### UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY **WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 OFFICE OF PREVENTION,**  **PESTICIDES, AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES** 

# Environm **ental Fate and Ecological Risk Assessment for the Proposed New Use Registration of Metaflumizone**  **for Control of Fire Ants in Citrus/Nut Orchards, Grape**  **Vineyards, Nurseries, and Agricultural/Residential Areas**

F F F N N N

O O F

F F

N

**Me taflum** **izone: E -**  **Isomer** 

### F F F N N

N O N O F

F F

**Me taflum** **izone: Z -**  **Isomer**
**A Mixture of E and Z** 

**Isomers with an E:Z**

**ratio of 12:1**

**Prepared by: Keith G. Sappington, M.S.**  **Mohammed A. Ruhm an, Ph.D.**  **Reviewed by: Mah Sham** **im , Ph.D.**  United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Pesticide Programs Environmental Fate and Effects D ivision

Environmental Risk Branch V 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. Mail Code 7507P Washington, D.C. 204602



### I. **INTRODUCTION ................................**  **................................ ................................**  **............. 3**  **II .**  **ECOLOGICAL RISK CONCLUSIONS ................................**  **................................ ........**  **3** A. Direct Consumption of Granules
................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 3 B. Aquatic Organism and Bioaccumulation Risks.
................................ ................................ .............................. 4 

### III. **RISK CHARACTERIZATION ................................**  **................................ .......................**  **4** A. Risks to Terrestrial Organisms
................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 4 1. Dire ct Consumption of Metaflumizone Fire Ant Bait Granules
................................ ................................ ....... 5 2. Consumption of Food Items that have Bioaccumulated Metaflumizone
................................ .......................... 8 B. Risks to Aquatic Organisms
................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 10 

### IV. **REFERENCES ................................**  **................................ ................................**  **................ 11**  **APPENDIX A. Calculations for Determining Risk to Terrestrial Organisms Resul ting**  **from Direct Consumption of Metaflumizone Fire Ant Bait Granules ................................**  **... 13**  **APPENDIX B. Calculations for Determining Risk to Terrestrial Organisms Resulting from Consumption of Soil Invertebrates**  **that have Bioaccumulated Metaflumizone ..........**  **25 APPENDIX C. Summary of Available Toxicity Data for Metaflumizone**  **........................... 33**  **APPENDIX D. Esti mating Ecological Surface Water Exposure EECs**  **................................ .**  **37 APPENDIX E. Summary of Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic Properties of**  **Metaflumizone ................................**  **................................ ................................**  **............................. 40**  **APPENDIX F. Calculations for Determining Risk to Birds and Mammals Resulting from Consumption of Aquatic Organisms that have Bioaccumulated Metaflumizone**  **................. 41** 3



### I. **INTRODUCTION** The Environmental Fate and Effe cts Division (EFED) has completed its risk assessment (DP Barcode: 345127 ) for the Section 3 registration of the active ingredient metaflumizone (Altrevin Insecticide Fire Ant Bait) for control of fire ants in citrus orchards, tree nut orchards, grape vine yards and nurseries in citrus orchards, tree nut orchards, and grape vineyards in addition to many other non
- food uses such as nurseries, lawns, public and home landscape/recreational areas, grounds surrounding agricultural structures, golf courses and sod farms. Metaflumizone ((E+Z)
- 2
- [2
- (4
- Cyanophenyl)
- 1
- [3
- (trifluoromethyl) phenyl]ethylidene]
-N
- [4
- (trifluoromethoxy)phenyl] hydrazinecarboxamide (CAS 139968
- 49
- 3) belongs to the semicarbazone class of pesticides, and is a stereo
- isomeric insecticide that is a mixture of E and Z isomers at a ratio of nearly12:1. Metaflumizone is a voltage
- dependent sodium channel blocker that blocks the sodium channel and inhibits nerve impulses leading to inhibited feeding and paralysis in susceptible insects such as Lepi doptera and Coleoptera. Itis further characterized by its very low solubility (1.79 ppb), very high affinity to soil/sediment (Koc value of 30,753), high persistence in the soil and water/sediment systems (90 th 

### percentile t1⁄2 = 134 and t1⁄2 = >378 days, resp ectively), and relatively high bioaccumulation in aquatic organisms (bioconcentration factors from 3500x in edible tissues and 12,000x in nonedible tissues of fish). Combined with its high toxicity to avian species, the aforementioned characteristics of me taflumizone are consistent with criteria used to classify chemicals as being Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic (PBT; **Appendix E** ). The end
-use product ( Altrevin Insecticide Fire Ant Bait) is an insecticidal bait composition comprised of corn - grit granules coated with soybean oil and 0.063% (by wt.) active ingredient. This formulation is proposed for use on citrus orchards, tree nut orchards, and grape vineyards in addition to many other non
food uses such as nurseries, lawns, public and home landscap e/recreational areas, grounds surrounding agricultural structures, golf courses and sod farms to control imported and native fire ants ( Solenopsis spp). The formulations can be broadcasted uniformly by using a hand
-held or walk
-behind spreader or applied uniformly around the perimeter of individual mounds. T he labels indicate that the use rates should not exceed 2 oz/mound when the bait is applied to individual mounds, but do not explicitly state whether multiple treatments are allowed under this application method. For this risk assessment, it was assumed that only a single treatment is allowed under the current labels when applying to individual mounds. If this assumption is not reflected in reality then this risk assessment likely underestimates expos ure and risk under the mound application exposure scenario. The labels do state that for broadcast treatments, a s ingle treatment should not exceed 1.5 lb formulation /A (0.00095 lbs a.i./A) , and a maximum of four a

pplications may be made per year at intervals ranging from four to eight weeks ; therefore, a maximum rate of 6 lbs formulation /A/y ear (0.0038lbs a.i./A/year) is allowed under the current labels
. 

### II. **ECOLOGICAL RISK CONCLUSIONS A.**  **Direct Consumption of Granules** A cute risks to mammals from direc t consumption of granules could not be estimated in this assessment due to lack of toxicity at the highest test concentration in the acute oral toxicity study. Regarding risks to mammals from chronic exposures via consumption of granules, the refined anal ys i s indicates chronic exposure and risk to mammals appears to be relatively l ow , particularly for larger mammals
. However, acute and chronic risks to avian species cannot be c ompletely discounted. Assuming that the granules are available for avian consumption following treatment, our modeling suggests that the use of4



### metaflumizone ant bait poses an acute and chronic risk to avian species via this pathway (see **Risk Characterization Section and Appendix A** ). The assumption of availability of granules fo r direct consumption is important to the results of this risk assessment and involves some uncertainty due to conflicting information . Specifically, we are aware of information suggesting that wildlife exposure to granules would be minimized by the rapid fora ging activity of fire ants on the bait (bringing it into the mound) and/or avoidance of wildlife of fire ant
- infested areas. On the other hand, we are aware of several ecological incidents that have been associated with fire ant control with granulated pe sticide products in addition to studies that indicate wildlife do forage in areas containing fire ant activity. 

### B. **Aquatic Organism and Bioaccumulation Risks.** T he maximum acute RQ for all aquatic organisms exposed to metaflumizone solely through the water column are be less than the acute endangered species LOC (0.05 for animals and 1 for plants), even if all acute toxic effects to water column
- dwelling invertebrates, water column dwelling and benthic fish, and aquatic vascular plants are assumed to occur at the limit of solubility (1.79 ppb) . In addition, chronic tests that were submitted with estuarine/marine fish and freshwater invertebrates did not show any signs of toxicity at or below the maximum 1
- in
- 10 year peak concentration from PRZM/EXAMS ( 0.0 21 ppb), and therefore, risk to these taxonomic groups due solely to exposure from metaflumizone freely
- dissolved in water is not expected. Although the toxicity data upon which these risks were quantified do not account for exposure via the diet which appears significant for metaflumizone, the aquatic organism risk findings do not appear be sensitive to the absence of this exposure pathway due primarily to the very low concentrations predicted in aquatic ecosystems. To address the bioaccumulative characteristics of metaflumizone and potential secondary exposure to piscivorous wildlife, concentrations in representative organisms of an aquatic food web were predicted using a bioaccumulation model. Results from this analysis indicate that acute and chro nic risks to avian species are unlikely via consumption of contaminated aquatic prey. Similarly, results indicate that chronic risks to mammalian species are unlikely via this exposure pathway. Similarly, an analysis of the potential metaflumizone biocon centration in earthworms also indicates that exposure and risks to insectivorous birds and mammals are substantially below the Agency’s levels of concern for endangered species.


### III. **RISK CHARACTERIZATION A**  **. Risks to**  **Terrestrial Organisms** The toxicity reference values for terrestrial organisms exposed to metaflumizone are provided in **Table C**  **- 1**  of **Appendix C** . However, given the apparent low sensitivity of earthworms and plants to metaflumizone, the low likelihood of significant exposure of flying non
- target insects to gr an ular metaflumizone, and the low application rate of metaflumizone fire ant bait (0.00095 lbs a.i./A), the focus of the terrestrial organism risk assessment is on birds and mammals. As can be seen in **Table C**  **- 1**  of **Appendix C** , there are no d ose -based chronic toxicity endpoints available for birds, and therefore, chronic risk to avian receptors was based solely on dietary toxicity data. In addition, there are no definitive acute toxicity values available for mammals; the LD 50 

### value was set as greater than the highest treatment level of metaflumizone and no acute dietary studies with mammals were available. Therefore, acute risk to mammals resulting from exposure to granular metaflumizone fire ant bait could not be quantified in this assessment. Although in some instances it mi ght be appropriate to use the non
- definitive LD 50 

### value as a screen for risk , EFED has concern regarding the characterization of5



### the risk of metaflumizone to mammals because there are no dietary
-based data. Based on th e comparison of acute dose
-based toxicity data (LD 50 

### >2025 mg a.i./kg body weight; no mortality at any test level) and dietary
-based toxicity data (>73.8 mg/kg
-bw when expressed as daily dose equivalents; 70% mo rtality at next highest dose) for avian species, it appears that absorption of metaflumizone may be rate
- limited and the effects and risk to mammals could be significantly underestimated due to reliance on the oral gavage studies. In addition, metabolism studies in mammals demonstrated low absorption when dosed: 0.7 to 7.2% of doses were absorbed in rats and 69
- 84% of doses were excreted in goats. Therefore, dietary exposure for mammals could elicit much more pronounced effects than exposure via oral gavage due to the absorption kinetics of metaflumizone, despite that it is more common to observe the opposite. Although a bird’s or mammal’s habitat is not limited to a square foot, there is presumably a direct correlation between the concentration of a pes ticide in the environment (mg/ft2 

### ) and the chance that an animal will be exposed to a concentration that could adversely affect its survival. Typically for granular applications, terrestrial EECs and acute risk quotient values are calculated based on an e stimation of loadings of pesticide per unit area. This approach compares the available mass of pesticide per square foot to the acute oral dose for toxicity (LD 50 

### ) (Further description of the mg/ft2 

### index is provided in U.S. EPA, 2004, and U.S. EPA, 1992)
. However, because definitive LD 50 

### values were not established for birds or mammals (there were no mortalities or sub
- lethal effects in any of the acute oral studies), the LD 50 

### ft - 2 

### analy sis could not be performed for metaflumizone. The LD 50 

### ft - 2 

### index is also based on the assumption that there is a direct correlation between the concentrations of a pesticide in the environment (mg/ft2 

### ) and the chance or probability that an animal will be exposed to a concentration that could adversely affect its survival. For metaflumizone fire ant bait applications , this basic assumption may not hold because it is formulated as an attractant and a significant amount of this attractive food item may be concentrated in a particular spot (ant mounds). Because both of thes e factors are expected to weaken the strength of the assumed correlation underlying the LD 50 

### ft - 2 

### analysis, this analysis was not expected to provide reliable risk estimates and was not used for metaflumizone. In addition, EFED does not currently have any standard methodology for evaluating chronic exposure to granular pesticides and risk to terrestrial wildlife. However, there is the potential for acute and chronic exposure of birds and mammals to granular metaflumizone used for fire ant bait. While ter restrial organisms may also be exposed by other routes, such as incidental ingestion of contaminated soil, dermal contact with treated granular surfaces and soil during activities in the treated areas, preening activities, and ingestion of drinking water c ontaminated with pesticide, the primary route of exposure to metaflumizone granules will likely be via the oral route because it is not volatile and it is not expected to appreciably absorb through the skin. Therefore, for this assessment, two routes of exposure were considered to evaluate risk to birds and mammals; direct ingestion of granules and consumption of contaminated food items that have bio accumulated metaflumizone. **1 .**  **Direct Consumption of Metaflumizone Fire Ant Bait Granules Screening** 

**- Level**  **Analysis** In order to derive an upper bound, screening
- level estimate of acute and chronic exposure and risk to granular metaflumizone for birds and mammals, it was assumed that metaflumizone ant bait is an attractive food item and that 100% of avian and mammalian diets are comprised of fire ant bait granules. Based on these assumptions, the dietary
-based estimated environmental concentration (EEC) for direct ingestion of metaflumizone granules is equal to the number of milligrams of active ingredient in o ne kilogram of granules (formulated product). Given the percent active ingredient (0.063%), the EEC is equivalent to 630 mg/kg food item (ppm). By comparing this estimated concentration to the6



### corresponding acute and chronic dietary toxicity reference va lue s for birds (LC 50 

### >156 mg/kg
- diet for birds (MRID 46264428) ; NOAEC = 7.6 mg/kg
- diet ; MRID 46264430 ) and chronic dietary toxicity value for mammals (NOAEC = 400 mg/kg
- diet ; MRID 46264315 ), acute and chronic RQs were calculated and compared to the Agency’s established acute and chronic levels of concern (LOCs) . Subsequently, the acute dietary RQ for birds resulting from exposure to granular metaflumizone was <4.04, and the Agency’s LOCs for acute risk (0.5), acute restricted use (LOC 0.2), and acute endang ered species (LOC 0.1) were all exceeded. The chronic RQs for birds and mammals were 82.9 and 1.6, respectively, and the Agency’s chronic risk LOC (1) was exceeded for both taxonomic groups. Although it should be noted that there is some uncertainty regarding acute dietary risk to birds (all RQs are less than the reported values) because the LC 50 

### of >156 ppm a.i. from the subacute dietary study with mallard duck s (MRID 46264428) was used to perform the analyses for metaflumizone fire ant bait , the results of the study clearly indicate significant mortality above the 156 ppm a.i. treatment group; there was 0, 0, 70, 40, 30, 50, and 90% mortality after 11 days in the control and 156, 309, 638, 1228, 2538, and 4999 mg a.i./kg
- diet treatment groups, respectively. Therefore , d ue to the non
- concentration response pattern of mortality, the probit, binomial, and moving average methods could not reliably generate sound LC 50 

### , 95% C.I., and slope estimates , and the conservative value of >156 ppm a.i. was used to determine acute dietary risk to avian species. **Refined Analysis** In addition, the assumption that avian and mammalian diets are 100% ant bait granules obviously represents a conservative scenario due to species
- specific feeding habits and dietary requirements. Therefore, EFED has taken steps to further refine and characterize the potential for acute and chronic risk to avian and mammalian species by evaluating how many granules would need to be consumed and how much area would need to be foraged to achiev e the amount of metaflumizone necessary to trigger the Agency’s Levels of Concern (LOCs). **Based on the refined analyses (Appendix A) with the most**  **sensitive toxicity endpoints available ,**  **acute exposure resulting from direct ingestion of fire ant bait**  **gran ules**  **appears to be quite possible and there is reasonable evidence that suggests that the use of metaflumizone ant bait poses a**  **n acute risk to avian species**  . Specifically, the calculations with the avian median lethal dose equivalents from diet reveal that smaller birds (20g and 100g) are potentially at risk, while larger birds (1000g) appear to be at lower risk ( **Table s**  **A -**  **4, A**  **- 5,**  **A -**  **6** in **Appendix A**)
. For instance, it was estimated that it would take a 20g bird 9 minutes to consume 110 granules, enough gr anules to achieve an EEC equivalent dose that would result in an exceedance of the endangered species LOC. Based on the maximum application rate, this number of granules could be gleaned from 11, 21, or 106 square feet when assuming a 100%, 50%, or 10% fe eding efficiency, respectively. In addition, this number of granules constitutes only 0.3% of the granules that could be applied to a single fire ant mound. To achieve an EEC equivalent dose that would result in an exceedance of the acute risk LOC for un
- listed species (RQ > 0.5) , a 20g bird would have to consume 552 granules. It was estimated that this number of granules could be consumed in approximately 46 minutes, and over an area of 53, 106, or 531 square feet when assuming a 100%, 50%, or 10% feeding efficiency, respectively. Likewise, this number of granules constitutes only 1.5% of the granules that could be applied to a fire ant mound. At the other end of the spectrum, it was estimated using the avian median lethal dose equivalents from diet that it would take a 1000g bird 14 hours to consume 9925 granules, enough granules to achieve an EEC equivalent dose that would result in an exceedance of the endangered species LOC. Based on the maximum application rate, this number of granules could be glean ed from 954, 1909, or 9543 square feet when assuming a 100%, 50%, or 10% feeding efficiency, respectively. In addition, this number of granules constitutes 26.3% of the granules that could be applied to a single fire ant mound. To achieve an EEC equivalent dose that would result in an exceedance of the acute risk LOC, a 1000g bird would have7



