UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

JUN 012015 

MEMORANDUM 

OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY 

AND POLLUTION PREVENTION 

SUBJECT: BEAD Chemical Profile for Registration Review: Acequinocyl (006329) 

FROM: Nikhil 

Biological 

Mallampalli 

Analysis Branch 

ffeL C( ~ 

THRU: 

Cynthia 

Science Information 

Doucoure, Environmental 

and Analysis Branch 

Protection Specialist ~ 

Arnet Jones, Chief 

Biological Analysis Br 

Diann Sims, Chief 

Science Information and Analysis Branch 

. J/ ,,,_ -0 [, / - fU..q__,~ Timothy Kiely, Chief !110t1A.o /v:A-J~ TUY /I mo-WJ d 

Economic Analysis Branch 

Biological and Economic Analysis Division (7503P) 

TO: Margaret Hathaway, Chemical Review Manager 

Risk Management and Implementation Branch II 

Pesticide Re-evaluation Division (7508P) 

Product Review Panel date: April 29, 2015 

Page 1of10 
SUMMARY 

Acequinocyl, a miticide (synonymous with "acaricide"), was first registered in the U.S. in 2003. 

It is one of a group of pesticides that act by disrupting mitochondrial electron transport, and is a 

member of the Mode of Action (MoA) Group 20B, as defined by the Insecticide Resistance 

Action Committee, a group of industry experts. Other EPA registered members of this MoA 

group are hydramethylnon and fluacypyrim (which is not currently marketed in the U.S.). Since 

acequinocyl is a relatively new registration, it has not undergone registration review of any kind 

until now. Major agricultural use occurs on apples, almonds, oranges, and strawberries. The 

states with the highest overall use are California and New York (major producers of strawberries 

and apples, respectively). 

INTRODUCTION 

The purpose of this document is to convey general usage information and a broad overview of 

the pest management role of this pesticide as it begins to undergo registration review. The 

anticipated audience consists of the team of EPA staff currently evaluating the registration status 

of acequinocyl, and eventually the general public. This document builds upon the data BEAD 

provides in the Screening Level Usage Analysis (SLUA) to Registration Review teams. The 

document is based on information and data available to BEAD as of April 2015. Acequinocyl is 

an acaricide (i.e., its toxicity is mainly against mites; these are the only pests listed on its label). 

It was registered in the U.S. in 2003, and has "reduced-risk" status in currently registered crops. 

HISTORY OF BEAD ASSESSMENTS FOR ACEQUINOCYL 

BEAD prepared a Screening Level Usage Analysis (SLUA) in October 2014 that provided 

average percent crop treated (PCT) values and pounds a.i. applied for 10 crops (EPA 2014). 

There is no official record of other earlier BEAD work products (e.g., emergency exemption 

reviews, benefits assessments) that focused on acequinocyl. An emergency exemption request 

may indicate a need for a particular chemical that is-not registered for use on a particular site, 

and may yield information about a particular chemical's importance or value that is not found in 

other EPA records. However, a lack of such reviews by BEAD does not specifically indicate the 

relative importance of the chemical. 

COMMON FORMULATIONS AND APPLICATION METHODS 

Acequinocyl is formulated as a soluble concentrate and applied to crop or plant foliage via a 

ground-based sprayer. No aerial applications are allowed. 

Page 2of10 
USE SITES 

Agricultural Use Sites 

Acequinocyl, per label, is registered for use on pome fruit, citrus, caneberry (crop subgroup 13-

07 A), cherry, cucumber (field and commercial greenhouse grown), small fruit vine climbing 

subgroup except fuzzy kiwifruit (subgroup 13-07F), low growing berries (subgroup 13-07G), 

melon (subgroup 9A), succulent shelled bean, succulent soybean vegetable, tree nuts (including 

almonds and pistachios), fruiting vegetables except cucurbits (field grown and commercial 

greenhouse grown), edible podded beans, hops, and okra. 

Non-Agricultural Use Sites: 

Acequinocyl is registered for use in commercial greenhouses and shade houses on ornamental, 

floral, foliage, and ornamental nursery crops; on ornamentals in outdoor landscapes around the 

perimeter of residences, businesses, schools, and public property, and on ornamentals in 

residential and non-residential interior settings. 

