OFFICE OF

CHEMICAL SAFETY AND

POLLUTION PREVENTION UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON , D.C. 20460



### PC Code: 1 2 9 092

DP Barcode : D411291, D404234

Date: September 2 5 , 2013

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT : Fenoxaprop

- p

- ethyl Drinking Water Assessment for Registration Review and Section 3

New Use Registration

TO: Molly Clayton

, Chemical Review Manager

Patricia Parrot

, Branch Chief

Risk Management and Implementation Branch III

Pesticide Re

- Evaluation Division (7508 P)

Andrew Ertman, Risk Manager

Barbara Madden

, Team Leader

Risk Integration Minor Use and Emergency Response Branch

Registration Division (7505 P)

Grant Rowland, Risk Manager

Kathryn Montague

, Product Manager

Herbicide Branch

Registration Division (7505 P)

Don Wilbur , Dietary Assessor

Felicia Fort , Branch Chief

Risk Assessment Branch V I

Health Effects Division (7509P)

FROM: Chuck Peck, Environmental Engineer

Environmental Risk Branch IV

Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P )

REVIEWED Jim Carleton , PhD, Senior Scientist

BY: Environmental Risk Branch IV

Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P )

APPROVED Marietta Echeverria, Branch Chief

BY: Environmental Risk Branch IV

Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P )

### − 2

− EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A screening

- level drinking water assessment (DWA) for fenoxaprop

- p

- ethyl was conducted in

support of registration review and the IR

- 4 petition 2E8051 for use on grass grown for seed

. Fenoxaprop

p

- ethyl [FPE; (+)

- ethyl 2

- [4

- [(6

- chloro

- 2

- benzoxazolyl)oxy]phenoxy]propanoate , PC Code 129092 ] is a

selective aryloxyphenoxypropionate herbicide used to control grass weed s after emergence

. FPE is

currently registered for use on barley, cotton, rice, soybeans, and wheat, and is registered for non

agricultural use on conservation reserves, ornamentals, rights

- of

- way, and turf

.

The maximum application rate for the foliar use s is for ornamentals, rights

- of

- way, and turf , at

0. 173 lbs a.i./ acre/application, applied wi th a 14

- day reapplication interval and a maximum total annual

application rate of 0. 531 lb a.i./ A/yr

. The maximum proposed application rate for the proposed new grass

grown for seed use is 0. 083 lbs a.i./ acre/application, applied one time per year for a maximum total

annual application rate of 0. 083 lb a.i./ A/yr. Use on rice was a lso evaluated, as managed aquatic releases

from rice paddies impact receiving water hydrology and chemistry differently than rainfall

- driven runoff

from more

- typical agricultural land

. T he maximum proposed application rate for rice use is 0. 108 lbs

a.i./ A /application, applied twice per year with a 14

- day reapplication interval

, with a maximum total

annual application rate of 0. 188 lb a.i./ A/yr.

The computer model s PRZM and EXAMS and the Tier I R ice model were used to generate

surface water EDWCs for use in the human health dietary risk assessment, while the PRZM

- GW and

SCI

- GROW models were used to generate groundwater EDWCs. In 2007, the Health Effects Division

(HED) identified FPE and its two degradates, fenoxaprop

- p acid ((D+)

- 2

- [4

- (6

- chloro

- 2

- benzoxazolyloxy) phenoxy] propanoate

, AE F088406) and c hlorobenzoxazolone ( 4

- (6

- chloro

- 2

- benzoxazolyloxy) phenol

, AE F054014)

, as resi d ue s of concern in drinking water because the se resid ues

retained the 6

- chloro

- 2

- benzoxazol moiety ( Ref. 8 )

. Newly submitted environmental fate studies

i ndicate d that a fourth degradate, 4

- (6

- chloro

- 2

- benzoxazolyloxy) phenol (AE F040356)

, also contained

the 6

- chloro

- 2

- benzoxazol moiety. This degradate was included as a residue of concern, so the parent

plus the three degradates were assessed using a total toxic residue (TTR) approach ( Ref. 1 4 )

. Additionally, as high levels ( e.g. , >20%) of non

- extracted residues (NER) were found in all

environmental fate st udies and these NER were found to contain levels of two degradates of concern

( fenoxaprop

- p acid and c hlorobenzoxazolone ) when subjected to harsh mineral acid extr a ction

, NER were

also included in the TTR approach (see Appendix C for further discussion)

. However, it is uncertain as

to how available these residues are to reaching surface water and groundwater drinking water sources. As

such, EFED modeled FPE TTR with and without NER to bracket the EDWCs. Chemical structures for

the parent and t hree degrad ates are provided in Appendix A

.

The maximum acute and chronic surface EDWCs ( 1 10 and 6 9 μ g/L , respectively ) were

associated with application to rice

. Tier I Rice model results and the PRZM/EXAMs output file s are

provided in Appendix B

. Surface water EDWCs for the proposed new use of grass grown for seed were

much lower than the maximum values (acute EDWC of 1.65 μ g/L and a chronic EDWC of 0.62 μ g/L).

For groundwater sources of drinking water, the maximum acute and chronic estimated

concentration s of FPE TTR in shallow groundwater from PRZM

- GW for applications to turf w ere 0. 17

and 0.032 μg/L , respectively

. The maximum groundwater EDWC reported from SCI

- GROW w as 0. 09 6

μ g/L for the chemical’s use on turf

. PRZM

- GW and SCI

- GROW results files are provided in Appendix

B

.

### − 3

− Maximum EDWCs for FPE residues in surface water and groundwater recommended for dietary

assessment are presented in Table 1 ; complete modeling results are presented in Table s 10 and 11

.

Table 1

. Maximum EDWCs of FPE plus toxic degradates and NER

.

DRINKING

WATER SOURCE

(MODEL USED) USE (rate modeled) MAXIMUM ESTIMATED

DRINKING WATER

CONCENTRATION (EDWC) ( ppb)

1

- in

- 10 year acute

( μg/L ) 1

- in

- 10 year

chronic ( μg/L )

Surface water

(Tier I Rice Model) Foliar Rice

( first app at 0. 108 lbs a

. i

. / A, 14 day RTI,

second app at 0.034 lbs a

. i

. /A, third app

at 0.046 lbs a

. i

. /A ) 1 10 6 8.6

Groundwater

(PRZM

- GW) Aerial Foliar

(turf, 0. 17 3 lbs a.i./ A x 3 , RTI = 14 days

, fourth app at 0.012 lbs a

. i

. /A ) 0.17 0.032



### This assessment is based on available environmental fate data. There are no significant data gaps

in the environmental fate databas e. T here are no existing monitoring data for FPE or its degradates

.

PROBLEM FORMULATION

This is a screening

- level drinking water assessment (DWA) that uses modeling t o estimate

surface water and groundwater concentrations of pesticides in drinking water source water (pre

treatment)

, resulting from pesticide use on sites that are vulnerable. Screening

- level DWAs are designed

to eliminate the need for further scrutiny of chemicals with low potential for posing a drinking water

concern

.

ANALYSIS

Use Characterization

F PE is a selective aryloxyphenoxypropionate herbicide used to control grass weed s after

emergence. Aryloxyphenoxypropionate herbicides are mobile in the phloem

, and work by inhibiting

acetyl coenzyme A carboxylase, which effectively inhibits lipid synthesis in target plants (Martin, 2000).

FPE is currently registered for use on barley, cotton, rice, so ybeans, and wheat, and is registered for non

agricultural use on conservation reserves, ornamentals, rights

- of

- way, and turf. It is also being proposed

for use on grass grown for seed

. FPE products are flowable and are applied by ground or aerial methods ;

applications by chemigation are prohibited.

A number of the current ly registered FPE products also contain other active ingredients ( e.g.

, f luazifop

- P

- butyl , dicamba acid, p inoxaden , p yrasulfotole , etc.) . This evaluation is limited to exposure to

FPE residues alone

, and does not include estimated concentrations of other active ingredient residues

.

Application information for the current and proposed use s of FPE is presented in Table 2

. As

part of registration review, the r egistrant submitted a letter committing to the label rates provided below

( Refs. 9 and 10 ) ( Appendix D )

.

### − 4

− Table 2 . Summary use information for FPE applications.

Use Max

Application

Rate per

Application

(lbs a.i./A) Max # of

Applications

Per Season Min

A pplication

Retreatment

Interval

(days) Max

Application

Rate per

Season 1

(lbs a.i./A) Max # of

App s Per

Year Max

Application

Rate per

Year 1

(lbs a.i./A)

Barley 0.083 1 NA 0.083 2 0.188

Conservation

Reserve 0.1 2 14 0.128 3 0.188

Cotton 0.105 1 NA 0.105 1 0.105

Ornamental 0.173 NA 14 NA 4 0.531

Rice 0.071

0.108 2

2 14

14 0.142

0.142 3

3 0.188

Right

- of

- Way 0.173 NA 14 NA 4 0.531

Soybeans 0.1 05

0.1 1

2 NA

14 0.105

0.128 1

3 0.105

0.188

Turf 0. 173 NA 14 NA 4 0.531

Grass grown for

seed 0.083 NA NA 0.083 1 0.083

Wheat 0.083 1 NA 0.083 2 0.188

1. Where the maximum single application rate is not evenly divisible by the maximum application rate per season,

the additional application rate s were reduced to meet the maximum application rate per season requirement. Where

the maximum annual application rate is higher than the maximum application rate per season, the additional

application was made using the difference between the maximum annual application rate and the maximum

application rate per season

. EFED assumed one growing season per year for each agricultural crop.



### According to OPP’s Biological and Economic Analysis Division’s (BEAD’s) review of available

usage data, between 2003 and 2010 over 350,000 lbs of fenoxaprop and fenoxaprop

- p

- ethyl were used on

agricultural crops in the United States ( Ref. 1 )

. Table 3 depicts the breakdown, by crop, with wheat

accounting for over 80% of the annual use.

Table 3 . Annual Usage of Fenoxaprop and Fenoxaprop

- p

- ethyl in the United Stat es, 2003

- 2010

Crop Lbs. A.I. / yr Percent Crop Treated

Average Maximum

Barley 40,000 15 30

Cotton <500 <1 <2.5

Fallow <500 <1 <2.5

Rice 10,000 5 10

Soybeans 20,000 <1 <2.5

Wheat 300,000 10 25



### Environmental Fate and Transport Characterization

FPE is partially soluble in water, with a limit of 0.7 mg/L at 20 ° C and pH 5.8 (MRID 44676401).

The compound is not expected to volatilize significantly due to its low vapor pressure of 1.4 x 10

- 8 

### torr

(20° C; Acc. # 412

- 03

- 0113). The octanol

- water partition coefficient of FPE is 38,000 (MRID 44659601),

which is consistent with the relatively high bioconcentration factor (BCF) observed in fish viscera

(1021x) and in edible fish portions (129x ) and whole fish portions (510x ; MRID 41567707).

### − 5

− FPE is hydrolyzed moderately rapidly in acidic conditions (t 1⁄2 

### = 19.6 d at pH 5) and neutral

conditions (t 1⁄2 

### = 24.6 d at pH 7), and quickly in alkaline conditions (t 1⁄2 

### = 0.7 d at pH 9; MRID 47123201 ).

T wo major degradates were identified: fenoxaprop

- p aci d ( AE F0 88406) and c hlorobenzoxazolone ( AE

F054014 ) . Fenoxaprop

- p acid wa s the primary degradate at up to 32% of applied radioact ivity in the

hydrolysis study at pH 7 (30 days after treatment (DAT) ) and 96 % of applied radioact ivity in the

hydrolysis study at pH 9 (6 DAT ; MRID 4 7123201). B oth FPE and fenoxaprop

- p acid may hydrolyze to

c hlorobenzoxazolone , which was observed in the hydrolysis study at up to 64 % of the applied at pH 5 ( 30

DAT ), 23% of the a pplied at pH 7 (30 DAT), and 20% of the applied at pH 9 (30 DAT)

. When

evaluating the TTR, the combined residues were stable to hydrolysis at all pH s

. FPE also degrades

quickly via aqueous photolysis , with an estimated half

- life of 0.95 day (MRID 4809850 2 ). Fenoxaprop

- p

acid and AE F040356 w ere identified as minor degradate s, reaching maximum s of 2.4% (3 hour s after

treatment ( HAT ) ) and 6.2% (16 HAT) of the applied radioactivity, respectively

. While

chlorobenzoxazolone was not identified as a degradate, it was not clear from the study if the analytical

method was capable of detecting it.

FPE was quickly bi odegraded in aerobic soils (t 1⁄2 

### ≤ 1.63 d; MRID s 48757101 and 48868703 ) , in

aerobic aquatic systems (t 1⁄2 

### < 1 d; MRID s 4 71233208, 45081602, and 48868701 )

, and in a naerobic

aquatic systems (t 1⁄2 

### ≤ 2.4 d; MRID s 45081601 and 48868702 ). F enoxaprop

- p acid was the major

degradate identified in these studies, reaching maxim a of 88% of the applied radioactivity at 1 DAT in the

aerobic soil studies and 96 % of the app lied ( 1 DAT ) in the aer obic aquatic metabolism studies

. Fenoxaprop

- p acid was also the major degradate in the anaerobic aquatic metabolism study, but reached a

maximum much more slow ly: 88% at 7 DAT. AE F040356 was a major degradate in the aerobic and

anaerobic aquatic studies, reaching maxima of 13.8% (28 DAT) and 15% (30 DAT), respectively.

C hlorobenzoxazolone was not identified as a major degradate in any of the studies, reaching a maximum

of 9% of the applied radioactivity. It should be noted that all of t he biodegradation studies had high levels

of non

- extracted residues ( NER, 18

- 69 % in all studies, except one anaerobic aquatic trial that had NER

around 7%) . As the NER have been shown to contain varying levels of f enoxaprop

- p acid and

c hlorobenzo xazolone when subjected to harsh mineral acids (see Appendix C ), half

- lives were estimated

for TTR with and without NER

.

FPE residues are considered moderately mobile. A batch equilibrium study was conducted using

radiolabeled FPE, generating Freundlich soil

- water partitioning coefficients (K F 

### ) for the combined

radioactive residues that ranged from 4.10 to 9.77 mL/g (K FOC 

### ranging from 223 to 1,767 mL/g

oc 

### , MRID

42915001). Mobility of total residues was not well explained by affinity to organic matter, as the

coefficient of variation (CV) across four soils for K FOC 

### (87%) was greater than that for K F 

### (36%). The

data were insufficient to estimate a K F 

### and K FOC 

### for FPE alone, as mobility for FPE was only assessed at

one concentration.

A n aquatic field dissip ation study was conducted with the FPE end use product Whip® (HOE

46360 75 EW; MRID 43066404). Whip® was broadcast at 0.41 lbs a.i./A onto subplots of clay loam soil

in a drained rice patty in California with rice seedlings grown to the 1

- to 4

- leaf stage . At 4 DAT, the

paddy was flooded with 6 inches of canal water and flood irrigated through 60 DAT. Soil samples (0

- 12

inch depth) were collected through 60 DAT. The limit of quantitation for residues of FPE was 10 ppb (10

μg/kg); samples containing ≥ 50 ppb of FPE residues were analyzed for individual compounds. FPE

residues of concern (FPE, fenoxaprop

- p acid, and c hlorobenzoxazolone ) dissipated in the drained soil (0

- 3 inch depth) with a half

- life of 2.54 days. This dissipation rate is faster than the degradation rates in the

submitted fate studies , but within a factor of 3 of the aerobic soil metabolism study half

- lives

. FPE total

residues were detected at a maximum concentration of 350 μg/kg (15% of the applied concentration; 0

- 3

### − 6

− inch depth, 0.04 DAT) and at a maximum depth of 6 inches. FPE total residues were not detected above

the limit of quantitation (0.01 μg/L) in flood water. FPE was detected at a maximum concentration of 60

μg/kg (0

- 3 inch depth; 1

- 2 DAT); fenoxaprop

- p aci d was detected at a maximum concentration of 270

μg/kg (0

- 3 inch depth; 0. 0 4 DAT); c hlorobenzoxazolone was detected at a maximum concentration of 70

μg/kg (0

- 3 inch depth; 4 DAT). Maximum depths of FPE parent, fenoxaprop

- p acid, and

chlorobenzoxazolone we re not reported. While this study provide s information on the dissipation of FPE

residues when applied to pre

- flooded soil, the study does not adequately address the fate of FPE residues

during post

- flooded applications.

