2

Furfural Preliminary Work Plan – Table of Contents

OVERVIEW......................................................................................................................................................3

ANTICIPATED DATA NEEDS..................................................................................................................4

STATUTORY AND REGULATORY AUTHORITY..............................................................................4

CHEMICAL FACTS ........................................................................................................................................5

USE AND USAGE INFORMATION.........................................................................................................6

RECENT ACTIONS........................................................................................................................................6

ANTICIPATED RISK ASSESSMENTS FOR REGISTRATION REVIEW ......................................7

TIMELINE ........................................................................................................................................................9

NEXT STEPS....................................................................................................................................................9

Appendix – Additional Areas Considered in the Furfural Registration Review................................10

References:

This Preliminary Work Plan summarizes the Environmental Protection Agency's current position 

based on the following documents:

1. Problem Formulation for Registration Review of Furfural. J. Meléndez, G. Rothman, G. Sinclair, May 

13, 2015.

2. Furfural. Human Health Scoping Document in Support of Registration Review. K. O’Rourke, T. 

Morton, J. Kidwell. May 20, 2015.

3. Furfural: Tier I Review of Human Incidents. E. Evans and S. Recore. March 25, 2015.

4. BEAD Chemical Profile (BCP) for Registration Review: Furfural (043301). C. Chen, D. Atwood, M. 

Ranville. March 20, 2015.

These and other supporting documents for the furfural registration review case may be found in the 

docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0765 at http://www.regulations.gov.
3

OVERVIEW

The docket for furfural is now open, initiating the first public comment period for this registration 

review (docket number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0764). Furfural is primarily a nematicide that has 

contact activity, as well as a fungicide that can be used against soil-home fungal pathogens. This 

Preliminary Work Plan (PWP) document explains what EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs knows 

about furfural, highlighting anticipated data and assessment needs, identifying the types of 

information that would be especially useful to the Agency in conducting the review, and providing 

an anticipated timeline for completing the registration review for furfural.

The registration review process was designed to include a public participation component to solicit 

input from interested stakeholders. The Agency intends, by sharing this information in the docket, 

to inform the public of what it knows about furfural and what types of new data or other 

information would be helpful for the Agency to receive as it moves toward a decision on furfural. 

The Agency encourages all interested stakeholders to review the PWP and Appendix and to provide 

comments and additional information that will help the Agency’s decision-making process for this 

chemical. In addition to general areas on which persons may wish to comment, there are some areas 

identified in the PWP and Appendix about which the Agency specifically seeks comments and 

information. Interested stakeholders could include: environmental non-profit or interest groups; 

pesticide manufacturers; agricultural labor or commodity groups; commercial, institutional, 

residential, and other users of pesticides; or the public at large.

The Preliminary Work Plan begins by listing the anticipated data needs for furfural. Next, it 

discusses the statutory and regulatory authority for Registration Review. Then the document 

provides chemical facts, use and usage information, recent actions, the anticipated risk assessments, 

and a projected registration review timeline for furfural. Finally, the Appendix to this document 

includes identification and discussion of some areas that are considered generally in Registration 

Review along with some additional chemical case-specific information.
4

ANTICIPATED DATA NEEDS

Table 1 below summarizes anticipated data needs for furfural. For additional discussion of the 

anticipated data needs, see the Problem Formulation for Registration Review of Furfural and Furfural. Human 

Health Scoping Document in Support of Registration Review.

Table 1: Anticipated Data Needs for the Furfural Registration Review

Guideline 

Number1 Study Title Test Material

Estimated 

Timeframe

(Months from 

receipt of DCI)

835.4300 Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism2 TGAI 24

NonguidelineLaboratory Investigation of Subsurface 

Degradation Study2 TGAI 24

850.1035 Estuarine/Marine Acute Toxicity-Shrimp TGAI 12

850.2100 Avian acute oral toxicity TGAI 12

850.2200 Avian sub-acute dietary toxicity TGAI 12

Nonguideline Vegetative Vigor Vapor-Phase Toxicity Study TEP 12

NonguidelineLaboratory Investigation acute vapor phase 

toxicity study with the honey bee TGAI 24

TGAI = technical grade active ingredient TEP=typical end use product

The Problem Formulation for Registration Review of Furfural indicates the need for test data from

Guideline 835.4100 (aerobic soil metabolism) and Guideline 835.4200 (anaerobic soil metabolism), 

but because these data originally were required as a condition of registration they will not be

included in the DCI for registration review. The Agency is particularly interested in the development 

of the transformation products furfuryl alcohol and 2-furoic acid during the studies, since those data 

will help reduce uncertainty in the environmental fate database.