### to consume 49,623 granules. It was estimated that this number of granules could be consumed in approximately 69 hours, and over an area of 4771, 9543, or 47,715 square feet when assuming a 100%, 50%, or 10% feeding efficiency, respectively. Likewise, this number of granules constitutes 131.4% of the granules that could be applied to a fire ant mound. Based on the refined analyses, chronic exposure resulting from direct ingestion of fire ant bait granules appears to be possible
. Specifically, the calculations with the most sensitive available NOAEC available for birds reveal that it would take 20g, 100g, and 1000g birds 15, 44, and 194 minutes to consume 183, 523, and 2 333 granules, respectively, to achieve a dietary EEC that would result in an exceedance of the chronic risk LOC ( **Table A** **- 7**  in **Appendix A**)
. T he number of granules needed to reach the chronic risk LOC for 20g, 100g, and 1000g birds, correspond to 0.5%, 1.4% , and 6.2% of the granules that could be applied to a single fire ant mound. In addition, b ased on the maximum application rate, the number of granules needed to reach the chronic risk LOC for 20g, 100g, and 1000g birds could be gleaned anywhere from 18 t o 176, 50 to 503, and 224 to 2244 square feet, respectively , depending on the feeding efficiency of the bird. Using the most sensitive available NOAEL for mammals, it was estimated that for 15g, 35g, and 1000g mammals, 58 , 1 10 , and 1 357 minutes would be needed to consume 698 , 1318 , and 16287 granules, respectively, to achieve an EEC equivalent dose that would result in an exceedance of the chronic risk LOC ( **Table A**  **- 11**  in **Appendix A**). The number of granules needed to reach the chronic risk LOC for 15 g, 35g, and 1000g mammals , correspond to 1.8 %, 3.5 %, and 43.1 % of the granules that could be applied to a single fire ant mound. In addition, based on the maximum application rate, the number of granules needed to reach the chronic risk LOC for 15 g, 35 g, and 1000g mammal s could be gleaned anywhere from 67 to 671 , 127 to 1267 , and 1566 to 15660 square feet, respectively, depending on the feeding efficiency of the mammal
. **Risk Assessment Uncertainty** A lthough it seems reasonable to assume that metaflumizone ant bait may be consumed by non - target terrestrial wildlife because it is formulated as an attractant to ants and is comprised of corn
- grit granules coated with soybean oil, the potential for significant acute and chronic exposure of terrestrial wildlife to ant bait granules may be reduced under certain application practices
. For example, risks would likely be reduced if the product not be applied prophylactically. If metaflumizone fire ant bait application is applied only when fire ants are actively forag ing, then there is the potential for a significant reduction in acute and chronic exposures to birds and mammals
. T he potential for exposure will remain for both transport to water and direct ingestion by birds and mammals from the broadcast use because s ome bait may be overlooked during foraging by fire ants . However, the presence of active fire ants on the field should help to decrease exposure of non
- target wildlife
. F ire ants are extremely aggressive and any movement of particles comprising a fire ant mound typically results in an extremely effective defensive "frenzy" from fire ants with anything on or close to the mound being attacked. Fire ants are often able to out
- compete other wildlife that shares the same ecosystem; the presence of actively fo raging fire ants often results in diminished levels of other wildlife routinely feeding in the area (Allen et al. 2004; Allen et al. 2000 ; Lechner and Ribble 1996 ) . Thus, it may be unlikely that any wildlife will feed on or near fire ant mounds and the pre sence of fire ants alone may result in reduced exposure of non
- target wildlife to metaflumizone fire ant bait via competitive exclusion (Dr. Gold of Texas A&M University, personal communication ), assuming that the bait is not so effective that it kills the entire mound prior to complete removal of the product from the presence of non
- target wildlife. Furthermore, according to researchers with the Texas A&M Fire Ant program, it is expected that exposure of non
- target wildlife to metaflumizone should also be reduced when actively foraging fire ants are present due to their voracious foraging behavior. It is expected that that most of the fire ant bait8



### would be picked up by the fire ants within an hour of application and that birds and mammals would have a di fficult time quickly finding the bait given the size of the granules (Dr. Gold of Texas A&M University, personal communication ). However, other evidence suggests that non - target exposure may not be reduced by the presence of fire ants alone and that some exposure could still occur
. Several incident reports have associated reported wildlife mortality with the use of other granular
-based insecticides for fire ant control (e.g., I013135
- 001, I012500
- 001, I008779
- 002, I013623
- 001). These incident reports sugg est that birds and mammals may not completely avoid areas inhabited by fire ant s and that exposure of some wildlife to metaflumizone fire ant bait granules could occur following application
. While it remains unclear as to whether the ground
feeding birds that experienced mortality in the reported incidents consumed the granules directly, ingested contaminated food items that bioaccumulated metaflumizone, or were exposed via some other exposure pathway, these incident reports indicate that potentially signi ficant mortality of non
- target wildlife may occur following the application of granular p esticides for control of fire ants. In addition, published studies also demonstrate that long
- term population trends of some species of birds may not be adversely aff ected by fire ants and that some mammals may not exhibit avoidance of fire ant infested areas (Pedersen et al. 2003; Kopachena et al. 2000; Lechner and Ribble 1996 ). In consideration of the above information, it appears likely that small and medium sized b irds are primarily at acute risk of direct exposure via consumption of granules if metaflumizone fire ant bait is applied only when fire ants are actively foraging, because 20g and 100g birds can achieve an EEC equivalent dose to exceed all acute LOCs with in a single hour of feeding ( **Tables A**  **- 4**  & **A -**  **5** in **Appendix A**). 20g and 100g birds can also achieve a dietary EEC that would result in an exceedance of the chronic risk LOC within a single hour ( **Table A**  **- 7**  in **Appendix A**). Although long
- term exposure to this dietary EEC is not expected due to the territoriality and efficient foraging of fire ants, it cannot definitively be stated that a single
- day exposure will not trigger any reproductive effect if the EEC is reached. Therefore, potential reproductive effec ts cannot be completely discounted
. Other sources of uncertainty surrounding the exposure and risk of non
- target wildlife to metaflumizone ant bait include: (1) lack of knowledge regarding aggregate exposure (e.g., direct consumption of granules, ingestio n of granules that adhere to soil invertebrates, partitioning of dissolved metaflumizone to on - site sources of wildlife drinking water, and dermal exposure of granules released to surrounding soil and on
- site puddles) and (2) temperature dependence of fire ant bait retrieval 1 

### which may lead to prolonged availability of fire ant bait. **2 .**  **Consumption of Food Items**  **that have Bioaccumulate**  **d Metaflumizone Bioaccumulation in Aquatic Organisms**  Based on the available environmental fate data it can be conclude d that metaflumizone is highly stable to biodegradation and there is the potential for bioconcentration /bioaccumulat ion in aquatic and terrestrial systems ( **Appendix E** ). Due to the relatively low mobility of metaflumizone (Koc 

### range = 16,534 to 51,031 L kg **-** 1 

### ), it is not expected to leach substantially into groundwater, but it may reach adjacent bodies of water via runoff events accompanied by erosion. Once there, metaflumizone may be expected to remain adsorbed to suspended solids in the water column, and eventually transported to the bottom sediment, where it would accumulate
. Based on the available data, it appears that metaflumizone has potential to bioaccumulate substantially in aquatic food webs, with a relatively high octanol/water partition coeffic ient (K OW

### = 125,893 for the main

1 http://www.ext.vt.edu/pubs/entomology/444
- 284/444
- 284.html9



### E isomer and 25,119 for the Z isomer) and BCF (3500x in edible tissues and 12,000x in nonedible tissues), and a relatively slow rate of depuration (after 56 days of depuration, [ 14 

### C]residues in the fish had decreased by ≥85% of maximum). In addition, it should be noted that a steady
- state was not achieved in the bioconcentration study even after a 42
- day exposure period, and therefore, these BCF values could underestimate the potential for bioconcentration. A recent FIFRA S cientific Advisory Panel (SAP) meeting on persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) chemicals affirmed the need to use alternative methods to the BCF for assessing exposure and risk from pesticides with PBT characteristics 2



### . Because aquatic invertebrate - eating and fish
- eating wildlife have the potential to be exposed to chemicals that may accumulate or persist in their diet, the **K**OW 

### (based) **A** quatic **B** io **A** ccumulation **M** odel (KABAM) version 1.0 was used (USEPA 2009). Specifically, KABAM is used to estimate potential bioaccumulation of hydrophobic organic pesticides in freshwater aquatic ecosystems and risks to mammals and birds consuming aquatic organisms which have bioaccumulated these pesticides. The bioaccumulation portion of KABAM is based upon Arnot an d Gobas (2004) who parameterized a bioaccumulation model based on PCBs and some pesticides (e.g., lindane, DDT) in freshwater aquatic ecosystems. KABAM was used to estimate metaflumizone concentrations in aquatic invertebrate and whole
- fish tissues (see **Ap pendix F**  for model input parameters and ouput)
. M aximum bioavailable concentrations of metaflumizone in water (freely dissolved) and sediment was assumed to be equivalent to the 60
- d average 1
- in
- 10 year concentrations predicted by PRZM/EXAMS (0.0 092 ppb f or surface water and 0.0072 ppb for pore water ; **Table 1** below)
. F or metaflumizone fire ant bait use , th e KABAM model predicted concentrations of metaflumizone in zooplankton, benthic invertebrates, small forage fish, medium forage fish and piscivor o us fis h of approximately **0. 04, 0.05**  **, 0.07**  **, 0.09**  **and 0.13**  **mg/kg w.w.** , respectively. These concentrations are substantially below the most sensitive NOAEC for birds (7.6 ppm) or mammals (400 ppm) and thus, are not expected to exceed chronic risk levels of concern
. In addition, the body
-burdens of invertebrates and fish are predicted to be several orders of magnitude below levels that may be acutely toxic to birds (LC 50 

### >156 ppm). The low concentrations predicted in aquatic organisms primarily result from the low application rate of the product (0.00925 lb ai/A). Measured and predicted bioconcentration factors are similar, which indicates that model assumptions are reasonable. **Therefore, based on these analyses,**  **risk estimates for invertebrate and**  **fish -**  **eating bi rds and mammals**  **are below the**  **LOCs for acute risk (0.5), acute restricted use (LOC 0.2), acute endangered species (LOC 0.1), and**  **chronic risk (1)**  **.** Additional details of the bioaccumulation modeling are provided in **Appendix F**
. **Bioaccumulation in Earthworm s**  Due to the nature of this chemical’s properties, risk to insectivorous terrestrial organisms that may consume soil invertebrates that have bioaccumulate d metaflumizone was evaluated. This approach involved estimat ing concentrations of metaflumizone earthworm s using a fugacity
-based (equilibrium partitioning) approach based on the work of Trapp and McFarlane (1995) and Mackay and Paterson (1981), and then comparing the estimated concentration to the most sensitive toxicity endpoints for birds an d mammal s (details provided in **Appendix B** )
. Based on this approach, EFED found that the estimated earthworm residue for insectivorous avian receptors ( **0.0 4**  **ppm** ) is less than the avian chronic dietary NOAEL (7.6 ppm) and is less than one
- thousandth of the acute di et -based LC 50 

### (>156 ppm) for granular metaflumizone applications. Further, the acute dose
-based , acute diet
-based and chronic diet
-based RQs for birds are less than or equal to **0.00 6**  **,** which is well below LOCs for acute risk (0.5), acute restricted use (LOC 0.2), and acute endangered species (LOC 0.1). Therefore, acute (dose
- and dietary
-based) and chronic risks to birds associated with ingestion of earthworms that have bioaccumulated metaflumizone granules are not expected.

2 http://epa.gov/oscpmont/sap/meetings/2008/102808_mtg.htm10



### C hronic risks for insectivorou s mammals were estimated by considering both dietary
- and dose
-related exposures and effects. Based on the dietary method, chronic LOCs are not exceeded for insectivorous mammals because the earthworm residue concentration ( **0.0 4**  **ppm** ) is less than the most sensitive NOAEC (400 ppm). Similarly, based on the dose
-based method, the estimated chronic dose
-based EECs (0.06 mg/kg
- bw/d) for insectivorous mammals are well below the applicable toxicity values (44 mg/kg
bw/d), resulting in an RQ value of 0.001. The results of the assessment indicate that, when risk for mammals is assessed on the basis of daily ingested dietary dose or dietary concentration, the accumulation of metaflumizone in earthworms does not, by itself, represent a biologically significant pathw ay for exposure. In conclusion, the results of the assessment indicate that the accumulation of metaflumizone in earthworms does not, by itself, represent a biologically significant pathway for exposure of birds and mammals. **Therefore, acute and chronic risks to birds and mammals associated with ingestion of**  **earthworms that have bioaccumulate**  **d metaflumizone granules are not expected.**


### B **. Risk**  **s to**  **Aquatic Organisms** The toxicity reference values for aquatic organisms exposed to metaflumizone are provided in **Table C**  **- 2**  of **Appendix C**
. There was a high degree of uncertainty associated with the aquatic data set. All acute tests with metaflumizone TGAI and water column
- dwelling invertebrates, water column dwelling and benthic fish, and aquatic vascular plants did not base exposure and effects levels on properly centrifuged supernatant . Therefore, the extent to which measured concentrations of metaflumizone reflect the dissolved (bioavailable) fraction from these tests is uncertain. As a conservative assump tion for use in this risk assessment , all effects observed in the studies were assumed to occur at the limit of aqueous solubility (1.79 ppb). Chronic toxicity data for freshwater fish and estuarine/marine invertebrates are not available, and although the chronic tests with estuarine/marine fish and freshwater invertebrates did not show any signs of toxicity, estimates of exposure levels and toxicity are similarly considered unreliable. Despite the uncertainties surrounding the assessment of toxicity of water - column exp osure to aquatic organisms, the1
- in
- 10 year peak concentration from PRZM/EXAMS from agricultural uses (0.0 19 ppb for S. TX Grapefruit ; **Table 1** ) is approximately 1% o f metaflumizone’s limit of solubility (1.79 ppb). Similarly, the 1
- in
- 10 y ear peak concentration of metaflumizone predicted in the water column for residential (0.021 ppb for the Baton Rouge, LA scenario) uses is approximately 1% of the aqueous solubility limit. Therefore, even if all acute toxic effects to water column
- dwelli ng invertebrates, water column dwelling and benthic fish, and aquatic vascular plants are assumed to occur at the limit of solubility , then the maximum acute RQ for all aquatic organisms exposed to metaflumizone solely through the water column would be les s than the acute endangered species LOC (0.05 for animals and 1 for plants ). In addition, chronic tests that were submitted with estuarine/marine fish and freshwater invertebrates did not show any signs of toxicity at or below the 1
- in
- 10 year peak concentration from PRZM/EXAMS (0.0 19 ppb)
. **Therefore, acute and chronic risks to fish, invertebrates and aquatic plants are not expected**  **due to exposure from metaflumizone freely -**  **dissolved in water .**  Although dietary exposure is a significant source of exposure to aquatic organisms (i.e., 1 to 1.5X exposure via the water column; **Appendix F** ), it would not likely result in exposures that exceed the LOC. With regard to potential risk to benthic invertebrates via sediment and sediment pore water exposure, results fr om the PRZM/EXAMS modeling (Table 1) indicate that maximum peak EECs in bulk sediment (14 mg/kg d.w.) and pore water (0.007 ppb) are about well below the lowest toxicity reference values obtained for benthic invertebrates (> 935 mg/kg d.w. and >1,700 ppb, respectively, for the estuarine11



### amphipod, Leptocheirus plumulosus ; **Table C**  **- 2 of Appendix C**  ). **Therefore, risks to benthic invertebrates are not expected via exposure to metaflumizone in sediments.** 



### IV. **REFERENCES** Allen, C.R., Willey, R.D., Myers, P.E., Horton, P.M., and Buffa, J. 2000. Impact of red imported fire ant i nfestation on northern bobwhite quail abundance trends in southeastern United States. J ournal of Agricultural and Urban Entomology . 17: 43
- 51. Allen, C.R., Epperson, D.M, and Garmestani, A.S. 2004. Red imported fire ant impacts on wildlife: A decade o f research. American Midland Naturalist. 152: 88
- 103. Arnot, J. and Gobas, F. 2004. A Food Web Bioaccumulation Model For Organic Chemicals In Aquatic Ecosystems. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. 23: 2343
- 2355. Kopachena, J.G., Buckley, A.J., an d Potts, G.A. 2000. Effects of the red imported fire ant ( Solenopsis invicta ) on reproductive success of barn swallows ( Hirundo rustica ) in northeast Texas Southwestern Naturalist. 45: 477
- 482 . 