FPE and its major degradates cont aining the 6

- chloro

- 2

- benzoxazol moiety (fenoxaprop

- p acid

, chlorobenzoxazolone , and 4

- (6

- chloro

- 2

- benzoxazolyloxy) phenol ) are considered by HED to be residues

of concern for dietary risk assessment ( Ref s . 8 and 14 ). Toxicity data specific to the three degradates of

concern are unavailable. In the absence of data, the FPE degradates of concern are assumed to have

similar toxicity to that of FPE parent. Therefore, a total toxic residue (TTR) approach has been used for

the current drinking water exposur e assessment to evaluate the potential exposure of humans to the

residues of risk concern, i.e. , FPE, fenoxaprop

- p acid, chlorobenzoxazolone , and 4

- (6

- chloro

- 2

- benzoxazolyloxy) phenol

. Additionally, because two of the se degradates have been identified as

components of non

- extracted residues ( NER ) in aerobic soil and aerobic and anaerobic aquatic studies,

NER have been included among the total residues considered in the TTR analysis.



### Table 4 summarizes the physicochemical properties of FPE and FPE TTR

.

Table 4 . Physical and chemical properties for FPE

.

Chemical/Fate Parameter Value Source (MRID)

Chemical name (D+)

- ethyl

- 2

- [4

- (6

- chloro

- 2

- benzoxazolyloxy)phenoxy]propanoate 44676401

Molecular mass 361.8 g/mol 44676401

Vapor pressure (20 ° C) 1.4 x 10

- 8 torr Acc ession #

412

- 03

- 0113

Water solubility (pH 5.8; 20 ° C) 0.7 mg/L 44676401

Octanol

- water partition coefficient (K OW ) 38,000 44659601

Hydrolysis half

- life (d) (pH 5, 25 ° C) FPE TTR 4 7123201 1

(acceptable) 19.6 Stable

Hydrolysis half

- life (d) (pH 7, 25 ° C) FPE TTR

24.6 Stable

Hydrolysis half

- life (d) (pH 9, 25 ° C) FPE TTR

0.7 Stable

Aqueous photolysis half

- life (d) (pH 7) FPE TTR 48098502

(supplement al) 0.95 1.22

Aerobic soil metabolism half

- life (d) 2 FPE TTR 3 Soil 5 48757101 &

48868703

( acceptable ) 1.63 10 / 109 Sandy loam (1.4%)

0.31 8.7 / 94 Sandy loam (0.48%)

0.26 17.7 / 162 Loamy sand (0.46%)

### − 7

− Chemical/Fate Parameter Value Source (MRID)

0.07 12.8 / 105 Silt loam (1.9%)

A erobic aquatic metabolism half

- life (d) FPE TTR 3 Sediment 5

0.15

0.31 59.3 / 85.6

126 / 202 Sand (0.8%)

Clay (2.2%) 47123208

(supplemental)

0.75

0.15 20 .8 / 23 9

12.8 / 2 58 Sand (0.14%)

Silt loam (3.97%) 45081602

(supplemental)

0.09

0.11 16.6 / 136 .5

24.6 / 275 Silty clay loam (0.7

- 18%)

Silt loam (4.1%) 48868701

( supplemental )

Anaerobic aquatic metabolism half

- lif e (d) 0.22 43.4 / 2 86 Loam (5.95%) 45081601

( supplemental )

1.85

2.40 101 / 897

143 / 217 Silty clay loam (0.7%)

Silt loam (4.3%) 48868702

(supplemental)

Total residues Freundlich soil

- water

distribution coefficient (K F ) 4 ; Total

residues Freundlich organic carbon

partitioning coefficient (K FOC ) 4 K F K FOC Soil 5 4291500 1

( supplemental ) 4.1 1,767 Clay (0.2%)

6.6 807 Silty clay loam (0.8%)

9.8 383 Sandy loam (2.6%)

5.9 223 Clay loam (2.7%)

Terrestr ial field dissipation half

- life (d) No acceptable data

Aquatic field dissipation half

- life (d) FPE TTR MRID

43066404

( acceptable ) <1 2.54

Fish Bioconcentration Factor 129 (edible)

1021 (non

- edible)

510 (whole fish) 41567707

(supplemental)

1. MRID 44659602, considered provisional in PF, determined to be unacceptable.

2. MRID 43400602, considered provisional in PF, determined to be unacceptable. Two newly submitted studies

(MRIDs 48757101 and 48757102) were determined to be acceptable.

3

. Without and with non

- extracted residue ( NER ) . As the chlorophenyl radio

- labeled half

- life estimates were

significantly higher than the phenoxy radiolabeled half

- life estimates for TTR w/ NER, the chlorophenyl radio

labeled half

- life values w ere reported. For FPE and TTR w/o NER, half

- lives are the result of combining the two

rad iolabels , except for the anaerobic aquatic study, where the radiolabels were significantly different.

4. The Freundlich exponent that describes curvilinearity (1/n) wa s 1.00 in all cases. The data were insufficient to

estimate a K F and K FOC for FPE alone, as only one concentration was analyzed.

5. % indicates percent of organic carbon in soil or sediment.



### Drinking Water Exposure Modeling

Models

FPE TTR EDWCs for surface water and groundwater were generated using EFED’s standard

suite of models. The Pesticide Root Zone Model (PRZM, v3.12.2, May 2005) and Exposure Analysis

Modeling System (EXAMS, v2.98.4.6, April 2005) are simulation models coupled with the inp ut shell

pe5.pl (August, 2007) to generate EDWCs of FPE TTR that may occur in surface water used as drinking

### − 8

− water. The PRZM model simulates pesticide transformation on and runoff from an agricultural field

following applications to crops . The EXAMS model simulates aquatic concentrations resulting from these

runoff

- driven loadings

, in addition to those from spray drift

. S tandard assumptions for drinking water

assessment are a watershed of 172.8 ha that drains into an adjacent drinking water “ index ” reservoi r of

5.26 ha surface area , an d average depth 2.74 m. A more detailed description of the index reservoir and its

watershed can be found in Jones et al. , 1998. The PRZM and EXAMS model s and their users ’ manuals

may be downloaded from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Water Models web

- page

(USEPA, 2006). Spray drift (modeled as direct deposition of the pesticide into the reservoir) is assumed

to be 16% of the applied active ingredient for ae rial application, 6.3% for orchard air blast application,

and 6.4% for other ground spray application. A Percent Cropped Area (PCA) of 100 % was used because

current labels include nonagricultural uses ( e.g. , right

- of

- way and ornamentals) ( Ref. 2 )

.

G roundw ater EDWCs for FPE were derived using the PRZM

- GW model (Pesticide Root Zone

Model for Groundwater, version 1.0, August 31, 2012), with the GW

- GUI (Graphical User Interface,

version 1.0, August 31, 2012). PRZM

- GW is a one

- dimensional model that estimates the concentrations

of pesticides in groundwater. It accounts for pesticide fate in the crop root zone by simulating pesticide

transport and degradation through the soil profile after a pesticide is applied to an agricultural field.

PRZM

- GW permits the as sessment of multiple years of pesticide application (up to 100 years) on a single

site. Six standard scenarios, each representing a different region known to be vulnerable to groundwater

contamination, are available for use with PRZM

- GW for risk assessmen t purposes. In PRZM

- GW

simulations, each of these standard scenarios was used. PRZM

- GW output represent s pesticide

concentrations in vulnerable groundwater located directly beneath a n agricultural field , following many

years of pesticide application ( Ref. 5 and 6 )

.

EDWC s in groundwater w ere also estimated using EFED’s groundwater model SCI

- GROW

(Screening Concentration in Ground Water, version 2.3 ; 8/8/2003 ). SCI

- GROW is a regression model

used as a screening tool to estimate potential pesticide conce ntrations in vulnerable ground water that

might be used as drinking water. SCI

- GROW was developed by fitting a linear model to groundwater

concentrations with the Relative Index of Leaching Potential (RILP) as the independent variable.

Groundwater concen trations were taken from 90

- day average high concentrations from Prospective

Ground Water studies; the RILP is a function of aerobic soil metabolism and the soil

- water partition

coefficient. The output of SCI

- GROW represents concentrations that might be e xpected to occur in

shallow unconfined aquifers under sandy soils, which is representative of the ground water most

vulnerable to pesticide contamination likely to serve as a drinking water source ( Ref. 3 )

.

T he EFED Tier I Rice Model (v1.0, May 8, 2007) was used to estimate aquatic exposures for

direct water application s that represent high exposure sites for rice use. Each of these sites represents a

shallow impoundment with a 10 cm water depth. When a pesticide is applied to the water, the model

assu mes instantaneous partition ing between the water and sediment phase s according to the partition

coefficient of the chemical ( Ref. 7 ) . The formula of the Tier I Rice Model v1.0 is as follows:

### − 9

− A c hronic concentration w as derived by applying the 90 th 

### percentile upper confidence limit aerobic

aquatic degradation half

- life (2 44 days) to the acute concentration and allowing the concentration to

degrade for 365 days, then calculating the average concentration during that 365 day period.

Modeling Approach and Input Parameters

Screening

- level modeling was conducted to generate EDWC s in surface water and groundwater

of FPE following its use on barley, cotton, rice, soybeans, and wheat, as well as on conservation reserves,

ornamentals, rights

- of

- way, and turf

. Surface water modeling for all crops except rice was conducted

using PRZM and EXAMS

, based on application rates presented in Table 2

. Mode ling for applications to

rice was conducted using the Tier I R ice model, with an annual application rate of 0. 188 lbs a.i./ A/year.

Physical/chemical properties and environmental fate source data (from submitted studies) a re presented in

Table 4

. Input fate parameter s used in surface water modeling with PRZM and EXAMS are presented in

Table 5

. S cenarios model ed with PRZM and EXAMS are indicated in Table 6

, including application

dates and the rationale for the first application date selection. FPE products can be applied using ground

or aerial equipment. As aerial applications tend to generate more conservative EDWCs

, aerial

applications were modeled and a spray drift value of 0.16 and an application efficiency value of 0.95 were

selected, per EFED guidance ( Ref. 4 ). As FPE products can be applied as a foliar application after the

crop has emerged, a chemical application method (CAM) of 2 was used in modeling. The soil

incorporation depth for all applications was set to 0 cm and the IPSCND parameter was set to 1, which

means that any pesticide remaining on the foliage after harvest is assumed to be t ransferr ed directly to the

soil surface at harvest

.

Input parameter values used fo r groundwater modeling with SCI

- GROW and PRZM

- GW are

presented in Tables 7 and 8

. Input parameter values for the Tier I Rice model are presented in Table 9

.

In running PRZM and EXAMS , PRZM

- GW, and the Tier I Rice model , the mean soil sorption

coefficient (K d 

### = 6.6 mL/g ) was used in accordance with standard EFED practice, because the K

oc 

### model

of sorption was determined not to apply to this compound ( i.e.

, sorption was found to be not correlated

with organic carbon)

. There is some uncertainty with this approach with regards to PRZM

- GW, as the

sorption study was conducted on soils typically associated with surface soils which are not representative

of groundwater aquifer soils. This is characterized further in the Uncertainties and Data Gap section.

I n running SCI

- GROW, the median K

oc 

### ( 5 95 mL/g

oc 

### ) was used

, in accordance with EFED’s input

parameter guidance ( Ref. 4 ) . In running PRZM/EXAMS and PRZM

- GW , an aerobic soil metabolism

### − 10

− half

- life of 142 days was used, which i s the 90 percent upper confidence limit on the mean (over the 4

available measurements ) half

- li fe for total toxic residues , including NER . In running SCI

- GROW, an

aerobic soil metabolism half

- life of 107 days was used ( i.e.

, the median half

- li fe for the same 4 values ),

also in accordance with standard practice per EFED’s input parameter guidance

.

While aggressive extraction techniques have demonstrated that the NER contain FPE degradates

of concern, it is uncertain as to how available these residues are to reaching surface water and

groundwater drinking water sources. As such, EFED modeled FPE TTR with and without NER to

bracket the EDWCs.

Table 5 . Input values for the PRZM/EXAMS model for FPE TTR with and without NER 1



### .

Input Parameter Value Source/comment

Molecular weight (g/mol) 361.8

Vapor pressure ( torr @ 25 oC) 1.4E

- 08 Acc. # 412

- 03

- 0113

Solubility in water (mg/L @ 20oC) 0.7 MRID 44676401

Henry’s Law Constant ( atm

- m 3 /mol) 9.52E

- 9 Calculated from vapor pressure and solubility

where HENRY = (VAPR/760)/(SOL/MWT),

Hydrolysis half

- life ( t 1⁄2 in days) pH 5: stable ( 0 )

pH 7: stable ( 0 )

pH 9: stable ( 0 ) MRID 47123201

Aqueous Photolysis half

- life ( t 1⁄2 in

days) 1.22 MRID 48098502

Aerobic Soil metabolism half

- life ( t 1⁄2

in days) 142 (16) MRID s 4 8757101 and 48868703

. Represents

the 90 th percent upper

- bound confidence limit

on the mean of 4 aerobic soil metabolism half

life values. 2

Anaerobic aquatic metabolism half

life ( t 1⁄2 in days) 874 ( 150 ) MRID s 45081601 and 48868702 . Represents

the 90 th percent upper

- bound confidence limit

on the mean of 3 an aerobic aquatic metabolism

half

- life values. 2

Aerobic Aquatic metabolism half

- life

( t 1⁄2 in days) 244 ( 70 ) MRIDs 47123208, 45081602 and 48868701

. Represents the 90 th percent upper

- bound

confidence lim i t on the mean of 6 aerobic

aquatic metabolism half

- life values. 2

S oil partition coefficient K d (mL/g) 6.6 MRID 42915001 . Average of four K d values

for TTR

. Coefficient of variance for K d data

indicate more appropriate than K

oc . 2

1 Half

- life estimates in parenthesis are model values that do not include NER in their estimation.

2 EFED input parameter guidance is located at: http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/input_parameter_guidance.htm



### Table 6 . PRZM/EXAMS Scenario Inp uts for FPE TTR Modeling

Use PE5 Scenario App Dates Comments

Barley / Wheat CAWheatRLF_V2

NDwheatSTD

ORwheatOP 1

TXwheatOP 1 1/8, 6/16

5/23, 8/6

7/2, 9/8

6/18, 10/23 Apply between 2

- leaf stage to

pre

- boot stage

Emergence to 60 days before

harvest

Application set to 7 days after

emergence

### − 11

− Use PE5 Scenario App Dates Comments

Conservation Reserve 2 CAalfalfa_WirrigOP

ILalfalfaNMC

MNalfalfaOP

NCalfalfaOP

PAalfalfaOP

TXalfalfaOP 3/21, 4/4, 12/31

3/21, 4/4, 8/30

3/21, 4/4, 8/30

3/21, 4/4, 8/30

3/21, 4/4, 11/1

3/21, 4/4, 8/2 Conservation r eserve s are

often seeded with clover,

alfalfa, tall fescue, bromegrass,

and ryegrass

Used same start date as turf

Cotton CAcotton_WirrigSTD

MScottonSTD

NCcottonSTD

STXcottonNMC

TXcottonOP 5/8

5/8

6/8

3/23

4/23 Do not apply after boll set.

