients
for exposure from combined runoff and spray drift to adjacent fields.

There are insufficient data to establish a definitive toxicity endpoint
for freshwater fish chronic effects for the acid and DEA salt acid
equivalents for mefluidide.  To estimate a potential chronic freshwater
fish endpoint for mefluidide the relationship between established acute
and chronic endpoints for mefluidide and propanil were considered (see
source data in Appendix E). A ratio was determined between the 96h acute
freshwater fish endpoints and the chronic freshwater fish endpoints used
for RQ calculation for mefluidide (\>68.47 mg/L acute freshwater fish)
and propanil (2.3mg /L/0.009 mg /L = 256 mg/L).  The largest ratio
between acute endpoint and chronic endpoint was applied to the
Mefluidide acute freshwater fish value to derive an estimated chronic
endpoint of 0.267 mg/L (\>68.47mg/L/256 = \>0.267 mg/L).

There are insufficient data to establish a definitive toxicity endpoint
for freshwater invertebrate chronic effects for the acid and DEA salt
acid equivalents for mefluidide.  To estimate a potential chronic
freshwater fish endpoint for mefluidide the relationship between
established acute and chronic endpoints for mefluidide and propanil were
considered (see source data in Appendix E). A ratio was determined
between the 48 h acute freshwater invertebrate endpoints and the chronic
freshwater invertebrate endpoints used for RQ calculation for mefluidide
(\>77.25 mg/L acute freshwater invertebrate) and propanil (1.2mg /L
acute freshwater invertebrate/0.086 mg /L chronic freshwater
invertebrate = 13.95).  The largest ratio between acute endpoint and
chronic endpoint was applied to the Mefluidide acute freshwater fish
value to derive an estimated chronic endpoint of 5.54 mg/L (\>77.25
mg/L/13.95= \>5.54 mg/L).

There are insufficient data to establish a definitive toxicity endpoint
for estuarine/marine fish and invertebrate chronic effects for the acid
and DEA salt acid equivalents for mefluidide. There is also little
available data to compare to other anilide herbicides for this taxonomic
group   For the purposes of this risk assessment, it was assumed that
estuarine marine fish and invertebrates were at least as sensitive as
freshwater fish and invertebrates in terms of chronic toxicity.
 Therefore, the estimated endpoint for freshwater invertebrates (\>5.54
mg/L) was used to estimate a chronic effects endpoint for
estuarine/marine invertebrates and \>0.267 mg/L was used to estimate
chronic effect endpoint for estuarine marine fish.

There are insufficient data to establish a definitive toxicity endpoint
for a NOAEC or EC05 value for vascular plant effects for the acid and
DEA salt acid equivalents for mefluidide.  To estimate a potential EC05
endpoint for mefluidide the relationship between established acute and
EC05 endpoints for mefluidide and propanil were considered (see source
data in Table 1 Appendix E). Comparisons were made between the acute
mefluidide endpoint and the propanil EC05 endpoint for vascular plant RQ
calculation for mefluidide (\>0.515 mg/L acute vascular plant) and
propanil (0.11mg /L acute vascular plant/0.0063 mg /L EC05 vascular
plant= 17.46).  The largest ratio between acute endpoint and EC~05~ was
applied to the Mefluidide acute vascular plant value to derive an
estimated EC05 endpoint of \>0.029 mg/L (\>5.15 mg/L/17.46= \>0.029
mg/L).

There are insufficient data to establish a definitive toxicity endpoint
for a chronic (NOAEC) value for bird effects for the acid and DEA salt
acid equivalents for mefluidide.  To estimate a potential chronic
endpoint for mefluidide the relationship between established acute and
chronic endpoints for mefluidide mammals were considered (see source
data in Appendix E). Chronic NOAEC values for the most sensitive mammal
(mouse) were not available. Therefore, to derive a chronic value for the
mouse the acute mefluidide endpoint and the chronic mefluidide endpoint
from rat toxicity endpointswere used to derive a chronic mouse value for
mefluidide (829.8 mg ae/kg acute mouse) and mefluidide (\>4000mg ae /kg
acute (rat)/102 mg ae /kg chronic (rat)) = 39.2). The largest ratio
between acute endpoint and chronic endpoint was applied to the
mefluidide acute mouse value to derive an estimated chronic mouse
endpoint of NOAEC\>21 mg ae/kg bw (829.8 mg ae/kg bw /39.2= NOAEC \>21mg
ae/kg bw (mouse)). The acute mefluidide endpoint for bird and the acute
and chronic endpoints for the mouse were used to derive a ratio for the
chronic bird RQ calculation for mefluidide (\>1500 mg ae/kg acute bird)
and mefluidide (829.8 mg ae /kg acute (mouse)/ \>21mg ae /kg chronic
(mouse) = 39.5). The largest ratio between acute endpoint and chronic
endpoint was applied to the mefluidide acute bird value to derive an
estimated chronic endpoint of NOAEC 38 mg ae/kg bw (\>1500mg/L/39.5=
NOAEC 38 mg ae/kg bw).

**[Calculations for Estimated Endpoints]{.underline}**

+---------+----------------+--------------+----------------+---------+
| **Table |                |              |                |         |
| #1      |                |              |                |         |
| [       |                |              |                |         |
| Summary |                |              |                |         |
| of      |                |              |                |         |
| Calcu   |                |              |                |         |
| lations |                |              |                |         |
| for     |                |              |                |         |
| Es      |                |              |                |         |
| timated |                |              |                |         |
| End     |                |              |                |         |
| points] |                |              |                |         |
| {.under |                |              |                |         |
| line}** |                |              |                |         |
+---------+----------------+--------------+----------------+---------+
| **E     | *              | **A          | **Acute        | **Es    |
| NDPOINT | *Acute/Chronic | cute/Chronic | Endpoint       | timated |
| DESIRED | mefluidide     | Propanil     | Mef            | End     |
| For     | =ratio**       | =ratio**     | luidide/ratio= | point** |
| Meflu   |                |              | endpoint**     |         |
| idide** |                |              |                |         |
+---------+----------------+--------------+----------------+---------+
| Chronic |                | 2            | \>68.          |         |
| Fish    |                | .3/0.009=256 | 47/256=\>0.267 |         |
+---------+----------------+--------------+----------------+---------+
| Chronic |                | 1.2          | \>77.2         |         |
| Inver   |                | /0.086=13.95 | 5/13.95=\>5.54 |         |
| tebrate |                |              |                |         |
+---------+----------------+--------------+----------------+---------+
| Chronic | \>4000         |              | \>1500/39.5=38 |         |
| Bird    | mefluidide rat |              |                |         |
| (used   | /102mefuidide  |              |                |         |
| mammal  | rat =39.2      |              |                |         |
| rat and |                |              |                |         |
| mouse   | (829.8 mg      |              |                |         |
| toxdata | ae/kg bw       |              |                |         |
| body    | (mouse) /39.2= |              |                |         |
| weight) | NOAEC \>21mg   |              |                |         |
|         | ae/kg bw       |              |                |         |
|         | (mouse)).      |              |                |         |
|         |                |              |                |         |
|         | 829.8 mg ae    |              |                |         |
|         | /kg acute      |              |                |         |
|         | (mouse)/       |              |                |         |
|         | \>21mg ae /kg  |              |                |         |
|         | chronic        |              |                |         |
|         | (mouse) = 39.5 |              |                |         |
+---------+----------------+--------------+----------------+---------+
| EC05    |                | 0.11/        | \>0.515        |         |
| v       |                | 0.0063=17.46 | /17.46=\>0.029 |         |
| ascular |                |              |                |         |
| plant   |                |              |                |         |
+---------+----------------+--------------+----------------+---------+
| EC05    |                | 0.0          | \>0.62         |         |
| non-v   |                | 16/0.02=0.80 | 9/0.80=\>0.786 |         |
| ascular |                |              |                |         |
| plant   |                |              |                |         |
+---------+----------------+--------------+----------------+---------+
| S       |                |              |                | EC05    |
| eedling |                |              |                | and     |
| em      |                |              |                | EC25    |
| ergence |                |              |                | values  |
| EC05    |                |              |                | are     |
| and     |                |              |                | equal   |
| EC25    |                |              |                | to      |
|         |                |              |                | veg     |
|         |                |              |                | etative |
|         |                |              |                | vigor   |
|         |                |              |                | values  |
+---------+----------------+--------------+----------------+---------+

Due to data gaps for chronic studies for freshwater and estuarine marine
fish and invertebrates and chronic studies for birds EFED reviewed the
analog Propanil to obtain estimated LD50 and LC50 values for Mefluidide
from acute to chronic ratios

Also for the most sensitive estuarine marine invertebrate Propanil is 2
orders more toxic than Mefluidide and no chronic estuarine marine
studies were available for Propanil.

No chronic studies for birds were submitted for Propanil.

**Tables #2 to #4** summarize endpoints from mefluidide and propanil
considered for estimated values. Bolded values were used in endpoint
selection for acute and chronic ratios.

+-------------+--------+------+-------+------+--------+--------------+
| Table#3     |        |      |       |      |        |              |
| Summary of  |        |      |       |      |        |              |
| Terrestrial |        |      |       |      |        |              |
| Acute and   |        |      |       |      |        |              |
| Chronic     |        |      |       |      |        |              |
| Toxicity    |        |      |       |      |        |              |
| Data used   |        |      |       |      |        |              |
| for Risk    |        |      |       |      |        |              |
| Quotient    |        |      |       |      |        |              |
| Calculation |        |      |       |      |        |              |
| for         |        |      |       |      |        |              |
| Mefluidide  |        |      |       |      |        |              |
| and         |        |      |       |      |        |              |
| Propanil    |        |      |       |      |        |              |
| Application |        |      |       |      |        |              |
| (bolded     |        |      |       |      |        |              |
| values were |        |      |       |      |        |              |
| used in     |        |      |       |      |        |              |
| acute to    |        |      |       |      |        |              |
| chronic     |        |      |       |      |        |              |
| ratios)     |        |      |       |      |        |              |
+-------------+--------+------+-------+------+--------+--------------+
| **Species** | *      |      |       |      | **C    |              |
|             | *Acute |      |       |      | hronic |              |
|             | Toxi   |      |       |      | Toxi   |              |
|             | city** |      |       |      | city** |              |
+-------------+--------+------+-------+------+--------+--------------+
|             | **     | **Pr | **Me  | **Pr | **     | **Propanil** |
|             | Meflui | opan | fluid | opan | Meflui |              |
|             | dide** | il** | ide** | il** | dide** | **NOAEC**    |
|             |        |      |       |      |        |              |
|             | **LD   | **   | **LC~ | **   | **N    |              |
|             | ~50~** | LD~5 | 50~** | LC~5 | OAEC** |              |
|             |        | 0~** |       | 0~** |        |              |
|             | **mg   |      |       |      |        |              |
|             | ae/k   | **mg |       |      |        |              |
|             | g-bw** | ae   |       |      |        |              |
|             |        | /kg- |       |      |        |              |
|             |        | bw** |       |      |        |              |
+-------------+--------+------+-------+------+--------+--------------+
| Laboratory  | **     | 1080 |       |      | *      | 300          |
| rat         | \>4000 |      |       |      | *102** |              |
|             | Rat**  |      |       |      |        |              |
|             |        |      |       |      | Used   |              |
|             | Used   |      |       |      | to     |              |
|             | to     |      |       |      | cal    |              |
|             | cal    |      |       |      | culate |              |
|             | culate |      |       |      | c      |              |
|             | c      |      |       |      | hronic |              |
|             | hronic |      |       |      | bird   |              |
|             | bird   |      |       |      | e      |              |
|             | e      |      |       |      | npoint |              |
|             | npoint |      |       |      |        |              |
+-------------+--------+------+-------+------+--------+--------------+
| Laboratory  | **8    |      |       |      |        |              |
| mouse       | 29.8** |      |       |      |        |              |
|             |        |      |       |      |        |              |
|             | Used   |      |       |      |        |              |
|             | to     |      |       |      |        |              |
|             | cal    |      |       |      |        |              |
|             | culate |      |       |      |        |              |
|             | c      |      |       |      |        |              |
|             | hronic |      |       |      |        |              |
|             | bird   |      |       |      |        |              |
|             | e      |      |       |      |        |              |
|             | npoint |      |       |      |        |              |
+-------------+--------+------+-------+------+--------+--------------+
| Northern    | **\>   |      | \     | 2311 | No     | No studies   |
| Bobwhite    | 1500** |      | >3750 |      | s      | submitted    |
| Quail       |        |      |       |      | tudies |              |
| (*Colinus   | Used   |      |       |      | sub    |              |
| vi          | to     |      |       |      | mitted |              |
| rginianus*) | cal    |      |       |      |        |              |
|             | culate |      |       |      |        |              |
| Limit       | c      |      |       |      |        |              |
| study(Tier  | hronic |      |       |      |        |              |
| l)          | bird   |      |       |      |        |              |
|             | e      |      |       |      |        |              |
|             | npoint |      |       |      |        |              |
+-------------+--------+------+-------+------+--------+--------------+

+-------------+-------+-------+-------+------+-----------+-----------+
| Table#4     |       |       |       |      |           |           |
| Summary of  |       |       |       |      |           |           |
| Acute and   |       |       |       |      |           |           |
| Chronic     |       |       |       |      |           |           |
| Aquatic     |       |       |       |      |           |           |
| Toxicity    |       |       |       |      |           |           |
| Data used   |       |       |       |      |           |           |
| for Risk    |       |       |       |      |           |           |
| Quotient    |       |       |       |      |           |           |
| Calculation |       |       |       |      |           |           |
| for         |       |       |       |      |           |           |
| Mefluidide  |       |       |       |      |           |           |
| and         |       |       |       |      |           |           |
| Propanil    |       |       |       |      |           |           |
| Application |       |       |       |      |           |           |
| (bolded     |       |       |       |      |           |           |
| values were |       |       |       |      |           |           |
| used in     |       |       |       |      |           |           |
| acute to    |       |       |       |      |           |           |
| chronic     |       |       |       |      |           |           |
| ratios)     |       |       |       |      |           |           |
+-------------+-------+-------+-------+------+-----------+-----------+
| **Species** | **    |       |       |      | **Chronic |           |
|             | Acute |       |       |      | T         |           |
|             | Toxic |       |       |      | oxicity** |           |
|             | ity** |       |       |      |           |           |
+-------------+-------+-------+-------+------+-----------+-----------+
|             | **Me  | **Me  | **    | **Pr | **Mef     | **P       |
|             | fluid | fluid | Propa | opan | luidide** | ropanil** |
|             | ide** | ide** | nil** | il** |           |           |
|             |       |       |       |      | **NOAEC / | **NOAEC / |
|             | **    | **    | **    | **4  | LOAEC**   | LOAEC**   |
|             | 96-hr | 48-hr | 96-hr | 8-hr |           |           |
|             | LC~   | EC~   | LC~5  | EC~5 | *         | *         |
|             | 50~** | 50~** | 0~(mg | 0~** | *(mg/L)** | *(mg/L)** |
|             |       |       | ai/L  |      |           |           |
|             | **    | **    | )**   | *    |           |           |
|             | (mg/L | (mg/L |       | *(mg |           |           |
|             | ae)** | ae)** |       | ai/L |           |           |
|             |       |       |       | )**  |           |           |
+-------------+-------+-------+-------+------+-----------+-----------+
| Rainbow     | *     |       | **    |      | No        | No        |
| Trout       | *\>68 |       | 2.3** |      | studies   | studies   |
|             | .47** |       |       |      | submitted | submitted |
| *O          |       |       |       |      |           |           |
| ncorhynchus |       |       |       |      |           |           |
| mykiss*     |       |       |       |      |           |           |
|             |       |       |       |      |           |           |
| Coldwater   |       |       |       |      |           |           |
| species     |       |       |       |      |           |           |
|             |       |       |       |      |           |           |
| Freshwater  |       |       |       |      |           |           |
| fish        |       |       |       |      |           |           |
+-------------+-------+-------+-------+------+-----------+-----------+
| Fathead     |       |       |       |      | No        | **.009**  |
| minnow      |       |       |       |      | studies   |           |
|             |       |       |       |      | submitted |           |
| Freshwater  |       |       |       |      |           |           |
| fish        |       |       |       |      |           |           |
+-------------+-------+-------+-------+------+-----------+-----------+
| Water flea  |       | *     |       | **1  | No        | **.086**  |
|             |       | *\>77 |       | .2** | studies   |           |
| *Daphnia    |       | .25** |       |      | submitted |           |
| magna*      |       |       |       |      |           |           |
|             |       |       |       |      |           |           |
| Freshwater  |       |       |       |      |           |           |
| I           |       |       |       |      |           |           |
| nvertebrate |       |       |       |      |           |           |
+-------------+-------+-------+-------+------+-----------+-----------+
| Sheepshead  | \>    |       | 4.6   |      | No        | No        |
| minnow      | 84.75 |       |       |      | studies   | studies   |
|             |       |       |       |      | submitted | submitted |
| Estuarine   |       |       |       |      |           |           |
| marine fish |       |       |       |      |           |           |
+-------------+-------+-------+-------+------+-----------+-----------+
| Mysid       |       |       |       | .400 | No        | No        |
| shrimp      |       |       |       |      | studies   | studies   |
|             |       |       |       |      | submitted | submitted |
| Estuarine   |       |       |       |      |           |           |
| marine      |       |       |       |      |           |           |
| i           |       |       |       |      |           |           |
| nvertebrate |       |       |       |      |           |           |
+-------------+-------+-------+-------+------+-----------+-----------+
| Eastern     |       | 67    |       |      | No        | No        |
| oyster      |       |       |       |      | studies   | studies   |
|             |       |       |       |      | submitted | submitted |
| Estuarine   |       |       |       |      |           |           |
| marine      |       |       |       |      |           |           |
| I           |       |       |       |      |           |           |
| nvertebrate |       |       |       |      |           |           |
+-------------+-------+-------+-------+------+-----------+-----------+

