1

OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY

AND POLLUTION PREVENTION

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

October 6, 2015 

PC Code: 098301 

MEMORANDUM DP Barcode: D424563 

SUBJECT: Preliminary Ecological Risk Assessment for Registration Review of Aldicarb 

FROM: N.E. Federoff, Wildlife Biologist 

Edmund Wong, Environmental Chemist 

Environmental Risk Branch 2 

Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P) 

REVIEWED 

BY: Greg Orrick, Environmental Scientist 

Christina Wendel, Biologist 

Environmental Risk Branch 2 

Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P) 

THROUGH: Brian Anderson, Chief 

Environmental Risk Branch 2 

Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P) 

TO: Susan Bartow, Chemical Review Manager 

Kevin Costello, Acting Branch Chief 

Risk Management and Implementation Branch 4 

Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division (7508P) 

The Environmental Fate and Effects Division (EFED) has completed the Preliminary Risk 

Assessment (attached) conducted as part of the registration review of aldicarb. The problem 

formulation for aldicarb was conducted in 2012. Based on currently registered uses and labeled 

rates, this preliminary assessment identifies potential risks to aquatic and terrestrial non-target 

organisms, particularly birds and mammals. This assessment draws on information from both 

open literature and studies submitted by the registrants in response to data requirements in order 

to provide an overview of the environmental fate and ecological effects associated with the use 

of aldicarb as well as outlines uncertainties regarding residues and taxa of concern. Also,

aldicarb has been the subject of recent refined risk assessments, which remain valid. Therefore, 

this assessment takes from previous assessments where possible and did not re-assess risks to all 

taxonomic groups. Also, this assessment is focused on species that are not Federally listed as 

threatened or endangered (referred to as “listed”). For taxa where there may be risk, specific 

2015.10.06 

10:04:20 -04'00'

2015.10.06 11:18:40 -04'00'
2 

determinations for listed species are considered uncertain at this time. Currently labeled rates of 

aldicarb pose a potential for adverse effects, i.e., risk, to non-target terrestrial and aquatic 

animals. 

Label Clarification: 

There are some uncertainties in this assessment due to label ambiguities. The vague application 

instructions on the MEYMIK 15G product label are listed in the following table. There would be 

less uncertainty in the exposure assessment if the label application instructions were clarified or 

clearly worded to eliminate confusion regarding the incorporation or depth of cover after 

application. 

Instruction Issues Description Crop Uses Pages 

“Apply granules in the seed 

furrow and immediately cover 

with soil by mechanical means”

No specification of the depth 

of soil needed to cover the 

granules or the depth of the 

application

Cotton, 

Dry Beans, 

Peanuts, 

Soybeans 

At Planting 

(Aphids, 

Fleahoppers, 

Nematodes, 

Seedcorn 

maggot, 

Thrips) 

7, 9, 

10, 12 

“Apply granules in a 4 to 6-inch 

band (T-Band) over open seed 

furrow and immediately cover 

with soil by mechanical means”

No specification of the depth 

of soil needed to cover the 

granules and no specification 

on the time of application 

Cotton Nematodes 7 

“Apply in seed furrow and 

cover with soil”

No specification of the depth 

of soil needed to cover the 

granules and no specification 

on the time of application 

Cotton Aphids 7 

“Side dress granules in a furrow 

that is 6 to 10 inches to one or 

both sides of plant row to a 

depth of 2 to 3 inches. Adjust 

applications to minimize root 

pruning”

No instruction on whether to 

cover the granules with a 

given depth of soil 

Cotton Side Dress 

(except 

California) 

7 

“Apply granules in a 4 to 6-inch 

band and immediately cover 

with soil by mechanical means. 

Plant into treated zone”

No specification of how 

much soil is needed to cover 

the granules or the depth of 

the application 

Dry Beans, 

Peanuts, 

Soybeans, 

Sugar Beets 

At Planting / 

Split 

Application 

9, 10, 

12, 13 

“Where furrow irrigation is 

used, apply granules 3 to 4 

inches deep and 3 inches from 

seed row on the water furrow 

side”

The depth of soil or 

irrigation needed to 

incorporate the granules is 

not provided. 

Dry Beans At Planting 9 

“Apply granules in a 2 to 3 inch 

band over seed row and 

immediately cover with soil by 

mechanical means”

No specification of the depth 

of soil needed to cover the 

granules or the depth of the 

application 

Sugar Beets At Planting 

(Sugar beet 

root maggot) 

13 

“Where furrow irrigation is 

employed side-dress granules 4 

Instructions indicated no soil 

cover and thus expose 

Sugar Beets Post 

Emergence 

14 
3 

to 8 inches to water furrow side 

of plant row at furrow depth. 

Irrigate soon after application. 

Apply within 60 days after 

planting”

granules to terrestrial 

animals or surface runoff 

after irrigation or 

precipitation event
4 

 

Preliminary Ecological Risk Assessment in Support of 

the Registration Review of Aldicarb 

CAS Registry Number: 116-06-3 

PC Code: 098301 

DP Barcode: D424563 

Prepared by:

N.E. Federoff, Wildlife Biologist

Edmund Wong, Environmental Chemist 

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Pesticide Programs

Environmental Fate and Effects Division 

Environmental Risk Branch II 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW

Mail Code 7507P

Washington, DC 20460

Reviewed by: 

Greg Orrick, Environmental Scientist 

Christina Wendel, Biologist

Brian Anderson, Branch Chief

N

H3C

H O

O

N C

H

CH3

S

CH3

CH3
5 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY & CHARACTERIZATION of RISK CONCLUSIONS ............... 7

2. PROBLEM FORMULATION ................................................................................................... 8

2.1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 8

2.2. Pesticidal Mechanism of Action ......................................................................................... 9

2.3. Overview of Pesticide Use and Usage ................................................................................ 9

2.4. Description of Regulatory Action ..................................................................................... 13

2.5. Previous Risk Assessments ............................................................................................... 14

2.6. Ecosystems Potentially at Risk ......................................................................................... 14

3. ANALYSIS: ENVIRONMENTAL FATE & EFFECTS ......................................................... 14

3.1. Environmental Fate ........................................................................................................... 14

3.1.1. Aldicarb & Residues of Concern ................................................................................ 16

3.2. Aquatic Exposure .............................................................................................................. 19

3.3. Bioaccumulation ............................................................................................................... 23

3.4. Monitoring Data ................................................................................................................ 23

3.4.1. USEPA STORET Data Warehouse Surface Water Data ............................................ 23

3.4.2. USGS NAWQA Surface Water Data ......................................................................... 24

3.4.2.1. Aldicarb ........................................................................................................... 24

3.4.2.2. Aldicarb Sulfoxide ........................................................................................... 24

3.4.2.3. Aldicarb Sulfone .............................................................................................. 25

3.4.2.4. USGS NAWQA Monitoring Data Summary .................................................. 25

3.4.3. California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR) Surface Water Database .... 25

3.4.4. Monitoring Data Summary ......................................................................................... 26

3.5. Ecological Effects Characterization .................................................................................. 26

3.5.1. Toxicity to Birds and Mammals ................................................................................. 28

3.5.2. Toxicity to Terrestrial Invertebrates ........................................................................... 28

3.5.3. Toxicity to Plants ........................................................................................................ 29

3.5.4. Fish .............................................................................................................................. 29

3.5.5. Aquatic Invertebrates .................................................................................................. 29

3.5.6. Aquatic Plants ............................................................................................................. 30

3.6. Federally-listed Threatened and Endangered Species ...................................................... 30

3.7. Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP)............................................................. 31

3.8. Degradate Toxicity............................................................................................................ 32

3.9. Incident Database Review ................................................................................................. 32

4. RISK CHARACTERIZATION and RISK DESCRIPTION .................................................... 46

4.1. Terrestrial Animals ........................................................................................................... 46

4.1.1. Additional Terrestrial Animal RQ Refinements ......................................................... 47

4.1.2. Risk Conclusions for Terrestrial Organisms ............................................................... 50

4.2. Aquatic Species ................................................................................................................. 50

4.2.1. Revised RQs resulting from EECs from currently supported (2015) uses ................. 51

4.2.2. Risk Conclusions for Aquatic Organisms ................................................................... 52

5. IDENTIFICATION of CURRENT DATA GAPS ................................................................... 53

5.1. Fate .................................................................................................................................... 53

5.2. Effects ............................................................................................................................... 53

6. REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................... 54
6 

Appendix A. Ecological Effects Data ........................................................................................... 74

Appendix B. Aquatic Model File .................................................................................................. 88 

Appendix C. Domestic Animal and Aggregate Incident Summary for Aldicarb ......................... 90
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY & CHARACTERIZATION of RISK CONCLUSIONS 

The over-riding concern in this assessment is the high risk of mortality to birds and mammals. Aldicarb 

is very highly toxic to avian and mammalian species. It is a systemic pesticide and a potent 

cholinesterase (ChE) inhibitor. Acute and chronic RQs for aldicarb can be misleading since it can take 

the ingestion of only 1 granule for mortality to occur (Balcomb et al., 1984). Supplemental open 

literature suggests acute oral LD50s of 0.75 mg/kg for passerine species (see Section 3). The mammalian 

LD50 is similar to birds at 0.9 mg/kg. Exposure to aldicarb caused lower survivability and pup weights in 

offspring of all litters in testing (reproductive LOAEL = 1.4 - 1.7 mg/kg-bw; NOAEL = 0.7 - 0.9 mg/kgbw). These toxicity values suggest that even if mammals survive acute aldicarb exposure they may 

suffer adverse reproductive effects from chronic exposure. In addition, since there are risks to birds, 

risks to reptiles are also possible. 

Aldicarb is soluble in water, poorly sorbed on soil particles and could expose birds and mammals to 

dissolved granules after application in drinking water puddles after a rain or an irrigation event occurs. If 

that occurs, wildlife species are likely to be killed from drinking contaminated water from treated fields 

after rain. Soil incorporation does not materially reduce exposure from drinking water. Drinking water 

exposure alone was determined to be a potential acute and chronic pathway of concern for avian and 

mammalian species. 

There have been numerous mortality incidents to birds and mammals where aldicarb was determined to 

be a likely cause. However, most of the reported incidents were either from the intentional or accidental 

misuse of aldicarb. Very few incidents that occur are reported to the EPA. 

Aldicarb is considered highly toxic by acute contact to honeybees with an LD50 of 0.285 μg/bee. 

Because of its granular formulation, it is unlikely that there is a direct contact exposure scenario for 

honeybees. However, other soil dwelling beneficial insects and invertebrates could be exposed to 

aldicarb and aldicarb residues through contact with the granules. Contact with dissolved residues in 

puddles and/or with plants (via pollen and nectar) due to its systemic nature is possible. 

Parent aldicarb and its degradates are highly mobile and are known to move to ground water in sandy 

acidic soils. Furthermore, these residues may move to surface water via runoff, drain discharge, and/or 

baseflow from groundwater. Aldicarb residues in baseflow are most likely to create concern for fish and 

aquatic invertebrates in low-order streams because these streams are dominated by base flow conditions 

(where up to 100% of stream flow consists of discharged ground water). Higher-order streams are 

sustained by much larger contributing land areas, so there is often a greater dilution effect. Higher 

incorporation efficiencies could reduce risks to aquatic organisms as a result of reduced runoff. 

However, although data are limited, there is no discerning trend of lower aldicarb and residues of 

concern concentrations from surface water monitoring data since the implementation of mitigation in 

2009. Surface water exposure from runoff was modeled in this assessment rather than from baseflow 

because runoff is expected to produce higher concentrations in most surface water bodies. Under the 

current label scenarios modeled for EECs, most aquatic organism acute and all chronic RQs exceeded all 

LOCs for all registered labeled uses of aldicarb. Since there were risks to fish, there may also be risks to 

amphibians. 
8 

Uncertainties/Data Gaps 

Honeybee toxicity (non-guideline): 

In keeping with the Agency’s proposed new paradigm for determining potential adverse effects to insect 

pollinators from conventional pesticides (USEPA et al., 2014), additional studies are being requested in 

addition to the already submitted adult acute contact study. Although the adult acute contact study using 

aldicarb resulted in an LD50 of 0.285 μg/bee and the compound was classified as highly toxic (MRID 

00036935), there is considerable uncertainty regarding the potential effects of the compound on 

honeybee larval development and survival as well as potential for chronic effects. Because of its 

granular formulation, it is unlikely that there is a direct contact exposure scenario for honeybees. Other 

soil dwelling beneficial insects and invertebrates could be exposed to aldicarb and aldicarb residues 

through contact with the granules and/or with plants (via pollen and/or nectar) due to its systemic nature. 

However, because the chemical is systemic in nature exposure via pollen and/or nectar is possible; 

therefore, additional data on pollinators is needed to fully characterize the risk associated with aldicarb 

use to all developmental stages of honeybees, as sensitivity may vary according to life-stage and length 

of exposure (adult vs. larval and acute vs. chronic, respectively). Additional information is needed, but 

uncertainty associated with risks to honey bees needs to be evaluated with more data for different life 

stages. Since this is a systemic chemical that is transported throughout the plant, residues may be 

available to pollinators via pollen and/or nectar; therefore, residues of pollen and nectar of crops are a 

data need. Adult and larvae acute oral toxicity studies (following OECD 213) and larval and adult 

chronic toxicity studies (following OECD 237 and non-guideline study) are necessary to evaluate the 

potential for aldicarb to adversely affect bees and other pollinators through other routes of exposure. 

Open literature data is needed to help better characterize some uncertainties regarding potential effects 

to bees and other non-target terrestrial invertebrates. In addition, higher tier toxicity tests (i.e., semi-field 

and/or field studies – Tier II and Tier III, respectively) may be needed, based on the results of the larval 

and chronic adult toxicity studies. Higher tier studies are recommended if the ratio of the EEC and larval 

or adult bee acute LD50>0.4 or the ratio of the EEC and the chronic NOAEC>1. Incident data and/or 

compelling open literature studies can also be used to support the need for higher tier studies. Should the 

screening level risk assessment identify that there are risk concerns to bees, mitigation measures may 

need to be considered or the registrant may need to conduct Tier II or Tier III effects studies (e.g. OECD 

Guideline 75 and/or 850.3040 guideline studies) that reduce uncertainty by characterizing aldicarb’s 

effects at the whole-colony level. 

2. PROBLEM FORMULATION 

2.1. Introduction 

The purpose of this assessment is to provide an understanding of the environmental risks of the labeled 

uses of aldicarb. Aldicarb is a systemic insecticide, acaricide and nematicide in the carbamate group of 

cholinesterase inhibitors. Aldicarb has been the subject of refined risk assessments in the past, 

particularly risk characterization for birds and mammals. These assessments remain valid and serve as 

the basis for the current risk assessment as well. Also, a formal problem formulation conducted as part 

of Registration Review was conducted in 2012. The problem formulation presented in this document 

presents a summary and an update of what was presented in the 2012 problem formulation. Reference 

the 2012 problem formulation for additional information (Docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0161). 
9 

2.2. Pesticidal Mechanism of Action 

Aldicarb (2-methyl-2-(methylthio)propionaldehyde O-(methylcarbamoyl)oxime) (PC code 098301) is a 

potent cholinesterase (ChE) inhibitor causing inhibition of erythrocyte acetylcholinesterase as well as 

plasma butyryl ChE by binding to the active site of the enzyme. Acetylcholinesterase is an enzyme 

necessary for the degradation of the neurotransmitter acetylcholine (ACh) and subsequent cessation of 

synaptic transmission. Inhibition of these enzymes in animals (i.e. terrestrial and aquatic invertebrates, 

fish, birds, amphibians, reptiles, mammals) results in the accumulation of ACh at cholinergic nerve 

endings and continual nerve stimulation leading to adverse effects including death. One uncertainty in 

the risk assessment, particularly for chronic effects, is that the toxic mode of action of aldicarb of AChE 

inhibition is a reversible process when exposure stops. Therefore, repeated, intermittent exposures may 

allow for some recovery. 

2.3. Overview of Pesticide Use and Usage 

Aldicarb is a granular pesticide that was first registered for use on cotton in 1970. There is currently 

only one end use product label for aldicarb, Meymik 15G (Reg. No. 87895-1) which was registered in 

December, 2011. There are 6 crops listed for use of aldicarb on the Meymik label: cotton, dry beans, 

peanuts, soybeans, sugar beets, and sweet potatoes. Table 1.1 lists the use pattern of maximum exposure 

for each labeled uses of aldicarb. 

Table 1.1 Labeled Aldicarb Use Pattern of Maximum Exposure 

Use 

Max. Single App. 

Rate 

(lbs a.i./A) 

Max. Annual 

App. Rate 

(lbs a.i./A) 

App. 

Interval 

(d) 

App. Method Labeled Use 

States 

Cotton C

1.05 (At Planting) 

0.75 (Side Dress) 

2.1 (Side Dress)* 

1.8 A 

3.15* A 21 

at-plant: in furrow and Tband 

post-emergent: in furrow 

U.S. 

*[CA only] 

Dry Beans 2.1 2.1 A 0 at-plant: in furrow CO, ID, MI, OR, 

WA only 

Peanuts B 1.05 (At Planting) 

1.5 (Post-Emergence) 2.55 A 14 

at-plant: in furrow, 

incorporated band or Tband 

post-emergent: banded 

over foliage 

U.S. 

[Split application 

only in AL, FL, 

GA, NC, OK, TX, 

VA] 

Soybeans 1.05 1.05 A 0 at-plant: in furrow or Tband 

GA, NC, SC, VA 

only 

Sugar Beets D

4.95 (At Planting) 

3.0 (Post-Emergence) 

4.05 (Post-Emergence) 

2.1 (At Planting)* 

2.1 (Side Dress)* 

4.95 A

4.2* A 14 

at-plant: in furrow, 

incorporated band or Tband 

post-emergent: in furrow, 

incorporated side band or 

side dress 

[CO, ID, MT, NE, 

OR, WA, WY 

only] 

*[CA only] 

Sweet Potatoes E 3.0 3.0 A 0 pre-plant or at-plant: band 

covered by hilling LA, MS only 

A Label directions provide a seasonal application rate limit that approximates an annual limit. B Post-emergent applications must be irrigated immediately after application. Post-emergent applications must be made to 

dry foliage. 
10 

C Second application is restricted to 0.75 lb and must be placed in furrow at least 2 inches deep. Applications must be 

between March 1 and September 1 in California. 

D Applications must be made within 60 days of planting. 

E Application must be made with positive displacement applicators.

Aldicarb cannot be applied in Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New 

York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, or Wisconsin. In addition, it is restricted from use in Del 

Norte and Humboldt Counties in California and Curry County, Oregon. Aldicarb can only be applied 

between March 1 and September 1 in California. There are also restrictions on the use of aldicarb around 

drinking water wells. In all cases, application cannot be made within 50 ft of a drinking water well, but 

more stringent conditions often apply. In most cases, these restrictions are based on the presence of a 

‘vulnerable soil’ and the nature of the well. A vulnerable soil is defined on the label as having a loamy 

sand or sand texture and a subsoil with less than 2% organic matter on average in the upper 12 inches. 

Restrictions around the well are necessary if the water table is less than 25 ft deep, unless the well is 

cased to less than 100 ft or to 30 feet below the top of the water table. If the user does not know that the 

water table is greater than 25 feet, the applicator should assume a water table less than 25 feet deep. 

The following state and use restrictions depend upon the vulnerable soil and well descriptions. In 

Alabama, Georgia, Florida, and South Carolina, if a ‘split application’ is made (that is, one application 

at planting and a second side dress application is made after emergence), then there must be a 1100 ft 

buffer in place around drinking water wells. In these same states, a split application made to cotton with 

vulnerable soil and wells requires a 1000 ft buffer. If only a single application is made either at-plant or 

post-emergent then the wellhead buffer is 700 ft. For all uses in Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, 

Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota, Nebraska, Ohio, South Dakota, and Wyoming, a 500 ft buffer is 

required around vulnerable wells in vulnerable soils. In these states, vulnerable soils are defined to 

include sandy loams, loamy sands and sands. In Colorado, Delaware, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, 

Maryland, Missouri, Mississippi, North Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia, a 300 ft 

buffer is required around vulnerable wells in vulnerable soils. For all other uses in Florida (other than 

peanuts and cotton) a 300 ft buffer is required around all drinking water wells. For all uses, applications 

cannot be made within 50 ft of any drinking water well. 

The Meymik label has a number of precautionary label statements for the protection of wildlife and 

water resources. The statements for the protection of wildlife are: 

“This pesticide is extremely toxic to birds and other wildlife. Birds feeding on exposed 

granules may be killed. Cover or immediately soil incorporate granules spilled during 

loading, at row ends, or elsewhere to ensure the granules are completely covered with soil. 

“This pesticide is toxic to fish and aquatic invertebrates. Run-off from treated areas may 

be hazardous to fish in neighboring areas. Do not apply directly to water, to areas where 

surface water is present or to intertidal area below the mean high water mark. Do not 

contaminate water when disposing equipment washwaters”. 

“This product is potentially toxic to honey bees through translocated residues in pollen 

and nectar if application is made during bloom.”

There is also additional language regarding the Endangered Species Act: 
11 

“Under the Endangered Species Act, it is a Federal Offense to use any pesticide in a 

manner that results in the death of a member of an endangered species.”

“This Act protects Attwater’s Prairie Chicken in the Texas counties of Aransas, Austin, 

Brazoria, Colorado, Galveston, Goliad, Harris, Refugio, and Victoria.” (Note that this 

statement lists specific species; however, additional listed species may be at risk in Texas).

“Prior to making applications in these counties, the user must determine that this species 

is not located in or immediately adjacent to the area to be treated. If the user is in doubt 

whether or not the above named endangered species may be affected, he should contact 

either the regional U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Office (Endangered Species Specialist) or 

personnel of the State Fish and Game Office.”

Precautionary language for the protection of groundwater is: 

“Aldicarb is known to leach through soil into ground water under certain conditions. Use 

of this chemical in areas where soils are permeable, particularly where the water table is 

shallow, may result in ground water contamination. Apply this product only as specified 

on this label. Read the use directions and the appended Environmental Precautions and 

Soil Type Restrictions Tables prior to making applications.”

“This product is readily decomposed to harmless residues under most use conditions. 

However, a combination of permeable and acidic soil conditions, moderate to heavy 

irrigation and/or rainfall, use of 20 or more pounds per acre, and soil temperatures below 

50o F (10o C) at application time tend to reduce degradation and promote movement of 

residues into ground water.” 

However, the label does not have a surface water advisory statement. EFED recommends surface water 

precautionary language in the following: 

“Aldicarb may impact surface water quality due to runoff of rain water. This is especially true 

for poorly draining soils and soils with shallow ground water. 

Aldicarb is classified as having Kd less than 15 and a t1/2 between 8 and 30 days. A level, 

well-maintained vegetative buffer strip between areas to which this product is applied and 

surface water features such as ponds, streams, and springs will reduce the potential 

loading of aldicarb and its degradates from runoff water and sediment. Runoff of this 

product will be reduced by avoiding applications when rainfall or irrigation is expected to 

occur within 48 hours.” 

Cotton. There is a special local needs registration (24c) for aldicarb use on cotton in the state of 

California that allows up to 2.1 lb∙acre-1 for a second side dress application and 3.15 lb∙acre-1 total to be 

applied per year. For other states, the side dress application is limited to 0.75 lb∙acre-1 and the maximum 

seasonal rate is 1.8 lb∙acre-1. In either case, two applications can be made per season to cotton with the 

first application made at-plant, in-furrow with the requirement that the granules in the furrow be 

immediately covered with soil by mechanical means. Side dress applications are to be made 3 weeks 
12 

after planting to first bloom (24c) or first squaring (Section 3 label). Side dress applications are to be to a 

depth of 2 to 3 inches in a furrow 6 to 10 inches on one or both sides of the the row. The label 

restrictions include a note to deep-disk any spills at row ends or elsewhere to ensure the granules are 

covered with a layer of soil. Applications in California are restricted to between March 1 and September 

1. Specific restrictions for applications to cotton around drinking water wells are discussed above. 

Dry Beans. While ‘dry beans’ can be used to describe a large number of legumes, in most cases it refers 

to the mature fruit of Phaseolus vulgaris, the common edible bean (e.g., kidney bean, red bean, black 

bean, navy bean, etc.). It does not include the use on the same crop when they are picked immature (e.g.,

green beans, wax beans, pole beans, or snap beans). The use of aldicarb on dry beans is restricted to 

Colorado, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Michigan. Only one application can be made per year at up 

to 2.1 lb∙acre-1. Applications must be made at-plant either in the seed furrow or in a separate furrow 2 to 

3 inches deep to the side of the seed furrow and covered with soil by mechanical means. The label 

restrictions include a note to immediately deep-disk any spills at row ends or elsewhere to ensure the 

granules are covered with a layer of soil. 

Peanuts. Either one or two applications of aldicarb can be made to peanuts. However, two applications 

and applications not made at planting can only be made in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, 

Oklahoma, Texas and Virginia. At-plant applications can be made either in-furrow or in a T-band over 

the open seed furrow. In either case the label states to cover immediately with soil by mechanical means. 

At-plant applications can also be made as a 6 to 12 inch band which is mechanically incorporated from 2 

to 4 inches in depth into which the peanuts are subsequently planted. Post-emergent applications are to 

be made at or just prior to peg initiation (when the peanuts start to enter the ground) but no later than 40 

days after emergence and prior to the last cultivation. At-plant applications can be made at up to 1.05 

lb∙acre-1 while the maximum post-emergent application rate is 1.5 lb∙acre-1. The seasonal maximum 

application is 2.55 lb∙acre-1. A second application cannot be made to Spanish peanuts and other shortseason varieties that do not have at least 90 days between pegging and harvest. The label restrictions 

include a note to immediately deep-disk any spills at row ends or elsewhere to ensure the granules are 

covered with a layer of soil. 

Soybeans. Applications of aldicarb to soybeans can only be made in four states: Georgia, North 

Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia. Only one application can be made per year at planting at 1.05 

lb∙acre-1 for control of Mexican bean beetle, thrips, three-cornered alfalfa hopper and nematodes. 

Application can be made in-furrow or as a T-band 4 to 6 inches wide across the open seed furrow. In 

either case, the label says that the aldicarb must be immediately covered by mechanical means. The label 

restrictions include a note to immediately deep-disk any spills at row ends or elsewhere to ensure the 

granules are covered with a layer of soil. 

Sugar Beets. Applications of aldicarb to sugar beets can only be made in California, Colorado, Idaho, 

Montana, Nebraska, Oregon, Washington, and Wyoming. Applications in California can only be made 

between March 1 and September 1. The maximum annual application rate is 4.2 lb∙acre-1 in California 

and 4.95 lb∙acre-1 in all other states. No more than three applications can be made per year, one 

application at planting, and two post-emergent applications. The maximum single application rate atplant is 2.1 lb∙acre-1 in California and 4.95 lb∙acre-1 in other states. The maximum single application rate 

for post-emergence applications is 2.1 lb∙acre-1 in California and 3 lb∙acre-1 in other states. For control of 

nematodes, applications can be made up to a week before planting in a band 4 to 6 inches wide which is 
13 

immediately incorporated. Planting is then done into the incorporated band. Alternatively, the granules 

can be drilled in a row 3 to 4 inches deep and three inches to the side of the seed row if furrow irrigation 

is employed for seed germination. For aphid control, granules can be placed in the seedline if the 

application does not exceed 1.05 lb-ai∙acre-1. Otherwise, the granules should be drilled 1 to 3 inches 

below the seedline. For sugar beet root maggot control, granules can be applied in a band 2 to 3 inches 

wide over the seed row and immediately incorporated, or, if furrow irrigation is employed for seed 

germination, granules can be drilled in a row 2 inches deep 2 inches from the seed furrow. Postemergent applications are to be made on both sides of the plant row and immediately covered with soil 

or, if furrow irrigation is present, 4 to 8 inches on the water side of the plants at furrow depth. Postemergent applications must be made within 30 days of planting in California and within 60 days of 

planting elsewhere. 

Sweet Potatoes. Applications of aldicarb to sweet potatoes can only be made in Louisiana and 

Mississippi. Only one application can be made at planting. Applications are restricted to 3 lb-ai∙acre-1. 

Application are to be made in a 12 inch band over open furrow or on the soil surface and covered 

immediately during bed formation by mechanically hilling up to 8 to 10 inches. Transplants should be 

made in the center of the treated zone. 

The Biological and Economic Analysis Division (BEAD) completed a review of aldicarb usage 

(previously registered as Temik) in December 2011 (Brassard et al., 2011). This assessment did not 

include any data for the sweet potato use. In the period 1998 to 2010 BEAD found that the total usage of 

aldicarb had not changed substantially, though the use on citrus increased in the latter half of the 2000s. 

In the period of 2006 to 2010, the average use of aldicarb on all crops was 3.6 million pound on 3.7 

million acres. In this period, the top crops were cotton (47%), oranges (23%), peanuts (13%), and 

potatoes (6%). Under the current label, the use on oranges, other citruses and potatoes are no longer a 

registered use. In 1998-2010, the top states in terms of pounds applied were Florida (28%), Georgia 

(22%), and Texas (12%). 

2.4. Description of Regulatory Action 

The Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 mandated the EPA to implement a new program for assessing 

the risks of pesticides, i.e., registration review1

. All pesticides distributed or sold in the United States 

must be registered by the Agency. The decision to register a pesticide is based on the consideration of 

scientific data and other factors showing that it will not cause unreasonable risks to human health, 

workers, or the environment when used as directed on product labeling. The registration review program 

is intended to ensure that, as the ability to assess risk evolves and as policies and practices change, all 

registered pesticides continue to meet the statutory standard of no unreasonable adverse effects to human 

health and the environment. Changes in science, public policy, and pesticide use practices will occur 

over time. Through the new registration review program, the Agency periodically reevaluates pesticides 

to ensure that as change occurs, products in the marketplace can be used safely. 

As part of the implementation of the new registration review program pursuant to Section 3(g) of the 

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), the Agency is conducting an evaluation of 

ecological risks to determine whether use of aldicarb meets the FIFRA standard for registration. 