Application set to 7 days after

emergence

Ornamental CAnurserySTD

FLnurserySTD

MInurserySTD

MInurserySTD_V2

NJnurserySTD

NurseryBSS_V2

ORnurserySTD

TNnurserySTD 3/21, 4/4, 4/18 Used same start date as turf

Rice Tier 1 Rice Model NA 4

- leaf stage to late tillering

Right

- of

- Way CArightofwayRLF_V2

RightOfWayBSS 3/21, 4/4, 4/18

3/21, 4/4, 4/18 Used same start date as turf

Soybeans , single app

Soybeans, multiple apps MSsoybeanSTD 4/23

4/23, 5/7, 10/11 Apply prior to soybean bloom

Application set to 7 days after

emergence

Turf CATurfRLF

FLturfSTD

PAturfSTD 3/21, 4/4, 4/18

3/21, 4/4, 4/18

3/21, 4/4, 4/18 Spring

Grass grown for seed CATurfRLF

FLturfSTD

PAturfSTD 3/21

3/21

3/21 Spring

1 Winter wheat scenarios, so harvest is in summer. First app date was done at 0.105 lb/A, with second app date at 0.083 lb/A.

2 As FPE can only be applied twice to conservation reserves (see Table 2), the third application date is the first date after h arvest of the alfalfa

from the scenario.



### Table 7

. Input values for the SCI

- GROW model for FPE TTR with and without NER 1



### .

Variable Name Data Value Data Source

MRID(s) Comment

Application Rate (lbs.

a.i./ acre) 0. 5 3 1 ( turf ) Proposed labels

Application Frequency 3 1 ( turf ) Proposed labels

Aerobic Soil Metabolism

Half

- life (days) 107 (11.4) 48757101 &

48868703 Represents the median of 4

aerobic soil metabolism half

life values. 2

K

oc (mL/g

oc ) 5 95 42915001 Median of four value s 2

1 Half

- life estimates in parenthesis are model values that do not include NER in their estimation.

### − 12

− 2 EFED input parameter guidance is located at: http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/input_ parameter_guidance.htm

3 As the maximum single application rate did not divide evenly into the maximum annual application rate, a single application

rate at the maximum annual application rate was used.



### Table 8 . Input values for th e PRZM

- GW model for FPE TTR with and without NER 1



### .

Variable Name Data Value Data Source

MRID(s) Comment

Application Method Aerial (turf) Proposed

labels

Application Date 3/21 (turf) Spring

application

Application Rate

(lbs. a.i./ acre) [kg/ha] 0.173 [0.194 ] for first 3 applications

(turf) , 0.012 [0.013] for final

application Proposed

labels

Application Frequency 4 times per year (turf) Proposed

labels

Application Interval

(days) 14 (turf) Proposed

labels

Hydrolysis Half

- life

(days) Stable (0) 48409101

Aerobic Soil Metabolism

Half

- life (days) 142 (16) 4 8757101 &

48868703 Represents the 90 th

percent upper

- bound

confidence limit on

the mean of 4 aerobic

soil metabolism half

life values. 2

K d (mL/g) 6.6 42915001 Average of four K d

values for TTR

. Coefficient of

variance for K d data

indicate more

appropriate than K

oc 2

1 Half

- life estimates in parenthesis are model values that do not include NER in their estimation.

2 EFED input parameter guidance: http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/przm_gw/wqtt_przm_gw_input_guidance.htm



### Table 9 . Input values for the Tier I Rice model for FPE TTR with and without NER 1



### .

Variable Name Data Value Data Source

MRID(s) Comment

Application Rate ( kg/ha ) 0.1 88 x 1.12 = 0.211 Proposed

labels

K d (mL/g) 6.6 42915001 Average of four K d

values for TTR

. 2

### − 13

− Variable Name Data Value Data Source

MRID(s) Comment

Aerobic aquatic half

- life

(days) 2 44 ( 70 ) 47123208,

45081602, &

48868701 MRIDs 47123208,

45081602 and

48868701 . Represents

the 90 th percent upper

bound confidence

limi t on the mean of 6

aerobic aquatic

metabolism half

- life

values. 2

1 Half

- life estimates in parenthesis are model values that do not include NER in their estimation.

2 EFED input parameter guidance is located at: http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/#rice



### Modeling Results

S urface water modeling results for FPE TTR with and without NER for aerial application s are

presented in Table 10

. Groundwater values for FPE TTR with and without NER are presented in Table

1 1 . V alues in bold are recommended for use in the human health risk assessment. Outputs from the

model runs are provided in Appendix B

. Output concentration s reported in Appendix B for surface

water have been modified using a PCA adjustment factor of 1.0

, as nonagricultural uses (e.g., right

- of

way and ornamentals) are also included in the DWA

. Output concentration s for groundwater are not

adjusted using a PCA , as PCA s are watershed

- based modification s and only the surface water models, not

the groundwater models, used by EFED account for the size of a watershed

. Surface water EDWCs for

FPE TTR without NER were approximately 1 2

- 70% lower than the acute EDWCs and 3 4

- 8 1 % lower

than the chronic EDWCs for FPE TTR with NER , depending on the crop scenario. As groundwater

EDWCs were significantly lower than the surface w ater EDWCs, only the FPE TTR with NER estimates

are depicted in Table 11

.

Table 10

. FPE TTR (with and without NER) s creening level EDWCs for surface water based on

FPE use 1



### .

Crop Scenario 1

- in

- 10 year acute

(μg/L) 1

- in

- 10 year chronic

(μg/L)

Barley / Wheat CAWheatRLF_V2 3.31 (1.92) 1.44 (0.57)

NDwheatSTD 5.72 (3.14) 3.01 (1.28)

ORwheatOP 2 2.97 (1.47) 1.39 (0.51)

TXwheatOP 2 6.50 (4.08) 2.26 (0.88)

Conservation Reserve CAalfalfa_WirrigOP 2.49 (1.61) 1.14 (0.50)

ILalfalfaNMC 4.36 (2.24) 1.74 (0.69)

MNalfalfaOP 3.66 (1.85) 2.35 (0.92)

NCalfalfaOP 3.32 (2.52) 1.43 (0.66)

PAalfalfaOP 3.80 (2.80) 1.52 (0.87)

TXalfalfaOP 6.34 (3.52) 2.19 (0.76)

Cotton CAcotton_WirrigSTD 0.83 (0.72) 0.32 (0.15)

MScottonSTD 4.75 (3.27) 0.84 (0.44)

### − 14

− Crop Scenario 1

- in

- 10 year acute

(μg/L) 1

- in

- 10 year chronic

(μg/L)

NCcottonSTD 4.89 (3.34) 1.28 (0.57)

STXcottonNMC 5.82 (1.77) 1.50 (0.28)

TXcottonOP 4.31 (2.74) 1.28 (0.45)

Ornamental CAnurserySTD 6.60 (4.80) 3.96 (1.71)

FLnurserySTD 24.66 (19.80) 4.12 (2.55)

MInurserySTD_V2 11.49 (8.59) 3.87 (2.35)

NJnurserySTD 12.41 (9.25) 3.90 (2.14)

NurseryBSS_V2 17.64 (12.71) 4.20 (2.02)

ORnurserySTD 6.21 (4.92) 2.79 (1.54)

TNnurserySTD 14.09 (11.15) 3.72 (2.13)

Rice Tier 1 Rice Model 110 (110) 68.60 (29.56)

Right

- of

- Way CArightofwayRLF_V2 14.69 (7.23) 5.99 (2.00)

RightOfWayBSS 34.65 (15.93) 8.76 (2.65)

Soybeans MSsoybeanSTD 4.48 (3.01) 1.41 (0.60)

Turf CATurfRLF 7.56 (6.66) 3.40 (2.26)

FLturfSTD 6.56 (5.62) 2.83 (1.37)

PAturfSTD 5.30 (4.32) 2.63 (1.40)

Grass grown for seed CATurfRLF 1.68 (1.48) 0.67 (0.44)

FLturfSTD 1.27 (1.12) 0.48 (0.25)

PAturfSTD 1.11 (0.88) 0.49 (0.27)

1 Bolded values are recommended for use in the human health dietary risk assessment. Values in parenthesis are estimates derived using half

- life

values that do not include NER.

2 Winter wheat scenarios, so harvest is in summer. First app date was done at 0.105 lb a.i /A, with second app date at 0.083 lb a.i. /A.



### Table 11 . PRZM

- GW and SCI

- GROW results based on FPE TTR with NER use.

Model Crop Scenario Highest

Daily

Value

( μ g/L) Post

Breakthrough

A verage

( μ g/L) Average

S imulation

Breakthrough

Time (days)

PRZM

- GW Turf*

( 0. 173 lbs

a.i./ A x 4, RTI

= 14 days ) FL citrus 1.70E

- 01 3.38E

- 02 291

FL potato 3.09E

- 02 7.19E

- 03 382

GA peanut 1.21E

- 06 1.17E

- 07 1034

NC cotton 4.70E

- 06 4.90E

- 07 1110

DELMARVA sweet corn 2.27E

- 04 2.21E

- 05 247

WI corn 1.55E

- 16 1.14E

- 17 1087

SCI

- GROW Turf*

( 0. 531 lbs /A) NA 9.58E

- 02 NA NA

*Fourth application conducted at 0. 0 1 2 lbs a.i./ A to meet annual label requirement of 0.531 lbs a.i./ A/yr.



### The SCI

- GROW and PRZM

- GW concentration s represent groundwater concentration s that might

be expected in shallow

, unconfi ned aquifers under sandy soils. The PRZM/EXAMS and Tier I Rice

model concentrations ( μg/L ) represent untreate d surface water concentrations.

### − 15

− The simulated concentrations provided in this assessment are conservative estimates of

concentrations in drinking water. If dietary risks require refinement, higher

- tiered

, crop

- specific and

location

- specific models and modeling scenarios can be used.

Monitoring Data

M onitoring data are not available for FPE or its degradates

. EFED conducted a search of the

USGS National Water Quality Assessment ( NAWQA ) Program database

( http://infotrek.er.usgs.gov/nawqa_queries/index.jsp ) , the USGS Community Water S ystem ( CWS ) data

( http://pubs.usgs.gov/ds/544/ ) , the CDPR surface water and sediment database

( http://cdpr.ca.gov/do cs/emon/surfwtr/surfcont.htm ) , and the USEPA STORET ( STOrage and RETrieval )

database ( http://www.epa.gov/STORET/ ) . The NAWQA, CWS, and CDPR databases did not list FPE or

its degradates as sampled constituents. STORET listed fenoxaprop

- ethyl as a constitu ent, but there were

no records of monitoring samples from 1990 to the present.

Drinking Water Treatment Effects

N o specific information on the effects of drinking water treatment on the removal of FPE or its

degradates is currently available. The EDWCs in this assessment are representative of concentrations in

drinking water source water (pre

- treatment) and are derived from daily instantaneous peak concentrations.

For surface water, the conceptual model assumes that pesticide reach es surface water via spray drift and

runoff, and is then instantaneously mixed within the water column and reversibly sorbed to benthic

sediments

. As FPE total residues are stable to hydrolysis and FPE does not react with oxidizing agents, it

is not expec ted to degrade during the time that elapses from drinking water intake through distribution to

the first tap. Because organic carbon does not govern the sorption of FEP to soils , and the chemical’s K

oc 

### values themselves indicate moderate to slight mobil it y , treatment methods

, such as sedimentation,

flocculation, and activated carbon, that are designed to capture contaminants via sorption, may not be

effective at removing FPE or its degradates

. FPE does degrade rapidly via aqueous photolysis. Where

ultraviolet light is used as a means of disinfection, degradation of FPE and its degradates is therefore

expected to be important

.

Uncertainties and Data Gaps

This assessment is based on available environmental fate data. There are no significant data gaps

in the environmental fate database submitted by the registrant. The drinking water assessment is a

screening

- level assessment based on simplified models and assumptions. The modeling assessment relies

on maximum use patterns and national default PC As to reflect potential surface and groundwater

concentrations. To the extent that actual use patterns involve application of less a.i. than the permissible

( labeled ) maxim a, and location

- specific crop acreages represent lower land coverage percentages than

PCAs used in this assessment, aquatic concentrations could be lower than EDWCs reported herein

.

The identification of uncharacterized NER in the available biodegradation studies is a source of

uncertainty in this assessment. It is not known whether t he NER are comprised of residues of

toxicological concern and whether or not they would be available in the environment to be transported to

drinking water sources. To account for this uncertainty, t his assessment incorporates the NER in the

estimation of the half

- lives used as inputs in the modeling analysis. Including the NER in the estimation

of half

- lives increases the simulated persistence of residues in water ( as compared with th e persistence of

extracted residues alone ) , leading to higher values for chronic EDWCs. As mentioned in the Model

### − 16

− Results section, surface water EDWCs for FPE TTR without NER were approximately 3 4

- 8 1 % lower

than the chronic EDWCs for FPE TTR with NER , depending on the crop scenario.

There is unc ertainty associated with the groundwater estimates derived using the PRZM

- GW

model. The average K F 

### was used in the estimation of groundwater concentrations using PRZM

- GW, as,

per EPA guidance, the mobility of the total residues was not well explained by a ffinity to organic matter

( i.e. , the coefficient of variation (CV) across four soils for K FOC 

### (87%) was greater than that for K F 

### (36%)). However, the available literature ( Refs. 11

- 13 ) indicates that organic matter, and in particular

organic carbon, play s a significant role in the sorption of nonionic organic pesticides. As such, a K FOC



### may be a more accurate metric of sorption. Additionally, the sorption coefficient values for FPE residues

were developed using four soils representative of surface soils

, while ideally the sorption estimate s used

in groundwater modeling sh ould be measured in the aquifer soil. If the average K FOC 

### (795 mL/g

oc 

### ) were

used in the model instead of the average K F 

### (6 mL/g), the maximum groundwater concentration would

increase from 0.17 μg/L to 15.5 μg/L, with an increase in the average concentration from 0.03 μg/L to 9.0

μg/L. While the groundwater estimates are significantly higher when using the K FOC 

### versus the K F 

### , they

are roughly the same order of magnitude as the surface water EDWCs and would not change the

conclusions of this assessment

.

The Tier I Rice Model was used to estimate conservative aquatic exposures for direct water use

that represent high exposure sites for rice use. To the best of EFED’s knowledge, i ntakes for drinking

water facilities in the U.S. that use surface water as their raw source water tend to be located many miles

downs tream from areas of rice production. As such, concentration estimates developed using the Tier I

Rice model will tend to overestimate EDWCs at drinking water facilities for pesticides that degrade

rapidly and/ or are substantially diluted with uncontaminat ed water in receiving streams prior to reaching

raw water intake s

.

References

1. BEAD. 2012. Screening Level Usage Analysis for Fenoxaprop and Fenoxaprop

- p

- ethyl, July 27,

2012.

2. Development and Use of Percent Cropped Area Adjustment Factors in Drinking Water Exposure

Assessments ( 9/9/ 2010) ( http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/pca_adjustment_dwa.htm l )

3. SCIGROW: Users Manual (11/01/2001, revised 08/23/2002)

4. Guidance for Selecting Input Parameters in Modeling the Environmental Fate and Tra nsport of

Pesticides, Version 2.1 ( 10/22 / 200 9 )

(http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/input_parameter_guidance.htm)

5. PRZM

- GW: Guidance for Using PRZM

- GW in Drinking Water Exposure Assessments (10/15/

2012)

6. PRZM

- GW: Guidance for Selecting Input Parameters for Modeling Pesticide Concentrations in

Groun dwater Using the Pesticide Root Zone Model (10/15/ 2012)

7. Guidance for Tier I Estimation of Aqueous Pesticide Concentrations in Rice Paddies (5/8/2007)

8. USEPA. 2007. Personal email communication with Michael Doherty, Health Effects Division.

May 23, 2007.