**[Summary of Endpoints (LC~50~ or EC~50~, mg ae/L) for Aquatic and
Terrestrial Toxicity used in RQ calculations for Mefluidide
^1^]{.underline}**

+--------------------------+--------------+-----------+---------------+---+
| **Summary of endpoints   |              |           |               |   |
| (LC~50~ or EC~50~, mg    |              |           |               |   |
| ae/L) for Aquatic        |              |           |               |   |
| Toxicity used in RQ      |              |           |               |   |
| calculations for         |              |           |               |   |
| Mefluidide ^1^**         |              |           |               |   |
+--------------------------+--------------+-----------+---------------+---+
| **TAXANOMIC GROUP**      | **Acute      | **Chronic | **MRID/**     |   |
|                          | endpoint**   | e         |               |   |
|                          |              | ndpoint** | **Estimated   |   |
|                          |              |           | value**       |   |
+--------------------------+--------------+-----------+---------------+---+
| Acute freshwater fish    | \>68.47\*    |           | MRID          |   |
|                          |              |           |               |   |
|                          | Rainbow      |           | 418937-02     |   |
|                          | Trout        |           |               |   |
+--------------------------+--------------+-----------+---------------+---+
| Chronic freshwater fish  |              | \>0.267   | Estimated     |   |
|                          |              |           | value acute   |   |
|                          |              |           | to chronic    |   |
|                          |              |           | ratio         |   |
+--------------------------+--------------+-----------+---------------+---+
| Acute freshwater inverts | \>77.25\*    |           | MRID          |   |
|                          |              |           |               |   |
|                          | Daphnid      |           | 418937-03     |   |
+--------------------------+--------------+-----------+---------------+---+
| Chronic freshwater       |              | \>5.54    | Estimated     |   |
| inverts                  |              |           | value acute   |   |
|                          |              |           | to chronic    |   |
|                          |              |           | ratio         |   |
+--------------------------+--------------+-----------+---------------+---+
| Acute estuarine/marine   | \>84.75\*    |           | MRID          |   |
| fish                     |              |           |               |   |
|                          | Sheepshead   |           | 425623-03     |   |
|                          | minnow       |           |               |   |
+--------------------------+--------------+-----------+---------------+---+
| Chronic estuarine/marine |              | \>0.267   | Estimated     |   |
| fish                     |              |           | value acute   |   |
|                          |              |           | to chronic    |   |
|                          |              |           | ratio         |   |
+--------------------------+--------------+-----------+---------------+---+
| Acute estuarine/marine   | 67\*         |           | MRID          |   |
| inverts                  |              |           |               |   |
|                          | Eastern      |           | 425624-01     |   |
|                          | oyster       |           |               |   |
+--------------------------+--------------+-----------+---------------+---+
| Chronic estuarine/marine |              | \>5.54    | Estimated     |   |
| inverts                  |              |           | value acute   |   |
|                          |              |           | to chronic    |   |
|                          |              |           | ratio         |   |
+--------------------------+--------------+-----------+---------------+---+

**^1^** For fish and invertebrates data evaluating Potassium Mefluidide,
Diethanolamine Mefluidide and Mefluidide have been bridged for the
runoff risk assessment.

+----------------------+-----------+---------+---+----------------------+
| **Summary of         |           |         |   |                      |
| endpoints (LC~50~ or |           |         |   |                      |
| EC~50~, mg ae/L) for |           |         |   |                      |
| Plant Toxicity used  |           |         |   |                      |
| in RQ calculations   |           |         |   |                      |
| for Mefluidide^1^**  |           |         |   |                      |
+----------------------+-----------+---------+---+----------------------+
| **TAXONOMIC GROUP**  | **Acute   | **EC05  |   |                      |
|                      | e         | and     |   |                      |
|                      | ndpoint** | NOAEC** |   |                      |
+----------------------+-----------+---------+---+----------------------+
| Acute vascular plant | 0.515\*   |         |   | MRID 435266-01       |
|                      |           |         |   |                      |
|                      | Lemna     |         |   | Tier I(8% growth     |
|                      |           |         |   | stimulation)         |
|                      |           |         |   |                      |
|                      |           |         |   | Used this value as   |
|                      |           |         |   | **EC~50~,**          |
+----------------------+-----------+---------+---+----------------------+
| Vascular plant       |           | \>0.29  |   | Estimated value      |
| (EC05)               |           |         |   | acute to chronic     |
|                      |           |         |   | ratio                |
+----------------------+-----------+---------+---+----------------------+
| Acute non-vascular   | 0.629\*   |         |   | MRID 435266-05       |
| plant                |           |         |   |                      |
|                      | Navicula  |         |   | Tier I(11.5% growth  |
|                      |           |         |   | reduction)           |
|                      |           |         |   |                      |
|                      |           |         |   | Used this value as   |
|                      |           |         |   | **EC~50~,**          |
+----------------------+-----------+---------+---+----------------------+
| Non-vascular         |           | \>0.786 |   | Estimated value      |
| plant(EC05)          |           |         |   | acute to chronic     |
|                      |           |         |   | ratio                |
+----------------------+-----------+---------+---+----------------------+
| Terrestrial Plant:   | M         | Mon     |   | MRID 435496-01       |
|                      | onocot:\* | ocot:\* |   |                      |
| Vegetative Vigor     | Sorghum   | Sorghum |   |                      |
|                      |           |         |   |                      |
|                      | EC~25~    | NOAEC   |   |                      |
|                      | 0.105 lb  | 0.045   |   |                      |
|                      | ae/A      | lb ae/A |   |                      |
|                      |           |         |   |                      |
|                      | Dicot:\*  | D       |   |                      |
|                      | Mustard   | icot:\* |   |                      |
|                      | EC~25~    | Mustard |   |                      |
|                      | 0.0054lb  |         |   |                      |
|                      | ae/A      | NOAEC   |   |                      |
|                      |           | 0.0029  |   |                      |
|                      |           | lb ae/A |   |                      |
+----------------------+-----------+---------+---+----------------------+
| Terrestrial Plant:   |           |         |   | N/A                  |
|                      |           |         |   |                      |
| Seedling Emergence   |           |         |   |                      |
+----------------------+-----------+---------+---+----------------------+
| **Summary of         |           |         |   |                      |
| endpoints (LD~50~ mg |           |         |   |                      |
| ae/L) for            |           |         |   |                      |
| Terrestrial Toxicity |           |         |   |                      |
| data used in RQ      |           |         |   |                      |
| calculations for     |           |         |   |                      |
| Mefluidide^1^**      |           |         |   |                      |
+----------------------+-----------+---------+---+----------------------+
| **TAXONOMIC GROUP**  | **Acute   | **      |   |                      |
|                      | e         | Chronic |   |                      |
|                      | ndpoint** | end     |   |                      |
|                      |           | point** |   |                      |
+----------------------+-----------+---------+---+----------------------+
| Acute Avian          | \>1500\*  |         | M |                      |
|                      |           |         | R |                      |
|                      | Bobwhite  |         | I |                      |
|                      | quail     |         | D |                      |
|                      |           |         | 4 |                      |
|                      |           |         | 1 |                      |
|                      |           |         | 6 |                      |
|                      |           |         | 0 |                      |
|                      |           |         | 1 |                      |
|                      |           |         | 9 |                      |
|                      |           |         | - |                      |
|                      |           |         | 0 |                      |
|                      |           |         | 1 |                      |
|                      |           |         |   |                      |
|                      |           |         | U |                      |
|                      |           |         | s |                      |
|                      |           |         | e |                      |
|                      |           |         | d |                      |
|                      |           |         | t |                      |
|                      |           |         | h |                      |
|                      |           |         | i |                      |
|                      |           |         | s |                      |
|                      |           |         | n |                      |
|                      |           |         | o |                      |
|                      |           |         | n |                      |
|                      |           |         | - |                      |
|                      |           |         | d |                      |
|                      |           |         | e |                      |
|                      |           |         | f |                      |
|                      |           |         | i |                      |
|                      |           |         | n |                      |
|                      |           |         | i |                      |
|                      |           |         | t |                      |
|                      |           |         | i |                      |
|                      |           |         | v |                      |
|                      |           |         | e |                      |
|                      |           |         | e |                      |
|                      |           |         | n |                      |
|                      |           |         | d |                      |
|                      |           |         | p |                      |
|                      |           |         | o |                      |
|                      |           |         | i |                      |
|                      |           |         | n |                      |
|                      |           |         | t |                      |
|                      |           |         | a |                      |
|                      |           |         | s |                      |
|                      |           |         | L |                      |
|                      |           |         | D |                      |
|                      |           |         | 5 |                      |
|                      |           |         | 0 |                      |
+----------------------+-----------+---------+---+----------------------+
| Chronic Avian        |           | 38      | E |                      |
|                      |           |         | s |                      |
|                      |           |         | t |                      |
|                      |           |         | i |                      |
|                      |           |         | m |                      |
|                      |           |         | a |                      |
|                      |           |         | t |                      |
|                      |           |         | e |                      |
|                      |           |         | d |                      |
|                      |           |         | v |                      |
|                      |           |         | a |                      |
|                      |           |         | l |                      |
|                      |           |         | u |                      |
|                      |           |         | e |                      |
|                      |           |         | a |                      |
|                      |           |         | c |                      |
|                      |           |         | u |                      |
|                      |           |         | t |                      |
|                      |           |         | e |                      |
|                      |           |         | t |                      |
|                      |           |         | o |                      |
|                      |           |         | c |                      |
|                      |           |         | h |                      |
|                      |           |         | r |                      |
|                      |           |         | o |                      |
|                      |           |         | n |                      |
|                      |           |         | i |                      |
|                      |           |         | c |                      |
|                      |           |         | r |                      |
|                      |           |         | a |                      |
|                      |           |         | t |                      |
|                      |           |         | i |                      |
|                      |           |         | o |                      |
|                      |           |         | b |                      |
|                      |           |         | a |                      |
|                      |           |         | s |                      |
|                      |           |         | e |                      |
|                      |           |         | d |                      |
|                      |           |         | o |                      |
|                      |           |         | n |                      |
|                      |           |         | m |                      |
|                      |           |         | a |                      |
|                      |           |         | m |                      |
|                      |           |         | m |                      |
|                      |           |         | a |                      |
|                      |           |         | l |                      |
|                      |           |         | d |                      |
|                      |           |         | a |                      |
|                      |           |         | t |                      |
|                      |           |         | a |                      |
+----------------------+-----------+---------+---+----------------------+
| Acute mammal         | 829.8\*   |         | M |                      |
|                      |           |         | R |                      |
|                      | mouse     |         | I |                      |
|                      |           |         | D |                      |
|                      |           |         | 0 |                      |
|                      |           |         | 0 |                      |
|                      |           |         | 0 |                      |
|                      |           |         | 4 |                      |
|                      |           |         | 7 |                      |
|                      |           |         | 1 |                      |
|                      |           |         | 1 |                      |
|                      |           |         | 6 |                      |
+----------------------+-----------+---------+---+----------------------+
| Chronic mammal       |           | 102\*   | M |                      |
|                      |           |         | R |                      |
|                      |           | rat     | I |                      |
|                      |           |         | D |                      |
|                      |           |         | 0 |                      |
|                      |           |         | 0 |                      |
|                      |           |         | 0 |                      |
|                      |           |         | 8 |                      |
|                      |           |         | 2 |                      |
|                      |           |         | 7 |                      |
|                      |           |         | 4 |                      |
|                      |           |         | 8 |                      |
+----------------------+-----------+---------+---+----------------------+

^1^For terrestrial plants data evaluating Potassium Mefluidide,
Diethanolamine Mefluidide and Mefluidide have been

bridged for the terrestrial risk assessment.

