Page 2 of 35 There are also ecological toxicity data gaps, and these studies are necessary since they are expected to potentially impact risk conclusions. The database for ecological toxicity of propazine is incomplete , as the following ecological data gaps exis t for propazine :

• Avian Acute Oral with a Passerine Species (OCSPP Guideline 850.2100): Acceptable acute avian acute oral toxicity data were not submitted for a passerine species exposed to p ropazine , which is now required under the 40 CFR Part 158 data re quirements. Though the available acute dose

- based bobwhite quail study indicates p ropazine results in minimal mortality to upland game bird species, effects on weight in all available avian studies indicate that propazine exposure adversely affects avian species. Passerine species may be more sensitive to this chemical as a result of their higher metabolic rate and differing metabolic pathways. An avian oral toxicity study is needed for a passerine species. A passerine study protocol should be submitted for review by the Agency prior to initiation of the study.

• Avian Reproduction Study (OCSPP Guideline 850. 2300 ): Propazine exposure to bobwhite quail resulted in frank effects on female body weight gain at the lowest concentration tested in the available supplemental bobwhite quail study; therefore there is no endpoint available to evaluate potential risk from chronic exposure to avian species, includ ing listed birds. Propazine exposure results in effects on weight in all acute, subacute and chronic studi es available, thus this study is necessary for risk assessment.Page 3 of 35 

# Problem Formulation for the Environmental Fate and Ecological Risk, Endangered Species, and Drinking Water Assessments in Support of the Registration Review of Propazine

( 2

- chloro

- 4,6

- bis(isopropylamino)

- s

- triazine ) CAS Registry Number: 139

- 40

- 2 PC Code: 080808

Prepared by: Brian Kiernan , Biologist Reuben Baris

, Environmental Scientist U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Pesticide Programs Environmental Fate and Effects Division Environmental Risk Branch VI 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Mail Code 7507P Washington, DC 20460 Reviewed by: William P. Eckel, Senior Scien ce Advisor Nathan Miller, Biologist Mark Corbin, Branch Chief

Ma y 0 8 , 201 3 

### N

N N

N H C H 3



### C H 3 

### N H C H 3



### C H 3 

### Cl 

### Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution PreventionPage 4 of 35 

### Contents

1. Introduction

................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 5 2. Conclusions from Previous Risk Assessments

................................ ............................ 5 2.1. Ecological Risk Assessments

................................ ................................ .............. 5 2.2. Drinking Water Exposure Assessments

................................ ............................... 6 2.3. Clean Water Act Programs

................................ ................................ ................... 6 3. Environmental Fate and Transport

................................ ................................ .................. 7 3.1. Degradation and Metabolism

................................ ................................ ............... 8 3.2. Transport and Mobility

................................ ................................ ......................... 9 3.3. Field Studies

................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 9 3.4. Review of Published Literature on the Environmental Fate of Propazine

......... 10 3.5. Transformation Products

................................ ................................ .................... 10 4. Receptors

................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 11 4.1. Effects to Aquatic Organisms

................................ ................................ ............ 12 4.2. Effects to Terrestrial Organisms

................................ ................................ ........ 13 4.3. Ecological Incidents

................................ ................................ ........................... 15 5. Exposure Pathways of Concern

................................ ................................ ................. 16 Risk Hypothesis

................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 16 6. Analysis Plan

................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 16 6.1. Stressors of Concern

................................ ................................ ........................... 16 6.2. Measures of Exposure

................................ ................................ ....................... 17 6.3. M easures of Effect

................................ ................................ ............................. 17 6.4. Endangered Species Assessments

................................ ................................ ...... 17 6.5. Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program

................................ ........................... 18 7. Preliminary Identification of Data Gaps

................................ ................................ 18 7.1. Environmental Fate

................................ ................................ ................................ 18 7.2. Effects

................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 20 8. References

................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 24Page 5 of 35 

## 1. Introduction

EFED evaluated the most recent ecological risk assessments for p ropazine in association with the updated toxicity, exposure, and usage information to determine if sufficient data are available and if further updates are needed to support r egistration r evie w. Recent risk assessments include a risk assessment supporting the new use assessment for sorghum ( USEPA, 2006 ). In addition, EFED considered the latest Agency science policies and risk assessment methodologies.

Propazine (2

- chloro

- 4,6

- bis(isopropylamino)

- s

- triazine) is in the Weed Science Society herbicide group 5 (s

- triazine) with the mechanism of action of inhibiting photosynthesis in photosystem II (PSII). Propazine is applied preemergence in grain sorghum ( S orghum bicolor ) plantings in order to control broadleaf and grass weeds. The chemical profile provided by EPA’s Biological and Economic Affects Division ( BEAD ) , located in the docket, lists the use patterns of maximum exposure s for the current ly registere d use s of propazine

. EFED will use application scenarios for sorghum that will result in potential high

- end exposure for the risk assessment

.



## 2. Conclusions from Previous Risk Assessments

**2.1. Ecological Risk Assessments** 

The Agency has conducted previous ecological risk assessments for Propazine that serve as a basis for this scoping document. These assessments are briefly summarized below.

The most recent risk assessment for Propazine is the 2006 Section 3 new use registration for use to contro l weed in sorghum (DP barcodes (DP Barcodes 310326, 249944, and 2 49945)

. The major ecological conclusions presented in the se risk assessment s were as follows:

Table 1 . Summary of Risk Concerns Identified for Propazine in Previous Assessments

Bird

s Mammal

s Terr. Plants Terr. Inverts Fish BC F Aquati

c Inverts Aquati

c Plants Groundwater Contaminatio

n Persistenc

e Degrad at e s of Concern

-- a √ b √

-- -- -- √ b √ c √

-- none d

a No chronic data
b Chronic

c Listed vascular species; all nonvascular.
d 2

- hydroxypropazine was not considered of toxicological concern.Page 6 of 35 

### 2.2. **Drinking Water Exposure Assessments**

The latest Tier II drinking water exposure assessment for the proposed new use on sorghum was conducted for Propazine in 2006 (USEPA, 2006 ; D334595 ). This assessment was completed as an addendum to the drinking water exposure assessment conducted previously for the triazine cumulative dietary risk assessment. The addendum represented an additional drinking water exposure assessment for the principal sorghum growing areas of Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Colorado, and New Mexico that were not included in the triazine cumulative risk assessment

. The previous drinking water assessment for the triazine cumulative risk assessment focused on surface water exposure scenarios in the Midwest , California and Florida for simazine, atrazine, and the chloro degradates of both (i.e., DEA (2

- amino

- 4

- chloro

- 6

- (1

- methylethylamino)

- s

- triazine) and DACT (2

- ch loro

- 4,6

- diamino

- 1,3,5

- triazine) )

. Propazine was not included in the original cumulative assessment because at the time it was conducted the only registered use was on greenhouse

- grown ornamental plants, and there were no outdoor uses registered at the ti me of the assessment. The recent addition of a registration for propazine use on sorghum required consideration of a new exposure scenario because the principal sorghum growing area is outside the geographic extent of the three use areas previously consid ered in the cumulative assessment . Modeling was completed using both the Texas and Kansas sorghum scenarios for propazine use on sorghum, atrazine use on sorghum, and atrazine use on corn. Daily time series data were provided to the Health Effects Divisio n in concert with daily output for atrazine modeling for use in the dietary models used to assess human exposure through consumption of drinking water in the dietary risk
assessment. For risk assessment as part of registration review, the drinking water

as sessment for propazine will be revisited and it will be determined if an updated assessment is needed.



### 2.3. **Clean Water Act Programs**

Propazine is not identified as a cause of impairment for any water bodies listed as impaired under section 303(d) of th e Clean Water Act 1 . No Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) criteria have been developed for p ropazine

. Aquatic benchmarks have been established for p ropazine and are available at http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/ecorisk_ders/aquatic_life_benchmark.htm . Any data submitted or otherwise located as part of the registration review process may be used to update a quatic life benchmarks if applicable.

1 http://iaspub.epa.gov/tmdl_waters10/attains_nation_cy.cause_detail_303d?p_cause_group_id=885Page 7 of 35 

## 3. Environmental Fate and Transport

Environmental fate studies reviewed suggest that propazine is moderately persistent and mobile. If applied in an outdoor environment, propazine has a high potential to leach into ground water or reach surface waters by runoff. In areas where the soils are highly permeable, the water table is shallow, and sufficient precipitation and/or irrigation occur, the use of propazine may result in ground water contamination. Table 2 b elow summarizes the physical and chemical properties of propazine.

