UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

OFFICE OF 

PREVENTION, PESTICIDES 

AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES 

April 20, 2010 

SUBJECT: Dimethyl Disulfide: Section 3 Health Effects Division Human Health Risk 

Assessment. 

PC Code: 029088 DP Barcode: 339675 

MRID No.: NA Registration No.: NA 

Petition No.: NA Regulatory Action: Section 3 Registration 

Assessment Type: Single Chemical/ Non-food Reregistration Case No.: NA 

TXR No.: NA CAS No.: 624-92-0

FROM: Charles Smith, Environmental Scientist/Risk Assessor 

Elissa Reaves, Ph.D., Toxicologist 

 Shalu Shelat, Industrial Hygienist 

Risk Assessment Branch VI 

Health Effects Division (7509P) 

THROUGH: Felecia Fort, Branch Chief 

Risk Assessment Branch VI 

 and 

Michael Metzger, Branch Chief / Designated RARC Reviewer 

Risk Assessment Branch VII 

 and 

Ray Kent, Branch Chief / Designated RARC Reviewer 

Risk Assessment Branch IV 

Health Effects Division (7509P) 

TO: John Bazuin/Tony Kish, Risk Management Team #22 

 Fungicide Branch 

 Registration Division (7505P) 

The Health Effects Division (HED) of the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) is charged with 

estimating the risk to human health from exposure to pesticides. The Registration Division (RD) 

of OPP has requested that HED conduct a risk assessment to estimate the risk to human health 

that will result from the proposed use of DMDS as a pre-plant soil fumigant in strawberry, 

fruiting vegetable (e.g., tomato, peppers, and eggplant), cucurbit (e.g., cucumbers, squash, and 

melons), blueberry, and ornamental fields. 

Page 1 of 193 
HUMAN HEALTH 

RISK ASSESSMENT 

Dimethyl Disulfide

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Pesticide Programs 

Health Effects Division (7509C) 

Charles Smith, Environmental Scientist/Risk Assessor 

Elissa Reaves, Ph.D., Toxicologist 

Shalu Shelat, Industrial Hygienist 

Date: April 20, 2010 

Page 2 of 193 
HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT 

DMDS Risk Assessment Team 

Risk Assessor: Charles Smith 

Toxicology: Elissa Reaves, Ph.D. 

Occupational and Residential Exposure: Shalu Shelat 

 Charles Smith 

 

Page 3 of 193 
Table of Contents

1.0 Executive Summary............................................................................................................ 6 

2.0 Ingredient Profile .............................................................................................................. 10 

2.1 Summary of Proposed Uses.......................................................................................... 10 

2.2 Structure and Nomenclature ......................................................................................... 10 

2.3 Physical and Chemical Properties................................................................................. 10 

3.0 Hazard Characterization/Assessment................................................................................ 11 

3.1 Hazard Characterization................................................................................................ 11 

3.1.1 Database Summary ............................................................................................... 11 

3.1.2 Responses in Laboratory Animals ........................................................................ 13 

3.1.3 Inhalation Exposure .............................................................................................. 16 

3.1.4 Dietary Exposure .................................................................................................. 19 

3.1.5 Dermal Exposure .................................................................................................. 19 

3.1.6 Classification of Carcinogenic Potential............................................................... 20 

3.2 Uncertainty Factors....................................................................................................... 20 

3.3 Endocrine Disruption.................................................................................................... 20 

3.4 Summary of Toxicological Endpoint Selection............................................................ 21 

4.0 Public Health and Pesticide Epidemiology Data .............................................................. 21 

5.0 Dietary Exposure/Risk Characterization........................................................................... 23 

5.1 Pesticide Metabolism and Degradates of Concern ....................................................... 23 

5.2 Drinking Water Residue Profile.................................................................................... 23 

5.3 Dietary Exposure and Risk ........................................................................................... 23 

6.0 Non-Occupational Exposure Assessment and Characterization....................................... 24 

6.1 Residential Bystander Exposure and Risk Estimates.................................................... 25 

6.1.1 Estimation of Residential Bystander Exposures and Risks from Near Field 

 Sources.................................................................................................................. 25 

6.1.1.1 Bystander Exposures and Risks from Pre-plant Agricultural Use of DMDS.. 31 

6.1.2 Ambient Bystander Exposure from Non-Point Sources....................................... 42 

6.2 Bystander Risk Characterization................................................................................... 43 

6.2.1 First Principles Factors Analysis .......................................................................... 45 

7.0 Occupational Exposure ..................................................................................................... 46 

7.1 Occupational Handler and Postapplication Exposure................................................... 49 

7.1.1 Occupational Handler and Postapplication Point Exposure Estimates for Preplant 

 Agricultural Field Fumigations............................................................................. 49 

8.0 Data Needs and Label Requirements................................................................................ 51 

8.1 Toxicology .................................................................................................................... 51 

8.2 Residue Chemistry........................................................................................................ 51 

8.3 Occupational and Residential Exposure ....................................................................... 51 

References..................................................................................................................................... 53 

Appendix A: Executive Summaries for Toxicity Studies and Toxicological Profile................... 54 

Appendix B: Methodologies for Inhalation Risk Calculations and Human Equivalent 

Concentration Arrays.................................................................................................................... 85 

Appendix C: Fumigant Assessment Methodology and Air Model Information........................... 91 

Appendix D: Field Volatility Description................................................................................... 103 

Page 4 of 193 
Appendix E: Buffer Outputs from DMDS Applications Estimated with PERFUM for Preplant 

Agricultural Use.......................................................................................................................... 109 

Appendix F: Air Concentration Outputs from DMDS Applications Estimated with PERFUM for 

Preplant Agricultural Use ........................................................................................................... 144 

Page 5 of 193 
1.0 Executive Summary 

Background

The Health Effects Division (HED) of EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs has conducted a 

human health risk assessment for the new active ingredient dimethyl disulfide (DMDS). The 

proposed uses of DMDS are as a pre-plant soil fumigant in strawberry, fruiting vegetable (e.g., 

tomato, peppers, and eggplant), cucurbit (e.g., cucumbers, squash, and melons), blueberry, and 

ornamental fields. DMDS has been identified as a possible replacement for methyl bromide, a 

fumigant with numerous registered uses. 

There are currently no registered pesticidal uses of DMDS however, an Experimental Use Permit 

(EUP) was granted for DMDS by the Agency in May 2007. There are some industrial and 

commercial uses of DMDS. The largest industrial use of DMDS is in the refining and 

petrochemical industries but it is also used to dissolve elemental sulfur for unplugging sour 

natural gas wells, as an additive during manufacturing of ‘Sponge Iron’ to prevent metal dusting, 

and as a thiomethylating agent in organic synthesis. 

Although DMDS will be used as an agricultural pesticide, it is considered a non-food use 

chemical since it is quickly degraded or metabolized into non-toxic degradates in the soil. 

Furthermore, DMDS residues must dissipate in the soil prior to planting. Therefore, this 

fumigant does not require food tolerances and is not subject to the amendments of the Federal 

Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide 

Act (FIFRA) promulgated under the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996. As a result, a 

risk assessment has not been conducted for the dietary exposure scenario. Based on 

environmental fate data and modeling estimates the Agency does not expect the pesticidal uses 

of DMDS to adversely impact ground water or surface water. 

DMDS, like the other soil fumigants, has the potential to move off-site following field 

applications, resulting in exposure to bystanders near treated areas and to people far away from 

treated areas through ambient air. Exposure to DMDS may also occur to those handling the 

pesticide or working in treated fields. Acute inhalation exposures to bystanders and workers 

appear to present the greatest risk concern. 

Toxicity Profile

DMDS has a robust inhalation toxicity database with studies varying from acute to repeat 

exposure studies. Port-of-entry irritation, nasal irritation, is the most sensitive endpoint for 

DMDS. Systemic toxicity was only observed at higher concentrations in the form of decreased 

food consumption and body weights. Irritation typically increased in severity and progressed 

deeper in the nose with increasing concentrations. Repeat inhalation studies suggest nasal 

irritation is driven by concentration since lower LOAELs were not observed in repeat exposure 

studies (i.e., the concentration at which nasal irritation occurs is similar for a single exposure as 

for longer-term exposures). The acute inhalation port-of-entry NOAEL is therefore appropriate 

for longer-term scenarios. 

Individuals may smell DMDS before nasal irritation is identified. The pungent odor of DMDS is 

described as rotting or decaying matter or as garlic. The odor threshold of DMDS is reported to 

Page 6 of 193 
be orders of magnitude below the level that nasal irritation is identified. The strong odor of 

DMDS may therefore “warn” individuals of the presence of the compound in the area. 

Inhalation Endpoints

Based on the specific toxicity profile of DMDS, the 24-hour acute inhalation rat study was 

selected for estimating inhalation risk for all durations of exposure. The port-of-entry NOAEL 

(No observable adverse effect level) is 9 ppm. The port-of-entry LOAEL (lowest observable 

adverse effect level) of 12.5 ppm was based on the incidence of microscopic lesions of the nasal 

tissues, the incidence of degeneration in multiple nasal levels and inflammation of the olfactory 

and respiratory epithelia. Since nasal irritation is dependent upon concentration and not duration 

of exposure, a single HEC is appropriate for all durations and both occupational and nonoccupational scenarios. 

Based on the use of the inhalation reference concentration (RfC) methodology, the acute, shortand intermediate-term non-occupational and occupational human equivalent concentration 

(HEC) is 1.65 ppm. EPA’s RfC methodology incorporates pharmacokinetic differences between 

rats and humans; therefore the interspecies extrapolation factor is reduced to 3x. EPA uses a 

10x factor to account for intraspecies variability. Therefore, a margin of exposure (MOE) of 30 

defines HED’s level of concern (LOC). 

Dermal irritation was observed in rat and rabbit irritation studies with severity of irritation 

varying based on length of exposure. However, the Agency does not anticipate dermal exposure 

resulting from typical use of DMDS. This is due the enclosed systems that are required to keep 

DMDS as a liquid. As a result, HED did not conduct a quantitative dermal risk assessment at the 

present time. It should be noted, however, that there is potential for severe irritation if DMDS 

does come into contact with the skin. Therefore, HED suggests that handlers be advised/required 

to wear personal protective equipment (PPE) due to the potential for severe irritation of DMDS 

to skin. 

Bystander and Occupational Assessments

Releases of fumigants, such as DMDS, can be categorized in two distinct manners including 

bystander exposures from single application sites (i.e., treated farm fields) such as area sources 

(hereon discussed as near field sources) and by ambient air monitoring data where residues could 

result from many applications within a region (hereon discussed as ambient sources). Risks from 

near field sources were evaluated using monitoring data and modeling techniques. Risks from 

ambient air were evaluated using surrogate methyl bromide monitoring data from California. 

Eight field volatility studies that quantified DMDS emissions from treated fields were used to 

assess bystander exposure to DMDS resulting from single application sites (e.g., area sources 

such as farm fields). These data indicate that there can be potential risks of concern associated 

with DMDS use. These data are limited in their utility because they provide results only for the 

specific conditions under which the experiment was conducted. Therefore, an air modeling 

system was used for risk assessment purposes to develop a better understanding of the potential 

for risks associated with DMDS use under varied meteorological conditions. 

Page 7 of 193 
The Agency utilized the Probabilistic Exposure and Risk Model for FUMigants (PERFUM) to 

assess DMDS bystander exposures and risks. PERFUM was developed in response to the 

Agency’s use of the EPA's Industrial Source Complex: Short-Term Model (ISCST3) which was 

first used to develop risk estimates for bystanders associated with DMDS uses 

(http://www.epa.gov/scram001/dispersion_alt.htm). DMDS PERFUM analyses were performed 

for 1, 5, 10, 20, and 40 acre fields (proposed DMDS labels restrict application to 40 acres per 

day) using 100%, 90%, 80%, 70%, 60%, and 50% of the maximum proposed label application 

rate. The Agency utilized all eight available field volatility studies in the PERFUM analyses 

even though use of high barrier tarps are required on the label (only two of the eight volatility 

studies used high barrier tarps). No emissions data are available to reflect the use of high barrier 

tarps for the broadcast shank injection and raised bed drip irrigation application scenarios. The 

raised bed shank injection high barrier studies were used as surrogates where the Agency deemed 

it appropriate and applicable (e.g., the raised bed drip irrigation application scenario). The 

Agency does not recommend use of the raised bed shank injection high barrier studies as 

surrogates for the broadcast shank injection application scenario. In that case the broadcast 

shank injection emission study using LDPE should be used to estimate buffer distances until a 

broadcast shank injection emissions study using high barrier tarps is performed. PERFUM 

results show that for a 40 acre field treated at the maximum application rate, the 95% whole field 

buffer typically ranges from approximately 265 meters to ≥ 1440 meters for raised bed shank 

injection applications, from 1265 meters to ≥ 1440 meters for broadcast shank injection 

applications, and from 580 meters to ≥ 765 meters for raised bed drip irrigation applications 

depending on the sealing method and meteorological dataset examined. 

With regard to potential multiple sources of exposure from ambient air, no direct ambient air 

monitoring data are available for DMDS. Although there are industrial and commercial uses of 

DMDS, it is not routinely screened for in ambient air by CARB (California Air Resources 

Board) or similar organizations. In order to qualitatively characterize the potential for exposure 

to DMDS in ambient air, HED has compared the DMDS inhalation toxicity endpoints to the 

ambient air levels that were quantified for methyl bromide which is a highly used and highly 

volatile fumigant. In all cases, this comparison resulted in risks that do not exceed HED’s level 

of concern for DMDS. (MOEs > 30). This comparison should be considered conservative in 

nature because there is less potential for exposure with DMDS than with methyl bromide 

because of the environmental fate characteristics of DMDS relative to methyl bromide (i.e., 

DMDS is not as volatile as methyl bromide, DMDS dissipates/degrades faster in the environment 

than methyl bromide). 

Risks to occupational handlers (for soil fumigations), including tractor drivers, co-pilots, 

shovelers, soil sealers, tarp punchers and tarp removers, involved in preplant field fumigation 

were evaluated using DMDS-specific handler monitoring data. Acute inhalation risks to 

handlers exceed HED’s level of concern (MOE < 30) for many of the sample points at the 

baseline level (no respirator). However, with the addition of an organic vapor respirator 

(assumed to have a protection factor of 10), most of the handler risks do not exceed HED’s level 

of concern. Short- and intermediate-term risks to handlers also exceed HED’s level of concern 

(MOE < 30) for many occupational activities at the baseline level (no respirator). However, with 

the addition of a PF 10 respirator, all of the short- and intermediate handler risks do not exceed 

HED’s level of concern. 

Page 8 of 193 
Review of Human Research

This risk assessment relies in part on data from studies in which adult human subjects were 

intentionally exposed to a pesticide or other chemical. These studies, which comprise four 

chemical specific studies (MRIDs 47052827/47786503, 47052828/47786504, 

47075401/47786501, and 47075402/47786502) have been determined to require a review of 

their ethical conduct, have received that review, and have been determined to be ethically 

conducted. 

Environmental Justice

Potential areas of environmental justice concerns, to the extent possible, were considered for this 

human health risk assessment, in accordance with US Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to 

Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 

http://www.eh.doe.gov/oepa/guidance/justice/eo12898.pdf. 

As a part of every pesticide risk assessment, OPP considers a large variety of consumer 

subgroups according to well-established procedures. In line with OPP policy, HED estimates 

risks to population subgroups from pesticide exposures that are based on patterns of that 

subgroup’s food and water consumption and activities in and around the home that involve 

pesticide use in a residential setting. Since the proposed uses of DMDS are classified as nonfood uses and DMDS is unlikely to contaminate drinking water, no dietary or drinking water 

exposure is expected for DMDS. 

However, DMDS is a fumigant and post-application inhalation exposure in the general 

population can occur as a result of the registered uses. This inhalation exposure may not be 

limited to occupational workers, but may occur for bystanders located in proximity to treated 

fields. Based on the exposure pattern, an extensive analysis of residential bystander inhalation 

exposure has been performed as part of the DMDS risk assessment. This analysis takes into 

account individuals who may live directly next to a field treated with DMDS as well as those 

individuals who may live in an area with multiple DMDS treated fields. Inputs used in the 

assessment were chosen to assure that the inhalation component of the aggregate exposure 

assessment will be protective of all potential exposed populations, including populations 

specifically targeted for possible environmental justice concerns such as low income residents 

and minorities. Risk assessment endpoints were selected considering the potential susceptibility 

of infants, children, and pregnant women to assure protection of these populations. Since (a) 

inhalation risks will drive this assessment and will be protective of all populations, (b) food and 

drinking water exposure will not occur, and (c) no additional unique exposures are anticipated 

for this chemical, the aggregate DMDS assessment will be protective of potential exposures and 

risks to all populations. 

Further considerations are currently under evaluation as OPP has committed resources and 

expertise to the development of specialized software/models and the refinement of current 

methodologies and policies that consider exposure to bystanders and farm workers, as well as, 

lifestyle and traditional dietary patterns among specific subgroups. The Agency may revisit this 

assessment as appropriate to be consistent with scientific standards/policies under development 

related to environmental justice. 

Page 9 of 193 
2.0 Ingredient Profile

2.1 Summary of Proposed Uses 

DMDS is a broad-spectrum fumigant used for the control or suppression of nematodes, various 

soil borne pathogens, and weeds. The proposed uses are for tomatoes, peppers, eggplant, 

cucumbers, squash (all), melons (all), strawberries, onions, field grown ornamentals, and forest 

nursery crops. DMDS end-use products are packaged as Paladin (98.8% active ingredient) and 

Paladin EC (93.8% active ingredient). 

DMDS is stored as a liquid but volatilizes rapidly following soil injection. A maximum effective 

broadcast application rate of 455 lb ai/acre has been proposed. It is applied to the soil prior to 

planting via shank injection (broadcast or raised bed) or drip irrigation equipment. Treated areas 

of the field are required by the label to be covered by high-barrier tarps in an effort to reduce 

emissions of DMDS. The label prohibits tarp removal for 12 days after application. 

 2.2 Structure and Nomenclature 

Table 2.2 provides the structures and relevant nomenclature for DMDS. 

Table 2.2: Test Compound Nomenclature

Chemical structure 

Common name Dimethyl Disulfide, DMDS 

Molecular formula C2H6S2

Molecular weight 94.2 g/mol 

IUPAC name (methyldisulfanyl)methane 

CAS name Dimethyl Disulfide 

CAS number 624-92-0 

PC Code 029088 

2.3 Physical and Chemical Properties 

A listing of the physical and chemical properties of DMDS included in this assessment is 

provided in Table 2.3. 

Table 2.3: Physicochemical Properties of the Technical Grade Test Compound 

Parameter Value/Description Reference (MRID) 

Physical State Pale yellow liquid 46903505 and 46903511 

Melting point/range -84.7 °C 46903506 

Boiling point/range 109-110 °C 46903509 

Density 1.062 g/mol @ 20 °C 46903509 and 46903511 

Water Solubility 1-10 g/L @ 20 °C 46903510 

Solvent Solubility Completely miscible with n-hexane at all temperatures. 46903509 

Vapor Pressure 29.0 mmHg @ 25 °C 

22.5 mmHg @ 20 °C 

4690306 

Dissociation constant (pKa) This substance does not dissociate. 46903510 

Page 10 of 193 
3.0 Hazard Characterization/Assessment 

3.1 Hazard Characterization 

 

 3.1.1 Database Summary (See Appendix A for executive summaries of 

toxicity studies and toxicological profile of DMDS.) 

Inhalation studies available for DMDS include: 

Acute neurotoxicity study-rat 

Special 24-hour inhalation study-rat 

Special 1 & 5-day inhalation study-rat 

Developmental study-rat 

Developmental study-rabbit 

2-generation reproduction study-rat 

Subchronic neurotoxicity study-rat 

13-week inhalation study-rat 

A 28-day dermal toxicity study as well as 5 mutagenicity studies are also available for DMDS. 

There are currently no oral toxicity studies available for DMDS. However, the proposed use 

pattern does not require tolerances and oral studies are therefore not required for risk assessment 

at this time. 

Hazard Summary 

DMDS is a volatile chemical which is proposed for use as a fumigant. The inhalation route of 

exposure is the main exposure of concern for both workers and bystanders. As such, the 

database of inhalation studies and port-of-entry evaluations with DMDS is robust for the 

proposed use profile. For example, acceptable inhalation studies in rats and rabbits are available 

in exposure durations ranging from single day (4 and 24 hours) to repeated exposures over 13 

weeks that evaluate port-of-entry irritation, systemic toxicity, neurotoxicity, reproductive 

toxicity, and developmental toxicity. There are no chronic inhalation studies for DMDS, 

however, the current use profile does not warrant this duration of toxicity study. 

Although the primary eye and skin irritation studies with DMDS did not result in severe irritation 

(category III and IV, respectively), the potential for DMDS to cause irritation at the ports-ofentry (i.e., nose, eyes, mouth) was evaluated as consistent for some of the other fumigant 

compounds. Microscopic evaluations of the nose and respiratory tract are available for 5 of the 

10 inhalation DMDS studies. Two of the 5 studies are acute and evaluated a single 6 hour or 24 

hour exposure. Inflammation and nasal irritation in the form of degeneration of the nasal 

olfactory epithelium was observed after a single DMDS exposure. Irritation typically increased 

in severity and progressed deeper in the nose with increasing concentrations. Repeat inhalation 

studies reveal irritation present not only in the nose (olfactory degeneration and nasal squamous 

metaplasia) but also further in the respiratory tract (lung irritation in rabbit only). The 

concentration of DMDS required to produce irritation does not decrease considerably with 

repeated exposure. DMDS port-of-entry irritation data, in contrast, follow a threshold type of 

effect. For example, irritation may be produced once the threshold concentration is obtained 

regardless of the duration of exposure. Furthermore, the irritation from a single exposure may 

Page 11 of 193 
not have time to recover such that repeated exposure without recovery leads to increased severity 

of irritation or irritation further in the respiratory tract. The length of time required for the nasal 

olfactory degeneration to recover after a single exposure is not available for DMDS. 

DMDS did not produce developmental or reproductive toxicity via the inhalation route below 

maternally toxic concentrations in the rat or rabbit studies. 

Although DMDS is highly volatile, a specially designed 28-day repeat dermal rabbit study is 

available that indicates repeat dermal exposure to DMDS is severely irritating and may cause 

severe systemic toxicity including death (secondary to dermal irritation). It is noted, however, 

that this study was designed to keep DMDS on the skin instead of volatizing as would typically 

occur. Severe irritation in the form of erythema, edema, and ischemic necrosis was observed at 

the lowest concentration tested beginning on the second day of application. Although only 

toxicity category III, severe irritation was also observed in the acute dermal rabbit study 

(cracking/thickening/sloughing of the skin on Day 7 until Day 14). Therefore, DMDS should be 

handled with extreme care since any dermal exposure will likely lead to severe irritation and 

toxicity. 

The available acceptable/guideline in vitro and in vivo mutagenicity studies with DMDS were 

negative. However, the gene mutation assay with Chinese hamster ovary cells is 

unacceptable/guideline due to problems associated with test material concentrations. 

Metabolism, toxicokinetic, mode of action data 

There is neither a pharmacokinetic nor a metabolism study available for DMDS and the 

metabolic pathway has not been determined. The insecticidal mode of action acts through the 

dysfunction of mitochondria. The mammalian mode of action or metabolic pathway has not 

been determined. Based on the lack of systemic toxicity in any of the DMDS toxicity studies, a 

rat metabolism study would not provide significant information for risk assessment. 

The odor of DMDS has been described in the literature as pungent garlic, decaying fish, or as 

decomposing materials. A literature review conducted by the registrant suggests the mean odor 

threshold for DMDS is 7 ppb to 12 ppb (0.007 – 0.012 ppm), depending on inclusion of outlier 

data (Clem McKown, 10-3-2008, 3 pgs). The estimated odor threshold is approximately three 

orders of magnitude below the dose at which nasal irritation is observed in rodent inhalation 

studies. The concentration at which the odor is identified also suggests that individuals near a 

treated field may detect the odor of DMDS before a concentration is reached that would produce 

nasal irritation. However, the time required for a person to detect the odor as well as the 

variability and aversions among individuals to the odor is currently not available for DMDS. 

Page 12 of 193 
Sufficiency of studies/data

The toxicological database for DMDS for the major route of concern, inhalation, is robust and 

adequate for selecting toxicity endpoints for the current risk assessment. 

 

3.1.2 Responses in Laboratory Animals 

Based on inhalation studies in laboratory animals (rats), port-of-entry effects such as 

degeneration and inflammation of several cell types and nasal levels (I-IV) were consistently 

observed at a concentration as low as 12.5 ppm, regardless of duration of exposure. For 

example, the acute inhalation LOAEL was 12.5 ppm (24 hours) while the LOAELs for the repeat 

exposure studies (6 hrs/day, 5 days/week) ranged from 15 ppm to 50 ppm. There were no 

significant differences in severity or incidence of nasal irritation between sexes in any of the 

inhalation studies. It should also be noted that the rodent studies do not provide information 

regarding the odor threshold for DMDS. Odor thresholds referenced in the literature (0.007-

0.012 ppm) are orders of magnitude below the concentration at which nasal irritation occurs in 

rodent inhalation studies (acute LOAEL 12.5 ppm and subchronic LOAELs 10-50 ppm). 

There are four acceptable inhalation studies for the acute inhalation scenario. The 4-hour LC50

rat study (MRID 46903516) is limited as it only provides a concentration level at which 50% of 

the animals died (1308 ppm). The acute neurotoxicity study (6 hours) resulted in clinical signs 

of irritation such as closed eyelids at 100 ppm and red deposits on the mouth of females at 200 

ppm (MRID 46903529). Systemic toxicity evidenced by decreased locomotor activity was 

observed at the same concentration as the clinical signs of irritation. These two acute studies, 

however, do not provide port-of-entry information which is critical for the acute inhalation risk 

assessment. In contrast, a 6-hour inhalation study (MRID 47471201) is available that 

specifically evaluated the nasal region (levels I-VI) of rats 24 hours following a 6-hour DMDS 

exposure. Nasal irritation in the form of acute inflammation, degeneration, and hyperplasia was 

observed at all concentrations with severity increasing with concentration (50 ppm to 600 ppm). 

This study, however, did not provide a level at which nasal lesions were not observed (port-ofentry NOAEL not established; ≤ 50 ppm). 

A follow-up study was performed specifically to identify an irritation NOAEL after a single 24 

hour exposure to varying concentrations of DMDS (MRID 47785501). The animals were 

assessed 24 hours after the end of the exposure period. As in the previous acute inhalation study, 

mild nasal irritation was present in the form of degeneration of the olfactory epithelium (levels 

II-VI) at concentrations as low as 12.5 ppm. A port-of-entry NOAEL was identified at 9 ppm. 

The time to onset of irritation and recovery of the nasal irritation was not performed as part of 

the 24 hour inhalation study so this information is unavailable for DMDS. 

In developmental inhalation toxicity studies with DMDS (MRID 46917008 rat, 46903523 

rabbit), no evidence of quantitative or qualitative susceptibility for systemic toxicity in 

developing animals was observed. Maternal toxicity in the rat was observed in the form of rough 

hair coat, decreased body weights/gains and food consumption. Developmental toxicity at 

maternally toxic doses was observed in the form of decreased fetal body weights and skeletal 

retardations. Port-of-entry irritation was not evaluated in either the rat or rabbit developmental 

study. The rabbit developmental study did result in macroscopic discolorations of the lungs of 

Page 13 of 193 
Page 14 of 193 

dams at all concentrations. Microscopic evaluations were not performed on either the nasal or 

lung tissues as consistent with other inhalation studies. Systemic toxicity for maternal and 

developmental LOAELs was not established. A range-finding developmental neurotoxicity 

study (MRID 47052812) via the inhalation route also resulted in similar maternal and offspring 

toxicity as decreased body weights and food consumption. 

Longer duration inhalation studies such as the rat reproduction and 13-week rat study resulted in 

similar systemic toxicity as the acute and developmental studies. Specifically, the twogeneration reproduction rat study (MRID 47052807) resulted in a parental LOAEL (80 ppm) 

based on decreased body weights and food consumption. A reproductive and offspring LOAEL 

was not established (NOAEL > 80 ppm). Microscopic evaluation of potential port-of-entry 

irritation, however, was not evaluated in the reproduction study. In contrast, the 13-week 

inhalation rat study (MRID 46917007) did evaluate port-of-entry irritation and showed 

squamous metaplasia in the nasal cavity of rats at 50 ppm. The systemic LOAEL was 50 ppm 

based on similar clinical signs as the developmental and reproductive studies; decreased body 

weight/gains and food consumption. 

Two neurotoxicity studies (acute, subchronic) are available that suggest port-of-entry irritation 

occurs at the same or at lower concentrations than signs of neurotoxicity. In the acute 

neurotoxicity study (MRID 46903529) locomotor activity was decreased at the same 

concentration as eye and mouth irritation (100 ppm). However, histopathology of the nasal 

region was not assessed in the acute neurotoxicity study. In the subchronic neurotoxicity study 

(MRID 46903530) microscopic examination of the nasal cavity revealed degeneration of the 

nasal olfactory epithelium (levels II through IV) at 20 ppm. Systemic toxicity was observed at a 

higher concentration (80 ppm) in the form of decreased motor activity and decreased body 

weights and food consumption. 

Examination of the nasal/respiratory irritation data across study durations and concentrations, it 

is apparent that DMDS produces nasal irritation within a few hours and at relatively low 

concentrations regardless of duration. For example, Table 3.1.2 provides a comparison of the 

irritation produced at specific concentrations (LOAEL) across time. From this table it is 

apparent that minor nasal irritation may occur within 6 to 24 hours of exposure at a concentration 

as low as 10 ppm. Repeat exposure studies reveal similar LOAELs as the acute inhalation 

studies. The NOAELs from the repeat exposure studies are likely an artifact of concentration 

selection and spacing. This comparison suggests that nasal irritation may occur at a threshold 

concentration since acute exposure produced irritation at 12.5 ppm (24 hours) and repeated 

exposures produced nasal irritation at 15 to 50 ppm (6 hours/day). The only difference in the 

concentration producing nasal irritation across time is due to concentration selection. This 

suggests an acute NOAEL would be protective of longer-term LOAELs. Furthermore, there was 

no significant difference in severity or incidence between males and females in the inhalation 

studies. 
Page 15 of 193 

Table 3.1.2. Comparison of port-of-entry irritation and systemic toxicity data from inhalation stud

ACN rat inhalation 

(6 hr, 1-Day) 

1-Day rat inhalation 

(6 hr) 

1-Day rat inhalation 

(24 hr, males only) 

5-Day rat inhalation 

(6 hr/day) 

Developmental Rabbit 

(6 hr/day, 23 days) 

90-Day rat inha

(6 hr/day) 

46903529 47471201 47785501 47471201 46903523 46917007 

Port-of-Entry Irritation 

NOAEL = NA NOAEL = NA NOAEL= 9 ppm NOAEL = NA NOAEL = NA NOAEL = 1

LOAEL = 100 ppm 

(LDT) 

LOAEL = 50 ppm 

(LDT) LOAEL = 12.5 ppm LOAEL = 50 ppm (LDT) LOAEL = 15 ppm (LDT) LOAEL = 50 p

Based on closed 

eyelids, red deposits 

on mouth of females 

No histopathology of 

nose 

Based on acute 

inflammation, 

degeneration, 

hyperplasia of nasal 

tissues of both sexes 

Based on incidence of 

inflammation and 

degeneration of the 

nasal olfactory 

epithelium (levels IIVI); 6/10 males; all 

minimal 

Based on acute 

inflammation, 

degeneration, hyperplasia 

of nasal tissues of both 

sexes (levels II-VI), and 

↑relative lung weights at 

300 ppm 

Nasal cavity not 

examined, no 

histopathology 

Based on minim

moderate atroph

microcavitation 

olfactory epitheli

rats/sex) and resp

squamous metap

the anterior nasal 

No histopathology of 

lungs. Lung weights 

not taken. 

No change in lung wts at 

any concentration. 

Lung histo not evaluated 

No change in lung wts. 

Lung histo not 

performed 

No change in lung wts at 

any concentration. 

Lung histo not evaluated. 

No effect on lung wts, 

histo not performed. 

LOAEL based on 

macroscopic 

observations of dark 

red discolorations of 

areas of the lungs, 

No change in lun

at any concentr

Lung weights ↑ o

HDT (250ppm

Systemic Toxicity 

NOAEL< 100 ppm No acute systemic effects No acute systemic effects NOAEL < 50ppm 

Maternal and 

Developmental 

NOAEL 135 ppm 

(HDT) 

NOAEL=10p

LOAEL=100 ppm NA NA LOAEL=50 ppm LOAEL not established LOAEL=50p

Based on ↓ total 

session locomotor 

activity in males, 

↓total session motor 

activity in females 

NA NA 

Based on ↓ body 

weights and body 

weight gains. NA 

Based on clinica

(soiled fur

piloerection), ↓

weights/gains, 

↓food consump
 Responses in Humans 

There are no observational or toxicity data regarding the odor threshold or irritation response 

from DMDS by humans. DMDS is typically reported as having a foul odor in the form of 

pungent garlic or decaying materials (fish) which may have been produced by a variety of 

natural and industrial processes (i.e., kraft pulp mills). A literature review of odor threshold 

information for DMDS was submitted recently to the Agency by the registrant (Clem McKown, 

10-3-2008, 3 pgs). In this report the DMDS odor thresholds range from 1 ppb to 1 ppm. The 

mean reported odor threshold for DMDS was 7 ppb to 12 ppb, depending on inclusion of outlier 

data. Information regarding the sensitivity of individuals in the population to varying DMDS 

levels and the timing of onset of recognition and severity or aversion of the odor are not 

available. Furthermore, odor recognition in relation to onset of potential nasal irritation is also 

not available for DMDS. Although the Agency does not consider odor as an adverse effect, this 

odor information does provide some insight into the relative sensitivities of these two factors 

(e.g., odor threshold in humans and nasal irritation threshold in rodents) of DMDS exposure. 

 3.1.3 Inhalation Exposure

DMDS, like the other soil fumigants, has the potential to move off-site following field 

applications, resulting in exposure to bystanders near treated areas and to people far away from 

treated areas through ambient air. Exposure to DMDS may also occur to those handling the 

pesticide or working in treated fields. Acute inhalation exposures to bystanders and workers 

appear to present the greatest risk concern. This is due to the concentration of the chemical as it 

moves off (drift) of the field. Public health data for other fumigant chemicals suggest that 

bystander exposure results mainly from this drift. Port-of-entry irritation in the form of nasal 

degeneration is the most sensitive effect and therefore is appropriate for use in the DMDS risk 

assessment. As with the other hazard assessments for fumigant chemicals, this hazard 

assessment applied the Reference Concentration (RfC) methodology to the DMDS hazard 

assessment. The following endpoint for the inhalation scenario reflect the conclusions of the 

HED ToxSac (12-8-09) in addition to relevant calculations using EPA’s RfC methodology for 

the acute, short-, and intermediate-term scenarios. See Appendix B for the HEC assessment 

array. 

Based on current DMDS labels, HED believes exposures can be acute (less than 24 hours), shortterm (1-30 days), and/or intermediate-term (1 month-6 months) in duration. Long-term exposure 

is not anticipated for DMDS based on proposed labeled uses. 

As stated previously, the duration of exposure does not typically impact the NOAEL/LOAEL for 

DMDS. The acute and subchronic port-of-entry LOAELs are similar. Therefore, the acute 

inhalation and nasal irritation study (MRID 47785501) would be adequate and health protective 

of all durations of exposure for the DMDS inhalation risk assessment.

For the acute inhalation scenario, the single 24-hour inhalation study with nasal microscopy in 

the Sprague-Dawley rat (MRID 47785501) provides the most useful information for establishing 

a point of departure (PoD) for risk assessment. This special inhalation study evaluated the upper 

respiratory tract after 24-hours of continuous DMDS exposure as a vapor. Although there were 

Page 16 of 193 
no macroscopic or clinical signs of toxicity, treatment-related microscopic nasal irritation and 

inflammation were found in nasal levels II through VI of the olfactory epithelium. Males were 

only evaluated since a previous acute study (MRID 47471201) revealed no significant 

differences in irritation between male and female rats. The severity of the degeneration and the 

number of nasal levels affected was concentration-dependent. Furthermore, the severity 

generally decreased as the nasal level increased from anterior to posterior. A port-of-entry 

NOAEL was identified at 9 ppm and LOAEL at 12.5 ppm. 

As stated previously, the acute inhalation NOAEL of 9 ppm is adequate and health protective to 

assess both the short-term and intermediate-term durations. 

Human nasal irritation data are not available for the DMDS inhalation risk assessment. 

Therefore, the methods and dosimetry equations described in EPA’s reference concentration 

(RfC) guidance (1994) are suited for calculating human equivalent concentrations (HECs) and 

for use in margin of exposure (MOE) calculations. Compared to the methods previously used by 

OPP, the dosimetry equations in the RfC guidance more appropriately address different 

properties of gases and particles, different properties of reactive and non-reactive compounds, 

and explicitly consider some differences in the structure of the respiratory tract between 

laboratory animals and humans. As performed by HED for other fumigant chemicals, OPP has 

used the dosimetry equations from the RfC guidance to develop HECs to estimate acute, short-, 

and intermediate-term inhalation risk to DMDS. For other soil fumigants, EPA has compared 

the toxicity endpoints with those of the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR). 

However, at this time, CDPR has not conducted a risk assessment for DMDS; thus, HECs from 

CDPR are not available for DMDS. 

In this risk assessment, endpoint selection was based on the effects occurring at the lowest HEC 

derived from animal data using the RfC methodology. 

For the acute, short, and intermediate-term scenarios, inhalation data from the 24-hour inhalation 

rodent study was most appropriate for determining HECs. In the RfC methodology, different 

HECs may be calculated for the same experimental NOAEL due to: 

1. Different algorithms are used to derive HECs for systemic versus port-of-entry 

effects. Therefore, HECs are calculated separately for systemic versus port-of-entry 

effects. For further details on the critical studies used for endpoint selection and the 

DMDS toxicity profile the reader is instructed to refer to Appendix A. For additional 

information on the methodologies used in this risk assessment and HEC arrays, please 

refer to Appendix B. 

2. Time adjustments are traditionally needed for nonoccupational versus occupational 

exposure scenarios. Traditionally, HECs for non-occupational exposure are based on 

the numbers of hours an individual may be at home. Therefore, the most conservative 

estimate of hours spent at home would be 24 hours/day and 7 days/week. In 

comparison, the average work week for an occupational worker is 8 hours/day and 5 

days/week. As stated previously however, the DMDS toxicity database suggests that 

once a threshold concentration is attained, regardless of the hours of exposure, the 

Page 17 of 193 
result is nasal irritation. Time adjustments, therefore, are not required for the HEC 

calculations for DMDS. The HEC array table reflects the lack of time adjustment in 

the calculations. 

Acute Inhalation Exposure 

1-Day (24 hour) Special Inhalation Study 

See Appendix A for the Executive Summary.

Acute Non-Occupational and Occupational Exposure 

Table 3.1.3a: Table of port-of-entry endpoints for acute non-occupational & 

Occupational exposure based on a special inhalation male rat study with DMDS 

with NOAEL 9 ppm (0.034 mg/L) and LOAEL of 12.5 ppm (0.049 mg/L; 71 mg/m3)

Effect Endpoint HEC 

extrathoracic (ET) 1.65 ppm 

tracheobronchial (TB) NA 

pulmonary (PU) NA 

The port-of-entry LOAEL 12.5 ppm (0.049 mg/L), based on the incidence of microscopic 

lesions (degeneration in the olfactory epithelium) of the nasal tissues (Nasal Levels IIVI), the incidence of degeneration in multiple nasal levels (3 to 5 levels) and 

inflammation of the olfactory and respiratory epithelia (Nasal Levels III and IV). 

Dose and Endpoint for Risk Assessment (non-occupational & occupational): An HEC of 1.65 

ppm (6.36 mg/m3

) was selected as the basis for the acute inhalation point of departure based on 

the incidence of microscopic lesions (degeneration in the olfactory epithelium) of the nasal 

tissues (Nasal Levels II-VI), the incidence of degeneration in multiple nasal levels (3 to 5 levels) 

and inflammation of the olfactory and respiratory epithelia (Nasal Levels III and IV). The acute 

rat inhalation study provides nasal irritation data which is the most sensitive endpoint for the 

DMDS toxicity database. The acute inhalation study also clearly defines a NOAEL for nasal 

irritation. 

Since duration of DMDS exposure does not impact the concentration at which irritation may 

occur, this acute study may be used for longer-term exposure scenarios in the risk assessment. 

Traditionally, different HECs would have been calculated for occupational exposures due to the 

time adjustments made for the exposure scenarios (i.e., 8 hours/day and 5 days/week). The 

duration of exposure is not the driving factor in the development of nasal lesions; the threshold 

concentration is the key factor. Therefore, time adjustments have not been applied to the 

occupational HECs. Unlike HECs for other fumigant compounds, the non-occupational and 

occupational HECs are the same for DMDS. 

Although the duration is not as important for longer-term exposures, it should be noted that the 

nasal irritation likely developed well within the 24 hours of exposure (e.g., within 8 hours, a 

typical work day). The time of onset of irritation (i.e., the number of hours required to produce 

irritation) as well as recovery data (i.e., the number of hours/days required after the end of 

exposure for nasal irritation to resolve) are not available for DMDS, but should be considered for 

Page 18 of 193 
the inhalation risk assessment. Protection of nasal irritation likely also protects against other 

changes deeper in the respiratory tract. An MOE of 30 defines HED's level of concern in 

accordance with the guidance provided in the RfC methodology (see section 4.2). 

Short- and Intermediate-term Inhalation Exposure 

As stated previously and displayed in Table 3.1.2, the repeat exposure studies do not result in 

lower LOAELs or NOAELs. Since the acute inhalation study provides a NOAEL for the most 

sensitive endpoint, then the acute inhalation study is appropriate for use in both the short- and 

intermediate-term inhalation scenarios. See the acute inhalation exposure section (Table 3.1.3.a) 

for hazard description and the inhalation study executive summary. 

Short- & Intermediate-term Non-occupational and Occupational Exposure 

Table 3.1.3b: Table of port-of-entry endpoints for short- and intermediate term 

non-occupational & occupational exposure based on a special inhalation male rat 

study with DMDS with NOAEL 9 ppm (0.034 mg/L) and LOAEL of 12.5 ppm (0.049 

mg/L)

Effect Endpoint HEC 

extrathoracic (ET) 1.65 ppm 

tracheobronchial (TB) NA 

pulmonary (PU) NA 

The port-of-entry LOAEL 12.5 ppm (0.049 mg/L), based on the incidence of microscopic 

lesions (degeneration in the olfactory epithelium) of the nasal tissues (Nasal Levels IIVI), the incidence of degeneration in multiple nasal levels (3 to 5 levels) and 

inflammation of the olfactory and respiratory epithelia (Nasal Levels III and IV). 

Long-term Inhalation Exposure 

HED believes that chronic DMDS exposure is unlikely based on the current proposed use 

pattern. Chronic inhalation studies are currently unavailable for DMDS. Furthermore, repeat 

exposure does not significantly reduce the port-of-entry LOAEL or NOAEL for DMDS. 

Therefore, a long-term inhalation exposure assessment is not appropriate for DMDS at this time. 

 3.1.4 Dietary Exposure

Given the available crop field trail data and the results of the aerobic soil metabolism study; the 

uses on the proposed DMDS labels are considered nonfood uses. Accordingly, the currently 

proposed uses of DMDS do not require food tolerances and a dietary risk assessment is not 

required. Please refer to Section 5.3 for more information. 

 3.1.5 Dermal Exposure

DMDS is classified as category IV for skin irritation potential (rabbit) and category III for acute 

dermal toxicity (rat). These studies likely did not result in severe irritation or toxicity due to the 

volatility of the compound. However, the 28-day dermal rabbit study resulted in severe irritation 

Page 19 of 193 
(erythema, edema, and ischemic necrosis) at 10.6 mg/kg/day after two applications and systemic 

toxicity at 106 mg/kg/day (lethargy with mortality, myocarditis and myocardial degeneration, 

lung lesions, decreased body weight and food consumption, and hemolytic anemia at the highest 

dose tested). This study specifically applied DMDS via a thin gauge needle so as to prevent 

volatization of DMDS before contact with the skin. This likely explains the differences in results 

among the 3 dermal studies. 

HED believes that based on the volatility of DMDS, dermal exposure to DMDS is not expected 

based on the delivery systems used (e.g., soil injection or drip irrigation) and emission reduction 

technologies (e.g., tarping). The physiochemical properties of DMDS also make significant 

dermal exposure unlikely and quantifying any potential low level exposures very difficult. 

Therefore, a quantitative dermal exposure assessment has not been completed. HED does 

suggest, however, that handlers should be advised/required to wear personal protective 

equipment (PPE) due to the potential for severe irritation if DMDS does contact skin. 

 3.1.6 Classification of Carcinogenic Potential 

At this time, DMDS has not been classified with respect to its carcinogenic potential via the oral 

or inhalation route. For the major route of concern, there are no chronic/carcinogenic inhalation 

studies available for DMDS. However, the mutagenic studies available for DMDS are negative 

and do not warrant a cancer assessment at this time. 

3.2 Uncertainty Factors 

When conducting inhalation risk assessments, the magnitude of the UFs applied is dependent on 

the methodology used to calculate risk. For studies in this risk assessment with inhalation animal 

data, UFs are based on the RfC methodology developed by the Office of Research and 

Development (ORD) for the derivation of inhalation reference concentrations (RfCs) and human 

equivalent concentrations (HECs) for use in margin of exposure (MOE) calculations. Since the 

RfC methodology takes into consideration the pharmacokinetic (PK) differences but not the 

pharmacodynamic (PD) differences, the UF for interspecies extrapolation may be reduced to 3X 

(to account for the PD differences) while the UF for intraspecies variation is retained at 10X1. 

Thus, the UF when using the RfC methodology is customarily 30X. 

 3.3 Endocrine Disruption

As required under FFDCA section 408(p), EPA has developed the Endocrine Disruptor 

Screening Program (EDSP) to determine whether certain substances (including pesticide active 

and other ingredients) may have an effect in humans or wildlife similar to an effect produced by 

a “naturally occurring estrogen, or other such endocrine effects as the Administrator may 

designate.” The EDSP employs a two-tiered approach to making the statutorily required 

determinations. Tier 1 consists of a battery of 11 screening assays to identify the potential of a 

chemical substance to interact with the estrogen, androgen, or thyroid (E, A, or T) hormonal 

systems. Chemicals that go through Tier 1 screening and are found to have the potential to 

 

1

 A 3X UF for interspecies extrapolation is retained to account for the PD differences between animals and humans which are not 

accounted for in the RfC methodology. 

Page 20 of 193 
interact with E, A, or T hormonal systems will proceed to the next stage of the EDSP where EPA 

will determine which, if any, of the Tier 2 tests are necessary based on the available data. Tier 2 

testing is designed to identify any adverse endocrine related effects caused by the substance, and 

establish a dose-response relationship between the dose and the E, A, or T effect. 

Between October 2009 and February 2010, EPA is issuing test orders/data call-ins for the first 

group of 67 chemicals, which contains 58 pesticide active ingredients and 9 inert ingredients. 

This list of chemicals was selected based on the potential for human exposure through pathways 

such as food and water, residential activity, and certain post-application agricultural scenarios. 

This list should not be construed as a list of known or likely endocrine disruptors. 

DMDS is not among the group of 58 pesticide active ingredients on the initial list to be screened 

under the EDSP. Under FFDCA sec. 408(p) the Agency must screen all pesticide chemicals. 

Accordingly, EPA anticipates issuing future EDSP test orders/data call-ins for all pesticide active 

ingredients. 

For further information on the status of the EDSP, the policies and procedures, the list of 67 

chemicals, the test guidelines and the Tier 1 screening battery, please visit our website: 

http://www.epa.gov/endo/. 

 3.4 Summary of Toxicological Endpoint Selection 

Table 3.4: Summary of Toxicological Dose and Endpoints for Use in DMDS Human Health 

Inhalation Risk Assessment

Risk Assessment Study NOAEL/LOAEL Endpoint HED HEC 

Nonoccupational 24 hr Inhalation NOAEL= 9 ppm 

LOAEL = 12.5 ppm 

Inflammation & Nasal 

irritation in all 6 levels in 

male rats 

HEC = 1.65 ppm 

UF = 30 

Acute 

Inhalation 

Occupational 24 hr Inhalation NOAEL= 9 ppm 

LOAEL = 12.5 ppm 

Inflammation & Nasal 

irritation in all 6 levels in 

male rats 

HEC = 1.65 ppm 

UF = 30 

Nonoccupational 24 hr Inhalation NOAEL= 9 ppm 

LOAEL = 12.5 ppm 

Inflammation & Nasal 

irritation in all 6 levels in 

male rats 

HEC = 1.65 ppm 

UF = 30 

Short- and 

IntermediateTerm 

Inhalation 

(1-6 months) Occupational 24 hr Inhalation NOAEL= 9 ppm 

LOAEL = 12.5 ppm 

Inflammation & Nasal 

irritation in all 6 levels in 

male rats 

HEC = 1.65 ppm 

UF = 30 

Long-term 

Inhalation 

(> 6 months) 

Long-term exposure is not expected based on the proposed DMDS use pattern. 

Cancer Not required. 

4.0 Public Health and Pesticide Epidemiology Data 

DMDS is a new pesticide active ingredient that has had an Experimental Use Permit (EUP) since 

May 2007. Over 39 field trials have occurred since the DMDS EUP was granted with two of 

Page 21 of 193 
these trials resulting in incidents. The first incident occurred in February 2009 in Tifton, GA and 

the second incident occurred in September 2009 in Floral City, FL. United Phosphorus, Inc. 

submitted separate reports to the Agency on each incident as required under FIFRA 6(a)(2) 

regulation. The details surrounding these incidents are discussed in further detail below. 

The Tifton, GA incident occurred after an application of DMDS to a field approximately 1 acre 

in size. The field was treated with DMDS at an application rate of 600 lbs ai/treated acre and a 

standard polyethylene tarp was used to cover the raised beds. This is in accordance with the 

EUP label directions for using shank injection equipment. The application occurred on February 

7th and two days later on February 9th, several residents of a local community notified the local 

police and fire department of an odor in their community. Several residents also complained of 

headaches. The local police and fire department did not detect an odor in the community but did 

detect an odor at the treated field. No residents were treated for any symptoms but several 

residents were temporarily relocated. It was noted that a low level atmospheric inversion 

occurred on February 8th and persisted for two days. This likely prevented typical dispersion of 

DMDS vapors. 

The Floral City, FL incident occurred after two applications of DMDS to fields approximately 

7.5 and 2.5 acres in size. Both fields were treated with DMDS at an application rate in 

accordance with the EUP label using shank injection equipment and polyethylene tarps. The 

applications occurred on September 8th and 9th. On September 9th the farm manager was 

contacted by the local police department regarding a potential propane leak (DMDS has a 

propane/garlic like odor). A drip application field trial of 0.25 acres using DMDS was 

performed on September 13th on the same farm. On September 17th the farm manager was 

contacted via email by a local resident regarding an “awful odor” that occurred in the mornings 

and evenings over the previous week or two. The email mentioned that several local residents 

had become ill during the time that the odor existed. The farm manager visited the resident who 

emailed him on September 17th to provide details of the EUP and the application of DMDS. At 

this time, the farm manager was not made aware of any medical issues that the resident was 

experiencing as a result of potential exposure to DMDS. The farm manager also talked to 

several neighbors living in the vicinity of the emailing resident none of whom noticed the odor 

referenced in the email. It appears that no residents were treated for any symptoms resulting 

from the three applications of DMDS at Floral City, FL in September 2009. 

The occurrence of the incidents discussed above serves to demonstrate, as the modeling 

presented below predicts, that there is potential for bystanders to be exposed to DMDS following 

soil treatments. The symptoms that occurred are consistent with those effects that could be 

expected from exposure to DMDS (e.g., reference to a bad odor) as DMDS has a very low odor 

threshold. It appears that neither of the incidents occurred as a result of mistakes/errors during 

the application process. The GA incident could have occurred as a result of the referenced 

atmospheric inversion. It is unclear at this time what caused the extended DMDS odor at the FL 

incident. 

Page 22 of 193 
5.0 Dietary Exposure/Risk Characterization 

 5.1 Pesticide Metabolism and Degradates of Concern 

There is currently no guideline crop metabolism study for DMDS. In the DMDS aerobic soil 

metabolism study (MRID 47052819), DMDS was measured to have a half-life ranging from 2.77 

to 2.79 days in sandy and sandy loam soils. The DT90 (the time it takes for 90% of the applied 

DMDS to dissipate) for DMDS ranged from 9.19 to 9.29 days in sandy and sandy loam soils. 

The aerobic metabolism study results demonstrate that the primary metabolic products of DMDS 

in soil under aerobic conditions are carbon dioxide and methanesulfonic acid. No other 

radioactive species were present at greater than 10% of the applied dosage. This study also 

demonstrates that residues of DMDS when trapped in an aerobic soil environment will degrade 

rapidly through an oxidation process that ultimately results in complete mineralization of the 

residue. 

 5.2 Drinking Water Residue Profile

A qualitative DMDS drinking water assessment was performed for this risk assessment. DMDS 

may transport to nearby surface water through runoff and erosion, especially if an application of 

DMDS coincides with, or is closely followed by a rain event. However, rapid volatilization of 

DMDS from surface water is expected to be an important route of dissipation. Based on 

environmental fate data and modeling estimates the Agency does not expect the pesticidal uses 

of DMDS to adversely impact ground water or surface water. 

 5.3 Dietary Exposure and Risk

DMDS field trials on strawberry, tomato, carrot and radish conducted in CA, FL and WI (MRID 

46903535) were submitted to the Agency. Soil was treated at 790 lb DMDS per acre (almost 2x 

the currently proposed maximum label application rate of 455 lbs DMDS per acre) by raised bed 

shank injection at a 6-inch depth and the soil was immediately covered with a polyethylene tarp. 

Strawberry and tomato transplants were planted through the barrier and seed of carrot and radish 

were planted after removing the barrier. The strawberry, tomato and carrot data are supported by 

adequate concurrent recovery data at 0.01 ppm. Residues of DMDS were less than 0.01 ppm 

(the limit of detection) in strawberries, tomatoes and carrots. Residues were found in both the 

treated (0.11-0.24 ppm) and untreated (0.09-0.24 ppm) radish plots. The DMDS residues found 

in radishes are supported by studies in the scientific literature that show that many Raphanus and 

Brassica species are known to naturally produce volatile sulfur compounds, including DMDS 

(Wang et al., 2009; Kirkegaard and Sarwar, 1998). 

Given the available crop field trail data and the results of the aerobic soil metabolism study; the 

uses on the proposed DMDS labels (strawberries, blueberries, fruiting vegetables, cucurbits, and 

ornamentals) should be considered nonfood uses. Accordingly, the currently proposed uses of 

this fumigant do not require food tolerances and are not subject to the amendments of the Federal 

Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide 

Act (FIFRA) promulgated under the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996. Given the 

Page 23 of 193 
lack of a plant metabolism study, more field trial data may be required in the future if DMDS 

registrations for uses on other crops are requested. 

6.0 Non-Occupational Exposure Assessment and Characterization 

DMDS, like the other soil fumigants, has the potential to move off-site following field 

applications, resulting in exposure to bystanders near treated areas and to people far away from 

treated areas through ambient air. Exposure to DMDS may also occur to those handling the 

pesticide or working in treated fields. Acute inhalation exposures to bystanders and workers 

appear to present the greatest risk concern. 

Bystander exposure to DMDS depends on two main factors – the rate at which DMDS comes off 

of a treated field (described as the emission or flux) and how those resulting DMDS emissions 

are dispersed in the air over and around the field. Emission rates are affected primarily by the 

amount of DMDS applied (which is proportional to the rate and area treated), application 

methods and equipment, and sealing technologies. Also, there are a variety of soil factors that 

can potentially have an effect on the magnitude of the concentration of fumigant coming off of a 

treated field. Some of these include soil type, soil moisture, soil temperature, and organic 

content of the soil. 

Once DMDS has been emitted from the soil after an application and is in the air, meteorological 

conditions and the topography at the site determine how the fumigant is dispersed. For example, 

if winds are high and the atmosphere is unstable, then emitted DMDS concentrations are more 

likely to be reduced as a result of greater mixing. Under such conditions, the likelihood of a 

bystander being exposed to a fumigant at a concentration of concern is relatively lower. On the 

other hand if winds are light and the atmosphere is stable, then the emitted DMDS is more likely 

to build in concentration. Under such conditions, the likelihood of a bystander being exposed to 

a fumigant at a concentration of concern is relatively higher. Topography can also impact wind 

direction which can impact which individuals are exposed and may actually predispose certain 

populations to higher exposure levels (e.g., a house located in a valley where prevailing winds 

approach it). 

This section describes the potential exposure scenarios associated with the use of DMDS. These 

include residential bystander exposure from two key sources including: known sources from an 

application site (i.e., area sources such as at the edge of a treated field) and ambient air levels 

that result from many application(s) within a region where the sources are not quantified. There 

are no residential uses of DMDS by homeowners so this aspect of the risk assessment focuses on 

those types of exposures that may occur from commercial uses of DMDS that can lead to 

exposures in residential environments. Section 6.1: Residential Bystander Exposure and Risk 

Estimates describes how exposure and risk estimates were calculated for the general population 

who may be exposed living in proximity to individual application sites or within regions where 

DMDS use routinely occurs. Section 6.2: Bystander Risk Characterization describes the factors 

that should be considered when interpreting the results of this risk assessment. 

 

Page 24 of 193 
6.1 Residential Bystander Exposure and Risk Estimates

Residential bystander exposure may occur because of emissions from treated fields. These 

emissions can travel to non-target areas which could lead to negative impacts on human health 

and will be referred to simply as bystander risks in this assessment. Bystander exposures can 

occur as a result of being in contact with residues that were emitted from a known source (near 

field) and also from multiple sources within a localized region (ambient). For clarity, a known 

source in this assessment is intended to represent area sources from a single application (e.g., a 

treated farm field). Exposures from near field sources for bystanders are described below in 

Section 6.1.1: Residential Bystander Exposures and Risks from Near Field Sources while 

ambient air exposures are described below in Section 6.1.2: Ambient Bystander Exposure from 

Multiple Regional Sources. 

 6.1.1 Estimation of Residential Bystander Exposures and Risks from Near 

 Field Sources

In past fumigant risk assessments, the Agency has used three main sources of information 

including incident reports and monitoring data, deterministic air modeling, and probabilistic air 

modeling to assess bystander exposure and risks resulting from applications of fumigants. This 

process is described in more detail in Appendix C. The main focus of the DMDS risk 

assessment is probabilistic air modeling using the Probabilistic Exposure and Risk model for 

Fumigants (PERFUM). As described above in Section 4.0, limited incident information is 

available for DMDS and this information has been carefully considered in context with the 

probabilistic air modeling results. 

PERFUM allows users to develop an understanding of the distributions of potential bystander 

exposures and thus more fully characterize the range of risks resulting to bystanders around 

treated fields. In this assessment, the PERFUM model has been used in order to calculate 

differing percentiles of exposure associated with pre-plant soil fumigation. The Industrial 

Source Complex Short Term 3 model (ISCST3) is an integral part of the PERFUM model and in 

fact the basic physics and code of ISCST3 remain unchanged (see Appendix C for more info). 

Many of the inputs used for PERFUM are similar to those used for modeling done using the 

ISCST3 model. 

PERFUM works by establishing a grid with receptor points around a field built with spokes and 

rings (see Table 6.1.1a and Figure 1). PERFUM then uses ISCST3 to calculate air 

concentrations at each receptor location on this grid for each day of meteorological data in each 

analysis (i.e., for the PERFUM analysis, the Agency is using 5 years of weather data). PERFUM 

uses this data in two ways: 

• PERFUM can produce distributions of concentrations at various receptor ring distances 

from the edge of a treated field or source for each exposure averaging period after an 

application begins (e.g., 6 hours in the case of DMDS). These outputs are provided for 

30 individual distances (rings) out to 1440 meters. 

• Air concentrations calculated at each grid location can be in turn, used to calculate 

distances in each array (or spoke protruding outwards from the treated field in the center 

of Figure 4) where the target concentration is achieved. PERFUM compiles these results 

Page 25 of 193 
for each array (or spoke) then ultimately compiles them across all spokes and weather 

days using two techniques (i.e., referred to as a “whole field” or “maximum” buffer 

which are described below). Each receptor corresponds to an x- and y-coordinate. 

Table 6.1.1.1a: Receptor Points for Various Field Sizes in PERFUM 

Grid Type Field Size 

(Acres) 

Number of 

Spokes 

Number of 

Rings 

Numbers of 

Receptors 

(Spokes * 

Distances) 

1 96 28 2,688 

5 132 28 3,696 

10 152 28 4,256 

20 188 28 5,264 

Fine 

40 232 28 6,496 

1 24 28 672 

5 33 28 924 

10 38 28 1,064 

20 47 28 1,316 

Coarse 

40 58 28 1,624 

Note: Fine grid option was used for DMDS analysis. 

PERFUM does not produce buffer zones greater than 1440 meters. Buffer zones for cases where 

the 1440m limit is reached may be very large.

Figure 1: PERFUM Receptor Grid 

Page 26 of 193 
Figures 2, 3, and 4 below, show daily PERFUM contour plots of locations where the fumigant 

concentrations reach the target level of concern for 3 example weather days. Each plot pertains 

to one application using the same emission rate and field size but the difference between the 

plots is that each presents the results (i.e., distance where a target concentration of concern is 

achieved) for a single, separate day of varied weather conditions. 

Whole field buffer results are calculated using PERFUM by compiling the results for all arrays 

(i.e., using the entire perimeter) of each days contour line outputs. PERFUM compiles all of the 

locations (i.e., x and y coordinates) along the contours in each of the plots into one distribution 

and essentially produces an overall contour plot for the 5 years of weather data (see Figure 5 

below). The user can then select a percentile of the distribution of interest (e.g., 95th percentile 

or 99th percentile). In essence, the “whole field” buffer results represent the entire range of 

possible exposures regardless of location relative to the treated field. 

Maximum buffer results from PERFUM are calculated by compiling only the farthest distances 

from the contours produced for each weather day. The black dot in each plot (Figures 2 to 4) 

represents the maximum distance buffer for that day which would be the only point selected for 

that day used in this calculation. PERFUM also generates these maximum distance buffers 

across 5 years of weather data which is presented in Figure 5 below. The user can then select a 

percentile of the distribution of interest (e.g., 95th percentile or 99th percentile). In summary, the 

maximum buffer results can be thought of as a way of providing more resolution around the 

upper percentiles of possible exposure. In a physical sense, it can also possibly be applicable to 

individuals who live in an area with strong prevailing winds due to topography or other factors 

(e.g., in a valley or coastal situation where on-shore winds are predominant). 

Figure 2: Example Field, Weather Day #1 

Page 27 of 193 
Figure 3: Example Field, Weather Day #2 

Figure 4: Example Field, Weather Day #3 

Page 28 of 193 
Figure 5: Whole Field vs. Maximum Buffer Distance Example 

“Maximum Distance” “Whole Field”

PERFUM can generate the types of outputs discussed above for different exposure periods (4, 6, 

8, or 24 hours depending on the fumigant). When the two different types of distributional results 

from PERFUM are considered, they can be described by the following statements: 

The maximum concentration distribution at the 95th percentile provides a buffer zone 

whereby there will not be an exceedance for 95% of the days. A 95th percentile buffer 

zone using the maximum concentration distribution will result in the buffer zone “failing” 

(i.e. air concentrations will exceed health threshold limits somewhere around the 

perimeter) in 5 of every 100 applications. 

For the whole field distribution, the 95th percentile whole field buffer distance is that 

distance below which all buffer distances from all spokes on all days will fall. A 95th

percentile buffer zone using the whole field distribution will result in air concentrations 

that will not exceed health threshold limits along 95% of the total combined buffer zone 

perimeters for all 100 applications. This does not mean that whole field buffer zones are 

protective along the buffer zone perimeter in 95% of applications. Therefore, whole field

buffer zones do not provide any defined level of protection for individual applications.

Since actual meteorological data are integrated into PERFUM for each analysis, data 

representative of the locations where DMDS use is anticipated were identified and used in the 

analysis. It is anticipated that the major uses for dimethyl disulfide could be in Florida (and 

elsewhere in the Southeast) and California. Some use in Michigan and Washington (or 

elsewhere in those geographic regions) is also potentially anticipated. As a result, the following 

locations and sources of meteorological data were used in this assessment: 

Page 29 of 193 
 • Bakersfield California (Source: ASOS or Automated Surface Observing System 

 operated by the FAA) to represent inland California locations; 

 • Ventura California (Source: CIMIS or California Irrigation Management 

 Information System) to represent coastal California locations; 

 • Flint Michigan (Source: NWS or National Weather Service) to represent central 

 Michigan and other upper Midwest locations; 

 • Tallahassee Florida (Source: NWS or National Weather Service) to represent 

 inland Florida locations; 

 • Bradenton Florida (Source: FAWN or Florida Automated Weather Network) to 

 represent coastal Florida; and 

 • Yakima Washington (Source: NWS or National Weather Service) to represent 

 southeastern Washington and other Pacific Northwest locations. 

In this assessment, 5 years or 1825 days of meteorological data were considered in each 

calculation. Bradenton, Bakersfield, and Ventura data were in the range of 1997 through 2003, 

the Tallahassee and Flint data were in the late 1980s through early 1990s, and the Yakima data 

were from 1984-1988. [Note: Please refer to the SAP background documents for PERFUM for 

further information concerning these data including how they were processed for incorporation 

into PERFUM and any quality control issues related to these data 

(http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/SAP/meetings/2004/index.htm).] 

The proposed DMDS labels require the use of high barrier tarps, however, HED currently has 

only two field volatility studies that use high barrier tarps. The two available high barrier studies 

quantify emissions from shank injection raised bed applications using high barrier tarps 

(performed in Dover, FL using a metalized tarp and in Tifton, GA using a VIF tarp). HED has 

no field volatility studies that quantify emissions from shank injection broadcast applications 

using high barrier tarps or from drip irrigation applications using high barrier tarps. There are 

four other field volatility studies that quantify emissions from shank injection raised bed 

applications using standard polyethylene tarps (one performed in Bradenton, FL; two performed 

in Tifton, GA; and one performed in Yuma, AZ). One study quantified emissions from shank 

injection broadcast application using standard polyethylene tarps (performed in Cantua, CA). 

One study quantified emissions from drip irrigation application using standard polyethylene tarps 

(performed in Nipomo, CA). Table 6.1.1b below provides a summary of the analyses that were 

completed using PERFUM. A description of each study can be found in Appendix D. 

