UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY 

AND POLLUTION PREVENTION 

MEMORANDUM 

DATE: February 26, 2014 

SUBJECT: Risk assessment for proposed new use of spirotetramat on lawns and turf in a 

formulated product (12ESP703 SC Insecticide) with imidacloprid 

FROM: 

(PC 392201; DP Barcodes 0413577) ~ 

Joseph 

Jose Melendez, 

DeCant, 

Chemist 

Ecologist F ~ < ~ ~0i · 

Environmental Risk Branch 

Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P) 

THROUGH: Mah T. Shamim, Ph.D, Branch Chief 

Environmental Risk Branch 5 

Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P) 

TO: Rita Kumar, Risk Manager Reviewer 

John Hebert, Risk Manager #07 

Insecticide and Rodenticide Branch 

Registration Division (7505P) 

The Environmental Fate and Effects Division (EFED) has completed its review of an application 

for a proposed new use of spirotetramat for lawns and turf. The proposed new use is a 

formulation with imidacloprid, named 12ESP703 SC Insecticide, and is intended primarily for 

the control of Southern chinch bugs. Imidacloprid is already registered for use on residential and 

commercial lawns and turf grass, including sod farms (e.g., Merit 2F Insecticide; Reg. No. 432-

1312). This package also requests the registration of alternate brand names for this formulation 

including Merit Complete, Merit Plus, Merit 360, Merit Revolution, Merit CIC, and Merit Total 

Care. 

The maximum seasonal apphcation rate of spirotetramat for the proposed use is 0.2 lb a.i./A, 

which is less than the maximum labeled uses that have been previously assessed for banana and 

plantain (D398764; December 13, 2012). This assessment therefore relies on the previous 

GJ,ssessment, and Table 1 provides a summary of the risks that EFED anticipates from the use of 

this product to lawns and turf. Table 2 presents an overview of the proposed use pattern. The 

terrestrial models used in the previous risk assessment by EFED relied primarily on the 

maximum single application rate, which is lower for the proposed use on turf (i.e., 0.2 lb a.i./ A 

Page 11 
Page | 2

for turf compared to 0.25 lb a.i./A for banana/plantain). Therefore, the terrestrial risk 

conclusions in the previous assessment for spirotetramat to banana and plantain apply to the 

currently proposed use with one difference. In the previous assessment, the application rate of 

0.25 lb a.i./A for banana and plantain resulted in a borderline exceeded of the chronic 

mammalian LOC. The currently proposed use of 0.2 lb a.i./A decreases the residues to the point 

of eliminating the chronic LOC exceedance for mammals for spirotetramat alone. 

In addition, Tables 3 and 4 also confirm that the aquatic EECs of the proposed use on turf do not 

exceed the EECs from the previous assessment for the uses on banana and pomegranate. Input 

parameters for the aquatic modeling are provided in Appendices A-1 and A-2. Given that the 

EECs from the previous assessment did not exceed levels of concern for aquatic organisms, the 

proposed use on turf and lawns also will not exceed levels of concern for aquatic organisms. 

Following Tables 3 and 4, this memo presents additional characterization of the risk associated 

with the use of this formulated product.

Table 1. Summary of environmental risk conclusions for various taxa exposed to 

spirotetramat alone and the formulated product for the proposed use on turf and lawns.

Assessment Endpoint

Identified Concerns

with Spirotetramat 

Alone

Identified Concerns with the Formulation

Acute and Chronic Risk to 

Freshwater and Estuarine/marine 

Fish

None None

Acute and Chronic Risk to 

Freshwater and Estuarine/Marine 

Invertebrates

None Acute and Chronic risk to freshwater and 

estuarine/marine invertebrates

Aquatic Benthic Invertebrates None Acute and Chronic risk to freshwater and 

estuarine/marine invertebrates

Aquatic Non-Vascular and 

Vascular Plants None None

Acute and Chronic Risk to Birds Chronic risk to birds

Acute and Chronic risk to birds (see risk 

description for more information regarding 

the uncertainty in this conclusion)

