### UNITE D S T AT ES E N VIRONME N TAL PROTECTIO N AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

OF FI CE OF

PREVENTI O N , PESTICIDES

AND T O X I C SU BSTANCES



### April 20, 2010

SUBJECT: Di m e thyl Disulfide: Section 3 Health Effects Division Hum a n Health Risk

Assessm ent.

PC Code: 029088 DP Barcode: 339675

MRID No.: NA Registration No.: NA

Petition No.: NA Regulatory Action: Section 3 Registration Assessment Type: Single Chem ical/ Non-food Reregistration Case No.: NA

T XR No.: NA CAS No.: 624-92-0

FROM: Charles Sm ith, Environ m ental Scientist/Risk A ssessor Elissa Reaves, Ph.D., Toxicologist

Shalu Shelat, Industrial Hygienist

Risk Assessm e nt Branch VI Health Effects Division (7509P)

THROUGH: Felecia Fort, Branch Chief

Risk Assessm e nt Branch VI

and Michael Metzger, Branch Chief / Designated RARC Reviewer

Risk Assessm e nt Branch VII

and Ray Kent, Branch Chief / Designated RARC Reviewer

Risk Assessm e nt Branch IV Health Effects Division (7509P)

TO: John Bazuin/Tony Kish, Risk Managem e nt Tea m #22 Fungicide B r anch Registration Division (7505P)

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

estim ating the risk to hum a n health from exposure to pesticides. The Registration Division (RD)

of OPP has r e quested that HED conduct a risk as sessm ent to estim ate the risk to hum an health

that will result from the proposed use of DMDS as a pre-plant soil fum i gant in strawberry, fruiting vegetable (e.g., tom a to, peppers, and eg gplant), cucurbit (e.g., cucum b ers, squash, and

m e lons), blueberry, and ornam e ntal 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 Toxicologi cal 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 Asse ssment and Characterization ....................................... 24

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

6.1.1 Estimation of Residential Bystander E xposures 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 Po stapplication Point Exposur e 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 Summ aries for Toxicity Studies and Toxicological Profile ................... 54 Appendix B: Methodologies for Inhalation Ri sk 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 Appli cations Estimated with PERFUM for Preplant Agricultural Use .......................................................................................................................... 109 Appendix F: Air Concentration Outputs from DM DS 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 activ e 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., cucu mbers, 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 indus trial use of DMDS is in the refining and petrochemical industries but it is also used to dissolve elem ental sulfur for unplugging sour natural gas wells, as an additive during manufacturing of ‘Sponge Ir on’ to prevent metal dusting, and as a thiomethylating ag ent in organic synthesis.

Although DMDS will be used as an agricultura l pesticide, it is considered a non-food use chemical since it is quickly degraded or metabo lized into non-toxic degr adates 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 Fede ral Insecticide, Fungi cide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) promulgated under the Food Quality Pr otection 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 th e 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 po tential 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 expos ures 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, nasa l irritation, is the most sensitive endpoint for DMDS. Systemic toxicity was only observed at hi gher concentrations in the form of decreased food consumption and body weights. Irritation typically increased in severity and progressed deeper in the nose with increas ing concentrations. Repeat inhalation studies suggest nasal irritation is driven by concentr ation 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 inhalati on port-of-entry NOAEL is therefore appropriate for longer-term scenarios.

Individuals may smell DMDS before nasal irrita tion is identified. The pungent odor of DMDS is described as rotting or decaying matter or as garl ic. The odor threshold of DMDS is reported to

Page 6 of 193

### be orders of magnitude below the level that na sal irritation is identifie d. 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 acu te inhalation rat study was selected for estimating inhalation risk for all durations of exposure. The port-of-entry NOAEL (No observable adverse effect le vel) is 9 ppm. The port-of-entry LOAEL (lowest observable adverse effect level) of 12.5 ppm was based on th e 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 irritati on is dependent upon concentration and not duration of exposure, a single HEC is appropriate fo r all durations and both occupational and nonoccupational scenarios.

Based on the use of the inhalation reference c oncentration (RfC) met hodology, the acute, shortand intermediate-term non-occupational and oc cupational human equiva lent concentration (HEC) is 1.65 ppm. EPA’s RfC methodology incorporates pharmac okinetic differences between rats and humans; therefore the in terspecies 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 con duct a quantitative dermal risk assessment at the present time. It should be noted, however, that th ere is potential for seve re 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 app lication sites (i.e., treated farm fields) such as area sources (hereon discussed as near field sources) and by ambient air monitoring da ta where residues could result from many applications within a region (her eon discussed as ambient sources). Risks from

near field sources were evalua ted using monitoring data and modeling techniques. Risks from ambient air were evaluated using surrogate met hyl 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 fro m single application sites (e.g., area sources such as farm fields). These data indicate that there can be potential risk s of concern associated

with DMDS use. These data are limited in their utility because they prov ide 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 understa nding of the potential for risks associated with DMDS use under varied meteorological conditions.

Page 7 of 193

### The Agency utilized the Probabilistic Exposur e 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 Co mplex: Short-Term Model (ISCST3) which was first used to develop risk estimates fo r 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 applic ation to 40 acres per day) using 100%, 90%, 80%, 70% , 60%, and 50% of the maximu m proposed label application rate. The Agency utilized all eight available field volatility studies in the PERFUM analyses even though use of high barrier ta rps are required on the label (onl y two of the ei ght 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 rais ed bed drip irrigation application scenarios. The raised bed shank injection high barrier studies we re 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 app lication scenario. In that case the broadcast shank injection emission study using LDPE should be used to estimate buffer distances until a broadcast shank injection emi ssions study using high barrier ta rps is performed. PERFUM

results show that for a 40 acre field treated at the maximum application ra te, 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 broa dcast shank injection applications, and from 580 meters to ≥ 765 meters for raised bed dr ip irrigation applications depending on the sealing method and meteorological dataset examined.

With regard to potential multiple sources of expo sure 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 th e 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 met hyl 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 comp arison should be considered conservative in nature because there is less potential for e xposure with DMDS than with methyl bromide

because of the environmental fate characteristic s of DMDS relative to methyl bromide (i.e., DMDS is not as volatile as methyl bromide, DMDS dissipates/degrades fast er 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 re movers, involved in preplant field fumigation were evaluated using DMDS-specific handler monitoring data. Acut e 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 or ganic 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 ba seline 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 pest icide or other chemical. Thes e studies, which comprise four chemical specific studies (MRIDs 47052827/47786503, 47052828/47786504, 47075401/47786501, and 47075402/47786502) have been determ ined to require a review of their ethical conduct, have receiv ed that review, and have been determined to be ethically

conducted.

Environmental Justice Potential areas of environmental ju stice concerns, to the extent possi ble, 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-esta blished procedures. In line with OPP policy, HED estimates risks to population subgroups fr om pesticide exposures that ar e based on patterns of that subgroup’s food and water consumption and activ ities in and around the home that involve pesticide use in a residential se tting. 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-app lication 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 fo r bystanders located in proximity to treated

fields. Based on the exposure pattern, an extensive an alysis of residentia l 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 i nhalation component of the aggregate exposure assessment will be protective of all potent ial exposed populations, including populations specifically targeted for possible environmental ju stice concerns such as low income residents and minorities. Risk assessment endpoints were se lected considering the potential susceptibility of infants, children, and pregnant women to a ssure protection of these populations. Since (a)

inhalation risks will drive this assessment and wi ll 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 assessme nt 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 so ftware/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 sp ecific 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 th e control or suppression of nematodes, various soil borne pathogens, and weeds. The proposed uses are for tomatoes, peppers, eggplant, cucumbers, squash (all), melons (all), strawber ries, 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% act ive 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 be d) or drip irrigation eq uipment. Treated areas of the field are required by the label to be c overed 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 C 2 

### H 6 

### S 2 

### 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 ch emical 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 (pK

a ) 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 toxico logical profile of DMDS.)

Inhalation studies available for DMDS include: Acute neurotoxicity study-rat Special 24-hour inhalation study-rat Special 1 & 5-day i nhalation 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 muta genicity studies are also available for DMDS. There are currently no oral toxicity studies av ailable for DMDS. However, the proposed use pattern does not require to lerances and oral studies are theref ore not required for risk assessment

at this time.

Hazard Summary DMDS is a volatile chemical which is proposed fo r 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-en try evaluations with DMDS is robust for the proposed use profile. For example, acceptable inhala tion studies in rats and rabbits are available in exposure durations ranging from single day (4 and 24 hours) to repe ated exposures over 13 weeks that evaluate port-of-ent ry irritation, systemic toxic ity, neurotoxicity, reproductive toxicity, and developmental t oxicity. There are no chroni c inhalation studies for DMDS, however, the current use profile does not wa rrant this duration of toxicity study.

Although the primary eye and skin ir ritation studies with DMDS did not result in severe irritation (category III and IV, respectivel y), the potential for DMDS to cause irritation at the ports-ofentry ( i.e., nose, eyes, mouth) was evaluated as cons istent for some of the other fumigant compounds. Microscopic evaluations of the nose a nd respiratory tract are available for 5 of the

10 inhalation DMDS studies. Two of the 5 studies are acute and evaluate d a single 6 hour or 24 hour exposure. Inflammation and nasal irritati on 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 w ith increasing concentrations. Repeat inhalation studies reveal irritation present not only in the nose (olfactory degeneration and nasal squamous metaplasia) but also further in the respirat ory tract (lung irritation in rabbit only). The concentration of DMDS required to produce ir ritation 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 expos ure. Furthermore, the irrita tion from a single exposure may

Page 11 of 193

### not have time to recover such that repeated expo sure without recovery leads to increased severity

of irritation or irritation further in the respiratory tract. The le ngth of time required for the nasal olfactory degeneration to recover after a si ngle exposure is not available for DMDS.

DMDS did not produce developmen tal 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 includi ng death (secondary to dermal irr itation). It is noted, however, that this study was designed to keep DMDS on th e skin instead of volatizing as would typically occur. Severe irritation in the form of erythe ma, edema, and ischemic necrosis was observed at the lowest concentration tested beginning on the second day of a pplication. Although only toxicity category III, severe irritation was al so observed in the acu te dermal rabbit study (cracking/thickening/sloughing of the skin on Da y 7 until Day 14). Therefore, DMDS should be handled with extreme care since any dermal exposur e 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 a ssay with Chinese hamster ovary cells is unacceptable/guideline due to problems associat ed 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 lite rature as pungent garlic, decaying fish, or as decomposing materials. A literature review c onducted 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 na sal irritation is observe d in rodent inhalation

studies. The concentration at wh ich the odor is identified also s uggests 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 fo r a person to detect the odor as well as the variability and aversions among i ndividuals to the odor is curr ently not available for DMDS.

Page 12 of 193

### Sufficiency of studies/data The toxicological database for DMDS for the ma jor route of concern, inhalation, is robust and adequate for selecting to xicity endpoints for the current risk assessment.

3.1.2 Responses in Laboratory Animals

Based on inhalation studies in laboratory anim als (rats), port-of-en try 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) range d from 15 ppm to 50 ppm. There were no significant differences in severity or incidence of nasal irritati on 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 th resholds referenced in the literature (0.007- 0.012 ppm) are orders of magnitude below the con centration 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 LC 50 

### rat study (MRID 46903516) is limited as it only provi des a concentration level at which 50% of the animals died (1308 ppm). The acute neurotox icity study (6 hours) resu lted 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 evid enced by decreased lo comotor activity was

observed at the same concentration as the clinic al 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 inhala tion 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 in creasing 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 peri od. 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 th e nasal irritation was not performed as part of the 24 hour inhalation study so this in formation is unavailable for DMDS.

In developmental inhalation toxicity studies with DMDS (MRID 46917008 rat, 46903523 rabbit), no evidence of quantitative or qualita tive susceptibility for sy stemic toxicity in developing animals was observed. Ma ternal toxicity in the rat was observed in the form of rough hair coat, decreased body wei ghts/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 irri tation 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 evalua tions were not performed on either the nasal or lung tissues as consistent with other inhalation studies. System ic 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 su ch 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 st udy (MRID 47052807) resulted in a parental LOAEL (80 ppm) based on decreased body weight s and food consumption. A reproductive and offspring LOAEL was not established (NOAEL > 80 ppm). Micros copic 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-ent ry irritation and showed squamous metaplasia in the na sal cavity of rats at 50 ppm. The systemic LOAEL was 50 ppm based on similar clinical signs as the devel opmental 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 neurot oxicity. In the acute neurotoxicity study (MRID 46903529) locomotor activity was decreased at the same concentration as eye and mouth irritation (100 ppm). However, hist opathology of the nasal region was not assessed in the acute neurotoxic ity study. In the subchr onic neurotoxicity study (MRID 46903530) microscopic examination of the na sal cavity revealed degeneration of the nasal olfactory epithelium (level s II through IV) at 20 ppm. Systemic toxicity was observed at a higher concentration (80 ppm) in the form of decreased mo tor activity and decreased body weights and food consumption.

Examination of the nasal/respirat ory irritation data acr oss study durations a nd concentrations, it is apparent that DMDS produces nasal irrita tion within a few hours a nd 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 with in 6 to 24 hours of expos ure 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 st udies are likely an artifact of concentration selection and spacing. This comparison suggests th at nasal irritation may occur at a threshold concentration since acute exposure produced ir ritation 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 irr itation across time is due to c oncentration selection. This suggests an acute NOAEL would be protective of longer-term LOA ELs. Furthermore, there was no significant difference in seve rity or incidence between males and females in the inhalation

studies.Page 15 of 193Table 3.1.2. Comparison of port-of-entry irritation and systemic toxicity data from inhalation studies for DMDSACN 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 inhalation(6 hr/day)SCN rat inhalation(6 hr/day, 90 days)46903529474712014778550147471201469035234691700746903530Port-of-Entry IrritationNOAEL = NANOAEL = NANOAEL= 9 ppmNOAEL= NANOAEL = NANOAEL = 10NOAEL = 5 ppmLOAEL = 100 ppm(LDT)LOAEL = 50 ppm(LDT)LOAEL = 12.5 ppmLOAEL = 50 ppm (LDT)LOAEL = 15 ppm(LDT)LOAEL = 50 ppmLOAEL = 20 ppmBased on closedeyelids, red depositson mouth of femalesNo histopathology ofnoseBased on acuteinflammation,degeneration,hyperplasia of nasaltissues of both sexesBased on incidence ofinflammation anddegeneration of thenasal olfactoryepithelium (levels IIVI); 6/10 males; allminimalBased on acuteinflammation,degeneration, hyperplasiaof nasal tissues of bothsexes (levels II-VI), and↑relative lung weights at300 ppmNasal cavity notexamined, nohistopathologyBased on minimal tomoderate atrophy andmicrocavitation of theolfactory epithelia (8/10rats/sex) and respiratorysquamous metaplasia inthe anterior nasal cavityBased on degenerationof nasal olfactoryepithelium (levels II –IV)No histopathology oflungs. Lung weightsnot taken.No change in lung wts atany concentration.Lung histo not evaluatedNo change in lung wts.Lung histo notperformedNo change in lung wts atany concentration.Lung histo not evaluated.No effect on lung wts,histo not performed.LOAEL based onmacroscopicobservations of darkred discolorations ofareas of the lungs,No change in lung histoat any concentration.Lung weights↑only atHDT (250ppm).Lung weights andhistopathology notperformed.Systemic ToxicityNOAEL< 100 ppmNo acute systemiceffectsNo acute systemiceffectsNOAEL < 50ppmMaternal andDevelopmentalNOAEL 135 ppm(HDT)NOAEL=10ppmNOAEL=20 ppmLOAEL=100 ppmNANALOAEL=50ppmLOAEL not establishedLOAEL=50ppmLOAEL=80 ppmBased on↓totalsession locomotoractivity in males,↓total session motoractivity in femalesNANABased on↓bodyweights and bodyweight gains.NABased on clinical signs(soiled fur,piloerection),↓bodyweights/gains, and↓food consumptionBased on↓total motoractivity in males,↓bodyweight/gain in males,and↓food consumptionboth sexes

### Responses in Humans

There are no observational or t oxicity data regarding the odor threshold or irritation response from DMDS by humans. DMDS is typically repo rted as having a foul odor in the form of pungent garlic or decaying mate rials (fish) which may have been produced by a variety of natural and industrial processes ( i.e., kraft pulp mills). A literatu re 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 rec ognition in relation to onset of potential nasal irr itation 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 sens itivities of these two factors ( e.g., odor threshold in humans and nasal irritation threshold in r odents) of DMDS exposure.

3.1.3 Inhalation Exposure

DMDS, like the other soil fumigants, has the po tential 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 expos ures 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 fr om this drift. Port-of-entry irritation in the form of nasal degeneration is the most sensitiv e effect and therefore is appropriate for use in the DMDS risk

assessment. As with the other hazard assessm ents for fumigant chemicals, this hazard assessment applied the Reference Concentr ation (RfC) methodology to the DMDS hazard assessment. The following endpoint for the inhala tion 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 scen arios. See Appendix B for the HEC assessment

array.

Based on current DMDS labels, HED believes expos ures 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 durat ion of exposure does not typica lly 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 ade quate and health protective of all durations of exposure for th e DMDS inhalation risk assessment.

For the acute inhalation scenario, the single 24-h our 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 inhalati on 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 clinic al signs of toxicity, treatment-rela ted microscopic nasal irritation and

inflammation were found in nasal levels II throu gh 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 concentr ation-dependent. Furthermore, the severity generally decreased as the nasa l 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 a nd 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 gui dance 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 Californi a 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 effect s occurring at the lowest HEC

derived from animal data us ing the RfC methodology.

For the acute, short, and intermediate-term scenar ios, inhalation data from the 24-hour inhalation rodent study was most appropriate for determ ining 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 instruct ed to refer to Appendi x 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-o ccupational 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 attaine d, regardless of the hours of exposure, the

Page 17 of 193

### result is nasal irritation. Time adjustment s, 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 e ndpoints 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/m 3 

### ) 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 epitheliu m) of the nasal tissues (Nasal Levels IIVI), the incidence of degeneration in mu ltiple nasal levels (3 to 5 levels) and inflammation of the olfactory and respiratory epithelia (N asal Levels III and IV).

Dose and Endpoint for Risk Assessm ent (non-occupational & occupational) : An HEC of 1.65 ppm (6.36 mg/m 3 

### ) was selected as the basis for the acute inhalation point of departure based on the incidence of microscopic le sions (degeneration in the olf actory epithelium) of the nasal tissues (Nasal Levels II-VI), the incidence of dege neration 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 nasa l irritation data whic h is the most sensitive endpoint for the DMDS toxicity database. The acute inhalati on study also clearly de fines 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 w ould have been calculated for o ccupational 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 long er-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 re quired after the end of exposure for nasal irritation to re solve) are not available for DMDS , but should be considered for

Page 18 of 193

### the inhalation risk assessment. Protection of na sal irritation likely also protects against other changes deeper in the respirat ory 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 disp layed in Table 3.1.2, the repeat exposure studies do not result in

lower LOAELs or NOAELs. Since the acute in halation study provides a NOAEL for the most sensitive endpoint, then th e acute inhalation study is appropri ate for use in both the short- and

intermediate-term inhalation scen arios. See the acute inhalati on exposure section (Table 3.1.3.a) for hazard description and the inhalation study executive summary.

Short- & Intermediate-term Non-occ upational and Occupational Exposure

Table 3.1.3b: Table of port-of-entry endpoin ts 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 epitheliu m) of the nasal tissues (Nasal Levels IIVI), the incidence of degeneration in mu ltiple nasal levels (3 to 5 levels) and inflammation of the olfactory and respiratory epithelia (N asal 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 studi es 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 appropr iate for DMDS at this time.

3.1.4 Dietary Exposure

Given the available crop field tra il data and the results of the aerobic soil metabolism study; the uses on the proposed DMDS labels are consid ered nonfood uses. Accordingly, the currently proposed uses of DMDS do not require food tole rances 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 stud ies 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 mort ality, myocarditis and myocardial degeneration, lung lesions, decreased body weight and food consumption, and hemo lytic anemia at the highest dose tested). This study specifica lly applied DMDS via a thin ga uge needle so as to prevent

volatization of DMDS before contac t with the skin. This likely e xplains 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 irri gation) and emission reduction technologies ( e.g. , tarping). The physiochemical propert ies of DMDS also make significant dermal exposure unlikely and quantifying any poten tial 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 seve re 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 c oncern, there are no chronic/ carcinogenic inhalation studies available for DMDS. However, the muta genic 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 ri sk. For studies in this risk assessment with inhalation animal data, UFs are based on the RfC methodology de veloped by the Office of Research and Development (ORD) for the derivation of inhala tion reference concentrations (RfCs) and human equivalent concentrations (HECs) for use in ma rgin 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 extrap olation may be reduced to 3X (to account for the PD differences) while the UF for intraspecies variat ion is retained at 10X 1



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

3.3 Endocrine Disruption

As required under FFDCA section 408(p), EP A has developed the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP) to determine whether certain substances (inc luding pesticide active and other ingredients) may have an effect in humans or wildlife si milar 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 ap proach 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 estrog en, androgen, or thyroid (E, A, or T) hormonal systems. Chemicals that go th rough Tier 1 screening and are found to have the potential to

1 A 3X UF for interspecies extr apolation is retained to account for the PD di fferences 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 stag e of the EDSP where EPA will determine which, if any, of th e Tier 2 tests are necessary base d on the available data. Tier 2 testing is designed to identify a ny adverse endocrine related eff ects 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 issu ing test orders/data call-ins for the first group of 67 chemicals, which contains 58 pesticid e active ingredients and 9 inert ingredients.

This list of chemicals was selected based on th e potential for human exposure through pathways such as food and water, residen tial activity, and certain post-applic ation agricultural scenarios.

This list should not be construed as a lis t 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 Agen cy 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 ED SP, the policies and procedures, the list of 67 chemicals, the test guidelines and the Tier 1 screening battery, pleas e visit our website: http://www.epa.gov/endo/.

3.4 Summary of Toxicological Endpoint Selection

Table 3.4: Summary of Toxicological Dose a nd 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 surroundi ng these incidents are discusse d in further detail below.

The Tifton, GA incident occurred after an applica tion 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. Th is is in accordance with the EUP label directions for using sh ank injection equipment. The a pplication occurred on February

7 th 

### and two days later on February 9 th 

### , several residents of a local community notified the local police and fire department of an odor in their community. Severa l 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 resi dents were treated for any symptoms but several residents were temporarily relocated. It was noted that a low level atmospheric inversion occurred on February 8 th 

### and persisted for two days. This li kely 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 tr eated with DMDS at an application rate in accordance with the EUP label using shank injec tion equipment and polyethylene tarps. The applications occurred on September 8 th 

### and 9 th 

### . On September 9 th 

### the farm manager was contacted by the local police department rega rding a potential propane leak (DMDS has a propane/garlic like odor). A drip applica tion field trial of 0.25 acres using DMDS was performed on September 13 th 

### on the same farm. On September 17 th 

### the farm manager was contacted via email by a local resident regardi ng an “awful odor” that occurred in the mornings and evenings over the previous week or two. Th e email mentioned that several local residents had become ill during the time that the odor existe d. The farm manager visited the resident who emailed him on September 17 th 

### to provide details of the EUP a nd 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 pot ential exposure to DMDS. The fa rm 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 ar e 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 incident s 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 a nd Degradates of Concern

There is currently no guideline crop metabolis m 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 DT 90 (the time it takes for 90% of the applied DMDS to dissipate) for DMDS ranged from 9.1 9 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 diox ide 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 ultimate ly 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 th e 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 strawberr y, tomato, carrot and radish conduc ted 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 wa s 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 stra wberries, tomatoes and carrots. Residues were found in both the treated (0.11-0.24 ppm) and untreat ed (0.09-0.24 ppm) radish plot s. 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 produ ce volatile sulfur com pounds, including DMDS (Wang et al., 2009; Kirkegaard and Sarwar, 1998).

Given the available crop field tra il data and the results of the aerobic soil metabolism study; the uses on the proposed DMDS labels (strawberries, blueberries, fru iting vegetables, cucurbits, and ornamentals) should be consider ed nonfood uses. Accordingly, th e currently proposed uses of this fumigant do not require food tolerances and ar e not subject to the amen dments of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) and the Fede ral Insecticide, Fungi cide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) promulgated under the Food Qualit y 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 A ssessment and Characterization

DMDS, like the other soil fumigants, has the po tential 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 expos ures 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 fiel d. Emission rates are a ffected 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 concentrati on of fumigant coming off of a treated field. Some of these include soil ty pe, 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 unstabl e, then emitted DMDS concentrations are more likely to be reduced as a result of greater mi xing. Under such conditi ons, the likelihood of a bystander being exposed to a fumigant at a concentr ation of concern is rela tively 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 conditi ons, the likelihood of a bys tander 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 leve ls (e.g., a house located in a valley where prevailing winds approach it).

This section describes the potenti al exposure scenarios associated with the use of DMDS. These include residential bystander exposure from two ke y sources including: k nown sources from an application site (i.e., area sources such as at the edge of a trea ted field) and ambient air levels that result from many application( s) within a region where the s ources 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 ri sk estimates were calculate d for the general population who may be exposed living in proximity to indivi dual application sites or within regions where DMDS use routinely occurs. Section 6.2: Bystander Risk Characterization describes the factors that should be considered when interpre ting the results of th is 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 repres ent area sources from a single application (e.g., a treated farm field). Exposures from near field sources for bys tanders are described below in Section 6.1.1: Residential Bystander Expos ures 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 Bysta nder 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 appli cations of fumigants. This process is described in more detail in Appe ndix 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 be en carefully considered in context with the probabilistic air modeling results.

PERFUM allows users to develop an understandi ng of the distributions of potential bystander exposures and thus more fully characterize th e range of risks resul ting to bystanders around treated fields. In this assessment, the PERFUM model has been used in order to calculate differing percentiles of exposure associated w ith 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 rema in unchanged (see Appendix C for more info). Many of the inputs used for PERFUM are simila r 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). PERF UM 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 Agen cy is using 5 years of weather data). PERFUM uses this data in two ways:

• PERFUM can produce distributions of concentr ations at various re ceptor 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 (r ings) out to 1440 meters.

• Air concentrations calculated at each grid lo cation 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. B 

### uffer 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., dist ance where a target concentration of concern is achieved) for a single, separate da y 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 c ontour line outputs. PERFUM compiles all of the locations (i.e., x and y coordinate s) along the contours in each of the plots into one distribution and essentially produces an overa ll contour plot for the 5 years of weather data (see Figure 5 below). The user can then select a percen tile of the distributio n of interest (e.g., 95 th 

### percentile

or 99 th 

### 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 calcul ated by compiling only th e 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 da y 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., 95 th 

### percentile or 99 th 

### 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 physica l sense, it can also po ssibly 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. M aximum Buffer Distance Example

“ Maximum D istance ” “ Whole F ield ”

PERFUM can generate the types of outputs discu ssed above for different exposure periods (4, 6, 8, or 24 hours depending on the fumigant). When th e two different types of distributional results from PERFUM are considered, they can be described by the following statements:

The maximum concentration distribution at the 95 th 

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

### percentile buffer zone using the maximum concentration distribu tion 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 95 th 

### percentile whole field buffer distance is that

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



### percentile buffer zone using the whole field di stribution 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 pe rimeter in 95% of applications. Therefore, whole field buffer zones do not provide any defined level of protection for individual applications.

Since actual meteorological da ta 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 (S ource: ASOS or Automated Surface Observing System operated by the FAA) to repr esent 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 Na tional Weather Servi ce) to represent inland Florida locations; • Bradenton Florida (Source: FAWN or Florida Automated Weather Network) to represent coastal Florida; and • Yakima Washington (Sour ce: 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, Bakersfi eld, 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 includi ng 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 th at 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 applica tions using high barrier tarps. There are four other field volatility studi es that quantify emissions from shank injection raised bed applications using standard pol yethylene 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 us ing standard polyethylene tarps (performed in Cantua, CA). One study quantified emissions from drip irrigati on application using standard polyethylene tarps (performed in Nipomo, CA). Table 6.1.1b below pr ovides 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 usi ng the PERFUM modeling approach, ar e 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 P ERFUM 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 out put files needed to complete calculations with PERFUM. If so desired, these can be provided by the Agency for review.]

• Appendix E: Buffer Outputs from DM DS 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 PERF UM 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. maxi mum 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 applic ation to 40 acres per day.]

The maximum broadcast application rates that were considered for pre-plan t soil applications in this assessment are 455 lbs ai/acre for all application methods. The maximum effective

broadcast rate that has been uti lized to assess raised bed cultu ral 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 applica tion 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 br oadcast rate of 227.5 lbs/acre.]

For PERFUM modeling purposes, HED adjusted the a pplication rate used in the study to reflect the maximum proposed application rate. In additi on to these maximum app lication rates, a range of other application rates were evaluated in orde r 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 broadc ast 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 applica tion 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 mi cro-environmental conditions and factors can impact how DMDS will volatilize an d disperse from any given treated field on a particular day. With this premise, it would be logical to eval uate 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 meteor ological data to predict results. Since field volatility studies are the basis for the PERFUM predictions it fo llows that results based on empirical monitoring

Page 32 of 193

### and those calculated with PERFUM would be si milar (see guidance pe rtaining 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 specif ic 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 speci fic target concentration.

Given the number of possible permutations of PERFUM inputs and ways of presenting the outputs that there are many possibl e approaches for interpreting the results. The central goal, however, is to quantify how poten tial risks change with aspect s such as application method, distance from the treated field, pe rcentile 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 avai lable in the appendices referenced above. In order to summarize the analyses which have be en completed and to illustrate the general approach, a selected number of tabular and graphical interpretati ons 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 base d 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 Ta ble 6.1.1.1b). The distance at which the target concentration (i.e., HEC coupled w ith uncertainty factor) is reached is variable and clearly depends upon the desire d statistical interpretation of th e 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”, a nd “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. Appendi x 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 exam ple, 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 sh ank injection/tarped application (target MOE = 30) for the Bradent on flux study (polyethylene tarp), the Dover flux study (metalized tarp), and the three Tifton flux studies (polyethylene tar p, 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 (t arget MOE = 30) for the Bradent on flux study (polyethylene tarp), the Dover flux study (metalized tarp), and the three Tifton fl ux studies (polyethylene tarp, polyethylene tarp, and VIF tarp) woul d 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 emi ssions 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 exam ple, 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 sh ank injection/tarped application (target MOE = 30) for the Bradent on flux study (polyethylene tarp), the Dover flux study (metalized tarp), and the three Tifton flux studies (polyethylene tar p, 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 (t arget MOE = 30) for the Bradent on flux study (polyethylene tarp), the Dover flux study (metalized tarp), and the three Tifton fl ux studies (polyethylene tarp, polyethylene tarp, and VIF tarp) woul d 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 emi ssions 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 B ed / Poly Tarped

Tifton, GA - Shank Raised Bed / VI F Tarped Field 1

Tifton, GA - Shank Raised Bed / P oly Tarped Field 2

Tifton, GA - Shank Raised Bed / P oly Tarped Field 3

Dover, FL - Shank Raised Bed / M etalized 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 avai lable flux studies for the Ventura meteorological region. From Figure 9 (whole fi eld buffers), the 95% buffer ranges from approximately 10 meters to approximately a 1000 meters depe nding 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 applicati on 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 R aised Bed / Poly Tarped

Yuma, AZ - Shank Raise d 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 Br oadcast / Poly Tarped

Nipomo, CA - Drip Irrigati on 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 us ing 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 technol ogies, which are reflected in the flux profiles used for the analyses and the different meteor ological 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 PERF UM statistics (i.e., whole field and maximum “buffers”) for all DMDS flux profiles across all six me teorological stations. [Note: 95 th 

### percentile results only are represented in Figures 11 and 12 but the basic tr end 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

Ventura, CA Tallahassee, FL Flint, MI Bradenton, FL Bakersfield, CA Yakima, WA 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

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

Ventura, CA Tallahassee, FL Flint, MI Bradenton, FL Bakersfield, CA Yakima, WA 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

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 th an 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 Re sults for All Flux Types and Meteorological

Sites for 5 and 40 Acre Fields

Ventura, CA Tallahassee, FL Flint, MI Bradenton, FL Bakersfield, CA Yakima, WA 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

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 Re sults for All Flux Types and Meteorological

Sites for 5 and 40 Acre Fields

Ventura, CA Tallahassee, FL Flint, MI Bradenton, FL Bakersfield, CA Yakima, WA 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

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 1400Bradenton, FL -Shank RaisedBed / PolyTarpedYuma, AZ -Shank RaisedBed / PolyTarpedTifton, GA -Shank RaisedBed / VIF TarpedField 1Tifton, GA -Shank RaisedBed / PolyTarped Field 2Tifton, GA -Shank RaisedBed / PolyTarped Field 3Dover, FL -Shank RaisedBed / MetalizedTarpedCantua, CA -Shank Broadcast/ Poly Tarped



### Source of Flux ProfileBuffer Distance (meters 

### 40Nipomo, CA -Drip IrrigationRaised Bed /Poly Tarped) 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 1400Bradenton, FL- Shank RaisedBed / PolyTarpedYuma, AZ -Shank RaisedBed / PolyTarpedTifton, GA -Shank RaisedBed / VIFTarped Field 1Tifton, GA -Shank RaisedBed / PolyTarped Field 2Tifton, GA -Shank RaisedBed / PolyTarped Field 3Dover, FL -Shank RaisedBed / MetalizedTarpedCantua, CA -ShankBroadcast /Poly Tarped



### Source of Flux ProfileBuffer Distance (meters) 

### nk

eNipomo, CA -Drip IrrigationRaised Bed /Poly Tarped 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 provi de an example air co ncentration ring output for the Tifton, GA shank injection raised be d – VIF tarp flux study, using Bradenton, FL meteorological data. The output is for the maxi mum application rate and assumes 40 acres are treated. Similar outputs are av ailable 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 informati on regarding this ty pe 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/m 3 with UF = 30 DMDS Threshold = 212 ug/m 3



### In conclusion, many different factors can imp act the air concentrati ons in proximity to agricultural fields that have been treated w ith 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 analys is can be interpreted in many ways. The identification of a result, per se , for any sort of regulatory acti on based on this assessment would depend upon careful consideration of the variability and uncerta inty associated with this assessment (see Section 6.2 Bystander Ri sk Characterization below).

6.1.2 Ambient Bystander Exposure from Non-Point Sources

No direct ambient air monitori ng data are available for DMDS. Although there ar e industrial and commercial uses of DMDS, it is not routinely sc reened 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 fu migant. In all cases, this comp arison resulted in risks that do

not exceed HED’s level of concern for DMDS (MOEs > 30). This comparison should be

considered conservative in na ture 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 pun gent. Published articl es 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 incide nts of DMDS report individuals complaining of the odor of DMDS. The odor of DMDS may therefore serv e 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 concentr ation dependent response to nasal irritation. Therefore, the development of nasal irritation is driv en by the concentration that produces the irritation and not by the dura tion of exposure to DMDS. The acute inhalation NOAEL therefore protects fo r longer-term exposures.

It is believed that the data and methodologies used in the development of this assessment represent the state-of-the-science re lating to pesticides that can be characterized as fumigants. However, it is clear that there is an ongoing evolution relating to th e 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 lim itations related to overall quality, as well as temporal and spatial limitations. The PERF UM modeling framework provides significant amounts of information for risk managers to co nsider 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 base d on other viable modeling fram eworks would be considered by the Agency.

Some of the limitations and consider ations that have been identified that shoul d be considered in the interpretation of these results include:

• Most of the emissions data used for this an alysis have been gene rated in Florida and Georgia; however, the crops listed on th e proposed DMDS labels are grown in many regions of the country. It is difficult to quantify the potenti al 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 th emselves may impact the overall amounts of

DMDS emitted and the rate at which it is em itted 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 para meters such as soil temperature or percent moisture). Instea d, PERFUM is an empirical model that is calibrated to specific emission profiles that th en 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 th ere 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 pa rts 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 concentrat ions are equal.

• Several issues need to be considered rela ted 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 diffe rent application rates. Th e California Department of Pesticide Regulation has used this assump tion 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 esse ntially ignores any hourly sequence in

the calculations that meets this criteria. This approach can possibly skew results for shorter averaging times because an anal ysis 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 meande r 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 resu lt 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 th is issue does not indicate si gnificant 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 e qual 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 fumi gants 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 describe d in the SAP document for PERFUM. The

locations of the Florida and California stations were in tentionally selected based on this range and their coastal and inland locations.

6.2.1 First Principles Factors Analysis

An extensive separate analysis was complete d 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 doc ument is being included here because future research on how these factors impact DMDS emi ssions could significantly alter the conclusions

drawn from this risk assessment.

Many factors can influence the rate of emissions fr om treated fields after the application of soil fumigants. They include factors that can be manipulated by users to re tain 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 mechan isms based on physical-chemical properties, populations of microorganisms, a nd conditions which have been ma nipulated by growers such as the use of reactive adjuvants and/ or high barrier tarps as a bounda ry layer. These mechanisms can be categorized into three basic phases in cluding subsurface degrad ation and diffusion away from the application point; permeability thr ough a soil surface boundary layer; and impacts on emissions once the boundary layer has been penetr ated. 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 fumiga nt applications and e ach 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 da ta related to the f actors listed above. Specifically, limited

field scale emissions data show that high barrier tarps reduce DMDS emissions from treated

fields. Field scale emissions da ta 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 occ upational reentry workers who could be exposed when entering DMDS treated areas to perform crop-production ta sks, and to occupationa l 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 leve l 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 protect ive equipment (PPE) due to the potential for severe irritati on 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 fi eld 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 ha ndler risks as well as crop-production tasks performed in th e treated area. It should be noted that much of the handler exposure monitoring data used in the occupation al exposure estimates reflects the use of some engineering controls such as tarp s, tractor cabs, deep injection, or other devices. The duration of exposure had little impact on the ov erall results of this assessme nt. 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 registrati on, Paladin: Soil Fumigant and Paladin EC: Emulsifiable Soil Fumigant for Prep lant Soil Chemigation. The personal protective equipment statements for each proposed label are as follows:

Paladin (1) Handlers performing direct-con tact tasks (i.e., mixers an d loaders) including fumigant transfer with or without dry-di sconnect fittings; equipment calib ration or adjustment; equipment clean-up; repair of Paladin-cont aining equipment; product sampling; any activity with in 6 feet of an unshielded pressurized hose containing this pr oduct; spill clean-up; rins ate disposal; and any other handling activity not othe rwise 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 (MS HA/NIOSH approved nu mber 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 br ow, 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 detect ed inside the enclosed cab:

• An air-purifying respirator with an orga nic vapor cartridge with a prefilter approved for pesticides (MSHA/NIOSH approved number prefix TC-23C) or canister approved for pesticides (MS HA/NIOSH approved nu mber prefix TC14G)

(3) Workers in treated areas dur ing the restricted en try intervals performing non-direct contact tasks (i.e., shovelers, tarp disp ensers, and cross ditc hers) including assessing/ adjusting the soil seal or tarp integrity; assessi ng pest control/suppression, appli cation 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 applicator s, drip line tenders, and tarp monitors) including fumigant tr ansfer 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 acti vity 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 (MS HA/NIOSH approved nu mber prefix TC14G) when connecting hoses to contai ners, within 6 feet of unshielded pressurized hoses containing the undilu ted 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 dur ing the restricted en try intervals performing non-direct contact tasks (i.e., drip applicators, dr ip line tenders, and tarp monitors ) including assessing/adjusting the soil seal or tarp integrity; assessing pest control/suppression, app lication technique, or application efficacy; sampling ai r or soil for this product.

