### UNITED STA **TES ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTION A** **GENCY WA** **SHINGTON, D.C. 20460**

**OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES**  **AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES**



### PC Code No.: 129098 **DP Barcode:** D300893 **,** D338293 , D338294 and D339162 **Date:** May 16 , 2007 **MEMORANDUM SUBJECT:**  **EFED IR -**  **4 Registration for the Fungicide Fluazinam (OMEGA 500F) for use**

**on Legume**  **Vegetable Subgroup**  **6A, Bushberry**  **Subgroup 13B,**  **Brassica Leafy**  **Vegetable Crop**  **Group 5,**  **Ginseng, Dry Bean, Lima Bean and Succulent Bean Crop Subgroup 6B to**  **Control Various blights and Molds. TO**  **:** Dan Rosenblatt, Risk Manager 05

Tony Kish, Risk Manager 22 Janet Whitehurst, Risk Manager Reviewer Registration Division (PY S
- 7913 and PY S
- 7318 ) **FROM:** ERB V Team for Fluazinam :

N.E. Federoff, Wildlife Biologist José L . Meléndez, Chemist Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P) **THROUGH:** Mah T. Shamim, Ph.D., Chief

Environmental Risk Branch V Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P) The EFED Screening Level Environmental Risk Assessment for Fluazinam is attached. An overview of our findings can be found in the Executive Summary
. **Data Gaps and Uncertainties in the Exposure Assessment:**  **Environmental Fate: 161**  **- 2 and 161**  **- 3:**  Additional data has been requested to upgrade the Aqueous Photolysis and Photodegradation on Soil data requirements. The additional information will refine quantitation of the parent and degradates. **164 -**  **1:** EFED believes that the available Terrestrial Field Dissipation studies provide useful

### 2

information about the parent fluazinam. However, poor recoveries for two of the transformation products upon storage stability cast doubts over the results obtained for them in the field. At this time, only

one new study

is required. The study

should be conducted on a ty pical site. The registrant must take all measurements of precaution to assure that the results are reliable. A concurrent storage stability study must be conducted and submitted to the Agency
. **Ecological Effects:** Some of the submitted plant studies were deemed invalid and should be repeated. The following plant studies are needed: **123 -**  **1** : Tier II
- Terrestrial Plant Growth
- Vegetative vigor. **123 -**  **2** : Tier II
- Aquatic Plant Growth
- duckweed ( Lemna gibba ), freshwater green algae (Selenastrum capricornutum ), marine diatom (Skeletonema costatum ) and a freshwater diatom. **Envir onmental Hazard S** **tatements Manufacturing Use**  **:** This pesticide is toxic to fish and aquatic invertebrates. Do not apply dire ctly to water, or to 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 or rinsate. Do not apply when weather conditions favor drift from treated areas. Runoff and drift from treated areas may be hazardous to aquatic organisms in neighboring areas. Do not allow this product to drift. **End Use Products :**  This pesticide is toxic to fish and aquatic invertebrates. Do not apply directly to water, or to 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 or rinsate. Do not apply when weather conditions favor drift from treated areas. Runoff and drif t from treated areas may

be hazardous to aquatic organisms in neighboring areas. Do not allow this product to drift. **Label statements for spray drift management :**  AVOIDI NG SPRAY DRIFT AT THE APPLIC ATION SITE I S THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE APPLIC ATOR. The interaction of many equipment
- and
- weather
- related factors determine the potential for spray

drift. The applicator is responsible for considering all these factors when making decisions. Where states have more stringent regulations, they should be observed.

### 3 **Table of Contents I. Executive Summary......................................................................................4**  **II. Problem Formulation...................................................................................5 III. Analysis..................................................................................................14**  **IV. Risk Characterization.................................................................................. 25**  **V. Appendices................................................................................................35**

### 4



# Environmental Fate and Ecologica **l Risk Assessment for the Proposed New IR** **- 4 Uses of Fluazinam**  Legume Vegetable Subgroup 6A, Bushberry S ubgroup 13B, Brassica Leafy V egetable Crop Group 5, Ginseng, Dry

Bean, Lima Bean and Succulent Bean Crop Subgroup 6B

**Prepared by: N**  **. E. Feder**  **off, Wildlife Biologist José L. Meléndez, Chemist**  **U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Pesticide Programs**  **Environmental Fate and Effects Division Environmental Risk Branch**  **V Ariel Rios Building (Mail Code 7507P)**  **1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Was**  **hington, DC 20460** 

### Reviewed by: **Mah Shamim, Branch Chief ERB5**

### 5



## I. **Executive Summary** Available data suggest that fluazinam and its transformation products are moderately persistent, should not leach substantially to ground water but may present concerns for transport to surface water by spray

drift or runoff (especially in soils with low organic content). Fluazinam is practically

nontoxic to birds on an acute dietary exposure basis. The concentrations at which acute effects may be observed for birds is unknown, but is greater than 10,500 ppm. Thus no acute avian RQs could be calculated. However, chronic LOCs were exceeded for endangered and non - endangered avian (RQs ranged from 3.40 to 0.06) and mammalian (RQs ranged from 6.80 to 0.12) species. A cute and chronic risk was indicated for endangered and non
- endangered freshwater fish, estuarine/marine invertebrates and benthic organisms
. Inaddition, acute risk was indicated for endangered estuarine fish and freshwater invertebrates. Currently, EFED does not assess risk to insects. Results of acceptable studies are used for recommending appropriate label precautions. Since fluazinam is practically nontoxic to honey

bees, low risk is assumed and no labeling p recautions are required. Risk s to plants , calculated from valid submitted data, were below LOCs. 

## II. **Problem Formulation A. Stressor Source and Distribution**  **1. Sources and Intensity** Fluazinam, CAS Name: 3
- chloro
-N
- [3
- chloro
- 2,6
- dinitro
- 4
- (trifluoromethyl)phenyl]
- 5
- (trifluoromethyl)
- 2
-py

ridinamine , and IUPAC Name: 3
- chloro
-N
- (3
- chloro
- 5
- trifluoromethyl
- 2
- py ridyl)
- α,α,α - trifluoro
- 2,6
- dinitro
- p - toluidine , has a CAS Number of 79622
- 59
- 6 1 and a PC Code of 1290 98. It is a py

ridine (dinitroaniline) fungicide. The structure consists of one pheny l ring with two nitro groups, and a py ridine ring. Both rings have a trifluoromethyl group. The rings are attached by

a nitrogen (amine). The product name is Omega 500 F Agricultural Fungicide (EPA Reg. No. 71512
- 1). It contains 40.0% fluazinam. The application methods vary with the crops. For example, aerial applications are prohibited, but the material may be applied by

sprinkler irrigation, or, for brassica leafy v egetables, it may

be applied by

soil incorporation prior to transplanting. The chemical is expected to reach the foliage and the soil. During rain events, it could runoff to adjacent bodies of water. It could reach bodies of water also via spray drift. **2. Physicochemical, Fate, and Transport Properties** Based on the properties of the chemical, applications of fluazinam are likely to reach the target (the crop), but off site drift is also possible. The chemical has a relatively l ow solubility

(71 ug/L at pH 7), a low vapor pressure ( 8.25x10 - 6 

### mm Hg) , and a moderate Henry ’s Law constant ( 6.73 x 10 - 7 

### atm - m 3 

### /mol) . Due to the fact that it appears to show short half
- lives in aquatic media, and it binds to soils and organic matter , EFED believes that the chemical would not volatilize substantially from soil surfaces or from the water
.

### 6

EFED concludes that fluazinam appears to degrade at moderate to low rates in aerobic soils (observed DT50~3 0 days) , but it is more rapidly transformed into other compounds of similar backbone structure in high pH environments (hydrolysis half
- life at pH 9=6 days) or in aquatic media, both, aerobic (half life=4.0
- 7.4 hours) or anaerobic (half
- life=6.4 hours) . F luazinam may be photoly

zed relatively

rapidly (2.5 days) to form a tricyclic compound (G
- 504). The total fluazinam residues (fluazinam and its transformation products) are persistent in most environments (aerobic aquatic metabolism 51
- 71 days, and relativ ely stable in anaerobic aquatic environment) and are likely to reach aquatic media through runoff. Since fluazinam does not alter substantially

its backbone structure in the environment, but instead, goes through a slight transformation of functional grou ps, EFED considered parent and transformation products together when making assessments. While the parent (mean KOC 

### =1958) and two transformation products, HYPA (mean KOC 

### =920) and CAPA (mean KOC 

### =2067) , have relatively low mobility, indicating a relatively low potential for ground water contamination, further information on the other transformation products is unavailable and should be required in a new terrestrial field dissipation study
. Fluazinam shows a potential to bioaccumulate in fish (BCF=1220X for whole fish; ≥67% of residues depurated in 21 days).

**3. Pesticide Type, Class, and Mode of Action**  Fluazinam is a new protectant and contact fungicide, a pheny l py ridinamine. It is an uncoupler of oxidative phosphorilation in the respiration chain involving protonation/deprotonation (it inhibits fungal respiration, and the production of energy within the fungus). Fluazinam belongs to a chemical group classified as a multi
- site fungicide (chemicals which act as general toxophores with several sites of action).

**4. Overview of Pesticide Usage** This assessment is intended to address the proposed new uses of fluazinam. The chemical is also currently registered for use on two agricultural crops (peanuts and potatoes) . Ty pical applications are made at 7 to 14
- day

intervals per season, depending on the pest to be treated and the crop. For additional details, refer to the Use Characterization section of this document. **B. Receptors** 

**1. Ecological Effects** Ecological measures of effect for fluazinam are based on registrant
- submitted toxicity studies Acute and chronic endpoints are selected from available test data, as the data set allows. A complete discussion of all toxicity data available for this risk assessment and the resulting measures of ecological effects selected for each taxonomic group are included in the Appendix of

### 7

this document. **2. Ecosystems at Risk** Aquatic ecosystems potentially at risk include water bodies adjacent to, or downstream of, the treated field and might include ponds, lakes, and reservoirs, or flowing waterways such as streams or rivers. Since fluazinam has the potential to be used in coastal areas, marine ecosystems (including estuaries) are also potentially at risk. Risks will be assessed for aquatic animals (fish, invertebrates, amphibians) and plants, which are assumed to occur in small, static ponds that receive runoff and drift from adjacent treated areas. Terrestrial ecosystems potentially at risk include the treated area and areas immediately adjacent to the treated area that might receive drift or runoff, and might include other cultivated fields, fence rows and hedgerows, meadows, fallow fields or grasslands, woodl ands, riparian habitats and other uncultivated areas. **C. Assessment Endpoints**  Assessment endpoints are explicit expressions of the actual environmental value that is to be protected. Assessment endpoint selection is based on valued entities or ecological receptors, the ecosystems potentially

at risk, pesticide migration pathways, and routes by which ecological receptors may

be exposed to the stressor. A summary of the assessment endpoints and measures of ecological effect selected to characterize potential ecological risks associated with exposure is provided in the following Table. Specifically, this assessment addresses birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, invertebrates, plants, and fish. Birds are used as surro gates for reptiles and terrestrial
-phase amphibians, and fish are used as surrogates for aquatic
-phase amphibians. Although all endpoints are measured at the individual level, they provide insight about risks at higher levels of biological organization ( e. g. populations and communities). For example, pesticide effects on individual survivorship have important implications for both population rates and habitat carrying capacity
. **Summary of Possible Ecological Risk Assessment Endpoints** Assessment Endpoint Effects Measurement Endpoint 1. Survival, reproduction, and growth of individuals and populations of birds 1a. Oral LD 50 (Japanese quail; mallard duck) 1b. Dietary LC 50 (mallard duck; bobwhite, Japanese quail) 1c. Reproductive NOAEC, LOAEC (bobwhite qu ail, mallard duck) 2. Survival, reproduction, and growth of individuals and populations of mammals 2a. Oral LD 50 (rat) 2b. Dietary LC 50 (rat) 2c. Reproductive NOAEC, LOAEC (rat)

### 8

**Summary of Possible Ecological Risk Assessment Endpoints** Assessment Endpoint Effects Measurement Endpoint 3. Survival and reproduction of individuals and communities of freshwater fish and invertebrates 3a. LC 50 (rainbow trout; bluegill sunfish; fathead minnow) 3b. Reproductive NOAEC, LOAEC (fathead minnow) 3c. LC 50 ( Daphnia magna , Daphnia pulex, cyclopoid and calanoid copepods, Asellus aquaticus , Cloeon dipterum, Gammarus pulex , No tonecta glauca , Chironomus riparius , Chaoborus crystallinus, Chironomus riparius ) 3d. Reproductive NOAEC, LOAEC ( Daphnia magna ) 4. Survival and reproduction of individuals and communities of estuarine/marine fish and invertebrates 4a. LC 50 (sheepshead minnow) 4b. LC 50 (Eastern oyster, mysid shrimp) 5. Maintenance and growth of individuals and populations of aquatic plants from standing crop or biomass 5a. NOAEC, EC 25 (Selenastrum capricornutum )
6. Perpetuation of individuals and populations of non
- target terrestrial plants (crops and non - crop plant species) 6a. Vegetative vigor (11 species) 6b. Seedling emergence (11 species) 7. Survival of terrestrial invertebrate populations 7a. Contact/oral LD 50 (honeybee)


### This ecological risk assessment considers maximum application rates to fields that have vulnerable soils, maximum number of applications (as well as single applications), and minimum intervals for uses on representative crops to estimate exposure concentrations. This assessment is not intende d to represent a site or time
- specific analysis; it is intended to represent high
- end exposures at a national level. The most sensitive toxicity measures of effect are used from surrogate test species to estimate treatment
- related direct effects on acute mortality and chronic reproductive, growth, and survival assessment endpoints. **D. Conceptual Model 1. Risk Hypotheses**  Risk hy potheses are specific assumptions about potential adverse effects (i.e., changes in assessment endpoints) and may b e based on theory

and logic, empirical data, mathematical models, or probability

models (EPA 1998a). For this assessment, the risk is stressor
- initiated, where the stressor is the release of fluazinam into the environment. The following risk hy pothesis is presumed for this screening
- level assessment: The use of Fluazinam will likely involve situations where terrestrial and aquatic animals and plants will be exposed to the chemical and/or its transformation products. Based on information on environmentalfate, mode ofaction, direct toxicity and potential indirect effects, EFED assumes potential to cause reduced survival, growth, and reproduction to terrestrial and/or aquatic animals and plants as a result of the proposed use of the pesticide.

### 9

The conceptual model is a generic graphic depiction of the risk hy pothesis. It includes the potential pesticide or stressor (fluazinam), the source of the pesticide and/or transport pathways, exposure media, exposure point, biological receptor ty pes, and attribute changes. **2. Diagram** Based on an examination of the physical/chemical properties of fluazinam, the fate and disposition in the environment, and mode of application, a conceptual model was developed that represents the possible relationships between the stressors, ecological receptors, and the assessment endpoints. Ino rder for a chemical 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 exposure 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 feasible route of exposure. In addition, the potential mechanisms of degradation/transformation (i.e., which degradation/transformation products may form in the environment, in which media, and how much) must be understood, especially for a chemical whos e metabolites/transformation products are of greater toxicological concern than the parent compound. The assessment of ecological exposure pathways, therefore, includes an examination of the source and potential migration pathways for constituents, and th e determination of potential exposure routes. Under the proposed use of fluazinam, the sources and mechanisms of release of the compound are from broadcast spray

applications (fluazinam is applied by sprinkler irrigation or by soil incorporation) . Surfac e 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, such as bodies of water. The major point of exposure for aquatic organisms is direct contact with contaminated water (gill/ integument uptake), while for terrestrial animals it is consumption of food contaminated with residues . For plants, the point of exposure is root uptake. The representative aquatic receptors are certain freshwater and estuarine/ marine fish, invertebrates, and, in certain cases, aquatic plants. The representative terrestrial receptors are mammals, birds , and, in certain cases, terrestrial 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 amphibians. The attribute changes depend on the ty pe of test (e.g., reduced survival, growth, or reproduction for animals and seedling emergence and vegetative vigor for plants).

### 10

**E. Analysis Plan** This document ch aracterizes the environmental fate and effects of fluazinam to assess whether the proposed label use of this compound results in potential risk to non
- target organisms at levels above the Agency ’s LOCs. The Agency m ay b e concerned with potential risk to non - target aquatic organisms based on very

high toxicity

to fish and aquatic invertebrates. The methods by which the Agency will evaluate potential exposures, effects, and risks to non
- target organisms are described below. Available environmental fate, ecotoxicity, and physicochemical property data were taken from previous assessments conducted by EFED. These data were not re
- evaluated for this assessment. **1. Preliminary Identification of Data Gaps** At this time, the persistence of fluazinam transformation products is uncertain because the information about these compounds from terrestrial field dissipation studies has been deemed invalid. The aquatic metabolism studies suggest high persistence of such degradates. A new terrestrial field dissipation study has been required. In addition, the extent and importance of photolysis (both in water and on soil) is not very clear because the supplemental data available is not quantitative. EFED requested additional data from such studies to clarify this point.

### 11

The database for ecotoxicity is mostly complete, however, some of the submitted plant studies were deemed invalid and should be repeated. The following studies need to be submitted: **123 -**  **1** : Tier II
- Terrestrial Plant Growth
- Vegetative vigor. **123 -**  **2** : Tier II
- Aquatic Plant Growth
- duckweed ( Lemna gibba ), freshwater green algae (Selenastrum capricornutum ), marine diatom (Skeletonema costatum ) and a freshwater diatom. **2. Measures to Evaluate Ri sk Hypotheses and Conceptual Model** 

**a. Measures of Exposure** Exposure to aquatic organisms is assumed to occur through direct contact with contaminated water. Aquatic exposures can be estimated from monitoring data or by simulation modeling. Inthe absence of suitable monitoring data, the EFED chose to measure exposure by the use of a simulation model for fluazinam. Generally, aquatic exposure estimates are generated from EFED models and incorporate maximum proposed use rates and empirically
- derived fate properties. For agricultural uses, exposure concentrations for aquatic ecosystems assessments were estimated based on EFED’s Tier 2 aquatic model PRZM/EXAMS. A graphical user interface (pe4v01.pl ), developed by

the US EPA <http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/>, was used to facilitate inputting chemical and use specific parameters into the appropriate PRZM input files (inp) and EXAMS chemical files. This approach employs PRZM, which simulates the processes in the agricultural field, such as runoff and erosion, on a daily time step. The runoff and erosion flux output data from PRZM are used as chemical loadings to EXAMS, which simulates surface water in order to predict the EECs. Pesticide loading is assumed to occur from a 10 hectare field that drains into a pond with an area of 1 hectare and a depth of 2 meters. This watershed geometry is commonly

referred to as the “ standard pond. ” Further details of the exposure models are discussed in Appendix C and on the web at http://epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm
. Five PRZM field (crop) scenarios were modeled: OR snapbeans, FL cabbage (surrogate for b rassica) , MI bean, OR berry and MN sugarbeet (surrogate for ginseng)
. An effort was made to cover all the crop groups . Inthe absence of a standard berries scenario, an OP’s scenario was utilized (OR berries). The scenari o is suitable for characterization purposes. In the absence of a ginseng scenario, a surrogate scenario was utilized, the MN sugarbeet was considered similar in characteristics; furthermore, it is located in a state where ginseng is usually grown. The sc enario utilized to represent brassica was FL cabbage, it was also considered similar in characteristics. This scenario had the particularity that the modeling required soil incorporation. EECs for ecological risk assessment were determined using a pond modeling scenario which describes a generic scenario for the EXAMS component of the modeling exercise. Since fluazinam and its residues, bind to organic carbon (KOC 

### = 1 705
- 2316 mg/L) and could eventually

accumulate in aquatic sediment s , toxic exposure to o rganisms living in this media is a concern. EFED has estimated fluazinam and its residues sediment exposure to benthic organisms by calculating pore water exposure values using the PRZM/EXAMS model. Screening level RQs for sediment dwelling organisms were estimated with an extrapolation method recommended by

### 12

the Office of Water (USEPA). This was based on the Agency Equilibrium Partitioning Sediment Guidelines (ESG) under the Clean Water Act [CWA Section 304(a)(2)]. After consultation with the OW, EFED adopted the equilibrium partitioning (EqP) sediment method to be used when sediment toxicity

and exposure data are not available (Appendix C ). This extrapolation method is useful for estimating potential sediment exposure values, as we ll as sediment toxicity values that can be used in a screening level risk assessment. The EqP theory holds that a nonionic compound in the sediment partitions between sediment organic carbon, interstitial (pore) water and benthic organisms (Di Toro et al. , 1991, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2000). At equilibrium, if the concentration in any

phase is known, then the concentration in the other phases can be predicted through the organic/ carbon soil partition coefficient. The EECs are calculated f rom the pore water concentration (an output from PRZM/ EXAMS) through the KOC 

### . For the terrestrial assessment, residues in or on potential dietary sources for mammals and birds were estimated using the Tier 1 model TREX. The focus of terrestrial wildlife exposure estimates is for birds and mammals with an exposure route emphasis on uptake of treated food. In this TIER I assessment, it was assumed that organisms are exposed to parent fluazinam in a given exposure scenario. **b. Measures of Effect** Measures of effect are based on deleterious changes in a receptor as a result of chemical exposure. Functionally, measures of effect ty pically used in risk assessments include changes in survival, reproduction, or growth as determined from standard laboratory toxicity tests. The focus on these effects for quantitative risk assessment is due to their clear relationship to higher
- order ecological systems ( i.e. populations, communities, ecosystems). Although effects other than survival, reproduction, and growth may be considered, rarely

are they used quantitatively

to estimate risks since, in many

cases, the relationship between these non
- standard endpoints and higher
- order impacts is tenuous at best. Commonly used laborato ry- derived toxicity values include estimates of acute mortality

( e.g. , LD 50 

### , LC 50 

### ) and estimates of effects due to longer term, chronic exposures ( e.g. , NOAEL, NOAEC) (Appendix H). More details concerning measures of effects used in this assessment can be found in the Ecological Effects Characterization section.

**c. Measures of Ecosystem and Receptor Characteristics** Field studies are not available to determine the indirect effects to plant and animal communities in wetland and riparian habitats along freshwater/marine water bodies near target fields or to forest and edge habitats adjacent to target fields. The assessment endpoints specified in the following table can be summarized a s survival, growth, and reproduction of terrestrial and aquatic receptors to include birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibian, fish, invertebrates, and plants. The response of these receptors to exposure is represented by a small number of toxicity studies on representative or surrogate species. Thus, there is considerable uncertainty regarding the response of a receptor, since data for all species potentially exposed are not available. The most sensitive available measure of effect for a given assessment endpoint is used to accommodate for some of this inherent uncertainty . However, the extent to which this is sufficient is unknown.