 

1 (http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/registration_review/) 
14 

2.5. Previous Risk Assessments 

The risk assessments available in the docket which serve as the basis for this preliminary risk assessment 

include the following: 

x May 24, 2012 EFED Registration Review Problem Formulation for Aldicarb, DP D398519 (US 

EPA, 2012) 

x March 28, 2012 EFED Risks of Aldicarb Use to the Federally Threatened Valley Elderberry 

Longhorn Beetle (Desmocerus californicus dimorphus) and the Federally Endangered San 

Joaquin Kit Fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica), (US EPA, 2012) 

x April 10, 2009 EFED Refinement to Tier 2 Drinking Water Assessment Tobacco Uses of 

Aldicarb and its Major Degradates Aldicarb Sulfoxide and Aldicarb Sulfone, D299881 (US EPA, 

2009) 

x August 26, 2008 EFED Drinking Water Exposure Assessment for Proposed Expansion of 

Aldicarb Use on Potatoes Into 6 Additional States (CO, MI, MN, ND, SD, WY), DP D299881 

(US EPA, 2008) 

x July 17, 2007 EFED Risks of Aldicarb Use to Federally Listed Endangered California Red 

Legged Frog (Rana aurora draytonii), (US EPA, 2007) 

x October 23, 2006 EFED Drinking Water Exposure Assessment for Total Aldicarb Residues 

(Parent, Aldicarb Sulfoxide, and Aldicarb Sulfone) Based on the N-Methyl Carbamate 

Cumulative Risk Assessment, D333309 (US EPA 2006) 

x September, 2006 EFED Aldicarb Ecological Risk Assessment (RED), (US EPA, 2006) 

x April 4, 2005 EFED Tier 2 Drinking Water Assessment for Aldicarb and its Major Degradates 

Aldicarb Sulfoxide and Aldicarb Sulfone, D316754 (US EPA, 2005) 

2.6. Ecosystems Potentially at Risk 

The ecosystems at risk are often extensive in scope; therefore, it may not be possible to identify specific 

ecosystems during the development of a nation-wide ecological risk assessment. However, in general 

terms, terrestrial ecosystems potentially at risk could include the areas that are immediately adjacent to 

treated areas that may receive runoff during flooding. Areas adjacent to the treated areas could include 

cultivated fields, fencerows and hedgerows, meadows, fallow fields or grasslands, woodlands, riparian 

habitats and other uncultivated areas. 

Aquatic ecosystems potentially at risk include water bodies adjacent to or downstream from, the treated 

areas and could include impounded bodies such as ponds, lakes and reservoirs, or flowing waterways 

such as streams or rivers. 

3. ANALYSIS: ENVIRONMENTAL FATE & EFFECTS 

3.1. Environmental Fate 

Aldicarb rapidly degrades to aldicarb sulfoxide and aldicarb sulfone – both of which are nearly as toxic 

as, and are more persistent than, the parent compound. Other aldicarb degradates may form as well, but 

are substantially less toxic and/or produced only in small amounts (<5%) and so are not included in this 
15 

evaluation (See Appendix A). Aerobic soil metabolism is the primary dissipation route for aldicarb in 

unsaturated soil. Half-lives for aldicarb range from 1 to 17 days (MRIDs 00102051, 00093642, 

00080820, 00093640, 00053366, 00101934, 00035365, and 00102071). There is currently insufficient 

data to accurately estimate the formation and dissipation rates of the sulfoxide and sulfone degradates. 

However, the rapid oxidation of aldicarb to these degradates and their substantially greater persistence 

than aldicarb, have been well documented in the published literature (e.g., Bull et al., 1970; Smelt et al., 

1979). 

Laboratory studies suggest that degradation of the sum of all three aldicarb forms (i.e., parent 

compound, sulfoxide, and sulfone) to relatively non-toxic, non-carbamate residues (oximes and nitriles) 

occurs slowly (t1/2 up to 3 months) in aerobic soils, as a result of soil-catalyzed hydrolysis rather than 

aerobic metabolism (Lightfoot et al., 1987; Bank and Tyrrell, 1984). Aldicarb is generally stable to 

hydrolysis, slowly hydrolyzing only at a pH of 9 (MRID 00102065). Aldicarb sulfoxide hydrolyzed 

more quickly (t1/2 = 2.3 days) at pH 9 than at pH 7 or 5 (about 6% at 28 days at pH 7) (MRID 

00102066). Aqueous photolysis rapidly degraded aldicarb to oxime and nitrile forms (i.e. with a t1/2 of 

four days: MRID 42498201). However, this process will only be dominant in clear, shallow waters, and 

will not affect residues in the subsurface. 

While there is limited information on aerobic metabolism of aldicarb in aquatic environments, a 

published laboratory study (Vink et al., 1997) reported half-lives ranging from 70 to 173 days in surface 

waters in the Netherlands. Aldicarb degradates (i.e., aldicarb sulfoxide and aldicarb sulfone) have been 

detected in ground water long after application of the parent chemical had ceased. Published studies 

have reported increased degradation rates under low redox conditions, perhaps due to catalysis by 

reduced metal species in these environments (Bromilow et al., 1986). For example, Smelt et al. (1983) 

reported laboratory half-lives of aldicarb sulfone and sulfoxide ranging from 2 to 131 days in Dutch 

subsoils under “anaerobic conditions” (310 mV), and from 84 to 1100 days under aerobic conditions.

Given this information, it is likely that aldicarb sulfoxide and aldicarb sulfone, which degrade relatively 

slowly in aerobic soil (MRID 44005001), can leach into ground water and continue to be detectable over 

long time periods. 

In published field studies, dissipation half-lives for total carbamate residues in soil have ranged from 

approximately 0.3 to 5 months in the unsaturated zone, and 1 to 36 months in the saturated zone (Jones 

and Estes, 1995), in apparent contradiction to the observation of faster degradation under anaerobic 

(saturated) conditions reported above (Smelt et al., 1983). The reasons for the extreme variability in 

reported transformation rates (3 hours to 36 months) for aldicarb residues under anaerobic/saturated 

conditions are uncertain, but may be related to temperature, pH, and the presence of soils surface 

catalysts (Lightfoot, et al., 1987). Also, not all saturated zones are necessarily anoxic; if they are 

shallow, there can be sufficient interaction with the unsaturated zone such that the ground water may be 

sub-oxic or even atmosphere-equilibrated (oxic). Monitoring data in areas with historical aldicarb 

contamination confirm the high persistence of total aldicarb residues in some ground water. For 

example, twenty years after cessation of aldicarb use on Long Island, New York, aldicarb sulfone and 

sulfoxide were the most frequently detected pesticide compounds in ground water there in year 2000 

(Suffolk County Dept. of Health Services, 2000). 

A selection of environmental fate and transport properties of aldicarb are summarized below. 
16 

Table 3.1 General Physical/Chemical Properties and Environmental Fate Parameters of Aldicarb 

Parameter Value Reference

Physical/Chemical Parameters

Molecular mass 190.26 g/mol calculated

Vapor pressure (23°C) 6.25 x 10-6 torr MRID 4822504

Henry’s Law constant (23°C) 3.0 x 10-10 atm·m3/mol calculated

Water solubility (pH 7, 25°C) 6,000 mg/L MRID 4822504

Octanol-water partition coefficient 

( KOW)

11.48 MRID 4822504

Persistence in Water

Hydrolysis half-life pH 5: no significant degradation @ 30 d 

pH 7: no significant degradation @ 30 d 

pH 9: < 10% degradation of parent @ 30 d 

 T1/2 < 197 d 

MRID 00102065

Aqueous photolysis half-life 4 d MRID 42498201

Persistence in Soil

Aerobic soil metabolism half-life 

[25°C] 

parent only: 

 NJ sandy loam: 2.3 d 

 Houston clay: 11 d 

 Lakeland sandy loam: 17 d

 Norwood silty clay: 12 d 

 unspecified: 1 d 

 Illinois silt: 6 d 

 NC loamy sand: 10 d 

total toxic residues:

 Houston clay: 28 d 

 Lakeland sandy loam: 47 d 

 Norwood silty clay: 136 d 

 unspecified: 44 d 

MRID 44005001 

MRID 00093642 

MRID 45602904 

MRID 45739801 

MRID 00093642 

MRID 45602904 

Mobility

Fruendlich Adsorption 

Coefficients (Kf) 

 sandy loam: 0.186 L∙kg-1

 silt: 0.36 L∙kg-1

 clay: 0.6 L∙kg-1

 sand: 0.2 L∙kg-1

MRID 42498202 

MRID 43560301 

MRID 43560302 

3.1.1. Aldicarb & Residues of Concern 

Aldicarb and its degradates are highly mobile and are known to move to ground water in sandy acidic 

soils. In poorly permeable soils, these residues will move with runoff. Following a rain event, aldicarb 

may reach aquatic environments as sheet and channel flow from areas of application, since aldicarb is 

moderately persistent in terrestrial environments and soluble in water. It is unlikely, though, that 

undissolved granules will reach surface water bodies as the granules themselves are not particularly 

mobile and in most cases buried below the surface. The toxic degradates (aldicarb sulfoxide and aldicarb 

sulfone) are more prone to move vertically down through the soil profile, and potentially into ground 
17 

water, as these residues form primarily in the shallow subsurface. Ground water that contains aldicarb 

residues may then be discharged into surface waters as baseflow or tile drain discharge. If the receiving 

ground water is cool, acidic, and oxic, the sulfoxide and sulfone degradates will be very persistent and 

capable of long-distance subsurface transport. The environmental fate and transport properties of 

aldicarb degradates, aldicarb sulfoxide and aldicarb sulfone are summarized in Table 3.1 and 3.2. 

Table 3.2. Environmental Fate Parameters of Degradates of Aldicarb 

Fate Endpoint Aldicarb sulfoxide Aldicarb sulfone 

Hydrolysis – pH 5 495 d (MRID 45592104) 

Hydrolysis – pH 7 6% loss at 30 d (MRID 

00102066) 

63 d (MRID 45592104) 

Hydrolysis – pH 9 2.3 d (MRID 00102066) 1 da @ 25oC; 32 d @ 5oC (MRID 

45592104) 

Hydrolysis in published 

literature: Lemley & Zhong, 

1983 (45602901); Hansen & 

Spiegel, 1983 (45602902); 

Lemley & Zhong, 1984 

(45602903) 

Hydrolysis is sensitive to hydroxide concentration (base-catalyzed), with 

sulfone most sensitive and aldicarb least (Lemley & Zhong, 1983). 

Aldicarb hydrolysis rates increase at pH levels >7.5; sulfoxide and 

sulfone hydrolyze more readily and are affected by pH and temperature 

(results for 5, 15 oC) (Hansen & Spiegel, 1983). 

Both pH and temperature dependence seen in hydrolysis of all 3 

chemicals. Rates for sulfone at 25 oC 60 d @ pH7, 6 d @ pH8 (Lemley & 

Zhong, 1984) 

Aqueous photolysis 123 d (12 hr light/dark) 

(MRID 45592105) 

Aerobic soil metabolism 

(MRID 44005001)

Concentrations fluctuated 

between 9-86% of applied from 

7-60 day post treatment 

Concentrations fluctuated between 3-

80% of applied from 7-60 day post 

treatment

Aerobic soil metabolism 

range (MRID 00101934)

Total carbamate residues (parent, sulfoxide, sulfone) 11 – 110 d in 2 soils 

x 3 pH x 2 moisture contents; avg 34 d; 90% upper confidence bound 48 

d 

Aerobic soil metabolism 5 d (MRID 45592108) 3.33 d half-life (pH 6.7 soil)

(MRID 00053370) 

Aerobic soil metabolism 

half-life 

Total carbamate residues (parent, sulfoxide, sulfone) 

28, 47, 136 for 3 soils

(MRIDs 00093642, 00080820, 00093640, 00053366) 

Lab studies of all 3 forms 

(Lightfoot et al, 1987; Bank 

& Tyrrell, 1984) A

Combined residues (aldicarb, sulfoxide, sulfone) degraded to oximes, 

nitrile with half-lives up to 3 months; soil-catalyzed hydrolysis, not 

aerobic metabolism was driving factor.

Lightfoot et al, 1987 (MRID 

45602904) 

Combined (parent+degradate): 44 (unsterilized) – 10 (sterilized) d surface 

soil 

123 (unsterilized) – 16 (sterilized) d subsurface soil 
18 

Aerobic soil metabolism, 

2002 registrant submissions 

(MRID 45739802)

 15.2 d in IL silt (pH 7.9); 91.2 d in 

NC loamy sand (pH 6.2). 

Aerobic soil metabolism 

literature (Smelt et al, 1983) 

sulfone & sulfoxide half-lives in Dutch subsoils from 2-131 d under 

anaerobic cond., 84-1100 d under aerobic condition 

Aerobic aquatic metabolism, 

2002-3 registrant 

submissions 

5 d (total system) in pH 7.0 

water / pH 6.3 sediment (MRID 

45592108) 

3.5 d (total system) in pH 7.0 water / 

pH 6.3 sediment (MRID 45592109) 

Anaerobic aquatic 

metabolism

3.4 d (MRID 45592110) 3.5 d (MRID 45592111) 

Published field studies 

(Jones & Estes, 1995)

Summarized results of 32 field studies for aldicarb in 24 locations. Halflife of total carbamate residues (aldicarb, sulfoxide, sulfone) in surface 

soil ranged from 0.3 to 3.5 months; mean 1.3 mo (40 d) & 90% upper 

confidence bound on mean 1.5 mo (45 d). In 2 studies, estimated 

subsurface half-life of 5 months.

Fruendlich Adsorption 

Coefficients (Kf) 

(MRID 42498202, 

43560301, 43560302) 

aldicarb sulfoxide (L∙kg-1): 

 Tujunga loamy sand: 0.22 

 Wedowee sandy loam: 0.17 

 Huntington silt loam: 0.26 

 Huntington sandy clay loam: 0.26 

aldicarb sulfone (L∙kg-1): 

 Tujunga loamy sand: 0.09 

 Wedowee sandy loam: 0.12 

 Huntington silt loam: 0.22 

 Huntington sandy clay loam: 0.22 

A Study looks at degradation of aldicarb and total carbamates (parent, sulfoxide & sulfone) in surface soil, soil water, distilled water, 

saturated zone soil in sterilized/unsterilized conditions

The sulfoxide and sulfone degradates are nearly as mobile as the parent and are more persistent. For 

aquatic exposures the parent aldicarb may undergo some transformation to the sulfoxide and sulfone 

residues between the time of application to the soil and a runoff event. The transformation of aldicarb to 

its sulfoxide and sulfone forms is shown in Figure 1. 
19 

Figure 1. Chemical structure of aldicarb and its oxidative transformation products 

Aldicarb and its oxidation products are all highly mobile in soil. Aldicarb itself has Freundlich Kads

values ranging between 0.19 ml/g (for sandy loam) and 0.60 ml/g (for clay) (MRID 42498202). Aldicarb 

sulfoxide has Freundlich Kads values between 0.17 ml/g (sandy loam soil) and 0.26 ml/g (sandy clay 

loam) (MRID 43560301). Aldicarb sulfone had slightly lower values, ranging between 0.09 ml/g and 

0.22 ml/g for the same set of soils as the sulfoxide (MRID 43560302). Aldicarb is not expected to be 

mobile into or through the atmosphere because aldicarb is applied as a granule, and because its potential 

to enter the air from water is considered insignificant based on its Henry’s Law constant (3.0 x 10-10

atm·m3

/mol). Aldicarb may volatize from dry soil under some conditions due to its intermediate to low 

vapor pressure (6.25 x 10-6 torr). However, it’s half-life in air is estimated by EPISuite (v4.0) to be 28 

hours. 

Based on the use patterns, which are all granular, minimal off-site spray drift is expected to occur for 

aldicarb. While aldicarb and its degradates are known to contaminate ground water, it is possible that 

base flow from ground water into streams may contain aldicarb residues. Aldicarb residues in water 

from runoff are expected to be higher and assessment of concentrations from surface runoff will be used 

to be protective of risks due to base flow from ground water. Because aldicarb is highly soluble and 

poorly sorbed on soil particles, concentrations of aldicarb in puddles that may occur after rainfall or an 

irrigation event may be a significant route of exposure and will be assessed for risks to terrestrial 

mammals and birds. 

3.2. Aquatic Exposure 

For the purposes of this assessment, parent aldicarb and the total toxic residues (TTR: aldicarb and its 

sulfoxide and sulfone degradates) were modeled separately. A TTR approach was used to assess risk to 

aquatic invertebrates because the sulfoxide and sulfone degradates of aldicarb are assumed to be equal in 

toxicity to the parent; however, parent aldicarb was used to assess risk to fish because the transformation 

products were shown to be 1 to 2 orders of magnitude less toxic to fish. 

Aldicarb

Aldicarb Sulfone

Aldicarb Sulfoxide

C H 3 S

CC H N

C H 3

O

C

N

C H 3

H

H 3C O

C H 3 S

C

C H

N

C H 3

O

C

N

C H 3

H

O

O

H 3C

C H 3 S

C

C H

N

C H 3

O

C

N

C H 3

H

H O 3C

O O
20 

Exposure to aldicarb alone is estimated for fish. The soil mobility and chemical properties of aldicarb 

are listed in Table 3.1. The chemical input parameters for SWCC are listed in Table 3.3.

Using the Total Toxic Residues (TTR; Ruhman, M., draft document) method, degradation rates have 

been estimated for the sum of the parent and the sulfoxide and sulfone degradates. This method sums the 

residues of concern at each time point, and then estimates of degradation rate constant on these summed 

concentrations. The TTR modeling approach estimates the aquatic exposure with the aldicarb + 

sulfoxide + sulfone half-lives (from Table 3.2) and the soil mobility and chemical properties of aldicarb 

(from Table 3.1). The TTR approach is appropriate because the degradates of concern (sulfoxide and 

sulfone) exhibit similar environmental fate characteristics. Meanwhile, EFED recognized that the 

approach is conservative given the limited nature of the data. 

Aquatic exposure for aldicarb alone and aldicarb TTR was estimated using the Tier II exposure model 

Surface Water Concentration Calculator (SWCC) (v1.21, February 19, 2015). Chemical input 

parameters for SWCC follow in Table 3.3. 

Table 3.3. SWCC Chemical Input Parameters for Aldicarb and Aldicarb TTR

Input Parameter Value Justification Source

Kd (mL/g) 

0.16 Mean value for aldicarb TTR MRID 

42498202

43560301 

43560302 0.34 Mean value for aldicarb 

Aerobic aquatic metabolism 

half-life (days) [Temp. (°C)] 

12 

[25] 

Single acceptable guideline study for 

aldicarb TTR (4 days) x 3 

MRID 

44592107 

23 

[25] 

No data for parent aldicarb; use 2X 

aerobic soil half-life 2009 Guidance 

Anaerobic aquatic 

metabolism half-life (days) 

24 No data for aldicarb TTR; use 2X 

aerobic aquatic half-life Open Literature 

0 Default value in the absence of data 

for parent aldicarb USEPA, 2012 

Aqueous photolysis half-life 

(days) [Ref. Latitude (40°)] 4 

Represents the single value for the 

residues of concern MRID 

Single acceptable guideline study for 42498201

parent aldicarb 
21 

Input Parameter Value Justification Source

Hydrolysis half-life (days) 

[pH 7] 0 Represents the value for aldicarb TTR and parent aldicarb 

MRID 

00102065 

Aerobic soil metabolism 

half-life (days) 

[Temp. (25°C)] 

55 

Represents the upper 90% confidence 

bound mean for combined aldicarb 

TTR half-life from 19 soils 

MRID 

00102051 

00093642 

00080820 

00093640 

00053366 

00101934 

00035365

00102071 

11.6 

Represents the upper 90% confidence 

bound mean for aldicarb half-lives 

from 7 soils 

MRID 

44005001

00093642 

45602904

45739801 

Foliar half-life (days) 0 Default value in the absence of data USEPA, 2012 

Efficiency 0.99 Label stated exclusively for ground 

use only Meymik 15G

labeled use

Drift 0 

Label stated that active ingredient and 

formulation are in granular form, thus 

no spray drift 

Molecular mass (g/mol) 190.3 Molecular mass of aldicarb Calculated 

Vapor pressure (torr) 

[temp. (25°C)] 6.3 × 10-6 Study value for aldicarb MRID 

00152095 

Solubility in water (mg/L) 

(25°C) 6,000 Study value for aldicarb Acc 255979 

Chemical property and environmental fate input values were chosen in accordance with current input 

parameter guidance (USEPA, 2009). Based on analysis of the residues of concern (TTR) and parent 

aldicarb, the 90% confidence bounds on the mean half-lives for aerobic soil metabolism was selected. 

Meanwhile, the hydrolysis value of pH 7 and 9 were examined. Due to the fact that both pHs resulted in 

minor differences in output values for all crop scenarios, the environmentally relevant pH 7 was 

selected. 

SWCC use pattern inputs are listed in Table 3.4. Modeled SWCC scenarios were those applicable to the 

labeled use sites that resulted in the highest exposure. Modeled application rates and numbers of 

applications per year include the maximum allowed on the label. Dates of initial application were 

selected within the scenario crop season and characterized by vulnerability to runoff. Runoff 

vulnerability was explored by modeling various application rates, application methods, and the range 

within the crop season including application dates, initial application dates falling on the 1st to 15th of 

months, an initial or follow-up post-emergence 14 to 21-day steps and selecting the date for which 

exposure estimates were highest. This was expected to produce high-end exposure estimates that are 

conservative but that may not represent the highest possible exposure. If exposure estimates resulting 
22 

from these high-end exposure scenarios do not result in risk concerns, then there are no risk concerns 

from less-high-end exposure scenarios either. 

Aldicarb use on sweet potatoes was not modeled because the application instruction requires the 

granules to be covered to a sufficient soil depth (8-10 inches hilling or bed forming process) limiting 

runoff, thus reducing the potential surface water exposure.2

 In addition, since drift is not expected from 

granular application of aldicarb, offsite exposure is expected to be minimal for this use. 

Table 3.4. SWCC Scenarios and Input Parameters Describing Maximum Patterns of Aldicarb Use 

on Representative Use Sites A

Use Site 

(Labeled Use) SWCC Scenario Date of App.

App. Rate in lbs 

a.i./A 

(App. Time)

App. 

per 

Year

App. 

Interval 

(days)

CAM 

Input

Application 

Efficiency/ Spray 

Drift 

Cotton MS cotton Sep. 1 1.05 (At Planting) 

0.75 (Side Dress) 2 21 1 

0.99/0 

Dry Beans MI beans Apr. 1 2.1 (At Planting) 1 NA 1 

Peanuts NC peanuts Apr. 1 

Apr. 15 

1.05 (At Planting) 

1.5 (Post Emergence) 2 14 7 2 

Soybeans MS soybeans Apr. 1 1.05 (At Planting) 1 NA 1 

Sugar Beets MN sugar beets Apr. 16 4.05A 

(Post Emergence) 1 NA 1 

*NA = Not Applicable 

A The 4.05 lbs a.i./A rate was selected for modeling because it is the highest application rate that can be applied over irrigation furrow without soil cover, 

which increases potential surface water exposure. All uses were modeled using a 2 cm incorporation depth, the default value when no depth is specified. 

Surface water exposure estimates per use site for aldicarb only are listed in Table 3.5, while estimates 

for aldicarb residues of concern (TTR) are listed in Table 3.6. Model input and output files are attached 

in Appendix B. The maximum use pattern on sugar beets results in the highest environmental exposure 

concentrations (EEC). 

Table 3.5. Aquatic Exposure Estimates from Aldicarb Use Sites (Aldicarb Only)A

Use Site SWCC Scenario 1-in-10-year Peak 

(μg/L)

1-in-10-year 21-

day Mean (μg/L)

1-in-10-year 60-

day Mean (μg/L) 

Cotton MS cotton 28.9 25.7 19.9 

Dry Beans MI beans 28.2 26.4 21.8 

Peanuts NC peanuts 17.4 14.7 11.8 

Soybeans MS soybeans 22.3 19 13.2 

Sugar Beets MN sugar beets 53 47.7 36.8 A Maximum values are in bold. 

 

2

 The SWCC only considers runoff in the top 4 cm for ground applications; therefore, no runoff would result from modeling 

this scenario. 
23 

Table 3.6. Aquatic Exposure Estimates from Aldicarb Use Sites (Aldicarb TTR)A

Use Site SWCC Scenario 1-in-10-year Peak 

(μg/L)

1-in-10-year 21-

day Mean (μg/L)

1-in-10-year 60-

day Mean (μg/L) 

Cotton MS cotton 35.1 28.3 17.7 

Dry Beans MI beans 30.6 26.4 18.2 

Peanuts NC peanuts 21.1 15.6 10 

Soybeans MS soybeans 26.7 20.1 11.3 

Sugar Beets MN sugar beets 78 59.7 38 A Maximum values are in bold.

 

3.3. Bioaccumulation 

Aldicarb and residues of concerns are not expected to appreciably bioaccumulate in aquatic or terrestrial 

organisms given the low log KOW of 1.06. 

3.4. Monitoring Data 

Included in this assessment are available data on aldicarb, aldicarb sulfone, and aldicarb sulfoxide 

(aldicarb residues of concern) from non-targeted monitoring conducted in the following water 

monitoring programs: the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR) surface water database 

(http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/emon/surfwtr/surfcont.htm), the USGS NAWQA surface and ground 

water database (http://cida.usgs.gov/nawqa_queries_public/), the USEPA STORET Data Warehouse 

(http://www.epa.gov/storet/). 

3.4.1. USEPA STORET Data Warehouse Surface Water Data 

STORET data indicate that all 50 states in the U.S. including the District of Columbia were monitored 

for aldicarb, aldicarb sulfone, and aldicarb sulfoxide at various times from February 1986 to December 

2014. Samples were collected from 793 sites, with parent aldicarb, sulfoxide, and sulfone sample totals 

of 2229, 2215, and 2121, respectively. Aldicarb residues were detected in 222 samples with a detection 

percentage of 1.8% out of the total samples. The lowest range of detection level was 0.017 μg/L and the 

highest detected concentration was 0.5 μg/L. 

Parent aldicarb and sulfone was detected simultaneously in one sample with a concentration of 0.5 and 

0.4 μg/L, respectively in San Miguel County, New Mexico on August 2001. Sulfoxide was detected in a 

total of five samples with the highest concentration at 0.3 μg/L in San Miguel, New Mexico on August 

2001. The other four samples were found within the range of 0.0173-0.111 μg/L between May 2004 to 

April 2006 in Mohave, San Diego, and Alameda Counties, California (U.S. Geological Survey 2015). 

Monitoring data for USEPA STORET results indicated that the monitoring is non-targeted and while 

some sites were sampled twice to more than ten times but the overwhelming majority were sampled only 

once. The timing of the monitoring was irregular as well. Some sites were monitored for several 

consecutive years, however, many sites with detected aldicarb and residues were only sampled once and 

no follow-up monitoring. Hence, the data cannot be correlated with aldicarb use. 
24 

3.4.2. USGS NAWQA Surface Water Data 

NAWQA data indicate that 50 states in the U.S. and the District of Columbia except for Kentucky were 

monitored for aldicarb, aldicarb sulfoxide, and aldicarb sulfone at various times from May 1992 to 

December 2013. A total of 99 samples were collected from 34 sites. The total number of parent aldicarb, 

sulfoxide, and sulfone detections and percentage per total number sampled were 231 and 0.5%, 

respectively. Parent aldicarb, sulfoxide, and sulfone detections in surface water monitoring data are 

summarized in their individual sections in the following: 

3.4.2.1. Aldicarb 

Criteria Data 

Number of Surface Water Detections 54 (8,456 Total Samples) 

Lowest Surface Water Detection 0.08 μg/L (Weld County, CO; July 1994) 

Highest Surface Water Detection 2.21 μg/L (Sumter County, GA; September 1993) 

Earliest Detection 0.34 μg/L (Beaufort County, NC; April 1993) 

Latest Detection 0.1625 μg/L (Washington County, MS; May 2005) 

State County Detection 

Numbers 

Concentration 

(μg/L) 

Collection Date 

Range 

AL Russell, Houston, Henry 4 0.28 - 0.37 June 1993 

CA Merced 1 0.46 April 1993 

CO Weld 1 0.08 July 1994 

GA 

Baker, Carroll, etc. (21 Counties) 41 0.26 - 0.9 Jun – Nov 1993 

Cobb* 1 1.47 Nov 1993 

Sumter* 1 2.21 Sep 1993 

MS Washington 1 0.1625 May 2005 

NJ Somerset 1 0.13 Jul 1997 

NC Beaufort 1 0.34 Apr 1993 

SC Orangeburg 1 0.48 May 1996 

WY Big Horn 1 0.37 Apr 1999 

*Location were listed specifically due to concentration over 1μg/L. Numbers are also bolded. 

3.4.2.2. Aldicarb Sulfoxide 

Criteria Data 

Number of Surface Water Detections 33 (8,334 Total Samples) 

Lowest Surface Water Detection 0.0009 μg/L (Hancock County, IN; July 2010) 

Highest Surface Water Detection 1.91 μg/L (Madison, LA; May 1997) 

Earliest Detection 0.92 μg/L (Sumter County, GA; April 1994) 

Latest Detection 0.0024 μg/L (St. Mary County, LA; May 2011) 

State County Detection 

Numbers 

Concentration 

(μg/L) 

Collection Date 

Range 

AL Madison 14 0.0033-0.1674 Apr 2000 – Apr 2010 

CA San Joaquin 1 0.0047 Feb 2002 
25 

CO Weld 1 0.98 Aug 1994 

GA Sumter 1 0.92 Apr 1994 

IN Hancock 1 0.0009 Jul 2010 

LA Madison 4 0.5 – 1.91 May 1997 

St. Mary 1 0.0024 May 2011 

MS Warren, Washington 6 0.004 - 0.1009 May 2005 – Jun 2010 

OR Marion 2 0.0042 - 0.008 Jun – Jul 2002 

SC Orangeburg 1 1.2 May 1996 

NY Suffolk 1 0.0183 Jul 2007 

*Concentrations >1 μg/L are bolded. 

3.4.2.3. Aldicarb Sulfone 

Criteria Data 

Number of Surface Water Detections 12 (8,344 Total Samples) 

Lowest Surface Water Detection 0.065 μg/L (Madison County, AL; October 2000) 

Highest Surface Water Detection 0.1574 μg/L (Denver, CO; April 2002) 

Earliest Detection 0.07 μg/L (Washoe County, NV; July 1994) 

Latest Detection 0.0059 μg/L (Sarpy County, NE; August 2010) 

State County Detection 

Numbers 

Concentration 

(μg/L) 

Collection Date 

Range 

AL Madison 8 0.065 - 0.1035 Apr 2000 – Apr 2010 

CO Denver 1 0.1574 Apr 2002 

NE Sarpy 1 0.0059 Aug 2010 

NV Washoe 1 0.07 Jul 1994 

NY Suffolk 1 0.0287 Jul 2007 

3.4.2.4. USGS NAWQA Monitoring Data Summary 

Monitoring data from USGS NAWQA was more extensive than that of USEPA STORET. Results 

shows that the detection frequencies for parent aldicarb were in the Southeastern U.S., where out of 54 

samples, 43 were in Georgia. Except for 2 samples were from the same sites, all of them were from 

different sampling sites. The detection frequencies for both aldicarb sulfone and sulfoxide were also 

mostly at different sampling points in the Southeastern U.S. 