Personal Protective Equipment

• Long-sleeved shirt and long pants

• Shoes plus socks

If DMDS is co-applied with another pesticid e, handlers and post-app lication workers should follow the most restrictive precautions and directions for use on the labels.

It is important to consider that in this asse ssment 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 postapplicati on worker assessments, exposures are scaled based on how residues decay over time. These approaches have not been used in the occupational assessments presen ted 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 exposur es from one day to the next because worker exposures may be inherently related to the c onditions 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 al l been determined to require a review of their ethical conduct, have received that review, and have been determined to be ethically conducted. It s hould 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 thes e studies include:

 Fumigation Equipment Driver/Operator/Observ er (Shank applicatio n: Broadcast poly tarped; Raised bed Shank app lication: 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 applica tion: poly tarped, metalized tarped)

 Shoveler (Shank application: Broadcast poly ta rped; Raised bed Shank application: poly tarped, metalized tarped)

 Tarp Cutter (Shank applicatio n: 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 calculat ed by comparing the maximum average air concentration level of DMDS for a job task to th e 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 i nhalation risks exceed HED’s leve l 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 Postapplicatio n MOEs Calculated from Study Point Estimates for Preplant Agricultural Field Fumigation

DMDS Concentrations (ppm) Acute Inhalation MOEs 1

Study Site Job Description (n) Study

Min Study

Max Geo

Mean Baseline Organic Vapor Respirator 2

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,

Florida 3

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 cal culated 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 Shove ler (5) – (8) were not included in the exposure calculations. Fume Driver (2), Tarp Driver (2), and Shoveler (5) - (8) we re exposed to higher levels of DMDS during the shank repair

activities.



### The aforementioned studies include tarp cutting ac tivities 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 pe rforming planting activities, it is likely that it will result in less worker ri sk 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 - Mutageni city—Gene Mutation-Mammalian

However, these two studies would not contribute quantitatively to the DMDS hazard database or risk assessment based on: 1) the l ack of a target organ and any sy stemic toxicity observed in the rodent inhalation database; 2) the negative metabolism studies cu rrently available; and 3) the most sensitive endpoint for the basis of the i nhalation risk assessment is nasal irritation. Therefore, the Agency is waiving the re quirement of these two studies for DMDS.

8.2 Residue Chemistry

There are no data gaps for residue chemistr y 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 av ailable but additional da ta are still required to better represent exposure to DMDS emissi ons 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 da ta, guideline citations, and examples of the scenarios which need to be addressed are presented below. Final

determination of the scenarios and study protocols s hould be made in consultation with the Agency.

OPPTS Guideline 835.8100 - Fi eld 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 partic ular application scenario woul d refine the risk assessment because no specific data is currently available to determine the impact on DMDS emissions that high barrier tarps have on broad cast shank injection app lications. 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 app lications using high ba rrier tarps should be performed. A volatility study for this particular application scenario would refine the risk assessment because there is very limited specifi c 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 applicatio ns using high barrier tarp s should be performed. A volatility study for this partic ular application scenario woul d refine the risk assessment because no specific data is available to dete rmine 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 ra ised bed drip irrigation applications using high barrier tarps would be the same as flux from ra ised bed shank injection applications using high barrier tarps.

OPPTS Guideline 835.1300 – Estimation of Inhalation Exposure, Outdoor Sites

Worker exposure studies to determine inhalatio n exposure resulting from DMDS applications (broadcast shank injection, raised bed shank inje ction, 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 determ ine 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 broadcas t 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 Expos ure During Application Activities and During Cultivation and Planting Activities After Applic ation of Dimethyldisulfide: (Addendum Report): Final Report. Project Number: KP/2004/08. (MRID 47786501).

Bennett, R. (2009) Evaluation of Worker Exposur e 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 Exposur e 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 Exposur e Acivities Associated with Fumigation Using Dimethyldisulfide when Using Raised Bed, Sha nk Application: Final Re port. 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). Biofumiga tion potential of Brassicas . I. Variation in glucosinolate profiles of dive rse field-grown Brassicas. Plant and Soil. Volume 201:71–89.

Reibach, P. (2006). Dimethyldisulfide Field Residue Study in Strawbe rry, Tomato, and Carrot

or Radish. MRID 46903535.

Wang, D., C. Rosen, L. Kinkel, A. Cao, N. Tharay il, and J. Gerik. (2009) Production of methyl sulfide and dimethyl disulfide from soil-incorp orated 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 administer ed as a vapor via whole- body inhalation to 10 male

rats/concentration at concentr ations 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 pr oduced per animal using specif ically defined landmarks for sectioning (Mery et al. , 1994). The nasal tissues and a ny gross lesions were examined microscopically. The kidneys, lungs, and liver were weighed. Although the larynx and trachea were collected and preserved, they were not ex amined microscopically. In-life observations were limited to clinical observations, detailed physical examinations, and body weight

measurements.

All animals survived until sche duled termination. There were no treatment-related findings on clinical signs, body weights, body weight gains, organ we ights, or gross pathology.

The LOAEL for systemic toxicity was not obs erved. 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 dege neration 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 degene ration 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 le sions in multiple Nasal Levels was increased compared to controls which occurred in only a singl e nasal level. Theref ore, 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 Le vel II, all 10 rats showing degeneration in Nasal Levels III through V, and 4 rats wi th this lesion in Nasal Level VI. All 10 male rats at 18 ppm

Page 55 of 193

### had olfactory degeneration in at leas t three levels (2 rats), with a majority in four levels (7 rats), and one rat with degeneration in a ll 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 resultin g in an irregular surface and decreased nuclear density from sensory cell loss. This morphology wa s primarily seen in the 9 ppm and in areas in the 12.5 and 18 ppm groups. Occasionally, degene ration was observed as sloughing of sensory

and sustentacular cells th at resulted in only a th in 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 mo st commonly seen along the dorsal and medial margins of the naso-, maxillary-, and ethmoturbina tes, 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 respirator y 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 la mina 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 morphol ogically normal epithelium.

No treatment-related microscopic changes were ob served at any concentration in the squamous, transitional, or respiratory epithelium as was obs erved at higher concentr ation in the previous inhalation study.

This study does not provide information regarding th e time to onset or the time to recovery of the olfactory degeneration and infl ammation 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 exposu re. 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 change d if examined at the end of the 24 hour DMDS exposure period. In conclusion, although the seve rity of the nasal le sions at 12.5 ppb were minimal, the increased incidence of degenerati on of the olfactory epit helium as well as the occurrence in multiple nasal levels is significan t, especially since ev aluated 24 hours after the end of exposure period.

The LOAEL for inhalation (port-of-entry) toxi city 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 incide nce of degeneration in multiple nasal levels (3 to 5 levels) and inflammation of the olfact ory 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 Toxici ty - [rat]; Acceptable/Non-guideline.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY : The objective of this study (MRID 47471201) was to ev aluate potential toxic effects of dimethyl disulfide (99.9%; Log # 24589) on ti ssues of the upper respiratory tr act when administered as a vapor via whole-body inhalation exposure to Spra gue-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 su bjected to a gross necropsy. The remaining 10 rats/sex/concentration were expos ed for an additional 4 days a nd were subjected to a gross necropsy approximately 24 hours following the fina l exposure. Nasal sectioning was performed using the method of Morgan (1991), in which 6 na sal 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 schedul ed termination. No clinical si gns of toxicity were observed during the study, and there were no macroscopic fi ndings 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 ga ins 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 a nd 4. In the females at 50 ppm and above, body weight gains were decreased by 82-633% fo r 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 olfact ory); changes in the squamous epithelium were not observed in a con centration 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 ge nerally 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 infla mmation were observed in all nasal levels. These findings ranged from minimal to mild in severity, except for the degeneration of the transitional and olfactory ep ithelia at 150 ppm and above which was often

moderate to severe. In Nasal Le vel I, degeneration was found in the transiti onal epithelium in all treated groups in both sexes a nd in the respiratory epithelium in the 300 ppm males and 600 ppm

males and females. Acute inflammation was obser ved in the squamous an d 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 olfa ctory epithelia of all treated groups and in the respir atory 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 tr eated 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 we re observed in the resp iratory and olfactory epithelia of both sexes at 150 ppm and above. A dditionally, 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 infl ammation 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 ep ithelium was found in both sexes at 150 ppm and

above.

In Nasal Level V, acute inflammation was observe d in the respiratory epithelium of the 600 ppm females and in the olfactory epithelium of th e 300 and 600 ppm animals. Degeneration of the olfactory epithelium was noted in all tr eated groups except for the 50 ppm females.

In Nasal Level VI, acute inflammation was obser ved 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, de generation, and hyperpla sia) 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 we ights 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 weig hts 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 olf actory 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 epithe lia of all nasal levels. Regeneration of the olfactory epithelium was observed in Nasal Levels II through VI.

In Nasal Level I, acute inflammation and hyperpla sia 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 treatme nt because none of the control

tissues were affected.

Page 58 of 193

### In Nasal Level II, acute inflammation was obser ved in the squamous epithelium of the 600 ppm males, in the transitional epithelium in all trea ted 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 th e 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 treat ed groups and in the females at 300 and 600 ppm. Regeneration of the olfactory epithelium was f ound in all treated groups.

In Nasal Level III, degeneration was observed in the respiratory epit helium of the 600 ppm animals and in the olfactory epithelium of all treated groups. Increased incidences of acute inflammation were found in the respiratory ep ithelium of the 300 and 600 ppm animals and in the olfactory epithelium in the males and fema les at 150 ppm and above. Hyperplasia of the respiratory epithelium and regeneration of the ol factory epithelium were observed in all treated

groups.

In Nasal Level IV, increased incidences of degeneration were observe d in the respiratory epithelium of the 600 ppm animals and in the ol factory 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 30 0 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 epit helium of the 600 ppm females and in the olfactory epithelium of a ll 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 female s at 150 ppm and above. Hype rplasia of the respiratory epithelium was noted in the 300 and 600 ppm animal s. Regeneration of the olfactory epithelium was observed in all treated groups.

In Nasal Level VI, acute inflammation was foun d 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 animal s. Degeneration and regeneration of the olfactory epithelium were obs erved in all treated groups.

Minimal to mild fibro-osseus proliferation wa s 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 Na sal 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 (MRI D 46903529), groups of Sprague-Dawley rats (12/sex/concentration) were e xposed to dimethyl disulfide (99.7% a.i.; Lot No. 03.10.04) as vapor during a single, 6-hour whole-body inhalati on exposure at concentrations of 100, 200, and 750 ppm. This corresponds to concentra tions 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) a nd 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 Da ys 7 and 14. Clinical examinations were performed once daily, except for FOB testing da ys. Also, on exposure days, animals were observed prior to exposure and at the mid-poi nt of exposure. At study termination, 6 animals/sex/group were euthanized and perfused in situ for neuropathological examination. The brain (including the olfactory bu lbs), spinal cord, peripheral ne rvous system tissues, skeletal muscle, and eyes (including the optic nerve) were collected. Brain weights and dimensions were recorded and gross and microscopic neuropathol ogy 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 d eath, and the animal was reported as being “internally normal” (p.45). Body weight s 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 expo sures, salivation was observed in all treated male and female groups (at 100 ppm, in 4/12 males and 3/12 female s; 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) ey es 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). Th e 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 subm itted 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 fr om exposure to DMDS.

Motor activity was expressed as total session, which is the sum of the moto r 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 e ffects of DMDS on total session motor activity

were observed for males. Howe ver, 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 tota l 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 significan t decrease in total se ssion motor activity ( ↓ 23%) was seen for males at 750 ppm, but no differences we re observed for females. Locomotor activity was recorded over a 60 minute period follo wing 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 decr eases were observed at 200 ppm ( ↓ 32%) and 750 ppm ( ↓ 56%). No effects of DMDS on loco motion 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 mo tor 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 por t-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 neurotoxic ity study (MRID 46903530), dimethyl disulfide (99.8% a.i.; Batch # 05.05.05) was ad ministered via whol e-body inhalation to 12 Crl:CD(SD) rats/sex/group at dos e levels of 0, 5, 20, or 80 ppm (equivalent to approximately 0.02, 0.08, and 0.31 mg/L, respectively) for 6 ho urs/day, 7 days/week for 13 weeks (95 consecutive exposures). All animals were obs erved twice daily for mortality and morbundity with clinical examinations performed daily (m idpoint of exposure a nd 1 hour post-exposure).

All animals were euthanized dur ing study week 13 and perfused in situ . A neurobehavioral assessment (functional observational battery [FOB] and motor activity testi ng) was performed in all rats at pre-dosing, within 1 hour post dosi ng and during Weeks 3, 7, and 12. Positive control data were provided. A neuropath ological examination was perfor med on 6 rats/s ex/group in the control and 80 ppm groups. The tissues from th e perfused animals in the control and 80 ppm groups were subjected to histopa thological 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 leve ls (those not evaluate d for neuropathological examination). Lung weights and hi stopathology were not examined.

Clinical signs were not observed in any dose gr oup during the mid-point of exposure. However,

a dried red material was observed around the nose a nd mouth of the majority of animals in the high-dose group at 1 hour post-exposure. The da tes 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 clinic al signs could not be determined.

Page 61 of 193

### Histopathological evaluations re sulted in increased incidence of minimal to moderate degeneration of the nasal olfactory epithelium in nasal levels II th ru IV of the mid- and high-dose groups. Nasal lesions (degenerati on 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 m ild) and no females at level IV. Lesions of nasal level II included mainly thin mucosa with disorg anized layers and one ra t with degeneration of the medial aspects of the turb inates 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 fe males (4 mild, 2 moderate) at level III; and lesions in 4 males (1 minimal, 2 mild, 1 modera te) 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 tu rbinates in nasal level III and IV. These lesions were dose-dependently increased in both incidence and severity.

Lung weight and lung histopathology we re 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 NO AEL is 5 ppm (equivalent to 0.02 mg/L)

For systemic toxicity, no compound-related effect s were observed on mortality, clinical signs of toxicity (other than port-of-entry), FOB, or gro ss 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 si gnificant at Weeks 9-10). A transient decrease (p ≤ 0.05) in food consumption was also not ed 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 corr elated 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 re sponse; 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 (M RID 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 concentrat ions of 0 (air), 10, 50, or 250 ppm (equivalent to analytical c oncentrations 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 sacrifi ce group (20/sex/concentrat ion) was exposed to 150 ppm (equivalent to an anal ytical concentration of 0.58 mg/L) for 6 weeks with

10/sex/concentration euthanized at 6 weeks and 10/sex/concentra tion after a 2-week recovery period. Histological evaluation included the na sal passages, nasopharyngeal duct, esophagous, larynx, tracheal bifurcation, and l ungs (with mainstem bronchi). Clinical observations included twice daily cageside observations for mortality and moribundity and a deta iled weekly clinical examination prior to exposure. Neurological obs ervations (including resp iratory function) were comprised of an abbreviated functional obs ervation 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 mort ality, 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 sa livation, lacrimation, and/or reduced activity were observed in the 250 ppm animals in the early part of the exposur es on Days 1 and 2, but no overt differences were observed thereafter. During the weekly i ndividual clinical observa tions conducted prior to any exposure that day slight increases in resp iratory abnormalities (dys pnea 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 incr easing concentration. Respiratory squamous metaplasia increased in severity (min imal/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 onl y 3/10 males and 4/10 females, but only at minimal severity. Anteri or olfactory epithelial atrophy/microcavitation similarly increased in severity fr om 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 olf actory 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 me taplasia was observed for either males or females at 10 ppm. Thus, both the incidence and severity of these findings showed partial recovery. For olfactory epithelia l atrophy/microcavitation in males, severity was 8/0/0 at 50 ppm and 1/9/0 at 250 ppm. For females, severity wa s 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 ol factory 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 le sions in nasal tissue. Microsc opic lung lesions, specifically leukocyte foci, foamy histiocytosis, and pneumon itis 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 se xes at 250 ppm. Although there were no macroscopic or microscopic findings in the l ungs, the respiratory abnor malities (dyspnea or wheezing) observed at 250 ppm may correspond w ith the increased lung weights, suggesting possible pulmonary irritati on and/or inflammation, alt hough 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 microcav itation of the olf actory 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 a nd in the females pre- and post-exposure during Week 13; (iii) slight to modera tely impaired respiration pre- a nd 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-expo sure 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 piloerecti on was also noted at th is concentration (postexposure only) at Week 13 in both sexes. In gene ral, 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 treatm ent (Weeks 0-13) were decreased by 17-36% (p ≤ 0.01) in these animals. Body weights were d ecreased (statistics not performed) in both sexes beginning at Week 1 and continuing th rough 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 reboun d during the recovery period. In the 10 ppm group, there were no significant decreases in total food consum ption 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 piloerect ion); 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 Stud y-rabbit, Acceptable/Guideline.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY : In a developmental toxicity study (MRID 46903523) , dimethyl disulfid e (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 whol e-body exposure at target concentrations of 0, 15, 45, or 135 ppm (equivalent to analytic al concentrations of 0, 0.06, 0.17, and 0.52 mg/L) for 6 h/day on gestation days (GD) 6-28. All surviving doe s 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 obser ved for toxicity at th e 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 macrosco pically 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 th e base of the tail and on the ventral abdominal area, soft stool, and decreased defecation duri ng GD 9-20. Cysts on the ov iducts (few, pinpoint, bilateral), approximately 10 mL of red fluid in the abdominal cavit y, dark red discoloration of all lobes of the lungs, red fluid in the vagina, and one ra ised area on the vagina were observed at necropsy. Six early re sorptions 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 duri ng GD 6-24, resulting in 9-10% decreases (NS)

in absolute and relative food c onsumption 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 (ear ly or late), or on sex ratio or post-implantation lo ss. There were no effects of treatment on fetal growth or development. There were no treatment-related ex ternal, visceral, or skel etal 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 occu rrence of mottled lung at 135 ppm was also observed. In the trachea, one occurrence of red fluid was observed in th e 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 (9 9.88% a.i.; Lot/batch nos. 82551/6436) was administered to 30 presumed pregnant Spra gue Dawley (Crl:CD[SD]BR) rats/concentration by whole-body exposure at target concentr ations of 0, 5, 15, or 50 ppm (equivalent to analytical c oncentrations 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 obser vations were recorded daily from GD 3-20. Specific histological evaluation of th e 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 observe d 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 adve rse 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, a nd food consumption. The maternal NOAEL is 15 ppm (equivalent to 0.06 mg/L).

There were no abortions, prematur e deliveries, or complete litte r resorptions. No effects of treatment were observed on pregnancy rate, numbe rs of corpora lutea/dam, implantations/dam, live fetuses/dam, resorptions/dam (early, late, or complete litter), sex ra tio, or pre- or postimplantation loss.

At 50 ppm, mean fetal we ights were decreased (p ≤ 0.01) by 10% in the males, by 8% in the females, and by 8% when sexes were combine d. There were no treatm ent-related external, visceral, or skeletal malformations or varia tions. Multiple treatment-related increases in

retardation of fetal skeletal de velopment were observed at 50 pp m as follows: (i) metatarsals incompletely ossified; (ii) all skull bones except zygom atic 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) incomple tely 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 developm ental 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 observa tion procedure and a proper ne cropsy. Port-of-entry effects were not reported, however, a microscopic examin ation 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 t oxicity 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/concentra tion by whole-body exposure at target concentrations of 0, 5, 20, or 80 ppm (equivalent to analytical concentr ations 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 th e F1 litters. Upon weaning on post-natal day (PND) 28, the F1 parents (30 rats/sex/concentrati on) 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, includi ng 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 mortalit y, clinical signs of t oxicity, food efficiency, organ weights, or macroscopic or microscopi c pathology. No specific adverse port-of-entry

effects were observed from the ex aminations 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 we ight 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), re sulting 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%, resul ting 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), resu lting 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 (equi valent to an analytical concentration of 0.079 mg/L), based on decreased body weight, bo dy weight gains, and food consumption in the F1 males. The NOAEL is 5 ppm (equival ent to an analytical concentration of 0.019 mg/L).

There were no effects of treatment on the mean number of pups born, se x 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 gain s, sexual maturation, organ weights, or macroscopic or microscopic pathology in either generation.

The LOAEL for offspring toxicity was not obs erved. The NOAEL is 80 ppm (equivalent to an analytical concen tration of 0.308 mg/L).

There were no effects of treatment on mating, fertility, copulation, co nception, or gestation indices, pre-coital interv al, 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 eff ects were observed; however, mi croscopic examination of the respiratory tract was not reported in this study.

Page 68 of 193

### Therefore a port-of-entry NOAEL and LOAE L 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 su lfide (99.9% a.i.; Batch No. 6437) was applied to the clipped skin of New Ze aland White albino rabbits. DMDS was applied neat in volumes of 0.01 ml/kg, 0.1 ml/kg, and 1 ml/kg, which corres ponded to dose levels of 0, 10.6, 106, or 1063 mg/kg bw/day and cove red skin surface areas of 2 cm 2 

### , 6 cm 2 

### , and 15 cm 2



### , respectively. The control and 1063 mg/kg/da y 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 wash ing between treatments, the report (MRID 46917006, page 20) did note that DMDS “was absorbed by the skin or had disappeared

otherwise within one minute afte r application. After re moval of the patches, no remains of the test substance were present on the skin or on the gauze dressing of th e 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 ma les and 9 ppm in the room housing females. However, no data on the percentage s of the applied doses that vol atilized 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. Obse rvations 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 th at were reported within 10-15 minutes of dose application and at 6 hours afterward. Animals we re 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 orga n weights. No significant differences in body weight were observed at Days 0. 7. and 28. Fo od 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) result ed in clinical signs of all rabbits of the mid- (106 mg/kg/day) and high-dose (1063 mg/kg/day) group. Speci fically, 5/5 males and 5/5 females showed slight lethargy and 1/5 fe males screamed at 106 mg/kg/day. At 1063

Page 69 of 193

### mg/kg/day, 10/10 males and 10/10 females showed severe le thargy and 4/10 males and 4/10 females screamed. On Day 4 at 106 mg/kg/da y, 5/5 males and 5/5 females showed slight lethargy. At 1063 mg/kg/day, 7/10 ma les and 9/10 females were seve rely lethargic, while 3/10

males and 1/10 females were unconscious. At th is maximum dose, 3/10 males and 4/10 females screamed after treatment. On Day 16, 5/5 males a nd 5/5 females were sli ghtly lethargic at 106 mg/kg/day. At 1063 mg/kg/ day on Day 16, data are available fo r 5 animals per sex. 5/5 males and 1/5 females were severely le thargic. One female was uncons cious and 3/5 we re distinctly lethargic. 5/5 males and 5/5 females had spasms. No animals screamed.

On Day 1, Draize test results showed no dermal re actions 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 w ith 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 presen t in 1/5 males and 1/5 females at 0.1 ml/kg/day, which increased to 10/10 slight to moderate incr ustations 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 ma les 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. Do sing 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 stat ed that a 12-13 day recovery period was not adequate to evaluate reve rsibility or irreversibility (page 23).

Microscopic analysis showed significant increase s in acanthosis for males and females in all treatment groups compared to controls. Parake ratosis 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 co ntrols in both males and females at 10.6 and 106 mg/kg/day. Myocardial degeneration (4/10) a nd myocarditis (8/10) were additional findings observed only in females at 1063 mg/kg/day. Gro ss lesions in other organ systems were also observed. Firm white or yellow nodules were ob served on the abdominal walls of 1/5 males at 10.6 mg/kg/day and 5/10 males at 1063 mg/kg/da y. 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 genera lly only slight in magnitude, however, the data suggested treatment- induced hemolytic anemia in males that was compensated for through erythropoiesis. In the males, the fo llowing changes were si gnificant compared to controls: (i) decreased erythrocytes; (ii) decreas ed hemoglobin; (iii) increased mean corpuscular volume; (iv) decreased mean corpuscular he moglobin 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/k g 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 a ssay 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 concentratio ns 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 liver s of Sprague-Dawley rats induced with Aroclor 1254TM. The plate incorporation method was used a nd standard strain-specific mutagens served as positive controls.

Dimethyl disulfide was tested up to the lim it 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 no t provided. However, these results can be used as support for the acceptable bacterial gene muta tion assay performed with the test material (MRID 47052811).

11. Bacterial Reverse Mutation Test (Ame s Assay)- 47052811 (2007) Acceptable/guideline In two independent trials of a reverse ge ne mutation assay in bacteria (MRID 47052811), Salmonella typhimurium strains TA98, TA100, TA1535, and TA1537 and Escherichia coli strain

WP2 uvr A 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 Spra gue-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 obs erved at any concentration in any strain in either trial in the

Page 71 of 193

### presence or absence of S9-activation. There we re no marked increases in the mean number of revertants/plate in any strain. The positive c ontrols induced marked increases in revertant colonies compared to controls in all strains in the presence and abse nce 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 a ssay 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 hour s. 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 comp ound was lost during incuba tion. Analytical data presented in the study repor t 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 issu e regarding association with Trial 1 or 2. Dimethyl disulfide was test ed up to the limit of so lubility (1000 μg/mL +/- S9). In Trial 1, test substance precipitation (in th e form of droplets attached to the bottom of the tissue flasks) was observed at 1000 μg/mL in the ab sence of S9. The initial relative cloning efficiency (IRCE) ranged from 28.1% at the high est 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/ 10 6 

### survivors vs. 13.1 mutants/ 10 6 

### 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-activat ion, 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/ 10 6 

### 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/ 10 6 

### survivors vs. 4.7

mutants/ 10 6 

### survivors in the DMSO control cultures) wa s 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/ 10 6 

### 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 con centrations, which precluded a comparative

evaluation of the data from both trials. Since analytical determ inations 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 analyz e 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 (chr omosome aberration; MRID 46917010), lymphocyte cultures were prepared from human peripheral bl ood and exposed to Dimethyl disulfide (99.98% a.i., Batch # 6437) in dimethyl sulfoxide (DMS O) at concentrations of 0, 3.7, 11.1, 33.3, 100, or 300 μg/mL (+/-S9) for 24 hours. The S9 fraction wa s 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 cy togenetics 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 consid ered to be biologic ally 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 p resence 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 hour s/day for 4 consecutive days via whole body inhalation exposure in 15-L glass inhalation cham bers to dimethyl disulfide (99.88% a.i., Lot # 82551) at concentrations of 0 or 250 ppm (equi valent to approximately 0.975 mg/L), and 10 mice/sex were exposed for 6 hours/day for 3 cons ecutive days at a concentration of 500 ppm (equivalent to approximately 1.95 mg/L). Th e 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 re stless behavior, salivation, half-closed and closed

Page 73 of 193

### eyes, labored and increased fre quency of breathing, soiled fur a nd fur with yellowish marks, lethargy, piloerection, and swollen appearance. Body weights were de creased (decr. 9-14%; p<=0.01) in both sexes throughout the study. No mortalities occu rred at 250 ppm. However, clinical signs of toxici ty (restless behavior, half-closed eyes , labored breathing, soiled fur and fur with yellowish marks, and piloerection) a nd 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 fr equency was observed indicating slight cytotoxicity. However, no treatment–related increases in the MPCE were observed in any test group when compared to controls. The pos itive control (mitomycin C) induced statistically significant increases (p<0.05) in MPCEs compar ed to the concurrent vehicle controls. Accordingly, dimethyl disulfid e is considered negative in th is test system up to a concentration causing overt toxicity and cytot oxicity 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 gr oups 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 animal s survived to scheduled sacrifi ce. The following clinical signs of toxicity were noted in one or both sexes of the treated anim als during exposure: hypoactivity, lacrimation, and clear material around the mouth. Decreases (not statisti cally significant) in body weights were noted in the treated groups compared to th e negative controls. No appreciable reductions in the ratio of PCEs to to tal erythrocytes were obs erved in the dimethyl disulfide-exposed groups re lative to the negative c ontrol group, suggesting th at the test material was not cytotoxic to the bone marrow. Th e 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 Synthesi s- 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 hour s post-dosing.

Dimethyl disulfide was tested up to the limit of solubility (200 μg/mL). The mean net nuclear grain (NNG) counts in the treate d cultures (–9.5 to –4.5) were well below the threshold of 0 or more NNG required for a positive response, and th e 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 [nucle ar silver grain counts] was induced.

Page 75 of 193

### The requirements (40 CFR 158.340) for the soil fu migant 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 To xicology Data Requirements

Technical Test

Required Satisfied

870.1100 Acut e Oral T oxicity....................................................... 870.1200 Acute Dermal Toxicity ..................................................

870.1300 Acute Inhalation To xicity..............................................

870.2400 Primar y Eye Irr itation....................................................

870.2500 Primar y Dermal Irritation ..............................................

870.2600 Derm al Sensiti zation...................................................... yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

870.3100 Oral Subchronic (r odent) ...............................................

870.3150 Oral Su bchronic (nonr odent) ......................................... 870.3200 21/28-Day Dermal ......................................................... 870.3250 90-Day Dermal ..............................................................

870.3465 90-D ay Inhalation.......................................................... yes

yes

yes

no CR yes

yes

yes

-

yes

870.3700a Developmenta l Toxicity (rodent)................................... 870.3700b Developmental Toxicity (nonrodent)............................. 870.3800 Reproduction ................................................................. yes

yes

yes yes

yes

yes

870.4100a Chronic T oxicity (rodent) ..............................................

870.4100b Chronic Toxi city (nonrodent)........................................ 870.4200a Oncoge nicity (rat).......................................................... 870.4200b Oncogenicity (mouse)....................................................

870.4300 Chro nic/Oncoge nicity

.................................................... No

no

no

no

no --

--

--

--

--

870.5100 Mutagenicity—G ene Mutation - bacterial..................... 870.5300 Mutagenicity—Gene Mutation - mammalian................ 870.5375 Mutagenicity—Struc tural Chromosomal Aberrations... 870.5550 Mutagenicity—O ther Genotoxic Effects....................... yes

yes

yes

yes yes

No

yes

yes

870.6100a Acute Delaye d Neurotox. (hen) ..................................... 870.6100b 90-Day Neurotoxicity (hen)...........................................

870.6200a Acute Neurotox. Screening Batte ry (rat) ....................... 870.6200b 90-Day Neuro. Screening Batte ry (rat).......................... 870.6300 Develop. Neuro.............................................................. no

no

yes

yes

no --

--

yes

yes

--

870.7485 Gene ral Metabo lism ......................................................

870.7600 Dermal Penetration........................................................

870.7800 Immunotoxicity............................................... no

no

yes --

-- No

Special Studies for Ocular Effects Acute Oral (rat)...........................................................

Subchronic Or al (rat) .................................................. Six-month Oral (dog).................................................. no

no

no --

--

--



### Page 76 of 193

### Appendix A/Table A2: DM DS 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 LD 50 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 LD 50 > 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 a ll 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: DM DS 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: DM DS 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 atroph y and microcavitation of the olfactory epithelia (8/10 rats/s ex) and respiratory squamous metaplasia in the anterior na sal 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: DM DS 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. Materna l 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-findingInhalation 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: DM DS 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

870.4200Carcinogenicity/gavageMouse/Rat [bioassay] Currently not available

870.4300

Chronic InhalationToxicity/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 absen ce 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 uvr A 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 absen ce of S9-activation. There

was no evidence of induced mutant colonies over background at concentratio ns up to the limit dose



### Page 81 of 193

### Appendix A/Table A2: DM DS Toxicity Profile

Guideline No./Study Type MRID No. Results (year)/Classification/Exposure

Conditions

The S9 fraction was derivedfrom 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 pr oblems 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 th e findings of this study. Accordingly, the stud y 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.

870.5395Micronucleus 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: DM DS 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 procedur es [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: DM DS 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 INHALA TION RISK CALCULATIONS The RfC methodology applies a dosimetric adjustment that takes into consideration not only the

differences in ventilation rate (MV) but also the physicochemi cal 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 methodolog y 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-speci fic 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 th e PK differences between animals and humans. Though the RfC methodology was deve loped 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 mechanis tic determinants of di sposition that can be applied to shorter du ration of exposures provided the assumptions underlying the methodology

are still valid . These assumptions, in turn, vary dependi ng 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 * RGDR study animal exposure (hrs / day)

human exposure (hrs / day) animal exposure (days / wk)

human exposure (days / wk)



### Where:

POD study 

### : Point of departure identified in the critical toxicology study

D animal exposure 

### : Duration of animal expo sure (hrs/day; days/wk)

D anticipated 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 (H b/g animal 

### /H b/g human 

### ). When this ratio is unknown or when the H b/g

animal 

### > H b/g human 

### a default value of 1.0 is used as th e RGDR. This default is based on the observation that for chemicals where partition coe fficient 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 calculati on of the inhalation ris k. Some of the key assumptions fundamental to the use of the Rf C methodology to derive a HEC based on systemic

effects include:

1) all the concentrations of inha led gas within the animal’s body ar e 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 fo r at least 90% of the exposure. 2) in the respiratory tract, the air, tissue, cap illary 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 pr operties indicate that these conditions ( i.e. periodicity and equilibrium between different co mpartments) will be achieved in a very short period of time. Under these c onditions, therefore, the use of the RfC methodology to estimate

acute inhalation risk is appropriate.

When the critical toxic eff ect in a study occurs in the respiratory tract ( i.e port of entry effects), the RGDR is not related to the blood:gas part ition 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 speci es (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 s caling provided in USEPA (1988a). The equation for calculation of the MV animal 

### is:

lnMV animal 

### = b 0 

### + b 1 

### ln(BW)

Where:

ln MV animal 

### : natural logarithm of the minute volume

b 0 

### : species specific intercept us ed in the algorithm to calcu late minute volumes based on body weight

b 1 

### : species specific coefficient used in the al gorithm to calculate minute volumes based on body weight ln BW: natural logarithm of th e 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 Concentratio ns and Application of Inhalation Dosimetry” (1994).

Calculations used to estimate the inhalation ri sk to humans from aerosols are dependent not on the RGDR as for gases, but on the regional de posited 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 ( σ g 

### ), which is

Page 87 of 193

### then used to determine the R DDR. The RDDR is a multiplicativ e factor used to adjust an observed inhalation particulate exposure concen tration 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 rt h region or target tissue.

RDDR

r 

### = (RDD

r 

### /Normalizing Factor) A 

### (RDD

r 

### /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 σ g 

### defined from an aerosol inhalation study. The values for the species-specifi c parameters used to calculate the RDDR are provided in the EPA document “Methods for Deriva tion 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 consid eration the PK differences but not the PD differences

. Consequently, the UF for interspecies extrapolat ion may be reduced to 3X (to account for the PD differences) while the UF for intraspecies variati on is retained at 10X. Thus, the UF when using the RfC methodology is customarily 30X.

Page 88 of 193Appendix 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

Systemic NA NA

- - - - - - - - - Special Inhalation –Rat (47785501) 24 hour males only ET 12.5 9 24 24 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-& Intermediate-Term Exposure Same HEC calculation as Acute since repeat exposur e does not influence the NOAEL or LOAEL for DMDS

Systemic NA NA

- - - - - - - - - Special Inhalation –Rat (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 hu man 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

Systemic >18 >18 8 8 1 1 0.183 18 3 10

- Special Inhalation –Rat (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 exposur e does not influence the NOAEL or LOAEL for DMDS

Systemic >18 >18 8 8 1 1 0.183 18 3 10

- Special Inhalation –Rat (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 hu man 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 inform ation including incident reports and monitoring data, deterministic air modeling, and probabilisti c air modeling to assess bystander exposure and risks resulting from applications of fumigant s. These are discusse d 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 b een 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 includ ing death. When using incident reports to characterize the result s of fumigant risk assessments, the number of incidents for a particular fumigant compared to its total use throughout the c ountry along with the causes and severity of major incident events are consider ed. 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, a nd possibility of misuse as well as others specific to each case. It is al so important to examine the speci fic health effects experienced by exposed individuals because they provide insight as to whether or not th e 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 ex act conditions of specifi c incidents which make predicting fumigant concentrations to which bystanders were exposed during an incident extremely difficult. This is generally because all necessary informa tion to reconstruct the incident through predictive modeli ng is not available. For exampl e, 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 modeli ng purposes would have to utili ze another source of emissions data that would be applied to the specific in cident situation. Add itionally, 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 n ear 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 info rmation can also be suspect because some toxic effects are not immediately recognizable. Th erefore, the likelihood th at incidents may be reported could be lower for fumigants which have effects that are not im mediately recognizable. Accordingly, incident reports are considered in this context when characterizing the risks associated with fumigants.