### Lechner, K.A., Ribble, D.O. 1996. Behavioral interactions b etween red imported fire ants ( Solenopsis invicta ) and three rodent species of south Texas . Southwestern Naturalist. 41 : 123
- 128 . 

### Mackay, D. And S. Paterson. 1981. Calculating fugacity. Environ. Sci. Technol. 15: 1006
- 1014. MRID 46264315. Schneider , S.; Deckardt, K.; Hellwig, J.; et. al.; (2004) BAS 320 I
- Two
- Generation Reproduction Toxicity Study in Wistar Rats Oral Administration (Gavage): Final Report. Project Number: 73R0071/01058, 2004/1009123. Unpublished study prepared by BASF Aktiengesells chaft. 1129 p. MRID 46264428. Gallagher, S.; Grimes, J.; Beavers, J.; et. al.; (2003) Avian Dietary Toxicity Test with BAS 320 I in the Northern Mallard Duck ( Anas platyrhynchos ): Final Report. Project Number: 1131/05, 147/206, 2003/5000290. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International, Ltd. 80 p. MRID 46264430. Zok, S. (2004) BAS 320 I
- 1
- Generation Reproduct ion Study on the Bobwhite Quail ( Colinus virginianus ) by Administration in the Diet: Final Report. Project Number: **Table 1 .**  **Maximum 1 in 10 years EECs in compartments of t**  **he aquatic environm ent based**  **on 4 bait applications at a rate of 0.00**  **095 lb a.i/A**  **under a 28**  **- day reapplication interval**  **(1) .** 

Aquatic Compartment Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly Agricultural Uses Water Column (1) (ug/L) 0.0187 0.0124 0.0094 0.0 092 0.0091 0.0090 Benthic Pore Water (ug/L) 0.0072 0.0072 0.0072 0.0072 0.0072 0.0071 Benthic Sediment (mg/kg dry wt) 14.37 14.37 14.36 14.36 14.35 14.11 Residential Uses Water Column (2) (ug/L) 0.021 0.018 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.021 (1) EECs are from th e S. Texas Grapefruit agricultural exposure scenario (2) EECs are from the Baton Rouge, LA residential exposure scenario12



### 71W0071/015111, 2004 /1003988, 2004/1004399. Unpublished study prepared by BASF Aktiengesellschaft. 425 p. MRID 46264539. Hughes, C.; Holmes, C. (2004) Toxicity of BAS 320 00I to the Unicellular Green Alga, Selenastrum capricornutum : Final Report. Project Number: 85681, 485 98, 2004/5000073. Unpublished study prepared by Analytical Bio
- Chemistry Labs., Inc and BASF Aktiengesellschaft. 45 p. Pedersen, E.K., Bedford, T.L., Grant, W.E., Vinson, S.B., Martin, J.B., Longnecker, M.T., Barr, C.L., and Drees, B.M. 2003. Effect of red imported fire ants on habitat use by hispid cotton rats (Sigmodon hispidus ) and northern pygmy mice (Baiomys taylori). S outhwestern Naturalist . 48: 419
- 426. Trapp, S. And J.C McFarlane (eds.). 1 995. P lant Contamination Modeling and Simulation of Organic Chemical Processes. Lewis Publishers. Boca Raton, Florida. U.S. EPA. 1992. Comparative analysis of acute avian risk from granular pesticides. Office of Pesticide Programs. U.S. EPA. March 1992. U.S. EPA. 2004. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Overview of the Ecological Risk Assessment Process in the Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Endangered and Threatened Species Effects Determinations. Office of Prevention, Pesticide, and Toxic Substances. Ja

nuary 23.13



## APPENDIX A. **Calculations for Determining Risk to Terrestrial Organisms Resulting from**  **Direct Consumption of M**  **etaflumizone Fire Ant Bait**  **Granules A.**  **Avian Risk: Calculations and Results Based on the Acute**  **Dietary Toxicity Endpoint**  To exce ed the acute risk to listed (endangered) species LOC for birds of 0.1, an EEC of >15.6 mg ai/kg
diet would be required if the most sensitive LC 50 

### value is >156 mg ai/kg diet (MRID 46264315; **Appendix C**  ).

. >156 mg ai/kg diet * 0.1 = >15.6 mg ai/kg
- diet If a 20g bird consumes 0.0228 kilograms of food per day (as estimated in T
- REX v 1.4.1 ; USEPA 2008) , then 0.3557 milligrams of the diet has to be active ingredient to achieve the EEC o f 15.6 mg ai/kg
- diet for acute risk to listed species. 0.0228 kg diet* 15.6 mg ai/kg diet = 0.3557 mg ai If there are 667 granules in one gram (as suggested by the registrant in “Comments on the Realism of EPA’s Analysis of the Avian Risk of Metaflumizone Fire Ant Bait” ) , then each granule weighs 1.5 mg. 1 gram ÷ 667 granul es = 0.0015g Based on a percent ai for the formulated product of 0.063%, there is 0.000944528 mg ai in a single granule. 0.00063*1.5 mg = 0.000944528 mg ai in a single granule Based on the following equation, 377 granules would have to be consumed by a 20g bird in a day to achieve the EEC of 15.6 mg ai/kg
- diet: The amount of ai to be consumed in a given day in order to trigger endangered species concerns ÷ the amount of ai in a single granule = 0.3557 milligrams ai ÷ 0.000944528 mg ai in a granule = 37 7 granules Assuming that a bird can identify, walk to, and consume a granule every 5 seconds (as suggested by the registrant in “Comments on the Realism of EPA’s Analysis of the Avian Risk of Metaflumizone Fire Ant Bait”) , it would take ~31 minutes of continuous feeding on granules for a 20 gram bird to consume 377 granules. (377 granules * 5 seconds) ÷ 60 seconds/minute = 31.4 minutes The fire ant bait is to be applied at a rate of 1.5 lb bait per acre. Converting to grams,

1.5 lb * 454 grams/lb = 681 grams of granulated product/acre Because 667 granules weigh one gram,

667 granules/gram * 681 grams of granules/acre = 454,227 granules applied per acre14



### Converting to granules per square foot:

454,227 granules/acre ÷ 43,560 square feet/acre = 10.4 granules/square foot Thus, a 20g bird would have to completely glean (100% feeding efficiency) approximately 36 square feet to reach a dietary EEC 15.6 mg ai/kg diet to trigger endangered species concerns:

377 granules ÷ 10.4 granules/square foot = 36.2 s quare feet If we assume a 50% and 10% feeding efficiency, a 20g bird would have to cover approximately 72.4 and 362.1 square feet, respectively:

377 granules ÷ 5.2 granules/square foot = 72.4 square feet 377 granules ÷ 1.04 granules/square foot = 362.1 square feet However, in addition to broadcast treatments, the fire ant bait can also be applied to at rate up to 2oz per mound. Converting to grams,

2oz/mound * 28.3 grams/oz = 56.6 grams of granules/mound Because 667 granules weigh one gram, 667 granules/gram * 56.6 grams of granules/mound = 37,752 granules applied per mound Thus, a 20g bird would only have to go to one mound and eat approximately 1% of the applied granules at that mound to reach an EEC of >15.6 mg ai/kg diet to trigger endangered species concerns:

377 granules ÷ 37,752 granules/mound = 0.00997 mound This same analysis can be applied using the acute risk and acute restricted use LOCs of 0.2 and 0.5, respectively. Following the same series of calculations, the results described in **Table A**  **- 1**  below can be obtained. **Table A**  **- 1. Estimates of the number of granules, area foraged, and process time needed for a 20g bird to achieve the dietary**  **EEC that would trigger an exceedance of the acute risk (0.1), acute restricted use (0.2), and**  **acute endangered species (0.5) level of concern (LOC).**  **U.S. EPA’s Levels of Concern (LOC)**  **0.1 0.2**  **0.5** EEC Required to Reach the Specified LOC (mg ai / kg diet) 15.6 31.2 78 # Consumed Granules Required to Reach the Specified LOC 377 753 1883 Ar ea of Fi eld to be Foraged (square feet) to Achieve the Specified LOC Based on Application Rate of 10.4 granules/square foot Assuming a 100% Feeding Efficiency 36 ft2 72 ft2 181 ft2 Assuming a 50% Feeding Efficiency 72 ft2 145 362 ft2 Assuming a 10% Feeding Efficiency 362 ft2 724 ft2 1810 ft2 % of Granules Applied to One Mound that Need to be Consumed to Reach the specified LOC 1.0 % 2.0 % 5.0 % Process Time to Consume Granules Assuming a Rate of 1 granule every 5 seconds (minutes) 31 min 63 min 157 min 

### Likewise, the same analyses can be performed for 100g and 1000g birds. Following the same series of calculations, the results described in **Table A**  **- 2 and**  **A -**  **3** below can be obtained for 100g and 1000g birds, respectively.15

**Table A**  **- 2**  **. Estimates of the number of granules, area foraged, and process time needed for a 100g bird to achieve the dietary**  **EEC that would trigger an exceedance of the acute risk (0.1), acute restricted use (0.2), and acute endangered species (0.5)**  **level of concern (LOC). U.S. EPA’s Levels**  **of Concern (LOC)**  **0.1 0.2**  **0.5** EEC Required to Reach the Specified LOC (mg ai / kg diet) 15.6 31.2 78 # Consumed Granules Required to Reach the Specified LOC 1074 2147 5368 Ar ea of Field to be Foraged (square feet) to Achieve the Specified LOC Based on Application Rate of 10.4 granules/square foot Assuming a 100% Feeding Efficiency 103 ft2 206 ft2 516 ft2 Assuming a 50% Feeding Efficiency 206 ft2 413 ft2 1032 ft2 Assuming a 10% Feeding Efficiency 1032 ft2 2065 ft2 5161 ft2 % of Granules Applied to One Mound that Need to be Consumed to Reach the specified LOC 2.8 % 5.7 % 14.2 % Process Time to Consume Granules Assuming a Rate of 1 granule every 5 seconds (hours) 1.5 hr 3.0 hr 7.5 hr **Table A**  **- 3. Estimates of the number of granules, area foraged, and p**  **rocess time needed for a 1000g bird to achieve the dietary EEC that would trigger an exceedance of the acute risk**  **(0.1), acute restricted use (0.2), and acute endangered species (0.5) level of concern (LOC).**  **U.S. EPA’s Levels of Concern (LOC)**  **0.1 0.2**  **0 .5**  EEC Required to Reach the Specified LOC (mg ai / kg diet) 15.6 31.2 78 # Consumed Granules Required to Reach the Specified LOC 4790 9579 23948 Ar ea of Field to be Foraged (square feet) to Achieve the Specified LOC Based on Application Rate of 10.4 granules/square foot Assuming a 100% Feeding Efficiency 461 ft2 921 ft2 2303 ft2 Assuming a 50% Feeding Efficiency 921 ft2 1842 ft2 4605 ft2 Assuming a 10% Feeding Efficiency 4605 ft2 9211 ft2 23027 ft2 % of Granules Applied to One Mound that Need to be Consumed to Reach the specified LOC 12.7 % 25.4 % 63.4 % Process Time to Consume Granules Assuming a Rate of 1 granule every 5 seconds (hours) 6.7 hr 13.3 hr 33.3 hr


### B. **Avian Risk: Calculations and Results Based on the E**  **stimated Median Lethal Dose**  **Equiva lents**  **Endpoint** EFED has estimated median lethal dose equivalents from diet based on the LC 50 

### value of >156 mg ai/kg
diet (MRID 46264315; **Appendix C** ) and the data on food consumption and average body weight from the acute dietary study with mallard ducks. The estimated median lethal dose equivalents from diet, in addition to the LC 50 

### value, was considered because it is body
- weight specific and can provide scaling of feeding and toxicity to various sizes of birds. In the available acute study with mallards , the average daily food consumption and average body weight of birds in the 156 mg ai/kg
- diet treatment group was 0.096 kg/bird and 0.203 kg, respectively. The median lethal dose equivalent from diet is calculated as follows:

(156 mg ai/kg
- diet * 0.096 kg diet) ÷ 0.203 kg bw = 73.8 mg ai /kg
-bw This estimated median lethal dose equivalents from diet can be adjusted for a 20g bird: 

### Adj LD LD AW

TW x



### . ( ) 50 50 1


###        


### where:16 

### Adj. LD 50 

### = adjusted LD 50 

### (mg/kg
- bw) calculated by the equation LD 50 

### = endpoint reporte d from bird study (mg/kg
-bw)= 73.8 mg ai /kg
-bw TW = body weight of tested animal= 0.203 kg. AW = body weight of assessed animal= 0.02 kg x = Mineau scaling factor for birds; EFED default 1.15 The adjusted estimated median lethal dose equivalents from diet value for 20g birds is 52.1 mg ai /kg
-bw. To exceed the endangered species LOC of 0.1, the EEC equivalent dose has to equal 5.21 mg ai /kg
-bw: 52.1 mg ai / kg
-bw *0.1= 5.21 mg ai / kg
-bw If there are 667 granules in one gram, then each granule weigh s 1.5 mg. 1 gram ÷ 667 granules = 0.0015g Based on a percent active ingredient for the formulated product of 0.063%, there is 0.000944528 mg ai in a single granule. 0.00063*1.5 mg = 0.000944528 mg ai in a single granule Therefore, if a 20g bird eats on e granule, the dose is 0.047226387 mg ai/kg
-bw.

0.000944528 mg ai ÷ 0.020 kg
-bw = 0.047226387 mg ai/kg
-bw Subsequently, a 20g bird must eat approximately 110 granules to reach an EEC equivalent dose of 5.21 mg ai/kg
- bw to trigger endangered species concerns.

0.047226387 mg ai/kg bw * 110 granules = 5.21 mg ai/kg
-bw As we did before, we can assume that a bird can identify, walk to, and consume a granule every 5 seconds. Therefore, based on this analysis, it would take ~9.2 minutes of continuous feeding on granules for a 20 gram bird to consume 110 granules.

(110 granules * 5 seconds) ÷ 60 seconds/minute = 9.2 minutes The fire ant bait is to be applied at a rate of 1.5 lb bait per acre. Converting to grams, 1.5 lb * 454 grams/lb = 681 grams of granul es/acre Because 667 granules weigh one gram,

667 granules/gram * 681 grams of granules/acre = 454,227 granules applied per acre Converting to granules per square foot:

454,227 granules/acre ÷ 43,560 square feet/acre = 10.4 granules/square foot Thus, a 20g bird would have to completely glean (100% feeding efficiency) approximately 10.6 square feet to reach an EEC equivalent dose of 5.21 mg ai/kg bw to trigger endangered species concerns:17 

### 110 granules ÷ 10.4 granules/square foot = 10.6 square feet If w e assume a 50% and 10% feeding efficiency, a 20g bird would have to cover approximately 29 and 146 square feet, respectively:

110 granules ÷ 5.2 granules/square foot = 21.2 square feet 110 granules ÷ 1.04 granules/square foot = 105.8 square feet The fire ant bait can also be applied to at rate up to 2oz per mound. Converting to grams,

2oz/mound * 28.3 grams/oz = 56.6 grams of granules/mound Because 667 granules weigh one gram, 667 granules/gram * 56.6 grams of granules/mound = 37,752 granules applied per mound Thus, a 20g bird would only have to go to one mound and eat approximately 0.3% of the applied granules at that mound to reach an EEC equivalent dose of 5.21 mg ai/kg bw to trigger endangered species concerns: 110 granules ÷ 37,752 granules/mo und = 0.003 mound This same analysis can be applied using the acute risk and acute restricted use LOCs of 0.02 and 0.5, respectively. Following the same series of calculations, the results described in **Table A**  **- 4**  below can be obtained. **Table A**  **- 4. Esti**  **ma tes of the number of granules, area foraged, and process time needed for a 20g bird to achieve the EEC**  **equivalent dose that would trigger an exceedance of the acute risk (0.1), acute restricted use (0.2), and acute endangered**  **species (0.5) level of conce rn (LOC).**  **U.S. EPA’s Levels of Concern (LOC)**  **0.1 0.2**  **0.5** EEC Equivalent Dose Required to Reach the Specified LOC (mg ai / kg
- bw) 5.21 10.4 26.1 # Consumed Granules Required to Reach the Specified LOC 110 221 552 Ar ea of Field to be Foraged (square f eet) to Achieve the Specified LOC Based on Application Rate of 10.4 granules/square foot Assuming a 100% Feeding Efficiency 11 ft2 21 ft2 53 ft2 Assuming a 50% Feeding Efficiency 21 ft2 42 ft2 106 ft2 Assuming a 10% Feeding Efficiency 106 ft2 212 ft2 5 31 ft2 % of Granules Applied to One Mound that Need to be Consumed to Reach the specified LOC 0.3 % 0.6 % 1.5 % Process Time to Consume Granules Assuming a Rate of 1 granule every 5 seconds (minutes) 9 min 18 min 46 min 