USGS NAWQA database follows similar trend to that of USEPA STORET where it is non-targeted 

monitoring and the timing of monitoring is irregular. Further, the sample collection was not targeted for 

aldicarb use and the data cannot be correlated with aldicarb use as well. 

3.4.3. California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR) Surface Water Database 

The CDPR Surface Water Database indicates that aldicarb TTR was analyzed at 293 surface water sites 

in California at various times from February 1991 to October 2010. A total of 6795 samples were 

collected. While some sites were sampled for a total of 16 times over the span of 4 years, most of the 

sites were sampled at least 3 or more times at various times. Aldicarb and its residues were detected in a 
26 

total of eleven samples, where eight were of parent aldicarb. The earliest detection of aldicarb was in 

San Joaquin River, Stanislaus in July 1991 and the most recent was in two storm drain samples in 

Sacramento on August 2009 with the lowest range concentration of 0.084-0.086 μg/L. Aldicarb was 

detected in the same sampling point twice (Miles Creek, Merced County) with the highest measured 

concentration of 5.4 μg/L on June 2007 but decreased 10-fold to 0.53 in June 2008. Other detections of 

aldicarb occurred in Colusa Basin drain, Yolo (0.7 μg/L) on April 2000, Deadman Creek, Merced (1.2 

μg/L) on June 2007, and Logan Creek, Colusa (1.5 μg/L) on May 2008. 

Aldicarb sulfone was detected in two samples, 0.05 μg/L on August 1991 in the San Joaquin River and 

0.258 μg/L on February 1992 in Turlock Irrigation District drain, both on Stanislaus County. 

Meanwhile, sulfoxide was measured in one sample at 0.28 μg/L on July 1991 in the San Joaquin River. 

3.4.4. Monitoring Data Summary 

Aldicarb, aldicarb sulfoxide, and aldicarb sulfone were monitored in non-targeted sites for surface water 

in all 50 states in the U.S. including the District of Columbia from February 1986 to December 2014. 

Note that much of this monitoring data was collected prior to mitigation and use reduction associated 

with reregistration of aldicarb. The mitigation was implemented in 2009. Overall, the highest detection 

of aldicarb residues of concern in these databases is 5.4 μg/L in surface water (parent aldicarb). This 

concentration is within an order of magnitude of modeled chronic exposure estimates (10.7 μg/L for 

surface water) for aldicarb residues of concern. 

The 2009 mitigation implementation may have caused the decrease in the number of detections and 

concentrations of aldicarb, aldicarb sulfoxide, and aldicarb sulfone in surface water. However, since the 

monitoring databases were non-targeted, especially for aldicarb use, and the sampling frequency was 

inconsistent, the observation cannot be verified by the lack of detections of aldicarb and its residues in 

surface water samples post 2009. 

3.5. Ecological Effects Characterization 

Consistent with current procedures, the risk assessment for aldicarb will rely on a surrogate species 

approach. Toxicological data generated from surrogate test species, which are intended to be 

representative of broad taxonomic groups, are used to extrapolate to potential effects on a variety of 

species (receptors) included under these taxonomic groupings. 

The Agency evaluates the potential for adverse effects as a result of aldicarb usage. The most sensitive 

endpoint for each taxon is used for RQ calculations. Assessment endpoints include direct toxic effects 

on the survival, reproduction, and growth of terrestrial and aquatic life, as well as indirect effects, such 

as reduction in prey base and/or modification of habitat. The evaluated taxa include fish, aquatic 

invertebrates, birds, small mammals, terrestrial invertebrates, aquatic plants, and terrestrial plants. 

Acute (short-term) and chronic (long-term) toxicity information is characterized based on registrantsubmitted studies and a comprehensive review of the open literature on aldicarb. A summary of the 

available ecological toxicity data (including review classifications and associated deficiencies) for 

aldicarb and degradates is in Appendix A. The data is summarized briefly in Sections 3.5.1 to 3.5.8.

The degradate information is presented throughout Sections 3.5.1 to 3.5.8, as well as in Section 3.6. 
27 

Other sources of information, including reviews of the Ecological Incident Information System (EIIS), 

are conducted to further refine the characterization of potential ecological effects associated with 

exposure to aldicarb. A summary of the available the incident information for aldicarb is described in 

Section 3.7. 

Overall, aldicarb is highly toxic to virtually all animal species tested. 

Table 3.7 Measures of Ecological Effects for Aldicarb 

Assessment Endpoint Selected Surrogate Species and Measure of Ecological Effect Comments 

Birds 

Survival

Mallard duck oral LD50 = 1 mg ai/kg-bw (very highly toxic) 

Passerine oral LD50 = 0.75 mg ai/kg-bw (very highly toxic) 

MRID 00107398 

MRID 00148695 

Survival

Mallard duck subacute dietary LC50 = 594 ppm (moderately toxic) 

Bobwhite quail subacute dietary LC50 = 71 ppm (highly toxic)

MRID 01096727 

MRID 00102132 

Reproduction 

and growth 

Mallard duck NOAEC;LOAEC = no established 

effects

Bobwhite quail NOAEC = 1.8 ppm; LOAEL = 8.3 ppm 

MRID 48198801 

MRID 48156905 

Mammals Survival Rat LD50 = 0.9 mg ai/kg bw (very highly toxic) MRID 00057333 

Reproduction 

and growth 

Rat NOAEL = 0.4 ppm; LOAEL = 0.7-0.9 ppm MRID 42148401 

Freshwater fish 

Survival

Rainbow trout acute 96-hr LC50 = 0.560 ppm ai (highly toxic) 

Bluegill sunfish 96-hr LC50 = 0.052 ppm ai (very highly toxic) 

MRID 40098001 

MRID 40098001 

Reproduction 

and growth 

Fathead minnow NOAEC = 0.078 ppm; LOAEC = 0.156 ppm 

Effects 

MRID 44598601 

Freshwater 

invertebrates

Survival Chironomus acute 48-hr EC50 = 0.020 ppm ai (very highly toxic) Moore et al. 1998 

Reproduction 

and growth 

Daphnia NOAEC = 0.020 ppm ai; LOAEC = 0.058 ppm ai MRID 45592112 

Estuarine/marine 

fish

Survival Sheepshead minnow LC50 = 0.041 ppm ai (very highly toxic) MRID 40228401 

Reproduction 

and growth 

Sheepshead minnow NOAEC = 0.05 ppm; LOAEC = 0.088ppm MRID 00066341 

Estuarine/marine 

invertebrates

Survival Pink shrimp LC50 = 0.012 ppm ai (very highly toxic) 

Oyster 96-hr EC50 = 8.8 ppm ai (moderately toxic) 

MRID 40228401 

MRID 00066341 

Reproduction 

and growth 

Mysid NOAEC = 0.0013 ppm; LOAEC = 0.0015 ppm MRID 00066341 

Terrestrial plants Survival and 

growth

Seedling Emergence: >25% effects observed in ryegrass (shoot 

weight) and tomato (shoot length and weight) in Tier I study 

No effects to Ryegrass of Tomato in Tier II study using granular 

TEMIK 15G. 

Vegetative Vigor: No data but prior waiver was granted 

MRID 47904401 

MRID 49477401 

Insects Survival Acute contact LD50 = 0.285 ug/bee (highly toxic) MRID 00036935 
28 

Assessment Endpoint Selected Surrogate Species and Measure of Ecological Effect Comments 

Aquatic plants Biomass and 

Growth Rate 

7 day Duckweed EC50 > 88.7 ppm ai; NOAEC = 5.50 ppm 

5 day Marine Diatom EC50 > 50 ppm ai 

MRID 47904402 

MRID 40228401 

LD50 = Lethal dose to 50% of the test population; NOAEC = No observed adverse effect concentration; NOAEL = No 

observed adverse effect level; LC50 = Lethal concentration to 50% of the test population; EC50 = Effect concentration to 50% 

of the test population; IC50= concentration resulting in a 50% inhibition in the test population response (e.g., growth) 

3.5.1. Toxicity to Birds and Mammals 

The acute oral LD50 is 1.0 mg/kg-bw for aldicarb and 33.5 mg/kg-bw for aldicarb sulfone. The most 

sensitive species tested for both chemicals is the mallard duck. Aldicarb and aldicarb sulfone are 

categorized as very highly toxic and highly toxic to avian species on an acute oral basis, respectively 

(MRID 00107398). An open literature study provides an acute oral LD50 of 0.75 mg aldicarb/kg-bw for 

passerine species (MRID 00148695). 

The most sensitive species tested on a subacute 5-d dietary basis for both aldicarb and aldicarb sulfone is 

the bobwhite quail. The LC50 is 71 ppm for aldicarb and 5706 ppm for aldicarb sulfone. Aldicarb and 

aldicarb sulfone are categorized as very highly toxic and practically non-toxic to avian species, 

respectively, based on the subacute dietary exposure data (MRID 00102132 & 01096727, respectively). 

Avian reproduction data suggests that aldicarb has reproductive effects at 8.3 ppm with a NOAEC of 1.8 

ppm (MRID 48198801). Although none of the endpoints in the treated groups displayed statistically 

significant differences compared to controls, several of the endpoints had 10-25% difference in the two 

highest treatments. These endpoints include: number of eggs laid/pen, number of eggs set/pen, number 

of viable embryos/pen, number of live embryos/pen, number of hatchlings/pen, hatchling survival/pen. 

In addition, adult body weight gain was also decreased in these treatments. These differences may be 

biologically significant. Therefore, the NOAEC was 1.8 ppm and the LOAEC was 8.3 ppm. 

Acute oral LD50 and reproduction data for laboratory rats submitted to the Health Effects Division 

(HED) for evaluation of human toxicity were used to assess the mammalian acute and chronic toxicity 

of aldicarb. The LD50 for rats is 0.9 mg ai/kg-bw (MRID 00057333). These results classify aldicarb as 

very highly toxic to mammals on an acute exposure basis. In a 2-generation reproduction study (MRID 

42148401), rats were exposed to aldicarb in their diet at concentrations of 0, 2, 5, 10, and 20 ppm. 

Exposure consistently led to decreased dam body weight gain (parental LOAEL = 0.7 - 0.9 mg/kg-bw; 

NOAEL = 0.4 mg/kg-bw). Aldicarb treatment also caused lower survivability and pup weights in 

offspring of all litters (reproductive LOAEL = 1.4 - 1.7 mg/kg-bw; NOAEL = 0.7 - 0.9 mg/kg-bw). 

These toxicity values are similar to the acute oral LD50 mammalian values and suggest that mammals 

that survive acute aldicarb exposure may suffer adverse reproductive effects from chronic exposure. 

3.5.2. Toxicity to Terrestrial Invertebrates 

An acute contact study using aldicarb resulted in an LD50 of 0.285 μg/bee and the compound was 

classified as highly toxic (MRID 00036935). Because of its granular formulation, it is unlikely that 

there is a direct contact exposure scenario for honeybees to granules. Other soil dwelling beneficial 

insects and invertebrates could be exposed to aldicarb and aldicarb residues through contact with the 
29 

granules and/or with plants due to its systemic nature. Honey bees and other terrestrial invertebrates 

could also be exposed to aldicarb via contaminated pollen and nectar given its systemic nature. 

3.5.3. Toxicity to Plants 

A seedling emergence study was submitted (MRID 47904401) but was classified as supplemental. The 

most sensitive monocot species was ryegrass, with a 12 and 44% difference in shoot length and weight, 

respectively, compared to the control. The most sensitive dicot species was tomato, with a 28 and 25% 

difference in shoot length and weight, respectively, compared to the control. Phytotoxic effects, including 

stunting and necrosis, were observed in ryegrass and tomatoes. Based on the observance of >25% effects 

in ryegrass and tomato, a tier II study with these two species was necessary to fulfill the guideline 

requirement for 850.4100. A Tier II study (MRID 49477401) on these two species was submitted and 

resulted in no effects to ryegrass or tomato using granular TEMIK 15G at approved application rates. A 

vegetative vigor study was not available since a waiver was previously granted for it because the only 

currently registered products containing aldicarb are granular. 

3.5.4. Fish 

Since the LC50 for fish falls in the range of 52 to 8860 ppb, aldicarb is categorized as very highly to 

moderately toxic to freshwater fish on an acute basis. The most sensitive freshwater fish species tested 

for aldicarb was the bluegill sunfish. The LC50 for aldicarb was 52 ppb for the bluegill sunfish which is 

characterized as very highly toxic to freshwater fish [MRID 40098001 and MRID 3503 (Mayer and 

Ellersieck 1986)]. This same study found an LC50 of 560 ppb for the rainbow trout. A supplemental 

acute toxicity test conducted under static conditions found an LC50 for aldicarb of 110 ppb for juvenile 

bluegill sunfish. Because of the static conditions, it is likely this value reflects contribution of parent 

aldicarb and its degradates. This study characterized aldicarb as very highly toxic to juvenile bluegill 

sunfish. A supplemental study from the open literature also concluded that aldicarb was moderately 

toxic to the fathead minnow Pimephales promelas with a reported 48-hour EC50 of 8860 ppb (Moore. et 

al. 1998). The LC50 of 52 ppb for the bluegill sunfish was used to calculate risk quotients in prior 

assessments because it was the most sensitive endpoint. 

A freshwater fish early life-stage test using aldicarb has been conducted with the fathead minnow. The 

NOAEC was 78 ppb, the LOAEC was 156 ppb. The most sensitive endpoint was the survival of 

juveniles after 30-days exposure. [MRID 44598601 also identified as BOWOAL07/4 (Q.H. Pickering 

and W.T. Gilliam 1982)]. 

A saltwater fish chronic study was conducted using the sheepshead minnow (MRID 00066341). The 

NOAEC was 50 ppb, the LOAEC was 88 ppb. The most sensitive endpoint was growth (mean standard 

length). 

3.5.5. Aquatic Invertebrates 

An acceptable Daphnia magna study determined the EC50 to be 410 ppb (Acc #096683, also identified 

as BOWOAL08, and MRID 00107395), categorizing aldicarb as highly toxic to aquatic freshwater 

invertebrates on an acute exposure basis. Because this test was conducted under static rather than flowthrough conditions, it is likely that this value reflects the contributions of a mixture of parent aldicarb 
30 

and various degradates. A supplemental study from the literature reported the LC50 of aldicarb to 

Daphnia magna, Aedes aegypti, Atermia sp., and Aedes taeniorhynchus as 75, 290, 5460, and 150 ppb 

respectively, in 48-hour static tests (Song et al., 1997). A supplemental study from open literature also 

concluded that aldicarb was very highly toxic to Daphnia magna with a reported 48-hour EC50 was of 

583 ppb (Moore et al. 1998). This same study reported a 48-hour EC50 of 3990 ppb for Hyalella azteca

(categorized as moderately toxic) and a reported 48-hour EC50 of 20 ppb for Chironomus dilutus 

(formerly known as C. tentans). A supplemental study obtained from open literature (Foran et al. 1985) 

determined the 48-hr EC50 of juvenile Daphnia laevis to be 65 ppb and 51 ppb for adult Daphnia laevis

categorizing aldicarb as very highly toxic. 

Because Moore et al. (1998) is classified as a supplemental study of high quality, the 48 hr Chironomus 

tentans EC50 value of 20 ppb was used in prior risk characterizations and will continued to be used for 

this assessment. 

A chronic estuarine/marine invertebrate full life-cycle test using aldicarb has been conducted with mysid 

shrimp. The NOAEC was 1.3 ppb and the LOAEC was 1.5 ppb. The most sensitive endpoint was 

average number of offspring (MRID 00066341). 

3.5.6. Aquatic Plants 

A 7-day acute toxicity study with duckweed (Lemna gibba) resulted in a LC50 of >88.7 mg ai/L (the 

highest test concentration). The NOAEC was 5.50 mg ai/L based on effects to frond number, biomass and 

dry weight at the LOAEC of 14.3 mg ai/L (MRID 47904402). A 5 day study with the diatom produced an 

EC50 of >50 ppm (MRID 40228401). 

3.6. Federally-listed Threatened and Endangered Species 

In November 2013, the EPA, along with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS), the National 

Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (collectively, the Services), and the U.S. Department of Agriculture 

(USDA) released a summary of their joint Interim Approaches for assessing risks to listed species from 

pesticides. The Interim Approaches were developed jointly by the agencies in response to the National 

Academy of Sciences’ (NAS) recommendations and reflect a common approach to risk assessment 

shared by the agencies as a way of addressing scientific differences between the EPA and the Services. 

The NAS report3

 outlines recommendations on specific scientific and technical issues related to the 

development of pesticide risk assessments that EPA and the Services must conduct in connection with 

their obligations under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and FIFRA. 

The joint Interim Approaches were released prior to a stakeholder workshop held on November 15, 

2013. In addition, the EPA presented the joint Interim Approaches at the December 2013 Pesticide 

Program Dialogue Committee (PPDC) and State-FIFRA Issues Research and Evaluation Group 

(SFIREG) meetings, and held a stakeholder workshop in April 2014, allowing additional opportunities 

for stakeholders to comment on the Interim Approaches. As part of a phased, iterative process for 

developing the Interim Approaches, the agencies will also consider public comments on the Interim 

Approaches in connection with the development of upcoming Registration Review decisions. The 

 

3

 http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=18344 
31 

details of the joint Interim Approaches are contained in the white paper “Interim Approaches for 

National-Level Pesticide Endangered Species Act Assessments Based on the Recommendations of the 

National Academy of Sciences April 2013 Report,” dated November 1, 2013.4 

Given that the agencies are continuing to develop and work toward implementation of the Interim 

Approaches to assess the potential risks of pesticides to listed species and their designated critical 

habitat, this preliminary risk assessment for aldicarb does not contain a complete ESA analysis that 

includes effects determinations for specific listed species or designated critical habitat. Although EPA 

has not yet completed effects determinations for specific species or habitats, for this preliminary 

assessment EPA conducted a screening-level assessment for all taxa of non-target wildlife and plants 

that assumes for the sake of the assessment that listed species and designated critical habitats may be 

present in the vicinity of the application of aldicarb. This screening level assessment will allow EPA to 

focus its future evaluations on the types of species where the potential for effects exists once the 

scientific methods being developed by the agencies have been fully vetted. This screening-level risk 

assessment for aldicarb indicates potential risks of direct effects to all listed taxa with the exception of 

aquatic plants on some of its registered use sites. Listed species of all taxa may also be affected through 

indirect effects because of the potential for direct effects on listed and non-listed species upon which 

such species may rely. Potential direct effects on listed species from the use of aldicarb may be 

associated with modification of Primary Constituent Elements (PCEs) of designated critical habitats, 

where such designations have been made. Once the agencies have fully developed and implemented the 

scientific methods necessary to complete risk assessments for endangered and threatened (listed) species 

and their designated critical habitats, these methods will be applied to subsequent analyses for aldicarb 

as part of completing this registration review. 

3.7. Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP) 

As required by FIFRA and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), EPA reviews 

numerous studies to assess potential adverse outcomes from exposure to chemicals. Collectively, these 

studies include acute, subchronic and chronic toxicity, including assessments of carcinogenicity, 

neurotoxicity, developmental, reproductive, and general or systemic toxicity. These studies include 

endpoints which may be susceptible to endocrine influence, including effects on endocrine target organ 

histopathology, organ weights, estrus cyclicity, sexual maturation, fertility, pregnancy rates, 

reproductive loss, and sex ratios in offspring. For ecological hazard assessments, EPA evaluates acute 

tests and chronic studies that assess growth, developmental and reproductive effects in different 

taxonomic groups. As part of the Preliminary Problem Formulation for Registration Review (USEPA, 

2012, DP398519), EPA reviewed these data and selected the most sensitive endpoints for relevant risk 

assessment scenarios from the existing hazard database. However, as required by FFDCA section 

408(p), Aldicarb is subject to the endocrine screening part of the Endocrine Disruptor Screening 

Program (EDSP). 

EPA has developed the EDSP to determine whether certain substances (including pesticide active and 

other ingredients) may have an effect in humans or wildlife similar to an effect produced by a “naturally 

occurring estrogen, or other such endocrine effects as the Administrator may designate.” The EDSP 

employs a two-tiered approach to making the statutorily required determinations. Tier 1 consists of a 

 

4

 http://www.epa.gov/espp/2013/nas.html 
32 

battery of 11 screening assays to identify the potential of a chemical substance to interact with the 

estrogen, androgen, or thyroid (E, A, or T) hormonal systems. Chemicals that go through Tier 1 

screening and are found to have the potential to interact with E, A, or T hormonal systems will proceed 

to the next stage of the EDSP where EPA will determine which, if any, of the Tier 2 tests are necessary 

based on the available data. Tier 2 testing is designed to identify any adverse endocrine-related effects 

caused by the substance, and establish a dose-response relationship between the dose and the E, A, or T 

effect. 

Under FFDCA section 408(p), the Agency must screen all pesticide chemicals. Between October 2009 

and February 2010, EPA issued test orders/data call-ins for the first group of 67 chemicals, which 

contains 58 pesticide active ingredients and 9 inert ingredients. A second list of chemicals identified for 

EDSP screening was published on June 14, 2013[1] and includes some pesticides scheduled for 

registration review and chemicals found in water. Neither of these lists should be construed as a list of 

known or likely endocrine disruptors. Aldicarb is not on List 1. For further information on the status of 

the EDSP, the policies and procedures, the lists of chemicals, future lists, the test guidelines and Tier 1 

screening battery, please visit http://www.epa.gov/endo/. 

3.8. Degradate Toxicity 

Aldicarb’s sulfone and sulfoxide degradates have been shown to be 1 to 2 orders of magnitude less toxic 

to fish compared with parent aldicarb to aquatic organisms. Minimal difference in toxicity between the 

parent and degradates was seen for aquatic invertebrates. For more detailed information see the Appendix 

A. 

3.9. Incident Database Review 

The Ecological Incident Information System (EIIS) and the Incident Data System (IDS) were queried on 

April 30, 2015. A total of 46 plant and wildlife incidents were in EIIS, 68 domestic animal incidents 

were in IDS (EIIS does not currently contain information on most of the reported domestic animal 

incidents), and 283 aggregate incidents have been reported (very little information is reported in 

aggregate incidents). Many incidents reported in EIIS were associated with intentional poisoning of 

wildlife. Plant and wildlife incidents are summarized in Table 3.8. Very few incidents that occur are 

observed or reported to the Agency. Therefore, the number of incidents reported is considered to be a 

very small fraction of the number of incidents that actually occur. Also, incident reports for non-target 

organisms typically provide information only on mortality events and plant damage. Sublethal effects in 

organisms such as abnormal behavior, reduced growth and /or impaired reproduction are rarely reported, 

except for phytotoxic effects in terrestrial plants. 

Uncertainties Related to the Use of Incident Information from the Ecological Incident Information 

System 

Incident data are used in risk assessments to provide evidence that the risk predictions from the 

screening level assessment are supported by actual effects in the field. Incident reports submitted to EPA 

since approximately 1994 have been tracked by assignment of incident numbers in an Incident Data 

 

[1] See http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0477-0074 for the final second list of 

chemicals. 
33 

System (IDS), microfiched, and then the ecological incidents (those with enough detailed information) 

are entered into a second database, the Ecological Incident Information System (EIIS). Additionally, 

there is an on-going effort to enter information to EIIS on incident reports received prior to 

establishment of current databases. Incident reports are not received in a consistent format (e.g., states 

and various labs usually have their own formats), may involve multiple incidents involving multiple 

chemicals in one report, and may report on only part of a given incident investigation (e.g., residues). 

Incidents entered into EIIS are categorized into one of several certainty levels regarding the likelihood 

that a particular pesticide is associated with the incident: highly probable, probable, possible, unlikely, 

or unrelated. In brief, “highly probable” incidents usually require carcass residues and/or clear 

circumstances regarding the exposure. “Probable” incidents include those where residues were not 

available and/or circumstances were less clear than for “highly probable.” “Possible” incidents include 

those where multiple chemicals may have been involved and it is not clear what the contribution was of 

a given chemical. The “unlikely” category is used, for example, where a given chemical is practically 

nontoxic to the category of organism killed and/or the chemical was tested for but not detected in 

samples. “Unrelated” incidents are those that have been confirmed to be not pesticide-related. 

Incidents entered into the EIIS are also categorized as to use/misuse (the legality of use classifications 

are registered use, misuse, or undetermined). Unless specifically confirmed by a state or federal agency 

to be misuse, or there was very clear misuse such as intentional baiting to kill wildlife, incidents are not 

typically considered misuse. 

The number of documented kills in EIIS is believed to be a small fraction of total mortality caused by 

pesticides. Mortality incidents must be seen, reported, and have reports submitted to EPA to have the 

potential for entry into the database. Incidents often are not seen, due to scavenger removal of carcasses, 

decay in the field, or simply because carcasses may be hard to see on many sites and/or few people are 

systematically looking. Poisoned animals may also move off-site to less conspicuous areas before dying. 

Incidents may not get reported to appropriate authorities capable of investigating the incident for a 

variety of reasons including the finder may not know of the importance of reporting incidents, may not 

know who to call, may not feel they have the time or desire to call, or may hesitate to call because of 

their own involvement in the kill. Incidents reported may not get investigated if resources are limited or 

may not get investigated thoroughly, with residue analyses, for example. Also, if kills are not reported 

and investigated promptly, there will be little chance of documenting the cause, since tissues and 

residues may deteriorate quickly. Reports of investigated incidents often do not get submitted to EPA, 

since reporting by states is voluntary. 

Furthermore, the database relies heavily on registrant-submitted incident reports, and registrants are 

currently only required to submit detailed information on ‘major’ ecological incidents, while ‘minor’ 

incidents are reported aggregately. 

Based on the 40 CFR (§159.184 Toxic or adverse effect incident reports), an ecological incident is 

considered ‘major’ if any of the following criteria are met:

Fish or wildlife: 

(A) Involves any incident caused by a pesticide currently in Formal Review for ecological 

concerns. 
34 

(B) Fish: Affected 1,000 or more individuals of a schooling species or 50 or more individuals of 

a non-schooling species. 

(C) Birds: Affected 200 or more individuals of a flocking species, or 50 or more individuals of a 

songbird species, or 5 or more individuals of a predatory species. 

(D) Mammals, reptiles, amphibians: Affected 50 or more individuals of a relatively common or 

herding species or 5 or more individuals of a rare or solitary species. 

(E) Involves effects to, or illegal pesticide treatment (misuse) of a substantial tract of habitat 

(greater than or equal to 10 acres, terrestrial or aquatic). 

Plants: 

(A) The effect is alleged to have occurred on more than 45 percent of the acreage exposed to the 

pesticide. 

All other ecological incidents are considered ‘minor’ and only need to be aggregately reported. ‘Minor’ 

incidents reported by the registrants are not included in the EIIS database. Therefore, for example, an 

incident could affect 900 fish, 150 birds, 45 mammals, and 40% of an exposed crop and not be included 

in the EIIS database [unless is it reported by a non-registrant (e.g., an incident submitted by a state 

agency – which are not systematically collected)]. Therefore, because the number of documented kills in 

EIIS is believed to be a small fraction of total mortality caused by pesticides, absence of reports does not 

necessarily provide evidence of an absence of incidents. 
Table 3.8. Incidents Summary for Aldicarb from EIIS 

Incident ID Use Site Legality Certainty Country Year 

Total 

Magnitude 

Appl. 

Method Product Summary (Taken Directly from Incident Reports) 

Aquatic Incidents in EIIS 

I000165-052 

Agricultural Area 

Registered Use Possible USA 1992 

SMALL NUMBER 

Soil incorporation TEMIK 

Assumed application of several products onto corn and tobacco crop fields, followed 

by continuous heavy rains, allegedly resulted in runoff from the fields into surrounded pond causing a fish kill. No other data was reported relative to this 

incident with the exception of naming the four products applied. Products were Furadan 15G, Nitrogen, Counter Granules and Temik Granules. Due to lack of residue data it is not possible to assign a greater degree of certainty to the cause of this incident. Any of the above could possibly have been responsible for the observed mortalities. 

I003826-002 N/R 

Undetermined Possible USA 1995 

UNKNOWN N/R TEMIK 

The North Carolina Dept. of Agriculture investigated a complaint from the owner of a fish pond in Four Oaks, NC, that pesticides had killed his fish. Dead fish were first noticed on June 8, 1995 but the Dept. of Ag. was not notified until the 12th, and samples of water, soil, sediment, and vegetation were taken on June 13th. Analyses of each were made for pesticides known to have been applied to nearby fields, namely 2,4-D, dimethoate, aldicarb, and disulfoton. All of the water samples gave negative results but one soil sample contained 0.2 ppm dimethoate, and one vegetation sample contained 0.60 ppm aldicarb and its metabolites and 2.5 ppm disulfoton and metabolites. In its response to the complainant, the Dept. of Agri. stated that there had been no violation of the North Carolina Pesticide Law and/or Regulations. It made no mention of the cause of the fish kill, nor did it conduct analyses of the dead fish. 

Plant Incidents in EIIS 
36

Incident ID Use Site Legality Certainty Country Year 

Total 

Magnitude 

Appl. 

Method Product Summary (Taken Directly from Incident Reports) 

I010837-012 Cotton 

Undetermined Possible USA 2000 

655 acres of 690 Temik 

To comply with 6(a)2 requirements, Novartis reported a complaint from Kingstree, SC, that Ridomil Gold Pc damaged 655 of a 690-acre crop of cotton. TEMIK was another product that was involved and the symptom noted was stand reduction. Here is the verbatim report of the Novartis representative: "This is a field the grower has noticed the fields where RIDOMIL PC was used are not germinating. The stand counts are 13-16 per 25' row. The area is dry, but the seed was at the moisture level. 

The seed were planted about 1" deep. 

I011838-010 Peanut 

Undetermined Possible USA 2000 ALL N/R TEMIK 

To comply with 6(a)2 requirements, Valent reported a complaint from Elko, GA, that VALOR damaged all 141 acres of peanuts. Other products used were Sonalan and Temik but no details were given about their use. 

I011838-059 Peanut 

Undetermined Possible USA 2001 78 acres Temik 

To comply with 6(a)2 requirements, Valent reported that a complaint had been received from Lookeba, OK, that VALOR damaged two peanut crops, one being 60 acres and the other 18. Other pesticides involved were TREFLAN PPI and TEMIK but no details of their use were given. The symptoms were "Burnt leaves, wilted growth." 

