`

Draft Preliminary Environmental Fate and Ecological Risk

Assessment for the Registration Review Combined with the

Environmental Fate and Ecological Risk Assessment for Proposed 

Amendments to Certain Labels for Flutolanil

F

F

F

O

N

H

O

CH3

CH3

CAS 079622-59-6

PC Code 128975

DP Barcode D410730, D412200

March 18, 2014

Prepared by

José L. Meléndez, Chemist

Justin Housenger, Biologist

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Pesticide Programs

Environmental Fate and Effects Division

Environmental Risk Branch V

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW

Mail Code 7507P

Washington, DC 20460

Reviewed by

Mohammed Ruhman, Ph.D., Senior Agronomist

Keith Sappington, Senior Advisor

Mah T. Shamim, Ph.D., Branch Chief
-Page 2 of 196-

Table of Contents

1. Executive Summary ...........................................................................................................................................4

2. Problem Formulation ..................................................................................................................................9

2.1. Nature of Regulatory Action ...................................................................................................................9

2.2. Stressor Source and Distribution ............................................................................................................9

2.2.1. Nature of the Chemical Stressor ...........................................................................................................9

2.2.2. Overview of Pesticide Usage ...........................................................................................................11

2.3. Receptors ................................................................................................................................................12

2.3.1. Aquatic and Terrestrial Effects......................................................................................................12

2.3.2. Ecosystems Potentially at Risk......................................................................................................13

2.4. Assessment Endpoints............................................................................................................................13

2.5. Conceptual Model ...................................................................................................................................14

2.5.1. Risk Hypotheses ................................................................................................................................14

2.5.2. Conceptual Diagram .........................................................................................................................15

2.6. Analysis Plan ...........................................................................................................................................18

2.6.1. Measures of Exposure....................................................................................................................18

2.6.2. Measures of Effect..........................................................................................................................21

2.6.3. Integration of Exposure and Effects.............................................................................................21

3. Analysis.............................................................................................................................................................23

3.1 Use Characterization...................................................................................................................................23

3.2. Exposure Characterization....................................................................................................................28

3.2.1. Environmental Fate and Transport Characterization.................................................................28

3.2.2. Measures of Aquatic Exposure.......................................................................................................33

3.2.3. Measures of Terrestrial Exposure..................................................................................................45

3.3. Ecological Effects Characterization......................................................................................................58

3.3.1. Aquatic Toxicity Assessment..........................................................................................................58

3.3.2. Terrestrial Effects Summary................................................................................................................66

Toxicity Effects on Birds .................................................................................................................................66

Toxicity Effects on Mammals..........................................................................................................................68

Toxicity Effects on Terrestrial Plants.............................................................................................................69

Toxicity Effects on Insects...............................................................................................................................71

Toxicity Effects on Sediment-Dwelling Aquatic Invertebrates....................................................................71

3.3.3. Review of Incident Data..................................................................................................................73

4. Risk Characterization......................................................................................................................................73

4.1. Screening-Level Risk Quotient (RQ) Values........................................................................................73

4.1.1. RQ Values for Aquatic Organisms ................................................................................................74

4.1.2. RQ Values for Aquatic Plants...............................................................................................................80

4.1.3. RQ Values for Sediment-Dwelling Organisms..............................................................................82

4.1.3. RQ Values for Terrestrial Organisms...........................................................................................89

4.1.4. Bioaccumulation Analysis Results.....................................................................................................108

4.2. Risk Description....................................................................................................................................111

4.2.1. Risks to Aquatic Organisms.........................................................................................................111

4.2.2. Risks to Terrestrial Organisms....................................................................................................129

5. Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP) ......................................................................................135

6. Federally Threatened and Endangered (Listed) Species of Concern ........................................................136

6.1. Action Area ...........................................................................................................................................137

6.2. Taxonomic Groups Potentially at Risk...............................................................................................137

6.3. Listed Species Occurrence Associated with Registered Uses............................................................139

7. Conclusions.....................................................................................................................................................140

8. Uncertainties, Limitations, and Identification of Data Gaps......................................................................145

8.1. Environmental Fate .....................................................................................................................................145

8.1.1. Data Gaps Uncertainties...............................................................................................................145

8.1.2. Maximum Use Scenario ................................................................................................................145
-Page 3 of 196-

8.1.3. Aquatic Modeling with PRZM/EXAMS......................................................................................145

8.1.4. Buffer Zone to Estuarine/Marine Bodies of Water for the Uses on Turf .................................146

8.1.5. Uncertainties regarding dilution and chemical transformations in estuaries..........................147

8.1.7. Uncertainties Related to the Accumulation of Residues with Time ..........................................149

8.2. Ecological Effects.........................................................................................................................................149

8.2.1. Terrestrial Exposure Assessment.......................................................................................................150

8.2.2. Routes of Exposure .............................................................................................................................150

8.2.3. Age Class and Sensitivity of Effects Thresholds................................................................................151

8.2.4. Lack of Effects Data for Amphibians and Reptiles..........................................................................151

8.2.5. Use of the Most Sensitive Species Tested...........................................................................................151

8.2.7. Sublethal Effects...................................................................................................................................153

9. References.......................................................................................................................................................154

Appendices

Appendix A. PRZM/EXAMS Sample Input/Output Data..................................................................................168

Appendix B. Example T-REX (v. 1.5.1) Input and Output for Flutolanil .........................................................172

Appendix C. Example Terrplant (v. 1.2.2) Input and Output for Flutolanil.....................................................175

Appendix D. STIR Results.....................................................................................................................................176

Appendix E. SIP Results. .......................................................................................................................................177

Appendix F. Classifications of Environmental Fate Studies Submitted for Flutolanil.....................................178

Appendix G. Classifications of Ecological Effects Studies Cited in the Risk Assessment for Flutolanil.........180

Appendix H. KABAM Output...............................................................................................................................182

Appendix I. PFAM Default Values ........................................................................................................................187

Appendix J. HenryWin v.3.20 Output File and Calculation of Heat of Henry ..................................................189

Appendix K. Flutolanil and its Minor Transformation Products of Environmental Fate Studies...................193
-Page 4 of 196-

1. Executive Summary

The preliminary risk assessment (PRA) examines the potential ecological risks 

associated with labeled uses of the systemic fungicide flutolanil [N-(3-(1-

methylethoxy)-phenyl)-2-(trifluoromethyl)-benzamide], based on the best available 

scientific and commercial information on the use, environmental fate and transport, 

and ecological effects of flutolanil on non-target organisms. This assessment also 

serves to identify and characterize the risk of flutolanil to the proposed 

amendments to include banded applications on peanuts, use on brassica leafy 

vegetables plus turnip greens, and turf and ornamentals, and to increase the 

seasonal applications rate on turf.

 

The screening level assessment concludes that the use of flutolanil, a fluorinated 

toluanilide fungicide, in accordance with registered labels results for acute and 

chronic risk to freshwater fish and estuarine/marine water column, and sedimentdwelling invertebrates. Additionally risk above the level of concern was indicated 

for nonlisted species of aquatic nonvascular plants, and listed and non listed dicot 

species of terrestrial plants for the uses to nursery stock and ornamentals and turf. 

Furthermore acute risk to birds, mammals, and freshwater water column and 

sediment-dwelling invertebrates is stated to have the potential to exceed the level 

of concern. The rationale for this is found further below and throughout the risk 

assessment. 

Finally, acute risk below the level of concern was determined for estuarine/marine 

fish due to no mortality in the available acute study with exposure up to the limit of 

solubility of flutolanil. Although no chronic study is available for estuarine/marine 

fish, chronic risk cannot be estimated as non-definitive endpoints preclude the 

ability to estimate toxicity by way of an acute-to-chronic ratio (ACR). Risk cannot 

be ruled out however due to the presence of behavioral effects in the acute toxicity 

study as well the establishment of a definitive NOAEC in the chronic freshwater fish 

study. 

The distinction of potential risk to certain taxa is indicated due to several endpoints 

in the ecological effects studies determining non-definitive (i.e. “>”) endpoints. 

This was the case for acute toxicity to freshwater invertebrates and 

estuarine/marine fish, in which test organisms were exposed to concentrations up 

to the solubility limit of flutolanil without a definitive LC50 being achieved due to 

lack of 50% mortality in a treatment concentration. In the case of 

estuarine/marine fish, there was no treatment concentration including the highest 

tested at the limit of solubility for flutolanil where any mortality was observed yet 

the highest concentration at the limit of solubility for in the acute freshwater 

invertebrate study had 45% mortality. As a result, risk below the level of the LOC 

can be presumed for acute risk to estuarine/marine fish. For freshwater 

invertebrates, while there is uncertainty in acute RQs estimated from non-definitive 

endpoints, EFED cannot discount the mortality effects nearing the limit of solubility 
-Page 5 of 196-

for flutolanil and therefore the acute RQs presented for freshwater invertebrates are 

determined to have the potential to exceed the LOC for certain uses.

For birds and mammals, although there were no mortality effects in either the 

acute oral studies to birds and mammals and the subacute dietary studies to birds, 

T-REX derived EECs indicate residues on terrestrial food items at concentrations for 

some uses at levels 4 times the level of the non-definitive LD50 (>2000 mg a.i/kgbw) for birds. While there were no effects up to 2000 mg a.i/k-bw and 10,000 mg 

a.i/kg-bw for birds and mammals, respectively, the LD50 could potentially be 

anywhere above that level. With repeated applications and high persistence of 

flutolanil, acute and chronic risk cannot be discounted and so certain acute RQs in 

the risk estimation for birds and mammals and chronic RQs in the risk estimation 

for mammals are stated to have the potential to exceed the acute LOC. For 

chronic risk to birds, a definitive NOAEC was determined for birds and so these LOC 

exceedances have a greater level of certainty.

The proposed uses or label amendments considered in this assessment include 

brassica, cole leafy vegetables, turf, rice, and ground banded applications to 

peanuts. Adverse effects on birds that follow chronic exposure to flutolanil in 

laboratory studies include reductions in growth and in offspring fitness and viability; 

these effects are seen across generations. Adverse effects on freshwater fish that 

follow chronic exposure include reductions in length and effects that follow chronic 

exposure to freshwater and estuarine/marine invertebrates include reductions in 

survival, number of young per female, and dry weight.

Expected off-site transport of flutolanil to surface water presents risk to listed and 

non-listed species of aquatic nonvascular plants (e.g., algae); it is uncertain to 

what degree algicidal or algistatic effects in the aquatic plant community may result 

in indirect effects to organisms consuming algae. 

Flutolanil (with its moderately high KOC) has a relatively high propensity to sorb to 

sediments. A screening level analysis has shown flutolanil to pose chronic risk to 

benthic invertebrates that have RQs above the LOC in both the pore water and 

sediment compartments. Additionally, based on its Kow, flutolanil may

bioconcentrate in fish thus suggesting a route of exposure to birds and mammals 

that could consume flutolanil contaminated fish. However, a preliminary analysis 

shows that acute and chronic risk to birds and mammals consuming fish exposed to 

flutolanil is below levels of concern for the majority of modeled scenarios, 

presumably based on flutolanil’s readiness to depurate rapidly from tissues.

Risk determinations for the currently registered uses and proposed uses of flutolanil 

are summarized in Tables 1.1 and 1.2, respectively. These tables collapse all 

included modeled scenario for a given use and the reader is directed to the risk 

characterization section for further information on risk determinations for different 

scenarios within a given use. In general, the currently registered uses on peanuts, 

potatoes, soybean, turf, nursery stock as well as the proposed uses on peanuts, 

brassica (cole) crops, turf, and rice all have RQs that exceed the acute and chronic 
-Page 6 of 196-

levels of concern for estuarine/marine invertebrates in surface water as well as in 

the sediment. The use on nursery stock has RQs that exceed the acute and chronic 

LOCs for all assessed taxa while the proposed uses on peanuts, brassica, and turf 

have RQs that exceed the acute LOCs for birds.

In the aquatic environment the input half-lives used in modeling were indicative of 

high persistence and further, evaluation of the results of the aquatic modeling 

shows an increasing trend of the EECs in PRZM/EXAMS. There are a number of 

reasons why the estimated environmental exposure concentrations (EECs), and 

consequently the RQs, may have been conservative and possibly they are 

overestimates. These include: a) the PRZM/EXAMS input parameters may have 

been overly conservative owing to the 3X uncertainty factor, b) the field dissipation 

studies point towards lower persistence than noted from the results of 

PRZM/EXAMS, c) since the chemical shows medium to high pest resistance [as 

indicated by the Fungicide Resistance Action Committee for chemicals in Group 7], 

it may not be applied as often as modeled in PRZM/EXAMS, and d) that the 

standard pond used in PRZM/EXAMS does not include flow or turnover, which may 

remove part of the flutolanil received in the pond. While these facts appear to point 

towards lower persistence for flutolanil than used in the modeling, there is 

uncertainty as to what degree there is persistence or no persistence for flutolanil. 

Despite being conservative, the standard input values were used in the absence of 

additional soils and sediments (as per the current input parameter guidance). 

Therefore, there is uncertainty as to how much the EECs may have been 

overestimated.
-Page 7 of 196-

Table 1.1. Summary of Risk Determinations for Currently Registered Uses of Flutolanil (a bolded and shaded “X” represents 

an LOC exceedance)9

Use

(inclusive of all 

scenarios)

FW fish FW 

inverts

E/M 

Fish8

E/M 

inverts

FW Benthic 

inverts5

E/M Benthic 

Inverts5 Birds6 Mammals

6 Terrestrial 

plants7

Aquatic 

plants4

AcuteChronicAcuteChronicAcuteChronicAcuteChronicAcuteChronicAcuteChronicAcuteChronicAcuteChronicListedNon-listedListedNon-listed

Peanuts1 X X X X X X

Potato2 X X X X X

Cotton

Soybean X X X X

Sugarbeet

Rice X X X X X X X X X X

Turf 3 X X X X X X X X X

Nursery Stock X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 1

Inclusive of all uses except proposed ground banded application 2

Includes in-furrow and seed treatment applications 3

Includes ornamental lawns and turf, recreation lawns, industrial, commercial, and residential lawns

4

Exceedances are for non-listed non-vascular plants 5

Chronic RQs inclusive of all potential compartments (sediment-based, pore water-based, pore water/surface water-based) 6

Inclusive of both dose and dietary based risk and of all terrestrial food items

7

Inclusive of both monocots and dicots

8

Acute and chronic risk to estuarine/marine fish was not estimated as there were no mortalities in the acute study up to solubility limit and no chronic fish study 

is available. An acute-to-chronic ratio (ACR) was not utilized to estimate chronic toxicity as there is a high level of uncertainty in using an ACR with a nondefinitive acute toxicity endpoint.

9

An italicized “X’ denotes that the acute or chronic exposure has the potential to exceed the LOC. See Risk Characterization section for more information.
-Page 8 of 196-

Table 1.2. Summary of Risk Determinations for Proposed Uses of Flutolanil (a bolded and shaded “X” represents an LOC 

exceedance)8

Use

(inclusive of 

all scenarios)

FW fish FW inverts E/M Fish7 E/M inverts

FW 

Benthic 

inverts4

E/M 

Benthic 

Inverts4

Birds5 Mammals5 Terrestrial 

plants6

Aquatic 

plants3

AcuteChronicAcuteChronicAcuteChronicAcuteChronicAcuteChronicAcuteChronicAcuteChronicAcuteChronicListedNon-listedListedNon-listed

Peanuts1 X X X X X

Brassica 

(cole leafy 

vegetables 

plus turnip 

greens)

X X X X X

Rice X X X X X X X X X X

Turf 3 X X X X X X X X X X X 1

Ground banded applications only

2 Includes golf courses, sod farms, spot fields, residential, institutional, municipal and commercial areas 3

Exceedances are for non-listed non-vascular plants

4 Chronic RQs inclusive of all potential compartments (sediment-based, pore water-based, pore water/surface water-based) 5 Inclusive of both dose and dietary based risk and of all terrestrial food items

6

Inclusive of both monocots and dicots 7 Acute and chronic risk to estuarine/marine fish was not estimated as there were no mortalities in the acute study up to solubility limit and no chronic fish study 

is available. An acute-to-chronic ratio (ACR) was not utilized to estimate chronic toxicity as there is a high level of uncertainty in using an ACR with a nondefinitive acute toxicity endpoint.

8

An italicized “X’ denotes that the acute or chronic exposure has the potential to exceed the LOC. See Risk Characterization section for more information.
-Page 9 of 196-

2. Problem Formulation

The purpose of problem formulation is to provide the foundation for the environmental fate and 

ecological risk assessment being conducted for flutolanil as follows:

• Certain proposed label amendments which are described below,

• Approximately 17 Section 3 labels, and

• 7 Special Local Needs (Section 24c) labels approved for this chemical.

The registrant requested to include currently registered uses on an SC formulation known under 

the brand name Convoy®. The proposal includes adding peanuts via banded applications (other 

methods of application are already approved for peanuts); brassica leafy vegetables (Crop Group 

5) plus turnip greens; turf and ornamentals. Additionally, it proposes to double the annual rate 

on turf in the product ProStar® 70WP Fungicide (see Section 3.1, under the subheading 

“Proposed changes for two product labels”).

The problem formulation sets the objectives for the risk assessment and provides a plan for 

analyzing the data and characterizing the risk (USEPA 1998a). As part of the Registration 

Review process, a detailed Problem Formulation (DP Barcode D349574) for this risk assessment 

was published to the docket [Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0148] in June 9, 2008. The 

following section summarizes the key points of that document and discusses any differences 

between the analysis outlined previously and the analysis conducted in this risk assessment.

2.1. Nature of Regulatory Action

The risk assessment is conducted as part of the Agency’s Registration Review process for 

pesticide active ingredients. The Registration Review process was established under the Food 

Quality Protection Act (FQPA 1996).

2.2. Stressor Source and Distribution

2.2.1. Nature of the Chemical Stressor

Flutolanil (IUPAC name α,α,α-trifluoro-3′-isopropoxy-o-toluanilide, CAS name N-[3-(1-

methylethoxy) phenyl]-2-(trifluoromethyl)benzamide, CAS No. 66332-96-5, PC Code 128975) 

is a systemic fungicide pesticide for the control of a number of diseases. Flutolanil belongs to 

the chemical group phenyl-benzamide or benzalinide fungicides. It has a trifluoromethyl group 

in one of the rings and a 1-methylethoxy group in the other. The rings are attached by an amide 

group.

According to the Fungicide Resistance Action Committee (FRAC, available at 

http://www.frac.info/, accessed October 21, 2013) classifies flutolanil under FRAC Code 7. 

Medium to high risk resistance management is required for chemical belonging to FRAC Code 

7. Possible measure to prevent resistance include (see Section 4.2.1.8): use of appropriate 
-Page 10 of 196-

cultural practices; limit the number of fungicide applications whenever possible and rotate with 

chemicals belonging to other FRAC Codes; apply at appropriate rate, intervals, and crop stages; 

apply making sure the crop is fully covered; and, when possible, avoid preventative applications 

if the risk of disease is low. Its target site of action is Complex II; succinate-dehydrogenase 

respiration inhibitor (SDHI). Succinate dehydrogenase is an enzyme complex found in the 

mitochondrial membrane of eukaryotic (i.e., animal, plant, and fungal) cells. It is the only 

enzyme that participates in the citric acid cycle and the electron transport chain. The complex 

catalyzes the oxidation of succinate to fumerate with the reduction of ubiquinone to ubiquinol. 

Inhibition of this complex results in the inability of the cell to generate adenosine triphosphate 

(ATP) which serves as the primary energy source. SDHI fungicides were discovered more than 

40 years ago.

The chemical profile of flutolanil is provided in Table 2.1. Flutolanil shows a solubility of 6.53 

mg/L, log KOW of 3.7, and low vapor pressure and Henry’s Law Constants. These properties 

suggest that the chemical is unlikely to volatilize to a meaningful degree. Gobas et al. 2003 and 

Armitage & Gobas, 2007 support the presumption, that when the log KOA> 5, and log KOW> 2 

there is a potential for a chemical to biomagnify in terrestrial food chains. This presumption is

utilized here only as a broad reference to determine the potential for biomagnification. The 

octanol/water partition coefficient suggests that flutolanil could bioconcentrate in fish. Even 

though the log KOW is >2, for flutolanil, the log KOA is not > 5. Furthermore, since the fish BCF 

study showed a low degree of bioconcentration and rapid depuration, high levels of 

bioaccumulation and biomagnifications are not expected for flutolanil (Table 3.3).

Table 2.1. Chemical Profile of Flutolanil

Property Value Reference 

and Comments

Chemical Structure

F

F

F

O

N

H

O

CH3

CH3

Product Chemistry

Pesticide type Fungicide (systemic)

Product Chemistry

Chemical class Phenyl-benzamide

Molecular Formula C17H16F3NO2

Molecular Weight 323.3 g/mol

CAS No. 66332-96-5

CAS name α,α,α-Trifluoro-3′-isopropoxy-o-toluanilide

IUPAC name N-[3-(1-Methylethoxy)phenyl]-2-(trifluoromethyl)

benzamide

Physical State Solid (powder) 42606601

Water Solubility 6.53 mg/L or ppm at 20oC 41841202, 42606601
-Page 11 of 196-

Property Value Reference 

and Comments

 Other Solubilities

Acetone 143.9 g/100 mL

Methanol 23.2 g/100 mL

Ethanol 37.4 g/100 ml

Dimethylformamide 302.8 g/mL

Ethyl acetate 67.5 g/100 mL

Chloroform 67.4 g/100 mL

Benzene 13.5 g/100 ml

Toluene 5.7 g/100 ml

Xylene 2.9 g/100 ml

N-Hexane 0.09 g/100 ml

42606601

Vapor pressure

4.87 x 10-8 torr at 25oC

[‘Non-volatile under field conditions’

(from dry non-adsorbing surfaces)(1)]

42606601

Henry’s Law Constant 2.12 x 10-9 atm-m3/mol 42606601; estimated from 

VP and WS

Octanol/Water Partition 

Kow (Log KOW)

5,495 (3.74) (initial conc. 10-2 M)

6,166 (3.79) (initial conc. 10-3 M)

42606601; unspecified 

temperature

Air-water partition 

coefficient (KAW)

KAW = Cair/Cwater = Henry's Law Constant/(RT) = 

8.67x10-8 (unitless)

[Classified as ‘Non-volatile from a water surface’ (1)]

Calculated

(R=8.205746x10-5 atm-m3/ 

K-mole; assumed T=298K)

Octanol-air partition 

coefficient (KOA) KOA = KOW/KAW = 1.87x103 (unitless) Calculated

Cwater+soil/Cair

Cwater+soil/Cair = (Cwater/Cair)(1/r + Kd) =

(1.15x107) (1/6 + (780.7 mL/gOC)(0.02)) = 1.82x108

[Classified as ‘Non-volatile from a moist soil’ (1), (2)]

Calculated

(1) Note that all chemicals may volatilize to some extent; this classification simply indicates that the volatility 

potential is very low. For classification scheme, see USEPA, 2008. See also “Guidance for Reporting on the 

Environmental Fate and Transport of the Stressors of Concern in Problem Formulations,” available at 

http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/science/efed/policy_guidance/team_authors/endangered_species_reregistration_workg

roup/esa_reporting_fate.htm#I (accessed October 18, 2013).

(2) Assuming 2% organic carbon, soil to soil water ratio (w/w) = 6, and soil water to soil air (v/v) = 1.

No major transformation products were observed in any of the environmental fate studies for 

flutolanil. One minor product was commonly observed in the majority of the laboratory studies

and in the terrestrial field dissipation studies. This minor transformation is desisopropyl 

flutolanil (Table 3.4). Since it was only a minor product and it was often sporadically detected, 

EFED did not include it as a stressor of concern in prior chemical assessments. This is consistent 

with the Health Effects Division’s (HED) approach. The Metabolism Assessment Review 

Committee (MARC) met on 12/16/1999 and concluded that only the parent needs be included in 

drinking water exposure assessments for flutolanil (memorandum from Manying Zue to George 

Kramer dated 01/06/2000, DP Barcode D261391). Additionally, there is no toxicity data 

available for this degradate. Therefore, no degradates were modeled in this assessment or 

considered stressors of concern. 

2.2.2. Overview of Pesticide Usage

Flutolanil is an active ingredient in several formulated products for use on numerous crops, 

nurseries, and turf; it can be applied using a variety of application equipment. Flutolanil is 
-Page 12 of 196-

registered for use on peanuts; brassica (cole) leafy vegetables; potatoes and potato seed piece 

treatment; cotton, sugarbeet and soybean seed treatment; rice; turf; nursery stocks, ornamentals, 

and fruits (unspecified); and greenhouses. It is applied via ground methods of application on all 

crops, except for peanuts and rice, for which aerial applications are allowed. Application rates 

vary by use pattern. Multiple applications are allowed for most crops (notable exceptions are 

seed treatments); the interval is usually 10-21 days, with an annual maximum rate of up to ~39

lbs a.i./A per season for golf course tees, greens and aprons, and certain ornamental applications. 

Specific use rates are discussed in Section 3.1.

Besides registered uses of flutolanil, the registrant requested to include currently registered uses 

on an SC formulation known under the brand name Convoy®. The proposal includes adding

peanuts via banded applications (other methods of application are already approved for peanuts);

brassica leafy vegetables (Crop Group 5) plus turnip greens; turf and ornamentals in the product 

Convoy® Fungicide. Also, it proposes to double the annual rate on turf in the product ProStar®

70WP Fungicide (see Section 3.1, under the subheading “Proposed changes for two product 

labels”).

2.3. Receptors

2.3.1. Aquatic and Terrestrial Effects

The receptor is the biological entity that is exposed to the stressor (USEPA 1998). Consistent 

with the process described in the Overview Document (USEPA 2004), this risk assessment uses 

a surrogate species approach in its evaluation of flutolanil. Toxicity data generated from 

surrogate test species, which are intended to be representative of broad taxonomic groups, are 

used to extrapolate potential effects on a variety of species (receptors) included under these 

taxonomic groupings. 

Acute and chronic toxicity data from studies submitted by pesticide registrants along with the 

available open literature through EPA’s database ECOTOX (http://cfpub.epa.gov/ecotox/) are 

used to evaluate potential direct effects of flutolanil to aquatic and terrestrial receptors. This 

database is publically available..

Table 2.2. provides examples of taxonomic groups and the surrogate species tested to evaluate

potential ecological effects of pesticides to these non-target taxonomic groups. The table also 

provides a summary of the acute toxicity classifications of flutolanil for each described taxon; 

note that ecotoxicity data for animals are routinely required for the TGAI only. 

Table 2.2. Taxonomic Groups and Example Test Species for Potential Effects of Flutolanil.

Taxonomic Group Example(s) of Surrogate Species Acute Toxicity 

Classification

Birds1 Mallard duck (Anas platyrhynchos)

Bobwhite quail (Colinus virginianus) Practically non-toxic

Mammals Laboratory rat (Rattus norvegicus) Practically nontoxic
-Page 13 of 196-

Taxonomic Group Example(s) of Surrogate Species Acute Toxicity 

Classification

Insects Honey bee (Apis mellifera) Practically nontoxic

Freshwater fish2

Bluegill sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus)

Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss)

Common carp (Cyprinus carpio)

Fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas)

Moderately toxic

Freshwater invertebrates Waterflea (Daphnia magna) Moderately toxic

Estuarine/marine fish Sheepshead minnow (Cyprinodon variegatus) Moderately toxic

Estuarine/marine 

invertebrates

Mysid (Americamysis bahia)

Eastern oyster (Crassostrea virginica) Very highly toxic

Terrestrial plants3 Monocots – onion (Allium cepa)

Dicots – carrot (Daucus carota) Not classified

Aquatic plants and algae

Duckweed (Lemna gibba)

Freshwater blue-green alga (Anabaena flosaquae)Not classified

1 Birds represent surrogates for terrestrial-phase amphibians and reptiles. 2 Freshwater fish may be surrogates for aquatic-phase amphibians. 3 Four species of two families of monocots, of which one is corn; six species of at least four dicot families, of which 

one is soybeans.

2.3.2. Ecosystems Potentially at Risk 

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

specific ecosystems at the screening level. In general terms, terrestrial ecosystems potentially at 

risk could include the treated site and areas immediately adjacent to the treated site that may 

receive drift, runoff, eroded sediment, or discharged subsurface (ground) water. Such areas

could include the treatment site itself, other cultivated fields, fencerows and hedgerows, 

meadows, fallow fields or grasslands, woodlands, riparian habitats, and other uncultivated areas. 

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

treated area and may include natural or impounded lentic systems such as ponds, lakes and 

reservoirs, and lotic (flowing) waterways, i.e., streams and rivers. Aquatic ecosystems supplied 

by groundwater, such as cave ecosystems and areas supplied by natural springs, may be at risk if 

a compound has the potential to leach into the subsurface. For uses in coastal areas, aquatic 

habitat includes estuarine and marine ecosystems. Within water bodies, the water column, 

sediment, and pore water are all compartments of potential concern. 

2.4. Assessment Endpoints 

Assessment endpoints represent the actual environmental values that are to be protected, defined 

by ecological entities (species, community, etc.) and their attributes or characteristics (USEPA

1998). For flutolanil, the ecological entities assessed include the following: birds, amphibians, 

reptiles, mammals, freshwater and estuarine/marine fish, terrestrial and aquatic invertebrates,

aquatic sediment dwelling invertebrates, and terrestrial and aquatic plants. The attributes for 
-Page 14 of 196-

each of these entities may include growth, survival, and reproduction. (See Table 2.3 in Section 

2.6.2, the Analysis Plan, for further discussion).

The assessment endpoints are intended to reflect population sustainability and community 

structure within ecosystems and hence relate to ecosystems at risk. If risks are identified for 

given species/taxa based on a screening-level assessment, then such risks might be expected to 

translate to higher levels of biological organization.

2.5. Conceptual Model

For a pesticide to pose an ecological risk, it must reach ecological receptors in biologically 

significant concentrations. An exposure pathway is the means by which a pesticide moves in the 

environment from a source to an ecological receptor. For an ecological pathway to be complete, 

it must have a source, a release mechanism, an environmental transport medium, a point of 

exposure for ecological receptors, and a plausible route of exposure. The conceptual model is 

intended to provide a written description and visual representation of predicted relationships 

between flutolanil, potential routes of exposure, and the effects related to the Agency assessment 

endpoints. The conceptual model consists of two major components: the risk hypotheses and a 

conceptual diagram (USEPA 1998).

The conceptual model used to depict potential ecological risks associated with the foliar uses of 

flutolanil relies on previous assessments and the Agency’s current understanding of the 

environmental fate and ecological effects of the chemical. The model assumes that flutolanil is 

capable of affecting terrestrial vertebrates and aquatic vertebrates and invertebrates, provided 

that environmental concentrations are sufficiently elevated as a result of flutolanil’s current uses. 

Previous risk assessments [e.g., DP Barcode D371381, dealt with the proposed new uses of 

flutolanil as in furrow spray for brassica leafy vegetables (crop group 5), turnip greens, and 

ginseng and as an in furrow with post emergence spray application for sugar beets] had identified 

potential acute risk to threatened and endangered species and chronic risk to non-endangered, 

endangered, and threatened species of aquatic organisms including marine/estuarine 

invertebrates. Further, acute risk to endangered and threatened avian species had been identified. 

There were acute and chronic LOC exceedances for freshwater fish and invertebrates, 

marine/estuarine fish, mammals, and aquatic and terrestrial plants. 

2.5.1. Risk Hypotheses

For flutolanil, the following ecological risk hypothesis is employed for the ecological risk 

assessment:

Given the registered uses of flutolanil, and its environmental fate properties (persistence 

and low mobility), there is possible acute and chronic exposure to non-target aquatic and 

terrestrial organisms. Previous risk assessments have identified risk to birds, and listed 

and non-listed species of aquatic estuarine/marine invertebrates. This assessment tests 

the hypothesis that, when used in accordance with the label, flutolanil exposure may 

result in adverse effects upon the survival, growth, and reproduction of non-target 

aquatic and terrestrial plants and animals.
-Page 15 of 196-

2.5.2. Conceptual Diagram

The potential exposure pathways and effects of the registered and proposed uses of flutolanil are 

depicted in Figure 2.1. Solid arrows depict the most likely routes of exposure and effects; 

dashed lines depict potential routes of exposure that are not considered likely for flutolanil. The 

aapplication methods for the registered uses of flutolanil involve ground applications and aerial 

applications (only for peanuts and rice). Ecological receptors that may be exposed to flutolanil

following such applications include terrestrial and semi-aquatic wildlife (i.e., mammals, birds, 

terrestrial-phase amphibians, terrestrial invertebrates, and reptiles) and plants. In addition, 

aquatic receptors (e.g., freshwater and estuarine/marine fish and invertebrates, aquatic-phase 

amphibians, and plants) may be exposed as a result of movement of flutolanil via spray drift and 

runoff from the site of application. The conceptual framework for assessment of potential 

ecological risk associated with flutolanil use is depicted in Figure 2.1; potential endpoints, 

stressors, and ecological effects are identified based on this model. 
-Page 16 of 196-

**Route of exposure includes only ingestion of fish and aquatic invertebrates

Figure 2.1. Conceptual Model Depicting Potential Risks to Non-target Species from the Registered and Proposed Uses of Flutolanil. Solid arrows depict 

the routes of exposure and effects which are assessed for parent flutolanil based on the available data; dashed lines depict potential routes of exposure 

that are not considered likely.

Stressor

Source/

Transport

Pathways

Direct Deposition Runoff

Erosion

Leaching

(Infiltration/

Percolation

Source/

Exposure

Media

Terrestrial Plants

Terrestrial Invertebrates

Terrestrial Plants

Soil

Receiving 

Water 

Body/ 

Sediment

Groundwater

Tested

Exposure

Route

Ingestion Direct Contact

Root Uptake Gill or Integument 

Uptake

Receptors

Attribute

Changes

Terrestrial 

Vertebrates

Terrestrial Plants

Individual Animals:

 Reduced survival and/or reproduction

Aquatic Invertebrates

Aquatic Vertebrates

**Piscivorous 

mammals and birds

Individual Plants:

 Seedling emergence

 Vegetative vigor

Individual Animals:

 Reduced survival 

and/or reproduction

Plant Population:

Reduced population 

growth

Aquatic Plants

Uptake/ 

Adsorption

Spray Drift Volatilization

Atmospheric Transport

Flutolanil

Direct Contact

Terrestrial 

Invertebrates
-Page 17 of 196-

For all the possible uses of flutolanil (those already registered and proposed label amendments), 

the sources and mechanisms of release of the compound are from ground or aerial (aerial only 

for peanuts and rice) spray applications. Surface runoff from the areas of application is assumed 

to depend on factors such as topography, irrigation, and rainfall events. Direct deposition may 

result in contamination of food items that may be consumed by terrestrial organisms. Spray drift 

results in contaminated adjacent areas, including bodies of water.

For aquatic receptors, the major point of exposure is through direct contact with the water 

column, sediment, and pore water (gill/integument) contaminated with spray drift (from spray 

application) and/ or runoff from treated areas. Indirect effects to aquatic organisms (especially 

fish) can also occur through impact to various food chains. The representative aquatic receptors 

are certain freshwater and estuarine/marine fish, invertebrates, and aquatic plants. The major 

point of exposure for terrestrial animals is consumption of food contaminated with residues such 

as grass, foliage, and small insects. The representative terrestrial receptors are mammals, birds, 

and, in certain cases, terrestrial plants. The attribute changes used to assess risk terrestrial 

receptors depend on the type of test (e.g., reduced survival, growth, or reproduction for animals 

and seedling emergence and vegetative vigor for plants). It should be noted, that these species 

do not cover all the possible species in the animal and plant kingdoms; certain taxa are 

considered as surrogates for other taxa. For example, fish are considered surrogates for aquatic 

phase amphibians.

The potential for bioaccumulation of flutolanil will also be examined in the risk assessment. 

Because flutolanil has a fairly high KOW (log KOW = 3.79; MRID 42606601; unspecified 

temperature) and the chemical appears to be persistent in water and sediments under most 

environments, there is a potential for bioaccumulation. However, the maximum 

bioconcentration factor was 150 L/kg whole fish and depuration rate was rapid (>95% of the 

total radioactive residues depurated in 3 days, MRID 41841214 & 41841215). Bioaccumulation 

will be assessed using the results from bioaccumulation in fish studies, as well as the KOW

(based) Aquatic BioAccumulation Model, version 1.0, 2009 (KABAM) (refer to Section 4.1.4).

For terrestrial organisms, the primary route of exposure assessed at the screening level is the 

dietary route, via consumption of food items such as plant leaves or insects that have flutolanil

residues as a result of spraying. The assessment considers exposure of non-target terrestrial 

invertebrates through oral ingestion and through contact, e.g., as a result of direct deposition or 

spray drift. Direct contact and spray drift are the major routes of exposure considered for 

terrestrial and wetland (riparian) plants.

Based on flutolanil’s relatively low vapor pressure 4.87 x 10-8 mm Hg and Henry’s Law 

Constant of 2.12 x 10-9 atm-m3/mol, and its moderate tendency to sorb to soils and sediments

(mean KOC = 781 mL/gOC), the chemical is not expected to volatilize readily or substantially. 

Furthermore, it is not expected to leach to groundwater in meaningful amounts (compared to 

exposure to surface waters). An analysis using the Screening Tool for Inhalation Risk (STIR, 

v.1.0, 11/23/2010) (see Section 2.6.2) however indicates that for a nursery stock use, turf use, 

and golf course greens use, that inhalation of the droplets of vapor phase spray drift from 

flutolanil applications would result in a potential pathway of concern. The Screening Imbibition 
-Page 18 of 196-

Program (SIP, v.1.0, 7/6/2010) indicates that drinking water exposure alone is not a potential 

pathway of concern. Additionally, this ecological risk assessment does not account for possible 

ingestion of flutolanil residues in contaminated grit or from preening activities of terrestrial 

animals, and it does not evaluate potential uptake through dermal absorption.

2.6. Analysis Plan 

2.6.1. Measures of Exposure

2.6.1.1. Measures of Aquatic Exposure 

Measures of exposure to aquatic animals and plants are concentrations in surface water and pore 

water simulated by the Pesticide Root Zone Model (PRZM v3.12.2, May 12, 2005) and Exposure 

Analysis Modeling System (EXAMS v2.98.04.06, Apr. 2005), coupled with the input 

PRZM/EXAMS shell pe5 (August 2007), to generate estimated environmental concentrations 

(EECs) of flutolanil that may occur from use on adjacent crops based on maximum labeled 

single and seasonal use rates among many other parameters (Table 3.5). The EECs used in 

assessment of acute risk are 1-in-10 year return frequency daily maximum values (referred to as 

“peak” values). For chronic risk assessment, mean concentrations over a specified duration are 

generated. In both cases, each modeled site is selected to represent a site expected to be more 

vulnerable to runoff than most locations where use may occur (e.g., based on the crop being 

grown). The EXAMS model simulates the subsequent fate of the pesticide in an adjacent 

receiving water body. As routinely employed in ecological risk assessment, the receiving water 

body is assumed to be a static, 1-hectare pond of 2-meter depth (the “standard pond”), into which 

a 10-hectare cropped field drains (USEPA 2009a). More detailed information about the models 

can be found elsewhere.1

For the applications on rice, the Pesticides in Flooded Applications Model (PFAM v.1.00, dated 

January 23, 2013) will be used. The primary intent during the development of PFAM was to 

produce a flooded agriculture model for use in pesticide regulatory work. The user interface was 

specifically designed with this intent. Its greatest strength is for analysis of long-term pesticide 

use for hypothetical scenarios, as is done during the pesticide registration process. The duration 

of PFAM simulations is as long as the available meteorological data. Pesticide application and 

flooding sequences are mapped onto the time series in 1-year cycles for as long as the simulation 

continues. Thus, as is typical of a U.S. exposure assessment, the pesticide is assumed to be used 

every year for 30 years (the length of the U.S. meteorological files). Currently output is 

delivered as released mass of pesticide as well as a daily time series of concentrations. PFAM 

version 1.00 was developed as a flooded agriculture model for use in pesticide regulatory work. 

This model has been developed under USEPA Guidance (USEPA, 2009e). External independent 

evaluations have been positive (Luo, 2011). Additionally, a peer reviewed journal article 

describing PFAM’s mathematics, theories and performance with respect to the requirements of a 

regulatory model has also been published (Young, 2012).

 1 http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/science/models_db.htm
-Page 19 of 196-

PFAM is conceptualized in Figure 2.2 and includes both hydrological processes and chemical 

processes. The water body depth may change due to precipitation, refill, drainage, evaporation, 

and weir-height changes. The model consists of two regions: a water column and a benthic 

region. Each individual region is completely mixed and at equilibrium with all phases within the 

individual region, and equilibrium within each region follows a linear isotherm (USEPA 2004a). 

The two regions are coupled by a first-order mass-transfer process. Equations for chemical 

processes (i.e., hydrolysis, bacterial metabolism, photolysis, and sorption) within each region are 

similar to USEPA 2004a. The model accounts for plant growth, metabolism, hydrolysis, 

photolysis, and metabolism in water, sediment, and soil (when no water is present), sorption, and 

volatilization. Water, sediment, and pesticide may flow out of the field. Changes in water body 

conditions (temperature, water levels, wind speed, etc.) and the resulting changes in degradation 

rates occur on a daily time step. Pesticide application and flooding sequences are mapped onto 

the time series in 1-year cycles for the length of the simulation. For instance, a typical exposure 

assessment assumes the pesticide is used every year for 30 years (the length of most EFED 

meteorological files). Output is delivered as released mass of pesticide as well as a daily time 

series of concentrations.

Figure 2.2. Conceptual model of hydrological and chemical processes in PFAM
-Page 20 of 196-

2.6.1.2. Measures of Terrestrial Exposure

Terrestrial wildlife are exposed to flutolanil via consumption of residues on food items generated 

by spray applications. For spray applications, the T-REX model (Terrestrial Residue EXposure 

model; v. 1.5.2; June 6, 20132) is used to predict dietary exposure to flutolanil residues on foliar 

surfaces and insects using the Kenaga nomogram as modified by Fletcher (Hoerger and Kenaga 

1972, Fletcher et al. 1994). A default 35-day foliar dissipation half-life is used for terrestrial 

exposure modeling in this assessment, as suitable foliar dissipation data specific to flutolanil are 

not available (e.g. Willis and McDowell 1987). Estimated exposures of terrestrial insects to 

flutolanil are evaluated in terms of the insects’ potential relevance as dietary items for terrestrial 

vertebrates and for use in risk characterization for listed terrestrial invertebrates. For certain uses 

of flutolanil including seed treatment uses (specifically, incorporation depth) and soil drench 

uses, T-REX is unable to simulate label specifications. This is further discussed in Section 3.2.3.

The TerrPlant (v. 1.2.2; December 26, 2006) model is used to derive EECs relevant to terrestrial 

and wetland plants for the proposed new uses of flutolanil. The model employs the assumption

that default fractions of the intended application are transported to an adjacent field through 

runoff and spray drift. Measures of exposure to terrestrial plants are expressed as a fraction of 

the mass of the flutolanil applied to the treated field.

STIR was used to calculate an upper bound estimate of exposure using flutolanil’s vapor 

pressure and molecular weight for vapor phase exposure as well as the maximum application rate 

and method of application for spray drift. STIR incorporates results from several toxicity studies 

including acute oral and inhalation rat toxicity endpoints obtained from the “six-pack” of core 

studies, which are a series of six guideline studies (including acute oral, acute inhalation, acute 

dermal contact, and others) that are submitted to the Registration Division of the Office of 

Pesticide Programs for technical and formulated products of a pesticide (rat oral LD50 = >10000

mg/kg bw, MRID 40342905; and rat inhalation LC50 >5.98 mg/L, MRID 40342910, 

respectively) as well as the most sensitive acute oral avian toxicity endpoint (bobwhite quail 

LD50 >2000 mg/kg bw, MRID 40342930). Based on the results of the STIR model (Appendix 

F), exposure through inhalation of spray drift of the vapor phase of flutolanil was determined to 

be a potential pathway of concern for avian species on an acute exposure basis. 

 

The inhalation pathway via spray drift and/or vapor-phase of the pesticide is of potential 

significance. This pathway will be explored further by requesting additional toxicity or exposure

data (non-guideline acute avian inhalation toxicity) that may reduce uncertainty and the 

incorporation of this data into the inhalation risk assessment for birds and mammals. It is noted 

however, that this result was indicated for three uses; golf course greens, tees, and aprons; golf 

course fairways, and nursery stock, ornamentals & fruits (unspecified). For a sample of the 

output generated by STIR v.1.0, please see Appendix D. Detailed information about the STIR 

v.1.0 tool can be found on the EPA’s website at: 

http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/science/models_pg.htm#terrestrial.

 2 Information about the models can be found at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/science/models_db.htm
-Page 21 of 196-

Bioaccumulation will be assessed using the results from bioaccumulation in fish studies, as well 

as the KABAM model, adjusting for biotransformation rates. KABAM is used to estimate 

potential bioaccumulation of hydrophobic organic pesticides in freshwater aquatic ecosystems 

and risks to mammals and birds consuming aquatic organisms which have bioaccumulated these 

pesticides. More information about this model can be found at the following link:

http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/kabam/kabam_user_guide.html.

2.6.2. Measures of Effect 

Measures of effect are obtained from a suite of registrant-submitted guideline studies which were 

conducted with a limited number of surrogate test species (Table 2.2.). The test species are not 

intended to be representative of the most sensitive species but rather were selected based on their 

ability to thrive under laboratory conditions. Toxicity testing reported in this risk assessment 

utilizes surrogate species to represent all freshwater fish (2000+) and bird (680+) species in the 

U.S. The publically available ECOTOXicology database (ECOTOX), was searched in October

2013 to identify whether additional, more sensitive ecological effects data were available for 

flutolanil; however, no more useful data were identified (USEPA 2012).

The acute measures of effect used in this screening-level assessment are the LD50 (Lethal Dose), 

LC50 (Lethal Concentration), EC50 (Effects Concentration), and IC50 (Inhibition Concentration). 

These are measures of acute toxicity which result in 50% of the respective effect in tested 

organisms. The endpoints for chronic measures of exposure are the NOAEC (No Observed 

Adverse Effects Concentration) and the NOAEL (No Observed Adverse Effects Level). 

Toxicity studies were submitted for freshwater fish and invertebrates, estuarine/marine fish and 

invertebrates, aquatic plants, sediment-dwelling organisms, birds, mammals, and bees. The 

endpoints used for risk characterization were derived from studies which underwent review and 

were classified as “acceptable” (conducted under guideline conditions and considered to be 

scientifically valid) or “supplemental” (conditions deviated from guidelines but the results were 

considered to be scientifically valid and suitable for quantitative risk assessment). 

2.6.3. Integration of Exposure and Effects

The exposure and toxicity effects data are integrated in order to evaluate the risks of adverse 

ecological effects on non-target species. For the risk assessment of flutolanil, the risk quotient 

(RQ) method is used to compare estimated exposure and measured toxicity values. The RQ 

method involves dividing EECs by point estimates of the most sensitive acute and chronic 

toxicity values. The resulting RQs are then compared to the Agency’s Levels of Concern (LOC) 

(USEPA 2004) (Table 2.3). These criteria are used to indicate when applications of flutolanil, as 

directed on the label, have the potential to cause adverse effects to non-target organisms.
-Page 22 of 196-

Table 2.3. Agency Risk Quotient (RQ) Metrics and Levels of Concern (LOC) Per Risk 

Class.

Risk Class Risk Description RQ LOC

Aquatic Animals (fish and invertebrates)

Acute Potential for effects to non-listed animals from acute 

exposures

Peak EEC/LC501 0.5

Acute 

Restricted Use

Potential for effects to animals from acute exposures

Risks may be mitigated through restricted use classification Peak EEC/LC501 0.1

Acute Listed

Species

Listed species may be potentially affected by acute 

exposures

Peak EEC/LC501 0.05

Chronic Potential for effects to non-listed and listed animals from 

chronic exposures

60-day EEC/NOAEC 

(fish) 1

21-day EEC/NOAEC 

(invertebrates)

Aquatic Plants

Non-Listed Potential for effects to non-listed plants from exposures Peak EEC/LC501 1

Listed Potential for effects to listed plants from exposures Peak EEC/NOAEC 1

Terrestrial Animals (mammals and birds)2

Acute Potential for effects to non-listed animals from acute 

exposures

EEC/LC50 (Dietary) 0.5

EEC/LD50 (Dose)

Acute 

Restricted Use

Potential for effects to animals from acute exposures

Risks may be mitigated through restricted use classification

EEC/LC50 (Dietary) 0.2

EEC/LD50 (Dose)

Acute Listed 

Species

Listed species may be potentially affected by acute 

exposures

EEC/LC50 (Dietary) 0.1

EEC/LD50 (Dose)

Chronic Potential for effects to non-listed and listed animals from 

chronic exposures EEC/NOAEC 1

Terrestrial and Semi-Aquatic Plants

Non-Listed Potential for effects to non-target, non-listed plants from 

exposures

EEC/ EC25 1

Listed Plant Potential for effects to non-target, listed plants from 

exposures

EEC/ NOAEC

1

EEC/ EC05

1 LC50 or EC50. 2 EEC based on upper bound Kenaga nomogram values for foliar exposure.

The Agency uses the probit dose-response relationship as a tool for providing additional 

information on the potential for acute direct effects to individual listed species and aquatic 

animals that may indirectly affect the listed species of concern (USEPA 2004). As part of this 

evaluation, the acute RQ for listed species is presented in terms of the chance of an individual 

event (i.e., mortality or immobilization) should exposure at the EEC actually occur for a species 

with sensitivity to flutolanil on par with the acute toxicity endpoint selected for RQ calculation. 

To accomplish this interpretation, the Agency uses the slope of the dose-response relationship 

available from the toxicity study used to establish the acute toxicity measures of effect for each 

taxonomic group that is relevant to this assessment. The individual effects probability associated 

with the acute RQ is based on the mean estimate of the slope and an assumption of a probit doseresponse relationship. In addition to a single effects probability estimate based on the mean, 
-Page 23 of 196-

upper and lower estimates of the effects probability are also provided to account for variance in 

the slope, if available. If no dose response information is available to estimate a slope for this 

analysis, a default slope assumption of 4.5 (with lower and upper bounds of 2 to 9) is used 

(Urban and Cook 1986). 

Individual effect probabilities are calculated based on an Microsoft Excel spreadsheet tool IEC

v1.1 (Individual Effect Chance Model Version 1.1) developed by the U.S. EPA, OPP, 

Environmental Fate and Effects Division (June 22, 2004). The model allows for such 

calculations by entering the mean slope estimate (and the 95% confidence bounds of that 

estimate) as the slope parameter in the spreadsheet. The desired threshold for the probability of 

an individual effect is entered as the listed species LOC or based on the calculated acute RQ, if 

available.

3. Analysis

3.1 Use Characterization

There are approximately 15 Section 3 end use labels, 2 Section 3 Technical labels, and 7 Special 

Local Needs (Section 24c) labels for flutolanil. Flutolanil can be formulated in products that 

contain solely flutolanil (e.g., Flutolanil 40SC) or in formulations with other active ingredients 

such as chlorothalonil, mancozeb, and propiconazole.

A summary table of all use patterns in the current and proposed labels, is presented below (Table 

3.1). Two labels involved in label amendment actions included in this assessment are Convoy®

Fungicide (also referred as Flutolanil 40SC Fungicide) (EPA Reg. No. 71711-28), and ProStar®

70 WP Fungicide (EPA Reg. No. 432-1223). Convoy® is a suspension concentrate containing 

3.8 lb a.i./gallon and 40.0% active ingredient. ProStar® 70 WP Fungicide is a wettable powder 

packaged in water soluble bags, containing 70.0% active ingredient.

Table 3.1. Summary of Use Information for Flutolanil Based on Current and Proposed 

Uses (Proposed Amendments are Bolded)

USE

MAXIMUM 

SINGLE 

APP. RATE 

(lbs. a.i./A)

NUMBER 

OF APPS. 

AT MAX 

RATE

MAXIMUM 

SEASONAL 

APP. RATE 

(lbs. a.i./A)

MINIMUM 

INTERVAL 

BETWEEN 

APPS. 

(days) APP. METHOD

INCORPORATION 

DEPTH 

(inches)

Food Crops

Peanuts 0.950 lb/A1

(1.90 lb/A

broadcast 

equivalent)

1 0.950 

lb/A1

(1.90 lb/A

broadcast 

equivalent)

N/A Ground banded 

applications, 40-60 days 

after planting; PHI=90 

days

0

Peanuts 0.475,

0.950

4,

2

1.90 10,

21

Ground or aerial or 

chemigation, begin 

applications ~45-60 days 

after planting, PHI=40 

days

0
-Page 24 of 196-

USE

MAXIMUM 

SINGLE 

APP. RATE 

(lbs. a.i./A)

NUMBER 

OF APPS. 

AT MAX 

RATE

MAXIMUM 

SEASONAL 

APP. RATE 

(lbs. a.i./A)

MINIMUM 

INTERVAL 

BETWEEN 

APPS. 

(days) APP. METHOD

INCORPORATION 

DEPTH 

(inches)

Peanuts 0.742 1 0.742 N/A In furrow 4-8 inch band 

application at plant prior 

to covering with soil

(Flutolanil 40SC label)

1-22

Peanuts 2.00,

1.00,

0.50

1,

2,

4

2.00 N/A,

30,

10

Ground, aerial, and 

chemigation postplant 

applications 50-70 days 

after planting (1, 2, or 4 

application programs)

(disallowed in CA)

0

Brassica (cole) Leafy 

Vegetables (Crop 

Group 5) plus Turnip 

Greens4

0.772 1 0.772 N/A In a narrow band directed 

at transplanted plant 

bases immediately after 

transplanting in 30-50 

gallons per acre; or to the 

row at plant as an infurrow directed spray; or, 

as soil drench at planting; 

PHI=45 days

0

Potatoes 0.77 1 0.77 N/A In furrow application 

to a 4-8 inch band 

prior to covering with 

soil

2-45

Potato seed piece 

treatment

0.36 1 0.36 N/A Seed piece treatment 2-45

Cotton seeds 

treatment6

0.0227 1 0.0227 N/A Seed treatment 

equipment

3⁄4-11⁄2 7

Soybean seeds 

treatment6

0.200 1 0.200 N/A Seed treatment 

equipment

1-11⁄2 8

Sugar beet seeds 

treatment6

0.0057 1 0.0057 N/A Seed treatment 

equipment

3⁄4-11⁄4 9

Rice 0.980,

0.490

1,

2

0.980 N/A,

10

Ground or aerial; 1st

application 7-14 days 

after panicle 

differentiation; one or 

two application programs 

available3

0

Turf Uses

Turf (golf courses, sod 

farms, sport fields, 

residential, institutional, 

municipal and commercial 

areas)

8.6 2 17.1/year10 14 Broadcast application 0

Golf course greens, 

tees and aprons;

---

Fairways

8.56;

---

Assume 

9.77

(4.88 in 

FL)

~5 39.1;

---

9.77

(4.88 in 

FL)

14 Broadcast application 0

Ornamental lawns and 

turf; recreation area 

lawns; residential 

lawns

4.94 ~4 19.55 14 Broadcast ground 

when needed

0
-Page 25 of 196-

USE

MAXIMUM 

SINGLE 

APP. RATE 

(lbs. a.i./A)

NUMBER 

OF APPS. 

AT MAX 

RATE

MAXIMUM 

SEASONAL 

APP. RATE 

(lbs. a.i./A)

MINIMUM 

INTERVAL 

BETWEEN 

APPS. 

(days) APP. METHOD

INCORPORATION 

DEPTH 

(inches)

Commercial/ Industrial 

lawns

5.94 ~4 19.54 14 Ground 0

Nursery Stock, Ornamentals and Fruits (Unspecified)

Nursery stock, 

Ornamentals & Fruits

(unspecified)

14.0 4 NS NS Soil drench (ground or 

raised beds)

N/A

Nursery stock, 

Ornamentals & Fruits

(unspecified)

Assume 

9.7811

4 39.1 10 Broadcast, foliar N/A

Nursery stock, 

Ornamentals & Fruits

(unspecified)

Assume 

2.112

2 4.2 14 Sprayer, foliar (NY)13 N/A

Nursery stock, 

Ornamentals & Fruits

(unspecified)

28.6 4 NS 21 Soil drench (plant bed) N/A

Nursery stock, 

Ornamentals & Fruits

(unspecified)

42.9 4 NS 21 Soil drench, 

chemigation 

(containerized14)

N/A

Greenhouse

Greenhouse (in use) Various 2 or 4 NS, 4.2 or 

39.1

NS, 14 or 

21

Broadcast, chemigation, 

dip treatment, soil drench

N/A

Footnotes: NS=not specified; N/A=not applicable

1 Assuming a 16-inch band and 32-inch row spacing, the maximum rate is 0.95 lb a.i./A for banded applications. Banded 

applications on peanuts represent one of the newly proposed changes hereby assessed.

2 Seeding depth for peanuts is typically 1-2 inches (see e.g., Texas Peanut Production Guide, Texas Cooperative Extension, 

Texas A&M University System).

3 Restriction: Do not apply this product within three miles of any estuarine/marine waterways or watershed.

4 Includes the following crops: Broccoli; broccoli, Chinese (gai lon); broccoli raab (rapini); Brussels sprouts; cabbage; cabbage, 

Chinese (bok choy); cabbage, Chinese (napa); cabbage, Chinese mustard(gai choy); cauliflower; cavalo broccolo; collards; kale; 

kohlrabi; mizuna; mustard greens; mustard spinach; rape greens. Even though these crops are already approved, they are 

proposed in the label for Convoy® Fungicide.

5 Source for incorporation depth of seed pieces: FL and TX crop profiles, from http://www.ipmcenters.org/CropProfiles/

(accessed 08/29/13).

6 The stated application rate for cotton, soybean and sugar beets, the application rate is 0.12 lb a.i./100 lb seeds. The planting 

rates are as follows (reference, T-REX v.1.5.2): cotton 18.9 lb seeds/A; soybean 167 lb seeds/A; and, sugar beets 4.75 lb seeds/A.

7 Source for soil incorporation depth for cotton seeds: Cotton Production Manual. 1996. Edited by S. Johnson Hake, T. A. Kerby, 

K. D. Hake. University of California Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources. Publication 3352. p. 25. Available from 

Google Books at http://books.google.com/ (accessed 08/29/13).

8 Source for incorporation depth: MS soybean crop profile, from http://www.ipmcenters.org/CropProfiles/ (accessed 08/29/13).

9 Source for incorporation depth: MT and CO sugar beet crop profiles, from http://www.ipmcenters.org/CropProfiles/ (accessed 

08/29/13).