Monitoring Data - Field volatility studies typically m easure 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 th at specific field. Sampling times can vary but

Page 92 of 193

### generally range from about 4 to 12 hours, so that the samples repr esent the average air concentrations for the sampling intervals used. Usually, shorter times are used at the beginning because fumigants generally off-gas the most with in 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 associat ed 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, app lication 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 c onditions which could exist, it is not possible for these studies to represent the entire range of potential exposures which could

result from different weather s ituations. 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 concentratio ns 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 ex posed. 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 speci al factors described above can be found in Appendix W to 40 CFR Part 51 ( http://www.epa.gov/scram 001/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 ar ea source for this purpose. This treatment is consistent with standard model development a nd 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 fumiga nt emitted per area per time)

Page 93 of 193

### • Surface roughness (accounts for topography effects)

• Application Specifics (application rate, fiel d size, etc. taken from field volatility studies)

The U.S. Environmental Protec tion Agency (EPA) maintains a Guideline on Air Quality Models (hereafter, Guideline), which is publish ed as Appendix W to 40 CFR Part 51 1-4 ( http://www.epa.gov/scram 001/guidance/guide/appw_05.pdf ). The Guideline provides the Agency's guidance on regulatory applicability of ai r quality dispersion models in general. In order to be included in Appendix W as a r ecommended model, models must go through an extensive peer review and testi ng 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, th e 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 th e movement of airborne polluta nts for a variety of regulatory situations. ISC3 was the Agency’s recommende d air dispersion model up until the end of 2005. ISC3 was replaced by the American Meteorologi cal 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 Gau ssian plume concept. It should also be noted

that neither ISCST3 nor AERMOD retain a memo ry 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 conditi ons (e.g., hours with cal m wind conditions) are dropped from calculations and a ti me-weighted average result is cal culated without those values. This approach is consistent with how ISCST3 ha s been historically use d. For chemicals with longer durations (such as methyl bromide) th e 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 condi tions used for the analysis. AERMOD has

enhancements from ISCST3 related to how stru ctural 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 Ag ency as the preferre d model for assessing near-field air concentrations under comple x 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 dist ribution. 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, AE RMOD, 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 ma jor upgrade is that it can complete sub-hourly calculations where v5 can only do calcul ations based on hourly increments.]

Figure 1: Illustration of IS CST3 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 usua lly expressed in units of microg rams per square meter per second (μg/m 2 

### /sec). In essence, flux represents how quickly the pesticide moves or volatilizes into the surrounding atmosphere. Numerous factors can in fluence flux rates such as application rate, application equipment, techniques used to contro l emissions (e.g., tarps, water seals), soil type, soil temperature, atmospheric condi tions, and others. Three general methods are used to estimate flux, which are discussed briefly below. The fi rst 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 meas ured in a flux chamber placed in a treated field. A flux chamber is basically a box which encloses a small defi ned 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 issu e with flux chambers is that the conditions within the chamber (e.g., temperature, wind, air stability) are not ge nerally identical to

those outside the chamber in the treated fi eld; 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 ar e not often used for estimating flux and, in fact, no such field study data were av ailable 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 ve rtical 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 us ed to determine flux rates. [Note: EPA essentially followed the CDPR tech nique. 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 positi ons around the field. The measured air concentrations, together with information about weather co nditions 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 appl ication methods, there are a number of other key inputs that must also be define d 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. Atmospheri c 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 atmo sphere 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 concentrat ion in proximity to the field/source. To simplify the ISCST3 modeling process, the transport of fumigant va pors from a source, a si ngle 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 atmospheri c conditions, the modeling produces results that represent highly exposed individual s (i.e., ISCST3, as used, result s in exposure estimates at the

1 Majewski, MS, Glotfelty, DE, Seiber, JN. 1989. A comparis on of the aerodynamic and the theoretical-profile-shape

methods for measuring pesticide evaporation fr om 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. Envi ronmental 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 ke y inputs are the basis for this conclusion. First, only a consta nt downwind direction is consider ed. This type of situation would be highly unlikely in any outdoor environment. Secondly, the quantitative inputs used to define atmospheric conditions are based on consta nt wind speed and atmospheric stability over a particular period, which are also unlikely to oc cur in an outdoor environment. Conversely, unsettled conditions may reduce risk estimates but it is believed that ev en these conditions can

result in conservative estimates because wind dir ection is constrained to a single direction over a particular period.

Source Type 3: Distributional/Probabilistic Modeling

The monitoring data and ISCST3 methods desc ribed above are deterministic methods that provide results that are limited in utility. For ex ample, it is difficult to extrapolate to varying distances using monitoring data and analyses using ISCST3 provi de 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 pos t-processors for the air models described above that incorporate the ability to complete distributional and/or prob abilistic analyses. Each of the three has ISCST3 as their core processor while FEMS has an opt ion for selecting between processors based on ISCST3 or CALPUFF (V 5 or 6). The thre e models which were developed include:

P robabilistic E xposure and R isk model for Fum igants (PERFUM), the F umigant E missions Modeling S ystem (FEMS), and the So il F umigant E xposure A ssessment System (SOFEA). Each model was reviewed by the FIFRA Scien tific Advisory Panel (SAP) in 2004 during the August and September meetings ( http://www.epa.gov/oscpmon t/sap/meetings/2004/index.htm ).

The SAP concluded that each of the three mode ls could provide scientifically defensible estimates of the bystander exposures and risks asso ciated with soil fumiga tion practices and also suggested modifications and addi tional data that could furthe r refine risk estimates. See Appendix C for more details regarding each mode l 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 z one 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 adjust ed 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 we re 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 document ation were available for review (e.g.,

documentation of flux rate calculatio ns 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 re placement for ISC2. ISC3 is a steady-state Gaussian plume model which can be used to asse ss pollutant concentrations from a wide variety of sources including point and ar ea 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 thre e different types of outputs: (1) summaries of high values (highest, second hi ghest, etc.) by receptor for e ach averaging period and source group combination, (2) summaries of overall ma ximum values (e.g., the maximum 50) for each averaging period and source group co mbination, and (3) tables of c oncurrent 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 just ification (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 meteor ological 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 a ssigns 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/Environmenta l Protection Agency Regulatory Model (AERMOD)

AERMOD ( http://www.epa.gov/scram001/di spersion_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 poi nt 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 tw o pre-processors and the disper sion model. The meteorological preprocessor AERMET, uses meteorological data and surface characte ristics to calculate boundary layer parameters (e.g. mixing height, fric tion velocity, etc.) needed to run AERMOD. The terrain pre-processor AERMAP both character izes the terrain and generates receptor grids

for AERMOD. AERMOD allows for three differe nt types of outputs: (1) summaries of high

Page 99 of 193

### values (highest, second highest, etc.) by recept or 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 co mbination, and (3) tables of c oncurrent 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 c ontains new or improved algorithms for: 1) dispersion in both the convective and stable bou ndary 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 nightt ime boundary layer; 6) the treatment of receptors on all types of terrain from the surface up to and above the plum e height; 7) the treatment of building wake effects; 8) an improved appro ach for characterizing the fundamental boundary layer parameters; and 9) the treatment of plum e meander. Many of these improvements have little to no effect on OPP’s approach to mode ling fumigant applica tions as area sources.

AERMOD allows for the conservative assessment of concentrations of fumigants coming off of treated fields under specific meteorological a nd 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 a nd this can result in a misrepresentation of the fumigant plume. Also, AERMOD does not a llow for the probabilistic treatment of variables such as the meteorological conditions.

CALPUFF

CALPUFF ( http://www.epa.gov/scram001/di spersion_prefrec.htm#calpuff ) is a non-steady-state meteorological and air quality modeling system developed by the Atmosp heric Studies Group at TRC Solutions. It is maintained by the model developers an d 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 preprocessi ng 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 concentr ations, time-averaged dry deposition fluxes, and time-averaged wet deposition fluxes. These outputs in CALPUF F v.5 can be produced all the way down to an hourly basis. The post-processing program CALP OST is designed to produce ranked tabulations of averages of selected concen tration 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 fo llowing 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 reco mmended air dispersion model for steady state

sources. ISCST3 as described a bove calculates concentrations but is not designed to determine a buffer zone. PERFUM was designe d to specifically take the IS CST3 outputs and use them to produce buffer zone outputs in a distributional format.

PERFUM allows users to develop an understandi ng of the distributions of potential bystander exposures and thus more fully characterize th e range of risks resul ting 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 fl ux estimates within the uncertainty of those data. PERFUM then

uses this information to create distributi onal outputs for pre-define d receptor locations.

Fumigant Emissions Modeling System (FEMS)

FEMS ( http://www.sullivan-environmental.com) was developed to addre ss the issue of bystander exposures following agricultural appl ications 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 applicati ons, application season, the averaging time for the concentrations, and the dispersion model used (ISCST3, CALPU FF 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 th e 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 h our time steps. The model estimates fumigant concentrations at various receptors beyond the peri meter of the applied field that are matched to the averaging time of interest for the user. As ide 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 concentr ations is computed for each receptor. FEMS produces two main outputs. The first is a frequency distribution that

looks at the number of times that concentratio ns exceed the concentration of concern at each receptor. The second involves establishing the dist ributions of concentra tions 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 fr om the field. Buffer

zones are then established based on the most conser vative concentrations that were modeled as a

function of distance.

Page 101 of 193

### Page 102 of 193 Soil Fumigant Exposure A ssessment System (SOFEA)

SOFEA ( http://www.epa.gov/oscpmont/sap/meetings/2004/index.htm ) was developed to evaluate and manage human inhalation exposur e potential associated with agricultural applications of fumigants. SO FEA calculates fumigant concen trations in air arising from volatility losses from treated fields for entire agricultural regions using multiple sources (treated fields), GIS information, agronomic specific variab les, user specified buffer zones and field reentry intervals. SOFEA uses a modified versi on of ISCST3 as its dispersion model. SOFEA also uses Monte Carlo technique s to vary the following parame ters: weather information, field size, application date, ap plication rate, applicat ion 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 assessmen ts. SOFEA has been previously used for regulatory decision making in California.

# Appendix D: Field Volatility Description

Page 103 of 193Yuma, AZ Shank Injection – Rais ed 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 di rection. 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 us ing 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 – Ra ised 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 di rection. 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 s ite. 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 accepta ble using the ball method; roughly 50-



### Page 104 of 19385% 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 di rection. 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 mount ed. 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 di rection. 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 stud y was 608.2 lbs ai per treated acre of DMDS (containing approximately 99% DMDS).



### Page 105 of 193Application Regime: The application equipment consisted of a tractor equipped with a front platform where DMDS and nitrogen tanks were mount ed. 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 di rection. 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 stud y 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 pl ows (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 accepta ble 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 Fiel d #1 – Raised Bed, VIF Tarped

MRID 47820001

Test locations: The test site for this study wa s located in Tifton, Geor gia. Field work was conducted in November of 2009. A bedded field of approximately 1 acre was

treated with the test substance.



### Page 106 of 193Meteorological Data: A meteorological station was placed near the treatment field to determine air temperature, wind speed, and wind di rection. 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 stud y was 546.7 lbs ai per treated acre of

DMDS.

Application Regime: There were three steps to the a pplication. 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 wa s located in Tifton, Geor gia. 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 di rection. 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 stud y was 538.8 lbs ai per treated acre of

DMDS.

Application Regime: There were three steps to the a pplication. 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 wa s located in Tifton, Geor gia. 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 di rection. 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 stud y was 546.7 lbs ai per treated acre of

DMDS.

Application Regime: There were three steps to the a pplication. 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 UseD029088/Appendix ETable 1: DMDS Data Analysis - Ventura California PERFUM Buffer Results For All Flux Types For 5 And 40 Acre Square FieldsPercentiles5 A 40 A 5 A 40 A 5 A 40 A 5 A 40 A 5 A 40 A 5 A 40 A5 400 1440 330 1200 205 735 0 0 0 0 0 010 490 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 144099.9 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 144099.99 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 14405 680 1440 570 1440 360 1410 0 0 0 0 0 010 820 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 144099.9 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 144099.99 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440Ventura Whole Field PERFUM Buffer ResultsBradenton, FL - Raised Bed / Poly TarpedYuma, AZ - Raised Bed / Poly TarpedMax (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 MethodVentura Maximum PERFUM Buffer ResultsMax (455 lb/A) 80% (364 lb/A) 50% (227.5 lb/A)Page 110 of 1935 05000000000010 5 95 0 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 015 15 135 0 80 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 020 30 180 5 110 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 025 50 245 5 155 0 35 0 0 0 0 0 030 65 300 15 200 0 55 0 0 0 0 0 035 75 370 35 245 0 80 0 0 0 0 0 040 90 435 50 295 5 100 0 0 0 0 0 045 105 485 65 335 5 125 0 0 0 0 0 050 125 540 80 385 5 160 0 0 0 0 0 055 140 600 100 435 5 205 0 0 0 0 0 060 165 660 120 510 35 260 0 5 0 0 0 065 195 765 145 590 50 300 0 10 0 5 0 070 220 870 165 660 65 340 0 25 0 15 0 575 245 970 185 745 80 395 5 50 0 35 0 580 275 1090 205 845 95 445 5 85 5 65 0 2085 300 1225 230 930 115 505 25 160 5 120 0 5090 340 1375 265 1065 140 590 55 305 30 225 5 10095 390 1440 315 1240 170 720 115 545 85 430 25 24597 435 1440 345 1375 190 780 175 765 135 610 60 35099 485 1440 385 1440 215 895 280 1175 215 925 115 53599.9 555 1440 440 1440 240 1035 435 1440 345 1440 190 82599.99 585 1440 440 1440 250 1040 520 1440 415 1440 230 9655 265 970 210 760 115 435 0 0 0 0 0 010 315 1145 250 920 140 530 0 0 0 0 0 015 360 1360 290 1080 165 625 0 0 0 0 0 020 415 1440 330 1280 195 740 0 0 0 0 0 025 485 1440 390 1440 225 885 0 0 0 0 0 030 550 1440 440 1440 250 1035 0 0 0 0 0 035 635 1440 490 1440 275 1165 0 0 0 0 0 040 685 1440 535 1440 300 1300 0 0 0 0 0 045 725 1440 570 1440 325 1410 0 0 0 0 0 050 765 1440 605 1440 355 1440 0 5 0 5 0 055 805 1440 630 1440 385 1440 0 20 0 15 0 1060 835 1440 665 1440 425 1440 5 40 5 35 0 2565 875 1440 705 1440 470 1440 15 70 10 60 5 4570 925 1440 765 1440 510 1440 30 110 25 100 15 8075 1005 1440 835 1440 555 1440 50 180 45 165 30 13080 1095 1440 910 1440 595 1440 85 325 75 295 55 23085 1205 1440 1000 1440 650 1440 155 625 135 555 95 41090 1310 1440 1100 1440 720 1440 290 1190 250 1030 165 72095 1440 1440 1245 1440 810 1440 530 1440 445 1440 285 123097 1440 1440 1345 1440 895 1440 675 1440 560 1440 380 144099 1440 1440 1440 1440 1015 1440 960 1440 815 1440 570 144099.9 1440 1440 1440 1440 1325 1440 1440 1440 1295 1440 880 144099.99 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1225 1440Max (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 280% (364 lb/A)Max (455 lb/A)Max (455 lb/A) 80% (364 lb/A) 50% (227.5 lb/A)50% (227.5 lb/A)USDA, GA - Raised Bed / VIF Tarped Field 150% (227.5 lb/A)Page 111 of 1935 30 115 10 70 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 010 80 310 50 215 5 75 0 0 0 0 5 015 105 385 70 275 15 115 0 0 0 0 15 020 120 440 85 325 25 140 0 0 0 0 25 025 135 495 95 375 35 170 0 0 0 0 35 030 150 560 110 415 45 195 0 0 0 0 45 035 170 620 125 470 55 225 0 0 0 0 55 040 185 680 140 525 65 270 0 0 0 0 65 045 215 810 165 630 75 330 0 0 0 0 75 050 250 965 190 740 90 390 0 5 0 0 90 055 285 1120 215 865 110 450 0 10 0 5 110 060 310 1295 235 965 125 510 0 25 0 15 125 565 340 1440 265 1060 150 585 5 40 5 30 150 1070 380 1440 305 1195 180 705 10 65 5 50 180 2575 430 1440 340 1350 200 790 25 100 15 80 200 4580 475 1440 380 1440 225 895 40 160 30 130 225 7585 520 1440 425 1440 260 1015 65 275 50 225 260 13090 580 1440 475 1440 295 1160 115 480 90 395 295 23095 695 1440 560 1440 355 1420 215 895 170 730 355 44597 770 1440 620 1440 400 1440 295 1230 235 985 400 63099 855 1440 715 1440 455 1440 455 1440 375 1440 455 99599.9 990 1440 860 1440 530 1440 750 1440 610 1440 530 144099.99 1440 1440 875 1440 540 1440 955 1440 795 1440 540 14405 5 40 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 010 15 95 5 55 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 015 25 120 5 70 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 020 30 145 10 90 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 025 40 170 15 105 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 030 45 190 20 125 0 30 0 0 0 0 0 035 50 215 30 140 5 40 0 0 0 0 0 040 60 245 35 165 5 55 0 0 0 0 0 045 70 290 45 195 5 65 0 0 0 0 0 050 80 320 50 225 5 85 0 0 0 0 0 055 95 390 60 275 5 105 0 5 0 0 0 060 110 450 75 325 10 135 0 10 0 5 0 065 130 515 90 385 25 180 0 15 0 10 0 070 150 590 105 440 40 215 5 30 0 20 0 575 170 660 125 500 50 260 5 50 5 35 0 580 195 770 145 585 65 300 10 80 5 55 0 1585 225 885 170 675 80 360 25 125 10 90 5 3090 260 1040 200 795 100 435 45 210 25 155 5 6595 330 1330 255 1035 135 565 90 405 60 310 15 16597 370 1440 295 1160 155 655 130 550 95 435 40 24599 420 1440 340 1340 200 770 215 880 165 700 85 40599.9 500 1440 415 1440 260 970 370 1440 295 1195 165 69599.99 540 1440 425 1440 265 1030 480 1440 385 1440 230 96080% (364 lb/A) 50% (227.5 lb/A) Max (455 lb/A)USDA, GA - Raised Bed / Poly Tarped Field 380% (364 lb/A) 50% (227.5 lb/A)50% (227.5 lb/A)Dover, FL- Raised Bed / Metalized TarpedMax (455 lb/A)80% (364 lb/A) 50% (227.5 lb/A)Max (455 lb/A)Max (455 lb/A) 80% (364 lb/A)Page 112 of 1935 180 720 120 525 35 315 0 0 0 0 0 010 270 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 0000030 515 1440 410 1440 240 1190 0 0000035 590 1440 470 1440 275 1405 0 0000040 670 1440 535 1440 310 1440 0 0000045 735 1440 585 1440 350 1440 0 0000050 810 1440 660 1440 400 1440 0 10050555 915 1440 740 1440 455 1440 0 30 0 25 0 2060 1005 1440 805 1440 495 1440 5 55 5 50 0 4065 1075 1440 865 1440 530 1440 20 90 15 80 5 6570 1135 1440 925 1440 560 1440 35 130 30 120 15 10075 1195 1440 975 1440 590 1440 60 195 50 180 30 15580 1260 1440 1025 1440 640 1440 90 310 75 280 55 23585 1330 1440 1080 1440 710 1440 145 510 125 455 90 38090 1430 1440 1185 1440 790 1440 250 895 215 790 155 67095 1440 1440 1360 1440 925 1440 480 1440 410 1440 285 132097 1440 1440 1440 1440 1005 1440 660 1440 560 1440 390 144099 1440 1440 1440 1440 1180 1440 1030 1440 860 1440 570 144099.9 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1430 1440 965 144099.99 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1295 14405 135 370 110 300 60 180 0 0 0 0 0 010 165 470 130 375 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 2065 265 870 215 705 125 425 15 75 10 60 5 4070 275 925 225 740 135 450 30 105 25 90 10 6075 290 985 235 790 140 480 45 145 40 125 20 8580 310 1065 250 850 150 515 65 205 55 175 35 12085 330 1180 265 935 160 560 95 290 80 250 50 17090 370 1350 295 1070 180 630 135 410 115 350 75 23595 435 1440 355 1290 220 770 190 580 160 495 100 32597 500 1440 410 1440 255 920 225 680 185 570 115 37599 840 1440 645 1440 375 1440 285 900 240 760 155 51099.9 1440 1440 1440 1440 980 1440 510 1440 430 1440 295 106099.99 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1220 1440 1000 1440 650 144080% (364 lb/A)Drip Irrigation Application Method50% (227.5 lb/A)80% (364 lb/A) 50% (227.5 lb/A)Nipomo, CA - Raised Bed / Poly TarpedMax (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 TarpedPage 113 of 193D029088/Appendix ETable 2: DMDS Buffer Zone Analysis - Ventura California Whole Field 40 AcrePercentilesBradenton, FL - ShankRaised Bed / Poly TarpedYuma, AZ - Shank RaisedBed / Poly TarpedTifton, GA - Shank RaisedBed / VIF Tarped Field 1Tifton, GA - Shank RaisedBed / Poly Tarped Field 2Tifton, GA - Shank RaisedBed / Poly Tarped Field 3Dover, FL - Shank RaisedBed / Metalized TarpedCantua, CA - ShankBroadcast / Poly TarpedNipomo, CA - DripIrrigation Raised Bed /Poly Tarped40 Acres40 Acres40 Acres40 Acres40 Acres40 Acres40 Acres40 Acres500000000100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0150 0 0 0 0 0 0 0200 0 0 0 0 0 0 0250 0 0 0 0 0 0 0300 0 0 0 0 0 0 0350 0 0 0 0 0 0 0400 0 0 0 0 0 0 0450 0 0 0 0 0 0 050 10 200 5 5 010 055254502010530206050805402510554565 80 125 10 70 40 15 90 7570130185251106530130105752102755018010050195145803754408532516080310205857557751606252751255102909014401440305119048021089541095144014405451440895405144058097144014407651440123055014406809914401440117514401440880144090099.91440144014401440144014401440144099.9914401440144014401440144014401440DMDS - Ventura Whole Field PERFUM Buffer ResultsAppendix E/Figure 1: ShankInjection Whole Field BufferAnalysis Using VenturaMeteorological Data - Maximum Application Rate/40 Acres01020304050607080901001100 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500Distance (m)

PercentileBradenton, FL - Shank Raised Bed / Poly TarpedYuma, AZ - Shank Raised Bed / Poly TarpedTifton, GA - Shank Raised Bed / VIF Tarped Field 1Tifton, GA - Shank Raised Bed / Poly Tarped Field 2Tifton, GA - Shank Raised Bed / Poly Tarped Field 3Dover, FL - Shank Raised Bed / Metalized TarpedCantua, CA - Shank Broadcast / Poly TarpedNipomo, CA - Drip Irrigation Raised Bed / Poly TarpedPage 114 of 193D029088/Appendix ETable 3: DMDS Buffer Zone Analysis - Ventura California Maximum 40 AcrePercentilesBradenton, FL - ShankRaised Bed / Poly TarpedYuma, AZ - Shank RaisedBed / Poly TarpedTifton, GA - Shank RaisedBed / VIF Tarped Field 1Tifton, GA - Shank RaisedBed / Poly Tarped Field 2Tifton, GA - Shank RaisedBed / Poly Tarped Field 3Dover, FL - Shank RaisedBed / Metalized TarpedCantua, CA - ShankBroadcast / Poly TarpedNipomo, CA - DripIrrigation Raised Bed /Poly Tarped40 Acres40 Acres40 Acres40 Acres40 Acres40 Acres40 Acres40 Acres51440144059701154072037010144014409511453109510604701514401440135136038512013355452014401440180144044014514406002514401440245144049517014406553014401440300144056019014406903514401440370144062021514407154014401440435144068024514407354514401440485144081029014407555014401440540144096532014407755514401440600144011203901440800601440144066014401295450144083065144014407651440144051514408707014401440870144014405901440925751440144097014401440660144098580144014401090144014407701440106585144014401225144014408851440118090 1440 1440 1375 1440 1440 1040 1440 135095 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1330 1440 144097 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 144099 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 144099.9 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 144099.9914401440144014401440144014401440DMDS - Ventura Maximum PERFUM Buffer ResultsAppendix E/Figure 2: Shank InjectionMaximum Buffer Analysis Using VenturaMeteorological Data - Maximum Application Rate/40 Acres01020304050607080901001100 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500Distance (m)

PercentileBradenton, FL - Shank Raised Bed / Poly TarpedYuma, AZ - Shank Raised Bed / Poly TarpedTifton, GA - Shank Raised Bed / VIF Tarped Field 1Tifton, GA - Shank Raised Bed / Poly Tarped Field 2Tifton, GA - Shank Raised Bed / Poly Tarped Field 3Dover, FL - Shank Raised Bed / Metalized TarpedCantua, CA - Shank Broadcast / Poly TarpedNipomo, CA - Drip Irrigation Raised Bed / Poly TarpedPage 115 of 193D029088/Appendix ETable 4: DMDS Data Analysis - Tallahassee Florida PERFUM Buffer Results For All Flux Types For 5 And 40 Acre Square FieldsPercentiles5 A 40 A 5 A 40 A 5 A 40 A 5 A 40 A 5 A 40 A 5 A 40 A5 290 1235 205 870 75 420 0 0 0 0 0 010 400 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 144099.9 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1115 144099.99 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 14405 740 1440 620 1440 420 1440 0 0 0 0 0 010 850 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 144099.9 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 144099.99 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440Max (455 lb/A) 80% (364 lb/A) 50% (227.5 lb/A)Shank Injection Application MethodVentura Maximum PERFUM Buffer ResultsVentura Whole Field PERFUM Buffer ResultsMax (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 TarpedYuma, AZ - Raised Bed / Poly TarpedPage 116 of 1935 00000000000010 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 015 0 65 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 020 5 100 0 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 025 5 140 0 85 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 030 20 180 5 110 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 035 35 215 5 140 0 35 0 0 0 0 0 040 50 260 5 170 0 40 0 0 0 0 0 045 60 305 20 210 0 55 0 0 0 0 0 050 65 345 30 225 0 70 0 0 0 0 0 055 80 370 40 250 5 85 0 0 0 0 0 060 90 405 55 285 5 105 0 0 0 0 0 065 100 450 65 310 5 130 0 5 0 0 0 070 115 490 75 345 5 160 0 15 0 5 0 075 135 540 95 410 15 195 0 45 0 25 0 580 160 625 115 480 35 245 5 75 0 50 0 585 190 755 135 580 50 285 15 130 5 95 0 3090 230 930 170 695 70 355 40 205 15 155 5 6095 275 1150 215 850 105 465 75 345 50 245 5 12597 315 1280 240 990 120 520 100 420 75 325 20 18099 375 1440 295 1240 150 655 175 690 130 550 60 31099.9 475 1440 380 1440 190 815 305 1230 240 965 130 55599.99 495 1440 385 1440 195 895 435 1440 335 1440 175 7755 210 830 155 615 65 315 0 0 0 0 0 010 260 985 200 760 110 430 0 0 0 0 0 015 300 1135 235 875 130 510 0 0 0 0 0 020 340 1335 265 1020 150 575 0 0 0 0 0 025 385 1440 300 1190 170 660 0 0 0 0 0 030 420 1440 335 1325 200 750 0 0 0 0 0 035 455 1440 360 1440 205 840 0 0 0 0 0 040 510 1440 405 1440 225 950 0 0 0 0 0 045 575 1440 445 1440 235 1025 0 0 0 0 0 050 610 1440 470 1440 250 1115 0 10 0 5 0 055 640 1440 495 1440 270 1155 0 25 0 20 0 1060 670 1440 510 1440 285 1220 5 55 5 45 0 3065 690 1440 525 1440 305 1300 20 95 15 85 5 6070 710 1440 550 1440 335 1380 40 155 30 140 15 10075 740 1440 580 1440 380 1440 65 250 55 220 35 16080 785 1440 645 1440 420 1440 105 380 90 335 55 24085 910 1440 735 1440 480 1440 160 585 135 510 90 36090 1060 1440 865 1440 550 1440 245 915 205 780 135 53595 1210 1440 990 1440 635 1440 400 1440 330 1325 210 86097 1310 1440 1085 1440 690 1440 515 1440 425 1440 250 106099 1440 1440 1285 1440 835 1440 695 1440 570 1440 390 144099.9 1440 1440 1440 1440 945 1440 1200 1440 990 1440 650 144099.99 1440 1440 1440 1440 980 1440 1440 1440 1365 1440 875 1440Max (455 lb/A)50% (227.5 lb/A)80% (364 lb/A)USDA, GA - Raised Bed / VIF Tarped Field 1USDA, GA - Raised Bed / Poly Tarped Field 2Max (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)Page 117 of 1935 5 85 0 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 010 30 155 5 90 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 015 60 255 35 165 0 45 0 0 0 0 0 020 70 295 45 200 5 65 0 0 0 0 0 025 95 365 65 260 5 110 0 0 0 0 0 030 115 445 80 330 20 140 0 0 0 0 0 035 130 505 90 370 35 170 0 0 0 0 0 040 145 570 105 420 40 200 0 0 0 0 0 045 165 635 120 470 50 240 0 0 0 0 0 050 185 690 135 525 60 270 0 0 0 0 0 055 200 750 150 585 70 300 0 5 0 5 0 060 220 845 165 650 80 335 0 20 0 10 0 565 235 970 175 715 90 370 5 40 0 25 0 570 255 1090 195 780 100 415 5 65 5 50 0 1575 280 1170 215 860 115 465 20 105 10 80 0 4080 310 1280 240 960 135 545 35 160 25 125 5 6585 355 1440 280 1125 160 630 60 250 45 190 15 11090 420 1440 330 1385 190 765 95 380 75 310 35 17595 515 1440 410 1440 235 985 160 630 130 510 65 29597 550 1440 445 1440 265 1085 210 825 160 670 90 38599 620 1440 500 1440 330 1305 310 1255 250 1020 155 63099.9 960 1440 770 1440 445 1440 550 1440 445 1440 275 114599.99 965 1440 815 1440 465 1440 785 1440 610 1440 415 14405 0 20 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 010 5 50 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 015 5 85 5 45 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 020 20 115 5 65 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 025 30 140 5 90 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 030 35 165 15 105 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 035 45 185 20 125 0 35 0 0 0 0 0 040 50 215 30 145 5 45 0 0 0 0 0 045 60 245 35 165 5 55 0 0 0 0 0 050 65 275 40 190 5 70 0 0 0 0 0 055 75 310 50 215 5 80 0 0 0 0 0 060 85 335 55 240 5 95 0 5 0 5 0 065 90 370 65 265 5 115 0 10 0 5 0 070 100 410 70 295 15 130 0 25 0 15 0 575 115 460 80 335 25 155 5 45 0 30 0 580 130 515 90 380 30 175 5 75 5 50 0 1085 150 605 110 445 40 215 20 115 5 80 0 2590 180 715 130 545 55 265 40 180 20 130 5 5595 220 885 160 665 70 330 70 300 45 220 5 10597 245 1030 185 765 85 390 90 380 65 290 20 15099 300 1290 220 955 110 475 145 600 110 465 45 25099.9 420 1440 355 1440 200 820 255 1090 195 820 100 44099.99 515 1440 410 1440 200 975 385 1440 300 1250 175 765Max (455 lb/A)Max (455 lb/A)Dover, FL- Raised Bed / Metalized TarpedMax (455 lb/A)Max (455 lb/A) 80% (364 lb/A) 50% (227.5 lb/A)80% (364 lb/A) 50% (227.5 lb/A)USDA, GA - Raised Bed / Poly Tarped Field 380% (364 lb/A)50% (227.5 lb/A)80% (364 lb/A)50% (227.5 lb/A)Page 118 of 1935 0 890 165 640 70 325 220 0 0 0 0 010 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 0000040 0 1440 475 1440 275 1150 605 0000045 0 1440 535 1440 310 1290 655 0000050 0 1440 575 1440 340 1425 735 15 0 10 0 555 0 1440 620 1440 385 1440 785 40 0 30 0 1560 5 1440 690 1440 425 1440 865 70 5 60 0 4065 10 1440 770 1440 440 1440 930 115 20 100 5 7570 25 1440 810 1440 460 1440 1010 180 40 160 20 12075 50 1440 845 1440 485 1440 1060 270 65 245 40 17580 75 1440 860 1440 510 1440 1110 410 100 365 65 26585 115 1440 895 1440 575 1440 1125 615 150 535 100 38590 165 1440 1000 1440 650 1440 1215 940 225 815 155 58095 260 1440 1195 1440 770 1440 1420 1440 370 1370 250 93597 315 1440 1335 1440 860 1440 1440 1440 480 1440 325 126599 465 1440 1440 1440 1100 1440 1440 1440 735 1440 455 144099.9 810 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1170 1440 800 144099.99 1180 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1195 14405 115 350 90 275 45 155 0 0 0 0 0 010 135 415 105 330 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 1055 260 890 210 715 125 430 10 55 5 40 0 2060 280 965 225 775 135 465 20 80 10 65 5 3565 300 1065 240 830 145 505 30 115 20 90 5 5070 320 1135 260 905 155 550 40 155 30 125 15 7575 340 1225 275 980 170 590 60 210 45 170 25 10580 365 1330 295 1060 185 650 80 275 65 230 35 14085 395 1440 320 1155 200 705 105 370 85 305 50 19590 440 1440 360 1325 225 795 145 505 120 420 70 26595 515 1440 430 1440 270 980 210 750 175 620 110 40097 575 1440 470 1440 300 1100 260 935 215 765 135 50099 690 1440 570 1440 385 1440 355 1305 295 1075 190 69099.9 835 1440 705 1440 475 1440 575 1440 480 1440 315 120599.99 875 1440 745 1440 515 1440 815 1440 680 1440 455 1440Cantua, CA - Broadcast / Poly TarpedNipomo, CA - Raised Bed / Poly TarpedMax (455 lb/A)Max (455 lb/A)Drip Irrigation Application Method80% (364 lb/A) 50% (227.5 lb/A)80% (364 lb/A) 50% (227.5 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)Page 119 of 193D029088/Appendix ETable 5: DMDS Data Analysis - Flint Michigan PERFUM Buffer Results For All Flux Types For 5 And 40 Acre Square FieldsPercentiles5 A 40 A 5 A 40 A 5 A 40 A 5 A 40 A 5 A 40 A 5 A 40 A5 330 1200 270 955 170 595 0 0 0 0 0 010 390 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 144099.9 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1300 144099.99 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 14405 455 1440 375 1385 250 870 0 0 0 0 0 010 530 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 144099.9 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 144099.99 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440Bradenton, FL - Raised Bed / Poly TarpedYuma, AZ - Raised Bed / Poly TarpedMax (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 MethodVentura Maximum PERFUM Buffer ResultsVentura Whole Field PERFUM Buffer ResultsPage 120 of 1935 05000000000010 0 25 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 015 0 45 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 020 5 65 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 025 5 85 0 45 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 030 5 110 5 60 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 035 20 135 5 80 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 040 30 165 5 105 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 045 40 195 5 130 0 30 0 0 0 0 0 050 50 225 20 150 0 40 0 0 0 0 0 055 60 270 30 185 5 60 0 0 0 0 0 060 75 325 40 225 5 85 0 0 0 0 0 065 85 385 55 275 5 110 0 5 0 0 0 070 100 435 70 315 5 145 0 15 0 5 0 075 120 500 85 375 5 175 0 35 0 20 0 580 140 580 100 435 20 215 5 60 0 40 0 585 170 695 120 520 40 260 10 100 5 70 0 1590 205 845 150 630 60 310 30 165 10 120 0 5095 250 1025 190 780 90 405 65 295 45 225 5 11597 285 1200 220 890 110 485 95 400 70 310 10 16599 360 1440 275 1145 145 615 160 650 120 515 50 28599.9 495 1440 385 1440 200 910 295 1210 235 930 125 54599.99 560 1440 415 1440 205 930 415 1440 340 1385 190 7805 255 530 115 410 55 220 0 0 0 0 0 010 305 640 140 505 70 270 0 0 0 0 0 015 340 720 160 575 85 320 0 0 0 0 0 020 380 800 175 630 100 370 0 0 0 0 0 025 420 885 200 710 115 425 0 0 0 0 0 030 455 1010 215 795 125 475 0 0 0 0 0 035 490 1100 235 870 140 525 0 0 0 0 0 040 545 1245 260 980 155 585 0 0 0 0 0 045 595 1400 285 1110 175 650 0 0 0 0 0 050 660 1440 325 1275 195 745 0 10 0 5 0 055 725 1440 360 1440 215 840 0 30 0 25 0 1060 815 1440 405 1440 240 970 5 60 5 50 0 3065 925 1440 445 1440 270 1095 20 100 15 85 5 6070 1060 1440 495 1440 300 1235 40 155 35 135 15 9575 1185 1440 545 1440 340 1380 65 235 55 205 30 14080 1315 1440 605 1440 385 1440 100 345 80 300 50 20585 1440 1440 690 1440 435 1440 145 500 120 430 75 29590 1440 1440 795 1440 505 1440 210 740 175 625 115 43095 1440 1440 935 1440 610 1440 330 1235 275 1030 180 68597 1440 1440 1060 1440 675 1440 430 1440 355 1385 235 90099 1440 1440 1250 1440 830 1440 640 1440 530 1440 360 142099.9 1440 1440 1440 1440 1175 1440 1170 1440 965 1440 655 144099.99 1440 1440 1440 1440 1295 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1035 1440Max (455 lb/A) 80% (364 lb/A) 50% (227.5 lb/A)50% (227.5 lb/A)USDA, GA - Raised Bed / VIF Tarped Field 1USDA, GA - Raised Bed / Poly Tarped Field 2Max (455 lb/A) 80% (364 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)Page 121 of 1935 50 205 30 140 0 45 0 0 0 0 0 010 70 265 45 190 5 70 0 0 0 0 0 015 80 310 55 220 5 85 0 0 0 0 0 020 90 350 65 260 15 110 0 0 0 0 0 025 105 390 75 285 20 130 0 0 0 0 0 030 115 420 80 315 30 145 0 0 0 0 0 035 125 455 90 350 35 170 0 0 0 0 0 040 135 505 100 385 40 190 0 0 0 0 0 045 145 560 110 420 50 210 0 0 0 0 0 050 160 615 120 465 55 235 0 0 0 0 0 055 175 685 130 520 60 270 0 10 0 5 0 060 195 755 145 580 70 310 0 25 0 20 0 565 215 845 165 650 85 355 5 50 0 40 0 1070 235 955 180 715 95 395 15 80 5 65 0 3075 265 1100 205 830 110 465 25 125 15 100 5 5080 300 1275 235 965 130 535 45 180 30 140 5 7585 355 1440 275 1135 150 625 65 255 50 200 20 11590 405 1440 320 1330 180 760 95 365 75 295 35 17095 510 1440 400 1440 230 1015 150 570 120 465 65 28597 575 1440 465 1440 275 1185 195 755 155 610 90 37599 725 1440 585 1440 360 1440 300 1190 245 965 150 60099.9 1010 1440 870 1440 490 1440 565 1440 470 1440 300 126599.99 1120 1440 915 1440 510 1440 885 1440 710 1440 455 14405 0 65 0 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 010 5 85 0 45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 015 15 105 5 60 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 020 20 125 5 75 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 025 30 140 5 85 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 030 35 155 10 100 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 035 40 175 20 115 0 30 0 0 0 0 0 040 45 190 25 125 0 35 0 0 0 0 0 045 50 210 30 140 5 45 0 0 0 0 0 050 55 235 35 160 5 55 0 0 0 0 0 055 65 260 40 180 5 65 0 0 0 0 0 060 70 290 45 205 5 80 0 5 0 5 0 065 80 320 50 230 5 95 0 15 0 5 0 070 90 360 60 260 5 115 0 30 0 15 0 575 100 415 70 305 15 135 5 55 0 35 0 580 120 485 80 355 25 165 10 80 5 55 0 1085 140 565 100 420 35 205 20 115 5 80 0 2590 165 695 120 515 50 260 35 165 20 120 5 5095 210 880 155 660 75 340 65 265 45 200 5 9597 245 1080 185 780 90 405 85 350 60 270 15 14099 320 1440 250 1075 135 590 140 560 105 440 45 24099.9 525 1440 405 1440 215 960 265 1145 205 885 110 50599.99 550 1440 410 1440 235 965 450 1440 375 1440 195 905Dover, FL- Raised Bed / Metalized Tarped80% (364 lb/A) 50% (227.5 lb/A)Max (455 lb/A) 80% (364 lb/A) 50% (227.5 lb/A)USDA, GA - Raised Bed / Poly Tarped Field 3Max (455 lb/A)Max (455 lb/A) 80% (364 lb/A) 50% (227.5 lb/A)80% (364 lb/A) 50% (227.5 lb/A)Max (455 lb/A)Page 122 of 1935 170 605 130 475 65 255 0 0 0 0 0 010 200 710 155 555 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 1060 525 1440 425 1440 260 1020 5 60 5 50 0 3065 585 1440 475 1440 295 1170 20 100 15 85 5 5570 640 1440 525 1440 325 1310 40 155 30 135 15 9075 715 1440 585 1440 365 1440 65 230 55 200 30 14080 815 1440 650 1440 405 1440 95 345 80 300 50 20585 905 1440 740 1440 465 1440 145 505 120 435 80 30090 1035 1440 845 1440 550 1440 215 750 180 640 120 44595 1245 1440 1035 1440 675 1440 335 1265 285 1065 190 72097 1420 1440 1185 1440 760 1440 445 1440 375 1440 250 97099 1440 1440 1360 1440 915 1440 705 1440 590 1440 400 144099.9 1440 1440 1440 1440 1285 1440 1335 1440 1120 1440 745 144099.99 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1075 14405 130 435 105 350 55 200 0 0 0 0 0 010 155 495 120 395 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 2065 275 985 220 780 130 470 15 80 10 65 5 4070 290 1045 235 825 135 495 30 125 25 105 10 6575 305 1115 245 885 145 530 50 180 40 150 20 9580 330 1195 265 950 155 575 75 255 60 215 35 13585 355 1320 285 1045 170 625 100 350 85 295 50 19090 390 1440 315 1170 195 715 140 480 115 400 70 26095 460 1440 375 1440 225 890 195 685 160 565 100 36597 525 1440 420 1440 255 1175 235 835 195 685 120 44099 760 1440 600 1440 320 1440 315 1175 260 955 160 61099.9 1440 1440 1440 1440 575 1440 530 1440 425 1440 265 144099.99 1440 1440 1440 1440 865 1440 1335 1440 1005 1440 510 144050% (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)Drip Irrigation Application Method80% (364 lb/A) 50% (227.5 lb/A)80% (364 lb/A) 50% (227.5 lb/A) Max (455 lb/A)Nipomo, CA - Raised Bed / Poly TarpedMax (455 lb/A)Cantua, CA - Broadcast / Poly TarpedPage 123 of 193D029088/Appendix ETable 6: DMDS Buffer Zone Analysis - Flint Michigan Whole Field 40 AcrePercentilesBradenton, FL - ShankRaised Bed / Poly TarpedYuma, AZ - Shank RaisedBed / Poly TarpedTifton, GA - Shank RaisedBed / VIF Tarped Field 1Tifton, GA - Shank RaisedBed / Poly Tarped Field 2Tifton, GA - Shank RaisedBed / Poly Tarped Field 3Dover, FL - Shank RaisedBed / Metalized TarpedCantua, CA - ShankBroadcast / Poly TarpedNipomo, CA - DripIrrigation Raised Bed /Poly Tarped40 Acres40 Acres40 Acres40 Acres40 Acres40 Acres40 Acres40 Acres500000000100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0150 0 0 0 0 0 0 0200 0 0 0 0 0 0 0250 0 0 0 0 0 0 0300 0 0 0 0 0 0 0350 0 0 0 0 0 0 0400 0 0 0 0 0 0 0455100 0 0 0 0 0502030010001010554560030100302560751050602556050651251655100501510080701902551515580301551257529040035235125552301808043062060345180803452558565097010050025511550535090103514401657403651657504809514401440295123557026512656859714401440400144075535014408359914401440650144011905601440117599.9 1440 1440 1210 1440 1440 1145 1440 144099.9914401440144014401440144014401440DMDS - Ventura Whole Field PERFUM Buffer ResultsAppendix E/Figure 3: Whole Field Buffer Analysis Using Ventura Meteorological Data -Maximum Application Rate/40 Acres01020304050607080901001100 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500Distance (m)

