Environmental Fate and Ecological Risk Assessment 

for Proposed New Uses of Thiophante Methyl for Seed Treatments 

 

THIOPHANATE METHYL 

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

CAS name: Dimethyl((1,2,-phenylene)bis(iminocarbonothioyl))bis(carbamate) 

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

Prepared by:

Faruque A. Khan, Environmental Scientist 

Nicholas E. Federoff, Wildlife Biologist 

Reviewed by:

Jean Holmes, Secondary Reviewer 

Mohammed Ruhman, Secondary Reviewer 

Karen Whitby, Acting Branch Chief

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Pesticide Programs 

Environmental Fate and Effects Division 

Environmental Risk Branch IV 

Ariel Rios Building (Mail Code 7507C) 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW 

Washington, DC 20460
2

Table of Contents 

I. Executive Summary ............................................................. . .....................3 

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

A. Stressor Source and Distribution...............................................................4 

1. Sources and Intensity........................ ............................................4 

2. Physicochemical, Fate, and Transport Properties ...................................4 

3. Pesticide Type, Class, and Mode of Action ..........................................4 

4. Overview of Pesticide Usage ...........................................................4 

B. Receptors ..........................................................................................5 

1. Ecological Effects .. ....................................................................5 

2. Ecosystems at Risk .....................................................................5 

C. Assessment Endpoints ........................................................................6 

D. Conceptual Model ...............................................................................6 

1. Risk Hypotheses .........................................................................6 

2. Diagram ...................................................................................7 

E. Analysis plan. ......................................................................................9 

1. Preliminary Identification of Data Gaps Use ..........................................9 

2. Measure to Evaluate Risk Hypotheses and Conceptual Model ....................9 

III. 

Analyses ....................................................................................................12 

A. Use Characterization ....................................................................12 

B Exposure Characterization ... ........................................................14 

1. Environmental Fate and Transport Characterization . ....................14 

2. Measure of Aquatic Exposure .. ..............................................16 

3. Measure of Terrestrial Exposure .............................................19 

C. Ecological Effects Characterization ..................................................20 

1. Aquatic Effects Characterization ............................................20 

2. Terrestrial Effects Characterization ........................................20 

IV. Risk Characterization ..................................................................................22 

A. Risk Estimation-Integration of Exposure and Effects Data ......................21 

B. Risk Description . .......................................................................27 

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

VI. Appendices 

Appendix A. Data Requirement Tables for Thiophanate Methyl............................35 

Appendix B. Structures of TM Parent and Degradates .......................................39 

Appendix C. Environmental Fate and Transport ...........................................41 

Appendix D. Aquatic Exposure: Model and Results ......................................45 

Appendix E. Terrestrial Exposure: Model and Results ... .................................55 

Appendix F. Ecological Effects Data ........................................................57 
3

I. Executive Summary

Thiphanate Methyl (TM) and its primary degradation product methyl 2-benzimidzolylcarbamate 

or carbendazim (MBC) are the potential stressors that would result from proposed application of 

TM as various seed treatments. Thiophanate methyl is a systemic fungicide that is absorbed by 

sprouts, leaves, and roots of plants and translocated within the transpiration system in plant xylem. 

TM and it’s primary degradate, MBC, inhibit the development of fungal germ tubes, the formation 

of appressoria, and the growth of mycelia. Their fungitoxic action is based on blockage of nuclear 

division during mitosis and destabilization of fungal cell structures. 

Thiophanate methyl degrades primarily to MBC whether on foliage, in soil, or in water. While the 

TM degradation rate is slower on foliage than in the terrestrial and aquatic environments, the 

conversion of TM to MBC is expected to be rapid under most normal agricultural conditions. The 

primary routes of degradation of TM are via aerobic soil metabolism (T1⁄2 ≤ 1 day) and aqueous 

photolysis (T1⁄2 ≤ 3.0 days). Available data indicate that MBC is less mobile and significantly more 

persistent than TM in many soils, especially under anaerobic conditions. The MBC aerobic soil 

half-life is 320 days, while the anaerobic aquatic metabolism half lives ranges from 31 to 743 days. 

In general, TM is considered to be slightly to moderately toxic to fish (freshwater and 

estuarine/marine) and aquatic invertebrates (freshwater and estuarine/marine) on an acute basis. 

Chronic effects (survival) were also observed in catfish larval, daphnids and mysid shrimp. TM is 

practically non-toxic to avian and mammalian species on an acute basis. Avian chronic toxicity 

data suggest that exposure to TM can result in decreases in egg production and body weight. 

Reproductive effects to mammals were also noted. Acute toxicity to honeybees shows that TM is 

practically non-toxic to non-target insects. 

The focus of terrestrial wildlife acute exposure estimates is for birds and mammals with an 

exposure route emphasis on uptake of TM treated seed as diet. Because of the rapid degradation 

of TM to MBC and the persistence of MBC in soil and water, acute risks to aquatic organisms are 

assessed based on the assumption that exposure is primarily to TM and MBC and chronic risks to 

aquatic organisms are assessed based on the assumption that exposure is primarily to MBC. An 

evaluation of the proposed uses for selected seed treatments suggests that this compound should 

not pose risk to avian, mammalian, and aquatic or plant species. Low terrestrial and aquatic risks 

are mainly due to low toxicities, low application rates and the seeds are incorporated, thus 

reducing exposure. Since thiophanate-methyl is categorized as relatively nontoxic to bees, low 

risk is also assumed. The octanol/water partition coefficients (log Kow) for TM and MBC are less 

than 1.22 indicating low potential for these chemical to bioaccumulate in organisms. 

No data on monitored concentrations of TM or MBC were found in surface water or ground water. 

Neither TM nor its primary degradate, MBC, are regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act. 

As a result, neither Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) nor drinking water health advisories 

(HAs) for these chemicals have been established by the EPA Office of Water.
4

II. Problem Formulation 

A. Stressor Source and Distribution 

 1. Sources and Intensity 

Thiophanate Methyl (TM) and its primary degradation product methyl 2-benzimidzolylcarbamate 

or carbendazim (MBC) are the potential stressors that would result from proposed application of 

TM as various seed treatments. Following planting of TM treated seeds, rapid biodegradation in 

soil is expected to result in the formation of its major degradation product MBC. Available data 

indicate that MBC is less mobile and significantly more persistent than TM in many soils. MBC 

has a low potential to leach to ground water from most typical uses. Additional transport 

mechanism includes runoff from TM treated fields. Thus, the major concerns are the exposure of 

non-target terrestrial and aquatic organisms to TM and its metabolite, MBC and exposure of 

non-target terrestrial organisms to TM treated seeds. 

 2. Physicochemical, Fate, and Transport Properties 

The environmental fate of TM in aquatic and terrestrial environments is dependent on rapid abiotic 

and biotic degradation of TM and formation of MBC. MBC is the major degradation product and 

active ingredient of TM. MBC is also a major metabolite of benomyl, a registered pesticide. MBC 

is significantly more persistent in many soils and less mobile than the parent TM. Volatilization of 

TM and MBC from moist soil surfaces is not expected to be an important fate process based upon 

estimated Henry’s Law constants of 1.2 E-9 atm-cu m/mole for TM and 2.1 E-11 9 atm-cu m/mole 

for MBC. 

3. Pesticide Type, Class, and Mode of Action 

Thiophanate methyl is a benzimidazole class of systemic fungicide that is absorbed by sprouts, 

leaves, and roots of plants and translocated within the transpiration system in plant xylem. TM and 

it’s primary degradate, MBC, inhibit the development of fungal germ tubes, the formation of 

appressoria, and the growth of mycelia. Their fungi toxic action is based on blockage of nuclear 

division during mitosis and destabilization of fungal cell structures. 

4. Overview of Pesticide Usage 

This assessment is intended to address the proposed new uses of TM as a seed treatment. The 

proposed new uses of TM include sweet corn, peanuts, legume vegetables and wheat. TM is also 

currently registered for use on a wide variety of agricultural food and feed crops and may be 

applied by soil application, seed treatment and foliar application. There are also non-food/feed use 

sites such as golf courses, sod farms, greenhouses and nurseries. Thiophanate-methyl has 

registered residential uses on lawns, ornamental trees, shrubs, and plants. 

B. Receptors 
5

1. Ecological Effects 

Ecological measures of effect for TM and MBC are based on registrant-submitted toxicity studies. 

Acute and chronic endpoints are selected from available test data, as the data set allows. A 

complete discussion of all toxicity data available for this risk assessment and the resulting 

measures of ecological effects selected for each taxonomic group are included in Appendix F of 

this document. 

2. Ecosystems at Risk 

Aquatic ecosystems potentially at risk include water bodies like adjacent to, or downstream from 

the adjacent fields planted with TM treated seeds. The water bodies include ponds, lakes, and 

reservoirs, or flowing waterways such as streams or rivers. Since TM has the potential to be used 

in coastal areas, marine ecosystems (including estuaries) are also potentially at risk. Risks will be 

assessed for aquatic animals (fish, invertebrates, amphibians) and plants, which are assumed to 

occur in small, static ponds that receive runoff from adjacent fields planted with TM treated seeds. 

 

Terrestrial ecosystems potentially at risk include area and areas immediately adjacent fields 

planted with TM treated seeds that might receive runoff, and might include other cultivated fields, 

fence rows and hedgerows, meadows, fallow fields or grasslands, woodlands, riparian habitats and 

other uncultivated areas. For Tier-I assessment purposes, risk will be assessed to terrestrial 

animals (birds, reptiles, mammals and insects) and plants are assumed to exclusively occur in the 

treated area. 

 C. Assessment Endpoints 

Assessment endpoints are explicit expressions of the actual environmental value that is to be 

protected. Assessment endpoint selection is based on valued entities or ecological receptors, the 

ecosystems potentially at risk, pesticide migration pathways, and routes by which ecological 

receptors may be exposed to the stressor. A summary of the assessment endpoints and measures 

of ecological effect selected to characterize potential ecological risks associated with exposure to 

TM and MBC for the proposed new uses is provided in Table II.a. Specifically, this assessment 

addresses birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, invertebrates, plants, and fish. Birds are used as 

surrogates for reptiles and terrestrial-phase amphibians, and fish are used as surrogates for 

aquatic-phase amphibians. Although all endpoints are measured at the individual level, they 

provide insight about risks at higher levels of biological organization (e.g. populations and 

communities). For example, pesticide effects on individual survivorship have important 

implications for both population rates and habitat carrying capacity. 

Table II.a. Summary of Ecological Risk Assessment Endpoints for TM and MBC
6

Assessment Endpoint Effects Measurement Endpoint 

1. Survival, reproduction, and growth of 

individuals and populations of birds 

1a. Oral LD50 (Japanese quail; mallard duck) 

1b. Dietary LC50 (mallard duck; bobwhite, Japanese quail) 

1c. Reproductive NOAEC, LOAEC (bobwhite quail, mallard duck) 

2. Survival, reproduction, and growth of 

individuals and populations of mammals 

2a. Oral LD50 (rat) 

2b. Dietary LC50 (rat) 

2c. Reproductive NOAEC, LOAEC (rat) 

3. Survival and reproduction of individuals 

and communities of freshwater fish and 

invertebrates 

3a. LC50 (rainbow trout; bluegill sunfish; fathead minnow) 

3b. Reproductive NOAEC, LOAEC (fathead minnow) 

3c. LC50 (Daphnia magna, Daphnia pulex, cyclopoid and calanoid copepods,

Asellus aquaticus, Cloeon dipterum, Gammarus pulex, Notonecta glauca, 

Chironomus riparius, Chaoborus crystallinus, Chironomus riparius) 

3d. Reproductive NOAEC, LOAEC (Daphnia magna) 

4. Survival and reproduction of individuals 

and communities of estuarine/marine fish and 

invertebrates 

4a. LC50 (sheepshead minnow) 

4b. LC50 (Eastern oyster, mysid shrimp) 

5. Maintenance and growth of individuals and 

populations of aquatic plants from standing 

crop or biomass 

5a. NOAEC, EC25 (Selenastrum capricornutum) 

6. Perpetuation of individuals and populations 

of non-target terrestrial plants (crops and 

non-crop plant species) 

6a. Vegetative vigor (11 species) 

6b. Seedling emergence (11 species) 

7. Survival of terrestrial invertebrate 

populations 

7a. Contact/oral LD50 (honeybee) 

This ecological risk assessment considers only seed treatment. This assessment is not intended to 

represent a site- or time-specific analysis; it is intended to represent high-end exposures at a 

national level. The most sensitive toxicity measures of effect are used from surrogate test species 

to estimate treatment-related direct effects on acute mortality and chronic reproductive, growth, 

and survival assessment endpoints. 

D. Conceptual Model 

1. Risk Hypotheses 

Risk hypotheses are specific assumptions about potential adverse effects (i.e., changes in 

assessment endpoints) and may be based on theory and logic, empirical data, mathematical models, 

or probability models (EPA 1998a). For this assessment, the risk is stressor-initiated, where the 

stressor is the release of TM to the environment. The following risk hypothesis is presumed for 

this screening-level assessment: 

The use of TM as seed treatment on various crops will likely involve situations where terrestrial 

and aquatic animals and plants will be exposed to the chemical and/or its degradation product 

MBC. Based on information on environmental fate, mode of action, direct toxicity and potential 

indirect effects, EFED assumes that TM and MBC have the potential to cause reduced survival, 
growth, and reproduction to terrestrial and/or aquatic animals and plants as a result of the 

proposed uses of the pesticide. 

The conceptual model is a generic graphic depiction of the risk hypothesis (Figure 1). It includes 

the potential pesticide or stressor (TM), the source of the pesticide and/or transport pathways, 

exposure media, exposure point, biological receptor types, and attribute changes. 

2. Diagram 

Based on an examination of the physical/chemical properties of TM and MBC, the fate and 

disposition in the environment, and mode of application (seed treatment), a conceptual model 

(Figure 1) was developed that represents the possible relationships between the stressors, 

ecological receptors, and the assessment endpoints. 

In order for a chemical to pose an ecological risk, it must reach ecological receptors in biologically 

significant concentrations. An exposure pathway is the means by which a pesticide moves in the 

environment from a source to an ecological receptor. For an ecological exposure pathway to be 

complete, it must have a source, a release mechanism, an environmental transport medium, a point 

of exposure for ecological receptors, and a feasible route of exposure. In addition, the potential 

mechanisms of degradation/transformation (i.e., which degradation/transformation products may 

form in the environment, in which media, and how much) must be understood, especially for a 

chemical whose metabolites/transformation products are of greater toxicological concern than the 

parent compound. The assessment of ecological exposure pathways, therefore, includes an 

examination of the source and potential migration pathways for constituents, and the 

determination of potential exposure routes. 

Under the proposed uses of TM, the sources and mechanisms of release of the compound are seed 

treatment applications to agricultural crops. Surface runoff from the areas of application is 

assumed to depend on factors such as topography, irrigation, and rainfall events. Direct deposition 

may result in contamination of food items that may be consumed by terrestrial organisms. 

The major point of exposure for aquatic organisms is direct contact with contaminated water (gill/ 

integument uptake), while for terrestrial animals it is consumption of TM coated seeds. For plants, 

the point of exposure is root uptake. 

The representative aquatic receptors are certain freshwater and estuarine/ marine fish, 

invertebrates, and, in certain cases, aquatic plants. The representative terrestrial receptors are 

mammals, birds, and, in certain cases, terrestrial plants. It should be noted, that these species do 

not cover all the possible species in the animal and plant kingdoms; certain taxa are considered as 

surrogates for other taxa. For example, fish are considered surrogates for amphibians. The 

attribute changes depend on the type of test (e.g., reduced survival, growth, or reproduction for 

animals and seedling emergence and vegetative vigor for plants). 

7

Stressors

Thiophanate Methyl formulated product applied as Seed Treatment

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

Source
8

E. Analysis Plan 

This document characterizes the environmental fate and effects of TM and its metabolite MBC to 

assess whether proposed label uses of this compound results in potential risk to non-target 

organisms at levels above the Agency’s LOCs. The Agency is particularly concerned with 

potential risk to non-target aquatic organisms based on TM ’s moderate toxicity to fish and aquatic 

invertebrates. The methods by which the Agency will evaluate potential exposures, effects, and 

risks to non-target organisms are described below. Available environmental fate, ecotoxicity, and 

physicochemical property data were taken from previous assessments conducted by EFED (U.S. 

EPA 2002). These data were not re-evaluated for this assessment; however, a cursory review of 

submitted studies was performed for this assessment.

1. Preliminary Identification of Data Gaps 

Although some registrant-submitted studies contained deficiencies, the studies as a whole 

provided sufficient information for assessing environmental fate of TM and MBC for this 

assessment. The environmental fate data for TM and MBC is largely complete. The ecological 

effects and environmental fate database for TM and MBC is also largely complete. Although some 

ecological data were not submitted, the ecological effects data is complete for the proposed 

application as a seed treatment. 

2. Measures to Evaluate Risk Hypotheses and Conceptual Model 

a. Measures of Exposure 

Exposure to aquatic organisms is assumed to occur through direct contact with contaminated water. 

Aquatic exposures can be estimated from monitoring data or by simulation modeling. In this 

assessment, measures of exposure for TM and MBC are made with simulation modeling. 

Generally, aquatic exposure estimates are generated from EFED models and incorporate 

maximum proposed use rates and empirically-derived fate properties. They represent the 

environmental concentration that would be expected to be equaled or exceeded once every ten 

years at a site used to grow a specific crop that is more vulnerable than 90% of the sites in the 

country which are used for that crop. Pesticide loading is assumed to occur from a 10 hectare field 

that drains into a pond with an area of 1 hectare and a depth of 2 meters. This watershed geometry 

is commonly referred to as the ‘standard pond.’ The linkage program Shell PE4V0 (U.S. EPA, 

2004) for PRZM and EXAMS models is typically used by EFED in estimating pesticide 

concentrations in aquatic systems. Selected crop scenarios for corn, soybean, peanuts and wheat 

were used in the TIER II models to capture TM’s proposed use pattern. Further details of the 

exposure models are discussed in Section III and on the web at 

http://epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm. 

For the terrestrial assessment, TM coated seeds as potential dietary sources for mammals and birds 

were estimated using the Tier 1 model TREX. In this Tier 1 assessment, it was assumed that 

organisms are exposed to parent TM in a given exposure scenario. 
9

b. Measures of Effect 

 Measures of effect are based on deleterious changes in a receptor as a result of chemical 

exposure. Functionally, measures of effect typically used in risk assessments include changes in 

survival, reproduction, or growth as determined from standard laboratory toxicity tests. The focus 

on these effects for quantitative risk assessment is due to their clear relationship to higher-order 

ecological systems (i.e. populations, communities, ecosystems). Although effects other than 

survival, reproduction, and growth may be considered, rarely are they used quantitatively to 

estimate risks since, in many cases, the relationship between these non-standard endpoints and 

higher-order impacts is tenuous at best. Commonly used laboratory-derived toxicity values 

include estimates of acute mortality (e.g., LD50, LC50) and estimates of effects due to longer term, 

chronic exposures (e.g., NOAEL, NOAEC). More details concerning measures of effects used in 

this assessment can be found in Section III C, Ecological Effects Characterization. 

c. Measures of Ecosystem and Receptor Characteristics 

Field studies are not available to determine the indirect effects to plant and animal communities in 

wetland and riparian habitats along freshwater/marine waterbodies near target fields or to forest 

and edge habitats adjacent to target fields. The assessment endpoints specified in Table II can be 

summarized as survival, growth, and reproduction of terrestrial and aquatic receptors to include 

birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibian, fish, invertebrates, and plants. The response of these 

receptors to TM and MBC exposure is represented by a small number of toxicity studies on 

representative or surrogate species. Thus, there is considerable uncertainty regarding the response 

of a receptor, since data for all species potentially exposed are not available. The most sensitive 

available measure of effect for a given assessment endpoint is used to accommodate for some of 

this inherent uncertainty. However, the extent to which this is sufficient is unknown. 

The ecosystems selected for modeling using PRZM/EXAMS for the aquatic assessment and 

T-REX for the terrestrial animal assessment are intended to be generally representative of any 

aquatic or terrestrial ecosystem associated with areas where TM may be applied. For aquatic 

assessments, freshwater and estuarine/marine fish, invertebrates, and plants are represented. For 

terrestrial assessments, mammals (15g mammals) and birds (20g mammals) are represented by 

most vulnerable size, and TM treated seeds are used as primary foraging category. 

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

Taxonomic 

Group

Assessment 

Endpoint

Measures of Effect 

(Toxicity Endpoints)

Measures of Exposure 

(Exposure Endpoints)

Survival 

Oral LD50 and dietary LC50 (most 

sensitive species), adjusted for size for 

20 g bird 

Maximum residue on food items 

(foliar) or LD50/ft2

Birds 

Reproduction, 

Growth 

NOAEC/LOAEC from avian chronic 

study (most sensitive species) 

Maximum residue on food items 

(foliar) or LD50/ft2
10

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

Taxonomic 

Group

Assessment 

Endpoint

Measures of Effect 

(Toxicity Endpoints)

Measures of Exposure 

(Exposure Endpoints)

Survival Acute oral LD50, dietary LC50 (most 

sensitive species) 

Maximum concentration on food items 

(foliar) or LD50/ft2

Mammals 

Reproduction, 

Growth 

NOAEC/LOAEC from chronic 

reproduction study (most sensitive 

species) 

Maximum concentration on food items 

Non-target 

Terrestrial 

Invertebrates 

Survival Honey-bee acute contact LD50 Maximum application rate 

Terrestrial Plants Survival and 

Growth Tier I, Tier II plant toxicity data; EC25 Estimates of runoff to non-target areas 

Survival 96-hr LC50 (most sensitive species) Peak EEC 

Freshwater Fish Reproduction, 

Growth 

Fish Early Life Stage NOAEC/LOAEC 

for Growth 60-day average EEC 

 Survival 48-hr LC50 (most sensitive species) Peak EEC 

Freshwater 

Invertebrate Reproduction, 

Growth Invertebrate Life Cycle NOAEC 21-day average EEC 

 Survival 96-hr LC50 (most sensitive species) Peak EEC 

Marine/estuarine 

Fish Reproduction, 

Growth 

Estuarine/Marine Fish NOAEC for 

growth 60-day average EEC 

 Survival 48-hr EC50 (most sensitive species) Peak EEC 

Marine/estuarine 

Invertebrate Reproduction, 

Growth 

NOAEC for reproduction for most 

sensitive species 21-day average EEC 

Aquatic Plants Survival, Growth Tier I, Tier II plant toxicity estimates; 

EC25

1-in-10 year peak concentration 
11

III. Analysis 

Use Characterization ( Proposed Use and Current Registrations)

This assessment is intended to address the proposed new uses of TM as a seed treatment. The 

proposed new uses of TM include sweet corn (D315775; IR-4), peanuts, legume vegetables and 

wheat (D323266). Taken together, these commodities are grown throughout the United States. No 

new fate or ecotoxicity data were submitted in support of the proposed new uses; therefore, data 

used for the current assessment were taken directly from these previous evaluations. Previously 

submitted data were not re-evaluated. Table III.a shows the maximum application rates and 

application frequency for selected seed treatments. 