### Likewise, the same analyses can be performed for 100g and 1000g birds. Following the same series of calculations, the results described in **Table A**  **- 5 and**  **A -**  **6** below can be obtained for 100g and 1000g birds, respectively. **Table A**  **- 5. Estimates of the number of granules, area foraged, and pro**  **cess time needed for a 100g bird to achieve the EEC equivalent dose that would trigger an exceedance of the acute risk (0.1),**  **acute restricted use (0.2), and acute endangered species (0.5) level of concern (LOC). U.S. EPA’s Levels of Concern** 

**(LOC) 0.1**  **0.2 0.5**  EEC Equivalent Dose Required to Reach the Specified LOC (mg ai / kg
- bw) 6.6 13.3 33.2 # Consumed Granules Required to Reach the Specified LOC 703 1405 351318

Ar ea of Field to be Foraged (square feet) to Achieve the Specified LOC Based on Applicati on Rate of 10.4 granules/square foot Assuming a 100% Feeding Efficiency 68 ft2 135 ft2 338 ft2 Assuming a 50% Feeding Efficiency 135 ft2 270 ft2 676 ft2 Assuming a 10% Feeding Efficiency 676 ft2 1351 ft2 3378 ft2 % of Granules Applied to One Mound that Need to be Consumed to Reach the specified LOC 1.9 % 3.7 % 9.3 % Process Time to Consume Granules Assuming a Rate of 1 granule every 5 seconds (hours) 1 hr 2 hr 5 hr **Table A**  **- 6. Estimates of the number of granules, area foraged, and process time needed**  **for a 1000g bird to achieve the EEC equivalent dose that would trigger an exceedance of the acute risk (0.1),**  **acute restricted use (0.2), and acute endangered species (0.5) level of concern (LOC). U.S. EPA’s Levels of Concern** 

**(LOC) 0.1**  **0.2 0.5**  EEC Equ ivalent Dose Required to Reach the Specified LOC (mg ai / kg
- bw) 9.4 18.7 46.9 # Consumed Granules Required to Reach the Specified LOC 9925 19849 49623 Ar ea of Field to be Foraged (square feet) to Achieve the Specified LOC Based on Application Rate of 10 .4 granules/square foot Assuming a 100% Feeding Efficiency 954 ft2 1909 ft2 4771 ft2 Assuming a 50% Feeding Efficiency 1909 ft2 3817 ft2 9543 ft2 Assuming a 10% Feeding Efficiency 9543 ft2 19086 ft2 47715 ft2 % of Granules Applied to One Mound that Ne ed to be Consumed to Reach the specified LOC 26.3 % 52.6 % 131.4 % Process Time to Consume Granules Assuming a Rate of 1 granule every 5 seconds (hours) 14 hr 28 hr 69 hr 

### C. **Avian Risk: Calculations and Results Based on the**  **Chronic Dietary Toxicity Endpoi**  **nt** To exceed the chronic risk LOC for birds of 1.0, an EEC of 7.6 mg ai/kg
- diet would be required if the most sensitive NOAEC value is 7.6 mg ai/kg diet. If a 20g bird consumes 0.0228 kilograms of food per day (as estimated in T
- REX v 1.4.1; USEPA 2008 ) , then 0.1733 milligrams of the diet has to be active ingredient to achieve the EEC of 7.6 mg ai/kg
- diet 0.0228 kg diet* 7.6 mg ai/kg diet = 0.1733 mg ai If there are 667 granules in one gram, then each granule weighs 1.5 mg. 1 gram ÷ 667 granules = 0 .0015g Based on a percent ai for the formulated product of 0.063%, there is 0.000944528 mg ai in a single granule. 0.00063*1.5 mg = 0.000944528 mg ai in a single granule Based on the following equation, 183 granules would have to be consumed by a 20g bi rd in a day to achieve the EEC of 7.6 mg ai/kg
- diet: The amount of ai to be consumed in a given day in order to trigger endangered species concerns ÷ the amount of ai in a single granule = 0.1733 milligrams ai ÷ 0.000944528 mg ai in a granule = 183 granules Assuming that a bird can identify, walk to, and consume a granule every 5 seconds (as suggested by BASF), it would take ~15 minutes of continuous feeding on granules for a 20 gram bird to consume 183 granules.19 

### (183 granules * 5 seconds) ÷ 60 seconds/minute = 15.3 minutes The fire ant bait is to be applied at a rate of 1.5 lb bait per acre. Converting to grams, 1.5 lb * 454 grams/lb = 681 grams of granules/acre Because 667 granules weigh one gram,

667 granules/gram * 681 grams of granules/acre = 4 54,227 granules applied per acre Converting to granules per square foot:

454,227 granules/acre ÷ 43,560 square feet/acre = 10.4 granules/square foot Thus, a 20g bird would have to completely glean (100% feeding efficiency) approximately 18 square feet to reach a dietary EEC 7.6 mg ai/kg diet to trigger endangered species concerns:

183 granules ÷ 10.4 granules/square foot = 17.6 square feet If we assume a 50% and 10% feeding efficiency, a 20g bird would have to cover approximately 35 and 176 square fe et, respectively:

183 granules ÷ 5.2 granules/square foot = 35.3 square feet 183 granules ÷ 1.04 granules/square foot = 176.4 square feet However, in addition to broadcast treatments, the fire ant bait can also be applied to at rate up to 2oz per mound . Converting to grams,

2oz/mound * 28.3 grams/oz = 56.6 grams of granules/mound Because 667 granules weigh one gram, 667 granules/gram * 56.6 grams of granules/mound = 37,752 granules applied per mound Thus, a 20g bird would only have to go to one mound and eat approximately 0.5% of the applied granules at that mound to reach an EEC of 7.6 mg ai/kg diet to trigger endangered species concerns:

183 granules ÷ 37,752 granules/mound = 0.00485 mound Likewise, the same analyses can be performed for 100g and 1000g birds. Following the same series of calculations, the results described in **Table A**  **- 7**  below can be obtained for 100g and 1000g birds. Following the same series of calculations but based on a LOAEC of mg ai/kg diet, the results described in **Tabl e**  **A -**  **8** below can be obtained. **Table A**  **- 7**  **. Estimates of the number of granules, area foraged, and process time needed for a 20g, 100g, and 1000g bird to achieve the dietary EEC that would trigger an exceedance of the chronic risk**  **(1.0) level of concern (LOC ) based on a NOAEC of 7.6 mg ai/kg diet.**  **Bird Size (grams) 20**  **100 1000**  EEC Required to Reach the chronic risk LOC of 1.0 (mg ai / kg diet) 7.6 7.6 7.620

# Consumed Granules Required to Reach the Specified LOC 183 523 2333 Ar ea of Field to be Foraged ( square feet) to Achieve the Specified LOC Based on Application Rate of 10.4 granules/square foot Assuming a 100% Feeding Efficiency 18 ft2 50 ft2 224 ft2 Assuming a 50% Feeding Efficiency 35 ft2 101 ft2 449 ft2 Assuming a 10% Feeding Efficiency 176 ft2 503 ft2 2244 ft2 % of Granules Applied to One Mound that Need to be Consumed to Reach the specified LOC 0.5 % 1.4 % 6.2 % Process Time to Consume Granules Assuming a Rate of 1 granule every 5 seconds (minutes) 15 min 44 min 194 min **Table A**  **- 8**  **. Estimates of the number of granules, area foraged, and process time needed for a 20g,**  **100g, and 1000g bird to achieve the dietary EEC that would trigger an exceedance of the chronic risk (1.0) level of concern (LOC) based on a LOAEC of 15 m**  **g ai/kg diet. Bird Si** **ze (grams) 20**  **100 1000**  EEC Required to Reach the chronic risk LOC of 1.0 (mg ai / kg diet) 15 15 15 # Consumed Granules Required to Reach the Specified LOC 362 1032 4605 Ar ea of Field to be Foraged (square feet) to Achieve the Specified LOC Based on A pplication Rate of 10.4 granules/square foot Assuming a 100% Feeding Efficiency 35 ft2 99 ft2 443 ft2 Assuming a 50% Feeding Efficiency 70 ft2 199 ft2 886 ft2 Assuming a 10% Feeding Efficiency 348 ft2 993 ft2 4428 ft2 % of Granules Applied to One Mound that Need to be Consumed to Reach the specified LOC 1.0 % 2.7 % 12.2 % Process Time to Consume Granules Assuming a Rate of 1 granule every 5 seconds (minutes) 30 min 86 min 384 min 

### D. **Mammalian Risk: Calculations and Results Based on the**  **Chronic Dietary Toxicity**  **Endpoint** To exceed the chronic risk LOC for mammals of 1.0, an EEC of 400 mg ai/kg
- diet would be required if the most sensitive NOAEC value is 400 mg ai/kg diet. If a 15g mammal consumes 0.00318 kilograms of food per day (as estimated in T
- REX v 1.4.1 for grainivores; USEPA 2008) , then 1.272 milligrams of the diet has to be active ingredient to achieve the EEC of 400 mg ai/kg
- diet 0.00318 kg diet* 400 mg ai/kg diet = 1.272 mg ai If there are 667 granules in one gram, then each granule weigh s 1.5 mg. 1 gram ÷ 667 granules = 0.0015g Based on a percent ai for the formulated product of 0.063%, there is 0.000944528 mg ai in a single granule. 0.00063*1.5 mg = 0.000944528 mg ai in a single granule Based on the following equation, 1347 granules would have to be consumed by a 15g mammal in a day to achieve the EEC of 400 mg ai/kg
- diet: The amount of ai to be consumed in a given day in order to trigger endangered species concerns ÷ the amount of ai in a single granule = 1.272 milligrams ai ÷ 0.00 0944528 mg ai in a granule = 1347 granules21



### Using the same assumption as for birds (a mammal can identify, walk to, and consume a granule every 5 seconds), it would take ~112 minutes of continuous feeding on granules for a 15 gram mammal to consume 1347 gr anules.

(1347 granules * 5 seconds) ÷ 60 seconds/minute = 112.3 minutes The fire ant bait is to be applied at a rate of 1.5 lb bait per acre. Converting to grams, 1.5 lb * 454 grams/lb = 681 grams of granules/acre Because 667 granules weigh one gram,

667 granules/gram * 681 grams of granules/acre = 454,227 granules applied per acre Converting to granules per square foot:

454,227 granules/acre ÷ 43,560 square feet/acre = 10.4 granules/square foot Thus, a 15g mammal would have to completely glean (1 00% feeding efficiency) approximately 129.5 square feet to reach a dietary EEC 400 mg ai/kg diet to trigger endangered species concerns:

1347 granules ÷ 10.4 granules/square foot = 129.5 square feet If we assume a 50% and 10% feeding efficiency, a 15g mammal would have to cover approximately 259 and 1295 square feet, respectively:

1347 granules ÷ 5.2 granules/square foot = 259 square feet 1347 granules ÷ 1.04 granules/square foot = 1295.2 square feet However, in addition to broadcast treatments, the fire ant bait can also be applied to at rate up to 2oz per mound. Converting to grams,

2oz/mound * 28.3 grams/oz = 56.6 grams of granules/mound Because 667 granules weigh one gram, 667 granules/gram * 56.6 grams of granules/mound = 37,752 granules appl ied per mound Thus, a 15g mammal would only have to go to one mound and eat approximately 3.6% of the applied granules at that mound to reach an EEC of 7.6 mg ai/kg diet to trigger endangered species concerns:

1347 granules ÷ 37,752 granules/mound = 0.0 357 mound Likewise, the same analyses can be performed for 35g and 1000g mammals. Following the same series of calculations, the results described in **Table A**  **- 9**  below can be obtained for 35g and 1000g mammals. Following the same series of calculations but based on a LOAEC of 1000 mg ai/kg diet, the results described in **Table A**  **- 10**  below can be obtained. **Table A**  **- 9**  **. Estimates of the number of granules, area foraged, and process time needed for a 15g, 35g, and 1000g m**  **am mal to achieve the dietary EEC that**  **would trigger an exceedance of the chronic risk (1.0) level of concern (LOC) based on a NOAEC of 400 m**  **g ai/kg diet.**22 **Mammal Size (grams) 15**  **35 1000**  EEC Required to Reach the chronic risk LOC of 1.0 (mg ai / kg diet) 400 400 400 # Consumed Granules Required to Reach the Specified LOC 1347 2173 14399 Ar ea of Field to be Foraged (square feet) to Achieve the Specified LOC Based on Application Rate of 10.4 granules/square foot Assuming a 100% Feeding Efficiency 130 ft2 209 ft2 1384 ft2 Assuming a 50% Fee ding Efficiency 259 ft2 418 ft2 2769 ft2 Assuming a 10% Feeding Efficiency 1295 ft2 2089 ft2 13844 ft2 % of Granules Applied to One Mound that Need to be Consumed to Reach the specified LOC 3.6 % 5.8 % 38.1 % Process Time to Consume Granules Assuming a Rate of 1 granule every 5 seconds (minutes) 112 min 181 min 1200 min **Table A**  **- 10**  **. Estim ates of the number of granules, area foraged, and process tim**  **e needed for a 15g, 35g, and 1000g m**  **am mal to achieve the dietary EEC that would trigger an exceedance of th**  **e chronic risk (1.0) level of concern (LOC) based on a LOAEC of 1000 m**  **g ai/kg diet. Bird Size (grams)**  **15 35**  **1000** EEC Required to Reach the chronic risk LOC of 1.0 (mg ai / kg diet) 1000 1000 1000 # Consumed Granules Required to Reach the Specified LO C 3367 5431 35997 Ar ea of Field to be Foraged (square feet) to Achieve the Specified LOC Based on Application Rate of 10.4 granules/square foot Assuming a 100% Feeding Efficiency 324 ft2 522 ft2 3461 ft2 Assuming a 50% Feeding Efficiency 647 ft2 1044 ft2 6922 ft2 Assuming a 10% Feeding Efficiency 3237 ft2 5222 ft2 34612 ft2 % of Granules Applied to One Mound that Need to be Consumed to Reach the specified LOC 8.9 % 14.4 % 95.4 % Process Time to Consume Granules Assuming a Rate of 1 granule every 5 seco nds (minutes) 281 min 453 min 3000 min 

### E. **Mammalian Risk: Calculations and Results Based on the**  **Chronic Dose -**  **Based Toxicity Endpoint**  The most sensitive chronic NOAEL of 20 mg ai/kg
-bw/day from the available reproduction studies with rats (MRID 46264315, **Appendix C** ) is also considered because it is body
-weight specific and can provide scaling of feeding and toxicity to various sizes of mammals. This most sensitive chronic NOAEL can be adjusted to account for varying size classes of mammals according to the following equation:

Adjusted NOAEL = NOAEL (TW/AW) (0.25) 

### where: TW = body weight of tested animal (350 g rat); and AW = body weight of assessed animal (15, 35, and 1000 g to account for 3 different size classes). The adjusted estimated median l ethal dose equivalents from diet value for 15g mammals is 43.96 mg ai /kg
- bw/day. To exceed the chronic risk LOC of 1, the EEC equivalent dose has to equal 43.96 mg ai /kg
- bw: 43.96 mg ai / kg
- bw *1= 43.96 mg ai / kg
-bw If there are 667 granules in one gram, then each granule weighs 1.5 mg. 1 gram ÷ 667 granules = 0.0015g23



### Based on a percent active ingredient for the formulated product of 0.063%, there is 0.000944528 mg ai in a single granule. 0.00063*1.5 mg = 0.000944528 mg ai in a single granule Therefore, if a 15g mammal eats one granule, the dose is 0.062968533 mg ai/kg
-bw.

0.000944528 mg ai ÷ 0.015 kg
-bw = 0.062968533 mg ai/kg
-bw Subsequently, a 15g mammal must eat approximately 698 granules to reach an EEC equivalent dose of 43.96 mg ai /kg
- bw to trigger endangered species concerns.

0.062968533 mg ai/kg bw * 698 granules = 43.96 mg ai /kg
-bw As we did for birds, we can assume that a mammal can identify, walk to, and consume a granule every 5 seconds. Therefore, based on this analysis, it woul d take ~58.2 minutes of continuous feeding on granules for a 15 gram mammal to consume 698 granules.