STATUTORY AND REGULATORY AUTHORITY

The Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996 mandated a registration review program. All 

pesticides distributed or sold in the United States (U.S.) generally must be registered by the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency), based on scientific data showing that they 

will not cause unreasonable risks to human health or the environment when used as directed on 

product labeling. The registration review program is intended to make sure that, as the ability to 

assess risk evolves and as policies and practices change, all registered pesticides continue to meet the 

statutory standard of no unreasonable adverse effects to human health or the environment. 

Changes in science, public policy, and pesticide use practices will occur over time. Through the 

 1 On June 27, 2012, EPA announced certain revisions in harmonized guideline series 850 – Ecological Effects Tests 

– including renumbering and other designations or changes for some guideline studies. See “Final Test 

Guidelines; OCSPP 850 Series; Notice of Availability” 77 FR 38282, June 27, 2012. 

http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0154-0028 2 The study must track the transformation products furfuryl alcohol and 2-furoic acid.
5

registration review program, the Agency periodically reevaluates pesticides to make sure that as 

change occurs, products in the marketplace can be used safely. Information on this program is 

provided on EPA’s website.

3

The Agency is implementing the registration review program pursuant to Section 3(g) of the Federal 

Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), and will review each registered pesticide every 

15 years to determine whether it continues to meet the FIFRA standard for registration. The 

regulations governing registration review begin at 40 CFR 155.40. The Agency will consider benefits 

information and data as required by FIFRA. The public phase of registration review begins when 

the initial docket is opened for each case. The docket is the Agency’s opportunity to state what it 

known about the pesticide and what additional risk analyses and data or information it believes are 

needed to make a registration review decision. After reviewing and responding to comments and 

data received in the docket during this initial comment period, the Agency will develop a Final Work 

Plan (FWP) and anticipated schedule for the registration review of furfural.

CHEMICAL FACTS

Table 2 provides a summary of the chemical facts for furfural.

Table 2: Chemical Facts for Furfural

PC code 043301

Case Number 7050

CAS Number 98-01-1

Year first registered 2006

Pesticide Type Nematicide/Fungicide

Chemical class Heterocyclic aromatic aldehyde

Reregistration Eligibility 

Decision (RED)

Because it was registered after November 1984, furfural was not 

subject to reregistration.

Tolerance Reassessment 

Eligibility Decision (TRED)

Because it was registered after November 1984, furfural was not 

subject to tolerance reassessment.

Cumulative group Not applicable. Furfural has not been identified as a member of 

a cumulative group that shares a common mechanism of toxicity.

40 CFR Citation Furfural is not registered for any food uses and no tolerances are

established for residues of furfural.

Dual-use Furfural is registered for conventional pesticidal uses only and 

has no registered antimicrobial or biopesticidal uses.

Non-pesticidal uses There are no identified non-pesticidal uses of furfural.

Pesticide Re-evaluation 

Division, Chemical Review 

Manager

Jolene Trujillo

trujillo.jolene@epa.gov

303-312-6579

Registration Division, 

Product Manager

Hope Johnson

Johnson.Hope@epa.gov

703-305-5410

 3 http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/registration_review/
6

USE AND USAGE INFORMATION

Table 3 summarizes the use and usage information for furfural. Please see the BEAD Chemical 

Profile (BCP) for Registration Review: Furfural (043301) in the registration review docket for more 

details.

Table 3: Furfural Use and Usage Information

Summary of Use Furfural is registered for use as a contact nematicide. It is also 

registered as a fungicide to control certain soil-borne fungal 

pathogens. 

Use Sites Sod/turf farm is the only registered agricultural site. The registered 

non-agricultural sites include ornamental turf (golf course and athletic 

fields), field grown plants and ornamentals (non-bearing fruit trees and 

vines, cut flower production, and production nurseries), and 

greenhouse ornamentals.

