### UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON D. C., 20460

OFFICE OF

CHEMICAL SAFETY AND

POLLUTION PREVENTION

PC Code: 109801

DP Barcode: 0410177

Date: May 1

, 2013



### MEMORANDUM

Subject:



### To:

From: EFED Respon se to Comments on the Registration Review Problem Formu l ation

for Iprodione

James Parker, Chemical Review Manager

Laura Parson s, Team Leader

Ri s k Management and Implementation Branch I

P estic ide Reevaluation Divi s ion

Office of Pesticide Programs ·

Chuck Peck

, Environmental Engineer**~of** 

### Scott Glaberman

, Ph.D.

, Bio l ogist

Environmental Risk Branch 4

Reviewed By: Jim Carleton, Ph.D., Senior

# ~cien~ist .

# ~: ..

# /J~ 

# 6/; /**~f /**  Thomas Steeger

, Ph.D.

, Semor Sc1ence

## Adv1s**~~ ~**  '-of

## ~~ S/l

, 

# o

Environmental Ri s k Branch 4 

# tf

-

Through: Marietta Echeverria

, Chief

## ~**~ ~**  Environmenta l Ri sk Branch 4

Environmental Fate and Effects Div i sion

Office of Pesticide Programs

The Environmental Fate and Effects Divi sion (EFED) has reviewed the comments submitted on the preliminary problem formulation for the ecological risk, environmenta l fate, endangered species, and drinking water assessments to be conducted as part of the registration review of the fungicide, iprodione (PC Code 109801). The preliminary problem formulation was posted to the public docket (E PA-HQ-OPP-2012-0392-0003) for pub l ic comment on December 14

, 2012. The

comments rece i ved were from the technical registrants, Bayer CropScience (EPA-HQ-2012- 0392-0015) and FMC Corporation (EPA -H Q-20 1 2-0392

- 0013), as well as from the Physicians'

Committee for Re s ponsible Medicine (EPA-HQ-2012-0392-0012). Many comm e nts from Bayer

1 

### of26

### 2 of 26 CropScience Environmental Science Division (B ES) and FMC were similar and are therefore discussed collectively. EFED’s responses ar e provided below each set of comments.

Based on comments received, EFED does not be lieve changes to the Preliminary Problem Formulation for Ecological Risk and Environm ental Fate, Endangered Sp ecies, and Drinking Water Assessments for Iprodione are warranted.

Comment (p. 9-10, BES; p. 7-8, FMC):

It is our expectation that the collection of new da ta, as identified in th e initial Work Plan, will lead to implementation of the Residue Summation or Formation/Decline (EPA, 2008; Ruhman et al., 2008; Ruhman and Barrett, 2011) environmen tal exposure modeling approach, rather than the Total Toxic Residues expos ure modeling approach. We also expect that new environmental fate data for 3,5-DCA would cons iderably impact the drinking wa ter exposure estimates. Finally, the new data that is listed in the preliminary Work Plan is expected to significantly impact the drinking water risk assessment and therefore dire ctly affect the dietary risk assessment and justify dietary risk re-evaluation.

EFED Response:

If the available data for the degradates supp ort the use of the Formation/Decline modeling approach, EFED will employ such techniques to model iprodione and the associated residues of concern. EFED agrees that additional data fo r the residues of concern may allow for further refinement of ecological and drin king water exposure estimates.

Comment (p. 10, BES; p.9, FMC):

Guideline number 835.1230 – leaching and Adsorption/Desorption (Degradates only) The registrant is currently ev aluating the availability of ads orption/desorption data for RP30228 to fulfill data gap. In the absence of additional acceptable data, we intend to conduct a new adsorption/desorption study for RP30228. Degradate RP35606 is considered a transient metabolite; hence batch equilib rium method may not be suitabl e for the determination of adsorption/desorption values for this molecule. Therefore, we would consider an alternate method, such as the HPLC method for this co mpound to address the terms of the DCI. The registrant is planning to conduct an adsorption/desorption study for RP32490.

EFED Response:

With regards to evaluating the adsorption/deso rption of degradate RP35606, if the registrant believes that the OCSPP Guideline 835.1230 methodology for evaluating the mobility of this chemical may not be appropriate, EFED reco mmends that a protocol outlining the proposed method be submitted to the Agency for review and approval prior to the conduct of the study.

### 3 of 26 Comment (p. 13-14, BES):

The registrant appreciates the opportunity to co mment on the drinking water assessment. While we would disagree with the characterization of the assessment as being highly refined (especially for surface water), we agree that the ground water assessment is adequate to produce an acceptable dietary assessment when considering drinking water from ground water and so further refinements are probably not needed at this time for the drinki ng water from ground water assessment. While the registrant beli eves that surface water assessment grossly overestimates drinking water concentrations in actual community water systems (CWSs), this is not the time for a full discussion on this assess ment. Instead, the registr ant plans to generate additional data as requested by EPA, which will be used in a refined assessment shortly after the submission of the requested studies. The re gistrant has included some comments on the assessment for the information of EPA; however, a response from EPA is not requested at this

time.

EFED Response:

EFED will consider the comments provided by the re gistrant regarding the use of the total toxic residue approach, use information, and the moni toring study in developing the drinking water assessment for iprodione in registration review.

Comment (p. 5-6, FMC):

FMC is reviewing all risk assessments which ca n be found in the iprodi one Registration Review Docket. Since considerable new data generation is being undertaken by FMC, we anticipate the need for further refinements to the current risk assessments posted by the Agency. EPA will need to adopt a comprehensive approach to its refinement process of risk assessments. Refinements should take into account drinking water exposur e, use pattern characterization (temporal and spatial), and properly assigned metabolite(s) valu es. Additionally, risk assessments should be refined to include actual residue values as we ll as realistic consumption values. Since drinking water represents a significant contribution to th e iprodione 'risk cup', FMC asserts that these significant changes should be reflected in iprodi one risk assessments. As new data is developed and use patterns continue to evolv e, dietary assessment s hould also be refined to incorporate the most recent exposure estimates possible. Throughout the past iprodione re-registration process, other registrants have requested that EPA refine its dietary risk assessment. This remains an important request during this ip rodione Registration review where new toxicological effects and environmental exposure informat ion will be introduced thro ughout the review process.

EFED Response:

EFED will consider the registrant’s comments regarding refinements in the drinking water assessment and any new data generated by the registrant during the development of the assessment, provided those data are deem ed appropriate for risk assessment.

### 4 of 26 Comment (p. 8, FMC):

The agency has employed the Quantitative Structure Activity Relationship (QSAR) model (ASTER) in the problem formulation to suggest that the metabolites are more toxic than parent compound. This model used is not av ailable to public. Therefore, th is registrant is not able to evaluate this software.

