### 1 OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY AND POLLUTION PREVENTION **UNITED ST AT**  **ES ENVIRONMENT AL**  **PROTECTION A GENCY** 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460



### PC Code No.: 085651 **DP Barcode:** D 3 96052 **Date:** February 10 , 2012 **MEMORANDUM SUBJECT:**  Estimated Drinking Water Concentrations of C yaz ofamid and its Degradates of

Concern CCIM, CCIM
- AM and CTCA, for Use in Human Health Risk Assessment: IR
- 4 Petition for the Use on Succulent Beans, S helled Bean s , Leafy Green s Subgroup 4A, Basil (Fresh and Dried Leaves), Tuberous and Corm Vegetables Subgroup 1C, and Fruiting Vegetables Group 8
- 10 **TO:** Laura Nollen , Risk Manager Reviewer

Barbara Madden , Team Leader Daniel Rosenblatt, Chief Risk Integration, Minor Use and Emergency Response Branch Registration Division (7505P) **AND :**  Paula Deschamp, Chief

Registration Action Branch III Health Effects Division (7509P) **FROM:** José L . Meléndez, Chemist

Environmental Risk Branch V Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7 507P) **THROUGH:** Mah T. Shamim, Ph.D., Chief

Environmental Risk Branch V Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P) This memorandum presents the Estimated Drinking Water Concentrations (EDWCs) for the fungicide cyazofamid, and for its major transf ormation products CCIM, CCIM
- AM and CTCA, for use in the human health risk assessment. An IR
- 4 request for registration of several new crops was submitted to the Agency, including succulent b eans, shelled b ean s , l eaf y green s Subgroup 4A, basil (fresh and dried leaves), tuberous and corm v egeta bles Subgroup 1C, and fruiting v egetables Group 8
- 10 (some fruiting vegetables have been previously registered)
. Based on a review of the use information, it was found that the proposed new crops have much

### 2

lower seas onal application rate s than turf and ornamentals . The highest seasonal rates among the newly proposed crops belong to basil and tuberous and corm vegetables at ~ 0.7 lb a.i./A/season, compared to 3.0

– 3.12 lb a.i./A/season for turf and ornamentals ( **Table 1**  **- 2**  ). EDWCs for the new uses should be smaller than those already calculated for turf and ornamentals; therefore, a new drinking waters assessment (DWA) is not required. The values reported in the previous assessment can be used to cover the new crop s . A cop y of the last DWA , dated March 24, 2009, is provided in **Attachment A** , which also provides structures and nomenclature of cyazofamid and its transformation products . M oreover , a cop y of the DWA dated September 6, 2006, in which turf and ornamentals were modeled is included in **Attachment B**
. These attachments provide specific information about the chemicals modeled (cyazofamid, CCIM and CCIM
- AM for acute exposure and CTCA for chronic exposure), structures, problem formulation and approach taken in model ing the crops, a summary of physicochemical and environmental fate properties of the chemicals , etc . The Health Effects Division (HED ) Metabolism Assessment Review Committee (MARC) concluded that cyazofamid and the metabolites designated as CCIM, CCIM
- AM and CTCA should be considered to be the major residues in water and should be included in the drinking waters assessment (Acierto et al
. 2004 , DP Barcode D298915 )
. 1 

### As summarized in **Table 1 -**  **1** , the surface water acute EDWC is 38.2 ppb. The surface water non - cancer chronic value is 133.5 ppb and the cancer chronic EDWC is 77.3 ppb. The value for ground water is 2.18 ppb, which is suitable for both acute and chronic exposures. The above stated values represent upper
-bound estimates of the parent and individual degradates’ concentrations that might be found in surface water and groundwater due to the use of cyazofamid on turf and ornamental s, as reported previously in DP Barcodes D319466 and D356839 ( see **Attachment s**  **A** & **B** ). It is noted that this is still a screening
- level anal ys is
. Should any

questions arise, please, contact EFED.
**Table 1 -**  **1 .**  **Maximum E**  **stimated D**  **rinking W** **ater C**  **oncentration s for**  **Cyazofamid , CCIM, CCIM** **** **AM and CTCA .**  **Maximum EDWCs are Based on the Use on Turf and Ornamentals Previously**  **reported in D319466 (Dated 09/06/2006 , Attachment B** **) DRINKING WATER SOURCE**  **(M odel Used** **) USE (rate modeled**  **per year )**  **MAXIMUM ESTIMATED DRINKING WATER CONCENTRATION (EDWC) (**  **ppb )**  Groundwater (SCI
- GROW) Ornamentals (3.12 lb a.i./A/yr) Ac ute and Chronic 2.18 1 Surface water (PRZM/ EXAMS) Turf & Ornamentals (3.0 & 3.12 lb a.i./A/yr , respectively) Ac ute 38.2 2 Chronic 133.5 1 Cancer/Chronic 77.3 1 1. Ac ute exposure is b ased on modeling of the parent cyazofamid and the degradates CCIM and CCIM
- AM. 2. Chronic exposure is b ased on modeling of the degradate CTCA (includes acute exposure in SCI
- GROW)
.

1 Acierto, A., et al. Cyazofamid
- Meeting Report of the Metabolism Assessment Review Committee (MARC), Health Effects Division Memo dated 02/1 8 /2004 ; DP Barcode D298915
.

### 3

**Use information:** There are two products that contain cyazofamid, both of which are flowable suspensions (SC) : Ranman® 

### 400SC Fungicide label (EPA Reg. No. 71512
- 3) and C yazofamid 400SC Turf and Ornamentals (EPA Reg. No. 71512
- 13) . The chemical is currentl y used on crops like po tatoes, cucurbit vegetables, turf, ornamentals, carrots, fruiting vegetables & okra, and grapes (East of the Rocky Mountains) ( **Table 1 -**  **2** )
. An IR
- 4 petition for registration of several new crops was submitted to the Agency, including succulent b eans, shell ed b ean s , l eafy green s Subgroup 4A, basil (fresh and dried leaves), tuberous and corm v egeta bles Subgroup 1C, and fruiting v egetables Group 8
- 10 as shown in **Table 1 -**  **2**
. The maximum seasonal rates for the new crops range from 0.43 lb a.i./A/season for fruiting vegetables, leafy greens and succulent
-podded & succulent
- shelled beans to ~ 0.7 lb a.i./A/season for basil and tuberous and corm vegetables. In contrast, f or turf and ornamentals, the seasonal application rates are much higher at 3.0 and 3.12 lb a.i./A, divided in 1 and 2 applications, respectively
. **Table 1 -**  **2 . Summary of use information for cyazofamid, based on the current and supplemental**  **label for Ranman**  **®** 

### 400SC Fungicide label (EPA Reg. No. 71512 **- 3)**  **, and**  **label for Cyazofamid**  **400SC Turf and Ornamentals (EPA Reg. No. 71512 -**  **13) . The**  **IR -**  **4 crops**  **are shaded**  **blue .**  **Crops which were claimed in**  **previous submissions**  **are shaded yellow**  **.**

**USE SINGLE APP**  **. RATE**  **(lb. a.i./A) NUMBER** 

**OF APP**  **LICS. SEASONAL** 

**APP. RATE (lb. a.i./A)**  **INTERVAL**

**BETWEEN APPS. (days)**  **APP LICATION** 

**METHOD PHI** 

**(days)** Basil 0.071
- 0.07 8 9 0. 7 7 Foliar , sprinkler irrigation, can be applied on basil grown in greenhouses 0 Tuberous and Corm Vegetables, Crop Subgroup 1C (arracacha, arrowhoot, Chinese artichoke , Jerusalem artichoke, edible canna, bitter cassava, sweet cassava, chayote (root), chufa, casheen taro, ginger, leren, POTATO , tanier, turmeric, yam bean, true yam) 0.036
- 0.071 (0.158 at planting; 0.071 lay
-by / hilling) 10 0.71 7 Foliar , at planting
over the seed pieces, lay
-by / hilling 7 Fruiting Vegetables, Crop Group 8
- 10 [ TOMATO, GROUND CHERRY, TOMATILLO, BELL PEPPER, COOKING PEPPER, PIMENTO, SWEET PEPPERS, EGGPLANT, PEPI

N O, OKRA , African eggplant, bush tomato, cocona, currant tomato, garden huckleberry, goji berry, groundberry, martynia, naranjilla, pea eggplant, non
-bell pepper, roselle, scarlet eggplant, sunberry, tree tomato, cultivars, varieties and/or hybrids of

these ] 0.054
- 0.07 1 6 0.43 7 Foliar, to base of plant at transplanting or in transplant water, sprinkler irrigation ; for tomatoes grown in greenhouses as drench application 0
Leafy Greens, Crop Subgroup 4A [amaranth (leafy amaranth, Chinese spinach, tampala), arugula (Roquette), chervil, edible leaved chrysanthemum, corn salad, garden cress, upland cress (yellow rocket, winter cress), dandelion, dock (sorrel), endive (escarole), lettuce (head & leaf), orach, parsley, garden purslane, winter purslane, radicchio (red chicory), SPINACH , New Zealand spinach, vine spinach (Malabar spinach, I ndian spinach)] 0.071 6 0.43 7 Foliar , to the soil (post
-plant application) as a band over the seed band or transplant, in transplant water, sprinkler irrigation 0

### 4

**Table 1 -**  **2 . Summary of use information for cyazofamid, based on the current and supplemental**  **label for Ranman**  **®** 

### 400SC Fungicide label (EPA Reg. No. 71512 **- 3)**  **, and**  **label for Cyazofamid**  **400SC Turf and Ornamentals (EPA Reg. No. 71512 -**  **13) . The**  **IR -**  **4 crops**  **are shaded**  **blue .**  **Crops which were claimed in**  **previous submissions**  **are shaded yellow**  **.**

**USE SINGLE APP**  **. RATE**  **(lb. a.i./A) NUMBER** 

**OF APP**  **LICS. SEASONAL** 

**APP. RATE (lb. a.i./A)**  **INTERVAL**

**BETWEEN APPS. (days)**  **APP LICATION** 

**METHOD PHI** 

**(days)** Succulent
- Podded & Succulent
Shelled Beans [ Cicer arietinum (chickpea, garbanzo bean), Lupinus spp. (including sweet lupine, white sweet lupine, white lupine and grain lupine), Phaseolus spp. (including kidney bean, lima bean, mung bean, navy bean, pinto bean, snap bean, waxbean), Vacia fava (broad bean, fava bean), Vigna spp. (including asparagus bean, blackeyed bean, cowpea)] 0.071 6 0.43 7 Foliar , sprinkler irrigation 0
Grapes (East of the Rocky Mountains) 0.054
- 0.071 6 0.43 10 G or A 30

Carrot 0.156 5 0.78 14 Pre
-plant incorporated or surface application (broadcast or band) or overhead irrigation system 14
Cucurbit Vegetables (Crop Group 9) [includes cantaloupe, chayote, Chinese waxgourd, citron melon, cucumbers, gherkin, gourds, honeydew melon, Momordica spp., muskmelon, watermelon, pumpkin, squash,

zucchini] 0.054
- 0.071 6 0.43 7 G, A, in transplant water, sprinkler irrigation 0 Turf [such as golf courses (including greens, tees and fairways), sod farms, seed farms, college and professional sports fields, and

commercial lawns] 0.5
- 1.0 3 3.0 14 G N/A Ornamentals [including conifers, grown in containers in greenhouses, outdoor nurseries and

landscapes] 1.56 2 3.12 14 G, s oil drench , soil surface spray, irrigation systems N/A Hops 0.054
- 0.071 6 0.43 7 G , A 3 Brassica (Cole) Leafy Vegetables & Turnip Greens (Crop Group 5) [includes broccoli, Chinese broccoli (gai lon), broccoli raab (rapini), Brussels sprouts, cabbage, Chinese cabbage (bok choy), Chinese cabbage (napa), Chinese mustard (gai choy), cauliflower, cavalo broccolo , collards, kale, kohlrabi, mizuna, mustard greens, mustard spinach, rape greens,

turnip greens] Transplant soil drench 0.66 , soil incorporation 0.52 , foliar 0.07 2 1 soil + 5

foliar 1.02 7 G, A, transplant soil drench, soil incorporation, foliar, sprinkler irrigation 0


### Identification of specific data gaps **and new environmental fate data** : In a previous DWA, it was pointed out that the environmental fate database for cyazofamid consisted of mostly

supplemental studies and that a degree of uncertainty s urrounded estimates of drinking waters concentrations. New studies have been submitted to the Agency to clarify these uncertainties : they

included an a erobic soil metabolism, anaerobic aquatic metabolism, adsorption/desorption (batch equilibrium) , bioconcentration in fish and solubility in saltwater
. These studies were found to be either acceptable or supplemental
. These new studies show a fate behavior of cyazofamid that is very similar than the studies that were previously reviewed
.

### 5

Thus, new modeling of parent cyazofamid and its metabolites of concern was not deemed necessary . An update of the summary table of all the environmental fate data is provided in **Table 1 -** **3**
. MRID numbers for the new studies are **redlined**
. Note that the half
- lives and soil Kd 

### s and KOC 

### s are substantiall y similar to those that were previously reported . Furthermore, metabolites reported in such studies are the same. There is a new bioconcentration in fish study ; however, results derived from this study are not utilized to model EDWCs. Additional environmental fate characterization is given in **Attachment A**
. **Table 1 -** **3 .**  **E nvironmental fate data for c** **yazofamid .**  **MRIDs for n ew fate data shown with**  **R edline**  **. Parameter**  **Value 1**  

### MRID Aerobic soil metabolism **2 t**  **1⁄2 = 6.1**  **- 6.4 days**  in a loamy sand soil from Ohio, **Soil 1** (pH 6.5, %OC 0.66)

**Major degradates:** CCIM, CCIM
- AM, and CTCA 454091
- 06 465377
- 05 **t 1⁄2**  **= 3.7 -**  **4.0 days**  in a Sandy loam soil from England, **Soil 2** (pH 7.6, %OC= 1.2) **t 1⁄2**  **= 4.3 -**  **4.4 days** in a Sandy loam soil from England, **Soil 3** (pH 6.9, %OC= 3.0) **t 1⁄2**  **= 4.9 -**  **6.0 days** in a Sandy soil from Germany, **Soil 5** (pH 5.9, %OC= 0.63) **Major degradates:** CCIM, CCIM
- AM and CTCA **t 1⁄2**  **= 4.3 d**  **non -**  **linear; 10.3 d**  **linear** in a Sandy loam soil from CA (pH 5.7 , %O M= 0.8 ) **t 1⁄2**  **= 3.0 d non**  **- linear; 44.1 d linear**  in a Sandy clay loam from ND (pH~7.8 , %O M= 5.8 ) **Major degradates:** CCIM, CCIM
- AM, CTCA and CCBA 454091
- 08 465377
- 06 **477163 -**  **01** Anaerobic aquatic metabolism **2 t**  **1⁄2 = 5.6**  **- 6.2 Days**  (total system): Milli
- Q water/Sandy loam (~2:1)

**Major degradates** (of the applied) **:** CCIM (25%), CCIM
- AM (17%); CTCA (22%) **t 1⁄2**  **= 20.1 d linear; 10.5 d non**  **- lin**  **ear** (total system): Creek water/ Sandy loam from OH (~2:1) **Major degradates** (of the applied) **:** CCIM (40.0 %), CCIM
-AM (1 9.8 %); CTCA ( 62.8 %) 454091
- 09 465377
- 11 467027
- 06 **477163 -**  **02** Adsorption/ Desorption (Kd and **K oc**  in L Kg - 1 ) [Imidazole
- 4
- 14 C]/[Benzene
-U
14 C]:

Loamy sand (O H), **Soil 1** : Kd = 9.99/ 6.96 and **K oc** **= 1,524/1,062** Sandy loam (UK), **Soil 2** : Kd = 43.31/87.00 and **K oc** **= 1,444/2,900** Sandy loam (UK), **Soil 3** : Kd = 14.11/13.49 and **K oc** **= 1,176/1,124** Sand (Germany), **Soil 5** : Kd = 5.14/ 4.14 and **K oc** **= 815/ 657**  Sandy loam (CA), Kd = NA/ 7.01 and **K oc** **= NA/ 1,491**  Sandy clay loam (ND) Kd = NA/ 39.5 and **K oc** **= NA** **/ 1,171**  454091
- 12 465377
- 13 **477163 -**  **04** Bioconcentration in Fish Invalid study

L ow- dose samples BCF 161x whole fish. BCF K 123 x for whole fish
. DT 50 o f clearance 1.0 days for whole fish. High dose samples BCF 170 x for whole fish, based on total residues
. BCF K 132 x for whole fish
. DT 50 of clearance 0.69 days for whole fish. Species rainbow trout , temperat

ure 12 0 C, pH 8.1
- 8.3
. 454091
- 38 454091
- 39 465377
- 24 **477163 -**  **05** Saltwater Solub il
. Cyazofamid 0.0476 mg/L; CCIM ≥115 mg/L; CCIM
- AM 0.200 mg/L; CTCA 98.7 mg/L **477163 -**  **06 1**  **Soil 1**  : Loamy Sand, Ohio (pH 6.5, %OC= 0.66); **Soil 2**  : Sandy loam, England (pH 7.6, %OC= 1.2); **Soil 3**  : Sandy loam, England (pH 6.9, %OC= 3.0); Soil **4:** Loamy sand, England (pH 7.6, %OC= 1.1); **Soil 5:** Sandy soil, Germany (pH 5.9, %OC= 0.63). **2** Soil and aquatic systems range of half
- lives are values for the two labels. It is noted that longer half
- lives were observed for the aerobic/anaerobic aquatic systems in late intervals (a range of 19 to 30 days). 