10 Review of previously approved labels for this chemical shows that this application rate is twice as high as previously 

approved. Increasing the annual rate is another of the changes proposed that are being evaluated in this document. For certain 

pests, the chemical should not be applied to more than 10,000 square feet per acre of turf area. However, for certain other pests

(e.g., brown ring patch/Waitea patch), such a restriction is not applicable. For use rates greater than 4.4 fl oz per 1,000 square 

feet (~8.4 lb a.i./A), do not apply CONVOY® within 100 feet of any freshwater or marine estuary, ditches, drainage tiles, or other 

waterway that drain directly (within 1⁄2 mile or 2640 ft) into estuaries. For use rates greater than 2.2 oz per 1,000 square feet 

(~4.2 lb a.i./A), do not apply ProStar 70WP Fungicide within 100 feet of an estuary or marine habitat or within 100 ft of any

ditches, drainage tiles, or other waterway that drain directly (within 1⁄2 mile or 2640 ft) into estuaries or marine habitats.

11 This value represents one fourth of the maximum seasonal application rate.

12 This value represents half of the maximum seasonal application rate.

13 Instructions for use in NY.

14 Restrictions in certain counties of NY.
-Page 26 of 196-

Methods of application for flutolanil include banded applications in furrow or on transplanted 

plants, seed treatments (potato seed pieces, cotton, soybean, and sugar beet seeds treatment), 

foliar applications which could include both ground or aerial applications (aerial applications are 

allowed on rice and peanuts). For certain uses there are restrictions on applications in certain 

New York counties (i.e., Nassau and Suffolk).

Proposed changes for two product labels

The registrant requested to include currently registered uses on an SC formulation known under 

the brand name Convoy. The proposal includes adding peanuts (via banded applications since 

other methods of application are already approved for peanuts), brassica leafy vegetables (Crop 

Group 5) plus turnip greens, and turf and ornamentals in the product Convoy® Fungicide, and to 

double the annual rate on turf in the product ProStar® 70WP Fungicide as explained below.

Convoy® Fungicide

Peanut is already an approved use; however, a change to the Convoy® Fungicide label includes 

the addition of banded applications. The maximum rate per acre is the same than for previously 

approved uses.

Furthermore, brassica (cole) leafy vegetables (Crop Group 5), plus turnip greens, are also 

approved crops (i.e., approved for other products), which are being proposed to be included in 

the label for Convoy® Fungicide.

For the use of flutolanil on rice in this product, the lower end of the application rate range was 

slightly increased. The maximum rate remained the same (changed from 11.8-33.0 fl oz 

product/A to 12.0-33.0 fl oz/A or 0.356-0.980 lb a.i./A).

ProStar® 70WP Fungicide and Convoy® 40SC Fungicide

Lastly, the registrant is proposing to include applications on turf to the product Convoy® 40SC 

and double the application rate on turf from a maximum yearly rate of 8.6 lb a.i./A to 17.1 lb 

a.i./A, by adding a second application for the product ProStar® 70WP.

Examples of Environmental Hazard Statements

ProStar® 70WP Fungicide

This product is toxic to aquatic invertebrates. For terrestrial uses, do not apply to water, areas 

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

contaminate water when disposing of equipment washwaters.”

Convoy® Fungicide

“This product is toxic to fish and invertebrates. Do not apply to water, areas where surface water 
-Page 27 of 196-

is present, or to intertidal waters below the mean high water mark. Do not contaminate water 

used for watering livestock or domestic purposes. Exposed treated seed or seed pieces may be 

hazardous to birds or other wildlife. Cover or collect treated seed spilled during loading and 

planting. Dispose of all excess treated seed and seed packaging by burial away from bodies of 

water. Do not contaminate bodies of water when disposing of planting equipment wash water.”

Certain language is presented in the label for Convoy® Fungicide. It is related to spray drift; 

however, it is advisory in nature and not mandatory and, thus, it is not further provided in this 

document.

Other Label Information

Labels also have restrictions for applications near marine/estuarine areas. For example, the 

proposed label for Convoy® Fungicide, for the use on rice, the following statement is shown in 

the supplemental label: “This pesticide is toxic to shrimp. Do not apply this product within three 

miles of any estuarine/marine waterways or watershed.” Further, for the same use, “Flooded 

fields may be used for aquaculture of crayfish only following rice harvest.”

Additionally, for the uses on turf the following label statements appear in the label, “For use 

rates over 2.2 oz per 1,000 sq. ft. do not apply ProStar 70 WP Fungicide within 100 ft. of any 

estuary or marine habitat or within 100 ft. of any ditches, drainage tiles, or other waterways that 

drain directly into (within 1⁄2 mile of estuaries or marine habitats).”

“Use Precautions for Turf Application

For use rates greater than 4.4 fl oz per 1,000 square feet, do not apply Flutolanil 40SC within 100 

feet of any freshwater or marine estuary, ditches, drainage tiles, or other waterway that drains 

directly (within 1⁄2 mile) into estuaries. Do not apply more than 13.25 fl oz per 1,000 square feet 

as a broadcast application during a single growing season.” [Note Flutolanil 40SC is the same 

product as Convoy® 40SC.]

Usage of Flutolanil

According to the Screening Level Usage Analysis (SLUA) provided by the Biological and 

Economic Analysis Division (BEAD) dated February 2013, the major use for flutolanil is 

peanuts, followed by potatoes. Rice appears to be a minor use for this chemical; furthermore, the 

maximum percentage crop treated for this crop is only <2.5% (Table 3.2). The SLUA does not 

include non-agricultural uses such as turf.

Table 3.2. Estimates of Agricultural Usage of Flutolanil (Reporting Timeframe: 2004-

2011) (OPP/BEAD).

Crop Lbs. A.I. Percent Crop Treated

Average Maximum

Peanuts 100,000 10 20

Potatoes 40,000 10 20

Potatoes, Seed Treatment 10,000 5 10
-Page 28 of 196-

Crop Lbs. A.I. Percent Crop Treated

Average Maximum

Rice 2,000 <1 <2.5

Report dated February 2013.

All numbers rounded.

<1 less than 1% crop treated

<2.5 less than 2.5% crop treated

Data sources: Screening Level Usage Analysis (SLUA), OPP/BEAD, report dated February 7, 2013. These results 

reflect amalgamated data developed by the Agency and are releasable to the public. SLUA data sources include: 

USDA-NASS (United States Department of Agriculture's National Agricultural Statistics Service) 

Private Pesticide Market Research

Rice Growing Practices

Since flutolanil has uses on rice, certain relevant rice growing practices are important in 

estimating exposure concentrations. These are explained in Appendix L.

3.2. Exposure Characterization

3.2.1. Environmental Fate and Transport Characterization

Environmental fate characteristics of the parent compound flutolanil are listed in Table 3.3 and 

are discussed in greater detail following the table. The status of the environmental fate data 

requirements is presented in Appendix F.

Table 3.3. Summary of Environmental Fate Properties of Flutolanil

Guideline Data 

Requirement

Study MRID

(Classification) Results

835.2120 Hydrolysis 40342940 (A) Stable at pH 5, 7, and 9.

835.2240 Photolysis in 

Water 

41841208 &

41841209 (A) Stable at pH 7.

835.2410 Photodegradation 

on Soil

41841210

43175810 (A)

Stable (upgraded study, see below). 

Additional data submitted by the registrant to upgrade 

41841210.

835.4100 Aerobic Soil 

Metabolism

40342941 (A)

45756601 (A)

t1/2 = 190 days (clay loam); 320 days (loam); and 300 

days (sandy loam) at 300C. Less than 3% of the applied 

was detected as DIP.

t1/2 = 217 days (sandy loam) at 250C. Results indicated 

that no major degradates were detected. M-4 (DIP), M-6 

and M-11 were ≤3.8% of the applied.
-Page 29 of 196-

Guideline Data 

Requirement

Study MRID

(Classification) Results

835.4200 Anaerobic Soil 

Metabolism

49075001 (S) Observed DT50’s as follows: 180 days (loamy sand), and 

>120 days in three additional foreign soils (sandy loam, a 

second loamy sand, and clay).

For the loamy sand, the representative half-life was 284 

days. For the other soils, the representative half-lives 

were at or above 1,245 days.

M-2, M-4 (DIP) and M-6 were less than 2.8% of the 

applied.

835.4300 Aerobic Aquatic 

Metabolism 41841212 (A) t1/2 = 1 year at 250C in a clay sediment from MS Delta. 

Study lasted for a short period of time of only 30 days.

835.4400 Anaerobic Aquatic 

Metabolism 41841211 (A) t1/2 > 13 years in a clay sediment at 250C. Less than 

1.2% of the applied was found as DIP.

835.1230 LeachingAdsorption/ 

Desorption

42606627 (A)

40342943 (A)

41841213 (A)

42606626 (A)

Parent KOC = 571 (sand); 592 (loam); 457 (clay loam); 

628 (clay loam); 1,005 mL/gOC (loamy sand).

Parent KOC = 1,340 (sand); 883 (clay); 528 (sediment); 

653 (clay loam); 1,150 mL/gOC (sandy loam).

Sorption is correlated with organic carbon content. Mean 

Parent KOC from 10 soils (two studies) is 780.7 mL/gOC; 

moderately mobile according to EFED’s standard soil 

mobility classification (FAO 2000).

Aged soil (8 months) shows that no major transformation 

products were observed and that no metabolites will be of 

concern. 

Degradate DIP KOC = 288 (sand); 293 (loam); 396 (clay 

loam); and 317 mL/gOC (loamy sand) .

835.6100 Terrestrial Field 

Dissipation

41837803 (U)

41837804 (S)

43175809 (S)

45756603 (A)

45756602 (A)

Unacceptable study.

Turf plot in CA. t1/2 = 81 days. Flutolanil was detected 

through 24-30 inch soil depth. DIP was detected in the 0-

3 inch depth at all intervals at up to 0.20 ppm (single 

replicate).

Peanuts field in FL. Biphasic pattern, t1/2 = 44 days (0-

121 days); t1/2 = 225 days (121 days – 18 months). DIP 

was not detected below 8 cm. It was a maximum of 0.07 

ppm at 14 days.

Turf field in CA (sandy loam). t1/2 = 65.4 days. DIP 

reached a maximum of only 0.10 ppm at 179 days and

was not detected below 15-cm depth.

Bare field in FL, loam soil. Taking into account all data 

points, the half-life is 182 days.. t1/2 = 26.7 days (initial 

half-life). DIP was at or below 0.02 ppm (LOQ=0.01 

ppm).

835.6100 Long Term Field

Dissipation

43175804 (S) Peanuts field in FL (loam). t1/2 = 118 days (1st year); 126 

days (2nd year); 123 days (3rd year). DIP was a maximum 

of 0.09 ppm at 1 month posttreatment #2.
-Page 30 of 196-

Guideline Data 

Requirement

Study MRID

(Classification) Results

835.6200 Aquatic Field 

Dissipation

42606618 (A)

43292603 (U)

Rice paddies: CA sediment t1/2 = 303 days. The parent 

compound partitioned rapidly to the sediment (soil). 

Maximum residue in the water was 0.65 ppm and in the 

soil 0.57 ppm. Maximum DIP was 0.01 ppm post second 

treatment in water.

LA sediment t1/2 = 63 days. Maximum DIP was 0.04 

ppm in water and 0.04 ppm in sediment.

Unacceptable study.

860.1400 Accumulation in 

Irrigated Crops

42606615 (A) Rice paddies in AR (sandy loam) and LA (loam). Parent 

and DIP did not accumulate in irrigated crops (cotton, 

soybean and turnips).

850.1730 Accumulation in 

Fish

40342944 (A)

41841214 & 

41841215 (A)

Japanese carp (Cypr inus carpio). 

BCF in whole fish = 13-26 L/Kg (in 0.1 ppm water) 

BCF in whole fish = 9.3-24 L/Kg (in 0.01 ppm water).

Bluegill sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus). BCF = 13 L/Kg 

(edible); 270 L/Kg (non-edible); 150 L/Kg (whole fish); 

>95-99% of the TRR were eliminated after 3 days of 

depuration. The depuration half-life was 0.3 days (and 

the depuration rate constant was k2 = 2.33 days-1.

850.1950 Accumulation in 

Aquatic Non-target 

Organism

42641101 (A) Rice paddy in LA. Parent and degradate DIP were not 

found in crayfish, while the water contained up to 0.20 

ppm flutolanil.

NonguidelineSoil Storage 

Stability 42606616 (A) Stable at least 2 years in a sandy loam from FL.

850.6100 Analytical Method 

(Water) 48796401 (S) Reported LOQ = 0.1μg/L; LOD = 0.03 μg/L.

850.6100 Analytical Method 

(Soil)

48763101 & 

48714001 (S) Reported LOQ = 0.01mg/kg; LOD = 0.003 mg/kg.

DIP = desisopropyl flutolanil; A=acceptable; S=Supplemental; U=unnaceptable

The main route of dissipation of flutolanil is through slow aerobic soil metabolism (calculated 

half-lives of 190-320 days). In laboratory tests, flutolanil was resistant to hydrolysis at all pHs 

tested and resistant to photolysis, both in water (only 8% decline in 1 month) and on soils. 

Flutolanil also appears to be relatively persistent under anaerobic soil metabolism (representative 

half-lives of ≥284 days), and under aerobic and anaerobic aquatic metabolism (with half-lives of 

greater than one year and greater than 13 years, respectively). When flutolanil is applied to the 

field, it is expected to reach crop canopy (via foliar applications or translocated since it is a 

systemic pesticide), and the soil (through incorporation on planted seeds, or foliar applications). 

Flutolanil can reach adjacent bodies of water through drift or runoff (dissolved or in eroded soil). 

Given the relatively high persistence of this chemical, and despite its relatively high KOCs, it may 

also have the potential to leach to subsurfaces. Flutolanil does not have major (>10%) 

degradation products identified in laboratory studies. Desisopropyl flutolanil (DIP) and other

minor products were less than 4% of the applied in all the environmental fate studies. DIP 

appears to be more mobile than the parent compound.
-Page 31 of 196-

Field dissipation studies appear to indicate that in the field various dissipation processes may 

occur. There are several terrestrial field dissipation studies and a long term study, which show 

half-lives of 27-126 days (excluding the second half-life calculated for one of the studies for 

which a biphasic pattern was observed). Additionally, aquatic field dissipation studies were 

conducted since this chemical can be used on rice. Such studies yielded also a wide range of 

half-lives of 63-303 and parent flutolanil remained mainly in the sediment. Flutolanil and its 

very minor degradate DIP may be transported to surface water through erosion of soil particles 

containing bound flutolanil or dissolved in runoff water. Partition coefficients were not available 

for the other degradates, but would appear, based on their structure, to be as mobile as the parent.

Degradation and Metabolism

Mean [14C] accountability of all buffered test solutions ranged from 94.5 to 104 %. [

14C]-

flutolanil did not hydrolyze in any of the three solutions during the 30 day test period. The range 

of parent recovered by TLC analysis was 98.1 to 99.5 %. Since no degradation was observed, no 

half-life calculations were made.

Aniline ring-labeled [14C]flutolanil was resistant to photodegradation (only ca. 8% decline in 30 

days) in sterile aqueous buffer solution (pH 7.0) that was continuously irradiated with a xenon 

arc lamp at 250C for 30 days at a radiation intensity approximately one-half that of natural 

sunlight. At 30 days posttreatment, flutolanil comprised 91.2 and 99.4% of the applied 

radioactivity in the irradiated and dark control solutions, respectively. [

14C] Flutolanil did not 

degrade in a sandy loam soil that was irradiated using a borosilicate glass-filtered xenon arc lamp 

or in the soil incubated in the dark for 30 days at 250C.

The aerobic soil metabolism studies suggest that this is the main avenue of dissipation for this 

chemical. Half-lives were 190 days (clay loam); 320 days (loam); and 300 days (sandy loam) at 

300C. In another study, conducted at 250C, the calculated half-life was 217 days (sandy loam). 

Under anaerobic soil metabolism conditions, the observed DT50’s were 180 days (loamy sand), 

and >120 days in three additional foreign soils (sandy loam, loamy sand 2, and clay). For the 

loamy sand, the representative half-life was 284 days while for the other soils, the representative 

half-lives were at or above 1,245 days, indicating high persistence in the latter three soils. Under 

aerobic and anaerobic aquatic conditions, flutolanil was also persistent with calculated half-lives 

of 1 year (aerobic) and >13 years (anaerobic) in clay sediments.

Transport and Mobility

Batch equilibrium studies for flutolanil, and the transformation product desisopropyl flutolanil

(DIP) determined kd values to range from 0.997 – 15.8, and 0.5 – 11.3 mL/g, respectively. There 

is a low propensity for flutolanil to leach based on KOCs ranging from 457 – 1,340 ml/gOC and 

solubility of 6.53 ppm. For the parent compound sorption is correlated with organic carbon 

content. The mean parent KOC is 781 mL/gOC (considered moderately mobile, according to FAO 

2000). This is supported by the results obtained in the field dissipation studies in which parent or 

DIP were not detected below the 36-inch sample depth. In field dissipation studies, the half-lives 

observed were shorter than in laboratory studies. However, a prospective ground water study has 
-Page 32 of 196-

not been conducted nor requested to confirm whether or not it may leach. A prospective ground 

water study has been waived. Degradate DIP’s KOC ranged from 288 to 317 mL/gOC.

Field Studies

There are several acceptable and supplemental field dissipation studies for flutolanil. These 

include terrestrial field dissipation, long term terrestrial field dissipation (3 years), and aquatic 

field dissipation studies. The terrestrial field dissipation studies were conducted in California 

(two turf studies) and Florida (two studies: peanuts and bareground). The turf field dissipation 

studies yielded half-lives of 65.4 and 81 days. The peanut study yielded a half-life of 44 days 

(and a secondary half-life of 225 days, calculated from data covering the latter 6-month period). 

Finally, the bareground study yielded a half-life of 26.7 days. A long term terrestrial field 

dissipation study, in which flutolanil was applied during three consecutive years yielded the 

following half-lives: 118 days (1styear); 126 days (2nd year); and 123 days (3rd year). In all these 

studies the monitored degradate desisopropyl flutolanil (DIP) was a minor component.

Additionally, aquatic field dissipation dissipation studies have been conducted for flutolanil, to 

support the use of the chemical on rice. Two sites were used in the studies: California and 

Louisiana. The respective half-lives were 303 and 63 days, in the sediments, where the chemical 

mostly partitioned.

Usually, in the field, all dissipation pathways may take place. They may include degradation, 

metabolism, and offsite mobility (e.g., movement to subsurfaces, runoff in large rain events, 

etc.). However, the terrestrial field dissipation studies suggest that in the field, processes other 

than degradation and metabolism may also be occurring. Laboratory studies indicate that 

flutolanil is very persistent under most laboratory testing conditions, while the field dissipation 

studies did not show moderate to high persistence. Since flutolanil is systemic, it is possible that 

the chemical is also being translocated to the plants tissue (one exception, in which this is not a 

plausible explanation, is the bareground plot, which yielded an initial half-life of only 27 days,

and an overall half-life or 182 days, following a biphasic pattern).

Bioconcentration in Fish

In one bioconcentration in fish study, using Japanese carp, the maximum BCF was 24 L/Kg. 

Meanwhile, in another study, the maximum BCF for flutolanil was 270 L/Kg in non-edible fish,

13 L/Kg in edible tissue, and 150 L/Kg in whole fish, as determined by total [

14

C]. The test 

organism was bluegill sunfish. Depuration after termination of exposure was rapid with more 

than 95-99% of the total residue recovered depurated in 3 days. These results would indicate a 

low propensity to bioconcentrate or bioaccumulate.

Degradates of Flutolanil

There were no transformation products exceeding 3.8% AR in any of the laboratory 

environmental fate studies. For example, in laboratory aerobic soil metabolism studies, no major 

transformation products were identified. Three minor degradates were identified. 3'-hydroxy-2-
-Page 33 of 196-

trifluoromethyl-benzanilide (DIP or M-4) was formed no more than ~3% of the applied. Two 

other degradates were formed in minor amounts (<1%). These were 3'-methoxy-2-

trifluoromethyl-benzanilide (MDP or M-6) and 4'-hydroxy-3-methoxy-2-trifluoromethylbenzanilide (HMD or M-7). In laboratory studies, 2-[3-[[2-(trifluoromethyl)benzoyl]amino]

phenoxy]propanoic acid (M-11), and α,α,α-trifluoro-4’-hydroxy-3’-isopropoxy-o-toluanilide (M2) were observed. Although DIP (or M-4) is not a major degradate found in any of the 

laboratory fate studies; nonetheless, it was monitored in all terrestrial and aquatic field 

dissipation studies. As expected, in the field it was also a minor component. For structures and 

chemical names of the transformation products of flutolanil, refer to Appendix K.

Uncertainties in the Environmental Fate Database

The environmental fate database for flutolanil is substantially complete, as evidenced by the 

presence of all environmental fate laboratory and field studies. It is noted that for the aquatic 

metabolism studies, besides the availability of only a single sediment for each study (usually two 

are available), the duration of these studies was short compared to the calculated half-lives. The 

aerobic aquatic metabolism study was conducted for a period of 1 month, compared to a half-life 

of 1 year; meanwhile, the anaerobic aquatic metabolism study was conducted for 1 year, 

compared to a half-life of >13 years. Therefore, the results were extrapolated and are uncertain. 

Furthermore, the aerobic soil metabolism for three of four soils was conducted for 180 days, 

compared to half-lives of ≥190 days (with the exception of one soil that was conducted for 1 

year), which brings additional uncertainty to the results. It was also noted that the laboratory 

studies and the terrestrial field dissipation studies yielded substantially different half-lives. In the 

field multiple routes of dissipation may be taking place. However, these differences constitute 

uncertainties relative to the half-lives used in modeling (derived from laboratory studies), 

compared to field studies.

3.2.2. Measures of Aquatic Exposure

3.2.2.1 Aquatic Exposure Modeling

Screening-level EECs of flutolanil in surface water, pore water and sediment were generated 

based on maximum labeled single and seasonal use rates among many other parameters (Table 

3.5). Given the moderately high sorption for flutolanil, and its likelihood to occur in sediment, 

the Agency also considered the potential exposures resulting from benthic (pore water and 

sediment) concentrations (EECs). Pore water concentrations are commonly used to predict 

toxicity of non-ionic substances in sediments and characterize exposure to organisms that spend 

time in or near sediments (Di Toro et al. 1991; US EPA 2002). PRZM/EXAMS estimates 1-in10-year peak and 21-day mean EECs for pore water.

The scenarios listed in Table 3.4 are those currently approved for Tier II modeling which most 

closely represent the labeled uses for flutolanil. Additionally, five rice scenarios modeled with 

the Pesticides in Flooded Applications Model (PFAM v1.00) are included in Table 3.4.
-Page 34 of 196-

Table 3.4. Flutolanil Uses, Scenarios, and Application Information Used for Aquatic 

Exposure Inputs in Flutolanil Ecological Exposure Assessment

Run NO, Scenario

(bold font)/ Uses 

Represented

Method of 

App.

Drift/

App 

Efficiency

Single 

App 

Rate

kg 

a.i./A

(lb 

a.i./A)

Max 

No. of 

Apps 

at 

Max 

Rate

Min. 

Interval 

Between 

Apps 

(days)

Day of 

App 

(daymonth)

CAM IPSCND

Terrestrial Food Use Patterns

01 NC peanut/Peanuts

In-furrow at 

plant, 

incorporation 

depth 1” = 2.54 

cm

0.01/0.99 0.832 

(0.742) 1 N/A 06-051 4 1

02 NC peanut/Peanuts

Ground banded 

apps 40-60 d

after planting

0.01/0.99 1.065 

(0.950) 1 N/A 06-051 2 1

03 NC peanut/Peanuts Aerial 0.05/0.95 2.24 

(2.00) 1 N/A 06-072 2 1

04 FL cabbage/

Brassica (cole) Leafy 

Vegetables (Crop Group 

5) plus Turnip Greens

Ground in a 

narrow band 

directed at 

transplanted plant 

bases 

immediately after 

transplanting or 

to the row at 

plant as an infurrow directed 

spray; or, as soil 

drench at planting

0.01/0.99 0.865 

(0.772) 1 N/A 16-103 2 1

05 CA cole crop/Same 

as above

Ground (same as 

above) 0.01/0.99 0.865 

(0.772) 1 N/A 01-013 2 1

06 ID potato/Potatoes

In furrow 

application to a 

4-8 inch band 

prior to covering 

with soil, 

incorporation 

depth 2” = 5.08 

cm

0.01/0.99 0.863 

(0.77) 1 N/A 20-051 4 1

07 ME potato/Potatoes Same as above 

5.08 cm 0.01/0.99 0.863 (0.77) 1 N/A 20-051 4 1

08 ID potato/Potatoes

Seed piece 

treatment 5.08 

cm

0.0/1.0 0.403 

(0.36) 1 N/A 20-051 4 1

09 ME potato/Potatoes Same as above 

5.08 cm 0.0/1.0 0.403 (0.36) 1 N/A 20-051 4 1

10 CA cotton/Cotton

Seed treatment, 

incorporation 

depth 3⁄4” = 1.91 

cm

0.0/1.0 0.0254 

(0.0227) 1 N/A 20-041 4 1

11 MS cotton/Cotton

Seed treatment, 

incorporation 

depth 3⁄4” = 1.91 

cm

0.0/1.0 0.0254 

(0.0227) 1 N/A 20-041 4 1
-Page 35 of 196-

Run NO, Scenario

(bold font)/ Uses 

Represented

Method of 

App.

Drift/

App 

Efficiency

Single 

App 

Rate

kg 

a.i./A

(lb 

a.i./A)

Max 

No. of 

Apps 

at 

Max 

Rate

Min. 

Interval 

Between 

Apps 

(days)

Day of 

App 

(daymonth)

CAM IPSCND

12 MS 

soybean/Soybeans

Seed treatment, 

incorporation 

depth 1” = 2.54 

cm

0.0/1.0 0.224 

(0.200) 1 N/A 06-041 4 1

13 MN sugar 

beet/Sugar Beets

Seed treatment, 

incorporation 

depth 3⁄4” = 1.91 

cm

0.0/1.0 0.0064 

(0.0057) 1 N/A 06-051 4 1

Non-food Use Patterns

14 FL turf/ Golf courses, 

sod farms, spot fields, 

residential, institutional, 

municipal & commercial 

areas

Ground 0.01/0.99 9.64 

(8.6) 2 14 15-034 2 1

15 PA turf/ Same as 

above Ground 0.01/0.99 9.64 (8.6) 2 14 15-034 2 1

16 FL turf/ Ornamental 

lawns and turf; recreation 

area lawns; residential 

lawns; Commercial/ 

Industrial lawns

Ground 0.01/0.99 5.48 

(4.89) 4 14 15-034 2 1

17 FL nursery/ Nursery 

stock, ornamentals & 

fruits (unspecified)

Ground 0.01/0.99 11.0 

(9.78) 4 10 01-035 2 1

18 NJ nursery/ Same 

as above Ground 0.01/0.99 11.0 (9.78) 4 10 01-035 2 1

19 FL nursery/ Same 

as above Soil drench 0.00/1.00 24.0 (21.5)6 4 21 01-035 1 1

20 NJ nursery/ Same 

as above Soil drench 0.00/1.00 24.0 (21.5)6 4 21 01-035 1 1

Aquatic Use Patterns

21 AR rice/ Rice

Aerial 7-14 

days after 

panicle 

differentiation

N/A 1.10 

(0.980) 1 N/A 14-06 N/A N/A

22 AR rice/ Rice Aerial (see

above) N/A 0.549 (0.490) 2 10 14-06 N/A N/A

23 CA rice/ Rice Aerial (see 

above) N/A 1.10 (0.980) 1 N/A 04-07 N/A N/A

24 CA rice/ Rice Aerial (see 

above) N/A 0.549 (0.490) 2 10 04-07 N/A N/A

25 LA rice/ Rice Aerial (see 

above) N/A 1.10 (0.980) 1 N/A 06-06 N/A N/A

26 MS rice/ Rice Aerial (see 

above) N/A 1.10 (0.980) 1 N/A 24-06 N/A N/A

27 TX rice/ Rice Aerial (see 

above) N/A 1.10 (0.980) 1 N/A 31-05 N/A N/A

N/A=not applicable. CAM: 1= soil applied, default incorporation depth (4 cm), linearly decreasing with depth; 2= linear foliar 

based on crop canopy; 4= soil applied, user defined incorporation depth, uniform with depth. IPSCND: 1= surface applied.
-Page 36 of 196-

Run NO, Scenario

(bold font)/ Uses 

Represented

Method of 

App.

Drift/

App 

Efficiency

Single 

App 

Rate

kg 

a.i./A

(lb 

a.i./A)

Max 

No. of 

Apps 

at 

Max 

Rate

Min. 

Interval 

Between 

Apps 

(days)

Day of 

App 

(daymonth)

CAM IPSCND

1 Assumed to occur 10 days prior to crop emergence.

2 Apply 50-70 days after planting.

3 Assumed to be the same than crop emergence.

4 When conditions are favorable for disease or prior to the onset of high heat. This is interpreted to occur in the early Spring.

5 Applications were set to occur in the Spring. Scenarios are all year long.

6 The maximum application rate for drench applications in containerized plants and plant beds is 42.9 lb a.i./A; however, BEAD 

supplied information indicating that in nursery settings, usually only 50% of the area is occupied by containers (for 6” and 8” 

containers). Therefore, the application rate was corrected for this factor and it is modeled at 21.5 lb a.i./A or 24.0 kg a.i./ha.

Application parameters were chosen based on the likely method of application at the maximum 

application rate as indicated in the proposed label instructions. Chemical property and model 

input values for PRZM/EXAMS (Table 3.5) were chosen according to the current Input 

Parameter Guidance, (USEPA 2009b). Based on EFED guidance, aerial spray of liquid 

formulations are assumed to have 95% efficiency and 5% spray drift, and ground spray is 

expected to have 99% efficiency and 1% spray drift. Based on the registered uses for flutolanil, 

a variety of locations and PRZM crop scenarios were run to simulate national use of the 

pesticide.

Table 3.5. Environmental Fate Data Used for Aquatic Exposure Inputs in Flutolanil

Ecological Exposure Assessment in PRZM/EXAMS1

Parameter (units) Value(s) Sources Comments

Output File Name Flutolanil --- ---

Chemical Name Flutolanil Label Label

Application Rate (Kg 

a.i./ha)

Refer to Table 3.4 Highest single 

application rates 

according to the 

label

Label

Number of 

Applications Allowed

Refer to Table 3.4 Maximum 

allowed by the 

label, at the 

maximum rate.

Label

Interval between 

Applications (days)

Refer to Table 3.4 Minimum 

allowed by the 

label.

Label

Crop Names and Days 

of Application (daymonth)

Refer to Table 3.4 Label Label

KOC (ml/gOC) 780.7 40342943; 

42606627

Sorption is correlated with organic carbon 

content. Represents the mean of the 

following 10 values: 457, 528, 571, 594, 

628, 653, 883, 1,005, 1,150, and 1,340 

mL/gOC
-Page 37 of 196-

Parameter (units) Value(s) Sources Comments

Aerobic Soil 

Metabolism (days) t t

t s

n input

n

= + −

1 2

90 1

/

, ( )

= 308.3

40342941; 

45756601

90th percentile confidence bound on the 

mean half-life value: four values from two 

studies available: 190, 320, 300 days in one 

study, and 216.6 days in the other; mean = 

256.65 days; std. dev. = 63.08 days, n = 2, 

t90,n-1 = 3.078

Method of Application Refer to Table 3.4 Label Label

Buffer zone (ft) 0 Label Buffer restriction applies only to estuarine/ 

marine bodies of water (100 ft), for some 

of the crops.

Application Efficiency 

(fraction)

Refer to Table 3.4 Label Current and proposed labels; various 

methods of application.

Spray Drift (fraction) Refer to Table 3.4 Label Current and proposed labels; various 

methods of application.

Solubility in Water 

(ppm)

6.53 41841202, 

42606601

Solubility at 20oC.

Aerobic Aquatic 

Metabolism (days)

1,095 41841212 Value is multiplied by 3 since only one 

value is available t1/2 = 1 year at 250C.

Anaerobic Aquatic 

Metabolism (days)

0 (stable) 41841211 t1/2 > 13 years in a clay sediment at 250C; 

therefore, it is assumed to be stable.

Hydrolysis at pH 7 0 (stable) 40342940 Relatively stable at a pH range of 5-9.

Aqueous Photolysis 

(days)

0 (stable) 41841208; 

41841209

Stable at pH 7.

Molecular Weight 

(g/mole)

323.3 Product 

Chemistry

---

Vapor Pressure (torr) 4.87 x 10-8 42606601 VP at 25oC

Henry’s Law Constant

(atm-m3/mol)

3.17 x 10-9 42606601 Reviewer calculated from vapor pressure 

and water solubility. Assume temperature 

of 250C

EXAMS Environment pond298.exv --- Default for pond scenario.

Field Size EPA Pond ---

Runoff None --- ---

PRZM Scenario and 

Metfile

As suggested by the 

shell (PE5).

PE shell ---

Incorporation Depth 

(cm)

0.0 Label Proposed labels2

CAM, Chemical 

Application Method

Refer to Table 3.4 Label CAM: 1= soil applied, default 

incorporation depth (4 cm), linearly 

decreasing with depth; 2= linear foliar 

based on crop canopy; 4= soil applied, user 

defined incorporation depth, uniform with 

depth

IPSCND, Condition for 

disposition of pesticide 

remaining on foliage 

after harvest)

Refer to Table 3.4 Label ---

FEXTRC, Foliar 

extraction

0.5 Default value ---

PLDKRT, Decay rate 

on foliage

0 Default value ---
-Page 38 of 196-

Parameter (units) Value(s) Sources Comments

PLVKRT, 

Volatilization rate from 

foliage

0 Default value ---

UPTKF, Uptake factor 0 Default value ---

1 Data were selected according to EFED Guidance on Input Parameters v.2.1, dated 10/22/2009 and approved 

11/10/2009 (USEPA 2009b).

For the applications on rice, the Pesticides in Flooded Application Model (PFAM v1.00, January 

23, 2013), was used. PFAM requires the entry of specific dates of applications, emergence, and 

flooding events. Using regional-specific data provided in Table L-2 (Appendix L), PFAMrequired dates have been developed for the various modeling scenarios as shown in Table 3.6. 

The midpoint of the planting dates in Table L-2 (Appendix L) was used in the modeling to 

estimate emergence dates. Emergence generally occurs 5-20 days after planting (University of 

Arkansas, 2006), so, for this assessment, emergence dates were assumed to occur 10 days after 

planting. The midpoint of the harvesting dates in Table L-2 (Appendix L) was used in the 

modeling to estimate the Days from Zero Height to Full Height input on PFAM’s Crop tab. It 

was assumed that paddies are drained at least 21 days prior to harvesting (Hill, et al., 1997). The 

Days from Zero Height to Full Height were estimated as the difference between the release date 

(harvest date minus 21 days) and the emergence date. For flutolanil, all applications should

occur 7-14 days after panicle differentiation, according to the label directions, which is 

approximately 43 days after crop emergence (Table 3.7, Moldenhauer and Slaton, undated). A 

four-inch water column depth (0.1016 m) was modeled at all sites as indicated above. For all 

scenarios, to simulate the release of water, flood water heights and weir heights were set to their 

respective values (0.1016 meters and 0.1270 meters, respectively, see Table 3.8 under Flood 

Tab) for Event 1, but were set to 0 meters on the release day specified as Event 2. It was 

assumed that wet planting occurred and that flooding occurred 6 days before planting while 

release of water was set to occur approximately 21 days before harvesting.

Table 3.6. Crop-specific dates used for PFAM modeling (Crop tab)

State Planting1 Emergence Date2 Release Date3 Harvesting1

AR April 22 May 2 September 3 September 24

CA May 13 May 23 September 17 October 8

LA April 14 April 24 August 4 August 25

MS May 2 May 12 August 30 September 20

TX April 9 April 19 July 31 August 21

1 Midpoint from dates provided in Table 3.4.

2 Assumed to occur ~10 days after planting.

3 Assumed to occur ~21 days before harvesting.

Table 3.7. Application rates for flutolanil and site-specific input dates used for PFAM 

modeling (Applications and Floods tabs), based in agronomic practices reported in crop 

profiles

Use rate, Number of apps, water holding 

period, application method (wet or dry) State Date of App1

Flood2

(Event 1)

Release3

(Event 2)

# days 

between 

events

0.980 lbs a.i./acre (1.10 kg a.i./ha), 1, not 

applicable, ground or aerial, assume wet

AR Jun 14 Apr 15 Sept 3 141

CA Jul 4 May 7 Sept 17 134
-Page 39 of 196-

Use rate, Number of apps, water holding 

period, application method (wet or dry) State Date of App1

Flood2

(Event 1)

Release3

(Event 2)

# days 

between 

events

Or, 0.490 lbs a.i./acre (0.549 kg a.i./ha), 2@14 

days, not applicable, ground or aerial, assume 

wet

LA Jun 6 Apr 8 Aug 4 119

MS Jun 24 Apr 29 Aug 30 124

TX May 31 Apr 3 Jul 31 119

1 Set to occur 7-14 days after panicle differentiation or ~43 days after crop emergence.

2 Set to occur ~6 days before planting.

3 Set to occur ~21 days before harvesting.

The remaining required input parameters used in PFAM were derived from chemical and fate 

properties and information provided in the crop profiles. These inputs are provided in Table 3.8. 

Inputs for the Crop tab, except for the zero height reference which is the emergence date, and the 

Physical tab were left at the pre-determined default levels (see Appendix I). The Heat of Henry 

was derived from the HENRYWIN v3.20 module of EPI Suite v4.1 (further information about 

the model at http://www.epa.gov/oppt/exposure/pubs/episuitedl.htm, accessed October 25, 

2013). For further details about how to calculate the Heat of Henry, refer to Appendix J.

Some of the input values in PFAM are similar to those in PRZM/EXAMS. Despite the 

similarities, Tables 3.5 and 3.8 were not merged since there are also significant differences. For 

example, the input value of the aerobic soil metabolism half-life is corrected for temperature at 

250C in PFAM while this is not done in PRZM/EXAMS. Further, input values which are 

persistent in PRZM/EXAMS (input value is 0), have a non-zero input value in PFAM (input 

1x108 days).

Table 3.8. Flutolanil-specific PFAM inputs

Input Parameter Value Source Comment

Chemical Tab

Water Column Half-life

(days) at 250C 1095 41841212 Value is multiplied by 3 since only one value is available t1/2 = 1 year at 250C.

Benthic Compartment 

Half-Life (days) at 250C 1x108 41841211 t1/2 > 13 years in a clay sediment at 250C; therefore, it is assumed to be stable.

Un-flooded Soil Half-life

(days) at 250C 435.1 40342941; 45756601

90th percentile confidence bound on the mean 

half-life value: four values from two studies are 

available: 190, 320, 300 days in one study

conducted at 300C; results corrected to 250C as 

follows: 268.7, 452.5, and 424.2 days 

respectively (see USEPA 2010); additionally,

216.6 days in the other study, which was 

conducted at 250C; mean = 340.5 days; std. 

dev. = 115.55 days, n =4, t90,n-1 = 3.078

Aqueous Near Surface

Half-life (days) at 400

Latitude

1x108 41841208; 41841209 No evidence of aqueous photolysis at pH 7.

Hydrolysis Half-life

(days) 1x108 40342940 No evidence of degradation (pH range 5 to 9).
-Page 40 of 196-

Input Parameter Value Source Comment

Organic Carbon Partition

Coefficient (mL/gOC) 

(KOC)

780.7 40342943; 42606627

Sorption is correlated with organic carbon 

content. Represents the mean of the following 

10 values: 457, 528, 571, 594, 628, 653, 883, 

1,005, 1,150, and 1,340 mL/gOC

Molecular Weight (g/mol) 323.3 --- ---

Vapor Pressure (torr) 4.87x10-8 42606601 ---

Solubility (mg/L) 6.53 41841202, 42606601 ---

Heat of Henry (J/mol) 84872 --- Estimated using HENRYWIN program in 

EPISuite (Appendix J).

Henry Reference 

Temperature (0C) 25 --- EPISuite.

Applications Tab

Number of Applications See Table 3.7 --- ---

Application dates See Table 3.7 --- ---

Location Tab

Meteorological files

AR (w13963)

CA (w23232)

LA (w13970)

MS (w03940)

TX (w13958)

---

Meteorological data available in PE5 

installation. Stations correspond to

Little Rock, AR (w13963), Sacramento, CA 

(w23232), Baton Rouge, LA (w13970), 

Jackson, MS (w03940), and Austin, TX 

(w13958)

Latitude

AR 350

CA 390

LA 310

MS 320

TX 300

-- Meteorological files.

Floods Tab

Number of Flood Events 2 --- First event is flooding; second event is release 

of flood waters.

Date for Event 1 See Table 3.7

Fill Level (m), Event 1 0.1016 --- Permanent flood at 4”

Weir Level (m), Event 1 0.1270 --- Assumed 1 inch clearance between top of weir 

and water (5”).

Min. Level (m), Event 1 0.1016 --- Keeps paddy full

Number of Days, Event 2 See Table 3.7

Fill Level (m), Event 2 0 --- Simulate release of water

Weir Level (m), Event 2 0 --- Simulate release of water

Min. Level (m), Event 2 0 --- Simulate release of water

Turn Over (1/day), Events 

1 and 2 0 ---

Turnover is used for those systems that use a 

continuous flow through the system and are 

maintained at a set depth. Set to 0.

Crop Tab

Zero Height Reference

AR: 05/02

CA: 05/23

LA: 04/24

MS: 05/12

TX: 04/19

--- Emergence date, assumed to occur 10 days 

after planting. See Table 3.7 for dates.
-Page 41 of 196-

Input Parameter Value Source Comment

Days from Zero Height to 

Full Height

AR: 124

CA: 118

LA: 102

MS: 111

TX: 103

---

Number of days from emergence to maturation. 

Maturation expected to occur 21 days prior to 

harvesting. See Table 3.7 for dates.

Days from Zero Height to 

Removal

AR: 145

CA: 139

LA: 123

MS: 132

TX: 124

--- Number of days from emergence to harvest. 

See Table 3.7 for dates.

Maximum Fractional 

Areal Coverage 1.0 --- Conservative assumption

Physical Tab

Mass transfer coefficient 

(m/s) 1x10-8 --- PFAM default value

Leakage (m/d) 0 --- PFAM default value

Reference depth (m) 0.1270 --- Set to same depth as weir height, per PFAM 

guidance.

Benthic depth (m) 0.05 --- PFAM default value

Benthic porosity 0.50 --- PFAM default value

Dry bulk density (g/cm3) 1.35 --- PFAM default value

FOC Water Column on SS 0.04 --- PFAM default value

FOC benthic 0.01 --- PFAM default value

SS (mg/L) 30 --- PFAM default value

Water column DOC 

(mg/L) 5.0 --- PFAM default value

Chlorophyll CHL (mg/L) 0.005 --- PFAM default value

Dfac 1.19 --- PFAM default value

Q10 2 --- PFAM default value

Output Tab

Route effluent N/A --- Not applicable to ecological risk assessment.

Area of Application (m2) N/A --- Not applicable to ecological risk assessment.

Area of Surrounding 

Watershed (m2) N/A --- Not applicable to ecological risk assessment.

Curve Number of 

Surrounding Watershed N/A --- Not applicable to ecological risk assessment.

Base flow (m3/s) N/A --- Not applicable to ecological risk assessment.

Width of mixing cell (m) N/A --- Not applicable to ecological risk assessment.

Depth of mixing cell (m) N/A --- Not applicable to ecological risk assessment.

Length of mixing cell (m) N/A --- Not applicable to ecological risk assessment.

1 Data were selected according to EFED Guidance on Input Parameters v.2.1, dated 10/22/2009 and approved 

11/10/2009.

The EECs listed in Table 3.9 reflect 1-in-10 year surface water, porewater and sediment 

concentrations based on maximum application rates for labeled uses of flutolanil. 

Additionally, the 90th percentile peak (acute), 21-day and 60-day averages (chronic) 

concentrations for the Arkansas, California, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas PFAM runs are 

provided in Table 3.9. The 90th percentile concentration was selected to reflect the 1-in-10 year 

peak or chronic concentration, similar to the method used in EFED’s modeling using PRZM/ 
-Page 42 of 196-

EXAMS. The concentrations are obtained from the Processed Output files generated by PFAM. 

This output file provides a time series of water concentration (while flooded), and benthic pore 

water concentrations. This file was postprocessed by means of an Excel worksheet. For the 

water column concentrations, the time during which the column was dry was excluded from the 

analysis, as these values are indicative of times when a rice paddy is not present. For the AR and 

CA scenarios, in addition to the single application modeled, which is the most conservative

circumstance; two applications were also modeled, which are allowed in the label instructions. 

EECs were similar for all the rice scenarios and decreased when the applications were divided by 

two (as expected).
-Page 43 of 196-

Table 3.9. Surface Water, Pore Water and Sediment Estimated Environmental Concentrations (EECs) for Labeled Uses of 

Flutolanil1

Scenario (bold 

font)/ Crops/Uses 

Represented

App.

Method

App.

Rate

(lb 

a.i./A)

Date of 

First 

Application

(dd-mm)

Number 

of Apps.

App.

Interval 

(days)

Water Column Pore Water Sediment2

Peak 

EEC

(μg/L)

21-day 

average

EEC

(μg/L)

60-day 

average

EEC

(μg/L)

Peak 

EEC

(μg/L)

21-day 

average 

EEC

(μg/L)

Peak 

EEC

(μg/kgoc)

21-day 

average 

EEC

(μg/kgoc)

01 NC peanut/ 

Peanuts

In-furrow 

at plant 0.742 06-05 1 N/A 30.1 29.8 29.4 28.8 28.8 22800 22800

02 NC peanut/ 

Peanuts

Ground 

banded 

apps

0.950 06-05 1 N/A 41.8 41.3 40.7 39.9 39.9 31500 31500

03 NC peanut/ 

Peanuts Aerial 2.00 06-07 1 N/A 129 126 124 122 122 96400 96400

04 FL cabbage/

Brassica (cole) 

Leafy Vegetables 

(Crop Group 5) plus 

Turnip Greens

Ground in 

a narrow 

band

0.772 16-10 1 N/A 36.7 36.0 35.8 34.4 34.0 27200 26900

05 CA cole 

crop/Same as 

above

Ground in 

a narrow 

band

0.772 01-01 1 N/A 71.4 70.6 70.3 67.8 67.8 53600 53600

06 ID potato/ 

Potatoes

In furrow 

band app 0.77 20-05 1 N/A 8.27 8.22 8.18 8.03 8.03 6350 6350

07 ME potato/ 

Potatoes

In furrow 

band app 0.77 20-05 1 N/A 30.1 30.0 29.8 29.4 29.4 23200 23200

08 ID potato/ 

Potatoes

Seed piece 

treatment 0.36 20-05 1 N/A 2.33 2.32 2.31 2.24 2.24 1770 1770

09 ME potato

/Potatoes

Seed piece 

treatment 0.36 20-05 1 N/A 12.5 12.4 12.4 12.3 12.3 9720 9720

10 CA cotton/ 

Cotton

Seed 

treatment 0.0227 20-04 1 N/A 0.158 0.153 0.147 0.140 0.140 111 111

11 MS cotton/ 

Cotton

Seed 

treatment 0.0227 20-04 1 N/A 2.67 2.63 2.60 2.47 2.47 1950 1950

12 MS 

soybean/Soybeans

Seed 

treatment 0.200 06-04 1 N/A 20.0 19.7 19.0 18.8 18.7 14900 14900

13 MN sugar 

beet/Sugar Beets

Seed 

treatment 0.0057 06-05 1 N/A 0.289 0.287 0.285 0.279 0.279 220 220
-Page 44 of 196-

Scenario (bold 

font)/ Crops/Uses 

Represented

App.

Method

App.

Rate

(lb 

a.i./A)

Date of 

First 

Application

(dd-mm)

Number 

of Apps.

App.

Interval 

(days)

Water Column Pore Water Sediment2

Peak 

EEC

(μg/L)

21-day 

average

EEC

(μg/L)

60-day 

average

EEC

(μg/L)

Peak 

EEC

(μg/L)

21-day 

average 

EEC

(μg/L)

Peak 

EEC

(μg/kgoc)

21-day 

average 

EEC

(μg/kgoc)

14 FL turf/ Golf 

courses, sod farms, 

spot fields, 

residential, 

institutional, 

municipal & 

commercial areas

Ground 8.6 15-03 2 14 170 168 162 157 157 124000 124000

15 PA turf/ Same 

as above Ground 8.6 15-03 2 14 217 214 210 204 204 161000 161000

16 FL turf/ 

Ornamental lawns 

and turf; recreation 

area lawns; 

residential lawns; 

Commercial/ 

Industrial lawns

Ground 4.89 15-03 4 14 178 177 173 169 169 134000 134000

17 FL nursery/ 

Nursery stock, 

ornamentals & fruits

(unspecified)

Ground 9.78 01-03 4 10 2300 2240 2170 2010 2010 1590000 1590000

18 NJ nursery/

Same as above Ground 9.78 01-03 4 10 2170 2160 2140 2090 2090 1650000 1650000

19 FL nursery/ 

Same as above

Soil 

drench 21.5 01-03 4 21 4690 4610 4530 4280 4280 3380000 3380000

20 NJ nursery/

Same as above

Soil 

drench 21.5 01-03 4 21 3700 3650 3590 3480 3480 2750000 2750000

21 AR rice/ Rice Aerial 0.980 14-06 1 N/A 1120 600 382 247 246 202000 201000

22 AR rice/ Rice Aerial 0.490 14-06 2 10 829 522 366 245 245 201000 201000

23 CA rice/ Rice Aerial 0.980 04-07 1 N/A 1161 649 431 295 295 241000 241000

24 CA rice/ Rice Aerial 0.490 04-07 2 10 870 569 416 294 294 241000 241000

25 LA rice/ Rice Aerial 0.980 06-06 1 N/A 1100 578 350 225 224 184000 183000

26 MS rice/ Rice Aerial 0.980 24-06 1 N/A 1100 588 365 233 230 192000 188000

27 TX rice/ Rice Aerial 0.980 31-05 1 N/A 1130 611 393 263 262 215000 214000

1 EECs were rounded to three significant figures, with a few exceptions.

2 Sediment EECs are organic carbon normalized values.
-Page 45 of 196-

3.2.2.2. Monitoring Data

There is no readily available monitoring data for this chemical. Flutolanil was not found in the 

USGS National Water Quality Assessment Data Warehouse (NAWQA), when verified by 

constituent finder (at http://infotrek.er.usgs.gov/apex/f?p=NAWQA:HOME:0, accessed 

08/14/2013). An open literature article was found (Baris et al., 2010). Despite that this 

comprehensive review indicates that this chemical has been monitored in surface and 

groundwater, associated with the use of the chemical on golf courses, individual results were not 

reported.

3.2.3. Measures of Terrestrial Exposure

3.2.3.1. Ingestion of Terrestrial Food Items by Birds and Mammals

Terrestrial wildlife exposure estimates are typically calculated for birds and mammals by 

emphasizing the dietary exposure route of uptake of pesticide active ingredients. These 

exposures are considered to be surrogates for exposures to terrestrial-phase amphibians and

reptiles. For exposures to terrestrial organisms, such as birds and mammals, pesticide residues 

on food items are estimated based on the assumption that organisms are exposed to pesticide 

residues as a function of the pesticide use pattern. 

T-REX (v. 1.5.2) is used to calculate dietary and dose-based EECs of flutolanil residues on food 

items for mammals and birds generated by spray applications for the labeled uses. Input values 

for deriving EECs using T-REX are located in Table 3. for foliar uses and Table 3.11 for seed 

treatment uses. Upper-bound Kenaga nomogram values are used to derive EECs for flutolanil

exposures to terrestrial mammals and birds based on a 1-year time period. Consideration is 

given to different types of feeding strategies for mammals, including herbivores, insectivores and 

granivores. Dose-based exposures are estimated for three weight classes of birds (20 g, 100 g, 

and 1000 g) and three weight classes of mammals (15 g, 35 g, and 1000 g). Terrestrial EECs for 

foliar spray uses and seed treatment uses of flutolanil are provided in Tables 3.12, 3.13, and

3.14, and 3.15.

Table 3.10. Input Parameters for Deriving Screening-Level Terrestrial EECs for Labeled 

Uses of Flutolanil (T-REX v. 1.5.2).

Uses Represented

Single App 

Rate

(lb a.i./A)

Max No. of Apps 

at Max Rate

Min. Interval Between 

Apps (days)

Food crops

Brassica (Cole) leafy vegetables, and turnip greens 0.772 1 N/A

Peanuts 0.74 1 N/A

Peanuts 0.95 1 N/A

Peanuts 2 1 N/A

Peanuts 0.95 2 21

Peanuts 1 2 30

Peanuts 0.48 4 10

Peanuts 0.5 4 10

Potatoes 0.77 1 N/A
-Page 46 of 196-

Uses Represented

Single App 

Rate

(lb a.i./A)

Max No. of Apps 

at Max Rate

Min. Interval Between 

Apps (days)

Rice 0.98 1 N/A

Rice 0.49 2 10

Turf uses

Turf (golf courses, sod farms, spot fields, residential, 

institutional, municipal, and commercial areas 8.6 2 14

Golf course greens, tees, and aprons 8.56 5 14

Golf course fairways (all states but FL) 9.77 1 N/A

Golf course fairways (only in FL) 4.88 1 N/A

Ornamental lawns and turf; recreation area lawns, 

residential lawns 4.89 4 14

Commercial and industrial lawns 5.94 4 14

Nursery stock, ornamentals, and fruits (unspecified) uses

Nursery stock, ornamentals & fruits (unspecified) 9.78 4 10

Nursery stock, ornamentals & fruits (unspecified) 2.1 2 14

N/A = not applicable

Table 3.11. Input Parameters for Deriving Screening-Level Terrestrial EECs for Seed 

Treatment Uses of Flutolanil (T-REX v. 1.5.2).

Uses 

Represented

Single App 

Rate

(fl oz/100 lb 

seeds

Max No. of Apps 

at Max Rate

Min. Interval Between 

Apps (days)

Crop Seeding Rate in 

lbs/acre (within T-REX)

Potato 1 1 N/A 6970 (seed pieces)

Cotton 4 1 N/A 18.9

Soybean 4 1 N/A 167

Sugarbeet 4 1 N/A 4.8

N/A = not applicable

Differences in exposures between ground and aerial applications cannot be assessed with the 

current T-REX model; exposure and risk estimates from the T-REX model are considered 

relevant to both application scenarios. Other uncertainties in the terrestrial EECs are primarily 

associated with a lack of data on interception and subsequent dissipation from foliar surfaces. 

EFED assumes a default 35-day foliar dissipation half life, based on the work of Willis and 

McDowell (1987) when data are absent or are insufficient. A further uncertainty with the model 

is the inability to model systemic chemicals like flutolanil as T-REX only simulates residues 

directly on food items. 

Some use patterns of flutolanil employ a soil drench method. T-REX is not able to simulate a 

soil drench scenario as the resultant EECs and RQs would assume that the entire application rate 

would be sprayed on terrestrial food items as they are for conventional aerial and ground 

applications. For soil drench, even though the label does not specifically preclude application on 

foliage, it is expected to take place on the root ball of the crop. Since flutolanil is systemic, food 

items are likely to be contaminated with the chemical even if it is not directly applied, when it is 

translocated across plant tissue. However, the levels or concentrations of flutolanil in food items 

are uncertain for the soil drench applications.
-Page 47 of 196-

Additionally, some uses of flutolanil are seed treatment uses that require a planting depth of 3⁄4 -

1 inch depth on the label. T-REX is not able to simulate this and instead assumes that the treated 

seeds are broadcast across the field in an unincorporated manner. An example output from the 

T-REX model is provided in Appendix B.
-Page 48 of 196-

Table 3.12. Screening-level Dose-based EECs (mg/kg bw) as Food Residues for Birds, Reptiles, and Terrestrial-Phase 

Amphibians from Labeled Uses of Flutolanil (T-REX v. 1.5.2).

Primary Feeding 

Strategy  Herbivores and Omnivores Insectivores Granivores

Animal Size  Small Med Large Small Med Large Small Me

d

Larg

e

Dietary Items 

Short Grass

Tall Grass

Broad-leaf 

Plants

Fruits, pods, 

seeds, etc.

Short Grass

Tall Grass

Broadleaf 

Plants

Fruits, pods, 

seeds, etc.

Short Grass

Tall Grass

Broadleaf 

Plants

Fruits, pods, 

seeds, etc.

Arthropods Seeds, grains, etc.

Use(s)1 

Food crops

Brassica (Cole) Leafy 

Vegetables , plus 

Turnip Greens

211 96.7 119 13.2 120 55.2 67.7 7.52 53.9 24.7 30.3 3.37 82.7 47.1 21.1 2.93 1.67 0.75

Peanuts (0.95 lb 

a.i/A) 260 119 146 16.2 148 67.9 83.3 9.25 66.3 30.4 37.3 4.14 102 58.0 26.0 3.61 2.06 0.92

Peanuts (0.475 lb a.i/ 

A, 4X) 395 181 222 24.7 225 103 127 14.1 101 46.3 56.8 6.31 155 88.3 39.5 5.49 3.13 1.40

Peanuts (0.95 lb a.i, 

2X) 431 198 242 26.9 246 113 138 15.4 110 50.4 61.9 6.88 169 96.3 43.1 5.99 3.41 1.53

Peanuts (2 lbs a.i/A) 547 251 308 34.2 312 143 175 19.5 140 64.0 78.5 8.72 214. 122 54.7 7.59 4.33 1.94

Peanuts (1 lb a.i/A, 

2X) 424 194 239 26.5 242 111 136 15.1 108 49.6 60.9 6.77 166 94.8 42.4 5.89 3.36 1.50

Peanuts (0.5 lbs a.i/A, 

4x) 416 191 234 26.0 237 109 134 14.8 106 48.7 59.8 6.64 163 93.0 41.6 5.78 3.30 1.48

Peanuts (0.74 lbs

a.i/A, 1X) 203 93.0 114 12.7 116 53.0 65.1 7.23 51.8 23.7 29.1 3.24 79.4 45.3 20.3 2.82 1.61 0.72

Potatoes 210 96.5 118 13.2 120 55.0 67.5 7.50 53.7 24.6 30.2 3.36 82.4 47.0 21.0 2.92 1.67 0.75

Rice (0.980 lb a.i/A, 

1X 268 123 151 16.7 153 70.0 86.0 9.55 68.4 31.3 38.5 4.27 105 59.8 26.8 3.72 2.12 0.95

Rice (0.490 lbs a.i/A, 

2X) 244 112 137 15.2 139 63.7 78.2 8.69 62.2 28.5 35.0 3.89 95.5 54.5 24.4 3.4 1.93 0.86

Turf Uses
-Page 49 of 196-

Primary Feeding 

Strategy  Herbivores and Omnivores Insectivores Granivores

Animal Size  Small Med Large Small Med Large Small Me

d

Larg

e

Dietary Items 

Short Grass

Tall Grass

Broad-leaf 

Plants

Fruits, pods, 

seeds, etc.

Short Grass

Tall Grass

Broadleaf 

Plants

Fruits, pods, 

seeds, etc.

Short Grass

Tall Grass

Broadleaf 

Plants

Fruits, pods, 

seeds, etc.

Arthropods Seeds, grains, etc.

