2

Table of Contents

1. Executive Summary.............................................................................................................. 3

2. Introduction........................................................................................................................... 8

3. Use Characterization ............................................................................................................ 8

3.1 Labelled Use ........................................................................................................................ 8

3.2 Usage.................................................................................................................................. 12

4. Conclusions from Previous Risk Assessments.................................................................. 12

4.1 Ecological Risk Assessment .............................................................................................. 13

4.1 Drinking Water Exposure Assessments.............................................................................. 13

4.2 Clean Water Act Programs................................................................................................ 14

5. Environmental Fate and Transport.................................................................................. 15

5.1 Mancozeb........................................................................................................................... 15

5.2 The Major Mancozeb Degradate: Ethylenethiourea (ETU)............................................... 26

5.3 Determination of the Stressor of Concern for Ecological Risk Assessment ..................... 31

6. Receptors ............................................................................................................................. 35

6.1 Effects to Aquatic Organisms............................................................................................ 35

6.2 Effects to Terrestrial Organisms........................................................................................ 39

6.3 Ecological Incidents........................................................................................................... 42

7. Exposure Pathways of Concern......................................................................................... 44

8. Analysis Plan ....................................................................................................................... 46

8.1 Stressors of Concern .......................................................................................................... 46

8.2 Measures of Exposure........................................................................................................ 46

8.3 Measures of Effect ............................................................................................................. 46

9. Endangered Species Assessments...................................................................................... 47

10. Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program......................................................................... 48

11. Preliminary Identification of Data Gaps.......................................................................... 48

11.1 Environmental Fate..................................................................................................... 48

11.2 Effects......................................................................................................................... 49

12. References............................................................................................................................ 61
3

1. Executive Summary

The Environmental Fate and Effects Division (EFED) has completed the problem formulation for 

the ecological risk, environmental fate, endangered species, and drinking water assessments to be 

conducted as part of the registration review of mancozeb. The problem formulation describes the 

methods planned to be used during the completion of drinking water and ecological risk 

assessments in support of registration review and provides an overview of the environmental fate, 

ecological effects, and potential risks associated with the use of mancozeb as well as uncertainties

unique to risk assessment of mancozeb. This document also identifies additional studies that 

would be beneficial to the conduct of an ecological risk assessment to parent mancozeb and the

primary degradation product, ethylenethiourea (hereafter referred to as ETU). Major 

environmental fate and ecological effects uncertainties and the associated data needs related to the 

assessment are stated hereunder:

Uncertainties and Data Gaps

Environmental Fate

In the current data base for mancozeb, a major uncertainty exists on the identification of the unextracted residues (UER). These residues appear to form at high levels with very limited 

degradation. Additionally, problems exist in characterization of the residues since thin layer 

chromatography (TLC) prevents accurate identification/quantification. Reduction of these 

uncertainties is expected with submission of requested data. Hereunder is a list of requested 

studies: 

Hydrolysis (OCSPP 835.2120): A new guideline hydrolysis study for a mancozeb active 

ingredient to which solubility is known (pre-determined by a guideline study) with concentration 

below this pre-determined solubility. In this study, the starting residues, just after dissolution 

should be characterized and tracked to the end of the study.

Aerobic soil metabolism (OCSPP 835.4100): A new guideline study for ETU (ETU as the test 

substance) in two soils from areas where the pesticide is used with varied pH, organic matter 

content and cation exchange capacity

Aerobic Aquatic metabolism (OCSPP 835.4300): A new guideline study for ETU in two 

water/sediment systems

Anaerobic Aquatic metabolism (OCSPP 835.4400): Two new guideline studies for mancozeb 

parent and ETU in two water/sediment systems. Note that it may be possible to obtain the data for 

ETU from the parent study.

In these studies, the registrant is requested to better characterize and if possible identify the unextracted residues. This is because these residues were found to be more toxic than the parent

compound in submitted sediment toxicity studies. Additionally, complete identification/

quantification of all degradates is expected along with tracking their formation and decline. Lastly,

the following should be observed:
4

(1) The maximum single application rate for mancozeb ranges from 4.9 to 17.5 lbs a.i/A, therefore, 

the application rate to the aerobic soil and aquatic studies may be conducted with a 

concentration at or below the predetermined solubility (expected to be 13 ppm as reported). At 

this solubility, mancozeb as a parent is not expected to be present; therefore, the parent residue 

is what is applied to the soil/sediment and it should be analyzed before application and 

throughout the study duration. Due to the fact that there are transient species forming early, it 

is recommended that shorter intervals are chosen for the first week of the study;

(2) The objective of metabolism studies is to track the formation/decline of all transient 

species/degradates of mancozeb residues applied to the soil/sediment; and

(3) For all metabolism studies requested for mancozeb residues and ETU, the registrant should 

show efforts to extract and identify residues that may be left associated with soil or sediment 

following EFED un-extracted residues guidance1

.

ECM/ILV (OCSPP 835.6100): The registrant is requested to submit environmental chemistry 

method and associated independent laboratory validation (ECM/ILV) studies for determination of 

mancozeb and ETU in soil and mancozeb only in water.

Ecological Effects

The following uncertainties are identified for mancozeb:

Extent of Toxicity to Larval and Juvenile Honey bees 

Currently, there are data available that characterize the acute contact and acute oral toxicity of 

mancozeb to adult honey bees. The extent to which mancozeb exerts toxic effects on honey bee 

larvae or juvenile honey bees is unknown. Further toxicity data that is recommended below is

needed to characterize this uncertainty.

Extent of Toxicity of un-extracted residues to other sediment-dwelling invertebrates

As this assessment will show, the un-extracted residues of mancozeb form immediately after 

introduction in an aerobic aquatic system and steadily increase to approximately 28% of the 

applied radioactivity after 7 days, and from there to over 40% after 105 days. Sediment dwelling 

invertebrates are expected to be exposed to these residues as part or all of their life cycle is spent 

in contact with the sediment and pore water. Currently, there are two subchronic (10-day) 

sediment toxicity studies, one conducted with parent mancozeb and the other with the un-extracted 

residues of mancozeb. Both studies are conducted with the freshwater midge (Chironomus 

tentans). The data indicate enhanced toxicity by approximately an order of magnitude of the unextracted residues as compared to parent mancozeb. It is an uncertainty as to the sensitivity of 

other sediment dwelling invertebrates such as the freshwater amphipod, Hyalella azteca, and the 

 1 URL: 

http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/science/efed/policy_guidance/team_authors/environmental_fate_tech_team/Unextrac

ted_Residues_in_Lab_Studies.htm
5

estuarine/marine amphipod, Leptocheirus plumulosus. It is also an uncertainty the extent of 

toxicity that chronic exposures, beyond 10 days, of these un-extracted residues would have to sublethal measures of effects including reproductive endpoints.

Extent of toxicity and bioavailability of un-extracted residues to terrestrial organisms

As this assessment will show, the un-extracted residues of mancozeb form immediately after 

introduction into an aerobic soil system (up to 46% of the applied radioactivity) at Day 0 and 

increase steadily therefore to approximately 65% after 7 days. It is an uncertainty if similar 

formation rates are observed when mancozeb is sprayed on foliage. Additionally, it is an 

uncertainty the extent of the toxicity and bioavailability of these residues to terrestrial taxa, like 

birds, mammals, and terrestrial invertebrates. Although available ecotoxicity studies show that the 

major mancozeb degradate, ETU, is less toxic to terrestrial organisms as compared to parent 

mancozeb, maximum ETU residues in the soil reach approximately 13% after 1 day before steadily 

declining with time thereafter. Hereunder is a list of requested studies:

Avian Acute Oral Toxicity Test (OCSPP 850.2100). Currently there are no available acute oral 

toxicity studies for mancozeb that are suitable for quantitative risk assessment and are therefore 

recommended. Please see Section 11.2 for further details. 

Avian Dietary Toxicity Test (OCSPP 850.2200). Two subacute dietary toxicity studies are

recommended to characterize the dietary toxicity route of exposure to birds which will allow the

estimation of acute dietary-based risk to birds feeding on mancozeb contaminated food items. 

Previously, no subacute dietary toxicity studies to birds have been submitted for mancozeb. Two 

studies are recommended, one with an upland game bird species (northern bobwhite quail) and 

one with a waterfowl species (mallard duck).

Seedling Emergence and Seedling Growth (OCSPP 850.4100): There is currently one available 

Tier I Seedling Emergence study available for mancozeb which is classified as acceptable. 

However, this study tested at an application rate of 0.02 lbs a.i/A. Mancozeb is associated with 

single application rates as high as 4.9 lbs a.i/A for food crops (pome fruits and cranberries) and 

17.5 lbs a.i/A for non-food uses (turf). A new study is requested that tests mancozeb at the highest 

maximum single application rate in order to estimate risk to listed and non-listed species of 

terrestrial plants.

Vegetative Vigor (OSCPP 850.4150): There is currently one available Tier I Vegetative Vigor 

study available for mancozeb which is classified as acceptable. However, this study tested at an 

application rate of 0.02 lbs a.i/A. Mancozeb is associated with single application rates as high as 

4.9 lbs a.i/A for food crops (pome fruits and cranberries) and 17.5 lbs a.i/A for non-food uses 

(turf). A new study is requested that tests mancozeb at the highest maximum single application

rate in order to estimate risk to listed and non-listed species of terrestrial plants.

Non-Guideline Study (OECD TG 213) (Tier 1): Honey Bee Adult Acute Oral Toxicity. Honey 

bees can be exposed to pesticides through multiple pathways including contact with sprays and 

dusts and through ingestion of residues in food/water (e.g., pollen/nectar and water used to 

maintain colony temperature). Worker bees foraging on flowers for pollen and nectar can be 
6

repeatedly exposed to residues in pollen and nectar either through direct contamination of these 

matrices by foliar sprays. Residues can in turn be brought back to bee colonies where in-hive bees 

including young adult and developing brood (i.e., eggs, larvae and pupae) may be exposed. EPA 

guidance on assessing the risk of pesticides to bees identifies a suite of laboratory-based studies 

intended to facilitate screening for potential acute and chronic effects to individual adult and larval 

bees as part of a tiered approach.

2

 Acceptable acute contact toxicity data are available for adult 

honey bee exposures to mancozeb; however, data are not available for oral toxicity to adults on an 

acute exposure basis. Certain classes of chemicals have indicated differential toxicity depending 

on the route of exposure. An acute oral toxicity test to adult honey bees would address this 

uncertainty. No protocol needs to be submitted to the Agency before the initiation of this study as 

guidance for its parameters is documented in OECD Test Guideline 213. Pending the results of 

this study, higher tiered (e.g. semi-field) studies as well as residue studies may be required. 

Non-guideline Study (OECD TG 237) (Tier 1): Honey Bee Larvae Acute Oral Toxicity3 As 

noted above, EPA guidance on assessing the risk of pesticides to bees identifies a suite of laboratorybased studies intended to facilitate screening for potential acute and chronic effects to individual adult 

and larval bees. Acceptable acute contact toxicity data are available for adult honey bee exposures to 

mancozeb; however, data are not available for larval toxicity. Honey bee larvae have been sometimes 

shown to be more sensitive to chemicals than adults and therefore this study, along with a honey bee 

larval chronic toxicity, are recommended to address this uncertainty. No protocol needs to be 

submitted to the Agency before the initiation of this study as guidance for its parameters are well 

documented in OECD Test Guideline 237. Pending the results of this study, higher tiered (e.g. semifield) studies as well as residue studies may be required. 

Non-guideline Study (Tier 1): Honey Bee Larvae Chronic Oral Toxicity. As mentioned above, 

EPA guidance on assessing the risk of pesticides to bees identifies a suite of laboratory-based 

studies intended to facilitate screening for potential acute and chronic effects to individual adult 

and larval bees. There are currently no data available to characterize the acute or chronic toxicity 

to honey bee larvae. EFED recommends that a protocol (following the OECD draft test guideline

document, February 25, 2014)4 be submitted for review and approval by the Agency prior to 

initiation of this study. Pending the results of this study, higher tiered (e.g. semi-field) studies as 

well as residue studies may be required. 

Non-guideline Study: Honey Bee Adult Chronic Oral Toxicity (Tier 1). As discussed above,

EPA guidance on assessing the risk of pesticides to bees identifies a suite of laboratory-based 

studies intended to facilitate screening for potential acute and chronic effects to individual adult 

and larval bees. The 10-day toxicity study with young adult bees provides no-observed adverse 

effect level (NOAEL) and lowest-observed adverse effect level (LOAEL) for assessing chronic 

effects, including mortality as well as sub-lethal effects such as food consumption. Risk estimates 

based on these data will be considered along with other lines of evidence to determine whether 

 2 Available online at: http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-

06/documents/pollinator_risk_assessment_guidance_06_19_14.pdf

3 Depending on the design of the “Honey Bee – 21-day repeated dose chronic larval toxicity” study, a 72-hour LD50

value may be derived from this study. If that is possible, it would obviate the need for this study. 

4

http://www.oecd.org/chemicalsafety/testing/Draft_GD_honeybee_larval_tox_repeated_exposure_25_February_201

4.pdf
7

higher-tier studies are needed at the whole colony level. EFED recommends that the registrant 

submit a protocol and consult with the Agency prior to study initiation.

Non-guideline Study: Field Trial of Residues in Pollen and Nectar (Tier 2): If the Tier 1 bee 

toxicity data and screening level risk assessment indicates potential risk to bees, refinement of 

exposure estimates for residues in pollen and nectar may be needed. . Specifically, the screening 

level exposure concentrations that are estimated in Tier 1 for pollen and nectar are intended to be 

conservative. Measurement of residues in pollen and nectar would allow for more accurate 

exposure analysis when applications are made at bloom. This chemical is of low toxicity to adults, 

but applications at bloom could contaminate pollen and nectar that adult foragers bring back to the 

colonies, resulting in potential exposures to the brood. If this study is considered necessary based 

on the results of the Tier 1 risk assessment, EFED recommends that the registrant submit a protocol 

and consult with the Agency prior to study initiation.

Non-guideline Study: Semi-Field Testing for Pollinators (Tunnel or Colony Feeding Studies) 

(Tier 2). Screening level and refined Tier 1 risk assessments with the honey bee larvae may 

indicate the need to progress to higher tier toxicity testing under semi-field conditions. In 

evaluating the effects of mancozeb on honey bees at the colony level, there are uncertainties 

relating effects to individual bees to that at the colony level. Semi-field testing data can be used to 

address these uncertainties with either a tunnel or colony feeding study experiment design. If this 

study is considered necessary based on the results of the Tier 1 risk assessment, EFED recommends 

that the registrant submit a protocol and consult with the Agency prior to study initiation.

850.3040: Field Testing for Pollinators (Tier 2 or 3): Screening level and refined Tier 1 risk 

assessments with the honey bee larvae may indicate the need to progress to higher tier toxicity 

testing under field conditions. In evaluating the effects of mancozeb on honey bees at the colony 

level, there are uncertainties relating effects to individual bees to that at the colony level. Field 

testing data can be used to address these uncertainties. If this study is considered necessary based 

on the results of the Tier 1 risk assessment, EFED recommends that the registrant submit a protocol 

and consult with the Agency prior to study initiation.

Aquatic Plant Toxicity Test using Lemna spp. (OCSPP 850.4400): There is currently no 

toxicity study available with a vascular aquatic plant conducted for mancozeb. Further analysis in 

this assessment (presented in Section 5) will show a rapid degradation of parent to the primary 

degradate ETU. Within 6 hours, parent mancozeb relative concentrations fall from approximately 

80% to approximately 40% of the applied radioactivity while concentrations of ETU increase 

during this time. After 1 day, relative water column concentrations of parent in an aerobic aquatic 

system was determined to be 10%. Despite this rapid transformation, an available algal toxicity 

study conducted with the freshwater green algae (Selenastrum capricornutum) indicates a 96-hr 

EC50 of 47 μg a.i/L and a 96-hr NOAEL of 22 μg a.i/L. It is noted that this study was initiated 

with parent mancozeb. Previous risk assessments have identified peak surface water EECs up to 

4 fold higher than this, suggesting parent mancozeb, despite its rapid degradation, has enough time 

to elicit a toxic effect to aquatic plants. Additionally, it is noted that the aforementioned study was 

a static system, and percent recoveries of the test substance ranged 65-80% of nominal at hour 0, 

17-21% at hour 48, and 1.3 – 7.3% at test termination. Despite the clear degradation of the test 

substance in the lab, current labels permit mancozeb to be applied up to 15 times at intervals as 
8

low as every 4 days. Therefore, even with a rapid transformation to degradates that will be shown 

in this assessment to be less toxic than parent, it is indicated in the available algal toxicity study 

that mancozeb can elicit toxic effects, at environmentally relevant concentrations that may be 

present at levels that would make up for its decomposition.

A study with the vascular aquatic plant Lemna gibba is recommended to address this uncertainty.

Algal Toxicity (Freshwater diatom) (OCSPP 850.4500): There is currently no algal toxicity 

study with a freshwater diatom submitted for mancozeb. As discussed above, a study with a 

freshwater green algae species indicated toxicity that would be above the level of concern when 

risk is estimated using peak surface water EECs. This study is being recommended to address the 

potential increased sensitivity of freshwater diatoms as compared to other algal species. 

Algal Toxicity (Marine diatom) (OCSPP 850.4500): There is currently no algal toxicity study 

with a marine diatom submitted for mancozeb. As discussed above, a study with a freshwater 

green algae species indicated toxicity that would be above the level of concern when risk is 

estimated using peak surface water EECs. This study is being recommended to address the 

potential increased sensitivity of marine diatoms as compared to other algal species. 

Cyanobacteria (Anabaena flos-aquae) toxicity (OCSPP 850.4550): There is currently no algal 

toxicity study with a cyanobacteria species submitted for mancozeb. As discussed above, a study 

with a freshwater green algae species indicated toxicity that would be above the level of concern 

when risk is estimated using peak surface water EECs. This study is being recommended to address 

the potential increased sensitivity of cyanobacteria as compared to other algal species. 

2. Introduction

Mancozeb [CAS name: [[I ,2-ethanediylbis[carbamodithioato]](2-)] manganese mixture with 

[[I, 2-ethanediylbis[carbamodithioato]](2-)]zinc.; IUPAC name: Manganese ethylenebis

(dithiocarbamate) (polymeric) complex with zinc salt; CAS number 8018-01-7 ; PC Code 014504; 

and molecular formula C4H8MnN2S4Zn], is an ethylene bis dithiocarbamate (EBDC) non-systemic 

fungicide with protective action on contact. The specific mode of action (MOA) is unknown and 

is classified by the code M3 (multi-site action) by the Fungicide Resistance Action Committee 

(FRAC5

).

3. Use Characterization

3.1 Labelled Use

Based on a sample of twenty six section 3 and forty four 24(c) labels, mancozeb is formulated as

either a dry flowable, flowable concentrate, wettable powder, or dust and applied as a liquid 

spray using ground, aircraft, or through irrigation systems (chemigation). In addition, 

 5 Fungicide Resistance Action Committee: URL: http://www.frac.info/docs/default-source/publications/frac-codelist/frac-code-list-2015-finalC2AD7AA36764.pdf (accessed June, 2015)
9

mancozeb is used as dip treatment and to treat seed and seed pieces in many crops. Table 1 

contains a summary of section 3 labelled uses.

Table 1 Mancozeb use patterns

Crop Use Pattern

Application Parameters 1

Notes MSR MNA MTR MAI 2

Asparagus: Crowns dip treatment Refer to Text Pre-plant crowns dip treatment

Asparagus: Crop 1.60 4 6.4 10 A/G Foliar sprays; APW= Pre-plant & Post-harvest

Bananas & Plantains 2.40 10 24.4 14 A/G Foliar sprays & C

Brassica Veg.: Broccoli/ Cabbage 1.6 6 9.6 7 A/G Foliar sprays & C

Capri fig: Dip treatment Refer to Text In the Summer to prepare for pollination

Cereal Grains 3 1.63 3 4.9 7 A/G Foliar sprays & C

Christmas tree plantations 3.2 NS NS 7 A/G Foliar sprays & C; APW= Spring/early Summer

Conifers plantations/nurseries 1.5 NS NS 7 A=Aerial/G=Ground Foliar Sprays

Corn (unspecified, field sweet/pop) 1.22 15 18.3 4 A/G Foliar sprays & C

Cranberry 4.9 3 14.7 7 A/G Foliar sprays & C

Cucurbit Vegetables 4 2.43 8 19.4 7 A/G Foliar sprays & C

Fennel 1.63 8 13.0 7 A/G Foliar sprays & C

Forestry 5 3.2 NS NS 7 A/G Foliar sprays & C; APW= Spring/early Summer

Fruiting Vegetables 6: Peppers W 1.6 6 9.6 7

Peppers E 2.4 8 19.2 7 A/G Foliar sprays & C

Tomatoes W 1.6 4 6.4 7 A/G Foliar sprays & C; APW= Post-transplant at 

Tomatoes E 2.44 7 17.1 7 seedling stage in addition to Foliar

Garlic & Onion: dried; Shallot 2.44 10 24.4 7 A/G Foliar sprays & C

Ginseng 1.6 12 19.2 7 A/G Foliar sprays & C

Grapes: West of the Rockies 2.0 3 6.0 7 A/G Foliar sprays & C; APW= Start when Shoots 1⁄2 to 

East of the Rockies 3.2 6 19.2 7 1 1⁄2 inch long. In CA don’t apply after bloom

Lettuce: California 1.6 4 6.4 7

All other States 1.6 6 9.6 7 A/G Foliar sprays & C

Nut Trees: Almonds 4.8 3 14.4 7 A/G Foliar sprays & C; APW: Delayed dormant 

 Walnuts 1.82 10 18.2 7 through petal fall

Ornamentals 7: Cut F/Greenhouse NS 20 NS 3? G=Ground Foliar Sprays/C= Chemigation

All others 1.6 20 32.0 7 A/G Foliar sprays & C

Pome Fruits 8 4.88 4 19.5 7 A/G Foliar sprays & C

Peanuts 1.6 10 16.0 7 A/G Foliar sprays & C

Potatoes: Crop 1.63 7 11.4 5 A/G Foliar sprays & C

Seed pieces Refer to Text Pre-plant crowns dip treatment

Seed Treatments: Many crops Refer to Text Pre-plant seed treatments

Sugar beet 1.6 7 11.2 7 A/G Foliar sprays & C

Tropical/Subtropical Fruits 9 2.0 14 28 7 A/G Foliar sprays & C

Turf 10: COM/IND/RREC 17.5 4 70 10 A/G Foliar sprays & C

Turf 11: Golf course/Cold Season

Golf course/Warm Season

Turf: Sod Farms 17.4 4 69.6 10 A/G Foliar sprays & C

1 Application Parameters: MSR= maximum single rate (lbs a.i./acre), MNA= maximum number of applications, MTR= 

maximum total rate (lbs a.i./acre/year), and MAI= Minimum application intervals in days. Note: Any label that species 

application/crop cycle should be modified as it is assumed in this table to be per year;

2 Abbreviations for Notes: A=Aerial/G=Ground Sprays/C=Chemigation; APW= Application Window

3 Cereal Grains: Barley, Oats, Triticale, Wheat, Rye;
10

Crop Use Pattern

Application Parameters 1

Notes MSR MNA MTR MAI 2

4 Cucurbit Vegetables: cucumber, cantaloupe, pumpkin, Momordica spp., Melons (honeydew, citron melon, casaba melon, 

Crenshaw melon, watermelon, Musk melon) and Winter/Summer Squash; Gourds (edible & Chinese wax); 5 Forestry: Douglas fir forestry and shelterbelt; 

6 Fruiting Vegetables: Peppers and tomatoes: West/East of the Mississippi River; 7 Ornamentals: shade trees, ground cover plants, herbaceous plants, non-flowering plants, woody shrubs and vines and 

Ornamentals: Cut F/Greenhouse= Ornamental cut flower/foliage in Greenhouse; 

8 Pome Fruits: Apples, Crabapples, Pears and Quince;

9 Tropical/Subtropical Fruits: Papaya, Atemoya, Canistel, Cherimoya, Mamey, Mango, Papaya, Sapodilla, Sapota (white), 

Custard/Star/Sugar Apples; noting that the stated rates are for most of these tropical fruit trees. Some of these fruit trees have

lower rate and/or a 14-day application intervals;

10 Turf: COM/IND/RREC: commercial/industrial/recreational noting that turf in residential settings and athletic fields are 

excluded; and

11 Turf: Golf Courses: It is noted that the RED document states that one less application for warm season grasses and No Arial 

or chemigation (only few labels abide by this requirements).

Dip Treatment

This application will be calculated (in lbs a.i/A), considered as an application at the planting 

date/depth and added to application(s) labeled for the crop, if any. Labelled dip treatment are for 

the following crops:

(1) Asparagus: Crowns dip treatment (for crown rot): In one of the labels, the treatment is 

described as follows: (a) Prepare the dipping suspension (1.0 Ib. a.i/100 gal of water) in a clean 

tank; (b) Pack pre-washed crowns loosely into a burlap bag and soak, with gentle agitation, in 

the fungicide solution for 5 minutes; and (c) Remove bag, drain well, and plant crowns as soon 

as possible. The maximum specified for preparing 100 gallons of the dipping suspension 

ranges from 0.814 to 1.0 pound of a.i. For future modeling, the registrant is requested to specify 

how many pounds of crowns that may be treated with the 100 gallons dipping suspension, how 

many pound of treated crowns needed to plant one acre and what to do with dipping suspension

after treatment;

(2) Capri fig: Dip treatment (for molds and fusariurn): In one of the labels, the treatment is 

described as follows: (a) Prepare the dipping suspension (4.0 Ib. a.i/100 gal of water); (b) 

Prepare mamme figs by making a shallow cut through the eye and then hand dividing to avoid 

wasp injury; and (c) Submerge mamme figs in the fungicide suspension for a minimum of 15

minutes. The fungicide suspension should be stirred frequently to prevent settling out and fresh 

dipping solution should be used after treating 4 or 5 batches of figs. After treatment, figs should 

be drained prior to placement in trees. For future modeling, the registrant is requested to specify 

how many pounds of figs that may be treated with the 100 gallons dipping suspension, how 

many pound of treated figs needed for one acre and what to do with dipping suspension after 

treatment; and

(3) Potato pieces: Dip treatment: Pre-plant seed/seed pieces dip tank is prepared @ 0.08 lbs 

a.i/100 lbs of seeds/seed pieces. In future modeling the rate in lbs a.i/A will be calculated based 

on BEAD maximum seeding rate (lbs of seeds/seed pieces needed to plant one acre). Again, 

the registrant is requested to specify what to do with the dipping suspension after treatment.
11

Seed Treatment

This application will be calculated (in lbs a.i/A) using BEADs maximum seeding rate for each 

crop, considered as an application at the planting date/depth and added to application(s) labeled 

for the crop, if any. Labelled seed treatment are for the following crops (rate per 100 lbs of seeds): 

Barley (0.2100); Corn (0.2719); Cotton (0.3156); Flax (0.3602); Oats (0.3150); Peanuts (0.81), 

Rice (0.2094); Rye (0.1801); Safflower (0.1063); Sorghum (0.2271); Tomatoes (0.430); Triticale 

(0.1650); and Wheat (0.1625).

24(c) Labels

The LUIS report contains forty four 24(c) labels for local use in the following states: CA (Two for 

walnuts); ID (One for Carrot); OR (Two, carrot/vegetables, refer to Table 2 below); WA (Three: 

One for Brassica vegetables, beet (un-specified)/carrots/ vegetables, refer to Table 2, below), Two 

for pears); and all others (36 labels) are for Tobacco including: CT (5); GA (1); IN (3); KY (2); 

MA (2); MD (2); MO (3); NC (3); OH (3); PA (3); SC (3); TN (2); VA (4), refer to Table 2 for 

the application parameters for crops covered by these 24 (c) labels. 