Page 30 of 193 
Table 6.1.1b: Summary of PERFUM Analyses Completed For DMDS 

Weather Station Location Flux Study Summary Ventura, CA Bakersfield, CA Flint, MI Tallahassee, FL Bradenton, FL Yakima, WA

Bradenton, FL Shank Injection - 

Raised Bed / Poly Tarped X X X X X X 

Yuma, AZ Shank Injection - Raised 

Bed / Poly Tarped X X X X X X 

Tifton, GA Shank Injection - Raised 

Bed / VIF Tarped Field 1 1 X X X X X X 

Tifton, GA Shank Injection - Raised 

Bed / Poly Tarped Field 2 1 X X X X X X 

Tifton, GA Shank Injection - Raised 

Bed / Poly Tarped Field 3 1 X X X X X X 

Dover, FL Shank Injection - Raised 

Bed / Metalized Tarped X X X X X X 

Cantua, CA Shank Injection - 

Broadcast / Poly Tarped X X X X X X 

Nipomo, CA Drip Irrigation – Raised 

Bed / Poly Tarped X X X X X X 

X = analysis completed, NA = analysis not appropriate. 

1 Studies performed under the USDA Areawide Program. 

 6.1.1.1 Bystander Exposures and Risks from Pre-plant 

 Agricultural Use of DMDS

Exposures to bystanders from single preplant agricultural field fumigation events and their 

associated risks, calculated using the PERFUM modeling approach, are presented in this section. 

Detailed results from PERFUM are included in Appendix E: Buffer Outputs from DMDS 

Applications Estimated with PERFUM for Preplant Agricultural Use and Appendix F: DMDS 

Air Concentrations Estimated with PERFUM for Pre-Plant Agricultural Uses. [Note: The 

PERFUM appendices themselves only contain a summary of the model outputs. They do not

contain the detailed input and output files needed to complete calculations with PERFUM. If so 

desired, these can be provided by the Agency for review.] 

• Appendix E: Buffer Outputs from DMDS Applications Estimated with 

PERFUM for Preplant Agricultural Uses - contains a summary of the PERFUM buffer 

results for all flux and meteorological combinations.

• Appendix F: Air Concentrations from DMDS Applications Estimated with 

PERFUM for Preplant Agricultural Uses - contains a summary of the PERFUM air 

concentration results for all flux and meteorological combinations.

The analyses which were completed using PERFUM are based on the combinations of flux and 

meteorological data which are available as described in Table 6.1.1.1b above. HED presented 

PERFUM results for all flux studies, including the studies that do not use high barrier tarps even 

though proposed DMDS labels require the use of high barrier tarps. In addition, the impact of 

field size, application rates, and “whole vs. maximum buffer” statistics were evaluated. The field 

Page 31 of 193 
sizes that were considered include 1, 5, 10, 20, 30, and 40 acres (square). [Note: Proposed 

DMDS labels restrict application to 40 acres per day.] 

The maximum broadcast application rates that were considered for pre-plant soil applications in 

this assessment are 455 lbs ai/acre for all application methods. The maximum effective 

broadcast rate that has been utilized to assess raised bed cultural production is typically lower 

than these maximum rates because only part of the total acreage has been treated. [Note that the 

term “effective broadcast rate” is defined as the total mass applied to a field divided by the total 

acres. Thus, a broadcast application of 455 lbs/acre will have an effective broadcast rate of 455 

lbs/acre. However, a bedded application treated at a 455 lbs/treated acre (e.g. 455 lbs to the bed 

tops) where only 50% of the field is beds will have an effective broadcast rate of 227.5 lbs/acre.] 

For PERFUM modeling purposes, HED adjusted the application rate used in the study to reflect 

the maximum proposed application rate. In addition to these maximum application rates, a range 

of other application rates were evaluated in order to assess the impact of lowering rates and these 

included 90, 80, 70, 60, and 50 percent of the maximum rate. Table 6.1.1.2a shows the 

differences in the broadcast and effective broadcast application rates used in the DMDS risk 

assessment. 

Table 6.1.1.2a: Modeled PERFUM DMDS Application Rates 1

Application Scenario 

Maximum 

Proposed 

Application Rate 

(lbs ai/acre) 

Study Effective 

Broadcast Rate 

(lbs ai/total acre) 

Study Broadcast 

Rate 

(lbs ai/ treated acre) 

Modeled 

Rate 

(lbs ai/acre) 

% of Total Acreage 

Treated in the Study

Bradenton, FL Shank Injection - Raised 

Bed / Poly Tarped 455 362 633 455 57.2% 

Yuma, AZ Shank Injection - Raised Bed 

/ Poly Tarped 455 620 780 455 79.5% 

Tifton, GA Shank Injection - Raised Bed 

/ VIF Tarped Field 1 2 455 223 547 455 40.8% 

Tifton, GA Shank Injection - Raised Bed 

/ Poly Tarped Field 2 2 455 234 540 455 43.3% 

Tifton, GA Shank Injection - Raised Bed 

/ Poly Tarped Field 3 2 455 253 567 455 44.6% 

Dover, FL Shank Injection - Raised Bed 

/ Metalized Tarped 455 348 608 455 57.2% 

Cantua, CA Shank Injection - Broadcast 

/ Poly Tarped 455 620 620 455 100.0% 

Nipomo, CA Drip Irrigation – Raised 

Bed / Poly Tarped 455 501 628 455 79.8% 

1 Note that all studies were performed at higher application rates than the currently proposed label rate of 455 

 lbs ai/acre. 

2 Studies performed under the USDA Areawide Program. 

It should be acknowledged that a myriad of micro-environmental conditions and factors can 

impact how DMDS will volatilize and disperse from any given treated field on a particular day. 

With this premise, it would be logical to evaluate basic factors which could influence flux (e.g., 

soil type, soil temperature, percent water, etc.) and also micro-climates (e.g., topography) and 

thus ultimately impact results. Instead, PERFUM is an empirical model which utilizes field 

volatility studies and actual meteorological data to predict results. Since field volatility studies 

are the basis for the PERFUM predictions it follows that results based on empirical monitoring 

Page 32 of 193 
and those calculated with PERFUM would be similar (see guidance pertaining to air model 

validation at http://www.epa.gov/scram001/guidance/guide/appw_03.pdf for additional 

information). 

The nomenclature incorporated into PERFUM uses the term “buffer zone” which equates to the 

distance downwind at which a specific target concentration (i.e., combination of HEC and UF) is 

met based on the desired statistical parameters. The use of this term does not imply any 

regulatory decision. In the context of this risk assessment, it should only be considered as the 

predicted distance for a specific target concentration. 

Given the number of possible permutations of PERFUM inputs and ways of presenting the 

outputs that there are many possible approaches for interpreting the results. The central goal, 

however, is to quantify how potential risks change with aspects such as application method, 

distance from the treated field, percentile of exposure, selected statistical basis (i.e., whole vs. 

maximum buffer approach), and application rate. Each of these aspects has been considered and 

very detailed results pertaining to each are available in the appendices referenced above. In 

order to summarize the analyses which have been completed and to illustrate the general 

approach, a selected number of tabular and graphical interpretations of the results are presented 

below. 

The results presented in Figure 6 below provide an example of how risks change in relation to 

field size, percentile of exposure, distances from a treated field, and statistical basis (i.e., whole 

field vs. maximum buffer). Figure 6 is based on one of the combinations of flux and 

meteorological data considered in this analysis (i.e., Ventura, CA CIMIS meteorological data and 

Tifton, GA Shank Injection-Raised Bed VIF Tarped Flux - see Table 6.1.1.1b). The distance at 

which the target concentration (i.e., HEC coupled with uncertainty factor) is reached is variable 

and clearly depends upon the desired statistical interpretation of the results. From Figure 6, the 

95% buffer for a bedded shank injection/tarped application (target MOE = 30) for “5 acres – 

whole field”, “40 acres - whole field”, “5 acres – maximum”, and “40 acres – maximum” would 

be approximately 115 meters, 545 meters, 390 meters, and ≥1440 meters, respectively. Figure 6 

clearly shows that maximum buffers provide a much more conservative assessment of DMDS 

bystander risks than whole field buffers. Appendix E contains much more detailed information 

regarding this analysis. 

Page 33 of 193 
Figure 6: Tifton, GA Raised Bed Shank Injection/VIF Tarped Buffer 

Analysis Using Ventura Meterological Data - Maximum Application Rate

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600

Buffer Distance (m)

Percentile

Whole Field 40 Acres

Whole Field 5 Acres

Max Field 40 Acres

Max Field 5 Acres

Note: PERFUM does not produce buffer zones greater than 1440 meters, thus, buffer zones for cases where the 

1440m limit is reached may be very large. 

Figure 7 and 8 are included to illustrate how the 40 acre “whole field buffer” and “maximum 

buffer” statistics compare using five flux studies (utilizing the same application method – shank 

application raised bed) done in different locations. In this example, Ventura, CA meteorological 

data was used. The flux studies were conducted in Bradenton, FL; Dover, Fl, and Tifton, GA. 

From Figure 7 (whole field buffers), the 95% buffer for a bedded shank injection/tarped 

application (target MOE = 30) for the Bradenton flux study (polyethylene tarp), the Dover flux 

study (metalized tarp), and the three Tifton flux studies (polyethylene tarp, polyethylene tarp, 

and VIF tarp) would be approximately ≥1440 meters, 405 meters, 895 meters, ≥1440 meters, and 

545 meters, respectively. From Figure 8 (maximum buffers), the 95% buffer for a bedded shank 

injection/tarped application (target MOE = 30) for the Bradenton flux study (polyethylene tarp), 

the Dover flux study (metalized tarp), and the three Tifton flux studies (polyethylene tarp, 

polyethylene tarp, and VIF tarp) would be approximately approximately ≥1440 meters, 1330 

meters, ≥1440 meters, ≥1440 meters, and ≥1440 meters, respectively. Figures 7 and 8 show 

that high barrier tarps (e.g., metalized tarp and VIF tarp) reduce emissions of DMDS when 

compared to standard polyethylene tarps. 

Figure 7 and 8 are included to illustrate how the 40 acre “whole field buffer” and “maximum 

buffer” statistics compare using five flux studies (utilizing the same application method – shank 

application raised bed) done in different locations. In this example, Ventura, CA meteorological 

data was used. The flux studies were conducted in Bradenton, FL; Dover, Fl, and Tifton, GA. 

From Figure 7 (whole field buffers), the 95% buffer for a bedded shank injection/tarped 

application (target MOE = 30) for the Bradenton flux study (polyethylene tarp), the Dover flux 

study (metalized tarp), and the three Tifton flux studies (polyethylene tarp, polyethylene tarp, 

and VIF tarp) would be approximately ≥1440 meters, 405 meters, 895 meters, ≥1440 meters, and 

545 meters, respectively. From Figure 8 (maximum buffers), the 95% buffer for a bedded shank 

injection/tarped application (target MOE = 30) for the Bradenton flux study (polyethylene tarp), 

the Dover flux study (metalized tarp), and the three Tifton flux studies (polyethylene tarp, 

polyethylene tarp, and VIF tarp) would be approximately approximately ≥1440 meters, 1330 

meters, ≥1440 meters, ≥1440 meters, and ≥1440 meters, respectively. Figures 7 and 8 show 

that high barrier tarps (e.g., metalized tarp and VIF tarp) reduce emissions of DMDS when 

compared to standard polyethylene tarps. 

Page 34 of 193 
Figure 7: Whole Field Buffer Analysis for Raised Bed Shank Injection 

Flux - Maximum Application Rate, 40 Acres, Ventura Met Data

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500

Distance (m)

Percentile

Bradenton, FL - Shank Raised Bed / Poly Tarped

Tifton, GA - Shank Raised Bed / VIF Tarped Field 1

Tifton, GA - Shank Raised Bed / Poly Tarped Field 2

Tifton, GA - Shank Raised Bed / Poly Tarped Field 3

Dover, FL - Shank Raised Bed / Metalized Tarped

Note: PERFUM does not produce buffer zones greater than 1440 meters, thus, buffer zones for cases where the 

1440m limit is reached may be very large. 

Figure 8: Maximum Buffer Analysis for Raised Bed Shank Injection Flu

Maximum Application Rate, 40 Acres, Ventura Met Data

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300

Distance (m)

Percentile

x - 

1400 1500

Bradenton, FL - Shank Raised Bed / Poly Tarped

Tifton, GA - Shank Raised Bed / VIF Tarped Field 1

Tifton, GA - Shank Raised Bed / Poly Tarped Field 2

Tifton, GA - Shank Raised Bed / Poly Tarped Field 3

Dover, FL - Shank Raised Bed / Metalized Tarped

Note: PERFUM does not produce buffer zones greater than 1440 meters, thus, buffer zones for cases where the 

1440m limit is reached may be very large. 

Figure 9 and 10 are included to illustrate how the 40 acre “whole field buffer” and “maximum 

buffer” statistics compare using all of the available flux studies for the Ventura meteorological 

region. From Figure 9 (whole field buffers), the 95% buffer ranges from approximately 10 

meters to approximately a 1000 meters depending on the application and sealing method 

Page 35 of 193 
examined. From Figure 10 (maximum buffers), the 95% buffer ranges from approximately 50 

meters to ≥ 1440 meters depending on the application and sealing method examined. 

Figure 9: Shank Injection Whole Field Buffer Analysis Using Ventura 

Meteorological Data - Maximum Application Rate/40 Acres

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500

Distance (m)

Percentile

Bradenton, FL - Shank Raised Bed / Poly Tarped

Yuma, AZ - Shank Raised Bed / Poly Tarped

Tifton, GA - Shank Raised Bed / VIF Tarped Field 1

Tifton, GA - Shank Raised Bed / Poly Tarped Field 2

Tifton, GA - Shank Raised Bed / Poly Tarped Field 3

Dover, FL - Shank Raised Bed / Metalized Tarped

Cantua, CA - Shank Broadcast / Poly Tarped

Nipomo, CA - Drip Irrigation Raised Bed / Poly Tarped

Note: PERFUM does not produce buffer zones greater than 1440 meters, thus, buffer zones for cases where the 

1440m limit is reached may be very large. 

Page 36 of 193 
Figure 10: Shank Injection Maximum Buffer Analysis Using Ventura 

Meteorological Data - Maximum Application Rate/40 Acres

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500

Distance (m)

Percentile

Bradenton, FL - Shank Raised Bed / Poly Tarped

Yuma, AZ - Shank Raised Bed / Poly Tarped

Tifton, GA - Shank Raised Bed / VIF Tarped Field 1

Tifton, GA - Shank Raised Bed / Poly Tarped Field 2

Tifton, GA - Shank Raised Bed / Poly Tarped Field 3

Dover, FL - Shank Raised Bed / Metalized Tarped

Cantua, CA - Shank Broadcast / Poly Tarped

Nipomo, CA - Drip Irrigation Raised Bed / Poly Tarped

Note: PERFUM does not produce buffer zones greater than 1440 meters, thus, buffer zones for cases where the 

1440m limit is reached may be very large.

The analyses which have been completed using PERFUM are based on six weather station 

locations and eight flux profiles. In order to broadly understand how differing combinations of 

application methods and emission control technologies, which are reflected in the flux profiles 

used for the analyses and the different meteorological conditions, can impact results it is 

necessary to group the outputs from PERFUM for comparative purposes. Tables 6.1.1.1b and 

6.1.1.1c as well as Figures 11 and 12 present results for varying percentiles of exposure, field 

sizes, application rates, and PERFUM statistics (i.e., whole field and maximum “buffers”) for all 

DMDS flux profiles across all six meteorological stations. [Note: 95th percentile results only are 

represented in Figures 11 and 12 but the basic trend would be expected to be similar for all 

percentiles of exposure.] 

Page 37 of 193 
Table 6.1.1.1b: Summary of PERFUM Whole Field Buffer Results for All Flux Types and Meteorological 

Sites for 5 and 40 Acre Fields

 Percentiles Ventura, CA Tallahassee, FL Flint, MI Bradenton, FL Bakersfield, CA Yakima, WA 

 5 A 40 A 5 A 40 A 5 A 40 A 5 A 40 A 5 A 40 A 5 A 40 A 

Bradenton, FL - Shank Raised Bed / Poly Tarped 

50 0 10 0 10 0 20 0 5 10 70 20 85 

75 60 210 80 290 85 290 70 230 115 490 120 410 

90 380 ≥1440 325 1175 305 1035 335 1095 345 ≥1440 365 1335 

95 765 ≥1440 565 ≥1440 500 ≥1440 690 ≥1440 590 ≥1440 555 ≥1440 

99 ≥1440 ≥1440 1220 ≥1440 1145 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 1300 ≥1440 1075 ≥1440 

99.9 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 

Yuma, AZ - Shank Raised Bed / Poly Tarped 

50 0 20 0 30 0 30 0 20 20 95 25 100 

75 85 275 120 405 120 400 100 325 210 695 190 630 

90 465 ≥1440 515 ≥1440 445 ≥1440 515 ≥1440 640 ≥1440 555 ≥1440 

95 955 ≥1440 890 ≥1440 710 ≥1440 1025 ≥1440 1050 ≥1440 840 ≥1440 

99 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 

99.9 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 

Tifton, GA - Shank Raised Bed / VIF Tarped Field 1 

50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

75 5 50 0 45 0 35 5 70 5 90 5 55 

90 55 305 40 205 30 165 80 305 50 260 35 210 

95 115 545 75 345 65 295 145 545 85 375 65 325 

99 280 1175 175 690 160 650 300 1135 175 685 135 580 

99.9 435 ≥1440 305 1230 295 1210 680 ≥1440 275 1115 220 890 

Tifton, GA - Shank Raised Bed / Poly Tarped Field 2 

50 0 5 0 10 0 10 0 0 10 70 10 55 

75 50 180 65 250 65 235 60 200 115 420 90 340 

90 290 1190 245 915 210 740 270 890 300 1125 245 955 

95 530 ≥1440 400 ≥1440 330 1235 500 ≥1440 430 ≥1440 365 ≥1440 

99 960 ≥1440 695 ≥1440 640 ≥1440 1000 ≥1440 690 ≥1440 595 ≥1440 

99.9 ≥1440 ≥1440 1200 ≥1440 1170 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 1065 ≥1440 935 ≥1440 

Tifton, GA - Shank Raised Bed / Poly Tarped Field 3 

50 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 20 

75 25 100 20 105 25 125 25 105 45 185 30 145 

90 115 480 95 380 95 365 120 405 125 465 100 420 

95 215 895 160 630 150 570 205 710 185 680 155 625 

99 455 ≥1440 310 1255 300 1190 425 ≥1440 305 1165 270 1120 

99.9 750 ≥1440 550 ≥1440 565 ≥1440 705 ≥1440 490 ≥1440 440 ≥1440 

Dover, FL - Shank Raised Bed / Metalized Tarped 

50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 5 

75 5 50 5 45 5 55 5 55 5 75 5 55 

90 45 210 40 180 35 165 60 215 45 190 30 170 

95 90 405 70 300 65 265 100 355 70 300 60 275 

99 215 880 145 600 140 560 195 710 135 520 125 515 

99.9 370 ≥1440 255 1090 265 1145 320 1265 220 865 210 880 

Page 38 of 193 
Table 6.1.1.1b: Summary of PERFUM Whole Field Buffer Results for All Flux Types and Meteorological 

Sites for 5 and 40 Acre Fields

 Percentiles Ventura, CA Tallahassee, FL Flint, MI Bradenton, FL Bakersfield, CA Yakima, WA 

 5 A 40 A 5 A 40 A 5 A 40 A 5 A 40 A 5 A 40 A 5 A 40 A 

Cantua, CA - Shank Broadcast / Poly Tarped 

50 0 10 735 15 0 10 0 10 5 60 10 60 

75 60 195 1060 270 65 230 70 245 115 425 95 345 

90 250 895 1215 940 215 750 295 995 325 1220 260 985 

95 480 ≥1440 1420 ≥1440 335 1265 510 ≥1440 485 ≥1440 395 ≥1440 

99 1030 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 705 ≥1440 1095 ≥1440 835 ≥1440 695 ≥1440 

99.9 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 1335 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 1295 ≥1440 1120 ≥1440 

Nipomo, CA - Drip Irrigation Raised Bed / Poly Tarped 

50 0 0 5 35 0 10 5 35 0 25 15 75 

75 45 145 60 210 50 180 75 240 70 235 75 260 

90 135 410 145 505 140 480 175 535 150 480 150 510 

95 190 580 210 750 195 685 245 765 200 655 210 715 

99 285 900 355 1305 315 1175 395 1310 315 1110 375 1380 

99.9 510 ≥1440 575 ≥1440 530 ≥1440 625 ≥1440 490 ≥1440 600 ≥1440 

Note: PERFUM does not produce buffer zones greater than 1440 meters, thus, buffer zones for cases where the 

 1440m limit is reached may be very large. 

Table 6.1.1.1c: Summary of PERFUM Maximum Buffer Results for All Flux Types and Meteorological 

Sites for 5 and 40 Acre Fields

 Percentiles Ventura, CA Tallahassee, FL Flint, MI Bradenton, FL Bakersfield, CA Yakima, WA 

 5 A 40 A 5 A 40 A 5 A 40 A 5 A 40 A 5 A 40 A 5 A 40 A 

Bradenton, FL - Shank Raised Bed / Poly Tarped 

50 1410 ≥1440 1025 ≥1440 755 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 1295 ≥1440 815 ≥1440 

75 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 1375 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 1275 ≥1440 

90 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 

95 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 

99 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 

99.9 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 

Yuma, AZ - Shank Raised Bed / Poly Tarped 

50 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 1080 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 1405 ≥1440 

75 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 

90 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 

95 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 

99 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 

99.9 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 

Tifton, GA - Shank Raised Bed / VIF Tarped Field 1 

50 125 540 65 345 50 225 185 775 90 425 70 325 

75 245 970 135 540 120 500 310 1235 155 625 115 475 

90 340 1375 230 930 205 845 430 ≥1440 215 895 160 665 

95 390 ≥1440 275 1150 250 1025 515 ≥1440 255 1045 195 805 

99 485 ≥1440 375 ≥1440 360 ≥1440 630 ≥1440 320 1350 260 1120 

99.9 555 ≥1440 475 ≥1440 495 ≥1440 800 ≥1440 375 ≥1440 375 ≥1440 

Page 39 of 193 
Table 6.1.1.1c: Summary of PERFUM Maximum Buffer Results for All Flux Types and Meteorological 

Sites for 5 and 40 Acre Fields

 Percentiles Ventura, CA Tallahassee, FL Flint, MI Bradenton, FL Bakersfield, CA Yakima, WA 

 5 A 40 A 5 A 40 A 5 A 40 A 5 A 40 A 5 A 40 A 5 A 40 A 

Tifton, GA - Shank Raised Bed / Poly Tarped Field 2 

50 765 ≥1440 610 ≥1440 660 ≥1440 920 ≥1440 655 ≥1440 480 ≥1440 

75 1005 ≥1440 740 ≥1440 1185 ≥1440 1200 ≥1440 765 ≥1440 620 ≥1440 

90 1310 ≥1440 1060 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 970 ≥1440 785 ≥1440 

95 ≥1440 ≥1440 1210 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 1120 ≥1440 915 ≥1440 

99 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 1365 ≥1440 1160 ≥1440 

99.9 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 

Tifton, GA - Shank Raised Bed / Poly Tarped Field 3 

50 250 965 185 690 160 615 290 1090 235 960 175 670 

75 430 ≥1440 280 1170 265 1100 465 ≥1440 310 1310 250 1040 

90 580 ≥1440 420 ≥1440 405 ≥1440 640 ≥1440 410 ≥1440 335 ≥1440 

95 695 ≥1440 515 ≥1440 510 ≥1440 735 ≥1440 480 ≥1440 405 ≥1440 

99 855 ≥1440 620 ≥1440 725 ≥1440 915 ≥1440 650 ≥1440 525 ≥1440 

99.9 990 ≥1440 960 ≥1440 1010 ≥1440 1050 ≥1440 760 ≥1440 615 ≥1440 

Dover, FL - Shank Raised Bed / Metalized Tarped 

50 80 320 65 275 55 235 105 395 70 310 60 235 

75 170 660 115 460 100 415 180 680 115 470 100 395 

90 260 1040 180 715 165 695 270 1045 170 680 145 585 

95 330 1330 220 885 210 880 310 1275 205 810 180 745 

99 420 ≥1440 300 1290 320 ≥1440 410 ≥1440 265 1110 245 1165 

99.9 500 ≥1440 420 ≥1440 525 ≥1440 485 ≥1440 340 ≥1440 335 ≥1440 

Cantua, CA - Shank Broadcast / Poly Tarped 

50 810 ≥1440 0 ≥1440 430 ≥1440 975 ≥1440 780 ≥1440 540 ≥1440 

75 1195 ≥1440 50 ≥1440 715 ≥1440 1370 ≥1440 1045 ≥1440 770 ≥1440 

90 1430 ≥1440 165 ≥1440 1035 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 1205 ≥1440 1000 ≥1440 

95 ≥1440 ≥1440 260 ≥1440 1245 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 1395 ≥1440 1125 ≥1440 

99 ≥1440 ≥1440 465 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 1360 ≥1440 

99.9 ≥1440 ≥1440 810 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 

Nipomo, CA - Drip Irrigation Raised Bed / Poly Tarped 

50 245 775 245 820 240 845 335 1120 240 825 225 760 

75 290 985 340 1225 305 1115 425 ≥1440 310 1115 355 1330 

90 370 1350 440 ≥1440 390 ≥1440 545 ≥1440 395 ≥1440 505 ≥1440 

95 435 ≥1440 515 ≥1440 460 ≥1440 635 ≥1440 455 ≥1440 590 ≥1440 

99 840 ≥1440 690 ≥1440 760 ≥1440 805 ≥1440 590 ≥1440 760 ≥1440 

99.9 ≥1440 ≥1440 835 ≥1440 ≥1440 ≥1440 1030 ≥1440 805 ≥1440 905 ≥1440 

Note: PERFUM does not produce buffer zones greater than ≥1440 meters, thus, buffer zones for cases where the 

≥1440m limit is reached may be very large. 

Page 40 of 193 
Figure 11: Maximum 95th Percentile DMDS Whole Field Buffer Results For

Acre Fields At Maximum Application Rate 

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

Shank Raised

Bradenton, FL -

Bed / Poly

Tarped

Yuma, AZ -

Shank Raised

Bed / Poly

Tarped

Tifton, GA -

Shank Raised

Bed / VIF Tarped

Field 1

Tifton, GA -

Shank Raised

Bed / Poly

Tarped Field 2

Tifton, GA -

Shank Raised

Bed / Poly

Tarped Field 3

Dover, FL -

Shank Raised

Bed / Metalized

Tarped

Cantua, CA -

Shank Broadcast

/ Poly Tarped

Source of Flux Profile

Buffer Distance (meters

 40 Poly Tarped Raised Bed / Drip Irrigation

Nipomo, CA -

)

Ventura CA Tallahassee FL Flint MI

Bradenton FL Bakersfield CA Yakima WA

Figure 12: Maximum 95th Percentile Chloropicrin Maximum Distance Sha

Injection Buffer Results For 40 Acre Fields At Maximum Application Rat

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

- Shank Raised

Bradenton, FL

Bed / Poly

Tarped

Yuma, AZ -

Shank Raised

Bed / Poly

Tarped

Tifton, GA -

Shank Raised

Bed / VIF

Tarped Field 1

Tifton, GA -

Shank Raised

Bed / Poly

Tarped Field 2

Tifton, GA -

Shank Raised

Bed / Poly

Tarped Field 3

Dover, FL -

Bed / Metalized

Shank Raised

Tarped

Cantua, CA -

Shank

Poly Tarped

Broadcast /

Source of Flux Profile

Buffer Distance (meters)

nk 

e Poly Tarped

Raised Bed /

Drip Irrigation

Nipomo, CA -

Ventura CA Tallahassee FL Flint MI

Bradenton FL Bakersfield CA Yakima WA

Page 41 of 193 
The results presented in Table 6.1.1.1d below provide an example air concentration ring output 

for the Tifton, GA shank injection raised bed – VIF tarp flux study, using Bradenton, FL 

meteorological data. The output is for the maximum application rate and assumes 40 acres are 

treated. Similar outputs are available for each exposure averaging period (e.g., in this case 

results are presented for period 2 of Day 3 or hours 54-60 after application). Appendix F 

contains much more detailed information regarding this type of analysis. 

Table 6.1.1.1d: PERFUM Air Concentration Ring Output for Tifton, GA Raised Bed Shank Injection – 

VIF Tarp and Bradenton, FL Weather Data Based On Maximum Application Rate and 40 Acres Treated 

(54-60 Hours After Application) 

Conc Air Concentrations (ug/m3) At Varied Distances From Edge Of Treated Field (meters) 

%tile 5m 7m 10m 15m 20m 30m 50m 70m 80m 90m 100m 120m 150m 180m 210m 

50 12 12 8 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

75 542 533 518 488 458 398 298 218 188 158 138 98 62 42 28 

90 1082 1078 1058 1028 992 918 788 678 633 592 558 492 428 372 318 

95 1382 1382 1368 1342 1312 1248 1112 988 933 883 838 758 668 588 522 

99 1848 1852 1842 1828 1808 1752 1612 1472 1412 1352 1302 1202 1078 978 898 

%tile 240m 270m 300m 360m 420m 480m 540m 600m 720m 840m 960m 1080m 1200m 1380m 1440m 

50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

75 12 8 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

90 282 248 218 172 138 112 88 72 42 28 22 18 12 12 8 

95 468 422 382 318 272 242 212 188 152 122 102 88 72 62 52 

99 828 762 708 618 542 488 442 402 338 288 252 222 198 178 158 

DMDS HEC = 6360 ug/m3 with UF = 30 

DMDS Threshold = 212 ug/m3

In conclusion, many different factors can impact the air concentrations in proximity to 

agricultural fields that have been treated with DMDS and these include many of the factors 

which have been investigated in this analysis. It is important that stakeholders understand that 

the results of the DMDS air modeling analysis can be interpreted in many ways. The 

identification of a result, per se, for any sort of regulatory action based on this assessment would 

depend upon careful consideration of the variability and uncertainty associated with this 

assessment (see Section 6.2 Bystander Risk Characterization below). 

 6.1.2 Ambient Bystander Exposure from Non-Point Sources

No direct ambient air monitoring data are available for DMDS. Although there are industrial and 

commercial uses of DMDS, it is not routinely screened for in ambient air by CARB (California 

Air Resources Board) or similar organizations. In order to qualitatively characterize the potential 

for exposure to DMDS in ambient air, HED has compared the DMDS inhalation toxicity 

endpoints to the ambient air levels that were quantified for methyl bromide (by CARB) which is 

a highly used and highly volatile fumigant. In all cases, this comparison resulted in risks that do 

not exceed HED’s level of concern for DMDS (MOEs > 30). This comparison should be 

considered conservative in nature because there is less potential for exposure to DMDS in 

ambient air than with methyl bromide because of the environmental fate characteristics of 

Page 42 of 193 
DMDS relative to methyl bromide (i.e., DMDS is not as volatile as methyl bromide, DMDS 

dissipates/degrades faster in the environment than methyl bromide). 

 6.2 Bystander Risk Characterization

Although the most sensitive endpoint obtained from the rodent inhalation studies is nasal 

irritation, DMDS odor is reported to be very pungent. Published articles suggest that the 

concentration at which DMDS may be identified by humans is orders of magnitude lower than 

which nasal irritation may occur in rodents. Documented incidents of DMDS report individuals 

complaining of the odor of DMDS. The odor of DMDS may therefore serve as a “warning” to 

individuals that may be in an area of exposure. It is not known, however, whether individuals 

will tolerate the odor of DMDS and remain in the area or attempt to leave the area. The available 

inhalation rodent studies do not provide any odor threshold data to compare with the nasal 

irritation data. The DMDS inhalation database does suggest a concentration dependent response 

to nasal irritation. Therefore, the development of nasal irritation is driven by the concentration 

that produces the irritation and not by the duration of exposure to DMDS. The acute inhalation 

NOAEL therefore protects for longer-term exposures. 

It is believed that the data and methodologies used in the development of this assessment 

represent the state-of-the-science relating to pesticides that can be characterized as fumigants. 

However, it is clear that there is an ongoing evolution relating to the types of data that could be 

used to complete such assessments in the future. HED has used all currently available data in 

this assessment but those data clearly have limitations related to overall quality, as well as 

temporal and spatial limitations. The PERFUM modeling framework provides significant 

amounts of information for risk managers to consider but it should be acknowledged that there 

are other modeling systems that could be considered for the same types of analyses. As 

indicated above, submissions based on other viable modeling frameworks would be considered 

by the Agency. 

Some of the limitations and considerations that have been identified that should be considered in 

the interpretation of these results include: 

• Most of the emissions data used for this analysis have been generated in Florida and 

Georgia; however, the crops listed on the proposed DMDS labels are grown in many 

regions of the country. It is difficult to quantify the potential impacts the extrapolation of 

this data might have on the risk assessment. Factors such as soil type, soil moisture, solar 

radiation levels, or farming practices themselves may impact the overall amounts of 

DMDS emitted and the rate at which it is emitted over time, thus buffer outputs predicted 

using PERFUM could be impacted. PERFUM is not a first-principles model (i.e., it 

cannot predict results for incremental changes in soil conditions parameters such as soil 

temperature or percent moisture). Instead, PERFUM is an empirical model that is 

calibrated to specific emission profiles that then serve as the basis for predicted results. 

• Most of the emissions data used for this analysis were generated using standard low 

density or high density polyethylene tarps. The proposed DMDS labels require the use of 

high barrier tarps but there are only two flux studies that utilize high barrier tarps. Both 

Page 43 of 193 
• The premise of the PERFUM-predicted buffer zones assumes that an exposed individual 

must be in proximity to a DMDS application event for a sufficient duration for the effect 

to occur - there are 3 key factors to consider for this element including: 

o The types of applications considered in this assessment are either seasonal or 

infrequent which limits the number of possible adverse exposure events. 

o Time-activity data indicate that many parts of the population move from site to 

site on a daily basis (e.g., to go to work and back) which limits the overall number 

of possible adverse exposures events. 

o This assessment assumes that indoor and outdoor air concentrations are equal. 

• Several issues need to be considered related to the PERFUM modeling analysis which 

was completed for this assessment. These include: 

o It has been assumed that there is a linear relationship between application rate and 

flux, but this assumption has not been validated with emissions data conducted in 

similar conditions but at different application rates. The California Department of 

Pesticide Regulation has used this assumption in previous fumigant assessments. 

o The treatment of calm periods (wind speeds below 1 m/s) in PERFUM/ISCST3 is 

also an uncertainty. PERFUM runs the ISCST3 model in the “regulatory default 

option” (the default setting for ISCST3), which includes the use of the calms 

processing routine as is described in Agency guidance. The calms processing 

routine for wind speeds below 1 m/s essentially ignores any hourly sequence in 

the calculations that meets this criteria. This approach can possibly skew results 

for shorter averaging times because an analysis period that contained several calm 

hours would be dominated by any period where there was a windspeed above 

1m/s. This is a common approach in Gaussian plume modeling. PUFF-based 

models such as CALPUFF have meander algorithms that can account for calm 

conditions by accounting for static or near static plume conditions and 

representing such events in the results. Whether or not buffer estimates are 

enhanced or under-reported as a result of this phenomenon depends upon the 

nature of the weather data used for the calculations. Preliminary analysis in a 

Page 44 of 193 
general sense related to this issue does not indicate significant differences when 

hourly calculation steps are used. If less than hourly steps (e.g., minute by minute 

calculations such as in CALPUFF v6) are used, the effect is attenuated because 

the relative percentage of calm periods in the available weather data seems to be 

diminished. 

o The PERFUM analyses completed for this assessment are based on the 

assumption that an application has an equal probability of occurring each day out 

of the 5 years of weather data. This method does not take into account the 

seasonal use patterns of fumigants in different regions of the country. Monthly 

distributional results were produced in each PERFUM output file but were not 

extracted for this assessment. 

o The selection of the sources of weather data for this assessment represent a range 

of mean windspeed values as described in the SAP document for PERFUM. The 

locations of the Florida and California stations were intentionally selected based 

on this range and their coastal and inland locations. 

 6.2.1 First Principles Factors Analysis

An extensive separate analysis was completed by the Agency which evaluated the possible 

impacts of changing conditions upon fumigant emissions based on a variety of factors 

summarized below (D306857 Authors: Dawson and Smith). This analysis did not specifically 

include DMDS because little research has been performed to date regarding how these factors 

impact DMDS emissions. A summary of the document is being included here because future 

research on how these factors impact DMDS emissions could significantly alter the conclusions 

drawn from this risk assessment. 

Many factors can influence the rate of emissions from treated fields after the application of soil 

fumigants. They include factors that can be manipulated by users to retain efficacy and reduce 

emissions and also factors that cannot be easily manipulated by growers yet still have a major 

impact on fumigant emission rates. Fumigant emissions are clearly governed by integrated 

systems that are comprised of several mechanisms based on physical-chemical properties, 

populations of microorganisms, and conditions which have been manipulated by growers such as 

the use of reactive adjuvants and/or high barrier tarps as a boundary layer. These mechanisms 

can be categorized into three basic phases including subsurface degradation and diffusion away 

from the application point; permeability through a soil surface boundary layer; and impacts on 

emissions once the boundary layer has been penetrated. Any discussion of fumigant emissions 

ultimately has to be linked to how changes in the basic conditions impact the potential for 

exposure to those who live and work around fumigant applications and each of these processes 

can impact exposures. 

The factors which were considered in this analysis are represented by the list below: 

• Tarp Use 

o High barrier tarps; 

Page 45 of 193 
o Film thickness; 

• Soil Amendments 

o Use of reactive adjuvants & water seals; 

o Organic matter levels; 

o Soil moisture; 

o Field Preparation; 

o Soil compaction; 

• Application Methods 

o Application methods 

o Application implements 

• Field Conditions 

o Soil texture; 

o Biological activity; 

o Soil temperature; 

o Localized weather conditions 

For DMDS, there is very limited data related to the factors listed above. Specifically, limited 

field scale emissions data show that high barrier tarps reduce DMDS emissions from treated 

fields. Field scale emissions data also appears to show that soil temperature does not greatly 

impact emissions of DMDS. More research is needed to determine what impacts other factors 

such as reactive boundary layers, soil moisture, soil organic matter, microbial interaction, and 

soil compaction have on DMDS emissions. 

7.0 Occupational Exposure

This section of the risk assessment focuses on potential inhalation exposures and risk to 

occupational handlers, to occupational reentry workers who could be exposed when entering 

DMDS treated areas to perform crop-production tasks, and to occupational bystanders who could 

be exposed when performing crop-production tasks (but not inside) DMDS treated areas. HED 

believes that based on the volatility of DMDS, dermal exposure is not expected due to the 

delivery systems used (e.g., soil injection or drip irrigation) and emission reduction technologies 

(e.g., tarping). The physiochemical properties of DMDS also make significant dermal exposure 

unlikely and quantifying any potential low level exposures very difficult. Therefore, a 

quantitative dermal exposure assessment has not been completed. HED does suggest, however, 

that handlers should be advised/required to wear personal protective equipment (PPE) due to the 

potential for severe irritation if DMDS does contact skin (See Section 3.1.5 for more 

information). 

Based on available DMDS air concentration data, HED has concerns about occupational 

handlers performing the application tasks in the field as well as workers performing tasks inside 

and near – but outside of – DMDS treated area. Air concentration levels from DMDS specific 

handler exposure monitoring studies were used to estimate occupational handler risks as well as 

crop-production tasks performed in the treated area. It should be noted that much of the handler 

exposure monitoring data used in the occupational exposure estimates reflects the use of some 

engineering controls such as tarps, tractor cabs, deep injection, or other devices. The duration of 

exposure had little impact on the overall results of this assessment. Exposure estimates obtained 

Page 46 of 193 
through residential bystander modeling should be used to estimate occupational bystander 

exposure (see Section 6.1.1.2 above). 

There are currently two Paladin labels proposed for registration, Paladin: Soil Fumigant and 

Paladin EC: Emulsifiable Soil Fumigant for Preplant Soil Chemigation. The personal protective 

equipment statements for each proposed label are as follows: 

Paladin

(1) Handlers performing direct-contact tasks (i.e., mixers and loaders) including fumigant 

transfer with or without dry-disconnect fittings; equipment calibration or adjustment; equipment 

clean-up; repair of Paladin-containing equipment; product sampling; any activity within 6 feet of 

an unshielded pressurized hose containing this product; spill clean-up; rinsate disposal; and any 

other handling activity not otherwise listed in (2) or (3). 

Personal Protective Equipment 

• Long-sleeved shirt and long pants 

• Shoes plus socks 

• Chemical resistant gloves 

• An air-purifying respirator with an organic vapor cartridge with a prefilter 

approved for pesticides (MSHA/NIOSH approved number prefix TC-23C) or 

canister approved for pesticides (MSHA/NIOSH approved number prefix TC14G) when connecting hoses to containers, within 6 feet of unshielded pressurized 

hoses containing Paladin, and/or equipment during application. 

• Full face shield or safety glasses with brow, temples, and side protection. Do not 

wear safety goggles. 

(2) Handlers in enclosed cabs (i.e., tractor drivers and co-pilots) 

Personal Protective Equipment 

• Long-sleeved shirt and long pants 

• Shoes plus socks 

If garlic-like odor is detected inside the enclosed cab: 

• An air-purifying respirator with an organic vapor cartridge with a prefilter 

approved for pesticides (MSHA/NIOSH approved number prefix TC-23C) or 

canister approved for pesticides (MSHA/NIOSH approved number prefix TC14G) 

(3) Workers in treated areas during the restricted entry intervals performing non-direct contact 

tasks (i.e., shovelers, tarp dispensers, and cross ditchers) including assessing/adjusting the soil 

seal or tarp integrity; assessing pest control/suppression, application technique, or application 

efficacy; and sampling air or soil for this product. 

Personal Protective Equipment 

• Long-sleeved shirt and long pants 

• Shoes plus socks 

Page 47 of 193 
Paladin EC

(1) Handlers performing direct-contact tasks (i.e., drip applicators, drip line tenders, and tarp 

monitors) including fumigant transfer with or without dry-disconnect fittings; equipment 

calibration or adjustment; equipment clean-up; repair of Paladin-containing equipment; product 

sampling; application or soil-sealing; and any activity within 6 feet of an unshielded pressurized 

hose containing this product; and spill clean-up and/or tarp repair during application. 

Personal Protective Equipment 

• Long-sleeved shirt and long pants 

• Shoes plus socks 

• Chemical resistant gloves 

• An air-purifying respirator with an organic vapor cartridge with a prefilter 

approved for pesticides (MSHA/NIOSH approved number prefix TC-23C) or 

canister approved for pesticides (MSHA/NIOSH approved number prefix TC14G) when connecting hoses to containers, within 6 feet of unshielded 

pressurized hoses containing the undiluted product, and/or during equipment 

or tarp repair during application. 

• Full face shield or safety glasses with brow, temples, and side protection. Do 

not wear safety goggles. 

(2) Workers in treated areas during the restricted entry intervals performing non-direct contact 

tasks (i.e., drip applicators, drip line tenders, and tarp monitors) including assessing/adjusting the 

soil seal or tarp integrity; assessing pest control/suppression, application technique, or 

application efficacy; sampling air or soil for this product. 

Personal Protective Equipment 

• Long-sleeved shirt and long pants 

• Shoes plus socks 

If DMDS is co-applied with another pesticide, handlers and post-application workers should 

follow the most restrictive precautions and directions for use on the labels. 

It is important to consider that in this assessment worker exposure monitoring data have been 

used directly for risk assessment purposes. In a typical pesticide handler assessment, the Agency 

uses normalized estimates of exposures based on similar equipment and with similar levels of 

protective equipment or clothing. Additionally, in typical postapplication worker assessments, 

exposures are scaled based on how residues decay over time. These approaches have not been 

used in the occupational assessments presented below due to methodological issues. For 

example, it is not clear how changes in various parameters or conditions may impact exposures 

of DMDS (see factors discussion in section 6.2.1 for more details). It is also not clear how time 

after application can be used for scaling exposures from one day to the next because worker 

exposures may be inherently related to the conditions of the field under which monitoring has 

occurred. The proposed restricted entry interval (REI) on the label is 48 hours which is based on 

the Worker Protection Standard. 

 

Page 48 of 193 
7.1 Occupational Handler and Postapplication Exposure 

Currently there are four studies (MRIDs 47052827/47786503, 47052828/47786504, 

47075401/47786501, and 47075402/47786502) that measure handler and postapplication 

breathing-zone air concentrations of DMDS. These studies have all been determined to require a 

review of their ethical conduct, have received that review, and have been determined to be 

ethically conducted. It should be noted that three of these studies used standard polyethylene 

tarps and not the high barrier tarps required on the proposed DMDS labels. The occupational 

tasks covered in these studies include: 

 Fumigation Equipment Driver/Operator/Observer (Shank application: Broadcast poly 

tarped; Raised bed Shank application: poly tarped, metalized tarped; Raised bed Drip 

application: poly tarped) 

 Tarp Equipment Driver/Operator (Raised bed Shank application: poly tarped, metalized 

tarped) 

 Tarp Monitor (Raised bed Drip application: poly tarped) 

 Bed Driver (Raised bed Shank application: poly tarped, metalized tarped) 

 Shoveler (Shank application: Broadcast poly tarped; Raised bed Shank application: poly 

tarped, metalized tarped) 

 Tarp Cutter (Shank application: Broadcast poly tarped) 

 Tarp Remover (Shank application: Broadcast poly tarped; Raised bed Drip application: 

poly tarped) 

 Hole Puncher (Raised bed Shank application: poly tarped, metalized tarped; Raised bed 

Drip application: poly tarped 

 Planter (Raised bed Shank application: poly tarped, metalized tarped; Raised bed Drip 

application: poly tarped) 

7.1.1 Occupational Handler and Postapplication Point Exposure Estimates 

for Preplant Agricultural Field Fumigations 

HED calculated MOEs for handlers at baseline (no respirator) and estimated handler inhalation 

exposures for a PF 10 respirator (assumes a protection factor of 10 over non- respirator 

inhalation exposures). 

Acute Exposures: Durations of the handler air samples varied depending on the task. Acute 

margins of exposure (MOEs) were calculated by comparing the maximum average air 

concentration level of DMDS for a job task to the HEC selected for acute exposures. These risk 

estimates should be considered protective of all other exposure scenarios as the selected acute 

inhalation HEC is the same as the selected short- and intermediate-term HEC. 

Handler Risk Summary: A summary of the MOEs estimated for handler exposures to DMDS is 

included in Table 7.1.1. Acute inhalation risks exceed HED’s level of concern (MOEs < 30) for 

many occupational activities at the baseline level (no respirator). However, with the addition of 

an organic vapor respirator (with an assumed protection factor of 10), almost all of the acute 

handler risks do not exceed HED’s level of concern (MOE > 30). 

Page 49 of 193 
Table 7.1.1: DMDS Handler and Postapplication MOEs Calculated from Study Point 

Estimates for Preplant Agricultural Field Fumigation

DMDS Concentrations 

(ppm) Acute Inhalation MOEs1

Study Site Job Description (n) Study 

Min 

Study 

Max 

Geo 

Mean Baseline Organic Vapor Respirator2

MRID 47052827/47786503

Broadcast, Shank Injection Applications – Poly Tarped

Fumigant Driver 2 0.052 0.056 0.054 29 293 

Fumigant Operator 2 0.078 0.118 0.096 14 140 

Shoveler 16 0.036 0.295 0.091 6 56 

Tarp Cutter 16 0.200 0.651 0.313 3 25 

Cantua Creek, 

California 

Tarp Remover 16 0.129 0.469 0.389 4 35 

 MRID 47052828/47786504

Raised Bed, Shank Injection Applications – Poly Tarped

Bed Driver 2 0.017 0.026 0.021 64 637 

Fume Driver 2 0.027 0.027 0.027 62 621 

Tarp Driver 2 0.040 0.040 0.040 41 408 

Tarp Operator 3 0.073 0.217 0.123 8 76 

Shoveler 8 0.118 0.227 0.149 7 73 

Hole Puncher 2 0.000 0.000 0.000 5504 55039 

Bradenton, 

Florida3

Planting Worker 8 0.000 0.000 0.000 15795 157955 

Raised Bed, Shank Injection Applications – Metalized Tarped

Bed Driver 2 0.006 0.028 0.013 60 595 

Fume Driver 2 0.067 0.111 0.086 15 149 

Tarp Driver 2 0.018 0.058 0.026 28 284 

Tarp Operator 3 0.031 0.038 0.034 43 433 

Shoveler 8 0.013 0.034 0.021 48 483 

Hole Puncher 2 0.028 0.073 0.045 23 228 

Dover, Florida 

Planting Worker 8 0.012 0.018 0.015 91 908 

MRID 47075401/47786501

Raised Bed, Shank Injection - Poly Tarped Surface

Fumigation Driver 1 0.132 0.132 0.132 12 125 

Fumigation Operator 1 0.139 0.139 0.139 12 119 

Shoveler 3 0.051 0.161 0.094 10 103 

Hole Puncher 1 0.001 0.001 0.001 2219 22194 

Yuma, Arizona 

Planting Worker 4 0.000 0.000 0.000 9409 94088 

MRID 47075402/47786502

 Raised Bed, Drip Irrigation - Poly Tarped Surface

Equipment Operator 1 0.231 0.231 0.231 7 72 

Equipment Operator/ 

Observer 7 0.245 0.322 0.278 5 51 

Tarp Monitor 8 0.024 0.152 0.107 11 109 

Hole Puncher 16 0.005 0.007 0.006 228 2284 

Planting Worker 16 0.000 0.000 0.000 5007 50071 

Nipoma, California 

Tarp Remover 16 0.000 0.005 0.000 303 3035 1

 Acute handler handler MOEs were calculated using an HEC of 1.65 ppm. 2

 A 90 percent protection factor was assumed for the use of a respirator equipped with an organic-vapor-removing cartridge. 3 DMDS residues for Fume Driver (1), Tarp Driver (1) and Shoveler (5) – (8) were not included in the exposure calculations. 

Fume Driver (2), Tarp Driver (2), and Shoveler (5) - (8) were exposed to higher levels of DMDS during the shank repair 

activities. 

The aforementioned studies include tarp cutting activities conducted on day 5 after treatment. It 

should be noted that the current proposed DMDS label revisions call for tarp cutting 12 days 

Page 50 of 193 
after application. Although HED can not currently quantify how this label change will impact 

risks to those workers cutting the tarps, removing the tarps, and performing planting activities, it 

is likely that it will result in less worker risk than the currently available studies show. 

8.0 Data Needs and Label Requirements 

 8.1 Toxicology

There are 2 studies required as part of the revised Part 158 guidelines: 

OPPTS Guideline 870.7800 - Immunotoxicity study-Rat 

OPPTS Guideline 870.5300 - Mutagenicity—Gene Mutation-Mammalian 

However, these two studies would not contribute quantitatively to the DMDS hazard database or 

risk assessment based on: 1) the lack of a target organ and any systemic toxicity observed in the 

rodent inhalation database; 2) the negative metabolism studies currently available; and 3) the 

most sensitive endpoint for the basis of the inhalation risk assessment is nasal irritation. 

Therefore, the Agency is waiving the requirement of these two studies for DMDS. 

 8.2 Residue Chemistry

There are no data gaps for residue chemistry studies for the currently proposed uses. 

 8.3 Occupational and Residential Exposure

The assessment of occupational and residential risks associated with the use of DMDS is 

complex. There was a significant amount of data available but additional data are still required 

to better represent exposure to DMDS emissions when high barrier tarps (required on the 

proposed labels) are used. These include both occupational monitoring of various workers and 

data to better assess exposures in the general population. The types of data, guideline citations, 

and examples of the scenarios which need to be addressed are presented below. Final 

determination of the scenarios and study protocols should be made in consultation with the 

Agency. 

OPPTS Guideline 835.8100 - Field volatility from soil

Broadcast Shank Injection Applications: A volatility study to determine flux for modeling 

purposes for broadcast shank injection applications using high barrier tarps should be performed. 

A volatility study for this particular application scenario would refine the risk assessment 

because no specific data is currently available to determine the impact on DMDS emissions that 

high barrier tarps have on broadcast shank injection applications. For the purposes of this risk 

assessment, the Agency used the broadcast shank injection polyethylene tarp field volatility 

study to represent this application scenario which should be considered a conservative 

assumption. 

Page 51 of 193 
Raised Bed Shank Injection Applications: A volatility study to determine flux for modeling 

purposes for raised bed shank injection applications using high barrier tarps should be 

performed. A volatility study for this particular application scenario would refine the risk 

assessment because there is very limited specific data available to determine the impact on 

DMDS emissions that high barrier tarps have on raised bed shank injection applications. 

Raised Bed Drip Irrigation Applications: A volatility study to determine flux for modeling 

purposes for raised bed drip irrigation applications using high barrier tarps should be performed. 

A volatility study for this particular application scenario would refine the risk assessment 

because no specific data is available to determine the impact on DMDS emissions that high 

barrier tarps would have on raised bed drip irrigation applications. For the purposes of this risk 

assessment, the Agency assumed that flux from raised bed drip irrigation applications using high 

barrier tarps would be the same as flux from raised bed shank injection applications using high 

barrier tarps. 

OPPTS Guideline 835.1300 – Estimation of Inhalation Exposure, Outdoor Sites

Worker exposure studies to determine inhalation exposure resulting from DMDS applications 

(broadcast shank injection, raised bed shank injection, and raised bed drip irrigation) using high 

barrier tarps should be performed. These studies would refine the risk assessment because there 

is very limited specific data available to determine the worker exposures from raised bed shank 

injection applications using high barrier tarps and there is no data available to determine the 

worker exposures from broadcast shank injection and raised bed drip irrigation applications 

using high barrier tarps. 

Page 52 of 193 
Page 53 of 193 

References 

Bennett, R. (2009) Evaluation of Worker Exposure During Application Activities and During 

Cultivation and Planting Activities After Application of Dimethyldisulfide: (Addendum Report): 

Final Report. Project Number: KP/2004/08. (MRID 47786501). 

Bennett, R. (2009) Evaluation of Worker Exposure Activities Associated with Application of 

Dimethylsulfide when Using Drip Irrigation on Raised Beds: (Addendum Report): Final Report. 

Project Number: KP/2005/04. (MRID 47786502). 

Bennett, R. (2009) Evaluation of Worker Exposure Activities Associated with Fumigation Using 

Dimethyldisulfide when Using Broadcast Shank Application: (Addendum Report): Final Report. 

Project Number: KP/2005/06. (MRID 47786503). 

Bennett, R. (2009) Evaluation of Worker Exposure Acivities Associated with Fumigation Using 

Dimethyldisulfide when Using Raised Bed, Shank Application: Final Report. Project Number: 

KP/2005/08. (MRID 47786504). 

Conway, S. and P. Reibach. (2007) Aerobic Soil Metabolism of Dimethyldisulfide. MRID 

47052819. 

Kirkegaard, JA and M. Sarwar. (1998). Biofumigation potential of Brassicas. I. Variation in 

glucosinolate profiles of diverse field-grown Brassicas. Plant and Soil. Volume 201:71–89. 

Reibach, P. (2006). Dimethyldisulfide Field Residue Study in Strawberry, Tomato, and Carrot 

or Radish. MRID 46903535. 

Wang, D., C. Rosen, L. Kinkel, A. Cao, N. Tharayil, and J. Gerik. (2009) Production of methyl 

sulfide and dimethyl disulfide from soil-incorporated plant materials and implications for 

controlling soilborne pathogens. Plant and Soil. Volume 324, Numbers 1-2.
Appendix A: Executive Summaries for 

Toxicity Studies and Toxicological Profile

Page 54 of 193 
ACUTE INHALATION EXPOSURE 

1. Critical Study: 24 hour Special Inhalation Toxicity-Rat, Acceptable/Non-Guideline

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

In this non-guideline inhalation study (MRID 47785501), dimethyl disulfide (Lot # 

5100DMDS09; 99.83%) was administered as a vapor via whole-body inhalation to 10 male 

rats/concentration at concentrations of 0 (air), 5, 9, 12.5, or 18 ppm (equivalent to 0, 0.019, 

0.034, 0.049, and 0.071 mg/L) for a single 24-hour exposure period. Animals were allowed 

access to block feed and water during the 24-hour exposure. Animals were observed twice daily 

for mortality and changes in general appearance or behavior. One day following the end of the 

exposure (approximately 20-26 hours), all animals were euthanized, and subjected to a gross 

necropsy. Nasal sectioning was performed using the method of Morgan (1991), in which 6 nasal 

sections (II through VI) were produced per animal using specifically defined landmarks for 

sectioning (Mery et al., 1994). The nasal tissues and any gross lesions were examined 

microscopically. The kidneys, lungs, and liver were weighed. Although the larynx and trachea 

were collected and preserved, they were not examined microscopically. In-life observations 

were limited to clinical observations, detailed physical examinations, and body weight 

measurements. 

All animals survived until scheduled termination. There were no treatment-related findings on 

clinical signs, body weights, body weight gains, organ weights, or gross pathology. 

The LOAEL for systemic toxicity was not observed. The NOAEL for systemic toxicity was 

18 ppm (equivalent to 0.071 mg/L), the highest dose tested. 

Macroscopic evaluation of tissues (including lungs and trachea) approximately 20-26 hours after 

a 24 hour exposure to DMDS revealed no significant changes. 

Treatment-related degeneration of the olfactory epithelium (minimal to moderate) was observed 

in the nasal tissues of male rats. Minimal degeneration of the olfactory epithelium was observed 

in Nasal Levels III through V in 2 rats for each level (4 rats total) at 9 ppm, compared to minimal 

degeneration of Nasal Levels III and IV in 1 rat for each level (2 rats total) in controls. No rats 

were observed with nasal lesions at the lowest concentration of 5 ppm. 

At 12.5 ppm, minimal olfactory epithelium degeneration was found in all nasal levels, with 2, 2, 

5, 6, and 3 rats affected in Nasal Levels II through VI (6 rats total), respectively. Furthermore, 4 

of 6 rats at 12.5 ppm displayed degeneration of the olfactory epithelium in at least three to five of 

the Nasal Levels. This incidence of nasal lesions in multiple Nasal Levels was increased 

compared to controls which occurred in only a single nasal level. Therefore, the incidence of 

this lesion was considered to be due to treatment even though the severity at this concentration 

was minimal. 

At 18 ppm, minimal to moderate degeneration of the olfactory epithelium was observed in all 

nasal levels, with 5 rats affected in Nasal Level II, all 10 rats showing degeneration in Nasal 

Levels III through V, and 4 rats with this lesion in Nasal Level VI. All 10 male rats at 18 ppm 

Page 55 of 193 
had olfactory degeneration in at least three levels (2 rats), with a majority in four levels (7 rats), 

and one rat with degeneration in all five levels. The severity of degeneration generally decreased 

with progressively more caudal sections, ranging from minimal to moderate in Nasal Levels II 

and III, and from minimal to mild in Nasal Levels IV through VI. 

Degeneration of the olfactory epithelium was characterized by focal or multifocal pyknosis 

and/or vacuolation of sensory epithelium resulting in an irregular surface and decreased nuclear 

density from sensory cell loss. This morphology was primarily seen in the 9 ppm and in areas in 

the 12.5 and 18 ppm groups. Occasionally, degeneration was observed as sloughing of sensory 

and sustentacular cells that resulted in only a thin layer of basal cells remaining; this morphology 

was observed primarily in the 18 ppm group and occasionally in the 12.5 ppm group. 

Degeneration of olfactory epithelium was most commonly seen along the dorsal and medial 

margins of the naso-, maxillary-, and ethmoturbinates, in the dorsal meatus of Sections III-V, and 

along the dorsal septum. Bowman’s glands and nerve bundles in the lamina propria were not 

affected at any test substance exposure concentration. 

Higher incidences of minimal inflammation in the olfactory and respiratory epithelia were noted 

in Nasal Levels III through V at 18 ppm (3-6 rats) and in Nasal Levels III and IV at 12.5 ppm 

(2-3 rats) compared to controls (0-2 rats). Inflammation consisted of very small numbers of 

neutrophils within the lamina propria of the olfactory or respiratory mucosa. Inflammation was 

sometimes associated with areas of olfactory epithelial degeneration, but was also present in 

areas with intact and morphologically normal epithelium. 

No treatment-related microscopic changes were observed at any concentration in the squamous, 

transitional, or respiratory epithelium as was observed at higher concentration in the previous 

inhalation study. 

This study does not provide information regarding the time to onset or the time to recovery of the 

olfactory degeneration and inflammation that was observed in the study. It should be noted, 

however, that the histopathology of the nasal tissues were examined approximately one day (20-

26 hours) after the termination of the DMDS exposure. Therefore, it should be considered that 

some recovery of the nasal lesions may have occurred within the 24 hours post-exposure before 

the euthanasia of the animals. It also can not be determined the degree to which the incidence or 

severity of the nasal lesions may have changed if examined at the end of the 24 hour DMDS 

exposure period. In conclusion, although the severity of the nasal lesions at 12.5 ppb were 

minimal, the increased incidence of degeneration of the olfactory epithelium as well as the 

occurrence in multiple nasal levels is significant, especially since evaluated 24 hours after the 

end of exposure period. 

The LOAEL for inhalation (port-of-entry) toxicity is 12.5 ppm (equivalent to 0.049 mg/L), 

based on the incidence of microscopic lesions (degeneration in the olfactory epithelium) of 

the nasal tissues (Nasal Levels II-VI), the incidence of degeneration in multiple nasal levels 

(3 to 5 levels) and inflammation of the olfactory and respiratory epithelia (Nasal Levels III 

and IV). The NOAEL for inhalation toxicity is 9 ppm (equivalent to 0.034 mg/L).

Page 56 of 193 
2. 1 & 5-Day Special Inhalation Toxicity - [rat]; Acceptable/Non-guideline.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: 

The objective of this study (MRID 47471201) was to evaluate potential toxic effects of dimethyl 

disulfide (99.9%; Log # 24589) on tissues of the upper respiratory tract when administered as a 

vapor via whole-body inhalation exposure to Sprague-Dawley rats for 6 hours per day for 1 day 

or 5 consecutive days. Twenty rats/sex/concentration were exposed to the test material at 

concentrations of 0 (air), 50, 150, 300, or 600 ppm (equivalent to analytical concentrations of 0, 

0.19, 0.58, 1.16, and 2.27 mg/L). Approximately 24 hours following the first 6-hour exposure, 

10 rats/sex/concentration were euthanized and subjected to a gross necropsy. The remaining 10 

rats/sex/concentration were exposed for an additional 4 days and were subjected to a gross 

necropsy approximately 24 hours following the final exposure. Nasal sectioning was performed 

using the method of Morgan (1991), in which 6 nasal sections were produced per animal using 

specifically defined landmarks for sectioning (Mery et al., 1994). The test article exposed 

tissues were compared to controls to identify lesions of the olfactory epithelium. In-life 

observations were limited to clinical signs and body weight measurements. 

All animals survived until scheduled termination. No clinical signs of toxicity were observed 

during the study, and there were no macroscopic findings at necropsy that could attributed to 

treatment. 

In the males at 50 ppm and above, body weights were decreased by 7-15% (p<0.05) on Days 2 

and 4 compared to controls. Body weight gains were decreased by 50-208% (p<0.01) in these 

animals for Days 0-2, 2-4, and 0-4. In the females, body weights were decreased by 8% (p<0.05) 

at 300 ppm on Day 2 and at 600 ppm on Days 2 and 4. In the females at 50 ppm and above, 

body weight gains were decreased by 82-633% for Days 0-2 and 0-4; these decreases were 

significant (p<0.01), with the exception of the 50 ppm females for Days 0-2. 

After a single 6-hour exposure, treatment-related microscopic findings were found in all 6 nasal 

levels and in 4 epithelial types (squamous, transitional, respiratory, and olfactory); changes in the 

squamous epithelium were not observed in a concentration dependent pattern, but were likely 

related to treatment because no changes were noted in the controls. Aside from Nasal Level I, 

the degenerative changes within a particular nasal level were generally concentration-dependent 

in incidence and/or severity. The changes in Nasal Levels II through VI, consisting primarily of 

respiratory and olfactory epithelia, decreased in severity as the Nasal Level increased from 

anterior to posterior. In general, there was no difference in the lesion severity in the transitional 

epithelium between Nasal Levels I and II. 

At the interim sacrifice (Day 1), degeneration and acute inflammation were observed in all 

nasal levels. These findings ranged from minimal to mild in severity, except for the 

degeneration of the transitional and olfactory epithelia at 150 ppm and above which was often 

moderate to severe. In Nasal Level I, degeneration was found in the transitional epithelium in all 

treated groups in both sexes and in the respiratory epithelium in the 300 ppm males and 600 ppm 

males and females. Acute inflammation was observed in the squamous and transitional epithelia 

in all treated groups in both sexes (except in the squamous epithelium of the 150 ppm males). 

Page 57 of 193 
In Nasal Level II, degeneration was observed in the transitional and olfactory epithelia of all 

treated groups and in the respiratory epithelium of the males at 150 ppm and above and in the 50, 

300, and 600 ppm females. Increased incidences of acute inflammation were noted in the 

transitional, respiratory, and olfactory epithelia in all treated groups in both sexes. 

In Nasal Level III, degeneration was observed in respiratory epithelium at 150 ppm and above in 

both sexes (except for the 300 ppm females) and in the olfactory epithelium of all treated groups. 

Increased incidences of acute inflammation were observed in the respiratory and olfactory 

epithelia of both sexes at 150 ppm and above. Additionally, acute inflammation was noted in the 

50 ppm males. 

In Nasal Level IV, degeneration was observed in the respiratory epithelium in the 600 ppm 

animals and in the olfactory epithelium of all treated groups. Acute inflammation occurred in the 

respiratory epithelium in the males at 300 and 600 ppm and in the all treated groups in the 

females; acute inflammation of the olfactory epithelium was found in both sexes at 150 ppm and 

above. 

In Nasal Level V, acute inflammation was observed in the respiratory epithelium of the 600 ppm 

females and in the olfactory epithelium of the 300 and 600 ppm animals. Degeneration of the 

olfactory epithelium was noted in all treated groups except for the 50 ppm females. 

In Nasal Level VI, acute inflammation was observed in the respiratory epithelium of the 600 

ppm females and in the olfactory epithelium of the 600 ppm males. Degeneration of the 

olfactory epithelium was noted in all treated groups in the males and in the 300 and 600 ppm 

females. 

For an acute (6 hour) exposure, the Port-of-Entry LOAEL is 50 ppm (equivalent to 0.19 

mg/L) based on changes (acute inflammation, degeneration, and hyperplasia) in 4 epithelial 

types of the nasal tissue (squamous, transitional, respiratory, olfactory) in both sexes. The 

Port-of-Entry NOAEL was not observed.

At the terminal sacrifice (Day 5), absolute and relative lung weights were minimally increased 

in both sexes at 300 ppm and were significantly (p<0.01) increased in the 600 ppm females. 

Relative (to body weight) lung weights were significantly increased (p<0.01) in both sexes at 

300 and 600 ppm. Acute inflammation was found in all nasal levels, and degeneration was 

observed in all levels except for Nasal Level I. These findings ranged from minimal to mild in 

severity, except for the degeneration of the olfactory epithelia at 150 ppm and above which were 

moderate in several cases. In addition to these changes which had also been observed on Day 1, 

hyperplasia occurred in the squamous, transitional, and/or respiratory epithelia of all nasal levels. 