EFED Response:

ASTER (AS sessment T ools for the E valuation of R isk) was developed at the U.S. EPA, National

Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory (NHEERL), Mi d-Continent Ecology Division (MED). Due to security restrictions, ASTER is not publicly available. However, the full raw data output for ASTER that was used to in form the Problem Formulation of iprodione is

included in Appendix A of this document. In addition, the user guide for ASTER can be found

at http://cfpub.epa.gov/ecot ox/blackbox/help/ASTER.pdf

.

Comment (p. 11, BES; p. 9, FMC):

Several existing eco-toxicity stud ies with aquatic organisms that we re submitted to the agency in the past have been deemed unacceptable due to va riability in exposure concentrations and/or solubility problems with test substance. The regi strant recognizes the agency’s concerns with the aquatic toxicity assays, but a thorough evaluation is needed before commencing new studies. Test conditions may have limited the solubility of iprodione and therefore, the functional solubility could be lower than the actual solubility of iprodione. Re-testing the same test system (as per EPA guidance) may result in similar issu es and may not genera te new information. Therefore, the registrant requires further clarif ication from the agency on experimental strategy if DCI is requested for these tests.

EFED Response:

EFED acknowledges that solubility may have been limited in several of the aquatic toxicity tests. However, in several instances, precipitate was observed in test media and it was not reported whether samples were centrifuged or filtered prior to measuring test concentrations, which is critical for accurately measuring exposure to the test substance. In cases of limited solubility of test compounds, the 1996 OC SPP Draft Guideline 850.1000, Special Considerations for Conducting Aquatic Laboratory Studies, 1 

### states the following:

“Existing OPP guidelines for aqua tic toxicity tests require that chem icals be tested up to a maximum dissolved concentrati on of 100 ppm (milligrams per liter) for pesticides...in an effort to obtain an LC 50 

### or EC 50 

### . Current policy allows chemicals that are poorly soluble (solubility <100 ppm )...to be tested up to the maximum water solubility...limit obtainable for the given te st conditions employed, provided that

1 http://www.epa.gov/ocspp/pubs/frs/pub lications/OPPTS_Harmonized/850_Ecological_Effects_Test_Guidelines/Dr afts/850-1000.pdf

### 5 of 26 certain prerequisites apply: (i) Concentrati ons of test chemical in test media are measured at appropriate intervals and from appropriate test chambers of all test levels are determined from centrifuged supernatant or other appropriate separation (e.g., filtrate). (ii) Testing is also perfor med with a more soluble formulation e.g., emulsifiable concentrate, if one exists (in add ition to testing with the technical-grade material). Testing with a more soluble fo rmulation will not, however, be required if it does not provide a twofold increase in solubility.”

The guideline further states that:

“Conventional centrifugation is required for all test medi a where undissolved test material, precipitate, flocculant, or colloidal suspension (except for surfactants or charged polymers) are observed in the test chambers or where the solubility and (hence bioavailability) are in question. Filtration may be used instead of centrifugation if the analytical method is validated over a range of acceptable

concentrations.”

Based on this information, EFED recommends that the functional solubility of the test substance is demonstrated prior to defini tive testing, and that precipitate observed in test chambers is centrifuged or filtered as described in the OC SPP 850.1000 guideline in future aquatic toxicity testing. As noted, OCSPP 850.1000 provides recomm endations/strategies to consider when testing chemicals with limited solubility and/or with a propensity to sorb.

Comment (p. 11-12, BES; p. 11-12, FMC):

In the problem formulation, the agency states that “according to the most recent risk assessment of iprodione, several open-literature toxicity st udies are available for 3,5-DCA which indicate that this degradate is less toxic to aquatic organisms than iprodione (USEPA, 2009). However, these open-literature studies have not been thoroughly re viewed by EPA. A comprehensive literature review of all releva nt toxicity studies for 3,5-DCA and other degradates of concern using the ECOTOXicology (ECOTOX) database will be carried out during the upcoming Registration Review ecological risk assessmen t of iprodione. Additi onally, EPA will consider data for other dichloroanilines and parachloroanilines (e.g., 3, 4-DCA, p-chloroaniline) as surrogates in the absence of data for 3, 5-DCA.”

The below information derived from the ECOTOX data base suggest that 3,5-DCA is relatively less toxic than parent iprodione in most of the aquatic organisms, es pecially in the invertebrate Daphnia.

The registrant is citing Dom et al., (2010); which provides information on measured and estimated (QSAR) acute values for several aquatic organism fo r 3,5-DCA and also for aniline, 4- chloroaniline and 2,3,4-trichloroaniline. Further, the registrant woul d like to cite another recent publication by the same research team (Dom et al., 2012); where the researchers have conducted a Daphnia reproduction st udy not only with 3,5-DCA but also with other anilines (aniline, 4-chloroaniline and 2,3,4-trichloroanilin e). This study is a standard guideline 21-day

### 6 of 26 exposure assay and the endpoints measured are related to the reproduction of Daphnia. The study provides NOEC and LOEC as required by guideline. This study will satisfy the Agency need and therefore, a chronic reproduc tion test is not re quired for 3,5-DCA.

References:

Dom N, Knapen D, Blust R. Assessment of aquatic experimenta l versus predicted and extrapolated chronic toxicity data of four structural analogues. Chemosphere. 2012. 86:56-

64

Dom N, Knapen D, Benoit D, Nobels I, Blust R. Aquatic multi-species acute toxicity of (chlorinated) anilines: experimental ve rsus predicted data. Chemosphere. 2010. 81:177 間 86.

EFED Response:

Any open-literature study intended to fulfill a 40 CFR Part 158 data requirement should be formally submitted to the Agency in response to the data call-in (DC I) request and will be reviewed according to the appropriate Agency guideline(s). Otherwise, any open-literature studies that are captured in EPA’ s ECOTOX (ECOTOXicology) Database 2 

### will be considered by the Agency at the time of the Registration Review preliminary risk assessment. In order for open-literature studies to be considered for risk assessment, they must meet specific scientific and data reporting standards as described in th e OPP guidance for evaluating ecological toxicity data (USEPA, 2011). As an alternative to submitti ng an open-literature st udy in fulfillment of a Part 158 guideline requirement, a waiver may be submitted for review which indicates why a requested guideline study is not necessary. If the available data do not meet the agency’s

standard for inclusion in a risk a ssessment, the data gap will remain.