Table 2 A summary of the application parameters for 24(c) labels (for abbreviation refer to the 

labelled use table, above)

Crop Use Pattern

Application Parameters

MSR MNA MTR MAI Notes

Beet (un-specified) 1.5 8 12.0 7 A=Aerial/G=Ground Foliar Sprays (OR & WA)

Brassica Vegetables 1.5 12 18.0 7 A/G Foliar sprays & C= Chemigation (WA)

Carrot 1.5 12 18 7 A/G Foliar sprays & C (OR & WA)

Swiss Chard, Coriander, Arugula 

“Roquette”, Spinach, Parsley, Parsnip, 

Dill, Endive 1.5 12 18 7 A/G Foliar Sprays (OR & WA); Lettuce: only A

Crucifer (assumed= all Brassica 

Vegetables) 1.5 6 9 7 A/G Sprays (OR)

Leek and Onion 1.5 12 18 7 A/G Sprays (OR & WA); Leek: Only A

Tobacco 2.0 NS NS 5 G= Pre-plant seed bed and Foliar

It is important to note that labelled uses summarized above are based on most, not all, mancozeb 

labels. Additionally, application parameters are chosen from labels containing the highest rates and 

minimum application intervals. It is also noted that many labels do not contain necessary 

information for application. The registrants are requested to check the labelled summary Tables 

and information above and provide necessary addition(s)/correction(s). In addition, it is necessary 

to modify their labels accordingly. In future modeling and in the absence of the required 

information, EFED will use the most conservative parameters. Labels should contain the following 

information: 

(1) Maximum single and yearly not crop cycle, application rate, maximum number of application 

and minimum application intervals;
12

(2) Timing of application or information that can be used for determining the application 

window; and

(3) Application procedure(s) for each crop.

3.2 Usage

From the mancozeb BEAD chemical profile (BCP) drafted by the Biological and Economic 

Analysis Division (01/22/2015) mancozeb use in terms of pounds a.i. applied in the U.S. has

remained fairly constant during the 1998-2012 time frame with very slight decreases in years

(2006-2009). Similar trends were found for total area treated. During the 1998-2012 time

frame, approximately 6.4 million pounds a.i. were applied on average annually to treat 4.5

million acres at an overall average a.i. application rate of 1.4 lbs a.i. per acre. During the 2008-

2012 time frame, approximately 6 million pounds a.i. were applied annually on average to treat

4 million acres at overall average a.i. application rate of 1.5 lbs a.i. per acre.

4. Conclusions from Previous Risk Assessments

Two main risk assessments were conducted for mancozeb and its main degradate ETU:

(1) Environmental Fate and Ecological Risk Assessment for Mancozeb, Section 3 Reregistration 

for Control of Fungal Diseases on Numerous Crops, a Forestry Use on Douglas Firs, 

Ornamental Plantings, and Turf (Phase 3 Response),” dated June, 2005 which was 

accompanied by the Environmental Fate and Ecological Risk Assessment for Ethylenethiourea

(ETU) a Common Degradate of the Ethylenebisdithiocarbamate fungicides (EBDCs): 

Metiram, Mancozeb, and Maneb (Phase 3 Response),” dated June, 2005. The two documents 

were prepared by EFED for the Reregistration Eligibility Decision for Mancozeb (RED) 

(Document 738-R-04-012 dated September, 2005);

(2) Risks of Mancozeb and Maneb Uses to the Federally Listed California Red Legged Frog 

(Rana aurora draytonii) dated October, 2007.

This problem formulation updates aspects of these recent risk assessments, including the 

following:

• Changes in labelled use patterns following the RED required mitigation measures which 

included: use patterns that are ineligible for reregistration and changes in application rates, 

procedure and intervals for some crops;

• New crop registrations following issuance of the RED document in 2005 which included 

addition of new crops and changes in application intervals; and

• Modify the previous assignments for the stressor of concern following new submittals 

including:
13

o Fate studies with better characterization/quantification of mancozeb residues;

o New ecological toxicity studies for ETU, the major degradate of mancozeb; and

o New sediment toxicity studies on mancozeb and the un-extracted residues.

4.1 Ecological Risk Assessment 

As stated previously, the Agency had completed two main ecological risk assessments on 

mancozeb in addition to several updates for new uses that serve as a basis for this problem 

formulation. It is important to note that the previous ecological risk assessments conservatively 

considered the stressor to be the “mancozeb complex’ which was defined to include all of the 

mancozeb residues: ethylene thio-urea (ETU), ethylene urea (EU), Ethylene-bis-isothiocyanate 

sulfide (EBIS), Hydantoin (HYD) and the un-extracted residues (UER). Previous risk findings are 

summarized in Table 3.

Table 3. Summary of risk concerns identified for mancozeb in previous assessments*

Birds Mammals

Terr.

Plants

Terr.

Inverts Fish BCF

Aquatic 

Inverts

Aquatic 

Plants

Groundwater 

Contamination Persistence

Degradates 

of Concern

Yes1 Yes1 Uncertain2 NA3 Yes No4 No Yes Yes5 Yes6

Mancozeb 

Complex

* “Yes” = at least one LOC has been exceeded in previous assessments; “No” = LOCs have not been exceeded in 

previous assessments; “NA” = RQs have not been calculated previously 1 Chronic RQs exceeded LOC for certain uses

2 Available studies are conducted at rates of 0.02 lbs a.i/A, several orders of magnitude below the current 

maximum use rates permitted.

3 RQs were not previously calculated for terrestrial invertebrate 4 Due to the very low KOW of 22; noting that a fish bio-accumulation study was previously waived 5 Based on ETU, the degradate of concern of mancozeb which is characterized by high solubility and low KOC (288 

L/kg)

6 Based on only mineralization of the “Mancozeb Complex” to CO2.

4.1 Drinking Water Exposure Assessments

Ethylenethiourea (ETU) is the common degradate of all Ethylene-bis-dithiocarbamates (EBDCs) 

fungicides including mancozeb. ETU, a group B2 carcinogen, was established to be the drinking 

water stressor resulting from the use of all EBDCs. Several EFED drinking water assessments

were generated covering original/additional new uses of all or any of the EBDCs for the estimated 

drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of ETU for use in human risk assessments (DP Barcode: 

290057 dated May 7, 2003; DP Barcode: D290057 dated August 26, 2004; DP Barcodes: 323141/3 

dated August 11, 2006; DP Barcode: 397306 dated July 3, 2012; and DP Barcode: 420706 dated 

September 8, 2014).
14

For surface water, estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) were calculated using the 

linked PRZM and EXAMS simulation models on the assumption of very rapid degradation of the 

parent EBDC pesticide to ETU on a mole per mole basis. Following the submission of a two-year 

targeted ETU monitoring study by the EBDC Task force, the chronic long term average EDWC 

was based on monitoring while the acute EDWC remained to be based on PRZM/EXAMS 

modeling. For ground water, a single acute/chronic EDWC was derived from community water 

system intake concentration of a targeted groundwater monitoring study conducted by the EBDC 

Task Force from 1999 to 2003. Targeted monitoring data were submitted under MRIDs 455703-

01, 457083-01, 458364-01 and 461454-01. Table 4 contains a summary of the current Tier II 

EDWCs of ETU which was used for human health drinking water risk assessment.

Table 4. Tier II EDWCs (in ppb of ETU) for human health drinking water risk assessment

Stressor

Acute EDWC Surface Water 

(PRZM/EXAMS Modeling)

Chronic Surface Water EDWC 

(Monitoring detection limit) for Noncancer/Cancer chronicAcute and Chronic Ground 

Water EDWC (Monitoring)

ETU 25.2* 0.1 0.21

* This is the highest value in a range of EDWC values which are expected to be between 0.1 ppb (the detection limit) 

and 25.2 ppb (the highest peak value after adjustment by the then 0.87 national PCA). 

Requested data, from this registration review for mancozeb and ETU will be considered for the 

determination of EDWCs for ETU resulting from mancozeb degradation. An updated drinking 

water assessment may be needed as part of the future Registration Review process. If a new 

drinking water assessment is needed, EFED will include recently revised percentage crop area 

(PCA) factors, revised drift factors as well as the use of current SWCC and PRZM-GW models to 

determine EDWCs in surface and ground waters, respectively. Use of monitoring data for the acute 

and chronic ground water EDWCs will be dependent on modeled PRZM-GW EDWCs. EFED 

will consider the use of PFAM model for mancozeb use on cranberries.

4.2 Clean Water Act Programs

Mancozeb and its major degradate ETU were not identified as a cause of impairment for any water 

bodies listed as impaired under section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act and no Total Maximum 

Daily Load (TMDL) criteria have been developed for the two chemicals (Refer to URL: 

http://iaspub.epa.gov/tmdl_waters10/attains_nation_cy.cause_detail_303d?p_cause_group_id=88

5, accessed 03/08/2015). 

A summary of fish/invertebrates acute/chronic aquatic benchmarks have been established only 

for ETU (Table 5). However, no acute non-vascular/vascular plants aquatic benchmarks or 

Office of Water aquatic life criteria (maximum & continuous concentrations) were established 

for either mancozeb or ETU (Refer to URL: 

http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/ecorisk_ders/aquatic_life_benchmark.htm, accessed 03/08/2015). 

Table 5 OPP Aquatic life benchmarks for fresh water (μg / L) for ETU
15

Fish Invertebrates

Acute 1 Chronic 2 Acute 3 Chronic 4

> 251,000 37,320 134,500 2

1 Benchmark = Toxicity value x LOC. For acute fish, toxicity value is generally the lowest 96-hour LC50 in a 

standardized test (usually with rainbow trout, fathead minnow, or bluegill), and the LOC is 0.5.

2 Benchmark = Toxicity value x LOC. For chronic fish, toxicity value is usually the lowest NOAEC from a lifecycle or early life stage test (usually with rainbow trout or fathead minnow), and the LOC is 1.

3 Benchmark = Toxicity value x LOC. For acute invertebrate, toxicity value is usually the lowest 48- or 96-hour 

EC50 or LC50 in a standardized test (usually with midge, scud, or daphnids), and the LOC is 0.5. 4 Benchmark = Toxicity value x LOC. For chronic invertebrates, toxicity value is usually the lowest NOAEC from a 

life-cycle test with invertebrates (usually with midge, scud, or daphnids), and the LOC is 1.

Any data submitted or otherwise located as part of the registration review process may be used to 

update aquatic life benchmarks, if applicable.

5. Environmental Fate and Transport

5.1 Mancozeb

Mancozeb is a polymer coordination complex of zinc and manganese ethylene bis di-thio 

carbamate ions (referred to hereafter as EBDC ions) containing: 77.6% EBDC as an anion in 

coordination with two cations: 20% Mn+2 and 2.4% Zn+2. Hereunder is the monomer unit 

chemical structure, Formula and molecular weight

Formula: (C4H6MnN2S4)x (Zn)y; where x=1 and y=1/11= 0.090909;

Formula Weight= 265.3 x 1 + 65.4 x 0.0909= 271.25 g mole-1;

The 2-D structure for two monomer units, formula and molecular weight are as follows:

C

C

S

S

S

S

[Mn+2] [Zn+2]

X

Y

X:Y= 10:1

N

N

H

H

Mancozeb
16

Formula: C8H12MnN4S8Zn; Formula Wt.: 541.05 g mole-1 (National Institute of Health Open 

Chemistry Database; URL: 

http://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/search/#collection=compounds&query_type=text&query=%22

MANCOZEB%22 1

Mancozeb polymer has a unique water solubility property as it decomposes in water within hours 

at acid, neutral, and alkaline conditions. Complete decomposition of the polymer structure into 

monomeric units appears to be dependent on the concentration of the polymer. This solubility was 

reported, by the registrant, to be equal 0.6 ppm. However, this value was claimed later, by the 

registrant, to be 13 ppm. In other reports, the solubility of mancozeb was reported to be 6.2 ppm

@ pH 7.5 and 25 oC and 6.0 ppm, respectively6. It appears that solubility is dependent on the 

source of the mancozeb and that the process of decomposition by water is probably related to 

breakage of the polymeric chains into monomeric units as shown in Figure 1. In this respect, the 

process of decomposition is probably associated with abiotic hydrolysis and therefore the whole 

process may be referred to as decomposition/hydrolysis. Additionally, it is important to note that parent 

studies should be conducted using mancozeb with a predetermined solubility.

Figure 1 Expected decomposition/hydrolysis process for mancozeb in water

 Mancozeb Monomer (EBDC anion) + Mn+2 & Zn+2

 

The length of the polymer chains, of the mancozeb active ingredient, may be related to the particle 

size of the active ingredient which may be related to the manufacturing/formulation processes. 

Finer particle size is expected to contain shorter polymer chains causing more susceptibility to the 

process of decomposition into shorter or monomeric chains by solution/hydrolysis in water.

In the field, mancozeb is expected to be applied into moist plant foliage and reach, upon application 

and later due to wash-off, a moist soil system. In addition lesser quantities are expected to reach 

aquatic systems by drift (usually estimated to be 4-16% depending on type of application).

Therefore, the process of decomposition/hydrolysis of mancozeb into its monomeric units is 

expected to occur in soil and water/sediment. The maximum single application rate of mancozeb 

ranges from 4.88 lbs. a.i/acre (in crops other than turf) to 17.5 lbs. a.i/acre (in turf). Upon 

application, the maximum expected concentrations of mancozeb in the soil system will probably 

be <2.4 to 8.6 ppm depending on how much of the applied reaches the soil. The concentration in 

aquatic systems is expected to be lower. In contrast, reported solubility of 0.6 to 13 ppm suggests 

 6 Tomlin, C.D.S. (Ed.). The Pesticide Manual - World Compendium, 11th ed., British Crop Protection Council, Surrey, 

England 1997; and Wauchope R. D. et al. 1991. Rev Environmental Contamination Toxicology 123: 1-36.

 

 

 

N C

N

H

H

S -

N

C S -

N

Mancozeb Polymer
17

that the decomposition/hydrolysis process is important and that its importance will probably 

depend on the nature of the polymer and the availability of moisture. In dry conditions the 

importance of this process is expected to be relatively lower than moist conditions.

Based on the fact that mancozeb, as a polymer, is expected to be short lived in the environment. It 

is necessary to obtain exposure data for mancozeb as well as the residues forming in soil and 

water/sediment systems following the decomposition/hydrolysis process.

(a) Physical Chemical Properties and Abiotic Transformation

Physical and chemical properties and abiotic transformation of mancozeb are included in Table 6.

Table 6 Physical/chemical properties and abiotic transformation of mancozeb

Based on a hydrolysis study, parent (polymeric mancozeb) degraded with a half-life of 0.8 to 1.4 

days in aqueous sterilized media in the dark in acid, neutral and alkaline conditions (Table 6). The 

results of the study suggest that abiotic hydrolysis caused degradation of the monomeric units of 

mancozeb polymeric units that is expected to form initially upon dissolving the polymer in water. 

Therefore, the fate of mancozeb polymer chains appears to be affected significantly by two 

processes. The first process is the breakdown of polymeric parent into monomeric units of EBDCs

with the loss of the metal ions (Figure 1, above) upon dissolution in water. The second is abiotic 

hydrolysis of the monomeric units. The combined decomposition/ hydrolysis, results in the 

formation of the major transformation products observed in the hydrolysis study (EBIS, ETU, EU

and HYD). Although the study gives certainty that mancozeb parent is highly affected by 

hydrolysis, there are many uncertainties in this study that prevents accurate conclusions on the 

hydrolysis profile for polymeric mancozeb and resultant residues. Uncertainties are because 

Property Value Reference

n-octanol-Water 

Coefficient (KOW) 21; based on its reported log of 1.33 USDA 1

Vapor Pressure Registrant Data: <2.10 x 10-8 torr (MRID 457365-03) HSDB: 1.3 x10-10 torr 

@ 25 oC HSDB 2

Henry's Law constant <2.31 x 10-9 and 1.4 x 10-11 atm. m3 mole-1 @ 25 o

C, respectively & USDA= 

1.52 x 10-11 (Based on solubility of 13 ppm)

Calculated & 

USDA

Hydrolysis half-life (t 

1⁄2) 

0.8 to 1.4 days @ pHs 5,7 and 9 and 25 oC

Major Transformation Products: ETU, EU, EBIS, HYD and others 

(Identified/quantified by TLC) 3

000971-62

supplemented w/ 

402582-01 (S) 4

Aqueous photolysis t 1⁄2

Stable (Based on data and UV/Visible spectra were absorption maxima 

occurring at 200 & 282 nm noting that the visible light ranges from 400 to 

700 nm)

001621-03 (A) 4

Soil photolysis t 1⁄2 Stable (Based on data and UV/Visible spectra) 002639-07 (A) 4

1 USDA Database: URL 

http://www.ars.usda.gov/SP2UserFiles/ad_hoc/12755100DatabaseFiles/PesticidePropertiesDatabase/IndividualPesticideFiles/MANCOZEB.

TXT

2 HSDB Database: URL: http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-bin/sis/search2/f?./temp/~DYF5Kf:1

3 Transformation products identification was done using two TLC solvent systems with variable results and nearly 20% of the 

radioactivity was not identified. Refer to Figure 2 for structures and chemical names of transformation products. 4 A= Acceptable; S= Supplemental
18

transformation products were identified/ quantified by TLC alone (the appropriateness and 

adequacy of the TLC methodology is questionable), and 20% of the radioactivity was not 

identified. Therefore, the registrant is requested to submit a new hydrolysis study for a mancozeb 

active ingredient to which solubility is known (pre-determined by a guideline study) with starting 

concentration below this pre-determined solubility.

Furthermore, data in Table 6 indicate that mancozeb is not expected to partition into the air from 

dry/wet soils or from water (low vapor pressure and Henry’s Law constant). However, it could 

move with drift. For this reason, the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR) is 

recommending air monitoring for mancozeb and ETU (Refer to the 2014 CDPR recommendation 

document7

). Most likely, air transport will be related to drifted parent especially in California dry 

conditions. The n-octanol-water partitioning coefficient suggests low bio-concentration potential 

for mancozeb in aquatic organisms like fish and data on UV/Visible absorption maxima for 

mancozeb suggest photolysis in water/on soil are not important in dissipation of mancozeb in the 

environment.

(b) Biotic Transformation

As stated previously, fate data will be presented for mancozeb and major constituents of mancozeb 

residues. A summary of this data is presented in Table 7.

Table 7 Summary of environmental fate properties of mancozeb and residues.

Property Value for Mancozeb Parent & Residues MRID Reference 1

Aerobic soil t 1⁄2 @ 20 oC (End of

study (EOS)= 120 day)

Mancozeb parent

Observed in Hours in Speyer 2.3: A sandy loam soil 

from Germany; pH= 6.5 and organic carbon “O.C” = 

0.71%);

Observed in Hours in Speyer 2.2: A loamy sand soil 

from Germany; pH= 5.7 and O.C= 2.17%; and

Observed in Hours in Senozan: A silty loam soil from 

France; pH= 5.8 and O.C= 0.99%

Mancozeb residues (Range in the three soils)

Degradates: EBIS: Max 25-29% @ <1 d to nearly 1% at 

14 d then declined to EOS; ETU: 14-25% @ 1 d then 

declined to 1-2% @ EOS; EU: 12-14% @ 1 d then 

sharply declined to nearly 1% @ EOS; Un-identified(UNID consisting of 8-12 degradates): 7-22%

Un-extracted Residues (UER): Max 55-71% @ 7-28 d 

declined to 49-62% @ EOS

Mineralization to CO2: Max range 44-50% @ EOS 457445-01 (S)

Aerobic Aquatic t 1⁄2 @ 25 oC

EOS= 105 days

Mancozeb Parent

16 Hours in a water/loamy sand sediment from the Rhine 

River, Switzerland (water: pH 8.0-8.2, total organic 

carbon 2.6 mg/L ; sediment: pH=6.9, O.C= 1.4% and 

CEC=2.8 meq/100g); and

16 Hours in a water/loamy sand sediment from 462043-01 (A)

 7 URL: http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/emon/pubs/tac/recomm/mancozeb_recomm_2014.pdf
19

Property Value for Mancozeb Parent & Residues MRID Reference 1

Ormalingen pond, Switzerland (water: pH 7.4, total 

organic carbon 1.1 mg/L; sediment: pH=6.7, O.C= 5.0% 

and CEC=7.1 meq/100g)

Mancozeb residues(Range in the two systems)

Degradates: EBIS: Max 9-13% @ <1 d to nearly 1% at 

30 d then declined to no detection @ EOS; ETU: 42-52% 

@ <1-2 d then declined to <1% @ EOS; EU: 23-32% @ 

30 d in the river system then sharply declined to nearly 

1% @ EOS and was 32% @ 59 d then declined to only 

23% in the pond system; Un-identified (UN-ID consisting 

of two degradates): 20-23% @ 7-14 d then declined to 3-

5% @ EOS

Un-extracted Residues (UER): Max 35-44% @ 30 d to 

EOS

Mineralization to CO2: Max 43% @ EOS in the river 

system and only 18% @ EOS in the pond system

Anaerobic Aquatic t 1⁄2 @ 25 oC

Study suggests possible longer half-lives than the 

aerobic conditions; if no study is submitted, the 

mancozeb residues will be considered stable. 402582-03 (U)

Study Classification: A= Acceptable; S= Supplemental and U= Un-acceptable

Data in Table 7 suggest that [14C] mancozeb parent degraded within hours under aerobic soil 

conditions when applied at a nominal rate of 3.3 ppm. The study suggests the effect of the 

following processes on the polymeric chains of mancozeb:

• Decomposition/hydrolysis of the polymer chains of mancozeb, by water, into EBDC ions; and 

transformation of the EBDC ions into a residue containing several degradation products by

hydrolysis/biotransformation;

• Formation of substantial amounts of un-identified/un-extracted residue (UER); and

• Mineralization of the mancozeb residues into CO2.

The process of decomposition/hydrolysis appears to start in the step of preparing the stock solution 

of mancozeb polymer as indicated by two observations: reduction of mancozeb concentration from 

96.7% in the stock solution to 92% at time zero and the rapid disappearance of mancozeb, as a 

parent, within hours of application to the soil. In fact, decomposition half-lives were much shorter 

than the hydrolysis half-lives determined in the hydrolysis study possibly due to the use of EDTA 

as part of the extraction system (EDTA affects parent solubility by removing the Mn and Zn 

associated with the EBDC ligand). Hydrolysis/biotransformation appear to cause transformation 

of the EBDC units into the mancozeb residues consisting of the following major transformation 

products: EBIS, ETU, EU and un-identified degradates. Partitioning of significant amounts of the 

mancozeb residues into the soil resulted in the formation of substantial amounts of an UER. 

Finally, mineralization of part of the mancozeb residues resulted in production of CO2.
20

Observed decomposition/degradation in two aerobic water/sediment systems were similar to that 

observed in the soil systems. It appears that processes involved in these systems are similar to 

those suggested earlier for the aerobic soil systems. In the two systems, parent decomposes rapidly 

(within hours) with the formation of the mancozeb residues consisting of degradates EBIS, ETU, 

EU, Glycol urea (Hydantoin “HYD”), UER and CO2. 

(c) Mobility

Data for mobility was estimated from a supplemental adsorption/desorption study and a leaching 

study (Table 8). Calculations were based on radioactivity adsorbed to the soils used in these two 

studies. This is because mancozeb degraded very quickly forming the mancozeb residues. 

Therefore, calculated Koc values are for the total mancozeb residues. It is noted that there were 

problems with these two studies such as the use of formulated product rather than the active 

ingredient. No new adsorption/desorption studies are requested at this time. Average adsorption 

coefficient data suggest that the mancozeb residues as a whole are expected to be slightly mobile. 

It is however noted that this conclusion may be applied to the mancozeb residues and chemicals 

in these residues may vary in mobility.

Table 8 Summary of the transport properties for the mancozeb residues

Property Value for Mancozeb Parent & Residues MRID Reference 1

Adsorption Coefficient (Koc) 

(Adsorption/desorption study)

5,288 mL/g for a Sandy soil from GA (O.M= 0.9%, pH= 

5.7 and CEC= 4 meq/100g);

1,534 mL/g for a Sandy loam soil from GA (O.M= 2.8%, 

pH= 5.9 and CEC= 6 meq/100g);

 892 mL/g for a Silt loam soil from PA (O.M= 3.5%, 

pH= 6.4 and CEC= 10 meq/100g); and

1,707 mL/g for a Clay loam soil from MS (O.M= 2.5%, 

pH= 7.4 and CEC= 13 meq/100g)

402229-01 (S)

Adsorption Coefficient (Koc) 

(Leaching study)

1,642 mL/g for a Sandy loam soil;

1,000 mL/g for a Silt loam soil; and

 860 mL/g for a Silt loam soil

405883-02 (S)

Average value 1,846 mL/g

Range of values 860- 5,288 mL/g

Study Classification: S= Supplemental

(d) Field Dissipation

A dissipation half-life (DT50) of 3 days was reported for a silty clay loam soil under Philippine 

field conditions using soil column receiving natural rainfall (a total of 12" in 21 days). CS2-

determined mancozeb remained on the top 2.5 and no leaching was observed under the conditions 

of the experiment. ETU and EU were the only degradation products whereas un-extractable 

residues were not characterized and accounted for 38-70% of the total residues (Calampang S. et 

al, 1993. International J. of Pest Management, 39 (2) 161-166).
21

(e) Bioconcentration

Mancozeb is associated with very low KOW value of 22. A fish bioaccumulation study was 

previously waived for mancozeb based on the expected low bioconcentration as indicated from the 

KOW value.

(f) Transformation Products

Mancozeb polymer reaching soil (directly and by wash-off) and aquatic systems (by drift) is 

expected to decompose/hydrolyze/bio-transform rather quickly in the water present in these 

systems. Initial products are expected to include negatively charged monomeric EBDC units and 

positively charged Mn and Zn ions. Monomeric EBDC units are expected to be highly vulnerable 

to abiotic hydrolysis and biotransformation resulting in the formation of the intermediate 

transformation product EBIS. With time, EBIS appears to degrade rather quickly into ETU that 

appears to degrade into EU, HYD and other un-identified chemical species (UN-ID). In the 

presence of a solid phase such as soil/sediment and organic matter particles, substantial part of this 

residue is expected to partition into the soil phase and become un-extractable (UER). Data also 

show that part(s) of the mancozeb residues are expected to be mineralized into CO2 (Figure 2).
22

Figure 2 Transformation profile for mancozeb in soil and aquatic systems (refer to abbreviations 

below). 

 

 EBDC anion+ Mn+2 & Zn+2

 

 EBIS (A Transitional Degradate)

 

NH

NH

C S

 

NH

NH

C O

 ETU + EU + HYD + UN-ID + UER

 

Mancozeb Residues

 CO2

· EBIS= Ethylene bis isothiocyanate sulfide (5,6-Dihydro-3H-imidazol(2,1-C)-1,2,4-dithiazole-3-thione ; 

· ETU= Ethylene thio urea (2-Imidazolidinethione); CH3H6N2S; CAS No.:96-45-7; Mol. Wt.: 102.16 g mole-1

· EU= Ethylene urea (2-Imidazolidinone); CH3H6N2O; CAS No.:120-93-4; Mol. Wt.: 86.09 g mole-1

· HYD= Hydantoin or Glycol urea (2.4-(3H,5H)-Imidazoledione); CH3H4N2O2; CAS No.:461-72-3; Mol. Wt.: 100 g mole-1

· UN-ID= un-identified degradates;

· UER= Un-extracted/Unidentified Residue

Figure 3 contains a summary of the observed total degradates and the UER in the aerobic soil 

system.

 

 

 

N C

N

H

H

S -

N

C S -

N

Mancozeb Polymer

N

N S

C S

C

S

Hydrolysis/biotransformation (Within Hours)

Hydrolysis/biotransformation (90th percentile t 1⁄2= >1 d in soil and <1-4 days in water/sediment systems)
23

Figure 3 Observed degradates and UER in three soil systems (in percent of the applied 

radioactivity as parent equivalent with dotted line representing the average)

In the aerobic soil system, a suite of degradates (EBIS, ETU, EU and unidentified degradates) 

forms and reaches maximum of nearly 50% of the applied rather quickly (within one day). 