Table 2

. Physical and Chemical Properties of Propazine Common name Propazine Chemical name CAS: 6

- chloro

- N,N’

- bis(1

- methylethyl)

- 1,3,5

- triazine

- 2,4

- diamine IUPAC: 2

- chloro

- 4,6

- bis(isopropylamino)

- s

- triazine CAS number 139

- 40

- 2 Chemical Structure

Molecular formula C 9 H 16 ClN 5 Molecular weight 229.71 Physical state Crystal Melting point 212

- 214 ° C Vapor pressure 2.9 x 10 - 8 mm Hg at 20 ° C Water solubility 8.6 mg/L water at 20 ° C Henry's Law Constant 1.02 x 10 - 9 atm.m 3 /mol (calculated) Log K ow 2.91 pK a 1.85 at 22 ° C

Propazine is expected to be moderately persistent and mobile in most soils, and it is resistant to breakdown by hydrolysis, photolysis, or biodegradation. Batch equilibrium experiments suggest that propazine is mobile, with Freundlich K d values ranging fro m 0.67 to 3.19 in two separate studies involving 8 soil textures. The K oc values ranged from 65 to 268 in these same studies. The mobility of propazine is also noted in the supplemental terrestrial field dissipation studies suggesting that propazine diss ipates slowly from the upper 6 inches (half

- lives of 51 days in TX, and 7 to 58 days in NC, <30 to 149 days in NY, <31 days in CA, and 60 to >357 days in NE) and may leach to ground water. It has also been reported in the literature that if released to so il, propazine will persist longer in dry or cold conditions or other conditions which inhibit biological and chemical activity (Worthing, C.R., ed., 1983. “The pesticide manual: A world compendium. Croydon, England: The British Crop Protection Council”). Therefore, it is very likely that the use of propazine may result in groundwater and/or surface water contamination in areas where soils are highly permeable, the water table is shallow, or where there is irrigation and/or high rainfall. Volatility and a ir photolysis are not expected to be major routes of dissipation due to the low vapor pressure (2.9 x 10 - 8 t orr at 20 o C). Table 3 below summarizes the environmental fate and tra n sport properties of propazine.Page 8 of 35 Table 3. Summary of Environmental Fate and Transport Properties for Propazine

Parameter Value Reference (MRID #)
Persistence in Water Hydrolysis half

- life (25°C, pH 5, 7, & 9) Stable 43689802 Aqueous photolysis half

- life (25°C) Stable 441848 05 Aerobic aquatic metabolism half

- life (20oC) 120 days 48125802 Anaerobic aquatic metabolism half

- life (20oC) 121 days 48125803
Persistence in Soil Soil photolysis half

- life (25°C) Stable 441848 06

Aerobic soil metabolism half

- life (20°C) 289 Days (sandy loam, pH 6.8) 12

- 24 Weeks (calc ulated 15 wks; loamy sand soil, pH 5.6) 441848 07 00153712

Anaerobic soil metabolism half

- life (20oC) 8 Weeks ( loamy sand soil ) 00153713
Mobility
Organic carbon partitioning coefficient (K OC, L·kg - 1 /K d ) 83 /0.34 (loamy sand); 123 /1.14 (sandy loam); 158 /2.69 (loam); 65 /3.19 (clay loam) 00152997

2 68 .0.67 (sand); 128 /1.28 (sandy loam); 96 /1.30 (silty clay); 79 /1.35 (loam) 436898 04

2

- hydroxy

- propazine 145 /1.45 (sandy loam); 329 /0.28 (sand); 78 /1.33 (loam); 342 /4.57 (silty clay) 442873 13

Field Dissipation Terrestrial field dissipation half

- life NC (Wilson Co) 1.2 lb ai/A

- bare ground sandy loam (0

- 6") and sandy clay loam (6

- 12")

t 1⁄2 = 7.2 days (1

- 21 days) t 1⁄2 = 58.2 days (28

- 184 days) 44287314

TX (Armstrong Co) 1.2 lb ai/A

- bare ground loamy sand (0

- 6" and 6

- 12")

T 1⁄2 = 52 days (186

- day study) 44184809



### 3.1

**. Degradation and Metabolism** 

Existing laboratory studies indicate that propazine is stable to hydrolysis and photolysis (both aqueous and in soils). However, published literature on propazine and related chloro

- s

- triazines indicate that the chemical may be susceptible to hydrolysis after adsorption onto the surface of soil colloids (a surface catalysis effect). Propazine isPage 9 of 35 persistent under laborato ry aerobic soil conditions with half

- lives ranging from 15 weeks in loamy sand soil to 41 weeks in sandy loam soil. The major soil metabolite was 2

- hydroxy propazine (2

- hydroxy

- 4,6

- bis(isopropylamino)

- s

- triazine) and comprised a maximum of 31% of the tota l applied radioactivity (TAR) after one year. Minor degradates consist of desethylatrazine ( 2

- chloro

- 4

- isopropylamino

- 6

- amino

- s

- triazine or DEA) (<2% of TAR) and 2

- hydroxy desethylatrazine (<5% of TAR). No studies were submitted on the fate of any degrad ates (both major and minor) in the environment. Chemical structures of propazine degradates are presented below in Table 4

.



### 3.2

**. Transport and Mobility** 

Propazine is not likely to volatilize from near surface soils or surface waters under normal environmental conditions, due to its low vapor pressure (2.9 x 10 - 8 torr at 20°C). If released to water, propazine is not expected to bioconcentrate in aquatic organisms (K OW = 2.93 using the experimental database in EPISuite 4.1 ) , adsorb to sediment and/ or suspended particulate matter, or to volatilize.

Propazine does not adsorb as strongly to soil particles as other triazine herbicides. In most soils used in batch equilibrium studies, especially sand and sandy loam soils, it binds weakly to soil part icles (K oc ’s ranging from 83 to 268 L/k g oc ). Literature studies also showed that depending on soil temperature, moisture, and pH, propazine can become unbound (Worthing, 1983). The major degradate, 2

- hydroxy propazine is slightly less mobile, with K oc v alues ranging from 78 (loam) to 342 (silty clay) L/ kg oc . In sand and sandy loam soils, the K oc values are 329 and 145 mL/g, respectively.



### 3.3

**. Field Studies** 

The four submitted field studies were either unacceptable or considered supplemental because of inadequate sampling depths (only the upper 12 inches were sampled), lack of frozen storage stability data (some samples were frozen for up to 3 years), and/or the presence of propazine in the control and treated plots prior to the start of the study.

Supplemental data suggest that propazine, applied as a wettable powder at 2.4 to 4.8 lb a.i./A/yr, dissipated from the upper 6 inches with a half

- life of <30 to 149 da ys in NY, <31 days i n CA, and 60 to >357 days in NE. The degradates hydroxy

- propazine, G

28 2 73 [2

- chloro

- 4,6

- diamino

- s

- triazine], and G

- 30033 [2

- chloro

- 4

- amino

- 6

- isopropylamino

- s

- triazine] were detected in one or more of the field studies (NY, CA, NE).

The major laboratory soil degradate, 2

- hydroxy propazine was seen in the 0

- 3" and 3

- 6" soil layers of the terrestrial field studies at approximately 15% of parent at day 1, and decreased to less than 5% of parent by day 93. The other two minor degradates desethylatrazine (DEA ) and 2,4

- diamino

- 6 chloro

- s

- triazine (DACT), which are commonPage 10 of 35 to atrazine and simazine, were detected only in the 0

- 3" soil layer, each at less than 5% of parent at day 1, however decreasing to less than 1% by day 28.



### 3.4

**. Review of Published Literature**  **on the Environmental Fate of Propazine** 

The environmental fate of propazine in published scientific literature is limited and published studies vary in quality and usually contain insufficient information on procedures or raw data to adequately assess the results. However, these research findings can provide supplemental information on the environmental fate of propazine. The following discussion comes primarily from three published reviews

- Khan (1980), Montgomery (1993), and Wolfe et al (1990)

- which summarize several published studies.

Propazine, like the other triazine chemicals, is weakly basic (pKa 1.85 at 22°C; Montgomery, 1993), can be easily protonated at low soil pH values, and is likely to exist as a neutral species at soil pH values more tha n two pH units above the pKa (Koshinen and Harper, 1990). Adsorption of protonated propazine is pH

- dependent, with a maximum adsorption at or near the pKa (Khan, 1980). Soil organic matter plays an important role in the adsorption of propazine and other s

- triazines, affecting their movement in soil (Hayes, 1970).

The chemical hydrolysis of s

- triazines, including propazine, is catalyzed by surface adsorption on soil colloids (Khan, 1980; Wolfe et al, 1991). Studies by Russell et al (1968), Brown and Whit e (1969), and Nearpass (1972) found evidence that the chemical hydrolysis of propazine was catalyzed by adsorption onto organic matter and clay.