(698 granules * 5 seconds) ÷ 60 seconds/minute = 58.2 minutes The fire ant bait is to be applied at a rate of 1.5 lb bait per acre. Converting to grams , 1.5 lb * 454 grams/lb = 681 grams of granules/acre Because 667 granules weigh one gram,

667 granules/gram * 681 grams of granules/acre = 454,227 granules applied per acre Converting to granules per square foot:

454,227 granules/acre ÷ 43,560 square feet/acre = 10.4 granules/square foot Thus, a 15g mammal would have to completely glean (100% feeding efficiency) approximately 67.1 square feet to reach an EEC equivalent dose of 43.96 mg ai/kg bw to trigger endangered species concerns:

698 granules ÷ 1 0.4 granules/square foot = 67.1 square feet If we assume a 50% and 10% feeding efficiency, a 15g mammal would have to cover approximately 134 and 671 square feet, respectively:

698 granules ÷ 5.2 granules/square foot = 134.2 square feet 698 granules ÷ 1 .04 granules/square foot = 671.2 square feet The fire ant bait can also be applied to at rate up to 2oz per mound. Converting to grams,

2oz/mound * 28.3 grams/oz = 56.6 grams of granules/mound Because 667 granules weigh one gram, 667 granules/gram * 5 6.6 grams of granules/mound = 37,752 granules applied per mound24



### Thus, a 15g mammal would only have to go to one mound and eat approximately 1.8% of the applied granules at that mound to reach an EEC equivalent dose of 43.96 mg ai/kg bw to trigger endangered species concerns: 698 granules ÷ 37,752 granules/mound = 0.018 mound These same analyses can be performed for 35g and 1000g mammals. Following the same series of calculations, the results described in **Table A**  **- 11**  below can be obtained for 35g and 1 000g mammals. Following the same series of calculations but based on a LOAEL of 50 mg ai/kg
-bw/day, the results described in **Table A**  **- 12**  below can be obtained. **Table A**  **- 11**  **. Estim ates of the number of granules, area foraged, and process tim**  **e needed for a 15 g,**  **35g, and 1000g m am**  **mal to achieve the EEC equivalent dose that would trigger an exceedance of the chronic risk (1.0) level of concern (LOC) based on a NOAEL of 20 m**  **g ai/kg -**  **bw/day. Mammal Size (grams)**  **15 35**  **1000** EEC Required to Reach the chronic risk LOC of 1.0 (mg ai / kg
-bw) 43.96 35.57 15.38 # Consumed Granules Required to Reach the Specified LOC 698 1318 16287 Ar ea of Field to be Foraged (square feet) to Achieve the Specified LOC Based on Application Rate of 10.4 granules/square foot Assuming a 100% Feeding Efficiency 67 ft2 127 ft2 1566 ft2 Assuming a 50% Feeding Efficiency 134 ft2 253 ft2 3132 ft2 Assuming a 10% Feeding Efficiency 671 ft2 1267 ft2 15660 ft2 % of Granules Applied to One Mound that Need to be Consumed to Reach the specified LOC 1.8 % 3.5 % 43.1 % Process Time to Consume Granules Assuming a Rate of 1 granule every 5 seconds (minutes) 58 min 1 10 min 1357 min **Table A**  **- 12. Estim**  **ates of the number of granules, area foraged, and process tim e needed for a 15g,**  **35g, and 1000g m am**  **mal to achieve the EEC equivalent dose that would trigger an exceedance of the**  **chronic risk (1.0) level of concern (LOC) based on a LOAEL of 50 m g ai/kg**  **- bw/day.**  **Mammal Size (grams) 15**  **35 1000**  EEC Required to Reach the chronic risk LOC of 1.0 (mg ai / kg
-bw) 109.89 88.91 38.46 # Consumed Granules Required to Reach the Specified LOC 1745 3295 40717 Ar ea of Field to be Foraged (square feet) to Achieve the Specified LOC Based on Application Rate of 10.4 granules/square foot Assuming a 100% Feeding Efficienc y 168 ft2 317 ft2 3915 ft2 Assuming a 50% Feeding Efficiency 336 ft2 634 ft2 7830 ft2 Assuming a 10% Feeding Efficiency 1678 ft2 3168 ft2 39151 ft2 % of Granules Applied to One Mound that Need to be Consumed to Reach the specified LOC 4.6 % 8.7 % 107.9 % Process Time to Consume Granules Assuming a Rate of 1 granule every 5 seconds (minutes) 145 min 27 5 min 3393 min 

### F. **References** T
- REX. 200 8 . Terrestrial Residue Exposure Model (T
- REX), Version 1. 4.1 October 9, 2008
. Environmental Fate and Effects Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. (available at: http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/terrestrial/index.htm)25



## APPENDIX B. **Calculations for Determining Risk to Terrestrial Organisms Resulting from**  **Consumption of Soil**  **Invertebrates that have Bioaccumulate**  **d Metaflumizone**  **A .**  **Use of fugacity approach to estimate pesticide concentrations in earthworms located on treated field**  In order to explore the potential exposures of mammals and birds to pesticides in the soil and earthworms on the treatment site, a simple fugacity approach can be employed to estimate concentrations of the pesticide of interest earthworms. Fugacity is most o ften regarded as the "escaping tendency" of a chemical from a particular phase. Fugacity (F) has units of pressure, generally pascals (Pa), and can be related to phase concentrations. For any particular environmental phase ( e.g., water, soil, air, or biota) there is a corresponding "fugacity capacity" with units of mol/m3



### - Pa and is denoted by Z. The relationship between fugacity, fugacity capacity and chemical concentration (C) is defined by Equation 1.
Fugacity capacities for a given chemical are cal culated for the phases of interest as part of the exposure point estimation methodology (Mackay and Paterson 1981). The following calculations of fugacity capacities for soil (Z S 

### ) and earthworms (Z E 

### ) (Equations 2 and 3, respectively) require several chemi cal
specific parameters and assumptions of system temperature (25 o 

### C) and steady state equilibrium. Parameter values relevant to Equations 2 and 3 are defined in Table A1.

Fugacity capacities for a given chemical are calculated for the phases of in terest as part of the exposure point concentration estimation methodology. By definition, the ratio between Z values of different phases (compartments) equals the partitioning coefficient ( e.g., Equation 4).

In this approach, it is assumed that a p esticide partitions between the soil, the (pore) water and the air contained within the soil of the treatment site. It is assumed that earthworms dwelling within the soil are exposed to a pesticide via ingestion of contaminated soil. The concentration of a pesticide in earthworm tissues can be calculated according to Equation 5 (see **Table B**  **- 1**  for parameter definitions). 

### F Z C Equation *

. 1 

H

K Z Equation S d S 

###  *

. 2 
H

K L Z Equation OW E 

### *

. 3 

OW water ol oc 

### K Z Z Equation  tan



### . 4



      
 S

E S E 

### Z

Z C C Equation *

. 526



### Table **B -**  **1. Summary of parameters relevant to earthworm fugacity model. Symbol**  **Definition Units**  C E 

### Chemical concentration in e arthworm tissue mol/m 3 

### C E 

### ' Chemical concentration in earthworm tissue g/kg C S 

### Chemical concentration in soil mol/m 3 

### H Henry’s Law constant m3



### - Pa/mol K d 

### Soil partitioning coefficient cm3 

### /g K OW 

### Octanol to water partition coefficient none L Lipid fract ion of earthworm none MW molecular weight of chemical g/mol Z E 

### Fugacity capacity of pesticide in

earthworms mol/m 3



### - Pa Z S 

### Fugacity capacity of pesticide in soil mol/m 3



### - Pa ρ E 

### density of earthworm kg/m 3 

### ρ S 

### Bulk density of soil g/cm3 

### Equation 5 can be redefined using equations 2 and 3 as follows in **Equation 6** . Equation 6 is used to calculate the concentration of a pesticide in earthworms inhabiting the soil of treatment sit es.

The resulting C E 

### value is in units of mol/m3 

### . This value is converted to units of g/kg using **E quation 7** 
. The density of the earthworm (ρ E 

### ) is assumed to be 1000 kg/m3 

### (equivalent to density of water).

**B. Calculation of Metaflumizone Soil C oncentrations**  C S 

### is intended to be representative of the steady
- state concentrations of the pesticide of interest in soil. Soil concentrations of metaflumizone were calculated based on a depth of 1cm (a chemical concentration averaged over a 1
- cm soil depth was used to reflect a concentration across the earthworm occupied area of soil), the use characterization for metaflumizone when applied via broadcast methods (maximum application rate of **0.00095 lb a.i./A**  , a total of 4 applications, and an 4
-week retr eatment interval), and a 1
- acre terrestrial environment. The following equation was used to calculate the initial soil concentration immediately following the first application:
Equation 8 where, C soil 

### = concentration in soil immediately f ollowing a single application (mg/kg) AR = application rate ( = 0.00095 lb a.i./acre) z = soil depth ( = 1 cm) ρ soil 

### = soil bulk density ( =1.65 g/cm3 

### ) s d ow S E 

### K K L C C Equation  ** *

. 6 

C applicatio n rate soil depth soil density AR CF CF z CF soil 

### soil i 

###       

1 2 3 

###  E E E 

### MW C C Equation 

*

. 7 ' 

### 27 

### CF 1 

### = conversion factor, 453582.4 mg = 1 lb CF 2 

### = conversion factor, 1 acre = 40468730 cm 2 

### CF 3 

### = conversion factor, 0.001 kg = 1 g For metaflumizone, the initial soil concentration immediately following the first application was calculated as **0.00 6**  **5 mg/kg (Figure B**  **- 1)**  . However, in order to determine the maximum soil concentration under a multiple application scenario with a uniform application rate and interval throughout , a measure of dissipation in surface soil (the mean aerobic soil metabolism half
- life of 142 days for metaflumizone used in the PRZM/EXAMS modeling). At the end of the first application interval, the soil concentration (just prior to the second application) was determined as: Eq uation 9 

## C soil @ T1 

## = e (
- k * t)



### C soil @ T1 

### = the concentration of chemical found in bulk soil at the end of the first

application (mg/kg) t = the time in days (28 d) k = soil degradation rate constant = calcul ated assuming first order kinetic based

on 142
- d half life (= 0.00488 d - 1 

### ) s Using **equation 9** , the calculated c oncentration of metaflumizone in soil at the end of the first application interval was **0.00 5**  **6 mg/kg** (day 28). The concentration of metaflumi zone in soil on the second, third and fourth application events (days 28, 56, and 84) w as then determined by summing the concentrations at the end of the prior application interval (Equation 9 ) with that calculated for an initial application ( Equation 8 ) and then subjecting the combined concentration to first order degradation kinetics as shown in Equation 9
. The resulting daily concentration profile for calculated metaflumizone concentrations in soil is shown in **Figure B -**  **1**
. These yielded a maximum concentration of metaflumizone in soil of **0.02 1**  **mg/kg.**

0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 **Ti me**  **(day**

**s) S** **o i** **l C** **o n** **c .** **( m** **g /** **k g** **)** 0.00095 lb a.i./A x 4 appl s x 28d in terva l

**Figure B -**  **1 . Calculated Daily Concentration of Metaflum** **izone in Soil** 

### B. Model Input Parameters28



### Input parameters used for estimating the bioaccumulation of metaflumizone in eart hworms are shown in **Table B -**  **2**
. **Table B -**  **2. Input parameters used for earthworm bioaccumulation modeling with metaflumizone. Characteristics of Metaflumizone**  **Parameter (symbol) Value**  **Units** Pesticide Name Metaflumizone none Molecular weight (M W) 506.4 g /mol Octanol - water Partition Coefficient (Kow) 125893 none Soil partition coefficient (Kd) 615.06 cm 3 /g **Soil Parameters Parameter (symbol)**  **Value Units**  Bulk density of soil (ρs) 1.65 g/cm 3 Concentration of me taflum izone in soil * 0.035 g/m 3 Co ncentration of Metaflumizone in soil (Cs) 6.93 E - 05 mo l/m 3 * based on soil bulk density (1.65 g/cm3) and soil concentration ( 0.024 mg/kg) **Earthworm Parameters Parameter (symbol)**  **Value Units**  Lipid fraction of earthworm (L) 0.01 none Wa ter fraction o f earthworm (W ) 0.84 none Density of earthworm (ρE) 1000 kg/m 3 

### C. Model Outputs The predicted concentration of metaflumizone in earthworms (in units of mol/m3 

### and g/kg) is shown in **Table B -**  **3** . Th is concentration is equivalent to **0.0 44**  **mg/kg** (wet weight) in earthworms. **Table B -**  **3. Predicted concentration of metaflumizone in earthworms Parameter (symbol)**  **Value Units**  Concentration of Metaflumizone in earthworm (CE) 8.60E - 05 mo l/m 3 **Concentration of Metaflumizone in earthworm (CE') 4.35E**  **- 05**  **g/kg***


### D. **Risk Characterization for Terrestrial Wildlife**  **Risk** Risks for birds and mammals that consume terrestrial invertebrates as the majority of their diet were estimated based on comparison of the concentration of metaflumizone in earthworm tissue (C earthworm

### ) with toxicity values for birds and mammals. A 1
- cm soil depth was used to reflect a concentration across the earthworm occupied area of soil to derive the C earthworm 

### . Although earthworms are likely to live at lower depths in the soil horizon, a 1
- cm depth represents a conservative scenario; if risk is acceptable at this depth, it will be acceptable if concentrations are averaged over greater depths. It is important to note that this estimation of risk also assumes that 100% of the diet is comprised of terrest rial soil invertebrates. **1. Insectivorous Birds** Acute and chronic risks for insectivorous birds were estimated by comparing the C earthworm 

### in ppm by the29



### avian acute LC 50 

### (>156 ppm) and chronic NOAEC for metaflumizone (7.6 ppm). The estimated earthworm residue for insectivorous avian receptors (0.05 ppm) is less than the avian chronic endpoint (7.6 ppm) and is less than one
- thousandth of the acute toxicity endpoint (>156 ppm) for granular metaflumizone applications. Dose
-based acute RQs can also be derived for birds, and are likely to provide more accurate estimates of risk to insectivorous birds because they are based on earthworm residues that are consumed by a bird in a given day and adjusted LD 50 

### values for the size of the assessed bird, while th e dietary
-based RQs use no such adjustments to account for feeding behavior and varying size classes. Earthworm residue concentrations derived based on the dose method are first converted to a daily dose by multiplying the dietary C earthworm 

### ( 0.05 mg/kg) by the amount of food consumed for a 20g bird normalized to body weight( (20g = 1424 g/kg
-bw/d, **Table B -**  **4 and Appendix A** ). A small (20g) bird was chosen as the assessed size class because exposure and subsequent risk quotients are higher compared to larger sized birds. In addition, the LD 50 

### value (73.8 mg/kg
- BW; estimated in **Appendix A**) is adjusted to account for a 20
- g bird according to **Equation 10** : Equation 10 

### Adj LD LD AW TW x



### . ( ) 50 50 1


###        


### where: Adj. LD 50 

### = adjusted LD 50 

### (mg/kg
- bw) calculated by the equ ation LD 50 

### = endpoint reported from bird study (mg/kg
-bw)= 73.8 mg ai /kg
-bw TW = body weight of tested animal= 0.203 kg. AW = body weight of assessed animal= 0.02 kg x = Mineau scaling factor for birds; EFED default 1.15 **Table B -**  **4. Av**  **ian toxicity data for Metaflumizone.**  **Endpoint/Parameter (symbol) Value**  **Units** Acute oral LD 50 73.8 mg /k g - bw Bod y weight of test animal for LD 50 * (TW ) 203 g Subacute dietary LC 50 156 mg /k g - diet Chronic NOAEC 7.6 mg /k g - diet Mineau Scaling Factor** 1.15 none Bod y weight of assessed animal (A W) 20 g Food intake of assessed animal (F) 28.47 g/day Bod y weight normalized food intake of assessed animal (F N ) 1424 g/kg - bw - day 

### As shown in **Table B -**  **5** , the acute dose
-based , acute diet
-based and chronic diet based RQs for birds a re < **0.00 6**  **,** which is well below LOCs for acute risk (0.5), acute restricted use (LOC 0.2), and acute endangered species (LOC 0.1).Therefore, acute (dose
- and dietary
-based) and chronic risks to birds associated with ingestion of earthworms that have bioacc umulated metaflumizone granules are not expected. **Table B -**  **5. Av**  **ian risk quotients for Metaflumizone. Endpoint**  **EEC Toxicity Value**  **(1) RQ**  Avian, acute, dose - based (mg/kg - bw/d) 0.06 52.1 0.001 Avian, acute, dietary- based (mg/kg - diet) 0.04 156.0 0.000330

Avian, chronic, dietar y- based (mg/kg - diet) 0.04 7.6 0.006 (1) acute dose
- based toxicity value (LD50) adjusted for a 20g bird 

### 2. Insectivorous Mammals Acute risk to insectivorous mammals that may consume contaminated soil invertebrates could not be estimated because definitive acute toxicity values were not available; the LD 50 

### value was set as greater than the highest treatment level of metaflumizone and no acute dietary studies with mammals were available. However, chronic risks for insectivorous mammals were estimated by considering both dietary
and dose
-related exposures and effects. In the dietary method, risks were estimated by comparing the C earthworm 

### by the mammalian chronic NOAEC for metaflumizone (400 ppm). In the dose method, the residue conce ntration in earthworms was converted to a daily oral dose based on the fraction of body weight consumed as estimated through mammalian allometric relationships. The dose was then compared to the NOAEL (20 mg/kg
- BW/day) for mammalian receptors. Based on the dietary method and the metaflumizone application rate of granular 0.00095 lb ai/A, chronic LOCs are not exceeded for insectivorous mammals because the earthworm residue concentration (0.05 ppm) is less than the NOAEC (400 ppm). However, dose
-based RQs are likely to provide more accurate estimates of risk to insectivorous mammals because they are based on earthworm residues that are consumed by a mammal in a given day and adjusted NOAEL values for the size class of the assessed mammal, while the dietary - based RQs use no such adjustments to account for feeding behavior and varying size classes. Earthworm residue concentrations derived based on the dose method are first converted to a daily dose by multiplying the dietary C earthworm 