9. Sabbagh, G. 2012. Letter to U.S.EPA, Subject: Fenoxaprop

- p

- ethyl (FPE)

– Registration No.

264

- 653 and RR

- 129092

- 28665: Commitment to Revising Labels for Products containing FPE.

November 30, 2012.

10. Murphy, T. 2012. Letter to U.S. EPA, Subject: L abel U se P at tern A mendments

FENOXYAPROP

- P

- ETHYL FOXFIRE HERBICIDE (EPA REG. NO. 100

- 1429) FUSION

HERBICIDE (EPA REG. NO. 100

- 1059) . November 30, 2012.

### − 17

− 11. Allen

- King, R. M., Grathwohl, P., & Ball, W. P. 2002. New modeling paradigms for the sorption

of hydrophobic organic chemicals to heterogenous carbonaceous matter in soils, sediments, and

rocks. Advances in Water Resources, 25, 985

- 1016.

12. Boyd, S. A., Johnston, C. T., Laird, D. A., Teppen , B. J., & Li, H. 2011. Chapter 2.

Comprehensive Study of Organic Contaminant Adsorption by Clays: Methodologies,

Mechanisms, and Environmental Implications. In B. Xing, N. Senesi & P. M. Huang (Eds.),

Biophysico

- Chemical Processes of Anthropogenic Organ ic Compounds in Environmental

Systems. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons Inc.

13. DiToro, D. M., Zarba, C. S., Hansen, D. J., Berry, W. J., Schwartz, R. C., Cowan, C. E., et al.

1991. Technical basis for establishing sediment quality criteria for nonionic organi c chemicals

using equilibrium partitioning. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 10, 1541

- 1586.

14. USEPA. 2013. Data on Fenoxaprop

- p

- ethyl and Its Environmental Transformation Products in

Support of the ROCKS . DP Barcode 411291.

MRIDs

Acc. # 412

- 03

- 0113. Moraski, R. 1983. EAB Review of 8340

– EUP

– T. HED memorandum, Nov. 3,

1983. HED Records Center Series 361 Science Reviews

– File R038903. 52 p.

MRID 41567707

Wink, O., Fischer, R. (1987) HOE 046360

- 14C Flow

- through Bioaccumulation and Metabolism Study

with Bluegill Subfish (Lepomis macrochirus): Lab Project Number: CM010/87 & Lm27/a. Report No.

A37432. Unpublished study prepared by Hoechst AG. 84p.

MRID 42915001

Reynolds, J. (1993) Adsorption and Desorption of (Carbon 14)

- Fenoxaprop

- p

- Ethyl in F our Soils:

Replacement Report: Lab Project Number: XBL 91063: RPT0099. Unpublished study prepared by

XenoBiotic Labs, Inc. 144 p.

MRID 43066404

Carringer, R.; O'Grodnick, J. (1993) Aquatic Dissipation of HOE 46360 75EW (Whip 360 Herbicide)

(Fenoxaprop

- p

- ethyl) Applied to Rice in California: Final Report: Lab Project Number: 91

- 0028: 91

- 0016

HOE AASI: 91

- 0016. Unpublished study prepared by American Agricultural Services, Inc. and EN

- CAS

Analytical Labs. 300 p.

MRID 44659601

Schollmeier, M.; Eyrich, U.; Uhl, A. (1992) HOE 0463060, (Fenoxaprop

- p

- Ethyl); Determination of the

Partition Coefficient n

- Octanol/Water (HOE 046360 00 ZB98 0001): Lab Project Number: CP92/131:

A49082. Unpublished study prepared by Hoechst AG. 22 p.

MRID 44676401

Schwab, W. (1993 ) HOE 046360

- (carbon

- 14), Photodegradation of Fenoxaprop

- p

- ethyl in Surface Water,

Sterile Buffer and Distilled Water: Lab Project Number: A51353: CP91/035. Unpublished study prepared

by Hoechst Aktiengesellschaft. 151 p.

MRID 45081601

Volkel, W. (2000) ( carbon

- 14)

- AE F046360/(carbon

- 14)

- AE F033171: Degradation and Metabolism in

an Anaerobic Aquatic System: Lab Project Number: 725040: C007381. Unpublished study prepared by

RCC Ltd. 114 p.

### − 18

− MRID 45081602

Tarara, G. (2000) (U

- (carbon

- 14)

- Chlorophenyl)AE F0 46360: Degradation in Two Sediment/Water

Systems at 20(degrees)C Under Aerobic Conditions: Lab Project Number: CB98/113: C007688.

Unpublished study prepared by Hoechst Schering AgrEvo GmbH. 167 p.

MRID 47123201

Van Der Gaauw, A. (2002) (Carbon 14)

- Fenozaprop

- Ethyl: Hydrolysis at Five Different pH Values: AE

F046360. Project Number: 815670, C/028353. Unpublished study prepared by RCC Ltd. 71 p.

MRID 47123208

Fitzmaurice, M. (2004) [Carbon 14]

- Fenoxaprop

- P

- Ethyl: Degradation and Retention in T wo

Water/Sediment Systems. Project Number: C046009, MEFPX011, CX/04/045. Unpublished study

prepared by Battelle AgriFood, Ltd. 123 p.

MRID 48098502

Fitzmaurice, M. (2008) [Carbon 14]

- Fenoxaprop

- P

- Ethyl: Aqueous Photolysis in Sterile Buffer Solution

at pH 7. Project Number: CX/05/031, M/344639/01/1, MEF/06/335. Unpublished study prepared by

Battelle Agrifood, Ltd. 132 p.

MRID 48757101

Shepherd, J. (2012) [Chlorophenyl

- UL

- (Carbon 14)]Fenoxaprop

- P

- Ethyl: Aerobic Soil Metabolism in

Four US Soils. Proje ct Number: MEFPL006, MEFPL006/1, M/424708/02/1. Unpublished study

prepared by Bayer CropScience. 171p.

MRID 48868703

Shepherd, J.; Ripperger, R. (2012) (Phenoxy

- UL

- Carbon 14) Fenoxaprop

- P

- ethyl: Aerobic Soil

Metabolism in Four U.S. Soils: Amended Report. Project Number: MEFPL009, M/424988/02/1.

Unpublished study prepared by Bayer CropScience. 181p.

MRID 48868701

Xu, T. (2012) (Phenoxy

- UL

- Carbon 14) and (Chlorophenyl

- UL

- Carbon 14) Fenoxaprop

- p

- ethyl: Aerobic

Aquatic Metabolism in Two Sediment/Wa ter Systems. Project Number: MEFPL007, M/431724/01/1.

Unpublished study prepared by Bayer CropScience and Agvise Laboratories, Inc. 168p.

MRID 48868702

Ripperger, R. (2012) (Chlorophenyl

- UL

- Carbon 14) and (Phenoxy

- UL

- Carbon 14) Fenoxaprop

- P

- Ethyl:

Anae robic Aquatic Metabolism in Two Water/Sediment/Systems. Project Number: MEFPL007,

M/431724/01/1. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer CropScience. 171p.

### − 19

− Appendix A

Fenoxaprop

- p

- ethyl and Other Residues of Concern

Chemical Structure

Fenoxaprop

- p

- ethyl

(+)

- ethyl 2

- [4

- [(6

- chloro

- 2

- benzoxazolyl)oxy]phenoxy]propanoate



### AE F046360

Fenoxaprop

- p

((D+)

- 2

- [4

- (6

- chloro

- 2

- benzoxazolyloxy)

phenoxy] propanoate



### AE F088406

Chlorobenzoxazolone

4

- (6

- chloro

- 2

- benzoxazolyloxy) phenol



### AE F054014

4

- (6

- chloro

- 2

- benzoxazolyloxy)phenol

AE F040356 O O

O

O N

O Cl

OH O

O

O N

O Cl

NH

O Cl

O

OH

O N

O Cl

### − 20

− Appendix B

SURFACE WATER MODELING OUTPUT FILES

PRZM/EXAMS

Barley/Wheat

stored as fpe_tx_wheat.out

Chemical: fpe

PRZM environment: TXwheatOP.txt modified Thuday, 14 June 2007 at 11:24:44

EXAMS environment: ir298.exv modified Tueday, 26 August 2008 at 06:14:08

Metfile: w13958.dvf modified Tueday, 26 August 2008 at 06:14:44

Wate r segment concentrations (ppb)

Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

1961 7.167 7.013 6.536 5.147 4.638 1.84

1962 5.927 5.736 5.355 4.748 4.345 2.076

1963 2.414 2.363 2.161 1.841 1.663 1.093

1964 6.536 6.365 6.04 4.984 4.216 1.5

1965 4.047 3.949 3.5 75 3.332 3.341 1.994

1966 5.298 5.16 4.599 3.87 3.458 1.882

1967 4.712 4.601 4.173 3.498 3.228 1.673

1968 4.782 4.663 4.133 3.226 2.937 1.912

1969 5.243 5.148 4.656 3.948 3.571 1.993

1970 2.547 2.48 2.316 1.877 1.7 1.239

1971 5.187 5.062 4.566 3.641 3.181 1.704

1972 2.123 2.075 1.889 1.551 1.358 1.126

1973 5.08 5.013 4.884 4.397 3.896 1.842

1974 5.204 5.049 4.502 4.118 3.711 2.058

1975 6.012 5.832 5.51 4.642 4.098 2.331

1976 6.131 6.007 5.763 4.841 4.271 2.285

1977 2.243 2.176 1.924 1.769 1.648 1.082

1978 4.48 4.367 3.956 3.182 2.732 1.392

1979 10.86 10.53 9.292 7.625 6.521 2.918

1980 2.964 2.888 2.689 2.234 2.126 1.37

1981 4.057 3.955 3.615 2.81 2.685 1.718

1982 2.167 2.103 1.851 1.441 1.263 1.028

1983 3.219 3.121 2.749 2.462 2.273 1.269

1984 3.174 3.09 2. 784 2.446 2.184 1.001

1985 5.225 5.069 4.74 3.784 3.222 1.846

1986 4.293 4.178 3.749 3.199 2.934 1.498

1987 3.352 3.252 3.029 2.681 2.517 1.705

1988 1.79 1.751 1.653 1.551 1.429 0.9762

1989 2.079 2.016 1.785 1.568 1.525 0.8615

1990 4.562 4.442 3.981 3.137 2.649 1.417

Sorted results

Prob. Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

0.032258064516129 10.86 10.53 9.292 7.625 6.521 2.918

0.0645161290322581 7.167 7.013 6.536 5.147 4.638 2.331

0.0967741935483871 6.536 6.365 6.04 4.984 4.345 2.285

0.129032258064516 6. 131 6.007 5.763 4.841 4.271 2.076

0.161290322580645 6.012 5.832 5.51 4.748 4.216 2.058

0.193548387096774 5.927 5.736 5.355 4.642 4.098 1.994

0.225806451612903 5.298 5.16 4.884 4.397 3.896 1.993

### − 21

− 0.258064516129032 5.243 5.148 4.74 4.118 3.711 1.912

0.2903225 80645161 5.225 5.069 4.656 3.948 3.571 1.882

0.32258064516129 5.204 5.062 4.599 3.87 3.458 1.846

0.354838709677419 5.187 5.049 4.566 3.784 3.341 1.842

0.387096774193548 5.08 5.013 4.502 3.641 3.228 1.84

0.419354838709677 4.782 4.663 4.173 3.498 3.222 1.718

0.451612903225806 4.712 4.601 4.133 3.332 3.181 1.705

0.483870967741936 4.562 4.442 3.981 3.226 2.937 1.704

0.516129032258065 4.48 4.367 3.956 3.199 2.934 1.673

0.548387096774194 4.293 4.178 3.749 3.182 2.732 1.5

0.580645161290323 4.057 3.955 3.615 3.137 2.685 1.498

0.612903225806452 4.047 3.949 3.575 2.81 2.649 1.417

0.645161290322581 3.352 3.252 3.029 2.681 2.517 1.392

0.67741935483871 3.219 3.121 2.784 2.462 2.273 1.37

0.709677419354839 3.174 3.09 2.749 2.446 2.184 1.269

0.741935483870968 2.964 2.888 2. 689 2.234 2.126 1.239

0.774193548387097 2.547 2.48 2.316 1.877 1.7 1.126

0.806451612903226 2.414 2.363 2.161 1.841 1.663 1.093

0.838709677419355 2.243 2.176 1.924 1.769 1.648 1.082

0.870967741935484 2.167 2.103 1.889 1.568 1.525 1.028

0.903225806451613 2.123 2.075 1.851 1.551 1.429 1.001

0.935483870967742 2.079 2.016 1.785 1.551 1.358 0.9762

0.967741935483871 1.79 1.751 1.653 1.441 1.263 0.8615

0.1 6.4955 6.3292 6.0123 4.9697 4.3376 2.2641

Average of yearly averages: 1.62099

Inputs generated by pe5.pl

- Novemeber 2006

Data used for this run:

Output File: fpe_tx_wheat

Metfile: w13958.dvf

PRZM scenario: TXwheatOP.txt

EXAMS environment file: ir298.exv

Chemical Name: fpe

Description Variable Name Value Units Comments

Molecular weight mwt 361.8 g/mol

Henry's Law Const. henry 9.52e

- 09 atm

- m^3/mol

Vapor Pressure vapr 1.40e

- 08 torr

Solubility sol 0.7 mg/L

Kd Kd 6.6 mg/L

Koc Koc mg/L

Photolysis half

- life kdp 1.22 days Half

- life

Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacw 244 days Halfife

Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolis m kbacs 874 days Halfife

Aerobic Soil Metabolism asm 142 days Halfife

Hydrolysis: pH 5 stable days Half

- life

Hydrolysis: pH 7 stable days Half

- life

Hydrolysis: pH 9 stable days Half

- life

Method: CAM 2 integer See PRZM manual

Incorporation Depth: DEPI 0 cm

Application Rate: TAPP 0.118 kg/ha

Application Efficiency: APPEFF 0.95 fraction

Spray Drift DRFT 0.16 fraction of application rate applied to pond

Application Date Date 18

- 06 dd/mm or dd/mmm or dd

- mm or dd

- mmm

### − 22

− Interval 1 interval 127 days Set to 0 or delet e line for single app.

app. rate 1 apprate 0.093 kg/ha

Record 17: FILTRA

IPSCND 1

UPTKF

Record 18: PLVKRT

PLDKRT

FEXTRC 0.5

Flag for Index Res. Run IR Reservoir

Flag for runoff calc. RUNOFF total none, monthly or total(average of entire run)

Conservation Reserve

stored as fpe_tx_conserve.out

Chemical: fpe

PRZM environment: TXalfalfaOP.txt modified Thuday, 14 June 2007 at 11:23:54

EXAMS environment: ir298.exv modified Tueday, 26 August 2008 at 06:14:08

Metfile: w13958.dvf modified Tueday, 26 Au gust 2008 at 06:14:44

Water segment concentrations (ppb)

Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

1961 5.459 5.308 4.755 4.319 3.851 1.735

1962 5.297 5.138 4.692 3.928 3.415 2.058

1963 6.354 6.191 5.562 4.441 3.813 1.774

1964 5.411 5.257 4.669 3.692 3. 262 1.734

1965 5.674 5.531 5.113 4.136 3.588 2.113

1966 4.728 4.633 4.154 3.503 3.06 1.938

1967 2.657 2.59 2.423 2.279 2.068 1.407

1968 4.015 3.91 3.642 3.09 2.73 1.445

1969 4.859 4.735 4.345 3.859 3.393 2.085

1970 5.801 5.671 5.342 4.488 3.871 1.87

1971 5 .025 4.926 4.459 3.554 3.055 1.459

1972 5.992 5.881 5.627 4.695 4.059 1.889

1973 4.131 4.062 3.782 3.341 2.921 1.617

1974 4.833 4.702 4.221 3.687 3.239 2.097

1975 6.256 6.127 5.581 4.816 4.435 2.282

1976 6.586 6.494 6.012 5.136 4.452 2.197

1977 5.254 5.133 4.766 3.884 3.317 1.642

1978 3.526 3.428 3.292 3.059 2.728 1.512

1979 4.182 4.076 3.657 2.916 2.731 1.498

1980 4.359 4.252 3.928 3.809 3.542 1.709

1981 6.632 6.505 5.958 5.201 4.606 2.233

1982 5.095 4.963 4.496 3.894 3.481 1.684

1983 3.854 3.778 3.499 3.0 78 2.871 1.655

1984 2.17 2.119 1.998 1.685 1.465 0.8347

1985 2.015 1.961 1.775 1.548 1.44 1.13

1986 5.751 5.618 5.264 4.394 3.805 1.945

1987 4.933 4.798 4.6 3.872 3.403 1.858

1988 2.121 2.075 1.863 1.624 1.507 1.026

1989 3.574 3.478 3.167 2.686 2.425 1.327

1990 4.581 4.458 4 3.404 2.997 1.523

Sorted results

Prob. Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

0.032258064516129 6.632 6.505 6.012 5.201 4.606 2.282

0.0645161290322581 6.586 6.494 5.958 5.136 4.452 2.233

### − 23

− 0.0967741935483871 6.354 6.191 5.627 4.816 4.435 2.197

0.129032258064516 6.256 6.127 5.581 4.695 4.059 2.113

0.161290322580645 5.992 5.881 5.562 4.488 3.871 2.097

0.193548387096774 5.801 5.671 5.342 4.441 3.851 2.085

0.225806451612903 5.751 5.618 5.264 4.394 3.813 2.058

0.258064516129032 5.674 5.531 5.1 13 4.319 3.805 1.945

0.290322580645161 5.459 5.308 4.766 4.136 3.588 1.938

0.32258064516129 5.411 5.257 4.755 3.928 3.542 1.889

0.354838709677419 5.297 5.138 4.692 3.894 3.481 1.87

0.387096774193548 5.254 5.133 4.669 3.884 3.415 1.858

0.419354838709677 5.095 4.963 4.6 3.872 3.403 1.774

0.451612903225806 5.025 4.926 4.496 3.859 3.393 1.735

0.483870967741936 4.933 4.798 4.459 3.809 3.317 1.734

0.516129032258065 4.859 4.735 4.345 3.692 3.262 1.709

0.548387096774194 4.833 4.702 4.221 3.687 3.239 1.684

0.5806 45161290323 4.728 4.633 4.154 3.554 3.06 1.655

0.612903225806452 4.581 4.458 4 3.503 3.055 1.642

0.645161290322581 4.359 4.252 3.928 3.404 2.997 1.617

0.67741935483871 4.182 4.076 3.782 3.341 2.921 1.523

0.709677419354839 4.131 4.062 3.657 3.09 2.871 1.512

0.741935483870968 4.015 3.91 3.642 3.078 2.731 1.498

0.774193548387097 3.854 3.778 3.499 3.059 2.73 1.459

0.806451612903226 3.574 3.478 3.292 2.916 2.728 1.445

0.838709677419355 3.526 3.428 3.167 2.686 2.425 1.407

0.870967741935484 2.657 2.59 2.423 2.279 2.068 1.327

0.903225806451613 2.17 2.119 1.998 1.685 1.507 1.13

0.935483870967742 2.121 2.075 1.863 1.624 1.465 1.026

0.967741935483871 2.015 1.961 1.775 1.548 1.44 0.8347

0.1 6.3442 6.1846 5.6224 4.8039 4.3974 2.1886

Average of yearly averages: 1. 70922333333333

Inputs generated by pe5.pl

- Novemeber 2006

Data used for this run:

Output File: fpe_tx_conserve

Metfile: w13958.dvf

PRZM scenario: TXalfalfaOP.txt

EXAMS environment file: ir298.exv

Chemical Name: fpe

Description Variable Name Value Units Comments

Molecular weight mwt 361.8 g/mol

Henry's Law Const. henry 9.52e

- 09 atm

- m^3/mol

Vapor Pressure vapr 1.40e

- 08 torr

Solubility sol 0.7 mg/L

Kd Kd 6.6 mg/L

Koc Koc mg/L

Photolysis half

- life kdp 1.22 days Half

- life

Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacw 244 days Halfife

Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacs 874 days Halfife

Aerobic Soil Metabolism asm 142 days Halfife

Hydrolysis: pH 5 stable days Half

- life

Hydrolysis: pH 7 stable days Half

- life

Hydrolysis: pH 9 stable days Half

- life

Method: CAM 2 integer See PR ZM manual

### − 24

− Incorporation Depth: DEPI 0 cm

Application Rate: TAPP 0.112 kg/ha

Application Efficiency: APPEFF 0.95 fraction

Spray Drift DRFT 0.16 fraction of application rate applied to pond

Application Date Date 21

- 03 dd/mm or dd/mmm or dd

- mm or dd

- mmm

Inter val 1 interval 14 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

app. rate 1 apprate 0.031 kg/ha

Interval 2 interval 120 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

app. rate 2 apprate 0.067 kg/ha

Record 17: FILTRA

IPSCND 1

UPTKF

Record 18: PLVKRT

PLDKRT

FEXTRC 0.5

Flag for Index Res. Run IR Reservoir

Flag for runoff calc. RUNOFF total none, monthly or total(average of entire run)

Cotton

stored as fpe_stx_cotton.out

Chemical: fpe

PRZM environment: STXcottonNMC.txt modified Thuday, 14 June 2007 at 11:17:20

EXAMS environment: ir298.exv modified Tueday, 26 August 2008 at 06:14:08

Metfile: w12919.dvf modified Tueday, 26 August 2008 at 06:14:24

Water segment concentrations (ppb)

Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

1961 2.747 2.674 2.393 1.927 1.639 0.8169

1962 3.129 3.042 2.711 2.179 2.015 0.9108

1963 3.619 3.518 3.133 2.765 2.542 1.119

1964 1.724 1.678 1.521 1.226 1.175 0.6233

1965 1.198 1.169 1.048 0.8838 0.8898 0.5593

1966 4.977 4.857 4.342 3.458 2.966 1.224

1967 1.66 1.627 1.462 1.22 1.125 0.6681

1968 3.126 3.041 2.733 2.413 2.186 0.9876

1969 5.854 5.691 5.117 4.046 3.423 1.416

1970 2.497 2.445 2.195 1.855 1.854 0.933

1971 2.346 2.284 2.046 1.882 1.816 0.9165

1972 3.978 3.866 3.464 2.787 2.396 1.116

1973 2.838 2.768 2.508 1.975 1.682 0.8374

1974 3.172 3.111 2.78 2.199 1.96 0.9686

1975 1.565 1.53 1.381 1.305 1.208 0.7167

1976 3.815 3.751 3.534 3.121 2.859 1.332

1977 8.219 8.071 7.376 5.857 5.13 2.001

1978 2.536 2.47 2.218 1.774 1.591 0.8167

1979 2.895 2.818 2.516 2.06 1.813 0.8841

1980 3.299 3 .203 2.864 2.233 1.902 0.8692

1981 3.66 3.557 3.164 2.633 2.3 1.094

1982 5.836 5.678 5.41 4.572 3.98 1.551

1983 1.687 1.639 1.462 1.173 1.016 0.6107

1984 5.629 5.49 4.897 4.159 3.599 1.508

1985 3.758 3.652 3.289 2.95 2.679 1.249

1986 1.802 1.751 1.567 1.26 8 1.151 0.6676

1987 2.175 2.115 1.883 1.529 1.439 0.8007

1988 1.484 1.447 1.301 1.047 0.9476 0.5969

### − 25

− 1989 3.197 3.15 2.978 2.46 2.157 0.9426

1990 1.61 1.568 1.408 1.252 1.132 0.5682

Sorted results

Prob. Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

0.032258064516 129 8.219 8.071 7.376 5.857 5.13 2.001

0.0645161290322581 5.854 5.691 5.41 4.572 3.98 1.551

0.0967741935483871 5.836 5.678 5.117 4.159 3.599 1.508

0.129032258064516 5.629 5.49 4.897 4.046 3.423 1.416

0.161290322580645 4.977 4.857 4.342 3.458 2.966 1.332

0. 193548387096774 3.978 3.866 3.534 3.121 2.859 1.249

0.225806451612903 3.815 3.751 3.464 2.95 2.679 1.224

0.258064516129032 3.758 3.652 3.289 2.787 2.542 1.119

0.290322580645161 3.66 3.557 3.164 2.765 2.396 1.116

0.32258064516129 3.619 3.518 3.133 2.633 2.3 1.094

0.354838709677419 3.299 3.203 2.978 2.46 2.186 0.9876

0.387096774193548 3.197 3.15 2.864 2.413 2.157 0.9686

0.419354838709677 3.172 3.111 2.78 2.233 2.015 0.9426

0.451612903225806 3.129 3.042 2.733 2.199 1.96 0.933

0.483870967741936 3.126 3.041 2.71 1 2.179 1.902 0.9165

0.516129032258065 2.895 2.818 2.516 2.06 1.854 0.9108

0.548387096774194 2.838 2.768 2.508 1.975 1.816 0.8841

0.580645161290323 2.747 2.674 2.393 1.927 1.813 0.8692

0.612903225806452 2.536 2.47 2.218 1.882 1.682 0.8374

0.645161290322581 2.497 2.445 2.195 1.855 1.639 0.8169

0.67741935483871 2.346 2.284 2.046 1.774 1.591 0.8167

0.709677419354839 2.175 2.115 1.883 1.529 1.439 0.8007

0.741935483870968 1.802 1.751 1.567 1.305 1.208 0.7167

0.774193548387097 1.724 1.678 1.521 1.268 1.175 0.6681

0.806451612903226 1.687 1.639 1.462 1.252 1.151 0.6676

0.838709677419355 1.66 1.627 1.462 1.226 1.132 0.6233

0.870967741935484 1.61 1.568 1.408 1.22 1.125 0.6107

0.903225806451613 1.565 1.53 1.381 1.173 1.016 0.5969

0.935483870967742 1.484 1.447 1.301 1.0 47 0.9476 0.5682

0.967741935483871 1.198 1.169 1.048 0.8838 0.8898 0.5593

0.1 5.8153 5.6592 5.095 4.1477 3.5814 1.4988

Average of yearly averages: 0.97683

Inputs generated by pe5.pl

- Novemeber 2006

Data used for this run:

Output File: fpe_stx_co tton

Metfile: w12919.dvf

PRZM scenario: STXcottonNMC.txt

EXAMS environment file: ir298.exv

Chemical Name: fpe

Description Variable Name Value Units Comments

Molecular weight mwt 361.8 g/mol

Henry's Law Const. henry 9.52e

- 09 atm

- m^3/mol

Vapor Pressure vapr 1.40e

- 08 torr

Solubility sol 0.7 mg/L

Kd Kd 6.6 mg/L

Koc Koc mg/L

Photolysis half

- life kdp 1.22 days Half

- life

### − 26

− Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacw 244 days Halfife

Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacs 874 days Halfife

Aerobic Soil Metabolism asm 142 days Halfi fe

Hydrolysis: pH 5 stable days Half

- life

Hydrolysis: pH 7 stable days Half

- life

Hydrolysis: pH 9 stable days Half

- life

Method: CAM 2 integer See PRZM manual

Incorporation Depth: DEPI 0 cm

Application Rate: TAPP 0.118 kg/ha

Application Efficiency: APPEFF 0.95 fraction

Spray Drift DRFT 0.16 fraction of application rate applied to pond

Application Date Date 23

- 03 dd/mm or dd/mmm or dd

- mm or dd

- mmm

Record 17: FILTRA

IPSCND 1

UPTKF

Record 18: PLVKRT

PLDKRT

FEXTRC 0.5

Flag for Index Res. Run IR Reservoir

Flag for runoff calc. RUNOFF total none, monthly or total(average of entire run)

Ornamental

stored as fpe_fl_ornamental.out

Chemical: fpe

PRZM environment: FLnurserySTD_V2.txt modified Tueday, 27 May 2008 at 11:22:34

EXAMS environment: ir298.exv modified Tueday, 26 August 2008 at 06:14:08

Metfile: w12839.dvf modified Tueday, 26 August 2008 at 06:14:20

Water segment concentrations (ppb)

Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

1961 5.319 5.093 4.802 4.213 3.829 1.283

1962 4.28 4.102 3.886 3.23 6 2.786 0.9544

1963 8.929 8.546 7.278 5.358 4.518 1.534

1964 5.566 5.367 4.971 4.122 3.548 1.206

1965 6.294 6.024 5.37 4.58 3.941 1.302

1966 8.153 7.881 7.463 6.205 5.382 1.773

1967 5.667 5.498 5.157 4.686 4.13 1.402

1968 7.79 7.527 6.781 5.259 4.489 1.548

1969 9.441 9.043 8.556 6.682 5.601 1.881

1970 5.396 5.234 4.94 4.229 3.696 1.251

1971 4.436 4.246 3.895 3.507 3.059 1.043

1972 6.919 6.746 6.026 5.238 4.747 1.63

1973 8.182 7.834 6.858 5.183 4.426 1.498

1974 5.863 5.676 5.371 4.231 3.625 1.214

1975 4.284 4.177 4.011 3.413 2.9 0.9727

1976 9.72 9.304 8.481 6.944 5.89 1.918

1977 23.76 22.75 19.33 13.6 10.76 3.538

1978 7.551 7.231 6.376 5.135 4.336 1.481

1979 41.86 40.04 33.79 23.55 18.54 5.719

1980 24.76 23.71 20.35 16.44 13.27 4.187

1981 5.874 5.622 4.881 4.193 3.605 1.246

1982 30.29 29.56 25.62 18.15 14.36 4.597

1983 4.958 4.81 4.689 3.967 3.362 1.162

1984 15.03 14.49 13.47 10.52 9.101 2.9

1985 5.351 5.198 4.903 4.016 3.41 1.159

### − 27

− 1986 8.822 8.611 8.01 7.236 6.194 1.977

1987 4.497 4.306 4.169 3.639 3.139 1.0 68

1988 5.732 5.557 5.087 4.16 3.571 1.196

1989 4.153 4.036 3.854 3.259 2.78 0.9361

1990 20.94 20.04 17.98 13.68 11.01 3.42

Sorted results

Prob. Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

0.032258064516129 41.86 40.04 33.79 23.55 18.54 5.719

0.064516129032258 1 30.29 29.56 25.62 18.15 14.36 4.597

0.0967741935483871 24.76 23.71 20.35 16.44 13.27 4.187

0.129032258064516 23.76 22.75 19.33 13.68 11.01 3.538

0.161290322580645 20.94 20.04 17.98 13.6 10.76 3.42

0.193548387096774 15.03 14.49 13.47 10.52 9.101 2.9

0.225 806451612903 9.72 9.304 8.556 7.236 6.194 1.977

0.258064516129032 9.441 9.043 8.481 6.944 5.89 1.918

0.290322580645161 8.929 8.611 8.01 6.682 5.601 1.881

0.32258064516129 8.822 8.546 7.463 6.205 5.382 1.773

0.354838709677419 8.182 7.881 7.278 5.358 4.747 1 .63

0.387096774193548 8.153 7.834 6.858 5.259 4.518 1.548

0.419354838709677 7.79 7.527 6.781 5.238 4.489 1.534

0.451612903225806 7.551 7.231 6.376 5.183 4.426 1.498

0.483870967741936 6.919 6.746 6.026 5.135 4.336 1.481

0.516129032258065 6.294 6.024 5.371 4.686 4.13 1.402

0.548387096774194 5.874 5.676 5.37 4.58 3.941 1.302

0.580645161290323 5.863 5.622 5.157 4.231 3.829 1.283

0.612903225806452 5.732 5.557 5.087 4.229 3.696 1.251

0.645161290322581 5.667 5.498 4.971 4.213 3.625 1.246

0.67741935483871 5.566 5. 367 4.94 4.193 3.605 1.214

0.709677419354839 5.396 5.234 4.903 4.16 3.571 1.206

0.741935483870968 5.351 5.198 4.881 4.122 3.548 1.196

0.774193548387097 5.319 5.093 4.802 4.016 3.41 1.162

0.806451612903226 4.958 4.81 4.689 3.967 3.362 1.159

0.83870967741935 5 4.497 4.306 4.169 3.639 3.139 1.068

0.870967741935484 4.436 4.246 4.011 3.507 3.059 1.043

0.903225806451613 4.284 4.177 3.895 3.413 2.9 0.9727

0.935483870967742 4.28 4.102 3.886 3.259 2.786 0.9544

0.967741935483871 4.153 4.036 3.854 3.236 2.78 0.9361

0.1 24.66 23.614 20.248 16.164 13.044 4.1221

Average of yearly averages: 1.89987333333333

Inputs generated by pe5.pl

- Novemeber 2006

Data used for this run:

Output File: fpe_fl_ornamental

Metfile: w12839.dvf

PRZM scenario: FLnurserySTD_V2.txt

EXAMS environment file: ir298.exv

Chemical Name: fpe

Description Variable Name Value Units Comments

Molecular weight mwt 361.8 g/mol

Henry's Law Const. henry 9.52e

- 09 atm

- m^3/mol

Vapor Pressure vapr 1.40e

- 08 torr

Solubility sol 0.7 mg/L

### − 28

− Kd Kd 6.6 mg/L

Koc Koc mg/L

Photolysis half

- life kdp 1.22 days Half

- life

Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacw 244 days Halfife

Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacs 874 days Halfife

Aerobic Soil Metabolism asm 142 days Halfife

Hydrolysis: pH 5 stable days Half

- life

Hydrolysis: pH 7 stable days Half

- life

Hydrolysis: pH 9 stable days Half

- life

Method: CAM 2 integer See PRZM manual

Incorporation Depth: DEPI 0 cm

Application Rate: TAPP 0.194 kg/ha

Application Efficiency: APPEFF 0.95 fraction

Spray Drift DRFT 0.16 fraction of applicatio n rate applied to pond

Application Date Date 21

- 03 dd/mm or dd/mmm or dd

- mm or dd

- mmm

Interval 1 interval 14 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

app. rate 1 apprate 0.194 kg/ha

Interval 2 interval 14 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

ap p. rate 2 apprate 0.194 kg/ha

Interval 3 interval 14 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

app. rate 3 apprate 0.013 kg/ha

Record 17: FILTRA

IPSCND 1

UPTKF

Record 18: PLVKRT

PLDKRT

FEXTRC 0.5

Flag for Index Res. Run IR Reservoir

Flag for runoff calc. RUNOFF total none, monthly or total(average of entire run)

Right

- of

- way

stored as fpe_bss_row.out

Chemical: fpe

PRZM environment: RightOfWayBSS.txt modified Tueday, 28 March 2006 at 15:53:28

EXAMS environment: ir298.exv modified Tueday, 26 Au gust 2008 at 06:14:08

Metfile: w13958.dvf modified Tueday, 26 August 2008 at 06:14:44

Water segment concentrations (ppb)

Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

1961 33.87 32.75 28.78 25.46 21.61 7.798

1962 20.46 19.89 18.66 15.04 13.62 6.508

1963 20. 43 19.79 17.78 14.12 12.24 4.863

1964 29.44 28.44 24.71 18.41 15.25 6.548

1965 34.66 33.6 30.71 24.14 20.29 8.094

1966 20.44 19.99 19.06 15.42 13.06 5.775

1967 14.46 14.01 12.86 12.01 10.75 4.838

1968 25.8 24.98 23.16 19.27 16.64 6.428

1969 20.28 19.64 18. 17 16.66 15.12 6.567

1970 31.61 30.65 28.64 23.31 19.39 7.355

1971 12.98 12.74 11.31 8.787 7.82 4.329

1972 30.27 29.64 27.9 22.78 19.38 7.198

1973 10.63 10.29 9.195 8.532 7.778 4.645

1974 24.51 23.71 20.8 15.81 13.22 6.274

1975 34.56 33.66 30.17 26.03 23.61 8.922

1976 36.68 35.8 33.3 28.85 24.83 9.315

### − 29

− 1977 23.03 22.33 19.98 16.07 13.59 5.467

1978 22.32 21.57 20.35 18.5 16.17 6.73

1979 31.93 30.93 27.14 20.93 19.54 8.548

1980 22.66 22.07 19.88 16.44 14.1 6.063

1981 36.81 36.07 32.56 27.88 23.8 8.785

1982 30.36 29.4 26.26 22.29 19.73 7.474

1983 22.81 22.16 20.59 17.82 15.61 6.594

1984 6.529 6.353 5.935 4.862 4.158 2.678

1985 13.02 12.59 11.22 9.369 7.976 4.053

1986 32.25 31.26 28.94 23.66 20.05 7.564

1987 28.43 27.5 26.38 21.66 18.15 6.854

1988 13.8 13.51 11.91 10.16 9.038 4.038

1989 23.96 23.18 20.64 17.16 14.92 5.927

1990 26.6 25.75 22.73 19.08 16.6 6.548

Sorted results

Prob. Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

0.032258064516129 36.81 36.07 33.3 28.85 24.83 9.315

0.0645161290322581 36.68 35.8 32.56 27.88 23.8 8.922

0.0967741935483871 34.66 33.66 30.71 26.03 23.61 8.785

0.129032258064516 34.56 33.6 30.17 25.46 21.61 8.548

0.161290322580645 33.87 32.75 28.94 24.14 20.29 8.094

0.193548387096774 32.25 31.26 28.78 23.66 20.05 7.798

0.225806451612903 31.93 30.93 28.64 23.31 19.73 7.564

0.258064516129032 31.61 30.65 27.9 22.78 19.54 7.474

0.290322580645161 30.36 29.64 27.14 22.29 19.39 7.355

0.32258064516129 30.27 29.4 26.38 21.66 19.38 7.198

0.354838709677419 29.44 28.44 26.26 20.93 18.15 6.854

0.387096774193548 28.43 27.5 24.71 19.27 16.64 6.73

0.419354838709677 26.6 25.75 23.16 19.08 16.6 6.594

0.451612903225806 25.8 24.98 22.73 18.5 16.17 6.567

0.483870967741936 24.51 23.71 20.8 18.41 15.61 6.548

0.516129032258065 23.96 23.18 20.64 17.82 15.25 6.548

0.548387096774194 23.03 22.33 20.59 17.16 15.12 6.508

0.580645161290323 22.81 22.16 20.35 16.66 14.92 6.428

0.612903225806452 22.66 22.07 19.98 16.44 14.1 6.274

0.645161290322581 22.32 21.57 19.88 16.07 13.62 6.063

0.67741935483871 20.46 19.99 19.06 15.81 13.59 5.927

0.709677419354839 20.44 19.89 18.66 15.42 13.22 5.775

0.741935483870968 20.43 19.79 18.17 15.04 13.06 5.467

0.774193548387097 20.28 19.64 17.78 14.12 12.24 4.863

0.806451612903226 14.46 14.01 12.86 12.01 10.75 4.838

0.838709677419355 13. 8 13.51 11.91 10.16 9.038 4.645

0.870967741935484 13.02 12.74 11.31 9.369 7.976 4.329

0.903225806451613 12.98 12.59 11.22 8.787 7.82 4.053

0.935483870967742 10.63 10.29 9.195 8.532 7.778 4.038

0.967741935483871 6.529 6.353 5.935 4.862 4.158 2.678

0.1 34 .65 33.654 30.656 25.973 23.41 8.7613

Average of yearly averages: 6.426

Inputs generated by pe5.pl

- Novemeber 2006

Data used for this run:

Output File: fpe_bss_row

### − 30

− Metfile: w13958.dvf

PRZM scenario: RightOfWayBSS.txt

EXAMS environment file: ir298.exv

Chemical Name: fpe

Description Variable Name Value Units Comments

Molecular weight mwt 361.8 g/mol

Henry's Law Const. henry 9.52e

- 09 atm

- m^3/mol

Vapor Pressure vapr 1.40e

- 08 torr

Solubility sol 0.7 mg/L

Kd Kd 6.6 mg/L

Koc Koc mg/L

Photolysis half

- life kdp 1.22 days Half

- life

Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacw 244 days Halfife

Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacs 874 days Halfife

Aerobic Soil Metabolism asm 142 days Halfife

Hydrolysis: pH 5 stable days Half

- life

Hydrolysis: pH 7 stable days Half

- li fe

Hydrolysis: pH 9 stable days Half

- life

Method: CAM 2 integer See PRZM manual

Incorporation Depth: DEPI 0 cm

Application Rate: TAPP 0.194 kg/ha

Application Efficiency: APPEFF 0.95 fraction

Spray Drift DRFT 0.16 fraction of application rate applied to pon d

Application Date Date 21

- 03 dd/mm or dd/mmm or dd

- mm or dd

- mmm

Interval 1 interval 14 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

app. rate 1 apprate 0.194 kg/ha

Interval 2 interval 14 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

app. rate 2 apprate 0.194 kg/ha

Interval 3 interval 14 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

app. rate 3 apprate 0.013 kg/ha

Record 17: FILTRA

IPSCND 1

UPTKF

Record 18: PLVKRT

PLDKRT

FEXTRC 0.5

Flag for Index Res. Run IR Reservoir

Flag for runoff calc. RUNOFF t otal none, monthly or total(average of entire run)

Soybean

stored as fpe_ms_soy2.out

Chemical: fpe

PRZM environment: MSsoybeanSTD.txt modified Tueday, 29 May 2007 at 13:58:06

EXAMS environment: ir298.exv modified Tueday, 26 August 2008 at 06:14:08

Metfile: w03940.dvf modified Tueday, 26 August 2008 at 06:14:14

Water segment concentrations (ppb)

Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

1961 2.74 2.65 2.475 1.951 1.46 0.7617

1962 1.69 1.639 1.448 1.113 0.9295 0.6417

1963 2.372 2.285 1.961 1.468 1. 26 0.7661

1964 3.45 3.331 2.95 2.292 1.942 1.022

1965 1.389 1.346 1.185 0.917 0.7694 0.5386

1966 4.012 3.932 3.534 2.615 2.25 1.019

1967 4.492 4.335 3.917 3.411 2.895 1.231

### − 31

− 1968 2.618 2.539 2.355 1.895 1.606 0.792

1969 1.193 1.154 1.057 0.809 0.7002 0.4653

1970 3.66 3.534 3.146 2.553 2.062 0.9838

1971 4.324 4.173 3.646 2.791 2.358 1.163

1972 2.329 2.285 2.121 1.689 1.422 0.8579

1973 2.104 2.03 1.803 1.413 1.212 0.686

1974 1.759 1.696 1.46 1.088 0.9863 0.6523

1975 5.965 5.757 5.002 3.909 3.083 1.463

1976 3.8 14 3.684 3.418 2.798 2.371 1.2

1977 2.194 2.129 1.88 1.468 1.168 0.7172

1978 3.404 3.286 3.098 2.409 2.002 1.02

1979 3.519 3.398 3.059 2.769 2.542 1.415

1980 4.033 3.898 3.472 3.043 2.583 1.263

1981 2.798 2.7 2.549 2.077 1.759 0.9975

1982 2.731 2.631 2.277 1.838 1.536 1.02

1983 5.976 5.785 5.053 3.841 3.154 1.539

1984 3.561 3.468 3.034 2.459 1.946 1.142

1985 1.627 1.586 1.402 1.093 0.9151 0.7201

1986 3.487 3.363 2.962 2.27 1.9 1.031

1987 1.857 1.791 1.593 1.372 1.275 0.7734

1988 2.709 2.616 2.318 1.758 1.46 0.8878

1989 4.377 4.226 3.691 3.217 2.754 1.335

1990 3.572 3.449 3.041 2.432 2.083 1.066

Sorted results

Prob. Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

0.032258064516129 5.976 5.785 5.053 3.909 3.154 1.539

0.0645161290322581 5.965 5.757 5.002 3.841 3.083 1. 463

0.0967741935483871 4.492 4.335 3.917 3.411 2.895 1.415

0.129032258064516 4.377 4.226 3.691 3.217 2.754 1.335

0.161290322580645 4.324 4.173 3.646 3.043 2.583 1.263

0.193548387096774 4.033 3.932 3.534 2.798 2.542 1.231

0.225806451612903 4.012 3.898 3.472 2.791 2.371 1.2

0.258064516129032 3.814 3.684 3.418 2.769 2.358 1.163

0.290322580645161 3.66 3.534 3.146 2.615 2.25 1.142

0.32258064516129 3.572 3.468 3.098 2.553 2.083 1.066

0.354838709677419 3.561 3.449 3.059 2.459 2.062 1.031

0.387096774193548 3.519 3.398 3.041 2.432 2.002 1.022

0.419354838709677 3.487 3.363 3.034 2.409 1.946 1.02

0.451612903225806 3.45 3.331 2.962 2.292 1.942 1.02

0.483870967741936 3.404 3.286 2.95 2.27 1.9 1.019

0.516129032258065 2.798 2.7 2.549 2.077 1.759 0.9975

0.548387096774194 2.74 2.65 2.475 1.951 1.606 0.9838

0.580645161290323 2.731 2.631 2.355 1.895 1.536 0.8878

0.612903225806452 2.709 2.616 2.318 1.838 1.46 0.8579

0.645161290322581 2.618 2.539 2.277 1.758 1.46 0.792

0.67741935483871 2.372 2.285 2.121 1.689 1.422 0.7734

0.709 677419354839 2.329 2.285 1.961 1.468 1.275 0.7661

0.741935483870968 2.194 2.129 1.88 1.468 1.26 0.7617

0.774193548387097 2.104 2.03 1.803 1.413 1.212 0.7201

0.806451612903226 1.857 1.791 1.593 1.372 1.168 0.7172

0.838709677419355 1.759 1.696 1.46 1.113 0.9 863 0.686

0.870967741935484 1.69 1.639 1.448 1.093 0.9295 0.6523

0.903225806451613 1.627 1.586 1.402 1.088 0.9151 0.6417

0.935483870967742 1.389 1.346 1.185 0.917 0.7694 0.5386

### − 32

− 0.967741935483871 1.193 1.154 1.057 0.809 0.7002 0.4653

0.1 4.4805 4.3241 3. 8944 3.3916 2.8809 1.407

Average of yearly averages: 0.972346666666667

Inputs generated by pe5.pl

- Novemeber 2006

Data used for this run:

Output File: fpe_ms_soy2

Metfile: w03940.dvf

PRZM scenario: MSsoybeanSTD.txt

EXAMS environment file: ir298.exv

Chemical Name: fpe

Description Variable Name Value Units Comments

Molecular weight mwt 361.8 g/mol

Henry's Law Const. henry 9.52e

- 09 atm

- m^3/mol

Vapor Pressure vapr 1.40e

- 08 torr

Solubility sol 0.7 mg/L

Kd Kd 6.6 mg/L

Koc Koc mg/L

Photolysis half

- life kd p 1.22 days Half

- life

Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacw 244 days Halfife

Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacs 874 days Halfife

Aerobic Soil Metabolism asm 142 days Halfife

Hydrolysis: pH 5 stable days Half

- life

Hydrolysis: pH 7 stable days Half

- life

Hydrolysi s: pH 9 stable days Half

- life

Method: CAM 2 integer See PRZM manual

Incorporation Depth: DEPI 0 cm

Application Rate: TAPP 0.112 kg/ha

Application Efficiency: APPEFF 0.95 fraction

Spray Drift DRFT 0.16 fraction of application rate applied to pond

Application Date Date 23

- 04 dd/mm or dd/mmm or dd

- mm or dd

- mmm

Interval 1 interval 14 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

app. rate 1 apprate 0.031 kg/ha

Interval 2 interval 157 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

app. rate 2 apprate 0.06 7 kg/ha

Record 17: FILTRA

IPSCND 1

UPTKF

Record 18: PLVKRT

PLDKRT

FEXTRC 0.5

Flag for Index Res. Run IR Reservoir

Flag for runoff calc. RUNOFF total none, monthly or total(average of entire run)