\*most sensitive species tested

**Summary of Mammal and Avian RQS with both 35 day and 4 day half
lives**

+------+-------+-----+-----+------+--------+--------+-----+-------+
| >    |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
|  **M |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| amma |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| lian |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| > do |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| se-b |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| ased |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| > a  |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| cute |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| > RQ |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| > va |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| lues |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| >    |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
|  for |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| >    |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| prop |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| osed |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| >    |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| uses |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| > of |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| > Me |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| flui |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| dide |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| > K  |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| >    |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
|  and |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| > Me |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| flui |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| dide |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| >    |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
|  DEA |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| > b  |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| ased |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| > on |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| > a  |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| > m  |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| ouse |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| > LD |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| ~50~ |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| > =  |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| > 8  |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| 29.8 |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| > m  |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| g/kg |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| >    |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
|  -bw |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| >    |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
|  and |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| >    |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
|  upp |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| er-b |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| ound |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| > Ke |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| naga |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| > va |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| lues |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| ^1^. |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| > 3  |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| 5day |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| >    |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| half |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| >    |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| life |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| > (A |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| >    |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| 4day |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| >    |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| half |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| >    |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| life |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| >    |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| with |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| > ei |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| ther |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| > 1  |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| >    |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
|  and |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| > 3  |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| >    |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| appl |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| icat |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| ions |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| > =  |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| > 1  |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| >    |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
|  app |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| lica |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| tion |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| > at |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| > 35 |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| > da |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| y)** |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
+======+=======+=====+=====+======+========+========+=====+=======+
| **U  | **A   | **B | **  |      |        |        |     |       |
| se** | pplic | ody | Mam |      |        |        |     |       |
|      | ation | W   | mal |      |        |        |     |       |
|      | Rate  | eig | ian |      |        |        |     |       |
|      | lbs.  | ht, | Ac  |      |        |        |     |       |
|      | a     | g** | ute |      |        |        |     |       |
|      | e/A** |     | R   |      |        |        |     |       |
|      |       |     | isk |      |        |        |     |       |
|      | **(#  |     | Qu  |      |        |        |     |       |
|      | app / |     | oti |      |        |        |     |       |
|      | inte  |     | ent |      |        |        |     |       |
|      | rval, |     | s** |      |        |        |     |       |
|      | da    |     | (up |      |        |        |     |       |
|      | ys)** |     | per |      |        |        |     |       |
|      |       |     | -bo |      |        |        |     |       |
|      |       |     | und |      |        |        |     |       |
|      |       |     | Ken |      |        |        |     |       |
|      |       |     | aga |      |        |        |     |       |
|      |       |     | res |      |        |        |     |       |
|      |       |     | idu |      |        |        |     |       |
|      |       |     | es) |      |        |        |     |       |
+------+-------+-----+-----+------+--------+--------+-----+-------+
|      |       |     | *   | **S  | **Tall | **Tall | **  | *     |
|      |       |     | *Sh | hort | G      | G      | Bro | *Broa |
|      |       |     | ort | Gra  | rass(1 | rass(3 | adl | dleaf |
|      |       |     | G   | ss** | app)** | app)** | eaf | Pl    |
|      |       |     | ras |      |        |        | Pla | ants/ |
|      |       |     | s** | **(3 |        |        | nts | Small |
|      |       |     |     | ap   |        |        | /Sm | Inse  |
|      |       |     | *   | p)** |        |        | all | cts(3 |
|      |       |     | *(1 |      |        |        | I   | a     |
|      |       |     | app |      |        |        | nse | pp)** |
|      |       |     | )** |      |        |        | cts |       |
|      |       |     |     |      |        |        | ((1 |       |
|      |       |     |     |      |        |        | app |       |
|      |       |     |     |      |        |        | )** |       |
+------+-------+-----+-----+------+--------+--------+-----+-------+
| Or   | 1.0   | 15  | 0   | 0.42 | 0.12   | 0.19   | 0   | 0.23  |
| name |       |     | .26 |      |        |        | .14 |       |
| ntal |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| Turf |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
|      |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| (me  |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| flui |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| dide |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| s    |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| alts |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| o    |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| nly) |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
|      |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| Gr   |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| ound |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| s    |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| pray |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
+------+-------+-----+-----+------+--------+--------+-----+-------+
|      |       | 35  | 0   | 0.36 | 0.10   | 0.16   | 0   | 0.20  |
|      |       |     | .22 |      |        |        | .12 |       |
+------+-------+-----+-----+------+--------+--------+-----+-------+
|      |       | 1   | 0   | 0.19 | 0.05   | 0.09   | 0   | 0.11  |
|      |       | 000 | .12 |      |        |        | .07 |       |
+------+-------+-----+-----+------+--------+--------+-----+-------+

^1^ For mammal toxicity assessments, data evaluating Potassium
Mefluidide, Diethanolamine Mefluidide and Mefluidide toxicity have been
bridged because toxicity is expected to come from the benzene ring of
mefluidide. Therefore, the most sensitive Mefluidide endpoint was
selected to represent mammals for all application scenarios.

+-------+---------+-----+------+-------+----+----+----------+-------+
| *     |         |     |      |       |    |    |          |       |
| *Mamm |         |     |      |       |    |    |          |       |
| alian |         |     |      |       |    |    |          |       |
| dose- |         |     |      |       |    |    |          |       |
| based |         |     |      |       |    |    |          |       |
| ch    |         |     |      |       |    |    |          |       |
| ronic |         |     |      |       |    |    |          |       |
| RQ    |         |     |      |       |    |    |          |       |
| v     |         |     |      |       |    |    |          |       |
| alues |         |     |      |       |    |    |          |       |
| for   |         |     |      |       |    |    |          |       |
| pro   |         |     |      |       |    |    |          |       |
| posed |         |     |      |       |    |    |          |       |
| uses  |         |     |      |       |    |    |          |       |
| of    |         |     |      |       |    |    |          |       |
| M     |         |     |      |       |    |    |          |       |
| eflui |         |     |      |       |    |    |          |       |
| dideK |         |     |      |       |    |    |          |       |
| and   |         |     |      |       |    |    |          |       |
| Meflu |         |     |      |       |    |    |          |       |
| idide |         |     |      |       |    |    |          |       |
| DEA   |         |     |      |       |    |    |          |       |
| based |         |     |      |       |    |    |          |       |
| based |         |     |      |       |    |    |          |       |
| on a  |         |     |      |       |    |    |          |       |
| rat   |         |     |      |       |    |    |          |       |
| re    |         |     |      |       |    |    |          |       |
| produ |         |     |      |       |    |    |          |       |
| ctive |         |     |      |       |    |    |          |       |
| NOAEC |         |     |      |       |    |    |          |       |
| of    |         |     |      |       |    |    |          |       |
| 102   |         |     |      |       |    |    |          |       |
| mg    |         |     |      |       |    |    |          |       |
| ae    |         |     |      |       |    |    |          |       |
| /kg-b |         |     |      |       |    |    |          |       |
| w/day |         |     |      |       |    |    |          |       |
| and   |         |     |      |       |    |    |          |       |
| u     |         |     |      |       |    |    |          |       |
| pper- |         |     |      |       |    |    |          |       |
| bound |         |     |      |       |    |    |          |       |
| K     |         |     |      |       |    |    |          |       |
| enaga |         |     |      |       |    |    |          |       |
| r     |         |     |      |       |    |    |          |       |
| esidu |         |     |      |       |    |    |          |       |
| es^1^ |         |     |      |       |    |    |          |       |
| based |         |     |      |       |    |    |          |       |
| on a  |         |     |      |       |    |    |          |       |
| 35day |         |     |      |       |    |    |          |       |
| half  |         |     |      |       |    |    |          |       |
| life  |         |     |      |       |    |    |          |       |
| (4day |         |     |      |       |    |    |          |       |
| half  |         |     |      |       |    |    |          |       |
| life  |         |     |      |       |    |    |          |       |
| with  |         |     |      |       |    |    |          |       |
| 1 and |         |     |      |       |    |    |          |       |
| 3     |         |     |      |       |    |    |          |       |
| a     |         |     |      |       |    |    |          |       |
| pplic |         |     |      |       |    |    |          |       |
| ation |         |     |      |       |    |    |          |       |
| ra    |         |     |      |       |    |    |          |       |
| tes)= |         |     |      |       |    |    |          |       |
| 1     |         |     |      |       |    |    |          |       |
| a     |         |     |      |       |    |    |          |       |
| pplic |         |     |      |       |    |    |          |       |
| ation |         |     |      |       |    |    |          |       |
| 35    |         |     |      |       |    |    |          |       |
| d     |         |     |      |       |    |    |          |       |
| ay)** |         |     |      |       |    |    |          |       |
+=======+=========+=====+======+=======+====+====+==========+=======+
| **    | **Appl  | **B | **M  |       |    |    |          |       |
| Use** | ication | ody | amma |       |    |    |          |       |
|       | Rate    | W   | lian |       |    |    |          |       |
|       | lbs.    | eig | A    |       |    |    |          |       |
|       | ae/A**  | ht, | cute |       |    |    |          |       |
|       |         | g** | Risk |       |    |    |          |       |
|       | **(#    |     | Quo  |       |    |    |          |       |
|       | app /   |     | tien |       |    |    |          |       |
|       | in      |     | ts** |       |    |    |          |       |
|       | terval, |     | (upp |       |    |    |          |       |
|       | days)** |     | er-b |       |    |    |          |       |
|       |         |     | ound |       |    |    |          |       |
|       |         |     | Ke   |       |    |    |          |       |
|       |         |     | naga |       |    |    |          |       |
|       |         |     | r    |       |    |    |          |       |
|       |         |     | esid |       |    |    |          |       |
|       |         |     | ues) |       |    |    |          |       |
+-------+---------+-----+------+-------+----+----+----------+-------+
|       |         |     | **S  | **    | ** | ** | **B      | *     |
|       |         |     | hort | Short | Ta | Ta | roadleaf | *Broa |
|       |         |     | Gra  | Gr    | ll | ll | Plan     | dleaf |
|       |         |     | ss** | ass** | g  | g  | ts/Small | Pl    |
|       |         |     |      |       | ra | ra | Insects  | ants/ |
|       |         |     | **   | **(3  | ss | ss | (1app)** | Small |
|       |         |     | (1ap | a     | (1 | (3 |          | Inse  |
|       |         |     | p)** | pp)** | ap | ap |          | cts(3 |
|       |         |     |      |       | p) | p) |          | a     |
|       |         |     |      |       | ** | ** |          | pp)** |
+-------+---------+-----+------+-------+----+----+----------+-------+
| Ornam | 1.0     | 15  | 1.02 | 1.66  | 0. | 0. | 0.57     | 0.93  |
| ental |         |     |      |       | 47 | 76 |          |       |
| Turf  | 3 per   |     |      |       |    |    |          |       |
|       | season  |     |      |       |    |    |          |       |
| (     |         |     |      |       |    |    |          |       |
| meflu | 42      |     |      |       |    |    |          |       |
| idide |         |     |      |       |    |    |          |       |
| salts | day     |     |      |       |    |    |          |       |
| only) | i       |     |      |       |    |    |          |       |
|       | nterval |     |      |       |    |    |          |       |
| G     |         |     |      |       |    |    |          |       |
| round |         |     |      |       |    |    |          |       |
| spray |         |     |      |       |    |    |          |       |
+-------+---------+-----+------+-------+----+----+----------+-------+
|       |         | 35  | 0.87 | 1.42  | 0. | 0. | 0.49     | 0.80  |
|       |         |     |      |       | 40 | 65 |          |       |
+-------+---------+-----+------+-------+----+----+----------+-------+
|       |         | 1   | 0.47 | 0.76  | 0. | 0. | 0.26     | 0.43  |
|       |         | 000 |      |       | 21 | 35 |          |       |
+-------+---------+-----+------+-------+----+----+----------+-------+
|       |         |     |      |       |    |    |          |       |
+-------+---------+-----+------+-------+----+----+----------+-------+
|       |         |     |      |       |    |    |          |       |
+-------+---------+-----+------+-------+----+----+----------+-------+

^1^ For mammal toxicity assessments, data evaluating Potassium
Mefluidide, Diethanolamine Mefluidide and Mefluidide toxicity have been
bridged because toxicity is expected to come from the benzene ring of
mefluidide. Therefore, the most sensitive Mefluidide endpoint was
selected to represent mammals for all application scenarios.

+------+-------+-----+-----+------+--------+--------+-----+-------+
| **A  |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| vian |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| do   |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| se-b |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| ased |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| a    |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| cute |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| RQ   |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| va   |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| lues |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| for  |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| prop |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| osed |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| uses |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| of   |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| Mef  |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| luid |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| ideK |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| and  |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| Me   |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| flui |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| dide |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| DEA  |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| b    |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| ased |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| on a |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| bobw |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| hite |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| q    |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| uail |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| LD   |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| ~50~ |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| \>   |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| 1500 |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| m    |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| g/kg |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| -bw  |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| and  |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| upp  |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| er-b |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| ound |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| Ke   |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| naga |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| va   |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| lues |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| ^1^. |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| 3    |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| 5day |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| half |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| life |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| (    |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| 4day |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| half |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| life |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| with |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| 1    |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| and  |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| 3    |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| app  |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| lica |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| tion |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| rat  |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| es)= |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| same |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| as 1 |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| app  |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| lica |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| tion |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| 35   |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| da   |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| y)** |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
+======+=======+=====+=====+======+========+========+=====+=======+
| **U  | **A   | **B | *   |      |        |        |     |       |
| se** | pplic | ody | *Av |      |        |        |     |       |
|      | ation | W   | ian |      |        |        |     |       |
|      | Rate  | eig | Ac  |      |        |        |     |       |
|      | lbs.  | ht, | ute |      |        |        |     |       |
|      | a     | g** | R   |      |        |        |     |       |
|      | e/A** |     | isk |      |        |        |     |       |
|      |       |     | Qu  |      |        |        |     |       |
|      | **(#  |     | oti |      |        |        |     |       |
|      | app / |     | ent |      |        |        |     |       |
|      | inte  |     | s** |      |        |        |     |       |
|      | rval, |     | (up |      |        |        |     |       |
|      | da    |     | per |      |        |        |     |       |
|      | ys)** |     | -bo |      |        |        |     |       |
|      |       |     | und |      |        |        |     |       |
|      |       |     | Ken |      |        |        |     |       |
|      |       |     | aga |      |        |        |     |       |
|      |       |     | res |      |        |        |     |       |
|      |       |     | idu |      |        |        |     |       |
|      |       |     | es) |      |        |        |     |       |
+------+-------+-----+-----+------+--------+--------+-----+-------+
|      |       |     | *   | **S  | **Tall | **Tall | **  | *     |
|      |       |     | *Sh | hort | G      | G      | Bro | *Broa |
|      |       |     | ort | Gra  | rass(1 | rass(3 | adl | dleaf |
|      |       |     | G   | ss** | app)** | app)** | eaf | Pl    |
|      |       |     | ras |      |        |        | Pla | ants/ |
|      |       |     | s** | **(3 |        |        | nts | Small |
|      |       |     |     | ap   |        |        | /Sm | Inse  |
|      |       |     | *   | p)** |        |        | all | cts(3 |
|      |       |     | *(1 |      |        |        | I   | a     |
|      |       |     | app |      |        |        | nse | pp)** |
|      |       |     | )** |      |        |        | cts |       |
|      |       |     |     |      |        |        | ((1 |       |
|      |       |     |     |      |        |        | app |       |
|      |       |     |     |      |        |        | )** |       |
+------+-------+-----+-----+------+--------+--------+-----+-------+
| Or   | 1.0   | 20  | 0   | 0.41 | 0.12   | 0.19   | 0   | 0.23  |
| name |       |     | .25 |      |        |        | .14 |       |
| ntal |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| Turf |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
|      |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| (me  |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| flui |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| dide |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| s    |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| alts |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| o    |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| nly) |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
|      |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| Gr   |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| ound |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| s    |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
| pray |       |     |     |      |        |        |     |       |
+------+-------+-----+-----+------+--------+--------+-----+-------+
|      |       | 100 | 0   | 0.18 | 0.05   | 0.08   | 0   | 0.10  |
|      |       |     | .11 |      |        |        | .06 |       |
+------+-------+-----+-----+------+--------+--------+-----+-------+
|      |       | 1   | 0   | 0.06 | 0.02   | 0.03   | 0   | 0.03  |
|      |       | 000 | .04 |      |        |        | .02 |       |
+------+-------+-----+-----+------+--------+--------+-----+-------+

^1^ For mammal toxicity assessments, data evaluating Potassium
Mefluidide, Diethanolamine Mefluidide and Mefluidide toxicity have been
bridged because toxicity is expected to come from the benzene ring of
mefluidide. Therefore, the most sensitive Mefluidide endpoint was
selected to represent mammals for all application scenarios.

**Appendix F Guideline Sequence Bibliographies for Ecological Effects**

**PC 14001\--Mefluidide**

Guideline: 71-1 Avian Single Dose Oral Toxicity

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

MRID: 41602101

Culotta, J.; Campbell, S.; Hoxter, K.; et al. (1990) Mefluidide: An
Acute Oral Toxicity Study with the Northern Bobwhite: Wildlife Int.
Project No. 281-106. Unpublished study prepared by Wild- life
International Ltd. 17 p.

Guideline: 71-2 Avian Dietary Toxicity

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

MRID: 41602102

Foster, J.; Driscoll, C.; Hoxter, K.; et al. (1990) Mefluidide: A
Dietary LC50 Study with the Northern Bobwhite: Lab Project Number:
281-104. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife Inter- national Ltd. 17
p.

MRID: 41602103

Foster, J.; Driscoll, C.; Hoxter, K.; et al. (1990) Mefluidide: A
Dietary LC50 Study with the Mallard: Lab Project No: 281-105.
Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International Ltd. 19 p.