PercentileBradenton, FL - Shank Raised Bed / Poly TarpedYuma, AZ - Shank Raised Bed / Poly TarpedTifton, GA - Shank Raised Bed / VIF Tarped Field 1Tifton, GA - Shank Raised Bed / Poly Tarped Field 2Tifton, GA - Shank Raised Bed / Poly Tarped Field 3Dover, FL - Shank Raised Bed / Metalized TarpedCantua, CA - Shank Broadcast / Poly TarpedNipomo, CA - Drip Irrigation Raised Bed / Poly TarpedPage 124 of 193D029088/Appendix ETable 7: DMDS Buffer Zone Analysis - Flint Michigan Maximum 40 AcrePercentilesBradenton, FL - ShankRaised Bed / Poly TarpedYuma, AZ - Shank RaisedBed / Poly TarpedTifton, GA - Shank RaisedBed / VIF Tarped Field 1Tifton, GA - Shank RaisedBed / Poly Tarped Field 2Tifton, GA - Shank RaisedBed / Poly Tarped Field 3Dover, FL - Shank RaisedBed / Metalized TarpedCantua, CA - ShankBroadcast / Poly TarpedNipomo, CA - DripIrrigation Raised Bed /Poly Tarped40 Acres40 Acres40 Acres40 Acres40 Acres40 Acres40 Acres40 Acres51440120055302056560543510144014252564026585710495151440144045720310105815545201440144065800350125925595251440144085885390140103064030144014401101010420155112068035144014401351100455175121072040144014401651245505190134576045144014401951400560210144079550144014402251440615235144084555144014402701440685260144089060144014403251440755290144093065144014403851440845320144098570144014404351440955360144010457514401440500144011004151440111580144014405801440127548514401195851440144069514401440565144013209014401440845144014406951440144095144014401025144014408801440144097 1440 1440 1200 1440 1440 1080 1440 144099 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 144099.9 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 144099.9914401440144014401440144014401440DMDS - Ventura Maximum PERFUM Buffer Results110Appendix E/Figure 4: Shank Injection Maximum Buffer Analysis Using VenturaMeteorological Data - Maximum Application Rate/40 Acres01020304050607080901001100100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500Distance (m)

PercentileBradenton, FL - Shank Raised Bed / Poly TarpedYuma, AZ - Shank Raised Bed / Poly TarpedTifton, GA - Shank Raised Bed / VIF Tarped Field 1Tifton, GA - Shank Raised Bed / Poly Tarped Field 2Tifton, GA - Shank Raised Bed / Poly Tarped Field 3Dover, FL - Shank Raised Bed / Metalized TarpedCantua, CA - Shank Broadcast / Poly TarpedNipomo, CA - Drip Irrigation Raised Bed / Poly Tarped110Page 125 of 193D029088/Appendix ETable 8: DMDS Data Analysis - Bradenton Florida PERFUM Buffer Results For All Flux Types For 5 And 40 Acre Square FieldsPercentiles5 A 40 A 5 A 40 A 5 A 40 A 5 A 40 A 5 A 40 A 5 A 40 A5 510 1440 420 1440 255 960 0 0 0 0 0 010 685 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 144099.9 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 144099.99 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 14405 945 1440 800 1440 555 1440 0 0 0 0 0 010 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 144099.9 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 144099.99 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440Bradenton, FL - Raised Bed / Poly TarpedYuma, AZ - Raised Bed / Poly TarpedMax (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 MethodVentura Maximum PERFUM Buffer ResultsVentura Whole Field PERFUM Buffer ResultsPage 126 of 1935 00000000000010 20 145 0 85 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 015 55 250 25 165 0 40 0 0 0 0 0 020 75 330 40 220 0 70 0 0 0 0 0 025 95 400 60 280 5 100 0 0 0 0 0 030 115 470 75 335 5 140 0 0 0 0 0 035 135 555 85 410 5 170 0 0 0 0 0 040 150 635 100 450 20 200 0 0 0 0 0 045 170 715 115 510 40 230 0 0 0 0 0 050 185 775 130 565 50 265 0 0 0 0 0 055 205 840 150 620 65 315 0 0 0 0 0 060 230 910 170 690 80 365 0 0 0 0 0 065 250 1000 190 760 95 410 0 10 0 5 0 070 280 1110 215 860 105 465 0 35 0 25 0 575 310 1235 235 950 125 525 5 70 5 55 0 2580 335 1365 265 1050 135 590 25 120 10 95 0 5085 375 1440 295 1200 155 655 45 190 35 155 5 9090 430 1440 335 1390 180 765 80 305 65 255 25 15095 515 1440 410 1440 225 950 145 545 115 430 60 26597 555 1440 445 1440 255 1070 190 710 155 575 90 36599 630 1440 515 1440 295 1250 300 1135 240 920 140 56599.9 735 1440 565 1440 345 1440 505 1440 415 1440 250 102099.99 800 1440 630 1440 355 1440 680 1440 540 1440 315 13455 340 1285 260 1020 140 555 0 0 0 0 0 010 445 1440 355 1380 200 805 0 0 0 0 0 015 525 1440 410 1440 235 925 0 0 0 0 0 020 565 1440 445 1440 270 1060 0 0 0 0 0 025 630 1440 520 1440 320 1260 0 0 0 0 0 030 695 1440 575 1440 360 1440 0 0 0 0 0 035 775 1440 630 1440 395 1440 0 0 0 0 0 040 825 1440 680 1440 415 1440 0 0 0 0 0 045 875 1440 715 1440 440 1440 0 0 0 0 0 050 920 1440 750 1440 465 1440 0 0 0 0 0 055 970 1440 785 1440 500 1440 0 15 0 15 0 560 1015 1440 820 1440 540 1440 0 40 0 40 0 2565 1065 1440 865 1440 575 1440 15 75 10 70 5 5570 1110 1440 915 1440 620 1440 30 125 30 120 20 9575 1200 1440 1000 1440 670 1440 60 200 50 185 40 15580 1290 1440 1075 1440 725 1440 95 310 85 285 65 23585 1395 1440 1170 1440 790 1440 155 500 140 460 105 37090 1440 1440 1305 1440 885 1440 270 890 240 795 175 60095 1440 1440 1440 1440 1035 1440 500 1440 430 1440 305 110597 1440 1440 1440 1440 1125 1440 675 1440 570 1440 395 144099 1440 1440 1440 1440 1290 1440 1000 1440 835 1440 585 144099.9 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1395 1440 975 144099.99 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1305 1440Max (455 lb/A) 80% (364 lb/A) 50% (227.5 lb/A)50% (227.5 lb/A)USDA, GA - Raised Bed / VIF Tarped Field 1USDA, GA - Raised Bed / Poly Tarped Field 2Max (455 lb/A) 80% (364 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)Page 127 of 1935 15 75 5 40 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 010 45 170 30 110 5 30 0 0 0 0 0 015 70 240 45 170 10 65 0 0 0 0 0 020 110 385 80 290 25 125 0 0 0 0 0 025 145 525 105 390 45 190 0 0 0 0 0 030 175 640 135 495 60 250 0 0 0 0 0 035 205 740 160 580 75 305 0 0 0 0 0 040 230 860 175 660 95 365 0 0 0 0 0 045 260 985 205 755 110 425 0 0 0 0 0 050 290 1090 230 850 125 480 0 0 0 0 0 055 325 1235 255 970 140 555 0 5 0 5 0 060 365 1390 285 1095 160 620 0 15 0 10 0 565 395 1440 310 1205 180 700 5 35 0 25 0 1070 420 1440 340 1335 200 765 10 65 5 50 0 2575 465 1440 370 1440 215 845 25 105 15 85 5 5080 505 1440 410 1440 245 950 45 165 35 135 15 9085 555 1440 450 1440 275 1085 70 250 60 215 35 14590 640 1440 520 1440 320 1290 120 405 100 345 60 23595 735 1440 605 1440 375 1440 205 710 175 600 110 40597 790 1440 640 1440 410 1440 275 980 230 820 150 55099 915 1440 735 1440 460 1440 425 1440 355 1335 230 85099.9 1050 1440 895 1440 565 1440 705 1440 580 1440 375 144099.99 1440 1440 965 1440 630 1440 915 1440 760 1440 480 14405 5 25 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 010 15 65 5 35 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 015 30 110 10 70 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 020 40 145 20 95 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 025 50 195 30 135 5 45 0 0 0 0 0 030 65 235 40 165 5 60 0 0 0 0 0 035 75 275 50 195 5 75 0 0 0 0 0 040 85 315 60 225 15 95 0 0 0 0 0 045 95 360 70 260 20 110 0 0 0 0 0 050 105 395 75 290 25 130 0 0 0 0 0 055 120 435 85 325 30 150 0 0 0 0 0 060 130 490 95 370 40 180 0 5 0 5 0 065 145 545 110 410 45 205 0 15 0 5 0 070 165 615 120 465 55 235 5 35 0 20 0 575 180 680 135 515 60 260 5 55 5 40 0 1080 200 770 150 580 70 300 20 90 10 70 0 3085 230 875 170 660 85 350 35 140 25 110 5 5590 270 1045 205 800 100 425 60 215 45 170 15 9095 310 1275 235 960 120 505 100 355 75 285 35 16097 345 1430 265 1085 140 570 130 460 100 375 50 21599 410 1440 315 1295 170 695 195 710 155 565 85 33099.9 485 1440 390 1440 225 875 320 1265 255 975 140 55099.99 490 1440 395 1440 225 945 415 1440 325 1290 185 715Dover, FL- Raised Bed / Metalized Tarped80% (364 lb/A) 50% (227.5 lb/A)Max (455 lb/A) 80% (364 lb/A) 50% (227.5 lb/A)USDA, GA - Raised Bed / Poly Tarped Field 3Max (455 lb/A)Max (455 lb/A) 80% (364 lb/A) 50% (227.5 lb/A)80% (364 lb/A) 50% (227.5 lb/A)Max (455 lb/A)Page 128 of 1935 320 1290 250 965 145 535 0 0 0 0 0 010 440 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 0000025 625 1440 500 1440 300 1185 0 0000030 680 1440 550 1440 345 1350 0 0000035 760 1440 620 1440 380 1440 0 0000040 830 1440 675 1440 415 1440 0 0000045 895 1440 730 1440 465 1440 0 0000050 975 1440 800 1440 505 1440 0 10050555 1050 1440 865 1440 545 1440 0 30 0 30 0 2060 1145 1440 935 1440 590 1440 10 60 5 55 0 4065 1210 1440 995 1440 650 1440 25 105 20 95 10 7570 1285 1440 1050 1440 685 1440 45 160 40 150 25 12075 1370 1440 1140 1440 710 1440 70 245 65 225 45 18080 1440 1440 1210 1440 750 1440 115 370 100 345 75 27585 1440 1440 1260 1440 835 1440 180 585 160 530 120 42090 1440 1440 1380 1440 930 1440 295 995 255 870 190 65595 1440 1440 1440 1440 1085 1440 510 1440 440 1440 315 113097 1440 1440 1440 1440 1220 1440 685 1440 590 1440 415 144099 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1095 1440 925 1440 635 144099.9 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1095 144099.99 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 14405 180 565 140 450 75 255 0 0 0 0 0 010 205 645 165 520 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 1555 350 1185 285 960 180 605 10 60 5 50 0 3060 365 1250 300 1015 190 635 20 90 15 80 5 5065 385 1320 315 1075 200 675 35 130 30 115 15 7570 405 1405 330 1140 210 715 55 180 45 155 25 10575 425 1440 350 1230 225 760 75 240 60 205 40 14080 450 1440 370 1325 240 820 100 310 80 265 55 18085 490 1440 410 1440 260 910 130 400 110 340 70 23590 545 1440 450 1440 295 1040 175 535 145 455 100 31595 635 1440 525 1440 345 1260 245 765 210 650 140 44597 700 1440 580 1440 380 1420 295 925 250 780 170 53599 805 1440 680 1440 445 1440 395 1310 335 1095 225 73099.9 1030 1440 875 1440 615 1440 625 1440 525 1440 360 124099.99 1155 1440 975 1440 690 1440 820 1440 700 1440 475 144050% (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)Drip Irrigation Application Method80% (364 lb/A) 50% (227.5 lb/A)80% (364 lb/A) 50% (227.5 lb/A) Max (455 lb/A)Nipomo, CA - Raised Bed / Poly TarpedMax (455 lb/A)Cantua, CA - Broadcast / Poly TarpedPage 129 of 193D029088/Appendix ETable 9: DMDS Buffer Zone Analysis - Bradenton Florida Whole Field 40 AcrePercentilesBradenton, FL - ShankRaised Bed / Poly TarpedYuma, AZ - Shank RaisedBed / Poly TarpedTifton, GA - Shank RaisedBed / Poly Tarped Field 1Tifton, GA - Shank RaisedBed / Poly Tarped Field 2Tifton, GA - Shank RaisedBed / VIF TarpedDover, FL - Shank RaisedBed / Metalized TarpedCantua, CA - ShankBroadcast / Poly TarpedNipomo, CA - DripIrrigation Raised Bed /Poly Tarped40 Acres40 Acres40 Acres40 Acres40 Acres40 Acres40 Acres40 Acres500000000100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0150 0 0 0 0 0 0 0200 0 0 0 0 0 0 0250 0 0 0 0 0 0 0300 0 0 0 0 0 0 0350 0 0 0 0 0 0 0400 0 0 0 0 0 0 0450 0 0 0 0 0 015505200 0 0 010 35552050015503060605085040155609065 90 140 10 75 35 15 105 13070150215351256535160180752303257020010555245240803555051203101659037031085585865190500250140585400901095144030589040521599553595144014405451440710355144076597144014407101440980460144092599144014401135144014407101440131099.9 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1265 1440 144099.9914401440144014401440144014401440DMDS - Ventura Whole Field PERFUM Buffer ResultsAppendix E/Figure 5: Whole Field Buffer Analysis Using Ventura Meteorological Data -Maximum Application Rate/40 Acres01020304050607080901001100 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500Distance (m)

PercentileBradenton, FL - Shank Raised Bed / Poly TarpedYuma, AZ - Shank Raised Bed / Poly TarpedTifton, GA - Shank Raised Bed / Poly Tarped Field 1Tifton, GA - Shank Raised Bed / Poly Tarped Field 2Tifton, GA - Shank Raised Bed / VIF TarpedDover, FL - Shank Raised Bed / Metalized TarpedCantua, CA - Shank Broadcast / Poly TarpedNipomo, CA - Drip Irrigation Raised Bed / Poly TarpedPage 130 of 193D029088/Appendix ETable 10: DMDS Buffer Zone Analysis - Bradenton Florida Maximum 40 AcrePercentilesBradenton, FL - ShankRaised Bed / Poly TarpedYuma, AZ - Shank RaisedBed / Poly TarpedTifton, GA - Shank RaisedBed / Poly Tarped Field 1Tifton, GA - Shank RaisedBed / Poly Tarped Field 2Tifton, GA - Shank RaisedBed / VIF TarpedDover, FL - Shank RaisedBed / Metalized TarpedCantua, CA - ShankBroadcast / Poly TarpedNipomo, CA - DripIrrigation Raised Bed /Poly Tarped40 Acres40 Acres40 Acres40 Acres40 Acres40 Acres40 Acres40 Acres5144014400128575251290565101440144014514401706514406451514401440250144024011014407252014401440330144038514514407902514401440400144052519514408453014401440470144064023514408953514401440555144074027514409504014401440635144086031514401000451440144071514409853601440106050144014407751440109039514401120551440144084014401235435144011856014401440910144013904901440125065144014401000144014405451440132070144014401110144014406151440140575144014401235144014406801440144080144014401365144014407701440144085144014401440144014408751440144090 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1045 1440 144095 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1275 1440 144097 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1430 1440 144099 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 144099.9 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 144099.9914401440144014401440144014401440DMDS - Ventura Maximum PERFUM Buffer ResultsAppendix E/Figure 6: Shank InjectionMaximum Buffer Analysis Using VenturaMeteorological Data - Maximum Application Rate/40 Acres01020304050607080901001100100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500Distance (m)

PercentileBradenton, FL - Shank Raised Bed / Poly TarpedYuma, AZ - Shank Raised Bed / Poly TarpedTifton, GA - Shank Raised Bed / Poly Tarped Field 1Tifton, GA - Shank Raised Bed / Poly Tarped Field 2Tifton, GA - Shank Raised Bed / VIF TarpedDover, FL - Shank Raised Bed / Metalized TarpedCantua, CA - Shank Broadcast / Poly TarpedNipomo, CA - Drip Irrigation Raised Bed / Poly TarpedPage 131 of 193D029088/Appendix ETable 11: DMDS Data Analysis - Bakersfield California PERFUM Buffer Results For All Flux Types For 5 And 40 Acre Square FieldsTifton, GA - Shank Raised Bed / VIF TarpA- Shank Raised Bed / Poly Tarped Field 3Percentiles5 A 40 A 5 A 40 A 5 A 40 A 5 A 40 A 5 A 40 A 5 A 40 A5 390 1440 310 1290 175 790 0 0 0 0 0 010 550 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 144099.9 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1265 144099.99 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 14405 730 1440 615 1440 400 1440 00 0 0 010 940 1440 790 1440 510 1440 00 0 0 015 1190 1440 960 1440 625 1440 00 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 144099.9 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 144099.99 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440Max (455 lb/A) 80% (364 lb/A) 50% (227.5 lb/A)Shank Injection Application MethodVentura Maximum PERFUM Buffer ResultsVentura Whole Field PERFUM Buffer ResultsMax (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 TarpedYuma, AZ - Raised Bed / Poly TarpedPage 132 of 1935 0 60 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 010 5 130 0 75 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 015 5 185 0 110 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 020 30 220 5 140 0 35 0 0 0 0 0 025 45 255 5 170 0 50 0 0 0 0 0 030 55 295 15 205 0 65 0 0 0 0 0 035 65 340Raised Bed / VIF TarpA- Shank Raised Bed 80 0 0 0 0 0 040 75 360 40 250 0 95 0 0 0 0 0 045 85 390 50 275 5 110 0 0 0 0 0 050 90 425 60 300 5 130 0 0 0 0 0 055 100 460 65 320 5 145 0 5 0 0 0 060 115 485 75 355 5 165 0 15 0 5 0 065 125 520 85 395 5 190 0 35 0 20 0 070 140 570 100 430 5 215 0 60 0 40 0 575 155 625 115 480 25 245 5 90 0 65 0 1080 175 710 130 540 45 270 5 135 5 95 0 3085 195 790 140 595 55 305 25 190 5 135 0 5590 215 895 160 665 70 340 50 260 25 200 5 8595 255 1045 185 775 90 405 85 375 60 290 5 15597 280 1160 210 870 100 455 115 470 85 375 20 20599 320 1350 245 1010 120 515 175 685 130 540 55 30099.9 375 1440 285 1220 165 645 275 1115 210 865 105 46599.99 375 1440 285 1225 180 660 350 1440 265 1130 145 5855 240 915 190 695 100 405 0 0 0 0 0 010 315 1275 245 945 130 530 0 0 0 0 0 015 380 1440 290 1200 160 645 0 0 0 0 0 020 435 1440 330 1405 190 750 0 0 0 0 0 025 475 1440 370 1440 205 840 0 0 0 0 0 030 525 1440 405 1440 225 955 0 0 0 0 0 035 560 1440 440 1440 240 1030 0 0 0 0 0 040 605 1440 460 1440 255 1115 0 15 0 15 0 545 625 1440 495 1440 270 1160 0 40 0 35 0 2050 655 1440 510 1440 285 1225 10 70 5 60 0 4055 675 1440 520 1440 300 1280 20 105 15 95 5 6560 690 1440 535 1440 315 1330 40 155 30 140 15 10065 710 1440 555 1440 340 1390 60 220 50 195 25 14070 735 1440 580 1440 365 1440 85 305 70 270 45 19575 765 1440 620 1440 390 1440 115 420 100 370 60 26580 820 1440 670 1440 425 1440 160 575 135 505 85 35085 880 1440 720 1440 465 1440 220 800 185 685 115 46090 970 1440 795 1440 505 1440 300 1125 250 945 160 62595 1120 1440 925 1440 580 1440 430 1440 355 1390 230 91097 1205 1440 995 1440 625 1440 525 1440 435 1440 270 109099 1365 1440 1105 1440 700 1440 690 1440 565 1440 380 144099.9 1440 1440 1300 1440 845 1440 1065 1440 880 1440 570 144099.99 1440 1440 1345 1440 890 1440 1355 1440 1095 1440 710 1440Max (455 lb/A)50% (227.5 lb/A)80% (364 lb/A)USDA, GA - Raised Bed / VIF Tarped Field 1USDA, GA - Raised Bed / Poly Tarped Field 2Max (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)Page 133 of 1935 70 285 45 200 0 80 0 0 0 0 0 010 95 385 65 280 5 120 0 0 0 0 0 015 120 460 80 340 20 160 0 0 0 0 0 020 135 545 95 400 35 190 0 0 0 0 0 025 150 610 110 445 45 220 0 0 0 0 0 030 170 655 125 490 55 260 0 0 0 0 0 035 180 720 140 540 60 295 0 0 0 0 0 040 200 810 150 595 70 310 0 0 0 0 0 045 225 875 155 670 75 330 0 10 0 5 0 050 235 960 170 720 85 355 0 25 0 15 0 555 245 1075 185 745 90 390 5 45 0 35 0 560 260 1110 195 795 100 415 5 70 5 55 0 2065 280 1170 210 860 110 450 20 100 10 80 0 4070 295 1245 225 910 120 485 30 135 20 110 5 6075 310 1310 245 970 135 535 45 185 35 150 5 8580 340 1390 265 1050 145 595 65 250 45 195 15 11585 370 1440 290 1160 165 660 85 330 70 275 30 16090 410 1440 325 1330 190 745 125 465 95 380 50 22595 480 1440 385 1440 225 895 185 680 145 555 80 32597 530 1440 420 1440 240 990 230 870 175 710 100 41099 650 1440 505 1440 295 1205 305 1165 250 940 150 59099.9 760 1440 605 1440 360 1440 490 1440 395 1440 240 94599.99 770 1440 620 1440 370 1440 655 1440 515 1440 300 12555 0 60 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 010 5 90 0 50 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 015 20 125 5 75 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 020 30 150 5 95 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 025 35 180 15 115 0 30 0 0 0 0 0 030 45 200 20 135 0 40 0 0 0 0 0 035 50 225 25 155 5 50 0 0 0 0 0 040 55 255 30 180 5 60 0 0 0 0 0 045 65 275 40 200 5 70 0 0 0 0 0 050 70 310 45 215 5 85 0 5 0 0 0 055 75 335 50 235 5 100 0 5 0 5 0 060 85 365 55 260 5 110 0 20 0 5 0 065 95 395 65 285 10 125 0 35 0 20 0 570 105 430 75 310 20 145 5 50 0 30 0 575 115 470 85 345 25 165 5 75 5 50 0 1080 130 515 95 385 30 190 15 100 5 70 0 2585 150 585 110 440 40 220 30 140 15 100 5 4090 170 680 125 515 50 265 45 190 30 145 5 6595 205 810 150 615 70 320 70 300 50 220 10 11097 225 915 170 685 80 360 90 355 65 280 25 14599 265 1110 195 805 95 410 135 520 105 410 45 22599.9 340 1440 260 1020 135 575 220 865 165 655 85 36099.99 340 1440 275 1140 145 590 295 1120 235 895 120 500Max (455 lb/A)Max (455 lb/A)Dover, FL- Raised Bed / Metalized TarpedMax (455 lb/A)Max (455 lb/A) 80% (364 lb/A) 50% (227.5 lb/A)80% (364 lb/A) 50% (227.5 lb/A)USDA, GA - Raised Bed / Poly Tarped Field 380% (364 lb/A)50% (227.5 lb/A)80% (364 lb/A)50% (227.5 lb/A)Page 134 of 1935 270 1030 215 800 125 475 0 0 0 0 0 010 355 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 0000030 595 1440 470 1440 275 1130 0 0000035 635 1440 505 1440 290 1245 0 0000040 690 1440 550 1440 320 1330 0 10050045 745 1440 570 1440 340 1425 0 30 0 25 0 1050 780 1440 605 1440 365 1440 5 60 5 50 0 3055 820 1440 650 1440 395 1440 20 95 15 85 5 6060 880 1440 695 1440 425 1440 35 145 30 125 15 9065 925 1440 750 1440 445 1440 55 210 45 185 25 13570 985 1440 805 1440 470 1440 80 300 70 265 45 19075 1045 1440 840 1440 495 1440 115 425 100 375 65 27080 1105 1440 865 1440 525 1440 165 600 140 520 95 38085 1130 1440 905 1440 575 1440 230 835 195 730 130 52090 1205 1440 985 1440 635 1440 325 1220 275 1045 185 71595 1395 1440 1150 1440 735 1440 485 1440 405 1440 270 105597 1440 1440 1230 1440 795 1440 595 1440 500 1440 335 130099 1440 1440 1440 1440 925 1440 835 1440 695 1440 455 144099.9 1440 1440 1440 1440 1110 1440 1295 1440 1075 1440 705 144099.99 1440 1440 1440 1440 1125 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 930 14405 140 475 110 370 60 210 0 0 0 0 0 010 160 525 125 420 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 2060 265 910 210 725 125 435 15 90 10 75 5 4565 275 965 220 760 130 460 35 130 25 110 10 7070 290 1035 235 815 140 490 50 180 40 150 20 9575 310 1115 250 875 150 520 70 235 60 195 35 13080 335 1230 270 975 160 560 90 300 75 250 45 16585 360 1370 285 1050 175 615 120 375 95 315 60 20590 395 1440 320 1180 195 685 150 480 125 400 75 26095 455 1440 370 1405 235 815 200 655 165 540 105 35097 500 1440 415 1440 265 960 235 785 195 650 120 42599 590 1440 485 1440 315 1160 315 1110 255 915 165 57099.9 805 1440 640 1440 400 1440 490 1440 410 1440 265 96599.99 820 1440 690 1440 470 1440 620 1440 515 1440 355 1250Cantua, CA - Broadcast / Poly TarpedNipomo, CA - Raised Bed / Poly TarpedMax (455 lb/A)Max (455 lb/A)Drip Irrigation Application Method80% (364 lb/A) 50% (227.5 lb/A)80% (364 lb/A) 50% (227.5 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)Page 135 of 193D029088/Appendix ETable 12: DMDS Data Analysis - Yakima Washington PERFUM Buffer Results For All Flux Types For 5 And 40 Acre Square FieldsPercentiles5 A 40 A 5 A 40 A 5 A 40 A 5 A 40 A 5 A 40 A 5 A 40 A5 370 1345 300 1060 185 645 0 0 0 0 0 010 435 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 144099.9 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1100 144099.99 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1365 14405 585 1440 485 1440 300 1145 0 0 0 0 0 010 715 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 144099.9 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 144099.99 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440Bradenton, FL - Raised Bed / Poly TarpedYuma, AZ - Raised Bed / Poly TarpedMax (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 MethodVentura Maximum PERFUM Buffer ResultsVentura Whole Field PERFUM Buffer ResultsPage 136 of 1935 0 55 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 010 5 95 0 55 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 015 15 130 0 80 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 020 25 165 5 105 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 025 35 195 5 130 0 30 0 0 0 0 0 030 45 220 10 150 0 40 0 0 0 0 0 035 50 245 20 165 0 50 0 0 0 0 0 040 60 270 30 185 0 60 0 0 0 0 0 045 65 295 35 205 0 75 0 0 0 0 0 050 70 325 40 225 5 85 0 0 0 0 0 055 80 345 50 250 5 100 0 5 0 0 0 060 85 375 55 275 5 110 0 5 0 5 0 065 95 405 60 295 5 125 0 20 0 5 0 070 105 445 70 320 5 145 0 35 0 15 0 575 115 475 80 355 5 160 5 55 0 35 0 580 125 520 85 385 5 185 5 85 5 55 0 585 140 580 100 430 5 205 10 135 5 95 0 2590 160 665 115 495 30 245 35 210 10 150 0 5595 195 805 140 595 55 300 65 325 40 240 5 11097 215 875 160 660 65 345 90 405 60 305 5 15099 260 1120 195 820 95 420 135 580 95 445 20 23099.9 375 1440 275 1245 135 605 220 890 165 685 75 38099.99 410 1440 290 1440 155 655 300 1215 240 945 120 5605 190 750 145 555 75 290 0 0 0 0 0 010 240 915 185 700 100 395 0 0 0 0 0 015 280 1065 220 830 125 485 0 0 0 0 0 020 315 1195 250 935 145 555 0 0 0 0 0 025 345 1330 275 1050 160 605 0 0 0 0 0 030 370 1440 295 1145 175 675 0 0 0 0 0 035 395 1440 315 1240 190 725 0 5 0 0 0 040 425 1440 340 1345 200 785 0 15 0 10 0 545 455 1440 365 1440 215 845 5 35 0 25 0 1550 480 1440 385 1440 230 905 10 55 5 45 0 2555 510 1440 405 1440 245 970 20 80 15 65 5 4560 535 1440 430 1440 260 1025 30 115 25 95 10 6565 560 1440 450 1440 275 1100 45 165 35 140 15 9070 590 1440 475 1440 290 1165 65 235 50 200 25 13075 620 1440 500 1440 305 1240 90 340 70 285 40 18580 670 1440 535 1440 330 1325 125 480 100 405 60 26085 710 1440 565 1440 360 1440 175 675 140 565 85 37590 785 1440 640 1440 410 1440 245 955 205 795 130 53595 915 1440 745 1440 480 1440 365 1440 305 1195 195 78097 995 1440 810 1440 520 1440 445 1440 370 1440 235 95099 1160 1440 955 1440 605 1440 595 1440 490 1440 325 129099.9 1440 1440 1255 1440 760 1440 935 1440 765 1440 510 144099.99 1440 1440 1440 1440 955 1440 1190 1440 975 1440 630 1440Max (455 lb/A) 80% (364 lb/A) 50% (227.5 lb/A)50% (227.5 lb/A)USDA, GA - Raised Bed / VIF Tarped Field 1USDA, GA - Raised Bed / Poly Tarped Field 2Max (455 lb/A) 80% (364 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)Page 137 of 1935 60 240 40 165 5 65 0 0 0 0 0 010 75 295 55 215 15 100 0 0 0 0 0 015 95 350 65 260 20 120 0 0 0 0 0 020 105 400 75 295 30 140 0 0 0 0 0 025 115 445 85 335 35 160 0 0 0 0 0 030 130 485 95 365 40 185 0 0 0 0 0 035 140 530 105 405 45 205 0 0 0 0 0 040 155 580 115 440 55 225 0 5 0 0 0 045 165 620 120 480 60 250 0 10 0 5 0 050 175 670 130 515 65 275 0 20 0 15 0 555 185 735 145 555 70 300 5 35 0 25 0 560 200 785 155 605 80 325 5 50 5 40 0 1065 215 865 165 655 85 355 10 75 5 55 0 2070 230 950 175 710 95 385 20 105 10 80 5 3575 250 1040 190 770 105 425 30 145 20 110 5 5580 275 1155 210 860 115 465 45 210 35 160 5 8585 300 1280 235 950 130 525 70 295 50 230 15 12590 335 1440 265 1115 150 610 100 420 75 335 35 19095 405 1440 315 1415 180 755 155 625 120 500 65 29597 460 1440 360 1440 205 865 195 770 150 615 85 36599 525 1440 435 1440 260 1120 270 1120 215 880 125 53099.9 615 1440 525 1440 325 1440 440 1440 360 1440 215 90099.99 690 1440 550 1440 360 1440 550 1440 450 1440 290 11705 5 65 0 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 010 15 85 5 50 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 015 20 105 5 65 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 020 25 120 5 75 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 025 30 135 10 90 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 030 35 155 15 100 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 035 40 170 20 115 0 35 0 0 0 0 0 040 45 190 25 130 5 40 0 0 0 0 0 045 50 215 30 145 5 50 0 0 0 0 0 050 60 235 35 165 5 60 0 5 0 0 0 055 65 260 40 185 5 70 0 5 0 5 0 060 70 290 45 205 5 80 0 15 0 5 0 065 80 325 55 235 5 95 0 25 0 10 0 070 90 360 60 255 10 110 5 35 0 20 0 575 100 395 70 290 15 130 5 55 5 35 0 580 110 445 80 325 25 155 10 80 5 50 0 1085 125 495 90 370 35 180 15 110 5 75 0 2090 145 585 110 440 45 220 30 170 15 120 5 4595 180 745 130 545 60 280 60 275 40 205 5 9097 200 890 150 645 70 320 80 345 55 260 10 13099 245 1165 185 775 90 415 125 515 90 395 40 21099.9 335 1440 275 1310 145 625 210 880 165 660 80 36599.99 405 1440 315 1440 170 715 305 1280 240 955 135 535Dover, FL- Raised Bed / Metalized Tarped80% (364 lb/A) 50% (227.5 lb/A)Max (455 lb/A) 80% (364 lb/A) 50% (227.5 lb/A)USDA, GA - Raised Bed / Poly Tarped Field 3Max (455 lb/A)Max (455 lb/A) 80% (364 lb/A) 50% (227.5 lb/A)80% (364 lb/A) 50% (227.5 lb/A)Max (455 lb/A)Page 138 of 1935 195 730 150 560 75 305 0 0 0 0 0 010 250 965 190 720 100 400 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 1550 540 1440 435 1440 260 1030 10 60 5 50 0 3055 580 1440 460 1440 280 1110 20 85 15 75 5 4560 610 1440 485 1440 300 1190 30 120 25 105 10 7065 640 1440 520 1440 320 1285 45 175 40 150 20 10070 695 1440 565 1440 345 1405 65 245 55 210 30 14075 770 1440 615 1440 375 1440 95 345 80 295 45 20080 845 1440 670 1440 405 1440 130 480 110 410 65 28085 905 1440 720 1440 445 1440 180 680 150 580 95 39090 1000 1440 810 1440 495 1440 260 985 215 840 140 56595 1125 1440 910 1440 575 1440 395 1440 330 1295 215 87097 1220 1440 990 1440 625 1440 490 1440 415 1440 270 108599 1360 1440 1130 1440 735 1440 695 1440 580 1440 390 144099.9 1440 1440 1440 1440 1010 1440 1120 1440 915 1440 600 144099.99 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1295 1440 855 14405 105 335 80 265 40 145 0 0 0 0 0 010 125 395 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 1550 225 760 180 610 100 355 15 75 10 60 0 3055 240 825 190 650 110 385 25 100 15 80 5 4060 260 890 205 710 120 415 35 135 25 105 5 6065 280 995 225 780 135 460 45 170 35 135 15 7570 315 1125 250 880 145 515 60 210 45 170 20 10075 355 1330 280 1030 165 585 75 260 60 210 30 12580 395 1440 320 1165 190 680 90 320 75 265 40 16085 445 1440 360 1370 220 800 115 400 95 325 55 20590 505 1440 415 1440 265 955 150 510 120 415 75 26595 590 1440 480 1440 300 1115 210 715 170 595 110 38597 630 1440 520 1440 340 1290 260 900 215 740 135 48599 760 1440 640 1440 420 1440 375 1380 315 1120 210 73099.9 905 1440 775 1440 540 1440 600 1440 505 1440 340 125599.99 935 1440 800 1440 550 1440 790 1440 670 1440 460 144050% (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)Drip Irrigation Application Method80% (364 lb/A) 50% (227.5 lb/A)80% (364 lb/A) 50% (227.5 lb/A) Max (455 lb/A)Nipomo, CA - Raised Bed / Poly TarpedMax (455 lb/A)Cantua, CA - Broadcast / Poly TarpedPage 139 of 193D029088/Appendix ETable 13: Chloropicrin Data Analysis - Summary Of All LocationPERFUM Maximum Buffer Results For All Flux Types With 5 And 40Acre Square Fields At Maximum Application Rate (455 lb ai/A)VenturaTallahasseeFlintBradentonBakersfieldYakima5 A40 A5 A40 A5 A40 A5 A40 A5 A40 A5 A40 A501410 1440 1025 1440 755 1440 1440 1440 1295 1440 815 1440751440 1440 1440 1440 1375 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1275 1440901440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440951440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440991440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 144099.91440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440501440 1440 1440 1440 1080 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1405 1440751440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440901440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440951440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440991440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 144099.91440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440501255406534550225185775904257032575245970135540120500310 1235 15562511547590340 1375 230930205845430 1440 21589516066595390 1440 275 1150 250 1025 515 1440 255 1045 19580599485 1440 375 1440 360 1440 630 1440 320 1350 260 112099.9555 1440 475 1440 495 1440 800 1440 375 1440 375 144050765 1440 610 1440 660 1440 920 1440 655 1440 480 1440751005 1440 740 1440 1185 1440 1200 1440 765 1440 620 1440901310 1440 1060 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 970 1440 785 1440951440 1440 1210 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1120 1440 915 1440991440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1365 1440 1160 144099.91440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 144050250965185690160615290 1090 23596017567075430 1440 280 1170 265 1100 465 1440 310 1310 250 104090580 1440 420 1440 405 1440 640 1440 410 1440 335 144095695 1440 515 1440 510 1440 735 1440 480 1440 405 144099855 1440 620 1440 725 1440 915 1440 650 1440 525 144099.9990 1440 960 1440 1010 1440 1050 1440 760 1440 615 14405080320652755523510539570310602357517066011546010041518068011547010039590260 1040 180715165695270 1045 17068014558595330 1330 220885210880310 1275 20581018074599420 1440 300 1290 320 1440 410 1440 265 1110 245 116599.9500 1440 420 1440 525 1440 485 1440 340 1440 335 144050810 144001440 430 1440 975 1440 780 1440 540 1440751195 1440501440 715 1440 1370 1440 1045 1440 770 1440901430 1440 165 1440 1035 1440 1440 1440 1205 1440 1000 1440951440 1440 260 1440 1245 1440 1440 1440 1395 1440 1125 1440991440 1440 465 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1360 144099.91440 1440 810 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 144050245775245820240845335 1120 24082522576075290985340 1225 305 1115 425 1440 310 1115 355 133090370 1350 440 1440 390 1440 545 1440 395 1440 505 144095435 1440 515 1440 460 1440 635 1440 455 1440 590 144099840 1440 690 1440 760 1440 805 1440 590 1440 760 144099.91440 1440 835 1440 1440 1440 1030 1440 805 1440 905 1440Dover, FL - Shank Raised Bed / Metalized TarpedCantua, CA - Shank Broadcast / Poly TarpedNipomo, CA - Drip Irrigation Raised Bed / Poly TarpedBradenton, FL - Shank Raised Bed / Poly TarpedYuma, AZ - Shank Raised Bed / Poly TarpedTifton, GA - Shank Raised Bed / VIF Tarped Field 1Tifton, GA - Shank Raised Bed / Poly Tarped Field 2Tifton, GA - Shank Raised Bed / Poly Tarped Field 3Page 140 of 193Appendix E/Figure 7: Maximum 95th Percentile Chloropicrin Maximum DistanceShank Injection Buffer Results For 40 Acre Fields At Maximum Application Rate0200400600800100012001400 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 TarpedSource of Flux Profile