2 http://cfpub.epa.gov/ecotox/

### 7 of 26 Comment (p. 11, BES; p. 10, FMC):

In problem formulation, the age ncy suggest that the existi ng acute sheepshead study was reclassified from acceptable to supplemental due to lack of information provided in study report. The need for the early life stage test study cannot be determined unt il an acceptable acute test is submitted. Therefore, the registrants suggest that the ELS study should be conditional, depending the outcome of acute study. (Additio nal FMC Comment: Moreover, if (at all) a fish full life cycle is conducte d (discussed below) that should cover the fish ELS)

EFED Response:

The existing acute toxicity study with the sheepshead minnow ( Cyprinodon variegatus ) (MRID 40489205) was recently downgraded from supplemental to unacceptable, not “acceptable to supplemental” as indicated in the above comment; therefore, this study ca nnot be used in risk assessment. For the purpose of communicating all the potential data needs for iprodione in the DCI, it is recommended that the saltwater fish early life-stage (ELS) study be included in the DCI, but with a footnote indicati ng that the need for this study is dependent on the outcome of the requested acute toxicity test with an es tuarine/marine fish (OCSPP 850.1075). It should be noted that according to 40 CFR Part 158, the recommendation for a saltwater fish ELS study (OCSPP 850.1400) does not depend solely on the acute toxicity of the chemical, but also on other factors including the potential for reproductiv e impacts in fish and/or invertebrates, and comparisons between EECs of the compound ( i.e. , exposure) and releva nt toxicity endpoints 3



### . Once the acute toxicity st udy with the estuarine/marine fish is reviewed, it will be included with

other lines of evidence to determine if a saltwater fish ELS study is needed.

A fish life cycle study with a freshwater fish spec ies would not generally serve as a substitute for an estuarine/marine fish ELS study because EFED typically assesses risks separately for freshwater and estuarine/marine organisms. Howeve r, a freshwater fish fu ll life cycle study could

factor into the overall decision to recommend or not recommend an estuarine/marine fish ELS based on the potential for survival, growth, orreproductive effects to fish in general.

Comment (p. 11, BES):

Guideline 850.1500 Fish life C ycle Test (freshwater)

BES would request that EPA perform a careful evaluation of all ex isting data, including the data submitted as part of the Tier 1 EDSP, before requesting this study.

EFED Response:

At this time, EFED recommends that the fish life cycle guideline study be included in the upcoming DCI for iprodione. The registrants ha ve submitted a Fish Short Term Reproduction

3 See 40 CFR §158.630(e)(15) test notes for a description of the criteria used to determine the need for a saltwater

fish ELS study.

### 8 of 26 Assay (OCSPP Guideline 890.1350) which is currently under review within the context of the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP). The registrants may submit a waiver request in response to the DCI if there is a specific scientific rationa le for why existing toxicity information, such as the Tier 1 EDSP fish st udy, adequately accounts for the range of endpoints recorded in the fish life cycle guideline study.

Comment (p. 10, FMC):

Fish Life Cycle Test 850.1500

We wish to waive this data requirement sinc e we have committed to delete rice from our agricultural label as discussed above. We are not aware of any remaining use needing this study. One of the rationales that agency has provided in preliminary problem formulation is ‘potential anti-androgenic effects' of iprodione The registr ant believes that a careful evaluation should be made before requesting this study on the basis of 'anti-androgenic' effect.

EFED Response:

The recommendation for a fish life cycle toxic ity test (OCSPP 850.1500) wa s based primarily on the fact that EECs are >0.1 of the NOAEC values for freshwater fish (NOAEC=260 μg ai/L), freshwater invertebrate (NOAEC= 240 μg ai/L), and estuarine/ma rine invertebrate (NOAEC=3.5 μg ai/L) chronic toxicity studies. Chronic EECs ( i.e. , either 21- or 60-d ay) ranged from 8.62 to 51,760 μg/L according to the recent iprodione effect s determination for the California red-legged frog (USEPA, 2009), triggering the need for a fi sh life cycle test as indicated under 40 CFR §158.630(e)(18). It should be noted that EECs pr esented in the California red-legged frog

assessment were based on combined residues of iprodione and 3,5-DCA. However, if 3,5-DCA were to be evaluated separately from the pare nt, as proposed in the problem formulation, and

therefore not included in EEC calculations for iprodione, the resulting EECs for many uses of iprodione would still be expected to exceed the tr iggers for the fish life cycle test. Therefore, a fish full life cycle study is still being recommended.

Comment (p. 11, BES; p. 10, FMC):

Iprodione is practically non-toxic to honey bees . Iprodione has not been shown to adversely affect any stage of honey bee nor does it adversely affect other non-target arthropod development. Iprodione acute oral toxicity has been tested on adult honeybee and fails to show any lethal or sub-lethal to xicity at a limit dose of 25 μ g ai/bee.

Related to the work plan item requesting info rmation on toxicity to honey bee larva, the registrant would like to indicate that there is currently no st andard guideline available for this test. Also, the registrant is aw are of issues around larval surv ival in control treatments.

### 9 of 26 (Additional BES Comment: BES believes that EPA needs to develop a guideline for the study with a clear definition of study parameters a nd endpoints prior to making the study type a requirement for registrants.)

(Additional FMC Comment: In lieu of any additional bee toxicity testing, FMC will submit a semi-field study (tunnel test). EPA' s review of this study will c onfirm that there are no risks to colony survival from application of Rovral 4F fo r labeled agricultural uses. The registrants plan to submit an existing semi-field study (tunnel test) that shows that there are no risks to colony survival from application of the formulated product of this acti ve. Overall, based on the acute and semi-field studies the registrants have evide nce that iprodione does not pose risk to honey bees at the organism level as well as colony level . Therefore, a 'non-standar dized' larval toxicity test is not necessary.)

EFED Response:

As part of its proposed Tier I screening leve l approach for characterizing effects of acute pesticide exposure on bees, the Agency has begun recommending studies evaluating acute oral toxicity to adult worker bees ( Apis mellifera ) and acute oral toxicity to worker larvae. In the proposed screening level approach, the most sensitive LD 50 

### values representing each of these exposure routes and life stages are intended to be used in combination with the appropriate estimated exposure value to derive RQs for the Tier I risk assessment. The rationale for the tiered testing approach is further laid out in th e recent Agency white paper (EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0543- 0004). 4



### EFED is not aware of any acute oral toxicity st udy with iprodione that has been submitted to the agency as indicated in the registrant’s comment . If such a study has been conducted, it may be submitted to the Agency for review in response to a DCI request for a honeybee acute oral toxicity study (OECD Guidel ine 213) for iprodione.

The following link is being provided to a recent version of the OECD draft guidelines for conducting a honeybee larv al toxicity test: http://www.oecd.org/env/ehs/te sting/Honeybee%20larval%20toxi city%20single%20exposure_dr aft_Nov2012.pdf This document should provide th e best available information concerning methods and reporting for testing pesticides on larvae fed with spiked food, as recommended in the problem

formulation.

It is possible that a higher-tiered honeybee toxici ty study such as a semi-field tunnel study could address potential effect s of iprodione at the colony leve l, including developing brood. Such a study may be submitted to the Agency for review as part of a waiver request laying out the rationale for why requested screenin g level honeybee toxicity studies ( i.e., acute oral and larval toxicity studies) are not needed.

4 The White Paper can be found on- line at: http://www.regulations.gov/# !documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-

0543-0004

### 10 of 26 Comment (p. 1, PCRM)

With respect to the acute fish st udies requested we found informati on in the litera ture indicating that Iprodione is moderately toxic to fish specie s, with LC50 values ranging from 2.25 mg/L in the sunfish to 6.7 mg/L in the rainbow trout.