### 13

The ecosystems selected for modeling using PRZM/EXAMS for the aquatic assessment and T
- REX for the terrestrial animal assessment are intended to be generally representative of any aquatic or terrestrial ecosystem associated with areas where fluazinam may be applied. For aquatic assessments, freshwater and estuarine/marine fish, invertebrates, and plants are represented. For terres trial assessments, mammals and birds are represented by most vulnerable size, and treated food is used as primary

foraging category
. **Assessment Endpoints for Ecological Risk Assessment Taxonomic**  **Group Assessment** 

**Endpoint Measures of Effect** 

**(Toxicity Endpoints) Measures of Exposure**  **(Exposure Endpoints)**

Birds Survival Oral LD 50 and dietary LC 50 (most sensitive species), adjusted for size for 20 g bird Maximum residue on food items (foliar) or LD 50/ft2 Reproduction, Growth NOAEC/LOAEC from avian chronic

study (most sensitive species) Maximum residue on food items (foliar) or LD 50/ft2

Mammals Survival Acute oral LD 50 , dietary LC 50 (most sensitive species) Maximum co ncentration on food items (foliar) or LD 50/ft2 Reproduction, Growth NOAEC/LOAEC from chronic

reproduction study (most sensitive species) Maximum concentration on food items Non
- target Terrestrial Invertebrates Survival Honey
- bee acute contact LD 50 Maximum application rate
Terrestrial Plants Survival and

Growth Tier I, Tier II plant toxicity data; EC 25 Estimates of runoff to non
- target areas

Freshwater Fish Survival 96
- hr LC 50 (most sensitive species) Peak EEC

Reproduction, Growth Fish Early Life S tage NOAEC/LOAEC for Growth 60
- day average EEC

Freshwater Invertebrate Survival 48
- hr LC 50 (most sensitive species) Peak EEC

Reproduction, Growth Invertebrate Life Cycle NOAEC 21
- day average EEC

Marine/estuarine Fish Survival 96
- hr LC50 (most sensitive species) Peak EEC

Reproduction, Growth Estuarine/Marine Fish NOAEC for growth 60
- day average EEC

Marine/estuarine Invertebrate Survival 48
- hr EC 50 (most sensitive species) Peak EEC

Reproduction, Growth NOAEC for reproduction for most sensitive sp ecies 21
- day average EEC

### 14

**Assessment Endpoints for Ecological Risk Assessment Taxonomic**  **Group Assessment** 

**Endpoint Measures of Effect** 

**(Toxicity Endpoints) Measures of Exposure**  **(Exposure Endpoints)** Aquatic Plants Survival, Growth Tier I, Tier II plant toxicity estimates; EC 25 1
- in
- 10 year peak concentration


## III. **Analysis**

**1. Use Characterization**  This assessment is intended to address the proposed new IR
- 4 uses of Fluazinam as a treatment for various blights and molds. The proposed new IR
- 4 uses (D338293 and D338294) are for treatment of Legume Vegetable Subgroup 6A, Bushberry Subgroup 13B, Brassica Leafy Vegetable Crop Group 5, Ginseng, Dry

Bean, Lima Bean and Succulent Bean Crop Subgroup 6B. Taken together, these commodities are grown throughout the United States. Fluazinam is a protectant and contact fungicide with a multi
- site mode of action that exerts fungicidal action by

disrupting the production of energy at several metabolic sites within the fungal cell. A sy nopsis of the proposed use pattern for this chemical is provided below. **Proposed Fluazinam Usage Pattern Crop**  **Maximum**

**Application rate**  **(lb a.i./A) Maximum** 

**Application per Season**  **(lb a.i./A/se**  **ason) Number of** 

**Applications Minimum** 

**Application Interval** 
Legume Vegetables and Dry Bean and Succulent Subgroup 6B 0.44 0.91 2 7 da

Brassica 2.00 2.00 1 N/A Ginseng 0.52

0.78 3.12

3.12 6

4 7
- 14 da

7
- 14 da Bushberry Subgroup 0.65 3.90 6 7 da

### 15

**B. Exposure Characterization**  **Environmental Fate and Transport Characterization Sum** **mary of Various Physico -**  **Chem ical and Environm** **ental Fate Properties of Fluazinam**

**Param eter**  **Value Referenc**  **e/Com me**  **nts *** **Selected Physical/Chemical Parameters** Water Solubility (25 o C) 0.025 mg/L @ pH 5.5, 0.071 @ pH 7.0 MRID 42208403 Vapor pressure 8.25x10 - 6 mm Hg MRID 42248403 Molecular Formula C1 3 H 4 Cl 2 F 6N4 O 2 Molecular Weight 465.1 g/mol CAS No. 79622
- 59
- 6 CAS name 3
- chloro
-N
- [3
- chloro
- 2,6
- dinitro
- 4
- (trifluoromethyl)phenyl]
- 5
- (trifluoromethyl)
- 2
- pyridinamine IUPAC name 3
- chloro
-N
- (3
- chloro
- 5
- trifluoromethyl
- 2
- pyridyl)
- α,α,α - trifluoro
- 2,6
- dinitro
- p toluidine Henry’s Law Constant 6.73 x 10 - 7 atm- m3 /mol PMRA Reg. Note REG2003
- 12 Octanol/Water Partition, Log Kow 3620, 3.56 @20°C MRID 42248403 **Persistence: Fluazinam Fluaz.+Degradates**  Hydrolysis t 1/2 pH 5

pH 7 pH 9 stable

42 days 6 days stable

stable stab le MRID 42208412 (c)
Photolysis t 1/2 in water 2.5 days, dark control ≈stable one degradate MRID 44807312, 43521009(s)
on soil 35.0 days, value

corrected for dark control degradates at ≤10%

of the applied MRID 44807313 (s)

Soil metabolism Aerobic t 1/2 132 days degradates at ≤10% of the app. MRID 4 2208413 (c) Aquatic metabolism Aerobic DT 50 4.0
- 7.4 hours 51
- 71 days MRID 44807314 (c) Aquatic metabolism Anaerobic t 1/2 ≈ 1⁄3 day (or approximately 8 hours) stable MRID 43521010 (c)

### 16

**Sum mary of Various Physico**  **- Chem** **ical and Environm ental Fate Properties of Fluazinam** 

**Param eter**  **Value Referenc**  **e/Com me**  **nts *** **Mobility/Adsorption -** 

**Desorption** Batch Equilibrium
- Unaged Aged Soi l Column Leaching Batch Equilibrium HYPA Batch Equilibrium CAPA 4 soils Kads=11
- 44 KOC=1700
- 1900 Kdes=34
- 507 KOC=7000
- 19900 0.66% in leachate 6 soils Kads=6.6
- 51 KOC=640
- 3200 4 soils Kads=4.9
- 67 KOC=1289
- 3784 MRID 42248628, 42 974913 (c) MRID 42208415 (c) MRID 43528201 (c) MRID 44807315 (s) **Field Dissipation** Terrestrial Dissipation

t 1/2 in soil surface layer range from 9 to 49 days MRID 44807318, 44807320, 44807316, 44807319, 44807317 (s) **Bioaccumulation** Accumulation in Fish, max. BCF 273
- 348 X for fillet portion 960
- 1220 X for whole fish 1410
- 1850 X for non
- edible MRID 43521012 (c) (c) = core study that fulfills guideline requirement; (s) = supplemental study; (u) = unacceptable study Where two values are stated, they may correspond to two radiolabel positions. 

### Note: For nomenclature of degradates of fluazinam, please, refer to the Appendix. EFED concludes that fluazinam appears to degrade at moderate to low rates in aerobic soils, but it is more rapidly

transformed into other compounds of similar backbone structure in high pH solutions or in aerobic or anaerobic aquatic media. The transformation products of fluazinam appear to be relatively

persistent under most conditions. Fluazinam may be photolysed relatively rapidly in water, resulting in a tricyclic compound. While the parent and two transformation products, HYPA and CAPA, have relatively low mobility, indicating low potential for ground water contamination, there is uncertainty about the other transformation products and further information on them should be required in a new Terrestrial Field Dissipation Study
. **Hydrolysis** The hydrolysis of fluazinam is pH dependent. Itw as relatively s table at pH 5, and hydroly zed with half
- lives of 42 and 6 days at pH’s of 7 and 9, respectively . The major degradate was CAPA. **Photolysis** Fluazinam photolyses in aqueous solutions mainly to G
- 504, a tricyclic compound, and possibly one or more other unidentified products
. The half
- life obtained in the study w as 2.5 days. The soil photolysis, on the other hand, the half
- life was 22 days (compared to 69 days for the dark control). The available data has been deemed supplemental at this time. Additional data on both photo lysis studies have been requested. **Metabolism** The metabolism of fluazinam appears to be moderate in soils (DT 50 

### ≤ 30 days) in a sandy l oam soil. The calculated half

- life was about 132 days, which is in agreement with the fact that after 361 days,

### 17

6.8 and 9.5% of the applied fluazinam remained intact for the 14 

### C
- Py ridyl and 14 

### C
- Phenyl labels, respectively . No major degradation products were observed in this study, but a major fraction (~41%) was bound material at the end of the study (day 361). **Sediment/Water Systems** The aerobic aquatic and the anaerobic aquatic metabolism st udies resulted in very

short half

- lives (≤8 hours in both studies). In addition, in such studies, various metabolites were formed. All the major transformation products have structures that resemble the structure of the parent. The sum of the amount of the parent concentration plus the concentrations of the degradates (total fluazinam residues) decreases very

slowly in both cases. The major transformation products observed in these studies include DAPA, SDS
- 67200, AMPA, DCPA, and CAPA. **Mobility** Inb atch equilibrium studies, fluazinam shows low mobility in four soils tested. KOC 

### values ranged from 1705
- 2316. Similarly, an available soil column leaching study of aged fluazinam indicated low mobility

of the residues of fluazinam. Less than 1% of the applied radiocarbon was found in the leachates and >>80% remained at the top of the soil columns. There is mobility information for two of the transformation products of fluazinam: HYPA and CAPA. Of them, HYPA appeared to be general ly

more mobile (KOC 

### =620
- 3100, 6 soils), and CAPA appeared to be generally less mobile than the parent (KOC 

### =1289
- 3784, 4 soils). These two batch/equilibrium studies were conducted on sterile soils. **Field Dissipation** Four terrestrial field dissipation studies were submitted by the registrant. Such studies were found to provide only

limited supplemental information. In particular, the data about the degradates is very questionable due to poor recoveries in a storage stabi lity study . In general, it appeared that parent fluazinam degraded moderately rapidly in studies conducted in Ephrata, Washington, Kempton, North Dakota, Porterville, California, and Monctezuma, Georgia. The dissipation half
- lives ranged from 9 to 49 days. These half
- lives are in agreement with the aerobic soil metabolism half

- life. **Bioaccumulation** Fluazinam demonstrated some potential to bioaccumulate in fish. The maximum BCF’s were 348X for fillet, 1220 for whole fis h, and 1850 for viscera, all of which were obtained with the phenyl label material. Depuration appears to be slow. More than 67% of the residues were eliminated from the fillet during the 21
- day depuration phase. **Measures of Aquatic Exposure a. Aquatic Exposure Modeling**  Exposure to aquatic organisms is assumed to occur through direct contact with contaminated water. Aquatic exposures can be estimated from monitoring data or by simulation modeling. In the absence of suitable monitoring data, the EFED chose to measure exposure by the use of a

### 18

simulation model for fluazinam. A quatic exposure estimates are generated from EFED models and incorporate maximum proposed use rates and empirically
- derived fate properties. For agricultural uses, exposure concentrations for aquatic ecosystem assessments were estimated based on EFED’s Tier 2 aquatic model PRZM/EXAMS. A graphical user interface (pe4v01.pl ), developed by the US EPA, was used to facilitate inputting chemical and use specific parameters into the appropriate PRZM input files (inp) and EXAMS chemical files. This approach employs PRZM, which simulates the processes in the agricultural field, such as runoff and eros ion, on a daily time step. The runoff and erosion flux output data from PRZM are used as chemical loadings to EXAMS, which simulates surface water in order to predict the EECs. Pesticide loading is assumed to occur from a 10 hectare field that drains into a pond with an area of 1 hectare and a depth of 2 meters. This watershed geometry is commonly referred to as the “ standard pond. ” Further details of the exposure models are discussed in Appendix C and on the web at http://epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm
. Five PRZM field (crop) scenarios were modeled: OR snapbeans, FL cabbage, MI bean, OR berry and MN sugarbeet (surrogate for ginseng)
. An effort was made to cover all the new crops . EECs for ecological risk assessment were determined using a pond modeling scenario which describes a generic scenario for the EXAMS component of the modeling exercise. The location of the field is specific to the crop being simulated using site specific information on the soils, weather, cropping, and management factors associated with the scenario. The crop/location scenario in a specific state is intended to represent a high
- end vulnerable site on which the crop is normally grown. Based on historical rainfall patterns, the pond receives multiple runoff events during the years simulated. Maximum application rates and relevant environmental fate parameters were used in the screening model PRZM/EXAMS in estimating concentrations in surface water. Inthe absence of a s tandard berries scenario, an OP’s scenario was utilized (OR berries). The scenario is suitable for characterization purposes. Inthe absence of a ginseng scenario, a surrogate scenario was utilized, the MN sugarbeet is similar in characteri stics, and it was also considered similar because it is located in a state where ginseng is grown. The scenario utilized to represent brassica was FL cabbage, it is the standard scenario that most closely resembles brassica characteristics. This scenario had the particularity that the modeling required soil incorporation. A table with the input parameters in PRZM/EXAMS is presented below : **Table of Input Parameters Utili** **zed in PRZM/EXAMS for Fluazinam Param**  **eter (units) Value(s)**  **Sources Com** **me nts**  Output File Name fluazina
--- --- Chemical Name Fluazinam La bel Omega 500F label (EPA Reg. No. 71512
- 1). Crop Name OR snap bean FL cabbage (for brassica) MI bean OR berries MN sugarbeets (for ginseng) La bel Omega 500F label (EPA Reg. No. 71512
- 1)
Application Rate (Kg a.i./ha) ORsnapbean 0.493 FLcabbage 2.242 MI bean 0.493 La bel Omega 500F label (EPA Reg. No. 71512
- 1). Label application rate: ORsnapbean 0.44 lb a.i./A FLcabbage 2.00 lb a.i./A MI bean 0.44 lb a.i./A

### 19

**Table of Input Parameters Utili** **zed in PRZM/EXAMS for Fluazinam Param**  **eter (units) Value(s)**  **Sources Com** **me nts**  ORberry 0.729 MNsugarbeet 0.874 OR berry 0.65 lb a.i./A MNsugarbeet 0.78 lb a.i./A Day of Application (day
-month)/ pre -harvest interval ORsnapbean 31
- 07 FLcabbage 22
- 12 MI bean 17
- 07 ORberry 14
- 05 MNsugarbeet 08
- 08 La bel PHI: ORsnapbean 14 FLcabbage 50 MI bean 30 ORberry 30 MNsug arbeet 30 Estimated from metadata file and proposed labels.

Number of Applications Allowed ORsnapbean 2 FLcabbage 1 MI bean 2 ORberry 6 MNsugarbeet 4 La bel Omega 500F label (EPA Reg. No. 71512
- 1).
Interval between Applications (days) ORsnapbean 7 F Lc abbage N/A MI bean 7 ORberry 7 MNsugarbeet 7 La bel Omega 500F label (EPA Reg. No. 71512
- 1).
CAM (Chemical application method) ORsnapbean 2 FLcabbage 4 MI bean 2 ORberry 2 MNsugarbeet 2 La bel Omega 500F label (EPA Reg. No. 71512
- 1). 2=linear fo liar based on crop canopy for all crops except FL cabbage; 4=soil applied, user defined incorporation depth, uniform with depth for FL cabbage IP SCND (Flag indicating the disposition of pesticide remaining on foliage after harvest) ORsnapbean 1 FLcabbage N/A MI bean 1 ORberry 1 MNsugarbeet 1 1, pesticide remaining on foliage is converted to surface application to the top soil layer
DEPI = Incorporation Depth 0.0 in for all crops, except FLcabbage (15.2 cm) La bel Omega 500F label (EPA Reg. No. 71512
- 1 ). KOC 1957.5 MRID: 42248628, 42974913, 46235732 Represents the average K OC value among four values ranging from 1705 to 2316 ml/g; the KOC model was utilized because it represents better the mobility of fluazinam. Aerobic Soil Metabolism (days) 396 MRID : 42208413 3X the available value, to account for the uncertainty in the availability of only one value. Method of Application Ground for all crops, except FLcabbage (soil incorporated) La bel Omega 500F label (EPA Reg. No. 71512
- 1). Buffer Zone (ft.) N/A La bel Omega 500F label (EPA Reg. No. 71512
- 1). Application Efficiency (fraction) 0.99 for ground application 1.00 for FLcabbage --- EFED guidance on input parameters for PRZM/EXAMS dated 2/28/02 Spray Drift (fraction) 0.01 for ground application 0.00 for FLc abbage --- EFED guidance on input parameters for PRZM/EXAMS dated 2/28/02 Solubility in Water (ppm) 0.71 MRID: 42208403 10X the actual solubility as per EFED guidance on input parameters for PRZM/EXAMS. Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism (days) 91.7 MRID: 448073 14 Represents the 90 th percentile of the upper confidence bound on the mean of two half

- life values: 51 and 71 days; mean = 61 days; std. dev. = 14.1 days. These values correspond to the total residues, not to the parent fluazinam. Anaerobic Aquatic Meta

bolism (days) 0 MRID: 43521010 Fluazinam and its transformation products are nearly stable as a whole in anaerobic aquatic environment. Hydrolysis at pH 7 half

- life (days) 42 MRID: 42208412
---

### 20

**Table of Input Parameters Utili** **zed in PRZM/EXAMS for Fluazinam Param**  **eter (units) Value(s)**  **Sources Com** **me nts**  Aqueous Photolysis @ pH 7 (days) 2.5 MRID: 44807312, 4352100 9 --- Molecular Weight (g/mole) 465.1 PMRA Regulatory Note REG2003
- 12, 10/27/03 Vapor Pressure (torr or mmHg) 8.25 x 10 - 6 MRID: 42248403 Henry ’s Law Constant (atm
-m 3 /mol) 6.73 x 10 - 7 PMRA Reg. Note REG2003
- 12 , 10/27/03 Environment pond298.exv
--- D efault for pond scenario, as opposed to index reservoir. Field Size Pond
--- Runoff none --- --- PRZM Scenario ORsnbeansC.txt FLcabbageC.txt MI beansC.txt ORberriesOP.txt MNsugarbeetC.txt --- It is noted that the OR berries scenario was created for organo -phosphates; however, it is useful for characterization of other chemicals as well. Metfile Scenario w24232.dvf w12842.dvf w14826.dvf w24232.dvf w14914.dvf --- As indicated by the shell (pe4).

FEXTRC, Foliar extraction 0.5 EFED guidance on input param eters for PRZM/EXAMS dated 2/28/02 PLDKRT, Decay rate on foliage 0 EFED guidance on input parameters for PRZM/EXAMS dated 2/28/02 PL VKRT, Volatilization rate from foliage 0 EFED guidance on input parameters for PRZM/EXAMS dated 2/28/02 UPTKF, Uptake f

actor 0 EFED guidance on input parameters for PRZM/EXAMS dated 2/28/02 Write Benthic Pore Water Concentrations? Yes
--- Necessary to calculate the benthic risk quotients. 

### Acute risk assessments are performed using the peak EEC values for single and multiple applications, according to the label
. Chronic risk assessments for aquatic invertebrates and fish are performed using the average 21
- day and 60
- day

EECs, respectively . For a given crop, only the highest EECs are presented in the table; however, results from all modeled scenarios are provided in the Appendix C
. The PRZM/EXAMS input and output files are also presented in the Appendix C
. **Estim ated environm**  **ental concentrations of fluazinam (ppb) in the water colum** **n and benthic pore water.**  **Crop Scenario Media**  **Peak 21**  **- day**  **60 -**  **day** FL cabbage soil incorporated a *2.00 (1) 2.00 Water Column 2.10 1.28 0.84

Benthic Pore Water 0.557 0.553 0.538 MI bean ground a *0.44 (2) 0.88 Water Column 9.30 6.71 5.17

Benthic Pore Water 4.10 4.07 3 .95 MN sugarbeet ground a *0.78 (4) 3.12 Water Column 16.87 12.02 7.42

Benthic Pore Water 4.87 4.83 4.78 OR berries ground **a** *0.65 (6) 3.90 Water Column 6.59 4.22 2.90

Benthic Pore Water 2.55 2.48 2.33 OR snapbeans grounda Water Column 7.89 5.82 4.60

### 21

**Estim ated environm**  **ental concentrations of fluazinam (ppb) in the water colum** **n and benthic pore water.**  **Crop Scenario Media**  **Peak 21**  **- day**  **60 -**  **day** *0.44 (2) 0.88 Benthic Pore Water 4.14 4.12 3.69
**a** A chosen representative scenario for spray or soil incorporated applications of fluazinam to agricultural crops (sugarbeet, a surrogate scenario for ginseng). 

### Equilibrium Partitioning and Concentration in the Sediment/Pore water As mentioned previously, fluazinam and its residues are lipophilic compound s that can adsorb readily to particulate and sediment, thus possibly limiting its exposure to aquatic life in the water column but increasing toxic exposure in the benthos. Sediment can act as a reservoir for lipophilic persistent compounds. The sediment and particulate likely adsorb a relatively high percentage of fluazinam residues , as indicated by their relatively high KOC 

### (m ean KOC 

### around 1960 for the parent). Therefore, coupled with their persistence in anaerobic environments, sediment bound fluazinam residues could present a toxicity risk for benthic aquatic life and aquatic ecosystems in general. Therefore, in order to assess this potential for pesticide risk to aquatic benthic systems, the Environmental Fate and Effects Division (EFED) of the Office of Pesticides Program (OPP) has adopted the method used by the Office of Water that relies on equilibrium partitioning (E qP) of chemicals. The EqP theory is based on the hydrophobicity and concentrations of the chemical normalized to organic carbon (OC) in sediment (De Toro et al. 1991) and holds that a nonionic chemical in sediment partitions between sediment organic carbon , interstitial (pore) water and benthic organisms. At equilibrium, if the concentration in any phase is known, then the concentration in the other phases can be predicted. A key c omponent to this theory i s the chemicals organic carbon coefficient (Koc), which is constant for every chemical and represents the ratio of the chemical concentration in water to the concentration in organic carbon. The document, “Technical Basis for the Derivation of Equilibrium Partitioning Sediment Guidelines (ESGs) for the Protection of Benthic Organisms: Nonionic Organics” (USEPA, 2000), demonstrates that biological responses of benthic organisms to nonionic organic chemicals in sediments are different when the sediment concentrations are expressed on a dry weight basis, but similar when expressed on a u g chemical/g organic carbon basis ( u g/g oc 

### ). Similar responses were also observed across sediments when interstitial water concentrations were used to normalize biological availability
. The Technical Basis Document further demonstrates that if the toxic effect concentration in water is known (e.g., LC 50 

### ), the effect concentration in sediment on a u g/g oc 

### basis can be predicted by multiplying the effect concentration in water by the chemical Koc 

### . (LC 50 

### u g/L x Koc L/kg oc 

### x 1 kg oc

### /1000g oc 

### = LC 50 

### u g/g oc 

### ) Since, EFED uses a deterministic method for its screening level risk assessment, the calculation of risk quotient values (RQ) is important for assessing possible risk. The RQ values are calculated by taking the ratio of the estimated exposure concentrations (EEC) to the toxicity effect value (e.g., LC 50 

### , NOAEC). The EEC values are model generated (e.g., PRZM/ EXAMS) and reflect peer evaluated and approved scenarios for assessing pesticide exposure to an aquatic environment.

