U">(r:rlm STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIOi\1 1\(:I:~NCY 

WASHINGTON C~04fi0 

OfTJC!.'. 01' 

CHEMICAL SAFETY ~ND 

POl LU'rtON PREVENTION 

PC Code: 129016 

DP Barcode: 411277 

MEMORANDUM September 19,2013 

Sub,ject: · Preliminary Ecological Risk Assessment for the Registration Review of 

To: 

.From: 

Reviewed By: 

Through: 

Flumctsulam 

Katherine St. Clair. Chemical Review Manager 

Kevin Costello, Branch Chief 

Risk Management and Implementation Branch 2 

Pesticide Re-evaluation Division (7508P) 

Nicholas Mastrota, Ph.D., Senior Scientist 

James K. Wolf, Ph.D., Environmental Scientist 

Environmental ~isk Branch Ill 

Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P) 

Rosanna Louie-Juzwiak, Risk Assessment Process Leade 

James 1-Ietrick, Ph.D., Senior Advisor 

Environmental Risk Branch 1li 

Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P) 

l?an~ nv1ronmental Spatz, Bra~ch Rtsk Chief~ Branch ~~~ ....... ~ 

Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P) 

This memorandum transmits the Environmental Fate and Effects Division's preliminary 

ecological risk assessment for the registration review of flumetsulam (PC Code 1290 16), a 

sulfonanalide and triazolopyrimidine class herbicide registered Jor use to control broadleaf 

weeds on corn and soybean. This risk assessment provides the Division's assessment of the 

environmental fate, terrestrial and aquatic exposure, and ecological risks associated with all 

registered uses of t1umetsulam. It also provides an assessment of the potential tor use of 

flumetsulam to cause adverse eftects to threatened and endangered species. 

"111e results of this preliminary risk assessment indicate that use of flumetsulam on corn and 

soybean poses a risk to all types of nontarget terrestrial and aquatic plants. Use of :flumetsulam 

potentially could result in direct adverse effects to listed species of terrestrial and aquatic plants. 

Due to the low acute and chronic toxicity to animals, use offlumetsulam is expected to pose 

' 1 
2 

minimal direct risk to all terrestrial and aquatic animals, including birds, mammals, reptiles, 

amphibians, fish, mollusks, and arthropods. 

Flumetsulam is moderately persistent in terrestrial environments. Based upon its Koc (and Kd), 

flumetsulam is mobile. It is also persistent in aquatic environments. Flumetsulam degradation 

products are all considered minor degradates at less than 10 percent of applied, and are not 

believed to contribute significantly to the ecological risks. 

The table below summarizes the risk of potential direct effects due to the use of flumetsulam. 

 
3 

Listed Plant Taxon Potential Direct Effects 

Terrestrial and semiaquatic plants – 

monocots and dicots 

RQs exceeded the LOC for all exposure scenarios. Using TerrPlant to depict exposure for dry 

and semi-aquatic terrestrial habitats, RQs were estimated for exposure (including runoff and 

spray drift) to nontarget plants adjacent to the site of application. Dicots were the more sensitive 

species; for uses on soybean, RQs for listed nontarget plants range from 1.1 – 815.3, and RQs 

are 5.7 – 839.6 for uses on corn. For additional details, refer to Table 27. 

For exposure from drift alone, an analysis was conducted to estimate the distance (using 

AgDrift) from the site of application needed in order to be below the LOC. Below is a subset of 

the analysis (monocots are the more sensitive species) that illustrates the influence on the 

distance needed to be below the LOC when considering coarser droplet sizes, or the boom 

height for a ground application. For additional details, refer to Table 28. 

Crop, Timing, 

Application Rate 

(lb a.i./A) 

Application Method Droplet Size Distance from 

Field ( feet) 

Corn, postemergence 

0.058 Aerial Coarse – very coarse >1,000 

Medium - coarse >1,000 

Corn, postemergence 

0.060 

Ground, low boom Fine – medium 381 

Ground, high boom Fine – medium 541 

Corn, preemergence 

0.069 Aerial Coarse – very coarse >1,000 

Medium – coarse >1,000 

Corn, preemergence 

0.069 

Ground, low boom Fine – medium 446 

Ground, high boom Fine – medium 636 

Soybean, postemergence 

0.006 Aerial Coarse – very coarse 194 

Medium – coarse 289 

Soybean, postemergence 

0.015 

Ground, low boom Fine – medium 66 

Ground, high boom Fine – medium 118 

Soybean, preemergence 

0.067 

Ground, low boom Fine – medium 433 

Ground, high boom Fine – medium 600 

Soybean, preemergence Aerial Coarse – very coarse >1,000 

Medium – coarse >1,000 

Aquatic plants RQs exceed the LOC for all exposure scenarios; for the most sensitive species (i.e., algae), RQs 

range from 2.94 – 35.3. 

Listed Animal Taxon 

Potential Direct Effects 

Acute Notes Chronic Notes 

Terrestrial 

invertebrates No effect ND1 1

 ND signifies that no data 

were available to assess the 

Mammals No effect No effect risk. 

Birds No effect No effect 

Reptiles No effect No effect 

Amphibians No effect No effect 

Freshwater fish No effect No effect 

Freshwater 

invertebrates No effect No effect

Mollusks No effect ND1 

Estuarine/marine fish No effect No effect

Estuarine/marine 

invertebrates No effect No effect

 
4 

Based on this preliminary assessment, there are potential risks to listed and non-listed plants 

(terrestrial and aquatic) from exposure to flumetsulam use on corn and soybean. Risk is posed to 

all types of nontarget plants, including monocots, dicots, aquatic vascular plants, and aquatic 

nonvascular plants. Use of flumetsulam is not expected to cause direct adverse effects to any 

listed species of animal, but may cause indirect effects to listed animals through impacts on 

vegetation and plant food sources. Because of the potential to harm plants, the use of 

flumetsulam also may result in modification of primary constituent elements of designated 

critical habitats for listed species, where such designations have been made. However, at this 

current stage of the Registration Review process, it is premature to make effects determinations 

for listed species until further refinements are conducted. In order to make effects determinations 

for individual species, useful refinements may include analyses of 1) more detailed, speciesspecific ecological and biological data; 2) more detailed and accurate information on 

flumetsulam use patterns; and 3) sub-county level spatial proximity data for the co-occurrence of 

potential effects areas and listed species and any designated critical habitat. Examples of such 

refinements are described below. 

EFED is currently developing tools that are expected to further refine the assessment and are 

designed to support effects determinations for individual federally listed species and their 

designated critical habitats (where applicable). Scientific information obtained from the U.S. 

Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS), the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and other 

reliable sources is being collated by EFED to address all currently listed species. The 

information will be stored in an Office of Pesticide Programs Pesticide Registration Information 

SysteM (PRISM) knowledgebase. The listed species knowledgebase will consist of an 

information repository that houses biological and behavioral information relevant to individual 

species (e.g., habitat, diet, and life history, including specific temporal and spatial associations) 

and a document repository that contains supporting documents (e.g., USFWS recovery plans) 

and electronic information (e.g., GIS data files). 

Refinements may also include more detailed analyses of the registered uses and their use patterns 

that result in LOC exceedances for federally listed species in the screening-level assessment. 

The analyses may include more information on where, when, and how flumetsulam is used on 

corn and soybean crops. Actual usage data (when available) and national land-cover datasets that 

indicate potential use sites (e.g., national land cover dataset (NLCD), crop data layer (CDL)) 

may be used to support a more refined analysis of where flumetsulam is reasonably expected to 

be used. Similarly, refinements for the timing of applications and how flumetsulam is used may 

be based on the analysis of additional usage data, beyond what were available at the time of the 

screening-level assessment, and a more in-depth exploration of agronomic practices. 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, along with the U.S. Department of Agriculture 

(USDA), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and the National Marine Fisheries Service 

(NMFS), have announced the availability of a report developed by the National Academy of 

Sciences’ National Research Council (NRC) outlining recommendations on specific scientific 

and technical issues related to the development of endangered and threatened species risk 

assessments for pesticides that are compliant with the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the 

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). The EPA, USDA, FWS and 

NMFS asked the NRC to consider a range of scientific and technical issues including: 
5 

• identifying best available scientific data and information; 

• considering sub-lethal, indirect and cumulative effects; 

• assessing the effects of chemical mixtures and inert ingredients; 

• analyzing the effects of pesticide use through the use of models; 

• incorporating uncertainties into the evaluations; and 

• using geospatial information and datasets that can be employed by the agencies in the 

course of these assessments. 

 After reviewing the NRC’s recommendations on these scientific and technical issues, the EPA 

and its federal partners will determine how these recommendations can be implemented and 

incorporated into the scientific approaches for developing listed species risk assessments. It is 

anticipated that any draft guidance and/or science policies developed by EPA and its federal 

partners as a result of the NRC’s recommendations would be released for public comment prior 

to implementation. 

The refinements based on individual species data; additional, detailed usage information, when 

available; and further recommendations from the NRC report are expected to help to more 

accurately identify potential areas of effect and to better inform effects and habitat 

determinations for listed species and any designated critical habitats. For example, if 

flumetsulam is used when a particular species of concern is not present (e.g., it is migratory) or is 

not co-located in space, then risk of potential direct effects to the species may often be precluded. 

If LOCs are still exceeded for aquatic and terrestrial plants after conducting the refined analyses, 

further analyses of the potential spatial and temporal co-occurrence of listed species of concern 

(and any designated critical habitat) may be conducted. The extent of possible refinement in the 

analyses of spatial/temporal co-occurrence will largely depend on the scale and quality of the 

available sub-county level use site (e.g., National Land Cover Dataset, Cropland Data Layer) and 

species location data.
6 

Preliminary Ecological Risk Assessment for the 

Registration Review of Flumetsulam

(CAS Reg. No. 98967-40-9; USEPA PC Code: 129016) 

Prepared by: 

Nicholas Mastrota, Ph.D., Wildlife Biologist 

James K. Wolf, Ph.D., Environmental Scientist 

Reviewed by: 

James Hetrick, Ph.D., Senior Advisor 

Rosanna Louie-Juzwiak, Risk Assessment Process Leader 

Approved by: 

Dana Spatz, Branch Chief 

Environmental Risk Branch III 

Environmental Fate and Effects Division 

Office of Pesticide Programs 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

September 2013

Office of Chemical Safety and 

Pollution Prevention
7 

Table of Contents 

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................ 8

A. Purpose of Assessment ........................................................................................... 8

B. Nature of the Stressor .............................................................................................. 8

C. Summary of Effects and Risk Conclusions ............................................................ 8

II. PROBLEM FORMULATION ......................................................................................... 10

A. Pesticide Type, Class, and Mode of Action .......................................................... 10

B. Pesticide Use and Usage ....................................................................................... 10

1. Pesticide Use ............................................................................................. 10

2. Pesticide Usage ......................................................................................... 15

C. Previous Ecological Risk Assessments and Evaluations ...................................... 15

D. Assessment Endpoints .......................................................................................... 16

E. Analysis Plan and Conceptual Models ................................................................. 20

1. Measures to Evaluate Risk Hypotheses .................................................... 20

2. Conceptual Model ..................................................................................... 20

3. Risk Hypothesis ........................................................................................ 22

III. ANALYSIS ....................................................................................................................... 24

A. Measures of Exposure ........................................................................................... 24

1. Environmental Fate and Modeling Input Parameters ............................... 24

Terrestrial Modeling and Input Parameters ......................................................... 30

B. Ecological Effects Characterization ...................................................................... 31

1. Aquatic Animals ....................................................................................... 31

2. Aquatic Plants ........................................................................................... 32

3. Terrestrial Animals ................................................................................... 33

4. Terrestrial Plants ....................................................................................... 35

IV. RISK ESTIMATION ........................................................................................................ 37

A. Exposure Estimates for Non-target Aquatic Animals and Plants ......................... 37

B. Non-target Terrestrial Animals ............................................................................. 40

C. Non-target Terrestrial Plants ................................................................................. 43

D. Review of Incident Data ....................................................................................... 47

E. Probit Slope Response Analysis of LOC Values and Acute RQ Values .............. 49

V. RISK DESCRIPTION ...................................................................................................... 49

A. Risk Characterization ............................................................................................ 49

1. Risk to Aquatic and Terrestrial Animals .................................................. 49

2. Risk to Aquatic and Terrestrial Plants ...................................................... 50

B. Assumptions and Limitations ............................................................................... 50

1. Endocrine Disruption ................................................................................ 50

2. Uncertainties Related to Data Limitations ................................................ 51

3. Other Uncertainties in Risk Conclusions .................................................. 52

VI. RISK CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................... 53

VII. REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 55

APPENDIX A. .............................................................................................................................. 58

APPENDIX B ............................................................................................................................... 65

APPENDIX C ............................................................................................................................... 74

APPENDIX D ............................................................................................................................... 81

APPENDIX E: .............................................................................................................................. 85 
8 

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

A. Purpose of Assessment 

The purpose of this assessment is to evaluate the potential risks of current registered uses of the 

herbicide flumetsulam to non-target organisms, including federally listed endangered and 

threatened (listed) species. This risk assessment incorporates the available exposure and effects 

data and most current modeling and risk methodologies. 

B. Nature of the Stressor 

Flumetsulam is an herbicide registered for use to control of broadleaf weeds in corn and soybean 

fields. It is in the triazolpyrimidine and the sulfonanalide chemical classes. By mode of action, it 

is classified as an acetolactate synthase (ALS) inhibitor, making it similar to sulfonylurea and 

imidazolinone herbicides. Flumetsulam is similar to other ALS inhibiting pesticides in that it has 

low toxicity to vertebrate and invertebrate animal life, but very potent toxicity to plants. 

Flumetsulam is expected to be mobile in the environment based upon the Koc (5 to 74 mL/goc). 

Because of the moderate persistence in terrestrial environments (average half-life 51 days; range 

13 to 130 days) and persistence in aquatic environments (>180 days) of flumetsulam, 

degradation products of flumetsulam are not expected to form in significant amounts and are not 

believed to contribute significantly to the ecological risks posed by flumetsulam. Therefore, only 

the parent compound was considered as an ecological stressor in this assessment. 

C. Summary of Effects and Risk Conclusions 

The results of this preliminary risk assessment indicate that the registered uses of flumetsulam on 

corn and soybeans have the potential for direct adverse effects to listed and non-listed species of 

aquatic and terrestrial plants (Table 1). The high persistence and high mobility of flumetsulam 

exacerbates the risk to nontarget plants. Risks to all terrestrial and aquatic animals from direct 

effects is expected to be minimal. There is a potential for indirect effects to terrestrial and 

aquatic animals due to reduction in plant food and alteration of vegetation. 

The available acute toxicity data on flumetsulam indicate that it is practically nontoxic to birds, 

mammals, terrestrial arthropods, freshwater invertebrates, and estuarine/marine invertebrates on 

an acute basis. On a chronic basis, adverse effects to these animal taxa have only been observed 

at high doses that exceed environmentally relevant levels. In contrast, plant toxicity data show 

that flumetsulam is very highly toxic to terrestrial plants, aquatic plants, and aquatic algae. 

Growth inhibition of 25% has been shown to occur at exposure levels as low as 0.00019 lb 

a.i./A, with no-observed-adverse-effect levels (NOAEL) as low as 0.0000093 lb a.i./A. For 

aquatic plants, 50% growth inhibition has been shown to occur at concentrations as low as 3.2 μg 

a.i./L, with no-observed-adverse-effect concentrations (NOAEC) as low as 0.36 μg a.i./L. 
9 

Table 1. Listed Species Risks Associated with Potential Direct Effects Due to the Applications of 

Flumetsulam. 

Listed Plant Taxon Potential Direct Effects 

Terrestrial and semiaquatic plants – 

monocots and dicots 

RQs exceeded the LOC for all exposure scenarios. Using TerrPlant to depict exposure for dry 

and semi-aquatic terrestrial habitats, RQs were estimated for exposure (including runoff and 

spray drift) to nontarget plants adjacent to the site of application. Dicots were the more sensitive 

species; for uses on soybean, RQs for listed nontarget plants range from 1.1 – 815.3, and RQs 

are 5.7 – 839.6 for uses on corn. For additional details, refer to Table 27. 

For exposure from drift alone, an analysis was conducted to estimate the distance (using 

AgDrift) from the site of application needed in order to be below the LOC. Below is a subset of 

the analysis (monocots are the more sensitive species) that illustrates the influence on the 

distance needed to be below the LOC when considering coarser droplet sizes, or the boom 

height for a ground application. For additional details, refer to Table 28. 

Crop, Timing, 

Application Rate 

(lb a.i./A) 

Application Method Droplet Size Distance from 

Field ( feet) 

Corn, postemergence 

0.058 Aerial Coarse – very coarse >1,000 

Medium - coarse >1,000 

Corn, postemergence 

0.060 

Ground, low boom Fine – medium 381 

Ground, high boom Fine – medium 541 

Corn, preemergence 

0.069 Aerial Coarse – very coarse >1,000 

Medium – coarse >1,000 

Corn, preemergence 

0.069 

Ground, low boom Fine – medium 446 

Ground, high boom Fine – medium 636 

Soybean, postemergence 

0.006 Aerial Coarse – very coarse 194 

Medium – coarse 289 

Soybean, postemergence 

0.015 

Ground, low boom Fine – medium 66 

Ground, high boom Fine – medium 118 

Soybean, preemergence 

0.067 

Ground, low boom Fine – medium 433 

Ground, high boom Fine – medium 600 

Soybean, preemergence Aerial Coarse – very coarse >1,000 

Medium – coarse >1,000 

Aquatic plants RQs exceed the LOC for all exposure scenarios; for the most sensitive species (i.e., algae), RQs 

range from 2.94 – 35.3. 

Listed Animal Taxon 

Potential Direct Effects 

Acute Notes Chronic Notes 

Terrestrial 

invertebrates No effect ND1 1

 ND signifies that no data 

were available to assess the 

Mammals No effect No effect risk. 

Birds No effect No effect 

Reptiles No effect No effect 

Amphibians No effect No effect 

Freshwater fish No effect No effect 

Freshwater 

invertebrates No effect No effect

Mollusks No effect ND1 

Estuarine/marine fish No effect No effect

Estuarine/marine 

invertebrates No effect No effect
10 

II. PROBLEM FORMULATION 

A. Pesticide Type, Class, and Mode of Action 

Flumetsulam (N-(2,6-difluorophenyl)-5-methyl(1,2,4)triazolo(1,5-a)pyrimidine-2-sulfonamide; 

CAS Registry Number 98967-40-9) is the primary chemical stressor considered in this 

assessment. Flumetsulam belongs to both the triazolpyrimidine and the sulfonanalide chemical 

classes. The structure of flumetsulam is shown in Figure 1. Degradation products are discussed 

in more detail in Section III A.1. 

Figure 1. Chemical Structure of Flumetsulam 

The herbicidal mode of action of flumetsulam is inhibition of acetolactate synthase (ALS), which 

is a similar mode of action to sulfonylurea and imidazolinone herbicides. As with other ALS 

inhibitors, flumetsulam is toxic to plants at very low levels, but generally has very little toxicity 

to animals. Triazolpyrimidine herbicides also generally have environmental fate properties 

similar to sulfonylurea herbicides (USEPA, 1994). 

B. Pesticide Use and Usage 

1. Pesticide Use 

In the United States, flumetsulam is registered for use to control broadleaf weeds in corn and 

soybean fields. Currently, this risk assessment focuses on exposures and potential effects from 

exposure to flumetsulam as the sole stressor. It is an active ingredient in 10 products registered in 

the United States (Table 2). 

 
11 

Table 2. Pesticide Products Registered in the United States that Contain Flumetsulam 

EPA Reg. No. Product Name Formulation1 Registered 

Crops 

Other AIs in 

Product Restrictions 

352-593 Accent Gold WDG Corn 

Clopyralid, 

Nicosulfuron, and 

Rimsulfuron 

Make only 1 application per 

season. 

352-612 Dupont Access Gold 

WDG WDG Corn 

Clopyralid, 

Nicosulfuron, and 

Rimsulfuron 

Do not apply more than 0.07 

lb flumetsulam per acre per 

crop year. 

62719-224 Broadstrike WDG Corn and 

Soybean 

(None) Do not exceed 1 application 

per year. 

Do not aerially apply. 

62719-253 Hornet WDG Corn 

Clopyralid Do not apply more than 0.07 

lb flumetsulam per acre per 

crop year. 

"Do not apply aerially unless 

permitted by EPA approved 

supplemental labeling" 

62719-277 Python WDG WDG Corn and 

Soybean 

(none) Do not apply more than 0.07 

lb flumetsulam per acre per 

crop year. 

Do not apply aerially in NY. 

62719-278 NAF-280 WDG Corn 

Clopyralid Do not exceed 1 application 

per year. 

Do not aerially apply. 

62719-279 NAF-281 WDG Corn 

Clopyralid Do not exceed 1 application 

per year. 

Do not aerially apply. 

62719-299 Frontrow WDG Soybean 

Cloransulam-methyl 

(co-packed) 

Do not apply more than 0.07 

lb flumetsulam per acre per 

crop year. 

Do not apply more than 0.012 

lb/A flumetsulam per crop 

growing season. 

Do not apply aerially in NY. 

62719-315 Hornet WDG WDG Corn 

Clopyralid 

potassium salt 

Do not apply more than 0.07 

lb flumetsulam per crop year. 

"Do not apply aerially unless 

permitted by EPA approved 

supplemental labeling" 

62719-570 Surestart EC Corn 

Acetochlor and 

Clopyralid 

Do not apply more than 

0.0525 lb/A of flumetsulam 

per growing season. 

Do not apply aerially 1

 EC: emulsifiable concentrate, WDG: water dispersible granular (=dry flowable). 

Products containing flumetsulam are formulated as water-dispersible granules or as an 

emulsifiable concentrate. They are all applied as sprays to soil (which may or may not be 

incorporated) and/or emerged field corn, silage corn, and/or soybean fields crops. Products may 

be applied to fields pre-plant incorporated, pre-plant surface, or pre-emergence treatment. 

Products containing flumetsulam are often formulated together with other herbicidal active 

ingredients (Table 2). 

Some products may also be sprayed onto dry bulk fertilizer, and the herbicide-impregnated 

fertilizer is then applied onto fields. Some product labels allow only one applications per year or 
12 

per crop season, whereas other product labels do not restrict the number of applications, but 

restrict the total amount of flumetsulam applied per year to 0.07 lb a.i./A. Broadstrike, NAS-280, 

NAS-281, and Surestart products prohibit aerial applications, whereas the other products do not. 

All products containing flumetsulam prohibit chemigation application. 

 
Table 3. Application Information for Registered Use Sites of Flumetsulam Site Description 

Application 

Timing Products1 

Max Rate per App. (lb/A) 

Max Rate 

per Year 

(lb/A) 

Max. No. 

Apps.

Ground/ 

Aerial 

Application Methods Res

Corn (Field) Preplant or 

Preemergence 

352-593 62719-224 62719-277 62719-278 62719-279 62719-315 62719-570 (Accent Gold, Broadstrike, Hornet, NAF, Python WDG, SureStart) 

0.0693 0.07 1 or NS Ground or aerial Broadcast soil or foliar spray No 

appNY 

Postemergence 

62719-253, 62719-315 (Hornet, Hornet WDG) 

0.0578 0.07 NS Ground or aerial Broadcast soil or foliar spray 

Aerapprequappsupplabe

352-593, 352-612 (Accent Gold, Dupont Accent Gold WDG) 

0.035 0.035 NS Ground or Aerial Broadcast soil or foliar spray 

AerappalloIA, NE. and 

62719-224 62719-570 Broadstrike, SureStart 

0.06 0.07 1 Ground Broadcast soil or foliar spray App

grouequ

Preplant, Preemergence, or Post Emergence 

62719-278 62719-279 62719-570 (NAF-280, NAF281, SureStart) 

0.0556 0.0695 1/Yr or NS Ground Impregnated dry bulk fertilizer 

62719-277 (Python) 0.065 0.065 NS Ground Impregnated dry bulk fertilizer 

Corn (Silage) Preplant, 

Preemergence, or Post Emergence 

62719-570 (SureStart) 0.03 0.0525 NS Ground Broadcast soil or foliar spray 

62719-570 (SureStart) 0.045 0.0525 NS Ground Impregnated dry bulk fertilizer 
Soybean Preplant or 

Preemergence 

62719-244 62719-277 62719-299 (Broadstrike, Frontrow, Python WDG) 

0.0674 0.07 or NS 1/Yr or NS Ground or Aerial Broadcast soil or foliar spray No 

appNY 

Postemergence 

62719-299 (Frontrow) 0.006 0.012 2 Ground or Aerial Broadcast soil or foliar spray 

Minday betwapp

62719-224 (Broadstrike) 0.015 0.015 1 Ground Broadcast soil or foliar spray App

grouequ

Preplant, Preemergence, or Post Emergence 

62719-277 (Python WDG) 0.065 0.065 NS Ground Impregnated dry bulk fertilizer 

1 The maximum use rate on some product labels may be lower than the rate listed in this table, which shows only the maximum applica
15 

2. Pesticide Usage 

EPA’s Biological and Economic Analysis Division (BEAD) provided an analysis of nationallevel usage information using state-level usage data obtained from various public and proprietary 

sources. Table 4 provides 2007 estimates of the usage of flumetsulam on various crops. The 

largest usage of flumetsulam is on corn, with 200,000 lbs applied in the United States annually. 

Approximately 10% of cropland planted in corn in the United States were treated with 

flumetsulam. Usage on soybean was also sizable, with 20,000 lbs applied annually. The survey 

identified small amount of reported usage on non-registered crops (celery, sunflower, sweet corn, 

and fallow land). 

Table 4. Screening Level Estimates of Agricultural Uses of Flumetsulam (November 19, 

2007)1,2 

Crop Lbs. A.I. Percent Crop Treated 

Average Maximum 

Corn 200,000 10 10 

Soybean 20,000 <1 <2.5 

Celery <500 <1 <2.5 

Fallow, Summer <500 <1 <2.5 

Sunflower <500 <1 <2.5 

Sweet Corn <500 <1 <2.5 

1

 All numbers rounded. 

<500 Less than 500 pounds of active ingredient 

<2.5 Less than 2.5 percent of crop treated 

<1 Less than 1 percent of crop treated 

+ Crops not known to be listed on active end use product registrations or as Section 18 

emergency exemptions when this report was run 

 

2 SLUA data sources include: 

USDA-NASS (United States Department of Agriculture's National Agricultural Statistics Service) 

Private Pesticide Market Research 

California DPR (Department of Pesticide Regulation) 

C. Previous Ecological Risk Assessments and Evaluations

The most recent ecological risk assessment conducted for flumetsulam was for proposed new 

uses of flumetsulam on dry beans (USEPA, 2006), which are not listed on currently registered 

labels. Although the use is not currently registered, the assessment used the same maximum use 

rate as for other registered crops and contained a more recent consideration of available 

environmental fate and effects data. This assessment assessed the risks associated with use on 

dry beans using application methods and rates similar to what is currently registered for corn and 

soybean (single preplant or pre-emergent application at a maximum rate of 0.07 lb a.i./A); 

however, it did not assess aerial applications. The assessment concluded that the proposed use 

would expose nontarget terrestrial plants via spray drift and runoff, and this exposure would pose 
16 

risk to nontarget terrestrial plants that exceed the EPA’s level of concern (LOC). Risk to aquatic 

plants was predicted to exceed the LOC only for nonvascular aquatic plant; however, no 

nonvascular aquatic plants are currently listed as threatened or endangered. The assessment 

concluded that direct acute and chronic risks to all terrestrial and aquatic animals were below the 

EPA’s level of concern. 

EFED conducted a full risk assessment for uses on corn and soybean in 1992 (USEPA, 1992). 

Application methods and maximum application rates were similar to what they are today except 

that only ground applications were assessed. The risk assessment concluded that these uses 

would pose risk to aquatic plants. Risk to terrestrial plants was not assessed because terrestrial 

plant toxicity data were not available at the time. However, risk to terrestrial plants was assumed 

because of the similarity of this herbicide with sulfonylurea herbicides and the known risk to 

plants, and incident data. Because of the mobility of this compound and its potential to 

contaminate ground water, concern was also expressed for potential adverse effects to crops 

irrigated with contaminated ground water. Risk for all terrestrial and aquatic animal taxa was 

concluded to be below the EPA’s LOC. 

In 1993, EFED conducted a risk assessment for the addition of aerial applications of flumetsulam 

to corn and soybean (USEPA, 1993). This assessment concluded that, as with ground 

applications, aerial applications of flumetsulam posed a risk both terrestrial and aquatic plants 

due to exposure from runoff and spray drift. 

In 1993, the EFED made a “may affect” determination for potential adverse effects from use of 

flumetsulam on corn and soybean (USEPA, 1993a). The assessment concluded that registered 

use on these crops may adversely affect threatened and endangered terrestrial plants. 

 In 1994, the EFED completed a qualitative assessment of sulfonylurea (SU) herbicides and other 

low-dose herbicides which are ALS inhibitors (i.e., imidazolinones and triazolopyrimidines). The 

assessment reviewed the history of concern, dating from 1981, for the potential damage that 

offsite-movement of these herbicides can cause to nontarget plants. The assessment discussed 

evidence that SU herbicides can move long distances from the treatment site via spray drift and 

contaminated soil particles blown and redeposited by the wind. The assessment reviews evidence 

linking the movement of SU herbicides to damage of cherry and apricot trees as far as up to 2 to 

3 miles from treated sites. Evidence show that exposure of SU herbicides at small fractions of the 

application rate may curtail fruit production by cherry trees. The report notes that the currently 

required phytotoxicity studies do not evaluate the potential for these herbicides to impact the 

reproduction (i.e., flower, fruit, and seed production) of plants. Also, incidents with the SU 

herbicide Oust® (active ingredient sulfometuron) show the potential for SU herbicides to travel 

on wind-blown soil particles and adversely affect crops downwind of treated use sites. 