Following this maximum and within four weeks, a sharp decline of this suite follows to reach 

levels of <5% of the applied parent. The sharp decline of the degradate suite appears to coincide 

with the formation of persistent un-identified/un-extracted residues (UER). The UER reaches a 

maximum of nearly 65% of the applied within one week and stays nearly stable to the end of the 

study (Figure 3). Figure 4 shows the formation/degradation profile of the various constituents of 

the observed degradate suite.

Figure 4 Formation and decline of the major degradates of mancozeb in aerobic soils (The figure 

represents averages from three soils and is truncated at 21 days as all degradates were below 5% 

of the applied radioactivity after 21 days)

0

25

50

75

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

% of Applied Radioactivity

Time in Days

UER

EBIS+ETU+EU+UN-ID Degradates

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 5 10 15 20

% of the Applied 

Radioactivity

Time in Days

EU

EBIS

UN-ID

ETU
24

Data in Figure 4 suggest the following:

(a) EBIS is a transitional degradate that forms immediately following application to the soil 

with a 90th percentile half-life (from maximum formation) of 0.6 days (range 0.3-0.6 days).

Similarly, the UN-ID degradates form at the same time with a 90th percentile half-life (from 

maximum formation) of 8 days (range 1-8 days). This suggests that these un-identified 

degradates forms from parent mancozeb immediately upon application; and 

(a) ETU and EU degradates reach their maximum within one day (just after the sharp decline 

of EBIS) suggesting their formation from EBIS. Although the maximums for these two

degradates occur nearly at the same time, their level of formation were different (ETU 

maximums range from 15-25% of the applied while EU maximums range from 12-14% of 

the applied). The 90th percentile half-life (from maximum formation) was 19 days (range 

4.4-18.2 days) for ETU and was 2.7 days (range 1.7-2.7 days) for EU. 

Figure 5 contains a summary of the observed total degradates and the UER in two aerobic 

water/sediment soil systems. 

Figure 5 Observed degradates and UER in two aerobic water/sediment systems

In the aerobic water/sediment systems, a suite of degradates (EBIS, ETU, EU, HYD and 

unidentified degradates) forms and reaches maximum of nearly 75% of the applied rather quickly 

(within two days). Following this maximum, a gradual decline of this suite continues to reach 

levels of 28% of the applied parent in the pond system and 3% in the river system. The gradual 

decline of the degradate suite appears to coincide with the formation of relatively persistent unidentified/un-extracted residues (UER). The UER reaches a maximum of nearly 40% of the applied 

within one month and stays nearly stable to the end of the study (Figure 5). It is noted that 

formation levels of the UER with time were the same in both pond and river system. 

0

25

50

75

0 20 40 60 80 100

% of Applied Radioactivity

Time in Days

Pond: UER River: UER UER Average

Pond: All Degradates River: All Degradates Average: All degradates
25

Figure 6 shows the formation/degradation profile of the various constituents of the observed 

degradate suite in the water/sediment systems.

Figure 6 Formation and decline of the major degradates of mancozeb in aerobic water/sediment 

systems (The figure represents averages for river/pond)

Data in Figure 6 suggest the following:

(b) EBIS is a transitional degradate that forms immediately following application to the 

water/sediment systems with a 90th percentile half-life (from maximum formation) of 8

days (0.3 days in the river system and 4 days in the pond system);

(c) UN-ID degradates form immediately at levels of nearly 10% and increase gradually within 

two weeks to 23% then decline slowly to 5% at 105 days. The 90th percentile half-life (from 

maximum formation) was 70 days (55 days in the river system and 41 days in the pond 

system).This suggests that these degradates forms from parent mancozeb immediately 

upon application as well as from residues later;

(d) ETU reached the maximum within one to two day (just after the sharp decline of EBIS) 

suggesting its formation from EBIS. The half-life (from maximum formation) was 5 days

(SFO= Single 1st order) in the river system and 9 days (SFO) in the pond system. It is 

important to note that much longer single 1st order half-lives for ETU were estimated from 

metiram studies (7 days in a river system and 264 days in a pond system);

0

10

20

30

40

50

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

% of Applied Radioactivity

Time in Days

EIBS

EU

ETU

Decline to 23% @ 105 d
26

(e) EU appears to increase gradually but slowly (within one month) into a plateau (30-32%) 

and very slowly declines to 23% by the end of the 105-day study. The 90th percentile halflife (from maximum formation) was 229 days (range 9 days in the river system and 117 

days in the pond system);

(f) HYD reached the maximum of 12% in the river system and 14% in the pond system in a 

7-14 day period then declined to non-detection.

5.2 The Major Mancozeb Degradate: Ethylenethiourea (ETU)

ETU is a common metabolite/degradate of the EBDC fungicides (EBDCs) including mancozeb. 

As a mancozeb degradate, ETU can be anticipated to be found wherever this fungicide is used. In 

an agricultural setting, ETU is introduced into the environment in three ways following application 

of mancozeb fungicide. First, ETU may be added with the applied formulation as it may form in 

these formulations as a result of particle size reduction (i.e. colloidal milling) and/or due to 

unfavorable storage. In EBDCs, up to 13% of the active ingredient was found to be converted to 

ETU. Second, ETU is produced from hydrolytic/biotic degradation of parent mancozeb following 

its application to soils and/or after reaching water bodies by drift. Third, ETU may be produced 

from further hydrolysis/biotransformation of transient species in pore water/water bodies and 

possibly from soil/sediment bound residue of mancozeb. Rapid hydrolysis/biotransformation of 

mancozeb parent and/or residues are expected to be the major processes that control ETU 

production in soils and water bodies. In addition, slow biotic degradation of un-extracted (UER) 

mancozeb residues may also contribute to the production of ETU in the long term. It is noted that 

the slow production of ETU from mancozeb UER is uncertain as the identity of these residues is

unknown. 

As stated above, ETU is produced mainly from decomposition/hydrolytic/biotic degradation of 

parent mancozeb. Laboratory data on hydrolysis of mancozeb suggest that hydrolysis may be one 

of the major processes in ETU production. However, data presented are uncertain as identification 

of transient species and degradates were largely dependent on the TLC methods which was 

affected by poor separation of degradates and the occurrence of degradation caused by the solvent 

systems employed. Therefore, a new hydrolysis study is requested for mancozeb in which all 

degradation products, including ETU are tracked. 

In the aerobic soil system, hydrolytic/biotic degradation of parent mancozeb appears to produce 

ETU. The maximum observed in three soils ranges from 6-9% (15-29% of parent equivalent) 

(Figure 7)
27

Figure 7 Formation and decline of ETU in a mancozeb aerobic soil study (three soils)

Similarly ETU was observed to be produced in the aerobic aquatic systems from hydrolytic/biotic 

degradation of parent mancozeb. In these systems, maximums observed ranged from 17-20% (45-

52% of parent equivalent) (Figure 8)

Figure 8 Formation and decline of ETU in a mancozeb aerobic aquatic study (two systems)

0

2

4

6

8

10

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

% ETU *

Time in Days

Speyer 2.1 Speyer 2.2 Senozan Average

0

5

10

15

20

0 20 40 60 80 100

% ETU

Time in Days

Pond: ETU River: ETU Average: ETU
28

Finally, ETU may also be introduced to the environment from its extensive use as accelerator in 

synthetic rubber production and as vulcanizing agent in some poly-ethers production. 

Environmental contamination from these industrial uses are not within the FIFRA statutory 

framework and to will not be covered by the future risk assessment.

(a) Physical/Chemical and Abiotic Transformation

The chemical structure, physical/chemical characteristics and abiotic transformation of ETU are 

summarized in Table 9.

Table 9 Chemical structure, physical/chemical characteristics and abiotic transformation of ETU

Data in Table 9 indicate that ETU is a low molecular-weight chemical that is highly soluble in 

water. The high vapor pressure of ETU suggests partitioning into the air can be an important route 

of its dissipation in the environment, especially from dry surfaces. The relatively low Henry’s Law 

constant suggests possible low volatilization of ETU into the air from wet soil and water. ETU has 

a low Kow value suggesting that it will not be significantly bio-concentrated by aquatic organisms 

such as fish. Abiotic process such as hydrolysis and photolysis are not expected to be important in 

dissipation of ETU in the environment.

(b) Biotic Transformation

Fate data for ETU is extracted from parent studies and/or ETU studies where ETU is the test 

substance. A summary of this data are presented in Table 10. 

Property Value Reference

Identity/Structure

CAS Number (Name): 96-45-7 (2-Imidazolidinethione)

Molecular Weight (Formula) 102.2 g mole-1 (C3H6N2S)

n-octanol-Water Coefficient (KOW) 0.2 MRID 406510-01 (A)1

Vapor Pressure 5.01x10-3 torr Neely WB & Blau GE2

Henry's Law constant 3.4X10-7 atm. m3 mole-1

Meylan WM & Howard 

PH3

Water Solubility 20,000 ppm @ 20 o

C and 90,000 ppm @ 60 oC

Hydrolysis half-life (t 1⁄2) Stable @ 25 o

C and pH 5, 7, and 9 MRID 404661-03 (A)1

Aqueous photolysis t 1⁄2

Stable in pH 7 buffered water (Ross and Crosby 3

reported that the Maximum ETU absorbance lies at 240 

nm)

MRID 404661-02 (A)1

Soil photolysis t 1⁄2 Stable (Based on Data and UV/Visible spectra) MRID 404661-01(A)1

1 Study Classification: A= Acceptable; S= Supplemental

2 Neely WB and Blau GE 1985. Environmental Exposure from Chemicals. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press pp. 31

3 Meylan WM & Howard PH 1991. Environ Toxicol Chem 10: 1283-93 (Fragment constant estimation method)

NH

NH

C S
29

Table 10 Summary of environmental fate properties of ETU

Property Value MRID Reference 1

Aerobic soil t 1⁄2 (Parent Study: @ 

20 o

C and End of study (EOS)= 

120 day); ETU study @ 25 o

C and 

End of study (EOS)= 7 day)

From Parent Study: 

18.2 days in Speyer 2.3: A sandy loam soil from 

Germany; pH= 6.5 and organic carbon “O.C” = 0.71%);

4.4 days in Speyer 2.2: A loamy sand soil from Germany; 

pH= 5.7 and O.C= 2.17%;

10.7 days in Senozan: A silty loam soil from France; pH= 

5.8 and O.C= 0.99%

Note: ETU: Max 14-25% @ 1 d then declined to 1-2% 

@ EOS

From ETU Study: 

1.6 days in Collamer silt loam soil from Wayne Co., NY; 

pH= 6.1, organic matter= 3.6% and CEC= 13 meq/100g;

and

1.4 days in Oakville sand soil from Wayne Co., NY; pH= 

6.8, organic matter= 2.1% and CEC= 6 meq/100g;

Note: t 1⁄2= 3.2 days was observed in Collamer silt loam 

soil when soil moisture was reduced from 70 to 40% of 

the soil water holding capacity

Major Degradates: EU was only tracked with Max of 3-

3.4% @ <1-2 days and then declined to <0.2-0.3% @ 

EOS

Un-extracted Residues (UER); Mineralization to CO2

and Mass Balance: Not determined

Parent Study:

457445-01 (S);

ETU Study:

452251-01 (S) & 

451464-01 (S)

Aerobic Aquatic t1⁄2 @ 25 oC

From Parent Study: 

5 days in a water/loamy sand sediment from the Rhine 

River, Switzerland (water: pH 8.0-8.2, total organic 

carbon 2.6 mg/L ; sediment: pH=6.9, O.C= 1.4% and 

CEC=2.8 meq/100g); and

9 days in a water/loamy sand sediment from Ormalingen 

pond, Switzerland (water: pH 7.4, total organic carbon 

1.1 mg/L; sediment: pH=6.7, O.C= 5.0% and CEC=7.1 

meq/100g)

Note: ETU Max 42-52% @ <1-2 d then declined to <1% 

@ EOS

From ETU Study:

No Acceptable study

Parent Study:

462043-01 (A)

Anaerobic Aquatic t1⁄2 @ 25 oC

Studies suggest longer half-lives than the aerobic 

conditions; if no study is submitted, ETU will be 

considered stable

001633-35

000888-20& 

402582-03 (U)

Study Classification: A= Acceptable; S= Supplemental and U= Un-acceptable

Data in Table 10 suggest the following:

(1) ETU degraded under aerobic soil conditions with a 90th percentile t1⁄2 of 12 days (n=5). Only 

EU degradate was tracked and observed at levels ranging from 3-3.4% of the applied 
30

radioactivity. The study demonstrated vulnerability of ETU to biodegradation in the soil 

system;

(2) ETU degraded under aerobic water sediment systems with a 90th percentile half-life of 13 days; 

and

(3) Observed half-lives of ETU in the soil system is much shorter than those observed in the 

water/sediment systems. 

Due to deficiencies in submitted anaerobic aquatic studies, ETU will be considered stable unless 

a new study is submitted that indicates otherwise. In requested studies, ETU and degradates should 

be tracked with the latest available analytical procedures. In addition, extraction method should 

prove to be appropriate as per EFED un-extracted residues guidance8.

(c) Mobility

Data for mobility were estimated from a supplemental adsorption/desorption study (Table 11). It 

is noted that there were problems with this study such as the possibility of occurrence of 

degradation of ETU before conducting the experiment. The study was classified as supplemental 

following registrant submittal of data suggesting that the applied test substance included 

significant quantities of ETU.

Table 11 Summary of the transport properties for ETU

Property Value for Mancozeb Parent & Residues MRID Reference 1

Adsorption Coefficient (Koc) 

(Adsorption/desorption study)

150 mL/g for a Sandy soil from GA (O.M= 0.9%, pH= 

5.7 and CEC= 4 meq/100g);

57 mL/g for a Sandy loam soil from GA (O.M= 2.8%, 

pH= 5.9 and CEC= 6 meq/100g);

42 mL/g for a Silt loam soil from PA (O.M= 3.5%, pH= 

6.4 and CEC= 10 meq/100g); and

34 mL/g for a Clay loam soil from MS (O.M= 2.5%, 

pH= 7.4 and CEC= 13 meq/100g)

002588-96

And

000971-58 (S)

Average value 71 mL/g

Range of values 34- 150 mL/g

Study Classification: S= Supplemental

Based on data presented in Table 11, ETU is expected to be highly mobile in most soils (Average 

Koc= 71 mL/g).

(d) Field Dissipation

Dissipation half-lives (DT50s) of 1 to 6 days and <7 days were observed in fine sand and silt loam 

field soils (Supplemental studies: Accession Nos. 255229 and 000889-23).

 8 URL: 

http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/science/efed/policy_guidance/team_authors/environmental_fate_tech_team/Unextrac

ted_Residues_in_Lab_Studies.htm
31

(e) Bioconcentration

ETU is associated with very low KOW values of 2. Fish bioaccumulation study was previously 

waived for ETU based on the expected low bioconcentration as indicated from KOW.

(f) Transformation Products

ETU is a result of abiotic/biotic degradation of mancozeb/mancozeb residues reaching soil directly 

and by wash-off and reaching aquatic systems by drift. ETU itself is not expected to be affected 

by hydrolysis/direct photolysis in soils or aquatic systems. In contrast, ETU is expected to be 

highly affected by aerobic biodegradation in soils and to a lesser extent in biologically active 

aquatic media. Many degradation products were thought to be forming as a result of ETU 

degradation such as EU (2-Imidazolidone; CAS No. 107-15-3); HYD or Glycolylurea (2,4-

(3H,5H)-Imidazoledione; CAS No. 461-72-3); IMID (2-Imidazoline; CAS No. 504-75-6); GLY 

(Glycine= Amino acetic acid; CAS No. 56-40-6); J.B (Jaffe’s Base=1-(4,5-Dihydro-1H-imidazol2-yl)-imidazolidin-2-thion; CAS No. 484-92-4); EDA (Ethylenediamine) and CO2. However, only 

EU and HYD were confirmed since the results of the TLC method are considered not reliable due 

to problems stated earlier. The degradation products of ETU will be corrected based on the results 

of requested new studies.

5.3 Determination of the Stressor of Concern for Ecological 

Risk Assessment

Chemical species intensity and timing of exposure and toxicity are used to determine the stressor 

of concern for the future ecological risk assessment. 

Exposure

In the soil system, mancozeb reaching the soil indirectly upon application and later from wash-off 

is expected to degrade into multi chemical species or the mancozeb residues. The timeline for the 

change in the chemical species in of the mancozeb residues in the soil is summarized in Figure 9.
32

Figure 9 Expected relative changes in the chemical constituents of the mancozeb residues with 

time in the aerobic soil system (average of three soils).

Data in Figure 9 suggest that chemical species that may reach aquatic systems by run-off from the 

soil include significant amounts of the UER and lesser amounts of ETU, EU and UN-ID 

degradates. In contrast, mancozeb reaching aquatic systems, by drift, is expected to also degrade 

into the mancozeb residues producing similar chemical species with different concentrations and 

at a different time-line as shown in Figure 10.

Figure 10 Expected relative changes in the chemical constituents of the mancozeb residues

with time in aerobic aquatic systems (Average of two systems).

Data in Figure 10 suggest that the constituents of the mancozeb residues will be dominated by

un-degraded parent, EBIS and ETU at the short term and EU and the UER at the long term. 

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

0 0.06 1 7 14 28 63 120

% of Applied Radioactivity

Time in Days

Parent EBIS ETU EU Un-ID UER CO2

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

0 0.25 1 2 7 14 30 59 105

% of Applied Radioactivity

Time in Days

Parent EBIS ETU EU Un-ID UER CO2 HYD
33

Therefore, aquatic exposure will be associated with un-degraded parent from drift alone, EBIS, 

ETU and EU at the short term and the UER and EU at the long term. Based on expected aquatic 

exposure, a mancozeb residues consisting from parent, ETU and EU are important at the short 

term and a mancozeb residues containing UER and EU at the long term.

Toxicity

The toxicity of the major degradates EBIS, ETU, EU and UER is considered hereafter to decide 

on which of these degradates may be included in the stressor.

As noted above, there is a relatively robust data set available to characterize the acute and 

chronic toxicity of ETU to aquatic taxa. These data are further discussed in Section 7 of this 

assessment. A comparatively smaller dataset exists for EU and only for acute exposure. These 

data are summarized in Table 12 below alongside the endpoints derived from parent mancozeb 

studies. For the transient degradate EBIS, there is no registrant submitted data available, and 

therefore the structural activity relationship (SAR) tool ECOSAR (v 1.1) was employed to 

estimate the toxicity to taxa where no data are available. The results below indicate that for taxa 

for which registrant submitted studies are available for as well as ECOSAR estimates for where 

there are gaps in the dataset for EU, that ETU and EU are generally at least one order of 

magnitude less toxic than parent mancozeb and usually two or more orders of magnitude less 

toxic. As shown in Table 12, the transient degradate EBIS is estimated to elicit toxicity similar 

to that of parent mancozeb and for some taxa is estimated to be more toxic than parent 

mancozeb. 

Table 12. Summary of registrant submitted and ECOSAR estimates of the various degradation 

product of mancozeb

Taxa 

Stressor

(data source)

FW

Fish 

LC50

FW

Invert 

LC50

FW fish 

NOAEC

FW

invert 

NOAEC

E/M

fish 

LC50

E/M 

invert

LC50

E/M

Fish 

NOAEC

FW 

Green 

Algae

Parent Mancozeb

(registrant submitted data) 0.91 1.04 0.001 0.02 1.6 0.009 0.047

ETU

(registrant submitted data) >502 26.9 Study in review >895 7.8 23

EU (registrant submitted 

data) >122 985 119

EU (Substituted ureas 

ECOSAR class) 2735 8624 5.57 204 94.2 1351 4.07 156

EU (Amides ECOSAR 

class) 7183 855 22.7 272 17.6 1428 21.6

EBIS

(Thiocarbamate, di 

(substitute ECOSAR class)

0.18 0.62 0.0151 0.041** 0.10

*May not be soluble at this level to elicit estimated effect

**Estimated using an acute to chronic ratio

As shown in Figure 10 above, upon entering the water column, mancozeb shows a rapid 

transformation within 6 hours to ETU, at which point the relative concentration of parent 

remaining is approximately 40%. This decomposition continues where by after 1 day, total parent 

mancozeb is less than 10% while ETU and EU residues make up a combined 70%. The toxicity 
34

of the un-extracted residues, that along with EU, comprise the majority of residues in the 

water/sediment system after 30 days, is characterized only to freshwater sediment-dwelling 

organisms (see Section 6 for more details). While their toxicity to other taxa represent an 

uncertainty, the extent to which the un-extracted residues would be bioavailable to water column 

organisms is expected to be low. More likely, these pelagic organisms would be exposed to 

relatively stable concentrations of EU which registrant submitted studies show to be less toxic than 

mancozeb on an acute basis and ECOSAR estimates show to be less toxic than mancozeb on a 

chronic exposure basis

What follows is a summarization of the ecological stressor of concern for each taxa:

Ecological stressor of concern (aquatic organisms):

• The total residues of un-degraded mancozeb parent plus EBIS for acute exposure: the source 

of mancozeb parent and EBIS is expected to be from drifted parent alone as mancozeb reaching 

the soil system and resultant transient species (i.e., EBIS) and degradates ETU and EU forming 

in the soil are not expected to reach aquatic systems by run-off because they are short lived. 

Additionally, it is noted that at most (per Figure 10), EU is 27X less acutely toxic than parent 

(based on freshwater invertebrate data), and at Day 1, EU is present at about 6X that of parent, 

so its contribution to overall toxicity would be very limited.

• For chronic exposure: UER that forms following degradation of drifted parent and that carried 

by run-off from the UER forming in the soil system.

Ecological stressor of concern (terrestrial foliar residues for birds and mammals):

• Parent mancozeb residues on various food items for both acute and chronic risk noting 

that this will be conservative because the possible occurrence of degradation by moisture will 

reduce exposure due to the production of the less toxic degradates ETU and EU. It is also 

noted that this degradation applies to parent mancozeb behavior on soil. It is an uncertainty as 

to whether mancozeb follows a similar dissipation pattern on foliage and therefore it is 

assumed that, without data to suggest otherwise, these residues would be available for ingestion 

by avian and mammalian species.

Ecological stressor of concern (terrestrial foliar residues for honey bees):

• The discussion above relating to parent mancozeb residues on various food items for both 

and chronic risk also apply to honey bees via direct contact spray toxicity. As mancozeb does 

not exhibit systemic properties, its residues would not be expected to be present in pollen and 

nectar.

In contrast, the drinking water stressor is ETU, the major degradate of mancozeb forming in 

aquatic systems from drifted parent and ETU that forms in the soil and transported to these systems 

by run-off.
35

6. Receptors

As described in the Agency's Overview Document (U.S EPA, 2004), the most sensitive endpoint 

for each taxonomic group will be used to calculate risk quotients (RQs). Assessment endpoints 

include direct toxic effects on the survival, reproduction, and growth of terrestrial and aquatic life 

as well as indirect effects such as reduction in prey base and/or modification of habitat. Acute and 

chronic toxicity data from studies submitted by pesticide registrants along with the available open 

literature are used to evaluate the potential direct effects of mancozeb to the aquatic and terrestrial 

receptors identified in this section. This includes toxicity data on the technical grade active 

ingredient, degradates, and when available, formulated products. The open literature studies are 

identified through EPA's ECOTOX database (http://cfpub.epa.gov/ecotox/), which employs a 

literature search engine for locating chemical toxicity data for aquatic life, terrestrial plants, and 

wildlife. 

6.1 Effects to Aquatic Organisms

A summary of the available eco-toxicity information and the incident information for mancozeb 

is provided below. Table 13 provides a summary of the taxonomic groups and the surrogate 

species tested to help understand potential acute and chronic ecological effects of mancozeb. In 

addition, the table provides a preliminary overview of the potential acute toxicity of mancozeb by 

providing the acute toxicity classifications. 

There are several acute toxicity studies available to characterize the toxicity of mancozeb to 

freshwater fish. Acute LC50 endpoints range from 0.91 to 9.3 mg a.i/L, which classifies mancozeb 

as highly toxic to freshwater fish on an acute exposure basis. Clinical signs of toxicity that were 

observed in studies included loss of equilibrium, bulging eyes, and resting on the bottom of the 

tank. These effects generally occurred at concentrations where at least one mortality was observed. 

Chronic early life stage and chronic full life cycle toxicity tests are available for freshwater fish. 

The chronic NOAEC values determined for the ELS study and full life cycle study were within a 

factor of 2 (2.19 and 1.35 μg a.i/L, respectively). It is noted that parent mancozeb will not be 

associated with long persisting residues in the water column as indicated in the previous discussion 

(Section 5.3). While the NOAEC was based off of survival effects for the ELS study, the number 

of eggs per female per day was the most sensitive endpoint for the fish full life cycle. There were 

no clinical signs of toxicity observed in either study.

Available data indicate that mancozeb is moderately toxic to estuarine/marine fish on an acute 

exposure basis with an LC50 of 1.6 mg a.i/L. There were no reported clinical signs of toxicity 

during the course of the study. Despite the study being classified as supplemental, there was 

evidence of test substance stability issues during the course of the study with percent recoveries 

ranging from 43 – 50%. 

There is currently one chronic early life stage with the estuarine/marine fish species, Sheepshead 

minnow (MRID 48627702), that is currently in review.
36

Acute and chronic toxicity studies are available to characterize effects on freshwater invertebrates. 

On an acute exposure basis, mancozeb is classified as moderately toxic with an EC50 of 1.04 mg 

a.i/L. A chronic life cycle study conducted with formulated (77.1% a.i) mancozeb indicated a 

NOAEC of 18 μg a.i/L based on significant (p<0.05) effects on mortality and reproduction (total 

number of live young). 

Available data for characterization the acute toxicity of mancozeb to estuarine/marine 

invertebrates indicate the chemical is very highly toxic on an acute exposure basis with a LC50

value of 9.49 μg a.i/L. Despite being classified as supplemental, the study review indicates that 

the control appeared to be contaminated with test substance. Correspondence that was attached to 

the review of the study dated in May, 1989, indicated that the issue of control contamination had 

been discussed between the Rohm and Haas Company and EPA. At that time, EPA stated that 

because no control mortality occurred, no further testing would be needed. An examination of the 

analytical data indicates that mancozeb was detected in the control samples at 2.31 μg a.i/L at test 

initiation, 1.05 μg a.i/L at 48 hours, and no detected at 96 hours (test termination). Given that no 

control mortality occurred, and no other notable deviations from guideline recommendations were 

present, this study is considered suitable for risk assessment purposes.

There is one chronic life cycle toxicity study available for estuarine/marine invertebrates (mysid 

shrimp) that is currently in review (MRID 48627701).

There is one study available to characterize the toxicity of mancozeb to aquatic non-vascular 

plants, specifically to freshwater green algae. No studies are available for vascular aquatic plants 

or for freshwater and estuarine/marine diatoms and cyanobacteria. 

