Problem Formulation for the Environmental Fate 

and Ecological Risk Assessment in Support of the 

Registration Review of Flutolanil

F

F

F

O

N

H

O

CH3

CH3

Flutolanil (CAS 66332-96-5)

May 19, 2008

Prepared by:

Larry Liu, Chemist, ERB-5

Keith Sappington, Biologist, ERB-5

Reviewed by:

Mah Shamim, Branch Chief, ERB-5

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Pesticide Programs

Environmental Fate and Effects Division

Environmental Risk Branch IV

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW

Mail Code 7507P

Washington, DC 20460
Page 2 of 45

Table of Contents

Table of Contents................................................................................................................ 2

List of Tables ...................................................................................................................... 3

List of Figures..................................................................................................................... 3

I. Purpose ........................................................................................................................... 4

II. Problem Formulation..................................................................................................... 4

A. Nature of Regulatory Action..................................................................................... 4

B. Conclusions from Previous Risk Assessments.......................................................... 4

1. Drinking Water Assessment for Use of Flutolanil on Rice.................................... 4

2. Drinking Water Assessment for Use of Flutolanil on Potato Seed Piece .............. 6

3. Section 3 New Use on Potato Seed-Pieces (2000)................................................. 7

4. Human Health Risk Assessment: Request for Inadvertent or Indirect Tolerances 

for Use on Soybean, Wheat, Corn and Cotton (2007)................................................ 9

III. Stressor Source and Distribution ............................................................................... 10

A. Mechanism of Action.............................................................................................. 10

B. Overview of Pesticide Usage .................................................................................. 10

C. Environmental Fate and Transport.......................................................................... 13

IV. Receptors ................................................................................................................... 18

A. Aquatic and Terrestrial Effects............................................................................... 18

B. Ecosystems Potentially at Risk ............................................................................... 21

V. Assessment Endpoints................................................................................................. 21

VI. Conceptual Model....................................................................................................... 21

A. Risk Hypothesis ...................................................................................................... 22

B. Conceptual Diagram................................................................................................ 22

VII. Analysis Plan............................................................................................................ 25

A. Stressors of Concern ............................................................................................... 25

B. Measures of Exposure ............................................................................................. 25

C. Measures of Effect .................................................................................................. 27

D. Integration of Exposure and Effects........................................................................ 28

1. Deterministic and Probabilistic Assessment Methods......................................... 28

E. Endangered Species Assessments ........................................................................... 28

F. Preliminary Identification of Data Gaps.................................................................. 30

1. Environmental Fate .............................................................................................. 30

2. Ecological Effects ................................................................................................. 31

3. Rationale for Data Call In .................................................................................... 34

VIII. Bibliography............................................................................................................. 37

A. Fate References........................................................................................................ 37

B. Ecological Effects References................................................................................. 39
Page 3 of 45

List of Tables

Table 1. Drinking Water Estimated Concentrations Based on the July 2, 1998 Risk 

Assessment.......................................................................................................................... 5

Table 2 Drinking Water Estimated Concentrations Based on the December 13, 1999 Risk 

Assessment.......................................................................................................................... 7

Table 3. Uses and application rates for flutolanil. ............................................................ 11

Table 4. Physical and Chemical Properties for Flutolanil and its Degradate [desisopropyl 

flutolanil (DIP)]. ............................................................................................................... 14

Table 5. Summary of Environmental Fate data for Flutolanil......................................... 15

Table 6. Test Species Evaluated for Assessing Potential Acute and Chronic Ecological 

Effects of Flutolanil. ......................................................................................................... 19

Table 7. Environmental Fate Data Requirements for Flutolanil....................................... 30

Table 8. Ecological Effects Data Requirements for Flutolanil......................................... 32

Table 9. Environmental Fate and Ecological Effects Data Needs for Flutolanil............ 35

List of Figures

Figure 1. Conceptual model for flutolanil effects on aquatic organisms......................... 23

Figure 2. Conceptual Model of Flutolanil Effects on Terrestrial Organisms. .................. 24
Page 4 of 45

I. Purpose

The purpose of this problem formulation is to provide an understanding of what is 

known about the environmental fate and ecological effects of the registered uses of

flutolanil. This document will provide a plan for analyzing data relevant to flutolanil and

for characterizing the ecological risks of its registered uses. Additionally, this problem 

formulation is intended to identify data gaps, uncertainties and potential assumptions to 

address those uncertainties relative to characterizing the ecological risk associated with 

the registered uses of flutolanil. Flutolanil is a fluorinated toluanilide fungicide with uses 

on potatoes, rice, peanuts, turf and ornamentals.

II. Problem Formulation

A. Nature of Regulatory Action

The Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 mandated the EPA to implement a new 

program, i.e., registration review (http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/registration_review/). All 

pesticides distributed or sold in the United States generally must be registered by EPA. 

The decision to register a pesticide is based on the consideration of scientific data and 

other factors showing that it will not cause unreasonable risks to human health, workers, 

or the environment when used as directed on product labeling. The registration review 

program is intended to ensure that, as the ability to assess risk evolves and as policies and 

practices change, all registered pesticides continue to meet the statutory standard of no 

unreasonable adverse effects to human health and the environment. Changes in science, 

public policy, and pesticide use practices will occur over time. Through the new 

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

that as change occurs, products in the marketplace can be used safely. 

As part of the implementation of the new Registration Review program pursuant 

to Section 3(g) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), the 

Agency is beginning its evaluation to determine whether flutolanil continues to meet the 

FIFRA standard for registration. This problem formulation for the environmental fate and 

ecological risk assessment chapter in support of the registration review is intended for the 

initial docket opening the public phase of the review process. 

B. Conclusions from Previous Risk Assessments

1. Drinking Water Assessment for Use of Flutolanil on Rice

The Agency completed a drinking water assessment for use of flutolanil on rice 

on July 2, 1998. GENEECX-Beta Version Model and EFED Interim Rice Model were 

used to estimate concentrations in surface water used as a source of drinking water. 

Ground water EECs were modeled using SCI-GROW, a screening groundwater 

regression model developed using data from prospective groundwater studies submitted 
Page 5 of 45

to the OPP in support of registration. SCI-GROW provides a reasonable high-end 

estimate of ground water concentrations of pesticides within a defined set of fate and 

transport characteristics on soils that are known to be vulnerable to pesticide leaching 

(high sand content with shallow depth to groundwater). The EECs from the modeling 

mentioned above are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1. Drinking Water Estimated Concentrations Based on the July 2, 1998 Risk 

Assessment.

Modeling Groundwater Surface Water

Concentration Acute EECs Chronic EECs

Estimated Groundwater Conc.(SCIGROW Model) 

0.5 lb ai/A/application, 2 

applications/year, and 1.0 lb 

ai/A/year

0.999 ppb N/A N/A

Estimated Surface Water Conc. 

(GENEECX-Beta Version)

0.5 lb ai/A/application, 2 

applications/year, and 1.0 lb ai/A/year

N/A 565 ppb 542 ppb

+

Estimated Surface Water Conc. 

(EFED Interim Rice Model) 

0.5 lb ai/A/application, 2 

applications/year, and 1.0 lb ai/A/year

N/A 11.7 ppb 3.78 ppb

The 1998 drinking water assessment concluded that because of the high 

uncertainty associated with the estimated surface water concentrations of flutolanil 

generated by either GENEECX-Beta Version Model or the Interim Rice Model, neither 

model was recommended over the other for drinking water risk assessments. The Agency

further noted the difficulties with extrapolating concentrations of pesticides in “paddy 

water” to concentrations that may be observed at the drinking water intake. However, the 

Agency considered the estimated concentrations using GENEECX as establishing a 

conservative upper-end bounding estimate of concentrations that might have been 

observed at drinking water intakes. As a result, the Agency concluded if the levels of 

concern for flutolanil were not exceeded with these concentrations, real world exposure 

would not likely exceed these levels. Estimates generated with the Interim Rice Model 

may have well provided an upper end estimate of concentrations at drinking water intakes 

as well. However, because these estimates were substantially lower than an equally

reasonable model, GENEECX, the Agency did not select one over the other. The SCIGROW indicated that flutolanil would not likely be found in significant concentrations in 

groundwater. Concentrations of this compound were calculated based on a maximum 

annual application rate of 1.0 lb a.i/A. Since the groundwater concentrations were 

developed through a screening model and no monitoring data were used, the Agency was 
Page 6 of 45

only moderately confident of these estimates.

It should be noted that the application rates used in the 1998 Drinking Water 

Assessment for Use of Flutolanil on Rice were slightly different from those in the labels 

for the registration review. The single application rate and the yearly application rate 

used in GENEECX, Interim Rice, and SCI-GROW modeling in the 1998 Drinking Water 

Assessment for Use of Flutolanil on rice were 0.5 lb ai/A and 1.0 lb ai/A, respectively. 

However, according to the labels in the registration review, flutolanil can be aerially

applied to the rice plants with a single application rate ranging from 0.35-0.75 lb ai/A and 

with a maximum yearly rate of 1.0 lb ai/A. The labels that allow the use of flutolanil on 

rice under the registration review include:

Reg. No. 71711-3 (Moncut 50W)

Reg. No. 71711-14(Moncut 70 DF)

Reg. No. 71711-1(Moncut 70WP)

SLN No. AR-050007 (Moncut SC– it does not have a Reg. No. because it is still a 

pending registration) 

2. Drinking Water Assessment for Use of Flutolanil on Potato Seed Piece 

The Agency completed a drinking water assessment for use of flutolanil on potato 

seed piece on December 13, 1999. PRZM/EXAMS modeling using the Index Reservoir 

(IR) and the Percent Crop Area (PCA) adjustment was used to estimate concentrations in 

surface water used as a source of drinking water. The index reservoir represents a 

watershed that is more vulnerable than most used as drinking water sources. Ground 

water EEC were modeled using SCI-GROW, a screening groundwater regression model 

developed using data from prospective groundwater studies submitted to the OPP in 

support of registration. SCI-GROW provides a reasonable high-end estimate of ground 

water concentrations of pesticides within a defined set of fate and transport characteristics 

on soils that are known to be vulnerable to pesticide leaching (high sand content with 

shallow depth to groundwater).

PRZM/EXAMS 1-in-10 year estimated environmental concentrations suggested

that flutolanil might have been found in surface water used as a source of drinking water 

at peak concentrations up to 0.63 μg/L and 0.28 μg/L from use on potatoes in Idaho and 

Maine, respectively and on a long-term basis (mean) at 0.13 μg/L and 0.05 μg/L from use 

on potatoes in Idaho and Maine, respectively. SCI-GROW estimated environmental 

concentrations in ground water, independent of the use area, were found at concentrations 

up to 0.34 μg/L; peak and mean concentrations. The Agency concluded that due to 

flutolanil’s low adsorption coefficients and long metabolic half-life, the major 

mechanism of dissipation in surface and ground water would likely be dilution. Based on 

flutolanil’s structure, the Agency indicated that flutolanil would not likely be 

significantly affected by chemical oxidation employed at most community water systems.

EECs from the modeling mentioned above are summarized in Table 2.
Page 7 of 45

Table 2 Drinking Water Estimated Concentrations Based on the December 13, 1999 

Risk Assessment.

Agricultural 

Setting

Surface Water Concentrations 

(ppb)

Ground Water Concentrations 

(ppb)

1-in-10 year 

Peak

1-in- 10 year 

Mean

Rice

11.6 3.75

1 in 10 Year 

Peak

1 in 10 Year 

Mean

Potatoes in Idaho

0.63 0.13

1 in 10 Year 

Peak

1 in 10 Year 

Mean

Potatoes in Maine

0.28 0.050

0.34

It should be noted that the application rates used in the 1998 Drinking Water 

Assessment for Use of Flutolanil on Potato Seed Piece were slightly different from those 

in the labels for the registration review. The application rate used in PRZM/EXAM and 

SCI-GROW modeling in the 1999 Drinking Water Assessment for Use of Flutolanil on 

Potato Seed Piece was 0.65 lb ai/A which is more than twice the rate (0.25 lb ai/A) as 

stated in the current MonCoat MZ (Reg. No. 71711-8) label considered for registration 

review.. However, the application rate (0.65 lb ai/A) used in the PRZM/EXAMS and 

SCI-GROW modeling in the 1999 Drinking Water Assessment for Use of Flutolanil on 

Potato Seed Piece was lower than the rate (0.75 lb ai/A) when flutolanil is sprayed around 

and over the seed pieces in a 4-8 inch band prior to covering with soil (Moncut 50W. 