D. Assessment Endpoints 

Table 5 gives a summary of acute and chronic toxicity endpoints for various taxonomic groups 

of animals and plants. Acute toxicity data on flumetsulam indicate that it is practically nontoxic 

to birds, mammals, bees, freshwater invertebrates, and estuarine/marine invertebrates on an acute 

toxicity basis. No treatment-related mortality was observed in any of these studies at any of the 
17 

test levels. Chronic toxicity studies also indicate relatively low toxicity on with chronic 

exposure. The northern bobwhite was the most sensitive avian species, with adverse effects on 

reproduction observed at 600 mg a.i./kg-diet (NOAEC established at 600 mg a.i./kg-diet). 

Chronic toxicity in mammals was similar, with adverse developmental effects observed at 500 

mg a.i./kg-diet (NOAEC established at 1000 mg a.i./kg-diet). Limited chronic toxicity testing 

with aquatic animals also showed relatively low levels of chronic toxicity. In a lifecycle study 

with the water flea, adverse effects on growth were observed at 200 mg a.i./L (NOAEC 111 mg 

a.i./L). No chronic effects were observed in an early life-stage study with the fathead minnow 

any test concentrations (NOAEC 197 mg a.i./L). 

In contrast, flumetsulam is highly toxic to aquatic and terrestrial plants. In seedling emergence 

and vegetative vigor tests, 25% inhibition of growth has been shown to occur in sensitive 

terrestrial plants at exposure levels of 0.0002 to 0.002 lb a.i./A. NOAECs are as low as 0.000070 

lb a.i./A. In aquatic plant tests, both algae and aquatic vascular plants have been shown to be 

sensitive to flumetsulam. Fifty percent inhibition of growth in green algae is predicted at a 

concentration of 3.21 μg a.i./L, and 50% inhibition of growth of duckweed is predicted at 3.1 μg 

a.i./L. The NOAEC was 0.36 μg a.i./L for algae and 1.4 μg a.i./L for duckweed. 

More information on results of ecotoxicity studies with flumetsulam are provided in Section 

III.C. of this document. 

 
18 

Table 5. Summary of the Most Sensitive Measures of Flumetsulam to Nontarget Organisms 

Study Most Sensitive Test Species MRID Classification Measured Effects 

Acute Avian Oral Northern Bobwhite 

(Colinus virginianus) 41263218 Acceptable LD50 > 2250 mg a.i./kg-bw 

Acute Avian Dietary 

Northern Bobwhite 

(Colinus virginianus) and 

Mallard Duck 

(Anas platyrhynchos) 

41263219 

41263220 Acceptable LC50 > 5620 mg a.i./kg-diet 

Avian Reproduction 

Northern Bobwhite 

(Colinus virginianus) 41931741 Acceptable 

NOAEC: 300 mg a.i./kg-diet 

LOAEC: 600 mg a.i./kg-diet 

(based on reduced survival of 

embryos and hatchlings) 

Mallard 

(Anas platyrhynchos) 41931742 Acceptable 

NOAEC: 600 mg a.i./kg-diet

LOAEC: >600 mg a.i./kgdiet 

Acute Rat Oral Laboratory rat 

(Rattus norvegicus) 41263207 Acceptable LD50 > 5000 mg a.i./kg-bw 

Rat Reproduction 

and Development 

Female laboratory rat 

(Rattus norvegicus) 

41263213 

41615302 Acceptable 

NOAEL = 500 mg a.i./kgdiet 

LOAEL = 1000 mg a.i./kgdiet (based on increased cecal 

weights) 

Laboratory rat 

(Rattus norvegicus) 

41931710 

42474001 

Acceptable, 

Minimum 

NOAEC: 1000 mg/kg diet 

LOAEC: >1000 mg/kg diet 

(no adverse effects observed)

Honey Bee Acute 

Contact 

Honey Bee 

(Apis mellifera) 41263228 Acceptable LD50 > 100 μg a.i./bee (contact) 

Freshwater Fish 

Acute Toxicity 

Bluegill Sunfish 

(Lepomis macrochirus) 

Rainbow Trout 

(Oncorhynchus mykiss) 

41263221 

41263223 Acceptable LC50 > 300 mg a.i./L 

Freshwater Fish 

Early-Life Stage 

Fathead minnow 

(Pimephales promelas) 42465101 Acceptable NOAEC = 197 mg a.i./L 

LOAEC > 197 mg a.i./L 

Estuarine/Marine 

Fish Acute Toxicity 

Atlantic silverside 

(Menidia menidia) 41263225 Acceptable LC50 > 380 mg a.i./L 

Estuarine/Marine 

Fish Chronic No data available 

Freshwater 

Invertebrate Acute 

Toxicity 

Water flea 

(Daphnia magna) 41263224 Acceptable EC50 = 254 mg a.i./L 

Freshwater 

Invertebrate LifeCycle Water flea 

(Daphnia magna) 42465102 Acceptable 

NOAEC = 111 mg a.i./L 

LOAEC = 200 mg a.i./L 

(based on) 

Estuarine/Marine 

Acute Mollusk (Shell 

deposition) 

Eastern oyster 

(Crassostrea virginica) 41263227 Acceptable EC50 > 108 mg a.i./L 
19 

Study Most Sensitive Test Species MRID Classification Measured Effects 

Saltwater Acute 

Crustacean 

Grass Shrimp 

(Palaemonetes vulgaris) 41263226 Acceptable LC50 > 349 mg a.i./L 

Estuarine/Marine 

Invertebrate Chronic No data available 

Terrestrial Plants 

(Seedling 

Emergence) 

Rapeseed (dicot) 

Sorghum (monocot) 43485801 Supplemental 

Most Sensitive Dicot1

: 

Rapeseed 

IC05 = 0.0000452 lb a.i./A 

IC25 = 0.000188 lb a.i./A 

(based on reduced shoot 

weight) 

Most Sensitive Monocot: 

Sorghum 

IC05 = 0.000568 lb a.i./A 

IC25 = 0.00170 lb a.i./A 

(based on reduced shoot 

weight) 

Terrestrial Plants 

(Vegetative Vigor) 

Radish (dicot) 

Onion (monocot) 42573901 

Supplemental, 

except invalid 

for rapeseed 

Most Sensitive Dicot1

: 

Radish 

NOAEL = 0.00028 lb a.i./A 

IC25 = 0.00027 lb a.i./A 

(based on reduced shoot 

weight) 

Most Sensitive Monocot: 

Onion 

NOAEL = 0.000093 lb a.i./A 

IC25 = 0.00058 lb a.i./A 

(based on reduced shoot 

weight) 

Aquatic Plants NonVascular2

 

Green Algae 

(Pseudokirchneriella 

subcapitata) 

41931743 Acceptable 

IC50 = 3.2 μg a.i./L 

NOAEC = 0.36 μg a.i./L 

(based on 5-day cell density) 

Aquatic Plant 

Vascular 

Duckweed 

(Lemna gibba) 42473104 Acceptable 

IC50 = 3.1 μg a.i./L 

NOAEC = 1.4 μg a.i./L 

(based on 14-day mean fond 

count) 

Open Literature 

Additional toxicity data were located in the open literature using the ECOTOXicology database. 

A listing of the open literature studies which were considered in this assessment is provided in 

Appendix B. 

The only study from the open literature that yielded a lower toxicity value than did the 

comparable toxicity studies submitted by the pesticide registrant was a phytotoxicity study with 

the wild radish (Raphanus raphanistrum) (Madafiglio et al., 2000). This study determined effect 

dose at 50% inhibition (ED50) values for effects of flumetsulam to this plant species at various 

temperatures. The results for the test conducted at 20oC was slightly more sensitive than the 

result obtained for the most sensitive species in the vegetative vigor study. However, as the 
20 

study authors noted, there is great uncertainty with this ED50 estimate because the value was 

extrapolated well beyond the range of the tested doses. Because of the uncertainty in this result, 

it was not used in the quantitative risk assessment for terrestrial plants. 

E. Analysis Plan and Conceptual Models

1. Measures to Evaluate Risk Hypotheses

In the case of flumetsulam, measures of exposure are based on terrestrial and aquatic exposure 

models that estimate environmental concentrations of flumetsulam using maximum labeled 

application rates. The T-REX model (version 1.5.2, 6/6/2013) was used to produce terrestrial 

EECs on wildlife food items. The PRZM and EXAMS models (see Section III A. 1) are used to 

produce aquatic EECs. The TerrPlant and AgDRIFT models are used to estimate exposure to 

nontarget plants. For more information on EPA’s models, visit 

http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/science/models_db.htm. 

Measures of effect are obtained from a suite of studies conducted with a limited number of 

surrogate species. The lowest toxicity endpoints for the most sensitive surrogate test species are 

used to estimate treatment-related effects on growth, reproduction and/or survival. 

2. Conceptual Model 

The potential exposure pathways and effects of flumetsulam are depicted for aquatic 

environments in Figure 2 and for terrestrial environments in Figure 3. Solid lines indicate 

significant routes of exposure, whereas dashed lines denote exposure routes not assessed due to 

the likelihood of low potential exposure. Likely significant exposure pathways to both aquatic 

and terrestrial organisms include direct application, spray drift, runoff, and leaching to 

groundwater. Nontarget plants are expected to be exposed to flumetsulam from direct foliar 

exposure, from spray drift, and from uptake of flumetsulam from the roots, and in the case of 

aquatic plants, from absorption from the ambient water. Terrestrial animals are expected to be 

exposed primarily from consumption of contaminated plants and animals that were directly 

sprayed, drinking of contaminated water, and dermal contact to contaminated soil and 

vegetation. Aquatic animals are expected to be exposed primarily from exposure to 

contaminated water. Because of the low potential to accumulate in animal tissue, secondary 

exposure to aquatic and terrestrial animals is expected to be minimal. Because of flumetsulam’s 

high solubility and low binding potential, exposure to bound residues in soil and sediment is 

expected to be minimal. Finally, due to the low volatility and low Henry’s Law Constant of 

flumetsulam, exposure from inhalation is not expected to be significant. 
Stressor 

Source 

Exposure 

Media 

Receptors Uptake/gills 

or integument 

l 

quatic animals 

nvertebrates 

ertebrates 

Attribute 

Change 

ndividual organism 

educed survival 

educed growth 

educed reproduction 

,_ ......... -.. -..... -.... - Wetldry deposition .............. _; 

Food chain 

Reduction in algae and 

vascular plants 

Reduction in prey 

Modification of PCEs 

related to prey availability 

Riparian plants 

terrestrial 

exposure 

pathways see 

F~ure 3 

itat integrity 

eduction in primary produ · · 

educed cover 

mmuoity change 

edification of PCEs related to 

habitat 

Figure 2. Conceptual model depicting stressors, exposure pathw!lys, and potential effects to 

aquatic animals and plants from the use of flumetsulam. 

21 
Stressor 

Source 

Flutnetsulam 

Application 

~ ~ 

Exposure Media 

& Receptors ~ 

l 

Attribute 

Change 

Terrestrial plants 

grasses/forbs, fruit, seeds 

(trees, shrubs) 

-Root uptake/contact l 

l 

........................................ Wet/dry deposition._; 

L-----....----_...---.-.lngestion 

ndivfdual organisms 

educed survival 

educed growth 

educed reproduction 

Food chain 

Reduction in prey and food 

Modification of PCEs 

related to prey availability 

abitat integrity 

eduction in primary productivity 

educed cover 

ommunity change 

edification of PCEs related 

to habitat 

Figure 3. Conceptual model depicting stressors, exposure pathways, and potential effects to 

terrestrial animals and plants from the use of flumetsulam. 

3. Risk Hypothesis 

A risk hypothesis describes the predicted relationship among the stressor, exposure, and 

assessment endpoint response along with the rationale for their selection. For flumetsulam, the 

following ecological risk hypothesis is being employed for this national-level ecological risk 

assessment: 

Flumetsulam, when used in accordance with current labels, may result in contamination 

of ecosystems and adverse effects upon the survival, growth, and reproduction of nontarget terrestrial and aquatic organisms. including organisms that are federally-listed as 

threatened and endangered species. 

22 
23 

This risk assessment focuses on exposures and potential effects from exposure to flumetsulam as 

the sole stressor. Currently, there are ongoing efforts between EPA, FWS, and NMFS, who are 

working together to develop methods to assess possible effects of mixture components 

quantitatively, or qualitatively, if data are available to speak to the potential modification of 

toxicity of the active ingredient(s), or the sensitivity of the receptor organism. A risk hypothesis 

describes the predicted relationship among the stressor, exposure, and assessment endpoint 

response along with the rationale for their selection. For flumetsulam, the following ecological 

risk hypothesis is being employed for this national-level ecological risk assessment: 

Flumetsulam, when used in accordance with current labels, may result in contamination 

of ecosystems and adverse effects upon the survival, growth, and reproduction of nontarget terrestrial and aquatic organisms, including organisms that are federally-listed as 

threatened and endangered species. 

 
24 

III. ANALYSIS 

A. Measures of Exposure 

1. Environmental Fate and Modeling Input Parameters

Physical/Chemical and Environmental Fate Properties 

The physical/chemical properties and environmental fate properties of flumetsulam are listed in 

Table 6. 

Table 6. Physical/chemical Properties and Environmental Fate Properties of Flumetsulam. 

PARAMETER VALUE(S) SOURCE (Study 

Acceptability 

Classification)a

COMMENTS 

Molecular Structure 

Chemical Name (common) Flumetsulam 

CAS Number 98967-40-9 

Name CAS: 

N-(2,6-difluorophenylsulphamoyl)-5-methyl(1,2,4)-

Triazolo(1,5-a)pyrimidine 

IUPAC: 

2′,6′-difluoro-5-methyl[1,2,4]triazolo[1,5-a]pyrimidine-2-

sulfonanilide 

Chemical Class Triazolopyrimidine herbicide 

Sulfonanilide herbicide 

http://www.alanwood.net/pestici

des/flumetsulam.html 

Molecular Formula C12H9F2N5O2S - 

Molecular Weight 325.3 41931731b 

Solubility 

in water (25 o

C) 

5650 mg/L @ pH 7.0 (25 °

C) 

 

42512501b, 41931731b 

Vapor Pressure (25oC) 2.8 x 10-15 mmHg (25 °C) 41931731b Extrapolated by registrant from 

100°C 

Henry’s Law Constant 

(25 oC) 

6.14e-15 atm-m3

/mol @25°C Calculated Not volatile 

Hydrolysis Half-life @ pH7 

(25 o

C) 

Stable 41263229 (a) 
25 

PARAMETER VALUE(S) SOURCE (Study 

Acceptability 

Classification)a

COMMENTS 

Aqueous Photolysis 

Half-life (pH 4) 

Stable 41931726, 41931727 (a) 

Aerobic Soil Metabolism Halflife (ASM) (T1/2) 

 23, 60, 93, 102 days 

[range 13 to 130 days; mean = 

51.0 days] 

41263230(a), 41931731, 

41931732, 41290403 

T1/2 23, 60, 93, 102 days; mean = 

69,5 days (MRID 41263230). 

Anaerobic Aquatic Soil 

Metabolism 183 days 41931733 (a) 

Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism 

Half-life (days) 

1762 [14C-pyrimidine ring] days

 1319 [14C-analine ring] days

43592203 (a) 

Soil Partition Coefficient (Kd) 

(mL/g) 

0.95, 0.46, 0.05, 0.09, 0.19, 0.19, 

0.56, 0.91, 0.52, 0.15, 0.73, 0.47, 

0.19, 0.48, 1.05, 0.19, 0.22, 0.14, 

0.51, 0.79, 0.89, 1.00,0.50 

41263231, 41290403, 

41931734 (a) 

Aged leaching

42512501(s) 

Very mobile 

Organic Carbon Partition 

Coefficient (Koc) (mL/goc) 

42, 24, 21, 5, 31, 18, 32, 71, 13, 

47, 24, 10, 21, 74, 13, 10, 17, 

10, 38, 39, 24, 15 

41263231, 41290403, 

41931734 (a) 

Aged leaching

42512501 (s) 

Log Octanol/water partition 

coefficient (Kow )(25◦

C) 

Log Kow = 0.21 @ pH 7 42512501 

Terrestrial Field Dissipation 

Half-life 

1.5 to 3 months 41931735 (a) 

Bioconcentration Factor (BCF) 

in fish 

No data - BCF study not triggered because 

Kow is <<< 1000 

pKa (acid dissociation constant) 4.6 41931731b 

a

 Study classification (a) = acceptable study ; (s) = supplemental study 

The average aerobic soil metabolism (ASM) half-life for the four soils in the submitted study 

(MRID 41263230) was 69.5 days with soil pH values ranging from 5.9 to 7.1 and OC content 

ranging from 0.6 to 4.2%. The major route of dissipation for flumetsulam is believed to be 

metabolism in aerobic soils, where metabolism half-lives ranged from 13 days in sandy loam to 

130 days in loam soil. Metabolites were less than 10% of applied radioactivity and were not 

identified. 

Terrestrial field dissipation (TFD) studies were conducted at four locations: Midland, MI, 

Geneseo, IL, Wayside, MS, and Burdette, MS, in the US soybean/corn growing areas during 

1987 and 1988 (MRID 41931735). Based on these studies, minimal leaching (<5 ppb of total 

applied to 18” layer) of flumetsulam was noted, despite ample rainfall during the first growing 

season. In well-drained low organic matter soil with rainfall shortly after application, some 

movement into the deep layer soil profile was seen (<10 ppb in the 12-18” layer after 2 weeks). 

The low mobility of flumetsulam in the field compared to the laboratory adsorption/desorption 

studies could be explained by the fact that these laboratory studies only take into account surface 

adsorption as one of the soil retention processes. Other processes such as entrapment in humus 
26 

or clay interlayers, or covalent bonding to humus may retain large quantities of a chemical, but 

were not included in the determination of Koc values in the adsorption/desorption studies. This is 

more evident in the aged leaching study during which flumetsulam is in contact with the soil 

long enough to undergo other soil processes in addition to soil surface adsorption. The Kd-ads

values in these studies are much higher, ranging from 0.9 for sandy loam soil to 1.1 ml/g for silt 

loam. The soil retention of flumetsulam (MRID 41931734), as indicated by the 

adsorption/desorption studies, does not seem to be strongly dependent on any of the major 

properties of the tested soils, as would be expected from a chemical with a pKa value of 4.6. The 

measured Kds tended to be greater (average 0.69 mL/g) at pH values ≤7.1 then at pH values ≥7.4 

(0.23 mL/g). Sorption was also weakly correlated with soil organic carbon content (p=0.055). 

The Kd values range from 0.05 to 1.05 mL/g and Koc values range from 5 to 74 mL/goc which 

categorizes flumetsulam as mobile to highly mobile1

. The low vapor pressure and Henry’s Law 

constant of flumetsulam suggest that it will not volatilize appreciably from soil or surface water. 

While flumetsulam is more soluble in neutral waters than in acidic water, it is very resistant to 

abiotic reactions (stable to hydrolysis, as well as photolysis in water and on soil). Flumetsulam 

degrades to CO2 with no significant accumulation of intermediate degradates, except for reduced 

flumetsulam hydrate [N-(2,6 difluorophenyl)-4,5,6,7-tetrahydro-5-hydroxy-5-methyl-(1,2,4)-

triazolo(1,5-a)pyrimidine-2-sulfonamide], formed in the anaerobic aquatic study. Oxidation will 

cause a transformation back to flumetsulam. Flumetsulam hydrate accounted for 52% of the total 

applied radiation at day 360, and degraded with a half life of about 180 days. However, this 

degradate was found to accumulate less (max of <8% of total applied radiation) and degrade 

more quickly (t1⁄2 about 2 days) in a weakly anaerobic test system that became progressively more 

anaerobic with time. Flumetsulam degraded more slowly in aerobic aquatic systems compared to 

anaerobic aquatic conditions. No degradation products were identified. Calculated pseudo-first 

order half-lives were 1762 and 1319 days for the 14C-pyrimidine and 14C-analine labels, 

respectively. 

Since flumetsulam does not rapidly metabolize when in contact with soils and does not bind 

strongly to soil surfaces, there is a potential for runoff from application sites to adjacent surface 

waters. Persistence in water indicates that flumetsulam may persist long enough to present some 

concern to surface water and ground water resources. Volatilization is not expected to be a major 

route of dissipation from either water or soil for flumetsulam. 

 

Aquatic Modeling Input Parameters 

Potential aquatic exposures were estimated using the Pesticide Root Zone Model (version 3.12.3, 

6/2006) and Exposure Analysis Modeling System (version 2.98.04.06, 4/2005) 

(PRZM/EXAMS), linked with the pe5.pl input shell (11/2006). PRZM simulates fate and 

transport of pesticides on the agricultural field and EXAMS simulates the fate and resulting daily 

concentrations of pesticides that reach an adjacent water body through runoff, erosion, and spray 

drift. Simulations are based on crop-specific scenarios developed to represent environmental 

conditions at sites at high runoff-vulnerability for pesticide transport to surface waters from a 

particular crop. Exposure is estimated using a standard pond scenario based on a10-ha field 

bordering a 1-ha water body, 2-m deep (20,000 m3

) with no outlet. Using appropriate scenarios 

 

1

 EFED Standardized Soil Mobility Classification Guidance; April 21, 2006 
27 

linked with local meteorological data, the model is run for 30 years with the reported EECs 

representing the values that are expected once every ten years, based on the thirty years of daily 

values generated during the simulation. Additional information about model assumptions and 

uncertainties, input guidance, and scenario metadata are available at the EPA’s water modeling 

website, http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/. The input parameters used in this aquatic 

modeling assessment are selected from the environmental fate data submitted by the registrant 

generally in accordance with water model parameter guidance (Table 6). Three application 

methods were considered: preemergence spray (Chemical Application Method (CAM) = 1), 

postemergence (CAM=2), and impregnated fertilizer (CAM = 1). Pesticide application 

management inputs for PRZM are summarized in Table 7 and spray drift parameters. Ground 

(G) or aerial (A) spray methods were assumed for both the preemergence and postemergence 

applications. 

Table 7. PRZM/EXAMS Input Parameters for Flumetsulam

Model Parameter Value Reference (MRIDs) 

Molecular Weight (g/mole) 325.3 41931734 

Henry’s Law Constant (atm-m3/mol) 2.8 x 10-15 Calculated 

Vapor Pressure (torr) 2.8 x 10-15 (25°C) 41931735 

Solubility (mg/L) 5650 @ pH7 (25°C) 41931734 

Aqueous Photolysis Half-life 

[t1⁄2](days)a stable 41931726, 41931727

Hydrolysis [t1⁄2] @ pH 7 (days) stable 41263229

Aerobic Soil Half-life [t1⁄2] (days) 98.9 

T1/2 :23, 60, 93, 102 days (MRID 41263230).

Aerobic Aquatic Half-life [t1⁄2] (days) 

 

Mean = 1540 

90% upper bound = 

2222.3 

43592203`

Anaerobic Aquatic Half-life [t1⁄2](days) 549 (3 x 183 days) 41931733 [t1⁄2 =183 days highly anaerobic 

conditions] 

Organic Carbon Partition 

Coefficient (Koc) (mL/goc) 27.23 41263231, 41290403, 41931734 [Average Koc, 

n =22 see Table 6

Input Parameter Value and Unit

Chemical Application Method (CAM) Aerial and Ground Applications

CAM = 1 soil applied/broadcast 

CAM = 2 linear foliar based on crop canopy 

Application Efficiency Aerial Applications = 0.95 

Ground Applications = 0.99 

Impregnated Fertilizer = 1.00 

Spray Drift Fraction [for Ecological 

Risk Assessment] 

Aerial Applications = 0.05 

Ground Applications = 0.01 

Impregnated Fertilizer = 0.0 

Some uncertainties exist in choosing input parameters. The aerobic soil metabolism half-life 

value used was the 90 percent upper bound estimated of the mean (98.9 days), the 90 percent 

upper bound estimate of all soils is 59.4 day). A variation from standard input guidance is that 

the numeric average for the aerobic aquatic half-life (1540 days) was used for modeling in place 

of the 90 percent upper bound of the mean (2222 days), because considerable uncertainty exists 

for estimating half-lives which are 3 to 4 times longer than the study duration. However, aerobic 
28 

aquatic metabolism half-life values this long were observed to have little influence on the 

PRZM/EXAMS estimated flumetsulam concentrations. 

Monitoring Data 

The registrant previously submitted a small scale prospective groundwater monitoring studies 

were conducted in corn and soybean growing areas in Indiana (MRID 44451301) and North 

Carolina (MRID 44451302). The study sites would be considered as hydrologically vulnerable 

due to the depth to the water table and soil/vadose zone material. Both studies were conducted at 

sites where water table depths of ranged between 10 and 17 feet below ground surface (bgs) at 

the Indiana (1436 day study) site and 8 to 18 feet bgs at the North Carolina (1420 day study) site. 

Average water depths for the two studies were approximately 13 feet below land surface. 

Irrigation was applied during the studies. Soil and vadose zone textures tended to range from 

sandy loam to sand. Soil was sampled and analyzed as were water samples collected from 

suction lysimeters (within treated area) and groundwater monitoring wells (up-gradient and 

down-gradient wells outside treated area). Soil samples are limited for assessing the mobility of 

flumetsulam in soil due to relatively high detection limits and sampling increments. At the 

Indiana site, trace levels of flumetsulam were detected in soil pore water. Three of the four 

down-gradient monitoring wells had detections of <0.05 to 0.10 μg/L (18 to 47 months after 

treatment (MAT)). At the NC site, flumetsulam moved to the 3-foot depth along with the 

bromide tracer. Maximum concentrations were detected at 6-, 9-, and 12-ft soil water depth were 

about 0.26 ppb (3-MAT), 0.28 ppb (3-MAT), and 0.13 ppb (4-MAT), respectively. Flumetsulam 

was less than the LOD (<0.025 ppb) in soil water samples collected from below 3-ft by 17-MAT. 

Flumetsulam was detected in groundwater at the NC site on 0-DAT (maximum concentration 

0.114 μg/L) in two wells. No other detections were noted. 

Other Monitoring Studies 

Surface and ground water data from available pesticide monitoring programs were reviewed to 

provide additional context concerning the potential presence of flumetsulam in ambient water 

resources. These water monitoring programs do not target sample collection to peak use 

locations or application times for particular pesticides, nor do they target sample collection to 

high precipitation events (i.e., high-runoff events) or areas highly vulnerable to groundwater 

contamination. Additionally, the sampling frequency in these monitoring programs was not 

designed to capture peak concentrations. Therefore, the monitoring data reported by these 

programs may not represent the highest concentrations in ambient surface water, and are 

considered qualitative information for the purposes of this ecological risk assessment. The 

groundwater monitoring studies also were not selected based upon flumetsulam use. 

U.S. Geological Survey surface water monitoring data are available for flumetsulam (see 

http://co.water.usgs.gov/midconherb/html/sulfonylurea.html). In 1998, 214 water samples were 

collected during post-application runoff events at 76 surface-water and 25 ground-water sites. 

Flumetsulam was detected in 65% of the stream samples, making it the second most frequently 

detected pesticide (out of a total of 16). Flumetsulam (method reporting limit MRL = 0.010 

μg/L) was also detected in 57% of the reservoir samples and in 12% of well-water samples (3 out 

of 25). All flumetsulam detections were below 1 μg/L. It should be noted that is no indication 

that these monitoring data were intended for the high use area of this herbicide or that the 
29 

sampling scheme was designed to capture the peak run off concentration during the high use 

periods. Therefore, the data are presented here for informational purposes only, and were not 

used quantitatively in the assessment.

USGS-EPA Pilot Reservoir Monitoring Program – A pilot reservoir monitoring project was 

initiated by the USEPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Fate and Effects Division 

(EFED/OPP), USEPA’s Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water (OGWDW/OW), and 

USGS National Water Quality Assessment (USGS/NAWQA) to assess pesticide concentrations 

in raw and finished drinking water (Blomquist et al. 20012). Reservoirs were sampled because 

they are important sources of drinking water and because they store runoff water and pesticide 

loadings within their watersheds. 

In this study, twelve water-supply reservoirs and Community Water Systems (CWS) were 

selected based on vulnerability for pesticide contamination. Small watersheds with high pesticide 

use and high runoff potential were given the highest priority in the selection process. Other 

factors considered were representation across pesticide use areas, integration with ongoing 

monitoring efforts, and feasibility of monitoring. These sites were not specifically targeted to 

flumetsulam use areas. Flumetsulam was detected in about 3 percent of the raw-intake water 

samples with a maximum concentration of 0.09 μg/L (Table 8). 

Table 8. Flumetsulam detections in USGS EPA Pilot Reservoir Monitoring Program. 

Water Source # Detections/#Samples Detection Frequency (%) Maximum Concentration (μg/L) 

Raw Water-Intake 9/312 2.9 0.088 

Finished Water-Tap 4/225 1.8 0.087 

California Surface Water Monitoring Program Data - There were no flumetsulam detections 

(with LOD of 0.011 to 0.0866 μg/L) in the California surface water monitoring program’s 

database for the period October 2001 to July 2010(current to April 2013). California Surface 

Water Monitoring Program data are available at 

http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/emon/surfwtr/surfdata.htm. 