EFED Response:

EFED appreciates the information provided on available aquatic t oxicity endpoints.

OPP’s standard process for conducti ng ecological risk assessment, as laid out in its ecological risk assessment Overview Document, 5 

### is to use open-literature data to supplement registrantsubmitted studies requested by the Agency under 40 CFR Part 158. The registrant can formally submit open-literature studies to the Agency for re view if they believe that such studies meet guideline standards. All other open-literature studies will be collected through EPA’s ECOTOX database and will be reviewed for their quality and utility in ecological risk assessment. During the pesticide registration review process, review of ECOTOX open-literature data typically occurs at the time of the preliminary risk assessmen t. Therefore, if the in dicated aquatic toxicity endpoints are captured in ECOTOX, th ey will be considered for incl usion in the risk assessment. However, at this time, the acute toxicity of ip rodione to freshwater fish remains a data gap.

Literature Cited

USEPA. 2009. Effects Determination for Ipr odione and the California Red-legged Frog. http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/endanger/litstatus /effects/redleg-frog /index.html#iprodione

USEPA. 2011. EFED Memorandum. Evaluation Guide lines for Ecological T oxicity Data in the Open Literature. http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/science/efed/pol icy_guidance/team_authors/endangered_species_ reregistration_workgroup/esa_ evaluation_open_literature.htm

For a listing of all MRIDs, see the Problem Formulation Bibliography.

5 http://www.epa.gov/espp/consultation/ecorisk-overview.pdf

### 11 of 26 Appendix 1. ASTER Output for Iprodione and Degradates

[ASTER output for: iprodione (parent)]

I. CHEMICAL IDENTIFICATION

Parameter Value

Name Iprodione (RP26019)

CAS Number -1

SMILES c1c(Cl)cc(Cl)cc1N2C(=O)CN(C(=O)NC(C)C)C2(=O)

Formula C 13 CL 2 H 13 N 3 O 3

II. ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT

Parameter Value Source Reference
Molecular Weight (g/mole) 330.17 Calculated
Melting Point (C) Not available for this chemical
Boiling Point (C) 408.70 Calculated
Vapor Pressure (mm of Hg) 2.69E-09 Calculated
Ht Vaporization (cal/mole) 1.93E04 Calculated
Solubility in Water (mg/L) 292.56 Calculated

CLogP 3.12 ** CLogP 83337

KowWin 2.85 KowWin 83336

pKa Not available for this chemical
Adsorption Coef (log Koc) 3.04 Calculated
Henry's Constant (atmm**3/mole) 4.00E-12 Calculated

Log10 (Henry's Constant)(atmm**3/mole) -11.40 Calculated

Hydrolysis Half-life (days) 190 days

BioDegradation Data Linear Model Prediction : Does Not Biodegrade Fast

Non-Linear Model Prediction: Does Not Biodegrade Fast Ultimate Biodegradation Timeframe:

Months Primary Biodegradation Timeframe:

Weeks

MITI Linear Model Prediction : Not Readily Degradable

MITI Non-Linear Model Prediction: Not Readily Degradable

<BR< font> BioWin 83338

Mackay Level 1 Environmental Partitioning @ 25C Fugacity = 4.81E-12 Pa

0.00 % into air

8.76 % into soil

83.05 % into water

### 12 of 26 0.01 % into suspended solids 0.00 % into aquatic biota

8.17 % into sediment

** Denotes the LogP value used in calculations

III. ECOTOXICOLOGICAL HAZARD ASSESSMENT

Table 1. Geometric Means of all data passing the ASTER filter by Species Group

Habitat Species Effect Count Geo Mean Min Max

No Records Found

Table 2. Median Acute Data values

Habit

at Taxon Gro

up Name Endpoi

nt Effe

ct Measu

re Medi

a Dur ( d) Exposu

re Median C

onc Sour

ce Ref

No

A Fish* Pimephales promelas LC50 MOR MORT FW 4 S 23309.64 ug/L QSA

R 9003

A Fish* Ictalurus punctatus LC50 MOR MORT FW 4 S 10062.06 ug/L QSA

R 9003

A Fish** Daphnia

magna LC50 MOR MORT FW 4 S 13250.95 ug/L QSA

R 9003

A Fish* Oncorhync hus mykiss LC50 MOR MORT FW 4 S 9473.00 ug/L QSA

R 9003

A Fish* Lepomis

macrochiru

s LC50 MOR MORT FW 4 S 18644.88 ug/L QSA

R 9003

Table 3. Median Chronic Data values

Habit

at Taxon Gro

up Name Endpoi

nt Effe

ct Measu

re Medi

a Dur ( d) Exposu

re Median Co

nc Sourc

e Ref N

o

A Fish* Pimephal

es promelas MATC GRO GGRO FW 4 S 3870.21 ug/L QSAR 9003

Table 4. Median Bioconcentration Data values

Habit

at Taxon Gr

oup Name Endpo

int Effe

ct Meas

ure Med

ia Dur ( d) Expos

ure Sit

e Median C

onc BCF Va

lue Sour

ce Ref

No

A Fish Pimeph

ales promela

s BCF AC

C RSDE FW 4 S W

O 116.94 QSA

R 7

Table 5. Additional Agency Benchmark Data

Habit

at Taxon Gro

up Nam

e Endpoi

nt Effec

t Measur

e Medi

a Dur (d ) Exposur

e Median Co

nc Sourc

e Ref N

o

No Records Found

### 13 of 26 IV. ECOLOGICAL RISK CHARACTERIZATION

A. Environmental Exposure Assessment
Henry's Constant = 4.00E-12 atm-m**3/mole Log10 (Henry's Constant) = -11.40 atm-m**3/mole

Lyman et al. 1982. would conclude that a chemical with these pr operties is non-volatile. See page 15-15. The hydrolysis half-life of th e amide moeity is expected to be greater than six months. Hydrolysis Half-Life = 190 days

B. Ecotoxicological Hazard Assessment

NONPOLAR NARCOSIS The acute mode of toxic action for this cla ss of xenobiotics is generally attributed to narcosis (the toxicologically induced and reversible stages of neural disruption, i.e. general anesthesia). Intoxication via nonpolar narcosis is thought to be the minimal effect that can be elicited by a xe nobiotic and the QSAR for nonpolar narcosis provides predictions of baseline acute toxicity [3261]. Chemicals that act via a more specific
mode of action, or are metaboli cally activated, will generally be more toxic than what would be predicted by the nonpolar narcosis QSAR . The acute toxicity mo deling component in

ASTER assesses the structural ch aracteristics of chemicals and evaluates whether or not an entered compound contains specific function al moieties (or moieties capable of being bioactivated) that are associated with more specific modes of toxic action. The nonpolar narcosis QSAR is invoked only if the structural characteristics of a chemical do not suggest that a more specific mode of action .