Regeneration of the olfactory epithelium was observed in Nasal Levels II through VI. 

In Nasal Level I, acute inflammation and hyperplasia of the squamous and transitional epithelia 

were found sporadically in all treated groups. Again, although the incidences of these findings 

were unrelated to concentration, they were likely due to treatment because none of the control 

tissues were affected. 

Page 58 of 193 
In Nasal Level II, acute inflammation was observed in the squamous epithelium of the 600 ppm 

males, in the transitional epithelium in all treated groups (except for the 50 ppm males), in the 

respiratory epithelium in all treated groups in the males and in the 300 and 600 ppm females, and 

in the olfactory epithelium in both sexes at 150 ppm and above. Degeneration was found in the 

transitional and olfactory epithelia in all treated groups and in the respiratory epithelium in the 

600 ppm animals. Hyperplasia was observed in the squamous epithelium in the 300 and 600 

ppm males, in the transitional epithelium in all treated groups, and in the respiratory epithelium 

in the males in all treated groups and in the females at 300 and 600 ppm. Regeneration of the 

olfactory epithelium was found in all treated groups. 

In Nasal Level III, degeneration was observed in the respiratory epithelium of the 600 ppm 

animals and in the olfactory epithelium of all treated groups. Increased incidences of acute 

inflammation were found in the respiratory epithelium of the 300 and 600 ppm animals and in 

the olfactory epithelium in the males and females at 150 ppm and above. Hyperplasia of the 

respiratory epithelium and regeneration of the olfactory epithelium were observed in all treated 

groups. 

In Nasal Level IV, increased incidences of degeneration were observed in the respiratory 

epithelium of the 600 ppm animals and in the olfactory epithelium of all treated groups. 

Increased incidences of acute inflammation were found in the respiratory epithelium of the 600 

ppm animals and in the olfactory epithelium in all treated groups, except for the 50 ppm females. 

Hyperplasia of the respiratory epithelium was noted in the 300 and 600 ppm males and in the 

females at 150 ppm and above. Regeneration of the olfactory epithelium was observed in all 

treated groups. 

In Nasal Level V, degeneration was observed in the respiratory epithelium of the 600 ppm 

females and in the olfactory epithelium of all treated groups. Acute inflammation was found in 

the respiratory epithelium of the 600 ppm animals and in the olfactory epithelium in the 300 and 

600 ppm males and in the females at 150 ppm and above. Hyperplasia of the respiratory 

epithelium was noted in the 300 and 600 ppm animals. Regeneration of the olfactory epithelium 

was observed in all treated groups. 

In Nasal Level VI, acute inflammation was found at 600 ppm in the respiratory epithelium of 

both sexes and in the olfactory epithelium of the females. Hyperplasia of the respiratory 

epithelium was noted in the 300 and 600 ppm animals. Degeneration and regeneration of the 

olfactory epithelium were observed in all treated groups. 

Minimal to mild fibro-osseus proliferation was observed in Nasal Level II in the males at 150 

ppm and above and in the 300 and 600 ppm females. Minimal fibro-osseus proliferation was 

observed at 600 ppm in Nasal Levels III and IV in the males and Nasal Level III in the females. 

For the 5-day exposure, the Port-of-Entry LOAEL is 50 ppm (equivalent to 0.19 mg/L) 

based on decreased body weights and body weight gains and on changes (acute 

inflammation, degeneration, and hyperplasia) in the nasal tissues in both sexes. The 

NOAEL was not observed. 

Page 59 of 193 
3. Acute Inhalation Neurotoxicity Study-rat, Acceptable/Guideline.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

In an acute neurotoxicity study (MRID 46903529), groups of Sprague-Dawley rats

(12/sex/concentration) were exposed to dimethyl disulfide (99.7% a.i.; Lot No. 03.10.04) as 

vapor during a single, 6-hour whole-body inhalation exposure at concentrations of 100, 200, and 

750 ppm. This corresponds to concentrations of 0.39, 0.77, and 2.9 mg/L at standard 

temperature and pressure and 0.38, 0.77, and 2.8 mg/L under actual study conditions (22 to 24 

°C and 730 mm Hg). A functional observational battery (FOB) and locomotor activity testing 

were performed on all animals prior to the the initiation of exposures, within 15 minutes postexposure for a duration of 1-2 hours, and on Days 7 and 14. Clinical examinations were 

performed once daily, except for FOB testing days. Also, on exposure days, animals were 

observed prior to exposure and at the mid-point of exposure. At study termination, 6 

animals/sex/group were euthanized and perfused in situ for neuropathological examination. The 

brain (including the olfactory bulbs), spinal cord, peripheral nervous system tissues, skeletal 

muscle, and eyes (including the optic nerve) were collected. Brain weights and dimensions were 

recorded and gross and microscopic neuropathology of central and periphaeral nervous tissues 

were performed on 6 animals/sex/group for controls and 750 ppm-exposed animals. 

No treatment-related effects were observed on brain weight, brain dimensions, gross 

neuropathology or microscopic neuropathology. 

At 750 ppm, 1 female died during exposure on Day 0. The time of death was not mentioned in 

the study report (p.39), necropsy did not reveal the cause of death, and the animal was reported 

as being “internally normal” (p.45). Body weights were decreased only in the males at Days 7 

and 14. Body weight gain in males was also decreased during Days 0-7 and 0-14. 

During the midpoint of the 6 h exposures, salivation was observed in all treated male and female 

groups (at 100 ppm, in 4/12 males and 3/12 females; at 200 ppm, 6/12 males and 6/12 females; 

and at 750 ppm, 3/12 males and 6/12 females. Salivation was unrelated to concentration in 

males, but plateaued at 200 ppm in females. Salivation did not persist until the next day. 

Differences in incidences of the following findings were noted by 15 minutes post-exposure 

during the FOB but were similar to controls at all other time points: (i) slight (1.5 mm) tremors 

in 2/11-12 females at ≥200 ppm vs 0/12 in controls; (ii) eyes half-closed or shut in 4-8/12 

rats/sex at ≥100 ppm vs 0-1/12 controls; (iii) red deposits on the mouth in 5-7/12 females 

(p≤0.05) at ≥200 ppm vs 0/12 controls; and (iv) increased (p≤0.05) urination at 750 ppm in both 

sexes (2.5-4.0 treated vs. 0.3-0.4 controls). The red deposits and drooping eyelids were most 

likely the result of the irritating properties of DMDS. Port-of-entry irritation was also 

demonstrated in the concurrently submitted subchronic inhalation study (MRID 46917007), 

subchronic neurotoxicity study (MRID 46903530) and dermal study (MRID 46917006.) 

Consequently, these effects are considered as port-of-entry effects from exposure to DMDS. 

Motor activity was expressed as total session, which is the sum of the motor activity occurring 

over four, fifteen-minute intervals (e.g. 0-15 minutes, 16-30 minutes, 31-45 minutes, and 46-60 

minutes). Following exposures, no significant effects of DMDS on total session motor activity 

were observed for males. However, a significant decrease (↓42%) compared to controls at 750 

Page 60 of 193 
ppm was observed in the first 15 minutes, and significant decreases at 100 ppm (↓73%), 200 

ppm (↓60%) and 750 ppm (↓90%) were observed from 16-30 minutes. For females, DMDS 

caused dose-dependent decreases in total session motor activity at 100 ppm (↓24%), 200 ppm 

(↓33%), and 750 ppm (↓58%). No differences in motor activity were observed for either males 

or females at Day 7. At day 14, a significant decrease in total session motor activity (↓23%) was 

seen for males at 750 ppm, but no differences were observed for females. Locomotor activity 

was recorded over a 60 minute period following exposures and on Day 7 and Day 14. 

Following exposures, locomotion decreased significantly for males at 100 ppm (↓35%), 200 ppm 

(↓13%), and 750 ppm (↓54%). For females, significant decreases were observed at 200 ppm 

(↓32%) and 750 ppm (↓56%). No effects of DMDS on locomotion were observed at Day 7 or 

Day 14 for either sex. Habituation was unaffected by treatment 

The systemic LOAEL is 100 ppm (LDT), based on decreased total session locomotor 

activity (males) and decreased total session motor activity (females). A systemic NOAEL 

was not established.

The port-of-entry LOAEL is 100 ppm, based on closed eyelids at 100 ppm, red deposits on 

mouth in Females at 200 ppm. A port-of-entry NOAEL was not established. 

SHORT- AND INTERMEDIATE-TERM INHALATION EXPOSURE 

4. Subchronic Inhalation Neurotoxicity Study-rat, Acceptable/Guideline.

Executive Summary: In a subchronic neurotoxicity study (MRID 46903530), dimethyl 

disulfide (99.8% a.i.; Batch # 05.05.05) was administered via whole-body inhalation to 12 

Crl:CD(SD) rats/sex/group at dose levels of 0, 5, 20, or 80 ppm (equivalent to approximately 

0.02, 0.08, and 0.31 mg/L, respectively) for 6 hours/day, 7 days/week for 13 weeks (95 

consecutive exposures). All animals were observed twice daily for mortality and morbundity 

with clinical examinations performed daily (midpoint of exposure and 1 hour post-exposure). 

All animals were euthanized during study week 13 and perfused in situ. A neurobehavioral 

assessment (functional observational battery [FOB] and motor activity testing) was performed in 

all rats at pre-dosing, within 1 hour post dosing and during Weeks 3, 7, and 12. Positive control 

data were provided. A neuropathological examination was performed on 6 rats/sex/group in the 

control and 80 ppm groups. The tissues from the perfused animals in the control and 80 ppm 

groups were subjected to histopathological evaluation of central and peripheral nervous system 

tissues. In addition, a microscopic examination of the nasal tissues (Levels I-IV) was performed 

on the remaining 6 rats/sex/group at all dose levels (those not evaluated for neuropathological 

examination). Lung weights and histopathology were not examined. 

Clinical signs were not observed in any dose group during the mid-point of exposure. However, 

a dried red material was observed around the nose and mouth of the majority of animals in the 

high-dose group at 1 hour post-exposure. The dates of occurrence were not provided in the 

report only a summary of the total occurrence and number of animals for each observation. 

Therefore, the onset of these clinical signs could not be determined. 

Page 61 of 193 
Histopathological evaluations resulted in increased incidence of minimal to moderate 

degeneration of the nasal olfactory epithelium in nasal levels II thru IV of the mid- and high-dose 

groups. Nasal lesions (degeneration of the olfactory epithelium) were not observed in controls 

and only in 1 male (level III, minimal) in the 5 ppm group. At 20 ppm: lesions occurred in 6 

males (6 minimal) and 4 females (4 minimal) at level II; lesions in 1 male (1 mild) and no 

females at level III; and lesions in 1 male (1 mild) and no females at level IV. Lesions of nasal 

level II included mainly thin mucosa with disorganized layers and one rat with degeneration of 

the medial aspects of the turbinates at nasal level IV. At 80 ppm: lesions occurred in 6 males (3 

minimal, 2 mild, and 1 moderate) and 6 females (1 mild, 5 moderate) at level II; lesions in 5 

males (1 minimal, 2 mild, 2 moderate) and 6 females (4 mild, 2 moderate) at level III; and 

lesions in 4 males (1 minimal, 2 mild, 1 moderate) and 4 females (2 mild, 2 moderate) at level 

IV. Degeneration occurred not only as thin mucosa with disorganized layers in nasal level II but 

also degeneration of the medial aspects of the turbinates in nasal level III and IV. These lesions 

were dose-dependently increased in both incidence and severity. 

Lung weight and lung histopathology were not evaluated in this study. 

The port-of-entry LOAEL is 20 ppm (equivalent to 0.08 mg/L), based on degeneration of 

the nasal olfactory epithelium of levels II thru IV. The NOAEL is 5 ppm (equivalent to 

0.02 mg/L) 

For systemic toxicity, no compound-related effects were observed on mortality, clinical signs of 

toxicity (other than port-of-entry), FOB, or gross pathology at any concentration. 

At 80 ppm, body weights were decreased (p≤0.01) throughout the study in the males (↓11-16%), 

and body weight gains were decreased (p≤0.05) at various intervals in the males (↓ 26-64%). In 

the females, body weight gain was decreased (p≤0.05) by 42% at Week 1. Overall (Weeks 0-13) 

body weight gain was decreased (p≤0.05) by 28% in males and 15% in females. Decreased 

(p≤0.05) absolute food consumption was observed at 80 ppm in the males beginning at Week 0-1 

and persisted throughout the study (↓ 8-21%; not statistically significant at Weeks 9-10). A 

transient decrease (p≤0.05) in food consumption was also noted in the females at Week 0-1 (↓

11%). Relative food consumption was decreased (p≤0.01) during Week 0-1 in both sexes (↓ 10-

16%). These decreases in food consumption correlated with the lower body weight gains noted 

throughout the study in the males and during the first week of exposure in the females. 

Additionally in the 80 ppm males, overall session total motor activity was decreased (p≤0.05) by 

35% during Week 12. This finding did not display a clear dose response; however, all interval 

values were decreased (statistical analysis not performed) compared to controls at this time point. 

Evidence of neurotoxicity was limited to decreased total motor activity in the 80 ppm males 

during Week 12. 

The systemic LOAEL is 80 ppm (equivalent to 0.31 mg/L) based on decreased total motor 

activity in males (↓35% Week 12); decreases in body weight (males only, ↓11-16%), overall 

body weight gain (↓28% males, ↓15% females), and food consumption (↓8-21% overall 

males, ↓11% Week 1 females). The systemic NOAEL is 20 ppm (equivalent to 0.08 mg/L). 

Page 62 of 193 
5. 90-Day inhalation study-rat; Acceptable/Guideline. 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: 

In a subchronic inhalation toxicity study (MRID 46917007), dimethyl disulfide (99.88% a.i., Lot 

# 1 and 2 of Batch #82551) was administered as a vapor in air to 20 Sprague-Dawley 

rats/sex/concentration by whole-body exposure at concentrations of 0 (air), 10, 50, or 250 ppm 

(equivalent to analytical concentrations of 0, 0.04, 0.19, and 0.95 mg/L) for 6 hours per day, 5 

days/week for 13 weeks. After 13 weeks, the main study animals (10/sex/concentration) were 

euthanized, and the remaining animals (10/sex/concentration) were killed after a 4-week 

recovery period. Similarly, an interim sacrifice group (20/sex/concentration) was exposed to 150 

ppm (equivalent to an analytical concentration of 0.58 mg/L) for 6 weeks with 

10/sex/concentration euthanized at 6 weeks and 10/sex/concentration after a 2-week recovery 

period. Histological evaluation included the nasal passages, nasopharyngeal duct, esophagous, 

larynx, tracheal bifurcation, and lungs (with mainstem bronchi). Clinical observations included 

twice daily cageside observations for mortality and moribundity and a detailed weekly clinical 

examination prior to exposure. Neurological observations (including respiratory function) were 

comprised of an abbreviated functional observation battery (FOB) ranking incidence and 

severity. The FOB was performed prior to beginning inhalation treatment and following 

exposure. Animals were also observed during exposure. 

There were no adverse effects of treatment on mortality, ophthalmoscopy, hematology, clinical 

chemistry, or gross pathology. 

Although no quantitative data were provided for daily cage-side observations performed during 

exposures, it was stated that salivation, lacrimation, and/or reduced activity were observed in the 

250 ppm animals in the early part of the exposures on Days 1 and 2, but no overt differences 

were observed thereafter. During the weekly individual clinical observations conducted prior to 

any exposure that day slight increases in respiratory abnormalities (dyspnea or wheezing) were 

seen in the treated animals in both sexes in the early part of the study. At Week 1, the incidence 

of these respiratory abnormalities reached its maximum of 4/20 males and 8/20 females at 250 

ppm compared 0/20 rats in the controls and 0-1/20 in the lower concentration groups of both 

sexes. Respiratory abnormalities decreased over the subsequent weeks in all groups and were 

not observed from Week 10 onward. 

Microscopic lesions were found in the nasal cavity tissues in the rats killed after 13 weeks of 

exposure and were scored by increasing severity (from minimal to slight to moderate). 

Respiratory squamous metaplasia in the anterior nasal cavity was observed in all of the animals 

at 50 and 250 ppm (minimal to moderate in males and minimal to slight in females). 

Additionally in these animals, minimal to moderate atrophy and microcavitation of the olfactory 

epithelia was observed in 8/10 rats/sex at 50 ppm and 10/10 rats/sex at 250 ppm. Both of these 

histopathological lesions increased in severity with increasing concentration. Respiratory 

squamous metaplasia increased in severity (minimal/slight/moderate) from 4/6/0 at 50 ppm to 

0/9/1 at 250 ppm in males, and increased from 5/5/0 at 50 ppm to 0/10/0 in females at 250 ppm. 

At 10 ppm, respiratory squamous metaplasia was also observed in only 3/10 males and 4/10 

females, but only at minimal severity. Anterior olfactory epithelial atrophy/microcavitation 

similarly increased in severity from 7/1/0 at 50 ppm to 0/2/8 at 250 ppm in males, and from 8/0/0 

Page 63 of 193 
at 50 ppm to 0/4/6 at 250 ppm in females. No atrophy/microcavitation was observed for either 

sex at 10 ppm. 

In the recovery group animals killed at Week 18, squamous cell metaplasia of the respiratory 

epithelium and atrophy/microcavitation of the olfactory epithelium were still evident in the 50 

and 250 ppm animals. For respiratory squamous metaplasia in males, severity 

(minimal/slight/moderate) was 4/0/0 at 50 ppm and 1/9/0 at 250 ppm. For females, severity was 

6/0/0 at 50 ppm and 0/10/0 slight at 250 ppm. No metaplasia was observed for either males or 

females at 10 ppm. Thus, both the incidence and severity of these findings showed partial 

recovery. For olfactory epithelial atrophy/microcavitation in males, severity was 8/0/0 at 50 ppm 

and 1/9/0 at 250 ppm. For females, severity was 10/0/0 at 50 ppm and 1/7/2 at 250 ppm. At 10 

ppm, minimal severity was observed in 1 male and no females. Thus, for 

atrophy/microcavitation of the olfactory epithelium, the severity, but not the incidence, was 

decreased. 

 

For the 150 ppm group that was exposed for 6 weeks, no macroscopic evidence of toxicity and 

no lesions in the nasal tissues of males or females was observed. Two weeks after recovery, 

there remained no evidence of lesions in nasal tissue. Microscopic lung lesions, specifically 

leukocyte foci, foamy histiocytosis, and pneumonitis were observed in males and females at 

Week 6 and Week 8. However, these lesions were also present in control and treated animals at 

Week 13 and so were considered to be unrelated to treatment. 

After 13 weeks of exposure (Week 14), adjusted (for terminal body weight) lung weights were 

increased (p≤0.05) by 11-12% over controls in both sexes at 250 ppm. Although there were no 

macroscopic or microscopic findings in the lungs, the respiratory abnormalities (dyspnea or 

wheezing) observed at 250 ppm may correspond with the increased lung weights, suggesting 

possible pulmonary irritation and/or inflammation, although this is not supported by 

histopathology. 

The port-of-entry LOAEL is 50 ppm (equivalent to 0.04 mg/L) based on minimal to 

moderate atrophy and microcavitation of the olfactory epithelia (8/10 rats/sex) and respiratory 

squamous metaplasia in the anterior nasal cavity (10/10 rats/sex). A port-of-entry NOAEL 

was not established. 

During the abbreviated FOB, the following findings were observed at 250 ppm: (i) totally limp 

during handling at both pre- and post-exposure in both sexes during Week 13; (ii) slight to 

moderate salivation in the males post-exposure and in the females pre- and post-exposure during 

Week 13; (iii) slight to moderately impaired respiration pre- and post-exposure at all time points 

in both sexes; (iv) slightly to severely soiled fur pre- and post-exposure at all time points in both 

sexes; and (v) piloerection in the males post-exposure at Week 1 and pre- and post-exposure at 

Weeks 4 and 13, and in the females post-exposure at all time points. At 50 ppm, soiling of the 

fur was observed only at post-exposure at Weeks 4 and 13 in the males and at all time points in 

the females. Increased incidence of piloerection was also noted at this concentration (postexposure only) at Week 13 in both sexes. In general, the findings were concentration-dependent 

in adversity and showed partial or complete recovery at Week 17. 

Page 64 of 193 
At ≥50 ppm, body weight gains were decreased by 16-34% (p<=0.01) in both sexes for 

Weeks 0-6. Body weight gains during treatment (Weeks 0-13) were decreased by 17-36% 

(p≤0.01) in these animals. Body weights were decreased (statistics not performed) in both 

sexes beginning at Week 1 and continuing through the end of the treatment period at 50 

ppm (↓ 2-14%) and 250 ppm (↓ 6-19%). In general, these decreases increased in 

magnitude with both time and concentration. During the recovery period (Weeks 13-17), 

body weight gains at these concentrations were increased by 140-287% over controls, with 

increases attaining significance (p≤0.01) in the 250 ppm males. However, body weights 

remained 9-11% lower than controls at these concentrations at Week 17. 

At 10 ppm, the only finding was a transient decrease in body weight gain of 13% (p≤0.05) in the 

males for Weeks 0-6. This decrease was not evident for the overall study, and body weights 

were comparable to controls at Week 13. 

For the weeks for which it was reported (Weeks 1-5 and 7-12), total food consumption (g/rat) 

was decreased (p≤0.05) by 7-10% in the ≥50 ppm females and by 13-14% in the 250 ppm males. 

Mean weekly food consumption (statistical analyses not conducted) was variable from week to 

week but was decreased by 4-15% in the ≥50 ppm females and by 9-18% in the 250 ppm males 

during the treatment period, and tended to rebound during the recovery period. In the 10 ppm 

group, there were no significant decreases in total food consumption and only minor decreases 

(≤12%) in mean weekly food consumption. 

The systemic LOAEL is 50 ppm (equivalent to 0.19 mg/L) based on: clinical signs of 

toxicity (soiled fur and piloerection); decreased body weights (↓2-14%), body weight gains 

(↓17-36%), and food consumption (↓4-15%) in both sexes. The systemic NOAEL is 10 ppm 

(equivalent to 0.04 mg/L).

6. Developmental Inhalation Study-rabbit, Acceptable/Guideline.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: 

In a developmental toxicity study (MRID 46903523), dimethyl disulfide (99.73% a.i.; Lot no. 

03.10.04) was administered to 24 time-mated New Zealand White (HRA:[NZW]SPF) 

rabbits/sex/concentration by whole-body exposure at target concentrations of 0, 15, 45, or 135 

ppm (equivalent to analytical concentrations of 0, 0.06, 0.17, and 0.52 mg/L) for 6 h/day on 

gestation days (GD) 6-28. All surviving does were killed on GD 29, and their fetuses were 

removed by cesarean section and examined. Cage-side observations were made twice daily 

(morning and afternoon). Animals were also observed for toxicity at the midpoint of exposure 

each day, as well as one hour post-dosing. With the exception of macroscopic examination of 

the lungs, port-of-entry tissues were not examined macroscopically or microscopically. 

One 45 ppm doe (# 40352) aborted six placentae on GD 26 and was killed. This animal was 

repeatedly observed with brown material at the base of the tail and on the ventral abdominal 

area, soft stool, and decreased defecation during GD 9-20. Cysts on the oviducts (few, pinpoint, 

bilateral), approximately 10 mL of red fluid in the abdominal cavity, dark red discoloration of all 

lobes of the lungs, red fluid in the vagina, and one raised area on the vagina were observed at 

necropsy. Six early resorptions were found in utero. 

Page 65 of 193 
There were no treatment-related adverse clinical findings, and there were no effects of treatment 

on body weights or body weight gains. At 135 ppm, decreases (not significant [NS], unless 

otherwise noted) in both absolute (decr. 6-18%; p≤0.05 on GD 6-7) and relative (decr. 5-18%) 

food consumption were generally observed during GD 6-24, resulting in 9-10% decreases (NS) 

in absolute and relative food consumption during the treatment period (GD 6-29). However, no 

concomitant effects were noted on body weights or body weight gains; therefore, these findings 

were considered equivocal. 

The maternal LOAEL was not observed. The maternal NOAEL is 135 ppm (equivalent to 

0.52 mg/L). 

There were no premature deliveries, complete litter resorptions, or dead fetuses. No effects of 

treatment were observed on the number of live fetuses/dam, resorptions/dam (early or late), or on 

sex ratio or post-implantation loss. There were no effects of treatment on fetal growth or 

development. There were no treatment-related external, visceral, or skeletal malformations or 

variations.

The developmental LOAEL was not observed. The developmental NOAEL is 135 ppm 

(equivalent to 0.52 mg/L). 

Port-of-entry effects which occurred included dark red discoloration of, or dark red areas on, the 

lungs, in dose-related fashion: one control, three 15 ppm, six (including the female that aborted) 

45 ppm, and six 135 ppm females. One occurrence of mottled lung at 135 ppm was also 

observed. In the trachea, one occurrence of red fluid was observed in the control, with two 

occurrences at 45 ppm. Microscopic examinations were not performed. 

Port-of-entry effects were also observed in other short-term inhalation studies with DMDS 

(MRIDS 46917007 (13-week rat) and 46903530 (SCN rat). 

The port-of-entry LOAEL is 15 ppm, based on lung lesions (dark red discoloration or 

areas) at all concentrations. The port-of-entry NOAEL was not established. 

 7. Developmental Inhalation Study-rat, Acceptable/Guideline

In a developmental toxicity study (MRID 46917008), dimethyl disulfide (99.88% a.i.; Lot/batch 

nos. 82551/6436) was administered to 30 presumed pregnant Sprague Dawley (Crl:CD[SD]BR) 

rats/concentration by whole-body exposure at target concentrations of 0, 5, 15, or 50 ppm 

(equivalent to analytical concentrations of 0.02, 0.06, and 0.19 mg/L) for 6 h/day on gestation 

days (GD) 6-15. All surviving dams were killed on GD 20, and their fetuses removed by 

cesarean section and examined. Clinical observations were recorded daily from GD 3-20. 

Specific histological evaluation of the respiratory tract was not reported. 

All dams survived to scheduled termination on GD 20. At 50 ppm, an increased incidence of 

rough haircoat of the head, neck, back, or entire body was observed intermittently in 12/30 dams 

compared to 3/30 controls; body weights were decreased (p≤0.001) by 7-11 % on GD 10 and 15, 

resulting in a 40% decrease (p≤0.001) in body weight gains during treatment (GD 6-15); overall 

Page 66 of 193 
(GD 3-20) body weight gains were decreased (not significantly [NS]) by 16%; food consumption 

was decreased (p≤0.001) by 16-19% on GD 6-10 and 10-15, resulting in a 19% decrease 

(p≤0.001) in food consumption during treatment and a 12% decrease (NS) overall. At 15 ppm 

and 5 ppm, no significant adverse effects were observed. 

The maternal LOAEL is 50 ppm (equivalent to 0.19 mg/L), based on rough haircoat, and 

decreased body weights, body weight gains, and food consumption. The maternal NOAEL 

is 15 ppm (equivalent to 0.06 mg/L). 

There were no abortions, premature deliveries, or complete litter resorptions. No effects of 

treatment were observed on pregnancy rate, numbers of corpora lutea/dam, implantations/dam, 

live fetuses/dam, resorptions/dam (early, late, or complete litter), sex ratio, or pre- or postimplantation loss. 

At 50 ppm, mean fetal weights were decreased (p≤0.01) by 10% in the males, by 8% in the 

females, and by 8% when sexes were combined. There were no treatment-related external, 

visceral, or skeletal malformations or variations. Multiple treatment-related increases in 

retardation of fetal skeletal development were observed at 50 ppm as follows: (i) metatarsals 

incompletely ossified; (ii) all skull bones except zygomatic arch incompletely ossified; (iii) 

sternebrae in region 1-4 bipartite; (iv) sternebrae 5-6 incompletely ossified; (v) ribs incompletely 

ossified; (vi) ribs kinked; (vii) metacarpals incompletely ossified; (viii) all skull bones 

incompletely ossified; (ix) nasal(s) incompletely ossified; (x) sternebrae in regions 1-4 

incompletely ossified; (xi) sternebrae in regions 1-4 not ossified; (xii) pelvic girdle ischium/a 

incompletely ossified; and (xiii) pubis(es) incompletely ossified. 

The developmental LOAEL is 50 ppm (equivalent to 0.19 mg/L), based on decreased fetal 

body weights and multiple skeletal developmental retardations as described above. The 

developmental NOAEL is 15 ppm (equivalent to 0.06 mg/L). 

Observations such as transient salivation, rough hair coat of the head and body, redness in the 

ear, abnormal teeth in the oral cavity, and hydronephrosis in the kidney were reported, all 

suggesting a thorough in-life observation procedure and a proper necropsy. Port-of-entry effects 

were not reported, however, a microscopic examination of the nasal and respiratory tissues was 

not evaluated in this study. 

Therefore, the port-of-entry NOAEL and LOAEL could not be established for this study. 

8. Multi-Generation Reproduction Study-rat, Acceptable/Guideline

In a two-generation inhalation reproductive toxicity study (MRID 47052807), dimethyl disulfide 

(99.8%; Batch # 05.05.05) was administered as a vapor in air to 30 Sprague Dawley 

(Crl:CD[SD]) rats/sex/concentration by whole-body exposure at target concentrations of 0, 5, 20, 

or 80 ppm (equivalent to analytical concentrations of 0 (air), 0.019, 0.079, or 0.308 mg/L) for six 

hours/day, seven days/week for 10 weeks prior to mating to produce the F1 litters. Upon 

weaning on post-natal day (PND) 28, the F1 parents (30 rats/sex/concentration) were exposed as 

above for approximately 10 weeks prior to mating to produce the F2 litters. 

Page 67 of 193 
Clinical signs of toxicity were looked for at the midpoint of exposure and one hour after the 

completion of exposure. In addition, the lungs and trachea were examined macroscopically, with 

additional tissues [head, including nasal cavity, paranasal sinuses, and naso pharynx] preserved 

for microscopic examination. However, results of microscopic examination of these additional 

tissues were not reported. 

There were no treatment-related effects on mortality, clinical signs of toxicity, food efficiency, 

organ weights, or macroscopic or microscopic pathology. No specific adverse port-of-entry 

effects were observed from the examinations that were performed. 

In the 20 ppm and above F1 males, body weights were decreased (p≤0.05) by 10-17% 

throughout treatment (Weeks 18-39), overall (Weeks 18-39) body weight gains were decreased 

(p≤0.05) by 9-15%, and food consumption was decreased (p≤0.05; except Weeks 22-23 at 20 

ppm) by 7-21% during Weeks 18-30. Additionally, in the 80 ppm P males, body weights were 

decreased (p≤0.01) by 10-15% and food consumption was decreased (p≤0.05) by 8-16% 

throughout treatment (Weeks 0-19), resulting in a 24% decrease (p≤0.01) in overall body weight 

gains. In the 80 ppm P females, body weights were decreased (p≤0.01) during pre-mating 

(Weeks 0-10) by 6-10%, resulting in a 14% decrease (p≤0.01) in body weight gains during premating. In the 80 ppm F1 females, body weights were decreased (p≤0.01) by 12-19% during 

pre-mating (Weeks 18-30), resulting in a 12% decrease (p≤0.01) in pre-mating body weight 

gains. In the 80 ppm F1 dams, body weights were decreased (p≤0.01) by 13-15% throughout 

gestation, resulting in decreased gestational body weight gains (↓11%; p≤0.05). Food 

consumption was also decreased (p≤0.01) by 14% in these animals throughout gestation. 

The LOAEL for parental toxicity is 20 ppm (equivalent to an analytical concentration of 

0.079 mg/L), based on decreased body weight, body weight gains, and food consumption in 

the F1 males. The NOAEL is 5 ppm (equivalent to an analytical concentration of 0.019 

mg/L).

There were no effects of treatment on the mean number of pups born, sex ratio (at birth), live 

litter size on PND 0, or post-natal survival on PND 0, 0-1, 1-4, 4-7, 7-14, 14-21, 21-28, birth to 

PND 4, or PND 4-28. There were no effects of treatment on the general physical condition of 

the pups, pup body weight or body weight gains, sexual maturation, organ weights, or 

macroscopic or microscopic pathology in either generation. 

The LOAEL for offspring toxicity was not observed. The NOAEL is 80 ppm (equivalent to 

an analytical concentration of 0.308 mg/L).

There were no effects of treatment on mating, fertility, copulation, conception, or gestation 

indices, pre-coital interval, gestation duration, or the numbers of primordial ovarian follicles. 

The LOAEL for reproductive toxicity was not observed. The NOAEL is 80 ppm 

(equivalent to an analytical concentration of 0.308 mg/L).

No port-of-entry clinical effects were observed; however, microscopic examination of the 

respiratory tract was not reported in this study. 

Page 68 of 193 
Therefore a port-of-entry NOAEL and LOAEL was not established for this study. 

SUBCHRONIC DERMAL STUDIES 

9. 28-Day Dermal Toxicity Study-rabbit, Acceptable/Guideline

In a 28-day dermal toxicity study (MRID 46917006), dimethyl sulfide (99.9% a.i.; Batch No. 

6437) was applied to the clipped skin of New Zealand White albino rabbits. DMDS was applied 

neat in volumes of 0.01 ml/kg, 0.1 ml/kg, and 1 ml/kg, which corresponded to dose levels of 0, 

10.6, 106, or 1063 mg/kg bw/day and covered skin surface areas of 2 cm2

, 6 cm2, and 15 cm2, 

respectively. The control and 1063 mg/kg/day groups included 10 rabbits/sex/dose, and the 

other groups included 5 rabbits/sex/dose. Males and females were housed in separate rooms. 

Animals were exposed for 6 hours/day on 5 days/week and were sacrificed on Days 28-29. 

Although there was no mention of skin washing between treatments, the report (MRID 

46917006, page 20) did note that DMDS “was absorbed by the skin or had disappeared 

otherwise within one minute after application. After removal of the patches, no remains of the 

test substance were present on the skin or on the gauze dressing of the covering patches.” 

Volatility of the test substance was monitored by measuring the concentration of DMDS in air 

during dosing on Day 16. Two measurements were taken in one room and one in another. The 

values were 1 and 2.3 ppm in the room housing males and 9 ppm in the room housing females. 

However, no data on the percentages of the applied doses that volatilized were available. 

Due to increased mortality, treatment at 1063 mg/kg/day was discontinued after Day 16 and 

animals were kept without further treatment and allowed to recover until the end of the study. 

Detailed clinical and neurological observations were not performed. Observations for mortality 

and morbidity were performed twice per day on weekdays (e.g. treatment days) and once on per 

day on weekends. It was unclear exactly when observations were performed, although lethargy, 

spasm, and screams were signs of toxicity that were reported within 10-15 minutes of dose 

application and at 6 hours afterward. Animals were examined for skin reactions prior to each 

daily administration and prior to necropsy using the Draize method. Erythema/eschar, edema, 

and incrustation were scored, and the presence of ischemia, hemorrhages, loosening of the crust, 

and wounds were reported. 

Treatment-related mortality occurred in the 1063 mg/kg/day dose group: in 4/10 females 

between Week 2 and Week 3 and in 5/10 males at Day 15. 

No treatment-related effect was observed on organ weights. No significant differences in body 

weight were observed at Days 0. 7. and 28. Food consumption was decreased in males only at 

1063 mg/kg/day, and decreased 32% between Days 0-3 and 14-40% out to Day 16. Body 

weight gain from Day 0 to Day 7 decreased 397% for males and 121% for females in the 1063 

mg/kg/day dose group. Statistical analysis on weight gain data was not performed. 

Acute application of DMDS (one application) resulted in clinical signs of all rabbits of the mid- 

(106 mg/kg/day) and high-dose (1063 mg/kg/day) group. Specifically, 5/5 males and 5/5 

females showed slight lethargy and 1/5 females screamed at 106 mg/kg/day. At 1063 

Page 69 of 193 
mg/kg/day, 10/10 males and 10/10 females showed severe lethargy and 4/10 males and 4/10 

females screamed. On Day 4 at 106 mg/kg/day, 5/5 males and 5/5 females showed slight 

lethargy. At 1063 mg/kg/day, 7/10 males and 9/10 females were severely lethargic, while 3/10 

males and 1/10 females were unconscious. At this maximum dose, 3/10 males and 4/10 females 

screamed after treatment. On Day 16, 5/5 males and 5/5 females were slightly lethargic at 106 

mg/kg/day. At 1063 mg/kg/day on Day 16, data are available for 5 animals per sex. 5/5 males 

and 1/5 females were severely lethargic. One female was unconscious and 3/5 were distinctly 

lethargic. 5/5 males and 5/5 females had spasms. No animals screamed. 

On Day 1, Draize test results showed no dermal reactions in males or females at any dose. On 

Day 2 at 10.6 mg/kg/day, 5/5 males and 5/5 females had very slight to moderate erythema and 

very slight to moderate oedema that increased in serverity with dose. At 106 mg/kg/day on Day 

2, ischemia was seen in 3/5 females. At 1063 mg/kg/day, ischemia was present in 7/10 males and 

3/10 females. One/10 males had hemorrhages. On Day 4, erythema was moderate to severe and 

edema slight to severe in all males and females, with severity increasing with dose. Ischemia 

appeared at 10.6 mg/kg/day in 4/5 females, and 2/10 males and 1/10 females had hemorrhages at 

106 mg/kg/day. Slight incrustations were present in 1/5 males and 1/5 females at 0.1 ml/kg/day, 

which increased to 10/10 slight to moderate incrustations in males and 5/10 slight incrustations 

in females at 106 mg/kg/day. During the third week of exposure, scoring of erythema and 

oedema were impossible for most animals due to incrustation. On Day 16, incrustation with 

loosening of the crust was present for most males and females at all doses, and small wounds 

were present in 1/5 males and 1/5 females at 10.6 mg/kg/day. At 106 mg/kg/day, small wounds 

were present in 1/5 males and 2/4 females. Dosing of the high dose group was discontinued after 

Day 16 and animals were allowed to recover for 12-13 days. The severity of the skin effects 

decreased in the high dose group, but the Study Report clearly stated that a 12-13 day recovery 

period was not adequate to evaluate reversibility or irreversibility (page 23). 

Microscopic analysis showed significant increases in acanthosis for males and females in all 

treatment groups compared to controls. Parakeratosis was significantly increased over control 

values for males and females at 106 and 1063 mg/kg/day. The incidence of subcutaneous edema 

was different from controls at 106 mg/kg/day for males and females, and dermal mononuclear 

cell infiltrate was significantly increased over controls in both males and females at 10.6 and 106 

mg/kg/day. Myocardial degeneration (4/10) and myocarditis (8/10) were additional findings 

observed only in females at 1063 mg/kg/day. Gross lesions in other organ systems were also 

observed. Firm white or yellow nodules were observed on the abdominal walls of 1/5 males at 

10.6 mg/kg/day and 5/10 males at 1063 mg/kg/day. The lungs had a red appearance in 4/10 

females at 1063 mg/kg/day. 

Significant changes in hematological parameters were observed only for males and only at the 

highest dose (1063 mg/kg/day). Differences were generally only slight in magnitude, however, 

the data suggested treatment- induced hemolytic anemia in males that was compensated for 

through erythropoiesis. In the males, the following changes were significant compared to 

controls: (i) decreased erythrocytes; (ii) decreased hemoglobin; (iii) increased mean corpuscular 

volume; (iv) decreased mean corpuscular hemoglobin concentration; and (v) increased 

reticulocytes. Additionally, decreased leukocytes and lymphocytes were also observed in the 

Page 70 of 193 
males, and may be related to the severe dermal effects. Decreased creatinine was noted in the 

males. 

The systemic LOAEL was 106 mg/kg bw/day, based on slight lethargy. The NOAEL is 10.6 

mg/kg bw/day. 

The port of entry (dermal LOAEL) was 10.6 mg/kg bw/day, based on dermal irritation. 

The NOAEL was not determined. 

MUTAGENICITY STUDIES 

10. Bacterial Reverse Mutation Test (Ames Assay)- 46903524 (1985) 

Unacceptable/guideline

In a reverse gene mutation assay in bacteria (MRID 46903524), Salmonella typhimurium strains 

TA98, TA100, TA1535, TA1537, and TA1538 were exposed to Dimethyl disulfide (purity not 

provided; Lot # 5275-164) in dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) at concentrations of either 0, 50, 166, 

500, 1666, or 5000 μg/plate (+/- S9-activation). The study was performed in the presence and 

absence of S9-activation derived from the livers of Sprague-Dawley rats induced with Aroclor 

1254TM. The plate incorporation method was used and standard strain-specific mutagens served 

as positive controls. 

Dimethyl disulfide was tested up to the limit dose (5000 μg/plate). Evidence of slight 

cytotoxicity (reduced number of revertants) was observed with strain TA100 at 5000 μg/plate 

(+/- S9). There were no marked increases in the mean number of revertants/plate in any strain. 

The positive controls induced marked increases in revertant colonies compared to controls in all 

strains in the presence and absence of S9-activation. There was no evidence of induced 

mutant colonies over background up to the limit dose for this test system.

The study is classified as unacceptable/guideline and does not satisfy the guideline 

requirements (OPPTS 870.5100; OECD 471) for in vitro mutagenicity (bacterial reverse gene 

mutation) data because purity information was not provided. However, these results can be used 

as support for the acceptable bacterial gene mutation assay performed with the test material 

(MRID 47052811). 

11. Bacterial Reverse Mutation Test (Ames Assay)- 47052811 (2007) Acceptable/guideline

In two independent trials of a reverse gene mutation assay in bacteria (MRID 47052811), 

Salmonella typhimurium strains TA98, TA100, TA1535, and TA1537 and Escherichia coli strain 

WP2 uvrA were exposed to Dimethyl disulfide (99.2% a.i., Batch No.: VS060001) in dimethyl 

sulfoxide (DMSO) at concentrations of 0, 1.5, 5.0, 15, 50, 150, 500, 1500, or 5000 μg/plate (+/-

S9, Trial 1) and 0, 50, 150, 500, 1500, or 5000 μg/plate (+/-S9, Trial 2). The S9 fraction was 

derived from the livers of male Sprague-Dawley rats induced with Aroclor® 1254. The standard 

plate incorporation method was used in both trials. Standard strain-specific mutagens served as 

positive controls. 

Dimethyl disulfide was tested up to the limit dose (5000 μg/plate). No evidence of compound 

precipitation or cytotoxicity was observed at any concentration in any strain in either trial in the 

Page 71 of 193 
presence or absence of S9-activation. There were no marked increases in the mean number of 

revertants/plate in any strain. The positive controls induced marked increases in revertant 

colonies compared to controls in all strains in the presence and absence of S9-activation. There 

was no evidence of induced mutant colonies over background at concentrations up to the 

limit dose for this test system.

12. In Vitro Gene Mutation Assay- Chinese Hamster Ovary Cells-46917009 (1990) 

Unacceptable/guideline

In two independent trials of a mammalian cell gene mutation assay at the HGPRT locus (MRID 

46917009), Chinese Hamster Ovary (CHO) cells cultured in vitro were exposed to Dimethyl 

disulfide (99.88% a.i., Lot # 82551), in dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) at concentrations of 0, 0.46, 

1.37, 4.12, 12.3, 37.0, 111, 333, and 1000 μg/mL (Trial 1,+/--S9), or 0, 4.12, 12.3, 37.0, 74.1, 

111, 333, 667, and 1000 μg/mL (Trial 2, +/- S9) for 3 hours. Dose formulations were analyzed 

for actual concentrations in tissue culture medium and were found to contain 5.4, 9.6, 15.1, 42.7 

and 149.6 μg/mL +S9 and 5.98, 14.4, 19.0, 62.2 and 182.3 μg/mL –S9 for nominal 

concentrations of 37.0, 74.1, 111, 333 and 1000 μg/mL. It was not clear, however, whether these 

test material concentrations were associated with dosing solutions for Trial 1 or Trial 2. It was 

stated that approximately 75% of the test compound was lost during incubation. Analytical data 

presented in the study report indicated, however, that ≈81 to 87% of the test material was lost. 

Thus, the test cultures only received 13-19% of the nominal test concentrations. The S9 fraction 

was derived from the livers of male Wistar rats induced with Aroclor 1254TM. Ethyl 

methanesulfonate (EMS) and dimethylnitrosamine (DMN) served as positive controls in the 

absence and presence of S9, respectively. 

The following results are presented in target concentrations because of the marked 

differences between actual and nominal levels and because of the issue regarding association 

with Trial 1 or 2. Dimethyl disulfide was tested up to the limit of solubility (1000 μg/mL +/- 

S9). In Trial 1, test substance precipitation (in the form of droplets attached to the bottom of the 

tissue flasks) was observed at 1000 μg/mL in the absence of S9. The initial relative cloning 

efficiency (IRCE) ranged from 28.1% at the highest nonactivated concentration to 16.5% at 111 

μg/mL; lower levels showed only minimal cytotoxicity. An ≈ 6-fold increase in the mutation 

frequency, MF (82.6 mutants/ 106 survivors vs. 13.1 mutants/ 106 survivors in the DMSO control 

cultures) was calculated at 1000 μg/mL. No appreciable increases in the MF were observed at 

the remaining concentrations. With S9-activation, IRCE ranged from 17.7% at 1000 μg/mL to 

12.7% at 111 μg/mL; no cytotoxicity was seen at lower levels. Sporadic and non-dose-related 

increases in the MF (5.3X, 5.2X, 7X or 6X at 0.46, 12.3, 37 or 1000 μg/mL, respectively vs. a 

MF of 4.3 mutants/ 106 survivors in the DMSO control cultures) were seen. 

In Trial 2, non-dose-related decreases in the IRCE were obtained at levels ≥111μg/mL –S9 

(ranging from 9.7% at 111μg/mL to 26.4 at 1000 μg/mL). Survival at 74.1 μg/mL -S9 was 

35.3% and >100% at the remaining concentrations. No increases in the MF were recorded at 

levels ≥333 μg/mL; however, an ≈5X increase in the MF ((22.7 mutants/ 106 survivors vs. 4.7 

mutants/ 106 survivors in the DMSO control cultures) was calculated at 111μg/mL. Results for 

the S9-activated phase of Trial 2 show that the IRCE was 1.4% at 1000 μg/mL and ranged from 

23.8% at 667 μg/mL to 19.2% at 74.1μg/mL. MFs that were ≈2X, 5X and 3X higher at 333, 667 

Page 72 of 193 
and 1000 μg/mL, respectively, then the MF of 7.7 mutants/ 106 survivors in the DMSO control 

cultures. No appreciable increases in the MFs were noted at lower levels. 

 Based on the overall results, no conclusions can be reached because of the problems 

associated with nominal vs. actual concentrations, which precluded a comparative 

evaluation of the data from both trials. Since analytical determinations were only 

performed for one of the two trials, we are not able to resolve from which trial these values 

were derived. Owing to the problems related to test material concentrations, it would have 

been prudent for the study investigators to analyze actual concentrations for both trials. 

Despite these limitations, increased MFs were seen in both trials and under both assay 

conditions. However, there is low confidence in the findings of this study. Accordingly, the 

study is not acceptable.

13. In Vitro Chromosomal Aberration in Human Peripheral Bloody Lymphocytes46917010 (1990) Acceptable/guideline

In a mammalian cell cytogenetics assay (chromosome aberration; MRID 46917010), lymphocyte 

cultures were prepared from human peripheral blood and exposed to Dimethyl disulfide (99.98% 

a.i., Batch # 6437) in dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) at concentrations of 0, 3.7, 11.1, 33.3, 100, or 

300 μg/mL (+/-S9) for 24 hours. The S9 fraction was derived from the livers of male Wistar rats 

induced with Aroclor 1254TM . 

Dimethyl disulfide was tested up to cytotoxic concentrations (≥50% decrease in the mitotic 

index, MI) as well as the limit of solubility. In a preliminary cytotoxicity assay, excessive 

cytotoxicity was observed at ≥333.3 μg/mL (+/-S9). In the cytogenetics assay, although a 

statistically significant (p<0.001) increase in the number of cells with structural chromosomal 

aberrations was observed at 300 μg/mL, excessive cytotoxicity was also noted at this 

concentration. Therefore, this finding was not considered to be biologically relevant. No 

significant increases in the mean percentage of aberrant cells were observed in the remaining 

dose groups. The positive controls induced increases (p<0.001) in the number of aberrant cells 

in the presence and absence of S9 in both trials. There was no evidence of chromosome 

aberrations induced over background in the presence or absence of S9-activation up to 

cytotoxic concentrations.

14. Micronucleus Assay- mouse, 46917012 (1989) Acceptable/guideline

In a bone marrow micronucleus assay (MRID 46917012), five Swiss CD-1 

mice/sex/concentration were exposed for 6 hours/day for 4 consecutive days via whole body 

inhalation exposure in 15-L glass inhalation chambers to dimethyl disulfide (99.88% a.i., Lot # 

82551) at concentrations of 0 or 250 ppm (equivalent to approximately 0.975 mg/L), and 10 

mice/sex were exposed for 6 hours/day for 3 consecutive days at a concentration of 500 ppm 

(equivalent to approximately 1.95 mg/L). The high-concentration group exposure time was 

reduced from 4 consecutive days to 3 days due to severe toxicity. Bone marrow cells were 

harvested at 24 hours after the final exposure. 

At 500 ppm, one male died on Day 1, and 6 males and 5 females died on Day 2. Due to the 

moribund condition of the animals, the remaining 3 males and 5 females at the high dose were 

killed. Clinical signs of toxicity included restless behavior, salivation, half-closed and closed 

Page 73 of 193 
eyes, labored and increased frequency of breathing, soiled fur and fur with yellowish marks, 

lethargy, piloerection, and swollen appearance. Body weights were decreased (decr. 9-14%; 

p<=0.01) in both sexes throughout the study. No mortalities occurred at 250 ppm. However, 

clinical signs of toxicity (restless behavior, half-closed eyes, labored breathing, soiled fur and fur 

with yellowish marks, and piloerection) and body weights decreases (3-9%; p<=0.05) were 

observed in both sexes throughout the study. 

At 500 ppm, a significant (p≤0.01) decrease in mean PCE frequency was observed indicating 

slight cytotoxicity. However, no treatment–related increases in the MPCE were observed in any 

test group when compared to controls. The positive control (mitomycin C) induced statistically 

significant increases (p<0.05) in MPCEs compared to the concurrent vehicle controls. 

Accordingly, dimethyl disulfide is considered negative in this test system up to a 

concentration causing overt toxicity and cytotoxicity to the bone marrow in the treated 

animals. 

15. Micronucleus Assay- rat 47052810 (2007) Acceptable/guideline

In a bone marrow micronucleus assay (MRID 47052810), Dimethyl disulfide (99.2% a.i., Batch 

# VS060001) was administered as a vapor to groups of 5 or 10 CD rats/sex via whole-body 

exposure at concentrations of 0, 217, 421, or 825 ppm for 4 hours. Cyclophosphamide was 

administered to 5 rats/sex via i.p. injection at a final dose of 40 mg/kg. Bone marrow cells were 

harvested from 5 rats/sex in all groups at 24 hours after exposure, and from an additional 5 

rats/sex in the 0 and 825-ppm groups at 48 hours after exposure. 

Based on the results of earlier acute toxicity studies, 850 ppm was selected as the maximum 

tolerated dose (MTD). All animals survived to scheduled sacrifice. The following clinical signs 

of toxicity were noted in one or both sexes of the treated animals during exposure: hypoactivity, 

lacrimation, and clear material around the mouth. Decreases (not statistically significant) in 

body weights were noted in the treated groups compared to the negative controls. No 

appreciable reductions in the ratio of PCEs to total erythrocytes were observed in the dimethyl 

disulfide-exposed groups relative to the negative control group, suggesting that the test material 

was not cytotoxic to the bone marrow. The positive control (cyclophosphamide) induced 

increases (p≤0.05) in MPCEs compared to the concurrent vehicle controls. No treatmentrelated increases in the MPCE frequency were observed in any treatment group when 

compared to controls

16. In Vitro Unscheduled DNA Synthesis- Primary Rat Hepatocytes 46917011 (1989) 

Acceptable/guideline

In independent in vitro unscheduled DNA synthesis (UDS) assays (MRID 46917011), primary 

rat hepatocyte cultures from male Fischer rats were exposed to dimethyl disulfide (99.88% a.i.; 

Batch # 82551) in dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) at doses of either 0, 1, 5, 10, 50, 100, or 200 

μg/mL (Trial 1), or 0, 5, 10, 50, 100, 150, 200, 250, or 300 μg/mL (Trial 2). Hepatocytes were 

harvested at 18-20 hours post-dosing. 

Dimethyl disulfide was tested up to the limit of solubility (200 μg/mL). The mean net nuclear 

grain (NNG) counts in the treated cultures (–9.5 to –4.5) were well below the threshold of 0 or 

more NNG required for a positive response, and the mean percent of cells in repair (>3 

Page 74 of 193 
NNG/cell) was 0-3% in both trials. The positive controls induced the appropriate response in 

both trials. There was no evidence that unscheduled DNA synthesis, as determined by 

radioactive tracer procedures [nuclear silver grain counts] was induced.

Page 75 of 193 
The requirements (40 CFR 158.340) for the soil fumigant pre-plant use of DMDS are shown 

below in Table A1. Use of the new guideline numbers does not imply that the new (1998) 

guideline protocols were used. 

Appendix A/Table A1: DMDS Toxicology Data Requirements

Test Technical

Required Satisfied

870.1100 Acute Oral Toxicity....................................................... 

870.1200 Acute Dermal Toxicity .................................................. 

870.1300 Acute Inhalation Toxicity.............................................. 

870.2400 Primary Eye Irritation.................................................... 

870.2500 Primary Dermal Irritation .............................................. 

870.2600 Dermal Sensitization...................................................... 

yes 

yes 

yes 

yes 

yes 

yes 

yes 

yes 

yes 

yes 

yes 

yes 

870.3100 Oral Subchronic (rodent) ............................................... 

870.3150 Oral Subchronic (nonrodent) ......................................... 

870.3200 21/28-Day Dermal ......................................................... 

870.3250 90-Day Dermal .............................................................. 

870.3465 90-Day Inhalation.......................................................... 

yes 

yes 

yes 

no 

CR 

yes 

yes 

yes 

- 

yes 

870.3700a Developmental Toxicity (rodent)................................... 

870.3700b Developmental Toxicity (nonrodent)............................. 

870.3800 Reproduction ................................................................. 

yes 

yes 

yes 

yes 

yes 

yes 

870.4100a Chronic Toxicity (rodent) .............................................. 

870.4100b Chronic Toxicity (nonrodent)........................................ 

870.4200a Oncogenicity (rat).......................................................... 

870.4200b Oncogenicity (mouse).................................................... 

870.4300 Chronic/Oncogenicity.................................................... 

No 

no 

no 

no 

no 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

870.5100 Mutagenicity—Gene Mutation - bacterial..................... 

870.5300 Mutagenicity—Gene Mutation - mammalian................ 

870.5375 Mutagenicity—Structural Chromosomal Aberrations... 

870.5550 Mutagenicity—Other Genotoxic Effects....................... 

yes 

yes 

yes 

yes 

yes 

No

yes 

yes 

870.6100a Acute Delayed Neurotox. (hen) ..................................... 

870.6100b 90-Day Neurotoxicity (hen)........................................... 

870.6200a Acute Neurotox. Screening Battery (rat) ....................... 

870.6200b 90-Day Neuro. Screening Battery (rat).......................... 

870.6300 Develop. Neuro.............................................................. 

no 

no 

yes 

yes 

no 

-- 

-- 

yes 

yes 

-- 

870.7485 General Metabolism ...................................................... 

870.7600 Dermal Penetration........................................................ 

870.7800 Immunotoxicity............................................... 

no 

no 

yes 

-- 

-- 

No 

Special Studies for Ocular Effects 

Acute Oral (rat)........................................................... 

Subchronic Oral (rat) .................................................. 

Six-month Oral (dog).................................................. 

 no 

 no 

 no 

-- 

-- 

-- 

Page 76 of 193 
Appendix A/Table A2: DMDS Toxicity Profile

Guideline No./Study 

Type 

MRID No. 

(year)/Classification/Exposure 

Conditions 

Results 

870.1100 

Acute Oral – Rat 

46917001 (1985) 

Acceptable/Guideline. 

Wistar Rat 5/sex 

DMDS mixed with 3% slurry of 

carboxymethylcellulose 

LD50 combined = 190 mg/kg (150-240 mg/kg) 

Toxicity Category II 

125 mg/kg: 0/5M, 1/5 F died 

188 mg/kg: 5/5M, 1/5F died 

250 mg/kg: 3/5M, 4/5F died 

All died at 375 and 500 mg/kg. Deaths within 2.5 

hours. Signs: immobility, salivation, lethargy, 

hunched position, watery ocular discharge. Survivors 

recovered by Day 6. Necropy: pulmonary hemorrhage, 

enlarged spleen, GI hemorrhage and/or discolored 

heart. Unremarkable findings in recovered animals. 

870.1200

Acute Dermal - Rabbit 

46917002 (1985) 

Acceptable/Guideline. 

New Zealand Rabbit 

LD50 > 2000mg/kg 

Toxicity Category III; No deaths. 

Within 5 minutes: all heavy breathing, spasms, 

rearing, jumping, loss of balance. 10 minutes: lying 

down, excess salivation, flared nostrils, heavy 

breathing. By 4 hours all lethargic, although righting 

reflex had returned. 

Irritation: removal of patch revealed green 

discoloration and irritation (erythema) at the site. By 

Day 6 eschar formation, sloughing off by Day 9. 

Cracking and thickening on Day 7 until Day 14 along 

with sloughing of the skin. 

Necropsy: dark foci on all lobes and surfaces of the 

lungs, spleen abnormalities (pale purple/cloudy 

discoloration, rough texture and eges). Renal 

hemorrhage, dark foci and indentations on surface of 

kidneys. 

Special Inhalation 

24 hour- Rat 

47785501(2009) 

Acceptable/Non-Guideline 

Male Sprague-Dawley rat 

10 male rats/concentration 

0, 5, 9, 12.5, 18 ppm (0, 0.019, 

0.034, 0.049, and 0.071 mg/L) 

24 hour continuous exposure 

Microscopic evaluations 24 hrs 

after end of exposure 

Port-of-Entry 

NOAEL 9 ppm 

LOAEL 12.5 ppm, based on the incidence of 

microscopic lesions (degeneration in the olfactory 

epithelium) of the nasal tissues (Nasal Levels II-VI), 

the incidence of degeneration in multiple nasal levels 

(3 to 5 levels) and inflammation of the olfactory and 

respiratory epithelia (Nasal Levels III and IV). No 

effect on lung wts, lung histo not performed. 

Systemic NOAEL 18 ppm (HDT) 

Systemic LOAEL not established 

Special Inhalation 

1-Day & 5-Day 

Inhalation-Rat 

47471201 (2008) 

Acceptable/Non-Guideline 

Sprague-Dawley rat 

20 rats/sex/concentration 

0, 50, 150, 300, or 600 ppm (0, 

0.19, 0.58, 1.16, 2.27 mg/L) 

Exposure 6 hrs/day for 1 day or 

5 consecutive days 

10 rats/sex/concentration 

euthanized 24 hrs after acute 

exposure with remaining 10 

Day 1: 

Port-of Entry NOAEL was not established (<50 

ppm) 

Port-of-Entry LOAEL = 50 ppm (0.19 mg/L), based 

on changes (acute inflammation, degeneration, and 

hyperplasia) in the nasal tissues in both sexes. No 

effect on lung wts. Lung histo not performed. 

Day 5: 

Systemic NOAEL was not established

Systemic LOAEL was 50 ppm (0.19mg/L), based on 

Page 77 of 193 
Appendix A/Table A2: DMDS Toxicity Profile

Guideline No./Study 

Type 

MRID No. Results 

(year)/Classification/Exposure 

Conditions 

rats/sex/concen. following 4 

days. 

Microscopic examination 

performed for 6 levels of the 

nose. 

decreased body weights and body weight gains. 

Port-of Entry NOAEL was not established (<50 

ppm) 

Port-of-Entry LOAEL = 50 ppm (0.19 mg/L), based 

on changes (acute inflammation, degeneration, and 

hyperplasia) in the nasal tissues in both sexes. 

Relative lung weights increased at 300 and 600 ppm. 

Regeneration of the olfactory epithelium occurred in 

nasal levels II through VI. 

870.1300

Acute Inhalation - Rat 

46903516 (2005) 

Acceptable/Guideline 

Sprague-Dawley rat 

4-hour whole body 

847, 1188, 1308, 1650 ppm 

(3.18, 4.46, 4.91, 6.19 mg/L) 

Clinical obs. at 1, 2, 4, 6, 8 hrs. 

LC50 males >3.18 mg/L 3.18-6.19 mg/kg) 

LC50 females= 5.22 mg/L (4.56-5.97 mg/L) 

LC50 combined=4.91 mg/L (4.38-5.52 mg/L) 

Toxicity Category IV 

Deaths: 0/5M, 0/5 F 847ppm; 3/5M, 1/5F 1188 ppm, 

2/5M, 2/5 F 1308 ppm, 5/5M, 4/5F 1650 ppm during 

or immediately following exposure. Signs: tremors, 

low ease of handling, low arousal, salivation, ataxia 

(highest two doses). Peak effect 1 hour post-exposure. 

Rales Day 1, 2, 4, gone by Day 5. 

External findings: soiled fur, red deposits of eyes, 

nose/mouth. 

Necropsy: dark red discoloration of lungs (all lobes), 

collapsed lungs (1308 ppm) of rats dying prematurely. 

870.2400

Primary Eye Irritation - 

Rabbit 

46917003 (1985) 

Acceptable/Guideline 

New Zealand White 

4M, 5F 

Transient corneal opacity, reversible within 7 days, 

No iridial damage in any of the rabbits. Conjunctival 

redness (grade 2) in 1/3 washed and 5/6 unwashed 

eyes at 24 hrs. None positive at 48 hrs. Chemosis 

(grade 2 or above) in 4/6 unwashed at 24 hrs, but none 

positive (score≥2) at 48hrs. 

MMTS unwashed=14.8 

MMTS washed = 6 

Toxicity Category III 

870.2500

Primary Skin Irritation - 

Rabbit 

46917004 (1985) 

 Acceptable/Guideline 

New Zealand White 

4M & 2F 

0.5 ml aliquot DMDS at 4 (2 

abraded, 2 intact) dermal sites 

with 24 hr exposure. 

PIS at 48 hours 2.02 

Toxicity Category IV 

Irritation scores higher for abraded than intact skin. 

1 hr post exposure data not given. 

24 hr post exposure: Mean irritation abraded 3.33 vs. 

1.50 intact. 

48 hr post exposure: 2.25 abraded vs. 1.00 intact. 

72 hr post exposure: 2.17 abraded vs. 0.92 intact. 

Minor erythema at intact sites on Day 7, all scores at 

intact sites zero on days 10 and 14. 

870.2600

Dermal Sensitization – 

Guinea Pig 

46917005 (1985) 

Acceptable/Guideline 

10M Hartley guinea pig 

Buehler Protocol with 10 induction treatments. 

Not a dermal sensitizer. 

Page 78 of 193 
Appendix A/Table A2: DMDS Toxicity Profile

Guideline No./Study 

Type 

MRID No. Results 

(year)/Classification/Exposure 

Conditions 

870.3100

Subchronic Feeding - Rat Not currently available 

870.3100

Subchronic Feeding - 

Mice 

Not currently available 

870.3100

Subchronic Feeding - 

Mice 

Not currently available 

870.3150

Subchronic Feeding - Dog Not currently available 

870.3200

28-Day Dermal - Rabbit 

46917006 (1990) 

Acceptable/Guideline 

New Zealand white rabbit 

10 rabbits/sex/dose 

10.6, 106, 1063 mg/kg/day; 

6 hours/day, 5 days/week 

HDT discontinued after Day 16 due to mortality. 

Irritation NOAEL not established. 

Irritation LOAEL is 10.6 mg/kg/day, based on 

erythema, edema and ischemic necrosis, with 

increased severity and incrustation at mid-dose, and 

severe erythema at HDT. 

Systemic NOAEL is 10.6 mg/kg/day. 

Systemic LOAEL is 106 mg/kg/day, based on 

lethargy with mortality, myocarditis and myocardial 

degeneration, lung lesions, decreased body weight and 

food consumption, and hemolytic anemia at HDT. 

870.3465

13-Week Inhalation - Rat 

46917007 (1992) 

Acceptable/Guideline 

Sprague-Dawley rats 

20/sex/dose of 0 (air), 10, 50, or 

250 ppm (analytical 

concentrations of 0, 0.04, 0.19, 

and 0.95 mg/L) whole body for 

6hrs/day, 7days/week, 13 weeks 

Main study: 10/sex/dose after 13 

weeks 

Recovery: 10/sex/dose after 4 

weeks of recovery 

Interim sacrifice: 20/sex/dose at 

150 ppm (0.58 mg/L) for 6 

weeks; 10/sex/dose after 6 

weeks and 10/sex/dose after 2 

week recovery period. 

Port-of-entry NOAEL was not established. 

Port-of-entry LOAEL is 10 ppm (0.04 mg/L), based 

on minimal to moderate atrophy and microcavitation of the 

olfactory epithelia (8/10 rats/sex) and respiratory squamous 

metaplasia in the anterior nasal cavity. No effects on lung 

histopathology at any concentration. Lung wts increased 

only at HDT. 

Systemic NOAEL is 10 ppm (0.04 mg/L).

Systemic LOAEL is 50 ppm (equivalent to 0.19 

mg/L) based on: clinical signs of toxicity (soiled fur 

and piloerection); decreased body weights (↓2-14%), 

body weight gains (↓17-36%), and food consumption 

(↓4-15%) in both sexes. 

Recovery Group: squamous cell metaplasia still 

evident in the 50 (4/10M; 6/10F) and 250 ppm (10/10 

M; 10/10F) groups. (0/10 M&F at 10 ppm)

Page 79 of 193 
Appendix A/Table A2: DMDS Toxicity Profile

Guideline No./Study 

Type 

MRID No. Results 

(year)/Classification/Exposure 

Conditions 

870.3700

Inhalation Developmental 

Toxicity - Rat 

46917008 (1991) 

Acceptable/Guideline 

30 F pregnant Sprague-Dawley 

rats/dose; whole-body to 0, 5, 

15, or 50 ppm (0.02, 0.06, 0.19 

mg/l); 6 hrs/day, GD 6-15. 

Microscopic evaluation of nasal 

& respiratory tract not done. 

Maternal LOAEL is 50 ppm (0.19 mg/L), based on 

rough haircoat, decreased body weights, weight gains, 

and food consumption. 

Maternal NOAEL is 15 ppm (0.06 mg/L) 

Developmental LOAEL 50 ppm (0.19 mg/L), based 

on decreased fetal body weights, multiple skeletal 

developmental retardations. 

Developmental NOAEL is 15 ppm (0.06 mg/L). 

Port-of-Entry NOAEL could not be established. 

870.3700

Inhalation Developmental 

Toxicity - Rabbit 

46903523 (2005) 

Acceptable/Guideline 

24 F New Zealand rabbits/dose; 

whole-body to 0, 15, 45, or 135 

ppm (0, 0.06, 0.17, 0.52 mg/L); 

6 hrs/day, GD 6-28. 