Groundwater - There were no detections (with LOD 0.05 μg/L) of flumetsulam in 745 well 

sampled (36 counties) in California (CDPR, 2013). 

USGS National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program Data – Flumetsulam is included 

as an analyte in the USGS NAWQA monitoring program (Table 9). NAWQA program data are 

available at http://infotrek.er.usgs.gov/apex/f?p=NAWQA:HOME:0. Maximum detection in 

surface water was 1.1 μg/L and in groundwater 0.051 μg/L with a MDL of 0.011 to 0.0866 μg/L. 

Table 9. Summary Groundwater and Surface Water Monitoring Data for Flumetsulam in the 

NAWQA database groundwater and surface water. 

 

2

 Blomquist, J.D., J.M. Denis, J.L. Cowles, J.A. Hetrick, R.D. Jones, N.B. Birchfield. 2001. Pesticides in Selected Water-Supply

Reservoirs and Finished Drinking Water, 1999-2000; Summary of Results from a Pilot Monitoring Program. Open-File Report 

01-456. U.S. Geological Survey. Baltimore, MD. 
30 

Water Type Number of Samples Number of Detections Range of Detections (μg/L) 

Groundwater 2246 17 0.0031 to 0.0509 

Surface Water 2769 62 0.0034 to 1.0828 

USDA Pesticide Data Program (PDP) Data - The PDP drinking water monitoring project 

provides non-targeted pesticide occurrence data in raw, finished (treated/tap), and groundwater 

for selected community water systems in the United States. The flumetsulam water monitoring 

data from 2003 to 2011 PDP are summarized in Table 10. Detections tended to be in the part per 

trillion (ppt or ng/L) or low ppb (μg/L) levels. PDP data are available at 

http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/pdp. 

Table 10. Flumetsulam detections in the USDA PDP Database. 

Water Source Year # of samples # Samples 

with detects 

% of sample 

with detect 

Range of Values 

detected 

(ppt) 

Range of 

LODb

(ppt) 

Drinking water 2003 321 9 2.8 6.0-200 

Finished 2004 233 - - - 6.0-196 

Unfinished 2004 233 1 0.4 24^ 6.0-196 

Drinking water 2005 662 - - 10^

Finished 2005 230 4 1.7 10^ 6-129 

Unfinished 2005 231 7 3.0 10^ 6-129 

Finished 2006 365 - - - 6-129 

Unfinished 2006 367 - - - 6-129 

Finished 2007 368 - - - 6.0-128 

Unfinished 2007 362 - - - 6.0-128 

Groundwater 2010 14 - - - 6.0^

Finished 2010 284 1 0.4 33^ 6.0-20 

Unfinished 2010 282 1 0.4 33^ 6.0-20 

Groundwater residence 2011 232 1 0.4 15.5^ 8.6-20 

Groundwater school/daycare 2011 372 - - - 8.6-20 

Finished 2011 118 2 1.7 23-25 6.0^

Unfinished 2011 120 2 1.7 10^ 6.0^

^ 1 distinct detected concentration or LOD was reported for the pair. 

b

 LOD limit of detection 

Terrestrial Modeling and Input Parameters 

Terrestrial exposure estimates for avian and mammalian risk assessments were derived using the 

T-REX model (version 1.5.2, 6/6/2013). To provide a conservative screen of risk to terrestrial 

animals, all runs of T-REX were done for a single application at the maximum annual rate of 

0.07 lb a.i./A, the highest application rate permitted for any use of flumetsulam. Spray 

applications with aerial equipment were assumed. Applications of flumetsulam via impregnation 

of dry bulk fertilizer were modeled as a granular application, and risk was assessed using the 

LD50-per-square-foot index. Because data were not available to estimate the foliar dissipation 

rate of flumetsulam on plants, and because environmental fate data indicate that flumetsulam is 

moderately persistent to persistent in the environment, the default value of 35 days was used as 

the foliar half-life. As only one application was modeled, the peak EEC which is used to 

calculate acute and chronic risk quotients occurs immediately after application. Therefore, the 

selection of the foliar half-life has no effect on the calculated terrestrial EECs or RQs. 
31 

Exposure estimates for terrestrial plants were derived using the TerrPlant model (version 1.2.2, 

12/26/2006). For use on corn and soybean, separate model runs were conducted for aerial and 

ground applications, for pre-emergence and post-emergence applications, and for application as 

impregnated fertilizer. Because of the high solubility of flumetsulam (and the associated high 

mobility), the runoff fraction was set at 0.05. 

Table 11. Input Parameters for T-REX Modeling for All Uses of Flumetsulam 

Input Parameters Value Source 

Single Application Rate 

(lb a.i./A) All Uses: 0.07 Product labels 

Foliar Half-life 35 days Default value1 

Number of Applications 

(Interval between 

Applications, days) 

All Uses: 1 Product labels 

Avian Oral LD50 2,250 mg/kg-bw (bobwhite) MRID 41263218 

Avian Dietary LC50 5620 mg/kg-bw (bobwhite and mallard) MRID 41263219 and 41263220 

Avian NOAEC 300 mg/kg-diet (bobwhite) MRID 41931741 

Mammal LD50 5000 mg/kg-bw (rat) MRID 41263207 

Mammal NOAEC 1000 mg/kg-diet (rat) MRID 41263213 and 41615302 1 The foliar half-life did not influence the prediction of the terrestrial EECs for flumetsulam because only one 

application of flumetsulam is allowed per season, and thus the peak concentration occurs immediately after this 

single application before any dissipation occurs. 

B. Ecological Effects Characterization

1. Aquatic Animals 

The available acute toxicity data on flumetsulam are provided in Table 12. Based on these data, 

flumetsulam is classified as practically nontoxic to all fish aquatic invertebrates on an acute 

toxicity basis. 

Table 12. Acute Toxicity of Flumetsulam to Aquatic Animals 

Taxonomic Group, 

Study Type Surrogate Species Toxicity 

Toxicity 

Classifica

tion 

MRID Acceptability 

Classification 

Fish 

Freshwater fish, 

Acute 

Rainbow Trout 

(Oncorhynchus mykiss) 

96-hr LC50 

>300 mg a.i./L 

Practically 

nontoxic 41263221 Acceptable 

Bluegill Sunfish 

 (Lepomis macrochirus) 

96-hr LC50 

>300 mg a.i./L 

Practically 

nontoxic 41263222 Acceptable 

Fathead Minnow 

(Pimephales promelas) 

96-hr LC50 

>293 mg a.i./L 

Practically 

nontoxic 41263223 Acceptable 

Saltwater, Acute Atlantic silverside 

(Menidia menidia) 

96-hr LC50 

>380 mg a.i./L 

Practically 

nontoxic 41263225 Acceptable 

Aquatic Invertebrates 

Freshwater 

Invertebrates, 

Acute 

Water flea 

(Daphnia magna) 

48-hr EC50 = 254 mg 

ai/L 

Practically 

nontoxic 41263224 Acceptable 

Saltwater Acute Grass Shrimp LC50 > 349 mg a.i./L Practically 41263226 Acceptable 
32 

Taxonomic Group, 

Study Type Surrogate Species Toxicity 

Toxicity 

Classifica

tion 

MRID Acceptability 

Classification 

Crustacean (Palaemonetes 

vulgaris) 

nontoxic 

Saltwater Acute 

Mollusk (Shell 

deposition) 

Eastern oyster 

(Crassostrea virginica) EC50 > 108 mg a.i./L Practically 

nontoxic 41263227 Acceptable 

Two chronic aquatic toxicity tests are available for flumetsulam, a fish early life-stage study with 

a freshwater fish and a life-cycle study with a waterflea (Table 13). These studies indicate that 

aquatic animals can tolerate high concentrations of flumetsulam (above those which are 

environmentally relevant for the registered herbicidal uses), with little or no toxic effects on 

growth or reproduction. 

Table 13. Chronic Toxicity of Flumetsulam to Aquatic Animals 

Taxonomic Group, 

Study Type Surrogate Species Toxicity Citation MRID 

Acceptability 

Classification 

Fish 

Freshwater Fish, 

Early Life-Stage 

Fathead minnow 

(Pimephales promelas) 

NOAEC: 197 mg ai/L 

LOAEC: >197 mg ai/L 

(No toxic effects observed) 

MRID 

42465101 Acceptable 

Freshwater Invertebrates 

Freshwater 

Invertebrates, 

Life-Cycle 

Water flea 

 (Daphnia magna) 

NOAEC: 111 mg ai/L 

LOAEC: 200 mg ai/L 

(Based on 17% reduction of 

body weight) 

MRID 

42465102 Acceptable 

2. Aquatic Plants 

Data on the toxicity of flumetsulam on aquatic plants are available for green algae, 

cyanobacterium (i.e., bluegreen algae), freshwater and saltwater diatoms, and a duckweed (Table 

14). The green alga Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata and the duckweed Lemna gibba were the 

most sensitive species tested, both with IC50 values slightly greater than 3 μg a.i./L. 

Cyanobacteria was somewhat less sensitive (IC50 160 μg/L) to flumetsulam, while diatoms were 

much less sensitive (IC50 42-54 mg/L). 

Studies conducted in China for the purpose of screening large number of pesticides for toxicity 

to algae provided additional data on the toxicity of flumetsulam to various species of green algae 

(Ma and Liang, 2001; Ma et. al., 2002; Ma et. al., 2004 ; Ma et. al., 2006). All of these papers 

published results from screening tests involving numerous herbicides. Very little information 

was given on individual tests. For example, the test concentrations used in the tests with 

flumetsulam were not given. The studies used spectrophotometry (optical density at 680 nm) to 

estimate cell density. The accuracy of this method was not verified. Cell growth was measured 

after 4 days of exposure, whereas the OCSPP guidelines specify at least 5 days of exposure. 

Finally, the studies used an unapproved method for estimation of IC50 values (linear regression 

of percentages of inhibition against the natural log of concentrations). Because of these 
33 

deficiencies, the EPA has low confidence in these reported IC50 values, which were considerably 

higher than the IC50 obtained from an OCSPP guideline study with green algae (MRID 

41931743). The EPA has classified these papers as “qualitative,” signifying that the results 

should not be used for quantitative risk assessments. 

Table 14. Acute Toxicity Values of Flumetsulam to Aquatic Plants 

Taxonomic 

Group, Study 

Type 

Surrogate Species Toxicity Citation 

MRID 

Acceptability 

Classification 

Algae, Growth and 

Reproduction 

Green algae 

(Pseudokirchneriella 

subcapitata) 

5-d IC50 = 3.21 μg a.i./L 

NOAEC = 0.36 μg a.i./L 

(based on 5-day cell 

density) 

MRID 41931743 Acceptable 

Freshwater diatom 

(Navicula pelliculosa) 

5-d IC50 = 41.6 mg a.i./L 

NOAEC = 21.8 mg a.i./L 

(based on 5-day cell 

density) 

MRID 42473103 Acceptable 

Saltwater diatom 

(Skelatonema costatum) 

5-d IC50 = 54.7 mg a.i./L 

NOAEC = 29.5 mg a.i./L 

(based on 5-day cell 

density) 

MRID 42473102 Acceptable 

Cyanobacteria, 

Growth and 

Reproduction 

Bluegreen Algae 

(Anabaena flos-aquae) 

5-d IC50 = 160 μg a.i./L 

LOAEC = 120 μg a.i./L 

NOAEC = 120 μg a.i./L 

MRID 42473101 Acceptable 

Vascular Aquatic 

Plants 

Duckweed 

(Lemna gibba) 

14-d IC50 = 3.1μg/L 

NOAEC: 1.4 μg/L 

LOAEC: 3.9 μg/L 

MRID 42473104 Acceptable 

3. Terrestrial Animals 

Table 15 presents the acute toxicity data that the Agency used to assess the risk of flumetsulam 

to terrestrial animals and plants. These studies indicate that flumetsulam has low acute toxicity 

to all taxa of terrestrial animals. Acute oral and subacute dietary studies with the northern 

bobwhite and mallard all classify flumetsulam as practically nontoxic to birds. Birds act as 

surrogates for reptiles and terrestrial-phase amphibians when data on those species are not 

available. Acute toxicity studies with the rat also classify flumetsulam as practically nontoxic to 

mammals. Studies on dermal and inhalation toxicity in mammals found no mortality at the doses 

tested, indicating low acute toxicity through these exposure routes. Finally, an acute contact 

study with the honey bee classifies flumetsulam as practically nontoxic to bees. 

Table 15. Acute Toxicity of Flumetsulam to Terrestrial Species 

Taxonomic 

Group, 

Study Type 

Surrogate Species Toxicity 

(expressed as AI) 

Citation 

MRID 

Acceptability 

Classification 

Birds1 

Birds1, Acute Oral Bobwhite quail 

(Colinus virginianus) LD50 > 2250 mg a.i./kg-bw MRID 

4126318 Acceptable 
34 

Taxonomic 

Group, 

Study Type 

Surrogate Species Toxicity 

(expressed as AI) 

Citation 

MRID 

Acceptability 

Classification 

Birds1, Subacute 

Dietary 

Bobwhite quail 

(Colinus virginianus) LC50 > 5620 mg/kg-diet MRID 41263220 Acceptable 

Mallard 

(Anas platyrhynchos) LC50 > 5620 mg/kg-diet MRID 

41263219 Acceptable 

Mammals 

Mammals, Acute 

Oral 

Laboratory rat 

(Rattus norvegicus) LD50 > 5000 mg a.i./kg-bw MRID 41263207 Acceptable 

Mammals, Acute 

Inhalation 

(4-hr exposure) 

Female laboratory rat 

(Rattus norvegicus) LC50 > 0.6 mg a.i./L MRID 41556502 Acceptable 

(Minimal) 

Mammals, Acute 

Dermal New Zealand Rabbit LC50 > 2000 mg a.i./kg-bw MRID 41263208 Acceptable 

Beneficial Insects 

Bee, acute contact Honey bee 

(Apis mellifera) 

LD50 

 > 100 μg a.i./bee MRID 41263228 Acceptable 

1. Birds represent surrogates for terrestrial-phase amphibians and reptiles. 

Table 16 provides results of chronic toxicity tests conducted with birds and mammals. The 

northern bobwhite was the most sensitive avian test species. A dietary concentration of 600 mg 

a.i./kg significantly reduced the survival of embryos and hatchlings, establishing the NOAEC at 

300 mg a.i./L. For mammals, dietary concentrations up to 1000 mg a.i./kg diet resulted in no 

frank effects that are clearly related to reproduction or survival. The NOAEC for frank effects is 

thus ≥1000 mg a.i./kg diet. If all sublethal effects were considered, the mammalian NOAEC 

would be 500 mg a.i./kg diet, based on an increase of cecal weights at 1000 mg a.i./kg diet. 

Table 16. Chronic Toxicity of Flumetsulam to Terrestrial Animals 

Taxonomic 

Group, 

Study Type 

Surrogate Species Toxicity 

(expressed as AI) 

Citation 

MRID 

Acceptability 

Classification 

Birds1, 

Reproduction 

Northern bobwhite 

(Colinus virginianus) 

NOAEC: 300 mg a.i./kg-diet 

LOAEC: 600 mg a.i./kg-diet 

(based on reduced survival of 

embryos and hatchlings)

MRID 

41931741 Acceptable 

Mallard 

(Anas platyrhynchos) 

NOAEC: 600 mg a.i./kg-diet 

LOAEC: >600 mg a.i./kgdiet 

MRID 

41931742 Acceptable 

Mammals, 2-

Generation 

Reproduction 

Laboratory rat 

(Rattus norvegicus) 

NOAEC: 1000 mg/kg diet 

LOAEC: >1000 mg/kg diet 

(no adverse effects observed) 

MRID 41931710 

+ 42474001 

Acceptable, 

Minimum 

Mammal, 

Developmental 

Female laboratory rat 

(Rattus norvegicus) 

Frank effects: 

NOAEC: 1000 mg/kg diet 

LOAEC: >1000 mg/kg diet 

(no adverse effects observed) 

Other effects: 

NOAEC: 500 mg/kg diet 

LOAEC: 1000 mg/kg diet 

(increased cecal weights) 

MRID 41263213 

+ 41615302 

Acceptable, 

Minimum 

1. Birds represent surrogates for terrestrial-phase amphibians and reptiles. 
35 

Taxonomic 

Group, 

Study Type 

Surrogate Species Toxicity 

(expressed as AI) 

Citation 

MRID 

Acceptability 

Classification 

4. Terrestrial Plants 

Results of Tier II terrestrial plant toxicity tests with flumetsulam are summarized in Table 17. 

Flumetsulam is highly toxic to terrestrial plants. Phytotoxicity was observed to both monocot and 

dicot plants at low exposure levels in both the seedling emergence and the vegetative vigor tests. 

The most sensitive toxicity measure in a monocot plant was the reduction of shoot weight in 

onion in a vegetative vigor test (NOAEL = 0.000093 lb a.i./A, IC25 = 0.00058 lb a.i./A, MRID 

42573901). The most sensitive toxicity measure in a dicot plant was the reduction of shoot 

weight in rapeseed in a seedling emergence test (IC05 = 0.00019 lb a.i./A, IC25 = 0.000045 lb 

a.i./A, MRID 43485801). 

Table 17. Toxicity of Flumetsulam to Terrestrial Plants 

Taxonomic 

Group, 

Study Type 

Surrogate Species Toxicity 

(expressed as AI) 

Citation 

MRID 

Acceptability 

Classification 

Terrestrial Plants 

(Seedling 

Emergence) 

Monocots 

(Corn) 

NOAEL = 0.0225 lb a.i./A 

LOAEL = 0.0674 lb a.i./A 

IC25 > 0.00197 lb a.i./A 

(Based on reduced plant 

weight) 

42573901 

Supplemental, 

except Invalid 

for rapeseed 

Dicots 

(Cucumber) 

NOAEL = 0.0075 lb a.i./A 

LOAEL = 0.0225 lb a.i./A 

IC25 = 0.00135 lb a.i./A 

(based on reduced plant height) 

42573901 

Supplemental, 

except Invalid 

for rapeseed 

Terrestrial Plants 

(Seedling 

Emergence Data 

from a NonGuideline Study) 

Monocots 

(Sorghum) 

IC25: 0.00170 lb a.i./A 

IC05: 0.000568 lb a.i./A1 

(based on reduced shoot 

weight) 

43485801 Supplemental2

Dicots 

(Rapeseed) 

IC25: 0.000188 lb a.i./A 

IC05: 0.0000452 lb a.i./A1 

(based on reduced plant 

weight) 

43485801 Supplemental2

Terrestrial Plants 

(Vegetative 

Vigor) 

Monocots 

(Onion) 

NOAEL = 0.000093 lb a.i./A 

LOAEL = 0.00028 lb a.i./A 

EC25 = 0.00058 lb a.i./A 

(based on reduced shoot weight 

42573901 

Supplemental, 

except invalid 

for rapeseed3 

Dicots 

(Radish) 

NOAEL = 0.00028 lb a.i./A 

LOAEL = 0.00083 lb a.i./A 

EC25 = 0.00027 lb a.i./A 

(based on reduced shoot 

weight) 

42573901 

Supplemental, 

except invalid 

for rapeseed3 

1

. The IC05 is reported in place of the NOAEL because the study report did report the data for this endpoint in 

manner that permitted calculation of the NOAEL. 
36 

2. The study was classified as supplemental because the study report did not provide replicate-level means for 

measurements of shoot weight and shoot length, and therefore the NOAEL and LOAEL could not be determined for 

these endpoints. 

3. The data for rapeseed were invalid because the seeds were treated with three different fungicides. 

Results of phytotoxicity tests with flumetsulam reported in the open literature were reviewed to 

determine if any published result showed greater toxicity (i.e., lower ICx values) than those 

obtained from the studies submitted by the pesticide registrant. The only published study 

reporting greater phytotoxicity was a study on the effects of temperature on the phytotoxic 

response of wild radish (Raphanus raphanistrum) to flumetsulam Madafiglio et al., 2000). The 

study design was generally similar to the vegetative vigor study (Guideline No. 850.4250). 

Young (two-leaf stage) wild radish plants were treated with foliar sprays of flumetsulam 

(Broadstrike® Herbicide) at various application rates, allowed to grow for 13-16 days (until they 

reached the six-leaf stage, and then harvested. The biomass of the plants were measured and 

expressed as a percentage of the mean biomass of control plants. To test the effects of 

temperature, tests were conducted at different ambient temperatures ranging from 1 to 20 oC. The 

study found that toxicity of flumetsulam increased as the temperature increased. Reported IC50

values ranged from 0.0174 lb a.i./A at 1 oC to 0.000178 lb a.i./A at 20 oC. The reported IC50 at 20 

oC (0.000178 lb a.i./A) was lower than the lowest IC25 value reported in the registrant-submitted 

vegetative vigor study (0.00027 lb a.i./A for radish), indicating that this species might be slightly 

more sensitive. However, the study authors note that in the test at 20 oC, all of the doses caused 

greater than 50% reduction in biomass, and consequently the doses were poorly distributed along 

the dose curve for estimating the IC50. Because of this, the estimated IC50 value for the 20 oC is 

considered uncertain, and therefore will not be used as the phytotoxicity endpoint in the 

terrestrial plant RQ calculations, despite being slightly lower than the lowest reported IC25

values. The reported IC50 values for tests at other temperatures were all greater than 0.001 lb 

a.i./A and were greater than the vegetative vigor IC25 value for radish from the registrantsubmitted study. 
37 

IV. RISK ESTIMATION 

A. Exposure Estimates for Non-target Aquatic Animals and Plants 

 

The PRZM and EXAMS models were used to derive estimated environmental concentrations 

(EECs) for exposure to aquatic organisms for use of flumetsulam on corn and soybean with 

various application scenarios. Preemergence application dates were selected to be prior to the 

plant emergence (scenario dependent) and postemergence date was 30 days after the 

preemergence application date. The application rates, reapplication intervals, and date of first 

application are also given. Standard EFED PRZM scenarios3 for Kansas corn (KS corn), 

Mississippi corn (MS corn), California corn (CA corn) and soybeans (MS soybean) were used as 

these were the scenarios [except for CA corn] resulted in the highest concentrations in surface 

runoff; these EECs are presented in Table 18. RQs were then calculated by dividing the 

appropriate EEC by the appropriate acute or chronic assessment endpoints for various taxa of 

aquatic organisms (Table 5). Peak EECs were used to calculate acute RQs, whereas 60-day and 

21-day average EECs were used to calculate chronic RQs for fish and aquatic invertebrates, 

respectively. 

Table 18. Tier II Surface Water Estimated Environmental Concentrations (EECs) for Registered 

Uses of Flumetsulam 

Crop/Application Scenario 

Application 

Rate 

(lb a.i./A) 

Model Scenario 

( Application 

Date: mn-day) 

Peak 

μg/L (ppb)

21-day μg/L 

(ppb)

60-day 

μg/L (ppb)

Corn 

Corn, preplant or preemergence, 

one spray aerial application 0.07 KS-Corn  (5-1) 12.72 12.66 12.57 

Corn, preplant or preemergence, 

one ground spray application 0.07 KS-Corn  (5-1) 11.65 11.61 11.52 

Corn, postemergence, one aerial 

spray application 0.06 KS-Corn 

 (6-1) 9.84 9.80 9.76 

Corn, postemergence, one 

ground spray application 0.06 KS-Corn 

(6-1) 8.80 8.76 8.69 

Corn, application in 

impregnated dry bulk fertilizer 0.065 KS-Corn 

 (6-1) 10.67 10.63 10.55 

Corn, preplant or preemergence, 

one spray aerial application 0.07 MS-Corn 

(3-28) 10.95 10.92 10.84 

Corn, preplant or preemergence, 

one ground spray application 0.07 MS-Corn 

 (3-28) 10.13 10.09 10.03 

Corn, postemergence, one aerial 

spray application 0.06 MS-Corn 

(4-28) 6.67 6.65 6.61 

Corn, postemergence, one 

ground spray application 0.06 MS-Corn 

(4-28) 5.73 5.72 5.70 

Corn, application in 

impregnated dry bulk fertilizer 0.065 MS-Corn 

(3-28) 9.29 9.26 9.20 

Corn, preplant or preemergence, 

one spray aerial application 0.07 CA-Corn 

 (3-31) 4.48 4.47 4.44 

 

3 http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/
38 

Crop/Application Scenario 

Application 

Rate 

(lb a.i./A) 

Model Scenario 

( Application 

Date: mn-day) 

Peak 

μg/L (ppb)

21-day μg/L 

(ppb)

60-day 

μg/L (ppb)

Soybean 

Soybean, preplant or 

preemergence, one aerial spray 

application 

0.07 MS Soybean 

 (3-31) 5.89 5.86 5.82 

Soybean, preplant or 

preemergence, one ground spray 

application 

0.07 MS Soybean 

 (3-31) 4.80 4.78 4.74 

Soybean, postemergence, two 

aerial spray applications, 14 

days between applications 

0.006 (x2) MS Soybean 

 (5-10) 0.917 0.91 0.91 

Soybean, postemergence, one 

ground spray application 0.015 MS Soybean  (5-10) 1.06 1.06 1.05 

Soybean, one ground 

application in impregnated dry 

bulk fertilizer 

0.065 MS Soybean 

 (3-31) 4.24 4.22 4.19 

Risk to fish and aquatic invertebrates was assessed using the conservative assumption of a single 

application at the maximum annual application rate (0.07 lb a.i./A), applied as an aerial spray. 

All acute RQs for both corn and soybean were less than 0.01 (Table 19), and thus were below the 

LOCs for both listed species (0.05) and for nonlisted species (0.5). Chronic toxicity data were 

available for freshwater fish and a freshwater invertebrate, but not for saltwater species. Chronic 

RQs for freshwater species were again less than 0.01, and thus below the LOC for chronic risk to 

listed and nonlisted aquatic species (1). Acute toxicity data indicates that saltwater species are no 

more sensitive to flumetsulam than freshwater species. Therefore, the conclusion of low chronic 

risk to freshwater species is expected to be true for saltwater species as well. 

In conclusion, the risk assessment concludes that use of flumetsulam on corn and soybean does 

not pose acute or chronic risk to fish and aquatic invertebrates, and is not expected to cause 

direct adverse effects to threatened or endangered species of aquatic animals. 

Table 19. Acute and Chronic RQs for Fish and Aquatic Invertebrates 

Crop Application Scenario Taxa RQ 

Acute Chronic1

Corn One aerial application 

at 0.07 lb a.i./A 

Freshwater fish <0.01 <0.01 

Saltwater fish <0.01 ND 

Freshwater Invertebrate <0.01 <0.01 

Saltwater Crustacean <0.01 ND 

Saltwater Mollusk <0.01 ND 

Soybean One aerial application 

at 0.07 lb a.i./A 

Freshwater fish <0.01 <0.01 

Saltwater fish <0.01 ND 

Freshwater Invertebrate <0.01 <0.01 

Saltwater Crustacean <0.01 ND 

Saltwater Mollusk <0.01 ND 

1 ND denotes that no data was available to assess chronic risk to these taxa. 
39 

Flumetsulam is much more toxic to aquatic plants than aquatic animals, and therefore the RQs 

were greater for aquatic plants. RQs for risk to vascular aquatic plants and algae are presented in 

Table 20. For corn, RQs for nonlisted plants ranged from 2.75 to 4.10, and RQs for listed aquatic 

plants ranged from 6.29 to 35.3. RQs for corn exceeded the EPA’s LOC for both listed and 

nonlisted aquatic plants regardless of the application method and timing. For soybean, RQs for 

nonlisted plants ranged from 0.29 to 1.90, and RQs for listed aquatic plants ranged from 0.66 to 

16.4. RQs for soybeans exceeded the EPA’s LOC for nonlisted aquatic plants for preplant/preemergence applications and for applications as impregnated fertilizers, but not for postemergence applications, for which the application rate is much lower. All RQs for soybean 

exceeded the LOC for risk to listed species of aquatic plants except for the vascular plant RQs 

for post-emergence applications. Whether applications were applied aerially or with ground 

equipment had little effect on the RQs. 

In conclusion, this analysis indicates that all uses of flumetsulam pose a risk to nonlisted species 

of vascular plants with the exception of post-emergence applications to soybean. All applications 

except postemergence applications to soybean also potentially may harm threatened and 

endangered species of aquatic plants. Postemergence applications to soybean are predicted to 

potentially harm threatened or endangered species of algae, although currently no algal species is 

listed as such. 

Table 20. RQs for Aquatic Plants and Algae 

Crop Application Scenario Taxa 

RQ1 

Nonlisted 

Species Listed Species 

Corn Pre-emergence, one aerial 

application at 0.07 lb a.i./A 

Vascular plants 4.10 9.09 

Algae 3.98 35.3 

Pre-emergence, one ground 

application at 0.07 lb a.i./A 

Vascular plants 3.76 8.32 

Algae 3.64 32.4 

Postemergence, one aerial 

application at 0.06 lb a.i./A 

Vascular plants 3.17 7.03 

Algae 3.08 27.3 

Postemergence, one 

ground application at 0.06 

lb a.i./A 

Vascular plants 2.84 6.29 

Algae 2.75 24.4 

One ground application as 

impregnated fertilizer at 

0.065 lb a.i./A 

Vascular plants 3.44 7.82 

Algae 3.33 29.6 

Soybean Pre-emergence, one aerial 

application at 0.07 lb a.i./A 

Vascular plants 1.90 4.21 

Algae 1.84 16.4 

Pre-emergence, one ground 

application at 0.07 lb a.i./A 

Vascular plants 1.55 3.43 

Algae 1.50 13.3 

Postemergence, two aerial 

application at 0.006 lb 

a.i./A each, 14 days 

between applications 

Vascular plants 0.30 0.66 

Algae 0.29 2.55 

Postemergence, one 

ground application at 0.015 

lb a.i./A 

Vascular plants 0.34 0.76 

Algae 0.33 2.94 
40 

Crop Application Scenario Taxa 

RQ1 

Nonlisted 

Species Listed Species 

One ground application as 

impregnated fertilizer at 

0.065 lb a.i./A 

Vascular plants 1.37 3.03 

Algae 1.33 11.8 

1 RQs which exceed the EPA’s level of concern for risk to nontarget aquatic plants are shown in bold type. 

B. Non-target Terrestrial Animals 

Terrestrial EECs for dietary-based calculations are given in Table 21, and terrestrial EECs for 

dose-based calculations are given in Table 22. These EECs, which are for use on both corn and 

soybean, are based on a single application of flumetsulam at the maximum rate of 0.07 lb a.i./A. 