### 22

However, the PRZM/ EXAMS output produces water column EEC values, as well as sediment and pore water EEC values. Therefore, to assess possible toxic pesticide exposure to aquatic organisms from sediments, EFED is using the PRZM/ EXAMS to generate E ECs for sediment and pore water model based on the principles of the equilibrium partitioning theory
. By relying on sediment and/or pore water output values, EFED has two ways for calculating RQ values for sediments by using pore water exposure values and bulk sediment values. The calculations that rely on pore water can be calculated by dividing the PRZM/ EXAMS output value for pore water concentrations by the dissolved concentrations in the water column that caused toxicity

in bioassays using fluazinam residues or fluazinam TGAI (e.g., LC 50 

### ). EEC pore water ug/L / LC50 ugL If sediment effects data are available (LC50 ug/kg oc 

### ), RQ can be produced by using the PRZM/ EXAMS sediment output value for sediment.

EEC sediment ug/ug oc / LC50 ug/kg oc 

### Additional details on the equilibrium partitioning theory can be found in Appendix C
. **b. Aquatic Exposure monitoring and field data** The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) began its NAWQA (National Water Quality Assessment) program in 19 91, systematically collecting chemical, biological, and physical water quality data from 42 study

units (basins) across the nation. Today, NAWQA has a compendium of data for all the nation. As earch of its database, yi elded two groundwater measurements in Alabama (Houston County ), with non
- detects (<0.020 ug/L)
. **3. Measure of Terrestrial Exposure a. Terrestrial Exposure Modeling**  A primary

concern is that birds and mammals may be exposed shortly

after application through dietary exp osure to treated food or when foraging in the fields for nesting material. Therefore estimation of pesticide concentrations in wildlife food items focuses on quantify ing possible dietary ingestion treated food items. The EFED terrestrial exposure model T
- REX is used to estimate exposures and risk to avian and mammalian species. Input values for avian and mammalian toxicity

as well as chemical application rate data are required to run the model. The model provides estimates of environmental exposure concentrations (EECs) and risk quotients (RQs). The concentration (ppm) on treated food items is calculated by multiplying the application rate provided in the labels with the EEC estimates. **C. Ecological Effects Characterization**  Inscreening - level ecological risk assessments, effects characterization describes the ty pes of

### 23

effects a pesticide can produce in an aquatic or terrestrial organism. This characterization is based on registrant
- submitted studies that describe acute and chronic eff ects toxicity

information for various aquatic and terrestrial animals and plants. A summary of the results of the registrant
- submitted toxicity studies used to characterize effects for this risk assessment can be found in the Appendix. Toxicity testing rep orted in this section does not represent all species of birds, mammals, or aquatic organisms. Only a few surrogate species for both freshwater fish and birds are used to represent all freshwater fish (2000+) and bird (680+) species in the United States. F or mammals, acute studies are usually limited to Norway

rat or the house mouse. E stuarine/marine testing is usually limited to a crustacean, a mollusk, and a fish. Also, neither reptiles nor amphibians are tested. The risk assessment assumes that avian a nd reptilian toxicities are similar. The same assumption is used for fish and aquatic amphibians. **Aquatic Effects Characterization** Fluazinam is considered to be very highly toxic to highly

toxic to fish (freshwater and estuarine/marine) on an acute basis (LC 50 

### = 0.036
- 0.11 ppm). Chronic freshwater NOAEC/LOAEC values were calculated at 0.0053
- 0.00069 ppm and 0.010
- 0.014 ppm, respectively, with larval survival, reduced number of spawns, and growth as the endpoints effected. Acute toxicity

values for aquatic invertebrates suggest that fluazinam is highly toxic to freshwater invertebrates (Daphnia EC 50 

### = 0.18
- 0.22 ppm) and very highly toxic to estuarine/marine invertebrates (oyster EC 50 

### = 0.0047 and mysid shrimp EC 50 

### = 0.039 ppm ). Chronic toxicity to invertebrates is only

represented through the Daphnia magna life cycle where the NOAEC was calculated at 0.068 ppm and the LOAEC at 0.140 ppm. The endpoints affected for this study were reproductive (reduced number of young per female) and growth effects. **Terrestrial effects Characterization** The available toxicity

data suggests that Fluazinam appears to be practically nontoxic to avian species on a subacute basis (mallard and Bobwhite quail LC 50 

### > 10,500 ppm) . Chronic toxicity data show that fluazinam exposure can result in growth reduction in young (14
- day old survivors weight) with a NOAEC = 200
- 350 ppm and LOAEC = 350
- 500 ppm. Mammalian toxicity

data suggest that this compound is practically nontoxic to small mammals on an acute basis (rat LD 50 

### = 4,300 mg/kg). Reproductive effects that were based on a decreased number of implantation sites and decreased litter size were noted at an LOAEC = 500 ppm (NOAEC = 100 ppm). Acute toxicity on honey bees show that fluazinam is practically nontoxic to bees (LD 50 

### > 200 ug/bee). **IV. Risk Characterization A. Risk Estimation** 

**– Integration of Exposure and Effects data**  A means of integrating the results of exposure and ecotoxicity data is called the deterministic metho d. For this method, risk quotients (RQs) are calculated by dividing exposure estimates by ecotoxicity

values, both acute and chronic. Terrestrial risk for foliar applications were determined

### 24

through the calculation of RQs by comparing EECs to toxicity end points. RQ = EXPOSURE/TOXICITY RQs are then compared to OPP's levels of concern (LOCs). These LOCs are criteria used by OPP to indicate potential risk to non
- target organisms and the need to consider regulatory action. The criteria indicate that a p esticide used as directed has the potential to cause adverse effects on non - target organisms. LOCs currently address the following risk presumption categories: (1) **acute high**
- potential for acute risk is high, regulatory action may

be warranted in additi on to restricted use classification (2) **acute restricted use**
- the potential for acute risk is high, but this may b e mitigated through restricted use classification (3) **acute endangered**  **species**
- the potential for acute risk to endangered species is high, regulatory action may

be warranted, and (4) **chronic risk** 
- the potential for chronic risk is high, regulatory action may

be warranted. Currently, EFED does not perform assessments for chronic risk to plants, acute or chronic risks to non - target insects, or chronic risk from granular/bait formulations to mammalian or avian species. The ecotoxicity

test values (i.e., measurement endpoints) used in the acute and chronic risk quotients are derived from the results of required studies. Examples of ecotoxicity values derived from the results of short
- term laboratory studies that assess acute effects are: (1) LC50 (fish and birds) (2) LD50 (birds and mammals) (3) EC50 (aquatic plants and aquatic invertebrates) and (4) EC25 (terrestrial plants). An example of a toxicity test effect level derived from the results of long
- term laboratory

studies that assess chronic effects is: (1) NOAEC (birds, fish and aquatic invertebrates). Risk presumptions, along with the corresponding RQs and LOCs are tabulated below: **Risk Pr esumptions for Terrestrial Animals**  Risk Presumption RQ LOC **Birds** : Acute High Risk EEC 1 /LC50 or LD50/sqft2 or LD50/day3 0.5 Acute Restricted Use EEC/LC50 or LD50/sqft or LD50/day (or LD50 < 50 mg/kg) 0.2 Acute Endangered Species EEC/LC50 or LD 50/sqft or LD50/day 0.1 Chronic Risk EEC/NOAEC 1 **Wild Mammals** : Acute High Risk EEC/LC50 or LD50/sqft or LD50/day 0.5 Acute Restricted Use EEC/LC50 or LD50/sqft or LD50/day (or LD50 < 50 mg/kg) 0.2 Acute Endangered Species EEC/LC50 or LD 50/sqft or LD50/day 0.1 Chronic Risk EEC/NOAEC 1 1 abbreviation for Estimated Environmental Concentration (ppm) on avian/mammalian food items 2 mg/ft2 3 mg of toxicant consumed/day LD 50 * wt. of bird LD 5 0 * wt. of bird

### 25

**Risk Presumptions for Aquatic Animals** Risk Presumption RQ LOC Acute High Risk EEC 1 /LC50 or EC50 0.5 Acute Restricted Use EEC/LC50 or EC50 0.1 Acute Endangered Species EEC/LC50 or EC50 0.05 Chronic Risk EEC/MATC or NOAEC 1 1 EEC = (ppm or ppb) in water 

### Risk Presumptions for Plants Risk Presumption RQ LOC **Terrestrial and Semi -** **Aquatic Plants:** Acute High Risk EEC 1 /EC25 1 Acute Endangered Species EEC/EC05 or NOAEC 1 **Aquatic Plants:** Acute High Risk EEC 2/EC50 1 Acute Endangered Species EEC/EC05 or NOAEC 1 1 EEC = lbs ai/A 2 EEC = (ppb/ppm) in water 

### Likelihood of Water Contamination Ino rder to evaluate exposure to aquatic organisms, EFED relied on the maximum peak EEC value generated through PRZM for acute risk, while chronic values for fish and invertebrates reflected 60
- day and 21
- day

PRZM averages, respectively
.

###  

 2





### 2 **Aquatic Organism Risk Assessment**

**Risk to Aquatic Organisms (Acute/Chronic)** The following tables provide aquatic acute a nd chronic RQ values for exposure to freshwater and estuarine/marine species relative to the proposed uses. **i. Freshwater** 

**Fish** Acute and chronic risk quotients are tabulated below
. Risk Quotients for Freshwater Fish Based On a Rainbow T rout LC50 of 36 pp b and a fathead minnow NOAEC of 0.69 ppb.
PRZM Scenario LC 50 (ppb) NOAEC

(ppb) Media EEC Peak (ppb) EEC

60
- Day A ve. (ppb) Acute RQ

(EEC/LC50) Chronic RQ

(EEC/NOAEC or MA TC) FL Cabbage 36 0.69 Water Column 2.10 0.538 **0.06** 0.78 MI Bean 36 0.69 Water Column 9.30 3.95 **0.26 5.72**  MN Sugarbeet 36 0.69 Water Column 16.87 4.78 **0.47 6.93**  OR Berries 36 0.69 Water Column 6.57 2.33 **0.18 3.38**  OR Snapbean 36 0.69 Water Column 7.89 3.69 **0.22 5.35**  

### An analysis of the results indicates that acute or chronic l evels of concern are exceeded for freshwater fish. **ii. Freshwater** 

**Invertebrates** Acute and chronic LOCs are calculated below: Risk Quotients for Freshwater Invertebrates Based On a Daphnia LC50 of 180 ppb and a Daphnia NOAEC of 68 ppb.
PRZM Scenario LC 50 (ppb) NOAEC

(ppb) Media EEC Peak (ppb) EEC

21
- Day A ve. (ppb) Acute RQ

(EEC/LC50) Chronic RQ

(EEC/NOAEC or MA TC) FL Cabbage 180 68 Water Column 2.10 1.28 0.01 0.01 MI Bean 180 68 Water Column 9.30 6.71 **0.05** 0.14 MN Sugarbeet 180 68 Water Column 16.87 12.02 **0.09** 0.18 OR Berries 180 68 Water Column 6.57 4.22 0.02 0.06 OR Snapbean 180 68 Water Column 7.89 5.82 0.04 0.09 

### An analysis of the results indicates that the acute endangered species level of concern is exceeded for freshwater inverteb rates only under the modeled bean and sugarbeet crop scenario s . No chronic levels of concern are exceeded for freshwater invertebrates for any crop use.

###  

 3





### 3 **iii. Estuarine/Marine Fish**  Acute and chronic risk quotients are tabulated below
. Risk Quotients for Estuarine/Marine Fish Based on a Sheepshead Minnow LC50 of 120 ppb. The chronic study produced no effects.
PRZM Scenario LC 50 (ppb) NOAEC

(ppb) Media EEC Peak (ppb) EEC

60
- Day A ve. (ppb) Acute RQ

(EEC/LC50) Chronic RQ

(EEC/NOAEC or MA TC) FL C abbage 120 No Effects Water

Column 2.10 0.538 0.02 No Effects MI Bean 120 No Effects Water

Column 9.30 3.95 **0.08** No Effects MN Sugarbeet 120 No Effects Water

Column 16.87 4.78 **0.14** No Effects OR Berries 120 No Effects Water

Column 6.57 2.33 **0.05** No E ffects OR Snapbean 120 No Effects Water

Column 7.89 3.69 **0.07** No Effects 

### An analysis of the results indicates that acute endangered species levels of concern are exceeded for estuarine/marine fish . Chronic LOCs cannot be calculated because there were no effects to fish in the submitted study

(LOAEC >26ppb). **iv .**  **Estuarine/Marine Invertebrates** Acute and chronic risk quotients are tabulated below
. Risk Quotients for Estuarine/Marine Aquatic Invertebrates Based on an Oyster EC50 of 4.7 ppb and a mysid NOAEC of 2 ppb.
PRZM Scenario LC 50 (ppb) NOAEC

(ppb) Media EEC Peak (ppb) EEC

21
- Day A ve. (ppb) Acute RQ

(EEC/LC50) Chronic RQ

(EEC/NOAEC or MA TC) FL Cabbage 4.7 2.0 Water Column 2.10 1.28 **0.45** 0.64 MI Bean 4.7 2.0 Water Column 9.30 6.71 **1. 97**  **3 .36**  MN Sugarbeet 4.7 2.0 Water Column 16.87 12.02 **3.59 2.01**  OR Berries 4.7 2.0 Water Column 6.57 4.22 **1.40 2.1**  **1** OR Snapbean 4.7 2.0 Water Column 7.89 5.82 **1.68 2.91**  

### An analysis of the results indicates that acute and chronic levels of concern are exce eded for endangered and non
- endangered estuarine invertebrates.

**v .**  **Freshwater Benthic Dwelling Organisms**  Acute and chronic LOCs are calculated below:

###  

4





### 4 Risk Quotients for Freshwater Benthic Organisms Based On a Daphnia LC50 of 180 ppb and a Daphnia NOAEC of 68 ppb.
PRZM Scenario LC 50 (ppb) NOAEC

(ppb) Media EEC Peak (ppb) EEC

21
- Day A ve. (ppb) Acute RQ

(EEC/LC50) Chronic RQ

(EEC/NOAEC or MA TC) FL Cabbage 180 68 Pore Water 0.557 0.553 <0.00 0.01 MI Bean 180 68 Pore Water 4.10 4.07 0.02 0. 06 MN Sugarbeet 180 68 Pore Water 4.87 4.83 0.03 0.07 OR Berries 180 68 Pore Water 2.55 2.48 0.01 0.04 OR Snapbean 180 68 Pore Water 4.14 4.12 0.02 0.06 

### An analysis of the results indicates that the acute endangered species level of concern is not exc eeded for any

of the crop scenario s listed . No chronic levels of concern are exceeded for freshwater benthic organisms for any crop use. **vi .**  **Estuarine/Marine Benthic Organisms**  Acute and chronic risk quotients are tabulated below
. Risk Quotients for Es tuarine/Marine Benthic Organisms Based on an Oyster EC50 of 4.7 ppb and a mysid NOAEC of 2 ppb.
PRZM Scenario LC 50 (ppb) NOAEC

(ppb) Media EEC Peak (ppb) EEC

21
- Day A ve. (ppb) Acute RQ

(EEC/LC50) Chronic RQ

(EEC/NOAEC or MA TC) FL Cabbage 4.7 2.0 Pore Water 0.557 0.553 **0.1 1**  0.28 MI Bean 4.7 2.0 Pore Water 4.10 4.07 **0.87 2.04**  MN Sugarbeet 4.7 2.0 Pore Water 4.87 4.83 **1.03 2.42**  OR Berries 4.7 2.0 Pore Water 2.55 2.48 **0.54 1.24**  OR Snapbean 4.7 2.0 Pore Water 4.14 4.12 **0.88 2.06**  

### An analysis of the results indicates that acute and chronic levels of concern are exceeded for endangered and non
- endangered benthic organisms
. **d. Exposur e and Risk to Nontarget**  **Aquatic Plants** Exposure to non - target aquatic plants may o ccur through runof

f or spray drift from adjacent treated sites or directly

from such uses as aquatic weed or mosquito larvae control. RQs for an acute aquatic plant risk assessment are usually calculated from the most toxic surrogate. RQs are determined by

dividing the pesticide's initial or peak concentration in water by the plant EC50 value.

###  

 5





### 5 Acute risk quotients for non
- vascular plants are tabulated below
.
PRZM Scenario EC50 (ppb) Media Peak (ppb) Acute RQ Fl Cabbage 180 Water Column 2.10 0.01 MI Bean 180 Water C olumn 9.30 0.05 MN Sugarbeet 180 Water Column 16.87 0.09 OR Berries 180 Water Column 6.57 0.04 OR Snapbean 180 Water Column 7.89 0.04 

### An analysis of the results indicates that the plant acute risk levels of concern and endangered species levels of concern are not exceeded for aquatic plants. Currently , EFED does not assess chronic risks to plants.

**a. Risk to Avian Species**  The acute and chronic risk quotients for single broadcast application of Fluazinam products are tabulated below
. Avian Acute and Chronic Risk Quotients for a Single Application (Broadcast) Based on a Bobwhite LC50 of >10,500 ppm and a Bobwhite NOAEC of 200 ppm. Site/App. Method App.

Rate (lbs ai/A) Food Items Maximum EEC (ppm)* LC 50 (ppm) NOAEC (ppm) Acute RQ

(EEC/ LC 50) Chronic RQ

(EEC/ NOAEC) Le gumes 0.44 Short grass 105 >10500 200 0.00 0.52
Tall grass 48 >10500 200 0.00 0.24 Broadleaf plants/Insects 59 >10500 200 0.00 0.30 Seeds 6.6 >10500 200 0.00 0.03

###  

 6





### 6 The acute and chronic risk quotients for single broadcast application of Fluazinam products are tabulated below
. Avian Acute and Chronic Risk Quotients for a Single Application (Broadcast) Based on a Bobwhite LC50 of >10,500 ppm and a Bobwhite NOAEC of 200 ppm. Site/App. Method App.

Rate (lbs ai/A) Food Items Maximum EEC (ppm)* LC 50 (ppm) NOAEC (ppm) Acute RQ

(EEC/ LC 50) Chronic RQ

(EEC/ NOAEC) Brassica 1.352 Short grass 32 4 >10500 200 0.00 **1.62** Tall grass 182 >10500 200 0.00 0.91 Broadleaf plants/Insects 149 >10500 200 0.00 0.75
Seeds 20 >10500 200 0.00 0.10 Ginseng 0.52 Short grass 125 >10500 200 0.00 0.63 Tall grass 57 >10500 200 0.00 0.30 Broadleaf plants/Insects 70 >10500 200 0.00 0.35
Seeds 8 >10500 200 0.00 0.04 Ginseng 0.78 Short grass 187 >10500 200 0.00 0.94 Tall grass 86 >10500 200 0 .00 0.43 Broadleaf plants/Insects 105 >10500 200 0.00 0.53
Seeds 12 >10500 200 0.00 0.06 Bushberry 0.65 Short grass 156 >10500 200 0.00 0.80 Tall grass 72 >10500 200 0.00 0.36 Broadleaf plants/Insects 88 >10500 200 0.00 0.44 Seeds 10 >10500 200 0.00 0.05 * Based on maximum application rate. 

### An analysis of the results indicates that for single broadcast applications, no avian acute LOCs were exceeded since the LC50 is > 10, 500 ppm. Chronic levels of concern are exceeded only for birds eating shortgrass under the brassica crop use.

###  

 7





### 7 The acute and chronic risk quotients for multiple broadcast app lication of Fluazinam products are tabulated below
. Avian Acute and Chronic Ri sk Quotients for a Multiple Application (Broadcast) Based on a Bobwhite LC50 of >10,500 ppm and a Bobwhite NOAEC of 200 ppm. Site/App. Method App.

Rate (lbs ai/A) Food Items Maximum EEC (ppm)* LC 50 (ppm) NOAEC (ppm) Acute RQ

(EEC/ LC 50) Chronic RQ

(EEC/ NOAEC) Le gumes 0.44 (2/7) Short grass 197 >10500 200 0.00 0.98
Tall grass 111 >10500 200 0.00 0.55
Broadleaf plants/Insects 90 >10500 200 0.00 0.45
Seeds 12 >10500 200 0.00 0.06 Ginseng 0.52 (6/7) Short grass 54 4 >10500 200 0.00 **2.72**
Tall grass 306 >10500 200 0.00 **1.53**
Broadleaf plants/Insects 249 >10500 200 0.00 **1.24**
Seeds 34 >10500 200 0.00 0.17 Ginseng 0.78 (4/7) Short grass 615 >10500 200 0.00 **3.07**
Tall grass 346 >105 00 200 0.00 **1.73**
Broadleaf plants/Insects 282 >10500 200 0.00 **1.41**

Seeds 38 >10500 200 0.00 0.20 Bushberry 0.65 (6/7) Short grass 680 >10500 200 0.00 **3.40**
Tall grass 383 >10500 200 0.00 **1.92**
Broadleaf plants/Insects 312 >10500 200 0.00 **1.56**
Seeds 42 >10500 200 0.00 0.21 * Based on maximum application rate. 

### An analysis of the results indicates that for multiple broadcast applications, no avian acute LOCs were exceeded since the LC50 is >10,500 ppm. Chronic levels of concern are exceeded for Ginseng and Bushberry

Subgroup.

