UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, DC 20460

OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY AND POLLUTION PREVENTION



### PC Code : 006329

DP Barcode : 389520

Date: September 7

, 201 1

MEMORANDUM

Subject: Acequinocyl : Drinking Water Assessment to Support Proposed New IR

- 4 Uses

(Succulent Soybean Vegetable, Low Growing Berry, Small Fruit Vine Climbing

- Except Fuzzy Kiwifruit , Succulent Shelled Beans, Cowpea Forage, Caneberry,

Melon, Cucumber, and Cherry)

To : Dana Vogel, Branch Chief, RAB1

Health Effects Division (7509P)

Barbara Madden

, R isk Manager

Laura Nollen, Risk Manager Reviewer

Insecticide Branch

Registration Division (7505P)

From: Michael B. Lowit, Ph.D.

, Ecologist

Nancy Andrews, Ph.D.

, Branch Chief

Environmental Risk Branch 1

Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P)

Office of Pesticide Programs

This memorandum summarizes the drinking water assessment for numerous proposed IR

- 4 uses

of the miticide A c e quinocyl

. This assessment c onsiders use of the product KanemiteTM15SC,

alternatively named ShuttleTM 15SC or ShuttleTM O, on succulent soybean vegetable, low

growing berry, small fruit vine climbing (except fuzzy kiwifruit), succulent shelled beans,

cowpea forage, caneberry, melon, cuc umber, and cherry

.

Foliar applications (ground) are proposed up to 0.3 lb ai/A for a single maximum application

with an annual maximum of two applications allowed at a minimum interval of 14 or 21 days

depending on the use . The maximum seasonal rate is 0.6 lb ai/ A for all proposed uses

.

### 2

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A Tier II screening

- level drinking water assessment was conducted for the proposed IR

- 4 uses of

the miticide Acequinocyl ( 2

- (acetyloxy)

- 3

- dodecyl

- 1,4

- naphthalenedione ). Assessed uses were

succulent soybean vegetable, low growing berry, small fruit vine climbing (except fuzzy

kiwifruit), succulent shelled beans, cowpea forage, caneberry, melon, cucumber, and cherry

. The assessment is based on a single maximum application rate of 0.3 lb ai/A , ap plied by ground

foliar spray with an annual maximum of two applications allowed at a minimum interval of 14 or

21 days depending on the use

. The maximum seasonal rate is 0.6 lb ai/A for all proposed uses.

Similar to previous drinking water assessments, two app roaches were used in performing the

drinking water assessment for the proposed acequinocyl uses. In Approach 1 , acequinocyl was

conservatively assumed to be stable to all routes of degradation because of the uncertainties

associated with the environmental fate data, mainly the lack of validation of the analytical

methods and the lack of storage stability data. In Approach 2 , it was assumed that the half

- lives

of acequinocyl and the degradation product R1 were valid and the total toxic residues

(acequinocy l + R1) were modeled to address toxicity concerns with R1. According to the HED

Metabolism Assessment Review Committee (MARC) the residues of concern in the dietary

exposure and risk assessment are acequinocyl and the hydroxylated degra date, that is, R1 ( US

EPA, 2007 b ).

S urface water estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) were generated for acequinocyl

using the Pesticide Root Zone Model/Exposure Analysis Modeling System (PRZM/EXAMS)

model for all proposed uses except cranberry . Cranberry use is included on the proposed label

as part of the low growing berries subgroup

, 13

- 07G. C ranberr y harvesting may involve field

flooding and PRZM/ EXAMS are not currently parameterized to assess this type of scenari o ;

therefore

, cranberry wa s assessed using the provisional cranberry model

. Exposure in ground

water due to leaching was assessed with the screening model SCI

- GROW.

The recommended EDWCs for th e human health risk assessment are provided in Table 1

. The

EDWCs derived via Approach 1 represent upper bound values wh ile those derived via Approach

2 represent the lower bound values. Surface water EDWCs from the proposed uses supersede

those previously estimated for acequinocyl (US EPA, 2010). EDWCs for the proposed uses are

higher than those previously reported for both Approach 1 and Approach 2

. The acute EDWC

for cherry ( 25.89 μg/L

– Approach 1 , 5.5 9 μg/L

– Approach 2 ) is greater than the previously

reported acute EDWC (12.22 μg/L

– Approach 1 , 5.14 μg/L

– Approach 2 ). The a nnual mean

(chronic) concentration for cherry ( 17.84 μg/L

– Approach 1 ) and cranberry ( 1.36 μg/L

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

– Approach 1 , 0.29 μg/L

– Approach 2 ). Since the provisional cranberry model only uses a one year simulation, the

highest 30

- year annual average concentration is not available for the cranberry scenario. The

highest 30

- year annual average concentration ( 10.19 μg/L

– Approach 1 , 0. 27 μg/L

– Approach

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

– Approach 1 , 0.20 μg/L

– Approach 2 ). The upper bound EDWCs ( Approach 1 ) exceed the solubility limit of acequinocyl

### 3

(6.69 μg/L at 20°C); therefore, the recommended acute, annual mean (chronic), and 30

- year

annual average EDWC is 6.69 μg/L for Approach 1.

The ground water concentration of 3.6 x 10

- 3 

### μg/L for the current asses sment is the same as in

previous assessments ( US EPA

, 2010 ). This concentration can be considered as both the acute

and chronic values.

Table 1. Recommended Estimated Drinking Water Concentrations (EDWCs) of

Acequinocyl Derived from the Following Proposed New Uses

Drinking water

source (model) Proposed Use/

Scenario 3 Estimated Drinking Water Concentrations

from Surface Water Sources (μg/L) 1,2

Approach 1 : Total Toxic Residues

(no acequinocyl degradation) Approach 2 : Total Toxic Residues

(combined acequinocyl and R1)

1

- in

- 10

year

acute 1

- in

- 10

year

chronic 30

- year

mean 1

- in

- 10

year

acute 1

- in

- 10

year

chronic 30

- year

mean

Surface water

(PRZM/EXAMS) Cherry/

MI cherry 6.69

(25.89) 4 6.69

(17.84) 4 6.69

(10.19) 4 5.59 0.42 0.26

Surface water

(PRZM/EXAMS) Small fruit

(vine

climbing,

except fuzzy

kiwifruit, 13

- 07F) 

### / NY

grape 6.69

(23.12) 4 6.69

(15.34) 4 6.69

(9.57) 4 4.22 0.38 0.27

Surface water

( Provisional

Cranberry

Model ) Cranberry/

Provisional

Cranberry

Model 4.24 5 3.75 5

-- 3.81 5 1.36 5

--

Groundwater

(SCIGROW) All proposed

uses 3.6 x 10

- 3 ≤3.6 x 10

- 3 ≤3.6 x 10

- 3 3.6 x 10

- 3 ≤3.6 x 10

- 3 ≤3.6 x 10

- 3

1 BOLDED values are recommended EDWCs

2 A default PCA of 0.87 was applied

3 Maximum of 2 applications of 0.3 lb ai/A for all proposed uses

4 EDWC (shown in parentheses) exceeds the solubility limit of acequinocyl (6.69 μg/L at 20°C); therefore, the

recommended EDWC is 6.69 μg/L. EDWCs exceeded the solubility limit for multiple proposed uses (see Table 6).