Table 13. Summary of the Most Sensitive Endpoints from Aquatic Toxicity Studies for Mancozeb 

Taxonomic 

Group

Study 

Type –

Test 

Material

Surrogate 

Species

Toxicity Value

(all units in terms 

of measured 

active 

ingredient)2

Acute 

Toxicity 

Classification

Source 

(Classification)

Freshwater fish1

Acute -

TGAI

Rainbow trout 

(Oncorhynchus 

mykiss)

96-hr LC50: 0.91

mg/L (0.77 – 1.1; 

N/A)

Highly toxic 45934701

(Supplemental)

Acute -

formulation

Rainbow trout

(Oncorhynchus 

mykiss)

96-hr LC50: 1.1 

mg/L (0.90 – 1.43, 

N/A)

Moderately 

toxic

40467501

(Supplemental)

Chronic

(Early life 

stage) -

TGAI

Fathead 

minnow 

(Pimephales 

promelas)

28-day NOAEC: 

2.19 μg/L; 

LOAEC 

(survival): 4.56 

μg/L

-- 43230701 

(Acceptable)

Chronic

(Full life 

cycle) -

TGAI

Fathead 

minnow 

(Pimephales 

promelas)

215-day NOAEC 

1.35 μg a.i/L; 

LOAEC (number 

of eggs, number of 

eggs/female/day)

-- 49030601

(Acceptable)

Freshwater 

invertebrates

Acute -

TGAI

Water flea 

(Daphnia 

magna)

48-hr EC50: 1.04

mg a.i/L (0.87 –

1.32; N/A)

Moderately 

toxic

40467503

(Supplemental)
37

Taxonomic 

Group

Study 

Type –

Test 

Material

Surrogate 

Species

Toxicity Value

(all units in terms 

of measured 

active 

ingredient)2

Acute 

Toxicity 

Classification

Source 

(Classification)

Chronic -

formulation

21-d NOAEC: 18 

μg a.i/L; LOAEC 

(mortality and 

total number of 

young): 81 μg 

a.i/L

-- 46023702

(Supplemental)

Estuarine/marine 

fish

Acute -

TGAI

Sheepshead 

minnow 

(Cyprinodon 

variegatus)

96-hr LC50: 1.6 

mg a.i/L(N/A; 

N/A)

Moderately 

toxic

41844901 

(Acceptable)

Chronic -

TGAI Study in review (48627702)

Estuarine/marine 

invertebrates

Acute –

formulation

Mysid shrimp 

(Americamysis 

bahia)

96-hr LC50: 9.49 

μg/L (8.26 – 11.4; 

N/A)

Very highly 

toxic

41822902

(Supplemental)

Acute -

TGAI

Eastern oyster

(Crassostrea

virginica

96-hr EC50: 1.60 

mg a.i/L (1.40 –

1.80; N/A)

Moderately 

toxic

40885102

(Acceptable)

Chronic -

TGAI Mysid shrimp Study in review (MRID 48627701)

SedimentDwelling 

Invertebrates

Subchronic 

Spiked 

sediment 

system -

TGAI

Freshwater 

midge 

(Chironomus 

dilutus)

Sediment:

NOAEC/LOAEC 

(mortality and dry 

weight): 8.17/15.7 

mg TRR/kg dw

Pore water:

NOAEC/LOAEC 

(mortality): 

1.92/5.25 mg 

TRR/L

-- 47410101

(Acceptable)

Subchronic 

Spiked 

sediment 

system –

Nonextractable 

residues

Sediment:

NOAEC/LOAEC 

(mortality): 

0.912/19.3 mg 

TRR/kg dw

Pore water:

NOAEC: 0.083 

mg TRR/kg

LOAEC 

(mortality): 0.18 

mg TRR/L

-- 47410102

(Acceptable)

Aquatic plants 

and algae

Nonvascular2 -

TGAI

Freshwater 

Green Algae 

(Selenastrum 

capricornutum)

96-hour EC50 (cell 

density): 47 μg/L 

(42 – 51; N/A)

96-hr NOAEC: 22 

μg/L

-- 43664701

(Acceptable)

1 Freshwater fish may be surrogates for aquatic-phase amphibians. 2 (95% confidence intervals; slope) if available

3Endpoints expressed in terms of mean measured active ingredient
38

Additionally, there are 9 studies available to characterize the acute and chronic toxicity of the 

primary degradate of mancozeb, ETU, to aquatic organisms (Table 14). As alluded to earlier, 

acute toxicity studies with freshwater fish and invertebrates, estuarine/marine fish and 

invertebrates, and aquatic plants indicate that ETU is generally less toxic than parent mancozeb by 

at least an order of magnitude, depending on the taxa. 

Table 14. Summary of Endpoints from Aquatic Toxicity Studies for the Mancozeb Degradate 

ETU

Taxonomic 

Group (study 

type)

Surrogate Species2 Toxicity Value1 AcuteToxicity 

Classification

Source

(Classification)

Freshwater fish2

(acute toxicity) 

Rainbow trout

(Oncorhynchus 

mykiss)

96-hr LC50: >502 mg/L

(N/A; N/A)

Practically 

non-toxic

45910401

(Acceptable)

Bluegill sunfish

(Lepomis 

macrochirus)

96-hr LC50: >988 mg a.i/L Practically 

non-toxic

47441202

(Acceptable)

Freshwater 

invertebrates

(acute toxicity) Water flea 

(Daphnia magna)

48-hr EC50: 26.9 mg a.i/L (19.6 –

38.5; 1.92) Slightly toxic 45910402

(Acceptable)

Freshwater 

invertebrates

(chronic toxicity)

Study in review

Estuarine/marine 

fish

(acute toxicity

Sheepshead minnow 

(Cyprinodon 

variegatus)

96-hr LC50: >895 mg a.i/L (N/A; 

N/A)

Practically 

non-toxic

47441201

(Acceptable)

Estuarine/marine 

invertebrates 

(acute toxicity)

Mysid shrimp

(Americamysis 

bahia)

96-hr LC50: 7.8 mg a.i/L (5.1 –

10.9; N/A)

Moderately 

toxic

47441204

(Acceptable)

Estuarine/marine 

invertebrates 

(acute toxicity)

Eastern oyster 

(Crassostrea 

virginica)

96-hr >110 mg a.i/L (N/A; N/A) Practically 

non-toxic

47474301

(Acceptable)

Aquatic plants

Freshwater green 

algae 

(Pseudokirchneriella 

subcapitata) 

72-hr EC50 (cell density): 23.0 

mg a.i/L (N/A; N/A)

72-hr NOAEC: 5.0 mg a.i/L

-- 45910403

(Acceptable)

Duckweed 

(Lemna gibba)

7-d EC50: >960 mg a.i/L

7-d NOAEC: 230 mg a.i/L

7-d LOAEC (frond density and 

growth rate): 480 mg a.i/L

-- 47441203

1

Concentrations expressed in terms of mean measured active ingredient. 2

Freshwater fish may be surrogates for aquatic-phase amphibians.

There are 3 studies available to characterize the acute toxicity to the degradate of ETU (itself a 

degradate of mancozeb) ethylene urea (EU) to freshwater fish, invertebrates, and green algae 

(Table 15). The available acute toxicity study for freshwater fish, while not testing as high as the 

study with ETU, indicates that EU is practically non-toxic to fish on an acute exposure basis. For 

freshwater invertebrates and freshwater green algae, available data indicate that EU is at least one 

order of magnitude less toxic as compared to ETU and at least 2 orders of magnitude less toxic 

than parent mancozeb. 
39

Table 15. Summary of Endpoints from Aquatic Toxicity Studies for the ETU Degradate 

Ethylene Urea (EU)

Taxonomic 

Group (study 

type)

Surrogate Species1 Toxicity Value1 AcuteToxicity 

Classification

Source

(Classification)

Freshwater fish2

(acute toxicity) 

Rainbow trout

(Oncorhynchus mykiss)

96-hr LC50: >122 mg/L

(N/A; N/A)

Practically 

non-toxic

46462902

(Acceptable)

Freshwater 

invertebrates

(acute toxicity) 

Water flea 

(Daphnia magna) 48-hr EC50: >985 mg/L Practically 

non-toxic

46462903

(Acceptable)

Aquatic plants

Freshwater green algae 

(Pseudokirchneriella 

subcapitata) 

96-hr EC50: >119 mg/L 

96-hr NOAEC: 119 mg/L -- 46462904

(Acceptable)

1 Concentrations expressed in terms of mean measured active ingredient. 2 Freshwater fish may be surrogates for aquatic-phase amphibians.

6.2 Effects to Terrestrial Organisms

Available data are inadequate to fully characterize the acute oral and sub-acute dietary risk of 

mancozeb to avian species. Three studies are currently available, and despite being classified as 

supplemental, have deficiencies that limit their utility in a quantitative risk assessment. 

In a study conducted with the Japanese quail (Coturnix japonica, MRID 00080717), the study was 

initially planned as an avian dietary test, but changed to a multiple dose oral study. The age, 

gender, and source of the test animals was not provided, four animals per treatment level (as 

opposed to 10) were used, and regurgitation occurred at certain test concentrations during the 

course of the study. Therefore, it is uncertain as to what level of test substance the test birds 

actually received. Similarly, in a multiple-dose oral toxicity study conducted with the mallard 

duck (MRID 00080716), test bird age, gender, and source were also unspecified. Additionally, 

differing numbers of animals were used depending on the concentration (all below the guidelinerecommended 10 animals per treatment group), as well as regurgitation occurring at the two 

highest treatment levels. This study was classified as supplemental but has limited utility on 

quantitative risk assessment given the uncertainty of the doses that test birds received at the two 

highest treatment groups. Finally, mancozeb was tested with multiple acute oral doses to sparrow 

(Passer sp.), starlings (Sturnus vulgaris), and pheasants (Phaisanus sp.) (MRID 00036094). The 

starlings and sparrows were wild caught and the pheasants were obtained from an unknown 

commercial rearer. No age or gender information was given and there was a reduced number of 

birds per treatment level than the guideline–recommended number. These deficiencies, despite a 

study classification of supplemental limit its use in quantitative risk assessment. 

There are no subacute dietary toxicity studies available for mancozeb.

A chronic avian reproduction study conducted with the mallard duck (MRID 41948401) indicated 

several effects at the highest treatment concentration (1000 ppm) including reduced egg 

production, early and late embryo viability, hatchability, and 14-day hatching weight. Similarly, 

in the bobwhite quail study (MRID 44238001), 14-day hatching weight was also significantly 

reduced at the highest treatment concentration (1000 ppm) although this was the only adverse 
40

effect observed during the study. There were no clinical signs of toxicity observed at any treatment 

level in both studies. 

An acute oral toxicity study with mancozeb on the Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus) (MRID 

00142522) indicated that mancozeb is practically non-toxic to mammals on an acute exposure 

basis with an LD50 of >5000 mg a.i/kg-bw. In a 2-generation reproduction study, (MRID 

41365201), significant (p<0.05) decreases in parental body weight were observed at the highest 

treatment level (1200 ppm) along with increased relative thyroid weights and increased incidence 

of thyroid follicular cell hyperplasia. 

Tier I seedling emergence and vegetative vigor studies are available for mancozeb (MRID 

47486102 and 47486101, respectively). Both studies tested a single application rate of 0.02 lbs 

a.i/A. In the seedling emergence study, there were no effects that were observed to be greater than 

a 25% reduction from that of the negative control. For ryegrass, the most sensitive monocot, there 

was a 19% reduction in dry weight and therefore a definitive NOAEC could not be established. 

There were no significant reduction for dicots. In the vegetative vigor study, definitive EC25 and 

NOAEC values could not be determined due to a lack of toxicity. It is noted that the maximum 

single application rate of mancozeb ranges from 4.88 lbs. a.i/acre (in crops other than turf) to 17.5 

lbs. a.i/acre (in turf), which range from 2 – 4 orders of magnitude larger, respectively, than the 

rates assessed in the available studies. 

In an acute contact toxicity study that assessed multiple chemicals, bees of unknown age and 

source were exposed to mancozeb via a bell-jar vacuum duster. The doses at which bees were 

exposed is not available from the DER, nor was there any further information about the husbandry 

conditions, experimental test design, and raw data. The 96-hr LD50 was determined as 179 μg 

a.i/bee. The utility of this study in quantitative risk assessment is limited however given that the 

test substance was not applied to the thorax of the honey bee as in guideline recommended acute 

contact toxicity studies. Furthermore, critical information about the test organism and 

experimental conditions are missing from the study review. Acute oral toxicity data, as well as 

studies to characterize the toxic effect to honey bee larvae are not available. 

In an acute contact and reproductive study (MRID 45577201) with the predatory mite 

(Typhlodromus pyri), primary leaves of common beans were used as the treatment substrate. Mites 

were then exposed to 6 treatment concentrations plus a negative control and after 14 days, the 

residue concentration to cause lethality to 50% of the population (LR50) was determined. 

Additionally, NOAEC and LOAEC values were determined for the mean number of eggs hatched 

per female. The LR50 (mortality) and NOAEC (reproduction) determined in this study were 0.1 lb 

a.i/A and <0.02 lb a.i/A, respectively. 

In a subchronic toxicity test conducted with the earthworm (Eisenia fetida), test organisms were 

exposed to varying concentrations of TGAI mancozeb for 28-days. There were no effects on 

mortality or body weight. The number of surviving offspring per adult was significantly (p<0.05) 

reduced at the two highest treatment concentrations.
41

Table 16. Summary of the Most Sensitive Endpoints from Terrestrial Toxicity Studies for 

Mancozeb

Taxonomic 

Group Study Type Surrogate Species

Toxicity Value

(all units in terms of 

measured active 

ingredient)2,3

Acute 

Toxicity 

Classification

Source

(Classification)

Birds1

Acute Oral No data adequate for quantitative risk assessment

Sub-acute dietary No data previously submitted

Chronic

Mallard duck

quail

(Anas 

platyrhynchos)

NOAEC = 125 ppm

(14-day old hatchling 

weight, egg 

production, 

hatchability, embryo 

viability)

LOAEC = 1000 ppm

-- 41948401

(Acceptable)

Mammals

Acute Oral

Norway rat 

(Rattus 

norvegicus)

14-day LD50 >5000

mg/kg bw (N/A; N/A)

Practically 

non-toxic

00142522

(Acceptable)

Chronic (2-

generation 

reproduction)

Norway rat 

(Rattus 

norvegicus)

NOAEC (parental 

body weight) = 120 

ppm

LOAEC = 1200 ppm

-- 41365201

(Acceptable)

Insects Acute contact -

TGAI

Honey bee 

(Apis mellifera)

96-hr LD50: 179 μg 

a.i/bee

Practically 

non-toxic

00018842

(Acceptable)

Terrestrial 

plants

Seedling 

Emergence (Tier 

I)

Monocot –

Ryegrass

EC25 > 0.02 lbs a.i/A

NOAEC (dry weight) 

= <0.02 lbs a.i/A

--

47486102

(Acceptable) Dicot – None EC25 : >0.02 lbs a.i/A 

NOAEC = 0.02 lbs 

a.i/A

Vegetative Vigor 

(Tier I)

Monocot -

None

EC25 >0.02 lbs a.i/A 

NOAEC = 0.02 lbs 

a.i/A 47486101

(Acceptable)

Dicot - None

EC25 >0.02 lbs a.i/A

NOAEC = 0.02 lbs 

a.i/A 1 Birds represent surrogates for terrestrial-phase amphibians and reptiles. 2 Concentrations expressed in terms of active ingredient.

3An N/A under endpoint means that there was not a most sensitive species tested.

Additionally, there are six studies available to characterize the toxicity of ETU to terrestrial 

organisms. In two acute oral studies with the zebra finch and bobwhite quail (MRID 48437501 

and 4834001, respectively), ETU was not associated with any mortalities during the course of the 

study. In two subacute dietary toxicity studies with the bobwhite quail and mallard duck (MRIDs 

48417801 and 48417802, respectively), ETU did not cause mortality in all treatment 

concentrations. In the bobwhite quail study, there was a reduction in mean body weight change in 

the three highest treatment concentrations as we all as a significant (p<0.05) reduction in mean 

body weight in the two highest treatment concentrations. In the study with the mallard duck, there 

was a significant (p<0.05) decrease in mean body weight that was determined at all treatment 

concentrations. 
42

There are two chronic avian reproduction studies conducted with ETU on the bobwhite quail 

(MRID 48819701) and mallard duck (MRID 48819702) that are currently in review.

Table 17. Summary of Endpoints from Terrestrial Toxicity Studies for the ETU

Taxonomic 

Group 

(study 

type)

Study Type Surrogate Species

Toxicity Value

(all units in terms of 

measured active 

ingredient)2

Acute

Toxicity 

Classification

Source

(Classification)

Birds1

Acute oral 

toxicity

Bobwhite quail

(Colinus 

virginianus)

14-d LD50 >2250 

mg/kg-bw (N/A; N/A)

Practically 

non-toxic

48343001

(Acceptable)

Zebra finch

(Taeniopygia 

guttata)

14-d LD50 >2250 

mg/kg-bw (N/A; N/A)

Practically 

non-toxic

48437501

(Acceptable)

Subacute 

dietary 

toxicity

Bobwhite quail

(Colinus 

virginianus)

8-d LC50 > 5620

mg/kg-bw (N/A; N/A)

Practically 

non- toxic

48417801

(Acceptable)

Mallard duck

(Anas 

platyrhynchos)

8-d LD50 > 5620

mg/kg-bw (N/A; N/A)

Practically 

non- toxic

48417802

(Acceptable)

Chronic 

avian 

reproduction

Bobwhite quail

(Colinus virginianus Study in review (MRID 48819701)

Mallard duck (Anas 

platyrhynchos) Study in review (MRID 48817702)

1 Birds represent surrogates for terrestrial-phase amphibians and reptiles. 2

Range of numbers within parentheses refers to the 95% confidence limit of the point estimate value; followed by 

probit slope estimate if available

6.3 Ecological Incidents

The ecological incident information system (EIIS) is an EFED-maintained database that houses 

ecological incidents that have been reported to the Agency. When available, EIIS includes date 

and location of an incident, type and magnitude of effects observed in various species, use(s) of 

pesticides known or suspected of contributing to the incident, and results of any chemical residue 

analysis or other analyses conducted during incident investigation. EIIS incidents are categorized 

according to the certainty that the incident resulted from pesticide exposure. The OPP-maintained 

Incident Database System (IDS) and the Aggregate Incident Database provide incident counts at 

the chemical and product level but do not provide the narrative information contained in EIIS. The 

Avian Incident Monitoring System (AIMS) is a database administered by the American Bird 

Conservancy that contains publicly available data on reported avian incidents involving pesticides. 

Many of the incidents listed in this database are also in the EIIS. Searches of the incident databases 

were conducted in February, 2014.

A search of the IDS, AIMS, and Aggregate Incident Database returned no reported wildlife 

incidents involving mancozeb. 

A search EIIS returned six incidents ranging in dates from 1970 to 2002. A summarization of the 

incidents with information regarding the date, location, taxa of organisms involved, certainty that 
43

mancozeb was responsible for the incident, and other information is tabulated below (Table 18). 

Three incidents involved freshwater fish with the other half involving terrestrial plant damage. In 

all but two instances, the likelihood of mancozeb being responsible for the incident was reported 

as unlikely or possible. These two “possible” incidents are without any confirmatory chemical 

residue analysis. In the remaining two incidents classified as “probable,” there was a chemical 

residue analysis conducted that confirmed the presence of mancozeb.

There were no reported wildlife incidents in any of the aforementioned databases for ETU.

Table 18. Summary of reported wildlife incident for mancozeb in EIIS.

Incident 

number Year Taxa Affected Location Certainty Legality Other narrative information

B0000-

233

1970 Freshwater 

fish

Washington Unlikely Misuse 

(accidental)

- Large fish kill reported near 

Chewelah, WA

- Resulted from an aerial 

application of flowable sulfur, 

Dithane M-45 (Mancozeb), and 

thiodan

- Witnesses reported seeing the 

aircraft continue its spraying 

even when it was over the river

- No residue analysis for 

mancozeb but residues of 

endosulfan found in fish sample 

suggest mancozeb was not the 

cause.

I000799-

008

1992 Freshwater 

fish

North 

Carolina

Unlikely Undetermined - Small pond has fish kill 

reported after airblast sprayer 

used to treat apple orchard 

drifted

- Orchard had been treated with 

Thiodan, fenarimol, and 

mancozeb

- Water and soil samples were 

taken but not fish tissues

-Analysis indicated that soil 

detects were present for 

mancozeb but it is unlikely that 

it is responsible for the 

observed fish kill due to 

endosulfan (thiodan) having 

restrictions around water and its 

presence in the water and soil 

samples

I008745-

004

1995 Freshwater 

fish

Prince 

Edward 

Island 

(Canada)

Probable Misuse 

(accidental)

- Rohm and Haas company 

reported the incident where 

spray tank filled with Dithane 

DF (mancozeb) fungicide 

overturned with as much as 36 

kg entering a nearby stream

- 30,000 – 35,000 fish found 

dead in nearby salmon hatchery

- No analyses were made of the 
44

Incident 

number Year Taxa Affected Location Certainty Legality Other narrative information

fish or water but the fish were 

reported dead the morning after 

the contaminated water reached 

a salmon hatchery

I014406-

002

1996 Terrestrial 

plants

Washington Possible Undetermined - This incident was reported in 

the 1996 Annual Report of 

Pesticide Incident Reporting 

and Tracking Review Panel by 

the Washington State 

Department of Health. 

- It was alleged that an onion 

field was damaged by an aerial 

application of diazinon, 

metalaxyl, mancozeb, and 

chlorothalonil.

I013884-

013

1998 Terrestrial 

plants

Washington Probable Registered use - This incident is from the 1999 

Annual Report from the 

Washington State Department 

of Health and Pesticide Incident 

Reporting and Tracking Review 

Panel.

- Person complained of spray 

drifting over her neighbor’s 

fence and onto her fruit and 

vegetable garden.

- Chemical analysis of sample 

shows a trace of the applied 

pesticide

I014597-

034

2002 Terrestrial 

plants

Oregon Possible Registered use - Mancozeb and fludioxonil 

applied as a seed treatment to 

potatoes 

- Report states that 240 acres 

were treated and 100 acres were 

damaged, having miscellaneous 

symptoms

- No chemical analysis was 

conducted to confirm

7. Exposure Pathways of Concern

The environmental fate properties and use patterns of mancozeb indicate that direct spray, spray 

drift, and runoff (mainly in events accompanied by erosion), represent potential transport 

mechanisms of mancozeb residues to aquatic and terrestrial organisms. Leaching to groundwater 

is an important pathway for ETU, the drinking water degradate of concern, and however, 

atmospheric deposition are not important pathways for this chemical.

Other Exposure Pathways to Terrestrial Species

Drinking Water Exposure
45

The Screening Imbibition Program (SIP v.l.0), Released June 15, 2010) was used to calculate an 

upper bound estimate of exposure using mancozeb’s solubility (6.2 mg/L), the most sensitive 

chronic avian toxicity endpoint (northern bobwhite quail NOAEC of 125 ppm) and the most 

sensitive acute and chronic mammalian toxicity endpoints (Norway rat LD50 of >5000 mg a.i/kgbw and Norway rat NOAEL 120 ppm, respectively). Acute exposure for birds was not estimated 

due to the uncertainties in the available acute toxicity studies (multiple oral doses as opposed to 

single oral doses, regurgitation, small number of test birds per treatment level). Drinking water 

exposure alone was not determined to be a potential pathway of concern for chronic avian exposure 

and acute and chronic mammalian exposure. Due to insufficient data for birds for acute exposure, 

risk could not be precluded. 

Although drinking water exposure alone does not appear to be of concern (with the exception to 

acute exposure to birds), when aggregated with other exposure pathways (dietary food sources, 

dermal, inhalation), drinking water may contribute to a total exposure that has a potential for 

effects on non-target animals. Because there is a high degree of conservatism in the SIP 1.0 

exposure estimate, there is a limited expectation that use scenarios not triggering a SIP 2.0 concern 

would contribute significantly to aggregate risks from water plus diet when a refined water 

exposure model is incorporated in the actual quantitative risk assessment. Detailed information 

about SIP v.l.0 as well as the tool can be found on the EPA's website at

http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/science/models/pg.htm#terrestrial.

Inhalation Exposure

The Screening Tool for Inhalation Risk (STIR v.l.0, November 19, 2010) was used to calculate an 

upper bound estimate of exposure using mancozeb’s vapor pressure (1.32x10-10 torr) and 

molecular weight (265 g/mol) for vapor phase exposure as well as the maximum application rate 

and method of application for spray drift. STIR incorporates results from several toxicity studies 

including acute oral and inhalation rat toxicity endpoints obtained from the "six pack," of core 

studies for technical and formulated products (rat oral LD50 = >5000 mg a.i/kg-bw and inhalation 

LC50 = >5.14 mg/L). Acute inhalation exposure to birds cannot be estimated due to 

aforementioned uncertainties with the available avian acute oral toxicity studies. Based on the 

results of the STIR model, inhalation exposure alone was not determined to be a potential pathway 

of concern for mammalian species on an acute basis.

Inhalation exposure via spray drift and/or vapor-phase of mancozeb alone does not appear to be of 

concern (although the conclusions for birds is an uncertainty). The analysis of the inhalation route 

in STIR does not consider that aggregation with other exposure pathways such as dietary, dermal, 

or drinking water may contribute to a total exposure that has a potential for effects to non-target 

animals. However, the Agency does consider the relative importance of other routes of exposure 

may be potentially significant contributors to wildlife risk (US EPA, 2004). Detailed information 

about STIR v.l.0, as well as the tool, can be found on the EPA's website at:

http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/science/models/pg.htm#terrestrial

Dermal exposure
46

Potential exists for mancozeb dermal exposure to terrestrial wildlife. At the present time, the 

Agency does not have a method to quantify levels of dermal exposure from chemical applications, 

but is actively working on a screening tool to account for this route of exposure.

Exposure resulting from bioaccumulation

Mancozeb is associated with a KOW value of 22 (log KOW= 1.3). Based on its low potential for 

bio-concentration in aquatic organisms such as fish, a fish bioaccumulation study was previously 

waived.

8. Analysis Plan

8.1 Stressors of Concern

i. Ecological Risk Assessment

Please see the section entitled “Determination of Mancozeb Residues of Ecological Concern” in 

Section 5.3 of this problem formulation for a detailed rationale for identifying the stressor of 

concern for the registration review ecological risk assessment.

ii. Drinking Water 

The stressor of concern for drinking water is Ethylenethiourea (ETU, a group B2 carcinogen), the 

common degradate of all Ethylene-bis-dithiocarbamates (EBDCs) fungicides including mancozeb.

8.2 Measures of Exposure 

EFED will use the most current accepted models to evaluate potential exposures to aquatic and 

terrestrial organisms as described at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/science/models_db.htm.

Aquatic Exposure EECs will be estimated for the total toxic residues of parent plus EBIS, the 

stressor for the water column of the aquatic system. Additionally, sediment only EECs for the 

UER will be estimated, by modeling, using its observed maximum concentration in the soil system 

as an application rate and the observed half-lives to represent degradation. PFAM will be used to 

estimate relevant surface water concentrations for the use on cranberries.

The Agency is aware of ETU monitoring conducted by the EBDCs Task Force and will consider 

this data and any other available federal and state agencies data in the future registration review 

risk assessment. 

8.3 Measures of Effect 

Toxicity data presented in Section 3 of this problem formulation will be used to calculate risk 

quotients. Any additional information submitted by the registrant or found in the open literature 

prior to conduct of the risk assessment will also be considered. The open literature studies are 
47

identified using EPA’s ECOTOXicology database (ECOTOX), which employs a literature search 

engine for locating chemical toxicity data for aquatic life, terrestrial plants, and wildlife. The 

evaluation of both sources of data can also provide insight into the direct and indirect effects of 

pesticides on biotic communities from loss of species that are sensitive to the chemicals and from 

changes in structure and functional characteristics of the affected communities.

9. Endangered Species Assessments

Consistent with EPA’s responsibility under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the Agency will 

evaluate risks to federally listed threatened and endangered (listed) species from registered uses of 

pesticides in accordance with the Joint Interim Approaches developed to implement the 

recommendations of the April 2013 National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report, Assessing Risks 

to Endangered and Threatened Species from Pesticides. The NAS report outlines 

recommendations on specific scientific and technical issues related to the development of pesticide 

risk assessments that EPA and the Services must conduct in connection with their obligations 

under the ESA and FIFRA. EPA will address concerns specific to mancozeb in connection with 

the development of its final registration review decision for mancozeb. 

In November 2013, EPA, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries (the 

Services), and USDA released a white paper containing a summary of their joint Interim 

Approaches for assessing risks to listed species from pesticides. These Interim Approaches were 

developed jointly by the agencies in response to the NAS recommendations, and reflect a common 

approach to risk assessment shared by the agencies as a way of addressing scientific differences 

between the EPA and the Services. Details of the joint Interim Approaches are contained in the 

November 1, 2013 white paper, Interim Approaches for National-Level Pesticide Endangered 

Species Act Assessments Based on the Recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences 

April 2013 Report.