ACEQUINOCYL USAGE 

Agricultural Usage Trends 

Based on the available private and public market research, acequinocyl use in the U.S. appears to 

be low during the 2005-2012 time frame. In terms of pounds a.i. applied, acequinocyl use 

fluctuated during this reporting period, with a marked increase in 2006 and a marked decrease in 

2007, followed by increases in use but below the level obtained in 2006. Similar trends were 

found for total area treated, as shown in Figure 2. During the 2005-2012 time frame, 

approximately 1,900 pounds a.i. were applied on average annually to 7,000 acres at an overall 

average a.i. application rate of 0.26 lbs a.i. per acre. 

Page 3of10 
Figure 1. Acequinocyl Pounds A.I. Applied, 2005-2012 

"O 

.!!:! 

Ci. 

c. 

< 

<i. 

.,, 

"O 

c: 

::::J 

0 

0... 

4,500 

0 

2005 2006 

Source: Proprietary Data, 2005-2012 

- -

2007 2008 2009 

Year 

Figure 2. Acequinocyl Total Area Treated in Acres, 2005-2012 

20,000 

0 

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 

Year 

Source:· Proprietary Data, 2005-2012 

Page 4of10 

2010 2011 2012 

2010 2011 2012 
Crops Showing Relatively High Use, 2005-2012 

During the 2008-2012 time frame, acequinocyl had reported usage on 10 crops: almonds, apples, 

grapefruit, grapes, lemons, oranges, pears, strawberries, tangerines, and walnuts. However, in 

terms of proportion of total pounds a.i. applied, acequinocyl is used mainly on oranges (35%), 

strawberries (25%), apples (22%), and almonds (15%) as shown in Table 1. Together, these 

crops constitute a little more than 95% of the total acequinocyl use during this period. 

Table 1. Acequinocyl Top Crops, 2008-2012 

Top Crops % of Total Proportion Avg A.I. Rate Labeled Max App 

Pounds A.I. of Total (lb a.i./acre) Rate per 

Applied Area r Application ' 

Treated (lb a.i./acre) 

Oranges 35% 33% 0.3 0.3 

Strawberries 25% 21% 0.3 0.3 

Aooles 22% 26% 0.2 0.3 

Almonds 15% 16% 0.2 0.3 

Other* 3% 4% 0.2 0.3 

*Other crops include wine grapes, lemons, pears, and walnuts. 

Source: Proprietary Data, 2005-2012 

States Showing Relatively High Use. 2008-2012 

During the 2008-2012 time frames, acequinocyl was reported to be used in 5 states. However, in 

terms of the percent of total pounds a.i. applied, acequinocyl is used predominantly in the states 

of California (77%) and New York (12%) as shown in Table 2. Together, these states constitute 

nearly 90% of the total acequinocyl use during this period. 

Table 2. Acequinocyl Top States, 2008-2012 

Top States % of Total Proportion of Avg A.I. Rate 

Pounds A.I. Total Area (lb a.i./acre) 

Applied Treated 

California 77% 74% 0.3 

New York 12% 15% 0.2 

Other* 11% 11% 0.3 

*Other states include MI, PA, and WA. 

Source: Proprietary Data, 2005-2012 

Page 5of10 
Agricultural Use Intensity of Acequinocyl Use in the U.S. 

Another measure of usage is the use intensity. In this analysis, the use intensity is expressed as 

the average annual amount (in pounds) of the active ingredient applied per 1,000 acres of crop 

acres grown in a particular state. This differs from the application rate, which is expressed as the 

pounds a.i. applied per treated area. Figure 3 spatially represents acequinocyl's use intensity in 

the U.S. Intensity is highest in California, probably as a result of high production of oranges and 

strawberries. Use in apples probably underlies the intensity depicted in Washington and New 

York. For more information on Figure 3, see Appendix A. 

Figure 3. Annual Average Agricultural Use Intensity of Acequinocyl (2008-2012). 