5 Based on a one

- year simulation; 1

- 1 0 year calculation is not applicable



### Although the fate and transport database is complete, most of the environmental fate studies

submitted prior to the initial registration were classified ‘supplemental’ due to numerous

deficiencies identified in the fate studies such as poor chromatographic separation of acequi nocyl

and R1, use of chloroform :methanol solvent system, lack of LOD and LOQ data, un

- eluted

radioactive residues in the solid phase extraction process, and lack of storage stability data.

These issues need to be addressed by the registrant to upgrade the fate studies. Submitted studies

are presented in Appendix D

.

### 4

2. PROBLEM FORMULATION

2.1. Background

The most recent regulatory actions for acequinocyl include the following:

• Section 3 Reque s t for Uses of Acequinocyl (PC Code: 006329) on Greenhouse, Shade

house, Ornamental, Floral, Foliage and Nursery Crop s. August 7, 2003

• Section 3 Reque st for Uses of Acequinocyl (PC Code: 006329) on Pome Fruits, Citrus,

Almonds, Pistachios, Straw berries and Outdoor Ornamentals. February 3, 2004

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

• Ecological Risk Assessment for Use of Acequinocyl (PC 006329) on Grapes, Pome

Fruits, Citrus, Nuts, and Outdoor Non

- Food Uses. August 17, 2007

• Acequinocyl and its Degradate, Acequinocyl

- OH (R1), Drinking Water Assessment in

Support of IR

- 4 New Uses Registration for Fruiting Vegetables (Crop Group 8), Okra,

Edible Podded Beans, and Hops. April 29, 2010

• Ecological Risk Assessment for Use of A cequinocyl on Fruiting Vegetables (Except

Cucurbits) to include Eggplant, Groundcherry, Pepino, Peppers (Bell, Chili, Cooking,

Pimento, And Sweet) Tomatillo, and Tomato; Okra; Edible Podded Beans; and Hops

. July 29, 2010

The previous ly recommended PRZM

- EX AMS EDWC estimates (US EPA, 2010) were based on

the PA apple , PA tomato, and GA pecan crop scenario s

. The 1

- in

- 10

- year annual peak (acute)

concentration of parent acequinocyl was 12.22 μg/L , t he 1

- in

- 10

- year annual daily mean

(chronic) concentration was 2 .45 μg/L , and the 30

- year annual mean was 2.02 μg/L based on

model Approach 1 . Based on Approach 2 , the acute, chronic , and 30

- year annual mean

concentrations were 5.14 μg/L , 0. 29 μg/L , and 0.2 0 μg/L , respectively, for acequinocyl and its

R1 degradate

.

In previous assessments, t he g round water EDWC for acequinocyl an d acequinocyl

- OH (R1) in

shallow ground water sources was 0.0036 μg/L for acequinocyl applied twice at a concentration

of 0.3 lb ai/A regardless of using Approach 1 or 2

. EDWC from shallow g round water sources

are expected remain the same for the proposed uses as acequinocyl proposed use rates are the

same as the current ly registered food use rates

.

2.2. Mode of Action

Acequinocyl is a miticide. Its mode of action is mediated by both the parent chemical and its

primary degradate, 2

- dodecyl

- 3

- hydroxy

- 1,4

- napthoquinone (also referred to as R1, deacetylated

### 5

acequinocyl, acequinocyl

- OH, OH

- AKD 2023, or AKM

- 05) through the in hibition of electron

transfer in mitochondria.

2.3. Use Characteristic s

KANEMITE 15 SC is a miticide for the control of Citrus red mite ( Panonychus citri ), European

red mite ( Panonychus ulmi ) , Pacific spider mite ( Tetranychus pacificus ), Texas citrus mite

( Eu tetranychus banskl ) and Spruce spider mite ( Oligonychus ununquis ), Strawberry spider mite

( Tetranychus turkestam ), Willamette spider mite ( Eotetranychus willamettel ), Two spotted

spider mite ( Tetranychus urticae and Tetranychus cinnabarinus ), and Broad mit e

( Polyphagotarsonamus latus ). According to the registrant, w hen applied to the foliage

, KANEMITE 15 SC provides quick knockdown and long residual control. Due to its unique

mode of action, the label states that KANEMITE 15 SC is not expected to have cross

- resistance

to existing miticides and is reportedly very effective against various species of resistant and

susceptible mites.

Acequinocyl initial food use registration was for pome fruits, citrus, almonds, pistachios,

strawberries , and outdoor ornamentals (US EPA, 2004). T he proposed new uses for acequinocyl

are succulent soybean vegetable, low growing berry, small fruit vine climbing (except fuzzy

kiwifruit), succulent shelled bea ns, cowpea forage, caneberry, melon, cucumber, and cherry . The

maximum application rates for the proposed uses are not to exceed 0.3 lb ai/ A for a single

ap plication rate and 0.6 lb ai/ A for a seasonal application rate, with a minimum reapplication

interva l of 14 or 21 days depending on the use

. The maximum proposed application rates are the

same as the application rates for currently registered acequinocyl agricultural uses (see previous

assessments listed in the Background section above)

. Table 2 summari zes the application rates

and application methods for the proposed use s

. This information is obtained from the label and is

used in the exposure assessment

.

Table 2. Proposed Use Rates for Acequinocyl ( Kanemite 15 SC)

Use Maximum

Individual

Application

Rate

(lb ai/A) Annual

Maximum

Number of

Applications Minimum

Application

Interval

(days) Max

Seasonal

Rate

(lb ai/A) 1 

### Application

Method

Succulent soybean

vegetable

(edamame) 0.3 2 21 0.6 Ground

spray

Low growing

berry (subgroup

13

- 07G) 0.3 2 21 0.6 Ground

spray

Small fruit (vine

climbing, except

fuzzy kiwifruit,

subgroup 13

- 07F) 0.3 2 21 0.6 Ground

spray

Bean, succulent

shelled 0.3 2 14 0.6 Ground

spray

### 6

Use Maximum

Individual

Application

Rate

(lb ai/A) Annual

Maximum

Number of

Applications Minimum

Application

Interval

(days) Max

Seasonal

Rate

(lb ai/A) 1 

### Application

Method

Cowpea forage 0.3 2 14 0.6 Ground

spray

Caneberry

(subgroup 13

- 07A) 0.3 2 21 0.6 Ground

spray

Melon (subgroup

9A) 0.3 2 21 0.6 Ground

spray

Cucumber 0.3 2 21 0.6 Ground

spray

Cherry 0.3 2 14 0.6 Ground

spray

1 The proposed label states the maximum application rate on a seasonal basis. This rate is inferred to be an annual

maximum given the restriction of two applications per year not to exceed 0.3 lb ai/A in a single application.



### The product label use restrict ions specify that the product is not to be applied via irrigation, via

aerial application, or within 75 feet of aquatic areas. In addition, it is not intended for indoor

residential use.

