# Environmental Fate and Ecological Risk Assessment for Proposed New Uses of Thiophante Methyl for Seed Treatments

THIOPHANATE METHYL

IUPAC name : Dimethyl 4,4'- o -phenylenebis(3-thioallphanate) CAS name: Dimethyl((1,2,-phenylene)bis(iminocarbonothioyl))bis(carbamate)

CAS No: 23564-05-8, PC Code: 102001

Prepared by: Faruque A. Khan, Environmental Scientist Nicholas E. Federoff, Wildlife Biologist

Reviewed by: Jean Holmes, Secondary Reviewer Mohammed Ruhman, Secondary Reviewer Karen Whitby, Acting Branch Chief U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Pesticide Programs Environmental Fate and Effects Division Environmental Risk Branch IV Ariel Rios Building (Mail Code 7507C) 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20460

## 2 

# Table of Contents I. Executive Summary ............................................................. . .....................3

II. Problem Formulation......................................................................................4 A. Stressor Source and Distribution...............................................................4 1. Sources and Intensity........................ ............................................4 2. Physicochemical, Fate, and Transport Properties ...................................4 3. Pesticide Type, Class, and Mode of Action ..........................................4 4. Overview of Pesticide Usage ...........................................................4 B. Receptors ..........................................................................................5 1. Ecological Effects .. ....................................................................5 2. Ecosystems at Risk .....................................................................5 C. Assessment Endpoints ........................................................................6 D. Conceptual Model ...............................................................................6 1. Risk Hypotheses .........................................................................6 2. Diagram ...................................................................................7 E. Analysis plan. ......................................................................................9 1. Preliminary Identification of Data Gaps Use ..........................................9 2. Measure to Evaluate Risk Hypotheses and Conceptual Model ....................9

III. Analyses ....................................................................................................12 A. Use Characterization ....................................................................12 B Exposure Characterization ... ........................................................14 1. Environmental Fate and Tran sport Characterization . ....................14 2. Measure of Aquatic Exposure .. ..............................................16 3. Measure of Terrestrial Exposure .............................................19 C. Ecological Effect s Characterization ..................................................20 1. Aquatic Effects Characterization ............................................20 2. Terrestrial Effects Characterization ........................................20

IV. Risk Characterization ..................................................................................22 A. Risk Estimation-Integration of Exposure and Effects Data ......................21 B. Risk Description . .......................................................................27

V. References ..............................................................................................32

VI. Appendices Appendix A. Data Requirement Ta bles for Thiophanate Methyl............................35 Appendix B. Structures of TM Parent and Degradates .......................................39 Appendix C. Environmental Fate and Transport ...........................................41 Appendix D. Aquatic Exposure: Model and Results ......................................45 Appendix E. Terrestrial Exposure: Model and Results ... .................................55 Appendix F. Ecological Effects Data ........................................................57

## 3 

# I. Executive Summary

Thiphanate Methyl (TM) and its primary degradation product methyl 2-benzimidzolylcarbamate or carbendazim (MBC) are the potential stressors that would result from proposed application of TM as various seed treatments. Thiophanate methyl is a systemic fungicide that is absorbed by sprouts, leaves, and roots of plants and translocat ed within the transpiration system in plant xylem. TM and it’s primary degradate, MBC, inhibit the development of fungal germ tubes, the formation of appressoria, and the growth of mycelia. Their fungitoxic action is based on blockage of nuclear division during mitosis and destabilization of fungal cell structures.

Thiophanate methyl degrades primarily to MBC whether on foliage, in soil, or in water. While the TM degradation rate is slower on foliage than in the terrestrial and aquatic environments, the conversion of TM to MBC is expected to be rapid under most normal agricultural conditions. The primary routes of degradation of TM are via aerobic soil metabolism (T 1⁄2 

## ≤ 1 day) and aqueous photolysis (T 1⁄2 

## ≤ 3.0 days). Available data indicate that MBC is less mobile and significantly more persistent than TM in many soils, especially under anaerobic conditions. The MBC aerobic soil half-life is 320 days, while the anaerobic aquatic me tabolism half lives ranges from 31 to 743 days.

In general, TM is considered to be slightly to moderately toxic to fish (freshwater and estuarine/marine) and aquatic invertebrates (freshwater and estuarine/marine) on an acute basis. Chronic effects (survival) were also observed in catfish larval, daphnids and mysid shrimp. TM is practically non-toxic to avian and mammalian species on an acute basis. Avian chronic toxicity data suggest that exposure to TM can result in decreases in egg production and body weight. Reproductive effects to mammals were also noted. Acute toxicity to honeybees shows that TM is practically non-toxic to non-target insects.

The focus of terrestrial wildlife acute exposure estimates is for birds and mammals with an exposure route emphasis on uptake of TM treated seed as diet. Because of the rapid degradation of TM to MBC and the persistence of MBC in soil and water, acute risks to aquatic organisms are assessed based on the assumption that exposure is primarily to TM and MBC and chronic risks to aquatic organisms are assessed based on the assumption that exposure is primarily to MBC. An evaluation of the proposed uses for selected seed treatments suggests that this compound should not pose risk to avian, mammalian, and aquatic or plant species. Low terrestrial and aquatic risks are mainly due to low toxicities, low application rates and the seeds are incorporated, thus reducing exposure

. 

## Since thiophanate-methyl is categorized as relatively nontoxic to bees, low risk is also assumed. The octanol/water partition coefficients ( log K ow 

## ) for TM and MBC are less than 1.22 indicating low potential for these chemical to bioaccumulate in organisms.

No data on monitored concentrations of TM or MBC were found in surface water or ground water. Neither TM nor its primary degradate, MBC, are regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act. As a result, neither Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) nor drinking water health advisories (HAs) for these chemicals have been established by the EPA Office of Water.

## 4 

# II. Problem Formulation

A. Stressor Source and Distribution

1. Sources and Intensity

Thiophanate Methyl (TM) and its primary degrad ation product methyl 2-benzimidzolylcarbamate or carbendazim (MBC) are the potential stressors that would result from proposed application of TM as various seed treatments. Following planting of TM treated seeds, rapid biodegradation in soil is expected to result in the formation of its major degradation product MBC. Available data indicate that MBC is less mobile and significantly more persistent than TM in many soils. MBC has a low potential to leach to ground water from most typical uses. Additional transport mechanism includes runoff from TM treated fields. Thus, the major concerns are the exposure of non-target terrestrial and aquatic organisms to TM and its metabolite, MBC and exposure of non-target terrestrial organisms to TM treated seeds.

2. Physicochemical, Fate, and Transport Properties

The environmental fate of TM in aquatic and terre strial environments is dependent on rapid abiotic and biotic degradation of TM and formation of MBC. MBC is the major degradation product and active ingredient of TM. MBC is also a major metabolite of benomyl, a registered pesticide. MBC is significantly more persistent in many soils and less mobile than the parent TM. Volatilization of TM and MBC from moist soil surfaces is not expect ed to be an important fate process based upon estimated Henry’s Law constants of 1.2 E-9 atm-cu m/mole for TM and 2.1 E-11 9 atm-cu m/mole for MBC.

3. Pesticide Type, Class, and Mode of Action

Thiophanate methyl is a benzimidazole class of systemic fungicide that is absorbed by sprouts, leaves, and roots of plants and translocated within the transpiration system in plant xylem. TM and it’s primary degradate, MBC, inhibit the development of fungal germ tubes, the formation of appressoria, and the growth of mycelia. Their fungi toxic action is based on blockage of nuclear division during mitosis and destabilization of fungal cell structures.

4. Overview of Pesticide Usage

This assessment is intended to address the proposed new uses of TM as a seed treatment. The proposed new uses of TM include sweet corn, pea nuts, legume vegetables and wheat. TM is also currently registered for use on a wide variety of agricultural food and feed crops and may be applied by soil application, seed treatment and fo liar application. There are also non-food/feed use sites such as golf courses, sod farms, greenhouses and nurseries. Thiophanate-methyl has registered residential uses on lawns, ornamental trees, shrubs, and plants.

B. Receptors

## 5 1. Ecological Effects

Ecological measures of effect for TM and MBC are based on registrant-submitted toxicity studies. Acute and chronic endpoints are selected from available test data, as the data set allows. A complete discussion of all toxicity data available for this risk assessment and the resulting measures of ecological effects selected for each taxonomic group are included in Appendix F of this document.

2. Ecosystems at Risk

Aquatic ecosystems potentially at risk include water bodies like adjacent to, or downstream from the adjacent fields planted with TM treated seeds. The water bodies include ponds, lakes, and reservoirs, or flowing waterways such as streams or rivers. Since TM has the potential to be used in coastal areas, marine ecosystems (including estuar ies) are also potentially at risk. Risks will be assessed for aquatic animals (fish, invertebrates, amphibians) and plants, which are assumed to occur in small, static ponds that receive runoff from adjacent fields planted with TM treated seeds.

Terrestrial ecosystems potentially at risk include area and areas immediately adjacent fields planted with TM treated seeds that might receive runoff, and might include other cultivated fields, fence rows and hedgerows, meadows, fallow fields or grasslands, woodlands, riparian habitats and other uncultivated areas. For Tier-I assessment purposes, risk will be assessed to terrestrial animals (birds, reptiles, mammals and insects) and plants are assumed to exclusively occur in the treated area.

C. Assessment Endpoints

Assessment endpoints are explicit expressions of the actual environmental value that is to be protected. Assessment endpoint selection is based on valued entities or ecological receptors, the ecosystems potentially at risk, pesticide migration pathways, and routes by which ecological receptors may be exposed to the stressor. A summary of the assessment endpoints and measures of ecological effect selected to characterize poten tial ecological risks associated with exposure to TM and MBC for the proposed new uses is provided in Table II.a. Specifically, this assessment addresses birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, invertebrates, plants, and fish. Birds are used as surrogates for reptiles and terrestrial-phase amphibians, and fish are used as surrogates for aquatic-phase amphibians. Although all endpoints are measured at the individual level, they provide insight about risks at higher levels of biological organization ( e.g. populations and communities). For example, pesticide effects on individual survivorship have important implications for both population rates and habitat carrying capacity.

Table II.a. Summary of Ecological Risk Assessment Endpoints for TM and MBC

## 6 Assessment Endpoint Effects Measurement Endpoint

1. Survival, reproduction, and growth of individuals and populations of birds 1a. Oral LD 50 (Japanese quail; mallard duck) 1b. Dietary LC 50 (mallard duck; bobwhite, Japanese quail) 1c. Reproductive NOAEC, LOAEC ( bobwhite quail, mallard duck)

2. Survival, reproduction, and growth of individuals and populations of mammals 2a. Oral LD 50 (rat) 2b. Dietary LC 50 (rat) 2c. Reproductive NOAEC, LOAEC (rat)

3. Survival and reproduction of individuals and communities of freshwater fish and invertebrates 3a. LC 50 (rainbow trout; bluegill sunfish; fathead minnow) 3b. Reproductive NOAEC, LOAEC (fathead minnow) 3c. LC 50 ( Daphnia magna

, Daphnia pulex, cyclopoid and calanoid copepods, Asellus aquaticus

, Cloeon dipterum, Gammarus pulex

, Notonecta glauca

, Chironomus riparius

, Chaoborus crystallinus, Chironomus riparius ) 3d. Reproductive NOAEC, LOAEC ( Daphnia magna )

4. Survival and reproduction of individuals and communities of estuarine/marine fish and invertebrates 4a. LC 50 (sheepshead minnow) 4b. LC 50 (Eastern oyster, mysid shrimp)

5. Maintenance and growth of individuals and populations of aquatic plants from standing crop or biomass 5a. NOAEC, EC 25 ( Selenastrum capricornutum )

6. Perpetuation of individuals and populations of non-target terrestrial plants (crops and non-crop plant species) 6a. Vegetative vigor (11 species) 6b. Seedling emergence (11 species)

7. Survival of terrestrial invertebrate populations 7a. Contact/oral LD 50 (honeybee)



## This ecological risk assessment considers only seed treatment. This assessment is not intended to represent a site- or time-specific analysis; it is intended to represent high-end exposures at a national level. The most sensitive toxicity measures of effect are used from surrogate test species to estimate treatment-related direct effects on acute mortality and chronic reproductive, growth, and survival assessment endpoints.

D. Conceptual Model

1. Risk Hypotheses

Risk hypotheses are specific assumptions about potential adverse effects (i.e., changes in assessment endpoints) and may be based on theory a nd logic, empirical data, mathematical models, or probability models (EPA 1998a). For this assessment, the risk is stressor-initiated, where the stressor is the release of TM to the environment. The following risk hypothesis is presumed for this screening-level assessment:

The use of TM as seed treatment on various crops will likely involve situations where terrestrial and aquatic animals and plants will be exposed to the chemical and/or its degradation product MBC. Based on information on environmental fate, mode of action, direct toxicity and potential indirect effects, EFED assumes that TM and MBC have the potential to cause reduced survival,

## growth, and reproduction to terrestrial and/or aquatic animals and plants as a result of the proposed uses of the pesticide.

The conceptual model is a generic graphic depicti on of the risk hypothesis (Figure 1). It includes the potential pesticide or stressor (TM), the source of the pesticide and/or transport pathways, exposure media, exposure point, biological receptor types, and attribute changes.

2. Diagram

Based on an examination of the physical/chemical properties of TM and MBC, the fate and disposition in the environment, and mode of application (seed treatment), a conceptual model (Figure 1) was developed that represents the possible relationships between the stressors, ecological receptors, and the assessment endpoints.

In order for a chemical to pose an ecological risk, it must reach ecological receptors in biologically significant concentrations. An exposure pathway is the means by which a pesticide moves in the environment from a source to an ecological receptor. For an ecological exposure pathway to be complete, it must have a source, a release mechan ism, an environmental transport medium, a point of exposure for ecological receptors, and a feasible route of exposure. In addition, the potential mechanisms of degradation/transformation (i.e., which degradation/transformation products may form in the environment, in which media, and how much) must be understood, especially for a chemical whose metabolites/transformation products are of greater toxicological concern than the parent compound. The assessment of ecological exposure pathways, therefore, includes an examination of the source and potential migration pathways for constituents, and the determination of potential exposure routes.

Under the proposed uses of TM, the sources and mechanisms of release of the compound are seed treatment applications to agricultural crops. Surface runoff from the areas of application is assumed to depend on factors such as topography, irrigation, and rainfall events. Direct deposition may result in contamination of food items that may be consumed by terrestrial organisms.

The major point of exposure for aquatic organisms is direct contact with contaminated water (gill/ integument uptake), while for terrestrial animals it is consumption of TM coated seeds. For plants, the point of exposure is root uptake.

The representative aquatic receptors are certain freshwater and estuarine/ marine fish, invertebrates, and, in certain cases, aquatic plants. The representative terrestrial receptors are mammals, birds, and, in certain cases, terrestrial plants. It should be noted, that these species do not cover all the possible species in the animal a nd plant kingdoms; certain taxa are considered as surrogates for other taxa. For example, fish are considered surrogates for amphibians. The attribute changes depend on the type of test (e .g., reduced survival, growth, or reproduction for animals and seedling emergence and vegetative vigor for plants).

7

Stressors 

### Thiophanate Methyl formulated product applied as Seed Treatment

Thiophante methyl (TM) and its metabolite, carbendazim (MBC) Source

## 8 E. Analysis Plan

This document characterizes the environmental fate and effects of TM and its metabolite MBC to assess whether proposed label uses of this compound results in potential risk to non-target organisms at levels above the Agency’s LOCs. The Agency is particularly concerned with potential risk to non-target aquatic organisms based on TM ’s moderate toxicity to fish and aquatic invertebrates. The methods by which the Agency will evaluate potential exposures, effects, and risks to non-target organisms are described below. Available environmental fate, ecotoxicity, and physicochemical property data were taken from previous assessments conducted by EFED (U.S. EPA 2002). These data were not re-evaluated for this assessment; however, a cursory review of submitted studies was performed for this assessment.

1. Preliminary Identification of Data Gaps

Although some registrant-submitted studies contai ned deficiencies, the studies as a whole provided sufficient information for assessing e nvironmental fate of TM and MBC for this assessment. The environmental fate data for TM and MBC is largely complete. The ecological effects and environmental fate database for TM and MBC is also largely complete. Although some ecological data were not submitted, the ecological effects data is complete for the proposed application as a seed treatment.

2. Measures to Evaluate Risk Hypotheses and Conceptual Model

a. Measures of Exposure

Exposure to aquatic organisms is assumed to occur through direct contact with contaminated water. Aquatic exposures can be estimated from monitoring data or by simulation modeling. In this assessment, measures of exposure for TM and MBC are made with simulation modeling. Generally, aquatic exposure estimates are generated from EFED models and incorporate maximum proposed use rates and empirically-derived fate properties. They represent the environmental concentration that would be expected to be equaled or exceeded once every ten years at a site used to grow a specific crop that is more vulnerable than 90% of the sites in the country which are used for that crop. Pesticide load ing is assumed to occur from a 10 hectare field that drains into a pond with an ar ea of 1 hectare and a depth of 2 meters. This watershed geometry is commonly referred to as the ‘standard pond.’ The linkage program Shell PE4V0 (U.S. EPA, 2004) for PRZM and EXAMS models is typically used by EFED in estimating pesticide concentrations in aquatic systems. Selected crop scenarios for corn, soybean, peanuts and wheat were used in the TIER II models to capture TM’s proposed use pattern. Further details of the exposure models are discussed in Section III and on the web at http://epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm

.

For the terrestrial assessment, TM coated seeds as potential dietary sources for mammals and birds were estimated using the Tier 1 model TREX. In this Tier 1 assessment, it was assumed that organisms are exposed to parent TM in a given exposure scenario.

## 9 b. Measures of Effect

Measures of effect are based on deleterious changes in a receptor as a result of chemical exposure. Functionally, measures of effect typically used in risk assessments include changes in survival, reproduction, or growth as determined from standard laboratory toxicity tests. The focus on these effects for quantitative risk assessment is due to their clear relationship to higher-order ecological systems ( i.e. populations, communities, ecosystems). Although effects other than survival, reproduction, and growth may be considered, rarely are they used quantitatively to estimate risks since, in many cases, the relationship between these non-standard endpoints and higher-order impacts is tenuous at best. Commonly used laboratory-derived toxicity values include estimates of acute mortality ( e.g. , LD 50 

## , LC 50 

## ) and estimates of effects due to longer term, chronic exposures ( e.g. , NOAEL, NOAEC). More details concerning measures of effects used in this assessment can be found in Section III C, Ecological Effects Characterization.

c. Measures of Ecosystem and Receptor Characteristics

Field studies are not available to determine the i ndirect effects to plant and animal communities in wetland and riparian habitats along freshwater/marine waterbodies near target fields or to forest and edge habitats adjacent to target fields. The assessment endpoints specified in Table II can be summarized as survival, growth, and reproduction of terrestrial and aquatic receptors to include birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibian, fish, invertebrates, and plants. The response of these receptors to TM and MBC exposure is represented by a small number of toxicity studies on representative or surrogate species. Thus, there is considerable uncertainty regarding the response of a receptor, since data for all species potentially exposed are not available. The most sensitive available measure of effect for a given assessment endpoint is used to accommodate for some of this inherent uncertainty. However, the extent to which this is sufficient is unknown.

The ecosystems selected for modeling using PRZM/EXAMS for the aquatic assessment and T-REX for the terrestrial animal assessment are intended to be generally representative of any aquatic or terrestrial ecosystem associated with areas where TM may be applied. For aquatic assessments, freshwater and estuarine/marine fish, invertebrates, and plants are represented. For terrestrial assessments, mammals (15g mammals) and birds (20g mammals) are represented by most vulnerable size, and TM treated seeds are used as primary foraging category.

Table II. Assessment Endpoints for TM and MBC Ecological Risk Assessment

Taxonomic Group Assessment Endpoint Measures of Effect (Toxicity Endpoints) Measures of Exposure (Exposure Endpoints)

Survival Oral LD 50 and dietary LC 50 (most sensitive species), adjusted for size for 20 g bird Maximum residue on food items (foliar) or LD 50 /ft 2 Birds Reproduction, Growth NOAEC/LOAEC from avian chronic study (most sensitive species) Maximum residue on food items (foliar) or LD 50 /ft 2

## 10 Table II. Assessment Endpoints for TM and MBC Ecological Risk Assessment

Taxonomic Group Assessment Endpoint Measures of Effect (Toxicity Endpoints) Measures of Exposure (Exposure Endpoints)

Survival Acute oral LD 50 , dietary LC 50 (most sensitive species) Maximum concentration on food items (foliar) or LD 50 /ft 2

Mammals Reproduction, Growth NOAEC/LOAEC from chronic reproduction study (most sensitive species) Maximum concentration on food items

Non-target Terrestrial Invertebrates Survival Honey-bee acute contact LD 50 Maximum application rate

Terrestrial Plants Survival and Growth Tier I, Tier II plant toxicity data; EC 25 Estimates of runoff to non-target areas

Survival 96-hr LC 50 (most sensitive species) Peak EEC

Freshwater Fish Reproduction, Growth Fish Early Life Stage NOAEC/LOAEC for Growth 60-day average EEC

Survival 48-hr LC 50 (most sensitive species) Peak EEC Freshwater Invertebrate Reproduction, Growth Invertebrate Life Cycle NOAEC 21-day average EEC

Survival 96-hr LC50 (most sensitive species) Peak EEC Marine/estuarine Fish Reproduction, Growth Estuarine/Marine Fish NOAEC for growth 60-day average EEC

Survival 48-hr EC 50 (most sensitive species) Peak EEC Marine/estuarine

Invertebrate Reproduction, Growth NOAEC for reproduction for most sensitive species 21-day average EEC

Aquatic Plants Survival, Growth Tier I, Tier II plant toxicity estimates; EC 25 1-in-10 year peak concentration

## 11 

# III. Analysis

Use Characterization ( Proposed Use and Current Registrations)

This assessment is intended to address the proposed new uses of TM as a seed treatment. The proposed new uses of TM include sweet corn (D315775; IR-4), peanuts, legume vegetables and wheat (D323266). Taken together, these commoditie s are grown throughout the United States. No new fate or ecotoxicity data were submitted in support of the proposed new uses; therefore, data used for the current assessment were taken directly from these previous evaluations. Previously submitted data were not re-evaluated. Table III.a shows the maximum application rates and application frequency for selected seed treatments.

