OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY

AND POLLUTION PREVENTION

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

June 24, 2015

PC Code: 050410

MEMORANDUM DP Barcode: 424167

SUBJECT: Fluensulfone: Ecological Risk Assessment for Proposed Section 3 New Uses on Golf 

Courses, Sports Fields, Commercial Turfgrass Areas, Sod Farms and Residential 

Turfgrass Lawns.

FROM: Donna Reed Judkins, Ph.D., Biologist

James Lin, Ph.D., Environmental Engineer

ERB2/EFED (7507P)

REVIEWERS: Elyssa Arnold, Risk Assessment Process Leader

R. David Jones, Ph.D., Senior Agronomist

ERB2/EFED (7507P)

THROUGH: Brian Anderson, Branch Chief

ERB2/EFED (7507P)

TO: Rita Kumar, Risk Manager Reviewer

Mark Suarez, Team Leader, PM Team 7

Insecticide-Vertebrate Branch 3

Registration Division (7505P)

Office of Pesticide Programs

The Environmental Fate and Effects Division (EFED) conducted an ecological risk 

assessment for the proposed label amendments to add Section 3 new uses for nematode control 

in Bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon), St. Augustine grass (Stenotaphrum secundatum), zoysia

(Zoysia japonica x Z. tenuifolia), centipede grass (Eremochloa ophiuroides), seashore paspalum

(Paspalum vaginatum), Kentucky tall fescue (Festuca arundinacanea, and creeping bentgrass 

(Agrostis stonolifera) on golf courses, sports fields, commercial turfgrass areas, sod farms and 

residential turfgrass lawns. The following submission applies:

 Proposed Label: “MCW-2 1.5G [Alternate brand name Quali-Pro® Nimitz® 1.5 G Nematicide] For 

nematode control in Bermudagrass, St. Augustinegrass, Zoysiagrass, Centipedegrass, Seashore Paspalum, 

Kentucky Tall Fescue, and Creeping Bentgrass on Golf Courses, Sports Fields, Commercial Turfgrass 

Areas, Sod Farms and Residential Turfgrass Lawns (applied by State Certified/License Pesticide 

Applicator).”
2

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The proposed new uses for fluensulfone were evaluated for potential ecological risks. A 

recent (2014) new chemical assessment1that assessed higher maximum single application rates 

and a similar maximum annual application rate was relied upon for this assessment. The

proposed label was not missing use directions and no new fate or effects data have been 

submitted for inclusion in a new assessment that would alter the list of taxa at risk. 

The abbreviated assessment that follows covers the following modifications to the 

previous ecological risk assessment:

 Aquatic Invertebrate and Non-Vascular Aquatic Plant Assessment: Since mollusks 

and algae were close to LOCs (levels of concern) and a small difference in EEC 

(estimated environmental concentration) might change the risk conclusions, an 

abbreviated aquatic assessment was conducted.

 Avian and Mammalian Foraging Area Assessment: Since previous uses were either 

drip irrigated or incorporated immediately, the mammalian and avian assessments were

limited to wildlife that eat arthropods or seeds. This new proposed product is granular 

and so the exposure route differs from that of liquid spray. Exposures to granules are 

based on direct consumption and amount of granules in a given area adjusted for toxicity.

 Terrestrial Insect Partial Assessment: Since the previous assessment showed that a 

single application exceeded the acute listed species LOC and that earthworm exposure 

could exceed toxicity endpoints, risk was reconsidered for the proposed new uses. 

 Terrestrial Plant Assessment: Since the single application rate was lower for the 

proposed new uses than the one previously assessed, and the terrestrial plant risk 

assessment is based on maximum single, rather than maximum annual, application rates, 

terrestrial plant risk was reassessed. In this case, only the runoff calculations applied 

since spray drift is not calculated for granular applications.

As illustrated in Figure 1 and Table 1, risks from the proposed new uses on turf are similar to 

those previously assessed. 

Figure 1. Quadrant Graphs Showing Overview of Taxanomic Groups at Risk from Previously 

Assessed Uses of Fluensulfone on Crop Groups 8 and 9 and from Proposed New Uses on Turf.