Table III.a. Proposed new uses for seed treatment 

Crops Maximum Application Rates (lbs a.i./ac) 

or as indicated # Application/Year 

Peanuts 0.16 1 

Corn 0.09 1 

Soybean 0.03 1 

Wheat 0.04 1 

TM is currently registered for use on a wide variety of agricultural food and feed crops and may 

be applied by soil application, seed treatment and foliar application. There are also non-food/feed 

use sites such as golf courses, sod farms, greenhouses and nurseries. TM has registered residential 

uses on lawns, ornamental trees, shrubs, and plants. Total annual domestic usage of TM ranges 

from 450,000 lbs a.i. (weighted average) to 769,000 lb ai/year (estimated maximum); most of 

which is applied to soybeans (110,000 lbs ai), sugar beets (75,000 lbs a.i.), and wheat (51,000 lbs 

ai). Revoked uses include celery, post harvest uses of all commodities, sugarcane, and bananas. 

However, usage of TM has increased considerably in recent years. 

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) pesticide use map (Figure 2) shows regional scale patterns in 

use intensity within the United States. The USGS pesticide maps are based on State level estimates 

of pesticide use rates for individual crops, which have been compiled by the National Center for 

Food and Agricultural Policy (NCFAP) for 1995-1998, and on a 1997 Census of Agriculture for 

county crop acreage crop. 
Caution: The pesticide use maps available from this site show regional-scale patterns of use intensity within the 

United States and are not intended for making local-scale estimates of pesticide use, such as for individual counties. 

The maps are based on state-level estimates of pesticide use rates for individual crops, which have been compiled by 

the National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy (NCFAP) for 1995-1998, and on 1997 Census of Agriculture 

county crop acreage. Key limitations include: (1) state use-coefficients represent an average for the entire state and 

consequently do not reflect the local variability of pesticide management practices found within many states and 

counties, and (2) the county-level acreage are based on the 1997 Census of Agriculture and may not represent all crop 

acreage due to Census non-disclosure rules. Please refer to Method for Estimating Pesticide Use for a detailed 

discussion of how the pesticide use data were developed. (http://ca.water.usgs.gov/pnsp/pesticide_use_maps_1997). 

Figure 2. Estimated annual use of thiophante methyl 

12
13

B. Exposure Characterization 

1. Environmental Fate and Transport Characterization

Selected physical and chemical properties of technical grade active ingredient (TGAI) of 

thiophanate methyl are listed in Table III.b. Thiophanate methyl is non-volatile and has low 

solubility (28.7 mg/L at 25°C) in water and degrades very rapidly to methyl 

2-benzimidzolylcarbamate or carbendazim (MBC) in the environment. MBC has low vapor 

pressure (7.5 E-10 mm Hg at 25°C) and the Henry’s Law Constant of 2.1E-11atm-m3/mol, which 

suggest that it will not be volatilized from TM application fields. The octanol/water partition 

coefficients (log Kow) for TM and MBC are ≈1.5 indicating low potential for these chemicals to 

bioaccumulate in organisms. The important physicochemical and environmental fate properties of 

TM and its primary degradate MBC are provided in Table III.b. 

Table III.b. Physicochemical and Fate Properties of Thiophante methyl (TM) and its Major 

Degradation Product Methyl 2-benzimidzolylcarbamate (MBC). 

Property Value Reference (MRID)

I. Physicochemical and Fate Properties of Parent Thiophate methyl 

Chemical Name Thiophanate Methyl Product chemistry 

Chemical Group Benzimidazole Product chemistry 

CAS Number 23564-05-8 Product chemistry 

Molecular Weight (( g Mole-1) 342.4 Tomlin, 1997 (ed.) 

Molecular Formula C12H14N4O4S2 Tomlin, 1997 (ed.) 

Water solubility at 25○C (mg L-1) 21.8 Tomlin, 1997 (ed.) 

Octanol/water partition coefficient 

(log Kow) 1.5 Tomlin, 1997 (ed.) 

Vapor Pressure (Torr) 1.3 E-5 Tomlin, 1997 (ed.) 

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

Hydrolysis half-lives 36 days at pH 7, 0.7 days at pH 9 

Major Degradation products: MBC 

 (28.6% @ pH 7 and 58.7 % @ pH 9) 

400955-07 

Aqueous photolysis half-life 2.17 days pH 5 buffer 

Major Degradation product: MBC (49.7%) 

414828-06 

Soil photolysis half-lives 2.9-5.5 days 

Major Degradation product: MBC (21.7%) 

414828-07 
14

Table III.b. Physicochemical and Fate Properties of Thiophante methyl (TM) and its Major 

Degradation Product Methyl 2-benzimidzolylcarbamate (MBC). 

Property Value Reference (MRID)

Aerobic soil metabolism half-life (day) < 1

Major Degradation product: MBC (82.7%) 

402119-01 and 

421114-03 

Anaerobic aquatic half-life (water/ 

sediment system) 

3 hours 

Major Degradation product: 

 MBC- Maximum 54% in sediment 

 Maximum 28.6% in water 435965-01 

Soil Water Partition Coefficient (Koc, L 

Kg-1) 318 (Avg.) 

42351001 

Terrestrial Field half-lives 

< 1 day 

1 day 

4.2 days 

Major Degradation product: MBC (6.1 to 10.0 %) 

419301-01 

 419301-02 

434337-01 

III.b. Physicochemical Properties of Major Degradation Product MBC

Chemical Name Methyl 2-benzimidzolylcarbamate or Carbendazim (MBC) Product chemistry

Chemical Group Benzimidazole Product chemistry

CAS Number 17804-35-2 Product chemistry

Molecular Weight 191.18 g Mole-1 Tomlin, 1997 (ed.)

Molecular Formula C9H9N3O2

Tomlin, 1997 (ed.)

Water solubility 8.0 g/L Tomlin, 1997 (ed.)

Vapor pressure (Torr) 7.5 E-10 Tomlin, 1997 (ed.)

Octanol/water partition coefficient (log 

Kow) 1.52 Tomlin, 1997 (ed.)

Henry’s law constant (atm-m3/mol) 2.1 E-11 Estimated 

Hydrolysis half-life Stable Acc.# 00151418 

Photodegradation half-life water Stable Acc.#00151419 

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

Anaerobic aquatic metabolism half-life 

(days) 743 & 31 411377-01 456200-01 

Soil water partition coefficient ((Koc , L 

Kg-

) 1885 (Avg) Acc.# 00151422 

Terrestrial Field half-lives 

22 days 

94 days 

33.9 days 

419301-01 

419301-02 

434337-01 
15

a. Degradation and Metabolism 

Thiophanate methyl degrades primarily to carbendazim (MBC) whether on foliage, in soil, or in 

water. While the TM degradation rate is slower on foliage than in the aquatic environment 

conversion to MBC is expected to be rapid under most normal agricultural conditions. The 

environmental fate of TM in aquatic and terrestrial environments is dependent on rapid biotic and 

photolytic degradation to form MBC. When released in terrestrial environments, TM is expected 

to degrade relatively rapidly by microbial metabolism (<1 day) and photolysis (t1/2 < 3 days). Since 

TM treated seed normally incorporated into soil, photolytic degradation would be negligible. 

Based on data from studies that meet Agency guidelines, MBC is stable to aqueous 

photodegradation, stable to hydrolysis at pH values ranging from 5 to 7, with hydrolytic stability 

decreasing within this range of pH values as pH increases, and stable to soil photolysis. 

Metabolism under aerobic and anaerobic conditions in both soil and water proceeds at a very slow 

rate. 

b. Transport and Mobility 

Large quantities of applied TM are not expected to be transported away from the site of application. 

MBC is not likely to volatilize from soil based on its low vapor pressure. Due to its very slow 

degradation and low mobility in soil (Koc = 1885 L/Kg), MBC is expected to remain at or near its 

site of deposition until it is degraded. Therefore, large quantities of TM metabolites, MBC have 

potential to be transported away via runoff from the fields, where TM treated seeds will be used. 

c. Field Studies 

Dissipation of TM residues from soil is rapid, with dissipation half-lives up to 4.2 days and 

formation of MBC and dimethyl-4,4'-o-phenylenebis (i.e., allophanate) as degradates. Dissipation 

half-lives calculated for MBC ranged from 22 to 94 days in 3 studies (MRID# 41930101, 

41930102, 43433701). MBC was detected in the top 15 cm horizon of soils. In general, the MBC 

half-lives were relatively short compared to the laboratory biotic and abiotic studies. Site 

parameters such as slope and climatology may have influenced the more rapid dissipation of MBC 

in the field than was observed in the laboratory studies. 

2. Measures of Aquatic Exposure 

a. Aquatic Exposure Modeling 

Aquatic EECs for the ecological exposure to TM and MBC were estimated using PRZM 

3.12/EXAMS 2.98 employing the standard field pond scenario. PRZM/EXAMS is a Tier II 

screening model designed to estimate pesticide concentrations found in water at the edge of a 

treated field. As such, it provides high-end values of the pesticide concentrations that might be 

found in ecologically sensitive environments following pesticide application. PRZM-EXAMS is 

a multi-year runoff model that also accounts for spray drift from single and multiple applications. 
 In the ecological exposure assessment, PRZM/EXAMS simulates a 10 hectare (ha) field 

immediately adjacent to a 1 ha pond, 2 meters deep with no outlet. The location of the field is 

specific to the crop being simulated using site specific information of soils, weather, cropping, and 

management factors associated with the scenario. The crop/location scenario in a specific state is 

intended to represent a high-end vulnerable site on which the crop is normally grown. Based on 

historical rainfall patterns, the pond receives multiple runoff events during the years simulated. 

The maximum application rates and relevant environmental fate parameters for TM and MBC 

were used in the screening model PRZM/EXAMS in estimating concentrations in surface water. 

Table III.c for TM and MBC present the input parameters used in the Tier II PRZM/EXAMS 

modeling. The application rate of MBC was calculated using the following approach. 

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

16

 

 C112H14N4O4S2 → C9H9N3O2 + other products 

 (TM; MW = 342.4) ( MBC; MW = 191.12)

From the equation shown above, one mole or 342.4 mass unit of thiophanate methyl degrades to 

produce one mole or 191.18 mass units of MBC. Thus, the mass conversion ratio or molecular 

weight (MW) ratio of MBC to TM is 0.56. The aerobic soil metabolism study suggests that the 

maximum conversion rate of TM to MBC was 82.7%. Therefore, the maximum application rate of 

MBC would be (0.827)(0.56)(0.09) = 0.04 lbs/Acre at 0.09 lbs/Acre application rate for TM for 

corn seeds. Calculation of maximum application rate can be found in Appendix D. 

To simulate field application of TM, multiple scenarios were selected representing proposed TM 

usage areas based on geography and weather. PRZM/EXAMS scenarios were modeled to estimate 

TM EECs in surface water based on label information for TM application to Sweet corn in FL, 

peanuts in North Carolina soybean in Missisppi and wheat in North Dakota. The modeled surface 

water EECs for these scenarios are presented in Table III.d. Acute risk assessments are performed 

using peak EEC values for single application. Chronic risk assessments for aquatic invertebrates 

and fish are performed using the average 21-day and 60-day EECs, respectively. For a given crop, 

only the highest EECs are presented in the table; however, results from all modeled scenarios are 

provided in Appendix D. For each PRZM/EXAMS scenario, a granular application was evaluated 

following the proposed uses for TM treated seeds that incorporated into soil. The PRZM/EXAMS 

output files for the aquatic ecological exposure assessment are presented in Appendix D. 
Table III.c. PRZM/EXAMS Input Parameters of TM and MBC for Seed Treatments

Parameters and Units TM MBC Source 

TM/MBC 

PC Code 102001 128872 EFED Files 

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

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

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

Hydrolysis hlf-lives @ pH 7 (Days) 36 Stable MRID 40095507/ 

Acc.# 00151418 

Aerobic soil metabolism t1⁄2, (Days) 1 x 3* 320x3* MRID 106085/ 

MRID 41255801 

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

(61& 23.3) 

Calc. 90th Percentile 

MRID 40061501/ 

MRID 41137701 

MRID 45620001 

Anaerobic aquatic metabolism (Days) 1 x 3* 1482.7 

(743 & 31) 

Calc. 90th Percentile 

MRID40061501/ 

MRID 41137701 

MRID 45620001 

Direct Aqueous Photolysis (Days) 2.17 Stable MRID 41482806/ 

Acc.#00151419 

Soil Water Partition Coefficient (Koc, L Kg-1) 318 (Avg.) 1885 (Avg) MRID 42351001/ 

Acc.# 00151422 

Crop Management

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

 FL Sweetcorn 

 MS Soybean 

 NC Peanuts 

 ND Wheat 

0.09 

0.03 

0.16 

0.04 

0.04 

0.01 

0.07 

0.02 

Product label 

Tops® 30 Flowable 

Tops® 30 Flowable 

Tops® 30 Flowable 

Tops® 30 Flowable 

 First Application Date 

 FL Sweetcorn 

 MS Soybean 

 NC Peanuts 

 ND Wheat 

October 15 

April 10 

May 05 

May 07 

October 15 

April 10 

May 05 

May 07 

FL Sweetcorn Scenario 

MS Soybean Scenario 

NC Peanut Scenario 

ND Wheat Scenario 

 Application Frequency 1 1 Product label 

 Spray Efficiency 100% 100% EFED Guidelines 

† Water solubility was multiplied by 10 according to Guidance for selecting input parameters in modeling for environmental fate and 

 transport of pesticides. Version II. December 4, 2001. 

* Selected input parameters were multiplied by 3 according to Guidance for selecting input parameters in modeling for environmental fate 

and transport of pesticides. Version II. December 4, 2001. 

** 2X of soil aerobic metabolism half-life input value was used due to stability of compound (Guidance for selecting input parameters in 

 modeling for environmental fate and transport of pesticides. Version II. December 4, 2001). 

*** MBC application rat e= TM application rate x [(0.827, the maximum conversion rate from the degradation of TM to MBC in laboratory 

 studies) x (0.56, the molecular weight ratio of MBC to TM)]

17
18

Table III.d. Estimated Environmental Concentrations (EECs) in surface water for 

selected Seed treatments scenarios

Chemical 

(Application rate, frequency) 

Acute: Peak 

EEC 

(μg/L) 

Chronic: 21-day 

EEC 

(μg/L) 

Chronic: 60-day 

EEC 

(μg/L) 

FL Sweetcorn 

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

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

Mississippi Soybean

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

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

NC Peanut 

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

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

ND Wheat

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

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

b. Aquatic Exposure monitoring and field data 

No data on monitored concentrations of TM or MBC were found in surface water or ground water. 

Neither TM nor its primary degradate, MBC, are regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act. 

1. Measure of Terrestrial Exposure 

a. Terrestrial Exposure Modeling 

A primary concern with TM is that birds and mammals may be exposed shortly after application 

through dietary exposure of TM treated seeds, when foraging in the fields for nesting material or 

food. Therefore estimation of pesticide concentrations in wildlife food items focuses on 

quantifying possible dietary ingestion of TM treated seeds. The EFED terrestrial exposure model 

T-REX (T-REX, Version 1.2.3, dated August 8, 2005) is used to estimate exposures and risks to 

avian and mammalian species. For seed treatments, input values for avian and mammalian toxicity 

as well as chemical application rate data are required to run the model. The model provides 

estimates of exposure concentrations and risk quotients (RQs). These values (termed the 

Hoerger-Kenaga estimates) along with a more detailed discussion of the methodology 

implemented by T-REX, can be found in T-REX model manual (U.S. EPA, 2005). 
19

The concentration (ppm) of TM on treated seeds is calculated by multiplying the application rate 

provided in the labels (lbs/cwt = lbs/100 lbs seed = parts per hundred) by 10,000 (1 part per 

hundred x 10,000 = 1 part per million, ppm). Ingested doses from seed treatment applications are 

calculated using the scaling factor approach as discussed previously for a 20-gram bird and a 

15-gram mammal. Animals are assumed to eat only treated seeds as a first tier screen. T-REX 

output can be found in Appendix E. 

b. Residue studies 

Seed treatment data for sweet corn shows that TM/MBC residues were nondetectable in/on sweet 

corn K+CWHR, forage, and stover following seed treatment. 

C. Ecological Effects Characterization 

In screening-level ecological risk assessments, effects characterization describes the types of 

effects a pesticide can produce in an aquatic or terrestrial organism. This characterization is based 

on registrant-submitted studies that describe acute and chronic effects toxicity information for 

various aquatic and terrestrial animals and plants. Appendix F summarizes the results of the 

registrant-submitted toxicity studies used to characterize effects for this risk assessment. Toxicity 

testing reported in this section does not represent all species of birds, mammals, or aquatic 

organisms. Only a few surrogate species for both freshwater fish and birds are used to represent 

all freshwater fish (2000+) and bird (680+) species in the United States. For mammals, acute 

studies are usually limited to Norway rat or the house mouse. Estuarine/marine testing is usually 

limited to a crustacean, a mollusc, and a fish. Also, neither reptiles nor amphibians are tested. The 

risk assessment assumes that avian and reptilian toxicities are similar. The same assumption is 

used for fish and aquatic amphibians. 

1. Aquatic effects Characterization 

In general, TM is considered to be slightly to moderately toxic to fish (freshwater and 

estuarine/marine) on an acute basis ( LC50 = 8.3 ppm to 40 ppm). Chronic NOAEC values were 

calculated at 0.002 ppm for the Channel Catfish with larval survival being the major endpoint 

affected. Toxicity studies on aquatic invertebrates (freshwater and estuarine/marine) show that 

this compound is acutely moderately toxic to these organisms (MBC EC50 = 1.1 to 5.4 ppm). 

Chronic effects (survival) were noted in daphnids (NOAEC = 0.003 ppm) and in mysid shrimp 

(NOAEC = 0.025 ppm). TM was acutely toxic to the freshwater Diatom (EC50 = 0.93 ppm). These 

categories are presented in Appendix F.

2. Terrestrial effects Characterization 

In general, TM appears to be practically non-toxic to avian and mammalian species on an acute 

level (4640 mg/kg for avian species and >5000 mg/kg for mammals) and also practically non-toxic 

to birds on a subacute level (LC50 >10,000 ppm). Chronic toxicity data show that exposure to TM 
20

can result in decreases in egg production and body weight (NOAEC/LOAEC > 103 ppm). 

Reproductive effects to mammals were noted at 195 mg/kg. Acute toxicity to honeybees show that 

TM is practically non-toxic to non-target insects (LD50 >100 μg/bee). These categories are 

presented in Appendix F.
21

IV. Risk Characterization 

A. Risk Estimation – Integration of Exposure and Effects data

A means of integrating the results of exposure and ecotoxicity data is called the deterministic 

method. For this method, risk quotients (RQs) are calculated by dividing exposure estimates by 

ecotoxicity values, both acute and chronic. Terrestrial risk for seed treatment uses were 

determined through the calculation of LD50/sqft estimates. 

RQ = EXPOSURE/TOXICITY 

RQs are then compared to OPP's levels of concern (LOCs). These LOCs are criteria used by OPP 

to indicate potential risk to non-target organisms and the need to consider regulatory action. The 

criteria indicate that a pesticide used as directed has the potential to cause adverse effects on 

non-target organisms. LOCs currently address the following risk presumption categories: (1) 

acute high - potential for acute risk is high, regulatory action may be warranted in addition to 

restricted use classification (2) acute restricted use - the potential for acute risk is high, but this 

may be mitigated through restricted use classification (3) acute endangered species - the 

potential for acute risk to endangered species is high, regulatory action may be warranted, and (4) 

chronic risk - the potential for chronic risk is high, regulatory action may be warranted. Currently, 

EFED does not perform assessments for chronic risk to plants, acute or chronic risks to non-target 

insects, or chronic risk from granular/bait formulations to mammalian or avian species. 