Summary of Usage No quantitative usage information is available for furfural at this time.

Formulation Type(s) Flowable concentrate

Application Method(s) Products can be applied by ground boom sprayer, chemigation (drip

and overhead), drench, or low pressure back pack sprayer.

Technical Registrant(s) Agriguard Company LLC

No. of Registrations 2 Section 3 products4

Restricted Use No

Guidance for Commenters: Quantitative usage information is not available to the Agency at this 

time for any uses of furfural. Obtaining or confirming the following information may improve future 

assessments related to the use and importance of furfural.

• Total pounds active ingredient applied per year on a national or regional basis for each use 

site

• Typical application rates and application (retreatment) intervals

• Percent crop/site treated

• Unique geographic areas of use with high intensity

• Maximum number of applications for greenhouse ornamental uses 

• Methods of application alternative to those listed above

• Target or niche pest species

• Efficacy information/product performance

• State or local use restrictions

• Foreign technical registrants not listed above who supply technical furfural to the US market

RECENT ACTIONS

There is a proposed new use for application to bare soil that is currently undergoing evaluation for 

registration.

 4 Section 3 product labels can be obtained from the Pesticide Product Label System (PPLS) website 

(http://oaspub.epa.gov/pestlabl/ppls.home).
7

ANTICIPATED RISK ASSESSMENTS FOR REGISTRATION REVIEW

The most recent comprehensive human health risk assessment for furfural, completed on August 8, 

2012, was conducted for the use on athletic fields and outdoor ornamentals. The most recent 

ecological and environmental fate risk assessment was completed May 7, 2012 for new use on 

ornamentals and clarification on existing uses on turf. Findings and conclusions from these risk 

assessments are summarized in the Problem Formulation for Registration Review of Furfural and Furfural. 

Human Health Scoping Document in Support of Registration Review.

During registration review, the Agency anticipates the need to conduct a comprehensive ecological 

risk assessment, including an endangered species assessment, for all uses of furfural. For human 

health, EPA anticipates the need to conduct revised dietary, residential, and occupational risk 

assessments during registration review. The cancer re-classification will be considered in the new 

assessments for registration review, as well as any changes to the standard operating procedures or 

default exposure assumptions.

Table 4 below summarizes the anticipated registration review risk assessments based on the EFED 

Problem Formulation and HED Scoping Document.
8

Table 4: Anticipated Risk Assessments for the Furfural Registration Review

Type of Risk Assessment Conduct? Notes

Ecological and Environmental Fate

Comprehensive ecological 

(species to be assessed include 

terrestrial and aquatic 

organisms), including 

endangered species 

Yes The stressors of concern are furfural and furfural’s 

major degradates. A total toxic residues (TTR) approach 

will be used for the ecological risk assessment.

Incidents Will check for 

updates

See page 18 of the Problem Formulation. The Agency’s 

databases do not show any reported ecological incidents

for furfural.

Human Health

Dietary

Food No Not needed for the currently registered uses of furfural. 

Drinking water Yes An updated drinking water risk assessment will be 

necessary to reflect changes to the acute dietary 

endpoint and point of departure (POD), the cancer reclassification, and possible revisions of the estimated 

drinking water concentrations (EDWCs). The 

assessments will use the newest version of DEEM and 

reflect updated consumption information.

Occupational

Handlers (mixers, loaders, 

applicators)

Yes Although no occupational risks of concern were 

identified in previous risk assessments, updated 

occupational exposure and risk assessments are likely to 

be necessary given the cancer re-classification. 

Post-application Yes An updated occupational post-application risk 

assessments is likely to be necessary given the cancer reclassification. 

Residential

Handlers No Furfural is not registered for residential uses.

Post-application Yes Although no residential risks of concern were identified 

in previous risk assessments, updated residential 

bystander risk estimates resulting from off-site transport 

(i.e., volatilization) associated with occupational 

applications are likely to be necessary given the cancer 

re-classification and any changes to uncertainty factors.