Currently, the label includes the following surface water s tatement :

“ This product may contaminate water through drift of spray in wind. This product has a potential

for runoff for several days after application. Poorly draining soils and soils with shallow water

tables are more prone to produce runoff that contains this product. A level, well maintained

vegetative buffer strip between areas to which this product is applied and surface water features

such as ponds, streams, and springs will reduce the potential for contamination of water from

rainfall

- runoff. Runoff of thi s product will be reduced by avoiding applications when rainfall is

forecasted to occur within 48 hours. Sound erosion control practices will reduce this product's

contribution to surface water contamination.”

2.4. Monitoring Data

Acequinocyl and its major degradate, hydroxy

- acequinocyl (R1), were not monitored in surface

or groundwater under the USGS National Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA) program.

2.5. Conceptual Model

A. Risk Hypothesis

For acequinocyl, the following risk hypothesis is being employed for this national

- scale drinking

water assessment:

### 7

Acequinocyl, when used in accordance with proposed labels, can result in off

- site

movement of the compound product via runoff and spray drift, leading to human

exposure to ace quinocyl and its degradate acequinocyl

- OH (R1) through consumption of

contaminated drinking water.

B. Conceptual Model

Submitted fate and transport data indicate that acequinocyl is highly reactive, with breakdown

potentially occurring quickly via both p hotolysis and hydrolysis. Acequinocyl can reach surface

water via spray drift (foliar ground spray) and less likely via runoff

. Once acequinocyl has

entered surface water, it is not likely to persist as it will hydrolyze to form acequinocyl

- OH (also

known as R1, OH

- AKD 2 023, AKM

- 05, deacetylated acequinocyl, and 2

- dodecyl

- 3

- hydroxy

1,4

- napthoquinone)

. Surface water runoff from the areas of application is assumed to follow

topography. Spray drift will follow wind direction.

Leaching into gro undwater is not expected to be a major route of transport based on submitted

laboratory studies that indicated a very low mobility potential

.

Potential emission of volatile compounds is not considered as a viable release mechanism for

acequinocyl because of the low vapor pressure of the compound.

2.6. Analysis Plan

Similar to previous drinking water assessments, two approaches were used in performing the

drinking water assessment for the proposed acequinocyl uses. In Approach 1 , acequinocyl was

conservatively assumed to be stable to all routes of degradation because of the uncertainties

associated with the environmental fate data, mainly the lack of validation of the analytical

methods and the lack of storage stability data. In Approach 2 , it was assumed that the half

- lives

of acequinocyl and the degradation product R1 were valid and the total toxic residues

(acequinocyl + R1) were modeled to address toxicity concerns with R1. According to the HED

Metabolism Assessment Review C ommittee (MARC) the residues of concern in the dietary

exposure and risk assessment are acequinocyl and the hydroxylated degra date, that is, R1 (US

EPA, 2007 b ).

Acequinocyl g round water EDWCs are the same as assessed in the previous drinking water

asse ssment since the proposed application rates and number of applications are the same as

currently registered food uses

.

3. ANALYSIS

3.1. Fate and Transport Characterization

Acequinocyl appears to undergo fairly rapid transformation in most aquatic and terrestrial

environments b ased on the environmental fate data of uncertain quality reviewed for the initial

registration

. Acequinocyl hydrolyzed with a half

- life of a few hours to less than 2 days under

neutral and alkaline pH conditions (MRID 45434908). However, it was stable under acidic pH

### 8

conditions. Photodegradation in water appear ed to be the main route of degradation in aquatic

environments, with half

- lives of less than 15 minutes in sterile lab and river water. In soil, t he

half

- lives for aerobi c biotransformation were less than 2 days under laboratory conditions

(MRID 45434911). Under field conditions, acequinocyl applied to bare plots dissipated with

half

- lives ranging from 2 hrs in California to 14 hours in New York (MRID 45651601). In

contr ast, the residue decline data submitted for the Magnitude of Residue studies on apples,

pears, oranges, grapefruit, lemon and almonds indicated a mean half

- life of 20 days (US EPA,

2004)

.

Acequinocyl presented very low mobility in soil. The soil adsorpt ion K d 

### for acequinocyl range d

from 678 ml/g in sandy loam soil to 1,620 ml/g in silty clay loam soil (MRID 45531902) based

on a study with one test concentration instead of four test concentrations as Subdivision N

guidelines specify . In the field studies, the parent was not detected below 0

- 15 cm soil depth

(MRID 45651601). The major transformation products detected in the field include d R1 (2

- dodecyl

- 3

- hydroxy

- 1, 4

- napthoquinone) and AKM

- 18 ( 2

- (1,2

- dioxotetradecyl) benzoic acid )

.

Based on acequinocyl bio concentration factor in fish (BCF ranged from 307 to 387 (MRID

45434923 ) and its rather high octanol/water partition coefficient (Log Kow ≥ 6.2), acequinocyl

can expect to bioconcentrate in fish if found in water

. Since a cequinocyl has low vapor pressure

of 1. 69 x 10

- 6 

### PA (at 25 o 

### C) and very low water solubility o f 0.006 mg/L

, any losses due to

volatilization are expected to be minimal. Further details on fate studies and other fate properties

of acequinocyl can be found in the original risk assessment document ( US EPA, 2004 )

. Table 3

provides summ ary of physical and chemical properties of acequinocyl. Appendix A provides a

summary of acequinocyl major degradates and their maximum percent formation observed in the

laboratory a nd field studies.

Table 3. Physical and Chemical Properties of Acequinocyl

Common Name: Acequinocyl

CAS Chemical Name: 2

- (acetyloxy)

- 3

- dodecyl

- 1,4

- naphthalenedione

CAS Registry No.: 57960

- 19

- 7

PC Code: 006329

Pesticide Type: Miticide

Chemical Family: Quinoline

Registrant: Arysta LifeS cience North America , LLC

Trade Names: Kanemite  15 SC (EPA Reg. # 66330

- 38)

Target Pests: Tetranychus, Panonychus

, Eutetranychus

, Oligonychus, Eotetranychus, and

Polyphagotarsonamus spp of mites

Formulation: Kanemite TM 

### 15 SC; 1.25 lb ai/gal ; (15.8% ai)

Empirical Formula: C 24 

### H 32 

### O 4



### Structural Formula of Acequinocyl

### 9

Common Name: Acequinocyl

Structural Formula of Acequinocyl Major

Degradate :

Acequinocyl

- OH (also known as R1

, OH

- AKD 2023, AKM

- 05, deacetylated

acequinocyl, and 2

- d odecyl

- 3

- hydroxy

1,4

- naphthoquinone )

PC Code: 606329; CAS # 57960

- 31

- 3

Vapor Pressure: 1.69 x 10

- 6 

### pascals at 25 0 

### C (technical)

Water Solubility: 6.69 μg/L at 20 0 

### C (technical)

Octanol/W ater Partition Coefficient (Log

Kow):  6.2 (technical)

Molecular Weight: 384.5 (technical)

Melting Point: 59.6  C (technical)

3.2. Drinking Water Exposure Modeling

Two approaches were used in performing the drinking water assessment for the proposed

acequinocyl uses. In Approach 1 , acequinocyl was conservatively assumed to be stable to all

routes of degradation because of the uncertainties associated with the environmental fate data,

mainly the lack of validation of the analytical methods and the lack of storage stability data. In

Approach 2 , it was assumed that the half

- lives of acequinocyl and the degradation product R1

were valid and the total toxic residues (acequinocyl + R1) were modeled to address toxicity

concerns with R1. According to the HED Metabolism Assessment Review C ommittee (MARC)

the residues of concern in the dietary exposure and risk assessment are acequinocyl and the

hydroxylated degradate, that is, R1 (US EPA, 2007 b ). All half

- lives used were calculated based

on the total toxic residues (acequinocyl + R1). Ad ditionally, the a dsorption coefficient (Kd) for

R1 was used in the modeling ( Approach 2 ) because R1 is more mobile than acequinocyl.