Table III.a. Proposed new uses for seed treatment

Crops Maximum Application Rates (lbs a.i./ac) or as indicated # Application/Year

Peanuts 0.16 1

Corn 0.09 1 Soybean 0.03 1

Wheat 0.04 1

TM is currently registered for use on a wide variety of agricultural food and feed crops and may be applied by soil application, seed treatment a nd foliar application. There are also non-food/feed use sites such as golf courses, sod farms, greenhous es and nurseries. TM has registered residential uses on lawns, ornamental trees, shrubs, and plants. Total annual domestic usage of TM ranges from 450,000 lbs a.i. (weighted average) to 769,000 lb ai/year (estimated maximum); most of which is applied to soybeans (110,000 lbs ai), sugar beets (75,000 lbs a.i.), and wheat (51,000 lbs ai). Revoked uses include celery, post harvest uses of all commodities, sugarcane, and bananas. However, usage of TM has increased considerably in recent years.

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) pesticide use map (Figure 2) shows regional scale patterns in use intensity within the United States. The USGS pesticide maps are based on State level estimates of pesticide use rates for individual crops, which have been compiled by the National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy (NCFAP) for 1995-1998, and on a 1997 Census of Agriculture for county crop acreage crop.

### Caution: The pesticide use maps available from this site s how regional-scale patterns of use intensity within the United States and are not intended for making local-scale estimat es of pesticide use, such as for individual counties. The maps are based on state-level estimates of pesticide use rates for individual crops, which have been compiled by the National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy (NCFAP) for 1995-1998, and on 1997 Census of Agriculture county crop acreage. Key limitations include: (1) state use-coefficients represent an average for the entire state and consequently do not reflect the local variability of pesticide management practices found within many states and counties, and (2) the county-level acreage are based on the 1997 Census of Agriculture and may not represent all crop acreage due to Census non-disclosure rules. Please refe r to Method for Estimating Pesticide Use for a detailed discussion of how the pesticide use data were devel oped. (http://ca.water.usgs.gov/ pnsp/pesticide_use_maps_1997).



## Figure 2. Estimated annual use of thiophante methyl

12

## 13 B. Exposure Characterization

1. Environmental Fate and Transport Characterization

Selected physical and chemical properties of technical grade active ingredient (TGAI) of thiophanate methyl are listed in Table III.b. Thiophanate methyl is non-volatile and has low solubility (28.7 mg/L at 25°C) in water and degrades very rapidly to methyl 2-benzimidzolylcarbamate or carbendazim (MBC) in the environment. MBC has low vapor pressure (7.5 E-10 mm Hg at 25°C) and the Henr y’s Law Constant of 2.1E-11atm-m3/mol, which suggest that it will not be volatilized from TM application fields. The octanol/water partition coefficients ( log K ow 

## ) for TM and MBC are ≈ 1.5 indicating low potential for these chemicals to bioaccumulate in organisms. The important physic ochemical and environmental fate properties of TM and its primary degradate MBC are provided in Table III.b.

Table III.b. Physicochemical and Fate Propert ies of Thiophante methyl (TM) and its Major Degradation Product Methyl 2-benzimidzolylcarbamate ( 

### MBC).

Property Value Reference (MRID)

I. Physicochemical and Fate Prop erties of Parent Thiophate methyl

Chemical Name Thiophanate Methyl Product chemistry

Chemical Group Benzimidazole 

### Product chemistry

CAS Number 23564-05-8 Product chemistry

Molecular Weight ( ( g Mole -1 ) 342.4 

### Tomlin, 1997 (ed.)

Molecular Formula C 12 

### H 14 

### N 4 

### O 4 

### S 2 

### Tomlin, 1997 (ed.)

Water solubility at 25 ○ 

### C (mg L -1 ) 

### 21.8 Tomlin, 1997 (ed.)

Octanol/water partition coefficient (log K ow) 

### 1.5 Tomlin, 1997 (ed.)

Vapor Pressure (Torr) 1.3 E-5 

### Tomlin, 1997 (ed.)

Henry’s Law Constant (atm-cu m/mole ) 1.2 E-7 Estimated

Hydrolysis half-lives 36 days at pH 7, 0.7 days at pH 9 Major Degradation products: MBC (28.6% @ pH 7 and 58.7 % @ pH 9) 400955-07



### Aqueous photolysis half-life 2.17 days pH 5 buffer Major Degradation product: MBC (49.7%) 414828-06

Soil photolysis half-lives 2.9-5.5 days Major Degradation product: MBC (21.7%) 414828-07

## 14 Table III.b. Physicochemical and Fate Propert ies of Thiophante methyl (TM) and its Major Degradation Product Methyl 2-benzimidzolylcarbamate ( 

### MBC).

Property Value Reference (MRID)

Aerobic soil metabolism half-life (day) < 1 Major Degradation product: MBC (82.7%) 402119-01 and 421114-03

Anaerobic aquatic half-life (water/ sediment system) 3 hours Major Degradation product : MBC- Maximum 54% in sediment

Maximum 28.6% in water 435965-01

Soil Water Partition Coefficient (K oc , L Kg -1 ) 318 (Avg.) 42351001

Terrestrial Field half-lives < 1 day 1 day 4.2 days Major Degradation product: MBC (6.1 to 10.0 %) 419301-01

419301-02

434337-01



### III.b. Physicochemical Properties of Major Degradation Product MBC

Chemical Name Methyl 2-benzimidzolylcarbamate or Carbendazim (MBC) 

### Product chemistry

Chemical Group Benzimidazole 

### Product chemistry

CAS Number 17804-35-2 

### Product chemistry

Molecular Weight 191.18 g Mole -1 

### Tomlin, 1997 (ed.)

Molecular Formula C 9 H 9 N 3 O 2 

### Tomlin, 1997 (ed.)

Water solubility 8.0 g/L 

### Tomlin, 1997 (ed.)

Vapor pressure (Torr) 7.5 E-10 

### Tomlin, 1997 (ed.)

Octanol/water partition coefficient (log K ow) 1.52 

### Tomlin, 1997 (ed.)

Henry’s law constant (atm-m 3 /mol) 2.1 E-11 Estimated

Hydrolysis half-life Stable Acc.# 00151418

Photodegradation half-life water Stable Acc.#00151419

Aerobic soil metabolism half-life (days) 320 MRID 41255801

Anaerobic aquatic metabolism half-life (days) 743 & 31 411377-01 456200-01 Soil water partition coefficient ( 

### (K oc , L Kg - ) 1885 (Avg) Acc.# 00151422

Terrestrial Field half-lives 22 days 94 days 33.9 days 419301-01

419301-02

434337-01

## 15 a. Degradation and Metabolism

Thiophanate methyl degrades primarily to carbendazim (MBC) whether on foliage, in soil, or in water. While the TM degradation rate is slower on foliage than in the aquatic environment conversion to MBC is expected to be rapid under most normal agricultural conditions. The environmental fate of TM in aquatic and terrestri al environments is dependent on rapid biotic and photolytic degradation to form MBC. When released in terrestrial environments, TM is expected to degrade relatively rapidly by microbial metabolism (<1 day) and photolysis (t 1/2 

## < 3 days). Since TM treated seed normally incorporated into soil, photolytic degradation would be negligible. Based on data from studies that meet Agency guidelines, MBC is stable to aqueous photodegradation, stable to hydrolysis at pH valu es ranging from 5 to 7, with hydrolytic stability decreasing within this range of pH values as pH increases, and stable to soil photolysis. Metabolism under aerobic and anaerobic conditions in both soil and water proceeds at a very slow

rate.

b. Transport and Mobility

Large quantities of applied TM are not expected to be transported away from the site of application. MBC is not likely to volatilize from soil based on its low vapor pressure. Due to its very slow degradation and low mobility in soil (K oc 

## = 1885 L/Kg), MBC is expected to remain at or near its site of deposition until it is degraded. Therefore, large quantities of TM metabolites, MBC have potential to be transported away via runoff from the fields, where TM treated seeds will be used.

c. Field Studies

Dissipation of TM residues from soil is rapid, with dissipation half-lives up to 4.2 days and formation of MBC and dimethyl-4,4'-o-phenylenebis (i.e., allophanate) as degradates. Dissipation half-lives calculated for MBC ranged from 22 to 94 days in 3 studies (MRID# 41930101, 41930102, 43433701). MBC was detected in the top 15 cm horizon of soils. In general, the MBC half-lives were relatively short compared to the laboratory biotic and abiotic studies. Site parameters such as slope and climatology may have influenced the more rapid dissipation of MBC in the field than was observed in the laboratory studies.

2. Measures of Aquatic Exposure

a. Aquatic Exposure Modeling

Aquatic EECs for the ecological exposure to TM and MBC were estimated using PRZM 3.12/EXAMS 2.98 employing the standard field pond scenario. PRZM/EXAMS is a Tier II screening model designed to estimate pesticide concentrations found in water at the edge of a treated field. As such, it provides high-end values of the pesticide concentrations that might be found in ecologically sensitive environments following pesticide application. PRZM-EXAMS is a multi-year runoff model that also accounts for spray drift from single and multiple applications.

## In the ecological exposure assessment, PRZM/EXAMS simulates a 10 hectare (ha) field immediately adjacent to a 1 ha pond, 2 meters deep with no outlet. The location of the field is specific to the crop being simulated using site sp ecific information of soils, weather, cropping, and management factors associated with the scenario. The crop/location scenario in a specific state is intended to represent a high-end vulnerable site on which the crop is normally grown. Based on historical rainfall patterns, the pond receives multiple runoff events during the years simulated.

The maximum application rates and relevant environmental fate parameters for TM and MBC were used in the screening model PRZM/EXAMS in estimating concentrations in surface water. Table III.c for TM and MBC present the input parameters used in the Tier II PRZM/EXAMS modeling. The application rate of MBC was calculated using the following approach.

Stoichiometry of Carbendazim (MBC) formation from Thiophante Methyl (TM)

16 C1 12 

## H 14 

## N 4 

## O 4 

## S 2 

### → 

## C 9 

## H 9 

## N 3 

## O 2 

## + other products (TM; MW = 342.4) ( MBC; MW = 191.12)

From the equation shown above, one mole or 342.4 mass unit of thiophanate methyl degrades to produce one mole or 191.18 mass units of MBC. Thus, the mass conversion ratio or molecular weight (MW) ratio of MBC to TM is 0.56. The aerobic soil metabolism study suggests that the maximum conversion rate of TM to MBC was 82.7%. Therefore, the maximum application rate of MBC would be (0.827)(0.56)(0.09) = 0.04 lbs/Acre at 0.09 lbs/Acre application rate for TM for corn seeds. Calculation of maximum application rate can be found in Appendix D

.

To simulate field application of TM, multiple scenarios were selected representing proposed TM usage areas based on geography and weather. PR ZM/EXAMS scenarios were modeled to estimate TM EECs in surface water based on label information for TM application to Sweet corn in FL, peanuts in North Carolina soybean in Missisppi and wheat in North Dakota. The modeled surface water EECs for these scenarios are presented in Table III.d. Acute risk assessments are performed using peak EEC values for single application. Chronic risk assessments for aquatic invertebrates and fish are performed using the average 21-da y and 60-day EECs, respectively. For a given crop, only the highest EECs are presented in the table; however, results from all modeled scenarios are provided in Appendix D . For each PRZM/EXAMS scenario, a granular application was evaluated following the proposed uses for TM treated seeds that incorporated into soil. The PRZM/EXAMS output files for the aquatic ecological exposure assessment are presented in Appendix D

.

### Table III.c. PRZM/EXAMS Input Parameters of TM and MBC for Seed Treatments

Parameters and Units TM MBC Source TM/MBC

PC Code 102001 128872 EFED Files

Molecular Weight ( g Mole -1 ) 342.4 191.18 Product Chemistry

Vapor pressure ( Torr) 1.3 E-5 7.5 E-10 Product Chemistry

Water solubility (mg L -1) † 21.8 x 10 8.0 x 10 Product Chemistry

Hydrolysis hlf-lives @ pH 7 (Days) 36 Stable MRID 40095507/ Acc.# 00151418

Aerobic soil metabolism t 1⁄2 , (Days) 1 x 3 * 320x3 * MRID 106085/ MRID 41255801

Aerobic aquatic metabolism (Days) 3 x 2 ** 100.2

(61& 23.3) Calc. 90 th Percentile MRID 40061501/ MRID 41137701 MRID 45620001

Anaerobic aquatic metabolism (Days) 1 x 3 * 1482.7

(743 & 31) Calc. 90 th Percentile MRID40061501/ MRID 41137701 MRID 45620001

Direct Aqueous Photolysis (Days) 2.17 Stable MRID 41482806/ Acc.#00151419

Soil Water Partition Coefficient (K oc , L Kg -1 ) 318 (Avg.) 1885 (Avg) MRID 42351001/ Acc.# 00151422

Crop Management

Pesticide Application Rates (a.i. lb/A) ***

FL Sweetcorn MS Soybean NC Peanuts ND Wheat 0.09 0.03 0.16 0.04 0.04 0.01 0.07 0.02 Product label Tops® 30 Flowable Tops® 30 Flowable Tops® 30 Flowable Tops® 30 Flowable

First Application Date FL Sweetcorn MS Soybean NC Peanuts ND Wheat October 15 April 10 May 05 May 07 October 15 April 10 May 05 May 07 FL Sweetcorn Scenario MS Soybean Scenario NC Peanut Scenario ND Wheat Scenario

Application Frequency 1 1 Product label

Spray Efficiency 100% 100% EFED Guidelines

† Water solubility was multiplied by 10 accordi ng to Guidance for selecting input parameters in modeling for environmental fate and transport of pesticides. Ve rsion II. December 4, 2001. * Selected input parameters were multiplied by 3 according to Gu idance for selecting input parameters in modeling for environmental fate and transport of pesticides. Version II. December 4, 2001. ** 2X of soil aerobic metabolism half-life i nput value was used due to stability of compound (Guidance for selecting input para meters in modeling for environmental fate a nd transport of pesticides. Version II. December 4, 2001). *** MBC application rat e= TM application ra te x [(0.827, the maximum conversion rate fr om the degradation of TM to MBC in lab oratory studies) x (0.56, the molecular weight ratio of MBC to TM)]



## 17

## 18 Table III.d. Estimated Environmental Concen trations (EECs) in surface water for selected Seed treatments scenarios

Chemical (Application rate, frequency) Acute: Peak EEC ( μ g/L) Chronic: 21-day EEC ( μ g/L) Chronic: 60-day EEC ( μ g/L)

FL Sweetcorn

TM (0.09 lbs ai/A , 1X Per Season) 0.49 0.20 0.07

MBC (0.04 lbs ai/A , 1X Per Season) 0.43 0.35 0.29

Mississippi Soybean

TM (0.03 lbs ai/A , 1X Per Season) 0.08 0.04 0.02

MBC (0.01 lbs ai/A , 1X Per Season) 0.06 0.05 0.05

NC Peanut

TM (0.18lbs ai/A , 1X Per Season) 0.26 0.12 0.05

MBC (0.07 lbs ai/A , 1X Per Season) 0.56 0.46 0.38

ND Wheat

TM (0.04 lbs ai/A , 1X Per Season) 0.04 0.02 0.01

MBC (0.02 lbs ai/A , 1X Per Season) 0.13 0.11 0.10



## b. Aquatic Exposure monitoring and field data

No data on monitored concentrations of TM or MBC were found in surface water or ground water. Neither TM nor its primary degradate, MBC, are regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act.

1. Measure of Terrestrial Exposure

a. Terrestrial Exposure Modeling

A primary concern with TM is that birds and mammals may be exposed shortly after application through dietary exposure of TM treated seeds, when foraging in the fields for nesting material or food. Therefore estimation of pesticide concentrations in wildlife food items focuses on quantifying possible dietary ingestion of TM treated seeds. The EFED terrestrial exposure model T-REX (T-REX, Version 1.2.3, dated August 8, 2005) is used to estimate exposures and risks to avian and mammalian species. For seed treatments, input values for avian and mammalian toxicity as well as chemical application rate data are required to run the model. The model provides estimates of exposure concentrations and risk quotients (RQs). These values (termed the Hoerger-Kenaga estimates) along with a more detailed discussion of the methodology implemented by T-REX, can be found in T-REX model manual (U.S. EPA, 2005).

## 19 The concentration (ppm) of TM on treated seeds is calculated by multiplying the application rate provided in the labels (lbs/cwt = lbs/100 lbs seed = parts per hundred) by 10,000 (1 part per hundred x 10,000 = 1 part per million, ppm). Ingested doses from seed treatment applications are calculated using the scaling factor approach as discussed previously for a 20-gram bird and a 15-gram mammal. Animals are assumed to eat only treated seeds as a first tier screen. T-REX output can be found in Appendix E

.

b. Residue studies

Seed treatment data for sweet corn shows that TM/MBC residues were nondetectable in/on sweet corn K+CWHR, forage, and stover following seed treatment.

C. Ecological Effects Characterization

In screening-level ecological risk assessments, effects characterization describes the types of effects a pesticide can produce in an aquatic or terrestrial organism. This characterization is based on registrant-submitted studies that describe acute and chronic effects toxicity information for various aquatic and terrestrial animals and plants. Appendix F summarizes the results of the registrant-submitted toxicity studies used to characterize effects for this risk assessment. Toxicity testing reported in this section does not represent all species of birds, mammals, or aquatic organisms. Only a few surrogate species for both freshwater fish and birds are used to represent all freshwater fish (2000+) and bird (680+) species in the United States. For mammals, acute studies are usually limited to Norway rat or the house mouse. Estuarine/marine testing is usually limited to a crustacean, a mollusc, and a fish. Als o, neither reptiles nor amphibians are tested. The risk assessment assumes that avian and reptilian toxicities are similar. The same assumption is used for fish and aquatic amphibians.

1. Aquatic effects Characterization

In general, TM is considered to be slightly to moderately toxic to fish (freshwater and estuarine/marine) on an acute basis ( LC 50 

## = 8.3 ppm to 40 ppm). Chronic NOAEC values were calculated at 0.002 ppm for the Channel Catfish with larval survival being the major endpoint affected. Toxicity studies on aquatic invertebrates (freshwater and estuarine/marine) show that this compound is acutely moderately toxic to these organisms (MBC EC 50 

## = 1.1 to 5.4 ppm). Chronic effects (survival) were noted in daphnids (NOAEC = 0.003 ppm) and in mysid shrimp (NOAEC = 0.025 ppm). TM was acutely toxic to the freshwater Diatom (EC 50 

## = 0.93 ppm). These categories are presented in Appendix F

.

2. Terrestrial effects Characterization

In general, TM appears to be practically non-toxic to avian and mammalian species on an acute level (4640 mg/kg for avian species and >5000 mg/kg for mammals) and also practically non-toxic to birds on a subacute level (LC 50 

## >10,000 ppm). Chronic toxicity data show that exposure to TM

## 20 can result in decreases in egg production and body weight (NOAEC/LOAEC > 103 ppm). Reproductive effects to mammals were noted at 195 mg/kg. Acute toxicity to honeybees show that TM is practically non-toxic to non-target insects (LD 50 

## >100 μg/bee). These categories are presented in Appendix F

.

## 21 IV. Risk Characterization

A. Risk Estimation – Integration of Exposure and Effects data

A means of integrating the results of exposure and ecotoxicity data is called the deterministic method. For this method, risk quotients (RQs) are calculated by dividing exposure estimates by ecotoxicity values, both acute and chronic. Terrestrial risk for seed treatment uses were determined through the calculation of LD50/sqft estimates.