Given that the agencies are continuing to develop and work toward implementation of the Interim 

Approaches to assess the potential risks of pesticides to listed species and their designated critical 

habitat, this ecological problem formulation supporting the Preliminary Work Plan for mancozeb

does not describe the specific ESA analysis, including effects determinations for specific listed 

species or designated critical habitat, to be conducted during registration review. While the 

agencies continue to develop a common method for ESA analysis, the planned risk assessment for 

the registration review of mancozeb will describe the level of ESA analysis completed for this 

particular registration review case. This assessment will allow EPA to focus its future evaluations 

on the types of species where the potential for effects exists, once the scientific methods being 

developed by the agencies have been fully vetted. Once the agencies have fully developed and 

implemented the scientific methods necessary to complete risk assessments for listed species and 

their designated critical habitats, these methods will be applied to subsequent analyses of 

mancozeb as part of completing this registration review.
48

10. Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program

Mancozeb was not included in the first group of 67 chemicals issued an order to conduct Tier 1 

EDSP testing. For additional information the EDSP program, visit http://www.epa.gov/endo/.

11. Preliminary Identification of Data Gaps 

11.1 Environmental Fate

Due to the complex nature of polymeric mancozeb and the state of science when some of the 

studies were conducted, difficulties were observed in these studies include:

(1) Parent degradation in the preparation steps of parent for the experiments. For example, in one 

mancozeb aerobic soil study, the starting purity of the parent was 87% decreased to 59.2% 

when measured at time zero. High quantities of the degradate ETU at this time were related to 

degradation before initiation of the study; 

(2) High percentage of the un-identified radioactivity remained un-extracted in the soil/sediment. 

For example, in an aerobic soil study the level of un-extracted un-identified residue reached 

maximums of 80% of the applied;

(3) Methods used for extraction have had degradation effects on polymeric parent and possibly 

monomeric segments of the parent. For example, extraction in one study appeared to cause 

some degree of conversion of parent into ETU even in the presence of chemicals that is 

believed to minimize such effects; 

(4) Solvents including water appeared to cause hydrolytic decomposition of the polymeric parent 

into un-identified residue (possibly monomeric species); and

(5) Particle size reduction and presence of metal ions (that may replace zinc ion in the structure) 

are thought to increase hydrolytic decomposition and degradation rate.

The Agency understands difficulties that relates to the nature of the chemical and therefore request 

only studies that are expected to produce data with less uncertainties giving the advances in science 

since these studies were conducted. Tables 19 and 20 identify environmental fate studies by 

MRID for mancozeb and its main degradate ETU, respectively, along with their study 

classifications. The tables also show where additional data are needed to support the future risk 

assessment. 

Table 19. Submitted environmental fate data for mancozeb

OCSPP Guideline Data Requirement Submitted Studies (MRID) Study Classification

Are data needed to 

conduct risk assessment?

835.2120 Hydrolysis

000971-62

Supplemented by 

402582-01 Supplemental Yes for Mancozeb a.i

835.2240 Aqueous photolysis 001621-03 Acceptable No
49

OCSPP Guideline Data Requirement Submitted Studies (MRID) Study Classification

Are data needed to 

conduct risk assessment?

835.2410 Soil photolysis 002639-07 Acceptable No

835.4100 Aerobic soil metabolism 457445-01 Supplemental No

835.4200 Anaerobic soil metabolism No acceptable study No

835.4300 Aerobic aquatic metabolism 462043-01 Acceptable No

835.4400 Anaerobic aquatic metabolism No acceptable study Yes for Mancozeb a.i

835.1230

835.1240

Adsorption/ desorption and 

leaching

402229-01

And 405883-02 Supplemental No

835.1410 Volatility – laboratory

Waived based on low vapor pressure

and inhalation toxicity No

835.6100 Terrestrial field dissipation

409236-01

With 445241-01 Published Article No

835.8100 Volatility - field Not required No

850.1730 Fish bio-concentration Waived because mancozeb Kow 22 No

850.6100

Environmental chemistry 

method in soil/validation

(ECM/ILV) None submitted YES

850.6100

Environmental chemistry 

method in water/validation 

(ECM/ILV) None submitted YES

Table 20. Submitted environmental fate data for mancozeb major degradate ETU

OCSPP Guideline Data Requirement Submitted Studies (MRID) Study Classification

Are data needed to 

conduct risk assessment?

835.2120 Hydrolysis 404661-03 Supplemental No

835.2240 Aqueous photolysis 404661-02 Acceptable No

835.2410 Soil photolysis 404661-01 Acceptable No

835.4100 Aerobic soil metabolism

452251-01 & 

451464-01 Supplemental

Yes for ETU 

as test substance

835.4200 Anaerobic soil metabolism No acceptable study No

835.4300 Aerobic aquatic metabolism No acceptable study

Yes for ETU 

as test substance

835.4400 Anaerobic aquatic metabolism No acceptable study

Yes for ETU 

as test substance

835.1230

835.1240

Adsorption/ desorption and 

leaching

002588-96

And 000971-58 Supplemental No

835.1410 Volatility – laboratory No acceptable study No at this time

835.6100 Terrestrial field dissipation

002552-29 

And 000889-23 Supplemental No

850.1730 Fish bio-concentration Waived because mancozeb Kow 2 No

850.6100

Analytical method in soil 

(ECM/ILV) None submitted Yes

Analytical method in water 

(ECM/ILV)

ECM: 448804-01*

ILV: 451514-01 Acceptable No

*URL: http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-12/documents/448804-01-w.pdf

11.2 Effects
50

Tables 21 - 25 identify ecological effects studies by MRID that offer data for each guideline 

requirement for parent mancozeb and the degradation products in the aquatic media and terrestrial 

environment, respectively, as well as study classifications and whether or not further data are 

needed in order to support risk assessment. 

Currently there are no available acute oral toxicity studies for mancozeb that are suitable for 

quantitative risk assessment. Three acute studies for birds have been previously submitted. In a 

study conducted with the Japanese quail (Corturnix japonica) the study was initially planned as 

an avian subacute dietary test, but changed to a multiple dose oral study, a design that does not 

fulfill the 40CFR Part 158 standard for an acute oral study. Additionally, the age, gender, and 

source of the test animals was not provided, four animals per treatment level (as opposed to the 

guideline-recommended ten) were used, and regurgitation occurred at multiple test concentrations 

during the course of the study. Therefore, it is uncertain as to what level of test substance the test 

birds actually received at these doses where observations of regurgitation occurred. Similarly, in 

a multiple-dose oral toxicity study (as opposed to the guideline-recommended single dose) 

conducted with the mallard duck (Anas platyrhynchos), test bird age, gender, and source were 

unspecified as well as differing numbers of animals were used per treatment group (all below the 

guideline-recommended ten animals per treatment group), and regurgitation occurring at the two 

highest treatment levels. Finally, mancozeb was tested with similar multiple acute oral dose 

regimens to sparrows (Passer domesticus), starlings (Sturnus vulgaris), and pheasants (Phasianus 

colchicus). The starlings and sparrows were wild caught and the pheasants were obtained from an 

undisclosed commercial rearer. No age or gender information was given and there was a reduced 

number of birds per treatment level than the guideline–recommended number. These collective 

deficiencies, despite study classifications of supplemental limit their use in quantitative risk 

assessment. Two studies (one with the mallard duck or bobwhite quail and one with a passerine 

species) are recommend to characterize the acute oral toxicity to birds which will allow the 

estimation of acute dose-base risk to birds feeding on mancozeb contaminated food items. Given 

that mortalities were observed in the available studies, and considering the high and frequent 

applications permitted by labels, it is determined that this data will have an overall added value n 

the risk assessment.

Current records indicate the submission of an acute oral toxicity study with a passerine species 

(canary, Serinus canaria, MRID 48515401). A preliminary review of this study indicates that 

there was regurgitation observed at four of the five treatment groups. The observation of 

regurgitation occurred in a dose-dependent manner with no observation at the lowest treatment 

group (259 mg a.i/kg-bw) and 60, 80, 100, and 100% of the birds at the 432, 720, 1200, and 2000 

mg a.i/kg-bw, respectively. While there were 2 mortalities observed at the highest treatment 

group, and one mortality in each of the 432, 720, and 1200 mg a.i/kg-bw treatment groups, it is an 

uncertainty as to what dose the birds regurgitated actually received in these groups where 

regurgitation was observed. EFED guidance (“Guidance for use when regurgitation is observed 

in avian acute toxicity studies with passerine species,” April 20129

) recommends to proceed to 

conducting a dietary study to examine if changing the route of exposure would make the 

achievement of an acute estimate of toxicity potentially more feasible. 

 9 Available online at: 

http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/science/efed/policy_guidance/team_authors/terrestrial_biology_tech_team/tbtt_regur

g_acute_passerine.htm
51

Table 21. Submitted Aquatic Ecological Effects Data for Mancozeb

OCSPP

Guideline Data Requirement

Submitted 

Studies

(MRID)

Study 

Classifications

Are data needed 

to conduct risk 

assessment?

Justification and 

Assumptions EPA 

will Make in 

Absence of Data 

850.1010 Freshwater invertebrate 

acute toxicity

40467502 Invalid

40467503 Acceptable No --

46656601 Invalid

850.1025

850.1035

850.1045

850.1055

Saltwater invertebrate 

acute toxicity 

41822901 Supplemental

No --

41822902 Supplemental

40586801 Supplemental

40885102 Acceptable

40586803 Supplemental

40885101 Acceptable

850.1075 Freshwater fish acute 

toxicity

45935701 Supplemental

No --

45934702 Supplemental

40467501 Supplemental

00080719 Supplemental

00085459 Invalid

00097101 Supplemental

00091747 Acceptable

850.1075 Saltwater fish acute 

toxicity 

41844902 Invalid

No -- 41844901 Acceptable

40586802 Supplemental

40586804 Supplemental

850.1300 Freshwater invertebrate 

life cycle 46023702 Supplemental No

--

850.1350 Saltwater invertebrates 

life cycle 48627701 Study in review N/A --

850.1400

Freshwater fish 

early-life stage

43230701 Acceptable No -- 46023701 Invalid

Saltwater fish early-life 

stage 48627702 Study in review N/A --

850.1500 Fish life cyclesaltwater fish 49030601 Acceptable No --
52

OCSPP

Guideline Data Requirement

Submitted 

Studies

(MRID)

Study 

Classifications

Are data needed 

to conduct risk 

assessment?

Justification and 

Assumptions EPA 

will Make in 

Absence of Data 

850.1735

Whole sediment Acute 

Toxicity Invertebrates, 

Freshwater10

47410101 Acceptable

No --

850.1735

Whole sediment Acute 

Toxicity Invertebrates, 

Freshwater (with unextracted residues)

47410102 Acceptable

850.4400 Aquatic plant Toxicity 

Test using Lemna spp. No data available Yes --

850.4500 Algal toxicity

43664701 Acceptable Yes -- 40845001 Invalid

Table 22. Aquatic Ecological Effects Data for ETU

OCSPP

Guideline

Data Requirement Submitted Studies 

(MRID)

Study 

Classifications

Are data needed for risk 

assessment?

850.1010 Freshwater invertebrate 

acute toxicity 45910402 Acceptable No

850.1025 Saltwater invertebrate 

acute toxicity 47474301 Acceptable N/A

850.1035 Saltwater invertebrate 

acute toxicity 47441204 Acceptable N/A

850.1075

Freshwater fish acute toxicity

45910401 Acceptable No

47441202 Acceptable N/A

Saltwater fish acute toxicity 47441201 Acceptable N/A

850.1300 Freshwater invertebrate 

life cycle 46462901 In review

850.4400 Aquatic plant toxicity test 

using Lemna spp. 47441203 Acceptable N/A

850.4500 Algal toxicity 45910403 Supplemental No

Table 23. Aquatic Ecological Effects Data for EU

 10 Also known as “Whole Sediment: Subchronic Freshwater Invertebrates,” as per EFED Guidance Document 

Entitled “Toxicity Testing and Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance for Benthic Invertebrates.” April 2014.
53

OCSPP

Guideline

Data Requirement Submitted Studies 

(MRID)

Study 

Classifications

Are data needed for risk 

assessment?

850.1075

Freshwater 

invertebrate 

acute toxicity

46462902 Acceptable No

850.1010

Freshwater

invertebrate 

acute toxicity

46462903 Acceptable No

850.4500 Algal toxicity 46462904 Acceptable No

Table 24. Submitted Terrestrial Ecological Effects Data for Mancozeb

OCSPP 

Guideline

Data 

Requirement

Submitted 

Studies 

(MRID)

Study 

Classifications

Are data 

needed for risk 

assessment?

Justification and 

Assumptions EPA 

will Make in 

Absence of Data

850.2100 Avian oral toxicity

00036094 Supplemental

00080716 Supplemental Yes --

00080717 Supplemental

850.2200 Avian dietary 

toxicity No data available Yes --

850.2300 Avian 

reproduction

44159501 Acceptable

No

--

41948401 Acceptable

41566702 Invalid

44238001 Acceptable

850.3020 Honey bee acute

contact toxicity 00018842 Acceptable No --

850.3030

Honey Bee 

toxicity of 

residues on foliage

No data available No --

850.6200 Earthworm 

Subchronic 

Toxicity

46023704 Supplemental No

--

Non-Guideline 

Study (Tier 1)

Honey bee adult 

acute oral toxicity

No data available

Yes*

Non-guideline 

Study (Tier 1)

Honey bee adult 

chronic oral 

toxicity 

Yes*

Non-Guideline 

Study (Tier 1)

Honey bee larvae 

chronic oral 

toxicity

Yes*

Non-guideline 

Study (Tier 2)

Field trial of 

residues in pollen 

and nectar 

Yes*
54

OCSPP 

Guideline

Data 

Requirement

Submitted 

Studies 

(MRID)

Study 

Classifications

Are data 

needed for risk 

assessment?

Justification and 

Assumptions EPA 

will Make in 

Absence of Data

850.3040 (Tier 2 

or 3)

Field Testing for 

Pollinators Yes*

Non-guideline

Semi-field study 

with the Honey 

bee

Yes*

--

Non-guideline

Predatory mite –

Acute contact and 

reproductive test

45577201 Supplemental No

--

850.4100/4150 Seedling 

Emergence 

47486101 Acceptable

Yes

Studies need to apply 

mancozeb at the 

maximum single 

application rates 850.4150 Vegetative Vigor 47486102 Acceptable

Table 25. Terrestrial Ecological Effects Data for ETU

OCSPP

Guideline

Data 

Requirement Submitted Studies 

(MRID)

Study 

Classifications

Are data needed for risk 

assessment?

850.2100 Avian oral toxicity

47769701 Acceptable No

48437501 Acceptable No

850.2100

Avian dietary 

toxicity 

48417801 Acceptable No

48417802 Acceptable No

850.2300 Avian reproduction 48819701 Acceptable No

48819702 Acceptable No

* These studies may be required based on results of Tier 1 bee studies and risk assessment.

Data Justification Tables for Non-Codified Exposure and Effects Studies with 

Bees

Study Title: Honey bee Adult Acute Oral Toxicity

Rationale for Requiring the Data

Terrestrial invertebrates are likely to be impacted if exposed to pesticides in various use settings. With 

eusocial bees, pesticide residues may be transferred to pollen and/or nectar of treated plants and 

subsequently brought back to the hive. Therefore, potential acute effects to adult honey bees and other 

insect pollinators from oral exposure to some pesticides could exist. Currently available toxicity studies do 

not address possible effects of oral exposure on adult terrestrial insect survival. Because of the potential for 

pollen and nectar to be contaminated with pesticide residues, and subsequently brought back to the hive, it

is important to determine the acute oral toxicity of this compound to adult honey bees and other insect 

pollinators.
55

The Office of Pesticide Programs has made available a guidance regarding ecological testing for bees using 

the honey bee as a surrogate test species. The guidances discusses Tier I laboratory-based acute oral toxicity 

studies of individual adult bees as a critical component of the screening-level risk assessment process for 

examining potential adverse effects from specific routes of exposure. The guidance can be found at: 

http://www2.epa.gov/pollinator-protection/pollinator-risk-assessment-guidance. Additional guidance on 

the honey bee oral toxicity test design can be found in OECD Test Guideline 213 (http://www.oecdilibrary.org/docserver/download/9721301e.pdf?expires=1423074617&id=id&accname=guest&checksum

=2F0764FCB4DCF01D32382952A2E995C3) 

Practical Utility of the Data

How will the data be used?

The Tier 1 acute oral toxicity data on adult honey bees serve as a foundation for the screening-level 

assessment of potential risk non-target organisms such as federally listed threatened or endangered and nonlisted terrestrial invertebrate insects, including pollinators, from acute oral exposures to pesticides. The 

data will be used to reduce uncertainties associated with the risk assessment for terrestrial invertebrates and 

will improve EPA’s understanding of the potential direct and indirect effects on a broad range of taxa. This 

study will also provide information with which to compare whether oral toxicity estimates differ from 

contact toxicity estimates obtained from other Tier 1 studies. If acute oral effects data for adult honey bees

are not available, risks to terrestrial insects from acute oral exposure will be assumed.

How could the data impact the Agency’s future decision-making?

The data will inform the determination required under FIFRA or the ESA as to whether continued 

registration of a pesticide is likely to result in unreasonable adverse effects to non-target species or is likely 

to adversely affect listed threatened or endangered species and/or modify their designated critical habitat. 

Without these data, EPA may need to presume risk, which will limit the flexibility of pesticide products to 

comply with FIFRA and the ESA, and could result in use restrictions. 

Study Title: Honey bee Larvae Acute Oral Toxicity

Rationale for Requiring the Data

Terrestrial invertebrates are likely to be impacted if exposed to pesticides in various use settings. With 

eusocial bees, pesticide residues may be transferred to pollen and/or nectar of treated plants and 

subsequently brought back to the hive where developing larvae and pupae may be exposed. Therefore, 

potential adverse effects to developing bees could result from exposure to pesticide residues. Available 

toxicity studies do not address possible effects on brood (larvae and pupae) survival/development. Because 

of the potential for pollen and nectar to be contaminated with pesticide residues, and subsequently brought 

back to the hive, it is important to determine the acute toxicity of this compound to bee brood. 

The Office of Pesticide Programs has made available a guidance regarding ecological testing for bees using 

the honey bee as a surrogate test species. The guidances discusses Tier I laboratory-based acute toxicity 

studies of individual honey bee larvae as a critical component of the screening-level risk assessment process 

for examining potential risks from specific routes of exposure. The guidance be found at: 

http://www2.epa.gov/pollinator-protection/pollinator-risk-assessment-guidance. Additional guidance on 

larval honey bee toxicity test design can be found in OECD Test Guideline 237 (http://www.oecdilibrary.org/docserver/download/9713171e.pdf?expires=1422485600&id=id&accname=guest&checksum

=D8E07C2B1DF77BF096C3B29F55BF86A7). In some cases, information pertaining to acute toxicity to 

honey bee larvae may be obtained with the chronic honey bee larval test thereby negating the need for 

separate acute and chronic larval toxicity tests.
56

Practical Utility of the Data

How will the data be used?

The Tier 1 acute toxicity data on honey bee larvae serve as a foundation for the screening-level assessment 

of potential risk to non-target organisms including federally listed threatened or endangered and non-listed 

terrestrial invertebrates, including pollinators, and/or modify their designated critical habitat from acute 

exposures to pesticides. The data will be used to reduce uncertainties associated with the risk assessment 

for terrestrial invertebrates and will improve EPA’s understanding of the potential effects on terrestrial 

species and whether there is a differential sensitivity of larval bees relative to adult bees. If acute effects 

data for larvae are not available, risks to terrestrial insects from acute exposure will be assumed.

How could the data impact the Agency’s future decision-making?

The data will inform the determination required under FIFRA or the ESA as to whether continued 

registration of a pesticide is likely to result in unreasonable adverse effects to non-target species or is likely 

to adversely affect listed threatened or endangered species and/or modify their designated critical habitat. 

Without these data, EPA may need to presume risk which will limit the flexibility of pesticide products to 

comply with FIFRA and the ESA, and could result in use restrictions. 

Study Title: Honey Bee Adult Chronic Oral Toxicity

Rationale for Requiring the Data

Terrestrial invertebrates are likely to be impacted if exposed to pesticides in various use settings. With 

eusocial bees, pesticide residues may be transferred to pollen and/or nectar of treated plants and 

subsequently brought back to the hive. Therefore, potential chronic effects to adult honey bees and other 

pollinators from oral exposure to some pesticides could exist. Currently available toxicity studies do not 

address possible lethal and sublethal effects of chronic oral exposure on adult terrestrial invertebrates and 

will assist in determining whether the sensitivity of adult bees differs from that of earlier life stages. 

Because of the potential for pollen and nectar to be contaminated with pesticide residues, and subsequently 

brought back to the hive, it is important to determine the chronic oral toxicity of this compound to adult 

honey bees and other pollinators.

The Office of Pesticide Programs has made available a guidance regarding ecological testing for bees 

using the honey bee as a surrogate test species. The guidances discusses Tier I laboratory-based chronic 

oral toxicity studies of individual adult honey bees as a critical component of the screening-level risk 

assessment process for examining potential risks from specific routes of exposure. The guidance can be 

found at: http://www2.epa.gov/pollinator-protection/pollinator-risk-assessment-guidance. Although study

design elements for the chronic 10-day oral toxicity test with honey bees are similar to the OECD TG 213 

acute oral toxicity test ( http://www.oecdilibrary.org/docserver/download/9721301e.pdf?expires=1422484908&id=id&accname=guest&checksum

=C38495D2A570AC2216CFB1F223D24AA7), EPA requires that the proposed protocol for this study be 

submitted for review and approval by EPA prior to initiating the test.

Practical Utility of the Data

How will the data be used?

The Tier 1 chronic toxicity data on adult bees serve as a foundation for the screening-level assessment of 

potential risk to non-target organisms including federally listed threatened or endangered species and nonlisted terrestrial invertebrates, including pollinators, from chronic oral exposures to pesticides. The data 

will be used to reduce uncertainties associated with the risk assessment for terrestrial invertebrates and will 

improve EPA’s understanding of the potential direct and indirect lethal and sublethal effects on a broad 

range of terrestrial species, particularly insect pollinators and to determine whether adult toxicity differs 
57

substantially from other life stages evaluated in other Tier 1 tests. If chronic oral effects data for adults are 

not available, risks to terrestrial insects from chronic exposure will be assumed.

How could the data impact the Agency’s future decision-making?

The data will inform the determination required under FIFRA or the ESA as to whether continued 

registration of a pesticide is likely to result in unreasonable adverse effects to non-target species or is likely 

to adversely affect listed threatened or endangered species and/or their designated critical habitat. Without 

these data, EPA may need to presume risk which will limit the flexibility of pesticide products to comply 

with FIFRA and the ESA, and could result in use restrictions. 

Study Title: Honey Bee Larvae Chronic Oral Toxicity

Rationale for Requiring the Data

Terrestrial invertebrates are likely to be impacted if exposed to pesticides in various use settings. For 

eusocial bees, pesticide residues may be transferred to pollen and/or nectar of treated plants and 

subsequently brought back to the hive where larvae and pupae may be exposed. Therefore, potential 

effects to developing bees could result from chronic exposure to pesticide residues. Available toxicity 

studies do not address possible chronic effects on brood (larvae and pupae) survival. Because of the 

potential for pollen and nectar to be contaminated with pesticide residues, and subsequently brought back 

to the hive, it is important to determine chronic larval/pupal toxicity and whether adult emergence is 

adversely affected. This study will provide information on whether honey bee larvae differ in sensitivity 

from adult bees following chronic exposure.

The Office of Pesticide Programs has made available a guidance regarding ecological testing for bees using 

the honey bee as a surrogate test species. The guidances discusses Tier I laboratory-based chronic toxicity 

studies of individual honey bee larvae as a critical component of the screening-level risk assessment process 

for examining potential risks from specific routes of exposure. The guidance can be found at: 

http://www2.epa.gov/pollinator-protection/pollinator-risk-assessment-guidance. Additional information 

on larval honey bee toxicity repeat exposure test design can be found in the OECD draft guidance 

(http://www.oecd.org/env/ehs/testing/Draft_GD_honeybees_rep_exp_for_2nd_CR_25_November_2013.p

df). Although study design elements for the chronic 21-day toxicity test with honey bee larvae have been 

drafted, EPA requires that the proposed protocol for this study be submitted for review and approval by 

EPA prior to initiating the test. 

Practical Utility of the Data

How will the data be used?

The Tier 1 chronic toxicity data on bee larvae serve as a foundation for the screening-level assessment of 

potential risk to non-target organisms including federally listed threatened or endangered and non-listed 

terrestrial invertebrates, including insect pollinators, from chronic exposures to pesticides. These data will 

be used to reduce uncertainties associated with the risk assessment for terrestrial invertebrates and will 

improve EPA’s understanding of the potential direct and indirect lethal and sublethal effects on a broad 

range of terrestrial species, particularly insect pollinators. These data will also assist in determining whether 

early life stages of the bee differ in their sensitivity to pesticides relative to adults. If chronic effects data 

for larvae are not available, risks to terrestrial insects from chronic exposure will be assumed.

How could the data impact the Agency’s future decision-making?

The data will inform the determination required under FIFRA or the ESA as to whether continued 

registration of a pesticide is likely to result in unreasonable adverse effects to non-target species or is likely 

to adversely affect listed threatened or endangered species and/or modify their designated critical habitat. 

Without these data, EPA may need to presume risk which will limit the flexibility of pesticide products to 

comply with FIFRA and the ESA, and could result in use restrictions. 
58

Study Title: Semi-field Testing for Pollinators (tunnel or colony feeding studies)

Rationale for Requiring the Data

Tier II studies are conditional on the outcome of the screening-level assessment where acute and/or chronic 

risk levels of concern have been exceeded for terrestrial invertebrates. Terrestrial invertebrates are likely to 

be impacted if exposed to pesticides in various use settings. For eusocial bees, pesticide residues may be 

transferred to pollen and/or nectar of treated plants and subsequently brought back to the hive and may 

adversely affect developing brood (egg, larvae, and pupae) and adult bees. Screening-level (Tier 1) studies 

of individual bees do not address possible effects and/or exposure to pesticide residues at the colony-level. 

Because of the potential for pollen and nectar to be contaminated with pesticide residues, and subsequently 

brought back to the hive, it is important to determine whether bee colonies may be negatively affected under 

relatively controlled exposure conditions of a semi-field study. In addition to providing effects data, these 

studies can provide data on pesticide residues in pollen/nectar of treated plants.

The Office of Pesticide Programs has made available a guidance regarding ecological testing for bees using

the honey bee as a surrogate test species. This guidance describes the tiered testing process and can be found 

at: http://www2.epa.gov/pollinator-protection/pollinator-risk-assessment-guidance, Additional information on 

honey bee colony studies under semi-field conditions can be found in the OECD Guidance 75 

(http://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=env/jm/mono%282007%2922&do

clanguage=en). Due to the complexities of this study, EPA requires that the proposed protocol for this study 

be submitted for review EPA prior to initiating the test.

Practical Utility of the Data

How will the data be used? 

Tier II colony-level data will be used to assess potential risk to non-target organisms including listed and 

non-listed terrestrial social invertebrate species and to determine whether effects observed in the screeninglevel (Tier I) laboratory-based studies of individual bees are evident in colony-level studies under semi-field 

conditions. The Tier II semi-field test of whole colonies is a relatively controlled study, i.e., bees are confined 

to a specific area, that is designed to represent potential field-level exposure and account for hive dynamics, 

which are not achievable from other pollinator studies. This study will be used to determine whether adverse 

effects to insect pollinators at the whole colony level, may result for the use of pesticides and will help to 

refine risk estimates derived in the screening-level risk assessment for beneficial terrestrial invertebrates. 

Measured residues in pollen/nectar can also be used to refine risk estimates derived from model-based or 

default values in the screening-level assessment.

How could the data impact the Agency’s future decision-making?