I011838-061 Peanut 

Undetermined Possible USA 2001 

217 and 93 acres Temik 

To comply with 6(a)2 requirements, Valent reported a complaint from Hydro, OK, that VALOR damaged two peanut sites, one of 124 acres and the other 93. PROWL and TEMIK were also applied but no details were given of their use. The symptoms were described as "Burnt terminals & foliage brown." 

I011838-085 Peanut 

Undetermined Possible USA 106 acres Temik 

To comply with 6(a)2 requirements, Valent reported a complaint from Carnegie, OK, that VALOR damaged two sites of peanuts, one of 48 acres and one of 58. Other products used were PROWL and TEMIK but no details were given of their application rates. The symptom was described as "Phytotoxicity: Brown, dead peanuts." 

I012089-009 Potato 

REGISTERED USE Possible USA 2001 ALL 

PREBROADCAST 

TEMIK 15G LOCK 'N 

To comply with 6(a)2 requirements, Aventis reported a complaint from Aberdeen, ID, that Temik 15G Lock 'n Load damaged all 1050 acres of a potato crop. 

Wildlife Incidents in EIIS 

B0000-400-7 Potato 

Misuse (intentional) 

Highly Probable USA 1991 

Broadcast, unincorporated TEMIK 

A report of dead sea gulls being found in Hertford County resulted ultimately in afarmer paying a $400 fine for using Temik (aldicarb) in an unpermitted manner, i.e. on a potato field. Three soil samples were taken and found to contain 1.4, 1.8, and 2.5 ppm aldicarb. There were no analyses made of the birds. 
37

Incident ID Use Site Legality Certainty Country Year 

Total 

Magnitude 

Appl. 

Method Product Summary (Taken Directly from Incident Reports) 

B000178-001 

Bait, carcass/meat 

Undetermined 

Highly Probable USA 1988 Temik 

A farmer was caught using Temik on sheep carcasses to rid alfalfa field and shelterbelt to kill coyotes. The Fish and Wildlife Service found one dead bald eagle and three dead magpie carcasses. Samples showed Aldicarb in the sheep carcasses 

at high levels. The farmer also admitted that the sheep carcasses also killed his own 2 dogs, a neighbor's two dogs and another neighbor's single dog after they had gotten into the poisoned carcasses. 

I001267-001 

Agricultural Area 

Misuse (intentional) 

Highly Probable USA 1994 

UNKNOWN TEMIK 

Fourteen coyotes and one hawk reported dead due to an insecticide poisoning by a 

rancher, who was trying to control coyotes that were causing damage to his livestock 

I002352-001 Bait 

Misuse (intentional) 

Highly Probable USA 1992 Bait TEMIK 

An officer with South Carolina WMR Dept. contacted Special Agent George Hines, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (LAW ENFORCEMENT) about wildlife kill by suspected poisoning at the Savannah River Valley Beagle Club near the Edgefield area. Upon visiting the area, they found ten meat patties containing a granular substance along a fence line; also dead, an unspecified number of rabbits, 3 red-tailed hawks, 1 raccoon, 1 grey fox and one opossum covered with granular material within 10 feet of a red-tailed hawk. The Club President and two members admitted placing meat laced with insecticide on the grounds, primarily to control the fox population around the Club.Special Agent Hines submitted specimens for necropsy examination and pesticide analysis to the Southeastern Cooperative Wildlife Disease Study (SCWDS). One redtailed hawk selected for analysis revealed significant depression of ChE activity. Stomach contents of the animals collected contained partially digested meat and tiny white granules. In particular, an adult male raccoon, weighing 6 lbs 10 oz (Case # 52-92) was too autolyzed postmortem to evaluate, however the stomach had a partially 

digested meat-like substance with white granules incorporated into it. 

I005364-001 COTTON 

Misuse (accidental) 

Highly Probable USA 

Soil incorporation TEMIK 

Aldicarb was applied to a cotton crop in Joiner, AK, through soil incorporation. But, because of leakage from the applicator tank, several dogs and a raccoon came into contact with the pesticide and died.

The owner of one of the dogs complained that EPA should not allow such a toxic 

compound to be on the market. 

I007372-003 

WOODLANDS 

Misuse (intentional) 

Highly Probable USA 1997 N/R TEMIK 

This incident involved intentional pesticide poisoning in the area around Willow Grove. Land there is used for hunting inwoodlands and normal winter weather prevailed. Animal species were targeted. 
38

Incident ID Use Site Legality Certainty Country Year 

Total 

Magnitude 

Appl. 

Method Product Summary (Taken Directly from Incident Reports) 

I010439-001 

Agricultural Area 

Misuse (intentional) 

Highly Probable USA 2000 Bait TEMIK 

To comply with 6(a)2 regulations, Aventis reported the death of a coyote and an opossum in the early part of June, 2000, in Pearl River County, MS. Raw hamburger meat had been laced with TEMIK and placed beside the carcass of a dead calf in a pasture, presumably as a target for coyotes. An opossum and a coyote died as the result of eating this bait. Aventis was cooperating with the MS Bureau of Plant Industry in prosecuting the case. 

I011300-001 N/R 

Misuse (intentional) 

Highly Probable USA 2001 Bait N/R 

The Southeastern Cooperative Wildlife Disease Study reported that a ranger of the GA Dept. of Natural Resources found a dead Cooper's hawk on the grounds of a private hunting club. The dead bird had a piece of meat in its mouth and was lying near a dead mouse and three other pieces of meat suspected to be bait. Analyses of the bird showed 14 ppm aldicarb in its liver, and 1227 ppm in the GI contents. Concentrations of aldicarb in the meat found in the mouth, and of the other bait items, ranged from 630 ppm to 2610 ppm. 

I013168-001 

Agricultural Area 

Misuse (intentional) 

Highly Probable USA 2002 Bait 

An e-mail was received from the American Bird Conservancy that told of the outcome 

of the prosecution against a Tennessee man for illegally using TEMIK (aldicarb) to kill birds. He was charged with nine counts of violating the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and 

one count of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. This was the first indictment achieved by the Western Tennessee Environmental Task Force. The victims of this killing were seven red-tailed hawks and two black vultures 

I013928-001 

Bait, carcass/meat 

Misuse (intentional) 

Highly Probable USA 2003 Bait 

A yellow-rumped warbler and a red fox were found dead. Aldicarb is identified as the 

cause of death of these animals death, as aldicarb-laces hamburger bait was present 

near where the dead bird and fox were found. A few granules found in the birds’ 

gastrointestinal tract were similar to the granules seen in the contaminated bait. Brain tissue of the warbler was negative for West Nile virus. Bait tested positive for aldicarb with a measured concentration of 2,970 ppm. Aldicarb residues were also detected in the fox's gastrointestinal contents (20.8 ppm) and liver (10.0 ppm). 
39

Incident ID Use Site Legality Certainty Country Year 

Total 

Magnitude 

Appl. 

Method Product Summary (Taken Directly from Incident Reports) 

I013932-001 Bait 

Misuse (intentional) 

Highly Probable USA Bait 

Two living dogs at a residence within 200 yards of an area being used for grazing by a wool grower in Imperial County became ill and required medical attention. The veterinarian suspected that the animals had been poisoned based on the observed symptoms. One of the dogs regurgitated its stomach contents which appeared to consist of at least one partially digested hotdog. It was suspected that illegal baits were being placed in the area to try and poison coyotes that may have been predating the sheep adjacent to the residence.The stomach contents were determined to contain residues of the carbamate insecticide aldicarb at a concentration of 8,000 ppm. Consultation with University of California veterinarians and toxicologists concluded that the concentration of the poison was high enough to almost immediately trigger a regurgitation response in one of the dogs so that most of the pesticide was eliminated from the body before it could be absorbed. Carbamate insecticides act to depress cholinesterase and acetylcholinesterase activity. The symptoms observed in the two dogs are consistent with exposure to carbamate insecticides.It is highly likely that the concentration of aldicarb present in the sample would prove lethal to any non-target wildlife the might have consumed the bait. 

I016407-062 Bait 

Misuse (intentional) 

Highly Probable USA 2005 Bait Temik 

To comply with 6(a)2 requirements, Bayer reported an incident the subject of which is contained in a report from the Fish and Wildlife Service which recounts the death of a wolf that was caused by Temik, a Bayer product. The report states "USFWS found a dead wolf six miles into the Frank Church Wilderness of Idaho. Wolf was radio collared. Had been dead for less than two weeks. A butterflied shrimp steak was collected as evidence, with gray granules inside the split. Visual comparison with blank aldicarb sample previously provided by State Affairs appeared to confirm Temik. USFWS commented that there was 'lots of Temik' inside the split meat. USFWS lab analysis confirms aldicarb. Meat evidently was not spoiled, which supports belief that this is a fresh, 2005 case, and not carryover from previous experiences." 
40

Incident ID Use Site Legality Certainty Country Year 

Total 

Magnitude 

Appl. 

Method Product Summary (Taken Directly from Incident Reports) 

I017085-001 Bait 

Misuse (intentional) 

Highly Probable USA 2006 Bait 

This incident begins with a man finding his dog severely sick on Jan. 3, 2006 in Floyd County, GA. The following day, his other dog was found dead near his home. A ranger of the Georgia Dept. of Natural Resources, the next day, found two opossum carcasses in the same area where the dog had died. Necropsies were performed on the two opossums; the GI contents of one of them contained 96 ppm of aldicarb and the other contained 185 ppm aldicarb. Further study led to the discovery of a dead white-tailed deer that had been dumped on the property.  The ranger investigating the deaths feels that the deer, too badly decomposed to analyze for pesticide residues, was the source of the aldicarb in the animals that were 

killed. He said that Temik was not sold locally, and that the main crop grown in the area was corn, for which Temik is not registered. He suspects that the deer carcass was baited with aldicarb and placed to kill coyote. 

I017462-001 N/R 

Misuse (intentional) 

Highly Probable USA 2006 

One dog and two black vultures were found near a partially-consumed carcass of a 

cottontail rabbit. The incident occurred on municipal property that was used by the town of Hoinsville for disposal of wastewater from a sewage treatment plant. Analysis of the vulture and rabbit found that brain cholinesterase levels were 

significantly depressed in both animals, indicating that both had ingested an anticholinesterase chemical. Toxicological analysis found 43 ppm aldicarb in the stomach of the rabbit and "greater than 0.1 ppm" of aldicarb sulfoxide in the liver of the vulture. The testimony of a local GA DNR employee as well as GIS analysis done by EFED indicated that very little or no land in the vicinity was planted in crops on which aldicarb is registered for use. Thus, while there is little doubt that the animals 

were poisoned by aldicarb, the most likely scenario is that the animals were poisoned 

by illegal baiting or some other illegal use of aldicarb. 

I019647-014 

Bait, carcass/meat 

Misuse (intentional) 

Highly Probable USA 2008 Bait Temik 

Temik product with active ingredient Aldicarb used for illegal bait at a hunting club, 

causing mortality to approximately 10 hawks and an unspecified number of vultures. Additional animals may have been involved. Samples of the baited deer carcass were taken by a state Lab and confirmed to contain aldicarb. 

I019647-015 

Bait, carcass/meat 

Misuse (intentional) 

Highly Probable USA 2008 30-35 Bait Temik 

S Fish and Wildlife service investigated the mortality incidents in woods in Montgomery County, AR involving 30-35 birds, including hawks, and other unspecified species. Mortality of birds and other species occurred due to intentional misuse of Temik product by baiting. Samples have been taken to lab and in most cases confirmed the presence of aldicarb. 
41

Incident ID Use Site Legality Certainty Country Year 

Total 

Magnitude 

Appl. 

Method Product Summary (Taken Directly from Incident Reports) 

I019647-016 

Bait, carcass/meat 

Misuse (intentional) 

Highly Probable USA 2008 20-25 Bait Temik 

Illegal baiting of eggs spiked with Temik (a.i. aldicarb) caused extensive wildlife mortality in McDuffie County, Georgia. A total of 20-25 dead animals were observed. 

Animals that were identified were 3 red tail hawks, 3 grey fox, 2 opossums, 1 coyote, and a beagle. Georgia Department of Natural Resources and Enforcement is 

investigating the incident. One individual has confessed. Two of the eggs placed for bait contained were analyzed and found to contain 1200 ppm and 22,000 ppm of aldicarb. Aldicarb was also found in the stomach contents of the coyote (240 ppm) 

and the beagle (220 ppm). 

I019925-001 Bait 

Misuse (intentional) 

Highly Probable USA 2008 Bait 

Georgia Department of Natural Resources reported mortality of a coyote and over 25 other wild animals Hancock County, Georgia. The cause was diagnosed as aldicarb toxicosis based on detection of 240 ppm aldicarb in the stomach contents of the coyote. Two broken eggs found at the site were also tested and found to contain1,200 and 22,000 ppm of aldicarb. This appears to be a case of someone illegal baiting with aldicarb to intentionally kill wildlife. 

I021411-012 

Bait, grain/seed 

Misuse (intentional) 

Highly Probable USA 2008 Several Bait TEMIK 

A peanut field in Eastland County, TX, was baited with corn soaked in the product TEMIK (a.i. aldicarb) most likely resulted in the death of an unspecified number of deer, opossum, skunks, feral hogs, various birds with possible hawk and turkey buzzard. 

I022570-001 Rural 

Misuse (intentional) 

Highly Probable USA 2010 Temik 

South Carolina authorities said they are working to determine who and prosecute those responsible for killing four hunting dogs and causing some dozen hunters to go to a Kershaw County hospital on Dec. 30, 2010 after they were exposed to an illegal application of the product Temik (a.i. aldicarb) along hunting trails. 

I026114-001 N/R 

Undetermined 

Highly Probable USA 

The carcass of a 2 1/2 year old male, adult golden eagle collected near a power line on December 11, 2013 was submitted to the Southeastern cooperative Wildlife Disease. The final diagnosis by the Southeastern cooperative Wildlife Disease Study was aldicarb (carbamate) intoxication.Toxicology testing detected aldicarb, a carbamate insecticide, in the crop contents of this individual. Although this assay does not quantify the concentration of aldicarb present and does not confirm the chemical in the tissues of the bird itself, the compound is highly toxic, which makes it likely that intoxication was the cause of death. 
42

Incident ID Use Site Legality Certainty Country Year 

Total 

Magnitude 

Appl. 

Method Product Summary (Taken Directly from Incident Reports) 

I008694-001 Bait 

Misuse (intentional) Possible USA 1998 Bait TEMIK 

Rhone-Poulenc notified OPP of the intentional poisoning of a golden eagle in Alabama by TEMIK. According to a handwritten note at the bottom of a newspaper 

clipping concerning the event, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service called Rhone-Poulenc 

to tell the company of the incident in question. A hunting-camp caretaker (Marengo 

County) allegedly tried to clear out the coyotes, presumably by lacing deer carcasses 

with TEMIK. Here is a direct quote from a newspaper account: "On February 10, 1998, hunters found a dead golden eagle lying near two deer carcasses which were later tested for poisons. The U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service investigated the case." At the time of the newspaper publication (Feb.11, 199) the results were not yet available.

 According to the newspaper account the TEMIK had been in a Mason jar in a closet in the home of the accused, and his wife had thought the contents were ant poison. 

The accused pleaded innocent to the misdemeanors. Rhome-Poulenc stated this was 

an update to an earlier submission, I008381-001 

I017141-001 

Bait, carcass/meat 

Misuse (intentional) Possible USA 2006 Temik 

In Georgia, a deer carcass laced with aldicarb most likely caused the death of two opossums and two domestic dogs. The product used was most likely Temik, however it is not sold locally and was used illegally. The two possums were analyzed, and aldicarb was found at 96 ppm in one and 185 ppm in the other - with no other organic insecticides found at a concentration greater than detectable limits (0.1ppm). 

I000637-001 

RANGELAND 

Misuse (intentional) Probable USA 1993 N/R N/R TEMIK 

According to the report animal fat was laced with Aldicarb and used as bait in order to control animals on a ranch. As a result it was alleged that dogs, and an unknown number of cats, chickens, cardinals and owls suffered mortality. No carcass analyses were made. The precise event dates were not reported; they were estimated to extend from 01/01/93 through 03/31/93. 
43

Incident ID Use Site Legality Certainty Country Year 

Total 

Magnitude 

Appl. 

Method Product Summary (Taken Directly from Incident Reports) 

I000799-005 Potato 

Misuse (intentional) Probable USA 1991 N/R 

TEMIK 15G 

According to the report the investigators alleged that a potato field was treated with aldicarb. The treatment allegedly resulted in a bird kill. The farmer stated he had used no aldicarb on his potato field, only on tobacco. He said he used metolachlor on 

his potatoes. He had dusted potato seeds with captan before planting. Three soil 

samples revealed the presence of aldicarb but no other pesticide, Rain followed the 

observation of neighbors who observed the aldicarb application. Witnesses wanted 

to remain anonymous; this handicapped the investigation. Stomach content of one 

seagull revealed inconclusive results because the sample was too small. Three cats and one dog also suffered mortality during this event.

It was emphasized that the applicator failed to follow packaging guidelines for safe handling of the pesticide. The NC Ag. Dept. ruled the event a misuse because the labeling of aldicarb states: "No longer labelled for use on potatoes." 

I007595-001 Bait 

Misuse (accidental) Probable USA 1998 

UNKNOWN Bait 

TEMIK 15G 

While cleaning out the pickup truck of a deceased father, the sons found a metal salt and pepper shaker which they passed around to season raw cabbage shared with friends. About 15 persons became ill, but recovered. Dr. Katrin KOHL of LA Office of Public Health was informed by RP Environmental Affairs that the material involved was likely illegally obtained. She then confirmed that a son reported that his father routinely baited fish heads to kill raccoons around their crawfish ponds, in the city of 

Ville Platte, LA. 

I010439-002 

Bait, carcass/meat 

Misuse (intentional) Probable USA 2000 Bait TEMIK 

It was reported an intentional misuse of TEMIK in Hancock County, MS, in July, 2000. Witnesses stated that a suspect from Louisiana injected FURADAN into eggs and mixed TEMIK into meat to serve as bait for predators that eat quail eggs. State officials collected samples from five baiting sites following the reported deaths of a hunting dog, a raccoon, and a buzzard. 

I011213-007 Bait 

Misuse (intentional) Probable USA 2001 Bait 

TEMIK 15G 

To comply with 6(a)2 requirements, Aventis CropScience reported an intentional misuse of TEMIK 15G Brand Aldicarb Pesticide. Persons in southwestern Virginia were illegally raising chickens for cock fighting, and baited a carcass with the product and placed it onto a fence for predator control. A great horned owl died as the result of this act. 

I014343-001 N/R 

Undetermined Probable USA 2003 

Two dead black vultures were found dead near the old radio on Highway 17 in Guyton, GA. Brain tissue for both birds tested negative for West Nile virus. Tissue, brain and stomach contents were sent out for testing. Bird A had 12.2 micromoles/gram/minute for cholinesterase activity and Bird B had 5.1 micromoles/gram/minute. Bird B showed 0.81 ppm of aldicarb, there was no analysis given for Bird A. 
44

Incident ID Use Site Legality Certainty Country Year 

Total 

Magnitude 

Appl. 

Method Product Summary (Taken Directly from Incident Reports) 

I019363-003 

Bait, carcass/meat 

Misuse (intentional) Probable USA 2008 Bait 

Temik 15G 

Temik product with active ingredient aldicarb was applied to an animal carcass as an 

illegal bait in Pike county, Alabama. This resulted in unspecified adverse effects to 2 dogs and 3 possums. The incident is being investigated by both the Houston County Sherriff Department and by Alabama Department of Agriculture and Industries. Bait was presented in two ways, granules applied to blocks of animal fat and as an oily mix applied to an animal carcass. Samples of the baited meat as well as the oily substance applied to the carcasses has been taken and will be analyzed by the 

Alabama state Labs. 

I025850-002 Rural 

Misuse (intentional) 

Highly Probable England 2013 N/R 

A red-kite hawk fell victim to illegal poisoning by a lethal pesticide, most probably laced on baits left out in the countryside. The red-kite was discovered dead in Old Leake, Boston, Lincolnshire in May, 2013. Toxicology tests run by the government's Wildlife Incident Investigation Scheme confirmed that the banned pesticide, aldicarb, was used to poison the bird. 

I021543-001 N/R 

Misuse (intentional) 

Highly Probable 

Seven species Bait Aldicarb 

Newsessentials.blogspot.com/2009 reports, Dec. 27, 2009, according to the group 

Ezemvelo Kwazulu-Natal Wildlife, seven of the nine species of Africa vulture are 

considered endangered. The scarceness is a belief in East coast and West Africa. One cause is poison with the pesticide Aldicarb. The nyanga, medicine man of South Africa region say that the blue meat shows that it is poisoned. 

I023173-002 NR 

Misuse (intentional) Probable 2011 

Animal treatment 

Scotsman.com News, on Aug. 25, 2011 reported that one peregrine falcon was found 

dead during April at a quarry in Scotland. Police believe the act to be a deliberate, 

criminal poisoning probably caused by aldicarb. 

I025850-001 N/R 

Misuse (intentional) 

Highly Probable England 2013 2 Harriers N/R 

A pair of marsh harriers have fallen victim to illegal poisoning by a lethal pesticide, most probably laced on baits left out in the countryside. The pair of marsh harriers were discovered dead adjacent to the Nene Washes Nature Reserve, Cambridgeshire in April. Toxicology tests run by the government's Wildlife Incident Investigation Scheme confirmed that the banned pesticide, Aldicarb, was used to poison the birds. 

I023356-001 N/R 

Misuse (intentional) Probable England 

Animal treatment 

BBC News online www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england reported on Oct,21, 2011 that one female peregrine falcon was found dead in July at a quarry near Bucksfastleigh, England. Police and RSPB believe the act deliberate criminal poisoning using live bait possibly using aldicarb and carbofuran pesticides. 
45

Incident ID Use Site Legality Certainty Country Year 

Total 

Magnitude 

Appl. 

Method Product Summary (Taken Directly from Incident Reports) 

I015916-001 Quarry 

Misuse (intentional) Probable 

Great Britain 1999 Bait 

There is a Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in Great Britain which 

publishes a newsletter oriented toward instances of pesticide abuse. In its July, 2001 issue it tells of peregrine falcons being killed at a quarry near Plymouth. Aldicarblaced pigeon carcasses were lowered onto a peregrine nest-ledge by means of a 

fishing line, resulting in the deaths of at least one adult and two young peregrines. No analyses of the victims were mentioned, but the presumption is that their deaths were due to the carcasses laced with aldicarb. 

I024836-022 

Undetermined Possible 

Scotland 2011 1 N/R 

In April 2011 a buzzard was found dead of aldicarb and carbofuran abuse in Scotland, The laboratory investigation confirmed the presence of carbofuran residues of the carbamate insecticides, aldicarb and carbofuran, in tissue samples analyzed from this bird. However, no further police investigation has been undertaken due to a lack of evidence. 

I023173-001 N/R 

Misuse (intentional) Probable 

Scotland 2011 N/R 

Scotsman.com News, on Aug. 25, 2011 reported that one peregrine falcon was found dead in April, at a quarry in a Kirknewtown, Scotland. Police believe the act to be deliberate act of criminal poisoning probably caused by aldicarb. State that one of the heads kept as trophy 
46 

4. RISK CHARACTERIZATION and RISK DESCRIPTION 

4.1. Terrestrial Animals 

In September 2007, the Agency issued a Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) for aldicarb 

(http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/REDs/aldicarb_red.pdf). Key conclusions on exposure and risks to 

terrestrial and aquatic wildlife as well as relevant data gaps as they relate to these two assessments are 

listed below. RQs using alternative application rates and incorporation efficiencies 

(http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0163-0156 and 

http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0163-0203) were calculated later 

under addenda to the RED document. These RQs took into account the 99% soil incorporation rates of 

the specialized application equipment that is used to apply aldicarb. The assessment was updated to 

reflect current maximum label rates, and the methodology is considered to provide reasonable estimates 

of potential risks. Risk conclusions remain unchanged from previous assessments. The analysis remains 

an adequate refined description of the potential risks to terrestrial wildlife. 

The following table reports the risk quotients for birds and mammals exposed to aldicarb applied at 

maximum application rates and 99 percent granule incorporation efficiency. This analysis was 

performed to better characterize risk in the aldicarb ecological risk assessment. The RQs are expressed 

in terms of LD50/ft2

, which is the current approved risk metric for granular formulations. Conceptually, 

an LD50/ft2 is the amount of a pesticide estimated to kill 50% of exposed animals in each square foot of 

applied area. Although a square foot does not have defined ecological relevance, and any unit area could 

be used, risk presumably increases as the LD50/ft2

 value increases. The LD50/ft2 value is used to 

estimate risk for granular formulations and row, banded, and in-furrow applications. For additional 

information on the LD50/ft2 risk index, please refer to USEPA, 1998. 

Table 4.1. Refined RQs from the 2007 RED: Acute avian RQs for 99 percent incorporation 

efficiency at maximum application rates. (Note that changes in the maximum application rate 

since the 2007 Analysis are incorporated into the assessment) 

Crop Scenario Bird Type Rate 

(lbs ai/A) 

RQ 

(99% incorporated) 

Cotton 

Banded/Sidedress

4” band width

40” row spacing

Small Bird 

Medium Bird 

Large Bird 2.1

220 

35 

2.7 

Dry Beans 

Banded

6” band width

48” row spacing

Small Bird 

Medium Bird 

Large Bird 2.1

175.5 

27.6 

1.9 

Peanuts 

Banded

6” band width

36” row spacing

Small Bird 

Medium Bird 

Large Bird 3.0

160 

25 

1.8 

Pecans 

Broadcast

Small Bird 

Medium Bird 

Large Bird 

1.05

104.9 

16.5 

1.2 

Potatoes 

Banded

6” band width

38” row spacing

Small Bird 

Medium Bird 

Large Bird 3.0

198.5 

31.2 

2.2 

Soybeans 

Banded 

Small Bird 

Medium Bird 

55 

9 
47 

6” band width

30” row spacing

Large Bird 3.0 0.6 

Sugar Beets 

Banded

6” band width

22” row spacing

Small Bird 

Medium Bird 

Large Bird 4.95

189.6 

29.8 

2.1 

Sweet Potatoes 

Banded

12” band width

48” row spacing

Small Bird 

Medium Bird 

Large Bird 3.0

124.8 

19.6 

1.4 

Mallard duck LD50 = 1 mg/kg- bw 

Table 4.2. Refined RQs from the 2007 RED: Acute mammalian RQs for 99 percent 

incorporation efficiency at maximum application rates. (Note that changes in the 

maximum application rate since the 2007 Analysis are incorporated into the Assessment)

Crop Scenario Mammal 

Type 

Rate 

(lbs ai/A) 

RQ 

(99% incorporated) 

Cotton 

Banded/Sidedress

4” band width

40” row spacing

Small 

Medium 

Large 2.1

73 

40 

4 

Dry Beans 

Banded

6” band width

48” row spacing

Small 

Medium 

Large 2.1

59.3 

31.4 

2.5 

Peanuts 

Banded

6” band width

36” row spacing

Small 

Medium 

Large 3.0

32 

17 

1 

Soybeans 

Banded

6” band width

30” row spacing

Small 

Medium 

Large 3.0

19 

9.8 

0.8 

Sugar Beets 

Banded

6” band width

22” row spacing

Small 

Medium 

Large 4.95

64 

33.9 

2.7 

Sweet Potatoes 

Banded

12” band width

48” row spacing

Small 

Medium 

Large 3.0

42.1 

22.3 

1.8 

Rat LD50 = 0.9 mg/kg-bw

4.1.1. Additional Terrestrial Animal RQ Refinements 

Assumptions of incorporation efficiency (Bayer Crop Science and EPA) did not reduce the level of risk 

to avian and mammalian species below the Level of Concern (LOC). EFED modeled 99% (for 

banded/sidedress), 99.5% (banded/sidedress and in-furrow) and 99.9% (banded/sidedress and in-furrow) 

incorporation efficiency at EPA typical application rates (as defined at the time of the RED) to 

investigate whether such assumptions, albeit unrealistic, would reduce the risk to below LOC for 

terrestrial wildlife. None of the modeling scenarios decreased the avian or the mammalian risk beyond 

Agency levels of concern for any of the crops. The tables below list the crops, application rates, 

application methods and RQs for avian and mammalian species. 
48

Table 4.3. Recalculated acute avian RQs for different incorporation efficiencies at typical application rates with 

different incorporation efficiencies 

Mallard duck LD50 = 1 mg/kg- bw; Rat LD50 = 0.9 mg/kg-bw 199% incorporation efficiency is non-achievable for post-emergent applications and for treesItalicized numbers are RQs published in May 2006 RED; un-italicized represent RQs from new modeling scenarios. Bold RQs = acute and chronic LOC exceedances for non-listed species; * = restricted use LOC exceedances; ** = listed LOC exceedances 

Crop Scenario Bird Type Typical Application 

Rate 

(lbs ai/A) 

RQ 

(85% incorporated) 

RQ 

(99% incorporated) 

RQ 

(99.5% incorporated) 

RQ 

(99.9% incorporated) 

Cotton1Banded/Sidedress4” band width40” row spacing

Small Bird Medium Bird Large Bird 

0.6 0.60.6

947.5 148.9 

10.5 

60.2 

9.5 0.7 

30.1 

4.7 

0.3* 

6.0 1.1 0.7 

Dry Beans Banded6” band width48” row spacing

Small Bird Medium Bird Large Bird 

1.0 1.01.0

1247.6 

196.0 

13.4 

80.2 12.6 

0.9 

40.1 

6.3 0.5

8.0 1.3 

0.09 

Peanuts Banded6” band width36” row spacing

Small Bird Medium Bird Large Bird 

0.9 0.90.9

842.1 132.2 

9.4 

54.2 

8.5 0.6 

27.1 

4.3 

0.3* 

5.4 0.9 

0.06 

Soybeans Banded6” band width30” row spacing

Small Bird Medium Bird Large Bird 

0.7 0.70.7

545.8 

85.8 

6.1 

35.1 

5.5 

0.4* 

17.6 

2.8 

0.2* 

3.5 0.6 

0.04 

Sugar Beets Banded6” band width22” row spacing

Small Bird Medium Bird Large Bird 

1.8 1.81.8

972.1 152.7 

10.8 

66.2 10.4 

0.7

33.1 

5.2 

0.4* 

6.6 1.1 

0.07 

Sweet Potatoes Banded12” band width48” row spacing

Small Bird Medium Bird Large Bird 

1.4 1.41.4

N/A N/A N/A 

58.2 

9.2 0.7

28.1 

4.4 

0.3* 

5.6 0.9 

0.1** 
49

Table 4.4. Recalculated acute mammalian RQs for different incorporation efficiencies at typical application rates with different 

incorporation efficiencies 

Crop Scenario Mammal 

Type

Typical Application 

Rate 

(lbs ai/A) 

RQ 

(85% incorporated) 

RQ 

(99% incorporated) 

RQ 

(99.5% incorporated) 

RQ 

(99.9% incorporated) 

Cotton1Banded/Sidedress 4” band width40” row spacing

Small Bird Medium Bird Large Bird

0.6 0.60.6

320.1 169.6 

13.7 

21.1 11.2 

0.9 

10.5 

5.6 0.5 

2.1 1.1 

0.09 

Dry Beans Banded6” band width48” row spacing

Small Bird Medium Bird Large Bird 

1.0 1.01.0

421.5 223.3 

18.1 

28.1 14.9 

1.2 

14.0 

7.4 0.6 

2.8 1.5 

0.1** 

Peanuts Banded6” band width

36” row spacing

Small Bird Medium Bird Large Bird 

0.9 0.90.9

284.5 150.7 

12.2 

19.0 10.0 

0.8 

9.5 5.0 

0.4* 

1.9 1.0 

0.08 

Soybeans Banded6” band width30” row spacing

Small Bird Medium Bird Large Bird 

0.7 0.70.7

184.4 

97.7 

7.9 

12.3 

6.5 0.5 

6.1 3.3 

0.3* 

1.2 0.7 

0.05 

Sugar Beets Banded6” band width22” row spacing

Small Bird Medium Bird Large Bird 

1.8 1.81.8

328.4 174.0 

14.1 

23.2 12.3 

1.0 

11.6 

6.1 0.5

2.3 1.2 

0.1** 

Sweet Potatoes Banded12” band width48” row spacing

Small Bird Medium Bird Large Bird

1.4 1.41.4

N/A N/A N/A 

19.7 10.4 

0.8 

9.8 5.2 

0.4* 

2.0 1.0 

0.08 

Mallard duck LD50 = 1 mg/kg- bw Rat LD50 = 0.9 mg/kg-bw Italicized numbers are RQs published in May 2006 RED; un-italicized represent RQs from new modeling scenarios. Bold RQs = acute and chronic LOC exceedances for non-listed species; * = restricted use LOC exceedances; ** = listed LOC exceedances 199% incorporation efficiency is non-achievable for post-emergent applications and for trees
50 

4.1.2. Risk Conclusions for Terrestrial Organisms 

x The weight of evidence suggests that there is considerable risk to non-target wildlife from all uses 

of aldicarb. Bird and mammal RQs exceed levels of concern for all labeled uses; and additional 

lines of evidence such as incidents and the inherent toxicity of the chemical suggest that aldicarb 

application does result in impacts to wildlife. Even assuming lower than the maximum application 

rate (typical rates) and availability of a fraction of the chemical is available for consumption due 

to burial does not result in risk below concern levels. Ingestion of a single granule is sufficient to 

result in mortality to birds and mammals since LD50s for birds and mammals were basically the 

same with values of 0.9 mg ai/kg-bw for mammals and 0.75 to 1.0 mg ai/kg-bw for birds. In a 

study on the red-winged blackbird, technical and granular (Temik 15G) aldicarb yielded similar 

LD50 values. Balcomb et al. (1984) measured the acute oral toxicity of aldicarb to two species of 

song bird (house sparrow and red-winged blackbird). When birds were dosed with varying 

numbers of aldicarb granules (Temik 15G), 40% of blackbirds (5 birds tested at each 

concentration) given a single granule died, and 80% of those given 5 granules died. In house 

sparrows, 40% died after ingesting 1 granule and 83% died after consuming 5 granules (6 birds 

tested at each concentration). Birds died within 15 to 18 minutes of granule ingestion. Since there 

were risks to birds, reptiles may also be at risk.

x Granules left exposed on the surface appear to be the main source of exposure, but other sources 

such as residues of aldicarb taken up by plants and soil invertebrates (e.g., earthworms) may also 

serve as a means of exposure. Drinking water may also be an exposure route of concern. Bunyan 

et al. (1981) conducted an extensive field trial with sampling of invertebrates, birds, and small 

mammals around fields of sugar beet treated in furrow with aldicarb granules (10% ai) at 1.12 kg 

aldicarb per ha. High levels of residues in blackbirds and two small mammals trapped within the 

treated field, as well as a dead partridge, indicated to the authors that the most significant hazard 

of aldicarb was from direct ingestion of non-incorporated granules soon after application. A 

secondary hazard involved aldicarb-poisoned earthworms that came to the surface of the soil 

particularly in wet conditions. Worms containing residues were found 2-6 days after drilling. 