RQ = EXPOSURE/TOXICITY

RQs are then compared to OPP's levels of con cern (LOCs). These LOCs are criteria used by OPP to indicate potential risk to non-target organisms and the need to consider regulatory action. The criteria indicate that a pesticide used as directed has the potential to cause adverse effects on non-target organisms. LOCs currently address the following risk presumption categories: (1) acute high - potential for acute risk is high, regulatory action may be warranted in addition to restricted use classification (2) acute restricted use - the potential for acute risk is high, but this may be mitigated through restricted use classification (3) acute endangered species - the potential for acute risk to endangered species is high, regulatory action ma y be warranted, and (4) chronic risk - the potential for chronic risk is high, regulatory action may be warranted. Currently, EFED does not perform assessments for chronic risk to plants, acute or chronic risks to non-target insects, or chronic risk from granular/bait formulations to mammalian or avian species.

The ecotoxicity test values (i.e., measurement endpoints) used in the acute and chronic risk quotients are derived from the results of required st udies. Examples of ecotoxicity values derived from the results of short-term laboratory studies that assess acute effects are: (1) LC 50 

## (fish and birds) (2) LD 50 

## (birds and mammals) (3) EC 50 

## (aquatic plants and aquatic invertebrates) and (4) EC 25 

## (terrestrial plants). An example of a toxicity test effect level derived from the results of long-term laboratory studies that assess chronic effects is: (1) NOAEC (birds, fish and aquatic invertebrates). Risk presumptions, along with the corresponding RQs and LOCs are tabulated below:

Table IV.a. Risk Presumptions for Terrestrial Animals

Risk Presumption RQ LOC

Birds :

Acute High Risk EEC 1 /LC50 or LD50/sqft 2 or LD50/day 3 0.5

Acute Restricted Use EEC/LC50 or LD50/sqft or LD50/day (or LD50 < 50 mg/kg) 0.2

Acute Endangered Species EEC/LC50 or LD50/sqft or LD50/day 0.1

Chronic Risk EEC/NOAEC 1

Wild Mammals :

## 22 Table IV.a. Risk Presumptions for Terrestrial Animals

Risk Presumption RQ LOC Acute High Risk EEC/LC50 or LD50/sqft or LD50/day 0.5

Acute Restricted Use EEC/LC50 or LD50/sqft or LD50/day (or LD50 < 50 mg/kg) 0.2

Acute Endangered Species EEC/LC50 or LD50/sqft or LD50/day 0.1

Chronic Risk EEC/NOAEC 1

1 abbreviation for Estimated Environmental Con centration (ppm) on avian/mammalian food items

2 mg/ft 2 3 mg of toxicant consumed/day LD50 * wt. of bird LD50 * wt. of bird



## Table IV.b. Risk Presumptions for Aquatic Animals

Risk Presumption RQ LOC

Acute High Risk EEC 1 /LC50 or EC50 0.5

Acute Restricted Use EEC/LC50 or EC50 0.1

Acute Endangered Species EEC/LC50 or EC50 0.05

Chronic Risk EEC/MATC or NOAEC 1

1 EEC = (ppm or ppb) in water 

## Table IV.c. Risk Presumptions for Plants

Risk Presumption RQ LOC

Terrestrial and Semi-Aquatic Plants:

Acute High Risk EEC 1 /EC25 1

Acute Endangered Species EEC/EC05 or NOAEC 1

Aquatic Plants:

Acute High Risk EEC 2 /EC50 1

Acute Endangered Species EEC/EC05 or NOAEC 1

1 EEC = lbs ai/A

2 EEC = (ppb/ppm) in water



## Major Risk Concerns EFED’s risk assessment for terrestrial organisms suggests that the proposed uses should not pose risk to avian, mammalian, aquatic or plant species. Currently the Agency does not perform quantitative assessments for chronic risk to plants or acute/chronic risks to non-target insects.

Likelihood of Water Contamination In order to evaluate TM exposure to aquatic organisms, EFED relied on the maximum EEC value generated through PRZM, while chronic values fo r fish and invertebrates reflected 60-day and 21-day PRZM averages for MBC, respectively.

1. Aquatic Organism Risk Assessment

## 23 Risk to Aquatic Organisms (Acute/Chronic)

The following tables (Tables IV.d and IV.e) provide aquatic acute and chronic RQ values for TM and MBC exposure to freshwater and estuarine/marine species relative to the proposed seed treatment uses. The risk assessment suggests that exposure via runoff of this compound to an aquatic system would not likely result in acute or chronic risk to freshwater and estuarine/marine invertebrates (e.g. shrimp). There were also no risks to aquatic plants (Table IV.f).

Table IV.d. Acute and chronic RQ’s for evalua ting toxic risk of TM and MBC exposure to fish (freshwater and estuarine/marine). RQ’s are based on the rainbow trout ( Oncorhynchus mykiss ) LC 50 

## = 8.3 ppm, the catfish (Ictalurus punctatus) NOAEC = 0.002 ppm and sheepshead minnow ( Cyprinodon variegatus ) LC 50 

## = 40 ppm, NOAEC = 2.3

ppm 1



## . EEC values are generated from PRZM/EXAMS. Crop App. Rate (lbs ai/A) # App. (days) Organism EC 50 (ppm) NOAEC (ppm) EEC Peak (ppm) EEC 60-Day Ave. (ppm) Acute RQ (EEC/ LC 50 ) Chronic RQ (EEC/NOAEC)

FL sweetcorn Freshwater

Estuarine/ Marine 8.3

40 0.002

2.3 0.0005

0.0005 0.0003

0.0003 0.00

0.00 0.15

0.00

MS soybean Freshwater

Estuarine/ Marine 8.3

40 0.002

2.3 0.0001

0.0001 0.00005

0.00005 0.00

0.00 0.025

0.00

NC peanut Freshwater

Estuarine/ Marine 8.3

40 0.002

2.3 0.00026

0.00026 0.00038

0.00038 0.00

0.00 0.2

0.00

ND wheat Freshwater

Estuarine/ Marine 8.3

40 0.002

2.3 0.00004

0.00004 0.0001

0.0001 0.00

0.00 0.05

0.00



## Table IV. e. Acute and chronic risk RQ’s for evaluating toxic risk of TM and MBC exposure to aquatic invertebrates (freshwater and estuarine/marine). RQ’s are based on Daphnia ( Daphnia magna ) EC 50 

## = 5.4 ppm, NOAEC = 0.003 ppm and the mysid (Americamysis bahia) EC 50 

## = 1.1 ppm, NOAEC = 0.025 ppm . EEC values are generated from PRZM/EXAMS.

## 24 Crop App. Rate (lbs ai/A) # App. (days) Organism EC 50 (ppm) NOAEC (ppm) EEC Peak (ppm) EEC 21-Day Ave. (ppm) Acute RQ (EEC/ LC 50 ) Chronic RQ (EEC/NOAEC)

FL sweetcorn Freshwater

Estuarine/ Marine 5.4

1.1 0.003

0.025 0.0005

0.0005 0.00035

0.00035 0.00

0.00 0.116

0.014

MS soybean Freshwater

Estuarine/ Marine 5.4

1.1 0.003

0.025 0.0001

0.0001 0.00005

0.00005 0.00

0.00 0.016

0.002

NC peanut Freshwater

Estuarine/ Marine 5.4

1.1 0.003

0.025 0.00026

0.00026 0.00046

0.00046 0.00

0.00 0.15

0.02

ND wheat Freshwater

Estuarine/ Marine 5.4

1.1 0.003

0.025 0.00004

0.00004 0.00011

0.00011 0.00

0.00 0.037

0.0044

1 Extrapolated value using an acute/chronic ratio from estuarine/marine invertebrate

2 Acute restrictive use ( > 0.1)

3 Chronic concern ( > 1.0)



## Table IV. f. Acute risk RQ’s for evaluating toxic risk of TM exposure to aquatic plants. RQ’s are based on Freshwater Diatom ( Navicula pelliculosa ) EC 50 

## = 0.93 ppm . EEC values are generated from PRZM/EXAMS.

Crop App. Rate (lbs ai/A) # App. (days) EEC Peak (ppm) Acute RQ (EEC/ LC 50 )

FL sweet corn 0.0005 0.00

MS soybean 0.0001 0.00

NC peanut 0.00026 0.00

ND wheat 0.00004 0.00



## 2. Terrestrial Exposure and Risk

a. Risk to Avian Species

Table IV.g provides acute risk quotients of most vulnerable size of avian (20g) from exposure to

## 25 seed treated with TM. Chronic RQs can not be estimated due to lack of chronic endpoint for TM treated seed. However, chronic exposure of is unlikely due to low application rates, single application per year and treated seeds are incorporated into the soil.

Table IV.g. Avian Risk Quotients for Single A pplications of TM Treated Seed Based on a Mallard Duck LD50 value of 4,640 mg ai/kg.

Site/Application Method Application Rate (lb ai/A) Maximum seed application Rate (mg ai/kg-bw/day) Avian Nagy dose (mg ai/kg-bw/day) Available ai (mg ai/ ft 2 ) Acute RQ*

Peanuts seed-Incorporated 0.16 1158.39 293.18 1.63 0.01

Corn seed-Incorporated 0.09 3709.45 938.82 0.97 0.01

Soybean seed-Incorporated 0.03 292.85 74.12 0.31 0.00

Wheat seed-Incorporated 0.04 292.85 74.12 0.41 0.00

* T-REX Outputs (Appendix E)



## b. Risk to Mammals Table IV.g provides acute risk quotients of most vulnerable size of mammalian (15g) from exposure to seed treated with TM. Chronic RQs can not be estimated due to lack of chronic endpoint for TM treated seed. However, chronic e xposure is unlikely due to low application rates, single application per year and treated seeds are incorporated into the soil.

Table IV.h.. Mammalian Risk Quotients for Si ngle Applications of TM Treated Seed Based on a lab rat ( Rattus norwegicus ) LD50 value of >5,000 mg ai/kg.

Site/Application Method Application Rate (lb ai/A) Maximum seed application Rate (mg ai/kg-bw/day) Mammalian Nagy dose (mg ai/kg-bw/day) Available ai (mg ai/ ft 2 ) Acute RQ*

Peanuts seed-Incorporated 0.16 1158.39 245.43 1.63 0.01

Corn seed-Incorporated 0.09 3709.45 785.93 0.97 0.01

Soybean seed-Incorporated 0.03 292.85 62.05 0.31 0.00

Wheat seed-Incorporated 0.04 292.85 62.05 0.41 0.00

## 26 Table IV.h.. Mammalian Risk Quotients for Si ngle Applications of TM Treated Seed Based on a lab rat ( Rattus norwegicus ) LD50 value of >5,000 mg ai/kg.

Site/Application Method Application Rate (lb ai/A) Maximum seed application Rate (mg ai/kg-bw/day) Mammalian Nagy dose (mg ai/kg-bw/day) Available ai (mg ai/ ft 2 ) Acute RQ*

* T-REX Outputs (Appendix E)



# B. Risk Description

The risk hypothesis states that the use of TM as a seed treatment for various crops is likely to expose terrestrial and aquatic animals and plants to TM and/or MBC, with resulting adverse effects. Based on available ecotoxicity data and predicted environmental exposures, this ecological risk assessment does not support the presumption of risk to birds and mammals from TM treated seed and risk to fish and aquatic invertebrates from the TM and its degradate MBC. Low terrestrial and aquatic risk is mainly due to low toxicities, low application rates, one application per year and the seeds are incorporated into soil, thus reducing exposure

.



## Birds and Mammals TM is practically nontoxic to birds (Table IV.g) and mammals (Table IV.h.) on an acute exposure basis. The concentrations at which acute e ffects are observed for birds and mammals is unknown, but is greater than 10,000 ppm for birds and 5,000 ppm for mammals. Effects data on surrogate birds and mammals indicate that chronic effects are of far greater concern than acute effects, with concentrations at which chronic effects were e xhibited being several orders of magnitude lower than the TM concentrations observed to exhibit no acute effects. Nevertheless, the screening level assessment suggests that the application of this compound through seed treatment has low potential for risk to the most vulnerable size of avian or mammalian species.

Aquatic Species Risk does not exceed the levels of concern for a quatic organisms under the current seed use pattern. Under most agricultural conditions, TM entering the aquatic environment is expected to convert rapidly to MBC. MBC is very persistent but is relatively immobile in sandy loam or silt loam soils, and is likely to remain in the upper soil profile of these and similar soils. However, MBC has potential to leach to groundwater in highly sandy soils with low organic matter.

For the purpose of this risk assessment, rapid tr ansformation of TM to MBC in water was assumed based on environmental fate data regarding hydrolysis and photolysis of TM in the aquatic environment under ambient conditions. Transformation of TM to MBC will be particularly rapid near the surface of the water colu mn where photolysis will have a strong influence with a half-life on the order of about one-half to two days depe nding on the season and latitudinal distance from the equator. Transformation of TM to MBC will also be particularly rapid for aquatic environments with a pH value of 9, with a half-lif e of less than one day. As aquatic pH decreases, the transformation of TM to MBC is slower, with an estimated half-life of 36 days at pH 7 (the most commonly found pH in the environment). Evidence from environmental fate studies indicates that MBC is very stable to hydrolysis and photolysis and is, therefore, persistent in the

## 27 aquatic environment. To simplify quantitative estimates of risks to aquatic organisms, it was assumed that acute exposure and associated risks ar e exclusively to TM and that chronic exposures and associated risks are exclusively to MBC. In reality, at least some TM and MBC is probably present throughout the periods of exposure from initial pesticide application up to the 60-day period that is generally used to assess ecological risks and up to the 60- to 90-day period used to assess exposure from ingestion of drinking water. To account for concentrations of both TM and MBC throughout the period of exposure, formation a nd decline curves would have to be generated. Inadequate data were available, however, to develop formation and decline curves for TM and MBC.

No data on monitored concentrations of TM or MBC were found in surface water or ground water. Neither TM nor its primary degradate, MBC, are regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act. As a result, neither Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCL s) nor drinking water health advisories (HAs) for these chemicals have been established by the EPA Office of Water. Data on levels of TM and MBC monitored following application of TM in the vicinity of and down-gradient of locations where TM is used would lead to higher confidence in concentrations of surface water and ground

water.

Endocrine Disruption

EPA is required under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), as amended by FQPA, to develop a screening program to determine whether certain substances (including all pesticide active and other ingredients) “may have an effect in humans that is similar to an effect produced by a naturally-occurring estrogen, or other such endocrine effects as the Administrator may designate.” Following the recommendations of its Endocrine Disruptor Screening and Testing Advisory

Committee (EDSTAC), EPA determined that there was scientific basis for including, as part of the program, the androgen- and thyroid hormone system s, in addition to the estrogen hormone system. EPA also adopted EDSTAC’s recommendation that the Program include evaluations of potential effects in wildlife. For pesticide chemicals, EPA will use FIFRA and, to the extent that effects in wildlife may help determine whether a substance ma y have an effect in humans, FFDCA authority to require the wildlife evaluations. As the science develops and resources allow, screening of additional hormone systems may be added to the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP). When the appropriate screening and or testing protocols being considered under the Agency’s Endocrine Disruptor Screening Progr am have been developed, TM may be subjected to additional screening and or testing to better characterize eff ects related to endocrine disruption. Issues that have raised this concern include reproductive effects in terrestrial and aquatic species.

Incident Characterization

There were only two incidents listed. The first incide nt involved mortality of bees in an orchard in NC. The second involved the mortality of 350 Bullhead catfish on a golf course in Ohio. Both incidents were listed as a misuse of the product, involved other toxic compounds and neither

## 28 involved seed treatment.

Endangered Species Assessment The following section discusses the screening-leve l assessment for Federally listed threatened and endangered species. The Agency’s levels of concern for endangered and threatened is not exceeded for any of the proposed seed treatment uses of TM.

Applications For the crop scenarios used to evaluate risk to aquatic organisms, the LOC (0.05) for acute effects to listed species of freshwater and estuarine/ma rine fish were not exceeded. Since there were no risks to fish, risk to listed amphibians is also considered low.

Listed Species No endangered species RQs were exceeded for any species.

a. Action Area The Endangered Species Act defines the action area for a Federal action as being the footprint of possible effects stemming from the action, not necessarily limited to where the immediate action occurs. For screening-level purposes, the risk assessment conservatively assumes that listed species are co-located with the pesticide treatment area. This means that terrestrial plants and wildlife are assumed to be located on or adjacent to the treated field and aquatic organisms are assumed to be located in a surface water body adjacen t to the treated field. This assumption places the listed species within an assumed area of high potential exposure to the pesticide.

If the assumptions associated with the screening- level action area result in RQs that are below the listed species LOCs, a "no effect" determination conclusion is made with respect to listed species in that taxa, and no further refinement of the ac tion area is necessary. Furthermore, RQs below the listed species LOCs for a given taxonomic group indicate no concern for indirect effects upon listed species that depend upon the taxonomic group covered by the RQ as a resource. However, in situations where the screening assumptions lead to RQs in excess of th e listed species LOCs for a given taxonomic group, there exists a potential for a "may affect" conclusion exists and may be associated with direct effects on listed species belonging to that taxonomic group or may extend to indirect effects upon listed species that depend upon that taxonomic group as a resource. In such cases, additional information on the biology of listed species, the locations of these species, and the locations of use sites could be considered to determine the extent to which screening assumptions regarding an action area apply to a particular listed species. These subsequent refinement steps could consider how this informa tion would impact the action area for a particular listed organism and may potentially include areas of exposure that are downwind and downstream of the pesticide use site.

b. Taxonomic Groups Potentially at Risk The Agency’s LOCs for endangered and threatened species were not exceeded for any of the proposed seed treatment uses.

## 29 c. Indirect Effects Analysis The Agency acknowledges that pesticides have the potential to exert indirect effects upon the listed organisms by perturbing forage or prey availability, altering the extent of nesting habitat, creating gaps in the food chain, etc. In conducting a screen for indirect effects, direct effect LOCs for each taxonomic group are used to make inferen ces concerning the potential for indirect effects upon listed species that rely upon non-endangered organisms in these taxonomic groups as resources critical to their life cycle.

When screening-level acute RQs exceed the endangered species acute LOCs, the Agency uses the dose response relationship from the toxicity study used for calculating the RQ to estimate the probability of acute effects associated with an e xposure equivalent to the EEC (see Probit Analysis below). This information serves as a guide to establish the need for and extent of additional analysis that may be performed using Services-provided “species profiles” as well as evaluations of the geographical and temporal nature of the exposure to ascertain if a “not likely to adversely affect” determination can be made. The degree to which additional analyses are performed is commensurate with the predicted probability of adverse effects from the comparison of the dose response information with the EECs. The greater the probability that exposures will produce effects on a taxa, the greater the concern for poten tial indirect effects for listed species dependent upon that taxa, and therefore, the more intensive the analysis on the potential listed species of concern, their locations relative to the use site, and information regarding the use scenario (e.g., timing, frequency, and geographical extent of pesticide application).

Birds and Mammals Screening-level RQs that exceed the LOC may indi cate a potential concern for indirect effects. The Agency considers this to be indicative of a potential for adverse effects to those listed species that rely either on a specific species (species obligate) or multiple species (dependent) for some important aspect of their life cycles. The Agency may determine if listed organisms for which these species are a critical component of their resource needs are within the pesticide use area. This is accomplished through a comparison of Service-provided “species profiles” and listed species location data. If no listed organisms that are either species obligates or dependent reside within the pesticide use area, a no effect determination on listed species is made. If species obligate or dependent organisms may reside within the pesticide use area, the Agency may consider temporal and geographical nature of e xposure, and the scope of the effects data, to determine if any potential effects can be determined to not likely adversely affect a species obligate or dependent listed organism. Indirect effects to terrestrial animals may result from reduced food items to animals, behavior modifications from reduced or a m odified habitat, and from alterations of habitats. Alterations of habitats can affect the reproductive capacity of some terrestrial animals.

Probit Slope Analysis

The probit slope response relationship is evaluated to calculate the chance of an individual event corresponding to the listed species acute LOCs. If information is unavailable to estimate a slope for a particular study, a default slope assumption of 4.5 is used as per original Agency assumptions

## 30 of typical slope cited in Urban and Cook (1986).

a. Terrestrial Species Terrestrial acute toxicity studies for TM did not provide raw data and estimates of slopes for birds and small mammals so the default value of 4.5 was used. Based on this slope, the corresponding estimate chance of individual mortality following TM exposure is 1 in 2.94 x 10 5 

## for birds and mammals.

b. Aquatic Species Acute toxicity studies for TM did provide raw data and estimates of slopes for most fish and invertebrate species. Analysis of raw data from the aquatic acute toxicity studies provided slopes of 2.6 for freshwater fish, 1.6 for freshwater invertebrates, 1.15 for estuarine/marine invertebrates and 3.3 for estuarine/marine fish. Based on these slopes, the corresponding estimate chance of individual mortality following TM exposure is 1 in 2.79 x 10 3 

## for freshwater fish, 1 in 53.5 for freshwater invertebrates, 1 in 14.9 for estuarine/marine invertebrates and 1 in 1.14 x 10 5 

## for estuarine/marine fish.

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

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

If potential risk was found, the screening-level risk assessment for critical habitat would provide a listing of potential biological features that, if they are constituent elements of one or more critical

## 31 habitats, would be of potential concern. These co rrespond to the taxa identified above as being of potential concern for indirect eff ects and include all taxa that depend on invertebrates for survival. This list whould serve as an initial step in problem formulation for further assessment of critical habitat impacts outlined above, should additional work be necessary.