Buffer Distance (meters)Ventura CATallahassee FLFlint MIBradenton FLBakersfield CAYakima WAPage 141 of 193D029088/Appendix ETable 14: Chloropicrin Data Analysis - Summary Of All Location PERFUM Whole Field Buffer Results For All Flux Types With 5 And40 Acre Square Fields At Maximum Application Rate (455 lb ai/A)VenturaTallahasseeFlintBradentonBakersfieldYakima5 A40 A5 A40 A5 A40 A5 A40 A5 A40 A5 A40 A50 0100100200 510 70 20 85756021080290852907023011549012041090380 1440 325 1175 305 1035 335 1095 345 1440 365 133595765 1440 565 1440 500 1440 690 1440 590 1440 555 1440991440 1440 1220 1440 1145 1440 1440 1440 1300 1440 1075 144099.91440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 144050 020030030020 20 95 25 100758527512040512040010032521069519063090465 1440 515 1440 445 1440 515 1440 640 1440 555 144095955 1440 890 1440 710 1440 1025 1440 1050 1440 840 1440991440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 144099.91440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 1440 144050 00000000000075 55004503557059055590553054020530165803055026035210951155457534565295145545853756532599280 1175 175690160650300 1135 17568513558099.9435 1440 305 1230 295 1210 680 1440 275 1115 22089050 0 5 0100100 010 70 10 5575501806525065235602001154209034090290 1190 245915210740270890300 1125 24595595530 1440 400 1440 330 1235 500 1440 430 1440 365 144099960 1440 695 1440 640 1440 1000 1440 690 1440 595 144099.91440 1440 1200 1440 1170 1440 1440 1440 1065 1440 935 144050 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 025020752510020105251252510545185301459011548095380953651204051254651004209521589516063015057020571018568015562599455 1440 310 1255 300 1190 425 1440 305 1165 270 112099.9750 1440 550 1440 565 1440 705 1440 490 1440 440 144050 00000000050575 550545555555575555904521040180351656021545190301709590405703006526510035570300602759921588014560014056019571013552012551599.9370 1440 255 1090 265 1145 320 1265 220865210880500107351501001056010607560195 1060 27065230702451154259534590250895 1215 940215750295995325 1220 26098595480 1440 1420 1440 335 1265 510 1440 485 1440 395 1440991030 1440 1440 1440 705 1440 1095 1440 835 1440 695 144099.91440 1440 1440 1440 1335 1440 1440 1440 1295 1440 1120 14405000535010535025157575451456021050180752407023575260901354101455051404801755351504801505109519058021075019568524576520065521071599285900355 1305 315 1175 395 1310 315 1110 375 138099.9510 1440 575 1440 530 1440 625 1440 490 1440 600 1440Dover, FL - Shank Raised Bed / Metalized TarpedCantua, CA - Shank Broadcast / Poly TarpedNipomo, CA - Drip Irrigation Raised Bed / Poly TarpedBradenton, FL - Shank Raised Bed / Poly TarpedYuma, AZ - Shank Raised Bed / Poly TarpedTifton, GA - Shank Raised Bed / VIF Tarped Field 1Tifton, GA - Shank Raised Bed / Poly Tarped Field 2Tifton, GA - Shank Raised Bed / VIF Tarped Field 3Page 142 of 193Page 143 of 193Appendix E/Figure 8: Maximum 95th Percentile DMDS Whole Field BufferResults For 40 Acre Fields At Maximum Application Rate0200400600800100012001400 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 TarpedSource of Flux Profile

Buffer Distance (meters )Ventura CATallahassee FLFlint MIBradenton FLBakersfield CAYakima WA