Acute and Chronic Risks to 

Mammals None Chronic risk to mammals

Risks to Upland and Wetland 

Plants None None

Risk to Pollinating Bees Risk to pollinating bees Risk to pollinating bees

Use Summary for New Use of Spirotetramat on Turf

Use Characterization

Table 2 is a summary of the new turf use pattern for spirotetramat in the proposed label for the 

new product 12ESP703 SC Insecticide (suspension concentrate), which contains 8.6% 
Page | 3

spirotetramat and 21.4% imidacloprid. The proposed new use pattern is outdoor residential, for 

use on turf grass, including residential home lawns, business and office complexes, shopping 

complexes, multi-family residential complexes, golf courses, airports, cemeteries, parks, 

playgrounds, athletic fields, and sod farms. Pests targeted for control are soil or surface 

inhabiting turf grass pests, such as chinch bugs. Table 2 is based on the proposed label and a 

summary provided by the registrant.

Table 2. Summary of Directions for the Proposed Turf Use of Spirotetramat, based on the 

proposed label for 12ESP703 SC Insecticide (EPA Reg. No. 72155-xxxx)

Product’s Name 12ESP703 SC Insecticide

Active Ingredients Spirotetramat 8.6% and Imidacloprid 21.4%; the product 

contains 0.8 lb spirotetramat and 2.0 lb imidacloprid per 

gallon

Use Site Turf Grasses (turf grass, including residential home lawns, 

business and office complexes, shopping complexes, multifamily residential complexes, golf courses, airports, 

cemeteries, parks, playgrounds, athletic fields, and sod farms)

Type of Application 

Identified by 

Equipment/Label Restriction

Spray equipment

Apply 12ESP703 SC Insecticide in sufficient water to provide 

adequate distribution in the treated area. The use of 

accurately calibrated equipment normally used for the 

application of turf grass insecticides is required. Use 

equipment that will produce a uniform, coarse droplet spray, 

using a low-pressure setting to eliminate off target drift. 

Check calibration periodically to ensure that equipment is 

working properly.

Description of Application 

Method Type

Spray

Formulation Description Suspension concentrate liquid

Application Rate 12.8-32 fl oz product/A or 0.3 to 0.72 fl oz (8.8 to 21.1 mL) 

per 1000 sq ft; this application rate is equivalent to 0.08 – 0.2 

lb a.i. spirotetramat/ A/ application: this application rate range 

is recommended for all pests, except for mole crickets, for 

which the recommended rate is 0.2 lb spirotetramat/A.

Maximum Single Application 

Rate

32 fl oz product/A or 0.72 fl oz (21.1 mL)/1000 sq ft; this 

application rate is equivalent to 0.2 lb a.i. spirotetramat/A/ 

application

Maximum Number 

Applications / Season

Not specified

Maximum Number Apps 

/Year

Two (2)

Maximum Number Apps 

/Year at Maximum Single 

Rate

One (1)

Maximum Application Rate 

/Year (lb a.i./A)

0.2 lb a.i. of spirotetramat and 0.5 lb a.i. of imidacloprid
Page | 4

Table 2. Summary of Directions for the Proposed Turf Use of Spirotetramat, based on the 

proposed label for 12ESP703 SC Insecticide (EPA Reg. No. 72155-xxxx)

Minimum Retreatment 

Interval

Not specified

Application Method Timing Spray before egg hatch. For mole cricket, can also apply 

when adult or large nymphs are present and actively 

tunneling, in combination with a remedial insecticide

Registration Numbers 264-1049 (Technical); 72155-xxxx (End-use)

Use Directions and 

Limitations

72155-xxxx

Repeat as needed, up to two times per year, not to exceed max 

application rate per year.

Pests Controlled Numerous species of insect species are listed in the label, 

including billibugs, annual bluegrass weevil, grubs, listed 

surface pests and below ground pests, and pyrethroid resistant 

chinch bugs.

Environmental Hazard 

Statements

-This product is highly toxic to aquatic invertebrates. Do not 

apply directly to water, or to areas where surface water is 

present or to intertidal areas below the mean high water mark. 

