UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C

. 20460 

## DEC 022014

OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY AND POLLUTION PREVENTION MEMORANDUM 

### SUBJECT:
FROM:



### THRU: BEAD Chemical Profile (BCP) for Registration Review: Propanil (028201)
Sunil Ratnayake, Biologist 

# /1· ·

- · \ 0
. Biological Analysis Branch 

# L**~t**

# Y\Cl**~** SepehrHaddad, Environmental Protection Specialist 

# H ___.**~** Science Information and Analysis Branch

### F~ Stephen Smearman, Economist ).
. I.

### ~ Economic Analysis Branch

### ~ Biological and Economic Analysis Division (7503P) Arnet Jones, Chief Biological Analysis Branch Diann Sims, Chief 

# ftl/h/}h

# II;/**dt;;:;;-~ ~~~-'-**  

## /)S
.

. Science Information and Analysis Branch

Timothy Kiely, Chief 

# 2J It

## ~~ Economic Analysis Branch V\J\.. Biological and Economic Analysis vision (750 TO: Susan Bartow, Chemical ReviewManager, RMIB II Pesticide Re-evaluation Division (7508P) PeerReview Panel date: October 15, 2014SUMMARY Propanil was first registered in the U.S. in 1973 and it is an acetanilide belongs to the amide family ofherbicides. Propanil is applied as a post-emergence herbicide to control certain grasses and broadleafweeds in rice production. This herbicide has no residual activity. A Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) was completed for propanil in 2003 and amended in 2006. Based onprivate market usage data from 1998-2012, usage averaged approximately 6 million pounds active ingredient (a.i.) applied annually on 1.8 million acres treated. The average a.i. rate over this time period was 3.34lbs a.i./acre. A Screening Level Usage Analysis (SLUA) was prepared by BEAD for this chemical in 2014 that providesthe percent crop treated for rice. The SLUA which covers the 2004-2012 timeframe shows that on average 45 percent oftherice crop is treated withpropanil. INTRODUCTION The Biological and Economic Analysis Division (BEAD) Chemical Profile (BCP) provides an overview ofthe pestmanagementroles and quantitative usage infonnation for propanil. The BCP includes summaries ofprevious BEAD products and available public and/or private use and usage data for propanil to describe the role ofthis chemical in pest management. Additional information onuse is available the Screening Level Usage Analysis (SLUA). Information provided in this BCP may be used by stakeholders (e.g., users and registrants), OPP risk and benefit assessors, OPP risk managers, and the general public during the Registration Review process ofthispesticide. USE SITES Agricultural Use Sites Rice is the only registered agricultural use site for propanil. Non-Agricultural Use Sites There are no registered non-agricultural use sites for propanil. FORMULATIONS AND APPLICATION METHODS Propanil is formulated as an emulsifiable concentrate liquid, water dispersible granule (dry flowable), soluble concentrate liquid, and flowable concentrate liquid. Propanil is typically applied as a broadcasttreatment with ground boom sprayers and aerial equipment. HISTORY OF PROPANIL and BEAD PRODUCTS A Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) was completed for propanil in 2003 and amended in 2006.

Page 2A search ofBEAD's Official Records database for BEAD benefits assessments specifically for propanil did not find any records ofprior BEAD assessments, specifically for this chemical in the last 1 0 years. A Screening Level Usage Analysis (SLUA) was prepared by BEAD for this chemical in 2014 thatprovides the percent crop treated for rice. The SLUA which covers the 2004-2012 timeframe shows that on average 45 percent ofthe rice crop is treated withpropanil. There have beenno Section 18 requests for propanil in the last 1 0 years. An emergency exemption rriay indicate thatthere is a need for a particular chemical that is not registered for use on a particular site: An emergency exemption request may yield information about a particular chemical's importance or value that is not found inotherEPArecords. However, a lack of Section 18 assessments by BEAD does not specifically indicate the relative importance ofthe chemical. USAGE Agricultural Usage Based onprivate market usage data from 1998-2012, usage averaged approximately 6 million pounds active ingredient (a.i.) applied annually to rice on approximately 1.8 million acres treated. The average a.i. rate overthis time period was 3.34lbs a.i./acre. Figure 1presents propanil usage inpounds a.i., and Figure 2 shows total areatreated in acres overthe 1998-2012 timeframe (Proprietary Data, 1998-2012). Figures 1 and 2 showthat overthis time period in terms ofboth pounds applied and acres treated there has been a gradual decrease in use from 1998 through 2012. 