Low residues of aldicarb were found in herbivores eating young plants that had systemically 

absorbed aldicarb. Residues and reduced esterase activity in brain were found in a number of 

bird species feeding on the ground, indicating that exposure to aldicarb can be widespread in the 

case of granular applications. 

x Reduction in growth to non-target terrestrial plants from runoff could not be assessed because of 

the lack of toxicity data. However, Tier 1 seedling emergence studies and incident data suggest 

that aldicarb could affect some non-target plants. 

x There are expected risks to bees; although aldicarb has granule applications, it is systemic and 

can be available to bees in plants via pollen and/or nectar. Also, bee incidents have been 

reported. Data gaps (see Section 5) prevent a full assessment of risks to bees. 

4.2. Aquatic Species 

Parent aldicarb and its degradates are highly mobile and are known to move to ground water in sandy 

acidic soils. In poorly permeable soils, it will move with runoff. Following a rain event, aldicarb may 

reach aquatic environments as sheet and channel flow from areas of application, since aldicarb is 
51 

moderately persistent in terrestrial environments and soluble in water. It is unlikely, though, that 

undissolved granules will reach surface water bodies as the granules themselves are not particularly 

mobile and in most cases buried below the surface. Aldicarb residues are likely to create concern for fish 

and aquatic invertebrates (as well as amphibians) in low-order streams because these streams are 

dominated by base flow conditions (where 100% of stream flow consists of discharged ground water), 

and most of the toxic residues are believed to form within the subsurface (especially within the saturated 

zone, where conditions are more like to be alkaline) and are conveyed by ground water. Higher-order 

streams are sustained by much larger contributing land areas, so there should be a greater dilution effect. 

Higher incorporation efficiencies would reduce risks to aquatic organisms. However, under the current 

label scenarios modeled for EECs, all aquatic organism acute and chronic RQs exceeded all LOCs for 

all current uses. However, there were no LOC exceedances for aquatic plants. 

4.2.1. Revised RQs resulting from EECs from currently supported (2015) uses 

Table 4.5. Aquatic Exposure Estimates for Fish from Aldicarb Use Sites (Aldicarb Only)A

Use Site SWCC Scenario 1-in-10-year Peak 

(μg/L)

1-in-10-year 21-

day Mean (μg/L)

1-in-10-year 60-

day Mean (μg/L) 

Cotton MS cotton 28.9 25.7 19.9 

Dry Beans MI beans 28.2 26.4 21.8 

Peanuts NC peanuts 17.4 14.7 11.8 

Soybeans MS soybeans 22.3 19 13.2 

Sugar Beets MN sugar beets 53 47.7 36.8 A Maximum values are in bold. 

Table 4.6. Aquatic Exposure Estimates for Aquatic Invertebrates from Aldicarb Use Sites 

(Aldicarb TTR)A

Use Site SWCC Scenario 1-in-10-year Peak 

(μg/L)

1-in-10-year 21-

day Mean (μg/L)

1-in-10-year 60-

day Mean (μg/L) 

Cotton MS cotton 35.1 28.3 17.7 

Dry Beans MI beans 30.6 26.4 18.2 

Peanuts NC peanuts 21.1 15.6 10 

Soybeans MS soybeans 26.7 20.1 11.3 

Sugar Beets MN sugar beets 78 59.7 38 A Maximum values are in bold.

Table 4.7. Acute and chronic RQs for freshwater fish using maximum application rates with 99% 

incorporation efficiency

Crop Use LC50 

(ppb)

NOAEC 

(ppb)

EEC 

Initial/Peak 

(ppb)

EEC 60 day 

average (ppb)

Acute RQ 

(EEC/LC50)

Chronic RQ 

(EEC/ENEC)

Cotton 52 0.46 28.9 19.9 0.55 43.26 

Dry Beans 52 0.46 28.2 21.8 0.54 47.40 

Peanuts 52 0.46 17.4 11.8 0.33 25.65 

Soybeans 52 0.46 22.3 13.2 0.43 28.70 

Sugar Beets 52 0.46 53 36.8 1.02 80.00 

Bluegill sunfish LC50 = 52 ppb 

Bluegill sunfish ENEC = 0.46 ppb 
52 

Table 4.8. Acute and chronic RQs for freshwater inverts using maximum application rates with 

99% incorporation efficiency

Crop Use LC50 

(ppb)

NOAEC 

(ppb) 

EEC 

Initial/Peak 

(ppb) 

EEC 21 day 

average (ppb) 

Acute RQ 

(EEC/LC50) 

Chronic RQ 

(EEC/NOAEC) 

Cotton 20 1 35.1 28.3 1.75 28.30 

Dry Beans 20 1 30.6 26.4 1.53 26.40 

Peanuts 20 1 21.1 15.6 1.05 15.60 

Soybeans 20 1 26.7 20.1 1.33 20.10 

Sugar Beets 20 1 78.0 59.7 3.90 59.70 

Chironomus tetanus LC50 = 20 ppb 

Mysidopsis bahia NOAEC = 1.0 ppb 

Table 4.9. Acute and chronic RQs for estuarine/marine fish using maximum application rates with 

99% incorporation efficiency 

Crop Use LC50 

(ppb)

NOAEC 

(ppb) 

EEC 

Initial/Peak 

(ppb) 

EEC 60 day 

average (ppb) 

Acute RQ 

(EEC/LC50) 

Chronic RQ 

(EEC/ENEC) 

Cotton 41 0.36 28.9 19.9 0.70 55.27 

Dry Beans 41 0.36 28.2 21.8 0.68 60.55 

Peanuts 41 0.36 17.4 11.8 0.42 32.77 

Soybeans 41 0.36 22.3 13.2 0.54 36.66 

Sugar Beets 41 0.36 53.0 36.8 1.29 102.22 

Sheepshead minnow LC50 = 41 ppb; Sheepshead minnow ENEC = 0.36 ppb

Table 4.10. Acute and chronic RQs for estuarine/marine inverts using maximum application rates 

with 99% incorporation efficiency

Crop use LC50 

(ppb)

NOAEC 

(ppb) 

EEC 

Initial/Peak 

(ppb) 

EEC 21 day 

average (ppb) 

Acute RQ 

(EEC/LC50) 

Chronic RQ 

(EEC/NOAEC) 

Cotton 12 1 35.1 28.3 2.92 28.30 

Dry Beans 12 1 30.6 26.4 2.55 26.40 

Peanuts 12 1 21.1 15.6 1.76 15.60 

Soybeans 12 1 26.7 20.1 2.22 20.10 

Sugar Beets 12 1 78.0 59.7 6.50 59.70 

Pink shrimp LC50 = 12 ppb; Mysidopsis bahia NOAEC = 1 ppb 

*Even with only 1% of the compound available (99% incorporated), most aquatic organism acute and all 

chronic RQs calculated exceed LOCs for current uses. 

4.2.2. Risk Conclusions for Aquatic Organisms 

Parent aldicarb and its degradates are highly mobile and are known to move to ground water in sandy 

acidic soils. In poorly permeable soils, it will move with runoff. Following a rain event, aldicarb may 

reach aquatic environments as sheet and channel flow from areas of application, since aldicarb is 

moderately persistent in terrestrial environments and soluble in water. It is unlikely, though, that 

undissolved granules will reach surface water bodies as the granules themselves are not particularly 

mobile and in most cases buried below the surface. However, under the current label scenarios modeled 

for EECs, all aquatic organism, except aquatic plants, acute and chronic RQs exceeded all LOCs for all 

current uses. 
53 

5. IDENTIFICATION of CURRENT DATA GAPS 

The fate and toxicity database for aldicarb is substantially complete. Data gaps, uncertainties and 

potential paths forward for the assessment of aldicarb are described below. 

5.1. Fate 

Environmental Chemistry Method for soil (850.6100): the Environmental Chemistry Method 

for soil is currently under review. The study will be required if the current submitted study along 

with the independent laboratory validation are deemed unacceptable. 

5.2. Effects 

Honeybee toxicity (non-guideline): 

In keeping with the Agency’s proposed new paradigm for determining potential adverse effects 

to insect pollinators from conventional pesticides (USEPA et al., 2014), additional studies are 

being requested in addition to the already submitted adult acute contact study. The adult acute 

contact study using aldicarb resulted in an LD50 of 0.285 μg/bee and the compound was classified 

as highly toxic (MRID 00036935), there is considerable uncertainty regarding the potential 

effects of the compound on honeybee larval development and survival as well as potential for 

chronic effects. Because of its granular formulation, it is unlikely that there is a direct contact 

exposure scenario for honeybees. Other soil dwelling beneficial insects and invertebrates could 

be exposed to aldicarb and aldicarb residues through contact with the granules and/or with plants 

(via pollen and/or nectar) due to its systemic nature. However, because the chemical is systemic 

in nature exposure via pollen and/or nectar is possible; therefore, additional data on pollinators is 

needed to fully characterize the risk associated with aldicarb use to all developmental stages of 

honeybees, as sensitivity may vary according to life-stage and length of exposure (adult vs. larval 

and acute vs. chronic, respectively). Additional information is needed, but uncertainty associated 

with risks to honey bees need to be evaluated with more data to different life stages. Since this 

may be a systemic chemical that is transported throughout the plant, residues may be available to 

pollinators via pollen and/or nectar; therefore, residues of pollen and nectar of crops are a data 

need. Adult and larvae acute oral toxicity studies (following OECD 213) and larval and adult 

chronic toxicity studies (following OECD 237and non-guideline study) are necessary to evaluate 

the potential for aldicarb to adversely affect bees and other pollinators through other routes of 

exposure. Open literature data is needed to help better characterize some uncertainties regarding 

potential effects to bees and other non-target terrestrial invertebrates. In addition, higher tier 

effects toxicity tests (i.e., semi-field and/or field studies – Tier II and Tier III, respectively) may 

be needed, based on the results of the larval and chronic adult toxicity studies. Higher tier studies 

are recommended if the ratio of the EEC and larval or adult bee acute LD50>0.4 or the ratio of 

the EEC and the chronic NOAEC>1. Incident data and/or compelling open literature studies can 

also be used to support the need for higher tier studies. Should the screening level risk 

assessment identify that there are risk concerns to bees, mitigation measures may need to be 

considered or the registrant may need to conduct Tier II or Tier III effects studies (e.g. OECD 

Guideline 75 and/or 850.3040 guideline studies) that reduce uncertainty by characterizing 

aldicarb’s effects at the whole-colony level. 
54 

6. REFERENCES 

Balcomb, R., Stevens, R., & Bowen, C. (1984) Toxicity of 16 granular insecticides to wildcaught songbirds. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 33:302-307. 

Bank, S. and Tyrrell, R.J. 1984. Kinetics and Mechanism of Alkaline and Acidic Hydrolysis of 

Aldicarb. J. Agric. Food Chem. 32(6), 1223-1232. 

Brassard, David, Katherine Stebbins, and Derek Berwald. 2011. BEAD Chemical Profile for 

Registration Review: Aldicarb. Internal EPA Memorandum to Susan Bartow, Ann 

Overstreet, and Eric Olsen dated December 8, 2011. 

Bromilow, R.H., Briggs, G.G., Williams, M.R., Smelt, J.H., Tuinistra, Th.L.G.M., and W.A. 

Traag. 1986. The role of ferrous ions in the rapid degradation of oxamyl, methomyl, and 

aldicarb in anaerobic soils. Pesticide Science 17:535-547. 

Bull, D.L., Stokes R.A, Coppedge, J.R. and Ridgway, R.L (1970) J. Econ. Entomol. 63, 1283-

1289. 

Bunyan, P.J., Van Den Heuvel, M.J., Stanley, P.I., & Wright, E.N. 1981. An intensive field trial 

and a multi-site surveillance exercise on the use of aldicarb to investigate methods for the 

assessment of possible environmental hazards presented by new pesticides. Agro 

Ecosyst., 7:239-262. 

Fellers, G.M, L.L. McConnell, D. Pratt, S. Datta. 2004. Pesticides in Mountain Yellow-Legged 

Frogs (Rana Mucosa) from the Sierra Nevada Mountains of California, USA. 

Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry. 23 (9):2170-2177. 

Fletcher, J.S., J.E. Nellessen, and T.G. Pfleeger. 1994. Literature review and evaluation of the 

EPA food-chain (Kenaga) nomogram, and instrument for estimating pesticide residues on 

plants. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 13 (9), 1383-1391. 

Health Effects Division. 2005. Estimation of Cumulative Risk From N-Methyl Carbamate 

Pesticides: Preliminary Assessment. United States Environmental Protection Agency 

EPA-HQ-OPP-2003-0360-0013.

Hansen, J.L., and M.H. Spiegel. 1983. Hydrolysis Studies of Aldicarb, Aldicarb Sulfoxide, and 

Aldicarb Sulfone. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 2(2): 147-153. 

Hoerger, F., and E.E. Kenaga. 1972. Pesticide residues on plants: Correlation of representative 

data as a basis for estimation of their magnitude in the environment. In F. Coulston and F. 

Korte, eds., Environmental Quality and Safety: Chemistry, Toxicology, and Technology, 

Georg Thieme Publ, Stuttgart, West Germany, pp. 9-28. 
55 

Jones, R.L., and T. L. Estes. 1995. Summary of Aldicarb Monitoring and Research Programs in 

the United States. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology 18:107-140. 

LeNoir, J.S., L.L. McConnell, G.M. Fellers, T.M. Cahill, J.N. Seiber. 1999. Summertime 

Transport of Current-use pesticides from California’s Central Valley to the Sierra Nevada

Mountain Range, USA. Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry 18(12): 2715-2722. 

Lemley, A.T. and W.Z. Zhong. 1983. Kinetics of Aqueous Base and Acid Hydrolysis of 

Aldicarb, Aldicarb Sulfoxide, and Aldicarb Sulfone. J. Environ. Sci. Health B.

1983;18(2):189-206. 

Lemley, A.T. and W.Z. Zhong. 1984. Hydrolysis of Aldicarb, Aldicarb Sulfoxide, and Aldicarb 

Sulfone at PPB Levels in Aqueous Media . J. Agric. Food Chem. 34(4):714-719. 

Lightfoot, E.N., Thorne, P.S., Jones, R.L., Hansen, J.L., and R.R. Romine. 1987. 

Laboratory studies on mechanisms for the degradation of aldicarb, aldicarb sulfoxide, and 

aldicarb sulfone. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 6:377-394. 

Mayer, F.L. and M.R. Ellersieck. 1986. Manual of acute toxicity: Interpretation and data base for 

410 chemicals and 66 species of freshwater animals. USDI, FWS Publication 160, 

Washington, DC. 506 pp. MRID 40098001. 

McConnell, L.L., J.S. LeNoir, S. Datta, J.N. Seiber. 1998. Wet deposition of current-use 

pesticides in the Sierra Nevada mountain range, California, USA. Environmental 

Toxicology & Chemistry 17(10):1908-1916. 

Moore, M.T., Huggett, D.B., Gillespie, Jr., W.B., Rodgers, J.H., and C.M. Cooper. 1998. 

Comparative Toxicity of Chlordane, Chlorpyrifos, and Aldicarb to Four Aquatic Testing 

Organisms. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 34, pp. 152-157. 

Office of Pesticide Programs. 2007. Revised N-Methyl Carbamate Cumulative Assessment.

United States Environmental Protection Agency. 

http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/REDs/nmc_revised_cra.pdf

Pickering, Q.H., and W.T. Gilliam. 1982. Toxicity of Aldicarb and Fonofos to the Early Life 

Stage of the Fathead Minnow. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 11:699-702. 

Smelt, J.H., Leistra, M., Houx, N.W.H. and Dekkar, A. 1978a. Conversion Rates of Aldicarb and 

Its Oxidation Products in Soils. I. Aldicarb Sulfone. Pestic. Sci., 9, 279-285. 

Smelt, J.H., Leistra, M., Houx, N.W.H. and Dekkar, A. 1978b. Conversion Rates of Aldicarb and 

Its Oxidation Products in Soils. I. Aldicarb Sulfoxide. Pestic. Sci., 9, 286-292. 

Smelt, J.H., Leistra, M., Houx, N.W.H. and Dekkar, A. 1978c. Conversion Rates of Aldicarb and 

Its Oxidation Products in Soils. III. Aldicarb. Pestic. Sci., 9, 293-300. 
56 

Smelt, J.H., Dekkar, A., Leistra, M., and Houx, N.W.H. 1983. Conversion of Four 

Carbamoyloximes in Soil Samples From Above and Below the Soil Water Table. Pestic. 

Sci., 14, 173-181. 

Sparling, D.W., G.M. Fellers, L.L. McConnell. 2001. Pesticides and amphibian population 

declines in California, USA. Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry 20(7): 1591-1595. 

Suffolk County Dept. of Health Services. 1999. Water Quality Monitoring Program to 

Detect Pesticide Contamination in Groundwaters of Nassau and Suffolk Counties, NY, 

June, 1999. 

Suffolk County Dept. of Health Services. 2000. Water Quality Monitoring Program to 

Detect Pesticide Contamination in Groundwaters of Nassau and Suffolk Counties, NY, 

December, 2000. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1998. Guidance for Ecological Risk 

Assessment. Risk Assessment Forum. EPA/630/R-95/002F, April 1998. 

U.S. EPA. 2006. EFED Aldicarb Ecological Risk Assessment (RED). Office of Prevention, 

Pesticides, and Toxic Substances. Office of Pesticide Programs, EFED. Washington, 

D.C. September, 2006. 

USFWS/NMFS. 2004. Memorandum to Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances, 

U.S. EPA conveying an evaluation by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National 

Marine Fisheries Service of an approach to assessing the ecological risks of pesticide 

products. 

U.S. EPA. 2007. Ecological Incident Information System. 

http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/science/efed/policy_guidance/team_authors/endangered_s

pecies_reregistration_workgroup/esa_incident_guidance.htm#eiis

U.S. EPA. 2007. ECOTOXicology Database. Office of Research and Development National 

Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory’s (NHEERL’s) Mid-Continent 

Ecology Division (MED). http://cfpub.epa.gov/ecotox/. 

U.S. EPA, 2007. EFED Risks of Aldicarb Use to Federally Listed Endangered California Red 

Legged Frog (Rana aurora draytonii). July 17, 2007 

U.S. EPA. 2009. EFED Refinement to Tier 2 Drinking Water Assessment Tobacco Uses of 

Aldicarb and its Major Degradates Aldicarb Sulfoxide and Aldicarb Sulfone, D299881. 

April 10, 2009 

U.S. EPA. 2012. EFED Risks of Aldicarb Use to the Federally Threatened Valley Elderberry 

Longhorn Beetle (Desmocerus californicus dimorphus) and the Federally Endangered 

San Joaquin Kit Fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica). March 28, 2012 
57 

U.S. EPA. 2012. EFED Registration Review Problem Formulation for Aldicarb, DP D398519. 

May 24, 2012 

USEPA, PMRA, and CDPR. 2014. Guidance for Assessing Pesticide Risks to Bees. Office of 

Pesticide Programs, USEPA, Washington D.C. Health Canada Pest Management 

Regulatory Agency, Ottawa, ON, Canada. California Department of Pesticide 

Regulation, Sacramento, CA. June 23, 2014. 

U.S. EPA. Ruhman, M., Hetrick, J., Jones, R. Guidance for Modeling Pesticide Total Toxic 

Residues. (Draft Document) 

U.S. Fisheries and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service (USFWS/NMFS). 

1998. Endangered Species Consultation Handbook: Procedures for Conducting 

Consultation and Conference Activities Under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. 

Final Draft, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Marine 

Fisheries Service (NMFS), Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office. 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2015. 2002 Pesticide Use Maps. U.S. Geological Survey, 

National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program, Pesticide National Synthesis 

Program. Accessed on May 14, 2015. Online at: 

http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/pnsp/usage/maps/compound_listing.php?year=02

Vink, J.P.M. and S.E.A.T.M. Van der Zee. 1997. Pesticide biotransformation in surface waters: 

multivariate analyses of environmental factors at field sites. Water Research 

31(11):2858-2868. 

Internal EPA Documents

Dutta, Subijoy. 1999. Drinking Water Memorandum for Aldicarb for the Reregistration 

Eligibility Decision Document (RED). Internal EPA Memorandum to Robert McNally 

dated April 4, 1999. 

D247759. Dutta, Subijoy. 1999. Updated Drinking Water Assessment for Aldicarb (Temik®

15G). Internal EPA Memorandum dated September 21, 1999. Same as D254590. 

D246940. 2001. Carlton, James and Richard Feldhausen. 2003 RED.

D246901. Environmental Fate and Effects Division. EFED Chapter for the Reregistration 

Eligibility Document for Aldicarb. Dated May 15, 2001.

D299881. Shanaman, Lucy. Refinement to Tier 2 Drinking Water Assessment Tobacco Uses of 

Aldicarb and its Major Degradates Aldicarb Sulfoxide and Aldicarb Sulfone. Internal 

EPA Memorandum to Christine Olinger dated April 10, 2009. 

D316754. Angier, Jonathan. 2005. Tier 2 Drinking Water Assessment for Aldicarb and its Major 

Degradates Aldicarb Sulfoxide and Aldicarb Sulfone. Internal EPA Memorandum to 
58 

Robert McNally dated April 4, 2005. 

D332265. Angier, Jonathan, Diana Eignor, Michelle Embry, Jeannette Martinez, Donna Randall, 

Dana Spatz, and Nelson Thurman. 2006. Environmental Fate and Effects Division 

Aldicarb Revised RED. Internal EPA Memorandum to Bob McNally, Ann Overstreet, 

and Sherri Kinard dated September 27, 2006. 

D333309. Thurman, Nelson and Jonathan Angier. 2006. Drinking Water Exposure Assessment 

for Total Aldicarb Residues (Parent, Aldicarb Sulfoxide, and Aldicarb Sulfone) Based on 

the N-Methyl Carbamate Cumulative Risk Assessment. Internal EPA Memorandum to 

Sherri Kinard and Felicia Fort dated October 23, 2006. 

D348436. Thurman, Nelson and Jonathan Angier. 2008. Drinking Water Exposure Assessment 

for Proposed Expansion of Aldicarb Use on Potatoes Into 6 Additional States (CO, MI, 

MN, ND, SD, WY). Internal EPA Memorandum to John Hebert and Christine Olinger 

dated August 26, 2008. 
59 

Appendix A. Submitted Environmental Fate & Ecological Effects Studies 

Environmental Fate Studies 

00035365. Bull, D.L., R. A. Stokes, J. R. Coppedge, .1970. Further studies of the fate of 

Aldicarb in soil. Journal of Economic Entomology 63(4):1283-1289. Also in unpublished 

submission received Jul 26, 1971. Submitted by Union Carbide Corp., Washington, D.C. 

00036313. Gunther, F.A., G. E. Carman, and R. C. Baines, 1975. Aldicarb (Temik®) Residues in 

Oranges, Orange Leaves, and Soil after Soil Application in an Orange Grove. 

Unpublished study received Oct 10, 1975 under 6G1689. Prepared in cooperation with 

Univ. of California - Riverside, Citrus Research Center and Agricultural Experiment 

Station, Dept. of Entomology and others. Submitted by Union Carbide Corp., 

Washington, D.C. 

00053364. Bull, D. L. 1968. Metabolism of UC-21149 (2-Methyl-2-(methythio)- 

propionaldehyde-O-(methylcarbamoyl)oxime) in cotton plants and soil in the field. 

Journal of Economic Entomology 61(6):1598- 1602. Also in unpublished submission 

received Jan 18, 1977 under 1016-Ex-37; Submitted by Union Carbide Corp., Arlington, 

Va. 

00053377. Andrawes, N.R., and G. C. Holsing. 1976. Hydrolysis of UC-21865 Sulfo-carb 

Pesticide in Aqueous Buffer Solutions. Project No. 111A14. (Unpublished study received 

Jan 18, 1977. Submitted by Union Carbide Corp., Arlington, Va. 

00053380. Richey, F.A., Jr., and W. J. Bartley, W.J. 1972. Temik Aldicarb Pesticide: Water 

Leaching of Aldicarb, Aldicarb Sulfoxide, Aldicarb Sulfone and Internal Standard 

Chloride Ion in Columns of Four Soil Types. Project No. 111A12. Unpublished study 

received Jan 18, 1977 under 1016-EX-37; submitted by Union Carbide Corp., Arlington, 

Va. 

00053381. Richey, jr., F.A., H. H. Moorefield. 1972. Temik--Aldicarb Pesticide: Upward 

Movement of Aldicarb through Soil during Water Evaporation: Project No. 111A12. 

(Unpublished study received Jan 18, 1977. Submitted by Union Carbide Corp., Arlington, 

Va. 

00053385. Romine, R.R., C. B. Halstead., and C. E. Gibson. 1968. Temik Insecticide: Leaching 

Characteristics of Temik 10G in Soils. Project No. 111A13. Unpublished study received 

Jan 18, 1977 under 1016-EX-37; submitted by Union Carbide Corp., Arlington, Va. 

00068252. Romine, R. R. and R. L. Meeker. 1972. Temik Aldicarb Pesticide: Leaching of 

Aldicarb into Sandy Soil with Irrigation of a Temik Treated Sugar Beet Field. UCC 

Project Report No. 17079. Unpublished study received Aug 4, 1977 under 1016-79; 

submitted by Union Carbide Corp., Arlington, Va. 

00096547. Spiegel, M.H. and R. A. Conway. 1982. Hydrolysis Studies of Aldicarb, Aldicarb 
60 

Sulfoxide, and Aldicarb Sulfon. Project III. (Unpublished study received Mar 9, 1982. 

Submitted by Union Carbide Agricultural Products Co., Inc., Ambler, Pa. 

00102011. Lykins, H. 1969. Temik Insecticide: The Effect of Temperature and pH on the 

Stability of Temik, Temik Sulfoxide and Temik Sulfone in Water. Project No. 111A13. 

(Unpublished study received Jun 25, 1973. Submitted by Union Carbide Corp., 

Washington, DC. 

00101935. Andrawes, N., W. Bagley., and R. Herrett. 1968. Temik Metabolism: Fate of 14CTemik in Cultivated Soil. File No. 9218. Unpublished study received Apr 18, 1969 under 

9F0798. Submitted by Union Carbide Corp. 