 

1D. Judkins and J. Lin. “United States Environmental Protection Agency Environmental Assessment for the New 

Chemical Fluensulfone,” internal communication to the Registration Division. DP Barcode 402512, January 8, 2014
3

Table 1. Evidence of Risk to Taxonomic Groups from Fluensulfone Proposed New Uses on Turf.1 

Predominant Evidence of Negligible Risk Predominant Evidence of Risk

Not Assessed in this Abbreviated Assessment –

Information from 2014 Assessment and assumed

to Apply to Proposed New Uses on Turf: fish, 

freshwater invertebrates and vascular aquatic plants 

do not have LOC exceedances; however, since this is 

a relatively new chemical, the ability to comment on 

unexpected long-term effects is limited and so even 

though the predominant evidence indicates negligible 

risk, there is some uncertainty.

For mollusks and aquatic non-vascular plants, no RQs 

were exceeded based on runoff only since this is a 

granular product. Previous assessment on a sprayable product at the same application rate, exceeded 

risk concern levels; however, with the reduced 

exposure from eliminating spray drift, all aquatic 

invertebrates and aquatic plants are placed in the 

green quadrant.

Terrestrial invertebrates, especially those below-ground, 

are clearly at risk similar to the target nematodes for 

which the product was designed. Risk to those exposed 

on foliage and other above-ground sites is uncertain.

Limited Evidence of Negligible Risk Limited Evidence of Risk

One sq. ft. of treated area would contain enough 

chemical to be acutely toxic to small birds; an important 

uncertainty is whether birds would consume the 

granules and/or whether dissolve granules would taint 

food items at levels sufficient to cause effects to birds.

Less than two sq. ft. of treated area would contain 

enough active ingredient to be acutely toxic to small 

mammals. A small area (0.7 to 6 sq ft. depending on 

feeding efficiency) would be large enough to cause 

chronic risk to mammals. An important uncertainty is 

whether mammals would consume the granules and/or 

whether dissolve granules would taint food items at 

levels sufficient to cause effects to mammals..

Semi-aquatic dicots had a listed-species RQ of 6.4,

exceeding the LOC (1.0); all other terrestrial plant 

groups and all non-listed species RQs did not exceed the 

LOC.

1 A key to the categories defined by each quadrant (e.g., Predominant Evidence of Risk) is found in Appendix A.

The list of taxa that exceed risk levels of concern is reduced from the previous 

assessment at the same annual application rate maximum, since granules are not subject to spray 

drift (Figure 1, Table 1). Terrestrial invertebrates, especially those below-ground, are clearly at 

risk given that fluensulfone is used to control some terrestrial invertebrates; risk is less certain to 

those on foliage and/or other above-ground sites. Birds and mammals foraging in the immediate 

treatment area are at risk above concern levels, though the evidence of risk is limited because the 

opportunity or likelihood regarding the potential to consume granules either directly or dissolved 

onto food items is unknown. Similarly, terrestrial plants are at risk above concern levels, though 

only semi-aquatic dicots exceeded the listed-species LOC, and other plant groups did not. 

Mollusks and aquatic non-vascular plants were not found to be at risk above concern levels from 

these proposed new uses since only runoff applied. The same application rate previously 

assessed with a spray-drift component did exceed LOCs; however with the reduced exposure

from eliminating spray drift, all aquatic invertebrates and aquatic plants are placed in the green 
4

quadrant. Fish and aquatic vascular plants are not likely at risks of concern, though there is some 

uncertaintly since this is a relatively new chemical and limited information exists on any 

unexpected long-term effects that are sometimes seen over time through incident reports or new 

data that may be generated over time.

2. USE CHARACTERIZATION FOR PROPOSED NEW USES ON TURF

Quali-Pro Nimitz1.5G Nematicide is a granular formulation containing 1.5% of 

fluensulfone active ingredient by weight. The label specifies that applications should be 

uniformly broadcasted over turfgrass area suspected to have nematodes or with a history of 

nematodes. The use rate range is 60 – 120 pounds product per acre with a maximum seasonal 

amount of 240 pounds product per year (3.6 lb a.i./acre). Depending on nematode populations 

and damage, applications can be made monthly, bi-monthly or sequentially. It is recommended 

to irrigate following application with an adequate amount of water (generally 0.5 inches). The 

proposed label specifies three application scenarios:

 

Table 2. Proposed New Single Application Rates, Number of Applications and Intervals for 

Proposed New Uses on Turf -- All Have Maximum Annual Application Rate of 3.6 lb a.i./acre.