### amount of food cons umed for a 15g mammal normalized to body weight((15g = 1192 g/kg
-bw/d, **Table B -**  **6 and Appendix A**). A small (15g) mammal was chosen as the assessed size class because exposure and subsequent risk quotients are higher compared to larger sized mammals. In ad dition the NOAEL value (20 mg/kg
- BW/day) is adjusted to account for the size class of the assessed mammal according to the following equation:

Adjusted NOAEL = NOAEL (TW/AW) (0.25) 

### where: TW = body weight of tested animal (350 g rat); and AW = body weight of assessed animal (15g).
**Table B -**  **6. Mammalian toxicity data for Metaflumizone. Endpoint/Parameter (symbol)**  **Value Units**  Acute oral LD 50 n/a mg /k g - bw Bod y weight of acute test animal* (TW ) 350 g Chronic NOAEL 20 mg /k g - bw Chronic NOAEC 400 mg / kg - diet Bod y weight of chronic test animal* (TW ) 350 g Bod y weight of assessed animal (A W) 15 g Food intake of assessed animal (F) 17.9 g/day Bod y weight normalized food intake of assessed animal (F N ) 1192 g/kg - bw - day31



### As shown in **Table B -**  **7** , estimated chronic dose and diet
-based EECs for insectivorous mammals are well below the applicable toxicity values, with resulting RQ values of 0.001 or less. The results of the assessment indicate that, when risk for mammals is assessed on the basis of daily inges ted dietary dose, the accumulation of metaflumizone in earthworms does not, by itself, represent a biologically significant pathway for exposure. **Table B -**  **7. Mammalian risk quotients for Metaflumizone. Endpoint**  **EEC Toxicity Value**  **(1) RQ**  Mammalian, chron ic dose - based (mg/kg - bw/d) 0.0 5 44.0 0.001 Mammalian, chronic dietary - based (mg/kg - diet) 0.04 400.0 0.000 1 (1) chronic dose
- based toxicity value (NOAEL) are adjusted for a 15g mammal


### 2. **Uncertainties Associated with the Fugacity Model**  A number of uncertainties associated with the fugacity model used to estimate metaflumizone concentrations in earthworm tissue and subsequent risks to insectivorous terrestrial wildlife include:

• A metaflumizone concentration averaged over a 1
- cm so il depth was used to reflect a concentration across the earthworm occupied area of soil. It is possible that earthworms may be present at deeper soil depths, resulting in a lower concentration of metaflumizone in bulk soil and earthworm tissue. However, if risk is acceptable at this depth, it will be acceptable if concentrations are averaged over greater depths.

• The fugacity
-based model assumes equilibrium partitioning between bulk soil and soil pore water. In addition, the model assumes a fixed value f or soil density, earthworm density, temperature, pore space, organic carbon, and the lipid content of the earthworm. Resulting concentrations of metaflumizone in earthworm tissue may be either under
- or over - estimated depending on the soil type, temperature, and size/lipid content of the earthworm, at the time of exposure.

• This assessment considers only one route of exposure (i.e., ingestion of terrestrial invertebrates that have bioaccumulated metaflumizone from granules in the soil) for insectivorous bi rds and mammals. In addition, it is assumed that 100% of the diet is comprised of terrestrial soil invertebrates. Given species
- specific feeding habits and dietary requirements, this assumption may overestimate risks associated with ingestion of soil inv ertebrates that have accumulated metaflumizone. Other potential routes of exposure including direct ingestion of granules, ingestion of granules that adhere to soil invertebrates, partitioning of dissolved metaflumizone to sources of wildlife drinking wat er, and dermal exposure of granules released to surrounding soil and puddles or combined routes of exposure were not considered. **References:** Cobb, G.P., E.H. Hol, P.W. Allen, J.A Gagne, R.J. Kendall. 1995. Uptake, metabolism, and toxicity of terbufos in the earthworm ( Lumbricus terrestris ) exposed to COUNTER
- 15G in artificial soils. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 14(2):279
- 285. Mackay, D. and S. Paterson. 1981. Calculating fugacity. Environ. Sci. Technol. 15: 1006
- 1014.32



### USEPA. 2008. User’s Guide: T
- REX Version 1.4.1 (Terrestrial Residue Exposure model). United States Environmental Protection Agency. Environmental Fate and Effects Division.33



## APPENDIX C. **Summary of Available**  **Toxicity Data for Metaflumizone Table 1. Toxic**  **ity reference values for terrestrial organisms exposed to the metaflumizone. Exposure**  **% Active Ingredient Species**  **Toxicity Re**  **ference Value Reference**  **Mam mals**  **Acute** ( Single oral dose) TGAI (96.3% a.i.; MRID 46264232 & MRID 46264234) TEP (21.97% a.i.; MRID 46264528) M320I02 (Z
- isomer; 96.9% a.i.; MRID 46264231) M320I23 (98.7% a.i.; MRID 46264233) Laboratory Rat ( Rattus norvegicus ) and Laboratory Mice (Mus musculus ) None used. All mammals in every acute study submitted survived and gained weight throughout each study. MRID’s 46264528 46264231 46264232 46264233 46264234 All Acceptable **Chronic** (2
- Generation repro study (gavage)) TGAI (96.9% a.i.) Laboratory Rat ( Rattus norvegicus ) NOAEL = 20 mg a.i./kg bw/day NOAEC = 400 ppm LOAEL = 50 mg a.i./kg bw/day LOAEC = 1000 ppm MRID 46264315 Acceptable
**Birds Acute**  (Single oral dose) TGAI (96.3% a.i.) Northern bobwhite quail ( Colinus virginianus ) Mallard duck (

Anas platyrhynchos ) None used. All birds in every acute oral toxicity study submitted survived without any sub
- lethal effects observed. MRID’s 46264425 46264426 B oth Acceptable
**Acute** ( 5
- Day dietary) TGAI (96.9% a.i.) Mallard duck ( Anas platyrhynchos ) LC 50 >156 ppm a.i. The probit, binomial, and moving average methods could not reliably generate sound LC 50 , 95% C.I ., and slope estimates due to the non
concentration response pattern of mortality. There was 0, 0, 70, 40, 30, 50, and 90% mortality after 11 days in the control and 156, 309, 638, 1228, 2538, and 4999 mg a.i./kg
- diet treatment groups, respectively MRID 46264428 Supplemental

**Chronic** (Avian reproduction study (dietary exposure)) TGAI (96.9% a.i.) Bobwhite quail ( Colinus Virginianus ) NOAEC = 7.6 ppm LOAEC = 15 ppm MRID 46264430 Acceptable **Terrestrial Insects Acute**  (96
- Hour acute contact and oral toxicity test a) TGAI (96.3% a.i.) Honey bee (Apis mellifera ) Contact toxicity LD 50 = 1.65 μg a.i./bee 95% C.I .: 1.39
- 1.93 Slope:3.64 (2.68
- 4.59) Oral toxicity LD 50 = 2.44 μg a.i./bee 95% C.I .: 2.Slope: 2.65 (1.98
- 3.32) MRID 46264516 Contact toxicity test: Acceptable Oral toxicity test: Supplemental **Acute** (48
- Hour acute contact toxici ty test) TEP (21.97% a.i.) Parasitic wasps ( Aphidius rhopalosiphi ) LD 50 = 0.0012 lb a.i./A 95% C.I .: 0.00028
- 0.0016 Slope: not applicable w/ binomial test MRID 46499502 Supplemental

**Chronic** (40
- day Reproduction Study) TEP (22% a.i.) Parasitic wasps ( Aphidius rhopalosiphi ) NOAEC< 0.03 lb a.i./A MRID 46623338 NR **b Earthworm**  **s**34

**Table 1. Toxic ity reference values for terrestrial organisms exposed to the metaflumizone.**  **Exposure % Active Ingredient**  **Species Toxicity**  **Re ference Value**  **Reference**
**Acute** (14
- Day Subchronic Toxicity Test) M320I29 (99.9% a.i.) Earthworm ( Eisenia fetida ) LC 50 = 43.62 mg a.i./kg soil

95% C.I .: 39.91
- 47.33 Slope not reported NOAEC = 17.1 mg a.i./kg soil LOAEC = 30.9 mg a.i./kg soil MRID 46623332 NR **b**

**Chronic** ( 56
- Day Chronic Toxicity Test) TEP (21.97% a.i.; MRID 46623328) M320I23 (98.7% a.i.; MRID 46623333) E arthworm ( Eisenia fetida ) None used. No significant

treatment - related adverse effects on mortality, growth, reproduction or feeding activity up to the highest concentrations tested. MRID 46623328 MRID 46623333 NR **b**
**Plants -**  **Tier I seedling emergence Mono**  **cot** (Single application) TEP (21.82% a.i.) N/A EC 25 = N/A **c** NOAEC = N/A MRID 46264541 Acceptable **Dicot** ( Single application) TEP (21.82% a.i.) Lettuce ( Latuca sativa ) EC 25 = N/A **d**

NOAEC = 0.225 lba.i./A MRID 4626 4541 Acceptable **Plants -**  **Tier I vegetative vigor Monocot**  (Single application) TEP (21.82% a.i.) N/A EC 25 = N/A **c** NOAEC = N/A MRID 46264540 Acceptable **Dicot** ( Single application) TEP (21.82% a.i.) N/A EC 25 = N/A **c** NOAEC = N/A MRID 46264540 Acceptable
**a** There was an acute contact toxicity study with a slightly more sensitive LD 50 for honey bees; however, it was not formally reviewed because it was not apart of the data package initially submitted to the US EPA. **b** This study was not submitted as a part of the initial data package sent to the US EPA, but was submitted to the United Kingdom. Therefore, a formal review and classification of this study has not been performed by EFED scientists for this risk assessment. The results presented here are based on a preliminary review of the available data.
**c** There were no detrimental effects ≥25% for any test species and no species or endpoint exhibited a significant reduction from the controls. **d** Th ere were no detrimental effects ≥25% for any test species.

**Table 2. Metaflum izone toxicity reference values (TRVs) (ppb) for aquatic organisms.**  **Exposure Scenario**  **% a.i. Species**  **Toxicity Reference Value Reference** 
**Freshwater Fish Acute**  (96 hours) TGAI

(96.3%) Rainbow Trout

Oncorhynchus mykiss Observed e ffects assumed to occur at 1.79 ppb **a** ( The highest mortality was 40% in a single treatment level)
. MRID 46264435 (Supplemental) TEP (21.8%) Rainbow Trout

Oncorhynchus mykiss L C 50 = 830 ppb nominal a.i. **b** MRID 46264537 (Supplemental) **Chronic** TGAI Data Gap **Freshwater Invertebrates Acute**  (48 hours) TGAI

(96.3%) Water flea

Daphnia magna Observed e ffects assumed to occur at 1.79 ppb **a** (The highest mortality/immobility of daphnids was 35% in a single treatment level. Effects assumed to have occurred at 1.79 ppb. ) MRID 46264505 (Supplemental)
TEP (21.8%) Water flea

Daphnia magna LC 50 = 4784 ppb nominal a.i. **b (** All concentrations above 888ppb contained precipitate and were centrifuged.) MRID 46264538 (Supplemental)35

**Table 2. Metaflum izone toxicity reference values (TRVs) (ppb) for aquatic organisms.**  **Exposure Scenario**  **% a.i. Species**  **Toxicity Reference Value Reference** 

**Chronic** ( 21 days) TGAI

(96.3%) Water flea

Daphnia magna No endpoint could be calculated and exposure concentrations were unknown (samples were not centrifuged prior to analysis)
. All nominal con centrations except the highest were below the level of solubility. Mortality occurred at the lowest concentration tested (measured: 0.0908 ppb) The highest mortality/immobility of daphnids was 13% in a single treatment level . N o statistically significant difference in mortality or reproductive effects were seen. MRID 46264507 (Supplemental)

**Estuarine/Marine Fish Acute**  ( 96 hours) TGAI

(96.3%) Sheepshead minnow

Cyprinodon variegatus Observed effects assumed to occur at 1.79 ppb **a** (The highest mortality was 25% in a single treatment level.) MRID 46264521 (Supplemental) **Chronic** ( 41 days) TGAI

(96.3%) Sheepshead minnow

Cyprinodon variegatus No endpoint could be calculated and exposure concentrations were unknown (samples were not centrifuged prior to analy sis). All nominal concentrations except the highest were below the level of solubility. No treatment
- related effect on post - hatch survival was observed. Terminal length and blotted wet weights were unaffected. MRID 46264502 (Supplemental)

**Estuarine/Marin e Invertebrates**  **Acute** ( 96 hours) TGAI

(96.3%) Eastern Oyster,

Crassostrea virginica Observed effects assumed to occur at 1.79 ppb **a** (No mortalities were observed during either definitive test. Shell growth was significantly reduced compared to the poole d control for each respective definitive test. Effects assumed to have occurred at 1.79 ppb.) MRID 46264519 (Supplemental)

**Chronic** TGAI Data Gap **Freshwater Benthic Fish Acute**  ( 96 hours) TGAI

(96.9%) Common Carp

Cyprinus carpio Observed effects assumed to occur at 1.79 ppb **a** (7% mortality in single treatment level.) MRID 46264437 (Supplemental) **Chronic** TGAI Data Gap **Freshwater Benthic Invertebrates Acute**  ( 10 days) TGAI

(96.9%) Amphipod

Hyalella azteca Sediment value: LC 50 > 995000 μg a.i./k g sediment Pore water value : LC 50 > 2740 μg a.i./L pore water MRID 46264513 (Supplemental)

**Chronic** TGAI Data Gap **Estuarine/Marine Benthic Fish Acute**  ( 96 hours) TGAI

(96.9%) Channel Catfish

Ictalurus punctatus Observed effects assumed to occur at 1.79 ppb **a** (Mortality was 3% in a single treatment level.) MRID 46264438 (Supplemental) **Chronic** TGAI Data Gap **Estuarine/Marine Benthic Invertebrates Acute**  ( 10 days) TGAI

(96.9%) Amphipod

Leptocheirus plumulosus Sediment value: LC 50 > 935000 μ g a.i./kg sediment Pore water value : LC 50 > 1700 μg a.i./L pore water MRID 46264512 (Supplemental)

**Chronic** TGAI Data Gap **Aquatic Plants**36

**Table 2. Metaflum izone toxicity reference values (TRVs) (ppb) for aquatic organisms.**  **Exposure Scenario**  **% a.i. Species**  **Toxicity Reference Value Reference**  **Algae Acute** ( 120 hours) TGAI

(96.3%) Pseudokirchneriella

subcapitata Observed effects assumed to occur at 1.79 ppb **a** (By 120 hours, the highest cell density percent inhibition was 15 %, the highest percent inhibition for biomass was 15%, and the highest percent inhibition for growth rate was 3%.) MRID 46264511 (Supplemental)
TEP (21.8%) Pseudokirchneriella

subcapitat

a Plant Biomass:

EC 50/IC 50 = 0.40 mg a.i./L NOAEC = 0.0850 mg ai/L ai/L MRID 46264539 (Supplemental) **Macrophytes Acute**  ( 14 days) TGAI

(96.9%) Duckweed

Lemna gibba Observed effects assumed to occur at 1.79 ppb **a** (The highest frond number percent inh ibition was 7%, the highest growth rate percent inhibition was 4%, the highest area under the growth curve percent inhibition was 7% , and the highest dry weight percent inhibition was 15%.) MRID 46264515 (Supplemental)

**a** The concentration bioavailable t o the organisms is unknown because the test solution was not centrifuged prior to anaylsis. Due to this uncertainty, EFED assumed that any effects observed in the studies occurred at the limit of solubility (1.79 ppb). **b** These values were used for evaluation of risk via SPRAY DRIFT ONLY.37



## APPENDIX D. **Estimating Ecological Surface Water Exposure EECs** Metaflumizone is a new insecticide and no surface water monitoring data is available. Estimated environmental concentrations ( EECs ) are based on simulated screening values using Tier II PRZM/EXAMS. The screening assessment for metaflumizone was completed using Tier II linked PRZM/EXAMS runs. Model runs were executed based on a broadcast application rate of 0. 00095 lb a.i/A (0.0011 kg a.i./ha) for selected crop and residential exposure scenarios. These exposure scenarios where chosen to bracket EECs modeled previousl y using a broader suite of scenarios but at a different application rate. A summary of input parameters used for the PRZM/EXAMS modeling is provided in **Table D -**  **1**
. **Table D**  **- 1 Summary**  **of**

**PRZM/EXAMS input parameters for modeling metaflumizone** Input Parameter Value Reference Molecular Weight (gram mole
- 1) 506.4 Product chemistry submission Vapor Pressure (torr) 9.30x10
- 11 MRID 462642
- 06 for parent; assumed same for M320 I 23 Aerobic Soil Metabolism Half
- life (days) 134 The 90th percentile t1⁄2 from six values for parent (MRID 462644
- 05/05/07) Water column Half