00101939. Clarkson, V., B. Rowe, and R. Romine. 1968. Temik Insecticide: Field Evaluation of 

the Persistence and Movement of Temik and Its Carbamate Metabolites in Soil. File No. 

10485. (Unpublished study received Apr 18, 1969. Submitted by Union Carbide Corp., 

New York, NY. 

00101940. Clarkson, V., B. Rowe, an R. Romine. 1968. Temik Insecticide: Field Evaluation of 

the Persistence of Temik and Its Carbamate Metabolites in Pond Water and Their Effect 

on Pond Fauna. File No. 10491. Unpublished study received Apr 18, 1969. Submitted by 

Union Carbide Corp., New York, NY. 

00101968. Union Carbide Corp. 1969. Soil Decline of Aldicarb. Unpublished study received Aug 

20, 1970. 

00102048. Lykins, H. and R. Meeker. 1971. Aldicarb Pesticide: Stability of Aldicarb in Water. 

Project No. 111A13, File No. 16060. Unpublished study received Dec 6, 1977. Submitted 

by Union Carbide Corp., Arlington, VA. 

00102057. Stephen, J. and J. Durden. 1969. A Study of the Decomposition of Temik, Temik 

Sulfoxide and Temik Sulfone in Water at 100 (degrees). Project No. 111A28, File No. 

11815. Unpublished study received Dec 6, 1977 under 1016-69; submitted by Union 

Carbide Corp., Arlington, VA. 

00102065. Andrawes, N. and R. Meeker. 1976. Hydrolysis of Temik Aldicarb Pesticide in 

Aqueous Buffer Solutions. Project No. 111A13, File No. 22263. Unpublished study 

received Dec 6, 1977 under 1016- 69; submitted by Union Carbide Corp., Arlington, VA. 

00102067. Andrawes, N. and R. Meeker. 1976. Photochemical Transformation of Aldicarb.

Project No. 111A13, File No. 22335. (Unpublished study received Dec 6, 1977 under 

1016-69; submitted by Union Carbide Corp., Arlington, VA. 

00102061. Woodham, D., R. Edwards, and R. Reeves. 1973. Total toxic aldicarb residues in soil, 

cottonseed, and cotton lint following a soil treatment with the insecticide on the Texas 

high plains. J. Agr. Food Chem. 21(2):303-307. Also in unpublished submission received 

Dec 9, 1977. Submitted by Union Carbide Corp., Arlington, VA. 
61 

00102064. Andrawes, N., W. Bagley, and R. Herrett. 1971. Fate and carryover properties of 

Temik aldicarb pesticide (2-methyl-2-(methylthio)- propionaldehyde -O-

(methylcarbamoyl)oxime| in soil. Agricultural and Food Chemistry 19(4):727-730. Also 

in unpublished submission received Dec 6, 1977. Submitted by Union Carbide Corp., 

Arlington, VA. 

00102068. Andrawes, N. and R. Meeker, R. 1976. Photostability of Aldicarb Sulfoxide. Project 

No. 111A13, File No. 22325. Unpublished study received Dec 6, 1977 under 1016-69; 

submitted by Union Carbide Corp., Arlington, VA. 

00102072. Bartley, W., and D. Heywood. 1965. Metabolism Studies: Hydrolytic Stability of UC 

21149. Project No. 855-31101-7073. Unpublished study received Dec 6, 1977 under 

1016-69; submitted by Union Carbide Corp., Arlington, VA. 

00102079. Leistra, M. and J. Smelt, and T. Lexmond. 1976. Conversion and leaching of aldicarb 

in soil columns. Pestic. Sci. 7:471-482. Also in unpublished submission received Dec 6, 

1977 under 1016-69; submitted by Union Carbide Corp., Arlington, VA. 

42498201. Das, Y. 1990. Photodegradation of (S-Methyl-14C)-Aldicarb in Aqueous Solution 

Buffered at pH 5 under Artificial Sunlight. Lab Project Number: 90021. Unpublished 

study prepared by Innovative Scientific Services, Inc. 91 p. 

42498202. Dykes, J. 1990. Soil Adsorption/Desorption with 14C-Aldicarb. Lab Project Number: 

37352. Unpublished study prepared by Analytical Bio-Chemistry Laboratories, Inc. 326 

p. 

46793701. Jones, R.L., and T.S. Ramanarayanan. 2006. TEMIK® brand 15G Aldicarb Pesticida: 

Summary of Five Retrospective Ground Water Monitoring Studies conducted for 

Aldicarb and Its Metabolites in the Pacific Northwest, California, Texas, Mississippi 

Delta and the Southeast Regions of the United States in 2005. Bayer CropScience Study 

No. RAAVY010. 

46793702. Freeseman, P.I., R.L. Jones, R.E. Lee, U.B. Handihalli, and D.R. Wyatt. 2006. A 

Retrospective Groundwater Monitoring Study for Aldicarb and Its Metabolites in the 

Pacific Northwest. Bayer CropScience Study No. RAAVY005. 

46793703. Lenz, M, R.L. Jones, D.R. Wyatt, U.B. Handihalli, and R.E. Lee. 2006. A 

Retrospective Groundwater Monitoring Study for Aldicarb and Its Metabolites in 

California. Bayer CropScience Study No. RAAVY006. 

46793704. Mosier, D.G., R.L. Jones, U.B. Handihalli, and R.E. Lee. 2006. A Retrospective 

Groundwater Monitoring Study for Aldicarb and Its Metabolites in Texas. Bayer 

CropScience Study No. RAAVY007. 
62 

46793705.Wyatt, D.R., R.L. Jones, U.B. Handihalli, and R.E. Lee. 2006. A Retrospective 

Groundwater Monitoring Study for Aldicarb and Its Metabolites in Mississippi Delta 

Region. Bayer CropScience Study No. RAAVY008. 

46793706. Lee, R.E., R.L. Jones, D.R. Wyatt, and U.B. Handihalli. 2006. A Retrospective 

Groundwater Monitoring Study for Aldicarb and Its Metabolites in the Southeastern 

United States. Bayer CropScience Study No. RAAVY009. 
63 

Ecological Effects Studies 

098301 Aldicarb Eco Effects Bibliography 

71-1 Avian Single Dose Oral Toxicity

MRID Citation Reference 

102038 Hudson, R.; Tucker, R.; Haegele, M. (1972) Effect of age on sensitivity: Acute oral toxicity of 14 pesticides to mallard ducks of several 

ages. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology (22):556- 561. (Also In 

unpublished submission received Oct 26, 1977 under 1016-69; 

submitted by Union Carbide Corp., Arlington, VA; CDL:096397-E) 

107398 Fink, R.; Beavers, J.; Brown, R. (1979) Final Report: Acute Oral LD50-

-Mallard Duck: Technical Grade Aldicarb: Project No. 142- 119. 

(Unpublished study received Dec 12, 1979 under 1016-78; prepared 

by Wildlife International, Ltd., submitted by Union Carbide Corp., 

Arlington, VA; CDL:099120-A) 

148695 Balcomb, R.; Stevens, R.; Bowen, C. (1984) Toxicity of 16 granular 

insecticides to wild-caught songbirds. Bulletin of Environmental 

Contamination and Toxicology 33:302-307. 

148698 Benjamini, L. (1981) Testing aldicarb as a bird repellent in a sprouting 

sugar beet field. Phytoparasitica 9(2):89-94. 

148703 Hill, E.; Camardese, M. (1984) Toxicity of anticholinesterase insecticides to birds: Technical grade versus granular formulations. 

Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 8:551-563. 

148704 Hilbig, V.; Westphal, D.; Lucas, K.; et al. (1979) Vergleichende 

Untersuchungen zur Vogeltoxizitaet mit Zwei Granulatformulier- ungen 

des Nematizides Temik [Comparative Studies of the Toxicity to Birds 

of Two Granulated Formulations of Temik Nematocides]: VetmedBerichte 2/1979. Unpublished study prepared by Institute of Veterinary 

Medicine. 24 p. 

148707 Medd, R.; Burrows, I.; Roberts, N.; et al. (1972) The Determination of 

the Single Dose Oral LD50 (24 Hour Value) and Residual Levels of 

Temik (Coal) in the Pheasant: Amended: 5355/72/751. Unpublished 

study prepared by Huntingdon Research Centre. 28 p. 

148709 Ross, D.; Roberts, N.; Cameron, D. (1977) A Comparison of the Acute 

Oral Toxicity (LD50) of Three Formulations of Temik to the Japanese 

Quail: UNC 68 W/771042. Unpublished study prepared by Huntingdon Research Centre. 12 p. 

5008363 Hudson, R.H.; Haegele, M.A.; Tucker, R.K. (1979) Acute oral and 

percutaneous toxicity of pesticides to mallards: correlations with 

mammalian toxicity data. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology 

47(3):451-460. 

42446501 Kendall, R. (1992) Behavior, Survivability and Biochemical Response 

of Wild Northern Bobwhites (Colinus virginianus) Dosed with Temik: 

Lab Project Number: 08034. Unpublished study prepared by Clemson 

Univ., Inst. of Wildlife and Environ. Tox. 34 p. 
64 

00160000 Hudson, R.; Tucker, R.; Haegele, M. (1984) Handbook of toxicity of 

pesticides to wildlife: Second edition. US Fish and Wildlife Service: 

Resource Publication 153. 91 p. 

71-2 Avian Dietary Toxicity 

MRID Citation Reference 

76066 Woodard Research Corporation (1965) UC-21149: Safety Evaluation 

on Fish and Wildlife: (Bobwhite Quail and Rainbow Trout). 

(Unpublished study received Jul 26, 1966 under 1016-69; submitted by 

Union Carbide Corp., Arlington, Va.; CDL:231174-B) 

76067 Beliles, R.P.; Knott, W.; Wright, L. (1966) UC-21149 10%: Summary of 

Safety Evaluation on Fish and Wildlife. Summary of studies 231174-A 

and 231174-B. (Unpublished study received Jul 26, 1966 under 1016-

69; prepared by Woodard Research Corp., submitted by Union

Carbide Corp., Arlington, Va.; CDL:231174-D) 

80706 Beliles, R.P.; Knott, W.; Wright, L. (1966) UC-21149: Safety Evaluation 

on Fish and Wildlife: (Bobwhite Quail and Rainbow Trout). 

(Unpublished study received Mar 2, 1967 under 7F0573; prepared by 

Woodard Research Corp., submitted by Union Carbide Corp., 

Charleston, W.Va.; CDL:090072-O) 

102132 Fink, R.; Beavers, J.; Brown, R. (1979) Final Report: Eight-day Dietary 

LC50--Bobwhite Quail: Technical Grade Aldicarb: Project No. 142-118. 

(Unpublished study received Dec 12, 1979 under 1016-78; prepared 

by Wildlife International Ltd., submitted by Union Carbide Corp., 

Arlington, VA; CDL:099120-B) 

115301 Hill, E.; Camardese, M. (1981) Subacute toxicity testing with young 

birds: Response in relation to age and interest variabil- ity of LC50 

estimates. Avian and Mammalian Wildlife Toxicology 2:41-65. (Also In 

unpublished submission received Oct 7, 1982 under 201-142; 

submitted by Shell Chemical Co., Washington, DC; CDL:248514-U) 

148706 Medd, R.; Roberts, N. (1972) Palatability and Acceptability of Te- mik 

(Corn Cob and Coal Formulations) to the Pheasant and the Pi- geon: 

5419/72/815. Unpublished study prepared by Huntingdon Re- search 

Centre. 31 p. 

22923 Hill, E.F.; Heath, R.G.; Spann, J.W.; et al. (1975) Lethal Dietary 

Toxicities of Environmental Pollutants to Birds: Special Scientific 

Report--Wildlife No. 191. (U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center; unpublished report) 

45592114 Handley, J.; Grant-Salmon, D.; Bartlett, A. (1995) The Acute Toxicity of 

Aldicarb Sulfoxide to Daphnia Magna: Lab Project Number: 282/442. 

Unpublished study prepared by Safepharm Laboratories Limited. 26 p. 

Aldicarb sulfone = PC Code 110802 

71-3 Mammal Acute 

101957 Lavoie, K. (1963) Bioassay Record: UC-21149: Peromyscus: Test No. 

R-14. (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver Wildlife Research 

Center; unpublished study, CDL:091373-AC) 
65 

43961101 McCann, J.; Teeters, W.; Urban, D. et al. (1981) A short-term dietary 

toxicity test on small mammals. p. 132-142 of the Second Conference 

of Avian and Mammalian Wildlife Toxicology, Lamb, D.; Kenaga, E. 

Eds.; Published in American Society for Testing and Materials, ASTM 

STP 757; 1981. 

71-5 Simulated or Actual Field Testing 

MRID Citation Reference 

100231 or 

101959

Lund, R.C.; Haines, R.G. (1969) Field Evaluation of Temik 10G 

Aldicarb Pesticide Potential Hazard to Whitetail Deer and Cottontail 

Rabbits from Simulated Spills. (Unpublished study re- ceived Oct 27, 

1969 under 1016-EX-30; prepared in cooperation with New Jersey, 

Fish and Game Commission, Black River State Game Field Station, 

submitted by Union Carbide Corp., Arlington, Va.; CDL:126506-C) 

101956 Back, R. (1968) Temik 10G Granular Pesticide: Field Evaluation of 

Potential Hazard to Bobwhite Quail. (Unpublished study received Apr 

18, 1969 under 9F0798; submitted by Union Carbide Corp., New York, 

NY; CDL:091373-AB) 

101960 Clarkson, V.; Haines, R.; Hennsley, W.; et al. (1969) Report on 

Additional Field Tests with Temik 10G Aldicarb Pesticide on the 

Potential Hazard to Bobwhite Quail. (Unpublished study received Aug 

20, 1970 under 0F1008; submitted by Union Carbide Corp., 

Washington, DC; CDL:091748-C) 

101961 Haines, R. (1970) Field Evaluation of Potential Hazard of Temik 10G 

Aldicarb Pesticide to Valley Quail and Ring-necked Pheasants: Trial I.

(Unpublished study received Aug 20, 1970 under 0F1008; submitted 

by Union Carbide Corp., Washington, DC; CDL:091748-D) 

101962 Haines, R. (1970) Field Evaluations of Potential Hazard of Temik 10G 

Aldicarb Pesticide to Valley Quail and Ring-necked Pheas- ants: Trial 

II. (Unpublished study received Aug 20, 1970 under 0F1008; submitted 

by Union Carbide Corp., Washington, DC; CDL:091748-E) 

102167 Union Carbide Corp. (1968) Temik 10G Insecticide: Field Evaluation of 

Potential Hazard to Bobwhite Quail. (Unpublished study re- ceived Dec 

5, 1968 under 1016-EX-30; CDL:131937-A) 

132989 Ashton, A.; Jackson, W. (1983) Letter sent to Union Carbide dated Nov 

18, 1983: Temik field trial (Michigan): Effects on wild- life|. 

(Unpublished study received Dec 13, 1983 under 264-330; prepared 

by Bowling Green State Univ., submitted by Union Carbide Agricultural 

Products Co., Inc., Research Triangle Park, NC; CDL:251947-A) 

144970 Jackson, W. (1984) Letter sent to T. DeWitt dated June 21, 1984: [A 

Field study to evaluate the hazard to birds in Corn Fields treated with 

Temik. 6 p. 

148685 Ross, D.; Roberts, N.; Eichler, A. (1977) Temik 10G--Gypsum Formulation (Blue): Wildlife Surveys following Application to Four Sugar Beet 

and Four Potato Fields: UNC 57/774581. Unpublished study prepared 

by Huntingdon Research Centre. 255 p. 

148691 Tait, F. (1972) Aldicarb: Wild Life Survey 1972. Unpublished study 
66 

prepared by Duphar-Midox Ltd. 28 p. 

148692 United Kingdom, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries & Food, Pest 

Infestation Control Laboratory (1974) A Study of the Effects of Aldicarb 

or Wildlife. Unpublished study. 65 p. 

148693 Brown, P.; Bunyan, P.; Stanley, P.; et al. (1975) Field Surveil- lance of 

the Possible Wildlife Hazards Associated with the Use of the 

Nematicide, Aldicarb: Chemistry Department Report No. 17. 

Unpublished study prepared by U.K. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries 

and Food, Pest Infestation Control Laboratory. 57 p. 

148696 Back, R. (1968) Temik 10G Granular Pesticide: Field Evaluation of 

Potential Hazard to Bobwhite Quail. Unpublished study prepared by 

Union Carbide Corp. 15 p. 

148697 Benjamini, L. (1981) The efficacy of seed treatment with aldicarb to 

establish conditioned aversion in birds to sprouting sugar beets. 

Phytoparasitica 9(1):3-9. 

148698 Benjamini, L. (1981) Testing aldicarb as a bird repellent in a sprouting 

sugar beet field. Phytoparasitica 9(2):89-94. 

148699 Clarkson, V.; Rowe, B. (1970) Temik Insecticide: Field Evaluations of 

the Toxic Hazard of Temik Formulations 10G, 10GV, 10GC and 

10GVB4 to Bobwhite Quail: Project No. 111B32: File No. 12676. 

Unpublished study prepared by Union Carbide Corp. 15 p. 

148700 or 

101962 or 

101961

Haines, R. (1970) Temik 10G Granular Pesticide: Field Evaluations of 

Potential Hazard of Temik 10G Aldicarb Pesticide to Valley Quail and 

Ring-necked Pheasants in Sugar Beet Plantings: Trial III. Unpublished 

study prepared by Union Carbide Corp. 8 p. 

148701 Haines, R. (1971) Continued Field Evaluations on the Potential Hazard of Temik 10G Aldicarb Pesticide to Valley Quail and Ring- necked 

Pheasants in a Cotton Planting. Unpublished study pre- pared by 

Union Carbide Corp. 7 p. 

148702 Haines, R. (1971) Continued Field Evaluations on the Potential Hazards of Temik 10G Aldicarb Pesticide to Bob White Quail in Cot- ton 

Plantings. Unpublished study prepared by Union Carbide Corp. 7 p. 

148705 Lund, R. (1970) Summary of Field Observations: Potential Hazard of 

Temik 10G Aldicarb Pesticide to Ring-necked Pheasant ... from 

Simulated Spills. Unpublished study prepared by State of New Jersey, 

Dept. of Conservation and Economic Development, Black River 

Wildlife Management Area. 2 p. 

148706 Medd, R.; Roberts, N. (1972) Palatability and Acceptability of Te- mik 

(Corn Cob and Coal Formulations) to the Pheasant and the Pi- geon: 

5419/72/815. Unpublished study prepared by Huntingdon Re- search 

Centre. 31 p. 

40607502 Fletcher, D. (1988) Application of Temik Brand 15G Aldicarb to Three 

Major Crops: A Terrestrial Verbebrate Field Study: BLAL Study No. 87 

FV 3. Unpublished study prepared by Bio-Life Associates, Ltd. 536 p. 

100230 Clarkson, V.A.; Haines, R.G.; Hennsley, W.H.; et al. (1969) Report on 

Additional Field Tests with Temik 10G Aldicarb Pesticide on the 
67 

Potential Hazard to Bobwhite Quail. (Unpublished study re- ceived Oct 

27, 1969 under 1016-EX-30; submitted by Union Carbide Corp., 

Arlington, Va.; CDL:126506-B) 

100409 Haines, R. (1970) Field Evaluations of Potential Hazard of Temik 10G 

Aldicarb Pesticide to Valley Quail and Ring-necked Pheas- ants: Trial 

Two. (Unpublished study received Jan 25, 1978 under 1016-79; 

submitted by Union Carbide Corp., Arlington, VA; CDL:096734-K) 

 72-1 Acute Toxicity to Freshwater Fish 

MRID Citation Reference 

60555 or 

92405

Borash, A.J. (1965) Test Report on Union Carbide Agricultural 

Products. (Unpublished study received Jun 1, 1965 under unknown 

admin. no.; submitted by Union Carbide Corp., Arlington, Va.; 

CDL:128692-G) 

60556 Cope, O.B. (1964) Letter sent to Robert G. Harris dated Oct 30, 1964 

Toxicity of various pesticides to rainbow trout and blue- gill sunfish|. 

(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fish-Pesticide Research Laboratory; 

unpublished study; CDL:128692-H) 

61089 Borash, A.J.; Bryant, H.M., Jr. (1965) Test Report on Union Carbide 

Agricultural Products. (Unpublished study received Jun 10, 1965 under 

1016-EX-18; submitted by Union Carbide Corp., Arlington, Va.; 

CDL:126458-K) 

76065 Knott, W.; Beliles, R.P. (1966) UC-21149: Acute Toxicity in Sunfish. 

(Unpublished study received Jul 26, 1966 under 1016-69; prepared by 

Woodard Research Corp., submitted by Union Carbide Corp., 

Arlington, Va.; CDL:231174-A) 

76066 Woodard Research Corporation (1965) UC-21149: Safety Evaluation 

on Fish and Wildlife: (Bobwhite Quail and Rainbow Trout). 

(Unpublished study received Jul 26, 1966 under 1016-69; submitted by 

Union Carbide Corp., Arlington, Va.; CDL:231174-B) 

76067 Beliles, R.P.; Knott, W.; Wright, L. (1966) UC-21149 10%: Summary of 

Safety Evaluation on Fish and Wildlife. Summary of studies 231174-A 

and 231174-B. (Unpublished study received Jul 26, 1966 under 1016-

69; prepared by Woodard Research Corp., submitted by Union 

Carbide Corp., Arlington, Va.; CDL:231174-D) 

80706 Beliles, R.P.; Knott, W.; Wright, L. (1966) UC-21149: Safety Evaluation 

on Fish and Wildlife: (Bobwhite Quail and Rainbow Trout). 

(Unpublished study received Mar 2, 1967 under 7F0573; prepared by 

Woodard Research Corp., submitted by Union Carbide Corp., 

Charleston, W.Va.; CDL:090072-O) 

80707 Knott, W.; Beliles, R.P. (1966) UC-21149: Acute Toxicity in Sun- fish. 

(Unpublished study received Mar 2, 1967 under 7F0573; prepared by 

Woodard Research Corp., submitted by Union Carbide Corp., 

Charleston, W.Va.; CDL:090072-P) 

81883 Union Carbide Corporation (1965) Toxicity to Fish and Wildlife. 

(Compilation; unpublished study received May 10, 1965 under 
68 

5G0452; CDL:090494-B) 

100296 Clarkson, V.A.; Hensley, W.H. (1968) Temik Insecticide: Toxicity of 

Temik, Temik Sulfoxide, and Temik Sulfone to Bluegill Sunfish: File 

No. 10493. (Unpublished study received Jan 25, 1978 under 1016-79; 

submitted by Union Carbide Corp., Arlington, Va.; CDL:096727-B) 

102133 Schneider, C. (1979) The Acute Toxicity of Aldicarb Technical to the 

Rainbow Trout (Salmo gairdneri Richardson): UCES Proj. No. 11504-

14-03. (Unpublished study received Dec 12, 1979 under 1016-78; 

submitted by Union Carbide Corp., Arlington, VA; CDL:099120-C) 

102134 Schneider, C. (1979) The Acute Toxicity of Aldicarb Technical to the 

Bluegill Sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus Rafinesque): UCES Proj. No. 

11504-14-04. (Unpublished study received Dec 12, 1979 under 1016-

78; submitted by Union Carbide Corp., Arlington, VA; CDL:099120-D) 

102145 Borash, A.; Bryant, H. (1965) Test Report on Union Carbide 

Agricultural Products: (Toxicity to Goldfish). (Unpublished study 

received Sep 9, 1965 under 1016-EX-24; CDL:126467-A) 

139863 or 

53353

Clarkson, V.A.; Hensley, W.H. (1968) Temik Insecticide: Toxicity of 

Temik, Temik Sulfoxide, and Temik Sulfone Bluegill Sunfish. Project 

No. 111B32. (Unpublished study received Jan 18, 1977 under 1016-

EX-37; submitted by Union Carbide Corp., Arlington, Va.; CDL:238153-

C) 

5010817 Coppage, D.L. (1977) Anticholinesterase action of pesticidal 

carbamates in the central nervous system of poisoned fishes. Pages 

93-102, In Physiological Responses of Marine Biota to Pollutants, 

Proceedings of a Symposium; Nov, 1975, Milford, Connecticut. Edited 

by F.J. Vernberg, A. Calabrese, F.P. Thurberg and W.B. Vernberg. 

New York: Academic Press. 

40098001 Mayer, F.; Ellersieck, M. (1986) Manual of Acute Toxicity: Interpretation and Data Base for 410 Chemicals and 66 Species of 

Freshwater Animals. US Fish & Wildlife Service, Resource Publication 160. 579 p. 

44598601 Pickering, Q.; Gilliam, W. (1982) Toxicity of aldicarb and fonofos to the 

early-life-stage of the fathead minnow. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 

11:699-702. 

45592113 Odin-Feurtet, M. (1999) Aldicarb: Acute Toxicity (96-Hour) to Bluegill 

Sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus) under Static Conditions: Lab Project 

Number: SA 99331. Unpublished study prepared by Rhone-Poulenc 

Agro. 74 p. 

45592115 Odin-Feurtet, M. (1998) Aldicarb Sulfoxide: Acute Toxicity (96 Hours) 

to Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) under Flow-Through 

Conditions: Lab Project Number: SA 98081. Unpublished study 

prepared by Rhone-Poulenc Agro. 65 p. PC Code 110802 

45592117 McElligott, A. (1998) Aldicarb Sulfone: Acute Toxicity (96 Hours) to 

Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) under Flow-Through 

Conditions: Lab Project Number: SA 98082. Unpublished study 

prepared by Rhone-Poulenc Agro. 64 p. Aldicarb Sulfone = PC Code 

118201 

72-2 Acute Toxicity to Freshwater Invertebrates 
69 

MRID Citation Reference 

107395 Vilkas, A. (1977) The Acute Toxicity of Aldicarb Technical to the Water 

Flea ...: UCES Proj. #11504-14-01. (Unpublished study received Dec 

19, 1977 under 1016-69; submitted by Union Carbide Corp., Arlington, 

VA; CDL:096683-A) 

45592114 

72-3 Acute Toxicity to Estuarine/Marine Organisms 

MRID Citation Reference 

66341 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory (1981) Acephate, Aldicarb, Carbophenothion, DEF, EPN, 

Ethoprop, Methyl Parathion, and Phorate: Their Acute and Chronic 

Toxicity, Bioconcentration Potential, and Persistence as Related to 

Marine Environments: EPA-600/4-81-023. (Unpublished study) 

102036 Heitmuller, T. (1972) Letter sent to S. Ichikawa dated Jan 7, 1972 

Toxicity of Temik to grass shrimp|. (U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Gulf Breeze Laboratory; unpublished study; CDL:096397-B) 

40228401 USEPA Gulbreeze Laboratory Study Reports- multiple species 

72-4 Fish Early Life Stage/Aquatic Invertebrate Life Cycle Study 

MRID Citation Reference 

66341 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory (1981) Acephate, Aldicarb, Carbophenothion, DEF, EPN, 

Ethoprop, Methyl Parathion, and Phorate: Their Acute and Chronic 

Toxicity, Bioconcentration Potential, and Persistence as Related to 

Marine Environments: EPA-600/4-81-023. (Unpublished study) 

44598601 Pickering, Q.; Gilliam, W. (1982) Toxicity of aldicarb and fonofos to the 

early-life-stage of the fathead minnow. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 

11:699-702. 

72-7 Simulated or Actual Field Testing 

MRID Citation Reference 

61078 Mulla, M.S. (1964) Letter sent to R.G. Haines dated Oct 20, 1964 

Information on toxicity of some compounds against mosquito fish|. 

(Unpublished study received Oct 20, 1964 under unknown admin. no.; 

prepared by Univ. of California--Riverside, Div. of Agricultural 

Sciences, Citrus Research Center and Agricultural Experiment Station, 

Dept. of Entomology, submitted by Union Car- bide Corp., Arlington, 

Va.; CDL:131936-A) 

141-1 Honey bee and Beneficial Insect Acute Toxicity 

117840 Johansen, C.; Eves, J. (1967) Bee Research Investigations, 1967. 
70 

(Unpublished study received Oct 13, 1969 under 0F0897; prepared by 

Washington State Univ., submitted by Fisons Corp., Wilmington, MA; 

CDL:091551-H) 

149696 Johansen, C.; Mayer, D.; Eves, J.; et al. (1983) Pesticides and bees. 

Environ. Entomology 12(5):1513-1518. 

91958 Ridgway, R.L.; Cowan, C.B. (1966) A Report on Laboratory and Field 

Studies on the Effect of Several Insecticides on Beneficial Arthropods 

in 1966:Mobay| 20268. (U.S. Agricultural Research Service, 

Entomology Research Div., Cotton Insects Systemic Chemicals 

Investigations and Southwestern Cotton Insects Investigations; 

unpublished study; CDL:120463-D) 

36935 Atkins, E.L.; Greywood, E.A.; Macdonald, R.L. (1975) Toxicity of 

Pesticides and Other Agricultural Chemicals to Honey Bees: Laboratory Studies. By University of California, Dept. of Entomology.: UC, 

Cooperative Extension. (Leaflet 2287; published study.) 

142-3 Simulated or Actual Field Testing 

MRID Citation Reference 

102104 Atkins, E.; Kellum, D.; Atkins, K. (1977) Repellent Additives to Reduce 

Pesticide Hazards to Honey Bees: Maximizing the Effectiveness of 

Bees as Pollinators of Agricultural Crops: Project No. 3565-RR (W139). Final rept. (Unpublished study received Jan 27, 1978 under 

10182-17; prepared by Univ. of California-- Riverside, Citrus Research 

Center and Agricultural Experiment Station, Dept. of Entomology, 

submitted by ICI Americas, Inc., Wilmington, DE; CDL:096765-N) 

Non Guideline Selections 

53386 Spurr, H.W., Jr.; Sousa, A.A. (1974) Potential interactions of Aldicarb 

and its metabolites on nontarget organisms in the envi- ronment. 

Journal of Environmental Quality 3(2):130-133. (Also In unpublished 

submission received jan 18, 1977 under 1016-EX- 37; submitted by 

Union Carbide Corp., Arlington, Va.; CDL: 228979-AA) 

93913 Westlake, G.E.; Bunyan, P.J.; Martin, A.D.; et al. (1981) Carbam- ate 

poisoning: Effects of selected carbamate pesticides on plasma 

enzymes and brain esterases of Japanese quail (Coturnix cotornix 

japonica). Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 29(4):779-784. 