Single Application Rate Number of Applications and Application Intervals

(1) 60 lb/acre (0.9 lb a.i./acre) can be applied at 1 month intervals for 4 consecutive months

(2) 80 lb/acre (1.2 lb a.i./acre) can be applied at 1 month interval for 3 consecutive months

(3) 120 lb/acre (1.8 lb a.i./acre) can be made in spring or early summer with a second application at 

the same rate 2-6 months following the initial broadcast

PREVIOUS EECS FOR SECTION 3 USES

The only ecological risk assessment previously completed by EFED was the 2014 new 

chemical assessment. The maximum application rate assessed was a single application of 3.5 lb 

a.i./acre with only one application allowed; the aquatic exposure EECs are shown below in 

Table 3. These EECs are for fluensulfone plus its major degradate, methyl sulfone (MS) which 

are considered here to be the total toxic residues (TTR). The total annual rate for the proposed 

new uses on turf (3.6 lb a.i./acre) is 0.1 lb a.i./acre higher than that previously assessed but this is 

likely an artifact of rounding, since this rate is an annual maximum from multiple applications 

and not likely to make a difference in any of the risk conclusions. Therefore, the previous risk 

conclusions that apply to the annual maximum application rate are assumed to apply to the 

proposed new uses on turf.

Table 3. Aquatic EECs from Previous Assessment in 2014 for Fluensulfone plus Methyl Sulfone at 

Maximum Annual Application Rate of 3.5 lb a.i./A.

Use Scenario Peak (μg/L) 21-day Mean

(μg/L)

60-day Mean

(μg/L)

Fruiting vegetables STX vegetable 15.23 12.20 8.69

Cucurbits FL cucumber 17.60 14.80 10.74
5

UPDATED AQUATIC EXPOSURE AND RISK ASSESSMENT FOR THE 

PROPOSED NEW TURF USES

Since RQs (risk quotients) for mollusks and algae only exceeded the LOCs for listed 

species and a small difference in EEC might change the risk conclusions, an abbreviated aquatic 

assessment was conducted on these taxa only. 

There are three standard scenarios for turf uses: CA, FL, and PA. Each scenario is 

modeled with 3 application schemes: (1) 2 applications @ 1.8 lb a.i./acre; (2) 3 applications @ 

1.2 lb a.i./acre; and (3) 4 applications @ 0.9 lb a.i./acre. The resulting EECs for fluensulfone 

plus methyl sulfone are list in Table 4 (also see Appendix B).

Table 4. SWCC Results for Fluensulfone plus Methyl Sulfone EECs for Proposed New Uses on 

Turf at Maximum Annual Rate of 3.5 lb a.i./A.

PRZM Scenario Type of 

Application

1-in-10-year 

Peak 

Exposure (μg/L)

1-in-10-year 

21-day Average 

Exposure (μg/L)

1-in-10-year 

60-day Average 

Exposure (μg/L)

CA Turf 2 app.

Ground

8.80 7.47 5.54

CA Turf 3 app. 8.47 7.16 6.10

CA Turf 4 app. 7.16 6.06 5.40

FL Turf 2 app. 10.2 8.56 6.60

FL Turf 3 app. 10.4 8.36 7.17

FL Turf 4 app. 7.92 6.28 5.42

PA Turf 2 app. 9.96 8.16 5.89

PA Turf 3 app. 10.2 8.31 7.32

PA Turf 4 app. 9.00 7.53 6.30

These aquatic EECs are all less than the previous Section 3 uses, so aquatic impact will 

not exceed the previous assessment. The only risks to be re-assessed are those that exceeded 

LOCs (mollusks and algae) to determine whether they still exceed or drop below LOCs. Please 

note that the mollusk data are used in estuarine/marine invertebrate risk calculations, but the 

greater sensitivity may be more a function of taxonomic order than ecosystem, so any 

estuarine/marine invertebrate LOC exceedances may suggest mollusc risk in general. 