Reg. No. 71711-3). 

3. Section 3 New Use on Potato Seed-Pieces (2000)

Pursuant to FIFRA Section 3, the Agency completed a screening-level 

environmental fate and ecological risk assessment for a new flutolanil use on February

15, 2000 (USEPA 2000; D260099). This proposed new use consisted of a single 

application of 1.0 lbs product (0.015 lbs. a.i.) per 100 lbs of cut potato seed pieces for the 

control of Fusarium dry rot and Rhizoctonia stem canker. According to this new use, 

flutolanil is co-formulated with Mancozeb (6 percent) in an Adler bark dust formulation

and is applied immediately after cutting followed by general planting practices. This new 

use assessment was based on laboratory/field fate and ecotoxicological data submitted by

the registrant and from data in publicly available literature.

The environmental fate assessment concluded that flutolanil is practically

resistant to all modes of abiotic and biotic degradation. Degradation half lives were not 

calculated for abiotic processes (hydrolysis, photolysis) because they extended well 

beyond the study duration. Biotic degradation half lives (metabolism in aerobic soils, 
Page 8 of 45

aerobic aquatic, anaerobic aquatic) were all greater than 200 days. The degradate, 

desisopropyl flutolanil (DIP) is considered more mobile than the parent and no other 

degradate data were available.

The ecological toxicity assessment concluded that flutolanil is practically

nontoxic to birds, mammals, and insects (honeybee) on an acute and subacute basis. 

Flutolanil was found to be moderately toxic to freshwater fish and invertebrates 

on an acute basis and highly toxic to estuarine/marine invertebrates on an acute basis. On 

a chronic toxicity basis, flutolanil was found to cause adverse effects on avian 

reproduction (decreased egg production and egg shell thickness), growth of fish, 

freshwater invertebrate reproduction rate (number of young/adult) and survival, 

reproduction and growth of estuarine/marine invertebrates. 

Based on the available information, the 2000 screening level risk assessment 

concluded that flutolanil would not likely to pose a risk of acute or chronic toxicity to 

non-target animals. The risk associated with the co-formulated product was not 

addressed due to the lack of information on effects to terrestrial and aquatic organisms. 

Flutolanil was considered persistent in the environment under aerobic and anaerobic 

conditions and likely to reach surface water sorbed to soils, organic materials, and in 

dissolution and reach ground water despite information from the field dissipation studies 

which showed that flutolanil appeared to bind to soils. The assessment further concluded 

that the proposed application method (seed-piece dust treatment) and the general 

agricultural practice (planting the seed-piece at 2 or more inches below the surface 

followed by mounding of approximately 2 inches of additional soil) would likely reduce 

the likelihood of surface water runoff but potentially exacerbate leaching to ground

water.

The primary environmental concerns identified in the environmental fate and 

ecological risk assessment in support of the registration for flutolanil associated with the 

(now historical) uses of flutolanil (USEPA, 2000) were the behavior of the co-formulated 

product (flutolanil is co-formulated with mancozeb (6%) in an Adler bark dust 

formulation) in the environment. Specifically, it was uncertain whether the two active 

ingredients would behave independently or impart a synergistic or antagonistic effect on 

non-target species. 

As a result of this assessment, a number of data needs were identified. Regarding 

environmental fate, a bare ground terrestrial field dissipation study was recommended. In 

response, the registrant submitted one aerobic soil metabolism study (MRID 45756601) 

and two terrestrial field dissipation studies (MRIDs 45756602 and 45756603) which are 

under review. 

Regarding ecological effects, studies on the acute toxicity of the co-formulated 

end use product Moncoat MZ fungicide (co-formulated with Mancozeb) were requested 

as part of its conditional registration on February 22, 2001 (EPA Reg. No. 71711-8). 

These tests include:
Page 9 of 45

Acute avian oral (71-1)

Acute avian dietary – mallard (71-2)

Avian reproduction (71-4)

Acute Freshwater Fish (72-1)

Acute freshwater invertebrate (72-2)

Chronic life cycle / estuarine invertebrate (72-4)

Three toxicity tests of the technical grade active ingredient (TGAI) were also 

requested as part of the aforementioned conditional registration. These tests include:

Acute estuarine/marine fish (72-3)

Chronic freshwater fish life cycle (72-5)

Chronic marine fish life cycle (72-5)

In response to this the ecotoxicity data request, the registrant (Nichino America, 

Inc.) submitted a waiver request of the data requirements to the Agency on Sept 9th, 2002. 

The required data and waiver request are being considered as part of the data needs 

outlined in this problem formulation.

It should also be noted that the ecological risk assessment was conducted based 

on a lower application rate for potato seed piece, not on the much higher rates for rice, 

peanuts and turf. According to the labels under the registration review, the maximum 

yearly application rates for other crops or non-crop (rice, peanuts, and turf) are much 

higher than that for potato piece treatment. Table 3 showed that the yearly rate for potato 

piece treatment ranges from 0.25-0.75 lb ai/A whereas those for rice, peanuts and turf are 

1 lb ai/A, 2 lb ai/A and 8.5 lb ai/A, respectively.

4. Human Health Risk Assessment: Request for Inadvertent or Indirect 

Tolerances for Use on Soybean, Wheat, Corn and Cotton (2007)

A recent human health risk assessment was conducted on flutolanil in response 

registrant petitions proposing the establishment of permanent tolerances for inadvertent 

or indirect residues in/on corn, cotton, soybean, and cotton commodities (USEPA, 2007). 

Although this assessment did not address ecological risks, it does contain information 

that is relevant to the current problem formulation. For example, based on mammalian 

toxicity data, flutolanil was not identified as a reproductive or developmental toxicant nor 

was it identified as being neurotoxic. The chronic NOAEL of 50 mg/kg/day (increased 

incidence of clinical toxic signs) was identified based on a 2-year dietary study in dogs

(relevant to the chronic mammalian toxicity assessment). Furthermore, the major 

metabolite identified in plants and rotational crops (potentially relevant to herbaceous 

birds and mammals) were M-4 (N-(3’-hydroxyphenyl)-2-(trifluoromethyl)benzamide) 

and M-5 (N-(3’,4’-(dihydroxyphenyl)-2-(trifluoromethyl)benzamide). 

There are no established MCL for residues of flutolanil in drinking water. No 

health advisory levels for flutolanil in drinking water have been established. The residues 
Page 10 of 45

in water are the parent compound and M4; and the parent is the major residue. HED 

concluded that only the parent needs to be included in the drinking water exposure 

assessment for flutolanil. In the chronic dietary assessment, HED used EECs in surface 

water and groundwater that were estimated by EFED based on the use of flutolanil on 

rice paddy (0.5 lb ai/a x 2 applications/year. See Section 2 above for detail). The chronic 

dietary assessment (food and drinking water) showed that for all included commodities, 

the dietary risk estimates were below the Agency’s level of concern (<100% cPAD) for 

the general U.S. population (<1% of the cPAD) and all population subroups (< 1% 

cPAD).

III. Stressor Source and Distribution

A. Mechanism of Action

Flutolanil, [N-(3-(1-methylethoxy)-phenyl)-2-(trifluoromethyl)-benzamide], is a 

systemic fungicide that exhibits both curative and protective action against fungal 

diseases of crops. Its specific mode of action in fungi (e.g., Rhizoctonia sp.) is to inhibit

mitochondrial respiration through the interference of succinate metabolism (inhibition of 

succinate dehydrogenase complex) (IFAS/UF, 2006; Motoba et al., 1988). 

B. Overview of Pesticide Usage

Flutolanil is for control of black scurf (Rhizoctonia solani) in potatoes, for control 

of sheath blight (Rhizoctonia solani) in rice, for control of southern stern rot (white 

mold) and the limb/pod rot complex (Rhizoctonia solani) in peanuts, for control of 

diseases caused by Basidiomycetes on turf, and for control of diseases caused by rusts, 

species of Rhizoctonia and Sclerotium rolfsi on ornamentals. 

Under the registration review, there are 11 Section 3 registrations and 5 Section 

24C registrations for products containing flutolanil. Flutolanil can be applied as a 

product containing only flutolanil (i.e., Moncut 50WP, ProStar 70 WDG) or as a coformulated product that contains other active ingredients (see below).

· Mancut CL Flowable (Reg. No. 71711-2) contains flutolanil (10.3%) and 

chlorothalonil (38.6%).

· MonCoat MZ (Reg. No. 71711-8) contains flutolanil (1.5%) and mancozeb (6%).

· Artisan (Reg. No. 71711-17) contains flutolanil (32%) and propiconazole (6%).

· NAI-301 4SE (also known as Artisan Trifecta; Reg. No. 71711-24) contains 

flutolanil (17.2%), chlorothalonil (21.85%), and propiconazole (1.8%).

There are a total of three Section 3 registrations/labels [Reg. No. 71711-1 

(Moncut 70WP), 71711-3 (Moncut 50W), and 71711-14 (Moncut 70 DF)] that allow the 

use of flutolanil on rice. However, each of these three labels contains the following 

geographical restrictions on rice in the State of Arkansas due to concern on the 

endangered species. 
Page 11 of 45

“The use of flutolanil on rice is restricted to protect the endangered fat 

pocketbook pearly mussel (Potamilus capax) and its habitat. Use is prohibited in 

the following areas of Arkansas:

Mississippi County: Within the basin that drains directly into the Right Hand 

Chute of Little River, south of Big Lake National Refuge.

Poinsett County: Between Cowley’s Ridge and the levee east of the Right Hand 

Chute of Little River and the St. Francis Floodway. Use is also prohibited west of 

Rt. 140 and north of Rt. 63 at the SIPHON near Marked Tree. Except that the 

prohibited area does not include the area bounded by Arkansas Highway 373 on 

the west, Highway 63 on the east and Highway 14 on the south.

Cross, St. Francis, and Lee Counties: Between Crowley’s Ridge and the levee 

east of the Right Hand Chute of Little River and the St. Francis Floodway as far 

south as the confluence of L’Anguille River (Lee County).”

It should be noted that, according to SLN AR-050007, flutolanil can still be used on 

rice in Arkansas until 2010. This is because the "pending" label (Moncut SC) used in the 

SLN does not contain any geographical restrictions in Arkansas. 

A list of registered flutolanil uses, along with their respective application methods, 

single application rates, application intervals, and maximum seasonal/yearly application 

rates are presented in Table 3.

Table 3. Uses and application rates for flutolanil.

Crop/Labels/Restrictions

Single

Application Rate

(lb a.i./A)/Methods

Number of

Applications per 

Season

Application 

Interval (days)

Maximum 

Application rate per 

Season

(lb a.i./A/Season)

Potato 

Reg. No. 71711-3 

(Moncut 50W)

Restrictions in CA

Reg. No. 71711-8 

(MonCoat MZ)

0.5-0.75 (spray around and over 

the seed pieces in a 4-8 inch 

band prior to covering with soil)

0.25 (apply to the seed pieces 

immediately after cutting at 

0.011-0.015 lb ai per 100 lbs of 

cut seed)

1

1

N/A

N/A

0.75

0.25
Page 12 of 45

Crop/Labels/Restrictions

Single

Application Rate

(lb a.i./A)/Methods

Number of

Applications per 

Season

Application 

Interval (days)

Maximum 

Application rate per 

Season

(lb a.i./A/Season)

Rice

Reg. No. 71711-3 

(Moncut 50W)

Restrictions in CA, AR

Reg. No. 71711-14

(Moncut 70 DF)

Restrictions in CA, NY, 

AR

Reg. No. 71711-1

(Moncut 70WP)

Restrictions in CA, AR

SLN No. AR-050007 

(Moncut SC – it does not 

have a Reg. No. because it 

is still a pending 

registration)

0.35-0.50 (aerial application to 

rice plant)

0.35-0.70 (aerial application to 

rice plant)

0.35-0.50 (aerial application to 

rice plant)

0.35-0.70 (aerial application to 

rice plant)

0.35-0.50 (aerial application to 

rice plant)

0.35-0.75 (aerial application to 

rice plant)

2

2 or more (max 

application frequency 

was not specified)

2

2 or more (max 

application frequency 

was not specified)

2

2

10-14

Not specified

10-14

Not specified

10-14

Not specified

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

Peanuts 

Reg. No. 71711-17 

(Artisan)

Reg. No. 71711-3

(Moncut 50W)

Restrictions in CA

Reg. No. 71711-1

(Moncut 70 WP)

Restrictions in CA

0.61-0.75 (when applying 

Artisan alone)

(ground, chemigation, aerial)

0.305-0.493 (when applying 

Artisan with chlorothalonil)

(ground, chemigation, aerial)

0.25-2 (ground, chemigation, 

aerial)

1-2 (ground, chemigation, aerial)

2-3 applications for the 

0.61 lb ai/application

2 applications for the 

0.75 lb ai/application

Make sequential 

applications as needed

1-4 

2

21-30

21-30

10-14

10-30

30

2.0

2.0

2.0

2.0

2.0
Page 13 of 45

Crop/Labels/Restrictions

Single

Application Rate

(lb a.i./A)/Methods

Number of

Applications per 

Season

Application 

Interval (days)

Maximum 

Application rate per 

Season

(lb a.i./A/Season)

Turf

Reg. No. 432-1223 

(ProStar 70 WP)

Reg. No. 432-1477

(ProStar 70 WDG)

2.86-5.71 (broadcast 

application) (see Footnote 1)

2.86-8.53 (broadcast 

application) (see Footnote 2)

2

2 

14-30

14-30

8.53

8.53

Ornamentals 

Reg. No. 432-1223 

(ProStar 70 WP)

Restrictions in NY

Reg. No. 432-1477

(ProStar 70 WDP)

Restrictions in NY

SLN No. WA-040032 

(tulips and iris)

Not specified (broadcast foliar, 

soil drench, cutting/bulb dip, 

chemigation, 

overhead/microjet/drip 

irrigation)

1.14-4.57 (in-furrow application)

No more than 4 

applications

1

14-21

N/A

Not specified 

4.57

Footnotes:

1. For the use of ProStar 70 WP on turf, the single application rates were converted from oz 

product/1,000 square feet to lb ai/A with the exceptions of the control of fairy ring and gray snow mold. 