Maternal LOAEL was not established. 

Maternal NOAEL 135 ppm (0.52 mg/L) the HDT. 

Developmental LOAEL was not established. 

Developmental NOAEL 135 ppm (0.52 mg/L) the 

HDT. 

Port-of-Entry LOAEL is 15 ppm, based on 

macroscopic lung lesions (dark red discoloration or 

areas) at all concentrations. Lung histo not evaluated. 

Lung wts not recorded. 

The port-of-entry NOAEL could not be established. 

870.3800

Inhalation 2-Generation 

Reproductive Toxicity - 

(Main study) 

Rat 

47052807 (2006) 

Acceptable/Guideline 

30 Sprague-Dawley 

rats/sex/dose; whole-body to 0, 

5, 20 or 80 ppm (0, 0.019, 0.079, 

0.308 mg/L); 6 hrs/day, 7 

days/week for 10 weeks prior to 

mating to produce F1 litters. 

Parental LOAEL 20 ppm (0.079 mg/L), based on 

decreased body weight, body weight gains, and food 

consumption in F1 males. 

Parental NOAEL 5 ppm (0.019 mg/L). 

Offspring LOAEL was not established (>80 ppm).

Offspring NOAEL 80 ppm (0.308 mg/L) (HDT) 

Reproductive LOAEL was not established. 

Reproductive NOAEL is 80 ppm (0.308 mg/L) the 

HDT. 

Port-of-Entry NOAEL and LOAEL could not be 

evaluated in this study. 

870.3800

Lactational/range-finding 

Inhalation phasedexposure study - Rat 

47052809 (2007) 

Acceptable/Non-guideline 

36 pregnant Sprague-Dawley 

rats/dose; 6 hrs/day, whole-body 

to 0, 5, 20, 80 ppm (0, 0.019, 

0.078, 0.308 mg/L); 6 hrs/day. 

12 dams/dose: LD5-12 

12 dams/dose: LD13-20 

12 dams/dose: LD5-20 

All animals terminated at 

PND21 

Critical period of exposure during lactation evaluated. 

Evaluation on page 29 of reproductive DER (MRID 

47052807) 

Maternal LOAEL is 80 ppm (0.308 mg/L), based on 

decreased body weight gains and food consumption. 

Maternal NOAEL is 20 ppm (0.078 mg/L) 

Offspring LOAEL was not established. 

Offspring NOAEL is 80 ppm (0.308 mg/L) 

Reproductive LOAEL was not established. 

Reproductive NOAEL is 80 ppm (0.308 mg/L) 

This study did not replicate the body weight effects 

Page 80 of 193 
Appendix A/Table A2: DMDS Toxicity Profile

Guideline No./Study 

Type 

MRID No. Results 

(year)/Classification/Exposure 

Conditions 

noted in the F1 pups of the definitive study. 

870.4100

Chronic Feeding 

Toxicity-Rat Currently not available 

870.4100

Chronic Feeding Toxicity 

- Dog Currently not available 

870.4200

Carcinogenicity 

Inhalation - Mouse Currently not available 

870.4200

Carcinogenicity/gavageMouse/Rat [bioassay] Currently not available 

870.4300

Chronic Inhalation 

Toxicity/CarcinogenicityRat. (2 year) 

Currently not available 

870.5100

Bacterial Reverse 

Mutation Test (Ames 

Assay) 

46903524 (1985) 

Unacceptable/guideline 

Purity information not provided. 

Salmonella typhimurium strains TA98, TA100, 

TA1535, TA1537, and TA1538 exposed to DMDS 

(purity not provided; Lot # 5275-164) in dimethyl 

sulfoxide (DMSO) at concentrations of either 0, 50, 

166, 500, 1666, or 5000 μg/plate (+/- S9-activation).

Evidence of slight cytotoxicity (reduced number of 

revertants) was observed with strain TA100 at 5000 

μg/plate (+/- S9). There were no marked increases in 

the mean number of revertants/plate in any strain. The 

positive controls induced marked increases in 

revertant colonies compared to controls in all strains 

in the presence and absence of S9-activation. There 

was no evidence of induced mutant colonies over 

background up to the limit dose for this test 

system.

870.5100

Bacterial Reverse 

Mutation Test (Ames 

Assay)

47052811 (2007) 

Acceptable/guideline 

Salmonella typhimurium strains 

TA98, TA100, TA1535, and 

TA1537 and Escherichia coli

strain WP2 uvrA exposed to 

DMDS (99.2%) in DMSO at 0, 

1.5, 5.0, 15, 50, 150, 500, 1500, 

or 5000 μg/plate (+/-S9, Trial 1) 

and 0, 50, 150, 500, 1500, or 

5000 μg/plate (+/-S9, Trial 2). 

DMDS was tested up to the limit dose (5000 

μg/plate). No evidence of compound precipitation or 

cytotoxicity was observed at any concentration in any 

strain in either trial in the presence or absence of S9-

activation. There were no marked increases in the 

mean number of revertants/plate in any strain. The 

positive controls induced marked increases in 

revertant colonies compared to controls in all strains 

in the presence and absence of S9-activation. There 

was no evidence of induced mutant colonies over 

background at concentrations up to the limit dose 

Page 81 of 193 
Appendix A/Table A2: DMDS Toxicity Profile

Guideline No./Study 

Type 

MRID No. Results 

(year)/Classification/Exposure 

Conditions 

The S9 fraction was derived 

from livers of male SpragueDawley rats induced with 

Aroclor® 1254. The standard 

plate incorporation method was 

used in both trials. Standard 

strain-specific mutagens served 

as positive controls. 

for this test system.

870.5300

In Vitro Gene Mutation 

Assay- Chinese Hamster 

Ovary Cells 

46917009 (1990) 

Unacceptable/guideline 

0, 0.46, 1.37, 4.12, 12.3, 37.0, 

111, 333, and 1000 μg/mL (Trial 

1,+/--S9), or 0, 4.12, 12.3, 37.0, 

74.1, 111, 333, 667, and 1000 

μg/mL (Trial 2, +/- S9) for 3 

hours. 

Dose formulations were analyzed for actual 

concentrations in tissue culture medium and were 

found to contain 5.4, 9.6, 15.1, 42.7 and 149.6 μg/mL 

+S9 and 5.98, 14.4, 19.0, 62.2 and 182.3 μg/mL –S9 

for nominal concentrations of 37.0, 74.1, 111, 333 and 

1000 μg/mL. 

Based on the overall results, no conclusions can be 

reached because of the problems associated with 

nominal vs. actual concentrations, which precluded a 

comparative evaluation of the data from both trials. 

Since analytical determinations were only performed 

for one of the two trials, we are not able to resolve 

from which trial these values were derived. Owing to 

the problems related to test material concentrations, it 

would have been prudent for the study investigators to 

analyze actual concentrations for both trials. Despite 

these limitations, increased MFs were seen in both 

trials and under both assay conditions. However, 

there is low confidence in the findings of this study. 

Accordingly, the study is not acceptable. 

870.5375

In Vitro Chromosomal 

Aberration in Human 

Peripheral Bloody 

Lymphocytes 

 46917010 (1990) 

Acceptable/guideline 

DMDS (99.98%) in dimethyl 

sulfoxide (DMSO) at 

concentrations of 0, 3.7, 11.1, 

33.3, 100, or 300 μg/mL (+/-S9) 

for 24 hours. 

There was no evidence of chromosome aberrations 

induced over background in the presence or absence 

of S9-activation up to cytotoxic concentraions. 

870.5395

Micronucleus Assaymouse 

46917012 (1989) 

Acceptable/guideline 

5 Swiss CD-1 mice/sex/concen., 

6 hrs/day; 4 consec. Days; whole 

body inhalation; 15-L glass 

inhalation chambers of 0 or 250 

ppm (0.975 mg/L), and 10 

mice/sex for 6 hrs/day; 3 consec 

days at 500 ppm (1.95 mg/L). 

The HDT exposure time was 

reduced from 4 consec days to 3 

days due to severe toxicity. 

Bone marrow cells were 

DMDS is considered negative in this test system up to 

a concentration causing overt toxicity and cytotoxicity 

to the bone marrow in the treated animals. 

Page 82 of 193 
Appendix A/Table A2: DMDS Toxicity Profile

Guideline No./Study 

Type 

MRID No. Results 

(year)/Classification/Exposure 

Conditions 

harvested at 24 hours after the 

final exposure. 

870.5395

Micronucleus Assay- rat

47052810 (2007) 

Acceptable/guideline 

DMDS (99.2%) administered 

vapor to groups of 5 or 10 CD 

rats/sex via whole-body at 0, 

217, 421, or 825 ppm for 4 

hours. Cyclophosphamide was 

administered to 5 rats/sex via i.p. 

injection at a final dose of 40 

mg/kg. Bone marrow cells were 

harvested from 5 rats/sex in all 

groups at 24 hours after 

exposure, and from an additional 

5 rats/sex in the 0 and 825-ppm 

groups at 48 hours after 

exposure. 

All animals survived to scheduled sacrifice. The 

following clinical signs of toxicity were noted in one 

or both sexes of the treated animals during exposure: 

hypoactivity, lacrimation, and clear material around 

the mouth. Decreases (not statistically significant) in 

body weights were noted in the treated groups 

compared to the negative controls. No appreciable 

reductions in the ratio of PCEs to total erythrocytes 

were observed in the dimethyl disulfide-exposed 

groups relative to the negative control group, 

suggesting that the test material was not cytotoxic to 

the bone marrow. The positive control 

(cyclophosphamide) induced increases (p≤0.05) in 

MPCEs compared to the concurrent vehicle controls. 

No treatment-related increases in the MPCE 

frequency were observed in any treatment group 

when compared to controls

870.5550

In Vitro Unscheduled 

DNA Synthesis- Primary 

Rat Hepatocytes 

46917011 (1989) 

Acceptable/guideline 

primary rat hepatocyte cultures 

from male Fischer rats exposed 

to DMDS (99.88%) in dimethyl 

sulfoxide (DMSO) at doses of 

either 0, 1, 5, 10, 50, 100, or 200 

μg/mL (Trial 1), or 0, 5, 10, 50, 

100, 150, 200, 250, or 300 

μg/mL (Trial 2). Hepatocytes 

were harvested at 18-20 hours 

post-dosing. 

Dimethyl disulfide was tested up to the limit of 

solubility (200 μg/mL). The mean net nuclear grain 

(NNG) counts in the treated cultures (–9.5 to –4.5) 

were well below the threshold of 0 or more NNG 

required for a positive response, and the mean percent 

of cells in repair (>3 NNG/cell) was 0-3% in both 

trials. The positive controls induced the appropriate 

response in both trials. There was no evidence that 

unscheduled DNA synthesis, as determined by 

radioactive tracer procedures [nuclear silver grain 

counts] was induced.

870.6200

Inhalation Acute 

Neurotoxicity - Rats 

46903529 (2005) 

Acceptable/Guideline 

12/sex/concen. exposed to 

DMDS (99.7%) as vapor for a 

single, 6 hr whole-body 

inhalation exposure at 100, 200, 

or 750 ppm (0.39, 0.77, and 2.9 

mg/L). A FOB and locomotor 

activity testing were performed 

on all animals prior to the the 

initiation of exposures, within 15 

minutes post-exposure for a 

duration of 1-2 hours, and on 

Days 7 and 14. 

The systemic LOAEL is 100 ppm (LDT) (0.39 

mg/L), based on decreased total session locomotor 

activity in males and decreased total session motor 

activity in females. A systemic NOAEL was not 

established. 

The port-of-entry LOAEL is 100 ppm (0.39 mg/L), 

based on closed eyelids at 100 ppm, red deposits on 

mouth in females at 200 ppm. A port-of-entry 

NOAEL was not established. Lung wts not recorded 

and histopathology of nose or lungs not performed. 

Page 83 of 193 
Page 84 of 193 

Appendix A/Table A2: DMDS Toxicity Profile

Guideline No./Study 

Type 

MRID No. 

(year)/Classification/Exposure 

Conditions 

Results 

870.6200

Inhalation Subchronic 

Neurotoxicity - Rats 

46903530 (2006) 

Acceptable/Guideline 

12 Crl:CD(SD) rats/sex/group 

DMDS (99.8%) as vapor for 

6 hrs/day, 7 days/week, 13 

weeks 

0, 5, 20, or 80 ppm (0.02, 0.08, 

.31 mg/L) 

FOB and motor activity assessed 

at Weeks 3, 7, 12. 

Nasal lesions examined in Level 

I-IV 

 6 rats/sex/group at all doses. 

Lung wts and histo not 

examined. 

The port-of-entry LOAEL is 20 ppm (0.08 mg/L), 

based on degeneration of the nasal olfactory 

epithelium of levels II thru IV. 

Port-of-Entry NOAEL is 5 ppm (0.02 mg/L) 

Lung wts and histopathology not performed. 

Systemic LOAEL is 80 ppm (0.31 mg/L) based on 

decreased total motor activity in males (↓35% Week 

12); decreases in body weight (males only, ↓11-16%), 

overall body weight gain (↓28% males, ↓15% 

females), and food consumption (↓8-21% overall 

males, ↓11% Week 1 females). 

Systemic NOAEL is 20 ppm (0.08 mg/L) 

Non-guideline 

Range-Finding DNT- Rat 

47052812 (2007) 

Acceptable/Non-guideline 

10 dams/dose with 4 

pups/sex/dam 

DMDS exposure began PND5: 

0, 2, 20, 80 ppm (0, 0.008, 

0.078, 0.309 mg/L) 

6 hrs/day PND5-PND20 

Port-of-Entry NOAEL was not established. 

Maternal NOAEL = 20 ppm (0.078 mg/L) 

Maternal LOAEL = 80 ppm (0.309 mg/L), based on 

decreased body weight gains and food consumption. 

Offspring NOAEL = 20 ppm (0.078 mg/L) 

Offspring LOAEL = 80 ppm (0.309 mg/L), based on 

decreased body weights and body weight gains. 

870.7485

Metabolism – Rat Not available 

870.7600

Dermal Penetration - Rat Not available 

870.7800 

Immunotoxicity - Rat 

Required Not available but Required under Revised Part 158
Appendix B: Methodologies for Inhalation 

Risk Calculations and Human Equivalent 

Concentration Arrays 

Page 85 of 193 
METHODOLOGIES FOR INHALATION RISK CALCULATIONS

The RfC methodology applies a dosimetric adjustment that takes into consideration not only the 

differences in ventilation rate (MV) but also the physicochemical properties of the inhaled 

compound, the type of toxicity observed (e.g. systemic vs. port of entry) and the pharmacokinetic 

(PK) but not pharmacodynamic (PD) differences between animals and humans. Based on the 

RfC guidance (1994), the methodology for RfCs derivation is an estimate of the quantitative 

dose-response assessment of chronic non-cancer toxicity for individual inhaled chemicals and 

includes dosimetric adjustment to account for the species-specific relationships of exposure 

concentration to deposited/delivered dose. This adjustment is influenced by the physicochemical 

properties of the inhaled compound as well as the type of toxicity observed (e.g. systemic vs. 

port of entry), and takes into consideration the PK differences between animals and humans. 

Though the RfC methodology was developed to estimate toxicity of inhaled chemicals over a 

lifetime, it can be used for other inhalation exposures (e.g. acute and short-term exposures) since 

the dosimetric adjustment incorporates mechanistic determinants of disposition that can be 

applied to shorter duration of exposures provided the assumptions underlying the methodology 

are still valid. These assumptions, in turn, vary depending on the type of toxicity observed and 

will be discussed later on in this document. Thus the derivation of a HEC for inhaled gases is 

described by the following equation: 

HEC = POD * D 

D 

 * W

 W study * RGDR animal exposure (hrs / day)

human exposure (hrs / day)

animal exposure (days / wk)

human exposure (days / wk)

Where: 

PODstudy: Point of departure identified in the critical toxicology study 

Danimal exposure: Duration of animal exposure (hrs/day; days/wk) 

Danticipated exposure: Anticipated human duration of exposure (hrs/day; days/wk) 

RGDR: Regional Gas Dose Ratio 

For gases eliciting both port of entry and systemic effects, calculations to estimate the inhalation 

risk to humans are dependent on the regional gas dose ratio (RGDR). In the case of systemic 

effects, the RGDR is defined as the ratio of the blood:gas partition coefficient of the chemical for 

the test species to humans (Hb/g animal/Hb/g human). When this ratio is unknown or when the Hb/g 

animal > Hb/g human a default value of 1.0 is used as the RGDR. This default is based on the 

observation that for chemicals where partition coefficient data are available in both rats and 

humans the RGDR value has usually been comparable or slightly higher than 1. Thus, the use of 

an RGDR of 1 results in a protective calculation of the inhalation risk. Some of the key 

assumptions fundamental to the use of the RfC methodology to derive a HEC based on systemic 

effects include: 

1) all the concentrations of inhaled gas within the animal’s body are periodic with respect to time 

(i.e. periodic steady state - the concentration vs time profile is the same for every week). 

Periodicity must be attained for at least 90% of the exposure. 

2) in the respiratory tract, the air, tissue, capillary blood concentration are in equilibrium with 

respect to each other. 

3) systemically, the blood and tissue concentrations are in equilibrium with respect to each other. 

Page 86 of 193 
In the case of DMDS, the physicochemical properties indicate that these conditions (i.e. 

periodicity and equilibrium between different compartments) will be achieved in a very short 

period of time. Under these conditions, therefore, the use of the RfC methodology to estimate 

acute inhalation risk is appropriate. 

When the critical toxic effect in a study occurs in the respiratory tract (i.e port of entry effects), 

the RGDR is not related to the blood:gas partition coefficient of the compound but rather the 

ratio of the minute volume (MV) to the surface area (SA) of the affected region. In these 

instances, attaining periodicity or equilibrium between the compartments is not critical (since the 

effect is a function of the direct interaction between the inhaled compound and the affected 

region in the respiratory tract) and the RGDR may be calculated using the following equation: 

RGDR = 

V M

SA 

V M

SA 

animal

animal

human

human

Where: 

 MV animal: Minute volume for the test species (varies depending on body weight) 

SA animal: Surface area of the affected region in animals 

MV human: Minute volume for humans (default value is 13.8 l/min) 

SA human: Surface area of the affected region in humans 

The MV animal is calculated using the allometric scaling provided in USEPA (1988a). The 

equation for calculation of the MV animal is: 

lnMV animal = b0 + b1ln(BW) 

Where: 

ln MV animal : natural logarithm of the minute volume 

b0 : species specific intercept used in the algorithm to calculate minute volumes based on body 

weight 

b1: species specific coefficient used in the algorithm to calculate minute volumes based on body 

weight 

ln BW: natural logarithm of the body weight (expressed in kg) 

The values for the species-specific parameters used to calculate the MV animal based on body 

weight and the values for the surface areas of various regions of the respiratory tract 

(extrathoracic, thoracic, and pulmonary) are provided in the EPA document “Methods for 

Derivation of Inhalation Reference Concentrations and Application of Inhalation Dosimetry” 

(1994). 

Calculations used to estimate the inhalation risk to humans from aerosols are dependent not on 

the RGDR as for gases, but on the regional deposited dose ratio (RDDR). Inhalation studies 

using aerosols characterize particulate exposure by defining the particulate diameter (mass 

median aerodynamic diameter [MMAD]) and the geometric standard deviation (σg), which is 

Page 87 of 193 
then used to determine the RDDR. The RDDR is a multiplicative factor used to adjust an 

observed inhalation particulate exposure concentration of an animal (A) to the predicted 

inhalation particulate exposure concentration for a human (H) that would be associated with the 

same dose delivered to the rth region or target tissue. 

 RDDRr = (RDDr/Normalizing Factor)A

 (RDDr/Normalizing Factor)H 

As with calculations for gases, the r regions and potential target tissues are the three respiratory 

regions (ET, TB, PU). The RDDR is easily calculated by using a software program designed 

specifically for computing the RDDR from the MMAD and σg defined from an aerosol 

inhalation study. The values for the species-specific parameters used to calculate the RDDR are 

provided in the EPA document “Methods for Derivation of Inhalation Reference Concentrations 

and Application of Inhalation Dosimetry.” It should be noted that there were no aerosol 

inhalation studies for DMDS and therefore the RDDR was not utilized for risk assessment. 

The magnitude of the UFs applied is dependent on the methodology used to calculate risk. The 

RfC methodology takes into consideration the PK differences but not the PD differences. 

Consequently, the UF for interspecies extrapolation may be reduced to 3X (to account for the PD 

differences) while the UF for intraspecies variation is retained at 10X. Thus, the UF when using 

the RfC methodology is customarily 30X. 

Page 88 of 193 
Appendix B/Table B1: HC and HEC Array for Non-Occupational Risk Assessment§

Relevant Study LOAEL 

(ppm) 

NOAEL 

(ppm) Da Dh Wa Wh RGDR HEC (ppm) inter intra UF 

Acute Exposure

Special Inhalation –Rat Systemic NA NA - - - - - - - - - 

(47785501) 24 hour males 

only ET 12.5 9 24 24 1 1 0.183 1.65 3 10 -

Special inhalation – Rat Systemic NA NA 6 6 1 1 NA NA 3 10 - 

(47471201) 

1-Day (6 hour) ET 50 BMCL 4.8 6 6 1 1 0.166 0.20 3 10 - 

Short-& Intermediate-Term Exposure 

Same HEC calculation as Acute since repeat exposure does not influence the NOAEL or LOAEL for DMDS 

Special Inhalation –Rat Systemic NA NA - - - - - - - - - 

(47785501) 24 hour males 

only ET 12.5 9 24 24 1 1 0.183 1.65 3 10 - 

Maternal 

Systemic NA 135 6 24 7 7 1 33.75 3 10

Development

al NA 135 6 24 7 7 1 33.75 3 10

Developmental Rabbit 

(46903523) 

 PUmacroscopic 15 NA 6 24 7 7 0.565 2.91 3 10 3 

Systemic 80 20 6 24 7 7 1 5 3 10 SCN- Rat 

(46903530) ET 20 5 6 24 7 7 0.166 0.21 3 10 

Systemic 50 10 6 24 5 7 1 1.79 3 10 

13-wk Rat 

(46917007) 

ET 

(squamous 

metaplasia in 

nose) 

50 10 6 24 5 7 0.166 0.30 3 10 

PU 50 10 6 24 5 7 0.166 3.52 3 10 

Long Term Exposure: Not appropriate for DMDS

§ Bolded studies used for endpoint selection. 

Key for Array Tables

LOAEL: Lowest observed adverse effect level 

Da: Daily animal exposure (hrs/day) 

Wa: Weekly animal exposure (days/week) 

RGDR: Regional Gas Dose Ratio 

inter: interspecies extrapolation uncertainty factor 

Dh: Anticipated daily human exposure (hrs/day) 

Wh: Anticipated weekly human exposure (days/week) 

HC: Human Concentration

HEC: Human Equivalent Concentration 

intra: intraspecies variation uncertainty factor 

UF: Other uncertainty factor(s) 

Page 89 of 193 
Page 90 of 193 

Appendix B/Table B2: HC and HEC Array for Occupational Risk Assessment§

Relevant Study LOAEL 

(ppm) 

NOAEL 

(ppm) Da Dh Wa Wh RGDR HEC (ppm) inter intra UF 

Acute Exposure

Special Inhalation –Rat Systemic >18 >18 8 8 1 1 0.183 18 3 10 - 

(47785501) 24 hour males 

only ET 12.5 9 8 8 1 1 0.183 1.65 3 10 - 

Systemic NA NA 6 6 1 1 NA NA 3 10 - Special inhalation – Rat 

(47471201) 1-Day (6 hour) ET 50 BMCL 

4.8 6 6 1 1 0.166 0.20 3 10 - 

Short- and Intermediate-Term Exposure 

Same HEC calculation as Acute since repeat exposure does not influence the NOAEL or LOAEL for DMDS 

Special Inhalation –Rat Systemic >18 >18 8 8 1 1 0.183 18 3 10 - 

(47785501) 24 hour males 

only ET 12.5 9 8 8 1 1 0.183 1.65 3 10 - 

Maternal 

Systemic NA 135 6 8 7 5 1 141.75 3 10

Developmental NA 135 6 8 7 5 1 141.75 3 10 Developmental Rabbit 

(46903523) 

PU-macroscopic 15 NA 6 8 7 5 0.565 12.22 3 10 3 

Systemic 80 20 6 8 5 5 1 21 3 10 SCN- Rat 

(46903530) ET 20 5 6 8 5 5 0.166 0.87 3 10

Systemic 50 10 6 8 5 5 1 7.5 3 10

ET (squamous 

metaplasia in nose) 50 10 6 8 5 5 0.166 1.24 3 10 13-wk Rat 

(46917007) 

PU 50 10 6 8 5 5 0.166 16.77 3 10

Long Term Exposure: Not appropriate for DMDS

§ Bolded studies used for endpoint selection. 

Key for Array Tables

LOAEL: Lowest observed adverse effect level 

Da: Daily animal exposure (hrs/day) 

Wa: Weekly animal exposure (days/week) 

RGDR: Regional Gas Dose Ratio 

inter: interspecies extrapolation uncertainty factor 

Dh: Anticipated daily human exposure (hrs/day) 

Wh: Anticipated weekly human exposure (days/week) 

HC: Human Concentration

HEC: Human Equivalent Concentration 

intra: intraspecies variation uncertainty factor 

UF: Other uncertainty factor(s) 
Appendix C: Fumigant Assessment 

Methodology and Air Model Information 

Page 91 of 193 
Fumigant Assessment Methodology and History

The Agency uses three main sources of information including incident reports and monitoring 

data, deterministic air modeling, and probabilistic air modeling to assess bystander exposure and 

risks resulting from applications of fumigants. These are discussed in more detail below.

Source Type 1: Incident Reports and Monitoring Data

Incident Data - Fumigants have been used for a number of years in agricultural settings. 

Throughout this history of use, there have been reported incidents where bystanders have 

experienced noticeable symptoms from various fumigants which have ranged from mild and 

reversible in nature to more serious symptoms up to and including death. When using incident 

reports to characterize the results of fumigant risk assessments, the number of incidents for a 

particular fumigant compared to its total use throughout the country along with the causes and 

severity of major incident events are considered. Typically, the circumstances that led to a 

specific incident are examined to the extent possible including factors such as application 

method, sealing method, meteorological factors, and possibility of misuse as well as others 

specific to each case. It is also important to examine the specific health effects experienced by 

exposed individuals because they provide insight as to whether or not the endpoints selected for 

risk assessment purposes have occurred under adverse field conditions. If so, such results 

illustrate a level of consistency in the results for a chemical. If not, it indicates that further 

investigation is warranted if possible. 

In most cases, it is hard to reconstruct the exact conditions of specific incidents which make 

predicting fumigant concentrations to which bystanders were exposed during an incident 

extremely difficult. This is generally because all necessary information to reconstruct the 

incident through predictive modeling is not available. For example, emission rates at the time of 

the incident specific to the way that particular application was completed would not be measured 

so any reconstruction for modeling purposes would have to utilize another source of emissions 

data that would be applied to the specific incident situation. Additionally, without on-site 

meteorological monitoring data, the same type of approach would have to be used in order to 

develop weather inputs for modeling purposes. In summary, without site-specific emissions and 

weather data collected at or near the time of an incident it is difficult to reconstruct the 

conditions of an incident and therefore accurately predict concentrations for exposed individuals. 

The overall reliability of fumigant incident information can also be suspect because some toxic 

effects are not immediately recognizable. Therefore, the likelihood that incidents may be 

reported could be lower for fumigants which have effects that are not immediately recognizable. 

Accordingly, incident reports are considered in this context when characterizing the risks 

associated with fumigants. 

Monitoring Data - Field volatility studies typically measure fumigant air concentrations 

produced by a single fumigant application under specific conditions (e.g., application rate and 

method, area treated, soil conditions, meteorological conditions). In these studies, air samplers 

positioned in and around a treated field continuously sample air after the fumigant has been 

applied in order to quantify the emissions from that specific field. Sampling times can vary but 

Page 92 of 193 
generally range from about 4 to 12 hours, so that the samples represent the average air 

concentrations for the sampling intervals used. Usually, shorter times are used at the beginning 

because fumigants generally off-gas the most within the first 24 to 48 hours after application and 

shorter sampling times provide a better means for characterizing peak emission periods that are 

expected to be associated with higher exposures. 

There are several limitations in using air concentrations directly from field volatility studies for 

risk assessment purposes. First, the data do not reflect the values that would occur under 

different conditions. Air concentrations around treated fields are influenced by a number of 

factors including how a chemical is applied, application rate, techniques to control emissions 

(e.g., tarps, water seals), soil conditions, and weather conditions. Varying weather conditions, 

for example, can significantly change the air concentrations at specific sites around a treated 

area; and since there is such a large range of potential weather conditions which could exist, it is 

not possible for these studies to represent the entire range of potential exposures which could 

result from different weather situations. Second, the air concentrations are measured by fixed 

samplers positioned at various distances and directions around the treated area, both downwind 

and upwind, as well as at points in between. Air concentrations downwind will be relatively 

high since the fumigant plume will be pushed by the wind in that direction, while concentrations 

upwind will be low or close to zero since the plume is pushed by the wind in the opposite 

direction. Therefore, there can be a very large difference between upwind and downwind air 

concentrations. Third, samplers are positioned at specific distances from the treated area and 

represent air concentrations only at those distances. Since air concentrations vary greatly by 

distance, the air concentrations estimated from direct measures represent a narrow range of the 

possible levels to which bystanders could be exposed. Based on these limitations, HED does not 

believe that monitoring data provide the most informative approach for considering the risks 

associated with fumigant use because other field conditions and risks at different distances from 

the source can be evaluated with modeling approaches. 

The approach described above is consistent with the general Agency approach for the use of air 

monitoring data related to the air permitting process. More information regarding the utility of 

monitoring data and its limitations based on the temporal and special factors described above can 

be found in Appendix W to 40 CFR Part 51 

(http://www.epa.gov/scram001/guidance/guide/appw_05.pdf). 

Source Type 2: Air Dispersion Modeling 

Air dispersion modeling uses mathematical formulas to characterize how atmospheric processes 

will disperse a pollutant emitted by a source. For the fumigants, the Agency has used dispersion 

models to estimate the downwind concentration of fumigants emitted from sources such as 

treated fields that have been treated as an area source for this purpose. This treatment is 

consistent with standard model development and implementation methods. Dispersion models 

require the input of data which includes: 

• Meteorological conditions such as wind speed and direction as well as the amount of 

atmospheric turbulence (also known as the “stability class”) 

• Flux rate (the mass of fumigant emitted per area per time) 

Page 93 of 193 
• Surface roughness (accounts for topography effects) 

• Application Specifics (application rate, field size, etc. taken from field volatility 

 studies) 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) maintains a Guideline on Air Quality Models 

(hereafter, Guideline), which is published as Appendix W to 40 CFR Part 51 1-4 

(http://www.epa.gov/scram001/guidance/guide/appw_05.pdf). The Guideline provides the 

Agency's guidance on regulatory applicability of air quality dispersion models in general. In 

order to be included in Appendix W as a recommended model, models must go through an 

extensive peer review and testing process. This peer review process ensures that models are 

acceptable to be used for a variety of sources like point (stack on a building) and area sources (a 

fumigated field). 

In producing the fumigant risk assessments, the Agency has considered various air dispersion 

models that are currently listed or have previously been listed in Appendix W. The first of these 

models is the Industrial Source Complex 3 (ISC3) model which was utilized for a number of 

years by the Agency to model the movement of airborne pollutants for a variety of regulatory 

situations. ISC3 was the Agency’s recommended air dispersion model up until the end of 2005. 

ISC3 was replaced by the American Meteorological Society/Environmental Protection Agency 

Regulatory Model (AERMOD) in December of 2005 as the preferred air dispersion model for 

near-field, steady state sources. Both ISC and AERMOD are “Gaussian Plume” models, in 

which airborne concentrations are assumed to have a normal probability distribution. Figure 1 

illustrates the basic premise of ISCST3 and the Gaussian plume concept. It should also be noted 

that neither ISCST3 nor AERMOD retain a memory of the movement of the fumigant plume 

from hour to hour (e.g., they would not track changes in an emitted plume should the wind 

direction change) and they do not quantitatively address calm conditions. For this assessment, a 

process has been used where calm conditions (e.g., hours with calm wind conditions) are 

dropped from calculations and a time-weighted average result is calculated without those values. 

This approach is consistent with how ISCST3 has been historically used. For chemicals with 

longer durations (such as methyl bromide) the impact is attenuated because 24 hour timeweighted averages are the basis for the results. For chemicals where shorter durations are the 

basis for the result (the DMDS assessment is based on 6 hours), this phenomena can disparately 

impact the results based on the weather conditions used for the analysis. AERMOD has 

enhancements from ISCST3 related to how structural releases are modeled such as improved 

downdraft algorithms for building effects but provides minimal improvements when modeling 

area sources such as treated agricultural fields. The third model that the Agency considered was 

CALPUFF v.5 which was recently adopted by the Agency as the preferred model for assessing 

near-field air concentrations under complex meteorological conditions. CALPUFF is a 

“Gaussian Puff” model and is similar to ISCST3 and AERMOD in that it assumes that air 

concentrations follow a normal probability distribution. Unlike the plume model, however, 

CALPUFF retains a memory of the movement of the fumigant plume from hour to hour which 

allows it to track emitted plumes that change direction with shifting wind patterns. It also has an 

enhanced treatment of calm conditions over and above ISCST3 or AERMOD because it can 

account for them being stable in calm conditions then moving again once winds pick up instead 

of skipping over such conditions. ISCST3, AERMOD, and CALPUFF are described in more 

detail later in this section. [Note: There is an updated version of CALPUFF (v6) which has not 

Page 94 of 193 
been officially accepted by the Agency. The major upgrade is that it can complete sub-hourly 

calculations where v5 can only do calculations based on hourly increments.] 

Figure 1: Illustration of ISCST3 Gaussian Plume Approach

Before a modeling analysis can be performed with ISCST3, the flux or rate of pesticide 

emissions from the treated fields per unit area per unit time must be determined. As an example, 

for field applications it is usually expressed in units of micrograms per square meter per second 

(μg/m2/sec). In essence, flux represents how quickly the pesticide moves or volatilizes into the 

surrounding atmosphere. Numerous factors can influence flux rates such as application rate, 

application equipment, techniques used to control emissions (e.g., tarps, water seals), soil type, 

soil temperature, atmospheric conditions, and others. Three general methods are used to estimate 

flux, which are discussed briefly below. The first two measure flux from sampling directly in 

treated fields while the third is an indirect, back-calculating method that estimates flux using 

samples from downwind locations and solves for them using ISCST3. 

ISCST3 Flux Method 1: Chamber Method 1 is a direct sampling method for 

determining flux that uses emission data measured in a flux chamber placed in a treated 

field. A flux chamber is basically a box which encloses a small defined area of a treated 

field, from which air samples are obtained representing defined durations (e.g., air is 

pulled through a charcoal trap collecting emitted pesticide over a continuous length of 

time such as 4 hours). Since the surface area is defined by the area of the chamber, and 

the quantity of pesticide emitted per unit time is defined by the air concentration, this 

method directly measures flux. A possible issue with flux chambers is that the conditions 

within the chamber (e.g., temperature, wind, air stability) are not generally identical to 

those outside the chamber in the treated field; since flux rates can be significantly 

affected by these factors, flux rates measured in these chambers may not always represent 

actual flux rates in the field. Flux chambers are not often used for estimating flux and, in 

fact, no such field study data were available for use in this assessment. 

Page 95 of 193 
ISCST3 Flux Method 2: Aerodynamic Flux Method 2 is known as the aerodynamic 

flux method.1 In this method, air samplers are set up in treated fields at various heights 

on a mast (e.g., 15, 30, 90, and 150 cm from the ground). Using measured air 

concentrations at these various heights, a vertical gradient of concentrations can be 

estimated for different time points, which can be integrated across all heights to estimate 

the flux rate at each time point after application. Some studies are available using this 

method to determine flux rates. 

ISCST3 Flux Method 3: Indirect Back-Calculation Method 3 the indirect or backcalculation method, is the method most often used to determine flux rates. [Note: EPA 

essentially followed the CDPR technique. For more details, see 

http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/empm/pubs/ehapreps/eh9903.pdf.] This method uses 

measured air concentrations taken in a typical field fumigation study in which air 

samplers are located at various positions around the field. The measured air 

concentrations, together with information about weather conditions which occurred when 

the samples were obtained, are used as inputs into the ISCST3. The model assumes that 

these air concentrations result from a Gaussian plume, the plume being distributed around 

the treated field as a result of the wind and weather conditions. The model then estimates 

the flux rate which would be required to emit the plume in that manner and to obtain the 

air concentrations measured. 

Aside from the estimation of the flux for all application methods, there are a number of other key 

inputs that must also be defined such as the size and shape of a treated field or other sources 

(e.g., greenhouses or fumigation chambers), wind direction, wind speed, and atmospheric 

stability in order to run ISCST3. Atmospheric stability is a measure of how turbulent the 

atmosphere is at any given time. Stability is affected by solar radiation, wind speed, cloud cover, 

and temperature, among other factors. If the atmosphere is unstable, then more off-field/source 

movement of airborne residues is possible without a large increase in air concentrations because 

the residues are carried up into the atmosphere and moved away from the field or other source, 

thereby lowering the air concentration in proximity to the field/source. To simplify the ISCST3 

modeling process, the transport of fumigant vapors from a source, a single wind direction, wind 

speed, and stability category are used for a given period. 

A range of atmospheric conditions representing the continuum from relatively stable (low 

windspeed & calm) to unstable conditions (high windspeeds & unsettled) were evaluated using 

ISCST3. Under relatively stable atmospheric conditions, the modeling produces results that 

represent highly exposed individuals (i.e., ISCST3, as used, results in exposure estimates at the 

 

1 Majewski, MS, Glotfelty, DE, Seiber, JN. 1989. A comparison of the aerodynamic and the theoretical-profile-shape 

methods for measuring pesticide evaporation from soil. Atmospheric Environment, 23:929-938 

Majewski, MS, Glotfelty, DE, Kyaw Tha Paw U, Seiber, JN. 1990. A field comparison of several methods for measuring 

pesticide evaporation rates from soil. Environmental Science and Technology, 24:1490-1497. 

Parmele, LH, Lemon, ER, Taylor, AW. 1972. Micrometerological measurement of pesticide vapor flux from bare soil and 

corn under field conditions. Water Air Soil Pollut. 1:433-451

Page 96 of 193 
upper percentiles of an anticipated exposure distribution). Two key inputs are the basis for this 

conclusion. First, only a constant downwind direction is considered. This type of situation 

would be highly unlikely in any outdoor environment. Secondly, the quantitative inputs used to 

define atmospheric conditions are based on constant wind speed and atmospheric stability over a 

particular period, which are also unlikely to occur in an outdoor environment. Conversely, 

unsettled conditions may reduce risk estimates but it is believed that even these conditions can 

result in conservative estimates because wind direction is constrained to a single direction over a 

particular period. 

Source Type 3: Distributional/Probabilistic Modeling 

The monitoring data and ISCST3 methods described above are deterministic methods that 

provide results that are limited in utility. For example, it is difficult to extrapolate to varying 

distances using monitoring data and analyses using ISCST3 provide high-end point estimates of 

exposure and risk because of the manner in which meteorological data are input, especially for a 

stable atmosphere. In response to these methods, the pesticide industry developed three models 

that are essentially pre- and post-processors for the air models described above that incorporate 

the ability to complete distributional and/or probabilistic analyses. Each of the three has ISCST3 

as their core processor while FEMS has an option for selecting between processors based on 

ISCST3 or CALPUFF (V 5 or 6). The three models which were developed include: 

Probabilistic Exposure and Risk model for Fumigants (PERFUM), the Fumigant Emissions 

Modeling System (FEMS), and the Soil Fumigant Exposure Assessment System (SOFEA). 

Each model was reviewed by the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) in 2004 during the 

August and September meetings (http://www.epa.gov/oscpmont/sap/meetings/2004/index.htm). 

The SAP concluded that each of the three models could provide scientifically defensible 

estimates of the bystander exposures and risks associated with soil fumigation practices and also 

suggested modifications and additional data that could further refine risk estimates. See 

Appendix C for more details regarding each model including contact information pertaining to 

how one could obtain the system. 

PERFUM and FEMS were designed specifically to take the concentration outputs from the air 

dispersion models and use them to produce buffer zone outputs in a distributional format. [Note: 

In the context of presenting modeling results the term "buffer zone" does not refer to any manner 

of regulatory decision pertaining to DMDS. It refers to the distances determined based on a 

target concentration defined by the HEC adjusted by an uncertainty factor.] SOFEA was 

designed to calculate fumigant concentrations in air arising from treated fields for multiple 

sources across entire agricultural regions. A generalized flowchart for these models is shown in 

Figure 2. 

Page 97 of 193 
Air 

Dispersion 

Model (ISC, AERMOD,

CALPUFF) 

Outputs - 

Distributions of 

buffer zones 

Inputs - 

Varied flux 

& weather data 

Figure 2: Operational Flowchart for the Distributional Models 

Selection of a Distributional Model - The conclusions of the 2004 SAP meetings were that all 

three of the distributional and/or probabilistic modeling options were scientifically viable and 

represented a level of refinement above the deterministic analyses that had been completed using 

ISCST3. At this time, the Agency has selected PERFUM for use in its fumigant assessments. 

However, it should be noted that the Agency believes that submissions based on the other 

aforementioned distributional/probabilistic models such as FEMS or SOFEA can be of equal 

scientific validity and would also be evaluated and considered in its risk management process 

provided all appropriate supporting documentation were available for review (e.g., 

documentation of flux rate calculations and weather data analysis). 

Page 98 of 193 
Air Model Information:

Industrial Source Complex 3 (ISC3) 

ISC3 (http://www.epa.gov/scram001/dispersion_alt.htm) was developed by the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a replacement for ISC2. ISC3 is a steady-state 

Gaussian plume model which can be used to assess pollutant concentrations from a wide variety 

of sources including point and area sources. ISC3 operates in both long-term and short-term 

modes. OPP has operated the model in short-term mode in its fumigant assessments and used 

the designation ISCST3. ISCST3 allows for three different types of outputs: (1) summaries of 

high values (highest, second highest, etc.) by receptor for each averaging period and source 

group combination, (2) summaries of overall maximum values (e.g., the maximum 50) for each 

averaging period and source group combination, and (3) tables of concurrent values summarized 

by receptor for each averaging period and source group combination for each day of data 

processed. The third output option was used when OPP ran the ISCST3 model. These outputs 

can be produced all the way down to an hourly basis. 

Up until the end of 2005, ISC3 was the Agency’s recommended air dispersion model for steady 

state sources. It should be noted that ISC3 can still be used as an alternative to the recommended 

models in Appendix W in regulatory applications with case-by-case justification (see Appendix 

W to 40 CFR Part 51, Section 3.2). 

The ISCST3 model allows for the conservative assessment of concentrations of fumigants 

coming off of treated fields under specific meteorological and application conditions. However, 

one of the main weaknesses of ISCST3 is in its treatment of calm periods. A calm period in 

ISCST3 is when the wind speed is less than 1.0 m/s. When this occurs, ISCST3 assumes that 

there is no wind blowing and assigns a wind speed of 0.0 m/s and this can result in a 

misrepresentation of the fumigant plume. For the Agency’s fumigant assessments, ISCST3 was 

run using the “regulatory option” for addressing calm periods. 

American Meteorological Society/Environmental Protection Agency Regulatory Model 

(AERMOD) 

AERMOD (http://www.epa.gov/scram001/dispersion_prefrec.htm#aermod) was developed by 

American Meteorological Society (AMS) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

ISC was replaced by AERMOD as the preferred air dispersion model for near-field, steady state 

sources in the Agency’s Guidelines on Air Quality Models as of December 9, 2005. AERMOD 

is a Gaussian plume model which can be used to assess pollutant concentrations from a wide 

variety of sources including point and area sources. AERMOD incorporates air dispersion based 

on planetary boundary layer turbulence structure and scaling concepts, including treatment of 

both surface and elevated sources, and both simple and complex terrain. The AERMOD 

modeling system consists of two pre-processors and the dispersion model. The meteorological 

preprocessor AERMET, uses meteorological data and surface characteristics to calculate 

boundary layer parameters (e.g. mixing height, friction velocity, etc.) needed to run AERMOD. 

The terrain pre-processor AERMAP both characterizes the terrain and generates receptor grids 

for AERMOD. AERMOD allows for three different types of outputs: (1) summaries of high 

Page 99 of 193 
values (highest, second highest, etc.) by receptor for each averaging period and source group 

combination, (2) summaries of overall maximum values (e.g., the maximum 50) for each 

averaging period and source group combination, and (3) tables of concurrent values summarized 

by receptor for each averaging period and source group combination for each day of data 

processed. These outputs can be produced all the way down to an hourly basis. 

As the replacement to ISC3, AERMOD currently contains new or improved algorithms for: 1) 

dispersion in both the convective and stable boundary layers; 2) plume rise and buoyancy; 3) 

plume penetration into elevated inversions; 4) computation of vertical profiles of wind, 

turbulence, and temperature; 5) the urban nighttime boundary layer; 6) the treatment of receptors 

on all types of terrain from the surface up to and above the plume height; 7) the treatment of 

building wake effects; 8) an improved approach for characterizing the fundamental boundary 

layer parameters; and 9) the treatment of plume meander. Many of these improvements have 

little to no effect on OPP’s approach to modeling fumigant applications as area sources.

AERMOD allows for the conservative assessment of concentrations of fumigants coming off of 

treated fields under specific meteorological and application conditions. However, AERMOD has 

a similar weakness to ISC3 in its treatment of calm periods. A calm period in AERMOD is 

when the wind speed is less than 1.0 m/s. When this occurs, AERMOD assumes that there is no 

wind blowing and assigns a wind speed of 0.0 m/s and this can result in a misrepresentation of 

the fumigant plume. Also, AERMOD does not allow for the probabilistic treatment of variables 

such as the meteorological conditions. 

CALPUFF 

CALPUFF (http://www.epa.gov/scram001/dispersion_prefrec.htm#calpuff) is a non-steady-state 

meteorological and air quality modeling system developed by the Atmospheric Studies Group at 

TRC Solutions. It is maintained by the model developers and distributed by TRC 

(http://www.src.com/html/calpuff/calpuff1.htm). CALPUFF v.5 has been adopted by the 

Agency in its Guideline on Air Quality Models as the preferred model for assessing long range 

transport of pollutants and on a case-by-case basis for certain near-field applications involving 

complex meteorological conditions (i.e., non-steady state). The modeling system consists of 

three main components and a set of preprocessing and postprocessing programs. The main 

components of the modeling system are CALMET (a diagnostic 3-dimensional meteorological 

model), CALPUFF (an air quality dispersion model), and CALPOST (a postprocessing package). 

The output files that CALPUFF creates for each run include unformatted data files containing 

grids of time-averaged concentrations, time-averaged dry deposition fluxes, and time-averaged 

wet deposition fluxes. These outputs in CALPUFF v.5 can be produced all the way down to an 

hourly basis. The post-processing program CALPOST is designed to produce ranked tabulations 

of averages of selected concentration data from these data files. CALPOST writes a text file 

containing the input data summary and output tables. 

Although CALPUFF v.5 is on the Agency’s guideline for air models, there is also currently a 

CALPUFF v.6 that has not yet been reviewed by the Agency. CALPUFF v.6 includes a number 

of technical enhancements over v.5 but the major one that could have effects on OPP’s modeling 

Page 100 of 193 
of fumigant emissions is the option to use subhourly (i.e., 1 minute, 5 minute, etc.) 

meteorological data. 

Probabilistic Exposure and Risk model for FUMigants (PERFUM) 

PERFUM (http://www.exponent.com/practices/health/PERFUM.html) was developed to address 

the issue of bystander exposures following agricultural applications of fumigants. The core of 

the PERFUM modeling system is the US EPA dispersion model ISCST3 which at the time 

PERFUM was developed was the Agency’s recommended air dispersion model for steady state 

sources. ISCST3 as described above calculates concentrations but is not designed to determine a 

buffer zone. PERFUM was designed to specifically take the ISCST3 outputs and use them to 

produce buffer zone outputs in a distributional format. 

PERFUM allows users to develop an understanding of the distributions of potential bystander 

exposures and thus more fully characterize the range of risks resulting to bystanders around 

treated fields. ISCST3 is an integral part of the PERFUM model and the basic physics and code 

of ISCST3 remain unchanged. PERFUM essentially provides ISCST3 with daily meteorological 

data over 5 years as well as flux estimates within the uncertainty of those data. PERFUM then 

uses this information to create distributional outputs for pre-defined receptor locations. 

Fumigant Emissions Modeling System (FEMS) 

FEMS (http://www.sullivan-environmental.com) was developed to address the issue of bystander 

exposures following agricultural applications of fumigants. FEMS allows the user to define a 

number of options prior to running the model including: the fumigant to be applied, the 

frequency of fumigation, the sealing method employed, field size and shape, consecutive 

day/contiguous field applications, application season, the averaging time for the concentrations, 

and the dispersion model used (ISCST3, CALPUFF v.5, or CALPUFF v.6). FEMS also allows 

the user to include Monte Carlo treatments of all the key model inputs like meteorological 

conditions, emissions data, day the application starts, etc. 

Once the core dispersion model is selected, FEMS simulates the application of a fumigant and 

it’s off-gassing over a 4 day simulation using 4 hour time steps. The model estimates fumigant 

concentrations at various receptors beyond the perimeter of the applied field that are matched to 

the averaging time of interest for the user. Aside from estimating the fumigant concentrations, 

FEMS keeps track of the number of times that concentrations exceed the concentration of 

concern at each receptor. 

Once FEMS completes the modeling simulation, the distribution of concentrations is computed 

for each receptor. FEMS produces two main outputs. The first is a frequency distribution that 

looks at the number of times that concentrations exceed the concentration of concern at each 

receptor. The second involves establishing the distributions of concentrations for each receptor 

and then taking the maximum number of periods per averaging time of interest above the 

concentration of concern and computing them as a function of distance from the field. Buffer 

zones are then established based on the most conservative concentrations that were modeled as a 

function of distance.

Page 101 of 193 
Page 102 of 193 

Soil Fumigant Exposure Assessment System (SOFEA) 

SOFEA (http://www.epa.gov/oscpmont/sap/meetings/2004/index.htm) was developed to 

evaluate and manage human inhalation exposure potential associated with agricultural 

applications of fumigants. SOFEA calculates fumigant concentrations in air arising from 

volatility losses from treated fields for entire agricultural regions using multiple sources (treated 

fields), GIS information, agronomic specific variables, user specified buffer zones and field reentry intervals. SOFEA uses a modified version of ISCST3 as its dispersion model. SOFEA 

also uses Monte Carlo techniques to vary the following parameters: weather information, field 

size, application date, application rate, application method, pesticide degradation rates in air, 

sealing method, field re-treatment, and buffer setbacks. 

Multi-year, multiple field simulations can be conducted with SOFEA using random field 

placement in all agricultural areas or by selectively placing fields in historical or prospective use 

areas. Regional land use information can be used to refine the placement of treated fields, 

dispersion calculations, and exposure assessments. SOFEA has been previously used for 

regulatory decision making in California. 
Appendix D: Field Volatility Description

Page 103 of 193 
Yuma, AZ Shank Injection – Raised Bed, Polyethylene Tarped

MRID 47052801

Test locations: The test site for this study was located in Yuma, Arizona located in Yuma 

County on a field owned by Nakasawa Farms. Field work was conducted in 

August of 2004. A bedded field of approximately 2.5 acres (1.995 treated acres) 

consisting of 47 beds (330 ft long by 67 inches wide) was treated with the test 

substance. 

Meteorological Data: A meteorological station was placed near the treatment field to determine air 

temperature, wind speed, and wind direction. The range in temperature 

throughout the study from the meteorological station located on site was 

approximately 27-35 oC across the study duration. Wind speeds ranged from 

1.23-3.14 m/s were generally from the south to southeast. 

Application rate(s): The application rate used in this study was 780 lbs ai per treated acre of DMDS 

(containing approximately 99.5% DMDS). 

Application Regime: A tractor with a rear mounted tool bar, containing three chisel shanks was used 

for the application. Shank depth was 8 inches deep. As DMDS was applied, the 

treated beds were covered with a standard clear polyethylene tarpaulin (1.5 mil, 

#PLO-41036, manufactured by Plassein, Int.). The application was started at 

7:30 am on 8/17/04 and completed at 2:08 pm. 

Soil Characterization The soil samples were characterized as loamy sand to sandy soil. The water 

content of the soil ranged from 7.5 to 8.3% across the 0 to 18” depth (moisture 

levels were considered acceptable using the ball method; roughly 50-85% of 

field capacity). Soil organic content ranged from 0.3-0.4% across the 0 to 18” 

depth. 

Nipomo, CA Drip Irrigation – Raised Bed, Polyethylene Tarped

MRID 47052822

Test locations: The field portion of the study was conducted in Nipomo, California located in 

San Louis Obispo County. Field work was conducted in June of 2005. A 

bedded field of approximately 2.5 acres (1.996 treated acres) consisting of 62 

beds (330 ft long by 51 inches wide) was treated with the test substance. 

Meteorological Data: A meteorological station was placed near the treatment field to determine air 

temperature, wind speed, and wind direction. The range in temperature 

throughout the study from the meteorological station located on site was 12-22 

oC. Windspeed ranged from <1 to 8.0 meters per second during the study. 

Wind direction during the study was generally from the west. 

Application rate(s): The application rate used in this study was 627.7 lbs ai per treated acre of 

DMDS (containing approximately 95% DMDS and 5% surfactant). 

Application Regime: The test substance was applied using drip irrigation. The irrigation and pump 

system was installed permanently at the site. The bedded field was covered with 

a standard black polyethylene tarpaulin the (1.5 mil, #623979-001, 

manufactured by Pliant corporation). The drip irrigation application began at 

9:01 am on 06/21/05 and ended at 2:33 pm. 

Soil Characterization The soil samples were characterized as sandy loam to loamy sand soil. The 

water content of the soil ranged from 9.8 to 12.1% across the 0 to 18” depth 

(moisture levels were considered acceptable using the ball method; roughly 50-

Page 104 of 193 
85% of field capacity). Soil organic content ranged from 0.5-0.7% across the 0 

to 18” depth. Soil temperatures ranged from 20-28 o

C under the tarp at a depth 

of 6 inches. 

Bradenton, FL Shank Injection – Raised Bed, Polyethylene Tarped

MRID 47052824

Test locations: The test site for this study was located in Bradenton, Florida located in Manatee 

County. Field work was conducted in April of 2006. A bedded field of 

approximately 4.07 acres (2.33 treated acres) consisting of 82 beds (530 ft long 

by 49 inches wide) was treated with the test substance. 

Meteorological Data: A meteorological station was placed near the treatment field to determine air 

temperature, wind speed, and wind direction. The range in temperature 

throughout the study from the meteorological station located on site was 

approximately 12-37 oC across the study duration. Wind speeds ranged from 

approximately 0.5-8.5 m/s 

Application rate(s): The application rate used in this study was 633 lbs ai per treated acre of DMDS 

(containing approximately 99% DMDS). 

Application Regime: The application equipment consisted of a tractor equipped with a front platform 

where DMDS and nitrogen tanks were mounted. DMDS traveled to the rear of 

the tractor, flowing through a filter, a flow control valve, then a flow meter. At 

the rear of the tractor, a manifold split the flow of DMDS to the four shanks (2 

per bed, spaced 12 inches apart, set at approximately 8 to 10-inch depth). As 

part of the application equipment, bed shapers pressed the beds after the 

injection. Immediately following fumigation, a tarpaulin laying rig was used to 

cover the beds with a standard black polyethylene tarpaulin (1.25 mil, black 

microembossed, high barrier plastic, manufactured by Pliant Corporation, 

Washington, GA) was used at plot 1. A metalized tarpaulin sheeting (1.3 mil, 

white full metalized, Canslit Inc, Valdosta, GA.) was used at plot 2. The 

application was started at 9:57 am on 4/19/06 and completed at 4:58 pm. 

Soil Characterization The soil samples were characterized as sandy soil. The water content of the soil 

ranged from 4.4 to 10.1% across the 0 to 18” depth (moisture levels were 

considered acceptable using the ball method; roughly 50-85% of field capacity). 

Soil organic content ranged from 0.1-0.6% across the 0 to 18” depth. 

Dover, FL Shank Injection – Raised Bed, Metalized Tarped

MRID 47052824

Test locations: The test site for this study was located in Dover, Florida located in Hillsborough 

County. Field work was conducted in April of 2006. A bedded field of 

approximately 4.07 acres (2.33 treated acres) consisting of 82 beds (530 ft long 

by 49 inches wide) was treated with the test substance. 

Meteorological Data: A meteorological station was placed near the treatment field to determine air 

temperature, wind speed, and wind direction. The range in temperature 

throughout the study from the meteorological station located on site was 

approximately 12-33 oC across the study duration. Wind speeds ranged from 

approximately calm conditions to 9 m/s. 

Application rate(s): The application rate used in this study was 608.2 lbs ai per treated acre of 

DMDS (containing approximately 99% DMDS). 

Page 105 of 193 
Application Regime: The application equipment consisted of a tractor equipped with a front platform 

where DMDS and nitrogen tanks were mounted. DMDS traveled to the rear of 

the tractor, flowing through a filter, a flow control valve, then a flow meter. At 

the rear of the tractor, a manifold split the flow of DMDS to the four shanks (2 

per bed, spaced 12 inches apart, set at approximately 8 to 10-inch depth). As 

part of the application equipment, bed shapers pressed the beds after the 

injection. Immediately following fumigation, a tarpaulin laying rig was used to 

cover the beds with a white metalized tarpaulin (1.3 mil, white full metalized, 

Canslit Inc). The application was started at 9:57 am on 4/19/06 and completed 

at 5:58 pm. 

Soil Characterization The soil samples were characterized as sandy soil. The water content of the soil 

ranged from 8.9 to 9.6% across the 0 to 18” depth (moisture levels were 

considered acceptable using the ball method; roughly 50-85% of field capacity). 

Soil organic content ranged from 1.2-1.6% across the 0 to 18” depth. 

Cantua Creek, CA Shank Injection – Broadcast, Polyethylene Tarped

MRID 47052823

Test locations: The field portion of the study was conducted in Cantua Creek, California located 

in Fresno County. Field work was conducted in November of 2005. A field of 

approximately 10 acres was treated with the test substance. 

Meteorological Data: A meteorological station was placed near the treatment field to determine air 

temperature, wind speed, and wind direction. The range in temperature 

throughout the study from the meteorological station located on site was 9.6-22 

oC. Windspeed ranged from <1 to 9.0 meters per second during the study. 

Wind direction during the study was generally from the south to southwest. 

Application rate(s): The application rate used in this study was 619.8 lbs ai per treated acre of 

DMDS (containing approximately 95% DMDS and 5% surfactant). 

Application Regime: The application equipment consisted of a track-type tractor equipped with a 

front platform where DMDS and nitrogen tanks were mounted. DMDS traveled 

to the rear of the tractor, where the flow was split to 12 orifices affixed to an 

array of injection shanks and Noble plows (set at approximately at 12 inch 

depth). As part of the application equipment, a standard clear polyethylene 

tarpaulin (1.0 mil clear plastic, #FUM13HB, manufactured by Tyco Plastics) 

was laid over the treated soil after the injection. Tarpaulin cutting took place at 

5 days after fumigation and tarpaulin removal activities were performed at 6 

days after fumigation. The application was started at 7:08 am on 11/14/05 and 

completed at 4:20 pm. 

Soil Characterization The soil samples were characterized as sandy loam to loamy sand soil. The 

water content of the soil ranged from 13.9 to 18.7% across the 0 to 18” depth 

(moisture levels were considered acceptable using the ball method; roughly 50-

85% of field capacity). Soil organic content was 1.4% across the 0 to 18” depth. 

Soil temperatures ranged from 13-19 o

C under the tarp at a depth of 2 inches. 

Tifton, GA Shank Injection Field #1 – Raised Bed, VIF Tarped

MRID 47820001

Test locations: The test site for this study was located in Tifton, Georgia. Field work was 

conducted in November of 2009. A bedded field of approximately 1 acre was 

treated with the test substance. 

Page 106 of 193 
Meteorological Data: A meteorological station was placed near the treatment field to determine air 

temperature, wind speed, and wind direction. The average temperature 

throughout the study from the meteorological station located on site ranged from 

3.6-16.5 oC across the study duration. Wind speeds ranged from approximately 

calm conditions to 10 m/s. 

Application rate(s): The application rate used in this study was 546.7 lbs ai per treated acre of 

DMDS. 

Application Regime: There were three steps to the application. First, DMDS and chloropicrin were 

applied as a pre-bed application using 3 swept back shanks spaced 12 inches 

apart to deliver DMDS and chloropicrin to an 8 inch depth. The two fumigants 

were pre-mixed together in a 79:21 (dimethyldisulfide:chloropicrin) ratio in 110 

gallon steel cylinders. Metam sodium was then applied at a 4-inch depth using 

12-inch vertical cultures spaced 4 inches apart. Thirty-two inch wide by 9-inch 

high raised beds were pressed immediately following the metam sodium 

application and covered with a VIF tarp. 

Soil Characterization The water content of the soil relative to field capacity was 70% across the 0 to 

9” depth. Soil organic content was 0.7% across the 0 to 12” depth. 

Tifton, GA Shank Injection Field #2 – Raised Bed, Polyethylene Tarped

MRID 47820001

Test locations: The test site for this study was located in Tifton, Georgia. Field work was 

conducted in November of 2009. A bedded field of approximately 1 acre was 

treated with the test substance. 

Meteorological Data: A meteorological station was placed near the treatment field to determine air 

temperature, wind speed, and wind direction. The average temperature 

throughout the study from the meteorological station located on site ranged from 

3.6-16.5 oC across the study duration. Wind speeds ranged from approximately 

calm conditions to 10 m/s. 

Application rate(s): The application rate used in this study was 538.8 lbs ai per treated acre of 

DMDS. 

Application Regime: There were three steps to the application. First, DMDS and chloropicrin were 

applied as a pre-bed application using 3 swept back shanks spaced 12 inches 

apart to deliver DMDS and chloropicrin to an 8 inch depth. The two fumigants 

were pre-mixed together in a 79:21 (dimethyldisulfide:chloropicrin) ratio in 110 

gallon steel cylinders. Metam sodium was then applied at a 4-inch depth using 

12-inch vertical cultures spaced 4 inches apart. Thirty-two inch wide by 9-inch 

high raised beds were pressed immediately following the metam sodium 

application and covered with a standard polyethylene tarp. 

Soil Characterization The water content of the soil relative to field capacity was 65% across the 0 to 

9” depth. Soil organic content was 0.6% across the 0 to 12” depth. 

Tifton, GA Shank Injection Field #3 – Raised Bed, Polyethylene Tarped

MRID 47820001

Page 107 of 193 
Page 108 of 193 

Test locations: The test site for this study was located in Tifton, Georgia. Field work was 

conducted in November of 2009. A bedded field of approximately 1 acre was 

treated with the test substance. 

Meteorological Data: A meteorological station was placed near the treatment field to determine air 

temperature, wind speed, and wind direction. The average temperature 

throughout the study from the meteorological station located on site ranged from 

3.6-16.5 oC across the study duration. Wind speeds ranged from approximately 

calm conditions to 10 m/s. 

Application rate(s): The application rate used in this study was 546.7 lbs ai per treated acre of 

DMDS. 

Application Regime: There were three steps to the application. First, DMDS and chloropicrin were 

applied as a pre-bed application using 3 swept back shanks spaced 12 inches 

apart to deliver DMDS and chloropicrin to an 8 inch depth. The two fumigants 

were pre-mixed together in a 79:21 (dimethyldisulfide:chloropicrin) ratio in 110 

gallon steel cylinders. Metam sodium was then applied at a 4-inch depth using 

12-inch vertical cultures spaced 4 inches apart. Thirty-two inch wide by 9-inch 

high raised beds were pressed immediately following the metam sodium 

application and covered with a standard polyethylene tarp. 