The ecotoxicity test values (i.e., measurement endpoints) used in the acute and chronic risk 

quotients are derived from the results of required studies. Examples of ecotoxicity values derived 

from the results of short-term laboratory studies that assess acute effects are: (1) LC50 (fish and 

birds) (2) LD50 (birds and mammals) (3) EC50 (aquatic plants and aquatic invertebrates) and (4) 

EC25 (terrestrial plants). An example of a toxicity test effect level derived from the results of 

long-term laboratory studies that assess chronic effects is: (1) NOAEC (birds, fish and aquatic 

invertebrates). Risk presumptions, along with the corresponding RQs and LOCs are tabulated 

below: 

Table IV.a. Risk Presumptions for Terrestrial Animals

Risk Presumption RQ LOC

Birds: 

Acute High Risk EEC1

/LC50 or LD50/sqft2 or LD50/day3 0.5 

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

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

Chronic Risk EEC/NOAEC 1 

Wild Mammals: 

 
22

Table IV.a. Risk Presumptions for Terrestrial Animals

Risk Presumption RQ LOC

Acute High Risk EEC/LC50 or LD50/sqft or LD50/day 0.5 

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

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

Chronic Risk EEC/NOAEC 1 1

 abbreviation for Estimated Environmental Concentration (ppm) on avian/mammalian food items 2 mg/ft2

 3 mg of toxicant consumed/day

 LD50 * wt. of bird LD50 * wt. of bird 

Table IV.b. Risk Presumptions for Aquatic Animals

Risk Presumption RQ LOC

Acute High Risk EEC1

/LC50 or EC50 0.5 

Acute Restricted Use EEC/LC50 or EC50 0.1 

Acute Endangered Species EEC/LC50 or EC50 0.05 

Chronic Risk EEC/MATC or NOAEC 1 1

 EEC = (ppm or ppb) in water 

Table IV.c. Risk Presumptions for Plants

Risk Presumption RQ LOC

Terrestrial and Semi-Aquatic Plants:

Acute High Risk EEC1

/EC25 1 

Acute Endangered Species EEC/EC05 or NOAEC 1 

Aquatic Plants:

Acute High Risk EEC2

/EC50 1 

Acute Endangered Species EEC/EC05 or NOAEC 1 1

 EEC = lbs ai/A 

2

 EEC = (ppb/ppm) in water 

Major Risk Concerns

EFED’s risk assessment for terrestrial organisms suggests that the proposed uses should not pose 

risk to avian, mammalian, aquatic or plant species. Currently the Agency does not perform 

quantitative assessments for chronic risk to plants or acute/chronic risks to non-target insects. 

Likelihood of Water Contamination

In order to evaluate TM exposure to aquatic organisms, EFED relied on the maximum EEC value 

generated through PRZM, while chronic values for fish and invertebrates reflected 60-day and 

21-day PRZM averages for MBC, respectively. 

1. Aquatic Organism Risk Assessment
23

Risk to Aquatic Organisms (Acute/Chronic) 

The following tables (Tables IV.d and IV.e) provide aquatic acute and chronic RQ values for TM 

and MBC exposure to freshwater and estuarine/marine species relative to the proposed seed 

treatment uses. The risk assessment suggests that exposure via runoff of this compound to an 

aquatic system would not likely result in acute or chronic risk to freshwater and estuarine/marine 

invertebrates (e.g. shrimp). There were also no risks to aquatic plants (Table IV.f). 

Table IV.d. Acute and chronic RQ’s for evaluating toxic risk of TM and MBC exposure to 

fish (freshwater and estuarine/marine). RQ’s are based on the rainbow trout 

(Oncorhynchus mykiss) LC50 = 8.3 ppm, the catfish (Ictalurus punctatus) NOAEC = 0.002 

ppm and sheepshead minnow (Cyprinodon variegatus) LC50 = 40 ppm, NOAEC = 2.3 

ppm1. EEC values are generated from PRZM/EXAMS.

Crop App. 

Rate (lbs 

ai/A) # App. 

(days) 

Organism EC50

(ppm) 

NOAEC 

(ppm) 

EEC 

Peak 

(ppm) 

EEC 

60-Day Ave. 

(ppm) 

Acute 

RQ 

(EEC/ 

LC50) 

Chronic 

RQ 

(EEC/NOAEC) 

FL sweetcorn Freshwater 

Estuarine/ 

Marine 

8.3 

40 

0.002 

2.3 

0.0005 

0.0005 

0.0003 

0.0003 

0.00 

0.00 

0.15 

0.00 

MS soybean Freshwater 

Estuarine/ 

Marine 

8.3 

40

0.002 

2.3 

0.0001 

0.0001 

0.00005 

0.00005 

0.00 

0.00 

0.025 

0.00 

NC peanut Freshwater 

Estuarine/ 

Marine 

8.3 

40 

0.002 

2.3 

0.00026 

0.00026 

0.00038 

0.00038 

0.00 

0.00 

0.2 

0.00 

ND wheat Freshwater 

Estuarine/ 

Marine 

8.3 

40 

0.002 

2.3 

0.00004 

0.00004 

0.0001 

0.0001 

0.00 

0.00 

0.05 

0.00 

Table IV. e. Acute and chronic risk RQ’s for evaluating toxic risk of TM and MBC 

exposure to aquatic invertebrates (freshwater and estuarine/marine). RQ’s are based on 

Daphnia (Daphnia magna) EC50 = 5.4 ppm, NOAEC = 0.003 ppm and the mysid 

(Americamysis bahia) EC50 = 1.1 ppm, NOAEC = 0.025 ppm . EEC values are generated 

from PRZM/EXAMS.
24

Crop App. 

Rate (lbs 

ai/A) # App. 

(days) 

Organism EC50

(ppm) 

NOAEC 

(ppm) 

EEC 

Peak 

(ppm) 

EEC 

21-Day 

Ave. 

(ppm) 

Acute RQ 

(EEC/ 

LC50) 

Chronic 

RQ 

(EEC/NOAEC) 

FL sweetcorn Freshwater 

Estuarine/ 

Marine 

5.4 

1.1

0.003 

0.025 

0.0005 

0.0005

0.00035 

0.00035

0.00 

0.00 

0.116 

0.014 

MS soybean Freshwater 

Estuarine/ 

Marine 

5.4 

1.1

0.003 

0.025 

0.0001 

0.0001

0.00005 

0.00005

0.00 

0.00

0.016 

0.002 

NC peanut Freshwater 

Estuarine/ 

Marine 

5.4 

1.1 

0.003 

0.025 

0.00026 

0.00026 

0.00046 

0.00046 

0.00 

0.00 

0.15 

0.02 

ND wheat Freshwater 

Estuarine/ 

Marine 

5.4 

1.1 

0.003 

0.025 

0.00004 

0.00004 

0.00011 

0.00011 

0.00 

0.00 

0.037 

0.0044 

1

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

2

 Acute restrictive use (> 0.1) 3

 Chronic concern (> 1.0) 

Table IV. f. Acute risk RQ’s for evaluating toxic risk of TM exposure to aquatic plants. 

RQ’s are based on Freshwater Diatom (Navicula pelliculosa ) EC50 = 0.93 ppm . EEC 

values are generated from PRZM/EXAMS.

Crop App. Rate (lbs ai/A) # App. (days) EEC Peak 

(ppm) 

Acute RQ 

(EEC/ 

LC50) 

FL sweet corn 0.0005 0.00 

MS soybean 0.0001 0.00 

NC peanut 0.00026 0.00 

ND wheat 0.00004 0.00 

2. Terrestrial Exposure and Risk 

a. Risk to Avian Species 

Table IV.g provides acute risk quotients of most vulnerable size of avian (20g) from exposure to 
25

seed treated with TM. Chronic RQs can not be estimated due to lack of chronic endpoint for TM 

treated seed. However, chronic exposure of is unlikely due to low application rates, single 

application per year and treated seeds are incorporated into the soil. 

Table IV.g. Avian Risk Quotients for Single Applications of TM Treated Seed Based on a 

Mallard Duck LD50 value of 4,640 mg ai/kg. 

Site/Application 

Method 

Application 

Rate 

(lb ai/A) 

Maximum seed 

application Rate 

(mg ai/kg-bw/day) 

Avian Nagy dose 

(mg ai/kg-bw/day) 

Available ai 

(mg ai/ ft2) Acute RQ* 

Peanuts

seed-Incorporated 0.16 1158.39 293.18 1.63 0.01 

Corn 

seed-Incorporated 0.09 3709.45 938.82 0.97 0.01 

Soybean 

seed-Incorporated 0.03 292.85 74.12 0.31 0.00 

Wheat

seed-Incorporated 0.04 292.85 74.12 0.41 0.00 

* T-REX Outputs (Appendix E) 

b. Risk to Mammals 

Table IV.g provides acute risk quotients of most vulnerable size of mammalian (15g) from 

exposure to seed treated with TM. Chronic RQs can not be estimated due to lack of chronic 

endpoint for TM treated seed. However, chronic exposure is unlikely due to low application rates, 

single application per year and treated seeds are incorporated into the soil. 

 

Table IV.h.. Mammalian Risk Quotients for Single Applications of TM Treated Seed 

Based on a lab rat (Rattus norwegicus) LD50 value of >5,000 mg ai/kg. 

Site/Application 

Method 

Application 

Rate 

(lb ai/A) 

Maximum seed 

application Rate 

(mg ai/kg-bw/day) 

Mammalian Nagy 

dose 

(mg ai/kg-bw/day) 

Available ai 

(mg ai/ ft2) Acute RQ* 

Peanuts 

seed-Incorporated 0.16 1158.39 245.43 1.63 0.01 

Corn

seed-Incorporated 0.09 3709.45 785.93 0.97 0.01 

Soybean 

seed-Incorporated 0.03 292.85 62.05 0.31 0.00 

Wheat 

seed-Incorporated 0.04 292.85 62.05 0.41 0.00 
26

Table IV.h.. Mammalian Risk Quotients for Single Applications of TM Treated Seed 

Based on a lab rat (Rattus norwegicus) LD50 value of >5,000 mg ai/kg. 

Site/Application 

Method 

Application 

Rate 

(lb ai/A) 

Maximum seed 

application Rate 

(mg ai/kg-bw/day) 

Mammalian Nagy 

dose 

(mg ai/kg-bw/day) 

Available ai 

(mg ai/ ft2) Acute RQ* 

* T-REX Outputs (Appendix E) 

B. Risk Description 

The risk hypothesis states that the use of TM as a seed treatment for various crops is likely to 

expose terrestrial and aquatic animals and plants to TM and/or MBC, with resulting adverse 

effects. Based on available ecotoxicity data and predicted environmental exposures, this 

ecological risk assessment does not support the presumption of risk to birds and mammals from 

TM treated seed and risk to fish and aquatic invertebrates from the TM and its degradate MBC. 

Low terrestrial and aquatic risk is mainly due to low toxicities, low application rates, one 

application per year and the seeds are incorporated into soil, thus reducing exposure.

Birds and Mammals

TM is practically nontoxic to birds (Table IV.g) and mammals (Table IV.h.) on an acute exposure 

basis. The concentrations at which acute effects are observed for birds and mammals is unknown, 

but is greater than 10,000 ppm for birds and 5,000 ppm for mammals. Effects data on surrogate 

birds and mammals indicate that chronic effects are of far greater concern than acute effects, with 

concentrations at which chronic effects were exhibited being several orders of magnitude lower 

than the TM concentrations observed to exhibit no acute effects. Nevertheless, the screening level 

assessment suggests that the application of this compound through seed treatment has low 

potential for risk to the most vulnerable size of avian or mammalian species. 

Aquatic Species

Risk does not exceed the levels of concern for aquatic organisms under the current seed use pattern. 

Under most agricultural conditions, TM entering the aquatic environment is expected to convert 

rapidly to MBC. MBC is very persistent but is relatively immobile in sandy loam or silt loam soils, 

and is likely to remain in the upper soil profile of these and similar soils. However, MBC has 

potential to leach to groundwater in highly sandy soils with low organic matter. 

For the purpose of this risk assessment, rapid transformation of TM to MBC in water was assumed 

based on environmental fate data regarding hydrolysis and photolysis of TM in the aquatic 

environment under ambient conditions. Transformation of TM to MBC will be particularly rapid 

near the surface of the water column where photolysis will have a strong influence with a half-life 

on the order of about one-half to two days depending on the season and latitudinal distance from 

the equator. Transformation of TM to MBC will also be particularly rapid for aquatic 

environments with a pH value of 9, with a half-life of less than one day. As aquatic pH decreases, 

the transformation of TM to MBC is slower, with an estimated half-life of 36 days at pH 7 (the 

most commonly found pH in the environment). Evidence from environmental fate studies 

indicates that MBC is very stable to hydrolysis and photolysis and is, therefore, persistent in the 
27

aquatic environment. To simplify quantitative estimates of risks to aquatic organisms, it was 

assumed that acute exposure and associated risks are exclusively to TM and that chronic exposures 

and associated risks are exclusively to MBC. In reality, at least some TM and MBC is probably 

present throughout the periods of exposure from initial pesticide application up to the 60-day 

period that is generally used to assess ecological risks and up to the 60- to 90-day period used to 

assess exposure from ingestion of drinking water. To account for concentrations of both TM and 

MBC throughout the period of exposure, formation and decline curves would have to be generated. 

Inadequate data were available, however, to develop formation and decline curves for TM and 

MBC. 

No data on monitored concentrations of TM or MBC were found in surface water or ground water. 

Neither TM nor its primary degradate, MBC, are regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act. As 

a result, neither Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) nor drinking water health advisories (HAs) 

for these chemicals have been established by the EPA Office of Water. Data on levels of TM and 

MBC monitored following application of TM in the vicinity of and down-gradient of locations 

where TM is used would lead to higher confidence in concentrations of surface water and ground 

water. 

Endocrine Disruption

EPA is required under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), as amended by FQPA, 

to develop a screening program to determine whether certain substances (including all pesticide 

active and other ingredients) “may have an effect in humans that is similar to an effect produced 

by a naturally-occurring estrogen, or other such endocrine effects as the Administrator may 

designate.” Following the recommendations of its Endocrine Disruptor Screening and Testing 

Advisory 

Committee (EDSTAC), EPA determined that there was scientific basis for including, as part of the 

program, the androgen- and thyroid hormone systems, in addition to the estrogen hormone system. 

 EPA also adopted EDSTAC’s recommendation that the Program include evaluations of potential 

effects in wildlife. For pesticide chemicals, EPA will use FIFRA and, to the extent that effects in 

wildlife may help determine whether a substance may have an effect in humans, FFDCA authority 

to require the wildlife evaluations. As the science develops and resources allow, screening of 

additional hormone systems may be added to the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP). 

When the appropriate screening and or testing protocols being considered under the Agency’s 

Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program have been developed, TM may be subjected to additional 

screening and or testing to better characterize effects related to endocrine disruption. Issues that 

have raised this concern include reproductive effects in terrestrial and aquatic species. 

Incident Characterization 

There were only two incidents listed. The first incident involved mortality of bees in an orchard in 

NC. The second involved the mortality of 350 Bullhead catfish on a golf course in Ohio. Both 

incidents were listed as a misuse of the product, involved other toxic compounds and neither 
28

involved seed treatment. 

Endangered Species Assessment

The following section discusses the screening-level assessment for Federally listed threatened and 

endangered species. The Agency’s levels of concern for endangered and threatened is not 

exceeded for any of the proposed seed treatment uses of TM. 

Applications

For the crop scenarios used to evaluate risk to aquatic organisms, the LOC (0.05) for acute effects 

to listed species of freshwater and estuarine/marine fish were not exceeded. Since there were no 

risks to fish, risk to listed amphibians is also considered low. 

Listed Species 

No endangered species RQs were exceeded for any species. 

a. Action Area

The Endangered Species Act defines the action area for a Federal action as being the footprint of 

possible effects stemming from the action, not necessarily limited to where the immediate action 

occurs. For screening-level purposes, the risk assessment conservatively assumes that listed 

species are co-located with the pesticide treatment area. This means that terrestrial plants and 

wildlife are assumed to be located on or adjacent to the treated field and aquatic organisms are 

assumed to be located in a surface water body adjacent to the treated field. This assumption places 

the listed species within an assumed area of high potential exposure to the pesticide. 

If the assumptions associated with the screening-level action area result in RQs that are below the 

listed species LOCs, a "no effect" determination conclusion is made with respect to listed species 

in that taxa, and no further refinement of the action area is necessary. Furthermore, RQs below the 

listed species LOCs for a given taxonomic group indicate no concern for indirect effects upon 

listed species that depend upon the taxonomic group covered by the RQ as a resource. However, 

in situations where the screening assumptions lead to RQs in excess of the listed species LOCs for 

a given taxonomic group, there exists a potential for a "may affect" conclusion exists and may be 

associated with direct effects on listed species belonging to that taxonomic group or may extend to 

indirect effects upon listed species that depend upon that taxonomic group as a resource. In such 

cases, additional information on the biology of listed species, the locations of these species, and 

the locations of use sites could be considered to determine the extent to which screening 

assumptions regarding an action area apply to a particular listed species. These subsequent 

refinement steps could consider how this information would impact the action area for a particular 

listed organism and may potentially include areas of exposure that are downwind and downstream 

of the pesticide use site. 

b. Taxonomic Groups Potentially at Risk

The Agency’s LOCs for endangered and threatened species were not exceeded for any of the 

proposed seed treatment uses. 
29

c. Indirect Effects Analysis

The Agency acknowledges that pesticides have the potential to exert indirect effects upon the 

listed organisms by perturbing forage or prey availability, altering the extent of nesting habitat, 

creating gaps in the food chain, etc. In conducting a screen for indirect effects, direct effect LOCs 

for each taxonomic group are used to make inferences concerning the potential for indirect effects 

upon listed species that rely upon non-endangered organisms in these taxonomic groups as 

resources critical to their life cycle. 

When screening-level acute RQs exceed the endangered species acute LOCs, the Agency uses the 

dose response relationship from the toxicity study used for calculating the RQ to estimate the 

probability of acute effects associated with an exposure equivalent to the EEC (see Probit Analysis 

below). This information serves as a guide to establish the need for and extent of additional 

analysis that may be performed using Services-provided “species profiles” as well as evaluations 

of the geographical and temporal nature of the exposure to ascertain if a “not likely to adversely 

affect” determination can be made. The degree to which additional analyses are performed is 

commensurate with the predicted probability of adverse effects from the comparison of the dose 

response information with the EECs. The greater the probability that exposures will produce 

effects on a taxa, the greater the concern for potential indirect effects for listed species dependent 

upon that taxa, and therefore, the more intensive the analysis on the potential listed species of 

concern, their locations relative to the use site, and information regarding the use scenario (e.g., 

timing, frequency, and geographical extent of pesticide application). 

Birds and Mammals 

Screening-level RQs that exceed the LOC may indicate a potential concern for indirect effects. 

The Agency considers this to be indicative of a potential for adverse effects to those listed species 

that rely either on a specific species (species obligate) or multiple species (dependent) for some 

important aspect of their life cycles. The Agency may determine if listed organisms for which 

these species are a critical component of their resource needs are within the pesticide use area. 

This is accomplished through a comparison of Service-provided “species profiles” and listed 

species location data. If no listed organisms that are either species obligates or dependent reside 

within the pesticide use area, a no effect determination on listed species is made. If species 

obligate or dependent organisms may reside within the pesticide use area, the Agency may 

consider temporal and geographical nature of exposure, and the scope of the effects data, to 

determine if any potential effects can be determined to not likely adversely affect a species 

obligate or dependent listed organism. 

Indirect effects to terrestrial animals may result from reduced food items to animals, behavior 

modifications from reduced or a modified habitat, and from alterations of habitats. Alterations of 

habitats can affect the reproductive capacity of some terrestrial animals. 

Probit Slope Analysis 

The probit slope response relationship is evaluated to calculate the chance of an individual event 

corresponding to the listed species acute LOCs. If information is unavailable to estimate a slope 

for a particular study, a default slope assumption of 4.5 is used as per original Agency assumptions 
30

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

a. Terrestrial Species 

Terrestrial acute toxicity studies for TM did not provide raw data and estimates of slopes for birds 

 and small mammals so the default value of 4.5 was used. Based on this slope, the corresponding 

estimate chance of individual mortality following TM exposure is 1 in 2.94 x 105 for birds and 

mammals. 

b. Aquatic Species 

Acute toxicity studies for TM did provide raw data and estimates of slopes for most fish and 

invertebrate species. Analysis of raw data from the aquatic acute toxicity studies provided slopes 

of 2.6 for freshwater fish, 1.6 for freshwater invertebrates, 1.15 for estuarine/marine invertebrates 

and 3.3 for estuarine/marine fish. Based on these slopes, the corresponding estimate chance of 

individual mortality following TM exposure is 1 in 2.79 x 103

 for freshwater fish, 1 in 53.5 for 

freshwater invertebrates, 1 in 14.9 for estuarine/marine invertebrates and 1 in 1.14 x 105

 for 

estuarine/marine fish. 

c. Critical Habitat 

In the evaluation of pesticide effects on designated critical habitat, consideration is given to the 

physical and biological features (constituent elements) of a critical habitat identified by the U.S 

Fish and Wildlife and National Marine Fisheries Services as essential to the conservation of a 

listed species and which may require special management considerations or protection. The 

evaluation of impacts for a screening-level pesticide risk assessment focuses on the biological 

features that are constituent elements and is accomplished using the screening-level taxonomic 

analysis (risk quotients, RQs) and listed species levels of concern (LOCs) that are used to evaluate 

direct and indirect effects to listed organisms. 

When there is potential for indirect effects, the next step for EPA and the Service(s) would be to 

identify which listed species and critical habitat are potentially implicated. Analytically, the 

identification of such species and critical habitat can occur in either of two ways. First, the 

agencies could determine whether the action area overlaps critical habitat or the occupied range of 

any listed species. If so, EPA would examine whether the pesticide's potential impacts on 

non-endangered species would affect the listed species indirectly or directly affect a constituent 

element of the critical habitat. Alternatively, the agencies could determine which listed species 

depend on biological resources, or have constituent elements that fall into, the taxa that may be 

directly or indirectly impacted by the pesticide. Then EPA would determine whether use of the 

pesticide overlaps the critical habitat or the occupied range of those listed species. At present, the 

information reviewed by EPA does not permit use of either analytical approach to make a 

definitive identification of species that are potentially impacted indirectly or critical habitats that 

is potentially impacted directly by the use of the pesticide. EPA and the Service(s) are working 

together to conduct the necessary analysis. 