Turf

stored as fpe_ca_turf.out

Chemical: fpe

PRZM en vironment: CATurfRLF.txt modified Tueday, 20 February 2007 at 13:03:48

EXAMS environment: ir298.exv modified Tueday, 26 August 2008 at 06:14:08

Metfile: w23234.dvf modified Tueday, 26 August 2008 at 06:15:38

Water segment concentrations (ppb)

Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

### − 33

− 1961 3.511 3.459 3.302 2.977 2.728 1.385

1962 3.782 3.731 3.552 3.182 2.991 1.699

1963 7.195 7.105 6.766 6.261 5.846 3.133

1964 4.171 4.117 3.931 3.566 3.364 2.073

1965 4.939 4.877 4.65 4.213 3.919 2.208

1966 3.86 3.809 3.632 3.265 3.072 1.82

1967 8.477 8.374 7.975 7.392 6.841 3.553

1968 4.308 4.251 4.061 3.69 3.472 2.178

1969 4.353 4.296 4.132 3.738 3.507 1.997

1970 3.751 3.7 3.556 3.194 3.004 1.746

1971 3.867 3.824 3.663 3.296 3.103 1.771

1972 3.706 3.659 3.533 3.2 3.00 1 1.725

1973 3.748 3.696 3.537 3.167 2.975 1.706

1974 4.488 4.428 4.218 3.828 3.579 1.999

1975 7.596 7.501 7.147 6.671 6.317 3.426

1976 4.244 4.195 4.009 3.631 3.412 2.118

1977 3.748 3.722 3.567 3.209 3.02 1.769

1978 5.392 5.323 5.089 4.595 4.245 2.347

1979 4.923 4.878 4.658 4.244 3.966 2.278

1980 3.89 3.844 3.675 3.31 3.122 1.841

1981 3.714 3.663 3.501 3.144 2.952 1.697

1982 8.262 8.163 7.774 7.109 6.557 3.453

1983 4.772 4.714 4.61 4.219 3.975 2.43

1984 3.861 3.809 3.657 3.282 3.082 1.804

1985 4.773 4.7 07 4.502 4.107 3.834 2.138

1986 3.832 3.784 3.611 3.237 3.044 1.788

1987 3.726 3.678 3.539 3.177 2.977 1.709

1988 6.746 6.678 6.391 5.664 5.171 2.722

1989 4.09 4.039 3.859 3.482 3.273 1.982

1990 3.711 3.662 3.518 3.183 2.99 1.721

Sorted results

Prob. Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

0.032258064516129 8.477 8.374 7.975 7.392 6.841 3.553

0.0645161290322581 8.262 8.163 7.774 7.109 6.557 3.453

0.0967741935483871 7.596 7.501 7.147 6.671 6.317 3.426

0.129032258064516 7.195 7.105 6.766 6.261 5.846 3.133

0.161290322580645 6.746 6.678 6.391 5.664 5.171 2.722

0.193548387096774 5.392 5.323 5.089 4.595 4.245 2.43

0.225806451612903 4.939 4.878 4.658 4.244 3.975 2.347

0.258064516129032 4.923 4.877 4.65 4.219 3.966 2.278

0.290322580645161 4.773 4.714 4.61 4.213 3 .919 2.208

0.32258064516129 4.772 4.707 4.502 4.107 3.834 2.178

0.354838709677419 4.488 4.428 4.218 3.828 3.579 2.138

0.387096774193548 4.353 4.296 4.132 3.738 3.507 2.118

0.419354838709677 4.308 4.251 4.061 3.69 3.472 2.073

0.451612903225806 4.244 4.195 4 .009 3.631 3.412 1.999

0.483870967741936 4.171 4.117 3.931 3.566 3.364 1.997

0.516129032258065 4.09 4.039 3.859 3.482 3.273 1.982

0.548387096774194 3.89 3.844 3.675 3.31 3.122 1.841

0.580645161290323 3.867 3.824 3.663 3.296 3.103 1.82

0.612903225806452 3.8 61 3.809 3.657 3.282 3.082 1.804

0.645161290322581 3.86 3.809 3.632 3.265 3.072 1.788

0.67741935483871 3.832 3.784 3.611 3.237 3.044 1.771

0.709677419354839 3.782 3.731 3.567 3.209 3.02 1.769

### − 34

− 0.741935483870968 3.751 3.722 3.556 3.2 3.004 1.746

0.7741935483 87097 3.748 3.7 3.552 3.194 3.001 1.725

0.806451612903226 3.748 3.696 3.539 3.183 2.991 1.721

0.838709677419355 3.726 3.678 3.537 3.182 2.99 1.709

0.870967741935484 3.714 3.663 3.533 3.177 2.977 1.706

0.903225806451613 3.711 3.662 3.518 3.167 2.975 1.699

0.935483870967742 3.706 3.659 3.501 3.144 2.952 1.697

0.967741935483871 3.511 3.459 3.302 2.977 2.728 1.385

0.1 7.5559 7.4614 7.1089 6.63 6.2699 3.3967

Average of yearly averages: 2.14053333333333

Inputs generated by pe5.pl

- Novemeber 2006

Data used for this run:

Output File: fpe_ca_turf

Metfile: w23234.dvf

PRZM scenario: CATurfRLF.txt

EXAMS environment file: ir298.exv

Chemical Name: fpe

Description Variable Name Value Units Comments

Molecular weight mwt 361.8 g/mol

Henry's Law Const. henry 9.52e

- 09 atm

- m^3/mol

Vapor Pressure vapr 1.40e

- 08 torr

Solubility sol 0.7 mg/L

Kd Kd 6.6 mg/L

Koc Koc mg/L

Photolysis half

- life kdp 1.22 days Half

- life

Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacw 244 days Halfife

Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacs 874 days Halfife

Aerobi c Soil Metabolism asm 142 days Halfife

Hydrolysis: pH 5 stable days Half

- life

Hydrolysis: pH 7 stable days Half

- life

Hydrolysis: pH 9 stable days Half

- life

Method: CAM 2 integer See PRZM manual

Incorporation Depth: DEPI 0 cm

Application Rate: TAPP 0.194 kg /ha

Application Efficiency: APPEFF 0.95 fraction

Spray Drift DRFT 0.16 fraction of application rate applied to pond

Application Date Date 21

- 03 dd/mm or dd/mmm or dd

- mm or dd

- mmm

Interval 1 interval 14 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

app. rate 1 apprate 0.194 kg/ha

Interval 2 interval 14 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

app. rate 2 apprate 0.194 kg/ha

Interval 3 interval 14 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

app. rate 3 apprate 0.013 kg/ha

Record 17: FILTRA

IPSCND 1

UPT KF

Record 18: PLVKRT

PLDKRT

FEXTRC 0.5

Flag for Index Res. Run IR Reservoir

Flag for runoff calc. RUNOFF total none, monthly or total(average of entire run)

### − 35

− Grass grown for seed

stored as fpe_ca_grass.out

Chemical: fpe

PRZM environment: CATurfRLF.txt modified Tueday, 20 February 2007 at 13:03:48

EXAMS environment: ir298.exv modified Tueday, 26 August 2008 at 06:14:08

Metfile: w23234.dvf modified Tueday, 26 August 2008 at 06:15:38

Water segment concentrations (ppb)

Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

1961 0.543 0.5354 0.5047 0.4509 0.4141 0.2002

1962 0.685 0.6761 0.6416 0.5728 0.5255 0.2767

1963 2.142 2.113 2.045 1.846 1.699 0.8555

1964 0.8683 0.8608 0.8196 0.7338 0.6778 0.4235

1965 0.7573 0.748 0.7132 0.6715 0.6268 0.3515

1966 0.672 0.6639 0.63 0.5588 0.5128 0.2849

1967 1.712 1.69 1.616 1.445 1.337 0.6872

1968 0.8041 0.7945 0.7555 0.6736 0.6202 0.3753

1969 0.7282 0.7186 0.6804 0.6342 0.5891 0.3249

1970 0.6558 0.6466 0.6112 0.5423 0.4968 0.2722

1971 0.6936 0.6845 0.6528 0.5931 0.5469 0.2929

1 972 0.6477 0.639 0.6047 0.538 0.4937 0.2681

1973 0.6404 0.6321 0.6024 0.5388 0.4939 0.2658

1974 1.03 1.016 0.9597 0.8539 0.7883 0.4162

1975 2.672 2.642 2.523 2.251 2.061 1.041

1976 0.9252 0.9142 0.8732 0.7853 0.7247 0.4616

1977 0.6897 0.6806 0.6449 0.5741 0.5284 0.3001

1978 0.6502 0.6419 0.6235 0.6009 0.5589 0.3044

1979 1.151 1.136 1.075 0.9519 0.8709 0.4554

1980 0.7221 0.7125 0.6827 0.6116 0.5633 0.3214

1981 0.6539 0.6456 0.617 0.5482 0.5022 0.2728

1982 1.416 1.4 1.33 1.18 1.082 0.5624

1983 0.923 0.9154 0. 8836 0.7976 0.7348 0.4161

1984 0.6826 0.6732 0.6422 0.5717 0.5231 0.2898

1985 1.237 1.221 1.153 1.017 0.9287 0.4798

1986 0.7198 0.7103 0.6791 0.6057 0.5566 0.3201

1987 0.651 0.6425 0.6095 0.5423 0.4976 0.2715

1988 0.6356 0.6268 0.5998 0.5714 0.5333 0.288

1989 0.6469 0.6387 0.6054 0.5386 0.4935 0.2668

1990 0.6346 0.6261 0.5924 0.5257 0.4823 0.2575

Sorted results

Prob. Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

0.032258064516129 2.672 2.642 2.523 2.251 2.061 1.041

0.0645161290322581 2.142 2.113 2.045 1.846 1.699 0.8555

0.0967741935483871 1.712 1.69 1.616 1.445 1.337 0.6872

0.129032258064516 1.416 1.4 1.33 1.18 1.082 0.5624

0.161290322580645 1.237 1.221 1.153 1.017 0.9287 0.4798

0.193548387096774 1.151 1.136 1.075 0.9519 0.8709 0.4616

0.225806451612903 1.03 1 .016 0.9597 0.8539 0.7883 0.4554

0.258064516129032 0.9252 0.9154 0.8836 0.7976 0.7348 0.4235

0.290322580645161 0.923 0.9142 0.8732 0.7853 0.7247 0.4162

0.32258064516129 0.8683 0.8608 0.8196 0.7338 0.6778 0.4161

0.354838709677419 0.8041 0.7945 0.7555 0.6736 0.6268 0.3753

0.387096774193548 0.7573 0.748 0.7132 0.6715 0.6202 0.3515

0.419354838709677 0.7282 0.7186 0.6827 0.6342 0.5891 0.3249

### − 36

− 0.451612903225806 0.7221 0.7125 0.6804 0.6116 0.5633 0.3214

0.483870967741936 0.7198 0.7103 0.6791 0.6057 0.5589 0.3201

0. 516129032258065 0.6936 0.6845 0.6528 0.6009 0.5566 0.3044

0.548387096774194 0.6897 0.6806 0.6449 0.5931 0.5469 0.3001

0.580645161290323 0.685 0.6761 0.6422 0.5741 0.5333 0.2929

0.612903225806452 0.6826 0.6732 0.6416 0.5728 0.5284 0.2898

0.645161290322581 0 .672 0.6639 0.63 0.5717 0.5255 0.288

0.67741935483871 0.6558 0.6466 0.6235 0.5714 0.5231 0.2849

0.709677419354839 0.6539 0.6456 0.617 0.5588 0.5128 0.2767

0.741935483870968 0.651 0.6425 0.6112 0.5482 0.5022 0.2728

0.774193548387097 0.6502 0.6419 0.6095 0.5 423 0.4976 0.2722

0.806451612903226 0.6477 0.639 0.6054 0.5423 0.4968 0.2715

0.838709677419355 0.6469 0.6387 0.6047 0.5388 0.4939 0.2681

0.870967741935484 0.6404 0.6321 0.6024 0.5386 0.4937 0.2668

0.903225806451613 0.6356 0.6268 0.5998 0.538 0.4935 0.2658

0.935483870967742 0.6346 0.6261 0.5924 0.5257 0.4823 0.2575

0.967741935483871 0.543 0.5354 0.5047 0.4509 0.4141 0.2002

0.1 1.6824 1.661 1.5874 1.4185 1.3115 0.67472

Average of yearly averages: 0.386786666666667

Inputs generated by pe5.pl

- Novemeb er 2006

Data used for this run:

Output File: fpe_ca_grass

Metfile: w23234.dvf

PRZM scenario: CATurfRLF.txt

EXAMS environment file: ir298.exv

Chemical Name: fpe

Description Variable Name Value Units Comments

Molecular weight mwt 361.8 g/mol

Henry's Law Const. henry 9.52e

- 09 atm

- m^3/mol

Vapor Pressure vapr 1.40e

- 08 torr

Solubility sol 0.7 mg/L

Kd Kd 6.6 mg/L

Koc Koc mg/L

Photolysis half

- life kdp 1.22 days Half

- life

Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacw 244 days Halfife

Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacs 874 d ays Halfife

Aerobic Soil Metabolism asm 142 days Halfife

Hydrolysis: pH 5 stable days Half

- life

Hydrolysis: pH 7 stable days Half

- life

Hydrolysis: pH 9 stable days Half

- life

Method: CAM 2 integer See PRZM manual

Incorporation Depth: DEPI 0 cm

Application Rate: TAPP 0.093 kg/ha

Application Efficiency: APPEFF 0.95 fraction

Spray Drift DRFT 0.16 fraction of application rate applied to pond

Application Date Date 21

- 03 dd/mm or dd/mmm or dd

- mm or dd

- mmm

Record 17: FILTRA

IPSCND 1

UPTKF

Record 18: PLVKRT

P LDKRT

FEXTRC 0.5

### − 37

− Flag for Index Res. Run IR Reservoir

Flag for runoff calc. RUNOFF total none, monthly or total(average of entire run)

Tier I Rice Output



## C

w 

## = ( 0

. 188 x 1

. 12 )

( 0

. 00105 + ( 0

. 00013 x ( 6

. 6 )

C

w 

## = 110 μ g / L

### − 38

− GROUND W ATER MODELING OUTPUT FILE S

SCIGROW Output

SCIGROW

VERSION 2.3

ENVIRONMENTAL FATE AND EFFECTS DIVISION

OFFICE OF PESTICIDE PROGRAMS

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

SCREENING MODEL

FOR AQUATIC PESTICIDE EXPOSURE

SciGrow version 2.3

chemical:fpe

time is 8/27/2013 9:26:45

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Application Number of Total Use Koc Soil Aerobi c

rate (lb/acre) applications (lb/acre/yr) (ml/g) metabolism (days)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

0.531 1.0 0.531 5.95E+02 107.0

-------------------------------------- ---------------------------------- groundwater screening cond (ppb) = 9.58E

- 02

************************************************************************

SciGrow version 2.3

chemical:fpe

time is 8/27/2013 9:27: 3

------------------------------- -----------------------------------------

Application Number of Total Use Koc Soil Aerobic

rate (lb/acre) applications (lb/acre/yr) (ml/g) metabolism (days)

--------------------------------------------------------------------- ---

0.531 1.0 0.531 5.95E+02 11.4

------------------------------------------------------------------------ groundwater screening cond (ppb) = 1.22E

- 02

************************************************************************

### − 39

− PRZM

- GW Output

Using K F

Using K F OC

### − 40

− Appendix C. J ustification of Inclusion of Non

- e xtracted Residues

Fenoxaprop

- p

- ethyl degrades relatively quickly (within a few days) to its acid, fenoxaprop

- p, which is

also biologically active. The parent, the acid, and the degradate chlorobenzoxazolone are considered as

the residues of concern. Structures are presented in Appendix A

.