Soil Characterization The water content of the soil relative to field capacity was 74% across the 0 to 

9” depth. Soil organic content was 0.6% across the 0 to 12” depth. 
Page 109 of 193 

Appendix E: Buffer Outputs from DMDS 

Applications Estimated with PERFUM for 

Preplant Agricultural Use
D029088/Appendix E

Table 1: DMDS Data Analysis - Ventura California PERFUM Buffer Results For All Flux Types For 5 And 40 Acre Square Fields

Percentiles

5 A 40 A 5 A 40 A 5 A 40 A 5 A 40 A 5 A 40 A 5 A 40 A

5 400 1440 330 1200 205 735 0 0 0 0 0 0

10 490 1440 405 1440 265 950 0 0 0 0 0 015 575 1440 475 1440 310 1155 0 0 0 0 0 020 675 1440 565 1440 365 1410 0 0 0 0 0 025 785 1440 650 1440 415 1440 0 0 0 0 0 030 905 1440 735 1440 460 1440 0 0 0 0 0 035 1065 1440 870 1440 555 1440 0 0 0 0 0 040 1200 1440 990 1440 640 1440 0 0 0 0 0 045 1320 1440 1095 1440 710 1440 0 0 0 0 0 050 1410 1440 1170 1440 760 1440 0 10 0 10 0 555 1440 1440 1240 1440 800 1440 0 25 0 25 0 1560 1440 1440 1290 1440 835 1440 5 50 5 45 5 3565 1440 1440 1365 1440 885 1440 20 80 15 75 10 6070 1440 1440 1425 1440 950 1440 35 130 30 120 25 10075 1440 1440 1440 1440 1015 1440 60 210 55 195 45 16580 1440 1440 1440 1440 1085 1440 100 375 95 350 75 29085 1440 1440 1440 1440 1155 1440 195 755 175 680 135 53590 1440 1440 1440 1440 1250 1440 380 1440 335 1340 255 102595 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 765 1440 665 1440 480 144097 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1075 1440 915 1440 645 144099 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1350 1440 925 1440

99.9 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440

99.99 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440

5 680 1440 570 1440 360 1410 0 0 0 0 0 0

10 820 1440 690 1440 460 1440 0 0 0 0 0 015 960 1440 800 1440 540 1440 0 0 0 0 0 020 1105 1440 925 1440 605 1440 0 0 0 0 0 025 1235 1440 1025 1440 675 1440 0 0 0 0 0 030 1385 1440 1145 1440 760 1440 0 0 0 0 0 035 1440 1440 1265 1440 860 1440 0 0 0 0 0 040 1440 1440 1400 1440 945 1440 0 0 0 0 0 045 1440 1440 1440 1440 1095 1440 0 0 0 0 0 050 1440 1440 1440 1440 1205 1440 0 20 0 20 0 1555 1440 1440 1440 1440 1300 1440 5 45 5 45 0 4060 1440 1440 1440 1440 1380 1440 15 80 15 75 10 6565 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 35 125 35 120 25 10570 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 60 185 55 175 45 15575 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 85 275 85 265 70 23580 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 140 440 130 420 110 37085 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 240 775 225 730 190 63090 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 465 1440 420 1440 330 119595 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 955 1440 835 1440 625 144097 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1360 1440 1175 1440 870 144099 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1380 1440

99.9 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440

99.99 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440

Ventura Whole Field PERFUM Buffer Results

Bradenton, FL - Raised Bed / Poly Tarped

Yuma, AZ - Raised Bed / Poly Tarped

Max (455 lb/A) 80% (364 lb/A) 50% (227.5 lb/A)

Max (455 lb/A) 80% (364 lb/A) 50% (227.5 lb/A) Max (455 lb/A) 80% (364 lb/A) 50% (227.5 lb/A)

Shank Injection Application Method

Ventura Maximum PERFUM Buffer Results

Max (455 lb/A) 80% (364 lb/A) 50% (227.5 lb/A)

Page 110 of 193 
5 05000000000

10 5 95 0 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 15 135 0 80 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 20 30 180 5 110 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 25 50 245 5 155 0 35 0 0 0 0 0 30 65 300 15 200 0 55 0 0 0 0 0 35 75 370 35 245 0 80 0 0 0 0 0 40 90 435 50 295 5 100 0 0 0 0 0 45 105 485 65 335 5 125 0 0 0 0 0 50 125 540 80 385 5 160 0 0 0 0 0 55 140 600 100 435 5 205 0 0 0 0 0 60 165 660 120 510 35 260 0 5 0 0 0 65 195 765 145 590 50 300 0 10 0 5 0 70 220 870 165 660 65 340 0 25 0 15 0 75 245 970 185 745 80 395 5 50 0 35 0 80 275 1090 205 845 95 445 5 85 5 65 0 85 300 1225 230 930 115 505 25 160 5 120 0 90 340 1375 265 1065 140 590 55 305 30 225 5 95 390 1440 315 1240 170 720 115 545 85 430 25 297 435 1440 345 1375 190 780 175 765 135 610 60 399 485 1440 385 1440 215 895 280 1175 215 925 115 5

99.9 555 1440 440 1440 240 1035 435 1440 345 1440 190 8

99.99 585 1440 440 1440 250 1040 520 1440 415 1440 230 9

5 265 970 210 760 115 435 0 0 0 0 0 

10 315 1145 250 920 140 530 0 0 0 0 0 15 360 1360 290 1080 165 625 0 0 0 0 0 20 415 1440 330 1280 195 740 0 0 0 0 0 25 485 1440 390 1440 225 885 0 0 0 0 0 30 550 1440 440 1440 250 1035 0 0 0 0 0 35 635 1440 490 1440 275 1165 0 0 0 0 0 40 685 1440 535 1440 300 1300 0 0 0 0 0 45 725 1440 570 1440 325 1410 0 0 0 0 0 50 765 1440 605 1440 355 1440 0 5 0 5 0 55 805 1440 630 1440 385 1440 0 20 0 15 0 60 835 1440 665 1440 425 1440 5 40 5 35 0 65 875 1440 705 1440 470 1440 15 70 10 60 5 70 925 1440 765 1440 510 1440 30 110 25 100 15 75 1005 1440 835 1440 555 1440 50 180 45 165 30 80 1095 1440 910 1440 595 1440 85 325 75 295 55 285 1205 1440 1000 1440 650 1440 155 625 135 555 95 490 1310 1440 1100 1440 720 1440 290 1190 250 1030 165 795 1440 1440 1245 1440 810 1440 530 1440 445 1440 285 197 1440 1440 1345 1440 895 1440 675 1440 560 1440 380 199 1440 1440 1440 1440 1015 1440 960 1440 815 1440 570 1

99.9 1440 1440 1440 1440 1325 1440 1440 1440 1295 1440 880 1

99.99 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1225 1

Max (455 lb/A) 80% (364 lb/A) 50% (227.5 lb/A) Max (455 lb/A) 80% (364 lb/A)

USDA, GA - Raised Bed / Poly Tarped Field 2

Max (455 lb/A) 80% (364 lb/A) 50% (227.5 lb/A) Max (455 lb/A) 80% (364 lb/A)

50% (227.5 

USDA, GA - Raised Bed / VIF Tarped Field 1

50% (227.5 

Page 111 of 193 
5 30 115 10 70 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 

10 80 310 50 215 5 75 0 0 0 0 5 15 105 385 70 275 15 115 0 0 0 0 15 20 120 440 85 325 25 140 0 0 0 0 25 25 135 495 95 375 35 170 0 0 0 0 35 30 150 560 110 415 45 195 0 0 0 0 45 35 170 620 125 470 55 225 0 0 0 0 55 40 185 680 140 525 65 270 0 0 0 0 65 45 215 810 165 630 75 330 0 0 0 0 75 50 250 965 190 740 90 390 0 5 0 0 90 55 285 1120 215 865 110 450 0 10 0 5 110 60 310 1295 235 965 125 510 0 25 0 15 125 65 340 1440 265 1060 150 585 5 40 5 30 150 70 380 1440 305 1195 180 705 10 65 5 50 180 75 430 1440 340 1350 200 790 25 100 15 80 200 80 475 1440 380 1440 225 895 40 160 30 130 225 85 520 1440 425 1440 260 1015 65 275 50 225 260 90 580 1440 475 1440 295 1160 115 480 90 395 295 295 695 1440 560 1440 355 1420 215 895 170 730 355 497 770 1440 620 1440 400 1440 295 1230 235 985 400 699 855 1440 715 1440 455 1440 455 1440 375 1440 455 9

99.9 990 1440 860 1440 530 1440 750 1440 610 1440 530 1

99.99 1440 1440 875 1440 540 1440 955 1440 795 1440 540 1

5 5 40 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

10 15 95 5 55 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 15 25 120 5 70 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 20 30 145 10 90 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 25 40 170 15 105 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 30 45 190 20 125 0 30 0 0 0 0 0 35 50 215 30 140 5 40 0 0 0 0 0 40 60 245 35 165 5 55 0 0 0 0 0 45 70 290 45 195 5 65 0 0 0 0 0 50 80 320 50 225 5 85 0 0 0 0 0 55 95 390 60 275 5 105 0 5 0 0 0 60 110 450 75 325 10 135 0 10 0 5 0 65 130 515 90 385 25 180 0 15 0 10 0 70 150 590 105 440 40 215 5 30 0 20 0 75 170 660 125 500 50 260 5 50 5 35 0 80 195 770 145 585 65 300 10 80 5 55 0 85 225 885 170 675 80 360 25 125 10 90 5 90 260 1040 200 795 100 435 45 210 25 155 5 95 330 1330 255 1035 135 565 90 405 60 310 15 97 370 1440 295 1160 155 655 130 550 95 435 40 299 420 1440 340 1340 200 770 215 880 165 700 85 4

99.9 500 1440 415 1440 260 970 370 1440 295 1195 165 6

99.99 540 1440 425 1440 265 1030 480 1440 385 1440 230 9

80% (364 lb/A) 50% (227.5 lb/A) Max (455 lb/A)

USDA, GA - Raised Bed / Poly Tarped Field 3

80% (364 lb/A) 50% (227.5 

50% (227.5 lb/A)

Dover, FL- Raised Bed / Metalized Tarped

Max (455 lb/A)

Max (455 lb/A) 80% (364 lb/A) Max (455 lb/A) 80% (364 lb/A) 50% (227.5 

Page 112 of 193 
5 180 720 120 525 35 315 0 0 0 0 0 0

10 270 1060 205 785 95 530 0 0 0 0 0 015 335 1335 255 1015 135 675 0 0 0 0 0 020 400 1440 320 1245 175 880 0 0 0 0 0 025 460 1440 360 1440 205 1020 0 0 000030 515 1440 410 1440 240 1190 0 0 000035 590 1440 470 1440 275 1405 0 0 000040 670 1440 535 1440 310 1440 0 0 000045 735 1440 585 1440 350 1440 0 0 000050 810 1440 660 1440 400 1440 0 10 050555 915 1440 740 1440 455 1440 0 30 0 25 0 260 1005 1440 805 1440 495 1440 5 55 5 50 0 465 1075 1440 865 1440 530 1440 20 90 15 80 5 670 1135 1440 925 1440 560 1440 35 130 30 120 15 1075 1195 1440 975 1440 590 1440 60 195 50 180 30 1580 1260 1440 1025 1440 640 1440 90 310 75 280 55 2385 1330 1440 1080 1440 710 1440 145 510 125 455 90 3890 1430 1440 1185 1440 790 1440 250 895 215 790 155 6795 1440 1440 1360 1440 925 1440 480 1440 410 1440 285 1397 1440 1440 1440 1440 1005 1440 660 1440 560 1440 390 1499 1440 1440 1440 1440 1180 1440 1030 1440 860 1440 570 14

99.9 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1430 1440 965 14

99.99 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1295 14

5 135 370 110 300 60 180 0 0 0 0 0 0

10 165 470 130 375 75 230 0 0 0 0 0 015 180 545 145 440 85 260 0 0 0 0 0 020 195 600 155 485 90 290 0 0 0 0 0 025 210 655 165 525 95 305 0 0 0 0 0 030 220 690 175 555 100 325 0 0 0 0 0 035 225 715 180 575 100 335 0 0 0 0 0 040 230 735 185 590 105 350 0 0 0 0 0 045 235 755 190 610 110 360 0 0 0 0 0 050 245 775 195 625 110 370 0 0 0 0 0 055 250 800 200 645 115 385 0 20 0 15 0 560 255 830 205 670 120 400 5 45 0 40 0 265 265 870 215 705 125 425 15 75 10 60 5 470 275 925 225 740 135 450 30 105 25 90 10 675 290 985 235 790 140 480 45 145 40 125 20 880 310 1065 250 850 150 515 65 205 55 175 35 1285 330 1180 265 935 160 560 95 290 80 250 50 1790 370 1350 295 1070 180 630 135 410 115 350 75 2395 435 1440 355 1290 220 770 190 580 160 495 100 3297 500 1440 410 1440 255 920 225 680 185 570 115 3799 840 1440 645 1440 375 1440 285 900 240 760 155 51

99.9 1440 1440 1440 1440 980 1440 510 1440 430 1440 295 10

99.99 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1220 1440 1000 1440 650 14

80% (364 lb/A)

Drip Irrigation Application Method

50% (227.5 lb

80% (364 lb/A) 50% (227.5 lb

Nipomo, CA - Raised Bed / Poly Tarped

Max (455 lb/A) 80% (364 lb/A) 50% (227.5 lb/A) Max (455 lb/A)Max (455 lb/A) 80% (364 lb/A) 50% (227.5 lb/A) Max (455 lb/A)

Cantua, CA - Broadcast / Poly Tarped

Page 113 of 193 
D029088/Appendix E

Table 2: DMDS Buffer Zone Analysis - Ventura California Whole Field 40 Acre

Percentiles

Bradenton, FL - Shank 

Raised Bed / Poly Tarped

Yuma, AZ - Shank Raised 

Bed / Poly Tarped

Tifton, GA - Shank Raised 

Bed / VIF Tarped Field 1

Tifton, GA - Shank Raised 

Bed / Poly Tarped Field 2

Tifton, GA - Shank Raised 

Bed / Poly Tarped Field 3

Dover, FL - Shank Raised 

Bed / Metalized Tarped

Cantua, CA - 

Broadcast / Poly 

40 Acres 40 Acres 40 Acres 40 Acres 40 Acres 40 Acres 40 Acres 

50000000

100 0 0 0 0 0 0 150 0 0 0 0 0 0 200 0 0 0 0 0 0 250 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 0 0 0 0 0 0 350 0 0 0 0 0 0 400 0 0 0 0 0 0 450 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 10 200 5 5 010 

55 25 45 0 20 10 5 30 

60 50 80 5 40 25 10 55 

65 80 125 10 70 40 15 90 

70 130 185 25 110 65 30 130 

75 210 275 50 180 100 50 195 

80 375 440 85 325 160 80 310 

85 755 775 160 625 275 125 510 

90 1440 1440 305 1190 480 210 895 

95 1440 1440 545 1440 895 405 1440 

97 1440 1440 765 1440 1230 550 1440 

99 1440 1440 1175 1440 1440 880 1440 

99.9 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 

99.99 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 

DMDS - Ventura Whole Field PERFUM Buffer Results

Appendix E/Figure 1: Shank Injection Whole Field Buffer Analysis Using Ventura 

Meteorological Data - Maximum Application Rate/40 Acres

0

102030405060708090

100110

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500

Distance (m)

Percentile

Bradenton, FL - Shank Raised Bed Yuma, AZ - Shank Raised Bed / PoTifton, GA - Shank Raised Bed / VITifton, GA - Shank Raised Bed / PoTifton, GA - Shank Raised Bed / PoDover, FL - Shank Raised Bed / MeCantua, CA - Shank Broadcast / PoNipomo, CA - Drip Irrigation Raised 

Page 114 of 193 
D029088/Appendix E

Table 3: DMDS Buffer Zone Analysis - Ventura California Maximum 40 Acre

Percentiles

Bradenton, FL - Shank 

Raised Bed / Poly Tarped

Yuma, AZ - Shank Raised 

Bed / Poly Tarped

Tifton, GA - Shank Raised 

Bed / VIF Tarped Field 1

Tifton, GA - Shank Raised 

Bed / Poly Tarped Field 2

Tifton, GA - Shank Raised 

Bed / Poly Tarped Field 3

Dover, FL - Shank Raised 

Bed / Metalized Tarped

Cantua, CA 

Broadcast / P

40 Acres 40 Acres 40 Acres 40 Acres 40 Acres 40 Acres 40 Ac

5 1440 1440 5 970 115 40 720 

10 1440 1440 95 1145 310 95 106

15 1440 1440 135 1360 385 120 133

20 1440 1440 180 1440 440 145 144

25 1440 1440 245 1440 495 170 144

30 1440 1440 300 1440 560 190 144

35 1440 1440 370 1440 620 215 144

40 1440 1440 435 1440 680 245 144

45 1440 1440 485 1440 810 290 144

50 1440 1440 540 1440 965 320 144

55 1440 1440 600 1440 1120 390 144

60 1440 1440 660 1440 1295 450 144

65 1440 1440 765 1440 1440 515 144

70 1440 1440 870 1440 1440 590 144

75 1440 1440 970 1440 1440 660 144

80 1440 1440 1090 1440 1440 770 14485 1440 1440 1225 1440 1440 885 14490 1440 1440 1375 1440 1440 1040 144

95 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1330 144

97 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 144

99 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 144

99.9 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 144

99.99 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 144

DMDS - Ventura Maximum PERFUM Buffer Results

Appendix E/Figure 2: Shank Injection Maximum Buffer Analysis Using Ventura 

Meteorological Data - Maximum Application Rate/40 Acres

0

102030405060708090

100110

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500

Distance (m)

Percentile

Bradenton, FL - Shank Raised Bed / Yuma, AZ - Shank Raised Bed / Poly Tifton, GA - Shank Raised Bed / VIF Tifton, GA - Shank Raised Bed / Poly Tifton, GA - Shank Raised Bed / Poly Dover, FL - Shank Raised Bed / MetaCantua, CA - Shank Broadcast / Poly Nipomo, CA - Drip Irrigation Raised B

Page 115 of 193 
D029088/Appendix E

Table 4: DMDS Data Analysis - Tallahassee Florida PERFUM Buffer Results For All Flux Types For 5 And 40 Acre Square Fields

Percentiles

5 A 40 A 5 A 40 A 5 A 40 A 5 A 40 A 5 A 40 A 5 A 40 A

5 290 1235 205 870 75 420 0 0 0 0 0 0

10 400 1440 325 1195 195 730 0 0 0 0 0 015 485 1440 390 1440 235 905 0 0 0 0 0 020 550 1440 445 1440 280 1025 0 0 0 0 0 025 605 1440 500 1440 315 1215 0 0 0 0 0 030 680 1440 560 1440 345 1395 0 0 0 0 0 035 785 1440 640 1440 375 1440 0 0 0 0 0 040 845 1440 675 1440 415 1440 0 0 0 0 0 045 920 1440 740 1440 465 1440 0 0 0 0 0 050 1025 1440 825 1440 525 1440 0 10 0 10 0 555 1115 1440 920 1440 595 1440 0 35 0 30 0 2060 1225 1440 1010 1440 630 1440 10 70 5 60 0 4565 1315 1440 1080 1440 645 1440 25 115 20 105 10 8070 1400 1440 1155 1440 675 1440 50 185 40 170 25 13575 1440 1440 1185 1440 715 1440 80 290 70 265 50 21080 1440 1440 1220 1440 815 1440 130 445 115 410 80 32085 1440 1440 1345 1440 890 1440 205 710 175 635 130 47590 1440 1440 1440 1440 975 1440 325 1175 285 1015 210 76095 1440 1440 1440 1440 1140 1440 565 1440 485 1440 340 133097 1440 1440 1440 1440 1245 1440 765 1440 650 1440 455 144099 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1220 1440 1020 1440 650 1440

99.9 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1115 1440

99.99 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440

5 740 1440 620 1440 420 1440 0 0 0 0 0 0

10 850 1440 715 1440 475 1440 0 0 0 0 0 015 955 1440 810 1440 535 1440 0 0 0 0 0 020 1085 1440 910 1440 575 1440 0 0 0 0 0 025 1190 1440 980 1440 650 1440 0 0 0 0 0 030 1290 1440 1090 1440 735 1440 0 0 0 0 0 035 1410 1440 1180 1440 780 1440 0 0 0 0 0 040 1440 1440 1320 1440 860 1440 0 0 0 0 0 045 1440 1440 1440 1440 990 1440 0 10 0 5 0 550 1440 1440 1440 1440 1080 1440 0 30 0 30 0 2055 1440 1440 1440 1440 1160 1440 10 65 5 60 5 5060 1440 1440 1440 1440 1210 1440 25 105 20 100 15 8565 1440 1440 1440 1440 1290 1440 45 170 45 165 35 14070 1440 1440 1440 1440 1350 1440 75 265 70 250 60 22075 1440 1440 1440 1440 1405 1440 120 405 115 385 95 33580 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 195 640 180 595 150 51085 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 310 1040 285 960 230 78590 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 515 1440 460 1440 355 126595 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 890 1440 775 1440 570 144097 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1220 1440 1050 1440 760 144099 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1195 1440

99.9 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440

99.99 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440

Max (455 lb/A) 80% (364 lb/A) 50% (227.5 lb/A)

Shank Injection Application Method

Ventura Maximum PERFUM Buffer Results Ventura Whole Field PERFUM Buffer Results

Max (455 lb/A) 80% (364 lb/A) 50% (227.5 lb/A) Max (455 lb/A) 80% (364 lb/A) 50% (227.5 lb/A)Max (455 lb/A) 80% (364 lb/A) 50% (227.5 lb/A)

Bradenton, FL - Raised Bed / Poly Tarped

Yuma, AZ - Raised Bed / Poly Tarped

Page 116 of 193 
5 00000000000

10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 65 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 5 100 0 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 5 140 0 85 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 30 20 180 5 110 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 35 35 215 5 140 0 35 0 0 0 0 0 40 50 260 5 170 0 40 0 0 0 0 0 45 60 305 20 210 0 55 0 0 0 0 0 50 65 345 30 225 0 70 0 0 0 0 0 55 80 370 40 250 5 85 0 0 0 0 0 60 90 405 55 285 5 105 0 0 0 0 0 65 100 450 65 310 5 130 0 5 0 0 0 70 115 490 75 345 5 160 0 15 0 5 0 75 135 540 95 410 15 195 0 45 0 25 0 80 160 625 115 480 35 245 5 75 0 50 0 85 190 755 135 580 50 285 15 130 5 95 0 90 230 930 170 695 70 355 40 205 15 155 5 95 275 1150 215 850 105 465 75 345 50 245 5 97 315 1280 240 990 120 520 100 420 75 325 20 99 375 1440 295 1240 150 655 175 690 130 550 60 3

99.9 475 1440 380 1440 190 815 305 1230 240 965 130 5

99.99 495 1440 385 1440 195 895 435 1440 335 1440 175 7

5 210 830 155 615 65 315 0 0 0 0 0 

10 260 985 200 760 110 430 0 0 0 0 0 15 300 1135 235 875 130 510 0 0 0 0 0 20 340 1335 265 1020 150 575 0 0 0 0 0 25 385 1440 300 1190 170 660 0 0 0 0 0 30 420 1440 335 1325 200 750 0 0 0 0 0 35 455 1440 360 1440 205 840 0 0 0 0 0 40 510 1440 405 1440 225 950 0 0 0 0 0 45 575 1440 445 1440 235 1025 0 0 0 0 0 50 610 1440 470 1440 250 1115 0 10 0 5 0 55 640 1440 495 1440 270 1155 0 25 0 20 0 60 670 1440 510 1440 285 1220 5 55 5 45 0 65 690 1440 525 1440 305 1300 20 95 15 85 5 70 710 1440 550 1440 335 1380 40 155 30 140 15 75 740 1440 580 1440 380 1440 65 250 55 220 35 80 785 1440 645 1440 420 1440 105 380 90 335 55 285 910 1440 735 1440 480 1440 160 585 135 510 90 390 1060 1440 865 1440 550 1440 245 915 205 780 135 595 1210 1440 990 1440 635 1440 400 1440 330 1325 210 897 1310 1440 1085 1440 690 1440 515 1440 425 1440 250 199 1440 1440 1285 1440 835 1440 695 1440 570 1440 390 1

99.9 1440 1440 1440 1440 945 1440 1200 1440 990 1440 650 1

99.99 1440 1440 1440 1440 980 1440 1440 1440 1365 1440 875 1

Max (455 lb/A) 80% (364 lb/A) 50% (227.5 

USDA, GA - Raised Bed / VIF Tarped Field 1

USDA, GA - Raised Bed / Poly Tarped Field 2

Max (455 lb/A) 80% (364 lb/A) 50% (227.5 lb/A) Max (455 lb/A) 80% (364 lb/A) 50% (227.5 Max (455 lb/A) 80% (364 lb/A) 50% (227.5 lb/A)

Page 117 of 193 
5 5 85 0 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

10 30 155 5 90 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 15 60 255 35 165 0 45 0 0 0 0 0 20 70 295 45 200 5 65 0 0 0 0 0 25 95 365 65 260 5 110 0 0 0 0 0 30 115 445 80 330 20 140 0 0 0 0 0 35 130 505 90 370 35 170 0 0 0 0 0 40 145 570 105 420 40 200 0 0 0 0 0 45 165 635 120 470 50 240 0 0 0 0 0 50 185 690 135 525 60 270 0 0 0 0 0 55 200 750 150 585 70 300 0 5 0 5 0 60 220 845 165 650 80 335 0 20 0 10 0 65 235 970 175 715 90 370 5 40 0 25 0 70 255 1090 195 780 100 415 5 65 5 50 0 75 280 1170 215 860 115 465 20 105 10 80 0 80 310 1280 240 960 135 545 35 160 25 125 5 85 355 1440 280 1125 160 630 60 250 45 190 15 90 420 1440 330 1385 190 765 95 380 75 310 35 95 515 1440 410 1440 235 985 160 630 130 510 65 297 550 1440 445 1440 265 1085 210 825 160 670 90 399 620 1440 500 1440 330 1305 310 1255 250 1020 155 6

99.9 960 1440 770 1440 445 1440 550 1440 445 1440 275 1

99.99 965 1440 815 1440 465 1440 785 1440 610 1440 415 1

5 0 20 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

10 5 50 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 5 85 5 45 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 20 20 115 5 65 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 25 30 140 5 90 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 30 35 165 15 105 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 35 45 185 20 125 0 35 0 0 0 0 0 40 50 215 30 145 5 45 0 0 0 0 0 45 60 245 35 165 5 55 0 0 0 0 0 50 65 275 40 190 5 70 0 0 0 0 0 55 75 310 50 215 5 80 0 0 0 0 0 60 85 335 55 240 5 95 0 5 0 5 0 65 90 370 65 265 5 115 0 10 0 5 0 70 100 410 70 295 15 130 0 25 0 15 0 75 115 460 80 335 25 155 5 45 0 30 0 80 130 515 90 380 30 175 5 75 5 50 0 85 150 605 110 445 40 215 20 115 5 80 0 90 180 715 130 545 55 265 40 180 20 130 5 95 220 885 160 665 70 330 70 300 45 220 5 97 245 1030 185 765 85 390 90 380 65 290 20 99 300 1290 220 955 110 475 145 600 110 465 45 2

99.9 420 1440 355 1440 200 820 255 1090 195 820 100 4

99.99 515 1440 410 1440 200 975 385 1440 300 1250 175 7

Max (455 lb/A)Max (455 lb/A)

Dover, FL- Raised Bed / Metalized Tarped

Max (455 lb/A)Max (455 lb/A) 80% (364 lb/A) 50% (227.5 lb/A) 80% (364 lb/A) 50% (227.5 

USDA, GA - Raised Bed / Poly Tarped Field 3

80% (364 lb/A) 50% (227.5 lb/A) 80% (364 lb/A) 50% (227.5 

Page 118 of 193 
5 0 890 165 640 70 325 220 0 0 0 0 0

10 0 1155 215 860 115 460 285 0 0 0 0 015 0 1345 280 1055 145 590 355 0 0 0 0 020 0 1440 305 1230 170 655 400 0 0 0 0 025 0 1440 335 1370 195 750 425 0 0 0 0 030 0 1440 385 1440 220 880 480 0 0 0 0 035 0 1440 440 1440 250 1010 555 0 000040 0 1440 475 1440 275 1150 605 0 000045 0 1440 535 1440 310 1290 655 0 000050 0 1440 575 1440 340 1425 735 15 0 10 0 555 0 1440 620 1440 385 1440 785 40 0 30 0 160 5 1440 690 1440 425 1440 865 70 5 60 0 465 10 1440 770 1440 440 1440 930 115 20 100 5 770 25 1440 810 1440 460 1440 1010 180 40 160 20 1275 50 1440 845 1440 485 1440 1060 270 65 245 40 1780 75 1440 860 1440 510 1440 1110 410 100 365 65 2685 115 1440 895 1440 575 1440 1125 615 150 535 100 3890 165 1440 1000 1440 650 1440 1215 940 225 815 155 5895 260 1440 1195 1440 770 1440 1420 1440 370 1370 250 9397 315 1440 1335 1440 860 1440 1440 1440 480 1440 325 1299 465 1440 1440 1440 1100 1440 1440 1440 735 1440 455 14

99.9 810 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1170 1440 800 14

99.99 1180 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1195 14

5 115 350 90 275 45 155 0 0 0 0 0 0

10 135 415 105 330 60 190 0 0 0 0 0 015 150 460 120 370 65 220 0 0 0 0 0 020 165 520 130 415 75 245 0 0 0 0 0 025 175 555 140 445 80 270 0 0 0 0 0 030 185 595 150 480 85 290 0 0 0 0 0 035 200 650 160 525 95 310 0 0 0 0 0 040 215 700 170 565 100 340 0 5 0 5 0 045 230 750 185 605 110 365 0 15 0 10 0 550 245 820 195 655 115 395 5 35 0 25 0 155 260 890 210 715 125 430 10 55 5 40 0 260 280 965 225 775 135 465 20 80 10 65 5 365 300 1065 240 830 145 505 30 115 20 90 5 570 320 1135 260 905 155 550 40 155 30 125 15 775 340 1225 275 980 170 590 60 210 45 170 25 1080 365 1330 295 1060 185 650 80 275 65 230 35 1485 395 1440 320 1155 200 705 105 370 85 305 50 1990 440 1440 360 1325 225 795 145 505 120 420 70 2695 515 1440 430 1440 270 980 210 750 175 620 110 4097 575 1440 470 1440 300 1100 260 935 215 765 135 5099 690 1440 570 1440 385 1440 355 1305 295 1075 190 69

99.9 835 1440 705 1440 475 1440 575 1440 480 1440 315 12

99.99 875 1440 745 1440 515 1440 815 1440 680 1440 455 14

Cantua, CA - Broadcast / Poly Tarped

Nipomo, CA - Raised Bed / Poly Tarped

Max (455 lb/A) Max (455 lb/A)

Drip Irrigation Application Method

80% (364 lb/A) 50% (227.5 lb/A) 80% (364 lb/A) 50% (227.5 lb

Max (455 lb/A) 80% (364 lb/A) 50% (227.5 lb/A) Max (455 lb/A) 80% (364 lb/A) 50% (227.5 lb

Page 119 of 193 
D029088/Appendix E

Table 5: DMDS Data Analysis - Flint Michigan PERFUM Buffer Results For All Flux Types For 5 And 40 Acre Square Fields

Percentiles

5 A 40 A 5 A 40 A 5 A 40 A 5 A 40 A 5 A 40 A 5 A 40 A

5 330 1200 270 955 170 595 0 0 0 0 0 0

10 390 1425 325 1165 205 725 0 0 0 0 0 015 440 1440 365 1315 235 835 0 0 0 0 0 020 480 1440 395 1440 255 910 0 0 0 0 0 025 520 1440 425 1440 275 1000 0 0 0 0 0 030 555 1440 460 1440 300 1095 0 0 0 0 0 035 595 1440 495 1440 325 1205 0 0 0 0 0 040 645 1440 540 1440 350 1335 0 0 0 0 0 045 695 1440 580 1440 385 1440 0 5 0 5 0 050 755 1440 630 1440 410 1440 0 20 0 15 0 555 825 1440 690 1440 455 1440 5 45 5 40 0 2560 940 1440 775 1440 505 1440 15 75 10 70 5 5065 1070 1440 880 1440 570 1440 35 125 25 110 15 8570 1235 1440 1005 1440 660 1440 55 190 50 175 35 13575 1375 1440 1140 1440 725 1440 85 290 75 260 55 20580 1440 1440 1270 1440 820 1440 130 430 115 385 85 30085 1440 1440 1440 1440 970 1440 200 650 175 585 130 45090 1440 1440 1440 1440 1100 1440 305 1035 265 905 195 67095 1440 1440 1440 1440 1285 1440 500 1440 435 1440 310 112597 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 665 1440 570 1440 410 144099 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1145 1440 970 1440 675 1440

99.9 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1300 1440

99.99 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440

5 455 1440 375 1385 250 870 0 0 0 0 0 0

10 530 1440 440 1440 290 1040 0 0 0 0 0 015 595 1440 500 1440 335 1220 0 0 0 0 0 020 645 1440 540 1440 365 1350 0 0 0 0 0 025 695 1440 590 1440 400 1440 0 0 0 0 0 030 750 1440 630 1440 430 1440 0 0 0 0 0 035 810 1440 685 1440 465 1440 0 0 0 0 0 040 875 1440 735 1440 500 1440 0 0 0 0 0 045 970 1440 810 1440 550 1440 0 10 0 5 0 550 1080 1440 905 1440 610 1440 0 30 0 25 0 2055 1190 1440 985 1440 670 1440 10 60 10 55 5 4560 1315 1440 1105 1440 740 1440 25 105 20 95 15 8065 1440 1440 1225 1440 820 1440 45 165 45 155 30 12570 1440 1440 1360 1440 900 1440 75 255 70 240 55 19575 1440 1440 1440 1440 1020 1440 120 400 110 370 85 30080 1440 1440 1440 1440 1130 1440 190 620 170 565 130 45085 1440 1440 1440 1440 1245 1440 290 970 260 865 195 66590 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 445 1440 385 1360 285 100095 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 710 1440 615 1440 450 144097 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 955 1440 825 1440 595 144099 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1360 1440 950 1440

99.9 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440

99.99 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440

Bradenton, FL - Raised Bed / Poly Tarped

Yuma, AZ - Raised Bed / Poly Tarped

Max (455 lb/A) 80% (364 lb/A) 50% (227.5 lb/A)Max (455 lb/A) 80% (364 lb/A) 50% (227.5 lb/A) Max (455 lb/A) 80% (364 lb/A) 50% (227.5 lb/A)

Max (455 lb/A) 80% (364 lb/A) 50% (227.5 lb/A)

Shank Injection Application Method

Ventura Maximum PERFUM Buffer Results Ventura Whole Field PERFUM Buffer Results

Page 120 of 193 
5 05000000000

10 0 25 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 45 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 5 65 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 5 85 0 45 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 30 5 110 5 60 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 35 20 135 5 80 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 40 30 165 5 105 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 45 40 195 5 130 0 30 0 0 0 0 0 50 50 225 20 150 0 40 0 0 0 0 0 55 60 270 30 185 5 60 0 0 0 0 0 60 75 325 40 225 5 85 0 0 0 0 0 65 85 385 55 275 5 110 0 5 0 0 0 70 100 435 70 315 5 145 0 15 0 5 0 75 120 500 85 375 5 175 0 35 0 20 0 80 140 580 100 435 20 215 5 60 0 40 0 85 170 695 120 520 40 260 10 100 5 70 0 90 205 845 150 630 60 310 30 165 10 120 0 95 250 1025 190 780 90 405 65 295 45 225 5 97 285 1200 220 890 110 485 95 400 70 310 10 99 360 1440 275 1145 145 615 160 650 120 515 50 2

99.9 495 1440 385 1440 200 910 295 1210 235 930 125 5

99.99 560 1440 415 1440 205 930 415 1440 340 1385 190 7

5 255 530 115 410 55 220 0 0 0 0 0 

10 305 640 140 505 70 270 0 0 0 0 0 15 340 720 160 575 85 320 0 0 0 0 0 20 380 800 175 630 100 370 0 0 0 0 0 25 420 885 200 710 115 425 0 0 0 0 0 30 455 1010 215 795 125 475 0 0 0 0 0 35 490 1100 235 870 140 525 0 0 0 0 0 40 545 1245 260 980 155 585 0 0 0 0 0 45 595 1400 285 1110 175 650 0 0 0 0 0 50 660 1440 325 1275 195 745 0 10 0 5 0 55 725 1440 360 1440 215 840 0 30 0 25 0 60 815 1440 405 1440 240 970 5 60 5 50 0 65 925 1440 445 1440 270 1095 20 100 15 85 5 70 1060 1440 495 1440 300 1235 40 155 35 135 15 75 1185 1440 545 1440 340 1380 65 235 55 205 30 80 1315 1440 605 1440 385 1440 100 345 80 300 50 285 1440 1440 690 1440 435 1440 145 500 120 430 75 290 1440 1440 795 1440 505 1440 210 740 175 625 115 495 1440 1440 935 1440 610 1440 330 1235 275 1030 180 697 1440 1440 1060 1440 675 1440 430 1440 355 1385 235 999 1440 1440 1250 1440 830 1440 640 1440 530 1440 360 1

99.9 1440 1440 1440 1440 1175 1440 1170 1440 965 1440 655 1

99.99 1440 1440 1440 1440 1295 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1035 1

Max (455 lb/A) 80% (364 lb/A) 50% (227.5 lb/A) 50% (227.5 

USDA, GA - Raised Bed / VIF Tarped Field 1

USDA, GA - Raised Bed / Poly Tarped Field 2

Max (455 lb/A) 80% (364 lb/A)

Max (455 lb/A) 80% (364 lb/A) 50% (227.5 lb/A) Max (455 lb/A) 80% (364 lb/A) 50% (227.5 

Page 121 of 193 
5 50 205 30 140 0 45 0 0 0 0 0 

10 70 265 45 190 5 70 0 0 0 0 0 15 80 310 55 220 5 85 0 0 0 0 0 20 90 350 65 260 15 110 0 0 0 0 0 25 105 390 75 285 20 130 0 0 0 0 0 30 115 420 80 315 30 145 0 0 0 0 0 35 125 455 90 350 35 170 0 0 0 0 0 40 135 505 100 385 40 190 0 0 0 0 0 45 145 560 110 420 50 210 0 0 0 0 0 50 160 615 120 465 55 235 0 0 0 0 0 55 175 685 130 520 60 270 0 10 0 5 0 60 195 755 145 580 70 310 0 25 0 20 0 65 215 845 165 650 85 355 5 50 0 40 0 70 235 955 180 715 95 395 15 80 5 65 0 75 265 1100 205 830 110 465 25 125 15 100 5 80 300 1275 235 965 130 535 45 180 30 140 5 85 355 1440 275 1135 150 625 65 255 50 200 20 90 405 1440 320 1330 180 760 95 365 75 295 35 95 510 1440 400 1440 230 1015 150 570 120 465 65 297 575 1440 465 1440 275 1185 195 755 155 610 90 399 725 1440 585 1440 360 1440 300 1190 245 965 150 6

99.9 1010 1440 870 1440 490 1440 565 1440 470 1440 300 1

99.99 1120 1440 915 1440 510 1440 885 1440 710 1440 455 1

5 0 65 0 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

10 5 85 0 45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 15 105 5 60 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 20 20 125 5 75 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 25 30 140 5 85 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 30 35 155 10 100 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 35 40 175 20 115 0 30 0 0 0 0 0 40 45 190 25 125 0 35 0 0 0 0 0 45 50 210 30 140 5 45 0 0 0 0 0 50 55 235 35 160 5 55 0 0 0 0 0 55 65 260 40 180 5 65 0 0 0 0 0 60 70 290 45 205 5 80 0 5 0 5 0 65 80 320 50 230 5 95 0 15 0 5 0 70 90 360 60 260 5 115 0 30 0 15 0 75 100 415 70 305 15 135 5 55 0 35 0 80 120 485 80 355 25 165 10 80 5 55 0 85 140 565 100 420 35 205 20 115 5 80 0 90 165 695 120 515 50 260 35 165 20 120 5 95 210 880 155 660 75 340 65 265 45 200 5 97 245 1080 185 780 90 405 85 350 60 270 15 99 320 1440 250 1075 135 590 140 560 105 440 45 2

99.9 525 1440 405 1440 215 960 265 1145 205 885 110 5

99.99 550 1440 410 1440 235 965 450 1440 375 1440 195 9

Dover, FL- Raised Bed / Metalized Tarped

Max (455 lb/A) 80% (364 lb/A) 50% (227.5 lb/A) 80% (364 lb/A) 50% (227.5 

USDA, GA - Raised Bed / Poly Tarped Field 3

Max (455 lb/A)

Max (455 lb/A) 80% (364 lb/A) 50% (227.5 lb/A) Max (455 lb/A) 80% (364 lb/A) 50% (227.5 

Page 122 of 193 
5 170 605 130 475 65 255 0 0 0 0 0 0

10 200 710 155 555 85 320 0 0 0 0 0 015 230 815 180 655 100 375 0 0 0 0 0 020 255 925 205 725 115 425 0 0 0 0 0 025 280 1030 225 810 135 490 0 0 0 0 0 030 305 1120 245 890 145 540 0 0 0 0 0 035 325 1210 265 965 160 585 0 0 0 0 0 040 355 1345 285 1065 170 635 0 0 0 0 0 045 390 1440 310 1190 190 715 0 0 0 0 0 050 430 1440 345 1345 210 800 0 10 0 5 0 055 470 1440 385 1440 235 900 0 30 0 25 0 160 525 1440 425 1440 260 1020 5 60 5 50 0 365 585 1440 475 1440 295 1170 20 100 15 85 5 570 640 1440 525 1440 325 1310 40 155 30 135 15 975 715 1440 585 1440 365 1440 65 230 55 200 30 1480 815 1440 650 1440 405 1440 95 345 80 300 50 2085 905 1440 740 1440 465 1440 145 505 120 435 80 3090 1035 1440 845 1440 550 1440 215 750 180 640 120 4495 1245 1440 1035 1440 675 1440 335 1265 285 1065 190 7297 1420 1440 1185 1440 760 1440 445 1440 375 1440 250 9799 1440 1440 1360 1440 915 1440 705 1440 590 1440 400 14

99.9 1440 1440 1440 1440 1285 1440 1335 1440 1120 1440 745 14

99.99 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1075 14

5 130 435 105 350 55 200 0 0 0 0 0 0

10 155 495 120 395 65 230 0 0 0 0 0 015 165 545 130 440 70 255 0 0 0 0 0 020 175 595 140 480 80 280 0 0 0 0 0 025 190 640 150 515 85 300 0 0 0 0 0 030 200 680 160 545 90 325 0 0 0 0 0 035 210 720 165 575 95 345 0 0 0 0 0 040 220 760 175 605 100 365 0 0 0 0 0 045 230 795 185 640 105 380 0 0 0 0 0 050 240 845 190 670 110 405 0 10 0 5 0 055 250 890 200 705 120 425 0 25 0 20 0 560 265 930 210 745 125 445 5 50 5 40 0 265 275 985 220 780 130 470 15 80 10 65 5 470 290 1045 235 825 135 495 30 125 25 105 10 675 305 1115 245 885 145 530 50 180 40 150 20 980 330 1195 265 950 155 575 75 255 60 215 35 1385 355 1320 285 1045 170 625 100 350 85 295 50 1990 390 1440 315 1170 195 715 140 480 115 400 70 2695 460 1440 375 1440 225 890 195 685 160 565 100 3697 525 1440 420 1440 255 1175 235 835 195 685 120 4499 760 1440 600 1440 320 1440 315 1175 260 955 160 61

99.9 1440 1440 1440 1440 575 1440 530 1440 425 1440 265 14

99.99 1440 1440 1440 1440 865 1440 1335 1440 1005 1440 510 14

Max (455 lb/A) 80% (364 lb/A) 50% (227.5 lb/A) Max (455 lb/A) 80% (364 lb/A) 50% (227.5 lb

Drip Irrigation Application Method

80% (364 lb/A) 50% (227.5 lb/A) Max (455 lb/A) 80% (364 lb/A) 50% (227.5 lb

Nipomo, CA - Raised Bed / Poly Tarped

Max (455 lb/A)

Cantua, CA - Broadcast / Poly Tarped

Page 123 of 193 
D029088/Appendix E

Table 6: DMDS Buffer Zone Analysis - Flint Michigan Whole Field 40 Acre

Percentiles

Bradenton, FL - Shank 

Raised Bed / Poly Tarped

Yuma, AZ - Shank Raised 

Bed / Poly Tarped

Tifton, GA - Shank Raised 

Bed / VIF Tarped Field 1

Tifton, GA - Shank Raised 

Bed / Poly Tarped Field 2

Tifton, GA - Shank Raised 

Bed / Poly Tarped Field 3

Dover, FL - Shank Raised 

Bed / Metalized Tarped

Cantua, CA 

Broadcast / P

40 Acres 40 Acres 40 Acres 40 Acres 40 Acres 40 Acres 40 Ac

50000000

100 0 0 0 0 0 0 150 0 0 0 0 0 0 200 0 0 0 0 0 0 250 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 0 0 0 0 0 0 350 0 0 0 0 0 0 400 0 0 0 0 0 0 455100 0 0 0 0 

50 20 30 0 10 0 0 10 

55 45 60 0 30 10 0 30 

60 75 105 0 60 25 5 60 

65 125 165 5 100 50 15 100 

70 190 255 15 155 80 30 155 

75 290 400 35 235 125 55 230 

80 430 620 60 345 180 80 345 

85 650 970 100 500 255 115 505 

90 1035 1440 165 740 365 165 750 

95 1440 1440 295 1235 570 265 126

97 1440 1440 400 1440 755 350 144

99 1440 1440 650 1440 1190 560 144

99.9 1440 1440 1210 1440 1440 1145 144

99.99 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 144

DMDS - Ventura Whole Field PERFUM Buffer Results

Appendix E/Figure 3: Whole Field Buffer Analysis Using Ventura Meteorological Data 

Maximum Application Rate/40 Acres

0

102030405060708090

100110

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 

Distance (m)

Percentile Bradenton, FL - Sha

Yuma, AZ - Shank RTifton, GA - Shank Tifton, GA - Shank Tifton, GA - Shank Dover, FL - Shank RCantua, CA - Shank Nipomo, CA - Drip I

Page 124 of 193 
D029088/Appendix E

Table 7: DMDS Buffer Zone Analysis - Flint Michigan Maximum 40 Acre

Percentiles

Bradenton, FL - Shank 

Raised Bed / Poly Tarped

Yuma, AZ - Shank Raised 

Bed / Poly Tarped

Tifton, GA - Shank Raised 

Bed / VIF Tarped Field 1

Tifton, GA - Shank Raised 

Bed / Poly Tarped Field 2

Tifton, GA - Shank Raised 

Bed / Poly Tarped Field 3

Dover, FL - Shank Raised 

Bed / Metalized Tarped

Cantua, CA 

Broadcast / P

40 Acres 40 Acres 40 Acres 40 Acres 40 Acres 40 Acres 40 Ac

5 1440 1200 5 530 205 65 605 

10 1440 1425 25 640 265 85 710 

15 1440 1440 45 720 310 105 815 

20 1440 1440 65 800 350 125 925 

25 1440 1440 85 885 390 140 103

30 1440 1440 110 1010 420 155 112

35 1440 1440 135 1100 455 175 121

40 1440 1440 165 1245 505 190 134

45 1440 1440 195 1400 560 210 144

50 1440 1440 225 1440 615 235 144

55 1440 1440 270 1440 685 260 144

60 1440 1440 325 1440 755 290 144

65 1440 1440 385 1440 845 320 144

70 1440 1440 435 1440 955 360 144

75 1440 1440 500 1440 1100 415 144

80 1440 1440 580 1440 1275 485 144

85 1440 1440 695 1440 1440 565 144

90 1440 1440 845 1440 1440 695 144

95 1440 1440 1025 1440 1440 880 14497 1440 1440 1200 1440 1440 1080 144

99 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 144

99.9 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 144

99.99 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 144

DMDS - Ventura Maximum PERFUM Buffer Results

110

Appendix E/Figure 4: Shank Injection Maximum Buffer Analysis Using Ventura 

Meteorological Data - Maximum Application Rate/40 Acres

0

102030405060708090

100110

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 

Distance (m)

Percentile

Bradenton, FL - ShaYuma, AZ - Shank RTifton, GA - Shank RTifton, GA - Shank RTifton, GA - Shank RDover, FL - Shank RCantua, CA - Shank Nipomo, CA - Drip I

110

Page 125 of 193 
D029088/Appendix E

Table 8: DMDS Data Analysis - Bradenton Florida PERFUM Buffer Results For All Flux Types For 5 And 40 Acre Square Fields

Percentiles

5 A 40 A 5 A 40 A 5 A 40 A 5 A 40 A 5 A 40 A 5 A 40 A

5 510 1440 420 1440 255 960 0 0 0 0 0 0

10 685 1440 570 1440 375 1425 0 0 0 0 0 015 810 1440 685 1440 455 1440 0 0 0 0 0 020 940 1440 780 1440 520 1440 0 0 0 0 0 025 1040 1440 860 1440 555 1440 0 0 0 0 0 030 1110 1440 925 1440 620 1440 0 0 0 0 0 035 1210 1440 1020 1440 695 1440 0 0 0 0 0 040 1325 1440 1115 1440 750 1440 0 0 0 0 0 045 1440 1440 1230 1440 820 1440 0 0 0 0 0 050 1440 1440 1315 1440 875 1440 0 5 0 0 0 055 1440 1440 1400 1440 940 1440 0 20 0 20 0 1560 1440 1440 1440 1440 995 1440 5 50 5 45 0 4065 1440 1440 1440 1440 1055 1440 20 90 15 85 10 7070 1440 1440 1440 1440 1125 1440 40 150 40 140 25 12075 1440 1440 1440 1440 1185 1440 70 230 65 220 50 18580 1440 1440 1440 1440 1275 1440 110 355 105 335 85 28585 1440 1440 1440 1440 1365 1440 185 585 170 545 140 45090 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 335 1095 300 985 240 77595 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 690 1440 605 1440 450 144097 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 980 1440 845 1440 610 144099 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1355 1440 955 1440

99.9 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440

99.99 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440

5 945 1440 800 1440 555 1440 0 0 0 0 0 0

10 1125 1440 935 1440 645 1440 0 0 0 0 0 015 1260 1440 1060 1440 720 1440 0 0 0 0 0 020 1405 1440 1190 1440 810 1440 0 0 0 0 0 025 1440 1440 1305 1440 885 1440 0 0 0 0 0 030 1440 1440 1410 1440 985 1440 0 0 0 0 0 035 1440 1440 1440 1440 1045 1440 0 0 0 0 0 040 1440 1440 1440 1440 1130 1440 0 0 0 0 0 045 1440 1440 1440 1440 1255 1440 0 0 0 0 0 050 1440 1440 1440 1440 1350 1440 0 20 0 20 0 1555 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 5 50 5 45 0 4060 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 20 85 15 85 15 7565 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 40 140 40 135 30 12070 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 65 215 60 205 55 18575 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 100 325 95 310 85 28080 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 165 505 155 480 135 43085 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 280 865 265 820 220 70090 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 515 1440 470 1440 375 125595 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1025 1440 895 1440 670 144097 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1430 1440 1240 1440 900 144099 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440

99.9 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440

99.99 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440

Bradenton, FL - Raised Bed / Poly Tarped

Yuma, AZ - Raised Bed / Poly Tarped

Max (455 lb/A) 80% (364 lb/A) 50% (227.5 lb/A)Max (455 lb/A) 80% (364 lb/A) 50% (227.5 lb/A) Max (455 lb/A) 80% (364 lb/A) 50% (227.5 lb/A)

Max (455 lb/A) 80% (364 lb/A) 50% (227.5 lb/A)

Shank Injection Application Method

Ventura Maximum PERFUM Buffer Results Ventura Whole Field PERFUM Buffer Results

Page 126 of 193 
5 00000000000

10 20 145 0 85 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 15 55 250 25 165 0 40 0 0 0 0 0 20 75 330 40 220 0 70 0 0 0 0 0 25 95 400 60 280 5 100 0 0 0 0 0 30 115 470 75 335 5 140 0 0 0 0 0 35 135 555 85 410 5 170 0 0 0 0 0 40 150 635 100 450 20 200 0 0 0 0 0 45 170 715 115 510 40 230 0 0 0 0 0 50 185 775 130 565 50 265 0 0 0 0 0 55 205 840 150 620 65 315 0 0 0 0 0 60 230 910 170 690 80 365 0 0 0 0 0 65 250 1000 190 760 95 410 0 10 0 5 0 70 280 1110 215 860 105 465 0 35 0 25 0 75 310 1235 235 950 125 525 5 70 5 55 0 80 335 1365 265 1050 135 590 25 120 10 95 0 85 375 1440 295 1200 155 655 45 190 35 155 5 90 430 1440 335 1390 180 765 80 305 65 255 25 95 515 1440 410 1440 225 950 145 545 115 430 60 297 555 1440 445 1440 255 1070 190 710 155 575 90 399 630 1440 515 1440 295 1250 300 1135 240 920 140 5

99.9 735 1440 565 1440 345 1440 505 1440 415 1440 250 1

99.99 800 1440 630 1440 355 1440 680 1440 540 1440 315 1

5 340 1285 260 1020 140 555 0 0 0 0 0 

10 445 1440 355 1380 200 805 0 0 0 0 0 15 525 1440 410 1440 235 925 0 0 0 0 0 20 565 1440 445 1440 270 1060 0 0 0 0 0 25 630 1440 520 1440 320 1260 0 0 0 0 0 30 695 1440 575 1440 360 1440 0 0 0 0 0 35 775 1440 630 1440 395 1440 0 0 0 0 0 40 825 1440 680 1440 415 1440 0 0 0 0 0 45 875 1440 715 1440 440 1440 0 0 0 0 0 50 920 1440 750 1440 465 1440 0 0 0 0 0 55 970 1440 785 1440 500 1440 0 15 0 15 0 60 1015 1440 820 1440 540 1440 0 40 0 40 0 65 1065 1440 865 1440 575 1440 15 75 10 70 5 70 1110 1440 915 1440 620 1440 30 125 30 120 20 75 1200 1440 1000 1440 670 1440 60 200 50 185 40 80 1290 1440 1075 1440 725 1440 95 310 85 285 65 285 1395 1440 1170 1440 790 1440 155 500 140 460 105 390 1440 1440 1305 1440 885 1440 270 890 240 795 175 695 1440 1440 1440 1440 1035 1440 500 1440 430 1440 305 197 1440 1440 1440 1440 1125 1440 675 1440 570 1440 395 199 1440 1440 1440 1440 1290 1440 1000 1440 835 1440 585 1

99.9 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1395 1440 975 1

99.99 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1305 1

Max (455 lb/A) 80% (364 lb/A) 50% (227.5 lb/A) 50% (227.5 

USDA, GA - Raised Bed / VIF Tarped Field 1

USDA, GA - Raised Bed / Poly Tarped Field 2

Max (455 lb/A) 80% (364 lb/A)

Max (455 lb/A) 80% (364 lb/A) 50% (227.5 lb/A) Max (455 lb/A) 80% (364 lb/A) 50% (227.5 

Page 127 of 193 
5 15 75 5 40 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 

10 45 170 30 110 5 30 0 0 0 0 0 15 70 240 45 170 10 65 0 0 0 0 0 20 110 385 80 290 25 125 0 0 0 0 0 25 145 525 105 390 45 190 0 0 0 0 0 30 175 640 135 495 60 250 0 0 0 0 0 35 205 740 160 580 75 305 0 0 0 0 0 40 230 860 175 660 95 365 0 0 0 0 0 45 260 985 205 755 110 425 0 0 0 0 0 50 290 1090 230 850 125 480 0 0 0 0 0 55 325 1235 255 970 140 555 0 5 0 5 0 60 365 1390 285 1095 160 620 0 15 0 10 0 65 395 1440 310 1205 180 700 5 35 0 25 0 70 420 1440 340 1335 200 765 10 65 5 50 0 75 465 1440 370 1440 215 845 25 105 15 85 5 80 505 1440 410 1440 245 950 45 165 35 135 15 85 555 1440 450 1440 275 1085 70 250 60 215 35 90 640 1440 520 1440 320 1290 120 405 100 345 60 295 735 1440 605 1440 375 1440 205 710 175 600 110 497 790 1440 640 1440 410 1440 275 980 230 820 150 599 915 1440 735 1440 460 1440 425 1440 355 1335 230 8

99.9 1050 1440 895 1440 565 1440 705 1440 580 1440 375 1

99.99 1440 1440 965 1440 630 1440 915 1440 760 1440 480 1

5 5 25 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

10 15 65 5 35 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 15 30 110 10 70 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 20 40 145 20 95 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 25 50 195 30 135 5 45 0 0 0 0 0 30 65 235 40 165 5 60 0 0 0 0 0 35 75 275 50 195 5 75 0 0 0 0 0 40 85 315 60 225 15 95 0 0 0 0 0 45 95 360 70 260 20 110 0 0 0 0 0 50 105 395 75 290 25 130 0 0 0 0 0 55 120 435 85 325 30 150 0 0 0 0 0 60 130 490 95 370 40 180 0 5 0 5 0 65 145 545 110 410 45 205 0 15 0 5 0 70 165 615 120 465 55 235 5 35 0 20 0 75 180 680 135 515 60 260 5 55 5 40 0 80 200 770 150 580 70 300 20 90 10 70 0 85 230 875 170 660 85 350 35 140 25 110 5 90 270 1045 205 800 100 425 60 215 45 170 15 95 310 1275 235 960 120 505 100 355 75 285 35 97 345 1430 265 1085 140 570 130 460 100 375 50 299 410 1440 315 1295 170 695 195 710 155 565 85 3

99.9 485 1440 390 1440 225 875 320 1265 255 975 140 5

99.99 490 1440 395 1440 225 945 415 1440 325 1290 185 7

Dover, FL- Raised Bed / Metalized Tarped

Max (455 lb/A) 80% (364 lb/A) 50% (227.5 lb/A) 80% (364 lb/A) 50% (227.5 

USDA, GA - Raised Bed / Poly Tarped Field 3

Max (455 lb/A)

Max (455 lb/A) 80% (364 lb/A) 50% (227.5 lb/A) Max (455 lb/A) 80% (364 lb/A) 50% (227.5 

Page 128 of 193 
5 320 1290 250 965 145 535 0 0 0 0 0 0

10 440 1440 350 1320 195 765 0 0 0 0 0 015 500 1440 395 1440 240 905 0 0 0 0 0 020 555 1440 450 1440 265 1055 0 0 000025 625 1440 500 1440 300 1185 0 0 000030 680 1440 550 1440 345 1350 0 0 000035 760 1440 620 1440 380 1440 0 0 000040 830 1440 675 1440 415 1440 0 0 000045 895 1440 730 1440 465 1440 0 0 000050 975 1440 800 1440 505 1440 0 10 050555 1050 1440 865 1440 545 1440 0 30 0 30 0 260 1145 1440 935 1440 590 1440 10 60 5 55 0 465 1210 1440 995 1440 650 1440 25 105 20 95 10 770 1285 1440 1050 1440 685 1440 45 160 40 150 25 1275 1370 1440 1140 1440 710 1440 70 245 65 225 45 1880 1440 1440 1210 1440 750 1440 115 370 100 345 75 2785 1440 1440 1260 1440 835 1440 180 585 160 530 120 4290 1440 1440 1380 1440 930 1440 295 995 255 870 190 6595 1440 1440 1440 1440 1085 1440 510 1440 440 1440 315 1197 1440 1440 1440 1440 1220 1440 685 1440 590 1440 415 1499 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1095 1440 925 1440 635 14

99.9 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1095 14

99.99 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 14

5 180 565 140 450 75 255 0 0 0 0 0 0

10 205 645 165 520 95 315 0 0 0 0 0 015 225 725 185 580 110 355 0 0 0 0 0 020 245 790 195 635 120 385 0 0 0 0 0 025 260 845 210 685 125 415 0 0 0 0 0 030 275 895 225 730 135 450 0 0 0 0 0 035 290 950 235 775 145 480 0 0 0 0 0 040 305 1000 250 815 155 510 0 0 0 0 0 045 320 1060 260 855 160 535 0 15 0 10 0 550 335 1120 275 905 170 560 5 35 0 30 0 155 350 1185 285 960 180 605 10 60 5 50 0 360 365 1250 300 1015 190 635 20 90 15 80 5 565 385 1320 315 1075 200 675 35 130 30 115 15 770 405 1405 330 1140 210 715 55 180 45 155 25 1075 425 1440 350 1230 225 760 75 240 60 205 40 1480 450 1440 370 1325 240 820 100 310 80 265 55 1885 490 1440 410 1440 260 910 130 400 110 340 70 2390 545 1440 450 1440 295 1040 175 535 145 455 100 3195 635 1440 525 1440 345 1260 245 765 210 650 140 4497 700 1440 580 1440 380 1420 295 925 250 780 170 5399 805 1440 680 1440 445 1440 395 1310 335 1095 225 73

99.9 1030 1440 875 1440 615 1440 625 1440 525 1440 360 12

99.99 1155 1440 975 1440 690 1440 820 1440 700 1440 475 14

Max (455 lb/A) 80% (364 lb/A) 50% (227.5 lb/A) Max (455 lb/A) 80% (364 lb/A) 50% (227.5 lb

Drip Irrigation Application Method

80% (364 lb/A) 50% (227.5 lb/A) Max (455 lb/A) 80% (364 lb/A) 50% (227.5 lb

Nipomo, CA - Raised Bed / Poly Tarped

Max (455 lb/A)

Cantua, CA - Broadcast / Poly Tarped

Page 129 of 193 
D029088/Appendix E

Table 9: DMDS Buffer Zone Analysis - Bradenton Florida Whole Field 40 Acre

Percentiles

Bradenton, FL - Shank 

Raised Bed / Poly Tarped

Yuma, AZ - Shank Raised 

Bed / Poly Tarped

Tifton, GA - Shank Raised 

Bed / Poly Tarped Field 1

Tifton, GA - Shank Raised 

Bed / Poly Tarped Field 2

Tifton, GA - Shank Raised 

Bed / VIF Tarped

Dover, FL - Shank Raised 

Bed / Metalized Tarped

Cantua, CA 

Broadcast / P

40 Acres 40 Acres 40 Acres 40 Acres 40 Acres 40 Acres 40 Ac

50000000

100 0 0 0 0 0 0 150 0 0 0 0 0 0 200 0 0 0 0 0 0 250 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 0 0 0 0 0 0 350 0 0 0 0 0 0 400 0 0 0 0 0 0 450 0 0 0 0 0 0

505200 0 0 010 

55 20 50 0 15 5 0 30 

60 50 85 0 40 15 5 60 

65 90 140 10 75 35 15 105 

70 150 215 35 125 65 35 160 

75 230 325 70 200 105 55 245 

80 355 505 120 310 165 90 370 

85 585 865 190 500 250 140 585 

90 1095 1440 305 890 405 215 995 

95 1440 1440 545 1440 710 355 144

97 1440 1440 710 1440 980 460 144

99 1440 1440 1135 1440 1440 710 144

99.9 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1265 144

99.99 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 144

DMDS - Ventura Whole Field PERFUM Buffer Results

Appendix E/Figure 5: Whole Field Buffer Analysis Using Ventura Meteorological Data 

Maximum Application Rate/40 Acres

0

102030405060708090

100110

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 

Distance (m)

Percentile Bradenton, FL - Sha

Yuma, AZ - Shank RTifton, GA - Shank Tifton, GA - Shank Tifton, GA - Shank Dover, FL - Shank RCantua, CA - Shank Nipomo, CA - Drip I

Page 130 of 193 
D029088/Appendix E

Table 10: DMDS Buffer Zone Analysis - Bradenton Florida Maximum 40 Acre

Percentiles

Bradenton, FL - Shank 

Raised Bed / Poly Tarped

Yuma, AZ - Shank Raised 

Bed / Poly Tarped

Tifton, GA - Shank Raised 

Bed / Poly Tarped Field 1

Tifton, GA - Shank Raised 

Bed / Poly Tarped Field 2

Tifton, GA - Shank Raised 

Bed / VIF Tarped

Dover, FL - Shank Raised 

Bed / Metalized Tarped

Cantua, CA 

Broadcast / P

40 Acres 40 Acres 40 Acres 40 Acres 40 Acres 40 Acres 40 Ac

5 1440 1440 0 1285 75 25 129

10 1440 1440 145 1440 170 65 14415 1440 1440 250 1440 240 110 144

20 1440 1440 330 1440 385 145 144

25 1440 1440 400 1440 525 195 144

30 1440 1440 470 1440 640 235 144

35 1440 1440 555 1440 740 275 144

40 1440 1440 635 1440 860 315 144

45 1440 1440 715 1440 985 360 144

50 1440 1440 775 1440 1090 395 144

55 1440 1440 840 1440 1235 435 144

60 1440 1440 910 1440 1390 490 144

65 1440 1440 1000 1440 1440 545 14470 1440 1440 1110 1440 1440 615 14475 1440 1440 1235 1440 1440 680 14480 1440 1440 1365 1440 1440 770 14485 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 875 14490 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1045 144

95 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1275 144

97 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1430 144

99 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 144

99.9 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 144

99.99 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 144

DMDS - Ventura Maximum PERFUM Buffer Results

Appendix E/Figure 6: Shank Injection Maximum Buffer Analysis Using Ventura 

Meteorological Data - Maximum Application Rate/40 Acres

0

102030405060708090

100110

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 

Distance (m)

Percentile

Bradenton, FL - ShaYuma, AZ - Shank RTifton, GA - Shank RTifton, GA - Shank RTifton, GA - Shank RDover, FL - Shank RCantua, CA - Shank Nipomo, CA - Drip I

Page 131 of 193 
D029088/Appendix E

Table 11: DMDS Data Analysis - Bakersfield California PERFUM Buffer Results For All Flux Types For 5 And 40 Acre Square Fields

Tifton, GA - Shank Raised Bed / VIF Tarp A - Shank Raised Bed / Poly Tarped Field 3

Percentiles

5 A 40 A 5 A 40 A 5 A 40 A 5 A 40 A 5 A 40 A 5 A 40 A

5 390 1440 310 1290 175 790 0 0 0 0 0 0

10 550 1440 435 1440 275 1095 0 0 0 0 0 015 635 1440 525 1440 330 1440 0 0 0 0 0 020 735 1440 615 1440 385 1440 0 0 0 0 0 025 790 1440 660 1440 420 1440 0 0 0 0 0 030 865 1440 730 1440 475 1440 0 0 0 0 0 035 1000 1440 815 1440 510 1440 0 0 0 0 0 040 1110 1440 925 1440 570 1440 0 15 0 15 0 545 1225 1440 995 1440 640 1440 5 40 0 35 0 2550 1295 1440 1080 1440 675 1440 10 70 5 65 0 5055 1385 1440 1150 1440 710 1440 20 110 20 105 10 8060 1440 1440 1225 1440 790 1440 40 170 35 155 20 12065 1440 1440 1290 1440 855 1440 60 245 50 225 35 18070 1440 1440 1420 1440 910 1440 80 345 70 320 55 25075 1440 1440 1440 1440 965 1440 115 490 100 445 75 34580 1440 1440 1440 1440 1055 1440 160 695 140 625 110 48585 1440 1440 1440 1440 1160 1440 225 1010 205 900 155 69590 1440 1440 1440 1440 1245 1440 345 1440 305 1375 235 100095 1440 1440 1440 1440 1285 1440 590 1440 520 1440 385 144097 1440 1440 1440 1440 1370 1440 795 1440 690 1440 500 144099 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1300 1440 1105 1440 750 1440

99.9 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1265 1440

99.99 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440

5 730 1440 615 1440 400 1440 0 0 0 0 0

10 940 1440 790 1440 510 1440 0 0 0 0 015 1190 1440 960 1440 625 1440 0 0 0 0 020 1360 1440 1135 1440 730 1440 0 0 0 0 0 025 1440 1440 1250 1440 805 1440 0 0 0 0 0 030 1440 1440 1350 1440 875 1440 0 0 0 0 0 035 1440 1440 1430 1440 950 1440 0 5 0 5 0 040 1440 1440 1440 1440 1025 1440 0 25 0 25 0 2045 1440 1440 1440 1440 1060 1440 5 55 5 50 0 4550 1440 1440 1440 1440 1095 1440 20 95 20 90 15 7555 1440 1440 1440 1440 1165 1440 40 145 40 140 30 12060 1440 1440 1440 1440 1200 1440 65 220 60 205 50 18065 1440 1440 1440 1440 1260 1440 95 325 90 305 75 26570 1440 1440 1440 1440 1340 1440 145 475 135 445 110 38575 1440 1440 1440 1440 1405 1440 210 695 195 655 155 55080 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 310 1035 280 960 220 77085 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 445 1440 395 1405 305 109090 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 640 1440 570 1440 435 144095 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1050 1440 910 1440 650 144097 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1370 1440 1150 1440 810 144099 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1135 1440

99.9 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440

99.99 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440

Max (455 lb/A) 80% (364 lb/A) 50% (227.5 lb/A)

Shank Injection Application Method

Ventura Maximum PERFUM Buffer Results Ventura Whole Field PERFUM Buffer Results

Max (455 lb/A) 80% (364 lb/A) 50% (227.5 lb/A) Max (455 lb/A) 80% (364 lb/A) 50% (227.5 lb/A)Max (455 lb/A) 80% (364 lb/A) 50% (227.5 lb/A)

Bradenton, FL - Raised Bed / Poly Tarped

Yuma, AZ - Raised Bed / Poly Tarped

Page 132 of 193 
5 0 60 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

10 5 130 0 75 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 15 5 185 0 110 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 20 30 220 5 140 0 35 0 0 0 0 0 25 45 255 5 170 0 50 0 0 0 0 0 30 55 295 15 205 0 65 0 0 0 0 0 35 65 340 Raised Bed / VIF Tarp A - Shank Raised Bed 80 0 0 0 0 0 

