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 Response to Comments on the Registration Review Problem Formulation 

for Iprodione 

James Parker, Chemical Review Manager 

Laura Parsons, Team Leader 

Risk Management and Implementation Branch I 

Pesticide Reevaluation Division 

Office of Pesticide Programs · 

Chuck Peck, Environmental Engineer 

~of Scott Glaberman, Ph.D., Biologist 

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 Risk Branch 4 tf -

Through: Marietta Echeverria, Chief ~ ~ ~ Environmental Risk Branch 4 

Environmental Fate and Effects Division 

Office of Pesticide Programs 

The Environmental Fate and Effects Division (EFED) has reviewed the comments submitted on 

the preliminary problem formulation for the ecological risk, environmental 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 (EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0392-0003) for public comment on December 14, 2012. The 

comments received were from the technical registrants, Bayer CropScience (EPA-HQ-2012-

0392-0015) and FMC Corporation (EPA-HQ-2012-0392-0013), as well as from the Physicians' 

Committee for Responsible Medicine (EPA-HQ-2012-0392-0012). Many comments from Bayer 

1 of26 
2 of 26

CropScience Environmental Science Division (BES) and FMC were similar and are therefore 

discussed collectively. EFED’s responses are provided below each set of comments. 

Based on comments received, EFED does not believe changes to the Preliminary Problem 

Formulation for Ecological Risk and Environmental Fate, Endangered Species, 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 data, as identified in the initial Work Plan, will 

lead to implementation of the Residue Summation or Formation/Decline (EPA, 2008; Ruhman et 

al., 2008; Ruhman and Barrett, 2011) environmental exposure modeling approach, rather than 

the Total Toxic Residues exposure modeling approach. We also expect that new environmental 

fate data for 3,5-DCA would considerably impact the drinking water 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 directly affect the dietary risk assessment and 

justify dietary risk re-evaluation. 

EFED Response: 

If the available data for the degradates support 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 for the residues of concern may allow for further 

refinement of ecological and drinking water exposure estimates. 

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

Guideline number 835.1230 – leaching and Adsorption/Desorption (Degradates only) 

The registrant is currently evaluating the availability of adsorption/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 equilibrium method may not be suitable for the determination of 

adsorption/desorption values for this molecule. Therefore, we would consider an alternate 

method, such as the HPLC method for this compound 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/desorption 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 recommends 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 comment 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 drinking water from ground 

water assessment. While the registrant believes 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 assessment. Instead, the registrant 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 registrant 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 registrant regarding the use of the total toxic 

residue approach, use information, and the monitoring study in developing the drinking water 

assessment for iprodione in registration review. 

Comment (p. 5-6, FMC):

FMC is reviewing all risk assessments which can be found in the iprodione 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 exposure, use pattern characterization (temporal and 

spatial), and properly assigned metabolite(s) values. Additionally, risk assessments should be 

refined to include actual residue values as well as realistic consumption values. Since drinking 

water represents a significant contribution to the iprodione 'risk cup', FMC asserts that these 

significant changes should be reflected in iprodione risk assessments. As new data is developed 

and use patterns continue to evolve, dietary assessment should 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 iprodione Registration review where new toxicological effects and 

environmental exposure information will be introduced throughout 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 deemed 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 available to public. Therefore, this registrant is not able to 

evaluate this software. 

EFED Response: 

ASTER (ASsessment Tools for the Evaluation of Risk) was developed at the U.S. EPA, National 

Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory (NHEERL), Mid-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 inform 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/ecotox/blackbox/help/ASTER.pdf. 

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

Several existing eco-toxicity studies with aquatic organisms that were submitted to the agency in 

the past have been deemed unacceptable due to variability in exposure concentrations and/or 

solubility problems with test substance. The registrant 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 issues and may not generate new information. 