3.2.1. Surface Water Modeling

All Proposed Uses Except Cranberries

T ier II surface water EDWCs were calculated using PRZM ( P esticide R oot Z one M odel, v3.12.2;

May 12, 2005) and EXAMS ( EX posure A nalysis M odeling S ystem, version 2.98.04.06, April

2005) models in the PE5 shell. All Tier II modeling was corrected for percent cropped area

(PCA), using the default value of 0.87 (87%). Standard crop scenarios were selected for each

proposed use. Table 4 lists the input parameters used for the PRZM/EXAMS modeling of

acequinocyl and the R1 degradate. A representative PRZM/EXAMS output file is provided in

Appendix B

. Table 6 presents EDWCs of acequinocyl and R1 in surface water sources from

the proposed uses

.

### 10

Table 4. PRZM/EXAMS Input Parameter Values.

Parameter (Units) Input Value and Unit Source/Comments Approach 1 1 Approach 2 2

Maximum Application Rate 0.3 lb ai/acre (all uses) Proposed label

Maximum Number of Applications 2 Proposed label

Minimum Reapplications Interval 21 days (succulent soybean vegetable, low

growing berry, small fruit, caneberry,

melon, cucumber)

14 days (succulent shelled bean, cowpea

forage, cherry) Proposed label

Modeling Scenarios Succulent soybean vegetable (edamame):

MS soybean

Low growing berry (13

- 07G) :

FL strawberry (not applicable for

cranberry)

Small fruit (vine climbing, except fuzzy

kiwifruit, 13

- 07F):

CA grape

NY grape

Bean, succulent shelled and cowpea

forage:

MI bean

OR snbean

Caneberry (13

- 07A):

CA grape

NY grape

Melon (9A) :

MI melon

MO melon

NJ melon

Cucumber :

FL cucumber

Cherry :

MI cherry EFED standard

PRZM/EXAMS scenarios

In the absence of a standard

caneberry scenario, grape

scenarios are used as surrogate

scenario s

Initial Application Dates (dd

- mm) Succulent soybean vegetable (edamame):

MS soybean (12

- 09)

Low growing berry (13

- 07G) :

FL strawberry (24

- 01)

Small fruit (vine climbing, except fuzzy

kiwifruit, 13

- 07F):

CA grape (03

- 08)

NY grape (17

- 09)

Bean, succulent shelled and cowpea

forage:

MI bean (14

- 08)

OR snbean (12

- 08)

Caneberry (13

- 07A):

CA grape (09

- 08)

NY grape (23

- 09)

Melon (9A) :

MI melon (24

- 07)

MO melon (09

- 07)

NJ melon (29

- 06) The date of initial application

was calculated from the Pre

Harvest Interval (PHI) and

application interval as written

on the proposed labe ls.

### 11

Parameter (Units) Input Value and Unit Source/Comments Approach 1 1 Approach 2 2

Cucumber :

FL cucumber (18

- 11)

Cherry :

MI cherry (30

- 06)

Application Method Ground, Foliar (CAM = 2) Acequinocyl is a foliar

application

Application Efficiency Fraction 0.99 EFED standard default for

ground applications

Spray Drift Loading Fraction 0.064 EFED standard default for

ground applications

Incorporation depth (cm) 0 Default for foliar applications

Molecular Weight (g/mole) 384.5 Product Chemistry

IPSCND Input 1 (succulent soybean vegetable)

3 ( low growing berry, small fruit,

succulent shelled bean, cowpea forage,

caneberry, melon, cucumber, cherry) 1 = remaining pesticide on

foliage is converted to surface

application to the top soil layer

2 = remaining pesticide on

foliage is completely removed

after harvest

3 = remaining pesticide on

foliage is retained as surface

residue and continues to

undergo decay.

Water Solubility (mg/L) 0.0067 MRID 4543490 6

Vapor Pressure (torr) 1.268 × 10

- 8 MRID 45434905

Henry’s Law Constant (atm

- m 3 /mol) 9 .5 9 × 10

- 7 Calculated

K d (ml/g) 1027 3 970 4 MRID 45531902; 45434907

Hydrolysis Half

- life (days) stable 9.6 MRID 45434908

Aqueous Photolysis Half

- life (days) stable 0.19 MRID 45434909

Aerobic Soil Metabolism (days) stable 48.5 MRID 45434911

90 th percentile confidence

interval on the mean (EFED

guidance) 5

Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism (days) stable 97 Twice the aerobic soil

metabolism t 1/2 (EFED

guidance) 5

Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism (days) stable 649.8 MRID 45434913

Three times the aquatic

metabolism t 1/2 (EFED

guidance) 5

1 Acequinocyl was assumed to be stable in the environment

2 Combined half

- life values for acequinocyl and acequinocyl

- OH (R1) degradate

3 Mean Kd of four values was used because the study was conducted on only one test concentration

4 Mean Kd of four values was used because binding was not correlated with organic carbon content.

5 Input Parameter Guidance Manual, Pesticides (Version 2.1; Oct. 22, 2009)



### Cranberries

The Provisional Cranberry Model (v2, December 8, 2010) is a provisional refinement to the Tier

I Rice Model (v1.0, May 8, 2007) . Refinements include the addition of sim ple degradation

### 12

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

depth of four inches used in the rice model. These modification s allow estimation of screening

level peak and annual mean EDWC s of acequinocyl residues of concern that may occur in

untreated surface water used as drinking wate r following use on cranberries

.

The model assumes that degradation on dry cranberry bog soil occurs predominantly via aerobic

microbial metabolism. Additionally, residue degradation in flooded bogs is assumed to occur via

aerobic microbial metabolism in the water column and via anaerobic microbial metabolism in the

sediment.

Acequinocyl use on cranberries is proposed for an annual maximum of two applications of 0.3 lb

ai/A each. The minimum interval between applications is 21 da ys and the preharvest interval is

one day. The proposed applications were first aged on dry soils because cranberry bogs are not

typically flooded until the night before harvesting. The resulting residues (in lb ai/A) were then

summed and used as input f or the flooded component of the model to estimate peak and annual

mean EDWCs in bog tailwater following harvest.

Table 5 lists that input parameters used for the Provisional Cranberry Model. The equations

used in the Provisional Cranberry Model are brief ly describe d in Appendix C

. Table 6 presents

estimated drinking water concentrations ( EDWCs ) of acequinocyl and R1 in surface water

sources from use on cranberry

.