40 75 360 40 250 0 95 0 0 0 0 0 45 85 390 50 275 5 110 0 0 0 0 0 50 90 425 60 300 5 130 0 0 0 0 0 55 100 460 65 320 5 145 0 5 0 0 0 60 115 485 75 355 5 165 0 15 0 5 0 65 125 520 85 395 5 190 0 35 0 20 0 70 140 570 100 430 5 215 0 60 0 40 0 75 155 625 115 480 25 245 5 90 0 65 0 80 175 710 130 540 45 270 5 135 5 95 0 85 195 790 140 595 55 305 25 190 5 135 0 90 215 895 160 665 70 340 50 260 25 200 5 95 255 1045 185 775 90 405 85 375 60 290 5 97 280 1160 210 870 100 455 115 470 85 375 20 299 320 1350 245 1010 120 515 175 685 130 540 55 3

99.9 375 1440 285 1220 165 645 275 1115 210 865 105 4

99.99 375 1440 285 1225 180 660 350 1440 265 1130 145 5

5 240 915 190 695 100 405 0 0 0 0 0 

10 315 1275 245 945 130 530 0 0 0 0 0 15 380 1440 290 1200 160 645 0 0 0 0 0 20 435 1440 330 1405 190 750 0 0 0 0 0 25 475 1440 370 1440 205 840 0 0 0 0 0 30 525 1440 405 1440 225 955 0 0 0 0 0 35 560 1440 440 1440 240 1030 0 0 0 0 0 40 605 1440 460 1440 255 1115 0 15 0 15 0 45 625 1440 495 1440 270 1160 0 40 0 35 0 50 655 1440 510 1440 285 1225 10 70 5 60 0 55 675 1440 520 1440 300 1280 20 105 15 95 5 60 690 1440 535 1440 315 1330 40 155 30 140 15 65 710 1440 555 1440 340 1390 60 220 50 195 25 70 735 1440 580 1440 365 1440 85 305 70 270 45 75 765 1440 620 1440 390 1440 115 420 100 370 60 280 820 1440 670 1440 425 1440 160 575 135 505 85 385 880 1440 720 1440 465 1440 220 800 185 685 115 490 970 1440 795 1440 505 1440 300 1125 250 945 160 695 1120 1440 925 1440 580 1440 430 1440 355 1390 230 997 1205 1440 995 1440 625 1440 525 1440 435 1440 270 199 1365 1440 1105 1440 700 1440 690 1440 565 1440 380 1

99.9 1440 1440 1300 1440 845 1440 1065 1440 880 1440 570 1

99.99 1440 1440 1345 1440 890 1440 1355 1440 1095 1440 710 1

Max (455 lb/A) 80% (364 lb/A) 50% (227.5 

USDA, GA - Raised Bed / VIF Tarped Field 1

USDA, GA - Raised Bed / Poly Tarped Field 2

Max (455 lb/A) 80% (364 lb/A) 50% (227.5 lb/A) Max (455 lb/A) 80% (364 lb/A) 50% (227.5 Max (455 lb/A) 80% (364 lb/A) 50% (227.5 lb/A)

Page 133 of 193 
5 70 285 45 200 0 80 0 0 0 0 0 

10 95 385 65 280 5 120 0 0 0 0 0 15 120 460 80 340 20 160 0 0 0 0 0 20 135 545 95 400 35 190 0 0 0 0 0 25 150 610 110 445 45 220 0 0 0 0 0 30 170 655 125 490 55 260 0 0 0 0 0 35 180 720 140 540 60 295 0 0 0 0 0 40 200 810 150 595 70 310 0 0 0 0 0 45 225 875 155 670 75 330 0 10 0 5 0 50 235 960 170 720 85 355 0 25 0 15 0 55 245 1075 185 745 90 390 5 45 0 35 0 60 260 1110 195 795 100 415 5 70 5 55 0 65 280 1170 210 860 110 450 20 100 10 80 0 70 295 1245 225 910 120 485 30 135 20 110 5 75 310 1310 245 970 135 535 45 185 35 150 5 80 340 1390 265 1050 145 595 65 250 45 195 15 85 370 1440 290 1160 165 660 85 330 70 275 30 90 410 1440 325 1330 190 745 125 465 95 380 50 295 480 1440 385 1440 225 895 185 680 145 555 80 397 530 1440 420 1440 240 990 230 870 175 710 100 499 650 1440 505 1440 295 1205 305 1165 250 940 150 5

99.9 760 1440 605 1440 360 1440 490 1440 395 1440 240 9

99.99 770 1440 620 1440 370 1440 655 1440 515 1440 300 1

5 0 60 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

10 5 90 0 50 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 15 20 125 5 75 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 20 30 150 5 95 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 25 35 180 15 115 0 30 0 0 0 0 0 30 45 200 20 135 0 40 0 0 0 0 0 35 50 225 25 155 5 50 0 0 0 0 0 40 55 255 30 180 5 60 0 0 0 0 0 45 65 275 40 200 5 70 0 0 0 0 0 50 70 310 45 215 5 85 0 5 0 0 0 55 75 335 50 235 5 100 0 5 0 5 0 60 85 365 55 260 5 110 0 20 0 5 0 65 95 395 65 285 10 125 0 35 0 20 0 70 105 430 75 310 20 145 5 50 0 30 0 75 115 470 85 345 25 165 5 75 5 50 0 80 130 515 95 385 30 190 15 100 5 70 0 85 150 585 110 440 40 220 30 140 15 100 5 90 170 680 125 515 50 265 45 190 30 145 5 95 205 810 150 615 70 320 70 300 50 220 10 97 225 915 170 685 80 360 90 355 65 280 25 99 265 1110 195 805 95 410 135 520 105 410 45 2

99.9 340 1440 260 1020 135 575 220 865 165 655 85 3

99.99 340 1440 275 1140 145 590 295 1120 235 895 120 5

Max (455 lb/A)Max (455 lb/A)

Dover, FL- Raised Bed / Metalized Tarped

Max (455 lb/A)Max (455 lb/A) 80% (364 lb/A) 50% (227.5 lb/A) 80% (364 lb/A) 50% (227.5 

USDA, GA - Raised Bed / Poly Tarped Field 3

80% (364 lb/A) 50% (227.5 lb/A) 80% (364 lb/A) 50% (227.5 

Page 134 of 193 
5 270 1030 215 800 125 475 0 0 0 0 0 0

10 355 1405 275 1085 160 605 0 0 0 0 0 015 425 1440 330 1360 195 760 0 0 0 0 0 020 490 1440 385 1440 220 900 0 0 0 0 0 025 555 1440 430 1440 250 1015 0 0 000030 595 1440 470 1440 275 1130 0 0 000035 635 1440 505 1440 290 1245 0 0 000040 690 1440 550 1440 320 1330 0 10 050045 745 1440 570 1440 340 1425 0 30 0 25 0 150 780 1440 605 1440 365 1440 5 60 5 50 0 355 820 1440 650 1440 395 1440 20 95 15 85 5 660 880 1440 695 1440 425 1440 35 145 30 125 15 965 925 1440 750 1440 445 1440 55 210 45 185 25 1370 985 1440 805 1440 470 1440 80 300 70 265 45 1975 1045 1440 840 1440 495 1440 115 425 100 375 65 2780 1105 1440 865 1440 525 1440 165 600 140 520 95 3885 1130 1440 905 1440 575 1440 230 835 195 730 130 5290 1205 1440 985 1440 635 1440 325 1220 275 1045 185 7195 1395 1440 1150 1440 735 1440 485 1440 405 1440 270 1097 1440 1440 1230 1440 795 1440 595 1440 500 1440 335 1399 1440 1440 1440 1440 925 1440 835 1440 695 1440 455 14

99.9 1440 1440 1440 1440 1110 1440 1295 1440 1075 1440 705 14

99.99 1440 1440 1440 1440 1125 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 930 14

5 140 475 110 370 60 210 0 0 0 0 0 0

10 160 525 125 420 70 245 0 0 0 0 0 015 170 570 135 455 75 270 0 0 0 0 0 020 180 605 145 485 85 290 0 0 0 0 0 025 195 640 155 515 90 305 0 0 0 0 0 030 205 670 160 535 95 320 0 0 0 0 0 035 210 700 170 560 100 340 0 0 0 0 0 040 220 740 175 590 105 355 0 0 0 0 0 045 235 780 185 625 110 370 0 5 0 5 0 050 240 825 195 655 115 390 0 25 0 20 0 555 250 865 200 690 120 410 5 55 5 45 0 260 265 910 210 725 125 435 15 90 10 75 5 465 275 965 220 760 130 460 35 130 25 110 10 770 290 1035 235 815 140 490 50 180 40 150 20 975 310 1115 250 875 150 520 70 235 60 195 35 1380 335 1230 270 975 160 560 90 300 75 250 45 1685 360 1370 285 1050 175 615 120 375 95 315 60 2090 395 1440 320 1180 195 685 150 480 125 400 75 2695 455 1440 370 1405 235 815 200 655 165 540 105 3597 500 1440 415 1440 265 960 235 785 195 650 120 4299 590 1440 485 1440 315 1160 315 1110 255 915 165 57

99.9 805 1440 640 1440 400 1440 490 1440 410 1440 265 96

99.99 820 1440 690 1440 470 1440 620 1440 515 1440 355 12

Cantua, CA - Broadcast / Poly Tarped

Nipomo, CA - Raised Bed / Poly Tarped

Max (455 lb/A) Max (455 lb/A)

Drip Irrigation Application Method

80% (364 lb/A) 50% (227.5 lb/A) 80% (364 lb/A) 50% (227.5 lb

Max (455 lb/A) 80% (364 lb/A) 50% (227.5 lb/A) Max (455 lb/A) 80% (364 lb/A) 50% (227.5 lb

Page 135 of 193 
D029088/Appendix E

Table 12: DMDS Data Analysis - Yakima Washington PERFUM Buffer Results For All Flux Types For 5 And 40 Acre Square Fields

Percentiles

5 A 40 A 5 A 40 A 5 A 40 A 5 A 40 A 5 A 40 A 5 A 40 A

5 370 1345 300 1060 185 645 0 0 0 0 0 0

10 435 1440 355 1320 225 795 0 0 0 0 0 015 495 1440 405 1440 250 915 0 0 0 0 0 020 540 1440 435 1440 275 1030 0 0 0 0 0 025 585 1440 485 1440 305 1165 0 0 0 0 0 030 630 1440 520 1440 335 1280 0 10 0 5 0 035 675 1440 560 1440 360 1395 0 20 0 15 0 540 715 1440 600 1440 385 1440 5 40 5 35 0 2045 765 1440 635 1440 410 1440 15 60 10 50 5 3050 815 1440 675 1440 430 1440 20 85 15 70 10 5055 870 1440 725 1440 475 1440 35 115 25 100 15 7060 940 1440 780 1440 510 1440 45 150 40 135 25 9565 1040 1440 850 1440 550 1440 60 205 55 180 35 13070 1140 1440 940 1440 610 1440 85 285 75 250 50 18575 1275 1440 1040 1440 675 1440 120 410 105 365 75 27080 1430 1440 1170 1440 740 1440 170 605 150 535 105 40085 1440 1440 1340 1440 870 1440 245 875 215 775 155 58090 1440 1440 1440 1440 995 1440 365 1335 315 1160 220 83595 1440 1440 1440 1440 1150 1440 555 1440 480 1440 340 131097 1440 1440 1440 1440 1260 1440 705 1440 600 1440 420 144099 1440 1440 1440 1440 1385 1440 1075 1440 905 1440 630 1440

99.9 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1100 1440

99.99 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1365 1440

5 585 1440 485 1440 300 1145 0 0 0 0 0 0

10 715 1440 605 1440 385 1440 0 0 0 0 0 015 805 1440 680 1440 450 1440 0 0 0 0 0 020 875 1440 735 1440 480 1440 0 0 0 0 0 025 950 1440 795 1440 530 1440 0 0 0 0 0 030 1050 1440 870 1440 580 1440 0 0 0 0 0 035 1140 1440 935 1440 620 1440 0 15 0 15 0 1040 1210 1440 1010 1440 660 1440 0 40 0 35 0 2545 1290 1440 1085 1440 720 1440 15 65 10 60 5 5050 1405 1440 1155 1440 765 1440 25 100 25 90 15 7555 1440 1440 1225 1440 820 1440 45 140 40 130 30 11060 1440 1440 1325 1440 865 1440 65 200 60 190 45 15565 1440 1440 1405 1440 940 1440 90 295 85 275 65 22570 1440 1440 1440 1440 1025 1440 130 430 120 395 90 32575 1440 1440 1440 1440 1090 1440 190 630 170 575 130 45580 1440 1440 1440 1440 1170 1440 270 925 240 835 180 64085 1440 1440 1440 1440 1220 1440 385 1390 340 1225 245 91090 1440 1440 1440 1440 1350 1440 555 1440 485 1440 355 134095 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 840 1440 730 1440 525 144097 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1080 1440 920 1440 650 144099 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1365 1440 940 1440

99.9 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440

99.99 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440

Bradenton, FL - Raised Bed / Poly Tarped

Yuma, AZ - Raised Bed / Poly Tarped

Max (455 lb/A) 80% (364 lb/A) 50% (227.5 lb/A)Max (455 lb/A) 80% (364 lb/A) 50% (227.5 lb/A) Max (455 lb/A) 80% (364 lb/A) 50% (227.5 lb/A)

Max (455 lb/A) 80% (364 lb/A) 50% (227.5 lb/A)

Shank Injection Application Method

Ventura Maximum PERFUM Buffer Results Ventura Whole Field PERFUM Buffer Results

Page 136 of 193 
5 0 55 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

10 5 95 0 55 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 15 15 130 0 80 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 20 25 165 5 105 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 25 35 195 5 130 0 30 0 0 0 0 0 30 45 220 10 150 0 40 0 0 0 0 0 35 50 245 20 165 0 50 0 0 0 0 0 40 60 270 30 185 0 60 0 0 0 0 0 45 65 295 35 205 0 75 0 0 0 0 0 50 70 325 40 225 5 85 0 0 0 0 0 55 80 345 50 250 5 100 0 5 0 0 0 60 85 375 55 275 5 110 0 5 0 5 0 65 95 405 60 295 5 125 0 20 0 5 0 70 105 445 70 320 5 145 0 35 0 15 0 75 115 475 80 355 5 160 5 55 0 35 0 80 125 520 85 385 5 185 5 85 5 55 0 85 140 580 100 430 5 205 10 135 5 95 0 90 160 665 115 495 30 245 35 210 10 150 0 95 195 805 140 595 55 300 65 325 40 240 5 97 215 875 160 660 65 345 90 405 60 305 5 99 260 1120 195 820 95 420 135 580 95 445 20 2

99.9 375 1440 275 1245 135 605 220 890 165 685 75 3

99.99 410 1440 290 1440 155 655 300 1215 240 945 120 5

5 190 750 145 555 75 290 0 0 0 0 0 

10 240 915 185 700 100 395 0 0 0 0 0 15 280 1065 220 830 125 485 0 0 0 0 0 20 315 1195 250 935 145 555 0 0 0 0 0 25 345 1330 275 1050 160 605 0 0 0 0 0 30 370 1440 295 1145 175 675 0 0 0 0 0 35 395 1440 315 1240 190 725 0 5 0 0 0 40 425 1440 340 1345 200 785 0 15 0 10 0 45 455 1440 365 1440 215 845 5 35 0 25 0 50 480 1440 385 1440 230 905 10 55 5 45 0 55 510 1440 405 1440 245 970 20 80 15 65 5 60 535 1440 430 1440 260 1025 30 115 25 95 10 65 560 1440 450 1440 275 1100 45 165 35 140 15 70 590 1440 475 1440 290 1165 65 235 50 200 25 75 620 1440 500 1440 305 1240 90 340 70 285 40 80 670 1440 535 1440 330 1325 125 480 100 405 60 285 710 1440 565 1440 360 1440 175 675 140 565 85 390 785 1440 640 1440 410 1440 245 955 205 795 130 595 915 1440 745 1440 480 1440 365 1440 305 1195 195 797 995 1440 810 1440 520 1440 445 1440 370 1440 235 999 1160 1440 955 1440 605 1440 595 1440 490 1440 325 1

99.9 1440 1440 1255 1440 760 1440 935 1440 765 1440 510 1

99.99 1440 1440 1440 1440 955 1440 1190 1440 975 1440 630 1

Max (455 lb/A) 80% (364 lb/A) 50% (227.5 lb/A) 50% (227.5 

USDA, GA - Raised Bed / VIF Tarped Field 1

USDA, GA - Raised Bed / Poly Tarped Field 2

Max (455 lb/A) 80% (364 lb/A)

Max (455 lb/A) 80% (364 lb/A) 50% (227.5 lb/A) Max (455 lb/A) 80% (364 lb/A) 50% (227.5 

Page 137 of 193 
5 60 240 40 165 5 65 0 0 0 0 0 

10 75 295 55 215 15 100 0 0 0 0 0 15 95 350 65 260 20 120 0 0 0 0 0 20 105 400 75 295 30 140 0 0 0 0 0 25 115 445 85 335 35 160 0 0 0 0 0 30 130 485 95 365 40 185 0 0 0 0 0 35 140 530 105 405 45 205 0 0 0 0 0 40 155 580 115 440 55 225 0 5 0 0 0 45 165 620 120 480 60 250 0 10 0 5 0 50 175 670 130 515 65 275 0 20 0 15 0 55 185 735 145 555 70 300 5 35 0 25 0 60 200 785 155 605 80 325 5 50 5 40 0 65 215 865 165 655 85 355 10 75 5 55 0 70 230 950 175 710 95 385 20 105 10 80 5 75 250 1040 190 770 105 425 30 145 20 110 5 80 275 1155 210 860 115 465 45 210 35 160 5 85 300 1280 235 950 130 525 70 295 50 230 15 90 335 1440 265 1115 150 610 100 420 75 335 35 95 405 1440 315 1415 180 755 155 625 120 500 65 297 460 1440 360 1440 205 865 195 770 150 615 85 399 525 1440 435 1440 260 1120 270 1120 215 880 125 5

99.9 615 1440 525 1440 325 1440 440 1440 360 1440 215 9

99.99 690 1440 550 1440 360 1440 550 1440 450 1440 290 1

5 5 65 0 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

10 15 85 5 50 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 15 20 105 5 65 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 20 25 120 5 75 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 25 30 135 10 90 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 30 35 155 15 100 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 35 40 170 20 115 0 35 0 0 0 0 0 40 45 190 25 130 5 40 0 0 0 0 0 45 50 215 30 145 5 50 0 0 0 0 0 50 60 235 35 165 5 60 0 5 0 0 0 55 65 260 40 185 5 70 0 5 0 5 0 60 70 290 45 205 5 80 0 15 0 5 0 65 80 325 55 235 5 95 0 25 0 10 0 70 90 360 60 255 10 110 5 35 0 20 0 75 100 395 70 290 15 130 5 55 5 35 0 80 110 445 80 325 25 155 10 80 5 50 0 85 125 495 90 370 35 180 15 110 5 75 0 90 145 585 110 440 45 220 30 170 15 120 5 95 180 745 130 545 60 280 60 275 40 205 5 97 200 890 150 645 70 320 80 345 55 260 10 99 245 1165 185 775 90 415 125 515 90 395 40 2

99.9 335 1440 275 1310 145 625 210 880 165 660 80 3

99.99 405 1440 315 1440 170 715 305 1280 240 955 135 5

Dover, FL- Raised Bed / Metalized Tarped

Max (455 lb/A) 80% (364 lb/A) 50% (227.5 lb/A) 80% (364 lb/A) 50% (227.5 

USDA, GA - Raised Bed / Poly Tarped Field 3

Max (455 lb/A)

Max (455 lb/A) 80% (364 lb/A) 50% (227.5 lb/A) Max (455 lb/A) 80% (364 lb/A) 50% (227.5 

Page 138 of 193 
5 195 730 150 560 75 305 0 0 0 0 0 0

10 250 965 190 720 100 400 0 0 0 0 0 015 295 1150 230 880 125 495 0 0 0 0 0 020 330 1310 260 1010 145 560 0 0 0 0 0 025 365 1440 285 1110 165 630 0 0 0 0 0 030 400 1440 315 1220 185 710 0 0 0 0 0 035 430 1440 345 1370 205 785 0 5 0 0 0 040 465 1440 370 1440 225 865 0 15 0 10 0 545 500 1440 400 1440 245 950 0 35 0 30 0 150 540 1440 435 1440 260 1030 10 60 5 50 0 355 580 1440 460 1440 280 1110 20 85 15 75 5 460 610 1440 485 1440 300 1190 30 120 25 105 10 765 640 1440 520 1440 320 1285 45 175 40 150 20 1070 695 1440 565 1440 345 1405 65 245 55 210 30 1475 770 1440 615 1440 375 1440 95 345 80 295 45 2080 845 1440 670 1440 405 1440 130 480 110 410 65 2885 905 1440 720 1440 445 1440 180 680 150 580 95 3990 1000 1440 810 1440 495 1440 260 985 215 840 140 5695 1125 1440 910 1440 575 1440 395 1440 330 1295 215 8797 1220 1440 990 1440 625 1440 490 1440 415 1440 270 1099 1360 1440 1130 1440 735 1440 695 1440 580 1440 390 14

99.9 1440 1440 1440 1440 1010 1440 1120 1440 915 1440 600 14

99.99 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1295 1440 855 14

5 105 335 80 265 40 145 0 0 0 0 0 0

10 125 395 95 310 50 175 0 0 0 0 0 015 140 445 110 350 60 200 0 0 0 0 0 020 155 485 120 390 65 220 0 0 0 0 0 025 165 530 130 415 70 245 0 0 0 0 0 030 175 570 135 455 75 265 0 5 0 5 0 035 185 615 145 490 80 285 0 20 0 10 0 540 200 660 160 525 90 305 5 35 0 25 0 545 215 710 170 565 95 325 5 55 5 40 0 150 225 760 180 610 100 355 15 75 10 60 0 355 240 825 190 650 110 385 25 100 15 80 5 460 260 890 205 710 120 415 35 135 25 105 5 665 280 995 225 780 135 460 45 170 35 135 15 770 315 1125 250 880 145 515 60 210 45 170 20 1075 355 1330 280 1030 165 585 75 260 60 210 30 1280 395 1440 320 1165 190 680 90 320 75 265 40 1685 445 1440 360 1370 220 800 115 400 95 325 55 2090 505 1440 415 1440 265 955 150 510 120 415 75 2695 590 1440 480 1440 300 1115 210 715 170 595 110 3897 630 1440 520 1440 340 1290 260 900 215 740 135 4899 760 1440 640 1440 420 1440 375 1380 315 1120 210 73

99.9 905 1440 775 1440 540 1440 600 1440 505 1440 340 12

99.99 935 1440 800 1440 550 1440 790 1440 670 1440 460 14

Max (455 lb/A) 80% (364 lb/A) 50% (227.5 lb/A) Max (455 lb/A) 80% (364 lb/A) 50% (227.5 lb

Drip Irrigation Application Method

80% (364 lb/A) 50% (227.5 lb/A) Max (455 lb/A) 80% (364 lb/A) 50% (227.5 lb

Nipomo, CA - Raised Bed / Poly Tarped

Max (455 lb/A)

Cantua, CA - Broadcast / Poly Tarped

Page 139 of 193 
D029088/Appendix E

Table 13: Chloropicrin Data Analysis - Summary Of All Location PERFUM Maximum Buffer Results For All Flux Types With 5 And 40 Acre Square Fields At Maximum Application Rat

Ventura Tallahassee Flint Bradenton Bakersfield Yak

5 A 40 A 5 A 40 A 5 A 40 A 5 A 40 A 5 A 40 A 5 

50 1410 1440 1025 1440 755 1440 1440 1440 1295 1440 875 1440 1440 1440 1440 1375 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1290 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1495 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1499 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 14

99.9 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 14

50 1440 1440 1440 1440 1080 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1475 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1490 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1495 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1499 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 14

99.9 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 14

50 125 540 65 345 50 225 185 775 90 425 7

75 245 970 135 540 120 500 310 1235 155 625 1

90 340 1375 230 930 205 845 430 1440 215 895 1

95 390 1440 275 1150 250 1025 515 1440 255 1045 199 485 1440 375 1440 360 1440 630 1440 320 1350 2

99.9 555 1440 475 1440 495 1440 800 1440 375 1440 3

50 765 1440 610 1440 660 1440 920 1440 655 1440 475 1005 1440 740 1440 1185 1440 1200 1440 765 1440 690 1310 1440 1060 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 970 1440 795 1440 1440 1210 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1120 1440 999 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1365 1440 11

99.9 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 14

50 250 965 185 690 160 615 290 1090 235 960 1

75 430 1440 280 1170 265 1100 465 1440 310 1310 290 580 1440 420 1440 405 1440 640 1440 410 1440 395 695 1440 515 1440 510 1440 735 1440 480 1440 499 855 1440 620 1440 725 1440 915 1440 650 1440 5

99.9 990 1440 960 1440 1010 1440 1050 1440 760 1440 6

50 80 320 65 275 55 235 105 395 70 310 6

75 170 660 115 460 100 415 180 680 115 470 190 260 1040 180 715 165 695 270 1045 170 680 1

95 330 1330 220 885 210 880 310 1275 205 810 1

99 420 1440 300 1290 320 1440 410 1440 265 1110 2

99.9 500 1440 420 1440 525 1440 485 1440 340 1440 3

50 810 1440 0 1440 430 1440 975 1440 780 1440 5

75 1195 1440 50 1440 715 1440 1370 1440 1045 1440 7

90 1430 1440 165 1440 1035 1440 1440 1440 1205 1440 1095 1440 1440 260 1440 1245 1440 1440 1440 1395 1440 1199 1440 1440 465 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 13

99.9 1440 1440 810 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 14

50 245 775 245 820 240 845 335 1120 240 825 2

75 290 985 340 1225 305 1115 425 1440 310 1115 3

90 370 1350 440 1440 390 1440 545 1440 395 1440 595 435 1440 515 1440 460 1440 635 1440 455 1440 599 840 1440 690 1440 760 1440 805 1440 590 1440 7

99.9 1440 1440 835 1440 1440 1440 1030 1440 805 1440 9

Dover, FL - Shank Raised Bed / Metalized Tarped

Cantua, CA - Shank Broadcast / Poly Tarped

Nipomo, CA - Drip Irrigation Raised Bed / Poly Tarped

Bradenton, FL - Shank Raised Bed / Poly Tarped

Yuma, AZ - Shank Raised Bed / Poly Tarped

Tifton, GA - Shank Raised Bed / VIF Tarped Field 1

Tifton, GA - Shank Raised Bed / Poly Tarped Field 2Tifton, GA - Shank Raised Bed / Poly Tarped Field 3

Page 140 of 193 
Appendix E/Figure 7: Maximum 95th Percentile Chloropicrin Maximum 

Shank Injection Buffer Results For 40 Acre Fields At Maximum Applic

0

200400600800

100012001400

Poly Tarped

Raised Bed /

FL - Shank

Bradenton,

Yuma, AZ -

Shank Raised

Bed / Poly

Tarped

Tifton, GA -

Shank Raised

Bed / VIF

Tarped Field

1

Tifton, GA -

Shank Raised

Bed / Poly

Tarped Field

2

Tifton, GA -

Shank Raised

Bed / Poly

Tarped Field

3

Dover, FL -

Shank Raised

Bed /

Metalized

Tarped

Shank

Poly Tarped

Broadcast /

Source of Flux Profile

Buffer Distance (meters)

Ventura CA Tallahassee FL Flint MIBradenton FL Bakersfield CA Yakima WA

Page 141 of 193 
D029088/Appendix E

Table 14: Chloropicrin Data Analysis - Summary Of All Location PERFUM Whole Field Buffer Results For All Flux Types With 5 And 40 Acre Square Fields At Maximum Application R

Ventura Tallahassee Flint Bradenton Bakersfield Yak

5 A 40 A 5 A 40 A 5 A 40 A 5 A 40 A 5 A 40 A 5 

50 0100100200 510 70 2

75 60 210 80 290 85 290 70 230 115 490 190 380 1440 325 1175 305 1035 335 1095 345 1440 395 765 1440 565 1440 500 1440 690 1440 590 1440 599 1440 1440 1220 1440 1145 1440 1440 1440 1300 1440 10

99.9 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 14

50 020030030020 20 95 2

75 85 275 120 405 120 400 100 325 210 695 190 465 1440 515 1440 445 1440 515 1440 640 1440 595 955 1440 890 1440 710 1440 1025 1440 1050 1440 899 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 14

99.9 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 14

50 000000000075 550045035570590

90 55 305 40 205 30 165 80 305 50 260 3

95 115 545 75 345 65 295 145 545 85 375 6

99 280 1175 175 690 160 650 300 1135 175 685 1

99.9 435 1440 305 1230 295 1210 680 1440 275 1115 2

50 0 5 0100100 010 70 1

75 50 180 65 250 65 235 60 200 115 420 9

90 290 1190 245 915 210 740 270 890 300 1125 2

95 530 1440 400 1440 330 1235 500 1440 430 1440 399 960 1440 695 1440 640 1440 1000 1440 690 1440 5

99.9 1440 1440 1200 1440 1170 1440 1440 1440 1065 1440 9

50 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 025

75 25 100 20 105 25 125 25 105 45 185 3

90 115 480 95 380 95 365 120 405 125 465 195 215 895 160 630 150 570 205 710 185 680 199 455 1440 310 1255 300 1190 425 1440 305 1165 2

99.9 750 1440 550 1440 565 1440 705 1440 490 1440 4

50 000000000575 550545555555575

90 45 210 40 180 35 165 60 215 45 190 3

95 90 405 70 300 65 265 100 355 70 300 6

99 215 880 145 600 140 560 195 710 135 520 1

99.9 370 1440 255 1090 265 1145 320 1265 220 865 2

50 0 10 735 15 0 10 0 10 5 60 1

75 60 195 1060 270 65 230 70 245 115 425 990 250 895 1215 940 215 750 295 995 325 1220 2

95 480 1440 1420 1440 335 1265 510 1440 485 1440 399 1030 1440 1440 1440 705 1440 1095 1440 835 1440 6

99.9 1440 1440 1440 1440 1335 1440 1440 1440 1295 1440 11

50 0 0 5 35 0 10 5 35 0 25 1

75 45 145 60 210 50 180 75 240 70 235 7

90 135 410 145 505 140 480 175 535 150 480 195 190 580 210 750 195 685 245 765 200 655 299 285 900 355 1305 315 1175 395 1310 315 1110 3

99.9 510 1440 575 1440 530 1440 625 1440 490 1440 6

Dover, FL - Shank Raised Bed / Metalized Tarped

Cantua, CA - Shank Broadcast / Poly Tarped

Nipomo, CA - Drip Irrigation Raised Bed / Poly Tarped

Bradenton, FL - Shank Raised Bed / Poly Tarped

Yuma, AZ - Shank Raised Bed / Poly Tarped

Tifton, GA - Shank Raised Bed / VIF Tarped Field 1

Tifton, GA - Shank Raised Bed / Poly Tarped Field 2

Tifton, GA - Shank Raised Bed / VIF Tarped Field 3

Page 142 of 193 
Page 143 of 193 

Appendix E/Figure 8: Maximum 95th Percentile DMDS Whole Field 

Results For 40 Acre Fields At Maximum Application Rate 

0

200400600800

100012001400

Shank Raised

Bradenton, FL -

Bed / Poly

Tarped

Yuma, AZ -

Shank Raised

Bed / Poly

Tarped

Tifton, GA -

Shank Raised

Bed / VIF

Tarped Field 1

Tifton, GA -

Shank Raised

Bed / Poly

Tarped Field 2

Tifton, GA -

Shank Raised

Bed / Poly

Tarped Field 3

Dover, FL -

Shank Raised

Bed / Metalized

Tarped

Shank

Poly Tarped

Broadcast /

Source of Flux Profile

Buffer Distance (meters)

Ventura CA Tallahassee FL Flint MIBradenton FL Bakersfield CA Yakima WA
Page 144 of 193 

Appendix F: Air Concentration Outputs 

from DMDS Applications Estimated with 

PERFUM for Preplant Agricultural Use
PERFUM Results from directory C:\Documents and Settings\CSMITH02\My Documents\Dmds\PERFUM Runs 1-15-10\DMDS_01152010\ventura\bradenton_flux

Results from PERFUM2_5sq_brad.per.outConcentration distribution for an application rate of 455.0 for Flux Profile Day No. 1 for Averaging Period 3%tile Ring1 Ring2 Ring3 Ring4 Ring5 Ring6 Ring7 Ring8 Ring9 Ring10 Ring11 Ring12 Ring13 Ring14 Ring50 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 98 58 18 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 362 288 192 82 28 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 728 622 492 352 222 62 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 1152 1062 938 728 548 322 62 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 75 1562 1488 1372 1178 1008 708 338 132 72 38 18 2 2 2 80 1922 1868 1778 1628 1478 1192 762 472 378 302 238 138 52 18 85 2358 2302 2218 2088 1952 1708 1282 992 873 772 678 522 358 258 90 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2348 1912 1588 1452 1328 1218 1038 828 678 95 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2398 2228 2078 1828 1522 1292 97 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2428 2042 1748 99 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 99.9 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 %tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 85 128 88 62 28 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 90 462 388 328 232 0 138 108 82 58 38 28 18 12 12 95 972 868 778 628 0 428 362 308 232 182 142 118 98 82 97 1322 1182 1062 862 0 612 533 468 368 298 248 208 178 152 99 2022 1818 1632 1348 0 972 838 732 588 478 402 348 302 272 99.9 2498 2498 2398 2002 0 1488 1308 1178 962 808 688 598 522 462 

0

Results from PERFUM2_40sq_brad.per.outConcentration distribution for an application rate of 455.0 for Flux Profile Day No. 1 for Averaging Period 3%tile Ring1 Ring2 Ring3 Ring4 Ring5 Ring6 Ring7 Ring8 Ring9 Ring10 Ring11 Ring12 Ring13 Ring14 Ring50 462 368 258 128 52 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 992 892 752 548 382 162 12 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 60 1688 1552 1358 1082 898 592 208 42 12 2 2 2 0 0 65 2342 2232 2068 1788 1542 1138 652 342 232 148 88 22 2 2 70 2498 2498 2498 2458 2232 1832 1218 828 683 562 452 282 112 32 75 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 1932 1482 1298 1138 992 768 533 352 80 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2212 2038 1882 1742 1498 1198 948 85 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2302 1968 1702 90 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 95 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 97 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 99 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 99.9 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 %tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 122 62 28 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 592 488 392 248 142 72 32 12 2 2 2 2 0 0 85 1322 1172 1048 833 662 522 418 342 238 158 108 68 42 28 90 2158 1972 1822 1552 1328 1158 1012 888 718 582 472 388 322 272 95 2498 2498 2498 2498 2342 2088 1872 1692 1408 1202 1048 928 828 738 97 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2262 1902 1622 1418 1258 1118 1002 99 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2382 2118 1882 1692 1528 99.9 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2448 2252 

Page 145 of 193 
Page 146 of 193 
PERFUM Results from directory C:\Documents and Settings\CSMITH02\My Documents\Dmds\PERFUM Runs 1-15-10\DMDS_01152010\ventura\yuma_flux

Results from PERFUM2_5sq_yuma.per.outConcentration distribution for an application rate of 455.0 for Flux Profile Day No. 1 for Averaging Period 3%tile Ring1 Ring2 Ring3 Ring4 Ring5 Ring6 Ring7 Ring8 Ring9 Ring10 Ring11 Ring12 Ring13 Ring14 Ring50 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 262 178 88 18 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 938 808 612 348 168 18 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 1538 1422 1272 1008 752 348 22 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 70 2178 2072 1892 1612 1378 953 352 72 22 8 2 2 0 0 75 2498 2498 2498 2288 2022 1552 908 478 322 202 118 32 2 2 80 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2268 1528 1058 873 718 582 372 168 62 85 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2322 1752 1532 1348 1202 962 683 482 90 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2258 2052 1732 1362 1078 95 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2432 2088 97 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 99 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 99.9 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 %tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 8 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 85 228 152 98 42 18 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 90 732 612 512 368 268 198 148 108 68 42 28 18 12 8 95 1578 1392 1222 968 788 648 538 452 338 262 208 168 142 118 97 2078 1822 1638 1368 1152 983 842 738 568 448 362 302 252 222 99 2498 2498 2498 2158 1782 1518 1308 1138 912 772 662 573 502 448 99.9 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2272 2012 1648 1392 1188 1038 908 808 Results from PERFUM2_40sq_yuma.per.outConcentration distribution for an application rate of 455.0 for Flux Profile Day No. 1 for Averaging Period 3%tile Ring1 Ring2 Ring3 Ring4 Ring5 Ring6 Ring7 Ring8 Ring9 Ring10 Ring11 Ring12 Ring13 Ring14 Ring50 1192 1032 808 508 288 68 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 2262 2122 1912 1558 1242 738 168 12 2 2 2 0 0 0 60 2498 2498 2498 2498 2188 1658 888 392 232 122 58 8 2 0 65 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 1712 1128 898 703 533 278 68 8 70 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 1932 1672 1448 1242 902 522 258 75 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2288 2062 1678 1228 878 80 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2092 1722 85 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 90 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 95 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 97 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 99 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 99.9 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 %tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 28 8 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 398 242 132 28 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 1152 938 752 462 262 138 62 28 2 2 2 2 0 0 85 2082 1822 1618 1298 1038 812 638 492 278 152 78 42 18 8 90 2498 2498 2498 2402 2038 1748 1502 1282 988 792 638 518 418 338 95 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2168 1848 1602 1398 1218 1078 97 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2418 2082 1878 1702 1552 99 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2398 99.9 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 

Page 147 of 193 
PERFUM Results from directory C:\Documents and Settings\CSMITH02\My Documents\Dmds\PERFUM Runs 1-15-10\DMDS_01152010\ventura\dover_flux

Results from PERFUM2_5sq_dover.per.outConcentration distribution for an application rate of 455.0 for Flux Profile Day No. 1 for Averaging Period 4%tile Ring1 Ring2 Ring3 Ring4 Ring5 Ring6 Ring7 Ring8 Ring9 Ring10 Ring11 Ring12 Ring13 Ring14 Ring50 38 28 18 8 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 68 58 48 32 18 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 60 102 92 78 58 42 22 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 65 138 128 112 88 68 42 18 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 70 172 162 148 122 102 72 38 18 12 8 8 2 2 2 75 212 202 182 162 138 102 62 38 28 22 18 12 8 2 80 248 242 228 202 182 142 92 62 52 48 38 28 18 12 85 298 288 272 252 228 192 142 108 92 78 72 58 38 28 90 362 352 338 318 292 252 198 158 142 128 118 98 78 62 95 472 468 452 438 418 372 302 248 228 208 192 168 138 112 97 558 548 538 522 508 468 392 328 302 282 262 228 188 158 99 703 703 698 688 678 638 553 478 448 412 388 342 288 248 99.9 938 938 942 942 928 898 808 708 668 628 592 533 452 392 %tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 80 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 85 18 12 8 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 90 38 32 28 18 12 12 8 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 95 82 72 62 48 38 32 28 22 18 12 8 8 8 2 97 118 102 92 72 58 48 42 38 28 22 18 12 12 8 99 192 168 152 122 102 88 72 68 52 42 38 32 28 22 99.9 312 282 258 218 182 158 138 122 98 78 68 58 52 42 Results from PERFUM2_40sq_dover.per.outConcentration distribution for an application rate of 455.0 for Flux Profile Day No. 1 for Averaging Period 4%tile Ring1 Ring2 Ring3 Ring4 Ring5 Ring6 Ring7 Ring8 Ring9 Ring10 Ring11 Ring12 Ring13 Ring14 Ring50 132 122 108 82 68 48 18 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 55 188 172 158 128 108 78 42 22 18 12 8 2 2 2 60 242 228 208 182 158 118 72 48 38 32 22 12 8 2 65 302 288 262 232 208 162 112 78 62 52 48 32 18 12 70 362 348 328 292 262 218 158 118 102 88 78 58 42 28 75 422 408 388 358 328 282 212 162 148 132 118 98 72 52 80 488 478 458 428 398 352 282 232 212 192 178 152 118 98 85 582 568 548 518 488 438 358 308 282 268 248 222 188 158 90 728 712 692 658 628 568 482 418 392 368 348 312 272 238 95 972 962 948 922 892 838 738 658 622 588 562 512 448 398 97 1142 1138 1118 1092 1062 1008 902 812 772 738 703 648 578 522 99 1442 1442 1432 1408 1382 1328 1202 1098 1052 1008 968 898 802 728 99.9 1922 1938 1928 1902 1882 1822 1678 1538 1478 1422 1372 1282 1162 1062 %tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 70 12 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 75 32 22 18 12 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 80 68 52 42 32 22 18 12 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 85 122 102 92 72 58 42 32 28 18 12 8 8 2 2 90 192 172 158 132 112 98 82 72 52 42 32 28 22 18 95 322 298 272 232 202 178 158 142 118 98 82 72 62 52 97 432 398 362 312 272 242 212 192 162 138 118 102 92 82 99 618 573 533 468 412 372 338 308 258 222 192 172 152 138 99.9 898 838 788 703 633 568 518 472 402 358 318 288 258 238 

Page 148 of 193 
PERFUM Results from directory C:\Documents and Settings\CSMITH02\My Documents\Dmds\PERFUM Runs 1-15-10\DMDS_01152010\ventura\cantua_flux

Results from PERFUM2_5sq_cantua.per.outConcentration distribution for an application rate of 455.0 for Flux Profile Day No. 1 for Averaging Period 3%tile Ring1 Ring2 Ring3 Ring4 Ring5 Ring6 Ring7 Ring8 Ring9 Ring10 Ring11 Ring12 Ring13 Ring14 Ring50 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 78 52 22 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 268 232 178 102 48 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 468 422 368 292 222 102 8 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 70 673 638 588 492 402 282 102 18 8 2 2 2 0 0 75 892 862 812 718 633 478 272 142 98 58 32 8 2 2 80 1162 1122 1068 972 892 728 478 312 262 218 172 112 48 18 85 1468 1438 1388 1298 1198 1018 758 568 492 428 378 288 202 142 90 1898 1872 1822 1732 1638 1448 1132 898 812 742 678 568 442 352 95 2498 2498 2482 2412 2342 2158 1792 1498 1382 1278 1178 1028 852 708 97 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2262 1942 1798 1672 1562 1362 1128 958 99 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2422 2288 2038 1722 1482 99.9 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2258 %tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 85 68 42 28 12 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 90 228 182 152 108 78 58 42 32 18 12 8 2 2 2 95 518 452 402 318 258 212 178 148 108 78 62 52 42 38 97 723 648 578 468 388 322 278 242 188 148 118 98 82 68 99 1138 1012 908 742 612 522 452 402 328 272 232 198 172 152 99.9 1762 1582 1438 1202 1038 902 788 698 573 478 412 358 312 278 Results from PERFUM2_40sq_cantua.per.outConcentration distribution for an application rate of 455.0 for Flux Profile Day No. 1 for Averaging Period 3%tile Ring1 Ring2 Ring3 Ring4 Ring5 Ring6 Ring7 Ring8 Ring9 Ring10 Ring11 Ring12 Ring13 Ring14 Ring50 348 302 238 148 82 18 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 658 612 558 458 368 218 48 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 60 962 908 833 732 648 492 262 118 68 32 18 2 2 0 65 1308 1252 1178 1058 942 752 512 338 268 212 158 82 18 2 70 1678 1632 1552 1418 1298 1088 778 582 508 438 378 272 158 78 75 2078 2022 1948 1822 1702 1482 1132 883 783 692 618 508 372 268 80 2498 2498 2442 2302 2158 1928 1562 1282 1168 1072 978 822 648 512 85 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2108 1778 1652 1542 1448 1272 1068 908 90 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2392 2258 2132 1902 1642 1442 95 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2432 97 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 99 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 99.9 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 %tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 8 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 122 72 38 8 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 348 282 228 142 78 38 18 8 2 2 2 2 0 0 85 678 588 512 388 302 242 188 148 82 42 22 12 2 2 90 1148 1038 942 792 662 562 488 422 312 238 188 152 122 102 95 1988 1822 1678 1428 1242 1102 988 878 718 602 518 458 398 352 97 2498 2378 2188 1898 1662 1468 1312 1182 983 842 742 658 582 522 99 2498 2498 2498 2498 2468 2212 1992 1808 1522 1312 1152 1022 912 822 99.9 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2278 1988 1782 1608 1452 1338 

Page 149 of 193 
PERFUM Results from directory C:\Documents and Settings\CSMITH02\My Documents\Dmds\PERFUM Runs 1-15-10\DMDS_01152010\ventura\nipomo_flux

Results from PERFUM2_5sq_nipomo.per.outConcentration distribution for an application rate of 455.0 for Flux Profile Day No. 1 for Averaging Period 2%tile Ring1 Ring2 Ring3 Ring4 Ring5 Ring6 Ring7 Ring8 Ring9 Ring10 Ring11 Ring12 Ring13 Ring14 Ring50 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 32 22 12 8 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 60 188 158 122 72 42 18 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 65 402 372 318 242 182 102 28 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 70 633 582 508 412 332 222 98 42 28 18 12 2 2 2 75 838 783 698 578 488 352 192 112 82 62 48 32 12 8 80 978 933 862 742 648 492 308 202 162 138 112 82 48 32 85 1082 1048 992 892 802 648 442 318 272 232 202 152 108 72 90 1192 1162 1102 1012 922 783 582 448 398 352 312 252 188 142 95 1372 1332 1272 1168 1072 918 708 568 512 468 432 362 288 232 97 1492 1458 1398 1288 1188 1022 792 638 578 528 488 412 332 272 99 1812 1772 1702 1588 1472 1288 1012 822 752 688 633 542 438 362 99.9 2498 2498 2498 2492 2498 2498 2022 1692 1532 1402 1268 1072 868 712 %tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 80 12 8 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 85 42 32 22 12 8 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 90 82 68 52 38 28 18 12 8 8 2 2 2 2 2 95 158 132 112 82 62 48 38 32 22 12 12 8 8 8 97 192 168 142 108 88 68 58 48 32 22 18 18 12 12 99 262 228 198 158 128 102 88 72 58 42 32 28 22 18 99.9 518 458 402 318 262 222 188 162 122 102 88 72 62 58 Results from PERFUM2_40sq_nipomo.per.outConcentration distribution for an application rate of 455.0 for Flux Profile Day No. 1 for Averaging Period 2%tile Ring1 Ring2 Ring3 Ring4 Ring5 Ring6 Ring7 Ring8 Ring9 Ring10 Ring11 Ring12 Ring13 Ring14 Ring50 118 92 68 38 22 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 55 458 418 352 278 218 132 48 18 8 2 2 2 2 2 60 762 718 642 542 462 342 188 108 78 58 42 22 8 2 65 1048 992 898 783 692 542 348 232 192 158 128 82 48 22 70 1278 1222 1122 1002 898 732 512 368 318 272 232 172 112 72 75 1462 1412 1312 1198 1092 918 683 522 462 408 362 288 208 148 80 1598 1562 1478 1378 1278 1108 862 692 622 568 518 432 332 262 85 1732 1692 1612 1518 1428 1268 1038 873 802 742 688 598 488 402 90 1892 1852 1778 1678 1582 1418 1178 1012 948 888 838 748 642 558 95 2188 2142 2062 1948 1842 1658 1388 1202 1128 1062 1002 902 788 692 97 2418 2368 2288 2172 2058 1862 1568 1358 1272 1202 1138 1028 898 792 99 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2428 2072 1802 1692 1598 1512 1368 1198 1062 99.9 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2472 %tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 70 28 18 12 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 75 82 62 48 22 12 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 80 162 132 108 72 48 32 22 18 8 2 2 2 2 2 85 282 238 202 142 108 78 62 48 28 18 12 8 8 2 90 422 372 328 258 202 162 128 102 72 52 38 28 22 18 95 558 502 458 382 322 272 232 202 152 118 92 72 58 48 97 638 578 528 442 378 322 282 248 192 158 128 102 88 72 99 862 788 718 608 522 452 398 352 282 232 192 168 142 128 99.9 1982 1768 1588 1348 1132 972 848 752 622 533 448 388 338 302 

Page 150 of 193 
PERFUM Results from directory C:\Documents and Settings\CSMITH02\My Documents\Dmds\PERFUM Runs 1-15-10\TIFTON_DMDS_012810\Ventura\Field1

Results from PERFUM2_5sq_field1.per.outConcentration distribution for an application rate of 455.0 for Flux Profile Day No. 3 for Averaging Period 2%tile Ring1 Ring2 Ring3 Ring4 Ring5 Ring6 Ring7 Ring8 Ring9 Ring10 Ring11 Ring12 Ring13 Ring14 Ring

50 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 8 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 32 22 18 8 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 68 52 42 32 18 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 128 112 92 68 48 28 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 75 182 172 158 128 102 68 28 12 2 2 2 2 2 2 80 222 218 208 188 168 132 78 42 32 28 22 12 2 2 85 268 262 258 242 228 198 148 108 92 78 68 48 32 22 90 348 342 328 312 298 272 222 188 168 152 142 118 92 72 95 472 468 468 462 452 422 362 302 278 258 238 208 172 148 97 553 553 548 548 538 518 452 398 372 348 328 288 242 202 99 692 692 698 703 703 692 628 558 528 492 468 418 358 308 

99.9 833 838 848 858 862 862 802 723 688 652 622 562 492 432 

45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 85 8 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 90 48 38 32 22 12 12 8 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 95 118 102 92 72 58 48 42 32 22 18 12 12 8 8 97 152 132 118 98 82 72 62 52 42 32 28 22 18 18 99 242 218 198 162 138 118 98 88 68 58 48 42 38 32 

99.9 348 318 288 242 208 182 158 142 118 98 82 72 62 58 

Results from PERFUM2_40sq_field1.per.outConcentration distribution for an application rate of 455.0 for Flux Profile Day No. 3 for Averaging Period 2%tile Ring1 Ring2 Ring3 Ring4 Ring5 Ring6 Ring7 Ring8 Ring9 Ring10 Ring11 Ring12 Ring13 Ring14 Ring

50 42 32 22 12 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 88 78 68 48 32 12 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 60 168 148 128 98 82 52 18 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 65 258 242 218 182 152 108 58 28 18 12 8 2 2 2 70 338 328 308 272 242 192 118 78 62 52 42 22 8 2 75 418 408 388 362 332 282 208 152 132 112 98 72 48 32 80 498 492 478 452 428 378 308 248 228 208 188 158 122 92 85 608 592 578 553 533 492 422 368 342 318 298 262 222 192 90 808 798 778 752 723 668 573 502 472 448 428 392 348 312 95 1058 1058 1048 1032 1008 968 883 802 768 732 703 648 578 522 97 1222 1222 1212 1202 1188 1148 1052 958 922 883 852 788 712 648 99 1498 1502 1502 1492 1478 1442 1348 1252 1208 1162 1122 1052 958 873 

99.9 1748 1768 1768 1762 1752 1722 1622 1512 1462 1412 1368 1282 1172 1088 

45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 52 42 32 22 12 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 85 142 128 108 82 62 48 38 28 18 12 8 2 2 2 90 252 232 212 182 158 132 118 102 78 58 48 38 28 22 95 432 398 362 312 268 238 212 192 162 142 122 112 98 88 97 548 508 472 418 368 328 298 268 222 188 162 142 128 118 99 748 698 652 578 512 462 418 382 328 288 252 228 208 188 

Page 151 of 193 
PERFUM Results from directory C:\Documents and Settings\CSMITH02\My Documents\Dmds\PERFUM Runs 1-15-10\PERFUM Runs 2-3-10\Ventura\Field2

Results from PERFUM2_5sq_field2.per.outConcentration distribution for an application rate of 455.0 for Flux Profile Day No. 1 for Averaging Period 2%tile Ring1 Ring2 Ring3 Ring4 Ring5 Ring6 Ring7 Ring8 Ring9 Ring10 Ring11 Ring12 Ring13 Ring14 Ring50 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 68 38 18 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 248 198 132 58 18 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 482 422 342 228 142 42 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 688 642 578 462 358 202 38 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 75 852 822 772 688 602 438 212 82 48 22 12 2 2 2 80 1042 1008 958 888 822 692 462 302 242 192 152 88 32 12 85 1318 1278 1222 1132 1052 922 728 573 512 458 408 328 232 162 90 1652 1622 1582 1518 1442 1278 1008 838 772 712 662 578 472 392 95 2222 2208 2182 2142 2088 1958 1678 1422 1318 1222 1138 992 818 683 97 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2458 2168 1878 1748 1632 1528 1348 1132 968 99 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2438 2298 2172 1942 1662 1442 99.9 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2232 1972 %tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 85 82 58 42 18 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 90 278 238 202 148 112 88 68 52 32 22 18 12 8 8 95 508 452 408 338 282 238 202 178 132 108 82 68 58 48 97 732 648 573 458 378 318 278 242 192 158 132 112 98 82 99 1118 1002 898 738 618 522 452 398 312 252 212 182 158 138 99.9 1572 1428 1302 1092 938 812 712 633 518 428 362 312 278 242 Results from PERFUM2_40sq_field2.per.outConcentration distribution for an application rate of 455.0 for Flux Profile Day No. 1 for Averaging Period 2%tile Ring1 Ring2 Ring3 Ring4 Ring5 Ring6 Ring7 Ring8 Ring9 Ring10 Ring11 Ring12 Ring13 Ring14 Ring50 298 238 168 88 38 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 678 602 498 358 252 108 8 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 60 1048 978 873 712 578 372 132 28 8 2 2 2 0 0 65 1368 1308 1218 1072 942 718 402 208 138 88 52 12 2 2 70 1648 1602 1532 1408 1288 1078 748 512 422 342 278 172 72 22 75 1932 1888 1822 1722 1618 1428 1118 883 783 698 622 488 338 222 80 2358 2292 2198 2062 1952 1782 1498 1262 1162 1078 1002 873 718 588 85 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2292 1912 1662 1562 1478 1402 1268 1102 968 90 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2418 2278 2148 2032 1828 1578 1388 95 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2438 97 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 99 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 99.9 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 %tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 78 38 18 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 392 318 258 162 98 52 28 12 2 2 2 2 2 0 85 762 683 618 502 412 342 278 228 158 108 72 52 32 22 90 1128 1032 958 828 732 648 578 518 422 352 292 248 208 178 95 2032 1868 1722 1488 1302 1152 1028 922 752 628 548 482 432 392 97 2498 2408 2238 1952 1718 1522 1372 1242 1042 892 778 683 598 528 99 2498 2498 2498 2498 2382 2148 1948 1782 1518 1318 1158 1028 918 833 99.9 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2372 2068 1822 1638 1482 1352 1238 

Page 152 of 193 
PERFUM Results from directory C:\Documents and Settings\CSMITH02\My Documents\Dmds\PERFUM Runs 1-15-10\PERFUM Runs 2-3-10\Ventura\Field3

Results from PERFUM2_5sq_field3.per.outConcentration distribution for an application rate of 455.0 for Flux Profile Day No. 1 for Averaging Period 2%tile Ring1 Ring2 Ring3 Ring4 Ring5 Ring6 Ring7 Ring8 Ring9 Ring10 Ring11 Ring12 Ring13 Ring14 Ring50 18 12 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 82 62 42 18 8 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 148 132 108 72 42 12 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 65 222 202 172 132 102 58 12 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 70 298 278 248 202 162 108 48 18 8 2 2 2 2 2 75 382 362 332 282 242 178 98 52 42 28 22 8 2 2 80 462 448 422 382 342 268 172 112 92 78 62 42 22 12 85 562 548 522 478 442 378 272 208 178 158 138 108 72 52 90 712 698 668 622 578 508 398 322 292 268 242 202 162 128 95 968 953 938 902 868 792 652 538 492 452 418 362 302 258 97 1132 1128 1118 1098 1068 998 852 728 673 622 582 508 418 348 99 1398 1398 1392 1392 1372 1322 1178 1028 968 908 852 758 642 558 99.9 1798 1808 1822 1832 1832 1792 1638 1478 1398 1312 1248 1122 968 852 %tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 85 28 22 18 8 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 90 88 72 62 42 32 22 18 12 8 8 2 2 2 2 95 188 162 142 112 92 78 62 52 38 28 22 18 12 12 97 258 228 208 168 138 118 98 88 68 52 42 32 28 22 99 428 378 342 278 232 198 172 148 118 98 82 72 62 52 99.9 673 608 558 468 392 338 298 262 212 178 152 128 112 98 Results from PERFUM2_40sq_field3.per.outConcentration distribution for an application rate of 455.0 for Flux Profile Day No. 1 for Averaging Period 2%tile Ring1 Ring2 Ring3 Ring4 Ring5 Ring6 Ring7 Ring8 Ring9 Ring10 Ring11 Ring12 Ring13 Ring14 Ring50 192 172 142 102 78 32 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 55 292 272 238 192 158 108 42 12 2 2 2 2 2 2 60 408 382 348 292 252 182 102 58 38 28 18 8 2 2 65 538 512 468 408 358 278 178 118 98 78 62 38 12 2 70 668 642 602 542 488 392 272 192 168 142 122 92 58 32 75 798 772 738 683 628 538 402 308 268 238 212 168 122 88 80 948 922 892 833 783 692 553 452 412 378 348 292 232 182 85 1168 1138 1092 1028 978 883 728 618 578 538 508 448 382 328 90 1518 1492 1452 1388 1322 1202 1018 883 833 788 748 678 588 518 95 2062 2048 2018 1962 1912 1812 1612 1448 1378 1312 1248 1138 1012 902 97 2392 2388 2362 2328 2288 2188 1972 1782 1698 1622 1552 1428 1282 1152 99 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2332 2238 2152 2068 1918 1732 1582 99.9 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2372 2182 %tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 48 32 22 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 80 118 98 78 52 38 22 12 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 85 248 218 192 148 118 92 72 58 38 28 18 12 8 8 90 412 372 342 288 248 212 182 162 128 98 78 68 52 42 95 732 668 612 518 448 398 358 322 268 228 192 168 148 132 97 962 888 822 718 628 558 498 448 368 308 272 242 218 192 99 1352 1258 1172 1032 922 833 752 683 578 502 438 388 348 312 99.9 1898 1778 1672 1492 1352 1228 1118 1028 892 783 703 633 562 518 

Page 153 of 193 
PERFUM Results from directory C:\Documents and Settings\CSMITH02\My Documents\Dmds\PERFUM Runs 1-15-10\DMDS_01152010\bradenton\bradenton_flux

Results from PERFUM2_5sq_brad.per.outConcentration distribution for an application rate of 455.0 for Flux Profile Day No. 1 for Averaging Period 3%tile Ring1 Ring2 Ring3 Ring4 Ring5 Ring6 Ring7 Ring8 Ring9 Ring10 Ring11 Ring12 Ring13 Ring14 Ring50 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 22 8 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 252 192 122 42 12 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 638 568 482 338 212 62 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 1278 1188 1052 833 642 402 102 8 2 2 2 0 0 0 75 1908 1832 1718 1522 1332 972 468 212 128 72 32 2 2 2 80 2498 2498 2398 2212 2028 1658 1068 642 502 392 308 178 68 18 85 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2438 1772 1298 1118 953 818 592 372 238 90 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2082 1868 1682 1502 1218 922 708 95 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2172 1742 1412 97 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2302 1928 99 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 99.9 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 %tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 85 98 58 32 12 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 90 428 332 268 182 128 92 68 48 28 18 12 8 2 2 95 1022 873 762 588 478 388 322 268 198 148 118 92 78 62 97 1428 1232 1088 868 723 602 512 438 338 268 218 182 152 132 99 2228 1972 1762 1428 1192 1012 878 772 608 492 422 362 312 272 99.9 2498 2498 2498 2348 2002 1722 1518 1342 1072 888 748 642 558 492 Results from PERFUM2_40sq_brad.per.outConcentration distribution for an application rate of 455.0 for Flux Profile Day No. 1 for Averaging Period 3%tile Ring1 Ring2 Ring3 Ring4 Ring5 Ring6 Ring7 Ring8 Ring9 Ring10 Ring11 Ring12 Ring13 Ring14 Ring50 198 142 82 28 8 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 808 718 598 422 282 102 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 60 1642 1502 1318 1092 928 618 222 48 18 2 2 2 0 0 65 2498 2498 2352 2098 1828 1368 818 468 338 232 152 48 2 2 70 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2398 1668 1128 948 792 658 442 218 82 75 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2048 1818 1592 1402 1072 723 488 80 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2308 1948 1492 1138 85 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2412 1988 90 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 95 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 97 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 99 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 99.9 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 %tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 182 98 42 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 658 502 382 208 102 42 12 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 85 1422 1202 1012 718 518 372 272 198 98 48 18 8 2 2 90 2418 2128 1872 1498 1232 1022 848 703 502 362 278 218 172 138 95 2498 2498 2498 2498 2342 1998 1748 1558 1268 1038 868 748 658 578 97 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2408 2152 1782 1488 1282 1132 1012 902 99 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2408 2102 1848 1652 1488 99.9 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 

Page 154 of 193 
PERFUM Results from directory C:\Documents and Settings\CSMITH02\My Documents\Dmds\PERFUM Runs 1-15-10\DMDS_01152010\bradenton\yuma_flux

Results from PERFUM2_5sq_yuma.per.outConcentration distribution for an application rate of 455.0 for Flux Profile Day No. 1 for Averaging Period 3%tile Ring1 Ring2 Ring3 Ring4 Ring5 Ring6 Ring7 Ring8 Ring9 Ring10 Ring11 Ring12 Ring13 Ring14 Ring50 12 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 308 212 108 28 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 1068 918 703 418 218 32 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 1922 1782 1572 1242 948 478 52 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 70 2498 2498 2498 2162 1832 1302 553 152 62 22 2 2 2 0 75 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2248 1358 778 562 388 258 92 12 2 80 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2292 1618 1352 1132 938 638 328 148 85 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2242 1978 1768 1392 992 708 90 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2262 1788 1402 95 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2472 97 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 99 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 99.9 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 %tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 22 8 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 85 348 248 172 82 38 18 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 90 938 783 658 468 338 252 192 148 92 62 42 32 22 18 95 1768 1552 1348 1078 862 712 598 502 378 292 232 192 162 138 97 2288 2012 1862 1498 1232 1052 888 768 592 472 382 322 278 238 99 2498 2498 2498 2358 1958 1658 1428 1252 1042 868 732 628 553 488 99.9 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2232 1838 1542 1308 1148 1002 892 Results from PERFUM2_40sq_yuma.per.outConcentration distribution for an application rate of 455.0 for Flux Profile Day No. 1 for Averaging Period 3%tile Ring1 Ring2 Ring3 Ring4 Ring5 Ring6 Ring7 Ring8 Ring9 Ring10 Ring11 Ring12 Ring13 Ring14 Ring50 1262 1062 818 508 292 72 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 2498 2472 2202 1772 1402 833 202 22 2 2 2 2 0 0 60 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2108 1142 538 332 192 98 18 2 2 65 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2368 1602 1292 1032 812 462 142 22 70 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2492 2168 1898 1428 888 508 75 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 1968 1468 80 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 85 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 90 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 95 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 97 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 99 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 99.9 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 %tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 92 28 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 752 512 322 102 18 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 1788 1468 1208 778 488 278 148 72 12 2 2 2 2 0 85 2498 2498 2238 1742 1372 1082 852 658 392 242 138 82 48 28 90 2498 2498 2498 2498 2402 2018 1722 1502 1162 902 723 582 472 382 95 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2198 1858 1562 1378 1192 1052 97 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2238 1948 1718 1568 99 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2448 99.9 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 

Page 155 of 193 
PERFUM Results from directory C:\Documents and Settings\CSMITH02\My Documents\Dmds\PERFUM Runs 1-15-10\DMDS_01152010\bradenton\dover_flux

Results from PERFUM2_5sq_dover.per.outConcentration distribution for an application rate of 455.0 for Flux Profile Day No. 1 for Averaging Period 4%tile Ring1 Ring2 Ring3 Ring4 Ring5 Ring6 Ring7 Ring8 Ring9 Ring10 Ring11 Ring12 Ring13 Ring14 Ring50 8 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 32 28 18 8 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 60 78 68 52 32 22 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 65 122 112 92 72 58 32 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 70 178 162 142 118 98 68 32 12 8 8 2 2 2 2 75 238 222 202 172 148 108 62 38 32 22 18 12 2 2 80 308 298 278 242 212 168 108 72 58 48 42 28 18 12 85 392 382 362 328 292 238 162 118 98 82 72 58 38 28 90 492 482 468 432 398 338 242 182 162 142 128 98 72 58 95 633 622 608 573 538 472 362 288 258 232 212 178 138 112 97 712 703 688 658 622 553 442 358 322 298 272 228 182 148 99 848 842 828 798 762 692 568 478 442 408 378 328 272 228 99.9 1018 1018 1012 988 953 883 758 652 608 568 533 472 408 352 %tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 80 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 85 18 12 8 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 90 32 28 22 18 12 8 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 95 78 62 52 42 32 22 18 18 12 8 8 2 2 2 97 108 92 78 62 48 42 32 28 22 18 12 8 8 8 99 172 148 132 108 88 78 62 58 42 32 28 22 18 18 99.9 272 248 222 188 158 138 122 108 88 68 58 52 48 42 Results from PERFUM2_40sq_dover.per.outConcentration distribution for an application rate of 455.0 for Flux Profile Day No. 1 for Averaging Period 4%tile Ring1 Ring2 Ring3 Ring4 Ring5 Ring6 Ring7 Ring8 Ring9 Ring10 Ring11 Ring12 Ring13 Ring14 Ring50 88 72 58 38 28 12 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 55 152 138 118 92 78 48 18 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 60 222 208 182 152 132 98 58 32 22 18 12 2 2 2 65 302 288 258 222 198 152 102 72 58 48 42 28 12 8 70 392 372 348 312 278 228 158 118 102 88 78 62 42 28 75 492 478 448 412 378 318 238 182 162 142 128 102 78 58 80 608 592 568 528 492 428 328 262 238 218 198 162 128 102 85 742 728 708 662 622 553 448 368 338 312 288 248 198 162 90 908 898 873 833 792 712 592 502 468 432 408 358 298 252 95 1142 1132 1108 1068 1028 942 808 703 662 622 588 528 452 392 97 1272 1268 1242 1208 1162 1078 938 822 778 732 698 628 553 488 99 1528 1518 1492 1452 1408 1322 1162 1038 988 938 898 818 728 658 99.9 1832 1828 1812 1772 1732 1648 1488 1342 1282 1228 1178 1092 983 898 %tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 12 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 75 32 28 18 12 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 80 68 52 42 32 22 18 12 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 85 112 98 82 62 48 38 28 22 18 12 8 8 2 2 90 188 162 142 112 92 72 62 52 38 28 22 18 12 12 95 308 278 252 208 178 148 128 112 88 72 58 48 42 38 97 392 358 322 272 232 202 178 158 128 102 88 78 68 58 99 548 502 462 398 348 308 278 248 208 178 158 138 122 112 99.9 758 703 658 578 518 468 422 388 332 292 262 238 218 198 