Therefore, the registrant requires further clarification 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 OCSPP Draft Guideline 850.1000, Special Considerations for 

Conducting Aquatic Laboratory Studies,1

 states the following:

“Existing OPP guidelines for aquatic toxicity tests require that chemicals be tested 

up to a maximum dissolved concentration of 100 ppm (milligrams per liter) for 

pesticides...in an effort to obtain an LC50 or EC50. 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 test conditions employed, provided that 

 

1

http://www.epa.gov/ocspp/pubs/frs/publications/OPPTS_Harmonized/850_Ecological_Effects_Test_Guidelines/Dr

afts/850-1000.pdf 
5 of 26

certain prerequisites apply: (i) Concentrations 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 performed with a more soluble formulation e.g., 

emulsifiable concentrate, if one exists (in addition to testing with the technical-grade 

material). Testing with a more soluble formulation 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 media 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 definitive testing, and that precipitate observed in test chambers is 

centrifuged or filtered as described in the OCSPP 850.1000 guideline in future aquatic toxicity 

testing. As noted, OCSPP 850.1000 provides recommendations/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 studies 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 reviewed by EPA. A comprehensive 

literature review of all relevant 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 assessment of iprodione. Additionally, 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, especially 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 for 3,5-DCA and also for aniline, 4-

chloroaniline and 2,3,4-trichloroaniline. Further, the registrant would like to cite another recent 

publication by the same research team (Dom et al., 2012); where the researchers have 

conducted a Daphnia reproduction study not only with 3,5-DCA but also with other anilines 

(aniline, 4-chloroaniline and 2,3,4-trichloroaniline). 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 reproduction test is not required for 3,5-DCA. 

References: 

Dom N, Knapen D, Blust R. Assessment of aquatic experimental 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 versus 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 (DCI) 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) Database2

 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 the OPP guidance for evaluating ecological toxicity 

data (USEPA, 2011). As an alternative to submitting an open-literature study 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 assessment, 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 agency suggest that the existing 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 until an acceptable acute test is 

submitted. Therefore, the registrants suggest that the ELS study should be conditional, 

depending the outcome of acute study. (Additional FMC Comment: Moreover, if (at all) a fish 

full life cycle is conducted (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 cannot 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 indicating that the need for this study is dependent on the outcome of 

the requested acute toxicity test with an estuarine/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 reproductive impacts in fish and/or invertebrates, and 

comparisons between EECs of the compound (i.e., exposure) and relevant toxicity endpoints3

. 

Once the acute toxicity study 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 species 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. However, a freshwater fish full 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, or reproductive effects to fish in general. 

Comment (p. 11, BES): 

Guideline 850.1500 Fish life Cycle Test (freshwater) 

BES would request that EPA perform a careful evaluation of all existing 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 have 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 rationale for why existing toxicity 

information, such as the Tier 1 EDSP fish study, 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 since 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 registrant 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 toxicity test (OCSPP 850.1500) was 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/marine invertebrate (NOAEC=3.5 

μg ai/L) chronic toxicity studies. Chronic EECs (i.e., either 21- or 60-day) ranged from 8.62 to 

51,760 μg/L according to the recent iprodione effects determination for the California red-legged 

frog (USEPA, 2009), triggering the need for a fish life cycle test as indicated under 40 CFR 

§158.630(e)(18). It should be noted that EECs presented 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 parent, 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 triggers 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 toxicity at a limit dose of 25 μg ai/bee.

Related to the work plan item requesting information on toxicity to honey bee larva, the 

registrant would like to indicate that there is currently no standard guideline available for this 

test. Also, the registrant is aware of issues around larval survival 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 and 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 confirm that there are no risks to 

colony survival from application of Rovral 4F for 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 active. Overall, based on the acute 

and semi-field studies the registrants have evidence that iprodione does not pose risk to honey 

bees at the organism level as well as colony level. Therefore, a 'non-standardized' larval toxicity 

test is not necessary.) 

EFED Response: 

As part of its proposed Tier I screening level 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 LD50 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 the recent Agency white paper (EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0543-

0004).4

EFED is not aware of any acute oral toxicity study 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 Guideline 213) for iprodione. 

The following link is being provided to a recent version of the OECD draft guidelines for 

conducting a honeybee larval toxicity test: 

http://www.oecd.org/env/ehs/testing/Honeybee%20larval%20toxicity%20single%20exposure_dr

aft_Nov2012.pdf 

This document should provide the 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 toxicity study such as a semi-field tunnel study could 

address potential effects of iprodione at the colony level, 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 screening 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 studies requested we found information in the literature indicating 

that Iprodione is moderately toxic to fish species, 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 toxicity endpoints. 