Montgomery (1993) summarized soil adsorption data from four studies (Burkhard and Guth, 1981; Harris, 1966; Ta lbert and Fletchall, 1965; Walker and Crawford, 1970) involving 38 soils. The reported adsorption K d values averaged 3.4 mL/g, with a range of 0.1 to 20.5. In 35 of the 38 soils, the K d values were less than 4.7. The K oc values averaged 155 mL/g (rangin g from 29 to 363), which are within the range of the K oc values reported in the above mentioned environmental fate studies submitted by the registrant.



### 3. **5**

**. Transformation Products** 

Table 4 lists the major and minor transformation products reported in the submitted environmental fate studies.Page 11 of 35 Table 4. Major Transformation Products in Submitted Environmental Fate Studies
Parent Propazine: ( 2

- chloro

- 4,6

- bis(isopropylamino)

- s

triazine ) Formula: C 9 H 16 ClN 5 Molecular Weight: 229.71

Degradates in Registrant

- submitted Parent Fate Studies Propazine degradate: DEA ( desethy l atrazine )

, ( 2

- amino

- 4

- chloro

- 6

- (1

- methylethylamino)

- s

triazine) Synonyms: Propazine des

- ethyl (G

- 30033) Formula: C 6 H 10 Cl N 5 Molecular Weight: 187.63 Common chlorotr ia zine degradate Equal toxicity to parent Included in TRED

Propazine degradate: DACT (2

- chloro

- 4,6

- diamino

- 1,3,5

- triazine) Synonym: G

- 28273 Formula: C 3 H 4 ClN 5 Molecular Weight: 145.55 Common chlorotr ia zine degradate Equal toxicity to parent Included in TRED Propazine degradate: 2

- hydroxyprozpazin e (2

- hydroxy

- 4,6

- bis

- (1

- methylethylamino)

- s

triazine) Synonym: GS

- 11526 Formula: C 9 H 17 N 5 OH Molecular Weight: 211.26 Different toxicity compared to parent, exposur e considered to be lower therefore was not include d in TRED.



## 4. Receptors

Table 5 and Table 6 p rovide a summary of the most sensitive aquatic and terrestrial
acute an d chronic endpoints that will be used in the risk assessment. In addition, the tables provide a preliminary overview of the potential acute toxicity of p ropazine by providing the acute toxicity classifications. There are no submitted data on the potentia l toxicity of the degradates on either aquatic or terrestrial organisms

. N

N N

N H C H 3

C H 3 N H C H 3

C H 3 Cl

N

N N Cl

N 2 H NH CH C H 3

C H 3

N

N N Cl

N 2 H N H 2

N

N N

NH NH CH
C 3 H C

3 H CH
C H 3 C H 3 OHPage 12 of 35 

### 4.1. **Effects to Aquatic Organisms**

Although the LC 50 s for aquatic fish and invertebrate s are near or above the solubility of propazine, sublethal effects (such as loss of equilibrium) were observed in all the acute studies at concentrations similar to those where effects are observed in the chronic exposure studies.

Studies for a ll four taxa of nonvascular aquatic plants have been submitted; while the
most sensitive endpoint is shown, other taxa are affected at similar concentrations. Data on the degradate de s ethylatrazine are available for three cyanobacteria and two green algae; these data indicate this degradate is less toxic than propazine parent. Gro wth of the aquatic vascular plant, Lemna gibba , is also inhibited by exposure to propazine.

In previous assessments, 2

- hydroxypropazine was not considered as a degradate of concern for ecological assessment. However, ECOSAR, a structural activity relatio nship modeling program , suggests that 2

- hydroxypropazine has similar toxicity to the parent propazine. Given the lack of study data on this degradate, the assumption of equivalent toxicity will be employed in the risk assessment.

The aquatic effects data set for propazine is largely complete and further data are not being requested at this time.

Table 5 . Summary of the Most Sensitive Endpoints from Aquatic Toxicity Studies for Propazine

. Taxonomic

Group Study Type Surrogate Species Toxicity Value Acute Toxicity Classification Source (Study classification)

Freshwater fish 1 Acute Bluegill Sunfish ( Lepomis macrochirus ) LC 50 >4.38 mg ai /L Moderately toxic 48036203 (Acceptable)

Chronic (Early Life

Stage) Fathead Minnow ( Pimephales promelas ) NOAEC = 0. 56
mg ai /L LOAEC = 1.23 mg ai/L Endpoint: reduction in growth -- 48036205 (Acceptable)

Freshwater invertebrates Acute Water Flea ( Daphnia magna ) EC 50 > 5.32 mg ai/L Moderate ly toxic 44287305 ( Supplemental )

Chronic Water Flea NOAEC = 0. 0 47 mg ai/L LOAEC = 0. 091 mg ai/L Endpoint: reduction in growth -- 443 27602 (Acceptable)Page 13 of 35 Taxonomic

Group Study Type Surrogate Species Toxicity Value Acute Toxicity Classification Source (Study classification)

Estuarine/marine fish Acute Sheepshead Minnow ( Cyprinodon variegatus ) LC 50 >3.87 mg ai/L Moderately toxic 48036204 (Acceptable)

Chronic (36 day) Sheepshead Minnow ( Cyprinodon variegatus ) NOAEC = 1.34 mg ai/L LOAEC = 2.59 mg ai/L Endpoint: embryo survival and hatching

success -- 44184802 (Supplemental)

Estuarine/marine invertebrates Acute Mysid ( Americamysis bahia ) L C 50 = 4.2 mg ai/L Moderate ly toxic 44184801 (Acceptable)

Chronic (28 day) Mysid ( Americamysis bahia ) NOAEC = 0.26 6 mg ai/L LOAEC = 0. 474 mg ai/L Endpoint: reduction in growth -- 48125801

Aquatic plants Vascular Duckweed ( Lemna gibba ) NOAEC = 0. 022 mg ai/L I C 50 =0. 1 mg ai/L -- 44287309 (Acceptable)

Non

vascular Freshwater diatom ( Navicula pelliculosa ) NOAEC = 0.0 065 mg ai/L I C 50 = 0.02 48 mg ai/L -- 44287310 (Acceptable)

1 Freshwater fish may be surrogates for aquatic

- phase amphibians.



### 4.2. **Effects to Terrestrial Organisms**

Propazine is classified as practically nontoxic to terrestrial birds from acute dose

- based or dietary

- based exposure; h owever , a n acute oral study for a passerine species is not available for propazine. S ublethal effects (decreased weights) were noted in both the bobwhite quail and the mallard duck acute oral and subacute dietary studies

, suggesting chemical

- induced anorexic responses. Additionally, adult female weight gain was significantly affected in both mallard duck and bobwhite quail reproduction st udies, with significant effects at the lowest dose in the bobwhite study. Therefore, an avian NOAEC is unavailable for the risk assessment. Effects on avian weight are also evident in studies with both simazine and atrazine, chemicals closely related to propazine.

Propazine is classified as practically nontoxic to mammals on an acute exposure basis, but effects from chronic exposure (adult toxicity and reproduction effects ) were observed as low as 50 mg ai/kg

- bw/day. Propazine is classified as practical ly nontoxic toPage 14 of 35 honeybees. As expected with an herbicide, propazine adversely affects plants. Effects were seen in both the seedling emergence studies and in both monocots and dicots . For some species in these studies, NOAECs were not determined; in thes e cases the EC 05 will be used to estimate risk to listed plant species.

The following ecological data gaps exist for propazine:

• Avian Acute Oral with a Passerine Species (OCSPP Guideline 850.2100): Acceptable acute avian acute oral toxicity data were not submitted for a passerine species exposed to propazine, which is now required under the 40 CFR Part 158 data requirements. Though the available bobwhite quail study indicates p ropazine results in minimal mortality to upland game bird species, effects on weight in all available avian studies indicate that propazine exposure adversely affects avian species. Passerine species may be more sensitive to this chemical as a result of their higher metaboli c rate and differing metabolic pathways. An avian oral toxicity study is needed for a passerine species. A passerine study protocol should be submitted for review by the Agency prior to initiation of the study.

• Avian Reproduction Study (OCSPP Guideline 8 50.2300): Propazine exposure to bobwhite quail resulted in frank effects on female body weight gain at the lowest concentration tested in the available study; therefore there is no endpoint available to evaluate potential risk from chronic exposure to avia n species, included listed birds. Propazine exposure results in effects on weights in all acute, subacute and chronic studies available, thus this study is necessary for risk
assessment.