Description of Assumptions, Uncertai nties, Strengths, and Limitations

1. Assumptions and Limitations Related to Exposure For All Taxa There are a number of areas of uncertainty in the aquatic and terrestrial risk assessments. The toxicity assessment for terrestrial and aquatic anim als is limited by the number of species tested in the available toxicity studies. Use of toxicity data on representative species does not provide information on the potential variability in susceptibility for acute and chronic exposures.

This screening-level risk assessment relies on labeled statements of the maximum rate of TM application.

2. Assumptions and Limitations Related to Exposure For Aquatic Species For an acute risk assessment, there is no averaging time for exposure. An instantaneous peak concentration, with a 1 in 10 year return frequenc y, is assumed. The use of the instantaneous peak assumes that instantaneous exposure is of sufficient duration to elicit acute effects comparable to those observed over more protracted exposure periods tested in the laboratory, typically 48 to 96 hours. In the absence of data regarding time-to-toxic event analyses and latent responses to instantaneous exposure, the degree to which risk is overestimated cannot be quantified.

3. Assumptions and Limitations Related to Exposure For Terrestrial Species The data available to support the exposure assessment for TM is substantially complete. The terrestrial modeling for seed treatments was c onducted using LD50 sq/ft calculations. In addition, for screening terrestrial risk assessments, a generic bird or mammal is assumed to occupy either the treated field or adjacent areas receiving pesticide at a rate commensurate with the treatment rate on the field. The actual habitat requirements of any particular terrestrial species are not considered, and it is assumed that species occupy, exclusively and permanently, the treated area being modeled. This assumption leads to a maximum level of exposure in the risk assessment.

Screening-level risk assessments for applications of pesticides consider dietary exposure alone. Other potential routes of exposure, which were not considered in this assessment, are discussed below:

Incidental soil ingestion exposure This risk assessment does not consider incidental soil ingestion. Available data suggests that up to 15% of the diet can consist of incidentally ingested soil depending on the species and feeding strategy (Beyer et al., 1994).

Inhalation exposure The screening risk assessment does not consider inhalation exposure. For seed treatments, such

## 32 exposure may occur through airborne particulate sources (contaminated soil and pesticide dusts). The impact from exposure to dusts contaminated with the pesticide cannot be assessed generically as partitioning issues related to application site soils and chemical properties render the exposure potential from this route highly situation-specific.

Dermal Exposure The screening assessment does not consider dermal exposure, except as it is indirectly included in calculations of RQs based on lethal doses per unit of pesticide treated area. Dermal exposure may occur through contact with contaminated water or soil.

The available measured data related to wildlife dermal contact with pesticides are extremely limited. The Agency is actively pursuing modeling techniques to account for dermal exposure.

Dietary Intake - The Differences Between Laboratory and Field Conditions The acute and chronic characterization of risk rely on comparisons of wildlife dietary residues with LC50 or NOAEC values expressed in concentrations of pesticides in laboratory feed. These comparisons assume that ingestion of food items in the field occurs at rates commensurate with those in the laboratory. Although the screening assessment process adjusts dry-weight estimates of food intake to reflect the increased mass in fresh-weight wildlife food intake estimates, it does not allow for gross energy and assimilative efficiency differences between wildlife food items and laboratory feed.

On gross energy content alone, direct comparison of a laboratory dietary concentration- based effects threshold to a fresh-weight pesticide residue estimate would result in an underestimation of field exposure by food consumption by a factor of 1.25 to 2.5 for most food items. Only for seeds would the direct comparison of dietary threshold to residue estimate lead to an overestimate of exposure.

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

Finally, the screening procedure does not account for situations where the feeding rate may be above or below requirements to meet free living metabolic requirements. Gorging behavior is a possibility under some specific wildlife scenarios (e .g., bird migration) where the food intake rate may be greatly increased. Kirkwood (1983) has suggested that an upper-bound limit to this behavior might be the typical intake rate multiplied by a factor of 5. In contrast is the potential for avoidance, operationally defined as animals responding to the

## 33 presence of noxious chemicals in their food by reducing consumption of treated dietary elements. This response is seen in nature where herbivores avoid plant secondary compounds.

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

Testing of juveniles may overestimate toxicity at older age classes for pesticidal active ingredients that act directly (without metabolic transforma tion) because younger age classes may not have the enzymatic systems associated with detoxifying xe nobiotics. The screening risk assessment has no current provisions for a generally applied method that accounts for this uncertainty. In so far as the available toxicity data may provide ranges of sensitivity information with respect to age class, the risk assessment uses the most sensitive life-stage information as the conservative screening endpoint.

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

The Agency is not limited to a base set of surrogate toxicity information in establishing risk assessment conclusions. The Agency also considers toxicity data on non-standard test species when available. 5. Assumptions Associated With the Acute LOCs The risk characterization section of the assessment includes an evaluation of the potential for individual effects at an exposure level equivalent to the LOC. This evaluation is based on the median lethal dose estimate and dose-response relationship established for the effects study corresponding to each taxonomic group for which the LOCs are exceeded.

## 34 Appendix G: References

Tomlin, C.D.S. (ed.)1997. The Pesticide Manual. Eleventh Ed. British Crop Protection Council. Surrey, GU9 7PH, UK.

T-REX. 2005. Terrestrial Residue Exposure Model (T-REX), Version 1.2.3. August 8, 2005. Environmental Fate and Effects Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.

U.S. EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 2004. Pe4 Shell. 2004. Environmental Fate and Effects Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. Information downloaded from the website http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/

U.S. EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 2002. EFED’s Revised Chapter on Thiophanate Methyl: Environmental Fate and Ecological Risk Assessment for Thiophanate Methyl.

## 35 V. APPENDICES

Appendix A. Data Requirement Tables for Thiophanate-Methyl (TM)

Table A1(A). Ecological Effects Data Requirements for: TM and MBC

Guideline # Data Requirement Are Additional Data Needed for Risk Assessment? MRID #’s Study Classification

71-1 Avian Acute Oral:

Mallard Duck

Bobwhite Quail No

No NAOTH101

00083012 Core

Core

71-2 Avian Acute Dietary:

Mallard Duck

Bobwhite Quail No

No 00083014

00069600 Core

Core

71-4 Avian Reproduction:

Mallard Duck

Bobwhite Quail No

No 424748-01

NAOTH102 Core

Core

72-1 Fish Acute Toxicity:

Bluegill

Rainbow trout No

No 421235-01

00050516 Core

Supplemental

72-2 Aquatic Invertebrate Acute Toxicity–freshwater No 425294-01 Core

72-3(a) Marine/Estuarine Acute Toxicity–Fish

TM No 421235-03 Core

72-3(b) Marine/Estuarine Acute Toxicity–Mollusk (shell deposition) No 420946-02 Supplemental

72-3(c) Marine/Estuarine Acute Toxicity–Shrimp No 421235-02 Supplemental

72-4(a) Fish Early Life Stage–freshwater

MBC No 438728-01 Core

72-4(a) Fish Early Life Stage– marine/estuarine No No Data N/A

## 36 Table A1(A). Ecological Effects Data Requirements for: TM and MBC

Guideline # Data Requirement Are Additional Data Needed for Risk Assessment? MRID #’s Study Classification

72-4(b) Aquatic Invertebrate Life Cycle–freshwater

MBC No 4229881-01 Core

72-4(c) Aquatic Invertebrate Life Cycle– marine/estuarine

MBC No 427237-01 Core

81-1

83-1 Mammal Acute

Mammalian Chronic No

No 416443-01

426077-01 Core

Core

123-1(a/b) Seedling Germination/Seedling Emergence–Tier I

Vegetative Vigor–Tier I No

No 4404101

42123504 Core

Core

123-2 Aquatic Plant Growth – Tier II No

No

No

No 421235-05

422298-01

422298-03

422298-02

422981-02 Core

Core

Core

Core

Core

141-1 Honeybee Acute Contact No 400532-09 Core



### TABLE A1-B. Environmental Fate Da ta Requirements for TM and MBC

Guide-line # Data Requirement Are Additional Data Needed for Risk Assessment? MRID #s Study Classification

161-1 Hydrolysis

TM MBC No

No 40095507

40095507 A A

161-2 Photodegradation in Water

TM

MBC No

No 41482806

41482806 A A

161-3 Photodegradation on Soil

TM

MBC No

No 420946-01

414828-07 A

A

161-4 Pho TM todegradation in Air

MBC No No N/A N/A N/A N/A

## 37 TABLE A1-B. Environmental Fate Da ta Requirements for TM and MBC

Guide-line # Data Requirement Are Additional Data Needed for Risk Assessment? MRID #s Study Classification

162-1 Aerobic Soil Metabolism

TM

MBC No

No 00106085

41255801 A A

162-2 Anaerobic Soil Metabolism

TM

MBC NA

NA N/A N/A N/A N/A

162-3 Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism

TM

MBC No

No 400615-01

411377-01 A

A

162-4 Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism

TM

MBC No

No 400615-01

411377-01 A

A

163-1 Leaching-Adsorption/Desorption

TM

MBC No

No 423510-01

423510-01 A

A

163-2 Laboratory Volatility

TM

MBC No

No 423800-01

423800-01 S

S

163-3 Field Volatility

TM

MBC No

No N/A

N/A N/A

N/A

164-1 Terrestrial Field Dissipation

TM

MBC No

No 43433701

419301-01& 02

419301-01& 02 S S

164-2 Aquatic Field Dissipation

TM

MBC No

No NA

NA NA

NA

165-4 Accumulation in Fish

TM

MBC No

No N/A

NA W

S

166-1 Ground Water- small scale prospective No N/A R

A=Acceptable; S=Supplemental; U=Unacceptable; N/A=Not A pplicable; NA=Not Available; W=Waived; R = Reserved

## Appendix B. Structures of TM Parent and Degredates

Thiophanate-methyl

IUPAC Name: Dimethyl 4,4'- o -phenylenebis(3-thioallphanate)

CAS name: Dimethyl((1,2,-phenylene)bis(iminocarbonothioyl))bis(carbamate) CAS #: 23564-05-8 Synonyms: Carbamic acid, [1,2-phenylenebis(iminocarbonthioyl)]bis-dimethyl ester. Bis(3-(methoxycaronyl)-2-thioreido)benzene. Methyl thiophanate. Topsin M, Cercobin M, Thiophanate M, Banr ot, Fungo, TD-1771, NF-44, Enovit Methyl, Duosan, Systec.



# NHCS.NHCO.OCH 3



# NHCS.NHCO.OCH 3 

# *

Carbendazim (HOE 017411) IUPAC Name: 2-(Methoxycarbonylamino



# N

N NH OMe

O H * OCH3 C

AV-1951

38

## IUPAC Name: [2-(N-methoxy carbonyl thioureido



## NHCNHCOCH 3



## NHCNH 2 

## S O

S

2-AB IUPAC Name: 2-Aminobenzimidazole



# N H N NH 2 

# C

4-OH-TM IUPAC Name: Dimethyl[1,2-(4-hydroxyphenylene)bis( imonocarbonothioyl)]bis (carbamate)



## NHCNHCOCH 3



## NHCNHCOCH 3 

## OH S O

S O

Proposed structure of M10

N

N H NH

N O

O N

N N

NH OH OH

Appendix C: Environmental Fate and Transport

39

## 40 FATE IN WATER Based on environmental fate studies for thiophanate-methyl that meet Agency guidelines, the hydrolytic stability of TM decreases with increasing pH and temperature. Whereas TM is stable to hydrolysis at pH 5.0 and hydrolyzes with a half -life of 36 days at pH 7.0, TM rapidly hydrolyzes at pH 9.0 with a half-life of 0.7 days. The primar y degradates of hydrolysis formed at variable amounts during the study were MBC, and AV-1951 (refer to Appendix 1 for formulas). The amount of degradates increased with time. MBC was always found at higher concentrations than AV-1951 at all sampling intervals (MRID# 40095507).

The photodegradation half-life of TM in water is 0.53 days in summer, 0.66 days in spring, and 2.48 days in winter (MRID# 41482806). Three photodegradates were identified; the major degradate, MBC, and minor degradates, DX-105 a nd FH-432 (refer to appendix 1 for formulas). The solubility of TM in water is 21.8 ppm at pH 7 and 25 0 

## C (MRID# 41482806).

Based on environmental fate studies that meet Agency guidelines, MBC is stable to hydrolysis at pH 5 and 7, with hydrolytic stability decreasing within this range of pH values as pH increases. MBC was also found to be stable to aqueous photolys is at a pH of 5. MBC has a solubility in water of 8.0 ppm at pH 7 and 25 0 

## C (ACC# 00151418 and ACC# 00151419).

## 41 MBC degraded with an estimated half-life of 61 days in a clay loam:water system at pH 7.3 incubated aerobically for 30 days (MRID# 41291501). Extrapolating results beyond the duration of the study introduces uncertainty into the estimated half-life.

Anaerobic aquatic metabolism The anaerobic aquatic metabolism half-life of TM is less than 1 day. The major degradate was MBC, being present at 66 percent of TM initially applied after 1 day in the water phase. The amount of MBC declined over time. However, adequate sampling intervals were not established to estimate an MBC half-life from this study. The degradates, AV-1951, DX-105, and FH-432, were also detected, particularly in the aqueous phase during the first week at less than 10 percent of TM initially applied. No degradates were detected in the aqueous phase after 12 months. However, DX-105 and FH-452 were detected in soil 12 months after application (MRID# 40061501).

In a study where MBC was followed in a clay loam:water system at pH 7.4 and anaerobically incubated for 365 days, an extrapolated half- life was established at 743 days (MRID# 41137701).

FATE IN SOIL

Photodegradation in soil TM in soil photodegraded with natural sunlight at half-lives ranging from 2.9 to 5.5 days. In dark conditions, the half-lives for TM in a sandy loam soil with pH 7.4 at 1.7 percent organic matter range from 10.3 to 19.3 days. Degradates were MBC and DX-105. Although no information on photodegradation of these degradates in soil was av ailable, degradates are believed to be bound to soil more readily than TM (MRID# 42094601).

MBC is stable to photodegradation in soil (A CC. 00151420). At the end of a 32-day study, MBC represented greater than 99 percent of the initially applied radioactivity. The study duration was insufficient, however, to establish a pattern of decline or estimate a half-life.

Aerobic soil metabolism The aerobic soil metabolism half-life of TM in soil is less than 1 day. The major degradate identified was MBC, with bound residues in a soil of pH 7.5 present after 12 months at 76 percent of the levels at application. Other degradates detected were FH-432 and DX-105 at less than 10 percent of the initially applied radioactivity. Maximum radioactivity reached 82.7 percent of the applied during the first three weeks after treatme nt with gradual but slow decline thereafter (MRID# 00106085).

MBC degraded with a half-life of 320 days (MRID# 41255801). In this study, MBC reaches a maximum total of 41.8 percent of the radioactivity by the 30 th 

## day after treatment, with gradual but slow decline thereafter.

Leaching, adsorption/desorption of TM and degradates

## 42 TM, MBC, DX-105 and FH-432 sorbed relatively poorly to a series of six different soils. The adsorption was such that MBC sorbed more strongly (K oc 

## 2100) than TM and the remaining degradates (lowest K oc 

## 117.7) which were approximately equivalent in their sorption profile. MBC was tightly bound to the humin (soluble and insoluble) and fulvic acid soil fractions. TM, DX-105 and FH-432 all readily desorbed from the te st soils indicating a high likelihood to be very mobile in soils. MBC did not desorb as readily, therefore, is less likely to be mobile in soils with similar characteristics (MRID# 42351001, ACC# 00151421 and ACC# 00151422). A soil column leaching study that meets Agency guidelines indicates that MBC is relatively immobile, with greater than 95 percent of the amount initially app lied remaining in the upper 4 inches of the soil column (ACC# 00151421).

Terrestrial field dissipation Dissipation of TM residues from soil is rapid, with dissipation half-lives up to 4.2 days and formation of MBC and Dimethyl-4,4'-o-phenyl enebis (i.e., allophanate) as degradates. Dissipation half-lives calculated for MBC range d from 22 to 94 days in 3 studies (MRID# 41930101, 41930102, 43433701).

MBC dissipated in loam soil at a rate corresponding to a half-life of 86 days and from sand soils at a rate corresponding to a half-life of 15 days. MBC was detected in the top 15 cm horizon of both soils (MRID# 43941301). In general, these half-lives were relatively short compared to the laboratory biotic and abiotic studies. Recoveries during the studies were good indicating acceptable mass balances of MBC. Site parameters such as slope and climatology may have influenced the more rapid dissipation of MBC in the field than was observed in the laboratory studies.

FATE ON FOLIAGE

The conversion of TM to MBC is expected to be a slower process on foliage than in water. Based on dislodgeable foliar residue (DFR) studies that were evaluated by the Health Effects Division (HED), the foliar dissipation half-life of TM applie d to apples and strawberries was determined to be as long as 31.4 days. TM applie d to apples in New York dissipated with a half-life of 3.8 days, whereas TM applied to apples in Washington dissipated with a half-life of 31.4 days (MRID# 44876301). In this study, residue levels of MBC we re not reported. The difference in dissipation half-lives of TM applied to apples in New York compared to TM applied to apples in Washington can be explained by the difference in the amount of precipitation at the two sites. The apple orchard in the town of Quincy, WA, located east of the Cascades mountain range, is characterized by dry climate and low precipitation, whereas the apple orchard in New York is characterized by wet climate and high precipitation. Thus, increased wash-off may have contributed to the more rapid dissipation observed in New York. It is hypothesized that photolysis may have had little effect on dissipation of TM from apples due to “sha ding”. In this context, “shading” refers to the effect of leaf surfaces in the upper portion of a tree inhibiting light penetration to leaf surfaces lower on the tree. On the other hand, TM applied to strawberries in NC dissipated with a half-life of 1.08 days for combined TM and MBC residues. TM applied to strawberries in the Central Valley of California dissipated with a half-life of 1.78 days for combined TM and MBC residues

## 43 (MRID#44866201). Because of the highly exposed surfaces of strawberries relative to apples, “shading” effects are less likely to occur thereby leading photolysis to be a more influential pathway for disappearance of TM on strawberries than on apples in an orchard. Supplemental information from the World Health Organizati on (WHO) ( Report No.: 133 (Pesticide Residues In Food - 1995, Geneva, Switzerland, page 187, 9/16/95-9/ 27/95)) indicates that TM residues have been detected in TM-treated produce.

## Appendix D. Aquatic Exposure: Model and Results

Aquatic EECs for the ecological exposure to TM and MBC were estimated using PRZM 3.12/EXAMS 2.98 employing the standard field pond scenario. PRZM/EXAMS is a Tier II screening model designed to estimate pesticide concentrations found in water at the edge of a treated field. As such, it provides high-end values of the pesticide concentrations that might be found in ecologically sensitive environments following pesticide application. PRZM-EXAMS is a multi-year runoff model that also accounts for spray drift from single and multiple applications. In the ecological exposure assessment, PRZM/EXAMS simulates a 10 hectare (ha) field immediately adjacent to a 1 ha pond, 2 meters deep with no outlet. The location of the field is specific to the crop being simulated using site specific information on the soils, weather, cropping, and management factors associated with the scenar io. The crop/location scenario in a specific state is intended to represent a high-end vulnerable s ite on which the crop is normally grown. Based on historical rainfall patterns, the pond receives multiple runoff events during the years simulated.

The maximum application rates of TM were calculated using TREX v.1.2.3 ( Table D.I .). Application rates of MBC were calculated from TM application rate using following approach. From the equation shown above, one mole or 342.4 mass unit of TM degrades to produce one mole or 191.18 mass units of MBC. Thus, the mass conversi on ratio or molecular weight (MW) ratio of MBC to TM is 0.56. The aerobic soil metabolism study suggests that the maximum conversion rate of TM to MBC was 82.7%.