Table 5 lists RQs calculated for aquatic animals exposed to fluensulfone, based on the 

highest SWCC-calculated EECs for turf uses listed in Table 4. These EECs are based on TTR 

exposure (fluensulfone and MS). 
6

Table 5. Aquatic RQs for Exposure to Fluensulfone plus MS Resulting from Runoff from Proposed 

New Uses on Turf at Maximum Annual Application Rate of 3.6 lb a.i./A.

Taxa Surface Water EEC

μg/L

Endpoint Used

μg a.i./L1 RQ 

Acute Exposure

Estuarine/Marine Invertebrates Peak/10.4 EC50 = 78002 <0.01

Aquatic non-vascular plants Peak/10.4

Non-Listed: IC50 = 223 0.47

Listed: IC05 = 113 0.95

Chronic Exposure

Estuarine/Marine Invertebrates 21-d/ 8.4 NOAEC = 3704 0.02

Bolded and shaded values indicate RQs that exceed the Agency’s risk LOCs. For invertebrates, the acute LOC was 

0.05 for listed species or 0.5 for non-listed species; the chronic risk LOC was 1.0. The LOC was 1.0 for listed 

and/or non-listed aquatic plants. Asterisk (*) indicates that only the listed species LOC was exceeded. 

1 Endpoints were based on fluensulfone TGAI (technical-grade active ingredient) since the parent compound was 

more toxic than the MS degradate (see the 2014 new chemical assessment for a breakdown).

2 Based on oyster shell-growth inhibition (MRID 48574865) from exposure to fluensulfone TGAI, technical-grade 

active ingredient.

3 Based on P. subcapitata cell density (MRID 48574858).

4 Based on mysid NOAEC = 370 (MRID 48574857).

The acute and chronic RQs were below the Agency’s acute and chronic risk LOCs based 

on the highest TTR EECs (parent + MS degradate) for the proposed new uses on turf compared 

with TGAI (technical-grade active ingredient) toxicity. 

TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE EXPOSURE AND RISK ASSESSMENT FOR THE 

PROPOSED NEW TURF USES

In the previous assessment all uses were either drip irrigated or immediately 

incorporated; therefore, the only exposures to birds and mammals that were assessed were from

food items that could leave the furrows either by wind or crawling (i.e., seeds and arthropods). 

The proposed new uses on turf do not differentiate food items given the assessment methods 

used for granules, which is based on consumption of granules as calculated using the T-REX 

model (v. 1.5, March 22, 2012) for mammals and birds. Input values for deriving EECs in TREX are shown in Table 6. 

Table 6. T-REX Input Parameters for Deriving Maximum Terrestrial EECs for Fluensulfone 

Proposed New Uses on Turf.1

Proposed Use 

(Application Method)

Application Rate

(lbs a.i./A)

Number of Applications

(Interval between applications)

Turf

(broadcast) 1.8 2(60 days)

1 Half-life used was the default 35 days.
7

Table 7 summarizes the dietary- and dose-based EECs, based on the maximum single 

application rate of fluensulfone for the proposed uses (also see Appendix C). The amount per 

square foot (both by a.i. weight and portion of the LD50 for each size class) was estimated. An 

analysis based on how many granules of product would need to be consumed to cause mortality 

was not run because information was not available on the weight of single granules. This 

information could allow for some additional characterization regarding the opportunity for 

wildlife to consume sufficient numbers of granules to result in toxic effects.

Table 7. T-REX Calculated EECs of Fluensulfone Proposed New Uses on Turf at Maximum 

Annual Application Rate of 2 Applications of 1.8 lbs a.i./A with 60-Day Interval.

Proposed 

Application 

Methods

Type of Exposure

Dietary 

Based

(ppm)

(mammals 

and birds)

Dose Based

(mg/kg-bw)

(birds)

Dose Based

(mg/kg-bw)

(mammals)

All Size 

Classes

Small

(20 g)

Medium

(100 g)

Large

(1000 g)

Small

(15 g)

Medium

(35 g)

Large

(1000 g)

T-REX Estimates of Risk per Square Foot from Broadcast Application.