### Attachments: Attachment A. Electronic Copy of DWA Dated 03/24/09 Attachment B. Electronic Copy of DWA Dated 09/06/06

### 6 **Attachment A. ELECTRONIC COPY OF DWA**  **DATED 03/24/09**
**UNITED STA**

**TES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY** WASHINGTON D.C., 20460 OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES


### PC Code No.: 085651 **DP Barcode:** D 356836 **Date:** March 24, 2009 

### MEMORANDUM **SUBJECT:** Estimated Drinking Water Concentrations of Parent Cyazofamid and its

Degradates CCIM, CCIM
- AM and CTCA for Use in Human Health Risk Assessment (Use on Fruiting Vegetables, Crop Group 8 + Okra, and Grapes, Ea st of the Rocky Mountains ). **TO:** Tony

Kish, PM Team Reviewer Janet Whitehurst, Risk Manager Reviewer Cy nthia Giles
- Parker, Chief Fungicide Branch Registration Division (7505P) **AND:** Nancy

Tsaur, Chemist Paula Deschamp, Chief Registration Action Branch III Health Effects Division (7509P) **FROM:** José L . Meléndez, Chemist

Environmental Risk Branch V Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P) **THROUGH:** Mah T. Shamim, Ph.D., Chief

Environmental Risk Branch V Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P) This memorandum presents the Estimated Drinking Water Concentrations (EDWCs) for cyazofamid (CAS No. 120116
- 88
- 3 ) , and for three of its major transformation products CCIM, CCIM
- AM and CTCA, for use in the human health risk assessment (refer to appendix for the structures and nomenclature of these chemicals) . The registrant seeks registration for the new uses of the chemical on fruiting vegetables + okra, and grapes (East of the Rocky Mountains). Exposure to surface water is possible through surface water runoff, soil erosion and/ or off
- target spray drift. The mobility of cyazofamid is moderate (Kd 

### range 5.14
- 43.31 mL/g ; KOC 

### range 815
-

### 7

1 524 mL/g OC 

### , moderately to slightl y mobile ); however, cyazofamid is labile under many conditions ( e.g. , in metabolism studies and under aqueous photolysis conditions). However, it degrades to a number degradates, which appear to be persistent. F or cyazofamid and for its major transformation products CCIM, CCIM
- AM and CTCA (as per HED’s request), calculated using tier 2 aquatic linked models PRZM/ EXAMS (surface water, applications to turf and ornamentals ) and the tier 1 aquatic model SCI
- GROW (groundwater, applications to ornamentals ) , EDWCs were calculated. As summarized in Table 1, the surface water acute EDWC is 38.2 ppb
. The surface water non
- cancer chronic value is 133.5 ppb and the cancer chronic EDWC is 77.3 ppb
. The value for ground water is 2.18 ppb , which is suitable for both acute and chronic exposures
. The above stated values represent upper
-bound estimates of the parent and individual degradates ’ concentrations that might be found in surface water and groundwater due to the use of cyazofamid on turf and ornamentals , as reported previously in DP Barcode 319466. It is noted that this is still a screening
- level anal ys is
. A more refined assessment could b e performed
. Should any

questions arise, please, contact José L. Meléndez at melendez.jose@epa.gov
. **Identification of specific data gaps** : The environmental fate database consists of mostly supplemental studies. A degree of uncertainty exists in estimates of drinking waters concentrations until new studies are submitted. **EXECUTIVE SUMMARY** Cyazofamid (CAS name: 4
- Chloro
- 2
- cyano -N,N
- dimethyl
- 5
- (4
- methylphenyl)
- 1H
- imidazole
- 1
- sulfonamide; IUPAC name: 4
- chloro
- 2cyano -N,N
- dimethyl
- 5
-

p - tol yl imidazole
- 1
- sulfonamide ; CAS No. 120116
- 88
- 3 : PC code 085651) is a cyanoimidazole selective fungicide. The pesticide ’s mode of action is to target the fungi cytochrome bc1 (ubiquinone reductase) at Q1 site. Cyazofamid is currently used on potatoes, cucurbits, turf, tomatoes and carrots and it is proposed to be used on fruiting vegetables + okra, and grapes (East of the Rocky Mountains) through an IR
- 4 tolerance petition. This memorandum is a drinking waters assessment (DWA) that presents the EDWCs for parent cyazofamid, and the degradates CCIM, CCIM
- AM and CTCA for use in an FQPA human health risk assessment. Cyazofami d fungicide and/or its degradates may reach both surface and groundwater under some conditions. The degradates’ EDWCs were modeled individually (as opposed to the use of the total residue approach). This was done because sufficient data were available on the degradates to model them individually (although some assumptions were made, see below). Itis noted that DWAs were previously issued as follows: **Summary of Cyazofamid Drinking Water Exposure Assessments Date**  **DP Barcode Uses included**  4/28/04 301099 Cucurbits, potatoes and tomatoes 9/6/06 319466 Turf and Ornamentals 3/5/08 342613 Carrots This assessment 356839 Fruiting vegetables + okra, and grapes (East of the Rocky mountains)

### 8

This DWA builds largel y upon the previous assessments. Additional runs were performed to cover the new crops; the highest EDWCs of all crops (past and present) were obtained for turf and ornamentals (surface waters) and ornamentals (ground water). The screening
- level surface water and ground water EDWCs were obtained using the tier 2 linked aquatic models PRZM/ EXAMS and the tier 1 aquatic model SCI
- GROW , respectivel y. EDWCs are summarized in Table 1 for three scenarios as follows:  1 st 

### scenario: the parent is applied at the maximum rate;  2 nd 

### scenario: the degradates CCIM and CCIM
- AM (and CTCA) are applied at the parent
molar equivalent amounts , spreading the application rate through the degradates, according to the molecular ratios and the adjusted maximum percentages of the degradates observed in the environmental fate studies ; and  3 rd 

### scenario: the terminal degradate, CTCA, is applied assuming application of 100% molar conversion of the parent to the degradate. Based on the results presented in Table 1 below and a time
- line of exposure, the surface water acute EDWC is 38.2 ppb ( equal to the Parent “ 14.362 ppb” + CCIM “ 17.106 ppb” + CCIM
- AM “ 6.699 ppb”). CTCA is not included in the surface water acute EDWC because it is not expected to be present in this time frame. The surface water non
- cancer chronic is 133.5 ppb and the cancer chronic is 77.3 ppb (equal to the value for the terminal degradate , CTCA). For ground water, the EDWC is 2.18 ppb , which is suitable for acute and chronic exposures (equal to the value for the terminal degradate , CTCA). **Table 1.** M **axima of surface and ground water EDWCs for cyazofam** **id and its relevant**  **ma jor**  **degradates. Turf and ornamentals**  **use pattern, previously reported in D319466 (dated 9/6/06) .** 
**Scenario Chem**  **ical Surface**  **water EDWCs (ppb) Ground**  **water EDWC (ppb)**  **Acute Chronic “**  **N on**  **** **Cancer” Chronic** 

**“Cancer”** 1 st Scenario Cyazofamid 14.362 0.377 0.279 0.01180 2 nd Scenario CCIM 17.106 12.094 10.600 0.00061

CCIM
- AM 6.699 6.312 3.611 0.00270 3 rd Scenario CTCA 136.242 133.458 **77.270** 2.180

**EDWCs 38.2**  **133.5 77.3**  **2.18** 

### The above stated values represent upper
-bound estimates of the parent, individual degradates and/or terminal degradate concentrations that might be found in surface water and groundwater due to the use of cyazofamid on turf and ornamentals . EFED emphasizes that this is a screening level anal ys is, and should there be a need b y HED, additional refinements can be made. The EDWCs for cyazofamid were determined based on laboratory and fate data from mostly supplemental studies. EFED suspects the possible poor extraction efficiency may have underestimated the half

- lives of cyazofamid , which could result in lower model values for EDWCs. In this respect, it is noted that major identified degradates (CCIM, CCIM
- AM and CTCA) may

not constitute a significant part of the late accumulated un
- characterized bound

### 9

residue (due to the apparent adequate extraction of these degradates). A degree of uncertainty exists in such estimates until new studies with proven extraction procedures are submitted. **PROBLEM FORMULATION** This is a drinking water assessment that uses modeling and monitoring data, if available, to estimate the ground water and surface water concentrations of pesticides in drinking water source water (pre
- treatment) resulting from pesticide use on sites that are highl y vulnerable. **Background** This assessment addresses exposure to parent cyazofamid and its degradation products CCIM, CCIM
- AM and CTCA. As indicated above, three DWAs have been conducted for cyazofamid. Final EDWCs were presented for the use on turf and ornamentals, which were covered in one of the previous assessments. In the DWA for turf and ornamentals, the highest acute EDWCs were observed for the use on turf for the parent and CCIM, and ornamentals for CCIM
- AM. The highest chronic EDWCs were observed for the use on ornamentals. The application rate for ornamentals was 1.56 lb a.i./A (two applications), and for turf 1.02 lb a.i./A (three applications). It should be noted that there are no substantial changes in the DWA methodology since the last assessment . There are no new data in the fate database. Onl y the new crops were modeled. Cyazofamid is charact erized by a high molecular weight (324.79 g/mole), has a relatively low solubility (0.107 ppm @ pH 7) and a low vapor pressure and Henry ’s Law Constant (<1.0 x10 - 7 

### mmHg, and <4.0x10 - 7 

### atm * m 3 

### / mole , respectivel y). Therefore, cyazofamid is not expected to partition substantially

into the air from water or from dry or wet soil surfaces. Available data suggest that cyazofamid has the potential to be bio
- concentrated b y aquatic organisms such as fish (KO/W 

### > 1000), but EFED does not have a valid bio
- accumulation in fish study at this time. Available environmental fate studies suggest that cyazofamid is not very mobile, and that it quickly degrades into various products, depending on the environmental conditions. Among the three major degradates for cyazofamid (C CIM, CCIM
- AM and CTCA), the two terminal degradates are CCIM and CTCA. CCIM is the major one in bodies of water with low biological activity because it is the result of abiotic hydrolysis of the parent. CTCA is expected to be the major terminal degradate in biologicall y active soils and in water/sediment systems. Both CCIM and CTCA are stable to abiotic hydrol ys is and susceptible to leaching but only CCIM is susceptible to biodegradation. Cyazofamid could potentially reach surface water via spray drift or runoff under certain environmental conditions but the potential for it to reach ground water is low. CCIM and CTCA could potentially be the terminal degradates in surface water bodies affected b y spray

drift and/ or runoff depending on the level of biol ogical activity . However, only CTCA has a high potential to contaminate groundwater due to its high persistence and mobility
.

### 10

**Use Characterization** Cyazofamid is currently

used on carrots, cucurbit vegetables, potatoes and tomatoes. In addition, it is u sed on turf and ornamental plants, including container grown plants and field grown (bed) plants. **Table 2. Summary of new use information for cyazofamid, based on the proposed Ranman 400SC Fungicide label (EPA Reg. No. 71512**  **- 3**  **).**

**USE SINGLE APP.**  **RATE (lbs. a.i./A)**  **NUMBER**

**OF APPS. SEASONAL** 

**APP. RATE**  **(lbs. a.i./A) INTERVAL** 

**BETWEEN APP**  **S . (days)**  **APP.**

**METHOD PHI (days)**  Fruiting Vegetables (Crop Group 8) and Okra [includes tomato, ground cherry, tomatillo, bell pepper, chili pepper, cooking pepper, pimento, sweet peppers, eggplant and pepino] 0.054
- 0.078 2 6 (@ 0.071) 0.426 7 Sprinkler Irrigation 1 0 Grapes (East of the Rocky Mountains) 0.054
- 0.071 6 3 0.426 3 10 G or A 30 1 Includes center pivot, motorized lateral move, traveling gun, solid set or portable (w heel move, side roll, end low, or hand move) irrigation systems. 2 The use at 0.078 lb a.i. is for greenhouse transplant production, for control of Pythium spp. 3 The registrant indicated that the maximum rate is 6x0.07 1 lb a.i./A or 0.426 lb a.i./A/season. 

### The label indicates that the product “may be applied with all ty

pes of spray equipment normally used for ground and aerial applications.” The label further specifies that a maximum of three applications in a series are allowed, and that they should be alternated with a fungicide of different mode of action, to manage/ prevent resistance. Aerial applications to grapes are allowed. The label does not have a requirement of an established buffer strip to prote ct bodie s of water. For cucurbits vegetables, the label was amended. The new label now allows the use of cyazofamid for greenhouse transplant production at 0.078 lb a.i./A to control Pythium spp
. However, for cucurbits, the most cons ervative scenario still is 6 applications at 0.071 lb a.i./A (same one previously

assessed)
. In addition to the above mentioned label, EFED evaluated the label amendment for Cyazofamid 400SC Turf and Ornamental s Fungicide (EPA Reg. No. 71512
- 13) to include applications to residential lawns by professionals. The major change is the inclusion of residential uses for turf. There are no changes in the maximum application rates for turf or ornamentals; therefore, these changes were not assessed hereb y . Both products are flowable suspension concentrates (SC). Both products contain 34.5% active ingredient or 3.33 lb a.i./gallon.

### 11

Based on the crops listed for cyazofamid, use is expected all throughout the USA. There is a single geographical label restriction on the use on grapes, that it may be used only

East of the Rocky Mountains (consequently, it may not be used on the high use area on grapes in the state of California). At this time, there is no readily available ty

pical use or usage information for cyazofamid. **Conceptual Mo del**  The conceptual model is a written description and visual representation of potential routes of off
site movement of the pesticide or degradates of concern into surface or ground water that may be a source of drinking water. The conceptual model describes the approach that will be used in the anal ys is phase and includes two components: the risk hy pothesis and the conceptual site model for surface and ground water. For cyazofamid, the following drinking water hy pothesis is being employed for this asse ssment: Cyazofamid use in accordance with the label, results in potential contamination of surface water resources; it does not result in contamination of ground waters because it is relatively labile. Degradates of concern of cyazofamid, CCIM, CCIM
- AM an d CTCA, result in substantial contamination of surface and ground water resources because they are formed in large quantities and /or persist

. 

### The conceptual site model is a generic graphic depiction of the risk hy pothesis. Through a preliminary

iterative process of examining available data, the conceptual model ( i.e. , the drinking water hypothesis) is refined to reflect the likely exposure pathways that are most relevant and applicable to this assessment (refer to the following figure).

### 12

Cyazofamid is applied to the field (on numerous crops). It appears that crop uptake is unlikely or minimal because the KOC 

### for the chemical is moderate ly high (ranged from 657
- 2900). In addition, the chemical shows a relatively low solubility (0.107 ppm) and a high octanol/ water partition coefficient (KOW 

### = 1585)
. Cyazofamid is not expected to move substantially on/in the soils horizontally because it is not very persistent. On the other hand, spray drift is an important factor in the contamination of nearb y surface waters when cyazofamid is applied to the field since it may be applied by aerial or ground methods. Since the field may

be kept irrigated, large runoff events and events accompanied with erosion may be a factor in horizontal movement for cyazofamid’s degradates CCIM and CCIM
- AM, resulting in acute exposure. Since cyazofamid is a labile compound, it may not be available for long periods of time in the field; on the other hand, the degradate CTCA appears to be more persistent. CTCA is expected to be pre sent in surface waters on a chronic basis. Vertical movement to subsurfaces is expected to be an important component for CTCA, particularl y after repeated applications per ye ar and year to year. Volatilization is expected to be a minor route of dissipati on for the active ingredient (Henry ’s Law Constant <4.0x10 - 7 

### atm* m 3 

### /mol)
. **ANALYSIS Fate and Transport Characterization**  **:** A summary

of physicochemical properties of cyazofamid is shown in Table 3. The chemical is a relativel y insoluble compound in acidi c, neutral and alkaline conditions. The low vapor pressure and Henry ’s Law constant of cyazofamid suggest partitioning into the air from water and/or dry or wet soil surfaces will not be an important route of its dissipation in the environment. Cyazofamid has a KOW 

### >1,000 suggesting that it will potentially be bio
- concentrated b y aquatic organisms such as fish. However, at this time, EFED does not have a valid bioaccumulation in fish study
.

### 13

**Table 3. Nomenclature and physicoch**  **emical properties of cyazofamid**  **Parameter Value**  **MRID 1**  Chemical Classification cyanoimidazole Molecular Formula C 13 H 13 ClN4 O 2 S 454090
- 38 Chemical Name (IUPAC) 4
- chloro
- 2cyano -N,N
- dimethyl
- 5
-

p -tolylimidazole
- 1
- sulfonamide Chemical Name (CAS) 4
- Chloro
- 2
- cyano -N,N
- dimethyl
- 5
- (4
- methylphenyl)
- 1H
imidazole
- 1
- sulfonamide Cyazofamid data sheet CAS Number 120116
- 88
- 3

454090
- 38 Pesticide Classification Fungicide Molecular Weight 324.79 Physical State Crystalline solid Water Solubility (ppm) 0.121 @ pH 5, 0.107 @ pH 7, 0.109 @ pH 9 Vapor pressure (25 o C) < 1.33 x10 - 5 Pa or <9.9810 - 8 mmHg or <1.32x10 - 10 atm. EPA Fact sheet Henry's Law Constant <4.0x10 - 7 atm. m3 mo le - 1 Calculated Octanol/Water Partition, KOW 1,585 (log KOW 3.2 @ 25°C) 454090
- 38 **1** Study reference is an MRID number. 