Guideline: 72-3 Acute Toxicity to Estuarine/Marine Organisms

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

MRID 425624-01

Graves, W.C. and J.P. Swigert. (1992) Technical Mefluidide: A 96-Hour
shell deposition Test with Eastern Oyster Project No. 281A-121 Prepared
by Wildlife International Ltd

MRID 425624-02

Graves, W.C. and J.P. Swigert. (1992) Technical Mefluidide: A 96-Hour
flow through acute toxicity test with the salt water mysid. Project No.
281A-122a Prepared by Wildlife International Ltd

**PC 114002---Mefluidide-DEA**

Guideline: 71-1 Avian Single Dose Oral Toxicity

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

MRID: 41601901

Culotta, J.; Campbell, S.; Smith, G. (1990) Diethanolamine Salt of
Mefluidide: An Acute Oral Toxicity Study with the Northern Bob- white:
Lab Project Number: 281-103. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife
International Ltd. 17 p.

Guideline: 71-2 Avian Dietary Toxicity

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

MRID: 41601902

Foster, J.; Driscoll, C.; Hoxter, K.; et al. (1990) Diethanolamine Salt
of Mefluidide: A Dietary LC 50 Study with the Northern Bob- white: Lab
Project Number: 281-101. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife
International Ltd. 17 p.

MRID: 41601903

Foster, J.; Driscoll, C.; Hoxter, K.; et al. (1990) Diethanolamine Salt
of Mefluidide: A Dietary LC50 Study with the Mallard: Lab Project
Number: 281-102. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International
Ltd. 19 p.

Guideline: 72-1 Acute Toxicity to Freshwater Fish

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

MRID: 41893701

Murphy, D.; Peters, G. (1991) Diethanolamine Salt of Mefluidide: A
96-Hour Flow-Through Acute Toxicity Test with the Bluegill (Lep- omis
macrochirus): Final Report: Lab Project Number: 281A-114. Unpublished
study prepared by Wildlife International Ltd. 56 p.

MRID: 41893702

Murphy, D.; Peters, G. (1991) Diethanolamine Salt of Mefluidide: A
96-Hour Flow-Through Acute Toxicity Test with the Rainbow Trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss): Final Report: Lab Project Number: 281A- 1113.
Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International Ltd. 56 p.

Guideline: 72-2 Acute Toxicity to Freshwater Invertebrates

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

MRID: 41893703

Holmes, C.; Peters, G. (1991) Diethanolamine Salt of Mefluidide: A
48-Hour Flow-Through Toxicity Test with the Cladocern (Daphnia magna):
Final Report: Lab Project Number: 281A-109. Unpublished study prepared
by Wildlife International Ltd. 54 p.

Guideline: 72-3 Acute Toxicity to Estuarine/Marine Organisms

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

MRID: 42562301

Graves, W.; Swigert, J. (1992) Diethanolamine Salt of Mefluidide: A
96-hour Shell Deposition Test with the Eastern Oyster (Crassostrea
virginica): Final Report: Lab Project Number: 281A-124A. Unpublished
study prepared by Wildlife International Ltd. 46 p.

MRID: 42562302

Graves, W.; Swigert, J. (1992) Diethanolamine Salt of Mefluidide: A
96-hour Flow-through Acute Toxicity Test with Saltwater Mysid
(Mysidopsis bahia): Final Report: Lab Project Number: 281A-125.
Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International Ltd. 45 p.

MRID: 42562303

Graves, W.; Swigert, J. (1992) Diethanolamine Salt of Mefluidide: A
96-hour Flow-through Acute Toxicity Test with the Sheepshead Minnow
(Cyprinodon variegatus): Final Report: Lab Project Number: 281A-126.
Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International Ltd. 45 p.

Guideline: 122-2 Aquatic plant growth

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

MRID: 43526601

Hughes, J.; Alexander, M.; Conder, L. (1995) The Toxicity of
Diethanolamine (DEA) Salt of Mefluidide to Navicula pelliculosa: Lab
Project Number: 15-01-3. Unpublished study prepared by Carolina Ecotox,
Inc. 58 p.

MRID: 43526602

Hughes, J.; Alexander, M.; Conder, L. (1995) The Toxicity of
Diethanolamine (DEA) Salt of Mefluidide to Skeletonema costatum: Lab
Project Number: 15-01-4. Unpublished study prepared by Carolina Ecotox,
Inc. 60 p.

MRID: 43526603

Hughes, J.; Alexander, M.; Conder, L. (1995) The Toxicity of
Diethanolamine (DEA) Salt of Mefluidide to Selenastrum capricornutum:
Lab Project Number: 15-01-1. Unpublished study prepared by Carolina
Ecotox, Inc. 60 p.

MRID: 43526604

Hughes, J.; Alexander, M.; Conder, L. (1995) The Toxicity of
Diethanolamine (DEA) Salt of Mefluidide to Anabaena flos-aquae: Lab
Project Number: 15-01-2. Unpublished study prepared by Carolina Ecotox,
Inc. 62 p.

MRID: 43526605

Hughes, J.; Alexander, M.; Conder, L. (1995) The Toxicity of
Diethanolamine (DEA) Salt of Mefluidide to Lemna gibba: Lab Project
Number: 15-01-5. Unpublished study prepared by Carolina Ecotox, Inc. 59
p.

Guideline: 123-1 Seed germination/seedling emergence and vegetative
vigor

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

MRID: 43549601

Crosby, K. (1995) Effect of DEA Mefluidide on Vegetative Vigor of
Plants: Lab Project Number: 6272-92-0223-BE-001. Unpublished study
prepared by Ricerca, Inc. 213 p.

Guideline: 141-1 Honey bee acute contact

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

MRID: 42562801

Hoxter, K.; Bernard, W.; Smith, G. (1992) An Acute Contact Toxicity
Study with the Honey Bee: Diethanolamine Salt of Mefluidide: Final
Report: Lab Project Number: 281-111A. Unpublished study prepared by
Wildlife Int\'l Ltd. 16 p.

**PC 114003 Mefluidide-K**

Guideline: 141-1 Honey bee acute contact

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

MRID: 42562802

Hoxter, K.; Bernard, W.; Smith, G. (1992) An Acute Contact Toxicity
Study with the Honey Bee: Potassium Salt of Mefluidide: Final Report:
Lab Project Number: 281-112A. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife
Int\'l Ltd. 16 p.

**Appendix G: The Risk Quotient Method and Levels of Concern**

Number range CHAPTERThe Risk Quotient Method is the means used by EFED
to integrate the results of exposure and ecotoxicity data. For this
method, risk quotients (RQs) are calculated by dividing exposure
estimates by ecotoxicity values (i.e., RQ = EXPOSURE/TOXICITY), both
acute and chronic. These RQs are then compared to OPP\'s levels of
concern (LOCs). These LOCs are criteria used by OPP to indicate
potential risk to non-target organisms and the need to consider
regulatory action. EFED has defined LOCs for acute risk, potential
restricted use classification, and for endangered species.

The criteria indicate that a pesticide used as directed has the
potential to cause adverse effects on nontarget organisms. LOCs
currently address the following risk presumption categories:

\(1\) acute - there is a potential for acute risk; regulatory action may
be warranted in addition to restricted use classification;

\(2\) acute restricted use - the potential for acute risk is high, but
this may be mitigated through restricted use classification

\(3\) acute endangered species - the potential for acute risk to
endangered species is high, regulatory action may be warranted, and

\(4\) chronic risk - the potential for chronic risk is high, regulatory
action may be warranted.

Currently, EFED does not perform assessments for chronic risk to plants,
acute or chronic risks to non-target insects, or chronic risk from
granular/bait formulations to mammalian or avian species.

The ecotoxicity test values (i.e., measurement endpoints) used in the
acute and chronic risk quotients are derived from required studies.
Examples of ecotoxicity values derived from short-term laboratory
studies that assess acute effects are: (1) LC~50~ (fish and birds), (2)
LD~50~ (birds and mammals), (3) EC~50~ (aquatic plants and aquatic
invertebrates), and (4) EC~25~ (terrestrial plants). Examples of
toxicity test effect levels derived from the results of long-term
laboratory studies that assess chronic effects are: (1) LOAEL (birds,
fish, and aquatic invertebrates), and (2) NOAEL (birds, fish and aquatic
invertebrates). The NOAEL is generally used as the ecotoxicity test
value in assessing chronic effects.

Risk presumptions, along with the corresponding RQs and LOCs are
summarized in Table E.

  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  **Table F: Risk                                                              
  Presumptions                                                                 
  and LOCs**                                                                   
  --------------- --------------------- -------------------------------------- ---------
  **Risk                                **RQ**                                 **LOC**
  Presumption**                                                                

  Birds^1^                                                                     

                  Acute Risk            EEC/LC~50~ or LD~50~/sqft or           0.5
                                        LD~50~/day                             

                  Acute Restricted Use  EEC/LC~50~ or LD~50~/sqft or           0.2
                                        LD~50~/day (or LD~50~ \< 50 mg/kg)     

                  Acute Endangered      EEC/LC~50~ or LD~50~/sqft or           0.1
                  Species               LD~50~/day                             

                  Chronic Risk          EEC/NOAEC                              1

  Wild Mammals^1^                                                              

                  Acute Risk            EEC/LC~50~ or LD~50~/sqft or           0.5
                                        LD~50~/day                             

                  Acute Restricted Use  EEC/LC~50~ or LD~50~/sqft or           0.2
                                        LD~50~/day (or LD~50~ \< 50 mg/kg)     

                  Acute Endangered      EEC/LC~50~ or LD~50~/sqft or           0.1
                  Species               LD~50~/day                             

                  Chronic Risk          EEC/NOAEC                              1

  Aquatic                                                                      
  Animals^2^                                                                   

                  Acute Risk            EEC/LC~50~ or EC~50~                   0.5

                  Acute Restricted Use  EEC/LC~50~ or EC~50~                   0.1

                  Acute Endangered      EEC/LC~50~ or EC~50~                   0.05
                  Species                                                      

                  Chronic Risk          EEC/NOAEC                              1

  Terrestrial and                                                              
  Semi-Aquatic                                                                 
  Plants                                                                       

                  Acute Risk            EEC/EC~25~                             1

                  Acute Endangered      EEC/EC~05~ or NOAEC                    1
                  Species                                                      

  Aquatic                                                                      
  Plants^2^                                                                    

                  Acute Risk            EEC/EC~50~                             1

                  Acute Endangered      EEC/EC~05~ or NOAEC                    1
                  Species                                                      
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

^1^ LD~50~/sqft = (mg/sqft) / (LD~50~ \* wt. of animal)

LD~50~/day = (mg of toxicant consumed/day) / (LD~50~ \* wt. of animal)

1.  EEC = (ppb or ug/L) in water

**Appendix H ECOTOX Results**

**MEFLUIDIDE**

**Papers that were accepted for ECOTOX**

**Acceptable for ECOTOX and OPP**

Agnello, A. M., Bradley, J. R. Jr., and Van Duyn, J. W. (1986).
Plant-Mediated Effects of Postemergence Herbicides on Epilachna
varivestis (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae). *Environ.Entomol.* 15: 216-220.

EcoReference No.: 71019\
Chemical of Concern: MFD,FZFB,SXD; [Habitat]{.underline}: T; [Effect
Codes]{.underline}: REP,GRO,BEH,ENV; [Rejection Code]{.underline}: LITE
EVAL CODED(SXD,MFD),OK(ALL CHEMS).

Griffin, J. L. and Harger, T. J. (1990). Red Rice (Oryza sativa) Control
Options in Soybeans (Glycine max). *Weed Technol.* 4 : 35-38.

EcoReference No.: 74045\
User Define 2: WASH\
Chemical of Concern: MTL,BT,FZFP,ACR,SXD,HFP,MFD,FZF,QZF;
[Habitat]{.underline}: T; [Effect Codes]{.underline}: POP; [Rejection
Code]{.underline}: NO CONTROL,TARGET(SXD).

Kwon, S. L., Smith, R. J. Jr., and Talbert, R. E. (1991). Red Rice
(Oryza sativa) Control and Suppression in Rice (O. sativa). *Weed
Technol.* 5: 811-816.

EcoReference No.: 74741\
Chemical of Concern: MLT,FNP,AMC,SXD,MFD; [Habitat]{.underline}: A;
[Effect Codes]{.underline}: PHY,POP; [Rejection Code]{.underline}: LITE
EVAL CODED(MFD),OK(ALL CHEMS).

Marini, R. P., Byers, R. E., and Sowers, D. L. (1989). Growth Regulators
and Herbicides for Delaying Apple Fruit Abscission. *Hortscience* 24:
957-959.

EcoReference No.: 76104\
Chemical of Concern: BZO,TPR,DMB,PBZ,DMZ,FXP,PDM,MFD;
[Habitat]{.underline}: T; [Effect Codes]{.underline}: GRO; [Rejection
Code]{.underline}: OK(FXP,DMZ,PBZ),OK TARGET(DMB),NO
ENDPOINT(MFD,PDM,BZO,TPR).

Potter, D. A., Spicer, P. G., Redmond, C. T., and Powell, A. J. (1994).
Toxicity of Pesticides to Earthworms in Kentucky Bluegrass Turf.
*Bull.Environ.Contam.Toxicol.* 52: 176-181.

EcoReference No.: 39542\
Chemical of Concern:
24DXY,AZD,BFT,BMY,CPZ,CYF,DTP,EP,FNF,FPD,FSTAl,FVL,MFD,MYC,PRM,TEZ,TPM;
[Habitat]{.underline}: T; [Effect Codes]{.underline}: POP; [Rejection
Code]{.underline}: LITE EVAL CODED(AZD,FVL,BFT,CYF),OK(ALL CHEMS).

Potter, D. A., Spicer, P. G., Redmond, C. T., and Powell, A. J. (1994).
Toxicity of Pesticides to Earthworms in Kentucky Bluegrass Turf.
*Bull.Environ.Contam.Toxicol.* 52: 176-181.

EcoReference No.: 39542\
Chemical of Concern:
24DXY,AZD,BFT,BMY,CPZ,CYF,DTP,EP,FNF,FPD,FSTAl,FVL,MFD,MYC,PRM,TEZ,TPM;
[Habitat]{.underline}: T; [Effect Codes]{.underline}: POP; [Rejection
Code]{.underline}: LITE EVAL CODED(MFD,AZD,FVL,BFT,CYF),OK(ALL CHEMS).

Smith, R. J. Jr. (1989). Cropping and Herbicide Systems for Red Rice
(Oryza sativa) Control. *Weed Technol.* 3: 414-419.

EcoReference No.: 73748\
User Define 2: WASH\
Chemical of Concern: MTL,TFN,PAQT,ACR,BT,MFD\
Endpoint: POP; [Habitat]{.underline}: T; [Rejection Code]{.underline}:
OK.

Storey, G. K. and Gardner, W. A. (1986). Sensitivity of the Entomogenous
Fungus Beauveria bassiana to Selected Plant Growth Regulators and Spray
Additives. *Appl.Environ.Microbiol.* 52: 1-3.

EcoReference No.: 82489\
Chemical of Concern: MFD,PBZ,FPD; [Habitat]{.underline}: T; [Effect
Codes]{.underline}: POP,MOR,REP; [Rejection Code]{.underline}: LITE EVAL
CODED(MFD),OK(ALL CHEMS).

Turner, K. E., Paterson, J. A., Kerley, M. S., and Forwood, J. R.
(1990). Mefluidide Treatment of Tall Fescue Pastures: Intake and Animal
Performance. *J.Anim.Sci.* 68: 3399-3405.

EcoReference No.: 82719\
Chemical of Concern: MFD; [Habitat]{.underline}: T; [Effect
Codes]{.underline}: PHY,BEH,GRO; [Rejection Code]{.underline}: LITE EVAL
CODED(MFD).

Wimer, S. K., Ward, J. K., Anderson, B. E., and Waller, S. S. (1986).
Mefluidide Effects on Smooth Brome Composition and Grazing Cow-Calf
Performance. *J.Anim.Sci.* 63: 1054-1062.

EcoReference No.: 82721\
Chemical of Concern: MFD; [Habitat]{.underline}: T; [Effect
Codes]{.underline}: BCM,POP; [Rejection Code]{.underline}: LITE EVAL
CODED(MFD).