Since the label states that “do not treat more than 10,000 square feet per acre of turf area” when the highest 

rates are used (4.5 oz product/1,000 square feet for fairy ring and 3-4.5 oz product/1,000 square feet for 

gray snow mold), the corresponding lb ai/A was adjusted accordingly.

2. For the use of ProStar 70 WDG on turf, the maximum single application rate (i.e., 8.53 lb ai/A) for 

the curative control of Rhizoctonia zeae was calculated directly from oz product per 1,000 square feet to lb 

ai/A because the label did not state any restriction in treated area, such as that stated on ProStar 70 WDG 

for the control of fairy ring and gray snow mold (see Footnote 1 above). Note - the use of flutolanil in 

control of Rhizoctonia zeae was not mentioned in the ProStar 70 WP.

C. Environmental Fate and Transport

Registrant-submitted data defining the physical and chemical properties for 

flutolanil and its most significant degradate [desisopropyl flutolanil (DIP)] are 

summarized in Table 4, and the fate and transport parameters associated with flutolanil

and DIP are summarized in Table 5. In past assessments involving flutolanil, values for 

vapor pressure, water solubility, Henry’s Law Constant and Kow were obtained from 

EFED One-Liner. According to the review of Flutolanil – Human Health Risk 

Assessment: Request for Inadvertent or Indirect Tolerances for Use on Soybeans, Wheat, 

Corn and Cottom completed by HED on 11/27/07, vapor pressure, water solubility, and 

Log Kow recorded in EFED One-Liner were reported in MRID 42606601.
Page 14 of 45

Table 4. Physical and Chemical Properties for Flutolanil and its Degradate 

[desisopropyl flutolanil (DIP)].

Parent

Common Name Flutolanil

PC Code 128975

Chemical Names

IUPAC α,α,α-Trifluoro-3′-isopropoxy-o-toluanilide

CAS N-[3-(1-Methylethoxy)phenyl]-2-(trifluoromethyl)benzamide

CAS Number 66332-96-5

Chemical Structure

F

F

F

O

N

H

O

CH3

CH3

Molecular Formula C17H16NO2F3

Molecular Weight (g/mole) 323.3

SMILES Code C(F)(F)(F)c1ccccc1C(=O)Nc2cccc(OC(C)C)c2 (EPI Suite, v3.12)

Water Solubility 6.53 ppm at 20C

Vapor Pressure 4.87e-8 mm Hg at 25C

Henry’s Law Constant 2.12e-9 atm m3/mole

LogKow 3.74 (initial conc. 10-2 M)

3.79 (initial conc. 10-3 M)

Major Transformation Product of Flutolanil

Common Name Desisopropyl flutolanil (DIP)

Chemical Names

IUPAC NA

CAS N-(3-Hydroxyphenyl)-2-(trifluoromethyl)benzamide

CAS Number NA
Page 15 of 45

Chemical Structure

F

F

F

O

N

H

OH

Molecular Formula C14H10NO2F3

Molecular Weight (g/mole) 281.2

SMILES Code C2C=CC=C(C(F)(F)F)C=2C(=O)NC1C=CC=C(O)C=1 (EPI Suite, v3.12)

Water Solubility N/A

Vapor Pressure N/A

Henry’s Law Constant N/A

LogKow N/A

Table 5. Summary of Environmental Fate data for Flutolanil

Guide-line 

# Data Requirement Study MRID Results

161-1 Hydrolysis 40342940 Stable at pH 5, 7, and 9

161-2 Photolysis in Water 41841208

41841209

Stable at pH 7

161-3 Photodegradation 

on Soil

41841210

43175810

Stable (unacceptable study). 

Additional data (43175810) submitted by the 

registrant to upgrade 41841210 are under 

review.

162-1 Aerobic Soil 

Metabolism

40342941

40342942

45756601

T1/2 = 190 days (volcanic ash); 320 days 

(loam); and 300 days (sandy loam). Less than 

3% of the applied was detected as DIP 

(desisopropyl flutolanil)

Irrelevant (a publication for benthiocarb which 

was accidentally listed under flutolanil)

T1/2 = 217 days (sandy loam) (still under 

review). Preliminary review indicated that no 

major degradates were detected

162-3 Anaerobic Aquatic 

Metabolism

41841211 T1/2 > 13 years. Less than 1% of the applied 

was found as DIP

162-4 Aerobic Aquatic 

Metabolism

41841212 T1/2 = 1 year. No major degradates were 

detected
Page 16 of 45

Guide-line 

# Data Requirement Study MRID Results

163-1 LeachingAdsorption/ 

Desorption

42606626

42606627

40342943

41841213

Degradate DIP Koc = 288 (sand); 293 (loam); 

396 clay loam); 317 (loamy sand) 

Parent Koc = 571 (sand); 592 (loam); 457 

(clay loam); 628 (clay loam); 1,005 (loamy 

sand)

Parent Koc = 1340 (sand); 883 (clay); 528 

(sediment); 653 (clay loam); 1,150 (sandy 

loam)

No useful information

164-1 Terrestrial Field 

Dissipation

41837803

41837804

43175809

45756603

45756602

Unacceptable

Turf field in CA. T1/2 was not reported. 

Parent was found in 24-30 inch soil zone. 

Degradate DIP was found in 12-18 inch zone 

Peanuts field in FL. T1/2 = 44 days (0-121 

days); T1/2 = 225 days (121 days – 18 

months). Degradate DIP was not detected 

below 8 cm.

Turf field in CA. T1/2 = 65 days (still under 

review)

Bare field in FL. T1/2 = 182 days (still under 

review)

164-2 Aquatic Dissipation 42606618

43292603

Rice paddies in CA and GA. 

Sediment T1/2 = 303 days (GA); Sediment 

T1/2 = 63 days (CA)

Unacceptable

164-5 Long-term Soil 

Dissipation

43175804 Peanuts field in FL. T1/2 = 118 days (1st 

year); 126 days (2nd year); 123 days (3rd year)

165-3 Accumulation in 

Irrigated Crops

42606615 Rice paddies in AR and LA. Parent and DIP 

did not accumulate in irrigated crops 

165-4 Accumulation in 

Fish

40342944

41841214

41841215

Japanese carp. 

BCF in whole fish = 13-26 (in 0.1 ppm water) 

BCF in whole fish = 9.3-24 (in 0.01 ppm 

water)

Bluegill sunfish. BCF = 13 (edible); 270 (nonedible); 150 (whole fish)

165-5 Aquatic Non-target 

Organism

42641101 Rice paddy in LA. Parent and degradate DIP

were not found in Grayfish

Soil Storage 

Stability

42606616 Stable at least 2 years
Page 17 of 45

Flutolanil has a very low solubility, has a low propensity to volatilize, and will 

remain in the aqueous phase based on the low Henry's Law Coefficient. In laboratory

tests, Flutolanil was resistant to hydrolysis at all pHs tested and practically resistant to 

photolysis on both soils and in water. Flutolanil also appears to be relatively resistant to 

aerobic and anaerobic degradation in both soils and aquatic environments with half-lives 

of more than 200 days in soils and greater than one year in water.

In laboratory aerobic metabolism studies, no major transformation products were 

identified. Three minor degradates were identified. 3'-hydroxy- 2-trifluoromethylbenzanilide (DIP) was formed no more than 3% of the applied. Two other degradates 

were formed in minor amounts (<1%). These were 3'-methoxy-2-trifluoromethylbenzanilide (MDP) and 4'-hydroxy-3-methoxy-2-trifluoromethyl-benzanilide (HMD). 

Flutolanil was observed to degrade faster under anaerobic conditions during the flooded 

stage of the study. Two minor degradates not identified under aerobic conditions were 

observed. These were: 3'-(hydroxymethy1ethoxy)-2-trifluoromethyl-benzanilide (HIP) 

and 4'-hydroxy-3'-isopropoxy-2-triflouromethyl-benzanilide (HFT).

Batch equilibrium studies for flutolanil and the transformation product DIP 

(desisopropyl flutolanil) determined kd values to range from 0.997 - 15.8 and 0.5 - 1 1.3, 

respectively. There is a minimal propencity for flutolanil to leach based on Koc’s ranging 

from 457 – 1340 ml/g (MRID Nos. 41837803, 41837804, 43175809, 45756603, 

45756602) and solubility of 6.53 ppm. This is supported in the field dissipation studies 

where the parent or DIP were not detected below the 36-inch sample depth. However, a

prospective ground water has not been conducted nor requested to confirm whether or not 

it may leach. A ground water study was waived. 

Flutolanil and the primary degradate DIP may be transported to surface water through 

erosion of soil particles containing bound flutolanil or dissolved in runoff water. Partition 

coefficients were not available for the other degradates, but, would appear, based on their 

structure, to be as mobile as the parent. 

The maximum BCF for flutolanil was 270X non-edible fish (1 3X edible tissue, 

150X whole fish) as determined by total 14C. Depuration after termination of exposure 

was rapid with more than 95 percent eliminated in 3 days. These results would indicate 

minimal propensity to bioconcentrate or bioaccumulate.

The estimated log octanol-air partition coefficient (Log KOA) of 10.6 (EPIsuite, 

v.3.20) suggests that bioaccumulation of flutolanil in terrestrial organisms is possible 

(Kelly et al. 2007). However, there is uncertainty associated with this Log KOA since the 

value is obtained by model estimation.
Page 18 of 45

IV. Receptors

A. Aquatic and Terrestrial Effects

Consistent with the process described in the Overview Document (USEPA, 2004), 

the risk assessment for flutolanil will rely on a surrogate species approach. Toxicological 

data generated from surrogate test species, which are intended to be representative of 

broad taxonomic groups, are used to extrapolate to potential effects on a variety of 

species (receptors) included under these taxonomic groupings. 

Acute and chronic toxicity data from studies submitted by pesticide registrants 

along with the available open literature are used to evaluate the potential direct and 

indirect effects of flutolanil to the aquatic and terrestrial receptors. This includes toxicity

data on the technical grade active ingredient, degradates, and when available, formulated 

products (e.g. “Six-Pack” studies). The open literature studies are identified through 

EPA’s ECOTOX database (USEPA 2007d), which employs a literature search engine for 

locating chemical toxicity data for aquatic life, terrestrial plants, and wildlife. The 

evaluation of both sources of data can also provide insight into the direct and indirect 

effects of flutolanil on biotic communities from loss of species that are sensitive to the 

chemical and from changes in structure and functional characteristics of the affected 

communities. 

Table 6 provides a summary of the taxonomic groups and the surrogate species 

tested to help understand potential acute and chronic ecological effects of flutolanil. In

addition, the table provides a preliminary overview of the potential acute toxicity of 

flutolanil by providing the acute toxicity classifications.