Table 5. Provisional Tier 1 Cranberry Model Input Parameters.

Input Parameter Value Source/Comments

Approach 1 1 Approach 2 2

Application Rate (lbs ai/A) 0.3 Proposed label

Applications per Year 2 Proposed label

K d (ml/g) 1027 970 MRID 45531902; 45434907

Aerobic Soil Metabolism Half

- life

(days) stable 3 48.5 MRID 45434911

90 th percentile confidence

interval on the mean (EFED

guidance)

Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism Half

- life

(days) stable 3 97 Twice the aerobic soil

metabolism t 1/2 (EFED guidance)

1 Acequinocyl was assumed to be stable in the environment

2 Combined half

- life value s for acequinocyl and acequinocyl

- OH (R1) degradate

3 Since Provisional Cranberry model requires a half

- life value, 1000 days was used to represent stable conditions.

### 13

Table 6. Estimated Drinking Water Concentrations (EDWCs) for Acequinocyl Total Toxic

Residues Based on Approachs #1 and #2 Using PRZM/EXAMS and Provisional Cranberry

Model

Proposed

Use Scenario Estimated Drinking Water Concentrations

from Surface Water Sources (μg/L) 1,2

Approach #1 : Total Toxic Residues

(no acequinocyl degradation) Approach #2 : Total Toxic Residues

(combined acequinocyl and R1)

1

- in

- 10

year acute 1

- in

- 10

year

chronic 30

- year

mean 1

- in

- 10

year acute 1

- in

- 10

year

chronic 30

- year

mean

Soybean MS soybean 15.99* 8.88* 6.03 2.49 0.23 0.16

Low

growing

berry

(13

- 07G) FL strawberry

(not applicable

to cranberry) 16.22* 7.36* 5.02 0.76 0.08 0.06

Provisional

Cranberry

Model

(applicable to

cranberry) 4.24 3 3.75 3

-- 3.81 3 1.36 3

--

Small fruit

(vine

climbing,

except

fuzzy

kiwifruit,

13

- 07F) CA grape 4 3.87 2.80 1.60 0.70 0.05 0.04

NY grape 4 23.12* 15.34* 9.57* 4.22 0.38 0.27

Succulent

shelled

bean and

cowpea

forage MI bean 14.13* 9.62* 5.74 1.22 0.12 0.09

OR bean 14.63* 9.71* 6.71* 1.16 0.21 0.17

Caneberry

(13

- 07A) CA grape 4 3.89 2.80 1.61 0.70 0.05 0.04

NY grape 4 23.19* 15.31* 9.57* 4.57 0.38 0.26

Melon

(9A) MI melon 5.90 3.77 1.93 0.71 0.05 0.04

MO melon 14.38* 7.74* 5.02 2.46 0.16 0.11

NJ melon 9.16* 5.36 3.46 1.14 0.10 0.07

Cucumber FL cucumber 13.32* 5.85 3.90 0.88 0.08 0.06

Cherry MI cherry 25.89* 17.84* 10.19* 5.59 0.42 0.26

1 A default PCA of 0.87 was applied

2 BOLD indicates highest EDWC for the proposed uses

3 Based on a one

- year simulation; 1

- 10 year calculation is not applicable

4 Grape scenarios were used to represent the proposed small fruit and caneberry uses; different initial application

dates were used that reflect labeled treatment and preharvest inter vals specific to each crop

* Value exceeds solubility limit of acequinocyl (6.69 μg/L at 20°C)



### 3.2.2. Ground Water Modeling

Estimated concentrations of acequinocyl total toxic residues in drinking water from shallow

ground water sources are the same as for currently registered uses because the application rates

### 14

and number of applications are the same (0.3 lb ai/A, 2 applications). Therefore, the estimated

environmental concentrations are not expected to exceed 3.6 x 10

- 3 

### μg/L for the proposed uses.

Thi s concentration can be considered as both the acute and chronic value. Details regarding SCI

GROW modeling at this application rate can be found in US EPA, 2007 a

.

3.2.3. Assumptions and Uncertainties

The following uncertainties have been identified in the environmental fate properties and

drinking water assessment for acequinocyl :

• Most of the environmental fate studies submitted prior to the initial registration were

classified ‘supplemental’ due to deficiencies identified in the fate studies such as poor

chromatographic separation of acequinocyl and R1, use of chloroform : methanol solvent

system, lack of LOD and LOQ data, un

- eluted radioactive residues in the solid phase

extraction process, and lack of storage stability data.

• In PRZM/EXAMS mo deling

, Approach 1 , acequinocyl was conservatively assumed

stable to all routes of degradation to account for the uncertainties associated with the

environmental fate data . This approach generated conservative, upper bound, EDWCs

for acequinocyl. The refo re, exposure to acequinocyl may be overestimated by Approach

1

.

• The impact of spray drift buffers was not considered in this drinking water assessment

. With a 75 ft. spray drift buffer (spray drift fraction = 0 .006)

, t he effective drift to a water

body from a ground application would be smaller than without the buffer (0.06 4 ).

However, based on comparison of EDWCs (not corrected for PCA) derived for the MI

cherry scenario (

Approach 1 ) the impact of spray drift on the E DWCs is minimal with

and without the 75 ft spray dr ift buffer.

Buffer Spray Drift

Fraction 1

- in

- 10 year acute

( μg/L) 1

- in

- 10 year

chronic ( μg/L) 30

- year mean

( μg/L)



### None 0.06 4 29.75 20.50 11.71

75 feet 0.006 28.74 19.67 11.17

• SCI

- GROW estimated a concentration of < 0.0036 μg/L for acequinocyl ( Approach 1 )

and total residue ( acequinocyl+R1 ; Approach 2 ) in shallow ground water sources. T he

ground water EDWC s were obtained using the median Koc value of 37,550 ml/g for

acequinocyl, and the median Koc value of 36,000 ml/g for the total (acequinocyl+R1)

residues . Estimated concentrations of chemicals with Koc values greater than 9,995 ml/g

are beyond the scope of the regression data used in SCI GROW development. If there

are concerns for such chemicals, a higher tier groundwater exposure assessment should

be considered, regardless of the concentration returned by SCI

- GROW.

• Two method validation studies (MRID 46182601 and 46182602) submitted by the

registrant to determine the concentrations of acequinocyl and its metabolite(s) in soil and

water extracts were reviewed by the EPA’s Environmental Chemistry Laboratory. The

### 15

regist rant was informed of the suggested amendments and request for new calibration

data in a memo dated 27 June, 2007. Recently, the registrant submitted the amended

analytical method for determination of residues of acequinocyl and its major metabolite

R1 (hy droxy

- acequinocyl) in drinking water, ground water and surface water (MRID

48016602), and the amended analytical method for the determination of acequinocyl,

hydroxy

- acequinocyl, and AKM

- 18 in soil (MRID 48016601). The Agency is in the

process of reviewin g thes e submitted studies.

3.3. Drinking Water Treatment

No specific information was available for the behavior of acequinocyl during drinking water

treatment.