When sufficient data is available from fath ead minnow early life stage (ELS) tests (32-d exposures) completed at MED-Du luth, QSAR models have been developed to predict chronic values for either survival or growth, whichever is the most sensitive endpoint. A chronic value is defined as the geometri c mean of the LOEC (lowest observable effect concentration) and the NOEC (no observable effect concentration). These models have been developed for groups of xenobiotics that have been classified based on thei r acute modes of toxic action. Empirical observations suggest th at when a statistically robust ELS QSAR can be established

and when 96-h LC50/32-d ELS chronic value ratios are within a factor of 20 it is reasonable

to assume that adverse effects are elicited through the same mo de of toxic action in both 4- d and 32-d exposures. If during a chronic exposu re a different mode of action is involved, or if metabolic activation is significant, the ratios between acute and chronic endpoint values for a group of xenobiotics are generally quite variable and typically exceed two orders of magnitude. In addition, the statistical streng th of ELS QSARs in these instances are poor.

C. Other Information

V. Citation Information

No Records Found

### 14 of 26 [ASTER output for: RP30228]

I. CHEMICAL IDENTIFICATION

Parameter Value

Name RP30228

CAS Number -1

SMILES c1c(Cl)cc(Cl)cc1NC(=O)N2CC(=O)N(C(C)(C))C2(=O)

Formula C 13 CL 2 H 13 N 3 O 3

II. ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT

Parameter Value Source Reference
Molecular Weight (g/mole) 330.17 Calculated
Melting Point (C) Not available for this chemical
Boiling Point (C) 408.70 Calculated
Vapor Pressure (mm of Hg) 2.69E-09 Calculated
Ht Vaporization (cal/mole) 1.93E04 Calculated
Solubility in Water (mg/L) 169.37 Calculated

CLogP 3.32 ** CLogP 83337

KowWin 3.24 KowWin 83336

pKa Not available for this chemical
Adsorption Coef (log Koc) 3.14 Calculated
Henry's Constant (atmm**3/mole) 6.91E-12 Calculated

Log10 (Henry's Constant)(atmm**3/mole) -11.16 Calculated

Hydrolysis Half-life (days) 190 days

BioDegradation Data Linear Model Prediction : Does Not Biodegrade Fast

Non-Linear Model Prediction: Does Not Biodegrade Fast Ultimate Biodegradation Timeframe:

Months Primary Biodegradation Timeframe:

Weeks

MITI Linear Model Prediction : Not Readily Degradable

MITI Non-Linear Model Prediction: Not Readily Degradable

<BR< font> BioWin 83338

Mackay Level 1 Environmental Partitioning @ 25C Fugacity = 7.59E-12 Pa

0.00 % into air

12.48 % into soil

75.86 % into water 0.02 % into suspended solids 0.00 % into aquatic biota

### 15 of 26 11.64 % into sediment

** Denotes the LogP value used in calculations

III. ECOTOXICOLOGICAL HAZARD ASSESSMENT

Table 1. Geometric Means of all data passing the ASTER filter by Species Group

Habitat Species Effect Count Geo Mean Min Max

No Records Found

Table 2. Median Acute Data values

Habit

at Taxon Gro

up Name Endpoi

nt Effe

ct Measu

re Medi

a Dur ( d) Exposu

re Median C

onc Sour

ce Ref

No

A Fish* Pimephales promelas LC50 MOR MORT FW 4 S 16019.19 ug/L QSA

R 9003

A Fish* Ictalurus punctatus LC50 MOR MORT FW 4 S 6917.59 ug/L QSA

R 9003

A Fish** Daphnia

magna LC50 MOR MORT FW 4 S 9282.38 ug/L QSA

R 9003

A Fish* Oncorhync hus mykiss LC50 MOR MORT FW 4 S 6413.23 ug/L QSA

R 9003

A Fish* Lepomis

macrochiru

s LC50 MOR MORT FW 4 S 12909.89 ug/L QSA

R 9003

Table 3. Median Chronic Data values

Habit

at Taxon Gro

up Name Endpoi

nt Effe

ct Measu

re Medi

a Dur ( d) Exposu

re Median Co

nc Sourc

e Ref N

o

A Fish* Pimephal

es promelas MATC GRO GGRO FW 4 S 2628.04 ug/L QSAR 9003

Table 4. Median Bioconcentration Data values

Habit

at Taxon Gr

oup Name Endpo

int Effe

ct Meas

ure Med

ia Dur ( d) Expos

ure Sit

e Median C

onc BCF Va

lue Sour

ce Ref

No

A Fish Pimeph

ales promela

s BCF AC

C RSDE FW 4 S W

O 166.12 QSA

R 7

Table 5. Additional Agency Benchmark Data

Habit

at Taxon Gro

up Nam

e Endpoi

nt Effec

t Measur

e Medi

a Dur (d ) Exposur

e Median Co

nc Sourc

e Ref N

o

No Records Found

IV. ECOLOGICAL RISK CHARACTERIZATION

A. Environmental Exposure Assessment

### 16 of 26 Henry's Constant = 6.91E-12 atm-m**3/mole Log10 (Henry's Constant) = -11.16 atm-m**3/mole

Lyman et al. 1982. would conclude that a chemical with these pr operties is non-volatile. See page 15-15. The hydrolysis half-life of th e amide moeity is expected to be greater than six months. Hydrolysis Half-Life = 190 days

B. Ecotoxicological Hazard Assessment

NONPOLAR NARCOSIS The acute mode of toxic action for this cla ss of xenobiotics is generally attributed to narcosis (the toxicologically induced and reversible stages of neural disruption, i.e. general anesthesia). Intoxication via nonpolar narcosis is thought to be the minimal effect that can be elicited by a xe nobiotic and the QSAR for nonpolar narcosis provides predictions of baseline acute toxicity [3261]. Chemicals that act via a more specific
mode of action, or are metaboli cally activated, will generally be more toxic than what would be predicted by the nonpolar narcosis QSAR . The acute toxicity mo deling component in

ASTER assesses the structural ch aracteristics of chemicals and evaluates whether or not an entered compound contains specific function al moieties (or moieties capable of being bioactivated) that are associated with more specific modes of toxic action. The nonpolar narcosis QSAR is invoked only if the structural characteristics of a chemical do not suggest that a more specific mode of action .

When sufficient data is available from fath ead minnow early life stage (ELS) tests (32-d exposures) completed at MED-Du luth, QSAR models have been developed to predict chronic values for either survival or growth, which ever is the most sensitive endpoint. A chronic value is defined as the geometri c mean of the LOEC (lowest observable effect concentration) and the NOEC (no observable effect concentration). These models have been developed for groups of xenobiotics that have been classified based on thei r acute modes of toxic action. Empirical observations suggest th at when a statistically robust ELS QSAR can be established

and when 96-h LC50/32-d ELS chronic value ratios are within a factor of 20 it is reasonable

to assume that adverse effects are elicited through the same mo de of toxic action in both 4- d and 32-d exposures. If during a chronic exposu re a different mode of action is involved, or if metabolic activation is significant, the ratios between acute and chronic endpoint values for a group of xenobiotics are generally quite variable and typically exceed two orders of magnitude. In addition, the statistical streng th of ELS QSARs in these instances are poor.