Other

Aggregate No While a common effect has been identified in oral and 

dermal toxicity studies, post-application dermal 

exposure to furfural residues is expected to be 

negligible. The inhalation endpoint is based on portal of 

entry effects that are not appropriate to aggregate with 

the dietary exposure. 
9

Cumulative No EPA has not made a common mechanism of toxicity 

finding as to furfural and any other substances and 

furfural does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite 

produced by other substances.

Tolerances No Furfural is not registered for food uses in the U.S. and 

no tolerances have been established. There are no 

Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex) or Canadian 

maximum residue limits (MRLs) for furfural. As a 

result, there are no harmonization issues at the present 

time. 

Incidents Will check for 

updates

See page 9 of the Scoping Document and Furfural: Tier I 

Review of Human Incidents. The Agency’s databases do not 

show any reported human incidents for furfural.

TIMELINE

EPA has created the following estimated timeline for the completion of the furfural registration

review in Table 5 below.

Table 5: Projected Furfural Registration Review Timeline

Activities Estimated Date

Opening the Docket

Open Docket and 60-day Public Comment Period 2015- June

Close Public Comment 2015- August

Case Development

Final Work Plan 2015- November

Issue DCI 2016 Jan.-March

Data Submission 2018 Jan.-March

60-day Public Comment Period for Draft Risk 

Assessments5

2019- July- Sept.

Registration Review Decision

60-day Public Comment Period for Proposed 

Registration Review Decision

2020- April- June

Registration Review Decision and Begin Post-Decision 

Follow-up

2021

Total (years) 6

NEXT STEPS

After the 60-day public comment period closes, the Agency will review and respond to any 

comments received in a timely manner and then issue a Final Work Plan for the registration review 

of furfural.

 5 The regulations governing Registration Review generally require the Agency to provide a public comment period 

of at least 30 calendar days for draft risk assessments; see 40 CFR Part 155.53(c). For conventional pesticides, the 

Agency plans to provide a 60 calendar day public comment period generally for draft risk assessments.
10

Appendix – Additional Areas Considered in the Furfural Registration Review

PUBLIC COMMENTS AND FEEDBACK:

Guidance for Commenters: The areas below highlight topics of special interest to the Agency 

where your comments, data submissions, or reference to sources of additional information could be 

of particular use.

Trade Irritants:

Through the registration review process, the Agency intends to solicit information on trade irritants 

and, to the extent feasible, take steps toward facilitating irritant resolution. The Agency will work to 

harmonize tolerances and international maximum residue limits (MRLs) and may modify tolerance 

levels to do so, when possible. Growers and other stakeholders are asked to comment on any 

trade irritant issues resulting from lack of MRLs or disparities between U.S. tolerances and MRLs in 

key export markets, providing as much specificity as possible regarding the nature of the concern. 

Because furfural is not registered for food/feed uses in the U.S., it has no U.S. tolerances; therefore, 

the Agency does not anticipate any trade irritant issues for it.

Water Quality:

Furfural is not identified as a cause of impairment for any water bodies listed as impaired under 

section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act.

6

 In addition, no Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) have 

been developed for furfural.

7

 More information on impaired water bodies and TMDLs can be 

found at the Agency’s website.

8 The Agency invites submission of water quality data for this 

pesticide. To the extent possible, data should conform to the quality standards in Appendix A of 

the OPP Standard Operating Procedure: Inclusion of Impaired Water Body and Other Water Quality Data in 

OPP’s Registration Review Risk Assessment and Management Process9 in order to ensure they can be used 

quantitatively or qualitatively in pesticide risk assessments.

Environmental Justice:

EPA seeks to achieve environmental justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all 

people, regardless of race, color, national origin, or income, in the development, implementation, 

and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. To help address potential 

environmental justice issues, the Agency seeks information on any groups or segments of the 

population who, as a result of their location, cultural practices, or other factors, may have atypical, 

unusually high exposure to furfural compared to the general population. Please comment if you 

are aware of any sub-populations that may have atypical, unusually high exposure compared 

to the general population.