Use(s)1 

Turf (golf courses, 

sod farms, spot fields, 

residential, 

institutional, 

municipal, and 

commercial areas

4132 1894 2324 258 2356 1080 1325 147 1055 484 593 65.9 1618 923 413 57.34 32.7 14.7

Golf course greens, 

tees, and aprons 7247 3322 4076 453 4133 1894 2325 258 1850 848 1041 116 2838 1619 725 101 57.4 25.7

Golf course fairways 

(all states but FL) 2670 1224 1502 167 1523 698 857 95.2 682 312 384 42.6 1046 596 267 37.1 21.2 9.47

Golf course fairways 

(only in FL) 1334 611 750 83.4 761 349 428 47.5 341 156 192 21.3 522 298 133 18.5 10.6 4.73

Ornamental lawns and 

turf; recreation area 

lawns, residential 

lawns

3699 1695 2080 231 2109 967 1187 132 944 433 531 59.0 1449 826 370 51.4 29.3 13.1

Commercial and 

industrial lawns 4493 2059 2528 281 2562 1174 1441 160 1147 526 645 71.7 1760 1004 449 62.4 35.6 15.9

Nursery stock, ornamentals & fruits (unspecified) uses

Nursery stock, 

ornamentals & fruits

(unspecified) (9.78 

lbs a.i/A, 4X)

8141 3731 4579 509 4642 2128 2611 290 2078 953 1169 130 3189 1818 814 113 64.5 28.9

Nursery stock, 

ornamentals & fruits 

(unspecified) (2.1 lbs

a.i/A, 2X)

1009 462 568 63.1 575 264 324 36.0 258 118 145 16.1 395 225 101 14.0 7.99 3.58

Values are in mg a.i/kg-bw. 1

Represent a proposed use, all other uses are currently registered.
-Page 50 of 196-

Table 3.13. Screening-level Dose-based EECs (mg/kg bw) as Food Residues for Mammals from Labeled Uses of Flutolanil (TREX v. 1.5.2).

Primary 

Feeding 

Strategy 

Herbivores and Omnivores Insectivores Granivores

Animal Size  Small Med Large Small Med Large Small Med Large

Dietary Items 

Short Grass

Tall Grass

Broad-leaf 

Plants

Fruits, pods, 

seeds, etc.

Short Grass

Tall Grass

Broadleaf 

Plants

Fruits, pods, 

seeds, etc.

Short Grass

Tall Grass

Broadleaf 

Plants

Fruits, pods, 

seeds, etc.

Arthropods Seeds, grains, etc.

Use(s)1 

Food crops

Brassica (Cole) 

Leafy Vegetables , 

plus Turnip Greens

177 81.0 99.4 11.0 122 56.0 68.7 7.63 28.3 13.0 15.92 1.77 69.2 47.8 11.1 2.45 1.70 0.39

Peanuts (0.95 lb 

a.i/A) 217 99.6 122 13.6 150 68.9 84.5 9.39 34.8 16.0 19.6 2.18 85.1 58.8 13.6 3.02 2.09 0.48

Peanuts (0.475 lb 

a.i/ A, 4X) 331 152 186 20.7 229 105 129 14.3 53.0 24.3 29.8 3.31 130 89.6 20.8 4.60 3.18 0.74

Peanuts (0.95 lb 

a.i, 2X) 361 165 203 22.6 250 114 140 15.6 57.8 26.5 32.5 3.61 141 97.7 22.6 5.01 3.46 0.80

Peanuts (2 lbs 

a.i/A) 458 210 257 28.6 316 145 178 19.8 73.3 33.6 41.2 4.58 179 124 28.7 6.36 4.39 1.02

Peanuts (1 lb a.i/A, 

2X) 355 163 200 22.2 245 113 138 15.3 56.9 26.1 32.0 3.56 139 96.1 22.3 4.93 3.41 0.79

Peanuts (0.5 lbs 

a.i/A, 4x) 348 160 196 21.8 241 110 135 15.1 55.8 25.6 31.4 3.49 136 94.3 21.9 4.84 3.34 0.78

Peanuts (0.74 lbs

a.i/A, 1X) 170 77.8 95.5 10.6 117 53.8 66.0 7.33 27.2 12.5 15.3 1.70 66.5 46.0 10.7 2.36 1.63 0.38

Potatoes 176 80.8 99.1 11.0 122 55.8 68.5 7.61 28.2 12.9 15.9 1.76 69.0 47.7 11.1 2.45 1.69 0.39

Rice (0.98 lbs 

a.i/A, 1X) 224 103 126 14.0 155 71.0 87.2 9.69 35.9 16.5 20.2 2.25 87.8 60.7 14.1 3.11 2.15 0.50

Rice (0.490 lbs 

a.i/A, 2X) 204 93.6 115 12.8 141 64.7 79.4 8.82 32.7 15.0 18.4 2.04 79.9 55.3 12.8 2.83 1.96 0.45

Turf Uses
-Page 51 of 196-

Primary 

Feeding 

Strategy 

Herbivores and Omnivores Insectivores Granivores

Animal Size  Small Med Large Small Med Large Small Med Large

Dietary Items 

Short Grass

Tall Grass

Broad-leaf 

Plants

Fruits, pods, 

seeds, etc.

Short Grass

Tall Grass

Broadleaf 

Plants

Fruits, pods, 

seeds, etc.

Short Grass

Tall Grass

Broadleaf 

Plants

Fruits, pods, 

seeds, etc.

Arthropods Seeds, grains, etc.

Use(s)1 

Turf (golf courses, 

sod farms, spot 

fields, residential, 

institutional, 

municipal, and 

commercial areas

3459 1585 1946 216 2391 1096 1345 149 554 254 312 34.6 1355 936 217 48.0 33.2 7.70

Golf course greens, 

tees, and aprons 6067 2781 3413 379 4193 1922 2359 262 972 446 547 60.8 2376 1642 381 84.3 58.2 13.5

Golf course 

fairways all states 

but FL)

2236 1025 1258 140 1545 708 869 96.6 358 164 202 22.4 876 605 140 31.1 21.5 4.98

Golf course

fairways (only in 

FL)

1117 512 628 69.8 772 354 434 48.2 179 82.0 101 11.2 437 302 70.1 15.5 10.7 2.49

Ornamental lawns 

and turf; recreation 

area lawns, 

residential lawns

3097 1419 1742 194 2140 981 1204 133 496 227 279 31.0 1213 838. 194 43.0 29.7 6.89

Commercial and 

industrial lawns 3762 1724 2116 235 2600 1192 1462 162 603 276 339 37.7 1473 1018 236 52.2 36.1 8.37

Nursery stock, ornamentals & fruits (unspecified) uses

Nursery stock, 

ornamentals & 

fruits (unspecified)

(9.78 lbs a.i/A, 4X)

6815 3124 383 426 4710 2159 2649 294 1092 501 614 68.3 2669 1845 428 94.7 65.4 15.2

Nursery stock, 

ornamentals & 

fruits (unspecified)

(2.1 lbs a.i/A, 2X)

845 387 475 52.8 584 268 328 36.5 135 62.0 76.1 8.46 331 229 53.0 11.7 8.11 1.88

Values are in mg a.i/kg-bw. 1

Represents a proposed use, all other uses are currently registered.
-Page 52 of 196-

Table 3.14. Screening-level Dietary-based EECs (mg/kg diet) as Food Residues for Birds, 

Reptiles, Terrestrial-phase Amphibians, and Mammals from Labeled Uses of Flutolanil (TREX v. 1.5.2).

Primary Feeding Strategy  Herbivores, Omnivores, and Granivores Insectivores

Dietary Items 

Short Grass

Tall Grass

Broad-leaf 

Plants

Fruits, pods, 

seeds, etc.

Arthropods

Use(s) 

Food crops

Brassica (Cole) Leafy Vegetables , plus 

Turnip Greens 185 84.9 104 11.6 72.8

Peanuts (0.95 lb a.i/A) 228 105 128 14.3 89.3

Peanuts (0.475 lb a.i/ A, 4X) 347 159 195 21.7 136

Peanuts (0.95 lb a.i, 2X) 378 173 213 23.7 148

Peanuts (2 lbs a.i/A) 480 220 270 30.0 188

Peanuts (1 lb a.i/A, 2X) 372 171 210 23.3 146

Peanuts (0.5 lbs a.i/A, 4x) 365 168 206 22.8 143

Peanuts (0.74 lbs a.i/A, 1X) 178 81.6 100 11.1 69.8

Potatoes 185 84.7 104 11.6 72.4

Rice (0.980 lbs a.i/A, 1X) 235 108 132 14.7 92.1

Rice (0.490 lbs a.i/A, 2X) 214 98.1 120 13.4 83.8

Turf Uses

Turf (golf courses, sod farms, spot fields, 

residential, institutional, municipal, and 

commercial areas 3628 1663 2041 227 1421

Golf course greens, tees, and aprons 6363 2916 3579 398 2492

Golf course fairways (all states but FL) 2345 1075 1319 147 918

Golf course fairways (only in FL) 1171 537 659 73.2 459

Ornamental lawns and turf; recreation area 

lawns, residential lawns 3248 1489 1827 203 1272

Commercial and industrial lawns 3945 1808 2219 247 1545

Nursery stock, ornamentals & fruits (unspecified) uses

Nursery stock, ornamentals & fruits 

(unspecified) (9.78 lbs a.i/A, 4X) 7148 3276 4021 447 2800

Nursery stock, ornamentals & fruits

(unspecified) (2.1 lbs a.i/A, 2X) 886 406 498 55.4 347

Values are in ppm (mg a.i/kg-diet).
-Page 53 of 196-

Table 3.15. Screening-level EECs (mg/kg bw-day) resulting from Seed Treatment 

Applications of Flutolanil (T-REX v. 1.5.2).

Use

Rate (fl 

oz/100 

lb 

seeds)

Maximum 

application 

rate (lbs 

a.i/A)

Maximum 

Seed 

Application 

Rate (mg 

a.i/kg seed)

Avian Nagy Dose 

(mg a.i/kg-bw/day)

Avian Nagy Dose 

(mg a.i/kg-bw/day)

Available

a.i (mg a.i

sq.ft)

Small

Medium

Large

Small

Medium

Large

Cotton 4 0.01 475 120 68.6 30.7 101 70.0 16.1 0.09

Soybean 4 0.08 475 120 68.6 30.7 101 70.0 16.1 0.83

Sugarbeet 4 0.002 475 120 68.6 30.7 101 70.0 16.1 0.02

Potato

1 (per 

100 lb 

seed 

pieces)

0.07 9.76 2.47 1.41 0.63 2.07 1.43 0.33 0.71

3.2.3.2. Runoff and Spray Drift to Terrestrial and Semi-Aquatic Plants

Exposure of non-target terrestrial and semi-aquatic (wetland) plant species is estimated using the

TerrPlant (v. 1.2.2) model. Loading via spray drift to dry, non-target, adjacent areas is assumed 

to occur from one acre of treated land to one acre of the non-target area. Runoff is also expected

to be a source of pesticide loading to non-target areas. TerrPlant calculates EECs as a function 

of application rate, solubility, and default assumptions regarding spray drift. The default spray 

drift assumptions are 1% of the application rate for ground spray applications and 5% for aerial 

spray applications (USEPA 2006b). The EECs for terrestrial and semi-aquatic plants for a single 

application of flutolanil at the maximum labeled rates for representative uses are presented in 

Table 3.16 (see example output in Appendix 3Appendix ).

Table 3.16. EECs for Terrestrial and Semi-Aquatic Plants Near Flutolanil Use Areas 

(TerrPlant v. 1.2.2).

Crop

Single Max. 

Application 

Rate

(lbs a.i./A)

EECs (lbs ai/A)

Runoff to 

dry areas

Runoff to 

semiaquatic 

areas

Spray 

drift

Total 

for dry 

areas

Total for 

semiaquatic 

areas

Food crops

Brassica (Cole) Leafy 

Vegetables , plus Turnip 

Greens

0.772 0.008 0.077 0.008 0.015 0.085

Peanuts (ground) 0.475 0.005 0.048 0.005 0.010 0.052

Peanuts (aerial or chemigation) 0.475 0.005 0.048 0.024 0.029 0.071

Peanuts (ground) 0.5 0.005 0.05 0.005 0.01 0.055

Peanuts (aerial or chemigation) 0.5 0.005 0.05 0.025 0.03 0.075
-Page 54 of 196-

Crop

Single Max. 

Application 

Rate

(lbs a.i./A)

EECs (lbs ai/A)

Runoff to 

dry areas

Runoff to 

semiaquatic 

areas

Spray 

drift

Total 

for dry 

areas

Total for 

semiaquatic 

areas

Peanuts1 0.742 0.007 0.074 0.007 0.015 0.082

Peanuts (ground) 0.95 0.010 0.095 0.010 0.019 0.105

Peanuts (aerial or chemigation) 0.95 0.010 0.095 0.048 0.057 0.143

Peanuts (ground) 1.0 0.01 0.1 0.01 0.02 0.11

Peanuts (aerial or chemigation) 1.0 0.01 0.1 0.05 0.06 0.15

Peanuts (ground) 2.0 0.02 0.2 0.02 0.04 0.22

Peanuts (aerial or chemigation) 2.0 0.02 0.2 0.1 0.12 0.3

Potatoes2 0.77 0.004 0.039 0.008 0.012 0.046

Rice (aerial) 0.980 0.010 0.098 0.049 0.059 0.147

Rice (aerial) 0.490 0.005 0.049 0.025 0.029 0.074

Rice (ground) 0.980 0.010 0.098 0.010 0.020 0.108

Rice (ground) 0.490 0.005 0.049 0.005 0.010 0.054

Turf uses

Turf (golf courses, sod farms, 

spot fields, residential, 

institutional, municipal, and 

commercial areas

8.6 0.086 0.86 0.43 0.516 1.29

Golf course greens, tees, and 

aprons

8.56 0.086 0.856 0.428 0.514 1.284

Golf course fairways (except 

FL) 9.77 0.098 0.977 0.489 0.586 1.466

Golf course fairways (FL) 4.88 0.049 0.488 0.244 0.293 0.732

Ornamental lawns and turf; 

recreation area lawns, 

residential lawns

4.94 0.049 0.494 0.247 0.296 0.741

Commercial and industrial 

lawns 5.94 0.059 0.594 0.059 0.119 0.653

Nursery stock, ornamentals & fruits (unspecified) uses

Nursery stock, ornamentals & 

fruits (unspecified) 9.78 0.098 0.978 0.489 0.587 1.467

Nursery stock, ornamentals & 

fruits (unspecified) 2.1 0.021 0.210 0.105 0.126 0.315

NA Not applicable. 1

1-inch incorporation 2

2-inch incorporation

3.2.3.3. Terrestrial Organism Exposure to Residues in Aquatic Food 

Items (KABAM)

The KABAM model (KOW (based) Aquatic BioAccumulation Model) version 1.0 was used to 

evaluate the potential exposure and risk of direct effects to birds and mammals via 
-Page 55 of 196-

bioaccumulation and biomagnification in aquatic food webs. KABAM is used to estimate 

potential bioaccumulation of hydrophobic organic pesticides in freshwater aquatic ecosystems 

and risks to mammals and birds consuming aquatic organisms which have bioaccumulated these 

pesticides. The bioaccumulation portion of KABAM is based upon work by Arnot and Gobas 

(2004) who parameterized a bioaccumulation model based on PCBs and some pesticides (e.g., 

lindane, DDT) in freshwater aquatic ecosystems (Arnot and Gobas, 2004). KABAM relies on a 

chemical's octanol-water partition coefficient (KOW) to estimate uptake and elimination constants 

through respiration and diet of organisms in different trophic levels. Pesticide tissue residues are 

calculated for different levels of an aquatic food web. The model then uses pesticide tissue 

concentrations in aquatic animals to estimate dose- and dietary-based exposures and associated 

risks to mammals and birds (surrogate for amphibians and reptiles) consuming aquatic 

organisms. Seven different trophic levels including phytoplankton, zooplankton, benthic 

invertebrates, filter feeders, small-sized (juvenile) forage fish, medium-sized forage fish, and 

larger piscivorous fish, are used to represent an aquatic food web. Importantly, chemical 

metabolism by biota is assumed to be zero in KABAM unless evidence indicates such 

metabolism is likely to affect the model predictions substantially. Example output from the 

bioaccumulation model is provided in Appendix H. 

By default, KABAM assumes zero for the metabolism rate constant (Km). For flutolanil, direct 

estimates of the metabolism rate constant (km) were not available. A Km value to override the 

“0,” assumption within KABAM can be used as a refinement as data from two studies on 

bioconcentration in fish allow the estimation of a Km value. The calculation is described in the 

next paragraph. The use of this adjusted Km value results in a lower total concentration across 

small, medium, and large fish that may serve as flutolanil contaminated potential food items for 

birds and mammals, and therefore lower resultant RQs. As there are no studies available for the 

bioconcentration of flutolanil in other aquatic trophic levels such as phytoplankton and aquatic 

invertebrates, the use of this adjusted Km value does not impact the RQs of birds and mammals 

that feed exclusively on these non-fish food items.

Two studies on bioconcentration in fish for flutolanil indicated that the potential 

bioconcentration factor was smaller than it would be predicted from the octanol/water partition 

coefficient. Furthermore, the depuration was rapid with ≥95% of TRR depurated after three 

days. As a result, bioaccumulation estimates using KABAM need to account for metabolism or 

depuration of flutolanil by aquatic biota. Therefore, KABAM model predictions are adjusted to 

reflect the depuration rate constant value via respiration (kt) of biota where available3

. For fish, 

a measured BCF of 150 L/kg wet wt is available for whole fish (MRID 41841214, 41841215). 

From these studies, a kt value of 1.37 days-1

. The k2 value is defined as the BCF value from the 

study (150) divided by the KABAM estimated kbw value of 297, yielding a k2 value of 0.51. The 

k2 value along with the k values associated with growth and elimination processes of large fish 

that work in clearing the chemical, were subtracting from the kt value to get an estimated Km

value of 0.86 (1.36 - 0.51 – 0.0036 – 0.0005). This value was used in KABAM to override the 

default km value for small, medium, and large fish.

 3 Although the depuration rate constant in BCF studies is referred to as k2, it actually reflects the combined effect 

faecal elimination, metabolism and growth dilution on chemical concentrations in tissue. Therefore, these are 

referred to here as kt to reflect total depuration rate.
-Page 56 of 196-

Suitable data were not available to estimate depuration rates for other taxa considered in 

KABAM (e.g., benthic invertebrates, phytoplankton, zooplankton, filter feeders). Therefore, 

KABAM results for these taxa may overestimate bioaccumulation to the extent that flutolanil is 

metabolized by these taxa.

Four pesticide-specific inputs are required to estimate flutolanil residue concentrations in aquatic 

organism tissues: 1) log Kow, 2) Koc, 3) aqueous concentration of flutolanil, and 4) sediment 

pore water concentrations of flutolanil. The Koc and log Kow are based on registrant-submitted 

studies (see Tables 2.1 and 3.5). Flutolanil concentrations in pore water and the water column 

were based on PRZM/EXAMS scenario that produced the maximum EECs (nursery stock, 

ornamentals and fruits (unspecified), applied via soil drench; Table 3.17). Additional model 

input parameters related to aquatic organisms (including body weight, and food and water intake) 

and environmental characteristics (e.g., temperature, organic carbon content) are default values 

in KABAM.

There were three additional scenarios modeled that spanned a range of pore water and surface 

water concentrations. The same NJ nursery scenario was run as a ground spray application that 

resulted in concentrations roughly half of those in the soil drench scenario. The turf scenario that 

resulted in the highest concentrations was also modeled along with the highest rice exposure 

scenario and highest other food crop scenario (peanut). These scenarios represent a wide range 

of uses and applications scenarios that are specified on flutolanil labels.

It is noted that the KABAM estimated time to steady state for flutolanil is 4 days based on 

environmental fate properties. PRZM/EXAMS provides 4-day average EECs as part of the 

output. For flutolanil, it was determined for all scenarios below that were modeled that the 4-day 

average EEC was identical to that of the peak concentration in sediment pore water and total 

pesticide concentration in water with the exception of the highest scenario modeled (nursery 

stock and ornamentals, soil drench method). For this scenario, the peak total pesticide 

concentration in water as shown below was 4690 ppb whereas the 4-day average was 4670 ppb. 

This further illustrates the persistence of flutolanil and the justification for the use of 

PRZM.EXAMS generated peak EECs.

Table 3.17. Bioaccumulation Model Input Values for Flutolanil

Parameter Input Value Source

Pesticide Name Flutolanil

Log KOW 3.79 MRID 42606601

KOC 780.7 L/kgOC MRIDs 40342943, 42606627

Fish Km (estimated) 0.86 (for small, medium, and 

large fish) Calculated: Km = Kt – K2 – Ke - kg

Highest Exposure Scenario Modeled

Use patterns

Concentration in sediment 

Nursery stock, ornamentals & fruits (unspecified) (FL nursery 

scenario)

(soil drench, app rate 21.5 lb a.i./A x 4 at 21 day interval)

pore water (ppb) Peak = 4280 ppb; 
-Page 57 of 196-

Total pesticide 

concentration in water (ppb) Peak = 4690 ppb; 

Additional Exposure Scenarios Modeled

Use patterns

Nursery stock, ornamentals & fruits (unspecified) (NJ nursery 

scenario)

(ground, app rate 9.78 lb a.i./A x 4 at 10 day interval)

Concentration in sediment 

pore water (ppb) Peak = 2090 ppb

Total pesticide 

concentration in water (ppb) Peak = 2170 ppb

Use patterns

Golf courses, sod farms, spot fields, residential, institutional, 

municipal & commercial areas (PA turf scenario)

(ground, app rate 8.6 a.i/A, 2 at 14)

Concentration in sediment 

pore water (ppb) Peak = 210 ppb

Total pesticide 

concentration in water (ppb) Peak = 217 ppb

Use patterns Rice (CA Rice)

(aerial, 2 lbs a.i/A, 1 app)

Concentration in sediment 

pore water (ppb) Peak = 295 ppb

Total pesticide 

concentration in water (ppb) Peak = 1161 ppb

Use patterns Peanuts (NC Peanuts)

(aerial, 2 lbs a.i/A, 1 app)

Concentration in sediment 

pore water (ppb) Peak = 122 ppb

Total pesticide 

concentration in water (ppb) Peak = 129 ppb

Table 3.18 below tabulates the total concentrations in μg/kg of flutolanil residues various 

aquatic organisms tissues at various trophic levels. As the table shows, the modeled scenarios 

represent a wide range of resultant concentrations in various tissues.

Table 3.18. Predicted Concentrations of Flutolanil in Aquatic Organism Tissues at 

Different Trophic Levels Resulting from Use on Selected Scenarios

Trophic Level

Estimated Total Concentration (μg/kg)

NJ Nursery 

(soil drench)

NJ Nursery 

(ground 

spray)

PA turf 

(ground 

spray)

CA Rice 

(aerial)

NC Peanuts 

(aerial)

Phytoplankton 1,354,033 626,493 62,649 335,188 37,243

Zooplankton 994,709 460,238 46,024 246,238 27,360

Benthic Invertebrates 1,083,210 502,461 50,188 259,270 29,844

Filter Feeders 713,581 331,004 33,062 170,798 19,660

Small Forage Fish 1,048,487 486,343 48,579 251,032 28,887

Medium Forage Fish 804,426 373,142 37,271 192,549 22,163

Large Forage Fish 528,245 244,431 24,442 130,636 14,530
-Page 58 of 196-

3.3. Ecological Effects Characterization 

The ecological effects characterization for flutolanil is based upon registrant-submitted toxicity 

data for the TGAI (parent compound) and for specified formulations. 

Appendix G lists these studies, their review classifications, and associated deficiencies. The 

ecotoxicity data for flutolanil and its associated products have been reviewed previously in 

multiple ecological risk assessments (e.g., USEPA 2006, 2002, 2000) and in the Problem 

Formulation for Registration Review assessment (USEPA 2008). These data are summarized

briefly in Sections 3.3.1 and 3.3.2. Various studies with terrestrial and aquatic plants, birds, and 

aquatic animals exposed to either the TGAI or formulated flutolanil have been received since the 

Problem Formulation was issued; the results of these studies are described briefly in this section. 

The results of a 2013 review of the Ecological Incident Information System (EIIS) are described 

in Section 3.3. (USEPA 2012). A search of the ECOTOXicology database in October, 2013,

yielded no new data from suitable studies with more sensitive toxicity endpoints than the 

registrant-submitted guideline studies described below.

3.3.1. Aquatic Toxicity Assessment

Flutolanil exposure effects on aquatic organisms were determined by assessing freshwater fish, 

freshwater invertebrates, marine/estuarine fish, marine/estuarine invertebrates, marine/estuarine 

mollusks, and aquatic plants. Each study’s species tested, endpoint, and MRID number are 

tabulated below separated by taxa. 

Toxicity to Freshwater Fish

There are four acute freshwater fish toxicity studies available for flutolanil (Table 3.19). In a 

static study with the rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri, MRID 40342933), the 96-hour LC50 was 

determined to be 5.4 mg a.i/L where mortality occurred only at the highest treatment 

concentration. Fish were exposed to mean measured concentrations of negative control, solvent 

control, 0.46, 0.65, 0.86, 2.0, 3.0, and 7.0 mg a.i/L. Percent recovery of the chemical ranged 

from 48 – 82% of nominal at test termination. The four highest treatment concentrations had 

white precipitate observed in the test chambers. There were daily observations made for 

sublethal effects that included surfacing, loss of equilibrium, dark discoloration, fish on the 

bottom of the test chamber, curved spine, and quiescence. It was not noted at what 

concentrations these effects were observed at. This study is classified as acceptable. There is 

uncertainty in how much chemical was bioavailable to test organisms as analytical measurements 

may have included precipitated chemical. 

In a second static study conducted with the bluegill sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus, (MRID 

40342934), the 96-hour LC50 was determined to be >5.4 mg a.i/L. Fish were exposed to mean 

measured concentrations of negative control, solvent control, 0.31, 0.79, 0.80, 1.6, 2.5, and 5.4 

mg a.i/L. Percent recoveries ranged from 45 – 79% of nominal at test termination. Precipitate of 
-Page 59 of 196-

the test material was observed on the surface at the 0.80, 1.6, 2.5, and 5.4 mean measured 

treatment concentrations throughout the course of the study. The top treatment concentration 

during the definitive test killed only 20% of the test population, while the same treatment 

concentration killed 100% during the preliminary range-finding test. It was noted in the DER 

that this discrepancy may have been due to a solubility factor or due to an age or condition factor 

of the fish. There were no sublethal effects reported during the study. This study was classified 

as supplemental due to a definitive LC50 not being achieved. There is uncertainty in how much 

chemical was bioavailable to test organisms as analytical measurements may have included 

precipitated chemical. 

In a static study conducted with the common carp (Cyprinus carpio) conditions with the MRID 

40342936), fish were exposed to concentrations of control 1.69, 2.53, 3.80, and 5.70 mg a.i/L. 

Mortality was 60, 90, and 100% in the three highest treatment concentrations, respectively. Fish 

in the two highest treatment concentrations were noted as swimming sideways or upside down. 

The LC50 was determined to be 2.5 mg a.i/L treatment concentrations was 90 and 100% in the 

66 and 93 μg a.i/L concentrations, respectively. 

In the same study, carp were exposed to two other formulations of flutolanil (25% WP and 1.5% 

dust). Fish were exposed to controls, 3.9, 5.1, 6.7, 8.7, and 11.2 mg a.i/L (mean measured 

concentrations) with the highest mortality at 60% in the highest treatment concentration. Fish 

were observed swimming upside down or sideways in all treatment concentrations. The LC50

was determined to be 5.5 mg a.i/L. Fish were also exposed to the 1.5% dust formulation of 

flutolanil at concentrations of 3.94, 5.12, 6.65, 8.65, and 11.24 mg a.i/L. Mortality was highest 

at 60% in the highest treatment concentration. Fish were observed swimming upside down or 

sideways in all treatment concentrations. The LC50 was determined to be 6.4 mg a.i/L. This 

study was classified as supplemental as the carp is not a guideline recommended species. It is 

worth noting that the three highest treatment concentrations of this study are above the solubility 

limit of flutolanil.

In an acute static study conducted with the fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas, MRID 

41841216), fish were exposed to mean measured concentrations of control, solvent control, 1.2, 

2.2, 3.7, 6.6 and 11 mg a.i/L. Percent recoveries ranged from 92-110 % of nominal values at test 

termination. White precipitate was observed at the top of the test chamber in the two highest 

treatment concentrations. Eighty and 100% mortality occurred in the two highest treatment 

concentrations, respectively with noted sublethal effects including loss of equilibrium, 

quiescence, surfacing, and erratic swimming that were observed at the 3 middle treatment 

concentrations (2.2, 3.7, and 6.6 mg a.i/L). There were no sublethal effects noted in the highest 

treatment concentration as all fish were dead after 24 hours. The LC50 was determined to be 4.8. 

This study was classified as acceptable. There is uncertainty in how much chemical was 

bioavailable to test organisms as analytical measurements may have included precipitated 

chemical. 

These studies indicate that flutolanil is moderately toxic to freshwater fish on an acute exposure 

basis. However, it is apparent that acute toxicity to fish occurs near or above the aqueous

solubility limit of flutolanil (6.53 mg/L) 
-Page 60 of 196-

1Table 3.19. Summary of Acute Toxicity Data for Freshwater Fish Exposed to Flutolanil

Species Study 

Type Purity of test substance LC50 (mg a.i/L)1,2,3(95% CL; slope)

Toxicity 

Classification

(MRID)

Rainbow trout 

(Oncorhynchus mykiss)

96-hour, 

static 97.8 96-h LC50 :5.4 (N/A; N/A)

Moderately toxic

(40342933)

Bluegill sunfish (Lepomis 

Macrochirus)

96-hour, 

static 97.8 96-h LC50 :> 5.4 (N/A; N/A)

Moderately toxic

(40342934)

Carp

(Cyprinus carpio)

96-hour, 

static

Technical grade (purity 

not specified)

96-h LC50: 2.5 

(2.1– 3.0; 9.3)

Moderately toxic

(40342936)

Carp 96-hour, 

static 25% WP 96-h LC50: 5.5 (4.6 – 6.2; 10.3)

Moderately toxic

(40342936)

Carp 96-hour, 

static 1.5% Dust 96-h LC50: 6.4 (5.4 – 7.4; N/A)

Moderately toxic

(40342936)

Fathead minnow

(Pimephales promelas)

96-hour, 

static 97.6 96-h LC50:4.8 (3.8 – 6.2; 6.5)

Moderately toxic

(41841216)

CL:Confidence limits. LC50: Lethal concentration to 50% of the population. N/A = not applicable 1 Bolded values represent the most sensitive toxicity endpoints for freshwater fish exposed to parent flutolanil and 

therefore will be used in risk estimation.

2 Based on mean measured concentrations. 3 If probit slope data were not available, the default value of 4.5 (with 95% confidence intervals of 2.0 and 9.0) is 

used to derive the probability of an individual effect (Urban and Cook 1986).

In a 35-day chronic early life stage study, fathead minnow were exposed to flutolanil under flowthrough conditions (Table 3.20). Fish were exposed to mean measured concentrations of 

negative control, solvent control 0.17, 0.23, 0.49, 0.93, and 1.9 mg a.i/L. One hundred percent

mortality occurred at the highest treatment concentration by the time of test termination. As a 

result, wet weight and total length measurements were not assessed for this treatment 

concentration. There were no significant physical or behavioral abnormalities that were noted 

during this study. The NOAEC and LOAEC for this study were determined to be 0.22 and 0.49 

mg a.i/L, respectively based on significant reductions in length as compared to the negative 

control. This study was classified as acceptable. 

Table 3.20 . Summary of Chronic Toxicity Data for Freshwater Fish Exposed to Flutolanil.

Species Study Type Purity of test 

substance

NOAEC; LOAEC 

(mg a.i/L)

Endpoints 

affected

(MRID)

Fathead minnow (Pimephales 

promelas)

35-day early 

life stage 98.9 NOAEC: 0.22LOAEC: 0.49

Growth (length)

(43552001)

N/A: Not applicable or available. 

1 Bolded values represent the most sensitive toxicity endpoints for freshwater fish exposed to parent flutolanil, and

therefore will be used in risk estimation.

2

Based on mean measured concentrations

Toxicity to Freshwater Invertebrates

There are two acute toxicity tests available for the freshwater invertebrates. (Table 3.21). In a 

static study Daphnia magna, organisms were exposed to treatment concentrations of negative 

control, solvent control, 0.75, 1.4, 2.2, 4.1 and 6.8 mg a.i/L. Percent recoveries ranged from 58-

68% of the nominal concentrations throughout the course of the study. A precipitate was present 

on the bottom of the test vessel in the highest concentration tested. It is noted that the highest 
-Page 61 of 196-

mean measured concentration used for this study represents the limit of solubility for flutolanil 

(6.53 mg/L). There was less than 50% effect mortality or immobilization at the highest 

treatment concentration and therefore the EC50 was determined to be 6.8 mg a.i/L. It is also 

noted however that the top concentration (at the limit of solubility) determined 45% mortality at 

this level. There were no sublethal effects noted during the study. This study is classified as 

acceptable. There is uncertainty in how much chemical was bioavailable to test organisms as 

analytical measurements may have included precipitated chemical. 

In a second study, which was a 96-hour flow-through exposure, crayfish (Procambarus clarkii) 

were exposed to mean measured concentrations of negative control, solvent control, 0.51, 0.92, 

1.8, 3.2, and 6.0 mg a.i/L. Percent recoveries ranged from 60 – 81% of the nominal 

concentrations. It was noted in the DER that a large amount of precipitate was observed in the 

diluter. The presence of the precipitate, it was noted, indicates that the solubility of flutolanil in 

water was exceeded under the conditions of the test, despite the attempts to maximize the 

solubility with the use of dimethylformamide at the maximum concentration permitted. There 

were no sublethal effects or mortality observed at any treatment concentration throughout the 

course of the study. The EC50 was determined to be >6.0 mg a.i/L and this study is classified as 

supplemental due to the use of a non-guideline recommended species. There is uncertainty in 

how much chemical was bioavailable to test organisms as analytical measurements may have 

included precipitated chemical. 

These studies indicate that flutolanil is moderately toxic to freshwater invertebrates on an acute 

exposure basis. Additionally these studies indicate that an EC50 was not achieved at the limit of 

solubility for flutolanil (6.53 mg/L).

Table 3.21. Summary of Acute Toxicity Data for Freshwater Invertebrates Exposed to 

Flutolanil.

Species Study Type Purity of test 

substance

EC50 (mg 

a.i/L)1,2,3

(95% CL; 

slope)

Toxicity Classification

(MRID)

Water flea

(Daphnia magna) 48-hr, static TGAI (98.9%) >6.8 (N/A; 

N/A)

Moderately toxic 

(41841217)

Crayfish (Procambarus 

clarkii)

96-hr, flowthrough TGAI (98.9%) >6.0 (N/A; 

N/A)

Moderately toxic 

(42606620)

CL:Confidence limits. NA: Not available or applicable. 1 Bolded values represent the most sensitive toxicity endpoints for freshwater invertebrates exposed to parent 

flutolanil and therefore will be used in risk estimation. 2 Based on mean measured concentrations 3 If probit slope data were not available, the default value of 4.5 (with 95% confidence intervals of 2.0 and 9.0) is 

used to derive the probability of an individual effect (Urban and Cook 1986).

In a chronic life cycle study conducted with Daphnia magna under a static renewal system 

(MRID 41850807), mean measured concentrations were control, solvent control, 0.29, 0.53, 1.1, 

2.0, and 4.0 mg a.i/L (Table 3.22). Percent recoveries of the nominal concentrations ranged from 

80-97% and a precipitate was observed in the three highest treatment concentrations. Percent 

survival was significantly different (p<0.05) from the negative control in the highest treatment 

concentration. Adult Daphnid length and time (in days) to first brood was significantly different 
-Page 62 of 196-

(p<0.05) as compared to the negative controls in the two highest treatment concentrations. The 

number of young produced per adult reproductive day was significantly reduced (p<0.05) from 

the negative control in the three highest treatment concentrations. There were no sublethal 

effects noted during the study. Based on the number of young per adult reproductive day, the 

NOAEC and LOAEC for this study were determined to be 0.53 and 1.1 mg a.i/L, respectively. 

This study is classified as acceptable. 

Table 3.22. Summary of Chronic Toxicity Data for Freshwater Invertebrates Exposed to 

Flutolanil.

Species Study Type Test Substance (Purity)

NOAEC; 

LOAEC

(mg a.i/L) 1,2

Endpoints

affected 

(MRID)

Water flea

(Daphnia magna)

21-day Life 

Cycle, static 

renewal 

TGAI (98.9%) 0.53; 1.1

Number of young 

per female and 

dry weight 

(41850807) 1

Bolded values represent the most sensitive toxicity endpoints for freshwater invertebrates exposed to parent 

flutolanil and therefore will be used in risk estimation.

2

Based on mean measured concentrations 

Toxicity to Estuarine/Marine Fish

Table 3.23 shows the acute toxicity study results for the estuarine/marine fish species 

Cyprinodon variegatus, MRID 41841218. Fish were exposed to mean measured concentrations 

of negative control, solvent control, 0.61, 1.2, 2.1, 3.7, and 6.1 mg a.i/L. Percent recoveries 

ranged from 78 – 103% throughout the course of the study. Sublethal effects that were noted 

during the study included loss of equilibrium, quiescence, surfacing, labored respiration, and fish 

being observed on the bottom of the test vessel. These effects were noted at the two highest 

treatment concentrations. As there was no mortality observed in the study, the LC50 was 

determined to be >6.1 mg a.i/L. This study was formally considered supplemental as a definitive 

LC50 had not been achieved but it was upgraded to acceptable upon re-review based on lack of 

toxicity at the solubility limit of flutolanil (6.53 mg/L). 

Table 3.23. Summary of Acute Toxicity Data for Estuarine/marine fish Exposed to 

Flutolanil.

Species Study Type Purity of test 

substance

LC50 (mg a.i/L)1,2,3

(95% CL; slope)

Toxicity 

Classification

(MRID)

Sheepshead minnow

(Cyprinodon 

variegatus)

96-hour, static 98.9 >6.1 (N/A; N/A) Moderately Toxic 

(41841218)

1 Bolded values represent the most sensitive toxicity endpoints for estuarine/marine fish exposed to parent flutolanil 

and therefore will be used in risk estimation.

2 Based on mean measured concentrations. 3 Probit slope data were not available; therefore, the default value of 4.5 (with 95% confidence intervals of 2.0 and 

9.0) is used to derive the probability of an individual effect (Urban and Cook 1986).
-Page 63 of 196-

A chronic early life stage (ELS) toxicity study with marine/estuarine fish may be conditionally 

required for flutolanil solely based on its persistence in water of > 4 days.4 In response to a 

previous data request associated with the 2000 assessment on potato seed pieces, the registrant 

submitted a waiver request for a full life cycle study for marine/estuarine fish in 2002. This 

waiver request was based on the toxicological profile of the chemical and expected 

concentrations in the marine/estuarine environment and was considered sufficient to waive the 

full life cycle study. Based on similar lines of evidence, the Agency placed the conditionallyrequired, chronic ELS test with marine/estuarine fish on reserve pending receipt and review of 

any additional information (e.g. from the registrant or public literature) that would suggest that 

marine/estuarine fish might be sufficiently sensitive to flutolanil such that the risk assessments 

conclusions would be affected by additional data for marine/estuarine fish. The Agency has yet 

to receive such information.

The Agency, when possible, employs the use of an acute-to-chronic ratio (ACR) to estimate an 

indefinite (i.e. unbounded) measure of toxicity for chronic taxa when sufficient data are 

available. In this case, acute and chronic toxicity data from freshwater fish species and acute 

toxicity data from estuarine/marine species would be used to estimate a chronic NOAEC for 

estuarine/marine fish. As stated in the summary for the acute toxicity study for estuarine/marine 

fish however, there was no mortality that occurred up to the limit of solubility, and therefore no 

definitive LC50 was reached. There is inherent uncertainty when estimating an ACR with 

definitive toxicity endpoints and even greater uncertainty when an ACR is estimated with nondefinitive endpoints and therefore chronic risk to estuarine/marine fish will not be estimated. See 

the Risk Characterization Section for the impact on the overall risk assessment.

Toxicity to Estuarine/Marine Invertebrates

Two acute estuarine/marine invertebrate studies have been submitted in support of flutolanil 

(Table 3.24). In a 96-hour oyster shell deposition study with the eastern oyster (Crassostrea

virginica, MRID 41841219), oysters were exposed to mean measured concentrations of negative 

control, solvent control, 0.017, 0.46, 0.68, 0.91, and 1.5 mg a.i/L. These values represented 19-

31% recovery of the nominal values. It was noted in the DER that concentrations generally 

increased slightly during the exposure period. There was no insoluble material observed in any 

treatment vessel for the first 72 hours of the study, but by 96 hours, all test vessels has white 

particles present at the bottom. There was a decrease in shell growth (12% reduction) in the 

highest treatment concentration as compared to the negative control. As a result the EC50 was 

determined to be >1.5 mg a.i/L. There were no sublethal effects that were noted in the study. 

This study is classified as acceptable.

In an acute toxicity study conducted with the mysid shrimp (Americamysis bahia, MRID 

41841220), organisms were exposed to mean measured concentrations of negative control, 

solvent control, 0.020, 0.027, 0.049, 0.087, 0.16, and 0.29 mg a.i/L. Percent recoveries ranged 

from 84 – 111% of nominal concentrations. Ninety and 100% mortality occurred at the two 

highest treatment concentrations, respectively. There were no sublethal effects noted during the 

 4 Pesticide Data Requirements for Conventional Chemicals. CFR Part 158. Federal Register. Vol. 72 (No. 207): 

60934-60988. October, 26, 2007
-Page 64 of 196-

study and the LC50 was determined to be 0.13 mg a.i/L. This study is classified as acceptable.

Table 3.24. Summary of Acute Toxicity Data for Estuarine/Marine Invertebrates Exposed 

to Flutolanil.

Species Study Type Test Substance 

(Purity)

EC50LC/50

(mg a.i/L)1,2,3

(95% CL; slope)

Toxicity 

Classification 

(MRID)

Eastern oyster

(Crassostrea virginica)

96-hour, flowthrough TGAI (98.9%) >1.5 (N/A; N/A) Moderately Toxic

(41841219)

Mysid shrimp 

(Americamysis bahia) 96-hour, static TGAI (98.9%) 0.13 (0.087 – 0.16; 

N/R)

Highly Toxic

(41841220) N/R = Not reported 1 Bolded values represent the most sensitive toxicity endpoints for estuarine/marine invertebrates exposed to parent 

flutolanil and therefore will be used in risk estimation.

2 Based on mean measured concentrations. 3 Probit slope data were not available; therefore, the default value of 4.5 (with 95% confidence intervals of 2.0 and 

9.0) is used to derive the probability of an individual effect (Urban and Cook 1986).

In a chronic toxicity study with the mysid shrimp (MRID 43511601), mysids were exposed to

mean measured concentrations of negative control, solvent control, 4.23, 11.3, 21.7, 42.8, and 

89.7 μg a.i/L (Table 3.25). There was a significant decrease (p<0.05) from the negative control 

for percent survival, production of young per female, and dry weight in the three highest 

treatment concentrations. There were no sublethal effects noted as having been observed in the 

study. Based on effect to survival, number of young per female, and dry weight, the NOAEC 

and LOAEC of this study are 11.3 and 21.7 μg a.i/L, respectively. This represents a 42% 

reduction on survival, 67% reduction in number of young per female, and 16% reduction in dry 

weight. This study is classified as acceptable. 

2Table 3.25. Summary of Chronic Toxicity Data for Estuarine/Marine Invertebrates 

Exposed to Flutolanil.

Species Study 

Type

% Active 

Ingredient (a.i.)

Toxicity 

Endpoint (μg 

a.i/L)

Endpoints affected (MRID)

Mysid shrimp 

(Americamysis bahia)

28-d Life 

Cycle 98.9 NOAEC: 11.3LOAEC: 21.7

Number of young per female, 

percent survival, dry weight 

(43511601) 1

Bolded values represent the most sensitive toxicity endpoints for freshwater invertebrates exposed to parent 

flutolanil and therefore will be used in risk estimation. 2

Based on mean measured concentrations 

Toxicity to Aquatic Plants

There are six aquatic plant toxicity studies available for flutolanil (Table 3.26). In a vascular 

aquatic plant study conducted with Lemna gibba (MRID 42606622), the test species was 

exposed to a single nominal concentration of 8.01 mg a.i/L. There was a 30% reduction in frond 

number that occurred in the single treatment concentration as compared to the negative control. 

An EC50 was undetermined as there was no effect greater than 50%. A two-sample t-test 

indicates that this percent reduction from the negative control is a significant (p<0.05) effect and 

therefore a definitive NOAEC could not be determined. This study is classified as acceptable 
-Page 65 of 196-

with an EC50 of >8.01 mg a.i/L and a NOAEC of <8.01 mg a.i/L.

In an algal toxicity study conducted with the estuarine/marine diatom Skeletonema costatum

(MRID 42606623), cells were exposed to a single nominal concentration of flutolanil of 8.01 mg 

a.i/L. There was a 12% reduction in cell counts in the limit concentration as compared to the 

negative control. An EC50 was undetermined as there was no effect greater than 50%. A two 

sample t-test indicates that this reduction from the negative control is a significant (p<0.05) 

effect and therefore a definitive NOAEC could not be determined. This study is classified as 

acceptable with an EC50 of >8.01 mg a.i/L and a NOAEC of <8.01 mg a.i/L. 

In an algal toxicity study conducted with the cyanobacteria Anabaena flos-aquae (MRID 

42606621), cells were exposed to a single nominal concentration of flutolanil of 8.01 mg a.i/L. 

There was a 28% reduction in cell counts in the limit concentration as compared to the negative 

control. A two sample t-test indicates that this reduction from the negative control is a 

significant (p<0.05) effect and therefore a definitive NOAEC could not be determined. This 

study is classified as acceptable with an EC50 of >8.01 mg a.i/L and a NOAEC of <8.01 mg 

a.i/L. 

In an algal toxicity study conducted with the freshwater diatom Navicula pelliculosa (MRID 

42606624), cells were exposed to a single nominal concentration of flutolanil of 8.01 mg a.i/L. 

There was a 61% reduction in cell counts in the limit concentration as compared to the negative 

control. A two sample t-test indicates that this reduction from the negative control is a 

significant (p<0.05) effect and therefore a definitive NOAEC could not be determined. This 

study is classified as acceptable with an EC50 of <8.01 mg a.i/L and a NOAEC of <8.01 mg 

a.i/L. 

In a second toxicity study conducted with the freshwater diatom Navicula pelliculosa (MRID 

42606625), cells were exposed to a single nominal concentration of flutolanil of 0.8 mg a.i/L mg 

a.i/L, presenting the maximum labeled rate for rice applications. There was an 11% reduction in 

cell counts in the limit concentration as compared to the negative control, which was not 

determined to be statistically significant (p>0.05). An EC50 was undetermined as there was no 

effect greater than 50%. This study is classified as acceptable with an EC50 of >0.80 mg a.i/L 

and a NOAEC of 0.80 mg a.i/L. 

In an algal toxicity study conducted with the freshwater green algae Selenastrum capricornutum 

(MRID 41841224), cells were exposed to a single nominal concentration of flutolanil of 8.01 mg 

a.i/L. There was a 58% reduction in cell counts in the limit concentration as compared to the 

negative control. A two sample t-test indicates that this reduction from the negative control is a 

significant (p<0.05) effect and therefore a definitive NOAEC could not be determined. This 

study is classified as acceptable with an EC50 of <8.01 mg a.i/L and a NOAEC of <8.01 mg 

a.i/L. 

It is worth noting that for every study except the freshwater diatom study using the rice 

application rate (MRID 42606625), that the limit concentration of 8.01 mg a.i/L exceeds the 

solubility limit of flutolanil (6.53 mg/L)
-Page 66 of 196-

3Table 3.26. Summary of Toxicity Data for Vascular and Nonvascular Aquatic Plants 

Exposed to Flutolanil 

Species Exposure Duration, 

Type

Test Substance 

(Purity)

NOAEC; 

EC50

(mg a.i./L)

(95% CL)1

Effect (MRID)

Duckweed

(Lemna gibba) 14-day, static TGAI (98.4%) <8.01;>8.01 (N/A)

30% reduction in frond 

count

(42606622)

Marine diatom

(Skeletonema costatum) 5-day, static TGAI (98.4%) <8.01;>8.01 (N/A)

12% inhibition for cell 

counts

(42606623)

Cyanobacteria

(Anabaena flos-aquae)

5-day, static TGAI (98.4%) <8.01;

>8.01 (N/A)

28 % inhibition for cell 

counts

(42606621)

Freshwater diatom

(Navicula pelliculosa) 5 day, static TGAI (98.4%) <8.01;

<8.01 (N/A)

61% inhibition for cell 

counts

(42606624)

Freshwater diatom

(Navicula pelliculosa) 5 day, static TGAI (98.4%) 0.80; >0.80 

(N/A)

11% inhibition for cell 

counts

(42606625)

Freshwater green algae

(Selenastrum 

capricornutum)

5 day, static TGAI (98.4%) <8.01;

<8.01 (N/A)

58% growth inhibition

(41841224)

N/ANot available. 1

Bolded values represent the most sensitive toxicity endpoints for nonvascular aquatic plants exposed to parent 

flutolanil and therefore will be used for risk estimation.

3.3.2. Terrestrial Effects Summary

There have been nine studies submitted to characterize flutolanil’s effects on terrestrial 

organisms. These studies included two avian acute oral toxicity studies, two avian dietary 

studies, two avian reproduction studies, and one acute contact toxicity study to the honey bee. In 

addition, two studies submitted to the Health Effects Division (HED), were used to obtain 

endpoints to be used for the evaluation of the effects on mammals. These studies were a rat 

acute oral toxicity study and a rat two-generation study. Additionally, there are two terrestrial 

plant studies available, one each of seedling emergence and vegetative vigor.

Toxicity Effects on Birds

There are two available avian acute oral toxicity studies available for flutolanil (Table 3.27). In 

a study with the northern bobwhite quail (Colinus virginianus, MRID 40342930), birds were 
-Page 67 of 196-

exposed to treatment levels of control, 500, 1000, and 2000 mg a.i/kg bw. There were no

mortalities observed nor were they any clinical sings of toxicity, effect on body weight, or on 

food consumption. As there were no mortalities, the LD50 of this study was determined to be 

>2000 mg a.i/kg bw. This study is classified as acceptable. 

In a second avian acute oral toxicity study conducted with the mallard duck (Anas platyrhynchos, 

MRID 40342929), birds were exposed to treatment levels of control, 500, 1000, and 2000 mg 

a.i/kg bw. There were no mortalities observed nor were they any clinical sings of toxicity, effect 

on body weight, or on food consumption. As there were no mortalities, the LD50 of this study 

was determined to be >2000 mg a.i/kg bw. This study is classified as acceptable. 

There are two available avian sub-acute dietary toxicity studies available for flutolanil (Table 

3.29). In a study conducted with the northern bobwhite quail (MRID 40342932), birds were 

exposed to treatment concentrations of control, 500, 800, 1280, 2048, 3277, and 5243 ppm 

flutolanil. The sole mortality in the study was observed in the control group on Day 3. There 

were no observed clinical signs of toxicity, effects on body weight, or on food consumption. The 

LC50 for this study was determined to be >5243 ppm and this study is classified as acceptable. 

In a second study conducted with the mallard duck (MRID 40342931), birds were exposed to 

treatment concentrations of control, 500, 800, 1280, 2048, 3277, and 5243 ppm flutolanil. There 

were no mortalities observed in this study nor were there observed clinical signs of toxicity, 

effects on body weight, or on food consumption. The LC50 for this study was determined to be 

>5243 ppm and this study is classified as acceptable. 

These studies indicate that flutolanil is practically non-toxic to birds on an acute oral and subacute dietary basis.

4Table 3.27. Summary of Acute and Sub-acute Toxicity Data for Birds Exposed to 

Flutolanil

Species Study Type

Test 

Substance 

(Purity)

LD50 (mg/kg bw) or LC50

mg/kg diet); (95% CI; 

slope)1,2

Toxicity 

Classification 

(MRID)

Northern Bobwhite Quail 

(Colinus virginianus)

Acute oral 

toxicity TGAI (97.5%) 14-d LD50: >2000 (N/A; N/A)

Practically nontoxic

(40342930)

Mallard Duck

(Anas platyrhynchos)

Acute oral 

toxicity TGAI (97.5%) 14-d LD50: >2000 (N/A; N/A)

Practically nontoxic

(40342929)

Northern Bobwhite Quail 

(Colinus virginianus)

Subacute 

dietary 

toxicity

TGAI (97.5%) 8- d LC50: >5243 (N/A; 

N/A)

Practically nontoxic

(40342932)

Mallard Duck

(Anas platyrhynchos)

Subacute 

dietary 

toxicity

TGAI (97.5%) 8-d LC50: >5243(N/A; N/A) 

Practically nontoxic

(40342931)

N.A = not applicable

1

Bolded values represent the lowest definitive toxicity endpoint and are used in risk estimation 2

Based on mean measured concentrations
-Page 68 of 196-

There are two available studies characterizing the reproductive effects of flutolanil on birds

(Table 3.28). In a study with the northern bobwhite quail (MRID 42932301), birds were 

exposed to treatment concentrations of control, 400, 960, 1920, and 4800 ppm. There were no 

treatment-related mortalities, overt signs of toxicity, or treatment related effects on body weight 

at any concentration tested. When compared to the negative control, there were no statistically 

significant effects (p<0.05) on any reproductive parameters. While not statistically significant, 

there was a slight reduction in the number of eggs laid at the highest concentration tested that 

study authors attributed to a increase in the number of hens that laid a smaller number of eggs 

(<20) during the study. This reduction in egg production was also reflected in the number of 

hatchlings and 14-day survivors as percentages of the maximum number of eggs set. While not 

statistically significant, the reduction in eggs laid at the highest treatment concentration as 

compared to the negative control is a 17% reduction and is viewed as biologically meaningful. 

The NOAEC and LOAEC for this study based on eggs laid (and consequently normal hatchlings, 

and 14-day old survivors) was determined to be 1920 and 4800 ppm, respectively. This study is 

classified as acceptable. 

In a study with the mallard duck (MRID 42932302), birds were exposed to treatment 

concentrations of control, 400, 960, 1920, and 4800 ppm. There were no treatment-related 

mortalities, overt signs of toxicity, or treatment related effects on body weight at any 

concentration tested. There were statistically significant (p<0.05) reductions in eggshell 

thickness at the 400 and 4800 ppm treatment groups, the lowest and highest levels tested. At the 

4800 ppm treatment level, the mean eggshell thickness was 0.382 ± 0.026 mm. This thickness 

was comparable to both the historical control value of 0.385 ±0.014 mm, and the 400 ppm group 

mean value of 0.383 ± 0.023 mm. The 400 ppm treatment value was not statistically significant

from the control value of 0.403 ± 0.024 mm. However, while only one pen in the 400 ppm group 

had an egg shell thickness value below 0.357 mm, four pens (25%) from the 4800 ppm group 

were below that value. The reduction in egg shell thickness at 4800 ppm was considered to 

biologically significant, while the reduction observed at the 400 ppm test level was not. 

Furthermore, it was determined that since the effect did not follow a dose-responsive pattern, that 

the effect at the lowest treatment level could be discounted. The NOAEC and LOAEC for this 

study based on eggshell thickness was 1920 and 4800 ppm. This study is classified as 

acceptable.

5Table 3.28. Summary of Chronic Toxicity Data for Birds Exposed to Flutolanil.

Species Study Type % Active 

Ingredient (a.i.)

Toxicity 

Endpoint

(ppm)

Endpoints 

affected

(MRID)

Northern Bobwhite Quail (Colinus 

virginianus)

Chronic 

reproduction TGAI (98.9%) NOAEC: 1920LOAEC: 4800

Eggs laid

42932301

Mallard Duck

(Anas platyrhynchos)

Chronic 

reproduction TGAI (98.9%) NOAEC: 1920LOAEC: 4800

Eggshell 

thickness

42932302

Bolded values indicate the most sensitive endpoint used for flutolanil risk estimation.

Toxicity Effects on Mammals
-Page 69 of 196-

In an acute oral exposure study to the laboratory rat (Rattus norvegicus, MRID 40342905), the 

LD50 was determined to be >10000 mg a.i/kg bw which classifies flutolanil as practically nontoxic to mammals on an acute oral basis (Table 3.29). 

6Table 3.29. Summary of Acute and Chronic Mammalian Toxicity Data for Rats Exposed 

to Flutolanil1,2

Species Study Type

Acute

LD50

(mg/kg bw)

Toxicity 

Classification

(MRID)

NOAEC 

(mg/kg diet)

Endpoints

(MRID)

Norway rat

(Rattus 

norvegicus)

98.2 LD50: >10,000 Practically non-toxic Acceptable 40342906

1

Mammalian toxicity data for flutolanil TGAI provided by EPA Health Effects Division

2

Bolded values represent the most sensitive toxicity endpoint and will be used for risk estimation

In a two-generation reproductive toxicity study (MRID 41850805), TGAI flutolanil was 

administered daily in the diet at treatment concentrations of control, 200, 2000, or 20000 ppm. 

This approximates to 0, 16, 159, or 1625 mg/kg/d for males and 0, 19, 190, or 1936mg/kg/d for 

females. There were no treatment related parental effects observed in either sex or generation. 

There was also no treatment related reproductive toxicity observed. Consequently, the NOAEL 

was determined to be 20,000 ppm and the LOAEL was >20,000 ppm (Table 3.30)

7Table 3.30. Toxic Effects in Mammals Due to Chronic Exposure to Flutolanil

Species % Active Ingredient (a.i.) Toxicity Endpoint

(mg/kg-diet) Study Classification MRID #

Rat 98.3 NOAEL: 20,000

LOAEL : >20,000 Acceptable 41850805

Bolded values indicate the most sensitive endpoint used for flutolanil risk estimation.

Toxicity Effects on Terrestrial Plants

There are two Tier II terrestrial plant studies available for flutolanil (Table 3.31). In a seedling 

emergence study (MRID 48603202), flutolanil was applied as a formulation (40.6% a.i) to 4 

species of monocots and 6 species of dicots in concentrations of control, 0.54, 1.1, 2.2, 4.3, and 

8.6 lbs a.i/A (nominal concentrations). In lettuce inhibitions ranged from 6.5 to 29% and in flax 

from 16 to 32%. Emergence was significantly (p<0.05) reduced from the negative control in all 

but the lowest treatment concentration (0.54 lbs a.i/A) for flax and the two highest treatment 

concentrations (4.3 and 8.38 lbs a.i/A) in lettuce. Survival in the negative control ranged from 

65 to 98%. Inhibition for lettuce was a maximum of 38.5% and for flax ranged from 10 to 38%. 