**Acceptable for ECOTOX but not OPP**

Agnello, A. M., Van Duyn, J. W., and Bradley, J. R. Jr. (1986).
Influence of Postemergence Herbicides on Populations of Bean Leaf
Beetle, Cerotoma trifurcata (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) and Corn
Earworm, Heliothis zea (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), in Soybeans.
*J.Econ.Entomol.* 79: 261-265.

EcoReference No.: 72071\
Chemical of Concern: MFD,SXD,FZFB; [Habitat]{.underline}: T; [Effect
Codes]{.underline}: POP; [Rejection Code]{.underline}: NO
MIXTURE(SXD,MFD,FZFB),CONTROL(ACR).

Arnold, C. E., Aldrich, J. H., and Martin, F. G. (1983). Vegetative and
Flowering Response of Peach to Mefluidide. *Act Hortic* 137: 145-152.

EcoReference No.: 44149\
Chemical of Concern: MFD; [Habitat]{.underline}: T; [Effect
Codes]{.underline}: GRO; [Rejection Code]{.underline}: NO ENDPOINT(MFD).

Atkin, J. C. (1984). The Use of Mefluidide to Control Grass Growth in
Amenity Areas. *Asp App Biol* 6: 45-53.

EcoReference No.: 31485\
Chemical of Concern: MFD; [Habitat]{.underline}: T; [Rejection
Code]{.underline}: TARGET(MFD).

Banko, T. J. (1985). Evaluation of Growth Regulator Effects of Embark,
Atrinal, Blazer, and Bayleton on Container-Grown Azaleas .
*J.Environ.Hortic.* 3: 149-152.

EcoReference No.: 31450\
Chemical of Concern: TDF,ACF,DKGNa,MFD; [Habitat]{.underline}: T;
[Effect Codes]{.underline}: GRO; [Rejection Code]{.underline}:
OK(ACF),NO ENDPOINT(TDF,TARGET-DKGNa,MFD).

Belander, G. and Winch, J. E. (1985). Herbicides for Sod-Seeding Legumes
on Shallow Soil Pastures. *Can.J.Plant Sci.* 65: 1049-1055.

EcoReference No.: 44163\
Chemical of Concern: GYP,MFD,FZFB,PAQT; [Habitat]{.underline}: T;
[Effect Codes]{.underline}: POP,BCM; [Rejection Code]{.underline}:
OK(ALL CHEMS),OK TARGET(MFD).

Chappell, W. E., Coartney, J. S., and Link, M. L. (1977). Plant Growth
Regulators for Highway Maintenance. *Proc.South.Weed Sci.Soc.* 30:
300-305.

EcoReference No.: 40596\
Chemical of Concern: MFD,MLH; [Habitat]{.underline}: T; [Effect
Codes]{.underline}: GRO,REP; [Rejection Code]{.underline}: OK(ALL
CHEMS),OK TARGET(MFD).

Elkins, D. M., Vandeventer, J. W., and Briskovich, M. A. (1977). Effect
of Chemical Growth Retardants on Turfgrass Morphology. *Agron J* 69:
458-461.

EcoReference No.: 43015\
Chemical of Concern: MFD,MLH; [Habitat]{.underline}: T; [Effect
Codes]{.underline}: GRO,MOR; [Rejection Code]{.underline}: OK(ALL
CHEMS),OK TARGET(MFD).

Field, R. J. and Whitford, A. R. (1983). Response of Perennial Ryegrass,
Prairie Grass, and Browntop to the Growth Retardant, Mefluidide. *Nz J
Exp Ag* 11: 199-203 .

EcoReference No.: 44162\
Chemical of Concern: MFD; [Habitat]{.underline}: T; [Effect
Codes]{.underline}: BCM,GRO; [Rejection Code]{.underline}: NO
ENDPOINT(ALL CHEMS).

Gerrish, J. R. and Dougherty, C. T. (1983). Tall Fescue Sward Response
to Mefluidide and Nitrogen. *Agron J* 75(6): 895-898.

EcoReference No.: 32345\
Chemical of Concern: MFD; [Habitat]{.underline}: T; [Rejection
Code]{.underline}: TARGET(MFD).

Griffin, J. L. and Harger, T. J. (1990). Red Rice (Oryza sativa) Control
Options in Soybeans (Glycine max). *Weed Technol.* 4 : 35-38.

EcoReference No.: 74045\
Chemical of Concern: MTL,BT,FZFP,ACR,SXD,HFP,MFD,FZF,QZF;
[Habitat]{.underline}: T; [Effect Codes]{.underline}: POP; [Rejection
Code]{.underline}: NO CONTROL(TARGET-SXD,MFD) .

Ivie, G. W. (1980). Fate of the Plant Growth Regulator Mefluidide
\[N-\[2,4-Dimethyl-5-\[\[(trifluoromethyl)sulfonyl\]amino\]phenyl\]acetamide\]
in A Cow and Sheep. *J.Agric.Food Chem.* 28: 1286-1288.

EcoReference No.: 37270\
Chemical of Concern: MFD; [Habitat]{.underline}: T; [Effect
Codes]{.underline}: PHY; [Rejection Code]{.underline}: NO ENDPOINT(MFD).

Marini, R. P., Byers, R. E., and Sowers, D. L. (1989). Growth Regulators
and Herbicides for Delaying Apple Fruit Abscission. *Hortscience* 24:
957-959.

EcoReference No.: 76104\
Chemical of Concern: BZO,TPR,DMB,PBZ,DMZ,FXP,PDM,MFD;
[Habitat]{.underline}: T; [Effect Codes]{.underline}: GRO; [Rejection
Code]{.underline}: OK(FXP,DMZ,PBZ),OK TARGET(DMB),NO
ENDPOINT(MFD,PDM,BZO,TPR).

McWhorter, C. G. and Barrentine, W. L. (1979). Weed Control in Soybeans
(Glycine max) with Mefluidide Applied Postemergence. *Weed Sci.* 27:
42-47.

EcoReference No.: 42763\
Chemical of Concern: GYP,BT,MFD,24DB; [Habitat]{.underline}: T; [Effect
Codes]{.underline}: POP,PHY; [Rejection Code]{.underline}: OK(ALL
CHEMS),OK TARGET(MFD).

McWhorter, C. G. and Wills, G. D. (1978). Factors Affecting the
Translocation of 14C-Mefluidide in Soybeans (Glycine max), Common
Cocklebur (Xanthium pensylvanicum) and Johnson Grass (Sorghum
halapense). *Weed Sci.* 26: 382-388.

EcoReference No.: 29602\
Chemical of Concern: MFD; [Habitat]{.underline}: T; [Rejection
Code]{.underline}: TARGET(MFD).

Parups, E. V. and Cordukes, W. E. (1977). Growth of Turfgrass As
Affected by Atrinal and Embark. *Hortscience* 12: 258-259.

EcoReference No.: 28947\
Chemical of Concern: DKGNa,MFD; [Habitat]{.underline}: T; [Rejection
Code]{.underline}: TARGET(DKGNa,MFD).

Slade, J. J. and Reynolds, J. H. (1985). Plant Growth Regulator Effects
on Forage Quality of Tall Fescue and Bermudagrass. *Tenn.Farm Home Sci.*
134: 19-23.

EcoReference No.: 44106\
Chemical of Concern: EDT,CQTC,EPH,MFD; [Habitat]{.underline}: T; [Effect
Codes]{.underline}: GRO,BCM,POP; [Rejection Code]{.underline}: OK(ALL
CHEMS),OK TARGET(MFD,CQTC).

Smith, R. J. Jr. (1989). Cropping and Herbicide Systems for Red Rice
(Oryza sativa) Control. *Weed Technol.* 3: 414-419.

EcoReference No.: 73748\
Chemical of Concern: MTL,TFN,PAQT,ACR,BT,MFD; [Habitat]{.underline}: A;
[Effect Codes]{.underline}: POP; [Rejection Code]{.underline}:
OK(MTL,TFN,ACR,PAQT),NO MIXTURE(MFD,BT).

Sterrett, J. P. (1979). Injection Methodology for Evaluating Plant
Growth Retardants. *Weed Sci.* 27: 688-690.

EcoReference No.: 44029\
Chemical of Concern: DKGNa,MFD; [Habitat]{.underline}: T; [Effect
Codes]{.underline}: GRO,BCM; [Rejection Code]{.underline}: OK
TARGET(MFD,DKGNa).

Truelove, B., Davis, D. E., and Pillai, C. G. P. (1977). Mefluidide
Effects on Growth of Corn (Zea mays) and the Synthesis of Protein by
Cucumber (Cucumis sativus) Cotyledon Tissue. *Weed Sci.* 25: 360-363.

EcoReference No.: 43005\
Chemical of Concern: MFD; [Habitat]{.underline}: T; [Effect
Codes]{.underline}: POP,GRO,BCM; [Rejection Code]{.underline}: OK
TARGET(MFD).

**MEFLUIDIDE**

**Papers that were excluded from ECOTOX**

2001). Bolster quality efforts by developing effective PI (performance
improvement) infrastructure. *Hospital Peer Review* 26: 45-47.

1996). Four TDR diseases can be \"eliminated\". *TDR News* 1-2.

1992). Pesticide chemicals manufacturing category effluent limitations
guidelines, pretreatment standards, and new source performance
standards. *Federal Register* 57: 12560-601.\
Productivity in the \'90s. The outsourcing source book. *The Journal Of
Business Strategy* 14: 52-56.

Abert, James G. and Vancil, Ronald M. (1977). A graphical approach to
determine the economics of recovering resources from municipal solid
waste. *Conservation & Recycling* 1: 299-300.

Abramov, V V, Mustafin, A G, Iarygin, V N, and Kozlov, V A (1991).
Immunogenesis and axoplasmic transport in Wistar rats. *Biulleten\'
Eksperimental\'Noi Biologii i Meditsiny* 112: 621-623.

Abramson, D (1987). Hadley Regional Medical Center embarks on laundry
savings plan. *Laundry News* 13: 6.

Adamczewsk, A M and Morris, S (2001). Metabolic status and respiratory
physiology of Gecarcoidea natalis, the Christmas Island red crab, during
the annual breeding migration. *The Biological Bulletin* 200: 321-335.

Afanas\'ev, Iu I and Bobova, L P (1976). Histophysiology of the thymus
gland. *Arkhiv Patologii* 38: 3-17.

ALEKSEEVA, M S, ELKIN, V I, and FEDOROV, V K ( COMPARATIVE GENETIC
STUDIES ON THE LABILITY OF THE NERVOUS SYSTEM IN RATS WITH A HIGH DEGREE
OF SENSITIVITY TO SOUND STIMULI AND IN WISTAR RATS. *Zhurnal Vysshei
Nervnoi Deiatelnosti Imeni I P Pavlova* 14: 110-115.

Alikhanidi, Sokratis and Takahashi, Yoshimasa (2004). Pesticide
persistence in the environment - collected data and structure-based
analysis. *Journal of Computer Chemistry, Japan* 3: 59-70.

Amstislavskii, S Ia, Kachanova, I Iu, Markel\', A L, and Iakobson, G S
(1997). Elevated arterial pressure in normotensive Wistar strain rats
after the transplantation of embryos from hypertensive ISIAH strain
rats. Inherited stress-induced arterial hypertension. *Rossiiskii
Fiziologicheskii Zhurnal Imeni I.M. Sechenova / Rossiiskaia Akademiia
Nauk* 83: 47-52.

Amstislavskii, S Ia, Markel\', A L, and Iakobson, G S (1999). Blood
pressure increase in foster mothers in ISIAH and Wistar rats: effect of
reciprocal cross-fostering. *Rossiiskii Fiziologicheskii Zhurnal Imeni
I.M. Sechenova / Rossiiskaia Akademiia Nauk* 85: 1496-1502.

Anderson, A (1988). US embarks on radon testing. *Nature* 335: 285.

Andreeva, Iu A, Kudrin, V S, and Raevskii, K S ( Effect of
17beta-estradiol on haloperidol effects in Wistar rats.
*Eksperimental\'Naia i Klinicheskaia Farmakologiia* 65: 10-13.

Arbel, A, Zenvirth, D, and Simchen, G (1999). Sister chromatid-based DNA
repair is mediated by RAD54, not by DMC1 or TID1. *The EMBO Journal* 18:
2648-2658.

Aristakesian, E A ( The development of the wakefulness-sleep cycle in
ontogeny in Wistar rats and in rats with a genetic predisposition to
catalepsy. *Zhurnal Evoliutsionnoi Biokhimii i Fiziologii* 33: 169-176.

Avetisov, G M, Zharkova, G P, and Zaitseva, R N ( Comparative
radiosentivity of Wistar and non-inbred rat strains when exposed to
nonuniform radiation. *Radiobiologiia* 18: 381-385.

Barami, K, Iversen, K, Furneaux, H, and Goldman, S A (1995). Hu protein
as an early marker of neuronal phenotypic differentiation by
subependymal zone cells of the adult songbird forebrain. *Journal Of
Neurobiology* 28: 82-101.

Barkova, E N, Shatilovich, L N, and Kashuba, E A (1992). Seasonal
characteristics of the circadian rhythm of peripheral blood leukocyte
content in Wistar rats. *Biulleten\' Eksperimental\'Noi Biologii i
Meditsiny* 113: 306-308.

Batuev, A S and Kurzina, N P ( Changes in anxiety level of Wistar rats
under the influence of maximally-diluted solution of a plant alkaloid.
*Zhurnal Vysshei Nervnoi Deiatelnosti Imeni I P Pavlova* 53: 587-590.

Batuev, A S, Riabinskaia, E A, and Ashikhmina, O V ( Training of rats of
the Wistar and Krushinskii-Molodkinaia lines in a radial maze. *Zhurnal
Vysshei Nervnoi Deiatelnosti Imeni I P Pavlova* 33: 819-826.

Baumann, M and Sander, K ( 1984). Bipartite axiation follows incomplete
epiboly in zebrafish embryos treated with chemical teratogens. *The
Journal Of Experimental Zoology* 230: 363-376.

Blum, A. (1983). Genetic and physiological relationships in plant
breeding for drought resistance. *Agricultural Water Management* 7:
195-205..

Bodelier, Paul L. E. and Laanbroek, Hendrikus J. (2004). Nitrogen as a
regulatory factor of methane oxidation in soils and sediments. *FEMS
Microbiology Ecology* 47: 265-277.

Bondarenko, N A, Liliekvist, R, Paasonen, M K, and Val\'dman, A V
(1991). Binding of (3)-imipramine by platelets from spontaneously
hypertensive, normotensive, and Wistar rats and their behavior in
stressful situations. *Biulleten\' Eksperimental\'Noi Biologii i
Meditsiny* 112: 383-385.

Bowling, A, Jacobson, B, and Southgate, L (1993). Explorations in
consultation of the public and health professionals on priority setting
in an inner London health district. *Social Science & Medicine (1982)*
37: 851-857.

Bozhkov, A I, Shereshevskaia, Ts M, Martyniuk, N M, and Shakhbazov, V G
(1980). Some peculiarities of gene expression in inbred and hybrid rats
under normal conditions and after partial hepatectomy. *Biokhimiia
(Moscow, Russia)* 45: 1696-1703.

Bryant, Cullene (2004). The modern mystic: a spirituality for health
care workers. *The Journal Of Pastoral Care & Counseling: JPCC* 58:
319-324.

Bullock, J O (1994). First principles: physical science concepts as a
foundation for advanced studies in physiology. *The American Journal Of
Physiology* 266: S55-S66.

Bush, E. W., Porter, W. C., Shepard, D. P., and McCrimmon, J. N. (1998).
Controlling growth of common carpetgrass using selected plant growth
regulators. *HortScience* 33: 704-706.

Bykova, E V, Legostaev, G N, and Rogatina, E L (1987). Characteristics
of the nociceptive sensitivity of Wistar rats. *Fiziologicheskii Zhurnal
SSSR Imeni I. M. Sechenova* 73: 1641-1644.

Byron, W E, Flack, K, and Robertson, B (1968). New York State hospital
system embarks on statewide shared services plan. *Modern Hospital* 111:
91-94.