4. DATA REQUIREMENTS

Most of the environmental fate studies submitted prior to the initial registration were classified

‘supplemental’ due to deficiencies such as poor chromatographic separation of acequinocyl and

R1, use of chloroform: methanol solvent system, lack of LOD and LOQ data, un

- eluted

radioactive residues in the solid phase e xtraction process, and lack of storage stability data.

These issues need to be addressed by the registrant to upgrade the fate studies.

REFERENCES

Orr, Gary R. 2009. Determination of Acequinocyl, Acequinocyl

- OH, and AKM

- 18 in Soil

Minor Analytical Revision of Method

- 136, Revision #2. Performing Laboratory: Arysta

LifeScience North America, LLC. Laboratory Project ID: ARY

- 0413

- 2455153. Completion

Date : November 18, 2009

. (MRID 48016601)

Orr, Gary R. 2009. Determination of Residues of AKD 2023 a nd Its Major Metabolite R1

(Hydroxy AKD'2023) in Drinking Water, Ground Water and Surface Water. Minor Analytical

Revision of Method

- AGK/076. Arysta LifeScience North America, LLC. Laboratory Project ID:

ARY

- 0413

- 2455183. Completion Date: December 18, 20 09

. (MRID 48016602)

US EPA . 2004. Section 3 Request for Uses of Acequinocyl (P.C. Code: 006329) on Pome

Fruits, Citrus, Almonds, Pistachios, Strawberries and Outdoor Ornamentals submitted under

DP Barcodes: D285811, D286428, D289153, D290010, D287269, D290009, D291174

. February 3, 2004

.

US EPA . 2007 a . Tier II Drinking Water Assessment for Acequinocyl. June 27, 2007

US EPA. 2007 b . PP#s 6F7040 and #7F7176. Human

- Health Risk Assessment for the Proposed

Uses of Acequinocyl on Grapes, the Tree Nut Cr op Group, and Residential Sites (Ornamentals).

September 6, 2007

### 16

US EPA. 2010. Acequinocyl and its Degradate, Acequinocyl

- OH (R1), Drinking Water

Assessment in Support of IR

- 4 New Uses Registration for Fruiting Vegetables (Crop Group 8),

Okra, Edible Pod ded Beans, and Hops. April 29, 2010

### 17 APP ENDIX A

Table A .1. Summary of Acequinocyl Major Degradates and Maximum Percent Formation Observed in the Laboratory and Field Studies

Degradate Max imum Degradate Concentration (% of applied) and Time to Max Concentration

Hydrolysis Aqueous

Photolysis Soil

Photolysis Aerobic Soil

Metabolism Anaerobic

Aquatic A erobic

Aquatic TFD

R1 (2

- dodec yl

- 3

- hydroxy

1,4

- naphthaledione ) pH 7:

54.7% (96 hr ) River water:

11.6% ( 30 min )

-- 33.8% (2 days) Water:

18% (0 days )

Sediment:

41.5% (3 days ) 12.2% (0 days) NY: 37.8% (3 hr )

GA: 37.8% 1

CA: 26.4% 1

AKM 18 [ 2

- (1,2

- dioxotetradecyl)benzoic

acid ] pH 7:

7.1% (48 hr )

-- 23.7% (6 days) 9.2% (2 days) Water:

2.7 % ( 7 days )

Sediment:

34.3 % ( 269

days ) 19.5% (1 day) NY: 16.5% ( 3 hr )

AKM

- 08 [ 2

- (2

- oxo

dodecyl)

- 3

- hydroxy

- 1,4

- naphthoquinone ] -- Buffer solution:

12.9% (2 hr )

-- -- -- -- --

O

- Phthalic acid

-- Buffer solution:

12.7% (24 hr )

River water:

11.9% (24 hr ) -- -- -- -- --

Phenol

-- River water:

10% (24 hr ) -- -- -- -- --

CBAA ( 2

- carboxy

- α

- oxo

benzene acetic acid ) -- -- -- -- -- 11.3% (2 days)

--

1 Formed immediately after application.

### 18 APPENDIX B

PRZM/EXAMS Modeling Output

Approach 1

stored as MIcherry ap1.out

Chemical: acequinocyl

PRZM environment:

MICherriesSTD.txt modified Tueday, 26 August 2008 at 06:16:40

EXAMS environment:

ir298.exv modified Tueday, 26 August 2008 at 06:14:08

Metfile: w14850.dvf modified Tueday, 26 August 2008 at 06:15:10

Water segment concentrations (ppb)

Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

1961 11.12 8.134 3.336 1.948 1.691 0.5269

1962 2.28 1.943 1.554 1.468 1.442 1.3

1963 5.479 4.05 2.407 2.016 1.975 1.725

1964 7.691 6.081 3.522 2.938 2.848 2.316

1965 11.25 8.519 5.948 4.832 4.627 3.443

1966 9.729 7.799 5.573 5.124 5.083 4.521

1967 7.432 6.674 5.9 5.691 5.626 5.313

1968 8.277 7.357 6.302 6.005 5.946 5.643

1969 13.14 10.94 8.779 8.16 8.012 7.025

1970 16.32 13.51 10.26 9.802 9.507 8.295

1971 17.03 14.13 10.79 9.889 9.711 9.2

1972 19.27 15.77 12.06 11.15 11.02 10.15

1973 13.45 12.39 11.19 10.92 10.85 10.69

1974 13.69 12.62 11.53 11.33 11.33 11

1975 26.81 21.25 17.16 14.41 13.89 12.03

1976 16.23 14.94 13.44 13.02 12.92 12.79

1977 18.41 16.52 14.33 13.9 13.77 13.21

1978 24.58 20.75 16.93 15.42 15.11 14.01

1979 24.52 20.97 16.88 15.75 15.55 14.96

1980 16.88 16.2 15.43 15.11 15.1 15.02

1981 23.46 20.67 17.26 16.25 16.26 15.5

1982 29.9 25.24 19.27 17.64 17.33 16.47

1983 22.55 20.63 19.18 18.33 18.14 17.27

1984 28.65 24.63 20.01 18.82 18.65 17.88

1985 28.54 24.77 21.1 20.22 19.93 18.81

1986 30.96 26.88 22.52 21.1 20.79 19.78

1987 29.88 26.72 23.55 21.99 21.63 20.51

1988 22.47 22.07 21.16 20.87 20.84 20.61

1989 24.16 22.79 21.37 21 20.84 20.49

1990 26.6 24.48 22.24 21.82 21.6 20.94

### 19

Sorted results

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

0.032258 30.96 26.88 23.55 21.99 21.63 20.94

0.064516 29.9 26.72 22.52 21.82 21.6 20.61

0.096774 29.88 25.24 22.24 21.1 20.84 20.51

0.129032 28.65 24.77 21.37 21 20.84 20.49

0.16129 28.54 24.63 21.16 20.87 20.79 19.78

0.193548 26.81 24.48 21.1 20.22 19.93 18.81

0.225806 26.6 22.79 20.01 18.82 18.65 17.88

0.258065 24.58 22.07 19.27 18.33 18.14 17.27

0.290323 24.52 21.25 19.18 17.64 17.33 16.47

0.322581 24.16 20.97 17.26 16.25 16.26 15.5

0.354839 23.46 20.75 17.16 15.75 15.55 15.02

0.387097 22.55 20.67 16.93 15.42 15.11 14.96

0.419355 22.47 20.63 16.88 15.11 15.1 14.01

0.451613 19.27 16.52 15.43 14.41 13.89 13.21

0.483871 18.41 16.2 14.33 13.9 13.77 12.79

0.516129 17.03 15.77 13.44 13.02 12.92 12.03

0.548387 16.88 14.94 12.06 11.33 11.33 11

0.580645 16.32 14.13 11.53 11.15 11.02 10.69

0.612903 16.23 13.51 11.19 10.92 10.85 10.15

0.645161 13.69 12.62 10.79 9.889 9.711 9.2

0.677419 13.45 12.39 10.26 9.802 9.507 8.295

0.709677 13.14 10.94 8.779 8.16 8.012 7.025

0.741935 11.25 8.519 6.302 6.005 5.946 5.643

0.774194 11.12 8.134 5.948 5.691 5.626 5.313

0.806452 9.729 7.799 5.9 5.124 5.083 4.521

0.83871 8.277 7.357 5.573 4.832 4.627 3.443

0.870968 7.691 6.674 3.522 2.938 2.848 2.316

0.903226 7.432 6.081 3.336 2.016 1.975 1.725

0.935484 5.479 4.05 2.407 1.948 1.691 1.3

0.967742 2.28 1.943 1.554 1.468 1.442 0.5269

0.1 29.757 25.193 22.153 21.09 20.84 20.508

Average of yearly

averages: 11.71426

### 20

Inputs generated by pe5.pl

- Novemeber 2006

Data used for this run:

Output File: MIcherry ap1

Metfile: w14850.dvf

PRZM scenario: MICherriesSTD.txt

EXAMS environment file: ir298.exv

Chemical Name: acequinocyl

Description Variable

Name Value Units Comments

Molecular weight mwt 384.5 g/mol

Henry's Law Const. henry 9.59E

- 07 atm

- m^3/mol

Vapor Pressure vapr 1.27E

- 08 torr

Solubility sol 0.0067 mg/L

Kd Kd 1027 mg/L

Koc Koc mg/L

Photolysis half

- life kdp 0 days Half

- life

Aerobic Aquatic

Metabolism kbacw 0 days Halfife

Anaerobic Aquatic

Metabolism kbacs 0 days Halfife

Aerobic Soil Metabolism asm 0 days Halfife

Hydrolysis: pH 7 0 days Half

- life

Method: CAM 2 integer See PRZM manual

Incorporation Depth: DEPI 0 cm

Application Rate: TAPP 0.336 kg/ha

Application Efficiency: APPEFF 0.99 fraction

Spray Drift DRFT 0.064 fraction of application rate applied to pond

Application Date Date 30

- 06 dd/mm or dd/mmm or dd

- mm or dd

- mmm

Interval 1 interval 14 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

app. rate 1 apprate 0.336 kg/ha

Record 17: FILTRA

IPSCND 3

UPTKF

Record 18: PLVKRT

PLDKRT

FEXTRC 0.5

Flag for Index Res. Run IR Reservoir

Flag for runoff calc. RUNOFF total none, monthly or total(average of entire run)

### 21

Approach 2

stored as MIcherry ap2.out

Chemical: acequinocyl

PRZM environment:

MICherriesSTD.txt modified Tueday, 26 August 2008 at 06:16:40

EXAMS environment:

ir298.exv modified Tueday, 26 August 2008 at 06:14:08

Metfile: w14850.dvf modified Tueday, 26 August 2008 at 06:15:10

Water segment concentrations (ppb)

Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

1961 4.525 3.122 1.118 0.6104 0.5081 0.1698

1962 0.9362 0.5987 0.3765 0.2836 0.2663 0.2179

1963 0.8695 0.5407 0.3134 0.1934 0.1638 0.124

1964 2.106 1.443 0.5232 0.3249 0.2743 0.138

1965 2.076 1.294 0.6581 0.4552 0.4006 0.2146

1966 1.923 1.183 0.4934 0.347 0.3203 0.244

1967 0.9068 0.5694 0.3468 0.244 0.2257 0.1909

1968 1.347 0.8181 0.4031 0.2632 0.23 0.1582

1969 4.117 2.439 0.8879 0.5837 0.5271 0.2808

1970 3.162 1.911 0.8676 0.6661 0.5737 0.3425

1971 3.605 2.164 0.8351 0.5167 0.4487 0.3294

1972 6.552 3.843 1.492 0.8882 0.7888 0.4248

1973 1.085 0.7146 0.4704 0.3945 0.3752 0.3015

1974 1.029 0.6892 0.4763 0.3206 0.2855 0.1961

1975 5.285 3.092 1.596 0.8703 0.7234 0.3104

1976 2.218 1.365 0.5759 0.416 0.3731 0.3008

1977 1.911 1.197 0.6012 0.446 0.3925 0.2477

1978 2.789 1.711 0.8798 0.5348 0.4605 0.2715

1979 5.342 3.161 1.138 0.6576 0.5629 0.3363

1980 0.9552 0.6175 0.3961 0.2926 0.2816 0.2327

1981 4.627 2.794 1.012 0.5691 0.5084 0.2594

1982 8.311 5.03 1.744 0.9656 0.8083 0.4162

1983 2.827 1.772 0.8035 0.661 0.6482 0.4256

1984 4.188 2.516 0.968 0.6017 0.5282 0.3718

1985 6.704 3.944 1.4 1.061 0.915 0.4855

1986 4.627 2.785 1.225 0.9365 0.8414 0.539

1987 5.076 3.416 2.083 1.264 1.079 0.6063

1988 1.348 0.9113 0.5907 0.5491 0.5286 0.3978

1989 0.924 0.5857 0.3641 0.2347 0.227 0.1845

1990 2.58 1.543 0.6426 0.464 0.3995 0.2164

### 22

Sorted results

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

0.032258 8.311 5.03 2.083 1.264 1.079 0.6063

0.064516 6.704 3.944 1.744 1.061 0.915 0.539

0.096774 6.552 3.843 1.596 0.9656 0.8414 0.4855

0.129032 5.342 3.416 1.492 0.9365 0.8083 0.4256

0.16129 5.285 3.161 1.4 0.8882 0.7888 0.4248

0.193548 5.076 3.122 1.225 0.8703 0.7234 0.4162

0.225806 4.627 3.092 1.138 0.6661 0.6482 0.3978

0.258065 4.627 2.794 1.118 0.661 0.5737 0.3718

0.290323 4.525 2.785 1.012 0.6576 0.5629 0.3425

0.322581 4.188 2.516 0.968 0.6104 0.5286 0.3363

0.354839 4.117 2.439 0.8879 0.6017 0.5282 0.3294

0.387097 3.605 2.164 0.8798 0.5837 0.5271 0.3104

0.419355 3.162 1.911 0.8676 0.5691 0.5084 0.3015

0.451613 2.827 1.772 0.8351 0.5491 0.5081 0.3008

0.483871 2.789 1.711 0.8035 0.5348 0.4605 0.2808

0.516129 2.58 1.543 0.6581 0.5167 0.4487 0.2715

0.548387 2.218 1.443 0.6426 0.464 0.4006 0.2594

0.580645 2.106 1.365 0.6012 0.4552 0.3995 0.2477

0.612903 2.076 1.294 0.5907 0.446 0.3925 0.244

0.645161 1.923 1.197 0.5759 0.416 0.3752 0.2327

0.677419 1.911 1.183 0.5232 0.3945 0.3731 0.2179

0.709677 1.348 0.9113 0.4934 0.347 0.3203 0.2164

0.741935 1.347 0.8181 0.4763 0.3249 0.2855 0.2146

0.774194 1.085 0.7146 0.4704 0.3206 0.2816 0.1961

0.806452 1.029 0.6892 0.4031 0.2926 0.2743 0.1909

0.83871 0.9552 0.6175 0.3961 0.2836 0.2663 0.1845

0.870968 0.9362 0.5987 0.3765 0.2632 0.23 0.1698

0.903226 0.924 0.5857 0.3641 0.244 0.227 0.1582

0.935484 0.9068 0.5694 0.3468 0.2347 0.2257 0.138

0.967742 0.8695 0.5407 0.3134 0.1934 0.1638 0.124

0.1 6.431 3.8003 1.5856 0.96269 0.83809 0.47951

Average of

yearly averages: 0.297813

### 23

Inputs generated by pe5.pl

- Novemeber 2006

Data used for this run:

Output File: MIcherry ap2

Metfile: w14850.dvf

PRZM scenario: MICherriesSTD.txt

EXAMS environment

file: ir298.exv

Chemical Name: acequinocyl

Description Variable

Name Value Units Comments

Molecular weight mwt 384.5 g/mol

Henry's Law Const. henry 9.59E

- 07 atm

- m^3/mol

Vapor Pressure vapr 1.27E

- 08 torr

Solubility sol 0.0067 mg/L

Kd Kd 970 mg/L

Koc Koc mg/L

Photolysis half

- life kdp 0.19 days Half

- life

Aerobic Aquatic

Metabolism kbacw 97 days Halfife

Anaerobic Aquatic

Metabolism kbacs 649.8 days Halfife

Aerobic Soil Metabolism asm 48.5 days Halfife

Hydrolysis: pH 7 9.6 days Half

- life

Method: CAM 2 integer See PRZM manual

Incorporation Depth: DEPI 0 cm

Application Rate: TAPP 0.336 kg/ha

Application Efficiency: APPEFF 0.99 fraction

Spray Drift DRFT 0.064 fraction of application rate applied to pond

Application Date Date 30

- 06 dd/mm or dd/mmm or dd

- mm or dd

- mmm

Interval 1 interval 14 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

app. rate 1 apprate 0.336 kg/ha

Record 17: FILTRA

IPSCND 3

UPTKF

Record 18: PLVKRT

PLDKRT

FEXTRC 0.5

Flag for Index Res. Run IR Reservoir

Flag for runoff calc. RUNOFF total none, monthly or total(average of entire run)

### 24 Appendix C

I

. Provisional Cranberry Model Equations

The Provisional Cranberry Model is a refinement of the Tier I Rice Model v1.0 (Equations 1 and

2), which is a simple equilibrium partitioning equation that calculates a single, screening

- level

concentration in rice paddy water and released tailwater based on a compound’s application rate

and soil mobility.

Equations 1

- 2: Tier I Rice Model v1.0 (USEPA, 2007b).

(1)

and, if appropriate:

(2)

where,

C w0 

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

m ai 

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

K d 

### = water

- sediment partitioning coefficient [L/kg]

K OC 

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

d

w 

### = water column depth = 0.10 m

d sed 

### = sediment depth = 0.01 m

θ sed 

### = porosity of sediment = 0.509

ρ b 

### = bulk density of sediment = 1300 kg/m 3



### First, the Tier I Rice Model was provisionally modified (Equation 3) to include as inputs

degradation rate constants in order to estimate single, screening

- level concentrations in paddy

water or tailwater at a giv en time after application.

Equation 3: Provisional Modified Rice Model (Jones, 2006).

(3)

where,

C

w 

### = water concentration [μg/L]

t = interval since last application [d]

k 1 

### = upper 90 th 

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

k 2 

### = upper 90 th 

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

k 3 

### = upper 90 th 

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

Then, the Provisional Modified Rice Model water column depth was lengthened to a

depth that is used to flood cranberry bogs ( i.e. , 12 inches; Cape Cod Cranberry Growers

Association, 2001 ).

i.e.

, d

w 

### = water column depth = 0.305 m

### 25

In order to model degradation prior to the flood at harvest, the application rates for n

number of pre

- harvest applications were independently degraded over the interim until flooding

and then summed (Equation 4).

Equation 4: Degradation in a Dry Bog.

(4)

where,

m ai 

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

m ai 

### '

n 

### = mass applied per unit area on the n th 

### application [kg/ha]

k 4 

### = upper 90 th 

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

t

n 

### = interval from the n th 

### application to harvest [d]

n = number of pre

- harvest applications

The following four equations and parameter sets constitute the Provisional Cranberry

Model (Equations 1

- 4).

Equations 1

- 4: Provisional Cranberry Model.

(1)

and, if appropriate:

(2)

where,

C w0 

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

K d 

### = water

- sediment partitioning coefficient [L/kg]

K OC 

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

d

w 

### = water column depth = 0.305 m

d sed 

### = sediment depth = 0.01 m

θ sed 

### = porosity of sediment = 0.509

ρ b 

### = bulk density of sediment = 1300 kg/m 3



### and, lastly:

(3)

where,

C

w 

### = water concentration [μg/L]

t = interval since flood [d]

k 1 

### = upper 90 th 

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

k 2 

### = upper 90 th 

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

k 3 

### = upper 90 th 

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

### 26

II

. Output of Provisional Cranberry Model

### 27 APPENDIX D

Table D.1. Environmental Fate and Transport Data Submitted for Acequinocyl

Guideline Laboratory and Field Studies MRID Study

Classification

161

- 1 Hydrolysis (dark; pH 5, 7, and 9) 45434908 Supplemental

161

- 2 Photodegradation in Water (pH 7) 45434909 Supplemental

161

- 3 Photodegradation on Soil 45434910 Supplemental

162

- 1 Aerobic Soil Metabolism

Aerobic Soil Metabolism 45434911

45434912 Supplemental

Unacceptable

162

- 3 Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism 45434913 Supplemental

162

- 4 Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism 45434914 Supplemental

163

- 1 Adsorption/Desorption (Technical)

Adsorption/Desorption (Metabolite, R1)

Leaching in Unaged and Aged Soil Columns 45531902

45434907

45531903 Supplemental

Supplemental

Supplemental

164

- 1 Terrestrial Field Dissipation 45651601 Acceptable

165

- 4 Accumulation in Fish 45434923 Supplemental