OPP’s standard process for conducting 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 review 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 assessment. Therefore, if the indicated aquatic toxicity 

endpoints are captured in ECOTOX, they will be considered for inclusion in the risk assessment. 

However, at this time, the acute toxicity of iprodione to freshwater fish remains a data gap. 

Literature Cited 

USEPA. 2009. Effects Determination for Iprodione and the California Red-legged Frog. 

http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/endanger/litstatus/effects/redleg-frog/index.html#iprodione 

USEPA. 2011. EFED Memorandum. Evaluation Guidelines for Ecological Toxicity Data in the 

Open Literature. 

http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/science/efed/policy_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 C13CL2H13N3O3

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 23309.64ug/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 WO 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 properties is non-volatile. See

page 15-15.

The hydrolysis half-life of the 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 class 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 xenobiotic 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 metabolically activated, will generally be more toxic than what would 

be predicted by the nonpolar narcosis QSAR. The acute toxicity modeling component in 

ASTER assesses the structural characteristics of chemicals and evaluates whether or not an 

entered compound contains specific functional 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 fathead minnow early life stage (ELS) tests (32-d 

exposures) completed at MED-Duluth, 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 geometric 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 their acute modes of toxic action. 

Empirical observations suggest that 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 mode of toxic action in both 4-

d and 32-d exposures. If during a chronic exposure 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 strength 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 C13CL2H13N3O3

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 16019.19ug/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 WO 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 properties is non-volatile. See

page 15-15.

The hydrolysis half-life of the 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 class 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 xenobiotic 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 metabolically activated, will generally be more toxic than what would 

be predicted by the nonpolar narcosis QSAR. The acute toxicity modeling component in 

ASTER assesses the structural characteristics of chemicals and evaluates whether or not an 

entered compound contains specific functional 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 fathead minnow early life stage (ELS) tests (32-d 

exposures) completed at MED-Duluth, 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 geometric 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 their acute modes of toxic action. 

Empirical observations suggest that 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 mode of toxic action in both 4-

d and 32-d exposures. If during a chronic exposure 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 strength 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 C10CL2H7N3O3

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 217557.97 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 233663.54 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 WO 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 properties is non-volatile. See

page 15-15.

The hydrolysis half-life of the 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 class 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 xenobiotic 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 metabolically activated, will generally be more toxic than what would 

be predicted by the nonpolar narcosis QSAR. The acute toxicity modeling component in 

ASTER assesses the structural characteristics of chemicals and evaluates whether or not an 

entered compound contains specific functional 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 fathead minnow early life stage (ELS) tests (32-d 

exposures) completed at MED-Duluth, 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 geometric 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 their acute modes of toxic action. 

Empirical observations suggest that 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 mode of toxic action in both 4-

d and 32-d exposures. If during a chronic exposure 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 strength 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 C6H5Cl2N

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 14197.58ug/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 WO 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 these 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 distinct 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 fathead minnow early life stage (ELS) tests (32-d 

exposures) completed at MED-Duluth, 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 geometric 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 their acute modes of toxic action. 

Empirical observations suggest that 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 mode of toxic action in both 4-

d and 32-d exposures. If during a chronic exposure 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 strength of ELS QSARs in these instances are poor.

Based on toxicity tests using 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 Substituted 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 Administration 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 C13CL2H15N3O4

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 5348.71ug/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 WO 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 properties is non-volatile. See

page 15-15.

The QSAR system does not yet model the hydrolysis of Urea derivatives like this.

B. Ecotoxicological Hazard Assessment

NONPOLAR NARCOSIS The acute mode of toxic action for this class 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 xenobiotic 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 metabolically activated, will generally be more toxic than what would 

be predicted by the nonpolar narcosis QSAR. The acute toxicity modeling component in 

ASTER assesses the structural characteristics of chemicals and evaluates whether or not an 

entered compound contains specific functional 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 fathead minnow early life stage (ELS) tests (32-d 

exposures) completed at MED-Duluth, 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 geometric 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 their acute modes of toxic action. 

Empirical observations suggest that 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 mode of toxic action in both 4-

d and 32-d exposures. If during a chronic exposure 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 strength of ELS QSARs in these instances are poor.

C. Other Information

V. Citation Information

No Records Found