### Page 144 of 193 

# Appendix F: Air Concentration Outputs from DMDS Applications Estimated with

PERFUM for Preplant Agricultural UsePERFUM Results from directory C:\Documents and Settings\CSMITH02\My Documents\Dmds\PERFUM Runs 1-15-10\DMDS_01152010\ventura\bradenton_fluxResults 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 Ring1550 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 055 98 58 18 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 060362 288 192 82 28 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 065728 622 492 352 222 62 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0701152 1062 938 728 548 322 62 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0751562 1488 1372 1178 1008 708 338 132 72 38 18 2 2 2 0801922 1868 1778 1628 1478 1192 762 472 378 302 238 138 52 18 2852358 2302 2218 2088 1952 1708 1282 992 873 772 678 522 358 258 182902498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2348 1912 1588 1452 1328 1218 1038 828 678 558952498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2398 2228 2078 1828 1522 1292 1118972498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2428 2042 1748 1512992498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 227899.92498 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 Ring3050 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 055 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 060 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 065 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 070 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 075 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 080 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 085 128 88 62 28 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 290462 388 328 232 0 138 108 82 58 38 28 18 12 12 895972 868 778 628 0 428 362 308 232 182 142 118 98 82 68971322 1182 1062 862 0 612 533 468 368 298 248 208 178 152 132992022 1818 1632 1348 0 972 838 732 588 478 402 348 302 272 24299.92498 2498 2398 2002 0 1488 1308 1178 962 808 688 598 522 462 4120Results 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 Ring1550462 368 258 128 52 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 055992 892 752 548 382 162 12 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0601688 1552 1358 1082 898 592 208 42 12 2 2 2 0 0 0652342 2232 2068 1788 1542 1138 652 342 232 148 88 22 2 2 0702498 2498 2498 2458 2232 1832 1218 828 683 562 452 282 112 32 2752498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 1932 1482 1298 1138 992 768 533 352 218802498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2212 2038 1882 1742 1498 1198 948 748852498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2302 1968 1702 1488902498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2372952498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498972498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498992498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 249899.92498 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 Ring3050 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 055 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 060 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 065 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 070 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 075 122 62 28 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 080592 488 392 248 142 72 32 12 2 2 2 2 0 0 0851322 1172 1048 833 662 522 418 342 238 158 108 68 42 28 18902158 1972 1822 1552 1328 1158 1012 888 718 582 472 388 322 272 228952498 2498 2498 2498 2342 2088 1872 1692 1408 1202 1048 928 828 738 662972498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2262 1902 1622 1418 1258 1118 1002 902992498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2382 2118 1882 1692 1528 139299.92498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2448 2252 2082Page 145 of 193Page 146 of 193PERFUM Results from directory C:\Documents and Settings\CSMITH02\My Documents\Dmds\PERFUM Runs 1-15-10\DMDS_01152010\ventura\yuma_fluxResults 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 Ring1550 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 055262 178 88 18 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 060938 808 612 348 168 18 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0651538 1422 1272 1008 752 348 22 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0702178 2072 1892 1612 1378 953 352 72 22 8 2 2 0 0 0752498 2498 2498 2288 2022 1552 908 478 322 202 118 32 2 2 2802498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2268 1528 1058 873 718 582 372 168 62 22852498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2322 1752 1532 1348 1202 962 683 482 332902498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2258 2052 1732 1362 1078 878952498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2432 2088 1812972498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2392992498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 249899.92498 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 Ring3050 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 055 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 060 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 065 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 070 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 075 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 080 8 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 085228 152 98 42 18 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 290732 612 512 368 268 198 148 108 68 42 28 18 12 8 8951578 1392 1222 968 788 648 538 452 338 262 208 168 142 118 102972078 1822 1638 1368 1152 983 842 738 568 448 362 302 252 222 192992498 2498 2498 2158 1782 1518 1308 1138 912 772 662 573 502 448 39899.92498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2272 2012 1648 1392 1188 1038 908 808 718Results 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 Ring15501192 1032 808 508 288 68 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0552262 2122 1912 1558 1242 738 168 12 2 2 2 0 0 0 0602498 2498 2498 2498 2188 1658 888 392 232 122 58 8 2 0 0652498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 1712 1128 898 703 533 278 68 8 2702498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 1932 1672 1448 1242 902 522 258 102752498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2288 2062 1678 1228 878 608802498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2092 1722 1418852498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2418902498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498952498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498972498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498992498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 249899.92498 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 Ring3050 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 055 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 060 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 065 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 070 28 8 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 075398 242 132 28 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0801152 938 752 462 262 138 62 28 2 2 2 2 0 0 0852082 1822 1618 1298 1038 812 638 492 278 152 78 42 18 8 2902498 2498 2498 2402 2038 1748 1502 1282 988 792 638 518 418 338 278952498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2168 1848 1602 1398 1218 1078 953972498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2418 2082 1878 1702 1552 1408992498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2398 216299.92498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498Page 147 of 193PERFUM Results from directory C:\Documents and Settings\CSMITH02\My Documents\Dmds\PERFUM Runs 1-15-10\DMDS_01152010\ventura\dover_fluxResults 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 Ring1550 38 28 18 8 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 05568 58 48 32 18 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 060 102 92 78 58 42 22 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 065138 128 112 88 68 42 18 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 270172 162 148 122 102 72 38 18 12 8 8 2 2 2 275212 202 182 162 138 102 62 38 28 22 18 12 8 2 280248 242 228 202 182 142 92 62 52 48 38 28 18 12 885298 288 272 252 228 192 142 108 92 78 72 58 38 28 2290362 352 338 318 292 252 198 158 142 128 118 98 78 62 4895472 468 452 438 418 372 302 248 228 208 192 168 138 112 9897558 548 538 522 508 468 392 328 302 282 262 228 188 158 13299703 703 698 688 678 638 553 478 448 412 388 342 288 248 21899.9938 938 942 942 928 898 808 708 668 628 592 533 452 392 348%tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring3050 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 055 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 060 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 065 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 070 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 075 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 280 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 285 18 12 8 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 29038 32 28 18 12 12 8 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 29582 72 62 48 38 32 28 22 18 12 8 8 8 2 297118 102 92 72 58 48 42 38 28 22 18 12 12 8 899192 168 152 122 102 88 72 68 52 42 38 32 28 22 1899.9312 282 258 218 182 158 138 122 98 78 68 58 52 42 38Results 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 Ring1550132 122 108 82 68 48 18 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 255188 172 158 128 108 78 42 22 18 12 8 2 2 2 260242 228 208 182 158 118 72 48 38 32 22 12 8 2 265302 288 262 232 208 162 112 78 62 52 48 32 18 12 870362 348 328 292 262 218 158 118 102 88 78 58 42 28 1875422 408 388 358 328 282 212 162 148 132 118 98 72 52 4280488 478 458 428 398 352 282 232 212 192 178 152 118 98 7885582 568 548 518 488 438 358 308 282 268 248 222 188 158 13890728 712 692 658 628 568 482 418 392 368 348 312 272 238 21295972 962 948 922 892 838 738 658 622 588 562 512 448 398 358971142 1138 1118 1092 1062 1008 902 812 772 738 703 648 578 522 472991442 1442 1432 1408 1382 1328 1202 1098 1052 1008 968 898 802 728 66899.91922 1938 1928 1902 1882 1822 1678 1538 1478 1422 1372 1282 1162 1062 972%tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring3050 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 055 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 060 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 065 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 070 12 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 07532 22 18 12 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 28068 52 42 32 22 18 12 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 285122 102 92 72 58 42 32 28 18 12 8 8 2 2 290192 172 158 132 112 98 82 72 52 42 32 28 22 18 1295322 298 272 232 202 178 158 142 118 98 82 72 62 52 4897432 398 362 312 272 242 212 192 162 138 118 102 92 82 7299618 573 533 468 412 372 338 308 258 222 192 172 152 138 12299.9898 838 788 703 633 568 518 472 402 358 318 288 258 238 218Page 148 of 193PERFUM Results from directory C:\Documents and Settings\CSMITH02\My Documents\Dmds\PERFUM Runs 1-15-10\DMDS_01152010\ventura\cantua_fluxResults 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 Ring1550 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 055 78 52 22 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 060268 232 178 102 48 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 065468 422 368 292 222 102 8 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 070673 638 588 492 402 282 102 18 8 2 2 2 0 0 075892 862 812 718 633 478 272 142 98 58 32 8 2 2 2801162 1122 1068 972 892 728 478 312 262 218 172 112 48 18 2851468 1438 1388 1298 1198 1018 758 568 492 428 378 288 202 142 98901898 1872 1822 1732 1638 1448 1132 898 812 742 678 568 442 352 282952498 2498 2482 2412 2342 2158 1792 1498 1382 1278 1178 1028 852 708 602972498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2262 1942 1798 1672 1562 1362 1128 958 822992498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2422 2288 2038 1722 1482 129299.92498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2258 1988%tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring3050 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 055 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 060 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 065 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 070 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 075 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 080 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 08568 42 28 12 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 290228 182 152 108 78 58 42 32 18 12 8 2 2 2 295518 452 402 318 258 212 178 148 108 78 62 52 42 38 3297723 648 578 468 388 322 278 242 188 148 118 98 82 68 62991138 1012 908 742 612 522 452 402 328 272 232 198 172 152 13899.91762 1582 1438 1202 1038 902 788 698 573 478 412 358 312 278 248Results 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 Ring1550348 302 238 148 82 18 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 055658 612 558 458 368 218 48 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 060962 908 833 732 648 492 262 118 68 32 18 2 2 0 0651308 1252 1178 1058 942 752 512 338 268 212 158 82 18 2 2701678 1632 1552 1418 1298 1088 778 582 508 438 378 272 158 78 28752078 2022 1948 1822 1702 1482 1132 883 783 692 618 508 372 268 182802498 2498 2442 2302 2158 1928 1562 1282 1168 1072 978 822 648 512 422852498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2108 1778 1652 1542 1448 1272 1068 908 788902498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2392 2258 2132 1902 1642 1442 1282952498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2432 2198972498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498992498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 249899.92498 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 Ring3050 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 055 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 060 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 065 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 070 8 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 075 122 72 38 8 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 080348 282 228 142 78 38 18 8 2 2 2 2 0 0 085678 588 512 388 302 242 188 148 82 42 22 12 2 2 2901148 1038 942 792 662 562 488 422 312 238 188 152 122 102 82951988 1822 1678 1428 1242 1102 988 878 718 602 518 458 398 352 312972498 2378 2188 1898 1662 1468 1312 1182 983 842 742 658 582 522 472992498 2498 2498 2498 2468 2212 1992 1808 1522 1312 1152 1022 912 822 74299.92498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2278 1988 1782 1608 1452 1338 1248Page 149 of 193PERFUM Results from directory C:\Documents and Settings\CSMITH02\My Documents\Dmds\PERFUM Runs 1-15-10\DMDS_01152010\ventura\nipomo_fluxResults 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 Ring1550 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 055 32 22 12 8 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 060188 158 122 72 42 18 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 065402 372 318 242 182 102 28 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 270633 582 508 412 332 222 98 42 28 18 12 2 2 2 275838 783 698 578 488 352 192 112 82 62 48 32 12 8 280978 933 862 742 648 492 308 202 162 138 112 82 48 32 18851082 1048 992 892 802 648 442 318 272 232 202 152 108 72 52901192 1162 1102 1012 922 783 582 448 398 352 312 252 188 142 108951372 1332 1272 1168 1072 918 708 568 512 468 432 362 288 232 188971492 1458 1398 1288 1188 1022 792 638 578 528 488 412 332 272 228991812 1772 1702 1588 1472 1288 1012 822 752 688 633 542 438 362 30899.92498 2498 2498 2492 2498 2498 2022 1692 1532 1402 1268 1072 868 712 608%tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring3050 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 055 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 060 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 065 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 070 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 075 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 280 12 8 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 28542 32 22 12 8 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 29082 68 52 38 28 18 12 8 8 2 2 2 2 2 295158 132 112 82 62 48 38 32 22 12 12 8 8 8 297192 168 142 108 88 68 58 48 32 22 18 18 12 12 899262 228 198 158 128 102 88 72 58 42 32 28 22 18 1899.9518 458 402 318 262 222 188 162 122 102 88 72 62 58 52Results 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 Ring1550 118 92 68 38 22 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 055458 418 352 278 218 132 48 18 8 2 2 2 2 2 260762 718 642 542 462 342 188 108 78 58 42 22 8 2 2651048 992 898 783 692 542 348 232 192 158 128 82 48 22 12701278 1222 1122 1002 898 732 512 368 318 272 232 172 112 72 48751462 1412 1312 1198 1092 918 683 522 462 408 362 288 208 148 112801598 1562 1478 1378 1278 1108 862 692 622 568 518 432 332 262 208851732 1692 1612 1518 1428 1268 1038 873 802 742 688 598 488 402 338901892 1852 1778 1678 1582 1418 1178 1012 948 888 838 748 642 558 482952188 2142 2062 1948 1842 1658 1388 1202 1128 1062 1002 902 788 692 618972418 2368 2288 2172 2058 1862 1568 1358 1272 1202 1138 1028 898 792 708992498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2428 2072 1802 1692 1598 1512 1368 1198 1062 95899.92498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2472 2212%tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring3050 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 055 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 060 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 065 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 070 28 18 12 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 27582 62 48 22 12 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 280162 132 108 72 48 32 22 18 8 2 2 2 2 2 285282 238 202 142 108 78 62 48 28 18 12 8 8 2 290422 372 328 258 202 162 128 102 72 52 38 28 22 18 1295558 502 458 382 322 272 232 202 152 118 92 72 58 48 3897638 578 528 442 378 322 282 248 192 158 128 102 88 72 6299862 788 718 608 522 452 398 352 282 232 192 168 142 128 11299.91982 1768 1588 1348 1132 972 848 752 622 533 448 388 338 302 272Page 150 of 193PERFUM Results from directory C:\Documents and Settings\CSMITH02\My Documents\Dmds\PERFUM Runs 1-15-10\TIFTON_DMDS_012810\Ventura\Field1Results 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 Ring1550 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 055 8 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 060 32 22 18 8 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 065 68 52 42 32 18 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 070 128 112 92 68 48 28 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 075 182 172 158 128 102 68 28 12 2 2 2 2 2 2 080 222 218 208 188 168 132 78 42 32 28 22 12 2 2 285 268 262 258 242 228 198 148 108 92 78 68 48 32 22 1290 348 342 328 312 298 272 222 188 168 152 142 118 92 72 5895 472 468 468 462 452 422 362 302 278 258 238 208 172 148 13297 553 553 548 548 538 518 452 398 372 348 328 288 242 202 17299 692 692 698 703 703 692 628 558 528 492 468 418 358 308 27299.9 833 838 848 858 862 862 802 723 688 652 622 562 492 432 38845 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 050 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 055 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 060 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 065 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 070 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 075 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 080 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 085 8 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 290 48 38 32 22 12 12 8 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 295 118 102 92 72 58 48 42 32 22 18 12 12 8 8 897 152 132 118 98 82 72 62 52 42 32 28 22 18 18 1299 242 218 198 162 138 118 98 88 68 58 48 42 38 32 2899.9 348 318 288 242 208 182 158 142 118 98 82 72 62 58 48Results 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 Ring1550 42 32 22 12 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 055 88 78 68 48 32 12 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 060 168 148 128 98 82 52 18 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 065 258 242 218 182 152 108 58 28 18 12 8 2 2 2 070 338 328 308 272 242 192 118 78 62 52 42 22 8 2 275 418 408 388 362 332 282 208 152 132 112 98 72 48 32 1880 498 492 478 452 428 378 308 248 228 208 188 158 122 92 6885 608 592 578 553 533 492 422 368 342 318 298 262 222 192 16890 808 798 778 752 723 668 573 502 472 448 428 392 348 312 27895 1058 1058 1048 1032 1008 968 883 802 768 732 703 648 578 522 47297 1222 1222 1212 1202 1188 1148 1052 958 922 883 852 788 712 648 59299 1498 1502 1502 1492 1478 1442 1348 1252 1208 1162 1122 1052 958 873 80299.9 1748 1768 1768 1762 1752 1722 1622 1512 1462 1412 1368 1282 1172 1088 100845 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 050 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 055 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 060 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 065 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 070 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 075 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 080 52 42 32 22 12 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 085 142 128 108 82 62 48 38 28 18 12 8 2 2 2 290 252 232 212 182 158 132 118 102 78 58 48 38 28 22 1895 432 398 362 312 268 238 212 192 162 142 122 112 98 88 7897 548 508 472 418 368 328 298 268 222 188 162 142 128 118 10899 748 698 652 578 512 462 418 382 328 288 252 228 208 188 168Page 151 of 193PERFUM Results from directory C:\Documents and Settings\CSMITH02\My Documents\Dmds\PERFUM Runs 1-15-10\PERFUM Runs 2-3-10\Ventura\Field2Results 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 Ring1550 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 055 68 38 18 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 060248 198 132 58 18 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 065482 422 342 228 142 42 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 070688 642 578 462 358 202 38 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 075852 822 772 688 602 438 212 82 48 22 12 2 2 2 0801042 1008 958 888 822 692 462 302 242 192 152 88 32 12 2851318 1278 1222 1132 1052 922 728 573 512 458 408 328 232 162 118901652 1622 1582 1518 1442 1278 1008 838 772 712 662 578 472 392 328952222 2208 2182 2142 2088 1958 1678 1422 1318 1222 1138 992 818 683 582972498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2458 2168 1878 1748 1632 1528 1348 1132 968 838992498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2438 2298 2172 1942 1662 1442 126899.92498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2232 1972 1752%tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring3050 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 055 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 060 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 065 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 070 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 075 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 080 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 08582 58 42 18 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 290278 238 202 148 112 88 68 52 32 22 18 12 8 8 895508 452 408 338 282 238 202 178 132 108 82 68 58 48 4297732 648 573 458 378 318 278 242 192 158 132 112 98 82 72991118 1002 898 738 618 522 452 398 312 252 212 182 158 138 12299.91572 1428 1302 1092 938 812 712 633 518 428 362 312 278 242 218Results 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 Ring1550298 238 168 88 38 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 055678 602 498 358 252 108 8 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0601048 978 873 712 578 372 132 28 8 2 2 2 0 0 0651368 1308 1218 1072 942 718 402 208 138 88 52 12 2 2 0701648 1602 1532 1408 1288 1078 748 512 422 342 278 172 72 22 2751932 1888 1822 1722 1618 1428 1118 883 783 698 622 488 338 222 138802358 2292 2198 2062 1952 1782 1498 1262 1162 1078 1002 873 718 588 482852498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2292 1912 1662 1562 1478 1402 1268 1102 968 858902498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2418 2278 2148 2032 1828 1578 1388 1242952498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2438 2218972498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498992498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 249899.92498 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 Ring3050 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 055 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 060 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 065 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 070 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 075 78 38 18 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 080392 318 258 162 98 52 28 12 2 2 2 2 2 0 085762 683 618 502 412 342 278 228 158 108 72 52 32 22 12901128 1032 958 828 732 648 578 518 422 352 292 248 208 178 148952032 1868 1722 1488 1302 1152 1028 922 752 628 548 482 432 392 358972498 2408 2238 1952 1718 1522 1372 1242 1042 892 778 683 598 528 472992498 2498 2498 2498 2382 2148 1948 1782 1518 1318 1158 1028 918 833 75899.92498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2372 2068 1822 1638 1482 1352 1238 1138Page 152 of 193PERFUM Results from directory C:\Documents and Settings\CSMITH02\My Documents\Dmds\PERFUM Runs 1-15-10\PERFUM Runs 2-3-10\Ventura\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 Ring1550 18 12 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 05582 62 42 18 8 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 060148 132 108 72 42 12 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 065222 202 172 132 102 58 12 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 070298 278 248 202 162 108 48 18 8 2 2 2 2 2 275382 362 332 282 242 178 98 52 42 28 22 8 2 2 280462 448 422 382 342 268 172 112 92 78 62 42 22 12 885562 548 522 478 442 378 272 208 178 158 138 108 72 52 3890712 698 668 622 578 508 398 322 292 268 242 202 162 128 10895968 953 938 902 868 792 652 538 492 452 418 362 302 258 218971132 1128 1118 1098 1068 998 852 728 673 622 582 508 418 348 298991398 1398 1392 1392 1372 1322 1178 1028 968 908 852 758 642 558 48899.91798 1808 1822 1832 1832 1792 1638 1478 1398 1312 1248 1122 968 852 752%tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring3050 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 055 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 060 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 065 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 070 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 075 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 080 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 285 28 22 18 8 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 29088 72 62 42 32 22 18 12 8 8 2 2 2 2 295188 162 142 112 92 78 62 52 38 28 22 18 12 12 1297258 228 208 168 138 118 98 88 68 52 42 32 28 22 2299428 378 342 278 232 198 172 148 118 98 82 72 62 52 4899.9673 608 558 468 392 338 298 262 212 178 152 128 112 98 88Results 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 Ring1550192 172 142 102 78 32 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 055292 272 238 192 158 108 42 12 2 2 2 2 2 2 060408 382 348 292 252 182 102 58 38 28 18 8 2 2 265538 512 468 408 358 278 178 118 98 78 62 38 12 2 270668 642 602 542 488 392 272 192 168 142 122 92 58 32 1875798 772 738 683 628 538 402 308 268 238 212 168 122 88 6280948 922 892 833 783 692 553 452 412 378 348 292 232 182 148851168 1138 1092 1028 978 883 728 618 578 538 508 448 382 328 282901518 1492 1452 1388 1322 1202 1018 883 833 788 748 678 588 518 462952062 2048 2018 1962 1912 1812 1612 1448 1378 1312 1248 1138 1012 902 812972392 2388 2362 2328 2288 2188 1972 1782 1698 1622 1552 1428 1282 1152 1052992498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2332 2238 2152 2068 1918 1732 1582 145899.92498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2372 2182 2028%tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring3050 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 055 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 060 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 065 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 070 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 075 48 32 22 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 080 118 98 78 52 38 22 12 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 285248 218 192 148 118 92 72 58 38 28 18 12 8 8 290412 372 342 288 248 212 182 162 128 98 78 68 52 42 3895732 668 612 518 448 398 358 322 268 228 192 168 148 132 11897962 888 822 718 628 558 498 448 368 308 272 242 218 192 172991352 1258 1172 1032 922 833 752 683 578 502 438 388 348 312 28299.91898 1778 1672 1492 1352 1228 1118 1028 892 783 703 633 562 518 472Page 153 of 193PERFUM Results from directory C:\Documents and Settings\CSMITH02\My Documents\Dmds\PERFUM Runs 1-15-10\DMDS_01152010\bradenton\bradenton_fluxResults 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 Ring1550 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 055 22 8 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 060252 192 122 42 12 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 065638 568 482 338 212 62 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0701278 1188 1052 833 642 402 102 8 2 2 2 0 0 0 0751908 1832 1718 1522 1332 972 468 212 128 72 32 2 2 2 0802498 2498 2398 2212 2028 1658 1068 642 502 392 308 178 68 18 2852498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2438 1772 1298 1118 953 818 592 372 238 152902498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2082 1868 1682 1502 1218 922 708 548952498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2172 1742 1412 1192972498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2302 1928 1638992498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 249899.92498 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 Ring3050 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 055 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 060 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 065 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 070 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 075 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 080 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 08598 58 32 12 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 090428 332 268 182 128 92 68 48 28 18 12 8 2 2 2951022 873 762 588 478 388 322 268 198 148 118 92 78 62 58971428 1232 1088 868 723 602 512 438 338 268 218 182 152 132 112992228 1972 1762 1428 1192 1012 878 772 608 492 422 362 312 272 24299.92498 2498 2498 2348 2002 1722 1518 1342 1072 888 748 642 558 492 438Results 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 Ring1550198 142 82 28 8 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 055808 718 598 422 282 102 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0601642 1502 1318 1092 928 618 222 48 18 2 2 2 0 0 0652498 2498 2352 2098 1828 1368 818 468 338 232 152 48 2 2 2702498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2398 1668 1128 948 792 658 442 218 82 18752498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2048 1818 1592 1402 1072 723 488 312802498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2308 1948 1492 1138 852852498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2412 1988 1698902498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498952498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498972498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498992498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 249899.92498 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 Ring3050 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 055 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 060 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 065 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 070 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 075 182 98 42 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 080658 502 382 208 102 42 12 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0851422 1202 1012 718 518 372 272 198 98 48 18 8 2 2 2902418 2128 1872 1498 1232 1022 848 703 502 362 278 218 172 138 108952498 2498 2498 2498 2342 1998 1748 1558 1268 1038 868 748 658 578 502972498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2408 2152 1782 1488 1282 1132 1012 902 802992498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2408 2102 1848 1652 1488 134299.92498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2302Page 154 of 193PERFUM Results from directory C:\Documents and Settings\CSMITH02\My Documents\Dmds\PERFUM Runs 1-15-10\DMDS_01152010\bradenton\yuma_fluxResults 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 Ring1550 12 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 055308 212 108 28 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0601068 918 703 418 218 32 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0651922 1782 1572 1242 948 478 52 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0702498 2498 2498 2162 1832 1302 553 152 62 22 2 2 2 0 0752498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2248 1358 778 562 388 258 92 12 2 2802498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2292 1618 1352 1132 938 638 328 148 58852498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2242 1978 1768 1392 992 708 498902498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2262 1788 1402 1142952498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2472 2078972498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498992498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 249899.92498 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 Ring3050 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 055 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 060 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 065 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 070 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 075 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 080 22 8 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 085348 248 172 82 38 18 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 290938 783 658 468 338 252 192 148 92 62 42 32 22 18 12951768 1552 1348 1078 862 712 598 502 378 292 232 192 162 138 118972288 2012 1862 1498 1232 1052 888 768 592 472 382 322 278 238 208992498 2498 2498 2358 1958 1658 1428 1252 1042 868 732 628 553 488 43899.92498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2232 1838 1542 1308 1148 1002 892 798Results 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 Ring15501262 1062 818 508 292 72 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0552498 2472 2202 1772 1402 833 202 22 2 2 2 2 0 0 0602498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2108 1142 538 332 192 98 18 2 2 0652498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2368 1602 1292 1032 812 462 142 22 2702498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2492 2168 1898 1428 888 508 242752498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 1968 1468 1068802498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2178852498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498902498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498952498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498972498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498992498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 249899.92498 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 Ring3050 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 055 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 060 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 065 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 070 92 28 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 075752 512 322 102 18 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0801788 1468 1208 778 488 278 148 72 12 2 2 2 2 0 0852498 2498 2238 1742 1372 1082 852 658 392 242 138 82 48 28 12902498 2498 2498 2498 2402 2018 1722 1502 1162 902 723 582 472 382 312952498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2198 1858 1562 1378 1192 1052 938972498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2238 1948 1718 1568 1408992498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2448 220899.92498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498Page 155 of 193PERFUM Results from directory C:\Documents and Settings\CSMITH02\My Documents\Dmds\PERFUM Runs 1-15-10\DMDS_01152010\bradenton\dover_fluxResults 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 Ring1550 8 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 055 32 28 18 8 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 06078 68 52 32 22 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 065122 112 92 72 58 32 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 270178 162 142 118 98 68 32 12 8 8 2 2 2 2 275238 222 202 172 148 108 62 38 32 22 18 12 2 2 280308 298 278 242 212 168 108 72 58 48 42 28 18 12 885392 382 362 328 292 238 162 118 98 82 72 58 38 28 2290492 482 468 432 398 338 242 182 162 142 128 98 72 58 4295633 622 608 573 538 472 362 288 258 232 212 178 138 112 9297712 703 688 658 622 553 442 358 322 298 272 228 182 148 12899848 842 828 798 762 692 568 478 442 408 378 328 272 228 19899.91018 1018 1012 988 953 883 758 652 608 568 533 472 408 352 308%tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring3050 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 055 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 060 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 065 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 070 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 075 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 080 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 285 18 12 8 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 29032 28 22 18 12 8 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 29578 62 52 42 32 22 18 18 12 8 8 2 2 2 297 108 92 78 62 48 42 32 28 22 18 12 8 8 8 899172 148 132 108 88 78 62 58 42 32 28 22 18 18 1299.9272 248 222 188 158 138 122 108 88 68 58 52 48 42 38Results 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 Ring155088 72 58 38 28 12 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 055152 138 118 92 78 48 18 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 260222 208 182 152 132 98 58 32 22 18 12 2 2 2 265302 288 258 222 198 152 102 72 58 48 42 28 12 8 270392 372 348 312 278 228 158 118 102 88 78 62 42 28 1875492 478 448 412 378 318 238 182 162 142 128 102 78 58 4280608 592 568 528 492 428 328 262 238 218 198 162 128 102 8285742 728 708 662 622 553 448 368 338 312 288 248 198 162 13290908 898 873 833 792 712 592 502 468 432 408 358 298 252 218951142 1132 1108 1068 1028 942 808 703 662 622 588 528 452 392 348971272 1268 1242 1208 1162 1078 938 822 778 732 698 628 553 488 438991528 1518 1492 1452 1408 1322 1162 1038 988 938 898 818 728 658 59899.91832 1828 1812 1772 1732 1648 1488 1342 1282 1228 1178 1092 983 898 818%tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring3050 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 055 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 060 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 065 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 070 12 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 07532 28 18 12 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 28068 52 42 32 22 18 12 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 285 112 98 82 62 48 38 28 22 18 12 8 8 2 2 290188 162 142 112 92 72 62 52 38 28 22 18 12 12 895308 278 252 208 178 148 128 112 88 72 58 48 42 38 3297392 358 322 272 232 202 178 158 128 102 88 78 68 58 5299548 502 462 398 348 308 278 248 208 178 158 138 122 112 10299.9758 703 658 578 518 468 422 388 332 292 262 238 218 198 182Page 156 of 193PERFUM Results from directory C:\Documents and Settings\CSMITH02\My Documents\Dmds\PERFUM Runs 1-15-10\DMDS_01152010\bradenton\cantua_fluxResults 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 Ring1550 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 055 92 62 32 8 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 060318 272 212 128 68 8 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 065608 548 468 368 282 142 12 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 070902 862 798 683 568 388 162 42 18 2 2 2 2 0 0751188 1152 1092 992 892 708 412 232 168 118 78 28 2 2 2801538 1512 1452 1348 1238 1048 728 502 412 342 282 188 98 42 18851998 1958 1898 1782 1672 1458 1092 828 728 638 562 442 302 212 152902498 2498 2498 2412 2288 2012 1582 1238 1112 1002 908 752 582 462 368952498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2348 1918 1732 1578 1438 1228 1012 822 698972498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2392 2192 2012 1852 1588 1292 1072 918992498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2318 1948 1672 144899.92498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2272%tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring3050 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 055 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 060 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 065 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 070 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 075 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 080 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 085 108 72 52 22 12 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 290302 248 202 142 102 78 58 42 28 18 12 8 8 2 295592 518 452 352 288 232 192 162 122 92 72 58 48 42 3897822 718 628 508 418 348 298 258 198 152 128 102 88 78 68991268 1118 988 808 673 573 502 458 362 298 252 212 188 162 14299.92022 1822 1648 1368 1152 998 883 792 652 548 468 402 352 312 278Results 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 Ring1550382 322 248 152 88 22 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 055808 738 652 533 422 252 62 8 2 2 2 2 0 0 0601288 1228 1122 968 848 633 342 158 98 58 28 2 2 2 0651738 1688 1608 1468 1328 1082 723 478 388 312 242 138 42 8 2702232 2178 2098 1958 1812 1558 1168 878 758 668 578 428 268 152 72752498 2498 2498 2498 2372 2092 1662 1332 1202 1098 992 812 598 442 322802498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2232 1862 1708 1568 1452 1262 1008 828 673852498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2338 2192 2042 1792 1498 1268 1082902498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2162 1848 1622952498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498972498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498992498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 249899.92498 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 Ring3050 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 055 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 060 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 065 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 070 28 8 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 075228 152 98 28 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 080553 452 368 238 148 82 42 22 2 2 2 2 2 0 085948 822 712 553 428 332 258 198 122 72 42 22 12 8 2901432 1278 1142 938 772 662 562 488 368 282 228 178 142 118 98952232 2012 1818 1562 1362 1168 1018 912 732 618 528 448 392 348 308972498 2498 2358 1998 1722 1508 1328 1192 1042 868 742 658 582 518 468992498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2328 2092 1902 1602 1358 1182 1048 938 842 76299.92498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2258 1998 1792 1622 1472 1342Page 157 of 193PERFUM Results from directory C:\Documents and Settings\CSMITH02\My Documents\Dmds\PERFUM Runs 1-15-10\DMDS_01152010\bradenton\nipomo_fluxResults 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 Ring1550172 142 108 62 38 8 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 055332 292 242 178 128 62 12 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 060488 448 392 312 248 158 62 18 12 2 2 2 2 2 265642 598 538 452 378 268 138 72 52 32 22 8 2 2 270833 783 703 598 512 388 232 148 112 92 72 42 22 8 2751032 983 898 778 673 522 338 232 192 162 138 98 58 38 22801242 1192 1112 988 873 688 458 328 282 242 212 162 112 82 58851452 1408 1328 1198 1082 888 618 452 388 342 302 238 178 132 102901712 1668 1582 1442 1312 1098 798 608 538 478 428 348 262 202 162952092 2052 1962 1808 1658 1408 1058 833 748 673 608 508 398 322 262972318 2278 2198 2038 1878 1608 1222 972 878 798 728 612 488 398 332992498 2498 2498 2492 2308 1992 1558 1262 1142 1048 962 818 662 548 46299.92498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2282 1862 1708 1572 1452 1258 1042 873 748%tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring3050 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 055 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 060 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 065 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 070 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 075 12 8 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 28042 32 22 12 8 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 28582 68 52 38 28 22 18 12 8 2 2 2 2 2 290132 112 98 72 52 42 32 28 18 12 12 8 8 2 295222 188 162 122 98 78 62 52 38 28 22 18 18 12 1297278 242 208 162 128 102 88 72 52 42 32 28 22 18 1899398 348 302 242 198 162 138 118 88 72 58 48 42 32 2899.9658 582 518 418 342 292 252 218 168 138 112 98 82 72 62Results 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 Ring1550638 592 528 438 362 258 132 62 42 28 18 8 2 2 255873 822 748 652 568 442 278 172 138 112 88 52 18 8 2601118 1058 972 868 772 628 432 312 268 228 192 138 82 48 22651392 1332 1232 1098 988 818 598 452 398 352 312 248 172 122 82701672 1608 1502 1362 1242 1042 772 608 542 492 442 368 278 212 168751928 1878 1778 1632 1508 1292 992 792 712 648 592 498 392 318 258802192 2132 2038 1892 1762 1542 1222 1002 918 838 772 658 528 432 358852488 2432 2332 2182 2042 1802 1462 1222 1132 1048 972 848 698 582 492902498 2498 2498 2498 2402 2132 1752 1488 1378 1282 1202 1058 892 768 662952498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2182 1872 1748 1638 1542 1378 1182 1032 908972498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2478 2132 1998 1878 1768 1588 1372 1202 1068992498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2388 2258 2042 1782 1578 140899.92498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2402 2162%tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring3050 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 055 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 060 12 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 065 58 38 22 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 070 128 98 72 42 22 12 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 275212 172 142 98 62 42 28 18 8 2 2 2 2 2 280302 258 222 162 122 98 72 58 38 22 18 12 8 2 285422 362 318 248 198 158 132 108 78 58 42 32 28 22 1890578 508 452 362 292 248 208 178 138 108 82 68 58 48 4295808 723 652 542 458 388 338 292 232 182 152 128 108 92 8297953 862 783 658 558 478 418 368 292 238 202 172 148 128 112991272 1152 1052 892 768 673 592 528 432 358 308 268 232 208 18899.91962 1792 1642 1418 1242 1102 988 892 742 638 553 488 432 388 352Page 158 of 193PERFUM Results from directory C:\Documents and Settings\CSMITH02\My Documents\Dmds\PERFUM Runs 1-15-10\TIFTON_DMDS_012810\Bradenton\Field1Results 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 Ring1550 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 055 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 060 18 12 8 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 065 52 48 38 28 18 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 070 128 112 98 72 52 32 8 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 075 222 212 192 168 138 88 38 18 8 2 2 2 2 2 080 298 292 282 262 238 188 108 58 42 32 28 12 2 2 285 388 378 368 348 328 288 208 148 122 98 82 52 32 18 1290 518 512 502 482 458 402 308 248 218 198 172 142 102 78 5295 683 683 678 668 642 592 482 398 358 328 298 252 202 172 14297 778 778 772 768 748 698 592 498 458 422 392 338 272 228 19299 912 922 928 922 908 873 762 668 622 582 548 482 408 352 30299.9 1078 1088 1092 1102 1102 1072 972 868 822 778 738 668 582 518 46250 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 055 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 060 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 065 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 070 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 075 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 080 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 085 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 090 38 28 22 12 8 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 295 118 102 88 68 52 42 32 28 18 12 8 8 8 2 297 168 148 132 102 88 72 58 52 38 28 22 18 18 12 1299 268 238 212 172 142 118 102 88 72 58 48 42 38 32 2899.9 412 378 342 288 248 212 182 162 132 108 92 78 68 58 52Results 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 Ring1550 12 12 8 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 055 68 58 48 32 22 8 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 060 142 132 112 92 78 52 18 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 065 282 262 238 202 168 122 72 38 28 18 12 2 2 2 270 422 408 388 352 318 252 158 102 82 68 58 38 18 8 275 542 533 518 488 458 398 298 218 188 158 138 98 62 42 2880 668 658 642 618 592 533 428 352 318 288 258 212 152 112 7885 852 842 822 792 758 688 582 498 458 422 392 342 282 228 18890 1082 1078 1058 1028 992 918 788 678 633 592 558 492 428 372 31895 1382 1382 1368 1342 1312 1248 1112 988 933 883 838 758 668 588 52297 1548 1548 1538 1518 1492 1428 1282 1158 1102 1052 1002 922 822 738 66899 1848 1852 1842 1828 1808 1752 1612 1472 1412 1352 1302 1202 1078 978 89899.9 2192 2192 2192 2182 2172 2118 1972 1818 1748 1682 1618 1502 1368 1262 1172%tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring3050 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 055 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 060 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 065 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 070 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 075 12 8 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 080 58 42 32 18 8 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 085 158 128 102 62 42 32 22 18 8 2 2 2 2 2 290 282 248 218 172 138 112 88 72 42 28 22 18 12 12 895 468 422 382 318 272 242 212 188 152 122 102 88 72 62 5297 608 553 508 432 372 322 282 252 208 182 158 138 122 108 9899 833 768 712 618 548 492 442 402 338 288 252 222 198 178 15899.9 1098 1028 962 862 788 723 668 618 538 478 428 382 348 312 288Page 159 of 193PERFUM Results from directory C:\Documents and Settings\CSMITH02\My Documents\Dmds\PERFUM Runs 1-15-10\PERFUM Runs 2-3-10\Bradenton\Field2Results 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 Ring1550 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 055 8 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 060162 122 72 22 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 065468 408 332 218 138 32 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 070788 742 673 553 438 258 58 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0751068 1038 992 898 788 598 302 128 72 38 18 2 2 2 0801482 1438 1362 1242 1142 953 633 408 322 248 192 102 38 8 2851948 1918 1862 1752 1622 1372 1018 748 648 562 482 368 238 148 92902498 2498 2472 2372 2248 1988 1518 1168 1032 938 848 698 528 418 328952498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2312 1902 1732 1582 1452 1228 978 792 662972498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2348 2162 1992 1838 1582 1292 1078 912992498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2248 1898 1628 140899.92498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2342 2078%tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring3050 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 055 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 060 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 065 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 070 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 075 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 080 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 085 58 32 18 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 090262 212 172 118 78 58 42 28 18 8 8 2 2 2 295573 498 432 342 272 228 188 158 118 88 68 58 48 38 3297783 683 602 478 398 338 288 248 192 152 122 102 88 72 68991228 1082 968 788 652 553 472 412 322 262 222 192 168 148 13299.91862 1692 1542 1308 1092 948 833 738 592 488 412 348 302 262 232Results 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 Ring1550 112 78 42 12 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 055548 478 382 262 172 58 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0601082 1008 902 742 608 392 132 22 8 2 2 2 0 0 0651572 1508 1412 1278 1132 888 518 282 202 138 88 22 2 2 2702068 2012 1918 1788 1652 1392 1002 712 598 492 408 262 122 42 8752498 2498 2482 2338 2212 1948 1518 1192 1052 942 842 662 452 298 182802498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2098 1738 1588 1448 1322 1122 883 688 542852498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2368 2178 2012 1882 1658 1378 1148 962902498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2418 2048 1752 1512952498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498972498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498992498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 249899.92498 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 Ring3050 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 055 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 060 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 065 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 070 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 075 108 52 18 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 080418 318 238 122 58 18 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 085822 708 608 452 332 238 168 118 58 22 8 2 2 2 2901332 1192 1082 868 708 588 502 422 312 238 182 142 108 82 68952238 2032 1838 1532 1298 1122 978 858 708 598 508 438 378 332 298972498 2498 2358 2002 1738 1518 1342 1198 978 822 703 612 548 492 448992498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2272 2042 1858 1548 1322 1158 1018 908 812 73899.92498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2382 2108 1898 1702 1532 1392 1278Page 160 of 193PERFUM Results from directory C:\Documents and Settings\CSMITH02\My Documents\Dmds\PERFUM Runs 1-15-10\PERFUM Runs 2-3-10\Bradenton\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 Ring1550 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 055 32 22 12 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 060 108 88 62 38 18 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 065192 172 142 102 72 32 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 070288 268 238 188 152 98 38 12 8 2 2 2 2 2 275418 392 352 302 258 182 102 58 42 28 22 8 2 2 280568 548 512 452 398 308 188 122 98 82 68 48 28 12 885768 748 708 648 582 482 328 222 188 162 138 102 68 48 32901002 988 958 898 833 712 522 392 342 302 268 212 152 112 88951308 1298 1278 1222 1158 1032 812 652 588 528 482 408 318 252 208971488 1478 1462 1408 1348 1218 988 818 742 683 628 533 428 352 298991762 1758 1742 1698 1642 1522 1288 1092 1008 933 873 762 633 538 46299.92128 2128 2128 2092 2042 1922 1678 1452 1358 1278 1202 1078 922 808 712%tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring3050 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 055 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 060 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 065 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 070 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 075 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 080 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 285 28 18 12 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 29068 52 42 32 22 18 12 8 8 2 2 2 2 2 295172 148 128 98 78 62 48 42 28 22 18 12 8 8 897252 218 192 148 122 98 82 68 52 38 32 28 22 18 1899408 358 318 262 218 182 158 138 108 88 72 62 52 42 3899.9638 573 518 432 372 322 282 248 202 168 138 118 102 92 82Results 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 Ring1550 102 88 62 38 22 8 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 055228 202 172 128 98 52 12 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 060352 328 292 238 202 142 68 28 18 12 8 2 2 2 265512 482 442 378 328 252 158 102 82 62 48 28 8 2 270708 678 628 558 498 408 278 198 168 148 128 92 58 32 1875938 908 862 788 718 608 438 332 292 258 228 178 128 92 68801208 1182 1132 1058 983 858 668 528 478 428 388 312 238 188 142851532 1508 1462 1388 1312 1172 942 778 712 652 602 518 412 338 272901932 1908 1868 1792 1712 1562 1302 1108 1028 958 898 788 658 558 478952458 2448 2412 2342 2262 2098 1818 1598 1502 1418 1342 1208 1048 918 812972498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2408 2118 1878 1778 1688 1602 1458 1282 1142 1022992498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2372 2262 2152 2062 1898 1692 1522 138299.92498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2482 2228 2022 1858%tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring3050 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 055 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 