C. Other Information

V. Citation Information

No Records Found

### 17 of 26 [ASTER output for: RP32490]

I. CHEMICAL IDENTIFICATION

Parameter Value

Name RP32490

CAS Number -1

SMILES c1c(Cl)cc(Cl)cc1N2C(=O)CN(C(=O)N)C2(=O)

Formula C 10 CL 2 H 7 N 3 O 3

II. ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT

Parameter Value Source Reference
Molecular Weight (g/mole) 288.09 Calculated
Melting Point (C) Not available for this chemical
Boiling Point (C) 387.54 Calculated
Vapor Pressure (mm of Hg) 1.90E-08 Calculated
Ht Vaporization (cal/mole) 1.87E04 Calculated
Solubility in Water (mg/L) 1.90E04 Calculated

CLogP 1.60 ** CLogP 83337

KowWin 1.48 KowWin 83336

pKa Not available for this chemical
Adsorption Coef (log Koc) 2.21 Calculated
Henry's Constant (atmm**3/mole) 3.80E-13 Calculated

Log10 (Henry's Constant)(atmm**3/mole) -12.42 Calculated

Hydrolysis Half-life (days) 190 days

BioDegradation Data Linear Model Prediction : Does Not Biodegrade Fast

Non-Linear Model Prediction: Does Not Biodegrade Fast Ultimate Biodegradation Timeframe:

Months Primary Biodegradation Timeframe:

Weeks

MITI Linear Model Prediction : Not Readily Degradable

MITI Non-Linear Model Prediction: Not Readily Degradable

<BR< font> BioWin 83338

Mackay Level 1 Environmental Partitioning @ 25C Fugacity = 5.47E-13 Pa

0.00 % into air

0.32 % into soil

99.39 % into water 0.00 % into suspended solids 0.00 % into aquatic biota

### 18 of 26 0.29 % into sediment

** Denotes the LogP value used in calculations

III. ECOTOXICOLOGICAL HAZARD ASSESSMENT

Table 1. Geometric Means of all data passing the ASTER filter by Species Group

Habitat Species Effect Count Geo Mean Min Max

No Records Found

Table 2. Median Acute Data values

Habit

at Taxon Gro

up Name Endpoi

nt Effe

ct Measu

re Medi

a Dur ( d) Exposu

re Median C

onc Sour

ce Ref

No

A Fish* Pimephales promelas LC50 MOR MORT FW 4 S 505614.2

4 ug/L QSA

R 9003

A Fish* Ictalurus punctatus LC50 MOR MORT FW 4 S 217557.9

7 ug/L QSA

R 9003

A Fish** Daphnia

magna LC50 MOR MORT FW 4 S 243983.4

9 ug/L QSA

R 9003

A Fish* Oncorhync hus mykiss LC50 MOR MORT FW 4 S 233663.5

4 ug/L QSA

R 9003

A Fish* Lepomis

macrochiru

s LC50 MOR MORT FW 4 S 379256.8

8 ug/L QSA

R 9003

Table 3. Median Chronic Data values

Habit

at Taxon Gro

up Name Endpoi

nt Effe

ct Measu

re Medi

a Dur ( d) Exposu

re Median Co

nc Sourc

e Ref N

o

A Fish* Pimephal

es promelas MATC GRO GGRO FW 4 S 71337.03 ug/L QSAR 9003

Table 4. Median Bioconcentration Data values

Habit

at Taxon Gr

oup Name Endpo

int Effe

ct Meas

ure Med

ia Dur ( d) Expos

ure Sit

e Median C

onc BCF Va

lue Sour

ce Ref

No

A Fish Pimeph

ales promela

s BCF AC

C RSDE FW 4 S W

O 7.35 QSA

R 7

Table 5. Additional Agency Benchmark Data

Habit

at Taxon Gro

up Nam

e Endpoi

nt Effec

t Measur

e Medi

a Dur (d ) Exposur

e Median Co

nc Sourc

e Ref N

o

No Records Found

IV. ECOLOGICAL RISK CHARACTERIZATION

A. Environmental Exposure Assessment

### 19 of 26 Henry's Constant = 3.80E-13 atm-m**3/mole Log10 (Henry's Constant) = -12.42 atm-m**3/mole

Lyman et al. 1982. would conclude that a chemical with these pr operties is non-volatile. See page 15-15. The hydrolysis half-life of th e amide moeity is expected to be greater than six months. Hydrolysis Half-Life = 190 days

B. Ecotoxicological Hazard Assessment

NONPOLAR NARCOSIS The acute mode of toxic action for this cla ss of xenobiotics is generally attributed to narcosis (the toxicologically induced and reversible stages of neural disruption, i.e. general anesthesia). Intoxication via nonpolar narcosis is thought to be the minimal effect that can be elicited by a xe nobiotic and the QSAR for nonpolar narcosis provides predictions of baseline acute toxicity [3261]. Chemicals that act via a more specific
mode of action, or are metaboli cally activated, will generally be more toxic than what would be predicted by the nonpolar narcosis QSAR . The acute toxicity mo deling component in

ASTER assesses the structural ch aracteristics of chemicals and evaluates whether or not an entered compound contains specific function al moieties (or moieties capable of being bioactivated) that are associated with more specific modes of toxic action. The nonpolar narcosis QSAR is invoked only if the structural characteristics of a chemical do not suggest that a more specific mode of action .

When sufficient data is available from fath ead minnow early life stage (ELS) tests (32-d exposures) completed at MED-Du luth, QSAR models have been developed to predict chronic values for either survival or growth, which ever is the most sensitive endpoint. A chronic value is defined as the geometri c mean of the LOEC (lowest observable effect concentration) and the NOEC (no observable effect concentration). These models have been developed for groups of xenobiotics that have been classified based on thei r acute modes of toxic action. Empirical observations suggest th at when a statistically robust ELS QSAR can be established

and when 96-h LC50/32-d ELS chronic value ratios are within a factor of 20 it is reasonable

to assume that adverse effects are elicited through the same mo de of toxic action in both 4- d and 32-d exposures. If during a chronic exposu re a different mode of action is involved, or if metabolic activation is significant, the ratios between acute and chronic endpoint values for a group of xenobiotics are generally quite variable and typically exceed two orders of magnitude. In addition, the statistical streng th of ELS QSARs in these instances are poor.