The data will inform the determination required under FIFRA or the ESA as to whether continued registration 

of a pesticide is likely to result in unreasonable adverse effects to non-target species or is likely to adversely 

affect federally listed threatened or endangered species or their designated critical habitat. Without these 

data, EPA may need to presume risk which will limit the flexibility of pesticide products to comply with 

FIFRA and the ESA, and could result in significant use restrictions. 
59

Study Title: Field Testing for Pollinators 

Rationale for Requiring the Data

Tier III studies are conditional on the outcome of the screening-level assessment (Tier 1) where acute and/or 

chronic risk levels of concern have been exceeded for terrestrial invertebrates and where Tier II studies either 

under semi-field tunnel conditions and/or feeding studies have indicated potential adverse effects at the 

colony level. Available toxicity studies from lower-tier studies do not address possible effects and/or 

exposure to pesticide residues at the colony-level under actual pesticide use conditions and where specific 

uncertainties regarding the likelihood of exposure and/or effects remain. Full-field studies also provide an 

opportunity to measure residues in pollen and nectar as well as various matrices (beebread, honey, wax) 

within the colony to obtain a more realistic understanding of exposure.

The Office of Pesticide Programs has made available a guidance regarding ecological testing for bees using 

the honey bee as a surrogate. This guidance describes the tiered testing process and can be found at 

http://www2.epa.gov/pollinator-protection/pollinator-risk-assessment-guidance. Additional information on 

honey bee colony studies under full-field conditions can be found in the OCSPP 850.3040 

(http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0154-0018). Useful guidance is also 

available through OCSPP 850.2500 (Field Testing of Terrestrial Wildlife 

http://www.epa.gov/ocspp/pubs/frs/publications/Test_Guidelines/series850.htm) Although design element 

for the full-field colony-level study are available through the 850.3040 and 850.2500, EPA requires that the 

proposed protocol for this study be submitted for review and approval by EPA prior to initiating the test; the 

protocol should attempt to address specific uncertainties identified in lower-tier studies.

Practical Utility of the Data

How will the data be used? 

Tier III colony-level data will be used to further characterize potential risk to non-target organisms including 

listed and non-listed terrestrial social invertebrate species and to refine screening-level risk estimates that 

were based on individual bee responses. The semi-field test is a controlled study that is designed to represent 

potential field-level exposure under relatively controlled conditions and account for hive dynamics, which 

are not achievable from lower-tier pollinator studies. This study will be used to determine whether adverse 

effects to insect pollinators at the whole colony level, may result for the use of pesticides and will help to 

refine the screening-level risk estimates for beneficial terrestrial invertebrates. This study will also be used 

to determine whether more refined (Tier 3) studies are needed to characterize risk. 

How could the data impact the Agency’s future decision-making?

The data will inform the determination required under FIFRA or the ESA as to whether continued registration 

of a pesticide is likely to result in unreasonable adverse effects to non-target species or is likely to adversely 

affect federally listed threatened or endangered species or their designated critical habitat. Without these 

data, EPA may need to presume risk which will limit the flexibility of pesticide products to comply with 

FIFRA and the ESA, and could result in significant use restrictions. 
60

Study Title: Residues in Pollen and Nectar

Rationale for Requiring the Data

Terrestrial invertebrates are likely to be impacted if exposed to pesticides residues in various use 

settings. Pesticide residues may be transferred to pollen and/or nectar of treated plants and 

subsequently brought back to hive all life stages may be exposed. For some pesticides, the 

quantification of pollinator-relevant residues in treated flowering plants is needed, since pollinators 

will be exposed to residues from either current or prior season applications (due to the potential for 

residues to accumulate in plants and trees). Residues in edible/transportable-to-hive parts of treated 

trees and plants, including (where appropriate), but not limited to, guttation water, sap/resins, whole 

plant tissue (e.g., leaves, stems), as well as blooming, pollen-shedding, and nectar producing parts 

(i.e., flowers and, if present, extra-floral nectaries) of plants may inform the potential for risk. 

Studies should be designed to provide residue data for crops and application methods of concern.

The Office of Pesticide Programs has made available a guidance regarding ecological testing for 

bees using the honey bee as a surrogate. This can be found at: http://www2.epa.gov/pollinatorprotection/pollinator-risk-assessment-guidance. Since residue studies are intended to provide 

exposure data in multiple matrices and under specific application conditions, EPA requires that the 

protocol is submitted for review and approval by EPA prior to initiation of the study.

Practical Utility of the Data

How will the data be used?

Measured residue data will be used to refine conservative estimates of pesticide exposure and reduce 

uncertainties associated with the Tier I exposure assessment by providing direct measurements of pesticide 

concentrations resulting from actual use settings. Measured residues may provide a more realistic 

understanding of exposure through contact or ingestion with which to calculate risk quotients for individual 

bees as well as to characterize exposure to the colony. If measured residue data are not available, risk 

estimates for terrestrial insects will be based on model generated or default values used to support the 

screening-level assessment.

How could the data impact the Agency’s future decision-making?

The data will inform the determination required under FIFRA or the ESA as to whether continued registration 

of a pesticide is likely to result in unreasonable adverse effects to non-target species or is likely to adversely 

affect federally listed threatened or endangered species or their designated critical habitat. Without these 

data, EPA will have to rely on conservative estimates of exposure which may limit the flexibility of pesticide 

products to comply with FIFRA and the ESA, and could result in use restrictions. 
61

12. References 

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2000. FAO PESTICIDE DISPOSAL 

SERIES 8. Assessing Soil Contamination: A Reference Manual. Appendix 2. Parameters of 

pesticides that influence processes in the soil. Editorial Group, FAO Information Division: 

Rome, 2000. http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/003/X2570E/X2570E00.htm.

USEPA. 2004. Overview of the Ecological Risk Assessment Process in the Office of Pesticide 

Programs. United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Environmental Fate 

and Effects Division. Office of Pesticide Programs. Available at 

http://www.epa.gov/espp/consultation/ecorisk-overview.pdf (accessed 02/19/2014).

USEPA. 2006. Standard Soil Mobility Classification Guidance. Memorandum from Donald Brady 

dated April 21, 2006. 

USEPA. 2010. Guidance for Reporting on the Environmental Fate and Transport of the Stressors of 

Concern in Problem Formulations for Registration Review, Registration Review Risk 

Assessments, Listed Species Litigation Assessments, New Chemical Risk Assessments, and 

Other Relevant Risk Assessments. Memorandum from Donald Brady dated January 25, 2010 

(http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/science/efed/policy_guidance/team_authors/endangered_spec

ies_reregistration_workgroup/esa_reporting_fate.htm).
62

Appendix A. Mancozeb Fate and Ecological Effects Bibliography

PC Code 014504 Mancozeb Fate/Chemistry Bibliography 

161-1 Hydrolysis

MRID Citation Reference

64926 Rohm and Haas Company (1970) Degradation of Dithane M-45 in Sterile Water 

Systems: RAR Memorandum No. 593. (Unpublished study received Aug 2, 1972 

under 1F1050; CDL:091882-B) 

88918 Haines, L.D. (1973) The Hydrolytic Decomposition of Dithane M-45 at Room 

Temperature: TR 3923-73-25. (Unpublished study, including letter dated Dec 7, 

1973 from W.R. Lyman to V.H. Unger, received Dec 9, 1981 under 707-78; 

submitted by Rohm & Haas Co., Philadelphia, Pa.; CDL:070525-D) 

88919 Cruickshank, P.A.; Jarrow, H.C. (1973) Ethylenethiourea degradation. Journal of 

Agricultural and Food Chemistry 21(3):333-335. (Also in unpublished submission 

received Dec 9, 1981 under 707- 78; submitted by Rohm & Haas Co., 

Philadelphia, Pa.; CDL: 070525-E) 

88921 Graham, W.H.; Bornak, W.E. (1972) Greenhouse Studies with C^14I- Ethylene 

Thiourea on Potatoes and Tomatoes and Photodecomposition in Water: 

Laboratory 23 Research Report No. 23-52. (Unpublished study received Dec 9, 

1981 under 707-78; submitted by Rohm & Haas Co., Philadelphia, Pa.; 

CDL:070525-G)

88922 Ross, R.D.; Crosby, D.G. (1973) Photolysis of ethylenethiourea. Journal of 

Agricultural and Food Chemistry 21(3):335-337. (Also in unpublished submission 

received Dec 9, 1981 under 707-78; submitted by Rohm & Haas Co., Philadelphia, 

Pa.; CDL:070525-H) 

97111 Rohm and Haas Company (1970) Degradation of Dithane M-45 in Sterile Water 

Systems: RAR Memorandum No. 593. (Unpublished study received Aug 1, 1971 

under 1F1050; CDL:091880-I) 

97155 Schindler, F.J.; Clark, R.H. (1967) Decomposition of Soluble and Insoluble 

Ethylenebisdithiocarbamates in Aqueous Systems: Lab- oratory 57 Research 

Report #57-18. (Unpublished study received Jan 3, 1974 under 707-78; submitted 

by Rohm & Haas Co., Philadelphia, Pa.; CDL:120481-B) 

97159 Rohm and Haas Company (1970) Degradation of Dithane M-45 in Sterile Water 

Systems: RAR Memorandum No. 593. (Unpublished study received Jan 3, 1974 

under 707-78; CDL:120481-G) 

00097162 Haines, L.D. (1973) The Hydrolytic Decomposition of Dithane M-45 at Room 

Temperature: Technical Report No. 3923-73-25. (Unpublished study received Jan 

3, 1974 under 707-78; submitted by Rohm and Haas Co., Philadelphia, Pa.; 

CDL:120481-K) 

154985 Korotkova, O. (1976) Razlozhenie fungitsidov--proizvodnykh ditio- karbaminovoy 

kisloty (obzor literatury) [Decomposition of such fungicides as derivatives of 
63

dithiocarbamic acid (literature re- view)]. Khim. Sel'sk. Khoz. 12(11):869-874, 

1974. Abstracted in Pest. Abs. 76-0215.

40258201 Haines, L. (1975) Supplement to the Hydrolytic Decomposition of Dithane M-45 at 

Room Temperature: Lab Project ID: TR 3923-73-25. Unpublished study prepared 

by Rohm and Haas Co. 6 p. 

40258202 Haines, L. (1973) The Hydrolytic Decomposition of Dithane M-45 at Room 

Temperature: Lab Project ID: 3923-73-25. Unpublished study prepared by Bristol 

Dev. Ag. Chem. Research. 35 p. 

40381930 Haines, L. (1985) Stability of WP EBDC Spray Slurries and Rate of 

Ethylenethiourea Formation: Rept. No. 31L-85-11. Unpublished study prepared by 

Rohm and Haas Co. 60 p. 

40466103 Carpenter, M. (1987) Hydrolysis as a Function of pH AT 25 ?degree| C OF 

?Carbon 14|-Ethylenethiourea: ABC Final Report No. 36287. Unpublished study 

prepared by Analytical Bio-Chemistry Labs., Inc. 543 p. 

161-2 Photodegradation-water

MRID Citation Reference

147111 Yeh, S. (1985) Water Photolysis Study of Mancozeb: Technical Report No. 31L85-13. Unpublished study prepared by Rohm and Haas Co. and Biospherics, Inc. 

178 p. 

154985 Korotkova, O. (1976) Razlozhenie fungitsidov--proizvodnykh ditio- karbaminovoy 

kisloty (obzor literatury) [Decomposition of such fungicides as derivatives of 

dithiocarbamic acid (literature review)]. Khim. Sel'sk. Khoz. 12(11):869-874, 1974. 

Abstracted in Pest. Abs. 76-0215

00162103 Yeh, S. (1985) Water Photolysis Study of Mancozeb: Technical Report No. 31L85-13. Unpublished study prepared by Rohm and Haas Co. and Biospherics, Inc. 

232 p. 

40466102 Carpenter, M.; Fennessey, M. (1987) Determination of the Photolysis Rate of 

?Carbon 14|-Ethylenethiourea in pH 7 Aqueous Solution: ABC Re-amended Final 

Report No. 36288. Unpublished study pre- pared by Analytical Bio-Chemistry 

Labs., Inc. 658 p. 

88921 Graham, W.H.; Bornak, W.E. (1972) Greenhouse Studies with C^14I- Ethylene 

Thiourea on Potatoes and Tomatoes and Photodecomposition in Water: 

Laboratory 23 Research Report No. 23-52. (Unpublished study received Dec 9, 

1981 under 707-78; submitted by Rohm & Haas Co., Philadelphia, Pa.; 

CDL:070525-G) 

161-3 Photodegradation-soil

MRID Citation Reference
64

147112 Randazzo, D. (1985) Soil Photolysis Study of Mancozeb: Technical Report No. 

31L-85-14. Unpublished study prepared by Rohm and Haas Co. 31 p. 

162104 Randazzo, D. (1985) Soil Photolysis Study on Mancozeb: TR 31L-85- 24. 

Unpublished study prepared by Rohm and Haas Co. 165 p. 

40466101 Carpenter, M. (1987) Determination of the Photolysis Rate of Ethylenethiourea 

(ETU) on the Surface of Soil: ABC Final Report No. 36289. Unpublished study 

prepared by Analytical Bio-Chemistry Labs., Inc. 504 p. 

162-1 Aerobic soil metabolism

MRID Citation Reference

88929 Fisher, J.D. (1969?) Dissipation Studies of Dithane M-45 and Ethylene Thiourea in 

Soil and Their Effects on Microbial Activity: Laboratory 11--Research Report No. 

11-223. (Unpublished study received Dec 9, 1981 under 707-78; submitted by 

Rohm & Haas Co., Philadelphia, Pa.; CDL:070527-C) 

162105 Randazzo, D. (1986) Aerobic and Anaerobic Soil Metabolism of Mancozeb: 

Technical Report No. 310-86-23. Unpublished study prepared by Rohm and Haas 

Co. 467 p. 

40838701 Schweitzer, M. (1988) Response to the U.S. EPA Review of the Mancozeb 

Aerobic Soil Metabolism Study: Technical Report No. 34C-88-53. Unpublished 

study prepared by Rohm and Haas Co. 18 p. 

45145201 Wright, M. (2000) Aerobic Soil Metabolism of (carbon-14) Mancozeb in Soil: Lab 

Project Number: XBL 99041: RPT00605. Unpublished study prepared by 

XenoBiotic Laboratories, Inc. 157 p. 

45744501 Volkel, W. (2001) Degradation Rate of (Carbon 14)-Mancozeb in Three Soils 

Incubated Under Aerobic Conditions: Lab Project Number: 773346: TR34-01-03. 

Unpublished study prepared by RCC Ltd. 32 p. 

87575 Rohm and Haas Company (1967) Persistence of Dithane M-45 Residues in Soil. 

(Unpublished study, including letter dated Jun 21, 1967 from W.E. Bornak to E.M. 

Swisher, received Dec 9, 1981 under 707-78; CDL:070521-A) 

93257 Rohm & Haas Company (1965) Interim Report: First Year Study of the 

Persistence of Rohm & Haas Pesticides in Soil under Normal Use Conditions. 

(Unpublished study received Nov 2, 1965 under 6F0476; CDL:090532-D) 

162-2 Anaerobic soil metabolism

MRID Citation Reference

162105 Randazzo, D. (1986) Aerobic and Anaerobic Soil Metabolism of Mancozeb: 

Technical Report No. 310-86-23. Unpublished study prepared by Rohm and Haas 

Co. 467 p. 
65

41177101 Olson, G.; Kesterson, A.; Lawrence, L. (1989) Anaerobic Metabolism of ?Carbon 

14|Mancozeb in Silt Loam Soil: Report No. 1198: Project No. 272. Unpublished 

study prepared by Pharmacology and Toxicology Research Laboratory. 65 p. 

162-3 Anaerobic aquatic metabolism

MRID Citation Reference

88820 Swan, L.H. (1978) Degradation of Dithane M-45 (Mancozeb) and Ethylenethiourea 

under Anaerobic Aquatic Conditions: TR 34F- 78-6. Includes method 1853-1 dated 

Jul 19, 1973. (Unpublished study received Dec 9, 1981 under 707-78; submitted 

by Rohm & Haas Co., Philadelphia, Pa.; CDL:070528-A) 

88916 Rohm and Haas Company (1970) Degradation of Dithane M-45 in Sterile Water 

Systems: RAR Memorandum No. 593. (Unpublished study received Dec 9, 1981 

under 707-78; CDL:070525-B) 

40258203 Swan, L. (1978) Supplement to the Degradation of Dithane M-45 and ETU under 

Anaerobic Aquatic Conditions: Lab Project ID: TR 34F-78-06. Prepared by Rohm 

and Haas Co. 5 p. 

45945101 Muller-Kallert, H. (1994) (Carbon 14)-Mancozeb: Degradation and Metabolism in 

Aquatic Systems: Lab Project Number: RCC PROJECT 317970: 317970. 

Unpublished study prepared by RCC Umweltchemie Ag. 156 p. 

162-4 Aerobic aquatic metabolism

MRID Citation Reference

45945101 Muller-Kallert, H. (1994) (Carbon 14)-Mancozeb: Degradation and Metabolism in 

Aquatic Systems: Lab Project Number: RCC PROJECT 317970: 317970. 

Unpublished study prepared by RCC Umweltchemie Ag. 156 p. 

46204301 Volkel, W. (1995) (14C)-Mancozeb: Degradation and Metabolism in Aquatic 

Systems. Project Number: 361462. Unpublished study prepared by RCC 

Umweltchemie Ag. 156 p.

88920 Rohm and Haas Company (19??) Degradation of C^14I Ethylene Thiourea in 

Water: TR 23-71-22. (Unpublished study received Dec 9, 1981 under 707-78; 

CDL:070525-F) 

45744501 Volkel, W. (2001) Degradation Rate of [14C]-MANCOZEB in Three Soils Incubated 

Under Aerobic Conditions. Unpublished Study Performed by RCC Ltd., Itingen, 

Switzerland; Sponsored and Submitted by Rohm and Haas Company, Spring 

House, PA. RCC Study No. 773346, Report No. TR34-01-03. Experiment initiated 

August 29, 2000 and Completed January 26, 2001 (p.8). Final Report Issued 

January 31, 2001.

163-1 Leach/adsorption/desorption
66

MRID Citation Reference

65531 Adler, I.L. (1971) A Study of the Leaching of C^14I-Dithane M-45 and/or 

Metabolites in Soil: Laboratory 23 Research Report 23-31. (Unpublished study 

received Apr 26, 1974 under 707-78; submitted by Rohm & Haas Co., 

Philadelphia, Pa.; CDL:224658-A) 

88821 Rohm and Haas Company (19??) Soil Adsorption Studies with C^14I Ethylene 

Thiourea: Tech. Rept. #23-71-19. (Unpublished study received Dec 9, 1981 under 

707-78; CDL:070528-C) 

88822 Rohm and Haas Company (19??) Soil Adsorption Studies with C^14I Dithane M45: Tech. Rept. #23-71-20. (Unpublished study re- ceived Dec 9, 1981 under 707-

78; CDL:070528-D) 

88925 Adler, I.L. (1972) Decomposition of Ethylene Thiourea Residues under Field 

Conditions: TR 23-72-31. (Unpublished study, including letter dated Sep 26, 1972 

from I.L. Adler to W.R. Lyman, received Dec 9, 1981 under 707-78; submitted by 

Rohm & Haas Co., Philadelphia, Pa.; CDL:070525-L) 

97154

OR

77154

Satterthwaite, S.T. (19??) Laboratory Soil Runoff Study with ^14IC Dithane M-45: 

Laboratory 11 Metabolism Group Memorandum Report No. 29. (Unpublished 

study received Jan 3, 1974 under 707-78; submitted by Rohm & Haas Co., 

Philadelphia, Pa.; CDL:120481-A) 

97157 Rohm and Haas Company (19??) Soil Adsorption Studies with C^14I Dithane M45: Laboratory 23 Technical Report No. 23-71-20. (Un- published study received 

Jan 3, 1974 under 707-78; CDL:120481-E) 

97158 Rohm and Haas Company (19??) Soil Adsorption Studies with C^14I Ethylene 

Thiourea: Laboratory 23 Technical Report No. 23-71-19. (Unpublished study 

received Jan 3, 1974 under 707-78; CDL: 120481-F) 

146370 Rohm And Haas Co. (19??) Soil Adsorption Studies With (carbon-14) Dithane M45: Report No. 23-71-20. Unpublished study. 10 p. 

40222901 Yeh, S. (1986) Batch Soil Adsorption/Desorption of Mancozeb: Biospherics No. 

86E204AD; Technical Report No. 310-86-62. Unpublished study prepared by 

Biospherics, Inc. 143 p. 

40222902 Yeh, S. (1986) Batch Soil Adsorption/Desorption of Ethylenethio- urea (ETU): 

[Mancozeb Supplement]: Biospherics No. 86E205AD; Technical Report No. 310-

86-63. Unpublished study prepared by Biospherics, Inc. 100 p. 

40588302

40588301

Schweitzer, M. (1988) Leaching Characteristics of Soil Incorporated Mancozeb 

following Aerobic Aging: Technical Report: 34C-88-26. Unpublished study 

prepared by Analytical Bio-Chemistry Laboratories, Inc. 547 p.-

164-1 Terrestrial field dissipation

MRID Citation Reference
67

71625 Nixon, W.B. (1981) Tank Mix Soil Dissipation Studies: Ridomil^(R)I/ Bravo^(R)I; 

Ridomil^(R)I/Difolatan^(R)I; Ridomil^(R)I/Dithane M- 45^(R)I: Report No. EIR81003. (Unpublished study received Apr 15, 1981 under 100-607; submitted by 

Ciba-Geigy Corp., Greensboro, N.C.; CDL:070010-A) 

71627 Ciba-Geigy Corporation (1980) ?Tank Mix Soil Dissipation Studies with Various 

Chemicals|: AG-A 4801 I, II A. (Compilation; unpublished study, including AG-A 

4801 I, II, III, 2nd Report A, 4802 I, II, III, 4802 I, II, III, Second Report B..., 

received Apr 15, 1981 under 100-607; CDL:070010-E) 

87576 Rohm & Haas Company (1977) A Summary of the Results of Analysis of Soil and 

Water Samples for Residues Due to Dithane M-45: TR 34F- 77-03. (Compilation; 

unpublished study received Dec 9, 1981 under 707-78; CDL:070521-B; 070522) 

140829 Rohm and Haas Company (1977) ?Dithane M-45 Residues in Soil|. (Compilation; 

unpublished study received Dec 9, 1981 under 707- 78; CDL:070523-A; 070524) 

148126 Bornak, W. (1967) Persistence of Dithane M-45 Residues in Soil: Report No. 526. 

Unpublished study prepared by Rohm and Haas Co. 14 p. 

40923601 Schweitzer, M.; Zogorski, W. (1988) Mancozeb Terrestrial Field Dissipation: 

Technical Report No. 34C-88-54. Unpublished study prepared by Rohm and Haas 

Co., in cooperation with Pan-Agricultural Associates and Environ-Bio-Tech, Ltd.

630 p. 

44524101 Esterly, D. (1998) Recalculation of the ETU Soil Half-Life in California Soil 

Dissipation Studies of Mancozeb Supplement No. 1 to MRID 40923601: Lab 

Project Number: MTF-98-02. Unpublished study prepared by E.I. du Pont de 

Nemours and Co. 43 p. 

44996201 Babbit, B.; Kleiner, A.; Lennon, G. (1999) Dissipation of Soil Residues of 

Dimethomorph: Lab Project Number: RES 99-073. 02: RES 99-081: RES 97-

012. Unpublished study prepared by American Cyanamid Co. 593 p. 

97156 Fisher, J.D. (1969) Dissipation Studies of Dithane M-45 and Ethylene Thiourea in 

Soil and Their Effects on Microbial Activity: Laboratory 11--Research Report No. 

11-223. (Unpublished study received Jan 3, 1974 under 707-78; submitted by 

Rohm & Haas Co., Philadelphia, Pa.; CDL:120481-D) 

164-2 Aquatic field dissipation

MRID Citation Reference

87576 Rohm & Haas Company (1977) A Summary of the Results of Analysis of Soil and 

Water Samples for Residues Due to Dithane M-45: TR 34F- 77-03. (Compilation; 

unpublished study received Dec 9, 1981 under 707-78; CDL:070521-B; 070522) 

140829 Rohm and Haas Company (1977) ?Dithane M-45 Residues in Soil|. (Compilation; 

unpublished study received Dec 9, 1981 under 707- 78; CDL:070523-A; 070524) 

165-1 Confined rotational crop

MRID Citation Reference
68

44621901 Robinson, R.; Hanauer, R. (1998) (Carbon 14)-RH-3866: Confined Rotational 

Crop Study: Lab Project Number: RPT00399: XBL96026: 34P-96-27A. 

Unpublished study prepared by XenoBiotic Labs., Inc., Centre Analytical Labs., 

Inc. and American Agricultural Services, Inc. 600 p. 

165-2 Field rotational crop

MRID Citation Reference

45709501 Winkler, V.; Chisholm, K. (2002) Rotational Crop Plant Back Interval (PBI) 

Restrictions for Moncut Fungicide Use on Potatoes: Lab Project Number: R-3052: 

VW030602: E642.03-87. Unpublished study prepared by Gowan Co. 21 p. 

{OPPTS 860.1900} 

166-2 Ground water-small retrospective

MRID Citation Reference

45708301 or 

46145401 (2003)

Bedosky, S. (2002) EBDC/ETU Task Force National Drinking Water Monitoring 

Survey: Lab Project Number: ETU-0201: 6942: ETU-2000-01. Unpublished study 

prepared by LFR Levine-Fricke. 353 p. 

Non-Guideline Studies

MRID Citation Reference

4334 Rohm & Haas Company (1964) Interim Report: First Year Study of the Persistence of 

Rohm & Haas Pesticides in Soil under Normal Use Conditions. (Unpublished study 

received Jan 28, 1966 under 6F0472; CDL:090524-AB) 

88928 Doneche, B.; Sequin, G. (1976) Degradation of Mancozebe (Coordination Product of 

Zinc Ion with Manganese Ethylene-bis-dithiocar- bamate: MBL-1756. Translation of: 

La degradation du mancozebe (produit de coordination de l'ion zinc avec l'ethylenebis-di- thiocarbamate de manganese). Academie des Sciences. Comptes Rendus 

Hebdomadaires des Seances 280(May 21):2265-2268. (Unpublished study received 

Dec 9, 1981 under 707-78; submitted by Rohm & Haas Co., Philadelphia, Pa.; 

CDL:070527-B) 

88927 Adler, I.L. (1973) Ethylenethiourea Levels in Dithane M-45 Spray Slurries and Spray 

Deposits: TR 23-73-20. (Unpublished study, including letter dated Jun 28, 1973 from 

I.L. Adler to W.R. Lyman, received Dec 9, 1981 under 707-78; submitted by Rohm & 

Haas Co., Philadelphia, Pa.; CDL:070527-A) 

129284 Haines, L.; Burnett, T.; Wilson, D. (1982) The Octanol/Water Partition Coefficients of 

Dithane M-45, M-22, Z078 and Ethylenethiourea: Technical Report No. 31F-82-26. 
69

(Unpublished study received May 13, 1983 under 707-78; submitted by Rohm & Haas 

Co., Philadelphia, PA; CDL:071597-B) 

41841901 Weeks, J. (1990) Simulation of the Environmental Fate of Mancozeb and Its 

Degradation Product ETU Under Conditions of Use in California: Lab Project Number: 

JO-91-78. Unpublished study prepared by Labat-Anderson, Inc. 179 p. 

44418601 Carbone, J.; Hurt, S. (1997) Geneec Modeling of Surface Water Concentrations of 

Mancozeb and ETU and Preliminary Drinking Water Risk Assessment: Lab Project 

Number: 97R-1100. Unpublished study prepared by Rohm and Haas Co. 30 p. 

46145401 Bedosky, S. (2003) EBDC/ETU Task Force National Drinking Water Monitoring 

Survey:Final Report. Project Number: ETU/2000/01, ETU/0301, 004/06942/04. 

Unpublished study prepared by Levine-Fricke, Inc., Enviro-Test Laboratories (ETL), 

and Morse Laboratories. 572 p.