Pounds Active Ingredient 

per 1,000 Crop Acres Grown 

LJNOData 

LJ <0.10 

->0.10 

Source: Proprietary Data, 2008-2012 

Page 6 oflO 
Non-agricultural Usage 

BEAD reviewed available data on acequinocyl and found reported use in the nursery and 

floriculture market in 2006 (100 lbs a.i) and 2009 (300 lbs a.i.), as shown in Table 3. 

Sector -

Nursery & 

Floriculture 

2006 

2009 

& Floriculture 

Total amount 

applied (lbs 

a.i.) 

100 

300 

Average 

application 

rate (lbs 

a.i./acre 

0.193 

0.177 

Source: USDA NASS, Ag Chemical Usage Reports, 2006 and 2009 

BIOLOGICAL ASPECTS RELEVANT TO ACEQUINOCYL 

The Insecticide Resistance Action Committee (a group of industry technical experts) classifies 

acequinocyl as a member of the Mode of Action Group 20B (!RAC 2014). This group of 

insecticides acts by disrupting mitochondrial electron transport, thus interfering with energy 

metabolism. Other insecticides in this group include hydramethylnon and fluacrypyrim. In the 

U.S. hydramethylnon is only marketed for the control of ants and cockroaches; fluacrypyrim is 

not yet commercially available. Thus, acequinocyl is the only currently available miticide in its 

Mode of Action group, which may make it relatively valuable in term of rotating chemistries to 

delay resistance development in target mite populations. Acequinocyl is described in some 

extension publications as having comparatively low acute honeybee toxicity, and is one of a 

small group of miticides that are listed by such publications as being safe for bees when applied 

at any time (e.g., Pfeiffer 2015, Grafton-Cardwell et al. 2014). BEAD presumes that these 

descriptions refer only to the acute, immediate toxicity to bees. Acequinocyl is toxic to all 

labeled mite life stages, and acts only through direct contact. It is also considered by crop experts 

to be relatively low in toxicity (again, presumably in terms of acute effects) to natural enemies of 

mite and insect pests, such as parasitic wasps and predatory mites (Grafton-Cardwell et al. 2014, 

Abraham et al. 2013). 

ROLE OF ACEQUINOCYL IN PEST MANAGEMENT 

Acequinocyl is marketed by the registrant (Arysta) for control of several species of mites in the 

phylogenetic families Tetranychidae and Tarsonemidae. These include the twospotted spider 

mite (TSSM), Tetranychus urticae, and the European red mite (ERM), Panonychus ulmae. 

TSSM is a generalist phytophagous mite that can be a serious pest in a variety of agricultural and 

ornamental crops; ERM is mainly a pest of tree fruit such as apples and pears. In citrus, both 

TSSM and the citrus red mite (Panonychus citri) can be serious pests, and acequinocyl is one of 

the recommended control materials (Grafton-Cardwell et al. 2014). 

Page 7of10 
In addition, acequinocyl is one of a group of recommended miticides for California growers of 

strawberries who need to control the cyclamen mite (Zalom et al. 2014). These mites may also 

be a major target pest in greenhouse ornamental production as well, since they are common pests 

in that setting. 

A publicly accessible database of published scientific literature on arthropod resistance that is 

maintained by Michigan State University (http://www.pesticideresistance.com/index.php) shows 

no published reports of field pest populations showing resistance to acequinocyl. This is 

noteworthy because TSSM, in particular, is well known for developing resistance to many 

different chemistries. This lack ofresistance, along with its relatively low negative impact on 

bees and beneficial natural enemies of a variety of pests, may help explain the higher use of 

acequinocyl in oranges, apples, strawberries, and almonds, as compared to other registered sites. 

These crops often require simultaneous management of multiple pests, including TSSM and 

other labeled mites, and some are attractive to pollinators. However, BEAD notes that the 

database available from Michigan State may not reflect very recent reports of pest resistance. 

INFORMATION THAT MAY BE USEFUL FOR BEAD'S FUTURE WORK ON 

ACEQUINOCYL 

The Agency currently does not have important information on acequinocyl. Obtaining the 

following usage information may improve future assessments conducted by the Agency related 

to the use and importance of acequinocyl: 

Obtaining the following usage information may improve future assessments conducted by the 

Agency related to the use and importance of acequinocyl: · 

1) Typical application timing in each registered crop. 