Page 156 of 193 
PERFUM Results from directory C:\Documents and Settings\CSMITH02\My Documents\Dmds\PERFUM Runs 1-15-10\DMDS_01152010\bradenton\cantua_flux

Results from PERFUM2_5sq_cantua.per.outConcentration distribution for an application rate of 455.0 for Flux Profile Day No. 1 for Averaging Period 3%tile Ring1 Ring2 Ring3 Ring4 Ring5 Ring6 Ring7 Ring8 Ring9 Ring10 Ring11 Ring12 Ring13 Ring14 Ring50 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 92 62 32 8 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 318 272 212 128 68 8 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 608 548 468 368 282 142 12 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 70 902 862 798 683 568 388 162 42 18 2 2 2 2 0 75 1188 1152 1092 992 892 708 412 232 168 118 78 28 2 2 80 1538 1512 1452 1348 1238 1048 728 502 412 342 282 188 98 42 85 1998 1958 1898 1782 1672 1458 1092 828 728 638 562 442 302 212 90 2498 2498 2498 2412 2288 2012 1582 1238 1112 1002 908 752 582 462 95 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2348 1918 1732 1578 1438 1228 1012 822 97 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2392 2192 2012 1852 1588 1292 1072 99 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2318 1948 1672 99.9 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 %tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 85 108 72 52 22 12 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 90 302 248 202 142 102 78 58 42 28 18 12 8 8 2 95 592 518 452 352 288 232 192 162 122 92 72 58 48 42 97 822 718 628 508 418 348 298 258 198 152 128 102 88 78 99 1268 1118 988 808 673 573 502 458 362 298 252 212 188 162 99.9 2022 1822 1648 1368 1152 998 883 792 652 548 468 402 352 312 Results from PERFUM2_40sq_cantua.per.outConcentration distribution for an application rate of 455.0 for Flux Profile Day No. 1 for Averaging Period 3%tile Ring1 Ring2 Ring3 Ring4 Ring5 Ring6 Ring7 Ring8 Ring9 Ring10 Ring11 Ring12 Ring13 Ring14 Ring50 382 322 248 152 88 22 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 808 738 652 533 422 252 62 8 2 2 2 2 0 0 60 1288 1228 1122 968 848 633 342 158 98 58 28 2 2 2 65 1738 1688 1608 1468 1328 1082 723 478 388 312 242 138 42 8 70 2232 2178 2098 1958 1812 1558 1168 878 758 668 578 428 268 152 75 2498 2498 2498 2498 2372 2092 1662 1332 1202 1098 992 812 598 442 80 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2232 1862 1708 1568 1452 1262 1008 828 85 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2338 2192 2042 1792 1498 1268 90 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2162 1848 95 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 97 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 99 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 99.9 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 %tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 28 8 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 228 152 98 28 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 553 452 368 238 148 82 42 22 2 2 2 2 2 0 85 948 822 712 553 428 332 258 198 122 72 42 22 12 8 90 1432 1278 1142 938 772 662 562 488 368 282 228 178 142 118 95 2232 2012 1818 1562 1362 1168 1018 912 732 618 528 448 392 348 97 2498 2498 2358 1998 1722 1508 1328 1192 1042 868 742 658 582 518 99 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2328 2092 1902 1602 1358 1182 1048 938 842 99.9 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2258 1998 1792 1622 1472 

Page 157 of 193 
PERFUM Results from directory C:\Documents and Settings\CSMITH02\My Documents\Dmds\PERFUM Runs 1-15-10\DMDS_01152010\bradenton\nipomo_flux

Results from PERFUM2_5sq_nipomo.per.outConcentration distribution for an application rate of 455.0 for Flux Profile Day No. 1 for Averaging Period 2%tile Ring1 Ring2 Ring3 Ring4 Ring5 Ring6 Ring7 Ring8 Ring9 Ring10 Ring11 Ring12 Ring13 Ring14 Ring50 172 142 108 62 38 8 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 55 332 292 242 178 128 62 12 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 60 488 448 392 312 248 158 62 18 12 2 2 2 2 2 65 642 598 538 452 378 268 138 72 52 32 22 8 2 2 70 833 783 703 598 512 388 232 148 112 92 72 42 22 8 75 1032 983 898 778 673 522 338 232 192 162 138 98 58 38 80 1242 1192 1112 988 873 688 458 328 282 242 212 162 112 82 85 1452 1408 1328 1198 1082 888 618 452 388 342 302 238 178 132 90 1712 1668 1582 1442 1312 1098 798 608 538 478 428 348 262 202 95 2092 2052 1962 1808 1658 1408 1058 833 748 673 608 508 398 322 97 2318 2278 2198 2038 1878 1608 1222 972 878 798 728 612 488 398 99 2498 2498 2498 2492 2308 1992 1558 1262 1142 1048 962 818 662 548 99.9 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2282 1862 1708 1572 1452 1258 1042 873 %tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 75 12 8 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 80 42 32 22 12 8 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 85 82 68 52 38 28 22 18 12 8 2 2 2 2 2 90 132 112 98 72 52 42 32 28 18 12 12 8 8 2 95 222 188 162 122 98 78 62 52 38 28 22 18 18 12 97 278 242 208 162 128 102 88 72 52 42 32 28 22 18 99 398 348 302 242 198 162 138 118 88 72 58 48 42 32 99.9 658 582 518 418 342 292 252 218 168 138 112 98 82 72 Results from PERFUM2_40sq_nipomo.per.outConcentration distribution for an application rate of 455.0 for Flux Profile Day No. 1 for Averaging Period 2%tile Ring1 Ring2 Ring3 Ring4 Ring5 Ring6 Ring7 Ring8 Ring9 Ring10 Ring11 Ring12 Ring13 Ring14 Ring50 638 592 528 438 362 258 132 62 42 28 18 8 2 2 55 873 822 748 652 568 442 278 172 138 112 88 52 18 8 60 1118 1058 972 868 772 628 432 312 268 228 192 138 82 48 65 1392 1332 1232 1098 988 818 598 452 398 352 312 248 172 122 70 1672 1608 1502 1362 1242 1042 772 608 542 492 442 368 278 212 75 1928 1878 1778 1632 1508 1292 992 792 712 648 592 498 392 318 80 2192 2132 2038 1892 1762 1542 1222 1002 918 838 772 658 528 432 85 2488 2432 2332 2182 2042 1802 1462 1222 1132 1048 972 848 698 582 90 2498 2498 2498 2498 2402 2132 1752 1488 1378 1282 1202 1058 892 768 95 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2182 1872 1748 1638 1542 1378 1182 1032 97 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2478 2132 1998 1878 1768 1588 1372 1202 99 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2388 2258 2042 1782 1578 99.9 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2402 %tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring50 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 12 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 58 38 22 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 70 128 98 72 42 22 12 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 75 212 172 142 98 62 42 28 18 8 2 2 2 2 2 80 302 258 222 162 122 98 72 58 38 22 18 12 8 2 85 422 362 318 248 198 158 132 108 78 58 42 32 28 22 90 578 508 452 362 292 248 208 178 138 108 82 68 58 48 95 808 723 652 542 458 388 338 292 232 182 152 128 108 92 97 953 862 783 658 558 478 418 368 292 238 202 172 148 128 99 1272 1152 1052 892 768 673 592 528 432 358 308 268 232 208 99.9 1962 1792 1642 1418 1242 1102 988 892 742 638 553 488 432 388 

Page 158 of 193 
PERFUM Results from directory C:\Documents and Settings\CSMITH02\My Documents\Dmds\PERFUM Runs 1-15-10\TIFTON_DMDS_012810\Bradenton\Field1

Results from PERFUM2_5sq_field1.per.outConcentration distribution for an application rate of 455.0 for Flux Profile Day No. 3 for Averaging Period 2%tile Ring1 Ring2 Ring3 Ring4 Ring5 Ring6 Ring7 Ring8 Ring9 Ring10 Ring11 Ring12 Ring13 Ring14 Ring

50 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 18 12 8 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 52 48 38 28 18 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 128 112 98 72 52 32 8 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 75 222 212 192 168 138 88 38 18 8 2 2 2 2 2 80 298 292 282 262 238 188 108 58 42 32 28 12 2 2 85 388 378 368 348 328 288 208 148 122 98 82 52 32 18 90 518 512 502 482 458 402 308 248 218 198 172 142 102 78 95 683 683 678 668 642 592 482 398 358 328 298 252 202 172 97 778 778 772 768 748 698 592 498 458 422 392 338 272 228 99 912 922 928 922 908 873 762 668 622 582 548 482 408 352 

99.9 1078 1088 1092 1102 1102 1072 972 868 822 778 738 668 582 518 

50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 85 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 90 38 28 22 12 8 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 95 118 102 88 68 52 42 32 28 18 12 8 8 8 2 97 168 148 132 102 88 72 58 52 38 28 22 18 18 12 99 268 238 212 172 142 118 102 88 72 58 48 42 38 32 

99.9 412 378 342 288 248 212 182 162 132 108 92 78 68 58 

Results from PERFUM2_40sq_field1.per.outConcentration distribution for an application rate of 455.0 for Flux Profile Day No. 3 for Averaging Period 2%tile Ring1 Ring2 Ring3 Ring4 Ring5 Ring6 Ring7 Ring8 Ring9 Ring10 Ring11 Ring12 Ring13 Ring14 Ring

50 12 12 8 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 68 58 48 32 22 8 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 60 142 132 112 92 78 52 18 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 65 282 262 238 202 168 122 72 38 28 18 12 2 2 2 70 422 408 388 352 318 252 158 102 82 68 58 38 18 8 75 542 533 518 488 458 398 298 218 188 158 138 98 62 42 80 668 658 642 618 592 533 428 352 318 288 258 212 152 112 85 852 842 822 792 758 688 582 498 458 422 392 342 282 228 90 1082 1078 1058 1028 992 918 788 678 633 592 558 492 428 372 95 1382 1382 1368 1342 1312 1248 1112 988 933 883 838 758 668 588 97 1548 1548 1538 1518 1492 1428 1282 1158 1102 1052 1002 922 822 738 99 1848 1852 1842 1828 1808 1752 1612 1472 1412 1352 1302 1202 1078 978 

99.9 2192 2192 2192 2182 2172 2118 1972 1818 1748 1682 1618 1502 1368 1262 

%tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring

50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 12 8 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 58 42 32 18 8 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 85 158 128 102 62 42 32 22 18 8 2 2 2 2 2 90 282 248 218 172 138 112 88 72 42 28 22 18 12 12 95 468 422 382 318 272 242 212 188 152 122 102 88 72 62 97 608 553 508 432 372 322 282 252 208 182 158 138 122 108 99 833 768 712 618 548 492 442 402 338 288 252 222 198 178 

99.9 1098 1028 962 862 788 723 668 618 538 478 428 382 348 312 

Page 159 of 193 
PERFUM Results from directory C:\Documents and Settings\CSMITH02\My Documents\Dmds\PERFUM Runs 1-15-10\PERFUM Runs 2-3-10\Bradenton\Field2

Results from PERFUM2_5sq_field2.per.outConcentration distribution for an application rate of 455.0 for Flux Profile Day No. 1 for Averaging Period 2%tile Ring1 Ring2 Ring3 Ring4 Ring5 Ring6 Ring7 Ring8 Ring9 Ring10 Ring11 Ring12 Ring13 Ring14 Ring50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 8 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 162 122 72 22 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 468 408 332 218 138 32 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 788 742 673 553 438 258 58 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 75 1068 1038 992 898 788 598 302 128 72 38 18 2 2 2 80 1482 1438 1362 1242 1142 953 633 408 322 248 192 102 38 8 85 1948 1918 1862 1752 1622 1372 1018 748 648 562 482 368 238 148 90 2498 2498 2472 2372 2248 1988 1518 1168 1032 938 848 698 528 418 95 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2312 1902 1732 1582 1452 1228 978 792 97 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2348 2162 1992 1838 1582 1292 1078 99 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2248 1898 1628 99.9 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2342 %tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 85 58 32 18 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 90 262 212 172 118 78 58 42 28 18 8 8 2 2 2 95 573 498 432 342 272 228 188 158 118 88 68 58 48 38 97 783 683 602 478 398 338 288 248 192 152 122 102 88 72 99 1228 1082 968 788 652 553 472 412 322 262 222 192 168 148 99.9 1862 1692 1542 1308 1092 948 833 738 592 488 412 348 302 262 Results from PERFUM2_40sq_field2.per.outConcentration distribution for an application rate of 455.0 for Flux Profile Day No. 1 for Averaging Period 2%tile Ring1 Ring2 Ring3 Ring4 Ring5 Ring6 Ring7 Ring8 Ring9 Ring10 Ring11 Ring12 Ring13 Ring14 Ring50 112 78 42 12 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 548 478 382 262 172 58 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 60 1082 1008 902 742 608 392 132 22 8 2 2 2 0 0 65 1572 1508 1412 1278 1132 888 518 282 202 138 88 22 2 2 70 2068 2012 1918 1788 1652 1392 1002 712 598 492 408 262 122 42 75 2498 2498 2482 2338 2212 1948 1518 1192 1052 942 842 662 452 298 80 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2098 1738 1588 1448 1322 1122 883 688 85 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2368 2178 2012 1882 1658 1378 1148 90 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2418 2048 1752 95 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 97 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 99 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 99.9 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 %tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 108 52 18 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 418 318 238 122 58 18 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 85 822 708 608 452 332 238 168 118 58 22 8 2 2 2 90 1332 1192 1082 868 708 588 502 422 312 238 182 142 108 82 95 2238 2032 1838 1532 1298 1122 978 858 708 598 508 438 378 332 97 2498 2498 2358 2002 1738 1518 1342 1198 978 822 703 612 548 492 99 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2272 2042 1858 1548 1322 1158 1018 908 812 99.9 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2382 2108 1898 1702 1532 1392 

Page 160 of 193 
PERFUM Results from directory C:\Documents and Settings\CSMITH02\My Documents\Dmds\PERFUM Runs 1-15-10\PERFUM Runs 2-3-10\Bradenton\Field3

Results from PERFUM2_5sq_field3.per.outConcentration distribution for an application rate of 455.0 for Flux Profile Day No. 1 for Averaging Period 2%tile Ring1 Ring2 Ring3 Ring4 Ring5 Ring6 Ring7 Ring8 Ring9 Ring10 Ring11 Ring12 Ring13 Ring14 Ring50 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 32 22 12 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 108 88 62 38 18 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 65 192 172 142 102 72 32 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 70 288 268 238 188 152 98 38 12 8 2 2 2 2 2 75 418 392 352 302 258 182 102 58 42 28 22 8 2 2 80 568 548 512 452 398 308 188 122 98 82 68 48 28 12 85 768 748 708 648 582 482 328 222 188 162 138 102 68 48 90 1002 988 958 898 833 712 522 392 342 302 268 212 152 112 95 1308 1298 1278 1222 1158 1032 812 652 588 528 482 408 318 252 97 1488 1478 1462 1408 1348 1218 988 818 742 683 628 533 428 352 99 1762 1758 1742 1698 1642 1522 1288 1092 1008 933 873 762 633 538 99.9 2128 2128 2128 2092 2042 1922 1678 1452 1358 1278 1202 1078 922 808 %tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 85 28 18 12 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 90 68 52 42 32 22 18 12 8 8 2 2 2 2 2 95 172 148 128 98 78 62 48 42 28 22 18 12 8 8 97 252 218 192 148 122 98 82 68 52 38 32 28 22 18 99 408 358 318 262 218 182 158 138 108 88 72 62 52 42 99.9 638 573 518 432 372 322 282 248 202 168 138 118 102 92 Results from PERFUM2_40sq_field3.per.outConcentration distribution for an application rate of 455.0 for Flux Profile Day No. 1 for Averaging Period 2%tile Ring1 Ring2 Ring3 Ring4 Ring5 Ring6 Ring7 Ring8 Ring9 Ring10 Ring11 Ring12 Ring13 Ring14 Ring50 102 88 62 38 22 8 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 55 228 202 172 128 98 52 12 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 60 352 328 292 238 202 142 68 28 18 12 8 2 2 2 65 512 482 442 378 328 252 158 102 82 62 48 28 8 2 70 708 678 628 558 498 408 278 198 168 148 128 92 58 32 75 938 908 862 788 718 608 438 332 292 258 228 178 128 92 80 1208 1182 1132 1058 983 858 668 528 478 428 388 312 238 188 85 1532 1508 1462 1388 1312 1172 942 778 712 652 602 518 412 338 90 1932 1908 1868 1792 1712 1562 1302 1108 1028 958 898 788 658 558 95 2458 2448 2412 2342 2262 2098 1818 1598 1502 1418 1342 1208 1048 918 97 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2408 2118 1878 1778 1688 1602 1458 1282 1142 99 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2372 2262 2152 2062 1898 1692 1522 99.9 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2482 2228 2022 %tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 48 32 22 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 80 112 92 72 48 32 22 12 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 85 222 188 158 112 82 62 48 38 22 18 12 8 2 2 90 418 362 318 248 198 158 128 108 72 52 42 32 28 22 95 723 648 588 488 408 348 302 262 208 168 138 118 102 88 97 922 842 768 648 558 488 428 382 308 258 218 188 162 142 99 1262 1162 1078 938 822 738 662 598 502 428 372 332 298 268 99.9 1722 1608 1502 1328 1192 1082 992 908 783 688 618 553 502 458 

Page 161 of 193 
PERFUM Results from directory C:\Documents and Settings\CSMITH02\My Documents\Dmds\PERFUM Runs 1-15-10\DMDS_01152010\bakersfield\bradenton_flux

Results from PERFUM2_5sq_brad.per.outConcentration distribution for an application rate of 455.0 for Flux Profile Day No. 1 for Averaging Period 3%tile Ring1 Ring2 Ring3 Ring4 Ring5 Ring6 Ring7 Ring8 Ring9 Ring10 Ring11 Ring12 Ring13 Ring14 Ring50 332 298 252 178 112 28 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 582 538 468 378 302 172 28 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 60 838 802 742 638 538 378 172 52 18 8 2 2 0 0 65 1082 1048 998 902 802 628 362 208 152 102 68 22 2 2 70 1332 1298 1248 1162 1072 892 602 398 328 268 218 138 62 22 75 1598 1568 1528 1438 1342 1168 862 642 548 468 402 302 192 122 80 1912 1878 1828 1742 1658 1472 1142 888 792 703 628 508 368 262 85 2262 2238 2192 2112 2018 1812 1472 1172 1058 968 883 738 578 462 90 2498 2498 2498 2498 2488 2268 1842 1518 1392 1298 1212 1028 833 698 95 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2102 1932 1782 1672 1448 1192 1012 97 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2322 2152 2002 1752 1452 1258 99 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2348 1978 1688 99.9 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2468 %tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 42 22 8 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 148 112 82 42 22 12 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 85 302 242 198 138 98 68 48 32 18 8 8 2 2 2 90 498 432 368 282 218 172 138 112 72 52 38 28 22 18 95 792 698 612 498 412 342 292 252 192 152 122 102 82 72 97 938 833 742 622 533 452 388 342 272 218 182 158 132 118 99 1292 1148 1028 852 742 628 548 482 398 342 292 258 222 198 99.9 1962 1768 1608 1332 1132 983 862 762 628 528 452 398 358 322 Results from PERFUM2_40sq_brad.per.outConcentration distribution for an application rate of 455.0 for Flux Profile Day No. 1 for Averaging Period 3%tile Ring1 Ring2 Ring3 Ring4 Ring5 Ring6 Ring7 Ring8 Ring9 Ring10 Ring11 Ring12 Ring13 Ring14 Ring50 1378 1312 1218 1062 933 723 432 238 168 112 62 12 2 2 55 1838 1778 1682 1538 1398 1148 788 538 448 362 298 188 72 12 60 2292 2228 2142 2008 1868 1602 1192 888 772 683 592 452 298 178 65 2498 2498 2498 2472 2332 2058 1622 1308 1168 1048 942 762 573 428 70 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2072 1728 1578 1442 1322 1148 902 718 75 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2172 2028 1872 1742 1528 1272 1052 80 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2362 2208 1952 1662 1422 85 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2448 2152 1868 90 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2372 95 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 97 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 99 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 99.9 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 %tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 42 12 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 232 158 108 32 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 468 372 302 198 112 62 28 8 2 2 2 0 0 0 75 768 652 553 408 298 222 162 118 52 22 8 2 2 2 80 1092 968 852 692 548 438 352 292 192 132 88 58 38 22 85 1468 1308 1208 983 828 708 598 533 402 298 232 182 142 118 90 1902 1742 1622 1378 1172 1032 902 818 648 548 448 388 328 282 95 2498 2432 2238 1958 1682 1472 1312 1182 1018 883 752 668 582 533 97 2498 2498 2498 2332 2038 1792 1618 1482 1222 1048 908 822 762 688 99 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2438 2178 1978 1668 1432 1252 1118 1042 953 99.9 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2212 1978 1768 1598 1452 

Page 162 of 193 
PERFUM Results from directory C:\Documents and Settings\CSMITH02\My Documents\Dmds\PERFUM Runs 1-15-10\DMDS_01152010\bakersfield\yuma_flux

Results from PERFUM2_5sq_yuma.per.outConcentration distribution for an application rate of 455.0 for Flux Profile Day No. 1 for Averaging Period 3%tile Ring1 Ring2 Ring3 Ring4 Ring5 Ring6 Ring7 Ring8 Ring9 Ring10 Ring11 Ring12 Ring13 Ring14 Ring50 802 723 608 432 278 78 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 1262 1182 1062 878 718 438 88 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 60 1738 1672 1542 1352 1162 862 432 162 78 32 8 2 2 0 65 2232 2162 2038 1842 1652 1318 812 508 388 288 202 88 12 2 70 2498 2498 2498 2348 2162 1802 1252 873 728 622 522 368 192 88 75 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2308 1718 1292 1128 988 858 668 472 332 80 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2208 1722 1558 1382 1248 1032 783 592 85 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2228 2022 1858 1688 1412 1138 912 90 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2472 2272 1932 1568 1328 95 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2238 1882 97 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2328 99 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 99.9 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 %tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 8 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 142 88 52 12 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 80 368 292 232 138 82 48 28 12 2 2 2 2 2 2 85 633 522 438 312 238 178 138 102 62 38 22 18 12 8 90 948 833 718 573 452 362 292 238 168 128 98 78 62 52 95 1448 1262 1128 908 768 638 548 478 372 298 242 202 168 142 97 1738 1532 1368 1152 948 812 703 628 492 408 338 288 252 222 99 2452 2178 1968 1608 1348 1142 992 873 728 608 518 448 392 348 99.9 2498 2498 2498 2468 2118 1818 1602 1418 1158 972 833 732 642 568 Results from PERFUM2_40sq_yuma.per.outConcentration distribution for an application rate of 455.0 for Flux Profile Day No. 1 for Averaging Period 3%tile Ring1 Ring2 Ring3 Ring4 Ring5 Ring6 Ring7 Ring8 Ring9 Ring10 Ring11 Ring12 Ring13 Ring14 Ring50 2498 2498 2478 2192 1942 1532 948 548 392 268 168 48 2 2 55 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2312 1612 1162 972 818 673 442 198 58 60 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2388 1812 1592 1402 1248 988 678 438 65 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2312 2108 1898 1568 1198 933 70 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2262 1828 1482 75 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2488 2088 80 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 85 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 90 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 95 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 97 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 99 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 99.9 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 %tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 132 52 12 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 562 408 292 118 32 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 1008 848 712 508 328 202 108 52 8 2 2 2 2 0 75 1562 1372 1188 918 708 562 452 348 188 92 38 18 8 2 80 2132 1922 1702 1412 1152 972 802 678 482 368 262 182 128 88 85 2498 2498 2342 1922 1638 1432 1212 1082 848 673 533 428 352 298 90 2498 2498 2498 2498 2248 1962 1742 1578 1252 1078 888 783 668 582 95 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2482 2228 1922 1612 1398 1218 1112 988 97 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2298 1932 1698 1552 1378 1228 99 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2432 2148 1912 1732 99.9 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 

Page 163 of 193 
PERFUM Results from directory C:\Documents and Settings\CSMITH02\My Documents\Dmds\PERFUM Runs 1-15-10\DMDS_01152010\bakersfield\dover_flux

Results from PERFUM2_5sq_dover.per.outConcentration distribution for an application rate of 455.0 for Flux Profile Day No. 1 for Averaging Period 4%tile Ring1 Ring2 Ring3 Ring4 Ring5 Ring6 Ring7 Ring8 Ring9 Ring10 Ring11 Ring12 Ring13 Ring14 Ring50 62 58 48 38 28 12 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 55 92 82 72 62 48 32 12 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 60 118 112 102 88 78 52 28 12 8 2 2 2 2 2 65 148 142 132 118 102 78 48 28 22 18 12 8 2 2 70 182 178 168 148 132 108 68 48 38 32 28 18 8 2 75 218 208 202 182 168 138 92 68 58 48 42 32 18 12 80 258 252 238 218 202 172 122 92 78 68 62 48 32 22 85 312 302 292 268 248 212 158 122 108 92 88 68 52 38 90 372 368 352 332 308 262 202 158 142 128 118 98 78 62 95 462 452 442 418 392 348 268 218 198 178 168 142 112 92 97 522 512 502 478 448 402 318 258 238 218 198 172 142 122 99 618 612 602 578 548 498 412 342 318 292 272 238 198 162 99.9 768 768 752 728 698 648 548 468 438 408 382 338 282 248 %tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 75 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 80 12 8 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 85 22 18 12 8 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 90 42 32 28 22 12 12 8 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 95 68 58 52 42 32 28 22 18 12 8 8 8 2 2 97 88 78 68 58 48 38 32 28 22 18 12 8 8 8 99 122 108 98 82 72 58 52 48 38 28 22 22 18 18 99.9 192 172 158 132 112 98 82 72 58 52 42 38 32 32 Results from PERFUM2_40sq_dover.per.outConcentration distribution for an application rate of 455.0 for Flux Profile Day No. 1 for Averaging Period 4%tile Ring1 Ring2 Ring3 Ring4 Ring5 Ring6 Ring7 Ring8 Ring9 Ring10 Ring11 Ring12 Ring13 Ring14 Ring50 172 168 152 132 118 92 62 38 32 28 22 12 2 2 55 222 212 202 182 162 132 92 68 58 48 42 32 18 8 60 272 262 252 228 212 178 132 102 88 78 68 52 38 28 65 328 322 308 282 262 228 172 138 122 108 98 82 62 48 70 388 382 362 338 318 278 218 178 158 142 132 112 88 68 75 452 442 428 402 378 332 268 222 202 188 172 148 118 98 80 522 512 498 468 442 398 322 272 252 232 212 188 152 132 85 612 602 582 553 522 472 398 332 308 288 268 238 198 172 90 718 708 692 662 628 573 478 412 382 362 342 308 258 222 95 873 868 848 818 788 723 622 542 508 478 448 402 348 308 97 978 968 948 918 888 822 712 628 592 558 533 478 418 368 99 1162 1158 1138 1108 1072 1008 888 792 752 718 683 622 553 492 99.9 1448 1438 1418 1388 1352 1288 1148 1038 988 942 898 828 742 668 %tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring50 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 12 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 65 28 18 12 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 70 42 32 28 18 8 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 75 68 52 48 32 22 18 12 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 80 92 82 68 52 42 32 22 18 12 8 2 2 2 2 85 128 112 102 82 68 52 42 38 22 18 12 8 8 2 90 178 158 142 118 98 82 72 62 48 38 28 22 18 18 95 248 232 212 178 148 132 118 102 82 72 58 52 42 38 97 298 272 248 208 188 168 148 132 108 92 82 72 62 58 99 408 372 342 298 258 228 202 182 152 132 118 108 98 88 99.9 562 522 482 418 372 338 302 282 242 212 188 168 152 138 

Page 164 of 193 
PERFUM Results from directory C:\Documents and Settings\CSMITH02\My Documents\Dmds\PERFUM Runs 1-15-10\DMDS_01152010\bakersfield\cantua_flux

Results from PERFUM2_5sq_cantua.per.outConcentration distribution for an application rate of 455.0 for Flux Profile Day No. 1 for Averaging Period 3%tile Ring1 Ring2 Ring3 Ring4 Ring5 Ring6 Ring7 Ring8 Ring9 Ring10 Ring11 Ring12 Ring13 Ring14 Ring50 238 212 178 128 82 22 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 398 368 328 262 212 132 28 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 60 573 542 502 428 362 258 128 48 22 8 2 2 2 0 65 732 708 673 602 538 418 248 148 112 88 58 22 2 2 70 898 873 838 772 712 592 398 272 222 188 158 108 58 22 75 1088 1062 1022 953 888 758 562 418 358 308 268 208 142 98 80 1292 1268 1228 1162 1088 953 728 573 512 458 412 332 248 182 85 1528 1508 1472 1408 1332 1192 933 748 673 612 562 472 378 302 90 1812 1792 1768 1708 1642 1488 1208 998 902 828 758 652 528 438 95 2192 2182 2168 2122 2068 1928 1628 1368 1262 1162 1078 933 783 658 97 2448 2442 2428 2392 2342 2212 1892 1618 1502 1392 1298 1138 948 802 99 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2442 2122 1978 1852 1732 1532 1288 1098 99.9 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2418 2162 1858 1632 %tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 42 22 12 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 80 112 88 68 42 22 12 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 85 198 162 138 98 72 52 42 32 18 12 8 2 2 2 90 312 272 242 182 142 112 92 72 52 38 28 22 18 12 95 488 428 382 302 258 212 182 158 122 98 78 62 52 42 97 608 548 482 392 322 282 238 208 168 138 112 98 82 72 99 848 758 678 558 468 402 358 318 252 208 178 158 138 122 99.9 1298 1172 1068 883 748 648 568 502 408 342 298 258 228 198 Results from PERFUM2_40sq_cantua.per.outConcentration distribution for an application rate of 455.0 for Flux Profile Day No. 1 for Averaging Period 3%tile Ring1 Ring2 Ring3 Ring4 Ring5 Ring6 Ring7 Ring8 Ring9 Ring10 Ring11 Ring12 Ring13 Ring14 Ring50 892 852 788 683 602 468 282 162 118 82 52 12 2 2 55 1202 1168 1102 992 898 732 498 348 292 242 202 132 58 18 60 1498 1462 1408 1302 1202 1032 758 562 498 432 378 292 202 132 65 1822 1782 1718 1612 1508 1332 1048 833 748 668 602 488 368 282 70 2162 2118 2052 1948 1838 1642 1338 1102 1012 933 858 728 578 468 75 2498 2492 2428 2318 2198 1982 1648 1382 1288 1198 1118 978 818 692 80 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2412 2022 1722 1602 1498 1408 1242 1052 922 85 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2482 2168 2038 1912 1792 1598 1368 1192 90 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2412 2282 2062 1788 1588 95 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2428 2162 97 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 99 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 99.9 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 %tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 38 12 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 162 122 82 32 8 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 312 258 212 142 98 58 32 12 2 2 2 2 2 0 75 502 428 372 282 218 168 132 102 58 28 12 2 2 2 80 703 633 568 452 372 302 248 212 148 108 78 58 38 28 85 942 838 768 642 538 468 408 352 272 208 168 132 108 92 90 1282 1158 1048 883 768 662 573 518 418 352 298 252 218 182 95 1768 1612 1482 1262 1092 972 878 783 642 542 478 412 368 332 97 2082 1922 1778 1532 1342 1188 1058 953 788 692 598 522 462 418 99 2498 2498 2352 2038 1798 1598 1432 1298 1102 958 833 738 662 598 99.9 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2318 2128 1958 1698 1492 1318 1168 1048 958 

Page 165 of 193 
PERFUM Results from directory C:\Documents and Settings\CSMITH02\My Documents\Dmds\PERFUM Runs 1-15-10\DMDS_01152010\bakersfield\nipomo_flux

Results from PERFUM2_5sq_nipomo.per.outConcentration distribution for an application rate of 455.0 for Flux Profile Day No. 1 for Averaging Period 2%tile Ring1 Ring2 Ring3 Ring4 Ring5 Ring6 Ring7 Ring8 Ring9 Ring10 Ring11 Ring12 Ring13 Ring14 Ring50 98 78 52 28 12 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 208 192 162 122 88 42 8 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 60 342 322 292 242 198 138 58 18 8 2 2 2 2 2 65 498 472 432 368 318 238 138 78 58 42 28 12 2 2 70 678 648 592 512 448 348 222 148 122 98 82 52 28 12 75 858 822 762 673 592 468 312 218 188 158 138 102 68 42 80 1002 968 912 812 728 588 408 292 252 222 192 152 108 82 85 1122 1092 1038 942 852 703 502 378 332 292 262 208 158 122 90 1262 1232 1178 1078 983 828 612 472 418 378 338 278 218 172 95 1512 1478 1412 1298 1192 1012 762 602 542 488 442 372 298 242 97 1692 1652 1588 1468 1352 1158 878 698 628 568 518 438 352 288 99 2062 2028 1958 1828 1692 1458 1122 902 818 748 683 582 472 392 99.9 2498 2498 2498 2442 2278 1988 1572 1308 1202 1108 1022 883 728 608 %tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 75 18 12 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 80 48 38 28 18 8 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 85 78 62 52 38 28 18 12 12 8 2 2 2 2 2 90 118 98 82 62 48 38 28 22 18 12 8 8 8 2 95 172 148 128 98 78 68 52 48 32 28 22 18 12 12 97 208 178 158 122 102 82 72 62 48 38 28 22 18 18 99 288 252 222 182 148 128 108 92 72 58 48 42 38 32 99.9 462 412 368 302 252 212 182 162 128 102 88 78 68 58 Results from PERFUM2_40sq_nipomo.per.outConcentration distribution for an application rate of 455.0 for Flux Profile Day No. 1 for Averaging Period 2%tile Ring1 Ring2 Ring3 Ring4 Ring5 Ring6 Ring7 Ring8 Ring9 Ring10 Ring11 Ring12 Ring13 Ring14 Ring50 448 418 378 322 272 198 102 48 28 18 8 2 2 2 55 678 648 602 528 472 372 242 158 128 102 82 48 18 8 60 922 883 828 742 673 558 398 292 252 218 188 142 92 58 65 1162 1122 1058 962 878 742 553 428 378 338 302 242 182 132 70 1382 1342 1272 1168 1078 928 712 568 512 462 422 352 272 212 75 1572 1532 1468 1358 1258 1092 862 703 642 588 538 458 368 298 80 1738 1698 1632 1522 1422 1252 1008 838 772 712 658 568 468 388 85 1912 1878 1808 1692 1592 1418 1158 978 902 838 783 688 578 488 90 2162 2118 2042 1918 1812 1622 1338 1142 1062 992 928 822 698 602 95 2498 2498 2478 2332 2202 1982 1652 1418 1322 1238 1162 1038 892 778 97 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2262 1898 1628 1522 1428 1342 1202 1038 908 99 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2348 2038 1912 1798 1702 1538 1338 1188 99.9 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2398 2168 1928 1738 %tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring50 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 18 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 72 48 32 12 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 70 138 112 88 58 32 18 12 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 75 208 172 148 108 78 58 42 28 12 8 2 2 2 2 80 282 242 208 162 128 98 78 62 42 28 18 12 8 2 85 362 322 282 222 178 148 122 102 78 58 42 32 28 22 90 468 412 372 302 252 212 182 152 122 92 78 62 52 42 95 612 548 498 412 352 302 262 232 188 152 132 112 98 82 97 718 648 588 498 428 368 322 288 232 192 168 148 128 112 99 953 868 792 668 578 508 452 402 332 288 248 218 198 178 99.9 1438 1312 1208 1042 908 798 718 642 548 472 418 372 332 302 

Page 166 of 193 
PERFUM Results from directory C:\Documents and Settings\CSMITH02\My Documents\Dmds\PERFUM Runs 1-15-10\TIFTON_DMDS_012810\Bakersfield\Field1

Results from PERFUM2_5sq_field1.per.outConcentration distribution for an application rate of 455.0 for Flux Profile Day No. 3 for Averaging Period 2%tile Ring1 Ring2 Ring3 Ring4 Ring5 Ring6 Ring7 Ring8 Ring9 Ring10 Ring11 Ring12 Ring13 Ring14 Ring

50 22 22 18 12 8 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 48 38 32 28 22 12 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 60 88 78 68 52 42 28 12 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 65 122 118 108 98 82 58 28 12 8 8 2 2 2 2 70 152 148 142 132 122 98 58 32 22 18 18 8 2 2 75 182 182 178 168 158 132 98 62 52 42 32 22 12 8 80 218 212 212 202 192 172 132 102 88 78 68 52 32 22 85 258 258 252 242 232 212 172 138 122 112 102 82 68 48 90 322 318 312 302 288 262 218 182 162 152 138 122 98 82 95 398 398 398 392 382 352 292 242 222 208 192 168 142 122 97 448 448 448 442 432 408 352 298 272 252 238 202 168 142 99 538 538 538 538 533 508 448 388 362 338 318 282 238 202 

99.9 688 692 692 692 688 662 592 522 492 462 432 388 338 298 

50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 12 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 85 28 22 18 8 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 90 58 48 42 28 22 12 12 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 95 92 82 72 58 48 38 32 28 22 18 12 8 8 8 97 112 98 92 72 62 52 48 38 32 28 22 18 12 12 99 152 138 122 98 82 72 68 58 48 42 32 28 28 22 

99.9 232 212 192 162 138 118 102 92 78 62 52 48 42 38 

Results from PERFUM2_40sq_field1.per.outConcentration distribution for an application rate of 455.0 for Flux Profile Day No. 3 for Averaging Period 2%tile Ring1 Ring2 Ring3 Ring4 Ring5 Ring6 Ring7 Ring8 Ring9 Ring10 Ring11 Ring12 Ring13 Ring14 Ring

50 128 118 108 88 78 58 32 18 12 8 2 2 2 2 55 198 188 178 152 138 102 62 42 32 28 22 12 2 2 60 258 252 242 222 202 168 112 78 62 58 48 32 22 12 65 318 308 298 282 262 232 178 132 118 102 88 68 48 32 70 372 368 358 342 328 292 238 192 178 158 142 118 88 68 75 438 432 422 408 388 358 298 252 232 218 202 172 142 118 80 508 502 492 472 458 428 362 312 292 278 262 228 192 168 85 598 592 582 562 542 502 438 388 368 342 322 288 248 218 90 723 718 708 688 668 622 542 472 448 422 398 358 312 282 95 883 883 873 858 838 798 718 638 608 573 542 492 432 382 97 988 988 978 962 948 908 818 738 703 668 638 588 518 468 99 1162 1162 1152 1138 1122 1082 992 908 868 828 792 732 658 592 

99.9 1452 1452 1448 1432 1422 1378 1268 1158 1108 1068 1028 953 862 783 

50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 18 12 8 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 38 28 22 12 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 75 72 62 48 32 22 18 12 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 80 122 108 92 72 52 38 28 22 12 8 8 2 2 2 85 172 152 138 118 98 78 68 52 38 22 18 12 8 8 90 228 208 188 158 142 122 108 92 78 62 52 42 32 28 95 308 278 258 218 192 172 162 142 118 102 88 78 68 62 97 382 348 322 272 238 208 182 168 142 128 112 98 88 78 99 498 458 428 372 328 292 262 238 202 172 148 132 118 108 

99.9 668 618 578 512 458 418 382 348 302 268 238 212 192 178 

Page 167 of 193 
PERFUM Results from directory C:\Documents and Settings\CSMITH02\My Documents\Dmds\PERFUM Runs 1-15-10\PERFUM Runs 2-3-10\Bakersfield\Field2

Results from PERFUM2_5sq_field2.per.outConcentration distribution for an application rate of 455.0 for Flux Profile Day No. 1 for Averaging Period 2%tile Ring1 Ring2 Ring3 Ring4 Ring5 Ring6 Ring7 Ring8 Ring9 Ring10 Ring11 Ring12 Ring13 Ring14 Ring50 288 262 228 162 112 32 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 418 402 368 312 252 158 32 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 60 538 518 488 438 388 292 148 52 22 8 2 2 2 0 65 648 628 602 558 508 422 272 162 122 88 58 18 2 2 70 762 748 728 678 633 542 392 282 232 198 162 108 48 12 75 898 883 858 812 768 673 508 392 348 308 268 208 138 92 80 1068 1048 1018 968 918 822 642 512 458 412 372 308 238 182 85 1268 1252 1222 1172 1112 988 798 652 588 533 492 418 332 272 90 1508 1498 1478 1432 1372 1248 1002 812 742 683 642 558 452 378 95 1872 1868 1852 1808 1752 1622 1358 1138 1048 962 888 762 622 522 97 2102 2098 2088 2048 2002 1878 1592 1348 1248 1158 1078 938 778 652 99 2498 2498 2492 2482 2448 2342 2052 1778 1652 1538 1438 1258 1058 908 99.9 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2412 2268 2138 2008 1788 1518 1312 %tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 28 12 8 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 102 78 58 28 12 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 85 188 158 128 88 62 48 32 22 12 8 2 2 2 2 90 278 238 212 168 132 108 88 68 48 32 22 18 12 12 95 402 362 328 262 218 188 158 138 108 88 72 58 48 42 97 482 422 378 322 272 238 202 178 142 118 98 82 72 62 99 698 618 553 452 378 322 278 242 202 172 148 132 118 102 99.9 1018 918 828 688 582 508 448 398 322 272 232 202 178 158 Results from PERFUM2_40sq_field2.per.outConcentration distribution for an application rate of 455.0 for Flux Profile Day No. 1 for Averaging Period 2%tile Ring1 Ring2 Ring3 Ring4 Ring5 Ring6 Ring7 Ring8 Ring9 Ring10 Ring11 Ring12 Ring13 Ring14 Ring50 912 883 838 762 688 558 358 218 162 118 78 28 2 2 55 1138 1102 1058 983 912 783 568 412 348 298 248 168 78 22 60 1352 1322 1278 1208 1132 988 778 608 542 482 428 338 232 152 65 1588 1562 1522 1432 1352 1212 972 802 728 668 618 518 398 308 70 1822 1798 1752 1678 1602 1458 1192 1012 928 858 798 698 568 472 75 2118 2092 2038 1948 1862 1708 1452 1232 1138 1062 1002 878 732 633 80 2458 2432 2382 2288 2192 2012 1698 1478 1388 1298 1232 1092 922 812 85 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2402 2062 1782 1668 1562 1462 1312 1152 1008 90 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2232 2102 1978 1868 1678 1452 1272 95 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2488 2258 1992 1772 97 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2338 2098 99 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 99.9 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 %tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 42 12 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 178 128 82 28 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 322 268 222 148 88 42 18 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 75 472 418 362 278 212 158 118 82 32 12 2 2 2 2 80 628 553 508 412 342 288 238 192 132 92 58 38 22 12 85 808 723 652 553 478 402 358 312 248 192 152 118 92 78 90 1002 912 852 723 642 558 482 442 368 298 258 222 192 168 95 1442 1318 1198 1018 873 762 673 602 522 452 398 348 308 282 97 1718 1582 1458 1252 1092 958 848 758 628 528 462 428 382 352 99 2282 2102 1942 1672 1468 1308 1172 1062 902 778 678 602 538 482 99.9 2498 2498 2498 2318 2048 1838 1662 1512 1292 1138 1008 892 812 742 

Page 168 of 193 
PERFUM Results from directory C:\Documents and Settings\CSMITH02\My Documents\Dmds\PERFUM Runs 1-15-10\PERFUM Runs 2-3-10\Bakersfield\Field3

Results from PERFUM2_5sq_field3.per.outConcentration distribution for an application rate of 455.0 for Flux Profile Day No. 1 for Averaging Period 2%tile Ring1 Ring2 Ring3 Ring4 Ring5 Ring6 Ring7 Ring8 Ring9 Ring10 Ring11 Ring12 Ring13 Ring14 Ring50 112 102 88 62 42 12 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 55 178 162 148 122 92 58 18 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 60 238 228 208 178 152 112 52 22 12 8 2 2 2 2 65 292 282 268 238 212 168 98 58 42 32 22 12 2 2 70 358 348 328 302 272 222 148 98 82 68 52 32 18 8 75 418 408 392 368 338 282 202 148 122 102 88 68 42 28 80 508 492 472 442 412 352 262 198 178 152 138 108 72 52 85 608 598 578 538 498 432 332 262 232 208 188 152 122 92 90 732 723 703 662 622 542 422 348 312 282 258 218 178 142 95 908 898 883 842 802 723 578 472 428 392 358 308 262 218 97 1012 1008 988 953 912 828 683 568 518 478 438 378 308 258 99 1208 1202 1192 1168 1128 1042 878 738 683 638 588 518 428 368 99.9 1498 1492 1482 1452 1408 1322 1142 992 928 873 818 723 622 538 %tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 8 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 80 28 18 12 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 85 58 48 38 22 18 12 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 90 98 82 72 52 38 28 22 18 12 8 2 2 2 2 95 158 142 122 98 82 68 58 48 32 28 18 18 12 12 97 202 178 158 128 108 88 78 68 52 42 32 28 22 18 99 278 242 218 178 148 132 118 102 82 68 58 52 42 38 99.9 418 378 338 288 242 212 188 168 138 112 98 82 72 68 Results from PERFUM2_40sq_field3.per.outConcentration distribution for an application rate of 455.0 for Flux Profile Day No. 1 for Averaging Period 2%tile Ring1 Ring2 Ring3 Ring4 Ring5 Ring6 Ring7 Ring8 Ring9 Ring10 Ring11 Ring12 Ring13 Ring14 Ring50 358 338 312 278 248 192 118 78 58 42 32 18 2 2 55 462 442 422 382 348 288 198 142 118 98 82 58 32 12 60 568 553 528 488 452 382 282 212 188 168 148 112 78 52 65 673 658 633 592 553 482 378 298 262 238 212 172 132 98 70 798 783 752 708 662 592 468 382 352 322 292 248 192 152 75 922 908 878 833 792 703 578 478 438 408 378 322 268 218 80 1078 1058 1028 978 928 842 703 588 542 508 478 418 348 292 85 1252 1238 1212 1158 1102 1002 838 728 688 638 598 528 442 388 90 1478 1462 1438 1382 1322 1222 1038 898 838 788 738 658 578 518 95 1792 1782 1752 1698 1648 1538 1342 1182 1118 1058 1002 908 788 698 97 2012 2002 1978 1928 1872 1752 1548 1372 1298 1232 1168 1068 938 833 99 2382 2378 2358 2312 2258 2152 1932 1732 1652 1572 1502 1378 1218 1092 99.9 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2432 2208 2102 2012 1928 1772 1592 1438 %tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring50 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 18 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 52 38 28 12 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 70 98 78 62 38 22 12 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 75 148 122 108 72 52 38 22 18 8 2 2 2 2 2 80 222 192 168 128 98 78 58 48 28 18 8 8 2 2 85 298 268 238 192 162 132 112 92 68 48 32 28 18 12 90 402 362 322 278 238 202 182 158 122 98 78 62 52 42 95 558 502 458 388 352 312 272 242 198 172 148 128 112 98 97 678 618 568 482 412 362 322 292 258 218 188 162 148 138 99 912 833 768 662 578 518 462 418 348 298 258 228 202 192 99.9 1222 1132 1052 922 828 748 678 618 533 462 412 372 338 308 

Page 169 of 193 
PERFUM Results from directory C:\Documents and Settings\CSMITH02\My Documents\Dmds\PERFUM Runs 1-15-10\DMDS_01152010\tallahassee\bradenton_flux

Results from PERFUM2_5sq_brad.per.outConcentration distribution for an application rate of 455.0 for Flux Profile Day No. 1 for Averaging Period 3%tile Ring1 Ring2 Ring3 Ring4 Ring5 Ring6 Ring7 Ring8 Ring9 Ring10 Ring11 Ring12 Ring13 Ring14 Ring50 8 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 128 92 52 12 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 342 298 238 158 92 18 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 588 528 468 388 308 178 32 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 70 912 868 798 673 562 422 208 78 42 18 8 2 2 0 75 1242 1198 1122 1028 933 728 442 288 222 168 128 62 18 2 80 1598 1562 1512 1422 1302 1098 778 542 458 388 338 252 152 88 85 2028 1992 1932 1828 1712 1528 1148 892 792 698 622 492 352 262 90 2498 2498 2492 2378 2252 2012 1582 1308 1172 1062 962 812 648 518 95 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2312 1902 1758 1608 1472 1252 1032 902 97 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2372 2182 2018 1868 1612 1352 1128 99 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2398 2028 1718 99.9 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 %tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 22 12 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 85 152 118 88 52 28 18 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 90 348 292 242 178 138 102 82 62 42 28 18 12 12 8 95 652 562 502 398 328 268 228 192 142 108 88 72 58 52 97 838 748 692 568 468 392 342 292 232 182 148 122 108 92 99 1298 1158 1032 848 728 618 533 468 388 332 282 248 218 192 99.9 2082 1852 1668 1388 1172 1022 892 792 642 538 458 398 352 318 Results from PERFUM2_40sq_brad.per.outConcentration distribution for an application rate of 455.0 for Flux Profile Day No. 1 for Averaging Period 3%tile Ring1 Ring2 Ring3 Ring4 Ring5 Ring6 Ring7 Ring8 Ring9 Ring10 Ring11 Ring12 Ring13 Ring14 Ring50 442 382 308 202 128 38 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 842 778 688 562 462 298 92 12 2 2 2 2 0 0 60 1292 1208 1098 948 862 668 398 212 148 98 58 12 2 2 65 1838 1768 1658 1492 1342 1082 772 542 448 368 308 202 88 28 70 2382 2328 2222 2062 1928 1652 1228 918 798 723 658 508 348 228 75 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2238 1792 1448 1308 1182 1072 888 673 548 80 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2368 1992 1838 1702 1598 1388 1118 938 85 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2328 2168 1918 1632 1388 90 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2218 2012 95 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 97 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 99 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 99.9 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 %tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 78 38 12 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 332 252 192 98 42 12 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 80 642 538 458 342 248 178 122 82 32 8 2 2 2 2 85 1078 948 828 662 528 422 342 298 202 142 98 68 48 32 90 1578 1412 1278 1072 898 783 683 588 458 362 292 238 202 168 95 2368 2142 1948 1632 1398 1268 1178 1052 848 712 622 538 482 428 97 2498 2498 2468 2108 1848 1652 1468 1312 1082 938 862 778 688 612 99 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2492 2232 2008 1682 1462 1272 1122 1042 948 99.9 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2298 2038 1822 1642 1502 

Page 170 of 193 
PERFUM Results from directory C:\Documents and Settings\CSMITH02\My Documents\Dmds\PERFUM Runs 1-15-10\DMDS_01152010\tallahassee\yuma_flux

Results from PERFUM2_5sq_yuma.per.outConcentration distribution for an application rate of 455.0 for Flux Profile Day No. 1 for Averaging Period 3%tile Ring1 Ring2 Ring3 Ring4 Ring5 Ring6 Ring7 Ring8 Ring9 Ring10 Ring11 Ring12 Ring13 Ring14 Ring50 72 38 12 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 458 362 242 102 32 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 983 873 738 542 368 132 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 1548 1448 1312 1102 898 582 178 22 2 2 2 2 0 0 70 2128 2052 1928 1702 1508 1158 633 302 192 112 58 12 2 2 75 2498 2498 2498 2338 2138 1748 1182 772 622 502 398 232 88 22 80 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2422 1748 1302 1132 1002 862 652 422 272 85 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2428 1928 1702 1512 1358 1122 852 652 90 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2472 2238 2028 1692 1352 1092 95 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2472 2038 1808 97 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2152 99 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 99.9 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 %tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 98 52 28 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 85 388 302 238 142 88 52 32 22 8 2 2 2 2 2 90 758 642 558 418 312 242 192 152 98 68 52 38 28 22 95 1352 1172 1018 808 662 548 458 398 298 232 188 152 128 112 97 1612 1448 1348 1142 938 792 683 588 452 368 302 252 212 188 99 2498 2198 1958 1592 1322 1122 978 873 748 648 553 478 422 372 99.9 2498 2498 2498 2498 2422 2072 1818 1602 1308 1078 918 788 688 608 Results from PERFUM2_40sq_yuma.per.outConcentration distribution for an application rate of 455.0 for Flux Profile Day No. 1 for Averaging Period 3%tile Ring1 Ring2 Ring3 Ring4 Ring5 Ring6 Ring7 Ring8 Ring9 Ring10 Ring11 Ring12 Ring13 Ring14 Ring50 1328 1182 1002 742 538 242 22 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 55 2282 2132 1932 1628 1382 968 432 138 62 22 8 2 2 0 60 2498 2498 2498 2498 2342 1862 1192 732 562 418 302 132 18 2 65 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2062 1508 1292 1112 942 673 378 178 70 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2338 2132 1912 1712 1382 1002 718 75 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2488 2138 1732 1398 80 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2478 2042 85 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 90 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 95 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 97 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 99 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 99.9 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 %tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 12 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 328 198 108 18 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 898 712 568 338 182 82 32 8 2 2 2 0 0 0 80 1528 1348 1182 888 662 498 362 262 128 52 22 8 2 2 85 2292 2018 1808 1432 1208 1022 868 718 512 368 262 188 138 98 90 2498 2498 2498 2202 1872 1618 1408 1238 968 788 662 553 468 392 95 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2468 2302 2142 1748 1458 1258 1072 942 852 97 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2462 2038 1818 1682 1522 1358 1212 99 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2372 2092 1868 1668 99.9 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 

Page 171 of 193 
PERFUM Results from directory C:\Documents and Settings\CSMITH02\My Documents\Dmds\PERFUM Runs 1-15-10\DMDS_01152010\tallahassee\dover_flux

Results from PERFUM2_5sq_dover.per.outConcentration distribution for an application rate of 455.0 for Flux Profile Day No. 1 for Averaging Period 4%tile Ring1 Ring2 Ring3 Ring4 Ring5 Ring6 Ring7 Ring8 Ring9 Ring10 Ring11 Ring12 Ring13 Ring14 Ring50 18 12 8 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 48 38 28 18 8 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 60 78 72 58 42 32 12 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 65 112 102 92 72 62 38 12 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 70 148 138 128 108 92 68 38 22 12 12 8 2 2 2 75 182 178 162 142 128 98 62 42 32 28 22 18 8 2 80 222 218 208 188 168 138 92 68 58 48 42 32 22 18 85 278 268 258 238 218 182 132 98 88 78 68 58 42 32 90 342 332 322 302 278 238 182 142 128 118 102 88 68 52 95 438 428 418 398 378 332 262 212 192 178 162 138 112 92 97 492 488 478 458 438 392 318 258 238 218 198 172 142 118 99 588 588 578 562 542 498 418 352 328 308 282 248 208 178 99.9 772 768 762 738 718 673 582 502 472 442 418 372 318 278 %tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 80 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 85 18 12 12 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 90 38 32 28 18 12 12 8 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 95 68 58 48 38 32 28 22 18 12 8 8 8 2 2 97 88 78 68 52 42 38 32 28 18 18 12 8 8 8 99 132 118 102 88 72 62 52 48 38 32 28 22 18 18 99.9 222 202 182 152 132 112 98 88 72 58 48 42 38 32 Results from PERFUM2_40sq_dover.per.outConcentration distribution for an application rate of 455.0 for Flux Profile Day No. 1 for Averaging Period 4%tile Ring1 Ring2 Ring3 Ring4 Ring5 Ring6 Ring7 Ring8 Ring9 Ring10 Ring11 Ring12 Ring13 Ring14 Ring50 102 92 78 58 42 28 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 55 152 142 128 108 88 62 32 12 8 2 2 2 2 2 60 208 192 178 152 138 108 68 42 32 28 22 12 2 2 65 258 248 232 208 188 152 108 78 68 58 52 38 22 12 70 322 308 292 262 242 202 152 118 108 92 82 68 52 38 75 382 372 358 328 308 268 208 168 148 138 122 108 82 68 80 458 448 432 402 378 332 268 222 208 188 172 152 122 102 85 548 538 518 492 462 418 342 292 272 252 232 208 172 148 90 662 652 638 608 578 528 442 382 358 332 312 278 238 208 95 838 833 812 788 752 698 598 522 492 468 442 398 348 308 97 942 938 922 898 868 812 708 628 592 562 533 482 422 378 99 1142 1138 1128 1102 1072 1018 902 812 772 738 703 648 578 522 99.9 1502 1508 1498 1478 1448 1372 1238 1118 1072 1032 988 918 822 748 %tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 22 12 12 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 75 42 38 28 22 12 8 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 80 72 62 52 42 32 22 18 12 8 8 2 2 2 2 85 112 98 88 72 58 48 38 32 22 18 12 12 8 8 90 168 148 132 112 92 82 68 62 48 38 32 22 22 18 95 248 228 208 178 152 132 118 108 88 72 62 52 48 42 97 308 278 258 222 192 172 158 138 118 98 88 78 68 58 99 438 402 372 328 288 258 232 212 178 152 132 118 108 98 99.9 638 588 548 482 432 398 362 332 288 258 228 208 188 172 

Page 172 of 193 
PERFUM Results from directory C:\Documents and Settings\CSMITH02\My Documents\Dmds\PERFUM Runs 1-15-10\DMDS_01152010\tallahassee\cantua_flux

Results from PERFUM2_5sq_cantua.per.outConcentration distribution for an application rate of 455.0 for Flux Profile Day No. 1 for Averaging Period 3%tile Ring1 Ring2 Ring3 Ring4 Ring5 Ring6 Ring7 Ring8 Ring9 Ring10 Ring11 Ring12 Ring13 Ring14 Ring50 22 8 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 138 108 72 32 8 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 292 262 218 158 108 38 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 488 452 402 332 272 172 52 8 2 2 2 2 0 0 70 688 658 612 542 472 348 188 88 58 32 18 2 2 2 75 878 858 822 762 692 558 362 238 192 152 118 68 28 8 80 1122 1102 1068 992 912 783 562 412 352 308 262 202 128 82 85 1388 1362 1328 1268 1202 1052 808 622 553 498 442 358 262 198 90 1772 1752 1712 1638 1552 1382 1132 898 808 738 678 562 442 358 95 2318 2308 2288 2232 2142 1958 1588 1292 1178 1082 998 878 742 612 97 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2342 1958 1632 1492 1378 1268 1088 888 748 99 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2272 2102 1962 1822 1592 1338 1138 99.9 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2488 2138 1872 %tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 28 12 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 85 118 92 72 42 28 12 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 90 242 202 172 128 98 72 58 48 28 22 12 12 8 8 95 452 392 342 272 218 182 152 128 92 72 58 48 38 32 97 602 533 472 378 312 262 228 198 152 118 98 82 68 58 99 868 768 683 553 462 402 358 328 272 222 192 162 142 128 99.9 1478 1328 1198 1002 858 742 642 562 452 378 318 272 238 208 Results from PERFUM2_40sq_cantua.per.outConcentration distribution for an application rate of 455.0 for Flux Profile Day No. 1 for Averaging Period 3%tile Ring1 Ring2 Ring3 Ring4 Ring5 Ring6 Ring7 Ring8 Ring9 Ring10 Ring11 Ring12 Ring13 Ring14 Ring50 392 352 298 222 158 72 8 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 55 683 638 588 492 412 292 128 38 18 8 2 2 2 0 60 1022 972 908 808 708 573 358 218 168 122 88 38 2 2 65 1358 1312 1242 1138 1052 883 628 462 398 338 282 202 112 52 70 1698 1658 1582 1488 1392 1222 938 738 652 588 522 428 308 218 75 2078 2032 1972 1868 1778 1578 1262 1058 958 873 798 678 528 422 80 2498 2468 2418 2332 2212 1992 1672 1402 1298 1202 1112 958 812 673 85 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2158 1838 1712 1592 1492 1342 1128 978 90 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2382 2228 2098 1992 1822 1598 1388 95 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2238 1962 97 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2472 99 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 99.9 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 %tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 98 58 32 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 278 218 172 98 52 22 8 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 80 482 412 358 272 202 148 108 78 38 12 2 2 2 2 85 732 648 592 472 382 312 262 218 158 112 78 58 42 28 90 1082 978 898 732 622 528 452 408 312 252 202 168 142 122 95 1568 1422 1298 1132 1032 902 792 708 578 488 418 368 318 278 97 2008 1828 1672 1412 1218 1062 942 862 768 668 573 502 442 408 99 2498 2498 2408 2062 1818 1622 1458 1318 1108 953 828 732 652 588 99.9 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2422 2238 1938 1692 1508 1352 1222 1118 

Page 173 of 193 
PERFUM Results from directory C:\Documents and Settings\CSMITH02\My Documents\Dmds\PERFUM Runs 1-15-10\DMDS_01152010\tallahassee\nipomo_flux

Results from PERFUM2_5sq_nipomo.per.outConcentration distribution for an application rate of 455.0 for Flux Profile Day No. 1 for Averaging Period 2%tile Ring1 Ring2 Ring3 Ring4 Ring5 Ring6 Ring7 Ring8 Ring9 Ring10 Ring11 Ring12 Ring13 Ring14 Ring50 208 178 142 102 72 32 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 55 292 262 222 172 132 82 28 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 60 392 358 312 252 208 142 72 32 22 18 12 2 2 2 65 502 462 412 342 288 212 122 78 62 48 38 22 12 2 70 628 588 528 442 382 288 182 122 102 88 78 52 32 22 75 758 718 652 562 488 382 252 178 152 132 118 92 62 48 80 898 858 792 692 612 488 338 248 212 188 168 132 98 78 85 1038 1002 942 842 758 618 438 332 292 258 232 188 142 112 90 1208 1172 1112 1018 928 778 573 442 392 352 318 262 208 168 95 1458 1428 1372 1272 1172 1012 772 618 558 508 462 392 312 258 97 1648 1608 1552 1448 1348 1172 912 738 673 612 562 482 388 322 99 2042 2008 1952 1832 1712 1508 1192 978 892 822 758 652 538 452 99.9 2498 2498 2498 2498 2398 2128 1728 1448 1332 1238 1158 1012 852 728 %tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 70 8 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 75 28 22 18 8 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 80 48 38 32 22 18 12 8 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 85 72 62 52 38 28 22 18 12 8 8 2 2 2 2 90 112 98 82 62 48 38 32 28 18 12 12 8 8 8 95 182 158 138 108 82 68 58 48 38 28 22 18 12 12 97 232 202 178 142 112 92 78 68 52 38 32 28 22 18 99 332 292 258 208 172 142 122 108 82 62 52 42 38 32 99.9 553 488 438 362 302 262 222 192 148 122 102 88 78 68 Results from PERFUM2_40sq_nipomo.per.outConcentration distribution for an application rate of 455.0 for Flux Profile Day No. 1 for Averaging Period 2%tile Ring1 Ring2 Ring3 Ring4 Ring5 Ring6 Ring7 Ring8 Ring9 Ring10 Ring11 Ring12 Ring13 Ring14 Ring50 533 492 438 372 318 238 142 88 68 48 38 18 8 2 55 688 648 582 502 438 348 232 162 138 112 98 68 38 18 60 868 812 742 652 578 468 328 248 218 188 168 132 92 62 65 1048 998 922 818 732 608 442 338 302 268 242 198 152 118 70 1242 1188 1108 992 902 758 568 452 408 368 332 282 222 178 75 1432 1382 1298 1188 1088 928 718 578 528 482 442 378 308 252 80 1632 1582 1502 1392 1288 1122 888 732 668 618 573 492 408 342 85 1852 1808 1728 1612 1512 1338 1082 908 838 778 723 638 533 458 90 2112 2072 1998 1882 1778 1592 1318 1122 1048 978 918 818 698 602 95 2498 2492 2422 2302 2192 1992 1678 1452 1362 1282 1218 1098 953 842 97 2498 2498 2498 2498 2492 2268 1932 1682 1588 1498 1422 1288 1128 1002 99 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2462 2168 2048 1938 1838 1668 1472 1318 99.9 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2378 2118 1918 %tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring50 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 28 18 12 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 65 72 58 42 28 12 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 70 122 102 88 62 42 32 22 18 8 2 2 2 2 2 75 178 152 132 102 82 62 52 42 28 18 12 8 8 2 80 252 218 192 152 122 102 82 72 52 38 32 22 18 18 85 342 302 272 218 178 152 128 108 82 68 52 42 38 28 90 468 422 378 312 262 222 192 168 132 108 88 72 62 52 95 678 612 562 472 408 352 308 278 222 182 152 132 112 102 97 818 742 688 582 508 442 392 348 282 238 202 178 152 138 99 1078 988 912 783 688 612 548 492 408 342 298 262 232 208 99.9 1618 1498 1398 1232 1098 983 892 818 688 588 518 462 418 378 

Page 174 of 193 
PERFUM Results from directory C:\Documents and Settings\CSMITH02\My Documents\Dmds\PERFUM Runs 1-15-10\TIFTON_DMDS_012810\Tallahassee\Field1

Results from PERFUM2_5sq_field1.per.outConcentration distribution for an application rate of 455.0 for Flux Profile Day No. 3 for Averaging Period 2%tile Ring1 Ring2 Ring3 Ring4 Ring5 Ring6 Ring7 Ring8 Ring9 Ring10 Ring11 Ring12 Ring13 Ring14 Ring

50 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 8 8 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 28 22 18 12 8 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 48 42 38 32 22 12 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 70 92 88 72 58 42 32 18 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 75 142 138 128 112 98 68 38 22 18 12 8 2 2 2 80 192 188 178 162 148 122 78 52 38 32 28 18 12 8 85 232 228 222 218 208 178 132 98 88 72 62 48 32 22 90 298 292 288 272 262 238 192 152 138 128 112 92 72 58 95 408 402 398 388 372 332 268 222 202 188 172 158 128 108 97 462 462 458 452 438 408 338 278 252 232 218 188 152 132 99 573 573 573 573 562 533 462 398 372 348 328 288 242 208 

99.9 718 723 728 728 728 708 633 562 533 508 478 428 362 318 

50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 85 12 8 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 90 32 28 22 12 12 8 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 95 78 68 58 48 38 28 22 18 12 8 8 8 2 2 97 108 98 82 68 58 48 38 32 28 18 18 12 12 8 99 152 132 118 98 82 72 62 58 48 38 32 28 28 22 

99.9 248 222 198 168 142 122 108 98 78 62 52 48 42 38 

Results from PERFUM2_40sq_field1.per.outConcentration distribution for an application rate of 455.0 for Flux Profile Day No. 3 for Averaging Period 2%tile Ring1 Ring2 Ring3 Ring4 Ring5 Ring6 Ring7 Ring8 Ring9 Ring10 Ring11 Ring12 Ring13 Ring14 Ring

50 38 32 22 18 8 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 68 62 58 48 38 22 8 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 60 118 108 92 78 72 52 32 18 12 8 2 2 2 2 65 192 182 168 142 128 92 62 42 38 28 22 12 8 2 70 272 262 252 228 208 172 118 78 68 62 52 42 28 18 75 348 338 328 308 288 252 192 152 132 118 102 82 58 42 80 428 428 412 392 372 332 272 228 208 188 178 152 118 92 85 508 502 492 472 458 432 368 312 288 272 258 222 188 158 90 648 638 628 602 578 533 458 402 382 368 352 318 272 238 95 852 852 842 822 798 752 658 578 542 512 482 432 378 332 97 978 972 962 948 928 883 788 708 668 638 608 553 482 428 99 1222 1222 1212 1198 1182 1142 1038 938 898 858 818 752 673 608 