###  

 8





### 8 **b. Risk to Mammals** Estimating the potential for adverse effects to wild mammals is based upon EFED’s draft 1995 SOP of mammalian risk assessments and metho ds used by H oerger and Kenaga (1972) as modified by F letcher et al., (1994). The concentration of fluazinam in the diet is expected to be acutely toxic to 50% of the test organisms is determined by dividing the LD 50 

### value (usually the rat LD 50 

### ) by

the perc ent body

weight consumed. A risk quotient is then determined by dividing the EEC by

the acute toxicity

value. RQ = EEC (ppm) LD 50 

### (mg/kg)/ % Body

weight consumed RQ values are calculated for four different kinds of food (short grass, tall grass, forage/insects, and seeds) that are expected to be consumed by mammalian herbivores, insectivores, and granivores. The percent body

weight consumed for herbivores and insectivores corresponding to the three weight categories (15, 35, and 1000 g) is assumed to be 95%, 66%, and 15%, respectively
. Granivores are expected to have a different percent body weight consumption for th e same weight categories (21%, 15%, and 3%, respectively ). Chronic toxicity

values were based on the NOAEC from a rat reproductive study . In order to evaluate chronic concerns, a maximum EEC was generated that takes into consideration pesticide half
- life, application rate, number of applications, and intervals between applications (first order kinetics model). **Mammalian acute risk quotients for application of fluazinam. RQ’s are based on a rat (**  **Rattus norvegicus ) LD**  **50** 

### of 4,300 mg/kg. **Crop Application Ra** **te lbs ai/A (# of**  **applications/interval) Body**  **Wt. (g)**  **% Body**

**Wt. Consumed**  **Acute**

**RQ Short**  **Grass Acute** 

**RQ Forage and**  **Small Insects**  **Acute**

**RQ Large**  **Insects Acute** 

**RQ Seeds**  Legumes 0.44 (2/7) 15 35 1000 95/21

66/15 15/3 0. 04

0.0 3 0.0 0. 02

0.0 1 0.0 0.0 2

0.0 2 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 Ginseng 0.52 (6/7) 15 35 1000 95/21

66/15 15/3 **0.12**

0.0 8 0.0 2 0.0 5

0.0 4 0.0 1 0.0 6

0.0 5 0.0 1 0.0

0.0 0.0

###  

 9





### 9 Ginseng 0.78 (4/7) 15 35 1000 95/21

66/15 15/3 **0.13**

0.0 9 0.0 2 0.0 6

0.0 4 0.0 1 0.0 7

0.0 5 0.0 1 0.0

0.0 0 .0 Bushberry

0.65 (6/7) 15

35 1000 95/21

66/15 15/3 **0.15**

**0.10** 0.0 2 0.0 7

0.0 5 0.0 1 0.0 8

0.0 6 0.0 1 0.0

0.0 0.0 1 

### Acute endangered species concerns (> 0.1) **Mammalian chronic risk quotients for application of fluazinam and are based on a rat (**  **Rattus norvegicus ) NOAEC of 100 ppm.**  **Crop Application**  **Rate lbs ai/A ( # of applications)**  **Food Items Max.**  **EEC (ppm)**  **Chronic RQ**

**(Max. EEC/NOAEC)** Legumes 0.44 (2/7) Short Grass

Tall Grass Broadleaf plant/ In sects Seeds 197

111 90 12 **1.97 1.11**  0.90 0.12 Ginseng 0.52 (6/7) Short Grass

Tall Grass Broadleaf plant/ In sects Seeds 544

306 249 34 **5.44 3.06**  **2.49** 0.34 Ginseng 0.78 (4/7) Short Grass

Tall Grass Broadleaf plant/ In sects Seeds 615

346 282 38 **6.15 3.46**  **2.82** 0.38 Bushberry

0.65 (6/7) Short Grass

Tall Grass Broadleaf plant/ In sects Seeds 680

383 312 42 **6.80 3.83**  **3.12** 0.42 1 

### Chronic concern (> 1.0)

###  

 10





### 10 

## B. Risk **Description** The risk hy

pothesis states that the use of fluazinam for various crops may expose terrestrial and aquatic animals and plants resulting in adverse effects. Based on available ecotoxicity data and predicted environmental exposures, this ecological risk assessment does support the presumption of risk to terrestrial and aquatic organisms. A cute LOCs were exceeded for mammals and chronic LOCs were exceeded for both bird and mammal species. In addition, acute LOCs were exceeded for aquatic organisms (freshwater fish , estuarine invertebrates and estuarine benthic organisms). Chronic LOCs were exceeded for freshwater fish, estuarine invertebrate s and estuarine benthic organisms. Available data suggest that fluazinam and its transformation products are moderately persistent, should not leach substantially to ground water but may present concerns for transport to surface water by spray

drift or runoff (especially in soils with low organic content). **Birds and Mammals** Fluazinam is practically

nontoxic to birds on an acute dietary exposure basis. The concentrations at which acute effects may b e observed for birds is unknown, but is greater than 10 ,500 ppm. Thus no acute avian RQs could be calculated. However, chronic LOCs were exceeded for avian (RQs ranged from 0.06 to 3.40) and mammalian (RQs ranged from 0.12 to 6.80) endangered and non - endangered species. Inaddition, there are acute risks to endangered mammals that eat shortgrass as the main part of their diet
. **Aquatic Species** RQs exceeded the endangered and non
- endangered acute and chronic LOCs for freshwater fish , estuarine invertebrates and for estuarine benthic organisms under the current use patterns. In addition, acute risk was indicated for endangered estuarine fish and freshwater invertebrates. The following table lists RQs for aquatic species:

Species Acute RQs Chronic RQs Freshwater Fish 0.06 to 0.22 3.38 to 6.93 Freshwater Inv ertebrates 0.05 to 0.09 No Risk Freshwater Benthic Organisms No Risk No Risk Estuarine Fish 0.05 to 0.14 No Risk Estuarine Invertebrates 0.45 to 3.59 2.01 to 3.36 Estuarine Benthic O rganisms 0.11 to 1.03 1.24 to 2.42 **Insects** Cur rently, EFED does not assess risk to insects. Results of acceptable studies are used for recommending appropriate label precautions. Since fluazinam is practically nontoxic to honey bees, no labeling precautions are required and low risk is assumed.

###  

 11





### 11 **Pl ants**  Terrestrial Plants: No hazard to terrestrial plant species is expected, based on the results of acceptable studies submitted. Aquatic Plants: An analysis of the results indicates that the plant acute risk LOC is not exceeded. No risk is presumed for nonvascular aquatic plants from use of fluazinam using the valid data available
. However, s ome of the submitted plant studies were deemed invalid and should be repeated to more accurately characterize risk to aquatic plants. Currently , EFED does not asses s chronic risk to aquatic plants. **Endocrine Disruption** EPA is required under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), as amended by FQPA, to develop a screening program to determine whether certain substances (including all pesticide active and other ingredients) “may h ave an effect in humans that is similar to an effect produced by a naturally
- occurring estrogen, or other such endocrine effects as the Administrator may designate.” Following the recommendations of its Endocrine Disruptor Screening and Testing Advisory Committee (EDSTAC), EPA determined that there was scientific basis for including, as part of the program, the androgen
- and thy roid hormone systems, in addition to the estrogen hormone system. EPA also adopted EDSTAC’s recommendation that the Program include evaluations of potential effects in wildlife. For pesticide chemicals, EPA will use FIFRA and, to the extent that effects in wildlife may help determine whether a substance may have an effect in humans, FFDCA authority to require the wildlife evaluations. As the science develops and resources allow, screening of additional hormone systems may be added to the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP). When the appropriate screening and or testing protocols being considered under the Agency ’s Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program have been developed, fluazinam may b e subjected to additional screening and or testing to better characterize effects related to endocrine disruption. Is sues that have raised this concern include avian reproductive effects (reduction in 14
- day old survivor weight), mammalian reproduction effects (decreased number of implantation sites and decreased litter sizes), and fish reproduction effects (number of spawns per female and per cent hatch). **Incident Characterization** There were no adverse ecological incidents found in the EFED database. **Endangered Species Assessment** The following section discusses the screening
- level assessment for Federally listed threatened and endangered species . Endangered and non
- endangered species RQs exceeded acute mammalian and chronic avian and mammalian LOC s . For the crop scenario s used to evaluate risk to aquatic organisms, the LOC (0.05) for acute effects to listed species of freshwater and estuarine/marine fish and invertebrates were exceeded. Since there were risks to fish, risk to listed amphibians is also predicted
. Chronic LOCs were also exceeded for freshwater fish and estuarine invertebrates as well as for estuarine benthic organisms
.

###  

 12





### 12 **Listed Species**  The endangered species chronic LOC was exceeded for bird and mammal species. Inaddition, endangered amphibians, reptiles, fish and invertebrates may also be affected should exposure actually occur. **a. Action Area** The Endangered Species Act defines the action area for a Federal action as being the footprint of possible effects stemming from the action, not necessarily limited to where the immediate action occurs. For screening
- level purposes, the risk assessment conservatively assumes that li sted species 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 field and aquatic organisms are assumed to be located in a surface water body adjacent to the treated field. This assumption places the listed species within an assumed area of high potential exposure to the pesticide. 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 indire ct effects upon listed species that depend upon the taxonomic group covered by the RQ as a resource. However, in situations where the screening assumptions lead to RQs in excess of the listed species LOCs for a given taxonomic group, there exists 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. I n such cases , additional information on the biology o f listed species, the locations of these species, and the locations of use sites could be considered to determine the extent to which screening assumptions regarding an action area apply to a particular listed speci es. These subsequent refinement steps could consider how this information would impact the action area for a particular listed organism and may potentially

include areas of exposure that are downwind and downstream of the pesticide use site. **b. Taxonomi c Groups Potentially at Risk**  The endangered species acute LOC was exceeded for mammals and chronic LOCs were exceeded for both bird and mammal species. In addition, acute endangered species LOCs were exceeded for aquatic organisms (freshwater fish and invertebrates, estuarine fish and invertebrates and estuarine benthic organisms). Chronic LOCs were exceeded for freshwater fish, estuarine invertebrates and estuarine benthic organisms. **c. Indirect Effects Analysis** The Agency

acknowledges that pesticides have the potential to exert indirect effects upon the listed organisms by

perturbing forage or prey availability, altering the extent of nesting habitat, creating gaps in the food chain, etc. In conducting a screen for indirect effects, direct effect LOCs for each taxonomic group are used to make inferences concerning the potential for indirect effects upon listed species that rely

upon non - endangered organisms in these taxonomic groups as resources critical to their life cycle.

###  

 13





### 13 When screening
- level acute RQs exceed the endangered species acute LOCs, the Agency uses the dose response relationship from the toxicity study used for calculating the RQ to estimate the probability

o f acute effects associated with an exposure equivalent to the EEC (see Probit Analysis below). This information serves as a guide to establish the need for and extent of additional analysis that may

be performed using Services
-provided “species profiles” as well as evaluations of the geographical and temporal nature of the exposure to ascertain if a “not likely to adversely affect” determination can be made. The degree to which additional analyses are performed is commensurate with the predicted probability of adverse effects from the comparison of the dose response information with the EECs. The greater the probability that exposures will produce effects on a taxa, the greater the concern for potential indirect effects for listed species dependent upon that taxa, and therefore, the more intensive the analysis on the potential listed species of concern, their locations relative to the use site, and information regarding the use scenario (e.g., timing, frequency, and geographical extent of pesticide application). Birds and Mammals Screening
- level RQs that exceed the LOC may indicate a potential concern for indirect effects. The Agency considers this to be indicative of a potential for adverse effects to those listed species that rely either on a specific species (species obligate) or multiple species (dependent) for some important aspect of their life cycles. The Agency may determine if listed organisms for which these species are a critical component of their resource needs are within the pesticide use area. This is accomplished through a comparison of Service
-provided “species profil es” and listed species location data. If no listed organisms that are either species obligates or dependent reside within the pesticide use area, a no effect determination on listed species is made. If species obligate or dependent organisms may reside within the pesticide use area, the Agency may consider temporal and geographical nature of exposure, and the scope of the effects data, to determine if any

p otential effects can be determined to not likely adversely affect a species obligate or dependent li sted organism. Indirect effects to terrestrial animals may result from reduced food items to animals, behavior modifications from reduced or a modified habitat, and from alterations of habitats. Alterations of habitats can affect the reproductive capacity of some terrestrial animals. **Probit Slope Analysis** The probit slope response relationship is evaluated to calculate the chance of an individual event corresponding to the listed species acute LOCs. I f information is unavailable to estimate a slope for a particular study, a default slope assumption of 4.5 is used as per original Agency a ssumptions of ty pical slope cited in Urban and Cook (1986). a. Terrestrial Species T errestrial acute toxicity

studies for fluazinam were deemed practically non - toxic to slightly

toxic on an acute oral basis and provided estimates of slopes. Analysis of raw data from these acute toxicity studies provided slopes of 5.25 for birds and a default slope of 4.5 for mammals. Based on these slopes, the corresponding estimate chance of individual mortality following exposure is

###  

 14





### 14 1 in 1.31 x 10 7 

### for birds and 1 in 2.94 x 10 5 

### for mammals. b. Aquatic Species Acute toxicity

studies for fluazinam did provide raw data and estimates of slopes for fish and invertebrate species. Analysi s of raw data from the aquatic acute toxicity studies provided slopes of 10.43 for freshwater fish, 2.99 for freshwater invertebrates and 7.77 for estuarine/marine invertebrates and a default value of 4.5 for estuarine/marine fish. Based on these slopes, the corresponding estimate chance of individual mortality following exposure is 1 in 3.30 x 10 41 

### for freshwater fish, 1 in 2.00 x 10 4 

### for freshwater invertebrates, 1 in 3.97 x 10 23 

### for estuarine/marine invertebrates and 1 in 4.18 x 10 8 

### for estuarine/marine fish
. c. Critical Habitat Inthe evaluation of pesticide effects on designated critical habitat, consideration is given to the physical and biological features (constituent elements) of a critical habitat identified by the U.S Fish and Wildlife and Natio nal Marine Fisheries Services as essential to the conservation of a listed species and which may require special management considerations or protection. The evaluation of impacts for a screening
- level pesticide risk assessment focuses on the biological features that are constituent elements and is accomplished using the screening
- level taxonomic analysis (risk quotients, RQs) and listed species levels of concern (LOCs) that are used to evaluate direct and indirect effects to listed organisms. When there is potential for indirect effects, the next step for EPA and the Service(s) would be to identify which listed species and critical habitat are potentially implicated. Analy

tically, the identification of such species and critical habitat can occur in either of two ways. First, the agencies could determine whether the action area overlaps critical habitat or the occupied range of any listed species. If so, EPA would examine whether the pesticide's potential impacts on non - endangered species would affect the listed species indirectly or directly

affect a constituent element of the critical habitat. Alternatively, the agencies could determine which listed species depend on biological resources, or have constituent elements that fall into, the taxa that may be directly or indirectly

impacted by

the pesticide. Then EPA would determine whether use of the pesticide overlaps the critical habitat or the occupied range of those listed species. At present, the information reviewed by

EPA does not permit use of either analy tical approach to make a definitive identification of species that are potentially impacted indirectly

o r critical habitats that is potentially

impacted directly

by the use of the pesticide. EPA and the Service(s) are working together to conduct the necessary analysis. If potential risk was found, the screening
- level risk assessment for critical habitat would provide a listing of potential biological features that, if they are constituent elements of one or more critical habitats, would be of potential concern. These correspond to the taxa identified above as being of potential concern for indirect effects and include all taxa that depend on invertebrates for survival. This list would serve as an initial step in problem formulation for further as sessment of critical habitat impacts outlined above, should additional work be necessary
.

###  

 15





### 15 **V. APPENDICES Appendix A. Data Requirement Tables for Fluazinam** 
Data Requirement Use Pattern 1 Does EPA Have

Data To Satisfy This Requirement? (Yes, No, or Partially) Bibliographic Citation Must Additional Data Be Submitted Under FIFRA 3(c)(2)(B)? **§158.490 WILDLIFE AND AQUATIC ORGANISMS** 71
- 1(a) Acute Avian Oral, Quail/Duck 1,2 Yes 42248623, 42248622 No 7 1
- 2(a) Acute Avian Diet, Quail 1,2 Yes 42248624 No 71
- 2(b) Acute Avian Diet, Duck 1,2 Yes 4228625 No 71
- 3 Wild Mammal Toxicity 1,2 NA 71
- 4(a) Avian Reproduction Quail 1,2 Yes 44807323 No 71
- 4(b) Avian Reproduction Duck 1,2 Yes 44831907 No 71
- 5(a) Simulated Terrestrial Field Study 1,2 NA 71
- 5(b) Actual Terrestrial Field Study 1,2 NA 72
- 1(a) Acute Fish Toxicity Bluegill 1,2 Yes 42974905 No 72
- 1(b) Acute Fish Toxicity (TEP) 1,2 No NA No 72
- 1(c) Acute Fish Toxicity Rainbow Trout 1,2 Yes 42974904, 42208409 No 72
- 1(d) Acute Fish Toxicity Rainbow Trout (TEP) 1,2 No NA No 72
- 2(a) Acute Aquatic Invertebrate 1,2 Yes 429749 06, 42208410 No 72
- 2(b) Acute Aquatic Invertebrate (TEP) 1,2 No NA No 72
- 3(a) Acute Est/Mar Toxicity Fish 1,2 Yes Yes 44807325 45822102 No No 72
- 3(b) Acute Est/Mar Toxicity Mollusk 1,2 Yes 44807324 No 72
- 3(c) Acute Est/M ar Toxicity Shrimp 1,2 Yes 44807326 No 72
- 3(d) Acute Est/Mar Toxicity Fish (TEP) 1,2 No NA No 72
- 3(e) Acute Est/Mar Toxicity Mollusk (TEP) 1,2 No NA No 72
- 3(f) Acute Est/Mar Toxicity Shrimp (TEP) 1,2 No NA No 72
- 4(a) Early Life Stag e Fish 1,2 Yes 44807327 No 72
- 4(b) Life Cycle Aquatic Invertebrate 1,2 Yes Yes 4807328 45822101 No No 72
- 5 Life Cycle Fish 1,2 Yes 44807329 No 72
- 6 Aquatic Organism Accumulation 1,2 No NA No 72
- 7(1) Simulate d Aquatic Field Study 1,2 No NA No 72
- 7(b) Actual Aquatic Field Study 1,2 No NA No

###  

 16





### 16 Data Requirement Use Pattern 1 Does EPA Have

Data To Satisfy This Requirement? (Yes, No, or Partially) Bibliographic Citation Must Additional Data Be Submitted Under FIFRA 3(c)(2)(B)? **§158.540 PLANT PROTECTION** 122
- 1(a) Seed Germ,Seedling Enmergence 1,2 No No 44807331 46172801 Yes Yes 4 122
- 2 Aquatic Plant Growth 1,2 No NA Yes 4 122
- 1(b) Vegetative Vigor 1,2 No Yes 44807332 46172802 Yes No 123
- 1(a) Seed Germ./Seedling Emerg. 1,2 No NA Yes 123
- 1(b) Vegetative Vigor 1,2 No 44807333 Yes 123
- 2 Aquatic Plant Growth 1,2 No No No No Yes No 44807334 45822103 4582 2104 45822105 45822106 45822107 Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes 124
- 1 Terrestrial Field Study 1,2 No NA No 124
- 2 Aquatic Field Study 1,2 No NA No **§158.490 NONTARGET INSECT TESTING** 141
- 1 Honey

Bee Acute Contact 1,2 Yes 42208411 No 141
- 2 Honey Bee Residue on Foliage 1,2 No NA No 141
- 5 Fueld Test for Pollinators 1,2 NA **§158.290 ENVIRONMENTAL FATE Degradation Studies**  **- Lab:**  161
- 1 Hydrolysis 1,2 Yes 42208412 No 161
- 2 Photodegradation In Water 1,2 Yes 44 807312, 43521009 Yes 161
- 3 Photodegradation On Soil 1,2 Yes 42208413 No **Metabolism Studies -**  **Lab:** 162
- 1 Aerobic Soil 1,2 Yes 42208413 No 162
- 2 Anaerobic Soil 1,2 No NA No **Mobility Studies:** 16 3
- 1 Leaching
- Adsorption/Desorp. 1,2 Yes 44807314 No 163
- 2 Volatility (Lab) 1,2 No NA No **Dissipation Studies -**  **Field:**

###  

 17





### 17 Data Requirement Use Pattern 1 Does EPA Have

Data To Satisfy This Requirement? (Yes, No, or Partially) Bibliographic Citation Must Additional Data Be Submitted Under FIFRA 3(c)(2)(B)? 164
- 1 Soil 1,2 Yes 44807318, 44807320, 44807316, 44807319, 44807317 Yes

**Accumulation Studies:** 165
- 4 In Fish 1,2 Yes 43521012 No **Ground Water Monitoring Studies:** 166
- 1 Small
- Scale Prospective 1,2 No NA Reserved **§158.440 SPRAY DRIFT**
201
- 1 Droplet Size Spectrum 202
- 1 Drift Field Evaluation 1. Composition: TGAI=Technical grade of the active ingredient; PAIRA=Pure active ingredient, radiolabeled; TEP=Typical end
-use product 2. Use Patterns:1=Terrestrial/Food; 2=Terrestrial/Feed; 3=Terrestrial Non
- Food; 4=Aquatic Food; 5=Aquatic Non
- Food (Outdoor); 6=Aquatic Non
- Food (Industrial); 7=Aquatic Non
- Food (Residential); 8=Greenhouse Food; 9=Greenhouse Non
- Food; 10=Forestry; 11=Residential Outdoor; 12=Indoor Food; 13=Indoor Non
- Food; 14=Indoor Medical; 15=Indoor Residential 3. This guideline requirement has been fulfilled for freshwater fish and invertebrates but has not been fulfilled for estuarine/marine fish or invertebrates. 4. Guideline study is recommended. 5. Requirement is pending results of Tier I testing or may be submitted in lieu of Tier I testing at Tier II level.