Table 6 . Summary of the Most Sensitive Endpoints from Terrestrial Toxicity Studies for Propazine

Taxonomic

Group Study Type Surrogate Species Toxicity Value Acute Toxicity Classification Source (Study classification)

Birds Acute Bobwhite quail ( Colinus virginianus ) LD 50 > 1640 mg ai /kg

- bw Practically

non

- toxic 4 4287301 (Acceptable)

Sub

- acute dietary Mallard duck ( Anas platyrhynchos ) LC 50 > 4930 mg ai /kg

- diet Practically

non

- toxic 44287302 (Acceptable)

Chronic Bobwhite quail NOAEC <262 mg ai /kg

- diet LOAEC = 262 mg ai /kg

- diet Endpoint : adult female body weight gain -- 48036201 ( Supplemental )

Mammals Acute Oral Laboratory rat ( Rattus norvegicus ) LD 50 > 50 5 0 mg ai /kg

- bw Practically

non

- toxic 43474101 (Acceptable)Page 15 of 35 Taxonomic

Group Study Type Surrogate Species Toxicity Value Acute Toxicity Classification Source (Study classification)

Chronic Laboratory rat ( Rattus norvegicus ) NOAEL = 5 mg ai /kg /day LOAEL = 5 0 mg ai /kg /day Endpoint: parental toxicity and reproductive effects -- 00041409 (Acceptable)

Insects Acute
contact Honey bee ( Apis mellifera ) LD 50 > 96.7 μg ai /bee Practically

non

- toxic 0 0036935 (Supplemental)

Terrestrial plants Seedling Emergence Dico t (Lettuce; Lactuca sativa ) I C 25 > 0. 16 lb/A NOAEC= 0.0047 lbs ai/A -- 44184804 (Acceptable ) Monocot (Onion; Allium

cepa ) I C 25 > 0.35 lb ai /A I C 05 = 0.0087 lbs ai/A --

Vegetative Vigor Dicot (Cucumber; Cucumis sativa ) I C 25 = 0.046 lb ai/A NOAEC = 0.020 lb ai/A -- 44184804 (Acceptable) Monocot (Wheat; Titicum aestivum ) I C 25 = 0.10 lb ai/A I C 05 = 0.047 lbs ai/A --



### 4.3. **Ecological Incidents**

The ecological incident information system (EIIS) is an OPP database that houses ecological incidents that have been reported to the Agency. When available, EIIS includes date and location of an incident, type and magnitude of effects observed in various species, use(s) of pesticides known or suspected of contributing to the incident, and results of any chemical residue analysis or other analyses conducted during incident investigation. EIIS inciden ts are cat egorized according to the certainty that the in cident resulted from pesticide exposure. The Avian Monitoring System (AIMS) is a database administered by the American Bird Conservancy that contains publicly available data on reported avian incidents involving pesticides. Many of the incidents listed i n this database are also in the EIIS. Further, some incidents may be reported as ‘aggregate incidents’; these are contained in a separate database.

As of 02/06/2013, t here were no reported incidents in EIIS or the aggregate incident databases for propazi ne (Robert Miller, EISB; pers. comm.)

. Howeve r, incidents have been reported with other chemicals in the triazine class , such as simazine and atrazine

. These chemicals have been more widely used for a longer period of time than propazine, which may help explain the lack of incidents for propazine. The absence of reported incidents should not be construed as the absence of incidents. Incident reports f or non

target organisms typically provide information only on mortality events and plant damage

. Sublethal effects in organisms such as abnormal behavior, reduced growthPage 1 6 of 35 and/or impaired reproduction are rarely reported, except for phytotoxic effects in
te rrestrial plants. EPA’s changes in the registrant reporting requirements for incidents in 1998 may account for a reduced number of reported incidents. Registrants are now only required to submit detailed information on ‘major’ fish, wildlife, and plant i ncidents. Minor fish, wildlife, and plant incidents , as well as all other non

- target incidents, are generally reported aggregately and are not included in EIIS. In addition, there have been changes in state monitoring efforts due to a lack of resources.

As of 02/13/2013 , AIMS identified no ecological incidents involving p ropazine and no aggregate incidents have been reported

.



## 5. Exposure Pathways of Concern

The environmental fate and toxicity profile for p ropazine suggests that direct spray, spray drift, leaching and runoff represent the likely exposure pathways for terrestrial and aquatic non

- target organisms. Drinking water and inhalation exposure pathways were screened using the SIP (Screening Imbibition Progra m) and STIR (Screening Tool for Inhalation Risk) screening methods and were found to be exposure pathways of low concern (no LOC exceedances are expected). SIP and STIR are described in detail at: http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/terrestrial/index.htm

.

Risk Hypothesis

The Registration Review ecological risk assessment will test the following risk hypothesis:

Based on the application methods, mode of action, fate and transport, and the sensitivity of non

- target aquatic and terrestrial species, propazine has the potential to reduce survival, reproduction, and/or growth in non

- target terrestrial and aquatic organisms as well as negatively affect the structure, productivity, and functi on of aquatic plant communities when used in accordance with the current labels. These

non

- target organisms include Federally

- listed threatened and endangered species as well as non

- listed species.



## 6 . Analysis Plan

**6.1. Stressors of Concern** 

Propazine is part of the triazine herbicide family (such as atrazine, cyanazine, simazine) and is very effective at stopping the photosynthetic process in susceptible plants by binding to specific sites within the plant's chloroplasts. The mode of action is inhibition of photosynthesis by stopping electron flow in Photosystem II, which in turn inhibits the formation and release of oxygen.Page 17 of 35 In previous assessments, 2

- hydroxypropazine was not considered as a degradate of concern for ecological assessment. However, ECOSAR, a structural activity relationship modeling program, suggests that 2

- hydroxypropazine has similar toxicity to the parent propazine. Given the lack of study data on this degradate, the assumption of equivalent toxicity will be employed in the risk assessment.

Drinking Water

The drinking water assessments conducted to support future human health risk assessments of Propazine will incorporate model estimates of Propazine residues of concern, which are the parent compound and the major degradate s DEA and DACT in surface water and groundwater. If a drinking water assessment is needed to support future human health dietary risk assessments p ropazine and its degradates of concern will be assessed at the time of the assessment

.



### 6.2. **Measures of E xposure** 

EFED will use standard available models to evaluate potential exposures to aquatic and terrestrial organisms as described at http://www.epa.gov /pesticides/science/models_db.htm

.



### 6.3. **Measures of Effect**

Toxicity data presented in Section 3 of this problem formulation will be used to calculate risk quotients. Any additional information submitted by the registrant or found in the open literature prior to conduct of the risk assessment will also be consider ed. The open literature studies are identified using EPA’s ECOTOXicology database ( ECOTOX) (USEPA, 2007 c ), which employs a literature search engine for locating chemical toxicity data for aquatic life, terrestrial plants, and wildlife. The evaluation of both sources of data can also provide insight into the direct and indirect effects of pesticides on biotic communities from loss of species that are sensitive to the chemicals and from changes in structure and functional characteristics of the affected com munities.



### 6.4. **Endangered Species Assessments**

Consistent with the Agency’s responsibility under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the Agency will evaluate risks to federally listed species from registered uses of pesticides in registration review

. The p rocess for evaluating potential risks to listed species is further described at http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/endanger/litstatus/riskasses.htm

.Page 18 of 35 

### 6.5. **Endocrine Disruptor Screening Pr ogram** 

Propazine was not included in the first group of 67 chemicals issued an order to conduct Tier 1 EDSP testing. For additional information the EDSP program, visit http://www.epa.gov/endo/

.



### 7. **Preliminary Identification of Data Gaps** 

7.1. Environmental Fate

The database for environmental fate and transport of propazine is sufficient for risk
assessment as part of registration review . Although there are a few guidelines that are only partially fulfilled, a dditional fate data are not being requested for registration review because they are unlikely to significantly impact the risk assessment. Unfulfilled guidelines are outlined below.

• Aerobic aquatic metabolism ( OCSPP Guideline 835.4300) : There is uncertainty associated with the extrapolated half

- lives from one of the soil:water systems. An additional soil:water system is needed to fulfill the guideline; however, it is of low additional value since the single value is considered persistent, it is un likely an additional study would significantly change the overall persistence profile.

• Anaerobic aquatic metabolism ( OCSPP Guideline 835.4400): There is uncertainty associated with the extrapolated half

- lives from one of the soil:water systems. An addition al soil:water system is needed to fulfill the guideline; however, it is of low additional value since the single value is considered persistent, it is unlikely an additional study would significantly change the overall persistence profile.

• Terrestrial Fiel d Dissipation ( OCSPP Guideline 835. 6100): An acceptable study is needed to fulfill the guideline; however, Additional studies are unlikely to provide significantly different results for risk assessment.