### Cyazofamid and degradates fate and transport properties are based on previously submitted studies and reports (EPA Risk Assessments dated 2004, 2006 and 2008). Although, EFED requested additional studies, no new studies have been submitted. Cyazofamid’s environmental fate data are summarized in Table 4. **Table 4. Summary of environmental fate data for c** **yazofamid Parameter**  **Value 1**  

### MRID

Hydrolysis **t 1⁄2**  **~ 11.9 days** @ 25 o C, pH 4

**t 1⁄2**  **~12.9 days** @ 25 o C, pH 5 **t 1⁄2**  **~ 11.9 days**  @ 25 o C, pH 7 **t 1⁄2**  **~10.8 days** @ 25 o C, pH 9 **t 1⁄2**  **~ 13.4, 12.4, 11.2, 9.3 hrs** @ 50 o C , pH’s 4, 5, 7, 9, respectively **Major degradates**  (of the recovered) **:** CCIM (74
- 83%) and CCIM
- AM (9
- 10% only at pH 9) 454090
- 39 465377
- 01 467027
- 01 Aqueous photolysis at pH 5 **t 1⁄2**  **~ 30 Minutes**

**Major degradates** : CCTS (37.9% at 0.13 day), CCIM (39.6% at 0.25 and 2 days), HTID (18.5% at 21 days), and CDTS (9.6% at 36 days). The degradate p - Toluamide (12.1% at 36 days) was identified only in the [benzene
14 C] cyazo famid. 454091
- 02 465377
- 03 467027
- 03 Photolysis on soil **t 1⁄2**  **~ 47 days**

**Major degradates** : None. **Minor degradates:** CCIM (6%), CCBA (2%), CTCA (1%), and CCIM
- AM (<1%). 454091
- 03 465377
- 04 467027
- 04 Aerobic soil metabolism **2 t**  **1⁄2 = 6.1**  **- 6.4 days**  in a loamy sand soil from Ohio, **Soil 1** (pH 6.5, %OC 0.66)

**Major degradates:** CCIM, CCIM
- AM, and CTCA 454091
- 06 465377
- 05

### 14

**Table 4. Summary of environmental fate data for c** **yazofamid Parameter**  **Value 1**  

### MRID

**t 1⁄2**  **= 3.7 -**  **4.0 days**  in a Sandy loam soil from England, **Soil 2** (pH 7.6, %OC= 1.2) **t 1⁄2**  **= 4.3 -**  **4.4 days** in a Sandy loam soil from England, **Soil 3** (pH 6.9, %OC= 3.0) **t 1⁄2**  **= 4.9 -**  **6.0 days** in a Sandy soil from Germany, **Soil 5** (pH 5.9, %OC= 0.63) **Major degradates:** CCIM, CCIM
- AM and CTCA 454091
- 08 465377
- 06 Aerobic aquatic metabolism **2 t**  **1⁄2 = 14.7**  **- 18.0 days**  (total system): River water/Sandy loam (~3:1)

**t 1⁄2**  **= 9.5 -**  **10.9 days** (total system): Creek water/Sandy loam (~3:1) **Major degradates:** CCIM (up to 47%), CTCA (up to 31%), and CCIM
- AM (up to 11%) 454091
- 10 465377
- 12 467027
- 07 Anaerobic aquatic metabolism **2 t**  **1⁄2 = 5.6**  **- 6.2 Days**  (total system): Milli
- Q water/Sandy loam (~2:1)

**Major degradates** (of the applied) **:** CCIM (25%), CCIM
- AM (17%); CTCA (22%) 454091
- 09 465377
- 11 467027
- 06 Adsorption/ Desorption (Kd and **K oc**  in L Kg - 1 ) [Imidazole
- 4
- 14 C]/[Benzene
-U
14 C]:

Loamy sand (Ohio), **Soil 1** : Kd = 9.99/ 6.96 and **K oc** **= 1,524/1,062** Sandy loam (UK), **Soil 2** : Kd = 43.31/87.00 and **K oc** **= 1,444/2,900** Sandy loam (UK), **Soil 3** : Kd = 14.11/13.49 and **K oc** **= 1,176/1,124** Sand (Germany), **Soil 5** : Kd = 5. 14/ 4.14 and **K oc** **= 815/ 657** 454091
- 12 465377
- 13 Mobility in Soils: Column Un
- aged Leaching (4 soils) > 98% of the applied radioactivity remained on the top 10 cm with very limited leaching.

Observed rate and pattern of degradation were similar to aerobic soil (Major degradates: CCIM, CCIM
- AM). Leachate constituted <0.3% of the applied radioactivity. 454091
- 13 465377
- 16 Mobility in Soils: Aged Leaching (one soil) >95% of the radioactivity remained on the top 10cm with very limited leaching. Observe d

rate and pattern of degradation were similar to aerobic soil (Major degradates: CCIM, CCIM
- AM, and minor degradate CTCA). Leachate constituted nearly 1% of the applied radioactivity and was dominated by the degradate CTCA only
. In com parison with unaged soils, radioactivity profile indicated aging may have caused increased mobility 454091
- 11 465377
- 15 Accumulation in Fish Invalid study 454091
- 38 454091
- 39 465377
- 24 **1 Soil**  **1** : Loamy Sand, Ohio (pH 6.5, %OC= 0.66); **Soil 2**  : Sandy loam, England (pH 7.6, %OC= 1.2); **Soil 3**  : Sandy loam, England (pH 6.9, %OC= 3.0); Soil **4:** Loamy sand, England (pH 7.6, %OC= 1.1); **Soil 5:** Sandy soil, Germany (pH 5.9, %OC= 0.63). **2** Soil and aquatic systems range of half
- lives are values for the two labels. It is noted that longer half
- lives were observed for the aerobic/anaerobic aquatic systems in late intervals (a range of 19 to 30 days). 

### Available environmental fate studies suggest cyazofamid is not very mobile and degrades relativel y rapidl y into various products, according to the prevalent environmental conditions. Among the three major degradates for cyazofamid, relevant to this assessment (CCIM, CCIM
AM and CTCA), the two terminal degradates are CCIM and CTCA. Of them, CCIM is a major hydrol ys ate. It is expected to be the major terminal degradate in bodies of water with low biological activity . In contrast, CTCA is expected to be the major terminal degradate in biologicall y active soils and water/sediment s ys tem s. Both CCIM and CTCA are stable to abiotic hydrol ys is and susceptible to leaching but only CCIM is highl y susceptible to biodegradation. Given these fate characteristics, cyazofamid could potentially reach surface water via spray

drift, or runoff under c ertain environmental conditions, but the potential for it to reach ground water is low. CCIM and/or CTCA could potentially be the terminal degradates in surface water bodies affected b y spray drift and/or runoff depending on the level of biological activity. However, onl y CTCA has a high potential to contaminate groundwater due to its high persistence and mobility
. Based on the referenced data, the main process involved in cyzofamid fate in aqueous systems is direct photolysis followed by hydrol ys is. Its fate in the soil system appears to be controlled by biotic degradation as well as its strong affinity for adsorption to the soil. Mobility of cyazofamid

### 15

in natural environments is expected to be limited because of its strong affinity to adsorption. Avail able fate and transport data on cyazofamid major degradates CCIM, CCIM
- AM and CTCA, are presented in Table 5. **Table 5. Environmental fate data summary for the major and relevant degradates of cyazofamid. Parameter**  **1 Value (t**  **1⁄2 for [phenyl** 

**- U** ******14 C]**  **- t** **1⁄2 for [imidazole** **- 4** **- 14**  **C] MRID ()**  **CCIM CCIM**  **- AM**  **CTCA** Hydrolysis **All three were relatively stable** @ 50 o C for 5 days in pHs 4, 7, and 9. 454091
- 01 465377
- 02 467027
- 02

Aerobic soil metabolism **3 Soil 3**  **t 1⁄2**  **= 1.9** 2

**- 1.3 days**  **t 1⁄2**  **= 6.3 -**  **6.6 days t**  **1⁄2 >**  **120 days** (relatively stable) in all three soils **CCIM** 454091
- 07 465377
- 07 465524
- 01 **CCIM -** **AM** 454091
- 04 465377
- 09 467027
- 05 **CTCA** 454091
- 05 465377
- 10 **Soil 4 t**  **1⁄2 = 1.3**  **- 0.9 days**  **t 1⁄2**  **= 10.0 -**  **6.6 days**  **Soil 5 t**  **1⁄2 = 2.9**  **- 2.6 days**  **t 1⁄2**  **= 20.2 -**  **12.3 days**  **Major degradates**  CCIM
- AM, CTCA,

CCBA
- AM. CTCA (max. 49.5
-

57.4% of the applied) None identified Adsorption/ Desorption (Kd and **K oc**  in L Kg - 1 ) Using: [Benzene
U
14 C] **Soil 1** Kd= 3.91 **K oc** **= 594** Kd= 22.43

**K oc** **= 3,398** Kd= 8.96

**K oc** **= 1,357**

454091
- 14 465377
- 14 **Soil 2** Kd= 5.70

**K oc** **= 475** Kd= 23.30

**K oc** **= 1,941** Kd= 9.8 0

**K oc** **= 816 Soil 3**  **K d** **=** 23.57

**K oc** **= 786 K** **d =**  62.47

**K oc** **= 2,082 K** **d =**  17.16

**K oc** **= 572**
**Soil 5 K** **d =**  7.3

**K oc** **= 1,158 K** **d =**  13.64

**K oc** **= 2,165 K** **d =**  3.77

**K oc** **= 599 1**  **Soil 1**  : Loamy Sand, Ohio (pH 6.5, %OC= 0.66); **Soil 2**  : Sandy loam, England (pH 7.6, %OC= 1.2); **Soil 3**  : Sandy loam, England (pH 6.9, %OC= 3.0); **Soil 4:**  Loamy sand, England (pH 7.6, %OC= 1.1); and **Soil 5:**  Sandy soil, Germany (pH 5.9, %OC= 0.63). **2** New submittals changed this value from 1.4 days to 1.9 days; this slight change may not significantly impact the values used in modeling. **3** Range of half

- lives are values for the two labels. It is noted that longer half
- lives were observed at later in the experiments (a range of 2
- 7 days for CCIM and 14
- 28 days in the first two soils and >112 days for the third soil for CCIM
- AM. 

### Data on hydrol ys is suggest that the three degradates are stable to this abiotic process. Various conclusions are derived from the data on aerobic soil metabolism and mobility . The first major degradate, CCIM , appears to be susceptible to leaching but is short
- lived. CCIM
- AM is similar to its parent in its low persistence/mobility . Finally, the degradate CTCA appears to be susceptible to leaching with high pers istence. The major terminal
- degradate in biologicall y active soil and aquatic environments is expected to be CTCA because of the apparent transformation of CCIM to CCIM
- AM and finally into the persistent CTCA. Cyazofamid reaching surface water is expected to be highl y affected b y hydrol ys is, which transforms it into CCIM, which is stable to abiotic hydrol ys is. Therefore, CCIM is expected to be the major terminal degradate in bodies of surface water with low biological activity . Details on fate and transp ort studies including the transformation profile are included in the three previously completed EFED chapters (EPA 2004,

### 16

2006 and 2008). A summary

of previously

submitted field studies is shown in Table 6. **Table 6. Summary of the terrestrial field diss**  **ipation study on cyazofamid Location (MRID)**  **Half -** **life 1**  **Soil Dissipation of Cyazofamid and its Degradation Products**  Grant County, WA 454091
- 16 (O) 465377
- 17 (R) 465524
- 02 (A) **t 1⁄2**  **= 1.5 days** Loamy sand **pH:** 6.5 **OM:** 0.60% **Cyazofamid:** was not detected below 0
- 15 cm.

**Degradation Products:** CCIM
- AM and CTCA (detected through 540 days). CTCA was detected 8 times in the 15
- 30 cm soil layer throughout the 540
- day experiment. Wayne County, NY 454091
- 17 (O) 465377
- 20 (R) 465524
- 03 (A) **t 1⁄2**  **=8.5 days** Sandy loam **pH:** 6.1 **OM:** 3.33% **Cyazofamid:** was not detected below 0
- 15 cm.

**Degradation Products:** CCIM
- AM (detected through 28 days), and CCBA (detected sporadically at 0.03
- 0.01 ppm); CCIM and CTCA detected at 0.01
- 0.02 ppm through the 540
- day study. Degradates were n ot generally detected below 0
- 15 cm with the exception of CTCA which was sporadically detected in the 15
- 30 cm layer. Montezuma, GA 456385
- 12 (O) 465377
- 23 (R) 467842
- 01 (A) **t 1⁄2**  **= 2.0 days** Loam **pH:** 6.2 **OM:** 0.55% **Cyazofamid:** was not detected below 15 cm.

**Degradation Products:** CCIM, CCIM
- AM and CTCA (detected through 540 days). Only CCIM

- AM was sporadically detected in the 15
- 30 cm layer.
Watsonville, CA 456385
- 13 (O) 465377
- 22 (R) 467842
- 02 (A) **t 1⁄2**  **= 15 days** loam **pH:** 6.5 **OM:** 2.38% **Cyazofamid:** was detected only once below 15 cm.

**Degradation Products:** CCIM
- AM and C TCA were detected through 582 days with maximum concentrations reaching >10%, CCBA (detected through 582 days), and CTCA detected at the end of the study period. Degradates were not detec ted below 0
- 15 cm, except of CCIM
- AM which was sporadically detected.
Pikeville, NC 465871
- 01 **t 1⁄2**  **days:**

**Grass: 7**  **Thatch: 29**  **- 32**  **Soil: 15**  **- 120**  Sandy loam

**pH:** 5.7 **OM:** 2.2% **Cyazofamid:** was detected only once in the 7.5
- 15 cm soil layer.

**Degradation Products:** CCIM, CTCA, CCIM
- AM, and CCBA were all detected in minor amounts (<10%) in the three layers while only CCIM
- AM was detected at >10% of the total applied parent in the thatch layer only. Ashland, VA 465711
- 02 **t 1⁄2**  **days:**

**Grass: 3**  **Thatch: 09**  **- 26**  **Soil: 10**  **- 25**  Sandy loam

**pH:** 6.8 **OM:** 1.1% **Cyazofamid:** was detected only once in the 7.5
- 15 cm soil layer.

**Degradation Products:** CCIM, CTCA, CCIM
- AM, and CCBA were all detected in minor amounts in grass and thatch layers while only CTCA was detected in minor amounts in the soil layer. **1** t 1⁄2 = first order half

- life; DT 50= Dissipation time of 50% of the compound. 

### The major uncertainties in the environmental fate database are related to the fact that the half
lives were obtained from supplemental aerobic soil, and aerobic and anaerobic aquatic metabolism studies. It is suspected that poor extraction may have caused an underestimation of the half
- lives of cyazofamid and degradates. On the other hand, the major identified degradates (CCIM, CCIM
- AM and CTCA) may not be a significant portion of the late accumulated un
characterized bound residues. The extraction of thes e degradates appeared to be adequate; however, a degree of uncertainty exists in the half

- life estimates until new studies are submitted with proven extraction procedures. No data were submitted by the registrant to suggest that reasonable attempts were made to extract or anal yze significant soil or sediment bound

### 17

radioactivity
. **Drinking Water Exposure Modeling** In order to model the new crops, representative scenarios were chosen : CA tomato, FL peppers and PA tomato , to represent fruiting vegetables and okra; and NY grapes, to represent grapes - East of the Rocky Mountains . The maximum application rate allowed b y the label was utilized.

 **Model Selection** : Models SCI

- GROW (Screening Concentration in Ground Water v.2.3 ) (SG23.exe, July 29, 2003 ) is a regression model used as a screening tool to estimate pesticide concentrations found in ground water used as drinking water. SCI
- GROW was developed by fitting a linear model to groundwater concentrations with the Relative Index of Leaching Potential (RILP) as the independent variable. Groundwater concentrations were taken from 90
- day average high concentrations from Prospective Ground W ater studies; the RILP is a function of aerobic soil metabolism and the soil
- water partition coefficient. The outpu t of SCI
- GROW represents the concentrations that might be expected in shallow unconfined aquifers under sandy soils, which is representative of the ground water most vulnerable to pesticide contamination likely to serve as a drinking water source. **(Ref. 8) .**  For agricultural uses, exposure concentrations for surface drinking waters assessments were estimated based on EFED’s Tier 2 aquatic model PRZM/ EXAMS. A graphical user interface (PE5 v. 5.0, November 15, 2006), developed by the EPA < http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water >, was used to facilitate inputting chemical and use specific parameters into the appropriate PRZM input files (inp) and EXAMS chemical files. The Pesticide Root Zone Model (PRZM v. 3.12.2, May 12, 2005) field or orchard crop scenario is the basic file which describes the local or regional climatological information, soil hydrology, soil characteristics, crop characteristics, and the pesticide properties necessary to determine pesticide loadings to surface (or ground) water. This basic file constitutes the first part of the “exposure scenario.” It simulates the processes in the agricultural field, such as runoff and erosion, on a daily time step. The runoff and erosion flux output data from PRZM are used as chemical loadings to the Exposure Analysis Modeling System (EXAMS v. 2.98.04.06, April 25, 2005), which simulates surface water, in order to predict th e E DW C s. E DW C s were determined using a reservoir scenario which describes a vulnerable surface drinking waters scenario for the EXAMS compon ent of the modeling exercise
.
 **Scenario Selection.** As indicated earlier, representative scenarios were chosen. The crop scenarios , selected to represent fruiting vegetables and okra , were CA tomato es , FL peppers and PA tomato es (selected to represent different regions of the USA). The crop scenario chosen to represent grapes
- East of the Rocky Mountains , is NY grape s (this is the single standard grape scenario available in the

### 18

East of the USA). The application dates were selected according to the met file, to represent ty pical use of a fungicide on the crops listed above.

 **Approach to calculati**  **on of EDWC**  **s for cyazofamid and its degradates** Cyazofamid is a relatively new fungicide and no surface water monitoring data are available. For this reason, the Agency based this report on simulated screening values using modeling. The screening level surface water and ground water estimates are calculated using tier 2 linked PRZM/EXAMS models and the tier 1 SCI
- GROW model, respectivel y. It is noted that:

 EDWCs for cyazofamid and its degradates were generated from the models in which the KOC 

### and aerobic soil half

- life values used were obtained from supplemental studies;  Solubility of the degradates were considered to be the same as parent (0.107 ppm);  Direct photolysis half
- life for the degradate CCIM was estimated from its formation and de cline curve in the aqueous photolysis study conducted on the parent (a half
- life of 31.52 days);  The degradates CCIM
-AM and CTCA were considered to be stable to direct photolysis in water as they were not identified in the parent aqueous photolysis study, and therefore, half
- lives could not be calculated; and  The initial residue levels for degradates used in the models were based on molecular ratios; assuming time zero 100% conversion of parent to a mixture of degradates based on weight adjusted maximums in fate studies. EFED believes that this assumption is reasonable and conservative. The calculated initial residue levels are presented in **Table 7**
. 

### Table 7. C **alcula ted application rate**  **s used in modeling of scenarios 1 (parent only), 2 (mix of**  **degradates), and 3 (CTCA only, terminal degradate)**

**Chem ical**  **Molecular**

**Weight *** **Molecular**

**Ratio Determined Maximum (% Parent Equivalent)**  **Application Rate  ** (lb a.i./A)** **Value Adjusted Value**  **Fate Study Used Fruit.**  **Veg. Grapes**  Parent 324.79 1 100% 100% Assumed 0.071 0.071 CCIM 217.66 0.6702 83% 63% Hydrolysis 0.0300 0.0300 CCIM
- AM 235.67 0.7256 17% 13% Anaerobic Aquatic 0.00670 0.00670 CTCA 236.66 0.7287 31% 24% Aerobic Aquatic 0.0124 0.0124 Total 131% 100% CTCA 236.66 0.7287 100% 100% Assumed 0.0517 0.0517 * Molecular weights for degradates of cyazofamid were calculated by deduction/ addition of elements, when compared to the parent structure. ** Rate for each degradate = Parent Rate x Molecular Ratio x adjusted maximum found in fate studies; for example the rate for CCIM application on fruiting vegetables = 0.071 x 0.6702 x 63% = 0.0300 lb a.i/A
. 

