-1-

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON D.C., 20460

OFFICE OF 

PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND 

TOXIC SUBSTANCES

May 15, 2006

DP Barcodes: 327645, 313161

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Memorandum Describing the Environmental Fate and Effect Division’s 

Ecological Risk Assessment on Aliphatic Oils (PC Codes 063502 and 063503) in 

Support of Reregistration Eligibility Decision

FROM: Brian Anderson, Biologist

Stephen Carey, Biologist

Mark Corbin, Senior Environmental Scientist

ERB III

Environmental Fate and Effects Division, 7507 C

TO: Mark Perry

Bentley Gregg

Special Review and Re-registration Division 7505C

THRU: Daniel Rieder, Branch Chief

ERB III

Environmental Fate and Effects Division 7507 C
-2-

I. Problem Formulation Summary

This assessment summarizes potential risks to non-target surrogate aquatic and terrestrial 

organisms identified for the currently labeled uses of aliphatic oils (PC Codes 063502 and 

063503) using screening level methodologies. The available toxicity and environmental fate

data are limited; therefore, assumptions were necessary to allow for a completion of an 

ecological risk assessment as outlined in Table I-1 below. Based on the limitations in the 

available data, a finding with respect to the likelihood of adverse effects to endangered species 

may not be possible for some of the assessed surrogate species. 

Table I-1. Effects of data limitations on the screening level risk assessment of aliphatic oils.

Problem Formulation Issue Effect of Issue on Risk Assessment.

Twelve CAS RNs representing numerous formulated 

products are included in this assessment. However, 

toxicity data were only available for a small subset of 

substances included in these PC Codes

Based on the broad descriptions of the CAS RNs outlined in 

Table I-2 below, it appears that the composition of the oils are 

similar across the two PC Codes. Therefore, the toxicological 

and fate properties may be similar. However, the data are 

insufficient to definitively support this conclusion. 

Aquatic toxicity data are limited and have previously 

been considered invalid. 

Limitations in the aquatic toxicity data exist. However, EFED 

believes that the data provides a weight of evidence regarding 

the toxicity of aliphatic oils and approximate drift and direct 

application to water exposures. 

Composition of aliphatic oils is uncertain Composition of six aliphatic oils was estimated based on the 

best available information. Composition information is

particularly important to allow for an estimation of the relative 

risks of the various aliphatic oils and potential aquatic exposures 

and risks from runoff scenarios. Also, EFED notes that these 

oils may have polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) present, 

which could be persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic, and may 

pose different additional risks than the aliphatic constituents. 

Therefore, clarification of the PAH content for all of the 

aliphatic oils included in this analysis is critical to ecological 

risk assessment.

Toxicity studies in aquatic and terrestrial plants, 

reproduction toxicity data in birds and mammals, and 

chronic studies in aquatic organisms have not been 

submitted. 

These endpoints cannot be fully evaluated. 

Submitted environmental fate data are not available Aquatic EECs from runoff are uncertain and are not used to 

calculate risk quotients.

A. Chemicals Included in the Aliphatic Oils PC Codes

Aliphatic oils are complex mixtures of hydrocarbons obtained from refinement of crude oil. 

Twelve CAS numbers are included under “Aliphatic Oils” (PC Codes 063502 and 063503). 

These substances are described in Table I-2. 

Table I-2. Description of Aliphatic Oils Included in PC Codes 063502 and 063503

Name CAS No. Description
-3-

Table I-2. Description of Aliphatic Oils Included in PC Codes 063502 and 063503

Name CAS No. Description

PC Code 063502

Mineral oil, and 

paraffin liquid

8012-95-1*

8020-83-5

In general, mineral oil and paraffin liquid are considered synonymous and can be characterized as 

containing primarily (>60%) paraffinic hydrocarbons with low volatility (>C12) and low melting 

points (<C30 and liquid at ambient temperatures) (TPH Criteria Working Group 1998b; 

CONCAWE 1997). 

 White mineral 

oil, petroleum

8042-47-5 A highly refined petroleum mineral oil consisting of a complex combination of hydrocarbons 

obtained from the intensive treatment of a petroleum fraction with sulfuric acid and oleum, or by 

hydrogenation, or by a combination of hydrogenation and acid treatment. Additional washing and 

treating steps may be included in the processing operation. It consists of saturated hydrocarbons 

having carbon numbers predominantly in the range of C15 through C50.

Lubricating 

oils, petroleum, 

C15-30

72623-84-8 A complex combination of hydrocarbons obtained by treating light vacuum gas oil, heavy vacuum 

gas oil, and solvent deasphalted residual oil with hydrogen in the presence of a catalyst in a two 

stage process with dewaxing being carried out between the two stages. It consists predominantly of 

saturated hydrocarbons having carbon numbers predominantly in the range of C15 through C30. 

Lubricating 

oils, petroleum, 

C15-30, 

hydrotreated 

neutral oilbased

72623-86-0 A complex combination of hydrocarbons obtained by treating light vacuum gas oil and heavy 

vacuum gas oil with hydrogen in the presence of a catalyst in a two stage process with dewaxing 

being carried out between the two stages. It consists predominantly of saturated hydrocarbons 

having carbon numbers predominantly in the range of C15 through C30. 

Lubricating 

oils, petroleum, 

C20-50, 

hydrotreated 

neutral oilbased

72623-87-1 A complex combination of hydrocarbons obtained by treating light vacuum gas oil, heavy vacuum 

gas oil and solvent deasphalted residual oil with hydrogen in the presence of a catalyst in a two 

stage process with dewaxing being carried out between the two stages. It consists predominantly of 

saturated hydrocarbons having carbon numbers predominantly in the range of C20 through C50. 

PC Code 063503

Solvent-refined 

heavy paraffinic 

distillate

64741-88-4 Primarily saturated hydrocarbons from C20 to C50; Solvent refining indicates a lower 

concentration of polyaromatic and unsaturated hydrocarbons when compared to mineral oil (which 

is true for all solvent refined substances in this assessment). This mixture includes a higher 

composition of high molecular weight (>C30) hydrocarbons than the solvent-refined light 

paraffinic petroleum distillates (TPH Criteria Working Group 1998b; CONCAWE 1997). 

Solvent-refined 

light paraffinic 

distillate

64741-89-5 The EPA substance registry system definition for the CAS number is primarily saturated 

hydrocarbons from C15 to C30. This mixture includes a higher composition of low molecular 

weight (<C15) hydrocarbons than the solvent-refined heavy paraffinic petroleum distillates (TPH 

Criteria Working Group 1998b; CONCAWE 1995, 1997). 

Hydro-treated 

heavy paraffinic 

distillate 

64742-54-7* Primarily saturated hydrocarbons from C20 to C50; The primary difference in this mixture as 

compared to mineral oil is the reduced proportion of elemental sulfur. Furthermore, hydro-treated 

distillates can be distinguished from other mixtures based on the slightly higher concentration of 

polyaromatic hydrocarbons versus solvent-refined products. Finally, this mixture includes a higher 

composition of high molecular weight hydrocarbons than the hydro-treated light paraffinic 

petroleum distillates (TPH Criteria Working Group 1998b; CONCAWE 1995). 
-4-

Table I-2. Description of Aliphatic Oils Included in PC Codes 063502 and 063503

Name CAS No. Description

Hydro-treated 

light paraffinic 

distillate 

64742-55-8* This mixture is similar to the description under hydro-treated heavy paraffinic distillates except 

that the composition of these mixtures is C15 to C30 hydrocarbons. Also, this mixture includes a 

higher composition of low molecular weight (<C15) hydrocarbons than the hydro-treated heavy 

paraffinic petroleum distillates (TPH Criteria Working Group 1998b; CONCAWE 1995, 1997). 

This mixture contains a higher composition of low molecular weight hydrocarbons than the hydrotreated heavy paraffinic petroleum distillates

Distillates, 

petroleum, 

solventdewaxed light 

paraffinic

64742-56-9 A complex combination of hydrocarbons obtained by removal of normal paraffins from a 

petroleum fraction by solvent crystallization. It consists predominantly of hydrocarbons having 

carbon numbers predominantly in the range of C15 through C30 and produces a finished oil with 

a viscosity of less than 100 SUS at 100 degrees F (19cSt at 40 degrees C).

Distillates, 

petroleum, 

solventdewaxed heavy 

paraffinic

64742-65-0 A complex combination of hydrocarbons obtained by removal of normal paraffins from a 

petroleum fraction by solvent crystallization. It consists predominantly of hydrocarbons having 

carbon numbers predominantly in the range of C20 through C50 and produces a finished oil with 

a viscosity not less than 100 SUS at 100.degree.F.

Definitions and descriptions were obtained from ChemID Plus (http://chem.sis.nlm.nih.gov/chemidplus/) 

* Denotes substances for which toxicity data are available

B. Use Patterns Modeled in this Assessment

Aliphatic oils may be applied at extremely variable rates using diverse methods including foliar 

spray (ground or aerial), air blast, and direct application to water. Terrestrial applications rates

are as high 477 lbs a.i./Acre. Additional description of the use patterns is in Appendix C. Based 

on the high variability in the application rates and methods, EFED estimated exposure 

concentrations of aliphatic oils to nontarget terrestrial and aquatic organisms using a range of 

labeled application rates (i.e., single applications of 10, 50, 150, and 477 lb/A using airblast 

applications). Potential risks to aquatic organisms from direct application to water were also 

evaluated. Single applications were modeled. However, if multiple applications are used at high 

application rates such that the total amount of aliphatic oils applied exceeds 477 lbs a.i./Acre, 

then risk may be underestimated in this assessment. In addition, use of multiple applications 

would likely result in higher longer-term (chronic) average exposure concentrations. Therefore, 

when chronic toxicity data are obtained by EFED, modeling of multiple application rates may be 

needed.

The Biological and Economic Analysis Division (BEAD) provided data indicating that most 

applications are less than 60 lbs a.i./Acre; 0.1% of the applications were >100 lbs a.i./Acre. 

II. Effects Characterization Summary

This effects characterization discusses studies that have been submitted to the Agency in support 

of pesticide registration. EFED acknowledges that data have been submitted to U.S. EPA’s High 
-5-

Production Volume Challenge Program. These data were not included in this assessment for 

reasons outlined in Appendix A. 

Twelve petroleum mixtures are included in the aliphatic oils category. However, toxicity data 

were not available on all of the mixtures to allow for an adequate assessment of risk. If the 

composition of the aliphatic oils with fate or toxicity data is not representative of the 12 oils 

included in PC Codes 063502 and 063503, then the risks presented in this assessment may not be 

representative of the aliphatic oils category as a whole. However, based on the broad 

descriptions of aliphatic oils in Table I-2, it appears that the composition of the oils that have 

been tested in toxicity studies may be representative of the aliphatic oils group. Table II-1 below 

summarizes the substances for which toxicity data has been submitted, and Table II-2 

summarized the toxicity data used in risk estimation. 

No chronic toxicity studies in any species have been submitted to EFED for use in this risk 

assessment, and no aquatic plant toxicity studies have been submitted to the Agency.

Table II-1. Summary of aliphatic oils with toxicity data

Aliphatic Oil CAS 

No.

Effects Data

Fish, 

acute

Daphnids, 

acute

Mysid 

shrimp

Oyster Aquatic 

Plants

Birds Mammals

Acute or 

subacute

Acute

PC Code 063502

8012-95-1; 90 

Neutral Oil

S S A A

N65DW S A

VHVI-4 S S

8020-83-5 No data

8242-47-5 No data

72623-84-8 No data

72623-86-0 No data

72623-87-1 No data

PC Code 063503

64741-97-5 A

64742-54-7; 100 

Paraffin Oil

S S A

64742-55-8; 70-

Orchard spray

S A

GB-1111 S S S A
-6-

Table II-1. Summary of aliphatic oils with toxicity data

Aliphatic Oil CAS 

No.

Effects Data

Fish, 

acute

Daphnids, 

acute

Mysid 

shrimp

Oyster Aquatic 

Plants

Birds Mammals

Acute or 

subacute

Acute

64741-88-4 No data

64741-89-5 No data

A = Acceptable study exists

S = Supplemental study exists. Most aquatic studies are currently being upgraded from invalid to supplemental.

Table II-2. Summary of toxicity values used in the aliphatic oils screening level ecological 

risk assessment.

Surrogate 

Species

Acute Toxicity Value 

Used in Assessmenta

Comment Data Source for 

toxicity value 

used in 

assessment

Fish None used No effects were observed in multiple 

studies at the limit concentrations for 

these types of studies. 

Weight of evidence 

was used to estimate 

potential risks.

Daphnia 0.02 mg/L LC50s were 0.02, 0.1, <0.9, 0.41, and 

2.4 mg/L. The lowest value of 0.02 

was used in risk estimation. 

41902803

Oysters 6 mg/L EC50: 6 mg/L 44762002

Aquatic Plants No data None N/A

Mammals 22 g/kg-bw Data obtained from secondary 

literature; no chronic or reproduction 

toxicity studies were submitted.

NIOSH, 2004

Birds LD50: >2250 mg/kg-bw

LC50: >5620 ppm

No chronic or reproduction toxicity 

studies were submitted.

44608001;41793202; 

41742101; 4780903; 

44780902

Terrestrial Plants No data None N/A

a No chronic or reproduction studies have been submitted to the Agency.

A. Aquatic Species

1. Fish

Nine 96-hour acute studies in various fish species have been submitted to the Agency

(summarized in Table II-3 below). No study alone was considered adequate for risk estimation

due primarily to the low solubility of the oils and the lack of analytical confirmation of the test 

solutions; however, collectively, the data suggests that loading of the aliphatic oils at levels that 

approximate the limit concentration for acute fish toxicity studies (100 mg/L) is not expected to 

cause mortality in fish. Studies using N65DW did not observe mortality at up to a 50% mixture 
-7-

(500,000 mg/L; MRID 44637335). The available acute fish toxicity studies are summarized 

below.

Table II-3. Summary of submitted fish studies for aliphatic oils

Chemical CAS RN LC50 MRID

100 Paraffine Oil 64742-54-7 >100 mg/L 41368834 (2 studies)

GB-1111 None >120 mg/L 44708201; 44762003

90 Neutral Oil 8012-95-1 >100 mg/L 41902801; 41902802

VHVI-4 None >76 mg/L 44637336

N65DW None >500,000 mg/L 44637335; 44660001

2. Aquatic Invertebrates

Five 48-hour acute studies in daphnids using five different aliphatic oils have been submitted to 

the Agency (summarized in Table II-3 below). 

All of the submitted studies in daphnids were previously considered invalid primarily because 

the test concentrations were not measured and evidence of dissolution (presence of oily sheen on 

the water surface) was observed. Although no study alone was considered adequate for risk 

assessment purposes, collectively, EFED believes that they inform the risk assessment because 

the studies generally reported consistent results and suggest that the 48-hour EC50 in daphnids is 

likely less than 1 mg/L. Therefore, even though limitations in the aquatic toxicity data exist, 

EFED believes that the data provides a weight of evidence regarding the toxicity of aliphatic oils 

and that these studies approximate drift and direct application to water exposures. Therefore, the 

studies were upgraded to supplemental and were considered useful for risk assessment purposes. 

The lowest reported EC50 from these studies was 0.02 mg/L (MRID 41902803). 

Table II-3. Summary of submitted aquatic invertebrate studies for aliphatic oils

Chemical CAS RN EC50 MRID

90 Neutral Oil 8012-95-1 0.02 mg/L 41902803

GB-1111 None reported 0.1 mg/L 44769301

100 Paraffine Oil 64742-54-7 0.41 mg/L 41368835

VHVI-4 None reported <0.9 mg/L (100% mortality occurred at 

all concentrations)

44637337

70 Orchard Spray 64742-55-8 2.4 mg/L 41368833

It is uncertain if the effects observed in the daphnid toxicity studies submitted to the Agency 

were caused by physical effects resulting from coating the organism or from a different mode of 

action. In some of the studies (e.g., MRID 44637337), daphnids were observed floating on top 

of the containers within an oily sheen on the surface. Therefore, it would appear that some 

daphnids may have been trapped in the oils. However, some daphnids were also reportedly 

immobile on the bottom or in the middle of the containers. Therefore, a mode of action distinct 

from physical coating appears possible. EFED notes that risk would be of concern regardless of 

the mode of toxicity; however, oily sheens are less likely to occur in turbid waters. Therefore, 

entrapment in surface oil slicks would be less likely to occur in turbid waters such as streams and 
-8-

rivers, and oil slicks would be a higher concern in quiescent waters such as wetlands and 

stagnant lakes. 

In addition, a supplemental static acute study in Eastern oysters produced an EC50 of 6 mg/L and 

an acute NOAEC of 3 mg/L. This study suggests that aliphatic oils are moderately toxic to 

oysters. 

B. Terrestrial Species

Based on submitted studies, the mixtures included in this assessment do not appear to be acutely 

toxic to birds or mammals when orally exposed. No mortality occurred at the limit dose for 

acute oral and subacute dietary studies in birds as demonstrated in Table II-4 below. However, 

subacute studies in birds have shown effects including reduced reaction to external stimuli and 

increased incidence of toe picking in bobwhite quail at 1000 ppm 90 Neutral Oil. No signs of 

toxicity were observed in similar studies using the two other oil products tested (Table II-4). 

Data have not been submitted to allow for a characterization of the acute toxicity of each of the 

oils included in this category. If the composition is different across the various oils included in 

the aliphatic oils PC Codes, then their toxicological properties may also be different. 

The mammalian LD50 used in this assessment was 22,000 mg/kg-bw. However, the high dosing 

volumes needed to achieve this dose may have contributed to the toxicity observed in this study. 

Sufficient data are not available to determine if these substances may affect reproduction in 

either birds or mammals. No reproduction studies in birds or mammals and no terrestrial plant 

studies have been submitted to OPP or were located in EPA’s ECOTOX database. Six incidents 

involving aliphatic oils (063503) are in EFED’s EIIS (Ecological Incidents Information System) 

database. All incidents involve plant damage (Appendix D). In addition, labels currently carry 

phytotoxicity warnings. These data support a concern for potential risks to terrestrial plants. 

Table II-4. Terrestrial Toxicity Profile for Aliphatic Oils

Test Type Test Substance Value Used in Risk 

Assessment 

Comments MRID

Rat acute oral LD50 PC Code 063502

8012-95-1 

PC Code 063503

64742-55-8

64742-54-7

64741-97-5

22,000 mg/kg

(>5000 to 22,000 

mg/kg-bw).

At 22,000 mg/kg-bw, it is 

uncertain if toxic effects are 

caused by the test substance or 

the high dosing volume needed 

to achieve this dose. RQs will 

not be calculated from this study. 

No MRID available. 

Data from NIOSH, 

2004, provided by 

the Special Review 

and Reregistration 

Division (SRRD).

Rat 2-generation 

reproduction 

No data Not available In the absence of data, risk

estimation cannot be performed, 

and risk cannot be precluded. 

However, some of these 

substances are applied directly to 

farm animals; therefore, some of 

these oils are not likely potent 

reproduction toxicants. 

None available
-9-

Table II-4. Terrestrial Toxicity Profile for Aliphatic Oils

Test Type Test Substance Value Used in Risk 

Assessment 

Comments MRID

Bird acute oral LD50

(Mallard Duck, 

Bobwhite Quail)

GB-1111 PC Code 

(063503)

90 Neutral oil 

(063502)

>2250 mg/kg-bw Acceptable study. No mortality 

or signs of toxicity were 

observed.

44608001

41793202

Bird dietary LC50

(Mallard duck and 

Bobwhite quail)

90 Neutral oil and 

N65DW (063502)

GB-1111 (063503)

>5620 ppm NOAEC for sublethal effects 

was 1000 ppm for 90 Neutral oil 

based on reduced reaction to 

external stimuli and increased 

incidence of toe picking. No 

effects were observed in other 

dietary subacute studies at any 

concentration.

41742101

44780903

44780902

Reproductive Toxicity 

NOAEL

(Bobwhite, mallard 

duck)

No data Not available In the absence of data, a risk 

estimation cannot be performed, 

and risk cannot be precluded.

None

Honey Bee Contact 

LD50

GB-1111 (063503)

90 Neutral Oil 

(063502)

N65DW (063502)

>25 ug/bee

>100 ug/bee

>1830 ug/bee

No treatment-related effects 

were observed in any of these 

studies.

44683301

41793201

44676701

Terrestrial Plants 

(Tier I)

No Data Not available In the absence of data, a risk 

estimation cannot be performed, 

and risk cannot be precluded.

None

III. Exposure Summary

A. Aquatic Systems

1. Aquatic Exposure Estimates from Spray Drift 

EFED performed preliminary modeling to bracket the potential exposures resulting from spray 

drift alone assuming 9.7% of the mass applied to a 10 hectare field drifts into a 20,000,000 L 

water body (standard drift assumption in GENEEC2 for orchard airblast applications, and 

EFED’s standard ecological water body volume). The results of this analysis are in Table III-1 

below. These EECs assume no runoff and therefore are likely to under-estimate total exposure. 

Runoff exposure estimates are presented in Table III-2. It is uncertain if the runoff EECs are 

toxicologically comparable to the drift only EECs, the direct application to water EECs, and the 

available toxicity data because the various components within the oil mixtures are expected to 

degrade and partition in such a manner that would preclude the oil mixture from running off as 

an intact substance. Therefore, the composition of the individual components in surface water 

from runoff is expected to be different than the composition of the aliphatic oils applied to 

terrestrial environments.
-10-

Table III-1. Preliminary Aquatic EECs from Drift Into a Standard Ecological Pond

Application Rate Preliminary EEC Only from 9.7% Drift

477 lbs a.i./Acre 2.6 mg/L

150 lbs a.i./Acre 0.82 mg/L

50 lbs a.i./Acre 0.27 mg/L

10 lbs a.i./Acre 0.05 mg/L

An important uncertainty is that several of the components of the mixtures included in this 

assessment are expected to be volatile. However, the overall mixtures of the aliphatic 

hydrocarbons are expected to be generally dominated by the longer chain hydrocarbons that tend 

to be less volatile. Therefore, exposure to some of the components may be lower than the 

screening level drift only EECs would suggest although this is not expected to be significant. 

Also, volatilization would also suggest that inhalation exposure could be an important exposure 

route for terrestrial organisms, and potential risk from inhalation exposure cannot be estimated 

unless inhalation toxicity information is available.

2. Direct Application to Water

For registered aliphatic hydrocarbon products (both aliphatic and mineral oil registrations) there 

are labeled uses for direct application to water bodies. In order to address this use, EFED has 

assumed the maximum labeled application rate (37 lbs/acre) of petroleum product will be applied 

directly to the treated water body. In order to estimate an EEC for the ecological risk 

assessment, EFED has assumed the application will occur to EFED's standard EXAMS water 

body of 20,000,000 L. As such, the acute concentration, assuming instantaneous equilibrium, for 

petroleum when applied directly to the water body is 2.1 mg/L. This is obtained by converting 

the pounds applied per acre to kilograms per hectare (1 lb/acre is equivalent to 1.12 kg/ha), 

which yields an application rate of 41.4 kg/ha. Thus, the total pesticide load to the pond is 41.4 

kilograms per 20,000,000 liters (the standard pond has a one hectare surface area) which yields a 

concentration of 2.1 mg/L. The equation follows:

((37 lbs per acre x (1.12 kg per hectare/1 lb per acre)) x 1,000 g/kg x 1,000 mg/g) / 20,000,000 

liters = 2.1 mg/liter (ppm).

There are a number of uncertainties and assumptions inherent in the direct application scenario 

that may influence the interpretation of risk associated with this use pattern. For example, the 

conceptual model of this exposure scenario assumes that the application occurs to the standard 

water body that has a one hectare surface area and is two meters deep. While the surface area 

does not influence model prediction (because of an assumption that the pesticide is applied to the 

entire surface area) the depth of the water body does impact the results. For example, a similar 

application (maximum label rate) to a water body of similar geometry but which is only one 

meter deep will yield an EEC twice the number calculated for a 1 meter depth. Conversely, an 
-11-

application to a water body twice as deep will yield an EEC half the EEC derived above. More 

information about typical use sites other than that provided on the label analysis is needed to 

determine what is an appropriate receiving water body. However, given the screening level 

nature of this assessment and the nature of the exposures resulting from the agricultural uses 

assessed (477 lbs/acre to orchards) these estimates for the direct application to water seem 

reasonable, but the nature of the uncertainty cannot be assessed as to whether exposures are 

overestimating or underestimating risk.

In addition, there is an assumption of instantaneous and uniform mixing in this scenario. It is 

possible that the application of a petroleum product to the surface of a water body could result in 

a separation of phases. In other words, it is possible that the petroleum may not mix within the 

water column and exposures could be restricted to a higher concentration of a film, or layer, of 

petroleum on the surface of the water that would yield a higher exposure but to a smaller 

proportion of the water body.

Finally, as with the standard runoff and drift estimates, it is expected that some amount of 

volatility will occur. However, it is also expected, based on the assumed physical-chemical 

properties described above, that the products included in this assessment tend to be heavier 

petroleum products with longer carbon chains and therefore, volatilization of the product is less 

likely. Regardless, it is expected that some proportion of the applied product will be lost due to 

drift and volatility and that is not captured in this estimate. 

3. Aquatic Exposure Estimates from Runoff

In order to qualitatively evaluate the contribution of runoff to overall exposure, EFED conducted 

a simple screening level analysis using GENEEC. In this instance, GENEEC was run assuming 

aliphatic hydrocarbons would be applied by granular application (not a labeled use) as a 

convenience to minimize spray drift in the model run to zero. In lieu of any available 

environmental fate data EFED assumed that the relevant processes in GENEEC (aerobic soil and 

aquatic metabolism, hydrolysis and photolysis) were all stable. GENEEC was then run by 

varying the Koc across the potential range of Koc that might be expected for any of the various 

constituents within the aliphatic hydrocarbons. Table III-2 presents the results of this analysis 

which suggests that even with the dramatic variation in Koc used in this screen the predicted 

EEC at the highest application rate (477 lbs/acre) varies by only a factor of 20. Interestingly, the 

analysis indicates that between a Koc of 0.001 and 100 there is very little difference in resulting 

EEC. As Koc increases beyond this range a dramatic drop in EEC is noted when moving from a 

Koc of 100 to Koc of 1000. This is significant because it is expected that most of the 

components which make up the aliphatic hydrocarbons will be in the high Koc range. Therefore, 

if the Koc of the majority of the constituents is >1000, then the contribution to the EEC from 

runoff would not be expected to exceed 10 ppm from a single application of 477 lbs a.i./Acre. 

The Horticultural Spray Oil Task Force (HSOTF) recently submitted two studies which support 

EFED’s assessment of risk with the aliphatic hydrocarbons. First, the HSOTF submitted a 

summary of available data from the open literature (MRID 45945301) which reported that the 

aliphatic oils in general are relatively immobile. However, of the three studies cited, only the 
-12-

study by Nudelman et al (2002) reported a Koc, which ranged between 900 and 6600. In 

addition to the open literature studies, the HSOTF study estimated adsorption/desorption using 

physicochemical parameters. In this exercise the authors reported a single estimated Koc of 

47860. There were no actual analytical data presented in this summary and therefore the data 

can only be considered supplemental. However, the weight of evidence of these summaries 

suggests that for aliphatic hydrocarbons a reasonable estimate of Koc for these complex mixtures 

is between 1000 and 100000. Thus, comparing these estimated Koc with the GENEEC estimates 

provided above suggest that the higher Koc EEC approximated by 10000 may be a reasonable 

assumption of exposure due to runoff.

Also the HSOTF submitted a spray drift exercise (MRID 46042801) intended to confirm that the 

application of aliphatic hydrocarbons will not pose a risk to aquatic organisms and thus no spray 

drift data are needed to support this registration. Unfortunately, the exercise relies on unknown 

assumptions of application rate (57 lbs per acre) as well as degradation rates which are 

unsupported by data. The authors also compare the predicted EEC estimated in this exercise 

with aquatic toxicity data which excludes the most sensitive value available. In addition, in 

determining that there is no risk to aquatic species the authors rely only on the Acute Risk Level 

of Concern while ignoring the Acute Restricted Use LOC and the Endangered Species LOC. 

Interestingly, the exercise does provide EEC, which, if it had been is modeled at the maximum 

label rate (477 lbs/acre) used in EFED’s assessment, would generally confirm that magnitude of 

exposure predicted in EFED’s modeling. Because this study represents a non-GLP exercise the 

data can only be considered supplemental and the analysis does not support the contention of no 

risk.

Both of these studies are under review and Data Evaluation Records (DER) will be created for 

each study separate from this assessment.

Table III-2. EECs Predicted Using GENEEC Assuming No Spray Drift and Stability to 

All Dissipation Processes

Application Rate Koc EEC (mg/L)

477 lbs a.i./Acre 0.001 26.79

477 lbs a.i./Acre 0.01 26.79

477 lbs a.i./Acre 0.1 26.79

477 lbs a.i./Acre 1 26.76

477 lbs a.i./Acre 10 26.35

477 lbs a.i./Acre 100 22.79

477 lbs a.i./Acre 1000 10.04

477 lbs a.i./Acre 10000 2.51
-13-

Table III-2. EECs Predicted Using GENEEC Assuming No Spray Drift and Stability to 

All Dissipation Processes

Application Rate Koc EEC (mg/L)

477 lbs a.i./Acre 100000 1.41

B. Terrestrial Systems

Estimated environmental concentrations (EECs) on terrestrial systems were calculated using the 

application rates of 10, 50, 150, and 477 lbs/acre (single application) using the Tier I exposure 

model, T-REX (Version 1.2.3.). This analysis indicates that aliphatic oils may be found on 

dietary food items at extremely high concentrations (up to 114,000 ppm). The resulting EECs 

used in risk assessment are in Table III-3. These dietary concentrations were converted to doses 

(mg/kg-bw) for 15-, 35-, and 1000-gram mammals and 20-, 100-, and 1000-gram birds. Body 

weight adjusted EECs for 10, 150, and 477 lbs/acre applications for birds and mammals are in 

Appendix B. 

Table III-3. Estimated Aliphatic Oil Concentrations on Selected Terrestrial Animal Food 

Items After Applications of 10 to 477 lbs a.i./Acre.

Food Item EEC (ppm) from application rates of 10 to 477 lbs a.i./Acre

10 lbs a.i./Acre 50 lbs a.i./Acre 150 lbs a.i./Acre 477 lbs a.i./Acre

Short grass 2400 12,000 36,000 114,000

Tall grass 1100 5500 17,000 52,000

Broadleaf forage, small insects 1350 6800 20,000 64,000

Fruits, seeds, pods, large insects 150 750 2300 7200

In addition to contamination of potential food items of terrestrial species, aliphatic oils may be 

deposited onto eggs of terrestrial organisms. Potential risks from this exposure route are further 

discussed in Section IV.

IV. Preliminary Risk Estimation

A. Aquatic Systems

Table IV-1 below presents preliminary risk quotients for aquatic invertebrates based on the drift 

only and direct application to water EECs and the lowest EC50 in daphnids of 0.02 mg/L. 

Contribution of runoff to the EEC is discussed qualitatively because the composition of the 

runoff component may or may not be toxicologically similar to the composition of oils that 

enters water via spraydrift or that were used in the available toxicity studies. 
-14-

Table IV-1. Preliminary Aquatic Invertebrate (daphnids) EECs from Drift Into a 

Standard Ecological Pond

Application Rate Drift EEC from 

9.7% Drift into a 

20,000,000 L 

ecological pond

Daphnid RQ

based on an EC50 

of 0.02 mg/L

Oyster RQ based 

on an EC50 of 6 

mg/L

477 lbs a.i./Acre 2.6 mg/L 130 0.43

150 lbs a.i./Acre 0.82 mg/L 41 0.14

50 lbs a.i./Acre 0.27 mg/L 14 0.045

10 lbs a.i./Acre 0.05 mg/L 2.5 <0.01

Direct Application EEC 2.1 mg/L 105 0.35

EFED has conducted a simple analysis of the extent of a spray drift buffer that would be needed 

to reduce the EEC at the various single application rates to below the most sensitive level of 

concern (1 μg/L for endangered aquatic invertebrates; lowest EC50 of 0.02 mg/L x endangered 

species LOC of 0.05 = 0.001 mg/L = 1 μg/L). Using the Tier I module within AgDrift for 

orchard airblast applications, EFED has determined that for the range of application rates 

allowable on current labels the buffers needed to reduce drift to levels below the endangered 

species LOC are either at or beyond the limits of the model and is 177 feet at the lowest modeled 

application rate of 10 lbs/acre. This analysis is based on a single application rate; the effect of 

multiple applications was not evaluated. The results of this analysis are presented in Table IV-2. 

This analysis is not applicable to the direct application to water scenario. 

Table IV-2. Spray drift buffer distances needed to reduce the EECs in Table IV-1 to 1

ppb, which is the highest level that would not exceed the Aquatic Invertebrate 

Endangered Species Level of Concern (LOC) based on the currently available data.

Application Rate Buffer Distance

477 lbs a.i./Acre >1000 feet*

150 lbs a.i./Acre >1000 feet*

50 lbs a.i./Acre 902 feet

10 lbs a.i./Acre 177 feet

* - 1000 feet equals the limit of the Tier I model within AgDrift

As noted above, the estimates for spray drift only EEC and the estimate of buffer width to reduce 

EEC are both limited in that the spray drift only estimates do not account for the potential impact 

of runoff. However, given the high expected Koc, buffer zones expected to reduce EECs to 

levels that are protective from drift exposure are expected to be protective from runoff exposures 

as well. 
-15-

B. Terrestrial Animals

The available data for acute risk to terrestrial organisms is difficult to use because no mortality 

was observed at the limit dose in acute and subacute bird studies. However, the test levels were 

not as high as the potential exposures from the high application rates. For example, the avian 

LC50 is >5620 ppm. Any applications at 23 lb ai/acre or higher will result in estimated residues 

on food items greater than 5620 ppm. Ground spray, air blast, chemigation, or aerial 

applications may apply up to 477 lbs a.i./Acre. At that rate, concentrations on terrestrial 

organism food items were estimated at up to 114,000 ppm, which is well above any 

concentration tested in the available toxicity studies. Table IV-3 below presents application rates 

associated with key toxicity endpoints in terrestrial organisms. 

Table IV-3. Application rates associated with key toxicity endpoints in terrestrial organisms

Application Rate Toxicity Endpoint Comment

Birds

4 lbs a.i./Acre Application rate associated with lowest dietary concentration 

that produced a toxic effect in birds (1000 ppm; MRID 

1742101).

Toxic effects included reduced 

reaction to external stimuli and 

increased incidence of toe picking

in bobwhite quail.

6 lbs a.i./Acre Application rate associated with highest body weight adjusted 

dose tested in available acute oral gavage bird studies (1620 

mg/kg-bw; adjusted from 2250 mg/kg-bw for a 20-gram bird).

No mortality occurred at this 

dose.

23 lbs a.i./Acre Application rate associated with highest dietary concentration 

tested in available bird studies (5620 ppm).

No mortality occurred at this 

concentration.

Mammals

10 lbs a.i./Acre Application rate associated with concentrations on short grass 

that is 1/10th of the LD50 in mammals of 22,000 mg/kg-bw.

Data from NIOSH, 2004

In addition, oils such as corn oils and mineral oils are used to prevent hatching of undesirable 

birds by applying the oils directly onto the eggs. The oils may block pores in the eggshells, 

which prevents oxygen from entering the egg. Therefore, the developing embryo effectively 

suffocates. Limited dose-response data are available to allow for an estimation of the proportion 

of unhatched eggs associated with a given amount of applied oil; however, APHIS (2003) 

indicates that 2 mL of egg oil causes nearly 100% prevention of hatching birds in gulls and that 7 

mL/egg is effective for goose egg treatment. In addition, Hoffman et al. (2003) estimated an 

LD50 for GB-1111, which is a pesticide within the PC Code 063503, of approximately 10 

gallons/acre (approximately 75 lbs/Acre, assuming a specific gravity 0.875 to 0.905 for mineral 

oil; as cited in http://sis.nlm.nih.gov/enviro.html). This rate reportedly corresponds to 

approximately 20 uL/egg. Aliphatic oils may be applied at rates considerably higher than 75 lbs 

a.i./Acre; therefore, there is presumably risk to bird eggs either on or adjacent to the treated field. 

There would also presumably be risk to other terrestrial organisms that lay eggs on or near 

treated fields. 
-16-

Some oils, such as crude oil, have been shown to be considerably more potent than oils used to 

prevent hatching of pest birds. Literature data suggests that treatment of an egg with 1 to 5 

microliters prevents hatching, which suggests that some oils have a mode of action other than 

coverage of an egg to prevent gas exchange (Hoffman, 1979). Because the composition of the 

oils being assessed is uncertain, it is possible that the oils included in this assessment may also 

possess additional modes of action. 

1. Risk to Endangered and Threatened Species

a. Potential Direct Effects to Aquatic Organisms 

Endangered species LOCs were exceeded for aquatic invertebrates. Toxicity data were not 

available to allow for an assessment of risk to aquatic plants or chronic risk to fish or aquatic 

invertebrates. Therefore, a finding of not likely to adversely affect endangered species is not 

possible for these surrogate species at this time. 

b. Potential Risk to Endangered and Threatened Birds and 

Mammals

Risks to endangered birds and mammals remain uncertain. Aliphatic oils do not appear to be 

acutely toxic to birds or mammals; however, the high application rates of these oils would result 

in potential exposure levels that exceed the highest doses tested in the available toxicity studies. 

No reproduction studies in birds or mammals were available for use in risk assessment. 

However, direct deposition of oils onto eggs in close proximity to the use area would presumably 

put them at risk because coating of eggs by oils can result in suffocation of the developing 

organism (Hoffman et al., 2004; Albers et al., 2003). 

c. Potential Risk to Endangered and Threatened Plants in 

Terrestrial and Semi-aquatic Environments 

Potential risks to terrestrial plants were not assessed because no toxicity data were available for 

use in risk assessment. Six incidences of plant damage are in EFED’s Ecological Incidence 

Information System (EIIS) database for PC Code 063503 at the time this analysis was prepared, 

which would support a concern for potential risks to non-target plants. 
-17-

d. Indirect Effect Analyses 

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

listed organisms by, for example, perturbing forage or prey availability, altering the extent of 

nesting habitat, etc. In conducting a screen for indirect effects, direct effect LOCs for each

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

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

critical to their life cycle. Based on the data limitations, this analysis suggests that risk of direct 

effects from use of aliphatic oils cannot be precluded for any of the surrogate species considered 

in this assessment, although acute risk to fish was presumably lower than the Agency’s concern 

level. Therefore, there may be a potential concern for indirect effects to organisms that depend 

on species at risk for survival, habitat, or reproduction. 

The Agency uses the dose-response relationship from the toxicity studies used for calculating the 

RQ to estimate the probability of acute effects associated with an exposure equivalent to the 

endangered species LOC. However, based on limitations of the toxicity data, EFED did not 

calculate probabilities of acute effects based on the dose-response from the available toxicity 

studies. However, using EFED’s default probit slope of 4.5 with lower and upper ranges of 2 to 

9, the range of estimates of probabilities of individual effects would be extremely variable.

This information serves as a guide to establish the need for and extent of additional analysis that 

may be performed using Services-provided “species profiles” as well as evaluations of the 

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

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

commensurate with the predicted probability of adverse effects from the comparison of the doseresponse information with the EECs. The greater the probability that exposures will produce 

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

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

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

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

e. Critical Habitat 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

evaluate direct and indirect effects to listed organisms.

The screening-level risk assessment has identified potential concerns for indirect effects for all 

surrogate species. Further analysis on potential impacts on critical habitat is not possible until 

uncertainty in this assessment is addressed. If additional data are submitted, and the Agency’s 
-18-

LOCs remain exceeded, then the next step for EPA and the Service(s) would be to identify which 

listed species and critical habitat are potentially implicated. Analytically, the identification of 

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

determine whether the action area overlaps critical habitat or the occupied range of any listed 

species. If so, EPA would examine whether the pesticide's potential impacts on non-endangered 

species would affect the listed species indirectly or directly affect a constituent element of the 

critical habitat. Alternatively, the agencies could determine which listed species depend on 

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

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

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

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

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

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

together to conduct the necessary analysis.

This screening-level risk assessment for critical habitat provides a listing of potential biological 

features that, if they are constituent elements of one or more critical habitats, would be of 

potential concern. These correspond to the taxa identified above as being of potential concern 

for indirect effects and include all surrogate species assessed. This list should serve as an initial 

step in problem formulation for further assessment of critical habitat impacts outlined above, 

should additional work be necessary.

f. Co-occurrence Analysis

The goal of the analysis for co-location is to determine whether sites of pesticide use are 

geographically associated with known locations of listed species. A co-occurrence analysis was 

not performed at this time due to the large amount of uncertainty identified in this assessment. 

Based on the risks currently identified in this assessment and the large number of labeled uses of 

aliphatic oils, the co-occurrence analysis would include virtually all endangered species. 

g. Summary of Taxa Potentially at Risk

Potential risks to endangered species are summarized in Table IV-4 below.
-19-

Table IV-4. Listed species risks associated with direct or indirect effects due to applications of aliphatic 

solvents for terrestrial uses.

Listed Taxon Direct 

Effects

Basis for Direct Effects Concern Indirect 

Effects

Basis for Indirect Effects Concern

Terrestrial and 

Semi-Aquatic 

Plants –

monocots and 

dicots

Yes

No terrestrial plant toxicity data are 

available; therefore, EFED presumes that 

risk to plants is above the Agency’s 

concern level for both endangered and 

non-endangered species. Potential risk to 

plants is supported by phytotoxic 

warnings on labels and by six reported 

ecological incidences.

Yes Potential for indirect effects to plants based 

on potential effects to birds or insects as 

pollinators or seed dispersers

Terrestrial 

Invertebrates Yes

Aliphatic solvents are registered as 

insecticides and miticides; therefore, 

potential risk to nontarget insects is 

anticipated.

Yes Indirect effects to beneficial insects may 

occur from potential direct effects to plants.

Birds and 

Reptiles1 Yes

Oils such as mineral oils are used to 

prevent hatching of undesirable egglaying animals by applying the oils 

directly onto the eggs, there is 

presumably risk to eggs either on or 

adjacent to the treated field. Sufficient 

reproduction toxicity data are not 

available for analysis of reproduction risk 

from dietary exposure.

Yes

Indirect effects to birds may occur from 

potential direct effects to plants, terrestrial 

invertebrates, amphibians, reptiles, or 

mammals.

Terrestrial-phase 

Amphibians1 Yes Yes

Terrestrial phase amphibians may be 

indirectly affected by potential direct effects 

to plants, insects, or birds

Mammals Yes

Reproduction toxicity data were not 

available to allow for an estimation of 

risk

Yes

Indirect effects to mammals may occur from 

direct effects to terrestrial invertebrates, 

birds, plants, terrestrial invertebrates, 

amphibians, reptiles, or mammals.

Aquatic Vascular 

Plants Yes

Direct effects to aquatic plants are 

possible based on aliphatic oils use as an 

herbicide in ditch bank and the lack of 

aquatic plant toxicity data.

Yes

Potential indirect effects to aquatic plants 

may occur from direct effects to pollinators 

or dispersers if any endangered aquatic plants 

are dependent on such activity for species 

propagation.

Freshwater and 

Marine/Estuarine

fish and Aquaticphase 

Amphibians2,3

Yes

Reproductive effects cannot be precluded 

in the absence of early life-stage or full 

life cycle study.

Yes

Potential indirect effects to fish and 

amphibians may occur from direct effects to 

aquatic invertebrates or terrestrial or aquatic 

plants

Freshwater and 

Marine/Estuarine

Crustaceans3

Yes The acute risk LOC was exceeded. Yes

Potential indirect effects to aquatic 

invertebrates may occur from direct effects to 

plants.

Mollusks Yes The endangered species LOC was 

exceeded Yes Potential indirect effects to mollusks may occur from direct effects to plants or fish.

Aquatic 

Nonvascular 

Plants – algae 

and diatoms

No

Direct effects to aquatic nonvascular 

plants are possible; however, there are 

currently no listed aquatic non-vasculars 

in the endangered species database. 

No

Indirect effects to aquatic non-vasculars are 

possible; however, there are no listed aquatic 

non-vasculars in the endangered species 

database.

1 Birds are used as surrogate species for terrestrial-phase amphibians and reptiles; therefore, potential direct and indirect effects to endangered avian, 

reptilian, and amphibian species are considered equivalent.

2 Fish are used as a surrogate for aquatic phase amphibians; therefore, potential direct and indirect effects to endangered fish and amphibian species are 

considered equivalent.

3 Data in saltwater fish and invertebrates are not available; therefore, risks to freshwater and saltwater animals are presumed equivalent until additional 

data are submitted.
-20-

References

Albers P.H., D.J. Hoffman, D.M. Buscemi, M.J. Melancon. 2003. Effects of the mosquito 

larvicide GB-1111 on red-winged blackbird embryos. Environmental Pollution 125 (2003) 447–

451.

CONCAWE. 1995. Product Dossier No. 94/106, Kerosines/Jet Fuels. Prepared by European 

Oil Company Organization for Environment, Health and Safety (Belgium). Report dated April 

1995.

CONCAWE. 1996. Report No. 96/52, Environmental Risk Assessment of Petroleum 

Substances: The Hydrocarbon Block Method. Prepared by European Oil Company Organization 

for Environment, Health and Safety (Belgium). Report dated February 1996.

CONCAWE. 1997. Product Dossier No. 97/108, Lubricating Oil Basestocks. Prepared by 

European Oil Company Organization for Environment, Health and Safety (Belgium). Report 

dated June 1997.

CONCAWE. 1999. Product Dossier No. 99/110, Petroleum Waxes and Related Products. 

Prepared by European Oil Company Organization for Environment, Health and Safety 

(Belgium). Report dated December 1999.

CONCAWE. 2001. Report No. 01/54, Environmental Classification of Petroleum Substances -

Summary Data and Rationale. Prepared by CONCAWE Petroleum Products Ecology Group 

(Belgium). Report dated October 2001.

Foster K, Mackay D, Milford L, and Webster E. 2003. Multimedia Modeling and Exposure 

Assessment for Gasoline. Canadian Environmental Modelling Centre, Trent University, 

Peterborough, Ontario, Canada. Report dated July 2003.

Foster K, Mackay D, Parkerton TF, Webster E, and Milford L. 2005. Five-Stage Environmental 

Exposure Assessment Strategy for Mixtures: Gasoline as a Case Study. Environ. Sci. Technol. 

39: 2711-2718.

GENEEC. 2001. Generic Estimated Environmental Concentrations, Version 2.0. August 1, 

2001. Environmental Fate and Effects Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. Available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/geneec2_description.htm

Hoffman D.J., P.H. Albers, M.J. Melancon, A.K. Miles. 2004. Effects of the mosquito larvicide 

GB-1111 on bird eggs. Environmental Pollution 127 (2004) 353–358.

Hoffman D.J. 1979. Embryotoxic and teratogenic effects of crude oil on mallard embryos on 

day one of development. Bull Env Contam Toxicol 22: 632-637.
-21-

TPH (Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon) Criteria Working Group. 1997a. Volume 3: Selection of

Representative TPH Fractions Based on Fate and Transport Considerations. Report dated July 

1997. Amherst Scientific Publishers, Amherst, Massachusetts.

TPH (Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon) Criteria Working Group. 1997b. Volume 4: Development 

of Fraction Specific Reference Doses (RfDs) and Reference Concentrations (RfCs) for Total 

Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) Amherst Scientific Publishers, Amherst, Massachusetts.

TPH (Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon) Criteria Working Group. 1998a. Volume 1: Analysis of 

Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Environmental Media. Report dated March 1998. Amherst 

Scientific Publishers, Amherst, Massachusetts.

TPH (Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon) Criteria Working Group. 1998b. Volume 2: Composition

of Petroleum Mixtures. Report dated May 1998. Amherst Scientific Publishers, Amherst, 

Massachusetts.

TPH (Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon) Criteria Working Group. 1999. Volume 5: Human Health 

Risk-Based Evaluation of Petroleum Release Sites: Implementing the Working Group Approach. 

Report dated June 1999. Amherst Scientific Publishers, Amherst, Massachusetts.

U.S. EPA/ORD (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/Office of Research and Development). 

2000. Supplementary Guidance for Conducting Health Risk Assessment of Chemical Mixtures. 

Office of Research and Development, U.S. EPA, Washington, DC. EPA/630/R-00/002. Report 

dated August2000. Available at www.epa.gov/ncea.
-22-

Appendix A. Rationale for not including High Production Volume summary aquatic 

toxicity data in this ecological risk assessment

• Most studies were conducted using water accommodated fractions (WAFs). WAFs are 

prepared by loading the test system with a nominal concentration that is above the 

solubility of the test substance, mixing the solution, then allowing the mixture to 

equilibrate. The resulting aqueous fraction is the WAF. Results of analytical 

confirmation of the concentrations in the WAF were not reported; therefore, the 

concentration or the composition of the WAF is uncertain. 

• Original study reports were not submitted to the Agency; therefore, EFED has not 

performed an independent evaluation of data adequacy. In some cases, LC50 and EC50

values were reported that did not have accompanying robust summaries; therefore, data 

quality could not be independently verified by EFED. 

• Water hardness in the daphnid studies was high and ranged from 174 to 274 mg 

CaCO3/L. High water hardness reduces solubility of petroleum oils. Therefore, exposure 

to daphnids in these studies may have been lower relative to potential environmental 

concentrations. 

• Although aquatic toxicity tests with aliphatic oils with the same CAS Nos. or with similar 

descriptions as those included in PC Codes 063502 and 063503 were conducted, it is 

uncertain if the substances tested were equivalent to the substances used as biocides. 

For these reasons, the summaries submitted to the HPV program were not used quantitatively in 

this assessment. Nonetheless, numerous studies were reported that produced apparently 

consistent results; therefore, together with the studies submitted to EFED, they may provide 

some insight into the toxicity of aliphatic oils from nominal loading (e.g., direct application to 

water and drift) into an aqueous environment. 
-23-

Appendix B-1. Methodology used to convert dietary concentration to dose (mg/kg-day).

EECs (mg/kg-bw) for various size classes of mammals and birds may be calculated based on the 

dietary residue concentrations derived using the methods described above. To allow for this type 

of analysis, the EECs and toxicity values are adjusted based on food intake and body weight 

differences so that they are comparable for a given weight class of animal. Size classes assessed 

include 20-, 100-, and 1000- gram birds and 15-, 35-, and 1000-gram mammals. Dietary 

concentrations presented in Table III-5 above along with estimated food intake levels are used to 

calculate daily doses for the size of bird or mammal being assessed. These calculations are 

presented below. 

Daily food intake (g/day) is assumed to correlate with body weight using the following 

empirically derived equation (U.S. EPA, 1993): 

Avian food consumption (g/day)

where:

F = food intake in grams of fresh weight per day (g/day)

BW = body mass of animal (g)

W = mass fraction of water in the food (EFED value = 0.8 for birds and herbivorous mammals)

Based on this equation, a 20-gram bird would consume 22.8 grams of food daily (114% of its 

body weight), a 100-gram bird would consume 65 grams of food daily (65% of its body weight 

daily), and 1000-gram bird would consume 290 grams of food daily (29% of its body weight). 

These data, together with the dietary residue concentrations (mg/kg-food item) on selected food 

items (Table III-5), are used to estimate the dose (mg/kg-bw) of residue consumed by the three 

size classes of birds assessed. Using a small (20-gram) bird as an example, a dietary 

concentration of 100 mg/kg-diet (ppm) x 1.14 kg diet/kg bw (114%) would result in an 

equivalent dose-based EEC of 114 mg/kg-bw. 

A similar relationship between body weight and food intake has been derived for mammals (U.S. 

EPA 1993): 

Mammalian food consumption (g/day)

F

BW

W = −

0 648

1

0 651 . *

( )

.
-24-

where:

F = food intake in grams of fresh weight per day (g/day)

BW = body mass of animal (g)

W = mass fraction of water in the food (EFED value = 0.8 for herbivorous mammals, 0.1 for 

granivorous mammals)

The scaling factors result in the following percent body weight consumed for each weight class 

of mammal:

F

BW

W = −

0 621

1

0 564 . *

( )

.
-25-

• 15-gram mammal: 14 grams of food consumed daily (95% of its body weight)

• 35-gram mammal: 23 grams of food consumed daily (66% of its body weight 

daily)

• 1000-gram mammal: 150 grams of food consumed daily (15% of its body 

weight). 

These values are used in the same manner described for birds to calculate dose-based EECs 

(mg/kg-bw). Using a small (15-gram) mammal as an example, aliphatic oil concentrations on a 

dietary food item of 100 mg/kg-diet (ppm) x 0.95 kg diet/kg bw (95%) would result in an 

equivalent dose-based EEC of 95 mg/kg-bw. Dose based EECs are presented in Tables III-6 and 

III-7 below for birds and mammals, respectively. 
-26-

Appendix B-2. Dose based EECs from application of 10, 150 and 477 lbs a.i./Acre in birds and mammals

477 lbs/Acre, mammals

Dose-Based EECs 

(mg/kg-bw)

Mammalian Classes and Body weight

Herbivores/ insectivores

15 g 35 g 1000 g

Short Grass 109147.91 75435.81 17490.06

Tall Grass 50026.13 34574.75 8016.28

Broadleaf plants/sm Insects 61395.70 42432.64 9838.16

Fruits/pods/seeds/lg insects 6821.74 4714.74 1093.13

477 lbs/Acre, birds

Dose-based EECs (mg/kg-bw)

Avian Classes and Body Weights

small mid large

20 g 100 g 1000 g

Short Grass 130381.26 74348.91 33287.00

Tall Grass 59758.08 34076.59 15256.54

Broadleaf plants/sm Insects 73339.46 41821.26 18723.94

Fruits/pods/seeds/lg insects 8148.83 4646.81 2080.44

150 lbs/Acre, mammals

Dose-Based EECs 

(mg/kg-bw)

Mammalian Classes and Body weight

Herbivores/ insectivores

15 g 35 g 1000 g

Short Grass 34323.24 23721.95 5500.02

Tall Grass 15731.49 10872.56 2520.84

Broadleaf plants/sm Insects 19306.82 13343.60 3093.76

Fruits/pods/seeds/lg insects 2145.20 1482.62 343.75

150 lbs/Acre, birds

Dose-based EECs (mg/kg-bw)

Avian Classes and Body Weights

small mid large

20 g 100 g 1000 g

Short Grass 41000.40 23380.16 10467.61

Tall Grass 18791.85 10715.91 4797.65

Broadleaf plants/sm Insects 23062.72 13151.34 5888.03

Fruits/pods/seeds/lg insects 2562.52 1461.26 654.23
-27-

10 lbs/Acre, mammals

Dose-Based EECs 

(mg/kg-bw)

Mammalian Classes and Body weight

Herbivores/ insectivores

15 g 35 g 1000 g

Short Grass 2288.22 1581.46 366.67

Tall Grass 1048.77 724.84 168.06

Broadleaf plants/sm Insects 1287.12 889.57 206.25

Fruits/pods/seeds/lg insects 143.01 98.84 22.92

10 lbs/Acre, birds

Dose-based EECs (mg/kg-bw)

Avian Classes and Body Weights

small mid large

20 g 100 g 1000 g

Short Grass 2733.36 1558.68 697.84

Tall Grass 1252.79 714.39 319.84

Broadleaf plants/sm Insects 1537.51 876.76 392.54

Fruits/pods/seeds/lg insects 170.83 97.42 43.62
-28-

Appendix C. Summary of Registered Aliphatic oils Uses

Table C-1. Overview of Aliphatic oil Uses 

Crop Grouping Representative Use

Terrestrial food and feed crop Acerola (West Indies Cherry), alfalfa, almond, amaranth-Chinese, apple, 

apricots, artichoke-Chinese, asparagus, atemoya, avocado, balm, banana, basil, 

beans, beans-succulent (lima), beans-succulent (snap), beets, blackberries, 

blueberries, boysenberries, broccoli, broccoli-Chinese, brussels sprouts, 

bushberries, cabbage, cabbage-Chinese, caneberries, carambola (jalea), 

cauliflower, celery, cherry, citron (citrus), citrus, citrus hybrids, coffee, cole 

crops, collards, corianders, corn (general), field corn, sweet corn, popcorn, 

cotton, cranberries, cucumber, cucurbit vegetables, currant, deciduous fruit trees, 

dewberries, eggplant, fig, flavoring/spice crops, ginger, ginseng (medicinal), 

gourd (wax)-Chinese, grapefruit, grapes, grasses grown for seed, honeycomb, 

hops, kiwi fruit, lemon, lettuce, lime, loganberry, macadamia nut (bushnut), 

mango, marjoram/oregano, melons, melons-bitter (balsam pear), melonscantaloupe, melons-citron, melons-water, mint/peppermint/spearmint, mustard, 

nectarines, okra, olives, onions, oranges, papaya, pastures, peas-southern, peach, 

peanuts, pear, pecan, pepper, pepper (chili type), persimmon, pineapple, 

pistachio, plantains, plum, potato-white/irish, prune, pumpkin, radish, radishChinese, rambutan, raspberries, small fruits, sorghum, soybean, spinach, squash, 

stone fruits, strawberry, sugar beets (include tops), sweet potato, tangelo, 

tangerines, taro, tomato, turnips and walnut (black/English).

Terrestrial non-food crop Christmas tree plantations, non-agricultural right-of-way/ fence rows / 

hedgerows, non-agricultural uncultivated areas, ornamentals, shade trees, 

herbaceous plants, woody shrubs and vines, recreational areas, tobacco, urban 

areas, wide areas/general outdoor treatment (public health use), citrus, 

commercial / institutions / industrial premises/equipments (outdoor), deciduous 

fruit trees and pears.

Aquatic non-food industrial Drainage systems, lakes/ponds/reservoirs (without human/wildlife use) and 

sewage systems.

Aquatic non-food outdoors Intermittently flooded areas, salt water sites, swamps, marshes, wetlands and 

stagnant water areas. 

Aquatic food crop Agricultural drainage systems, intermittently flooded areas, salt water sites, 

swamps, marshes, wetlands, stagnant water areas and lakes/ponds/reservoirs 

(without human/wildlife use).

Greenhouse non-food Ornamentals, shade trees, herbaceous plants, non-flowering plants, woody 

shrubs and vines and tobacco.

Greenhouse food crop Asparagus, balm, basil, beans, beets, cabbage, cauliflower, corn, citrus, cucurbit 

vegetables, eggplant, fig, flavoring/spice crops, grapefruit, lettuce, 

marjoram/oregano, melons, mint/peppermint/spearmint, pepper, potatowhite/irish, radish, squash, sweet potato, tomato, cole crops, popcorn, sweet 

corn, cotton, cucumber, lemon, macadamia nut (bushnut), mango, nectarine, 

onions, oranges, peach, pears, pecans, plum, prunes, pumpkins, strawberry, 

sugar beets and walnuts (black/English).
-29-

Table C-1. Overview of Aliphatic oil Uses 

Crop Grouping Representative Use

Outdoor residential Household/domestic dwelling contents/outdoor premises, ornamentals, shade 

trees, herbaceous plants, woody shrubs and vines and urban areas.

Indoor residential Ornamentals, shade trees, herbaceous plants, non-flowering plants, woody 

shrubs and vines, dogs/canines, household/domestic dwelling contents/indoor 

premises, human bedding/mattresses, human clothing (for mildew/mold control) 

and pets living/sleeping quarters.

Indoor non-food Ornamentals, shade trees, herbaceous plants, non-flowering plants, woody 

shrubs and vines, animal kennels/sleeping quarters (commercial), birdseed 

(processed), commercial storage/warehouse premises, commercial / institutions / 

industrial premises/equipments (indoor), eating establishments, horses, pets and 

specialized animals. 

Indoor food Agricultural/farm premises, barley, barns, barnyards, auction barns, 

beef/range/feeder cattle (meat), buckwheat, commercial storage/warehouse 

premises, commercial transportation facilities-feed/food-empty, corn 

(unspecified), dairy cattle, dairy farm milk handling facilities/equipments, dairy 

farm milk storage rooms/houses/sheds, dairy farm milking stalls/parlors, eating 

establishments, food handling areas, egg handling areas, feed/food treatmentstorage/processing/handling equipments, food and feed products (processed), 

food processing plant premises/equipments, food stores/markets/supermarket 

premises, food/grocery/marketing/storage/distribution facility premises, fruits 

(dried/dehydrated), grain/cereal/flour bins-empty or full, grain/cereal/flour 

elevators-empty or full, grain/cereal/flour storage areas-full, hog/pig/swine 

(meat), household/domestic dwelling indoor food handling areas, meat 

processing plants premises, poultry (egg/meat), poultry processing plants 

premises, rice, rye and seeds.

Indoor medicinal Hospitals/medicinal institutions premises.
-30-

TABLE C-2. Selected Registered Uses of Aliphatic oils 

Use Product Formulation

Description

Application Rate Max #

Appl/Yr Application Methods

Terrestrial

Crop / 

Greenhouse / 

Outdoor 

Residential 

PURESPRAY Spray 

Oil 10E

Oil

(98% petroleum oil) 0.1103 lb/gal - 469.2 lb/A Not specified Ground, air-blast and aerial spray

Spray Oil 13E Oil

(98% petroleum oil) 0.1103 lb/gal - 469.2 lb/A Not specified Ground, air-blast and aerial spray

Mist blower

Spray Oil 15E Oil

(98% petroleum oil) 0.1103 lb/gal - 469.2 lb/A Not specified Ground, air-blast and aerial spray

Spray Oil 22E Oil

(98% petroleum oil) 0.1103 lb/gal - 469.2 lb/A Not specified

Ground, air-blast and aerial spray

Dip tank treatment

Mist blower

Terrestrial and 

Outdoor 

Residential

Red-Top Superior 

Spray Oil N.W. Oil

(99% oil) 7.0191 lb/100 gal - 14.04 lb/100 gal Not specified Ground and air-blast spray

Terrestrial Red-Top Superior 

Spray Oil 

Emulsifiable concentrate

(99% oil) 14.04 - 84.23 lb/A Not specified Ground, air-blast and aerial spray

Terrestrial, Indoors 

and Greenhouse

Summit Horticultural 

Spray Oil

Emulsifiable concentrate

(98.8% oil) 0.0685 - 0.274 lb/gal When necessary Ground and air-blast spray. 

Terrestrial Britz Citrus Supreme 

Oil Spray

Emulsifiable concentrate

(99% oil) 3.47 lb/A - 41.64 lb/A Not specified Ground and air-blast spray.

Terrestrial Gavicide Super 90 

New Superior Spray 

for Deciduous Fruits

Emulsifiable concentrate

(99% oil) 50.24 lb/A - 57.42 lb/A Not specified Ground, air-blast and aerial spray

Terrestrial First Choice Narrow 

Range 415 Spray Oil

Emulsifiable concentrate

(98% oil) 0.7 - 50 gal/A Not specified Ground, air-blast and aerial spray 

Terrestrial, 

Greenhouse and 

Indoor

Super-Fine Spray Oil Oil

(98.8% oil) 2.5 - 7.5 Tbsp (L) Not specified Ground and air-blast spray
-31-

TABLE C-2. Selected Registered Uses of Aliphatic oils 

Use Product Formulation

Description

Application Rate Max #

Appl/Yr Application Methods

Terrestrial BAC HI Supreme 

Spray Oil

Emulsifiable concentrate

(98% petroleum oil) 6.958 lb/100 gal - 139.16 lb/A Not specified Ground, air-blast and aerial spray

Mist sprayer

Terrestrial, 

Indoor/Outdoor 

Residential and 

Greenhouse

Volck Oil Spray

Emulsifiable concentrate

(97% oil)

1 Tbsp/L - 0.2856 lb/gal (spray)

and 0.0268 lb/gal (tank) Not specified Ground, air-blast and aerial spray

Terrestrial and 

Outdoor 

Residential

Supreme Oil Emulsifiable concentrate

(99% oil) 7.0191 - 56.15 lb/A Not specified Ground, air-blast and aerial spray

Terrestrial Supreme Oil 98 Emulsifiable concentrate

(98% oil) 13.9 lb/100 gal - 55.59 lb/A Not specified Ground, air-blast and aerial spray

Terrestrial and 

Outdoor 

Residential

Sim-Chem Superior 

Spray oil Emulsifiable concentrate

(98.84% oil) 7.018 lb/100 gal - 35.09 lb/A Not specified Ground, air-blast and aerial spray.

Terrestrial Gavicide-C Narrow 

Range 440 Spray Oil 

for Citrus

Emulsifiable concentrate

(99.7% mineral oil)

10.12 lb/100 gal -

216.8 lb/A Not specified Ground, air-blast and aerial spray.

Terrestrial, 

Outdoor 

Residential and 

Greenhouse

BioCover SS Oil

(98% petroleum oil) 0.1397 lb/gal - 475.8 lb/A Not specified

Ground, air-blast and aerial spray

Dip tank treatment

Mist blower

BioCover UL Oil

(98% petroleum oil) 0.1397 lb/gal - 475.8 lb/A Not specified

Ground, air-blast and aerial spray

Dip tank treatment

Mist blower

Terrestrial, 

Greenhouse and 

Indoor

Glacial Spray Fluid Oil

(98.4% petroleum oil) 0.1122 lb/gal - 477.7 lb/A When necessary Ground, air-blast and aerial spray

Mist blower

Indoor Residential Heartland Auto-Mist 

3 Insect Killer

Pressurized Liquid

(13.12% oil) 1 - - (L) When necessary Ground spray (automatic aerosol 

dispenser)
-32-

TABLE C-2. Selected Registered Uses of Aliphatic oils 

Use Product Formulation

Description

Application Rate Max #

Appl/Yr Application Methods

Indoor Residential Heartland Auto-Mist 

2 Insect Killer

Pressurized Liquid

(13.66% oil) 1 - (L) When necessary Ground spray (automatic aerosol 

dispenser)

Indoor Heartland Farm & 

Dairy Insecticide

Pressurized Liquid

(2% oil) 2 - 3 sec 1K cu.ft/L and 1 - 5 sec animal Not specified

Sprayer

Enclosed premise treatment

Animal treatment

Terrestrial, 

Indoor/Outdoor 

Residential and 

Greenhouse

Sunspray 6E Plus

Oil

(98.8% paraffinic oil 

with emulsifier)

7.0148 lb/100 gal - 168.4 Not specified Ground, air-blast and aerial spray

Terrestrial and 

Outdoor 

Residential

Helen Florida-FLO 

90 Oil Emulsion

Emulsifiable concentrate

(90% oil) 6.39 lb/99 gal - 38.34 lb/A Not specified Ground, air-blast and aerial spray

Terrestrial and 

Outdoor 

Residential

Supreme Spray 

Insecticide-Miticide 

Liquid

Emulsifiable concentrate

(98% oil) 10.437 lb/100 gal - 55.664 lb/A Not specified Ground, air-blast and aerial spray

Terrestrial and 

Outdoor 

Residential

Drexel Damoil Emulsifiable concentrate

(98% oil) 1.7395 lb/100 gal - 42.22 lb/A Not specified Ground, air-blast and aerial spray

Terrestrial and 

Outdoor 

Residential

Volck Supreme Spray Oil

(97.95% petroleum oil) 6.925 lb/100 gal - 103.9 lb/A Not specified Ground, air-blast and aerial spray

Mist blower

Terrestrial, 

Outdoor 

Residential and 

Greenhouse

Oil-I-Cide Spray Oil 

Emulsion

Emulsifiable concentrate

(80% oil) 11.92 lb/100 gal Not specified Ground and air-blast spray
-33-

TABLE C-2. Selected Registered Uses of Aliphatic oils 

Use Product Formulation

Description

Application Rate Max #

Appl/Yr Application Methods

Terrestrial, 

Outdoor 

Residential and 

Greenhouse

JMS Stylet-Oil Emulsifiable concentrate

(97.1% oil) 0.1612 lb K sq.ft - 30.67 lb/A Not specified Ground and air-blast spray

Terrestrial Dragon Horticultural 

Spray Oil

Emulsifiable concentrate

(98% oil) 2.4 Tbsp/L -7.5 Tbsp/L Not specified Ground and air-blast spray

Terrestrial and 

Outdoor 

Residential

Lilly/Miller Superior 

Type Spray Oil

Emulsifiable concentrate

(99% oil) 7.029 lb/100 gal - 70.29 lb/A Not specified Ground, air-blast and aerial spray

Terrestrial Sunspray 11C Oil

(100% oil) 21.6 lb/A Not specified Chemigation

Sprinkler irrigation

Terrestrial and 

Outdoor 

Residential

Sunoco Sunspray 11E

Oil

(98.8% refined 

petroleum distillate with 

emulsifier)

14.17 lb/A - 157 lb/A Not specified Ground, air-blast and aerial spray

Terrestrial and 

Outdoor 

Residential

Sunspray 6E

Oil

(98.8% refined 

petroleum distillate with 

emulsifier)

3 gal/L - 155.7 lb/A Not specified Ground, air-blast and aerial spray

Terrestrial Sunspray 6C Oil

(100% oil) 21.3 lb/A Not specified Chemigation

Sprinkler irrigation 

Terrestrial Sunspray 7E Oil

(98.8% oil) 6 gal/L - 82.65 lb/A Not specified Ground, air-blast and aerial spray

Terrestrial and 

Outdoor 

Residential

Sunspray 9E Oil

(98.8% oil) 2 gal/L - 70.54 lb/A Not specified Ground, air-blast and aerial spray

Terrestrial Sunspray 9C Oil

(100% oil) 21.6 lb/A Not specified Chemigation

Sprinkler irrigation
-34-

TABLE C-2. Selected Registered Uses of Aliphatic oils 

Use Product Formulation

Description

Application Rate Max #

Appl/Yr Application Methods

Terrestrial, 

Outdoor 

Residential and 

Greenhouse

Sunspray Ultra-Fine 

Year Round 

Pesticidal Oil

Oil

(98.8% oil) 0.0685 lb/gal - 52.611 lb/gal Not specified Ground and air-blast spray

Terrestrial Sunspray 6E Western

Oil

(98.8% paraffinic 

petroleum oil with 

emulsifier)

7.0148 lb/100 gal - 210.4 lb/A Not specified Ground, air-blast and aerial spray

Terrestrial Leffingwell Supreme 

415 Oil

Emulsifiable concentrate

(96.7% oil) 13.73 - 304.4 lb/A Not specified Ground, air-blast and aerial spray

Terrestrial Par F 70 Soluble Oil Emulsifiable concentrate

(99% oil) 9.951 lb/100 gal - 28.15 lb/A Not specified Sprayer

Terrestrial and 

Outdoor 

Residential 

415 OIL 98 Emulsifiable concentrate

(98% petroleum oil) 6.958 lb/A - 20.874 lb/A Not specified Ground, air-blast and aerial spray

Terrestrial and 

Outdoor 

Residential

415 OIL 98.8 Emulsifiable concentrate

(98.8% oil) 7.0148 lb/A - 105.2 lb/A Not specified Ground, air-blast and aerial spray

Terrestrial 435 OIL 98 Emulsifiable concentrate

(98% oil) 7.056 lb/A - 70.56 lb/A Not specified Ground, air-blast and aerial spray

Terrestrial 435 OIL 98.8 Oil

(98.8% oil) 10.67 lb/A - 106.7 lb/A Not specified Ground, air-blast and aerial spray

Terrestrial and 

Outdoor 

Residential

455 OIL 98 Emulsifiable concentrate

(98% oil) 7.056 lb/A -70.56 lb/A Not specified Ground, air-blast and aerial spray

Terrestrial and 

Outdoor 

Residential

455 OIL 98.8 Oil

(98.8% oil) 10.67 lb/A - 71.136 lb/A Not specified Ground, air-blast and aerial spray
-35-

TABLE C-2. Selected Registered Uses of Aliphatic oils 

Use Product Formulation

Description

Application Rate Max #

Appl/Yr Application Methods

Terrestrial, 

Outdoor 

Residential and 

Greenhouse

Drexel 8020 I Oil

(80% oil) 11.2 lb/A Not specified Ground, air-blast and aerial spray

Terrestrial and 

Outdoor 

Residential

Drexel F0-70 Oil

(98% oil) 1.5 gal/L - 12 gal/L Not specified Ground, air-blast and aerial spray

Mist blower

Terrestrial Dormant Flowable 

Emulsion

Emulsifiable concentrate

(80% oil) 12.224 lb/100 gal - 87.31 lb/A Not specified Ground and air-blast spray

Terrestrial Niagara Dormant 

Quik-Mix Heavy

Emulsifiable concentrate

(98% oil) 14.82 lb/100 gal - 85.49 lb/A Not specified Ground and air-blast spray

Terrestrial and 

Outdoor 

Residential

Niagara Supreme Oil 

Code 30497

Emulsifiable concentrate

(98% oil) 8.8935 lb/98.5 gal - 56.92 lb/A Not specified Ground, air-blast and aerial spray

Terrestrial

Summer Flowable 

Emulsion LightMedium InsecticideMiticide

Oil

(80% oil) 8.76 lb/100 gal - 11.68 lb/100 gal Not specified Sprayer

Terrestrial

Niagara Summer 

Quik Mix; Light 

Medium Code R-292

Oil

(98% oil) 10.731 - 17.885 lb/A Not specified Ground spray

Terrestrial

Niagara Citrus 

Soluble Oil (Heavy 

Medium)

Emulsifiable concentrate

(99.3% oil) 14.14 lb/ 100 gal - 70.7 lb/A Not specified Ground spray

Sprayer

Terrestrial and 

Outdoor 

Residential

Niagara Citrus Sol Oil 

Light Medium Code 

30390

Emulsifiable concentrate

(99.3% oil) 7.2489 lb/100 gal Not specified Ground spray

Dip tank treatment
-36-

TABLE C-2. Selected Registered Uses of Aliphatic oils 

Use Product Formulation

Description

Application Rate Max #

Appl/Yr Application Methods

Terrestrial Super 94 Spray Oil Oil

(98% oil) 9.7412 lb/ 100 gal - 69.58 lb/A Not specified Ground, air-blast and aerial spray

Terrestrial and 

Outdoor 

Residential

415 Spray Oil Oil

(98% oil) 9.931 lb/100 gal - 113.3 lb/A Not specified Sprayer

Terrestrial, 

Greenhouse and 

Outdoor 

Residential

BioCover LS Oil

(98% petroleum oil) 7.154 lb/100 gal - 125 lb/100 gal Not specified Ground spray

Sprayer

Terrestrial, 

Greenhouse, 

Indoor/Outdoor 

Residential

Fasco Fascocol-97 

Prod. No. 908

Emulsifiable concentrate

(99% petroleum oil) 0.137 lb/gal - 141.2 lb/80 gal Not specified Ground, air-blast and aerial spray

Terrestrial and 

Outdoor 

Residential

SK Enspray 99

Oil

(99% petroleum oil with 

surfactant)

6.831 lb/100 gal - 453.3 lb/A Not specified Ground, air-blast and aerial spray

Mist blower

Indoor Residential

Perfumed Up and At 

EM Water Based 

Insecticide

Liquid- Ready To Use

(0.48% oil) 3.131E-04 - 0.0534 lb 1K cu.ft/L When necessary Enclosed premise treatment

Ground spray

Indoor Residential Bear-Cat Concentrate Emulsifiable concentrate

(12% oil) 1 part/L When necessary

Ground spray

Animal treatment/Dip tank

Fogger/Mist blower

Terrestrial and 

Outdoor 

Residential

Rockland “Dormant 

Oil Spray”

Emulsifiable concentrate

(98.8% oil) 2.6 fl.oz/L - 1 gal/L Not specified Hose-end sprayer

Sprayer

Terrestrial and 

Outdoor 

Residential

Parsons Dormant Oil 

Spray Emulsion for 

Fruit Trees

Emulsifiable concentrate

(98.8% oil) 28.652 lb/100 gal Not specified Ground, air-blast and aerial spray
-37-

TABLE C-2. Selected Registered Uses of Aliphatic oils 

Use Product Formulation

Description

Application Rate Max #

Appl/Yr Application Methods

Terrestrial and 

Outdoor 

Residential

Supreme Oil 70 Emulsifiable concentrate

(98% oil) 1 gal/L - 2 gal/L and 1 quart/L Not specified Sprayer

Terrestrial and 

Outdoor 

Residential

Pratt’s 6N Superior 

Oil

Emulsifiable concentrate

(98.75% oil) 2 gal/L - 3 gal/L Not specified Sprayer

Terrestrial and 

Outdoor 

Residential

Agrisect Superior Oil Emulsifiable concentrate

(98% oil) 10.437 - 20.874 lb/ 50 gal Not specified Ground, air-blast and aerial spray

Terrestrial, 

Indoor/Outdoor 

Residential

S A 50 Brand Soluble 

Oil Spray

Emulsifiable concentrate

(98% oil) 0.0551 lb/gal - 0.2205 lb/gal Not specified

Sprayer

Wipe-on treatment (cloth/sponge)

Wiper treatment

Terrestrial and 

Outdoor 

Residential

Green Light Dormant 

Spray also Summer 

Spray

Oil

(97% oil) 0.1353 lb/gal - 0.2705 lb/gal Not specified Sprayer

Terrestrial, 

Outdoor 

Residential and 

Greenhouse

Unico Superior 

Miscible Spray Oil 60 

Seconds Viscosity

Emulsifiable concentrate

(98.8% oil) 14.17 lb/100 gal - 0.0553 lb/gal Not specified Ground and air-blast spray

Terrestrial and 

Outdoor 

Residential

Supreme Oil 

Insecticide

Emulsifiable concentrate

(98.8% oil)

7.0148 lb/99 gal, 21.04 lb/97 gal or 14.03 

lb/98 gal Not specified Ground and air-blast spray

Terrestrial and 

Indoor/ Outdoor 

Residential

Royal 70 Superior

Spray Oil

Emulsifiable concentrate

(97% oil) 2 Tbsp/L - 4 Tbsp/L Not specified Ground and air-blast spray

Terrestrial and 

Outdoor 

Residential

Ferti-Lome Dormant 

Spray and Summer 

Oil Spray

Oil

(99% oil) 0.0824 lb/gal - 0.1647 lb/gal Not specified Sprayer
-38-

TABLE C-2. Selected Registered Uses of Aliphatic oils 

Use Product Formulation

Description

Application Rate Max #

Appl/Yr Application Methods

Terrestrial and 

Outdoor 

Residential

Ferti Lome Scale 

Insect Spray

Oil

(97% oil) 1 quart/L Not specified Sprayer

Terrestrial Hi-Yield Dormant 

Spray

Oil

(97% oil) 0.0807 lb/gal - 0.1614 lb/gal Not specified Ground and air-blast spray

Terrestrial, 

Outdoor 

Residential and 

Greenhouse

Scalecide Emulsifiable concentrate

(98.8% oil) 2.5 fl.oz/L - 3.8 fl.oz/L Not specified Ground and air-blast spray

Terrestrial and 

Outdoor 

Residential

Riverside Dormant 

Oil

Emulsifiable concentrate

(98.8% oil)

14.03 lb/A - 21.04 lb/A 

and 7.0148 lb/4 gal Not specified Ground, air-blast and aerial spray

Terrestrial and 

Outdoor 

Residential

Tropic Supreme Oil Emulsifiable concentrate

(90% oil) 7.228 lb/A - 21.68 lb/A Not specified Ground, air-blast and aerial spray

Terrestrial and 

Outdoor 

Residential

Lesco Horticultural 

Oil Insecticide

Emulsifiable concentrate

(98.8% refined 

petroleum distillate)

44.19 lb/A - 107.92 lb/A Not specified Sprayer

Terrestrial and 

Outdoor 

Residential

Security Ornamental 

and Fruit Spray Oil

Oil

(98% oil) 3 Tbsp/L - 9 Tbsp/L Not specified Sprayer

Terrestrial and 

Outdoor

Acme Dormant Oil 

Spray

Emulsifiable concentrate

(97% oil) 0.5 cup/L to 1 cup/L Not specified Hose-end sprayer / sprayer

Terrestrial and 

Outdoor 

Residential

Superior 70 Oil Oil

(97% oil) 20.66 lb/100 gal - 10.33 lb/A Not specified Sprayer

Mist blower

Terrestrial and 

Outdoor

Amoco Superior 

Dormant Spray Oil

Emulsifiable concentrate

(99% oil)

21.32 lb/97 gal, 14.22 lb/98 gal and 28.43 

lb/96 gal Not specified Mist blower

Ground spray
-39-

TABLE C-2. Selected Registered Uses of Aliphatic oils 

Use Product Formulation

Description

Application Rate Max #

Appl/Yr Application Methods

Terrestrial and 

Outdoor 

Residential

Standard Brand 435 

Soluble Oil

Emulsifiable concentrate

(97% oil) 0.2155 lb/gal to 68.967 lb/A Not specified Sprayer

Indoor and 

Terrestrial

Ford’s Pyre-Dust 

Roach Powder

Dust

(1.9% oil) 1 (L) - 0.57 lb/A and 0.004 lb cwt When necessary Duster/Shovel

Seed treatment

Indoor Ford’s Multipurpose

Aerosol

Pressurized Liquid

(4.3% oil)

1 sec 1K cu.ft/L, 6 sec animal/L, 1 sec 

1K cu.ft/L to 10 sec 1K cu.ft/L Not specified Ground spray

Indoor Universal Quick-Tox 

Fog Spray

Liquid- Ready to Use

(10% oil) 7 fl. oz. 1K cu.ft/L Not specified

Fogger/ Mist blower

Enclosed premise treatment

Surface treatment

Indoor Mercomist Aerosol 

Insect Killer

Pressurized Liquid

(12.5% oil) 2 sec 1K cu.ft/L to 20 sec 100 sq. ft/L Not specified Ground spray

Terrestrial and 

Indoor/ Outdoor 

Residence

Black Leaf Dormant 

Spray

Emulsifiable concentrate

(98.8 oil) 2 Tbsp/L, 0.0829 lb/gal to 0.2763 lb/gal Not specified Ground, air-blast and aerial spray

Greenhouse treatment

Terrestrial Citrus Soluble Oil -

Medium Code 30143

Oil

(99.3% oil) 14.14 lb/100 gal - 70.7 lb/A Not specified Ground spray

Terrestrial Growers 455 Soluble 

Oil

Emulsifiable concentrate

(97% oil) 69.937 - 70.713 lb/A Not specified Sprayer

Terrestrial Tide Citri Oil Emulsifiable concentrate

(99% oil) 24.6 lb/100 gal - 56.232 lb/A Not specified Sprayer

Aquatic and 

Industrial

Bonide Mosquito 

Larvicide

Oil

(98% mineral oil with 

emulsifier)

27.28 (aerial)

34.104 (ground) When necessary Direct to water (ground and aerial 

spray)

Aquatic and 

Terrestrial

Mosquito Larvicide 

GB-1111

Oil

(98.7% oil with 

surfactant)

36.67 lb/A When necessary Direct to water (ground and aerial 

spray)
-40-

TABLE C-2. Selected Registered Uses of Aliphatic oils 

Use Product Formulation

Description

Application Rate Max #

Appl/Yr Application Methods

Aquatic B.A. 2 Larvicide Liquid-ready to use

(97% oil with surfactant) 34.435 lb/A When necessary Direct to water (ground and aerial 

spray)

Aquatic and Indoor 

Residential Kamikaze Insecticide

Emulsifiable concentrate

(94% petroleum 

distillate, 1% pyrethrin, 

2% piper only but oxide 

and 2.94% n-octal 

bicycloheptene 

dicarboximide)

0.3684 lb/A (sprayer), 1.0 part/L 

(ground) and

0.2462 lb 1K cu.ft (ultra low volume)

When necessary

Direct to water (ground and aerial 

spray)

Animal treatment

Fogger

Vaporizer

Enclosed premise treatment

Aquatic/Terrestrial 

and 

Indoor/Outdoor 

Residence

Insectaway MultiPurpose Insecticide II

Emulsifiable concentrate

(5% oil, 12.5% 

Piperonyl but oxide and 

1.25% Pyrethrin)

0.001 lb1K sq ft to 0.0416 lb1K sq.ft, 

0.0017 lb1K cu.ft,

0.4 lb/11.5 gal and 0.0005 lb/animal

When necessary

Direct to water (ground spray)

Fogger

Ground broadcast

Animal treatment

Spot treatment

Surface treatment
-41-

Appendix D. Summary of Ecological Incidence.

To comply with 6(a)2 regulations, Sunoco reported a controversy regarding some deleterious effects of 

SUN SPRAY ULTRA-FINE YEAR ROUND PESTICIDAL OIL. A resident of Idaho Springs, CO, wrote 

a letter to the publication ""Hobby Greenhouse"" alleging that the product killed all the cucmber plants and 

several varieties of tomatoes, and damaged or outright killed several greens. Sunoco responded to the letter 

and, according to a researcher at Cornell U., foliar burn may have occurred but he questioned the fact that 

the product killed the plants.

Homeowner had arborist perform routine maintenance on 2 very large, old ornamental beech trees in fall 

1993. The trees were sprayed with dormant oil product (Scalecide) which allegedly caused tree damage 

and death. According to the report the MI Ag. Dept. stated that dormant oil should not be used on beech 

trees, but registered sites did include ornamental shade and deciduous trees. Analysis of the tree leaves 

and branches revealed no detectable disease.

To comply with 6(a)2 regulations, Sunoco reported a complaint from Venice, FL, that Sunspray 6E Plus 

had ruined 21 rosebushes. It was the first time that the complainant had used this product. Allegedly, the 

temperature and relative humidity appeared OK for spraying.

"The California Dept. of Pesticide Regulations reported an incident in which a total of 380 acres of 

kiwifruits were damaged. One firm owns the kiwifruits but they are located in several areas and were not 

all sprayed at the same time. Dormex was applied during January and February, 2004, as was Valent Volck 

Supreme Oil Spray more than three weeks apart. A burning of buds was observed on the kiwi vines where 

both products were applied. Damage amounted to about a 20% loss of crop. A label for Dormex use on 

kiwifruit in Australia states ""dormant sprays containing oil should not be made closer than 14 days before 

or after Dormex application."" This would suggest that the combination of the two products is potentially 

harmless.","USA","I016036-

To comply with 6(a)2 regulations, Sunoco reported a complaint it received from Dundee, FL alleging that 

there had been burn on leaves and twigs, and fruit drop, on 50-year old early mid-round oranges. This was 

allegedly the result of using Sunspray 9E.

To comply with 6(a)2 regulations, Sunoco reported an incident in California in which an olive grove 

exhibited problems of pitting, slight burn, and leaf drop. The application was made from August 19 to 31, 

1999. The rate used was 1.5 gallons Sunspray 6E/100 gallons water, and 9 1/3 lb. Sevin 80W/acre applied 

dilute.