Technical grade flutolanil is classified as practically non-toxic to birds, mammals 

and terrestrial insects on an acute toxicity basis. Flutolanil is considered moderately toxic 

to freshwater fish, estuarine/ marine fish and freshwater invertebrates. Estuarine/marine

crustaceans (mysid shrimp) appear to be the most sensitive taxa tested with flutolanil and 

are classified as highly toxic. Molluscs (eastern oyster) appear to be less sensitive to 

flutolanil compared to crustaceans on an acute toxicity basis. 

Chronic exposure to flutolanil resulted in reduced egg production and egg shell 

thickness in birds, but did not exhibit chronic toxicity in rats up to 1000 mg/kg bw. 

Chronic exposure to flutolanil was associated with reduced growth and reduced 

reproduction in freshwater fish and invertebrates, respectively. Survival, reproduction 

and growth were significantly reduced following chronic exposure to flutolanil by

estuarine/marine invertebrates (mysid shrimp). Based on Tier 1 screening tests, flutolanil 

is classified as moderately toxic to aquatic vascular and nonvascular plants based on 

significantly reduced growth following exposure to 8.01 mg a.i./L. 
Page 19 of 45

Table 6. Test Species Evaluated for Assessing Potential Acute and Chronic 

Ecological Effects of Flutolanil.

Taxonomic 

Group Surrogate Species

Acute Toxicity

--

Chronic Toxicity

Citation

MRID

Acute Toxicity 

Classification

Mallard (Anas 

platyrhynchos)

LD50 = > 2000 mg/kg bw

LC50 = > 5243 ppm in 

diet

--

NOAEC = 1920 ppm

LOAEC = 4800 ppm

40342929

40342931

--

42932302

Practically 

non-toxic 

Birds1

Northern bobwhite 

quail

(Colinus 

virginianus)

LD50 > 2000 mg/kg bw

LC50 = > 5243 ppm in 

diet

--

NOAEC = 1920 ppm

LOAEC = 4800 ppm

40342930

40342932

--

42932301

Practically 

non-toxic

Mammals Laboratory rat 

(Rattus norvegicus)

LD50 > 10,000 mg/kg bw

--

NOAEL > 1000 mg/kg

40342906 

--

40342923

Practically 

non-toxic 

Insects Honey bee (Apis 

mellifera L.)

LD50 (contact) = > 650 

ppm

40342938 Practically 

non-toxic 

Freshwater 

fish2

Rainbow trout 

(Oncorhynchus 

mykiss)

96-hour LC50 = 5.4 mg/L 40342933

--

Moderately 

toxic

Bluegill sunfish 

(Lepomis 

macrochirus)

96-hour LC50 > 5.4 mg/L 40342934 Moderately 

toxic

Carp

(Cyprinus carpio)

96-hour LC50 = 2.5-6.4 

mg/L (3 tests, different 

formulations)

40342936 Moderately 

toxic

Fathead minnow 

(Pimephales 

promelas)

96-hour LC50 = 4.8 mg/L

--

NOAEC 0.233 mg/L

LOAEC = 0.486 mg/L

41841216

---

43552001

Moderately 

toxic

Freshwater 

invertebrates

Water flea

(Daphnia magna)

48-hour EC50 > 6.8 mg/L

--

NOAEC = 0.53 mg/L

LOAEC = 1.1 mg/L

41841217 

--

4 1850807

Moderately 

toxic 

Estuarine/ 

marine fish

Sheepshead 

minnow

(Cyprinodon 

variegatus)

96-hour LC50 > 6.1 mg/L 41841218

Moderately 

toxic 

Estuarine/ 

marine 

invertebrates Mysid shrimp 

(Americamysis 

bahia)

96-hour EC50 = 0.13 

mg/L

--

NOAEC = 11.3 μg/L

41841220

--

43511601

Highly toxic
Page 20 of 45

Taxonomic 

Group Surrogate Species

Acute Toxicity

--

Chronic Toxicity

Citation

MRID

Acute Toxicity 

Classification

LOAEC = 21.7 μg/L

Eastern oyster 

(Crassostrea 

virginica)

96-hour EC50 > 1.5 mg/L 41841219 Moderately 

toxic 

Vascular Plants:

Duckweed

(Lemna gibba)

Tier 1: 8.01 mg/L (31% 

reduction in frond count) 

Tier 2

42606622

Non-Vascular 

Plants:

Salt Water Diatom

(Skeletonema 

costatum)

Tier 1: 8.01 mg/L (13% 

growth inhibition 

42606623

Blue-green Algae

(A. flos-aquae)

Tier 1: 8.01 mg/L

(significantly growth 

effects)

42606621

Fresh Water 

Diatom 

(Navicula 

pelliculosa)

Tier 1: 8.01 mg/L (58% 

growth inhibition

Tier 1: 8.01 mg/L (no 

effect)

42606624

42606625

Aquatic 

plants and 

algae

Green Algae

(Selenastrum 

capricornutum)

Tier 1: 8.01 mg/L (51% 

growth inhibition

41841224

Moderately 

toxic 

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

2

Freshwater fish may be surrogates for aquatic-phase amphibians.

Flutolanil is registered for use in a number of co-formulated products. Other coformulated active ingredients include: chlorothalonil, mancozeb, thiophanate 

methylethoxy, and propicanazol. The potential for greater toxicity of the formulated 

product compared to the TGAI, acute was evaluated based on 8 acute oral toxicity studies 

with rats (MRID 40342906 = TGAI; MRID 40342907, 42255205, 43594004, 43971414, 

45103901, 45136401, 45524003 = formulated products). Reported LD50 values of the 

formulated products were > 5000 mg/kg or > 2000 mg/kg in 6 of the 7 formulated 

products. In only one study was a definitive LD50 quantified (MRID 43594004 which 

tested a 38.8% chlorothalonil + 10.3% flutolanil formulation). This study reported a 

LD50 of 3940 mg/kg for female rats and 1570 mg/kg for male rats. Compared to the 

toxicity of the TGAI (LD50 > 10,000 mg/kg), the formulated products does not appear to 

be substantially greater in toxicity on an acute oral basis to the rat, since LD50 values 

were > 2000 mg/kg (practically nontoxic) for 6 of the 7 formulations. In the remaining 

study that tested a mixture of chlorothalanil and flutolanil (MRID 43594004), the 

formulation was practically nontoxic to females and only slightly toxic to males. 

Appropriate data for comparing the toxicity formulated product with the TGAI 

were not identified for other non-target species. Based on these comparisons with the rat, 

there does not appear to be evidence of substantially greater toxicity of the formulated 

products compared to the TGAI. Based on these findings, this problem formulation will 

focus on ecological risks associated with the TGAI.
Page 21 of 45

B. Ecosystems Potentially at Risk 

The ecosystems potentially at risk are often extensive in scope, therefore, it may

not be possible to identify specific ecosystems during the development of a nation-wide

ecological risk assessment. However, in general terms, terrestrial ecosystems potentially

at risk could include the treated field and areas immediately adjacent areas that may

receive drift or runoff. Areas adjacent to the treated field could include cultivated fields, 

fencerows and hedgerows, meadows, fallow fields or grasslands, woodlands, riparian 

habitats and other uncultivated areas. 

Aquatic ecosystems potentially at risk include water bodies adjacent to, or down 

stream from, the treated field and might include impounded bodies such as ponds, lakes 

and reservoirs, or flowing waterways such as streams or rivers. For uses in coastal areas, 

aquatic habitat also includes marine ecosystems, including estuaries. 

A preliminary review of the Ecological Incident Information System (EIIS) 

maintained by the Agency’s Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) indicates only one 

reported ecological incident associated with the use of flutolanil (Incident ID I014123-

001). However, the observed effect (yellowing and stunting of 40 acres of oats) was 

thought to be more likely due to fertility issues than the pesticide containing flutolanil 

and is classified as ‘unlikely.’

V. Assessment Endpoints

Assessment endpoints represent the actual environmental value that is to be 

protected, defined by an ecological entity (species, community, or other entity) and its 

attribute or characteristics (EPA, 1998). For flutolanil, the ecological entities include the 

following: birds, reptiles, terrestrial-phase amphibians, mammals, freshwater fish, 

freshwater aquatic-phase amphibians and invertebrates, estuarine/marine fish and 

invertebrates, terrestrial plants, insects, and aquatic plants and algae. The attributes for 

each of these entities include growth, reproduction, and survival. 

VI. Conceptual Model

For a pesticide 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 pathway to be complete, it must have a source, a release mechanism, an 

environmental transport medium, a point of exposure for ecological receptors, and a 

feasible route of exposure.

The conceptual model for flutolanil provides a written description and visual 

representation of the predicted relationships between flutolanil, potential routes of 

exposure, and the predicted effects for the assessment endpoint. According to EPA’s 

ecological risk assessment guidelines (USEPA 1998) a conceptual model consists of two 
Page 22 of 45

major components: a risk hypothesis and a conceptual diagram 

A. Risk Hypothesis

A risk hypothesis describes the predicted relationship among the stressor, 

exposure, and assessment endpoint response along with the rationale for their selection. 

For flutolanil, the following ecological risk hypothesis is being employed for this 

national-level ecological risk assessment:

Flutolanil, when used in accordance with current labels, can result in off-site 

movement of the compound via runoff, spray drift, and eroded soil leading to 

exposure of nontarget plants and animals. Furthermore, the high environmental 

persistence of flutolanil and its high KOA suggest a potential for bioaccumulation 

in terrestrial food webs, although such evidence is indirect. These potential 

exposure pathways may result in adverse effects upon the survival, growth, and 

reproduction of non-target terrestrial and aquatic organisms. These nontarget 

organisms include Federally-listed threatened and endangered species.

B. Conceptual Diagram

The environmental fate properties of flutolanil indicate that runoff, erosion, and 

spray drift represent potential transport mechanisms of flutolanil to aquatic and terrestrial 

organisms. In addition, its high environmental persistence combined with a large KOA

suggest that atmospheric transport and subsequent deposition may be a potential exposure 

pathway for flutolanil, although existing evidence is indirect and inconclusive (indicated 

by the dashed lines in Figures 1 and 2. These transport mechanisms (e.g. sources) are 

depicted in the conceptual models below (Figures 1 and 2) and result in the movement of 

flutolanil into aquatic (water) and terrestrial (soil and foliage) habitats which in turn serve 

as exposure media for a broad range of biological receptors of concern (nontarget 

animals) and the potential attribute changes, i.e., effects such as reduced survival, growth 

and reproduction, in the receptors due to flutolanil exposure. 
Page 23 of 45

Figure 1. Conceptual model for flutolanil effects on aquatic organisms.

Stressor

Source

Receptors

Attribute

Change

Flutolanil applied to use site

Spray drift

Fish/aquatic-phase 

amphibians

Eggs 

Larvae 

Juveniles / Adults

Individual organisms

Reduced survival

Reduced growth

Reduced reproduction

Food chain

Reduction in algae

Reduction in prey

Habitat integrity

Reduction in primary productivity

Reduced cover

Community change

Surface water/

Sediment

Runoff

Aquatic Animals

Invertebrates

Vertebrates

Exposure

Media

Uptake/gills 

or integument

Ingestion Ingestion

Soil Ground water

Uptake/gills 

or integument

Aquatic Plants

Non-vascular

Vascular

Uptake/cell, 

roots, leaves Riparian plant

terrestrial 

exposure 

pathways see 

Figure 2
Page 24 of 45

Figure 2. Conceptual Model of Flutolanil Effects on Terrestrial Organisms.

Stressor

Source

Receptors

Attribute

Change

Flutolanil applied to use site

Direct

application Spray drift

Birds / Terrestrialphase amphibians 

/ reptiles / 

mammals

Terrestrial 

insects

Individual organisms

Reduced survival

Reduced growth

Reduced reproduction

Food chain

Reduction in prey

Habitat integrity

Reduction in primary productivity

Reduced cover

Community change

Terrestrial/riparian plants

grasses/forbs, fruit, seeds 

(trees, shrubs)

Runoff

Mammals

Exposure

Media

Soil

Ingestion

Ingestion

Ingestion

Ingestion

Dermal uptake/Ingestion

Root uptake

Terrestrial food 

web 

Ingestion
Page 25 of 45

VII. Analysis Plan 

In order to address the risk hypothesis, the potential for adverse effects on the 

environment is estimated. The use, environmental fate, and ecological effects of 

flutolanil are characterized and integrated to assess the risks. This is accomplished using 

a risk quotient (ratio of exposure concentration to effects concentration) approach. 