ENDANGERED SPECIES:

 6 http://iaspub.epa.gov/tmdl_waters10/attains_nation_cy.cause_detail_303d?p_cause_group_id=885 7

http://iaspub.epa.gov/tmdl_waters10/attains_nation.tmdl_pollutant_detail?p_pollutant_group_id=885&p_pollutant_

group_name=PESTICIDES 8 http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/

9 http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/registration_review/water_quality_sop.htm
11

A risk assessment that supports a complete endangered species determination has not been 

conducted for furfural. The ecological risk assessment planned during registration review will allow 

the Agency to determine whether use of furfural has “no effect” or “may affect” federally listed 

threatened or endangered species (listed species) or their designated critical habitats. When an 

assessment concludes that a pesticide’s use “may affect” a listed species or its designated critical 

habitat, the Agency will consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or National Marine 

Fisheries Service (the Services), as appropriate.

ENDOCRINE DISRUPTOR SCREENING PROGRAM:

As required by FIFRA and FFDCA, EPA reviews numerous studies to assess potential adverse 

outcomes from exposure to chemicals. Collectively, these studies include acute, subchronic and 

chronic toxicity, including assessments of carcinogenicity, neurotoxicity, developmental, 

reproductive, and general or systemic toxicity. These studies include endpoints which may be 

susceptible to endocrine influence, including effects on endocrine target organ histopathology, organ 

weights, estrus cyclicity, sexual maturation, fertility, pregnancy rates, reproductive loss, and sex ratios 

in offspring. For ecological hazard assessments, EPA evaluates acute tests and chronic studies that 

assess growth, developmental and reproductive effects in different taxonomic groups. As part of its 

most recent registration decision for furfural, EPA reviewed these data and selected the most 

sensitive endpoints for relevant risk assessment scenarios from the existing hazard database. 

However, as required by FFDCA section 408(p), furfural is subject to the endocrine screening part 

of the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP). 

EPA has developed the EDSP to determine whether certain substances (including pesticide active 

and other ingredients) may have an effect in humans or wildlife similar to an effect produced by a 

“naturally occurring estrogen, or other such endocrine effects as the Administrator may designate.” 

The EDSP employs a two-tiered approach to making the statutorily required determinations. Tier 1 

consists of a battery of 11 screening assays to identify the potential of a chemical substance to 

interact with the estrogen, androgen, or thyroid (E, A, or T) hormonal systems. Chemicals that go 

through Tier 1 screening and are found to have the potential to interact with E, A, or T hormonal 

systems will proceed to the next stage of the EDSP where EPA will determine which, if any, of the 

Tier 2 tests are necessary based on the available data. Tier 2 testing is designed to identify any 

adverse endocrine-related effects caused by the substance, and establish a dose-response relationship 

between the dose and the E, A, or T effect. 

Under FFDCA section 408(p), the Agency must screen all pesticide chemicals. Between October 

2009 and February 2010, EPA issued test orders/data call-ins for the first group of 67 chemicals, 

which contains 58 pesticide active ingredients and 9 inert ingredients. A second list of chemicals 

identified for EDSP screening was published on June 14, 201310 and includes some pesticides 

scheduled for registration review and chemicals found in water. Furfural was not on either list. 

Neither of these lists should be construed as a list of known or likely endocrine disruptors. 

For further information on the status of the EDSP, the policies and procedures, the lists of 

chemicals, future lists, the test guidelines and the Tier 1 screening battery, please visit our website.11

 10 See http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0477-0074 for the final second list of 

chemicals. 11 http://www.epa.gov/endo/
12

HUMAN STUDIES:

Occupational

Past furfural risk assessments rely in part on data from studies in which adult human subjects were 

intentionally exposed to a pesticide to determine their dermal and inhalation exposure. Many such 

studies, involving exposure to many different pesticides, comprise generic pesticide exposure 

databases such as the Pesticide Handlers Exposure Database (PHED) and the Agricultural Reentry 

Task Force (ARTF) Database. EPA has reviewed all the studies supporting these multi-pesticide 

generic exposure databases, and has found no clear and convincing evidence that the conduct of any 

of them was either fundamentally unethical or significantly deficient relative to the ethical standards 

prevailing at the time the research was conducted. All applicable requirements of EPA’s Rule for 

the Protection of Human Subjects of Research (40 CFR Part 26) have been satisfied, and there is no 

regulatory barrier to continued reliance on these studies.