Survival was significantly (p<0.05) reduced from the negative control in all but the lowest 

treatment concentration (0.54 lbs a.i/A) for flax and the two highest treatment concentrations (4.3 

and 8.38 lbs a.i/A) in lettuce

Plant height was significantly reduced (p<0.05) at the three highest treatment concentrations 

(2.2, 4.3, and 8.38 lbs a.i/A) in wheat and in the highest treatment concentration for ryegrass. 
-Page 70 of 196-

Inhibitions ranged from maximums of 40 to 43% for lettuce and flax. Inhibitions in ryegrass 

were 29, 24 and 43% at the 2.2, 4.3 and 8.6 lb ai/A treatment levels. Corn, onion, soybean, and 

tomato generally experienced promotion only. Dry weight was significantly reduced from the 

negative control in all but the lowest treatment concentration (0.54 lbs a.i/A) for flax and wheat 

and for the (ryegrass). This study partially satisfies the guideline requirement for a Tier II 

seedling emergence study as the most sensitive endpoints for flax (most sensitive dicot) was 

survival and emergence. Further examination of the data revealed that multiple replicates in all 

but one treatment concentration had emergence of 50% or below. This confounded the ability to 

interpret sublethal effects on plant height and weight. This study is still suitable for quantitative 

risk assessment and is classified as supplemental. The most sensitive monocot was ryegrass with 

EC25 and NOAEC values of 3.66 and 2.20 lbs a.i/A, respectively based on effects to plant 

weight. The most sensitive dicot was flax with EC25 and NOAEC values of 1.45 and 0.54 lbs 

a.i/A, respectively based on effects to survival. 

In a Tier II Vegetative Vigor (MRID 48603201), flutolanil was exposed as a formulation (40.6% 

a.i) to 4 species of monocots and 6 species of dicots at concentrations of control, 0.54, 1.1, 2.2, 

4.3, an d8.17 lbs a.i/A (mean measured). Survival in the negative control ranged from 96.7 to 

100%. There was generally promotion or no change in survival compared to the negative control 

in cabbage, flax, lettuce, radish, soybean and wheat. Inhibitions in survival for corn, onion, 

ryegrass, and tomato ranged from maximums of 3 to 7%. There was promotion of height in 

onion, radish and soybean. Inhibitions in height ranged from maximums of 2.2 to 10% for all 

other species with the highest inhibition in ryegrass of 13%. There was general promotion of 

weight in lettuce and soybean. Inhibitions in dry weight ranged from maximums of 2 to 12% for 

all other species with the exception of onion and ryegrass. The highest inhibitions were observed 

for onion and ryegrass (17 and 26%, respectively). A most sensitive dicot species could not be 

determined due to a lack of toxicity, with an overall NOAEC value of 8.17 lb ai/A. 

This toxicity study is scientifically sound and partially satisfies the guideline requirement for a 

Tier II vegetative vigor study (all crops except ryegrass had definitive endpoints). For ryegrass, 

length and weight responses at the lowest treatment concentrations were significantly reduced

(p<0.05). Ryegrass length had a 12.7% reduction from control at the lowest treatment level 

(0.54 lb a.i/A). For weight, percent reductions were 26.3, 22.1, 8.8, 12.0, and 25.2% from the 

control for the 0.54, 1.1, 2.2, 4.3, and 8.2 lb a.i/A treatment concentrations, respectively. As two 

levels (lowest and highest) exhibited a 25% inhibition, and due to the U-shaped pattern of the 

data, the regression model did not converge and therefore an EC25 was not able to be estimated 

from this dataset. As a result, the most sensitive monocot species could not be determined in 

this study as a NOAEC was not achieved and an EC05 could not be used in its place for risk 

estimation to listed monocots. Data from all other species is suitable. Therefore, this study is 

classified as supplemental. As there is no definitive EC25 or NOAEC (or EC05) values, toxicity

to listed and nonlisted monocots cannot be fully characterized.

Table 3.31. Toxic Effects in Terrestrial Plants Due to Exposure to Flutolanil

Species Study Type % Active 

Ingredient (a.i.)

Toxicity Endpoint

(lbs a.i/A)

Endpoints 

affected

(MRID)

Multiple Seedling TEP (40.6%) Monocot (ryegrass): EC25: 3.66 (0.747 – Monocots: 
-Page 71 of 196-

Species Study Type % Active 

Ingredient (a.i.)

Toxicity Endpoint

(lbs a.i/A)

Endpoints 

affected

(MRID)

Species Emergence 17.9); NOAEC: 2.20

Dicot (Flax): EC25: 1.45 (N/A); 

NOAEC: 0.54 

Weight

Dicots: 

Survival

48603202

Multiple 

species

Vegetative

Vigor TEP (40.6%)

Monocot (ryegrass): EC25: <0.54 

(N/A); NOAEC: <0.54

Dicot (could not determined): EC25: 

>8.17 (N/A); NOAEC: 8.17

Monocots: 

Weight

Dicots: 

Survival

48603201

N/A = Not available

Toxicity Effects on Insects

An acute contact study using the formulated flutolanil (Moncut Dry Flowable, 65% a.i) was 

conducted with the results listed below in Table 3.32. Mortality was 8.7% in the highest dose 

level (650 ppm). This acute contact study also examined the toxicity of residues on foliage. 

Flutolanil (as Moncut Dry Flowable, 65% a.i) was blended with water and applied to rapeseed 

plants. Bees were caged on treated foliage for at predetermined intervals post treatment. There 

was no further information in the DER regarding results of the study other than that flutolanil 

was practically non toxic to honey bees as a foliar residue. This study is classified as acceptable.

8Table 3.32. Toxic Effects in Insects Due to Acute Exposure to Flutolanil

Species % Active 

Ingredient (a.i.)

Toxicity 

Endpoint

(ppm)

Toxicity 

Classification

Study 

Classification MRID #

Honey bee (Apis 

mellifera)

65 (Monocot dry 

flowable)

LD50 (contact): 

> 650

Practically nontoxic Acceptable 40342938

Bold values indicate the most sensitive endpoint used for flutolanil risk estimation.

Toxicity Effects on Sediment-Dwelling Aquatic Invertebrates

In a 10-day sediment toxicity test with the freshwater midge (Chironomus tentans, MRID 

48776801), flutolanil was spiked into the sediment at mean measured concentrations of control, 

solvent control, 49, 131, 233, 415, and 1060 mg TRR/kg. The TRR denotes total radioactive 

residues as the chemical was radiolabeled to track it through the sediment and pore water. 

Corresponding mean measured pore water concentrations were control, solvent control, 14.1, 

20.8, 32.5, 51.9, and 80.6 mg TRR/L. Mean survival after 10 days ranged from 88 – 96% among 

the controls and treatment groups and there were no significant reductions (p>0.05) indicated 

when compared to the negative control. Differences were statistically reduced when compared 

to the solvent control (p>0.05) at the highest treatment concentration. A two sample t-test 

indicates a non-significant difference between the negative and solvent control (6.7% effect). 

The results of the comparisons to the negative control are therefore used, per EFED guidance. 

Ash-free dry weight (AFDW) averaged 1.27, 1.48, 1.49, 1.62, 1.48, 1.68, and 1.59 mg per midge 
-Page 72 of 196-

in the negative control, solvent control, 49, 131, 233, 415, and 1060 mg TRR/kg treatment 

groups, respectively. Differences were not statistically-significant compared to each of the 

control levels independently. There was a significant (p<0.05) difference between the negative 

and solvent control (14.5% increase for solvent over negative), but again, there were no 

significant reductions (p>0.05) when compared to either the negative or solvent control. Since 

all treatments contained the same amount of solvent and none showed a statistically-significant 

difference relative to either control, the significant increase in AFDW in solvent controls is 

considered not to be solvent or treatment related.

The NOAEC and LOAEC (survival and growth) for this study were determined to be 1060 mg 

and >1060 mg TRR/kg sediment respectively, based on mean measured sediment concentrations; 

80.6 mg TRR/L and >80.6 mg TRR/L respectively based on mean measured pore water 

concentrations; and 35,300 mg TRR/kg TOC (total organic carbon) and >35,000 TRR/kg TOC 

based on organic-carbon normalized mean measured sediment concentrations. This study is 

classified as acceptable.

In a 10-day sediment toxicity test with the estuarine/marine amphipod (Leptocheirus plumulosus, 

MRID 48802201), flutolanil was spiked into the sediment a mean measured concentrations of 

negative control, solvent control, 1.7, 2.8, 7.4, 14, and 34 mg TRR/kg sediment. Mean measured 

pore water concentrations were negative control, solvent control, 2.6, 5.4, 10, 7, and 8.4 mg 

TRR/L. The pore water concentrations do not follow an increasing trend in measurements and 

an examination of the replicate sampling data indicate the initial day 0 measurement of the 7.4

mg TRR/kg sediment level was substantially elevated above the Day 10 measurement. There 

was no explanation in the study report regarding this observation.

Survival after 10 days averaged 94 and 97% for the negative and solvent control levels, 

respectively, compared to 90, 90, 82, 85, and 78% for the mean-measured 1.7, 2.8, 7.4, 14, and 

34 mg TRR/kg sediment levels, respectively. Differences were statistically-significant (p<0.05) 

compared to the negative control (96%) at the 34 mg TRR/kg level (the highest treatment 

concentration). The 10-day NOAEC and LOAEC were 14 and 34 mg TRR/kg, respectively 

based on mean measured sediment concentrations; 7.0 and 8.4 mg TRR/L based on mean 

measured pore water concentrations; and 519 and 1260 mg TTR/kg TOC based on organic 

normalized mean measured sediment concentrations. This study is classified as acceptable.

For the purposes of risk estimation, 1 mg TRR/kg sediment, mg TRR/L, and mg TRR/kg TOC is 

assumed to be 1 mg a.i/kg sediment, mg a.i/L, and mg a.i/kg TOC, respectively. Please see the 

risk description section for further details regarding the rationale for this assumption.

Table 3.33. Toxic Effects in Sediment-Dwelling Organism due to Exposure to Flutolanil 

Species Study 

Type

Test 

Substance 

(Purity)

Sediment LC50

(mg a.i/kg 

sediment)

1

(95% CL; 

slope)3

Pore 

water 

LC50 

(mg 

a.i/L)

Sediment 

NOAEC (mg 

a.i/kg 

sediment)1,2

Pore 

water 

NOAEC

(mg 

a.i/L)

MRID
-Page 73 of 196-

Species Study 

Type

Test 

Substance 

(Purity)

Sediment LC50

(mg a.i/kg 

sediment)

1

(95% CL; 

slope)3

Pore 

water 

LC50 

(mg 

a.i/L)

Sediment 

NOAEC (mg 

a.i/kg 

sediment)1,2

Pore 

water 

NOAEC

(mg 

a.i/L)

MRID

Freshwater 

midge

Chironomus 

tentans

10-day, 

whole 

sediment

TGAI 

(98.7%)

Mean measured 

= >1060 (N/A; 

N/A)

OC-normalized = 

>35300 (N/A; 

N/A)

>80.6

mg a.i/L 

(N/A; 

N/A)

Mean 

measured = 

1060

OCnormalized =

35,300

80.6 48776801

Estuarine / 

marine 

amphipod

Leptocheirus 

plumulosus

10-day, 

whole 

sediment

TGAI 

(98.9%)

Mean measured 

= >34 (N/A; N/A)

OC-normalized =

>1260 (N/A; 

N/A)

>8.4 mg 

a.i/L 

(N/A; 

N/A)

Mean 

measured = 

14

OCnormalized =

519

7.0 48802201

1

Bolded values represent the most sensitive toxicity endpoints for freshwater sediment-dwelling invertebrates

exposed to parent flutolanil and therefore will be used in risk estimation. 2

Based on mean measured concentrations. Endpoints in these studies were expressed as mg TRR (total radioactive 

residues)/kg sediment. This was assumed to be equivalent to mg a.i/kg sediment. See the risk description section 

for more information. 3

OC-normalized refers to the mean measured sediment concentrations being normalized for the organic carbon 

content in the test sediment.

3.3.3. Review of Incident Data

The Ecological Incident Information System (EIIS), which is maintained by the Agency’s Office 

of Pesticide Programs, was searched to determine if ecological incidents have been reported for

flutolanil. Based on a search of EIIS conducted in October, 2013, there was one reported

incident associated with flutolanil. In this incident, (Incident ID I014123-001) the observed 

effect (yellowing and stunting of 40 acres of oats) was determined to be more likely due to 

fertility issues than flutolanil and was classified as ‘unlikely.’

The American Bird Conservancy (ABC) Avian Incident Monitoring System (AIMS) was 

searched in October 2013 and returned no records of incidents associated with flutolanil (ABC,

2007).

A search in October 2013 of the Incident Database System (IDS) maintained by OPP’s 

Information Technology and Resource Management Division (ITRMD) yielded no incidents for 

flutolanil in the main database nor in the aggregate incident module. Because of limitations in 

the incident reporting system, the lack of additional incident reports cannot be construed as the 

absence of incidents from the registered use of flutolanil. 

4. Risk Characterization

4.1. Screening-Level Risk Quotient (RQ) Values
-Page 74 of 196-

This screening-level assessment of the labeled uses of flutolanil relies on the deterministic RQ 

method to provide a metric of potential risks. The RQ provides a comparison of exposure 

estimates to toxicity endpoints (i.e., the estimated exposure concentrations are divided by acute 

and chronic toxicity values, respectively). The resulting unitless RQ values are compared to the 

Agency’s LOCs, as shown in Tables 4.1 through Table 4.18. The LOCs are used by the Agency 

to indicate when the use of a pesticide, as directed by the label, has the potential to cause adverse 

effects to non-target organisms. In this assessment, RQs that exceed the non-listed species LOC 

also exceed the listed species LOC.

Tables 4.1 – 4.17 provide the resulting, screening-level RQ values, for taxa with sufficient data. 

Note that with plants, unlike with animals, RQ values are not presented for acute versus chronic 

risk; instead, RQ values are presented for listed and nonlisted species based on a comparison of a 

given EEC to NOAEL and EC25/EC50 values, respectively. A discussion of the RQ values for 

flutolanil and of other information that provides context for the interpretation of potential risk to 

various taxa is presented in the Risk Description in Section 4.2.

4.1.1. RQ Values for Aquatic Organisms

Acute risk to freshwater fish and aquatic-phase amphibians is based on 1 in 10 year peak EECs

in the standard pond and the lowest acute toxicity value for freshwater fish. Chronic risk is 

based on the 1 in 10 year 60-day EECs and the lowest chronic toxicity value for freshwater fish. 

Acute and chronic risk quotients for freshwater fish are shown in Table 4.1. Acute RQs ranged 

from <0.01 – 1.88 and chronic RQs ranged from <0.01 – 20.59. Five of ten (50%) of the 

flutolanil uses (at least one modeled scenario) exceeded at least one acute risk LOC and two uses 

exceeded the chronic risk LOC. The probability of an individual chance of effect was estimated 

using the study derived slope of 9.3 from the most sensitive freshwater fish study (carp, MRID 

40342936). For all food uses except peanut and rice, RQ values were below levels of concern

except for one modeled scenario for peanuts (aerial application) in which the acute endangered 

species LOC was met.

Table 4.1. Acute and Chronic RQs for Direct Effects to Freshwater Fish from Flutolanil

TGAI.1

Use(s) Scenario App. 

Method

Peak 

EECs

(μg 

a.i./L)

Freshwater

Fish

EC50 = 2500 

μg a.i/L

60-day 

EECs

(μg 

a.i./L)

Freshwater 

Fish

NOAEC =

220 μg a.i/L

Acute RQ Chronic RQ

Peanut NC 

peanut

In-furrow at 

plant 30.1 0.01 29.4 0.13

Peanut NC 

peanut

Ground 

banded apps 41.8 0.02 40.7 0.19

Peanut NC 

peanut Aerial 129 0.05 124 0.56

Brassica (cole) Leafy 

Vegetables (Crop Group 5) plus 

CA cole 

crops

Ground in a 

narrow band 36.7 0.01 35.8 0.16
-Page 75 of 196-

Use(s) Scenario App. 

Method

Peak 

EECs

(μg 

a.i./L)

Freshwater

Fish

EC50 = 2500 

μg a.i/L

60-day 

EECs

(μg 

a.i./L)

Freshwater 

Fish

NOAEC =

220 μg a.i/L

Acute RQ Chronic RQ

Turnip Greens

Brassica (cole) Leafy 

Vegetables (Crop Group 5) plus 

Turnip Greens

FL 

cabbage

Ground in a 

narrow band 71.4 0.03 70.3 0.32

Potatoes ID Potato In furrow 

band app 8.27 <0.01 8.18 0.04

Potatoes ME 

Potato

In furrow 

band app 30.1 0.01 29.8 0.14

Potatoes ID Potato Seed piece 

treatment 2.33 <0.01 2.31 0.01

Potatoes ME 

Potato

Seed piece 

treatment 12.5 0.01 12.4 0.06

Cotton CA cotton Seed 

treatment 0.158 <0.01 0.147 <0.01

Cotton MS cotton Seed 

treatment 2.67 <0.01 2.6 0.01

Soybeans MS 

soybean

Seed 

treatment 20 0.01 19 0.09

Sugarbeet MN 

sugarbeet

Seed 

treatment 0.289 <0.01 0.285 <0.01

Golf courses, sod farms, spot 

fields, residential, institutional, 

municipal & commercial areas

FL turf Ground 170 0.07 162 0.74

Golf courses, sod farms, spot 

fields, residential, institutional, 

municipal & commercial areas

PA turf Ground 217 0.09 210 0.95

Ornamental lawns and turf; 

recreation area lawns; 

residential lawns; Commercial/ 

Industrial lawns

FL turf Ground 178 0.07 173 0.79

Nursery stock, ornamentals & 

fruits (unspecified)

FL 

nursery

Ground 2300 0.92 2170 9.86

Nursery stock, ornamentals & 

fruits (unspecified)

NJ 

nursery

Ground 2170 0.87 2140 9.73

Nursery stock, ornamentals & 

fruits (unspecified)

FL 

nursery

Soil drench 4690 1.88 4530 20.59

Nursery stock, ornamentals & 

fruits (unspecified)

NJ 

nursery

Soil drench 3700 1.48 3590 16.32

Rice3 AR rice Aerial 1120 0.45 382 1.74

Rice4 AR rice Aerial 829 0.33 366 1.66

Rice3 CA rice Aerial 1161 0.46 431 1.96

Rice4 CA rice Aerial 870 0.35 416 1.89

Rice LA rice Aerial 1100 0.44 350 1.59

Rice MS rice Aerial 1100 0.44 365 1.66
-Page 76 of 196-

Use(s) Scenario App. 

Method

Peak 

EECs

(μg 

a.i./L)

Freshwater

Fish

EC50 = 2500 

μg a.i/L

60-day 

EECs

(μg 

a.i./L)

Freshwater 

Fish

NOAEC =

220 μg a.i/L

Acute RQ Chronic RQ

Rice TX rice Aerial 1130 0.45 393 1.79

App. = Application

Bolded and shaded values indicate an exceedance of an LOC 1

Acute listed species LOC = 0.05; acute restricted use LOC = 0.1, acute high risk LOC = 0.5; chronic risk LOC = 1 2

Slope was available from most sensitive acute freshwater fish toxicity study which was 9.3 3

1 application of 0.980 lbs a.i/A

4

2 applications of 0.490 lbs a.i/A

Acute risk to freshwater invertebrates is based on 1 in 10 year peak EECs in the standard pond 

and the lowest acute toxicity value for freshwater invertebrates. Chronic risk is based on the 1 in 

10 year 21-day EECs and the lowest chronic toxicity value for freshwater invertebrates. Acute 

and chronic risk quotients for freshwater invertebrates are shown in Table 4.2. There is 

uncertainty with respect to the acute RQs in that they were estimated using non-definitive 

endpoints (i.e. “>” value). While there was no treatment concentration in the available acute 

toxicity study, tested up to the solubility limit of flutolanil, where 50% or more mortality was 

observed, there was 45% mortality observed at the highest treatment concentration. While there 

are no EECs that were estimated that exceed the limit of solubility, the potential risk of 

exposures that approach the highest treatment (where 45% mortality occurred) cannot be 

discounted. If the assumption was made that the top treatment dose was the EC50, resultant RQs 

would indicate a potential for risk above the LOC for the nursery stock and rice uses only. 

Chronic RQs ranged from <0.01 – 8.70. Two of ten (20%) of the flutolanil uses (at least one 

modeled scenario) exceeded the chronic LOC. It is noted that for freshwater invertebrates, the 

EC50 was a “greater than,” value and therefore the resultant RQs represent an upper bound 

“worst case,” scenario of risk. There is uncertainty with respect to how far below the estimates 

of acute risk to freshwater invertebrates would be. For example, the uses on rice (RQs range 

from <0.12 - <0.17) could all be below the restricted use LOC of 0.1 and even below the 

endangered species LOC of 0.05 but this statement cannot be made with certainty. The 

probability of an individual chance of effect was estimated using the default slope of 4.5 as there 

was not a suitable slope that could be derived from the most sensitive freshwater invertebrate 

toxicity study. 

Table 4.2. Acute and Chronic RQs for Direct Effects to Freshwater Invertebrates from 

Flutolanil TGAI.

1

Use(s) Scenario App. 

Method

Peak 

EECs

(μg 

a.i./L)

Freshwater 

Invertebrates

EC50 = >6800 

μg a.i/L

21-day 

EECs

(μg 

a.i./L)

Freshwater 

Invertebrates

NOAEC = 530 

μg a.i/L

Acute RQ Chronic RQ

Peanut NC 

peanut

In-furrow at 

plant 30.1 <0.01 29.8 0.06
-Page 77 of 196-

Use(s) Scenario App. 

Method

Peak 

EECs

(μg 

a.i./L)

Freshwater 

Invertebrates

EC50 = >6800 

μg a.i/L

21-day 

EECs

(μg 

a.i./L)

Freshwater 

Invertebrates

NOAEC = 530 

μg a.i/L

Acute RQ Chronic RQ

Peanut NC 

peanut

Ground 

banded 

apps

41.8 <0.01 41.3 0.08

Peanut NC 

peanut Aerial 129 <0.02 126 0.24

Brassica (cole) Leafy 

Vegetables (Crop Group 5) 

plus Turnip Greens

CA cole 

crops

Ground in a 

narrow 

band

36.7 <0.01 36 0.07

Brassica (cole) Leafy 

Vegetables (Crop Group 5) 

plus Turnip Greens

FL 

cabbage

Ground in a 

narrow 

band

71.4 <0.01 70.6 0.13

Potatoes ID Potato In furrow 

band app 8.27 <0.01 8.22 0.02

Potatoes ME 

Potato

In furrow 

band app 30.1 <0.01 30 0.06

Potatoes ID Potato Seed piece 

treatment 2.33 <0.01 2.32 <0.01

Potatoes ME 

Potato

Seed piece 

treatment 12.5 <0.01 12.4 0.02

Cotton CA cotton Seed 

treatment 0.158 <0.01 0.153 <0.01

Cotton MS 

cotton

Seed 

treatment 2.67 <0.01 2.63 <0.01

Soybeans MS 

soybean

Seed 

treatment 20 <0.01 19.7 0.04

Sugarbeet MN 

sugarbeet

Seed 

treatment 0.289 <0.01 0.287 <0.01

Golf courses, sod farms, 

spot fields, residential, 

institutional, municipal & 

commercial areas

FL turf Ground 170 <0.03 168 0.32

Golf courses, sod farms, 

spot fields, residential, 

institutional, municipal & 

commercial areas

PA turf Ground 217 <0.03 214 0.40

Ornamental lawns and turf; 

recreation area lawns; 

residential lawns; 

Commercial/ Industrial 

lawns

FL turf Ground 178 <0.03 177 0.33

Nursery stock, ornamentals 

& fruits (unspecified)

FL 

nursery

Ground 2300 <0.34 2240 4.23

Nursery stock, ornamentals 

& fruits (unspecified)

NJ 

nursery

Ground 2170 <0.32 2160 4.08

Nursery stock, ornamentals 

& fruits (unspecified)

FL 

nursery

Soil drench 4690 <0.69 4610 8.70
-Page 78 of 196-

Use(s) Scenario App. 

Method

Peak 

EECs

(μg 

a.i./L)

Freshwater 

Invertebrates

EC50 = >6800 

μg a.i/L

21-day 

EECs

(μg 

a.i./L)

Freshwater 

Invertebrates

NOAEC = 530 

μg a.i/L

Acute RQ Chronic RQ

Nursery stock, ornamentals 

& fruits (unspecified)

NJ 

nursery

Soil drench 3700 <0.54 3650 6.89

Rice3 AR rice Aerial 1120 <0.16 600 1.13

Rice4 AR rice Aerial 829 <0.12 522 0.98

Rice3 CA rice Aerial 1161 <0.17 649 1.22

Rice4 CA rice Aerial 870 <0.13 569 1.07

Rice LA rice Aerial 1100 <0.16 578 1.09

Rice MS rice Aerial 1100 <0.16 588 1.11

Rice TX rice Aerial 1130 <0.17 611 1.15

App. = Application

Bolded and shaded values indicate an exceedance of an LOC, italicized values represent a potential to exceed an 

LOC

1

Acute listed species LOC = 0.05; acute restricted use LOC = 0.1, acute high risk LOC = 0.5; chronic risk LOC = 1 2 Slope was not available from most sensitive acute freshwater invertebrate toxicity study and therefore default slope 

of 4.5 was employed for probably of acute effect estimates. 3

1 application of 0.980 lbs a.i/A

4

2 applications of 0.490 lbs a.i/A 

The available acute toxicity study with estuarine/marine fish indicated that there were no 

concentrations tested (including and up to 6.1 mg a.i/L) where mortality was observed. A 

definitive LC50 therefore was not established. As all peak EECs that were modeled for the 

proposed and registered uses of flutolanil were below 6.1 mg a.i/L and no mortalities were 

observed up to and including this treatment, acute risk levels below the level of concern can be 

presumed for estuarine/marine fish.

As discussed in Section 4, an acute-to-chronic ratio (ACR) is typically used when available data 

allow for the estimation of an indefinite (i.e. unbounded) measure of toxicity for either acute or 

chronic data. There is uncertainty that is inherent in the use of an ACR but it can serve to 

provide an estimate of where risk will fall. In the case of flutolanil, while freshwater acute and 

chronic toxicity studies yielded definitive endpoints, the available acute estuarine/marine study 

observed no mortalities (as discussed above). The usage of an ACR with a non-definitive 

endpoint would introduce further uncertainty into any estimate of toxicity and therefore no 

chronic risk to estuarine/marine fish will be estimated for flutolanil. See the Risk Description 

Section for the impact on the overall risk assessment.

Acute risk to estuarine/marine invertebrates is based on 1 in 10 year peak EECs in the standard 

pond and the lowest acute toxicity value for estuarine/marine invertebrates. Chronic risk is 

based on the 1 in 10 year 21-day EECs and the lowest chronic toxicity value for estuarine/marine 

invertebrates. Acute and chronic risk quotients for estuarine/marine invertebrates are shown in 

Table 4.3. Acute RQs ranged from <0.01 – 36.1 and chronic RQs ranged from 0.01 – 408. 
-Page 79 of 196-

Eight of ten (80%) flutolanil uses that (at least one modeled scenario) exceeded at least one acute 

risk LOC and the chronic LOC. The probability of an individual chance of effect was estimated 

using the default slope of 4.5 as a slope was not available from the most sensitive acute 

estuarine/marine fish toxicity study. In contrast with previous taxa assessed, RQ values for 

estuarine/marine invertebrates exceed levels of concern all food uses except sugarbeet and all 

non-food uses.

Table 4.3. Acute RQs for Direct Effects to Estuarine/Marine Invertebrates from Flutolanil

TGAI.1

Use(s) Scenario App. 

Method

Peak 

EECs

(μg 

ai/L)

Estuarine/marine 

Invertebrates

EC50 = 130 μg a.i/L

21-

day 

EECs

(μg 

ai/L)

Estuarine/marine 

Invertebrates

NOAEC = 11.3 μg 

a.i/L

Acute RQ Chronic RQ

Peanut NC 

peanut

In-furrow 

at plant 30.1 0.23 29.8 2.64

Peanut NC 

peanut

Ground 

banded 

apps

41.8 0.32 41.3 3.65

Peanut NC 

peanut Aerial 129 0.99 126 11.2

Brassica (cole) Leafy 

Vegetables (Crop 

Group 5) plus Turnip 

Greens

CA cole 

crops

Ground in 

a narrow 

band

36.7 0.28 36 3.19

Brassica (cole) Leafy 

Vegetables (Crop 

Group 5) plus Turnip 

Greens

FL 

cabbage

Ground in 

a narrow 

band

71.4 0.55 70.6 6.25

Potatoes ID Potato In furrow 

band app 8.27 0.06 8.22 0.73

Potatoes ME 

Potato

In furrow 

band app 30.1 0.23 30 2.65

Potatoes ID Potato Seed piece 

treatment 2.33 0.02 2.32 0.21

Potatoes ME 

Potato

Seed piece 

treatment 12.5 0.10 12.4 1.10

Cotton CA 

cotton

Seed 

treatment 0.158 <0.01 0.153 0.01

Cotton MS 

cotton

Seed 

treatment 2.67 0.02 2.63 0.23

Soybeans MS 

soybean

Seed 

treatment 20 0.15 19.7 1.74

Sugarbeet MN 

sugarbeet

Seed 

treatment 0.289 <0.01 0.287 0.03

Golf courses, sod 

farms, spot fields, 

residential, 

institutional, municipal 

& commercial areas

FL turf Ground 170 1.31 168 14.9
-Page 80 of 196-

Use(s) Scenario App. 

Method

Peak 

EECs

(μg 

ai/L)

Estuarine/marine 

Invertebrates

EC50 = 130 μg a.i/L

21-

day 

EECs

(μg 

ai/L)

Estuarine/marine 

Invertebrates

NOAEC = 11.3 μg 

a.i/L

Acute RQ Chronic RQ

Golf courses, sod 

farms, spot fields, 

residential, 

institutional, municipal 

& commercial areas

PA turf Ground 217 1.67 214 18.9

Ornamental lawns and 

turf; recreation area 

lawns; residential 

lawns; Commercial/ 

Industrial lawns

FL turf Ground 178 1.37 177 15.7

Nursery stock, 

ornamentals & fruits

(unspecified)

FL 

nursery

Ground 2300 17.7 2240 198

Nursery stock, 

ornamentals & fruits

(unspecified)

NJ 

nursery

Ground 2170 16.7 2160 191

Nursery stock, 

ornamentals & fruits

(unspecified)

FL 

nursery

Soil 

drench 4690 36.1 4610 408

Nursery stock, 

ornamentals & fruits

(unspecified)

NJ 

nursery

Soil 

drench 3700 28.5 3650 323

Rice3 AR rice Aerial 1120 8.62 600 53.1

Rice4 AR rice Aerial 829 6.38 522 46.2

Rice3 CA rice Aerial 1161 8.93 649 57.4

Rice4 CA rice Aerial 870 6.69 569 50.4

Rice LA rice Aerial 1100 8.46 578 51.2

Rice MS rice Aerial 1100 8.46 588 52.0

Rice TX rice Aerial 1130 8.69 611 54.1

App. = Application

Bolded and shaded values indicate an exceedance of an LOC 1

Acute listed species LOC = 0.05; acute restricted use LOC = 0.1, acute high risk LOC = 0.5; chronic risk LOC = 1 2

Slope was not available from most sensitive acute estuarine/marine invertebrate toxicity study and therefore default 

slope of 4.5 was employed for probably of acute effect estimates.

3

1 application of 0.980 lbs a.i/A

4

2 applications of 0.490 lbs a.i/A

4.1.2. RQ Values for Aquatic Plants

Risk to aquatic non-vascular plants is based on 1 in 10 year peak EECs in the standard pond and 

the lowest EC50 value and NOAEC value. Listed species RQs are derived from a comparison of 

the peak EEC to the most sensitive NOAEC and nonlisted RQs are derived from a comparison of 

the peak EEC to the most sensitive EC50 value available. Risk quotients for listed aquatic 

nonvascular plants were not estimated since there are currently no listed aquatic non-vascular
-Page 81 of 196-

species. For nonlisted aquatic nonvascular plants, there is uncertainty, in the nonlisted species 

RQs as these RQs were determined using a non-definitive EC50 value (“<”) and therefore the 

RQs represent an lower bound, “best case,” scenario of risk. For the nursery and turf uses in 

particular, it can be stated with high certainty based on the data and the level of the EECs that 

risk to aquatic non-vascular plants would be indicated for nursery stock and rice. For all other 

uses, there is potential for an exceedance of the LOC but it is an uncertainty as to what extent 

those exceedances would be.

Non-listed species RQs for aquatic vascular plants were determined using a non-definitive EC50

(“>”) and therefore represent an upper bound “worst case,” scenario of risk. Consequently, the 

resultant RQs are preceded by a “<” value to indicate what level of risk would be yielded at 

most. There were no exceedances for listed species for aquatic vascular plants. There is 

uncertainty with these RQs as well as they were determined using a non-definitive NOAEC (“<”)

in which the resultant RQs represent a lower bound, “best case,” scenario of risk. Resultant RQs 

therefore are preceded with a “>” sign in which the values denote a level of risk that at least be 

indicated (Table 4.4). 

Table 4.4. RQ Values for Direct Effects to Aquatic Nonvascular Plants from Flutolanil

TGAI.1,2

Use(s) Scenario Application 

Method

Peak 

EECs 

(μg

ai/L)

Aquatic 

Nonvascular 

Plants

EC50 = <800 μg 

a.i/L

Aquatic Vascular 

Plants

EC50 = >8010 μg 

a.i/L

NOAEL = <8010 μg 

a.i/L

Nonlisted RQs4 Listed 

RQs3

Nonlisted

RQs4

Peanut NC 

peanut

In-furrow at 

plant 30.1 >0.04 >0.01 <0.01

Peanut NC 

peanut

Ground 

banded apps 41.8 >0.05 >0.01 <0.01

Peanut NC 

peanut Aerial 129 >0.16 >0.02 <0.02

Brassica (cole) Leafy 

Vegetables (Crop Group 5) 

plus Turnip Greens

CA cole 

crops

Ground in a 

narrow band 36.7 >0.05 >0.01 <0.01

Brassica (cole) Leafy 

Vegetables (Crop Group 5) 

plus Turnip Greens

FL 

cabbage

Ground in a 

narrow band 71.4 >0.09 >0.01 <0.01

Potatoes ID Potato In furrow band 

app

8.27 >0.01 >0.01 <0.01

Potatoes ME 

Potato

In furrow band 

app

30.1 >0.04 >0.01 <0.01

Potatoes ID Potato Seed piece 

treatment 2.33 >0.01 >0.01 <0.01

Potatoes ME 

Potato

Seed piece 

treatment 12.5 >0.02 >0.01 <0.01

Cotton CA cotton Seed treatment 0.158 >0.01 >0.01 <0.01

Cotton MS cotton Seed treatment 2.67 >0.01 >0.01 <0.01
-Page 82 of 196-

Use(s) Scenario Application 

Method

Peak 

EECs 

(μg

ai/L)

Aquatic 

Nonvascular 

Plants

EC50 = <800 μg 

a.i/L

Aquatic Vascular 

Plants

EC50 = >8010 μg 

a.i/L

NOAEL = <8010 μg 

a.i/L

Nonlisted RQs4 Listed 

RQs3

Nonlisted

RQs4

Soybeans MS 

soybean Seed treatment 20 >0.03 >0.01 <0.01

Sugarbeet MN 

sugarbeet Seed treatment 0.289 >0.01 >0.01 <0.01

Golf courses, sod farms, spot 

fields, residential, institutional, 

municipal & commercial areas

FL turf Ground 170 >0.21 >0.02 <0.02

Golf courses, sod farms, spot 

fields, residential, institutional, 

municipal & commercial areas

PA turf Ground 217 >0.27 >0.03 <0.03

Ornamental lawns and turf; 

recreation area lawns; 

residential lawns; Commercial/ 

Industrial lawns

FL turf Ground 178 >0.22 >0.02 <0.02

Nursery stock, ornamentals & 

fruits (unspecified)

FL 

nursery

Ground 2300 >2.88 >0.29 <0.29

Nursery stock, ornamentals & 

fruits (unspecified)

NJ 

nursery

Ground 2170 >5.71 >0.27 <0.27

Nursery stock, ornamentals & 

fruits (unspecified)

FL 

nursery

Soil drench 4690 >5.86 >0.59 <0.59

Nursery stock, ornamentals & 

fruits (unspecified)

NJ 

nursery

Soil drench 3700 >4.63 >0.46 <0.46

Rice5 AR rice Aerial 1120 >1.40 >0.14 <0.14

Rice6 AR rice Aerial 829 >1.04 >0.10 <0.10

Rice5 CA rice Aerial 1161 >1.45 >0.14 <0.14

Rice6 CA rice Aerial 870 >1.09 >0.11 <0.11

Rice LA rice Aerial 1100 >1.38 >0.14 <0.14

Rice MS rice Aerial 1100 >1.38 >0.14 <0.14

Rice TX rice Aerial 1130 >1.41 >0.14 <0.14 1

Bolded and shaded values indicate an exceedance of an LOC. 2

Listed aquatic plant LOC = 1; Non-listed aquatic plant LOC = 1 3

Estimated by dividing the peak EEC by the most sensitive NOAEC

4

Estimated by dividing the peak EEC by the most sensitive EC50 5

1 application of 0.980 lbs a.i/A

6

2 applications of 0.490 lbs a.i/A

4.1.3. RQ Values for Sediment-Dwelling Organisms

Acute and chronic risk to freshwater and estuarine/marine benthic invertebrates is estimated in 

several different ways to account for multiple exposure routes of flutolanil to benthic 

invertebrates and to account for factors contributing to the bioavailability of flutolanil across 

those exposure routes. Acute risk quotients are based on the peak pore water EEC and the most 
-Page 83 of 196-

sensitive water column EC50. Chronic RQs are derived several different ways, accounting for 

the multiple exposure routes and differing bioavailability. Modeled 21-day pore water EECs are 

compared to the measured pore water NOAEC from available sediment studies; modeled 21-day 

sediment EECs are compared to the measured sediment NOAEC; and modeled 21-day pore 

water EECs are compared to the most sensitive surface water NOAEC.

Acute risk quotients for freshwater benthic invertebrates ranged from <0.01 – <0.63 (Table 4.5).

There is uncertainty with respect to these RQs as they were estimated using a non-definitive 

endpoint (“>”) and therefore the resultant RQs are preceded with a “<” that represent an upper 

bound “worst case,” scenario of risk. As with the toxicity endpoint for water column freshwater 

invertebrates, which is used to derive acute risk to freshwater sediment dwelling invertebrates, 

the RQ exceedances that exceed the acute level of concern cannot be discounted as there was 

45% mortality observed at the limit of solubility. Therefore, for the nursery stock and 

ornamental uses, there is the potential for the exceedance of the acute LOC.

Chronic RQs for benthic invertebrates based off of toxicity values expressed in terms of 

sediment concentrations (EECs and toxicity endpoints) ranged from <0.1 – 0.01 and therefore 

there were no registered or proposed uses of flutolanil that exceeded the LOC when 

concentrations were expressed in terms of sediment concentrations. When expressed in terms of 

pore water EECs and endpoints from sediment toxicity studies expressed in terms of pore water, 

there no uses of flutolanil that exceeded the LOC (RQs ranged from <0.01 – 0.05). Finally,

chronic RQs based on pore water EECs compared to surface water endpoints resulted in RQs 

that exceeded the LOC for one use of flutolanil (nursery stock, ornamentals and fruits, 

unspecified), RQs ranged from 0.01 – 8.08. 

Table 4.5. Acute RQ and Chronic RQs for Direct Effects to Freshwater Sediment-Dwelling

Invertebrates from Flutolanil TGAI.1,6

Use(s) Scenario App. 

Method

Acute Chronic

Peak 

Pore 

Water 

EECs

(μg 

ai/L)

Acute 

RQ2

21-day 

sediment 

EECs

(mg/KgOC)

21-

day 

pore 

water 

EECs

(μg 

ai/L)

Chronic 

RQ

(sediment)3

Chronic

RQ

(pore 

water)4

Chronic 

RQ

(pore 

water / 

surface 

water)

5

Peanut NC 

peanut

Infurrow at 

plant

28.8 <0.01 22800 28.8 <0.01 <0.01 0.05

Peanut NC 

peanut

Ground 

banded 

apps

39.9 <0.01 31500 39.9 <0.01 <0.01 0.08

Peanut NC 

peanut Aerial 122 <0.02 96400 122 <0.01 <0.01 0.23
-Page 84 of 196-

Use(s) Scenario App. 

Method

Acute Chronic

Peak 

Pore 

Water 

EECs

(μg 

ai/L)

Acute 

RQ2

21-day 

sediment 

EECs

(mg/KgOC)

21-

day 

pore 

water 

EECs

(μg 

ai/L)

Chronic 

RQ

(sediment)3

Chronic

RQ

(pore 

water)4

Chronic 

RQ

(pore 

water / 

surface 

water)

5

Brassica 

(cole) Leafy 

Vegetables 

(Crop Group 

5) plus 

Turnip 

Greens

CA cole 

crops

Ground 

in a 

narrow 

band

34.4 <0.01 26900 34.0 <0.01 <0.01 0.06

Brassica 

(cole) Leafy 

Vegetables 

(Crop Group 

5) plus 

Turnip 

Greens

FL 

cabbage

Ground 

in a 

narrow 

band

67.8 <0.01 53600 67.8 <0.01 <0.01 0.13

Potatoes

ID 

Potato

In 

furrow 

band app

8.03 <0.01 6350 8.03 <0.01 <0.01 0.02

Potatoes ME 

Potato

In 

furrow 

band app

29.4 <0.01 23200 29.4 <0.01 <0.01 0.06

Potatoes ID 

Potato

Seed 

piece 

treatment

2.24 <0.01 1770 2.24 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Potatoes ME 

Potato

Seed 

piece 

treatment

12.3 <0.01 9720 12.3 <0.01 <0.01 0.02

Cotton CA 

cotton

Seed 

treatment 0.140 <0.01 111 0.140 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Cotton MS 

cotton

Seed 

treatment 2.47 <0.01 1950 2.47 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Soybeans MS 

soybean

Seed 

treatment 18.8 <0.01 14900 18.7 <0.01 <0.01 0.04

Sugarbeet MN 

sugarbeet

Seed 

treatment 0.279 <0.01 220 0.279 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Golf 

courses, sod 

farms, spot 

fields, 

residential, 

institutional, 

municipal & 

commercial 

areas

FL turf Ground 157 <0.02 124000 157 <0.01 <0.01 0.30

Golf 

courses, sod 

farms, spot 

PA turf Ground 204 <0.03 161000 204 <0.01 <0.01 0.38
-Page 85 of 196-

Use(s) Scenario App. 

Method

Acute Chronic

Peak 

Pore 

Water 

EECs

(μg 

ai/L)

Acute 

RQ2

21-day 

sediment 

EECs

(mg/KgOC)

21-

day 

pore 

water 

EECs

(μg 

ai/L)

Chronic 

RQ

(sediment)3

Chronic

RQ

(pore 

water)4

Chronic 

RQ

(pore 

water / 

surface 

water)

5

fields, 

residential, 

institutional, 

municipal & 

commercial 

areas

Ornamental 

lawns and 

turf; 

recreation 

area lawns; 

residential 

lawns; 

Commercial/ 

Industrial 

lawns

FL turf Ground 169 <0.02 134000 169 <0.01 <0.01 0.32

Nursery 

stock, 

ornamentals 

& fruits

(unspecified)

FL 

nursery

Ground 2010 <0.30 1590000 2010 0.05 0.02 3.79

Nursery 

stock, 

ornamentals 

& fruits

(unspecified)

NJ 

nursery

Ground 2090 <0.31 1650000 2090 0.05 0.03 3.94

Nursery 

stock, 

ornamentals 

& fruits

(unspecified)

FL 

nursery

Soil 

drench 4280 <0.63 3380000 4280 0.10 0.05 8.08

Nursery 

stock, 

ornamentals 

& fruits

(unspecified)

NJ 

nursery

Soil 

drench 3480 <0.51 2750000 3480 0.08 0.04 6.57

Rice AR rice Aerial 247 <0.04 201000 246 0.01 <0.01 0.46

Rice AR rice Aerial 245 <0.04 201000 245 0.01 <0.01 0.46

Rice CA rice Aerial 295 <0.04 241000 295 0.01 <0.01 0.56

Rice CA rice Aerial 294 <0.04 241000 294 0.01 <0.01 0.55

Rice LA rice Aerial 225 <0.03 183000 224 0.01 <0.01 0.42

Rice MS rice Aerial 233 <0.03 188000 230 0.01 <0.01 0.43

Rice TX rice Aerial 263 <0.04 214000 262 0.01 <0.01 0.49
-Page 86 of 196-

1

Bolded and shaded values indicate an exceedance of an LOC, italicized values represent a potential to exceed an 

LOC

2

Based on peak pore water EEC divided by >6800 ug a.i/L (EC50 value of most sensitive freshwater water column 

invertebrate) 3

Based on 21-day organic carbon (OC)-normalized sediment EECs divided by OC-normalized NOAEC of 

Chironomus dilutus (MRID 48776801) of 80600 μg a.i/kg sediment. 4

Based on 21-day pore water EECs divided by pore water NOAEC of Chironomus dilutus (MRID 48776801) of 

35300000 μg a.i/L. 5

Based on 21-day pore water EECs divided by 530μg a.i/L (NOAEC value of most sensitive freshwater water 

column invertebrate) 6

Acute listed species LOC = 0.05; acute restricted use LOC = 0.1, acute high risk LOC = 0.5; chronic risk LOC = 1

Acute risk quotients for estuarine/marine benthic invertebrates ranged from <0.01 – 32.92 (Table 

4.6). There were 8 of 10 (80%) of flutolanil uses that exceeded at least one acute LOC for at least 

one modeled scenario.

Chronic RQs for benthic invertebrates based off of toxicity values expressed in terms of 

sediment concentrations (EECs and toxicity endpoints) ranged from <0.1 – 6.51. Only the 

nursery stock, ornamentals and fruits (unspecified) use exceeded the chronic LOC. When 

expressed in terms of pore water EECs and endpoints from sediment toxicity studies expressed in 

terms of pore water, there no uses of flutolanil that exceeded the LOC (RQs ranged from <0.01 –

0.61). Finally, chronic RQs based on pore water EECs compared to surface water endpoints 

resulted in RQs that ranged from 0.01 – 379. There were 8 of 10 (80%) of flutolanil uses that 

exceeded at least one acute LOC for at least one modeled scenario.

Table 4.6. Acute RQ and Chronic RQs for Direct Effects to Estuarine/Marine SedimentDwelling Invertebrates from Flutolanil TGAI.6

Use(s) Scenario App. 

Method

Acute Chronic

Peak 

Pore 

Water 

EECs

(μg 

ai/L)

Acute 

RQ2

21-day 

sediment 

EECs

(mg/KgOC)

21-

day 

pore 

water 

EECs

(μg 

ai/L)

Chronic 

RQ

(sediment)3

Chronic

RQ

(pore 

water)4

Chronic 

RQ

(pore 

water / 

surface 

water)5

Peanut NC 

peanut

Infurrow at 

plant

28.8 0.22 22800 28.8 0.04 <0.01 2.55

Peanut NC 

peanut

Ground 

banded 

apps

39.9 0.31 31500 39.9 0.06 0.01 3.53

Peanut NC 

peanut Aerial 122 0.94 96400 122 0.19 0.02 10.8

Brassica 

(cole) Leafy 

Vegetables 

(Crop Group 

5) plus 

Turnip 

Greens

CA cole 

crops

Ground 

in a 

narrow 

band

34.4 0.26 26900 34.0 0.05 <0.01 3.01

Brassica 

(cole) Leafy 

FL 

cabbage

Ground 

in a 67.8 0.52 53600 67.8 0.10 0.01 6.00
-Page 87 of 196-

Use(s) Scenario App. 

Method

Acute Chronic

Peak 

Pore 

Water 

EECs

(μg 

ai/L)

Acute 

RQ2

21-day 

sediment 

EECs

(mg/KgOC)

21-

day 

pore 

water 

EECs

(μg 

ai/L)

Chronic 

RQ

(sediment)3

Chronic

RQ

(pore 

water)4

Chronic 

RQ

(pore 

water / 

surface 

water)5

Vegetables 

(Crop Group 

5) plus 

Turnip 

Greens

narrow 

band

Potatoes ID 

Potato

In 

furrow 

band app

8.03 0.06 6350 8.03 0.01 <0.01 0.71

Potatoes ME 

Potato

In 

furrow 

band app

29.4 0.23 23200 29.4 0.04 <0.01 2.60

Potatoes ID 

Potato

Seed 

piece 

treatment

2.24 0.02 1770 2.24 <0.01 <0.01 0.20

Potatoes ME 

Potato

Seed 

piece 

treatment

12.3 0.09 9720 12.3 0.02 <0.01 1.09

Cotton CA 

cotton

Seed 

treatment 0.140 <0.01 111 0.140 <0.01 <0.01 0.01

Cotton MS 

cotton

Seed 

treatment 2.47 0.02 1950 2.47 <0.01 <0.01 0.22

Soybeans MS 

soybean

Seed 

treatment 18.8 0.14 14900 18.7 0.03 <0.01 1.65

Sugarbeet MN 

sugarbeet

Seed 

treatment 0.279 <0.01 220 0.279 <0.01 <0.01 0.02

Golf 

courses, sod 

farms, spot 

fields, 

residential, 

institutional, 

municipal & 

commercial 

areas

FL turf Ground 157 1.21 124000 157 0.24 0.02 13.9

Golf 

courses, sod 

farms, spot 

fields, 

residential, 

institutional, 

municipal & 

commercial 

areas

PA turf Ground 204 1.57 161000 204 0.31 0.03 18.1

Ornamental 

lawns and 

turf; 

FL turf Ground 169 1.30 134000 169 0.26 0.02 15.0
-Page 88 of 196-

Use(s) Scenario App. 

Method

Acute Chronic

Peak 

Pore 

Water 

EECs

(μg 

ai/L)

Acute 

RQ2

21-day 

sediment 

EECs

(mg/KgOC)

21-

day 

pore 

water 

EECs

(μg 

ai/L)

Chronic 

RQ

(sediment)3

Chronic

RQ

(pore 

water)4

Chronic 

RQ

(pore 

water / 

surface 

water)5

recreation 

area lawns; 

residential 

lawns; 

Commercial/ 

Industrial 

lawns

Nursery 

stock, 

ornamentals 

& fruits

(unspecified)

FL 

nursery

Ground 2010 15.5 1590000 2010 3.06 0.29 178

Nursery 

stock, 

ornamentals

& fruits

(unspecified)

NJ 

nursery

Ground 2090 16.1 1650000 2090 3.18 0.30 185

Nursery 

stock, 

ornamentals 

& fruits

(unspecified)

FL 

nursery

Soil 

drench 4280 32.9 3380000 4280 6.51 0.61 379

Nursery 

stock, 

ornamentals 

& fruits

(unspecified)

NJ 

nursery

Soil

drench 3480 26.8 2750000 3480 5.30 0.50 308

Rice AR rice Aerial 247 1.90 201000 246 0.39 0.04 21.8

Rice AR rice Aerial 245 1.88 201000 245 0.39 0.04 21.7

Rice CA rice Aerial 295 2.27 241000 295 0.46 0.04 26.1

Rice CA rice Aerial 294 2.26 241000 294 0.46 0.04 26.0

Rice LA rice Aerial 225 1.73 183000 224 0.35 0.03 19.8

Rice MS rice Aerial 233 1.79 188000 230 0.36 0.03 20.4

Rice TX rice Aerial 263 2.02 214000 262 0.41 0.04 23.2 1

Bolded and shaded values indicate an exceedance of an LOC. 2

Based on peak pore water EEC divided by 130 ug a.i/L (EC50 value of most sensitive estuarine/marine water 

column invertebrate)

3

Based on 21-day organic carbon (OC)-normalized sediment EECs divided by OC-normalized NOAEC of 

Leptocheirus plumulosus (MRID 48802201) of 519000 μg a.i/kg sediment. 4

Based on 21-day pore water EECs divided by pore water NOAEC of Leptocheirus plumulosus (MRID 48802201) 

of 7000 μg a.i/L. 5

Based on 21-day pore water EECs divided by 11.3 μg a.i/L (NOAEC value of most sensitive estuarine/marine 

water column invertebrate)
-Page 89 of 196-

6

Acute listed species LOC = 0.05; acute restricted use LOC = 0.1, acute high risk LOC = 0.5; chronic risk LOC = 1

4.1.3. RQ Values for Terrestrial Organisms

As previously discussed in Section 3.2.3 potential direct effects to terrestrial species are based on 

foliar, airblast, ground spray, and aerial spray applications of flutolanil. Potential risks to birds 

and, thus, terrestrial-phase amphibians are evaluated using T-REX, acute and chronic toxicity 

data for the most sensitive bird species for which data are available, and the most sensitive 

dietary item and size class for that species. For terrestrial-phase amphibians, the most sensitive 

RQ in T-REX is for the small bird consuming small insects. For birds the most sensitive RQ in 

T-REX is for the small bird consuming short grass. The specific EECs for each species are for 

the same size birds and same dietary items as those considered for acute exposure. Chronic 

effects are estimated using the lowest available NOAEC from a chronic study for birds, 

amphibians, and reptiles. Dietary-based EECs are divided by toxicity values to estimate chronic 

dietary-based RQs. 

The acute dietary-based RQs for birds, reptiles and terrestrial-phase and amphibians derived 

using T-REX are shown in Table 4.7. The RQs in Table 4.7 are expressed as being “less than,” 

values due to the fact that they are based on a non-definitive “greater than,” LC50 estimates. 

While there is uncertainty in estimating risk from a non-definitive endpoint, even these upper 

bound RQs can be thought of as a “worst case,” scenario of risk as they represent what the RQ 

would be at most. 

The available acute oral toxicity study did not determine a definitive LD50 as there were no 

mortalities observed up to and including the highest treatment group (2000 mg a.i.kg-bw). 

Despite a LD50 not being achieved, some use modeled in T-REX estimate flutolanil residues 

several fold higher than the available toxicity study tested up to. While it cannot be definitively 

stated that there is a true LOC exceedance for acute dose-based risk to birds, some uses indicate 

the potential to exceed an acute LOC based on the fact that the true LD50 could lie anywhere 

above the 2000 mg a.i/kg-bw threshold.

Similarly, for acute dietary-based risk to birds, some uses indicate a potential to exceed the acute 

LOC despite there being no mortality effects up to treatment concentrations of >5243 mg a.i/kgdiet. Uses that have the potential to exceed the LOC are a result of uses that have repeated 

applications and the presence of residues greater than the highest concentration tested in the 

dietary study to be available. 

Chronic dietary-based RQs are tabulated in Table 4.8. These RQs were determined using 

definitive NOAEC values from available avian reproduction studies. There were 6 of 11 (55%) 

flutolanil uses that exceeded the dietary-based chronic LOC for at least one food item. As the 

available avian reproduction data show that a definitive NOAEC was determined, these 

exceedances have more certainty the acute RQs discussed earlier.

Table 4.7. Acute Dietary-Based RQs for Birds, Reptiles, and Terrestrial-phase 

Amphibians of Different Feeding Classes (T-REX v. 1.5.2).1,2 (Note: As a definitive acute 

dietary LC50 was not achieved for birds, “>”, all RQs presented in this table are preceded 
-Page 90 of 196-

with a “<.”)

Primary Feeding Strategy  Herbivores, Omnivores, and Granivores Insectivores

Dietary Items 

Short Grass Tall Grass Broad-leaf 

Plants

Fruits, 

pods, 

seeds, 

etc.

Arthropods

Use(s) 

Food crops

Brassica (Cole) Leafy Vegetables , plus Turnip 

Greens 0.04 0.02 0.02 <0.01 0.01

Peanuts (0.95 lb a.i/A, 1X) 0.04 0.02 0.02 <0.01 0.02

Peanuts (0.475 lb a.i/ A, 4X) 0.07 0.03 0.04 <0.01 0.03

Peanuts (0.95 lb a.i, 2X) 0.07 0.03 0.04 <0.01 0.03

Peanuts (2 lbs a.i/A) 0.09 0.04 0.05 0.01 0.04

Peanuts (1 lb a.i/A, 2X) 0.07 0.03 0.04 <0.01 0.03

Peanuts (0.5 lbs a.i/A, 4x) 0.07 0.03 0.04 <0.01 0.03

Peanuts (0.74 lbs a.i/A, 1X) 0.03 0.02 0.02 <0.01 0.01

Potatoes 0.04 0.02 0.02 <0.01 0.01

Rice (0.980 lbs a.i/A, 1X) 0.04 0.02 0.03 <0.01 0.02

Rice (0.490 lbs a.i/A, 2X) 0.04 0.02 0.02 <0.01 0.02

Turf Uses

Turf (golf courses, sod farms, spot fields, 

residential, institutional, municipal, and 

commercial areas

<0.69 <0.32 <0.39 0.04 <0.27

Golf course greens, tees, and aprons <1.21 <0.56 <0.68 0.08 <0.48

Golf course fairways (all states but FL) <0.45 <0.20 <0.25 0.03 <0.18

Golf course fairways (only in FL) <0.22 <0.10 <0.13 0.01 0.09

Ornamental lawns and turf; recreation area 

lawns, residential lawns <0.62 <0.28 <0.35 0.04 <0.24

Commercial and industrial lawns <0.75 <0.34 <0.42 0.05 <0.29

Nursery stock ornamentals and fruits (unspecified) uses

Nursery stock, ornamentals & fruits

(unspecified) (9.78 lbs a.i/A, 4X) <1.36 <0.62 <0.77 0.09 <0.53

Nursery stock, ornamentals & fruits

(unspecified) (2.1 lbs a.i/A, 2X) <0.17 0.08 <0.10 0.01 0.07

1

Italacized cells indicate that the RQ has the potential to exceed an LOC for acute risk to listed and nonlisted birds. 

See risk description section for more information. 2

Acute endangered species LOC = 0.1; acute restricted use LOC = 0.2; acute high risk LOC = 0.5
-Page 91 of 196-

Table 4.8. Chronic Dietary-Based RQs for Birds, Reptiles, and Terrestrial-phase 

Amphibians of Different Feeding Classes (T-REX v. 1.5.2).

1

Primary Feeding Strategy  Herbivores, Omnivores, and Granivores Insectivores

Dietary Items 

Short Grass Tall Grass Broad-leaf 

Plants

Fruits, 

pods, 

seeds, 

etc.