Although risk is often defined as the likelihood and magnitude of adverse ecological 

effects, the risk quotient-based approach does not provide a quantitative estimate of 

likelihood and/or magnitude of an adverse effect. However, as outlined in the Overview 

Document (USEPA, 2004), the likelihood of effects to individual organisms from 

particular uses of flutolanil is estimated using the probit dose-response slope and either 

the level of concern (discussed below) or actual calculated risk quotient value.

This analysis plan will be revisited and may be revised depending upon the 

information submitted by the public in response to the opening of the Registration 

Review docket for flutolanil.

A. Stressors of Concern

The most significant degradate of flutolanil is DIP. Submitted environmental fate 

studies for flutolanil do not identify DIP, as it does not form >10% of residues, indicating 

that it is not expected to be a major degradate of flutolanil in aquatic and terrestrial 

environments. The Agency concluded that only the parent compound needs to be 

included in the drinking water exposure assessment for flutolanil, DIP may not be of 

greater toxicological concern compared to flutolanil and exposure to this transformation 

product may not be included in this assessment. 

The stressors of concern for this assessment includes only the parent compound 

(flutolanil) with respect to exposures in aquatic and terrestrial habitats.

B. Measures of Exposure

In order to estimate risks of flutolanil exposures in aquatic and terrestrial 

environments, all exposure modeling and resulting risk conclusions will be based on 

maximum application rates and methods cited in Table 3 and will be estimated for each 

use of flutolanil. Measures of exposure are based on aquatic and terrestrial models that 

predict estimated environmental concentrations (EECs) of flutolanil. The models used to 

predict aquatic EECs are the Pesticide Root Zone Model coupled with the Exposure 

Analysis Model System (PRZM/EXAMS). The model used to predict terrestrial EECs 

on food items is T-REX. The model used to derive EECs relevant to terrestrial and 

wetland plants is TerrPlant. These models are parameterized using relevant reviewed 

registrant-submitted environmental fate data.
Page 26 of 45

PRZM (v3.12.2, May 2005) and EXAMS (v2.98.4.6, April 2005) are screening 

simulation models coupled with the input shell pe5.pl (Aug 2007) to generate daily 

exposures and 1-in-10 year EECs of flutolanil that may occur in surface water bodies 

adjacent to application sites receiving flutolanil through runoff and spray drift. PRZM 

simulates pesticide application, movement, and transformation on an agricultural field 

and the resultant pesticide loadings to a receiving water body via runoff, erosion and 

spray drift. The EXAMS model simulates the fate of the pesticide and resulting 

concentrations in the water body. The standard scenario used for ecological pesticide 

assessments assumes application to a 10-hectare agricultural field that drains into an 

adjacent 1-hectare water body that is 2 meters deep (20,000 m3volume) with no outlet. 

PRZM/EXAMS is used to estimate screening-level exposure of aquatic organisms to 

flutolanil. The measure of exposure for aquatic species is the 1-in-10 year return peak or 

rolling mean concentration. The 1-in-10 year peak is used for estimating acute exposures 

of direct effects to aquatic organisms. The 1-in-10-year 60-day mean is used for assessing 

chronic exposure to the fish and aquatic-phase amphibians. The 1-in-10-year 21-day

mean is used for assessing aquatic invertebrate chronic exposure.

Exposure estimates for terrestrial animals assumed to be in the target area or in an 

area exposed to spray drift are derived using the T-REX model (version 1.3.1, 

12/07/2006). This model incorporates the Kenega nomograph, as modified by Fletcher et 

al. (1994), which is based on a large set of actual field residue data. The upper limit 

values from the nomograph represented the 95th percentile of residue values from actual 

field measurements (Hoerger and Kenega, 1972). The Fletcher et al. (1994) 

modifications to the Kenega nomograph are based on measured field residues from 249 

published research papers, including information on 118 species of plants, 121 pesticides, 

and 17 chemical classes. EECs for terrestrial plants inhabiting dry and wetland areas are

derived using TerrPlant (version 1.2.2, 12/26/2006). This model uses estimates of 

pesticides in runoff and in spray drift to calculate EECs. EECs are based upon solubility, 

application rate and minimum incorporation depth. 

Two spray drift models, AGDisp and AgDRIFT are used to assess exposures of 

terrestrial plants to flutolanil deposited on terrestrial habitats by spray drift. AGDisp 

(version 8.13; dated 12/14/2004) (Teske and Curbishley, 2003) is used to simulate aerial 

and ground applications using the Gaussian far-field extension. AgDrift (version 2.01; 

dated 5/24/2001) is used to simulate spray blast applications to orchard crops.
Page 27 of 45

C. Measures of Effect

Ecological effect data are used as measures of direct and indirect effects to 

biological receptors. Data were obtained from registrant-submitted studies or from 

literature studies identified by ECOTOX. The ECOTOXicology database (ECOTOX) 

was searched on May 1, 2008 in order to provide more ecological effects data to bridge 

existing data gaps. ECOTOX is a source for locating single chemical toxicity data and 

potentially chemical mixture toxicity data for aquatic life, terrestrial plants, and wildlife.

ECOTOX was created and is maintained by the USEPA, Office of Research and 

Development, and the National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory's 

Mid-Continent Ecology Division (ECOTOX, 2006).

Information on the potential effects of flutolanil on non-target animals is also 

collected from the Ecological Incident Information System (EIIS; USEPA 2007c). The 

EIIS is a database containing adverse effect (typically mortality) reports on non-target 

organisms where such effects have been associated with the use of pesticides. 

Where available, sublethal effects observed in both registrant-submitted and open 

literature studies will be evaluated qualitatively. Such effects have included behavioral 

changes (e.g., lethargy, changes in coloration and effects olfaction). Quantitative 

assessments of risks, though, are limited to those endpoints that can be directly linked to 

the Agency’s assessment endpoints of impaired survival, growth and reproduction.

The assessment of risk for direct effects to non-target organisms makes the 

assumption that toxicity of flutolanil to birds is similar to terrestrial-phase amphibians 

and reptiles. The same assumption is made for fish and aquatic-phase amphibians. 

The acute measures of effect used for animals in this screening-level assessment 

are the LD50, LC50 and EC50. LD stands for "Lethal Dose", and LD50 is the amount of a 

material, given all at once, that is estimated to cause the death of 50% of the test 

organisms. LC stands for “Lethal Concentration” and LC50 is the concentration of a 

chemical that is estimated to kill 50% of the test organisms. EC stands for “Effective 

Concentration” and the EC50 is the concentration of a chemical that is estimated to 

produce a specific effect in 50% of the test organisms. Endpoints for chronic measures of 

exposure for listed and non-listed animals are the NOAEL/NOAEC and NOEC. NOAEL 

stands for “No Observed-Adverse-Effect-Level” and refers to the highest tested dose of a 

substance that has been reported to have no harmful (adverse) effects on test organisms. 

The NOAEC (i.e., “No-Observed-Adverse-Effect-Concentration”) is the highest test 

concentration at which none of the observed effects were statistically different from the 

control. The NOEC is the No-Observed-Effects-Concentration. For non-listed plants, 

only acute exposures are assessed (i.e., EC25 for terrestrial plants and EC50 for aquatic 

plants); for listed plants, either the NOAEC or EC05 is used.
Page 28 of 45

D. Integration of Exposure and Effects

Risk characterization is the integration of exposure and ecological effects 

characterization to determine the potential ecological risk from the use of flutolanil on 

rice, peanuts, potatoes, turf and ornamentals, and the likelihood of direct and indirect 

effects to non-target organisms in aquatic and terrestrial habitats. The exposure and 

toxicity effects data are integrated in order to evaluate the risks of adverse ecological 

effects on non-target species. For the assessment of flutolanil risks, the risk quotient 

(RQ) method is used to compare exposure and measured toxicity values. EECs are 

divided by acute and chronic toxicity values. The resulting RQs are then compared to the 

Agency’s levels of concern (LOCs) (USEPA, 2004). These criteria are used to indicate 

when the use of flutolanil, as directed on the label, has the potential to cause adverse 

direct or indirect effects to nontarget organisms.

1. Deterministic and Probabilistic Assessment Methods

The quantitative assessment of risk will primarily depend on the deterministic 

point-estimate based approach described in the risk assessment. Should further 

refinement of the risk assessment be deemed necessary, an effort will be made to further 

qualitatively describe risk using probabilistic tools that the Agency has developed. These 

tools have been reviewed by FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panels and have been deemed as 

appropriate means of refining assessments where deterministic approaches have 

identified risks.

E. Endangered Species Assessments

Consistent with the Agency’s responsibility under the Endangered Species Act 

(ESA), EPA will evaluate risks to Federally-listed threatened and/or endangered (listed) 

species from registered uses of flutolanil. This assessment will be conducted in

accordance with the Overview Document (USEPA, 2004), provisions of the ESA, and the 

Services’ Endangered Species Consultation Handbook (USFWS/NMFS 1998). 

The assessment of effects associated with registrations of flutolanil is based on an 

action area. The action area is considered to be the area directly or indirectly affected by

the federal action, as indicated by the exceedance of Agency Levels of Concern (LOCs) 

used to evaluate direct or indirect effects. The Agency’s approach to defining the action 

area under the provisions of the Overview Document (USEPA, 2004) considers the 

results of the risk assessment process to establish boundaries for that action area with the 

understanding that exposures below the Agency’s defined LOCs constitute a no-effect 

threshold. For the purposes of this assessment, attention will be focused on the footprint 

of the action (i.e., the area where flutolanil application occurs), plus all areas where 

offsite transport (i.e., spray drift, runoff, long-range atmospheric transport, etc.) may

result in potential exposure that exceeds the Agency’s LOCs. Specific measures of 

ecological effect that define the action area for listed species include any direct and 

indirect effects and/or potential modification of its critical habitat, including reduction in 
Page 29 of 45

survival, growth, and reproduction as well as the full suite of sublethal effects available in 

the effects literature. Therefore, the action area extends to a point where environmental 

exposures are below any measured lethal or sublethal effect threshold for any biological 

entity at the whole organism, organ, tissue, and cellular level of organization. In 

situations where it is not possible to determine the threshold for an observed effect, the 

action area is not spatially limited and is assumed to be the entire United States. 

As part of the “effects determination,” one of the following three conclusions will 

be reached regarding the potential for registration of flutolanil at the use sites described in 

this document to affect listed species and/or result in modification of designated listed 

species’ critical habitat: 

· “No effect”; 

· “May affect, but not likely to adversely affect”; or

· “May affect and likely to adversely affect”. 

Critical habitat identifies specific areas that have physical and biological features, 

known as primary constituent elements (PCEs), which are essential to the conservation of 

the listed species. 

If the results of initial screening-level assessment methods show no direct or 

indirect effects (no LOC exceedances) upon individual listed species of any taxonomic 

group or upon the PCEs of the species’ designated critical habitat, a “no effect” 

determination is made for the FIFRA regulatory action regarding flutolanil as it relates to 

this species and its designated critical habitat. If, however, direct or indirect effects to 

individual listed species are anticipated and/or effects may impact the PCEs of the listed 

species’ designated critical habitat, a preliminary “may affect” determination is made for 

the FIFRA regulatory action regarding flutolanil.

If a determination is made that use of flutolanil within the action area(s) 

associated with the listed species “may affect” this species and/or its designated critical 

habitat, additional information is considered to refine the potential for exposure and for 

effects to the species and other taxonomic groups upon which these species depend. 

Additional information, including spatial analysis (to determine the geographical 

proximity of species habitat and flutolanil use sites) may also be used to determine 

whether modification to designated critical habitat may occur. Based on the refined 

information, the Agency uses the best available information to distinguish those actions 

that “may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect” from those actions that “may

affect and are likely to adversely affect” the listed species and/or result in modification of 

its designated critical habitat. 
Page 30 of 45

F. Preliminary Identification of Data Gaps 

1. Environmental Fate

Several studies have been submitted to fulfill the conditional registration 

requesting soil photolysis, aerobic soil metabolism, soil storage stability, and terrestrial 

field dissipation data for flutolanil. These studies are under review. The resulting data 

will be incorporated into future flutolanil assessments as appropriate.

In order to quantify the risk potential for flutolanil, additional studies are required 

(anaerobic soil metabolism, environmental chemical methods (ECM)/Independent 

Laboratory Validation (ILV) and measurement of octanol-air partition coefficient (KOA)).