Turf 

Broadcast of 2 

apps @ 1.8 lb 

a.i./A (60d 

interval)

mg per sq. ft. 18.7 -- -- -- -- -- --

LD50/sq ft -- 7.11 1.12 0.08 0.85 0.45 0.04

For avian (also surrogate for reptiles and terrestrial-phase amphibians) and mammalian 

exposure to fluensulfone based on granular exposure as estimated using T-REX, Table 7 above 

shows that the amount of potential exposure is 18.7 mg a.i./sq. ft. It also provides an estimate 

that for small birds, one sq. ft. of treated area would contain 7x the LD50, for medium birds 1.12x 

and for large birds, 0.08x the LD50. Though RQs are not calculable from this, conclusions may 

be drawn that small to medium sized birds could have more than adequate opportunity for 

sufficient exposure to cause toxic effects. 

For mammals, Table 7 shows that for small mammals, one sq. ft. of treated area would

contain 0.85x the LD50, for medium mammals 0.45x and for large mammals, 0.04x the LD50. 

Though RQs are not calculable from this, conclusions may be drawn that small mammals could 

have adequate opportunity for exposure at toxic levels, although it is less certain if larger birds 

could be impacted. 

T-REX calculations were also available to break down the foraging area needed for 

mammals to consume enough fluensulfone to exceed the chronic LOC based on feeding 

efficiency, since chronic dose-based toxicity data were available. Table 8 shows that the 

foraging area needed in general for all size classes is 0.7 sq. ft. when 100% feeding efficiency is 

assumed and ranges to 6 sq. ft. when only 10% feeding efficiency is assumed. 
8

Table 8. Characterization of Minimum Foraging Area Needed to Allow for Ingestion of Sufficient 

Mass of A.I. to Achieve LOC Exceedance at Proposed Maximum Annual Application Rate of 2 

Applications of 1.8 lb a.i./A with 60-Day Interval.

Mammalian Assessment1

Foraging area (square feet) needed to achieve LOC exceedance assuming 

100% feeding efficiency 0.66

Foraging area (square feet) needed to achieve LOC exceedance assuming 50% 

feeding efficiency 1.33

Foraging area (square feet) needed to achieve LOC exceedance assuming 10% 

feeding efficiency 6.64

1Avian assessment was unavailable due to lack of chronic dose-based data.

TERRESTRIAL PLANT EXPOSURE AND RISK ASSESSMENT FOR THE 

PROPOSED NEW TURF USES

Terrestrial plant risk was re-calculated since calculations are based on the maximum 

single application rate and that rate is lower for the proposed new uses on turf than the one 

previously assessed for broadcast application. Fluensulfone exposure estimates from TerrPlant 

for terrestrial plants inhabiting dry and wetland treated areas were derived from exposure 

estimates of runoff only (Table 9, also see Appendix D). 

Table 9. EECs Calculated using TerrPlant for Terrestrial Plant Exposure from Runoff to

Fluensulfone from Proposed New Uses on Turf at Maximum Single Application Rate of 1.8 lb 

a.i./A.

Description EEC, lb a.i./A

Runoff to dry areas 0.09

Runoff to semi-aquatic areas 0.90

Spray drift 0

Total for dry areas 0.09

Total for semi-aquatic areas 0.90

The EEC estimates for dry and semi-aquatic areas were 0.09 and 0.90 lb a.i./A, 

respectively (Table 8). 

Since the single application rate was lower for these uses than the one previously 

assessed for broadcast application, and the terrestrial plant risk assessment is based on maximum 

single, rather than maximum annual application rates, TerrPlant was re-run to see if the risk 

conclusions changed for the proposed new uses on turf, using only runoff calculations (Table 

10).
9

Table 10. Terrestrial Plant RQs for Exposure from Runoff to Fluensulfone from Proposed New 

Uses on Turf at Maximum Single Application Rate of 1.8 lb a.i./A.

Taxa

EECa

lb a.i./A

Endpoint Used

Seedling Emergence

lb a.i./A

RQ values*

Dry SemiAquatic Dry SemiAquatic

Fluensulfone Alone 

Monocots

Non-Listed

0.09 0.90

EC25 = 2.501 <0.1 0.36

Listed NOAEC = 1.211 <0.1 0.74

Dicots

Non-Listed EC25 = >3.772 <0.1 0.24

Listed NOAEC = 0.1412 0.64 6.38

* RQs that exceed the LOC (1.0) for listed or non-listed terrestrial plants are bolded and shaded.