Arthropods

Use(s) 

Food crops

Brassica (Cole) Leafy Vegetables , plus Turnip 

Greens 0.10 0.04 0.05 0.01 0.04

Peanuts (0.95 lb a.i/A, 1X) 0.12 0.05 0.07 0.01 0.05

Peanuts (0.475 lb a.i/ A, 4X) 0.18 0.08 0.10 0.01 0.07

Peanuts (0.95 lb a.i, 2X) 0.20 0.09 0.11 0.01 0.08

Peanuts (2 lbs a.i/A) 0.25 0.11 0.14 0.02 0.10

Peanuts (1 lb a.i/A, 2X) 0.19 0.09 0.11 0.01 0.08

Peanuts (0.5 lbs a.i/A, 4x) 0.19 0.09 0.11 0.01 0.07

Peanuts (0.74 lbs a.i/A, 1X) 0.09 0.04 0.05 0.01 0.04

Potatoes 0.10 0.04 0.05 0.01 0.04

Rice (0.980 lbs a.i/A, 1X) 0.12 0.06 0.07 0.01 0.05

Rice (0.490 lbs a.i/A, 2X) 0.11 0.05 0.06 0.01 0.04

Turf Uses

Turf (golf courses, sod farms, spot fields, 

residential, institutional, municipal, and 

commercial areas

1.89 0.87 1.06 0.12 0.74

Golf course greens, tees, and aprons 3.31 1.52 1.86 0.21 1.30

Golf course fairways (all states but FL) 1.22 0.56 0.69 0.08 0.48

Golf course fairways (only in FL) 0.61 0.28 0.34 0.04 0.24

Ornamental lawns and turf; recreation area 

lawns, residential lawns 1.69 0.78 0.95 0.11 0.66

Commercial and industrial lawns 2.05 0.94 1.16 0.13 0.80

Nursery stock ornamentals and fruits (unspecified) uses

Nursery stock, ornamentals & fruits

(unspecified) (9.78 lbs a.i/A, 4X) 3.72 1.71 2.09 0.23 1.46

Nursery stock, ornamentals & fruits

(unspecified) (2.1 lbs a.i/A, 2X) 0.46 0.21 0.26 0.03 0.18

1

Bolded and shaded cells indicate that the RQ exceeds the LOC for chronic risk to listed and nonlisted birds (LOC = 

1).

The acute dose-based RQs for birds, reptiles and terrestrial-phase amphibians derived using TREX are shown in Table 4.9. The RQs in Table 4.9 are expressed as being “less than,” values 

due to the fact that they are based on a non-definitive “greater than,” LD50 estimates. While 

there is uncertainty in estimating risk from a non-definitive endpoint, even these upper bound

RQs can be thought of as a “worst case,” scenario of risk as they represent what the RQ would be 
-Page 92 of 196-

at most. There were 10 of 11 (91%) of flutolanil uses that resulted in the exceedance of at least 

one acute LOC for at least one size class of birds consuming flutolanil contaminated food items. 
-Page 93 of 196-

Table 4.9. Acute Dose-based RQ values for Birds Exposed to Flutolanil (T-REX v. 1.5.2).1,2,3 (Note: As a definitive acute oral 

LD50 was not achieved for birds, “>”, all RQs presented in this table are preceded with a “<.”

Primary 

Feeding 

Strategy 

Herbivores and Omnivores Insectivores Granivores

Animal Size  Sm Med Lg Sm Med Lg Sm Med Lg

Dietary Items 



Short Grass

Tall Grass

Broad-leaf 

Plants

Fruits, pods, 

seeds, etc.

Short Grass

Tall Grass

Broadleaf 

Plants

Fruits, pods, 

seeds, etc.

Short Grass

Tall Grass

Broadleaf 

Plants

Fruits, pods, 

seeds, etc.

Arthropods Seeds, grains, etc.

Use(s) 

Food crops

Brassica (Cole) 

Leafy 

Vegetables, plus 

Turnip Greens

<0.15 0.07 0.08 0.01 0.07 0.03 0.04 <0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.06 0.03 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Peanuts (0.95 lb 

a.i/A, 1X) <0.18 0.08 <0.10 0.01 0.08 0.04 0.05 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.07 0.03 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Peanuts (0.475 lb 

a.i/ A, 4X) <0.27 <0.13 <0.15 0.02 <0.12 0.06 0.07 0.01 0.04 0.02 0.02 <0.01 <0.11 0.05 0.02 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Peanuts (0.95 lb 

a.i, 2X) <0.30 <0.14 <0.17 0.02 <0.13 0.06 0.08 0.01 0.04 0.02 0.02 <0.01 <0.12 0.05 0.02 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Peanuts (2 lbs 

a.i/A) <0.38 <0.17 <0.21 0.02 <0.17 0.08 <0.10 0.01 0.05 0.02 0.03 <0.01 <0.15 0.07 0.02 0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Peanuts (1 lb 

a.i/A, 2X) <0.29 <0.13 <0.17 0.02 <0.13 0.06 0.07 0.01 0.04 0.02 0.02 <0.01 <0.12 0.05 0.02 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Peanuts (0.5 lbs 

a.i/A, 4x) <0.29 <0.13 <0.16 0.02 <0.13 0.06 0.07 0.01 0.04 0.02 0.02 <0.01 <0.11 0.05 0.02 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Peanuts (0.74 lbs

a.i/A, 1X) <0.14 0.06 0.08 0.01 0.06 0.03 0.04 <0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.06 0.02 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Potatoes <0.15 0.07 0.08 0.01 0.07 0.03 0.04 <0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.06 0.03 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Rice (0.980 lbs 

a.i/A, 1X) <0.19 0.09 <0.10 0.01 0.08 0.04 0.05 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.07 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00

Rice (0.490 lbs 

a.i/A, 2X) <0.17 0.08 <0.10 0.01 0.08 0.03 0.04 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.07 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00

Turf uses

Turf (golf 

courses, sod <2.87 <1.31 <1.61 <0.18 <1.28 <0.59 <0.72 0.08 <0.41 <0.19 <0.23 0.03 <1.12 <0.50 <0.16 0.04 0.02 0.01
-Page 94 of 196-

Primary 

Feeding 

Strategy 

Herbivores and Omnivores Insectivores Granivores

Animal Size  Sm Med Lg Sm Med Lg Sm Med Lg

Dietary Items 



Short Grass

Tall Grass

Broad-leaf 

Plants

Fruits, pods, 

seeds, etc.

Short Grass

Tall Grass

Broadleaf 

Plants

Fruits, pods, 

seeds, etc.

Short Grass

Tall Grass

Broadleaf 

Plants

Fruits, pods, 

seeds, etc.

Arthropods Seeds, grains, etc.

Use(s) 

farms, spot 

fields, residential, 

institutional, 

municipal, and 

commercial areas

Golf course 

greens, tees, and 

aprons

<5.03 <2.31 <2.83 <0.31 <2.25 <1.03 <1.27 <0.14 <0.71 <0.33 <0.40 0.04 <1.97 <0.88 <0.28 0.07 0.03 0.01

Golf course 

fairways (all 

states but FL)

<1.85 <0.85 <1.04 <0.12 <0.83 <0.38 <0.47 0.05 <0.26 <0.12 <0.15 0.02 <0.73 <0.33 <0.10 0.03 0.01 <0.01

Golf course 

fairways (only in 

FL)

<0.93 <0.42 <0.52 0.06 <0.41 <0.19 <0.23 0.03 <0.13 0.06 0.07 0.01 <0.36 <0.16 0.05 0.01 0.01 <0.01

Ornamental 

lawns and turf; 

recreation area 

lawns, residential 

lawns

<2.57 <1.18 <1.44 <0.16 <1.15 <0.53 <0.65 0.07 <0.36 <0.17 <0.21 0.02 <1.01 <0.45 <0.14 0.04 0.02 0.01

Commercial and 

industrial lawns <3.12 <1.43 <1.75 <0.19 <1.40 <0.64 <0.79 0.09 <0.44 <0.20 <0.25 0.03 <1.22 <0.55 <0.17 0.04 0.02 0.01

Nursery stock ornamentals and fruits (unspecified) uses

Nursery stock, 

ornamentals & 

fruits

(unspecified)

(9.78 lbs a.i/A, 

4X)

<5.65 <2.59 <3.18 <0.35 <2.53 <1.16 <1.42 <0.16 <0.80 <0.37 <0.45 0.05 <2.21 <0.99 <0.31 0.08 0.04 0.01

Nursery stock, 

ornamentals & 

fruits

<0.70 <0.32 <0.39 0.04 <0.31 <0.14 <0.18 0.02 <0.10 0.05 0.06 0.01 <0.27 <0.12 0.04 0.01 <0.01 <0.01
-Page 95 of 196-

Primary 

Feeding 

Strategy 

Herbivores and Omnivores Insectivores Granivores

Animal Size  Sm Med Lg Sm Med Lg Sm Med Lg

Dietary Items 



Short Grass

Tall Grass

Broad-leaf 

Plants

Fruits, pods, 

seeds, etc.

Short Grass

Tall Grass

Broadleaf 

Plants

Fruits, pods, 

seeds, etc.

Short Grass

Tall Grass

Broadleaf 

Plants

Fruits, pods, 

seeds, etc.

Arthropods Seeds, grains, etc.

Use(s) 

(unspecified) (2.1 

lbs a.i/A, 2X) 1

Italicized cells indicate that the RQ as the potential to exceed an LOC for acute risk to listed and nonlisted bird. See Risk Description section more for more 

information.

2

Using adjusted LD50values of 1283, 1634, and 2308 for small, medium, and large birds, respectively. 3

Acute endangered species LOC = 0.1; acute restricted use LOC = 0.2; acute high risk LOC = 0.5
-Page 96 of 196-

Potential risks to mammals are evaluated using T-REX, acute and chronic toxicity data for 

laboratory rats, and the most sensitive dietary item and size class for that species. For mammals

the most sensitive RQ in T-REX is for the small mammal consuming short grass. The specific 

EECs for each species are for the same size mammals and same dietary items as those considered 

for acute exposure. Chronic effects are estimated using the lowest available NOAEC from a 

chronic study for mammals. Dietary-based EECs are divided by toxicity values to estimate 

chronic dietary-based RQs. 

The acute and chronic dose-based and dietary-based RQs for mammals are tabulated below in 

Tables 4.10, 4.11, and 4.12, respectively. The RQs in Table 4.10 ,Table 4.11, and Table 4.12

are expressed as being “less than,” values due to the fact that they are based on a non-definitive 

“greater than,” LD50 and NOAEL estimates, respectively. While there is uncertainty in 

estimating risk from a non-definitive endpoint, even these upper bound RQs can be thought of as 

a “worst case,” scenario of risk as they represent what the RQ would be at most.

The available acute oral toxicity study for mammals did not determine a definitive LD50 as there 

were no mortalities observed up to and including the highest treatment group (10000 mg a.i/kgbw). Despite a LD50 not being achieved, some uses modeled in T-REX estimate flutolanil 

residues several fold higher than the available toxicity study tested up to (when repeated 

applications and the persistence of flutolanil are taken into account; e.g. 8141 mg a.i/kg-bw for a 

small bird eating short grass in the a nursery stock scenario). While it cannot be definitively 

stated that there is a true LOC exceedance for acute dose-based risk to mammals, some uses 

indicate the potential to exceed an acute LOC based on the fact that the true LD50 could lie 

anywhere above the 10000 mg a.i/kg-bw threshold.

Similarly, for chronic dose and dietary-based risk to birds, some uses indicate a potential to 

exceed the chronic LOC despite there being no effects up to treatment concentrations of 20,000 

mg a.i/kg-diet, equivalent to 1936 mg a.i/kg-diet. Uses that have the potential to exceed the 

LOC are a result of uses that have repeated applications and the presence of residues greater than 

the highest concentration tested in the chronic study to be available.

Chronic dose-based RQs are tabulated in Table 4.11. Chronic dietary-based RQs are presented 

in Table 4.12. There were no uses of flutolanil that had the potential to exceed the chronic LOC 

when expressed as dietary-based RQs.
-Page 97 of 196-

Table 4.10. Acute Dose-based RQ values for Mammals Exposed to Flutolanil (T-REX v. 1.5.2)

1,2,3 (Note: As a definitive acute 

oral LD50 was not achieved for mammals, “>”, all RQs presented in this table are preceded with a“<.”

Primary 

Feeding 

Strategy 

Herbivores and Omnivores Insectivores Granivores

Animal Size  Sm Med Lg Sm Med Lg Sm Med Lg

Dietary Items 



Short Grass

Tall Grass

Broad-leaf 

Plants

Fruits, pods, 

seeds, etc.

Short Grass

Tall Grass

Broadleaf 

Plants

Fruits, pods, 

seeds, etc.

Short Grass

Tall Grass

Broadleaf 

Plants

Fruits, pods, 

seeds, etc.

Arthropods Seeds, grains, etc.

Use(s) 

Food crops

Brassica (Cole) 

Leafy Vegetables 

, plus Turnip 

Greens

0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 <0.01 0.00 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Peanuts (0.95 lb 

a.i/A, 1X) 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.00 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Peanuts (0.475 lb 

a.i/ A, 4X) 0.02 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Peanuts (0.95 lb 

a.i, 2X) 0.02 0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Peanuts (2 lbs 

a.i/A) 0.02 0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Peanuts (1 lb 

a.i/A, 2X) 0.02 0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Peanuts (0.5 lbs 

a.i/A, 4x) 0.02 0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Peanuts (0.74 lbs

a.i/A, 1X) 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.00 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Potatoes 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.00 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Rice (0.980 lbs 

a.i/A, 1X) 0.01 <0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Rice (0.490 lbs 

a.i/A, 2X) 0.01 <0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Turf uses

Turf (golf 

courses, sod <0.16 0.07 0.09 0.01 <0.13 0.06 0.08 0.01 0.07 0.03 0.04 <0.01 0.06 0.05 0.03 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
-Page 98 of 196-

Primary 

Feeding 

Strategy 

Herbivores and Omnivores Insectivores Granivores

Animal Size  Sm Med Lg Sm Med Lg Sm Med Lg

Dietary Items 



Short Grass

Tall Grass

Broad-leaf 

Plants

Fruits, pods, 

seeds, etc.

Short Grass

Tall Grass

Broadleaf 

Plants

Fruits, pods, 

seeds, etc.

Short Grass

Tall Grass

Broadleaf 

Plants

Fruits, pods, 

seeds, etc.

Arthropods Seeds, grains, etc.

Use(s) 

farms, spot fields, 

residential, 

institutional, 

municipal, and 

commercial areas

Golf course 

greens, tees, and 

aprons

<0.28 <0.13 <0.16 0.02 <0.24 <0.11 <0.13 0.01 <0.13 0.06 0.07 <0.01 <0.11 0.09 0.05 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Golf course 

fairways (all 

states but FL)

<0.10 0.05 0.06 0.01 0.09 0.04 0.05 0.01 0.05 0.02 0.03 <0.01 0.04 0.03 0.02 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Golf course 

fairways (only in 

FL)

0.05 0.02 0.03 <0.01 0.04 0.02 0.02 <0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.02 0.02 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Ornamental lawns 

and turf; 

recreation area 

lawns, residential 

lawns

<0.14 0.06 0.08 0.01 <0.12 0.06 0.07 <0.01 0.06 0.03 0.04 <0.01 0.06 0.05 0.03 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Commercial and 

industrial lawns <0.17 0.08 <0.10 0.01 <0.15 0.07 0.08 <0.01 0.08 0.04 0.04 <0.01 0.07 0.06 0.03 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Nursery stock ornamentals and fruits (unspecified) uses

Nursery stock, 

ornamentals & 

fruits

(unspecified)

(9.78 lbs a.i/A,

4X)

<0.31 <0.14 <0.17 0.02 <0.26 <0.12 <0.15 0.02 <0.14 0.07 0.08 0.01 <0.12 <0.10 0.06 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Nursery stock, 

ornamentals & 

fruits 

0.04 0.02 0.02 <0.01 0.03 0.02 0.02 <0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
-Page 99 of 196-

Primary 

Feeding 

Strategy 

Herbivores and Omnivores Insectivores Granivores

Animal Size  Sm Med Lg Sm Med Lg Sm Med Lg

Dietary Items 



Short Grass

Tall Grass

Broad-leaf 

Plants

Fruits, pods, 

seeds, etc.

Short Grass

Tall Grass

Broadleaf 

Plants

Fruits, pods, 

seeds, etc.

Short Grass

Tall Grass

Broadleaf 

Plants

Fruits, pods, 

seeds, etc.

Arthropods Seeds, grains, etc.

Use(s) 

(unspecified) (2.1 

lbs a.i/A, 2X) 1

Italacized cells indicate that the RQ has the potential to exceed an LOC for acute risk to listed and nonlisted mammals. Se Risk Description section for more 

information.

2

Using adjusted LD50 values of 9011, 7291, and 3154 for small, medium, and large mammals, respectively. 3

Acute endangered species LOC = 0.1; acute restricted use LOC = 0.2; acute high risk LOC = 0.5

Table 4.11. Chronic Dose-based RQ Values for Mammals Exposed to Flutolanil (T-REX v.1.5.2).1,2,3

Primary Feeding 

Strategy  Herbivores and Omnivores Insectivores Granivores

Animal Size  Sm Med Lg Sm Med Lg Sm Med Lg

Dietary Items 

Short Grass

Tall Grass

Broad-leaf 

Plants

Fruits, pods, 

seeds, etc.

Short Grass

Tall Grass

Broadleaf 

Plants

Fruits, pods, 

seeds, etc.

Short Grass

Tall Grass

Broadleaf 

Plants

Fruits, pods, 

seeds, etc.

Arthropods Seeds, grains, etc.

Use(s) 

Food crops

Brassica (Cole) Leafy 

Vegetables , plus 

Turnip Greens

0.04 0.02 0.02 <0.01 0.04 0.02 0.02 <0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Peanuts (0.95 lb a.i/A, 

1X) 0.05 0.02 0.03 <0.01 0.04 0.02 0.02 <0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.02 0.02 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Peanuts (0.475 lb a.i/ 

A, 4X) 0.08 0.04 0.04 <0.01 0.07 0.03 0.04 <0.01 0.04 0.02 0.02 <0.01 0.03 0.03 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Peanuts (0.95 lb a.i, 

2X) 0.16 0.08 0.09 0.01 0.14 0.06 0.08 0.01 0.08 0.03 0.04 <0.01 0.06 0.05 0.03 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
-Page 100 of 196-

Primary Feeding 

Strategy  Herbivores and Omnivores Insectivores Granivores

Animal Size  Sm Med Lg Sm Med Lg Sm Med Lg

Dietary Items 

Short Grass

Tall Grass

Broad-leaf 

Plants

Fruits, pods, 

seeds, etc.

Short Grass

Tall Grass

Broadleaf 

Plants

Fruits, pods, 

seeds, etc.

Short Grass

Tall Grass

Broadleaf 

Plants

Fruits, pods, 

seeds, etc.

Arthropods Seeds, grains, etc.

Use(s) 

Peanuts (2 lbs a.i/A) 0.11 0.05 0.06 0.01 0.09 0.04 0.05 0.01 0.05 0.02 0.03 <0.01 0.04 0.04 0.02 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Peanuts (1 lb a.i/A, 

2X) 0.08 0.04 0.05 0.01 0.07 0.03 0.04 <0.01 0.04 0.02 0.02 <0.01 0.03 0.03 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Peanuts (0.5 lbs a.i/A, 

4x) 0.08 0.04 0.05 0.01 0.07 0.03 0.04 <0.01 0.04 0.02 0.02 <0.01 0.03 0.03 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Peanuts (0.74 lbs

a.i/A, 1X) 0.04 0.02 0.02 <0.01 0.03 0.02 0.02 <0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Potatoes 0.04 0.02 0.02 <0.01 0.04 0.02 0.02 <0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Rice (0.980 lbs a.i/A, 

1X) 0.05 0.02 0.03 <0.01 0.05 0.02 0.03 <0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.02 0.02 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Rice (0.490 lbs a.i/A, 

2X) 0.05 0.02 0.03 <0.01 0.04 0.02 0.02 <0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.02 0.02 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Turf uses

Turf (golf courses, sod 

farms, spot fields, 

residential, 

institutional, 

municipal, and 

commercial areas

0.81 0.37 0.46 0.05 0.69 0.32 0.39 0.04 0.37 0.17 0.21 0.02 0.32 0.27 0.15 0.01 0.01 0.01

Golf course greens, 

tees, and aprons <1.43 0.65 0.80 0.09 <1.22 0.56 0.69 0.08 0.65 0.30 0.37 0.04 0.56 0.48 0.26 0.02 0.02 0.01

Golf course fairways 

(all states but FL) 0.53 0.24 0.30 0.03 0.45 0.21 0.25 0.03 0.24 0.11 0.14 0.02 0.21 0.18 0.09 0.01 0.01 <0.01

Golf course fairways 

(only in FL) 0.26 0.12 0.15 0.02 0.22 0.10 0.13 0.01 0.12 0.06 0.07 0.01 0.10 0.09 0.05 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Ornamental lawns and 

turf; recreation area 

lawns, residential 

lawns

0.73 0.33 0.41 0.05 0.62 0.28 0.35 0.04 0.33 0.15 0.19 0.02 0.29 0.24 0.13 0.01 0.01 <0.01

Commercial and 

industrial lawns 0.88 0.41 0.50 0.06 0.76 0.35 0.42 0.05 0.40 0.19 0.23 0.03 0.35 0.30 0.16 0.01 0.01 <0.01
-Page 101 of 196-

Primary Feeding 

Strategy  Herbivores and Omnivores Insectivores Granivores

Animal Size  Sm Med Lg Sm Med Lg Sm Med Lg

Dietary Items 

Short Grass

Tall Grass

Broad-leaf 

Plants

Fruits, pods, 

seeds, etc.

Short Grass

Tall Grass

Broadleaf 

Plants

Fruits, pods, 

seeds, etc.

Short Grass

Tall Grass

Broadleaf 

Plants

Fruits, pods, 

seeds, etc.

Arthropods Seeds, grains, etc.

Use(s) 

Nursery stock ornamentals and fruits (unspecified) uses

Nursery stock, 

ornamentals & fruits

(unspecified) (9.78 lbs

a.i/A, 4X)

<3.10 <1.42 <1.74 0.19 <2.65 <1.21 <1.49 0.17 <1.42 0.65 0.80 0.09 <1.21 <1.04 0.56 0.04 0.04 0.02

Nursery stock, 

ornamentals & fruits 

(unspecified) (2.1 lbs

a.i/A, 2X)

0.38 0.18 0.22 0.02 0.33 0.15 0.18 0.02 0.18 0.08 0.10 0.01 0.15 0.13 0.07 0.01 <0.01 <0.01

1

Italacized cells indicate that the RQ has the potential to exceed an LOC for acute risk to listed and nonlisted mammals. Se Risk Description section for more 

information.

2

Using adjusted NOAEL values of 23.30, 18.85, and 8.15 for small, medium, and large mammals, respectively. 3

Chronic risk LOC = 1.
-Page 102 of 196-

Table 4.12. Chronic Dietary-Based RQs for Mammals of Exposed to Flutolanil (T-REX 

v.1.5.2). 1,2

Primary Feeding Strategy  Herbivores, Omnivores, and Granivores Insectivores

Dietary Items 

Short Grass Tall Grass Broad-leaf 

Plants

Fruits, 

pods, 

seeds, 

etc.

Arthropods

Use(s) 

Food crops

Brassica (Cole) Leafy Vegetables , plus Turnip 

Greens 0.01 <0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Peanuts (0.95 lb a.i/A, 1X) 0.01 0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Peanuts (0.475 lb a.i/ A, 4X) 0.02 0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.01

Peanuts (0.95 lb a.i, 2X) 0.02 0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.01

Peanuts (2 lbs a.i/A) 0.02 0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.01

Peanuts (1 lb a.i/A, 2X) 0.02 0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.01

Peanuts (0.5 lbs a.i/A, 4x) 0.02 0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.01

Peanuts (0.74 lbs a.i/A, 1X) 0.01 <0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Potatoes 0.01 <0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Rice (0.980 lbs a.i/A, 1X) 0.01 0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Rice (0.490 lbs a.i/A, 2X) 0.01 <0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Turf Uses

Turf (golf courses, sod farms, spot fields, 

residential, institutional, municipal, and 

commercial areas

0.18 0.08 0.10 0.01 0.07

Golf course greens, tees, and aprons 0.32 0.15 0.18 0.02 0.12

Golf course fairways (all states but FL) 0.12 0.05 0.07 0.01 0.05

Golf course fairways (only in FL) 0.06 0.03 0.03 <0.01 0.02

Ornamental lawns and turf; recreation area 

lawns, residential lawns 0.16 0.07 0.09 0.01 0.06

Commercial and industrial lawns 0.20 0.09 0.11 0.01 0.08

Nursery stock ornamentals and fruits (unspecified) uses

Nursery stock, ornamentals & fruits

(unspecified) (9.78 lbs a.i/A, 4X) 0.36 0.16 0.20 0.02 0.14

Nursery stock, ornamentals & fruits

(unspecified) (2.1 lbs a.i/A, 2X) 0.04 0.02 0.02 <0.01 0.02

1

Bolded and shaded cells indicate that the RQ exceeds an LOC for acute risk to listed and nonlisted mammals. 2

Chronic risk LOC = 1, NOAEL used for RQ estimation was 20,000 ppm.
-Page 103 of 196-

Table 4.13 summarizes the acute and chronic RQs for birds and mammals resulting from the 

seed treatment uses of flutolanil. For the avian acute and mammalian acute and chronic RQs, 

non-definitive (i.e. “>”) endpoints were used in the risk estimation and therefore the resultant 

RQs are preceded with an “<,” that represent an upper bound, “worst case,” scenario of risk. 

There was no acute or chronic risk above the LOC indicated for bird and mammals resulting 

from the seed treatment uses of flutolanil. 
-Page 104 of 196-

Table 4.13. Acute and Chronic RQs for Birds and Mammals Resulting from Seed-Treatment uses of Flutolanil1

Use

Birds Mammals

Acute

Chronic

Acute

Small Medium Large Small Medium Large Chronic

RQ1 RQ2 RQ1 RQ2 RQ1 RQ2 RQ1 RQ2 RQ1 RQ2 RQ1 RQ2

Cotton 0.08 <0.01 0.04 <0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.25 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Small 0.02

Medium 0.02

Large 0.01

Soybean 0.08 0.03 0.04 <0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.25 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Small 0.02

Medium 0.02

Large 0.01

Sugarbeet 0.08 <0.01 0.04 <0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.25 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Small 0.02

Medium 0.02

Large 0.01

Potato <0.01 0.02 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Small <0.01

Medium <0.01

Large <0.01

RQ#1 = mg a.i/kg-bw-day/LD50

RQ#2 = mg a.i ft2

/(LD50*bw)

Avian chronic RQ = mg kg-1 seed/NOAEL

Mammalian chronic = mg a.i/kg-bw/day/adjusted NOAEL 1

Acute endangered species LOC = 0.1; acute restricted use LOC = 0.2; acute high risk LOC = 0.5; chronic LOC = 1
-Page 105 of 196-

Risk to terrestrial plants in dry areas and semi-aquatic areas resulting from runoff and spray drift 

of flutolanil was estimated using the TerrPlant (v.1.2.2) model. The TerrPlant derived EECs are 

compared to the most sensitive monocot and dicot EC25 to generate a non-listed species RQ and 

compared to the most sensitive NOAEC or EC05 to generate a listed species RQ. The listed and 

non-listed terrestrial plant LOC is 1. For vegetative vigor, the most sensitive monocot was 

ryegrass based on significant effects on weight at all concentrations. An EC25 and NOAEC was 

therefore not able to be established definitively and so risk to listed monocots resulting from 

spray drift was not able to be assessed. For dicots, there was not a most sensitive species 

determined based on lack of toxicity and therefore the EC25 was a “>” value. Consequently, all 

nonlisted dicots RQs in Table 4.15 in the spray drift only estimates will be preceded by a “<.

All endpoints from the seedling emergence study were definitive.

Table 4.14. RQs for Nontarget Monocots Adjacent to Flutolanil Use Areas1

Crop

Single Max. 

Application 

Rate

(lbs ai/A)

Monocot RQ Values

Spray Drift Only

Runoff and 

Spray Drift 

(Dry Areas)

Runoff and 

Spray Drift

(Semi-Aquatic Areas)

Nonlisted 

Species

Listed 

Species

Nonlisted 

Species

Listed 

Species

Nonlisted 

Species

Listed 

Species

Food crops

Brassica (Cole) Leafy 

Vegetables , plus 

Turnip Greens

0.772 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Peanuts (ground) 0.475 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Peanuts (aerial or 

chemigation) 0.475 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Peanuts (ground) 0.5 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Peanuts (aerial or 

chemigation) 0.5 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Peanuts1 0.742 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Peanuts (ground) 0.95 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Peanuts (aerial or 

chemigation) 0.95 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Peanuts (ground) 1.0 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Peanuts (aerial or 

chemigation) 1.0 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Peanuts (ground) 2.0 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.10

Peanuts (aerial or 

chemigation) 2.0 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.14

Potatoes2 0.77 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Rice (aerial) 0.980 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Rice (aerial) 0.490 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Rice (ground) 0.980 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Rice (ground) 0.490 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
-Page 106 of 196-

Crop

Single Max. 

Application 

Rate

(lbs ai/A)

Monocot RQ Values

Spray Drift Only

Runoff and 

Spray Drift 

(Dry Areas)

Runoff and 

Spray Drift

(Semi-Aquatic Areas)

Nonlisted 

Species

Listed 

Species

Nonlisted 

Species

Listed 

Species

Nonlisted 

Species

Listed 

Species

Turf uses

Turf (golf courses, 

sod farms, spot fields, 

residential, 

institutional, 

municipal, and 

commercial areas

8.6 0.12 0.14 0.23 0.35 0.59

Golf course greens, 

tees, and aprons 8.56 0.12 0.14 0.23 0.35 0.58

Golf course fairways 

(all states but FL) 9.77 0.13 0.16 0.27 0.40 0.67

Golf course fairways 

(only in FL) 4.88 <0.1 <0.1 0.13 0.20 0.33

Ornamental lawns and 

turf; recreation area 

lawns, residential 

lawns

4.94 0.1 <0.1 0.13 0.20 0.34

Commercial and 

industrial lawns 5.94 <0.1 <0.1 0.16 0.24 0.41

Nursery stock ornamentals and fruits (unspecified) uses

Nursery stock, 

ornamentals & fruits

(unspecified)

9.78 0.13 0.16 0.27 0.40 0.67

Nursery stock, 

ornamentals & fruits 

(unspecified)

2.10 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.14

N/D = Not determined 1

LOCfor listed and non-listed species = 1

Table 4.15. RQs for Nontarget Dicot Adjacent to Flutolanil Use Areas1

Crop

Single Max. 

Application 

Rate

(lbs ai/A)

Dicot RQ Values2

Spray Drift Only

Runoff and 

Spray Drift 

(Dry Areas)

Runoff and 

Spray Drift

(Semi-Aquatic Areas)

Nonlisted 

Species

Listed 

Species

Nonlisted 

Species

Listed 

Species

Nonlisted 

Species

Listed 

Species

Food crops

Brassica (Cole) Leafy 

Vegetables , plus 

Turnip Greens

0.772 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.16

Peanuts (ground) 0.475 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Peanuts (aerial or 

chemigation) 0.475 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.13

Peanuts (ground) 0.5 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.1

Peanuts (aerial or 

chemigation) 0.5 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.14

Peanuts1 0.742 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.15
-Page 107 of 196-

Crop

Single Max. 

Application 

Rate

(lbs ai/A)

Dicot RQ Values2

Spray Drift Only

Runoff and 

Spray Drift 

(Dry Areas)

Runoff and 

Spray Drift

(Semi-Aquatic Areas)

Nonlisted 

Species

Listed 

Species

Nonlisted 

Species

Listed 

Species

Nonlisted 

Species

Listed 

Species

Peanuts (ground) 0.95 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.19

Peanuts (aerial or 

chemigation) 0.95 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.11 <0.1 0.26

Peanuts (ground) 1.0 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.20

Peanuts (aerial or 

chemigation) 1.0 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.11 0.10 0.28

Peanuts (ground) 2.0 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.15 0.41

Peanuts (aerial or 

chemigation) 2.0 <0.01 0.19 <0.1 0.22 0.21 0.56

Potatoes2 0.77 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Rice (aerial) 0.980 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.11 0.10 0.27

Rice (aerial) 0.490 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.14

Rice (ground) 0.980 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.20

Rice (ground) 0.490 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Turf uses

Turf (golf courses, 

sod farms, spot fields, 

residential, 

institutional, 

municipal, and 

commercial areas

8.6 0.30 0.80 0.36 0.96 0.89 2.39

Golf course greens, 

tees, and aprons 8.56 0.30 0.79 0.35 0.95 0.89 2.38

Golf course fairways 

(all states but FL) 9.77 0.34 0.90 0.40 1.09 1.01 2.71

Golf course fairways 

(only in FL) 4.88 0.17 0.45 0.20 0.54 0.50 1.36

Ornamental lawns 

and turf; recreation 

area lawns, residential 

lawns

4.94 0.17 0.46 0.20 0.55 0.51 1.37

Commercial and 

industrial lawns 5.94 0.20 0.55 0.25 0.66 0.61 1.65

Nursery stock ornamentals and fruits (unspecified) uses

Nursery stock, 

ornamentals & fruits 

(unspecified)

9.78 0.34 0.91 0.40 1.09 1.01 2.72

Nursery stock, 

ornamentals & fruits 

(unspecified)

2.10 <0.01 0.19 <0.1 0.23 0.22 0.58

N/D = Not determined 1

LOC for listed and non-listed species = 1
-Page 108 of 196-

4.1.4. Bioaccumulation Analysis Results

KABAM was used to calculate risk quotients from a bioaccumulation pathway for food items 

that may be consumed by birds and mammals for the modeled scenarios of flutolanil. (Table 

4.16 – 4.20). There were no scenarios that resulted in RQs that exceeded the chronic LOC for 

dose or dietary based risk to birds or mammals. For the scenario that resulted in the highest 

exposure (nursery stock, NJ nursery scenario, soil drench application), there were acute LOCs 

for mammals exceeded, however for birds there were two species exceeding all acute LOCs for 

dose based risk (sandpipers and rails), and all avian species exceeded the acute endangered 

species LOC with one species meeting the acute restricted use LOC. The nursery stock scenario 

as a ground spray application and the rice scenario as an aerial application similarly had acute 

dose based exceedances of one or more acute LOC for birds for sandpipers and rails but no 

dietary based risk above the LOC was indicated. There were no acute LOC exceedances for the 

turf or peanut scenarios.

It is important to note that all acute avian and mammalian RQs are estimated using a nondefinitive endpoint, that is a “>” value in which an LD50/LC50 was not achieved and therefore 

are preceded with a “<”. As with the acute avian and mammalian RQs, as non-definitive 

endpoints were reached in these studies, RQs indicated as having the potential to exceed the 

acute LOC are indicated with italics. Further details can be found in the risk description section.

Table 4.16. Summary of RQ Values for Mammals and Birds Consuming Fish 

Contaminated by Flutolanil Resulting from the Soil Drench Use on Nursery Stock1,2

Wildlife Species Acute Chronic

Dose Based Dietary Based Dose Based Dietary Based

Mammalian

Fog/water shrew <0.03 0.30 0.05

Rice rat/star nosed 

mole <0.03 0.32 0.05

Small mink <0.03 0.25 0.04

Large mink <0.03 0.28 0.04

Small river otter <0.03 0.30 0.04

Large river otter <0.02 0.21 0.03

Avian

Sandpipers <0.95 <0.18 0.49

Cranes <0.05 <0.17 0.45

Rails <0.49 <0.20 0.56

Herons <0.07 <0.18 0.49

Small osprey <0.08 <0.15 0.42

White pelican <0.02 <0.10 0.28

N/A = Not applicable

1

Acute endangered species LOC = 0.1; acute restricted use LOC = 0.2; acute high risk LOC = 0.5; chronic risk LOC 

=1.

2

RQs having the potential to exceed the acute LOC are indicated with italics. Further information in the risk 

description section.
-Page 109 of 196-

Table 4.17. Summary of RQ Values for Mammals and Birds Consuming Fish 

Contaminated by Flutolanil Resulting from the Ground Spray Use on Nursery Stock1,2

Wildlife Species Acute Chronic

Dose Based Dietary Based Dose Based Dietary Based

Mammalian

Fog/water shrew <0.01 0.14 0.03

Rice rat/star nosed 

mole <0.02 0.15 0.02

Small mink <0.01 0.12 0.02

Large mink <0.01 0.13 0.02

Small river otter <0.01 0.14 0.02

Large river otter <0.01 0.10 0.01

Avian

Sandpipers <0.44 <0.08 0.23

Cranes <0.02 <0.08 0.21

Rails <0.23 <0.09 0.26

Herons <0.03 <0.08 0.23

Small osprey <0.04 <0.07 0.19

White pelican <0.01 <0.05 0.13

N/A = Not applicable

1

Acute endangered species LOC = 0.1; acute restricted use LOC = 0.2; acute high risk LOC = 0.5; chronic risk LOC 

=1.

2

RQs having the potential to exceed the acute LOC are indicated with italics. Further information in the risk 

description section.

Table 4.18. Summary of RQ Values for Mammals and Birds Consuming Fish 

Contaminated by Flutolanil Resulting from the Ground Spray use on Golf Courses1

Wildlife Species Acute Chronic

Dose Based Dietary Based Dose Based Dietary Based

Mammalian

Fog/water shrew <0.01 0.01 <0.01

Rice rat/star nosed 

mole <0.01 0.02 <0.01

Small mink <0.01 0.01 <0.01

Large mink <0.01 0.01 <0.01

Small river otter <0.01 0.01 <0.01

Large river otter <0.01 0.01 <0.01

Avian

Sandpipers <0.04 <0.01 0.02

Cranes <0.01 <0.01 0.02

Rails <0.02 <0.01 0.03

Herons <0.01 <0.01 0.02

Small osprey <0.01 <0.01 0.02

White pelican <0.01 <0.01 0.01

N/A = Not applicable

1

Acute endangered species LOC = 0.1; acute restricted use LOC = 0.2; acute high risk LOC = 0.5; chronic risk LOC 

=1.
-Page 110 of 196-

Table 4.19. Summary of RQ Values for Mammals and Birds Consuming Fish 

Contaminated by Flutolanil Resulting from the Aerial use on Rice1,2

Wildlife Species Acute Chronic

Dose Based Dietary Based Dose Based Dietary Based

Mammalian

Fog/water shrew <0.01 0.07 0.01

Rice rat/star nosed 

mole <0.01 0.08 0.01

Small mink <0.01 0.06 0.01

Large mink <0.01 0.07 0.01

Small river otter <0.01 0.07 0.01

Large river otter <0.01 0.05 <0.01

Avian

Sandpipers <0.23 <0.04 0.12

Cranes <0.01 <0.04 0.11

Rails <0.12 <0.05 0.13

Herons <0.02 <0.04 0.12

Small osprey <0.02 <0.04 0.10

White pelican <0.01 <0.03 0.07

N/A = Not applicable

1

Acute endangered species LOC = 0.1; acute restricted use LOC = 0.2; acute high risk LOC = 0.5; chronic risk LOC 

=1.

2

RQs having the potential to exceed the acute LOC are indicated with italics. Further information in the risk 

description section.

Table 4.20. Summary of RQ Values for Mammals and Birds Consuming Fish 

Contaminated by Flutolanil Resulting from the Aerial Use on Peanuts1

Wildlife Species Acute Chronic

Dose Based Dietary Based Dose Based Dietary Based

Mammalian

Fog/water shrew <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Rice rat/star nosed 

mole <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Small mink <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Large mink <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Small river otter <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Large river otter <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Avian

Sandpipers <0.03 <0.01 0.01

Cranes <0.01 <0.01 0.01

Rails <0.01 <0.01 0.02

Herons <0.01 <0.01 0.01

Small osprey <0.01 <0.01 0.01

White pelican <0.01 <0.01 0.01

N/A = Not applicable

1

Acute endangered species LOC = 0.1; acute restricted use LOC = 0.2; acute high risk LOC = 0.5; chronic risk LOC 

=1.
-Page 111 of 196-

4.2. Risk Description

4.2.1. Risks to Aquatic Organisms 

Flutolanil is a persistent chemical under most dissipation pathways evaluated. It is expected to 

dissipate slowly mainly through aerobic soil metabolism, with half-lives of 190-320 days. 

Further the chemical did not show any major metabolites in the laboratory studies (<10% of the 

applied). Field dissipation studies appear to indicate that in the field various dissipation 

processes may occur. There are several terrestrial field dissipation studies and a long term study, 

which show half-lives of 27-126 days (excluding the second half-life calculated for one of the 

studies for which a biphasic pattern was observed). Aquatic field dissipation studies yielded also 

a wide range of half-lives of 63-303 and parent flutolanil remained mainly in the sediment. 

When flutolanil is applied to the field, it is expected to reach crop canopy (via foliar applications 

or translocated since it is a systemic pesticide), and the soil (through incorporation in planted 

seeds, or foliar applications). Flutolanil may be transported to surface water through erosion of 

soil particles containing bound flutolanil or dissolved in runoff water. It is worth noting that the 

21-day and 60-day EEC modeled for flutolanil (all uses) are only marginally reduced from that 

of the peak concentration due to flutolanil’s persistence in the aquatic media. 

4.2.1.1. Freshwater Fish and Aquatic–Phase Amphibians

The results of this screening-level risk assessment indicate that 3 of 10 (30%) of all assessed uses 

of flutolanil have the potential for direct adverse effects to listed species of freshwater fish on an 

acute basis. There are 2 of 10 (20%) uses that have the potential for direct adverse effects to 

non-listed species of freshwater fish on an acute basis for at least one modeled scenario. There 

are 5 of 10 (50%) of uses that have the potential for direct adverse effects to listed species for at 

least one modeled scenario. Acute RQs for freshwater fish across all uses ranged from <0.01 –

1.88. 

There were no ecological incidents reported for freshwater fish resulting from the use of 

flutolanil. For risk assessment purposes, freshwater fish serve as surrogates for aquatic-phase 

amphibians. While the carp was the most sensitive freshwater fish species tested and is therefore 

used in risk estimation, there were three other species tested, the rainbow trout, bluegill sunfish, 

and fathead minnow. These studies yielded LC50 values that were 5.4, >5.4, and 4.8 mg a.i/L, 

respectively. The values approach the solubility limit of flutolanil of 6.53 mg/L. It’s also worth 

noting that were no EECs derived from any PRZM/EXAMS scenario that exceeded the solubility 

limit of flutolanil.

Chronic RQs for freshwater fish exceeded the LOC for at least one scenario for 2 of 10 flutolanil 

uses (20%) (rice and nursery stock uses). The NOAEC for the chronic freshwater fish was based

on significant reductions in length. There were no behavioral effects noted during the study and 

total mortality was observed in the highest concentration (1.9 mg a.i/L) by the end of the study. 

Chronic RQs ranged from <0.01 – 20.59. The highest RQs resulted from the soil drench nursery 

stock scenario, with the ground spray nursery stock resulting in RQs roughly half of the soil 
-Page 112 of 196-

drench application method. The chronic exceedances for rice was slightly marginal, ranging 

from 1.59 – 1.96, depending on the scenario modeled.

The probability of a chance of an individual effect is estimated using the probit-dose response

(9.3 for freshwater fish) and the median lethal concentration. For uses that exceeded an acute 

LOC, the model is run using the RQ of a specific use as the threshold. The results of this 

analysis, expressed as a probability are tabulated below (Table 4.21) for the applicable uses.

The results indicate that for the lower RQs associated with mainly the food uses of flutolanil that 

the chances of individual effect of mortality are substantially less than some of those associated 

with nursery stock uses, where some scenarios indicate a 1 in 1 chance of effect.

Table 4.21. Probabilities for an Individual Chance of an Effect for Uses that Exceed an 

Acute LOC for Freshwater Fish

Use(s) Scenario App. Method

Peak 

EECs

(μg 

a.i./L)

Freshwater 

Fish

EC50 = 2500 

μg a.i/L

Probability of 

chance of 

individual 

effect (1 in...)2

Acute RQ

Peanut NC peanut Aerial 129 0.05 1.88 X 1033

Golf courses, sod farms, spot fields, 

residential, institutional, municipal 

& commercial areas

FL turf Ground 170 0.07 3.05 X 1026

Golf courses, sod farms, spot fields, 

residential, institutional, municipal 

& commercial areas

PA turf Ground 217 0.09 8.52 X 1021

Ornamental lawns and turf; 

recreation area lawns; residential 

lawns; Commercial/ Industrial 

lawns

FL turf Ground 178 0.07 3.05 X 1026

Nursery stock, ornamentals & fruits

(unspecified) FL nursery Ground 2300 0.92 2.72

Nursery stock, ornamentals & fruits

(unspecified) NJ nursery Ground 2170 0.87 3.49

Nursery stock, ornamentals & fruits

(unspecified) FL nursery Soil drench 4690 1.88 1

Nursery stock, ornamentals & fruits

(unspecified) NJ nursery Soil drench 3700 1.48 1.1

Rice3 AR rice Aerial 1120 0.45 1588

Rice4 AR rice Aerial 829 0.33 2.65 X 105

Rice3 CA rice Aerial 1161 0.46 1169

Rice4 CA rice Aerial 870 0.35 8.95 X 104

Rice LA rice Aerial 1100 0.44 2189

Rice MS rice Aerial 1100 0.44 2189

Rice TX rice Aerial 1130 0.45 1588

App. = Application

Bolded and shaded values indicate an exceedance of an LOC 1

Acute listed species LOC = 0.05; acute restricted use LOC = 0.1, acute high risk LOC = 0.5
-Page 113 of 196-

2

Slope was available from most sensitive acute freshwater fish toxicity study which was 9.3 3

1 application of 0.980 lbs a.i/A

4

2 applications of 0.490 lbs a.i/A

4.2.1.2. Freshwater Invertebrates 

Freshwater invertebrates were shown in toxicity studies to be less sensitive to flutolanil than 

freshwater fish and the acute RQs reflect this ranging from <0.01 – 0.69. The exceedances 

occurred for the same 2 uses as for freshwater fish, that is, nursery stock and rice. Additionally, 

there were no ecological incidents reported to freshwater invertebrates resulting from the use of 

flutolanil

It is important to note that the acute exceedances were marginal, ranging from 0.12 – 0.69. Also 

worth noting is the fact that these RQs were estimated from non-definitive endpoints, specifically 

“>” toxicity endpoints, and therefore the RQs represent upper bound “<” values. These RQs 

therefore represent an “at worst,” case of risk, as the true level of risk is below the estimated 

value but by how much is an uncertainty. The toxicity endpoint from which acute RQs to 

freshwater invertebrates is derived is >6.8 mg a.i/L, which is slightly above the solubility limit of 

flutolanil of 6.53 mg/L. However, there was 45% mortality observed at the highest treatment 

concentration in the acute freshwater invertebrate study, which was at the limit of solubility. 

EFED cannot discount these effects and so non-definitive RQs estimated to be above the level of 

the LOC are stated to have the potential to exceed.

There were 2 of 10 (20%) uses of flutolanil where chronic RQs exceeded the LOC for freshwater 

invertebrates. These 2 uses (rice and nursery stock) were the same uses that resulted in acute 

exceedances of the LOC for freshwater invertebrates as well as for acute and chronic LOC 

exceedances for freshwater fish. Chronic RQs from the multiple nursery stock and rice scenarios 

ranged from 1.07 – 8.70.

Refer to the section above, Section 4.2.1.1, regarding degradate toxicity to freshwater 

invertebrates.

The probability of a chance of an individual effect is estimated using the probit-dose response 

(4.5 as a default for freshwater invertebrates as there was no definitive EC50 reached) and the 

median lethal concentration. For uses that exceeded an acute LOC, the model is run using the 

RQ of a specific use as the threshold. The results of this analysis, expressed as a probability are 

tabulated below (Table 4.22) for the applicable uses. 

The results indicate that for the lower RQs associated with rice uses flutolanil that the chances of 

individual effect of mortality are substantially less than some of those associated with nursery 

stock uses. There is a higher level of uncertainty in these probabilities than for the freshwater 

fish since the freshwater invertebrate LOC exceedances were potential and a default slope of 4.5 

was used.
-Page 114 of 196-

Table 4.22. Probabilities for an Individual Chance of an Effect for Uses that Exceed an 

Acute LOC for Freshwater Invertebrates

Use(s) Scenario App. 

Method

Peak 

EECs

(μg 

a.i./L)

Freshwater 

Invertebrates

EC50 = >6800 μg 

a.i/L

Probability of chance of 

individual effect (1 in...)2

Acute RQ

Nursery stock, 

ornamentals & fruits

(unspecified)

FL 

nursery

Ground 2300 <0.34 57.1

Nursery stock, 

ornamentals & fruits

(unspecified)

NJ 

nursery

Ground 2170 <0.32 77.0

Nursery stock, 

ornamentals & fruits

(unspecified)

FL 

nursery

Soil 

drench 4690 <0.69 4.27

Nursery stock, 

ornamentals & fruits

(unspecified)

NJ 

nursery

Soil 

drench 3700 <0.54 8.75

Rice3 AR rice Aerial 1120 <0.16 5853

Rice4 AR rice Aerial 829 <0.12 5.85 X 104

Rice3 CA rice Aerial 1161 <0.17 3744

Rice4 CA rice Aerial 870 <0.13 2.99 X 104

Rice LA rice Aerial 1100 <0.16 5853

Rice MS rice Aerial 1100 <0.16 5853

Rice TX rice Aerial 1130 <0.17 3744

App. = Application

Bolded and shaded values indicate an exceedance of an LOC, italicized values represent a potential to exceed an 

LOC

1

Acute listed species LOC = 0.05; acute restricted use LOC = 0.1, acute high risk LOC = 0.5 2 Slope was not available from most sensitive acute freshwater invertebrate toxicity study and therefore default slope 

of 4.5 was employed for probably of acute effect estimates. 3

1 application of 0.980 lbs a.i/A

4

2 applications of 0.490 lbs a.i/A 

4.2.1.3. Estuarine/Marine Fish 

Estuarine/marine fish were shown to be less sensitive in available toxicity studies than 

freshwater fish. In the available acute toxicity study, fish were exposed to treatment 

concentrations approaching the limit of solubility for flutolanil (6.53 mg/L). There were no 

mortalities observed in the study at all treatment concentrations. As there were no EECs that 

exceeded 4.7 mg a.i/L for any use of flutolanil, acute risk to estuarine/marine fish is presumed to 

be below the LOC.

As discussed previously in the assessment, there is too great a level of uncertainty with using an 

acute-to-chronic ratio (ACR) that is estimated from non-definitive endpoints, as was the case 

with acute toxicity to estuarine/marine fish. In that study flutolanil was exposed to fish up to 
-Page 115 of 196-

levels nearing the limit of solubility and there was no mortality observed at any concentration. 

There were observations however, of behavioral effects at the top two concentrations that 

included lethargy, loss of equilibrium, surfacing, and fish observed to be on the bottom of the 

tank. It is unclear how these sublethal effects would impact fish in a chronic exposure study and 

so while chronic RQs to estuarine/marine fish are not being estimated, chronic risk cannot be 

ruled for estuarine/marine fish.

The probability of an individual chance of effect was estimated using the default slope of 4.5 as 

there was not one that could be derived from the available study. This resulted in a probability 

chance of 1 in 4.8 X 108

, however as indicated above, there were no mortalities in the available 

acute toxicity study that exposed fish up near the limit of solubility . Furthermore, there were no 

reported wildlife incidents with flutolanil involving estuarine/marine fish.

4.2.1.4. Estuarine/Marine Invertebrates 

Estuarine/marine invertebrates were shown to be at least one order of magnitude more toxic than 

freshwater invertebrates on an acute and chronic basis. As a result, there were more flutolanil 

uses in which acute and chronic risk above the level of the LOC was indicated. Specifically, 8 of 

10 (80%) of flutolanil uses (at least one modeled scenario) exceeded at least one acute risk LOC 

and the chronic LOC. Acute RQs ranged from <0.01 – 36.1 and chronic RQs ranged from 0.01 –

408. The NOAEC for this study was based on significant reductions in survival, number of 

young produced per female, and dry weight at the top three treatment concentrations in the 

studies, ranging from 22 – 97 μg a.i/L. Several scenarios yielded 21-day EECs that greatly 

exceeded this range that include a few food uses and all turf and nursery stock uses. 

Additionally there were no reported wildlife incidents reported for flutolanil involving 

estuarine/marine invertebrates.

For the uses on rice, acute and chronic RQs exceeded the LOCs for all the scenarios evaluated. 

The acute RQs ranged from 6.38 to 42.2 (13 to 84 times above the acute non-listed LOC) and the 

chronic RQs ranged from 46.2 to 57.4 (46 to 57 times above the chronic LOC). However, for the 

rice use, for which EEC results returned among the highest EECs out of all registered and 

proposed uses, label language prohibits the use of flutolanil application within 3 miles of any 

estuarine/marine waterways or watershed. As a consequence of this restriction, the EECs 

calculated using PFAM, may have been overestimated, and all RQs that exceeded the LOCs for 

the use on rice may also be overestimated (refer to Section 4.2.1.7 for further characterization). 

This is relevant in all instances where the LOCs are exceeded for the use on rice. Given that for 

estuarine/marine invertebrates the RQs exceeded LOCs by factors of up to 57X, there is a 

likelihood that in some instances, despite label restrictions, EECs in real world environments 

would by high enough to cause exceedances of LOCs.

The probability of a chance of an individual effect is estimated using the probit-dose response 

(4.5 as a default for estuarine/marine invertebrates as there was no definitive LC50 reached) and 

the median lethal concentration. For uses that exceeded an acute LOC, the model is run using 

the RQ of a specific use as the threshold. The results of this analysis, expressed as a probability 

are tabulated below (Table 4.23) for the applicable uses. 
-Page 116 of 196-

The results indicate that for the lower RQs generally associated the food uses of flutolanil

(except rice) that the chances of individual effect of mortality are substantially less than some of 

those associated with nursery stock uses, turf, and rice uses where the probability is 1 in 1. 

Table 4.23. Probabilities for an Individual Chance of an Effect for Uses that Exceed an 

Acute LOC for Estuarine/marine Invertebrates

Use(s) Scenario App. 

Method

Peak 

EECs

(μg 

ai/L)

Estuarine/marine 

Invertebrates

EC50 = 130 μg a.i/L

Probability of 

chance of 

individual effect (1 

in...)2

Acute RQ

Peanut NC 

peanut

In-furrow at 

plant 30.1 0.23 491

Peanut NC 

peanut

Ground 

banded apps 41.8 0.32 77.0

Peanut NC 

peanut Aerial 129 0.99 2.03

Brassica (cole) Leafy 

Vegetables (Crop Group 5) 

plus Turnip Greens

CA cole 

crops

Ground in a 

narrow band 36.7 0.28 156

Brassica (cole) Leafy 

Vegetables (Crop Group 5) 

plus Turnip Greens

FL 

cabbage

Ground in a 

narrow band 71.4 0.55 8.24

Potatoes ID Potato In furrow 

band app 8.27 0.06 5.22 X 107

Potatoes ME 

Potato

In furrow 

band app 30.1 0.23 491

Potatoes ME 

Potato

Seed piece 

treatment 12.5 0.10 2.94 X 105

Soybeans MS 

soybean

Seed 

treatment 20 0.15 9558

Golf courses, sod farms, spot 

fields, residential, 

institutional, municipal & 

commercial areas

FL turf Ground 170 1.31 1.43

Golf courses, sod farms, spot 

fields, residential, 

institutional, municipal & 

commercial areas

PA turf Ground 217 1.67 1.19

Ornamental lawns and turf; 

recreation area lawns; 

residential lawns; 

Commercial/ Industrial lawns

FL turf Ground 178 1.37 1.37

Nursery stock, ornamentals & 

fruits (unspecified)

FL 

nursery

Ground 2300 17.7 1

Nursery stock, ornamentals & 

fruits (unspecified)

NJ 

nursery

Ground 2170 16.7 1

Nursery stock, ornamentals & 

fruits (unspecified)

FL 

nursery

Soil drench 4690 36.1 1

Nursery stock, ornamentals & 

fruits (unspecified)

NJ 

nursery

Soil drench 3700 28.5 1
-Page 117 of 196-

Use(s) Scenario App. 

Method

Peak 

EECs

(μg 

ai/L)

Estuarine/marine 

Invertebrates

EC50 = 130 μg a.i/L

Probability of 

chance of 

individual effect (1 

in...)2

Acute RQ

Rice3 AR rice Aerial 1120 8.62 1

Rice4 AR rice Aerial 829 6.38 1

Rice3 CA rice Aerial 1161 8.93 1

Rice4 CA rice Aerial 870 6.69 1

Rice LA rice Aerial 1100 8.46 1

Rice MS rice Aerial 1100 8.46 1

Rice TX rice Aerial 1130 8.69 1

App. = Application

Bolded and shaded values indicate an exceedance of an LOC 1

Acute listed species LOC = 0.05; acute restricted use LOC = 0.1, acute high risk LOC = 0.5 2

Slope was not available from most sensitive acute estuarine/marine invertebrate toxicity study and therefore default 

slope of 4.5 was employed for probably of acute effect estimates. 3

1 application of 0.980 lbs a.i/A

4

2 applications of 0.490 lbs a.i/A

4.2.1.5. Sediment-dwelling Organisms

Flutolanil is shown to have a moderately high octanol/water partition coefficient (log KOW = 

3.79) and a tendency to partition with soils with moderately high KOCs. When taken with the 

fact that half lives are long in the aquatic media, the chemical is relatively persistent in both

aerobic and anaerobic soils, and the propensity to bind to soils, sediment exposure cannot be 

discounted. Batch equilibrium studies show parent flutolanil to be moderately mobile (mean 

KOC = 780.7 mL/gOC). 

As mentioned previously, acute and chronic to sediment-dwelling organisms is estimated in a 

variety of ways. There are a few reasons for this that will be discussed briefly. First, multiple 

routes of exposure are taken into account. Sediment-dwelling organisms are simultaneously 

respiring pore and overlying water, ingesting potentially chemical contaminated sediment, and

potentially receiving the chemical through dermal uptake. Additionally, differing factors 

affecting bioavailability are accounted for. Different compartments have differing levels of 

organic carbon quality, to which the chemical may sorb to, as well taking into account the 

influence of other sorption matrices, and the fact that non-equilibrium conditions may be present. 

Finally, there is shown to be a broad range of sensitivity among invertebrate taxa, and therefore a 

risk estimation paradigm that estimates RQs in several ways, using sediment and water column 

invertebrate data accounts for this. 

This discussion is illustrated in the freshwater and estuarine/marine sediment-dwelling organism

acute and chronic RQs for flutolanil. Acute risk quotients are based on the peak pore water EEC 

and the most sensitive water column EC50. Chronic RQs are derived either by: modeled 21-day 

pore water EECs are compared to the measured pore water NOAEC from available sediment 
-Page 118 of 196-

studies; modeled 21-day sediment EECs are compared to the measured sediment NOAEC; and 

modeled 21-day pore water EECs are compared to the most sensitive surface water NOAEC.

Acute risk quotients for freshwater benthic invertebrates ranged from <0.01 – <0.63. There is 

some uncertainty in these RQs however, since they were estimated using a non-definitive 

endpoint (“>”) and therefore the resultant RQs are preceded with a “<” that represent an upper 

bound “worst case,” scenario of risk. Exactly how far below that determined non-definitive RQ 

is an uncertainty. The nursery stock uses are stated to have the potential to exceed the acute LOC 

for freshwater sediment dwelling invertebrates as the limit of solubility was determined to have a 

45% mortality effect on water column freshwater invertebrates from which these RQs are 

derived.