060 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 065 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 070 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 075 48 32 22 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 080 112 92 72 48 32 22 12 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 285222 188 158 112 82 62 48 38 22 18 12 8 2 2 290418 362 318 248 198 158 128 108 72 52 42 32 28 22 1895723 648 588 488 408 348 302 262 208 168 138 118 102 88 7897922 842 768 648 558 488 428 382 308 258 218 188 162 142 128991262 1162 1078 938 822 738 662 598 502 428 372 332 298 268 24899.91722 1608 1502 1328 1192 1082 992 908 783 688 618 553 502 458 422Page 161 of 193PERFUM Results from directory C:\Documents and Settings\CSMITH02\My Documents\Dmds\PERFUM Runs 1-15-10\DMDS_01152010\bakersfield\bradenton_fluxResults 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 Ring1550332 298 252 178 112 28 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 055582 538 468 378 302 172 28 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 060838 802 742 638 538 378 172 52 18 8 2 2 0 0 0651082 1048 998 902 802 628 362 208 152 102 68 22 2 2 2701332 1298 1248 1162 1072 892 602 398 328 268 218 138 62 22 2751598 1568 1528 1438 1342 1168 862 642 548 468 402 302 192 122 72801912 1878 1828 1742 1658 1472 1142 888 792 703 628 508 368 262 198852262 2238 2192 2112 2018 1812 1472 1172 1058 968 883 738 578 462 372902498 2498 2498 2498 2488 2268 1842 1518 1392 1298 1212 1028 833 698 582952498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2102 1932 1782 1672 1448 1192 1012 878972498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2322 2152 2002 1752 1452 1258 1078992498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2348 1978 1688 146899.92498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2468 2198%tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring3050 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 055 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 060 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 065 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 070 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 075 42 22 8 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 080148 112 82 42 22 12 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 285302 242 198 138 98 68 48 32 18 8 8 2 2 2 290498 432 368 282 218 172 138 112 72 52 38 28 22 18 1295792 698 612 498 412 342 292 252 192 152 122 102 82 72 6297938 833 742 622 533 452 388 342 272 218 182 158 132 118 102991292 1148 1028 852 742 628 548 482 398 342 292 258 222 198 17899.91962 1768 1608 1332 1132 983 862 762 628 528 452 398 358 322 292Results 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 Ring15501378 1312 1218 1062 933 723 432 238 168 112 62 12 2 2 0551838 1778 1682 1538 1398 1148 788 538 448 362 298 188 72 12 2602292 2228 2142 2008 1868 1602 1192 888 772 683 592 452 298 178 98652498 2498 2498 2472 2332 2058 1622 1308 1168 1048 942 762 573 428 318702498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2072 1728 1578 1442 1322 1148 902 718 568752498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2172 2028 1872 1742 1528 1272 1052 912802498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2362 2208 1952 1662 1422 1238852498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2448 2152 1868 1638902498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2372 2118952498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498972498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498992498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 249899.92498 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 Ring3050 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 055 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 060 42 12 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 065232 158 108 32 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 070468 372 302 198 112 62 28 8 2 2 2 0 0 0 075768 652 553 408 298 222 162 118 52 22 8 2 2 2 2801092 968 852 692 548 438 352 292 192 132 88 58 38 22 12851468 1308 1208 983 828 708 598 533 402 298 232 182 142 118 92901902 1742 1622 1378 1172 1032 902 818 648 548 448 388 328 282 238952498 2432 2238 1958 1682 1472 1312 1182 1018 883 752 668 582 533 472972498 2498 2498 2332 2038 1792 1618 1482 1222 1048 908 822 762 688 618992498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2438 2178 1978 1668 1432 1252 1118 1042 953 86299.92498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2212 1978 1768 1598 1452 1338Page 162 of 193PERFUM Results from directory C:\Documents and Settings\CSMITH02\My Documents\Dmds\PERFUM Runs 1-15-10\DMDS_01152010\bakersfield\yuma_fluxResults 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 Ring1550802 723 608 432 278 78 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0551262 1182 1062 878 718 438 88 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0601738 1672 1542 1352 1162 862 432 162 78 32 8 2 2 0 0652232 2162 2038 1842 1652 1318 812 508 388 288 202 88 12 2 2702498 2498 2498 2348 2162 1802 1252 873 728 622 522 368 192 88 28752498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2308 1718 1292 1128 988 858 668 472 332 222802498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2208 1722 1558 1382 1248 1032 783 592 462852498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2228 2022 1858 1688 1412 1138 912 758902498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2472 2272 1932 1568 1328 1108952498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2238 1882 1668972498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2328 2008992498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 249899.92498 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 Ring3050 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 055 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 060 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 065 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 070 8 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 075 142 88 52 12 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 080368 292 232 138 82 48 28 12 2 2 2 2 2 2 285633 522 438 312 238 178 138 102 62 38 22 18 12 8 890948 833 718 573 452 362 292 238 168 128 98 78 62 52 42951448 1262 1128 908 768 638 548 478 372 298 242 202 168 142 122971738 1532 1368 1152 948 812 703 628 492 408 338 288 252 222 192992452 2178 1968 1608 1348 1142 992 873 728 608 518 448 392 348 31899.92498 2498 2498 2468 2118 1818 1602 1418 1158 972 833 732 642 568 508Results 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 Ring15502498 2498 2478 2192 1942 1532 948 548 392 268 168 48 2 2 0552498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2312 1612 1162 972 818 673 442 198 58 8602498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2388 1812 1592 1402 1248 988 678 438 262652498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2312 2108 1898 1568 1198 933 732702498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2262 1828 1482 1222752498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2488 2088 1822802498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2398852498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498902498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498952498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498972498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498992498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 249899.92498 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 Ring3050 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 055 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 060 132 52 12 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 065562 408 292 118 32 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0701008 848 712 508 328 202 108 52 8 2 2 2 2 0 0751562 1372 1188 918 708 562 452 348 188 92 38 18 8 2 2802132 1922 1702 1412 1152 972 802 678 482 368 262 182 128 88 62852498 2498 2342 1922 1638 1432 1212 1082 848 673 533 428 352 298 248902498 2498 2498 2498 2248 1962 1742 1578 1252 1078 888 783 668 582 508952498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2482 2228 1922 1612 1398 1218 1112 988 878972498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2298 1932 1698 1552 1378 1228 1122992498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2432 2148 1912 1732 156899.92498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2452Page 163 of 193PERFUM Results from directory C:\Documents and Settings\CSMITH02\My Documents\Dmds\PERFUM Runs 1-15-10\DMDS_01152010\bakersfield\dover_fluxResults 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 Ring155062 58 48 38 28 12 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 05592 82 72 62 48 32 12 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 260118 112 102 88 78 52 28 12 8 2 2 2 2 2 265148 142 132 118 102 78 48 28 22 18 12 8 2 2 270182 178 168 148 132 108 68 48 38 32 28 18 8 2 275218 208 202 182 168 138 92 68 58 48 42 32 18 12 880258 252 238 218 202 172 122 92 78 68 62 48 32 22 1885312 302 292 268 248 212 158 122 108 92 88 68 52 38 2890372 368 352 332 308 262 202 158 142 128 118 98 78 62 4895462 452 442 418 392 348 268 218 198 178 168 142 112 92 8297522 512 502 478 448 402 318 258 238 218 198 172 142 122 10299618 612 602 578 548 498 412 342 318 292 272 238 198 162 14299.9768 768 752 728 698 648 548 468 438 408 382 338 282 248 218%tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring3050 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 055 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 060 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 065 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 070 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 075 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 280 12 8 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 285 22 18 12 8 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 29042 32 28 22 12 12 8 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 29568 58 52 42 32 28 22 18 12 8 8 8 2 2 29788 78 68 58 48 38 32 28 22 18 12 8 8 8 899122 108 98 82 72 58 52 48 38 28 22 22 18 18 1299.9192 172 158 132 112 98 82 72 58 52 42 38 32 32 28Results 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 Ring1550172 168 152 132 118 92 62 38 32 28 22 12 2 2 255222 212 202 182 162 132 92 68 58 48 42 32 18 8 260272 262 252 228 212 178 132 102 88 78 68 52 38 28 1865328 322 308 282 262 228 172 138 122 108 98 82 62 48 3270388 382 362 338 318 278 218 178 158 142 132 112 88 68 5275452 442 428 402 378 332 268 222 202 188 172 148 118 98 7880522 512 498 468 442 398 322 272 252 232 212 188 152 132 11285612 602 582 553 522 472 398 332 308 288 268 238 198 172 14890718 708 692 662 628 573 478 412 382 362 342 308 258 222 19895873 868 848 818 788 723 622 542 508 478 448 402 348 308 27297978 968 948 918 888 822 712 628 592 558 533 478 418 368 332991162 1158 1138 1108 1072 1008 888 792 752 718 683 622 553 492 44899.91448 1438 1418 1388 1352 1288 1148 1038 988 942 898 828 742 668 612%tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring3050 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 055 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 060 12 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 065 28 18 12 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 07042 32 28 18 8 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 27568 52 48 32 22 18 12 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 28092 82 68 52 42 32 22 18 12 8 2 2 2 2 285128 112 102 82 68 52 42 38 22 18 12 8 8 2 290178 158 142 118 98 82 72 62 48 38 28 22 18 18 1295248 232 212 178 148 132 118 102 82 72 58 52 42 38 3297298 272 248 208 188 168 148 132 108 92 82 72 62 58 4899408 372 342 298 258 228 202 182 152 132 118 108 98 88 7899.9562 522 482 418 372 338 302 282 242 212 188 168 152 138 128Page 164 of 193PERFUM Results from directory C:\Documents and Settings\CSMITH02\My Documents\Dmds\PERFUM Runs 1-15-10\DMDS_01152010\bakersfield\cantua_fluxResults 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 Ring1550238 212 178 128 82 22 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 055398 368 328 262 212 132 28 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 060573 542 502 428 362 258 128 48 22 8 2 2 2 0 065732 708 673 602 538 418 248 148 112 88 58 22 2 2 270898 873 838 772 712 592 398 272 222 188 158 108 58 22 8751088 1062 1022 953 888 758 562 418 358 308 268 208 142 98 68801292 1268 1228 1162 1088 953 728 573 512 458 412 332 248 182 142851528 1508 1472 1408 1332 1192 933 748 673 612 562 472 378 302 242901812 1792 1768 1708 1642 1488 1208 998 902 828 758 652 528 438 368952192 2182 2168 2122 2068 1928 1628 1368 1262 1162 1078 933 783 658 562972448 2442 2428 2392 2342 2212 1892 1618 1502 1392 1298 1138 948 802 692992498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2442 2122 1978 1852 1732 1532 1288 1098 96299.92498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2418 2162 1858 1632 1458%tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring3050 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 055 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 060 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 065 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 070 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 075 42 22 12 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 080 112 88 68 42 22 12 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 285198 162 138 98 72 52 42 32 18 12 8 2 2 2 290312 272 242 182 142 112 92 72 52 38 28 22 18 12 1295488 428 382 302 258 212 182 158 122 98 78 62 52 42 3897608 548 482 392 322 282 238 208 168 138 112 98 82 72 6299848 758 678 558 468 402 358 318 252 208 178 158 138 122 10899.91298 1172 1068 883 748 648 568 502 408 342 298 258 228 198 178Results 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 Ring1550892 852 788 683 602 468 282 162 118 82 52 12 2 2 0551202 1168 1102 992 898 732 498 348 292 242 202 132 58 18 2601498 1462 1408 1302 1202 1032 758 562 498 432 378 292 202 132 78651822 1782 1718 1612 1508 1332 1048 833 748 668 602 488 368 282 212702162 2118 2052 1948 1838 1642 1338 1102 1012 933 858 728 578 468 378752498 2492 2428 2318 2198 1982 1648 1382 1288 1198 1118 978 818 692 582802498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2412 2022 1722 1602 1498 1408 1242 1052 922 802852498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2482 2168 2038 1912 1792 1598 1368 1192 1062902498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2412 2282 2062 1788 1588 1428952498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2428 2162 1952972498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2282992498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 249899.92498 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 Ring3050 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 055 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 060 38 12 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 065162 122 82 32 8 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 070312 258 212 142 98 58 32 12 2 2 2 2 2 0 075502 428 372 282 218 168 132 102 58 28 12 2 2 2 280703 633 568 452 372 302 248 212 148 108 78 58 38 28 1885942 838 768 642 538 468 408 352 272 208 168 132 108 92 72901282 1158 1048 883 768 662 573 518 418 352 298 252 218 182 158951768 1612 1482 1262 1092 972 878 783 642 542 478 412 368 332 298972082 1922 1778 1532 1342 1188 1058 953 788 692 598 522 462 418 388992498 2498 2352 2038 1798 1598 1432 1298 1102 958 833 738 662 598 54899.92498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2318 2128 1958 1698 1492 1318 1168 1048 958 878Page 165 of 193PERFUM Results from directory C:\Documents and Settings\CSMITH02\My Documents\Dmds\PERFUM Runs 1-15-10\DMDS_01152010\bakersfield\nipomo_fluxResults 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 Ring155098 78 52 28 12 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 055208 192 162 122 88 42 8 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 060342 322 292 242 198 138 58 18 8 2 2 2 2 2 265498 472 432 368 318 238 138 78 58 42 28 12 2 2 270678 648 592 512 448 348 222 148 122 98 82 52 28 12 875858 822 762 673 592 468 312 218 188 158 138 102 68 42 28801002 968 912 812 728 588 408 292 252 222 192 152 108 82 62851122 1092 1038 942 852 703 502 378 332 292 262 208 158 122 98901262 1232 1178 1078 983 828 612 472 418 378 338 278 218 172 138951512 1478 1412 1298 1192 1012 762 602 542 488 442 372 298 242 202971692 1652 1588 1468 1352 1158 878 698 628 568 518 438 352 288 242992062 2028 1958 1828 1692 1458 1122 902 818 748 683 582 472 392 33299.92498 2498 2498 2442 2278 1988 1572 1308 1202 1108 1022 883 728 608 528%tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring3050 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 055 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 060 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 065 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 070 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 075 18 12 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 28048 38 28 18 8 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 28578 62 52 38 28 18 12 12 8 2 2 2 2 2 290 118 98 82 62 48 38 28 22 18 12 8 8 8 2 295172 148 128 98 78 68 52 48 32 28 22 18 12 12 897208 178 158 122 102 82 72 62 48 38 28 22 18 18 1299288 252 222 182 148 128 108 92 72 58 48 42 38 32 2899.9462 412 368 302 252 212 182 162 128 102 88 78 68 58 52Results 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 Ring1550448 418 378 322 272 198 102 48 28 18 8 2 2 2 255678 648 602 528 472 372 242 158 128 102 82 48 18 8 260922 883 828 742 673 558 398 292 252 218 188 142 92 58 32651162 1122 1058 962 878 742 553 428 378 338 302 242 182 132 98701382 1342 1272 1168 1078 928 712 568 512 462 422 352 272 212 172751572 1532 1468 1358 1258 1092 862 703 642 588 538 458 368 298 248801738 1698 1632 1522 1422 1252 1008 838 772 712 658 568 468 388 328851912 1878 1808 1692 1592 1418 1158 978 902 838 783 688 578 488 418902162 2118 2042 1918 1812 1622 1338 1142 1062 992 928 822 698 602 528952498 2498 2478 2332 2202 1982 1652 1418 1322 1238 1162 1038 892 778 683972498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2262 1898 1628 1522 1428 1342 1202 1038 908 802992498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2348 2038 1912 1798 1702 1538 1338 1188 105899.92498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2398 2168 1928 1738 1578%tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring3050 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 055 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 060 18 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 06572 48 32 12 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 070138 112 88 58 32 18 12 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 275208 172 148 108 78 58 42 28 12 8 2 2 2 2 280282 242 208 162 128 98 78 62 42 28 18 12 8 2 285362 322 282 222 178 148 122 102 78 58 42 32 28 22 1890468 412 372 302 252 212 182 152 122 92 78 62 52 42 3895612 548 498 412 352 302 262 232 188 152 132 112 98 82 7297718 648 588 498 428 368 322 288 232 192 168 148 128 112 10299953 868 792 668 578 508 452 402 332 288 248 218 198 178 16299.91438 1312 1208 1042 908 798 718 642 548 472 418 372 332 302 272Page 166 of 193PERFUM Results from directory C:\Documents and Settings\CSMITH02\My Documents\Dmds\PERFUM Runs 1-15-10\TIFTON_DMDS_012810\Bakersfield\Field1Results 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 Ring1550 22 22 18 12 8 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 055 48 38 32 28 22 12 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 060 88 78 68 52 42 28 12 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 065 122 118 108 98 82 58 28 12 8 8 2 2 2 2 270 152 148 142 132 122 98 58 32 22 18 18 8 2 2 275 182 182 178 168 158 132 98 62 52 42 32 22 12 8 280 218 212 212 202 192 172 132 102 88 78 68 52 32 22 1285 258 258 252 242 232 212 172 138 122 112 102 82 68 48 3890 322 318 312 302 288 262 218 182 162 152 138 122 98 82 6895 398 398 398 392 382 352 292 242 222 208 192 168 142 122 10297 448 448 448 442 432 408 352 298 272 252 238 202 168 142 12299 538 538 538 538 533 508 448 388 362 338 318 282 238 202 17899.9 688 692 692 692 688 662 592 522 492 462 432 388 338 298 26250 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 055 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 060 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 065 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 070 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 075 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 080 12 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 285 28 22 18 8 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 290 58 48 42 28 22 12 12 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 295 92 82 72 58 48 38 32 28 22 18 12 8 8 8 297 112 98 92 72 62 52 48 38 32 28 22 18 12 12 1299 152 138 122 98 82 72 68 58 48 42 32 28 28 22 2299.9 232 212 192 162 138 118 102 92 78 62 52 48 42 38 32Results 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 Ring1550 128 118 108 88 78 58 32 18 12 8 2 2 2 2 055 198 188 178 152 138 102 62 42 32 28 22 12 2 2 260 258 252 242 222 202 168 112 78 62 58 48 32 22 12 865 318 308 298 282 262 232 178 132 118 102 88 68 48 32 2270 372 368 358 342 328 292 238 192 178 158 142 118 88 68 4875 438 432 422 408 388 358 298 252 232 218 202 172 142 118 9280 508 502 492 472 458 428 362 312 292 278 262 228 192 168 14285 598 592 582 562 542 502 438 388 368 342 322 288 248 218 19890 723 718 708 688 668 622 542 472 448 422 398 358 312 282 25895 883 883 873 858 838 798 718 638 608 573 542 492 432 382 34297 988 988 978 962 948 908 818 738 703 668 638 588 518 468 42299 1162 1162 1152 1138 1122 1082 992 908 868 828 792 732 658 592 54299.9 1452 1452 1448 1432 1422 1378 1268 1158 1108 1068 1028 953 862 783 71850 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 055 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 060 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 065 18 12 8 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 070 38 28 22 12 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 075 72 62 48 32 22 18 12 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 280 122 108 92 72 52 38 28 22 12 8 8 2 2 2 285 172 152 138 118 98 78 68 52 38 22 18 12 8 8 890 228 208 188 158 142 122 108 92 78 62 52 42 32 28 2295 308 278 258 218 192 172 162 142 118 102 88 78 68 62 5897 382 348 322 272 238 208 182 168 142 128 112 98 88 78 7299 498 458 428 372 328 292 262 238 202 172 148 132 118 108 9899.9 668 618 578 512 458 418 382 348 302 268 238 212 192 178 162Page 167 of 193PERFUM Results from directory C:\Documents and Settings\CSMITH02\My Documents\Dmds\PERFUM Runs 1-15-10\PERFUM Runs 2-3-10\Bakersfield\Field2Results 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 Ring1550288 262 228 162 112 32 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 055418 402 368 312 252 158 32 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 060538 518 488 438 388 292 148 52 22 8 2 2 2 0 065648 628 602 558 508 422 272 162 122 88 58 18 2 2 270762 748 728 678 633 542 392 282 232 198 162 108 48 12 275898 883 858 812 768 673 508 392 348 308 268 208 138 92 58801068 1048 1018 968 918 822 642 512 458 412 372 308 238 182 138851268 1252 1222 1172 1112 988 798 652 588 533 492 418 332 272 228901508 1498 1478 1432 1372 1248 1002 812 742 683 642 558 452 378 322951872 1868 1852 1808 1752 1622 1358 1138 1048 962 888 762 622 522 458972102 2098 2088 2048 2002 1878 1592 1348 1248 1158 1078 938 778 652 558992498 2498 2492 2482 2448 2342 2052 1778 1652 1538 1438 1258 1058 908 78899.92498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2412 2268 2138 2008 1788 1518 1312 1148%tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring3050 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 055 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 060 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 065 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 070 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 075 28 12 8 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 080 102 78 58 28 12 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 285188 158 128 88 62 48 32 22 12 8 2 2 2 2 290278 238 212 168 132 108 88 68 48 32 22 18 12 12 895402 362 328 262 218 188 158 138 108 88 72 58 48 42 3897482 422 378 322 272 238 202 178 142 118 98 82 72 62 5899698 618 553 452 378 322 278 242 202 172 148 132 118 102 9299.91018 918 828 688 582 508 448 398 322 272 232 202 178 158 142Results 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 Ring1550912 883 838 762 688 558 358 218 162 118 78 28 2 2 0551138 1102 1058 983 912 783 568 412 348 298 248 168 78 22 2601352 1322 1278 1208 1132 988 778 608 542 482 428 338 232 152 88651588 1562 1522 1432 1352 1212 972 802 728 668 618 518 398 308 238701822 1798 1752 1678 1602 1458 1192 1012 928 858 798 698 568 472 388752118 2092 2038 1948 1862 1708 1452 1232 1138 1062 1002 878 732 633 548802458 2432 2382 2288 2192 2012 1698 1478 1388 1298 1232 1092 922 812 708852498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2402 2062 1782 1668 1562 1462 1312 1152 1008 912902498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2232 2102 1978 1868 1678 1452 1272 1122952498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2488 2258 1992 1772 1598972498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2338 2098 1888992498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 248899.92498 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 Ring3050 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 055 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 060 42 12 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 065178 128 82 28 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 070322 268 222 148 88 42 18 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 075472 418 362 278 212 158 118 82 32 12 2 2 2 2 280628 553 508 412 342 288 238 192 132 92 58 38 22 12 885808 723 652 553 478 402 358 312 248 192 152 118 92 78 62901002 912 852 723 642 558 482 442 368 298 258 222 192 168 148951442 1318 1198 1018 873 762 673 602 522 452 398 348 308 282 252971718 1582 1458 1252 1092 958 848 758 628 528 462 428 382 352 322992282 2102 1942 1672 1468 1308 1172 1062 902 778 678 602 538 482 43899.92498 2498 2498 2318 2048 1838 1662 1512 1292 1138 1008 892 812 742 683Page 168 of 193PERFUM Results from directory C:\Documents and Settings\CSMITH02\My Documents\Dmds\PERFUM Runs 1-15-10\PERFUM Runs 2-3-10\Bakersfield\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 Ring1550112 102 88 62 42 12 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 055178 162 148 122 92 58 18 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 060238 228 208 178 152 112 52 22 12 8 2 2 2 2 265292 282 268 238 212 168 98 58 42 32 22 12 2 2 270358 348 328 302 272 222 148 98 82 68 52 32 18 8 275418 408 392 368 338 282 202 148 122 102 88 68 42 28 1880508 492 472 442 412 352 262 198 178 152 138 108 72 52 3885608 598 578 538 498 432 332 262 232 208 188 152 122 92 7290732 723 703 662 622 542 422 348 312 282 258 218 178 142 11895908 898 883 842 802 723 578 472 428 392 358 308 262 218 182971012 1008 988 953 912 828 683 568 518 478 438 378 308 258 222991208 1202 1192 1168 1128 1042 878 738 683 638 588 518 428 368 31899.91498 1492 1482 1452 1408 1322 1142 992 928 873 818 723 622 538 468%tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring3050 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 055 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 060 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 065 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 070 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 075 8 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 280 28 18 12 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 28558 48 38 22 18 12 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 29098 82 72 52 38 28 22 18 12 8 2 2 2 2 295158 142 122 98 82 68 58 48 32 28 18 18 12 12 897202 178 158 128 108 88 78 68 52 42 32 28 22 18 1899278 242 218 178 148 132 118 102 82 68 58 52 42 38 3299.9418 378 338 288 242 212 188 168 138 112 98 82 72 68 58Results 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 Ring1550358 338 312 278 248 192 118 78 58 42 32 18 2 2 255462 442 422 382 348 288 198 142 118 98 82 58 32 12 260568 553 528 488 452 382 282 212 188 168 148 112 78 52 3265673 658 633 592 553 482 378 298 262 238 212 172 132 98 7270798 783 752 708 662 592 468 382 352 322 292 248 192 152 11875922 908 878 833 792 703 578 478 438 408 378 322 268 218 178801078 1058 1028 978 928 842 703 588 542 508 478 418 348 292 252851252 1238 1212 1158 1102 1002 838 728 688 638 598 528 442 388 338901478 1462 1438 1382 1322 1222 1038 898 838 788 738 658 578 518 458951792 1782 1752 1698 1648 1538 1342 1182 1118 1058 1002 908 788 698 622972012 2002 1978 1928 1872 1752 1548 1372 1298 1232 1168 1068 938 833 748992382 2378 2358 2312 2258 2152 1932 1732 1652 1572 1502 1378 1218 1092 99899.92498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2432 2208 2102 2012 1928 1772 1592 1438 1318%tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring3050 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 055 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 060 18 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 06552 38 28 12 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 07098 78 62 38 22 12 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 275148 122 108 72 52 38 22 18 8 2 2 2 2 2 280222 192 168 128 98 78 58 48 28 18 8 8 2 2 285298 268 238 192 162 132 112 92 68 48 32 28 18 12 890402 362 322 278 238 202 182 158 122 98 78 62 52 42 3895558 502 458 388 352 312 272 242 198 172 148 128 112 98 8897678 618 568 482 412 362 322 292 258 218 188 162 148 138 12299912 833 768 662 578 518 462 418 348 298 258 228 202 192 17899.91222 1132 1052 922 828 748 678 618 533 462 412 372 338 308 288Page 169 of 193PERFUM Results from directory C:\Documents and Settings\CSMITH02\My Documents\Dmds\PERFUM Runs 1-15-10\DMDS_01152010\tallahassee\bradenton_fluxResults 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 Ring1550 8 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 055 128 92 52 12 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 060342 298 238 158 92 18 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 065588 528 468 388 308 178 32 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 070912 868 798 673 562 422 208 78 42 18 8 2 2 0 0751242 1198 1122 1028 933 728 442 288 222 168 128 62 18 2 2801598 1562 1512 1422 1302 1098 778 542 458 388 338 252 152 88 48852028 1992 1932 1828 1712 1528 1148 892 792 698 622 492 352 262 202902498 2498 2492 2378 2252 2012 1582 1308 1172 1062 962 812 648 518 422952498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2312 1902 1758 1608 1472 1252 1032 902 762972498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2372 2182 2018 1868 1612 1352 1128 962992498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2398 2028 1718 148299.92498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2322%tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring3050 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 055 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 060 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 065 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 070 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 075 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 080 22 12 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 085152 118 88 52 28 18 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 290348 292 242 178 138 102 82 62 42 28 18 12 12 8 895652 562 502 398 328 268 228 192 142 108 88 72 58 52 4297838 748 692 568 468 392 342 292 232 182 148 122 108 92 78991298 1158 1032 848 728 618 533 468 388 332 282 248 218 192 16899.92082 1852 1668 1388 1172 1022 892 792 642 538 458 398 352 318 288Results 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 Ring1550442 382 308 202 128 38 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 055842 778 688 562 462 298 92 12 2 2 2 2 0 0 0601292 1208 1098 948 862 668 398 212 148 98 58 12 2 2 0651838 1768 1658 1492 1342 1082 772 542 448 368 308 202 88 28 2702382 2328 2222 2062 1928 1652 1228 918 798 723 658 508 348 228 142752498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2238 1792 1448 1308 1182 1072 888 673 548 422802498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2368 1992 1838 1702 1598 1388 1118 938 772852498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2328 2168 1918 1632 1388 1222902498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2218 2012 1772952498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498972498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498992498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 249899.92498 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 Ring3050 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 055 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 060 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 065 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 070 78 38 12 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 075332 252 192 98 42 12 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 080642 538 458 342 248 178 122 82 32 8 2 2 2 2 2851078 948 828 662 528 422 342 298 202 142 98 68 48 32 22901578 1412 1278 1072 898 783 683 588 458 362 292 238 202 168 142952368 2142 1948 1632 1398 1268 1178 1052 848 712 622 538 482 428 378972498 2498 2468 2108 1848 1652 1468 1312 1082 938 862 778 688 612 553992498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2492 2232 2008 1682 1462 1272 1122 1042 948 85899.92498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2298 2038 1822 1642 1502 1388Page 170 of 193PERFUM Results from directory C:\Documents and Settings\CSMITH02\My Documents\Dmds\PERFUM Runs 1-15-10\DMDS_01152010\tallahassee\yuma_fluxResults 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 Ring1550 72 38 12 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 055458 362 242 102 32 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 060983 873 738 542 368 132 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0651548 1448 1312 1102 898 582 178 22 2 2 2 2 0 0 0702128 2052 1928 1702 1508 1158 633 302 192 112 58 12 2 2 0752498 2498 2498 2338 2138 1748 1182 772 622 502 398 232 88 22 2802498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2422 1748 1302 1132 1002 862 652 422 272 168852498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2428 1928 1702 1512 1358 1122 852 652 502902498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2472 2238 2028 1692 1352 1092 892952498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2472 2038 1808 1578972498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2152 1842992498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 249899.92498 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 Ring3050 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 055 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 060 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 065 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 070 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 075 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 080 98 52 28 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 085388 302 238 142 88 52 32 22 8 2 2 2 2 2 290758 642 558 418 312 242 192 152 98 68 52 38 28 22 18951352 1172 1018 808 662 548 458 398 298 232 188 152 128 112 92971612 1448 1348 1142 938 792 683 588 452 368 302 252 212 188 162992498 2198 1958 1592 1322 1122 978 873 748 648 553 478 422 372 33299.92498 2498 2498 2498 2422 2072 1818 1602 1308 1078 918 788 688 608 542Results 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 Ring15501328 1182 1002 742 538 242 22 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0552282 2132 1932 1628 1382 968 432 138 62 22 8 2 2 0 0602498 2498 2498 2498 2342 1862 1192 732 562 418 302 132 18 2 2652498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2062 1508 1292 1112 942 673 378 178 62702498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2338 2132 1912 1712 1382 1002 718 492752498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2488 2138 1732 1398 1122802498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2478 2042 1782852498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498902498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498952498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498972498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498992498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 249899.92498 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 Ring3050 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 055 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 060 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 065 12 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 070328 198 108 18 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 075898 712 568 338 182 82 32 8 2 2 2 0 0 0 0801528 1348 1182 888 662 498 362 262 128 52 22 8 2 2 2852292 2018 1808 1432 1208 1022 868 718 512 368 262 188 138 98 72902498 2498 2498 2202 1872 1618 1408 1238 968 788 662 553 468 392 332952498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2468 2302 2142 1748 1458 1258 1072 942 852 762972498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2462 2038 1818 1682 1522 1358 1212 1092992498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2372 2092 1868 1668 152299.92498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498Page 171 of 193PERFUM Results from directory C:\Documents and Settings\CSMITH02\My Documents\Dmds\PERFUM Runs 1-15-10\DMDS_01152010\tallahassee\dover_fluxResults 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 Ring1550 18 12 8 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 05548 38 28 18 8 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 06078 72 58 42 32 12 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 065112 102 92 72 62 38 12 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 270148 138 128 108 92 68 38 22 12 12 8 2 2 2 275182 178 162 142 128 98 62 42 32 28 22 18 8 2 280222 218 208 188 168 138 92 68 58 48 42 32 22 18 1285278 268 258 238 218 182 132 98 88 78 68 58 42 32 2290342 332 322 302 278 238 182 142 128 118 102 88 68 52 4295438 428 418 398 378 332 262 212 192 178 162 138 112 92 7897492 488 478 458 438 392 318 258 238 218 198 172 142 118 10299588 588 578 562 542 498 418 352 328 308 282 248 208 178 15299.9772 768 762 738 718 673 582 502 472 442 418 372 318 278 248%tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring3050 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 055 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 060 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 065 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 070 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 075 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 080 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 285 18 12 12 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 29038 32 28 18 12 12 8 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 29568 58 48 38 32 28 22 18 12 8 8 8 2 2 29788 78 68 52 42 38 32 28 18 18 12 8 8 8 899132 118 102 88 72 62 52 48 38 32 28 22 18 18 1299.9222 202 182 152 132 112 98 88 72 58 48 42 38 32 32Results 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 Ring1550 102 92 78 58 42 28 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 055152 142 128 108 88 62 32 12 8 2 2 2 2 2 260208 192 178 152 138 108 68 42 32 28 22 12 2 2 265258 248 232 208 188 152 108 78 68 58 52 38 22 12 870322 308 292 262 242 202 152 118 108 92 82 68 52 38 2875382 372 358 328 308 268 208 168 148 138 122 108 82 68 5280458 448 432 402 378 332 268 222 208 188 172 152 122 102 8885548 538 518 492 462 418 342 292 272 252 232 208 172 148 12890662 652 638 608 578 528 442 382 358 332 312 278 238 208 18895838 833 812 788 752 698 598 522 492 468 442 398 348 308 27897942 938 922 898 868 812 708 628 592 562 533 482 422 378 338991142 1138 1128 1102 1072 1018 902 812 772 738 703 648 578 522 47299.91502 1508 1498 1478 1448 1372 1238 1118 1072 1032 988 918 822 748 683%tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring3050 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 055 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 060 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 065 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 070 22 12 12 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 07542 38 28 22 12 8 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 28072 62 52 42 32 22 18 12 8 8 2 2 2 2 285 112 98 88 72 58 48 38 32 22 18 12 12 8 8 290168 148 132 112 92 82 68 62 48 38 32 22 22 18 1295248 228 208 178 152 132 118 108 88 72 62 52 48 42 3897308 278 258 222 192 172 158 138 118 98 88 78 68 58 5299438 402 372 328 288 258 232 212 178 152 132 118 108 98 9299.9638 588 548 482 432 398 362 332 288 258 228 208 188 172 158Page 172 of 193PERFUM Results from directory C:\Documents and Settings\CSMITH02\My Documents\Dmds\PERFUM Runs 1-15-10\DMDS_01152010\tallahassee\cantua_fluxResults 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 Ring1550 22 8 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 055138 108 72 32 8 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 060292 262 218 158 108 38 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 065488 452 402 332 272 172 52 8 2 2 2 2 0 0 070688 658 612 542 472 348 188 88 58 32 18 2 2 2 075878 858 822 762 692 558 362 238 192 152 118 68 28 8 2801122 1102 1068 992 912 783 562 412 352 308 262 202 128 82 48851388 1362 1328 1268 1202 1052 808 622 553 498 442 358 262 198 158901772 1752 1712 1638 1552 1382 1132 898 808 738 678 562 442 358 292952318 2308 2288 2232 2142 1958 1588 1292 1178 1082 998 878 742 612 518972498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2342 1958 1632 1492 1378 1268 1088 888 748 658992498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2272 2102 1962 1822 1592 1338 1138 98399.92498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2488 2138 1872 1648%tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring3050 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 055 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 060 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 065 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 070 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 075 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 080 28 12 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 085 118 92 72 42 28 12 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 290242 202 172 128 98 72 58 48 28 22 12 12 8 8 295452 392 342 272 218 182 152 128 92 72 58 48 38 32 2897602 533 472 378 312 262 228 198 152 118 98 82 68 58 5299868 768 683 553 462 402 358 328 272 222 192 162 142 128 11299.91478 1328 1198 1002 858 742 642 562 452 378 318 272 238 208 188Results 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 Ring1550392 352 298 222 158 72 8 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 055683 638 588 492 412 292 128 38 18 8 2 2 2 0 0601022 972 908 808 708 573 358 218 168 122 88 38 2 2 2651358 1312 1242 1138 1052 883 628 462 398 338 282 202 112 52 18701698 1658 1582 1488 1392 1222 938 738 652 588 522 428 308 218 148752078 2032 1972 1868 1778 1578 1262 1058 958 873 798 678 528 422 348802498 2468 2418 2332 2212 1992 1672 1402 1298 1202 1112 958 812 673 562852498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2158 1838 1712 1592 1492 1342 1128 978 842902498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2382 2228 2098 1992 1822 1598 1388 1218952498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2238 1962 1752972498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2472 2218992498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 249899.92498 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 Ring3050 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 055 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 060 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 065 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 070 98 58 32 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 075278 218 172 98 52 22 8 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 080482 412 358 272 202 148 108 78 38 12 2 2 2 2 285732 648 592 472 382 312 262 218 158 112 78 58 42 28 18901082 978 898 732 622 528 452 408 312 252 202 168 142 122 102951568 1422 1298 1132 1032 902 792 708 578 488 418 368 318 278 248972008 1828 1672 1412 1218 1062 942 862 768 668 573 502 442 408 362992498 2498 2408 2062 1818 1622 1458 1318 1108 953 828 732 652 588 53899.92498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2422 2238 1938 1692 1508 1352 1222 1118 1022Page 173 of 193PERFUM Results from directory C:\Documents and Settings\CSMITH02\My Documents\Dmds\PERFUM Runs 1-15-10\DMDS_01152010\tallahassee\nipomo_fluxResults 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 Ring1550208 178 142 102 72 32 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 055292 262 222 172 132 82 28 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 260392 358 312 252 208 142 72 32 22 18 12 2 2 2 265502 462 412 342 288 212 122 78 62 48 38 22 12 2 270628 588 528 442 382 288 182 122 102 88 78 52 32 22 1275758 718 652 562 488 382 252 178 152 132 118 92 62 48 3880898 858 792 692 612 488 338 248 212 188 168 132 98 78 58851038 1002 942 842 758 618 438 332 292 258 232 188 142 112 88901208 1172 1112 1018 928 778 573 442 392 352 318 262 208 168 138951458 1428 1372 1272 1172 1012 772 618 558 508 462 392 312 258 212971648 1608 1552 1448 1348 1172 912 738 673 612 562 482 388 322 272992042 2008 1952 1832 1712 1508 1192 978 892 822 758 652 538 452 38899.92498 2498 2498 2498 2398 2128 1728 1448 1332 1238 1158 1012 852 728 628%tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring3050 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 055 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 060 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 065 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 070 8 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 275 28 22 18 8 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 28048 38 32 22 18 12 8 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 28572 62 52 38 28 22 18 12 8 8 2 2 2 2 290 112 98 82 62 48 38 32 28 18 12 12 8 8 8 295182 158 138 108 82 68 58 48 38 28 22 18 12 12 1297232 202 178 142 112 92 78 68 52 38 32 28 22 18 1899332 292 258 208 172 142 122 108 82 62 52 42 38 32 2899.9553 488 438 362 302 262 222 192 148 122 102 88 78 68 58Results 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 Ring1550533 492 438 372 318 238 142 88 68 48 38 18 8 2 255688 648 582 502 438 348 232 162 138 112 98 68 38 18 860868 812 742 652 578 468 328 248 218 188 168 132 92 62 42651048 998 922 818 732 608 442 338 302 268 242 198 152 118 92701242 1188 1108 992 902 758 568 452 408 368 332 282 222 178 148751432 1382 1298 1188 1088 928 718 578 528 482 442 378 308 252 212801632 1582 1502 1392 1288 1122 888 732 668 618 573 492 408 342 292851852 1808 1728 1612 1512 1338 1082 908 838 778 723 638 533 458 392902112 2072 1998 1882 1778 1592 1318 1122 1048 978 918 818 698 602 528952498 2492 2422 2302 2192 1992 1678 1452 1362 1282 1218 1098 953 842 752972498 2498 2498 2498 2492 2268 1932 1682 1588 1498 1422 1288 1128 1002 902992498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2462 2168 2048 1938 1838 1668 1472 1318 118899.92498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2378 2118 1918 1758%tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring3050 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 055 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 060 28 18 12 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 06572 58 42 28 12 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 270122 102 88 62 42 32 22 18 8 2 2 2 2 2 275178 152 132 102 82 62 52 42 28 18 12 8 8 2 280252 218 192 152 122 102 82 72 52 38 32 22 18 18 1285342 302 272 218 178 152 128 108 82 68 52 42 38 28 2890468 422 378 312 262 222 192 168 132 108 88 72 62 52 4895678 612 562 472 408 352 308 278 222 182 152 132 112 102 8897818 742 688 582 508 442 392 348 282 238 202 178 152 138 122991078 988 912 783 688 612 548 492 408 342 298 262 232 208 18899.91618 1498 1398 1232 1098 983 892 818 688 588 518 462 418 378 342Page 174 of 193PERFUM Results from directory C:\Documents and Settings\CSMITH02\My Documents\Dmds\PERFUM Runs 1-15-10\TIFTON_DMDS_012810\Tallahassee\Field1Results 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 Ring1550 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 055 8 8 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 060 28 22 18 12 8 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 065 48 42 38 32 22 12 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 070 92 88 72 58 42 32 18 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 075 142 138 128 112 98 68 38 22 18 12 8 2 2 2 280 192 188 178 162 148 122 78 52 38 32 28 18 12 8 285 232 228 222 218 208 178 132 98 88 72 62 48 32 22 1890 298 292 288 272 262 238 192 152 138 128 112 92 72 58 4295 408 402 398 388 372 332 268 222 202 188 172 158 128 108 9297 462 462 458 452 438 408 338 278 252 232 218 188 152 132 11899 573 573 573 573 562 533 462 398 372 348 328 288 242 208 17899.9 718 723 728 728 728 708 633 562 533 508 478 428 362 318 27850 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 055 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 060 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 065 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 070 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 075 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 080 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 085 12 8 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 290 32 28 22 12 12 8 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 295 78 68 58 48 38 28 22 18 12 8 8 8 2 2 297 108 98 82 68 58 48 38 32 28 18 18 12 12 8 899 152 132 118 98 82 72 62 58 48 38 32 28 28 22 1899.9 248 222 198 168 142 122 108 98 78 62 52 48 42 38 32Results 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 Ring1550 38 32 22 18 8 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 055 68 62 58 48 38 22 8 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 060 118 108 92 78 72 52 32 18 12 8 2 2 2 2 065 192 182 168 142 128 92 62 42 38 28 22 12 8 2 270 272 262 252 228 208 172 118 78 68 62 52 42 28 18 1275 348 338 328 308 288 252 192 152 132 118 102 82 58 42 3280 428 428 412 392 372 332 272 228 208 188 178 152 118 92 7285 508 502 492 472 458 432 368 312 288 272 258 222 188 158 13290 648 638 628 602 578 533 458 402 382 368 352 318 272 238 20895 852 852 842 822 798 752 658 578 542 512 482 432 378 332 29897 978 972 962 948 928 883 788 708 668 638 608 553 482 428 38299 1222 1222 1212 1198 1182 1142 1038 938 898 858 818 752 673 608 55399.9 1508 1512 1502 1498 1488 1448 1332 1232 1192 1148 1102 1022 922 842 78350 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 055 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 060 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 065 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 070 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 075 28 18 12 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 080 58 48 38 28 18 12 8 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 285 118 102 88 68 52 38 28 22 18 12 8 2 2 2 290 188 168 152 122 102 88 72 62 48 38 28 22 18 12 1295 268 242 228 202 182 162 142 128 102 88 72 62 52 48 4297 342 312 282 242 212 188 168 158 138 122 108 92 82 72 6899 508 472 438 378 332 298 268 242 202 172 148 128 118 108 9899.9 732 683 642 568 502 452 412 378 322 278 248 222 202 182 168Page 175 of 193PERFUM Results from directory C:\Documents and Settings\CSMITH02\My Documents\Dmds\PERFUM Runs 1-15-10\PERFUM Runs 2-3-10\Tallahassee\Field2Results 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 Ring1550 8 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 055 92 62 32 8 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 060252 212 162 98 52 8 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 065418 392 348 272 212 112 18 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 070578 553 518 458 398 292 138 48 22 8 2 2 2 0 075742 723 698 638 578 472 308 192 152 118 88 42 12 2 280908 888 858 812 772 668 482 358 308 262 228 168 108 62 38851172 1148 1102 1032 962 852 688 538 482 428 382 312 238 178 138901482 1468 1432 1368 1292 1132 878 732 673 622 573 482 388 312 262951952 1938 1908 1852 1782 1622 1322 1078 978 888 812 688 558 488 428972222 2218 2202 2158 2092 1932 1608 1352 1238 1142 1058 912 742 618 518992498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2488 2188 1882 1758 1632 1528 1338 1118 958 83399.92498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2452 2308 2168 1942 1668 1442 1278%tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring3050 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 055 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 060 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 065 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 070 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 075 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 080 18 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 085 102 82 62 38 22 12 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 290218 188 158 118 88 68 52 42 28 18 12 12 8 8 295382 338 298 242 198 168 138 118 88 68 52 42 38 32 2897448 398 368 308 268 228 198 172 138 108 92 78 62 58 4899732 652 582 472 392 328 282 248 202 178 152 132 118 108 9899.91142 1032 928 768 652 562 492 432 352 298 252 218 192 172 152Results 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 Ring1550322 272 212 132 78 22 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 055608 558 488 392 312 188 48 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 060883 838 778 688 598 452 252 128 82 52 28 2 2 2 0651148 1108 1048 962 883 742 522 362 302 248 202 128 52 12 2701448 1408 1348 1258 1172 1022 788 622 553 492 438 342 238 158 98751688 1662 1642 1562 1508 1338 1082 888 808 738 683 582 462 368 292802052 2012 1958 1858 1768 1648 1428 1202 1108 1032 962 848 698 588 498852498 2498 2448 2342 2232 2028 1698 1482 1418 1332 1258 1152 972 838 742902498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2262 1948 1822 1702 1592 1418 1212 1088 1002952498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2488 2362 2142 1872 1648 1468972498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2302 2058 1862992498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 249899.92498 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 Ring3050 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 055 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 060 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 065 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 070 52 22 8 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 075228 178 138 72 32 12 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 080428 368 318 238 178 128 92 68 28 8 2 2 2 2 285652 582 518 422 342 288 242 202 142 102 78 58 42 32 2290898 833 768 642 542 478 418 368 292 238 198 168 142 118 102951318 1192 1082 898 772 678 628 582 492 438 372 328 292 262 238971688 1538 1422 1212 1052 918 812 718 582 498 458 418 378 352 328992402 2222 2052 1782 1562 1388 1252 1142 962 822 728 642 568 512 46299.92498 2498 2498 2498 2278 2068 1882 1718 1488 1312 1162 1032 938 848 772Page 176 of 193PERFUM Results from directory C:\Documents and Settings\CSMITH02\My Documents\Dmds\PERFUM Runs 1-15-10\PERFUM Runs 2-3-10\Tallahassee\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 Ring1550 12 8 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 05558 42 28 12 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 060118 102 82 52 32 8 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 065178 162 142 112 88 52 12 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 070242 228 208 178 148 108 52 22 12 8 2 2 2 2 275312 298 278 242 218 168 108 68 52 42 32 18 8 2 280388 378 358 328 298 242 168 118 102 88 78 58 38 22 1285498 482 462 428 398 332 242 188 162 142 128 102 78 58 4290638 622 602 568 528 458 352 278 248 228 208 168 132 108 8895833 822 808 772 732 652 518 418 382 348 322 282 228 188 15897962 953 938 902 862 778 633 522 478 438 402 348 282 242 212991172 1172 1162 1142 1108 1028 873 742 688 638 592 518 432 372 32299.91528 1528 1518 1502 1488 1402 1232 1078 1008 948 898 792 673 588 522%tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring3050 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 055 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 060 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 065 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 070 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 075 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 080 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 28532 28 22 12 8 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 29072 62 52 38 28 22 18 12 8 8 2 2 2 2 295138 122 108 82 68 52 42 38 28 22 18 12 12 8 897182 162 142 118 92 78 68 58 42 32 28 22 18 18 1299282 248 222 178 152 132 118 102 82 68 58 48 42 38 3299.9468 418 378 318 272 238 208 188 152 128 108 92 82 72 68Results 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 Ring1550142 122 102 68 48 18 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 055238 218 192 158 128 82 28 8 2 2 2 2 2 0 060332 312 288 252 218 168 98 52 38 28 18 8 2 2 265432 412 388 348 312 252 178 122 102 88 72 48 22 8 270542 528 502 462 418 352 262 202 178 158 142 112 78 52 3875678 658 633 588 538 472 368 292 268 242 222 182 148 112 9280838 818 798 742 698 612 498 402 368 342 328 282 228 188 162851022 1002 972 922 873 802 662 558 518 478 448 398 332 278 242901282 1262 1238 1182 1128 1032 868 748 703 673 633 562 482 418 372951652 1642 1618 1562 1508 1402 1212 1068 1008 953 898 812 708 622 558971902 1892 1872 1822 1768 1658 1452 1282 1212 1152 1092 992 868 778 698992342 2342 2318 2272 2228 2128 1922 1738 1658 1578 1512 1392 1242 1118 101299.92498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2378 2278 2188 2098 1942 1752 1598 1468%tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring3050 