Do not contaminate water when disposing of equipment 

washwaters.

-This product is highly toxic to bees exposed to direct 

treatment or to residues on crops or weeds in bloom. Do not 

apply this product or allow it to drift to crops or weeds in 

bloom if bees are visiting the treatment area.

-This chemical demonstrates the properties and characteristics

associated with chemicals detected in groundwater. This 

chemical may leach into groundwater if used in areas where 

soils are permeable, particularly where the water table is 

shallow.

Restrictions NOTE: For optimum control, if rainfall does not occur within 

24 hours after application, irrigate to move the active 

ingredient through the thatch.

-Do not apply through any irrigation system.

-Do not mow turf or lawn area until after sufficient irrigation 

or rainfall has occurred so that uniformity of application will 

not be affected.

-Do not graze treated areas or use clippings from treated areas 

for feed or forage.

-Do not allow runoff or puddling of irrigation water following 

application.

-Do not apply 12ESP703 SC Insecticide to areas that are 

water logged or saturated, it will not allow penetration into the 

root zone of the plant.
Page | 5

Table 3. Upper bound peak exposure to invertebrates, fish, and aquatic 

plants from the previous assessment and the new proposed use on turf 

and lawn.

Crop Scenario/App. Rate (lb a.i./A)/No. Apps/Int. Between Apps. EEC/ppb

FL citrus* / 0.25 / 5 / 14 1.46

FL citrus TTR + NERs* / 0.25 / 5 / 14 19.6

FL turf / 0.2 / 1 / NA 0.397

FL turf TTRs + NERs / 0.2 / 1 / NA 1.99

*Surrogate scenario for bananas and plantains from the previous assessment (D398764).

Table 4. Upper bound chronic exposure for aquatic invertebrates and fish from the 

previous assessment and the new proposed use on turf and lawn. a

Crop Scenario/App. Rate (lb a.i./A)/No. Apps/Int. Between 

Apps.

Chronic 21d / ppb Chronic 60d / ppb

FL citrus* / 0.25 / 5 / 14 0.0622 0.0462

FL citrus TTR*/ 0.25 / 5 / 14 18.7 17.5

FL turf / 0.2 / 1 / NA 0.0349 0.0122

FL turf TTRs + NERs / 0.2 / 1 / NA 1.94 1.88

*Surrogate scenario for bananas and plantains from the previous assessment (D398764). a

Chronic 21 day and 60 day average exposure concentrations are shown. The 21 day average relates to aquatic invertebrates whereas the 60 day 

exposure concentrations relate to fish.

Additional Risk Description and Uncertainties

Based on spirotetramat alone, the risk picture is relatively narrow in terms of the concerns. As 

evident from the information presented above, spirotetramat alone does not present a risk to most 

taxa based on the proposed application rate. In fact, only chronic risk concerns to birds and risk 

concerns for pollinating bees remain for spirotetramat alone. The risk concerns for birds are 

based on an endpoint from a supplemental study with the Mallard duck from which a definitive 

NOAEC could not be derived. Therefore, there is uncertainty in the chronic risk for birds as the 

toxicity endpoint may be lower than the endpoint used in this analysis. A study (MRID 

48958801) has been submitted by the registrant and is currently in review after which EFED may 

be able to arrive at a definitive NOAEC depending on the acceptability of the study.

The risk to pollinating bees, related to spirotetramat alone, is based on a number of non-GLP 

tunnel studies that were submitted as part of the New Chemical assessment (see D345278, 

Appendix C). The previous assessment on banana and plantain (D398765) presents information 

on these studies and other higher tier studies for spirotetramat. In summary, the use rate for the 

proposed use on turf and lawns is high enough that, given the body of literature for spirotetramat, 

there is the potential for immediate adverse impact to brood production in honey bee colonies. 

Considering that the honey bee is a surrogate for other pollinating bees, both bumble bee and 

solitary bee species would also be impacted by the proposed use rate of spirotetramat. 