Chronic RQs for freshwater benthic invertebrates based off of toxicity values expressed in terms 

of sediment concentrations (EECs and toxicity endpoints) ranged from <0.1 – 0.01 and therefore 

there were no registered or proposed uses of flutolanil that exceeded the LOC when 

concentrations were expressed in terms of sediment concentrations. When expressed in terms of 

pore water EECs and endpoints from sediment toxicity studies expressed in terms of pore water, 

there no uses of flutolanil that exceeded the LOC (RQs ranged from <0.01 – 0.05). Finally, 

chronic RQs based on pore water EECs compared to surface water endpoints resulted in RQs 

that exceeded the LOC for one use of flutolanil (nursery stock), RQs ranged from 0.01 – 8.08. 

As was the case with water column invertebrate data, estuarine/marine sediment toxicity 

endpoints are more sensitive than available freshwater sediment toxicity data. As a result, acute 

risk quotients for estuarine/marine benthic invertebrates ranged from <0.01 – 32.92. There were 

8 of 10 (80%) of flutolanil uses that exceeded at least one acute LOC for at least one modeled 

scenario.

Chronic RQs for estuarine/marine sediment-dwelling invertebrates based off of toxicity values 

expressed in terms of sediment concentrations (EECs and toxicity endpoints) ranged from <0.1 –

6.51. Only the nursery stock use exceeded the chronic LOC. When RQs were estimated using

pore water EECs and endpoints from sediment toxicity studies expressed in terms of pore water, 

there no uses of flutolanil that exceeded the LOC (RQs ranged from <0.01 – 0.61). Finally, 

chronic RQs based on pore water EECs compared to surface water endpoints resulted in RQs 

that ranged from 0.01 – 379. There were 8 of 10 (80%) of flutolanil uses that exceeded at least 

one acute LOC for at least one modeled scenario.

In both available sediment toxicity studies, radio-labeling was performed to track the chemical 

throughout the course of the study. The endpoints were subsequently provided in terms of mg 

TRR/kg sediment or mg TRR/L (TRR = total radioactive residues). The RQs were estimated 

using the assumption that1 mg TRR/kg sediment and 1 mg TRR/L is equal to 1 mg a.i/L 

sediment and 1 mg a.i/L, respectively. While this approach may seem under conservative as if 

the chemical undergoes degradation, then the actual a.i will be a lower concentration than the 

TRR, flutolanil is shown to be stable in both aerobic and anaerobic aquatic conditions. Aerobic 

aquatic metabolism half life value was determined to be 1095 days while anaerobic conditions 

were assumed to be stable (half life > 13 years). Sediment toxicity studies are substantially less 
-Page 119 of 196-

time in duration and therefore the aforementioned assumption is considered to be appropriate for 

estimating risk to freshwater and estuarine/marine sediment dwelling invertebrates.

4.2.1.6. Aquatic Plants

The results of this screening level risk assessment indicate that certain uses has the potential to 

pose risk to nonlisted aquatic vascular plants. Risk quotients for listed aquatic nonvascular 

plants were not estimated since there are currently no listed aquatic non-vascular species. For 

nonlisted aquatic nonvascular plants, there were 2 of 10 uses that exceeded the LOC (RQs 

ranged from <0.01 - <5.86). There is some uncertainty however, in the nonlisted species RQs 

for aquatic nonvascular plants as these RQs were determined using a non-definitive EC50 value 

(“>”) and therefore the RQs represent an upper bound, “worst case,” scenario of risk. Similarly, 

non-listed species RQs for aquatic vascular plants were determined using a non-definitive EC50

(“>”) and therefore represent an upper bound “worst case,” scenario of risk. Consequently, the 

resultant RQs are preceded by a “<” value to indicate what level of risk would be yielded at most

(RQs range from <0.01 – <0.59). There were no exceedances for listed species for aquatic 

vascular plants. There is uncertainty with these RQs as well as they were determined using a 

non-definitive NOAEC (“<”) in which the resultant RQs represent a lower bound, “best case,” 

scenario of risk. Resultant RQs therefore are preceded with a “>” sign in which the values 

denote a level of risk that at least be indicated. There are currently no listed species of aquatic 

nonvascular plants and therefore no RQs were estimated.

4.2.1.7. Refinement of Estuarine/Marine Organism Risk 

Rice Use

Labels have restrictions for applications near marine/estuarine areas for uses on rice. For 

example, for Convoy® Fungicide, for the use on rice, the following statement is shown in the 

supplemental label: “This pesticide is toxic to shrimp. Do not apply this product within three 

miles of any estuarine/marine waterways or watershed.” Currently EFED does not have a tool to 

estimate the level of reduction that such a restriction would mean, since PFAM cannot account 

for this type of buffer zone. The actual EECs to which an estuarine/marine body of water would 

be exposed (and hence the RQs), may have been overestimated. Processes that are expected to 

occur in transit to the estuarine/marine bodies of water are likely dilution and aerobic aquatic 

metabolism (half-life is 1 year). Flutolanil does not degrade readily under most testing 

conditions, but field studies did not show very high persistence overall. Although residence 

times are not high, some aquatic metabolism will occur; further, dilution may take a major role in 

the ‘dissipation’ of flutolanil in such circumstances. Additionally, it is possible that the chemical 

will bind to sediments and particulate found in the course of a 3-mile travel to encounter an 

estuarine/ marine body of water. Thus, it is likely that the EECs found in those bodies of water 

are lower than the estimated ones; nonetheless, the levels of reduction are highly uncertain. 
-Page 120 of 196-

Turf Use

For the uses on turf the following sample label statements appear in the label of ProStar 70WP 

Fungicide, “For use rates over 2.2 oz per 1,000 sq. ft. do not apply ProStar 70WP Fungicide 

within 100 ft. of any estuary or marine habitat or within 100 ft. of any ditches, drainage tiles, or 

other waterways that drain directly into (within 1⁄2 mile of estuaries or marine habitats.” Another 

example, in the label for Flutolanil SC (also named Convoy® 40SC), “For use rates greater than 

4.4 fl oz per 1,000 square feet, do not apply Flutolanil 40SC within 100 feet of any freshwater or 

marine estuary, ditches, drainage tiles, or other waterway that drains directly (within 1⁄2 mile) into 

estuaries.”

As a refinement, the spray drift value for a buffer zone of 100 ft towards freshwater bodies of 

water for ground applications was determined. Using a low boom height (which is the one likely 

for applications on turf, but high boom is not precluded), a droplet size of ASAE Very Fine to 

Fine (default used by EFED), and the 90th percentile value, the spray drift value in AgDRIFT 

v.2.1.1 is 0.5% (or 0.005 if expressed as a fraction). This is compared against the default spray 

drift of 1% for ground applications. The estimated environmental exposure concentrations 

(EECs) are presented in Table 4.24. As expected, the EECs decreased when the value of spray 

drift was decreased. For the Florida turf scenario, the peak EEC in the water column decreased 

by 15%, while for the Pennsylvania turf scenario, the peak EEC decreased by 16%. EPA also 

expects that EECs would decrease due to reduction of runoff and sediment transport over the 

100-foot buffer. However, the extent of such reductions are highly variable, depending on the 

quality and type of vegetation in the 100-foot zone and whether channelized flow corridors that 

might bypass the buffers exist, and cannot be quantified.
-Page 121 of 196-

Table 4.24. Surface Water Estimated Environmental Concentrations (EECs) for the Golf Course and Other Turf Uses of 

Flutolanil, Assuming Various Buffer Zones1

Scenario (bold 

font)/ Crops/Uses 

Represented

App. 

Method2

(% drift)

App 

Rate

(lb 

a.i./A)

Date of 

First 

Application

(dd-mm)

Number 

of Apps.

App.

Interval 

(days)

Water Column Pore Water Sediment3

Peak 

EEC

(μg/L)

21-day 

average

EEC

(μg/L)

60-day 

average

EEC

(μg/L)

Peak 

EEC

(μg/L)

21-day 

average 

EEC

(μg/L)

Peak 

EEC

(μg/kgoc)

21-day 

average 

EEC

(μg/kgoc)

14a FL turf/ Golf 

courses, sod farms, 

spot fields, 

residential, 

institutional, 

municipal & 

commercial areas

Ground

(1.0%) 8.6 15-03 2 14 170 168 162 157 157 124000 124000

15a PA turf/

Same as above

Ground

(1.0%) 8.6 15-03 2 14 217 214 210 204 204 161000 161000

14b FL turf/

Same as above

Ground

(0.5%) 8.6 15-03 2 14 145 143 139 134 134 106,000 106,000

15b PA turf/

Same as above

Ground

(0.5%) 8.6 15-03 2 14 183 181 177 171 171 135,000 135,000

1. EECs were rounded to three significant figures.

2. 1.0% drift represents the scenario with no buffer zone; 0.5% is the scenario with a 100 ft buffer zone. All results are presented for comparison purposes.

3. Sediment EECs are organic carbon normalized values.
-Page 122 of 196-

Refinement of risk was not conducted for estuarine/marine fish as previous sections have 

indicated that acute risk to estuarine/marine fish would be presumed to be below the level of 

concern and chronic risk could not be estimated based on lack of data and suitable means to 

estimate toxicity. 

When compared to the available acute and chronic toxicity data for estuarine/marine 

invertebrates, the refined scenarios of exposure resulted in RQs that were very similar to those 

that were estimated without the use of a buffer zone (Table 4.25). Acute RQs for the ground turf

use exceeded all acute endangered species, acute restricted, and acute LOCs for the turf uses

(RQs ranged from 1.12 – 1.67 for both the FL and PA turf scenarios). Similarly, there were 

chronic LOC exceedances for the turf use (both scenarios) and all buffer scenarios (0, 100 and 

2,640 ft) exceeded the chronic LOC of 1 (RQs ranged from 0.15 – 18.9 for both the FL and PA 

turf scenarios).

Table 4.25. Acute RQs for Direct Effects to Estuarine/Marine Invertebrates from 

Flutolanil TGAI.1,2

Use(s)

Scenario

(% 

drift)

App. 

Method

Peak 

EECs

(μg 

ai/L)

Estuarine/marine 

Invertebrates

EC50 = 130 μg 

a.i/L

21-

day 

EECs

(μg 

ai/L)

Estuarine/marine 

Invertebrates

NOAEC = 11.3 μg 

a.i/L

Acute RQ Chronic RQ

Golf courses, sod farms, spot 

fields, residential, 

institutional, municipal & 

commercial areas

FL turf

(1%) Ground 170 1.31 168 14.9

Golf courses, sod farms, spot 

fields, residential, 

institutional, municipal & 

commercial areas

PA turf

(1%) Ground 217 1.67 214 18.9

Golf courses, sod farms, spot 

fields, 

residential,institutional, 

municipal & commercial 

areas

FL turf

(0.5%) Ground 145 1.12 139 12.3

Golf courses, sod farms, spot 

fields, residential, 

institutional, municipal & 

commercial areas

PA turf

(0.5%) Ground 183 1.41 177 15.7

App. = Application 1

Bolded and shaded values indicate an exceedance of an LOC 2

Acute listed species LOC = 0.05; acute restricted use LOC = 0.1, acute high risk LOC = 0.5; chronic risk LOC = 1 3

Slope was not available from most sensitive acute estuarine/marine invertebrate toxicity study and therefore default 

slope of 4.5 was employed for probably of acute effect estimates.

When compared to the available acute and chronic toxicity data for estuarine/marine species 

living in the benthos, the refined scenarios of exposure resulted in RQs that also were very 

similar to those that were estimated without the use of a buffer zone (Table 4.26). Acute RQs 

for the ground turf use exceeded all acute endangered species, acute restricted, and acute LOCs

for turf uses (RQs ranged from 1.03 – 1.57) for both the FL and PA turf scenarios). Similarly, 
-Page 123 of 196-

there were chronic LOC exceedances for the turf use (both scenarios) and all buffer scenarios (0 

and 100 ft) exceeded the chronic LOC of 1 when the EECs were compared against endpoints 

generated using a water column study (RQs ranged from 11.9 – 18.05 for both the FL and PA 

turf scenarios).

Table 4.26. Acute RQ and Chronic RQs for Direct Effects to Estuarine/Marine SedimentDwelling Invertebrates from Flutolanil TGAI.6

Use(s) Scenario App. 

Method

Acute Chronic

Peak 

Pore 

Water 

EECs

(μg 

ai/L)

Acute 

RQ2

21-day 

sediment 

EECs

(mg/KgOC)

21-

day 

pore 

water 

EECs

(μg 

ai/L)

Chronic 

RQ

(sediment)3

Chronic 

RQ 

(pore 

water)4

Chronic 

RQ

(pore 

water / 

surface 

water)5

Golf courses, 

sod farms, 

spot fields, 

residential, 

institutional, 

municipal & 

commercial 

areas

FL turf

(1%) Ground 157 1.21 124000 157 0.24 0.02 13.9

Golf courses, 

sod farms,

spot fields, 

residential, 

institutional, 

municipal & 

commercial 

areas

PA turf

(1%) Ground 204 1.57 161000 204 0.31 0.03 18.1

Golf courses, 

sod farms, 

spot fields, 

residential, 

institutional, 

municipal & 

commercial 

areas

FL turf

(0.5%) Ground 134 1.03 106,000 134 0.20 0.02 11.9

Golf courses, 

sod farms, 

spot fields, 

residential, 

institutional, 

municipal & 

commercial 

areas

PA turf

(0.5%) Ground 171 1.32 135,000 171 0.26 0.02 15.1

1

Bolded and shaded values indicate an exceedance of an LOC. 2

Based on peak pore water EEC divided by 130 ug a.i/L (EC50 value of most sensitive estuarine/marine water 

column invertebrate)

3

Based on 21-day organic carbon (OC)-normalized sediment EECs divided by OC-normalized NOAEC of 

Leptocheirus plumulosus (MRID 48802201) of 519000 μg a.i/kg sediment.
-Page 124 of 196-

4

Based on 21-day pore water EECs divided by pore water NOAEC of Leptocheirus plumulosus (MRID 48802201) 

of 7000 μg a.i/L.

5

Based on 21-day pore water EECs divided by 11.3 μg a.i/L (NOAEC value of most sensitive estuarine/marine 

water column invertebrate) 6

Acute listed species LOC = 0.05; acute restricted use LOC = 0.1, acute high risk LOC = 0.5; chronic risk LOC = 1

4.2.1.8. Evaluating PRZM/EXAMS Results and Accumulation

Evaluation of the results of the modeling shows an increasing trend of the EECs in PRZM/ 

EXAMS. For example, the following is a portion of the output file for the NC peanut aerial 

application EECs (in the surface waters). The table shows the maximum values for each year. 

From the output file, it is evident that flutolanil was increasing throughout the run at least 

through around 1984.

Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

1961 9.373 9.192 8.645 7.767 7.322 3.256

1962 19.84 19.52 19 17.56 17.03 11.62

1963 29.48 29.17 28.08 26.5 24.28 19.18

1964 37.22 37.01 36.45 35.88 35.41 28.85

1965 40.17 39.97 39.23 38.33 38.05 35.34

1966 48.79 48.45 47.28 46.29 45.92 40.55

1967 51.12 50.89 50.16 49.12 48.71 45.66

1968 59.05 58.7 57.35 56.2 55.73 51.16

1969 66.96 66.59 65.58 64.26 63.7 58.29

1970 76.01 75.51 74.71 73.49 72.51 65.55

1971 76.33 76.02 74.89 74.37 74.24 70.9

1972 87.96 87.6 86.08 84.42 83.8 76.86

1973 87.53 87.24 86.68 85.66 85.08 81.79

1974 92.51 92.14 90.82 89.89 89.28 85.27

1975 107 106 104 100 98.71 91.24

1976 102 102 101 100 99.68 95.15

1977 108 108 106 105 104 99.61

1978 112 111 110 107 106 103

1979 115 114 113 112 112 107

1980 111 111 110 110 109 109

1981 115 115 114 114 113 110

1982 114 114 113 112 112 111

1983 112 112 112 111 110 109

1984 129 128 126 123 121 114

1985 123 123 122 121 120 117

1986 129 128 127 124 123 119

1987 129 128 127 126 125 121

1988 125 125 124 124 123 121

1989 127 127 125 124 124 121

1990 122 122 121 121 121 119

There are a number of reasons why the estimated environmental exposure concentrations (EECs) 

may have been conservative and possibly they are overestimates. These include: a) that the 

PRZM/EXAMS input parameters may have been overly conservative, b) that field dissipation 

studies point towards lower persistence than noted from the results of PRZM/EXAMS, c) since 

the chemical shows medium to high pest resistance (as indicated by Fungicide Resistance Action 

Committee for chemicals in Group 7), it may not be applied as often as modeled in 

PRZM/EXAMS, and d) that the standard pond used in PRZM/EXAMS does not include flow or 

turnover, which may remove part of the flutolanil received in the pond.
-Page 125 of 196-

Even though the aerobic soil metabolism half-life used in modeling in PRZM/EXAMS shows 

moderate persistence (input value 308 days), in the aquatic environment the input half-lives were 

indicative of high persistence as follows: stable to hydrolysis, stable to aqueous photolysis, 1095 

days for aerobic aquatic metabolism (3X the available value), and stable to anaerobic aquatic 

metabolism. These input values were derived from laboratory studies. The aerobic aquatic 

metabolism study yielded a half-life of 1 year. Additionally, the anaerobic aquatic metabolism 

study yielded a half-life of 13 years (assumed to be stable in modeling). In the absence of 

additional metabolism studies, these half-lives are multiplied by 3 as per current Input Parameter 

Guidance v.2.1, dated 10/22/2009 and approved 11/10/2009 (USEPA 2009b). These 

assumptions are conservative and may have caused the increasing trend in the aquatic 

environment in PRZM/EXAMS. Despite being conservative, they are used in the absence of 

additional soils and sediments (per the guidance).

There are five terrestrial field dissipation studies conducted in CA and FL, one of which is a long 

term study conducted for a period of three years. These studies included both cropped (turf, 

peanuts), and bareground plots. Half-lives derived from the field studies ranged from 27 to 225 

days (the latter value of 225 days being a secondary half-life). Three half-lives derived from the 

long term study were 118, 126 and 123 days, respectively, for the first, second and third years

(note the consistency of these half-lives throughout a three-year period). These results suggest

little or no buildup of material with time in the terrestrial field. Additionally, there is an aquatic 

field dissipation study, conducted in two sites: CA and LA; that yielded half-lives of 303 and 63 

days, respectively. Again, these half-lives do not suggest substantial buildup of flutolanil with 

time in the aquatic environment.

Additionally, this chemical belongs to the phenyl benzamide class, which shows medium to high 

risk (meaning resistance management is required) according to FRAC. According to the Crop 

and Pest Management Guidelines (http://ipmguidelines.org/Turfgrass/Chapters/CH05/default4.aspx, accessed 01/31/14, in this instance for turf uses, although they may apply to other crops 

in general), some of the possible management practices used to avoid resistance include the 

following (see also Fungicide Resistance Management from Oklahoma Cooperative Extension 

Services at http://pods.dasnr.okstate.edu/docushare/dsweb/Get/Document-2317/F-7663web.pdf, 

accessed 01/31/14):

• Use appropriate cultural practices (e.g., crop rotations, use resistant varieties of plants, 

maintain appropriate soil fertility).

• Limit the number of fungicide applications and in general use a fungicide no more than 

two times before rotating to another fungicide with a different mode of action and another 

FRAC code;

• Avoid applications at lower rates than specified in the labels; apply at appropriate rate, 

intervals, and crop stages, according to the labels specifications;

• Apply making sure the crop is fully covered; and,

• When possible, avoid preventative applications if the risk of disease is low; chemicals of 

this class are not intended for well established pests.

It appears that the chemical would not be used on the field for several consecutive years, or that 

there would not be many consecutive applications in a given year (for the above example, on 
-Page 126 of 196-

peanuts, a single application was modeled). Some labels for other fungicides direct the user to 

apply up to twice a chemical and rotate the applications with another pesticide with a different 

mode of action. Flutolanil labels do not have such restriction. Nonetheless, EFED’s Preliminary 

Risk Assessments are based on the maximum use rates and minimum intervals between 

applications and EECs are based on maximum use scenarios.

The standard PRZM/EXAMS scenario consists of application to a 10-hectare field bordering a 1-

hectare, 2-meter deep (20,000 m3) pond with no outlet. Exposure estimates generated using the 

EXAMS pond is intended to represent a wide variety of vulnerable water bodies that occur at the 

top of watersheds including prairie pot holes, playa lakes, wetlands, vernal pools, man-made and 

natural ponds, and intermittent and lower order streams. As a group, there are factors that make 

these water bodies more or less vulnerable than the EXAMS pond. Static water bodies that have 

larger ratios of pesticide-treated drainage area to water body volume would be expected to have 

higher peak EECs than the EXAMS pond. These water bodies will be either smaller in size or 

have larger drainage areas. Smaller water bodies have limited storage capacity and thus may 

overflow and carry pesticide in the discharge, whereas the EXAMS pond has no discharge.

The standard pond does not have flow or water turnover which would have caused a portion of 

the chemical to be discharged away from the pond. This may cause that, for moderately to 

highly persistent chemicals, they would build up with time and the model would overestimate 

EECs, when compared to real life concentrations in the environment for a similarly sized pond 

that does have an outlet. Comparisons of terrestrial and aquatic field dissipation half-lives with 

the input values used in PRZM/EXAMS shows that in the field, flutolanil did not persist as much 

as anticipated by the model.

While these facts appear to point towards lower persistence for flutolanil than used in the 

modeling, there is uncertainty as to what degree there is persistence or no persistence. For 

comparison purposes, the same NC peanut scenario (aerial applications), was performed, but

using an aerobic aquatic metabolism half-life of 365 days (instead of 1095 days) and an 

anaerobic aquatic metabolism half-life of 4745 days (13 years, instead of stable), in a theoretical 

PRZM/EXAMS run. The yearly maximum values were as shown below. It is noted that there 

was no buildup of flutolanil with time (some increase was observed from approximately 1961 to 

1970).

Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

1961 9.114 8.919 8.355 7.393 6.917 3.083

1962 18.82 18.43 17.87 16.19 15.54 10.47

1963 25.69 25.37 24.24 22.61 20.44 16.26

1964 30.82 30.51 29.86 29.32 28.85 23.49

1965 31.23 30.98 30.13 29.36 28.85 26.85

1966 36.48 36.09 34.76 33.56 33.06 28.84

1967 35.2 34.93 34.09 32.95 32.51 30.6

1968 40.83 40.42 38.85 36.97 36.22 32.82

1969 44.57 44.15 43.05 41.4 40.67 36.44

1970 50.7 50.13 49.07 47.35 46.06 40.06

1971 46.93 46.56 45.22 44.33 43.93 41.45

1972 54.28 53.86 52.1 50.41 49.5 43.51

1973 49.74 49.4 48.7 47.6 46.89 44.5

1974 50.95 50.53 49.03 47.79 47.04 44.2

1975 62.35 61.58 58.98 54.83 53.14 46.61

1976 52.89 52.51 51.22 50.36 49.9 46.79
-Page 127 of 196-

1977 55.22 54.79 53.3 51.67 51.12 47.89

1978 56.48 55.99 54.2 51.65 50.5 48.11

1979 55.61 55.24 54.12 52.84 52.84 48.65

1980 50 49.88 49.78 49.55 49.35 47.45

1981 50.38 50.16 49.44 48.53 48.02 45.8

1982 47.95 47.91 47.74 47.33 47.01 44.84

1983 44.3 44.01 43.17 42.72 42.51 41.28

1984 59.28 58.61 56.89 53.23 51.49 44.56

1985 51.79 51.42 49.94 48.98 47.94 45.42

1986 55.1 54.6 53.12 50.61 49.49 45.59

1987 53.11 52.7 51.68 50.05 49.13 45.56

1988 48.35 48.09 47.46 46.51 46.15 44.93

1989 48.89 48.55 47.33 45.98 45.67 43.61

1990 43.68 43.4 42.89 42.55 42.27 40.77

A comparison of the surface waters 1-in-10 year EECs is provided in Table 4.27. In both 

instances, the EECs did not decrease substantially from the peak to the 21 day to the 60 day 

averages; however, for the special run, the EECs were less than one half of the EECs obtained in 

PRZM/EXAMS using the standard input values, for a reduction of over 50%. Table 4.27 also 

has an example run for the FL nursery scenario, soil drench. The FL nursery scenario provides 

an example of a run with multiple applications in a year.

Table 4.27. Surface Water Estimated Environmental Concentrations (EECs) for the Use of 

Flutolanil on Peanuts (Aerial Application), and FL Nursery (Soil Drench Application), 

Using Standard Input Values and Without Using the 3X Factor in the Input Parameters1

Scenario (bold 

font)/ Crops/Uses 

Represented

App. 

Method

App. 

Rate

(lb 

a.i./A)

Date of 

First 

Application

(dd-mm)

Number 

of Apps.

App.

Interval 

(days)

Water Column

Peak 

EEC

(μg/L)

21-day 

average

EEC

(μg/L)

60-day 

average

EEC

(μg/L)

STANDARD INPUT PARAMETERS

03 NC peanut/ 

Peanuts Aerial 2.00 06-07 1 N/A 129 126 124

19 FL nursery/ 

Nursery stock, 

ornamentals & fruits

(unspecified)

Soil 

drench 21.5 01-03 4 21 4690 4610 4530

MODIFIED INPUT PARAMETERS

03 NC peanut/ 

Peanuts Aerial 2.00 06-07 1 N/A 56.4 54.2 52.7

19 FL nursery/ 

Nursery stock, 

ornamentals & fruits

(unspecified)

Soil 

drench 21.5 01-03 4 21 2260 2170 2110

1 EECs were rounded to three significant figures.

Table 4.28 shows the resultant RQs for the NC peanut and FL nursery scenarios for standard vs.

modified PRZM/EXAMS inputs. As stated previously, modified input parameters within 

PRZM/EXAMS yield acute and chronic RQs that are approximately 2.3 fold less than those 

derived from standard input parameters. As a result (for the two modeled scenarios) acute and 

chronic risk to estuarine/marine invertebrates remains above the LOC for both uses for modified 

parameters but acute and chronic risk to all other assessed taxa falls below the level of concern 

for the modified FL nursery scenario.
-Page 128 of 196-

Table 4.28. Resultant Acute and Chronic RQs for Aquatic Taxa Comparing Standard 

PRZM/EXAMS Inputs vs. Modified with the Peanut (Aerial Application) and Nursery (Soil 

Drench Application) Uses

1

Scenario (bold 

font)/ Crops/Uses 

Represented

FW Fish FW Inverts E/M Fish2 E/M Inverts

Acute Chronic Acute Chronic Acute Chronic Acute Chronic

03 NC peanut/ 

Peanuts 

(STANDARD 

INPUT 

PARAMETERS)

0.05 0.56 0.02 0.24 0.99 11.2

19 FL nursery/ 

Nursery stock, 

ornamentals & 

fruits

(unspecified)

(STANDARD 

INPUT 

PARAMETERS)

1.88 20.6 0.69 8.70 36.1 408

03 NC peanut/ 

Peanuts 

(MODIFIED 

INPUT 

PARAMETERS)

0.02 0.24 0.01 0.10 0.43 4.80

19 FL nursery/ 

Nursery stock, 

ornamentals & 

fruits 

(unspecified) 

(MODIFIED 

INPUT 

PARAMETERS)

0.90 10.1 0.33 4.09 17.4 192

1

Bolded and shaded values indicate an exceedance of an LOC, italicized values represent a potential to exceed an 

LOC

2 Acute and chronic risk to estuarine/marine fish was not estimated as there were no mortalities in the acute study up 

to solubility limit and no chronic fish study is available. An acute-to-chronic ratio (ACR) was not utilized to 

estimate chronic toxicity as there is a high level of uncertainty in using an ACR with a non-definitive acute toxicity 

endpoint.

4.2.1.9 Evaluation of the Frequency of Exposure Estimate Excursions above 

Levels of Concern (focus on Estuarine/Marine Invertebrates)

Risk quotients are commonly calculated on the basis of the 1 in 10 year return frequency values 

from the multiple years of modeled daily receiving water exposures. The modeling, however, is 

a rich set of estimates comprising daily model predictions of concentrations for three decades of 

pesticide use. Additional analysis of this data set was made to compare the entire time series of 

exposures to the acute toxicity endpoints (modified to correspond with Agency levels of 

concern). This was conducted for the same scenarios that the modified input parameters were 

conducted for (i.e., NC peanuts aerial scenario and FL nursery soil drench scenario). Focus was 
-Page 129 of 196-

placed on effects to estuarine/marine invertebrate risks (the taxa that most uses of flutolanil had 

RQs for that exceeded acute and chronic LOCs) and involved comparison of daily estimates to 

the acute estuarine/marine toxicity endpoint adjusted for non-listed species level of concern 

(LC50 x 0.05) and for the listed species level of concern (LC50 x 0.05). The following table 

(Table 4.29) presents the number of days that exceeded the adjusted toxicity endpoints. The 

table shows that when the Agency’s level of concern is triggered using the screening level 

approach, this is not expected to be an isolated incident only limited to a single exposure event.

Modeling results for 30 years would suggest exposure events exceed the adjusted acute effects 

endpoints quite often, ranging from 0 days to more than 10800 days, depending on the scenario 

modeled and LOC examined.

Table 4.29: LOC Excursions for Freshwater Aquatic Invertebrates from PRZM/EXAMS 

Standard PRZM/EXAMS Inputs vs. Modified with the Peanut (Aerial Application) and 

Nursery (Soil Drench Application) Uses

Use Total 

Days

Days LOC Exceeded from 

PRZM/EXAM Simulation

Acute NL1 Acute L1

03 NC peanut/ Peanuts (STANDARD INPUT 

PARAMETERS)

10957 7498 10693

19 FL nursery/ Nursery stock, ornamentals & fruits (unspecified) 

(STANDARD INPUT PARAMETERS)

10957 10855 10892

03 NC peanut/ Peanuts (MODIFIED INPUT PARAMETERS) 10957 0 10471

19 FL nursery/ Nursery stock, ornamentals & fruits (unspecified)

(MODIFIED INPUT PARAMETERS)

10957 10853 10892

 Acute NL= Acute non-endangered species (lowest LC50 X 0.5) = (0.13 X 0.5 = 0.065)

 Acute L= Acute endangered listed species (lowest LC50 X 0.05) = (0.13 X 0.05 = 0.0065)

 Chronic = Lowest invertebrate chronic NOEC

 1 Acute comparison represents daily peak concentration from PRZM/EXAMS time series with Acute NL or Acute 

 L endpoints

4.2.2. Risks to Terrestrial Organisms 

Risk to mammals and birds is estimated with the T-REX model as discussed previously. The TREX model assumes a default foliar dissipation half life of 35 days in the absence of available 

data showing a lower value. Traditional ground and aerial foliar spray uses are modeled as well 

as seed treatment uses of flutolanil. The soil drench uses of flutolanil were not modeled in TREX due the model being unable to simulate these types of uses. Further information can be 

found in the uncertainties and limitations section.

4.2.2.1. Birds, Reptiles, and Terrestrial-phase Amphibians

Potential risks to birds, reptiles, and terrestrial-phase amphibians are evaluated using acute and 

chronic toxicity data for the most sensitive bird species for which data are available, and the 

most sensitive dietary item and size class for that species. 

The acute dose-based RQs for birds, reptiles and terrestrial-phase amphibians are uncertain given 

that they are expressed as being “less than,” values due to the fact that they are based on a non-
-Page 130 of 196-

definitive “greater than,” LD50 estimates. While there is uncertainty in estimating risk from a 

non-definitive endpoint, even these upper bound RQs can be thought of as a “worst case,” 

scenario of risk as they represent what the RQ would be at most. 

The available acute oral toxicity study did not determine a definitive LD50 as there were no 

mortalities observed up to and including the highest treatment group (2000 mg a.i.kg-bw). 

Despite a LD50 not being achieved, some use modeled in T-REX estimate flutolanil residues 

several fold higher than the available toxicity study tested up to. While it cannot be definitively 

stated that there is a true LOC exceedance for acute dose-based risk to birds, some uses indicate 

the potential to exceed an acute LOC based on the fact that the true LD50 could lie anywhere 

above the 2000 mg a.i/kg-bw threshold.

Worth noting is that all potential acute LOC exceedances for the food uses were below the acute 

high risk LOC of 0.5, that is, all potential exceedances were of the acute endangered species and 

acute restricted use LOC. For the turf and nursery stock uses, the potential to exceed all acute 

LOCs was indicated.

The acute dietary-based RQs for birds, reptiles and terrestrial-phase and amphibians are

uncertain in that they expressed as being “less than,” values due to the fact that they are based on 

a non-definitive “greater than,” LC50 estimates. While there is uncertainty in estimating risk 

from a non-definitive endpoint, even these upper bound RQs can be thought of as a “worst case,” 

scenario of risk as they represent what the RQ would be at most.

As for acute dose based risk to birds, the available avian dietary toxicity study did not show 

mortality effects up to and including the top treatment concentration of 5243 mg a.i/kg-diet). 

Therefore, when considering repeat applications and the persistence of flutolanil residues on 

terrestrial food items, some uses indicate the potential to exceed an acute LOC based on T-REX 

indicating the presence of a flutolanil residues higher than the 5243 mg a.i/kg-diet threshold and 

the fact that the true LC50 lies somewhere above this value.

All turf and nursery stock (ornamental and fruits, unspecified) had the potential to exceed at least 

one acute LOC for at least one flutolanil contaminated food item. 

The potential for acute dietary based risk to birds was confined to the turf and nursery stock uses. 

All food items had the potential of risk to exceed the level of the acute high risk LOC of 0.5 for 

all food items except fruits, pods, and seeds, as well as for arthropods for the golf course fairway 

use in Florida only. For the nursery stock uses, the potential for risk above the level of the 0.5 

LOC was indicated for multiple food items, again with fruits, pods, and seeds indicating

potential risk below the level of the LOC.

Chronic dietary-based RQs were determined using definitive NOAEC values from available 

avian reproduction studies and therefore the resultant RQs have a higher degree of certainty.. 

There were 6 of 11 (55%) flutolanil uses that exceeded the chronic LOC for at least one food 

item. These uses were most of the turf uses as well as a nursery stock use. There were no LOC 

exceedances for the golf course fairway in Florida use. The scenario that indicated most food 
-Page 131 of 196-

item exceedances was the golf course greens, tees, and aprons use, with risk indicated to all food 

items except for fruits, pods, and seeds. For the nursery stock use, the lower rate did not result in 

any LOC exceedances for all food items with the higher rate indicating risk above LOC to birds 

consuming all food items except fruits, pods, and seeds. 

The effect at the LOAEC of the available avian reproduction studies show a reduction in eggs 

laid for one species and a reduction in eggshell thickness for the other species. Available 

terrestrial field dissipation studies show flutolanil half lives ranging from 27 – 81 days depending 

on the study location and soil type. The default foliar dissipation half life value of 35 days was 

used in T-REX, which simulates exposure out to 105 days. The results of the modeling indicate 

that flutolanil residues on food items are persistent enough to remain at or above the level of the 

NOAEC for most turf and nursery stock uses modeled for the 105 day exposure that T-REX 

simulates.

There were no acute or chronic exceedances of any LOC for birds for all seed treatment uses for 

flutolanil. Again, these RQs are subject to the same uncertainty in regards to being determined 

with non-definitive endpoints as broadcast applications were that are described earlier. 

A study derived slope was not available and so the individual effect chance was estimated using 

the default slope of 4.5. The resultant chance of effect was 1 in 4.8 X 108

. Furthermore, there 

were no reported wildlife incidents for flutolanil involving birds in either the EIIS database or 

the American Bird Conservancy maintained Avian Incident Monitoring System (AIMS)

database.

4.2.2.2. Mammals

Potential risks to mammals are evaluated using T-REX, acute and chronic toxicity data for 

laboratory rats, and the most sensitive dietary item and size class for that species. For mammals 

the most sensitive RQ in T-REX is for the small mammal consuming short grass. The specific 

EECs for each species are for the same size mammals and same dietary items as those considered 

for acute exposure. Chronic effects are estimated using the lowest available NOAEC from a 

chronic study for mammals. Dietary-based EECs are divided by toxicity values to estimate 

chronic dietary-based RQs. 

The acute and chronic dose-based and dietary-based RQs for mammals are expressed as being 

“less than,” values due to the fact that they are based on a non-definitive “greater than,” LD50

and NOAEL estimates, respectively. While there is uncertainty in estimating risk from a nondefinitive endpoint, even these upper bound RQs can be thought of as a “worst case,” scenario of 

risk as they represent what the RQ would be at most.

The available acute oral toxicity study for mammals did not determine a definitive LD50 as there 

were no mortalities observed up to and including the highest treatment group (5000 mg a.i.kgbw). Despite a LD50 not being achieved, some uses modeled in T-REX estimate flutolanil 

residues higher than the available toxicity study tested up to when repeated applications and 

foliar dissipation half life is considered. While it cannot be definitively stated that there is a true 
-Page 132 of 196-

LOC exceedance for acute dose-based risk to birds, some uses indicate the potential to exceed an 

acute LOC based on the fact that the true LD50 could lie anywhere above the 5000 mg a.i/kg-bw 

threshold.

In further characterizing the acute dose based RQs to mammals, there was no potential for risk 

above the level of the acute LOCs indicated for all food uses. For the turf uses, the potential for 

risk above the acute endangered species and acute restricted use LOCs were indicated for small 

and medium sized mammals consuming at least one flutolanil contaminated food item. Large 

mammals consuming short grass was determined to have the potential for risk above the LOC 

for the golf course greens, tees, and aprons use. For the nursery stock uses, only the high 

application rate modeled indicated the potential for risk, with all RQs for all acute dose based 

LOC potential exceedances being below the acute high risk LOC of 0.5 (i.e., only acute 

endangered species and acute restricted use LOCs could potentially be exceeded).

Similarly for chronic toxicity to mammals, available data did not indicate any effects up to and 

including the highest treatment concentration (20,000 mg a.i/kg-diet, equivalent to 1936 mg 

a.i/kg-bw/day). Despite this, for two uses (turf and nursery stock), dose-based chronic EECs 

returned results that would be above the level of the highest treatment concentration in the 

mammalian reproduction study (when foliar dissipation half life and repeat applications are taken 

into account). While a not a true LOC exceedance, the uses on turf and nursery stock have the 

potential to exceed the chronic LOC for dose-based risk as the true NOAEC falls somewhere 

above the 1936 mg a.i/kg-bw/day threshold. The potential to exceed the chronic LOC was not 

indicated for all food uses and for the turf uses, only the golf course greens, tees, and aprons use 

had the potential to exceed for the LOC for small and medium sized mammals consuming short 

grass only. There was the potential for the RQ above the LOC indicated for the higher 

application rate nursery stock use one for all size classes of mammals consuming at least one 

flutolanil contaminated food item.

For chronic dietary-based RQs, there were no uses of flutolanil that had the potential to exceed

the chronic LOC when expressed as dietary-based RQs. 

There were no acute or chronic exceedances of any LOC for mammals for all seed treatment uses 

for flutolanil. Again these RQs are subject to the same uncertainty in regards to being 

determined with non-definitive endpoints as broadcast applications were that are described 

earlier.

A study derived slope was not available and so the individual effect chance was estimated using 

the default slope of 4.5. The resultant chance of effect was 1 in 4.18 x 108

. Furthermore, there 

were no reported wildlife incidents for flutolanil involving mammals.

4.2.2.3. Terrestrial Invertebrates

Based on the available data for young adult honey bees, flutolanil is classified as practically 

nontoxic to non-target terrestrial invertebrates on an acute contact exposure basis. Flutolanil was 

also shown to be practically non toxic as residues on foliage. Currently there is no risk 
-Page 133 of 196-

estimation process for non-listed terrestrial invertebrates. An uncertainty with the terrestrial 

invertebrate assessment is that the available toxicity study was conducted with a formulated 

product and not TGAI. 

There are no reported incidents for terrestrial invertebrates associated with the application of 

flutolanil have been reported.

4.2.2.4. Terrestrial Plants

Risk to terrestrial plants in dry areas and semi-aquatic areas resulting from runoff and spray drift 

of flutolanil was estimated using the TerrPlant (v.1.2.2) model. The TerrPlant derived EECs are 

compared to the most sensitive monocot and dicot EC25 to generate a non-listed species RQ and 

compared to the most sensitive NOAEC or EC05 to generate a listed species RQ. The listed and 

non-listed terrestrial plant LOC is 1. The most sensitive monocot in the vegetative vigor study 

was ryegrass with significant effect on weight at the two lowest and two highest treatment 

concentrations. Consequently, an EC25 and NOAEC value could not be determined and risk 

estimation to listed dicots resulting from spray drift only could not be conducted. 

There was not a most sensitive dicot indentified in the vegetative vigor study due to lack of 

toxicity and therefore the EC25 was a “>” value. As a result, non-listed RQs are preceded by a 

“<,” value to indicate a worst case scenario of risk. All endpoints from the seedling emergence 

study were definitive.

The results of the risk estimation indicated that there were no LOC exceedances for nonlisted 

monocot plant species in all modeled areas resulting from multiple exposure routes. As 

mentioned previously, risk to listed species could not be estimated due significant effects on 

weight in the vegetative vigor study at all concentrations but the middle treatment 

concentrations. This pattern of the data precluded the regression model to converge and 

therefore an EC05 was not able to be estimated that would normally serve in place of a nondefinitive (i.e. “<”) NOAEC value. For dicot species, risk above the level of the LOC was 

indicated for listed species in semi-aquatic areas resulting from exposures of runoff and spray 

drift for all turf uses as well as the nursery stock use with the high application rate. Additionally, 

nonlisted dicots in semi aquatic areas and listed dicots in dry areas had risk indicated above the 

LOC for the golf course greens, tees, and aprons use.

4.2.2.5. Risk to Birds and Mammals as a Result of Bioaccumulation in 

Food Items

As mentioned previously, a KABAM analysis was performed based on the log KOW of flutolanil 

and the potential for the chemical to bioaccumulate in the tissues of aquatic organisms. 

Typically, the PRZM/EXAMS scenario that yields the highest pore and surface water 

concentrations is used as the representative scenario to be protective of all uses of a given 

chemical. For flutolanil, that use was the soil drench application method for the nursery stock

use. As a preliminary estimation of the RQs resulted in LOC exceedances with that use, 

additional uses were modeled to attempt to cover a range of residues that might be present in 
-Page 134 of 196-

wildlife tissues. These uses included the ground spray method for the nursery stock use, the 

highest exposure turf scenario, the highest exposure rice scenario, and the highest exposure food 

crop scenario (NC peanuts). 

The results of KABAM indicate that acute dose and dietary-based RQs exceed the acute LOCs 

for birds only, and further only for certain uses. There were no chronic risk concerns above the 

LOC for birds and no acute and chronic risk concerns above the LOC for mammals. 

For the soil drench nursery stock scenario (the highest exposure scenario for flutolanil), acute 

dose based risk above the LOC was indicated for sandpipers and rails consuming flutolanil 

contaminated organisms. Additionally, acute dietary based risk above the LOC was indicated for 

all modeled avian species. While the acute dose based RQs all had the potential to be above all 

acute LOCs (RQs ranged from <0.49 – <0.95), the dietary based RQs had the potential to exceed 

only the acute endangered species and acute restricted use LOCs (RQs ranged from <0.10 –

<0.20). As mentioned previously, there were no avian chronic risks and no acute or chronic 

mammalian RQs with the potential to be above the LOC. 

The same nursery stock use was modeled as a ground spray application method and the resultant 

RQs indicated that there was the potential to exceed the LOC for sandpipers and rails only. All 

RQs had the potential to exceed the acute endangered species and acute restricted use LOC only 

(RQs ranged from <0.23 –< 0.44). The same potential exceedances findings were indicated 

(avian acute dose based for sandpipers and rails) for the rice use, although the RQs were lower 

(RQs ranged from <0.12 – <0.23). There were no potential acute or chronic LOC exceedances 

for birds and mammals for the turf and peanut uses.

The results of the KABAM analysis show that while some uses of flutolanil indicate avian acute 

dose based risk to two species resulting from the consumption of contaminated food items, this 

risk is restricted to the nursery stock use and highest exposure scenario use to rice. All food 

crops and turf uses indicated a level of risk below all LOCs. The RQs from the modeled uses of 

KABAM suggest that while flutolanil has the potential to bioaccumulate, the depuration is rapid 

and fairly complete as the risk above the level of the acute high risk LOC (0.5) was only 

indicated for one use and the highest exposure scenario method for that use (nursery stock soil 

drench). The same use modeled as a ground spray had risk findings indicated that exceeded only 

the acute endangered species and acute restricted use LOCs for two species (sandpipers and 

rails). KABAM assumes that the sandpiper diet is roughly 1/3 each of benthic invertebrates,

filter feeders, and small fish. For rails, that diet is assumed to be 50% benthic invertebrates and 

50% small fish. The data and KABAM analysis indicate that flutolanil residues are depurated 

rapidly from fish tissue but there is no available data to indicate the depuration rate from 

invertebrates or other taxa.

Again, as mentioned previously in the risk characterization section, for acute risk estimation to 

birds and mammals, and chronic risk to mammals, RQs are stated to have the potential to exceed 

the LOC as a result of the submitted toxicity studies not indicating mortality up the top 

concentrations tested (2000 mg a.i/kg-bw and 5000 mg a.i/kg-bw for birds and mammals, 

respectively).
-Page 135 of 196-

5. Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP)

As required by FIFRA and FFDCA, EPA reviews numerous studies to assess potential adverse 

outcomes from exposure to chemicals. Collectively, these studies include acute, subchronic and 

chronic toxicity, including assessments of carcinogenicity, neurotoxicity, developmental, 

reproductive, and general or systemic toxicity. These studies include endpoints which may be 

susceptible to endocrine influence, including effects on endocrine target organ histopathology, 

organ weights, estrus cyclicity, sexual maturation, fertility, pregnancy rates, reproductive loss, 

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

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

taxonomic groups. As part of Problem Formulation for the Registration review of Flutolanil,

EPA reviewed these data and selected the most sensitive endpoints for relevant risk assessment 

scenarios from the existing hazard database. However, as required by FFDCA section 408(p), 

flutolanil is subject to the endocrine screening part of the Endocrine Disruptor Screening 

Program (EDSP). 

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

active and other ingredients) may have an effect in humans or wildlife similar to an effect 

produced by a “naturally occurring estrogen, or other such endocrine effects as the Administrator 

may designate.” The EDSP employs a two-tiered approach to making the statutorily required 

determinations. Tier 1 consists of a battery of 11 screening assays to identify the potential of a 

chemical substance to interact with the estrogen, androgen, or thyroid (E, A, or T) hormonal 

systems. Chemicals that go through Tier 1 screening and are found to have the potential to 

interact with E, A, or T hormonal systems will proceed to the next stage of the EDSP where EPA 

will determine which, if any, of the Tier 2 tests are necessary based on the available data. Tier 2 

testing is designed to identify any adverse endocrine-related effects caused by the substance, and 

establish a dose-response relationship between the dose and the E, A, or T effect. 

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

October 2009 and February 2010, EPA issued test orders/data call-ins for the first group of 67 

chemicals, which contains 58 pesticide active ingredients and 9 inert ingredients. A second list

of chemicals identified for EDSP screening was published on June 14, 20135 and includes some 

pesticides scheduled for registration review and chemicals found in water. Neither of these lists 

should be construed as a list of known or likely endocrine disruptors. 

Flutolanil is on List 1 for which EPA has received all the required Tier 1 assay data. The Agency 

is currently reviewing all of the assay data received for the appropriate List 1 chemicals and 

planning to make the conclusions of those reviews available in early 2015.“ For further 

information on the status of the EDSP, the policies and procedures, the lists of chemicals, future 

lists, the test guidelines and the Tier 1 screening battery, please visit our website.6

 

6 http://www.epa.gov/endo/
-Page 136 of 196-

6. Federally Threatened and Endangered (Listed) Species of 

Concern

Based on this screening-level assessment, there are potential risks of direct effects to listed birds, 

mammals, freshwater and estuarine/marine fish, invertebrates, and sediment dwelling 

invertebrates, aquatic vascular plants, and terrestrial dicot plant species from the use of flutolanil

on some of its registered use sites. Listed species of birds, mammals, freshwater and 

estuarine/marine fish and invertebrates taxa may also be affected through indirect effects because 

of the potential direct effects on listed and non-listed species. Potential direct effects on listed 

birds, mammals, freshwater and estuarine/marine fish, invertebrates, and sediment dwelling 

invertebrates, aquatic vascular plants, and terrestrial dicot plant species from the use of flutolanil

may be associated with modification of Primary Constituent Elements (PCEs) of designated 

critical habitats, where such designations have been made. However, at this current stage of the 

Registration Review process, it is premature to make effects determinations for listed species 

until further scientific analysis and refinements are conducted, based on recommendations 

received from the National Academy of Sciences’ (NAS) National Research Council (NRC)

April 2013 report, available at http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=18344. The NAS 

report outlines recommendations on specific scientific and technical issues related to the 

development of pesticide risk assessments that are compliant with the Endangered Species Act 

(ESA) and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).

The EPA along with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS), the National Marine Fisheries 

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

released a summary of their implementation plan for assessing risks of pesticides to listed species 

ahead of the stakeholder workshop held on November 15, 2013. This plan was developed in 

response to the NAS’ recommendations, including a common approach to risk assessment as a 

way of addressing scientific differences between EPA and the Services. During the workshop, 

the agencies received feedback from the public on the interim scientific approaches that were 

developed as part of the initial implementation of the NAS recommendations. These approaches 

will be jointly implemented and vetted as part of a phased iterative process. Once fully vetted, 

EPA will further refine the listed species effects determination portion of this risk assessment. 

To make effects determinations for individual listed species, useful refinements may include, but 

are not limited to, analyses of: 1) more detailed, species-specific ecological and biological data; 

2) more detailed and accurate information on flutolanil use patterns; and 3) sub-county level 

spatial proximity data for the co-occurrence of potential effects areas and listed species and any 

designated critical habitat. Examples of such refinements are described below.

EFED is currently developing tools that are expected to further refine the assessment and are 

designed to support effects determinations for individual federally listed species and their 

designated critical habitats (where applicable). Scientific information obtained from the 

Services, and other reliable sources is being collated by EFED to address all currently listed 

species. This information is being stored in an Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Pesticide 

Registration Information SysteM (PRISM) listed species knowledgebase. The listed species 

knowledgebase consists of an information repository that houses biological and behavioral 
-Page 137 of 196-

information relevant to individual species (e.g., habitat, diet, and life history, including specific 

temporal and spatial associations) and a document repository that contains supporting documents 

(e.g., USFWS recovery plans) and electronic information (e.g., GIS data files). For terrestrial 

taxa, biological information relevant to the assessment (e.g., diet and body weight) will be used 

to parameterize exposure estimates using a method consistent with currently used methods in the 

T-REX and T-HERPS models. 

Refinements will also include more detailed analyses of the registered uses and specific use 

patterns that result in either “Likely to Adversely Affect” (LAA) or “Not Likely to Adversely 

Affect” (NLAA) determinations for federally listed species. The analyses may include more 

information on where, when, and how flutolanil is used on all use sites. Actual usage data (when 

available) and national land-cover datasets that indicate potential use sites [e.g., National Land 

Cover Dataset (NLCD), Cropland Data Layer (CDL)] may be used to support a more refined 

analysis of where flutolanil is reasonably expected to be used. Similarly, refinements on the 

timing of applications and a more in-depth exploration of agronomic practices for flutolanil may 

be included as part of the refinement.

The refinements based on individual species data; additional, detailed usage information, when 

available; and recommendations from the NRC report are expected to help to more accurately 

identify potential areas of effect and to better inform effects and habitat determinations for listed 

species and any designated critical habitats.

6.1. Action Area

For listed species assessment purposes, the action area is considered to be the area affected 

directly or indirectly by flutolanil use and not merely the immediate area where flutolanil is 

applied. At the initial screening-level, the risk assessment considers broadly described 

taxonomic groups and conservatively estimates exposure for organisms that are co-located with 

the pesticide treatment area. This means that terrestrial plants and wildlife are assumed to be 

located on or adjacent to the treated site and aquatic organisms are assumed to be located in a 

surface water body adjacent to the treated site, except in the case of direct application to aquatic 

habitat. 

6.2. Taxonomic Groups Potentially at Risk 

If the assumptions associated with the screening-level action area result in RQs that are below 

the listed species LOCs, a "no effect" determination conclusion is made with respect to listed 

species in that taxa, and no further refinement of the action area is necessary. Furthermore, RQs 

below the listed species LOCs for a given taxonomic group indicate no concern for indirect 

effects on listed species that depend upon the taxonomic group for which the RQ was calculated. 

However, in situations where the screening assumptions lead to RQs in excess of the listed 

species LOCs for a given taxonomic group, a potential for a "may affect" conclusion exists and 

may be associated with direct effects on listed species belonging to that taxonomic group or may 

extend to indirect effects upon listed species that depend upon that taxonomic group as a 

resource. In such cases, additional information on the biology of listed species, the locations of 
-Page 138 of 196-

these species, and the locations of use sites are considered to determine the extent to which 

screening assumptions regarding an action area apply to a particular listed organism. These 

subsequent refinement steps will consider how this information would impact the action area for 

a particular listed organism and potentially include areas of exposure that are downwind and 

downstream of the pesticide use site.

Assessment endpoints, exposure pathways, the conceptual models addressing proposed new 

flutolanil uses, and the associated exposure and effects analyses conducted for the flutolanil

screening-level risk assessment are in Sections 2 to 3. The assessment endpoints used in the 

screening-level risk assessment include those defined operationally as reduced survival and 

reproductive impairment for both aquatic and terrestrial animal species and survival, 

reproduction, and growth of aquatic and terrestrial plant species from both direct acute and 

chronic exposures. These assessment endpoints address the standard set forth in the Endangered 

Species Act requiring federal agencies to ensure that any action they authorize does not 

appreciably reduce the likelihood of both the survival and recovery of a listed species in the wild 

by reducing the reproduction, numbers, or distribution of the species. Risk estimates (RQs) 

which, integrating exposure and effects, are calculated for broad based taxonomic groups in the 

screening-level risk assessment presented in Section 4.

Both acute and chronic risk to listed species LOCs are considered in the screening-level risk 

assessment to identify direct and indirect effects to taxa of listed species. This section identifies 

direct effect concerns, by taxa, that are triggered by exceeding listed species LOCs in the 

screening-level risk assessment (Table 6.), with an evaluation of the potential probability of 

individual effects for exposures that may occur at the established listed species LOC (Table 6.). 

Data on exposure and effects collected under field and laboratory conditions are evaluated to 

make determinations on the predictive utility of the direct effect screening assessment findings to 

listed species. Additionally, the results of the screen for indirect effects to listed species, using 

direct effect acute and chronic LOCs for each taxonomic group, is presented and evaluated.

Table 6.1. Potential Effects to Federally Listed Taxa Associated with Direct or Indirect 

Effects from the Registered Uses of Flutolanil

Listed Plant Taxon Direct Effects

Indirect Effects to Listed 

Taxon through Direct 

Effects on ...

Terrestrial and semi-aquatic plants –

monocots and dicots Yes Birds, Mammals

Aquatic nonvascular plants Yes Fish1

Aquatic vascular plants Uncertain4 Aquatic nonvascular plants, 

Fish1

Listed Animal Taxon

Direct Effects Indirect Effects to Listed 

Taxon through Direct 

Acute Chronic Effects on ...

Terrestrial invertebrates ND ND ND
-Page 139 of 196-

Listed Plant Taxon Direct Effects

Indirect Effects to Listed 

Taxon through Direct 

Effects on ...

Mammals Yes Yes3 Plants, Fish1,2

Birds Yes Yes3 Plants, Fish1,2

Reptiles Yes Yes3 Plants

Amphibians Yes1 Yes3

Plants, Aquatic nonvascular 

plants, Fish1, Freshwater 

invertebrates1, Mammals

Freshwater fish Yes1 Yes3 Aquatic nonvascular plants, 

Freshwater invertebrates1

Freshwater invertebrates (crustaceans) Yes1 No Aquatic nonvascular plants, 

Fish1

Molluscs Yes1 ND Aquatic nonvascular plants, 

Fish1

Estuarine/marine fish No5 No

Aquatic nonvascular plants, 

Estuarine/marine 

invertebrates1

Estuarine/marine invertebrates 

(crustaceans) Yes1 Yes3 Aquatic nonvascular plants, 

Fish1

Freshwater benthic organisms Yes1 Yes3 Aquatic nonvascular plants, 

Fish1

Estuarine/marine benthic organisms Yes1 Yes3 Aquatic nonvascular plants, 

Fish1

ND = Not determined

1 Acute risk exceeds the listed species LOC only for fish, aquatic amphibians, and aquatic invertebrates exposed to 

at least one registered use of flutolanil 2 Indirect effects to birds and mammals that eat fish or amphibians.

3

Chronic risk exceeds the LOC for at least one registered use of flutolanil 4

RQs for listed aquatic vascular plants are non-definitive “>” values, with uncertain level of risk above what actual 

determinations were.

5

Based on no mortality observed up to and including the limit of solubility.

6.3. Listed Species Occurrence Associated with Registered Uses 

The screening-level risk assessment for flutolanil assumes that it may be applied nationwide, 

including U.S. territories and possessions. Therefore, no federally listed species are excluded 

from the screening level analyses, unless otherwise indicated (e.g., if only listed due to Similarity 

of Appearance to another listed species). A spatial co-occurrence analysis that compares the best 

available data regarding flutolanil potential and documented use areas and listed species 

occurrence is needed to more explicitly address potential risk to listed species of concern. The 
-Page 140 of 196-

Agency has requested data to support this analysis from the Federal Endangered Species Task 

Force (FESTF).

7. Conclusions

The risk hypothesis identified in the problem formulation stated, given the registered uses of 

flutolanil, and its environmental fate properties (persistence and low mobility), there is possible 

acute and chronic exposure to non-target aquatic and terrestrial organisms. Previous risk 

assessments have identified risk to birds, and listed and non-listed species of aquatic 

estuarine/marine invertebrates, including those living in the benthos. This assessment tests the 

hypothesis that, when used in accordance with the label, flutolanil exposure may result in 

adverse effects upon the survival, growth, and reproduction of non-target aquatic and terrestrial 

plants and animals. After reviewing the most recent environmental fate and effects data for 

flutolanil, the screening-level assessment concludes that registered uses of the fungicide 

flutolanil may result in risk to both listed and non-listed species of aquatic and terrestrial 

animals, aquatic plants and wildlife. 