If potential risk was found, the screening-level risk assessment for critical habitat would provide 

a listing of potential biological features that, if they are constituent elements of one or more critical 
31

habitats, would be of potential concern. These correspond to the taxa identified above as being of 

potential concern for indirect effects and include all taxa that depend on invertebrates for survival. 

This list whould serve as an initial step in problem formulation for further assessment of critical 

habitat impacts outlined above, should additional work be necessary. 

Description of Assumptions, Uncertainties, Strengths, and Limitations

1. Assumptions and Limitations Related to Exposure For All Taxa 

There are a number of areas of uncertainty in the aquatic and terrestrial risk assessments. The 

toxicity assessment for terrestrial and aquatic animals is limited by the number of species tested in 

the available toxicity studies. Use of toxicity data on representative species does not provide 

information on the potential variability in susceptibility for acute and chronic exposures. 

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

application. 

2. Assumptions and Limitations Related to Exposure For Aquatic Species 

For an acute risk assessment, there is no averaging time for exposure. An instantaneous peak 

concentration, with a 1 in 10 year return frequency, is assumed. The use of the instantaneous peak 

assumes that instantaneous exposure is of sufficient duration to elicit acute effects comparable to 

those observed over more protracted exposure periods tested in the laboratory, typically 48 to 96 

hours. In the absence of data regarding time-to-toxic event analyses and latent responses to 

instantaneous exposure, the degree to which risk is overestimated cannot be quantified. 

3. Assumptions and Limitations Related to Exposure For Terrestrial Species 

The data available to support the exposure assessment for TM is substantially complete. The 

terrestrial modeling for seed treatments was conducted using LD50 sq/ft calculations. In addition, 

for screening terrestrial risk assessments, a generic bird or mammal is assumed to occupy either 

the treated field or adjacent areas receiving pesticide at a rate commensurate with the treatment 

rate on the field. The actual habitat requirements of any particular terrestrial species are not 

considered, and it is assumed that species occupy, exclusively and permanently, the treated area 

being modeled. This assumption leads to a maximum level of exposure in the risk assessment. 

Screening-level risk assessments for applications of pesticides consider dietary exposure alone. 

Other potential routes of exposure, which were not considered in this assessment, are discussed 

below: 

Incidental soil ingestion exposure 

This risk assessment does not consider incidental soil ingestion. Available data suggests that up to 

15% of the diet can consist of incidentally ingested soil depending on the species and feeding 

strategy (Beyer et al., 1994). 

Inhalation exposure 

The screening risk assessment does not consider inhalation exposure. For seed treatments, such 
32

exposure may occur through airborne particulate sources (contaminated soil and pesticide dusts). 

The impact from exposure to dusts contaminated with the pesticide cannot be assessed generically 

as partitioning issues related to application site soils and chemical properties render the exposure 

potential from this route highly situation-specific. 

Dermal Exposure 

The screening assessment does not consider dermal exposure, except as it is indirectly included in 

calculations of RQs based on lethal doses per unit of pesticide treated area. Dermal exposure may 

occur through contact with contaminated water or soil. 

The available measured data related to wildlife dermal contact with pesticides are extremely 

limited. The Agency is actively pursuing modeling techniques to account for dermal exposure. 

Dietary Intake - The Differences Between Laboratory and Field Conditions 

The acute and chronic characterization of risk rely on comparisons of wildlife dietary residues 

with LC50 or NOAEC values expressed in concentrations of pesticides in laboratory feed. These 

comparisons assume that ingestion of food items in the field occurs at rates commensurate with 

those in the laboratory. Although the screening assessment process adjusts dry-weight estimates 

of food intake to reflect the increased mass in fresh-weight wildlife food intake estimates, it does 

not allow for gross energy and assimilative efficiency differences between wildlife food items and 

laboratory feed. 

On gross energy content alone, direct comparison of a laboratory dietary concentration- based 

effects threshold to a fresh-weight pesticide residue estimate would result in an underestimation 

of field exposure by food consumption by a factor of 1.25 to 2.5 for most food items. Only for 

seeds would the direct comparison of dietary threshold to residue estimate lead to an overestimate 

of exposure. 

Differences in assimilative efficiency between laboratory and wild diets suggest that current 

screening assessment methods do not account for a potentially important aspect of food 

requirements. Depending upon species and dietary matrix, bird assimilation of wild diet energy 

ranges from 23 to 80%, and mammal's assimilation ranges from 41 to 85% (U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1993). If it is assumed that laboratory chow is formulated to maximize 

assimilative efficiency (e.g., a value of 85%), a potential for underestimation of exposure may 

exist by assuming that consumption of food in the wild is comparable with consumption during 

laboratory testing. In the screening process, exposure may be underestimated because metabolic 

rates are not related to food consumption. 

Finally, the screening procedure does not account for situations where the feeding rate may be 

above or below requirements to meet free living metabolic requirements. Gorging behavior is a 

possibility under some specific wildlife scenarios (e.g., bird migration) where the food intake rate 

may be greatly increased. Kirkwood (1983) has suggested that an upper-bound limit to this 

behavior might be the typical intake rate multiplied by a factor of 5. 

In contrast is the potential for avoidance, operationally defined as animals responding to the 
33

presence of noxious chemicals in their food by reducing consumption of treated dietary elements. 

This response is seen in nature where herbivores avoid plant secondary compounds. 

4. Assumptions and Limitations Related to Effects Assessment 

It is generally recognized that test organism age may have a significant impact on the observed 

sensitivity to a toxicant. The screening risk assessment acute toxicity data for fish are collected on 

juvenile fish between 0.1 and 5 grams. Aquatic invertebrate acute testing is performed on 

recommended immature age classes (e.g., first instar for daphnids, second instar for amphipods, 

stoneflies and mayflies, and third instar for midges). Similarly, acute dietary testing with birds is 

also performed on juveniles, with mallard duck being 5-10 days old and quail 10-14 days old. 

Testing of juveniles may overestimate toxicity at older age classes for pesticidal active ingredients 

that act directly (without metabolic transformation) because younger age classes may not have the 

enzymatic systems associated with detoxifying xenobiotics. The screening risk assessment has no 

current provisions for a generally applied method that accounts for this uncertainty. In so far as the 

available toxicity data may provide ranges of sensitivity information with respect to age class, the 

risk assessment uses the most sensitive life-stage information as the conservative screening 

endpoint. 

Use of the Most Sensitive Species Tested 

Although the screening risk assessment relies on a selected toxicity endpoint from the most 

sensitive species tested, it does not necessarily mean that the selected toxicity endpoints reflect 

sensitivity of the most sensitive species existing in a given environment. The relative position of 

the most sensitive species tested in the distribution of all possible species is a function of the 

overall variability among species to a particular chemical. In the case of listed species, there is 

uncertainty regarding the relationship of the listed species' sensitivity and the most sensitive 

species tested. 

The Agency is not limited to a base set of surrogate toxicity information in establishing risk 

assessment conclusions. The Agency also considers toxicity data on non-standard test species 

when available. 

5. Assumptions Associated With the Acute LOCs 

The risk characterization section of the assessment includes an evaluation of the potential for 

individual effects at an exposure level equivalent to the LOC. This evaluation is based on the 

median lethal dose estimate and dose-response relationship established for the effects study 

corresponding to each taxonomic group for which the LOCs are exceeded. 
34

Appendix G: References 

Tomlin, C.D.S. (ed.)1997. The Pesticide Manual. Eleventh Ed. British Crop Protection Council. 

Surrey, GU9 7PH, UK. 

T-REX. 2005. Terrestrial Residue Exposure Model (T-REX), Version 1.2.3. August 8, 2005. 

Environmental Fate and Effects Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. 

U.S. EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 2004. Pe4 Shell. 2004. 

Environmental Fate and Effects Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. Information downloaded from the website 

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

U.S. EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 2002. EFED’s Revised Chapter on 

Thiophanate Methyl: Environmental Fate and Ecological Risk Assessment for Thiophanate 

Methyl. 
35

V. APPENDICES

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

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

Guideline #

Data Requirement

Are Additional 

Data Needed 

for Risk 

Assessment?

MRID #’s

Study 

Classification 

 71-1 Avian Acute Oral: 

Mallard Duck 

Bobwhite Quail

No 

No 

NAOTH101 

00083012

Core 

Core 

71-2 Avian Acute Dietary: 

Mallard Duck 

Bobwhite Quail

No 

No 

00083014 

00069600

Core 

Core 

71-4 Avian Reproduction: 

Mallard Duck 

Bobwhite Quail 

No 

No

424748-01 

NAOTH102

Core 

Core

72-1 Fish Acute Toxicity: 

Bluegill 

Rainbow trout 

No 

No

421235-01 

00050516

Core 

Supplemental

72-2 Aquatic Invertebrate Acute 

Toxicity–freshwater

No 

425294-01 Core 

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

 TM No 421235-03 Core 

72-3(b) Marine/Estuarine Acute 

Toxicity–Mollusk (shell deposition) 

No 420946-02 Supplemental 

72-3(c) Marine/Estuarine Acute 

Toxicity–Shrimp 

No 421235-02 Supplemental 

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

MBC No 438728-01 Core 

72-4(a) Fish Early Life Stage– marine/estuarine No No Data N/A 
36

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

Guideline #

Data Requirement

Are Additional 

Data Needed 

for Risk 

Assessment?

MRID #’s

Study 

Classification 

72-4(b) Aquatic Invertebrate Life 

Cycle–freshwater 

MBC

No 4229881-01 Core 

72-4(c) Aquatic Invertebrate Life Cycle– 

marine/estuarine 

MBC No 427237-01 Core 

81-1 

83-1 

Mammal Acute 

Mammalian Chronic 

No 

No 

416443-01 

426077-01 

Core 

Core 

123-1(a/b) Seedling Germination/Seedling 

Emergence–Tier I 

Vegetative Vigor–Tier I 

No 

No 

4404101 

42123504 

Core 

Core 

123-2 Aquatic Plant Growth – Tier II No 

No 

No 

No 

421235-05 

422298-01 

422298-03 

422298-02 

422981-02

Core 

Core 

Core 

Core 

Core 

141-1 Honeybee Acute Contact No 400532-09 Core 

TABLE A1-B. Environmental Fate Data Requirements for TM and MBC

Guide-line # Data Requirement

Are Additional 

Data Needed for 

Risk 

Assessment?

MRID #s

Study 

Classification 

161-1

Hydrolysis 

 TM 

 MBC 

No 

No

40095507 

40095507 

A 

A

161-2

Photodegradation in Water 

 TM 

 MBC

No 

No

41482806 

41482806 

A

A

161-3

Photodegradation on Soil 

 TM 

 MBC

No 

No

420946-01 

414828-07 

A 

A

161-4

Pho

 TM 

todegradation in Air 

 MBC No 

No

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A
37

TABLE A1-B. Environmental Fate Data Requirements for TM and MBC

Guide-line # Data Requirement

Are Additional 

Data Needed for 

Risk 

Assessment?

MRID #s

Study 

Classification 

162-1

Aerobic Soil Metabolism 

 TM 

 MBC

No 

No

00106085 

41255801 A

A

162-2

Anaerobic Soil Metabolism 

 TM 

 MBC

NA 

NA

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A

162-3

Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism 

 TM 

 MBC

No 

No

400615-01 

411377-01 

A 

A

162-4

Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism 

 TM 

 MBC

No 

No

400615-01 

411377-01 

A 

A

163-1

Leaching-Adsorption/Desorption 

 TM 

 MBC

No 

No

423510-01 

423510-01 

A 

A

163-2

Laboratory Volatility 

 TM 

 MBC

No 

No

423800-01 

423800-01 

S 

S

163-3

Field Volatility 

 TM 

 MBC

No 

No 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

164-1

Terrestrial Field Dissipation 

 TM 

 MBC

No 

No

43433701 

419301-01& 02 

419301-01& 02 

S

S

164-2

Aquatic Field Dissipation 

 TM 

 MBC

No 

No

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

165-4

Accumulation in Fish 

 TM 

 MBC

No 

No

N/A 

NA

W 

S 

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

A=Acceptable; S=Supplemental; U=Unacceptable; N/A=Not Applicable; NA=Not Available; W=Waived; R = Reserved
Appendix B. Structures of TM Parent and Degredates 

Thiophanate-methyl

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

CAS name: Dimethyl((1,2,-phenylene)bis(iminocarbonothioyl))bis(carbamate) 

CAS #: 23564-05-8 

Synonyms: Carbamic acid, [1,2-phenylenebis(iminocarbonthioyl)]bis-dimethyl ester. 

 Bis(3-(methoxycaronyl)-2-thioreido)benzene. 

 Methyl thiophanate. 

Topsin M, Cercobin M, Thiophanate M, Banrot, Fungo, TD-1771, NF-44, Enovit Methyl, Duosan, 

Systec. 

NHCS.NHCO.OCH3

NHCS.NHCO.OCH3

*

Carbendazim (HOE 017411)

IUPAC Name:2-(Methoxycarbonylamino 

N

N NH OMe

H O

*

C OCH3

AV-1951

38
IUPAC Name: [2-(N-methoxy carbonyl thioureido 

NHCNHCOCH3

NHCNH2

S O

S

2-AB

IUPAC Name: 2-Aminobenzimidazole 

N

H

N

C NH2

4-OH-TM

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

NHCNHCOCH3

OH NHCNHCOCH3

S O

S O

Proposed structure of M10 

N

N

H

NH

N

O

O

N

N

N

NH OH

OH

Appendix C: Environmental Fate and Transport 

39
40

FATE IN WATER 

Based on environmental fate studies for thiophanate-methyl that meet Agency guidelines, the 

hydrolytic stability of TM decreases with increasing pH and temperature. Whereas TM is stable 

to hydrolysis at pH 5.0 and hydrolyzes with a half-life of 36 days at pH 7.0, TM rapidly hydrolyzes 

at pH 9.0 with a half-life of 0.7 days. The primary degradates of hydrolysis formed at variable 

amounts during the study were MBC, and AV-1951 (refer to Appendix 1 for formulas). The 

amount of degradates increased with time. MBC was always found at higher concentrations than 

AV-1951 at all sampling intervals (MRID# 40095507). 

 

The photodegradation half-life of TM in water is 0.53 days in summer, 0.66 days in spring, and 

2.48 days in winter (MRID# 41482806). Three photodegradates were identified; the major 

degradate, MBC, and minor degradates, DX-105 and FH-432 (refer to appendix 1 for formulas). 

The solubility of TM in water is 21.8 ppm at pH 7 and 25 0

C (MRID# 41482806). 

Based on environmental fate studies that meet Agency guidelines, MBC is stable to hydrolysis at 

pH 5 and 7, with hydrolytic stability decreasing within this range of pH values as pH increases. 

MBC was also found to be stable to aqueous photolysis at a pH of 5. MBC has a solubility in water 

of 8.0 ppm at pH 7 and 25 0C (ACC# 00151418 and ACC# 00151419). 
41

MBC degraded with an estimated half-life of 61 days in a clay loam:water system at pH 7.3 

incubated aerobically for 30 days (MRID# 41291501). Extrapolating results beyond the duration 

of the study introduces uncertainty into the estimated half-life. 

Anaerobic aquatic metabolism

The anaerobic aquatic metabolism half-life of TM is less than 1 day. The major degradate was 

MBC, being present at 66 percent of TM initially applied after 1 day in the water phase. The 

amount of MBC declined over time. However, adequate sampling intervals were not established 

to estimate an MBC half-life from this study. The degradates, AV-1951, DX-105, and FH-432, 

were also detected, particularly in the aqueous phase during the first week at less than 10 percent 

of TM initially applied. No degradates were detected in the aqueous phase after 12 months. 

However, DX-105 and FH-452 were detected in soil 12 months after application (MRID# 

40061501). 

In a study where MBC was followed in a clay loam:water system at pH 7.4 and anaerobically 

incubated for 365 days, an extrapolated half-life was established at 743 days (MRID# 41137701). 

FATE IN SOIL

 

Photodegradation in soil

TM in soil photodegraded with natural sunlight at half-lives ranging from 2.9 to 5.5 days. In dark 

conditions, the half-lives for TM in a sandy loam soil with pH 7.4 at 1.7 percent organic matter 

range from 10.3 to 19.3 days. Degradates were MBC and DX-105. Although no information on 

photodegradation of these degradates in soil was available, degradates are believed to be bound to 

soil more readily than TM (MRID# 42094601). 

MBC is stable to photodegradation in soil (ACC. 00151420). At the end of a 32-day study, MBC 

represented greater than 99 percent of the initially applied radioactivity. The study duration was 

insufficient, however, to establish a pattern of decline or estimate a half-life. 

Aerobic soil metabolism

The aerobic soil metabolism half-life of TM in soil is less than 1 day. The major degradate 

identified was MBC, with bound residues in a soil of pH 7.5 present after 12 months at 76 percent 

of the levels at application. Other degradates detected were FH-432 and DX-105 at less than 10 

percent of the initially applied radioactivity. Maximum radioactivity reached 82.7 percent of the 

applied during the first three weeks after treatment with gradual but slow decline thereafter 

(MRID# 00106085). 

MBC degraded with a half-life of 320 days (MRID# 41255801). In this study, MBC reaches a 

maximum total of 41.8 percent of the radioactivity by the 30th day after treatment, with gradual but 

slow decline thereafter. 

Leaching, adsorption/desorption of TM and degradates
42

TM, MBC, DX-105 and FH-432 sorbed relatively poorly to a series of six different soils. The 

adsorption was such that MBC sorbed more strongly (Koc 2100) than TM and the remaining 

degradates (lowest Koc 117.7) which were approximately equivalent in their sorption profile. 

MBC was tightly bound to the humin (soluble and insoluble) and fulvic acid soil fractions. TM, 

DX-105 and FH-432 all readily desorbed from the test soils indicating a high likelihood to be very 

mobile in soils. MBC did not desorb as readily, therefore, is less likely to be mobile in soils with 

similar characteristics (MRID# 42351001, ACC# 00151421 and ACC# 00151422). A soil column 

leaching study that meets Agency guidelines indicates that MBC is relatively immobile, with 

greater than 95 percent of the amount initially applied remaining in the upper 4 inches of the soil 

column (ACC# 00151421). 

Terrestrial field dissipation

Dissipation of TM residues from soil is rapid, with dissipation half-lives up to 4.2 days and 

formation of MBC and Dimethyl-4,4'-o-phenylenebis (i.e., allophanate) as degradates. 

Dissipation half-lives calculated for MBC ranged from 22 to 94 days in 3 studies (MRID# 

41930101, 41930102, 43433701). 

MBC dissipated in loam soil at a rate corresponding to a half-life of 86 days and from sand soils 

at a rate corresponding to a half-life of 15 days. MBC was detected in the top 15 cm horizon of 

both soils (MRID# 43941301). In general, these half-lives were relatively short compared to the 

laboratory biotic and abiotic studies. Recoveries during the studies were good indicating 

acceptable mass balances of MBC. Site parameters such as slope and climatology may have 

influenced the more rapid dissipation of MBC in the field than was observed in the laboratory 

studies. 

FATE ON FOLIAGE 

The conversion of TM to MBC is expected to be a slower process on foliage than in water. Based 

on dislodgeable foliar residue (DFR) studies that were evaluated by the Health Effects Division 

(HED), the foliar dissipation half-life of TM applied to apples and strawberries was determined to 

be as long as 31.4 days. TM applied to apples in New York dissipated with a half-life of 3.8 days, 

whereas TM applied to apples in Washington dissipated with a half-life of 31.4 days (MRID# 

44876301). In this study, residue levels of MBC were not reported. The difference in dissipation 

half-lives of TM applied to apples in New York compared to TM applied to apples in Washington 

can be explained by the difference in the amount of precipitation at the two sites. The apple 

orchard in the town of Quincy, WA, located east of the Cascades mountain range, is characterized 

by dry climate and low precipitation, whereas the apple orchard in New York is characterized by 

wet climate and high precipitation. Thus, increased wash-off may have contributed to the more 

rapid dissipation observed in New York. It is hypothesized that photolysis may have had little 

effect on dissipation of TM from apples due to “shading”. In this context, “shading” refers to the 

effect of leaf surfaces in the upper portion of a tree inhibiting light penetration to leaf surfaces 

lower on the tree. On the other hand, TM applied to strawberries in NC dissipated with a half-life 

of 1.08 days for combined TM and MBC residues. TM applied to strawberries in the Central 

Valley of California dissipated with a half-life of 1.78 days for combined TM and MBC residues 
43

(MRID#44866201). Because of the highly exposed surfaces of strawberries relative to apples, 

“shading” effects are less likely to occur thereby leading photolysis to be a more influential 

pathway for disappearance of TM on strawberries than on apples in an orchard. Supplemental 

information from the World Health Organization (WHO) ( Report No.: 133 (Pesticide Residues In 

Food - 1995, Geneva, Switzerland, page 187, 9/16/95-9/27/95)) indicates that TM residues have 

been detected in TM-treated produce.
Appendix D. Aquatic Exposure: Model and Results 

Aquatic EECs for the ecological exposure to TM and MBC were estimated using PRZM 

3.12/EXAMS 2.98 employing the standard field pond scenario. PRZM/EXAMS is a Tier II 

screening model designed to estimate pesticide concentrations found in water at the edge of a 

treated field. As such, it provides high-end values of the pesticide concentrations that might be 

found in ecologically sensitive environments following pesticide application. PRZM-EXAMS is 

a multi-year runoff model that also accounts for spray drift from single and multiple applications. 

In the ecological exposure assessment, PRZM/EXAMS simulates a 10 hectare (ha) field 

immediately adjacent to a 1 ha pond, 2 meters deep with no outlet. The location of the field is 

specific to the crop being simulated using site specific information on the soils, weather, cropping, 

and management factors associated with the scenario. The crop/location scenario in a specific state 

is intended to represent a high-end vulnerable site on which the crop is normally grown. Based on 

historical rainfall patterns, the pond receives multiple runoff events during the years simulated. 