### Based on the procedure outlined above, the app lication rates (in kg a.i./A, the units used in PRZM/ EXAMS) used for the different runs are included, along with other modeling parameters, in Table 8.

### 19

**Table 8. Modeling parameters for cyazofamid and degradates** 

**Scenario Modeled** 

**Chem ical**  **Max. Single Rate (kg**  **a.i. /ha)** * **Other parameters**

**Fruit. Veg.**  **Grapes Fruiting Vegetables**  Number of applications: 6 Minimum interval **:** 7
- day** Scenario (application date) : CA (11
- 03) and PA tomato (26
- 04); FL pepper (11
- 09) Application Efficiency : 0.99 Drift: 0.01 Intervals: 7, 7, 21, 7, 7 days **Grapes** Num ber of applications: 6 Minimum interval **:** 10
- day ** Scenario (application date) : NY grape (05
- 05) Application Efficiency : 0.95 Drift: 0.05 Intervals: 10, 10, 30, 10, 10 days First Parent 0.0796 0.0796
Second CCIM 0.0336 0.0336

CCIM
- AM 0.0075 0.0075 CTCA 0.0139 0.0139 Third CTCA 0.0579 0.0579 * By multiplying label rates in lb/A by the conversion factor 1.1208; for example for fruiting vegetables, parent: Application Rate = 0.071 x 1.1208 = 0.0796 kg/ha 

### . **T he label instructs not to make more than two or three consecutive applications of the product; instead, follow with at least two or three applications of a fungicide with a different mode of action. Intervals are as indicated. 

### Fate and transport input parameters are summarized in Table 9
.
**Table 9.**  **PRZM/EXAMS input parameters for modeling surface water**  **’s EDWCs**  **of cyazofamid**  **Input Parameter Chem**  **ical Value**  **1 Reference** 

Molecular Weight (gram mo le - 1 ) Parent 324.79

MRID 454090
- 38 CCIM 217.66 CCIM
- AM 235.67 CTCA 236.66 Vapor Pressure ( mmHg) All 1.0x10 - 7 EPA Factsheet Henry’s Law Constant (atm
- m3 mole - 1 ) All 4.0x10 - 7 Calculated

Aerobic Soil Metabolism Half

- life (days) Parent 5.5
The 90 th percentile t 1⁄2 from eight values for the parent and six values for each degradate (MRID s 454091 06/08/07/04/05). CCIM 2.2 2 CCIM
- AM 13.58 CTCA Stable Water column Half

- life (days) (Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism half

- life) Parent 16.4 The 90 th percentile t 1⁄2 from four values for the parent (MRID 454091
- 10). For the degradates , twice the aerobic soil metabolism input since the degradates are stable to hydrolysis, as per guidance (US EPA, 2002) CCIM 4.44 CCIM
- AM 27.16 CTCA Stable Benthic sediment Half

- Parent 17.7 One half
- life value; 3x5.9=17.7 (MRID 454091
- 09)

### 20

**Table 9.**  **PRZM/EXAMS input parameters for modeling surface water**  **’s EDWCs**  **of cyazofamid**  **Input Parameter Chem**  **ical Value**  **1 Reference**  life (days) (Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism half

- life) Degradates Stable No anaerobic aquatic metabolism data Application Rate (Kg a.i./ha) All; Refer to Table 8 Application Number (Method of application) All; Refer to Table 8 Product Label Application Interval All; Refer to Table 8 Product Label IPSCND (disposition of pesticide remaining on foliage after harvest) All 1 Pesticide remaining on foliage is converted to surface application to the top soil layer UPTKF = PLVKRT = PLDKRT All 0 A s per Guidance for Selecting Input Parameters
. **1** FEXTRC All 0.5 A s per Guidance for Selecting Input Parameters
. **1** Depth of Incorporation (cm) Parent 0.0 CAM=2/ linear foliar based on crop canopy (label) ; parent is applied by ground or aerial methods Degradates 5.08 CAM=4/soil application (Product Label); degradate is expected to form, from parent in the top soil Spray Drift (fraction) Parent and Degradates 0.064 for fruiting vegetables and 0.16 for grapes ; degradates are expected to

form in the surface water Application Efficiency (fraction) Parent and Degradates 0.99 for fruiting vegetables and 0.95 for grapes Solubility (ppm) Parent and Degradates 1.07 10X the solubility as per guidance MRID 454090
- 38

KOC (L Kg - 1 ) Parent 1,338 Parent: Average of eight values (MRID 454091
- 12). Degradates: Average of four values for each of degradates (MRID 454091
- 14). KOC mo del was determined to be appropriate. CCIM 753 CCIM
- AM 2,397 CTCA 836 Hydrolysis Half

- life @ pH 7 (days) Parent 11.9 Maximum value at pH 7 (MRID 454090
- 39) Degradates Stable MRID 454091
- 01
Aqueous Photolysis Half
- life (days) Parent 0.02 Maximum dark control corrected value (MRID 454091
- 02) CCIM 31.5 Other degradates Stable No data **1** Parameters are selected as per Guidance for Selecting Input Parameters in Modeling the Environmental Fate and Transport of Pesticides; Version II, February 28, 2002. 

### Results of PRZM/EXAMS modeling are summarized in Table 10, noting that an 87% was used for Percent Crop Area (PCA). The value of 87% is the national default for all other crops.

### 21 **Table 10. PRZM/EXAMS results of this assessment**  **(EDWCs in ppb) Crop/Scenario**  **PCA (%) Chemical**  **Peak Yearly**  **All Years**

CA Tomato 1 st 87% Parent 0.568 0.0184 0.0137

2 nd 87% CCIM 0.183 0.0171 0.0144

87% CCIM
- AM 0.0689 0.0172 0.0148 3 rd 87% CTCA 1.90 1.35 1.16
FL pepper 1 st 87% Parent 3.50 0.0662 0.0407

2 nd 87% CCIM 0.541 0.0180 0.0122

87% CCIM
- AM 0.191 0.0227 0.0166 3 rd 87% CTCA 7.93 1.37 0.992

PA tomato 1 st 87% Parent 1.04 0.0501 0.0245

2 nd 87% CCIM 0.189 0.0164 0.0130

87% CCIM
- AM 0.117 0.0318 0.0211 3 rd 87% CTCA 3.80 1.95 1.49
NY grape 1 st 87% Parent 1.32 0.0552 0.0442

2 nd 87% CCIM 0.326 0.0385 0.0325

87% CCIM
- AM 0.177 0.0703 0.0585 3 rd 87% CTCA 4.81 3.41 2.67 Maxima * P arent + CCIM + CCIM
- AM **4.23** ***** ** CTCA only **3.41** ****** **2.67** ****** 

### For ground water, SCI
- GROW program , a high exposure tier one model, was used to arriv e at the Estimated Drinking Water Concentration (EDWC) for this chemical and its degradates from ground water sources. Modeling input and output values are summarized in Tables 11 and 12 , noting that the rates are the ones for the highest exposure (ornamentals). In addition, scenarios 1 and 2 are for information only, since the parent and the degradates CCIM and CCIM
- AM are not likely to be observed in ground waters. **Table 11. I**  **nput data**  **for SCI -**  **GROW modeling for EDWCs from ground water for cyazofam** **id/ d egradates**  **Parameter Va** **lue*** **Reference (MRID Number)** Crop/ Seasonal No. of Applications Soil Applied to Ornamentals/2 High Exposure (maximum rate/number); Product label
Label Application Rate (lb a.i./acre) 1 st Scenario: Parent 1.56 Product label (lb a.i/A)

2 nd Scenario: CCIM 0.659 Calculated from molar ratios (refer to Table 8, above for a sample calculation (lb a.i/A) CCIM
- AM 0.147 **3 rd**  **Scenario: CTCA**  **1.137**

Aerobic Soil Metabolism t1⁄2 (days) Cyazofamid 4.7 Median of 8 values (454091
- 06/08) CCIM 1.4 Median of 6 values (454091
- 07) CCIM
- AM 8.3 Median of 6 values (454091
- 04) **CTCA 10,000**  Considered stable; half
- life is >120 days (454091
- 05)
Koc (L Kg - 1 ) Cyazofamid 657 Lo west value (454091
- 12); variations >3 fold CCIM 690

### 22

**Table 11. I**  **nput data**  **for SCI -**  **GROW modeling for EDWCs from ground water for cyazofam** **id/ d egradates**  **Parameter Va** **lue*** **Reference (MRID Number)** CCIM
- AM 2,124 Median of 4 values for each degradate (454091
- 14) **CTCA 708**  * Fate data values are chosen as per Guidance for Selecting Input Parameters in Modeling the Environmental Fate and Transport of Pesticides; Version II February 28, 2002.

**Table 12. Summary of outputs from** **SCI -**  **GROW modeling for EDWCs from ground water for cyazofam** **id.**

**Parameter Value/ ppb**  **Source** Screening EDWC for ground water 1 st Scenario: Parent 0.0118 Output from SCI
- GROW model runs

2 nd Scenario: CCIM 0.000607 CCIM
- AM 0.00275 **3 rd**  **Scenario: CTCA**  **2.18** 

### It is important to note that modeling for EDWCs from surface and ground water is performed using maximum application rate and frequency, and minimum intervals, which allows establishing first level values suitable for screening purposes. They may be referred to as likely upper bound values due to the use of the chemical at the maximum application rate and additional refinements can be developed should they be needed. **Monitoring Data** Monitoring d

ata provide different kinds of information than modeling estimates. For example, monitoring data consist of actual information from the field, reflecting current use pattern and usually underestimating frequency of occurrence. Monitoring data does not always include peak values, and inputs for monitoring cann ot be adjusted as modeled ones can . In addition, monitoring is often conductedfor purposes other than characterizing exposure from a particular pesticide, and as a consequence is used to complement modeling rather than to refine it. In general, a useful interpretation o f monitoring values requires in
- depth assessment of the data, which is beyond the scope of a Tier I assessment. Cyazofamid is a relatively new fungicide and no surface water monitoring data is available. **Drinking Water Treatment**  There are no data available related to drinking water treatment of cyazofamid and its degradates. **EXPOSURE CHARACTERIZATION** A drinking waters assessment was performed for cyazofamid and EDWCs were obtained for the parent and degradates CCIM, CCIM
- AM and CTCA. These degradates were modeled as per

### 23

request of HED. They

were present at high concentrations, were persistent and/ or were judged to have a high degree of toxicity . Preliminarily, HED needs are point estimates (as opposed to distributions). Four standard crop scenarios were utilized to represent fruiting vegetables 2 

### and grapes (East of the Rocky

Mountains). Fruiting vegetables were represented by CA tomato, FL pepper and PA tomato. These scenarios are located in a variety of sites in the nation and c ould be considered representative of the proposed use areas. Furthermore, based on the crops represented 1 

### , the tomato and pepper crops are appropriate crop scenarios. Grapes were represented by the standard scenario NY grape. This is the only grape scenario available in the East of the nation. Additional scenarios not considered in this assessment include: FL tomato (not used because another FL scenario was utilized); CA grape and CA wine grape RLF (these scenarios are not located in the intended us e sites, also the CA wine grape scenario was developed for red legged frog endangered species assessments); and PA vegetable NMC and S TX vegetable NMC (these are regional scenarios). For fruiting vegetables and grapes, the labeled range of application rates is 0.054 to 0.071 lb a.i./A per application. In addition, fruiting vegetables for greenhouse transplant production may receive applications at 0.078 lb a.i./A when used against Pythium spp. The maximum application rate of 0.071 lb a.i./A (for outdoor applications) was used in all instances. For resistance management, not more than 6 sprays of the product are allowed for both fruiting vegetables and grapes. Also, not more than 3 consecutive applications of cyazofamid are allowed, and at least 3 appli cations of other fungicides with different mode of action should be alternated. The interval between applications is 7
- 10 days for fruiting vegetables, and 10
- 14 days for grapes. The minimum interval between applications was used in all instances. It is unknown if the maximum application rate with the minimum interval between applications would be ty

pically used. The label instructs to use the lowest rate with the longest intervals for preventative applications or for very low disease pressure. There are no usage data readil y available that would indicate the percent crop area treated (PCA) for the new crops. The national default of 87% (used for all “other crops”) was assumed for all runs, all of which adds conservativeness to the assessment. A regional restriction for grapes is the use on the East of the Rocky Mountains. EDWCs for cyazofamid and degradates were calculated for drinking water based on half
- lives obtained from supplemental aerobic soil and aerobic/anaerobic water/sediment metabolism studies. In these studies, suspected poor extraction may have underestimated the half
- lives of cyazofamid and degradates possibly resulting in lower model values for the EDWCs. In this respect, it is noted that major identified degradates (CCIM, CCIM
- AM and CTCA) may not constitute a significant part of the late accumulated un
- characterized bound residue (due to the apparent adequate extraction of these degradates); however, a degree of uncertainty exists in such estimates until new studies with proven extraction procedures are submitted. No data were submitted by

the registrant to suggest that reasonable attempts were made to extract or anal yz e significant soil or sediment bound radioactivity
. Complete characterization of the fate of cyazofamid requires data to prove that no parent or degradates were left as part of the bound
2 They include o kra , tomato, ground cherry, tomatillo, bell pepper, chili pepper, cooking pepper, pimento, sweet peppers, eggplant and pepino plus okra.

### 24

residue and to characterize various other components that may be present. As a result, EFED is requiring additional fate information/data be submitted to assess the impact of these res idues on the environment. For SCI
- GROW, a complete input dataset was available from submitted studies, but the aerobic soil metabolism half

- lives were from supplemental studies. For CTCA, an aerobic soil metabolism half

- life of 10,000 days (>27 years) wa s assumed, since no degradation occurred in the available study (MRID 45409105; three soils, two radiolabels). In this assessment the total residue method (or approach) was not used. Each metabolite of concern was modeled separatel y. The structures of all three relevant degradates are the result of the loss of the sulfonamide moiety . The fate behavior and other characteristics of the degradates may not resemble the one s for the parent. There is uncertainty in the input parameters for the degradates since no aquatic metabolism (aerobic or anaerobic), solubility, vapor pressure and Henry ’s Law Constant were available. Certain assumptions were made. For the parent and for all the degradates (CCIM, CCIM
- AM and CTCA), in PRZM/ EXAMS, the vapor pressure, H enry ’s Law Constant and solubility were assumed to be the same. There were 8 half

- lives for aerobic soil metabolism of the parent, and 6 for each of the degradates. The upperbound value (90 th 

### percentile) was used in each case as input for PRZM, as indicated b y the input parameter guidance. The fact that there were multiple aerobic soil half
lives reduces the uncertainty in this input parameter considerabl y. Nevertheless, with respect to the aerobic aquatic metabolism input for EXAMS, there were no studi es for the degradates, and 2x the aerobic soil metabolism input was used, as per guidance. It was noted that for the parent, based on laboratory

data, the aerobic aquatic metabolism input value (16.4 days) is roughly 3x the aerobic soil metabolism input v alue (5.5 days). Inthe case of the anaerobic aquatic metabolism input, there was only one half
- life for the parent, and it was multiplied by a 3x factor to get the input used in the model. The 3x factor is used to account for the uncertainty surrounding the fact that only one half
- life was available. For the degradates there was no data, and they were assumed stable to anaerobic aquatic metabolism. The impact of this assumption is to overestimate the EDWCs if the chemicals are not in fact persistent in anaerobic media. The depth of incorporation selected for the parent, cyazofamid, was 0.0 cm (appropriate for spray or foliar aerial or ground applications). For the degradates, it was assumed to be 5.08 cm (2 inches) to mimic the formation of the degradates on the top soil layer. For the degradates, a spray drift value of 6.4% or 16% was utilized (for ground or aerial applications, respectively). The drift was modeled this way because the degradates may be formed in surface waters. For both the parent and all the degradates, the KOC 

### model was determined to be appropriate (as opposed to the Kd 

### model). Individual mobility data were available for all the degradates. The aqueous photolysis half

- life for the parent cyazofamid is very short (0.02 days or around 30 min). Aqueous photolysis is expected to occur more often in clear shallow waters, where the sunlight is able to penetrate; the process is expected to result in the formation of various degradates. Based on its decline in the parent aqueous photo lysis study, a half
- life of 31.5 days was derived for CCIM and utilized in modeling. For the aqueous photolys is, the input parameter guidance does not stipulate the use of a factor ( e.g. 3x) in any case; there may

be uncertainty regarding the use of such a short half
- life.