Table 7 catalogues the environmental fate studies by MRID that offer data for each guideline requirement, as well as study classifications identifying whether additional data are needed in order to su pport risk assessment.

Table 7 . Submitted Environmental Fate Data for Propazine

Guideline Study Title MRID Classification Data Gap? Comments and Assumption EPA will make in absence of additional data.

835.2120 Hydrolysis 43689 8 02 Acceptable

No --

00153708 Unacceptable No material balance was provided. Radiolabeled test substances were not characterized. Sterility was assumed but not reported.

835.2240 Photodegradation 44184805 Acceptable No

--Page 19 of 35 Guideline Study Title MRID Classification Data Gap? Comments and Assumption EPA will make in absence of additional data.

in Water

00153709 Supplemental Inadequate experimental conditions were reported. Missing crucial information such as pH, temperature, wavelength of light source, inadequate descriptions of experimental conditions.

835.2410 Photodegradation on Soil 44184806 Acceptable

No --

00153710 Unacceptable Experimental design was inadequate to accurately assess photodegradation. Study was not conducted for a sufficient length of time.

835.4100 Aerobic Soil Metabolism 44184807 Acceptable No

-- 00153712 Acceptable

835.4200 Anaerobic Soil Metabolism 00153713 Acceptable No

--

835.4300 Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism 48125802 Supplemental Yes The study was terminated prior to clearly establishing the rate and pattern of decline of propazine and formation and decline of all degradates. There is uncertainty associated with the extrapolated half

- lives

. U nassigned peaks were present in the chromatographs and t ransformation products present at ≥10% of the applied may not have been identified

.
An additional soil:water system is n eeded to fulfill the guideline; however, it is of low additional value

.

835.4400 Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism 48125803 Supplemental Yes The study was terminated prior to clearly establishing the rate and pattern of decline of propazine and formation and decline of degradates. There is uncertainty associated with the extrapolated half

- lives.

An additional soil:water system is needed to fulfill the guideline ; however, it is of low additional value

.

835.1240 Mobility

- Adsorption / Desorption 43689803 Acceptable

No

-- 43689804 Acceptable

44287313 Acceptable

00152997 Acceptable

835.6100 Terrestrial Field Dissipation 44287314 Supplemental

Yes Stated in 2006 NU assessment on Sorghum (USEPA, 2006; DP 310326+): Data classified as supplemental. Additional data, or a new study, needed to confirm leaching potential of compound. Lack of storage stability data and prop azine was found in controls is problematic.

Additional studies are unlikely to provide significantly different results for risk assessment ; however, it is of low additional value

. 44184809 Supplemental

0015371 5 Unacceptable

0015371 6 Unacceptable

0015371 7 Unacceptable

0015371 8 Unacceptable

835.6100 Terrestrial Field Dissipation /Small Scale Prospective

Ground Water 44184808 Supplemental No Study was submitted to partially satisfy 835.6100 and substitute for a Small Scale PGW study. Mass balance was poor toward the termination of the study. Rainfall and irrigation for the first 30

- 60 days following pesticide application were not favorable to leaching.Page 20 of 35 Guideline Study Title MRID Classification Data Gap? Comments and Assumption EPA will make in absence of additional data.

850.1730 Fish Accumulation 44184812 Acceptable No In a cursory review of a dynamic or flow

- through aquatic exposure study using bluegill sunfish, the daily bioconcentration factors (BCFs) of Propazine

were reported to range from 6.51 to 20.2 for the whole fish, indicating that it does not bioaccumulate to any great extent.
Environmental Chemistry Method (water) 46839502 Acceptable No

--

Environmental Chemistry Method (Soil) 00065585 Acceptable No

--

Monitoring Studies 47990302 Supplemental

No Perez, S.; Perez, R.; Chen, S.; et al. (2010) FIFRA Section 6(a)(2) Annual Report for Atrazine, Simazine, Propazine, G

- 28273, G

- 28279, G

- 30033, Ametryn, GS

- 11354, GS

- 11355, GS

- 26831 and Metolachlor Monitoring Data for Surface Water Samples Collected in the 2009 Atrazine Monitoring Program, 2009 Atrazine Ecological Monitoring Program, 2009 Simazine Monitoring Program, 2009 Simazine Confirmatory Monitoring Program and 2009 Stewardship Voluntary Monitoring Program : Final Report. Project Number: 2K10/901/0223S/01, T001301/03. Unpublished study prepared by ADPEN Laboratories, Inc. 31 p.

48402903 Supplemental Perez, S.; Perez, R.; Chen, S.; et al. (2011) FIFRA Section 6(a)(2) Annual Report for Atrazine, Metolachlor, Propazine, Simazine, DACT, DIA and DEA Monitoring Data for Surface Water Samples Collected in the 2010 Atrazine Monitoring Program, 2010 Atrazine Ecological Monitoring Program, 2010 Simazine Monitoring Program, 2010 Simazine Confirmatory Monit oring Program and 2010 Stewardship Voluntary Monitoring Program: Final Report. Project Number: 2K11/901/0223S/01, T001301/03. Unpublished study prepared by ADPEN Laboratories, Inc. 27 p.

47639601 Supplemental Tweedy, D.; Perez, S. (2009) Triazine Water Monitoring Progam in Four Texas Community Water Supplies (2008): Analytical Report. Project Number: 2K8/ADPEN/ALB/PWM/001, ADPEN/2K8/ALB/PWM. Unpublished study prepared by ADPEN Laboratories, Inc. 59 p.

00155231 Supplemental Ross, R.; Balu, K. (1985) Summary of the Propazine Surface Water Monitoring for 1975: Rept. No. EIR

85019. Unpublished study prepared by Ciba

- Geigy Corp. 56 p.



### 7

.2. Effects

Table 9 and Table 10 ide ntify ecological effects studies by MRID that provide data for each guideline requirement, as well as study classifications and whether or not further data are needed in order to support risk assessment. The effects data for propazine isPage 21 of 35 largely complete; however, the following data gaps need to be addressed to conduct th e risk assessment:

• Avian Acute Oral with a Passerine Species (OCSPP Guideline 850.2100): Acceptable acute avian acute oral toxicity data were not submitted for a passerine species exposed to propazine, which is now required under the 40 CFR Part 158 data requirements. Though the available bobwhite quail study indicates Propazine results in minimal mortality to upland game bird species, effects on weight in all available avian studies indicate that propazine exposure adversely affects avian species. Passer ine species may be more sensitive to this chemical as a result of their higher metabolic rate and differing metabolic pathways. An avian oral toxicity study is needed for a passerine species. A passerine study protocol should be submitted for review by t he Agency prior to initiation of the study.

• Avian Reproduction Study (OCSPP Guideline 850.2300): Propazine exposure to bobwhite quail resulted in frank effects on female body weight gain at the lowest concentration tested in the available study; therefore there is no endpoint available to evaluate potential risk from chronic exposure to avian species, included listed birds. Propazine exposure results in effects on weights in all acute, subacute and chronic studies available, thus this study is necessary fo r risk
assessment.

Table 9 . Submitted Aquatic Ecological Effects Data for Propazine

OCSPP Guideline Data Requirement Submitted Studies (MRID) Study Classifications Are data needed to conduct

risk assessment? Justification and Assumptions EPA will Make in Absence of Data

850.1010 Freshwater invertebrate acute toxicity 44287305 Supplemental No

--

850.1025 850.1035 Estuarine/Marine invertebrate acute toxicity 44 184801 Acceptable No

--

850.1075 Freshwater fish acute toxicity 48036203 Acceptable No

--

850.1075 Estuarine/Marine fish acute toxicity 48036204 Acceptable No

--

850.1300 Freshwater invertebrate life cycle 443327602 Acceptable No

--Page 22 of 35 OCSPP Guideline Data Requirement Submitted Studies (MRID) Study Classifications Are data needed to conduct

risk assessment? Justification and Assumptions EPA will Make in Absence of Data

850.1350 Estuarine/Marine invertebrates life cycle 48125801 Acceptable No

--

850.1400 Freshwater fish early

- life stage 48036205 Acceptable No

--

850.1400 Estuarine/Marine fish early

- life stage 44184802 Supplemental No

--

850.1500 Fish life cycle (None) (N/A) No

-- 850.4400 Aquatic plant growth: Tier II vascular plants 44287309 Accep table No

--

850.5400 Aquatic Plant Growth: Tier II algae 44 287308 Acceptable No

-- 44207310 Acceptable

44287311 Acceptable

44287312 Acceptable

Table 10 . Submitted Terrestrial Ecological Effects Data for Propazine

OCSPP Guideline Data Requirement Submitted Studies (MRID) Study Classifications Are data needed for risk assessment? Current Additional Data Need