1 Based on onion height (MRID 48574945).

2 Based on soybean emergence and survival (MRID 48574945).

RQ values for listed semi-aquatic dicots exceed the Agency’s LOC of 1.0 based on 

fluensulfone exposure from the proposed uses (RQ of 6.4). No other LOCs were exceeded for 

terrestrial plants (Table 10).

TERRESTRIAL INVERTEBRATE RISK ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED 

NEW TURF USES (QUALITATIVE)

Since a single application estimate showed listed-species LOC exceedances for nontarget terrestrial invertebrates in the previous assessment, and also that earthworm exposure 

could exceed toxicity endpoints, terrestrial invertebrate risk was reconsidered. However, this 

was qualitative since the previous assessment was based on liquid applications calculated in TREX. EFED does not routinely quantitatively model exposure to terrestrial invertebrates from 

runoff alone; however, exposure to above- and below-ground invertebrates is likely to occur, 

especially as the granules are dissolved and seep into the ground. This is the same as its 

application to reach target species and, therefore, it would reason that terrestrial invertebrates in 

the treatment area would be at risk similar to target species. This would apply to contact with 

runoff and not foliage, i.e. would not apply to pollinators or other species present only on foliage.

3. CONCLUSIONS

Conclusions from the four areas of this abbreviated assessment are as follows:

 Aquatic Invertebrate and Non-Vascular Aquatic Plant Assessment:

Even though annual application rates were approximately the same, removing the spray 

drift component reduced RQs to below LOCs for aquatic invertebrates and aquatic nonvascular plants. 

 Avian and Mammalian Assessment: 

Since the proposed product is granular the assessment based on dietary exposure to 
10

various food items did not apply. All exposure here is based on consumption of the 

granules and the amount falling on food items to be consumed or consumed separately is 

unknown. The amount available in a given forage area was calculated and the following 

conclusions were reached:

 one square foot of treated area would contain 7x the amount acutely toxic to 

small birds;

 less than two square feet of treated area would contain an amount acutely toxic to 

small mammals: and

 only a small foraging area would be needed (0.7 to 6 sq. ft., depending on feeding 

efficiency) for a mammal to consume enough fluensulfone to exceed the chronic 

LOC in the immediate treatment area.

 Terrestrial Insect Partial Assessment: 

Since the product is granular and EFED does not have an approved method to assess 

exposure to terrestrial invertebrates from granules or their runoff, this assessment was 

qualitative. Foliar exposure was not considered. However, since the product was 

designed to kill nematodes, exposure, especially to below-ground invertebrates, is clearly 

sufficient to cause risk to other invertebrates; above ground exposure is uncertain.

 Terrestrial Plant Assessment: 

The listed-species LOC was exceeded only for semi-aquatic dicots (RQ of 6.4) based on 

runoff. No other LOCs were exceeded for terrestrial plants. 

The overall conclusions, including some carried forward from the previous assessment in

2014 are summarized in Table 1 (a key to Table 1 is found in Appendix A).

.
Appendix A: Key to Categories for Table 1.

Predominant Evidence of Negligible Risk Predominant Evidence of Environmental 

Impact

• No LOC exceedance with relatively complete data 

set or risks have been mitigated;

• High confidence in data

• Fate and ecotox profiles clearly support low risk

• More than one line of evidence predicts effects will 

occur

• LOC exceedances, fate, and ecotox profile should be 

considered 

• Exposure is expected to occur based on fate profile 

and uses

• Probable cause of incident(s).