47434901 Diepenhorst, P. (1996) Validation of the Analytical Method DLA-206.5 Penncozeb 80 

WP, Determination of Active Ingredient. Project Number: ATO/DL/96/010, 

ATO/DL/96/008. Unpublished study prepared by Elf Atochem Agri B.V. 38 p.

ETU Studies PC Code 600016: MRID No. (DER file reference)

Hydrolysis

404661-03 Carpenter, M. (1987) Hydrolysis as a Function of pH AT 25? Degrees C OF ?Carbon 14|-

Ethylenethiourea: ABC Final Report No. 36287. Unpublished study prepared by Analytical Bio-Chemistry 

Labs., Inc. 543 p.

Photolysis in Water

404661-02 (2082324)

Carpenter, M.; Fennessey, M. (1987) Determination of the Photolysis Rate of ?Carbon 14|-Ethylenethiourea 

in pH 7 Aqueous Solution: ABC Re-amended Final Report No. 36288. Unpublished study pre- pared by 

Analytical Bio-Chemistry Labs., Inc. 658 p.

Photolysis on Soil

404661-01 (2082324)

Carpenter, M. (1987) Determination of the Photolysis Rate of Ethylenethiourea (ETU) on the Surface of 

Soil: ABC Final Report No. 36289. Unpublished study prepared by Analytical Bio-Chemistry Labs., Inc. 

504 p.

Aerobic Soil Metabolism

452251-01

Wright, M. (2000) Aerobic Soil Metabolism Degradation Rate Determination for Ethylenethiourea (ETU) on 

Soil: Lab Project Number: XBL 99045: RPT00643: AR98197. Unpublished study prepared by Xenobiotic 

Labs., Inc. 160 p.

4515464-01

Wright, M. (2000) Aerobic Soil Metabolism Degradation for Ethylemethiourea (ETU) on Soil: Report of 

Degradation Rate Determination for ETU on New York Silt Loam Soil at 70% and 40% Normal Moisture 

Holding Capacity and 25 (degrees) C: Lab Project Number: XBL 99045: RPT00598: KP-98-39. Unpublished 

study prepared by XenoBiotic Laboratories. 123 p.01-Jun-2000
70

Volatility- Laboratory

42301501

Obrist, J. (1992) Laboratory Volatility Studies on ?carbon 14|-ETU: Final Report: Lab Project Number: 

HLA 6101-109. Unpublished study prepared by Hazleton Laboratories America, Inc. 24 p. 04-May-1992

ECMs and ILVs

448804-01

Bruns, G.; Tauber, R.; Gottschalk, R. (1999) Validation of the Method of Analysis for Ethylenethiourea 

(ETU) in Water by LC/MS/MS: Lab Project Number: ETU01ETL: ETL99RH01.PRO: 99RHC42.REP. 

Unpublished study prepared by Enviro-Test Laboratories. 146 p.

451514-01

Connolly, P. (2000) Independent Laboratory Analytical Method: Method for the Analysis of Ethylenethiourea 

(ETU) in Water by LC/MS/MS (MS 178.00) Revision 2: Lab Project Number: 002-342: 00P-002-342: MS 

178.00. Unpublished study prepared by Centre Analytical Laboratories, Inc. 88 p. {OPPTS 850.7100}

Monitoring Data

45570301

Bedosky, S. (2001) EBDC/ETU Task Force National Drinking Water Monitoring Survey: Lab Project 

Number: ETU-2000-01: ETU-0101: 6942. Unpublished study prepared by LFR Levine Fricke. 394 p. 21-

Dec-2001

45708301

Bedosky, S. (2002) EBDC/ETU Task Force National Drinking Water Monitoring Survey: Lab Project 

Number: ETU-0201: 6942: ETU-2000-01. Unpublished study prepared by LFR Levine-Fricke. 353 p. 28-

Jun- 2002

45836401

Bedosky, S. (2002) EBDC/ETU Task Force National Drinking Water Monitoring Study: Interim Report: Lab 

Project Number: ETU-2000-01: ETU- 0202: 6942. Unpublished study prepared by LFR Levine-Fricke, 

Enviro-Test Laboratories, and Morse Laboratories 366 p. 13-Jan2003

46145401

Bedosky, S. (2003) EBDC/ETU Task Force National Drinking Water Monitoring Survey:Final Report. 

Project Number: ETU/2000/01, ETU/0301, 004/06942/04. Unpublished study prepared by Levine-Fricke, 

Inc., Enviro-Test Laboratories (ETL), and Morse Laboratories. 572 p.

05-Dec- 2003

46319901

Ollinger, J. (2004) EBDC/ETU Task Force Response to U.S. EPA's Draft Science Chapter for the 

Environmental Fate and Ecological Risk Assessment for Ethylenethiourea (ETU) Dated June 2, 2004. 

Project Number: EBDC/FQPA/2004/01. 38 p. 15-Jul- 2004

46480002

Ollinger, J. (2005) EBDC/ETU Task Force Response to U.S. EPA's Draft Science Chapter for the 

Environmental Fate and Ecological Risk Assessment for Ethylenethiourea (ETU) Dated October 20, 2004. 

Project Number: EBDC/FQPA/2005/01. Unpublished study prepared by EBDC/ETU Task Force. 24 p. 23-

Feb- 2005
71

054401 Mancozeb Eco Effects Bibliography

850.2100 71-1 Avian Single Dose Oral Toxicity

36094

three species 

treated – 3 

products

Robinson, D.; Shillam, K.W.G. (1966) Toxicity of Dithane S.35, Di- thane M.45 and 

Stam F.34 to Wild Birds: Report No. 1694/66/222. (Unpublished study received Jun 

11, 1970 under 0F0932; prepared by Huntingdon Research Centre, submitted by 

Rohm & Haas Co., Philadelphia, Pa.; CDL:091587-U) 

80717 Harper, K.H.; Palmer, A.K. (1965) Toxicity of Dithane M-45 to the Japanese Quail 

(~Conturnix japonica~): 1152/65/69. (Unpublished study received Nov 9, 1965 under 

6F0467; prepared by Huntingdon Research Centre, England, submitted by Rohm & 

Haas Co., Philadelphia, Pa.; CDL:090519-C) 

48515401 Hubbard, P.; Beavers, J. (2011) Mancozeb (Dithane M45): An Acute Oral Toxicity 

Study with the Canary (Serinus canaria). Project Number: 422/103, 2010/5. 

Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International, Ltd. 63 p.

850.2200 71-2 Avian Dietary Toxicity

80716 Harper, K.H.; Palmer, A.K. (1964) Toxicity of Dithane M 45 to the Mallard Duck: 

1000/64/215:2. (Unpublished study received Nov 9, 1965 under 6F0467; prepared by 

Huntingdon Research Centre, England, submitted by Rohm & Haas Co., Philadelphia, 

Pa.; CDL: 090519-B) 

80717 Harper, K.H.; Palmer, A.K. (1965) Toxicity of Dithane M-45 to the Japanese Quail 

(~Conturnix japonica~): 1152/65/69. (Unpublished study received Nov 9, 1965 under 

6F0467; prepared by Huntingdon Research Centre, England, submitted by Rohm & 

Haas Co., Philadelphia, Pa.; CDL:090519-C)

98649 or 

129287

Harper, K.H.; Palmer, A.K. (1965) Toxicity of Dithane M.45 to the Japanese Quail 

(?~Coturnix japonica~?): 1152/65/69. (Unpublished study received Sep 8, 1965 under 

707-78; prepared by Huntington Research Centre, England, submitted by Rohm & Haas 

Co., Philadelphia, Pa.; CDL:131575-A) 

850.2300 71-4 Avian Reproduction

41566701 Hakin, B; Norman, A. (1990) The Effect of Dietary Inclusion of Mancozeb on 

Reproduction in the Mallard Duck: Lab Project Number: HRC 59/89384: R&H 88RC0096. Unpublished study prepared by Huntingdon Research Centre, Ltd. 195 p. 

41566702 Hakin, B. ; Norman, A. ; Chanter, D. (1990) The Effect of Dietary Inclusion of Mancozeb 

on Reproduction in the Bobwhite Quail: Lab Project Number: HRC 60/89385: R&H 

88RC-0102. Unpublished study prepared by Huntingdon Research Centre, Ltd. 333 p. 

41936801 Milligan, D. (1991) The Effect of Dietary Inclusion of Mancozeb on Reproduction in the 

Mallard: Total Production Results by Pen: Lab Project Number: 88RC-096A. 

Unpublished study prepared by Huntingdon Research Centre Ltd. 11 p. 

41948401 Beavers, J.B., G. Marselas, G.J. Smith and M.J. Jaber (1991) Mancozeb: A OneGeneration Reproduction Study with the Mallard (Anas platyrhynchos). Prepared by 
72

Wildlife International Ltd., Easton, MD. Laboratory Project No. 129-144. Submitted by 

Rohm and Haas Company, Spring House, PA.

41936802 Milligan, D. (1991) The Effect of Dietary Inclusion of Mancozeb in the Bobwhite Quail: 

Total Production Results by Pens: Lab Project Number: 88RC-102A. Unpublished study 

prepared by Huntingdon Research Centre, Ltd. 17 p. 

42957501 Cameron, D. (1993) The Effect of Dietary Inclusion of Mancozeb on Reproduction in the 

Bobwhite Quail: Lab Project Number: 60/89385: 88RC-102B. Unpublished study 

prepared by Huntingdon Research Centre Ltd. 10 p. 

43473401 Beavers, J.; Marselas, G.; Smith, G.; et al. (1994) Mancozeb: A One-generation 

Reproduction Study with the Mallard (Anas platyrhynchos): Supplement II: Lab Project 

Number: 89RC-0152C: 129-144. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International 

Ltd. 12 p. 

44159501 Mitchell, L.; Haberlein, D.; Beavers, J. et al. (1996) Mancozeb (Dithane): A Reproduction 

Study with the Northern Bobwhite (Colinus virginianus): Amended: Lab Project Number: 

422-101. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International Ltd. 219 p. 

44238001 Pelfrene, A. (1997) Mancozeb: Reproduction in the Bobwhite Quail: Reissued Report: 

Lab Project Number: PWT 99/920944: PWT 99. Unpublished study prepared by 

Huntingdon Life Sciences Ltd. 383 p. 

850.1075 72-1 Acute Toxicity to Freshwater Fish

80718 Harper, K.H.; Ball, I.R.; O'Neill, K.J. (1965) The Acute Toxicity of a Fungicide, Dithane 

M-45, to the Rainbow Trout,~Salmo~ ?~gairdnerii~Richardson, a Cold Water Fish: 

1233/65/150. (Un- published study received Nov 9, 1965 under 6F0467; prepared by 

Huntingdon Research Centre, England, submitted by Rohm & Haas Co., Philadelphia, 

Pa.; CDL:090519-D) 

80719 Harper, K.H.; Ball, I.R. (1965) The Acute Toxicity of a Fungicide, Dithane M-45, to the 

Goldfish, ~Carassius auratus~: 1305/65/22. (Unpublished study received Nov 9, 1965 

under 6F0467; prepared by Huntingdon Research Centre, England, submitted by Rohm 

& Haas Co., Philadelphia, Pa.; CDL:090519-E) 

85459 Harper, K.H.; Ball, I.R. (1965) The Acute Toxicity of a Fungicide, Dithane M-45, to the 

Catfish,~Ictalurus nebulosus~: 1377/65/ 295. (Unpublished study received Nov 9, 1965 

under 6F0467; pre- pared by Huntingdon Research Centre, England, submitted by 

Rohm & Haas Co., Philadelphia, Pa.; CDL:090519-F) 

97100 Harper, K.H.; Ball, I.R. (1965) The Acute Toxicity of a Fungicide, Dithane M-45, to the 

Catfish~Ictalurus nebulosus~?: 1377/65/295. (Unpublished study received Jan 10, 1969 

under 707-93; prepared by Huntingdon Research Centre, England, submitted by Rohm 

& Haas Co., Philadelphia, Pa.; CDL:004348-F) 

97101 Harper, K.H.; Ball, I.R. (1965) The Acute Toxicity of a Fungicide, Dithane M-45, to the 

Rainbow Trout~Salmo gairdnerii~Richardson, a Cold Water Fish: 1233/65/150. 

(Unpublished study received Jan 10, 1969 under 707-93; prepared by Huntingdon 

Research Cen- tre, England, submitted by Rohm & Haas Co., Philadelphia, Pa.; 

CDL:004348-G) 

97147 McCann, J.A. (1967) ?Ditahane M-45: Bluegill (?~Lepomis macrochirus): Test Nos. 58 & 

55. (U.S. Agricultural Research Service, Pesticides Regulation Div., Animal Biology 

Laboratory; unpublished study; CDL:108279-A) 
73

97173 McCann, J.A.; Pitcher, F. (1973) ?Dithane M-45: Bluegill (?~Lepomis macrochirus)|: Test 

No. 544. (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Pesticides Regulation Div., Animal 

Biology Laboratory; unpublished study; CDL:128295-A) 

40118501 US EPA (1980) Biological Report of Analysis of Dithane-45; 96-hour LC50 (Bluegill): 

Static Jar Test 2444. Unpublished study prepared by Terrestrial and Aquatic Biology 

Laboratory. 5 p. 

118502 US EPA (1980) Biological Report of Analysis of Dithane-45; 96-hour LC50 (Rainbow 

Trout): Static Jar Test 2447. Unpublished study prepared by Terrestrial and Aquatic 

Biology Laboratory. 5 p. 

40467501 Bowman, J. (1987) Acute Toxicity of Dithane Flowable (F45) to Rainbow Trout (Salmo 

gairdneri): Final Report: ABC Laboratory Project ID #36281: Rohm and Haas Report No. 

87RC-0056. Unpublished study prepared by Analytical Bio-Chemistry Laboratories, Inc. 

17 p. 

43917215 Toy, R. (1991) CME 151/Mancozeb 90/600 g/kg WP (SYS50586): Acute Toxicity to 

Salmo Gairdneri and Daphnia magna: Lab Project Number: SBGR.90.159: 4467. 

Unpublished study prepared by Shell Research Ltd. 37 p. 

43917216

mixture

Toy, R.; Gray, A. (1991) Dimethomorph: CME 151/Mancozeb 90/600 g/kg WP 

(SYS50579): Acute Toxicity to Oncorhynchus mykiss and Daphnia magna: Lab Project 

Number: SBGR.90.250: 4901. Unpublished study prepared by Shell Research Ltd. 34 p. 

43917217

mixture

Toy, R.; Gray, A. (1992) Dimethomorph: Acute Toxicity of Dimethomorph/Mancozeb 

75/667 g/kg WP (SYS50588 R) to Oncorhynchus mykiss, Daphnia magna and 

Selenastrum capricornutum: Lab Project Number: SBGR.92.177: 5640. Unpublished 

study prepared by Shell Research Ltd. 42 p. 

44950503 Rhodes, J.; Bucksath, J. (1998) Acute Flow-Through Toxicity of Dithane/RH-117,281 DG 

Blend to Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss): Lab Project Number: 43357: 97RC0128: 95P-278. Unpublished study prepared by ABC Laboratories, Inc. 110 p. 

45934701 Rhodes, J. (2000) Acute Toxicity of Dithane M-45 to the Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus 

mykiss) Determined Under Flow-Through Test Conditions: Lab Project Number: 46040: 

00RC-0114. Unpublished study prepared by ABC Laboratories, Inc. 77 p. {OPPTS 

850.1075} 

45934702 Rhodes, J. (2000) Acute Toxicity of Dithane M-45 to the Bluegill Sunfish (Lepomis 

macrochirus) Determined Under Flow-Through Test Conditions: Lab Project Number: 

46041: 00RC-0115. Unpublished study prepared by ABC Laboratories, Inc. 75 p. 

{OPPTS 850.1075} 

46020903

45910401

Zok, R. (2001) Acute Toxicity Study on the Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss 

Walbaum 1792) in a Static System (96 Hours). Project Number: 12F0533/005042, 

146099. Unpublished study prepared by BASF Aktiengesellschaft. 43 p.

46161001 Douglas, M.; Handley, J.; Macdonald, I. (1987) The Acute Toxicity of Mancozeb 

Technical to Rainbow Trout (Salmo gairdneri). Project Number: PWT/63/B/88167. 

Unpublished study prepared by Huntingdon Life Sciences, Ltd. 24 p.

46023701 Wuthrich, M. (1993) Dithane DG: 21-Day Prolonged Toxicity Study in the Rainbow Trout 

Under Flow-Through Conditions. Project Number: 336060, 93/RC/1021. Unpublished 

study prepared by RCC Umweltchemie Ag. 67 p.

46056401 Dickson, J.; Knight, B. (1998) Dithane/RH-7281 80 EP (10:1): Determination of Acute 

Toxicity (LC50) to Rainbow Trout (96h, Continous Flow). Project Number: 16697, 
74

97RC/0214, 392008. Unpublished study prepared by Inveresk Research International. 

42 p.

46818701 Jatzek, J. (2006) BAS 551 09 F: Acute Toxicity Study on the Rainbow Trout 

(Onchorhynchus mykiss) in a Static System over 96 Hours. Project Number: 

12F0411/045074, 2006/1010690. Unpublished study prepared by BASF 

Aktiengesellschaft, Experimental Toxicology and Ecology. 45 p.

5001997 Hashimoto, Y., J. Fukami (1969) Toxiocity of Orally and Topically Applied Pesticide 

Ingredients to Carp, Cyprinus carpio Linne. Botyu- Kagaku . Scientific Pest Control. 

34(2): 6366.

47729301 Kramer, V. (2009) Rationale for Classification of Existing Sheepshead Minnow Acute 

Toxicity Studies as Core MRID No. 41844901 and Bluegill Acute Toxicity Study as Core: 

MRID No. 45934702. Project Number: MZTF/2009/01, 96R/1010. Unpublished study 

prepared by Dow AgroSciences, LLC. 31 p.

Non Guideline Fish Acute Toxicity

46144601 Madsen, T. (2002) Mancozeb: Static Acute Toxicity Tests Conducted with Ten 

Species of Freshwater Fish Exposed in a Sediment-Water System. Project Number: 

47737. Unpublished study prepared by Analytical Bio-Chemistry Labs, Inc. 120 p.

72-2 Acute Toxicity to Freshwater Invertebrates

40118503 US EPA (1980) Biological Report of Analysis of Dithane-45; 48-hour EC50 

(Daphnia magna): Jar Test 2460. Unpublished study prepared by Terrestrial and 

Aquatic Biology Laboratory. 3 

40467502 Forbis, A. (1987) Acute Toxicity of Dithane Flowable (F-45) to Daphnia magna: 

Final Report: ABC Laboratory Project ID #36282: Rohm and Haas Report #87RC0041. Unpublished study prepared by Analytical Bio-Chemistry Laboratories, Inc. 

17 p. 

40467503 Forbis, A. (1987) Acute Toxicity of Dithane M-45 Fungicide to Daphnia magna: 

Final Report: ABC Laboratory Project ID #36322: Rohm and Haas Report #87RC0044. Unpublished study prepared by Analytical Bio-Chemistry Laboratories, Inc. 

16 p. 

43917215 Toy, R. (1991) CME 151/Mancozeb 90/600 g/kg WP (SYS50586): Acute Toxicity to 

Salmo Gairdneri and Daphnia magna: Lab Project Number: SBGR.90.159: 4467. 

Unpublished study prepared by Shell Research Ltd. 37 p. 

43917216 Toy, R.; Gray, A. (1991) Dimethomorph: CME 151/Mancozeb 90/600 g/kg WP 

(SYS50579): Acute Toxicity to Oncorhynchus mykiss and Daphnia magna: Lab 

Project Number: SBGR.90.250: 4901. Unpublished study prepared by Shell 

Research Ltd. 34 p. 

43917217 Toy, R.; Gray, A. (1992) Dimethomorph: Acute Toxicity of 

Dimethomorph/Mancozeb 75/667 g/kg WP (SYS50588 R) to Oncorhynchus 

mykiss, Daphnia magna and Selenastrum capricornutum: Lab Project Number: 

SBGR.92.177: 5640. Unpublished study prepared by Shell Research Ltd. 42 p. 
75

44950502 Madsen, T.; Leak, T. (1998) Acute Toxicity of Dithane/RH-117,281 DG Blend to 

Daphnia magna: Lab Project Number: 44179-97: 97RC-0068. Unpublished study 

prepared by ABC Laboratories, Inc. 79 p. 

45934703 Rhodes, J. (2001) Acute Toxicity of IR6141 M to the Water Flea, Daphnia magna, 

Under Flow-Through Test Conditions: Lab Project Number: 43612. Unpublished

study prepared by ABC Laboratories, Inc. 62 p. {OPPTS 850.1010} 

46020901 Hisgen, M. (2003) Reg No. 146099: Determination of the Acute Effect on the 

Swimming Ability of the Water Flea Daphnia Magna Straus: Final Report. Project 

Number: 00/0533/50/1. Unpublished study prepared by BASF Aktiengesellschaft. 

25 p.

46096901

Mancozeb + 

Zoxamide

Buchanan, J.; Knight, B.; Dickson, J. (1998) Dithane/RH-7281 80WP (10:1): 

Determination of Acute Toxicity (EC50) to Daphnia (48h, Continuous Flow). Project 

Number: 16564, 97RC/0215, 392029. Unpublished study prepared by Inveresk 

Research International. 42 p.

46656601 Slabbert. J.L. (1994) Determination of the Acute Toxicity of Sanachem Technical 

Mancozeb (sancozeb) to the Water Flea (Daphnia pulex). Division of Water 

Technology. CSIR, Building 21, Pretoria, South Africa, Laboratory Report Number: 

0003D, Submitted by Dow Chemical Co., Study ID:0003D, Full Study Completion 

Date: May 11 through May 27, 1994.

850.1735 Whole sediment: acute freshwater invertebrates

47410101 Hughes, C. (2007) Mancozeb: Whole Sediment Acute Toxicity Test with Midge 

Larvae (Chironomus dilutus): Amended Final Report. Project Number: 60700, 

2005/02. Unpublished study prepared by ABC Laboratories, Inc. 70 p.

47410102 Hughes, C. (2008) Non-Extractable Residues of Mancozeb: Whole Sediment Acute 

Toxicity Test with Midge Larvae (Chironomus dilutus). Project Number: 60701, 

2005/01, RS/19750. Unpublished study prepared by ABC Laboratories, Inc. 80 p.

72-3 Acute Toxicity to Estuarine/Marine Invertebrates

97161 Bentley, R.E. (1973) Acute Toxicity of Dithane M-45 to Grass Shrimp 

(Palaemonetes vulgaris) and Fiddler Crab (Uca pugilator). (Unpublished study 

received Jan 3, 1974 under 707- 78; prepared by Bionomics, Inc., submitted by 

Rohm & Haas Co., Philadelphia, Pa.; CDL:120481-J) 

40586801 Ward, G. (1988) Acute Toxicity of Dithane M-45 Fungicide to Mysid Shrimp 

(Mysidopsis bahia) under Static Conditions: Rohm and Haas Company Protocol 

No. 87P-258: Rohm and Haas Report No. 87RC- 0065. Unpublished study 

prepared by Environmental Science and Engineering, Inc. 49 p. 

40586802 Ward, G. (1988) Acute Toxicity of Dithane M-45 Fungicide to Sheepshead Minnow 

(Cyprinodon variegatus) under Static Conditions: ESE No. 87369-0200-2130. 

Unpublished study prepared by Environmental Science and Engineering, Inc. 45 p. 

40586803 Ward, G. (1988) Acute Toxicity of Dithane Flowable F-45 to Mysid Shrimp 

(Mysidopsis bahia) under Static Conditions: Laboratory Project ID ESE No. 87369-

0500-2130. Unpublished study prepared by Environmental Science and 

Engineering, Inc. 50 p. 
76

40885101 Manning, C. (1988) Dithane F-45: Acute Toxicity on Shell Growth of the Eastern 

Oyster (Crassostrea virginica): ESE No. 89328-0300- 2130: 88RC-0049. 

Unpublished study prepared bt Environmental Science and Engineering, Inc. 409 

p. 

40885102 Manning, C. (1988) Dithane M-45: Acute Toxicity on Shell Growth of the Eastern 

Oyster (Crassostrea virginica): ESE No. 89328-0200- 2130: 88RC-0048. 

Unpublished study prepared by Environmental Science and Engineering, Inc. 421 

p. 

41822901 Scott Ward, G.; Leak, T. (1990) Acute Toxicity of Dithane M-45 Fungicide to Mysids 

(Mysidopsis bahia) Under Flow-through Conditions: Lab Project Number: 89328-

0500-2130: 88RC-0069. Unpublished study prepared by Hunter/ESE, Inc. 288 p. 

41822902 Ward, G.S. and T. Leak (1990) Acute Toxicity of Dithane ® F-45 Fungicide to 

Mysids (Mysidopsis bahia) Under Flow-Through Conditions. Laboratory Project ID. 

89328-0600-2130. Rohm and Haas Report No. 88RC-0073. Prepared by 

Hunter/ESE, Inc., Gainesville, Fl. Submitted by Rohm and Haas Company, Spring 

House, PA.

850.1740 Whole sediment: acute marine invertebrates

47499601 Aufderheide, J. (2008) Mancozeb: Whole Sediment Acute Toxicity with a Marine 

Amphipod (Leptocheirus plumulosus). Project Number: 63400, 2007/03. 

Unpublished study prepared by ABC Laboratories, Inc. 69 p.

850.1075 Fish acute toxicity test Marine/Estuarine species

40586804 Ward, G. (1987) Acute Toxicity of Dithane Flowable F-45 to Sheeps- head Minnow 

(Cyrinodon variegatus) under Static Conditions: Laboratory Project ID ESE No. 87369-

0400-2130. Unpublished study prepared by Environmental Science and Engineering, Inc. 

45 p. 

41844901 Manning, C.; Ward, G.; Leak, T. (1990) Acute Toxicity of Dithane M-45 Fungicide to 

Sheepshead Minnows (Cyprinodon variegatus) Under Flow-Through Conditions: Lab 

Project Number: 89328-0800-21 30: 88RC-0068. Unpublished study prepared by 

Hunter/ESE, Inc. 224 p. 

41844902 Manning, C.; Ward, G.; Leak, T. (1990) Acute Toxicity of Dithane F-45 Fungicide to 

Sheepshead Minnows (Cyprinodon variegatus) Un- der Flow-Through Conditions: Lab 

Project Number: 89328-0700-2130 88RC-0072. Unpublished study prepared by 

Hunter/ESE, Inc. 254 p. 

47729301 Kramer, V. (2009) Rationale for Classification of Existing Sheepshead Minnow Acute 

Toxicity Studies as Core MRID No. 41844901 and Bluegill Acute Toxicity Study as Core: 

MRID No. 45934702. Project Number: MZTF/2009/01, 96R/1010. Unpublished study 

prepared by Dow AgroSciences, LLC. 31 p.

48243201 Ollinger, J.; Kramer, V. (2010) Rationale for Classification of Existing Sheepshead 

Minnow Acute Toxicity Studies as Core: MRID No. 41844901 and Bluegill Acute Toxicity 

Study as Core: MRID No. 45934702: (Mancozeb) . Project Number: MZTF/2010/01. 

Unpublished study prepared by Mancozeb Task Force and Dow Agrosciences, LLC. 26 

p.

72-4 Freshwater Invertebrate Life Cycle Study
77

40786201 Burgess, D. (1988) Chronic Toxicity of Dithane M-45 to Daphnia magna under Flowthrough Test Conditions: Raw Data Report #36733: Rohm and Haas Report No. 88RC0053. Unpublished study prepared by Analytical Bio-Chemistry Laboratories, Inc. 305 p. 

40953802 Burgess, D. (1988) Chronic Toxicity of Dithane M-45 to Daphnia magna Under Flowthrough Test Conditions: Final Report No. 36733; Rohm and Haas Report No. 88RC0053. Unpublished study prepared by Analytical Bio-Chemistry Laboratories, Inc. 341 p. 