### 25

Environmental fate data reported in the TOXNET (HSDB) database is generally consistent with the data available directly to the Agency ; no other sources of fate data were identified ( e.g. an EU DAR or a PMRA regulatory note). Of the three fruiting vegetables crop scenarios tested, CA tomato, FL pepper and PA tomato, the FL pepper scenario yi elded the highest peak EDWC (refer to Table 10), while the PA tomato yi elded the highest chronic EDWCs (though lower than for NY grapes). F or the us es on turf and ornamentals , the surface water acute EDWC is 38.2 ppb
. The surface water non
- cancer chronic value is 133.5 ppb and the cancer chronic EDWC is 77.3 ppb (Table 1)
. By comparison, the EDWCs for the uses on fruiting vegetables and grapes were as follows: peak 4.23 ppb; non
cancer chronic 3.41 ppb; and cancer chronic 2.67 ppb. These EDWCs correspond to 11.1%, 2.55% and 3.45% of the corresponding values for the uses on turf and ornamentals, respectivel y. In this memorandum, the acute EDWCs were obtained from the sum of values of three runs: for the parent, for CCIM, and for CCIM
- AM. This means that resultant EDWCs may have been overestimated and are expected to be con servative because of nearl y double counting the application rate (full rate for the parent + estimated rates for CCIM and CCIM
- AM). On the other hand, chronic values were obtained from EDWCs for the terminal degradate, CTCA, which was considered persistent to all fate processes, which is unlikely (CTCA would be dissipated only by binding and dilution). In addition, 100% conversion of the parent to the degradate was assumed (also unlikel y). Therefore, the resultant chronic EDWCs are also expected to be highl y conservative. Degradates CCTS, HTID, CDTS and p - Toluamide were found as major degradates onl y in aqueous photolysis studies. Significant amounts of CCIM and CCTS form earl y in the study (peak within a day), and show decline afterwards. Meanwhile HTID, CDTS and p - Toluamide form/peak late in the studies (within days), and show only slight or no decline under the conditions of the aqueous photolysis study . Because of their late formation, possibly persistent degradates HTID, CDTS and p - Toluamide are therefore not expected to be important components in natural aquatic systems. Previously, the Metabolism Assessment Review Committee (MARC **)** determined that these degradates will not be more toxic than the parent. In addition, based on the use pattern, and the nature of parent, aqueous photolysis may not be a major route of degradation in most natural environments. Although the MARC recommended to exclude these degradates from drinking water assessment, EFED is requesting hydrol ys is/aerobic soil metabolism studies on the degradate CCTS to confirm that degradates HTID, CDTS and p - Toluamide were only photol ytic degradates resulting from long exposure to light energy

in aqueous systems. This assessment is considered national in scope for fruiting vegetables, but regional for grapes. No regional PCAs were used. Due to the lack of data, the potential impact of drinking water treatment on cyazofamid and its degradates concentrations constitute an uncertainty
.

### 26

**CONCLUSIONS** The results of this DWA show that the uses that bring the highest exposure to surface and ground drinking waters are turf and ornamentals (reported in a previous review). The new uses on fruiting vegetables and grapes resulted in lower EDWCs. The results reported represent a timeline in which the parent and the degradates CCIM and CCIM
- AM are present initially
. These chemicals contribute to the surface water peak EDWC. Since the formation of the parent and two degradates are assumed and modeled (full application rate for the parent, plus estimated application rates for the degradates), the peak EDWC is likely an overestimation. For chronic exposure, the most conservative scenario is 100% conversion of the parent to the terminal degradate CTCA. This scenario of 100% conversion was not observed in the aerobic soil metabolism studies and is also likely an overestimation of the chronic EDWCs. It is noted that the chronic EDWCs are up to three and a half times larger than the peak EDWC. The ground water EDWC was <6% of the peak and chronic surface water EDWCs, which indicates a lower contribution of the chemicals in ground waters. Once again, since 100% conversion was assumed to derive ground water values, the EDWCs are possibly overestimated. There were limitations in the environmental fate dataset for the degradates, which were assumed to behave similar to the parent ( e.g. lack of vapor pressure, solubility and Henry ’s Law Constant); however, all three degradates are the result of the loss of the sulf onamide moiety . It is possible that they

have substantially

different physicochemical properties. An important weakness of this assessment is that it relies mostly on supplemental studies, bringing uncertainty to the EDWCs. A strength of this assessment is the availability of several aerobic soil metabolism half

- lives for the parent and degradates (≥6). The aerobic soil metabolism data was also used to derive the aerobic aquatic metabolism input values for the degradates (the aerobic aquatic metabolism input value is 2x the aerobic soil metabolism input value, as per guidance). This screening
- level assessment is considered conservative. A more definitive assessment may be made, using the same tier 2 surface waters aquatic model (PRZM/ EXAMS). The appl ication rates may be refined and possibly

regional PCAs may

be used. **REF E**  **RENCES** 1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2006). Guidance for Developing a Tier I Drinking Water Exposure Assessment. F: \ USER\SHARE\

Policies,Effects Assessments\d.Water Asse ssments \Surface Water\ Drinking Water 2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
. Guidance on Characterization of Drinking Water Exposure for Dietary

Risk Assessment. Draft EFED Policy
. 3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ( 199 9) Estimating the Drinkin g Water Component of a Dietary Exposure Assessment
. http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/trac/science/#drinking

### 27

4. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2000 a). Development and Use of Distributions of Pesticide Concentrations in Drinking W ater for FQPA Exposure Assessments. FIFRA SAP Meeting

– February

29

– March 3, 2000. http://www.epa.gov/os cpmont/sap/meetings/2000/index.htm
. 5. June 2000: Monitoring Strategies for Pesticides in Surface
- Derived Drinking W ater. FIFRA SAP Meeting

– http://www.epa.gov/scipol y/ sap/2000/june/finwateronl y.pdf 6. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2000b). Progress Report on Estimating Pesticide Concentrations in Drinking Water and Assessing Water Treatment Effects on Pesticide Removal and Transformation. http://www.epa.gov/oscpmont/sap/meetings/2000/index.htm 7. U
. S
. Environmental P rotection Agency (2000c ) Drinking Water Screening Level Assessment. Part A: Guidance for Use of the Index Reservoir in Drinking Water Exposure Assessments. Part B: Appl ying a Percent Crop Area Adjustment to Tier 2 Surface Water Model Estimates for Pesticide Drinking Water Exposure Assessments. FIFRA SAP Meeting

– September 1, 2000. http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/trac/science/reservoi.pdf
. 8. SCIGROW: Users Manual (11/01/2001, revised 08/23/2002) 9. Guidance for Selecting Input Parameters in Modeling the Environmental Fate and Transport of Pesticides, Version II (02/28/2002) 10. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. FAO PESTICIDE DI SPOSAL SERIES 8
. Assessing Soil Contamination: A Reference Manual. Appendix 2. Parameters of pesticides that influence processes in the soil. Editorial Group , FAO Information Division : Rome, 2000. http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/003/X2570E/X2570E00.htm

### 28

**Appendix A. Structures of Cyazofamid and Relevant Degradation Products Cyazofamid [IKF**  **- 916]**  **IUPAC Name:** 4
- Chloro - 2
- cyano -N,N
- dimethyl
- 5
-p - tol yl imidazole
- 1
- sulfonamide. **CAS Name:** 4
- Chloro
- 2
- cyano -N,N
- dimethyl
- 5
- (4
- methylphenyl)
- 1H
- imidizole
1
- sulfonamide. **CAS Number:** 120116
- 88
- 3. **SMILES String:** Cc1ccc(cc1)c1c(nc(n1S(=O)(=O)N(C)C)C#N)Cl

(I SI S v2.3/Universal SMILES). No EPISuite, v3.12 SMILES String found as of 6/28/06.
C H 3



### N N Cl

C N S O O N C H 3 

### C H 3

### 29

**CCIM IUPAC Name:**  4
- Chloro
- 5
-p - tol yl imidazole
- 2
- carbonitrile. **CAS Name:** Not reported. **CAS Number:** Not reported.

**CCIM -** **AM IUPAC Name:**  4
- Chloro
- 5
-p - tol yl imidazole
- 2
- carboxamide. **CAS Name:** Not reported. **CAS Number:** Not reported. N N H Cl C H 3



### C N



### N N H Cl C H 3



### C O N H 2

### 30

**CTCA IUPAC Name:**  4
- Chloro
- 5
-p - tol yl imidazole
- 2
- carboxyl ic acid. **CAS Name:**  Not reported. **CAS Number:** Not reported.

N N H Cl C H 3



### C O O H

### 31

**Appendix B. Sample Model Outputs PRZM/EXAMS**  For the parent cyazofamid, on CA tomato: stored as Cyazofam.out Chemical: Cyazofamid PRZM environment: CAtomato_WirrigSTD.txt modified Tueday, 29 May 2007 at 11:43:54 EXAMS environment: ir298.exv modified Thuday, 29 August 2002 at 14:34:12 Metfile: w93193.dvf modified Wedday, 3 July 2002 at 08:04:24 Water segment concentrations (ppb) Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly 1961 0.259 7 0.1595 0.1089 0.07954 0.05394 0.01333 1962 0.2548 0.1638 0.1136 0.07858 0.0532 0.01314 1963 0.3623 0.2325 0.1517 0.1217 0.08242 0.02036 1964 0.2398 0.1533 0.1072 0.07752 0.05258 0.01296 1965 0.7912 0.5077 0.2352 0.1307 0.08796 0.02172 1966 0.2378 0.1505 0.105 0.07467 0.05045 0.01246 1967 0.4721 0.3414 0.2071 0.1394 0.09402 0.02322 1968 0.2626 0.1686 0.1264 0.08822 0.05961 0.01469 1969 0.255 0.1588 0.106 0.0921 0.06205 0.01533 1970 0.2365 0.1489 0.1037 0.07591 0.05123 0.01265 1971 0.3936 0.2458 0.1536 0.09577 0.06639 0.01642 1972 0.2356 0.1456 0.1012 0.07376 0.05104 0.01298 1973 0.3581 0.2442 0.1602 0.0971 0.06542 0.01616 1974 0.2468 0.1844 0.1273 0.0886 0.0597 0.01474 1975 0.2485 0.1645 0.1185 0.08416 0.05681 0.01403 1976 0.2377 0.1499 0.1045 0.0771 0. 05206 0.01324 1977 0.2456 0.1556 0.1109 0.07789 0.05401 0.01334 1978 0.3643 0.2393 0.1507 0.1176 0.07923 0.02079 1979 0.2454 0.1712 0.1189 0.08208 0.05536 0.01367 1980 0.2402 0.154 0.1077 0.07898 0.0535 0.01318 1981 0.3639 0.2517 0.1487 0.09662 0.06517 0.0 1608 1982 0.3559 0.2392 0.1708 0.1103 0.07425 0.01848 1983 1.274 0.791 0.2659 0.1597 0.11 0.02718 1984 0.2361 0.146 0.1015 0.07474 0.05045 0.01244 1985 0.2406 0.1544 0.1089 0.07653 0.05171 0.01303 1986 0.3111 0.2016 0.143 0.09064 0.06113 0.01509 1987 0.263 2 0.1699 0.1207 0.08128 0.06504 0.01607 1988 0.3918 0.2684 0.1728 0.09964 0.06736 0.01659 1989 0.6768 0.4383 0.1809 0.1096 0.07697 0.01907 1990 0.3661 0.2416 0.1348 0.0887 0.07097 0.01763 Sorted results Prob. Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly 0.03225 8064516129 1.274 0.791 0.2659 0.1597 0.11 0.02718 0.0645161290322581 0.7912 0.5077 0.2352 0.1394 0.09402 0.02322 0.0967741935483871 0.6768 0.4383 0.2071 0.1307 0.08796 0.02172 0.129032258064516 0.4721 0.3414 0.1809 0.1217 0.08242 0.02079 0.161290322580645 0.3936 0.2684 0.1728 0.1176 0.07923 0.02036 0.193548387096774 0.3918 0.2517 0.1708 0.1103 0.07697 0.01907 0.225806451612903 0.3661 0.2458 0.1602 0.1096 0.07425 0.01848 0.258064516129032 0.3643 0.2442 0.1536 0.09964 0.07097 0.01763 0.290322580645161 0.3639 0.2416 0.1517 0.0971 0.06736 0.01659 0.32258064516129 0.3623 0.2393 0.1507 0.09662 0.06639 0.01642 0.354838709677419 0.3581 0.2392 0.1487 0.09577 0.06542 0.01616 0.387096774193548 0.3559 0.2325 0.143 0.0921 0.06517 0.01608 0.419354838709677 0.3111 0.2016 0 .1348 0.09064 0.06504 0.01607 0.451612903225806 0.2632 0.1844 0.1273 0.0887 0.06205 0.01533 0.483870967741936 0.2626 0.1712 0.1264 0.0886 0.06113 0.01509 0.516129032258065 0.2597 0.1699 0.1207 0.08822 0.0597 0.01474 0.548387096774194 0.255 0.1686 0.1189 0. 08416 0.05961 0.01469 0.580645161290323 0.2548 0.1645 0.1185 0.08208 0.05681 0.01403 0.612903225806452 0.2485 0.1638 0.1136 0.08128 0.05536 0.01367 0.645161290322581 0.2468 0.1595 0.1109 0.07954 0.05401 0.01334 0.67741935483871 0.2456 0.1588 0.1089 0.07898 0.05394 0.01333

### 32

0.709677419354839 0.2454 0.1556 0.1089 0.07858 0.0535 0.01324 0.741935483870968 0.2406 0.1544 0.1077 0.07789 0.0532 0.01318 0.774193548387097 0.2402 0.154 0.1072 0.07752 0.05258 0.01314 0.806451612903226 0.2398 0.1533 0.106 0.0771 0.05206 0.01303 0.838709677419355 0.2378 0.1505 0.105 0.07653 0.05171 0.01298 0.870967741935484 0.2377 0.1499 0.1045 0.07591 0.05123 0.01296 0.903225806451613 0.2365 0.1489 0.1037 0.07474 0.05104 0.01265 0.935483870967742 0.2361 0.146 0.1015 0.07467 0.05045 0.0124 6 0.967741935483871 0.2356 0.1456 0.1012 0.07376 0.05045 0.01244 0.1 0.65633 0.42861 0.20448 0.1298 0.087406 0.021627 Average of yearly averages: 0.0160023333333333 Inputs generated by pe5.pl - Novemeber 2006 Data used for this run: Output File: Cyazofam Metfile: w93193.dvf PRZM scenario: CAtomato_WirrigSTD.txt EXAMS environment file: ir298.exv Chemical Name: Cyazofamid Description Variable Name Value Units Comments Molecular weight mwt 324.79 g/mol Henry's Law Const. henry 4e - 7 atm - m^3/mol Vapor Pressure vapr 1e - 7 torr Solubility sol 1.07 mg/L Kd Kd mg/L Koc Koc 1338 mg/L Photolysis half - life kdp 0.02 days Half - life Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacw 16.4 days Halfife Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacs 17.7 days Halfife Aerobic Soil Metabolism asm 5.5 days Halfife Hydrolysis: pH 7 11.9 days Half - life Method: CAM 2 integer See PRZM manual Incorporation Depth: DEPI 0.0 cm Application Rate: TAPP 0.0850 kg/ha Application Efficiency: APPEFF 0.99 fraction Spray Drift DRFT 0.064 fraction of application rat e applied to pond Application Date Date 11 - 03 dd/mm or dd/mmm or dd
- mm or dd - mmm Interval 1 interval 7 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app. app. rate 1 apprate 0.0850 kg/ha Interval 2 interval 7 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app. app. rate 2 apprate 0.0850 kg/ha Interval 3 interval 21 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app. app. rate 3 apprate 0.0850 kg/ha Interval 4 interval 7 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app. app. rate 4 apprate 0.0850 kg/ha Interval 5 interval 7 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app. app. rate 5 apprate 0.0850 kg/ha Record 17: FILTRA

IPSCND 1 UPTKF 0 Record 18: PLVKRT 0

PLDKRT 0 FEXTRC 0.5 Flag for Index Res. Run IR Reservoir Flag for runoff calc. RUNOFF total none, monthly or total(average of entire run)

### 33

**SCI -**  **GROW** Sample run for CTCA: SCIGROW VERSION 2.3 ENVIRONMENTAL FATE AND EFFECTS DIVISION OFFICE OF PESTICIDE PROGRAMS U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

SCREENING MODEL FOR AQUATIC PESTICIDE EXPOSURE SciGrow version 2.3 chemical:CTCA_Scenario_3 time is 2/12/2009 8:37:57

-------------------------------------------------------- ---------------- Application Number of Total Use Koc Soil Aerobic rate (lb/acre) applications (lb/acre/yr) (ml/g) metabolism (days)

------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1.137 2.0 2.274 7.08E+02 10000.0

------------------------------------------------------------------------ groundwater screening cond (ppb) = 2.18E+00 ************************************************************************

### 34 **Attachment B** **. ELECTRONIC COPY OF DWA**  **DATED 09/06/06 UNITED STA** 

**TES ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTION A** **GENCY** WASHINGTON D.C., 20460 OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES



### PC Code No.: 085651 **DP Barcode:** D319466 **Date:** September 6, 2006 **MEMORANDUM SUBJECT:**  Estimated Drinking Water Concentrations of Parent Cyazofamid and its

Degradates CCIM, CCIM
- AM and CTCA for Use in Human Health Risk Assessment (Turf and ornamentals use pattern). **FROM:** Mohammed A. Ruhman, Agronomist, Ph.D.

Environmental Risk Branch V Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P) **THROUGH:** Mah T. Shamim, Ph.D., Chief

Environmental Risk Branch V Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P) **TO:** Cy

nthia Giles
- Parker, Chief Tony Kish, PM Team Reviewer Janet Whitehurst, Risk Manager Reviewer Fungicide Branch Registration Division (7505P) **AND :**  Kelly

Orourke Health Effects Division 

## Summary This memo presents the Estimated Drinking Water Concentrations (EDWCs) for Parent Cyazofamid and degradates CCIM, CCIM
- AM and CTCA for use in an FQPA human health risk assessment. Cyazofamid fungicide and/or degradates may reach both surface and groundwater under some conditions. The registrant is seeking registration for use of this new chemical on turf and ornamentals. It is noted that EDWCs were previously e stimated for cucurbits, potatoes, and tomatoes (EFED Memo to HED dated April 28, 2004). The screening level **surface water**  **and ground**  **water** estimates are calculated using tier 2 linked **PRZM/EXAMS** models and the tier 1 **SCI -**  **GROW** model, respectivel y. Resultant

### 35

Estimates are presented in **T able 1**  for three scenarios as follows: (1) 1 st 

### scenario (parent) assuming application of the maximum rate as parent; (2) 2 nd 

### scenario (each of the degradates CCIM, CCIM
- AM, and CTCA) assuming application of the molar equivalent of the parent for each of the degradate by dividing the rate between the degradates based on molecular ratios and adjusted maximums found in fate studies; and (3) 3 rd 

### scenario (the terminal degradate CTCA) assuming application of 100% molar conversions of the parent into this terminal degradate CTCA. **Table 1.**  Resultant maximums of surface/ground water EDWCs for cyazofamid and each of its major degradates.
Scenario Chemical Surface water EDWCs (ppb) Ground water EDWC (ppb) Acute Chronic “none
Cancer” Chronic

“Cancer” 1 st Scenario Parent **14.362 0.377**  **0.279 0.01180** 
2 nd Scenario CCIM **17.106 12.094**  **10.600 0.00061** 

CCIM
- AM **6.699 6.312**  **3.611 0.00270**  CTCA **16.716 11.993**  **8.886 0.52300**  3 rd Scenario CTCA **136.242 133.458**  **77.270 2.18000**  

### Based on the results presented in **Table 1**  above and time
- line of exposure, the **surface water**  **acute** EDWC is **38.167** ppb (total value= Parent “14.362 ppb” + CCIM “17.106 ppb” + CCIM
AM “6.699 ppb”). C TCA is not included in the surface water acute number because it is not expected to be present at this time frame. The **surface water**  none - cancer **chronic** is **133.458** ppb and the cancer **chronic** is **77.270** pp (equal to the value for the terminal degradate CTCA). For ground water, the acute/chronic value is **2.18** ppb (equal to the value for the terminal degradate CTCA). The above stated values represent upper-bound estimates of the **parent, individual**  **degradates** and/or **terminal degradate**  **CTCA** concentrations that might be found in surface water and groundwater due to the use of cyazofamid on turf and ornamentals. EFED empha sizes that this is a tier 1 screening level analysis, and should there be a need by HED, additional refinements can be made. 