• Examples: High toxicity, high persistence, 

incident(s), little exposure needed to cause effects

Limited Evidence of Negligible Risk Limited Evidence of Risk

• No LOCs exceeded but other non-compelling 

circumstances suggest that there may be issues

• Missing endpoints, poorly spaced test 

concentrations, low confidence in data showing low 

toxicity

• Low risk calls based on extrapolation and 

additional information is being requested to 

corroborate low risk

• Examples: high persistence and bioaccumulation, 

but low risk calls

• Chronic risk called for non-persistent chemical

• Risk to taxonomic group called based on complete 

lack of submitted data

• Risk calls based on lack of data without other lines 

of evidence available

• Risk calls based on uncertain extrapolation methods 

or conflicting data

• Missing endpoints, poorly spaced test 

concentrations, low confidence in data showing high 

toxicity

• Examples: Risk calls based on total residues, but not 

parent only (sometimes)
2

Appendix B: One Example SWCC Output – Florida with 3 applications scenario

Summary of Water Modeling of fluensulfone + methyl Sulfone and 

the USEPA Standard Pond

Estimated Environmental Concentrations for fluensulfone + methyl Sulfone are presented in Table 

1 for the USEPA standard pond with the FLturfSTD field scenario. A graphical presentation of the 

year-to-year peaks is presented in Figure 1. These values were generated with the Surface Water 

Concentration Calculator (SWCC Version 1.106). Critical input values for the model are 

summarized in Tables 2 and 3.

This model estimates that about 0.67% of fluensulfone + methyl sulfone applied to the field 

eventually reaches the water body. The main mechanism of transport from the field to the water 

body is by spray drift (92.2% of the total transport) followed by runoff (7.77%).

In the water body, pesticide dissipates with an effective water column half-life of 32.1 days. (This 

value does not include dissipation by transport to the benthic region; it includes only processes 

that result in removal of pesticide from the complete system.) The main source of dissipation in 

the water column is metabolism (effective average half-life = 53.3 days) followed by photolysis 

(85.5 days) and volatilization (1461.9 days).

In the benthic region, pesticide dissipates (52.6 days). The main source of dissipation in the benthic 

region is metabolism (effective average half-life = 52.6 days). Most of the pesticide in the benthic 

region (84%) is sorbed to sediment rather than in the pore water.

Table 1. Estimated Environmental Concentrations (ppb) for fluensulfone + methyl sulfone.

Peak (1-in-10 yr) 10.4

4-day Avg (1-in-10 yr) 9.98

21-day Avg (1-in-10 yr) 8.36

60-day Avg (1-in-10 yr) 7.17

365-day Avg (1-in-10 yr) 2.11

Entire Simulation Mean 1.62

Table 2. Summary of model inputs for fluensulfone + methyl sulfone.

Scenario FLturfSTD

Cropped Area Fraction 1

Koc (ml/g) 47.08

Water Half-Life (days) @ 20 °C 60.38

Benthic Half-Life (days) @ 20 °C 59.61

Photolysis Half-Life (days) @ 20 

°Lat

0.784
3

Hydrolysis Half-Life (days) 0

Soil Half-Life (days) @ 20 °C 24.01

Foliar Half-Life (days) 0

Molecular Wt 291.7

Vapor Pressure (torr) 2.3e-4

Solubility (mg/l) 545.3

Table 3. Application schedule for fluensulfone + methyl sulfone.

Date (Mon/Day) Type Amount (kg/ha) Eff. Drift

3/15 Ground 1.344 0.99 0.062

4/15 Ground 1.344 0.99 0.062

5/15 Ground 1.344 0.99 0.062

Figure 1. Yearly Peak Concentrations
4

Appendix C: T-REX Output.

T-REX MODEL INPUTS

These values will be used in the calculation of exposure estimates for foliar, granular, liquid and/or 

seed applications of pesticides.

Chemical Identity and Application Information

Chemical Name: Fluensulfone

Seed Treatment? (Check if yes) FALSE

 Use: Turf

Product name and form: Quali-Pro Nimitz 1.5G (1.5% but all calcs in a.i.)

% A.I. (leading zero must be entered for 

formulations <1% a.i.): 100.00%

Application Rate (lb ai/acre) 1.8

Half-life (days): 35

Application Interval (days): 60

Number of Applications: 2

Are you assessing applications with 

variable rates or intervals? no

Assessed Species Inputs (optional, use defaults for RQs for national level assessments)

What body weight range is assessed 

(grams)? Birds Mammals

Small 20 15

Medium 100 35

Large 1000 1000

Endpoints

Avian

Endpoint Toxicity value Indicate test species below

LD50 (mg/kg-bw) 254.00

2

LC50 (mg/kg-diet) 5760.00 2

NOAEL (mg/kg-bw)

2

NOAEC (mg/kg-diet)

255.00 2

Enter the Mineau et al. Scaling Factor 1.15

Mammalian

Acute Study

Size (g) of mammal used in toxicity study

Default rat body weight is 350 grams 350

Endpoint Toxicity value

LD50 (mg/kg-bw) 671.00

LC50 (mg/kg-diet)

Reported Chronic Endpoint 18.30 1

Is dietary concentration (mg/kg-diet) reported 

from the available chronic mammal study? 