Two aerobic soil metabolism studies were submitted (MRIDs 48757101 and 48757102/48868703)

examining the degradation of chlorophenyl

- U

14 

### C

- labeled and phenoxy

- U

14 

### C

- labeled fenoxaprop

- p

- ethyl

in four US soils. Soil residues were extracted three times with acetonitrile/water/1% acetic acid (4:1) and

then twice with microwave extraction with acetonitrile. NERs increased to 68% and 51% of the applied

rate by study termination (37 days) for the chlorphenyl

- and phenoxy

- labeled studies, respecti vely. Two

of the soils were sterilized via gamma radiation and showed high levels of NER: 50% for the

chlorophenyl

- label and 76% for the phenoxy

- label studies. The o nly identified deficiencies in the studies

were high levels of NER. There appeared to be a trend between the disappearance of fenoxaprop

- p and

increase in NER in MRID 48757101, but not in MRID 48757102/48868703.

A soil extractability study (Appendix 3, MRID 48868703) examined a number of different extraction

techniques (see table below), conclu ding that the acetonitrile/water/1% acetic acid extraction followed by

microwave extraction with toluene provided the best results (Figure 1). However, the study noted that

because of “difficulties working with toluene, acetonitrile was used instead for th e microwave

(aggressive) extract.” As can be seen in the table below, the gain achieved by using toluene as opposed to

acetonitrile is minimal.

An aerobic aquatic study (MRID 48868701) and anaerobic aquatic study (MRID 48868702) were also

submitted for FPE. Sediment residues were extracted three times with acetonitrile/water/1% acetic acid

(4:1) and then twice with microwave extraction with acetonitrile. NERs ranged from 36% to 67% of the

applied rate by study termination (28 days) for the chlorphenyl

- and phenoxy

- labeled trials in the aerobic

aquatic study and ranged from 6% to 45% of the applied rate by study termination (114 days) for the

chlorphenyl

- and phenoxy

- labeled trials in the anaerobic aquatic study. In the aerobic aquatic study, the

main def iciency was the high levels of NER, although in one sediment system degradates were also at

their maximum level at study termination (Day 28), so decline data were not available. Several

deficiencies were noted in the anaerobic aquatic study.

A summary of the various half

- life estimates is provided in Table C

- 1 below. Total toxic residues

include FPE, fenoxaprop

- p

, chlorobenzoxazolone , and 4

- (6

- chloro

- 2

- benzoxazolyloxy) phenol

.

### − 41

− Other Data Sources

In the EFSA risk assessment for fenoxaprop

- p

- ethyl, a number of biodegradation studies resulted in

increased levels of nonextractable residues (NER) during the course of the study. The conversion of

fenoxaprop

- p

- ethyl tended to be qu ick, with DT 50 

### s less than 1 day, and the conversion of metabolites to

NER. Below is a synopsis of the EFSA conclusions for each study. A synopsis of the EPA review, when

available, is also provided.

In an aerobic soil metabolism study (Stumpf, 198 7 , MRID 47123205), the degradation of chlorophenyl

U

14 

### C

- labeled fenoxaprop

- p

- ethyl was assessed in two German soils and two US soils. Soil residues were

extracted initially with acetonitrile/water (4:1), then with acetonitrile/HCl (90/10 v/w). NERs increased up

t o 50

- 70% of the applied rate by study termination (100 days). Approximately 50% of the NER was

hydrolyzed by treatment with a strong mineral acid, with the resulting radioactivity in the acid extracts

consisting of 80

- 100% chlorobenzoxazolone. EPA’s revi ew of this study (DP Barcode 351904, August

2008) concluded the study was not acceptable. Two experiments were conducted, one in which the soil

was analyzed but volatiles were not collected, and a second in which volatiles were collected but only soil

fro m the final sampling interval was analyzed. Therefore, a complete material balance was not provided

for either experiment. Material balances in the “open system” (soil analysis only) experiment decreased

with time in all four soils to ca. 55

- 78% of the a pplied by study termination. It was not certain that all

major transformation products were identified, since detailed results from the analysis of the reflux

extract were not reported.

In an aerobic soil metabolism study (Büttner, 1992), the degradati on of chlorophenyl

- U

14 

### C

- labeled

fenoxaprop

- p

- ethyl was assessed in a sandy loam soil at 21°C and 11°C. Samples were extracted with

acetonitrile/water (8/2, v/v). NER were hydrolyzed by adding a mixture of 90 mL of acetonitrile and 10

mL of hydroc hloric ac id (10 N) and heating under reflux for 6 hours. NER increased to 35% (11°C) and

57% (21°C) after 98 days. After hydrolyzing the NER, 9

- 21% was identified as chlorobenzoxazolone.

In an anaerobic soil metabolism study (Völkel, 2001, MRID 47123207), the degr adation of chlorophenyl

U

14 

### C

- labeled fenoxaprop

- p

- ethyl was assessed in loamy sand. Soil samples were extracted with

acetonitrile/water (8/2, v/v). Soxhlet extraction using acetonitrile/water (8/2, v/v) for at least four hours Figure 1 . Results of Analytical Method Validation

### − 42

− was used to investigate NER. NERs increased to 77% of the applied rate by day 157 and decreased to

74% by study termination (266 days). Soxhlet extraction of NER was conducted on Day 45, with 5%

found to be fenoxaprop

- p and 9% found to be chlorobenzoxazolone. The increase in NER coi ncided with

the decline of fenoxaprop

- p, indicating a direct formation of NER from fenoxaprop

- p. EPA’s review of

this study (DP Barcode 375862, November 2010) concluded the study was unacceptable. The study was

conducted with soil and distilled water rath er than with two aquatic sediments and their associated waters.

Also, it was uncertain if the extraction procedure was adequate to remove all identifiabl e residues from

the sediment; non

- extracted residues (NER) totaled up to 15

- 78% of the applied. Only one sample was

analyzed at each sampling interval. Fenoxaprop

- p

- ethyl was studied with only the chlorophenyl ring

radiolabeled and fenoxaprop

- ethyl was studied with only the dioxyphenyl ring radiolabeled.

In an aerobic aquatic metabolism study (Tarara, 2000 MRID 45081602), the degradation of chlorophenyl

U

14 

### C

- labeled fenoxaprop

- p

- ethyl was assessed in sand/water and silt loam/water systems. NER were

characterized by Soxhlet extraction and acid hydrolysis. In the sand/water system, NER increased to 75%

AR at 59 days and decreased to 55% at study termination (199 days). In the silt loam/water system, NER

increased to 75% AR at 155 days and decreased to 69% at study termination (199 days). Soxhlet

extraction resulted in negligible release of radioactivi ty from the NER. Acid hydrolysis released half of

the radioactivity. Efforts to characterize the extracted radioactivity indicated trace amounts of

chlorobenzoxazolone and the major portion of the radioactivity was not assignable. EPA’s review of this

stu dy (DP Barcode 375862, November 2010) concluded the study was supplemental, but did not fulfill

the data requirements.

In an aerobic aquatic metabolism study (Fitzmaurice, 2004 MRID 47123208), the degradation of

dioxyphenyl

- U

14 

### C

- labeled fenoxaprop

- p

- ethy l was assessed in loamy sand/water and clay/water systems.

In the loamy sand/water system, NER increased to 34% AR at study termination (118 days). In the loamy

sand/water system, NER increased to 27% AR at study termination (118 days). EPA’s review of t his

study (DP Barcode 351904, August 2008) concluded the study was supplemental, but did not fulfill the

data requirements.

In an anaerobic aquatic metabolism study (Völkel, 2000, MRID 45081601), the degradation of

chlorophenyl

- U

14 

### C

- labeled fenoxaprop

- p

- ethyl was assessed in a loam/water system. NER increased to

59% AR at day 163 and decreased to 55% at the study termination (238 days). Soxhlet and harsh acid

extraction of the NER resulted in a release of up to 13% of the applied radioactivity, with the main

metabolite identified as chlorobenzoxazolone at 4%. EPA’s review of this study (DP Barcode 375862,

November 2010) concluded the study was supplemental, but did not fulfill the data requirements.

### − 43

− Table C

- 1. Summary of Half

- life Estimates for Rec ently submitted and Reviewed Studies

Half

- life, Chlorophenyl (days) Half

- life, Phenoxy (days) Half

- life, Combined (days)

Study Guideline Soil/Sediment FPE TTR w/o NER TTR w/

NER FPE TTR w/o NER TTR w/

NER FPE TTR w/o

NER TTR w/

NER

48757101/ 835.4100 NC Sandy

loam 1.69 12.6 108.0 1.57 8.1 117.0 1.63 10.0 109.0

48757102 CA Sandy loam 0.37 10.0 94.1 0.25 8.6 40.4 0.31 8.7 62.0

CA Loamy

sand 0.23 18.5 162.0 0.30 16.1 47.5 0.26 17.7 77.3

NE Silt loam 0.07 14.1 105.0 0.08 8.7 42.6 0.07 12.8 69.7

48868701 835.4300 Silty clay loam 0.09 18.0 136. 5 0.08 15. 3 32.9 0.09 16.6 55.4

Silt loam 0.11 28.5 275 0.10 23.0 80.4 0.11 24.6 125

48868702 835.4400 Silty clay loam 1.77 101 .0 897 1.68 55.5 89.4 1.85 85.6 181

Silt loam 3.53 98.6 2 17 1.91 143 87.7 2.40 233 132

NER CO 2



### Study Guideline Soil/Sediment pH Chlorophenyl Phenoxy Ratio

C:P Chlorophenyl Phenoxy Ratio

C:P Study

duration

48757101/ 835.4100 NC Sandy

loam 5.6 68.5 51.4 1.3 16.8 42.4 0.4 37 days

48757102 CA Sandy loam 6.6 66.8 40.6 1.6 17 50.7 0.3

CA Loamy

sand 6.9 63.8 38.3 1.7 8.5 37.7 0.2

NE Silt loam 6.8 68.6 39.4 1.7 16.2 49.8 0.3

48868701 835.4300 Silty clay loam 7.8 67.1 35.8 1.9 10.4 37.5 0.3 28 days

Silt loam 8 40.7 38.6 1.1 0.9 8.8 0.1

48868702 835.4400 Silty clay loam 7.8 44.6 7.4 6.0 0.5 0.2 2.5 114 days

Silt loam 8.1 28.7 17.7 1.6 0.6 0.3 2.0

### − 44

− Discussion

All studies indicate a rapid breakdown of FPE to FP. Based on results of chlorophenyl radiolabeled studies,

the degradation of FP appears to coincide with an increase in NER, indicating that most of the radiolabeled

degradation is binding to the soil. As other studies have indicated that a portion of the bound material is

potentially chlorobenzoxazolone (MRIDs 47123205

, 47123207

, 45081602

, 45081601 , and Büttner, 1992 ),

this could indicate a binding at the nitrogen sit e, which could explain why NER levels were higher in

chlorophenyl radiolabeled trials than phenoxy radiolabeled trials. Based on the phenoxy radiolabeled

studies, the degradation of FP seems to coincide with an increase in the sum of NER and CO 2 

### amounts,

indicating that the radiolabeled degradation is binding to the soil, but is then mineralizing to CO 2 

### . If the

molecule is binding at the nitrogen site, the formation of NER and CO 2 

### may be occurring simultaneously, so

as bound material is mineralized, more b ecomes bound.

Based on the extensive analytical method analysis conducted in MRID 48868703, it would seem that high

levels of NER are unavoidable. As there is an indication that residues of concern are part of the NER, half

lives we re estimated for TTR p lus NER. As the half

- lives estimated for TTR plus NER for the two

radiolabels are in some cases 4 times higher for the chlorophenyl radiolabel than the phenoxy radiolabel, the

radiolabels were not combined to determine half

- lives. Instead, the chlorophenyl radiolabel was used as the

upper

- bound half

- life in estimating exposure concentrations . However, as the half

- lives for the two

radiolabels are similar for TTR without NER

, data from studies using the two radiolabels were combined and

the resulting half

- li ves for the TTR without NER used as a lower

- bound in estimating exposure

concentrations

.

References

MRID 48757101

Shepherd, J. (2012) [Chlorophenyl

- UL

- (Carbon 14)]Fenoxaprop

- P

- Ethyl: Aerobic Soil Metabolism in Four

US Soils. Project Number: MEFPL006, MEFPL006/1, M/424708/02/1. Unpublished study prepared by

Bayer CropScience. 171p.

MRID 48757102/48868703

Shepherd, J.; Ripperger, R. (2012) (Phenoxy

- UL

- Carbon 14) Fenoxaprop

- P

- ethyl: Aerobic Soil Metabolism

in Four U.S. Soils: Amended Report. Project N umber: MEFPL009, M/424988/02/1. Unpublished study

prepared by Bayer CropScience. 181p.

MRID 48868701

Xu, T. (2012) (Phenoxy

- UL

- Carbon 14) and (Chlorophenyl

- UL

- Carbon 14) Fenoxaprop

- p

- ethyl: Aerobic

Aquatic Metabolism in Two Sediment/Water Systems. Proj ect Number: MEFPL007, M/431724/01/1.

Unpublished study prepared by Bayer CropScience and Agvise Laboratories, Inc. 168p.

MRID 48868702

Ripperger, R. (2012) (Chlorophenyl

- UL

- Carbon 14) and (Phenoxy

- UL

- Carbon 14) Fenoxaprop

- P

- Ethyl:

Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism in Two Water/Sediment/Systems. Project Number: MEFPL007,

M/431724/01/1. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer CropScience. 171p.

### − 45

− MRID 47123205

Stumpf, K. (1987) HOE 046360

- Chlorophenyl

- [Carbon 14], Aerobic Soil Metabolism. Project Number:

A3 9289, CB051/87. Unpublished study prepared by Hoechst Aktiengesellschaft. 72 p.

MRID 47123207

V ö lkel, W. (2001) [Carbon 14]

- AE F046360/[Carbon 14]

- AE F033171: Anaerobic Soil Degradation.

Project Number: C024193, 725038. Unpublished study prepared by RCC Ltd. 91 p.

MRID 45081602

Tarara, G. (2000) (U

- (carbon

- 14)

- Chlorophenyl)AE F046360: Degradation in Two Sediment/Water

- Systems

at 20(degrees)C Under Aerobic Conditions: Lab Project Number: CB98/113: C007688. Unpublished study

prepared by Hoechst Scheri ng AgrEvo GmbH. 167 p.

MRID 47123208

Fitzmaurice, M. (2004) [Carbon 14]

- Fenoxaprop

- P

- Ethyl: Degradation and Retention in Two

Water/Sediment Systems. Project Number: C046009, MEFPX011, CX/04/045. Unpublished study prepared

by Battelle AgriFood, Ltd. 123 p.

MRID 45081601

V ö lkel, W. (2000) (carbon

- 14)

- AE F046360/(carbon

- 14)

- AE F033171: Degradation and Metabolism in an

Anaerobic Aquatic System: Lab Project Number: 725040: C007381. Unpublished study prepared by RCC

Ltd. 114 p.

Büttner, B. 1992 . HOE 04636 0

- chlorophenyl

- U

14 

### C Aerobic soil metabolism study at 11°C and 21°C.

### − 46

− Appendix D. Registrant Commitment Letters

Syngenta

Syngenta

Fenoxaprop Label Rev



### Bayer CropS cience

Fenoxaprop-p-ethyl

- Bayer Commitment t