###  

 18





### 18 

## Appendix B. Structures of Fluazinam **Fluazinam:**

**AMPA:**

N H N

O 2 N H 2 N

Cl CF 3 Cl

F 3 C



## CAPA:

N H N

O 2 N O 2 N

Cl CF 3 Cl

HOOC



## DAPA:

###  

 19





### 19 N H N H 2 N

CF 3 Cl H 2 N Cl

F 3 C



### DAPA 

## DCPA:

N H N O 2 N

COOH Cl O 2 N Cl

HOOC



### DCPA 

## MAPA:

N H N

H 2 N O 2 N

Cl CF 3 Cl

F 3 C

###  

 20





### 20 

## Appendix C: PRZM/EXAMS Output Dat **a and Equilibrium Partitioning** Background Information on PRZM/EXAMS: The Tier II aquatic model employs PRZM (Pesticide Root Zone Model; version 3.12 Beta compiled May

24, 2001 ) and EXAMS (Exposure Analysis Modeling System; version 2.98.04, compiled November 12, 2002 ). PRZM simulates processes such like runoff and erosion from an agricultural field on a daily time step. The runoff and erosion flux output data from PRZM are used as chemical loadings to the EXAMS surface water program in order to predict the EECs. A graphical user interface (pe4v01.pl) developed by the EPA (http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/ models/water) was used to facilitate inputting chemical and use specific parameters into the appropriate PRZM input files (inp) and EXAMS chemical files. Five PRZM field (crop) scenarios were modeled: OR snapbeans, FL cabbage, MI bean, OR berry and MN sugarbeet (surrogate for ginseng)
. An effort was made to cover all the new crops. Inthe absence of a s tandard berries scenario, an OP’s scenario was utilized (OR berries). The scenario is suitable for characterization purposes. In th e absence of a ginseng scenario, a surrogate scenario was utilized, the MN sugarbeet was considered similar to ginseng; in addition, it is located in a state where ginseng is grown. The scenario utilized to represent brassica was FL cabbage, it was considered the most appropriate and similar in characteristics. This scenario had the particularity that the modeling required soil incorporation. PRZM is a one - dimensional, dy namic, compartmental model that can be used to simulate chemical movement in unsaturated soil systems within and immediately below the plant root zone. It has two major components: hydrology (and hydraulics) and chemical transport. The hydrologic component for calculating runoff and erosion is based on the Soil Conservation Service cur ve number technique and the Universal Soil Loss Equation. Evapotranspiration is estimated either directly from pan evaporation data, or based on an empirical formula. 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 pesticides or other chemicals. For pesticides, the transport component can simulate pesticide application on the soil or on the plant foliage. Biode gradation can also be considered in the root zone. 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, fol iar washoff, advection, dispersion, and retardation. For nitrogen, simulation of surface applications, atmospheric deposition, and septic effluent discharge may all be simulated. EXAMS is a model that has a set of process modules that link fundamental chemical properties to limnological processes that control the kinetics and transport of chemicals in aquatic systems. It provides facilities for steady state or long
- term evaluation of chronic chemical discharges, initial
- value approaches for studying short - term contaminant releases, and full kinetic simulations that allow for monthly

variation in mean climatological factors, and changes in contaminant loadings on daily

time scales. It is fairly

and relatively

complex model that requires more input

###  

 21





### 21 variabl es, ranging from hydro
- geological and weather data to pesticide physicochemical properties, mobility c oefficients, and degradation rate constants in the aqueous and sediment phases. EXAMS provides 20 output tables that document the input data sets and provide integrated results summaries for aid in ecological risk assessments. Screening Level RQ values (Sediment) Contamination of sediments is a widespread ecological problem that can pose a potential risk to a wide variety

of aquatic organisms and aquatic ecosystems. All aquatic life has some contact either direct or indirect with sediments as a media for habitat and or a source of food. This is an ecologically

important habitat where significant densities and diversities of benthic and epibenthic species o ccur. Embryonic life stages and gametes of infaunal, epibenthic and water column species of a variety of commercially

important fisheries can also be found directly in contact with sediments (e.g., salmon, trout, clams, oysters) during critical stages of their development. A wide host of fish and aquatic invertebrates live in or on the benthos in direct or close proximity

of sediments. Because of the widely accepted recognition that sediments serve as a dy namic media for aquatic ecosystems, government organizations, as well as industry h ave come to realize that sediments can act as a repository for many contaminants, especially those that are lipophilic. This recognition of the potential for problem is manifest through examples of deleterious effects from contaminated sediments and their significant impact on commercial fisheries (e.g., TBT and effects to shell fish), ecosystem diversity (e.g., TBT and endocrine effects to mollusks), and possible impact to endangered species (e.g., salmonides in the Pacific N orthwest). State and federal regulatory agencies currently

rely on several assessment tools in order to evaluate the toxic effects of contaminated sediments on marine and freshwater communities that include measures of chemical concentration, bioaccumulati on, and biological toxicity test. The combination of defining exposure and effects can provide a first step for an integrative approach to defining sediment quality and the potential for risk to ecosystems and populations. Sediment toxicity tests are consi dered to be a powerful assessment tool that help to define the potential for acute and chronic risk to aquatic systems from contaminated sediment exposure. The use of sediment testing and sediment evaluation can often complete the risk picture for many compounds that are present in the water column for a relatively s hort time. Sediment test can facilitate the use of relatively sensitive life stages (e.g., 2 nd 

### and third instar for chironomus) in addressing toxicity

from this media. Acute sediment test can me asure effects that include survival, growth and emergence, while chronic studies can add important information on reproduction. The risk quotients (RQ) for sediment dwelling organisms were estimated with an extrapolation method recommended by the USEPA Office of Water (OW). This was based on the Agency ’s Equilibrium Partitioning Sediment Guidelines (ESG) under the Clean Water Act [CWA Section 304(a)(2)]. Often EFED is faced with the problem of assessing risk to aquatic systems from compounds that readily bind to particulate and eventually accumulate in the sediment. This issue is more problematic if sediment toxicity date and/or monitoring information are also not available. Therefore, in order to address this concern, EFED has consulted with the OW, and adopted a method for extrapolating exposure values (i.e., bulk sediment and porewater) that relies on the equilibrium partitioning (EqP) of nonionic compounds in sediment. The EqP theory holds that a nonionic chemical in sediment partitions between sediment organic carbon, interstitial (pore) water and benthic organisms. At equilibrium, if the concentration in any phase is known, then the concentration in the other phases can be predicted through the organic/carbon soil partition coefficient (KOC 

### ). In order to generate exposure concentrations from sediment (ug/kg oc 

### ) and porewater (ug/L) for calculating RQs, EFED relies on the output from the PRZM/ EXAMS model. The effects components, are standard water column toxicity endpoints (e.g., worst case LC 50 

### , NOAE C). This extrapolation method is useful for estimating potential sediment exposure values, as well as sediment toxicity values that can be used in a screening level risk assessment.

###  

 22





### 22 Rationale for EqP Use in EFED Assessing Risk to Sediment Organisms : Fluazinam residues are lipophilic compounds with relatively high KOC 

### values that can adsorb readily

to particulate and sediment with resulting exposure to benthic aquatic life through respiration, ingestion, dermal contact, as well as indirect impact to other species through food chain alterations. Since, sediment can act as a reservoir for these compounds, the bioavailability to aquatic organisms living in this medium is a concern that EFED is trying to address through consultation with the EPA Office of Water (OW). Under the Clean Water Act (CWA Section 304(a)(2) the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the States are expected to develop programs for protecting the chemical, physical, and biological integrity

of the nation’s waters. In order to meet the objectives of the CWA, EPA’s Office of water (OW) has periodically issued ambient water quality criteria (WQC). However, toxic contaminants in bottom sediments of lakes, rivers, wetlands, and coastal waters can also create potential for environmental degradation even if water column contamination values are low and comply

with the Agency’ s water quality criteria. In order to evaluate this possible concern the OW also calculates Equilibrium Partitioning Sediment Guidelines (ESG). Pesticide compounds that b ind readily to particulate and organic carbon may h ave a limited exposure to aquatic organisms in the water column. However, this increase in particulate
-bound
pesticides can result in an accumulation of compounds in or on the sediment that may have the p otential for toxic impact to benthic and epibenthic aquatic organisms (e.g., early life stage of many invertebrates and fish, as well as crabs and shrimp). However, evaluating the risk to aquatic life from this exposure becomes problematic especially if th ere is a lack of adequate sediment toxicity and exposure data. Therefore, in order to assess this potential for pesticide risk to aquatic benthic systems, the Environmental Fate and Effects Division (EFED) of the Office of Pesticides Program (OPP) has adop ted the method used by the OW that relies on the theory of equilibrium partitioning (EqP) of chemicals. This theory is based on the hydrophobicity and concentrations of the chemical normalized to organic carbon (OC) in sediment (De Toro et al. 1991) and ho lds that a nonionic chemical in sediment partitions between sediment organic carbon, interstitial (pore) water and benthic organisms. At equilibrium, if the concentration in any phase is known, then the concentration in the other phases can be predicted. A key c omponent to this theory i s the chemicals organic carbon coefficient (Koc), which is constant for every chemical and represents the ratio of the chemical concentration in water to the concentration in organic carbon. The document, “Technical Basis for the Derivation of Equilibrium Partitioning Sediment Guidelines (ESGs) for the Protection of Benthic Organisms: Nonionic Organics” (USEPA, 2000), demonstrates that biological responses of benthic organisms to nonionic organic chemicals in sediments are dif ferent when the sediment concentrations are expressed on a dry weight basis, but similar when expressed on a u g chemical/g organic carbon basis ( u g/g oc 

### ). Similar responses were also observed across sediments when interstitial water concentrations were used to normalize biological availability
. The Technical Basis Document further demonstrates that if the toxic effect concentration in water is known (e.g., LC 50 

### ), the effect concentration in sediment on a u g/g oc 

### basis can be predicted by multiplying the effect concentration in water by the chemical Koc 

### . (LC 50 

### u g/L x Koc L/kg oc 

### x 1 kg oc

### /1000g oc 

### = LC 50 

### u g/g oc 

### ) Since, EFED uses a deterministic method for its screening level risk assessment, the calculation of risk quotient values (RQ) is important for assessing possible risk. The RQ values are calculated by

taking the ratio of the estimated exposure concentrations (EEC) to the toxicity effect value (e.g., LC 50 

### , NOAEC). The EEC values are model generated (e.g., GENEEC, PRZM/ EXAMS) and reflec t peer evaluated and approved scenarios for assessing pesticide exposure to an aquatic environment. However, the PRZM/ EXAMS output produces water column EEC values, as well as sediment and porewater EEC values. Therefore, in order to assess possible toxic

###  

 23





### 23 pesticide exposure to aquatic organisms from sediments, EFED is using the PRZM/EXAMS model which incorporates the principles of the equilibrium partitioning theory, in order to generate EECs from sediment and porewater. By relying on sediment and/or porew ater output values, EFED has two ways for calculating RQ values for sediments by using porewater exposure values and bulk sediment values. RQ values can be produced by using the PRZM/EXAMS EEC output value for sediment as follows:

EEC sediment ug/ug oc 

### / LC 50 ug/g oc 

### The calculations that rely on porewater can be calculated by dividing the PRZM/ EXAMS output value for porewater concentrations by the dissolved concentrations in the water column that caused toxicity in bioassays (e.g., LC 50 

### ). EEC porewater ug/L / LC50 ugL Assumptions of the equilibrium partitioning model Three princip al observations that underlie the equilibrium partitioning (EqP) approach:  The concentrations of nonionic organic chemicals in sediments (expresse d on an organic carbon basis) and in interstitial waters correlate with observed biological effects on sediment
- dwelling organisms across a range of sediments.  Partitioning models can relate sediment concentrations for nonionic organic chemicals on an org anic carbon basis to freely
- dissolved concentrations in interstitial water.  The distribution of sensitivities of benthic organisms is similar to that of water column species. 

### The EqP approach assumes that the partitioning of a chemical between sediment organic carbon and interstitial water is at or near equilibrium. Another assumption is that the concentration in either phase can be predictive using appropriate partition coefficient and the measured concentration in the other phase. Furthermore, it is as sumed that organisms receive equivalent exposure from water
- only exposures or from any

equilibrated phase (interstitial water via respiration; from sediment via ingestion or other sediment integument exchange). The final assumption is that for nonionic co mpounds, effect concentrations in sediments on an organic carbon basis can be predicted using the organic carbon partition coefficient (Koc) and effects concentrations in the water. This method to estimate the risk to sediment dwelling organisms have certain uncertainties. First, it appears that the exposure may be underestimated because it assumes that the only source of contact of fluazinam residues to the sediment dwellers is the pore water; however, these organisms may

be in constant contact with the sediments and even feed from them or from other small organisms that are contaminated. Second, the sensitivity of the sediment dwellers towards fluazinam residues is assumed to be similar to that of water column dwellers in the absence of data, adding unc ertainty

to the calculation. F inally, some organisms dwell in the sediment only p artially, (e.g. tadpoles) and the risk is very uncertain in those cases.

###  

 24





### 24 **Input Param eters Utilized in PRZ** **M/EXAMS for Fluazinam**  **: Param**  **eter (units) Value**  **( s**  **) S**  **ources C**  **om me**  **nts** Output File Name fluazina
--- --- Chemical Name Fluazinam La bel Omega 500F label (EPA Reg. No. 71512
- 1). Crop Name OR snap bean FL cabbage MI bean OR berries MN sugarbeets (for ginseng) La bel Omega 500F label (EPA Reg. No. 71512
- 1)
Application Rate (Kg a.i./ha) ORsnapbean 0.493 FLcabbage 2.242 MI bean 0.493 ORberry 0.729 MNsugarbeet 0.874 La bel Omega 500F label (EPA Reg. No. 71512
- 1). La

bel application rate: ORsnapbean 0.44 lb a.i./A FLcabbage 2.00 lb a.i./A MI bean 0.44 lb a.i./A ORberry 0.65 lb a.i./A MNsugarbeet 0.78 lb a.i./A Day of Application (day
-month) / pre -harvest interval ORsnapbean 31
- 07 FLcabbage 22
- 12 MI bean 17
- 07 ORberry 14
- 05 MNsugarbeet 08
- 08 La bel PHI: ORsnapbean 14 FLcabbage 50 MI bean 30 ORberry 30 MNsugarb eet 30 Estimated from metadata file and proposed labels.

Number of Applications Allowed ORsnapbean 2 FLcabbage 1 MI bean 2 ORberry 6 MNsugarbeet 4 La bel Omega 500F label (EPA Reg. No. 71512
- 1).
Interval between Applications (days) ORsnapbean 7 FLca bbage N/A MI bean 7 ORberry 7 MNsugarbeet 7 La bel Omega 500F label (EPA Reg. No. 71512
- 1).
CAM (Chemical application method) ORsnapbean 2 FLcabbage 4 MI bean 2 ORberry 2 MNsugarbeet 2 La bel Omega 500F label (EPA Reg. No. 71512
- 1). 2=linear foliar based on crop canopy for all crops except FL cabbage; 4 =soil applied, user defined incorporation depth, uniform with depth for FL cabbage IP SCND ( Flag indicating the disposition of pesticide remaining on foliage after harvest) ORsnapbean 1 FLcabbage N/A MI bean 1 ORberry 1 MNsugarbeet 1 1, pesticide remaining on foliage is converted to surface application to the top soil layer
DEPI = Incorporation Depth 0.0 in for all crops, except FLcabbage (15.2 cm) La bel Omega 500F label (EPA Reg. No. 71512
- 1). KOC 1957.5 MRID: 42248628, 42974913, 46235732 Represents the average K OC value among four values ranging from 1705 to 2316 ml/g; the KOC model was utilized because it represents better the mobility of fluazinam
. Aerobic Soil Metabolism (days) 396 MRID: 4 2208413 3X the available value, to account for the uncertainty in the availability of only one value. Method of Application Ground for all crops, except FLcabbage (soil incorporated) La bel Omega 500F label (EPA Reg. No. 71512
- 1). Buffer Zone (ft.) N/A La bel Omega 500F label (EPA Reg. No. 71512
- 1).

###  

 25





### 25 **Input Param eters Utilized in PRZ** **M/EXAMS for Fluazinam**  **: Param**  **eter (units) Value**  **( s**  **) S**  **ources C**  **om me**  **nts** Application Efficiency (fraction) 0.99 for ground application 1.00 for FLcabbage --- EFED guidance on input parameters for PRZM/EXAMS dated 2/28/02 Spray Drift (fraction) 0.02 for ground application 0.00 for FLcabb age --- EFED guidance on input parameters for PRZM/EXAMS dated 2/28/02 Solubility in Water (ppm) 0.71 MRID: 42208403 10X the actual solubility as per EFED guidance on input param eters for PRZM/EXAMS. Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism (days) 91.7 MRID: 44807314 Represents the 90 th percentile of the upper confidence bound on the mean of two half

- life values: 51 and 71 days; mean = 61 days; std. dev. = 14.1 days. These values correspond to the total residues, not to the parent fluazinam. Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism (days) 0 MRID: 43521010 Fluazinam and its transformation products are nearly stable as a whole in anaerobic aquatic environment. Hydrolysis at pH 7 half

- life (days) 42 MRID: 42208412
--- Aqueous Photolysis @ pH 7 (days) 2.5 MRID: 44807312, 43521009 - -- Molecular Weight (g/mole) 465.1 PMRA Regulatory Note REG2003
- 12, 10/27/03 Vapor Pressure (torr or mmHg) 8.25 x 10 - 6 MRID: 42248403 Henry ’s Law Constant (atm
-m 3 /mol) 6.73 x 10 - 7 PMRA Regulatory Note REG2003
- 12, 10/27/03 Environment pond298.exv
-- - Default for pond scenario, as opposed to index reservoir. Field Size Pond
--- Runoff none --- --- PRZM Scenario ORsnbeansC.txt FLcabbageC.txt MI beansC.txt ORberriesOP.txt MNsugarbeetC.txt --- It is noted that the OR berries scenario was created for organo -phosphates; however, it is useful for characterization of other chemicals as well. Metfile Scenario w24232.dvf w12842.dvf w14826.dvf w24232.dvf w14914.dvf --- As indicated by the shell (pe4).

FEXTRC, Foliar extraction 0.5 EFED guidance on input parameters for PRZM/EXAMS dated 2/28/02 PLDKRT, Decay rate on foliage 0 EFED guidance on input parameters for PRZM/EXAMS dated 2/28/02 PL VKRT, Volatilization rate from foliage 0 EFED guidance on input parameters for PRZM/EXAMS dated 2/28/02 UPTKF, Uptake factor 0 EFED guidance on input parameters for PRZM/EXAMS dated 2/28/02 Write Benthic Pore Water Concentrations? Yes
--- Necessary to calculate the benthic risk quotients.

###  

 26





### 26 **Estim ated environm**  **ental concentrations of fluazinam (ppb)**  **in the water colum** **n and**  **benthic pore water.**  **Crop Scenario Media**  **P eak**  **21 -**  **day 60**  **- day**  FL cabbage soil incorporated a *2.00 (1) 2.00 Water Column 2.10 1.28 0.84

Benthic Pore Water 0.557 0.553 0.538 MI bean ground a *0.44 (2) 0.88 Water Column 9. 30 6.71 5.17

Benthic Pore Water 4.10 4.07 3.95 MN sugarbeet ground a *0.78 (4) 3.12 Water Column 16.87 12.02 7.42

Benthic Pore Water 4.87 4.83 4.78 OR berries ground **a** *0.65 (6) 3.90 Water Column 6.59 4.22 2.90

Benthic Pore Water 2.55 2.48 2.33 OR snapbeans grounda *0.44 (2) 0.88 Water Column 7.89 5.82 4.60

Benthic Pore Water 4.14 4.12 3.69
**a** A chosen representative scenario for spray or soil incorporated applications of fluazinam to agricultural crops (sugarbeet, a surrogate scenario for gins eng). Previously reported EECs are much higher: Peanuts 0.78 lb x 2 = 1.56 lb Peak = 0.022 ppm; 21 day = 0.014 ppm; 60 day

= 0.009 ppm Potato 0.27 lb x 7 = 1.89 lb Peak = 0.006 ppm; 21 day = 0.004 ppm; 60 day

= 0.003 ppm 

### FL CAB **BAGE** stored as fluazina.out Chemical: Fluazinam PRZM environment: FLcabbageC.txt modified Satday, 12 October 2002 at 15:39:00 EXAMS environment: pond298.exv modified Thuday, 29 August 2002 at 16:33:30 Metfile: w12842.dvf modified Wedday, 3 July 2002 at 09: 04:28 Water segment concentrations (ppb) Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly 1961 0.001722 0.0004178 7.958e
- 005 2.785e
- 005 1.857e
- 005 4.579e
- 006 1962 0.5145 0.4607 0.3396 0.228 0.1928 0.1406 1963 0.9845 0.9087 0.7543 0.5511 0.4476 0.2694 1964 1.51 7 1.365 0.9475 0.7801 0.7072 0.4538 1965 0.7856 0.7063 0.5654 0.4661 0.4284 0.2479 1966 0.8352 0.7849 0.5699 0.4316 0.385 0.2609 1967 0.813 0.7467 0.5666 0.4595 0.4037 0.2427 1968 0.962 0.888 0.6681 0.5354 0.471 0.2521 1969 1.073 1.01 0.8103 0.5729 0.5625 0.4025 1970 0.8611 0.7894 0.6101 0.5383 0.5027 0.3046 1971 1.521 1.364 0.9363 0.585 0.53 0.3786 1972 0.7528 0.6834 0.5622 0.4349 0.435 0.3097 1973 0.9203 0.8308 0.6048 0.3869 0.3235 0.2372 1974 2.366 2.105 1.408 0.8491 0.6883 0.3331

###  

 27





### 27 1975 1.13 1.011 0.8044 0.6204 0.5372 0.2848 1976 1.76 1.596 1.13 0.8277 0.6929 0.3345 1977 0.4972 0.4614 0.3599 0.2913 0.2576 0.1751 1978 1.069 0.9763 0.7109 0.4698 0.4041 0.2348 1979 4.086 3.705 2.568 1.541 1.246 0.6898 1980 0.7344 0.6739 0.5053 0.4336 0.4194 0.296 1981 2.125 1 .903 1.289 0.7904 0.6348 0.422 1982 1.098 1.003 0.8101 0.7063 0.6179 0.4407 1983 0.9981 0.9227 0.7409 0.6922 0.6299 0.3727 1984 0.5738 0.5208 0.3745 0.2901 0.285 0.2195 1985 1.099 0.9772 0.6643 0.4925 0.4741 0.2496 1986 1.408 1.266 0.9021 0.5569 0.4579 0.2 67 1987 1.924 1.735 1.235 0.8461 0.7382 0.3903 1988 0.7271 0.6625 0.5273 0.3965 0.3638 0.2878 1989 0.6158 0.5773 0.452 0.4202 0.3966 0.2265 1990 0.8304 0.753 0.5782 0.439 0.3735 0.2625 Sorted results Prob. Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly 0.03225806 4516129 4.086 3.705 2.568 1.541 1.246 0.6898 0.0645161290322581 2.366 2.105 1.408 0.8491 0.7382 0.4538 0.0967741935483871 2.125 1.903 1.289 0.8461 0.7072 0.4407 0.129032258064516 1.924 1.735 1.235 0.8277 0.6929 0.422 0.161290322580645 1.76 1.596 1.13 0.790 4 0.6883 0.4025 0.193548387096774 1.521 1.365 0.9475 0.7801 0.6348 0.3903 0.225806451612903 1.517 1.364 0.9363 0.7063 0.6299 0.3786 0.258064516129032 1.408 1.266 0.9021 0.6922 0.6179 0.3727 0.290322580645161 1.13 1.011 0.8103 0.6204 0.5625 0.3345 0.3225806 4516129 1.099 1.01 0.8101 0.585 0.5372 0.3331 0.354838709677419 1.098 1.003 0.8044 0.5729 0.53 0.3097 0.387096774193548 1.073 0.9772 0.7543 0.5569 0.5027 0.3046 0.419354838709677 1.069 0.9763 0.7409 0.5511 0.4741 0.296 0.451612903225806 0.9981 0.9227 0.710 9 0.5383 0.471 0.2878 0.483870967741936 0.9845 0.9087 0.6681 0.5354 0.4579 0.2848 0.516129032258065 0.962 0.888 0.6643 0.4925 0.4476 0.2694 0.548387096774194 0.9203 0.8308 0.6101 0.4698 0.435 0.267 0.580645161290323 0.8611 0.7894 0.6048 0.4661 0.4284 0.262 5 0.612903225806452 0.8352 0.7849 0.5782 0.4595 0.4194 0.2609 0.645161290322581 0.8304 0.753 0.5699 0.439 0.4041 0.2521 0.67741935483871 0.813 0.7467 0.5666 0.4349 0.4037 0.2496 0.709677419354839 0.7856 0.7063 0.5654 0.4336 0.3966 0.2479 0.741935483870968 0.7528 0.6834 0.5622 0.4316 0.385 0.2427 0.774193548387097 0.7344 0.6739 0.5273 0.4202 0.3735 0.2372 0.806451612903226 0.7271 0.6625 0.5053 0.3965 0.3638 0.2348 0.838709677419355 0.6158 0.5773 0.452 0.3869 0.3235 0.2265 0.870967741935484 0.5738 0.5208 0.37 45 0.2913 0.285 0.2195 0.903225806451613 0.5145 0.4614 0.3599 0.2901 0.2576 0.1751 0.935483870967742 0.4972 0.4607 0.3396 0.228 0.1928 0.1406