Cairns, John (2002). A DNA damage checkpoint in Escherichia coli. *DNA
Repair* 1: 699-701.

Callaway, Edward M (2004). Close encounters: how cortical neurons find
and connect to their correct synaptic partners depends on the cell type.
*Neuron* 43: 156-158.

Cerne, F (1993). Western Michigan. Providers embark on journey to create
a regional health care system. *Hospitals & Health Networks / AHA* 67:
38-40.

Chavrakov, G (1974). Localization of Klossiella muris in various organs
of white Wistar rats. *Eksperimentalna Meditsina i Morfologiia* 13:
59-62.

Churina, S K, Ianushkene, T S, Samoilov, M O, Semenov, D G, Kuznetsov, S
R, Didenko, A V, and Puz\'ko, Iu O (1991). A paradoxical increase in the
Ca2+-binding capacity of the aortic wall in Wistar-Kyoto rats on a low
Ca2+ content in the drinking water. *Fiziologicheskii Zhurnal SSSR Imeni
I. M. Sechenova* 77: 41-44.

Clery, Daniel (2003). Space exploration. Europe embarks on leisurely
lunar odyssey. *Science* 302: 35.

Colucci, C ( Implement the medical group revenue function. Create
competitive advantage. *Medical Group Management Journal / MGMA* 45:
32-47.

Cook, H F (1968). New York State hospital system embarks on statewide
shared services plan. It will take high motivation for hospitals to
emulate the New York State plan. *Modern Hospital* 111: 94-95.

Coombs, J A and Silversin, J B (1979). The HSA: a focus for advancing
primary preventive dental programs. *Journal Of Public Health Dentistry*
39: 35-40.

Coucouvanis, E C and Jones, P P (1993). Changes in protooncogene
expression correlated with general and sex-specific differentiation in
murine primordial germ cells. *Mechanisms Of Development* 42: 49-58.

Cross, M (1993). Information for purchasers. A wan-dering we will go.
*The Health Service Journal* 103: 35, 38.

Denoon, D J ( India embarks on vaccine-development scheme. *AIDS Wkly
Plus* 8.

Drucker, P F ( The post-capitalist executive. Interview by T George
Harris. *Harvard Business Review* 71: 114-122.

Dygalo, N N and Naumenko, E V (1984). Genetic aspects of the hormonal
modification of stress reactivity. I. The prenatal effect of
hydrocortisone on the reactivity of the hypophyseoadrenal system of
adult August and Wistar strain rats and their 1st generation hybrids.
*Genetika* 20: 1974-1980.

Elkin, V I ( Type of higher nervous activity in rats affected with
audiogenic seizures, and in rats of the Wistar line. *Zhurnal Vysshei
Nervnoi Deiatelnosti Imeni I P Pavlova* 15: 859-862.

Elkins, Donald M (1983). Growth regulating chemicals for turf and other
grasses. 2: 113-30.\
[Chem Codes]{.underline}: Chemical of Concern: CFRM [Rejection
Code]{.underline}: REVIEW.\
\
A review with 60 refs. of growth regulators, e.g., chlorflurenol
\[2464-37-1\], maleic hydrazide \[123-33-1\], and mefluidide
\[53780-34-0\], for grasses and turf. \[on SciFinder (R)\] review/ turf/
grass/ growth/ regulator

Ernst, David and Bamford, James (2005). Your alliances are too stable.
*Harvard Business Review* 83: 133-141, 150.\
Ershov, P V, Ugriumov, M V, and Calas, A ( Tyrosine hydroxylase and/or
aromatic L-amino acid decarboxylase-expressing neurons in the mediobasal
hypothalamus of Wistar rats in ontogenesis: topographic interrelations
and axonal projections to the medial eminence. *Zhurnal Evoliutsionnoi
Biokhimii i Fiziologii* 36: 576-580 .

FACTEAU, T. and MIELKE, E. (1987). ORCHARD CHEMICAL MOWING. *84TH ANNUAL
MEETING OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR HORTICULTURAL SCIENCE AND THE 34TH
ANNUAL CONGRESS OF THE INTERAMERICAN SOCIETY FOR TROPICAL HORTICULTURE,
ORLANDO, FLORIDA, USA, NOVEMBER 6-12, 1987. HORTSCIENCE; 22* 1127.

Fedorov, V K and Gromova, K I (1971). Effect of growth hormone on the
behavior and some morphologic and biochemical indices in offspring of
Wistar line rats. *Doklady Akademii Nauk SSSR* 198: 727-729.

Ferreira, H G (1994). Evaluation of medical schools and universities.
Not postponable options, unavoidable risks. *Acta Medica Portuguesa* 7:
577-588.

Fink, Nilda E, Allen, Lynn C, and IFCC Committee on Education and
Curriculum Development, Education and Management Division (2003). IFCC
handbook on Master Program in clinical laboratory sciences. *Clinical
Chemistry And Laboratory Medicine: CCLM / FESCC* 41: 1379-1386.

Gaidash, A A and Tsukanov, V V (2002). Protective effect of a zeolite
enterosorbent in fluorine intoxication. *Eksperimental\'Naia i
Klinicheskaia Gastroenterologiia = Experimental & Clinical
Gastroenterology* 92-95, 104.

Gardner, Richard L and Davies, T J (2002). Trophectoderm growth and
bilateral symmetry of the blastocyst in the mouse. *Human Reproduction
(Oxford, England)* 17: 1839-1845.\
[\\]{.underline}

Garina, I A, Emel\'ianov, N A, and Lopatina, N G (1977). Concentration,
distribution and kinetics of the metabolism of sodium-22 in slices of
cerebral cortex from Wistar and Krushinskii\--Molodkina rats.
*Fiziologicheskii Zhurnal SSSR Imeni I. M. Sechenova* 63: 1605-1608.

Gatseva, P, Lazarova, A, Maximova, S, and Pavlova, K (1996).
Experimental data on the effect of nitrates entering the organism with
the drinking water. *Folia Medica* 38: 75-83.

GAUS, A. and WARMUND, M. ( 1987). CHEMICAL GROWTH REGULATIONS OF
KENTUCKY BLUEGRASS IN A NEWLY ESTABLISHED PEACH ORCHARD. *84TH ANNUAL
MEETING OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR HORTICULTURAL SCIENCE AND THE 34TH
ANNUAL CONGRESS OF THE INTERAMERICAN SOCIETY FOR TROPICAL HORTICULTURE,
ORLANDO, FLORIDA, USA, NOVEMBER 6-12, 1987. HORTSCIENCE; 22* 1040.

Gergely, T (1998). Not Available. *Vesalius* 4: 4-12.

Gershtein, L M, Kamysheva, A S, Chebotareva, T L, Sergutina, A V, and
Orlova, E I ( The morphochemical characteristics of the brain in Wistar
rats that differ by open-field motor activity. *Zhurnal Vysshei Nervnoi
Deiatelnosti Imeni I P Pavlova* 41: 300-305.

Gillard, Peter and Monypenny, Richard (1988). A decision support
approach for the beef cattle industry of tropical Australia.
*Agricultural Systems* 26: 179-190.

Girton, T A (1987). Selection and use of a medical group attorney.
*College Review (Denver, Colo.)* 4: 103-111.

Goldstein, D A, Hoffman, K I, and Bethune, J (1985). The role of the
student ward in the medical clerkships. *Journal Of Medical Education*
60: 524-529.

Gonczy, P, Matunis, E, and DiNardo, S (1997). bag-of-marbles and benign
gonial cell neoplasm act in the germline to restrict proliferation
during Drosophila spermatogenesis. *Development (Cambridge, England)*
124: 4361-4371.

Gorbunova, A V ( Biogenic amines in the brain nuclei of August and
Wistar rats under repeated stress. *Zhurnal Vysshei Nervnoi Deiatelnosti
Imeni I P Pavlova* 48: 1051-1057.

Grabetskii, A A ( The influence of saccharose-casein diet on the
metabolism of mineral elements and amino acids in internal organs of
Wistar rats. *Stomatologiia* 48: 18-21.

Grigor\'eva, T A, Aizman, R I, and Shoshenko, K A (2004). Proliferative
activity of blood microvascular endothelium of intestinal mesentery
during rat postnatal ontogenesis. *Rossiiskii Fiziologicheskii Zhurnal
Imeni I.M. Sechenova / Rossiiskaia Akademiia Nauk* 90: 1370-1380.

Gromova, K I, Eremeev, N S, Kulagin, D A, and Fedorov, V K (1971).
Effect of growth hormone on the behavior and some morphologic and
biochemical indices in the offspring of Wistar line rats.
*Fiziologicheskii Zhurnal SSSR Imeni I. M. Sechenova* 57: 613-619.

Grubbs, S C (1994). MRP (materiel requirements planning) II: successful
implementation the hard way. *Hospital Materiel Management Quarterly*
15: 40-47.

Gupton, C. L. ( Use of herbicides and plant growth regulators to
suppress Italian ryegrass growth. *HortTechnology, 10 (4) pp. 773-776,
2000*.

Habbema, J. D. F. and van Oortmarssen, G. J. (1994). To screen or not to
screen. How do we decide on which cancer screening activities to embark
upon? *European Journal of Cancer* 30: 884-886.

Hecht, K and Vakhtel\', E ( 1989). Interrelations of circadian and
minute rhythms in Wistar rats after space flight on the bio-space
station \"Kosmos-1129\". *Problemy Kosmicheskoi Biologii* 64: 124-140.

Hengesbaugh, J H (1993). Ways to avoid snafus while implementing a
laboratory information system. *Healthcare Informatics: The Business
Magazine For Information And Communication Systems* 10: 60, 62.

Herman, Michael A and Wu, Mingfu (2004). Noncanonical Wnt signaling
pathways in C. elegans converge on POP-1/TCF and control cell polarity.
*Frontiers In Bioscience: a Journal And Virtual Library* 9: 1530-1539.

Hess, Robert G Jr (2004). From bedside to boardroom - nursing shared
governance. *Online J Issues Nurs* 9: 2.

Hillman, B J and Putman, C E (1992). Fostering research by radiologists:
recommendations of the 1991 Summit meeting. *Radiology* 182: 315-318.

Hoch, J A (1993). Regulation of the phosphorelay and the initiation of
sporulation in Bacillus subtilis. *Annual Review Of Microbiology* 47:
441-465.

Iagodina, O V and Basova, N E ( Comparative study of catalytic
properties of the liver monoamine oxidase from the squid Todarodes
pacificus and the Wistar rat. *Zhurnal Evoliutsionnoi Biokhimii i
Fiziologii* 37: 175-179.

Iakimenko, L V, Semenova-Kobzar\', R A, and Umanskii, Iu A (1970). The
quantity of antibody forming cells in the spleen and lymph nodes of
Wistar rats with hormone dependent tumors. *Biulleten\'
Eksperimental\'Noi Biologii i Meditsiny* 69: 91-93.

Inozemtsev, A N, Litvinova, S V, and Kaliuzhnyi, L V ( The comparative
characteristics of stress resistance in Wistar and non-inbred rats to
the \"disruption\" of the avoidance reaction. *Zhurnal Vysshei Nervnoi
Deiatelnosti Imeni I P Pavlova* 42: 803-805.

Jack, Katharine M. and Fedigan, Linda (2004). Male dispersal patterns in
white-faced capuchins, Cebus capucinus: Part 2: patterns and causes of
secondary dispersal. *Animal Behaviour* 67: 771-782.

Johnson, R L (1968). New York State hospital system embarks on statewide
shared services plan. Will business world offer similar service to
hospitals? *Modern Hospital* 111: 95.\
[\\]{.underline}

Jones, Adam G and Ardren, William R (2003). Methods of parentage
analysis in natural populations. *Molecular Ecology* 12: 2511-2523.

Kashkin, K P, Kartasheva, A L, Petrova, I V, and Polushkina, E F (1965).
A comparative study of some indicators of antimicrobial immunity in rats
of the \"August\" and \"Wistar\" strains. *Vestnik Akademii
Meditsinskikh Nauk SSSR* 20: 33-36.

Katiukhin, L N ( Ectacytometry of the erythrocytes in rats of the SHR,
WKY and Wistar strains. *Zhurnal Evoliutsionnoi Biokhimii i Fiziologii*
30: 232-237.

Kaufmann, S H (1989). Leprosy and tuberculosis vaccine design. *Tropical
Medicine And Parasitology: Official Organ Of Deutsche Tropenmedizinische
Gesellschaft And Of Deutsche Gesellschaft Fur Technische Zusammenarbeit
(GTZ)* 40: 251-257.

KEY BD, HOWELL RD, and CRIDDLE CS (1997). Fluorinated organics in the
biosphere. *ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY; 31* 2445-2454.

Khatsenko, O G, Guliaeva, L F, Mishin, V M, and Liakhovich, V V (1990).
Evaluation of catalytic activity of multiple forms of cytochrome P-450
in liver microsomes of Wistar rats by androstenedione metabolism .
*Biokhimiia (Moscow, Russia)* 55: 308-314.

Khil\'kevich, L V, Kurilo, L F, and Sheveleva, G A ( The effect of
antenatal nicotine exposure on the male germ cells in Wistar rats.
*TSitologiia i Genetika* 27: 42-46.

Kholodna, L S, Holeva, O H, Liubchenko, T A, and Kucherenko, M Ie (
Mitogenic effects of staphylococcal antigenic substances on irradiated
lymphocytes from Wistar rats. *Ukrainskii Biokhimicheskii Zhurnal* 71:
65-68.

Kolosova, N G, Kolpakov, A R, and Panin, L E ( Tocopherol level and
lipid peroxidation in Wistar rat tissues during adaptation to cold.
*Voprosy Meditsinskoi Khimii* 41: 16-19.

Kondashevskaia, M V and Mkhitarov, V A (2004). Effects of stress agents
and heparin administration on hematological parameters in Wistar rats.
*Rossiiskii Fiziologicheskii Zhurnal Imeni I.M. Sechenova / Rossiiskaia
Akademiia Nauk* 90: 1402-1410.

Konstantinopol\'skii, M A, Surkova, L A, Tiurina, I V, and Sudakov, S K
( An assessment of the individual sensitivity of Wistar rats to the
development of morphine dependence. *Eksperimental\'Naia i Klinicheskaia
Farmakologiia* 55: 9-11.

Kostenkova, V N and Nikol\'skaya, K A ( Comparative characteristics of
psychoemotional patterns in Albino and Wistar rats. *Zhurnal Vysshei
Nervnoi Deiatelnosti Imeni I P Pavlova* 54: 620-631.

KOVALEVSKII, K L (1963). AUTO-INFECTION (INTESTINAL) IN RADIATION
SICKNESS AND ITS PREVENTION IN WISTAR WHITE RATS. *Tr Akad Nauk SSSR
Inst Genet* 30: 315-320.

Legostaev, G N, Bykova, E V, and Rogatina, E L ( Effect of
leu-enkephalin on the nociceptive sensitivity of the Wistar strain rat.
*Zhurnal Vysshei Nervnoi Deiatelnosti Imeni I P Pavlova* 37: 172-173.

Levin, G S and Novachenko, Z I ( Hematopoiesis in chronic heliotrine
poisoning in Wistar albino rats. *Farmakologiia i Toksikologiia* 32:
170-171.

Levine, J S ( The early atmosphere: a new picture. *Science Activities*
23: 6-16.Levitskii, A P, Barabash, R D, and Konovets, V M ( Sex
characteristics of the ribonuclease and alpha-amylase activity of the
saliva and salivary glands in Wistar line rats. *Zhurnal Obshchei
Biologii* 35: 149-153.

Lewis, C. W. (1981). Biomass through the ages. *Biomass* 1: 5-15.

Lindberg, D A (1996). The modern library: lost and found. *Bulletin Of
The Medical Library Association* 84: 86-90.

Logvinova, V V and Kerkis, Iu Ia ( Radiosensitivity of chromosomes of
Wistar rats resistant and sensitive to sound. *Radiobiologiia* 11:
696-700.