2) Details on the pest management importance of acequinocyl in ornamental production. 

3) If more than one application is typically made, the typical re-application interval (per 

crop). 

4) Recent (2006-present) data on pounds used in non-agricultural sites. 

5) Recent resistance reports for acequinocyl in populations of important target pests. 

REFERENCES 

Abraham, C.M., S.K. Braman, R.D. Oetting, and N.C. Hinkle. 2013. Pesticide compatibility with 

natural enemies for pest management in greenhouse Gerbera daisies. J. Econ. Entomol. 106(4): 

1590-1601. 

EPA. 2014. Acequinocyl Screening Level Usage Analysis (SLUA), October 2014 

Grafton-Cardwell, E.E., J.G. Morse, N.V. O'Connell, C.E. Kallsen, and D.R. Haviland. 2014. 

UC IPM Pest Management Guidelines - Citrus: Insects and Mites 

Page 8of10 
Available on the web at: http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PDF/PMG/pmgcitrus.pdf [Accessed 

January 2015] 

IRAC. 2014. IRAC MoA Classification Scheme, Version 7.3. Prepared by the Insecticide 

Resistance Action Committee (IRAC) International MoA Working Group. Available on the web 

at www.irac-online.org [Accessed March 2015] 

Pfeiffer, D.G. 2015. Spray Bulletin for Commercial Tree Fruit Growers: Virginia, West Virginia 

and University of Maryland Extension. Available on the web at: https://pubs.ext.vt.edu/456/456-

419/456-419.html. 

Proprietary Data, 2005-2012 

USDA NASS, Ag Chemical Usage Reports, 2006 and 2009. 

Zalom, F.G., 0. Daugovish, S.T. Koike, K.D. Larson, and P.A. Phillips. 2014. UC IPM Pest 

Management Guidelines - Strawberry: Insects and Mites. 

Available on the web at: http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PMG/selectnewpest.strawberry.html. 

[Accessed January 2015] 

Page 9of10 
APPENDIX A 

The map included herein is primarily for the use of the risk assessors in the Environmental Fate 

and Effects Division. The map provides a very broad geographical view of the average annual 

amount (in pounds) of the active ingredient applied per 1,000 acres of crop acres grown. These 

data are included in the maps because risk assessors are interested in the amount of a pesticide 

used across agricultural land. The calculated values presented in the map are not equivalent to 

an application rate (lb ai/ A). 

The data used to make these maps have several limitations. Any interpretation of the maps 

should consider the underlying data and the associated limitations carefully. 

The numerator (annual average pounds applied) is based on private market surveys of pesticide 

use in agriculture averaged over the last five years (Proprietary Data, 2008-2012). These surveys 

cover about 60 crops and are targeted in states that produce the majority of the crop. Although 

the surveys capture most of the use of a particular active ingredient in agriculture, there are 

several limitations to these surveys. 

• States with minor production of a surveyed crop are not sampled 

• Not all types of pesticides are surveyed in every crop in every year 

• Many specialty crops with very small acreages are not included in the survey 

The result of these limitations is that states that show no usage may actually have a small amount 

of the active ingredient being used. In some cases the displayed use intensity may be distorted 

because the surveyed crops and the reported pesticide usage may not accurately represent the 

actual pesticide usage on the crops produced in the state. 

The denominator (1,000 crop acres grown) was also obtained from the same private market 

survey database. The "Crop Acres Grown" variable represents the total acres grown in a given 

state of all of the surveyed crops. This value is independent of pesticide usage and pesticide 

registration. It is important to note that the surveyed crops (about 60) are sampled from states 

that are major producers of each crop. Therefore, there are cases where the actual crop acreage in 

a state is higher than that reported by crop acres grown in the survey because either that state 

and/or crop was not included in the survey. 

The reader should pay particular attention to the figure legends and realize that a map prepared 

for a particular chemical is not directly comparable to a map prepared for a different chemical as 

the legend bins will likely be different. 

Page 10of10