Complete output from the T-Rex Model is provided in Appendix D. 

Table 21. Dietary-Based Flumetsulam EEC Values for Use on Corn and Soybean 

Dietary Item Dietary-Based EEC (mg/kg) 

Short Grass 16.8 

Tall Grass 7.70 

Broadleaf Plants 9.45 

Fruits, Pods, and Seeds 1.05 

Arthropods 6.58 

Table 22. Avian and Mammalian Dose-Based Flumetsulam Upper Bound EEC Values 

Application Rate 

(crop) 

Size Class 

(g) 

Avian Dose-Based EECs (mg/kg-bw) 

Dietary Item 

Short Grass Tall Grass Broadleaf 

Plants 

Fruits & 

Pods Arthropods Seeds 

Avian 

One application @ 

0.07 lb a.i./A (corn 

and soybean) 

20 19.1 8.77 10.8 1.20 7.49 0.27 

100 10.9 5.00 6.14 0.68 4.27 0.15 

1000 4.88 2.24 2.75 0.31 1.91 0.07 

Mammalian 

One application @ 

0.07 lb a.i./A (corn 

and soybean) 

15 16.0 7.34 9.01 1.00 6.27 0.22 

35 11.1 5.07 6.23 0.69 4.34 0.15 

1000 2.57 1.18 1.44 0.16 1.01 0.04 

RQs are calculated by dividing the terrestrial EECs by the appropriate acute or chronic toxicity 

endpoint. Since no mortality was observed at any dose level in acute avian toxicity studies, the 

highest test level was used as the estimate of the LD50 and LC50 for the calculations of acute 

RQs. This makes the RQs conservative, but they are appropriate for use as a screen of potential 

acute risk. Table 23 provides acute and chronic risk quotients (RQs) for birds based on dietary 

toxicity studies, and Table 24 provides additional acute RQs based on single-dose oral toxicity 
41 

studies. For use of flumetsulam on corn and soybean, none of the acute RQs were greater than 

0.01. Thus, the analysis shows that acute RQs are below the LOC for risk to birds (0.5) and for 

possible adverse effects to listed species of birds (0.1). Chronic RQs, which are based on the 

definitive NOAEC for the bobwhite quail (300 mg a.i./kg-diet), were no greater than 0.06. Thus, 

chronic RQs were all less than the LOC for chronic risk to listed and nonlisted birds (1.0). As 

birds serve as surrogates for reptiles and terrestrial-phase amphibians, the EPA assumes risk to 

be below the LOC for these taxa as well. 

Table 23. Acute and Chronic Dietary-Based RQs for Birds 

Application Rate 

(crop) Exposure 

Avian Dose-Based RQs 

Dietary Item 

Short Grass Tall Grass Broadleaf 

Plants 

Fruits, 

Pods, & 

Seeds 

Arthropods 

One application @ 

0.07 lb a.i./A (corn 

and soybean) 

Acute <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 

Chronic 0.06 0.03 0.03 <0.01 0.02 

Table 24. Acute Dose-Based RQs for Birds 

Application Rate 

(crop) 

Size Class 

(g) 

Avian Dose-Based RQs 

Dietary Item 

Short Grass Tall Grass Broadleaf 

Plants 

Fruits & 

Pods Seeds Arthropods 

One application @ 

0.07 lb a.i./A (corn 

and soybean) 

20 0.01 0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.01 

100 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 

1000 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 

As with avian acute toxicity tests, no mortality was observed in the acute toxicity study for 

mammals, and thus acute RQs were calculated the using the highest test level as the estimate of 

the mammalian LD50, making the acute RQs conservative. Table 25 provides acute and chronic 

risk quotients (RQs) for birds based on dietary toxicity studies, and Table 26 provides additional 

acute RQs based on single-dose oral toxicity studies. As for birds, none of the mammalian acute 

RQs for use on corn and soybean were greater than 0.01. Thus, the analysis shows that acute 

RQs are below the LOC for risk to mammals (0.5) and for possible adverse effects to listed 

species of mammals (0.1). The highest chronic RQ was 0.15. Thus, chronic RQs were all less 

than the LOC for chronic risk to listed and nonlisted mammals. 

Table 25. Acute and Chronic Dietary-Based RQs for Mammals 

Application Rate 

(crop) Exposure 

Mammalian Dietary-Based RQs 

Dietary Item 

Short Grass Tall Grass Broadleaf 

Plants 

Fruits, 

Pods, & 

Seeds 

Arthropods 

One application @ 

0.07 lb a.i./A (corn 

and soybean) 

Acute N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Chronic 0.02 0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.01 
42 

Table 26. Acute and Chronic Dose-Based RQs for Mammals 

Application Rate 

(crop) 

Size Class 

(g) 

Mammalian Dose-Based RQs 

Dietary Item 

Short Grass Tall Grass Broadleaf 

Plants 

Fruits & 

Pods Seeds Arthropods 

Acute 

One application @ 

0.076 lb a.i./A (corn 

and soybean) 

20 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.01 

100 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 

1000 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 

Chronic 

One application @ 

0.07 lb a.i./A (corn 

and soybean) 

15 0.15 0.07 0.08 0.01 0.06 <0.01 

35 0.12 0.06 0.07 0.01 0.05 <0.01 

1000 0.07 0.03 0.04 <0.01 0.03 <0.01 

To assess risk to terrestrial animals from exposure to fertilizer granules which are impregnated 

with flumetsulam, the LD50-per-square-foot risk index was utilized. As no mortality was 

observed in the acute toxicity study for birds and mammals, the highest test dose of the avian and 

mammalian LD50 studies were used to calculate conservative RQs. The maximum single 

application rate of 0.07 lb a.i./A was used for corn and soybeans. RQs for birds are also used to 

assess risk to terrestrial-phased amphibians. Results of this analysis are shown in Table 27. For 

birds, the LD50-per-square-foot index was no greater than 0.02 for all size classes. For 

mammals, the LD50-per-square-foot index was less than 0.01 for all size classes. For both birds 

and mammals, all of these acute RQs were less than the LOC for this index (1.0). Therefore, the 

use of fertilizer impregnated with flumetsulam is expected to pose minimal risk to both listed and 

nonlisted species of birds, mammals, reptiles, and terrestrial-phased amphibians. 

Table 27. LD50-per-Square-Foot Risk Quotients for Birds and Mammals for Use of Granular 

Fertilizer Impregnated with Flumetsulam 

Application Rate 

(crop) Taxa Size Class (g) 

RQ 

(LD50 per Sq. 

Foot) 

One application 

@ 0.07 lb a.i./A 

(corn and 

soybean) 

Birds 20 <0.02 

100 <0.01 

1000 <0.01 

Mammals 15 <0.01 

35 <0.01 

1000 <0.01 

An acute contact test with adult honey bees determined the LD50 to be >100 mg a.i./L. Based on 

the maximum seasonal use rate of 0.07 lb ai/A, the maximum EEC for arthropods is 6.58 mg 

a.i./kg-BW (Table 21). Since the acute contact LC50 is more than 15 times the acute contact LD50

for the honeybee, use of flumetsulam is not expected to cause any mortality to bees. The mode of 

action of flumetsulam (ALS inhibition) is specific to plants and therefore is not expected to cause 

significant sublethal or chronic effects to bees or other arthropods. 
43 

C. Non-target Terrestrial Plants 

Flumetsulam is highly toxic to terrestrial plants. The TerrPlant model (v. 1.2.2) was used to 

calculate RQs for nontarget terrestrial plants in upland and wetland areas. Terrestrial Plant RQs 

for use of flumetsulam on corn and soybean are given in Table 28. 

Table 28. RQs for Risk to Nontarget Terrestrial Plants from Use of Flumetsulam on Corn and 

Soybean 

Crop/Scenario Application Rate 

(lb a.i./A) Plant Type Exposure Type 

RQ1 

Nonlisted 

Species Listed Species 

Corn 

Corn, preplant or 

preemergence, one 

spray aerial 

application 

0.069 

Monocot 

Upland 4.1 12.2 

Wetland 22.3 66.8 

Spray Drift Only 6.0 37.1 

Dicot 

Upland 36.7 152.7 

Wetland 201.9 839.6 

Spray Drift Only 18.4 76.3 

Corn, preplant or 

preemergence, one 

ground spray 

application 

0.069 

Monocot 

Upland 2.4 7.3 

Wetland 20.7 62.0 

Spray Drift Only 1.2 7.4 

Dicot 

Upland 22.0 91.6 

Wetland 187.2 778.5 

Spray Drift Only 3.67 15.3 

Corn, postemergence, 

one aerial spray 

application 

0.058 

Monocot 

Upland 3.4 10.2 

Wetland 18.8 56.1 

Spray Drift Only 5.0 31.2 

Dicot 

Upland 30.9 128.3 

Wetland 169.7 705.8 

Spray Drift Only 15.4 64.2 

Corn, postemergence, 

one ground spray 

application 

0.06 

Monocot 

Upland 2.1 6.3 

Wetland 18.0 53.9 

Spray Drift Only 1.0 6.5 

Dicot 

Upland 19.2 79.7 

Wetland 162.8 677.0 

Spray Drift Only 3.2 13.3 

Corn, one ground 

application in 

0.065 

Monocot Upland 1.9 5.7 

Wetland 19.1 57.2 
44 

Crop/Scenario Application Rate 

(lb a.i./A) Plant Type Exposure Type 

RQ1 

Nonlisted 

Species Listed Species 

impregnated dry bulk 

fertilizer 

Spray Drift Only -- -- 

Dicot 

Upland 17.3 71.9 

Wetland 172.9 719.0 

Spray Drift Only -- -- 

Soybean 

Soybean, preplant or 

preemergence, one 

aerial spray 

application 

0.067 

Monocot 

Upland 3.9 11.8 

Wetland 21.7 64.9 

Spray Drift Only 5.8 36.0 

Dicot 

Upland 35.6 148.2 

Wetland 196.0 815.3 

Spray Drift Only 17.8 74.1 

Soybean, preplant or 

preemergence, one 

ground spray 

application 

0.067 

Monocot 

Upland 2.4 7.1 

Wetland 20.1 60.1 

Spray Drift Only 1.2 7.2 

Dicot 

Upland 21.4 88.9 

Wetland 181.8 756.0 

Spray Drift Only 3.6 14.8 

Soybean, 

postemergence, one 

aerial spray 

application 

0.006 

Monocot 

Upland 0.4 1.1 

Wetland 1.9 5.8 

Spray Drift Only 0.5 3.2 

Dicot 

Upland 3.2 13.3 

Wetland 17.6 73.0 

Spray Drift Only 1.6 6.6 

Soybean, 

postemergence, one 

ground spray 

application 

0.015 

Monocot 

Upland 0.5 1.6 

Wetland 4.5 13.5 

Spray Drift Only 0.3 1.6 

Dicot 

Upland 4.8 19.9 

Wetland 40.7 169.3 

Spray Drift Only 0.8 3.3 

Soybean, one ground 

application in 

impregnated dry bulk 

fertilizer 

0.065 

Monocot 

Upland 1.9 5.7 

Wetland 19.1 57.2 

Spray Drift Only -- -- 

Dicot Upland 17.3 71.9 

Wetland 172.9 719.0 
45 

Crop/Scenario Application Rate 

(lb a.i./A) Plant Type Exposure Type 

RQ1 

Nonlisted 

Species Listed Species 

Spray Drift Only -- -- 1

 RQs which exceed the EPA’s level of concern for risk to nontarget terrestrial plants are shown in bold type. 

For use on corn, all RQs for all types of application of flumetsulam (preplant, postemergence, 

and impregnated fertilizer) exceed the LOC for risk to nontarget terrestrial plants. RQs exceed 

the LOC for both listed and nonlisted plants growing in both upland and wetland habitats. RQs 

exceed the LOC for both monocot and dicot plants, but are higher for dicot plants. RQs exceed 

the LOC for exposure from spray drift alone; however, the highest RQs are for exposure to 

wetland plants, for which residues from runoff are expected to have the greatest impact. RQs 

were highest for aerial applications, with RQs as high as 202 for nonlisted plants and 840 for 

listed plants. RQs were only slightly lower for ground applications, with RQs as high as 187 for 

nonlisted plants and 779 for listed plants. 

RQs for use on soybean were similar to those for corn, with the exception that RQs were lower 

for post-emergence applications on soybean. For preplant/pre-emergence applications, all RQs 

exceed the LOC for nontarget terrestrial plants. RQs exceed the LOC for both listed and 

nonlisted plants growing in both upland and wetland habitats, and for both monocot and dicot 

plants. RQs exceed the LOC for exposure from spray drift alone; however, the highest RQs are 

for exposure to wetland plants. RQs for aerial applications are as high as 196 for nonlisted plants 

and 815 for listed plants. RQs were only slightly lower for ground applications, with RQs as high 

as 182 for nonlisted plants and 756 for listed plants. For post-emergence applications on 

soybean, RQs were somewhat lower because of the lower application rates; however, RQs are 

still exceed the LOC. Nonlisted RQs were below the LOC only for spray drift exposure from 

post-emergence ground spray applications, and for monocot plants growing in upland habitats 

exposed from post-emergence ground spray applications. 

To further analyze the risk of flumetsulam use to nontarget plants, the AgDrift model was used 

to predict spray drift deposition, and to determine the distance from the edge of the treated site 

where the risk from spray drift alone is equal the EPA’s LOC for listed and nonlisted plants. This 

was done by predicting the distance where the spray drift equals the vegetative vigor EC25 for 

evaluating risk to nonlisted plants, and by predicting the distance where the spray drift equals the 

vegetative vigor NOAEL for evaluating risk to listed plants. Beyond these distances, the risk 

from spray drift alone is not expected to exceed the LOC. It is important to realize, though, that 

risk from runoff is not considered in this analysis. In this analysis, the model was run with 

different assumptions of spray drift droplet distributions to show the effect of droplet size. For 

ground applications, the model was also run for applications with low and high boom height. 

For preplant/pre-emergent applications, low boom applications are likely typical, whereas for 

postemergence applications, either low or high boom applications may be common. 

Results from this analysis are given in Table 29. Both droplet size and boom height significantly 

affect the predicted distances of the extent of risk from the edge of the field. Distances were 

generally long for aerial applications (>500ft), except for postemergence application to soybean. 

For ground applications, distances for protecting the most sensitive nonlisted plants ranged from 
46 

98 to 502 ft for corn, and from 20 to 492 ft for soybean. Distances for protection of the most 

sensitive listed plants ranged from 95 to >1000 ft for corn, and from 20 to 492 ft for soybean. 

Distances were longer for finer droplet sizes, and longer for use of a high boom versus a low 

boom. 

Table 29. Distance from Edge of Field of Risk to Listed Terrestrial Plants, Based on AgDrift 

Prediction of Spray Drift 

Crop/Scenario 

Application 

Rate 

(lb a.i./A) 

Plant 

Type 

Critical Spray Drift 

Fraction 

Distance from Edge of Field 

Where RQ=LOC (feet) 

NonListed Listed Non-Listed1 Listed1 

Corn 

Corn, preplant or 

preemergence, one 

spray aerial 

application 0.069 

Monocot 0.0084 0.0013 

F-M: >1000 

M-C: 512 

C-VC: 315 

F-M: >1000 

M-C: >1000 

C-VC: >1000 

Dicot 0.0039 0.0041 

F-M: >1000 

M-C: >1000 

C-VC: 702 

F-M: >1000 

M-C: >1000 

C-VC: 659 

Corn, preplant or 

preemergence, one 

ground spray 

application 

0.069 

Monocot 0.0084 0.0013 

VF-F/Low: 115 

VF-F/High: 276 

F-M/Low: 43 

F-M/High: 79 

VF-F/Low: 751 

 VF-F/High: >1000 

F-M/Low: 446 

F-M/High: 636 

Dicot 0.0039 0.0041 

VF-F/Low: 269 

 VF-F/High: 502 

F-M/Low: 121 

F-M/High: 207 

VF-F/Low: 269 

VF-F/High: 502 

F-M/Low: 112 

F-M/High: 194 

Corn, 

postemergence, one 

aerial spray 

application 0.058 

Monocot 0.01 0.0016 

F-M: >1000 

M-C: 423 

C-VC: 272 

F-M: >1000 

M-C: >1000 

C-VC: >1000 

Dicot 0.047 0.0048 

F-M: >1000 

M-C: >1000 

C-VC: 571 

F-M: >1000 

M-C: >1000 

C-VC: 551 

Corn, 

postemergence, one 

ground spray 

application 0.060 

Monocot 0.0097 0.0016 

VF-F/Low: 98 

 VF-F/High: 243 

F-M/Low: 36 

F-M/High: 66 

VF-F/Low: 663 

 VF-F/High: 942 

F-M/Low: 381 

F-M/High: 541 

Dicot 0.0045 0.0047 

VF-F/Low: 233 

 VF-F/High: 453 

F-M/Low: 98 

F-M/High: 174 

VF-F/Low: 223 

 VF-F/High: 440 

F-M/Low: 95 

F-M/High: 167 

Soybean 

Soybean, preplant or 

preemergence, one 

aerial spray 

application 0.067 

Monocot 0.0087 0.0014 

F-M: >1000 

M-C:492 

C-VC: 305 

F-M: >1000 

M-C: >1000 

C-VC: >1000 

Dicot 0.0040 0.0042 

F-M: >1000 

M-C: >1000 

C-VC: 676 

F-M: >1000 

M-C: >1000 

C-VC:604 
47 

Crop/Scenario 

Application 

Rate 

(lb a.i./A) 

Plant 

Type 

Critical Spray Drift 

Fraction 

Distance from Edge of Field 

Where RQ=LOC (feet) 

NonListed Listed Non-Listed1 Listed1 

Soybean, preplant or 

preemergence, one 

ground spray 

application 

0.067 

Monocot 0.0087 0.0014 

VF-F/Low: 111 

 VF-F/High: 269 

F-M/Low: 43 

F-M/High: 78 

VF-F/Low: 732 

 VF-F/High: >1000 

F-M/Low: 433 

F-M/High: 600 

Dicot 0.0040 0.0042 

VF-F/Low: 259 

 VF-F/High: 492 

F-M/Low: 115 

F-M/High: 200 

VF-F/Low: 249 

 VF-F/High: 479 

F-M/Low: 111 

F-M/High: 190 

Soybean, 

postemergence, one 

aerial spray 

application 0.006 

Monocot 0.097 0.016 

F-M: 102 

M-C: 66 

C-VC: 39 

F-M: 626 

M-C: 289 

C-VC: 194 

Dicot 0.045 0.047 

F-M: 203 

M-C: 121 

C-VC: 82 

F-M: 197 

M-C: 118 

C-VC: 82 

Soybean, 

postemergence, one 

ground spray 

application 

0.015 

Monocot 0.039 0.0062 

VF-F/Low: 23 

 VF-F/High: 66 

F-M/Low: 10 

F-M/High: 13 

VF-F/Low: 164 

 VF-F/High: 354 

F-M/Low: 66 

F-M/High: 118 

Dicot 0.018 0.019 

VF-F/Low: 49 

 VF-F/High: 138 

F-M/Low: 20 

F-M/High: 33 

VF-F/Low: 49 

 VF-F/High: 135 

F-M/Low: 16 

F-M/High: 30 

1

 Codes for droplet size: VF = very fine, F = fine, M = medium, C = coarse,, VC = very coarse; Low = low boom 

height; High = high boom height. 

In conclusion, uses of flumetsulam on corn and soybean are predicted to pose risk to nontarget 

terrestrial plants, regardless of the application method and timing. All uses on corn and soybean 

potentially may result in harm to threatened and endangered species of terrestrial plants. The risk 

analyses indicate that risk to terrestrial plants is greater from aerial applications than for ground 

applications, and greater for preplant/pre-emergence applications than for postemergence 

application. 

D. Review of Incident Data 

The Ecological Incident Information System (EIIS, version 2.1), the Avian Incident Monitoring 

System (AIMS)4

, and the Incident Data System (IDS) were queried on July 8, 2012 for 

ecological incidents linked to exposure to flumetsulam. EIIS contained 368 ecological incidents 

associated with exposure to flumetsulam. All of the incidents involved mortality or damage to 

plants. Species affected include corn, soybean, alfalfa, cotton, clover. The vast majority of the 

incidents were cases in which growers complained to the manufacturer that an application of an 

herbicide to a field of corn or soybean to suppress weeds resulted in damage to the crop itself. 

 

4

http://www.abcbirds.org/abcprograms/policy/toxins/aims/aims/login.cfm?CFID=113048231&CFTOKEN=9243482 
48 

These incidents indicate that herbicide products containing flumetsulam that are applied directly 

to corn or soybean, according to label directions may, under certain conditions, cause damage or 

stunting of the corn or soybean crop. These incidents, however, do not provide information on 

the risk flumetsulam can pose to plants off the treated field, which is the primary concern in the 

ecological risk assessment. Therefore, the remainder of this discussion on ecological incidents 

will focus on cases where the application of flumetsulam allegedly exposed and caused damage 

to plants other than the crop that was treated. 

EIIS contains 15 incidents in which drift and/or runoff of an herbicide containing flumetsulam 

allegedly caused damage to nearby crops. In 1998, 12 incidents were reported in Indiana in 

which soybean plants were alleged damaged by either spray drift or runoff of an application of 

Hornet® (active ingredients flumetsulam and clopyralid) to a nearby corn field (incident package 

I007702, incidents -001 through -009, -011, -013, and -014). In 1999, damage was reported to 

three fields of soybean in Minnesota after Hornet® was applied to a nearby corn field (incident 

package I009512, incidents -014 through -016). Winds were blowing at 15 to 27 mph, and spray 

drift was the suspected route of exposure. These three incidents were classified as “accidental 

misuse” since the applications were made when the wind speed exceeded 15 mph. Another 

incident involved several trees (species not identified) which were observed having spotted and 

speckled leaves following a ground application of Broadstrike + Dual (active ingredients 

flumetsulam and metolachlor) to a site approximately 10 yards away (I009573-004). The use site 

was not identified. The certainty of all of these incidents were classified as “possible” since 

evidence was lacking to confirm which active ingredient, or combination of active ingredients, 

caused the damage. While the simultaneous exposure to multiple herbicide active ingredients 

prevents drawing definite conclusions on the cause of these incidents, they are consistent with 

the findings of the quantitative risk assessment in indicating that residues of flumetsulam may 

move off treated fields via spray drift and runoff, and the resulting exposure may result in 

damage nontarget plants. 

EIIS contains 20 additional incidents in which a crop was believed to have been harmed by 

carryover of residues of an herbicide containing flumetsulam which was applied to the field 

during a previous growing season. Herbicide products associated with these incidents included 

Hornet®, HornetWDG®, and Broadstrike®. Of the 20 incidents, 14 involved observed injury to 

soybean planted on land on which flumetsulam was applied during a previous growing season. 

Three of the other carryover incidents involved injury to corn. The remaining 3 carryover 

incidents involved injury to cotton, clover, and sorghum. These incidents confirm that residues of 

flumetsulam are persistent in soil and may remain toxic to plants for several months after it is 

applied. 

In addition to the incidents in EIIS, a query of the Incident Data System (IDS) identified 224 

incidents reported in aggregated incident reports which were linked to a pesticide product 

containing flumetsulam. The dates of these incidents span from January 1998 through December 

2012. All but two of the incidents (222 incidents) were minor plant incidents. While details of 

these incidents are not available, they are likely similar to the plant incidents in EIIS in that most 

are likely cases of crop damage caused by direct treatment of a flumetsulam-containing herbicide 

to corn or soybean, whereas a smaller proportion are likely the result of spray drift and/or runoff. 

Two aggregated incident reports involved adverse effects to fish or wildlife. Considering the 
49 

very low acute toxicity of flumetsulam to fish and wildlife, the cause of these incidents was 

likely not related to flumetsulam use. Flumetsulam might have been associated with these 

incidents because of coincidental use in the area prior to the incident. No “other nontarget” 

incidents were reported, which would include adverse effects to bees and other invertebrates. 

The Avian Incident Monitoring System (AIMS)5 was queried on July 8, 2012 for avian incident 

linked to exposure to flumetsulam. The AIMS database contained no avian incidents associated 

with flumetsulam. Also, no fish or wildlife incidents in EIIS have been linked to use of 

flumetsulam. The lack of reported fish wildlife mortality incidents is consistent with the 

conclusion of the risk assessment that use of flumetsulam poses little risk of acute toxicity to fish 

and wildlife. 

A detailed listing of individual incidents associated with flumetsulam spray drift, runoff, and 

carryover exposure is provided in Appendix E. 

E. Probit Slope Response Analysis of LOC Values and Acute RQ Values 

The chance of individual effects was evaluated using the IECv1.1.xls spreadsheet. The highest 

acute toxicity RQ for freshwater crustacean was 0.00011 for aerial pre-emergent application on 

corn. Based on this RQ, the chance of mortality of an individual freshwater crustacean is 

calculated to be approximately 1 in 4.2 x 108

. The chance of mortality to individual effects for 

birds, mammals, fish, and saltwater invertebrates could not be calculated because acute toxicity 

tests did not yield LD50 or LC50 values for these taxa. However, since no mortality was observed 

in the acute toxicity studies when tested at a limit dose or concentration, and the RQs for these 

taxa are known to be less than 0.01, the chance of mortality to an individual of any of these taxa 

is extremely small. 

V. RISK DESCRIPTION 

A. Risk Characterization 

1. Risk to Aquatic and Terrestrial Animals 

The mode of action of flumetsulam (inhibition of acetolactase synthase) is highly specific to 

plants and microorganisms. As with other ALS-inhibiting herbicides (such as those in the 

sulfonylurea class), flumetsulam has low acute and chronic toxicity to vertebrate wildlife, 

terrestrial arthropods, fish, and aquatic invertebrates. When combined with the low use rate 

(maximum seasonal rate is 0.07 lb a.i./A), the risk of direct toxicity to these animals is very low. 

The conclusion of the risk assessment is that current uses of flumetsulam on corn and soybean 

pose low risk to all aquatic and terrestrial animals, and are not expected to cause significant 

direct effects to listed species of animals. However, because of the toxicity to plants (see below), 

indirect adverse effects to aquatic and terrestrial animals are possible as the result of the potential 

damage to vegetation and aquatic plant life. Toxicity to plants may reduce the supply of plant 

food, which is the basis of the ecological food web in both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. In 

 

5

http://www.abcbirds.org/abcprograms/policy/toxins/aims/aims/login.cfm?CFID=113048231&CFTOKEN=9243482 
50 

addition, the toxicity to plants may alter plant communities, especially those near treated fields, 

which may result in ecological harm to some animal species. 

2. Risk to Aquatic and Terrestrial Plants 

Despite the relatively low use rates of this herbicide, the very high phytotoxicity of 

flumetsulam results in the conclusion that all uses pose risk to aquatic plants and 

nontarget terrestrial plants. The risk assessment indicates that most uses of flumetsulam 

exceed the EPA’s level of concern for both aquatic and terrestrial plants. Predicted risks 

for postemergence use on soybean are lower than for other uses because the sensitivity of 

soybean to flumetsulam greatly limits the rate that can be applied to emerged plants 

without damaging the crop. 

Flumetsulam is moderately persistent in the terrestrial environment but persistent in the 

aquatic environment. Thus, while flumetsulam is typically applied only once per year, 

residues in soil and water may remain at phytotoxic levels for a long period of time. In 

addition, flumetsulam has little binding potential to organic material in the soil, and thus 

is prone to movement in runoff. Both of these factors increase the potential for residues to 

be transported from the use site into terrestrial and aquatic habitats where nontarget 

plants can be exposed. The persistence of flumetsulam in soil and water also means that 

contamination of soil and water may continue for a long time, resulting in extended 

durations of exposure. This is confirmed by the numerous reported incidents of crop 

damage which have been attributed to carryover of flumetsulam, that is, damage from 

exposure to residues which remain in the soil from application during a previous growing 

season. 

Incident data also support the potential for flumetsulam residues to move off-site and to 

harm nontarget plants. In fifteen incidents, use of a product containing flumetsulam on 

corn resulted in damage to nearby crops. Many of the incidents attributed the off-site 

movement of residues to spray drift, while a few attributed it to runoff. Unfortunately all 

of these incidents involved products which contain multiple active ingredients, and 

therefore the crop damage cannot be attributed with certainty to any particular active 

ingredient. They are nevertheless consistent with the conclusion that flumetsulam poses a 

risk to nontarget terrestrial plants. 

Because of its high mobility and persistence in soil, flumetsulam is very prone to off-site 

movement via runoff, which may result in contamination of nearby terrestrial and aquatic 

habitats. This prominent route of exposure would exist regardless of whether flumetsulam 

is applied aerially or with ground equipment. This is reflected in the fact that aquatic 

EECs for ground applications were only slightly lower than comparable EECs for aerial 

applications (Table 18). 