The proposed use of the formulated product with both spirotetramat and imidacloprid present a 

risk picture based on both products. The EECs for terrestrial and aquatic species for 

imidacloprid alone, based on the worst-case scenario of a single application at 0.5lb a.i./A, would 
Page | 6

be similar to the relatively recent imidacloprid assessment on caneberries and artichokes 

(D334030+, May 1 2007). The risk conclusions for this use, with the single maximum 

application rate of 0.5lb a.i./A, were as follows:

• Acute and chronic risk to both estuarine and freshwater invertebrates, both freeswimming and benthic

• Chronic risk to birds

• Acute risk to mammals

• Potential for risk to pollinating bees

There is some uncertainty to consider related to the conclusions for avian species from the 

previous risk assessment for imidacloprid. First, only chronic risk was highlighted as a concern, 

but this situation is a result of the acute toxicity value used for birds. The assessment used the 

LC50 of 1536 ppm, which is based on the dietary study with Bobwhite quail. The acute oral dose 

based LD50 with the sparrow is a much more conservative endpoint that would have resulted in 

exceedances of acute toxicity LOC’s. However, as highlighted in the previous assessment, 

imidacloprid appears to have repellent properties that limit the consumption of food items 

contaminated with imidacloprid. Consequently, the acute risk concerns would be abated by the 

food avoidance behavior of birds when food items are contaminated with imidacloprid and 

alternative sources are available. Similarly, the chronic risk concerns raised by both 

imidacloprid and spirotetramat would likely be minimized due to food avoidance from the 

presence of imidacloprid to the formulation when alternative food sources are available. It is 

important to note that this conclusion rests on the assumption that alternative food sources are 

available for birds otherwise adverse effects due to reduced food consumption are possible.

In addition, the concerns with pollinating bees are addressed to some extent by the proposed 

label, but concerns remain. The proposed label contains in the environmental hazards section the 

statement, “This product is highly toxic to bees exposed to direct treatment or to residues on 

crops or weeds in bloom. Do not apply this product or allow it to drift to crops or weeds in 

bloom if bees are visiting the treatment area”. Imidacloprid is highly toxic to adult bees based on 

acute contact and oral exposure. Unlike imidacloprid, spirotetramat does not appear to adversely 

impact adult bees at realistic concentrations, but rather it impacts brood survival. So the label 

statement above primarily protects adult foraging bees, including honey bees as well as 

bumblebees and solitary bees, from direct contact exposure to imidacloprid. The remaining issue 

is that both spirotetramat and imidacloprid are systemic insecticides that can translocate into 

pollen and nectar to be collected by bees.

These systemic residues in pollen and nectar present a concern not addressed by the bee hazard 

labeling. While applications are restricted during bloom when bees are visiting the application 

area, the systemic nature of both chemicals implies that applications made before bloom can also 

be expressed in pollen and nectar when bee attractive weeds (e.g., clover or dandelion) on the 

application site begin to bloom. Furthermore, imidacloprid is stable to degradation and may 

carry-over in the soil until the next season when translocation may also occur into pollen and 

nectar. In this case, foragers would collect contaminated food sources and return these to the 

hive or nest. Consequently, because the formulation contains both imidacloprid and 

spirotetramat, the hive or nest would be exposed to a chemical that can affect foraging and 
Page | 7

behavior at sublethal levels (imidacloprid) as well as a chemical that is toxic to brood 

development (spirotetramat). The two chemicals together represent a potent combination if 

exposure to pollinating bees occurs. Due to a lack of empirical residue data on the proposed 

formulated product, there is uncertainty as to the residue levels that can be expected from the 

maximum application rate of the proposed formulated product. Nonetheless, given the 

maximum application rate of the two active ingredients, the impacts to brood from spirotetramat 

in tunnel studies at lower application rates than the currently proposed rate, the combined 

activity on both adult and brood due to the presence of both imidacloprid and spirotetramat, the 

proposed formulated product has a high potential for substantial impacts to honey bee and 

bumble bee colony health, as well as native bee and beneficial arthropod diversity and 

abundance, based on toxicity and the proposed application rates.