The lack of data mentioned above for flutolanil represents an uncertainty of the fate of 

flutolanil in the environment. Table 7 includes the current environmental fate data 

requirements.

Table 7. Environmental Fate Data Requirements for Flutolanil.

Guideline # Data Requirement Study IDStudy 

Classification

Are Additional 

Data Needed for 

Risk Assessment?

161-1 Hydrolysis 40342940 Acceptable No 

161-2 Photolysis in Water 41841208

41841209

Acceptable No

161-3 Photodegradation on Soil 41841210

43175810

Unacceptable

Under review No

161-4 Photodegradation in Air No data submitted N/A No

162-1 Aerobic Soil Metabolism 40342941

40342942

45756601

Acceptable 

Irrelevant 

(publication for 

benthiocarb)

Under review No

162-2 Anaerobic Soil Metabolism No data submitted N/A Yes

162-3 Anaerobic Aquatic 

Metabolism

41841211 Acceptable

No

162-4 Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism 41841212 Acceptable No

163-1 Leaching-Adsorption/ 

Desorption

42606626

42606627

40342943

41841213

Acceptable 

Acceptable 

Acceptable 

Acceptable No 

163-2 Laboratory Volatility No data submitted N/A No

163-3 Field Volatility No data submitted N/A No

164-1 Terrestrial Field Dissipation 41837803

43175804

43175809

45756603

45756602

Unacceptable

Acceptable 

Supplemental

Under review

Under review

No
Page 31 of 45

Guideline # Data Requirement Study IDStudy 

Classification

Are Additional 

Data Needed for 

Risk Assessment?

164-2 Aquatic Dissipation 42606618

43292603

Acceptable

Unacceptable

No

164-3 Forestry No data submitted N/A No

164-4 Combination and Tank 

Mixes

No data submitted N/A No

164-5 Long-term Soil Dissipation 43175804 Supplemental No

165-3 Accumulation in Irrigated 

Crops

42606615 Acceptable No

165-4 Accumulation in Fish 40342944

41841214

41841215

Acceptable

Acceptable 

Acceptable

No

165-5 Aquatic Non-target 

Organism

42641101 Acceptable No

166-1 Ground Water Monitoring No data submitted N/A Waived on 2/22/95

Storage Stability 42606616 Under review No

Environmental Chemical 

Methods (ECM)/Independent 

Laboratory Validation (ILV)

No data submitted N/A Yes

Non 

Guideline 

Study

Measurement of OctanolAir Partition Coefficient 

(KOA)

No data submitted N/A Yes 

N/A=Not Applicable

2. Ecological Effects

The ecological effects data requirements and preliminary classification of the 

submitted data for flutolanil are summarized in Table 8. The ecological effects data 

requirements were determined according to CFR Part 158 data requirements for 

conventional pesticides (Federal Register, Vol. 72: 60934-60988. October, 26, 2007). In 

cases where the data requirement was not met with an acceptable study, but the results of 

a new study would appear to not likely change the forthcoming risk assessment, the study

was kept in ‘reserve.’ For example, while the new CFR Part 158 require an avian oral 

LD50 study with a passerine species, this study is being held in reserve because the 

submitted data indicate that flutolanil is practically non-toxic on an acute basis to mallard 

and bobwhite quail. Thus, passerine birds would have to be several orders of magnitude 

more sensitive to flutolanil in order to impact the ecological risk assessment, which 

appears unlikely given the typical variability in toxicity among avian species. Similarly, 

while the estuarine acute LC50 study on oysters is now considered supplemental

(reclassification as part of this registration review), the likelihood that oysters would be 

more sensitive than the most sensitive invertebrate (mysid shrimp) appears low and thus, 

a repeated test is not recommended at this time. In the case of the Tier II plant seedling 

emergence and vegetative vigor studies, requirement of these studies depends on the 
Page 32 of 45

outcome of the yet to be submitted Tier 1 studies; hence, they are being held in reserve.

Table 8. Ecological Effects Data Requirements for Flutolanil.

Guideline Data Requirement Test Species MRID

Preliminary Study 

Classification

More Data 

Needed For 

Risk 

Assessment? 

71-1

(850.2100)

Avian Oral LD50

Mallard

Bobwhite Quail

Passerine 

Species

40342929

40342930

No data

Acceptable

Acceptable

No data

No

No

Reserved(5)

71-2

(850.2100)

Avian Dietary LC50

Mallard

Bobwhite Quail

40342931

40342932

Acceptable 

Acceptable

No

71-4

(850.2300)

Avian Reproduction

Mallard

Bobwhite Quail

42932302

42932301

Acceptable 

Acceptable

No

72-1

(850.1075)

Freshwater Fish 

LC50

Rainbow Trout

Bluegill Sunfish

Carp

Fathead Minnow

40342933

40342934

40342936

41841216

Acceptable 

Acceptable

Supplemental

Acceptable

No

72-2

(850.1010)

Freshwater 

Invertebrate Acute 

LC50

Water flea 41841217 Acceptable No

72-3(a)

(850.1075)

Estuarine/Marine 

Fish LC50

Sheepshead 

Minnow 41841218 Acceptable(3) No

72-3(b)

(850.1025 

or 1055)

Estuarine/Marine 

Mollusk EC50

Eastern Oyster 41841219 Supplemental(4) Reserved(6)

72-3(c)

(850.1035 

or 1045)

Estuarine/Marine 

Shrimp EC50

Mysid Shrimp 41841220 Acceptable No

72-4(a)

(850.1400)

Freshwater Fish 

Early Life-Stage

Fathead Minnow 43552001 Acceptable No

72-4(b)

(850.1300)

Aquatic 

Invertebrate LifeCycle (freshwater)

Water flea 4 1850807 Acceptable No

72-4 Estuarine/Marine Sheepshead No Data No data Reserved(7)
Page 33 of 45

Guideline Data Requirement Test Species MRID

Preliminary Study 

Classification

More Data 

Needed For 

Risk 

Assessment? 

(850.1400) Fish Early Life 

Stage (1)

Minnow

No 

Guideline 

Available(1)

Whole Sediment 

Chronic 

Invertebrate

Marine No Data No data Yes

123-2

(850.4150)

Vegetative Vigor 

(Tier I)

Multiple species No Data No Data Yes

123-2

(850.4100)

Seedling 

Emergence

(Tier I)

Multiple species No Data No Data Yes

123-2

(850.4150)

Vegetative Vigor 

(Tier II) (1)

Multiple species No Data No Data Reserved(2)

123-2

(850.4100)

Seedling 

Emergence

(Tier II) (1)

Multiple species No Data No Data Reserved(2)

(850.4400) Aquatic Vascular 

Plant (Tier I) Duckweed 42606622 Acceptable No

Freshwater 

Diatom

42606624

42606625

Acceptable

Acceptable

No

Blue-green Algae 42606621 Acceptable No

Salt Water 

Diatom 42606623 Acceptable No

(850.5400)

Aquatic 

Nonvascular

(Tier I)

Green algae 41841224 Acceptable No

(850.5400)

Aquatic 

Nonvascular 

(Tier II) (1)

Freshwater 

Diatom

Green Algae

No Data No Data Reserved(8)

(850.3020) Honey Bee Acute 

Contact Honey bee 40342938 Acceptable No

(1) Conditionally required per Pesticide Data Requirements for Conventional Chemicals. CFR Part 158. 

Federal Register. Vol. 72 (No. 207): 60934-60988. October, 26, 2007.

(2) Conditionally required pending results of Tier 1 plant testing.

(3) Study likely to be reclassified from “supplemental” to “acceptable”

(4) Study likely to be reclassified from “acceptable/core” to “supplemental.”
Page 34 of 45

(5) Reserved pending results from review of other information (e.g., literature review, data from 

compounds with the same modes of action) that suggests Passerine species may be substantially more 

sensitive than upland game or waterfowl avian species such that the risk assessment conclusions would 

be affected by additional data for Passerines.

(6) Reserved pending other information (e.g., literature review, data from compounds with the same 

modes of action) that suggests mollusks may be sensitive to flutolanil such that the risk assessments 

conclusions would be affected by additional data for mollusks.

(7) Reserved pending other information (e.g., literature review, data from compounds with the same 

modes of action) that suggests estuarine/marine fish may be sensitive to flutolanil such that the risk 

assessments conclusions would be affected by additional data for estuarine/marine fish.

(8) Reserved pending other information (e.g., literature review, data from compounds with the same 

modes of action) that suggests aquatic plants are substantially more sensitive compared to existing Tier 

1 tests such that the risk assessment conclusions would be affected by additional data for aquatic 

plants.

3. Rationale for Data Call In

As part of the conditional registration of Moncoat MZ (PCC511) use on potato 

seed pieces on February 22, 2001(EPA Reg. No. 71711-8), EPA requested the registrant 

to conduct and submit nine ecotoxicity studies related to flutolanil typical end use 

product (TEP) and TGAI: 

(TEP)

Acute avian oral (71-1)

Acute avian dietary – mallard (71-2)

Avian reproduction (71-4)

Acute Freshwater Fish (72-1)

Acute freshwater invertebrate (72-2)

Chronic life cycle / estuarine invertebrate (72-4)

(TGAI)

Acute estuarine/marine fish (72-3)

Chronic freshwater fish life cycle (72-5)

Chronic marine fish life cycle (72-5)

The TEP studies were requested to address uncertainty in the combined toxicity of 

the co-formulated product (containing both mancozeb and flutolanil). The TGAI acute 

LC50 study with an estuarine/marine fish was requested because the submitted study with 

sheepshead minnow as classified as supplemental (MRID 41841218). The TGAI chronic 

life cycle studies were requested on the basis of EECs triggering full life cycle studies 

when compared to the ELS study with fathead minnow.

In response to this ecotoxicity data request, the registrant (Nichino America, Inc.) 

submitted a waiver request of the data requirements to the Agency on Sept 9th, 2002. Part 

of the rationale for requesting a waiver from the TEP studies was that there was no 

evidence to support the synergistic action of the two active ingredients in the coformulated product. The Agency has evaluated this waiver request and conducted its 

own comparison of TGAI vs. TEP toxicity (see Section IV.A above) and agrees that 

additional studies of the TEP are not required for the ecological risk assessment 
Page 35 of 45

supporting the registration review of flutolanil. The Agency has also re-evaluated the 

need to conduct the full life cycle studies with the TGAI and does not believe that 

absence of these data will hinder the ecological risk assessment. Finally, with respect to 

the acute toxicity test with sheepshead minnow (MRID 41841218), the Agency has rereviewed this study and has upgraded this study to acceptable due to lack of toxicity at 

the solubility limit of flutolanil.

The Agency has identified other environmental fate and ecological effects data 

that are needed to reduce major sources of uncertainty in the ecological risk assessment 

of flutolanil. These data needs and associated rationale are provided in Table 9.

Table 9. Environmental Fate and Ecological Effects Data Needs for Flutolanil.

Environmental Fate Data Gaps

OPPTS 

Guideline

Study Title Cost 

(if special 

study)

Rationale

835-4200 Guideline 162-2

Anaerobic Soil 

Metabolism

N/A CFR158 requires this study. Currently no 

acceptable studies have been submitted. 

Flutolanil can be used on potatoes, rice, 

peanuts, turf, and ornamentals. Since no 

information is available to determine the fate 

properties EFED must assume that it will 

runoff/drift in the environment and persist.

In order to calculate EEC’s in PRZM and 

assess the ecological risk and the drinking 

water risk, anaerobic soil data are needed.

Environmental chemical 

Methods 

(ECM)/Independent 

Laboratory Validation 

(ILV)

N/A CFR158 indicates that ECM used to generate 

data associated with terrestrial field 

dissipation study (835.6100), aquatic 

dissipation study (835.6200), forestry 

dissipation (835.6300), ground water 

monitoring (835.7100), and aquatic nontarget organism field dissipation (850.1950) 

studies must include results of a successful 

confirmation method trial by and independent 

laboratory (ILV). Currently no acceptable 

studies have been submitted. 

In order to use the data with confidence in 

the terrestrial dissipation, aquatic dissipation, 

and aquatic non-target organism field 

accumulation studies as well as assess the 

ecological risk, ECM and ILV data are 

needed.

Non 

Guideline 

Study

Measurement of OctanolAir Partition Coefficient 

(KOA)

N/A Recent peer-reviewed studies in the scientific 

literature indicate that KOA is an important 

factor in assessing the potential of organic 

chemicals to bioaccumulate and biomagnify 

in terrestrial food chains (e.g., Armitage and 

Gobas, 2007; Kelly et al., 2007; Czub and 

McLachlan, 2004; Kelly and Gobas, 2003; 
Page 36 of 45

Sharp and Mackay, 2000; McLachlan, 1996). 