B. Assumptions and Limitations 

1. Endocrine Disruption 
51 

As required by FIFRA and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), EPA reviews 

numerous studies to assess potential adverse outcomes from exposure to chemicals. 

Collectively, these studies include acute, subchronic and chronic toxicity, including assessments 

of carcinogenicity, neurotoxicity, developmental, reproductive, and general or systemic toxicity. 

These studies include endpoints which may be susceptible to endocrine influence, including 

effects on endocrine target organ histopathology, organ weights, estrus cyclicity, sexual 

maturation, fertility, pregnancy rates, reproductive loss, and sex ratios in offspring. For 

ecological hazard assessments, EPA evaluates acute tests and chronic studies that assess growth, 

developmental and reproductive effects in different taxonomic groups. As part of the 

Preliminary Problem Formulation for Registration Review (DP Barcode D349617), EPA 

reviewed these data and selected the most sensitive endpoints for relevant risk assessment 

scenarios from the existing hazard database. However, as required by FFDCA section 408(p), 

flumetsulam is subject to the endocrine screening part of the Endocrine Disruptor Screening 

Program (EDSP). 

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

active and other ingredients) may have an effect in humans or wildlife similar to an effect 

produced by a “naturally occurring estrogen, or other such endocrine effects as the Administrator 

may designate.” The EDSP employs a two-tiered approach to making the statutorily required 

determinations. Tier 1 consists of a battery of 11 screening assays to identify the potential of a 

chemical substance to interact with the estrogen, androgen, or thyroid (E, A, or T) hormonal 

systems. Chemicals that go through Tier 1 screening and are found to have the potential to 

interact with E, A, or T hormonal systems will proceed to the next stage of the EDSP where EPA 

will determine which, if any, of the Tier 2 tests are necessary based on the available data. Tier 2 

testing is designed to identify any adverse endocrine-related effects caused by the substance, and 

establish a dose-response relationship between the dose and the E, A, or T effect. 

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

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

chemicals, which contains 58 pesticide active ingredients and 9 inert ingredients. Flumetsulam 

is not among the group of 58 pesticide active ingredients on the initial list to be screened under 

the EDSP. Accordingly, as part of registration review, EPA will issue future EDSP orders/data 

call-ins, requiring the submission of EDSP screening assays for flumetsulam. For further 

information on the status of the EDSP, the policies and procedures, the list of 67 chemicals, 

future lists, the test guidelines and the Tier 1 screening battery, please visit our website: 

http://www.epa.gov/endo/). 

2. Uncertainties Related to Data Limitations 

All of the available terrestrial plant toxicity data have been classified as supplemental because of 

study deficiencies. The first phytotoxicity study submitted (MRID 42573901), which included 

both seedling emergence and vegetative vigor testing, was classified as supplemental for all 

species except rapeseed because a negative control was not included in the study. The lack of a 

negative control prevented evaluation for possible solvent effects on the response of the plants. 

The study did include a solvent control which was used for determination of the NOAEC and 

LOAEC. While the lack of a negative control decreases the certainty of the results of this study, 
52 

any solvent effect would likely be additive to the effect of the treatment, and likely would make 

the IC25 estimates lower than the actual values. Therefore, the results from this study likely either 

are accurate (if there was no significant solvent effect) or conservative (if there was a significant 

solvent effect). 

The results for rapeseed were classified as invalid because the seeds had been treated with three 

fungicides. Exposure to these three fungicides may have confounded the results of this study. A 

nonguideline study that was submitted provided supplemental data for seedling emergence 

effects on rapeseed, but no data are available on the vegetative vigor effects on rapeseed. 

The nonguideline phytotoxicity study, which was submitted to partially fulfill guideline 

requirements for the conditional registration of Broadstrike Herbicide (MRID 43485801), was 

classified as “acceptable” when it was originally reviewed in 1992. However, reevaluation of this 

study revealed that it did not report data in adequate detail to obtain NOAEL and LOAEL values. 

The study report did not include replicate means for plant weight and plant height, and therefore 

statistical analysis could not be performed on these endpoints to determine the NOAEL and 

LOAEL. An IC05 value calculated from this study was therefore used in lieu of the NOAEL. The 

NOAEL is normally used in the denominator of the RQ for risk to listed species of terrestrial 

plants. While the use of the EC05 value instead of the NOAEL adds uncertainty, the EC05 is 

likely to be lower than the NOAEL, and therefore the RQs for listed terrestrial plants are likely to 

be conservative. 

3. Other Uncertainties in Risk Conclusions 

a) The risk assessment included RQs for aerial applications to corn and soybean with 

preplant/pre-emergence applications. Some labels of products designed only for 

postemergence use, such as those of Broadstrike® and Surestart®, prohibit aerial 

applications. The labels of two products, Dupont Access Gold® and Python®, permit aerial 

applications and may be applied either pre- or post-emergence, but only provide instructions 

for aerial applications at the post-emergence stage. While the instructions suggest that the 

registrants’ intent is for only post-emergence applications to be applied aerially, the labels do 

not specifically prohibit aerial applications at the preplant/pre-emergence stage. This is 

significant because the maximum application rate is greater for preplant/pre-emergence 

applications than for postemergence applications. If these two labels were to specifically 

prohibit aerial applications at the preplant/pre-emergence stage, then the RQs provided for 

aerial applications at this stage would no longer be relevant. However, since RQs for ground 

applications were nearly as high as those for aerial applications, this change would not affect 

the risk conclusions. 

 

b) The risk conclusion of risk to aquatic terrestrial plants has not been confirmed by incidents 

with high certainty. The many reported incidents of flumetsulam resulting in damage to corn 

and soybean crops do not provide information on the potential of this herbicide to harm 

plants off the treatment site. While there are several incidents of damage to plants outside the 

treatment area, which have been attributed to spray drift and/or runoff of herbicide products 

containing flumetsulam, all of the incidents involved products containing other herbicidal 
53 

active ingredients in addition to flumetsulam. Since the plants were exposed to multiple 

herbicidal active ingredients, they do not provide strong evidence to confirm the risk of 

flumetsulam to nontarget plants. In addition, no incident of damage to aquatic plants has been 

reported, although damage to aquatic plants are rarely reported. 

VI. RISK CONCLUSIONS 

Conclusions of the potential of use of flumetsulam to cause direct and indirect effects to 

federally listed threatened and endangered species of various taxa are summarized in Table 30. 

Use of flumetsulam may cause direct adverse effects to listed species of aquatic and terrestrial 

plants. Use of flumetsulam is not expected to cause direct effects to any listed species of animal, 

but toxicity to plants may result in indirect ecological effect to listed animals. 

Table 30. Non-listed and Listed Species Risks Associated with Potential Direct or Indirect 

Effects Due to the Applications of Flumetsulam 

LISTED TAXON 

DIRECT EFFECTS INDIRECT 

EFFECTS1 

Non-listed Listed 

Terrestrial and semi-aquatic plants 

– monocots Yes Yes Yes 

Terrestrial and semi-aquatic plants 

– dicots Yes Yes Yes 

Birds No No Yes 

Terrestrial phase amphibians No No Yes 

Reptiles No No Yes 

Mammals No No Yes 

Terrestrial Invertebrates No No Yes 

Aquatic plants – vascular plants Yes Yes Yes 

Aquatic plants – algae Yes Yes2 Yes 

Freshwater fish No No Yes 

Aquatic phase amphibians No No Yes 

Freshwater crustaceans No No Yes 

Mollusks3 No No Yes 

Marine/estuarine fish3 No No Yes 

Marine/estuarine crustaceans3 No No Yes 

1 Indirect effects may include general habitat modification, host plant loss, and food supply disruption. 

2

 No species of algae is currently listed as threatened or endangered. 
54 

3 Quantitative data are not available for saltwater invertebrates, therefore RQs were not calculated. Risk conclusions 

were based on risk quotients calculated for freshwater invertebrates. 
55 

VII. REFERENCES 

CDPR. 2013. Sampling for Pesticide Residues in California Well Water. 2012 Update. California 

Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Pesticide Regulation. 262 pp. 

Sacramento, CA. 

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. 

Ma, J., F. Lin, S. Wang, and L. Xu, 2004. Acute toxicity assessment of 20 herbicides to the green 

alga Scenedesmus quadricauda (Turp.) Breb. Bull. Environ. Toxicol. 72(6):1164-1171 

Ma, J., L. Xu, S. Wang, R. Zheng, S. Huang, and Y. Huang, 2002. Toxicity of 40 herbicides to 

the green alga Chlorella vulgaris. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 51(2):128-132. 

Ma, J. and W. Liang, 2001. Acute toxicity of 12 herbicides to the green algae Chlorella 

pyrenoidosa and Scenedesmus obliquus. Bull. Environ. Toxicol. 67(3):347-351 

Madafiglio, G.P., R.W. Medd, P.S. Cornish, and R. Van de Ven, 2000. Temperature-mediated 

responses of flumetsulam and metosulam on Raphanus raphanistrum. Weed Res. 40(4): 

387-395. 

USEPA, 1990. National Survey of Pesticides in Drinking Water Wells. Report Number: USEPA 

570/9-90-015, USEPA Office of Water, Washington, DC. 

USEPA, 1992. Pesticides in Ground Water Data Base. Report Number(s): PB-89-164230/XAB; 

EPA-540/9-89/036, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC (USA). Office 

of Pesticide Programs 

USEPA, 1992. Flumetsulam Herbicide: New Chemical Science Chapter. DP Codes D181973, 

D181964, D182891, and D181979. Memorandum from the Environmental Fate and 

Effects Division to the Registration Division of the Office of Pesticide Programs. 

December 16, 1992. 

USEPA, 1993a. Update Ground Applied EEC, Aerial EEC and Response to DowElanco 

Rebuttal of Flumetsulam Science Chapter. DP Code D189826. Memorandum from the 

Environmental Fate and Effects Division to the Registration Division of the Office of 

Pesticide Programs. June 21, 1993. 

USEPA, 1993a. Flumetsulam: “May Effect” for Endangered Species and the Value of 

Requiring Additional Information. Memorandum from the Environmental Fate and 

Effects Division to the Director of the Office of Pesticide Programs. October 14, 1993. 
56 

USEPA, 1993b. Recommendations for Eliminating Effects to Endangered Plant Species from 

Flumetsulam. Memorandum from the Environmental Fate and Effects Division to the 

Director of the Office of Pesticide Programs. October 14, 1993. 

USEPA, 1994. Qualitative Assessment of Sulfonylurea Herbicides and Other ALS Inhibitors.

Memorandum from the Ecological Effects Branch to the Science Analysis and 

Coordination Division, Environmental Fate and Effects Division. March 24, 1994. 

USEPA, 2004. Overview of the Ecological Risk Assessment Process in the Office of Pesticide 

Programs. United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Environmental 

Fate and Effects Division. Office of Pesticide Programs. Available at 

http://www.epa.gov/espp/consultation/ecorisk-overview.pdf

USEPA, 2006. New Use Registration Ecological Risk Assessment for Flumetsulam and Its EndUse Product, Python® WDG. DP Code D325397. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Washington, DC. Office of Pesticide Programs 

U.S. EPA. 2008. User’s Guide: T-REX Version 1.4.1 (Terrestrial Residue Exposure model). 

United States Environmental Protection Agency. Environmental Fate and Effects 

Division. http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/terrestrial/index.htm#trex

USEPA, 2008. EFED Problem Formulation for Flumetsulam Registration Review. 

Memorandum from the Environmental Fate and Effects Division to the Registration 

Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution 

Prevention. D349617, June 3, 2008. 

U.S. EPA, 2009. Guidance for Selecting Input Parameters in Modeling the Environmental Fate 

and Transport of Pesticides. October 22, 2009. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Fate and Effects Division. Arlington, VA 

http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/input_parameter_guidance.htm

U.S. EPA, 2012. Baris, R., Barrett, M., Bohaty, R.F.H., Echeverria, M, Villanueva, P., Wolf, J., 

and Young, D. 2012. Guidance for Using PRZM-GW in Drinking Water Exposure 

Assessment. October 15, 2012. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of 

Pesticide Programs, Environmental Fate and Effects Division. Arlington, VA. 

http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/przm_gw/wqtt_przm_gw_guidance.htm

U.S. EPA, 2012. Marietta Echeverria, M., Jones, R.D., Peck, C., Ruhman, M., Shelby, A., 

Thawley, S., and Thurman, N. Development and Use of Percent Cropped Area and 

Percent Turf Area Adjustment Factors in Drinking Water Exposure Assessments: 2012 

Update. March 16, 2012. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide 

Programs, Environmental Fate and Effects Division. Arlington, VA 

http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/pca_adjustment_dwa.html
57 

U.S. EPA, Shanaman, L. and M. Frankenberry. Memorandum: Flumetsulam Registration 

Review: Ecological Risk Assessment Problem Formulation. DB Barcode D349617, June 

3, 2008. 
58 

APPENDIX A. 

BIBLIOGRAPHY 

ECOTOXICITY STUDIES 

850.2100 Avian Single Dose Oral Toxicity 

MRID Citation 

41263218 Grimes, J.; Jaber, M. (1989) XRD-498 Herbicide: An Acute Oral Toxicity 

study with the Bobwhite: Final Rept: Project ID 103-289. Unpublished study 

prepared by Wildlife International Ltd. 18 p. 

850.2200 Avian Dietary Toxicity 

MRID Citation 

41263219 Grimes, J.; Jaber, M. (1988) XRD-498 Herbicide: A Dietary LC50 Study 

with the Mallard: Project ID 103-288. Unpublished study prepared by 

Wildlife International Ltd. 18 p. 

41263220 Grimes, J.; Jaber, M. (1988) XRD-498 Herbicide: A Dietary LC50 Study 

with the Bobwhite: Project No. 103-287. Unpublished study prepared by 

Wildlife International Ltd. 18 p. 

850.2300 Avian Reproduction 

MRID Citation 

41931741 Beavers, J.; Corbitt, A.; Jaber, M. (1989) XRD-498 Herbicide, (...) : A Onegeneration Reproduction Study with the Bobwhite (Colinus virginianus): 

Lab Project Number: 103-297. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife 

International Ltd. 117 p. 

41931742 Beavers, J.; Corbitt, A.; Jaber, M. (1989) XRD-498 Herbicide, (...) : A One 

generation Reproduction Study with the Mallard (Anas platyrhynchos): Lab 

Project Number: 103/298. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife 

International Ltd. 117 p. 

850.1075 Acute Toxicity to Freshwater Fish 

MRID Citation 

41263221 Dill, D.; Bartlett, E.; Lehr, K. (1988) XRD-498 Herbicide: Evaluation of the 

Toxicity to the rainbow Trout, salmo gairdneri Richardson: Project ID ESDR-0238-5651-4. Unpublished study pre pared by The Dow Chemical Co. 

15 p. 

41263222 Dill, D.; Bartlett, E.; Lehr, K. (1988) XRD-498 Herbicide: Evaluation of the 

Toxicity To the Bluegill, Lepomis macrochirus Rafinesque: Project ID ESDR-0238-5651-1. Unpublished study prepared by The dow Chemical Co. 15 
59 

p. 

41263223 Dill, D.; Bartlett, E.; Lehr, K. (1988) XRD-498 Herbicide: Evaluation of the 

Toxicity to the Fathead Minnow, Pimephales promelas Rafinesque: Project 

ID ES-DR-0238-5651-2. Unpublished study prepared by The Dow Chemical 

Co. 15 p. 

850.1010 Acute Toxicity to Freshwater Invertebrates 

MRID Citation 

41263224 Dill, D.; Milazzo, D.; Lehr, K. (1988) XRD-498 Herbicide: Evaluation of 

the toxicity to Daphnia magna Straus: Project ID ES-DR- 0238-5651-3. 

Unpublished study prepared by The Dow Chemical Co. 17 p. 

850.1025/850.1045/850.1075 Acute Toxicity to Estuarine/Marine Organisms 

MRID Citation 

41263225 Manning, C. (1988) XRD-498 Herbicide: Acute Toxicity to Atlantic 

Silversides (Menidia menidia) Under Flow-Through Conditions: Project No. 

89309.0300.2130. Unpublished study prepared by Hunter/ESE, Inc. 32 p. 

41263226 Manning, C. (1988) XRD-498 Herbicide: Acute Toxicity to Grass Shrimp 

(Palaemonetes vulgaris) Under Flow-through Conditions: Report No. ES2034. Unpublished study prepared by Hunter/ESE. 32 p. 

41263227 Manning, C. (1988) XRD-498 Herbicide: Acute Effect to New Shell Growth 

of the Eastern Oyster (Crassostrea virginica) Under Flow-through 

Conditions: Report No. ES-2033. Unpublished study prepared by 

Hunter/ESE. 32 p. 

850.1400 Fish Early Life Stage/Aquatic Invertebrate Life Cycle Study 

MRID Citation 

42465101 Weinberg, J.; Gorzinski, S.; Rick, D.; et al. (1992) Evaluation of the 

Toxicity of DE-498 Herbicide to Early Life Stages of the Fathead Minnow, 

Pimephales promelas Rafinesque: Lab Project Number: DECO-ES-DR0238-5651-23: DECO-ES-2475. Unpublished study prepared by The Dow 

Chemical Co. 39 p. 

42465102 Milazzo, D.; Servinski, M.; Rick, D.; et al. (1992) DE-498 Herbicide: 

Daphnia magna Straus Life-cycle (21-day Renewal) Toxicity Test: Lab 

Project Number: DECO-ES-DR-0238-5651-24: DECO-ES-2509. 

Unpublished study prepared by The Dow Chemical Co. 32 p. 

850.4225/850.4250 Seedling Emergence and Vegetative Vigor 

MRID Citation 
60 

42573901 Feutz, E. (1992) Evaluating the Effects of DE-498 on the Germination, 

Emergence, and Vegetative Vigor of Non-target Terrestrial Plants: Lab 

Project Number: 40291. Unpublished study prepared by ABC Laboratories, 

Inc. 178 p. 

42573901 Feutz, E. (1992) Evaluating the Effects of DE-498 on the Germination, 

Emergence, and Vegetative Vigor of Non-target Terrestrial Plants: Lab 

Project Number: 40291. Unpublished study prepared by ABC Laboratories, 

Inc. 178 p. 

43485801 Jachetta, J.; Ray, S.; Geselius, T. et al. (1994) Flumetsulam Non-Guideline 

Seedling Emergence Study: in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements of the 

Conditional Registration of Broadstrike Herbicide: Lab Project Number: 

GH/C/3413. Unpublished study prepared by Weed Management 

DowElanco. 336 p. 

850.4400/850.5400 Aquatic Plant Growth 

MRID Citation 

41931743 Hughes, J. (1991) The Toxicity of DE-498 Herbicide to Selenastrum 

capricornutum: Lab Project Number: B460-11-1: ES-DR-0238-5651- 17. 

Unpublished study prepared by Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. 33 p. 

42473101 Hughes, J.; Alexander, M. (1992) The Toxicity of DE-498 Herbicide to 

Anabaena flos-aquae: Lab Project Number: B460-13-1: ES-DR-0238-5651-

19. Unpublished study prepared by Malcolm Pirnie Inc. 35 p. 

42473102 Hughes, J.; Alexander, M. (1992) The Toxicity of DE-498 Herbicide to 

Navicula pelliculosa: Lab Project Number: B460-13-2: ES-DR-0238-5651-

20. Unpublished study prepared by Malcolm Pirnie Inc. 33 p. 

42473103 Hughes, J.; Alexander, M. (1992) The Toxicity of DE-498 Herbicide to 

Skeletonema costatum: Lab Project Number: B460-13-3: ES-DR-0238-

5651-21. Unpublished study prepared by Malcolm Pirnie Inc. 35 p. 

42473104 Hughes, J.; Alexander, M. (1992) The Toxicity of DE-498 Herbicide to 

Lemna gibba G3: Lab Project Number: B460-13-4: ES-DR-0238-5651-22. 

Unpublished study prepared by Malcolm Pirnie Inc. 34 p. 

44528301 Kirk, H.; Hugo, J.; McFadden, L. (1998) Phytotoxicological Evaluation of 

DE-498 Exposed Freshwater Green Alga, Selenastrum capricornutum

Printz: Lab Project Number: 971190. Unpublished study prepared by The 

Dow Chemical Co. 47 p. 

47954505 Ma, J.; Lin, F.; Wang, S.; et al. (2004) Acute Toxicity Assessment of 20 

Herbicides to the Green Alga Scenedesmus quadricauda (Turp.) Breb. 

Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 72: 1164-1171 

47954504 Ma, J.; Xu, L.; Wang, S.; et al. (2001) Toxicity of 40 Herbicides to the 
61 

Green Alga Chlorella vulgaris. Exotoxicology and Environmental Safety 

51:128-132. 

850.3020 Honey Bee Acute Contact 

MRID Citation 

41263228 Hoxter, K.; Jaber, M. (1988) XRD-498 Herbicide: An Acute Toxicity Study 

with the Honey Bee: Project ID 103-290A. 15 p. 

ENVIRONENTAL FATE STUDIES 

835.2120 Hydrolysis 

MRID Citation 

41263229 Lehmann, R.; Miller, J. (1988) Aqueous Hydrolysis of XRD-498: Project ID 

GH-C 2092. Unpublished study prepared by Dow Chemical Co. 24 p. 

835.2240 Photodegradation-water 

MRID Citation 

41931726 Wolt, J.; Woodburn, K.; Chari, S.; et al. (1991) Sunlight Photodegradation 

of ?carbon 14-Pyrimidine|XRD-498 in a Buffered Aqueous Solution at pH 5 

and 7: Lab Project Number: 210W-1. Un- published study prepared by 

Pharmacology and Toxicology Research Lab-West. 110 p. 

41931727 Wolt, J.; Woodburn, K.; Chari, S.; et al. (1991) Sunlight Photodegradation 

of ?carbon 14-Aniline|XRD-498 in a Buffered Aqueous Solution pH 5 and 

7: Lab Project Number: 211W/1: 211W: PROTOCOL No. 3. Unpublished 

study prepared by Pharmacology and Toxicology Research Lab. 109 p. 

835.2410 Photodegradation-soil 

MRID Citation 

41931728 Wolt, J.; Shepler, K.; Matthew, M.; et al. (1991) Photodegradation of 

?carbon 14-Aniline|XRD-498 on Soil by Natural Sunlight: Lab Project 

Number: GH/C 2452: PROTOCOL/NO. 89088: 208W. Unpublished study 

prepared by Pharmacology and Toxicology Research Lab. 84 p. 

41931729 Wolt, J.; Shepler, K.; Chari, S.; et al. (1991) Photodegradation of ?carbon 

14-Aniline|XRD-498 on Soil by Natural Sunlight: Lab Project Number: 

209W: Protocol No. 89089. Unpublished study pre- pared by Pharmacology 

and Toxicology Research Lab. 82 p. 

41931730 Wolt, J.; Shepler, K.; Yung, V. (1991) Photodegradation of carbon 14-

Aniline|XRD-498 on Viable Soil by Natural Sunlight: Lab Project Number: 

258W-1: 258W: PROTOCOL No. 90096. Unpublished study prepared by 

Pharmacology and Toxicology Research Lab. 86 p. 

835.4100 Aerobic soil metabolism 
62 

MRID Citation 

41263230 Laskowski, D.; Lehmann, R.; Goodwin, P.; et al. (1989) Aerobic Soil 

Degradation of XRD-498: Project ID GH-C 2160. Unpublished study 

prepared by Dow Chemical Co. 70 p. 

41290403 Lehmann, R.; Laskowski, D.; Miller, J.; et al. (1989) Effect of Soil 

Properties on the Degradation and Sorption of XRD-498: Lab Project 

Number: GH/C/2243. Unpublished study prepared by DowChemical U.S.A. 

64 p. 

41931731 Lehmann, R.; Holbrook, D.; Altscheffel, S.; et al. (1991) Aerobic Soil 

Metabolism of Aniline-Labeled DE-498 in Hoytville Soil: Lab Project 

Number: 89002. Unpublished study prepared by Dow-Elanco. 41 p. 

41931732 Havens, P. ; Miller, J. (1991) The Aerobic Metabolism of ?carbon 14 -

Aniline|-DE-498 in Two Soils: Lab Project Number: ENV91006.00. 

Unpublished study prepared by Dow Elanco. 50 p. 

835.4400 Anaerobic aquatic metabolism 

MRID Citation 

41931733 Wolt, J.; Schwake, J.; Batzer, F.; et al. (1991) Anaerobic Aquatic 

Metabolism of XRD-498 N-(2,6-difluorophenyl)-5-methyl-(1,2,4) 

triazolo(1,5-a) pyrimidine-2-sulfonamide|: Lab Project Number: 

PROTOCOL No. 89080. Unpublished study prepared by DowElanco. 13 p. 

835.4300 Aerobic aquatic metabolism 

MRID Citation 

43592203 Esser, T.; Shepler, K.; Ruzo, L.; et al. (1993) Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism 

of (carbon 14) DE-498 in Canadian Pond Water and Sediment: Results 

through One-Year: Lab Project Number: 368W-2: 368W: 92005.02. 

Unpublished study prepared by PTRL-West, Inc. 112 p. 

835.1230/835.1240 Leaching and adsorption/desorption 

MRID Citation 

41263231 Goodwin, P.; Lehmann, R.; Miller, J. (1989) Soil Adsorption/Desorption of 

Carbon 14-XRD-498: Project ID GH-C 2159. Unpublished study prepared 

by Dow Chemical Co. 58 p. 

41290403 

repeated in soil 

metabolism 

Lehmann, R.; Laskowski, D.; Miller, J.; et al. (1989) Effect of Soil 

Properties on the Degradation and Sorption of XRD-498: Lab Project 

Number: GH/C/2243. Unpublished study prepared by Doe Chemical U.S.A. 

64 p. 

41931734 Fontaine, D.; Lehmann, R.; Miller, J. (1991) The Soil Adsorption of a 

Weakly Acidic Organic Compound XRD-498: Lab Project Number: 

87062/01: 87062. Unpublished study prepared by DowElanco. 24 p. 
63 

42512501 Wolt, J. (1992) Aged Leaching of carbon 14 DE-498 in a Canadian Field 

Soil: Lab Project Number: 367W-1: 367W. Unpublished study prepared by 

PTRL-West, Inc. 60 p. 

43592202 Wolt, J.; Shepler, K.; Estigoy, L. (1993) Aged Leaching of (carbon 14)-DE498 in Two Field Soils: Lab Project Number: 384W-1: 384W: ENV92058. 

Unpublished study prepared by PTRL-West, Inc. 73 p. 

835.6100 Terrestrial field dissipation 

MRID Citation 

41931735 Lehmann, R.; Balcer, J.; Duebelbeis, D. ; et al. (1991) Terrestrial Field 

Dissipation of DE-498: Lab Project Number: ENV87034/AN: 

ENV88075/AN. Unpublished study prepared by DowElanco. 106 p. 

41931736 Lehmann, R.; Stanley, D. (1991) Stability of DE-498 in Soil During Two 

Years of Frozen Storage: Lab Project Number: 87062/02. Un- published 

study prepared by DowElanco. 21 p. 

41931737 Fontaine, D. (1991) A Computer Modeling Assessment of the Mobility of 

DE-498 in Three Major Soybean Growing Regions of the United States: Lab 

Project Number: GH/C 2547. Unpublished study pre- pared by DowElanco. 

72 p. 

41952107 Olberding, E.; Foster, D.; Harnick, B.; et al. (1991) Determination of 

Residues of DE-498 in Soil by Capillary Gas Chromatography/ Mass 

Spectrometry: Lab Project Number: ACR 91.3. Unpublished study prepared 

by DowElanco. 22 p. 

41952108 Duelbelbeis, D. (1991) Validation of Method ACR 91.3: Determination of 

Residues of DE-498 in Soil by Capillary Gas Chromatography/Mass 

Spectrometry: Lab Project Number: MV000035. Unpublished study 

prepared by A&L Great Lakes Labs, Inc. 17 p. 

43592205 Roberts, D.; Buttler, I.; Foster, D.; et al. (1995) Terrestrial Field Dissipation 

of Flumetsulam in Minnesota and Mississippi: Lab Project Number: 

ENV91037. Unpublished study prepared by DowElanco's North American 

Environmental Chemistry Lab. 156 p. 

43592206 Buttler, I.; Roberts, D.; Foster, D.; et al. (1993) Terrestrial Field Dissipation 

of DE-498 in Eastern Canada: Lab Project Number: ENV91038. 

Unpublished study prepared by DowElanco's North American 

Environmental Chemistry Lab. and DowElanco Canada. 144 p. 

835.7100 Ground water monitoring 

Small-scale prospective studies 

MRID Citation 

44451301 Roberts, D.; Buttler, I.; McGibbon, A. et al. (1997) A Small-Scale 

Prospective Ground Water Monitoring Study of Flumetsulam in Indiana: 
64 

Lab Project Number: ENV91077.06: 802.02: 95-360. Unpublished study 

prepared by DowElanco. 609 p. 

44451302 Roberts, D.; Buttler, I.; McGibbon, A. et al. (1997) A Small-Scale 

Prospective Ground Water Monitoring Study of Flumetsulam in North 

Carolina: Lab Project Number: ENV91077.07: ENV91077: 802.02. 

Unpublished study prepared by DowElanco. 453 p. 

42906501 Butler, I.; Foster, D.; Schwake, J.; et al. (1993) A Small-Scale Prospective 

Ground-Water Monitoring Study of Flumetsulam in Indiana--An Interim 

Report for the First 24 Months: Lab Project Number: ENV91077. 