(Also In unpublished submission received Jan 26, 1982 under 239-

2471; submitted by Chevron Chemical Co., Richmond, Calif.; 

CDL:246657-J) 

98468 Stauffer Chemical Company (1980) Comparison of Acute Oral Avian 

Toxicology between Dyfonate^(R)I 20-G Insecticide and Other Corn 

Granular Insecticides. (Unpublished study received Oct 24, 1980 under 

476-2028; CDL:243582-A) 

102197 Yu, C.; Kearns, C.; Metcalf, R. (1972) Acetylcholinesterase in- hibition 

by substituted phenyl N-alkyl carbamates. J. Agr. Fd. Chem. 

20(3):537-540. (Also In unpublished submission re- ceived Dec 11, 
71 

1979 under 264-322; submitted by Union Carbide Agricultural Products 

Co., Inc., Ambler, PA; CDL:241454-C) 

102198 Hastings, F.; Main, A.; Iverson, F. (1970) Carbamylation and affinity 

constants of some carbamate inhibitors of acetylcholinesterase and 

their relation to analogous substrate constants. J. Agr. Food Chem. 

18(3):497-502. (Also In unpublished submission received Dec 11, 1979 

under 264-322; submitted by Union Carbide Agricultural Products Co., 

Inc., Ambler, PA; CDL:241454-D) 

102199 Reiner, E. (1971) Spontaneous reactivation of phosphorylated and 

carbamylated cholinesterases. Bull Wld Hlth Org. 44:109-112. 

(Published study; CDL:241454-E) 

148686 Ross, D.; Roberts, N.; Cameron, D. (1978) A Comparison of the Palatability to the Ring-necked Pheasant of Three Formulations of Temik 

10 G with Other Granular Pesticides: UNC/69C/78938. Un- published 

study prepared by Huntingdon Research Centre. 23 p. 

148687 Ross, D.; Roberts, N.; Cameron, D. (1978) A Comparison of the Palatability to the Zebra Finch of Two Formulations of Temik: UNC 69 

G/78398. Unpublished study prepared by Huntingdon Research 

Centre. 16 p. 

148688 Ross, D.; Roberts, N.; Cameron, D. (1978) A Comparison of the Palatability to the Ring-necked Pheasant of Two Formulations of Te- mik: 

UNC 69 G/78399. Unpublished study prepared by Huntingdon 

Research Centre. 14 p. 

148689 Ross, D.; Roberts, N.; Cameron, D. (1979) The Effect of Granule Size 

on the Toxic Hazard to Passeriformes of Temik 10G: UNC 69B/ 78721. 

Unpublished study prepared by Huntingdon Research Cen- tre. 16 p. 

148690 Stickel, W. (1979) Letter sent to R. Back dated May 29, 1979: [Comments on "Report on palatability studies and trials regarding the acute 

toxicity of the plant protection products Temik 10 G and Temik 10 GGF 

(gypsum) with Japanese quails, chickens and sparrows"]. Prepared by 

the US Fish and Wildlife Service, Pa- tuxent Wildlife Research Center. 

3 p. 

148694 Spencer, D. (1985) A Review of the Research Conducted on the Toxicity and Potential Hazard of Granular Formulations of Aldicarb (Temik) 

to Bird Life. Unpublished study. 32 p. 

148708 Relton, J. (1970) Wild Life Survey: Temik 10G Aldicarb Pesticide on 

Sugar Beets: Suffolk, England, 1970. Unpublished study. 11 p. 

41255501 U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1989) Biological Opinion on Selected 

Pesticides. Unpublished study. 891 p. 

41377100 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1990) Submission of Biological Opinion 

Data for Selected Pesticides. Transmittal of 1 study. 

41377101 U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1989) Biological Opinion Log on 

Selected Pesticides. Unpublished study. 677 p. 

1982 Biological Opinion 

41708603 Hobson, J. (1990) Aldicarb: Response to the Review by the Ecologi- 
72 

cal Effects Branch of the 1987 Temik Terrestrial Vertebrate Field 

Study. Unpublished study prepared by Rhone-Poulenc Ag Co. 20 p. 

41708604 Kendall, R. (1990) Behavior, Survivability and Biochemical Response 

of Wild Mourning Doves (Zenaida macroura) Dosed with Aldicarb: 

Final Research Report Phase I: Lab Project Number: 08035. Unpublished study prepared by Clemson Univ., Institute of Wildlife and 

Environ. Toxicology. 29 p. 

42316001 Smith, K. (1992) Clinical Necropsy report on three red-tailed hawks 

found near Edgefield, South Carolina. Prepared by Univ. of Ga., 

College of Veterinary Med. 2 p. 

42316100 Univ. of Georgia (1992) Submission of an incident report involving 

Temik in the wildlife kill of a gray fox. Data submitted under FIFRA 

6(a)(2). Transmittal of 1 study. 

42316101 Smith, K. (1992) Clinical Necropsy Report on a Gray Fox Found near 

Edgefield, South Carolina. Unpublished study prepared by Univ. of 

Georgia, College of Veterinary Med. 2 p. 

42316200 Univ. of Georgia (1992) Submission of an incident report involving 

Temik in a wildlife kill of raccoons. Data submitted under FIFRA 

6(a)(2). Transmittal of 1 study. 

42316201 Smith, K. (1992) Clinical Necropsy Record on a Raccoon Found near 

Edgefield, South Carolina. Unpublished study prepared by Univ. of 

Ga., College of Veterinary Med. 2 p. 

42316500 Rhone-Poulenc Ag. Co. (1992) Submission of incident reports under 

FIFRA 6(a)(2) Status (Adverse effects and incident report) to support 

the reregistration of Temik (Aldicarb) pesticide. Transmittal of 1 study. 

42316501 Davis, W. (1992) Letter Sent to S. Haddad dated May 11, 1992: Death 

of dogs and cats in two separate incidents related to Temik (Aldicarb)|. 

2 p. 

46655401 Moore, D.; Thompson, R.; Purbrick, S. (2005) Problem Formulation for 

the Refined Aquatic Risk Assessment of Aldicarb. Project Number: 

201373, 88380. Unpublished study prepared by Cantox Environmental 

Inc. 31 p. 

46655402 Moore, D.; Purbrick, S.; Thompson, R. (2005) Problem Formulation for 

the Refined Wildlife Risk Assessment of Aldicarb. Project Number: 

201374, 88380. Unpublished study prepared by Cantox Environmental 

Inc. 37 p. 

46792601 Hall, L. (2006) Temik Brand 15G Aldicab Pesticide Crop and 

Geographical Usage Information (A Reference Provided for an 

Endangered Species Assessment of Aldicarb). Project Number: 

G201481. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer Cropscience LP. 76 

p. 

46796102 Moore, D.; Thompson, R.; Purbrick, S. (2006) Refined Aquatic Risk 

Assessment for Aldicarb. Project Number: 201482. Unpublished study 

prepared by Cantox Environmental Inc. 234 p. 

46796103 Moore, D.; Purbrick, S.; Teed, R.; et. al. (2006) Refined Wildlife Risk 

Assessment for Aldicarb. Project Number: 201483, 88390. 
73 

Unpublished study prepared by Cantox Environmental Inc. 493 p. 

46873101 Best, L.; Brewer, L.; Klaine, S.; et. al. (2006) Refined Ecological Risk 

Assessment for Aldicarb Expert Peer Review Panel Process and 

Comments. Project Number: EPR/32306. Unpublished study prepared 

by Bayer CropScience LP. 10 p. 

47124601 Fisher, D.; Ramanarayanan, T.; Moore, D.; et al. (2007) Effects 

Determination for California Red-Legged Frog Potentially Exposed to 

Aldicarb. Project Number: 88380, 201692. Unpublished study prepared 

by Cantox Environmental, Inc. 138 p. 

47164600 Croplife America (2007) Submission of Environmental Fate and 

Exposure and Risk Data in Support of the Preservation of the 

California Red Legged Frog. Transmittal of 2 Studies. 

47164601 Moore, D.; Breton, R.; Rodney, S.; et al. (2007) Generic Problem 

Formulation for California Red-Legged Frog. Project Number: 89320, 

05232007. Unpublished study prepared by Cantox Environmental Inc. 

87 p. 

47164602 Holmes, C.; Vamshi, R. (2007) Data and Methodology Used for Spatial 

Analysis of California Red Legged Frog Observations and Proximate 

Land Cover Characteristics. Project Number: 3152007, WEI/252/03. 

Unpublished study prepared by Waterborne Environmental, Inc. (WEI). 

19 p. 

101909 Union Carbide Corp. (1969) Temik Aldicarb Pesticide: The Potential 

Hazard from Ingestion of Treated Plant Tissue. (Unpublished study 

received Nov 5, 1969 under 1016-69; CDL:024310-F) 

102199 Reiner, E. (1971) Spontaneous reactivation of phosphorylated and 

carbamylated cholinesterases. Bull Wld Hlth Org. 44:109-112.

(Published study; CDL:241454-E) 

42243301 W. Davis (1992) Letter Sent to S. Haddad dated February 19, 1992: 

Concerning deaths of an ocelot, two oppossums, and four raccoons at 

Atascosa Wildlife Refuge in Rio Hondo, Texas|. Prepared by RhonePoulenc Ag. Co. 1 p. 

53383 or 

102053 or 

104568

Romine, R.R.; Meeker, R.L. (1973) Accumulation of Aldicarb Residues 

in Fish Tissue from Chronic Exposure to Aldicarb, Aldicarb sulfoxide 

and Aldicarb sulfone in Aquaria Water: Project No. 111A13. 

(Unpublished study received Jan 18, 1977 under 1016-EX-37; 

submitted by Union Carbide Corp., Arlington, Va.; CDL:228979-X) 
74 

Appendix A. Ecological Effects Data 

Toxicity testing reported in this section does not represent all species of birds, mammals, or 

aquatic organisms. Only a few surrogate species for both freshwater fish and birds are used to 

represent all freshwater fish (2000+) and bird (680+) species in the United States. Mammalian 

acute studies are usually limited to Norway or New Zealand rat or the house mouse. 

Estuarine/marine testing is usually limited to a crustacean, a mollusk, and a fish. Also, neither 

reptiles nor amphibians are tested. The risk assessment assumes that avian and reptilian toxicities 

are similar. The same assumption is used for fish and amphibians in the aquatic environment. 

The following information was taken from previous assessments and updated if recent studies 

were submitted. 

Toxicity to Terrestrial Animals 

Birds, Acute and Subacute 

The acute oral LD50 is 1.0 mg/kg-bw for aldicarb, and 33.5 mg/kg-bw for aldicarb sulfone. The 

most sensitive species tested for both aldicarb and aldicarb sulfone is the mallard duck. Aldicarb 

and aldicarb sulfone are categorized as very highly toxic and highly toxic to avian species on an 

acute oral basis, respectively (MRID 107398). Supplemental open literature suggests acute oral 

LD50s of 0.75 mg/kg-bw aldicarb for passerine species (MRID 148695). 

The most sensitive species tested on a subacute 5-d dietary basis for both aldicarb and aldicarb 

sulfone is the bobwhite quail. The 5-d LC50 is 71 ppm for aldicarb, and 5706 ppm for aldicarb 

sulfone (or sulfocarb). Aldicarb and aldicarb sulfone are categorized as very highly toxic and 

practically nontoxic to avian species, respectively (MRID 00102132 & 1096727). 

Birds, Chronic 

The avian reproduction studies submitted by the registrant were both classified as supplemental 

(MRIDs 48156905 & 48198801). 

MRID 48156905 is a one-generation reproductive toxicity study involving dietary exposures of 

Northern bobwhite quail (Colinus virginianus) to aldicarb. Aldicarb was administered to the 

birds in the diet at nominal concentrations of 0 (vehicle control), 2, 10, and 50 mg ai/kg diet 

(corrected for purity). Mean-measured concentrations were <0.2 (<LOQ, control), 1.8, 8.3, and 

43 mg ai/kg diet, respectively. This study is scientifically sound but classified supplemental 

because of small cage sizes and because the test was unable to detect up to 25% difference in 

treatment animal endpoints compared to controls. This study may not be used to fulfill the 

guideline requirement. Although none of the endpoints in the treated groups displayed 

statistically significant differences compared to controls, several of the endpoints had 10-25% 

difference in the two highest treatments. These endpoints include: number of eggs laid/pen, 

number of eggs set/pen, number of viable embryos/pen, number of live embryos/pen, number of 

hatchlings/pen, hatchling survival/pen. In addition, adult body weight gain was also decreased in 

these treatments. The reviewer concluded that these differences may be biologically significant. 

Therefore, the NOAEC of this study is set to the lowest test concentration (i.e., 1.8 mg a.i./kgdiet) and the LOAEC is 8.3 mg a.i./kg-diet. 
75 

MRID 48198801 is a one-generation reproductive toxicity study involving dietary exposures of 

mallard duck (Anas platyrhynchos) to aldicarb. Aldicarb was administered to the birds in the diet 

at nominal concentrations of 0 (vehicle control), 3, 15, and 75 mg ai/kg diet (corrected for 

purity). Mean-measured concentrations were <1.0 (<LOQ, control), 3, 15, and 72 mg ai/kg diet, 

respectively. There were slight, but statistically-significant (p<0.05) effects on several endpoints 

at the 15 mg ai/kg diet level; however, these effects were not observed at the next highest level 

(i.e., 72 mg a.i./kg diet). At the 15 mg a.i./kg diet level, there was a significant (p=0.016) 

increase in the number of eggs cracked, with an average of 0.25 eggs cracked per pen in the 

control versus 1.31 eggs per pen in the 15 mg ai/kg diet group. No other treatment level 

exhibited a higher incident of cracked eggs, but the 15 mg ai/kg diet level continued to exhibit 

reductions in the number of eggs set to eggs laid (p=0.010; 3.5% reduction from control), ratio of 

14-day survivors to number hatched (p=0.04; 0.6% reduction), and hatchling weights (p=0.004; 

5.8% reduction). No other treatment-related effects were observed at any concentration level for 

any adult, reproductive, or offspring parameter. Despite the observation of statistically 

significant effects at the 15 mg ai/kg level, the reviewer concluded that these effects were not 

related to the test substance because similar effects were not observed at the next highest 

treatment level (i.e., 72 mg a.i./kg diet), which was a factor of 5 greater than the level were 

effects were observed. This study is scientifically sound; however, it does not satisfy the 

guideline requirement for a mallard duck (Anas platyrhynchos) reproductive toxicity study. This 

study is classified supplemental because a LOAEC was not established in the study and the study 

report does not indicate the maximum field residue that would be expected based on application 

rates of aldicarb. Therefore, it is unknown if the highest level tested was an appropriate level to 

approximate the maximum expected field residues. 

Mammals, Acute 

Rat toxicity values obtained from the Agency's Health Effects Division (HED) substitute for wild 

mammal testing. Aldicarb is categorized as very highly toxic to small mammals on an acute oral 

basis with a rat LD50 of 0.9 mg/kg-bw (MRID 00057333). 

Mammals, Chronic 

In a 2-generation reproduction study reviewed by HED (MRID 42148401), rats were exposed to 

aldicarb in their diet at concentrations of 0, 2, 5, 10, and 20 ppm. Exposure consistently led to 

decreased dam body weight gain (parental LOAEL = 0.7 - 0.9 mg/kg-bw; NOAEL = 0.4 mg/kgbw). Aldicarb treatment also caused lower survivability and pup weights in offspring of all litters 

(reproductive LOAEL = 1.4 - 1.7 mg/kg-bw; NOAEL = 0.7 - 0.9 mg/kg-bw). These toxicity 

values are similar to the acute oral LD50 mammalian values and suggest that mammals that 

survive acute aldicarb exposure may suffer adverse reproductive effects from chronic exposure. 

Beneficial Insects 

A honey bee acute contact study using the TGAI is not required for aldicarb due to its granular 

formulation. However, aldicarb is categorized highly toxic to bees on an acute contact basis with 

an LD50 of 0.285 ug/bee (MRID 00036935). It is recognized that potential honey bee exposure 

may occur due to the systemic nature of aldicarb. Because of its granular formulation, it is 
76 

unlikely that there is a direct contact exposure scenario for honey bees; however, these and other 

beneficial insects could be exposed to aldicarb and aldicarb residues through contact with plants 

and soil. 

Earthworms 

Soil-dwelling invertebrates, such as earthworms, can play important roles in maintaining soil 

fertility and facilitating organic matter degradation, as well as an important food source for birds 

and mammals. A study by Mosleh et al (2003) demonstrated an earthworm (Aporrectodea 

caliginosa) 28-day LC50 of 0.68 ppm. 

Toxicity to Terrestrial Plants 

Terrestrial plant testing is required for pesticides other than herbicides if data from the literature 

indicate that a pesticide is phytotoxic. A tier I seedling emergence study (MRID 4704401) is 

classified supplemental and cannot be used to fulfill the guideline requirement for 850.4100. A 

Tier II seedling emergence study was submitted for ryegrass and tomato (MRID 49477401). No 

effects to Ryegrass of Tomato resulted in the Tier II study using granular TEMIK 15G. 

Summary of review of MRID 47904401 

The effect of Temik 15 G (AI: Aldicarb) on the seedling emergence of monocot (corn, Zea mays; 

oat, Avena sativa; onion, Allium cepa; and ryegrass, Lolium perenne) and dicot (cucumber, 

Cucumis sativus; oilseed rape, Brassica napus; sugarbeet, Beta vulgaris; soybean, Glycine max; 

sunflower, Helianthus annuus; and tomato, Lycopersicon esculentum) crops was studied at 

nominal concentrations of 0 (negative control) and 75 kg product/ha, which is equivalent to 11.5 

kg ai/ha (10.3 lb ai/A). The growth medium used in the seedling emergence test was a mixture of 

natural soil (silt loam) and washed sand; pH 7.24, organic carbon 0.63%. On day 21, the 

surviving plants per pot were recorded and cut at soil level for measuring the plant height and 

dry weight. 

The most sensitive monocot species was ryegrass, with a 12 and 44% difference in shoot length 

and weight, respectively, compared to the control. The most sensitive dicot species was tomato, 

with a 28 and 25% difference in shoot length and weight, respectively, compared to the control. 

Phytotoxic effects, including stunting and necrosis, were observed in ryegrass and tomatoes. 

Based on the observance of >25% effects in ryegrass and tomato, a tier II study consistent with 

OCSPP guideline 850.4225 and using these two species is necessary to fulfill the guideline 

requirement for 850.4100. The Tier I studies with ryegrass and tomato are considered 

supplemental. The data from the Tier I studies with corn, oat, onion, cucumber, oilseed rape, 

soybean, sugarbeet and sunflower are all considered acceptable. Overall, this toxicity study is 

classified supplemental and does not satisfy the guideline requirement for a seedling emergence 

toxicity study because >25% effects were observed in two species (i.e., ryegrass and tomato) and 

tier II studies have not been submitted for those species. 
77 

Toxicity to Freshwater Animals

Freshwater Fish, Acute 

Aldicarb

Since the 96-h LC50 values ranged from 52 to 110 ppb ai, aldicarb is categorized as very highly 

toxic to highly toxic to freshwater fish on an acute basis. The most sensitive of these results was 

the 52 ppb ai for the bluegill sunfish (Mayer and Ellersieck 1986) conducted under static 

conditions. A supplemental acute toxicity test conducted under static conditions reported a 96-h 

LC50 for aldicarb of 110 ppb ai for juvenile bluegill sunfish. Because of the static conditions, it is 

likely this value reflects contribution of parent aldicarb and its degradates. The bluegill sunfish 

96-h LC50 of 52 ppb ai was chosen to calculate acute risk quotients from exposure to aldicarb 

because it is the most sensitive endpoint of the 96-h LC50 values. There was an acute value for 

fathead minnow exposed to aldicarb found in the public literature but it was only for a 48 hour 

study, therefore it is likely an underestimate of aldicarb toxicity to this species at 96 hours and is 

therefore classified as supplemental information. 

Acute Toxicity Endpoints for Freshwater Fish 

Species Endpoint (ppb ai) MRID/Reference

Aldicarb

Bluegill sunfish 96-h LC50 = 52 ppb ai MRID 40098001and MRID3503 

(Mayer and Ellersieck 1986) 

Rainbow trout 96-h LC50 = 560 ppb ai MRID 40098001and MRID 

3503 (Mayer and Ellersieck

Fathead minnow 48-hr LC50 = 8,860 ppb ai Moore. et al. 1998 

(Supplemental information as 

this is only a 48-h study) 

Aldicarb sulfoxide

Rainbow trout 96-h LC50 = 7,140 ppb ai MRID 45592115 

Aldicarb sulfone

Rainbow trout 96-h LC50 = 42,000 ppb ai Acc# 096727 (Anonymous 

1976) 

Rainbow trout 96-h LC50 > 106,000 ppb ai MRID 45592117

Aldicarb sulfoxide

A flow through acute toxicity test using the degradate aldicarb sulfoxide was conducted on 

rainbow trout. A 96-h LC50 of 7,140 ppb was reported which is classified as moderately toxic 

(MRID 45592115). 
78 

Aldicarb sulfone

An acute toxicity test conducted on rainbow trout using the degradate aldicarb sulfone had a 96-h 

LC50 of 42,000 ppb ai. This is characterized as slightly toxic [Acc# 096727 (Anonymous 1976)]. 

A flow through acute toxicity test using aldicarb sulfone had a 96-h LC50 greater than 106,000 

ppb ai for rainbow trout, which is characterized as practically non toxic (MRID 45592117). 

Based on the acute toxicity studies for freshwater fish, the relative toxicity relationship is: 

aldicarb>aldicarb sulfoxide> aldicarb sulfone.

Freshwater Fish, Chronic 

Aldicarb

A freshwater fish early life-stage test using aldicarb (99% ai) has been conducted with the 

fathead minnow. The NOAEC was 78 ppb ai and the LOAEC was 156 ppb ai. The most 

sensitive endpoint was the survival of larvae-juveniles after 30-days exposure (MRID 44598601 

also known as BOWOAL07/4 (Q.H. Pickering and W.T. Gilliam 1982)). However, according to 

the acute freshwater fish data the bluegill sunfish was the most sensitive freshwater fish tested 

with a 96-h LC50 of 52 ppb ai. This 96-h LC50 of 52 ppb ai is lower than the NOAEC of 78 ppb 

ai for the fathead minnow, indicating that the bluegill is much more sensitive to aldicarb than the 

fathead minnow. Therefore, a screening level chronic RQ for fish cannot be calculated using the 

fathead minnow chronic NOAEC directly. However since both a supplemental acute (48-h 

LC50= 8,860 ppb ai; Moore. et al. 1998) and acceptable chronic (NOAEC = 78 ppb ai) aldicarb 

value exist for fathead minnow, an acute-to-chronic ratio (ACR) can be calculated for this 

species and then used to determine an estimated NOAEC for the bluegill sunfish. 

The ACR for the fathead minnow of 114 is calculated by dividing the fathead minnow 48-hr 

EC50 of 8,860 ppb ai by the fathead chronic NOAEC of 78 ppb ai. The 96-h LC50 of 52 ppb ai for 

the bluegill sunfish is then divided by the ACR of 114 which results in an estimate of the chronic 

NOAEC for the bluegill sunfish of 0.46 ppb ai. A 48-h LC50 value was used to calculate the ACR 

rather than a 96-h LC50 because none was available, this potentially over estimates the ACR for 

fathead minnow. Additionally, a robust estimate of an ACR (i.e., geometric mean of ACRs for at 

least three fish species with at least one coldwater and one warmwater species) for aldicarb could 

not be calculated because only one fish species, the fathead minnow, had both acute and chronic 

endpoints available for determination of an ACR. While a more robust estimate of the ACR is 

desirable, the use of the fathead minnow ACR is a reasonable estimate but may be either a slight 

over or underestimate of ACR for fish. 

Chronic Toxicity Endpoints for Freshwater Fish 

Species Endpoint MRID/Reference

Aldicarb

Fathead minnow fish early life stage NOAEC 

= 78 ppb ai

MRID 44598601 also known as 

BOWOAL07/4 (Q.H. Pickering and W.T. 

Gilliam 1982) 
79 

Bluegill sunfish Estimated NOAEC = 0.46 

ppb ai

96-h LC50 for bluegill sunfish (52 ppb ai) 

divided by ACR (fathead minnow 48-h 

EC50 of 8860 ppb ai divided by NOAEC 

of 78 ppb ai) 

Freshwater Invertebrates, Acute 

Aldicarb

A Daphnia magna core study determined the 48-h EC50 to be 410 ppb ai (Acc #096683, also 

known as BOWOAL08 and MRID 107395 (Vilkas 1977), categorizing aldicarb as highly toxic 

to aquatic freshwater invertebrates on an acute basis. Because this test was conducted under 

static rather than flow-through conditions, it is likely that this value reflects the contributions of a 

mixture of parent aldicarb and various degradates. A supplemental study from the literature 

reported the 48-h LC50 of aldicarb to Daphnia magna, Aedes aegypti, Atermia sp., and Aedes 

taeniorhynchus as 75, 290, 5460, and 150 ppb ai respectively, in 48 hour static tests (Song et al., 

1997). A supplemental study from open literature also concluded that aldicarb was very-highly 

toxic to Daphnia magna with a reported 48-h EC50 of 583 ppb (Moore. et al. 1998). This same 

study reported a 48-h EC50 of 3990 ppb for Hyalella azteca (categorized as moderately toxic) 

and a reported 48-h EC50 of 20 ppb for Chironomus tentans. A supplemental study obtained from 

open literature (Foran et al. 1985) determined the 48-h EC50 of juvenile Daphnia laevis to be 65 

ppb and 51 ppb for adult Daphnia laevis categorizing aldicarb as very highly toxic. 

Because Moore et al. (1998) is classified as a supplemental study of high quality, the 48-h 

Chironomus tentans EC50 value of 20 ppb will be used in the risk characterization. 

Aldicarb sulfoxide

Foran et al. 1985 also found that aldicarb sulfoxide is also very highly toxic to Daphnia laevis, 

with a 48-h EC50 of 57 ppb for juveniles and 43 ppb for adults. Thus, aldicarb sulfoxide toxicity 

to freshwater invertebrates appears to be similar in toxicity to aldicarb. A supplemental static 

acute toxicity test was performed using the degradate aldicarb sulfoxide with the test species 

Daphnia magna. The 48-h EC50 was 696 ppb, which is classified as highly toxic to daphnids 

(MRID 45592114). 

Aldicarb sulfone

Based on a core study, the 48-h EC50 for aldicarb sulfone is 280 ppb for Daphnia magna which 

is categorized as highly toxic to freshwater invertebrates on an acute basis [Acc# 096727 

(Anonymous 1976) ]. Foran et al. (1985) also found that the toxicity of aldicarb sulfone to 

daphnids is in the highly toxic category (juvenile 48-h EC50=556 ppb and adult 48-h EC50=369 

ppb). 

Based on the acute toxicity studies for freshwater invertebrates, the relative toxicity relationship 

is: aldicarb |aldicarb sulfoxide > aldicarb sulfone. 
80 

Acute Toxicity Endpoints for Freshwater Invertebrates 

Species Endpoint MRID/Reference

Aldicarb

Daphnia magna 48-h EC50 = 410 ppb Acc #096683, also known as 

BOWOAL08 and MRID 

107395 (Vilkas 1977), 

Daphnia magna 48-hr LC50 = 75 ppb Song et al., 1997 

Aedes aegypti 48-hr LC50 = 290 ppb Song et al., 1997 

Atermia sp. 48-hr LC50 = 5460 ppb Song et al., 1997 

Aedes taeniorhynchus 48-hr LC50 = 150 ppb Song et al., 1997 

Daphnia magna 48-hr EC50 = 583 ppb Moore. et al. 1998 

Hyalella azteca 48-hour EC50 = 3990 ppb Moore. et al. 1998 

Chironomus tentans 48-hour EC50 = 20 ppb Moore. et al. 1998 

Daphnia laevis (juvenile) 48 hr EC50 =65 ppb Foran et al. 1985 

Daphnia laevis (adult) 48 hr EC50 = 51 ppb Foran et al. 1985 

Aldicarb sulfoxide

Daphnia magna 48-h EC50 = 696 ppb MRID 45592114 

Daphnia laevis (adult) 48 hr EC50 = 43 ppb Foran et al. 1985 

Daphnia laevis (juvenile) 48 hr EC50 =57 ppb Foran et al. 1985 

Aldicarb sulfone

Daphnia magna 48-h EC50 = 280 ppb Acc# 096727 (Anonymous 

1976) 

Daphnia laevis (adult) 48-h EC50=369 ppb Foran et al. (1985) 

Daphnia laevis (juvenile) 48-h EC50=556 ppb Foran et al. (1985) 

Qualitative Studies

Midge, Chironomus riparius Symptoms of intoxication Kallander et al. 1997 

Midge, Chironomus riparius 24-hr LC50 (water only) = 9.9 

ppb

24-hr LC50 (spiked water) = 

10.0 ppb, 

24-hr LC50 (spiked sediment) 

= 26.7 ppb 

Lydy et al. 1990

Gammarus italicus Goedm. 96-hr LC50 = 420 ppb Pantani et al. 1997 
81 

Species Endpoint MRID/Reference

Echinogammarus tibaldii 

Pink. 

96-hr LC50 = 220 ppb Pantani et al. 1997

Midge Chironomus riparius 24 hr EC50 value = 23 ppb Sturm and Hansen 1999 

Daphnid Daphnia magna 24 hr EC50 value = 227.6 ppb Sturm and Hansen 1999 

Aedes taeniorhynchus 48-hr LC50 = 150 ppb 

(hyperosmotic condition) 

72-hr LC50=200 ppb 

(isosmotic conditions) 

Song and Brown 1998

Artemia sp. 48-hr LC50 = 5460 ppb 

(hyperosmotic)

72-hr LC50=17250 ppb 

(isosmotic conditions) 

Song and Brown 1998

Pond snail Lymnaea 

acuminata

48-hr LC50 = 20000 ppb Singh and Agarwal 1981 

Apple snail Pila globosa 

Swainson 

48-hour LC50 value could not 

be determined 

Singh and Agarwal 1981

Midge Chironomus riparius None Fisher et al. 1993 

Midge Chironomus riparius 24-hour LC50 values ranged 

from 17-28 ppb at pH 4-8 

Suorsa and Fisher 1986 

Aldicarb sulfoxide

Daphnia magna EC50 = 696 ppb MRID 45592114 

Daphnia laevis (adult) 48 hr EC50 = 43 ppb Foran et al. 1985 

Daphnia laevis (juvenile) 48 hr EC50 =57 ppb Foran et al. 1985 

Aldicarb sulfone

Daphnia magna EC50 = 280 ppb Acc# 096727 (Anonymous 

1976) 

Daphnia laevis (adult) EC50=369 ppb Foran et al. (1985) 

Daphnia laevis (juvenile) EC50=556 ppb Foran et al. (1985) 

Freshwater Invertebrate Qualitative Studies 

Using the database ECOTOX to identify additional data from the open literature, several 

supplemental studies were identified that can be used qualitatively to discuss the effects of 

aldicarb on freshwater invertebrates. These studies were not appropriate for quantitative use in 

calculation of risk quotients. 
82 

A one day test identified aldicarb as very highly toxic to the midge and daphnid on an acute 

toxicity basis under static conditions. The 24-h EC50 value was reported to be 23 ppb a.i. for the 

midge and 227.6 ppb a.i. for the daphnid (Sturm and Hansen 1999). 