C. Other Information

V. Citation Information

No Records Found

### 20 of 26 [ASTER output for: RP32596 (3,5-DCA)]

I. CHEMICAL IDENTIFICATION

Parameter Value

Name 3,5-Dichlorobenzenamine

CAS Number 626437

SMILES Cl-c(cc(Cl)c1)cc1N

Formula C 6 H 5 Cl 2 N

II. ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT

Parameter Value Source Reference
Molecular Weight (g/mole) 162.02 Calculated
Melting Point (C) 52.00 EcoChem
Boiling Point (C) 259.00 EcoChem
Vapor Pressure (mm of Hg) 2.65E-03 Calculated
Ht Vaporization (cal/mole) 1.23E04 Calculated
Solubility in Water (mg/L) 329.25 Calculated

CLogP 2.72 ** CLogP 83337

KowWin 2.37 KowWin 83336

pKa Not available for this chemical
Adsorption Coef (log Koc) 2.82 Calculated
Henry's Constant (atmm**3/mole) 1.72E-06 Calculated

Log10 (Henry's Constant)(atmm**3/mole) -5.76 Calculated

Hydrolysis Half-life (days) Hydrolysis unlikely

BioDegradation Data Linear Model Prediction : Does Not Biodegrade Fast

Non-Linear Model Prediction: Does Not Biodegrade Fast Ultimate Biodegradation Timeframe:

Weeks-Months Primary Biodegradation Timeframe:

Weeks

MITI Linear Model Prediction : Not Readily Degradable

MITI Non-Linear Model Prediction: Not Readily Degradable

<BR< font> BioWin 83338

Mackay Level 1 Environmental Partitioning @ 25C Fugacity = 2.18E-06 Pa

5.27 % into air

3.64 % into soil

87.69 % into water 0.01 % into suspended solids 0.00 % into aquatic biota

### 21 of 26 3.40 % into sediment

** Denotes the LogP value used in calculations

III. ECOTOXICOLOGICAL HAZARD ASSESSMENT

Table 1. Geometric Means of all data passing the ASTER filter by Species Group

Habitat Species Effect Count Geo Mean Min Max

No Records Found

Table 2. Median Acute Data values

Habit

at Taxon Gro

up Name Endpoi

nt Effe

ct Measu

re Medi

a Dur ( d) Exposu

re Median C

onc Sour

ce Ref

No

A Fish* Pimephales promelas LC50 MOR MORT FW 4 S 14197.58 ug/L QSA

R 9003

A Fish* Ictalurus punctatus LC50 MOR MORT FW 4 S 6127.34 ug/L QSA

R 9003

A Fish** Daphnia

magna LC50 MOR MORT FW 4 S 7982.50 ug/L QSA

R 9003

A Fish* Oncorhync hus mykiss LC50 MOR MORT FW 4 S 5819.96 ug/L QSA

R 9003

A Fish* Lepomis

macrochiru

s LC50 MOR MORT FW 4 S 11307.36 ug/L QSA

R 9003

Table 3. Median Chronic Data values

Habit

at Taxon Gro

up Nam

e Endpoi

nt Effec

t Measur

e Medi

a Dur (d ) Exposur

e Median Co

nc Sourc

e Ref N

o

No Records Found

Table 4. Median Bioconcentration Data values

Habit

at Taxon Gr

oup Name Endpo

int Effe

ct Meas

ure Med

ia Dur ( d) Expos

ure Sit

e Median C

onc BCF Va

lue Sour

ce Ref

No

A Fish Pimeph

ales promela

s BCF AC

C RSDE FW 4 S W

O 55.98 QSA

R 7

Table 5. Additional Agency Benchmark Data

Habit

at Taxon Gro

up Name Endpoi

nt Effe

ct Measu

re Medi

a Dur ( d) Exposu

re Median Co

nc Source Ref N

o

T Mammals Rattus norvegic

us LOEL BCM MGLB NON

E 0.041

7 GV 174.00 mg/kg ECOT

OX -

EDS 1023

43

T Mammals Rattus norvegic

us NRZERO MOR MORT NON

E 2 IP 0.40 mmol/kg ECOT

OX -

EDS 1108

75

T Mammals Rattus LOEL PHY FVOL NON 2 IP 0.80 ECOT 1108

### 22 of 26 norvegic

us E mmol/kg OX -

EDS 75

T Mammals Rattus norvegic

us NOEL MPH SMIX NON

E 2 IP 0.80 mmol/kg ECOT

OX -

EDS 1108

75

T Mammals Rattus norvegic

us NRLETH MOR MORT NON

E 1 IP 1.50 mmol/kg ECOT

OX -

EDS 1108

75

T Mammals Rattus norvegic

us NRLETH MOR MORT NON

E 1 IP 0.80 mmol/kg ECOT

OX -

EDS 1108

75

T Mammals Rattus norvegic

us NOEL BCM TEAM NON

E 2 IP 0.80 mmol/kg ECOT

OX -

EDS 1108

75

IV. ECOLOGICAL RISK CHARACTERIZATION

A. Environmental Exposure Assessment
Henry's Constant = 1.72E-06 atm-m**3/mole Log10 (Henry's Constant) = -5.76 atm-m**3/mole

Lyman et al. 1982. would conclude that a chemical with thes e properties will volatilize slowly from open water. See page 15-15. Hydrolysis is not likely to be an important transformation mechanism for this chemical.

B. Ecotoxicological Hazard Assessment

POLAR NARCOSIS The acute mode of toxic action for these types of compounds is generally attributed to narcosis (the toxicologically induced and reversible stages of neural disruption). The narcosis syndrome elicited by these chemicals is dist inct from the syndrome elicited by compounds thought to act via nonpolar narcosis. Polar narcotics are typically more toxic than what would be predicted from the nonpolar narcotic QSAR [3536].

When sufficient data is available from fath ead minnow early life stage (ELS) tests (32-d exposures) completed at MED-Du luth, QSAR models have been developed to predict chronic values for either survival or growth, which ever is the most sensitive endpoint. A chronic value is defined as the geometri c mean of the LOEC (lowest observable effect concentration) and the NOEC (no observable effect concentration). These models have been developed for groups of xenobiotics that have been classified based on thei r acute modes of toxic action. Empirical observations suggest th at when a statistically robust ELS QSAR can be established

and when 96-h LC50/32-d ELS chronic value ratios are within a factor of 20 it is reasonable

to assume that adverse effects are elicited through the same mo de of toxic action in both 4- d and 32-d exposures. If during a chronic exposu re a different mode of action is involved, or if metabolic activation is significant, the ratios between acute and chronic endpoint values for a group of xenobiotics are generally quite variable and typically exceed two orders of magnitude. In addition, the statistical streng th of ELS QSARs in these instances are poor.

Based on toxicity tests usin g fathead minnows performed at MED-Duluth, 96-h LC50/32-d ELS Chronic value ratios range from 184 to 382 for aniline derivatives. This suggests that aniline compounds which act as polar narcotics in an acute exposure are acting through a different mode of action during chronic exposures.