Unpublished study prepared by DowElanco, North American Environmental 

Chemistry Lab. 462 p. 

42906502 Butler, I.; Foster, D.; Schwake, J.; et al. (1993) A Small-Scale Prospective 

Ground-Water Monitoring Study of Flumetsulam in North Carolina--An 

Interim Report for the First 24 Months: Lab Project Number: ENV91077.01. 

Unpublished study prepared by DowElanco, North American Environmental 

Chemistry Lab. 432 p. 

43407001 McGibbon, A.; Roberts, D.; Foster, D. (1994) A Small-Scale Prospective 

Ground-Water Monitoring Study of Flumetsulam in North Carolina; 

Additional Data through 38 Months After Treatment (MAT): Lab Project 

Number: ENV91077.05. Unpublished study prepared by DowElanco. 12 p. 

43407002 McGibbon, A.; Roberts, D.; Foster, D. (1994) A Small-Scale Prospective 

Ground-Water Monitoring Study of Flumetsulam in Indiana-Additional Data 

through 38 Months After Treatment (MAT): Lab Project Number: 

ENV91077.04. Unpublished study prepared by DowElanco. 12 p. 

Runoff studies 

44427801 Peacock, A.; Foster, D. (1997) Runoff Losses of Flumetsulam from a Fresh 

Seedbed under Conditions of Heavy Rainfall: Lab Project Number: GH-C 

4508: 1099: ENV97079. Unpublished study prepared by Global 

Environmental Chemistry Laboratory. 265 p. 

Monitoring studies 

45431901 Battaglin, W.; Furlong, E.; Burkhardt, M. (2001) Concentration of Selected 

Sulfonylurea, Sulfonamide, and Imidazolinone Herbicides, Other Pesticides, 

and Nutrients in 71 Streams, 5 Reservoir Outflows, and 25 Wells in the 

Midwestern United States, 1998. Water Resources Investigation Report 00-

4225. Prepared by U.S. Geological Survey. 7 p. 
65 

APPENDIX B

PRZM/EXAMS Aquatic EECs Output File 

stored as KScornAL.out 

Chemical: Flumetsulam 

PRZM environment: KSCornStd.txt modified Monday, 25 August 2008 at 15:45:08 

EXAMS environment: pond298.exv modified Tueday, 26 August 2008 at 06:14:08 

Metfile: w13996.dvf modified Tueday, 26 August 2008 at 06:14:52 

Water segment concentrations (ppb) 

Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly 

1961 2.311 2.307 2.298 2.269 2.246 1.435 

1962 2.318 2.316 2.308 2.287 2.271 2.168 

1963 4.258 4.255 4.243 4.206 4.168 3.386 

1964 4.022 4.019 4.009 3.988 3.972 3.853 

1965 4.005 4.002 3.989 3.957 3.935 3.804 

1966 3.868 3.865 3.857 3.848 3.832 3.722 

1967 5.507 5.502 5.48 5.446 5.408 4.695 

1968 5.64 5.636 5.623 5.588 5.551 5.286 

1969 7.295 7.288 7.269 7.221 7.169 6.355 

1970 6.979 6.974 6.954 6.906 6.869 6.679 

1971 7.194 7.189 7.174 7.116 7.066 6.712 

1972 9.031 9.023 8.994 8.927 8.865 7.921 

1973 9.986 9.978 9.953 9.892 9.824 9.111 

1974 9.537 9.531 9.502 9.435 9.376 9.141 

1975 8.961 8.955 8.931 8.898 8.855 8.671 

1976 8.917 8.911 8.896 8.844 8.786 8.451 

1977 11.01 11 10.97 10.88 10.79 9.696 

1978 10.82 10.82 10.79 10.72 10.65 10.24 

1979 11.04 11.03 11 10.92 10.85 10.34 

1980 10.38 10.37 10.35 10.27 10.22 9.982 

1981 10.4 10.4 10.38 10.31 10.24 9.803 

1982 12.65 12.64 12.6 12.51 12.43 11.23 

1983 12.9 12.89 12.86 12.8 12.72 12.07 

1984 12.02 12.02 11.98 11.9 11.86 11.63 

1985 12.57 12.56 12.53 12.45 12.38 11.73 

1986 13.03 13.02 12.99 12.89 12.79 12.13 

1987 12.73 12.72 12.67 12.58 12.49 12.06 

1988 11.97 11.96 11.93 11.88 11.81 11.53 

1989 12.07 12.06 12.04 11.95 11.88 11.38 

1990 11.75 11.74 11.72 11.63 11.55 11.2 

Sorted results 

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

0.032258064516129 13.03 13.02 12.99 12.89 12.79 12.13 

0.0645161290322581 12.9 12.89 12.86 12.8 12.72 12.07 

0.0967741935483871 12.73 12.72 12.67 12.58 12.49 12.06 

0.129032258064516 12.65 12.64 12.6 12.51 12.43 11.73 

0.161290322580645 12.57 12.56 12.53 12.45 12.38 11.63 

0.193548387096774 12.07 12.06 12.04 11.95 11.88 11.53 

0.225806451612903 12.02 12.02 11.98 11.9 11.86 11.38 

0.258064516129032 11.97 11.96 11.93 11.88 11.81 11.23 

0.290322580645161 11.75 11.74 11.72 11.63 11.55 11.2 

0.32258064516129 11.04 11.03 11 10.92 10.85 10.34 

0.354838709677419 11.01 11 10.97 10.88 10.79 10.24 

0.387096774193548 10.82 10.82 10.79 10.72 10.65 9.982 

0.419354838709677 10.4 10.4 10.38 10.31 10.24 9.803 

0.451612903225806 10.38 10.37 10.35 10.27 10.22 9.696 

0.483870967741936 9.986 9.978 9.953 9.892 9.824 9.141 

0.516129032258065 9.537 9.531 9.502 9.435 9.376 9.111 

0.548387096774194 9.031 9.023 8.994 8.927 8.865 8.671 

0.580645161290323 8.961 8.955 8.931 8.898 8.855 8.451 

0.612903225806452 8.917 8.911 8.896 8.844 8.786 7.921 

0.645161290322581 7.295 7.288 7.269 7.221 7.169 6.712 

0.67741935483871 7.194 7.189 7.174 7.116 7.066 6.679 

0.709677419354839 6.979 6.974 6.954 6.906 6.869 6.355 

0.741935483870968 5.64 5.636 5.623 5.588 5.551 5.286 

0.774193548387097 5.507 5.502 5.48 5.446 5.408 4.695 

0.806451612903226 4.258 4.255 4.243 4.206 4.168 3.853 

0.838709677419355 4.022 4.019 4.009 3.988 3.972 3.804 

0.870967741935484 4.005 4.002 3.989 3.957 3.935 3.722 

0.903225806451613 3.868 3.865 3.857 3.848 3.832 3.386 

0.935483870967742 2.318 2.316 2.308 2.287 2.271 2.168 

0.967741935483871 2.311 2.307 2.298 2.269 2.246 1.435 
66 

0.1 12.722 12.712 12.663 12.573 12.484 12.027 

 Average of yearly averages: 8.2137 

Inputs generated by pe5.pl - Novemeber 2006 

Data used for this run: 

Output File: KScornAL 

Metfile: w13996.dvf 

PRZM scenario: KSCornStd.txt 

EXAMS environment file: pond298.exv 

Chemical Name: Flumetsulam 

Description Variable Name Value Units Comments 

Molecular weight mwt 325.3 g/mol 

Henry's Law Const. henry atm-m^3/mol 

Vapor Pressure vapr 0.8e-15 torr 

Solubility sol 5650 mg/L 

Kd Kd mg/L 

Koc Koc 27.3 mg/L 

Photolysis half-life kdp 0 days Half-life 

Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacw 1540 days Halfife 

Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacs 549 days Halfife 

Aerobic Soil Metabolism asm 98.9 days Halfife 

Hydrolysis: pH 7 0 days Half-life 

Method: CAM 1 integer See PRZM manual 

Incorporation Depth: DEPI cm 

Application Rate: TAPP 0.078 kg/ha 

Application Efficiency: APPEFF 0.95 fraction 

Spray Drift DRFT 0.05 fraction of application rate applied to pond 

Application Date Date 01-05 dd/mm or dd/mmm or dd-mm or dd-mmm 

Record 17: FILTRA 

 IPSCND 1 

 UPTKF 

Record 18: PLVKRT 

 PLDKRT 

 FEXTRC 0.5 

Flag for Index Res. Run IR EPA Pond 

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

stored as KScornGL.out 

Chemical: Flumetsulam 

PRZM environment: KSCornStd.txt modified Monday, 25 August 2008 at 15:45:08 

EXAMS environment: pond298.exv modified Tueday, 26 August 2008 at 06:14:08 

Metfile: w13996.dvf modified Tueday, 26 August 2008 at 06:14:52 

Water segment concentrations (ppb) 

Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly 

1961 2.245 2.241 2.232 2.205 2.182 1.393 

1962 2.113 2.111 2.104 2.086 2.071 2.018 

1963 4.003 4 3.987 3.953 3.918 3.162 

1964 3.646 3.643 3.636 3.612 3.604 3.537 

1965 3.522 3.519 3.507 3.48 3.456 3.379 

1966 3.284 3.281 3.279 3.273 3.267 3.198 

1967 4.892 4.887 4.867 4.838 4.805 4.122 

1968 4.943 4.94 4.929 4.899 4.867 4.653 

1969 6.59 6.583 6.567 6.524 6.477 5.691 

1970 6.193 6.188 6.171 6.128 6.093 5.963 

1971 6.356 6.352 6.339 6.288 6.244 5.938 

1972 8.214 8.207 8.18 8.12 8.063 7.143 

1973 9.153 9.146 9.124 9.07 9.008 8.33 

1974 8.645 8.639 8.614 8.552 8.495 8.317 

1975 8.037 8.035 8.029 8.014 8.002 7.785 

1976 7.919 7.914 7.901 7.854 7.803 7.52 

1977 10.06 10.05 10.02 9.942 9.863 8.787 

1978 9.839 9.832 9.805 9.747 9.684 9.322 

1979 10.03 10.02 9.993 9.922 9.857 9.398 

1980 9.332 9.324 9.303 9.239 9.225 9.004 

1981 9.341 9.335 9.317 9.254 9.189 8.802 

1982 11.65 11.64 11.61 11.52 11.44 10.26 

1983 11.89 11.88 11.85 11.79 11.72 11.12 

1984 10.97 10.96 10.93 10.89 10.87 10.64 

1985 11.52 11.51 11.47 11.41 11.34 10.74 

1986 11.98 11.97 11.94 11.84 11.75 11.14 

1987 11.65 11.64 11.6 11.51 11.43 11.06 

1988 10.86 10.85 10.82 10.77 10.72 10.5 

1989 10.94 10.94 10.92 10.85 10.78 10.32 

1990 10.6 10.59 10.57 10.49 10.42 10.12 

Sorted results 

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

0.032258064516129 11.98 11.97 11.94 11.84 11.75 11.14 
67 

0.0645161290322581 11.89 11.88 11.85 11.79 11.72 11.12 

0.0967741935483871 11.65 11.64 11.61 11.52 11.44 11.06 

0.129032258064516 11.65 11.64 11.6 11.51 11.43 10.74 

0.161290322580645 11.52 11.51 11.47 11.41 11.34 10.64 

0.193548387096774 10.97 10.96 10.93 10.89 10.87 10.5 

0.225806451612903 10.94 10.94 10.92 10.85 10.78 10.32 

0.258064516129032 10.86 10.85 10.82 10.77 10.72 10.26 

0.290322580645161 10.6 10.59 10.57 10.49 10.42 10.12 

0.32258064516129 10.06 10.05 10.02 9.942 9.863 9.398 

0.354838709677419 10.03 10.02 9.993 9.922 9.857 9.322 

0.387096774193548 9.839 9.832 9.805 9.747 9.684 9.004 

0.419354838709677 9.341 9.335 9.317 9.254 9.225 8.802 

0.451612903225806 9.332 9.324 9.303 9.239 9.189 8.787 

0.483870967741936 9.153 9.146 9.124 9.07 9.008 8.33 

0.516129032258065 8.645 8.639 8.614 8.552 8.495 8.317 

0.548387096774194 8.214 8.207 8.18 8.12 8.063 7.785 

0.580645161290323 8.037 8.035 8.029 8.014 8.002 7.52 

0.612903225806452 7.919 7.914 7.901 7.854 7.803 7.143 

0.645161290322581 6.59 6.583 6.567 6.524 6.477 5.963 

0.67741935483871 6.356 6.352 6.339 6.288 6.244 5.938 

0.709677419354839 6.193 6.188 6.171 6.128 6.093 5.691 

0.741935483870968 4.943 4.94 4.929 4.899 4.867 4.653 

0.774193548387097 4.892 4.887 4.867 4.838 4.805 4.122 

0.806451612903226 4.003 4 3.987 3.953 3.918 3.537 

0.838709677419355 3.646 3.643 3.636 3.612 3.604 3.379 

0.870967741935484 3.522 3.519 3.507 3.48 3.456 3.198 

0.903225806451613 3.284 3.281 3.279 3.273 3.267 3.162 

0.935483870967742 2.245 2.241 2.232 2.205 2.182 2.018 

0.967741935483871 2.113 2.111 2.104 2.086 2.071 1.393 

0.1 11.65 11.64 11.609 11.519 11.439 11.028 

 Average of yearly averages: 7.4454 

Inputs generated by pe5.pl - Novemeber 2006 

Data used for this run: 

Output File: KScornGL 

Metfile: w13996.dvf 

PRZM scenario: KSCornStd.txt 

EXAMS environment file: pond298.exv 

Chemical Name: Flumetsulam 

Description Variable Name Value Units Comments 

Molecular weight mwt 325.3 g/mol 

Henry's Law Const. henry atm-m^3/mol 

Vapor Pressure vapr 0.8e-15 torr 

Solubility sol 5650 mg/L 

Kd Kd mg/L 

Koc Koc 27.3 mg/L 

Photolysis half-life kdp 0 days Half-life 

Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacw 1540 days Halfife 

Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacs 549 days Halfife 

Aerobic Soil Metabolism asm 98.9 days Halfife 

Hydrolysis: pH 7 0 days Half-life 

Method: CAM 1 integer See PRZM manual 

Incorporation Depth: DEPI cm 

Application Rate: TAPP 0.078 kg/ha 

Application Efficiency: APPEFF 0.99 fraction 

Spray Drift DRFT 0.01 fraction of application rate applied to pond 

Application Date Date 01-05 dd/mm or dd/mmm or dd-mm or dd-mmm 

Record 17: FILTRA 

 IPSCND 1 

 UPTKF 

Record 18: PLVKRT 

 PLDKRT 

 FEXTRC 0.5 

Flag for Index Res. Run IR EPA Pond 

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

stored as MScornAL.out 

Chemical: Flumetsulam 

PRZM environment: MScornSTD.txt modified Tueday, 29 May 2007 at 13:57:40 

EXAMS environment: pond298.exv modified Tueday, 26 August 2008 at 06:14:08 

Metfile: w03940.dvf modified Tueday, 26 August 2008 at 06:14:14 

Water segment concentrations (ppb) 

Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly 

1961 3.765 3.759 3.737 3.688 3.653 2.655 

1962 4.19 4.187 4.174 4.143 4.112 3.766 

1963 3.969 3.966 3.954 3.923 3.901 3.742 

1964 6.423 6.415 6.391 6.323 6.268 5.353 

1965 8.857 8.849 8.813 8.732 8.666 7.652 
68 

1966 7.964 7.96 7.939 7.922 7.886 7.645 

1967 7.776 7.769 7.748 7.703 7.664 7.365 

1968 8.865 8.859 8.829 8.754 8.695 8.023 

1969 8.181 8.176 8.158 8.105 8.069 7.784 

1970 7.515 7.509 7.489 7.457 7.416 7.165 

1971 7.622 7.617 7.596 7.544 7.514 7.102 

1972 8.409 8.403 8.383 8.325 8.27 7.644 

1973 7.808 7.804 7.79 7.745 7.703 7.398 

1974 7.692 7.687 7.667 7.606 7.554 7.191 

1975 7.35 7.346 7.328 7.285 7.245 6.947 

1976 8.912 8.904 8.87 8.8 8.742 7.949 

1977 8.671 8.665 8.643 8.578 8.518 8.103 

1978 8.087 8.082 8.067 8.014 7.962 7.66 

1979 8.963 8.958 8.932 8.877 8.821 8.167 

1980 11.38 11.37 11.33 11.25 11.19 10.03 

1981 10.97 10.96 10.94 10.86 10.79 10.26 

1982 10 9.996 9.969 9.922 9.875 9.544 

1983 11.23 11.22 11.19 11.1 11.03 10.17 

1984 10.75 10.75 10.73 10.67 10.6 10.14 

1985 10.3 10.29 10.26 10.2 10.14 9.701 

1986 9.337 9.331 9.309 9.273 9.231 8.918 

1987 8.6 8.595 8.575 8.527 8.475 8.173 

1988 9.511 9.503 9.47 9.4 9.337 8.626 

1989 10.04 10.04 10.01 9.945 9.888 9.234 

1990 9.087 9.083 9.063 9.014 8.989 8.676 

Sorted results 

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

0.032258064516129 11.38 11.37 11.33 11.25 11.19 10.26 

0.0645161290322581 11.23 11.22 11.19 11.1 11.03 10.17 

0.0967741935483871 10.97 10.96 10.94 10.86 10.79 10.14 

0.129032258064516 10.75 10.75 10.73 10.67 10.6 10.03 

0.161290322580645 10.3 10.29 10.26 10.2 10.14 9.701 

0.193548387096774 10.04 10.04 10.01 9.945 9.888 9.544 

0.225806451612903 10 9.996 9.969 9.922 9.875 9.234 

0.258064516129032 9.511 9.503 9.47 9.4 9.337 8.918 

0.290322580645161 9.337 9.331 9.309 9.273 9.231 8.676 

0.32258064516129 9.087 9.083 9.063 9.014 8.989 8.626 

0.354838709677419 8.963 8.958 8.932 8.877 8.821 8.173 

0.387096774193548 8.912 8.904 8.87 8.8 8.742 8.167 

0.419354838709677 8.865 8.859 8.829 8.754 8.695 8.103 

0.451612903225806 8.857 8.849 8.813 8.732 8.666 8.023 

0.483870967741936 8.671 8.665 8.643 8.578 8.518 7.949 

0.516129032258065 8.6 8.595 8.575 8.527 8.475 7.784 

0.548387096774194 8.409 8.403 8.383 8.325 8.27 7.66 

0.580645161290323 8.181 8.176 8.158 8.105 8.069 7.652 

0.612903225806452 8.087 8.082 8.067 8.014 7.962 7.645 

0.645161290322581 7.964 7.96 7.939 7.922 7.886 7.644 

0.67741935483871 7.808 7.804 7.79 7.745 7.703 7.398 

0.709677419354839 7.776 7.769 7.748 7.703 7.664 7.365 

0.741935483870968 7.692 7.687 7.667 7.606 7.554 7.191 

0.774193548387097 7.622 7.617 7.596 7.544 7.514 7.165 

0.806451612903226 7.515 7.509 7.489 7.457 7.416 7.102 

0.838709677419355 7.35 7.346 7.328 7.285 7.245 6.947 

0.870967741935484 6.423 6.415 6.391 6.323 6.268 5.353 

0.903225806451613 4.19 4.187 4.174 4.143 4.112 3.766 

0.935483870967742 3.969 3.966 3.954 3.923 3.901 3.742 

0.967741935483871 3.765 3.759 3.737 3.688 3.653 2.655 

0.1 10.948 10.939 10.919 10.841 10.771 10.129 

 Average of yearly averages: 7.75943333333333 

Inputs generated by pe5.pl - Novemeber 2006 

Data used for this run: 

Output File: MScornAL 

Metfile: w03940.dvf 

PRZM scenario: MScornSTD.txt 

EXAMS environment file: pond298.exv 

Chemical Name: Flumetsulam 

Description Variable Name Value Units Comments 

Molecular weight mwt 325.3 g/mol 

Henry's Law Const. henry atm-m^3/mol 

Vapor Pressure vapr 0.8e-15 torr 

Solubility sol 5650 mg/L 

Kd Kd mg/L 

Koc Koc 27.3 mg/L 

Photolysis half-life kdp 0 days Half-life 

Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacw 1540 days Halfife 

Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacs 549 days Halfife 

Aerobic Soil Metabolism asm 98.9 days Halfife 
69 

Hydrolysis: pH 7 0 days Half-life 

Method: CAM 1 integer See PRZM manual 

Incorporation Depth: DEPI cm 

Application Rate: TAPP 0.078 kg/ha 

Application Efficiency: APPEFF 0.95 fraction 

Spray Drift DRFT 0.05 fraction of application rate applied to pond 

Application Date Date 28-03 dd/mm or dd/mmm or dd-mm or dd-mmm 

Record 17: FILTRA 

 IPSCND 1 

 UPTKF 

Record 18: PLVKRT 

 PLDKRT 

 FEXTRC 0.5 

Flag for Index Res. Run IR EPA Pond 

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

stored as MScornGL.out 

Chemical: Flumetsulam 

PRZM environment: MScornSTD.txt modified Tueday, 29 May 2007 at 13:57:40 

EXAMS environment: pond298.exv modified Tueday, 26 August 2008 at 06:14:08 

Metfile: w03940.dvf modified Tueday, 26 August 2008 at 06:14:14 

Water segment concentrations (ppb) 

Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly 

1961 3.759 3.753 3.732 3.683 3.648 2.652 

1962 4.065 4.062 4.049 4.02 3.991 3.676 

1963 3.715 3.712 3.702 3.674 3.649 3.534 

1964 6.162 6.154 6.131 6.065 6.012 5.11 

1965 8.601 8.593 8.558 8.479 8.415 7.413 

1966 7.642 7.64 7.631 7.611 7.594 7.32 

1967 7.318 7.313 7.293 7.246 7.211 6.95 

1968 8.369 8.364 8.335 8.264 8.207 7.566 

1969 7.598 7.593 7.576 7.526 7.494 7.259 

1970 6.866 6.864 6.856 6.838 6.822 6.564 

1971 6.922 6.918 6.899 6.847 6.82 6.455 

1972 7.696 7.69 7.674 7.622 7.572 6.987 

1973 7.046 7.043 7.027 6.989 6.949 6.7 

1974 6.9 6.895 6.878 6.823 6.777 6.457 

1975 6.509 6.505 6.489 6.449 6.415 6.171 

1976 8.104 8.097 8.065 8.001 7.948 7.187 

1977 7.824 7.818 7.798 7.74 7.685 7.324 

1978 7.204 7.2 7.185 7.14 7.092 6.845 

1979 8.1 8.095 8.071 8.019 7.969 7.354 

1980 10.59 10.58 10.55 10.47 10.41 9.281 

1981 10.16 10.15 10.12 10.05 9.99 9.507 

1982 9.148 9.143 9.118 9.071 9.039 8.756 

1983 10.41 10.4 10.37 10.29 10.22 9.399 

1984 9.9 9.893 9.874 9.821 9.762 9.35 

1985 9.413 9.407 9.381 9.327 9.271 8.885 

1986 8.469 8.467 8.456 8.429 8.406 8.065 

1987 7.635 7.631 7.613 7.571 7.54 7.286 

1988 8.578 8.571 8.541 8.476 8.419 7.751 

1989 9.133 9.129 9.101 9.042 8.991 8.381 

1990 8.237 8.234 8.221 8.19 8.165 7.795 

Sorted results 

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

0.032258064516129 10.59 10.58 10.55 10.47 10.41 9.507 

0.0645161290322581 10.41 10.4 10.37 10.29 10.22 9.399 

0.0967741935483871 10.16 10.15 10.12 10.05 9.99 9.35 

0.129032258064516 9.9 9.893 9.874 9.821 9.762 9.281 

0.161290322580645 9.413 9.407 9.381 9.327 9.271 8.885 

0.193548387096774 9.148 9.143 9.118 9.071 9.039 8.756 

0.225806451612903 9.133 9.129 9.101 9.042 8.991 8.381 

0.258064516129032 8.601 8.593 8.558 8.479 8.419 8.065 

0.290322580645161 8.578 8.571 8.541 8.476 8.415 7.795 

0.32258064516129 8.469 8.467 8.456 8.429 8.406 7.751 

0.354838709677419 8.369 8.364 8.335 8.264 8.207 7.566 

0.387096774193548 8.237 8.234 8.221 8.19 8.165 7.413 

0.419354838709677 8.104 8.097 8.071 8.019 7.969 7.354 

0.451612903225806 8.1 8.095 8.065 8.001 7.948 7.324 

0.483870967741936 7.824 7.818 7.798 7.74 7.685 7.32 

0.516129032258065 7.696 7.69 7.674 7.622 7.594 7.286 

0.548387096774194 7.642 7.64 7.631 7.611 7.572 7.259 

0.580645161290323 7.635 7.631 7.613 7.571 7.54 7.187 

0.612903225806452 7.598 7.593 7.576 7.526 7.494 6.987 

0.645161290322581 7.318 7.313 7.293 7.246 7.211 6.95 

0.67741935483871 7.204 7.2 7.185 7.14 7.092 6.845 

0.709677419354839 7.046 7.043 7.027 6.989 6.949 6.7 

0.741935483870968 6.922 6.918 6.899 6.847 6.822 6.564 

0.774193548387097 6.9 6.895 6.878 6.838 6.82 6.457 
70 

0.806451612903226 6.866 6.864 6.856 6.823 6.777 6.455 

0.838709677419355 6.509 6.505 6.489 6.449 6.415 6.171 

0.870967741935484 6.162 6.154 6.131 6.065 6.012 5.11 

0.903225806451613 4.065 4.062 4.049 4.02 3.991 3.676 

0.935483870967742 3.759 3.753 3.732 3.683 3.649 3.534 

0.967741935483871 3.715 3.712 3.702 3.674 3.648 2.652 

0.1 10.134 10.1243 10.0954 10.0271 9.9672 9.3431 

 Average of yearly averages: 7.13266666666666 

Inputs generated by pe5.pl - Novemeber 2006 

Data used for this run: 

Output File: MScornGL 

Metfile: w03940.dvf 

PRZM scenario: MScornSTD.txt 

EXAMS environment file: pond298.exv 

Chemical Name: Flumetsulam 

Description Variable Name Value Units Comments 

Molecular weight mwt 325.3 g/mol 

Henry's Law Const. henry atm-m^3/mol 

Vapor Pressure vapr 0.8e-15 torr 

Solubility sol 5650 mg/L 

Kd Kd mg/L 

Koc Koc 27.3 mg/L 

Photolysis half-life kdp 0 days Half-life 

Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacw 1540 days Halfife 

Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacs 549 days Halfife 

Aerobic Soil Metabolism asm 98.9 days Halfife 

Hydrolysis: pH 7 0 days Half-life 

Method: CAM 1 integer See PRZM manual 

Incorporation Depth: DEPI cm 

Application Rate: TAPP 0.078 kg/ha 

Application Efficiency: APPEFF 0.99 fraction 

Spray Drift DRFT 0.01 fraction of application rate applied to pond 

Application Date Date 28-03 dd/mm or dd/mmm or dd-mm or dd-mmm 

Record 17: FILTRA 

 IPSCND 1 

 UPTKF 

Record 18: PLVKRT 

 PLDKRT 

 FEXTRC 0.5 

Flag for Index Res. Run IR EPA Pond 

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

stored as MSsoybeenAL.out 

Chemical: Flumetsulam 

PRZM environment: MSsoybeanSTD.txt modified Tueday, 29 May 2007 at 13:58:06 

EXAMS environment: pond298.exv modified Tueday, 26 August 2008 at 06:14:08 

Metfile: w03940.dvf modified Tueday, 26 August 2008 at 06:14:14 

Water segment concentrations (ppb) 

Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly 

1961 0.3364 0.3358 0.3335 0.3308 0.328 0.2337 

1962 1.369 1.368 1.36 1.341 1.329 1.021 

1963 1.46 1.458 1.454 1.442 1.431 1.328 

1964 3.392 3.387 3.374 3.334 3.303 2.668 

1965 3.213 3.211 3.2 3.174 3.155 3.015 

1966 3.12 3.118 3.109 3.085 3.07 2.942 

1967 3.48 3.477 3.465 3.435 3.419 3.177 

1968 4.429 4.426 4.408 4.368 4.336 3.902 

1969 4.263 4.26 4.247 4.216 4.187 4.003 

1970 4.034 4.031 4.02 3.995 3.973 3.813 

1971 4.239 4.236 4.225 4.191 4.161 3.899 

1972 3.941 3.939 3.934 3.917 3.894 3.744 

1973 3.919 3.917 3.905 3.88 3.855 3.653 

1974 4.774 4.77 4.757 4.714 4.679 4.22 

1975 4.612 4.609 4.602 4.568 4.537 4.338 

1976 4.293 4.29 4.287 4.276 4.26 4.114 

1977 4.637 4.633 4.617 4.582 4.548 4.239 

1978 4.539 4.535 4.524 4.494 4.463 4.237 

1979 5.133 5.13 5.114 5.082 5.049 4.652 

1980 5.708 5.705 5.687 5.638 5.594 5.144 

1981 5.361 5.357 5.342 5.303 5.269 5.046 

1982 5.051 5.047 5.032 4.99 4.968 4.775 

1983 6.107 6.103 6.085 6.035 5.993 5.436 

1984 6.229 6.224 6.212 6.179 6.14 5.777 

1985 5.808 5.804 5.788 5.752 5.719 5.509 

1986 5.372 5.369 5.355 5.328 5.298 5.105 

1987 5.006 5.003 4.994 4.968 4.939 4.75 

1988 5.897 5.892 5.871 5.825 5.783 5.27 

1989 5.68 5.679 5.664 5.632 5.597 5.339 
71 

1990 5.281 5.277 5.262 5.249 5.223 5.035 

Sorted results 

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

0.032258064516129 6.229 6.224 6.212 6.179 6.14 5.777 

0.0645161290322581 6.107 6.103 6.085 6.035 5.993 5.509 

0.0967741935483871 5.897 5.892 5.871 5.825 5.783 5.436 

0.129032258064516 5.808 5.804 5.788 5.752 5.719 5.339 

0.161290322580645 5.708 5.705 5.687 5.638 5.597 5.27 

0.193548387096774 5.68 5.679 5.664 5.632 5.594 5.144 

0.225806451612903 5.372 5.369 5.355 5.328 5.298 5.105 

0.258064516129032 5.361 5.357 5.342 5.303 5.269 5.046 

0.290322580645161 5.281 5.277 5.262 5.249 5.223 5.035 

0.32258064516129 5.133 5.13 5.114 5.082 5.049 4.775 

0.354838709677419 5.051 5.047 5.032 4.99 4.968 4.75 

0.387096774193548 5.006 5.003 4.994 4.968 4.939 4.652 

0.419354838709677 4.774 4.77 4.757 4.714 4.679 4.338 

0.451612903225806 4.637 4.633 4.617 4.582 4.548 4.239 

0.483870967741936 4.612 4.609 4.602 4.568 4.537 4.237 

0.516129032258065 4.539 4.535 4.524 4.494 4.463 4.22 

0.548387096774194 4.429 4.426 4.408 4.368 4.336 4.114 

0.580645161290323 4.293 4.29 4.287 4.276 4.26 4.003 

0.612903225806452 4.263 4.26 4.247 4.216 4.187 3.902 

0.645161290322581 4.239 4.236 4.225 4.191 4.161 3.899 

0.67741935483871 4.034 4.031 4.02 3.995 3.973 3.813 

0.709677419354839 3.941 3.939 3.934 3.917 3.894 3.744 

0.741935483870968 3.919 3.917 3.905 3.88 3.855 3.653 

0.774193548387097 3.48 3.477 3.465 3.435 3.419 3.177 

0.806451612903226 3.392 3.387 3.374 3.334 3.303 3.015 

0.838709677419355 3.213 3.211 3.2 3.174 3.155 2.942 

0.870967741935484 3.12 3.118 3.109 3.085 3.07 2.668 

0.903225806451613 1.46 1.458 1.454 1.442 1.431 1.328 

0.935483870967742 1.369 1.368 1.36 1.341 1.329 1.021 

0.967741935483871 0.3364 0.3358 0.3335 0.3308 0.328 0.2337 

0.1 5.8881 5.8832 5.8627 5.8177 5.7766 5.4263 

 Average of yearly averages: 4.01282333333333 

Inputs generated by pe5.pl - Novemeber 2006 

Data used for this run: 

Output File: MSsoybeenAL 

Metfile: w03940.dvf 

PRZM scenario: MSsoybeanSTD.txt 

EXAMS environment file: pond298.exv 

Chemical Name: Flumetsulam 

Description Variable Name Value Units Comments 

Molecular weight mwt 325.3 g/mol 

Henry's Law Const. henry atm-m^3/mol 

Vapor Pressure vapr 0.8e-15 torr 

Solubility sol 5650 mg/L 

Kd Kd mg/L 

Koc Koc 27.3 mg/L 

Photolysis half-life kdp 0 days Half-life 

Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacw 1540 days Halfife 

Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacs 549 days Halfife 

Aerobic Soil Metabolism asm 98.9 days Halfife 

Hydrolysis: pH 7 0 days Half-life 

Method: CAM 1 integer See PRZM manual 

Incorporation Depth: DEPI cm 

Application Rate: TAPP 0.078 kg/ha 

Application Efficiency: APPEFF 0.95 fraction 

Spray Drift DRFT 0.05 fraction of application rate applied to pond 

Application Date Date 31-03 dd/mm or dd/mmm or dd-mm or dd-mmm 

Record 17: FILTRA 

 IPSCND 1 

 UPTKF 

Record 18: PLVKRT 

 PLDKRT 

 FEXTRC 0.5 

Flag for Index Res. Run IR EPA Pond 

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

stored as MSsoybeanGL.out 

Chemical: Flumetsulam 

PRZM environment: MSsoybeanSTD.txt modified Tueday, 29 May 2007 at 13:58:06 

EXAMS environment: pond298.exv modified Tueday, 26 August 2008 at 06:14:08 

Metfile: w03940.dvf modified Tueday, 26 August 2008 at 06:14:14 

Water segment concentrations (ppb) 

Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly 
72 

1961 0.1881 0.1878 0.1866 0.1858 0.1844 0.1298 

1962 1.125 1.124 1.117 1.101 1.09 0.8171 

1963 1.1 1.099 1.096 1.088 1.081 1.02 

1964 3.003 2.999 2.988 2.951 2.922 2.314 

1965 2.723 2.721 2.713 2.691 2.673 2.583 

1966 2.542 2.54 2.533 2.514 2.497 2.421 

1967 2.842 2.839 2.829 2.805 2.787 2.587 

1968 3.746 3.744 3.728 3.693 3.665 3.273 

1969 3.515 3.512 3.502 3.477 3.453 3.32 

1970 3.222 3.22 3.212 3.189 3.174 3.072 

1971 3.397 3.395 3.386 3.359 3.334 3.119 

1972 3.057 3.056 3.051 3.04 3.031 2.923 

1973 2.993 2.991 2.983 2.961 2.943 2.798 

1974 3.859 3.855 3.845 3.81 3.78 3.362 

1975 3.657 3.655 3.648 3.622 3.598 3.454 

1976 3.307 3.306 3.302 3.291 3.281 3.193 

1977 3.619 3.616 3.604 3.575 3.548 3.298 

1978 3.506 3.504 3.493 3.471 3.448 3.279 

1979 4.108 4.105 4.091 4.064 4.038 3.691 

1980 4.683 4.68 4.665 4.624 4.587 4.187 

1981 4.311 4.308 4.295 4.265 4.238 4.078 

1982 3.988 3.985 3.973 3.94 3.917 3.787 

1983 5.072 5.068 5.053 5.01 4.974 4.463 

1984 5.184 5.18 5.171 5.143 5.112 4.805 

1985 4.736 4.733 4.721 4.692 4.666 4.519 

1986 4.279 4.276 4.265 4.252 4.24 4.092 

1987 3.889 3.887 3.882 3.864 3.844 3.72 

1988 4.811 4.807 4.789 4.751 4.716 4.255 

1989 4.588 4.587 4.575 4.551 4.524 4.323 

1990 4.172 4.169 4.157 4.14 4.127 4.001 

Sorted results 

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

0.032258064516129 5.184 5.18 5.171 5.143 5.112 4.805 

0.0645161290322581 5.072 5.068 5.053 5.01 4.974 4.519 

0.0967741935483871 4.811 4.807 4.789 4.751 4.716 4.463 

0.129032258064516 4.736 4.733 4.721 4.692 4.666 4.323 

0.161290322580645 4.683 4.68 4.665 4.624 4.587 4.255 

0.193548387096774 4.588 4.587 4.575 4.551 4.524 4.187 

0.225806451612903 4.311 4.308 4.295 4.265 4.24 4.092 

0.258064516129032 4.279 4.276 4.265 4.252 4.238 4.078 

0.290322580645161 4.172 4.169 4.157 4.14 4.127 4.001 

0.32258064516129 4.108 4.105 4.091 4.064 4.038 3.787 

0.354838709677419 3.988 3.985 3.973 3.94 3.917 3.72 

0.387096774193548 3.889 3.887 3.882 3.864 3.844 3.691 

0.419354838709677 3.859 3.855 3.845 3.81 3.78 3.454 

0.451612903225806 3.746 3.744 3.728 3.693 3.665 3.362 

0.483870967741936 3.657 3.655 3.648 3.622 3.598 3.32 

0.516129032258065 3.619 3.616 3.604 3.575 3.548 3.298 

0.548387096774194 3.515 3.512 3.502 3.477 3.453 3.279 

0.580645161290323 3.506 3.504 3.493 3.471 3.448 3.273 

0.612903225806452 3.397 3.395 3.386 3.359 3.334 3.193 

0.645161290322581 3.307 3.306 3.302 3.291 3.281 3.119 

0.67741935483871 3.222 3.22 3.212 3.189 3.174 3.072 

0.709677419354839 3.057 3.056 3.051 3.04 3.031 2.923 

0.741935483870968 3.003 2.999 2.988 2.961 2.943 2.798 

0.774193548387097 2.993 2.991 2.983 2.951 2.922 2.587 

0.806451612903226 2.842 2.839 2.829 2.805 2.787 2.583 

0.838709677419355 2.723 2.721 2.713 2.691 2.673 2.421 

0.870967741935484 2.542 2.54 2.533 2.514 2.497 2.314 

0.903225806451613 1.125 1.124 1.117 1.101 1.09 1.02 

0.935483870967742 1.1 1.099 1.096 1.088 1.081 0.8171 

0.967741935483871 0.1881 0.1878 0.1866 0.1858 0.1844 0.1298 

0.1 4.8035 4.7996 4.7822 4.7451 4.711 4.449 

 Average of yearly averages: 3.22946333333333 

Inputs generated by pe5.pl - Novemeber 2006 

Data used for this run: 

Output File: MSsoybeanGL 

Metfile: w03940.dvf 

PRZM scenario: MSsoybeanSTD.txt 

EXAMS environment file: pond298.exv 

Chemical Name: Flumetsulam 

Description Variable Name Value Units Comments 

Molecular weight mwt 325.3 g/mol 

Henry's Law Const. henry atm-m^3/mol 

Vapor Pressure vapr 0.8e-15 torr 

Solubility sol 5650 mg/L 

Kd Kd mg/L 
73 

Koc Koc 27.3 mg/L 

Photolysis half-life kdp 0 days Half-life 

Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacw 1540 days Halfife 

Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacs 549 days Halfife 

Aerobic Soil Metabolism asm 98.9 days Halfife 

Hydrolysis: pH 7 0 days Half-life 

Method: CAM 1 integer See PRZM manual 

Incorporation Depth: DEPI cm 

Application Rate: TAPP 0.078 kg/ha 

Application Efficiency: APPEFF 0.99 fraction 

Spray Drift DRFT 0.01 fraction of application rate applied to pond 

Application Date Date 31-03 dd/mm or dd/mmm or dd-mm or dd-mmm 

Record 17: FILTRA 

 IPSCND 1 

 UPTKF 

Record 18: PLVKRT 

 PLDKRT 

 FEXTRC 0.5 

Flag for Index Res. Run IR EPA Pond 

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

 
74 

APPENDIX C

Output from T-Rex and TerrPlant Model Runs for Flumetsulam 

T-Rex Run for Spray Applications 

Upper Bound Kenaga Residues For RQ Calculation 

Chemical Name: Flumetsulam 

 Use 1 

 Formulation All products 

Application Rate 0.07 lbs a.i./acre 

Half-life 35 days 

Application Interval 0 days 

Maximum # Apps./Year 1 

Length of Simulation 1 year 

Variable application rates? no 

 

Endpoints 

Avian 

Bobwhite quail LD50 (mg/kg-bw) 2250.00 

Bobwhite quail LC50 (mg/kg-diet) 5620.00 

Bobwhite quail NOAEL(mg/kg-bw) 0.00 

Bobwhite quail NOAEC (mg/kg-diet) 300.00 

 

Mammals 

LD50 (mg/kg-bw) 5000.00 

LC50 (mg/kg-diet) 0.00 

NOAEL (mg/kg-bw) 50.00 

NOAEC (mg/kg-diet) 1000.00 

 

Dietary-based EECs (ppm) Kenaga 

Values 

Short Grass 16.80 

Tall Grass 7.70 

Broadleaf plants 9.45 

Fruits/pods/seeds 1.05 

Arthropods 6.58 
75 

Avian Results 

Avian Body Ingestion (Fdry) Ingestion (Fwet) % body wgt FI 

Class Weight (g) (g bw/day) (g/day) consumed (kg-diet/day) 

Small 20 5 23 114 2.28E-02 

Mid 100 13 65 65 6.49E-02 

Large 1000 58 291 29 2.91E-01 

 20 5 5 25 5.06E-03 

Granivores 100 13 14 14 1.44E-02 

 1000 58 65 6 6.46E-02 

 

Avian Body Adjusted LD50 

Weight (g) (mg/kg-bw) 

20 1620.97 

100 2063.57 

1000 2914.87 

Dose-based EECs (mg/kg-bw)

Avian Classes and Body Weights (grams) 

small mid large 

20 100 1000 

Short Grass 19.13 10.91 4.88 

Tall Grass 8.77 5.00 2.24 

Broadleaf plants 10.76 6.14 2.75 

Fruits/pods 1.20 0.68 0.31 

Arthropods 7.49 4.27 1.91 

Seeds 0.27 0.15 0.07 

Dose-based RQs (Dose-based EEC/adjusted LD50) 

Avian Acute RQs 

Size Class (grams) 

20 100 1000 

Short Grass 0.01 0.01 0.00 

Tall Grass 0.01 0.00 0.00 

Broadleaf plants 0.01 0.00 0.00 

Fruits/pods 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Arthropods 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Seeds 0.00 0.00 0.00 
76 

Dietary-based RQs 

(Dietary-based EEC/LC50 or 

NOAEC) RQs 

 

 Acute Chronic 

Short Grass 0.00 0.06 

Tall Grass 0.00 0.03 

Broadleaf plants 0.00 0.03 

Fruits/pods/seeds 0.00 0.00 

Arthropods 0.00 0.02 

Mammalian Results 

Mammalian Body Ingestion (Fdry) Ingestion (Fwet) % body wgt FI 

Class Weight (g bwt/day) (g/day) consumed (kg-diet/day) 

 15 3 14 95 1.43E-02 

Herbivores/ 35 5 23 66 2.31E-02 

insectivores 1000 31 153 15 1.53E-01 

 15 3 3 21 3.18E-03 

Grainvores 35 5 5 15 5.13E-03 

 1000 31 34 3 3.40E-02 

 

Mammalian Body Adjusted Adjusted 

Class Weight LD50 NOAEL 

 15 10989.15 109.89 

Herbivores/ 35 8891.40 88.91 

insectivores 1000 3845.80 38.46 

 15 10989.15 109.89 

Granivores 35 8891.40 88.91 

 1000 3845.80 38.46 

Dose-Based EECs (mg/kg-bw)

Mammalian Classes and Body weight 

(grams) 

15 35 1000 

Short Grass 16.02 11.07 2.57 

Tall Grass 7.34 5.07 1.18 

Broadleaf plants 9.01 6.23 1.44 

Fruits/pods 1.00 0.69 0.16 

Arthropods 6.27 4.34 1.01 

Seeds 0.22 0.15 0.04 

Dose-based 

RQs (Dose-based 

Small mammal Medium mammal Large mammal 

15 grams 35 grams 1000 grams 

Acute Chronic Acute Chronic Acute Chronic 
77 

EEC/LD50 or 

NOAEL)

Short Grass 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.07 

Tall Grass 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.03 

Broadleaf plants 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.04 

Fruits/pods 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 

Arthropods 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.03 

Seeds 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Dietary-based RQs 

(Dietary-based EEC/LC50 or NOAEC) 

Mammal RQs 

 

Acute Chronic 

Short Grass #DIV/0! 0.02 

Tall Grass #DIV/0! 0.01 

Broadleaf plants #DIV/0! 0.01 

Fruits/pods/seeds #DIV/0! 0.00 

Arthropods #DIV/0! 0.01 

 
78 

T-Rex Run for Products Impregnated in Fertilizer (LD50/Sq. ft. Calculations) 

Chemical: Flumetsulam 

 

LD50 ft-2 

 

INPUTS Do not overwrite these numbers. 

Application Rate: 0.07 lbs / acre 

% A.I.: 100.00% 

Avian LD50 (20g): 1620.97 mg/kg bw 

(100g) 2063.57 

(1000g) 2914.87 

Mammalian LD50 

(15g): 10989.15 mg/kg bw 

(35g) 8891.40 

(1000g) 3845.80 

Row Spacing: 0 inches 

Bandwidth: 0 inches 

Unincorporation: 100% 

Row/Band/In-furrow applications 

 

Granular N/A 

Intermediate Calculations Intermediate Calculations 

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

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

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

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

mg ai/ft2: N/A 

exposed mg ai/ft2: N/A 

 

LD50 ft-2 N/A 

 

wgt class 

(grams) 

wgt class 

(grams) 

Avian 20 N/A Avian 20 N/A 

 100 N/A 100 N/A 

 1000 N/A 1000 N/A 

Mammal 15 N/A Mammal 15 N/A 

 35 N/A 35 N/A 

 1000 N/A 1000 N/A 
79 

Broadcast applications 

Granular 

Intermediate Calculations 

mg ai/ft2: 0.73 

 

LD50 ft-2 

 

wgt class 

(grams) 

Avian 20 0.02 

 100 0.00 

 1000 0.00 

Mammal 15 0.00 

 35 0.00 

 1000 0.00 

Formulas used in the calculations are in the User’s Guide. 
80 

TerrPlant 

TerrPlant v. 1.2.2 

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

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

 

Table 1. Chemical Identity. 

Chemical Name Flumestulam 

PC code 129016 

Use Corn, pre-emergent 

Application Method Aerial 

Application Form Spray 

Solubility in Water 

(ppm) 5300 

 

Table 2. Input parameters used to derive EECs. 

Input Parameter Symbol Value Units 

Application Rate A 0.069 lb/A 

Incorporation I 1 none 

Runoff Fraction R 0.05 none 

Drift Fraction D 0.05 none 

 

Table 3. EECs for Flumestulam. Units in lb/A. 

Description Equation EEC 

Runoff to dry areas (A/I)*R 0.00345 

Runoff to semi-aquatic areas (A/I)*R*10 0.0345 

Spray drift A*D 0.00345 

Total for dry areas ((A/I)*R)+(A*D) 0.0069 

Total for semi-aquatic areas ((A/I)*R*10)+(A*D) 0.03795 

 

Table 4. Plant survival and growth data used for RQ derivation. Units are in lb/A. 

 Seedling Emergence Vegetative Vigor 

Plant type EC25 NOAEC EC25 NOAEC 

Monocot 0.0017 0.000568 0.00058 0.000093 

Dicot 0.000188 0.0000452 0.00027 0.00028 

 

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

and/or spray drift.* 

Plant Type Listed Status Dry Semi-Aquatic Spray Drift 

Monocot non-listed 4.06 22.32 5.95 

Monocot listed 12.15 66.81 37.10 

Dicot non-listed 36.70 201.86 18.35 

Dicot listed 152.65 839.60 76.33 

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

Ecological Incident Reports for Flumetsulam 

Table D1. Ecological Incidents Associated with Exposure to Flumetsulam Via Drift, Runoff, and Carryover 

Use Site Incident ID Date State Magnitude Species Affected Route of Exposure Product Agricultural Area I007887-001 6/2/1997 MS All except 50 acres Sorghum Carryover Broadstrike 

I009512-012 5/15/1999 MN All CORN Carryover Hornet I010927-027 5/20/2000 GA All Cotton Carryover Broadstrike I013636-054 5/20/2002 IA 15 acres Soybean Carryover Hornet WDI014702-045 5/2/2003 WI 76 acres Soybean Carryover Hornet 

Alfalfa. I009512-005 6/23/1999 WI 20 acres Alfalfa Carryover Hornet Clover I014702-038 4/11/2003 MN 18 acres clover Carryover Hornet Corn I007755-009 5/2/1998 MN 33 acres Soybean Carryover Hornet 

I007702-013 7/19/1998 IL 18 rows Soybean Drift Hornet I007702-014 7/20/1998 IL Unknown Soybean Drift Hornet I007702-008 8/4/1998 IL All10 acres Soybean Runoff Hornet I007702-007 8/4/1998 IL All 10 acres Soybean Drift Hornet I007702-006 8/5/1998 IL All 25 acres Soybean Drift Hornet I007702-004 8/9/1998 IN 50 acres out of 100 Soybean Drift Hornet I007702-002 8/9/1998 IN All 100 acres Soybean Drift Hornet I007702-003 8/9/1998 IN All 40 acres Soybean Drift Hornet I007702-001 8/9/1998 IN 100 acres out of 100 Soybean Drift Hornet I007702-005 8/9/1998 IN 30 acres out of 60 Soybean Drift Hornet I007702-009 8/10/1998 IN All 60 acres Soybean Drift Hornet I007702-011 8/12/1998 IL All 80 acres Soybean Drift Hornet I009512-016 6/13/1999 MN 600 acres Soybean Drift Hornet 
I009512-015 8/11/1999 MN 216 acres Soybean Drift Hornet I009512-014 8/11/1999 MN 214 acres Soybean Drift Hornet I013550-003 5/22/2002 IL 862 plants and trees Unknown plant Drift, spray Hornet I014702-026 5/10/2003 NE 39 acres Soybean Carryover Hornet I014702-027 5/10/2003 NE 39 acres Soybean Carryover Hornet I014702-024 5/13/2003 NE 35.85 acres Soybean Carryover Hornet I014702-025 5/13/2003 NE 35.35 acres Soybean Carryover Hornet 

Corn, field I012366-072 5/2/2000 WI 60 acres Soybean Carryover Hornet 

I012366-067 5/10/2000 KS 126 acres Soybean Carryover Hornet I013636-062 5/2/2002 NE 39 acres Soybean Carryover Hornet WDI013636-059 5/14/2002 NE 120 acres Soybean Carryover Hornet WDI013636-058 5/15/2002 MN 260 out of 302 acres Soybean Carryover Hornet WDI013636-068 5/15/2002 MN Soybean Carryover Hornet WDI013636-024 5/20/2002 NE 155 acres Corn, field Carryover Hornet WD

Not Reported I009573-004 5/18/1999 OH Unknown Unknown tree Drift Broadstrike 

I013554-024 7/1/2002 NE 188 acres Soybean Carryover Accent 

Soybean I009969-008 5/1/1999 IA All Corn Carryover Broadstrike 

I015748-042 5/10/2003 WI 607 acres Soybean Carryover Hornet 

Table D2. Minor Ecological Incidents Reported to the EPA in Aggregated Incident Reports, as Identified by the 

(IDS). 

Incident # Product Name Reg# Multiple AIs From Date To Date WB1 PB1 O007754 - 00001 SCORPION III 062719-00264 Yes 5/11/1998 6/22/1998 0 1 007754 - 00003 HORNET 062719-00253 Yes 4/28/1998 6/10/1998 0 1 007927 - 00003 HORNET 062719-00253 Yes 1/1/1998 9/30/1998 0 2 007927 - 00006 BROADSTRIKE + TREFLAN 062719-00222 Yes 1/1/1998 9/30/1998 0 1 007927 - 00024 SCORPION III 062719-00264 Yes 1/1/1998 9/30/1998 0 1 
007927 - 00025 PYTHON 062719-00277 No 1/1/1998 9/30/1998 0 1 008010 - 00001 HORNET 062719-00253 Yes 10/1/1998 10/31/1998 0 2 008078 - 00005 HORNET HERBICIDE 062719-00253 Yes 11/1/1998 11/30/1998 0 4 008189 - 00002 BROADSTRIKE + TREFLAN 062719-00222 Yes 12/1/1998 12/31/1998 0 1 008339 - 00001 HORNET 062719-00253 Yes 12/1/1998 12/31/1998 0 1 008525 - 00014 HORNET HERBICIDE 062719-00253 Yes 1/1/1999 3/31/1999 0 1 008868 - 00038 BROADSTRIKE + DUAL 062719-00239 Yes 4/1/1999 6/30/1999 0 1 009125 - 00002 DUPONT ACCENT GOLD 

HERBICIDE 000352-00593 Yes 4/1/1999 6/30/1999 0 1 

009519 - 00002 HORNET HERBICIDE 062719-00253 Yes 5/1/1999 10/31/1999 0 14 009519 - 00005 PYTHON HERBICIDE 062719-00277 No 5/1/1999 10/31/1999 0 3 009969 - 00010 PYTHON WDG 062719-00277 No 11/1/1999 11/30/1999 0 1 010746 - 00029 HORNET HERBICIDE 062719-00253 Yes 7/1/2000 9/30/2000 1 0 010927 - 00059 HORNET HERBICIDE 062719-00253 Yes 11/1/1999 10/31/2000 0 39 010927 - 00061 PYTHON WDG 062719-00277 No 11/1/1999 10/31/2000 0 6 012235 - 00001 DUPONT ACCENT GOLD 

HERBICIDE 000352-00593 Yes 7/1/2001 9/30/2001 0 1 

012350 - 00005 HORNET WDG 062719-00315 Yes 11/1/2000 10/31/2001 0 8 012350 - 00006 HORNET 062719-00253 Yes 11/1/2000 10/31/2001 0 6 012350 - 00007 PYTHON WDG 062719-00277 No 11/1/2000 10/31/2001 0 6 012519 - 00017 HORNET WDG 062719-00315 Yes 10/1/2001 12/31/2001 0 1 012730 - 00018 HORNET HERBICIDE 062719-00253 Yes 1/1/2002 3/31/2002 0 1 013550 - 00008 HORNET WDG 062719-00315 Yes 6/1/2002 8/31/2002 0 1 013615 - 00005 HORNET WDG 062719-00315 Yes 11/1/2001 10/31/2002 0 42 013615 - 00006 HORNET HERBICIDE 062719-00253 Yes 11/1/2001 10/31/2002 0 2 013615 - 00008 PYTHON HERBICIDE 062719-00277 No 11/1/2001 10/31/2002 0 3 013676 - 00011 HORNET WDG 062719-00315 Yes 10/1/2002 12/31/2002 0 1 014959 - 00021 PYTHON WDG 062719-00277 No 1/1/2004 3/31/2004 0 1 015214 - 00027 HORNET* 062719-00253 Yes 4/1/2004 6/30/2004 1 0 015747 - 00004 HORNET HERBICIDE 062719-00253 Yes 12/1/2003 11/30/2004 0 2 015747 - 00005 HORNET WDG HERBICIDE 062719-00315 Yes 12/1/2003 11/30/2004 0 22 015747 - 00010 PYTHON WDG 062719-00277 No 12/1/2003 11/30/2004 0 1 016962 - 00054 HORNET HERBICIDE 062719-00253 Yes 12/1/2004 11/30/2005 0 1 016962 - 00055 HORNET WDG HERBICIDE 062719-00315 Yes 12/1/2004 11/30/2005 0 26 016962 - 00060 PYTHON WDG 062719-00277 No 12/1/2004 11/30/2005 0 3 024333 - 00020 HORNET WDG HERBICIDE 062719-00315 Yes 12/1/2010 11/30/2011 0 1 
024333 - 00037 SURESTART HERBICIDE 062719-00570 Yes 12/1/2010 11/30/2011 0 7 024791 - 00014 SURESTART HERBICIDE 062719-00570 Yes 12/1/2011 11/30/2012 0 4 024986 - 00024 SURESTART HERBICIDE 062719-00570 Yes 10/1/2012 12/31/2012 0 1 TOTAL 2 222 

1 WB denotes minor fish and wildlife incidents, PB denotes minor plant incidents, and ONT denotes minor “other nontarget incidents,” which include
85 

APPENDIX E: 

ECOTOX Run 

Open literature studies were identified using EPA’s ECOTOXicology database (ECOTOX) 

(USEPA, 2007c), which employs a literature search engine for locating chemical toxicity data 

for aquatic life, terrestrial plants, and wildlife. 

Papers that were Accepted for ECOTOX 

The following paper provided a lower toxicity endpoint for the effects of flumetsulam on the 

vegetative of terrestrial plants than ones yielded in phytotoxicity studies submitted by the 

registrant of flumetsulam in support of pesticide registration. The paper reported several IC50

values for the phytotoxicity of flumetsulam to wild radish (Raphanus raphinstrum) grown in 

temperatures between 1 and 20 oC. Only the IC50 for 20 oC (0.000178 lb a.i./A) was lower than 

the value reported in the vegetative vigor study reported by the registrant (0.00027 lb a.i./A for 

radish). However, the study authors note that in the test at 20 oC, all of the doses caused greater 

than 50% reduction in biomass, and consequently the doses were poorly distributed along the 

dose curve for estimating the IC50. Because of this, the estimated IC50 value for the 20 oC is 

considered uncertain and was not used as in the quantitative risk assessment for terrestrial plants. 

 Madafiglio, G. P.; Medd, R. W.; Cornish, P. S., and Van de Ven, R. Temperature-Mediated 

Responses of Flumetsulam and Metosulam on Raphanus raphanistrum. GRO. 

madafig@netwit.net.au//G.P. Madafiglio, PO Box E158, Orange, NSW 2800, Australia//ISSN: 

0043-1737////: SOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2000; 40, (4): 387-395. 

The following papers were not used in the quantitative risk assessment for flumetsulam because 

they did not yield a toxicity endpoint which was lower than the comparable endpoint obtained 

from a toxicity study submitted by the registrant. 

1. Boutsalis, P. and Powles, S. B. Resistance of Dicot Weeds to Acetolactate Synthase (ALS)-

Inhibiting Herbicides in Australia. GRO,MOR. Waite Agricultural Research Institute,University 

Adelaide,Australia//: SOIL,ENV; 1995; 35, (3): 149-155. 