Risk to bees is not solely based on toxicity, however. Exposure is an integral component to the 

risk picture, and consideration of the use pattern is essential. Turf and lawns are not high 

acreage pollinator attractive crops, nor do they represent highly concentrated sources of pollen 

and nectar as the presence of weeds are often intentionally minimized. So in many cases, the 

lack of flowering weeds in turf and lawns will limit exposure to bees, though ground nesting 

bees would be an exception as these bees may build ground nests on the site of application. 

However, when the density of flowering weeds increases the risk to pollinating bees will 

increase despite the proposed protective label language. EFED does not have a means of 

assessing the abundance of flowering weeds in areas of turf and lawn or the spatial extent of this 

risk. 

In summary, the major taxa of concern from the proposed use of the formulated product are 

terrestrial arthropods and pollinating bees, aquatic invertebrates, chronic risk to mammals, and 

acute and chronic risk to birds. The food avoidance behavior exhibited by birds to imidacloprid 

contaminated food items suggests that the risk to birds may be attenuated by the presence of 

imidacloprid when alternative sources of food are available. Similarly, the fact that turf and 

lawns are not high acreage pollinator attractive crops, nor do they represent highly concentrated 

sources of pollen and nectar as the presence of weeds are often intentionally minimized, also 

suggests that exposure to pollinating bees may be attenuated by the use pattern itself. Unlike 

pollinating bees, however, the use pattern would not attenuate exposure to beneficial arthropods, 

including natural predators of the pest species, on the site of application.

 
Page | 8

Table A-1. Input Parameters for PRZM/ EXAMS for the Estimation of the EECs of Spirotetramat

Parameter (units) Value(s) Sources Comments/ Other

Output File Name SPIROTET --- ---

Chemical Name Spirotetramat Label Proposed labels

Crop Names FL turf Label Represents golf courses and various other 

turf uses.

Application Rate Crop/ lb a.i./A/ kg a.i./ha

FL turf/ 0.2/ 0.2241

Label Proposed labels

Day of Application (day-month)/ 

pre-harvest interval

FL turf 01-04 Label Proposed labels

Maximum Number of 

Applications Allowed at the 

Maximum Application Rate

FL turf 1 Label Proposed labels

Minimum Interval between 

Applications (days)

FL turf N/A Label Proposed labels

CAM (Chemical application 

method)

2 Label 2, linear foliar based on crop canopy

IPSCND (Flag indicating the 

disposition of pesticide remaining 

on foliage after harvest)

1 Input Parameter 

Guidance

1, pesticide remaining on foliage is 

converted to surface application to the top 

soil layer

DEPI = Incorporation Depth (cm) 0.0 Label Proposed labels

Kd (mL/g) 4.39 OECD Monograph 

Annex B. 

Spirotetramat. B.8 Fate 

and Behaviour

The average Kd value, as per current EFED 

guidance on input parameters for PRZM/ 

EXAMS. The Kd value represents better the 

mobility of spirotetramat (relative standard 

deviation is smaller).

Aerobic Soil Metabolism (days) 0.298 OECD Monograph 

Annex B. 

Spirotetramat. B.8 Fate 

and Behaviour

Represents the 90th percentile of the upper 

confidence bound on the mean of four halflife values (FL sandy loam; t1/2 = 0.30 days, 

sandy loam; t1/2 = 0.24 days, silty loam; t1/2 = 

0.26 days, silt; t1/2 = 0.09 days) (DFOP best 

fit kinetics).

Method of Application Ground Label Proposed labels

Buffer Zone (ft.) N/A Label Proposed labels

Application Efficiency (fraction) 0.99 for ground application --- EFED guidance

Spray Drift (fraction) 0.01 for ground application --- EFED guidance

Solubility in Water (ppm) 33.5 OECD Monograph 

Annex B. 

Spirotetramat. B.8 Fate 

and Behaviour

EFED guidance

Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism 

(days)

0.2676 OECD Monograph 

Annex B. 