###  

 28





### 28 0.967741935483871 0.001722 0.0004178 7.958e
- 005 2.785e
- 005 1.857e
- 005 4.579e
- 006 0.1 2.1049 1.8862 1.2836 0.84426 0.70577 0.43883 Average of yearly averages: 0.2995568193 Inputs generated by pe4.pl
- 8
- August - 2003 Data used for this run: Output File: fluazina Metfile: w12842.dvf PRZM scenario: FLcabbageC.txt EXAMS environment file: pond298.exv Chemical Name: F luazinam Description Variable Name Value Units Comments Molecular weight mwt 465.1 g/mol Henry's Law Const. henry 6.73e
- 7 atm - m^3/mol Vapor Pressure vapr 8.25e
- 6 torr Solubility sol 0.71 mg/L Kd Kd mg/L Koc Koc 1957.5 mg/L Photolysis half
- life kdp 2.5 day s Half
- life Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacw 91.7 days Halfife Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacs 0 days Halfife Aerobic Soil Metabolism asm 396 days Halfife Hydrolysis: pH 7 42 days Half
- life Method: CAM 4 integer See PRZM manual Incorporation Depth: DEPI 15.2 cm Application Rate: TAPP 2.242 kg/ha Application Efficiency: APPEFF 1.00 fraction Spray Drift DRFT 0.00 fraction of application rate applied to pond Application Date Date 22
- 12 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 Pond Flag for runoff calc. RUNOFF none none, monthly or total(average of entire run)

stored as fluazinaben.out Chemical: Fluazinam PRZM environment: FLcabbageC.txt modified Satday, 12 October 2002 at 15:39:00 EXAMS environment: pond298.exv modified Thuday, 29 August 2002 at 16:33:30 Metfile: w12842.dvf modified Wedday, 3 July 2002 at 09:04:28 Benthic segment concentrations (ppb) Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly 1961 8.871e
- 0 06 5.065e
- 006 9.648e
- 007 3.377e
- 007 2.251e
- 007 5.551e
- 008 1962 0.1805 0.1805 0.1793 0.1737 0.1686 0.1136 1963 0.3499 0.3498 0.3477 0.3335 0.3181 0.2498 1964 0.5288 0.5287 0.5252 0.519 0.5115 0.43

###  

 29





### 29 1965 0.3432 0.3431 0.3409 0.329 0.3181 0.256 1966 0.3263 0.3 262 0.3243 0.3146 0.309 0.26 1967 0.3413 0.3412 0.3389 0.3259 0.3131 0.2318 1968 0.357 0.3569 0.3549 0.3512 0.3465 0.2407 1969 0.4915 0.4914 0.4884 0.4777 0.4795 0.3855 1970 0.4388 0.4387 0.4359 0.4237 0.414 0.3213 1971 0.4511 0.4509 0.4478 0.432 0.4272 0. 3479 1972 0.3787 0.3786 0.376 0.3634 0.3571 0.3137 1973 0.312 0.3119 0.3104 0.2988 0.2856 0.242 1974 0.5254 0.5252 0.5232 0.5059 0.4875 0.3092 1975 0.4075 0.4074 0.4048 0.3968 0.3927 0.2818 1976 0.509 0.5089 0.5055 0.4908 0.4789 0.3267 1977 0.2855 0.2855 0 .2839 0.2787 0.2714 0.1987 1978 0.3243 0.3242 0.3223 0.3104 0.3019 0.2245 1979 1.023 1.023 1.016 0.9746 0.9348 0.622 1980 0.4286 0.4244 0.4073 0.3823 0.3779 0.3345 1981 0.477 0.4769 0.4745 0.4651 0.4484 0.3835 1982 0.5612 0.5611 0.5575 0.5397 0.5239 0.4482 1983 0.5084 0.5083 0.5051 0.4871 0.4782 0.3756 1984 0.2609 0.2608 0.2596 0.2518 0.2495 0.2298 1985 0.3637 0.3636 0.3612 0.3475 0.3381 0.2259 1986 0.3868 0.3867 0.3844 0.3722 0.3586 0.2767 1987 0.5597 0.5596 0.556 0.5471 0.5325 0.3698 1988 0.3436 0.3435 0. 3414 0.3286 0.3179 0.282 1989 0.3073 0.3073 0.3052 0.2971 0.2904 0.2261 1990 0.3367 0.3366 0.3346 0.3216 0.3073 0.2634 Sorted results Prob. Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly 0.032258064516129 1.023 1.023 1.016 0.9746 0.9348 0.622 0.0645161290322581 0 .5612 0.5611 0.5575 0.5471 0.5325 0.4482 0.0967741935483871 0.5597 0.5596 0.556 0.5397 0.5239 0.43 0.129032258064516 0.5288 0.5287 0.5252 0.519 0.5115 0.3855 0.161290322580645 0.5254 0.5252 0.5232 0.5059 0.4875 0.3835 0.193548387096774 0.509 0.5089 0.5055 0.4908 0.4795 0.3756 0.225806451612903 0.5084 0.5083 0.5051 0.4871 0.4789 0.3698 0.258064516129032 0.4915 0.4914 0.4884 0.4777 0.4782 0.3479 0.290322580645161 0.477 0.4769 0.4745 0.4651 0.4484 0.3345 0.32258064516129 0.4511 0.4509 0.4478 0.432 0.4272 0.326 7 0.354838709677419 0.4388 0.4387 0.4359 0.4237 0.414 0.3213 0.387096774193548 0.4286 0.4244 0.4073 0.3968 0.3927 0.3137 0.419354838709677 0.4075 0.4074 0.4048 0.3823 0.3779 0.3092 0.451612903225806 0.3868 0.3867 0.3844 0.3722 0.3586 0.282 0.48387096774193 6 0.3787 0.3786 0.376 0.3634 0.3571 0.2818 0.516129032258065 0.3637 0.3636 0.3612 0.3512 0.3465 0.2767 0.548387096774194 0.357 0.3569 0.3549 0.3475 0.3381 0.2634

###  

 30





### 30 0.580645161290323 0.3499 0.3498 0.3477 0.3335 0.3181 0.26 0.612903225806452 0.3436 0.3435 0.34 14 0.329 0.3181 0.256 0.645161290322581 0.3432 0.3431 0.3409 0.3286 0.3179 0.2498 0.67741935483871 0.3413 0.3412 0.3389 0.3259 0.3131 0.242 0.709677419354839 0.3367 0.3366 0.3346 0.3216 0.309 0.2407 0.741935483870968 0.3263 0.3262 0.3243 0.3146 0.3073 0.23 18 0.774193548387097 0.3243 0.3242 0.3223 0.3104 0.3019 0.2298 0.806451612903226 0.312 0.3119 0.3104 0.2988 0.2904 0.2261 0.838709677419355 0.3073 0.3073 0.3052 0.2971 0.2856 0.2259 0.870967741935484 0.2855 0.2855 0.2839 0.2787 0.2714 0.2245 0.903225806451 613 0.2609 0.2608 0.2596 0.2518 0.2495 0.1987 0.935483870967742 0.1805 0.1805 0.1793 0.1737 0.1686 0.1136 0.967741935483871 8.871e
- 006 5.065e
- 006 9.648e
- 007 3.377e
- 007 2.251e
- 007 5.551e
- 008 0.1 0.55661 0.55651 0.55292 0.53763 0.52266 0.42555 Average of yearly averages: 0.292356668517 Inputs generated by pe4.pl
- 8
- August - 2003 Data used for this run: Output File: fluazina Metfile: w12842.dvf PRZM scenario: FLcabbageC.txt EXAMS environment file: pond298.exv Chemical Name: Fluazinam Description Variabl e Name Value Units Comments Molecular weight mwt 465.1 g/mol Henry's Law Const. henry 6.73e
- 7 atm - m^3/mol Vapor Pressure vapr 8.25e
- 6 torr Solubility sol 0.71 mg/L Kd Kd mg/L Koc Koc 1957.5 mg/L Photolysis half
- life kdp 2.5 days Half
- life Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacw 91.7 days Halfife Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacs 0 days Halfife Aerobic Soil Metabolism asm 396 days Halfife Hydrolysis: pH 7 42 days Half
- life Method: CAM 4 integer See PRZM manual Incorporation Depth: DEPI 15.2 cm Application Rate: T APP 2.242 kg/ha Application Efficiency: APPEFF 1.00 fraction Spray Drift DRFT 0.00 fraction of application rate applied to pond Application Date Date 22
- 12 dd/mm or dd/mmm or dd

- mm or dd
- mmm Record 17: FILTRA IPSCND 1 UPTKF 0

###  

 31





### 31 Record 18: PLVKRT 0 PLDKRT 0 FEXTRC 0.5 Flag for Index Res. Run IR Pond Flag for runoff calc. RUNOFF none none, monthly or total(average of entire run) 

### MI BEANS stored as fluazina.out Chemical: Fluazinam PRZM environment: MIbeansC.txt modified Monday, 10 May 2004 at 06:24:24 EXAM S environment: pond298.exv modified Thuday, 29 August 2002 at 16:33:30 Metfile: w14826.dvf modified Wedday, 3 July 2002 at 09:05:38 Water segment concentrations (ppb) Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly 1961 5.586 5.11 4.44 3.196 2.754 0.9794 1962 1.886 1.775 1.48 1.303 1.259 1.108 1963 2.18 2.019 1.761 1.432 1.261 0.8127 1964 2.013 1.878 1.498 1.293 1.164 0.8554 1965 6.369 5.781 4.159 3.025 2.56 1.291 1966 1.665 1.568 1.433 1.307 1.242 1.012 1967 3.02 2.781 2.119 1.627 1.611 1.035 1968 10.73 9.758 7.034 4.652 4.04 2.028 1969 3.064 2.854 2.549 2.038 1.912 1.599 1970 3.5 3.232 2.695 2.591 2.444 1.33 1971 2.308 2.135 1.584 1.352 1.323 1.066 1972 3.315 3.052 2.409 2.193 2.192 1.316 1973 2.877 2.655 2.248 1.859 1.813 1.329 1974 1.818 1.767 1.605 1.536 1 .518 1.241 1975 13.62 12.33 10.27 6.879 5.731 2.364 1976 3.476 3.255 2.808 2.642 2.507 1.953 1977 2.356 2.21 1.885 1.638 1.504 1.201 1978 3.298 3.095 2.617 1.869 1.644 1.036 1979 1.857 1.722 1.411 1.122 1.084 0.8726 1980 4.419 4.026 3.223 2.548 2.462 1.252 1981 4.965 4.661 3.734 3.382 2.997 1.693 1982 3.153 2.928 2.307 1.952 1.869 1.448 1983 3.277 3.142 2.482 2.03 1.867 1.257 1984 2.67 2.483 2.092 1.971 1.866 1.235 1985 9.5 8.695 6.761 5.224 4.474 2.145 1986 7.483 7.031 6.208 5.531 4.769 2.489 1987 5.691 5. 421 4.452 3.634 3.196 2.147 1988 3.913 3.608 2.857 2.437 2.266 1.642 1989 5.471 5.171 4.1 3.71 3.374 1.84 1990 3.14 2.946 2.386 2.233 2.173 1.553 Sorted results Prob. Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly 0.032258064516129 13.62 12.33 10.27 6.879 5.731 2 .489 0.0645161290322581 10.73 9.758 7.034 5.531 4.769 2.364 0.0967741935483871 9.5 8.695 6.761 5.224 4.474 2.147 0.129032258064516 7.483 7.031 6.208 4.652 4.04 2.145 0.161290322580645 6.369 5.781 4.452 3.71 3.374 2.028 0.193548387096774 5.691 5.421 4.44 3. 634 3.196 1.953

###  

 32





### 32 0.225806451612903 5.586 5.171 4.159 3.382 2.997 1.84 0.258064516129032 5.471 5.11 4.1 3.196 2.754 1.693 0.290322580645161 4.965 4.661 3.734 3.025 2.56 1.642 0.32258064516129 4.419 4.026 3.223 2.642 2.507 1.599 0.354838709677419 3.913 3.608 2.857 2.591 2.462 1.553 0.387096774193548 3.5 3.255 2.808 2.548 2.444 1.448 0.419354838709677 3.476 3.232 2.695 2.437 2.266 1.33 0.451612903225806 3.315 3.142 2.617 2.233 2.192 1.329 0.483870967741936 3.298 3.095 2.549 2.193 2.173 1.316 0.516129032258065 3 .277 3.052 2.482 2.038 1.912 1.291 0.548387096774194 3.153 2.946 2.409 2.03 1.869 1.257 0.580645161290323 3.14 2.928 2.386 1.971 1.867 1.252 0.612903225806452 3.064 2.854 2.307 1.952 1.866 1.241 0.645161290322581 3.02 2.781 2.248 1.869 1.813 1.235 0.677419 35483871 2.877 2.655 2.119 1.859 1.644 1.201 0.709677419354839 2.67 2.483 2.092 1.638 1.611 1.108 0.741935483870968 2.356 2.21 1.885 1.627 1.518 1.066 0.774193548387097 2.308 2.135 1.761 1.536 1.504 1.036 0.806451612903226 2.18 2.019 1.605 1.432 1.323 1.03 5 0.838709677419355 2.013 1.878 1.584 1.352 1.261 1.012 0.870967741935484 1.886 1.775 1.498 1.307 1.259 0.9794 0.903225806451613 1.857 1.767 1.48 1.303 1.242 0.8726 0.935483870967742 1.818 1.722 1.433 1.293 1.164 0.8554 0.967741935483871 1.665 1.568 1.411 1.122 1.084 0.8127 0.1 9.2983 8.5286 6.7057 5.1668 4.4306 2.1468 Average of yearly averages: 1.43767 Inputs generated by pe4.pl
- 8
- August - 2003 Data used for this run: Output File: fluazina Metfile: w14826.dvf PRZM scenario: MIbeansC.txt EXAMS envi ronment file: pond298.exv Chemical Name: Fluazinam Description Variable Name Value Units Comments Molecular weight mwt 465.1 g/mol Henry's Law Const. henry 6.73e
- 7 atm - m^3/mol Vapor Pressure vapr 8.25e
- 6 torr Solubility sol 0.71 mg/L Kd Kd mg/L Koc Koc 19 57.5 mg/L Photolysis half
- life kdp 2.5 days Half
- life Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacw 91.7 days Halfife Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacs 0 days Halfife Aerobic Soil Metabolism asm 396 days Halfife Hydrolysis: pH 7 42 days Half
- life Method: CAM 2 integer See PRZM manual Incorporation Depth: DEPI 0.0 cm Application Rate: TAPP 0.493 kg/ha Application Efficiency: APPEFF 0.99 fraction Spray Drift DRFT 0.01 fraction of application rate applied to pond Application Date Date 17
- 07 dd/mm or dd/mmm or dd

- mm or dd
- mmm Interval 1 interval 7 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app. Record 17: FILTRA

###  

 33





### 33 IPSCND 1 UPTKF 0 Record 18: PLVKRT 0 PLDKRT 0 FEXTRC 0.5 Flag for Index Res. Run IR Pond Flag for runoff calc. RUNOFF none none, monthly or total(average of entir e run)

stored as fluazinaben.out Chemical: Fluazinam PRZM environment: MIbeansC.txt modified Monday, 10 May 2004 at 06:24:24 EXAMS environment: pond298.exv modified Thuday, 29 August 2002 at 16:33:30 Metfile: w14826.dvf modified Wedday, 3 July 2002 at 09 :05:38 Benthic segment concentrations (ppb) Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly 1961 2.643 2.643 2.638 2.577 2.497 0.9159 1962 1.947 1.932 1.869 1.739 1.652 1.345 1963 1.37 1.37 1.36 1.318 1.279 0.9376 1964 1.312 1.312 1.304 1.252 1.211 0.9191 196 5 2.558 2.557 2.543 2.447 2.357 1.356 1966 1.874 1.863 1.814 1.695 1.612 1.232 1967 1.585 1.585 1.576 1.551 1.553 1.076 1968 4.075 4.074 4.05 3.905 3.744 2.087 1969 2.861 2.841 2.757 2.597 2.471 1.954 1970 2.385 2.384 2.374 2.324 2.276 1.426 1971 1.964 1.9 49 1.887 1.757 1.684 1.261 1972 2.072 2.072 2.063 2.03 2.007 1.334 1973 1.816 1.815 1.808 1.74 1.667 1.426 1974 1.768 1.767 1.746 1.694 1.66 1.422 1975 5.206 5.205 5.176 4.994 4.801 2.267 1976 3.775 3.751 3.644 3.402 3.244 2.411 1977 1.869 1.855 1.797 1.67 1.588 1.39 1978 1.85 1.849 1.839 1.773 1.701 1.173 1979 1.406 1.406 1.396 1.327 1.276 1.028 1980 2.313 2.312 2.3 2.223 2.193 1.286 1981 2.958 2.957 2.943 2.851 2.776 1.791 1982 2.337 2.319 2.245 2.086 1.981 1.713 1983 1.948 1.947 1.94 1.904 1.858 1.406 19 84 1.991 1.991 1.976 1.913 1.865 1.419 1985 4.099 4.098 4.076 3.959 3.823 2.121 1986 4.42 4.419 4.395 4.243 4.091 2.687 1987 3.416 3.416 3.398 3.281 3.151 2.533 1988 2.598 2.579 2.501 2.331 2.245 1.926 1989 3.34 3.339 3.321 3.2 3.104 2.023 1990 2.382 2.364 2.302 2.143 2.089 1.771 Sorted results Prob. Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly 0.032258064516129 5.206 5.205 5.176 4.994 4.801 2.687 0.0645161290322581 4.42 4.419 4.395 4.243 4.091 2.533 0.0967741935483871 4.099 4.098 4.076 3.959 3.823 2.411 0.12903 2258064516 4.075 4.074 4.05 3.905 3.744 2.267

###  

 34





### 34 0.161290322580645 3.775 3.751 3.644 3.402 3.244 2.121 0.193548387096774 3.416 3.416 3.398 3.281 3.151 2.087 0.225806451612903 3.34 3.339 3.321 3.2 3.104 2.023 0.258064516129032 2.958 2.957 2.943 2.851 2.776 1.9 54 0.290322580645161 2.861 2.841 2.757 2.597 2.497 1.926 0.32258064516129 2.643 2.643 2.638 2.577 2.471 1.791 0.354838709677419 2.598 2.579 2.543 2.447 2.357 1.771 0.387096774193548 2.558 2.557 2.501 2.331 2.276 1.713 0.419354838709677 2.385 2.384 2.374 2. 324 2.245 1.426 0.451612903225806 2.382 2.364 2.302 2.223 2.193 1.426 0.483870967741936 2.337 2.319 2.3 2.143 2.089 1.422 0.516129032258065 2.313 2.312 2.245 2.086 2.007 1.419 0.548387096774194 2.072 2.072 2.063 2.03 1.981 1.406 0.580645161290323 1.991 1.9 91 1.976 1.913 1.865 1.39 0.612903225806452 1.964 1.949 1.94 1.904 1.858 1.356 0.645161290322581 1.948 1.947 1.887 1.773 1.701 1.345 0.67741935483871 1.947 1.932 1.869 1.757 1.684 1.334 0.709677419354839 1.874 1.863 1.839 1.74 1.667 1.286 0.741935483870968 1.869 1.855 1.814 1.739 1.66 1.261 0.774193548387097 1.85 1.849 1.808 1.695 1.652 1.232 0.806451612903226 1.816 1.815 1.797 1.694 1.612 1.173 0.838709677419355 1.768 1.767 1.746 1.67 1.588 1.076 0.870967741935484 1.585 1.585 1.576 1.551 1.553 1.028 0.9032 25806451613 1.406 1.406 1.396 1.327 1.279 0.9376 0.935483870967742 1.37 1.37 1.36 1.318 1.276 0.9191 0.967741935483871 1.312 1.312 1.304 1.252 1.211 0.9159 0.1 4.0966 4.0956 4.0734 3.9536 3.8151 2.3966 Average of yearly averages: 1.58788666666667 In puts generated by pe4.pl
- 8
- August - 2003 Data used for this run: Output File: fluazina Metfile: w14826.dvf PRZM scenario: MIbeansC.txt EXAMS environment file: pond298.exv Chemical Name: Fluazinam Description Variable Name Value Units Comments Molecular we ight mwt 465.1 g/mol Henry's Law Const. henry 6.73e
- 7 atm - m^3/mol Vapor Pressure vapr 8.25e
- 6 torr Solubility sol 0.71 mg/L Kd Kd mg/L Koc Koc 1957.5 mg/L Photolysis half
- life kdp 2.5 days Half
- life Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacw 91.7 days Halfife Anaer obic Aquatic Metabolism kbacs 0 days Halfife Aerobic Soil Metabolism asm 396 days Halfife Hydrolysis: pH 7 42 days Half
- life Method: CAM 2 integer See PRZM manual Incorporation Depth: DEPI 0.0 cm Application Rate: TAPP 0.493 kg/ha Application Efficiency: A PPEFF 0.99 fraction Spray Drift DRFT 0.01 fraction of application rate applied to pond Application Date Date 17
- 07 dd/mm or dd/mmm or dd

- mm or dd
- mmm

###  

 35





### 35 Interval 1 interval 7 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app. Record 17: FILTRA IPSCND 1 UPTKF 0 R ecord 18: PLVKRT 0 PLDKRT 0 FEXTRC 0.5 Flag for Index Res. Run IR Pond Flag for runoff calc. RUNOFF none none, monthly or total(average of entire run) 

### MN SUGARBEET stored as fluazina.out Chemical: Fluazinam PRZM environment: MNsugarbeetC.txt modified Sa tday, 12 October 2002 at 16:05:10 EXAMS environment: pond298.exv modified Thuday, 29 August 2002 at 16:33:30 Metfile: w14914.dvf modified Wedday, 3 July 2002 at 09:05:52 Water segment concentrations (ppb) Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly 1961 6 .052 5.732 4.201 2.715 2.224 0.6911 1962 3.295 3.004 2.61 2.338 2.08 1.39 1963 6.295 5.662 4.383 2.837 2.312 1.342 1964 6.94 6.255 4.68 3.17 3.173 1.858 1965 6.888 6.259 4.557 3.08 2.592 1.916 1966 4.073 3.787 3.193 2.382 2.082 1.5 1967 3.281 3.077 2.411 1 .769 1.567 1.042 1968 2.976 2.711 2.137 1.574 1.377 0.9994 1969 6.941 6.267 4.441 3.344 2.909 1.8 1970 20.06 18 12.32 7.448 6.069 2.704 1971 12.52 11.32 7.952 7.191 6.569 3.34 1972 4.949 4.69 3.983 3.21 3.185 2.38 1973 14.05 12.72 9.301 7.149 6.022 2.466 1 974 10.17 9.218 6.977 4.81 4.298 3.028 1975 7.703 7.195 5.303 3.876 3.772 2.632 1976 2.365 2.266 1.969 1.755 1.745 1.129 1977 16.88 15.08 10.14 6.282 6 3.794 1978 10.86 9.855 7.25 4.742 3.989 2.978 1979 11.15 10.16 7.452 4.926 3.825 2.857 1980 12.19 11.11 8.13 6.666 5.594 2.891 1981 5.132 4.707 3.592 2.593 2.368 1.907 1982 25.06 22.51 15.35 9.347 7.503 2.717 1983 4.994 4.68 3.69 3.241 3.162 2.448 1984 16.81 15.62 12.15 7.687 6.032 2.64 1985 4.425 4.119 3.554 2.914 2.844 2.307 1986 7.613 6.956 5.147 3.517 3. 061 2.208 1987 2.767 2.588 2.325 1.87 1.682 1.285 1988 9.33 8.647 6.066 3.723 3.073 1.406 1989 15.55 14.06 10.84 6.783 5.584 2.906 1990 3.428 3.18 2.504 2.324 2.203 1.847 Sorted results Prob. Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly 0.032258064516129 25.06 22.51 15.35 9.347 7.503 3.794 0.0645161290322581 20.06 18 12.32 7.687 6.569 3.34