Mahler, H (1988). The battle for health. *World Health Forum* 9:
143-146.

Malkina, N A and Shoshenko, K A (1993). The morphofunctional
heterogeneity of the m. cremaster capillary bed in Wistar rats.
*Fiziologicheskii Zhurnal Imeni I.M. Sechenova / Rossiiskaia Akademiia
Nauk* 79: 112-118.

McClelland, G (1982). Volunteers embark on international exchange. *The
Volunteer Leader* 23: 5, 13.

McDonald, V and Rose, M E (1987). Eimeria tenella and E. necatrix: a
third generation of schizogony is an obligatory part of the
developmental cycle. *The Journal Of Parasitology* 73: 617-622.

McLaren, A (1995). Germ cells and germ cell sex. *Philosophical
Transactions Of The Royal Society Of London. Series B, Biological
Sciences* 350: 229-233.

McLaren, Anne (1993). Germ cell sex determination. *Seminars in
Developmental Biology* 4: 171-177.

McLaren, Anne (1994). Germline and soma: interactions during early mouse
development. *Seminars in Developmental Biology* 5: 43-49.

Michalski, A (1986). Extensive resection of the small in intestine with
insertion of an antiperistaltic implant of the transverse colon in
Wistar rats. *Annales Academiae Medicae Stetinensis* 32: 95-107.

Mikhailova, L P, Makarova, O V, Sladkopevtsev, A S, and Zykova, I E (
Morphofunctional changes of Wistar rat lungs in acute normobaric
hypoxia. *Arkhiv Patologii* 56: 68-71.

Mithani, Suhail K, Balch, Glen C, Shiou, Sheng-Ru, Whitehead, Robert H,
Datta, Pran K, and Beauchamp, R Daniel (2004). Smad3 has a critical role
in TGF-beta-mediated growth inhibition and apoptosis in colonic
epithelial cells. *The Journal Of Surgical Research* 117: 296-305.

MOYER JL and KELLEY KW (1995). Broadleaf herbicide effects on tall
fescue (Festuca arundinacea) seedhead density, forage yield, and
quality. *WEED TECHNOLOGY; 9* 270-276.

Mroz, K., Carrel, L., and Hunt, P. A. (1999). Germ Cell Development in
the XXY Mouse: Evidence That X Chromosome Reactivation Is Independent of
Sexual Differentiation. *Developmental Biology* 207: 229-238.

Murashev, A N, Kunduzova, O R, Khokhlova, O N, Medvedeva, N A, and
Medvedev, O S ( The chronobiological aspects of the hemodynamic effects
of clonidine in Wistar rats under immobilization stress.
*Eksperimental\'Naia i Klinicheskaia Farmakologiia* 60: 32-34.

Murashov, A N, Buriukov, R I, Khokhlova, O N, and Medvedev, O S ( Effect
of daflon on the transcapillary fluid exchange in hindlimbs of
anesthesized Wistar rats. *Eksperimental\'Naia i Klinicheskaia
Farmakologiia* 64: 67-68.

Nefedov, I Iu ( Regularities of radiation effects in ontogenesis of
progeny of the 1st generation of Wistar rats after irradiation of germ
cells of both parents at different stages of gametogenesis.
*Radiatsionnaia Biologiia, Radioecologiia / Rossiiskaia Akademiia Nauk*
35: 381-387.

Nefedov, I Iu, Nefedova, I Iu, and Palyga, G F ( The consequences for
the first-generation progeny of Wistar rats of the irradiation of both
parents with a background of mexamine use. *Radiatsionnaia Biologiia,
Radioecologiia / Rossiiskaia Akademiia Nauk* 35: 773-777.

Niehoff, Barbara (2004). The effect of food limitation on gonad
development and egg production of the planktonic copepod Calanus
finmarchicus. *Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology* 307:
237-259.\
[C]{.underline}

Nifatov, A P and Koshurnikova, N A (1973). Spontaneous tumors in Wistar
rats. *Voprosy Onkologii* 19: 83-86.

Nikitina, M M and Romanova, L G (1981). Corticosterone content of the
blood in Krushinskii-Molodkina and Wistar rats following short-term
acoustic exposure. *Biulleten\' Eksperimental\'Noi Biologii i Meditsiny*
92: 555-557.

Nikol\'skaia, K A, Eshchenko, O V, and Shpin\'kova, V N ( The
characteristics of exploratory behavior in Wistar rats in a permanent
inhomogeneous magnetic field. *Zhurnal Vysshei Nervnoi Deiatelnosti
Imeni I P Pavlova* 47: 684-692.

Nikol\'skaia, K A and Kondashevskaia, M V ( Psychostimulation of Wistar
rats after intraperitoneal administration of high-molecular heparin.
*Zhurnal Vysshei Nervnoi Deiatelnosti Imeni I P Pavlova* 51: 213-219.

Nishiuchi, Y. (1985). Toxicity of Pesticides to Some Aquatic Animals.
VII. Acute Toxicity to Daphnia magna. *Aquat.Ecol.Chem.(Seitai Kagaku)/
C.A.Sel.-Environ.Pollut.10:104-163325Q (1986)* 8: 15-20 (JPN).

Nishiuchi, Y. (1985). Toxicity of Pesticides to Some Aquatic Animals.
VII. Acute Toxicity to Daphnia magna. *Aquat.Ecol.Chem.(Seitai Kagaku)/
C.A.Sel.-Environ.Pollut.10:104-163325Q (1986)* 8: 15-20 (JPN)..

NORCINI JG and ALDRICH JH (1994). EVALUATION OF DIKEGULAC-SODIUM AND
MEFLUIDIDE FOR GROWTH CONTROL OF ASIATIC AND CONFEDERATE JASMINE. *91ST
ANNUAL MEETING OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR HORTICULTURAL SCIENCE,
CORVALLIS, OREGON, USA, AUGUST 7-10, 1994. HORTSCIENCE; 29 (5). 1994.
556. AB - BIOSIS COPYRIGHT: BIOL ABS. RRM MEETING ABSTRACT MEETING
POSTER TRACHELOSPERMUM-ASIATICUM TRACHELOSPERMUM-JASMINIODES PLANT CROP
INDUSTRY HORTICULTURE PHYTOTOXICITY PLANT GROWTH REGULATOR*.

Oganesian, G A, Titkov, E S, and Karmanova, I G (1994). The
strio-hypothalamic functional connections in pharmacologically evoked
catalepsy in Wistar rats. *Fiziologicheskii Zhurnal Imeni I.M. Sechenova
/ Rossiiskaia Akademiia Nauk* 80: 129-132.

Ogorodnikova, L E and Kazennov, A M (1993). The activity and properties
of K-pNPphosphatase in membrane preparations of erythrocytes with
different polypeptide compositions in Wistar, Wistar-Kyoto and SHR
strain rats. *Fiziologicheskii Zhurnal Imeni I.M. Sechenova /
Rossiiskaia Akademiia Nauk* 79: 62-69.

Oland, L A and Tolbert, L P (1987). Glial patterns during early
development of antennal lobes of Manduca sexta: a comparison between
normal lobes and lobes deprived of antennal axons. *The Journal Of
Comparative Neurology* 255: 196-207.

Olowolafe, E. A. and Dung, J. E. (2000). Soils derived from
biotite-granites on the Jos Plateau, Nigeria: their nutrient status and
management for sustainable agriculture. *Resources, Conservation and
Recycling* 29: 231-244.

Owen, J W (1988). Hospitals embark on Medicare reform campaign.
*Healthcare Financial Management: Journal Of The Healthcare Financial
Management Association* 42: 24, 26, 92.

Palyga, G F ( Embryogenesis and early postnatal ontogenesis of posterity
of two generations of female Wistar rats, depending on the time of their
fertilization after low dose radiation exposure. *Radiatsionnaia
Biologiia, Radioecologiia / Rossiiskaia Akademiia Nauk* 42: 390-394.

Palyga, G F and Chibisova, O F ( Reaction of posterity of two
generations after exposure of pregnant Wistar rats to low dose
irradiation during the period of fetus formation. Development of the
first generation posterity. *Radiatsionnaia Biologiia, Radioecologiia /
Rossiiskaia Akademiia Nauk* 43: 439-442.

Palyga, G F and Zakoshchikov, K F ( The use of mexamine to reduce
radiation injuries during embryogenesis of Wistar rats. *Radiobiologiia*
27: 621-625.

Palygat, G F and Zakoshchikov, K F ( Experience in using cystamine for
decreasing radiation disorders in Wistar rat embryogenesis.
*Radiobiologiia* 26: 815-819 .

Panikarovskii, V V, Grigor\'ian, A S, Zhizhina, N A, Prokhonchukov, A A,
and Sazonova, V I ( The state of some internal organs in August and
Wistar rats kept on saccharose-casein cariogenic diet for a protracted
period of time. *Stomatologiia* 47: 23-27.

Panikarovskii, V V, Prokhonchukov, A A, Zhizhina, N A, and Vorob\'ev, V
S (1966). Morphological changes in dental tissues in experimental
alimentary caries in August and Wistar rats. *Stomatologiia* 14: 3-7.

Panova, I G, Sologub, A A, Burlakova, O V, and Stroeva, O G (
Melanotropic activity in the hypophysis and blood of Wistar rats in
early postnatal development. *Ontogenez* 24: 49-54.

Parnes, V A and Levina, D M (1968). Detection of a specific viral
antigen in the cells of Wistar rats infected with chicken
erythroblastosis virus. *Biulleten\' Eksperimental\'Noi Biologii i
Meditsiny* 65: 101-103.

PAULSEN PJ and HENSLEY, D. (1995). CHEMICAL GROWTH REGULATION OF
LANDSCAPE GROUNDCOVERS. *92ND ANNUAL MEETING OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR
HORTICULTURAL SCIENCE AND THE 40TH ANNUAL CONGRESS OF THE CANADIAN
SOCIETY FOR HORTICULTURAL SCIENCE, MONTREAL, QUEBEC, CANADA, JULY
30-AUGUST 3, 1995. HORTSCIENCE; 30* 854.

Pauper, A I ( Characteristics of comparative radiosensitivity of rats
from the August and Wistar lines. *Radiobiologiia* 11: 217-220.

PENNUCCI, A. and JACKSON, N. (1986). DISTINGUISHING PHYTOTOXICITY AND
PATHOGENICITY BY FUNGI IN GROWTH RETARDANT TREATED TURFGRASS. *ANNUAL
MEETING OF THE AMERICAN PHYTOPATHOLOGICAL SOCIETY (NORTHEASTERN
DIVISION), NOV. 6-8, 1985. PHYTOPATHOLOGY; 76 (6). 1986. 657.*

PENNUCCI, A. and JACKSON, N. (1986). IN-VITRO GROWTH PROMOTION OF
SEVERAL TURFGRASS PATHOGENS BY PLANT GROWTH RETARDANTS. *ANNUAL MEETING
OF THE AMERICAN PHYTOPATHOLOGICAL SOCIETY (NORTHEASTERN DIVISION), NOV.
6-8, 1985. PHYTOPATHOLOGY; 76 (6). 1986. 657.*

Perris, Roberto and Perissinotto, Daniela (2000). Role of the
extracellular matrix during neural crest cell migration. *Mechanisms of
Development* 95: 3-21.

Pertsov, S S (1995). Ulcer damage of the stomach in August and Wistar
rats under acute emotional stress. *Biulleten\' Eksperimental\'Noi
Biologii i Meditsiny* 120: 469-470.

Pertsov, S S, Sosnovskii, A S, Kubatiev, A A, and Pirogova, G V (1997).
Effect of interleukin-1 beta on platelet aggregation in August, Wistar,
and VEG rats during acute emotional stress. *Biulleten\'
Eksperimental\'Noi Biologii i Meditsiny* 124: 144-147.

Pertsov, S S, Sosnovskii, A S, and Pirogova, G V (1997). The effect of
interleukin-1beta on the state of thymus, adrenals and spleen during
immersion emotional stress in August, Wistar and Wag rats. *Biulleten\'
Eksperimental\'Noi Biologii i Meditsiny* 124: 32-35.

Petryna, L H (2002). Dynamics and dose-dependent changes in RNA and DNA
synthesis in the thymus of irradiated animals. *Fiziol Zh* 48: 67-74.

Petryna, L H ( Effect of gamma-radiation on contents of lipid
peroxidation products in animal blood. *Ukrainskii Biokhimicheskii
Zhurnal* 73: 98-103.

Petryna, L H ( Effect of gamma-radiation on the content of vitamin E in
rats. *Ukrainskii Biokhimicheskii Zhurnal* 74: 104-108.

Petryna, L H (2001). The effect of ionizing radiation on the dynamics of
lipid peroxidation final products in animal blood. *Fiziol Zh* 47:
60-65.

Plakhuta-Plakutina, G I, Alekseev, E I, Durnova, G N, Il\'ina-Kakueva, E
I, and Kaplanskii, A S ( Age-related changes in body and internal organ
weight in Wistar rats. *Kosmicheskaia Biologiia i Aviakosmicheskaia
Meditsina* 15: 79-81.

Podoprigora, G I and Kovtun, A I (1981). Age and peripheral blood and
phagocytosis indices in gnotobiotic and ordinary Wistar rats.
*Biulleten\' Eksperimental\'Noi Biologii i Meditsiny* 92: 81-83.

Polushkin, B V ( The relationship of rats of the Wistar and August
strains to mastocalcergia. *Patologicheskaia Fiziologiia i
Eksperimental\'Naia Terapiia* 11: 65-66.

Polyntsev, Iu V, Bykova, E V, Rogatina, E L, and Samko, Iu N (1988).
Dynamics of nociceptive sensitivity and blood levels of steroid hormones
in Wistar rats. *Biulleten\' Eksperimental\'Noi Biologii i Meditsiny*
105: 526-529.

Polyntsev, Iu V, Bykova, E V, Rogatina, E L, and Samko, Iu N ( The
individual characteristics of the nociceptive sensitivity of Wistar rats
correlated with the content of steroid hormones in the blood plasma.
*Zhurnal Vysshei Nervnoi Deiatelnosti Imeni I P Pavlova* 41: 564-572.

PORTER WC, GREEN BB, and JOHNSON CE (1988). RESPONSE OF WARM-SEASON
GRASSES TO SUBLETHAL RATES OF POSTEMERGENCE HERBICIDES. *48TH ANNUAL
MEETING OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR HORTICULTURAL SCIENCE (SOUTHERN
REGION), NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA, USA, JANUARY* 31-FEBRUARY 2, 1988.
HORTSCIENCE; 23: 820.

PORTER WC, GREEN BB, and JOHNSON CE (1988). RESPONSE OF WARM-SEASON
GRASSES TO SUBLETHAL RATES OF POSTEMERGENCE HERBICIDES. *48TH ANNUAL
MEETING OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR HORTICULTURAL SCIENCE (SOUTHERN
REGION), NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA, USA, JANUARY 31-FEBRUARY 2, 1988.
HORTSCIENCE; 23 (5). 1988. 820.*

Postlethwait, John H. (1974). Development of the temperature-sensitive
homoeotic mutant Ophthalmoptera of Drosophila melanogaster.
*Developmental Biology* 36: 212-217.

Prasad, A, Broderson, C, Day, G P, Garcia, F, Weissbecker, H, and
Kobakov, Y ( Dense titanium castings: the promise fulfilled. *Trends &
Techniques In The Contemporary Dental Laboratory* 11: 94-97.

Pravdina, G M and Darenskaia, N G (1965). On the comparative
radiosensitivity of Wistar rats and non-pedigree rats. *Radiobiologiia*
5: 150-151.

Pronina, T S, Ugriumov, M V, Calas, A, Tramu, G, and Makarenko, I G (
Effect of serotonin on the development of luteinizing hormone-releasing
hormone system in Wistar rat embryos. *Zhurnal Evoliutsionnoi Biokhimii
i Fiziologii* 37: 426-430.