Stoichiometry of Carbendazim (MBC) formation from Thiophante Methyl (TM)

C1 12 

## H 14 

## N 4 

## O 4 

## S 2 

### → 

## C 9 

## H 9 

## N 3 

## O 2 

## + other products (TM; MW = 342.4) ( MBC; MW = 191.12)

Table D.I. TREX v1.2.3 Selected Output

Crop Maximum Seeding Rate (lbs/acre) Application Rate Application Rate Application Rate of TM * Application Rate of MBC**

(fl oz/cwt) (lbs. Ai/cwt) lbs a.i /A lbs a.i /A

Corn 25 5.70 0.37 0.09 0.04

Peanuts 135 1.78 0.12 0.16 0.07 Soybeans 100 0.45 0.03 0.03 0.01

Wheat 135 0.45 0.03 0.04 0.02 * Maximum application Rate (lbs ai/A) = (Maximum seeding rate*application rate (lbs ai/cwt)/100 lbs/cwt ** Application rate of MBC = TM application rate x { 90.827, the maximum conversion rate from the degradation of TM to MBC in lab studies) x 0.56, the moleculer weight ratio of MBC to TM



## 44stored as FL_Scorn.out Chemical: TM PRZM env i modified Satday, 12 October 2002 at 16:43:14 EXAMS en modified Thuday, 29 August 2002 at 16:33:30 Metfile: w1 2 modified Wedday, 3 July 2002 at 09:04:30 Water segment concentrations (ppb)

Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly 1961 0.0457 0.03492 0.02076 0.008154 0.005441 0.001342 1962 3.2E-03 2.4E-03 1.0E-03 4.0E-04 2.7E-04 6.6E-05 1963 1.7E-01 1.4E-01 7.3E-02 2.8E-02 1.9E-02 4.6E-03 1964 9.0E-01 7.1E-01 3.1E-01 1.2E-01 7.8E-02 1.9E-02 1965 5.8E-01 4.6E-01 2.1E-01 7.7E-02 5.2E-02 1.3E-02 1966 2.9E-01 2.2E-01 1.0E-01 3.9E-02 2.6E-02 6.4E-03 1967 6.7E-03 5.1E-03 2.4E-03 1.3E-03 8.4E-04 2.1E-04 1968 3.2E-01 2.5E-01 1.2E-01 4.8E-02 3.2E-02 7.9E-03 1969 3.8E-02 3.1E-02 1.5E-02 6.1E-03 4.1E-03 1.0E-03 1970 4.2E-03 3.3E-03 2.1E-03 8.9E-04 6.0E-04 1.5E-04 1971 1.6E-02 1.2E-02 7.1E-03 2.9E-03 1.9E-03 4.7E-04 1972 1.5E-03 1.2E-03 5.2E-04 1.9E-04 1.3E-04 3.2E-05 1973 5.1E-01 4.5E-01 2.1E-01 7.6E-02 5.1E-02 1.3E-02 1974 2.6E-02 2.2E-02 9.4E-03 3.5E-03 2.3E-03 5.8E-04 1975 4.6E-03 3.5E-03 1.7E-03 6.5E-04 4.3E-04 1.1E-04 1976 2.3E-01 1.8E-01 8.4E-02 3.2E-02 2.1E-02 5.2E-03 1977 2.0E-05 1.7E-05 9.5E-06 4.0E-06 2.7E-06 1.2E-06 1978 1.3E-02 9.8E-03 5.3E-03 2.3E-03 1.6E-03 3.8E-04 1979 7.4E-02 5.7E-02 2.9E-02 1.1E-02 7.4E-03 1.8E-03 1980 1.8E-01 1.4E-01 5.9E-02 2.2E-02 1.5E-02 3.6E-03 1981 2.7E-02 2.1E-02 8.6E-03 3.4E-03 2.3E-03 5.6E-04 1982 7.3E-03 5.5E-03 2.5E-03 1.4E-03 9.4E-04 2.3E-04 1983 1.4E-02 1.1E-02 6.4E-03 2.7E-03 1.8E-03 4.5E-04 1984 2.4E-03 1.8E-03 1.0E-03 4.2E-04 2.8E-04 6.8E-05 1985 5.3E-03 4.0E-03 1.6E-03 5.9E-04 3.9E-04 9.6E-05 1986 4.4E-02 3.4E-02 1.4E-02 5.5E-03 3.6E-03 9.0E-04 1987 2.7E-01 2.1E-01 9.0E-02 3.4E-02 2.3E-02 5.6E-03 1988 1.6E-03 1.2E-03 5.1E-04 2.9E-04 1.9E-04 4.8E-05 1989 2.0E-01 1.5E-01 6.7E-02 2.5E-02 1.7E-02 4.1E-03 1990 2.4E-02 2.0E-02 1.1E-02 4.1E-03 2.8E-03 6.8E-04

Sorted results Prob. Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly 0.03 9.0E-01 7.1E-01 3.1E-01 1.2E-01 7.8E-02 1.9E-02 0.06 5.8E-01 4.6E-01 2.1E-01 7.7E-02 5.2E-02 1.3E-02 0.10 5.1E-01 4.5E-01 2.1E-01 7.6E-02 5.1E-02 1.3E-02 0.13 3.2E-01 2.5E-01 1.2E-01 4.8E-02 3.2E-02 7.9E-03 0.16 2.9E-01 2.2E-01 1.0E-01 3.9E-02 2.6E-02 6.4E-03 0.19 2.7E-01 2.1E-01 9.0E-02 3.4E-02 2.3E-02 5.6E-03 0.23 2.3E-01 1.8E-01 8.4E-02 3.2E-02 2.1E-02 5.2E-03 0.26 2.0E-01 1.5E-01 7.3E-02 2.8E-02 1.9E-02 4.6E-03 0.29 1.8E-01 1.4E-01 6.7E-02 2.5E-02 1.7E-02 4.1E-03 0.32 1.7E-01 1.4E-01 5.9E-02 2.2E-02 1.5E-02 3.6E-03 0.35 7.4E-02 5.7E-02 2.9E-02 1.1E-02 7.4E-03 1.8E-03 0.39 4.6E-02 3.5E-02 2.1E-02 8.2E-03 5.4E-03 1.3E-03 0.42 4.4E-02 3.4E-02 1.5E-02 6.1E-03 4.1E-03 1.0E-03 0.45 3.8E-02 3.1E-02 1.4E-02 5.5E-03 3.6E-03 9.0E-04 0.48 2.7E-02 2.2E-02 1.1E-02 4.1E-03 2.8E-03 6.8E-04 0.52 2.6E-02 2.1E-02 9.4E-03 3.5E-03 2.3E-03 5.8E-04 0.55 2.4E-02 2.0E-02 8.6E-03 3.4E-03 2.3E-03 5.6E-04 0.58 1.6E-02 1.2E-02 7.1E-03 2.9E-03 1.9E-03 4.7E-04 0.61 1.4E-02 1.1E-02 6.4E-03 2.7E-03 1.8E-03 4.5E-04 0.65 1.3E-02 9.8E-03 5.3E-03 2.3E-03 1.6E-03 3.8E-04 0.68 7.3E-03 5.5E-03 2.5E-03 1.4E-03 9.4E-04 2.3E-04 0.71 6.7E-03 5.1E-03 2.4E-03 1.3E-03 8.4E-04 2.1E-04 0.74 5.3E-03 4.0E-03 2.1E-03 8.9E-04 6.0E-04 1.5E-04 0.77 4.6E-03 3.5E-03 1.7E-03 6.5E-04 4.3E-04 1.1E-04 0.81 4.2E-03 3.3E-03 1.6E-03 5.9E-04 3.9E-04 9.6E-05 0.84 3.2E-03 2.4E-03 1.0E-03 4.2E-04 2.8E-04 6.8E-05 0.87 2.4E-03 1.8E-03 1.0E-03 4.0E-04 2.7E-04 6.6E-05 0.90 1.6E-03 1.2E-03 5.2E-04 2.9E-04 1.9E-04 4.8E-05 0.94 1.5E-03 1.2E-03 5.1E-04 1.9E-04 1.3E-04 3.2E-05 0.97 2.0E-05 1.7E-05 9.5E-06 4.0E-06 2.7E-06 1.2E-06

0.10 4.9E-01 4.3E-01 2.0E-01 7.4E-02 4.9E-02 1.2E-02 Average o f 3.0E-03

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

Data used for this run: Output File: FL_Scorn Metfile: w12844.dvf PRZM sce n FLsweetcornC.txt EXAMS en pond298.exv Chemical N TM Descriptio n Variable N a Value Units Comments Molecular w mwt 342.4 g/mol Henry's La w henry atm-m^3/mol Vapor Pre s vapr 1.30E-05 torr Solubility sol 210 mg/L Kd Kd mg/L Koc Koc 318 mg/L Photolysis kdp 2.17 days Half-life Aerobic Aq kbacw 6 days Halfife Anaerobic A kbacs 3 days Halfife Aerobic S o asm 3 days Halfife Hydrolysis: pH 7 36 days Half-life Method: CAM 4 integer See PRZM manual Incorporati o DEPI 4 cm Application TAPP 0.1 kg/ha Application APPEFF 1 fraction Spray Drift DRFT 0 fraction of application rate applied to pond Application Date 7/10 dd/mm or dd/mmm or dd-mm or dd-mmm Record 17: FILTRA IPSCND 1 UPTKF Record 18: PLVKRT PLDKRT FEXTRC 0 Flag for In d IR Pond Flag for ru n RUNOFF none none, monthly or total(average of entire run)



## 45stored as MB_Scorn.out Chemical: MBC PRZM env modified Satday, 12 October 2002 at 16:43:14 EXAMS e n modified Thuday, 29 August 2002 at 16:33:30 Metfile: w1 modified Wedday, 3 July 2002 at 09:04:30 Water segment concentrations (ppb)

Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly 1961 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.01 1962 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.03 1963 0.15 0.14 0.12 0.10 0.09 0.05 1964 0.42 0.40 0.34 0.29 0.26 0.13 1965 0.63 0.60 0.55 0.45 0.38 0.21 1966 0.34 0.33 0.31 0.30 0.30 0.24 1967 0.22 0.21 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.17 1968 0.23 0.22 0.20 0.17 0.16 0.14 1969 0.30 0.29 0.25 0.21 0.18 0.14 1970 0.21 0.20 0.19 0.18 0.18 0.14 1971 0.35 0.33 0.27 0.20 0.17 0.11 1972 0.38 0.36 0.29 0.21 0.17 0.13 1973 0.20 0.19 0.17 0.15 0.15 0.13 1974 0.21 0.21 0.19 0.16 0.15 0.12 1975 0.11 0.11 0.10 0.10 0.09 0.08 1976 0.18 0.17 0.15 0.13 0.12 0.09 1977 0.22 0.21 0.19 0.15 0.14 0.12 1978 0.33 0.32 0.28 0.22 0.18 0.14 1979 0.21 0.21 0.19 0.16 0.16 0.14 1980 0.18 0.18 0.17 0.16 0.15 0.13 1981 0.25 0.24 0.20 0.15 0.13 0.10 1982 0.43 0.41 0.35 0.28 0.23 0.17 1983 0.28 0.27 0.26 0.24 0.23 0.18 1984 0.54 0.51 0.42 0.29 0.23 0.17 1985 0.25 0.25 0.23 0.22 0.21 0.17 1986 0.25 0.24 0.22 0.19 0.18 0.15 1987 0.32 0.31 0.27 0.22 0.20 0.15 1988 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.16 0.16 0.13 1989 0.15 0.15 0.13 0.11 0.10 0.09 1990 0.11 0.11 0.10 0.09 0.09 0.08

Sorted results Prob. Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly 0.03 6.3E-01 6.0E-01 5.5E-01 4.5E-01 3.8E-01 2.4E-01 0.06 5.4E-01 5.1E-01 4.2E-01 3.0E-01 3.0E-01 2.1E-01 0.10 4.3E-01 4.1E-01 3.5E-01 2.9E-01 2.6E-01 1.8E-01 0.13 4.2E-01 4.0E-01 3.4E-01 2.9E-01 2.3E-01 1.7E-01 0.16 3.8E-01 3.6E-01 3.1E-01 2.8E-01 2.3E-01 1.7E-01 0.19 3.5E-01 3.3E-01 2.9E-01 2.4E-01 2.3E-01 1.7E-01 0.23 3.4E-01 3.3E-01 2.8E-01 2.2E-01 2.1E-01 1.7E-01 0.26 3.3E-01 3.2E-01 2.7E-01 2.2E-01 2.0E-01 1.5E-01 0.29 3.2E-01 3.1E-01 2.7E-01 2.2E-01 2.0E-01 1.5E-01 0.32 3.0E-01 2.9E-01 2.6E-01 2.1E-01 1.8E-01 1.4E-01 0.35 2.8E-01 2.7E-01 2.5E-01 2.1E-01 1.8E-01 1.4E-01 0.39 2.5E-01 2.5E-01 2.3E-01 2.0E-01 1.8E-01 1.4E-01 0.42 2.5E-01 2.4E-01 2.2E-01 2.0E-01 1.8E-01 1.4E-01 0.45 2.5E-01 2.4E-01 2.0E-01 1.9E-01 1.7E-01 1.4E-01 0.48 2.3E-01 2.2E-01 2.0E-01 1.8E-01 1.7E-01 1.3E-01 0.52 2.2E-01 2.1E-01 2.0E-01 1.7E-01 1.6E-01 1.3E-01 0.55 2.2E-01 2.1E-01 1.9E-01 1.6E-01 1.6E-01 1.3E-01 0.58 2.1E-01 2.1E-01 1.9E-01 1.6E-01 1.6E-01 1.3E-01 0.61 2.1E-01 2.1E-01 1.9E-01 1.6E-01 1.5E-01 1.3E-01 0.65 2.1E-01 2.0E-01 1.9E-01 1.6E-01 1.5E-01 1.2E-01 0.68 2.0E-01 1.9E-01 1.7E-01 1.5E-01 1.5E-01 1.2E-01 0.71 1.8E-01 1.8E-01 1.7E-01 1.5E-01 1.4E-01 1.1E-01 0.74 1.8E-01 1.7E-01 1.7E-01 1.5E-01 1.3E-01 1.0E-01 0.77 1.7E-01 1.7E-01 1.5E-01 1.3E-01 1.2E-01 9.5E-02 0.81 1.5E-01 1.5E-01 1.3E-01 1.1E-01 1.0E-01 9.2E-02 0.84 1.5E-01 1.4E-01 1.2E-01 1.0E-01 9.3E-02 8.4E-02 0.87 1.1E-01 1.1E-01 1.0E-01 9.7E-02 9.2E-02 7.9E-02 0.90 1.1E-01 1.1E-01 9.6E-02 9.2E-02 8.8E-02 5.4E-02 0.94 6.8E-02 6.3E-02 5.0E-02 4.4E-02 4.1E-02 3.4E-02 0.97 6.2E-02 5.9E-02 4.9E-02 3.8E-02 3.0E-02 7.4E-03

0.10 4.3E-01 4.1E-01 3.5E-01 2.9E-01 2.5E-01 1.8E-01 Average o f 1.3E-01

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

Data used for this run: Output File: MB_Scorn Metfile: w12844.dvf PRZM sce n FLsweetcornC.txt EXAMS e n pond298.exv Chemical N MBC Descriptio n Variable N a Value Units Comments Molecular w mwt 191.18 g/mol Henry's La w henry atm-m^3/mol Vapor Pre s vapr 7.50E-10 torr Solubility sol 80 mg/L Kd Kd mg/L Koc Koc 1885 mg/L Photolysis kdp days Half-life Aerobic A q kbacw 100.2 days Halfife Anaerobic A kbacs 1482.7 days Halfife Aerobic S o asm 960 days Halfife Hydrolysis : pH 7 0 days Half-life Method: CAM 4 integer See PRZM manual Incorporati o DEPI 4 cm Applicatio n TAPP 0.04 kg/ha Applicatio n APPEFF 1 fraction Spray Drift DRFT 0 fraction of application rate applied to pond Applicatio n Date 7/10 dd/mm or dd/mmm or dd-mm or dd-mmm Record 17 : FILTRA IPSCND 1 UPTKF Record 18 : PLVKRT PLDKRT FEXTRC 0 Flag for In d IR Pond Flag for ru n RUNOFF none none, monthly or total(average of entire run)



## 46stored as MS_bean.out Chemical: TM PRZM env modified Satday, 12 October 2002 at 17:12:46 EXAMS e n modified Thuday, 29 August 2002 at 16:33:30 Metfile: w1 modified Wedday, 3 July 2002 at 09:06:30 Water segment concentrations (ppb)

Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly 1961 3.2E-02 2.7E-02 1.6E-02 6.6E-03 4.4E-03 1.1E-03 1962 1.0E-02 9.0E-03 5.2E-03 2.2E-03 1.4E-03 3.6E-04 1963 1.3E-06 1.1E-06 4.9E-07 1.9E-07 1.2E-07 3.1E-08 1964 1.0E-07 8.2E-08 4.1E-08 1.7E-08 1.1E-08 2.8E-09 1965 1.8E-04 1.6E-04 7.8E-05 3.0E-05 2.0E-05 5.0E-06 1966 9.1E-04 7.6E-04 4.9E-04 2.2E-04 1.5E-04 3.7E-05 1967 6.9E-05 5.8E-05 3.1E-05 1.4E-05 9.3E-06 2.3E-06 1968 3.9E-04 3.4E-04 1.9E-04 7.4E-05 5.0E-05 1.2E-05 1969 2.4E-06 2.1E-06 1.0E-06 5.3E-07 3.6E-07 9.0E-08 1970 6.1E-03 5.3E-03 3.2E-03 1.3E-03 8.9E-04 2.2E-04 1971 4.2E-05 3.5E-05 1.9E-05 7.4E-06 5.0E-06 1.2E-06 1972 1.9E-03 1.8E-03 1.1E-03 4.5E-04 3.0E-04 7.4E-05 1973 2.6E-03 2.2E-03 1.1E-03 4.4E-04 2.9E-04 7.3E-05 1974 1.7E-05 1.4E-05 7.7E-06 3.2E-06 2.1E-06 5.2E-07 1975 8.3E-02 7.2E-02 4.2E-02 1.7E-02 1.1E-02 2.8E-03 1976 9.4E-07 7.7E-07 5.6E-07 2.3E-07 1.6E-07 3.8E-08 1977 4.6E-04 3.9E-04 2.5E-04 1.1E-04 7.0E-05 1.7E-05 1978 2.4E-03 2.0E-03 1.1E-03 5.1E-04 3.4E-04 8.5E-05 1979 1.2E-01 1.0E-01 5.8E-02 2.3E-02 1.6E-02 3.9E-03 1980 1.2E-03 1.0E-03 5.4E-04 2.1E-04 1.4E-04 3.5E-05 1981 3.7E-04 3.1E-04 1.6E-04 6.6E-05 4.4E-05 1.1E-05 1982 3.7E-04 3.1E-04 1.6E-04 6.3E-05 4.2E-05 1.0E-05 1983 1.8E-02 1.6E-02 1.3E-02 5.7E-03 3.8E-03 9.4E-04 1984 1.1E-01 9.4E-02 5.5E-02 2.2E-02 1.5E-02 3.6E-03 1985 6.1E-05 4.9E-05 2.4E-05 9.3E-06 6.2E-06 1.5E-06 1986 2.1E-03 1.8E-03 1.2E-03 5.0E-04 3.3E-04 8.2E-05 1987 5.3E-03 4.7E-03 3.3E-03 1.4E-03 9.5E-04 2.3E-04 1988 1.1E-02 1.0E-02 6.0E-03 2.5E-03 1.7E-03 4.1E-04 1989 1.2E-02 1.1E-02 6.0E-03 2.4E-03 1.6E-03 4.0E-04 1990 4.7E-04 3.9E-04 2.7E-04 1.1E-04 7.6E-05 1.9E-05

Sorted results Prob. Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly 0.032258 1.2E-01 1.0E-01 5.8E-02 2.3E-02 1.6E-02 3.9E-03 0.064516 1.1E-01 9.4E-02 5.5E-02 2.2E-02 1.5E-02 3.6E-03 0.096774 8.3E-02 7.2E-02 4.2E-02 1.7E-02 1.1E-02 2.8E-03 0.129032 3.2E-02 2.7E-02 1.6E-02 6.6E-03 4.4E-03 1.1E-03

0.16129 1.8E-02 1.6E-02 1.3E-02 5.7E-03 3.8E-03 9.4E-04 0.193548 1.2E-02 1.1E-02 6.0E-03 2.5E-03 1.7E-03 4.1E-04 0.225806 1.1E-02 1.0E-02 6.0E-03 2.4E-03 1.6E-03 4.0E-04 0.258065 1.0E-02 9.0E-03 5.2E-03 2.2E-03 1.4E-03 3.6E-04 0.290323 6.1E-03 5.3E-03 3.3E-03 1.4E-03 9.5E-04 2.3E-04 0.322581 5.3E-03 4.7E-03 3.2E-03 1.3E-03 8.9E-04 2.2E-04 0.354839 2.6E-03 2.2E-03 1.2E-03 5.1E-04 3.4E-04 8.5E-05 0.387097 2.4E-03 2.0E-03 1.1E-03 5.0E-04 3.3E-04 8.2E-05 0.419355 2.1E-03 1.8E-03 1.1E-03 4.5E-04 3.0E-04 7.4E-05 0.451613 1.9E-03 1.8E-03 1.1E-03 4.4E-04 2.9E-04 7.3E-05 0.483871 1.2E-03 1.0E-03 5.4E-04 2.2E-04 1.5E-04 3.7E-05 0.516129 9.1E-04 7.6E-04 4.9E-04 2.1E-04 1.4E-04 3.5E-05 0.548387 4.7E-04 3.9E-04 2.7E-04 1.1E-04 7.6E-05 1.9E-05 0.580645 4.6E-04 3.9E-04 2.5E-04 1.1E-04 7.0E-05 1.7E-05 0.612903 3.9E-04 3.4E-04 1.9E-04 7.4E-05 5.0E-05 1.2E-05 0.645161 3.7E-04 3.1E-04 1.6E-04 6.6E-05 4.4E-05 1.1E-05 0.677419 3.7E-04 3.1E-04 1.6E-04 6.3E-05 4.2E-05 1.0E-05 0.709677 1.8E-04 1.6E-04 7.8E-05 3.0E-05 2.0E-05 5.0E-06 0.741935 6.9E-05 5.8E-05 3.1E-05 1.4E-05 9.3E-06 2.3E-06 0.774194 6.1E-05 4.9E-05 2.4E-05 9.3E-06 6.2E-06 1.5E-06 0.806452 4.2E-05 3.5E-05 1.9E-05 7.4E-06 5.0E-06 1.2E-06