The maximum application rates of TM were calculated using TREX v.1.2.3 (Table D.I.). 

Application rates of MBC were calculated from TM application rate using following approach. 

From the equation shown above, one mole or 342.4 mass unit of TM degrades to produce one mole 

or 191.18 mass units of MBC. Thus, the mass conversion ratio or molecular weight (MW) ratio of 

MBC to TM is 0.56. The aerobic soil metabolism study suggests that the maximum conversion 

rate of TM to MBC was 82.7%. 

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

 

 C112H14N4O4S2 → C9H9N3O2 + other products 

 (TM; MW = 342.4) ( MBC; MW = 191.12)

Table D.I. TREX v1.2.3 Selected Output 

Crop Maximum 

Seeding 

Rate 

(lbs/acre) 

Application 

Rate 

Application 

Rate 

Application 

Rate of TM * 

Application 

Rate of MBC** 

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

Corn 25 5.70 0.37 0.09 0.04 

Peanuts 135 1.78 0.12 0.16 0.07 

Soybeans 100 0.45 0.03 0.03 0.01 

Wheat 135 0.45 0.03 0.04 0.02 

* Maximum application Rate (lbs ai/A) = (Maximum seeding rate*application rate (lbs ai/cwt)/100 lbs/cwt 

** Application rate of MBC = TM application rate x {90.827, the maximum conversion rate from the degradation 

of TM to MBC in lab studies) x 0.56, the moleculer weight ratio of MBC to TM 

44
stored as FL_Scorn.out

Chemical: TM

PRZM envimodified Satday, 12 October 2002 at 16:43:14

EXAMS en modified Thuday, 29 August 2002 at 16:33:30

Metfile: w12modified Wedday, 3 July 2002 at 09:04:30

Water segment concentrations (ppb)

Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

1961 0.0457 0.03492 0.02076 0.008154 0.005441 0.001342

1962 3.2E-03 2.4E-03 1.0E-03 4.0E-04 2.7E-04 6.6E-05

1963 1.7E-01 1.4E-01 7.3E-02 2.8E-02 1.9E-02 4.6E-03

1964 9.0E-01 7.1E-01 3.1E-01 1.2E-01 7.8E-02 1.9E-02

1965 5.8E-01 4.6E-01 2.1E-01 7.7E-02 5.2E-02 1.3E-02

1966 2.9E-01 2.2E-01 1.0E-01 3.9E-02 2.6E-02 6.4E-03

1967 6.7E-03 5.1E-03 2.4E-03 1.3E-03 8.4E-04 2.1E-04

1968 3.2E-01 2.5E-01 1.2E-01 4.8E-02 3.2E-02 7.9E-03

1969 3.8E-02 3.1E-02 1.5E-02 6.1E-03 4.1E-03 1.0E-03

1970 4.2E-03 3.3E-03 2.1E-03 8.9E-04 6.0E-04 1.5E-04

1971 1.6E-02 1.2E-02 7.1E-03 2.9E-03 1.9E-03 4.7E-04

1972 1.5E-03 1.2E-03 5.2E-04 1.9E-04 1.3E-04 3.2E-05

1973 5.1E-01 4.5E-01 2.1E-01 7.6E-02 5.1E-02 1.3E-02

1974 2.6E-02 2.2E-02 9.4E-03 3.5E-03 2.3E-03 5.8E-04

1975 4.6E-03 3.5E-03 1.7E-03 6.5E-04 4.3E-04 1.1E-04

1976 2.3E-01 1.8E-01 8.4E-02 3.2E-02 2.1E-02 5.2E-03

1977 2.0E-05 1.7E-05 9.5E-06 4.0E-06 2.7E-06 1.2E-06

1978 1.3E-02 9.8E-03 5.3E-03 2.3E-03 1.6E-03 3.8E-04

1979 7.4E-02 5.7E-02 2.9E-02 1.1E-02 7.4E-03 1.8E-03

1980 1.8E-01 1.4E-01 5.9E-02 2.2E-02 1.5E-02 3.6E-03

1981 2.7E-02 2.1E-02 8.6E-03 3.4E-03 2.3E-03 5.6E-04

1982 7.3E-03 5.5E-03 2.5E-03 1.4E-03 9.4E-04 2.3E-04

1983 1.4E-02 1.1E-02 6.4E-03 2.7E-03 1.8E-03 4.5E-04

1984 2.4E-03 1.8E-03 1.0E-03 4.2E-04 2.8E-04 6.8E-05

1985 5.3E-03 4.0E-03 1.6E-03 5.9E-04 3.9E-04 9.6E-05

1986 4.4E-02 3.4E-02 1.4E-02 5.5E-03 3.6E-03 9.0E-04

1987 2.7E-01 2.1E-01 9.0E-02 3.4E-02 2.3E-02 5.6E-03

1988 1.6E-03 1.2E-03 5.1E-04 2.9E-04 1.9E-04 4.8E-05

1989 2.0E-01 1.5E-01 6.7E-02 2.5E-02 1.7E-02 4.1E-03

1990 2.4E-02 2.0E-02 1.1E-02 4.1E-03 2.8E-03 6.8E-04

Sorted results

Prob. Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

0.03 9.0E-01 7.1E-01 3.1E-01 1.2E-01 7.8E-02 1.9E-02

0.06 5.8E-01 4.6E-01 2.1E-01 7.7E-02 5.2E-02 1.3E-02

0.10 5.1E-01 4.5E-01 2.1E-01 7.6E-02 5.1E-02 1.3E-02

0.13 3.2E-01 2.5E-01 1.2E-01 4.8E-02 3.2E-02 7.9E-03

0.16 2.9E-01 2.2E-01 1.0E-01 3.9E-02 2.6E-02 6.4E-03

0.19 2.7E-01 2.1E-01 9.0E-02 3.4E-02 2.3E-02 5.6E-03

0.23 2.3E-01 1.8E-01 8.4E-02 3.2E-02 2.1E-02 5.2E-03

0.26 2.0E-01 1.5E-01 7.3E-02 2.8E-02 1.9E-02 4.6E-03

0.29 1.8E-01 1.4E-01 6.7E-02 2.5E-02 1.7E-02 4.1E-03

0.32 1.7E-01 1.4E-01 5.9E-02 2.2E-02 1.5E-02 3.6E-03

0.35 7.4E-02 5.7E-02 2.9E-02 1.1E-02 7.4E-03 1.8E-03

0.39 4.6E-02 3.5E-02 2.1E-02 8.2E-03 5.4E-03 1.3E-03

0.42 4.4E-02 3.4E-02 1.5E-02 6.1E-03 4.1E-03 1.0E-03

0.45 3.8E-02 3.1E-02 1.4E-02 5.5E-03 3.6E-03 9.0E-04

0.48 2.7E-02 2.2E-02 1.1E-02 4.1E-03 2.8E-03 6.8E-04

0.52 2.6E-02 2.1E-02 9.4E-03 3.5E-03 2.3E-03 5.8E-04

0.55 2.4E-02 2.0E-02 8.6E-03 3.4E-03 2.3E-03 5.6E-04

0.58 1.6E-02 1.2E-02 7.1E-03 2.9E-03 1.9E-03 4.7E-04

0.61 1.4E-02 1.1E-02 6.4E-03 2.7E-03 1.8E-03 4.5E-04

0.65 1.3E-02 9.8E-03 5.3E-03 2.3E-03 1.6E-03 3.8E-04

0.68 7.3E-03 5.5E-03 2.5E-03 1.4E-03 9.4E-04 2.3E-04

0.71 6.7E-03 5.1E-03 2.4E-03 1.3E-03 8.4E-04 2.1E-04

0.74 5.3E-03 4.0E-03 2.1E-03 8.9E-04 6.0E-04 1.5E-04

0.77 4.6E-03 3.5E-03 1.7E-03 6.5E-04 4.3E-04 1.1E-04

0.81 4.2E-03 3.3E-03 1.6E-03 5.9E-04 3.9E-04 9.6E-05

0.84 3.2E-03 2.4E-03 1.0E-03 4.2E-04 2.8E-04 6.8E-05

0.87 2.4E-03 1.8E-03 1.0E-03 4.0E-04 2.7E-04 6.6E-05

0.90 1.6E-03 1.2E-03 5.2E-04 2.9E-04 1.9E-04 4.8E-05

0.94 1.5E-03 1.2E-03 5.1E-04 1.9E-04 1.3E-04 3.2E-05

0.97 2.0E-05 1.7E-05 9.5E-06 4.0E-06 2.7E-06 1.2E-06

0.10 4.9E-01 4.3E-01 2.0E-01 7.4E-02 4.9E-02 1.2E-02

Average of 3.0E-03

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

Data used for this run:

Output File: FL_Scorn

Metfile: w12844.dvf

PRZM scenFLsweetcornC.txt

EXAMS en pond298.exv

Chemical NTM

DescriptionVariable NaValue Units Comments

Molecular wmwt 342.4 g/mol

Henry's Lawhenry atm-m^3/mol

Vapor Presvapr 1.30E-05 torr

Solubility sol 210 mg/L

Kd Kd mg/L

Koc Koc 318 mg/L

Photolysis kdp 2.17 days Half-life

Aerobic Aq kbacw 6 days Halfife

Anaerobic Akbacs 3 days Halfife

Aerobic So asm 3 days Halfife

Hydrolysis: pH 7 36 days Half-life

Method: CAM 4 integer See PRZM manual

IncorporatioDEPI 4 cm

Application TAPP 0.1 kg/ha

Application APPEFF 1 fraction

Spray Drift DRFT 0 fraction of application rate applied to pond

Application Date 7/10 dd/mm or dd/mmm or dd-mm or dd-mmm

Record 17: FILTRA

IPSCND 1

UPTKF

Record 18: PLVKRT

PLDKRT

FEXTRC 0

Flag for IndIR Pond

Flag for runRUNOFF none none, monthly or total(average of entire run)

45
stored as MB_Scorn.out

Chemical: MBC

PRZM env modified Satday, 12 October 2002 at 16:43:14

EXAMS enmodified Thuday, 29 August 2002 at 16:33:30

Metfile: w1 modified Wedday, 3 July 2002 at 09:04:30

Water segment concentrations (ppb)

Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

1961 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.01

1962 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.03

1963 0.15 0.14 0.12 0.10 0.09 0.05

1964 0.42 0.40 0.34 0.29 0.26 0.13

1965 0.63 0.60 0.55 0.45 0.38 0.21

1966 0.34 0.33 0.31 0.30 0.30 0.24

1967 0.22 0.21 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.17

1968 0.23 0.22 0.20 0.17 0.16 0.14

1969 0.30 0.29 0.25 0.21 0.18 0.14

1970 0.21 0.20 0.19 0.18 0.18 0.14

1971 0.35 0.33 0.27 0.20 0.17 0.11

1972 0.38 0.36 0.29 0.21 0.17 0.13

1973 0.20 0.19 0.17 0.15 0.15 0.13

1974 0.21 0.21 0.19 0.16 0.15 0.12

1975 0.11 0.11 0.10 0.10 0.09 0.08

1976 0.18 0.17 0.15 0.13 0.12 0.09

1977 0.22 0.21 0.19 0.15 0.14 0.12

1978 0.33 0.32 0.28 0.22 0.18 0.14

1979 0.21 0.21 0.19 0.16 0.16 0.14

1980 0.18 0.18 0.17 0.16 0.15 0.13

1981 0.25 0.24 0.20 0.15 0.13 0.10

1982 0.43 0.41 0.35 0.28 0.23 0.17

1983 0.28 0.27 0.26 0.24 0.23 0.18

1984 0.54 0.51 0.42 0.29 0.23 0.17

1985 0.25 0.25 0.23 0.22 0.21 0.17

1986 0.25 0.24 0.22 0.19 0.18 0.15

1987 0.32 0.31 0.27 0.22 0.20 0.15

1988 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.16 0.16 0.13

1989 0.15 0.15 0.13 0.11 0.10 0.09

1990 0.11 0.11 0.10 0.09 0.09 0.08

Sorted results

Prob. Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

0.03 6.3E-01 6.0E-01 5.5E-01 4.5E-01 3.8E-01 2.4E-01

0.06 5.4E-01 5.1E-01 4.2E-01 3.0E-01 3.0E-01 2.1E-01

0.10 4.3E-01 4.1E-01 3.5E-01 2.9E-01 2.6E-01 1.8E-01

0.13 4.2E-01 4.0E-01 3.4E-01 2.9E-01 2.3E-01 1.7E-01

0.16 3.8E-01 3.6E-01 3.1E-01 2.8E-01 2.3E-01 1.7E-01

0.19 3.5E-01 3.3E-01 2.9E-01 2.4E-01 2.3E-01 1.7E-01

0.23 3.4E-01 3.3E-01 2.8E-01 2.2E-01 2.1E-01 1.7E-01

0.26 3.3E-01 3.2E-01 2.7E-01 2.2E-01 2.0E-01 1.5E-01

0.29 3.2E-01 3.1E-01 2.7E-01 2.2E-01 2.0E-01 1.5E-01

0.32 3.0E-01 2.9E-01 2.6E-01 2.1E-01 1.8E-01 1.4E-01

0.35 2.8E-01 2.7E-01 2.5E-01 2.1E-01 1.8E-01 1.4E-01

0.39 2.5E-01 2.5E-01 2.3E-01 2.0E-01 1.8E-01 1.4E-01

0.42 2.5E-01 2.4E-01 2.2E-01 2.0E-01 1.8E-01 1.4E-01

0.45 2.5E-01 2.4E-01 2.0E-01 1.9E-01 1.7E-01 1.4E-01

0.48 2.3E-01 2.2E-01 2.0E-01 1.8E-01 1.7E-01 1.3E-01

0.52 2.2E-01 2.1E-01 2.0E-01 1.7E-01 1.6E-01 1.3E-01

0.55 2.2E-01 2.1E-01 1.9E-01 1.6E-01 1.6E-01 1.3E-01

0.58 2.1E-01 2.1E-01 1.9E-01 1.6E-01 1.6E-01 1.3E-01

0.61 2.1E-01 2.1E-01 1.9E-01 1.6E-01 1.5E-01 1.3E-01

0.65 2.1E-01 2.0E-01 1.9E-01 1.6E-01 1.5E-01 1.2E-01

0.68 2.0E-01 1.9E-01 1.7E-01 1.5E-01 1.5E-01 1.2E-01

0.71 1.8E-01 1.8E-01 1.7E-01 1.5E-01 1.4E-01 1.1E-01

0.74 1.8E-01 1.7E-01 1.7E-01 1.5E-01 1.3E-01 1.0E-01

0.77 1.7E-01 1.7E-01 1.5E-01 1.3E-01 1.2E-01 9.5E-02

0.81 1.5E-01 1.5E-01 1.3E-01 1.1E-01 1.0E-01 9.2E-02

0.84 1.5E-01 1.4E-01 1.2E-01 1.0E-01 9.3E-02 8.4E-02

0.87 1.1E-01 1.1E-01 1.0E-01 9.7E-02 9.2E-02 7.9E-02

0.90 1.1E-01 1.1E-01 9.6E-02 9.2E-02 8.8E-02 5.4E-02

0.94 6.8E-02 6.3E-02 5.0E-02 4.4E-02 4.1E-02 3.4E-02

0.97 6.2E-02 5.9E-02 4.9E-02 3.8E-02 3.0E-02 7.4E-03

0.10 4.3E-01 4.1E-01 3.5E-01 2.9E-01 2.5E-01 1.8E-01

Average of 1.3E-01

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

Data used for this run:

Output File: MB_Scorn

Metfile: w12844.dvf

PRZM scenFLsweetcornC.txt

EXAMS en pond298.exv

Chemical NMBC

DescriptionVariable NaValue Units Comments

Molecular wmwt 191.18 g/mol

Henry's Lawhenry atm-m^3/mol

Vapor Presvapr 7.50E-10 torr

Solubility sol 80 mg/L

Kd Kd mg/L

Koc Koc 1885 mg/L

Photolysis kdp days Half-life

Aerobic Aqkbacw 100.2 days Halfife

Anaerobic Akbacs 1482.7 days Halfife

Aerobic Soasm 960 days Halfife

Hydrolysis: pH 7 0 days Half-life

Method: CAM 4 integer See PRZM manual

IncorporatioDEPI 4 cm

ApplicationTAPP 0.04 kg/ha

ApplicationAPPEFF 1 fraction

Spray Drift DRFT 0 fraction of application rate applied to pond

ApplicationDate 7/10 dd/mm or dd/mmm or dd-mm or dd-mmm

Record 17:FILTRA

IPSCND 1

UPTKF

Record 18:PLVKRT

PLDKRT

FEXTRC 0

Flag for IndIR Pond

Flag for runRUNOFF none none, monthly or total(average of entire run)

46
stored as MS_bean.out

Chemical: TM

PRZM env modified Satday, 12 October 2002 at 17:12:46

EXAMS enmodified Thuday, 29 August 2002 at 16:33:30

Metfile: w1 modified Wedday, 3 July 2002 at 09:06:30

Water segment concentrations (ppb)

Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

1961 3.2E-02 2.7E-02 1.6E-02 6.6E-03 4.4E-03 1.1E-03

1962 1.0E-02 9.0E-03 5.2E-03 2.2E-03 1.4E-03 3.6E-04

1963 1.3E-06 1.1E-06 4.9E-07 1.9E-07 1.2E-07 3.1E-08

1964 1.0E-07 8.2E-08 4.1E-08 1.7E-08 1.1E-08 2.8E-09

1965 1.8E-04 1.6E-04 7.8E-05 3.0E-05 2.0E-05 5.0E-06

1966 9.1E-04 7.6E-04 4.9E-04 2.2E-04 1.5E-04 3.7E-05

1967 6.9E-05 5.8E-05 3.1E-05 1.4E-05 9.3E-06 2.3E-06

1968 3.9E-04 3.4E-04 1.9E-04 7.4E-05 5.0E-05 1.2E-05

1969 2.4E-06 2.1E-06 1.0E-06 5.3E-07 3.6E-07 9.0E-08

1970 6.1E-03 5.3E-03 3.2E-03 1.3E-03 8.9E-04 2.2E-04

1971 4.2E-05 3.5E-05 1.9E-05 7.4E-06 5.0E-06 1.2E-06

1972 1.9E-03 1.8E-03 1.1E-03 4.5E-04 3.0E-04 7.4E-05

1973 2.6E-03 2.2E-03 1.1E-03 4.4E-04 2.9E-04 7.3E-05

1974 1.7E-05 1.4E-05 7.7E-06 3.2E-06 2.1E-06 5.2E-07

1975 8.3E-02 7.2E-02 4.2E-02 1.7E-02 1.1E-02 2.8E-03

1976 9.4E-07 7.7E-07 5.6E-07 2.3E-07 1.6E-07 3.8E-08

1977 4.6E-04 3.9E-04 2.5E-04 1.1E-04 7.0E-05 1.7E-05

1978 2.4E-03 2.0E-03 1.1E-03 5.1E-04 3.4E-04 8.5E-05

1979 1.2E-01 1.0E-01 5.8E-02 2.3E-02 1.6E-02 3.9E-03

1980 1.2E-03 1.0E-03 5.4E-04 2.1E-04 1.4E-04 3.5E-05

1981 3.7E-04 3.1E-04 1.6E-04 6.6E-05 4.4E-05 1.1E-05

1982 3.7E-04 3.1E-04 1.6E-04 6.3E-05 4.2E-05 1.0E-05

1983 1.8E-02 1.6E-02 1.3E-02 5.7E-03 3.8E-03 9.4E-04

1984 1.1E-01 9.4E-02 5.5E-02 2.2E-02 1.5E-02 3.6E-03

1985 6.1E-05 4.9E-05 2.4E-05 9.3E-06 6.2E-06 1.5E-06

1986 2.1E-03 1.8E-03 1.2E-03 5.0E-04 3.3E-04 8.2E-05

1987 5.3E-03 4.7E-03 3.3E-03 1.4E-03 9.5E-04 2.3E-04

1988 1.1E-02 1.0E-02 6.0E-03 2.5E-03 1.7E-03 4.1E-04

1989 1.2E-02 1.1E-02 6.0E-03 2.4E-03 1.6E-03 4.0E-04

1990 4.7E-04 3.9E-04 2.7E-04 1.1E-04 7.6E-05 1.9E-05

Sorted results

Prob. Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

0.032258 1.2E-01 1.0E-01 5.8E-02 2.3E-02 1.6E-02 3.9E-03

0.064516 1.1E-01 9.4E-02 5.5E-02 2.2E-02 1.5E-02 3.6E-03

0.096774 8.3E-02 7.2E-02 4.2E-02 1.7E-02 1.1E-02 2.8E-03

0.129032 3.2E-02 2.7E-02 1.6E-02 6.6E-03 4.4E-03 1.1E-03

0.16129 1.8E-02 1.6E-02 1.3E-02 5.7E-03 3.8E-03 9.4E-04

0.193548 1.2E-02 1.1E-02 6.0E-03 2.5E-03 1.7E-03 4.1E-04

0.225806 1.1E-02 1.0E-02 6.0E-03 2.4E-03 1.6E-03 4.0E-04

0.258065 1.0E-02 9.0E-03 5.2E-03 2.2E-03 1.4E-03 3.6E-04

0.290323 6.1E-03 5.3E-03 3.3E-03 1.4E-03 9.5E-04 2.3E-04

0.322581 5.3E-03 4.7E-03 3.2E-03 1.3E-03 8.9E-04 2.2E-04

0.354839 2.6E-03 2.2E-03 1.2E-03 5.1E-04 3.4E-04 8.5E-05

0.387097 2.4E-03 2.0E-03 1.1E-03 5.0E-04 3.3E-04 8.2E-05

0.419355 2.1E-03 1.8E-03 1.1E-03 4.5E-04 3.0E-04 7.4E-05

0.451613 1.9E-03 1.8E-03 1.1E-03 4.4E-04 2.9E-04 7.3E-05

0.483871 1.2E-03 1.0E-03 5.4E-04 2.2E-04 1.5E-04 3.7E-05

0.516129 9.1E-04 7.6E-04 4.9E-04 2.1E-04 1.4E-04 3.5E-05

0.548387 4.7E-04 3.9E-04 2.7E-04 1.1E-04 7.6E-05 1.9E-05

0.580645 4.6E-04 3.9E-04 2.5E-04 1.1E-04 7.0E-05 1.7E-05

0.612903 3.9E-04 3.4E-04 1.9E-04 7.4E-05 5.0E-05 1.2E-05

0.645161 3.7E-04 3.1E-04 1.6E-04 6.6E-05 4.4E-05 1.1E-05

0.677419 3.7E-04 3.1E-04 1.6E-04 6.3E-05 4.2E-05 1.0E-05

0.709677 1.8E-04 1.6E-04 7.8E-05 3.0E-05 2.0E-05 5.0E-06

0.741935 6.9E-05 5.8E-05 3.1E-05 1.4E-05 9.3E-06 2.3E-06

0.774194 6.1E-05 4.9E-05 2.4E-05 9.3E-06 6.2E-06 1.5E-06

0.806452 4.2E-05 3.5E-05 1.9E-05 7.4E-06 5.0E-06 1.2E-06

0.83871 1.7E-05 1.4E-05 7.7E-06 3.2E-06 2.1E-06 5.2E-07

0.870968 2.4E-06 2.1E-06 1.0E-06 5.3E-07 3.6E-07 9.0E-08

0.903226 1.3E-06 1.1E-06 5.6E-07 2.3E-07 1.6E-07 3.8E-08

0.935484 9.4E-07 7.7E-07 4.9E-07 1.9E-07 1.2E-07 3.1E-08

0.967742 1.0E-07 8.2E-08 4.1E-08 1.7E-08 1.1E-08 2.8E-09

0.1 7.8E-02 6.8E-02 4.0E-02 1.6E-02 1.1E-02 2.7E-03

Average of 4.81E-04

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

Data used for this run:

Output File: MS_bean

Metfile: w13737.dvf

PRZM scenNCpeanutC.txt

EXAMS en pond298.exv

Chemical NTM

DescriptionVariable NaValue Units Comments

Molecular wmwt 342.4 g/mol

Henry's Lawhenry atm-m^3/mol

Vapor Presvapr 1.30E-05 torr

Solubility sol 210 mg/L

Kd Kd mg/L

Koc Koc 318 mg/L

Photolysis kdp 2.17 days Half-life

Aerobic Aqkbacw 6 days Halfife

Anaerobic Akbacs 3 days Halfife

Aerobic Soasm 3 days Halfife

Hydrolysis: pH 7 36 days Half-life

Method: CAM 4 integer See PRZM manual

IncorporatioDEPI 4 cm

ApplicationTAPP 0.03 kg/ha

ApplicationAPPEFF 1 fraction

Spray Drift DRFT 0 fraction of application rate applied to pond

ApplicationDate 10/4 dd/mm or dd/mmm or dd-mm or dd-mmm

Record 17:FILTRA

IPSCND 1

UPTKF

Record 18:PLVKRT

PLDKRT

FEXTRC 0

Flag for IndIR Pond

Flag for runRUNOFF none none, monthly or total(average of entire run)

47
stored as MS_Sbean.out

Chemical: MBC

PRZM env modified Satday, 12 October 2002 at 17:07:44

EXAMS enmodified Thuday, 29 August 2002 at 16:33:30

Metfile: w1 modified Wedday, 3 July 2002 at 09:06:20

Water segment concentrations (ppb)

Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

1961 2.0E-02 1.9E-02 1.7E-02 1.3E-02 1.0E-02 5.6E-03

1962 2.0E-02 1.9E-02 1.8E-02 1.7E-02 1.6E-02 1.5E-02

1963 2.8E-02 2.7E-02 2.4E-02 2.3E-02 2.2E-02 1.8E-02

1964 3.6E-02 3.5E-02 3.2E-02 2.6E-02 2.5E-02 2.1E-02

1965 4.4E-02 4.3E-02 3.6E-02 3.0E-02 2.8E-02 2.5E-02

1966 3.7E-02 3.6E-02 3.4E-02 3.2E-02 3.0E-02 2.6E-02

1967 3.4E-02 3.3E-02 3.0E-02 2.8E-02 2.7E-02 2.5E-02

1968 3.4E-02 3.3E-02 3.0E-02 2.7E-02 2.6E-02 2.5E-02

1969 3.8E-02 3.7E-02 3.3E-02 2.9E-02 2.8E-02 2.6E-02

1970 4.8E-02 4.6E-02 4.3E-02 3.7E-02 3.6E-02 3.0E-02

1971 3.5E-02 3.4E-02 3.2E-02 2.9E-02 2.8E-02 2.6E-02

1972 4.0E-02 3.8E-02 3.5E-02 3.3E-02 3.1E-02 2.7E-02

1973 5.8E-02 5.6E-02 5.3E-02 4.6E-02 4.2E-02 3.4E-02

1974 5.5E-02 5.3E-02 5.0E-02 4.4E-02 4.3E-02 3.6E-02

1975 4.2E-02 4.1E-02 4.0E-02 3.7E-02 3.5E-02 3.1E-02

1976 3.6E-02 3.5E-02 3.2E-02 2.9E-02 2.8E-02 2.8E-02

1977 3.2E-02 3.1E-02 2.9E-02 2.7E-02 2.7E-02 2.5E-02

1978 4.6E-02 4.5E-02 3.9E-02 3.5E-02 3.3E-02 3.0E-02

1979 6.1E-02 5.9E-02 5.3E-02 5.0E-02 4.7E-02 3.8E-02

1980 5.5E-02 5.3E-02 4.6E-02 4.3E-02 4.2E-02 3.7E-02

1981 4.0E-02 3.9E-02 3.8E-02 3.5E-02 3.5E-02 3.2E-02

1982 3.7E-02 3.7E-02 3.5E-02 3.3E-02 3.3E-02 3.0E-02

1983 5.7E-02 5.5E-02 4.9E-02 4.2E-02 3.9E-02 3.3E-02

1984 6.2E-02 5.9E-02 5.3E-02 4.5E-02 4.2E-02 3.5E-02

1985 5.7E-02 5.5E-02 4.9E-02 4.1E-02 3.8E-02 3.2E-02

1986 4.0E-02 3.9E-02 3.5E-02 3.2E-02 2.9E-02 2.6E-02

1987 5.2E-02 5.0E-02 4.4E-02 3.6E-02 3.4E-02 3.0E-02

1988 4.6E-02 4.4E-02 4.1E-02 3.8E-02 3.6E-02 3.1E-02

1989 4.4E-02 4.3E-02 3.9E-02 3.8E-02 3.7E-02 3.3E-02

1990 4.0E-02 3.9E-02 3.6E-02 3.4E-02 3.3E-02 3.0E-02

Sorted results

Prob. Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

0.03 6.2E-02 5.9E-02 5.3E-02 5.0E-02 4.7E-02 3.8E-02

0.06 6.1E-02 5.9E-02 5.3E-02 4.6E-02 4.3E-02 3.7E-02

0.10 5.8E-02 5.6E-02 5.3E-02 4.5E-02 4.2E-02 3.6E-02

0.13 5.7E-02 5.5E-02 5.0E-02 4.4E-02 4.2E-02 3.5E-02

0.16 5.7E-02 5.5E-02 4.9E-02 4.3E-02 4.2E-02 3.4E-02

0.19 5.5E-02 5.3E-02 4.9E-02 4.2E-02 3.9E-02 3.3E-02

0.23 5.5E-02 5.3E-02 4.6E-02 4.1E-02 3.8E-02 3.3E-02

0.26 5.2E-02 5.0E-02 4.4E-02 3.8E-02 3.7E-02 3.2E-02

0.29 4.8E-02 4.6E-02 4.3E-02 3.8E-02 3.6E-02 3.2E-02

0.32 4.6E-02 4.5E-02 4.1E-02 3.7E-02 3.6E-02 3.1E-02

0.35 4.6E-02 4.4E-02 4.0E-02 3.7E-02 3.5E-02 3.1E-02

0.39 4.4E-02 4.3E-02 3.9E-02 3.6E-02 3.5E-02 3.0E-02

0.42 4.4E-02 4.3E-02 3.9E-02 3.5E-02 3.4E-02 3.0E-02

0.45 4.2E-02 4.1E-02 3.8E-02 3.5E-02 3.3E-02 3.0E-02

0.48 4.0E-02 3.9E-02 3.6E-02 3.4E-02 3.3E-02 3.0E-02

0.52 4.0E-02 3.9E-02 3.6E-02 3.3E-02 3.3E-02 3.0E-02

0.55 4.0E-02 3.9E-02 3.5E-02 3.3E-02 3.1E-02 2.8E-02

0.58 4.0E-02 3.8E-02 3.5E-02 3.2E-02 3.0E-02 2.7E-02

0.61 3.8E-02 3.7E-02 3.5E-02 3.2E-02 2.9E-02 2.6E-02

0.65 3.7E-02 3.7E-02 3.4E-02 3.0E-02 2.8E-02 2.6E-02

0.68 3.7E-02 3.6E-02 3.3E-02 2.9E-02 2.8E-02 2.6E-02

0.71 3.6E-02 3.5E-02 3.2E-02 2.9E-02 2.8E-02 2.6E-02

0.74 3.6E-02 3.5E-02 3.2E-02 2.9E-02 2.8E-02 2.5E-02

0.77 3.5E-02 3.4E-02 3.2E-02 2.8E-02 2.7E-02 2.5E-02

0.81 3.4E-02 3.3E-02 3.0E-02 2.7E-02 2.7E-02 2.5E-02

0.84 3.4E-02 3.3E-02 3.0E-02 2.7E-02 2.6E-02 2.5E-02

0.87 3.2E-02 3.1E-02 2.9E-02 2.6E-02 2.5E-02 2.1E-02

0.90 2.8E-02 2.7E-02 2.4E-02 2.3E-02 2.2E-02 1.8E-02

0.94 2.0E-02 1.9E-02 1.8E-02 1.7E-02 1.6E-02 1.5E-02

0.97 2.0E-02 1.9E-02 1.7E-02 1.3E-02 1.0E-02 5.6E-03

0.10 5.8E-02 5.6E-02 5.2E-02 4.5E-02 4.2E-02 3.6E-02

Average of 2.8E-02

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

Data used for this run:

Output File: MS_Sbean

Metfile: w13893.dvf

PRZM scenMSsoybeanC.txt

EXAMS en pond298.exv

Chemical NMBC

DescriptionVariable NaValue Units Comments

Molecular wmwt 191.18 g/mol

Henry's Lawhenry atm-m^3/mol

Vapor Presvapr 7.50E-10 torr

Solubility sol 80 mg/L

Kd Kd mg/L

Koc Koc 1885 mg/L

Photolysis kdp days Half-life

Aerobic Aqkbacw 100.2 days Halfife

Anaerobic Akbacs 1482.7 days Halfife

Aerobic Soasm 960 days Halfife

Hydrolysis: pH 7 0 days Half-life

Method: CAM 4 integer See PRZM manual

IncorporatioDEPI 4 cm

ApplicationTAPP 0.01 kg/ha

ApplicationAPPEFF 1 fraction

Spray Drift DRFT 0 fraction of application rate applied to pond

ApplicationDate 10/4 dd/mm or dd/mmm or dd-mm or dd-mmm

Record 17:FILTRA

IPSCND 1

UPTKF

Record 18:PLVKRT

PLDKRT

FEXTRC 0

Flag for IndIR Pond

Flag for runRUNOFF none none, monthly or total(average of entire run)

48
stored as NC_Pnut.out

Chemical: TM

PRZM env modified Satday, 12 October 2002 at 17:12:46

EXAMS enmodified Thuday, 29 August 2002 at 16:33:30

Metfile: w1 modified Wedday, 3 July 2002 at 09:06:30

Water segment concentrations (ppb)

Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

1961 3.7E-01 3.1E-01 1.6E-01 6.3E-02 4.2E-02 1.0E-02

1962 2.4E-03 2.0E-03 1.0E-03 4.3E-04 2.9E-04 7.1E-05

1963 2.8E-03 2.4E-03 1.1E-03 4.2E-04 2.8E-04 6.9E-05

1964 2.8E-04 2.3E-04 1.2E-04 4.8E-05 3.2E-05 7.9E-06

1965 1.6E-04 1.3E-04 6.2E-05 2.6E-05 1.7E-05 4.3E-06

1966 7.0E-03 5.8E-03 3.2E-03 1.2E-03 8.3E-04 2.0E-04

1967 2.6E-01 2.2E-01 1.2E-01 4.7E-02 3.1E-02 7.8E-03

1968 1.7E-03 1.4E-03 6.3E-04 2.4E-04 1.6E-04 3.9E-05

1969 6.6E-03 5.7E-03 2.8E-03 1.1E-03 7.0E-04 1.7E-04

1970 6.0E-05 4.9E-05 2.3E-05 9.0E-06 6.0E-06 1.5E-06

1971 1.1E-01 9.3E-02 5.0E-02 1.9E-02 1.3E-02 3.2E-03

1972 9.3E-05 7.4E-05 3.5E-05 1.3E-05 8.9E-06 2.2E-06

1973 1.3E-03 1.1E-03 6.3E-04 2.4E-04 1.6E-04 4.0E-05

1974 4.5E-02 3.7E-02 2.1E-02 8.5E-03 5.6E-03 1.4E-03

1975 9.9E-04 8.0E-04 3.6E-04 1.3E-04 8.8E-05 2.2E-05

1976 2.2E-03 1.8E-03 1.3E-03 5.5E-04 3.6E-04 8.9E-05

1977 2.6E-01 2.1E-01 1.0E-01 4.0E-02 2.7E-02 6.5E-03

1978 2.0E-01 1.7E-01 9.3E-02 3.7E-02 2.4E-02 6.0E-03

1979 1.5E-01 1.3E-01 8.1E-02 3.2E-02 2.2E-02 5.3E-03

1980 1.4E-02 1.2E-02 5.4E-03 2.1E-03 1.4E-03 3.5E-04

1981 5.0E-03 4.2E-03 2.2E-03 8.5E-04 5.6E-04 1.4E-04

1982 1.6E-03 1.3E-03 7.3E-04 2.8E-04 1.9E-04 4.6E-05

1983 8.5E-03 7.0E-03 4.3E-03 1.7E-03 1.1E-03 2.8E-04

1984 1.1E-01 9.3E-02 4.6E-02 1.8E-02 1.2E-02 2.9E-03

1985 1.9E-03 1.5E-03 7.7E-04 3.0E-04 2.0E-04 5.0E-05

1986 3.4E-03 2.7E-03 1.3E-03 4.9E-04 3.3E-04 8.1E-05

1987 9.4E-04 8.0E-04 4.6E-04 1.7E-04 1.2E-04 2.8E-05

1988 3.2E-01 2.7E-01 1.4E-01 5.5E-02 3.6E-02 9.0E-03

1989 3.0E-03 2.5E-03 1.3E-03 5.1E-04 3.4E-04 8.5E-05

1990 4.1E-02 3.3E-02 1.7E-02 6.6E-03 4.4E-03 1.1E-03

Sorted results

Prob. Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

0.03 3.7E-01 3.1E-01 1.6E-01 6.3E-02 4.2E-02 1.0E-02

0.06 3.2E-01 2.7E-01 1.4E-01 5.5E-02 3.6E-02 9.0E-03

0.10 2.6E-01 2.2E-01 1.2E-01 4.7E-02 3.1E-02 7.8E-03

0.13 2.6E-01 2.1E-01 1.0E-01 4.0E-02 2.7E-02 6.5E-03

0.16 2.0E-01 1.7E-01 9.3E-02 3.7E-02 2.4E-02 6.0E-03

0.19 1.5E-01 1.3E-01 8.1E-02 3.2E-02 2.2E-02 5.3E-03

0.23 1.1E-01 9.3E-02 5.0E-02 1.9E-02 1.3E-02 3.2E-03

0.26 1.1E-01 9.3E-02 4.6E-02 1.8E-02 1.2E-02 2.9E-03

0.29 4.5E-02 3.7E-02 2.1E-02 8.5E-03 5.6E-03 1.4E-03

0.32 4.1E-02 3.3E-02 1.7E-02 6.6E-03 4.4E-03 1.1E-03

0.35 1.4E-02 1.2E-02 5.4E-03 2.1E-03 1.4E-03 3.5E-04

0.39 8.5E-03 7.0E-03 4.3E-03 1.7E-03 1.1E-03 2.8E-04

0.42 7.0E-03 5.8E-03 3.2E-03 1.2E-03 8.3E-04 2.0E-04

0.45 6.6E-03 5.7E-03 2.8E-03 1.1E-03 7.0E-04 1.7E-04

0.48 5.0E-03 4.2E-03 2.2E-03 8.5E-04 5.6E-04 1.4E-04

0.52 3.4E-03 2.7E-03 1.3E-03 5.5E-04 3.6E-04 8.9E-05

0.55 3.0E-03 2.5E-03 1.3E-03 5.1E-04 3.4E-04 8.5E-05

0.58 2.8E-03 2.4E-03 1.3E-03 4.9E-04 3.3E-04 8.1E-05

0.61 2.4E-03 2.0E-03 1.1E-03 4.3E-04 2.9E-04 7.1E-05

0.65 2.2E-03 1.8E-03 1.0E-03 4.2E-04 2.8E-04 6.9E-05

0.68 1.9E-03 1.5E-03 7.7E-04 3.0E-04 2.0E-04 5.0E-05

0.71 1.7E-03 1.4E-03 7.3E-04 2.8E-04 1.9E-04 4.6E-05

0.74 1.6E-03 1.3E-03 6.3E-04 2.4E-04 1.6E-04 4.0E-05

0.77 1.3E-03 1.1E-03 6.3E-04 2.4E-04 1.6E-04 3.9E-05

0.81 9.9E-04 8.0E-04 4.6E-04 1.7E-04 1.2E-04 2.8E-05

0.84 9.4E-04 8.0E-04 3.6E-04 1.3E-04 8.8E-05 2.2E-05

0.87 2.8E-04 2.3E-04 1.2E-04 4.8E-05 3.2E-05 7.9E-06

0.90 1.6E-04 1.3E-04 6.2E-05 2.6E-05 1.7E-05 4.3E-06

0.94 9.3E-05 7.4E-05 3.5E-05 1.3E-05 8.9E-06 2.2E-06

0.97 6.0E-05 4.9E-05 2.3E-05 9.0E-06 6.0E-06 1.5E-06

0.10 2.6E-01 2.1E-01 1.2E-01 4.6E-02 3.1E-02 7.6E-03

Average of 1.8E-03

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

Data used for this run:

Output File: NC_Pnut

Metfile: w13737.dvf

PRZM scenNCpeanutC.txt

EXAMS en pond298.exv

Chemical NTM

DescriptionVariable NaValue Units Comments

Molecular wmwt 342.4 g/mol

Henry's Lawhenry atm-m^3/mol

Vapor Presvapr 1.30E-05 torr

Solubility sol 210 mg/L

Kd Kd mg/L

Koc Koc 318 mg/L

Photolysis kdp 2.17 days Half-life

Aerobic Aqkbacw 6 days Halfife

Anaerobic Akbacs 3 days Halfife

Aerobic Soasm 3 days Halfife

Hydrolysis: pH 7 36 days Half-life

Method: CAM 4 integer See PRZM manual

IncorporatioDEPI 4 cm

ApplicationTAPP 0.18 kg/ha

ApplicationAPPEFF 1 fraction

Spray Drift DRFT 0 fraction of application rate applied to pond

ApplicationDate 5-May dd/mm or dd/mmm or dd-mm or dd-mmm

Record 17:FILTRA

IPSCND 1

UPTKF

Record 18:PLVKRT

PLDKRT

FEXTRC 0

Flag for IndIR Pond

Flag for runRUNOFF none none, monthly or total(average of entire run)

49
stored as MBC_Pnut.out

Chemical: MBC

PRZM env modified Satday, 12 October 2002 at 17:12:46

EXAMS enmodified Thuday, 29 August 2002 at 16:33:30

Metfile: w1 modified Wedday, 3 July 2002 at 09:06:30

Water segment concentrations (ppb)

Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

1961 3.5E-01 3.3E-01 2.8E-01 2.4E-01 2.2E-01 1.2E-01

1962 2.8E-01 2.7E-01 2.4E-01 2.2E-01 2.1E-01 1.8E-01

1963 7.8E-01 7.4E-01 6.1E-01 4.6E-01 4.0E-01 2.8E-01

1964 6.3E-01 6.0E-01 5.5E-01 4.8E-01 4.5E-01 3.4E-01

1965 4.0E-01 3.9E-01 3.6E-01 3.5E-01 3.5E-01 3.1E-01

1966 4.0E-01 3.8E-01 3.5E-01 3.1E-01 2.9E-01 2.7E-01

1967 4.5E-01 4.3E-01 3.9E-01 3.6E-01 3.5E-01 2.9E-01

1968 3.2E-01 3.2E-01 3.0E-01 2.9E-01 2.9E-01 2.6E-01

1969 4.6E-01 4.5E-01 4.0E-01 3.4E-01 3.2E-01 2.6E-01

1970 3.8E-01 3.7E-01 3.5E-01 3.1E-01 2.9E-01 2.5E-01

1971 3.4E-01 3.3E-01 3.1E-01 2.8E-01 2.8E-01 2.5E-01

1972 2.6E-01 2.5E-01 2.4E-01 2.4E-01 2.4E-01 2.2E-01

1973 2.8E-01 2.7E-01 2.6E-01 2.5E-01 2.4E-01 2.1E-01

1974 3.6E-01 3.5E-01 3.1E-01 2.8E-01 2.6E-01 2.1E-01

1975 5.6E-01 5.3E-01 4.5E-01 3.6E-01 3.3E-01 2.5E-01

1976 3.2E-01 3.1E-01 2.8E-01 2.5E-01 2.6E-01 2.4E-01

1977 3.1E-01 3.0E-01 2.7E-01 2.6E-01 2.5E-01 2.3E-01

1978 3.8E-01 3.7E-01 3.5E-01 3.2E-01 3.1E-01 2.6E-01

1979 4.9E-01 4.8E-01 4.4E-01 3.8E-01 3.5E-01 2.9E-01

1980 5.6E-01 5.4E-01 4.6E-01 3.8E-01 3.6E-01 3.1E-01

1981 4.1E-01 4.0E-01 3.6E-01 3.2E-01 3.2E-01 2.9E-01

1982 3.1E-01 3.0E-01 2.8E-01 2.8E-01 2.8E-01 2.6E-01

1983 2.5E-01 2.5E-01 2.3E-01 2.3E-01 2.3E-01 2.1E-01

1984 4.7E-01 4.5E-01 3.8E-01 3.1E-01 3.0E-01 2.3E-01

1985 3.3E-01 3.2E-01 3.0E-01 2.7E-01 2.6E-01 2.4E-01

1986 2.3E-01 2.3E-01 2.3E-01 2.3E-01 2.3E-01 2.0E-01

1987 2.7E-01 2.6E-01 2.5E-01 2.3E-01 2.2E-01 1.9E-01

1988 2.3E-01 2.2E-01 2.2E-01 2.0E-01 2.0E-01 1.8E-01

1989 2.5E-01 2.5E-01 2.3E-01 2.0E-01 1.9E-01 1.7E-01

1990 2.9E-01 2.8E-01 2.4E-01 2.1E-01 2.0E-01 1.7E-01

Sorted results

Prob. Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

0.03 7.8E-01 7.4E-01 6.1E-01 4.8E-01 4.5E-01 3.4E-01

0.06 6.3E-01 6.0E-01 5.5E-01 4.6E-01 4.0E-01 3.1E-01

0.10 5.6E-01 5.4E-01 4.6E-01 3.8E-01 3.6E-01 3.1E-01

0.13 5.6E-01 5.3E-01 4.5E-01 3.8E-01 3.5E-01 2.9E-01

0.16 4.9E-01 4.8E-01 4.4E-01 3.6E-01 3.5E-01 2.9E-01

0.19 4.7E-01 4.5E-01 4.0E-01 3.6E-01 3.5E-01 2.9E-01

0.23 4.6E-01 4.5E-01 3.9E-01 3.5E-01 3.3E-01 2.8E-01

0.26 4.5E-01 4.3E-01 3.8E-01 3.4E-01 3.2E-01 2.7E-01

0.29 4.1E-01 4.0E-01 3.6E-01 3.2E-01 3.2E-01 2.6E-01

0.32 4.0E-01 3.9E-01 3.6E-01 3.2E-01 3.1E-01 2.6E-01

0.35 4.0E-01 3.8E-01 3.5E-01 3.1E-01 3.0E-01 2.6E-01

0.39 3.8E-01 3.7E-01 3.5E-01 3.1E-01 2.9E-01 2.6E-01

0.42 3.8E-01 3.7E-01 3.5E-01 3.1E-01 2.9E-01 2.5E-01

0.45 3.6E-01 3.5E-01 3.1E-01 2.9E-01 2.9E-01 2.5E-01

0.48 3.5E-01 3.3E-01 3.1E-01 2.8E-01 2.8E-01 2.5E-01

0.52 3.4E-01 3.3E-01 3.0E-01 2.8E-01 2.8E-01 2.4E-01

0.55 3.3E-01 3.2E-01 3.0E-01 2.8E-01 2.6E-01 2.4E-01

0.58 3.2E-01 3.2E-01 2.8E-01 2.7E-01 2.6E-01 2.3E-01

0.61 3.2E-01 3.1E-01 2.8E-01 2.6E-01 2.6E-01 2.3E-01

0.65 3.1E-01 3.0E-01 2.8E-01 2.5E-01 2.5E-01 2.2E-01

0.68 3.1E-01 3.0E-01 2.7E-01 2.5E-01 2.4E-01 2.1E-01

0.71 2.9E-01 2.8E-01 2.6E-01 2.4E-01 2.4E-01 2.1E-01

0.74 2.8E-01 2.7E-01 2.5E-01 2.4E-01 2.3E-01 2.1E-01

0.77 2.8E-01 2.7E-01 2.4E-01 2.3E-01 2.3E-01 2.0E-01

0.81 2.7E-01 2.6E-01 2.4E-01 2.3E-01 2.2E-01 1.9E-01

0.84 2.6E-01 2.5E-01 2.4E-01 2.3E-01 2.2E-01 1.8E-01

0.87 2.5E-01 2.5E-01 2.3E-01 2.2E-01 2.1E-01 1.8E-01

0.90 2.5E-01 2.5E-01 2.3E-01 2.1E-01 2.0E-01 1.7E-01

0.94 2.3E-01 2.3E-01 2.3E-01 2.0E-01 2.0E-01 1.7E-01

0.97 2.3E-01 2.2E-01 2.2E-01 2.0E-01 1.9E-01 1.2E-01

0.10 5.6E-01 5.3E-01 4.6E-01 3.8E-01 3.6E-01 3.0E-01

Average of 2.4E-01

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

Data used for this run:

Output File: MBC_Pnut

Metfile: w13737.dvf

PRZM scenNCpeanutC.txt

EXAMS en pond298.exv

Chemical NMBC

DescriptionVariable NaValue Units Comments

Molecular wmwt 191.18 g/mol

Henry's Lawhenry atm-m^3/mol

Vapor Presvapr 7.50E-10 torr

Solubility sol 80 mg/L

Kd Kd mg/L

Koc Koc 1885 mg/L

Photolysis kdp days Half-life

Aerobic Aqkbacw 100.2 days Halfife

Anaerobic Akbacs 1482.7 days Halfife

Aerobic Soasm 960 days Halfife

Hydrolysis: pH 7 0 days Half-life

Method: CAM 4 integer See PRZM manual

IncorporatioDEPI 4 cm

ApplicationTAPP 0.08 kg/ha

ApplicationAPPEFF 1 fraction

Spray Drift DRFT 0 fraction of application rate applied to pond

ApplicationDate 5-May dd/mm or dd/mmm or dd-mm or dd-mmm

Record 17:FILTRA

IPSCND 1

UPTKF

Record 18:PLVKRT

PLDKRT

FEXTRC 0

Flag for IndIR Pond

Flag for runRUNOFF none none, monthly or total(average of entire run)

50
stored as Wheat_TM.out

Chemical: TM

PRZM env modified Satday, 12 October 2002 at 17:15:08

EXAMS enmodified Thuday, 29 August 2002 at 16:33:30

Metfile: w1 modified Wedday, 3 July 2002 at 09:05:52

Water segment concentrations (ppb)

Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

1961 2.8E-02 2.4E-02 1.5E-02 6.2E-03 4.1E-03 1.0E-03

1962 5.2E-03 4.5E-03 3.5E-03 1.5E-03 1.0E-03 2.5E-04

1963 4.7E-04 4.0E-04 2.2E-04 8.6E-05 5.7E-05 1.4E-05

1964 1.2E-05 9.5E-06 4.6E-06 1.8E-06 1.2E-06 2.9E-07

1965 3.9E-03 3.4E-03 2.0E-03 8.5E-04 5.7E-04 1.4E-04

1966 8.5E-05 7.4E-05 4.3E-05 1.7E-05 1.2E-05 2.9E-06

1967 7.4E-03 6.4E-03 3.9E-03 1.7E-03 1.1E-03 2.8E-04

1968 6.9E-03 6.0E-03 4.1E-03 1.8E-03 1.2E-03 2.9E-04

1969 1.5E-03 1.3E-03 7.3E-04 3.2E-04 2.1E-04 5.3E-05

1970 3.0E-04 2.6E-04 1.8E-04 8.6E-05 5.7E-05 1.4E-05

1971 1.5E-03 1.3E-03 7.2E-04 2.8E-04 1.9E-04 4.7E-05

1972 4.1E-02 3.4E-02 1.9E-02 7.5E-03 5.0E-03 1.2E-03

1973 1.1E-04 9.1E-05 5.4E-05 2.2E-05 1.5E-05 3.6E-06

1974 4.6E-02 4.2E-02 2.6E-02 1.1E-02 7.4E-03 1.8E-03

1975 2.3E-03 1.9E-03 1.1E-03 4.5E-04 3.0E-04 7.4E-05

1976 1.7E-11 1.6E-11 1.1E-11 6.1E-12 4.3E-12 1.1E-12

1977 1.9E-03 1.5E-03 8.0E-04 3.3E-04 2.2E-04 5.4E-05

1978 4.8E-03 4.1E-03 2.2E-03 9.1E-04 6.1E-04 1.5E-04

1979 1.3E-05 1.2E-05 7.1E-06 4.0E-06 2.7E-06 6.7E-07

1980 2.5E-06 2.1E-06 1.0E-06 4.5E-07 3.0E-07 7.4E-08

1981 3.3E-03 2.9E-03 1.8E-03 7.3E-04 4.8E-04 1.2E-04

1982 7.5E-03 6.4E-03 4.4E-03 1.9E-03 1.3E-03 3.2E-04

1983 1.0E-02 9.1E-03 5.5E-03 2.3E-03 1.5E-03 3.8E-04

1984 1.3E-04 1.0E-04 5.5E-05 2.2E-05 1.5E-05 3.6E-06

1985 4.4E-02 3.9E-02 2.4E-02 1.0E-02 6.7E-03 1.7E-03

1986 1.6E-02 1.4E-02 7.6E-03 3.1E-03 2.1E-03 5.1E-04

1987 4.2E-03 3.6E-03 2.1E-03 8.1E-04 5.4E-04 1.3E-04

1988 3.4E-04 2.8E-04 1.5E-04 6.0E-05 4.0E-05 9.8E-06

1989 1.6E-03 1.4E-03 8.5E-04 3.5E-04 2.3E-04 5.8E-05

1990 3.1E-03 2.7E-03 1.5E-03 6.6E-04 4.4E-04 1.1E-04

Sorted results

Prob. Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

0.03 4.6E-02 4.2E-02 2.6E-02 1.1E-02 7.4E-03 1.8E-03

0.06 4.4E-02 3.9E-02 2.4E-02 1.0E-02 6.7E-03 1.7E-03

0.10 4.1E-02 3.4E-02 1.9E-02 7.5E-03 5.0E-03 1.2E-03

0.13 2.8E-02 2.4E-02 1.5E-02 6.2E-03 4.1E-03 1.0E-03

0.16 1.6E-02 1.4E-02 7.6E-03 3.1E-03 2.1E-03 5.1E-04

0.19 1.0E-02 9.1E-03 5.5E-03 2.3E-03 1.5E-03 3.8E-04

0.23 7.5E-03 6.4E-03 4.4E-03 1.9E-03 1.3E-03 3.2E-04

0.26 7.4E-03 6.4E-03 4.1E-03 1.8E-03 1.2E-03 2.9E-04

0.29 6.9E-03 6.0E-03 3.9E-03 1.7E-03 1.1E-03 2.8E-04

0.32 5.2E-03 4.5E-03 3.5E-03 1.5E-03 1.0E-03 2.5E-04

0.35 4.8E-03 4.1E-03 2.2E-03 9.1E-04 6.1E-04 1.5E-04

0.39 4.2E-03 3.6E-03 2.1E-03 8.5E-04 5.7E-04 1.4E-04

0.42 3.9E-03 3.4E-03 2.0E-03 8.1E-04 5.4E-04 1.3E-04

0.45 3.3E-03 2.9E-03 1.8E-03 7.3E-04 4.8E-04 1.2E-04

0.48 3.1E-03 2.7E-03 1.5E-03 6.6E-04 4.4E-04 1.1E-04

0.52 2.3E-03 1.9E-03 1.1E-03 4.5E-04 3.0E-04 7.4E-05

0.55 1.9E-03 1.5E-03 8.5E-04 3.5E-04 2.3E-04 5.8E-05

0.58 1.6E-03 1.4E-03 8.0E-04 3.3E-04 2.2E-04 5.4E-05

0.61 1.5E-03 1.3E-03 7.3E-04 3.2E-04 2.1E-04 5.3E-05

0.65 1.5E-03 1.3E-03 7.2E-04 2.8E-04 1.9E-04 4.7E-05

0.68 4.7E-04 4.0E-04 2.2E-04 8.6E-05 5.7E-05 1.4E-05

0.71 3.4E-04 2.8E-04 1.8E-04 8.6E-05 5.7E-05 1.4E-05

0.74 3.0E-04 2.6E-04 1.5E-04 6.0E-05 4.0E-05 9.8E-06

0.77 1.3E-04 1.0E-04 5.5E-05 2.2E-05 1.5E-05 3.6E-06

0.81 1.1E-04 9.1E-05 5.4E-05 2.2E-05 1.5E-05 3.6E-06

0.84 8.5E-05 7.4E-05 4.3E-05 1.7E-05 1.2E-05 2.9E-06

0.87 1.3E-05 1.2E-05 7.1E-06 4.0E-06 2.7E-06 6.7E-07

0.90 1.2E-05 9.5E-06 4.6E-06 1.8E-06 1.2E-06 2.9E-07

0.94 2.5E-06 2.1E-06 1.0E-06 4.5E-07 3.0E-07 7.4E-08

0.97 1.7E-11 1.6E-11 1.1E-11 6.1E-12 4.3E-12 1.1E-12

0.10 3.9E-02 3.3E-02 1.8E-02 7.4E-03 4.9E-03 1.2E-03

Average of 2.9E-04

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

Data used for this run:

Output File: Wheat_TM

Metfile: w14914.dvf

PRZM scenNDwheatC.txt

EXAMS en pond298.exv

Chemical NTM

DescriptionVariable NaValue Units Comments

Molecular wmwt 342.4 g/mol

Henry's Lawhenry atm-m^3/mol

Vapor Presvapr 1.30E-05 torr

Solubility sol 210 mg/L

Kd Kd mg/L

Koc Koc 318 mg/L

Photolysis kdp 2.17 days Half-life

Aerobic Aqkbacw 6 days Halfife

Anaerobic Akbacs 3 days Halfife

Aerobic Soasm 3 days Halfife

Hydrolysis: pH 7 36 days Half-life

Method: CAM 4 integer See PRZM manual

IncorporatioDEPI 4 cm

ApplicationTAPP 0.04 kg/ha

ApplicationAPPEFF 1 fraction

Spray Drift DRFT 0 fraction of application rate applied to pond

ApplicationDate 7/5 dd/mm or dd/mmm or dd-mm or dd-mmm

Record 17:FILTRA

IPSCND 1

UPTKF

Record 18:PLVKRT

PLDKRT

FEXTRC 0

Flag for IndIR Pond

Flag for runRUNOFF none none, monthly or total(average of entire run)

51
stored as Wheat_MB.out

Chemical: MBC

PRZM env modified Satday, 12 October 2002 at 17:15:08

EXAMS enmodified Thuday, 29 August 2002 at 16:33:30

Metfile: w1 modified Wedday, 3 July 2002 at 09:05:52

Water segment concentrations (ppb)

Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

1961 3.1E-02 2.9E-02 2.6E-02 2.2E-02 2.0E-02 9.6E-03

1962 5.2E-02 4.9E-02 4.2E-02 4.0E-02 3.9E-02 2.8E-02

1963 6.3E-02 6.1E-02 5.3E-02 4.5E-02 4.2E-02 3.5E-02

1964 9.2E-02 8.8E-02 7.5E-02 6.0E-02 6.0E-02 4.7E-02

1965 7.5E-02 7.3E-02 6.8E-02 6.2E-02 6.0E-02 5.5E-02

1966 6.8E-02 6.7E-02 6.3E-02 5.9E-02 5.7E-02 5.4E-02

1967 6.0E-02 6.0E-02 5.8E-02 5.6E-02 5.5E-02 4.9E-02

1968 5.6E-02 5.5E-02 5.4E-02 5.2E-02 5.0E-02 4.5E-02

1969 9.3E-02 8.9E-02 8.1E-02 6.9E-02 6.5E-02 5.3E-02

1970 9.6E-02 9.2E-02 8.2E-02 7.2E-02 6.8E-02 5.9E-02

1971 8.3E-02 8.1E-02 7.8E-02 7.5E-02 7.4E-02 6.4E-02

1972 1.0E-01 1.0E-01 9.2E-02 8.1E-02 7.8E-02 7.1E-02

1973 1.0E-01 9.9E-02 9.2E-02 8.4E-02 8.1E-02 6.9E-02

1974 1.3E-01 1.3E-01 1.2E-01 1.0E-01 9.8E-02 8.4E-02

1975 1.5E-01 1.5E-01 1.3E-01 1.1E-01 1.1E-01 9.4E-02

1976 9.2E-02 9.2E-02 9.1E-02 9.0E-02 9.1E-02 7.8E-02

1977 1.3E-01 1.2E-01 1.1E-01 9.5E-02 9.6E-02 8.5E-02

1978 1.1E-01 1.1E-01 1.0E-01 9.3E-02 9.2E-02 8.7E-02

1979 1.0E-01 9.9E-02 9.6E-02 9.0E-02 8.8E-02 8.3E-02

1980 1.1E-01 1.0E-01 9.5E-02 8.9E-02 8.6E-02 7.8E-02

1981 1.1E-01 1.1E-01 9.7E-02 8.7E-02 8.4E-02 7.6E-02

1982 1.3E-01 1.3E-01 1.1E-01 9.6E-02 9.1E-02 7.4E-02

1983 8.7E-02 8.5E-02 8.2E-02 7.8E-02 7.8E-02 7.6E-02

1984 1.2E-01 1.2E-01 1.1E-01 9.7E-02 9.1E-02 7.7E-02

1985 1.2E-01 1.2E-01 1.1E-01 1.0E-01 1.0E-01 8.8E-02

1986 1.0E-01 1.0E-01 9.5E-02 9.0E-02 9.0E-02 8.6E-02

1987 8.5E-02 8.4E-02 8.2E-02 8.0E-02 8.0E-02 7.5E-02

1988 9.0E-02 8.8E-02 8.0E-02 7.2E-02 6.9E-02 6.5E-02

1989 1.1E-01 1.1E-01 9.8E-02 8.6E-02 8.2E-02 7.1E-02

1990 9.2E-02 9.0E-02 8.3E-02 7.9E-02 7.5E-02 7.0E-02

Sorted results

Prob. Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

0.03 1.5E-01 1.5E-01 1.3E-01 1.1E-01 1.1E-01 9.4E-02

0.06 1.3E-01 1.3E-01 1.2E-01 1.0E-01 1.0E-01 8.8E-02

0.10 1.3E-01 1.3E-01 1.1E-01 1.0E-01 9.8E-02 8.7E-02

0.13 1.3E-01 1.2E-01 1.1E-01 9.7E-02 9.6E-02 8.6E-02

0.16 1.2E-01 1.2E-01 1.1E-01 9.6E-02 9.2E-02 8.5E-02

0.19 1.2E-01 1.2E-01 1.1E-01 9.5E-02 9.1E-02 8.4E-02

0.23 1.1E-01 1.1E-01 1.0E-01 9.3E-02 9.1E-02 8.3E-02

0.26 1.1E-01 1.1E-01 9.8E-02 9.0E-02 9.1E-02 7.8E-02

0.29 1.1E-01 1.1E-01 9.7E-02 9.0E-02 9.0E-02 7.8E-02

0.32 1.1E-01 1.0E-01 9.6E-02 9.0E-02 8.8E-02 7.7E-02

0.35 1.0E-01 1.0E-01 9.5E-02 8.9E-02 8.6E-02 7.6E-02

0.39 1.0E-01 1.0E-01 9.5E-02 8.7E-02 8.4E-02 7.6E-02

0.42 1.0E-01 9.9E-02 9.2E-02 8.6E-02 8.2E-02 7.5E-02

0.45 1.0E-01 9.9E-02 9.2E-02 8.4E-02 8.1E-02 7.4E-02

0.48 9.6E-02 9.2E-02 9.1E-02 8.1E-02 8.0E-02 7.1E-02

0.52 9.3E-02 9.2E-02 8.3E-02 8.0E-02 7.8E-02 7.1E-02

0.55 9.2E-02 9.0E-02 8.2E-02 7.9E-02 7.8E-02 7.0E-02

0.58 9.2E-02 8.9E-02 8.2E-02 7.8E-02 7.5E-02 6.9E-02

0.61 9.2E-02 8.8E-02 8.2E-02 7.5E-02 7.4E-02 6.5E-02

0.65 9.0E-02 8.8E-02 8.1E-02 7.2E-02 6.9E-02 6.4E-02

0.68 8.7E-02 8.5E-02 8.0E-02 7.2E-02 6.8E-02 5.9E-02

0.71 8.5E-02 8.4E-02 7.8E-02 6.9E-02 6.5E-02 5.5E-02

0.74 8.3E-02 8.1E-02 7.5E-02 6.2E-02 6.0E-02 5.4E-02

0.77 7.5E-02 7.3E-02 6.8E-02 6.0E-02 6.0E-02 5.3E-02

0.81 6.8E-02 6.7E-02 6.3E-02 5.9E-02 5.7E-02 4.9E-02

0.84 6.3E-02 6.1E-02 5.8E-02 5.6E-02 5.5E-02 4.7E-02

0.87 6.0E-02 6.0E-02 5.4E-02 5.2E-02 5.0E-02 4.5E-02

0.90 5.6E-02 5.5E-02 5.3E-02 4.5E-02 4.2E-02 3.5E-02

0.94 5.2E-02 4.9E-02 4.2E-02 4.0E-02 3.9E-02 2.8E-02

0.97 3.1E-02 2.9E-02 2.6E-02 2.2E-02 2.0E-02 9.6E-03

0.10 1.3E-01 1.3E-01 1.1E-01 1.0E-01 9.8E-02 8.7E-02

Average of 6.6E-02

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

Data used for this run:

Output File: Wheat_MB

Metfile: w14914.dvf

PRZM scenNDwheatC.txt

EXAMS en pond298.exv

Chemical NMBC

DescriptionVariable NaValue Units Comments

Molecular wmwt 191.18 g/mol

Henry's Lawhenry atm-m^3/mol

Vapor Presvapr 7.50E-10 torr

Solubility sol 80 mg/L

Kd Kd mg/L

Koc Koc 1885 mg/L

Photolysis kdp days Half-life

Aerobic Aqkbacw 100.2 days Halfife

Anaerobic Akbacs 1482.7 days Halfife

Aerobic Soasm 960 days Halfife

Hydrolysis: pH 7 0 days Half-life

Method: CAM 4 integer See PRZM manual

IncorporatioDEPI 4 cm

ApplicationTAPP 0.02 kg/ha

ApplicationAPPEFF 1 fraction

Spray Drift DRFT 0 fraction of application rate applied to pond

ApplicationDate 5-Jul dd/mm or dd/mmm or dd-mm or dd-mmm

Record 17:FILTRA

IPSCND 1

UPTKF

Record 18:PLVKRT

PLDKRT

FEXTRC 0

Flag for IndIR Pond

Flag for runRUNOFF none none, monthly or total(average of entire run)

52
Appendix E. Terrestrial Exposure: Model and Results 

A primary concern with TM is that birds and mammals may be exposed shortly after application 

through dietary exposure of TM treated seeds, when foraging in the fields for nesting material or 

food. Therefore estimation of pesticide concentrations in wildlife food items focuses on 

quantifying possible dietary ingestion of TM treated seeds. The EFED terrestrial exposure model 

T-REX (T-REX, Version 1.2.3, dated August 8, 2005) is used to estimate exposures and risks to 

avian and mammalian species. Input values for avian and mammalian toxicity as well as chemical 

application and foliar dissipation half-life data are required to run the model. The model provides 

estimates of exposure concentrations and risk quotients (RQs). 