### FIGURE 1. 

### Propanil Usage on Rice in Pounds Active Ingredient (1998-2012) 10,000,000 "0 .!!:! 

### c.. c. <( <i. "' "0 c: ::::1 0 a.. 0 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Years Source: ProprietaryData, 1998-2012

Page 3FIGURE 2. 3000000 VI C1l 

### ... u**~** -c C1l
..... ta C1l 

### ... 1-- ta C1l 

## ... < iii

..... 0 1-- 0 

### Total Area ofRice Treated with Propanilin Acres (1998-2012)

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Years Source: Proprietary Data, 1998-2012


### Table 1. 

### Comparison ofPercent ofTotalLbs. Applied to Rice (2001-2005 

### and 200 2001-2005 2008-2012 Average annual= 6.3 million lbs/yr Average annual= 4.95 million lbs/yr 

### Crop 

## I %Lbs Crop 

# I %Lbs Rice 

## I 100 Rice 

# I 100 Source: ProprietaryData, 2001-2012. 8-2012)

Table 1 shows that use onrice accounts for all pounds applied during both the 2001-2005 and 2008-2012 timeframes. The average annual usage in pounds has decreased from 6.3 million lbs a.i. applied peryear inthe 2001-2005 timeframe to approximately 4.95 million lbs a.i. applied per year inthe 2008-2012 timeframe, a decrease ofmore than 20 percent. 

### Table2. Comparison ofStates with HighestUse ofPropanil- PercentofTotalLbs. Applied (2001-2005 

### and 2008-2012) 2001-2005 2008-2012 Average annual= 6.3 million lbs/yr Average annual= 4.95 million lbs/yr 

### State %Lbs State %Lbs Arkansas 51% California 43% California 23% Arkansas 36% Louisiana 9% Louisiana 6%

*Other 17% *other 16% TOTAL 100% TOTAL 100% *Other states in both time periods includes Mississippi, Texas, and Missouri. Source: ProprietaryData, 2001-2012 As shown in Table 2, Arkansas, California and Louisiana are the three top states withthe highest use ofpropanil accounting for more than 80 percent oftotal pounds applied in bothtimeframes, eventhoughtotal pounds applied has decreased by approximately 20 percent between the two periods.

Page4Application Rates and Percent Crop Treated The average a.i. rate for rice in terms ofpounds applied was 3.53 lbs a.i./acre during the 2008- 2012 timeframe as shown in Table 3. 

### T bl

3 P a e 

# . 'lU 

### ropam se on

### T C op rops: A

### verage A I R 

### t 2008 2012 

# .. a e, 

# - Crop AnnualAverage Annual Average Avg. A.I. Rate (lbs Pounds *Total Acres Treated a.i./acres) Rice 4.95 million 1.4 million 3.53 lbs a.i./A *Total Acres Treated sums all acres treated for a crop, mcludmg those acres that receive multiple treatments. Source: Proprietary Data, 2008-2012 Geographic Distribution ofPropanil Use Figure 3 provides a very broad geographical view ofthe average annual amount (inpounds) of propanil applied per 1,000 acres ofcrop acres grown. California and Arkansas depict a highest use intensity ofacres treated withpropanil followed by Louisiana and Mississippi. Please see Appendix I for a more detailed explanation ofthe information presented on the map.

Page 5

### FIGURE 3. AnnualAverage Agricultural Use Intensity ofPropanil (2008-2012)

Pounds Active Ingredient per 1,000 Crop Acres Grown 0 <0
.3 o o.3-14
.0

- 14.1-55
.3

- >55
.4 C]NoData
Non-Agricultural Usage There are no non-agricultural uses ofpropanil. 

### BIOLOGICALASPECTS RELEVANT TO PROPANIL Propanil is an acetanilide herbicide belongs to the amide family. Itis applied as a postemergence herbicide to control certain grasses and broadleafweeds inrice production. Propanil is not a systemic herbicide and it kills susceptible weeds with contact activity. The mechanism ofaction ofthis herbicide is not completely understood. Propanil seems to interfere with electrontransport inphotosystem II ofphotosynthesis (Herbicide Handbook, 2014). Inphotosystem II, two water molecules are oxidized to form one molecule ofmolecular oxygen. Other reported effects ofpropanil on susceptible plants include inhibition of
Page 6anthocyanin synthesis, RNA, and protein as well as adverse effects onthe plasma membrane.(Devine et al., 1993). Propanil is rapidly absorbed bythe foliage. There is limited translocation from treated foliage to other areas oftheplant. Propanil is most effective when susceptible grasses and broadleafweeds are small and growing actively under favorable soil moisture and weather conditions (Starn 80® EDF Product Label, 2012). Application ofpropanil to susceptible weeds causes foliar desiccation and necrosis which can be observed within several days after the herbicide application (Herbicide Handbook, 2014). ROLE OFPROPANIL IN PEST MANAGEMENT Propanil is used as a post-emergence herbicide for control ofgrasses and broadleafweeds in rice production. Application ofpropanil controls barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crusgalli) broadleaf signalgrass (Brachiariaplatyphylla), crabgrass (Digitaria spp.), sesbania (Sesbania exaltata), curly indigo (Aeschynomene virginica), spikerush (Eleocharis spp.), and rice flatsedge (Cyperus iria) at the seedling stage (Arkansas Rice Production Guidelines, 2014). Propanil is ineffective against ducksalad (Heteranthera spp.), redstem (Ammannia coccinea), momingglory species (Ipomoea spp.), sprangletop (Leptochloapanicoides), and red rice (Oryza sativa), which can contaminate and reduce marketprice ofrice grain. The development ofClearfield rice varieties with resistance to imidazolinone herbicides offers new options for red rice control in rice production (Webster & Levy, Undated). From 2004 to 2012 an annual average ofapproximately, 6 million pounds ofproponil was applied to about 1.8 million acres ofrice. This is about 45 percent ofthe U.S. rice crop, suggesting that propanil is an important herbicide inU.S. rice production. According to the International Survey ofHerbicide Resistant Weeds, biotypes oftwo weed species; bamyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli var. crus-galli), and umbrella sedge (Cyperus difformis) have developed resistance to the mode ofaction ofpropanil in the United States (Heap, undated).