No measured data on the KOA of flutolanil 

were found. However, model-predicted log 

KOA for flutolanil is high (10.6) based on 

EFED’s EPIsuite program, ver. 3.20. 

Measured data on KOA are being requested in 

order to confirm model-predicted values of 

KOA, which may be uncertain. This 

measurement is very important in evaluating 

the potential for flutolanil to bioaccumulate 

in terrestrial food chains.

Ecotoxicity Data Gaps

OPPTS 

Guideline

Study Title Cost

(if special 

study)

Rationale

No Guideline 

Available(1)

Chronic, Whole 

Sediment Invertebrate 

Toxicity

N/A According to 40CFR Part 158, the use 

patterns, physical-chemical properties and 

available toxicity data of flutolanil qualify it 

for a conditionally-required chronic sediment 

toxicity test. Specifically, the anaerobic 

metabolism half life of flutolanil is > 13 

years (far exceeding the 10 days criterion for 

a chronic sediment test). Further, both the 

log KOW (3.7) and KOC (up to 1300) exceed 

thresholds for chronic sediment testing (3.0 

and 1000, respectively). Finally, there is 

concern over estuarine/marine benthic 

invertebrates due to their demonstrated high 

sensitivity to flutolanil in water column tests 

(most sensitive aquatic species tested; EC50 

and NOAECs of 130 and 11.3 ppb, 

respectively). Therefore, results of the 

recommended chronic sediment toxicity 

testing could reasonably be expected to have 

a significant impact on the ecological risk 

assessment of flutolanil. Currently, there are 

no sediment toxicity data submitted for 

flutolanil.

123-2

(850.4150)

Vegetative Vigor (Tier I)

N/A

123-2

(850.4100)

Seedling Emergence

(Tier I)

N/A

Currently, no data are available on the 

toxicity of flutolanil to terrestrial plants. 

Screening (Tier I) studies are being 

recommended to address uncertainty 

regarding the potential impacts of flutolanil 

to non-target terrestrial plants. Such studies 

are required as outlined in 40CFR Part 158 

and are required in order to assess risks 

associated with flutolanil uses on terrestrial 

plants. These results are also needed for 

endangered species assessment for flutolanil.

(1) Other non-OPPT test guidelines are available for conducting assessing sediment chronic toxicity. 

Registrant should submit study protocol to EPA for review prior to initiation of testing.
Page 37 of 45

VIII. Bibliography

A. Fate References

MRID 40342940. Daly, D.; Ediger, K. (1987) W14 Hydrolysis of [Carbon 14]-Flutolanil as a Function of pH at 25 [degrees]C: ABC Final Report #35399. Unpublished 

study prepared by Analytical Bio-Chemistry Laboratories, Inc. 28 p. 

MRID 41841208. Carpenter, M.; Fennessey, M. (1991) Determination of 

Photodegradat- ion of [Carbon 14-Flutolanil] in Aqueous Solution: Lab Project Number: 

35176R: E642-01-87. Unpublished study prepared by Analytical Bio-Chemistry

Laboratories, Inc. 41 p. 

MRID 41841209. Bashir, M. (1991) Identification of Degradation Products of Flutolanil in an Aqueous Photosensitized Solution: Lab Project Number: 38426: E642.01.87. 

Unpublished study prepared by Analytical Bio-Chemistry Laboratories, Inc. 34 p. 

MRID 41841210. Carpenter, M. (1991) "Determination of the Photolysis Rate of Flutolanil on the Surface of Soil": Lab Project Number: 38480: 500AU Unpublished study

prepared by Analytical Bio-Chemistry Laborato- ries, Inc. 33 p. 

MRID 43175810. Hallberg, C. (1994) Determination of the Photolysis Rate of Flutolanil 

on the Surface of Soil: Amendment 1: Lab Project Number: 38480: 500AU. Unpublished 

study prepared by ABC Laboratories, Inc. 24 p. 

MRID 40342941. Aizawa, H. (1982) W20-Flutolanil: Decomposition Test of Flutolanil 

in Soil: Laboratory Project ID No. 56-076-(3). Unpublished study prepared by

Mitsubishi-Kasei Institute of Toxicological and Environmental Sciences. 38 p. 

MRID 40342942. Nakamura, Y.; Ishikawa, K.; Kuwatsuka, S. (1977) Degradation of 

benthiocarb in soils as affected by soil conditions. Journal of Pesticide Science 2:7-16. 

MRID 45756601. Swanson, M. (1996) Aerobic Soil Metabolism of (Carbon 14)-

Flutolanil: Final Report: Lab Project Number: A55786/W70: SC920104: 520 AU. 

Unpublished study prepared by Battelle Columbus Operations. 137 p. 

MRID. 41841211. Daly, D.; Williams, M. (1991) Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism of 

[Carbon 14]-Flutolanil: Lab Project Number: 36762: E642.02.88. Unpublished study

prepared by Analytical Bio-Chemistry Laboratories, Inc. 71 p. 

MRID 41841212. Daly, D. (1989) "Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism of [Carbon 14]-

Flutola- nil: Lab Project Number: 36763. Unpublished study prepared by Analytical BioChemistry Laboratories, Inc. 42 p. 
Page 38 of 45

MRID 40342943. Daly, D. (1987) W13-Soil/Sediment Adsorption-Desorption with 

[Car- bon 14]-Flutolanil: ABC Final Report #35398. Unpublished study prepared by 

Analytical Bio-Chemistry Laboratories, Inc. 52 p. 

MRID 41841213. Daly, D. (1991) "Soil/Sediment Adsorption-Desorption of Soil Incorporated [Carbon 14]-Flutolanil Following Aerobic Aging": Lab Project Number: 37793: 

E642.03.89. Unpublished study prepared by Analytical Bio-Chemistry Laboratories, Inc. 

35 p. 

MRID 42606626. Williams, M.; Heim, L. (1992) Soil/Sediment Adsorption-Desorption 

of (Carbon 14)-Desisopropyflutolanil: Lab Project Number: 40410. Unpublished study

prepared by ABC Labs, Inc. 58 p. 

MRID 42606627. Williams, M.; Berghaus, L. (1992) Soil/Sediment AdsorptionDesorption of (Carbon 14)-Flutolanil: Lab Project Number: 40130. Unpublished study

prepared by ABC Labs, Inc. 58 p. 

MRID 41837803. Castro, L. (1991) Dissipation of Flutolanil on Bare Soil Following 

Application of Flutolanil 50 WP, USA, 1989: Lab Project Number: R642.07.89. 

Unpublished study prepared by NOR-AM Chemical Co. 63 p. 

MRID 41837804. Castro, L. (1991) Dissipation of Flutolanil in Soil following 

Application of Flutolanil 50WP to Turf, USA, 1989: Lab Project Number: R642.10.89: 

38122. Unpublished study prepared by Nor-Am Chemical Co. in assoc. with ABC 

Laboratories, Inc. 65 p. 

MRID 43175809. Castro, L. (1993) Dissipation of Flutolanil in Soil Following 

Application of SN 84364 50WP To Peanuts, USA, 1988: Lab Project Number: 

R642.04.88. Unpublished study prepared by NOR-AM Chemical Co. (Analytical 

Services Dept. and Residue Chemistry Dept.). 84 p. 

MRID 45756602. Castro, L. (1994) Dissipation of Flutolanil on Bare Soil Following 

Application of Flutolanil 50 WP: Lab Project Number: FLUTOLANIL/W43: 

R642.07.89: B002392. Unpublished study prepared by Nor-Am Chemical Company. 97 

p. 

MRID 45756603. Castro, L. (1995) Dissipation of Flutolanil in Soil Following 

Application of Flutolanil 50 WP to Turf, USA, 1998: Lab Project Number: 38122: 

B002400: R642.10.89. Unpublished study prepared by ABC Laboratories, Inc. and 

AgrEvo Research Center. 117 p. 

MRID 42606618. Castro, L. (1992) Aquatic Field Dissipation of Flutolanil following 

Use at Highest Recommended Label Rates in Rice: Lab Project Number: R642.06.89. 

Unpublished study prepared by NOR-AM Chemical Co. and ABC Labs. 138 p. 
Page 39 of 45

MRID 43292603. Castro, L. (1993) Flutolanil/W62: Aquatic Field Dissipation of 

Flutolanil Following Application of MONCUT 50WP to Rice at Highest Recommended 

Label Rates, USA, 1991: Lab Project Number: AU/91R/03. Unpublished study prepared 

by NOR-AM Chemical Co., Residue Chemistry Dept. 94 p. 

MRID 43175804. Castro, L. (1993) Long-Term Field Dissipation of Flutolanil under 

Conditions of Peanut Cultivation Initiated 1989, USA: Lab Project Number: R642.08.89. 

Unpublished study prepared by NOR-AM Chemical Co.; ABC Laboratories. 114 p. 

MRID 42606615. Castro, L. (1992) Residues of Flutolanil in Crops and Soil Irrigated 

with Water Drained from Rice Fields Treated with Flutolanil 50WP: Lab Project 

Number: R642.03.90. Unpublished study prepared by NOR-AM Chemical Co. 89 p. 

MRID 40342944. Sudo, Y. (1984) W4-Flutolanil: Test on the Degree of Bioaccumulation of a, a, a-Trifluoro-3'-isopropoxy-o-toouanilide (Test Sub- stance No. S-837) in 

Carp: Report No. 35524E. Unpublished study prepared by Chemicals Inspection & 

Testing Institute. 62 p. 

MRID 41841214. Forbis, A. (1991) Uptake, Depuration and Bioconcentration of [Carbon 14]-Flutolanil by Bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus): Lab Project Number: 37902: 

E642.04.89. Unpublished study prepared by Analy- tical Bio-Chemistry Laboratories, 

Inc. 39 p. 

MRID 41841215. Heitkamp, J. (1991) Characterization of [Carbon 14]-Flutolanil 

Residues in Bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus) Water and Tissues: Lab Project Number: 

38946: E642.04.89. Unpublished study prepa- red by Analytical Bio-Chemistry

Laboratories, Inc. 58 p. 

MRID 42641101. Brady, S. (1992) Flutolanil-Derived Residues in or on Crayfish 

Grown in Rice Paddies Treated with Flutolanil 50 WP: Lab Project Number: R642.02.90. 

Unpublished study prepared by Nor-Am Chemical Co. 132 p. 

MRID 42606616. Castro, L. (1991) Stability of Flutolanil and Desisopropyl Flutolanil 

in Soil under Freezer Conditions for a Period of Two Years: Lab Project Number: 

E642.05.88. Unpublished study prepared by NOR-AM Chemical Co. 42 p. 

B. Ecological Effects References

Studies from the Open Literature

Armitage, J.M. and F.A.P.C. Gobas. 2007. A Terrestrial Food-Chain Bioaccumulation 

Model for POPs. Environ. Sci. Technol., 41(11):4019 -4025. 

Czub, G. and M.S. McLachlan. 2004. Bioaccumulation Potential of Persistent Organic 

Chemicals in Humans. Environ. Sci. Technol. 38:2406-2412.
Page 40 of 45

Fletcher, J.S., J.E. Nellessen, and T.G. Pfleeger. 1994. Literature review and evaluation 

of the EPA food-chain (Kenaga) nomogram, an instrument for estimating pesticide 

residues on plants. Environ. Tox. Chem. 13:1383-1391.

Hoerger, F. and E. E. Kenaga, 1972. Pesticide Residues on Plants: Correlation of 

Representative Data as a Basis for Estimation of their Magnitude in the Environment. In:

F. Coulston and F. Korte, eds., Environmental Quality and Safety: Chemistry, 

Toxicology, and Technology, Georg Thieme Publ., Stuttgart, West Germany, pp. 9-28.

IFAS/UF. 2006. Fungicide Resistance Action Committee's (FRAC) Classification 

Scheme of Fungicides According to Mode of Action. PI-94, Pesticide Information 

Office, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural 

Sciences, University of Florida. http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/PI131. 

Kelly, B.C. and F.A.P.C. Gobas. 2003. An Arctic Terrestrial Food-Chain 

Bioaccumulation Model for Persistent Organic Pollutants. Environ. Sci. Technol.

37:2966-2974.