99.9 1508 1512 1502 1498 1488 1448 1332 1232 1192 1148 1102 1022 922 842 

50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 28 18 12 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 80 58 48 38 28 18 12 8 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 85 118 102 88 68 52 38 28 22 18 12 8 2 2 2 90 188 168 152 122 102 88 72 62 48 38 28 22 18 12 95 268 242 228 202 182 162 142 128 102 88 72 62 52 48 97 342 312 282 242 212 188 168 158 138 122 108 92 82 72 99 508 472 438 378 332 298 268 242 202 172 148 128 118 108 

99.9 732 683 642 568 502 452 412 378 322 278 248 222 202 182 

Page 175 of 193 
PERFUM Results from directory C:\Documents and Settings\CSMITH02\My Documents\Dmds\PERFUM Runs 1-15-10\PERFUM Runs 2-3-10\Tallahassee\Field2

Results from PERFUM2_5sq_field2.per.outConcentration distribution for an application rate of 455.0 for Flux Profile Day No. 1 for Averaging Period 2%tile Ring1 Ring2 Ring3 Ring4 Ring5 Ring6 Ring7 Ring8 Ring9 Ring10 Ring11 Ring12 Ring13 Ring14 Ring50 8 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 92 62 32 8 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 252 212 162 98 52 8 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 418 392 348 272 212 112 18 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 70 578 553 518 458 398 292 138 48 22 8 2 2 2 0 75 742 723 698 638 578 472 308 192 152 118 88 42 12 2 80 908 888 858 812 772 668 482 358 308 262 228 168 108 62 85 1172 1148 1102 1032 962 852 688 538 482 428 382 312 238 178 90 1482 1468 1432 1368 1292 1132 878 732 673 622 573 482 388 312 95 1952 1938 1908 1852 1782 1622 1322 1078 978 888 812 688 558 488 97 2222 2218 2202 2158 2092 1932 1608 1352 1238 1142 1058 912 742 618 99 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2488 2188 1882 1758 1632 1528 1338 1118 958 99.9 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2452 2308 2168 1942 1668 1442 %tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 18 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 85 102 82 62 38 22 12 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 90 218 188 158 118 88 68 52 42 28 18 12 12 8 8 95 382 338 298 242 198 168 138 118 88 68 52 42 38 32 97 448 398 368 308 268 228 198 172 138 108 92 78 62 58 99 732 652 582 472 392 328 282 248 202 178 152 132 118 108 99.9 1142 1032 928 768 652 562 492 432 352 298 252 218 192 172 Results from PERFUM2_40sq_field2.per.outConcentration distribution for an application rate of 455.0 for Flux Profile Day No. 1 for Averaging Period 2%tile Ring1 Ring2 Ring3 Ring4 Ring5 Ring6 Ring7 Ring8 Ring9 Ring10 Ring11 Ring12 Ring13 Ring14 Ring50 322 272 212 132 78 22 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 608 558 488 392 312 188 48 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 60 883 838 778 688 598 452 252 128 82 52 28 2 2 2 65 1148 1108 1048 962 883 742 522 362 302 248 202 128 52 12 70 1448 1408 1348 1258 1172 1022 788 622 553 492 438 342 238 158 75 1688 1662 1642 1562 1508 1338 1082 888 808 738 683 582 462 368 80 2052 2012 1958 1858 1768 1648 1428 1202 1108 1032 962 848 698 588 85 2498 2498 2448 2342 2232 2028 1698 1482 1418 1332 1258 1152 972 838 90 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2262 1948 1822 1702 1592 1418 1212 1088 95 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2488 2362 2142 1872 1648 97 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2302 2058 99 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 99.9 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 %tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 52 22 8 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 228 178 138 72 32 12 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 80 428 368 318 238 178 128 92 68 28 8 2 2 2 2 85 652 582 518 422 342 288 242 202 142 102 78 58 42 32 90 898 833 768 642 542 478 418 368 292 238 198 168 142 118 95 1318 1192 1082 898 772 678 628 582 492 438 372 328 292 262 97 1688 1538 1422 1212 1052 918 812 718 582 498 458 418 378 352 99 2402 2222 2052 1782 1562 1388 1252 1142 962 822 728 642 568 512 99.9 2498 2498 2498 2498 2278 2068 1882 1718 1488 1312 1162 1032 938 848 

Page 176 of 193 
PERFUM Results from directory C:\Documents and Settings\CSMITH02\My Documents\Dmds\PERFUM Runs 1-15-10\PERFUM Runs 2-3-10\Tallahassee\Field3

Results from PERFUM2_5sq_field3.per.outConcentration distribution for an application rate of 455.0 for Flux Profile Day No. 1 for Averaging Period 2%tile Ring1 Ring2 Ring3 Ring4 Ring5 Ring6 Ring7 Ring8 Ring9 Ring10 Ring11 Ring12 Ring13 Ring14 Ring50 12 8 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 58 42 28 12 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 118 102 82 52 32 8 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 65 178 162 142 112 88 52 12 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 70 242 228 208 178 148 108 52 22 12 8 2 2 2 2 75 312 298 278 242 218 168 108 68 52 42 32 18 8 2 80 388 378 358 328 298 242 168 118 102 88 78 58 38 22 85 498 482 462 428 398 332 242 188 162 142 128 102 78 58 90 638 622 602 568 528 458 352 278 248 228 208 168 132 108 95 833 822 808 772 732 652 518 418 382 348 322 282 228 188 97 962 953 938 902 862 778 633 522 478 438 402 348 282 242 99 1172 1172 1162 1142 1108 1028 873 742 688 638 592 518 432 372 99.9 1528 1528 1518 1502 1488 1402 1232 1078 1008 948 898 792 673 588 %tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 85 32 28 22 12 8 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 90 72 62 52 38 28 22 18 12 8 8 2 2 2 2 95 138 122 108 82 68 52 42 38 28 22 18 12 12 8 97 182 162 142 118 92 78 68 58 42 32 28 22 18 18 99 282 248 222 178 152 132 118 102 82 68 58 48 42 38 99.9 468 418 378 318 272 238 208 188 152 128 108 92 82 72 Results from PERFUM2_40sq_field3.per.outConcentration distribution for an application rate of 455.0 for Flux Profile Day No. 1 for Averaging Period 2%tile Ring1 Ring2 Ring3 Ring4 Ring5 Ring6 Ring7 Ring8 Ring9 Ring10 Ring11 Ring12 Ring13 Ring14 Ring50 142 122 102 68 48 18 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 55 238 218 192 158 128 82 28 8 2 2 2 2 2 0 60 332 312 288 252 218 168 98 52 38 28 18 8 2 2 65 432 412 388 348 312 252 178 122 102 88 72 48 22 8 70 542 528 502 462 418 352 262 202 178 158 142 112 78 52 75 678 658 633 588 538 472 368 292 268 242 222 182 148 112 80 838 818 798 742 698 612 498 402 368 342 328 282 228 188 85 1022 1002 972 922 873 802 662 558 518 478 448 398 332 278 90 1282 1262 1238 1182 1128 1032 868 748 703 673 633 562 482 418 95 1652 1642 1618 1562 1508 1402 1212 1068 1008 953 898 812 708 622 97 1902 1892 1872 1822 1768 1658 1452 1282 1212 1152 1092 992 868 778 99 2342 2342 2318 2272 2228 2128 1922 1738 1658 1578 1512 1392 1242 1118 99.9 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2378 2278 2188 2098 1942 1752 1598 %tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 22 12 8 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 72 58 48 28 12 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 80 132 118 98 72 58 42 32 22 12 8 2 2 2 2 85 218 192 168 138 112 92 78 62 42 32 22 18 12 12 90 328 298 272 222 188 158 138 122 92 78 62 52 42 38 95 502 458 422 368 322 278 248 222 182 152 132 112 98 88 97 633 578 533 452 392 348 312 288 242 208 178 158 142 128 99 928 858 792 683 602 542 488 442 378 322 278 248 222 198 99.9 1368 1268 1182 1052 942 848 768 703 608 542 482 432 398 362 

Page 177 of 193 
PERFUM Results from directory C:\Documents and Settings\CSMITH02\My Documents\Dmds\PERFUM Runs 1-15-10\DMDS_01152010\flint\bradenton_flux

Results from PERFUM2_5sq_brad.per.outConcentration distribution for an application rate of 455.0 for Flux Profile Day No. 1 for Averaging Period 3%tile Ring1 Ring2 Ring3 Ring4 Ring5 Ring6 Ring7 Ring8 Ring9 Ring10 Ring11 Ring12 Ring13 Ring14 Ring50 32 18 8 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 178 142 98 48 18 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 388 342 282 202 138 58 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 65 673 628 553 442 352 218 72 12 2 2 2 2 0 0 70 962 922 862 748 642 462 238 118 78 52 32 8 2 2 75 1248 1212 1158 1052 948 758 472 298 238 192 152 98 42 18 80 1562 1532 1478 1372 1258 1058 748 538 458 392 338 252 162 108 85 1948 1912 1858 1748 1622 1402 1042 802 708 628 558 448 328 248 90 2442 2408 2348 2242 2118 1862 1448 1148 1028 933 842 708 548 438 95 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2158 1758 1598 1458 1338 1142 922 772 97 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2242 2058 1892 1748 1518 1232 1028 99 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2248 1882 1612 99.9 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 %tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 48 32 18 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 85 148 118 92 62 42 28 22 12 8 2 2 2 2 2 90 292 242 208 152 118 92 72 58 42 28 22 18 12 12 95 548 478 422 328 262 218 178 148 112 82 68 58 48 38 97 758 662 588 472 392 328 282 242 188 148 118 98 82 68 99 1212 1072 958 783 652 558 482 432 342 288 242 208 182 162 99.9 2102 1868 1698 1408 1188 1028 918 818 673 562 482 422 368 322 Results from PERFUM2_40sq_brad.per.outConcentration distribution for an application rate of 455.0 for Flux Profile Day No. 1 for Averaging Period 3%tile Ring1 Ring2 Ring3 Ring4 Ring5 Ring6 Ring7 Ring8 Ring9 Ring10 Ring11 Ring12 Ring13 Ring14 Ring50 478 422 352 258 182 88 12 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 55 888 822 732 598 492 332 142 52 28 12 2 2 2 0 60 1362 1298 1198 1048 912 703 418 248 182 138 98 48 8 2 65 1808 1752 1662 1522 1388 1148 792 558 468 392 328 228 122 62 70 2232 2182 2102 1968 1828 1588 1208 933 822 723 638 502 352 242 75 2498 2498 2498 2438 2298 2032 1628 1328 1202 1102 1008 842 652 508 80 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2098 1758 1622 1498 1388 1208 988 828 85 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2318 2152 2002 1878 1652 1398 1198 90 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2302 1968 1712 95 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 97 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 99 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 99.9 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 %tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 8 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 108 68 42 12 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 318 252 198 122 72 38 18 8 2 2 2 2 2 0 80 588 498 428 312 232 172 132 98 52 28 12 8 2 2 85 898 792 703 558 448 362 302 252 178 132 98 78 58 48 90 1348 1202 1082 902 752 638 548 472 362 282 232 192 162 138 95 2158 1952 1772 1488 1288 1118 988 878 708 588 508 438 382 332 97 2498 2498 2348 2002 1728 1508 1332 1188 992 833 723 638 568 502 99 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2332 2098 1902 1588 1358 1182 1062 948 852 99.9 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2362 2092 1888 1708 1552 

Page 178 of 193 
PERFUM Results from directory C:\Documents and Settings\CSMITH02\My Documents\Dmds\PERFUM Runs 1-15-10\DMDS_01152010\flint\yuma_flux

Results from PERFUM2_5sq_yuma.per.outConcentration distribution for an application rate of 455.0 for Flux Profile Day No. 1 for Averaging Period 3%tile Ring1 Ring2 Ring3 Ring4 Ring5 Ring6 Ring7 Ring8 Ring9 Ring10 Ring11 Ring12 Ring13 Ring14 Ring50 108 72 32 8 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 428 348 258 138 68 8 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 868 778 658 482 342 158 18 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 65 1382 1288 1152 942 762 498 188 52 22 8 2 2 2 0 70 1902 1822 1688 1468 1268 933 512 278 198 138 92 38 8 2 75 2418 2342 2212 1998 1792 1432 922 608 502 412 338 228 122 58 80 2498 2498 2498 2498 2358 1968 1382 1008 873 752 652 502 348 242 85 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 1918 1468 1298 1152 1038 842 633 482 90 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2078 1872 1688 1528 1278 1002 802 95 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2402 2058 1662 1368 97 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2142 1812 99 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 99.9 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 %tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 12 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 122 88 62 28 12 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 85 302 248 202 138 98 72 52 42 22 18 12 8 2 2 90 548 462 392 298 232 182 148 122 88 62 48 38 32 28 95 978 852 742 582 468 388 328 278 208 158 128 108 88 78 97 1332 1172 1038 828 683 573 482 418 322 258 208 178 148 128 99 2152 1892 1692 1382 1152 992 873 762 608 498 418 358 312 272 99.9 2498 2498 2498 2498 2198 1928 1692 1508 1228 1028 888 778 683 598 Results from PERFUM2_40sq_yuma.per.outConcentration distribution for an application rate of 455.0 for Flux Profile Day No. 1 for Averaging Period 3%tile Ring1 Ring2 Ring3 Ring4 Ring5 Ring6 Ring7 Ring8 Ring9 Ring10 Ring11 Ring12 Ring13 Ring14 Ring50 1082 968 812 608 452 242 48 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 55 1882 1748 1562 1302 1088 758 358 152 88 48 22 2 2 2 60 2498 2498 2402 2102 1852 1442 892 558 432 338 258 138 42 8 65 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2212 1558 1118 953 808 688 498 298 162 70 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2272 1768 1568 1392 1242 998 723 522 75 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2452 2242 2052 1882 1588 1248 992 80 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2218 1832 1548 85 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2182 90 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 95 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 97 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 99 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 99.9 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 %tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 32 8 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 268 182 122 42 12 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 75 648 528 432 282 182 112 68 38 8 2 2 2 2 2 80 1118 958 833 628 482 378 292 228 142 88 52 32 18 8 85 1658 1462 1308 1058 862 712 602 508 372 282 218 172 138 112 90 2428 2172 1968 1628 1368 1168 1002 883 688 548 448 378 318 278 95 2498 2498 2498 2498 2312 2022 1772 1582 1272 1068 892 772 673 592 97 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2348 2148 1768 1502 1288 1138 998 888 99 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2478 2148 1912 1708 1542 99.9 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 

Page 179 of 193 
PERFUM Results from directory C:\Documents and Settings\CSMITH02\My Documents\Dmds\PERFUM Runs 1-15-10\DMDS_01152010\flint\dover_flux

Results from PERFUM2_5sq_dover.per.outConcentration distribution for an application rate of 455.0 for Flux Profile Day No. 1 for Averaging Period 4%tile Ring1 Ring2 Ring3 Ring4 Ring5 Ring6 Ring7 Ring8 Ring9 Ring10 Ring11 Ring12 Ring13 Ring14 Ring50 12 8 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 38 28 22 12 8 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 72 62 52 38 28 12 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 65 108 102 92 72 58 38 12 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 70 148 142 128 112 98 68 38 22 12 12 8 2 2 2 75 188 182 172 152 138 108 68 42 38 28 22 18 8 2 80 228 222 212 192 178 148 102 72 62 52 48 32 22 18 85 272 262 252 238 218 188 138 102 92 78 72 58 42 32 90 328 322 312 292 272 232 178 138 122 112 102 82 68 52 95 418 412 402 382 358 318 248 198 182 162 148 128 102 82 97 482 478 462 442 422 378 302 248 222 202 188 158 128 108 99 612 608 598 578 553 502 412 348 322 298 278 242 198 168 99.9 802 802 798 783 762 723 628 548 512 478 452 398 338 292 %tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 80 8 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 85 18 12 12 8 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 90 32 28 22 18 12 8 8 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 95 58 52 42 32 28 22 18 12 12 8 8 2 2 2 97 78 68 58 48 38 32 28 22 18 12 12 8 8 8 99 122 108 98 82 68 58 48 42 32 28 22 18 18 12 99.9 228 202 182 152 128 112 102 88 72 62 52 42 38 32 Results from PERFUM2_40sq_dover.per.outConcentration distribution for an application rate of 455.0 for Flux Profile Day No. 1 for Averaging Period 4%tile Ring1 Ring2 Ring3 Ring4 Ring5 Ring6 Ring7 Ring8 Ring9 Ring10 Ring11 Ring12 Ring13 Ring14 Ring50 82 78 62 48 38 18 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 55 142 132 118 98 82 58 28 12 8 2 2 2 2 2 60 202 192 178 158 138 102 62 42 32 28 18 12 2 2 65 262 252 242 218 198 162 112 78 68 58 48 38 22 12 70 322 318 302 278 258 222 168 128 112 98 88 72 52 38 75 382 372 358 338 318 278 218 178 162 148 132 112 88 68 80 448 438 428 402 378 338 272 228 212 198 182 158 128 108 85 528 518 502 478 452 408 338 288 268 248 232 202 172 148 90 638 628 612 582 553 502 422 362 338 318 298 268 228 198 95 808 802 788 758 728 673 578 502 472 442 422 378 328 288 97 942 938 922 892 862 802 698 612 578 542 518 468 408 362 99 1212 1208 1188 1152 1122 1052 933 828 783 748 712 652 578 518 99.9 1618 1618 1602 1578 1552 1472 1338 1212 1158 1112 1068 992 892 812 %tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 18 12 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 75 42 38 28 18 12 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 80 78 62 58 42 32 22 18 12 8 8 2 2 2 2 85 112 98 88 68 58 48 38 32 22 18 12 8 8 8 90 158 138 128 102 88 72 62 52 42 32 28 22 18 18 95 232 208 192 162 138 118 102 92 72 62 52 42 38 32 97 292 268 242 208 178 158 138 122 102 82 72 62 52 48 99 428 392 362 312 272 242 218 198 162 138 122 112 98 88 99.9 698 652 612 538 478 432 398 362 308 268 238 212 192 178 

Page 180 of 193 
PERFUM Results from directory C:\Documents and Settings\CSMITH02\My Documents\Dmds\PERFUM Runs 1-15-10\DMDS_01152010\flint\cantua_flux

Results from PERFUM2_5sq_cantua.per.outConcentration distribution for an application rate of 455.0 for Flux Profile Day No. 1 for Averaging Period 3%tile Ring1 Ring2 Ring3 Ring4 Ring5 Ring6 Ring7 Ring8 Ring9 Ring10 Ring11 Ring12 Ring13 Ring14 Ring50 32 18 8 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 128 102 78 42 18 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 268 238 198 148 102 48 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 65 442 408 362 292 232 152 52 12 2 2 2 2 2 0 70 622 592 548 472 402 292 158 82 58 38 28 8 2 2 75 802 778 732 658 588 462 292 188 152 122 102 68 32 18 80 1002 978 933 858 788 652 452 322 278 238 208 158 108 72 85 1228 1202 1162 1088 1012 862 638 488 432 382 342 272 202 152 90 1528 1508 1468 1392 1308 1142 878 692 628 562 512 428 332 268 95 1982 1962 1928 1868 1782 1618 1298 1062 962 883 808 688 558 452 97 2282 2272 2248 2198 2128 1952 1608 1338 1222 1122 1038 892 732 608 99 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2262 1942 1808 1688 1578 1388 1152 983 99.9 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2448 2208 1908 1658 %tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 38 22 18 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 85 92 78 62 42 28 22 12 12 8 2 2 2 2 2 90 178 152 128 98 72 58 48 38 28 18 12 12 8 8 95 328 282 248 192 158 128 108 88 68 52 42 32 28 22 97 448 392 342 278 228 192 162 138 108 82 68 58 48 42 99 738 648 578 472 398 338 292 258 202 168 142 122 102 92 99.9 1302 1162 1048 888 768 668 592 528 432 362 312 268 238 208 Results from PERFUM2_40sq_cantua.per.outConcentration distribution for an application rate of 455.0 for Flux Profile Day No. 1 for Averaging Period 3%tile Ring1 Ring2 Ring3 Ring4 Ring5 Ring6 Ring7 Ring8 Ring9 Ring10 Ring11 Ring12 Ring13 Ring14 Ring50 332 298 248 182 138 72 12 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 55 592 553 488 402 332 232 108 42 28 12 8 2 2 2 60 878 833 768 668 582 452 278 168 132 102 78 38 12 2 65 1152 1112 1052 953 862 708 492 348 292 248 212 152 88 48 70 1428 1392 1332 1238 1142 978 738 562 498 442 392 312 222 158 75 1732 1692 1638 1538 1438 1262 998 812 732 668 608 512 398 312 80 2082 2042 1988 1882 1772 1588 1292 1078 992 918 848 738 602 502 85 2498 2488 2428 2318 2202 1998 1662 1408 1308 1218 1142 1008 848 728 90 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2192 1892 1768 1658 1558 1388 1192 1038 95 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2452 2322 2098 1828 1608 97 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2312 2052 99 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 99.9 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 %tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 8 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 78 52 32 12 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 75 202 162 132 82 52 32 18 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 80 358 308 262 198 152 118 88 68 42 22 12 8 2 2 85 548 488 428 342 278 228 192 162 118 88 68 52 42 32 90 812 728 658 548 458 388 338 292 222 178 148 122 102 88 95 1292 1172 1068 902 778 673 588 528 428 352 302 258 228 198 97 1668 1518 1392 1188 1032 902 802 718 588 502 428 382 332 298 99 2498 2312 2152 1868 1648 1468 1322 1198 998 848 738 652 588 538 99.9 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2398 2198 2008 1728 1498 1332 1188 1088 1012 

Page 181 of 193 
PERFUM Results from directory C:\Documents and Settings\CSMITH02\My Documents\Dmds\PERFUM Runs 1-15-10\DMDS_01152010\flint\nipomo_flux

Results from PERFUM2_5sq_nipomo.per.outConcentration distribution for an application rate of 455.0 for Flux Profile Day No. 1 for Averaging Period 2%tile Ring1 Ring2 Ring3 Ring4 Ring5 Ring6 Ring7 Ring8 Ring9 Ring10 Ring11 Ring12 Ring13 Ring14 Ring50 52 38 22 8 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 138 118 88 58 32 8 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 60 248 222 188 138 102 58 12 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 65 372 342 302 242 198 132 58 22 12 8 2 2 2 2 70 518 488 442 368 312 228 128 78 58 42 32 18 8 2 75 668 638 588 512 448 342 212 142 118 102 82 62 38 22 80 802 778 732 662 592 472 318 228 192 168 148 112 82 58 85 938 918 873 802 732 608 432 322 282 248 222 178 132 102 90 1088 1068 1028 953 878 748 558 432 382 342 312 258 198 158 95 1328 1298 1252 1168 1082 928 718 573 518 472 432 362 292 238 97 1492 1468 1418 1322 1228 1062 822 662 602 548 502 428 348 288 99 1822 1798 1752 1648 1542 1352 1062 862 788 723 662 568 462 388 99.9 2498 2498 2498 2372 2228 1968 1562 1272 1162 1068 983 838 692 588 %tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 80 32 28 18 12 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 85 62 52 42 32 22 18 12 12 8 2 2 2 2 2 90 108 88 78 58 42 38 28 22 18 12 8 8 8 2 95 168 142 128 98 78 62 52 48 32 28 22 18 12 12 97 208 178 158 122 102 82 72 62 48 38 28 22 22 18 99 288 252 222 182 148 128 108 92 72 58 48 38 32 28 99.9 458 412 368 308 262 228 202 182 148 128 108 98 88 78 Results from PERFUM2_40sq_nipomo.per.outConcentration distribution for an application rate of 455.0 for Flux Profile Day No. 1 for Averaging Period 2%tile Ring1 Ring2 Ring3 Ring4 Ring5 Ring6 Ring7 Ring8 Ring9 Ring10 Ring11 Ring12 Ring13 Ring14 Ring50 302 268 228 178 138 82 28 8 2 2 2 2 2 0 55 482 442 392 328 272 198 102 52 38 22 18 8 2 2 60 683 642 582 502 438 338 218 142 118 92 72 48 22 8 65 902 858 798 708 633 508 352 252 218 188 162 128 82 52 70 1112 1078 1018 922 838 703 518 392 348 312 278 222 168 128 75 1302 1268 1212 1128 1048 902 698 558 502 458 412 348 272 218 80 1482 1452 1402 1318 1232 1092 878 723 662 612 562 482 392 322 85 1672 1648 1592 1508 1422 1278 1052 892 828 768 718 633 528 448 90 1912 1882 1828 1732 1642 1482 1242 1068 998 938 883 788 678 588 95 2312 2282 2218 2112 1998 1812 1528 1322 1242 1172 1108 998 868 768 97 2498 2498 2498 2382 2262 2068 1752 1522 1428 1348 1272 1148 1002 888 99 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2202 1932 1822 1728 1638 1488 1308 1172 99.9 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2408 2212 1982 1788 %tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 18 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 72 52 42 22 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 75 142 118 98 72 48 38 22 18 8 2 2 2 2 2 80 228 198 172 132 102 82 68 52 38 22 18 12 8 8 85 332 292 258 208 168 138 118 98 72 58 42 38 28 22 90 458 408 368 298 252 212 182 158 122 98 78 68 58 48 95 618 562 512 432 368 318 278 248 198 162 138 118 102 92 97 723 658 602 512 448 388 342 308 252 208 178 158 138 122 99 968 888 818 708 618 542 482 432 358 302 262 232 208 182 99.9 1498 1392 1302 1158 1042 972 902 848 758 692 638 598 558 522 

Page 182 of 193 
PERFUM Results from directory C:\Documents and Settings\CSMITH02\My Documents\Dmds\PERFUM Runs 1-15-10\TIFTON_DMDS_012810\Flint\Field1

Results from PERFUM2_5sq_field1.per.outConcentration distribution for an application rate of 455.0 for Flux Profile Day No. 3 for Averaging Period 2%tile Ring1 Ring2 Ring3 Ring4 Ring5 Ring6 Ring7 Ring8 Ring9 Ring10 Ring11 Ring12 Ring13 Ring14 Ring

50 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 12 12 8 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 32 28 22 18 12 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 65 68 62 52 42 32 18 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 70 108 102 92 78 68 42 22 8 8 2 2 2 2 2 75 142 138 132 118 108 82 48 28 22 18 12 8 2 2 80 178 178 168 158 142 118 82 58 48 38 32 22 12 8 85 222 218 212 202 188 162 118 88 78 68 58 48 32 22 90 282 278 272 258 242 218 168 132 118 108 98 78 62 48 95 372 372 368 358 342 312 252 208 188 172 158 132 108 88 97 432 432 428 418 408 378 318 262 242 222 202 178 142 122 99 538 542 542 538 528 498 438 372 348 322 302 268 228 192 

99.9 748 748 752 752 752 732 648 573 542 508 478 428 368 322 

50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 85 12 8 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 90 32 22 22 12 12 8 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 95 62 52 48 38 28 22 18 12 12 8 8 2 2 2 97 88 78 68 52 42 38 32 28 18 12 12 8 8 8 99 142 128 112 92 78 68 58 52 42 32 28 22 22 18 

99.9 252 222 202 168 148 128 108 98 82 68 58 48 42 38 

Results from PERFUM2_40sq_field1.per.outConcentration distribution for an application rate of 455.0 for Flux Profile Day No. 3 for Averaging Period 2%tile Ring1 Ring2 Ring3 Ring4 Ring5 Ring6 Ring7 Ring8 Ring9 Ring10 Ring11 Ring12 Ring13 Ring14 Ring

50 42 38 32 22 12 8 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 55 88 78 68 58 42 28 12 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 60 142 138 122 108 92 68 38 22 18 12 8 2 2 2 65 202 192 182 168 148 122 78 52 42 38 28 18 8 2 70 252 248 238 222 202 178 132 98 82 72 62 48 32 22 75 312 308 298 278 262 232 182 148 132 118 108 88 68 48 80 382 372 368 348 328 292 238 198 182 168 152 132 108 88 85 468 462 452 432 412 378 312 268 248 232 218 188 158 132 90 598 592 582 562 542 498 422 362 338 318 298 268 228 198 95 802 798 788 768 748 703 618 548 512 488 458 412 358 318 97 928 928 918 898 883 838 748 668 633 598 568 518 458 408 99 1172 1172 1162 1148 1132 1082 983 888 848 812 778 718 642 578 

99.9 1608 1612 1608 1592 1572 1528 1412 1298 1248 1198 1148 1062 953 868 

50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 28 22 18 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 80 62 52 42 28 22 12 8 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 85 98 88 78 58 48 38 28 22 18 12 8 2 2 2 90 152 138 122 102 82 68 58 48 38 28 22 18 12 12 95 252 232 208 172 152 132 112 102 82 68 58 48 42 38 97 328 298 272 232 198 178 158 142 118 98 88 72 68 58 99 482 442 408 358 312 278 252 228 188 162 138 122 112 102 

99.9 742 692 648 568 512 462 422 388 332 288 252 228 212 192 

Page 183 of 193 
PERFUM Results from directory C:\Documents and Settings\CSMITH02\My Documents\Dmds\PERFUM Runs 1-15-10\PERFUM Runs 2-3-10\Flint\Field2

Results from PERFUM2_5sq_field2.per.outConcentration distribution for an application rate of 455.0 for Flux Profile Day No. 1 for Averaging Period 2%tile Ring1 Ring2 Ring3 Ring4 Ring5 Ring6 Ring7 Ring8 Ring9 Ring10 Ring11 Ring12 Ring13 Ring14 Ring50 18 8 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 112 88 62 28 8 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 258 228 188 138 92 38 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 65 422 398 358 292 238 148 48 8 2 2 2 2 0 0 70 578 562 522 462 402 298 158 78 52 32 22 2 2 2 75 732 718 683 622 568 462 298 192 158 128 102 62 28 12 80 908 888 858 798 732 622 448 328 282 242 208 158 108 72 85 1122 1108 1072 1008 938 808 608 468 418 372 332 272 202 152 90 1402 1388 1358 1292 1222 1072 828 658 592 538 488 408 322 258 95 1842 1828 1808 1748 1678 1518 1228 1002 912 833 758 642 522 432 97 2118 2108 2088 2042 1972 1822 1518 1262 1158 1068 988 848 688 568 99 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2418 2092 1788 1658 1542 1432 1258 1048 892 99.9 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2408 2262 2032 1752 1528 %tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 32 22 12 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 85 92 72 62 42 28 18 12 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 90 178 148 128 92 72 58 42 38 22 18 12 12 8 8 95 312 272 238 188 152 128 108 88 68 52 38 32 28 22 97 418 362 322 262 218 182 158 132 102 82 68 58 48 42 99 673 592 528 428 352 298 258 228 182 152 128 112 98 88 99.9 1208 1082 983 812 688 588 518 458 368 302 258 222 198 178 Results from PERFUM2_40sq_field2.per.outConcentration distribution for an application rate of 455.0 for Flux Profile Day No. 1 for Averaging Period 2%tile Ring1 Ring2 Ring3 Ring4 Ring5 Ring6 Ring7 Ring8 Ring9 Ring10 Ring11 Ring12 Ring13 Ring14 Ring50 308 272 228 162 118 52 8 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 55 562 522 468 388 322 218 98 32 18 8 2 2 2 0 60 833 798 742 658 582 452 278 168 128 98 68 32 8 2 65 1072 1042 998 922 842 703 498 358 302 252 218 152 82 42 70 1308 1278 1238 1162 1082 948 732 573 508 452 402 322 228 162 75 1588 1558 1512 1428 1342 1192 958 788 723 662 608 512 402 322 80 1918 1888 1838 1752 1658 1492 1222 1028 948 878 818 712 588 492 85 2348 2318 2268 2178 2078 1888 1572 1338 1242 1158 1082 958 812 698 90 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2472 2098 1802 1678 1568 1472 1312 1128 983 95 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2482 2342 2222 2008 1742 1538 97 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2202 1952 99 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 99.9 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 %tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 72 48 28 8 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 202 162 128 82 48 22 12 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 80 358 308 262 198 148 112 88 62 38 18 8 2 2 2 85 533 468 418 338 272 228 188 152 112 82 62 48 38 32 90 768 692 628 518 438 372 318 282 218 178 142 118 98 88 95 1222 1102 998 838 718 622 553 492 402 338 282 248 218 192 97 1588 1442 1322 1122 968 842 738 652 533 452 392 342 308 278 99 2278 2098 1928 1662 1462 1298 1162 1052 878 748 652 578 512 462 99.9 2498 2498 2498 2498 2432 2198 2018 1842 1578 1382 1222 1108 992 902 

Page 184 of 193 
PERFUM Results from directory C:\Documents and Settings\CSMITH02\My Documents\Dmds\PERFUM Runs 1-15-10\PERFUM Runs 2-3-10\Flint\Field3

Results from PERFUM2_5sq_field3.per.outConcentration distribution for an application rate of 455.0 for Flux Profile Day No. 1 for Averaging Period 2%tile Ring1 Ring2 Ring3 Ring4 Ring5 Ring6 Ring7 Ring8 Ring9 Ring10 Ring11 Ring12 Ring13 Ring14 Ring50 18 12 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 62 52 38 18 8 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 128 118 98 72 52 22 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 65 202 188 168 138 112 72 28 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 70 278 262 242 212 182 132 72 38 28 18 12 2 2 2 75 352 342 322 292 258 208 128 82 68 58 48 32 18 8 80 432 418 402 368 338 282 198 142 118 102 88 68 48 32 85 522 512 492 462 428 362 268 202 178 158 142 112 82 62 90 642 633 612 578 542 468 358 282 252 228 208 172 132 108 95 822 812 798 768 728 648 512 412 378 342 318 268 218 178 97 958 948 928 898 858 778 633 522 478 438 402 342 278 232 99 1212 1202 1188 1158 1118 1032 873 738 683 628 582 508 428 362 99.9 1568 1578 1578 1578 1552 1488 1322 1158 1088 1018 958 858 738 642 %tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 80 18 12 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 85 38 32 22 18 12 8 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 90 72 58 52 38 28 22 18 12 8 8 2 2 2 2 95 128 108 98 72 58 48 38 32 22 18 12 12 8 8 97 172 148 132 102 88 72 58 52 38 28 22 18 18 12 99 268 238 212 172 142 122 108 92 72 62 52 42 38 32 99.9 512 462 418 348 292 252 218 192 158 128 108 92 82 72 Results from PERFUM2_40sq_field3.per.outConcentration distribution for an application rate of 455.0 for Flux Profile Day No. 1 for Averaging Period 2%tile Ring1 Ring2 Ring3 Ring4 Ring5 Ring6 Ring7 Ring8 Ring9 Ring10 Ring11 Ring12 Ring13 Ring14 Ring50 152 138 118 88 62 32 8 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 55 268 248 222 182 152 108 52 22 12 8 2 2 2 2 60 388 368 342 298 262 202 128 78 62 48 38 18 8 2 65 498 482 458 418 378 312 218 158 132 112 98 72 42 22 70 608 598 573 533 492 422 322 248 218 192 172 138 98 72 75 728 718 692 652 608 538 428 348 312 288 262 222 172 138 80 873 858 828 788 742 662 538 448 412 382 358 308 252 212 85 1038 1022 998 948 902 818 678 578 533 498 468 412 348 298 90 1288 1272 1242 1188 1132 1032 868 748 698 652 612 548 472 408 95 1668 1652 1622 1572 1518 1412 1222 1072 1008 953 898 808 703 612 97 1932 1918 1892 1842 1792 1678 1468 1298 1222 1158 1098 998 873 783 99 2488 2472 2442 2388 2332 2212 1972 1772 1682 1598 1522 1402 1242 1112 99.9 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2458 2368 2268 2118 1912 1748 %tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 38 28 18 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 75 88 72 58 38 22 18 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 80 152 128 112 82 62 48 38 28 18 12 8 2 2 2 85 222 198 178 142 112 92 78 62 42 32 28 18 18 12 90 322 288 258 212 178 152 128 112 88 68 58 48 38 32 95 488 442 408 342 292 258 228 198 162 132 112 98 82 72 97 633 578 528 442 382 332 302 268 222 188 158 138 122 112 99 922 848 783 673 592 522 468 422 352 302 262 232 208 188 99.9 1492 1392 1302 1148 1022 933 848 778 678 602 542 482 438 398 

Page 185 of 193 
PERFUM Results from directory C:\Documents and Settings\CSMITH02\My Documents\Dmds\PERFUM Runs 1-15-10\DMDS_01152010\yakima\bradenton_flux

Results from PERFUM2_5sq_brad.per.outConcentration distribution for an application rate of 455.0 for Flux Profile Day No. 1 for Averaging Period 3%tile Ring1 Ring2 Ring3 Ring4 Ring5 Ring6 Ring7 Ring8 Ring9 Ring10 Ring11 Ring12 Ring13 Ring14 Ring50 442 398 332 242 172 78 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 55 638 592 522 418 328 198 52 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 60 833 783 708 598 498 348 158 62 32 12 8 2 2 0 65 1022 972 902 792 688 518 292 168 122 88 62 28 2 2 70 1228 1182 1108 998 892 708 462 308 252 208 172 112 58 28 75 1448 1398 1332 1222 1112 928 652 472 408 352 308 232 158 108 80 1702 1662 1598 1488 1372 1168 878 678 598 533 472 382 282 218 85 2002 1972 1918 1812 1702 1492 1162 918 828 752 683 573 448 358 90 2368 2342 2298 2218 2122 1912 1542 1262 1152 1058 968 828 668 553 95 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2108 1772 1632 1508 1398 1218 1008 848 97 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2462 2092 1938 1802 1682 1472 1222 1042 99 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2358 2208 1958 1658 1428 99.9 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2412 2078 %tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 48 28 18 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 80 128 102 78 48 32 18 12 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 85 238 198 168 122 88 68 52 42 28 18 12 8 8 2 90 392 338 292 228 178 142 118 98 68 52 38 32 28 22 95 633 553 488 392 322 268 228 192 148 118 92 78 68 58 97 788 692 618 508 422 352 302 268 208 168 138 118 98 88 99 1102 988 883 728 608 522 452 398 318 262 222 192 168 148 99.9 1632 1458 1322 1092 942 828 738 658 548 468 412 362 322 288 Results from PERFUM2_40sq_brad.per.outConcentration distribution for an application rate of 455.0 for Flux Profile Day No. 1 for Averaging Period 3%tile Ring1 Ring2 Ring3 Ring4 Ring5 Ring6 Ring7 Ring8 Ring9 Ring10 Ring11 Ring12 Ring13 Ring14 Ring50 1312 1242 1142 992 862 652 382 218 162 118 82 32 2 2 55 1658 1582 1478 1312 1168 938 622 418 342 282 228 142 62 18 60 1998 1922 1818 1648 1498 1248 892 658 568 488 422 318 202 118 65 2358 2278 2168 1998 1852 1588 1198 928 828 738 662 538 388 288 70 2498 2498 2498 2408 2238 1962 1552 1252 1132 1032 948 798 628 508 75 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2418 1948 1622 1488 1372 1278 1112 918 768 80 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2462 2088 1932 1798 1688 1488 1258 1078 85 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2352 2218 1992 1712 1492 90 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2282 2032 95 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 97 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 99 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 99.9 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 %tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 28 8 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 152 102 68 22 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 70 328 268 222 142 88 52 28 12 2 2 2 2 2 2 75 553 472 412 308 232 178 138 102 58 32 12 8 2 2 80 828 728 652 518 422 348 292 242 172 122 92 68 48 38 85 1172 1062 958 792 673 573 492 428 328 258 208 168 138 112 90 1638 1488 1362 1148 988 852 752 668 533 442 368 318 272 232 95 2288 2098 1928 1658 1438 1272 1138 1022 848 718 618 542 478 428 97 2498 2492 2302 1998 1752 1552 1388 1252 1038 898 772 683 618 553 99 2498 2498 2498 2498 2322 2088 1888 1722 1458 1262 1112 988 883 798 99.9 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2458 2118 1832 1622 1458 1328 1228 

Page 186 of 193 
PERFUM Results from directory C:\Documents and Settings\CSMITH02\My Documents\Dmds\PERFUM Runs 1-15-10\DMDS_01152010\yakima\yuma_flux

Results from PERFUM2_5sq_yuma.per.outConcentration distribution for an application rate of 455.0 for Flux Profile Day No. 1 for Averaging Period 3%tile Ring1 Ring2 Ring3 Ring4 Ring5 Ring6 Ring7 Ring8 Ring9 Ring10 Ring11 Ring12 Ring13 Ring14 Ring50 912 828 718 542 398 182 12 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 55 1272 1182 1058 868 708 452 138 18 2 2 2 2 0 0 60 1628 1542 1418 1218 1032 742 372 162 92 48 22 2 2 2 65 1992 1898 1778 1562 1378 1062 638 388 298 228 168 82 18 2 70 2368 2282 2152 1932 1732 1398 938 648 542 458 388 268 152 78 75 2498 2498 2498 2332 2128 1768 1272 942 812 712 628 488 342 238 80 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2202 1642 1262 1128 1008 902 738 553 428 85 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2122 1682 1518 1368 1248 1048 828 668 90 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2298 2098 1908 1748 1488 1202 988 95 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2212 1822 1532 97 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2228 1882 99 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 99.9 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 %tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 12 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 118 78 52 22 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 80 268 212 172 112 78 52 32 22 12 8 2 2 2 2 85 448 378 322 238 182 142 108 88 58 38 28 22 18 12 90 712 608 538 418 332 268 222 188 138 102 82 62 52 42 95 1148 1002 883 712 578 488 412 352 268 212 168 142 122 102 97 1432 1262 1128 922 762 638 553 478 372 298 248 212 178 158 99 2038 1812 1618 1328 1112 962 838 738 598 492 412 352 312 272 99.9 2498 2498 2498 2138 1808 1568 1368 1202 978 828 708 612 538 472 Results from PERFUM2_40sq_yuma.per.outConcentration distribution for an application rate of 455.0 for Flux Profile Day No. 1 for Averaging Period 3%tile Ring1 Ring2 Ring3 Ring4 Ring5 Ring6 Ring7 Ring8 Ring9 Ring10 Ring11 Ring12 Ring13 Ring14 Ring50 2498 2452 2278 1992 1742 1362 852 522 398 298 212 92 12 2 55 2498 2498 2498 2498 2338 1908 1312 918 772 648 538 362 178 62 60 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2478 1818 1368 1192 1052 922 718 482 312 65 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2352 1868 1672 1502 1362 1122 852 658 70 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2388 2192 2012 1848 1572 1262 1038 75 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2398 2078 1738 1458 80 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2288 1978 85 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 90 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 95 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 97 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 99 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 99.9 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 %tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring50 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 98 42 12 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 378 278 198 82 28 8 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 70 708 592 498 338 228 148 88 48 12 2 2 2 2 2 75 1078 933 822 633 492 392 308 238 142 82 42 22 12 8 80 1508 1352 1212 972 802 668 558 478 352 258 192 148 112 88 85 2102 1878 1702 1422 1198 1028 898 778 608 482 392 328 272 232 90 2498 2498 2438 2052 1752 1532 1352 1192 962 788 678 573 492 432 95 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2312 2058 1852 1548 1308 1112 983 862 758 97 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2278 1922 1632 1418 1262 1122 998 99 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2338 2048 1802 1608 1448 99.9 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2338 

Page 187 of 193 
PERFUM Results from directory C:\Documents and Settings\CSMITH02\My Documents\Dmds\PERFUM Runs 1-15-10\DMDS_01152010\yakima\dover_flux

Results from PERFUM2_5sq_dover.per.outConcentration distribution for an application rate of 455.0 for Flux Profile Day No. 1 for Averaging Period 4%tile Ring1 Ring2 Ring3 Ring4 Ring5 Ring6 Ring7 Ring8 Ring9 Ring10 Ring11 Ring12 Ring13 Ring14 Ring50 88 82 68 58 42 28 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 55 108 102 88 72 62 42 18 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 60 128 122 108 92 78 58 32 18 12 8 8 2 2 2 65 152 142 132 112 98 72 48 32 22 18 18 12 8 2 70 172 168 152 132 118 92 62 42 38 32 28 18 12 8 75 198 192 178 158 142 118 78 58 52 42 38 32 22 18 80 232 222 208 188 172 142 102 78 68 62 52 42 32 22 85 268 262 248 228 208 178 132 102 92 82 72 62 48 38 90 322 312 302 278 258 222 168 132 122 108 102 82 68 52 95 402 392 382 362 342 298 238 192 178 162 148 128 102 82 97 452 448 438 418 398 358 282 232 212 198 182 158 128 108 99 562 562 553 538 512 468 382 322 298 272 252 218 182 152 99.9 742 738 732 718 692 638 542 462 428 398 372 332 282 238 %tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 70 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 75 8 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 80 18 12 8 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 85 22 22 18 12 8 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 90 38 32 28 22 18 12 12 8 8 2 2 2 2 2 95 62 52 48 38 28 22 22 18 12 8 8 8 2 2 97 78 68 58 48 38 32 28 22 18 12 12 8 8 8 99 112 102 92 72 62 52 48 38 32 22 22 18 12 12 99.9 182 162 148 122 102 88 78 68 52 48 38 32 32 28 Results from PERFUM2_40sq_dover.per.outConcentration distribution for an application rate of 455.0 for Flux Profile Day No. 1 for Averaging Period 4%tile Ring1 Ring2 Ring3 Ring4 Ring5 Ring6 Ring7 Ring8 Ring9 Ring10 Ring11 Ring12 Ring13 Ring14 Ring50 198 188 168 148 132 108 72 48 42 32 28 18 8 2 55 232 222 202 182 162 132 92 68 62 52 48 38 22 12 60 268 258 238 218 198 162 118 92 82 72 68 52 38 28 65 308 298 278 252 232 198 148 118 108 98 88 72 58 48 70 352 342 322 298 272 238 182 148 132 122 112 98 78 62 75 402 388 372 342 322 282 222 182 168 152 142 122 102 88 80 458 448 428 402 378 332 272 228 208 192 182 158 132 112 85 528 518 498 472 442 398 332 282 262 242 228 202 172 152 90 622 612 592 568 538 488 412 352 332 312 292 262 228 202 95 772 768 752 723 692 642 548 482 452 428 408 368 322 288 97 883 873 858 828 798 742 648 573 542 512 488 442 392 348 99 1072 1068 1052 1028 992 938 828 738 703 668 638 588 518 468 99.9 1388 1382 1368 1342 1308 1258 1138 1022 978 938 898 828 742 673 %tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring50 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 60 18 12 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 65 28 22 18 12 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 70 42 38 32 22 18 12 8 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 75 62 58 48 38 28 22 18 12 8 8 2 2 2 2 80 88 78 68 58 48 38 32 28 18 12 12 8 8 2 85 118 108 98 78 68 58 48 42 32 22 18 18 12 12 90 162 148 132 112 92 82 72 62 52 42 32 28 22 22 95 232 212 192 168 142 128 112 98 82 68 58 48 42 38 97 282 258 238 202 182 158 142 128 102 88 78 68 58 52 99 388 358 328 288 252 222 202 182 152 132 118 108 92 88 99.9 562 522 482 428 378 338 308 282 242 212 192 172 158 142 

Page 188 of 193 
PERFUM Results from directory C:\Documents and Settings\CSMITH02\My Documents\Dmds\PERFUM Runs 1-15-10\DMDS_01152010\yakima\cantua_flux

Results from PERFUM2_5sq_cantua.per.outConcentration distribution for an application rate of 455.0 for Flux Profile Day No. 1 for Averaging Period 3%tile Ring1 Ring2 Ring3 Ring4 Ring5 Ring6 Ring7 Ring8 Ring9 Ring10 Ring11 Ring12 Ring13 Ring14 Ring50 288 258 222 162 118 52 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 55 408 378 338 272 222 138 42 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 60 533 502 458 388 328 232 112 48 28 12 8 2 2 2 65 658 628 582 512 448 342 198 118 92 68 48 22 2 2 70 783 752 708 638 573 458 302 202 168 142 118 82 42 22 75 922 892 848 772 703 588 418 302 262 228 198 152 102 72 80 1078 1048 1002 928 858 732 542 418 368 328 292 238 178 132 85 1278 1252 1208 1132 1058 918 708 558 502 452 412 342 268 218 90 1532 1512 1478 1412 1342 1198 948 768 692 633 582 498 398 328 95 1898 1882 1858 1818 1758 1612 1332 1108 1018 938 868 752 618 522 97 2102 2098 2082 2048 1992 1858 1572 1332 1228 1138 1058 918 762 648 99 2498 2498 2498 2482 2438 2322 2028 1758 1642 1538 1438 1268 1068 922 99.9 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2372 2218 2098 1882 1598 1412 %tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 32 22 12 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 80 82 62 52 32 22 12 8 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 85 142 122 102 72 58 42 32 28 18 12 8 8 2 2 90 232 202 172 132 108 88 68 58 42 32 22 18 18 12 95 382 338 298 238 192 162 138 118 88 68 58 48 38 32 97 488 428 382 308 258 218 182 162 122 98 82 68 58 52 99 703 628 558 462 388 332 288 252 202 168 142 122 108 92 99.9 1102 998 902 752 633 538 468 418 342 288 248 218 192 172 Results from PERFUM2_40sq_cantua.per.outConcentration distribution for an application rate of 455.0 for Flux Profile Day No. 1 for Averaging Period 3%tile Ring1 Ring2 Ring3 Ring4 Ring5 Ring6 Ring7 Ring8 Ring9 Ring10 Ring11 Ring12 Ring13 Ring14 Ring50 828 788 732 642 558 432 262 158 122 88 62 28 2 2 55 1042 1002 942 842 752 612 418 288 242 198 162 112 52 18 60 1258 1218 1152 1052 962 808 588 438 378 332 292 222 148 92 65 1492 1448 1382 1272 1172 1012 768 602 538 482 438 358 268 202 70 1732 1688 1622 1512 1408 1228 968 788 718 652 602 512 408 328 75 2012 1968 1892 1778 1668 1488 1202 998 918 848 792 688 568 478 80 2342 2298 2228 2118 2002 1802 1488 1262 1168 1088 1012 902 758 652 85 2498 2498 2498 2498 2428 2218 1878 1618 1508 1412 1328 1182 1018 883 90 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2392 2098 1972 1862 1762 1592 1388 1228 95 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2398 2192 1932 1722 97 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2298 2068 99 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 99.9 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 %tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring50 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 28 12 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 112 82 58 22 8 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 70 222 182 152 102 68 42 22 12 2 2 2 2 2 2 75 348 302 262 198 152 118 92 72 42 22 12 8 2 2 80 498 438 392 318 258 212 178 148 108 78 58 42 32 22 85 692 628 568 468 392 338 292 252 192 152 122 102 82 72 90 983 888 802 688 582 508 448 398 318 262 218 188 162 138 95 1408 1292 1192 1022 888 788 703 633 518 442 378 328 288 258 97 1712 1572 1452 1252 1088 968 868 783 648 553 488 428 378 342 99 2292 2122 1972 1722 1522 1358 1222 1112 942 808 703 622 568 508 99.9 2498 2498 2498 2498 2252 2038 1842 1698 1458 1268 1122 1008 898 812 

Page 189 of 193 
PERFUM Results from directory C:\Documents and Settings\CSMITH02\My Documents\Dmds\PERFUM Runs 1-15-10\DMDS_01152010\yakima\nipomo_flux

Results from PERFUM2_5sq_nipomo.per.outConcentration distribution for an application rate of 455.0 for Flux Profile Day No. 1 for Averaging Period 2%tile Ring1 Ring2 Ring3 Ring4 Ring5 Ring6 Ring7 Ring8 Ring9 Ring10 Ring11 Ring12 Ring13 Ring14 Ring50 312 292 262 218 182 132 68 32 18 12 8 2 2 2 55 392 368 332 282 242 182 108 62 48 38 28 12 2 2 60 478 448 412 352 308 238 152 98 82 68 58 38 18 8 65 578 542 498 428 372 298 198 138 118 102 88 62 42 28 70 678 648 592 522 458 362 248 178 152 132 118 92 68 48 75 783 748 698 622 553 442 302 228 198 172 152 122 92 68 80 908 868 812 728 648 533 378 282 248 218 198 162 122 92 85 1078 1032 968 868 778 642 462 352 312 282 252 208 158 128 90 1288 1242 1178 1062 958 792 582 448 402 358 328 272 212 172 95 1632 1588 1512 1388 1268 1068 798 622 558 508 462 388 308 252 97 1892 1848 1772 1632 1502 1282 972 772 698 633 578 488 388 322 99 2438 2402 2328 2192 2052 1782 1378 1112 1002 918 842 723 598 498 99.9 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2158 1778 1628 1502 1382 1198 988 822 %tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring50 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 65 12 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 70 28 18 12 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 75 42 32 28 18 12 8 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 80 62 52 42 32 22 18 12 12 8 2 2 2 2 2 85 88 72 62 48 32 28 22 18 12 8 8 2 2 2 90 118 102 88 68 52 42 32 28 22 18 12 8 8 8 95 178 152 132 102 82 68 58 48 38 28 22 18 12 12 97 232 202 178 138 112 92 78 68 48 38 32 28 22 18 99 362 318 282 222 182 158 132 112 88 72 58 48 42 38 99.9 618 542 482 392 328 272 238 208 168 132 112 92 82 72 Results from PERFUM2_40sq_nipomo.per.outConcentration distribution for an application rate of 455.0 for Flux Profile Day No. 1 for Averaging Period 2%tile Ring1 Ring2 Ring3 Ring4 Ring5 Ring6 Ring7 Ring8 Ring9 Ring10 Ring11 Ring12 Ring13 Ring14 Ring50 712 678 633 562 502 418 302 232 202 178 158 122 88 58 55 852 818 758 678 618 518 388 302 268 242 218 182 138 102 60 1002 962 898 812 738 622 472 378 342 308 282 238 188 152 65 1142 1102 1042 953 873 748 573 458 422 382 352 298 242 198 70 1298 1252 1188 1092 1008 873 683 558 508 468 428 372 302 252 75 1472 1422 1352 1248 1158 1008 798 658 608 558 518 448 372 312 80 1682 1632 1552 1438 1338 1172 938 783 718 668 618 542 452 388 85 1952 1902 1812 1682 1562 1378 1112 928 858 798 748 658 558 478 90 2302 2242 2148 2002 1872 1658 1342 1132 1052 983 922 818 692 602 95 2498 2498 2498 2498 2418 2172 1792 1528 1422 1332 1252 1118 958 833 97 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2168 1852 1732 1628 1538 1378 1188 1038 99 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2418 2282 2158 1942 1692 1498 99.9 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2372 %tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring50 22 12 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 55 58 42 32 12 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 60 98 82 68 42 28 18 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 65 138 118 102 72 52 38 28 22 12 2 2 2 2 2 70 182 158 138 108 82 68 52 42 28 18 12 8 2 2 75 232 202 178 142 112 92 78 62 48 32 28 18 12 12 80 292 258 228 182 148 128 108 92 68 52 42 32 28 22 85 362 322 288 238 198 168 142 122 98 78 62 52 42 38 90 468 422 378 312 262 222 198 172 132 108 92 78 68 58 95 658 598 542 458 388 338 292 262 208 172 148 128 108 98 97 828 742 683 573 492 432 382 338 272 228 192 168 148 128 99 1212 1102 1008 858 758 668 592 528 432 362 312 272 242 218 99.9 1972 1808 1672 1442 1252 1112 992 892 742 622 542 488 438 392 

Page 190 of 193 
PERFUM Results from directory C:\Documents and Settings\CSMITH02\My Documents\Dmds\PERFUM Runs 1-15-10\TIFTON_DMDS_012810\Yakima\Field1

Results from PERFUM2_5sq_field1.per.outConcentration distribution for an application rate of 455.0 for Flux Profile Day No. 3 for Averaging Period 2%tile Ring1 Ring2 Ring3 Ring4 Ring5 Ring6 Ring7 Ring8 Ring9 Ring10 Ring11 Ring12 Ring13 Ring14 Ring

50 42 32 28 18 12 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 55 68 62 52 38 28 18 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 60 92 88 78 62 48 32 12 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 65 118 108 102 88 72 52 28 12 8 8 2 2 2 2 70 142 132 128 112 98 78 48 28 22 18 12 8 2 2 75 168 162 152 138 128 102 72 48 42 32 28 22 12 8 80 198 192 182 172 158 138 98 78 68 58 52 38 28 18 85 232 228 222 212 198 172 132 108 98 88 78 62 48 38 90 278 272 268 258 248 222 182 148 132 122 112 98 78 62 95 338 332 332 328 318 292 248 208 192 178 162 142 118 98 97 372 372 372 368 358 338 288 242 228 212 198 172 142 122 99 448 448 448 442 438 418 368 318 298 278 262 232 198 168 

99.9 573 578 582 588 582 562 502 442 412 392 372 332 288 248 

50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 80 8 8 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 85 22 18 18 12 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 90 42 38 32 22 18 12 12 8 8 2 2 2 2 2 95 72 62 58 42 38 32 28 22 18 12 8 8 8 2 97 92 82 72 58 48 42 32 28 22 18 12 12 8 8 99 128 112 102 88 72 62 52 48 38 32 28 22 18 18 

99.9 192 172 158 132 112 98 88 78 62 52 48 42 38 32 

%tile Ring1 Ring2 Ring3 Ring4 Ring5 Ring6 Ring7 Ring8 Ring9 Ring10 Ring11 Ring12 Ring13 Ring14 Ring

500000000000000

10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 228 218 208 182 168 138 92 62 52 48 38 28 18 8 65 272 262 248 228 208 178 132 98 88 78 68 52 38 22 70 318 308 298 278 258 222 172 138 128 112 102 88 62 48 75 372 362 352 332 312 278 222 188 172 158 142 122 102 82 80 432 428 418 398 378 342 282 242 222 208 192 168 142 122 85 502 498 488 472 452 418 358 312 292 272 258 232 198 172 90 588 588 578 562 548 512 448 392 372 352 338 302 268 238 95 718 712 708 698 683 648 582 522 492 468 448 408 362 322 97 792 792 788 778 762 732 662 598 568 542 518 478 422 382 99 942 948 942 933 922 888 818 742 712 683 652 602 542 492 

99.9 1228 1232 1232 1228 1222 1192 1102 1008 962 922 883 818 728 662 

%tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring

500000000000000

55 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 12 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 70 28 22 18 8 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 75 58 48 38 28 18 12 8 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 80 92 82 72 58 42 32 28 22 12 8 8 2 2 2 85 132 122 108 92 78 62 52 48 32 28 18 12 12 8 90 192 172 158 132 112 98 88 78 62 48 42 32 28 22 95 268 242 222 192 168 148 132 118 98 82 72 62 52 48 97 318 292 268 232 202 182 162 148 122 108 92 82 72 62 99 412 382 358 312 278 248 222 202 172 148 132 118 102 98 

99.9 562 528 492 438 392 352 318 288 248 218 198 178 162 148 

Page 191 of 193 
PERFUM Results from directory C:\Documents and Settings\CSMITH02\My Documents\Dmds\PERFUM Runs 1-15-10\PERFUM Runs 2-3-10\Yakima\Field2

Results from PERFUM2_5sq_field2.per.outConcentration distribution for an application rate of 455.0 for Flux Profile Day No. 1 for Averaging Period 2%tile Ring1 Ring2 Ring3 Ring4 Ring5 Ring6 Ring7 Ring8 Ring9 Ring10 Ring11 Ring12 Ring13 Ring14 Ring50 288 262 222 162 112 48 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 55 388 362 322 262 208 128 32 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 60 488 462 422 362 308 218 102 38 18 8 2 2 2 0 65 588 562 522 462 408 312 188 108 78 58 38 12 2 2 70 703 678 638 573 512 412 278 188 158 132 108 72 38 18 75 833 802 762 698 633 522 372 278 242 212 188 142 102 68 80 972 948 908 838 772 662 488 378 338 302 272 222 168 132 85 1138 1112 1078 1012 948 833 642 512 462 418 378 318 252 202 90 1332 1318 1292 1242 1188 1068 858 703 642 588 542 462 372 308 95 1628 1618 1598 1562 1512 1398 1168 978 902 828 768 662 548 462 97 1802 1798 1788 1762 1718 1608 1358 1148 1062 988 912 798 662 562 99 2148 2152 2148 2138 2098 1988 1732 1498 1398 1308 1228 1078 902 768 99.9 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2342 2078 1958 1832 1728 1538 1302 1128 %tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 32 18 12 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 80 82 68 52 32 22 12 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 85 138 118 98 72 58 42 32 28 18 12 8 2 2 2 90 218 188 162 128 102 82 68 58 42 28 22 18 18 12 95 348 302 268 212 178 148 122 108 82 62 52 42 38 32 97 422 372 332 272 228 192 162 142 112 88 72 62 52 48 99 582 518 468 378 318 272 238 208 168 138 118 102 88 78 99.9 892 802 728 612 522 448 388 342 278 232 198 172 152 132 Results from PERFUM2_40sq_field2.per.outConcentration distribution for an application rate of 455.0 for Flux Profile Day No. 1 for Averaging Period 2%tile Ring1 Ring2 Ring3 Ring4 Ring5 Ring6 Ring7 Ring8 Ring9 Ring10 Ring11 Ring12 Ring13 Ring14 Ring50 778 738 678 598 522 402 238 138 102 72 48 18 2 2 55 958 912 852 768 688 562 378 262 212 178 142 88 32 8 60 1142 1098 1038 948 862 728 533 398 348 302 262 198 128 72 65 1358 1312 1248 1148 1052 908 692 548 488 438 398 322 242 182 70 1578 1538 1472 1372 1282 1118 873 712 648 592 548 468 372 302 75 1818 1782 1722 1622 1528 1358 1102 912 838 772 718 628 518 442 80 2098 2062 2008 1912 1818 1648 1368 1162 1082 1008 938 828 703 602 85 2428 2398 2348 2258 2168 1998 1702 1478 1388 1302 1232 1108 958 833 90 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2438 2132 1882 1778 1682 1592 1442 1258 1118 95 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2432 2308 2198 2092 1912 1692 1518 97 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2448 2242 1992 1782 99 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2298 99.9 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 %tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 12 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 98 68 42 12 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 208 172 142 92 58 32 18 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 75 328 288 252 192 152 118 92 72 42 22 8 2 2 2 80 462 412 368 302 252 212 178 152 112 82 62 48 32 28 85 662 592 538 448 378 322 282 242 192 152 128 102 88 72 90 908 828 758 642 553 482 422 372 302 248 208 178 158 138 95 1252 1142 1052 902 783 692 618 553 458 392 338 298 262 232 97 1468 1348 1248 1078 948 838 748 673 558 482 418 368 332 298 99 1922 1778 1648 1438 1272 1138 1022 922 772 668 582 518 458 412 99.9 2498 2458 2292 2018 1782 1612 1468 1342 1158 1008 902 812 738 673 

Page 192 of 193 
Page 193 of 193 

PERFUM Results from directory C:\Documents and Settings\CSMITH02\My Documents\Dmds\PERFUM Runs 1-15-10\PERFUM Runs 2-3-10\Yakima\Field3Results from PERFUM2_5sq_field3.per.outConcentration distribution for an application rate of 455.0 for Flux Profile Day No. 1 for Averaging Period 2%tile Ring1 Ring2 Ring3 Ring4 Ring5 Ring6 Ring7 Ring8 Ring9 Ring10 Ring11 Ring12 Ring13 Ring14 Ring50 148 132 112 88 68 38 8 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 55 192 178 158 128 102 68 28 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 60 232 218 198 168 138 98 52 28 18 12 8 2 2 2 65 278 262 238 208 178 138 82 52 38 32 22 12 2 2 70 328 312 288 252 222 178 118 78 68 58 48 32 18 12 75 378 362 342 308 278 228 158 112 98 88 72 58 42 28 80 448 432 408 372 338 282 208 158 138 122 108 88 68 52 85 522 508 488 452 418 358 268 208 188 168 152 128 102 78 90 618 608 592 558 522 458 358 288 258 238 218 182 142 118 95 768 758 742 712 678 608 488 402 368 342 318 272 222 182 97 868 858 842 812 778 712 582 482 442 408 378 328 268 228 99 1048 1042 1032 1012 983 908 758 638 588 548 512 448 372 318 99.9 1332 1332 1322 1302 1282 1212 1058 928 873 818 768 678 568 492 %tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 75 12 12 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 80 32 22 18 12 8 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 85 52 42 38 28 18 12 12 8 8 2 2 2 2 2 90 82 72 62 48 38 28 22 18 12 8 8 8 2 2 95 132 118 102 82 68 52 48 38 28 22 18 12 12 12 97 168 148 132 108 88 72 62 52 42 32 28 22 18 18 99 242 212 192 158 132 112 98 88 68 58 48 38 32 32 99.9 382 348 312 258 218 192 168 148 118 98 82 72 68 58 Results from PERFUM2_40sq_field3.per.outConcentration distribution for an application rate of 455.0 for Flux Profile Day No. 1 for Averaging Period 2%tile Ring1 Ring2 Ring3 Ring4 Ring5 Ring6 Ring7 Ring8 Ring9 Ring10 Ring11 Ring12 Ring13 Ring14 Ring50 352 332 308 262 232 178 112 72 58 48 38 22 8 2 55 428 408 378 332 298 242 162 118 98 82 72 52 28 12 60 508 488 452 408 368 308 218 168 142 128 112 88 62 42 65 592 573 538 492 448 378 282 222 198 178 162 132 102 78 70 688 668 638 588 538 468 362 292 268 242 222 188 148 122 75 798 778 742 692 648 573 452 378 348 318 292 252 208 178 80 912 892 862 818 768 688 568 478 442 408 382 332 282 242 85 1052 1038 1008 958 912 828 692 598 558 522 492 438 378 328 90 1232 1222 1198 1152 1102 1018 868 758 712 673 638 573 492 438 95 1528 1512 1492 1448 1398 1302 1138 1002 948 898 858 778 683 608 97 1712 1698 1678 1638 1588 1492 1312 1168 1108 1052 1002 912 808 723 99 2068 2068 2052 2012 1968 1862 1662 1492 1422 1358 1298 1192 1058 953 99.9 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2488 2262 2058 1968 1892 1818 1688 1528 1388 %tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring50 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 18 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 65 48 38 28 12 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 70 82 68 58 38 28 18 12 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 75 128 112 98 72 58 48 38 28 18 12 8 2 2 2 80 188 162 148 118 98 82 68 58 42 28 22 18 12 8 85 258 228 208 172 148 128 108 92 72 58 48 38 32 28 90 352 322 292 248 212 182 158 142 112 92 78 68 58 48 95 498 452 422 362 312 272 242 218 178 148 128 112 98 88 97 592 542 502 428 378 332 302 272 222 192 168 148 128 118 99 792 728 678 588 518 468 418 382 322 278 242 218 198 182 99.9 1178 1092 1018 892 788 708 642 582 502 442 392 358 322 292