Several studies examined the effects of aldicarb to freshwater invertebrates and the effects of 

pulse dosing, pH, and different modes of exposure. In a pulsed exposure test, Kallander et al. 

(1996) studied midges (Chironomus riparus) exposed to aldicarb under static conditions. Midges 

exposed to aldicarb for two, pulsed 1-hour periods with a recovery period in clean water for 6 or 

more hours showed significantly fewer symptoms of intoxication than those exposed 

continuously for 2 hours. This indicates that continuous exposure to aldicarb from runoff events 

with no recovery time would exacerbate the symptoms of intoxication for freshwater 

invertebrates. 

The 24 hour acute toxicity of aldicarb to Chironomus riparus was studied under static conditions 

at pH 4, 6, and 8 (Suorsa and Fisher 1986). The 24-h LC50 values ranged from 17-28 ppb for 

aldicarb at pH 4-8. Toxicity of aldicarb to midges did not differ significantly as a function of 

pH. 

A 24 hour static study by Lydy et al (1990) evaluated three modes of exposure of aldicarb to 

Chironomus riparius: treated water only with no sediment (water only); treated water with 

untreated sediment (spiked water); and treated sediment with untreated water (spiked sediment). 

The reported 24-h LC50 for the water only, spiked water, and spiked sediment treatments were 

9.9, 10.0 and 26.7 ppb respectively, which classifies aldicarb as very highly toxic to C. riparius 

on an acute toxicity basis for all three routes of exposure. In addition, these tests indicate that the 

water exposure pathways produce more sensitive endpoints than sediment exposure. This affirms 

the use of acute aquatic toxicity tests using aldicarb for freshwater invertebrates to be the most 

sensitive route of exposure. 

Fisher et al. 1993 studied the toxicity of aldicarb to the midge with and without sediment. Five 

molecular descriptors (molecular volume, Henry’s law constant, n-octanol/water partition 

coefficient, molecular connectivity, and linear solvation energy) were used in regression analysis 

as potential predictors of pesticide activity. Quantitative structure activity relationships indicate 

sediment sorption plays a large role in the ultimate toxicity of aldicarb to the midge. 

Several studies were identified that deal with species not normally tested in registrant submitted 

studies. These studies classified aldicarb in a range of slightly toxic to highly toxic. The 96-hr 

acute toxicity of aldicarb to Gammarus italicus Goedm and Echinogammarus tibaldii Pink was 

studied under static conditions (Pantani et al. 1997). The 96-h LC50 value was determined to be 

420 ppb a.i. and 220 ppb a.i., respectively, which categorizes aldicarb as highly toxic on an acute 

toxicity basis. 

The 240-hr acute toxicity of aldicarb to the pond snail Lymnaea acuminata and the apple snail 

Pila globosa Swainson was studied under static conditions (Singh and Agarwal 1981). Paralysis 

was observed in the test organisms within 24 hours of exposure even though the animals 

remained alive for varying lengths of time; no mortality was observed in the control group. The 

48-h LC50 value was 20000 ppb a.i., which categorizes aldicarb as slightly toxic to L. acuminata

on an acute toxicity basis. The 48-h LC50 value could not be determined for the apple snail 

within the range of doses tested. The LC50 values from 72 hours to 240 hours ranged from 
83 

210000-78000 ppb, which categorizes aldicarb as practically non-toxic to slightly toxic to P. 

globosa on an acute to subchronic toxicity basis. 

The 48-h hyperosmotic and 72-hour isosmotic acute toxicities of aldicarb to the mosquito Aedes 

taeniorhynchus and brine shrimp Artemia sp. were studied under static conditions (Song and 

Brown 1997). Mosquito and nauplii larvae were exposed to the test material at two different 

salinities, hyperosmotic and isosmotic. Under hyperosmotic conditions, the reported Aedes 48-

hour LC50 was 150 ppb a.i and the Artemia 48-hour LC50 was 5460 ppb a.i. Aldicarb is thus, 

classified as highly toxic to Aedes and moderately toxic to Artemia sp. Under isosmotic 

conditions, the reported 72-hour LC50 was 200 ppb a.i. for Aedes (highly toxic) and the 72-hour 

LC50 was 17250 ppb a.i. for Artemia (slightly toxic).

Freshwater Invertebrate, Chronic 

Aldicarb

The chronic risk to freshwater invertebrates is based on the estuarine/marine chronic study using 

Mysidopsis bahia. The reason for using this endpoint is based on the memorandum dated 

December 14, 1993, from A. Maciorowski, EFED to P. Poli, SRRD (D196663): “EEB has 

previously received and reviewed a valid Mysid shrimp chronic toxicity study that resulted in a 

calculated MATC of 1-1.5 ppb. Since the acute data indicates that the Mysid shrimp is more 

sensitive to aldicarb than Daphnia magna (Mysid shrimp LC50 = 16 ppb, Daphnia magna LC50 = 

410.7 ppb) and EEB does have valid Mysid shrimp chronic toxicity data, EEB is willing to waive 

the requirement for the Guideline 72-4(b) Freshwater Invertebrate Life Cycle Study. However, as 

a result all aquatic risk assessments utilizing invertebrate chronic toxicity data will be based on 

the Mysid shrimp data.” The mysid shrimp NOAEC is 1.0 ppb. 

A supplemental chronic toxicity study was submitted that evaluated the effect of aldicarb (99.9% 

a.i.) on Daphnia magna. An EC50 of 90 ppb, NOAEC of 20 ppb, and LOAEC of 60 ppb were 

reported for mortality and immobilization. An EC50 with a range of 190 to 570 ppb, NOAEC of 

190 ppb and LOAEC greater than 190 ppb were reported for reproductive effects. The most 

sensitive endpoint was reproductive effects (MRID 45592112). This study is classified as 

supplemental and is not upgradeable to core due to the study’s deviations. 

Chronic Toxicity Endpoints for Freshwater Invertebrates 

Species Endpoint MRID/Reference

Aldicarb

Daphnia magna NOAEC = 20 ppb MRID 45592112 
84 

Toxicity to Estuarine and Marine Animals

Estuarine and Marine Fish, Acute 

Aldicarb

Based on results from the preferred test species, sheepshead minnow, 96-h LC50 values range 

from 41 to 170 ppb. Therefore, aldicarb is categorized very highly to highly toxic to 

estuarine/marine fish on an acute basis. The most sensitive estuarine/marine fish species tested 

was the sheepshead minnow with a 96-h LC50 of 41 ppb [MRID 40228401 (U.S. EPA 1986)]. A 

supplemental study obtained from open literature (Landau and Tucker 1984) found a similar 

magnitude value for a snook (Centropomus undecimalis) embryo/larva bioassays with a 36-hr 

LC50 of 40 ppb. After 96-hr of exposure the snook may have a lower LC50; therefore, the snook 

may be more sensitive than the sheepshead minnow.

Acute Toxicity Endpoints for Estuarine and Marine Fish 

Species Endpoint MRID/Reference

Aldicarb

Sheepshead minnow 96-h LC50 = 41 ppb MRID 40228401 (U.S. EPA 

1986) 

Snook (Centropomus 

undecimalis)

36-h LC50 = 40 ppb Landau and Tucker 1984

Sheepshead minnow 

(Cyprinodin variegates)

96-h LC50 = 170 ppb MRID 40228401 (U.S. EPA 

1986) 

Estuarine and Marine Fish, Chronic 

Aldicarb

A chronic estuarine/marine fish early life-stage test using aldicarb (99% ai) has been conducted 

with the sheepshead minnow. The NOAEC was 50 ppb and the LOAEC was 88 ppb. The most 

sensitive endpoint was growth based on the mean standard length [MRID 00066341 (U.S. EPA 

1981b)]. The lowest chronic endpoint value available for sheepshead minnow is higher than the 

lowest acute endpoint value for sheepshead minnow. Therefore, it not appropriate to screen for 

chronic risks to estuarine/marine fish with this value. However, since there is an ACR of 114 

available for fish (freshwater fathead minnow ACR, see the Freshwater Fish, Chronic Aldicarb 

section above) this value was used to estimate a chronic NOAEC using the acute 96-h LC50 for 

sheepshead minnow from MRID 40228401. 

The estimated chronic NOAEC for the sheepshead minnow is 0.36 ppb and is calculated by 

dividing the 96-h LC50 of 41 ppb for the sheepshead minnow by the ACR for fathead minnow of 

114. As discussed in the Freshwater Fish, Chronic Aldicarb section above a 48-h LC50 value was 

used to calculate the ACR rather than a 96-h LC50 because none was available, this potentially 

over estimates the ACR for fathead minnow. Additionally, a robust estimate of an ACR (i.e., 
85 

geometric mean of ACRs for at least three fish species with at least one coldwater, one 

warmwater and one saltwater species) for aldicarb could not be calculated because only one fish 

species, the fathead minnow, had both acute and chronic acceptable endpoints available for 

determination of an ACR. While a more robust estimate of the ACR is desirable, the use of the 

fathead minnow ACR is a reasonable estimate but may be either a slight over or underestimate of 

ACR for fish. 

Chronic Toxicity Endpoints for Estuarine and Marine Fish 

Species Endpoint (NOAEC) MRID/Reference 

Aldicarb

Sheepshead minnow Early life stage NOAEC = 50 

ppb 

MRID 00066341 (U.S. EPA 

1981b)

Sheepshead minnow Estimated NOAEC = 0.36

ppb 

96-h LC50 for sheepshead 

minnow (41 ppb ai) divided 

by ACR (fathead minnow 48-

h EC50 of 8860 ppb ai divided 

by NOAEC of 78 ppb ai)

Estuarine and Marine Invertebrates, Acute 

Aldicarb

Based on results from the preferred test species, pink shrimp and Eastern oyster, following test 

guidelines, the toxicity values fall in the range of 12 to 8800 ppb. Therefore, aldicarb is 

categorized as very highly to moderately toxic to estuarine/marine invertebrates on an acute 

basis. The 48-h EC50 for the Eastern oyster is reported as 8800 ppb. Therefore, the most sensitive 

estuarine/marine invertebrate tested was the pink shrimp, with a 96-h LC50 of 12 ppb [MRID 

40228401 (U.S. EPA 1986)].

Acute Toxicity Endpoints for Estuarine and Marine Invertebrates 

Species Endpoint MRID/Reference 

Aldicarb

Eastern oyster 48-h EC50 = 8800 ppb MRID 40228401 (U.S. EPA 

1986) 

Pink shrimp 96-h LC50 = 12 ppb MRID 40228401 (U.S. EPA 

1986) 
86 

Estuarine and Marine Invertebrate, Chronic 

Aldicarb

A chronic estuarine/marine invertebrate full life-cycle test using aldicarb (99% ai) has been 

conducted with the mysid shrimp. The NOAEC was 1 ppb and the LOAEC was 1.5 ppb. The 

most sensitive endpoint was average number of offspring [MRID 00066341(U.S. EPA 1981b)]. 

Chronic Toxicity Endpoints for Estuarine and Marine Invertebrates 

Species Endpoint MRID/Reference 

Aldicarb

Mysid shrimp Full life cycle NOAEC = 1 

ppb

MRID 00066341

Toxicity to Aquatic Plants

Aldicarb

According to CFR 40 Part 158.540, aquatic plant testing is generally not required for nonherbicides unless there is evidence of potential phytotoxicity at use rates from other lines of 

evidence. At this time, EFED has one study conducted on the marine diatom, Skeletonema 

costatum (MRID 40228401) and a study on Duckweed (MRID 47904402). The EC50 is >50 ppm 

for the diatom and >88.7 ppm for duckweed. 

Toxicity Endpoints for Aquatic Plants 

Species Endpoint MRID/Reference 

Aldicarb

Marine diatom, Skeletonema 

costatum

EC50 > 50 ppm MRID 40228401 

Duckweed, Lemna gibba EC50 >88.7 ppm MRID 47904402 

Summary of review of MRID 47904402 

In a 7 day acute toxicity study, Duckweed (Lemna gibba; freshwater floating aquatic vascular 

plants) were exposed to Aldicarb Technical at nominal concentrations of 0 (negative control), 2.56, 

6.40, 16.0, 40.0, and 100 mg ai/L under static renewal conditions. Measured concentrations were 

<0.20 (<LOQ, control), 2.17, 5.50, 14.3, 35.9, and 88.7 mg ai/L. 

The % growth inhibition of frond number in the treatment groups as compared to the control ranged 

from 4 to 41%. For biomass based on frond number, inhibitions ranged from 3 to 38%. For dry 

weight, inhibitions ranged from 5 to 46%. There were no compound related phytotoxic effects. 

The NOAEC for this study was 5.50 mg a.i./L, based on effects to frond number, biomass and dry 

weight at 14.3 mg a.i./L. For all endpoints that were included in this study (i.e., frond number, dry 
87 

weight and growth rate), <50% effects were observed, resulting in an EC50 value >88.7 mg ai/L 

(i.e., the highest test concentration). Since a dose-response relationship was observed in this test 

and the highest test concentrations resulted in almost 50% effects, extrapolated EC50 values were 

calculated by the reviewer. The lowest extrapolated EC50 was 110 (95% confidence interval: 90-

130; slope = 1.74+/- 0.251) based on effects to dry weight. Although an EC50 value was not bound 

by the concentrations used in this test and the highest test concentration was not 100 mg a.i./L, the 

extrapolated EC50 value for dry weight and the available NOAECs are sufficient to establish 

endpoints from this study. This toxicity study is considered scientifically sound and classified 

acceptable. This study may be used to satisfy the guideline requirement for an aquatic plant toxicity 

study using Lemna sp. 

 
88 

Appendix B. Aquatic Model File 

Parent Aldicarb SWCC Output Files.zip Aldicarb TTR SWCC Output Files.zip
89
90

Appendix C. Domestic Animal and Aggregate Incident Summary for Aldicarb Domestic Animal Incidents Associated with Aldicarb Products as Reported in the Incident Data System (IDS)

Incident Package Report

Incident Date Location Country

Product Name

PC Code Package Description

008922 - 00001 5/5/1998 BASTROP, LA US ALDICARB 098301 

Rhone-Poulenc: 5 D-A reports: 10/1- 12/31/98: a/d/e) Dogs and cats 

given food baited with aldicarb. b/c) Dogs poisoned but no bait found. 

008922 - 00002 6/8/1998 WINSER, LA US ALDICARB 098301 

Rhone-Poulenc: 5 D-A reports: 10/1- 12/31/98: a/d/e) Dogs and cats 

given food baited with aldicarb. b/c) Dogs poisoned but no bait found. 

008922 - 00003 9/12/1998 WINSER, LA US ALDICARB 098301 

Rhone-Poulenc: 5 D-A reports: 10/1- 12/31/98: a/d/e) Dogs and cats 

given food baited with aldicarb. b/c) Dogs poisoned but no bait found. 

008922 - 00004 6/1/1998 TUTWILER, MS US ALDICARB 098301 

Rhone-Poulenc: 5 D-A reports: 10/1- 12/31/98: a/d/e) Dogs and cats 

given food baited with aldicarb. b/c) Dogs poisoned but no bait found. 

008922 - 00005 11/9/1998 ELLISVILLE, MS US ALDICARB 098301 

Rhone-Poulenc: 5 D-A reports: 10/1- 12/31/98: a/d/e) Dogs and cats 

given food baited with aldicarb. b/c) Dogs poisoned but no bait found. 

009194 - 00001 1/1/1999 

HARPER'S FERRY, WV US 

TEMIK BRAND 15G ALDICARB PESTICIDE 098301 

Updates aggreg. I008694: D-A: dog poisoned by Aldicarb, Harper's 

Ferry, WV. Also 3 dogs, falcon, hawk died (w/ no confirmed link to 

chem.) Feud. 

009286 - 00001 1/1/1999 

ROGERSVILLE, AL US TEMIK 098301 

Horses sick next to cotton field. Many chemicals applied to field. Horse had neurological symptoms: labored breathing, twitching... Owner sick too. 

010439 - 00002 6/1/2000 MS US TEMIK 098301 

Aventis: 2 Temik poisonings: misuse: a) coyote & opossum died, b) hunting dog, buzzard, raccoon died. Lawsuits: Aventis encourages prosecution 

011127 - 00001 1/25/2001 BOWMAN, SC US 

TEMIK BRAND 15G ALDICARB PESTICIDE 098301 

Aventis: intentional poisoning of broiler chickens, Bowman, SC. Some chickens processed. FDA issued recall. Misuse. See I011201 for residue. 
91

Incident Package Report

Incident Date Location Country

Product Name

PC Code Package Description

011146 - 00001 2/13/2001 SUMTER, SC US ALDICARB 098301 

Gold Kist Inc. recalls 421,000 lbs. of chicken products for possible contamination with Aldicarb malicious intent by unknown person. Update I011127 

011201 - 00001 2/6/2001 BOWMAN, SC US 

TEMIK BRAND 15G ALDICARB PESTICIDE 098301 

Aventis: Updates I011127: Lab analysis of feed from 1 of 4 chicken houses showed aldicarb. Rendered fat from recall - no aldicarb 

013932 - 00001 1/1/2003 CA US ALDICARB 098301 

2 dogs became ill near wool grower area. Aldicarb in lethal amount found in regurgitated hot dog. Suspect poison was meant for coyotes nearby. 

014563 - 00001 11/1/2003 

CHINO VALLEY, AZ US TEMIK 098301 

2 dogs killed from misuse of Temik, man arrested, inspection of ranch pending. Chino Valley, Yavapai Co., AZ. Temik found in 

food bowl & vomit. 

016540 - 00001 1/1/2005 CO US TEMIK 098301 

Dog exposed to spilled container of Temik in abandoned barn. Dead cat was found near the spilled Temik. Vet confirmed Temik in cat 

016940 - 00014 3/2/2005 DOS PALOS, CA US ALDICARB 098301 

46 EPA Region 9 cases: 4 H-A, 1 D-A, 1 W-A, 10 P-A, 4 H-B, 19 

H-C, 1 H-D, 2 H, 5 E. 1 suicide, 1 attempted suicide, 3 accidental 

deaths. Spill 

017085 - 00001 1/3/2006 ARMUCHEC, GA US ALDICARB 098301 

1 Georgia incident. 2 opossums & 1 dog dead after ingesting Aldicarb. Another dog severely ill. Necropsies on opossums: Carbamate toxicosis. 

017086 - 00001 1/3/2006 ARMUCHEC, GA US 

ALDICARB (SUSPECT TEMIK) 098301 

Update to I017085-001. Aldicarb poisoning of 2 opossums & 1 dog. 

Suspect aldicarb placed in deer carcass for bait to kill coyotes. 

017141 - 00001 1/3/2006 ARMUCHEC, GA US ALDICARB 098301 

Update to I017085 includes notes from phone conv. with Ranger Grant Matherly. 1 dog & 2 opossums dead of Carbamate toxicosis (Aldicarb). Georgia 

017792 - 00004 4/1/2003 GREAT BRITAIN EN TEMIK 098301 

1 D-A, 1 H-C, 1 DW-A, 1 P-A & Summary of Pesticide Incidents, 

Great Britain HSE: 1/2003 - 3/2004. Field Operations Directive doc 

from WWW 
92

Incident Package Report

Incident Date Location Country

Product Name

PC Code Package Description

019363 - 00002 1/1/2008 AL US TEMIK 15 G 098301 

Bayer: 1 H-C, itchy rash; 2 D-A, 1 W-B, misuse, 7 dogs, 3 opossums baited w/ Temik 15G; 6 G-A, aldicarb monitoring programs, 7.3-40.2 ppb. 

019363 - 00003 1/1/2008 DOTHAN, AL US TEMIK 15 G 098301 

Bayer: 1 H-C, itchy rash; 2 D-A, 1 W-B, misuse, 7 dogs, 3 opossums baited w/ Temik 15G; 6 G-A, aldicarb monitoring programs, 7.3-40.2 ppb. 

021284 - 00001 1/1/1996 

EUROPE (FR,SP,GR,BL,IT... ZZ ALDICARB 098301 

Publ. article: domestic animal poisonings in Europe. Thousands of cases summarized briefly. Pesticides, plants, household chemicals... 

021457 - 00003 2/13/2006 WA US ALDICARB 098301 

Washington State PIRT report 2007 for 2006 data: only ecological incidents indexed, 2 D-A, 2 D-C, 3 P-A, 4 P-B, 11 P, 2 W-B. 

021729 - 00010 4/1/2007 

GOREBRIDGE, SCOTLAND ST ALICARB 098301 

3 D-A, 33 W-B, A review of the illegal killing of birds of prey in Scotland in 2007, confirmed deliberate poisoning incidents during 2007. 

022543 - 00001 

NEAR CAMDEN, SC US TEMIK 098301 

Several hunters sickened, 4 dogs died after rolling in Temik in woods, Lee County, SC. Hospital briefly locked down. See also I022570 

022570 - 00001 SC US TEMIK 098301 

WWW: 1 D-A, H-C: 4 hunting dogs killed and 13 hunters sent to 

hospital after contacting aldicarb found on property in Lee County, South Carolina. Updates I022543 

023742 - 00003 3/1/2010 

NEAR KINGSTREE, SC US TEMIK 098301 

WWW: South Carolina: poisoning cases. In -001) man left pesticide 

laced hamburger patties in a shed where foxes had established a den. Killed 2 juvenile red foxes. Also nearby found 2 dead black 

vultures, 1 dead armadillo, 1 dead domestic cat, 1 dead domestic dog, 1 dead possum, and another carcass. Also 4 South Carolina 

cases with multiple dogs being poisoned-mainly Temik. 

023742 - 00004 1/1/2009 SC US TEMIK 098301 

WWW: South Carolina: poisoning cases. In -001) man left pesticide laced hamburger patties in a shed where foxes had established a den. Killed 2 juvenile red foxes. Also nearby found 2 dead black 

vultures, 1 dead armadillo, 1 dead domestic cat, 1 dead domestic 

dog, 1 dead possum, and another carcass. Also 4 South Carolina 

cases with multiple dogs being poisoned-mainly Temik. 
93

Incident Package Report

Incident Date Location Country

Product Name

PC Code Package Description

023742 - 00005 1/1/2010 

BATESVILLELEESVILLE, SC US TEMIK 098301 

WWW: South Carolina: poisoning cases. In -001) man left pesticide laced hamburger patties in a shed where foxes had established a den. Killed 2 juvenile red foxes. Also nearby found 2 dead black 

vultures, 1 dead armadillo, 1 dead domestic cat, 1 dead domestic dog, 1 dead possum, and another carcass. Also 4 South Carolina 

cases with multiple dogs being poisoned-mainly Temik. 

024836 - 00029 5/1/2011 ST ALDICARB 098301 

Pesticide poisonings and screening in wildlife and a few domestic animals, Scotland, 2011. 94 cases listed in publication. 

024836 - 00029 5/1/2011 ST 

ALDICARB SULFOXIDE 110802 

Pesticide poisonings and screening in wildlife and a few domestic animals, Scotland, 2011. 94 cases listed in publication. 

026606 - 00001 5/1/2014 

TANAT VALLEY, LLANGYNOG WL ALDICARB 098301 

WWW: -001) dog out for a walk in forested Tanat Valley, Wales became sick suddenly and died. Lab analysis showed it died from aldicarb poisoning. Had ingested a black feathered bird which was suspected of having the poison in it. -002) nearby dead red kit was 

also found on footpath in that same area. Analysis showed aldicarb poisoning. 

026958 - 00002 6/1/2010 

SALT SPRINGS, FL US TEMIK 098301 

WWW: -002)man who poisoned animals with Temik, Salt Springs, 

FL was given probation after apologizing: black bears, vultures hawk, raccoons, coyotes, bobcats, foxes, opossums found dead within 10 ft. of his property line. also 4 dogs poisoned. -003) 

summary of wildlife deaths due to US Dept. of Agriculture's trapping and poisoning. -004) death of dog due to M-44, -005) human employee had an antidote kit which may have saved his life after exposure to M-44. 

Aggregate Incidents Associated with Aldicarb Products in the Incident Data System (IDS) 

Incident 

Package And 

Sequence

Submission 

Date Product Name

Ingredient 

Name Package Description

Total 

Incident 

Count

016573 - 

00073 8/31/2005 

TEMIK (NONSPECIFIC) Temik Bayer CropScience: 114 aggregate summaries, Apr. - June 2005. Incl. H-D D-A, D-B, D-C, D-D, 91 P-B, 16 G-B, 4 G-C 27 
94

Incident 

Package And 

Sequence

Submission 

Date Product Name

Ingredient 

Name Package Description

Total 

Incident 

Count

021434 - 

00094 11/24/2009 

TEMIK BRAND 

15G ALDICARB 

PESTICIDE Aldicarb 

Bayer CropScience: 107 Aggregate summaries Jul.-Sep. 2009. 420 HD, 16 D-A, 6 D-B, 125 D-C, 168 D-D, 1 W-B (neurological-squirrel), 

14 P-B, 9 G-B (Temik-NY), 3 ONT (bee deaths-DE, VA, FL). Backup 

details include date, caller, state, species, route, symptoms. 11 

014025 - 

00001 5/30/2003 

TEMIK (NONSPECIFIC) Aldicarb (ANSI) Bayer: 2 aggregate summaries, Jan.-Mar. 2003: incl. 4 W-B minor wildlife (Temik) and 2 P-B minor plant damage effects (Axiom 68DF). 4 

014299 - 

00030 8/27/2003 

TEMIK 15G 

LOCK N LOAD 

Aldicarb 

(ANSI) 

Bayer: 31 aggregate summaries, Apr. - June 2003. Includes H-D, D-A, 

D-C, D-D, P-B, G-C 30 

016573 - 

00004 8/31/2005 TEMIK 15G Aldicarb 

Bayer CropScience: 114 aggregate summaries, Apr. - June 2005. Incl. 

H-D D-A, D-B, D-C, D-D, 91 P-B, 16 G-B, 4 G-C 1 

008694 - 

00003 5/28/1999 

TEMIK BRAND 

15G ALDICARB 

PESTICIDE 

Aldicarb 

(ANSI) 

Rhone-Poulenc: -001 Updates I008381 -001, product used was 

Albaugh: 10 Aggregate summary reports: 1/1 - 3/31/99: H-D, D-A, DC/D/E, W-B, ONT, G-B/C 76 

010562 - 

00001 8/28/2000 

TEMIK BRAND 

15G GRANULAR 

ALDICARB 

PESTICIDE 

Aldicarb 

(ANSI) 

Aventis CropScience: 52 aggregate summaries, Apr. - June, 2000. 

Mostly P-B minor plant damage with H-D, domestic animals cases, 3 

W-B 37 

015078 - 

00001 5/25/2004 

TEMIK (NONSPECIFIC) Temik Bayer CropScience; 3 aggregate summaries, Jan.- Mar, 2004. Incl, 2 H-D, 11 D-A, 4 D-B, 1 W-B (Temik), 4 G-B and 1 G-C 21 

017666 - 

00087 8/15/2006 

TEMIK 15G 

LOCK 'N LOAD Aldicarb 

Bayer: 151 Aggregate Summaries, April - June 2006. 251 H-D, 17 DA, 19 D-B, 88 D-C, 114 D-D, 1 W-B, 174 PD-B, 17 GW-B, 3 GW-C 1 

017371 - 

00034 5/30/2006 

TEMIK (NONSPECIFIC) Aldicarb 

Bayer CropScience: 62 Aggregate Summaries Jan.- March 2006. 51 HD, 8 D-A, 3 D-B, 24 D-C, 29 D-D, 4 W-B, 4 P-B, 27 G-B, 233 G-C. 

Includes backup footnotes about water detects 22 

021124 - 

00088 9/1/2009 

TEMIK BRAND 

15G ALDICARB 

PESTICIDE Aldicarb 

Bayer: 111 aggregate summaries, Apr. - June 2009, Incl. 387 H-D, 23 

D-A, 9 D-B, 143 D-C, 203 D-D, 1 W-B, 9 G-B, 45 P-B. Includes many 

backup details for caller, state, species, route, symptoms. 8 

020805 - 

00048 5/29/2009 TEMIK 15 G Aldicarb 

Bayer CropScience: 50 aggregate summaries, Jan. -Mar. 2009, Incl. 80 

H-D, 18 D-A, 3 D-B, 34 D-C, 39 D-D, 2 P-B, 10 W-B, 3 G-B. Backup 

details include date, caller, species, route and symptoms. 10 
95

Incident 

Package And 

Sequence

Submission 

Date Product Name

Ingredient 

Name Package Description

Total 

Incident 

Count

020557 - 

00001 3/2/2009 TEMIK 15G Aldicarb 

Bayer CropScience: 49 aggregate summaries, Oct. -Dec. 2008, Incl. 73 

H-D, 5 D-A, 1 D-B, 39 D-C, 43 D-D, 1 W-B, 1 P-B, 17 G-B. Backup 

details include date, caller, species, route and symptoms 18 

022216 - 

00066 8/31/2010 

TEMIK BRAND 

15G ALDICARB 

PESTICIDE Aldicarb 

Bayer: 127 aggregate summaries, Apr.-June 2010: human and 

domestic animal effects. Includes backup details for date, caller, state, 

species, route, symptoms. 4 

018741 - 

00051 8/8/2007 

TEMIK BRAND 

(NON-SPECIFIC) Aldicarb 

Bayer: 119 aggregate summaries, Apr.-Jun. 2007. 270 H-D, 18 D-A, 

13 D-B, 89 D-C, 118 D-D, 1 D-E, 1 W-B, 113 P-B, 16 G-B, 2 G-C. 10 

022928 - 

00005 5/26/2011 TEMIK 15 G Aldicarb 

Bayer CropScience: 55 aggregate summaries, Jan.-Mar. 2011. Includes 

94 H-D, 6 D-A, 6 D-B, 32 D-C, 38 D-D, 1 W-B, 1 P-B, and 3 G-B. 

Backup details: caller, date, state, species, route, and symptoms are 

provided. 3