###  

 36





### 36 0.0967741935483871 16.88 15.62 12.15 7.448 6.069 3.028 0.129032258064516 16.81 15.08 10.84 7.191 6.032 2.978 0.161290322580645 15.55 14.06 10.14 7.149 6.022 2.906 0.1935483870 96774 14.05 12.72 9.301 6.783 6 2.891 0.225806451612903 12.52 11.32 8.13 6.666 5.594 2.857 0.258064516129032 12.19 11.11 7.952 6.282 5.584 2.717 0.290322580645161 11.15 10.16 7.452 4.926 4.298 2.704 0.32258064516129 10.86 9.855 7.25 4.81 3.989 2.64 0.35483 8709677419 10.17 9.218 6.977 4.742 3.825 2.632 0.387096774193548 9.33 8.647 6.066 3.876 3.772 2.466 0.419354838709677 7.703 7.195 5.303 3.723 3.185 2.448 0.451612903225806 7.613 6.956 5.147 3.517 3.173 2.38 0.483870967741936 6.941 6.267 4.68 3.344 3.162 2. 307 0.516129032258065 6.94 6.259 4.557 3.241 3.073 2.208 0.548387096774194 6.888 6.255 4.441 3.21 3.061 1.916 0.580645161290323 6.295 5.732 4.383 3.17 2.909 1.907 0.612903225806452 6.052 5.662 4.201 3.08 2.844 1.858 0.645161290322581 5.132 4.707 3.983 2.91 4 2.592 1.847 0.67741935483871 4.994 4.69 3.69 2.837 2.368 1.8 0.709677419354839 4.949 4.68 3.592 2.715 2.312 1.5 0.741935483870968 4.425 4.119 3.554 2.593 2.224 1.406 0.774193548387097 4.073 3.787 3.193 2.382 2.203 1.39 0.806451612903226 3.428 3.18 2.61 2 .338 2.082 1.342 0.838709677419355 3.295 3.077 2.504 2.324 2.08 1.285 0.870967741935484 3.281 3.004 2.411 1.87 1.745 1.129 0.903225806451613 2.976 2.711 2.325 1.769 1.682 1.042 0.935483870967742 2.767 2.588 2.137 1.755 1.567 0.9994 0.967741935483871 2.365 2.266 1.969 1.574 1.377 0.6911 0.1 16.873 15.566 12.019 7.4223 6.0653 3.023 Average of yearly averages: 2.14695 Inputs generated by pe4.pl
- 8
- August - 2003 Data used for this run: Output File: fluazina Metfile: w14914.dvf PRZM scenario: MNsugarbeetC .txt EXAMS environment file: pond298.exv Chemical Name: Fluazinam Description Variable Name Value Units Comments Molecular weight mwt 465.1 g/mol Henry's Law Const. henry 6.73e
- 7 atm - m^3/mol Vapor Pressure vapr 8.25e
- 6 torr Solubility sol 0.71 mg/L Kd Kd mg/L Koc Koc 1957.5 mg/L Photolysis half
- life kdp 2.5 days Half
- life Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacw 91.7 days Halfife Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacs 0 days Halfife Aerobic Soil Metabolism asm 396 days Halfife Hydrolysis: pH 7 42 days Half
- life Method : CAM 2 integer See PRZM manual Incorporation Depth: DEPI 0.0 cm Application Rate: TAPP 0.874 kg/ha Application Efficiency: APPEFF 0.99 fraction

###  

 37





### 37 Spray Drift DRFT 0.01 fraction of application rate applied to pond Application Date Date 08
- 08 dd/mm or dd/mmm or dd
- mm or dd
- mmm Interval 1 interval 7 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app. Interval 2 interval 7 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app. Interval 3 interval 7 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app. Record 17: FILTRA IPSCND 1 UPTKF 0 Record 18: PLVKRT 0 PLDKRT 0 FEXTRC 0.5 Flag for Index Res. Run IR Pond Flag for runoff calc. RUNOFF none none, monthly or total(average of entire run) stored as fluazinaben.out Chemical: Fluazinam PRZM environment: MNsugarbeetC.txt modified Satday, 1 2 October 2002 at 16:05:10 EXAMS environment: pond298.exv modified Thuday, 29 August 2002 at 16:33:30 Metfile: w14914.dvf modified Wedday, 3 July 2002 at 09:05:52 Benthic segment concentrations (ppb) Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly 1961 1.704 1.704 1.695 1.645 1.593 0.4861 1962 1.979 1.979 1.968 1.905 1.844 1.386 1963 2.02 2.019 2.007 1.932 1.852 1.355 1964 2.769 2.768 2.754 2.659 2.554 1.752 1965 2.307 2.306 2.293 2.222 2.164 1.916 1966 1.909 1.908 1.897 1.832 1.787 1.56 1967 1.457 1.457 1.449 1.406 1.357 1.149 1968 1.152 1.151 1.145 1.119 1.091 0.9422 1969 2.473 2.473 2.458 2.407 2.355 1.636 1970 4.776 4.775 4.75 4.601 4.437 2.307 1971 5.2 5.199 5.179 5.042 4.844 3.241 1972 4.603 4.568 4.425 4.11 3.922 2.902 1973 4.658 4.657 4.631 4.482 4.325 2.115 1974 3.806 3.789 3.767 3.644 3.618 3.105 1975 3.392 3.368 3.263 3.157 3.086 2.785 1976 2.471 2.452 2.373 2.206 2.131 1.439 1977 4.864 4.863 4.837 4.798 4.693 3.077 1978 4.377 4.35 4.227 3.938 3.733 3.327 1979 3.69 3.69 3.673 3.494 3.068 2.717 1980 4. 64 4.638 4.615 4.467 4.294 2.965 1981 3.464 3.437 3.323 3.083 2.912 2.253 1982 5.427 5.426 5.402 5.252 4.632 2.068 1983 4.868 4.833 4.683 4.352 4.137 2.979 1984 4.747 4.746 4.725 4.588 3.914 2.188 1985 4.327 4.297 4.164 3.872 3.693 2.779 1986 3.106 3.105 3 .088 2.982 2.868 2.116 1987 2.234 2.217 2.144 1.99 1.882 1.492 1988 2.516 2.516 2.502 2.42 2.332 1.243 1989 4.829 4.828 4.802 4.631 4.451 2.692 1990 3.534 3.506 3.392 3.148 2.977 2.204 Sorted results Prob. Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

###  

 38





### 38 0.03225806 4516129 5.427 5.426 5.402 5.252 4.844 3.327 0.0645161290322581 5.2 5.199 5.179 5.042 4.693 3.241 0.0967741935483871 4.868 4.863 4.837 4.798 4.632 3.105 0.129032258064516 4.864 4.833 4.802 4.631 4.451 3.077 0.161290322580645 4.829 4.828 4.75 4.601 4.437 2.9 79 0.193548387096774 4.776 4.775 4.725 4.588 4.325 2.965 0.225806451612903 4.747 4.746 4.683 4.482 4.294 2.902 0.258064516129032 4.658 4.657 4.631 4.467 4.137 2.785 0.290322580645161 4.64 4.638 4.615 4.352 3.922 2.779 0.32258064516129 4.603 4.568 4.425 4.1 1 3.914 2.717 0.354838709677419 4.377 4.35 4.227 3.938 3.733 2.692 0.387096774193548 4.327 4.297 4.164 3.872 3.693 2.307 0.419354838709677 3.806 3.789 3.767 3.644 3.618 2.253 0.451612903225806 3.69 3.69 3.673 3.494 3.086 2.204 0.483870967741936 3.534 3.506 3.392 3.157 3.068 2.188 0.516129032258065 3.464 3.437 3.323 3.148 2.977 2.116 0.548387096774194 3.392 3.368 3.263 3.083 2.912 2.115 0.580645161290323 3.106 3.105 3.088 2.982 2.868 2.068 0.612903225806452 2.769 2.768 2.754 2.659 2.554 1.916 0.6451612903225 81 2.516 2.516 2.502 2.42 2.355 1.752 0.67741935483871 2.473 2.473 2.458 2.407 2.332 1.636 0.709677419354839 2.471 2.452 2.373 2.222 2.164 1.56 0.741935483870968 2.307 2.306 2.293 2.206 2.131 1.492 0.774193548387097 2.234 2.217 2.144 1.99 1.882 1.439 0.806 451612903226 2.02 2.019 2.007 1.932 1.852 1.386 0.838709677419355 1.979 1.979 1.968 1.905 1.844 1.355 0.870967741935484 1.909 1.908 1.897 1.832 1.787 1.243 0.903225806451613 1.704 1.704 1.695 1.645 1.593 1.149 0.935483870967742 1.457 1.457 1.449 1.406 1.35 7 0.9422 0.967741935483871 1.152 1.151 1.145 1.119 1.091 0.4861 0.1 4.8676 4.86 4.8335 4.7813 4.6139 3.1022 Average of yearly averages: 2.13921 Inputs generated by pe4.pl
- 8
- August - 2003 Data used for this run: Output File: fluazina Metfile: w14914 .dvf PRZM scenario: MNsugarbeetC.txt EXAMS environment file: pond298.exv Chemical Name: Fluazinam Description Variable Name Value Units Comments Molecular weight mwt 465.1 g/mol Henry's Law Const. henry 6.73e
- 7 atm - m^3/mol Vapor Pressure vapr 8.25e
- 6 torr Solubility sol 0.71 mg/L Kd Kd mg/L Koc Koc 1957.5 mg/L Photolysis half
- life kdp 2.5 days Half
- life Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacw 91.7 days Halfife Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacs 0 days Halfife Aerobic Soil Metabolism asm 396 days Halfife Hydrolysi s: pH 7 42 days Half
- life Method: CAM 2 integer See PRZM manual Incorporation Depth: DEPI 0.0 cm

###  

 39





### 39 Application Rate: TAPP 0.874 kg/ha Application Efficiency: APPEFF 0.99 fraction Spray Drift DRFT 0.01 fraction of application rate applied to pond Application Date Date 08
- 08 dd/mm or dd/mmm or dd

- mm or dd
- mmm Interval 1 interval 7 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app. Interval 2 interval 7 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app. Interval 3 interval 7 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app. Reco rd 17: FILTRA IPSCND 1 UPTKF 0 Record 18: PLVKRT 0 PLDKRT 0 FEXTRC 0.5 Flag for Index Res. Run IR Pond Flag for runoff calc. RUNOFF none none, monthly or total(average of entire run) 

### OR BERRIES stored as fluazina.out Chemical: Fluazinam PRZM environm ent: ORberriesOP.txt modified Satday, 12 October 2002 at 17:17:16 EXAMS environment: pond298.exv modified Thuday, 29 August 2002 at 16:33:30 Metfile: w24232.dvf modified Wedday, 3 July 2002 at 09:06:10 Water segment concentrations (ppb) Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly 1961 2.214 2.006 1.174 0.6995 0.556 0.2962 1962 4.261 3.869 2.853 1.845 1.646 0.9195 1963 2.528 2.322 1.927 1.667 1.503 1.252 1964 6.629 6.216 3.519 1.987 1.495 1.161 1965 4.404 4.107 3.035 2.583 2.204 1.506 1966 4.696 4.409 3.459 2.343 2.106 1.498 1967 3.15 2.944 2.3 1.75 1.569 1.24 1968 3.452 3.22 2.751 2.137 2.128 1.557 1969 3.852 3.552 2.92 2.478 2.182 1.584 1970 3.686 2.752 2.346 2.141 1.93 1.413 1971 3.547 3.244 2.533 1.86 1.627 1.402 1972 3.57 3.277 2.343 1.755 1.559 1.169 1 973 6.262 5.691 4.383 3.166 2.301 1.346 1974 3.742 3.467 2.703 2.157 1.911 1.463 1975 2.756 2.538 1.964 1.623 1.383 1.16 1976 1.649 1.562 1.412 1.212 1.167 0.8333 1977 4.371 4.021 3.12 2.028 1.485 0.6977 1978 2.646 2.471 2.079 1.595 1.393 1.069 1979 2.953 2.689 2.238 1.934 1.736 1.124 1980 6.754 6.164 4.251 2.762 2.03 1.359 1981 4.942 4.571 3.657 3.116 2.958 2.004 1982 3.216 2.974 2.489 2.116 1.94 1.446 1983 2.387 2.254 1.921 1.674 1.557 1.251 1984 4.126 3.754 2.994 2.429 1.908 1.21 1985 3.551 3.322 2.758 1 .9 1.621 1.185 1986 2.501 2.287 1.832 1.185 1.017 0.898 1987 7.272 6.619 5.582 2.913 2.232 1.434 1988 3.99 3.753 3.262 2.584 2.262 1.543 1989 6.126 5.554 3.941 2.264 1.763 1.174

###  

40





### 40 1990 3.371 3.207 2.565 2.321 2.035 1.468 Sorted results Prob. Peak 96 hr 21 D ay 60 Day 90 Day Yearly 0.032258064516129 7.272 6.619 5.582 3.166 2.958 2.004 0.0645161290322581 6.754 6.216 4.383 3.116 2.301 1.584 0.0967741935483871 6.629 6.164 4.251 2.913 2.262 1.557 0.129032258064516 6.262 5.691 3.941 2.762 2.232 1.543 0.161290322580 645 6.126 5.554 3.657 2.584 2.204 1.506 0.193548387096774 4.942 4.571 3.519 2.583 2.182 1.498 0.225806451612903 4.696 4.409 3.459 2.478 2.128 1.468 0.258064516129032 4.404 4.107 3.262 2.429 2.106 1.463 0.290322580645161 4.371 4.021 3.12 2.343 2.035 1.446 0 .32258064516129 4.261 3.869 3.035 2.321 2.03 1.434 0.354838709677419 4.126 3.754 2.994 2.264 1.94 1.413 0.387096774193548 3.99 3.753 2.92 2.157 1.93 1.402 0.419354838709677 3.852 3.552 2.853 2.141 1.911 1.359 0.451612903225806 3.742 3.467 2.758 2.137 1.908 1.346 0.483870967741936 3.686 3.322 2.751 2.116 1.763 1.252 0.516129032258065 3.57 3.277 2.703 2.028 1.736 1.251 0.548387096774194 3.551 3.244 2.565 1.987 1.646 1.24 0.580645161290323 3.547 3.22 2.533 1.934 1.627 1.21 0.612903225806452 3.452 3.207 2.489 1 .9 1.621 1.185 0.645161290322581 3.371 2.974 2.346 1.86 1.569 1.174 0.67741935483871 3.216 2.944 2.343 1.845 1.559 1.169 0.709677419354839 3.15 2.752 2.3 1.755 1.557 1.161 0.741935483870968 2.953 2.689 2.238 1.75 1.503 1.16 0.774193548387097 2.756 2.538 2. 079 1.674 1.495 1.124 0.806451612903226 2.646 2.471 1.964 1.667 1.485 1.069 0.838709677419355 2.528 2.322 1.927 1.623 1.393 0.9195 0.870967741935484 2.501 2.287 1.921 1.595 1.383 0.898 0.903225806451613 2.387 2.254 1.832 1.212 1.167 0.8333 0.93548387096774 2 2.214 2.006 1.412 1.185 1.017 0.6977 0.967741935483871 1.649 1.562 1.174 0.6995 0.556 0.2962 0.1 6.5923 6.1167 4.22 2.8979 2.259 1.5556 Average of yearly averages: 1.25542333333333 Inputs generated by pe4.pl
- 8
- August - 2003 Data used for this run : Output File: fluazina Metfile: w24232.dvf PRZM scenario: ORberriesOP.txt EXAMS environment file: pond298.exv Chemical Name: Fluazinam Description Variable Name Value Units Comments Molecular weight mwt 465.1 g/mol Henry's Law Const. henry 6.73e
- 7 atm - m^3 /mol Vapor Pressure vapr 8.25e
- 6 torr Solubility sol 0.71 mg/L Kd Kd mg/L Koc Koc 1957.5 mg/L Photolysis half
- life kdp 2.5 days Half
- life Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacw 91.7 days Halfife Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacs 0 days Halfife

###  

41





### 41 Aerobic Soil Met abolism asm 396 days Halfife Hydrolysis: pH 7 42 days Half
- life Method: CAM 2 integer See PRZM manual Incorporation Depth: DEPI 0.0 cm Application Rate: TAPP 0.729 kg/ha Application Efficiency: APPEFF 0.99 fraction Spray Drift DRFT 0.01 fraction of applica tion rate applied to pond Application Date Date 14
- 05 dd/mm or dd/mmm or dd

- mm or dd
- mmm Interval 1 interval 7 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app. Interval 2 interval 7 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app. Interval 3 interval 7 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app. Interval 4 interval 7 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app. Interval 5 interval 7 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app. Record 17: FILTRA IPSCND 1 UPTKF 0 Record 18: PLVKRT 0 PLDKRT 0 FEXTRC 0.5 Flag for Index Res. Run IR Pond Flag for runoff calc. RUNOFF none none, monthly or total(average of entire run) stored as fluazinaben.out Chemical: Fluazinam PRZM environment: ORberriesOP.txt modified Satday, 12 October 2002 at 17:17:16 EXAMS environment: pond298 .exv modified Thuday, 29 August 2002 at 16:33:30 Metfile: w24232.dvf modified Wedday, 3 July 2002 at 09:06:10 Benthic segment concentrations (ppb) Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly 1961 0.5574 0.5459 0.4304 0.3502 0.3309 0.1837 1962 1.417 1.417 1.399 1.137 1.005 0.746 1963 1.421 1.42 1.413 1.38 1.36 1.268 1964 1.564 1.519 1.447 1.398 1.346 1.072 1965 2.122 2.122 2.111 2.043 1.982 1.502 1966 1.99 1.99 1.979 1.913 1.867 1.446 1967 1.72 1.719 1.71 1.654 1.631 1.276 1968 1.934 1.933 1.889 1.748 1.672 1.43 1969 2.049 2.043 1.946 1.86 1.776 1.563 1970 2.123 2.123 2.112 2.086 2.045 1.507 1971 1.714 1.714 1.705 1.653 1.6 1.399 1972 1.623 1.622 1.614 1.567 1.518 1.2 1973 2.071 2.065 1.959 1.496 1.338 1.146 1974 2.195 2.195 2.186 2.133 2.068 1.536 1975 1.60 2 1.602 1.593 1.569 1.526 1.201 1976 1.296 1.296 1.29 1.254 1.234 0.9631 1977 1.434 1.421 1.226 0.8077 0.6812 0.5048 1978 1.59 1.59 1.582 1.541 1.485 1.138 1979 1.587 1.587 1.57 1.479 1.381 1.022 1980 2.074 2.028 1.697 1.612 1.56 1.236 1981 2.571 2.57 2.51 8 2.351 2.266 1.907 1982 2.569 2.567 2.543 2.439 2.338 1.628 1983 1.574 1.574 1.566 1.548 1.533 1.278 1984 1.685 1.685 1.677 1.479 1.282 1.116 1985 1.664 1.659 1.627 1.545 1.479 1.295

###  

42





### 42 1986 1.162 1.154 1.121 1.076 1.08 0.9206 1987 2.363 2.352 2.151 1.547 1. 48 1.192 1988 2.598 2.597 2.584 2.504 2.418 1.699 1989 1.72 1.713 1.592 1.383 1.339 1.101 1990 2.046 2.046 2.037 1.983 1.932 1.497 Sorted results Prob. Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly 0.032258064516129 2.598 2.597 2.584 2.504 2.418 1.907 0.06451612 90322581 2.571 2.57 2.543 2.439 2.338 1.699 0.0967741935483871 2.569 2.567 2.518 2.351 2.266 1.628 0.129032258064516 2.363 2.352 2.186 2.133 2.068 1.563 0.161290322580645 2.195 2.195 2.151 2.086 2.045 1.536 0.193548387096774 2.123 2.123 2.112 2.043 1.982 1 .507 0.225806451612903 2.122 2.122 2.111 1.983 1.932 1.502 0.258064516129032 2.074 2.065 2.037 1.913 1.867 1.497 0.290322580645161 2.071 2.046 1.979 1.86 1.776 1.446 0.32258064516129 2.049 2.043 1.959 1.748 1.672 1.43 0.354838709677419 2.046 2.028 1.946 1. 654 1.631 1.399 0.387096774193548 1.99 1.99 1.889 1.653 1.6 1.295 0.419354838709677 1.934 1.933 1.71 1.612 1.56 1.278 0.451612903225806 1.72 1.719 1.705 1.569 1.533 1.276 0.483870967741936 1.72 1.714 1.697 1.567 1.526 1.268 0.516129032258065 1.714 1.713 1. 677 1.548 1.518 1.236 0.548387096774194 1.685 1.685 1.627 1.547 1.485 1.201 0.580645161290323 1.664 1.659 1.614 1.545 1.48 1.2 0.612903225806452 1.623 1.622 1.593 1.541 1.479 1.192 0.645161290322581 1.602 1.602 1.592 1.496 1.381 1.146 0.67741935483871 1.59 1.59 1.582 1.479 1.36 1.138 0.709677419354839 1.587 1.587 1.57 1.479 1.346 1.116 0.741935483870968 1.574 1.574 1.566 1.398 1.339 1.101 0.774193548387097 1.564 1.519 1.447 1.383 1.338 1.072 0.806451612903226 1.434 1.421 1.413 1.38 1.282 1.022 0.83870967741 9355 1.421 1.42 1.399 1.254 1.234 0.9631 0.870967741935484 1.417 1.417 1.29 1.137 1.08 0.9206 0.903225806451613 1.296 1.296 1.226 1.076 1.005 0.746 0.935483870967742 1.162 1.154 1.121 0.8077 0.6812 0.5048 0.967741935483871 0.5574 0.5459 0.4304 0.3502 0.330 9 0.1837 0.1 2.5484 2.5455 2.4848 2.3292 2.2462 1.6215 Average of yearly averages: 1.23244 Inputs generated by pe4.pl
- 8
- August - 2003 Data used for this run: Output File: fluazina Metfile: w24232.dvf PRZM scenario: ORberriesOP.txt EXAMS environment file: pond298.exv Chemical Name: Fluazinam Description Variable Name Value Units Comments Molecular weight mwt 465.1 g/mol Henry's Law Const. henry 6.73e
- 7 atm - m^3/mol Vapor Pressure vapr 8.25e
- 6 torr Solubility sol 0.71 mg/L

###  

43





### 43 Kd Kd mg/L Koc Koc 1957.5 mg /L Photolysis half
- life kdp 2.5 days Half
- life Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacw 91.7 days Halfife Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacs 0 days Halfife Aerobic Soil Metabolism asm 396 days Halfife Hydrolysis: pH 7 42 days Half
- life Method: CAM 2 integer See PR ZM manual Incorporation Depth: DEPI 0.0 cm Application Rate: TAPP 0.729 kg/ha Application Efficiency: APPEFF 0.99 fraction Spray Drift DRFT 0.01 fraction of application rate applied to pond Application Date Date 14
- 05 dd/mm or dd/mmm or dd