The main route of dissipation of flutolanil is through aerobic soil metabolism (half-lives 190-320 

days). In laboratory tests, flutolanil was resistant to hydrolysis at all pHs tested and resistant to 

photolysis, both in water (only 8% decline in 1 month) and on soils. Flutolanil also appears to be 

relatively persistent under anaerobic soil metabolism (representative half-lives of ≥284 days), 

and under aerobic and anaerobic aquatic metabolism (with half-lives of greater than one year and 

greater than 13 years, respectively). When flutolanil is applied to the field, it is expected to reach 

crop canopy (via foliar applications or translocated since it is a systemic pesticide), and the soil 

(through incorporation on planted seeds, or foliar applications). Flutolanil can reach adjacent 

bodies of water through drift or runoff (dissolved or in eroded soil). Given the relatively high 

persistence of this chemical, and despite its relatively high KOCs, it may also have the potential 

to leach to subsurfaces. Field dissipation studies appear to indicate that in the field various 

dissipation processes may occur. There are several terrestrial field dissipation studies and a long 

term study, which show half-lives of 27-126 days (excluding the second half-life calculated for 

one of the studies for which a biphasic pattern was observed. Additionally, aquatic field 

dissipation studies yielded also a wide range of half-lives of 63-303 and parent flutolanil 

remained mainly in the sediment. Flutolanil may be transported to surface water through erosion 

of soil particles containing bound flutolanil or dissolved in runoff water. Flutolanil does not 

have any major (>10%) degradation products. Desisopropyl flutolanil (DIP) and other minor 

products were less than 4% of the applied in all the environmental fate studies. DIP appears to 

be more mobile than the parent compound. Since it was only a minor product and it was often 

sporadically detected, EFED did not include it as a stressor of concern. This is consistent with 

the HED’s approach.

When estimates of flutolanil exposure in terrestrial and aquatic environments are compared to 

the available ecotoxicity data, the results of the screening-level assessment indicate a potential 

for acute and chronic risk to birds and mammals, acute and chronic risk to freshwater fish and 

invertebrates, freshwater and estuarine/marine benthic invertebrates, listed and non-listed species 

of aquatic vascular plants and the potential of risk to listed aquatic vascular plants. While acute 
-Page 141 of 196-

and chronic risk above the LOC was more widespread across all uses for aquatic species, 

terrestrial risk was mainly restricted to a few uses, that is, the nursery stock and certain turf uses. 

Off-site transport of flutolanil to surface water presents risk to listed and non-listed species of 

aquatic nonvascular plants (e.g., algae); it is uncertain to what degree algicidal or algistatic 

effects in the aquatic plant community may result in indirect effects to other organisms. While 

available data suggest that flutolanil is practically non-toxic to bees, risk to listed species of 

terrestrial invertebrates cannot be precluded. 

Flutolanil (with its low solubility and moderately high KOW and KOCs) has the propensity to bind 

to the sediment. A screening level analysis has shown flutolanil to pose chronic risk above the 

LOC in both the pore water and sediment compartments. Depuration after termination of 

exposure was rapid with more than 95-99% of the total residue recovered depurated in 3 days. 

These results would indicate a low propensity to bioconcentrate or bioaccumulate. A 

preliminary analysis shows that acute and chronic risk to birds and mammals consuming fish 

exposed to flutolanil is below levels of concern for most modeled scenarios, presumably based 

on flutolanil’s readiness to depurate rapidly from tissues.

In the aquatic environment the input half-lives used in modeling were indicative of high 

persistence as follows: stable to hydrolysis, stable to aqueous photolysis, 1095 days for aerobic 

aquatic metabolism (3X the available value), and stable to anaerobic aquatic metabolism. 

Evaluation of the results of the aquatic modeling shows an increasing trend of the EECs in 

PRZM/EXAMS. There are a number of reasons why the estimated environmental exposure 

concentrations (EECs), and consequently the RQs, may have been conservative and possibly 

they are overestimates. These include: a) the PRZM/EXAMS input parameters may have been 

overly conservative, b) the field dissipation studies point towards lower persistence than noted 

from the results of PRZM/ EXAMS, c) since the chemical shows medium to high pest resistance 

[as indicated by Fungicide Resistance Action Committee or FRAC for chemicals in Group 7], it 

may not be applied as often as modeled in PRZM/EXAMS, and d) that the standard pond used in 

PRZM/EXAMS does not include flow or turnover, which may remove part of the flutolanil 

received in the pond. This may cause that, for moderately to highly persistent chemicals, the 

chemical would build up with time and the model could overestimate EECs, when compared to 

real life concentrations in the environment for a similarly sized pond that does have an outlet that 

could remove portions of the flutolanil received in the pond. While these facts appear to point 

towards lower persistence for flutolanil than used in the modeling, in the absence of additional 

data there is uncertainty as to what degree there is persitance or no persistence for flutolanil. 

Despite that they may have been conservative; the input values were used in the absence of 

additional soils and sediments as per the current input parameter guidance. Therefore, there is 

uncertainty as to how much the EECs may have been overestimated.

Risk determinations for currently registered uses of flutolanil and proposed uses are shown in 

Tables 7.1 and 7.2, respectively. For currently registered uses, nursery stock poses potential risk 

to every taxon that RQs were estimated for. Furthermore, all currently registered uses except the 

seed treatment use to cotton and sugarbeet had RQs that exceeded acute and chronic LOCs for 

surface water and benthic estuarine/marine invertebrates. For proposed uses of flutolanil, the 
-Page 142 of 196-

rice use had RQs that exceeded acute and chronic LOCs for all assessed aquatic taxa. All 

proposed uses had RQs that exceeded acute and chronic LOCs for surface water and benthic 

estuarine/marine invertebrates. In addition, the proposed turf uses also had RQs that exceeded 

acute and chronic LOCs for birds and mammals as well as listed and non-listed terrestrial plants.
-Page 143 of 196-

Table 7.1. Summary of Risk Determinations for Currently Registered Uses of Flutolanil (a bolded and shaded “X” represents 

an LOC exceedance)9

Use

(inclusive of all 

scenarios)

FW fish FW 

inverts

E/M 

Fish8

E/M 

inverts

FW Benthic 

inverts5

E/M Benthic 

Inverts5 Birds6 Mammals6 Terrestrial plants7

Aquatic 

plants4

AcuteChronicAcuteChronicAcuteChronicAcuteChronicAcuteChronicAcuteChronicAcuteChronicAcuteChronicListedNon-listedListedNon-listed

Peanuts1 X X X X X X

Potato2 X X X X X

Cotton

Soybean X X X X

Sugarbeet

Rice X X X X X X X X X X

Turf 3 X X X X X X X X X

Nursery Stock X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 1

Inclusive of all uses except proposed ground banded application 2

Includes in-furrow and seed treatment applications 3

Includes ornamental lawns and turf, recreation lawns, industrial, commercial, and residential lawns 4

Exceedances are for non-listed non-vascular plants 5

Chronic RQs inclusive of all potential compartments (sediment-based, pore water-based, pore water/surface water-based) 6

Inclusive of both dose and dietary based risk and of all terrestrial food items 7

Inclusive of both monocots and dicots

8

Acute and chronic risk to estuarine/marine fish was not estimated as there were no mortalities in the acute study up to solubility limit and no chronic fish study 

is available. An acute-to-chronic ratio (ACR) was not utilized to estimate chronic toxicity as there is a high level of uncertainty in using an ACR with a nondefinitive acute toxicity endpoint.

9

An italicized “X’ denotes that the acute or chronic exposure has the potential to exceed the LOC. See Risk Characterization section for more information.
-Page 144 of 196-

Table 7.2. Summary of Risk Determinations for Proposed Uses of Flutolanil (a bolded and shaded “X” represents an LOC 

exceedance)8

Use

(inclusive of 

all scenarios)

FW fish FW inverts E/M Fish7 E/M inverts

FW 

Benthic 

inverts4

E/M 

Benthic 

Inverts4

Birds5 Mammals5 Terrestrial 

plants6

Aquatic 

plants3

AcuteChronicAcuteChronicAcuteChronicAcuteChronicAcuteChronicAcuteChronicAcuteChronicAcuteChronicListedNon-listedListedNon-listed

Peanuts1 X X X X X

Brassica 

(cole leafy 

vegetables 

plus turnip 

greens)

X X X X X

Rice X X X X X X X X X X

Turf 3 X X X X X X X X X X X 1

Ground banded applications only

2 Includes golf courses, sod farms, spot fields, residential, institutional, municipal and commercial areas 3

Exceedances are for non-listed non-vascular plants

4 Chronic RQs inclusive of all potential compartments (sediment-based, pore water-based, pore water/surface water-based) 5 Inclusive of both dose and dietary based risk and of all terrestrial food items

6

Inclusive of both monocots and dicots

7 Acute and chronic risk to estuarine/marine fish was not estimated as there were no mortalities in the acute study up to solubility limit and no chronic fish study 

is available. An acute-to-chronic ratio (ACR) was not utilized to estimate chronic toxicity as there is a high level of uncertainty in using an ACR with a nondefinitive acute toxicity endpoint.

8

An italicized “X’ denotes acute or chronic exposure has the potential to exceed the LOC. See Risk Characterization section for more information.
-Page 145 of 196-

8. Uncertainties, Limitations, and Identification of Data Gaps

8.1. Environmental Fate

8.1.1. Data Gaps Uncertainties

The environmental fate database for flutolanil is substantially complete, as evidenced by the 

presence of all environmental fate laboratory and field studies. It is noted that for the aquatic 

metabolism studies, besides the fact that only one sediment in each study is available (usually 

two sediments are required for a chemical), the duration of these studies was very short 

compared to the calculated half-lives. The aerobic aquatic metabolism study was conducted for 

a period of 30 days, compared to a half-life of 1 year; meanwhile, the anaerobic aquatic 

metabolism study was conducted for 1 year, compared to a half-life of >13 years. Therefore, the 

results were extrapolated and are highly uncertain. Furthermore, the aerobic soil metabolism for 

three of four soils was conducted for 180 days, compared to half-lives of ≥190 days, with the 

exception of one soil that was conducted for 1 year. These issues bring uncertainty to the aquatic 

modeling results (see also Section 8.1.7).

8.1.2. Maximum Use Scenario

The screening-level risk assessment focuses on characterizing potential ecological risks resulting 

from a maximum use scenario, which is determined from labeled statements of maximum 

application rate and number of applications with the shortest time interval between applications. 

The frequency at which actual uses approach this maximum use scenario may be dependent on 

pest resistance, timing of applications, cultural practices, and market forces.

8.1.3. Aquatic Modeling with PRZM/EXAMS 

The standard ecological water body scenario (EXAMS pond) used to calculate potential aquatic 

exposure to pesticides such as flutolanil is intended to represent conservative estimates, and to 

avoid underestimating the actual exposure. The standard scenario consists of application to a 10-

hectare field bordering a 1-hectare, 2-meter deep (20,000 m3

) pond with no outlet. Exposure 

estimates generated using the EXAMS pond is intended to represent a wide variety of vulnerable 

water bodies that occur at the top of watersheds including prairie pot holes, playa lakes, 

wetlands, vernal pools, man-made and natural ponds, and intermittent and lower order streams. 

As a group, there are factors that make these water bodies more or less vulnerable than the 

EXAMS pond. Static water bodies that have larger ratios of pesticide-treated drainage area to 

water body volume would be expected to have higher peak EECs than the EXAMS pond. These 

water bodies will be either smaller in size or have larger drainage areas. Smaller water bodies 

have limited storage capacity and thus may overflow and carry pesticide in the discharge, 

whereas the EXAMS pond has no discharge. As watershed size increases beyond 10-hectares, it 

becomes increasingly unlikely that the entire watershed is planted with a single crop that is all 

treated simultaneously with the pesticide. Headwater streams can also have peak concentrations 

higher than the EXAMS pond, but they likely persist for only short periods of time and are then 

carried and dissipated downstream.
-Page 146 of 196-

The Agency acknowledges that there are some unique aquatic habitats that are not accurately 

captured by this modeling scenario and modeling results may, therefore, under- or over-estimate 

exposure, depending on a number of variables. For example, some organisms may inhabit water 

bodies of different size and depth and/or are located adjacent to larger or smaller drainage areas 

than the EXAMS pond. However, the existing EXAMS pond represents the best currently 

available approach for estimating aquatic exposure to pesticides.

In general, the linked PRZM/EXAMS model produces EECs that are expected to be exceeded 

once within a ten-year period. The Pesticide Root Zone Model is a process or “simulation” 

model that calculates what happens to a pesticide in an agricultural field on a day-to-day basis. It 

considers factors such as rainfall and plant transpiration of water, as well as how and when the 

pesticide is applied. It has two major components: hydrology and chemical transport. Water 

movement is simulated by the use of generalized soil parameters, including field capacity, 

wilting point, and saturation water content. The chemical transport component can simulate 

pesticide application on the soil or on the plant foliage. Dissolved, adsorbed, and vapor-phase 

concentrations in the soil are estimated by simultaneously considering the processes of pesticide 

uptake by plants, surface runoff, erosion, decay, volatilization, foliar wash-off, advection, 

dispersion, and retardation.

Uncertainties associated with each of these individual components add to the overall uncertainty 

of the modeled concentrations. Additionally, model inputs from the environmental fate 

degradation studies are chosen to represent the upper confidence bound on the mean values that 

are not expected to be exceeded in the environment approximately 90 percent of the time. 

Mobility input values are chosen to be representative of conditions in the environment. The 

natural variation in soils adds to the uncertainty of modeled values. Factors such as application 

date, crop emergence date, and canopy cover can also affect estimated concentrations, adding to 

the uncertainty of modeled values. Factors within the ambient environment such as soil 

temperatures, sunlight intensity, antecedent soil moisture, and surface water temperatures can 

cause actual aquatic concentrations to differ for the modeled values.

8.1.4. Buffer Zone to Estuarine/Marine Bodies of Water for the Uses on 

Turf

For the uses on turf and application rates above 4.2 lb a.i./A, labels have restrictions such as the 

following in the label of ProStar 70WP Fungicide: “For use rates over 2.2 oz per 1,000 sq. ft. do 

not apply ProStar 70WP Fungicide within 100 ft. of any estuary or marine habitat or within 100 

ft. of any ditches, drainage tiles, or other waterways that drain directly into (within 1⁄2 mile of 

estuaries or marine habitats.” As a refinement, the spray drift value for a buffer zone of 100 ft 

towards freshwater bodies or 2,640 ft to estuarine/marine bodies of water for ground applications 

was determined in AgDRIFT v.2.1.1. Accordingly, the EECs are presented and compared in 

Table 4.18. As expected, the EECs decreased when the value of spray drift was decreased 

(around 15-16% for a buffer zone of 100 ft and 30-31% for a buffer zone of 2,640 ft.

Unlike spray drift, tools are currently not available to evaluate the effectiveness of a setback on 
-Page 147 of 196-

runoff and loadings. The effectiveness of setbacks is highly dependent on the condition of the 

vegetation. For example, a well established, healthy vegetative setback can be a very effective 

means of reducing runoff and erosion from agricultural fields. Alternatively, a setback of poor 

vegetative quality or a setback that is channelized can be ineffective at reducing loadings. Until 

such time as a quantitative method to estimate the effect of vegetative setbacks on various 

conditions on pesticide loadings becomes available, the aquatic exposure predictions are likely to 

overestimate exposure where healthy vegetative setbacks exist and underestimate exposure 

where poorly developed, channelized, or bare setbacks exist.

8.1.5. Uncertainties regarding dilution and chemical transformations in 

estuaries

PRZM/EXAMS modeled EECs are intended to represent exposure of aquatic organisms in 

relatively small ponds and low-order streams. Therefore it is likely that EECs generated from 

the PRZM/EXAMS model will over-estimate potential concentrations in larger receiving water 

bodies such as estuaries, embayments, and coastal marine areas because chemicals in runoff 

water (or spray drift, etc.) should be diluted by a much larger volume of water than would be 

found in the ‘typical’ EXAMS pond. However, as chemical constituents in water draining from 

freshwater streams encounter brackish or other near-marine-associated conditions, there is 

potential for important chemical transformations to occur. Many chemical compounds can 

undergo changes in mobility, toxicity, or persistence when changes in pH, Eh (redox potential), 

salinity, dissolved oxygen (DO) content, or temperature are encountered. For example, 

desorption and re-mobilization of some chemicals from sediments can occur with changes in 

salinity (Jordan et al., 2008; Means, 1995; Swarzenski et al., 2003), changes in pH (e.g., Wood 

and Baptista 1993), Eh changes (Velde and Church, 1999; Wood and Baptista, 1993), and other 

factors. Thus, although chemicals in discharging rivers may be diluted by large volumes of 

water within receiving estuaries and embayments, the hydrochemistry of the marine-influenced 

water may negate some of the attenuating impact of the greater water volume; for example, the 

effect of dilution may be confounded by changes in chemical mobility (and/or bioavailability) in 

brackish water. In addition, freshwater contributions from discharging streams and rivers do not 

instantaneously mix with more saline water bodies. In these settings, water will commonly 

remain highly stratified, with fresh water lying atop denser, heavier saline water – meaning that 

exposure to concentrations found in discharging stream water may propagate some distance 

beyond the outflow point of the stream (especially near the water surface). Therefore, it is not 

assumed that discharging water will be rapidly diluted by the entire water volume within an 

estuary, embayment, or other coastal aquatic environment. PRZM/EXAMS model results should 

be considered consistent with concentrations that might be found near the head of an estuary 

unless there is specific information – such as monitoring data – to indicate otherwise. Conditions 

nearer to the mouth of a bay or estuary, however, may be closer to a marine-type system, and 

thus more subject to the notable buffering, mixing, and diluting capacities of an open marine 

environment. Conversely, tidal effects (pressure waves) can propagate much further upstream 

than the actual estuarine water, so discharging river water may become temporarily partially 

impounded near the mouth (discharge point) of a channel, and resistant to mixing until tidal 

forces are reversed.
-Page 148 of 196-

The Agency does not currently have sufficient information regarding the hydrology and 

hydrochemistry of estuarine aquatic habitats to develop alternate scenarios for assessed listed 

species that inhabit these types of ecosystems. The Agency acknowledges that there are unique 

brackish and estuarine habitats that may not be accurately captured by PRZM/EXAMS modeling 

results, and may, therefore, under- or over-estimate exposure, depending on the aforementioned 

variables.

8.1.6. Aquatic Modeling with PFAM

The refined PFAM model provides estimates of pesticide active ingredient in the water in the 

treated rice paddy, which is considered to constitute conservative concentration estimates for 

water in rice production areas.

In running PFAM, the conservative assumption was employed, that no flooding events occurred 

prior to permanent flood. A common practice in rice production is to “flush” the fields 2-3 times 

between planting and establishment of the permanent flood, depending on the moisture level in 

soil (BEAD’s internal memorandum dated August 22, 2011). Such flushing would presumably 

act to partially remove flutolanil from soil/sediment, such that concentrations in paddy water 

during the permanent flood would be lessened. Because the model runs done using PFAM do 

not account for this effect, modeled concentrations may be higher than concentrations in 

permanent flood waters of rice fields on which flushing has been conducted.

In modeling it was assumed that, once a permanent flood is established, and prior to chemical 

application, the flood may be maintained until 2 to 3 weeks before harvesting, allowing for more 

exposure of flutolanil in the water. Given its relative stability in the aerobic and anaerobic 

aquatic environment, the chemical concentrations may be higher than if the field was not 

permanently flooded. 

In the PFAM modeling, upper 90th percentile confidence limits on mean half-lives for 

degradation in unflooded soil were used for flutolanil, in accordance with EPA guidance. Use of 

these values may exaggerate the stability of flutolanil in the soil compartment, thereby 

generating conservative EEC estimates for flutolanil. Furthermore, three times the calculated 

half-lives of aerobic and anaerobic aquatic metabolism were used for such processes. Given the 

observed relative persistence of the chemical under such circumstances, the EECs may be 

overestimated.

Labels also have restrictions for applications near marine/estuarine areas. For example, for 

Convoy® Fungicide, for the use on rice, the following statement is shown in the supplemental 

label: “This pesticide is toxic to shrimp. Do not apply this product within three miles of any 

estuarine/marine waterways or watershed.” The actual EECs to which an estuarine/marine body 

of water would be exposed (and hence the RQs), are likely overestimated since PFAM cannot 

account for this type of buffer zone. The main processes that are expected to occur in transit to 

the estuarine/marine bodies of water are likely dilution and aerobic aquatic metabolism (half-life 

is 1 year). Since residence times are unlikely to be very high, dilution may take an important 

role in the ‘dissipation’ of flutolanil in such circumstances.
-Page 149 of 196-

8.1.7. Uncertainties Related to the Accumulation of Residues with Time

Evaluation of the results of the modeling shows an increasing trend of the EECs in PRZM/ 

EXAMS. There are a number of reasons why the estimated environmental exposure 

concentrations (EECs) may have been conservative and possibly they are overestimates. These 

include: a) that the PRZM/EXAMS input parameters may have been overly conservative due to 

the use of a 3X uncertainty factor on half-lives which were in turn extrapolated from the study 

duration, b) that field dissipation studies point towards lower persistence than noted from the 

results of PRZM/EXAMS both in the aquatic and terrestrial media, c) since the chemical belongs 

to FRAC Code 7 fungicides, and shows medium to high pest resistance it may not be applied as 

often as modeled in PRZM/EXAMS, where the maximum application rates and minimum 

interval between applications were employed (it appears that the chemical would not be used on 

the field for several consecutive years, or that there would not be many consecutive applications 

in a given year), and d) the standard pond in PRZM/EXAMS does not have flow or water 

turnover which would have caused a portion of the chemical to be discharged away from the 

pond. This may cause that, for moderately to highly persistent chemicals, the chemical would 

build up with time and the model would overestimate EECs, when compared to real life 

concentrations in the environment for a similarly sized pond that does have an outlet that could 

remove portions of the flutolanil received in the pond.

8.2. Ecological Effects

There are a number of areas of uncertainty in the aquatic and terrestrial risk assessments. The 

toxicity assessment for terrestrial and aquatic plants and animals is limited by the number of 

species tested in the available toxicity studies. Use of toxicity data on representative species

does not provide information on the potential variability in susceptibility to acute and chronic 

exposures. 

For each proposed use, the risk assessment is based on the maximum application rate on the 

proposed label. The frequency at which actual uses approach these maximum scenarios is 

dependent on the resistance to the pesticide, the timing of applications, and market forces. 

Exposure and risks could be overestimated if the actual application rates, frequency of 

application, or number of applications are lower than the input parameters used for the 

conservative exposure scenario that was modeled. However, if there are conditions under which 

there is more than one growing season for a crop within a single year, exposure estimates and 

risk to aquatic and terrestrial organisms could be significantly underestimated. 

Furthermore, there is uncertainty with some of the aquatic organism dataset for flutolanil. 

Several fish and aquatic invertebrate toxicity studies observed low to moderate percent 

recoveries of the test material with precipitate being observed in certain studies. Therefore, it is 

uncertain about the bioavailability of flutolanil in the aquatic media which in turn may 

underestimate the toxicity of flutolanil to freshwater and estuarine/marine fish and invertebrates 

as well as aquatic plants.
-Page 150 of 196-

8.2.1. Terrestrial Exposure Assessment

This risk assessment relies on the best available estimates of environmental fate and 

physicochemical properties, maximum application rate of flutolanil, maximum number of 

applications, and the shortest interval between applications. However, several uncertainties and 

model limitations are noted and should be considered in interpreting the results of this terrestrial 

risk assessment. 

8.2.1.1. Uncertainties Associated with T-REX

There is uncertainty in the modeled terrestrial EECs and resultant RQs for a few flutolanil uses. 

Specifically, while T-REX can simulate seed treatment scenarios, it does not allow for a seed 

planting depth to be specified. For the four flutolanil seed treatment uses, the label specifies a 

planting depth of 3⁄4 to 1 inch depending on the crop. T-REX conservatively assumes that the 

treated seed is broadcast across the field without planting depth and that 100% is available for 

consumption, differentiating itself from PRZM/EXAMS in which incorporation depth can be 

specified via the CAM input. As show in the risk estimation section however, there were no 

acute or chronic RQs above the LOC for birds and mammals.

Additionally, there were a few flutolanil uses in which the soil drench method of application was 

specified. T-REX cannot accurately simulate this type of exposure as it would assume the entire 

application rate would be sprayed on the field and all terrestrial food items included. Label 

directions for soil drench methods usually advise the applicator to direct the spray so that no 

vegetative matter would be sprayed and therefore resultant EEC and RQs in T-REX for these 

uses would be very conservative and contrary to label directions. Therefore, these uses were not 

modeled but a conservative assumption would be to assume an equal measure of risk as the foliar 

spray application method for the same crops that soil drench is approved for use with.

Finally, there is uncertainty with T-REX in how the model simulates systemic chemicals like 

flutolanil. T-REX only considered residues directly on terrestrial food items and therefore may 

underestimate the concentrations within the plant.

8.2.2. Routes of Exposure

Dietary Exposure

Screening-level risk assessments for spray applications of pesticides assume that 100% of the 

diet is relegated to single food types foraged only from treated fields. These assumptions are 

likely to be conservative for many species and will tend to overestimate potential risks. The 

assumption of 100% diet from a treated area may be realistic for acute exposures, but long-term 

exposures modeled as single food types composed entirely of material from a treated field is 

uncertain. 
-Page 151 of 196-

Dermal Exposure

The screening assessment does not consider flutolanil dermal exposure to terrestrial organisms. 

The Agency is actively pursuing modeling techniques to account for dermal exposure via direct 

application of spray and by incidental contact with contaminated vegetation, soil and water.

8.2.3. Age Class and Sensitivity of Effects Thresholds 

It is generally recognized that test organism age may have a significant impact on the observed 

sensitivity to a toxicant. The screening risk assessment acute toxicity data for fish are collected 

on juvenile fish and aquatic invertebrate acute testing is performed on recommended immature 

age classes. Similarly, acute dietary testing with birds is also performed on juveniles, with 

mallard being 5-10 days old and quail at 10-14 days of age. 

Testing of juveniles may overestimate the toxicity of direct acting pesticides in adults. As 

juvenile organisms do not have fully developed metabolic systems, they may not possess the 

ability to transform and detoxify xenobiotics equivalent to the older/adult organism. The 

screening risk assessment has no current provisions for a generally applied method that accounts 

for this uncertainty. In so far as the available toxicity data may provide ranges of sensitivity 

information with respect to age class, the risk assessment uses the most sensitive life-stage 

information as the conservative screening endpoint.

8.2.4. Lack of Effects Data for Amphibians and Reptiles 

Currently, toxicity studies on amphibians and reptiles are not required for pesticide registration. 

Since these data are lacking, the Agency uses fish as surrogates for aquatic phase amphibians and 

birds as surrogates for terrestrial phase amphibians and reptiles. If other species are more or less 

sensitive to flutolanil than the surrogates, risks may be under- or overestimated, respectively. The 

Agency is not limited to a base set of surrogate toxicity information in establishing risk 

assessment conclusions. The Agency also considers toxicity data on non-standard test species 

when available. Further research is needed to determine whether, in general, reptiles and 

terrestrial-phase amphibians are suitably represented by bird species in assessing risks for 

flutolanil and fish are an appropriate surrogate for aquatic-phase amphibians.

8.2.5. Use of the Most Sensitive Species Tested 

Although the screening risk assessment relies on a selected toxicity endpoint from the most 

sensitive species tested, it does not necessarily mean that the selected toxicity endpoints reflect 

sensitivity of the most sensitive species existing in a given environment. The relative position of 

the most sensitive species tested in the distribution of all possible species is a function of the 

overall variability among species to a particular chemical. The relationship between the 

sensitivity of the most sensitive tested species versus wild species (including listed species) is 

unknown and a source of significant uncertainty. In addition, in the case of listed species, there is 

uncertainty regarding the relationship of the listed species' sensitivity and the most sensitive 

species tested. 
-Page 152 of 196-

Oganisms consume a variety of dietary items and may exist in a variety of sizes at different life 

stages. For foliar applications of liquid formulations, T-REX estimates exposure for the 

following dietary items: short grass, tall grass, broadleaf plants/small insects, fruits/pods/seeds/

large insects, and seeds for granivores. Birds (used as a surrogate for amphibians and reptiles), 

and mammals, consume all of these items. The size classes of birds represented in T-REX are 

the small (20 g), medium (100 g), and large (1000 g). The size classes for mammals are small 

(15 g), medium (35 g), and large (1000 g). EECs are calculated for the most sensitive dietary 

item and size class for birds (surrogate for terrestrial-phase amphibians and reptiles) and 

mammals. Table 6-1 shows the percentages of the EECs and RQs of the various dietary classes 

for each size class as compared to the most sensitive dietary class (short grass) and size class 

(small mammal or bird). This information could be used to further characterize potential risk 

that is specific to the diet of birds and mammals. For example, if a mammal only consumes 

broadleaf plants and small insects and the RQ was 100 for small mammals consuming short 

grass, the RQ for small mammals that only consumed broadleaf plants and small insects would 

be 56 (100 x 0.56). 

Table 8.1. Percentage of EEC or RQ for the Specified Dietary Items and Size Classes as 

Compared to the EEC or RQ for The Most Sensitive Dietary Items (Short Grass) and Size 

Class (Small Bird or Small Mammal)

Dietary Items Percentage of EECs or RQs for the Specified Dietary Items and Size Class as compared to 

the EEC or RQ for Small Birds1 or Small Mammals Consuming Short Grass

Birds: Dose Based EECs and RQs

Size Class Small, 20 g Mid, 100 g Large, 1000 g

EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ

Short Grass 100% 100% 57% 45% 26% 14%

Tall Grass 46% 46% 26% 21% 12% 7%

Broadleaf 

plants/small 

Insects

56% 56% 32% 25% 14% 8%

Fruits/pods/see

ds/large insects 6% 6% 4% 3% 2% 1%

Granivores 1% 1% 1% 1% 0.4% 0.2%

Mammals: Dose-Based EECs and RQs

Size Class Small, 15 g Mid, 35 g Large, 1000 g

EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ

Short Grass 100% 100% 69% 85% 16% 46%

Tall Grass 46% 46% 32% 39% 7% 21%

Broadleaf 

plants/small 

Insects

56% 56% 39% 48% 9% 26%

Fruits/pods/see

ds/large insects 6% 6% 4% 5% 1% 3%

Granivores 1% 1% 1% 1% 0.2% 0.6%

Mammals and Birds: Dietary-based EECs and RQs for all Size Classes2

Short Grass 100%

Tall Grass 46%
-Page 153 of 196-

Dietary Items Percentage of EECs or RQs for the Specified Dietary Items and Size Class as compared to 

the EEC or RQ for Small Birds1 or Small Mammals Consuming Short Grass

Broadleaf 

plants/sm 

Insects

56%

Fruits/pods/see

ds/lg insects 6%

1 The percents of the maximum RQ shown here for birds are based on the Agency’s default avian scaling factor of 

1.15.

2

 Percentages for dose-based chronic EECs and RQs for mammals are equivalent to the acute dose-based EECs and 

RQs. 

In the risk assessment, RQs were only calculated for the most sensitive dietary class relevant to 

the organisms assessed. For most organisms, not enough data is available to conclude that birds 

or mammals may not exclusively feed on a dietary class for at least some time period. However, 

most birds and mammals consume a variety of dietary items and thus the RQ will overestimate 

risk to those organisms. Additionally, some organisms will not feed on all of the dietary classes. 

For example, many amphibians would only consume insects and not any plant material.

8.2.7. Sublethal Effects

When assessing acute risk, the screening risk assessment relies on the acute mortality endpoint as 

well as a suite of sublethal responses to the pesticide, as determined by the testing of species 

response to chronic exposure conditions and subsequent chronic risk assessment. Consideration 

of additional sublethal data in the effects determination is exercised on a case-by-case basis and 

only after careful consideration of the nature of the sublethal effect measured and the extent and 

quality of available data to support establishing a plausible relationship between the measure of 

effect (sublethal endpoint) and the assessment endpoints. However, the full suite of sublethal 

effects from valid open literature studies is considered for the characterization purposes.

To the extent to which sublethal effects are not considered in this assessment, the potential direct 

and indirect effects of flutolanil on listed species may be underestimated. 
-Page 154 of 196-

9. References

American Bird Conservancy (ABC). 2007. Avian Incident Monitoring System. Available 

online at http://www.abcbirds.org/abcprograms/policy/pesticides/aims/aims/simple.cfm.

Armitage, J.M., & Gobas, F.A.P.C. 2007. A terrestrial food-chain bioaccumulation model for 

POPs. Environmental Science and Technology, 41, 4019-4025.

Baris, R.D., S.Z. Cohen, N.L. Barnes, J. Lam, and Q. Ma. 2010. Urban Pesticides Risk 

Assessment and Management Review: Quantitative Analysis of Over 20 Years of Golf 

Course Monitoring Studies. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Vol. 29, No. 6, 

pp. 1224–1236, 2010.

Di Toro, DM, CS Zarba, DJ Hansen, WJ Berry, RC Swartz, CE Cowan, SP Pavlou, HE Allen, 

NA Thomas and PR Paquin. 1991. Technical basis for establishing sediment quality 

criteria for nonionic organic chemicals using equilibrium partitioning. Environ. Toxicol. 

Chem. 10:1541-1583.

Fisher, H.B, List, E.J, Koh, R.C.Y., Imberger, J., and Brooks, N.H. (1979) Mixing in Inland and 

Coastal Waters. Academic Press, Ney York, NY. pp. 126-127.

Fletcher, J.S., J.E. Nellessen, and T.G. Pfleeger. 1994. Literature review and evaluation of the 

EPA food-chain (Kenaga) nomogram, and instrument for estimating pesticide residues on 

plants. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 13 (9):1383-1391.

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. FAO PESTICIDE DISPOSAL 

SERIES 8. Assessing Soil Contamination: A Reference Manual. Appendix 2. 

Parameters of pesticides that influence processes in the soil. Editorial Group, FAO 

Information Division: Rome, 2000. 

http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/003/X2570E/X2570E00.htm (accessed October 18, 2013)

Gobas, F.A.P.C., B.C. Kelly and J.A. Arnot. 2003. Quantitative structure activity relationships 

for predicting the bioaccumulation of POPs in terrestrial food webs. QSAR Comb. Sci. 

22:329-336.

Hoerger, F., and E.E. Kenaga. 1972. Pesticide residues on plants: Correlation of representative 

data as a basis for estimation of their magnitude in the environment. In F. Coulston and 

F. Korte, eds., Environmental Quality and Safety: Chemistry, Toxicology, and 

Technology, Georg Thieme Publ, Stuttgart, West Germany, pp. 9-28.

Hill, J.E., Roberts, S.R., Brandon, D.M., Scardaci, S.C., Willimas, J.F., Mutters, R.G. 1997. Rice 

Production in California Revised 1997.
-Page 155 of 196-

Hill, J. E., Williams, J. F., Mutters, R. G., & Greer, C. A. 2006. The California rice cropping 

system: agronomic and natural resource issues for long-term sustainability. Paddy Water 

Environ, 4, 13-19.

Jordan, T. E., Cornwell, J. C., Walter, R. B., & Anderson, J. T. 2008. Changes in phosphorus 

biogeochemistry along an estuarine salinity gradient. Limnology and Oceanography 

53(1), 172-184.

Luo, Y. 2011. Report 263: Review and Evaluation of Pesticide Modeling Approaches in Rice 

Paddies. California Department of Pesticide Regulation, Environmental Monitoring 

Branch. June 29, 2011. 

http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/emon/surfwtr/protocols/study263protocol.pdf (accessed 

October 23, 2013).

Means, J. C. 1995. Influence of salinity upon sediment-water partitioning of aromatic 

hydrocarbons. Marine Chemistry, 51(1), 3-16.

Moldenhauer, K and N. Slaton, undated. Rice Growth and Development (Chapter 1), 8 pp. 

available at http://baegrisk.ddns.uark.edu/test/Books/PDF/chapter1sl3.pdf (accessed 

October 25, 2013).

Shipp, M. 2002. Crop Profile for Rice in Louisiana.

http://www.ipmcenters.org/CropProfiles/docs/LArice.pdf (accessed October 25, 2013).

Swarzenski, P. W., Porcelli, D., Andersson, P. S., & Smoak, J. M. 2003. The behavior of U- and 

Th-series nuclides in the estuarine environment. Reviews in Mineralogy and 

Geochemistry REviews in Mineralogy and Geochemistry, 52(1), 577-606.

Univeristy of Arkansas. 2006. Rice Production Handbook. University of Arkansas, Division of 

Agriculture Cooperative Extension Service.

Urban, D.J., and N. Cook. 1986. Ecological Risk Assessment. EPA 540/9–85-001. Office of 

Pesticide Programs. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

USDA 2000. Conservation Buffers to Reduce Pesticide Losses. Natural Resources Conservation 

Service. 25 pp. 

USDA 2010. Field Crops Usual Planting and Harevsting Dates. United States Department of 

Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. October 29, 2010. 

http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current/planting/planting-10-29-2010.pdf (accessed 

October 23, 2013).

USEPA 1993. Wildlife Exposure Factors Handbook. EPA/600/R-13/187a. Office of Research 

and Development, Washington, D.C.

USEPA 1998. Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment. EPA/630/R-95/002F. Published in 
-Page 156 of 196-

63 FR 26846; May 14, 1998. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. 

April, 1998.

USEPA. 2002. Technical Basis for the derivation of Equilibrium Partitioning Sediment 

Guidelines (ESGs) for the Protection of Benthic Organisms: Nonionic Organics [Draft]. 

EPA Document No. 822R02041. October 2002.

USEPA 2004a. Exposure Analysis Modeling System (EXAMS): User Manual and System 

Documentation. EPA/600/R-00/81-023. May 2004. Ecosystems Research Division. 

United States Environmental Protection Agency. Available at 

http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/EXAMREVG.PDF (accessed 

October 23, 2013).

USEPA 2004b. Overview of the Ecological Risk Assessment Process in the Office of Pesticide 

Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Endangered and Threatened Species 

Effects Determinations. Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Office of 

Pesticide Programs, Washington, D.C. Available online at 

http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/endanger/consultation/ecorisk-overview.pdf.

USEPA 2005. EXAMS User’s Manual. Online at: 

http://www.epa.gov/ceampubl/swater/exams/index.html

USEPA 2006a. PRZM User’s Manual. Online at: 

http://www.epa.gov/ceampubl/gwater/przm3/index.html

USEPA 2006b, TerrPlant v. 1.2.2 User’s Guide. Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental 

Fate and Effects Division, Washington, D.C. December 26, 2006.

USEPA 2009a. Models Data Bases: available online and accessed October 23, 2013 at 

http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/science/models_db.htm.

USEPA 2009b. Guidance for Selecting Input Parameters in Modeling the Environmental Fate 

and Transport of Pesticides, Version 2.1. Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic 

Substances, Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Fate and Effects Division, 

October 22, 2009 and issued November 10, 2009. Available online at: 

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

October 18, 2013).

USEPA 2009c. ECOTOXicology Database, v. 4.0. Accessed March 2013. Available online at 

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

USEPA 2009d. Ecological Incident Information System, v. 2.1 . Accessed on 11 August 2012. 

Description online at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/science/models_db.htm.

USEPA 2009e. Guidance on the Development, Evaluation, and Application of Environmental 
-Page 157 of 196-

Models. EPA/100/K-09/003 March 2009. US Environmental Protection Agency, 

Washington, DC.

USEPA 2010. Guidance for Making Temperature Adjustments to Metabolism Inputs to EXAMS 

and PE5 and WQTT Advisory Note Number 9: Temperature Adjustments for Aquatic 

Metabolism Inputs to EXAMS and PE5. OCSPP/OPP/Environmental Fate and Effects 

Division. Dated 09/21/2010 and approved 10/18/2010.

Velde, B., & Church, T. 1999. Rapid clay transformations in Delaware salt marshes. Applied 

Geochemistry, 14(5), 559-568.

Wood, T. M., & Baptista, A. M. 1993. A model for diagnostic analysis of estuarine 

geochemistry. Water Resources Research 29(1), 51-71.

Young, D.F. 2012. Development and Evaluation of a Regulatory Model for Pesticides in Flooded 

Applications. Environ Model Assess, DOI 10.1007/s10666-012-9311-9 (published 

Online March 4, 2012). 
-Page 158 of 196-

8.1. Submitted Environmental Fate Studies

161-1 Hydrolysis 

MRID Citation Reference

40342940 Daly, D.; Ediger, K. (1987) W14 Hydrolysis of [Carbon 14]-Fluto- lanil as a Function 

of pH at 25 [degrees]C: ABC Final Report #35399. Unpublished study prepared by 

Analytical Bio-Chemistry Laboratories, Inc. 28 p. 

No MRID 1988. Hydrolysis of Flutolonil in comparison wit Mepronil

161-2 Photodegradation-water

MRID Citation Reference

41841208 Carpenter, M.; Fennessey, M. (1991) Determination of Photodegradat- ion of [Carbon 

14-Flutolanil] in Aqueous Solution: Lab Project Number: 35176R: E642-01-87. 

Unpublished study prepared by Analytical Bio-Chemistry Laboratories, Inc. 41 p. 

41841209 Bashir, M. (1991) Identification of Degradation Products of Flutol- anil in an Aqueous 

Photosensitized Solution: Lab Project Number: 38426: E642.01.87. Unpublished 

study prepared by Analytical Bio-Chemistry Laboratories, Inc. 34 p. 

161-3 Photodegradation-soil

MRID Citation Reference

41841210 Carpenter, M. (1991) "Determination of the Photolysis Rate of Flut- olanil on the 

Surface of Soil": Lab Project Number: 38480: 500AU Unpublished study prepared by 

Analytical Bio-Chemistry Laborato- ries, Inc. 33 p. 

43175810 Hallberg, C. (1994) Determination of the Photolysis Rate of Flutolanil on the Surface 

of Soil: Amendment 1: Lab Project Number: 38480: 500AU. Unpublished study 

prepared by ABC Laboratories, Inc. 24 p. 

162-1 Aerobic soil metabolism

MRID Citation Reference

40342941 Aizawa, H. (1982) W20-Flutolanil: Decomposition Test of Flutolanil in Soil: 

Laboratory Project ID No. 56-076-(3). Unpublished study prepared by MitsubishiKasei Institute of Toxicological and Environmental Sciences. 38 p. 
-Page 159 of 196-

40342942 Nakamura, Y.; Ishikawa, K.; Kuwatsuka, S. (1977) Degradation of benthiocarb in 

soils as affected by soil conditions. Journal of Pesticide Science 2:7-16. 

45756601 Swanson, M. (1996) Aerobic Soil Metabolism of (Carbon 14)-Flutolanil: Final Report: 

Lab Project Number: A55786/W70: SC920104: 520 AU. Unpublished study 

prepared by Battelle Columbus Operations. 137 p. 

162-2 Anaerobic soil metabolism

MRID Citation Reference

49075001 Mallipudi, N.M. and L. Cooke. 2013. Anaerobic soil metabolism of [14C] Flutolanil. 

Unpublished study performed by Eurofins Product Safety Labs (EPSL), Dayton, 

New Jersey, and Symbiotic Research LLC, Mount Olive, New Jersey; sponsored by 

Nihon Nohyaku Company Ltd., Tokyo, Japan; and submitted by Nichino America, 

Wilmington, Delaware. EPSL Study No.: 31754. Symbiotic Research Final Report 

No.: SR20130114A. Experiment started March 31, 2011, and terminated January 

24, 2013 (p. 9). Final report issued February 26, 2013.

162-3 Anaerobic aquatic metab.

MRID Citation Reference

41841211 Daly, D.; Williams, M. (1991) Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism of [Carbon 14]-

Flutolanil: Lab Project Number: 36762: E642.02.88. Unpublished study prepared by 

Analytical Bio-Chemistry Laboratories, Inc. 71 p. 

162-4 Aerobic aquatic metab.

MRID Citation Reference

41841212 Daly, D. (1989) "Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism of [Carbon 14]-Flutola- nil: Lab Project 

Number: 36763. Unpublished study prepared by Analytical Bio-Chemistry 

Laboratories, Inc. 42 p. 

163-1 Leach/adsorp/desorption

MRID Citation Reference

40342943 Daly, D. (1987) W13-Soil/Sediment Adsorption-Desorption with [Car- bon 14]-

Flutolanil: ABC Final Report #35398. Unpublished study prepared by Analytical BioChemistry Laboratories, Inc. 52 p. 

41841213 Daly, D. (1991) “Soil/Sediment Adsorption-Desorption of Soil Incor- porated [Carbon 
-Page 160 of 196-

14]-Flutolanil Following Aerobic Aging”: Lab Project Number: 37793: E642.03.89. 

Unpublished study prepared by Analytical Bio-Chemistry Laboratories, Inc. 35 p. 

42606626 Williams, M.; Heim, L. (1992) Soil/Sediment Adsorption-Desorption of (Carbon 14)-

Desisopropyflutolanil: Lab Project Number: 40410. Unpublished study prepared by 

ABC Labs, Inc. 58 p. 

42606627 Williams, M.; Berghaus, L. (1992) Soil/Sediment Adsorption-Desorption of (Carbon 

14)-Flutolanil: Lab Project Number: 40130. Unpublished study prepared by ABC 

Labs, Inc. 58 p. 

164-1 Terrestrial field dissipation

MRID Citation Reference

41837803 Castro, L. (1991) Dissipation of Flutolanil on Bare Soil Following Application of 

Flutolanil 50 WP, USA, 1989: Lab Project Number: R642.07.89. Unpublished study 

prepared by NOR-AM Chemical Co. 63 p. 

41837804 Castro, L. (1991) Dissipation of Flutolanil in Soil following Application of Flutolanil 

50WP to Turf, USA, 1989: Lab Project Number: R642.10.89: 38122. Unpublished 

study prepared by Nor-Am Chemical Co. in assoc. with ABC Laboratories, Inc. 65 p. 

42606616 Castro, L. (1991) Stability of Flutolanil and Desisopropyl Flutolanil in Soil under 

Freezer Conditions for a Period of Two Years: Lab Project Number: E642.05.88. 

Unpublished study prepared by NOR-AM Chemical Co. 42 p. 

43175809 Castro, L. (1993) Dissipation of Flutolanil in Soil Following Application of SN 84364 

50WP To Peanuts, USA, 1988: Lab Project Number: R642.04.88. Unpublished study 

prepared by NOR-AM Chemical Co. (Analytical Services Dept. and Residue 

Chemistry Dept.). 84 p. 

45756602 Castro, L. (1994) Dissipation of Flutolanil on Bare Soil Following Application of 

Flutolanil 50 WP: Lab Project Number: FLUTOLANIL/W43: R642.07.89: B002392. 

Unpublished study prepared by Nor-Am Chemical Company. 97 p. 

45756603 Castro, L. (1995) Dissipation of Flutolanil in Soil Following Application of Flutolanil 50 

WP to Turf, USA, 1998: Lab Project Number: 38122: B002400: R642.10.89. 

Unpublished study prepared by ABC Laboratories, Inc. and AgrEvo Research Center. 

117 p. 

48714001 Willoh, J.M. 2011. Independent laboratory validation of the flutolanil analytical method 

described in Nihon Nohyaku Co., Ltd. Final report no. LSRC-A07-161A (amended), 

study protocol no. GE-04, 07-0127, entitled “Validation of analytical method for 

flutolanil in soil.” Report prepared by Morse Laboratories, LLC, Sacramento, 

California, sponsored and submitted by Nihon Nohyaku Co. Ltd., Tokyo, Japan; 134 

pages. Final report issued September 21, 2011.

48763101 Ihara, T. 2007. Validation of analytical method for flutolanil in soil. Report prepared by 

Nihon Nohyaku Co., Ltd., Osaka, Japan, sponsored and submitted by Nichino 

America, Inc., Wilmington, Delaware (p. 2); 32 pages. Final report issued December 

7, 2007.
-Page 161 of 196-

164-2 Aquatic field dissipation

MRID Citation Reference

42606616 Castro, L. (1991) Stability of Flutolanil and Desisopropyl Flutolanil in Soil under 

Freezer Conditions for a Period of Two Years: Lab Project Number: E642.05.88. 

Unpublished study prepared by NOR-AM Chemical Co. 42 p. 

42606618 Castro, L. (1992) Aquatic Field Dissipation of Flutolanil following Use at Highest 

Recommended Label Rates in Rice: Lab Project Number: R642.06.89. Unpublished 

study prepared by NOR-AM Chemical Co. and ABC Labs. 138 p. 

43292603 Castro, L. (1993) Flutolanil/W62: Aquatic Field Dissipation of Flutolanil Following 

Application of MONCUT 50WP to Rice at Highest Recommended Label Rates, USA, 

1991: Lab Project Number: AU/91R/03. Unpublished study prepared by NOR-AM 

Chemical Co., Residue Chemistry Dept. 94 p. 

48796401 Willoh, J.M. 2012. Independent laboratory validation of the flutolanil analytical method 

described in Nihon Nohyaku Co., Ltd. Final report no. LSRC-A11-010A, study 

protocol no. GE-04, 11-0001, entitled “Validation of analytical method for flutolanil in 

water.” Report prepared by Morse Laboratories, LLC, Sacramento, California, 

sponsored and submitted by Nihon Nohyaku Co. Ltd., Tokyo, Japan; 118 pages. 

Final report issued April 6, 2012.

164-3 Forest field dissipation

MRID Citation Reference

42606616 Castro, L. (1991) Stability of Flutolanil and Desisopropyl Flutolanil in Soil under 

Freezer Conditions for a Period of Two Years: Lab Project Number: E642.05.88. 

Unpublished study prepared by NOR-AM Chemical Co. 42 p. 

164-5 Long term soil dissipation

MRID Citation Reference

42606616 Castro, L. (1991) Stability of Flutolanil and Desisopropyl Flutolanil in Soil under 

Freezer Conditions for a Period of Two Years: Lab Project Number: E642.05.88. 

Unpublished study prepared by NOR-AM Chemical Co. 42 p. 

43175804 Castro, L. (1993) Long-Term Field Dissipation of Flutolanil under Conditions of 

Peanut Cultivation Initiated 1989, USA: Lab Project Number: R642.08.89. 

Unpublished study prepared by NOR-AM Chemical Co.; ABC Laboratories. 114 p. 
-Page 162 of 196-

165-1 Confined rotational crop

MRID Citation Reference

42606619 Downey, S.; Meyer, B. (1992) Uptake of (Carbon 14)-Flutolanil Residues in Soil by 

Rotational Crops under Confined Conditions: Lab Project Number: E642.03.87. 

Unpublished study prepared by NOR-AM Chemical Co. in cooperation with Landis 

Int'l and ABC Labs. 165 p. 

1988 Confined crop rotation study protocol

165-2 Field rotational crop

MRID Citation Reference

42606616 Castro, L. (1991) Stability of Flutolanil and Desisopropyl Flutolanil in Soil under 

Freezer Conditions for a Period of Two Years: Lab Project Number: E642.05.88. 

Unpublished study prepared by NOR-AM Chemical Co. 42 p. 

43175803 Brady, S. (1994) Flutolanil-Derived Residues in or on Rotational Crops Following 

Application of Moncut 50WP to Peanuts at Highest Recommended Label Rate: Lab 

Project Number: AU-91R-05. Unpublished study prepared by NOR-AM Chemical Co. 

241 p. 

45702001 Winkler, V. (2002) Rotational Crop Plant Back Interval (PBI) Restrictions for Moncut 

Fungicide Use on Potatoes: Lab Project Number: VW030602: E642.03.87. 

Unpublished study prepared by Gowan Co. and Nichino America Inc. 21 p. {OPPTS 

860.1900} 

45709501 Winkler, V.; Chisholm, K. (2002) Rotational Crop Plant Back Interval (PBI) 

Restrictions for Moncut Fungicide Use on Potatoes: Lab Project Number: R-3052: 

VW030602: E642.03-87. Unpublished study prepared by Gowan Co. 21 p. {OPPTS 

860.1900} 

165-3 Accumulation - irrig crop

MRID Citation Reference

42606615 Castro, L. (1992) Residues of Flutolanil in Crops and Soil Irrigated with Water Drained 

from Rice Fields Treated with Flutolanil 50WP: Lab Project Number: R642.03.90. 

Unpublished study prepared by NOR-AM Chemical Co. 89 p. 
-Page 163 of 196-

165-4 Bioaccumulation in fish

MRID Citation Reference

40342944 Sudo, Y. (1984) W4-Flutolanil: Test on the Degree of Bioaccumula- tion of a, a, aTrifluoro-3'-isopropoxy-o-toouanilide (Test Sub- stance No. S-837) in Carp: Report No. 

35524E. Unpublished study prepared by Chemicals Inspection & Testing Institute. 62 

p. 

41841214 Forbis, A. (1991) Uptake, Depuration and Bioconcentration of [Carb- on 14]-Flutolanil 

by Bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus): Lab Project Number: 37902: E642.04.89. 

Unpublished study prepared by Analy- tical Bio-Chemistry Laboratories, Inc. 39 p. 

41841215 Heitkamp, J. (1991) Characterization of [Carbon 14]-Flutolanil Residues in Bluegill 

(Lepomis macrochirus) Water and Tissues: Lab Project Number: 38946: E642.04.89. 

Unpublished study prepa- red by Analytical Bio-Chemistry Laboratories, Inc. 58 p. 

No MRID Fish Bioacculmulation Protocol related documents

165-5 Bioaccum-aquatic non-target

MRID Citation Reference

42641101 Brady, S. (1992) Flutolanil-Derived Residues in or on Crayfish Grown in Rice Paddies 

Treated with Flutolanil 50 WP: Lab Project Number: R642.02.90. Unpublished study 

prepared by Nor-Am Chemical Co. 132 p. 

8.2. Submitted Ecotoxicity Studies

71-1 Avian Single Dose Oral Toxicity –

MRID DOC NUM Citation Reference

40342929 2049632 Roberts, N.; Fairley, C. (1986) W8-The Acute Oral Toxicity (LD50) 

of Flutolanil to the Mallard Duck: Laboratory Project ID No. NNU 

21BT/861566. Unpublished study prepared by Huntingdon 

Research Centre. 31 p. 

40342930 2049629 Roberts, N.; Fairley, C. (1987) W9-The Acute Oral Toxicity (LD50) 

of Flutolanil to the Bobwhite Quail: Laboratory Project ID No. NNU 

20BT/861565. Unpublished study prepared by Huntingdon Research Centre. 31 p. 

71-2 Avian Dietary Toxicity
-Page 164 of 196-

MRID DOC NUM Citation Reference

40342931 2049630 Roberts, N.; Fairley, C. (1986) W10-The Subacute Dietary Toxicity 

(LC50) of Flutolanil to the Mallard Duck: Laboratory Project ID No. 

NNu 23BT/861568. Unpublished study prepared by Huntingdon 

Research Centre. 28 p. 

40342932 2049631 Roberts, N.; Fairley, C. (1986) W7-The Subacute Dietary (LC50) of 

Flutolanil to the Bobwhite Quail: Laboratory Project ID No. NNU 

22BT/861567. Unpublished study prepared by Huntingdon 

Research Centre. 29 p. 

71-4 Avian Reproduction

MRID DOC NUM Citation Reference

42932301 2049652 Beavers, J.; Hoxter, K.; Jaber, M. (1993) W64 Flutolanil: Flutolanil 

Technical: A One-Generation Reproduction Study with the 

Bobwhite (Colinus virginianus): Lab Project Number: 244-108. 

Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International Ltd. 167 p. 

42932302 2049653 Beavers, J.; Hoxter, K.; Jaber, M. (1993) W64 Flutolanil: Flutolanil 

Technical: A One-Generation Reproduction Study with the Mallard 

(Anas platyrhynchos): Lab Project Number: 244-109. Unpublished 

study prepared by Wildlife International Ltd. 173 p. 

72-1 Acute Toxicity to Freshwater Fish

MRID DOC NUM Citation Reference

40342933 2049633 Bowman, J. (1987) W16 Acute Toxicity of Flutolanil Technical to 

Rainbow Trout (Salmo gairdneri): ABC Final Report #35378. Unpublished study prepared by Analytical Bio-Chemistry Laboratories, Inc. 143 p. 

40342934 2049634 Bowman, J. (1987) W17 Acute Toxicity of Flutolanil Technical to 

Bluegill Sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus): ABC Final Report #35377. 

Unpublished study prepared by Analytical Bio-Chemistry Laboratories, Inc. 149 p. 

40342936 2049635 Tsuchiya, K.; Sugimoto, T. (1982) W6-Report on Flutolanil Toxicity 

Tests on Aquatic Organisms: Laboratory Project ID No. W-3001. 

Unpublished study prepared by Institute of Life Science Research. 35 p. 
-Page 165 of 196-

41841216 2049638 Bowman, J. (1990) Acute Toxicity of Flutolanil Technical to 

Fathead Minnow (Pimephales promelas): Lab Project Number: 

38101: E642.05 .89. Unpublished study prepared by Analytical BioChemistry Laboratories, Inc. 39 p. 

72-2 Acute Toxicity to Freshwater Invertebrates

MRID DOC NUM Citation Reference

40342936 2049635 Tsuchiya, K.; Sugimoto, T. (1982) W6-Report on Flutolanil Toxicity 

Tests on Aquatic Organisms: Laboratory Project ID No. W-3001. 

Unpublished study prepared by Institute of Life Science Research. 35 p. 

41841217 2049639 Hicks, S.; Young, B.; Forbis, A. (1990) Acute Toxicity of Flutolan- il 

to Daphnia magna: Lab Project Number: 38718: E642.08.89. Unpublished study prepared by Analytical Bio-Chemistry Laboratories, Inc. 40 p. 

72-3 Acute Toxicity to Estuarine/Marine Organisms

MRID DOC NUM Citation Reference

40342937 2049636 Chemicals Inspection & Testing Institute (1981) W5-Flutolanil: 

Acute Toxicity of NHF-136 to Striped Mullet: Laboratory Project ID 

No. 34322E. Unpublished study. 9 p. 

41841218 2049640 Bowman, J.; Gormley, M. (1991) Acute Toxicity of Flutolanil 

Technical to Sheepshead Minnow (Cyprinodon variegatus): Lab 

Project Number: 38719: 502 AU. Unpublished study prepared by 

Analytical Bio-Chemistry Laboratories, Inc. 30 p. 

41841219 2049641 Ward, T.; Boeri, R. (1991) Acute Flow-through Mollusc Shell 

Deposi- tion Test with Flutolanil: Lab Project Number: 9062-AB: 

E642.09 .89. Unpublished study prepared by Resource Analysts, 

Inc. 55 p. 

41841220 2049642 Forbis, A. (1991) Acute Toxicity of Flutolanil to Mysidopsis bahia: 

Lab Project Number: 38720: E642.07.89. Unpublished study 

prepa- red by Analytical Bio-Chemistry Laboratories, Inc. 44 p. 

42606620 2049646 Bowman, J.; Friesen, K. (1992) Acute Flow-through Toxicity of 

Flutolanil Technical to Crayfish: Lab Project Number: 39851. 

Unpublished study prepared by ABC Labs, Inc. 29 p. 

72-4 Fish Early Life Stage/Aquatic Invertebrate Life Cycle Study

MRID DOC NUM Citation Reference
-Page 166 of 196-

41841221 2049643 Rhodes, J.; Gormley, M. (1991) Early Life-Stage Toxicity of Flutolanil Technical to the Fathead Minnow (Pimephles promelas) Under 

Flow-Through Conditions: Lab Project Number: 38436: 

E642.06.89. Unpublished study prepared by Analytical BioChemistry Laborato- ries, Inc. 63 p. 

41850807 2049645 Blakemore, G.; Burgess, D. (1991) 21-Day Chronic Static Renewal 

Toxicity of Flutolanil to Daphnia magna: Flutolanil/W 48: Final 

Report #38721; 503 AU. Unpublished study prepared by Analytical 

Bio-Chemistry Laboratories, Inc. 51 p. 

43511601 2049654 Boeri, R.; Kowalski, P.; Ward, T. (1995) Life-Cycle Toxicity of 

Flutolanil to the Mysid, Mysidopsis bahia: Lab Project Number: 

522AU: 481-NI: W66. Unpublished study prepared by T.R. Wilbury 

Labs, Inc. 51 p. 

43552001 2049655 Rhodes, J.; Muckerman, M. (1995) W69 Flutolanil: Early Life-Stage 

Toxicity of Flutolanil to the Fathead Minnow (Pimephales promelas) 

Under Flow-Through Conditions: Final Report: Lab Project 

Number: 41685. Unpublished study prepared by ABC Labs, Inc. 

176 p. 

122-2 Aquatic plant growth

MRID DOC NUM Citation Reference

41841223 2049644 Bogers, M. (1990) Scenedesmus Subpicatus, Fresh Water Algal 

Growth Inhibition Test with Flutolanil Technical: Lab Project 

Number: 024467. Unpublished study prepared by R C C Notox 

B.V. 25 p. 

41841224 2049664 Hughes, J. (1990) The Toxicity of Flutolanil Technical to Selenastrum capricornutum: Lab Project Number: B643-01-4: 507 AU. 

Unpu- blished study prepared by Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. 25 p. 

42606621 2049647 Hughes, J. (1990) The Toxicity of Flutolanil Technical to Anabaena 

flos-aquae: Lab Project Number: B643-01-5. Unpublished study 

prepared by Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. 23 p. 

42606622 2049648 Hughes, J. (1990) The Toxicity of Flutolanil Technical to Lemna 

gibba G3: Lab Project Number: B643-01-8. Unpublished study 

prepared by Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. 22 p. 

42606623 2049649 Hughes, J. (1991) The Toxicity of Flutolanil Technical to 

Skeletonema costatum: Lab Project Number: B643-01-7. 

Unpublished study prepared by Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. 23 p. 

42606624 2049650 Hughes, J. (1991) The Toxicity of Flutolanil Technical to Navicula 

pelliculosa: Lab Project Number: B643-01-6. Unpublished study 

prepared by Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. 23 p. 

42606625 2049651 Hughes, J. (1991) The Toxicity of Flutolanil Technical to Navicula 

pelliculosa at the Concentration Equivalent to the Maximum 
-Page 167 of 196-

Treatment Rate for Rice: Lab Project Number: B643-02-1. 

Unpublished study prepared by Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. 23 p.

141-1 Honey bee acute contact

MRID DOC NUM Citation Reference

40342938 2049637 Matsuura, M. (1987?) W3-Flutolanil: Effects of Moncut Dry Flowable on Honey Bee: Laboratory Project ID No. N3001. Unpublished 

study prepared by Mie University. 8 p. 

141-2 Honey bee residue on foliage

MRID DOC NUM Citation Reference

40342939 2049637 Maezawa, Y.; Yamamoto, S. (1987?) W19-Flutolanil: Effects of 

Mon- cut Against Honey Bee by Aerial Spray: Laboratory Project ID 

No. N-3002. Unpublished study prepared by Agricultural Aerial 

Tech- nical Center, Japan Agricultural Aviation Association. 8 p. 
-Page 168 of 196-

Appendix 1Appendix A. PRZM/EXAMS Sample Input/Output Data

For NC Peanuts, In-furrow Applications (at plant)

Water Column

stored as Flutolanil.out

Chemical: Flutolanil

PRZM environment: NCpeanutSTD.txt modified Tueday, 29 May 2007 at 13:58:46

EXAMS environment: pond298.exv modified Tueday, 26 August 2008 at 06:14:07

Metfile: w13722.dvf modified Tueday, 26 August 2008 at 06:14:27

Water segment concentrations (ppb)

Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

1961 3.338 3.258 2.994 2.716 2.619 1.582

1962 4.973 4.914 4.807 4.54 4.404 3.359

1963 7.564 7.472 7.141 6.786 6.598 5.377

1964 7.611 7.579 7.488 7.438 7.383 6.673

1965 13.52 13.35 12.82 12.28 11.89 9.451

1966 13.09 13.01 12.8 12.52 12.44 11.53

1967 16.41 16.28 16.03 15.54 15.27 13.58

1968 15.62 15.57 15.41 15.3 15.25 14.67

1969 16.52 16.46 16.28 16.06 16 15.32

1970 16.95 16.89 16.81 16.65 16.51 15.82

1971 19.95 19.85 19.47 19.22 19.05 17.53

1972 21.54 21.44 21.16 21 20.79 19.39

1973 23.83 23.7 23.3 22.72 22.39 20.89

1974 26.1 25.98 25.77 25.17 24.78 22.91

1975 25.05 24.98 24.73 24.3 24.13 23.52

1976 25.88 25.8 25.7 25.34 25.04 24.08

1977 25.63 25.56 25.33 24.92 24.76 24.46

1978 27.09 27 26.78 26.69 26.67 25.49

1979 26.84 26.79 26.66 26.49 26.46 25.84

1980 29.61 29.47 28.98 28.23 27.93 26.62

1981 28.38 28.31 28.08 27.85 27.79 27.14

1982 29.87 29.76 29.35 28.76 28.46 27.39

1983 29.08 29.01 28.84 28.45 28.18 27.33

1984 32.19 32.02 31.39 30.74 30.46 28.51

1985 29.43 29.38 29.2 29.15 29.07 28.68

1986 30.16 30.08 29.8 29.38 29.24 28.61

1987 29.07 29.01 28.92 28.68 28.56 28.3

1988 28.97 28.92 28.74 28.48 28.33 27.94

1989 29.23 29.17 28.96 28.58 28.34 27.61

1990 30.9 30.79 30.37 29.8 29.52 28.15

Sorted results

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

0.032258064516129 32.19 32.02 31.39 30.74 30.46 28.68

0.0645161290322581 30.9 30.79 30.37 29.8 29.52 28.61

0.0967741935483871 30.16 30.08 29.8 29.38 29.24 28.51

0.129032258064516 29.87 29.76 29.35 29.15 29.07 28.3

0.161290322580645 29.61 29.47 29.2 28.76 28.56 28.15

0.193548387096774 29.43 29.38 28.98 28.68 28.46 27.94

0.225806451612903 29.23 29.17 28.96 28.58 28.34 27.61

0.258064516129032 29.08 29.01 28.92 28.48 28.33 27.39

0.290322580645161 29.07 29.01 28.84 28.45 28.18 27.33

0.32258064516129 28.97 28.92 28.74 28.23 27.93 27.14

0.354838709677419 28.38 28.31 28.08 27.85 27.79 26.62

0.387096774193548 27.09 27 26.78 26.69 26.67 25.84

0.419354838709677 26.84 26.79 26.66 26.49 26.46 25.49
-Page 169 of 196-

0.451612903225806 26.1 25.98 25.77 25.34 25.04 24.46

0.483870967741936 25.88 25.8 25.7 25.17 24.78 24.08

0.516129032258065 25.63 25.56 25.33 24.92 24.76 23.52

0.548387096774194 25.05 24.98 24.73 24.3 24.13 22.91

0.580645161290323 23.83 23.7 23.3 22.72 22.39 20.89

0.612903225806452 21.54 21.44 21.16 21 20.79 19.39

0.645161290322581 19.95 19.85 19.47 19.22 19.05 17.53

0.67741935483871 16.95 16.89 16.81 16.65 16.51 15.82

0.709677419354839 16.52 16.46 16.28 16.06 16 15.32

0.741935483870968 16.41 16.28 16.03 15.54 15.27 14.67

0.774193548387097 15.62 15.57 15.41 15.3 15.25 13.58

0.806451612903226 13.52 13.35 12.82 12.52 12.44 11.53

0.838709677419355 13.09 13.01 12.8 12.28 11.89 9.451

0.870967741935484 7.611 7.579 7.488 7.438 7.383 6.673

0.903225806451613 7.564 7.472 7.141 6.786 6.598 5.377

0.935483870967742 4.973 4.914 4.807 4.54 4.404 3.359

0.967741935483871 3.338 3.258 2.994 2.716 2.619 1.582

0.1 30.131 30.048 29.755 29.357 29.223 28.489

Average of yearly averages: 20.2584

Inputs generated by pe5.pl - Novemeber 2006

Data used for this run:

Output File: Flutolanil

Metfile: w13722.dvf

PRZM scenario: NCpeanutSTD.txt

EXAMS environment file: pond298.exv

Chemical Name: Flutolanil

Description Variable Name Value Units Comments

Molecular weight mwt 323.3 g/mol

Henry's Law Const. henry 3.17E-9 atm-m^3/mol

Vapor Pressure vapr 4.87E-8 torr

Solubility sol 6.53 mg/L

Kd Kd mg/L

Koc Koc 780.7 mg/L

Photolysis half-life kdp 0 days Half-life

Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacw 1095 days Halfife

Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacs 0 days Halfife

Aerobic Soil Metabolism asm 308.3 days Halfife

Hydrolysis: pH 7 0 days Half-life

Method: CAM 4 integer See PRZM manual

Incorporation Depth: DEPI 2.54 cm

Application Rate: TAPP 0.832 kg/ha

Application Efficiency: APPEFF 0.99 fraction

Spray Drift DRFT 0.01 fraction of application rate applied to pond

Application Date Date 06-05 dd/mm or dd/mmm or dd-mm or dd-mmm

Record 17: FILTRA

IPSCND 1

UPTKF 0

Record 18: PLVKRT 0

PLDKRT 0

FEXTRC 0.5

Flag for Index Res. Run IR EPA Pond

Flag for runoff calc. RUNOFF none none, monthly or total(average of entire run)
-Page 170 of 196-

Pore Water

stored as Flutolanilben.out

Chemical: Flutolanil

PRZM environment: NCpeanutSTD.txt modified Tueday, 29 May 2007 at 13:58:46

EXAMS environment: pond298.exv modified Tueday, 26 August 2008 at 06:14:07

Metfile: w13722.dvf modified Tueday, 26 August 2008 at 06:14:27

Benthic segment concentrations (ppb)

Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

1961 2.243 2.243 2.242 2.239 2.233 1.245

1962 3.916 3.916 3.915 3.913 3.907 3.019

1963 6.01 6.009 6 5.962 5.938 4.995

1964 7.117 7.117 7.115 7.099 7.061 6.415

1965 10.51 10.51 10.51 10.51 10.5 8.758

1966 11.96 11.96 11.96 11.96 11.95 11.19

1967 14.31 14.31 14.31 14.3 14.29 13.06

1968 14.86 14.86 14.85 14.84 14.83 14.49

1969 15.57 15.57 15.57 15.56 15.55 15.1

1970 16.03 16.03 16.03 16.02 16.01 15.61

1971 18.17 18.17 18.17 18.15 18.14 17.12

1972 20.04 20.04 20.04 20.02 20 18.95

1973 21.43 21.43 21.43 21.41 21.38 20.5

1974 23.57 23.57 23.57 23.55 23.52 22.45

1975 23.73 23.73 23.72 23.7 23.68 23.32

1976 24.37 24.37 24.37 24.34 24.31 23.84

1977 24.51 24.51 24.51 24.5 24.49 24.25

1978 26 26 25.99 25.96 25.93 25.2

1979 26.01 26.01 26.01 25.99 25.97 25.66

1980 27.09 27.09 27.08 27.06 27.04 26.25

1981 27.33 27.33 27.33 27.31 27.29 26.95

1982 27.73 27.73 27.73 27.7 27.66 27.16

1983 27.69 27.69 27.68 27.65 27.61 27.21

1984 29.2 29.19 29.19 29.17 29.13 27.99

1985 28.78 28.78 28.77 28.75 28.73 28.59

1986 28.81 28.81 28.81 28.79 28.77 28.45

1987 28.44 28.43 28.41 28.36 28.33 28.17

1988 28.12 28.12 28.11 28.09 28.06 27.89

1989 27.85 27.85 27.85 27.82 27.79 27.48

1990 28.71 28.71 28.71 28.67 28.63 27.9

Sorted results

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

0.032258064516129 29.2 29.19 29.19 29.17 29.13 28.59

0.0645161290322581 28.81 28.81 28.81 28.79 28.77 28.45

0.0967741935483871 28.78 28.78 28.77 28.75 28.73 28.17

0.129032258064516 28.71 28.71 28.71 28.67 28.63 27.99

0.161290322580645 28.44 28.43 28.41 28.36 28.33 27.9

0.193548387096774 28.12 28.12 28.11 28.09 28.06 27.89

0.225806451612903 27.85 27.85 27.85 27.82 27.79 27.48

0.258064516129032 27.73 27.73 27.73 27.7 27.66 27.21

0.290322580645161 27.69 27.69 27.68 27.65 27.61 27.16

0.32258064516129 27.33 27.33 27.33 27.31 27.29 26.95

0.354838709677419 27.09 27.09 27.08 27.06 27.04 26.25

0.387096774193548 26.01 26.01 26.01 25.99 25.97 25.66

0.419354838709677 26 26 25.99 25.96 25.93 25.2

0.451612903225806 24.51 24.51 24.51 24.5 24.49 24.25

0.483870967741936 24.37 24.37 24.37 24.34 24.31 23.84

0.516129032258065 23.73 23.73 23.72 23.7 23.68 23.32

0.548387096774194 23.57 23.57 23.57 23.55 23.52 22.45

0.580645161290323 21.43 21.43 21.43 21.41 21.38 20.5

0.612903225806452 20.04 20.04 20.04 20.02 20 18.95
-Page 171 of 196-

0.645161290322581 18.17 18.17 18.17 18.15 18.14 17.12

0.67741935483871 16.03 16.03 16.03 16.02 16.01 15.61

0.709677419354839 15.57 15.57 15.57 15.56 15.55 15.1

0.741935483870968 14.86 14.86 14.85 14.84 14.83 14.49

0.774193548387097 14.31 14.31 14.31 14.3 14.29 13.06

0.806451612903226 11.96 11.96 11.96 11.96 11.95 11.19

0.838709677419355 10.51 10.51 10.51 10.51 10.5 8.758

0.870967741935484 7.117 7.117 7.115 7.099 7.061 6.415

0.903225806451613 6.01 6.009 6 5.962 5.938 4.995

0.935483870967742 3.916 3.916 3.915 3.913 3.907 3.019

0.967741935483871 2.243 2.243 2.242 2.239 2.233 1.245

0.1 28.773 28.773 28.764 28.742 28.72 28.152

Average of yearly averages: 19.9737333333333

Inputs generated by pe5.pl - Novemeber 2006

Data used for this run:

Output File: Flutolanil

Metfile: w13722.dvf

PRZM scenario: NCpeanutSTD.txt

EXAMS environment file: pond298.exv

Chemical Name: Flutolanil

Description Variable Name Value Units Comments

Molecular weight mwt 323.3 g/mol

Henry's Law Const. henry 3.17E-9 atm-m^3/mol

Vapor Pressure vapr 4.87E-8 torr

Solubility sol 6.53 mg/L

Kd Kd mg/L

Koc Koc 780.7 mg/L

Photolysis half-life kdp 0 days Half-life

Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacw 1095 days Halfife

Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacs 0 days Halfife

Aerobic Soil Metabolism asm 308.3 days Halfife

Hydrolysis: pH 7 0 days Half-life

Method: CAM 4 integer See PRZM manual

Incorporation Depth: DEPI 2.54 cm

Application Rate: TAPP 0.832 kg/ha

Application Efficiency: APPEFF 0.99 fraction

Spray Drift DRFT 0.01 fraction of application rate applied to pond

Application Date Date 06-05 dd/mm or dd/mmm or dd-mm or dd-mmm

Record 17: FILTRA

IPSCND 1

UPTKF 0

Record 18: PLVKRT 0

PLDKRT 0

FEXTRC 0.5

Flag for Index Res. Run IR EPA Pond

Flag for runoff calc. RUNOFF none none, monthly or total(average of entire run)
-Page 172 of 196-

Appendix 2Appendix B. Example T-REX (v. 1.5.1) Input and Output for Flutolanil

Table B.1. T-REX Model Inputs: Chemical Application Scenarios and Body Mass for 

Assessed Species.

TREX MODEL INPUTS

You must enable macros for this spreadsheet to 

work correctly

These values will be used in the calculation of exposure estimates for foliar, 

granular, liquid and/or 

seed applications of 

pesticides.

Chemical Identity and Application Information

Chemical Name: Flutolanil Application Rate (lb ai/acre)

Seed Treatment?

FALSE

 Use: commerical and industrial lawns

Product name and form:

% A.I. (leading zero must be 

entered for formulations 

<1% a.i.): 100.00%

Application Rate (lb ai/acre) 5.94

Half-life (days): 35

Application Interval (days): 14

Number of Applications: 4

Are you assessing 

applications with variable 

rates or intervals? no

You MUST scify application day in Columns F and G - you may enter up to 30 applications

Assessed Species Inputs (optional, use defaults for RQs for national level 

assessments)

What body weight range is 

assessed (grams)? Birds Mammals

Small 20 15

Medium 100 35

Large

1000 1000
-Page 173 of 196-

Table B.2. Avian and Mammalian Toxicity Endpoints for RQ Calculation.

Avian

Endpoint Toxicity value

Indicate test species 

below

LD50 (mg/kg-bw)

2000.00 1

LC50 (mg/kg-diet) 5243.00 1

NOAEL (mg/kg-bw) 2

NOAEC (mg/kgdiet) 1920.00 1

Enter the Mineau et al. Scaling Factor 1.15

Mammalian

Acute Study Chronic Study

Size (g) of mammal used in toxicity study

Default rat body weight is 350 grams 350 350

Endpoint Toxicity value

Reference 

(MRID)

LD50 (mg/kg-bw) 10000.00

LC50 (mg/kg-diet)

Reported Chronic 

Endpoint 20000.00

2

Is estimated daily 

dose (mg/kg-bw) 

reported from the 

available chronic 

mammal study? 

(yes or no)

yes

Enter daily dose 

(mg/kg-bw) 1936.00

Table B.3. Avian Dose- and Dietary-based Upper Bound Kenaga EECs and RQs Based on 

the Registered Use of Flutolanil on Commercial and Industrial Lawns.

Dose-based EECs 

(mg/kg-bw) 

Avian Classes and Body Weights (grams)

small mid large

20 100 1000

Short Grass 4493.33 2562.29 1147.17

Tall Grass 2059.44 1174.38 525.79

Broadleaf plants 2527.50 1441.29 645.28
-Page 174 of 196-

Fruits/pods 280.83 160.14 71.70

Arthropods 1759.89 1003.56 449.31

Seeds 62.41 35.59 15.93

Dose-based RQs (Dose-based 

EEC/adjusted LD50)

Avian Acute RQs

Size Class (grams)

20 100 1000

Short Grass 3.12 1.40 0.44

Tall Grass 1.43 0.64 0.20

Broadleaf plants 1.75 0.79 0.25

Fruits/pods 0.19 0.09 0.03

Arthropods 1.22 0.55 0.17

Seeds 0.04 0.02 0.01

Table B.4. Mammalian Dose- and Dietary-based Upper Bound Kenaga EECs and RQs 

Based on the Registered Use of Flutolanil on Commercial and Industrial Lawns.

Dose-Based EECs 

(mg/kg-bw)

Mammalian Classes and Body weight

(grams)

15 35 1000

Short Grass 3761.56 2599.74 602.76

Tall Grass 1724.05 1191.55 276.26

Broadleaf plants 2115.88 1462.36 339.05

Fruits/pods 235.10 162.48 37.67

Arthropods 1473.28 1018.23 236.08

Seeds 52.24 36.11 8.37

Dose-based RQs 

(Dose-based EEC/LD50 

or NOAEL)

Small mammal Medium mammal Large mammal

15 grams 35 grams 1000 grams

Acute Chronic Acute Chronic Acute Chronic

Short Grass 0.17 0.88 0.15 0.76 0.08 0.40

Tall Grass 0.08 0.41 0.07 0.35 0.04 0.19

Broadleaf plants 0.10 0.50 0.08 0.42 0.04 0.23

Fruits/pods 0.01 0.06 0.01 0.05 0.00 0.03

Arthropods 0.07 0.35 0.06 0.30 0.03 0.16

Seeds 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01

Dietary-based RQs 

(Dietary-based EEC/LC50 

or NOAEC)

Mammal RQs

Acute Chronic

Short Grass #DIV/0! 0.20

Tall Grass #DIV/0! 0.09

Broadleaf plants #DIV/0! 0.11

Fruits/pods/seeds #DIV/0! 0.01

Arthropods #DIV/0! 0.08
-Page 175 of 196-

Appendix 3Appendix C. Example Terrplant (v. 1.2.2) Input and Output for Flutolanil

Table 1. Chemical Identity.

Chemical Name Flutolanil

PC code 128975

Use ground

Application Method Aerial

Application Form Spray 

Solubility in Water 

(ppm) 6.53

Table 2. Input parameters used to derive EECs.

Input Parameter Symbol Value Units

Application Rate A 0.772 lbs a.i/A

Incorporation I 1 none

Runoff Fraction R 0.01 none

Drift Fraction D 0.01 none

Table 3. EECs for Flutolanil. Units in lbs a.i/A.

Description Equation EEC

Runoff to dry areas (A/I)*R 0.00772

Runoff to semi-aquatic areas (A/I)*R*10 0.0772

Spray drift A*D 0.00772

Total for dry areas ((A/I)*R)+(A*D) 0.01544

Total for semi-aquatic areas ((A/I)*R*10)+(A*D) 0.08492

Table 4. Plant survival and growth data used for RQ derivation. Units are in lbs a.i/A.

Seedling Emergence Vegetative Vigor

Plant type EC25 NOAEC EC25 NOAEC 

Monocot 3.66 2.2 8.17 8.17

Dicot 1.45 0.54 0.54 0.54

Table 5. RQ values for plants in dry and semi-aquatic areas exposed to Flutolanil through runoff 

and/or spray drift.*

Plant Type Listed Status Dry Semi-Aquatic Spray Drift

Monocot non-listed <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Monocot listed <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Dicot non-listed <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Dicot listed <0.1 0.16 <0.1

*If RQ > 1.0, the LOC is exceeded, resulting in potential for risk to that plant group.

Appendix 4
-Page 176 of 196-

Appendix 5Appendix D. STIR Results.

Input

Application and Chemical Information

Enter Chemical Name Flutolanil

Enter Chemical Use

Ornamental

s

Is the Application a Spray? (enter y or n) y

If Spray What Type (enter ground or air) ground

Enter Chemical Molecular Weight (g/mole) 323.3

Enter Chemical Vapor Pressure (mmHg) 4.87E-08

Enter Application Rate (lb a.i./acre) 9.78

Toxicity Properties

Bird

Enter Lowest Bird Oral LD50 (mg/kg bw) 2000

Enter Mineau Scaling Factor 1.15

Enter Tested Bird Weight (kg) 0.178

Mammal

Enter Lowest Rat Oral LD50 (mg/kg bw) 10000

Enter Lowest Rat Inhalation LC50 (mg/L) 5.98

Duration of Rat Inhalation Study (hrs) 4

Enter Rat Weight (kg) 0.35

Output

Results Avian (0.020 kg )

Maximum Vapor Concentration in Air at Saturation 

(mg/m3) 8.47E-04

Maximum 1-hour Vapor Inhalation Dose (mg/kg) 1.07E-04

Adjusted Inhalation LD50 6.67E+00

Ratio of Vapor Dose to Adjusted Inhalation LD50 1.60E-05

Exposure not Likely 

Significant

Maximum Post-treatment Spray Inhalation Dose (mg/kg) 1.03E+00

Ratio of Droplet Inhalation Dose to Adjusted Inhalation 

LD50 1.55E-01 Proceed to Refinements

Results Mammalian (0.015 kg )

Maximum Vapor Concentration in Air at Saturation 

(mg/m3) 8.47E-04

Maximum 1-hour Vapor Inhalation Dose (mg/kg) 1.34E-04

Adjusted Inhalation LD50 3.56E+02

Ratio of Vapor Dose to Adjusted Inhalation LD50 3.76E-07

Exposure not Likely 

Significant

Maximum Post-treatment Spray Inhalation Dose (mg/kg) 1.30E+00

Ratio of Droplet Inhalation Dose to Adjusted Inhalation 

LD50 3.65E-03

Exposure not Likely 

Significant
-Page 177 of 196-

Appendix 6Appendix E. SIP Results.

Table 1. Inputs

Parameter Value

Chemical name Flutolanil

Solubility (in water at 25oC; mg/L) 6.53

Mammalian LD50 (mg/kg-bw) 10000

Mammalian test species laboratory rat

Body weight (g) of "other" mammalian species

Mammalian NOAEL (mg/kg-bw) 1000

Mammalian test species laboratory rat

Body weight (g) of "other" mammalian species

Avian LD50 (mg/kg-bw) 2000

Avian test species mallard duck

Body weight (g) of "other" avian species

Mineau scaling factor 1.15

Mallard NOAEC (mg/kg-diet) 1920

Bobwhite quail NOAEC (mg/kg-diet) 1920

NOAEC (mg/kg-diet) for other bird species

Body weight (g) of other avian species

NOAEC (mg/kg-diet) for 2nd other bird species

Body weight (g) of 2nd other avian species

Table 2. Mammalian Results

Parameter Acute Chronic

Upper bound exposure (mg/kg-bw) 1.1232 1.1232

Adjusted toxicity value (mg/kg-bw) 7691.6057 769.1606

Ratio of exposure to toxicity 0.0001 0.0015

Conclusion*

Drinking water exposure 

alone is NOT a potential 

concern for mammals

Drinking water exposure 

alone is NOT a potential 

concern for mammals

Table 3. Avian Results

Parameter Acute Chronic

Upper bound exposure (mg/kg-bw) 5.2893 5.2893

Adjusted toxicity value (mg/kg-bw) 1038.4508 95.2561

Ratio of exposure to acute toxicity 0.0051 0.0555

Conclusion*

Drinking water exposure 

alone is NOT a potential 

concern for birds

Drinking water exposure 

alone is NOT a potential 

concern for birds

*Conclusion is for drinking water exposure alone. This does not combine all routes of exposure. Therefore, when 

aggregated with other routes (i.e., diet, inhalation, dermal), pesticide exposure through drinking water may contribute 

to a total exposure that has potential for effects to non-target animals.
-Page 178 of 196-

Appendix 7Appendix F. Classifications of Environmental Fate Studies Submitted for 

Flutolanil

Guideline 

No

Data 

Requirement

Study 

ID

Study 

Classification

Classification Justifications or Comments (for Supplemental 

and Unacceptable Studies)

835.2120 Hydrolysis 40342940 Acceptable N/A

835.2240 Photolysis in 

Water 

41841208

41841209

Acceptable N/A

835.2410 Photodegradation 

on Soil

41841210

43175810

Unacceptable

Acceptable

N/A

835.2370 Photodegradation 

in Air

No data 

submitted

N/A N/A

835.4100 Aerobic Soil 

Metabolism

40342941

45756601

Acceptable 

Acceptable 

N/A

835.4200 Anaerobic Soil 

Metabolism

49075001 Supplemental The results of the sandy loam (referred to as a loam in the study), sandier 

loamy sand, and clay loam are considered supplemental (upgradable). 

Insufficient data were provided regarding the soils used in this study, 

including source, collection and storage procedures, and whether they were 

free of pesticide residues prior to use. It is unknown if the soils are domestic 

or comparable to domestic soil at the intended use sites. The registrant 

should submit further characterization of the soils in order to upgrade the 

soils from supplemental to acceptable. For guidance on acceptability of soils, 

should they be of foreign origin, the registrant should consult the following 

URL (accessed 08/27/2013):

http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/science/efed/policy_guidance/team_authors/en

vironmental_fate_tech_team/soils_foreign.htm.

The loamy sand (referred to as a sandy loam in the study), had a pattern of 

decreasing material balance and did not appear to be anaerobic, given the 

high oxygen content in the water. These patterns were not present in the 

other three soils. EFED has low confidence in the results for this soil and 

considers them unacceptable. However, at this time given the high 

persistence demonstrated in the other supplemental soils, and the low levels 

of transformation products, EFED believes that a new soil will not provide 

significant additional information. Therefore, no data on additional soils will 

be required.

835.4300 Aerobic Aquatic 

Metabolism

41841212 Acceptable N/A

835.4400 Anaerobic 

Aquatic 

Metabolism

41841211 Acceptable N/A

835.1230 LeachingAdsorption/ 

Desorption

42606626

42606627

40342943

41841213

Acceptable 

Acceptable 

Acceptable 

Acceptable 

N/A

835.1410 Laboratory 

Volatility

No data 

submitted

N/A N/A

835.6100 Terrestrial Field 

Dissipation

41837803

43175804

43175809

45756603

45756602

Unacceptable

Acceptable

Supplemental

Acceptable

Acceptable

N/A

835.6100 Long-term Soil 

Dissipation

43175804 Supplemental N/A

835.6200 Aquatic 

Dissipation

42606618

43292603

Acceptable

Unacceptable

N/A

835.6300 Forestry No data 

submitted

N/A N/A
-Page 179 of 196-

Guideline 

No

Data 

Requirement

Study 

ID

Study 

Classification

Classification Justifications or Comments (for Supplemental 

and Unacceptable Studies)

835.6400 Combination and 

Tank Mixes

No data 

submitted

N/A N/A

860.1400 Accumulation in 

Irrigated Crops

42606615 Acceptable N/A

850.1730 Accumulation in 

Fish

40342944

41841214

41841215

Acceptable

Acceptable

Acceptable

N/A

850.1950 Aquatic Nontarget Organism42641101 Acceptable N/A

835.7100 Ground Water 

Monitoring

No data 

submitted

N/A Waived on 2/22/95 (DP Barcode D207449)

835.8100 Field Volatility No data 

submitted

N/A N/A

NonguidelineStorage Stability 42606616 Acceptable N/A

850.6100 Environmental 

Chemistry 

Methods (ECM)/ 

Independent 

Laboratory 

Validation (ILV) 

in Soil

48714001

;

48763101

Supplemental The determination of the LOD and LOQ were not based on scientifically 

acceptable procedures; the fortification procedure was not reported; example 

calculations were incomplete; validation sample sets did not include a 

reagent blank; and a phone conversation between the ECM and ILV 

laboratories during the trial was not documented.

850.6100 Environmental 

Chemistry 

Methods (ECM)/ 

Independent 

Laboratory 

Validation (ILV) 

in Water

48796401 Supplemental The determination of the LOD/LOQ was not based on scientifically 

acceptable procedures; example calculations were incomplete; ECM 

validation sample sets did not include a reagent blank; and matrix 

characterization of the river water in the ECM was incomplete. The 

registrant should provide a separate ECM, with signed and dated Data 

Confidentiality statement.

N/A = Not applicable
-Page 180 of 196-

Appendix 8 Appendix G. Classifications of Ecological Effects Studies Cited in the Risk 

Assessment for Flutolanil

Guideline

Subdivision J

(OCSPP)

Data Requirement MRID Classification Classification Justification

(for Supplemental or 

Unacceptable Studies)

850.2100 Avian Acute Oral 40342929

40342930

Acceptable

Acceptable NA

850.2200 Avian Sub-acute 

Dietary

40342931

40342932

Acceptable

Acceptable NA

850.2300 Avian Reproduction 42932301

42932302

Acceptable

Acceptable NA

850.1075 Freshwater Fish –

Acute Toxicity

40342933

40342934

40342936

41841216

Acceptable

Supplemental

Supplemental

Acceptable

MRID 40342934: Definitive LC50

not achieved

MRID: 40342936: Use of nonguideline species

850.1010 Freshwater Invertebrate 

– Acute Toxicity

41841217

42606620

Acceptable

Supplemental

MRID 42606620: Use of nonguideline species

850.1075 Estuarine/Marine Fish 

– Acute Toxicity 41841218 Acceptable NA

850.1025

850.1035

Estuarine/Marine 

Invertebrate – Acute 

Toxicity

41841219

41841220

Acceptable

Acceptable NA

850.1300 Freshwater Invertebrate 

– Life Cycle Test 41850807 Acceptable NA

850.1350

Estuarine/Marine 

Invertebrate – Life 

Cycle Test

43511601 Acceptable NA

850.1400 Freshwater Fish – Early 

Life Stage Test 43552001 Acceptable NA

850.4225

Terrestrial Plant 

Toxicity – Seedling 

Emergence, Tier I

48603202 Supplemental

Poor emergence in controls and 

treatments confounded ability to 

assess effect no height and weight

850.4250

Terrestrial Plant 

Toxicity – Vegetative

Vigor, Tiers I and II

48603201 Supplemental

Most sensitive dicot species could 

not be determiednbased on lack of 

definitive endpoints

850.4400 Vascular Aquatic Plant 

Toxicity, Tiers I and II 42606622 Acceptable NA

850.5400 Algal Toxicity Test, 

Tiers I and II

41841224

42606621

42606623

42606624

42606625

Acceptable

Acceptable

Acceptable

Acceptable

Acceptable

NA

850.3020 Honeybee acute contact 

toxicity 40342938 Acceptable NA
-Page 181 of 196-

Guideline

Subdivision J

(OCSPP)

Data Requirement MRID Classification Classification Justification

(for Supplemental or 

Unacceptable Studies)

850.1735

Whole sediment acute 

toxicity invertebrates, 

freshwater

48776801 Acceptable NA

850.1740

Whole sediment acute 

toxicity invertebrates, 

estuarine/marine

48802201 Acceptable NA

\
-Page 182 of 196-

Appendix 9Appendix H. KABAM Output

Table 11. Estimated concentrations of Flutolanil in ecosystem components.

Ecosystem Component

Total 

concentratio

n (μg/kg-ww)

Lipid 

normalized 

concentratio

n (μg/kglipid)

Contributio

n due to 

diet (μg/kgww)

Contributio

n due to 

respiration 

(μg/kg-ww)

Water (total)* 1,161 N/A N/A N/A

Water (freely dissolved)* 1,161 N/A N/A N/A

Sediment (pore water)* 295 N/A N/A N/A

Sediment (in solid)** 9,212 N/A N/A N/A

Phytoplankton 335,188 16759403 N/A 335,188.05

Zooplankton 246,238 8207937 511.26 245,726.87

Benthic Invertebrates 259,270 8642330 1,291.31 257,978.60

Filter Feeders 170,798 8539909 833.29 169,964.88

Small Fish 251,032 6275812 4,025.44 247,007.02

Medium Fish 192,549 4813735 4,892.91 187,656.49

Large Fish 130,636 3265894 3,807.65 126,828.12

* Units: μg/L; **Units: μg/kg-dw
-Page 183 of 196-

Table 12. Total BCFand BAF values of Flutolanil in 

aquatic trophic levels.

Trophic Level

Total BCF 

(μg/kgww)/(μg/L)

Total BAF 

(μg/kgww)/(μg/L)

Phytoplankton 297 289

Zooplankton 212 212

Benthic Invertebrates 222 223

Filter Feeders 147 147

Small Fish 286 216

Medium Fish 286 166

Large Fish 297 113

Table 13. Lipid-normalized BCF, BAF, BMF and BSAF values of Flutolanil in aquatic 

trophic levels.

Trophic Level

BCF 

(μg/kglipid)/(μg/L)

BAF 

(μg/kglipid)/(μg/L)

BMF 

(μg/kglipid)/(μg/kg

-lipid)

BSAF 

(μg/kglipid)/(μg/kg

-OC)

Phytoplankton 14843 14435 N/A 73

Zooplankton 7058 7070 0.49 36

Benthic Invertebrates 7415 7444 1.05 38

Filter Feeders 7327 7356 1.04 37

Small Fish 7148 5406 0.74 27

Medium Fish 7148 4146 0.65 21

Large Fish 7425 2813 0.68 14

Table 14. Calculation of EECs for mammals and birds consuming fish contaminated by 

Flutolanil.

Wildlife Species

Biological Parameters

EECs (pesticide 

intake)

Body

Weight

(kg)

Dry Food 

Ingestion 

Rate (kg-dry 

food/kgbw/day)

Wet Food 

Ingestion 

Rate (kgwet 

food/kgbw/day)

Drinking 

Water

Intake

(L/d)

Dose 

Based 

(mg/kgbw/d)

Dietary 

Based 

(ppm)

Mammalian

fog/water shrew 0.02 0.140 0.585 0.003 151.897 259.27

rice rat/starnosed mole 0.1 0.107 0.484 0.011 110.151 227.36

small mink 0.5 0.079 0.293 0.048 56.600 192.55

large mink 1.8 0.062 0.229 0.168 44.235 192.55
-Page 184 of 196-

small river otter 5.0 0.052 0.191 0.421 36.887 192.55

large river otter 15.0 0.042 0.157 1.133 20.614 130.64

Avian

sandpipers 0.0 0.228 1.034 0.004 235.2144 227.27

cranes 6.7 0.030 0.136 0.211 28.2204 207.39

rails 0.1 0.147 0.577 0.010 147.4778 255.15

herons 2.9 0.040 0.157 0.120 35.6065 225.91

small osprey 1.3 0.054 0.199 0.069 38.4591 192.55

white pelican 7.5 0.029 0.107 0.228 13.9740 130.64

Table 14. Calculation of EECs for mammals and birds consuming fish contaminated by 

Flutolanil.

Wildlife Species

Biological Parameters

EECs (pesticide 

intake)

Body

Weight

(kg)

Dry Food 

Ingestion 

Rate (kgdry food/kgbw/day)

Wet Food 

Ingestion 

Rate (kgwet 

food/kgbw/day)

Drinking 

Water

Intake

(L/d)

Dose 

Based 

(mg/kgbw/d)

Dietary 

Based 

(ppm)

Mammalian

fog/water shrew 0.02 0.140 0.585 0.003 151.897 259.27

rice rat/starnosed mole 0.1 0.107 0.484 0.011 110.151 227.36

small mink 0.5 0.079 0.293 0.048 56.600 192.55

large mink 1.8 0.062 0.229 0.168 44.235 192.55

small river otter 5.0 0.052 0.191 0.421 36.887 192.55

large river otter 15.0 0.042 0.157 1.133 20.614 130.64

Avian

sandpipers 0.0 0.228 1.034 0.004 235.2144 227.27

cranes 6.7 0.030 0.136 0.211 28.2204 207.39

rails 0.1 0.147 0.577 0.010 147.4778 255.15
-Page 185 of 196-

herons 2.9 0.040 0.157 0.120 35.6065 225.91

small osprey 1.3 0.054 0.199 0.069 38.4591 192.55

white pelican 7.5 0.029 0.107 0.228 13.9740 130.64

Table 15. Calculation of toxicity values for mammals and birds 

consuming fish contaminated by Flutolanil.

Wildlife Species

Toxicity Values

Acute Chronic

Dose 

Based 

(mg/kgbw)

Dietary 

Based 

(mg/kg-diet)

Dose Based 

(mg/kg-bw)

Dietary 

Based 

(mg/kgdiet)

Mammalian

fog/water shrew 20999.01 0.00 2099.90 20000

rice rat/starnosed mole 14244.99 0.00 1424.50 20000

small mink 9391.04 0.00 939.10 20000

large mink 6640.47 0.00 664.05 20000

small river otter 5143.69 0.00 514.37 20000

large river otter 3908.36 0.00 390.84 20000

Avian

sandpipers 1038.45 5243.00 N/A 1920

cranes 2483.95 5243.00 N/A 1920

rails 1253.13 5243.00 N/A 1920

herons 2190.74 5243.00 N/A 1920

small osprey 1930.94 5243.00 N/A 1920

white pelican 2526.33 5243.00 N/A 1920

Table 16. Calculation of RQ values for mammals and birds consuming 

fish contaminated by Flutolanil.

Wildlife Species

Acute Chronic

Dose 

Based

Dietary 

Based

Dose Based Dietary 

Based

Mammalian
-Page 186 of 196-

fog/water shrew 0.007 #DIV/0! 0.072 0.013

rice rat/starnosed mole 0.008 #DIV/0! 0.077 0.011

small mink 0.006 #DIV/0! 0.060 0.010

large mink 0.007 #DIV/0! 0.067 0.010

small river otter 0.007 #DIV/0! 0.072 0.010

large river otter 0.005 #DIV/0! 0.053 0.007

Avian

sandpipers 0.227 0.043 N/A 0.118

cranes 0.011 0.040 N/A 0.108

rails 0.118 0.049 N/A 0.133

herons 0.016 0.043 N/A 0.118

small osprey 0.020 0.037 N/A 0.100

white pelican 0.006 0.025 N/A 0.068
-Page 187 of 196-

Appendix 10Appendix I. PFAM Default Values

The following default input parameters were used in the PFAM analysis. These parameters are 

located on the Physical tab of PFAM version 0.7.

Mass Transfer Coefficient [m/s] represents the mass transfer coefficient between the water 

column and the benthic zone. It accounts for all means of mass transport and is referenced to the 

surrogate driving force of aqueous concentration differences. It is a difficult parameter to 

measure. Literature and EPA’s own calibrations suggest a starting estimate of 10-8 m/s.

Leakage [m/d] represents the dissipation of the pesticide in the water column due to leakage of 

the water column through the benthic region. The model’s assumptions are that only aqueousphase pesticide leaks into the sediment, the leakage rate is constant, and only downward such 

that there is never leakage in the reverse direction (i.e., into the water column). The default 

value is 0 m/d.

Reference Depth [m] represents the depth that aquatic measurements were made when 

determining factors such as suspended solids, biota, and DOC [m]. This usually will be set to 

0.1 m.

Benthic Depth [m] is the depth of the benthic compartment. This is another parameter that is 

difficult to estimate; however, literature and EPA’s own calibrations suggest a value of about 

0.05 m. 

Benthic Porosity [unitless] is the porosity of the benthic compartment, or pore space volume 

per total volume. The default value is set to that used by the EPA standard farm pond, 0.50.

Dry Bulk Density [g/cm3

] is the rationally defined bulk density: [mass of sediment per total 

volume of sediment]. The default value is set to that used by the EPA standard farm pond, 1.35 

g/cm3.

Foc Water Column SS [unitless] is the fraction of organic carbon associated with suspended 

sediment. The default value is set to that used by the EPA standard farm pond, 0.04.

Foc Benthic [unitless] is the fraction of organic carbon associated with benthic sediment. The 

default value is set to that used by the EPA standard farm pond, 0.01.

SS [mg/L] is the suspended mass in the water column. The default value is set to that used by the 

EPA standard farm pond, 30 mg/L. 

Water Column DOC [mg/L] represents the dissolved organic carbon concentration in the water 

column. The default value is set to that used by the EPA standard farm pond, 5.0 mg/L. This 

parameter only affects the photolysis rate.

Chlorophyll, CHL [mg/L] represents the chlorophyll concentration in the water column. The 
-Page 188 of 196-

default value is set to that used by the EPA standard farm pond, 0.005 mg/L. This parameter only 

affects the photolysis rate.

Dfac [unitless] is a parameter used in the model EXAMS. It represents the ratio of the optical 

path length to vertical depth. The default value is set to1.19 as suggested by EXAMS 

documentation.

Q10 [unitless] is the Q10 value for metabolism. The default value is 2, which is a typical value
-Page 189 of 196-

Appendix 11Appendix J. HenryWin v.3.20 Output File and Calculation of Heat of Henry

The Heat of Henry or enthalpy of solvation is the enthalpy of phase change from aqueous 

solution to air solution (Joules/mole). This enthalpy can be approximated from the enthalpy of 

vaporization (Schwarzenbach et al., 2005), estimates of which can be obtained from EPISuite 

among other sources.

To estimate the enthalpy of vaporization using EPISuite software, the software is opened, then 

the HENRYWIN subprogram is selected on the left of the EPISuite screen. On the top menu of 

the HENRYWIN window item, Show Options is selected, then Show Temperature Variation 

with Results is selected. The chemical name of interest is entered and the Calculate button is 

pushed. EPISuite will give the temperature variation results in the form of an equation: HLC 

(atm-m3/mole) = exp(A-(B/T)) {T in K}. The enthalpy of vaporization is B (in Kelvin). The 

enthalpy of solvation (i.e., heat of Henry in Joules/mol) is calculated by multiplying the gas 

constant (8.314 J/K-mol) by the enthalpy of vaporization for the compound (K).

For flutolanil, the heat of Henry (54,872 J/mol) was calculated by multiplying the gas constant 

(8.314 J/mol-K) by the compounds’ enthalpy of vaporization (6,600 K) estimated by HenryWin 

(v3.20).

Equation to calculate the Heat of Henry: Heat of Henry = 6600 K x 8.314 J/K-mol = 54872 J/mol

References

Schwarzenbach, R. P., Gschwend, P. M. and Imboden, D. M. 2005. Environmental Organic 

Chemistry, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ.

The printout from HenryWin for flutolanil is presented below, with the temperature variation 

results highlighted in red.

 Bond Est : 1.11E-009 atm-m3/mole (1.12E-004 Pa-m3/mole)

 Group Est: Incomplete

SMILES : C(F)(F)(F)c1ccccc1C(=O)Nc2cccc(OC(C)C)c2

CHEM : Flutolanil

MOL FOR: C17 H16 F3 N1 O2 

MOL WT : 323.32

--------------------------- HENRYWIN v3.20 Results --------------------------

Experimental Database Structure Match:

 Name : Flutolanil

 CAS Num : 066332-96-5

 Exp HLC : 3.18E-09 atm-m3/mole (0.000322 Pa-m3/mole)

 Temper : 25 deg C

 Exp Ref : VP/WSOL 

Henry LC Temperature Variation: 

 Source: Similar compound slope analogy
-Page 190 of 196-

 HLC (atm-m3/mole) = exp(2.5694 - (6600/T)) {T in deg K}

 Temp (C) atm-m3/mole unitless Pa-m3/mole

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

 0 4.19E-010 1.87E-008 4.25E-005 

 5 6.47E-010 2.84E-008 6.56E-005 

 10 9.84E-010 4.24E-008 9.97E-005 

 15 1.48E-009 6.24E-008 0.000149 

 20 2.18E-009 9.06E-008 0.000221 

 25 3.18E-009 1.3E-007 0.000322 

 30 4.58E-009 1.84E-007 0.000464 

 35 6.52E-009 2.58E-007 0.000661 

 40 9.18E-009 3.57E-007 0.00093 

 45 1.28E-008 4.9E-007 0.0013 

 50 1.76E-008 6.65E-007 0.00179 

----------+---------------------------------------------+---------+----------

 CLASS | BOND CONTRIBUTION DESCRIPTION | COMMENT | VALUE

----------+---------------------------------------------+---------+----------

HYDROGEN | 7 Hydrogen to Carbon (aliphatic) Bonds | | -0.8377

HYDROGEN | 8 Hydrogen to Carbon (aromatic) Bonds | | -1.2344

HYDROGEN | 1 Hydrogen to Nitrogen Bonds | | 1.2835

FRAGMENT | 2 C-C | | 0.2326

FRAGMENT | 1 C-Car | | 0.1619

FRAGMENT | 1 C-O | | 1.0855

FRAGMENT | 3 C-F | | -1.2553

FRAGMENT | 12 Car-Car | | 3.1657

FRAGMENT | 1 Car-CO | | 1.2387

FRAGMENT | 1 CO-N | | 2.4261

FRAGMENT | 1 Car-N | | 0.7304

FRAGMENT | 1 Car-O | | 0.3473

----------+---------------------------------------------+---------+----------

RESULT | BOND ESTIMATION METHOD for LWAPC VALUE | TOTAL | 7.344

----------+---------------------------------------------+---------+----------

HENRYs LAW CONSTANT at 25 deg C = 1.11E-009 atm-m3/mole

 = 4.53E-008 unitless

 = 1.12E-004 Pa-m3/mole

--------+-----------------------------------------------+------------+--------

 | GROUP CONTRIBUTION DESCRIPTION | COMMENT | VALUE 

--------+-----------------------------------------------+------------+--------

 | 1 Car (N)(Car)(Car) | ESTIMATE | -0.50

 | 2 CH3 (X) | | -1.24

 | 1 CH (C)(C)(O) | | 0.12

 | 8 Car-H (Car)(Car) | | 0.88

 | 1 Car (C)(Car)(Car) | | 0.70

 | 1 Car (Car)(Car)(O) | | -0.43

 | 1 Car (Car)(Car)(CO) | | -0.84

 | 1 O (C)(Car) | | 1.25

 | MISSING Value for: C (F)(F)(F)(Car)

 | MISSING Value for: CO (N)(Car)

 | MISSING Value for: NH (Car)(CO)

--------+-----------------------------------------------+------------+--------

RESULT | GROUP ESTIMATION METHOD for LOG GAMMA VALUE | INCOMPLETE | -0.06

--------+-----------------------------------------------+------------+--------

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

 Bond Est : 1.11E-009 atm-m3/mole (1.12E-004 Pa-m3/mole)

 Group Est: Incomplete
-Page 191 of 196-

SMILES : C(F)(F)(F)c1ccccc1C(=O)Nc2cccc(OC(C)C)c2

CHEM : Flutolanil

MOL FOR: C17 H16 F3 N1 O2 

MOL WT : 323.32

--------------------------- HENRYWIN v3.20 Results --------------------------

Experimental Database Structure Match:

 Name : Flutolanil

 CAS Num : 066332-96-5

 Exp HLC : 3.18E-09 atm-m3/mole (0.000322 Pa-m3/mole)

 Temper : 25 deg C

 Exp Ref : VP/WSOL 

Henry LC Temperature Variation: 

 Source: Similar compound slope analogy

 HLC (atm-m3/mole) = exp(2.5694 - (6600/T)) {T in deg K}

 Temp (C) atm-m3/mole unitless Pa-m3/mole

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

 0 4.19E-010 1.87E-008 4.25E-005 

 5 6.47E-010 2.84E-008 6.56E-005 

 10 9.84E-010 4.24E-008 9.97E-005 

 15 1.48E-009 6.24E-008 0.000149 

 20 2.18E-009 9.06E-008 0.000221 

 25 3.18E-009 1.3E-007 0.000322 

 30 4.58E-009 1.84E-007 0.000464 

 35 6.52E-009 2.58E-007 0.000661 

 40 9.18E-009 3.57E-007 0.00093 

 45 1.28E-008 4.9E-007 0.0013 

 50 1.76E-008 6.65E-007 0.00179 

----------+---------------------------------------------+---------+----------

 CLASS | BOND CONTRIBUTION DESCRIPTION | COMMENT | VALUE

----------+---------------------------------------------+---------+----------

HYDROGEN | 7 Hydrogen to Carbon (aliphatic) Bonds | | -0.8377

HYDROGEN | 8 Hydrogen to Carbon (aromatic) Bonds | | -1.2344

HYDROGEN | 1 Hydrogen to Nitrogen Bonds | | 1.2835

FRAGMENT | 2 C-C | | 0.2326

FRAGMENT | 1 C-Car | | 0.1619

FRAGMENT | 1 C-O | | 1.0855

FRAGMENT | 3 C-F | | -1.2553

FRAGMENT | 12 Car-Car | | 3.1657

FRAGMENT | 1 Car-CO | | 1.2387

FRAGMENT | 1 CO-N | | 2.4261

FRAGMENT | 1 Car-N | | 0.7304

FRAGMENT | 1 Car-O | | 0.3473

----------+---------------------------------------------+---------+----------

RESULT | BOND ESTIMATION METHOD for LWAPC VALUE | TOTAL | 7.344

----------+---------------------------------------------+---------+----------

HENRYs LAW CONSTANT at 25 deg C = 1.11E-009 atm-m3/mole

 = 4.53E-008 unitless

= 1.12E-004 Pa-m3/mole

--------+-----------------------------------------------+------------+--------

 | GROUP CONTRIBUTION DESCRIPTION | COMMENT | VALUE 

--------+-----------------------------------------------+------------+--------

 | 1 Car (N)(Car)(Car) | ESTIMATE | -0.50

 | 2 CH3 (X) | | -1.24

 | 1 CH (C)(C)(O) | | 0.12

 | 8 Car-H (Car)(Car) | | 0.88

 | 1 Car (C)(Car)(Car) | | 0.70

 | 1 Car (Car)(Car)(O) | | -0.43
-Page 192 of 196-

 | 1 Car (Car)(Car)(CO) | | -0.84

 | 1 O (C)(Car) | | 1.25

 | MISSING Value for: C (F)(F)(F)(Car)

 | MISSING Value for: CO (N)(Car)

 | MISSING Value for: NH (Car)(CO)

--------+-----------------------------------------------+------------+--------

RESULT | GROUP ESTIMATION METHOD for LOG GAMMA VALUE | INCOMPLETE | -0.06

--------+-----------------------------------------------+------------+--------
-Page 193 of 196-

Appendix 12Appendix K. Flutolanil and its Minor Transformation Products of 

Environmental Fate Studies

Common Name Chemical Name

SMILES Code Structure

Flutolanil

(Parent compound)

CAS Name: N-[3-(1-Methylethoxy)phenyl]-

2-(trifluoromethyl)benzamide

IUPAC Name: α,α,α-Trifluoro-3′-

isopropoxy-o-toluanilide

SMILES code: 

C(F)(F)(F)c1ccccc1C(=O)Nc2cccc(OC(C)C)

c2 F

F

F

O

N

H

O

CH3

CH3

M-2

Anaerobic soil

CAS name: NA

IUPAC name: α, α, α-Trifluoro-4’-hydroxy3’-isopropoxy-o-toluanilide

SMILES code:

CC(C)Oc1cc(ccc1O)NC(=O)c2ccccc2C(F)(F

)F F

F

F

O

N

H

O

CH3

CH3

OH

Desisopropyl flutolanil 

(DIP, M-4) (minor 

degradate)

Aerobic soil

Anaerobic soil

Anaerobic aquatic

CAS Name: N-(3-Hydroxyphenyl)-2-

(trifluoromethyl)benzamide

IUPAC Name:NA

SMILES code: 

C2C=CC=C(C(F)(F)F)C=2C(=O)NC1C=CC

=C(O)C=1

F

F

F

O

N

H

OH

M-6 or MDP (minor 

degradate)

Aerobic soil

Anaerobic soil

CAS Name: N-(3-Methoxyphenyl)-2-

(trifluoromethyl)benzamide

IUPAC Name: α, α, α-Trifluoro-3’-methoxyo-toluanilide

SMILES code:

COc1cccc(c1)NC(=O)c2ccccc2C(F)(F)F F

F

F

O

N

H

O CH3
-Page 194 of 196-

Common Name Chemical Name

SMILES Code Structure

M-11

Aerobic soil

CAS Name: 2-[3-[[2-(Trifluoromethyl)

benzoyl]amino]phenoxy] propanoic acid

IUPAC Name:NA

SMILES code: NA

F

F

F

O

N

H

O

CH3

COOH

M-7 or HMD

Aerobic soil metabolism

CAS Name: N-(4-Hydroxy-3-

methoxyphenyl)-2-

(trifluoromethyl)benzamide

(4'-hydroxy-3-methoxy-2-trifluoromethylbenzanilide)

SMILES code: NA

F

F

F

O

N

H

O CH3

OH

M-5 or HDP

Anaerobic aquatic

CAS Name: N-(3,4-Dihydroxyphenyl)-2-

(trifluoromethyl)benzamide

3',4'-dihydroxy-2-trifluorotoluanilide

IUPAC Name:NA

SMILES code: NA

F

F

F

O

N

H

OH

OH

NA = Not available
-Page 195 of 196-

Appendix L. Rice Growing Practices

Greater than 90% of the rice production in the United States occurs in Arkansas, California, 

Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas. Rice has also been grown in Florida, Illinois, Missouri, 

Oklahoma, and Tennessee7

. Survey data from the National Agricultural Statistics Service 

(NASS) on rice acres planted in the United States for the year 2013 are provided in Table L-1.

Table L-1. Summary of acres planted with rice in 20131

State Acreage Planted Percent Production (cwt) Percent

Arkansas 1,076,000 43.3 78,645,000 42.5

California 561,000 22.6 46,148,000 24.9

Louisiana 417,000 16.8 28,016,000 15.1

Mississippi 130,000 5.2 9,159,000 4.9

Missouri 156,000 6.3 10,725,300 5.8

Texas 145,000 9.8 12,384,000 6.7

United States 2,485,000 --- 185,077,000 ---

1 Based on survey data from the from the Quick Stats Database of the National Agricultural Statistics Service 

available at http://quickstats.nass.usda.gov/results/6432EC45-FA6F-3DE6-A48F-98F1917AAEA8 (accessed 

10/29/2013).

In general, rice fields are prepared (disking and harrowing) prior to seeding in order to destroy 

winter vegetation and reduce the chance of seedling drift. The fields are then leveled in order to 

maintain a flood and reduce runoff. After land preparation, rice seeds are planted via waterseeding or dry-seeding on well prepared seed beds. If dry-seeded, the fields are then flushed 

with irrigation water to obtain a uniform seed germination and seedling emergence. In between 

planting and establishment of permanent flood (3 to 4 weeks after the seeding), fields may be 

flushed several times to maintain moisture in the soil. Once the permanent flood is established, it 

is maintained until 2 to 3 weeks before harvesting. Flooded water is released and fields are 

drained 2 to 3 weeks before harvesting to facilitate harvesting operations that use machines.

In California (Hill et al., 1998), rice is grown primarily in continuously flooded, flow-through 

systems, where the rice is seeded by airplane into the water. However, the practice of dry 

seeding of rice in California has increased due to weed resistance issues (Hill et al. 2006). Weed 

control begins within days of planting and continues until the canopy closes over. Flooded 

paddies are normally drained 2-3 weeks prior to harvest. Information from the University of 

California Rice Research and Information Program states that paddy water depths typically range 

from four to greater than eight inches. 

In the southeastern United States, rice can be planted via water-seeding, drill-seeded, or 

broadcast dry; however, most of the planting is via water-seeding to control red rice. In dry seed 

planting, 4-6 weeks may elapse between planting and permanent flood establishment, although 

flooding fields immediately after seeding can improve weed control. A uniform flood depth of 

 7 Based on 2007 census data from the Quick Stats Database of the National Agricultural Statistics Service available 

at http://quickstats.nass.usda.gov (accessed October 31, 2013).
-Page 196 of 196-

less than four inches (1-2 inches is preferred) is usually maintained prior to rice emergence, and 

then the flood depth is increased to four inches (Shipp, 2002).

Typical planting and harvesting periods were collected from the USDA (2010) and are provided 

in Table L-2 below.

Table L-2. Typical planting and harvesting dates1

State Planting Harvesting

Arkansas April 14 – May 1 Sep 9 – Oct 10

California May 1 - 25 Sep 15 – Nov 1

Louisiana March 28 – May 1 Aug 4 – Sep 15

Texas March 23 – April 26 Aug 7 – Sep 4

Mississippi April 18 – May 16 Sep 5 – Oct 6

1 Data from USDA (2010)