- life (days) (Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism half
life) 284 Aerobic soil t1⁄2x2: No acceptable aerobic aquatic metabolism study and No significant hydrolysis at pH 7 as per Guidance (US EPA, 2002) Benthic sed iment Half

- life (days) (Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism half
- life) Stable Half
- life for the total system >378 days (MRID 462644
- 22) Application Rate (Kg a.i./ha) and (Application Efficiency= 0.95) 0.0011 In this run we used the maximum yearly rate of 6 lbs of product*. Therefore, the rate for both mound and broadcast treatment will be the same. If we assume four applications/year, the maximum rate will be: four applications at a single rate of 0.00095 lb a.i/A (0.0011 kg/ha)** Other Application Information Applied at dates in April and May with 28
- day application intervals. Assume 100% of the area is treated with 50% impervious and 50% pervious surfaces. Applied rate for im pervious surfaces was 0.0001 lb a.i/A (assume 9%) * ** Depth of Incorporation (cm) 0 CAM=1 for bait application as broadcast or mound treatment Spray Drift (fraction) 0% Bait no drift except for residential runs (see above, other application information) Solubility (ppm) 0.00179 (MRID 462642
- 12) Koc (L Kg
- 1) 30,753 Average for 7 soils (MRIDs 462644
- 11/12) Hydroly sis Half

- life @ pH 7 (days) Stable MRID 462644
- 19 Direct Aqueous Photolysis t1⁄2 (days) 4.6 MRID 462644
- 20 * Based on RD communication the label will be changed so that the same maximum yearly limitation for mound treatment is the same as that for broadcast treatment. So, for mound treatments, the following will be added to the use rate column: "N ot to exceed 6 lbs/acre total per year” ** Single application is calculated as follows: 6 lbs of product per acre per year/ 4 applications (assumed) = 1.5 lbs of product/single application per acre= 1.5 lbs product x 0.063% a.i = 0.00095 lb a.i/A= 0.00095 x 1.121= 0.0011 kg/ha *** Was not able to reduce the drift below 9% because this is the **lowest rate** that can be entered into PE
- 538



### Table **D -**  **2** summarizes s cenarios selected to be used in PRZM/EXAMS modeling . Results from modeling these scenarios are summarized in **Figures D**  **- 1 to**  **D -**  **4**
. **Table D**  **- 2 Metaflumizone proposed use patterns and representative scenarios**  **Residential Use Areas Scenarios**  **Other Use pattern**  **Representative Scenarios** San Francisco, CA The **CA residential**

and the **CA -**  **impervious scenarios**  with w eather stations representing areas of the country that is listed in the previous column Citrus Orchards CA citrus (represent the lowest) San Diego, CA S TX grapefruit (represent the highest) Bakersfield, CA Tree Nuts CA Almonds Day tona Beach, FL Savannah, GA Nurseries FL nurseries Baton Rouge, LA **Figure D**  **- 1 Estim**  **ated surface water EECs for non**  **- residential use patterns**  **.**

0 0. 005 0.01 0. 015 0.02**S u** **r f** **a c** **e W** **a t** **e r** **E E** **C s** **( p** **p b** **)**

ST X gr ap efr ui ts FL

nurs er y CA

al monds CA

c itr us Pe ak 21-day 60-day

**F igure**  **D -**  **2 .**  **Estim ated pore water EECs for**  **non -**  **residential use patterns** 

0 0. 002 0. 004 0. 006 0. 008 0. 01 0. 012**P o** **r e** **W a** **t e** **r E** **E C** **s (** **p p** **b )** 

FL nur se ry ST X g ra pe fr ui ts CA al

monds CA

c it rus Peak 21 Day 60 Day39

**Figure D**  **- 3**  **. Estim**  **ated surface water EECs fo r residential use patterns** 

0 0. 005 0. 01 0. 015 0. 02 0. 025**S u** **r f** **a c** **e W** **a t** **e r** **E E** **C s** **( p** **p b** **)**

LA- B aton Rouge GA -Sav anah FL -Datona Be ach CA -San Di ego CA -Bak er sf ie ld CA -San F ranc is co Pe ak 21- day 60-day

**Figure D**  **- 4**  **. Estim**  **ated sediment EECs (μg/Kg) for representative use patterns**

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16**S e** **d i** **m e** **n t** **E E** **C s** **( u** **g /** **K g** **)**

FL n ur se ry STX g ra pe fr ui ts CA a lm ond s CA

cit ru s Peak 21 Day 60 Day40



## APPENDIX E. **Summary of Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic Properties of Metaflumizone** 
**Table E**  **- 1. Summary of Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic Properties of Metaflumizone**  **Property Me**  **taflum izone Data**  **National and International Criteria** ***** Persistence, water Hydrolysis = 416 days at pH 7 Aqueous photolysis = 15 days Aerobic aquatic metabolism= 16
- 45 days Anaerobic aquatic <3 days in water column ****** > 60 d to > 1 80 d

Persistence, soil Aerobic soil metabolism: Average = 187 days (8 soils); range= 73
- 408 days Anaerobic soil metabolism: Average= 359 days; range= 353
- 365 days Field dissipation (bareground plots): Average = 51 days; range= 6
- 116 days Field dissipati on (cropped plots): Average = 196 days; range= 151
- 240 days > 60 d to > 365 d

Persistence, sediment Aerobic aquatic >100 days Anaerobic aquatic >378 days (I n sediment and whole system) > 60 d to > 365 d

Bioaccumulation 3,500 in edible tissues, 12,000 in nonedible tissues, and 7,325 in whole fish tissues log Kow = 5.1 >1000 to >5000 Log Kow > 5 Toxicity Terrestrial toxicity profile demonstrates that metaflumizone is moderately to highly toxic to birds on an acute dietary basis, and has a strong potential for chronic reproductive effects in both mammalian and avian species. Best professional judgment

****** Although the anaerobic aquatic half
- life is <3 days in the water column, this is not due to degradation of the chemical. Rather, metaflumizone’s high k oc indicates that it will quickly and readily partition to the sediment compartment where it will persist. * Ranges of numeric criteria reflect different institutional policies, regulations, and treaties regarding PBT classification (Sources include:

- USEPA Office of Environmental I nformation. Federal Register: October 29, 1999 (Volume 64, Number 209). Rules and Regulations. Page 58665
- 58753. On
- line at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA
- WASTE/1999/October/Day
- 29/f28169.htm

- United Nations Economic Commi ssion for Europe (UNECE) Convention on Long
- Range Transboundary Air Pollution (LRTAP) (Ref. 54); PTBs (February 1996)) http://www.unece.org/env/lrtap/

- United Nations Environmental Programme http://www.chem.unep.ch/pops/default.html

- Environment Canada Toxic Substances Management Policy (June 1995)

- International Council of Chemical Associations http://www.icca
- chem.org/41



## APPENDIX F. **Calculations for Determining Risk to Birds and Mammals**  **Resulting from Consumption of Aquatic Organis ms that have**  **Bioaccumulated Metaflumizone**
**I. GENERAL**  **MODEL DESCRIPTION** For estimating risks to fish
- eating birds and mammals resulting from consumption of aquatic prey that have bioaccumulated metaflumizone, the KABAM model version 1.0 ( **K**OW (based) **A** quatic **B** io **A** ccumulation **M** odel) was used (USEPA 2009). Specifically, KABAM is used to estimate potential bioaccumulation of hydrophobic organic pesticides in freshwater aquatic ecosystems and risks to mammals and birds consuming aquatic organisms which have bio accumulated these pesticides. The bioaccumulation portion of KABAM is based upon Arnot and Gobas (2004) who parameterized a bioaccumulation model based on PCBs and some pesticides (e.g., lindane, DDT) in freshwater aquatic ecosystems. KABAM relies on a che mical's octanol
-water partition coefficient (KOW 

### ) to estimate uptake and elimination constants through respiration and diet of organisms in different trophic levels. Pesticide tissue residues are calculated for different levels of an aquatic food web. The model then uses pesticide tissue concentrations in aquatic animals to estimate dose
- and dietary
-based exposures and associated risks to mammals and birds consuming aquatic organisms, using an approach that is similar to the T
- REX model (USEPA 2008).
KAB AM (v. 1.0) incorporates 7 trophic levels to describe bioaccumulation of a pesticide in a model aquatic food web: 1) phytoplankton 2) zooplankton (e.g., Daphnia sp.) 3) benthic invertebrates (e.g., Chironomus sp., crayfish) 4) filter feeders (e.g., mussel s, clams) 5) small fish (e.g., young of the year) 6) medium sized fish (e.g., adult bluegill) 7) larger upper
- trophic level fish (e.g., largemouth bass) Pesticide concentrations in organisms of the aquatic trophic levels listed above are used to estimate acute and chronic exposures of mammals and birds consuming aquatic organisms. The model user can define the mammals and birds of concern, by defining the body weight and diet of each bird and mammal. Default values are available for several mammals and birds of concern. Available pesticide
- specific acute42



### and chronic toxicity data for mammals and birds are used to calculate risk quotients for estimated exposures due to bioaccumulation of a pesticide in an aquatic ecosystem. Model inputs are included in the 2 "Inputs" worksheets. The only required inputs to the KABAM tool are: 1) Log K OW 

### value of the pesticide 2) K OC 

### value of the pesticide 3) predicted pesticide concentration in sediment pore water (PRZM/EXAMS) 4) predicted pesticide concentration in water (PRZM/EXAMS) 5) available acute and chronic toxicity data for pesticide specific exposures to birds and mammals. All other inputs in the "chemical specific inputs" and "ecosystem inputs" worksheets have default values. No input is necessary from the mod el user, but these parameter values can be altered according to the preferences of the user. The model user should consult the User's guide for KABAM before altering default values in the KABAM tool. If default parameter values are altered by the model user, their cells will be highlighted yellow. The "Parameters & Calculations" worksheet allows the model user to see which parameters were incorporated into the calculation of the tissue concentrations of the pesticide of interest. This worksheet is read only
. The "Results" page includes pesticide tissue concentrations per trophic level, separate contributions of dietary and respiratory intakes to overall pesticide body concentration of aquatic organisms. It also includes bioconcentration, bioaccumulation, bio magnification and biota
- sediment accumulation factors (BCF, BAF, BMF and BSAF, respectively) for aquatic organisms. In addition, this page also incorporates potential dietary and dose exposures of the pesticide of concern to mammals and birds consuming aqu atic organisms. This worksheet is read only. For a thorough description of KABAM, its assumptions, calculations, uncertainties and additional guidance, see the user's guide and technical documentation (USEPA 2009)
. **II. MODEL INPUT PARAMETERS**
Chemical
- spe cific parameters used for modeling metaflumizone are provided in **Tables F**  **- 1**  **to F**  **- 3**  below.
**Table F**  **- 1. Chemical characteristics of Metaflumizone.**  **Characteristic Value**  **Comments/Guidance** Pesticide Name **Me taflumizone**  Log K OW **5.1** Kow for E - isomer (MRID 462 642
- 13)
K OW **125893** Calculated value43

**Table F**  **- 1. Chemical characteristics of Metaflumizone.**  **Characteristic Value**  **Comments/Guidance**
K OC (L/kg OC) **30753** Mean Koc from representative registrant - submitted studies (MRID 462644
- 11 , 462644
- 12 )
Ti me to steady state (T S ; days) **37** Calculated value

Pore water EEC (μg/L)

0.0072 60 - d average 1 in 10 ye ar pore water EEC for the S. TX Grapefruit scenario. 60 - d average chosen to approximate the tim e to reach steady state.

Wa ter Column EEC (μg/L)

0.0092 60 - d average 1 in 10 year surface water EEC for the S. TX Grapefruit scenario. 60 - d average chosen to approximate the tim e to reach steady state.

**Table F**  **- 2. Input parameters for rate constants. "calculated" indicates that model will calculate**  **rate constant. Trophic level**  **k 1**  **(L/kg*d)** **k 2** 

**(d -**  **1 )**  **k D** 

**(kg -** **food/kg**   ** org/d)** **k E** 

**(d -**  **1 )**  **k M**  *****

**(d -**  **1 )**  phytoplankton calculated calculated 0* 0* 0 zooplankton calculated calculated calculated calculated 0 benthic in vertebrates calculated calculated calculated calculated 0 filter feeders calculated calculated calculated calculated 0 sm all fish calculated calculated calculated calculated 0 me dium fish calculated calculated calculated calculated 0 large fish calcula ted calculated calculated calculated 0 * Default value is 0. k 1 and k 2 represent the uptake and elimination constants respectively, through respiration.44

k D and k E represent the uptake and elimination constants, respectively, through diet. k M represents the metabolism rate constant.

**Table F**  **- 3. Mammalian and avian toxicity data for Metaflumizone. These are required inputs.** 

**An imal**  **Me asure of**  **effect (units) Value**  **Species If selected**  **species is "other,"**  **enter body weight (in**  **kg) here.** Avian LD 50 (mg/kg bw) > 73.8 Mallard (calculated from ma llard LC50 study) 0.203 LC 50 (mg/kg diet) > 156 Mallard (indefinite (“>” )LC50 value from MRID 46264428) 0.203 NOAEC (m g/k g - diet) 7.6 Northern bobwhite quail ( MRID 46264430) Mineau Scaling Factor 1.15 Default value for all species is 1.15 (for chemical specific values, see Mineau et al. 1996). Mammalian LD 50 (mg/kg bw) LD50 value not available (no effects at highest conc.) LC 50 (mg/kg diet) N/A Chronic Endpoint 20 laborator y rat (MRID 46264315) units of chronic endpoint* mg /k g - bw



### III. ECOSYSTEM INPUTS Input parameters for the model aquatic ecosystem are provided in **Tables F**  **- 4 to F**  **- 9**  below.
**Table F**  **- 4. A**  **biotic characteristics of the model aquatic ecosystem. Characte**  **ristic Value**  **Guidance*** Concentration of Particulate Organic Carbon (X POC ; kg OC/ L) 0.00E+00 Wh en using EECs generated by PRZM/EXAMS, use a value of “0” for both POC and DOC. Concentration of Dissolved Organic Carbon (X DOC ; kg OC/L) 0.00E+0045

**Table F**  **- 4. A**  **biotic characteristics of the model aquatic ecosystem. Characte**  **ristic Value**  **Guidance*** Concen tration of Dissolved Ox ygen (C OX ; mg O 2 /L) 5.0 Default value is 5.0 mg O 2 /L when using EECs generated by PRZM/EXAMS. Wa ter Temperature (T; o C) 15 Value is defined by the average water temperature of the EXAMS pond when using EECs generated by PRZM/EXAMS. Model user should consult output file of EXAMS to define this value. Concentration of Suspended Solids (C SS ; kg/L) 3.00E - 05 Default value is 3.00x10 - 5 kg/L when using EECs generated by PRZM/EXAMS. Sediment Organic Carbon (OC; %) 4.0% Default value is 4. 0% when using EECs generated by PRZM/EXAMS. *W hen using pesticide concentrations from monitoring data or mesocosm studies, consult Appendix B of the User’s Guide for specific guidance on selecting values for these parameters.
**Table F**  **- 5. Characteristics**  **of aquatic biota of the model ecosystem.**

**Trophic Level Wet Weight**  **(kg) % lipids**  **% NLOM % Water**  **Do organisms**  **in trophic level**  **respire some pore**  **water?** sediment* N/A 0.0% 4.0% 96.0% N/A phytoplankton N/A 2.0% 8.0% 90.0% no zooplankton 1.0E - 07 3.0% 12.0% 85.0% no benthic invertebrates 1.0E - 04 3.0% 21.0% 76.0% ye s filter feeders 1.0E - 03 2.0% 13.0% 85.0% ye s sm all fish 1.0E - 02 4.0% 23.0% 73.0% ye s me dium fish 1.0E - 01 4.0% 23.0% 73.0% ye s large fish 1.0E+00 4.0% 23.0% 73.0% no *Note that sediment is not a trophic level. It is included in this table because it is consumed by aquatic organisms of the KABAM foodweb. N/A = not applicable
**Table F**  **- 6. Diets of aquatic biota of the model ecosystem.**  **Diet for: Trophic level in diet**  **Zooplankton Be**  **nthic Invertebrates**  **Filter**

**Feeder Small Fish**  **Me dium**  **Fish Large Fish**  sediment* 0.0% 34.0% 34.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%46

phytoplankton 100.0% 33.0% 33.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% zooplankton 33.0% 33.0% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% benthic invertebrates 0.0% 50.0% 50.0% 0.0% fil ter feeders 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% sm all fish 50.0% 0.0% me dium fish 100.0% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% *Note that sediment is not a trophic level. It is included in this table because it is consumed by a quatic organ isms of the KABAM foodweb.