## Environmental Fate of Cyazofamid Available environmental fate studies suggest cyazofamid is not very mobile and quickly degrades into a number of degradation products under different environmental conditions. Among the three major degradates for Cyazofamid (CCIM, CCIM
- AM and CTCA), the two terminal ones are CCIM and CTCA. CCIM is expected to be the major terminal degradate in water bodies with low biological activity because it forms as a result of abiotic hydrolysis of the parent. In contrast, CTCA is expected to be the major terminal degradate in biologically active soils and water/sediment systems. Both CCIM and CTCA are stable to abiotic hydrol ys is and susceptible to leaching but only C CIM is highly

susceptible to biodegradation. Given these fate

### 36

characteristics, cyazofamid could potentially reach surface water via spray drift or runoff under certain environmental conditions but the potential for it to reach ground water is very low. CCIM and/or CTCA could potentially b e the terminal degradates in surface water bodies affected by spray drift and/or runoff depending on the level of biological activity
. However, only C TCA has a high potential to contaminate groundwater due to its high persistence and mobility
. This assessment addresses exposure to parent cyazofamid and its degradation products CCIM, CCIM
AM and CTCA. 

## Procedure for calculating EDWCs for cyazofamid and its degradates Cyazofamid is a new fungicide and no surface water monitoring data is available. F or this reason, the Agency

b ased this report on simulated screening values using modeling. The screening level **surface water**  **and ground**  **water** estimates are calculated using tier 2 linked **PRZM/EXAMS** models and the tier 1 **SCI -**  **GROW** model, respectively. It should be noted that: (1) Water numbers for cyazofamid and its degradates were generated from the models in which the Koc 

### and aerobic soil half
- life values used were obtained from supplemental studies; (2) Solubility

of the degradates were considered to be the same as parent (0.107 ppm); (3) Direct photol ys is half
- life for the degradate CCIM was estimated from its formation and decline curve in the aqueous direct photolysis study of the parent (half

- life= 31.52 days); (4) The degradates CCIM
- AM and CTCA were considered to be stable to direct photolysis in water as it was not identified in parent aqueous direct photolysis and therefore, half
- lives could not be calculated; and (5) The initial residue levels for degradates used in the models were based on molecular ratios; assuming time zero 100% conversion of parent to a mixture o f degradates based on weight adjusted maximums in fate studies. EFED acknowledges that this assumption is reasonable but conservative. The calculated initial residue levels are presented in **Table 2**
. **Table 2.**  An example (Turf) for calculating the initial residue levels used in modeling (i.e. application rates).

Chemical Molecular

Weight * Molecular

Ratio Determined Maximum (% Parent Equivalent) Example Application Rate** (lb a.i./Acre for turf) Value Adjusted Value Fate Study Used Parent 324 .79 1 100% 100% Assumed 1.01990 CCIM 217.66 0.6702 83% 63% Hydrolysis 0.43063 CCIM
- AM 235.67 0.7256 17% 13% Anaerobic Aquatic 0.09621 CTCA 236.66 0.7287 31% 24% Aerobic Aquatic 0.17837 Total 131% 100% CTCA 236.66 0.7287 100% 100% Assumed 0.74320 * Molecular Weights for degradates of cyazofamid were calculated by deduction of elements lost from parent structure. ** Rate for each degradates= Parent Rate x Molecular Ratio x adjusted maximum found in fate studies; for example the rate for CCIM= 1.01990 x 0.6702 x 63% = 0.43063 lb a.i/A. 

### Based on the procedure explained by **Table 1** , Application rates for the different runs are calculated and included in **Table 3**  . Modeled scenarios and additional information are included

### 37

in **Table 4** 
. **Table 3**  **.** Crop use pattern information used in modeling of cyazofamid and degradates (separate modeling for three different scenarios).

**Scenario Modeled** 

**Chemical Label or Calculated Maxim**  **um Application Rates (Kg/Ha and “ lb/A”**  **) Turf**  **Foliar Applied Ornamentals Soil**  **Applied/Drip Irrigation Applied Bedded Ornamentals**  First Parent **1.143 3**  “1.0199” **0.1750**

“0.1561” **1.7498** “1.5609”
Second CCIM **0.4827 0.0739**  **0.7388**

CCIM
- AM **0.1078 0.0165**  **0.1651** CTCA **0.2000 0.0306**  **0.3060** Third CTCA **0.8331 0.1275**  **1.2751** * By multiplying label rates in lb/A by 1.121 for example: 1.0 199 x1.121= 1.143 3 kg/ha 

### . **Table 4**  **.** PRZM/EXAMS modeled crop scenarios* with application dates/number of applications (note: application interval= 14 days for all listed crops). **Scenario Application**  **Date(s)”dd/mm Num**  **ber of Applications** Florida Turf **15 -**  **03 ;**  **15 -**  **04 ; and**  **15 -**  **05 3**  Pennsylvania Turf **01 -**  **07 ;**  **15 -**  **07 ; and**  **30 -**  **07 3**  Oregon Christmas Trees **15 -**  **06 ;**  **30 -**  **06 ; and**  **15 -**  **07 2**  * T woruns were executed for each scenario/chemical/application procedure and date combinations: the first with 0% drift and the second with 6.4 or 16% drift (total number of runs= **5** chemicals (parent, CCIM, CCIM
- AM, CTCA, and CTCA alone) x **24** ( **2** runs x **4** scenarios/application procedures x **3** dates) = **120**
. 

### Background information on PRZM/EXAMS models are included in **Appendix I**  ; fate and transport input parameters are summarized in **Table 5**
. **Table 5**  **. Cyazofamid:**  PRZM/EXAMS input parameters for modeling surface water EDWCs. **Input Parameter Chem**  **ical Value**  **Reference**

**Molecular Weight (gram** **m ole**  **- 1**  **) Parent**  **324.79**

MRID 454090
- 38 **CCIM 217.66**  **CCIM -** **AM 235.67**  **CTCA 236.66**  **Vapor Pressure (torr)**  **All 1.316x10**  **- 10**  MRID 454090
- 38

**Aerobic Soil Me** **tabolism Half** 

**** **life (days) Parent**  **5.5** The 90 th percentile t1⁄2 from eight values for the parent and six values fore ach degradate (MRID s 454091 06/08/07/04/05). **CCIM 2.2**  **CCIM -** **AM 13.**  **6 CTCA**  **Stable**

### 38

**Input Parameter Chem**  **ical Value**  **Reference Water column**  **Half -**  **life (days)**  **(Aerobic Aquatic Me** **tabolism half** 

**** **life) Parent**  **16.4** The 90 th percentile t1⁄2 from four values for the parent (MRID 454091
- 10). For the degradates: Considered stable as no significant hydrolysis at pH 7 as per Guidance (US EPA, 2002) **CCIM Stable**  **CCIM -** **AM CTCA**  **Benthic sediment Half**  **- life (days)**  **(Anaerobic Aquatic**  **Me tabolism** **half**

  ** life)** **Parent 17.7**  One half
- life value; 3x5.9=17.7 (MRID 454091
- 09)

**Both Stable**  No anaerobic metabolism data **A pplication Rate**  **(Kg a.i./ha) Refer to Table 3**  **(Efficiency= 0.95 for aerial spray and 0.99 for ground spray) .**  **Application Number (Method**  **of application) All**  **;** Refer to **Table 4** Product Label; with 14
- day application intervals **Depth of Incorporation (cm** **) Parent**  **0** CAM=2 for parent/foliage application (Product Label); CAM=1 for the degradate s (degradate s are expected to form in the top soil from parent ; CAM=1=linear distribution in the top 4 cm) **Degradates 7.5**  **Spray Drift (fraction)**  **All :**  **0 or 0.16 (A erial** **) Or**  **0.064 (G round** **)** 0% for application via drip irrigation; 16% default drift for Aerial; and 6.4% default drift for Ground **Solubility (ppm) All**  **0.107** MRID 454090
- 38

**K oc**  **(L Kg -**  **1 )**  **Parent 1,338**  **Parent:** Average of eight values (MRID 454091
- 12). **Degradates:** Average of four values for each of degradates (MRID 454091
- 14). Koc model was determined to be appropriate. **CCIM 753**  **CCIM -** **AM 2,397**  **CTCA 836** 
**Hydrolysis Half**

  ** life @ pH 7 (days)** **Parent 11.9**  Maximum value at pH 7 (MRID 454090
- 39) **CCIM Stable**  MRID 454091
- 01 **CCIM -** **AM CTCA**  **Direct Aqueous Photolysis Half** 

**** **life(days) Parent**  **0.02** Maximum dark control corrected value (MRID 454091
- 02) **CCIM 31.5**  **Degradates Stable**  No data

### 39

Results of **PRZM/EXAMS** modeling is summarized in **Table 6**  with an example run s included in the **Appendix II.**  Iti s noted that no Percent Crop Area (PCA) was applied to turf while a PCA of 0.87 was applied to x
- mass trees. **Table 6.** Summary

of PRZM/EXAMS results (EDWCs in ppb) **Scenario (Crop & Application) Chemical**  **Peak 96 hr**  **21 Day 60 Day**  **90 Day Yearly**  **All Years Drift**  ***** FL turf ( 03/ 15, 04/15 ) and PA turf ( 07/01&30) (Aerial to Turf Foliage) **Parent 14.362**  9.169 4.053 2.278 1.528 0.377 0.279 18% PA turf 07/01,15&30 ) (Aerial to Turf Foliage) **CCIM 17.106**  16.937 16.358 15.373 14.857 12.094 10.600 91% **CCIM -** **AM** 4.142 4.064 3.800 3.557 3.407 2.921 2.401 81% **CTCA 16.716**  16.538 15.839 14.594 13.866 11.993 8.886 37% PA turf ( 07/01&30 ) (Aerial to Turf Foliage) **CTCA** 69.661 68.893 65.979 60.792 57.758 49.958 37.024 37% OR x
- mass ( 03/15&21 ) (Ground to Soil planted with Ornamentals) **Parent** 4.470 3.340 1.870 0.833 0.559 0.138 0.114 70% OR x
- mass ( 03/ 15) (Ground to Soil planted with Ornamentals) **CCIM** 8.191 8.135 7.923 7.538 7.316 6.119 5.552 7 6 % **CCIM -** **AM 6.699**  6.675 6.591 6.486 6.447 6.312 3.611 95% **CTCA** 5.693 5.640 5.439 5.106 4.921 4.179 3.659 49% OR x
- mass ( 03/ 15) (Ground to Soil planted with Ornamentals) **CTCA** 136.242 136.155 136.155 135.285 135.198 **133.458 77.270**  59% OR x
- mass ( 03/21) (Through Irrigation to Soil planted with Ornamentals) **Parent** 2.320 1.627 0.570 0.206 0.138 0.034 0.011 0% OR x
- mass 03/ 15) (Through Irrigation to Soil planted with Ornamentals) **CCIM** 1.962 1.932 1.880 1.834 1.802 1.605 0.542 **CCIM -** **AM** 0.315 0.314 0.309 0.269 0.263 0.251 0.137 **CTCA** 2.884 2.847 2.707 2.476 2.357 2.199 1.499 OR x
- mass ( 03/ 15) (Through Irrigation to Soil planted with Ornamentals ) **CTCA** 56.138 56.097 55.977 55.336 55.217 54.909 33.703 OR x
- mass ( 06/ 15) (Aerial to Ornamental Foliage) **Parent** 0.940 0.644 0.363 0.143 0.097 0.024 0.022 96% OR x
- mass 06/15&30 and 07/07 ) (Aerial to Ornamental Foliage) **CCIM** 1.864 1.850 1.797 1.703 1.648 1.404 1.244 99 % **CCIM -** **AM** 0.437 0.430 0.407 0.381 0.368 0.327 0.258 99 % **CTCA** 1.121 1.115 1.090 1.047 1.022 0.943 0.771 59% OR x
- mass ( 06/15&30 ) (Aerial to Ornamental Foliage) **CTCA** 4.671 4.644 4.538 4.364 4.258 3.929 3.215 60 % **Maximums:** Parent+CCIM+CCIM
- AM **38.167** CTCA only **1 33.458**  **77.270** 

### * % of exposure resulting from drift (based on initial drift/peak values from 1 in 10 years data). 

### For ground water, **SCI -**  **GROW** program , a high exposure tier one model, was used to arriv e at the Estimated Drinking Water Concentration (EDWC) for this chemical and its degradates from ground water sources. Background information on **SCI -**  **GROW** model is included in the Appendix II and input/output values are summarized in **Table s**  **7 and 8** 
.

### 40

**Table 7.**  Summary

o f inputs for SCI
- GROW modeling for EDWCs from ground water for cyazofamid/degradates. **Parameter Va**  **lue*** **Reference (MRID Number)**  Crop/ Seasonal No. of Applications **Soil Applied**  **to Ornam** **entals /** **2** High Exposure (maximum rate/number); Product label

Label Application Rate (lb a.i./acre) **1 st**  **Scenario:** Parent **1.5609** Product label (lb a.i/A)

**2 nd**  **Scenario:** CCIM **0. 6591** 
Calculated from molar ratios (lb a.i/A) CCIM
- AM **0. 1472**  CTCA **0.2 730**  **3 rd**  **Scenario:** CTCA **1.1374**

Aerobic Soil Metabolism t1⁄2 (days) Cyazofamid **4.7** Median of 8 values (454091
- 06/08) CCIM **1.4** Median of 6 values (454091
- 07) CCIM
- AM **8.3** Median of 6 values (454091
- 04) CTCA **10,000** Considered stable; half
- life is >120 days (454091
- 05)

Koc (L Kg - 1 ) Cyazofamid **657** Lo west value (454091
- 12); variations >3 fold CCIM **690** Median of 4 values for each degradate (454091
- 14) CCIM
- AM **2,124** CTCA **708** * Fate data values are as per Guidance for Selecting Input Parameters in Modeling the Environmental Fate and Transport of Pesticides; Version II February 28, 2002. 

### Table **8 .**  Summary

o f outputs from SCI
- GROW modeling for EDWCs from ground water for cyazofamid/degradates. **Parameter Value** * **Reference (MRID Number)**

EDWC for ground water screening 1 st Scenario: Parent **0.01180** Output for one Model Run

2 nd Scenario: CCIM **0.00061** Outputs for three Model Runs CCIM
- AM **0.00270** CTCA **0.52300** 3 rd Scenario: CTCA **2.18000** Output for one Model Run 

### It is important to note that modeling for EDWCs from surface and ground water is performed using the single application rate of 1.5609 lb a.i/A applied 2 times to soil planted with ornamentals. This represents the highest seasonal application rate among th e identified four types of applications. However, using this application rate/frequency allows establishing first level values suitable for screening purposes. They may b e referred to as likely

upper bound values due to the use of the chemical at the maximum application rate and additional refinements can be developed should they

be needed.

### 41



## Uncertainties EDWCs for cyazofamid and degradates were estimated for drinking water based on half
- lives calculated from supplemental aerobic soil and aerobic/anaerobic water/sediment laboratory f ate studies. Inthese studies, suspected lack of extraction may h ave undere stimated the half
- lives of cyazofamid and degradates possibly resulting in lower model estimates for the EDWCs. Inthis respect, it is noted that major identified degradates (CCIM, CCIM
- AM and CTCA) may **not** constitute a significant part of the late accumul ated un - characterized bound residue (due to the apparent adequate extraction of these degradates); however, a degree of uncertainty exists in such estimates until new studies with proven extraction procedures are submitted. No data were submitted by

the re gistrant suggested that attempts were made to extract or anal yz e significant soil or sediment bound radioactivity
. Complete characterization of the fate of cyazofamid requires data to prove that no parent or degradate was left as part of the bound residue and to characterize various other components that may b e present. A s a result, EFED is requiring additional fate information/data be submitted to assess the impact of these residues on the environment. In this Memo, the **acute values**  were obtained from summation of EECs of three runs: Parent alone, CCIM degradate, and CCIM
- AM degradate. This means that resultant EDWCs are expected to be conservative because of nearly double counting of the application rate (full rate for parent + equivalent rates for CCIM and CCIM
- AM). On the other hand, **chronic values**  were obtained from EECs for the terminal degradate which was considered to be stable in all of its fate parameters. Therefore, the resultant EDWCs are expected to be highly conservative
. Degradates CCTS, HTID, CDTS and p - Toluamide were found as major degradates onl y in aqueous direct photol ys is. S ignificant amounts of CCIM and CCTS form earl y (within a day), peak and show clear decline while HTID, CDTS and p - Toluamide form/peak late (within days) and show only

s light or no decline under the conditions of the direct photolysis experiment. Persistent degradates HTID, CDTS and p - Toluamide are therefore not expected to be important components in natural aquatic systems because of their late formation. **MARC** also believes that none of these degradates will be more toxic than the parent. In addition, based on the use pattern, and the nature of parent, aqueous direct photolysis may not be a major route of degradation in most natural environments. The Metabolism Assessment Review Committee (**MARC)** recommended to exclude these degradates from drinking water assessment. However, EFED will ask the registrant for hydrol ys is/aerobic soil studies on the degradate CCTS to confir m that degradates HTID, CDTS and p - Toluamide were only photoly tic degradates resulting from long exposure to light energy
.