43917219 Toy, R.; Gray, A. (1991) Dimethomorph: CME 151/Mancozeb 90/600 g/kg WP 

(SYS50579): Chronic Toxicity to Daphnia magna: Lab Project Number: SBGR.91.010: 

4698. Unpublished study prepared by Shell Research Ltd. 42 p. 

46023702 Wuthrich, V. (1993) Influence of Dithane DG on the Reproduction of Daphnia Magna 

Under Flow-Through Conditions. Project Number: 336058, 93/RC/1024. Unpublished 

study prepared by RCC Umweltchemie Ag. 73 p.

850.1350 Marine Invertebrate - Mysid chronic toxicity test

48627701 Hicks, S. (2011) Mancozeb: Life-Cycle Toxicity Test of the Saltwater Mysid, Americamysis 

bahia, Conducted Under Flow-Through Conditions. Project Number: 2010/1, 66201. 

Unpublished study prepared by ABC Laboratories, Inc. 90p.

850.1400 Fish early-life stage toxicity test Fresh and Marine species

40786202 or 

40953801

McAllister, W. (1988) Early Life Stage Toxicity of Dithane M-45 to Fathead Minnows 

(Pimephales promelas) in a Flow-through System: Final Report #36732: Rohm and 

Has Report No. 88RC-0052. Unpublished study prepared by Analytical Bio-Chemistry 

Laboratories, Inc. 418 p. 

42114601 Reinert, K. (1991) Supplemental to the Early Life-Stage Toxicity of Dithane M-45 to 

Fathead Minnows (Pimephales promelas) in a Flow- through System: Lab Project 

Number: R&H 88RC-0052B. Unpublished study prepared by Rohm & Haas Co. 93 p. 

43230701 Rhodes, J.; Downing, J.; Bielefeld, T. (1994) Early Life-Stage Toxicity of Mancozeb to 

the Fathead Minnow (Pimephales promelas) Under Flow-Through Conditions: Lab 

Project Number: 41148. Unpublished study prepared by ABC Labs., Inc. 247 p. 

43917218 Toy, R.; Gray, A. (1991) Dimethomorph: CME 151/Mancozeb 90/600 g/kg WP 

(SYS50579): Prolonged Toxicity to Rainbow Trout: Lab Project Number: SBGR.91.058: 

4699. Unpublished study prepared by Shell Research Ltd. 29 p. 

46023701 Wuthrich, M. (1993) Dithane DG: 21-Day Prolonged Toxicity Study in the Rainbow 

Trout Under Flow-Through Conditions. Project Number: 336060, 93/RC/1021. 

Unpublished study prepared by RCC Umweltchemie Ag. 67 p. (Repeated under Acute 

Toxicity section)

48627702 Hicks, S. (2011) Mancozeb: Early Life-Stage Toxicity Test with the Sheepshead 

Minnow, Cyprinodon variegatus, Under Flow-Through Conditions. Project Number: 

2010/2, 66202. Unpublished study prepared by ABC Laboratories, Inc. 78p.

850.1500 Full Fish life cycle toxicity
78

49030601 Hicks, S. (2012) Mancozeb: Life-Cycle Toxicity Test with the Fathead Minnow, 

Pimephales promelas, Under Flow-Through Conditions. Project Number: 2010/3, 66203. 

Unpublished study prepared by ABC Laboratories, Inc. 186p.

72-5 Aquatic Field Study

44944401 Memmert, U. (1999) Ecological Effects of Penncozeb RT 80 WP in a Freshwater 

Mesocosm Study: Lab Project Number: 681030. Unpublished study prepared by RCC, 

Ltd. 232 p. 

46153001

Memmert, U. (1999) Ecological Effects of Penncozeb 80 WP in a Freshwater Mesocosm 

Study. Project Number: 681030. Unpublished study prepared by RCC Ltd. 250 p. 

Laboratory: RCC Ltd., Itingen, Switzerland Study Dates: Experimental: June 17, 1998 –

October 28, 1998. Study Completion Date: October 7, 1999

850.4100 850.4150 122-1 Seed Germination/Seedling Emergence and 

Vegetable Vigor

44283401 Chetram, R.; Christensen, G.; Goodman, V. et al. (1997) Nontarget Terrestrial Plant 

Phytotoxicity Studies Using a 9%/60% WP Co-formulation of AC 336379 

(Dimethomorph) and Mancozeb: (Final Report): Lab Project Number: 954-96-107: 954-

96-108: 954-96-149. Unpublished study prepared by ABC Laboratories California. 250 p. 

47486101 Lee, B. (2008) Mancozeb: Effects of the Vegetative Vigor of Non-Target Terrestrial 

Plants (Tier 1). Project Number: 2007/01, 63399. Unpublished study prepared by ABC 

Laboratories, Inc. 51 p.

47486102 Aufderheide, J. (2008) Mancozeb: Effects on the Seedling Emergence of Non-Target 

Terrestrial Plants (Tier 1). Project Number: 63398, 2007/02. Unpublished study prepared 

by ABC Laboratories, Inc. 58 p.

49183304 Martin, K.; Van Hoven, R.; Sindermann, A.; et al. (2011) Gavel (Mancozeb 66.7%, 

Zoxamide 8.3%): A Tier 1 Toxicity Test to Determine the Effects of the Test Substance 

on Vegetative Vigor of Ten Species of Plants: Final Report. Project Number: 334/127.

Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International, Ltd. 96p.

49183405 Sindermann, A.; Porch, J.; Krueger, H.; et al. (2012) Gavel (Mancozeb 66.7%, Zoxamide 

8.3%): A Tier 1 Toxicity Test to Determine the Effects of the Test Substance on Seedling 

Emergence of Ten Species of Plants: Final Report. Project Number: 334/126. 

Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International, Ltd. 99p.

122-2 Aquatic plant growth

40845001 Ellgehausen, H. (1982) Determination of the Toxicity of Dithane Ultra to the Green 

Algae Scenedesmus Subspicatus Chodat: Evaluation of EC10 AND EC50: Project No. 

002125. Unpublished study prepared by RCC Research & Consulting. 15 p. 

43664701 Forbis, A. (1990) Acute Toxicity of Dithane M-45 Fungicide to Selenastrum 

capricornutum Printz: Final Report: Lab Project Number: 37735: 89RC-0045. 

Unpublished study prepared by ABC Labs, Inc. 208 p. 
79

44950501

mixture with 

Zoxamide

Ward, C.; Murdock, C. (1998) Toxicity of Dithane/RH-117,281 DG Blend to 

Selenastrum capricornutum Printz: Lab Project Number: 44178: 97RC-0069. 

Unpublished study prepared by ABC Laboratories, Inc. 181 p. 

46056403

Mixture with 

Zoxamide

Rhodes, J. (1999) Acute Toxicity of Dithane/RH-7281 (11.2:1) DG Blend to the Green 

Alga, Selenastrum capricornutum. Project Number: 45118, 98RC/0238. Unpublished 

study prepared by Analytical Bio-Chemistry Labs., Inc. 156 p.

850.5400 123-2 Aquatic plant growth

43917217

Mixture 

Toy, R.; Gray, A. (1992) Dimethomorph: Acute Toxicity of Dimethomorph/Mancozeb 

75/667 g/kg WP (SYS50588 R) to Oncorhynchus mykiss, Daphnia magna and 

Selenastrum capricornutum: Lab Project Number: SBGR.92.177: 5640. Unpublished 

study prepared by Shell Research Ltd. 42 p. 

44283402 Canez, V.; Christensen, G.; Hughes, J.; et al. (1997) Effects of a 9%/60% WP Coformulation of AC 336379 (Dimethomorph) and Mancozeb on the Growth of Navicula 

pelliculosa, Selenastrum capricornutum, Anabaena flos-aquae, Skeletonema 

costatum, and Lemna gibba: (Final Report): Lab Project Number: 954-96-113: 954-

96-166: 954-96-111. Unpublished study prepared by Carolina Ecotox. Inc. 457 p. 

46056403

Repeated in 

122-2

Rhodes, J. (1999) Acute Toxicity of Dithane/RH-7281 (11.2:1) DG Blend to the Green 

Alga, Selenastrum capricornutum. Project Number: 45118, 98RC/0238. Unpublished 

study prepared by Analytical Bio-Chemistry Labs., Inc. 156 p.

46020902 and 

45910402

Reuschenbach, D. (2000) Reg No. 146099: Determination of the Inhibitory Effect on 

the Cell Multiplication of Unicellular Green Algae: Final Report. Project Number: 

00/0533/60/1. Unpublished study prepared by BASF Aktiengesellschaft. 27 p.

141-1 Honey bee acute contact

44950504

Mixture with 

Zoxamide

Milligan, D. (1997) Dithane/RH-117,281 DG Blend (8:1): Laboratory Oral and Contact 

Test with the Honeybee, Apis mellifera: Final Report: Lab Project Number: 97-071-

1007: 97RC-0070: 1007.030.265. Unpublished study prepared by Springborn 

Laboratories AG. 48 p.

18842 Atkins, E.L., L.D. Anderson and E.A. Greywood (1969) Effect of Pesticides on 

Apiculture: Project No. 1499; Research Report CF-7501. (Unpublished Study Received 

May 8, 1971 under 1F11741; Prepared by University of California – Riverside, Dept. of 

Entomology, Submitted by Ciba Agrochemical Co., Summit, New Jersey. CDL:090973-

B).

41941 Atkins, E.l., Jr. and C. Johansen (1969) Study on the Toxicity of U-27, 415 to Bees. 

(Unpublished Study Received on Unknown Date Under 0G0962; Prepared by 

University of California – Riverside, Citrus Research Center and Agricultural 

Experiment Station, Dept. of Entomology and Washington State University, Dept . of 

Entomology, Submitted by Upjohn Co., Kalamazoo, Michigan. CDL: 094605-B.

1949 Johansen, C., J. Eves (1969) Bee Research Investigations, 1969: Small-scale Bee 

Poisoning Tests with Honey Bees (HB) and Alfalfa Leafcutter Bees (LB). (Unpublished 

Study Received September 15, 1971 Under 1F1032; Prepared by Washington State 

University, Submitted by Hercules, Inc., Wilmington, Delaware. CDL: 091917-H
80

Non Guideline Studies

45212901 Ravenzwaay, B.; Ollinger, J. (2000) EBDC Fungicides Do Not Share a Common 

Mechanism of Toxicity with Cholinesterase Inhibitors: Lab Project Number: 2000 

MECH. Unpublished study prepared by EBDU/ETU Task Force. 9 p. 

45534701 Lamb, IV, J.; Hentz, K.; Matthews, S.; et al. (2001) Analysis of Common Mechanisms of 

Toxicity for Ethylenebisdithiocarbamates and Other Dithiocarbamates. Unpublished 

study prepared by BBL Sciences. 111 p. 

45577201 Nienstedt, K. (2001) Dithane M-45 Fungicide: An Extended Laboratory Dose Response 

Toxicity Test on Detached Bean Leaves with the Predatory Mite, Typhlodromus pyri 

Scheuten (Acari: Phytoseiidae): Lab Project Number: 01RC-0134: 1007.075.568: 01P134. Unpublished study prepared by Springborn Laboratories (Europe) AG. 40 p. 

46023704 Nienstedt, K. (1999) A Chronic Toxicity and Reproduction Test Exposing the Earthworm 

Eisenia fetida to Dithane M-45 in OECD Artificial Soil. Project Number: 99RC/0124, 

1007/054/630. Unpublished study prepared by Springborn Laboratories (Europe) Ag. 

64 p.

47164601 Moore, D.; Breton, R.; Rodney, S.; et al. (2007) Generic Problem Formulation for 

California Red-Legged Frog. Project Number: 89320, 05232007. Unpublished study 

prepared by Cantox Environmental Inc. 87 p.

47164602 Holmes, C.; Vamshi, R. (2007) Data and Methodology Used for Spatial Analysis of 

California Red Legged Frog Observations and Proximate Land Cover Characteristics. 

Project Number: 3152007, WEI/252/03. Unpublished study prepared by Waterborne 

Environmental, Inc. (WEI). 19 p.

47327001 Ollinger, J. (2008) Mancozeb Task Force Response to EPA's California Red Legged 

Frog Effects Determinations for Mancozeb: "Effects Determinations for Mancozeb and 

Maneb Relative to the California Red-Legged Frog and Designated Critical Habitat," 

October 18, 2007. Project Number: MZTF200804, MZ/TF200804. Unpublished study 

prepared by Mancozeb Task Force. 37 p.

ETU Studies

850.2100 71-1 Avian acute oral toxicity test

48437501 Hubbard, P.; Beavers, J. (2011) Ethylenethiourea: An Acute Oral Toxicity Study with the 

Zebra Finch (Poephila guttata). Project Number: 697/102, 2010/2. Unpublished study 

prepared by Wildlife International Ltd. 60 p.

48343001 Hubbard, P.; Beavers, J. (2010) Ethylenethiourea: An Acute Oral Toxicity Study with the 

Northern Bobwhite. Project Number: 697/101, 2010/1. Unpublished study prepared by 

Wildlife International, Ltd. 57 p.

850.2200 71-2 Avian Dietary Toxicity

48417801 Hubbard, P.; Beavers, J. (2011) Ethylenethiourea: A Dietary LC 50 Study with the 

Northern Bobwhite. Project Number: 697/103, 2010/3. Unpublished study prepared by 

Wildlife International, Ltd. 66 p.
81

48417802 Hubbard, P.; Beavers, J. (2011) Ethylenethiourea: A Dietary LC50 Study with the Mallard. 

Project Number: 697/104, 2010/4. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International, 

Ltd. 65 p.

850.2300 71-4 Avian Reproduction

48819701 Temple, D.; Martin, K.; Beavers, J. et al. (2012) Ethylenethiourea: A Reproduction Study 

with the Northern Bobwhite: Final Report. Project Number: 697/107, 2010/5. Unpublished 

study prepared by Wildlife International, Ltd. 195p.

48819702 Temple, D.; Martin, K.; Beavers, J. et al. (2012) Ethylenethiourea: A Reproduction Study 

with the Mallard: Final Report. Project Number: 697/108, 2010/6. Unpublished study 

prepared by Wildlife International, Ltd. 196p.

72-1 Acute Toxicity to Freshwater Fish

45910401 Zok, S. (2001) Acute Toxicity Study on the Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss 

Walbaum 1792) in a Static System (96 Hours): Ethylenethiourea (ETU): Lab Project 

Number: 12F0533/005042: 2001/1001877: PCP06082. Unpublished study prepared by 

BASF Aktiengesellschaft. 44 p. 

46020903 Zok, R. (2001) Acute Toxicity Study on the Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss 

Walbaum 1792) in a Static System (96 Hours). Project Number: 12F0533/005042, 

146099. Unpublished study prepared by BASF Aktiengesellschaft. 43 p.

850.1075 Fish acute toxicity test, freshwater and marine

46462902 Palmer, S.; Kendall, T.; Krueger, H. (2001) Ethylene Urea: A 96-Hour Static Toxicity Test 

with the Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss): Final Report. Project Number: 299A/115. 

Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International, Ltd. 37 p.

47441201 Soucy, K. (2008) Ethylenethiourea-Acute Toxicity to Sheepshead Minnow (Cyprinodon 

variegatus) Under Static Conditions, Following OPPTS Draft Guideline 850.1075. Project 

Number: 13921/6105, 2007/04. Unpublished study prepared by Springborn Smithers 

Laboratories. 55 p.

47441202 Soucy, K. (2008) Ethylenethiourea- Acute Toxicity to Bluegill Sunfish (Lepomis 

macrochirus) Under Static Conditions, Following OPPTS Draft Guideline 850.1075. 

Project Number: 13921/6104, 2007/05. Unpublished study prepared by Springborn 

Smithers Laboratories. 55 p.

45910401 

46020903

Zok, S. (2001) Acute Toxicity Study on the Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss 

Walbaum 1792) in a Static System (96 Hours): Ethylenethiourea (ETU): Lab Project 

Number: 12F0533/005042: 2001/1001877: PCP06082. Unpublished study prepared by 

BASF Aktiengesellschaft. 44 p.

72-2 Acute Toxicity to Freshwater Invertebrates

45910402 Hisgen, M. (2000) Determination of the Acute Effect on the Swimming Ability of the Water 

Flea Daphnia magna Straus: Ethylenethiourea (ETU): Lab Project Number: 00/0533/50/1: 
82

2000/1017216: PCP05988. Unpublished study prepared by BASF Aktiengesellschaft. 27 

p. 

46020901

see 

45910402

Hisgen, M. (2003) Reg No. 146099: Determination of the Acute Effect on the Swimming 

Ability of the Water Flea Daphnia Magna Straus: Final Report. Project Number: 

00/0533/50/1. Unpublished study prepared by BASF Aktiengesellschaft. 25 p.

46462903 Palmer, S.; Kendall, T.; Krueger, H. (2001) Ethylene Urea: A 48-Hour Static Acute 

Toxicity Test with the Cladoceran (Daphnia magna): Final Report. Project Number: 

299A/114. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International, Ltd. 37 p.

850.1025 Oyster acute toxicity test (shell deposition)

47474301 York, D. (2008) Ethylenethiourea-Acute Toxicity to Eastern Oyster (Crassostrea virginica) 

Under Flow-Through Conditions. Project Number: 13921/6102, 2007/02. Unpublished 

study prepared by EBDC/ETU Task Force. 66 p.

850.1035 Mysid acute toxicity test

47441204 Soucy, K. (2008) Ethylenethiourea-Acute Toxicity to Mysids (Americamysis bahia) Under 

Static Conditions, Following OPPTS Guideline 850.1035. Project Number: 13921/6103, 

2007/03. Unpublished study prepared by Springborn Smithers Laboratories. 57 p.

850.1300 72-4 Daphnid chronic toxicity test

46462901 Graves, W.; Mank, M.; Swigert, J. (1995) Ethylene Thiourea (ETU): A Flow-Through LifeCycle Toxicity Test with the Cladoceran (Daphnia Magna): Final Report. Project Number: 

129A/116, 94RC/0001. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International, Ltd. 122 p.

850.4400 Aquatic plant toxicity test using Lemna spp. Tiers I and II

47441203 Softcheck, K. (2008) Ethylenethiourea-7-Day Toxicity Test with Duckweed (Lemna gibba) 

Following OPPTS Draft Guideline 850.4400. Project Number: 13921/6101, 2007/01. 

Unpublished study prepared by Springborn Smithers Laboratories. 69 p.

850.5400 123-2 Algal toxicity, Tiers 1 and II

46462904 Palmer, S.; Kendall, T.; Krueger, H. (2001) Ethylene Urea: A 96-Hour Toxicity Test with 

the Freshwater Alga (Selenastrum capricornutum): Final Report. Project Number: 

299A/116. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International, Ltd. 49 p.

46020902 

see

45910403

Reuschenbach, D. (2000) Determination of the Inhibitory Effect on the Cell Multiplication 

of Unicellular Green Algae: Ethylenethiourea (ETU): Lab Project Number: 00/0533/60/1: 

2000/1017191: PCP05997. Unpublished study prepared by BASF Aktiengesellschaft. 28 

p.

850.7100 Data reporting for environmental chemistry methods
83

46623335 Tilting, N. (2004) Residues of Metiram and ETU in Potential Feed Items of Birds and Wild 

Mammals Following Application of Polyram WG (BAS 222 28 F) in Potatoes: (Final 

Report). Project Number: 136963, 13512075, 2004/1006523. Unpublished study 

prepared by BASF Aktiengesellschaft and Institut fuer Biologische Analytik und 

Consulting IBACON. 136 p.

157594 E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc. (1982) Manzate (IN-7331): Determination of 

Ethylenethiourea (ETU) Liquid Chromatographic Method: Method No: M20.1842(R).

Unpublished study. 4 p. 

45151401 Connolly, P. (2000) Independent Laboratory Analytical Method: Method for the Analysis 

of Ethylenethiourea (ETU) in Water by LC/MS/MS (MS 178.00) Revision 2: Lab Project 

Number: 002-342: 00P-002-342: MS 178.00. Unpublished study prepared by Centre 

Analytical Laboratories, Inc. 88 p. {OPPTS 850.7100} 

Non-Guideline Study

42610001

Ruckert, E. (1992) Letter Sent to S. Lewis, dated Dec. 28, 1992: Regarding Ethylene 

thiourea 104 week chronic toxicity (feeding) study in rats: Source of information from final 

report RCC project number 256803. Prepared by EBDC/ETU Task Force. 3 p.

43641401 Weinberg, D.; Weiss, D. (1987) Response of the Maneb Data Task Force and Pennwalt 

Corporation to the Environmental Protection Agency's Initiation of Special Review of the 

EBDC Pesticides: (Risk Exposure Assessment). Unpublished study prepared by Fox, 

Weinberg & Bennett. 28 p. 

43641501 Weinberg, D.; Weiss, D. (1987) Response of Pennwalt Corporation to the Environmental 

Protection Agency's Initiation of Special Review of the EBDC Pesticides/Mancozeb: (Risk 

Assessment): (Includes "EBDC Special Review: Toxicological Issues"). Unpublished 

study prepared by Fox, Weinberg & Bennett. 51 p. 

44418801 Waylett, D.; Slesinski, R.; Sert, M. et al. (1997) Acute Dietary Exposure and Risk 

Assessment: Ethylenebisdithiocarbamates (EBDCs) and Their Common Metabolite, 

Ethylene Thiourea (ETU): Lab Project Number: EBDC 97-01. Unpublished study 

prepared by Tas-Environ. 95 p. 

45225404 Hurt, S. (2000) Toxicity Endpoints and Reference Doses for Ethylenethiourea: Lab 

Project Number: 00R-1061. Unpublished study prepared by EBDC/ETU Task Force. 22 

p. 

45924404 Chernoff, N.; Kavlock, R.; Rogers, E.; et al. (1979) Perinatal Toxicity of Maneb, Ethylene 

Thiourea, and Ethylenebisisothiocyanate Sulfide in Rodents. Journal of Toxicology and 

Environmental Health 5: 821-834. 

46268301 Arce, G. (2003) The Influence of Perinatal Exposure to ETU in the Development of 

Thyroid Effects and Other Critical Toxicological Parameters. Project Number: 2/03/EBDC. 

Unpublished study prepared by EBDC/ETU Task Force. 20 p.

46319901 Ollinger, J. (2004) EBDC/ETU Task Force Response to U.S. EPA's Draft Science 

Chapter for the Environmental Fate and Ecological Risk Assessment for Ethylenethiourea 

(ETU) Dated June 2, 2004. Project Number: EBDC/FQPA/2004/01. 38 p.
84

46480002 Ollinger, J. (2005) EBDC/ETU Task Force Response to U.S. EPA's Draft Science 

Chapter for the Environmental Fate and Ecological Risk Assessment for Ethylenethiourea 

(ETU) Dated October 20, 2004. Project Number: EBDC/FQPA/2005/01. Unpublished 

study prepared by EBDC/ETU Task Force. 24 p.

46480003 Ollinger, J. (2005) Ethylenebisdithiocarbamate Fungicides - Benefits to United States 

Agriculture. Project Number: EBDC/FQPA/2005/03. Unpublished study prepared by 

EBDC/ETU Task Force. 261 p

47292002 Wuest, P.; Singh, H. (1983) Assessment of Zineb Residue Levels Through Dermal and 

Inhalation Exposures and its Major Metabolite [Ethylenethiourea (ETU)] in Biological 

Fluids: Final Report. Project Number: 59/2421/0/2/012/0. Unpublished study prepared by 

Pennsylvania State University and Enviro-Bio-Tech, Ltd. 43 p.

47432128 Wang, G. (1988) Regulatory Decision Making and the Need for and the Use of Exposure 

Data on Pesticides Determined to Be Teratogenic in Test Animals. Teratogenesis, 

Carcinogenesis, and Mutagenesis 8:117-126.

48597301 Marty, M.; Chukwdebe, A.; McCoy, A. (2011) Exposure to ETU during Different Life 

Stages: Kinetic Considerations. Project Number: EOGRTS/TK. Unpublished study 

prepared by EBDC/ETU Task Force. 18p.

49254303 Thienpont, B.; Tingaud-Sequeira, A.; Prats, E.; et al. (2011) Zebrafish Eleutheroembryos 

Provide a Suitable Vertebrate Model for Screening Chemicals that Impair Thyroid 

Hormone Synthesis. Environmental Science & Technology 45(X): 7525-7532.
85

Appendix B. SIP Output

Table 1. Inputs

Parameter Value

Chemical name Mancozeb

Solubility (in water at 25oC; mg/L) 6

Mammalian LD50 (mg/kg-bw) 5000

Mammalian test species laboratory rat

Body weight (g) of "other" mammalian species

Mammalian NOAEL (mg/kg-bw) 120

Mammalian test species laboratory rat

Body weight (g) of "other" mammalian species

Avian LD50 (mg/kg-bw)

Avian test species mallard duck

Body weight (g) of "other" avian species

Mineau scaling factor 1.15

Mallard NOAEC (mg/kg-diet) 125

Bobwhite quail NOAEC (mg/kg-diet) 125

NOAEC (mg/kg-diet) for other bird species

Body weight (g) of other avian species

NOAEC (mg/kg-diet) for 2nd other bird species

Body weight (g) of 2nd other avian species

Table 2. Mammalian Results

Parameter Acute Chronic

Upper bound exposure (mg/kg-bw) 1.0320 1.0320

Adjusted toxicity value (mg/kg-bw) 3845.8028 92.2993

Ratio of exposure to toxicity 0.0003 0.0112

Conclusion*

Drinking water exposure 

alone is NOT a potential 

concern for mammals

Drinking water exposure 

alone is NOT a potential 

concern for mammals

Table 3. Avian Results

Parameter Acute Chronic

Upper bound exposure (mg/kg-bw) 4.8600 4.8600

Adjusted toxicity value (mg/kg-bw) 0.0000 6.2016

Ratio of exposure to acute toxicity 0.0000 0.7837

Conclusion* Due to insufficient data, risk 

cannot be precluded

Drinking water exposure 

alone is NOT a potential 

concern for birds

*Conclusion is for drinking water exposure alone. This does not combine all routes of exposure. Therefore, when 

aggregated with other routes (i.e., diet, inhalation, dermal), pesticide exposure through drinking water may 

contribute to a total exposure that has potential for effects to non-target animals.
86

Appendix C. STIR Output

Input

Application and Chemical Information

Enter Chemical Name Mancozeb

Enter Chemical Use

Is the Application a Spray? (enter y or n) y

If Spray What Type (enter ground or air) ground

Enter Chemical Molecular Weight (g/mole) 265

Enter Chemical Vapor Pressure (mmHg) 1.32E-10

Enter Application Rate (lb a.i./acre) 19

Toxicity Properties

Bird

Enter Lowest Bird Oral LD50 (mg/kg bw)

Enter Mineau Scaling Factor 1.15

Enter Tested Bird Weight (kg) 1.58

Mammal

Enter Lowest Rat Oral LD50 (mg/kg bw) 5000

Enter Lowest Rat Inhalation LC50 (mg/L) 5.14

Duration of Rat Inhalation Study (hrs) 4

Enter Rat Weight (kg) 0.35

Output

Results Avian (0.020 kg )

Maximum Vapor Concentration in Air at Saturation 

(mg/m3) 1.88E-06

Maximum 1-hour Vapor Inhalation Dose (mg/kg) 2.37E-07

Adjusted Inhalation LD50 0.00E+00

Ratio of Vapor Dose to Adjusted Inhalation LD50 #DIV/0! #DIV/0!

Maximum Post-treatment Spray Inhalation Dose (mg/kg) 2.01E+00

Ratio of Droplet Inhalation Dose to Adjusted Inhalation 

LD50 #DIV/0! #DIV/0!

Results Mammalian (0.015 kg )

Maximum Vapor Concentration in Air at Saturation 

(mg/m3) 1.88E-06

Maximum 1-hour Vapor Inhalation Dose (mg/kg) 2.97E-07

Adjusted Inhalation LD50 3.06E+02

Ratio of Vapor Dose to Adjusted Inhalation LD50 9.72E-10 Exposure not Likely Significant

Maximum Post-treatment Spray Inhalation Dose (mg/kg) 2.52E+00

Ratio of Droplet Inhalation Dose to Adjusted Inhalation 

LD50 8.25E-03 Exposure not Likely Significant