REFERENCES Arkansas Rice Production Handbook. 2014. Online Publication. Available at: http://www.arkansas-crops.com/wp-content/ uploads/2014/02/MP192.pdf. Accessed on Oct. 8, 2014. BEAD. 2014. Propanil Screening Level Usage Analysis. Biological and Economic Analysis Division, Office ofPesticide Programs, US Environmental Protection Agency. Devine, M., S. 

### 0. Duke, and C. Fedtke. 1993. Physiology ofHerbicide Action. Prentice Hall, NewJersey.
Page 7Heap, I. Undated. The International Survey ofHerbicide Resistant Weeds. Online Publication. 2014. Available at: www.weedscience.org. Accessed on Oct
. 15, 2014. Proprietary Data. 1998-2012. (pesticide agricultural usage data). Red rice. (Undated). Online publication ofTexas Agric. Experiment Station. Beaumont, TX. Available at: https://beaumont.tamu.edu/elibrary/StudyRiceContest/2011/Red%20Rice.pdf
. Accessed on Oct. 6, 2014
. Starn 80® EDF Herbicide Product Label. 2012. RiceCo LLC. 5100 Poplar Avenue, Suite 2428. Memphis, TN 38137. USEPA.2006. Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) for Propanil (amended). Webster E. and R. Levy. Undated. Weed Management. Chapter 5, LSU AgCenter. Online Publication. Available at: http://text.lsuagcenter.com/MCMS!RelatedFiles/%7BF7E930BF-346A-45DA-A989- 37FE3DOBOF11%7D/Chapter+5+-+Weed+Mgmt.pdf
. Accessed onNov. 19,2014.

Page 8APPENDIX I The map included herein is primarily for the use ofthe risk assessors inthe Environmental Fate and Effects Division. The map provides a very broad geographical view ofthe average annual amount (inpounds) ofthe active ingredient applied per 1,000 acres ofcrop acres grown. These data are included inthe maps because risk assessors are interested inthe amount ofa pesticide used across agricultural land. The calculated values presented in the map are not equivalentto an applicationrate (lb a.i./A). The data used to make these maps have several limitations. Any interpretation ofthe maps should consider the underlying data and the associated limitations carefully. The numerator (annual average pounds applied) is based onprivate market surveys ofpesticide use in agriculture averaged overthe last five years (Proprietary Data, 2008-2012). These surveys cover about 60 crops and are targeted in states thatproduce the majority ofthe crop. Although the surveys capture most ofthe use ofa particular active ingredient in agriculture, there are several limitations to these surveys.
• States with minorproduction ofa surveyed crop are not sampled • Not all types ofpesticides are surveyed in every crop in every year • Many specialty crops with very small acreages are not included inthe survey The result ofthese limitations is that states that showno usage may actually have a small amount ofthe active ingredient being used. In some cases the displayed use intensity may be distorted because the surveyed crops and the reported pesticide usage may not accurately representthe actual pesticide usage onthe crops produced inthe state. The denominator (1,000 crop acres grown) was also obtained from the same private market survey database. The "Crop Acres Grown" variable represents the total acres grown in a given state ofall ofthe surveyed crops. This value is independent ofpesticide usage and pesticide registration. Itis important to note that the surveyed crops (about 60) are sampled from states that are majorproducers ofeach crop. Therefore, there are cases where the actual crop acreage in a state is higher than that reported by crop acres grown in the survey because either that state and/or crop was not included inthe survey. The reader should payparticular attentionto the figure legends and realize that a map prepared for a particular chemical is not directly comparable to a map prepared for a different chemical as the legend bins will likely be different.

Page 9