### 42



## APPENDIX I: Background information on PRZM/EXAMS a. PRZM and EXAMS models and the Index Reservoir Scenario The linked PRZM and EXAMS models are used in this case as a second tier screen designed to estimate the pesticide concentrations found in water for use in drinking water assessments. They provide high
- end values on the concentrations that might be found in a small drinking water reservoir due to the use of pesticide. The Drinking Water Index Reservoir scenario includes a 427 acres field immediately adjacent to a 13 acres reservoir, 9 feet deep, with continuous site
specific flow. This amount can be reduce d due to degradation in field and the effect of binding to soil. Spray

drift is equal to 6.4% of the applied concentration from the ground spray application and 16% for aerial applications. The PRZM/EXAMS modeling s ys tem with the Index Reservoir scenario also makes adjustments for the percent cropped area. While it is assumed that the entire watershed would not be treated, the use of a PCA is still a screen because it represents the highest percentage of crop cover of any large watershed in the US, and it assumes that the entire crop is being treated. Various other conservative assumptions of this scenario include the use of a small drinking water reservoir surrounded b y a runoff

-prone watershed, the use of the maximum use rate and no buffer zone. b. SCI
- GROW SCI
- GROW is a screening model which the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) in EPA frequentl y uses to estimate pesticide concentrations in vulnerable ground water. The model provides an exposure value which is used to determine the potential risk to the environment and to human health from drinking water contaminated with the pesticide. The SCI
- GROW estimate is based on environmental fate properties of the pesticide (aerobic soil degradation half
- life and linear adsorption coefficient normalized for so il organic carbon content), the maximum application rate, and existing data from small
- scale prospective ground
-water monitoring studies at sites with sandy

soils and shallow ground water. Pesticide concentrations estimated by SCI
- GROW represent conservative or high
- end exposure values because the model is based on ground
-water monitoring studies which were conducted by applying pesticides at maximum allowed rates and frequency to vulnerable sites (i.e., shallow aquifers, sandy, permeable soils, and substantial rainfall and/or irrigation to maximize leaching). In most cases, a large majority of the use areas will have ground water that is less vulnerable to contamination than the areas used to derive the SCI
- GROW estimate. SCI
- GROW provides a groundwater screening exposure value to be used in determining the potential risk to human health from drinking water contaminated with the pesticide. SCI
- GROW estimates likely groundwater concentrations if the pesticide is used at the maximum allowable rate in areas wh ere groundwater is exceptionally vulnerable to contamination. In most cases, a large majority of the use area will have groundwater that is less vulnerable to contamination than the areas used to derive the SCI
- GROW estimate.

### 43



## APPENDIX **I I:**  **MODEL RUNS & B ACKGROUND INFORMATION**  **PRZM/EXAMS Florida Turf (March 15)**  **Pa rent with drift**  stored as DW .out Chemical: Cyazofamid PRZM environment: FLturfC.txt mo dified Monday, 16 June 2003 at 13:48:06 EXAMS environment: ir298.exv mo dified Thuday, 29 August 2002 at 15:34:12 Metfile: w12834.dvf mo dified W edday, 3 July 2002 at 09:04:28 Wa ter segment concentrations (ppb) Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

1961 6.834 4.27 2.226 1.257 0.8414 0.208 1962 6.869 4.372 2.325 1.309 0.8744 0.2294 1963 6.841 4.285 2.251 1.273 0.8784 0.2172 1964 11.27 7.006 2.798 2.115 1.424 0.3504 1965 6.886 4.422 2.364 1.319 0.897 0.2386 1966 7.61 4.699 3.33 1.797 1.232 0.3046 1967 6.822 4.22 2.201 1.238 0.9504 0.2376 1968 6.828 4.244 2.239 1.267 0.9261 0.2306 1969 6.9 4.462 2.396 1.337 0.9752 0.2408 1970 7.065 4.45 2.579 1.43 0.961 0.2372 1971 7.227 4.459 2.692 1.429 0.9971 0.2465 1972 15.9 9.837 4.431 2.042 1.378 0.3394 1973 6.93 4.325 2.384 1.333 0.8906 0.2197 1974 7.157 4.44 2.452 1.326 0.8921 0.2205 1975 7.849 4.843 2.45 1.351 0.9029 0.2229 1976 14.86 9.012 4.535 2.13 1.464 0.3605 1977 6.821 4.215 2.194 1.214 0.8506 0.21 1978 14.67 8.711 3.309 2.004 1.343 0.3316 1979 6.811 4.157 2.18 1.343 0.9099 0.2245 1980 6.883 4.336 2.401 1.362 0.9159 0.2255 1981 6.875 4.308 2.282 1.263 0.8597 0.2124 1982 9.224 5.767 3.532 1.799 1.221 0.3029 1983 9.63 6.466 3.005 1.596 1.07 0.264 1984 9.067 5.597 3.495 1.703 1.166 0.2871 1985 6.814 4.861 2.368 1.31 0.8752 0.216 1986 6.815 4.189 2.169 1.188 0.7933 0.1972 1987 11.59 7.921 3.395 1.729 1.156 0.2853 1988 6.821 4.219 2.201 1.249 0.8366 0.2059 1989 6.823 4.225 2.205 1.303 0.8713 0.215 1990 6.802 4.134 2.133 1.199 0.8007 0.1975 Sorted results Prob. Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

0.032258065 15.9 9.837 4.535 2.13 1.464 0.3605 0.064516129 14.86 9.012 4.431 2.115 1.424 0.3504 0.096774194 14.67 8.711 3.532 2.042 1.378 0.3394

### 44 0.129032258 11.59 7.921 3.495 2.004 1.343 0.3316 0.161290323 11.27 7.006 3.395 1.799 1.232 0.3046 0.193548387 9.63 6.466 3.33 1.797 1.221 0.3029 0.225806452 9.224 5.767 3.309 1.729 1.166 0.2871 0.258064516 9.067 5.597 3.005 1.703 1.156 0.2853 0.290322581 7.849 4.861 2.798 1.596 1.07 0.264 0.322580645 7.61 4.843 2.692 1.43 0.9971 0.2465 0.35483871 7.227 4.699 2.579 1.429 0.9752 0.2408 0.387096774 7.157 4.462 2.452 1.362 0.961 0.2386 0.419354839 7.065 4.459 2.45 1.351 0.9504 0.2376 0.451612903 6.93 4.45 2.401 1.343 0.9261 0.2372 0.483870968 6.9 4.44 2.396 1.337 0.9159 0.2306 0.516129032 6.886 4.422 2.384 1.333 0.9099 0.2294 0.548387097 6.883 4.372 2.368 1.326 0.9029 0.2255 0.580645161 6.875 4.336 2.364 1.319 0.897 0.2245 0.612903226 6.869 4.325 2.325 1.31 0.8921 0.2229 0.64516129 6.841 4.308 2.282 1.309 0.8906 0.2205 0.677419355 6.834 4.285 2.251 1.303 0.8784 0.2197 0.709677419 6.828 4.27 2.239 1.273 0.8752 0.2172 0.741935484 6.823 4.244 2.226 1.267 0.8744 0.216 0.774193548 6.822 4.225 2.205 1.263 0.8713 0.215 0.806451613 6.821 4.22 2.201 1.257 0.8597 0.2124 0.838709677 6.821 4.219 2.201 1.249 0.8506 0.21 0.870967742 6.815 4.215 2.194 1.238 0.8414 0.208 0.903225806 6.814 4.189 2.18 1.214 0.8366 0.2059 0.935483871 6.811 4.157 2.169 1.199 0.8007 0.1975 0.967741935 6.802 4.134 2.133 1.188 0.7933 0.1972

0.1 **14.362** 8.632 3.5283 2.0382 1.3745 **0.33862** Average of ye arly averages: 0.249293 PCA= 100% for turf Inputs generated by pe4.pl - 8 -August2003 Data used for this run: Output File: DW Metfile: w12834.dvf PRZM scenario: FLturfC.txt EXAMS environment file: ir298.exv Chemical Name: Cyazofamid Description Variable Name Value Units Comments Molecular weight mwt 324.79 g/mol Henry's Law Const. henry atm - m^ 3/m ol Vapor Pressure vapr 1.32E - 10 torr Solubility sol 0.107 mg /L Kd Kd mg /L Koc Koc 1338 mg /L Photolysis half- life kdp 0.02 days Half- life

### 45

Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacw 16.4 days Halfife Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacs 17.7 days Halfife Aerobic Soil Metabolism asm 5.5 days Halfife Hydrolysis: pH 7 11.9 days Half- life Method: CAM 2 integer See PRZM manual Incorporation Depth: DEPI 0 cm Application Rate: TAPP 1.1433 kg/ha Application Efficiency: APPEFF 0.95 fraction Spray Drift DRFT 0.16 fraction of application rate applied to pond Application Date Date 15 - 03 dd/mm or dd/mmm or dd - mm or dd - mmm Interval 1 interval 14 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app. Interval 2 interval 14 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app. Record 17: FILTRA IPSCND 1 UPTKF Record 18: PLVKRT PLDKRT FEXTRC 0.5 Flag for Index Res. Run IR IR Flag for runoff calc. RUNOFF total none, monthly or total(average of entire run)

### 46

**Florida Turf (March 15) Pa**  **rent without drift** stored as DW .out Chemical: Cyazofamid PRZM environment: FLturfC.txt mo dified Monday, 16 June 2003 at 13:48:06 EXAMS environment: ir298.exv mo dified Thuday, 29 August 2002 at 15:34:12 Metfile: w12834.dvf mo dified W edday, 3 July 2002 at 09:04:28 Wa ter segment concentrations (ppb) Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

1961 0.1081 0.06651 0.01923 0.009257 0.007047 0.00177 1962 1.126 0.7223 0.2201 0.08297 0.05538 0.01366 1963 0.4841 0.3206 0.1193 0.06352 0.04323 0.01066 1964 11.15 6.928 2.263 0.8167 0.5474 0.1349 1965 1.007 0.701 0.3599 0.1285 0.08573 0.02114 1966 6.229 3.842 1.113 0.5773 0.3899 0.09625 1967 2.434 1.812 0.5655 0.2038 0.1361 0.03356 1968 1.252 0.9045 0.3645 0.1362 0.09085 0.02235 1969 1.302 0.8053 0.3352 0.1256 0.08387 0.02069 1970 1.284 0.8008 0.2353 0.09144 0.06162 0.01521 1971 2.613 1.61 0.4659 0.2275 0.1536 0.03799 1972 11.89 7.349 2.193 0.7976 0.5341 0.1314 1973 0.5983 0.3945 0.1276 0.04618 0.03105 0.007665 1974 1.241 0.7811 0.249 0.08805 0.06579 0.01652 1975 1.342 0.8251 0.2486 0.08811 0.05958 0.0147 1976 14.1 8.548 2.426 0.9584 0.6455 0.1588 1977 0.9273 0.5778 0.1716 0.06051 0.04046 0.009978 1978 13.49 8.003 2.215 0.787 0.5253 0.1295 1979 1.638 1.005 0.3548 0.1361 0.09083 0.0224 1980 0.7999 0.511 0.1477 0.08523 0.05733 0.01413 1981 0.4192 0.2511 0.06978 0.02589 0.02912 0.007449 1982 6.478 4.073 1.271 0.5031 0.3603 0.08925 1983 2.976 2.298 0.755 0.3359 0.2283 0.05639 1984 7.311 4.513 1.305 0.5009 0.3363 0.08274 1985 1.317 0.8072 0.2322 0.08826 0.05952 0.01471 1986 0.1128 0.0773 0.02332 0.008877 0.005922 0.00146 1987 6.152 3.919 1.211 0.4385 0.2928 0.07225 1988 0.07355 0.05325 0.01544 0.009152 0.00612 0.001506 1989 0.955 0.6723 0.1899 0.06694 0.04465 0.01101 1990 0.02176 0.01317 0.003968 0.001402 0.000953 0.000267 Sorted results Prob. Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

0.032258065 14.1 8.548 2.426 0.9584 0.6455 0.1588 0.064516129 13.49 8.003 2.263 0.8167 0.5474 0.1349 0.096774194 11.89 7.349 2.215 0.7976 0.5341 0.1314 0.129032258 11.15 6.928 2.193 0.787 0.5253 0.1295 0.161290323 7.311 4.513 1.305 0.5773 0.3899 0.09625 0.193548387 6.478 4.073 1.271 0.5031 0.3603 0.08925

### 47 0.225806452 6.229 3.919 1.211 0.5009 0.3363 0.08274 0.258064516 6.152 3.842 1.113 0.4385 0.2928 0.07225 0.290322581 2.976 2.298 0.755 0.3359 0.2283 0.05639 0.322580645 2.613 1.812 0.5655 0.2275 0.1536 0.03799 0.35483871 2.434 1.61 0.4659 0.2038 0.1361 0.03356 0.387096774 1.638 1.005 0.3645 0.1362 0.09085 0.0224 0.419354839 1.342 0.9045 0.3599 0.1361 0.09083 0.02235 0.451612903 1.317 0.8251 0.3548 0.1285 0.08573 0.02114 0.483870968 1.302 0.8072 0.3352 0.1256 0.08387 0.02069 0.516129032 1.284 0.8053 0.249 0.09144 0.06579 0.01652 0.548387097 1.252 0.8008 0.2486 0.08826 0.06162 0.01521 0.580645161 1.241 0.7811 0.2353 0.08811 0.05958 0.01471 0.612903226 1.126 0.7223 0.2322 0.08805 0.05952 0.0147 0.64516129 1.007 0.701 0.2201 0.08523 0.05733 0.01413 0.677419355 0.955 0.6723 0.1899 0.08297 0.05538 0.01366 0.709677419 0.9273 0.5778 0.1716 0.06694 0.04465 0.01101 0.741935484 0.7999 0.511 0.1477 0.06352 0.04323 0.01066 0.774193548 0.5983 0.3945 0.1276 0.06051 0.04046 0.009978 0.806451613 0.4841 0.3206 0.1193 0.04618 0.03105 0.007665 0.838709677 0.4192 0.2511 0.06978 0.02589 0.02912 0.007449 0.870967742 0.1128 0.0773 0.02332 0.009257 0.007047 0.00177 0.903225806 0.1081 0.06651 0.01923 0.009152 0.00612 0.001506 0.935483871 0.07355 0.05325 0.01544 0.008877 0.005922 0.00146 0.967741935 0.02176 0.01317 0.003968 0.001402 0.000953 0.000267

0.1 11.816 7.3069 2.2128 0.79654 0.53322 0.13121 Average of ye arly averages: 0.041677 PCA= 100% for turf Inputs generated by pe4.pl - 8 -August2003 Data used for this run: Output File: DW Metfile: w12834.dvf PRZM scenario: FLturfC.txt EXAMS environment file: ir298.exv Chemical Name: Cyazofamid Description Variable Name Value Units Comments Molecular weight mwt 324.79 g/mol Henry's Law Const. henry atm - m^ 3/m ol Vapor Pressure vapr 1.32E 10 torr Solubility sol 0.107 mg /L Kd Kd mg /L Koc Koc 1338 mg /L Photolysis half- life kdp 0.02 days Half- life Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacw 16.4 days Halfife

### 48

Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacs 17.7 days Halfife Aerobic Soil Metabolism asm 5.5 days Halfife Hydrolysis: pH 7 11.9 days Half- life Method: CAM 2 integer See PRZM manual Incorporation Depth: DEPI 0 cm Application Rate: TAPP 1.1433 kg/ha Application Efficiency: APPEFF 0.95 fraction Spray Drift DRFT 0 fraction of application rate applied to pond Application Date Date 15 - 03 dd/mm or dd/mmm or dd - mm or dd - mmm Interval 1 interval 14 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app. Interval 2 interval 14 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app. Record 17: FILTRA IPSCND 1 UPTKF Record 18: PLVKRT PLDKRT FEXTRC 0.5 Flag for Index Res. Run IR IR Flag for runoff calc. RUNOFF total none, monthly or total(average of entire run)

### 49

**PA Turf (** **July 30 )**  **CCIM with drift** stored as DW .out Chemical: CCIM PRZM environment: PAturfC.txt mo dified Satday, 12 October 2002 at 16:27:02 EXAMS environment: ir298.exv mo dified Thuday, 29 August 2002 at 15:34:12 Metfile: w14737.dvf mo dified W edday, 3 July 2002 at 09:06:12 Wa ter segment concentrations (ppb) Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

1961 7.485 7.357 6.871 6.045 5.662 2.096 1962 10.43 10.3 9.774 8.872 8.478 5.199 1963 12.54 12.39 11.85 10.93 10.5 7.307 1964 13.54 13.4 12.86 11.94 11.51 8.639 1965 14.36 14.26 13.72 12.77 12.32 9.473 1966 15.03 14.88 14.32 13.38 12.91 10.08 1967 15.24 15.1 14.53 13.6 13.14 10.45 1968 15.4 15.25 14.69 13.76 13.3 10.63 1969 15.54 15.39 14.83 13.9 13.43 10.77 1970 15.78 15.63 15.06 14.12 13.65 10.92 1971 19.97 19.75 18.97 17.48 16.64 12.11 1972 17.31 17.15 16.57 15.63 15.14 12.7 1973 16.8 16.64 16.07 15.13 14.65 12.12 1974 17.14 16.97 16.39 15.4 14.88 11.95 1975 16.48 16.33 15.75 14.82 14.34 11.79 1976 16.38 16.23 15.65 14.71 14.22 11.55 1977 16.14 15.99 15.42 14.49 14.02 11.42 1978 16.16 16.04 15.47 14.52 14.04 11.35 1979 15.99 15.84 15.32 14.39 13.92 11.29 1980 15.92 15.78 15.21 14.28 13.81 11.2 1981 15.86 15.71 15.14 14.21 13.75 11.13 1982 16.13 15.98 15.39 14.45 13.97 11.18 1983 15.91 15.76 15.19 14.26 13.79 11.18 1984 15.84 15.69 15.13 14.19 13.73 11.1 1985 15.97 15.82 15.24 14.31 13.83 11.11 1986 16.02 15.87 15.3 14.36 13.88 11.18 1987 16 15.85 15.35 14.43 13.96 11.23 1988 15.93 15.78 15.25 14.31 13.84 11.22 1989 15.99 15.84 15.26 14.33 13.85 11.18 1990 16.17 16.02 15.43 14.49 14 11.22 Sorted results Prob. Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

0.032258065 19.97 19.75 18.97 17.48 16.64 12.7 0.064516129 17.31 17.15 16.57 15.63 15.14 12.12 0.096774194 17.14 16.97 16.39 15.4 14.88 12.11 0.129032258 16.8 16.64 16.07 15.13 14.65 11.95 0.161290323 16.48 16.33 15.75 14.82 14.34 11.79 0.193548387 16.38 16.23 15.65 14.71 14.22 11.55

### 50 0.225806452 16.17 16.04 15.47 14.52 14.04 11.42 0.258064516 16.16 16.02 15.43 14.49 14.02 11.35 0.290322581 16.14 15.99 15.42 14.49 14 11.29 0.322580645 16.13 15.98 15.39 14.45 13.97 11.23 0.35483871 16.02 15.87 15.35 14.43 13.96 11.22 0.387096774 16 15.85 15.32 14.39 13.92 11.22 0.419354839 15.99 15.84 15.3 14.36 13.88 11.2 0.451612903 15.99 15.84 15.26 14.33 13.85 11.18 0.483870968 15.97 15.82 15.25 14.31 13.84 11.18 0.516129032 15.93 15.78 15.24 14.31 13.83 11.18 0.548387097 15.92 15.78 15.21 14.28 13.81 11.18 0.580645161 15.91 15.76 15.19 14.26 13.79 11.13 0.612903226 15.86 15.71 15.14 14.21 13.75 11.11 0.64516129 15.84 15.69 15.13 14.19 13.73 11.1 0.677419355 15.78 15.63 15.06 14.12 13.65 10.92 0.709677419 15.54 15.39 14.83 13.9 13.43 10.77 0.741935484 15.4 15.25 14.69 13.76 13.3 10.63 0.774193548 15.24 15.1 14.53 13.6 13.14 10.45 0.806451613 15.03 14.88 14.32 13.38 12.91 10.08 0.838709677 14.36 14.26 13.72 12.77 12.32 9.473 0.870967742 13.54 13.4 12.86 11.94 11.51 8.639 0.903225806 12.54 12.39 11.85 10.93 10.5 7.307 0.935483871 10.43 10.3 9.774 8.872 8.478 5.199 0.967741935 7.485 7.357 6.871 6.045 5.662 2.096

0.1 **17.106** 16.937 16.358 15.373 14.857 12.094 PCA= 100% for turf Average of yearly averages: 10.49247 Inputs generated by pe4.pl - 8 -August- 2003 Data used for this run: Output File: DW Metfile: w14737.dvf PRZM scenario: PAturfC.txt EXAMS environment file: ir298.exv Chemical Name: CCIM Description Variable Name Value Units Comments Molecular weight mwt 217.66 g/mol Henry's Law Const. henry atm - m^ 3/m ol Vapor Pressure vapr 1.32E 10 torr Solubility sol 0.107 mg /L Kd Kd mg /L Koc Koc 753 mg /L Photolysis half- life kdp 31.5 days Half- life Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacw 0 days Halfife Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacs 0 days Halfife

### 51

Aerobic Soil Metabolism asm 2.22 days Halfife Hydrolysis: pH 7 0 days Half- life Method: CAM 1 integer See PRZM manual Incorporation Depth: DEPI 0 cm Application Rate: TAPP 0.4827 kg/ha Application Efficiency: APPEFF 0.95 fraction Spray Drift DRFT 0.16 fraction of application rate applied to pond Application Date Date 30 - 07 dd/mm or dd/mmm or dd - mm or dd - mmm Interval 1 interval 14 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app. Interval 2 interval 14 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app. Record 17: FILTRA IPSCND 1 UPTKF Record 18: PLVKRT PLDKRT FEXTRC 0.5 Flag for Index Res. Run IR IR Flag for runoff calc. RUNOFF total none, monthly or total(average of entire run)

### 52

**OR x -**  **mass (** **March 15 )**  **CCIM -** **AM with drift** stored as DW .out Chemical: CCIMAM PRZM environment: ORXmasTreeC.txt mo dified Satday, 12 October 2002 at 16:23:10 EXAMS environment: ir298.exv mo dified Thuday, 29 August 2002 at 15:34:12 Metfile: w24232.dvf mo dified W edday, 3 July 2002 at 09:06:10 Wa ter segm ent concentrations (ppb) Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly 1961 0.6695 0.6411 0.5448 0.4241 0.3796 0.2256 1962 1.122 1.084 0.9561 0.804 0.738 0.5351 1963 2.265 2.19 1.957 1.638 1.506 1.105 1964 1.801 1.773 1.677 1.558 1.513 1.359 1965 2.033 2.005 1.909 1.793 1.75 1.595 1966 2.268 2.24 2.144 2.025 1.98 1.827 1967 2.5 2.471 2.376 2.256 2.212 2.058 1968 2.731 2.703 2.607 2.488 2.443 2.289 1969 2.963 2.935 2.839 2.72 2.675 2.522 1970 3.195 3.167 3.071 2.952 2.907 2.754 1971 3.529 3.499 3.404 3.303 3.242 3.052 1972 3.731 3.703 3.618 3.498 3.455 3.297 1973 3.971 3.943 3.847 3.728 3.683 3.53 1974 4.328 4.295 4.19 4.039 3.982 3.803 1975 4.54 4.509 4.405 4.281 4.231 4.061 1976 4.767 4.738 4.637 4.511 4.464 4.303 1977 4.977 4.949 4.853 4.734 4.689 4.536 1978 5.208 5.18 5.084 4.966 4.926 4.772 1979 5.446 5.418 5.322 5.203 5.158 5.005 1980 5.677 5.649 5.592 5.47 5.423 5.257 1981 5.933 5.904 5.82 5.703 5.659 5.501 1982 6.174 6.146 6.055 5.937 5.893 5.738 1983 6.76 6.717 6.592 6.396 6.316 6.083 1984 6.763 6.735 6.664 6.552 6.506 6.342 1985 7.032 7.003 6.906 6.784 6.738 6.583 1986 7.256 7.227 7.131 7.012 6.968 6.814 1987 7.487 7.458 7.363 7.243 7.199 7.046 1988 7.724 7.696 7.599 7.479 7.434 7.278 1989 7.957 7.928 7.832 7.712 7.667 7.512 1990 8.185 8.156 8.061 7.942 7.897 7.744 Sorted results Prob. Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

0.032258065 8.185 8.156 8.061 7.942 7.897 7.744 0.064516129 7.957 7.928 7.832 7.712 7.667 7.512 0.096774194 7.724 7.696 7.599 7.479 7.434 7.278 0.129032258 7.487 7.458 7.363 7.243 7.199 7.046 0.161290323 7.256 7.227 7.131 7.012 6.968 6.814 0.193548387 7.032 7.003 6.906 6.784 6.738 6.583 0.225806452 6.763 6.735 6.664 6.552 6.506 6.342

### 53 0.258064516 6.76 6.717 6.592 6.396 6.316 6.083 0.290322581 6.174 6.146 6.055 5.937 5.893 5.738 0.322580645 5.933 5.904 5.82 5.703 5.659 5.501 0.35483871 5.677 5.649 5.592 5.47 5.423 5.257 0.387096774 5.446 5.418 5.322 5.203 5.158 5.005 0.419354839 5.208 5.18 5.084 4.966 4.926 4.772 0.451612903 4.977 4.949 4.853 4.734 4.689 4.536 0.483870968 4.767 4.738 4.637 4.511 4.464 4.303 0.516129032 4.54 4.509 4.405 4.281 4.231 4.061 0.548387097 4.328 4.295 4.19 4.039 3.982 3.803 0.580645161 3.971 3.943 3.847 3.728 3.683 3.53 0.612903226 3.731 3.703 3.618 3.498 3.455 3.297 0.64516129 3.529 3.499 3.404 3.303 3.242 3.052 0.677419355 3.195 3.167 3.071 2.952 2.907 2.754 0.709677419 2.963 2.935 2.839 2.72 2.675 2.522 0.741935484 2.731 2.703 2.607 2.488 2.443 2.289 0.774193548 2.5 2.471 2.376 2.256 2.212 2.058 0.806451613 2.268 2.24 2.144 2.025 1.98 1.827 0.838709677 2.265 2.19 1.957 1.793 1.75 1.595 0.870967742 2.033 2.005 1.909 1.638 1.513 1.359 0.903225806 1.801 1.773 1.677 1.558 1.506 1.105 0.935483871 1.122 1.084 0.9561 0.804 0.738 0.5351 0.967741935 0.6695 0.6411 0.5448 0.4241 0.3796 0.2256

0.1 7.7003 7.6722 7.5754 7.4554 7.4105 7.2548 Average of ye arly averages: 4.15089 PCA Adjustment (87%) **6.699** 6.675 6.591 6.486 6.447 6.312 Inputs generated by pe4.pl - 8 -August- 2003 3.611 Data used for this run: Output File: DW Metfile: w24232.dvf PRZM scenario: ORXmasTreeC.txt EXAMS environment file: ir298.exv Chemical Name: CCIMAM Description Variable Name Value Units Comments Molecular weight mwt 235.67 g/mol Henry's Law Const. henry atm - m^ 3/m ol Vapor Pressure vapr 1.32E - 10 torr Solubility sol 0.107 mg /L Kd Kd mg /L Koc Koc 2397 mg /L Photolysis half- life kdp 0 days Half- life Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacw 0 days Halfife Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacs 0 days Halfife Aerobic Soil Metabolism asm 13.58 days Halfife Hydrolysis: pH 7 0 days Half- life

### 54

Method: CAM 1 integer See PRZM manual Incorporation Depth: DEPI 0 cm Application Rate: TAPP 0.1651 kg/ha Application Efficiency: APPEFF 0.99 fraction Spray Drift DRFT 0.064 fraction of application rate applied to pond Application Date Date 15 - 03 dd/mm or dd/mmm or dd - mm or dd - mmm Interval 1 interval 14 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app. Record 17: FILTRA IPSCND 1 UPTKF Record 18: PLVKRT PLDKRT FEXTRC 0.5 Flag for Index Res. Run IR IR Flag for runoff calc. RUNOFF total none, monthly or total(average of entire run)

### 55

**OR x -**  **mass trees (March, 15) CTCA alone with drift** stored as DW .out Chemical: CTCA PRZM environment: ORXmasTreeC.txt mo dified Satday, 12 October 2002 at 16:23:10 EXAMS environment: ir298.exv mo dified Thuday, 29 August 2002 at 15:34:12 Metfile: w24232.dvf mo dified W edday, 3 July 2002 at 09:06:10 Wa ter segment concentrations (ppb) Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly 1961 5.827 5.736 5.399 4.841 4.552 3.081 1962 15.61 15.43 14.72 14.19 13.73 10.54 1963 40.32 39.86 38.22 36.41 35.32 27.21 1964 35.21 35.12 34.79 34.24 33.96 32.62 1965 39.3 39.23 38.95 38.77 38.53 37.17 1966 44.64 44.61 44.47 43.83 43.12 41.74 1967 49.29 49.19 48.85 48.28 47.98 46.74 1968 53.29 53.2 52.87 52.51 52.42 51.09 1969 57.9 57.88 57.8 57.72 57.64 56.05 1970 63.09 63 62.67 62.12 61.84 60.47 1971 74.36 74.16 73.39 72.12 71.47 68.14 1972 75.6 75.51 75.19 74.93 74.79 73.26 1973 79.89 79.8 79.47 78.92 78.63 77.31 1974 87.39 87.24 86.69 85.78 85.31 82.99 1975 91.44 91.33 90.91 90.22 89.87 88.15 1976 95.42 95.32 94.93 94.29 93.96 92.23 1977 98.25 98.16 97.83 97.29 97.01 95.68 1978 104 104 103 103 103 101 1979 107 107 107 107 107 105 1980 114 114 114 113 113 111 1981 118 118 118 118 117 116 1982 123 123 123 122 122 120 1983 136 135 135 133 132 128 1984 137 137 136 136 136 134 1985 141 141 141 141 141 139 1986 146 146 146 145 145 143 1987 153 152 152 151 150 148 1988 157 157 157 156 156 154 1989 161 161 161 160 159 158 1990 166 166 165 165 165 163 Sorted results Prob. Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

0.032258065 166 166 165 165 165 163 0.064516129 161 161 161 160 159 158 0.096774194 157 157 157 156 156 154 0.129032258 153 152 152 151 150 148 0.161290323 146 146 146 145 145 143 0.193548387 141 141 141 141 141 139

### 56 0.225806452 137 137 136 136 136 134 0.258064516 136 135 135 133 132 128 0.290322581 123 123 123 122 122 120 0.322580645 118 118 118 118 117 116 0.35483871 114 114 114 113 113 111 0.387096774 107 107 107 107 107 105 0.419354839 104 104 103 103 103 101 0.451612903 98.25 98.16 97.83 97.29 97.01 95.68 0.483870968 95.42 95.32 94.93 94.29 93.96 92.23 0.516129032 91.44 91.33 90.91 90.22 89.87 88.15 0.548387097 87.39 87.24 86.69 85.78 85.31 82.99 0.580645161 79.89 79.8 79.47 78.92 78.63 77.31 0.612903226 75.6 75.51 75.19 74.93 74.79 73.26 0.64516129 74.36 74.16 73.39 72.12 71.47 68.14 0.677419355 63.09 63 62.67 62.12 61.84 60.47 0.709677419 57.9 57.88 57.8 57.72 57.64 56.05 0.741935484 53.29 53.2 52.87 52.51 52.42 51.09 0.774193548 49.29 49.19 48.85 48.28 47.98 46.74 0.806451613 44.64 44.61 44.47 43.83 43.12 41.74 0.838709677 40.32 39.86 38.95 38.77 38.53 37.17 0.870967742 39.3 39.23 38.22 36.41 35.32 32.62 0.903225806 35.21 35.12 34.79 34.24 33.96 27.21 0.935483871 15.61 15.43 14.72 14.19 13.73 10.54 0.967741935 5.827 5.736 5.399 4.841 4.552 3.081

0.1 156.6 156.5 156.5 155.5 155.4 153.4 Average of yearly averages: 88.815 7 PCA Adjusted (87%) 136.242 136.15 5 136.15

5 135.28

5 135.198 **133.45 8**  Inputs generated by pe4.pl - 8 -August- 2003 **77.270** Data used for this run: Output File: DW Metfile: w24232.dvf PRZM scenario: ORXmasTreeC.txt EXAMS environment file: ir298.exv Chemical Name: CTCA Description Variable Name Value Units Comments Molecular weight mwt 236.66 g/mol Henry's Law Const. henry atm - m^ 3/m ol Vapor Pressure vapr 1.32E 10 torr Solubility sol 1.07 mg /L Kd Kd mg /L Koc Koc 836 mg /L Photolysis half- life kdp 0 days Half- life Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacw 0 days Halfife Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacs 0 days Halfife

### 57

Aerobic Soil Metabolism asm 0 days Halfife Hydrolysis: pH 7 0 days Half- life Method: CAM 1 integer See PRZM manual Incorporation Depth: DEPI 0 cm Application Rate: TAPP 1.2751 kg/ha Application Efficiency: APPEFF 0.99 fraction Spray Drift DRFT 0.064 fraction of application rate applied to pond Application Date Date 15 - 03 dd/mm or dd/mmm or dd - mm or dd - mmm Interval 1 interval 14 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app. Record 17: FILTRA IPSCND 1 UPTKF Record 18: PLVKRT PLDKRT FEXTRC 0.5 Flag for Index Res. Run IR IR Flag for runoff calc. RUNOFF total none, monthly or total(average of entire run)

### 58

**S CIGROW**  VERSION 2.3

ENVIRONMENTAL FATE AND EFFECTS DIVISION OFFICE OF PESTICIDE PROGRAMS U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

SCREENING MODEL FOR AQUATIC PESTICIDE EXPOSURE SciGrow version 2.3 chemical:Cyazofamid time is 8/28/2006 15:56:18

------------------------------------------------------------------------ Application Nu mber of Total Use Koc Soil Aerobic rate (lb/acre) applications (lb/acre/yr) (ml/g) metabolism (days)

------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1.561 2.0 3.122 6.57E+02 4.7

------------------------------------------------------------------------ groundwater screening cond (ppb) = 1.18E - 02 ************************************************************************ SciGrow version 2.3 chemical:CCIM time is 8/28 /2006 15:57:32

------------------------------------------------------------------------ Application Number of Total Use Koc Soil Aerobic rate (lb/acre) applications (lb/acre/yr) (ml/g) metabolism (days)

------------------------------------------------------------------------ 0.659 2.0 1.318 6.90E+02 1.4

------------------------------------------------------------------------ groundwater screening cond (ppb) = 6.0 7E - 04 ************************************************************************ SciGrow version 2.3 chemical:CCIM - AM time is 8/28/2006 15:58:38

------------------------------------------------------------------------ Application Number of Total Use Koc Soil Aerobic rate (lb/acre) applications (lb/acre/yr) (ml/g) metabolism (days)

------------------------------------------------------------------------ 0.147 2.0 0.294 2.12E+03 8.3

------------------------------------------------------------------------ groundwater screening cond (ppb) = 2.76E - 03 ************************************************************************ SciGrow version 2.3 chemical:CTCA time is 8/28/2006 15 :59:41

------------------------------------------------------------------------ Application Number of Total Use Koc Soil Aerobic rate (lb/acre) applications (lb/acre/yr) (ml/g) metabolism (days)

------------------------------------------------------------------------ 0.273 2.0 0.546 7.08E+02 10000.0

------------------------------------------------------------------------ groundwater screening cond (ppb) = 5.2 3E - 01 ************************************************************************ SciGrow version 2.3 chemical:TotalCTCA time is 8/28/2006 16: 0:15

------------------------------------------------------------------------ Application Number of Total Use Koc Soil Aerobic

### 59

rate (lb/acre) applications (lb/acre/yr) (ml/g) metabolism (days)

------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1.137 2.0 2.275 7.08E+02 10000.0

------------------------------------------------------------------------ groundwater screening cond (ppb) = 2.18E+00 ************************************************************************