EcoReference No.: 159110 

 2. Ceballos, R.; Palma, G.; Brevis, H.; Ortega, F., and Quiroz, A. Effect of Five Postemergence 

Herbicides on Red Clover Shoot and Root Growth in Greenhouse Studies. GRO,PHY. 

Departamento de Ciencias Quimicas,Universidad de La Frontera,Temuco,Chile//: 

SOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2004; 85, (3): 153-160. 

EcoReference No.: 158809 

 3. Cox, K. G. and Harrington, K. C. Selective Herbicide Strategies for Use in Australian Desmanthus 

Seed Crops. GRO,POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2005; 39, (3): 171-181. 

EcoReference No.: 157094 
86 

 4. Foes, M. J.; Liu, L.; Tranel, P. J.; Wax, L. M., and Stoller, E. W. A Biotype of Common 

Waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) Resistant to Triazine and ALS Herbicides. BCM,PHY. 

estoller@uiuc.edu//E.W. Stoller, USDA/ARS, Crop Protection Research Unit, 1102 South 

Goodwin Avenue, Urbana, IL 61801////: SOIL,ENV; 1998; 46, (5): 514-520. 

EcoReference No.: 66147 

 5. Fronning, B. E. and Kegode, G. O. Biennial Wormwood (Artemisia biennis) Early-Season Control 

with Herbicides. POP. Department of Plant Sciences,North Dakota State 

University,Fargo,ND,USA//: SOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2004; 18, (3): 611-618. 

EcoReference No.: 158820 

 6. Grichar, W. J. and Ocumpaugh, W. R. Response of Three Annual Medic Species to Postemergence 

Herbicides. GRO,POPSOIL,ENV; 2009; 23, (3): 412-415. 

EcoReference No.: 156904 

 7. Harrington, K. C.; Southward, R. C.; Kitchen, K. L., and He, X. Z. Investigation of Herbicides 

Tolerated by Stevia rebaudiana Crops. GRO,PHY,POPSOIL,ENV; 2011; 39, (1): 21-33. 

EcoReference No.: 157121 

 8. Kwon, C. S. and Penner, D. Response of a Chlorsulfuron-Resistant Biotype of Kochia scoparia to 

ALS Inhibiting Herbicides and Piperonyl Butoxide. GRO,PHYSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 1995; 43, 

(4): 561-565. 

EcoReference No.: 101453 

 9. Lusk, C. S.; Bourdot, G. W.; Harrington, K. C., and Hurrell, G. A. Pasture Tolerance and Efficacy 

of Three Herbicides Used Against Giant Buttercup (Ranunculus acris subsp. acris L.). GRO,POP. 

AgResearch, Lincoln, Private Bag 4749, Christchurch 8140, New Zealand,//: SOIL,ENV; 2011; 64, 

86-92. 

EcoReference No.: 158824 

 10. Ma, J.; Wang, S.; Wang, P.; Ma, L.; Chen, X., and Xu, R. Toxicity Assessment of 40 Herbicides to 

the Green Alga Raphidocelis subcapitata. POPAQUA; 2006; 63, (3): 456-462. 

EcoReference No.: 83543 

 11. McDonald, I. D. A Whole-Plant Bioassay System for the Detection of Residues of ALS/AHAS 

Inhibiting Herbicides in Soils and Determination of Safe Planting Intervals for Sensitive Crops. 

GROSOIL,ENV; 2009: 202 p. (UMI # NR55937). 

 12. Song, H. Y.; Cho, S. J.; Lim, H. K.; Park, N. J., and Hwang, I. T. Transformation A Mutant 

Monochoria vaginalis Acetolactate Synthase (ALS) Gene Renders Arabidopsis thaliana Resistant to 

ALS Inhibitors. GRO. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048357510000374//: 

SOIL,ENV; 2010; 97, (3): 223-228. 

EcoReference No.: 158840 

 13. Stork, P. and Hannah, M. C. A Bioassay Method for Formulation Testing and Residue Studies of 

Sulfonylurea and Sulfonanylide Herbicides. GRO. Joint Cent. Crop Improvement, Private Bag 260, 

Horsham, VIC, Australia.//: SOIL,ENV; 1996; 36, (3): 271-281. 

EcoReference No.: 159111 

 14. Wallace, R. W. and Hodges, J. C. Weed Control Potential and Crop Safety of Selected Herbicides 

in Field-Grown Cannas. PHY,POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2007; 17, (1): 102-106. 
87 

EcoReference No.: 157231 

Target Papers 

The following papers were identified as providing toxicity information to target species, in this 

case weed species. These herbicide efficacy studies did not provide toxicity endpoints which 

were useful for quantitative risk assessment of flumetsulam. 

1. Arregui, M. C.; Sanchez, D., and Scotta, R. Weed Control in Established Alfalfa (Medicago sativa) 

with Postemergence Herbicides. PHY,POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2001; 15, (3): 424-428. 

EcoReference No.: 67066 

 2. Ashigh, J. Resistance to Acetohydroxyacid Synthase-Inhibiting Herbicides in Populations of 

Eastern Black Nightshade (Solanum ptycanthum Dun.) from Ontario. GROSOIL,ENV; 2007: 213 

p. (UMI # NR24556 ). 

EcoReference No.: 159068 

 3. Ashigh, J.; Rajcan, I., and Tardif, F. J. Genetics of Resistance to Acetohydroxyacid Synthase 

Inhibitors in Populations of Eastern Black Nightshade (Solanum ptychanthum) from Ontario. SOIL; 

2008; 56, (2): 210-215. 

 4. Ashigh, J. and Tardif, F. J. An Ala205val Substitution in Acetohydroxyacid Synthase of Eastern 

Black Nightshade (Solanum ptychanthum) Reduces Sensitivity to Herbicides and Feedback 

Inhibition. SOIL; 2007; 55, (6): 558-565. 

 5. Ashigh, J. and Tardif, F. J. ALS-Inhibitor Resistance in Populations of Eastern Black Nightshade 

(Solanum ptycanthum) from Ontario. GRO,MORSOIL,ENV; 2006; 2, (20): 308-314. 

EcoReference No.: 152023 

 6. Camargo, Edinalvo Rabaioli and Senseman, Scott A. Plant-Soil Interactions, Weed Control, and 

Rice Tolerance as Affected by Saflufenacil. 2012: (UMI # 3532153 ). 

 7. Chen, Yang; Hu, Jiye; Yang, Tao, and Chen, Yang. Dissipation and Residues of Flumetsulam in 

Wheat and Soil. 2012 Jun; 88, (6): 897-901. 

 8. Chomas, A. J. and Kells, J. J. Triazine-Resistant Common Lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) 

Control in Corn with Preemergence Herbicides. POP. Department of Crop and Soil 

Sciences,Michigan State University,East Lansing,MI////: SOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2004; 18, (3): 

551-554. 

EcoReference No.: 120681 

 9. Christoffers, M. J.; Nandula, V. K.; Howatt, K. A., and Wehking, T. R. Target-Site Resistance to 

Acetolactate Synthase Inhibitors in Wild Mustard (Sinapis arvensis). 

BCM,GRO,POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2005; 54, (2): 191-197. 

EcoReference No.: 120667 

 10. Drew, E. A.; Gupta, V. V. S. R., and Roget, D. K. Are Legumes Doing Their Job? The Effect of 

Herbicides on N2 Fixation in Southern Australian Agricultural Systems. BCM,PHY,POP. 

PMB2,CSIRO Land and Water,Glen Osmond,Australia//: SOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2005; 41, 269-

270. 
88 

EcoReference No.: 158811 

 11. Ferguson, Gabrielle Mary and Tardif, F. Als-Inhibitor Resistance in Populations of Amaranthus 

Powellii S. Wats. And Amaranthus Retroflexus L. 2000: (UMI # MQ51062 ). 

 12. Florence, Darlene Christina and McCoy, Edward L. Agronomic Land Management Effects on Soil 

Fertility and Grain Crop Productivity in Western Kenya and Ohio. 2012: (UMI # 3528037 ). 

 13. Hare, M. D.; Rolston, M. P.; Foote, A. G.; Archie, W. J., and Hagerty, G. Herbicide Tolerance of 

Grasslands Puna Chicory. GRO,PHY,POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 1993; 46, 282-287. 

EcoReference No.: 77601 

 14. Kramer, C. Control of Volunteer Adzuki Bean (Vigna angularis (Willd.) Ohwi & Ohashi) in Corn 

(Zea mays) and Soybean (Glycine max). POP,REPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2010: 93 p. (UMI# 

MR64658). 

EcoReference No.: 153786 

 15. Krausz, R. F.; Young, B. G., and Matthews, J. L. Winter Annual Weed Control with Fall-Applied 

Corn (Zea mays) Herbicides. POP. Department of Plant, Soil, and General Agriculture,Southern 

Illinois University, Carbondale, IL////: SOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2003; 17, (3): 516-520. 

EcoReference No.: 120487 

 16. Liphadzi, K. B. Weed Competitiveness and Soil Health Response to Weed Management Practices. 

GRO,MOR,POPSOIL,ENV; 2004: 163 p. (UMI # 3132174) (PUBL IN PART AS 96934,159175). 

EcoReference No.: 159176 

 17. Liphadzi, K. B. and Dille, J. A. Annual Weed Competitiveness as Affected by Preemergence 

Herbicide in Corn. GRO,POP,REPSOIL,ENV; 2005; 54, (1): 156-165. 

EcoReference No.: 159175 

 18. O'Sullivan, J.; Thomas, R. J., and Bouw, W. J. Yield and Injury Effects on Vegetable Crops Planted 

in Flumetsulam-Treated Soil. PHY. J. O'Sullivan, Horticultural Res. Inst. of Ontario, Department 

of Plant Agriculture, University of Guelph, P.O. Box 587, Simcoe, Ont. N3Y 4N5, Canada////: 

SOIL,ENV; 1999; 79, (3): 417-420. 

EcoReference No.: 64216 

 19. Rahman, a; James, T K; Trolove, M R, and Rahman, A. Chemical Control Options for the Dicamba 

Resistant Biotype of Fathen (Chenopodium Album). 2008; 61, 287-291. 

 20. Rundle, M. F.; Walters, S. A., and Young, B. G. Efficacy of Postemergence Corn and Soybean 

Herbicides on Volunteer Horseradish (Armoracia rusticana). GRO,POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 

2007; 21, (2): 501-505. 

EcoReference No.: 158837 

 21. Sibony, M. and Rubin, B. Molecular Basis for Multiple Resistance to Acetolactate SynthaseInhibiting Herbicides and Atrazine in Amaranthus blitoides (Prostrate Pigweed). 

CEL,GRO,MORSOIL,ENV; 2003; 216, (6): 1022-1027. 

EcoReference No.: 154020 

 22. Sikkema, P. H.; Robinson, D. E.; Nurse, R. E., and Soltani, N. Pre-Emergence Herbicides for 

Potential Use in Pinto and Small Red Mexican Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) Production. 
89 

GRO,PHYSOIL,ENV; 2008; 27, (1): 124-129. 

EcoReference No.: 117892 

 23. Skibo, Andrew Z. and Isaacs, Mark. The Evaluation of Selected 'post'-Applied Herbicides for 

Control of Japanese Knotweed (Polygonum Cuspidatum Syn. Fallopia Japonica Syn. Reynoutria 

Japonica) and a Survey and Characterization of This Invasive Species in Delaware. 2007: (UMI # 

3337390 ). 

 24. Soltani, N.; Nurse, R. E.; Robinson, D. E., and Sikkema, P. H. Response of pinto and small red 

Mexican beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) to preplant-incorporated herbicides. 2008; 8, (1): 25-30. 

 25. Soltani, Nader; Nurse, Robert E; Robinson, Darren E; Sikkema, Peter H, and Soltani, Nader. 

Response of Pinto and Small Red Mexican Beans (Phaseolus Vulgaris L.) To PreplantIncorporated Herbicides. 2008 Mar; 8, (1): 25-30. 

 26. Stewart, C. L.; Nurse, R. E.; Gillard, C., and Sikkema, P. H. Tolerance of Adzuki Bean to PreplantIncorporated, Pre-Emergence, and Post-Emergence Herbicides in Ontario, Canada. 

GRO,PHY,POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2010; 10, (1): 40-47. 

EcoReference No.: 153992 

 27. Wheeler, Melissa Ann Monique. Impact of Mutations in Acetolactate Synthase on Resistance of 

Redroot Pigweed (Amaranthus Retroflexus L.) And Green Pigweed (Amaranthus Powellii S. Wats) 

to Flucarbazone and Pyrithiobac. 2005: (UMI # MR01876 ). 

 28. Wright, Terry Ray. Development and Characterization of Imidazolinone-Resistant Sugarbeet 

Somatic Cell Selections. 1997: (UMI # 9734207 ). 

 29. Yerka, Melinda K. and Stoltenberg, David E. Gatti Natala de Leon. Glyphosate Tolerance and Gene 

Flow in Common Lambsquarters (Chenopodium Album L.). 2011: (UMI # 3501346 ). 

 30. Zollinger, R. Surestart Registered on Field Corn. 2007 May 31, issue 4. 

Papers Not Acceptable for Quantitative Risk Assessment 

The following papers did not meet the minimum acceptability criteria for use by the EFED in 

risk assessment, and therefore, were not used in the quantitative risk assessment of flumetsulam. 

1. Ashigh, J.; Corbett, C. A. L.; Smith, P. J.; Laplante, J., and Tardif, F. J. Characterization and 

Diagnostic Tests of Resistance to Acetohydroxyacid Synthase Inhibitors Due to an Asp376Glu 

Substitution in Amaranthus powellii. BCM,GROSOIL,ENV; 2009; 95, (1): 38-46. 

EcoReference No.: 120682 

 2. Askew, S. D.; Wilcut, J. W., and Langston, V. B. Weed Management in Soybean (Glycine max) 

with Preplant-Incorporated Herbicides and Cloransulam-Methyl. PHY,POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 

1999; 13, (2): 276-282. 

EcoReference No.: 152022 

 3. Baghestani, M. A.; Zand, E.; Soufizadeh, S.; Bagherani, N., and Deihimfard, R. Weed Control and 

Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) Yield Under Application of 2,4-D plus Carfentrazone-Ethyl and 
90 

Florasulam plus Flumetsulam: Evaluation of the Efficacy. GROSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2007; 26, 

(12): 1759-1764. 

EcoReference No.: 151894 

 4. Black, I. D.; Mayfield, A., and Matic, R. Chemical Control of Bedstraw (Galium tricornutum 

Dandy) and Bifora (Bifora testiculata L.) in Wheat, Barley and Field Peas. POP. South Australian 

Res. Development Inst., GPO Box 1671, Adelaide, SA 5001, AUL////: SOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 1994; 

9, (1): 24-27. 

EcoReference No.: 158796 

 5. Boutsalis, P.; Karotam, J., and Powles, S. B. Molecular Basis of Resistance to Acetolactate 

Synthase-Inhibiting Herbicides in Sisymbrium orientale and Brassica tournefortii. BCM,GRO,MOR. 

peter.boutsalis@cp.novartis.com//P. Boutsalis, Novartis Crop Protection, CH-4332 Stein, 

Switzerland//: SOIL,ENV; 1999; 55, (5): 507-516. 

EcoReference No.: 63409 

 6. Chen, C. N.; Chen, Q.; Liu, Y. C.; Zhu, X. L.; Niu, C. W.; Xi, Z., and Yang, G. F. Syntheses and 

Herbicidal Activity of New Triazolopyrimidine-2-Sulfonamides as Acetohydroxyacid Synthase 

Inhibitor. GRO. Key Laboratory of Pesticide & Chemical Biology, Ministry of Education, College of 

Chemistry, Central China Normal University, Wuhan 430079, PR China.//: SOIL,ENV; 2010; 18, 

(14): 4897-4904. 

EcoReference No.: 158975 

 7. Davis, V. M. Distribution, Biology, and Management of Glyphosate-Resistant Horseweed in NoTill Crop Production. GRO,POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2009: 252 p. (UMI # 3378726). 

EcoReference No.: 159087 

 8. Dillehay, B. L. Incorporating Glyphosate-Resistant Alfalfa Into Field Crop Integrated Pest 

Management Programs of Pennsylvania. POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2007: 153 p. (UMI # 3284919). 

EcoReference No.: 159096 

 9. Dorigo, R. The Selectivity of Flumetsulam to Chickpeas, Lentils and Vetch var. Popany. 

PHY,POP. Dow AgroSciences Australia Ltd., PO Box 720, Clare, SA 5453, Australia////: 

SOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 1999: 306-308. 

EcoReference No.: 158792 

 10. Ferguson, G. M.; Hamill, A. S., and Tardif, F. J. ALS Inhibitor Resistance in Populations of 

Powell amaranth and Redroot Pigweed. GRO. Department of Plant Agriculture,University of 

Guelph,Guelph,ON,Can////: SOIL,ENV; 2001; 49, (4): 448-453. 

EcoReference No.: 120397 

 11. Flint, S. G. Weed Species Shifts in Roundup Ready and Conventional Herbicide Programs. 

POPSOIL,ENV; 2002: 74 p. (UMI # 1411417). 

EcoReference No.: 159133 

 12. Flint, S. G.; Shaw, D. R.; Kelley, F. S., and Holloway, J. C. Effect of Herbicide Systems on Weed 

Shifts in Soybean and Cotton. GRO,POP. Department of Plant and Soil Sciences,Mississippi State 

University,MS,USA//: SOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2005; 19, (2): 266-273. 

EcoReference No.: 158818 

 13. Frans, R.; McClelland, M.; Smith, C., and Jordan, D. Herbicide Trials on Field Crops, 1992. 
91 

PHY,POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 1993; 427, 63 p. 

EcoReference No.: 73962 

 14. Franssen, A. S. and Kells, J. J. Common Dandelion (Taraxacum officinale) Control with 

Postemergence Herbicides in No-Tillage Glufosinate-Resistant Corn. POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 

2007; 21, (1): 14-17. 

EcoReference No.: 155681 

 15. Gaeddert, J. W.; Peterson, D. E., and Horak, M. J. Control and Cross-Resistance of an 

Acetolactate Synthase Inhibitor-Resistant Palmer Amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) Biotype. POP. 

Prof. M.J. Horak, Department of Agronomy, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506, United 

States//: SOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 1997; 11, (1): 132-137. 

EcoReference No.: 64431 

 16. Gerwick, B. C.; Cseke, C. T.; Deboer, G.; Kleschick, W. A., and Schmitzer, P. R. Translation of 

In Vitro Activity to In Vivo Activity: Lessons from the Triazolopyrimidine Sulfonanilides. 

ACC,GRO. Dow Elanco,Indianapolis,IN,USA//: SOIL,ENV; 1996; 44, (3): 757-762. 

EcoReference No.: 158821 

 17. Grichar, W. J. Control of Smellmelon (Cucumis melo) in Soybean with Herbicides. 

POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2007; 21, (3): 777-779. 

EcoReference No.: 157081 

 18. Hanson, B. D.; Park, K. W.; Mallory-Smith, C. A., and Thill, D. C. Resistance of Camelina 

microcarpa to Acetolactate Synthase Inhibiting Herbicides. GRO. Department of Plant, Soil, and 

Entomological Sciences,University of Idaho,Moscow,ID////: SOIL,ENV; 2004; 44, (3): 187-194. 

EcoReference No.: 120720 

 19. Hwang, I. T. ; Lee, K. H.; Park, S. H.; Lee, B. H.; Hong, K. S.; Han, S. S., and Cho, K. Y. 

Resistance to Acetolactate Synthase Inhibitors in a Biotype of Monochoria vaginalis Discovered in 

Korea. POP. I.T.Hwang, Korea Res.Inst. of Chem.Technol., P.O. Box 107, Yusong, Taejon, 305-600, 

Korea////: SOIL,ENV; 2001; 71, (2): 69-76. 

EcoReference No.: 66557 

 20. Ivany, J. A. Comparison of Weed Control Strategies in Glyphosate-Resistant Soybean [Glycine 

max (L.) Merr.] in Atlantic Canada. POP. ivanyj@agr.gc.ca//J.A. Ivany, Agriculture and Agri-Food 

Canada, Crops and Livestock Research Centre, 440 University Avenue, Charlottetown, PEI. C1A 4N6, 

Canada////: SOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2004; 84, (4): 1199-1204. 

EcoReference No.: 98642 

 21. James, T. K. and Rahman, A. Adjuvants Effect on Flumetsulam Efficacy and Rainfastness on 

Three Pasture Weeds. GRO. AgResearch,Ruakura Agricultural Research Centre,Hamilton,N. Z//: 

SOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 1996; 193, 273-278. 

EcoReference No.: 159009 

 22. Jennings, K. M.; York, A. C.; Batts, R. B., and Culpepper, A. S. Sicklepod (Senna obtusifolia) 

and Entireleaf Morningglory (Ipomoea hederacea var. integriuscula) Management in Soybean (Glycine 

max) with Flumetsulam. POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 1997; 11, (2): 227-234. 

EcoReference No.: 73938 

 23. Johnson III, W. C. and Mullinix, B. G. Jr. Phytotoxicity of Flumetsulam on Peanut (Arachis 
92 

hypogaea). GRO,PHY,POP. USDA-ARS and Agric. Res. Stat.,Univ. Georgia,Tifton,GA,USA//: 

SOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 1996; 10, (3): 481-487. 

EcoReference No.: 158822 

 24. Kleschick, W. A.; Costales, M. J.; Gerwick, B. C.; Holtwick, J. B.; Meikle, R. W.; Monte, W. T.; 

Pearson, N. R.; Snider, S. W.; Subramanian, M. V.; Vanheertum, J. C., and Vinogradoff, A. P. 1,2,4-

Triazolo(1,5-a)Pyrimidine-2-Sulfonanilide Herbicides. Influence of Alkyl, Haloalkyl, and Halogen 

Heterocyclic Substitution on In Vitro and In Vivo Biological Activity. GROSOIL,ENV; 1992: 10-17. 

EcoReference No.: 109553 

 25. Kleschick, W. A.; Gerwick, B. C.; Carson, C. M.; Monte, W. T., and Snider, S. W. DE-498, a 

New Acetolactate Synthase Inhibiting Herbicide with Multicrop Selectivity. POPSOIL,ORAL,TOP; 

1992; 40, 1083-1085. 

EcoReference No.: 101706 

 26. Kwon, C. S. Influence of Antidotes, MFO Inhibitors, Insecticides, and Corn Hybrids on ALSInhibiting Herbicide Activity. GRO,PHYSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 1993: 183 p. (UMI#9418019) (Publ 

in Part as 73949, 75594, 75595, 101453). 

EcoReference No.: 157922 

 27. Kwon, C. S.; Kells, J. J., and Penner, D. Combined Effects of Acetolactate Synthase-Inhibiting 

Herbicides with Terbufos and Piperonyl Butoxide on Corn (Zea mays) and Soybean (Glycine max). 

GRO,PHYSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 1995; 9 , (4): 696-702. 

EcoReference No.: 75595 

 28. Langton, S. J. Field Corn Tolerance to Acetolactate Synthase Inhibiting Herbicides and Weed 

Control in Sethoxydim Resistant Field Corn. ACC,GRO,POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 1997: 209 p. 

EcoReference No.: 99110 

 29. Ma, J.; Xu, L., and Wang, S. A Quick, Simple, and Accurate Method of Screening Herbicide 

Activity Using Green Algae Cell Suspension Cultures. GROAQUA; 2002; 50, (5): 555-559. 

EcoReference No.: 158793 

 30. Marinangeli, P.; Castro, R. L.; Facchinetti, C.; Reinoso, L.; Irigoyen, J., and Curvetto, N. 

Evaluation of Herbicides for Chemical Weed Control in Lily Bulb Production. 

GROSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2010; 24, (4): 483-488. 

EcoReference No.: 153931 

 31. McDowell, R. W.; Condron, L. M.; Main, B. E., and Dastgheib, F. Dissipation of Imazapyr, 

Flumetsulam and Thifensulfuron in Soil. GRO. Dep. Geography, Univ. Cambridge, Downing Place, 

Cambridge CB2 3EN, UK////: SOIL,ENV; 1997; 37, (6): 381-389. 

EcoReference No.: 120347 

 32. Nice, G. R. W.; Buehring, N. W., and Shaw, D. R. Sicklepod (Senna obtusifolia) Response to 

Shading, Soybean (Glycine max) Row Spacing, and Population in Three Management Systems. 

POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2001; 15, (1): 155-162. 

EcoReference No.: 158825 

 33. Norsworthy, J. K. Soil-Applied Herbicide Use in Wide- and Narrow-Row Glyphosate-Resistant 

Soybean (Glycine max). GRO,PHY. J.K. Norsworthy, Department of Entomology, Soils, Plant Sci., 

Clemson Univ., C., Clemson, SC//: SOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2004; 23, (12): 1237-1244. 
93 

EcoReference No.: 115268 

 34. Novosel, K. M. Efficacy of Annual Grass Control by Metolachlor as Influenced by Flumetsulam, 

Halosulfuron and Chlorimuron-Ethyl. GRO,POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 1997: 94 p. (UMI # 9734163 

). 

EcoReference No.: 159097 

 35. Reddy, K. N.; Bryson, C. T., and Burke, I. C. Ragweed Parthenium (Parthenium hysterophorus) 

Control with Preemergence and Postemergence Herbicides. POPSOIL,ENV; 2007; 21, (4): 982-986. 

EcoReference No.: 154039 

 36. Ritter, R. L. and Menbere, H. Preemergence and Postemergence Control of Triazine-Resistant 

Common Lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) in No-Till Corn (Zea mays). 

PHY,POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2001; 15, (4): 879-884. 

EcoReference No.: 120488 

 37. Saayman-Du Toit, A. E. J. Phytotoxicity Resulting from a Combination of a Pre-Emergence 

Herbicide and a Pesticide Seed Dressing in Maize (Zea mays L.). GRO,REP. A.E.J.Saayman-Du Toit, 

ARC - Grain Crops Institute, Private Bag X1251, Potchefstroom, 2520, South Africa//: 

SOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2002; 19, (3): 156-158. 

EcoReference No.: 68409 

 38. Schultz, M. E. Scorpion III: A Broad-Spectrum Postemergence Herbicide for Broadleaf Weed 

Control in Corn. PHY,POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 1997; 52, (2): 26-33. 

EcoReference No.: 73118 

 39. Seymour, R. C.; Campbell, J. B., and Wright, R. J. Effect of Sulfonylurea Herbicides on Field 

Corn Following an Application of Granular Insecticide at Planting, 1995. 

BCM,GRO,PHYSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 1997; 22, 226-(29F). 

EcoReference No.: 74042 

 40. Shaw, D. R.; Bennett, A. C., and Grant, D. L. Weed Control in Soybean (Glycine max) with 

Flumetsulam, Cloransulam, and Diclosulam. POP. dshaw@weedscience.msstate.edu//D.R. Shaw, 

Mississippi State University, Dept. of Plant and Soil Sciences, Box 9555, Mississippi State, MS 

39762, United States//: SOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 1999; 13, (4): 791-798. 

EcoReference No.: 64298 

 41. Shaw, D. R. and Murphy, G. P. Field Persistence of Bioavailable Flumetsulam. GRO. Dep. Plant 

Soil Sciences,Mississippi State Univ.,Mississippi State,MS,USA//: SOIL,ENV; 1997; 45, (4): 568-

572. 

EcoReference No.: 158838 

 42. Sprague, C. L.; Penner, D., and Kells, J. J. Enhancing the Margin of Selectivity of RPA 201772 in 

Zea mays with Antidotes. PHYSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 1999; 47, 492-497. 

EcoReference No.: 63459 

 43. Stachler, J. M. and Kells, J. J. Wild Carrot (Daucus carota) Control in No-Tillage Cropping 

Systems. GRO,MOR,POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 1997; 11, (3): 444-452. 

EcoReference No.: 117333 

 44. Talbert, R. E.; Schmidt, L. A.; Lovelace, M. L., and Scherder, E. F. Field Evaluation of 
94 

Herbicides on Small Fruit, Vegetable, and Ornamental Crops, 1999. POPSOIL,ENV; 2000: 1-22. 

EcoReference No.: 153250 

 45. Talbert, R. E.; Tierney, M. J.; Burgos, N. R.; Strebe, T. A., and Kitt, M. J. Field Evaluation of 

Herbicides on Small Fruit, Vegetable and Ornamental Crops, 1994. PHY,POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 

1995; 447, 53 p. 

EcoReference No.: 73916 

 46. Tharp, B. E. and Kells, J. J. Residual Herbicides Used in Combination with Glyphosate and 

Glufosinate in Corn (Zea mays). GRO,POP. Golden Harvest Seeds, Cordova, IL 61242//: 

SOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2002; 16, (2): 274-281. 

EcoReference No.: 155516 

 47. VanGessel, M. J. Control of Perennial Weed Species as Seedlings with Soil-Applied Herbicides. 

MOR,POP. M.J. Vangessel, Research and Education Center, University of Delaware, Georgetown, DE 

19947, United States//: SOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 1999; 13, (2): 425-428. 

EcoReference No.: 62724 

 48. VanGessel, M. J.; Monks, D. W., and Johnson, Q. R. Herbicides for Potential Use in Lima Bean 

(Phaseolus lunatus) Production. PHY,POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2000; 14, 279-286. 

EcoReference No.: 59708 

49. Webster, E. P. and Masson, J. A. Acetolactate Synthase-Inhibiting Herbicides on ImidazolinoneTolerant Rice. GRO,PHY,POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2001; 49, 652-657. 

EcoReference No.: 63724