850.2100 Avian oral toxicity 44287301 Acceptable Yes Acceptable acute avian acute oral toxicity data have not been submitted for a passerine species exposed to p ropazine

, which is now required under the 40 CFR Part 158 data requirements. A passerine study protocol should be submitted for review by the Agency prior to initiation of the study.Page 23 of 35 OCSPP Guideline Data Requirement Submitted Studies (MRID) Study Classifications Are data needed for risk assessment? Current Additional Data Need

850.2200 Avian dietary toxicity 44287302 Acceptable No

--

44287303 Acceptable

850.2300 Avian reproduction 48036202 Acceptable Yes No endpoint available to assess potential risk from chronic exposure 48036201 Supplemental

850.3020 Honey bee
acute contact toxicity 00036935 Supplemental No

--

850.3030 Honey bee residue on foliage (None) (N/A) No

--

850.3040 Field testing for pollinators (None) (N/A) No

--

850.4100 Terrestrial plant toxicity: seedling
emergence 44184804 Acceptable No

--

850.4150 Terrestrial plant toxicity: vegetative vigor 44184804 Acceptable No

--Page 24 of 35 

## 8. References

Hayes, M.H.B. 1970. Adsorption of triazine herbicides on soil organic matter, including a short review of soil organic matter chemistry. Residue Rev. 31:131

- 174.

Khan, Shahamat U. 1980. Pesticides in the soil environment. Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company, Amsterdam. p. 90

- 97.

Koskinen, W.C., and S.S. Harper. 1990. The retention process: mechanisms. p. 51

- 77 In H.H. Cheng (ed.) Pesticides in the soil environment: processes, impacts, and modeling. SSSA Book Series No. 2. Soil Science Society of America, Madison, WI.

Montgomery, J.H. 1993. Agrochemicals desk reference: environmental data. Lewis Publishers, C helsea, MI. p. 356

- 358.

USEPA 2006. Ecological Risk Assessment for the Section 3 New Use on Sorghum: Propazine. DP barcodes 310326, 249944, 249945. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, Washington, DC.

USEPA 2006 . Addendum to the Environmental Fate and Effects Division (EFED) Drinking Water Exposure Assessment for the Addition of Propazine Use on Sorghum to the Triazine Cumulative Dietary Risk Assessment (DP 334595). Memorandum from M. Corbin to C. Eiden. United S tates Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs

, Environmental Fate and Effects Division , Washington, DC.

Wolfe, N.L., U. Mingelgrin, and G.C. Miller. 1990. Abiotic transformations in water, sediments, and soil. p. 103

- 168 In H.H. C heng (ed.) Pesticides in the soil environment: processes, impacts, and modeling. SSSA Book Series No. 2. Soil Science Society of America, Madison, WI.Page 25 of 35 080808 Propazine Eco Effects Bibliography Green Folder

- F001122 71

- 1 Avian Single Dose Oral Toxicity

MRID Citation Reference

111696 2041111 Beliles, R.; Scott, W.; Knott, W. (1965) ?Propazine: Toxicity to Fish and Wildlife|. (Unpublished study received Aug 23, 1965 under 100

- 455; prepared by Woodard Research Corp., submitted by Ciba

- Geigy Corp., Greensboro, NC; CDL:132115

- A)

44287301 2041117 Jameson, C.; Veltri, J. (1995) Acute Oral Toxicity of Propazine to Bobwhite Quail (Colinus virginianus): Final Report: Lab Project Number: 41757: FIFRA

- 71

- 1

- AT

- 41757: ABC 41757. Unpublished study prepared by ABC Labs, Inc. 338 p.
71

- 2 Avian Dietar y Toxicity

MRID Citation Reference

34121 2041113 Woodard Research Corporation (1965) Propazine: Safety Evaluation on Fish and Wildlife (Bobwhite Quail, Mallard Ducks, Rainbow Trout, Goldfish and Sunfish). (Unpublished study received Oct 4, 1965 under 100

- 455; submitted by Ciba

Geigy Corp., Greens

- boro, N.C.; CDL:000333

- A)

34122 2041105 Woodard Research Corporation (19??) Propazine: Subacute Toxicity in Mallard Ducks. (Unpublished study received Oct 4, 1965 under 100

- 455; submitted by Ciba

- Geigy Corp., Greensboro, N.C.; CDL: 000333

- B)

34126 2041108 Beliles, R.P.; Scott, W.; Knott, W. (1965) Propazine: Summary of Safety Evaluation on Fish and Wildlife. Summary of studies 000333

- A through 000333

- E. (Unpublished study received Oct 4, 1965 under 100

- 455; prepared by Woodard Research Corp., submit

- ted by Ciba

- Geigy Corp., Greensboro, N.C.; CDL:000333

- F)

44287302 2041118 Jameson, C.; Veltri, J. (1994) Acute Dietary Toxicity of Propazine to Bobwhite Quail (Colinus virginianus): Final Report: Lab Project Number: 41758: FIFRA

- 71

- 2

- AT

- 41758: ABC 41758. Unpub lished study prepared by ABC Labs, Inc. 189 p.

44287303 2041119 Jameson, C.; Veltri, J. (1995) Acute Dietary Toxicity ofPage 26 of 35 Propazine to Mallard Duck (Anas platyrhynchos): Final Report: Lab Project Number: 41759: FIFRA

- 71

- 2

- AT

- 41759: ABC 41759. Unpublished study prepared by ABC Labs, Inc. 201 p.

71

- 4 850.2300 Avian Reproduction

MRID Citation Reference

48036201 Contract draft available Stafford, J. (2009) Propazine: Reproductive Toxicity Test with Northern Bobwhite (Colinus virginianus). Project Number: 13905/4100. Unpublished study prepared by Springborn Smithers Laboratories. 237 p.

48036202 Contract draft available Stafford, J. (2009) Propazine: Reproductive Toxicity Test with the Mallard Duck (Anas platyrhynchos). Project Number: 13905/4101. Unpublished study prepared by Springborn Smithers Laboratories. 245 p.

72

- 1 850.1075 Acute Toxicity to Freshwater Fish

MRID Citation Reference

111696 2041111 Beliles, R.; Scott, W.; Knott, W. (1965) ?Propazine: Toxicity to Fish and Wildlife|. (Unpublished study received Aug 23, 1965 under 100

- 455; prepared by Woodard Research Corp., submitted by Ciba

- Geigy Corp., Greensboro, NC; CDL:132115

- A)

44287304 2041120 Bowman, J.; Veltri, J. (1995) Acute Toxicity of Propazine to Bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus): Final Report: Lab Project Number: 41953: FIFRA 72

- 1: ABC 41953. Unpublished study prepared by ABC Labs, Inc. 58 p.

47452301 DER not located Bergfield, A. (2008) Propazine: Acute Toxicity to the Rainbow Trout, Onchorhynchus mykiss, Determined Under Static Test Conditions. Project Number: 63222. Unpublished study prepared by ABC Laboratories, Inc. 30 p.

48036203 Contract draft available Bergfield, A. (2009) Propaz ine: Acute Toxicity to the Bluegill Sunfish, Lepomis macrochirus, Determined Under Flow

Through Test Conditions. Project Number: 64353. Unpublished study prepared by ABC Laboratories, Inc. 42 p.

34123 2041114 Woodard Research Corporation (1949) Propazine: Acute Toxicity in Rainbow Trout. (Unpublished study received Oct 4, 1965 under 100

- 455; submitted by Ciba

- Geigy Corp.,Page 27 of 35 Greensboro, N.C.; CDL: 000333

- C)

34124 2041115 Woodard Research Corporation (1949) Propazine: Acute Toxicity in Sunfish. (Unpublished study received Oct 4, 1965 under 100

- 455; submitted by Ciba

- Geigy Corp., Greensboro, N.C.; CDL:000333

- D)

34125 2041112 Woodard Research Corporation (1949?) Propazine: Acute Toxicity in Goldfish. (Unpublished study received Oct 4, 1965 under 100

- 455; submitted by Ciba

- Geigy Corp., Greensboro, N.C.; CDL: 000333

- E)

Acute Toxicity to Freshwater Invertebrates

MRID Citatio n Reference

44287305 2048016 Murrell, H.; Veltri, J. (1994) Acute Toxicity of Propazine to Daphnia magna: Final Report: Lab Project Number: 41954: FIFRA 72

- 2: 41954R. Unpublished study prepared by ABC Labs, Inc. 187 p.