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 055 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 060 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 065 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 070 22 12 8 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 07572 58 48 28 12 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 080132 118 98 72 58 42 32 22 12 8 2 2 2 2 285218 192 168 138 112 92 78 62 42 32 22 18 12 12 890328 298 272 222 188 158 138 122 92 78 62 52 42 38 3295502 458 422 368 322 278 248 222 182 152 132 112 98 88 7897633 578 533 452 392 348 312 288 242 208 178 158 142 128 11299928 858 792 683 602 542 488 442 378 322 278 248 222 198 18299.91368 1268 1182 1052 942 848 768 703 608 542 482 432 398 362 332Page 177 of 193PERFUM Results from directory C:\Documents and Settings\CSMITH02\My Documents\Dmds\PERFUM Runs 1-15-10\DMDS_01152010\flint\bradenton_fluxResults 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 Ring1550 32 18 8 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 055178 142 98 48 18 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 060388 342 282 202 138 58 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 065673 628 553 442 352 218 72 12 2 2 2 2 0 0 070962 922 862 748 642 462 238 118 78 52 32 8 2 2 2751248 1212 1158 1052 948 758 472 298 238 192 152 98 42 18 8801562 1532 1478 1372 1258 1058 748 538 458 392 338 252 162 108 72851948 1912 1858 1748 1622 1402 1042 802 708 628 558 448 328 248 188902442 2408 2348 2242 2118 1862 1448 1148 1028 933 842 708 548 438 352952498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2158 1758 1598 1458 1338 1142 922 772 642972498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2242 2058 1892 1748 1518 1232 1028 868992498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2248 1882 1612 138899.92498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2352%tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring3050 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 055 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 060 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 065 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 070 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 075 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 080 48 32 18 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 285148 118 92 62 42 28 22 12 8 2 2 2 2 2 290292 242 208 152 118 92 72 58 42 28 22 18 12 12 895548 478 422 328 262 218 178 148 112 82 68 58 48 38 3297758 662 588 472 392 328 282 242 188 148 118 98 82 68 58991212 1072 958 783 652 558 482 432 342 288 242 208 182 162 14299.92102 1868 1698 1408 1188 1028 918 818 673 562 482 422 368 322 292Results 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 Ring1550478 422 352 258 182 88 12 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 055888 822 732 598 492 332 142 52 28 12 2 2 2 0 0601362 1298 1198 1048 912 703 418 248 182 138 98 48 8 2 2651808 1752 1662 1522 1388 1148 792 558 468 392 328 228 122 62 22702232 2182 2102 1968 1828 1588 1208 933 822 723 638 502 352 242 168752498 2498 2498 2438 2298 2032 1628 1328 1202 1102 1008 842 652 508 402802498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2098 1758 1622 1498 1388 1208 988 828 698852498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2318 2152 2002 1878 1652 1398 1198 1032902498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2302 1968 1712 1508952498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2408972498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498992498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 249899.92498 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 Ring3050 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 055 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 060 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 065 8 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 070 108 68 42 12 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 075318 252 198 122 72 38 18 8 2 2 2 2 2 0 080588 498 428 312 232 172 132 98 52 28 12 8 2 2 285898 792 703 558 448 362 302 252 178 132 98 78 58 48 38901348 1202 1082 902 752 638 548 472 362 282 232 192 162 138 118952158 1952 1772 1488 1288 1118 988 878 708 588 508 438 382 332 292972498 2498 2348 2002 1728 1508 1332 1188 992 833 723 638 568 502 452992498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2332 2098 1902 1588 1358 1182 1062 948 852 77899.92498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2362 2092 1888 1708 1552 1418Page 178 of 193PERFUM Results from directory C:\Documents and Settings\CSMITH02\My Documents\Dmds\PERFUM Runs 1-15-10\DMDS_01152010\flint\yuma_fluxResults 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 Ring1550 108 72 32 8 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 055428 348 258 138 68 8 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 060868 778 658 482 342 158 18 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0651382 1288 1152 942 762 498 188 52 22 8 2 2 2 0 0701902 1822 1688 1468 1268 933 512 278 198 138 92 38 8 2 2752418 2342 2212 1998 1792 1432 922 608 502 412 338 228 122 58 28802498 2498 2498 2498 2358 1968 1382 1008 873 752 652 502 348 242 172852498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 1918 1468 1298 1152 1038 842 633 482 382902498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2078 1872 1688 1528 1278 1002 802 662952498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2402 2058 1662 1368 1148972498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2142 1812 1542992498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 246299.92498 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 Ring3050 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 055 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 060 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 065 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 070 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 075 12 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 080 122 88 62 28 12 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 285302 248 202 138 98 72 52 42 22 18 12 8 2 2 290548 462 392 298 232 182 148 122 88 62 48 38 32 28 2295978 852 742 582 468 388 328 278 208 158 128 108 88 78 68971332 1172 1038 828 683 573 482 418 322 258 208 178 148 128 112992152 1892 1692 1382 1152 992 873 762 608 498 418 358 312 272 24299.92498 2498 2498 2498 2198 1928 1692 1508 1228 1028 888 778 683 598 533Results 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 Ring15501082 968 812 608 452 242 48 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0551882 1748 1562 1302 1088 758 358 152 88 48 22 2 2 2 0602498 2498 2402 2102 1852 1442 892 558 432 338 258 138 42 8 2652498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2212 1558 1118 953 808 688 498 298 162 82702498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2272 1768 1568 1392 1242 998 723 522 378752498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2452 2242 2052 1882 1588 1248 992 802802498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2218 1832 1548 1308852498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2182 1892902498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498952498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498972498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498992498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 249899.92498 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 Ring3050 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 055 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 060 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 065 32 8 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 070268 182 122 42 12 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 075648 528 432 282 182 112 68 38 8 2 2 2 2 2 2801118 958 833 628 482 378 292 228 142 88 52 32 18 8 8851658 1462 1308 1058 862 712 602 508 372 282 218 172 138 112 88902428 2172 1968 1628 1368 1168 1002 883 688 548 448 378 318 278 238952498 2498 2498 2498 2312 2022 1772 1582 1272 1068 892 772 673 592 533972498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2348 2148 1768 1502 1288 1138 998 888 798992498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2478 2148 1912 1708 1542 140299.92498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498Page 179 of 193PERFUM Results from directory C:\Documents and Settings\CSMITH02\My Documents\Dmds\PERFUM Runs 1-15-10\DMDS_01152010\flint\dover_fluxResults 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 Ring1550 12 8 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 05538 28 22 12 8 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 06072 62 52 38 28 12 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 065108 102 92 72 58 38 12 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 270148 142 128 112 98 68 38 22 12 12 8 2 2 2 275188 182 172 152 138 108 68 42 38 28 22 18 8 2 280228 222 212 192 178 148 102 72 62 52 48 32 22 18 1285272 262 252 238 218 188 138 102 92 78 72 58 42 32 2290328 322 312 292 272 232 178 138 122 112 102 82 68 52 4295418 412 402 382 358 318 248 198 182 162 148 128 102 82 6897482 478 462 442 422 378 302 248 222 202 188 158 128 108 9299612 608 598 578 553 502 412 348 322 298 278 242 198 168 14299.9802 802 798 783 762 723 628 548 512 478 452 398 338 292 252%tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring3050 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 055 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 060 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 065 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 070 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 075 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 080 8 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 285 18 12 12 8 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 29032 28 22 18 12 8 8 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 29558 52 42 32 28 22 18 12 12 8 8 2 2 2 29778 68 58 48 38 32 28 22 18 12 12 8 8 8 299122 108 98 82 68 58 48 42 32 28 22 18 18 12 1299.9228 202 182 152 128 112 102 88 72 62 52 42 38 32 32Results 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 Ring155082 78 62 48 38 18 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 055142 132 118 98 82 58 28 12 8 2 2 2 2 2 260202 192 178 158 138 102 62 42 32 28 18 12 2 2 265262 252 242 218 198 162 112 78 68 58 48 38 22 12 870322 318 302 278 258 222 168 128 112 98 88 72 52 38 2875382 372 358 338 318 278 218 178 162 148 132 112 88 68 5880448 438 428 402 378 338 272 228 212 198 182 158 128 108 8885528 518 502 478 452 408 338 288 268 248 232 202 172 148 12890638 628 612 582 553 502 422 362 338 318 298 268 228 198 17295808 802 788 758 728 673 578 502 472 442 422 378 328 288 25897942 938 922 892 862 802 698 612 578 542 518 468 408 362 322991212 1208 1188 1152 1122 1052 933 828 783 748 712 652 578 518 46899.91618 1618 1602 1578 1552 1472 1338 1212 1158 1112 1068 992 892 812 752%tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring3050 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 055 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 060 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 065 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 070 18 12 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 07542 38 28 18 12 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 28078 62 58 42 32 22 18 12 8 8 2 2 2 2 285 112 98 88 68 58 48 38 32 22 18 12 8 8 8 290158 138 128 102 88 72 62 52 42 32 28 22 18 18 1295232 208 192 162 138 118 102 92 72 62 52 42 38 32 2897292 268 242 208 178 158 138 122 102 82 72 62 52 48 4299428 392 362 312 272 242 218 198 162 138 122 112 98 88 8299.9698 652 612 538 478 432 398 362 308 268 238 212 192 178 162Page 180 of 193PERFUM Results from directory C:\Documents and Settings\CSMITH02\My Documents\Dmds\PERFUM Runs 1-15-10\DMDS_01152010\flint\cantua_fluxResults 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 Ring1550 32 18 8 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 055128 102 78 42 18 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 060268 238 198 148 102 48 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 065442 408 362 292 232 152 52 12 2 2 2 2 2 0 070622 592 548 472 402 292 158 82 58 38 28 8 2 2 275802 778 732 658 588 462 292 188 152 122 102 68 32 18 8801002 978 933 858 788 652 452 322 278 238 208 158 108 72 52851228 1202 1162 1088 1012 862 638 488 432 382 342 272 202 152 122901528 1508 1468 1392 1308 1142 878 692 628 562 512 428 332 268 218951982 1962 1928 1868 1782 1618 1298 1062 962 883 808 688 558 452 382972282 2272 2248 2198 2128 1952 1608 1338 1222 1122 1038 892 732 608 518992498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2262 1942 1808 1688 1578 1388 1152 983 84299.92498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2448 2208 1908 1658 1462%tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring3050 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 055 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 060 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 065 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 070 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 075 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 080 38 22 18 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 28592 78 62 42 28 22 12 12 8 2 2 2 2 2 290178 152 128 98 72 58 48 38 28 18 12 12 8 8 895328 282 248 192 158 128 108 88 68 52 42 32 28 22 2297448 392 342 278 228 192 162 138 108 82 68 58 48 42 3899738 648 578 472 398 338 292 258 202 168 142 122 102 92 8299.91302 1162 1048 888 768 668 592 528 432 362 312 268 238 208 188Results 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 Ring1550332 298 248 182 138 72 12 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 055592 553 488 402 332 232 108 42 28 12 8 2 2 2 060878 833 768 668 582 452 278 168 132 102 78 38 12 2 2651152 1112 1052 953 862 708 492 348 292 248 212 152 88 48 22701428 1392 1332 1238 1142 978 738 562 498 442 392 312 222 158 112751732 1692 1638 1538 1438 1262 998 812 732 668 608 512 398 312 252802082 2042 1988 1882 1772 1588 1292 1078 992 918 848 738 602 502 422852498 2488 2428 2318 2202 1998 1662 1408 1308 1218 1142 1008 848 728 628902498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2192 1892 1768 1658 1558 1388 1192 1038 918952498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2452 2322 2098 1828 1608 1438972498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2312 2052 1842992498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 249899.92498 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 Ring3050 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 055 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 060 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 065 8 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 07078 52 32 12 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 075202 162 132 82 52 32 18 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 280358 308 262 198 152 118 88 68 42 22 12 8 2 2 285548 488 428 342 278 228 192 162 118 88 68 52 42 32 2890812 728 658 548 458 388 338 292 222 178 148 122 102 88 78951292 1172 1068 902 778 673 588 528 428 352 302 258 228 198 172971668 1518 1392 1188 1032 902 802 718 588 502 428 382 332 298 268992498 2312 2152 1868 1648 1468 1322 1198 998 848 738 652 588 538 48899.92498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2398 2198 2008 1728 1498 1332 1188 1088 1012 933Page 181 of 193PERFUM Results from directory C:\Documents and Settings\CSMITH02\My Documents\Dmds\PERFUM Runs 1-15-10\DMDS_01152010\flint\nipomo_fluxResults 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 Ring1550 52 38 22 8 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 055138 118 88 58 32 8 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 060248 222 188 138 102 58 12 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 065372 342 302 242 198 132 58 22 12 8 2 2 2 2 270518 488 442 368 312 228 128 78 58 42 32 18 8 2 275668 638 588 512 448 342 212 142 118 102 82 62 38 22 1280802 778 732 662 592 472 318 228 192 168 148 112 82 58 4285938 918 873 802 732 608 432 322 282 248 222 178 132 102 78901088 1068 1028 953 878 748 558 432 382 342 312 258 198 158 128951328 1298 1252 1168 1082 928 718 573 518 472 432 362 292 238 198971492 1468 1418 1322 1228 1062 822 662 602 548 502 428 348 288 242991822 1798 1752 1648 1542 1352 1062 862 788 723 662 568 462 388 33299.92498 2498 2498 2372 2228 1968 1562 1272 1162 1068 983 838 692 588 512%tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring3050 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 055 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 060 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 065 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 070 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 075 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 28032 28 18 12 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 28562 52 42 32 22 18 12 12 8 2 2 2 2 2 290 108 88 78 58 42 38 28 22 18 12 8 8 8 2 295168 142 128 98 78 62 52 48 32 28 22 18 12 12 1297208 178 158 122 102 82 72 62 48 38 28 22 22 18 1299288 252 222 182 148 128 108 92 72 58 48 38 32 28 2899.9458 412 368 308 262 228 202 182 148 128 108 98 88 78 68Results 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 Ring1550302 268 228 178 138 82 28 8 2 2 2 2 2 0 055482 442 392 328 272 198 102 52 38 22 18 8 2 2 260683 642 582 502 438 338 218 142 118 92 72 48 22 8 265902 858 798 708 633 508 352 252 218 188 162 128 82 52 32701112 1078 1018 922 838 703 518 392 348 312 278 222 168 128 98751302 1268 1212 1128 1048 902 698 558 502 458 412 348 272 218 178801482 1452 1402 1318 1232 1092 878 723 662 612 562 482 392 322 272851672 1648 1592 1508 1422 1278 1052 892 828 768 718 633 528 448 382901912 1882 1828 1732 1642 1482 1242 1068 998 938 883 788 678 588 518952312 2282 2218 2112 1998 1812 1528 1322 1242 1172 1108 998 868 768 688972498 2498 2498 2382 2262 2068 1752 1522 1428 1348 1272 1148 1002 888 798992498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2202 1932 1822 1728 1638 1488 1308 1172 105899.92498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2408 2212 1982 1788 1628%tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring3050 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 055 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 060 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 065 18 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 07072 52 42 22 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 075142 118 98 72 48 38 22 18 8 2 2 2 2 2 280228 198 172 132 102 82 68 52 38 22 18 12 8 8 285332 292 258 208 168 138 118 98 72 58 42 38 28 22 1890458 408 368 298 252 212 182 158 122 98 78 68 58 48 4295618 562 512 432 368 318 278 248 198 162 138 118 102 92 8297723 658 602 512 448 388 342 308 252 208 178 158 138 122 10899968 888 818 708 618 542 482 432 358 302 262 232 208 182 16899.91498 1392 1302 1158 1042 972 902 848 758 692 638 598 558 522 488Page 182 of 193PERFUM Results from directory C:\Documents and Settings\CSMITH02\My Documents\Dmds\PERFUM Runs 1-15-10\TIFTON_DMDS_012810\Flint\Field1Results 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 Ring1550 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 055 12 12 8 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 060 32 28 22 18 12 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 065 68 62 52 42 32 18 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 070 108 102 92 78 68 42 22 8 8 2 2 2 2 2 275 142 138 132 118 108 82 48 28 22 18 12 8 2 2 280 178 178 168 158 142 118 82 58 48 38 32 22 12 8 285 222 218 212 202 188 162 118 88 78 68 58 48 32 22 1890 282 278 272 258 242 218 168 132 118 108 98 78 62 48 3895 372 372 368 358 342 312 252 208 188 172 158 132 108 88 7297 432 432 428 418 408 378 318 262 242 222 202 178 142 122 10299 538 542 542 538 528 498 438 372 348 322 302 268 228 192 16899.9 748 748 752 752 752 732 648 573 542 508 478 428 368 322 28250 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 055 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 060 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 065 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 070 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 075 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 080 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 285 12 8 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 290 32 22 22 12 12 8 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 295 62 52 48 38 28 22 18 12 12 8 8 2 2 2 297 88 78 68 52 42 38 32 28 18 12 12 8 8 8 899 142 128 112 92 78 68 58 52 42 32 28 22 22 18 1899.9 252 222 202 168 148 128 108 98 82 68 58 48 42 38 32Results 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 Ring1550 42 38 32 22 12 8 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 055 88 78 68 58 42 28 12 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 060 142 138 122 108 92 68 38 22 18 12 8 2 2 2 265 202 192 182 168 148 122 78 52 42 38 28 18 8 2 270 252 248 238 222 202 178 132 98 82 72 62 48 32 22 1275 312 308 298 278 262 232 182 148 132 118 108 88 68 48 3880 382 372 368 348 328 292 238 198 182 168 152 132 108 88 7285 468 462 452 432 412 378 312 268 248 232 218 188 158 132 11290 598 592 582 562 542 498 422 362 338 318 298 268 228 198 17295 802 798 788 768 748 703 618 548 512 488 458 412 358 318 27897 928 928 918 898 883 838 748 668 633 598 568 518 458 408 36299 1172 1172 1162 1148 1132 1082 983 888 848 812 778 718 642 578 52899.9 1608 1612 1608 1592 1572 1528 1412 1298 1248 1198 1148 1062 953 868 80250 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 055 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 060 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 065 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 070 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 075 28 22 18 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 080 62 52 42 28 22 12 8 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 285 98 88 78 58 48 38 28 22 18 12 8 2 2 2 290 152 138 122 102 82 68 58 48 38 28 22 18 12 12 1295 252 232 208 172 152 132 112 102 82 68 58 48 42 38 3297 328 298 272 232 198 178 158 142 118 98 88 72 68 58 5299 482 442 408 358 312 278 252 228 188 162 138 122 112 102 9299.9 742 692 648 568 512 462 422 388 332 288 252 228 212 192 172Page 183 of 193PERFUM Results from directory C:\Documents and Settings\CSMITH02\My Documents\Dmds\PERFUM Runs 1-15-10\PERFUM Runs 2-3-10\Flint\Field2Results 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 Ring1550 18 8 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 055 112 88 62 28 8 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 060258 228 188 138 92 38 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 065422 398 358 292 238 148 48 8 2 2 2 2 0 0 070578 562 522 462 402 298 158 78 52 32 22 2 2 2 275732 718 683 622 568 462 298 192 158 128 102 62 28 12 280908 888 858 798 732 622 448 328 282 242 208 158 108 72 48851122 1108 1072 1008 938 808 608 468 418 372 332 272 202 152 118901402 1388 1358 1292 1222 1072 828 658 592 538 488 408 322 258 212951842 1828 1808 1748 1678 1518 1228 1002 912 833 758 642 522 432 368972118 2108 2088 2042 1972 1822 1518 1262 1158 1068 988 848 688 568 482992498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2418 2092 1788 1658 1542 1432 1258 1048 892 76299.92498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2408 2262 2032 1752 1528 1348%tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring3050 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 055 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 060 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 065 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 070 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 075 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 080 32 22 12 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 28592 72 62 42 28 18 12 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 290178 148 128 92 72 58 42 38 22 18 12 12 8 8 895312 272 238 188 152 128 108 88 68 52 38 32 28 22 1897418 362 322 262 218 182 158 132 102 82 68 58 48 42 3899673 592 528 428 352 298 258 228 182 152 128 112 98 88 7899.91208 1082 983 812 688 588 518 458 368 302 258 222 198 178 158Results 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 Ring1550308 272 228 162 118 52 8 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 055562 522 468 388 322 218 98 32 18 8 2 2 2 0 060833 798 742 658 582 452 278 168 128 98 68 32 8 2 2651072 1042 998 922 842 703 498 358 302 252 218 152 82 42 18701308 1278 1238 1162 1082 948 732 573 508 452 402 322 228 162 112751588 1558 1512 1428 1342 1192 958 788 723 662 608 512 402 322 252801918 1888 1838 1752 1658 1492 1222 1028 948 878 818 712 588 492 418852348 2318 2268 2178 2078 1888 1572 1338 1242 1158 1082 958 812 698 608902498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2472 2098 1802 1678 1568 1472 1312 1128 983 862952498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2482 2342 2222 2008 1742 1538 1368972498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2202 1952 1748992498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 249899.92498 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 Ring3050 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 055 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 060 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 065 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 070 72 48 28 8 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 075202 162 128 82 48 22 12 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 080358 308 262 198 148 112 88 62 38 18 8 2 2 2 285533 468 418 338 272 228 188 152 112 82 62 48 38 32 2290768 692 628 518 438 372 318 282 218 178 142 118 98 88 72951222 1102 998 838 718 622 553 492 402 338 282 248 218 192 172971588 1442 1322 1122 968 842 738 652 533 452 392 342 308 278 252992278 2098 1928 1662 1462 1298 1162 1052 878 748 652 578 512 462 41899.92498 2498 2498 2498 2432 2198 2018 1842 1578 1382 1222 1108 992 902 828Page 184 of 193PERFUM Results from directory C:\Documents and Settings\CSMITH02\My Documents\Dmds\PERFUM Runs 1-15-10\PERFUM Runs 2-3-10\Flint\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 Ring1550 18 12 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 05562 52 38 18 8 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 060128 118 98 72 52 22 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 065202 188 168 138 112 72 28 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 070278 262 242 212 182 132 72 38 28 18 12 2 2 2 275352 342 322 292 258 208 128 82 68 58 48 32 18 8 280432 418 402 368 338 282 198 142 118 102 88 68 48 32 2285522 512 492 462 428 362 268 202 178 158 142 112 82 62 4890642 633 612 578 542 468 358 282 252 228 208 172 132 108 8895822 812 798 768 728 648 512 412 378 342 318 268 218 178 14897958 948 928 898 858 778 633 522 478 438 402 342 278 232 198991212 1202 1188 1158 1118 1032 873 738 683 628 582 508 428 362 31299.91568 1578 1578 1578 1552 1488 1322 1158 1088 1018 958 858 738 642 568%tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring3050 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 055 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 060 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 065 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 070 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 075 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 080 18 12 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 28538 32 22 18 12 8 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 29072 58 52 38 28 22 18 12 8 8 2 2 2 2 295128 108 98 72 58 48 38 32 22 18 12 12 8 8 897172 148 132 102 88 72 58 52 38 28 22 18 18 12 1299268 238 212 172 142 122 108 92 72 62 52 42 38 32 2899.9512 462 418 348 292 252 218 192 158 128 108 92 82 72 68Results 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 Ring1550152 138 118 88 62 32 8 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 055268 248 222 182 152 108 52 22 12 8 2 2 2 2 260388 368 342 298 262 202 128 78 62 48 38 18 8 2 265498 482 458 418 378 312 218 158 132 112 98 72 42 22 1270608 598 573 533 492 422 322 248 218 192 172 138 98 72 5275728 718 692 652 608 538 428 348 312 288 262 222 172 138 10880873 858 828 788 742 662 538 448 412 382 358 308 252 212 178851038 1022 998 948 902 818 678 578 533 498 468 412 348 298 258901288 1272 1242 1188 1132 1032 868 748 698 652 612 548 472 408 362951668 1652 1622 1572 1518 1412 1222 1072 1008 953 898 808 703 612 548971932 1918 1892 1842 1792 1678 1468 1298 1222 1158 1098 998 873 783 703992488 2472 2442 2388 2332 2212 1972 1772 1682 1598 1522 1402 1242 1112 100899.92498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2458 2368 2268 2118 1912 1748 1608%tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring3050 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 055 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 060 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 065 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 070 38 28 18 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 07588 72 58 38 22 18 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 280152 128 112 82 62 48 38 28 18 12 8 2 2 2 285222 198 178 142 112 92 78 62 42 32 28 18 18 12 1290322 288 258 212 178 152 128 112 88 68 58 48 38 32 2895488 442 408 342 292 258 228 198 162 132 112 98 82 72 6297633 578 528 442 382 332 302 268 222 188 158 138 122 112 9899922 848 783 673 592 522 468 422 352 302 262 232 208 188 17299.91492 1392 1302 1148 1022 933 848 778 678 602 542 482 438 398 368Page 185 of 193PERFUM Results from directory C:\Documents and Settings\CSMITH02\My Documents\Dmds\PERFUM Runs 1-15-10\DMDS_01152010\yakima\bradenton_fluxResults 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 Ring1550442 398 332 242 172 78 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 055638 592 522 418 328 198 52 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 060833 783 708 598 498 348 158 62 32 12 8 2 2 0 0651022 972 902 792 688 518 292 168 122 88 62 28 2 2 2701228 1182 1108 998 892 708 462 308 252 208 172 112 58 28 8751448 1398 1332 1222 1112 928 652 472 408 352 308 232 158 108 72801702 1662 1598 1488 1372 1168 878 678 598 533 472 382 282 218 168852002 1972 1918 1812 1702 1492 1162 918 828 752 683 573 448 358 288902368 2342 2298 2218 2122 1912 1542 1262 1152 1058 968 828 668 553 462952498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2108 1772 1632 1508 1398 1218 1008 848 728972498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2462 2092 1938 1802 1682 1472 1222 1042 892992498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2358 2208 1958 1658 1428 124899.92498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2412 2078 1832%tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring3050 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 055 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 060 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 065 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 070 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 075 48 28 18 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 080128 102 78 48 32 18 12 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 285238 198 168 122 88 68 52 42 28 18 12 8 8 2 290392 338 292 228 178 142 118 98 68 52 38 32 28 22 1895633 553 488 392 322 268 228 192 148 118 92 78 68 58 4897788 692 618 508 422 352 302 268 208 168 138 118 98 88 78991102 988 883 728 608 522 452 398 318 262 222 192 168 148 13299.91632 1458 1322 1092 942 828 738 658 548 468 412 362 322 288 258Results 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 Ring15501312 1242 1142 992 862 652 382 218 162 118 82 32 2 2 2551658 1582 1478 1312 1168 938 622 418 342 282 228 142 62 18 2601998 1922 1818 1648 1498 1248 892 658 568 488 422 318 202 118 62652358 2278 2168 1998 1852 1588 1198 928 828 738 662 538 388 288 208702498 2498 2498 2408 2238 1962 1552 1252 1132 1032 948 798 628 508 408752498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2418 1948 1622 1488 1372 1278 1112 918 768 642802498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2462 2088 1932 1798 1688 1488 1258 1078 938852498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2352 2218 1992 1712 1492 1318902498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2282 2032 1818952498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498972498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498992498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 249899.92498 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 Ring3050 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 055 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 060 28 8 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 065152 102 68 22 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 070328 268 222 142 88 52 28 12 2 2 2 2 2 2 075553 472 412 308 232 178 138 102 58 32 12 8 2 2 280828 728 652 518 422 348 292 242 172 122 92 68 48 38 28851172 1062 958 792 673 573 492 428 328 258 208 168 138 112 98901638 1488 1362 1148 988 852 752 668 533 442 368 318 272 232 202952288 2098 1928 1658 1438 1272 1138 1022 848 718 618 542 478 428 382972498 2492 2302 1998 1752 1552 1388 1252 1038 898 772 683 618 553 498992498 2498 2498 2498 2322 2088 1888 1722 1458 1262 1112 988 883 798 72399.92498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2458 2118 1832 1622 1458 1328 1228 1138Page 186 of 193PERFUM Results from directory C:\Documents and Settings\CSMITH02\My Documents\Dmds\PERFUM Runs 1-15-10\DMDS_01152010\yakima\yuma_fluxResults 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 Ring1550912 828 718 542 398 182 12 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0551272 1182 1058 868 708 452 138 18 2 2 2 2 0 0 0601628 1542 1418 1218 1032 742 372 162 92 48 22 2 2 2 0651992 1898 1778 1562 1378 1062 638 388 298 228 168 82 18 2 2702368 2282 2152 1932 1732 1398 938 648 542 458 388 268 152 78 32752498 2498 2498 2332 2128 1768 1272 942 812 712 628 488 342 238 168802498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2202 1642 1262 1128 1008 902 738 553 428 338852498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2122 1682 1518 1368 1248 1048 828 668 548902498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2298 2098 1908 1748 1488 1202 988 833952498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2212 1822 1532 1328972498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2228 1882 1642992498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 232899.92498 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 Ring3050 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 055 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 060 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 065 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 070 12 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 075 118 78 52 22 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 280268 212 172 112 78 52 32 22 12 8 2 2 2 2 285448 378 322 238 182 142 108 88 58 38 28 22 18 12 1290712 608 538 418 332 268 222 188 138 102 82 62 52 42 38951148 1002 883 712 578 488 412 352 268 212 168 142 122 102 88971432 1262 1128 922 762 638 553 478 372 298 248 212 178 158 138992038 1812 1618 1328 1112 962 838 738 598 492 412 352 312 272 24899.92498 2498 2498 2138 1808 1568 1368 1202 978 828 708 612 538 472 428Results 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 Ring15502498 2452 2278 1992 1742 1362 852 522 398 298 212 92 12 2 2552498 2498 2498 2498 2338 1908 1312 918 772 648 538 362 178 62 12602498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2478 1818 1368 1192 1052 922 718 482 312 188652498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2352 1868 1672 1502 1362 1122 852 658 498702498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2388 2192 2012 1848 1572 1262 1038 858752498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2398 2078 1738 1458 1248802498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2288 1978 1722852498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2348902498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498952498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498972498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498992498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 249899.92498 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 Ring3050 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 055 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 060 98 42 12 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 065378 278 198 82 28 8 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 070708 592 498 338 228 148 88 48 12 2 2 2 2 2 2751078 933 822 633 492 392 308 238 142 82 42 22 12 8 2801508 1352 1212 972 802 668 558 478 352 258 192 148 112 88 68852102 1878 1702 1422 1198 1028 898 778 608 482 392 328 272 232 192902498 2498 2438 2052 1752 1532 1352 1192 962 788 678 573 492 432 378952498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2312 2058 1852 1548 1308 1112 983 862 758 678972498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2278 1922 1632 1418 1262 1122 998 898992498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2338 2048 1802 1608 1448 134299.92498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2338 2152Page 187 of 193PERFUM Results from directory C:\Documents and Settings\CSMITH02\My Documents\Dmds\PERFUM Runs 1-15-10\DMDS_01152010\yakima\dover_fluxResults 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 Ring155088 82 68 58 42 28 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 055108 102 88 72 62 42 18 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 260128 122 108 92 78 58 32 18 12 8 8 2 2 2 265152 142 132 112 98 72 48 32 22 18 18 12 8 2 270172 168 152 132 118 92 62 42 38 32 28 18 12 8 275198 192 178 158 142 118 78 58 52 42 38 32 22 18 1280232 222 208 188 172 142 102 78 68 62 52 42 32 22 1885268 262 248 228 208 178 132 102 92 82 72 62 48 38 2890322 312 302 278 258 222 168 132 122 108 102 82 68 52 4895402 392 382 362 342 298 238 192 178 162 148 128 102 82 7297452 448 438 418 398 358 282 232 212 198 182 158 128 108 9299562 562 553 538 512 468 382 322 298 272 252 218 182 152 13299.9742 738 732 718 692 638 542 462 428 398 372 332 282 238 208%tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring3050 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 055 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 060 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 065 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 070 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 275 8 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 280 18 12 8 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 28522 22 18 12 8 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 29038 32 28 22 18 12 12 8 8 2 2 2 2 2 29562 52 48 38 28 22 22 18 12 8 8 8 2 2 29778 68 58 48 38 32 28 22 18 12 12 8 8 8 899112 102 92 72 62 52 48 38 32 22 22 18 12 12 1299.9182 162 148 122 102 88 78 68 52 48 38 32 32 28 22Results 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 Ring1550198 188 168 148 132 108 72 48 42 32 28 18 8 2 255232 222 202 182 162 132 92 68 62 52 48 38 22 12 860268 258 238 218 198 162 118 92 82 72 68 52 38 28 2265308 298 278 252 232 198 148 118 108 98 88 72 58 48 3870352 342 322 298 272 238 182 148 132 122 112 98 78 62 5275402 388 372 342 322 282 222 182 168 152 142 122 102 88 7280458 448 428 402 378 332 272 228 208 192 182 158 132 112 9885528 518 498 472 442 398 332 282 262 242 228 202 172 152 13290622 612 592 568 538 488 412 352 332 312 292 262 228 202 17895772 768 752 723 692 642 548 482 452 428 408 368 322 288 25897883 873 858 828 798 742 648 573 542 512 488 442 392 348 312991072 1068 1052 1028 992 938 828 738 703 668 638 588 518 468 42299.91388 1382 1368 1342 1308 1258 1138 1022 978 938 898 828 742 673 612%tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring3050 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 055 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 060 18 12 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 06528 22 18 12 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 27042 38 32 22 18 12 8 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 27562 58 48 38 28 22 18 12 8 8 2 2 2 2 28088 78 68 58 48 38 32 28 18 12 12 8 8 2 285118 108 98 78 68 58 48 42 32 22 18 18 12 12 890162 148 132 112 92 82 72 62 52 42 32 28 22 22 1895232 212 192 168 142 128 112 98 82 68 58 48 42 38 3297282 258 238 202 182 158 142 128 102 88 78 68 58 52 4899388 358 328 288 252 222 202 182 152 132 118 108 92 88 7899.9562 522 482 428 378 338 308 282 242 212 192 172 158 142 132Page 188 of 193PERFUM Results from directory C:\Documents and Settings\CSMITH02\My Documents\Dmds\PERFUM Runs 1-15-10\DMDS_01152010\yakima\cantua_fluxResults 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 Ring1550288 258 222 162 118 52 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 055408 378 338 272 222 138 42 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 060533 502 458 388 328 232 112 48 28 12 8 2 2 2 065658 628 582 512 448 342 198 118 92 68 48 22 2 2 270783 752 708 638 573 458 302 202 168 142 118 82 42 22 875922 892 848 772 703 588 418 302 262 228 198 152 102 72 48801078 1048 1002 928 858 732 542 418 368 328 292 238 178 132 102851278 1252 1208 1132 1058 918 708 558 502 452 412 342 268 218 172901532 1512 1478 1412 1342 1198 948 768 692 633 582 498 398 328 272951898 1882 1858 1818 1758 1612 1332 1108 1018 938 868 752 618 522 442972102 2098 2082 2048 1992 1858 1572 1332 1228 1138 1058 918 762 648 558992498 2498 2498 2482 2438 2322 2028 1758 1642 1538 1438 1268 1068 922 80299.92498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2372 2218 2098 1882 1598 1412 1242%tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring3050 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 055 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 060 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 065 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 070 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 075 32 22 12 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 28082 62 52 32 22 12 8 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 285142 122 102 72 58 42 32 28 18 12 8 8 2 2 290232 202 172 132 108 88 68 58 42 32 22 18 18 12 1295382 338 298 238 192 162 138 118 88 68 58 48 38 32 2897488 428 382 308 258 218 182 162 122 98 82 68 58 52 4299703 628 558 462 388 332 288 252 202 168 142 122 108 92 8299.91102 998 902 752 633 538 468 418 342 288 248 218 192 172 158Results 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 Ring1550828 788 732 642 558 432 262 158 122 88 62 28 2 2 2551042 1002 942 842 752 612 418 288 242 198 162 112 52 18 2601258 1218 1152 1052 962 808 588 438 378 332 292 222 148 92 58651492 1448 1382 1272 1172 1012 768 602 538 482 438 358 268 202 152701732 1688 1622 1512 1408 1228 968 788 718 652 602 512 408 328 268752012 1968 1892 1778 1668 1488 1202 998 918 848 792 688 568 478 402802342 2298 2228 2118 2002 1802 1488 1262 1168 1088 1012 902 758 652 568852498 2498 2498 2498 2428 2218 1878 1618 1508 1412 1328 1182 1018 883 778902498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2392 2098 1972 1862 1762 1592 1388 1228 1092952498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2398 2192 1932 1722 1548972498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2298 2068 1872992498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 249899.92498 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 Ring3050 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 055 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 060 28 12 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 065 112 82 58 22 8 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 070222 182 152 102 68 42 22 12 2 2 2 2 2 2 275348 302 262 198 152 118 92 72 42 22 12 8 2 2 280498 438 392 318 258 212 178 148 108 78 58 42 32 22 1885692 628 568 468 392 338 292 252 192 152 122 102 82 72 5890983 888 802 688 582 508 448 398 318 262 218 188 162 138 122951408 1292 1192 1022 888 788 703 633 518 442 378 328 288 258 228971712 1572 1452 1252 1088 968 868 783 648 553 488 428 378 342 308992292 2122 1972 1722 1522 1358 1222 1112 942 808 703 622 568 508 46299.92498 2498 2498 2498 2252 2038 1842 1698 1458 1268 1122 1008 898 812 738Page 189 of 193PERFUM Results from directory C:\Documents and Settings\CSMITH02\My Documents\Dmds\PERFUM Runs 1-15-10\DMDS_01152010\yakima\nipomo_fluxResults 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 Ring1550312 292 262 218 182 132 68 32 18 12 8 2 2 2 255392 368 332 282 242 182 108 62 48 38 28 12 2 2 260478 448 412 352 308 238 152 98 82 68 58 38 18 8 265578 542 498 428 372 298 198 138 118 102 88 62 42 28 1870678 648 592 522 458 362 248 178 152 132 118 92 68 48 3275783 748 698 622 553 442 302 228 198 172 152 122 92 68 5280908 868 812 728 648 533 378 282 248 218 198 162 122 92 78851078 1032 968 868 778 642 462 352 312 282 252 208 158 128 102901288 1242 1178 1062 958 792 582 448 402 358 328 272 212 172 142951632 1588 1512 1388 1268 1068 798 622 558 508 462 388 308 252 212971892 1848 1772 1632 1502 1282 972 772 698 633 578 488 388 322 272992438 2402 2328 2192 2052 1782 1378 1112 1002 918 842 723 598 498 42299.92498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2158 1778 1628 1502 1382 1198 988 822 712%tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring3050 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 055 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 060 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 065 12 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 270 28 18 12 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 27542 32 28 18 12 8 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 28062 52 42 32 22 18 12 12 8 2 2 2 2 2 28588 72 62 48 32 28 22 18 12 8 8 2 2 2 290118 102 88 68 52 42 32 28 22 18 12 8 8 8 295178 152 132 102 82 68 58 48 38 28 22 18 12 12 1297232 202 178 138 112 92 78 68 48 38 32 28 22 18 1899362 318 282 222 182 158 132 112 88 72 58 48 42 38 3299.9618 542 482 392 328 272 238 208 168 132 112 92 82 72 62Results 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 Ring1550712 678 633 562 502 418 302 232 202 178 158 122 88 58 3855852 818 758 678 618 518 388 302 268 242 218 182 138 102 78601002 962 898 812 738 622 472 378 342 308 282 238 188 152 122651142 1102 1042 953 873 748 573 458 422 382 352 298 242 198 168701298 1252 1188 1092 1008 873 683 558 508 468 428 372 302 252 212751472 1422 1352 1248 1158 1008 798 658 608 558 518 448 372 312 268801682 1632 1552 1438 1338 1172 938 783 718 668 618 542 452 388 332851952 1902 1812 1682 1562 1378 1112 928 858 798 748 658 558 478 412902302 2242 2148 2002 1872 1658 1342 1132 1052 983 922 818 692 602 528952498 2498 2498 2498 2418 2172 1792 1528 1422 1332 1252 1118 958 833 738972498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2168 1852 1732 1628 1538 1378 1188 1038 922992498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2418 2282 2158 1942 1692 1498 134899.92498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2372 2142%tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring3050 22 12 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 05558 42 32 12 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 06098 82 68 42 28 18 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 265138 118 102 72 52 38 28 22 12 2 2 2 2 2 270182 158 138 108 82 68 52 42 28 18 12 8 2 2 275232 202 178 142 112 92 78 62 48 32 28 18 12 12 880292 258 228 182 148 128 108 92 68 52 42 32 28 22 1885362 322 288 238 198 168 142 122 98 78 62 52 42 38 3290468 422 378 312 262 222 198 172 132 108 92 78 68 58 4895658 598 542 458 388 338 292 262 208 172 148 128 108 98 8297828 742 683 573 492 432 382 338 272 228 192 168 148 128 118991212 1102 1008 858 758 668 592 528 432 362 312 272 242 218 19899.91972 1808 1672 1442 1252 1112 992 892 742 622 542 488 438 392 358Page 190 of 193PERFUM Results from directory C:\Documents and Settings\CSMITH02\My Documents\Dmds\PERFUM Runs 1-15-10\TIFTON_DMDS_012810\Yakima\Field1Results 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 Ring1550 42 32 28 18 12 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 055 68 62 52 38 28 18 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 060 92 88 78 62 48 32 12 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 065 118 108 102 88 72 52 28 12 8 8 2 2 2 2 270 142 132 128 112 98 78 48 28 22 18 12 8 2 2 275 168 162 152 138 128 102 72 48 42 32 28 22 12 8 280 198 192 182 172 158 138 98 78 68 58 52 38 28 18 1285 232 228 222 212 198 172 132 108 98 88 78 62 48 38 3290 278 272 268 258 248 222 182 148 132 122 112 98 78 62 5295 338 332 332 328 318 292 248 208 192 178 162 142 118 98 8297 372 372 372 368 358 338 288 242 228 212 198 172 142 122 10899 448 448 448 442 438 418 368 318 298 278 262 232 198 168 14899.9 573 578 582 588 582 562 502 442 412 392 372 332 288 248 21850 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 055 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 060 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 065 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 070 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 075 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 080 8 8 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 285 22 18 18 12 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 290 42 38 32 22 18 12 12 8 8 2 2 2 2 2 295 72 62 58 42 38 32 28 22 18 12 8 8 8 2 297 92 82 72 58 48 42 32 28 22 18 12 12 8 8 899 128 112 102 88 72 62 52 48 38 32 28 22 18 18 1299.9 192 172 158 132 112 98 88 78 62 52 48 42 38 32 28%tile Ring1 Ring2 Ring3 Ring4 Ring5 Ring6 Ring7 Ring8 Ring9 Ring10 Ring11 Ring12 Ring13 Ring14 Ring15500000000000000010 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 060 228 218 208 182 168 138 92 62 52 48 38 28 18 8 265 272 262 248 228 208 178 132 98 88 78 68 52 38 22 1870 318 308 298 278 258 222 172 138 128 112 102 88 62 48 3875 372 362 352 332 312 278 222 188 172 158 142 122 102 82 6880 432 428 418 398 378 342 282 242 222 208 192 168 142 122 10885 502 498 488 472 452 418 358 312 292 272 258 232 198 172 15290 588 588 578 562 548 512 448 392 372 352 338 302 268 238 21295 718 712 708 698 683 648 582 522 492 468 448 408 362 322 29297 792 792 788 778 762 732 662 598 568 542 518 478 422 382 34899 942 948 942 933 922 888 818 742 712 683 652 602 542 492 44899.9 1228 1232 1232 1228 1222 1192 1102 1008 962 922 883 818 728 662 608%tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring30500000000000000055 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 060 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 065 12 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 070 28 22 18 8 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 075 58 48 38 28 18 12 8 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 280 92 82 72 58 42 32 28 22 12 8 8 2 2 2 285 132 122 108 92 78 62 52 48 32 28 18 12 12 8 890 192 172 158 132 112 98 88 78 62 48 42 32 28 22 2295 268 242 222 192 168 148 132 118 98 82 72 62 52 48 4297 318 292 268 232 202 182 162 148 122 108 92 82 72 62 5899 412 382 358 312 278 248 222 202 172 148 132 118 102 98 8899.9 562 528 492 438 392 352 318 288 248 218 198 178 162 148 138Page 191 of 193PERFUM Results from directory C:\Documents and Settings\CSMITH02\My Documents\Dmds\PERFUM Runs 1-15-10\PERFUM Runs 2-3-10\Yakima\Field2Results 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 Ring1550288 262 222 162 112 48 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 055388 362 322 262 208 128 32 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 060488 462 422 362 308 218 102 38 18 8 2 2 2 0 065588 562 522 462 408 312 188 108 78 58 38 12 2 2 270703 678 638 573 512 412 278 188 158 132 108 72 38 18 275833 802 762 698 633 522 372 278 242 212 188 142 102 68 4880972 948 908 838 772 662 488 378 338 302 272 222 168 132 102851138 1112 1078 1012 948 833 642 512 462 418 378 318 252 202 168901332 1318 1292 1242 1188 1068 858 703 642 588 542 462 372 308 258951628 1618 1598 1562 1512 1398 1168 978 902 828 768 662 548 462 398971802 1798 1788 1762 1718 1608 1358 1148 1062 988 912 798 662 562 482992148 2152 2148 2138 2098 1988 1732 1498 1398 1308 1228 1078 902 768 66899.92498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2342 2078 1958 1832 1728 1538 1302 1128 992%tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring3050 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 055 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 060 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 065 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 070 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 075 32 18 12 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 08082 68 52 32 22 12 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 285138 118 98 72 58 42 32 28 18 12 8 2 2 2 290218 188 162 128 102 82 68 58 42 28 22 18 18 12 1295348 302 268 212 178 148 122 108 82 62 52 42 38 32 2897422 372 332 272 228 192 162 142 112 88 72 62 52 48 4299582 518 468 378 318 272 238 208 168 138 118 102 88 78 7299.9892 802 728 612 522 448 388 342 278 232 198 172 152 132 122Results 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 Ring1550778 738 678 598 522 402 238 138 102 72 48 18 2 2 255958 912 852 768 688 562 378 262 212 178 142 88 32 8 2601142 1098 1038 948 862 728 533 398 348 302 262 198 128 72 38651358 1312 1248 1148 1052 908 692 548 488 438 398 322 242 182 138701578 1538 1472 1372 1282 1118 873 712 648 592 548 468 372 302 248751818 1782 1722 1622 1528 1358 1102 912 838 772 718 628 518 442 378802098 2062 2008 1912 1818 1648 1368 1162 1082 1008 938 828 703 602 522852428 2398 2348 2258 2168 1998 1702 1478 1388 1302 1232 1108 958 833 742902498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2438 2132 1882 1778 1682 1592 1442 1258 1118 1008952498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2432 2308 2198 2092 1912 1692 1518 1372972498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2448 2242 1992 1782 1612992498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2298 209299.92498 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 Ring3050 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 055 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 060 12 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 06598 68 42 12 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 070208 172 142 92 58 32 18 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 075328 288 252 192 152 118 92 72 42 22 8 2 2 2 280462 412 368 302 252 212 178 152 112 82 62 48 32 28 1885662 592 538 448 378 322 282 242 192 152 128 102 88 72 6290908 828 758 642 553 482 422 372 302 248 208 178 158 138 118951252 1142 1052 902 783 692 618 553 458 392 338 298 262 232 212971468 1348 1248 1078 948 838 748 673 558 482 418 368 332 298 272991922 1778 1648 1438 1272 1138 1022 922 772 668 582 518 458 412 37299.92498 2458 2292 2018 1782 1612 1468 1342 1158 1008 902 812 738 673 618Page 192 of 193Page 193 of 193PERFUM 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 Ring1550148 132 112 88 68 38 8 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 055192 178 158 128 102 68 28 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 060232 218 198 168 138 98 52 28 18 12 8 2 2 2 265278 262 238 208 178 138 82 52 38 32 22 12 2 2 270328 312 288 252 222 178 118 78 68 58 48 32 18 12 875378 362 342 308 278 228 158 112 98 88 72 58 42 28 2280448 432 408 372 338 282 208 158 138 122 108 88 68 52 3885522 508 488 452 418 358 268 208 188 168 152 128 102 78 6290618 608 592 558 522 458 358 288 258 238 218 182 142 118 9895768 758 742 712 678 608 488 402 368 342 318 272 222 182 15897868 858 842 812 778 712 582 482 442 408 378 328 268 228 192991048 1042 1032 1012 983 908 758 638 588 548 512 448 372 318 27299.91332 1332 1322 1302 1282 1212 1058 928 873 818 768 678 568 492 432%tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring3050 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 055 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 060 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 065 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 070 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 275 12 12 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 28032 22 18 12 8 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 28552 42 38 28 18 12 12 8 8 2 2 2 2 2 29082 72 62 48 38 28 22 18 12 8 8 8 2 2 295132 118 102 82 68 52 48 38 28 22 18 12 12 12 897168 148 132 108 88 72 62 52 42 32 28 22 18 18 1299242 212 192 158 132 112 98 88 68 58 48 38 32 32 2899.9382 348 312 258 218 192 168 148 118 98 82 72 68 58 52Results 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 Ring1550352 332 308 262 232 178 112 72 58 48 38 22 8 2 255428 408 378 332 298 242 162 118 98 82 72 52 28 12 860508 488 452 408 368 308 218 168 142 128 112 88 62 42 2865592 573 538 492 448 378 282 222 198 178 162 132 102 78 5870688 668 638 588 538 468 362 292 268 242 222 188 148 122 9875798 778 742 692 648 573 452 378 348 318 292 252 208 178 14880912 892 862 818 768 688 568 478 442 408 382 332 282 242 208851052 1038 1008 958 912 828 692 598 558 522 492 438 378 328 288901232 1222 1198 1152 1102 1018 868 758 712 673 638 573 492 438 392951528 1512 1492 1448 1398 1302 1138 1002 948 898 858 778 683 608 548971712 1698 1678 1638 1588 1492 1312 1168 1108 1052 1002 912 808 723 652992068 2068 2052 2012 1968 1862 1662 1492 1422 1358 1298 1192 1058 953 86299.92498 2498 2498 2498 2498 2488 2262 2058 1968 1892 1818 1688 1528 1388 1278%tile Ring16 Ring17 Ring18 Ring19 Ring20 Ring21 Ring22 Ring23 Ring24 Ring25 Ring26 Ring27 Ring28 Ring29 Ring3050 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 055 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 060 18 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 06548 38 28 12 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 07082 68 58 38 28 18 12 8 2 2 2 2 2 2 275128 112 98 72 58 48 38 28 18 12 8 2 2 2 280188 162 148 118 98 82 68 58 42 28 22 18 12 8 885258 228 208 172 148 128 108 92 72 58 48 38 32 28 2290352 322 292 248 212 182 158 142 112 92 78 68 58 48 4295498 452 422 362 312 272 242 218 178 148 128 112 98 88 7897592 542 502 428 378 332 302 272 222 192 168 148 128 118 10899792 728 678 588 518 468 418 382 322 278 242 218 198 182 16299.91178 1092 1018 892 788 708 642 582 502 442 392 358 322 292 272