Spirotetramat. B.8 Fate 

and Behaviour

Represents the 90th percentile of the upper 

confidence bound on the mean of two halflife values at 200C (loam sediment; t1/2 =1.06 

days, loamy sand sediment; t1/2 =1.05 days) 

(SFO kinetics). Adjusted values at 250C: 

0.265 days and 0.2625 days, mean 0.26375, 

std. dev. 0.00178 days, t90,n-1 = 3.078.

Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism 

(days)

2.1 OECD Monograph 

Annex B. 

Spirotetramat. B.8 Fate 

and Behaviour

Determined by multiplying the available 

half-life (2.8 days) by 3 to account for the 

uncertainty associated with using a single 

value (SFO kinetics). Since the value was 

obtained at 200C, it was adjusted to 250C 

(0.70 days x 3 = 2.1 days).

Hydrolysis at pH 7 half-life (days) 13.1 OECD Monograph 

Annex B. 

Spirotetramat. B.8 Fate 

and Behaviour

EFED guidance (SFO kinetics).

Aqueous Photolysis @ pH 7 

(days)

14.4 OECD Monograph 

Annex B. 

Spirotetramat. B.8 Fate 

and Behaviour

t1/2 = 14.4 Phoenix, AZ days, maximum 

dark-controlled available value (SFO 

kinetics).

Molecular Weight (g/mole) 373.45 OECD Monograph 

Annex B. 

Spirotetramat. B.8 Fate 

and Behaviour

---

Vapor Pressure (torr or mmHg) 4.2x10-11 OECD Monograph ---
Page | 9

Table A-1. Input Parameters for PRZM/ EXAMS for the Estimation of the EECs of Spirotetramat

Parameter (units) Value(s) Sources Comments/ Other

Annex B. 

Spirotetramat. B.8 Fate 

and Behaviour

Henry’s Law Constant

(Atm-m3/mol)

6.90x10-13 OECD Monograph 

Annex B. 

Spirotetramat. B.8 Fate 

and Behaviour

---

Environment pond298.exv --- Default for pond scenario, as opposed to 

Field Size EPA Pond --- index reservoir.

Runoff none --- ---

FEXTRC, Foliar extraction 0.5 --- EFED guidance

PLDKRT, Decay rate on foliage 0 --- EFED guidance

PLVKRT, Volatilization rate from 

foliage

0 --- EFED guidance

UPTKF, Uptake factor 0 --- EFED guidance

Write Benthic Pore Water 

Concentrations?

Yes --- For information only

Table A-2. Input Parameters for PRZM/EXAMS for the Estimation of the EECs of Spirotetramat + 

Degradates (Total Residues: Spirotetramat + Spirotetramat-enol + Spirotetramat-ketohydroxy + NonExtracted Residues) for a Representative Crop With the Highest EECs: FL citrus (bananas and plantains)

Parameter (units) Value(s) Sources Comments

Output File Name SPIROTET --- ---

Chemical Name Spirotetramat Label Proposed labels

Crop Names FL turf Label Represents golf courses and various other 

turf uses.

Application Rate Crop/ lb a.i./A/ kg a.i./ha

FL turf/ 0.2/ 0.2241

Label Proposed labels

Day of Application (day-month)/ 

pre-harvest interval

FL turf 01-04

PHI (days):

FL citrus 1

Estimated from metadata file & labels.

Crop emergence/ maturity/ harvest day-mo:

FL citrus 01-01/ 02-01/ 31-12

Maximum Number of 

Applications Allowed at the 

Maximum Application Rate

FL turf 1 Label Proposed labels

Minimum Interval between 

Applications (days)

FL turf N/A Label Proposed labels

CAM (Chemical application 

method)

2 Label 2, linear foliar based on crop canopy

IPSCND (Flag indicating the 

disposition of pesticide remaining 

on foliage after harvest)

1 Input Parameter 

Guidance

1, pesticide remaining on foliage is 

converted to surface application to the top 

soil layer

DEPI = Incorporation Depth (cm) 0.0 Label Proposed labels

KOC (mL/gOC) 65.32 OECD Monograph 

Annex B. 