**Table F -**  **7. Identification of mammals and birds feeding on aquatic biota of the model ecosystem.**  **Ma mmal/Bird #**  **Name Body weight (kg)**  Mammal 1 fog/water shrew 0.018 Mammal 2 rice rat/star- nosed mole 0.085 Mammal 3 sm all m ink 0.45 Mammal 4 large mink 1.8 Mammal 5 sm all river otter 5 Mammal 6 large river otter 15 Bird 1 sandpipers 0.02 Bird 2 cranes 6.7 Bird 3 rails 0.07 Bird 4 herons 2.9 Bird 5 sm all osprey 1.25 Bird 6 white pelican 7.5
**Table F**  **- 8. Diets of mammals fe**  **eding on aquatic biota of the model ecosystem.**
**Trophic level in diet**  **Diet for: fog/water**  **shrew rice** 

**rat/star**   ** nosed** **mole small** 

**mink large** 

**mink small** 

**river otter large river** 

**otter** phytoplankton 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% zooplankton 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0 .0% 0.0% 0.0% benthic invertebrates 100.0% 34.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% filter feeders 0.0% 33.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% sm all fish 0.0% 33.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% me dium fish 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% large fish 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% To tal 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
**Table F**  **- 9. Diets of birds feeding on aquatic biota of the model ecosystem.**  **Diet for: Trophic level in**  **diet sandpipers**  **cranes rails**  **herons small**  **osprey white** 

**pelican**47

**Table F**  **- 9. Diets of birds feeding on aquatic biota of the model ecosystem.**  **Diet for: Trophic level in**  **diet sandpipers**  **cranes rails**  **herons small**  **osprey white** 

**pelican** phytoplankton 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0 % 0.0% zooplankton 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% benthic invertebrates 33.0% 33.0% 50.0% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% filter feeders 33.0% 33.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% sm all fish 34.0% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% me dium fish 0.0% 34.0% 0.0% 50.0% 100.0% 0.0% large fis h 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%


### IV. INTERMEDIATE PARAMETERS AND CALCULATIONS
**Table F**  **- 10. Input parameters and calculations relevant to derivation of C**  **B .**  **Parameter Phyto** 

**plankton Zoo** 

**plankton Benthic** 

**I nvertebrates**  **Filter**

**Feeders Small Fish**  **Me dium**  **Fish Large Fish**  **Equation A 1**  **C B**  **0.000052 0.00004085**  **0.000046 0.000030**  **0.000070 0.000086**  **0.00013 C**  **BD** 0.000000 0.00000156 0.000004 0.000003 0.000017 0.000035 0.000078 **C BR**  0.00005225 0.00003929 0.00004186 0.000 02753 0.00005228 0.00005015 0.00004783 C S 0.000009 C WD P 0.00000001 C WT O 0.00000001 k 1 9644.313 42628.237 3799.246 1697.061 758.049 338.608 151.251 k 2 1.595752 9.898868 0.807861 0.548942 0.125300 0.055970 0.025001 k D 0.000000 0.297943 0.105714 0.04625 1 0.052983 0.037509 0.026554 k E 0.000000 0.055652 0.013660 0.009091 0.005198 0.004593 0.003550 k G 0.100000 0.012559 0.003155 0.001991 0.001256 0.000792 0.000500 k M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m o 1 1 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 1 m p 0 0 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0 Σ (P i * C Di ) 0 5.22456E - 05 3.37275E - 05 3.3728E - 05 4.3517E - 05 5.7981E - 05 8.5592E - 05 Ф 1.00000000 **Equation A 2**  X POC 0.0000000 X DOC 0.0000000 K OW 125893 Ф 1.00000000 **Equation A**

**4** C S 0.0000 C SOC 0.0002 C WD P 0.0000048

**Table F**  **- 10. Input parameters and calculations relevant to derivation of C**  **B .**  **Parameter Phyto** 

**plankton Zoo** 

**plankton Benthic** 

**I nvertebrates**  **Filter**

**Feeders Small Fish**  **Me dium**  **Fish Large Fish**  K OC 30753 OC 4% **Equation A 5**  C ox N/A 5 E W N/A 0 .54018104 G V N/A 0.007891472 0.703328201 3.14165167 14.0332425 62.6841919 280 k 1 9644.312647 42628.23666 3799.245591 1697.06067 758.049155 338.60812 151.250691 K OW 125893 W B N/A 0.0000001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 **Equation A 6**  k 1 9644.312647 42628.23666 3799.245591 1697.06067 758.049155 338.60812 151.250691 k 2 1.595751884 9.898867973 0.807860869 0.54894198 0.12530014 0.05596952 0.02500067 K BW 6043.741977 4306.374908 4702.846413 3091.51189 6049.8666 6049.8666 6049.8666 K OW 125893 V LB 0.02 0.03 0.03 0. 02 0.04 0.04 0.04 V NB 0.08 0.12 0.21 0.13 0.23 0.23 0.23 V WB 0.9 0.85 0.76 0.85 0.73 0.73 0.73 β 0.35 0.035 **Equation A 7**  k G 0.1 0.012559432 0.003154787 0.00199054 0.00125594 0.00079245 0.0005 T 15 W B N/A 0.0000001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 **Equation A 8**  C ox N/A N/A N/A 5 N/A N/A N/A C SS N/A N/A N/A 3.00E - 05 N/A N/A N/A E D N/A 0.490733055 G D N/A 6.07E - 08 2.15E - 05 9.42E - 05 1.08E - 03 7.64E - 03 5.41E - 02 G V N/A N/A N/A 3.14 N/A N/A N/A k D 0 2.98E - 01 1.06E - 01 4.63E - 02 5.30E - 02 3.75E - 02 2.66E - 02 K OW 125893 T N/A 15 W B N/A 0.0000001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 **Equation A 9**  C ox N/A N/A N/A 5 N/A N/A N/A C SS N/A N/A N/A 3.00E - 05 N/A N/A N/A E D N/A 0.4907 G D N/A 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000942 0.0011 0.0076 0.0541 G F N/A 0.000000 0.000015 0.000066 0.000726 0.004965 0.034777 G V N/A N/A N/A 3.1417 N/A N/A N/A k E 0 0.0557 0.0137 0.0091 0.0052 0.0046 0.0035 K GB N/A 0.2657 0.1841 0.2800 0.1460 0.1885 0.2080 K OW N/A 125893 T N/A 15 V LB N/A 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.0449

**Table F**  **- 10. Input parameters and calculations relevant to derivation of C**  **B .**  **Parameter Phyto** 

**plankton Zoo** 

**plankton Benthic** 

**I nvertebrates**  **Filter**

**Feeders Small Fish**  **Me dium**  **Fish Large Fish**  V LD N/A 0.02 0.01650 0.0165 0.03 0.035 0.04 V L G N/A 0.007966 0.005876 0.005876 0.003571 0.004311 0.004979 V NB N/A 0.12 0.21 0.13 0.23 0.23 0.23 V ND N/A 0.08 0.0796 0.0796 0.165 0.22 0.23 V NG N/A 0.03186 0.02835 0.02835 0.09819 0.13548 0.14315 V WB N/A 0.85 0.76 0.85 0.73 0.73 0.73 V WD N/A 0.9 0.90 39 0.9039 0.805 0.745 0.73 V WG N/A 0.9602 0.9658 0.9658 0.8982 0.8602 0.8519 W B N/A 0.0000001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 β N/A 0.035 0.035 0.035 0.035 0.035 0.035 ε L N/A 0.72 0.75 0.75 0.92 0.92 0.92 ε N N/A 0.72 0.75 0.75 0.6 0.6 0.6 εW N/A 0.25 0.25 0. 25 0.25 0.25 0.25 **Calculation of BCF values** C BCF 5.55196E - 05 3.95597E - 05 4.27316E - 05 2.809E - 05 5.4971E - 05 5.4971E - 05 5.5576E - 05 See Appendix A of KABAM user's guide (USEPA 2009) and technical documentation for equation details.


### V. M **ODEL RESULTS** The results from the bioaccumulation modeling with metaflumizone are shown in **Tables F**  **- 11**  **to F -**  **16** and **Figure F**  **- 1**  below. Total BCFs predicted for fish are approximately 6,000 L/kg w.w. ( **Table F**  **- 12**  ). These values are in the same range as those measured BCF in bluegill sunfish of 3,500 (edible tissue) and 12,000 (non
- edible tissue; MRID 462645
- 04). This similarity among predicted and measured BCF values suggests that key bioaccumulation model assumptions (e.g., no chemical metabolism) are appropriate for metaflumizone. Furthermore, the biomagnification of metaflumizone (i.e., increasing concentration with increasing trophic level) appears to be relatively modest (BMF for large fish of 1.5; **Table F**  **- 13)**  but nonetheless indicates that diet is still a significant contribution to aquatic organism exposure ( **Figure F**  **** **1** ). In terms of risks to piscivorous birds and mammals, no acute or chronic risks are seen based on predicted concentrations in aquatic food web ( **Table F**  **- 16**  ). For example, the maximum co ncentration predicted is seen for large fish (0.12 ppm) which is about 1/50 th 

### the avian dietary NOAEC of 7.6 ppm. All other RQ values are two or more orders of magnitude below the Agency’s levels of concern (e.g., 0.5 for acute risk to non - listed species; 0.1 for acute risk to listed species and 1.0 for chronic risk to listed and non
- listed species). **Table F**  **- 11. Estimated concentrations of Metaflumizone in ecosystem components.** 

**Ecosystem Component Total**  **concentration (μg/kg**  **- ww)**  **Lipid**

**normalized concentr** **ation (μg/kg**  **- lipid)**  **Contribution**

**due to diet (μg/kg**  **- ww)**  **Contribution**

**due to respiration**  **(μg/kg -** **ww)** Wa ter (total)* 0 N/A N/A N/A Wa ter (freely dissolved)* 0 N/A N/A N/A50

**Table F**  **- 11. Estimated concentrations of Metaflumizone in ecosystem components.** 

**Ecosystem Component Total**  **concentration (μg/kg**  **- ww)**  **Lipid**

**normalized concentr** **ation (μg/kg**  **- lipid)**  **Contribution**

**due to diet (μg/kg**  **- ww)**  **Contribution**

**due to respiration**  **(μg/kg -** **ww)** Sediment (pore water)* 0 N/A N/A N/A Sediment (in solid)** 9 N/A N/A N/A Ph ytoplank ton 52 2612 N/A 52.25 Zooplankton 41 1362 1.56 39.29 Benthic Invertebrates 46 1539 4.32 41.86 Filter Feeders 30 1516 2.79 27.53 Sm all Fish 70 1744 17.50 52.28 Medium Fish 86 2140 35.45 50.15 Large Fish 126 3152 78.24 47.83 * Units: μg/L; **Units: μg /kg - dw

**Figure F-**  **1. Tot** **al p es**  **ti ci**  **de c**  **once ntra**  **ti on**  **pe r**  **trophi c**  **lev el**  0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Zoopl ankton Benthic In ve rtebrates Filt erFeeders Sm all F is h Me dium F is h Lar ge Fis h **Trophic Le ve**  **l C** **o n** **c e** **n t** **r a** **t i** **o n** **( μ** **g /** **k g** **)**

Co nt ribut io n due t o res pirat io n (μg/ kg -w w) Co nt ribut io n due t o diet ( μg/ kg -w w)
**Table F**  **- 12. Total BCFand BA**  **F values of Metaflumizone in aquatic trophic levels.** 

**Trophic Level Total BCF**  **(μg/kg**   ** ww)/(μg/L)** **Total BA F** 

**(μg/kg**   ** ww)/(μg/L)** Ph ytoplankton 6044 5687 Zooplankton 4306 4447 Benthic Invertebrates 4652 502751

Filter Feeders 3058 3301 Sm all Fish 5984 7596 Medium Fish 5984 9317 Large Fish 6050 13723
**Table F**  **- 13. Lipid**  **- normalized BCF, BA**  **F, BMF and BSA F values of Metaflumizone in**  **aquatic trophic levels.**
**Trophic Level BCF**  **(μg/kg**   ** lipid)/(μg/L)** **BA F** 

**(μg/kg**   ** lipid)/(μg/L)** **BMF**

**(μg/kg**   ** lipid)/(μg/kg**   ** lipid)** **BSA F** 

**(μg/kg**   ** lipid)/(μg/kg**   ** OC)** Ph ytoplankton 302187 284367 N/A 12 Zooplankton 143546 148230 0.52 6 Benthic Invertebrates 155055 167582 1.17 7 Filter Feeders 152893 165029 1.16 7 Sm all Fish 149601 189897 1.20 8 Medium Fish 149601 232934 1.30 10 Large Fish 151247 343079 1.47 14

**Table F**  **- 14. Calculation of EECs for mammals and birds consuming fish contaminated by**  **Me taflumizone.**  **Wildlife Species Biological Parameters**  **EECs (pesticide**  **intake) Bod**  **y Weight**  **(kg) Dry** 

**Food Ingestion**  **Rate (kg -**  **dry food/kg**  **** **bw /day**  **) Wet Food**  **Ingestion Rate (kg**  **-**

**wet food/kg**  **** **bw /day**  **) Drinking** 

**Water Intake**  **(L/d) Dose Based** 

**(mg/kg**   ** bw****/d) Dietary** 

**Based (ppm)** 
**Ma mmalian**  fog/water shrew 0.02 0.140 0. 585 0.003 0.027 0.05 rice rat/starnosed mole 0.1 0.107 0.484 0.011 0.024 0.05 sm all m ink 0.5 0.079 0.293 0.048 0.025 0.09 large mink 1.8 0.062 0.229 0.168 0.020 0.09 sm all river otter 5.0 0.052 0.191 0.421 0.016 0.09 large river otter 15.0 0.042 0.15 7 1.133 0.020 0.13 **Av ian**  sandpipers 0.0 0.228 1.034 0.004 0.0506 0.05 cranes 6.7 0.030 0.136 0.211 0.0074 0.05 rails 0.1 0.147 0.577 0.010 0.0335 0.06 herons 2.9 0.040 0.157 0.120 0.0104 0.07 sm all osprey 1.3 0.054 0.199 0.069 0.0171 0.09 white peli can 7.5 0.029 0.107 0.228 0.0135 0.1352

**Table F**  **- 15. Calculation of toxicity values for mammals and birds**  **consuming fish contaminated by Metaflumizone.**

**Wildlife Species Toxicity**  **Values Acute**  **Chronic Dose**  **Based (mg/kg**  **** **bw )**  **Dietary**

**Based (mg/kg**  **- diet)**  **Dose Based**

**(mg/kg -**  **bw) Dietary** 

**Based (mg/kg**  **- diet)**  **Ma mmalian**  fog/water shrew 0.00 N/A 42.00 400 rice rat/starnosed mole 0.00 N/A 28.49 400 sm all m ink 0.00 N/A 18.78 400 large mink 0.00 N/A 13.28 400 sm all river otter 0.00 N/A 10.29 400 large river otter 0.00 N/A 7.82 400 **Av ian**  sandpipers 52.13 156.00 N/A 7.6 cranes 124.69 156.00 N/A 7.6 rails 62.91 156.00 N/A 7.6 herons 109.97 156.00 N/A 7.6 sm all osprey 96.93 156.00 N/A 7.6 white pelican 126.82 156.00 N/A 7.6
**Table F**  **- 16. Calcu**  **lation of RQ values for mammals and birds consuming fish contaminated by Metaflumizone.**  **Wildlife Species Acute**  **Chronic Dose**  **Based Dietary** 

**Based Dose Based**  **Dietary Based**  **Ma mmalian**  fog/water shrew #DIV/0! N/A 0.001 0.000 rice rat/starnosed mole #DIV/0 ! N/A 0.001 0.000 sm all m ink #DIV/0! N/A 0.001 0.000 large mink #DIV/0! N/A 0.001 0.000 sm all river otter #DIV/0! N/A 0.002 0.000 large river otter #DIV/0! N/A 0.003 0.000 **Av ian**  sandpipers 0.001 0.000 N/A 0.006 cranes 0.000 0.000 N/A 0.007 rails 0. 001 0.000 N/A 0.008 herons 0.000 0.000 N/A 0.009 sm all osprey 0.000 0.001 N/A 0.011 white pelican 0.000 0.001 N/A 0.01753



### VI. REFERENCES Arnot, J.A. and F.A.P.C. Gobas. 2004. A food web bioaccumulation model for organic chemicals in aquatic ecosystems . Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, v23 (10), 2343
- 2355. Mineau, P., Collins, B.T. 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. USEPA. 2002. Guidance for Selecting Input Parameters in Modeling the Environmental Fate and Transport of Pesticides, Version II. US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington DC. Online at: http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models water/input_guidance2_28_02.htm
. USEPA. 2008. User’s Guide: T
- REX Version 1.4.1 (Terrestrial Residue Exposure model). United States Environmental Protection Agency. Environmental Fate and Effects Divi sion. USEPA. 2009. User’s Guide and Technical Documentation: KABAM version 1.0 (KOW (based) Aquatic BioAccumulation Model). United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Fate and Effects Division. (available at : http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/kabam/kabam_user_guide.html )