(yes or no)

yes

Enter dietary concentration (mg/kg-diet) 250.00
5

LD50 ft-2

Application Type:

1 Make sure to enter an

1

application rate 

above

Do not use this input yes

Do not use this input 1.80

Do not use this input

Do not use this input

Do not use this input

% incorporated 0.00%

Chemical: Fluensulfone

LD50 ft-2

INPUTS Do not overwrite these numbers.

Application Rate: 1.8 lbs / acre

% A.I.: 100.00%

Avian LD50 (20g): 131.88 mg/kg bw

(100g) 167.89

(1000g) 237.16

Mammalian LD50 (15g): 1474.74 mg/kg bw

(35g) 1193.23

(1000g) 516.11

Row Spacing: 0 inches

Bandwidth: 0 inches

Unincorporation: 100%

Row/Band/In-furrow applications

Granular N/A

Intermediate Calculations Intermediate Calculations

# rows acre-1: N/A mg a.i./1000 ft row: N/A

row length (ft): N/A bandwidth: N/A

lb ai/1000 ft row: N/A mg a.i./ft2: N/A

bandwidth (ft): N/A exposed mg a.i./ft2: N/A

mg ai/ft2: N/A

exposed mg ai/ft2: N/A

LD50 ft-2 N/A

wgt class (grams) wgt class (grams)

Avian 20 N/A Avian 20 N/A

100 N/A 100 N/A

1000 N/A 1000 N/A

Mammal 15 N/A Mammal 15 N/A

35 N/A 35 N/A

1000 N/A 1000 N/A
6

Broadcast applications

Granular

Intermediate Calculations

mg ai/ft2: 18.74

LD50 ft-2

wgt class (grams)

Avian 20 7.11

100 1.12

1000 0.08

Mammal 15 0.85

35 0.45

1000 0.04

Formulas used in the calculations are in the User's Guide
7

Appendix D: TerrPlant Output.

TerrPlant v. 1.2.2

Green values signify user inputs (Tables 1, 2 and 4). 

Input and output guidance is in popups indicated by red arrows.

Table 1. Chemical Identity.

Chemical Name Fluensulfone

PC code 50410

Use Turf

Application Method Broadcast

Application Form Spray 

Solubility in Water 

(ppm) 545

Table 2. Input parameters used to derive EECs.

Input Parameter Symbol Value Units

Application Rate A 1.8 y

Incorporation I 1 none

Runoff Fraction R 0.05 none

Drift Fraction D 0 none

Table 3. EECs for Fluensulfone. Units in y.

Description Equation EEC

Runoff to dry areas (A/I)*R 0.09

Runoff to semi-aquatic areas (A/I)*R*10 0.9

Spray drift A*D 0

Total for dry areas ((A/I)*R)+(A*D) 0.09

Total for semi-aquatic areas ((A/I)*R*10)+(A*D) 0.9

Table 4. Plant survival and growth data used for RQ derivation. Units are in y.

Seedling Emergence Vegetative Vigor

Plant type EC25 NOAEC EC25 NOAEC 

Monocot 2.5 1.21 3.49 0.0415

Dicot 3.77 0.141 1.31 0.419

Table 5. RQ values for plants in dry and semi-aquatic areas exposed to Fluensulfone through runoff 

and/or spray drift.*

Plant Type Listed Status Dry Semi-Aquatic Spray Drift

Monocot non-listed <0.1 0.36 <0.1

Monocot listed <0.1 0.74 <0.1

Dicot non-listed <0.1 0.24 <0.1

Dicot listed 0.64 6.38 <0.1

*If RQ > 1.0, the LOC is exceeded, resulting in potential for risk to that plant group.