Spirotetramat. B.8 Fate 

and Behaviour

The average KOC value, as per EFED 

guidance on input parameters for 

PRZM/EXAMS. The KOC value represents 

better the mobility of spirotetramatketohydroxy, the terminal degradate and the 

most stable (relative standard deviation is 

smaller).

Aerobic Soil Metabolism (days) Total Residues 222.3 days OECD Monograph 

Annex B. 

Spirotetramat. B.8 Fate 

and Behaviour

Represents the 90th percentile of the upper 

confidence bound on the mean of four halflife values for the total residues of the enol 

and the ketohydroxy (all possible significant 

figures used, use of log-linear parameters) 

(t1/2 = 203.82 days, t1/2 = 169.02 days, t1/2 = 

161.16 days, t1/2 = 203.82 days; mean = 

184.455 days; std. dev. 22.58984 days).

Method of Application Ground Label Proposed labels

Buffer Zone (ft.) N/A Label Proposed labels

Application Efficiency (fraction) 0.99 ground application --- EFED guidance

Spray Drift (fraction) 0.01 for ground application --- EFED guidance
Page | 10

Table A-2. Input Parameters for PRZM/EXAMS for the Estimation of the EECs of Spirotetramat + 

Degradates (Total Residues: Spirotetramat + Spirotetramat-enol + Spirotetramat-ketohydroxy + NonExtracted Residues) for a Representative Crop With the Highest EECs: FL citrus (bananas and plantains)

Parameter (units) Value(s) Sources Comments

Solubility in Water (ppm) 228 OECD Monograph 

Annex B. 

Spirotetramat. B.8 Fate 

and Behaviour

EFED guidance

Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism 

(days)

Total Residues 140.9 days OECD Monograph 

Annex B.

Spirotetramat. B.8 Fate 

and Behaviour

For the parent + enol + ketohydroxy, 

represents the 90th percentile of the upper 

confidence bound on the mean of four halflife values 385.00; 693.00, 141.43, 256.67 

days at 200C, which are adjusted to 250C: 

96.25, 173.25, 35.36, and 64.17 days; std. 

dev = 59.447 days, mean = 92.26 days (used 

of log-linear parameters).

Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism 

(days)

OVERALL – Stable OECD Monograph 

Annex B. 

Spirotetramat. B.8 Fate 

and Behaviour

The enol is stable and there are no adequate 

data on the ketohydroxy; the most 

conservative scenario is presumed.

Hydrolysis at pH 7 half-life (days) OVERALL – Stable OECD Monograph 

Annex B. 

Spirotetramat. B.8 Fate 

and Behaviour

The enol is stable and there are no adequate 

data on the ketohydroxy; the most 

conservative scenario is presumed.

Aqueous Photolysis @ pH 7 

(days)

OVERALL – Stable OECD Monograph 

Annex B. 

Spirotetramat. B.8 Fate 

and Behaviour

The enol and the ketohydroxy are not 

photodegradates; therefore, in the absence of 

data, the most conservative scenario is 

presumed.

Molecular Weight (g/mole) 373.45 OECD Monograph 

Annex B. 

Spirotetramat. B.8 Fate 

and Behaviour

Assumed to be the one for the parent.

Vapor Pressure (torr or mmHg) 4.2x10-11 OECD Monograph 

Annex B. 

Spirotetramat. B.8 Fate 

and Behaviour

Assumed to be the same than for the parent, 

due to similar structures.

Henry’s Law Constant

(Atm-m3/mol)

6.90x10-13 OECD Monograph 

Annex B. 

Spirotetramat. B.8 Fate 

and Behaviour

Assumed to be the same than for the parent, 

due to similar structures.

Environment pond298.exv --- Default for the standard pond scenario, as 

Field Size EPA Pond --- opposed to index reservoir.

Runoff none --- ---

FEXTRC, Foliar extraction 0.5 --- EFED guidance

PLDKRT, Decay rate on foliage 0 --- EFED guidance

PLVKRT, Volatilization rate from 

foliage

0 --- EFED guidance

UPTKF, Uptake factor 0 --- EFED guidance

Write Benthic Pore Water 

Concentrations?

Yes --- For information only