The concentration (ppm) of TM on treated seeds is calculated by multiplying the application rate 

provided in the labels (lbs/cwt = lbs/100 lbs seed = parts per hundred) by 10,000 (1 part per 

hundred x 10,000 = 1 part per million, ppm). Ingested doses from seed treatment applications are 

calculated using the scaling factor approach as discussed previously for a 20-gram bird and a 

15-gram mammal. Animals are assumed to eat only treated seeds as a first tier screen. 

Chemical:

Name of seed treatment formulation:

Percent AI in formulation: 100% 1 8.33

Tested Body

Weight (g)

Avian LD50: 4640.00 1580 2409.21

Avian repro. NOAEC: 0.00

Mammalian LD50: 5000.00 350 10989.15

Mammalian NOAEC: 0.00

Crop

Maximum Seeding 

Rate (lbs/acre)

Application 

Rate

(fl oz/cwt)

Barley 100 http://pestdata.ncsu.edu/cropprofiles/cplist.cfm?org=crop 0

beans 160 http://www.ext.nodak.edu/extpubs/plantsci/rowcrops/a1133-1.htm#Planting 0

dried beans 160 http://www.ext.nodak.edu/extpubs/plantsci/rowcrops/a1133-1.htm#Planting 0

lima beans (succulent) 100 http://pestdata.ncsu.edu/cropprofiles/cplist.cfm?org=crop 0

snap beans 100 http://pestdata.ncsu.edu/cropprofiles/cplist.cfm?org=crop 0

Canola 8 http://pestdata.ncsu.edu/cropprofiles/docs/mncanola.html 0

Corn 25 http://pestdata.ncsu.edu/cropprofiles/cplist.cfm?org=crop 5.7

Cotton 18 http://pestdata.ncsu.edu/cropprofiles/cplist.cfm?org=crop 0

Oats 128 http://pestdata.ncsu.edu/cropprofiles/cplist.cfm?org=crop 0

Onion 15 http://pestdata.ncsu.edu/cropprofiles/cplist.cfm?org=crop 0

cowpeas/ blackeyed peas 50 http://pestdata.ncsu.edu/cropprofiles/cplist.cfm?org=crop 0

Pea 180 http://pestdata.ncsu.edu/cropprofiles/cplist.cfm?org=crop 0

lupine 170 http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/afcm/lupine.html 0

grain lupine 170 http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/afcm/lupine.html 0

field peas 225 http://pestdata.ncsu.edu/cropprofiles/cplist.cfm?org=crop 0

Peanuts 135 http://pestdata.ncsu.edu/cropprofiles/cplist.cfm?org=crop 1.78

Rice 160 http://pestdata.ncsu.edu/cropprofiles/cplist.cfm?org=crop 0

Rye 150 http://pestdata.ncsu.edu/cropprofiles/cplist.cfm?org=crop 0

Safflower 100 http://pestdata.ncsu.edu/cropprofiles/cplist.cfm?org=crop 0

Sorghum 8 http://pestdata.ncsu.edu/cropprofiles/cplist.cfm?org=crop 0

Soybeans 100 http://www.nsrl.uiuc.edu/aboutsoy/production02.html 0.45

soybeans, edible 100 http://www.nsrl.uiuc.edu/aboutsoy/production02.html 0

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

Triticale 90 http://pestdata.ncsu.edu/cropprofiles/cplist.cfm?org=crop 0

Wheat 135 http://pestdata.ncsu.edu/cropprofiles/cplist.cfm?org=crop 0.45

Thiophanate Methyl

Reference

Density of product (lbs/gal):

Data inputs are in blue

Endpoints Reported Adjusted LD50

53
Crop

Maximum 

Application Rate

Maximum Seed 

Application Rate Avian Nagy Dose

Mammalian Nagy 

Dose Available AI

(lbs ai/A) (mg ai/kg seed) (mg ai/kg-bw/day) (mg ai/kg-bw/day) (mg ai ft-2)

Barley 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

beans 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

dried beans 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 20 g Bird 5.061777181

lima beans (succulent) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 15 g Mammal 3.178078065

snap beans 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Canola 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Corn 0.09 3709.45 938.82 785.93 0.97

Cotton 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Oats 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Onion 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

cowpeas/ blackeyed peas 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pea 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

lupine 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

grain lupine 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

field peas 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Peanuts 0.16 1158.39 293.18 245.43 1.63

Rice 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Rye 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Safflower 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Sorghum 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Soybeans 0.03 292.85 74.12 62.05 0.31

soybeans, edible 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Sugar beets 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Triticale 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Wheat 0.04 292.85 74.12 62.05 0.41

Acute (# 1) Acute (# 2) Chronic Acute (# 1) Acute (# 2) Chronic

Barley 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0! 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0!

beans 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0! 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0!

dried beans 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0! 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0!

lima beans (succulent) 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0! 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0!

snap beans 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0! 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0!

Canola 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0! 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0!

Corn 0.39 0.02 #DIV/0! 0.07 0.01 #DIV/0!

Cotton 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0! 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0!

Oats 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0! 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0!

Onion 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0! 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0!

cowpeas/ blackeyed peas 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0! 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0!

Pea 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0! 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0!

lupine 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0! 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0!

grain lupine 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0! 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0!

field peas 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0! 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0!

Peanuts 0.12 0.03 #DIV/0! 0.02 0.01 #DIV/0!

Rice 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0! 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0!

Rye 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0! 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0!

Safflower 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0! 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0!

Sorghum 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0! 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0!

Soybeans 0.03 0.01 #DIV/0! 0.01 0.00 #DIV/0!

soybeans, edible 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0! 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0!

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

Triticale 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0! 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0!

Wheat 0.03 0.01 #DIV/0! 0.01 0.00 #DIV/0!

† Acute RQ #1 = (mg ai /kg-bw/day) / LD50

Acute RQ #2 = mg ai ft-2 /(LD50*bw)

Chronic RQ = mg kg-1 seed / NOEC

Nagy allometry

Food ingestion value g/day

Animal

Crop Avian (20 g) Mammalian (15 g)

Risk Quotients†

54
55

Appendix F: Ecological Effects Data: 

Toxicity to Terrestrial Animals 

Birds, Acute and Subacute 

An acute oral toxicity study using the technical grade of the active ingredient (TGAI) is required 

to establish the toxicity of thiophanate-methyl to birds. The preferred test species is either mallard 

duck (a waterfowl) or bobwhite quail (an upland gamebird). Results of this test are tabulated 

below.

Avian Acute Oral Toxicity

Species % ai LD50 (mg/kg) Toxicity Category 

MRID No. 

Author/Year 

Study 

Classification1

Northern bobwhite quail 

(Colinus virginianus)

94 >4640 practically nontoxic 00083012, 

1977 

Core 

Mallard duck 

(Anas platyrhynchos)

94 4640 practically nontoxic NAOTH101,

1977 

Core 

1

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

 

Since the LD50 falls in the range of 4640 mg/kg, thiophanate-methyl is categorized as practically 

nontoxic to avian species on an acute oral basis. The guideline (71-1) is fulfilled (MRID Nos. 

00083012 and NAOTH101). 

Two subacute dietary studies using the TGAI are required to establish the toxicity of 

thiophanate-methyl to birds. The preferred test species are mallard duck and bobwhite quail. 

Results of these tests are tabulated below. 

Avian Subacute Dietary Toxicity

Species % ai 

5-Day LC50 

(ppm)1 Toxicity Category 

MRID No. 

Author/Year 

Study 

Classification 

Northern bobwhite quail 

(Colinus virginianus)

94 >10,000 practically nontoxic 00069600, 

1977 

Core 

Mallard duck 

(Anas platyrhynchos)

94 >10,000 practically nontoxic 00083014, 

1975 

Core 

 

1

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

Since the LC50 falls in the range of 10,000 ppm, thoiphanate-methyl is categorized as practically 

nontoxic to avian species on a subacute dietary basis. The guideline (71-2) is fulfilled (MRID Nos 

00069600 and 00083014). 

Birds, Chronic
56

Avian reproduction studies using the TGAI are required for thiophanate-methyl because the 

following conditions are met: (1) birds are subject to repeated or continuous exposure to the 

pesticide, especially preceding or during the breeding season, (2) the pesticide is stable in the 

environment to the extent that potentially toxic amounts may persist in animal feed, (3) the 

pesticide may accumulate in plant or animal tissues, and/or, (4) information derived from 

mammalian reproduction studies indicates reproduction in terrestrial vertebrates may be adversely 

affected by the anticipated use of the product. The preferred test species are mallard duck and 

bobwhite quail. Results of these tests are tabulated below. 

Avian Reproduction 

Species/ 

Study Duration % ai 

NOAEC/LOEC 

(ppm) 

LOAEC 

Endpoints 

MRID No. 

Author/Year Study Classification 

Northern bobwhite quail 

(Colinus virginianus)

94 >150 no effects NAOTH102, 1978 Core 

Mallard duck 

(Anas platyrhynchos)

96 >103 eggs & body wt. 424748-01, 1992 Core 

Analysis of results indicate that there were no egg production, growth or survival effects on the 

bobwhite quail for dosage levels tested. However, there were pesticide relative effect on the 

mallard duck egg production and body weight at the highest dosage level tested only. 

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

Mammals, Acute and Chronic

Wild mammal testing is required on a case-by-case basis, depending on the results of lower tier 

laboratory mammalian studies, intended use pattern and pertinent environmental fate 

characteristics. In most cases, rat or mouse toxicity values obtained from the Agency's Health 

Effects Division (HED) substitute for wild mammal testing. These toxicity values are reported 

below. 

Mammalian Toxicity (rat)

Species/ 

Study Duration % ai 

Test 

Type 

Toxicity 

Value 

Affected 

Endpoints 

MRID No. 

laboratory rat 

(Rattus norvegicus) 

96.55 LD50 >5,000 none 416443-01

Laboratory mouse (Mus musculus) 96.55 Repro., male 195 mg/kg, 

LOAEL 

liver & body wt 

loss 

426077-01 

An analysis of the results indicate that thiophanate-methyl is categorized as practically nontoxic to 

small mammals on an acute oral basis. 
57

Insects

A honey bee acute contact study using the TGAI is required for thiophanate-methyl because its use 

may result in honey bee exposure. Results of this test are tabulated below.

Nontarget Insect Acute Contact Toxicity 

Species % ai 

LD50 

(μg/bee) Toxicity Category 

MRID No. 

Author/Year 

Study 

Classification 

Honey bee 

(Apis mellifera)

96.2 >100 ug/bee relative nontoxic 400532-09, 1986 Core 

 

An analysis of the results indicate that thiophanate-methyl is categorized relative non-toxic to bees 

on an acute contact basis. The guideline (141-1) is fulfilled (MRID No. 400532-09).A honey bee 

toxicity of residues on foliage study using the typical end-use product is not required for 

thiophanate-methyl even though its use will result in honey bee exposure, however, the acute 

contact honey bee LD50 is >100 ug/bee. Results of this test show that the guideline (141-2) is 

fulfilled (MRID No. 400532-09).

Toxicity to Freshwater Animals

Freshwater Fish, Acute

Two freshwater fish toxicity studies using the TGAI are required to establish the toxicity of 

thiophanate-methyl to fish. The preferred test species are rainbow trout (a coldwater fish) and 

bluegill sunfish (a warmwater fish). Results of these tests are tabulated below. 

Freshwater Fish Acute Toxicity

Species/ 

Flow-through or Static % ai 

96-hour 

LC50 (ppm) 

(measured/nominal) Toxicity Category 

MRID No. 

Author/Year 

Study 

Classification 

Rainbow trout 

(Oncorhynchus mykiss)

static 

Tech. 8.3 Moderately toxic 00050516, 1971 Suppl. 

Bluegill sunfish 

(Lepomis macrochirus)

97.6 >41 slightly toxic 421235-01, 1991 Core 

Since the LC50 falls in the range of 8.3 to >41 ppm, thiophanate-methyl is categorized as 

moderately to slightly toxic to freshwater fish on an acute basis. The guideline (72-1) is fulfilled 

(MRID Nos. 000505-15 and 421235-01). 

 

Freshwater Fish, Chronic

A freshwater fish early life-stage test using the TGAI is required for MBC to determine if chronic 

LOC is exceeded at the registered maximum application rates. 

Freshwater Fish Chronic Toxicity
58

Species/ 

Flow-through or Static % ai 

NOAEC (ppm) 

(measured/nominal) End-point 

MRID No. 

Author/Year 

Study 

Classification 

Channel Catfish 

(Ictalurus punctatus)

 

99.3 MBC 0.002 Larvae Survival 438728-01, 1995 Core 

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

Freshwater Invertebrates, Acute

A freshwater aquatic invertebrate toxicity test using the TGAI is required to establish the toxicity 

of thiophantae-methyl to aquatic invertebrates. The preferred test species is Daphnia magna. 

Results of this test are tabulated below.

Freshwater Invertebrate Acute Toxicity

Species/Static or 

Flow-through 

% ai 

48-hour LC50/ 

EC50 (ppm) 

(measured/nominal) Toxicity Category 

MRID No. 

Author/Year 

Study 

Classification 

Waterflea 

(Daphnia magna)

98 MBC 5.4 Moderately toxic 425294-01 Core 

Since the LC50/EC50 falls in the range of 5.4 ppm, thiophanate-methyl is categorized as 

moderately toxic to aquatic invertebrates on an acute basis. The guideline (72-2) is fulfilled 

(MRID No. 42298101). 

Freshwater Invertebrate, Chronic

Freshwater Invertebrate Chronic Toxicity

Species/Static or Flow-through % ai NOAEC(ppm) End-point 

MRID No. 

Author/Year 

Study Classification 

Waterflea 

(Daphnia magna)

99 MBC 0.003 survival 4229881-01, 

1993 

Core

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

Toxicity to Estuarine and Marine Animals

Estuarine and Marine Fish, Acute

Acute toxicity testing with estuarine/marine fish using the TGAI is required for because the 

end-use product is intended for direct application to the marine/estuarine environment or the active 

ingredient is expected to reach this environment because of its use in coastal counties. The 

preferred test species is sheepshead minnow. Results of these tests are tabulated below. 

Estuarine/Marine Fish Acute Toxicity 
59

Species/Static 

or Flow-through % ai 

96-hour 

LC50 (ppm) 

(measured/nominal) 

Toxicity Category 

MRID No. 

Author/Year 

Study 

Classification 

Sheepshead minnow 

(Cyprinodon variegatus)

97.6 40, NOAEC = 17 slightly toxic 421235-03 Core 

Since the LC50 falls in the range of 40 ppm, thiophanate-methyl is categorized as slightly toxic to 

estuarine/marine fish on an acute basis. The guideline (72-3a) is fulfilled (MRID No. 421235-03). 

Estuarine and Marine Fish, Chronic

The guideline (72-4) is not fulfilled due lack of data 

The guideline (72-5) is not fulfilled due to lack of data 

Estuarine and Marine Invertebrates, Acute

Acute toxicity testing with estuarine/marine invertebrates using the TGAI is required for 

thiophanate-methyl because the active ingredient is expected to reach this environment because of 

its use in coastal counties. The preferred test species are mysid shrimp and eastern oyster. Results 

of these tests are tabulated below.

Estuarine/Marine Invertebrate Acute Toxicity 

Species/Static or 

Flow-through % ai. 

96-hour 

LC50/EC50 (ppm) 

(measured/nominal) 

Toxicity Category 

MRID No. 

Author/Year 

Study 

Classification 

Eastern oyster 

(shell deposition or 

embryo-larvae) 

(Crassostrea virginica)

90.1 2.2 Moderately toxic 420946-02, 1991 Suppl. 

Mysid 

(Americamysis bahia)

97.5 1.1 Moderately toxic 42123502, 1991 Suppl. 

Since the LC50/EC50 falls in the range of 1.1 to 2.2 ppm, thiophanate-methyl is categorized as 

moderately toxic to estuarine/marine invertebrates on an acute basis. The guideline (72-3b and 

72-3c) is fulfilled (MRID Nos. 421235-02 and 420946-02). 

Estuarine and Marine Invertebrate, Chronic

An estuarine/marine invertebrate life-cycle toxicity test is required because TM is expected to 

transport to, estuarine/marine sites and 1) exposure of aquatic organisms will be continual or 

recurred; 2) the lowest EC50 is 1 mg/L or less; 3) the EEC in water is equal to or greater than 0.01 

of any EC50; 4) the EEC is less than any EC 50, and 5) the product has reproductive effects. The 

results are calculated below. 

Estuarine/Marine Invertebrate Chronic Toxicity 

Species/Static or 

Flow-through % ai. NOAEC 

(PPM) 

Toxicity Category 

MRID No. 

Author/Year 

Study 

Classification 
60

Estuarine/Marine Invertebrate Chronic Toxicity 

Species/Static or 

Flow-through % ai. NOAEC 

(PPM) 

Toxicity Category 

MRID No. 

Author/Year 

Study 

Classification 

Mysid 

(Americamysis bahia)

99.3 0.025 survival 427237-01, 1992 Core

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

Toxicity to Plants

Terrestrial Plants

For seedling emergence and vegetative vigor testing the following plant species and groups should 

be tested: (1) six species of at least four dicotyledonous families, one species of which is soybean 

(Glycine max) and the second is a root crop, and (2) four species of at least two monocotyledonous 

families, one of which is corn (Zea mays). Tier I tests measure the response of plants, relative to 

a control, at a test level that is equal to the highest use rate (expressed as lbs ai/A). Tier I tests 

were conducted using technical TM: MRID4404101 and 42123504 for seedling emergence and 

vegetative vigor respectively. The maximum dosage tested was 1.4 lbs. ai per acre. These data 

are not useful for risk assessment purposed because the maximum label dose was not evaluated. 

Labeled crops not covered by the 1.4 lb per acre dosage are ornamentals - 100 lbs. ai per acre, turf 

- 44 lbs. ai per acre, onions - 11.2 lbs. ai per acre, and apples - 2.81 lbs. ai per acre and peaches - 

1.58 lbs. ai per acre. These data indicate that 3 of the 10 crop plants tested at 1.4 lbs. ai per acre 

were more sensitive than the others: cucumber, tomato, and soybean. 

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

and the TEP. 

Aquatic Plants

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

Nontarget Aquatic Plant Toxicity (Tier II) 

Species % ai 

EC50/ 

EC05 (ppm) 

MRID No. 

Author/Year 

Study Classification 

Vascular Plants 

Duckweed 

Lemna gibba 

97.6 >4.70 

NOAEC - 4.70 

421235-05 Core 

Nonvascular Plants 

Green algae 

Kirchneria subcapitata

97.6 >0.95 

NOAEC - 0.95 

422298-01 Core 

Marine diatom 

Skeletonema costatum

97.6 1.7 

NOAEC - 0.11 

422298-03 Core 
61

Nontarget Aquatic Plant Toxicity (Tier II) 

Species % ai 

EC50/ 

EC05 (ppm) 

MRID No. 

Author/Year 

Study Classification 

Freshwater diatom 

Navicula pelliculosa 

97.6 0.93 

NOAEC- 0.43 

422298-02 Core 

Blue-green algae 

Anabaena flos-aquae 

97.6 >4.3 

NOAEC - 4.30 

422981-02 Core 

The Tier II results indicate that freshwater diatom is the most sensitive aquatic plant. The 

guideline (123-2) is fulfilled (MRID Nos. 421235-05, 422298-01, 422298-02, 422298-03, 

422981-02).