0.83871 1.7E-05 1.4E-05 7.7E-06 3.2E-06 2.1E-06 5.2E-07 0.870968 2.4E-06 2.1E-06 1.0E-06 5.3E-07 3.6E-07 9.0E-08 0.903226 1.3E-06 1.1E-06 5.6E-07 2.3E-07 1.6E-07 3.8E-08 0.935484 9.4E-07 7.7E-07 4.9E-07 1.9E-07 1.2E-07 3.1E-08 0.967742 1.0E-07 8.2E-08 4.1E-08 1.7E-08 1.1E-08 2.8E-09

0.1 7.8E-02 6.8E-02 4.0E-02 1.6E-02 1.1E-02 2.7E-03 Average o f 4.81E-04

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

Data used for this run: Output File: MS_bean Metfile: w13737.dvf PRZM sce n NCpeanutC.txt EXAMS e n pond298.exv Chemical N TM Descriptio n Variable N a Value Units Comments Molecular w mwt 342.4 g/mol Henry's La w henry atm-m^3/mol Vapor Pre s vapr 1.30E-05 torr Solubility sol 210 mg/L Kd Kd mg/L Koc Koc 318 mg/L Photolysis kdp 2.17 days Half-life Aerobic A q kbacw 6 days Halfife Anaerobic A kbacs 3 days Halfife Aerobic S o asm 3 days Halfife Hydrolysis : pH 7 36 days Half-life Method: CAM 4 integer See PRZM manual Incorporati o DEPI 4 cm Applicatio n TAPP 0.03 kg/ha Applicatio n APPEFF 1 fraction Spray Drift DRFT 0 fraction of application rate applied to pond Applicatio n Date 10/4 dd/mm or dd/mmm or dd-mm or dd-mmm Record 17 : FILTRA IPSCND 1 UPTKF Record 18 : PLVKRT PLDKRT FEXTRC 0 Flag for In d IR Pond Flag for ru n RUNOFF none none, monthly or total(average of entire run)



## 47stored as MS_Sbean.out Chemical: MBC PRZM env modified Satday, 12 October 2002 at 17:07:44 EXAMS e n modified Thuday, 29 August 2002 at 16:33:30 Metfile: w1 modified Wedday, 3 July 2002 at 09:06:20 Water segment concentrations (ppb)

Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly 1961 2.0E-02 1.9E-02 1.7E-02 1.3E-02 1.0E-02 5.6E-03 1962 2.0E-02 1.9E-02 1.8E-02 1.7E-02 1.6E-02 1.5E-02 1963 2.8E-02 2.7E-02 2.4E-02 2.3E-02 2.2E-02 1.8E-02 1964 3.6E-02 3.5E-02 3.2E-02 2.6E-02 2.5E-02 2.1E-02 1965 4.4E-02 4.3E-02 3.6E-02 3.0E-02 2.8E-02 2.5E-02 1966 3.7E-02 3.6E-02 3.4E-02 3.2E-02 3.0E-02 2.6E-02 1967 3.4E-02 3.3E-02 3.0E-02 2.8E-02 2.7E-02 2.5E-02 1968 3.4E-02 3.3E-02 3.0E-02 2.7E-02 2.6E-02 2.5E-02 1969 3.8E-02 3.7E-02 3.3E-02 2.9E-02 2.8E-02 2.6E-02 1970 4.8E-02 4.6E-02 4.3E-02 3.7E-02 3.6E-02 3.0E-02 1971 3.5E-02 3.4E-02 3.2E-02 2.9E-02 2.8E-02 2.6E-02 1972 4.0E-02 3.8E-02 3.5E-02 3.3E-02 3.1E-02 2.7E-02 1973 5.8E-02 5.6E-02 5.3E-02 4.6E-02 4.2E-02 3.4E-02 1974 5.5E-02 5.3E-02 5.0E-02 4.4E-02 4.3E-02 3.6E-02 1975 4.2E-02 4.1E-02 4.0E-02 3.7E-02 3.5E-02 3.1E-02 1976 3.6E-02 3.5E-02 3.2E-02 2.9E-02 2.8E-02 2.8E-02 1977 3.2E-02 3.1E-02 2.9E-02 2.7E-02 2.7E-02 2.5E-02 1978 4.6E-02 4.5E-02 3.9E-02 3.5E-02 3.3E-02 3.0E-02 1979 6.1E-02 5.9E-02 5.3E-02 5.0E-02 4.7E-02 3.8E-02 1980 5.5E-02 5.3E-02 4.6E-02 4.3E-02 4.2E-02 3.7E-02 1981 4.0E-02 3.9E-02 3.8E-02 3.5E-02 3.5E-02 3.2E-02 1982 3.7E-02 3.7E-02 3.5E-02 3.3E-02 3.3E-02 3.0E-02 1983 5.7E-02 5.5E-02 4.9E-02 4.2E-02 3.9E-02 3.3E-02 1984 6.2E-02 5.9E-02 5.3E-02 4.5E-02 4.2E-02 3.5E-02 1985 5.7E-02 5.5E-02 4.9E-02 4.1E-02 3.8E-02 3.2E-02 1986 4.0E-02 3.9E-02 3.5E-02 3.2E-02 2.9E-02 2.6E-02 1987 5.2E-02 5.0E-02 4.4E-02 3.6E-02 3.4E-02 3.0E-02 1988 4.6E-02 4.4E-02 4.1E-02 3.8E-02 3.6E-02 3.1E-02 1989 4.4E-02 4.3E-02 3.9E-02 3.8E-02 3.7E-02 3.3E-02 1990 4.0E-02 3.9E-02 3.6E-02 3.4E-02 3.3E-02 3.0E-02

Sorted results Prob. Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly 0.03 6.2E-02 5.9E-02 5.3E-02 5.0E-02 4.7E-02 3.8E-02 0.06 6.1E-02 5.9E-02 5.3E-02 4.6E-02 4.3E-02 3.7E-02 0.10 5.8E-02 5.6E-02 5.3E-02 4.5E-02 4.2E-02 3.6E-02 0.13 5.7E-02 5.5E-02 5.0E-02 4.4E-02 4.2E-02 3.5E-02 0.16 5.7E-02 5.5E-02 4.9E-02 4.3E-02 4.2E-02 3.4E-02 0.19 5.5E-02 5.3E-02 4.9E-02 4.2E-02 3.9E-02 3.3E-02 0.23 5.5E-02 5.3E-02 4.6E-02 4.1E-02 3.8E-02 3.3E-02 0.26 5.2E-02 5.0E-02 4.4E-02 3.8E-02 3.7E-02 3.2E-02 0.29 4.8E-02 4.6E-02 4.3E-02 3.8E-02 3.6E-02 3.2E-02 0.32 4.6E-02 4.5E-02 4.1E-02 3.7E-02 3.6E-02 3.1E-02 0.35 4.6E-02 4.4E-02 4.0E-02 3.7E-02 3.5E-02 3.1E-02 0.39 4.4E-02 4.3E-02 3.9E-02 3.6E-02 3.5E-02 3.0E-02 0.42 4.4E-02 4.3E-02 3.9E-02 3.5E-02 3.4E-02 3.0E-02 0.45 4.2E-02 4.1E-02 3.8E-02 3.5E-02 3.3E-02 3.0E-02 0.48 4.0E-02 3.9E-02 3.6E-02 3.4E-02 3.3E-02 3.0E-02 0.52 4.0E-02 3.9E-02 3.6E-02 3.3E-02 3.3E-02 3.0E-02 0.55 4.0E-02 3.9E-02 3.5E-02 3.3E-02 3.1E-02 2.8E-02 0.58 4.0E-02 3.8E-02 3.5E-02 3.2E-02 3.0E-02 2.7E-02 0.61 3.8E-02 3.7E-02 3.5E-02 3.2E-02 2.9E-02 2.6E-02 0.65 3.7E-02 3.7E-02 3.4E-02 3.0E-02 2.8E-02 2.6E-02 0.68 3.7E-02 3.6E-02 3.3E-02 2.9E-02 2.8E-02 2.6E-02 0.71 3.6E-02 3.5E-02 3.2E-02 2.9E-02 2.8E-02 2.6E-02 0.74 3.6E-02 3.5E-02 3.2E-02 2.9E-02 2.8E-02 2.5E-02 0.77 3.5E-02 3.4E-02 3.2E-02 2.8E-02 2.7E-02 2.5E-02 0.81 3.4E-02 3.3E-02 3.0E-02 2.7E-02 2.7E-02 2.5E-02 0.84 3.4E-02 3.3E-02 3.0E-02 2.7E-02 2.6E-02 2.5E-02 0.87 3.2E-02 3.1E-02 2.9E-02 2.6E-02 2.5E-02 2.1E-02 0.90 2.8E-02 2.7E-02 2.4E-02 2.3E-02 2.2E-02 1.8E-02 0.94 2.0E-02 1.9E-02 1.8E-02 1.7E-02 1.6E-02 1.5E-02 0.97 2.0E-02 1.9E-02 1.7E-02 1.3E-02 1.0E-02 5.6E-03

0.10 5.8E-02 5.6E-02 5.2E-02 4.5E-02 4.2E-02 3.6E-02 Average o f 2.8E-02

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

Data used for this run: Output File: MS_Sbean Metfile: w13893.dvf PRZM sce n MSsoybeanC.txt EXAMS e n pond298.exv Chemical N MBC Descriptio n Variable N a Value Units Comments Molecular w mwt 191.18 g/mol Henry's La w henry atm-m^3/mol Vapor Pre s vapr 7.50E-10 torr Solubility sol 80 mg/L Kd Kd mg/L Koc Koc 1885 mg/L Photolysis kdp days Half-life Aerobic A q kbacw 100.2 days Halfife Anaerobic A kbacs 1482.7 days Halfife Aerobic S o asm 960 days Halfife Hydrolysis : pH 7 0 days Half-life Method: CAM 4 integer See PRZM manual Incorporati o DEPI 4 cm Applicatio n TAPP 0.01 kg/ha Applicatio n APPEFF 1 fraction Spray Drift DRFT 0 fraction of application rate applied to pond Applicatio n Date 10/4 dd/mm or dd/mmm or dd-mm or dd-mmm Record 17 : FILTRA IPSCND 1 UPTKF Record 18 : PLVKRT PLDKRT FEXTRC 0 Flag for In d IR Pond Flag for ru n RUNOFF none none, monthly or total(average of entire run)



## 48stored as NC_Pnut.out Chemical: TM PRZM env modified Satday, 12 October 2002 at 17:12:46 EXAMS e n modified Thuday, 29 August 2002 at 16:33:30 Metfile: w1 modified Wedday, 3 July 2002 at 09:06:30 Water segment concentrations (ppb)

Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly 1961 3.7E-01 3.1E-01 1.6E-01 6.3E-02 4.2E-02 1.0E-02 1962 2.4E-03 2.0E-03 1.0E-03 4.3E-04 2.9E-04 7.1E-05 1963 2.8E-03 2.4E-03 1.1E-03 4.2E-04 2.8E-04 6.9E-05 1964 2.8E-04 2.3E-04 1.2E-04 4.8E-05 3.2E-05 7.9E-06 1965 1.6E-04 1.3E-04 6.2E-05 2.6E-05 1.7E-05 4.3E-06 1966 7.0E-03 5.8E-03 3.2E-03 1.2E-03 8.3E-04 2.0E-04 1967 2.6E-01 2.2E-01 1.2E-01 4.7E-02 3.1E-02 7.8E-03 1968 1.7E-03 1.4E-03 6.3E-04 2.4E-04 1.6E-04 3.9E-05 1969 6.6E-03 5.7E-03 2.8E-03 1.1E-03 7.0E-04 1.7E-04 1970 6.0E-05 4.9E-05 2.3E-05 9.0E-06 6.0E-06 1.5E-06 1971 1.1E-01 9.3E-02 5.0E-02 1.9E-02 1.3E-02 3.2E-03 1972 9.3E-05 7.4E-05 3.5E-05 1.3E-05 8.9E-06 2.2E-06 1973 1.3E-03 1.1E-03 6.3E-04 2.4E-04 1.6E-04 4.0E-05 1974 4.5E-02 3.7E-02 2.1E-02 8.5E-03 5.6E-03 1.4E-03 1975 9.9E-04 8.0E-04 3.6E-04 1.3E-04 8.8E-05 2.2E-05 1976 2.2E-03 1.8E-03 1.3E-03 5.5E-04 3.6E-04 8.9E-05 1977 2.6E-01 2.1E-01 1.0E-01 4.0E-02 2.7E-02 6.5E-03 1978 2.0E-01 1.7E-01 9.3E-02 3.7E-02 2.4E-02 6.0E-03 1979 1.5E-01 1.3E-01 8.1E-02 3.2E-02 2.2E-02 5.3E-03 1980 1.4E-02 1.2E-02 5.4E-03 2.1E-03 1.4E-03 3.5E-04 1981 5.0E-03 4.2E-03 2.2E-03 8.5E-04 5.6E-04 1.4E-04 1982 1.6E-03 1.3E-03 7.3E-04 2.8E-04 1.9E-04 4.6E-05 1983 8.5E-03 7.0E-03 4.3E-03 1.7E-03 1.1E-03 2.8E-04 1984 1.1E-01 9.3E-02 4.6E-02 1.8E-02 1.2E-02 2.9E-03 1985 1.9E-03 1.5E-03 7.7E-04 3.0E-04 2.0E-04 5.0E-05 1986 3.4E-03 2.7E-03 1.3E-03 4.9E-04 3.3E-04 8.1E-05 1987 9.4E-04 8.0E-04 4.6E-04 1.7E-04 1.2E-04 2.8E-05 1988 3.2E-01 2.7E-01 1.4E-01 5.5E-02 3.6E-02 9.0E-03 1989 3.0E-03 2.5E-03 1.3E-03 5.1E-04 3.4E-04 8.5E-05 1990 4.1E-02 3.3E-02 1.7E-02 6.6E-03 4.4E-03 1.1E-03

Sorted results Prob. Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly 0.03 3.7E-01 3.1E-01 1.6E-01 6.3E-02 4.2E-02 1.0E-02 0.06 3.2E-01 2.7E-01 1.4E-01 5.5E-02 3.6E-02 9.0E-03 0.10 2.6E-01 2.2E-01 1.2E-01 4.7E-02 3.1E-02 7.8E-03 0.13 2.6E-01 2.1E-01 1.0E-01 4.0E-02 2.7E-02 6.5E-03 0.16 2.0E-01 1.7E-01 9.3E-02 3.7E-02 2.4E-02 6.0E-03 0.19 1.5E-01 1.3E-01 8.1E-02 3.2E-02 2.2E-02 5.3E-03 0.23 1.1E-01 9.3E-02 5.0E-02 1.9E-02 1.3E-02 3.2E-03 0.26 1.1E-01 9.3E-02 4.6E-02 1.8E-02 1.2E-02 2.9E-03 0.29 4.5E-02 3.7E-02 2.1E-02 8.5E-03 5.6E-03 1.4E-03 0.32 4.1E-02 3.3E-02 1.7E-02 6.6E-03 4.4E-03 1.1E-03 0.35 1.4E-02 1.2E-02 5.4E-03 2.1E-03 1.4E-03 3.5E-04 0.39 8.5E-03 7.0E-03 4.3E-03 1.7E-03 1.1E-03 2.8E-04 0.42 7.0E-03 5.8E-03 3.2E-03 1.2E-03 8.3E-04 2.0E-04 0.45 6.6E-03 5.7E-03 2.8E-03 1.1E-03 7.0E-04 1.7E-04 0.48 5.0E-03 4.2E-03 2.2E-03 8.5E-04 5.6E-04 1.4E-04 0.52 3.4E-03 2.7E-03 1.3E-03 5.5E-04 3.6E-04 8.9E-05 0.55 3.0E-03 2.5E-03 1.3E-03 5.1E-04 3.4E-04 8.5E-05 0.58 2.8E-03 2.4E-03 1.3E-03 4.9E-04 3.3E-04 8.1E-05 0.61 2.4E-03 2.0E-03 1.1E-03 4.3E-04 2.9E-04 7.1E-05 0.65 2.2E-03 1.8E-03 1.0E-03 4.2E-04 2.8E-04 6.9E-05 0.68 1.9E-03 1.5E-03 7.7E-04 3.0E-04 2.0E-04 5.0E-05 0.71 1.7E-03 1.4E-03 7.3E-04 2.8E-04 1.9E-04 4.6E-05 0.74 1.6E-03 1.3E-03 6.3E-04 2.4E-04 1.6E-04 4.0E-05 0.77 1.3E-03 1.1E-03 6.3E-04 2.4E-04 1.6E-04 3.9E-05 0.81 9.9E-04 8.0E-04 4.6E-04 1.7E-04 1.2E-04 2.8E-05 0.84 9.4E-04 8.0E-04 3.6E-04 1.3E-04 8.8E-05 2.2E-05 0.87 2.8E-04 2.3E-04 1.2E-04 4.8E-05 3.2E-05 7.9E-06 0.90 1.6E-04 1.3E-04 6.2E-05 2.6E-05 1.7E-05 4.3E-06 0.94 9.3E-05 7.4E-05 3.5E-05 1.3E-05 8.9E-06 2.2E-06 0.97 6.0E-05 4.9E-05 2.3E-05 9.0E-06 6.0E-06 1.5E-06

0.10 2.6E-01 2.1E-01 1.2E-01 4.6E-02 3.1E-02 7.6E-03 Average o f 1.8E-03

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

Data used for this run: Output File: NC_Pnut Metfile: w13737.dvf PRZM sce n NCpeanutC.txt EXAMS e n pond298.exv Chemical N TM Descriptio n Variable N a Value Units Comments Molecular w mwt 342.4 g/mol Henry's La w henry atm-m^3/mol Vapor Pre s vapr 1.30E-05 torr Solubility sol 210 mg/L Kd Kd mg/L Koc Koc 318 mg/L Photolysis kdp 2.17 days Half-life Aerobic A q kbacw 6 days Halfife Anaerobic A kbacs 3 days Halfife Aerobic S o asm 3 days Halfife Hydrolysis : pH 7 36 days Half-life Method: CAM 4 integer See PRZM manual Incorporati o DEPI 4 cm Applicatio n TAPP 0.18 kg/ha Applicatio n APPEFF 1 fraction Spray Drift DRFT 0 fraction of application rate applied to pond Applicatio n Date 5-May dd/mm or dd/mmm or dd-mm or dd-mmm Record 17 : FILTRA IPSCND 1 UPTKF Record 18 : PLVKRT PLDKRT FEXTRC 0 Flag for In d IR Pond Flag for ru n RUNOFF none none, monthly or total(average of entire run)



## 49stored as MBC_Pnut.out Chemical: MBC PRZM env modified Satday, 12 October 2002 at 17:12:46 EXAMS e n modified Thuday, 29 August 2002 at 16:33:30 Metfile: w1 modified Wedday, 3 July 2002 at 09:06:30 Water segment concentrations (ppb)

Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly 1961 3.5E-01 3.3E-01 2.8E-01 2.4E-01 2.2E-01 1.2E-01 1962 2.8E-01 2.7E-01 2.4E-01 2.2E-01 2.1E-01 1.8E-01 1963 7.8E-01 7.4E-01 6.1E-01 4.6E-01 4.0E-01 2.8E-01 1964 6.3E-01 6.0E-01 5.5E-01 4.8E-01 4.5E-01 3.4E-01 1965 4.0E-01 3.9E-01 3.6E-01 3.5E-01 3.5E-01 3.1E-01 1966 4.0E-01 3.8E-01 3.5E-01 3.1E-01 2.9E-01 2.7E-01 1967 4.5E-01 4.3E-01 3.9E-01 3.6E-01 3.5E-01 2.9E-01 1968 3.2E-01 3.2E-01 3.0E-01 2.9E-01 2.9E-01 2.6E-01 1969 4.6E-01 4.5E-01 4.0E-01 3.4E-01 3.2E-01 2.6E-01 1970 3.8E-01 3.7E-01 3.5E-01 3.1E-01 2.9E-01 2.5E-01 1971 3.4E-01 3.3E-01 3.1E-01 2.8E-01 2.8E-01 2.5E-01 1972 2.6E-01 2.5E-01 2.4E-01 2.4E-01 2.4E-01 2.2E-01 1973 2.8E-01 2.7E-01 2.6E-01 2.5E-01 2.4E-01 2.1E-01 1974 3.6E-01 3.5E-01 3.1E-01 2.8E-01 2.6E-01 2.1E-01 1975 5.6E-01 5.3E-01 4.5E-01 3.6E-01 3.3E-01 2.5E-01 1976 3.2E-01 3.1E-01 2.8E-01 2.5E-01 2.6E-01 2.4E-01 1977 3.1E-01 3.0E-01 2.7E-01 2.6E-01 2.5E-01 2.3E-01 1978 3.8E-01 3.7E-01 3.5E-01 3.2E-01 3.1E-01 2.6E-01 1979 4.9E-01 4.8E-01 4.4E-01 3.8E-01 3.5E-01 2.9E-01 1980 5.6E-01 5.4E-01 4.6E-01 3.8E-01 3.6E-01 3.1E-01 1981 4.1E-01 4.0E-01 3.6E-01 3.2E-01 3.2E-01 2.9E-01 1982 3.1E-01 3.0E-01 2.8E-01 2.8E-01 2.8E-01 2.6E-01 1983 2.5E-01 2.5E-01 2.3E-01 2.3E-01 2.3E-01 2.1E-01 1984 4.7E-01 4.5E-01 3.8E-01 3.1E-01 3.0E-01 2.3E-01 1985 3.3E-01 3.2E-01 3.0E-01 2.7E-01 2.6E-01 2.4E-01 1986 2.3E-01 2.3E-01 2.3E-01 2.3E-01 2.3E-01 2.0E-01 1987 2.7E-01 2.6E-01 2.5E-01 2.3E-01 2.2E-01 1.9E-01 1988 2.3E-01 2.2E-01 2.2E-01 2.0E-01 2.0E-01 1.8E-01 1989 2.5E-01 2.5E-01 2.3E-01 2.0E-01 1.9E-01 1.7E-01 1990 2.9E-01 2.8E-01 2.4E-01 2.1E-01 2.0E-01 1.7E-01