Pshennikova, M G, Belkina, L M, Bakhtina, L Iu, Baida, L A, Popkova, E
V, and Malyshev, I Iu (2001). The role of stress proteins HSP70 and the
adrenergic system in different resistance to myocardial infarction of
August and Wistar genetic rat strains. *Rossiiskii Fiziologicheskii
Zhurnal Imeni I.M. Sechenova / Rossiiskaia Akademiia Nauk* 87:
1171-1177.

Pshennikova, M G, Bondarenko, N A, Shimkovich, M V, Bondarenko, O N, and
Malyshev, I Iu (1999). Differences in the behavior and resistance to
stomach ulcer during stress in August and Wistar rats adapted and not
adapted to hypoxia. *Biulleten\' Eksperimental\'Noi Biologii i
Meditsiny* 128: 638-641.

Pshennikova, M G, Golubeva, L Iu, Kuznetsova, B A, Shimkovich, M V,
Malysheva, E V, and Malyshev, I Iu (1996). Differences in stress
reaction and development of adaptation to stress in August and Wistar
rats. *Biulleten\' Eksperimental\'Noi Biologii i Meditsiny* 122:
156-159.

Pust, R E and Moher, S P ( 1995). Medical education for international
health. The Arizona experience. *Infectious Disease Clinics Of North
America* 9: 445-451.

Rabes, H M (1977). Kinetics of hepatocellular proliferation as a
function of the microvascular structure and functional state of the
liver. *Ciba Foundation Symposium* 31-53.

Rabes, H M, Iseler, G, Czichos, S, and Tuczek, H V (1977).
Synchronization of hepatocellular DNA synthesis in regenerating rat
liver by continuous infusion of hydroxyurea. *Cancer Research* 37:
1105-1111.

Ramagopal, S (1990). Induction of cell-specific ribosomal proteins in
aggregation-competent nonmorphogenetic Dictyostelium discoideum.
*Biochemistry And Cell Biology = Biochimie Et Biologie Cellulaire* 68:
1281-1287.

Rasin, M S (1973). Spontaneous transitory hypertension in Wistar rats.
*Biulleten\' Eksperimental\'Noi Biologii i Meditsiny* 75: 18-21.

Reeves, Scott, Koppel, Ivan, Barr, Hugh, Freeth, Della, and Hammick,
Marilyn (2002). Twelve tips for undertaking a systematic review.
*Medical Teacher* 24: 358-363.

Riabinskaia, E A ( Asymmetry of the direction of Wistar and
Krushinskii-Molodkina rat movement in a radial labyrinth. *Zhurnal
Vysshei Nervnoi Deiatelnosti Imeni I P Pavlova* 32: 566-568.

Riabinskaia, E A, Kropotina, O V, and Brakha, V (1981). Behavior of
Wistar and Krushinskii-Molodkina strain rats in a radial maze. *Doklady
Akademii Nauk SSSR* 261: 1499-1502.

Richardson, L and McCreery, A (1994). In search of a big enough stick to
tame the wild operating room inventory beast. *Hospital Materiel
Management Quarterly* 15: 46-49.

Richter, D, Morley, S D, Buck, F, and Meyerhof, W (1991). Neuropeptide
hormone receptors: strategies for identification. *Journal Of Receptor
Research* 11: 483-505.

Riley, J R, Greggers, U, Smith, A D, Stach, S, Reynolds, D R, Stollhoff,
N, Brandt, R, Schaupp, F, and Menzel, R (2003). The automatic pilot of
honeybees. *Proceedings Of The Royal Society Of London. Series B.
Biological Sciences* 270: 2421-2424.

Roshchevskii, M P, Barabanova, V V, Gagiev, N G, Kaliberda, N M, and
Karpushov, E N (1988). Comparative characteristics of the cardiac
electrical fields on the body surface in Wistar and Kyoto-Wistar strain
rats. *Fiziologicheskii Zhurnal SSSR Imeni I. M. Sechenova* 74: 276-284.

Ruffin, M Jr (1994). Inova embarks on mammoth information systems plan.
*Health Management Technology* 15: 20, 22, 24-26.

RYU SB and LI PH (1989). CHANGES IN ABA CONTENT AND INCREASES IN FROST
HARDINESS OF MEFLUIDIDE-TREATED POTATO CULTURES AT 20 C. *ANNUAL MEETING
OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF PLANT PHYSIOLOGISTS HELD JOINTLY WITH THE
CANADIAN SOCIETY OF PLANT PHYSIOLOGISTS, TORONTO, ONTARIO, CANADA, JULY
30-AUGUST 3, 1989. PLANT PHYSIOL (BETHESDA); 89 (4 SUPPL.). 1989. 27.*

Saenger, E L (1975). Some possible consequences of recertification.
*Radiology* 114: 745-746.

Sazontova, T G, Belkina, L M, Zhukova, A G, Kirillina, T N, and
Arkhipenko, Iu V (2004 ). Contractile function of the heart and
myocardium antioxidant system in rats of August and Wistar strains
during ischemia and reperfusion. *Fiziol Zh* 50: 9-15.

Schorin, M J (2000). The Holy Grail and health care. *Quality Management
In Health Care* 8: 27-31.

Schwarz, E, Seytter, T, Guiard, B, and Neupert, W (1993). Targeting of
cytochrome b2 into the mitochondrial intermembrane space: specific
recognition of the sorting signal. *The EMBO Journal* 12: 2295-2302.

Schyve, P ( Models for relating performance measurement and
accreditation. *The International Journal Of Health Planning And
Management* 10: 231-241.

Sergutina, A V (1998). Comparative cytochemical study of the central
nervous system in Wistar and August rats in dopamine system
hyperfunction. *Morfologiia (Saint Petersburg, Russia)* 113: 51-53.

Sergutina, A V and Gershtein, L M (2004). Morphochemical analysis of
hippocampus of rats predisposed (August) or resistant (Wistar) to
emotional stress. *Morfologiia (Saint Petersburg, Russia)* 125: 15-18.

Sergutina, A V, Savonenko, A V, Gershtein, L M, and Nikol\'skaia, K A
(1999). Cytochemical brain characteristics of rejecting alcohol Wistar
rats with various learning ability. *Biulleten\' Eksperimental\'Noi
Biologii i Meditsiny* 127: 180-182.

Serov, V V, Tomilina, I V, and Sulakov, K V (1995). Morphofunctional
characteristics of connective tissue in August and Wistar rats under
emotional stress. *Biulleten\' Eksperimental\'Noi Biologii i Meditsiny*
119: 571-573.

Shabad, L M and Golub\', N I (1973). Transplacentary action of nitroso
compounds on organotypic cultures of embryonic kidney tissue of Wistar
rats. *Biulleten\' Eksperimental\'Noi Biologii i Meditsiny* 76: 88-92.

Shakhdinaroba, L V and Palyga, G F ( Relation of postradiation
superovulation to the development of embryos and progeny of Wistar rats.
*Radiobiologiia* 28: 677-680 .

Shapes, J (1984). Chicago hospital embarks on study of on-premise vs.
outside operation. *Laundry News* 10: 1, 3.

Shapiro, Steven D. (1997). Mighty mice: Transgenic technology \"knocks
out\" questions of matrix metalloproteinase function. *Matrix Biology*
15: 527-533.

SHARPE, W D (1964). CASPAR VISTAR ON DEPRESSION, 1786: AN EIGHTEENTH
CENTURY PSYCHIATRIC M.D. DISSERTATION. *Transactions & Studies Of The
College Of Physicians Of Philadelphia* 31: 299-306.

Shepherd, B (1976). Whyever did you embark on your Diploma? *NATNews*
13: 24.

Shiriaeva, N V ( Effect of some factors on memory consolidation in
Wistar line rats. *Zhurnal Vysshei Nervnoi Deiatelnosti Imeni I P
Pavlova* 21: 621-623.

Sigmond, R M (1968). New York State hospital system embarks on statewide
shared service plan. Hospitals will be watching to see if plan really
works. *Modern Hospital* 111: 95.

Singh, M M, Chowdhury, S R, Kulshreshtha, D K, and Kamboj, V P (1993).
Antigestagenic activity of Ixora finlaysoniana in rat. *Contraception*
48: 178-191.

SKUPENOVA, A and HUPKA, S (1961). Half lethal and lethal dose of Co60
gamma radiation in Vistar rats. *Neoplasma* 8: 583-586.

Smirnov, A V and Petrovich, I K ( Effect of total body external
beta-irradiation on the composition of the peripheral blood of Wistar
strain rats 14 to 30 days old . *Radiobiologiia* 14: 761-763.

Sorokin, A Ia, Kudrin, V S, Klodt, P M, Tuomisto, L, Poletaeva, I I, and
Raevskii, K S (2004). The interstrain differences in the effects of
D-amphetamine and raclopride on dorsal striatum dopaminergic system in
KM and Wistar rats (microdialysis study). *Genetika* 40: 846-849.

Srivastava, Rajesh, Chandra, Ashish, and Kumar, Girish (2004). Strategic
imperatives for globalization of industries in developing countries: an
Indian pharmaceutical industry example. *Health Marketing Quarterly* 22:
57-69.

Stadnikova, N M, Kleimenova, E V, Grankina, E P, and Pylev, L N (1991).
The sodium selenite inhibition of asbestos-induced carcinogenesis in
Wistar rats. *Voprosy Onkologii* 37: 1077-1081.

Stadnikova, N M, Vasil\'eva, L A, Shelepov, V P, and Pylev, L N (1996).
The modifying effect of long-term administration of ascorbic acid with
drinking water on asbestos-induced pleural carcinogenesis in Wistar
rats. *Voprosy Onkologii* 42: 85-88.

Stan, Hans-Juergen and Linkerhaegner, Manfred (1996). Pesticide residue
analysis in foodstuffs applying capillary gas chromatography with atomic
emission detection. State-of-the-art use of modified multimethod S19 of
the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft and automated large-volume injection
with programmed-temperature vaporization and solvent venting. *Journal
of Chromatography, A* 750: 369-390.

STIMMANN MW and FERGUSON MP (1990). PROGRESS REPORT VICE PRESIDENT\'S
TASK FORCE ON PEST CONTROL ALTERNATIVES POTENTIAL PESTICIDE USE
CANCELLATIONS IN CALIFORNIA USA. *CALIF AGRIC; 44* 12-16.

Strekalova, V V, Khachirov, D G, Dedenkov, A N, and Suvorov, Iu I (
Sodium metabolism in Wistar rats exposed to chronic isotonic salt load
after preliminary protein deficiency in the diet according to radiometry
of the whole body with 22-Na. *Voprosy Pitaniia* 45-49.

Strekalova, V V, Khachirov, D G, Dedenkov, A N, Suvorov, Iu I, and
Shvatsabaia, I K (1989). Modeling of experimental hypertension by
chronic salt loading combined with a low-protein diet in Wistar rats.
*Biulleten\' Vsesoiuznogo Kardiologicheskogo Nauchnogo Tsentra AMN SSSR*
12: 48-51.

Strelkov, R B, Dvoretskii, A I, and Kucherenko, N G ( Effect of gaseous
hypoxic mixture GHM-10 on the intestinal death of Wistar rats and
Na+,K+-ATPase activity of the plasma membrane of the small intestine
mucosa after irradiation. *Radiobiologiia* 26: 280-282.

Sumbaev, V V and Iasinskaia, I M ( Effect of DDT on the interaction of
cortisol with glucocorticoid-binding proteins in rat brain. *Ukrainskii
Biokhimicheskii Zhurnal* 72: 114-117.

Sumbayev, V V ( Genistein effect on xanthine oxidase activity.
*Ukrainskii Biokhimicheskii Zhurnal* 73: 39-43.

Takamure, A. (1995). Migration route of Strongyloides venezuelensis in
rodents. *International Journal for Parasitology* 25: 907-911.

Tangka, Julius K. (2003). Analysis of the Thermal Energy Requirements
for the Extraction of Leaf Protein Concentrate from some Green Plants.
*Biosystems Engineering* 86: 473-479.

Terrin, Michael L. (1997). Individual subject random assignment is the
preferred means of evaluating behavioral lifestyle modification.
*Controlled Clinical Trials* 18: 500-505.

Toke, Dave (1990). Increasing energy supply not inevitable. *Energy
Policy* 18: 671-673.

Tunnacliffe, A and Lapinski, J (2003). Resurrecting Van Leeuwenhoek\'s
rotifers: a reappraisal of the role of disaccharides in anhydrobiosis.
*Philosophical Transactions Of The Royal Society Of London. Series B,
Biological Sciences* 358: 1755-1771.

Valafar, Faramarz (2002). Pattern recognition techniques in microarray
data analysis: a survey. *Annals Of The New York Academy Of Sciences*
980: 41-64.

Vataev, S I, Mal\'gina, N A, and Oganesian, G A ( The effect of cadmium
on the structure of the circadian cycle of waking-sleep and on the EEG
in Wistar rats. *Zhurnal Evoliutsionnoi Biokhimii i Fiziologii* 30:
408-419.

Vataev, S I and Oganesian, G A ( Effect of uni- and bilateral lesions in
the caudate nucleus by kainic acid on the electroencephalogram in the
cycle wakefulness-sleep in Wistar rats. *Zhurnal Evoliutsionnoi
Biokhimii i Fiziologii* 36: 115-119 .

Vinogradova, E P ( Effect of consumption of sucrose and saccharin on
passive avoidance learning in female Wistar rats. *Zhurnal Vysshei
Nervnoi Deiatelnosti Imeni I P Pavlova* 52: 213-217.

VON FIRCKS HA, CHELIDZE PG, and CHRISTERSSON, L. (1990). EFFECT OF
MEFLUIDIDE ON FROST HARDINESS OF SALIX-VIMINALIS L LEAVES. *7TH CONGRESS
OF THE FEDERATION OF EUROPEAN SOCIETIES OF PLANT PHYSIOLOGY, UMEA,
SWEDEN, AUGUST 5-10, 1990. PHYSIOL PLANT; 79* A49.

Vose, D J (1998). The application of quantitative risk assessment to
microbial food safety. *Journal Of Food Protection* 61: 640-648.

Waruhiu, E N (1990). Kenya embarks on writing a nursing standard.
International Council of Nurses. *Kenya Nursing Journal* 18: 15, 19, 21.

Whitten, Joan M. (1975). Pre-cuticulin fibril and ecdysial membrane
secretion in cyclorrhapha (Diptera). *International Journal of Insect
Morphology and Embryology* 4: 319-329.

Wilding, P (1995). The changing role of the clinical laboratory
scientist: coming out of the basement. *Clinical Chemistry* 41:
1211-1214.

Williams, Nigel (2003). Banking on genome data . *Current Biology* 13:
R689-R690.

Windsor, J. Brian, Roux, Stan J., Lloyd, Alan M. , and Thomas, Collin E
(2005). Methods and compositions for increasing the efficacy of
biologically-active ingredients such as antitumor agents. *PCT Int.
Appl.* 243 pp.

Zamotrinskii, A V, Malyshev, I Iu, and Larionov, N P (1995). A
comparative analysis of the polypeptide composition of heat shock
proteins 70 synthesized in Wistar and August rat myocardium.
*Biulleten\' Eksperimental\'Noi Biologii i Meditsiny* 120: 30-32.

Zaraiskaia, I Iu ( The reorganization of the functional system of
defensive behavior in the zoosocial environment in Wistar rats. *Zhurnal
Vysshei Nervnoi Deiatelnosti Imeni I P Pavlova* 44: 269-276.

Zaraiskaia, I Iu ( A systems analysis of the defensive behavior of
Wistar rats during bilateral active avoidance training. *Zhurnal Vysshei
Nervnoi Deiatelnosti Imeni I P Pavlova* 45: 472-478.

[^1]:

[^2]: Other anilide herbicides considered were chloranocryl, monalide
    and pentanochlor, however no ecotoxicity data were available for
    these chemicals. The chemical structures of mefluidide and propanil
    are provided in Appendix B. ^3^ Submitted ecotoxicity data are
    summarized in Appendix A.

[^3]: