**UNITED STA TES ENVIRONMENTA**  **L PROTECTION A GENCY**  WA SHINGTON, DC 20460 OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY AND POLLUTION PREVENTION 

### PC Code : 006329 **DP Barcode** : 389520 **Date:** September 7 , 201 1 **MEMORANDUM Subject:**  Acequinocyl : Drinking Water Assessment to Support Proposed New IR - 4 Uses

(Succulent Soy

bean Vegetable, Low Growing Berry , Small Fruit Vine Climbing
- Except Fuzzy

Kiwifruit , Succulent Shelled Beans, Cowpea Forage, Caneberry , Melon, Cucumber, and Cherry) **To :**  Dana Vogel, Branch Chief, RAB1

Health Effects Division (7509P) Barbara Madden , Risk Manager Laura Nollen, Risk Manager Reviewer Insecticide Branch Registration Division (7505P) **From:** Michael B. Lowit, Ph.D. , Ecologist

Nancy Andrews, Ph.D. , Branch Chief Environmental Risk Branch 1 Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P) Office of Pesticide Programs This memorandum summarizes the drinking water assessment for numerous proposed IR - 4 uses of the miticide A c e quinocyl
. This assessment c onsiders use of the product KanemiteTM15SC, alternativel y named ShuttleTM 15SC or ShuttleTM O, on succulent so ybean vegetable, low growing berry , small fruit vine climbing (except fuzzy kiwifruit), succulent shelled beans, cowpea forage, caneberry , melon, cucumber, and cherry
. Foliar applications (ground) are proposed up to 0.3 lb ai/A for a single maximum application with an annual maximum of two applications allowed at a minimum interval of 14 or 21 day s depending on the use . The maximum seasonal rate is 0.6 lb ai/A for all proposed uses
.

### 2

**1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY**  A Tier II screening
- level drinking water assessment was conducted for the proposed IR - 4 uses of the miticide Acequinocyl ( 2
- (acetyl oxy)
- 3
- dodecyl
- 1,4
- naphthalenedione ). Assessed uses were succulent soy

bean vegetable, low growing berry , small fruit vine climbing (except fuzzy kiwifruit), succulent shelled beans, cowpea forage, caneberry , melon, cucumber, and cherry
. The assessment is based on a single maximum application rate of 0.3 lb ai/A , ap plied by ground foliar spray with an annual maximum of two applications allowed at a minimum interval of 14 or 21 day s depending on the use
. The maximum seasonal rate is 0.6 lb ai/A for all proposed uses. Similar to previous drinking water assessments, two app roaches were used in performing the drinking water assessment for the proposed acequinocyl uses. In Approach 1 , acequinocyl was conservativel y assumed to be stable to all routes of degradation because of the uncertainties associated with the environmental fate data, mainly the lack of validation of the anal ytical methods and the lack of storage stability data. In Approach 2 , it was assumed that the half
- lives of acequinocyl and the degradation product R1 were valid and the total toxic residues (acequinocyl + R1) were modeled to address toxicity concerns with R1. According to the HED Metabolism Assessment Review Committee (MARC) the residues of concern in the dietary exposure and risk assessment are acequinocyl and the hydroxylated degra date, that is, R1 (US EPA, 2007 b ). S urface water estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) were generated for acequinocyl using the Pesticide Root Zone Model/Exposure Analysis Modeling System (PRZM/EXAMS) model for all proposed uses except cranberry . Cranberry use is included on the proposed label as part of the low growing berries subgroup , 13
- 07G. C ranberry harvesting may involve field flooding and PRZM/EXAMS are not currentl y parameterized to assess this ty pe of scenari o ; therefore , cranberry

wa s assessed using the provisional cranberry model
. Exposure in ground water due to leaching was assessed with the screening model SCI
- GROW. The recommended EDWCs for th e human health risk assessment are provided in **Table 1**
. The EDWCs derived via Approach 1 represent upper bound values wh ile those derived via Approach 2 represent the lower bound values. Surface water EDWCs from the proposed uses supersede those previously

estimated for acequinocyl (US EPA, 2010). EDWCs for the proposed uses are higher than those previously reported for both Approach 1 and Approach 2
. The acute EDWC for cherry ( 25.89 μg/L

– Approach 1 , 5.5 9 μg/L

– Approach 2 ) is greater than the previousl y reported acute EDWC (12.22 μg/L

– Approach 1 , 5.14 μg/L

– Approach 2 ). The annual mean (chronic) concentration for cherry ( 17.84 μg/L

– Approach 1 ) and cranberry ( 1.36 μg/L

– Approach 2 ) are higher than the previousl y reported EDWC (2.45 μg/L

– Approach 1 , 0.29 μg/L

– Approach 2 ). Since the provisional cranberry model only

uses a one ye ar simulation, the highest 30
- ye ar annual average concentration is not available for the cranberry scenario. The highest 30
- ye ar annual average concentration ( 10.19 μg/L

– Approach 1 , 0. 27 μg/L

– Approach 2 ) was higher than the previously reported ED WC (2.02 μg/L

– Approach 1 , 0.20 μg/L

– Approach 2 ). The upper bound EDWCs ( Approach 1 ) exceed the solubility limit of acequinocyl (6.69 μg/L at 20°C); therefore, the recommended acute, annual mean (chronic), and 30
- ye ar annual average EDWC is 6.69 μg/L for Approach 1.

### 3

The ground water concentration of 3.6 x 10 - 3 

### μg/L for the current asses sment is the same as in previous assessments (US EPA , 2010 ). This concentration can be considered as both the acute and chronic values. **Table 1. Recommended**  **Estimated Drinking Water Concentrations (EDWCs)**  **of Acequinocyl Derived from the Following Proposed**  **New Uses** Drinking water source (model) Proposed Use/

Scenario 3 Estimated Drinking Water Concentrations from Surface Water Sources (μg/L) 1,2 Approach 1 : Total Toxic Residues (no acequinocyl degradation) Approach 2 : Total Toxic Residues (combined acequinocyl and R1) 1
- in
- 10 year acute 1
- in
- 10

year chronic 30
- year

mean 1
- in
- 10

year acute 1
- in
- 10

year chronic 30
- year

mean Surface water (PRZM/EXAMS) Cherry/

MI cherry **6.69**

(25.89) 4 **6.69**

(17.84) 4 **6.69**

(10.19) 4 **5.59** 0.42 0.26 Surface water (PRZM/EXAMS) Small fruit

(vine climbing, except fuzzy kiwifruit, 13
- 07F) 

### / NY grape **6.69**

(23.12) 4 **6.69**

(15.34) 4 **6.69**

(9.57) 4 4.22 0.38 **0.27**

Surface water ( Provisional Cranberry Model ) Cranberry/

Provisional Cranberry Model 4.24 5 3.75 5

-- 3.81 5 **1.36** 5

-- Groundwater (SCIGROW) All proposed

uses 3.6 x 10 - 3 ≤3.6 x 10 - 3 ≤3.6 x 10 - 3 3.6 x 10 - 3 ≤3.6 x 10 - 3 ≤3.6 x 10 - 3 1 **BOLDED** values are recommended EDWCs 2 A default PCA of 0.87 was applied 3 Maximum of 2 applications of 0.3 lb ai/A for all proposed uses 4 EDWC (shown in parentheses) exceeds the solubility limit of acequinocyl (6.69 μg/L at 20°C); therefore, the recommended EDWC is 6.69 μg/L. EDWCs exceeded the solubility limit for multiple proposed uses (see Table 6). 5 Based on a one
- year simulation; 1
- 1 0 year calculation is not applicable 

### Although the fate and transport database is complete, most of the environmental fate studies submitted prior to the initial registration were classified ‘supplemental’ due to numerous deficiencies identified in the fate studies such as poor chromatographic separation of acequinocyl and R1, use of chloroform :methanol solvent system, lack of LOD and LOQ data, un
- eluted radioactive residues in the solid phase extraction process, and lack of storage stability data. These issues need to be addressed b y the registrant to upgrade the fate studies. Submitted studies are presented in **Appendix D**
.

### 4

**2. PROBLEM FORMULATION**  **2.1. Background**  The most recent regulatory actions for acequinocyl include the following:

• Section 3 Reque s t for Uses of Acequinocyl (PC Code: 006329) on Greenhouse, Shade house, Ornamental, Floral, Foliage and Nursery Crop s. August 7, 2003

• Section 3 Reque st for Uses of Acequinocyl (PC Code: 006329) on Pome Fruits, Citrus, Almonds, Pistachios, Strawberries and Outdoor Ornamentals. February 3, 2004

• Tier II Drinking Water Assessment for Acequinocyl. June 27, 2007

• Ecological Risk Assessment for Use of Acequinocyl (PC 006329) on Grapes, Pome Fruits, Citrus, Nuts, and Outdoor Non - Food Uses. August 17, 2007

• Acequinocyl and its Degradate, Acequinocyl
- OH (R1), Drinking Water Assessment in Support of IR - 4 New Uses Registration for Fruiting Vegetables (Crop Group 8), Okra, Edible Podded Beans, and Hops. April 29, 2010

• Ecological Risk Assessment for Use of A cequinocyl on Fruiting Vegetables (Except Cucurbits) to include Eggplant, Groundcherry , Pepino, Peppers (Bell, Chili, Cooking, Pimento, And Sweet) Tomatillo, and Tomato; Okra; Edible Podded Beans; and Hops
. July 29, 2010 The previous ly

recommended PRZM - EXAMS EDWC estimates (US EPA, 2010) were based on the PA apple , PA tomato, and GA pecan crop scenario s . The 1
- in
- 10
- year annual peak (acute) concentration of parent acequinocyl was 12.22 μg/L , the 1
- in
- 10
- ye ar annual daily mean (chronic) concentration was 2 .45 μg/L , and the 30
- ye ar annual mean was 2.02 μg/L based on model Approach 1 . Based on Approach 2 , the acute, chronic , and 30
- ye ar annual mean concentrations were 5.14 μg/L , 0. 29 μg/L , and 0.2 0 μg/L , respectivel y, for acequinocyl and its R1 degradate
. In previous assessments, the ground water EDWC for acequinocyl an d acequinocyl
- OH (R1) in shallow ground water sources was 0.0036 μg/L for acequinocyl applied twice at a concentration of 0.3 lb ai/A regardless of using Approach 1 or 2
. EDWC from shallow ground water sources are expected remain the same for the proposed uses as acequinocyl proposed use rates are the same as the current ly

registered food use rates
. **2.2. Mode of Action**  Acequinocyl is a miticide. Its mode of action is mediated by both the parent chemical and its primary degradate, 2
- dodecyl
- 3
- hydrox y- 1,4
- napthoquinone (also referred to as R1, deacetyl ated acequinocyl, acequinocyl
- OH, OH
- AKD 2023, or AKM
- 05) through the inhibition of electron transfer in mitochondria.

### 5

**2.3. Use Characteristic**  **s** KANEMITE 15 SC is a miticide for the control of Citrus red mite ( Panonychus citri), European red mite ( Panonychus ulmi ) , Pacific spider mite ( Tetranychus pacificus ), Texas citrus mite ( Eu tetranychus banskl) and Spruce spider mite ( Oligonychus ununquis ), Strawberry spider mite ( Tetranychus turkestam ), Willamette spider mite ( Eotetranychus willamettel), Two spotted spider mite ( Tetranychus urticae and Tetranychus cinnabarinus ), and Broad mit e ( Polyphagotarsonamus latus ). According to the registrant, when applied to the foliage , KANEMITE 15 SC provides quick knockdown and long residual control. Due to its unique mode of action, the label states that KANEMITE 15 SC is not expected to have cross - resistance to existing miticides and is reportedl y very effective against various species of resistant and susceptible mites. Acequinocyl initial food use registration was for pome fruits, citrus, almonds, pistachios, strawberries , and outdoor ornamentals (US EPA, 2004). The proposed new uses for acequinocyl are succulent so ybean vegetable, low growing berry, small fruit vine climbing (except fuzzy kiwifruit), succulent shelled beans, cowpea forage, caneberry , melon, cucumber, and cherry . The m aximum application rates for the proposed uses are not to exceed 0.3 lb ai/ A for a single ap plication rate and 0.6 lb ai/A for a seasonal application rate, with a minimum reapplication interval of 14 or 21 day s depending on the use
. The maximum proposed ap plication rates are the same as the application rates for currentl y registered acequinocyl agricultural uses (see previous assessments listed in the Background section above)
. **Table 2** summarizes the application rates and application methods for the propos ed use s . This information is obtained from the label and is used in the exposure assessment
. **Table 2. Proposed Use Rates for**  **Acequinocyl (**  **Kanemite 15 SC) Use**  **Maximum**

**Individual Application**  **Rate (lb ai/A)**  **Annual**

**Maximum Number of**  **Applications Minimum** 

**Application Interval**  **(days) Max** 

**Seasonal Rate**  **(lb ai/A) 1**  

### Application

**Method** Succulent soy

bean vegetable (edamame) 0.3 2 21 0.6 Ground spray Low growing berry (subgroup 13
- 07G) 0.3 2 21 0.6 Ground spray Small fruit (vine climbing, except fuzzy kiwifruit, subgroup 13
- 07F) 0.3 2 21 0.6 Ground spray Bean, succulent shelled 0.3 2 14 0.6 Ground spray Cowpea forage 0.3 2 14 0.6 Ground spray

### 6

**Use Maximum** 

**Individual Application**  **Rate (lb ai/A)**  **Annual**

**Maximum Number of**  **Applications Minimum** 

**Application Interval**  **(days) Max** 

**Seasonal Rate**  **(lb ai/A) 1**  

### Application

**Method** Caneberry (subgroup 13
- 07A) 0.3 2 21 0.6 Ground spray Melon (subgroup 9A) 0.3 2 21 0.6 Ground spray Cucumber 0.3 2 21 0.6 Ground spray Cherry 0.3 2 14 0.6 Ground spray 1 The proposed label states the maximum application rate on a seasonal basis. This rate is inferred to be an annual maximum given the restriction of two applications per year not to exceed 0.3 lb ai/A in a single application. 

### The product label use restrictions specify that the product is not to be applied via irrigation, via aerial application, or within 75 feet of aquatic areas. In addition, it is not intended for indoor residential use. Currently , the label includes the following surface water s tatement :

“ This product may

contaminate water through drift of spray in wind. This product has a potential for runoff for several days after application. Poorly draining soils and soils with shallow water tables are more prone to produce runoff that contains this product. A level, well maintained vegetative buffer strip between areas to which this product is applied and surface water features such as ponds, streams, and springs will reduce the potential for contamination of water from rainfall
- runoff. Runoff of thi s product will be reduced b y avoiding applications when rainfall is forecasted to occur within 48 hours. Sound erosion control practices will reduce this product's contribution to surface water contamination.” **2.4. Monitoring Data**  Acequinocyl and its major degradate, hydrox y- acequinocyl (R1), were not monitored in surface or groundwater under the USGS National Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA) program. **2.5. Conceptual Model**  A. Risk Hy

pothesis For acequinocyl, the following risk hy pothesi s is being employed for this national
- scale drinking water assessment: Acequinocyl, when used in accordance with proposed labels, can result in off
-site movement of the compound product via runoff and spray drift, leading to human exposure to acequinocyl and its degradate acequinocyl
- OH (R1) through consumption of contaminated drinking water.

### 7

B. Conceptual Model Submitted fate and transport data indicate that acequinocyl is highl y reactive, with breakdown potentially occurring quickly via both photol ys is and hydrolysis. Acequinocyl can reach surface water via spray

drift (foliar ground spray) and less likely via runoff

. Once acequinocyl has entered surface water, it is not likely to persist as it will hydrol yz e to form acequinocyl
- OH (also known as R1, OH
- AKD 2 023, AKM
- 05, deacetyl ated acequinocyl, and 2
- dodecyl
- 3
- hydroxy
1,4
- napthoquinone)
. Surface water runoff from the areas of application is assumed to follow topograph y. Spray drift will follow wind direction. Leaching into groundwater is not exp ected to be a major route of transport based on submitted laboratory

studies that indicated a very low mobility potential
. Potential emission of volatile compounds is not considered as a viable release mechanism for acequinocyl because of the low vapor pressure of the compound. **2.6. Analysis Plan**  Similar to previous drinking water assessments, two approaches were used in performing the drinking water assessment for the proposed acequinocyl uses. In Approach 1 , acequinocyl was conservativel y assumed to be stable to all routes of degradation because of the uncertainties associated with the environmental fate data, mainly the lack of validation of the anal ytical methods and the lack of storage stability data. In Approach 2 , it was assumed that the half
- lives of acequinocyl and the degradation product R1 were valid and the total toxic residues (acequinocyl + R1) were modeled to address toxicity concerns with R1. According to the HED Metabolism Assessment Review Committee (MARC) the residues of concern in the dietary exposure and risk assessment are acequinocyl and the hydroxylated degra date, that is, R1 (US EPA, 2007 b ). Acequinocyl ground water EDWCs are the same as assessed in the previous drinking water assessment since the proposed application rates and number of applications are the same as currentl y registered food uses
. **3. ANALYSIS**  **3.1. Fate and Transport Characterization**  Acequinocyl appears to undergo fairl y rapid transformation in most aquatic and terrestrial environments b ased on the environmental fate data of uncertain quality reviewed for the initial registration
. Acequinocyl hydrol yz ed with a half
- life of a few hours to less than 2 day s under neutral and alkaline pH conditions (MRID 45434908). However, it was stable under acidic pH conditions. Photodegradation in water appear ed to be the main route of degradation in aquatic environments, with half

- lives of less than 15 minutes in sterile lab and river water. In soil, the half
- lives for aerobic biotransformation were less than 2 day s under labo ratory conditions (MRID 45434911). Under field conditions, acequinocyl applied to bare plots dissipated with

### 8

half
- lives ranging from 2 hrs in California to 14 hours in New York (MRID 45651601). In contrast, the residue decline data submitted for the Magnitude of Residue studies on apples, pears, oranges, grapefruit, lemon and almonds indicated a mean half
- life of 20 day s (US EPA, 2004)
. Acequinocyl presented very low mobility in soil. The soil adsorption Kd 

### for acequinocyl range d from 678 ml/g in sandy l oam soil to 1,620 ml/g in silty clay loam soil (MRID 45531902) based on a study

with one test concentration instead of four test concentrations as Subdivision N guidelines specify . In the field studies, the parent was not detected below 0
- 15 cm soil depth (MRID 45651601). The major transformation products detected in the field include d R1 (2
- dodecyl
- 3
- hydroxy
- 1, 4
- napthoquinone) and AKM
- 18 ( 2
- (1,2
- dioxotetradecyl) benzoic acid)
. Based on acequinocyl bioconcentration factor in fish (BCF ranged from 307 to 387 (MRID 45434923 ) and its rather high octanol/water partition coefficient (Log Kow ≥ 6.2), acequinocyl can expect to bioconcentrate in fish if found in water
. Since a cequinocyl has low vapor pressure of 1. 69 x 10 - 6 

### PA (at 25 o 

### C ) and very low water solubility o f 0.006 mg/L , any losses due to volatilization are expected to be minimal. Further details on fate studies and other fate properties of acequinocyl can be found in the original risk assessment document (US EPA, 2004 )
. **Tab le 3**  provides summ ary of physical and chemical properties of acequinocyl. **Appendix A**  provides a summary of acequinocyl major degradates and their maximum percent formation observed in the laboratory

and field studies. **Table 3. Physical and Chemical Properties of Acequinocyl**  Common Name: Acequinocyl CAS Chemical Name: 2
- (acetyl oxy)
- 3
- dodecyl
- 1,4
- naphthalenedione CAS Registry

No.: 57960
- 19
- 7 PC Code: 006329 Pesticide Ty

pe: Miticide Chemical Famil y: Quinoline Registrant: Arysta LifeS cience North America , LLC Trade Names: Kanemite  15 SC (EPA Reg. # 66330
- 38) Target Pests: Tetranychus, Panonychus , Eutetranychus, Oligonychus, Eotetranychus, and Polyphagotarsonamus spp of mites Formulation: Kanemite TM 

### 15 SC; 1.25 lb ai/gal ; (15.8% ai) Empirical Formula: C 24 

### H 32 

### O 4 

### Structural Formula of Acequinocyl O

O C H 2 ( C H 2 ) 1 0 C H 3 O C O C H 3

### 9

Common Name: Acequinocyl Structural Formula of Acequinocyl Major Degradate : Acequinocyl
- OH (also known as R1 , OH
AKD 2023, AKM
- 05, deacetyl ated acequinocyl, and 2
- d odecyl
- 3
- hydrox y- 1,4
- naphthoquinone ) PC Code: 606329; CAS # 57960
- 31
- 3 Vapor Pressure: 1.69 x 10 - 6 

### pascals at 25 0 

### C (technical) Water Solubility : 6.69 μg/L at 20 0 

### C (technical) Octanol/W ater Partition Coefficient (Log Kow):  6.2 (technical) Molecular Weight: 384.5 (technical) Melting Point: 59.6  C (technical) **3.2. Drinking Water Exposure Modeling**  Two approaches were used in performing the drinking water assessment for the proposed acequinocyl uses. In Approach 1 , acequinocyl was conservatively assumed to be stable to all routes of degradation because of the uncertainties associated with the environmental fate data, mainly the lack of validation of the anal ytical methods and the lack of storage stability data. In Approach 2 , it was assumed that the half
- lives of acequinocyl and the degradation product R1 were valid and the total toxic residues (acequinocyl + R1) were modeled to address toxicity concerns with R1. According to the HED Metabolism Assessment Review C ommittee (MARC) the residues of concern in the dietary exposure and risk assessment are acequinocyl and the hydrox yl ated degradate, that is, R1 (US EPA, 2007 b ). All half
- lives used were calculated based on the total toxic residues (acequinocyl + R1). Ad ditionally, the a dsorption coefficient (Kd) for R1 was used in the modeling ( Approach 2 ) because R1 is more mobile than acequinocyl. **3.2.1. Surface Water**  **Modeling** All Proposed Uses Except Cranberries T ier II surface water EDWCs were calculated using PRZM ( P esticide Root Z one M odel, v3.12.2; May 12, 2005) and EXAMS ( EXposure Anal ys is M odeling S ys tem, version 2.98.04.06, April 2005) models in the PE5 shell. All Tier II modeling was corrected for percent cropped area (PCA), using the default value of 0.87 (87%). Standard crop scenarios were selected for each proposed use. **Table 4**  lists the input parameters used for the PRZM/EXAMS modeling of acequinocyl and the R1 degradate. A representative PRZM/EXAMS output file is provided in **Appendix B**  . **Table 6**  presents EDWCs of acequinocyl and R1 in surface water sources from the proposed uses
. O

O C H 2 ( C H 2 ) 1 0 C H 3

O H

### 10

**Table 4. PRZM/EXAMS**  **Input Parameter Values.**  **Param eter (Units)**  **Input Value and Unit Source/Comments**  **Approach 1 1**  **Approach 2 2**  Maximum Application Rate 0.3 lb ai/acre (all uses) Proposed label Maximum Number of Applications 2 Proposed label Minimum Reapplications Interval 21 days (succulent soybean vegetable, low growing berry, small fruit, caneberry, melon, cucumber) 14 days (succulent shelled bean, cow pea forage, cherry) Proposed label

Modeling Scenarios Succulent soybean vegetable (edamame): MS soybean Lo w growing berry (13
- 07G) : FL strawberry (not applicable for cranberry) Small fruit (vine climbing, except fuzzy kiwifruit, 13
- 07F): CA grape NY grape Bean, succulent shelled and cow pea forage: MI bean OR snbean Caneberry (13
- 07A): CA grape NY grape Melon (9A) : MI melon MO melon NJ melon Cucumber : FL cucumber Cherry : MI cherry EFED standard PRZM/EXAMS scenarios

In the absence of a standard caneberry scenario, grape scenarios are used as surrogate scenario s

Initial Application Dates (dd
- mm) Succulent soybean vegetable (edamame): MS soybean (12
- 09) Lo w growing berry (13
- 07G) : FL strawberry (24
- 01) Small fruit (vine climbing, except fuzzy kiwifruit, 13
- 07F): CA grape (03
- 08) NY grape (17
- 09) Bean, succulent shelled and cow pea forage: MI bean (14
- 08) OR snbean (12
- 08) Caneberry (13
- 07A): CA grape (09
- 08) NY grape (23
- 09) Melon (9A) : MI melon (24
- 07) MO melon (09
- 07) NJ melon (29
- 06) The date of initial application wa s calculated from the Pre
Harvest Interval (PHI) and application interval as written on the proposed labe ls.

### 11

**Param eter (Units)**  **Input Value and Unit Source/Comments**  Cucumber : FL cucumber (18
- 11) Cherry : MI cherry (30
- 06) Application Method Ground, Foliar (CAM = 2) Acequinocyl is a foliar application Application Efficiency Fraction 0.99 EFED standard default for ground applications Spray Drift Loading Fraction 0.064 EFED standard default for ground applications Incorporation depth (cm) 0 Default for foliar applications Molecular Weight (g/mole) 384.5 Product Chemistry IPSCND Input 1 (succulent soybean vegetable) 3 ( low growing berry, small fruit, succulent shelled bean, cow pea forage, caneberry, melon, cucumber, cherry) 1 = remaining pesticide on foliage is converted to surface application to the top soil layer 2 = remaining pesticide on foliage is completely removed after harvest 3 = remaining pesticide on foliage is retained as surface residue and continues to undergo decay. Water Solubility (mg/L) 0.0067 MRID 4543490 6 Vapor Pressure (torr) 1.268 × 10 - 8 MRID 45434905 Henry’s Law Constant (atm
- m 3 /mol) 9 .5 9 × 10 - 7 Calculated Kd (ml/g) 1027 3 970 4 MRID 45531902; 45434907 Hydroly sis Half

- life (days) stable 9.6 MRID 45434908 Aqueous Photolysis Half
- life (days) stable 0.19 MRID 45434909 Aerobic Soil Metabolism (days) stable 48.5 MRID 45434911 90 th percentile confidence interval on the mean (EFED guidance) 5 Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism (days) stable 97 Twice the aerobic soil metabolism t 1/2 (EFED guidance) 5 Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism (days) stable 649.8 MRID 45434913 Three times the aquatic metabolism t 1/2 (EFED guidance) 5 1 Acequinocyl was assumed to be stable in the environment 2 Com bined half

- life values for acequinocyl and acequinocyl
- OH (R1) degradate 3 Mean Kd of four values was used because the study was conducted on only one test concentration 4 Mean Kd of four values was used because binding was not correlated with organic carbon content. 5 Input Parameter Guidance Manual, Pesticides (Version 2.1; Oct. 22, 2009) 

### Cranberries The Provisional Cranberry Model (v2, December 8, 2010) is a provisional refinement to the Tier I Rice Model (v1.0, May

8, 2007) . Refinements include the addition of simple degradation processes in dry

and flooded conditions and a water depth of twelve inches rather than the water

### 12

depth of four inches used in the rice model. These modification s allow estimation of screening
level peak and annual mean ED WC s of acequinocyl residues of concern that may occur in untreated surface water used as drinking wate r following use on cranberries
. The model assumes that degradation on dry cranberry

bog soil occurs predominantly via aerobic microbial metabolism. Addi tionally, residue degradation in flooded bogs is assumed to occur via aerobic microbial metabolism in the water column and via anaerobic microbial metabolism in the sediment. Acequinocyl use on cranberries is proposed for an annual maximum of two applications of 0.3 lb ai/A each. The minimum interval between applications is 21 day s and the preharvest interval is one day . The proposed applications were first aged on dry soils because cranberry

bogs are not ty picall y flooded until the night before harvesting. The resulting residues (in lb ai/A) were then summed and used as input for the flooded component of the model to estimate peak and annual mean EDWCs in bog tailwater following harvest. **Table 5**  lists that input parameters used for the Provisional Cranberry Model. The equations used in the Provisional Cranberry Model are briefly describe d in **Appendix C** 
. **Table 6**  presents estimated drinking water concentrations ( EDWCs ) of acequinocyl and R1 in surface water sources from use on cranberry
. **Table 5. Provisional Tier 1 Cranberry Model Input Parameters.**  **Input Parameter Value**  **Source/Comments Approach 1**  **1 Approach 2**  **2** Application Rate (lbs ai/A) 0.3 Proposed label Applications per Year 2 Proposed label Kd (ml/g) 1027 970 MRID 45531902; 45434907 Aerobic Soil Metabolism Half
- life (days) stable 3 48.5 MRID 45434911 90 th percentile confidence interval on the mean (EFED guidance) Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism Half
- life (days) stable 3 97 Twice the aerobic soil metabolism t 1/2 (EFED guidance) 1 Acequinocy l was assumed to be stable in the environment 2 Com bined half

- life values for acequinocyl and acequinocyl
- OH (R1) degradate 3 Since Provisional Cranberry model requires a half
- life value, 1000 days was used to represent stable conditions.

### 13

**Table 6. Estimated Drinking Water Concentrations (EDWCs) for Acequinocyl Total Toxic**  **Residues Based on Approachs #1 and #2 Using PRZM/EXAMS and Provisional Cranberry Model**  Proposed Use Scenario Estimated Drinking Water Concentrations from Surface Water Sources (μg/L) 1,2 Approach #1 : Total Toxic Residues (no acequinocyl degradation) Approach #2 : Total Toxic Residues (combined acequinocyl and R1) 1
- in
- 10 year acute 1
- in
- 10

year chronic 30
- year

mean 1
- in
- 10

year acute 1
- in
- 10

year chronic 30
- year

mean Soybean MS soybean 15.99* 8.88* 6.03 2.49 0.23 0.16 Low growing berry (13
- 07G) FL strawberry

(not applicable to cranberry) 16.22* 7.36* 5.02 0.76 0.08 0.06 Provisional Cranberry Model (applicable to cranberry) 4.24 3 3.75 3

-- 3.81 3 **1.36** 3

-- Small fruit (vine climbing, except fuzzy kiwifruit, 13
- 07F) CA grape 4 3.87 2.80 1.60 0.70 0.05 0.04

NY grape 4 23.12* 15.34* 9.57* 4.22 0.38 **0.27**
Succulent shelled bean and cowpea forage MI bean 14.13* 9.62* 5.74 1.22 0.12 0.09

OR bean 14.63* 9.71* 6.71* 1.16 0.21 0.17 Caneberry (13
- 07A) CA grape 4 3.89 2.80 1.61 0.70 0.05 0.04

NY grape 4 23.19* 15.31* 9.57* 4.57 0.38 0.26 Melon (9A) MI melon 5.90 3.77 1.93 0.71 0.05 0.04

MO melon 14.38* 7.74* 5.02 2.46 0.16 0.11 NJ melon 9.16* 5.36 3.46 1.14 0.10 0.07 Cucumber FL cucumber 13.32* 5.85 3.90 0.88 0.08 0.06 Cherry MI cherry **25.89*** **17.84*** **10.19*** **5.59** 0.42 0.26 1 A default PCA of 0.87 was applied 2 **BOLD** indicates highest EDWC for the proposed uses 3 Based on a one
- year simulation; 1
- 10 year calculation is not applicable 4 Grape scenarios were used to represent the proposed small fruit and caneberry uses; different initial application dates were used that reflect labeled treatment and preharvest intervals specific to each crop * Value exceeds solubility limit of acequinocyl (6.69 μg/L at 20°C) 

### 3.2.2. **Ground Water Modeling**  Estimated concentrations of acequinocyl total toxic residues in drinking water from shallow ground water sources are the same as for currentl y registered uses because the application rates

### 14

and number of applications are the same (0.3 lb ai/A, 2 applications). Therefore, the estimated environmental concentrations are not expected to exceed 3.6 x 10 - 3 

### μg/Lfor the proposed uses. Thi s concentration can be considered as both the acute and chronic value. Details regarding SCI
GROW modeling at this application rate can be found in US EPA, 2007 a . **3.2.3. Assumptions and Uncertainties** The following uncertainties have been identified in the environmental fate properties and drinking water assessment for acequinocyl :

• Most of the environmental fate studies submitted prior to the initial registration were classified ‘supplemental’ due to deficiencies identified in the fate studies such as poor chromatographic separation of acequinocyl and R1, use of chloroform : methanol solvent sy stem, lack of LOD and L OQ data, un
- eluted radioactive residues in the solid phase extraction process, and lack of storage stability data.

• In PRZM/EXAMS mo deling , Approach 1 , acequinocyl was conservativel y assumed stable to all routes of degradation to account for the uncertainties associated with the environmental fate data . This approach generated conservative, upper bound, EDWCs for acequinocyl. The refo re, exposure to acequinocyl may be overestimated by Approach 1
.

• The impact of spray drift buffers was not considered in this drinking water assessment
. With a 75 ft. spray

drift buffer (spray

drift fraction = 0 .006) , the effective drift to a water body from a ground application would be smaller than without the buffer (0.06 4 ). However, based on comparison of EDWCs (not corrected for PCA) derived for the MI cherry scenario (

Approach 1 ) the impact of spray drift on the E DWCs is minimal with and without the 75 ft spray drift buffer. Buffer Spray

Drift Fraction 1
- in
- 10 year acute ( μg/L) 1
- in
- 10 year

chronic ( μg/L) 30
- year mean ( μg/L) 

### None 0.06 4 29.75 20.50 11.71 75 feet 0.006 28.74 19.67 11.17

• SCI
- GROW estimated a concentration of < 0.0036 μg/Lfor acequinocyl ( Approach 1 ) and total residue ( acequinocyl+R1 ; Approach 2 ) in shallow ground water sources. The ground water EDWC s were obtained using the median Koc value of 37,550 ml/g for acequinocyl, and the median Koc value of 36,000 ml/g for the total (acequinocyl+R1) residues . Estimated concentrations of chemicals with Koc values greater than 9,995 ml/g are beyond the scope of the regression data used in SCIGROW development. If there are concerns for such chemicals, a higher tier groundwater exposure assessment should be considered, regardless of the concentration returned b y SCI
- GROW.

• Two method validation studies (MRID 46182601 and 46182602) submitted by the registrant to determine the concentrations o f acequinocyl and its metabolite(s) in soil and water extracts were reviewed b y the EPA’s Environmental Chemistry Laboratory. The

### 15

registrant was informed of the suggested amendments and request for new calibration data in a memo dated 27 June, 2007. Recently , the registrant submitted the amended anal ytical method for determination of residues of acequinocyl and its major metabolite R1 (hydrox y- acequinocyl) in drinking water, ground water and surface water (MRID 48016602), and the amended anal ytical method for the determination of acequinocyl, hydrox y- acequinocyl, and AKM
- 18 in soil (MRID 48016601). The Agency is in the process of reviewing thes e submitted studies. **3.3. Drinking Water Treatment**  No specific information was available for the behavi or of acequinocyl during drinking water treatment. **4. DATA REQUIREMENTS**  Most of the environmental fate studies submitted prior to the initial registration were classified ‘supplemental’ due to deficiencies such as poor chromatographic separation of acequinocyl and R1, use of chloroform: methanol solvent sy stem, lack of LOD and LOQ data, un
- eluted radioactive residues in the solid phase extraction process, and lack of storage stability data. These issues need to be addressed b y the registrant to upgrade th e fate studies. **REFERENCES** Orr, Gary R. 2009. Determination of Acequinocyl, Acequinocyl
- OH, and AKM
- 18 in Soil Minor Analy

tical Revision of Method
- 136, Revision #2. Performing Laboratory : Ary sta LifeScience North America, LLC. Laboratory Project ID: ARY
- 0413
- 2455153. Completion Date : November 18, 2009
. (MRID 48016601) Orr, Gary R. 2009. Determination of Residues of AKD 2023 and Its Major Metabolite R1 (H ydrox y AKD'2023) in Drinking Water, Ground Water and Surface Water. Minor Analy tical Revision of Method
- AGK/076. Arysta LifeScience North America, LLC. L aboratory Project ID: ARY
- 0413
- 2455183. Completion Date: December 18, 2009
. (MRID 48016602) US EPA . 2004. Section 3 Request for Uses of Acequinocyl (P.C. Code: 00632 9) on Pome Fruits, Citrus, Almonds, Pistachios, Strawberries and Outdoor Ornamentals submitted under DP Barcodes: D285811, D286428, D289153, D290010, D287269, D290009, D291174
. February 3, 2004
. US EPA . 2007 a . Tier II Drinking Water Assessment for Aceq uinocyl. June 27, 2007 US EPA. 2007 b . PP#s 6F7040 and #7F7176. Human
- Health Risk Assessment for the Proposed Uses of Acequinocyl on Grapes, the Tree Nut Crop Group, and Residential Sites (Ornamentals). September 6, 2007

### 16

US EPA. 2010. Acequinocyl and its Degradate, Acequinocyl
- OH (R1), Drinking Water Assessment in Support of IR - 4 New Uses Registration for Fruiting Vegetables (Crop Group 8), Okra, Edible Podded Beans, and Hops. April 29, 2010

### 17 **APP ENDIX**  **A Table**  **A .1. Summary of Acequinocyl Major Degradates and Maximum Percent Formation Observed**  **in the Laboratory and Field Studies Degradate**  **Max im**  **um Degradate Concentration (% of applied) and Time to**  **Max Concentration Hydrolysis**  **Aqueous**

**Photolysis Soil** 

**Photolysis Aerobic Soil** 

**Metabolism Anaerobic** 

**Aquatic A**  **erobic**

**Aquatic TFD** 
R1 (2
- dodec yl
- 3
- hydroxy
1,4
- naphthaledione ) pH 7: 54.7% (96 hr) River water:

11.6% ( 30 min )

-- 33.8% (2 days) Water: 18% (0 days ) Sediment: 41.5% (3 days ) 12.2% (0 days) NY: 37.8% (3 hr) GA: 37.8% **1** CA: 26.4% **1**
AKM 18 [ 2
- (1,2
- dioxotetradecyl)benzoic acid ] pH 7: 7.1% (48 hr)

-- 23.7% (6 days) 9.2% (2 days) Water: 2.7 % ( 7 days ) Sediment: 34.3 % ( 269 days ) 19.5% (1 day) NY: 16.5% ( 3 hr)

AKM
- 08 [ 2
- (2
- oxo dodecyl)
- 3
- hydroxy
- 1,4
- naphthoquinone ] -- Buffer solution: 12.9% (2 hr)
-- -- -- -- --
O
- Phthalic acid
-- Buffer solution: 12.7% (24 hr) River water: 11.9% (24 hr) -- -- -- -- --
Phenol
-- River water: 10% (24 hr) -- -- -- -- -- CBAA ( 2
- carboxy
- α - oxo benzene acetic acid) -- -- -- -- -- 11.3% (2 days)

-- **1** Formed immediately after application.

### 18 **APPENDIX B**  **PRZM/EXAMS Modeling Output Approach 1**  stored as MIcherry ap1.out Chemical: acequinocyl PRZM environment: MICherriesSTD.txt modified Tueday, 26 August 2008 at 06:16:40 EXAMS environment: ir298.exv modified Tueday, 26 August 2008 at 06:14:08 Metfile: w14850.dvf modified Tueday, 26 August 2008 at 06:15:10 Water segment concentrations (ppb) Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

1961 11.12 8.134 3.336 1.948 1.691 0.5269 1962 2.28 1.943 1.554 1.468 1.442 1.3 1963 5.479 4.05 2.407 2.016 1.975 1.725 1964 7.691 6.081 3.522 2.938 2.848 2.316 1965 11.25 8.519 5.948 4.832 4.627 3.443 1966 9.729 7.799 5.573 5.124 5.083 4.521 1967 7.432 6.674 5.9 5.691 5.626 5.313 1968 8.277 7.357 6.302 6.005 5.946 5.643 1969 13.14 10.94 8.779 8.16 8.012 7.025 1970 16.32 13.51 10.26 9.802 9.507 8.295 1971 17.03 14.13 10.79 9.889 9.711 9.2 1972 19.27 15.77 12.06 11.15 11.02 10.15 1973 13.45 12.39 11.19 10.92 10.85 10.69 1974 13.69 12.62 11.53 11.33 11.33 11 1975 26.81 21.25 17.16 14.41 13.89 12.03 1976 16.23 14.94 13.44 13.02 12.92 12.79 1977 18.41 16.52 14.33 13.9 13.77 13.21 1978 24.58 20.75 16.93 15.42 15.11 14.01 1979 24.52 20.97 16.88 15.75 15.55 14.96 1980 16.88 16.2 15.43 15.11 15.1 15.02 1981 23.46 20.67 17.26 16.25 16.26 15.5 1982 29.9 25.24 19.27 17.64 17.33 16.47 1983 22.55 20.63 19.18 18.33 18.14 17.27 1984 28.65 24.63 20.01 18.82 18.65 17.88 1985 28.54 24.77 21.1 20.22 19.93 18.81 1986 30.96 26.88 22.52 21.1 20.79 19.78 1987 29.88 26.72 23.55 21.99 21.63 20.51 1988 22.47 22.07 21.16 20.87 20.84 20.61 1989 24.16 22.79 21.37 21 20.84 20.49 1990 26.6 24.48 22.24 21.82 21.6 20.94

### 19

Sorted results Prob. Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

0.032258 30.96 26.88 23.55 21.99 21.63 20.94 0.064516 29.9 26.72 22.52 21.82 21.6 20.61 0.096774 29.88 25.24 22.24 21.1 20.84 20.51 0.129032 28.65 24.77 21.37 21 20.84 20.49 0.16129 28.54 24.63 21.16 20.87 20.79 19.78 0.193548 26.81 24.48 21.1 20.22 19.93 18.81 0.225806 26.6 22.79 20.01 18.82 18.65 17.88 0.258065 24.58 22.07 19.27 18.33 18.14 17.27 0.290323 24.52 21.25 19.18 17.64 17.33 16.47 0.322581 24.16 20.97 17.26 16.25 16.26 15.5 0.354839 23.46 20.75 17.16 15.75 15.55 15.02 0.387097 22.55 20.67 16.93 15.42 15.11 14.96 0.419355 22.47 20.63 16.88 15.11 15.1 14.01 0.451613 19.27 16.52 15.43 14.41 13.89 13.21 0.483871 18.41 16.2 14.33 13.9 13.77 12.79 0.516129 17.03 15.77 13.44 13.02 12.92 12.03 0.548387 16.88 14.94 12.06 11.33 11.33 11 0.580645 16.32 14.13 11.53 11.15 11.02 10.69 0.612903 16.23 13.51 11.19 10.92 10.85 10.15 0.645161 13.69 12.62 10.79 9.889 9.711 9.2 0.677419 13.45 12.39 10.26 9.802 9.507 8.295 0.709677 13.14 10.94 8.779 8.16 8.012 7.025 0.741935 11.25 8.519 6.302 6.005 5.946 5.643 0.774194 11.12 8.134 5.948 5.691 5.626 5.313 0.806452 9.729 7.799 5.9 5.124 5.083 4.521 0.83871 8.277 7.357 5.573 4.832 4.627 3.443 0.870968 7.691 6.674 3.522 2.938 2.848 2.316 0.903226 7.432 6.081 3.336 2.016 1.975 1.725 0.935484 5.479 4.05 2.407 1.948 1.691 1.3 0.967742 2.28 1.943 1.554 1.468 1.442 0.5269 0.1 29.757 25.193 22.153 21.09 20.84 20.508 Average of yearly averages: 11.71426

### 20

Inputs generated by pe5.pl
- Novemeber 2006 Data used for this run: Output File: MIcherry ap1 Metfile: w14850.dvf PRZM scenario: MICherriesSTD.txt EXAMS environment file: ir298.exv Chemical Name: acequinocyl Description Variable Name Value Units Comments Molecular weight mwt 384.5 g/mol Henry's Law Const. henry 9.59E - 07 atm - m^3/mol Vapor Pressure vapr 1.27E - 08 torr Solubility sol 0.0067 mg/L Kd Kd 1027 mg/L Koc Koc 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 0 days Halfife Hydrolysis: pH 7 0 days Half
- life Method: CAM 2 integer See PRZM manual Incorporation Depth: DEPI 0 cm Application Rate: TAPP 0.336 kg/ha Application Efficiency: APPEFF 0.99 fraction Spray Drift DRFT 0.064 fraction of application rate applied to pond Application Date Date 30 - 06 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. app. rate 1 apprate 0.336 kg/ha Record 17: FILTRA IPSCND 3 UPTKF Record 18: PLVKRT PLDKRT FEXTRC 0.5 Flag for Index Res. Run IR Reservoir Flag for runoff calc. RUNOFF total none, monthly or total(average of entire run)

### 21

**Approach 2** stored as MIcherry ap2.out Chemical: acequinocyl PRZM environment: MICherriesSTD.txt modified Tueday, 26 August 2008 at 06:16:40 EXAMS environment: ir298.exv modified Tueday, 26 August 2008 at 06:14:08 Metfile: w14850.dvf modified Tueday, 26 August 2008 at 06:15:10 Water segment concentrations (ppb) Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

1961 4.525 3.122 1.118 0.6104 0.5081 0.1698 1962 0.9362 0.5987 0.3765 0.2836 0.2663 0.2179 1963 0.8695 0.5407 0.3134 0.1934 0.1638 0.124 1964 2.106 1.443 0.5232 0.3249 0.2743 0.138 1965 2.076 1.294 0.6581 0.4552 0.4006 0.2146 1966 1.923 1.183 0.4934 0.347 0.3203 0.244 1967 0.9068 0.5694 0.3468 0.244 0.2257 0.1909 1968 1.347 0.8181 0.4031 0.2632 0.23 0.1582 1969 4.117 2.439 0.8879 0.5837 0.5271 0.2808 1970 3.162 1.911 0.8676 0.6661 0.5737 0.3425 1971 3.605 2.164 0.8351 0.5167 0.4487 0.3294 1972 6.552 3.843 1.492 0.8882 0.7888 0.4248 1973 1.085 0.7146 0.4704 0.3945 0.3752 0.3015 1974 1.029 0.6892 0.4763 0.3206 0.2855 0.1961 1975 5.285 3.092 1.596 0.8703 0.7234 0.3104 1976 2.218 1.365 0.5759 0.416 0.3731 0.3008 1977 1.911 1.197 0.6012 0.446 0.3925 0.2477 1978 2.789 1.711 0.8798 0.5348 0.4605 0.2715 1979 5.342 3.161 1.138 0.6576 0.5629 0.3363 1980 0.9552 0.6175 0.3961 0.2926 0.2816 0.2327 1981 4.627 2.794 1.012 0.5691 0.5084 0.2594 1982 8.311 5.03 1.744 0.9656 0.8083 0.4162 1983 2.827 1.772 0.8035 0.661 0.6482 0.4256 1984 4.188 2.516 0.968 0.6017 0.5282 0.3718 1985 6.704 3.944 1.4 1.061 0.915 0.4855 1986 4.627 2.785 1.225 0.9365 0.8414 0.539 1987 5.076 3.416 2.083 1.264 1.079 0.6063 1988 1.348 0.9113 0.5907 0.5491 0.5286 0.3978 1989 0.924 0.5857 0.3641 0.2347 0.227 0.1845 1990 2.58 1.543 0.6426 0.464 0.3995 0.2164

### 22

Sorted results Prob. Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

0.032258 8.311 5.03 2.083 1.264 1.079 0.6063 0.064516 6.704 3.944 1.744 1.061 0.915 0.539 0.096774 6.552 3.843 1.596 0.9656 0.8414 0.4855 0.129032 5.342 3.416 1.492 0.9365 0.8083 0.4256 0.16129 5.285 3.161 1.4 0.8882 0.7888 0.4248 0.193548 5.076 3.122 1.225 0.8703 0.7234 0.4162 0.225806 4.627 3.092 1.138 0.6661 0.6482 0.3978 0.258065 4.627 2.794 1.118 0.661 0.5737 0.3718 0.290323 4.525 2.785 1.012 0.6576 0.5629 0.3425 0.322581 4.188 2.516 0.968 0.6104 0.5286 0.3363 0.354839 4.117 2.439 0.8879 0.6017 0.5282 0.3294 0.387097 3.605 2.164 0.8798 0.5837 0.5271 0.3104 0.419355 3.162 1.911 0.8676 0.5691 0.5084 0.3015 0.451613 2.827 1.772 0.8351 0.5491 0.5081 0.3008 0.483871 2.789 1.711 0.8035 0.5348 0.4605 0.2808 0.516129 2.58 1.543 0.6581 0.5167 0.4487 0.2715 0.548387 2.218 1.443 0.6426 0.464 0.4006 0.2594 0.580645 2.106 1.365 0.6012 0.4552 0.3995 0.2477 0.612903 2.076 1.294 0.5907 0.446 0.3925 0.244 0.645161 1.923 1.197 0.5759 0.416 0.3752 0.2327 0.677419 1.911 1.183 0.5232 0.3945 0.3731 0.2179 0.709677 1.348 0.9113 0.4934 0.347 0.3203 0.2164 0.741935 1.347 0.8181 0.4763 0.3249 0.2855 0.2146 0.774194 1.085 0.7146 0.4704 0.3206 0.2816 0.1961 0.806452 1.029 0.6892 0.4031 0.2926 0.2743 0.1909 0.83871 0.9552 0.6175 0.3961 0.2836 0.2663 0.1845 0.870968 0.9362 0.5987 0.3765 0.2632 0.23 0.1698 0.903226 0.924 0.5857 0.3641 0.244 0.227 0.1582 0.935484 0.9068 0.5694 0.3468 0.2347 0.2257 0.138 0.967742 0.8695 0.5407 0.3134 0.1934 0.1638 0.124 0.1 6.431 3.8003 1.5856 0.96269 0.83809 0.47951 Average of yearly averages: 0.297813

### 23

Inputs generated by pe5.pl
- Novemeber 2006 Data used for this run: Output File: MIcherry ap2 Metfile: w14850.dvf PRZM scenario: MICherriesSTD.txt EXAMS environment file: ir298.exv Chemical Name: acequinocyl Description Variable Name Value Units Comments Molecular weight mwt 384.5 g/mol Henry's Law Const. henry 9.59E - 07 atm - m^3/mol Vapor Pressure vapr 1.27E - 08 torr Solubility sol 0.0067 mg/L Kd Kd 970 mg/L Koc Koc mg/L Photolysis half
- life kdp 0.19 days Half
- life Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacw 97 days Halfife Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacs 649.8 days Halfife Aerobic Soil Metabolism asm 48.5 days Halfife Hydrolysis: pH 7 9.6 days Half
- life Method: CAM 2 integer See PRZM manual Incorporation Depth: DEPI 0 cm Application Rate: TAPP 0.336 kg/ha Application Efficiency: APPEFF 0.99 fraction Spray Drift DRFT 0.064 fraction of application rate applied to pond Application Date Date 30 - 06 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. app. rate 1 apprate 0.336 kg/ha Record 17: FILTRA IPSCND 3 UPTKF Record 18: PLVKRT PLDKRT FEXTRC 0.5 Flag for Index Res. Run IR Reservoir Flag for runoff calc. RUNOFF total none, monthly or total(average of entire run)

### 24 **Appendix C**  **I .**  **Provisional Cranberry Model Equations**  The Provisional Cranberry Model is a refinement of the Tier I Rice Model v1.0 (Equations 1 and 2), which is a simple equilibrium partitioning equation that calculates a single, screening
- level concentration in rice paddy water and released tailwater based on a compound’s application rate and soil mobility
. **Equations 1 -** **2: Tier I Rice Model v1.0 (USEPA, 2007b).** 

#   d b sed sed w ai w 

### K d d m C 

 3 2 0 

### 10

' 10

 

###    (1) and, if appropriate:

OC d 

### K K 01
. 0  (2) where, C w0 

### = initial water concentration [μg/L ] m ai 

### ' = mass applied per unit area [kg/ha] Kd 

### = water - sediment partitioning coefficient [L/kg] KOC 

### = organic carbon partitioning coefficient [L/kg] dw 

### = water column depth = 0.10 m d sed 

### = sediment depth = 0.01 m θ sed 

### = porosity

of sediment = 0.509 ρ b 

### = bulk density

of sediment = 1300 kg/m 3 

### First, the Tier I Rice Model was provisionally modified (Equation 3) to include as inputs degradation rate constants in order to estimate single, screening
- level concentrations in paddy water or tailwater at a giv en time after application. **Equation 3: Provisional Modified Rice Model (Jones, 2006).**     

##     t K d d k

K d k d k d
w w d b sed sed w d b sed sed sed w 

### e C C         

  



  

###   3 3 3 2 1 10 10 0     

### (3) where, C w 

### = water concentration [μg/L ] t = interval since last application [d] k 1 

### = upper 90 th 

### percentile rate constant in water column [1 /d] k2 

### = upper 90 th 

### percentile rate constant in pore water [1/d] k 3 

### = upper 90 th 

### percentile rate constant for adsorbed residues [1/d] Then, the Provisional Modified Rice Model water column depth was lengthened to a depth that is used to flood cranberry bogs ( i.e. , 12 inches; Cape Cod Cranberry Growers Association, 2001 ). i.e. , dw 

### = water column depth = 0.305 m

### 25

In order to model degradation prior to the flood at harvest, the application rates for n number of pre
- harvest applications were independently degraded over the interim until flooding and then summed (Equation 4). **Equation 4: Degradation in a Dry Bog.** 

# 

 

###   n t

k n ai ai n



### e m m 1 4



### ' ' (4) where, m ai 

### ' = mass per unit area at flood [kg/ha] m ai 

### ' n 

### = mass applied per unit area on the nth 

### application [kg/ha] k4 

### = upper 90 th 

### percentile rate constant on dry bog [1/d] tn 

### = interval from the nth 

### application to harvest [d] n = number of pre
- harvest applications The following four equations and parameter sets constitute the Provisional Cranberry Model (Equations 1
- 4). **Equations 1 -** **4: Provisional Cranberry Model.** 

#   d b sed sed w ai w 

### K d d m C 

 3 2 0 

### 10

' 10

 

###    (1) and, if appropriate:

OC d 

### K K 01
. 0  (2) where, C w0 

### = initial water concentration [μg/L ] Kd 

### = water - sediment partitioning coefficient [L/kg] KOC 

### = organic carbon partitioning coefficient [L/kg] dw 

### = water column depth = 0.305 m d sed 

### = sediment depth = 0.01 m θ sed 

### = porosity

of sediment = 0.509 ρ b 

### = bulk density

of sediment = 1300 kg/m 3 

### and, lastly :     

##     t K d d k

K d k d k d
w w d b sed sed w d b sed sed sed w 

### e C C         

  



  

###   3 3 3 2 1 10 10 0     

### (3) where, C w 

### = water concentration [μg/L ] t = interval since flood [d] k 1 

### = upper 90 th 

### percentile rate constant in water column [1/d] k2 

### = upper 90 th 

### percentile rate constant in pore water [1/d] k 3 

### = upper 90 th 

### percentile rate constant for adsorbed residues [1/d]

### 26

**II .**  **Output of Provisional Cranberry Model**  **Pr ovi**  **si onal** **C ran**  **berry Mo**  **del v**  **2. 0** 

Equ ati on : EEC= (App rat e * 100 /( dw + ( ds ed * (θ+ ( ρ* Kd / 1 000))))) * ex p (-day * k AAM )

*W at er co lu mn d ept h is 1 2 inc hes ( 0. 305 m) to1 8 inches ( 0. 457 m)
. **Ap pl**  **ic at**  **io n**  **In puts**  **Ap p. ra**  **te (**  **lbs**

**/A )**  **Da ys** 

**p re**  **-fl ood**  **Ap p. rat** **e at**  **f lood (**  **lbs**

**/A )**  **0. 3**  **22** 0. 30 **0. 3**  **1** 0. 30 0. 00 **Tota l r** **es id**  **ue s**  **pe r a**  **re a**  **at f** **lood (lbs**

**/A ):**  **0. 60**  Approac h 1 **In put** **s Pa**  **ra met** **er Valu**  **e** Koc ( L/ kg ) If no Ko c, e nt er Kd ( L/ kg ) **1027** AAM t1 /2 ( d) **1000** ASM t1 /2 ( d) **1000 Mo**  **del P**  **arameters Pa**  **ra met** **er Valu**  **e** Wa te r co lumn dept h (m ) 0. 305 Sediment dept h (m ) 0. 01 Organi c f

rac tio n of

se diment 0. 01 Sediment bul k d ens it y ( kg /m3 ) 1300 Sediment poros it y 0. 509 **Ca lcu**  **la te**  **d Pa**  **rameters Pa**  **ra met** **er Valu**  **e** Kd input( L/ kg ) 1027 AAM r at e co ns ta nt 0. 000693147 ASM r at e co ns ta nt 0. 00069 App. rat e (k g/ ha) 0. 66727756 **DW E**  **ECs 100%**  **PC A**  **Ho lding Time**  **Pe ak**  **An nua**  **l Me an**  **Pe ak**  **Annua l Me**  **an** 3-d Ta il 4. 87 4. 31 4. 24 3. 75 **21-d Ta**  **il 4.**  **81 4.**  **25 4.**  **19 3.**  **70** Approac h 2 **In put** **s Pa**  **ra met** **er Valu**  **e** Koc ( L/ kg ) If no Ko c, e nt er Kd ( L/ kg ) **970** AAM t1 /2 ( d) **97** ASM t1 /2 ( d) **49 Mo**  **del P**  **arameters Pa**  **ra met** **er Valu**  **e** Wa te r co lumn dept h (m ) 0. 305 Sediment dept h (m ) 0. 01 Organi c f

rac tio n of

se diment 0. 01 Sediment bul k d ens it y ( kg /m3 ) 1300 Sediment poros it y 0. 509 **Ca lcu**  **la te**  **d Pa**  **rameters Pa**  **ra met** **er Valu**  **e** Kd input( L/ kg ) 970 AAM r at e co ns ta nt 0. 007145847 ASM r at e co ns ta nt 0. 01415 App. rat e (k g/ ha) 0. 577936434 **DW E**  **ECs 100%**  **PC A**  **Ho lding Time**  **Pe ak**  **An nua**  **l Me an**  **Pe ak**  **An nua**  **l Mean** 3-d Ta il 4. 38 1. 56 3. 81 1. 36 **21-d Ta**  **il 3.**  **85 1.**  **37 3.**  **35 1.**  **19 87%**  **PC A** 

**87% PC** **A**

### 27 **APPENDIX D**  **Table D.1. Environmental Fate and Transport Data Submitted for Acequinocyl** Guideline Laboratory and Field Studies MRID Study Classification 161
- 1 Hydrolysis (dark; pH 5, 7, and 9) 45434908 Supplemental 161
- 2 Photodegradation in Water (pH 7) 45434909 Supplemental 161
- 3 Photodegradation on Soil 45434910 Supplemental 162
- 1 Aerobic Soil Metabolism Aerobic Soil Metabolism 45434911 45434912 Supplemental

Unacceptable 162
- 3 Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism 45434913 Supplemental 162
- 4 Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism 45434914 Supplemental 163
- 1 Adsorption/Desorption (Technical) Adsorption/Desorption (Metabolite, R1) Leaching in Unaged and Aged Soil Columns 45531902 45434907 45531903 Supplemental

Supplemental Supplemental 164
- 1 Terrestrial Field Dissipation 45651601 Acceptable 165
- 4 Accumulation in Fish 45434923 Supplemental