Kelly, B.C., Ikonomou, M.G., Blair, J.D., Morin, A.E., and F.A.P.C. Gobas. 2007. Food 

Web-Specific Biomagnification of Persistent Organic Pollutants. Science. 317:236-239.

Motoba, K., Uchida, M., and Tada, E. 1988. Mode of antifungal action and selectivity of 

flutolanil. Agric. Biol. Chem. 52(6):1445-1449.

McLachlan, M.S. 1996. Bioaccumulation of Hydrophobic Chemicals in Agricultural 

Food Chains. Environ. Sci. Technol. 30:252-259.

Sharpe, S. and D. Mackay. 2000. A Framework for Evaluating Bioaccumulation in Food 

Webs. Environ. Sci. Technol. 34:2373-2379.

Teske, Milton E., and Thomas B. Curbishley. 2003. AgDisp ver 8.07 Users Manual. 

USDA Forest Service, Morgantown, WV.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1998. Guidelines for Ecological Risk 

Assessment. Risk Assessment Forum, Office of Research and Development, 

Washington, D.C. EPA/630/R-95/002F. April 1998. 

http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=30759

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2000. Flutolanil Section 3 New Use on Potato 

Seed-Pieces: Environmental Fate and Ecological Risk Assessment. Office of Pesticide 

Programs, Environmental Fate and Effects Division. Washington, DC 20460 (DP 

260099)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2004. Overview of the Ecological Risk 

Assessment Process in the Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection 
Page 41 of 45

Agency. Endangered and Threatened Species Effects Determinations. Office of 

Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Office of Pesticide Programs, Washington, 

D.C. January 23, 2004. http://www.epa.gov/espp/consultation/ecorisk-overview.pdf

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2007a. Flutolanil: Human Health Risk 

Assessment: Request for Inadvertent or Indirect Tolerances for Use on Soybean, Wheat, 

Corn and Cotton. Office of Pesticide Programs, Health Effects Division. Washington, DC 

20460 (DP 335050, 334156).

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 2007b. ECOTOXicology Database. Office of 

Research and Development National Health and Environmental Effects Research 

Laboratory’s (NHEERL’s) Mid-Continent Ecology Division (MED). 

http://cfpub.epa.gov/ecotox/

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2007c. Ecological Incident Information System. 

http://www.epa.gov/espp/consultation/ecorisk-overview.pdf

Registrant Submitted Studies:

Guideline: 71-1 Avian Single Dose Oral Toxicity

MRID: 40342929

Roberts, N.; Fairley, C. (1986) W8-The Acute Oral Toxicity (LD50) of Flutolanil to the 

Mallard Duck: Laboratory Project ID No. NNU 21BT/861566. Unpublished study 

prepared by Huntingdon Research Centre. 31 p. 

MRID: 40342930

Roberts, N.; Fairley, C. (1987) W9-The Acute Oral Toxicity (LD50) of Flutolanil to the 

Bobwhite Quail: Laboratory Project ID No. NNU 20BT/861565. Unpublished study 

prepared by Huntingdon Re- search Centre. 31 p. 

Guideline: 71-2 Avian Dietary Toxicity

MRID: 40342931

Roberts, N.; Fairley, C. (1986) W10-The Subacute Dietary Toxicity (LC50) of Flutolanil 

to the Mallard Duck: Laboratory Project ID No. NNu 23BT/861568. Unpublished study 

prepared by Huntingdon Research Centre. 28 p. 

MRID: 40342932

Roberts, N.; Fairley, C. (1986) W7-The Subacute Dietary (LC50) of Flutolanil to the 

Bobwhite Quail: Laboratory Project ID No. NNU 22BT/861567. Unpublished study 

prepared by Huntingdon Research Centre. 29 p. 

Guideline: 71-4 Avian Reproduction
Page 42 of 45

MRID: 42932301

Beavers, J.; Hoxter, K.; Jaber, M. (1993) W64 Flutolanil: Flutolanil Technical: A OneGeneration Reproduction Study with the Bobwhite (Colinus virginianus): Lab Project 

Number: 244-108. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International Ltd. 167 p. 

MRID: 42932302

Beavers, J.; Hoxter, K.; Jaber, M. (1993) W64 Flutolanil: Flutolanil Technical: A OneGeneration Reproduction Study with the Mallard (Anas platyrhynchos): Lab Project 

Number: 244-109. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International Ltd. 173 p. 

Guideline: 72-1 Acute Toxicity to Freshwater Fish

MRID: 40342933

Bowman, J. (1987) W16 Acute Toxicity of Flutolanil Technical to Rainbow Trout 

(Salmo gairdneri): ABC Final Report #35378. Un- published study prepared by

Analytical Bio-Chemistry Laboratories, Inc. 143 p. 

MRID: 40342934

Bowman, J. (1987) W17 Acute Toxicity of Flutolanil Technical to Bluegill Sunfish 

(Lepomis macrochirus): ABC Final Report #35377. Unpublished study prepared by

Analytical Bio-Chemistry Laboratories, Inc. 149 p. 

MRID: 40342936

Tsuchiya, K.; Sugimoto, T. (1982) W6-Report on Flutolanil Toxicity Tests on Aquatic 

Organisms: Laboratory Project ID No. W-3001. Unpublished study prepared by Institute 

of Life Science Re- search. 35 p. 

MRID: 41841216

Bowman, J. (1990) Acute Toxicity of Flutolanil Technical to Fathead Minnow 

(Pimephales promelas): Lab Project Number: 38101: E642.05 .89. Unpublished study 

prepared by Analytical Bio-Chemistry Laboratories, Inc. 39 p. 

Guideline: 72-2 Acute Toxicity to Freshwater Invertebrates

MRID: 41841217

Hicks, S.; Young, B.; Forbis, A. (1990) Acute Toxicity of Flutolan- il to Daphnia magna: 

Lab Project Number: 38718: E642.08.89. Un- published study prepared by Analytical 

Bio-Chemistry Laboratori- es, Inc. 40 p. 

Guideline: 72-3 Acute Toxicity to Estuarine/Marine Organisms

MRID: 41841218

Bowman, J.; Gormley, M. (1991) Acute Toxicity of Flutolanil Technical to Sheepshead 

Minnow (Cyprinodon variegatus): Lab Project Number: 38719: 502 AU. Unpublished 

study prepared by Analytical Biochemistry Laboratories, Inc. 30 p. 
Page 43 of 45

MRID: 41841220

Forbis, A. (1991) Acute Toxicity of Flutolanil to Mysidopsis bahia: Lab Project Number: 

38720: E642.07.89. Unpublished study prepa red by Analytical Biochemistry

Laboratories, Inc. 44 p.

MRID: 41841219

Ward, T.; Boeri, R. (1991) Acute Flow-through Mollusc Shell Deposition Test with 

Flutolanil: Lab Project Number: 9062-AB: E642.09 .89. Unpublished study prepared by

Resource Analysts, Inc. 55 p. 

Guideline: 72-4 Fish Early Life Stage/Aquatic Invertebrate Life Cycle Study

MRID: 43552001

Rhodes, J.; Muckerman, M. (1995) W69 Flutolanil: Early Life-Stage Toxicity of 

Flutolanil to the Fathead Minnow (Pimephales promelas) Under Flow-Through 

Conditions: Final Report: Lab Project Number: 41685. Unpublished study prepared by 

ABC Labs, Inc. 176 p. 

MRID: 41850807

Blakemore, G.; Burgess, D. (1991) 21-Day Chronic Static Renewal Toxicity of Flutolanil 

to Daphnia magna: Flutolanil/W 48: Final Report #38721; 503 AU. Unpublished study

prepared by Analytical Bio-Chemistry Laboratories, Inc. 51 p. 

MRID: 43511601

Boeri, R.; Kowalski, P.; Ward, T. (1995) Life-Cycle Toxicity of Flutolanil to the Mysid, 

Mysidopsis bahia: Lab Project Number: 522AU: 481-NI: W66. Unpublished study

prepared by T.R. Wilbury Labs, Inc. 51 p. 

Guideline: 81-1 Acute oral toxicity in rats

MRID: 40342906

Kosaka, T.; Saito, T. (1982) T6-NNF-136: Acute Toxicity Study in Rats. Unpublished 

study prepared by The Institute of Environ- mental Toxicology. 17 p. 

MRID: 40342907

Cummins, H. (1986) T9-Flutolanil: Moncut Wettable Powder: Acute Oral Toxicity in the 

Rat: Laboratory Project ID No. 86/NNH004/ 227. Unpublished study prepared by Life 

Science Research Ltd. 22 p. 

MRID: 42255205

Rees, S.; Routh, M. (1992) T44 Flutolanil 70 WDG (CR 19769-1): Rat Acute Oral 

Toxicity Study: Lab Project Number: TOX/91/237-1. Unpublished study prepared by 

Schering Ag., Ltd. 24 p. 

MRID: 43594004
Page 44 of 45

Shults, S.; Brock, A.; Laveglia, J. (1994) ASC 66783: Acute Oral Toxicity (LD50) Study

in Rats With Chlorothalonil Plus Flutolanil (ASC 66783-0201-0202): Lab Project 

Number: 5933-93-0350-TX-001. Unpublished study prepared by Ricerca, Inc. 42 p. 

MRID: 43971414

McFarlane, M. (1994) T49 Flutolanil: PC 511 Formulation (CR21305/01/940101): Rat 

Acute Oral Toxicity Study: Lab Project Number: TOX 94168: TOX/94/237-13. 

Unpublished study prepared by AgrEvo UK Ltd. 22 p. 

MRID: 45103901

Graver, K. (2000) Acute Oral Toxicity/LD50 in Rats: Systar WDG: Lab Project Number: 

MB 99-7541.01: 1000. Unpublished study prepared by MB Research Labs. 13 p. 

{OPPTS 870.1100} 

MRID: 45136401

Cerven, D. (1998) Single Dose Oral Toxicity in Rats/LD 50 in Rats: Systar Fungicide: 

Lab Project Number: MB 97-6294.01: 67-04. Unpublished study prepared by MB 

Research Laboratories, Inc. 12 p. 

MRID: 45524003

Merkel, D. (2001) Acute Oral Toxicity Study in Rats: NAI-007: Lab Project Number: 

10929. Unpublished study prepared by Product Safety Labs. 21 p. {OPPTS 870.1100} 

Guideline: 83-4 2-generation repro.-rat

MRID: 40342923

Tsujimura, S. (1982) T2-Flutolanil: Three Generation Reproduction and Teratogenicity 

Study on Flutolanil in the Rat: Study No. 124. Unpublished study prepared by Imamichi 

Institute for Animal Reproduction. 264 p. 

Guideline: 122-2 Aquatic plant growth

MRID: 41841223

Bogers, M. (1990) Scenedesmus Subpicatus, Fresh Water Algal Growth Inhibition Test 

with Flutolanil Technical: Lab Project Number: 024467. Unpublished study prepared by

R C C Notox B.V. 25 p. 

MRID: 41841224

Hughes, J. (1990) The Toxicity of Flutolanil Technical to Selenastrum capricornutum: 

Lab Project Number: B643-01-4: 507 AU. Unpublished study prepared by Malcolm 

Pirnie, Inc. 25 p. 

MRID: 42606621

Hughes, J. (1990) The Toxicity of Flutolanil Technical to Anabaena flos-aquae: Lab 

Project Number: B643-01-5. Unpublished study prepared by Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. 23 p. 
Page 45 of 45

MRID: 42606622

Hughes, J. (1990) The Toxicity of Flutolanil Technical to Lemna gibba G3: Lab Project 

Number: B643-01-8. Unpublished study prepared by Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. 22 p. 

MRID: 42606623

Hughes, J. (1991) The Toxicity of Flutolanil Technical to Skeletonema costatum: Lab 

Project Number: B643-01-7. Unpublished study prepared by Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. 23 p. 

MRID: 42606624

Hughes, J. (1991) The Toxicity of Flutolanil Technical to Navicula pelliculosa: Lab 

Project Number: B643-01-6. Unpublished study prepared by Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. 23 p. 

MRID: 42606625

Hughes, J. (1991) The Toxicity of Flutolanil Technical to Navicula pelliculosa at the 

Concentration Equivalent to the Maximum Treatment Rate for Rice: Lab Project 

Number: B643-02-1. Unpublished study prepared by Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. 23 p. 

Guideline: 141-1 Honey bee acute contact

MRID: 40342938

Matsuura, M. (1987?) W3-Flutolanil: Effects of Moncut Dry Flow- able on Honey Bee: 

Laboratory Project ID No. N3001. Unpublished study prepared by Mie University. 8 p.