850.1075 Acute Toxicity to Estuarine/Marine Organisms

MRID Citation Reference

44184801 Contract draft available Boeri, R.; Kowalski, P.; Ward, T. (1995) Static Acute Toxicity of Propazine to the Mysid, Mysidopsis bahia: (Final Report): Lab Project Number: 41955: 571

- AB. Unpublished study prepared by T.R. Wilbury Labs., Inc. and ABC Labs., Inc. 45
p.

44287306 20411 21 Boeri, R.; Kowalski, P.; Ward, T. (1995) Flow Through Shell Deposition Test with Propazine and the Eastern Oyster, Crassostrea virginica: (Final Report): Lab Project Number: 41956: 572

- AB: FIFRA

- 72

- 3 © F/T. Unpublished study prepared by T.R. Wilbury Lab s, Inc. and ABC Labs, Inc. 146
p.

48036204 Contract draft available Berfield, A. (2009) Propazine: Acute Toxicity to the Sheepshead Minnow, Cyprinodon 27 egetative, Determined Under Flow

- Through Test Conditions. Project Number: 64352. Unpublished study prepared by ABC Laboratories, Inc. 44 p.

111682 DER not located Wright, L.; Beliles, R. (1966) Propazine: The Effect on Shell Growth in Oysters. (Unpublished study received Jan 7, 1968 under 8F0687; prepared by Woodard Research Corp.,Page 28 of 35 submitted by Geigy C hemical Corp., New York, NY; CDL:091195

- M)

Fish Early Life Stage/Aquatic Invertebrate Life Cycle Study 850.1350 Mysid chronic toxicity test 850.1400 Fish early

- life stage toxicity test

MRID Citation Reference

23999 2041106 Walker, C.R. (1964) Simazine and other~s~Triazine compounds as aquatic herbicides in fish habitats. Weeds 12(2):134

- 139. (Al

- so~In~unpublished submission received Mar 8, 1966 under 100

- 437; submitted by Ciba

- Geigy Corp., Greensboro, N.C.; CDL:100918

- S)

34126 Summary of studies Beliles, R.P.; Scott, W.; Knott, W. (1965) Propazine: Summary of Safety Evaluation on Fish and Wildlife. Summary of studies 000333

- A through 000333

- E. (Unpublished study received Oct 4, 1965 under 100

- 455; prepared by Woodard Resea rch Corp., submit

- ted by Ciba

- Geigy Corp., Greensboro, N.C.; CDL:000333

- F)

44184802 Contract draft available Boeri, R.; Kowalski, P.; Ward, T. (1995) Early Life

- Stage Toxicity of Propazine to the Sheepshead Minnow, Cyprinodon 28 egetative: (Final Report): Lab Project Number: 41959: 574

- AB: FIFRA

- 72

- 4

- SHM. Unpublished study prepared by T.R. Wilbury Labs., Inc. and ABC Labs., Inc. 59 p.

44184803 Contract draft available Boeri, R.; Kowalski, P.; Ward, T. (1995) Chronic Toxicity of Propazine to the Mysid, My sidopsis bahia: (Final Report): Lab Project Number: 41960: 573

- AB: FIFRA

- 72

- 4

- M. Unpublished study prepared by T.R. Wilbury Labs., Inc. and ABC Labs., Inc. 65 p.

44287307 2041122 Rhodes, J.; Veltri, J. (1995) Early Life

- Stage Toxicity of Propazine to the Fathead Minnow (Pimephales promelas) Under Flow

- Through Conditions: Final Report: Lab Project Number: 41957: ABC 41957: FIFRA 72

- 4

- FHM. Unpublished study prepared by ABC Labs, Inc. 236 p.

44327601 2041128 Veltri, J.; Bussard, J. (1995) Analytical Analys is of Propazine During the “Early Life

- Stage Toxicity Test with the Sheepshead Minnow (Cyprinodon 28 egetative)”: Amended Final Report: Lab Project Number: 41959: 574

- AB: ABC 41959. Unpublished study prepared by ABC Labs, Inc. and T. R. Wilbury Labs, Inc. 28 5 p.

44327602 2041129 Murrell, H.; Veltri, J. (1997) Chronic Toxicity of Propazine toPage 29 of 35 Daphnia magna Under Flow

- Through Test Conditions: Amended Final Report: Lab Project Number: 41958: FIFRA E

- 72

- 4

- B: ABC 41958. Unpublished study prepared by ABC Labs, Inc. 135 p.

48125801 Contract draft available Hicks, S. (2010) Propazine: Life

- Cycle Toxicity Test of the Saltwater Mysid, Americamysis bahia, Conducted Under Flow

- Through Conditions. Project Number: 65491. Unpublished study prepared by ABC Laboratories, Inc. 81 p.

48036205 Contract draft available Lehman, C. (2009) Propazine: Early Life

- Stage Toxicity Test with the Fathead Minnow, Pimephales promelas, Under Flow

Through Test Conditions. Project Number: 64354. Unpublished study prepared by ABC Laboratories, Inc. 85 p.

Seed germination/seedling emergence and Vegetative vigor

MRID Citatio n Reference

44184804 2084836 = SE

- Contract draft 2084837 =VVg Contract draft Schwab, D.; Lee, B.; Veltri, J. (1996) Evaluating the Effects of Propazine on the Emergence and Vegetative Vigor of Non

Target Terrestrial Plants: Final Report: Lab Project Number: 41961: GP95

- 037: ACFS

- 41961.EV. Unpublished study prepared by ABC Labs., In c. 204 p.

Aquatic plant growth

MRID Citation Reference

44287308 2041123 Hicks, S.; Bussrad, J.; Gledhill, D. (1995) Acute Toxicity of Propazine to Selenastrum capricornutum Printz: Final Report: Lab Project Number: 41962: FIFRA 123

- 2(A): ABC 41962. Unpublished study prepared by ABC Labs, Inc. 258 p.

44287309 2041124 Hicks, S .; Gledhill, D.; Veltri, J. (1995) 14

- Day Static Toxicity of Propazine to Lemna gibba G3: Final Report: Lab Project Number: 41963: ABC 41963. Unpublished study prepared by ABC Labs, Inc. 41 p.

44287310 2041125 Hicks, S.; Gledhill, D. (1995) Acute Toxicity of Propazine to Navicula pelliculosa: Amended Final Report: Lab Project Number: 41966: FIFRA 123

- 2(A): ABC 41966. Unpublished study prepared by ABC Labs, Inc. 336 p.

44287311 2041126 2048015 Gledhill, D.; Bus sard, J. (1995) Acute Toxicity of Propazine to Skeletonema costatum: Final Report: Lab Project Number:Page 30 of 35 41967: FIFRA 123

- 2(A): ABC 41967. Unpublished study prepared by ABC Labs, Inc. 316 p.

44287312 2041127 Gledhill, D.; Bussard, J. (1995) Acute Toxicity of Propazine to Anabaena flos

- aquae: Final Report: Lab Project Number: 41968: FIFRA 123

- 2(A): ABC 41968. Unpublished study prepared by ABC Labs, Inc. 284 p.

24005 Sounds like published lit Fankhauser, E. (1967) A Comparison of Chlorotriazines in Their Al gicaedal Activity. (Unpublished study received Aug 28, 1975 under 100

- 437; prepared by J.R. Geigy, S.A., submitted by Ciba

- Geigy Corp., Greensboro, N.C.; CDL:221042

- D)

28137 Open lit Venkataraman, G.S.; Rajyalakshmi, B. (1972) Relative tolerance of nitr ogen

- fixing blue

- green algae to pesticides. Indian Journal of Agricultural Science 42(2):119

- 121. (Also~In~unpublished submission received Aug 20, 1976 under 39445

- 1; submitted by American Carbonyl, Inc., Tenafly, N.J.; CDL:228229

- AI)

114888 Open lit Venkataraman, G.; Rajyalakshmi, B. (1971) Tolerance of blue

green algae to pesticides. Current Science 40(6):143

- 144. (Also In unpublished submission received Mar 18, 1976 under 464

- 402; sub

- mitted by Dow Chemical U.S.A., Midland, MI; CDL:095213

- Q)
Simu lated or Actual Field Testing

MRID Citation Reference

23999 2041106 Walker, C.R. (1964) Simazine and other~s~Triazine compounds as aquatic herbicides in fish habitats. Weeds 12(2):134

- 139. (Al

- so~In~unpublished submission received Mar 8, 1966 under 100

- 437; submitted by Ciba

- Geigy Corp., Greensboro, N.C.; CDL:100918

- S)

141

- 1 Acute Toxicity to Honeybees
36935 2041109 Atkins, E.L., E.A. Greywood and R.L. Macdonald (1975) Toxicity of Pesticides and other Agricultural Chemicals to Honey Bees. Laboratory Studies. University of California, Div. of Agric. Sci. Leaflet 2287. 38 pp.