C. Other Information

### 23 of 26 V. Citation Information

Reference Number: 102343

Socma

2000 Methemoglobin Inducing Potential of Various Su bstituted Anilines with Cover Letter Dated

121984 EPA/OTS Doc.#40-8476328: 52 p.

Reference Number: 110875
Lo, H.H., M.A. Valentovic, P.I. Brown, and G.O. Rankin

1994
Effect of Chemical Form, Route of Administrati on and Vehicle on 3,5- Dichloroaniline-Induced Nephrotoxicity in the Fischer 344 Rat J. Appl. Toxicol.14(6): 417-422

### 24 of 26 [ASTER output for: RP325606]

I. CHEMICAL IDENTIFICATION

Parameter Value

Name RP35606

CAS Number -1

SMILES c1c(Cl)cc(Cl)cc1NC(=O)N(CC(=O)(O))C(=O)NC(C)(C)

Formula C 13 CL 2 H 15 N 3 O 4

II. ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT

Parameter Value Source Reference
Molecular Weight (g/mole) 348.19 Calculated
Melting Point (C) Not available for this chemical
Boiling Point (C) 423.86 Calculated
Vapor Pressure (mm of Hg) 6.47E-10 Calculated
Ht Vaporization (cal/mole) 2.15E04 Calculated
Solubility in Water (mg/L) 23.86 Calculated

CLogP 4.03 ** CLogP 83337

KowWin 3.41 KowWin 83336

pKa Not available for this chemical
Adsorption Coef (log Koc) 3.53 Calculated
Henry's Constant (atmm**3/mole) 1.24E-11 Calculated

Log10 (Henry's Constant)(atmm**3/mole) -10.91 Calculated

Hydrolysis Half-life (days) Not available for this chemical

BioDegradation Data Linear Model Prediction : Does Not Biodegrade Fast

Non-Linear Model Prediction: Does Not Biodegrade Fast Ultimate Biodegradation Timeframe:

Weeks-Months Primary Biodegradation Timeframe: Days-Weeks

MITI Linear Model Prediction : Not Readily Degradable

MITI Non-Linear Model Prediction: Not Readily Degradable

<BR< font> BioWin 83338

Mackay Level 1 Environmental Partitioning @ 25C Fugacity = 6.83E-12 Pa

0.00 % into air

32.07 % into soil

37.95 % into water 0.05 % into suspended solids 0.00 % into aquatic biota

### 25 of 26 29.93 % into sediment

** Denotes the LogP value used in calculations

III. ECOTOXICOLOGICAL HAZARD ASSESSMENT

Table 1. Geometric Means of all data passing the ASTER filter by Species Group

Habitat Species Effect Count Geo Mean Min Max

No Records Found

Table 2. Median Acute Data values

Habit

at Taxon Gro

up Name Endpoi

nt Effe

ct Measu

re Medi

a Dur ( d) Exposu

re Median C

onc Sour

ce Ref

No

A Fish* Pimephales promelas LC50 MOR MORT FW 4 S 5348.71 ug/L QSA

R 9003

A Fish* Ictalurus punctatus LC50 MOR MORT FW 4 S 2312.40 ug/L QSA

R 9003

A Fish** Daphnia

magna LC50 MOR MORT FW 4 S 3286.56 ug/L QSA

R 9003

A Fish* Oncorhync hus mykiss LC50 MOR MORT FW 4 S 2045.06 ug/L QSA

R 9003

A Fish* Lepomis

macrochiru

s LC50 MOR MORT FW 4 S 4410.83 ug/L QSA

R 9003

Table 3. Median Chronic Data values

Habit

at Taxon Gro

up Name Endpoi

nt Effe

ct Measu

re Medi

a Dur ( d) Exposu

re Median Co

nc Sourc

e Ref N

o

A Fish* Pimephal

es promelas MATC GRO GGRO FW 4 S 666.19 ug/L QSAR 9003

Table 4. Median Bioconcentration Data values

Habit

at Taxon Gr

oup Name Endpo

int Effe

ct Meas

ure Med

ia Dur ( d) Expos

ure Sit

e Median C

onc BCF Va

lue Sour

ce Ref

No

A Fish Pimeph

ales promela

s BCF AC

C RSDE FW 4 S W

O 605.29 QSA

R 7

Table 5. Additional Agency Benchmark Data

Habit

at Taxon Gro

up Nam

e Endpoi

nt Effec

t Measur

e Medi

a Dur (d ) Exposur

e Median Co

nc Sourc

e Ref N

o

No Records Found

IV. ECOLOGICAL RISK CHARACTERIZATION

A. Environmental Exposure Assessment

### 26 of 26 Henry's Constant = 1.24E-11 atm-m**3/mole Log10 (Henry's Constant) = -10.91 atm-m**3/mole

Lyman et al. 1982. would conclude that a chemical with these pr operties is non-volatile. See page 15-15. The QSAR system does not yet model the hy drolysis of Urea derivatives like this.

B. Ecotoxicological Hazard Assessment

NONPOLAR NARCOSIS The acute mode of toxic action for this cla ss of xenobiotics is generally attributed to narcosis (the toxicologically induced and reversible stages of neural disruption, i.e. general anesthesia). Intoxication via nonpolar narcosis is thought to be the minimal effect that can be elicited by a xe nobiotic and the QSAR for nonpolar narcosis provides predictions of baseline acute toxicity [3261]. Chemicals that act via a more specific
mode of action, or are metaboli cally activated, will generally be more toxic than what would be predicted by the nonpolar narcosis QSAR . The acute toxicity mo deling component in

ASTER assesses the structural ch aracteristics of chemicals and evaluates whether or not an entered compound contains specific function al moieties (or moieties capable of being bioactivated) that are associated with more specific modes of toxic action. The nonpolar narcosis QSAR is invoked only if the structural characteristics of a chemical do not suggest that a more specific mode of action .

When sufficient data is available from fath ead minnow early life stage (ELS) tests (32-d exposures) completed at MED-Du luth, QSAR models have been developed to predict chronic values for either survival or growth, which ever is the most sensitive endpoint. A chronic value is defined as the geometri c mean of the LOEC (lowest observable effect concentration) and the NOEC (no observable effect concentration). These models have been developed for groups of xenobiotics that have been classified based on thei r acute modes of toxic action. Empirical observations suggest th at when a statistically robust ELS QSAR can be established

and when 96-h LC50/32-d ELS chronic value ratios are within a factor of 20 it is reasonable

to assume that adverse effects are elicited through the same mo de of toxic action in both 4- d and 32-d exposures. If during a chronic exposu re a different mode of action is involved, or if metabolic activation is significant, the ratios between acute and chronic endpoint values for a group of xenobiotics are generally quite variable and typically exceed two orders of magnitude. In addition, the statistical streng th of ELS QSARs in these instances are poor.

C. Other Information

V. Citation Information

No Records Found