Sorted results Prob. Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly 0.03 7.8E-01 7.4E-01 6.1E-01 4.8E-01 4.5E-01 3.4E-01 0.06 6.3E-01 6.0E-01 5.5E-01 4.6E-01 4.0E-01 3.1E-01 0.10 5.6E-01 5.4E-01 4.6E-01 3.8E-01 3.6E-01 3.1E-01 0.13 5.6E-01 5.3E-01 4.5E-01 3.8E-01 3.5E-01 2.9E-01 0.16 4.9E-01 4.8E-01 4.4E-01 3.6E-01 3.5E-01 2.9E-01 0.19 4.7E-01 4.5E-01 4.0E-01 3.6E-01 3.5E-01 2.9E-01 0.23 4.6E-01 4.5E-01 3.9E-01 3.5E-01 3.3E-01 2.8E-01 0.26 4.5E-01 4.3E-01 3.8E-01 3.4E-01 3.2E-01 2.7E-01 0.29 4.1E-01 4.0E-01 3.6E-01 3.2E-01 3.2E-01 2.6E-01 0.32 4.0E-01 3.9E-01 3.6E-01 3.2E-01 3.1E-01 2.6E-01 0.35 4.0E-01 3.8E-01 3.5E-01 3.1E-01 3.0E-01 2.6E-01 0.39 3.8E-01 3.7E-01 3.5E-01 3.1E-01 2.9E-01 2.6E-01 0.42 3.8E-01 3.7E-01 3.5E-01 3.1E-01 2.9E-01 2.5E-01 0.45 3.6E-01 3.5E-01 3.1E-01 2.9E-01 2.9E-01 2.5E-01 0.48 3.5E-01 3.3E-01 3.1E-01 2.8E-01 2.8E-01 2.5E-01 0.52 3.4E-01 3.3E-01 3.0E-01 2.8E-01 2.8E-01 2.4E-01 0.55 3.3E-01 3.2E-01 3.0E-01 2.8E-01 2.6E-01 2.4E-01 0.58 3.2E-01 3.2E-01 2.8E-01 2.7E-01 2.6E-01 2.3E-01 0.61 3.2E-01 3.1E-01 2.8E-01 2.6E-01 2.6E-01 2.3E-01 0.65 3.1E-01 3.0E-01 2.8E-01 2.5E-01 2.5E-01 2.2E-01 0.68 3.1E-01 3.0E-01 2.7E-01 2.5E-01 2.4E-01 2.1E-01 0.71 2.9E-01 2.8E-01 2.6E-01 2.4E-01 2.4E-01 2.1E-01 0.74 2.8E-01 2.7E-01 2.5E-01 2.4E-01 2.3E-01 2.1E-01 0.77 2.8E-01 2.7E-01 2.4E-01 2.3E-01 2.3E-01 2.0E-01 0.81 2.7E-01 2.6E-01 2.4E-01 2.3E-01 2.2E-01 1.9E-01 0.84 2.6E-01 2.5E-01 2.4E-01 2.3E-01 2.2E-01 1.8E-01 0.87 2.5E-01 2.5E-01 2.3E-01 2.2E-01 2.1E-01 1.8E-01 0.90 2.5E-01 2.5E-01 2.3E-01 2.1E-01 2.0E-01 1.7E-01 0.94 2.3E-01 2.3E-01 2.3E-01 2.0E-01 2.0E-01 1.7E-01 0.97 2.3E-01 2.2E-01 2.2E-01 2.0E-01 1.9E-01 1.2E-01

0.10 5.6E-01 5.3E-01 4.6E-01 3.8E-01 3.6E-01 3.0E-01 Average o f 2.4E-01

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

Data used for this run: Output File: MBC_Pnut Metfile: w13737.dvf PRZM sce n NCpeanutC.txt EXAMS e n pond298.exv Chemical N MBC Descriptio n Variable N a Value Units Comments Molecular w mwt 191.18 g/mol Henry's La w henry atm-m^3/mol Vapor Pre s vapr 7.50E-10 torr Solubility sol 80 mg/L Kd Kd mg/L Koc Koc 1885 mg/L Photolysis kdp days Half-life Aerobic A q kbacw 100.2 days Halfife Anaerobic A kbacs 1482.7 days Halfife Aerobic S o asm 960 days Halfife Hydrolysis : pH 7 0 days Half-life Method: CAM 4 integer See PRZM manual Incorporati o DEPI 4 cm Applicatio n TAPP 0.08 kg/ha Applicatio n APPEFF 1 fraction Spray Drift DRFT 0 fraction of application rate applied to pond Applicatio n Date 5-May dd/mm or dd/mmm or dd-mm or dd-mmm Record 17 : FILTRA IPSCND 1 UPTKF Record 18 : PLVKRT PLDKRT FEXTRC 0 Flag for In d IR Pond Flag for ru n RUNOFF none none, monthly or total(average of entire run)



## 50stored as Wheat_TM.out Chemical: TM PRZM env modified Satday, 12 October 2002 at 17:15:08 EXAMS e n modified Thuday, 29 August 2002 at 16:33:30 Metfile: w1 modified Wedday, 3 July 2002 at 09:05:52 Water segment concentrations (ppb)

Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

1961 2.8E-02 2.4E-02 1.5E-02 6.2E-03 4.1E-03 1.0E-03 1962 5.2E-03 4.5E-03 3.5E-03 1.5E-03 1.0E-03 2.5E-04 1963 4.7E-04 4.0E-04 2.2E-04 8.6E-05 5.7E-05 1.4E-05 1964 1.2E-05 9.5E-06 4.6E-06 1.8E-06 1.2E-06 2.9E-07 1965 3.9E-03 3.4E-03 2.0E-03 8.5E-04 5.7E-04 1.4E-04 1966 8.5E-05 7.4E-05 4.3E-05 1.7E-05 1.2E-05 2.9E-06 1967 7.4E-03 6.4E-03 3.9E-03 1.7E-03 1.1E-03 2.8E-04 1968 6.9E-03 6.0E-03 4.1E-03 1.8E-03 1.2E-03 2.9E-04 1969 1.5E-03 1.3E-03 7.3E-04 3.2E-04 2.1E-04 5.3E-05 1970 3.0E-04 2.6E-04 1.8E-04 8.6E-05 5.7E-05 1.4E-05 1971 1.5E-03 1.3E-03 7.2E-04 2.8E-04 1.9E-04 4.7E-05 1972 4.1E-02 3.4E-02 1.9E-02 7.5E-03 5.0E-03 1.2E-03 1973 1.1E-04 9.1E-05 5.4E-05 2.2E-05 1.5E-05 3.6E-06 1974 4.6E-02 4.2E-02 2.6E-02 1.1E-02 7.4E-03 1.8E-03 1975 2.3E-03 1.9E-03 1.1E-03 4.5E-04 3.0E-04 7.4E-05 1976 1.7E-11 1.6E-11 1.1E-11 6.1E-12 4.3E-12 1.1E-12 1977 1.9E-03 1.5E-03 8.0E-04 3.3E-04 2.2E-04 5.4E-05 1978 4.8E-03 4.1E-03 2.2E-03 9.1E-04 6.1E-04 1.5E-04 1979 1.3E-05 1.2E-05 7.1E-06 4.0E-06 2.7E-06 6.7E-07 1980 2.5E-06 2.1E-06 1.0E-06 4.5E-07 3.0E-07 7.4E-08 1981 3.3E-03 2.9E-03 1.8E-03 7.3E-04 4.8E-04 1.2E-04 1982 7.5E-03 6.4E-03 4.4E-03 1.9E-03 1.3E-03 3.2E-04 1983 1.0E-02 9.1E-03 5.5E-03 2.3E-03 1.5E-03 3.8E-04 1984 1.3E-04 1.0E-04 5.5E-05 2.2E-05 1.5E-05 3.6E-06 1985 4.4E-02 3.9E-02 2.4E-02 1.0E-02 6.7E-03 1.7E-03 1986 1.6E-02 1.4E-02 7.6E-03 3.1E-03 2.1E-03 5.1E-04 1987 4.2E-03 3.6E-03 2.1E-03 8.1E-04 5.4E-04 1.3E-04 1988 3.4E-04 2.8E-04 1.5E-04 6.0E-05 4.0E-05 9.8E-06 1989 1.6E-03 1.4E-03 8.5E-04 3.5E-04 2.3E-04 5.8E-05 1990 3.1E-03 2.7E-03 1.5E-03 6.6E-04 4.4E-04 1.1E-04

Sorted results

Prob. Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly 0.03 4.6E-02 4.2E-02 2.6E-02 1.1E-02 7.4E-03 1.8E-03 0.06 4.4E-02 3.9E-02 2.4E-02 1.0E-02 6.7E-03 1.7E-03 0.10 4.1E-02 3.4E-02 1.9E-02 7.5E-03 5.0E-03 1.2E-03 0.13 2.8E-02 2.4E-02 1.5E-02 6.2E-03 4.1E-03 1.0E-03 0.16 1.6E-02 1.4E-02 7.6E-03 3.1E-03 2.1E-03 5.1E-04 0.19 1.0E-02 9.1E-03 5.5E-03 2.3E-03 1.5E-03 3.8E-04 0.23 7.5E-03 6.4E-03 4.4E-03 1.9E-03 1.3E-03 3.2E-04 0.26 7.4E-03 6.4E-03 4.1E-03 1.8E-03 1.2E-03 2.9E-04 0.29 6.9E-03 6.0E-03 3.9E-03 1.7E-03 1.1E-03 2.8E-04 0.32 5.2E-03 4.5E-03 3.5E-03 1.5E-03 1.0E-03 2.5E-04 0.35 4.8E-03 4.1E-03 2.2E-03 9.1E-04 6.1E-04 1.5E-04 0.39 4.2E-03 3.6E-03 2.1E-03 8.5E-04 5.7E-04 1.4E-04 0.42 3.9E-03 3.4E-03 2.0E-03 8.1E-04 5.4E-04 1.3E-04 0.45 3.3E-03 2.9E-03 1.8E-03 7.3E-04 4.8E-04 1.2E-04 0.48 3.1E-03 2.7E-03 1.5E-03 6.6E-04 4.4E-04 1.1E-04 0.52 2.3E-03 1.9E-03 1.1E-03 4.5E-04 3.0E-04 7.4E-05 0.55 1.9E-03 1.5E-03 8.5E-04 3.5E-04 2.3E-04 5.8E-05 0.58 1.6E-03 1.4E-03 8.0E-04 3.3E-04 2.2E-04 5.4E-05 0.61 1.5E-03 1.3E-03 7.3E-04 3.2E-04 2.1E-04 5.3E-05 0.65 1.5E-03 1.3E-03 7.2E-04 2.8E-04 1.9E-04 4.7E-05 0.68 4.7E-04 4.0E-04 2.2E-04 8.6E-05 5.7E-05 1.4E-05 0.71 3.4E-04 2.8E-04 1.8E-04 8.6E-05 5.7E-05 1.4E-05 0.74 3.0E-04 2.6E-04 1.5E-04 6.0E-05 4.0E-05 9.8E-06 0.77 1.3E-04 1.0E-04 5.5E-05 2.2E-05 1.5E-05 3.6E-06 0.81 1.1E-04 9.1E-05 5.4E-05 2.2E-05 1.5E-05 3.6E-06 0.84 8.5E-05 7.4E-05 4.3E-05 1.7E-05 1.2E-05 2.9E-06 0.87 1.3E-05 1.2E-05 7.1E-06 4.0E-06 2.7E-06 6.7E-07 0.90 1.2E-05 9.5E-06 4.6E-06 1.8E-06 1.2E-06 2.9E-07 0.94 2.5E-06 2.1E-06 1.0E-06 4.5E-07 3.0E-07 7.4E-08 0.97 1.7E-11 1.6E-11 1.1E-11 6.1E-12 4.3E-12 1.1E-12

0.10 3.9E-02 3.3E-02 1.8E-02 7.4E-03 4.9E-03 1.2E-03 Average o f 2.9E-04

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

Data used for this run: Output File: Wheat_TM Metfile: w14914.dvf PRZM sce n NDwheatC.txt EXAMS e n pond298.exv Chemical N TM Descriptio n Variable N a Value Units Comments Molecular w mwt 342.4 g/mol Henry's La w henry atm-m^3/mol Vapor Pre s vapr 1.30E-05 torr Solubility sol 210 mg/L Kd Kd mg/L Koc Koc 318 mg/L Photolysis kdp 2.17 days Half-life Aerobic A q kbacw 6 days Halfife Anaerobic A kbacs 3 days Halfife Aerobic S o asm 3 days Halfife Hydrolysis : pH 7 36 days Half-life Method: CAM 4 integer See PRZM manual Incorporati o DEPI 4 cm Applicatio n TAPP 0.04 kg/ha Applicatio n APPEFF 1 fraction Spray Drift DRFT 0 fraction of application rate applied to pond Applicatio n Date 7/5 dd/mm or dd/mmm or dd-mm or dd-mmm Record 17 : FILTRA IPSCND 1 UPTKF Record 18 : PLVKRT PLDKRT FEXTRC 0 Flag for In d IR Pond Flag for ru n RUNOFF none none, monthly or total(average of entire run)



## 51stored as Wheat_MB.out Chemical: MBC PRZM env modified Satday, 12 October 2002 at 17:15:08 EXAMS e n modified Thuday, 29 August 2002 at 16:33:30 Metfile: w1 modified Wedday, 3 July 2002 at 09:05:52 Water segment concentrations (ppb)

Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly 1961 3.1E-02 2.9E-02 2.6E-02 2.2E-02 2.0E-02 9.6E-03 1962 5.2E-02 4.9E-02 4.2E-02 4.0E-02 3.9E-02 2.8E-02 1963 6.3E-02 6.1E-02 5.3E-02 4.5E-02 4.2E-02 3.5E-02 1964 9.2E-02 8.8E-02 7.5E-02 6.0E-02 6.0E-02 4.7E-02 1965 7.5E-02 7.3E-02 6.8E-02 6.2E-02 6.0E-02 5.5E-02 1966 6.8E-02 6.7E-02 6.3E-02 5.9E-02 5.7E-02 5.4E-02 1967 6.0E-02 6.0E-02 5.8E-02 5.6E-02 5.5E-02 4.9E-02 1968 5.6E-02 5.5E-02 5.4E-02 5.2E-02 5.0E-02 4.5E-02 1969 9.3E-02 8.9E-02 8.1E-02 6.9E-02 6.5E-02 5.3E-02 1970 9.6E-02 9.2E-02 8.2E-02 7.2E-02 6.8E-02 5.9E-02 1971 8.3E-02 8.1E-02 7.8E-02 7.5E-02 7.4E-02 6.4E-02 1972 1.0E-01 1.0E-01 9.2E-02 8.1E-02 7.8E-02 7.1E-02 1973 1.0E-01 9.9E-02 9.2E-02 8.4E-02 8.1E-02 6.9E-02 1974 1.3E-01 1.3E-01 1.2E-01 1.0E-01 9.8E-02 8.4E-02 1975 1.5E-01 1.5E-01 1.3E-01 1.1E-01 1.1E-01 9.4E-02 1976 9.2E-02 9.2E-02 9.1E-02 9.0E-02 9.1E-02 7.8E-02 1977 1.3E-01 1.2E-01 1.1E-01 9.5E-02 9.6E-02 8.5E-02 1978 1.1E-01 1.1E-01 1.0E-01 9.3E-02 9.2E-02 8.7E-02 1979 1.0E-01 9.9E-02 9.6E-02 9.0E-02 8.8E-02 8.3E-02 1980 1.1E-01 1.0E-01 9.5E-02 8.9E-02 8.6E-02 7.8E-02 1981 1.1E-01 1.1E-01 9.7E-02 8.7E-02 8.4E-02 7.6E-02 1982 1.3E-01 1.3E-01 1.1E-01 9.6E-02 9.1E-02 7.4E-02 1983 8.7E-02 8.5E-02 8.2E-02 7.8E-02 7.8E-02 7.6E-02 1984 1.2E-01 1.2E-01 1.1E-01 9.7E-02 9.1E-02 7.7E-02 1985 1.2E-01 1.2E-01 1.1E-01 1.0E-01 1.0E-01 8.8E-02 1986 1.0E-01 1.0E-01 9.5E-02 9.0E-02 9.0E-02 8.6E-02 1987 8.5E-02 8.4E-02 8.2E-02 8.0E-02 8.0E-02 7.5E-02 1988 9.0E-02 8.8E-02 8.0E-02 7.2E-02 6.9E-02 6.5E-02 1989 1.1E-01 1.1E-01 9.8E-02 8.6E-02 8.2E-02 7.1E-02 1990 9.2E-02 9.0E-02 8.3E-02 7.9E-02 7.5E-02 7.0E-02

Sorted results Prob. Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly 0.03 1.5E-01 1.5E-01 1.3E-01 1.1E-01 1.1E-01 9.4E-02 0.06 1.3E-01 1.3E-01 1.2E-01 1.0E-01 1.0E-01 8.8E-02 0.10 1.3E-01 1.3E-01 1.1E-01 1.0E-01 9.8E-02 8.7E-02 0.13 1.3E-01 1.2E-01 1.1E-01 9.7E-02 9.6E-02 8.6E-02 0.16 1.2E-01 1.2E-01 1.1E-01 9.6E-02 9.2E-02 8.5E-02 0.19 1.2E-01 1.2E-01 1.1E-01 9.5E-02 9.1E-02 8.4E-02 0.23 1.1E-01 1.1E-01 1.0E-01 9.3E-02 9.1E-02 8.3E-02 0.26 1.1E-01 1.1E-01 9.8E-02 9.0E-02 9.1E-02 7.8E-02 0.29 1.1E-01 1.1E-01 9.7E-02 9.0E-02 9.0E-02 7.8E-02 0.32 1.1E-01 1.0E-01 9.6E-02 9.0E-02 8.8E-02 7.7E-02 0.35 1.0E-01 1.0E-01 9.5E-02 8.9E-02 8.6E-02 7.6E-02 0.39 1.0E-01 1.0E-01 9.5E-02 8.7E-02 8.4E-02 7.6E-02 0.42 1.0E-01 9.9E-02 9.2E-02 8.6E-02 8.2E-02 7.5E-02 0.45 1.0E-01 9.9E-02 9.2E-02 8.4E-02 8.1E-02 7.4E-02 0.48 9.6E-02 9.2E-02 9.1E-02 8.1E-02 8.0E-02 7.1E-02 0.52 9.3E-02 9.2E-02 8.3E-02 8.0E-02 7.8E-02 7.1E-02 0.55 9.2E-02 9.0E-02 8.2E-02 7.9E-02 7.8E-02 7.0E-02 0.58 9.2E-02 8.9E-02 8.2E-02 7.8E-02 7.5E-02 6.9E-02 0.61 9.2E-02 8.8E-02 8.2E-02 7.5E-02 7.4E-02 6.5E-02 0.65 9.0E-02 8.8E-02 8.1E-02 7.2E-02 6.9E-02 6.4E-02 0.68 8.7E-02 8.5E-02 8.0E-02 7.2E-02 6.8E-02 5.9E-02 0.71 8.5E-02 8.4E-02 7.8E-02 6.9E-02 6.5E-02 5.5E-02 0.74 8.3E-02 8.1E-02 7.5E-02 6.2E-02 6.0E-02 5.4E-02 0.77 7.5E-02 7.3E-02 6.8E-02 6.0E-02 6.0E-02 5.3E-02 0.81 6.8E-02 6.7E-02 6.3E-02 5.9E-02 5.7E-02 4.9E-02 0.84 6.3E-02 6.1E-02 5.8E-02 5.6E-02 5.5E-02 4.7E-02 0.87 6.0E-02 6.0E-02 5.4E-02 5.2E-02 5.0E-02 4.5E-02 0.90 5.6E-02 5.5E-02 5.3E-02 4.5E-02 4.2E-02 3.5E-02 0.94 5.2E-02 4.9E-02 4.2E-02 4.0E-02 3.9E-02 2.8E-02 0.97 3.1E-02 2.9E-02 2.6E-02 2.2E-02 2.0E-02 9.6E-03

0.10 1.3E-01 1.3E-01 1.1E-01 1.0E-01 9.8E-02 8.7E-02 Average o f 6.6E-02

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

Data used for this run: Output File: Wheat_MB Metfile: w14914.dvf PRZM sce n NDwheatC.txt EXAMS e n pond298.exv Chemical N MBC Descriptio n Variable N a Value Units Comments Molecular w mwt 191.18 g/mol Henry's La w henry atm-m^3/mol Vapor Pre s vapr 7.50E-10 torr Solubility sol 80 mg/L Kd Kd mg/L Koc Koc 1885 mg/L Photolysis kdp days Half-life Aerobic A q kbacw 100.2 days Halfife Anaerobic A kbacs 1482.7 days Halfife Aerobic S o asm 960 days Halfife Hydrolysis : pH 7 0 days Half-life Method: CAM 4 integer See PRZM manual Incorporati o DEPI 4 cm Applicatio n TAPP 0.02 kg/ha Applicatio n APPEFF 1 fraction Spray Drift DRFT 0 fraction of application rate applied to pond Applicatio n Date 5-Jul dd/mm or dd/mmm or dd-mm or dd-mmm Record 17 : FILTRA IPSCND 1 UPTKF Record 18 : PLVKRT PLDKRT FEXTRC 0 Flag for In d IR Pond Flag for ru n RUNOFF none none, monthly or total(average of entire run)



## 52

## Appendix E. Terrestrial Exposure: Model and Results

A primary concern with TM is that birds and mammals may be exposed shortly after application through dietary exposure of TM treated seeds, when foraging in the fields for nesting material or food. Therefore estimation of pesticide concentrations in wildlife food items focuses on quantifying possible dietary ingestion of TM treated seeds. The EFED terrestrial exposure model T-REX (T-REX, Version 1.2.3, dated August 8, 2005) is used to estimate exposures and risks to avian and mammalian species. Input values for avia n and mammalian toxicity as well as chemical application and foliar dissipation half-life data are required to run the model. The model provides estimates of exposure concentrations and risk quotients (RQs).