Non Guideline
75705 Open lit Holly, K.; Roberts, H.A. (1963) Persistence of phytotoxic residues of triazine herbicides in soil. Weed Research 3(? ):1

- 10. (Al

- so in unpublished submission received Jul 19, 1978Page 31 of 35 under 201

- 403; submitted by Shell Ch emical Co., Washington, D.C.; CDL: 234476

- AI)

48033010 Open lit Nishihara, T.; Nishikawa, J.; Kanayama, T.; et al. (2000) Estrogenic Activities of 517 Chemicals by Yeast Two

- Hybrid Assay. Journal of Health Science 46(4): 282

- 298.

5007255 2041107 Hilton, H.W. and N. Nomura (1964) phytotoxicity of Herbicides as Measured by Root Absorption. Weed Research 4(3): 216

- 222. MRID No. 5007255.

18144 2041110 E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company (1967) Biological Data. (Unpublished Study Received November 21, 1967

u nder 352

- 270. CDL: 002882

- A.)

Propazine Fate Chemistry Bibliography

835.2120 Hydrolysis

MRID Citation Reference

00153708 Burkhard, N. (1977) Hydrolysis of Propazine under Laboratory Con

- ditions: Project Rept. No. 33/77. Unpublished study prepared by Ciba

- Geigy Ltd., Basle. 16 p.

43689802 Perdue, D. (1994) Hydrolysis of (carbon 14)

- Propazine in Aqueous Buffered Solutions at pH 5, 7, and 9: Lab Project Number: 850: 1640. Unpublished study prepared by PTRL East, Inc. 72 p.

835.2240 Photodegradation

- water
MRID Citation Reference

00153709 Halama, P.; Balu, K.; Hofberg, A. (1972) Photolysis of Propazine in Aqueous Solution under Natural and Artificial Sunlight Condi

- tions: Rept. No. GAAC

- 72116. Unpublished study prepared by Ciba

- Geigy Corp. 10 p.

44184805 Mobley, S. (1994) Solution Photolysis of (carbon

- 14) Propazine in Artificial Light: Lab Project Number: 851: 1644. Unpublished study prepared by PTRL East, Inc. 89 p.

835.2410 Photodegradation

- soil

MRID Citation ReferencePage 32 of 35 00153710 Burkhard, N. (1979) Photolysis of Propazine (Gesamil) on Soil Sur

- faces under Artificial Sunlight Conditions: Project Rept. No. 03/79. Unpublished study prepared by Ciba

- Geigy Ltd., Basle. 14 p.

44184806 Mobley, S. (1994) Soil Surface Photolysis of (carbon

- 14) Propazine in Artificial Light: Lab Project Number: 852: 1645. Unpublished study prepared by PTRL East, Inc. 87 p.

835.4100 Aerobic soil metabolism

MRID Citation Reference

00153712 Keller, A. (1979) Degradation of Propazine (Gesamil) in Aerobic Soil: Project Rept. No. 15/79. Unpublished study prepared by Ciba

- Geigy Ltd., Basle. 19 p.

44184807 Perdue, D. (1995) Aerobic Soil Metabolism of (carbon

- 14) Propazine in Sandy Loam: Lab Proj ect Number: 865: 1661. Unpublished study prepared by PTRL East, Inc. 125 p.

835.4200 Anaerobic soil metabolism

MRID Citation Reference

00153713 Keller, A. (1979) Degradation of Propazine (Gesamil) in Soil Under Aerobic, Aerobic/Anaerobic and Sterile/Aerobic Conditions: Pro

- ject Rept. No. 23/79. Unpublished study prepared by Ciba

- Geigy Ltd.,Basle. 28 p.

835.4300 Aerobic aquatic metab.

MRID Citation Reference

48125802 Habeeb, S. (2010) Propazine: Aerobic Transformation in Aquatic Sediment Systems. Project Number: 64355. Unpublished study prepared by ABC Laboratories, Inc. 127 p.

835.4400 Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism

MRID Citation Reference

48125803 Habeeb, S.B. 201t), Propazine: Anaerobic transformation in aquatic sedimentPage 33 of 35 systems. Unpublished study performed by ABC Laboratories, Inc., Columbia, Missouri; sponsored and submitted by Albaugh, Inc., Valdosta, Georgia. ABC Study No.: 64356.

835.1240 Leach/adsorp/desorption

MRID Citation Reference

00152997 Warren, J. (1985) Determination of Adsorption/Desorption Constants of Propazine and GS

- 11526: ABC Report # 32641. Unpublished report prepared by Analytical Bio

- Chemistry Laboratories, Inc. 59 p.

43689803 Perdue, D. (1995) Column Leaching of (carbon 14)

- P ropazine in Four Soil Types Following Aerobic Aging: Lab Project Number: 855: 1660. Unpublished study prepared by PTRL East, Inc. 161 p.

43689804 Perdue, D. (1995) Soil Adsorption/Desorption of (carbon 14)

- Propazine by the Batch Equilibrium Method: Lab P roject Number: 853: 1653. Unpublished study prepared by PTRL East, Inc. 78 p.

44287313 Perdue, D. (1995) Soil Adsorption/Desorption of 2

- Hydroxy

- (carbon 14)Propazine by the Batch Equilibrium Method: (Final Report): Lab Project Number: 913: 1817. Unpubli shed study prepared by PTRL East, Inc. 75 p.

835.6100 Terrestrial field dissipation

MRID Citation Reference

44184809 Hughes, D. (1996) Field Soil Dissipation of Propazine (Milo

Pro 4L) on Bare Soil in Texas: Final Report: Lab Project Number: 6641

- 100: CHW 6641

- 100. Unpublished study prepared by American Agricultural Services, Inc. and Corning Hazleton Inc. 277 p.

44287 314 Hughes, D. (1996) Field Soil Dissipation of Propazine (Milo

Pro 4L) on Bare Soil in North Carolina: Final Report: Lab Project Number: 6641

- 100A: CHW 6641

- 100A. Unpublished study prepared by American Agricultural Services, Inc. and Corning Hazleton, Inc . 276 p.

153715 Honeycutt, R. (1985) Field Dissipation Studies on PropazinePage 34 of 35 (Milo

- gard 80W) (Columbia, New York): Rept. No. EIR

84021. Unpublish

- ed studies prepared by Ciba

- Geigy Corp. 273 p.

153716 Honeycutt, R. (1985) Field Dissipation Studies on P ropazine (Milo

- gard 80W) (Fresno, California): Rept. No. EIR

- 84025. Unpublish

- ed study prepared by Ciba

- Geigy Corp. 185 p.

153717 Honeycutt, R. (1985) Field Dissipation Studies on Propazine (Milo

- gard 80W) (York, Nebraska): Rept. No. EIR

- 84026. Unpubl ished study prepared by Ciba

- Geigy Corp. 232 p.

153718 Honeycutt, R. (1985) Field Dissipation Studies on Propazine (Milo

- gard 80W) (Lubbock, Texas): Rept. No. EIR

- 84027. Unpublished study prepared by Ciba

- Geigy Corp. 182 p.

835.6100 Small Scale Prospective Groundwater

MRID Citation Reference

44184808 Lightle, S.; Coody, P. (1996) The Mobility and Degradation of (carbon

- 14) Propazine Utilizing Field Installed Lysimeters in a North Carolina Loamy Sand Soil: Lab Project Number: 901: 1876: 107. Unpublished study prepared by PTRL East, Inc; PTRL South, Inc. ; and A & L Great Lakes Labs., Inc. 344 p.

850.1730 Bioaccumulation in fish

MRID Citation Reference

44184812 Jalali, K.; Forbis, A. (1996) Bioconcentration of (carbon

- 14) Propazine in Bluegill Sunfish Following Exposure in a Flow

Through System: Lab Project Number: 516W

- 1: 516W: 516W/ABC 42167. Unpublished study prepared by PTRL West, Inc. and ABC Labs. 206 p.

850.7100 Environmental Chemistry Guidelines

MRID Citation Reference

00065585 Mattson, A.M.; Kahrs, R.A.; Murphy, R.T. (1969) Quantitative Determination of Triazine Herbicides in Soils by Chemical Analysis: GAAC

- 69014. MethodPage 35 of 35 dated Mar 18, 1969. (Unpublished study received Aug 26, 1977 under 100

- 496; submitted by Ciba

- Geigy Corp., Greensboro, N.C.; CDL:231423

- B)

46839502 ECM Review by USEPA Triazines in Water