The concentration (ppm) of TM on treated seeds is calculated by multiplying the application rate provided in the labels (lbs/cwt = lbs/100 lbs seed = parts per hundred) by 10,000 (1 part per hundred x 10,000 = 1 part per million, ppm). Ingested doses from seed treatment applications are calculated using the scaling factor approach as discussed previously for a 20-gram bird and a 15-gram mammal. Animals are assumed to eat only treated seeds as a first tier screen.

Chemical: Name of seed treatment formulation: Percent AI in formulation: 100% 1 8.33 Tested Body Weight (g)

Avian LD50: 4640.00 1580 2409.21 Avian repro. NOAEC: 0.00

Mammalian LD50: 5000.00 350 10989.15 Mammalian NOAEC: 0.00

Crop Maximum Seeding Rate (lbs/acre) Application Rate (fl oz/cwt) Barley 100 http://pestdata.ncsu.edu/cropprofiles/cplist.cfm?org=crop 0 beans 160 http://www.ext.nodak.edu/extpubs/plantsci/rowcrops/a1133-1.htm#Planting 0 dried beans 160 http://www.ext.nodak.edu/extpubs/plantsci/rowcrops/a1133-1.htm#Planting 0 lima beans (succulent) 100 http://pestdata.ncsu.edu/cropprofiles/cplist.cfm?org=crop 0 snap beans 100 http://pestdata.ncsu.edu/cropprofiles/cplist.cfm?org=crop 0

Canola 8 http://pestdata.ncsu.edu/cropprofiles/docs/mncanola.html 0 Corn 25 http://pestdata.ncsu.edu/cropprofiles/cplist.cfm?org=crop 5.7 Cotton 18 http://pestdata.ncsu.edu/cropprofiles/cplist.cfm?org=crop 0 Oats 128 http://pestdata.ncsu.edu/cropprofiles/cplist.cfm?org=crop 0 Onion 15 http://pestdata.ncsu.edu/cropprofiles/cplist.cfm?org=crop 0 cowpeas/ blackeyed peas 50 http://pestdata.ncsu.edu/cropprofiles/cplist.cfm?org=crop 0 Pea 180 http://pestdata.ncsu.edu/cropprofiles/cplist.cfm?org=crop 0 lupine 170 http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/afcm/lupine.html 0 grain lupine 170 http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/afcm/lupine.html 0 field peas 225 http://pestdata.ncsu.edu/cropprofiles/cplist.cfm?org=crop 0 Peanuts 135 http://pestdata.ncsu.edu/cropprofiles/cplist.cfm?org=crop 1.78

Rice 160 http://pestdata.ncsu.edu/cropprofiles/cplist.cfm?org=crop 0 Rye 150 http://pestdata.ncsu.edu/cropprofiles/cplist.cfm?org=crop 0 Safflower 100 http://pestdata.ncsu.edu/cropprofiles/cplist.cfm?org=crop 0 Sorghum 8 http://pestdata.ncsu.edu/cropprofiles/cplist.cfm?org=crop 0 Soybeans 100 http://www.nsrl.uiuc.edu/aboutsoy/production02.html 0.45 soybeans, edible 100 http://www.nsrl.uiuc.edu/aboutsoy/production02.html 0

Sugar beets 8 http://www.agecon.ucdavis.edu/outreach/crop/Archives/SugarBeets.pdf 0

Triticale 90 http://pestdata.ncsu.edu/cropprofiles/cplist.cfm?org=crop 0 Wheat 135 http://pestdata.ncsu.edu/cropprofiles/cplist.cfm?org=crop 0.45 Thiophanate Methyl

Reference Density of product (lbs/gal): Data inputs are in blue

Endpoints Adjusted LD50 Reported



## 53Crop Maximum Application Rate Maximum Seed Application Rate Avian Nagy Dose Mammalian Nagy Dose Available AI (lbs ai/A) (mg ai/kg seed) (mg ai/kg-bw/day) (mg ai/kg-bw/day) (mg ai ft-2) Barley 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 beans 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 dried beans 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 20 g Bird 5.061777181 lima beans (succulent) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 15 g Mammal 3.178078065 snap beans 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Canola 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Corn 0.09 3709.45 938.82 785.93 0.97 Cotton 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Oats 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Onion 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 cowpeas/ blackeyed peas 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Pea 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 lupine 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 grain lupine 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 field peas 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Peanuts 0.16 1158.39 293.18 245.43 1.63

Rice 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Rye 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Safflower 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sorghum 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Soybeans 0.03 292.85 74.12 62.05 0.31 soybeans, edible 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Sugar beets 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Triticale 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Wheat 0.04 292.85 74.12 62.05 0.41

Acute (# 1) Acute (# 2) Chronic Acute (# 1) Acute (# 2) Chronic Barley 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0! 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0! beans 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0! 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0! dried beans 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0! 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0! lima beans (succulent) 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0! 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0! snap beans 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0! 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0!

Canola 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0! 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0! Corn 0.39 0.02 #DIV/0! 0.07 0.01 #DIV/0! Cotton 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0! 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0! Oats 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0! 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0! Onion 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0! 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0! cowpeas/ blackeyed peas 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0! 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0! Pea 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0! 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0! lupine 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0! 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0! grain lupine 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0! 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0! field peas 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0! 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0! Peanuts 0.12 0.03 #DIV/0! 0.02 0.01 #DIV/0!

Rice 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0! 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0! Rye 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0! 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0! Safflower 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0! 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0! Sorghum 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0! 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0! Soybeans 0.03 0.01 #DIV/0! 0.01 0.00 #DIV/0! soybeans, edible 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0! 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0!

Sugar beets 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0! 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0!

Triticale 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0! 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0! Wheat 0.03 0.01 #DIV/0! 0.01 0.00 #DIV/0! † Acute RQ #1 = (mg ai /kg-bw/day) / LD50 Acute RQ #2 = mg ai ft-2 /(LD50*bw) Chronic RQ = mg kg-1 seed / NOEC Nagy allometry

Food ingestion value g/day Animal

Crop Avian (20 g) Mammalian (15 g) Risk Quotients†



## 54

## 55 

# Appendix F: Ecological Effects Data:

Toxicity to Terrestrial Animals

Birds, Acute and Subacute An acute oral toxicity study using the technical grade of the active ingredient (TGAI) is required to establish the toxicity of thiophanate-methyl to bi rds. The preferred test species is either mallard duck (a waterfowl) or bobwhite quail (an upland gamebird). Results of this test are tabulated below.

Avian Acute Oral Toxicity

Species % ai LD50 (mg/kg) Toxicity Category MRID No. Author/Year Study Classification 1

Northern bobwhite quail (Colinus virginianus) 94 >4640 practically nontoxic 00083012, 1977 Core

Mallard duck (Anas platyrhynchos) 94 4640 practically nontoxic NAOTH101, 1977 Core

1 Core (study satisfies guideline). Supplemental (study is scientifically sound, but does not satisfy guideline)



## Since the LD50 falls in the range of 4640 mg/kg, th iophanate-methyl is categorized as practically nontoxic to avian species on an acute oral basis. The guideline (71-1) is fulfilled (MRID Nos. 00083012 and NAOTH101).

Two subacute dietary studies using the TGAI are required to establish the toxicity of thiophanate-methyl to birds. The preferred test species are mallard duck and bobwhite quail. Results of these tests are tabulated below.

Avian Subacute Dietary Toxicity

Species % ai 5-Day LC50 (ppm) 1 Toxicity Category MRID No. Author/Year Study Classification

Northern bobwhite quail (Colinus virginianus) 94 >10,000 practically nontoxic 00069600, 1977 Core

Mallard duck (Anas platyrhynchos) 94 >10,000 practically nontoxic 00083014, 1975 Core

1 Test organisms observed an additional three days while on untreated feed.



## Since the LC 50 

## falls in the range of 10,000 ppm, thoiphanate-methyl is categorized as practically nontoxic to avian species on a subacute dietary basi s. The guideline (71-2) is fulfilled (MRID Nos 00069600 and 00083014).

Birds, Chronic

## 56 Avian reproduction studies using the TGAI are required for thiophanate-methyl because the following conditions are met: (1) birds are subject to repeated or continuous exposure to the pesticide, especially preceding or during the breeding season, (2) the pesticide is stable in the environment to the extent that potentially toxic amounts may persist in animal feed, (3) the pesticide may accumulate in plant or animal tissues, and/or, (4) information derived from mammalian reproduction studies indicates reproduction in terrestrial vertebrates may be adversely affected by the anticipated use of the product. The preferred test species are mallard duck and bobwhite quail. Results of these tests are tabulated below.

Avian Reproduction

Species/ Study Duration % ai NOAEC/LOEC (ppm) LOAEC Endpoints MRID No. Author/Year Study Classification

Northern bobwhite quail (Colinus virginianus) 94 >150 no effects NAOTH102, 1978 Core

Mallard duck (Anas platyrhynchos) 96 >103 eggs & body wt. 424748-01, 1992 Core



## Analysis of results indicate that there were no egg production, growth or survival effects on the bobwhite quail for dosage levels tested. However, there were pesticide relative effect on the mallard duck egg production and body weight at the highest dosage level tested only.

The guideline (71-4) is fulfilled (MRID Nos. NAOTH102 and 424748-01).

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

Mammalian Toxicity (rat)

Species/ Study Duration % ai Test Type Toxicity Value Affected Endpoints MRID No.

laboratory rat (Rattus norvegicus) 96.55 LD50 >5,000 none 416443-01

Laboratory mouse (Mus musculus) 96.55 Repro., male 195 mg/kg, LOAEL liver & body wt loss 426077-01



## An analysis of the results indicate that thiophana te-methyl is categorized as practically nontoxic to small mammals on an acute oral basis.

## 57 Insects A honey bee acute contact study using the TGAI is required for thiophanate-methyl because its use may result in honey bee exposure. Results of this test are tabulated below.

Nontarget Insect Acute Contact Toxicity

Species % ai LD50 (μg/bee) Toxicity Category MRID No. Author/Year Study Classification

Honey bee (Apis mellifera) 96.2 >100 ug/bee relative nontoxic 400532-09, 1986 Core



## An analysis of the results indicate that thiophana te-methyl is categorized relative non-toxic to bees on an acute contact basis. The guideline ( 141-1) is fulfilled (MRID No. 400532-09).A honey bee toxicity of residues on foliage study using th e typical end-use product is not required for thiophanate-methyl even though its use will result in honey bee exposure, however, the acute contact honey bee LD50 is >100 ug /bee. Results of this test show that the guideline (141-2) is fulfilled (MRID No. 400532-09).



# Toxicity to Freshwater Animals

Freshwater Fish, Acute Two freshwater fish toxicity studies using the TGAI are required to establish the toxicity of thiophanate-methyl to fish. The preferred test species are rainbow trout (a coldwater fish) and bluegill sunfish (a warmwater fish). Results of these tests are tabulated below.

Freshwater Fish Acute Toxicity

Species/ Flow-through or Static % ai 96-hour LC50 (ppm) (measured/nominal) Toxicity Category MRID No. Author/Year Study Classification

Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) static Tech. 8.3 Moderately toxic 00050516, 1971 Suppl.

Bluegill sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus) 97.6 >41 slightly toxic 421235-01, 1991 Core



## Since the LC50 falls in the range of 8.3 to >41 ppm, thiophanate-methyl is categorized as moderately to slightly toxic to freshwater fish on an acute basis. The guideline (72-1) is fulfilled (MRID Nos. 000505-15 and 421235-01).

Freshwater Fish, Chronic A freshwater fish early life-stage test using the TGAI is required for MBC to determine if chronic LOC is exceeded at the registered maximum application rates.

Freshwater Fish Chronic Toxicity

## 58 Species/ Flow-through or Static % ai NOAEC (ppm) (measured/nominal) End-point MRID No. Author/Year Study Classification

Channel Catfish (Ictalurus punctatus) 99.3 MBC 0.002 Larvae Survival 438728-01, 1995 Core



## The guideline (72-4, Freshwater Fish Fu ll life stage is fulfilled MRID No. 438728-01

Freshwater Invertebrates, Acute A freshwater aquatic invertebrate toxicity test using the TGAI is required to establish the toxicity of thiophantae-methyl to aquatic invertebrates. The preferred test species is Daphnia magna

. Results of this test are tabulated below.

Freshwater Invertebrate Acute Toxicity

Species/Static or Flow-through % ai 48-hour LC50/ EC50 (ppm) (measured/nominal) Toxicity Category MRID No. Author/Year Study Classification

Waterflea (Daphnia magna) 98 MBC 5.4 Moderately toxic 425294-01 Core



## Since the LC50/EC50 falls in the range of 5.4 ppm, thiophanate-methyl is categorized as moderately toxic to aquatic invertebrates on an acute basis. The guideline (72-2) is fulfilled (MRID No. 42298101).

Freshwater Invertebrate, Chronic

Freshwater Invertebrate Chronic Toxicity

Species/Static or Flow-through % ai NOAEC(ppm) End-point MRID No. Author/Year Study Classification

Waterflea (Daphnia magna) 99 MBC 0.003 survival 4229881-01, 1993 Core



## The guideline (72-4, Daphnia magna ) is fulfilled MRID No. 425294-01



# Toxicity to Estuarine and Marine Animals

Estuarine and Marine Fish, Acute Acute toxicity testing with estuarine/marine fish using the TGAI is required for because the end-use product is intended for direct application to the marine/estuarine environment or the active ingredient is expected to reach this environment because of its use in coastal counties. The preferred test species is sheepshead minnow. Results of these tests are tabulated below.

Estuarine/Marine Fish Acute Toxicity

## 59 Species/Static or Flow-through % ai 96-hour LC50 (ppm) (measured/nominal) Toxicity Category MRID No. Author/Year Study Classification

Sheepshead minnow (Cyprinodon variegatus) 97.6 40, NOAEC = 17 slightly toxic 421235-03 Core



## Since the LC50 falls in the range of 40 ppm, thiophana te-methyl is categorized as slightly toxic to estuarine/marine fish on an acute basis. Th e guideline (72-3a) is fulfilled (MRID No. 421235-03).

Estuarine and Marine Fish, Chronic The guideline (72-4) is not fulfilled due lack of data The guideline (72-5) is not fulfilled due to lack of data

Estuarine and Marine Invertebrates, Acute Acute toxicity testing with estuarine/marine invertebrates using the TGAI is required for thiophanate-methyl because the active ingredient is expected to reach this environment because of its use in coastal counties. The preferred test sp ecies are mysid shrimp and eastern oyster. Results of these tests are tabulated below.

Estuarine/Marine Invertebrate Acute Toxicity

Species/Static or Flow-through % ai. 96-hour LC50/EC50 (ppm) (measured/nominal) Toxicity Category MRID No. Author/Year Study Classification

Eastern oyster (shell deposition or embryo-larvae) (Crassostrea virginica) 90.1 2.2 Moderately toxic 420946-02, 1991 Suppl.

Mysid (Americamysis bahia) 97.5 1.1 Moderately toxic 42123502, 1991 Suppl.



## Since the LC50/EC50 falls in the range of 1.1 to 2.2 ppm, thiophanate-methyl is categorized as moderately toxic to estuarine/marine invertebrates on an acute basis. The guideline (72-3b and 72-3c) is fulfilled (MRID Nos. 421235-02 and 420946-02).

Estuarine and Marine Invertebrate, Chronic An estuarine/marine invertebrate life-cycle toxicity test is required because TM is expected to transport to, estuarine/marine sites and 1) exposure of aquatic organisms will be continual or recurred; 2) the lowest EC50 is 1 mg/L or less; 3) the EEC in water is equal to or greater than 0.01 of any EC50; 4) the EEC is less than any EC 50, and 5) the product has reproductive effects. The results are calculated below.

Estuarine/Marine Invertebrate Chronic Toxicity

Species/Static or Flow-through % ai. NOAEC (PPM) Toxicity Category MRID No. Author/Year Study Classification

## 60 Estuarine/Marine Invertebrate Chronic Toxicity

Species/Static or Flow-through % ai. NOAEC (PPM) Toxicity Category MRID No. Author/Year Study Classification

Mysid (Americamysis bahia) 99.3 0.025 survival 427237-01, 1992 Core



## The guideline (72-4) is fulfilled (MRID No. 427237-01).

Toxicity to Plants

Terrestrial Plants For seedling emergence and vegetative vigor testing the following plant species and groups should be tested: (1) six species of at least four dicotyledonous families, one species of which is soybean ( Glycine max ) and the second is a root crop, and (2) four species of at least two monocotyledonous families, one of which is corn ( Zea mays ). Tier I tests measure the response of plants, relative to a control, at a test level that is equal to the highest use rate (expressed as lbs ai/A). Tier I tests were conducted using technical TM: MRID4404101 and 42123504 for seedling emergence and vegetative vigor respectively. The maximum dosage tested was 1.4 lbs. ai per acre. These data are not useful for risk assessment purposed because the maximum label dose was not evaluated. Labeled crops not covered by the 1.4 lb per acre dosag e are ornamentals - 100 lbs. ai per acre, turf - 44 lbs. ai per acre, onions - 11.2 lbs. ai per acre, and apples - 2.81 lbs. ai per acre and peaches - 1.58 lbs. ai per acre. These data indicate that 3 of the 10 crop plants tested at 1.4 lbs. ai per acre were more sensitive than the others: cucumber, tomato, and soybean.

Additional seedling emergence and vegetative vigor studies are required using the proper dosages and the TEP.

Aquatic Plants Results of Tier II toxicity testing using technical TM are tabulated below.

Nontarget Aquatic Plant Toxicity (Tier II)

Species % ai EC50/ EC05 (ppm) MRID No. Author/Year Study Classification

Vascular Plants

Duckweed Lemna gibba 97.6 >4.70 NOAEC - 4.70 421235-05 Core

Nonvascular Plants

Green algae Kirchneria subcapitata 97.6 >0.95 NOAEC - 0.95 422298-01 Core

Marine diatom Skeletonema costatum 97.6 1.7 NOAEC - 0.11 422298-03 Core

## 61 Nontarget Aquatic Plant Toxicity (Tier II)

Species % ai EC50/ EC05 (ppm) MRID No. Author/Year Study Classification

Freshwater diatom Navicula pelliculosa 97.6 0.93 NOAEC- 0.43 422298-02 Core

Blue-green algae Anabaena flos-aquae 97.6 >4.3 NOAEC - 4.30 422981-02 Core



## The Tier II results indicate that freshwater diatom is the most sensitive aquatic plant. The guideline (123-2) is fulfilled (MRID Nos. 421235-05, 422298-01, 422298-02, 422298-03, 422981-02).