- mm or dd
- mmm Int erval 1 interval 7 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app. Interval 2 interval 7 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app. Interval 3 interval 7 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app. Interval 4 interval 7 days Set to 0 or delete line for sin gle app. Interval 5 interval 7 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app. Record 17: FILTRA IPSCND 1 UPTKF 0 Record 18: PLVKRT 0 PLDKRT 0 FEXTRC 0.5 Flag for Index Res. Run IR Pond Flag for runoff calc. RUNOFF none none, monthly or total(average of entire run) 

### OR SNAP BEANS stored as fluazina.out Chemical: Fluazinam PRZM environment: ORsnbeansC.txt modified Satday, 12 October 2002 at 16:20:58 EXAMS environment: pond298.exv modified Thuday, 29 August 2002 at 16:33:30 Metfile: w24232.dvf modified Wedd ay, 3 July 2002 at 09:06:10 Water segment concentrations (ppb) Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly 1961 3.537 3.238 2.248 1.514 1.193 0.3204 1962 5.094 4.716 3.879 3.108 2.92 1.464 1963 4.922 4.6 3.977 3.348 2.774 2.052 1964 8.481 7.988 5.374 3.71 2.923 2.061 1965 6.136 5.83 4.679 4.102 3.56 2.246 1966 6.15 5.904 4.773 3.368 3.096 2.074 1967 5.209 4.974 3.952 3.036 2.641 1.843 1968 4.761 4.502 3.98 3.392 3.267 2.472 1969 5.923 5.423 4.922 4.145 3.95 2.437 1970 6.213 5.945 5.309 4.617 4.142 2.759 19 71 5.446 5.085 4.559 3.74 3.454 2.533 1972 5.768 5.344 3.726 2.883 2.675 1.863 1973 7.942 7.403 6.287 5.004 3.81 2.224 1974 6.246 5.953 4.838 4.078 3.603 2.505 1975 4.311 4.007 3.429 3.114 2.896 2.055 1976 3.04 2.876 2.688 2.343 2.261 1.342 1977 5.615 5.20 6 4.097 2.833 2.151 1.023 1978 3.764 3.546 3.066 2.49 2.18 1.485

###  

44





### 44 1979 4.383 4.2 3.661 3.209 2.827 1.643 1980 7.457 6.861 4.988 3.696 2.755 1.961 1981 7.241 6.701 5.864 5.193 4.881 2.74 1982 5.177 4.926 4.394 4.145 3.821 2.55 1983 4.512 4.328 3.658 3.346 3. 216 2.258 1984 5.954 5.643 5.062 4.411 3.576 2.035 1985 3.819 3.666 3.094 2.601 2.374 1.815 1986 5.083 4.794 3.89 2.894 2.441 1.791 1987 9.256 8.473 7.176 3.974 2.909 2.037 1988 6.157 5.774 4.945 3.855 3.397 2.302 1989 5.787 5.339 4.006 2.938 2.593 1.891 1 990 4.461 4.211 3.868 3.444 3.083 1.972 Sorted results Prob. Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly 0.032258064516129 9.256 8.473 7.176 5.193 4.881 2.759 0.0645161290322581 8.481 7.988 6.287 5.004 4.142 2.74 0.0967741935483871 7.942 7.403 5.864 4.617 3.95 2.55 0.129032258064516 7.457 6.861 5.374 4.411 3.821 2.533 0.161290322580645 7.241 6.701 5.309 4.145 3.81 2.505 0.193548387096774 6.246 5.953 5.062 4.145 3.603 2.472 0.225806451612903 6.213 5.945 4.988 4.102 3.576 2.437 0.258064516129032 6.157 5.904 4.945 4.078 3.56 2.302 0.290322580645161 6.15 5.83 4.922 3.974 3.454 2.258 0.32258064516129 6.136 5.774 4.838 3.855 3.397 2.246 0.354838709677419 5.954 5.643 4.773 3.74 3.267 2.224 0.387096774193548 5.923 5.423 4.679 3.71 3.216 2.074 0.419354838709677 5.787 5.3 44 4.559 3.696 3.096 2.061 0.451612903225806 5.768 5.339 4.394 3.444 3.083 2.055 0.483870967741936 5.615 5.206 4.097 3.392 2.923 2.052 0.516129032258065 5.446 5.085 4.006 3.368 2.92 2.037 0.548387096774194 5.209 4.974 3.98 3.348 2.909 2.035 0.5806451612903 23 5.177 4.926 3.977 3.346 2.896 1.972 0.612903225806452 5.094 4.794 3.952 3.209 2.827 1.961 0.645161290322581 5.083 4.716 3.89 3.114 2.774 1.891 0.67741935483871 4.922 4.6 3.879 3.108 2.755 1.863 0.709677419354839 4.761 4.502 3.868 3.036 2.675 1.843 0.741 935483870968 4.512 4.328 3.726 2.938 2.641 1.815 0.774193548387097 4.461 4.211 3.661 2.894 2.593 1.791 0.806451612903226 4.383 4.2 3.658 2.883 2.441 1.643 0.838709677419355 4.311 4.007 3.429 2.833 2.374 1.485 0.870967741935484 3.819 3.666 3.094 2.601 2.261 1.464 0.903225806451613 3.764 3.546 3.066 2.49 2.18 1.342 0.935483870967742 3.537 3.238 2.688 2.343 2.151 1.023 0.967741935483871 3.04 2.876 2.248 1.514 1.193 0.3204 0.1 7.8935 7.3488 5.815 4.5964 3.9371 2.5483 Average of yearly averages: 1.99178 I nputs generated by pe4.pl
- 8
- August - 2003 Data used for this run: Output File: fluazina Metfile: w24232.dvf PRZM scenario: ORsnbeansC.txt EXAMS environment file: pond298.exv

###  

45





### 45 Chemical Name: Fluazinam Description Variable Name Value Units Comments Molecular weight mwt 465.1 g/mol Henry's Law Const. henry 6.73e
- 7 atm - m^3/mol Vapor Pressure vapr 8.25e
- 6 torr Solubility sol 0.71 mg/L Kd Kd mg/L Koc Koc 1957.5 mg/L Photolysis half
- life kdp 2.5 days Half
- life Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacw 91.7 days Halfife An aerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacs 0 days Halfife Aerobic Soil Metabolism asm 396 days Halfife Hydrolysis: pH 7 42 days Half
- life Method: CAM 2 integer See PRZM manual Incorporation Depth: DEPI 0.0 cm Application Rate: TAPP 0.493 kg/ha Application Efficiency : APPEFF 0.99 fraction Spray Drift DRFT 0.01 fraction of application rate applied to pond Application Date Date 31
- 07 dd/mm or dd/mmm or dd

- mm or dd
- mmm Interval 1 interval 7 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app. Record 17: FILTRA IPSCND 1 UPTKF 0 Record 18: PLVKRT 0 PLDKRT 0 FEXTRC 0.5 Flag for Index Res. Run IR Pond Flag for runoff calc. RUNOFF none none, monthly or total(average of entire run) stored as fluazinaben.out Chemical: Fluazinam PRZM environment: ORsnbeansC.txt modified Satday, 12 October 2002 at 16:20:58 EXAMS environment: pond298.exv modified Thuday, 29 August 2002 at 16:33:30 Metfile: w24232.dvf modified Wedday, 3 July 2002 at 09:06:10 Benthic segment concentrations (ppb) Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly 1961 1.146 1. 129 0.9353 0.6713 0.5128 0.1374 1962 2.455 2.454 2.441 2.149 1.905 1.274 1963 2.625 2.625 2.62 2.467 2.363 2.078 1964 3.016 3.016 3 2.906 2.817 2.016 1965 3.569 3.568 3.549 3.448 3.357 2.36 1966 2.984 2.983 2.97 2.879 2.819 2.058 1967 2.631 2.631 2.622 2.5 57 2.521 1.894 1968 2.992 2.989 2.942 2.863 2.794 2.387 1969 3.69 3.677 3.511 3.354 3.176 2.453 1970 4.178 4.177 4.162 4.086 3.986 2.887 1971 3.529 3.528 3.513 3.431 3.365 2.638 1972 2.86 2.86 2.845 2.773 2.729 1.984 1973 3.453 3.439 3.248 2.604 2.53 1.99 1974 3.792 3.791 3.775 3.688 3.611 2.628 1975 3.259 3.259 3.242 3.194 3.111 2.223 1976 2.384 2.384 2.373 2.319 2.296 1.597 1977 2.087 2.072 1.837 1.311 1.117 0.8058 1978 2.333 2.332 2.329 2.289 2.223 1.596

###  

46





### 46 1979 2.587 2.585 2.535 2.351 2.103 1.524 1980 2.89 6 2.852 2.772 2.711 2.648 1.926 1981 4.301 4.295 4.175 3.668 3.344 2.589 1982 4.343 4.342 4.325 4.26 4.162 2.848 1983 3.043 3.043 3.035 2.986 2.956 2.322 1984 3.191 3.191 3.176 2.799 2.362 1.954 1985 3.177 3.174 3.127 2.968 2.85 2.049 1986 2.328 2.322 2.30 6 2.241 2.186 1.767 1987 3.307 3.295 3.052 2.611 2.555 1.932 1988 3.738 3.737 3.719 3.601 3.489 2.458 1989 2.769 2.769 2.759 2.696 2.648 1.976 1990 2.98 2.979 2.963 2.888 2.813 2.062 Sorted results Prob. Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly 0.0322580645 16129 4.343 4.342 4.325 4.26 4.162 2.887 0.0645161290322581 4.301 4.295 4.175 4.086 3.986 2.848 0.0967741935483871 4.178 4.177 4.162 3.688 3.611 2.638 0.129032258064516 3.792 3.791 3.775 3.668 3.489 2.628 0.161290322580645 3.738 3.737 3.719 3.601 3.365 2.5 89 0.193548387096774 3.69 3.677 3.549 3.448 3.357 2.458 0.225806451612903 3.569 3.568 3.513 3.431 3.344 2.453 0.258064516129032 3.529 3.528 3.511 3.354 3.176 2.387 0.290322580645161 3.453 3.439 3.248 3.194 3.111 2.36 0.32258064516129 3.307 3.295 3.242 2.98 6 2.956 2.322 0.354838709677419 3.259 3.259 3.176 2.968 2.85 2.223 0.387096774193548 3.191 3.191 3.127 2.906 2.819 2.078 0.419354838709677 3.177 3.174 3.052 2.888 2.817 2.062 0.451612903225806 3.043 3.043 3.035 2.879 2.813 2.058 0.483870967741936 3.016 3.0 16 3 2.863 2.794 2.049 0.516129032258065 2.992 2.989 2.97 2.799 2.729 2.016 0.548387096774194 2.984 2.983 2.963 2.773 2.648 1.99 0.580645161290323 2.98 2.979 2.942 2.711 2.648 1.984 0.612903225806452 2.896 2.86 2.845 2.696 2.555 1.976 0.645161290322581 2.8 6 2.852 2.772 2.611 2.53 1.954 0.67741935483871 2.769 2.769 2.759 2.604 2.521 1.932 0.709677419354839 2.631 2.631 2.622 2.557 2.363 1.926 0.741935483870968 2.625 2.625 2.62 2.467 2.362 1.894 0.774193548387097 2.587 2.585 2.535 2.351 2.296 1.767 0.806451612 903226 2.455 2.454 2.441 2.319 2.223 1.597 0.838709677419355 2.384 2.384 2.373 2.289 2.186 1.596 0.870967741935484 2.333 2.332 2.329 2.241 2.103 1.524 0.903225806451613 2.328 2.322 2.306 2.149 1.905 1.274 0.935483870967742 2.087 2.072 1.837 1.311 1.117 0.8 058 0.967741935483871 1.146 1.129 0.9353 0.6713 0.5128 0.1374 0.1 4.1394 4.1384 4.1233 3.686 3.5988 2.637 Average of yearly averages: 2.01377333333333 Inputs generated by pe4.pl
- 8
- August - 2003 Data used for this run: Output File: fluazina Metfile: w24232.dvf PRZM scenario: ORsnbeansC.txt EXAMS environment file: pond298.exv

###  

47





### 47 Chemical Name: Fluazinam Description Variable Name Value Units Comments Molecular weight mwt 465.1 g/mol Henry's Law Const. henry 6.73e
- 7 atm - m^3/mol Vapor Pressure vapr 8.25e
- 6 torr Solubility sol 0.71 mg/L Kd Kd mg/L Koc Koc 1957.5 mg/L Photolysis half
- life kdp 2.5 days Half
- life Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacw 91.7 days Halfife Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacs 0 days Halfife Aerobic Soil Metabolism asm 396 days Halfife Hydr olysis: pH 7 42 days Half
- life Method: CAM 2 integer See PRZM manual Incorporation Depth: DEPI 0.0 cm Application Rate: TAPP 0.493 kg/ha Application Efficiency: APPEFF 0.99 fraction Spray Drift DRFT 0.01 fraction of application rate applied to pond Applica tion Date Date 31
- 07 dd/mm or dd/mmm or dd

- mm or dd
- mmm Interval 1 interval 7 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app. Record 17: FILTRA IPSCND 1 UPTKF 0 Record 18: PLVKRT 0 PLDKRT 0 FEXTRC 0.5 Flag for Index Res. Run IR Pond Flag for runoff calc. RUNOFF none none, monthly or total(average of entire run)

###  

48





### 48 

## Appendix D. Environmental Fate and Effects Data **161 -**  **1 Hydrolysis** [ 14 

### C]
- Fluazinam (phenyl and py ridyl
- labeled), at 0.005 ppm, were incubated in sterile buffered pH 5, 7, and 9 solutions for up to 28 days in the dark at 22°C. Fluazinam was essentially stable at pH 5, and hydroly

zed with estimated half

- lives of 42 days and 6 days for the pH 7 and pH 9 solutions, respectively

(MRID# 42208412, acceptable). The only major transformation product wa s CAPA. In the pH 7 solution, CAPA reached a maximum at the end of the study (28 days), with 34% of the applied. In the pH 9 buffer solution CAPA reached a maximum on day 20 posttreatment at 84
- 85% of the applied, and remained at about the same levels th ereafter. **161 -**  **2 Photolysis in Water** This study

(MRID#’s 43521009, 44807312, supplemental) is scientifically valid and provides useful information on the photolysis of fluazinam in a pH 5 aqueous buffer solution. The following problems were observed in the study :

 Even though low recoveries were obtained after three days posttreatment, they happened after the calculated half

- life. EFED believes that the calculated half
- life is generally accurate.  The registrant must identify all radioactivity

exceeding 1 0% of the applied.  The registrant must confirm the sterility of the system. [ 14 

### C]
- Fluazinam (uniformly phenyl and py ridyl labeled labeled), at 0.049 ppm, degraded with a half
- life of 2.5 days (used 0
- 14 days) data in sterilized pH 5 aqueous buffer solutions irradiated with a xenon arc lamp (12 hours light/dark cycles) and kept at 25°C for up to 30 days. Fluazinam was initially

96.6
- 99.0% of the applied radioactivity, 63.8
- 65.0% by day 1, 36.0
- 40.0% by 3 days, and ≤1.9% from 14
- 30 days. Only one major de gradate was detected, G
- 504 was initially 0.3% of the applied radioactivity, it increased to a maximum of 14.0
- 17.1% by 7
- 10 days, and it was 6.3
- 6.4% at 30 days (last test interval). O ne minor transformation product was observed, AMPA was a maximum of 4. 1% of the applied. One region of unidentified radioactivity increased at up to 25.7% by 7 days. In addition, unidentified polar radioactivity increased to a maximum of 37.0
- 38.2% of the applied by 23
- 30 days. 14 

### CO 2 

### increased to up to 16.0
- 17.7% of the a pplied at 28
- 30 days posttreatment. Incontrast, in the dark control, the degradation of the parent fluazinam was veryslow, with

###  

49





### 49 78.0
- 89.8% of the applied undegraded after 14
- 30 days posttreatment. **161 -** **3 Photodegradation on Soil** This study

(MRID# 448073 13, supplemental) is scientifically sound and provides useful information about the phototransformation of fluazinam on a loamy s and soil. H owever, this study is deficient and does not fulfill the data requirement for the following reasons: The registrant reported the levels of parent and degradates as percentages of the recovered (or the extractable) radioactivity

rather than percentages of the applied. Examination of the extractable radioactivity

shows a decrease over time to around 66
- 70% after 30 days. Results reported (as percent of the extractable) are thus roughly 30% larger than actual percentages of the applied. The registrant should report the level of parent and degradates, using the acceptable units and the half
- life of the parent compound. The total light intensity

w as not reported. The registrant should report total light intensity over the course of the study

as required by

EFED guidelines. [ 14 

### C]
- Fluazinam (uniformly p henyl and py

ridyl ring labeled), at 3.6 ppm, degraded in a loamy s and soil at 25°C and irradiated with xenon arc lamp at 12 hour light/dark cycles. Dark control samples were also kept. B ased on supplemental calculations provided by the registrant, using the recovered radioactivity, rather than the percent of the applied, s how that the half
- life for the irradiated sample is approximately

22 days, compared to 69 days for the dark control. The transformation products HYPA and AMPA were detected both, in the irradiated sample and the dark controls, but their percentages were larger in the irradiated samples. **162 -**  **1 Aerobic Soil Metabolism** [ 14 

### C]
- Fluazinam (phenyl and py ridyl labeled), at 1Kg/ha (5.56 ppm or about 2.7 times the maximum application rate), degraded at moderate rates with observed DT50 ~ 30 days (MRID# 42208413). Three minor transformation products were detected. HYPA, at a concentration of 8.1
- 8.2% of the applied for the phenyl label (days 14 and 90), and 9.3% of the applied for the py ridyl label (day 180). MAPA and DAPA were only observed at ≤2% of the applied in the study
. 14 

### CO 2 

### comprised up to 6.3% of the applied after 361 days posttreatment. A major fraction, 41
- 42% of the applied, at day 361, was very

polar material that remained at the origin of the TLC plates. This was not further characterized. **162 -** **3 Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism**  [ 14 

### C]
- Fluazinam (py

ridyl and phenyl labeled), degraded very quickly in a lake sediment that was incubated under anaerobic conditions (flooding plus nitrogen atmosphere), in the dark at 22°C for

###  

 50





### 50 up to 358 days. The apparent h alf
- life (DT50) was less than one minute, but the calculated half
- life (t 1⁄2 

### ), taking into consideration all existing data points was 0.265 days (MRID# 43521010). For the phenyl labeled material, fluazinam decreased from 96.6% (initial) to 27.6% of the appl ied at 2 minutes. F or the py

ridyl label, fluazinam decreased from 94.3 to 7.7% at 15 minutes. Inb oth cases [ 14 

### C]
- fluazinam was ≤1% by day 6 posttreatment. The following transformation products were observed:

 DAPA reached a maximum of 32.7% of the applied by day 30 and decreased to 17.8% of the applied by

day 183.  SDS
- 67200 reached a maximum of 39.6% by day 14 (p yridyl label) and decreased to 32.4% of the applied by

day 183.  AMPA reached a maximum of 24.2% of the applied at day 0 .2 and was not detected by day 183.  Bound residues increased slowly to 21.7% and 22.2% of the applied for the py ridyl and phenyl labels, respectively
.  Total volatiles tra

pped were ≤1.0% of the applied. **162 -**  **4 Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism** This study

(MRID# 44807314, acceptable) is scientifically sound and provides useful information about the aerobic aquatic metabolism of fluazinam in a system consisting of water from Grand River (Lake County, Ohio) and a loamy sand sediment from the same river. The study was found to have the following problems:

 The study

was not replicated for neither of the radiolabel materials. At a minimum, duplicate samples are considered necessary in this ty pe of determination. However, the general pattern of decline of fluazinam appeared to be very similar for both radiolabel materials. It appears that a new study would not provide substantial new information; therefore, EFED will consider this problem resolved at this time.  The test material was not applied at the time the sediment was flooded. Generally, the test material should be added to the water/sediment system when the sediment is flooded. In this study, the fluazinam was added after three days of preincubation. Since it was noted that through the study

the redox potentials were positive and the dissolved oxygen remained relatively

high (in particular through the first 12 hours), EFED believes that the results from this study

may be considered acceptable. Therefore, no new studies are required at this time. [ 14 

### C]
- Fluazinam (py

ridyl and phenyl labeled), at 0.02 ppm, degraded quickly in flooded Grand River loamy

sand sediments incubated under aerobic conditions at 25°C in the dark for up to 30 days. Time zero data was not reported, but it appeared that dissipation was biphasic and it was

###  

 51





### 51 rapid through the first 12 hours. A non
- linear calculated DT50 reported by the registrant was 4.0
- 7.4 hours (phenyl and py ridyl labels, respectively

). Various degradates were detected in the study :

 DCPA was a maximum of 9.8% of the applied at 24 hours for the py ridyl label and decreased to 4.0
- 4.5% by 240
- 720 hours. The same degradate was a maximum of 11.3% at 24 hours for the phenyl labeled material and decreased to 2.6% at 720 hours.  CAPA was a maximum of 12.6% of the applied at 72 hours (py ridyl label), and 1.6
- 5.1% from 240
- 720 hours. F or the phenyl label, CAPA was a maximum of 9.7% at 30 hours, and was 3.5
- 7.6% at 72
- 720 hours.  DAPA was a maximum of 18.4% of the applied at 240 hours for the py ridyl label, and remained much the same, at 16.4% at 720 hours. For the phenyl label study, DAPA increased to a maximum of 19.0% by 240 hours, and decreased to 9.0% at 720 hours.  Various minor degradates were also observed (≤7.0%). They included HYPA, G869 and AMPA. **163 -**  **1 Mobility Batch Equilibrium**

**– Adsoption/Desorption for the Parent Fluazinam**  Based on batch equilibrium studies, [ 14 

### C]
- fluazinam (uniformly benzyl labeled), in soil: solution slurries, at target concentrati ons of 0.05
- 1.0 mg/L , equilibrated for two hours, demonstrated low mobility under the testing conditions. F our soils were tested: sand, loamy s and, silt loam, and clay loam. The four soils were from Switzerland and included a variety of physicochemical characteristics. The following table summarizes the results: **Soil Type %OC**  **K F**  

### 1/n **K OC**  

### K**F** 

### (des.) **1/n K** **OC** 

### (des.) Sand Speyer 2.1 0.48 11.12 0.6704 2316.0 33.64 0.867 7008.4 LS Speyer 2.2 2.55 43.48 0.6813 1705.0 506.5 1.109 19862.8 SiLm Itingen II 1.42 2 7.19 0.6504 1915.0 130.5 0.948 9191.6 ClLm Diegten 2.00 37.88 0.6492 1894.2 368.7 1.087 18433.0


### Ina later submission, the registrant provided a comparison of the characteristics of the four soils used in the Mobility

/Batch Equilibrium study . Based on a comparison of texture, pH, cation exchange capacity, and organic carbon content, all four soils matched with a fair number of samples from Agvise soil characterization laboratory ’s database (of 3697 samples). Based on similar parameters, it was also found that the soils matched with up to 23 locations from the USDA, Soil Conservation Service soil surveys (MRID#’s 42248628 and 42974913).

###  

 52





### 52 **163 -**  **1 Mobility Leaching for Aged Fluazinam** [ 14 

### C]
- Fluazinam (phenyl and py ridyl labels), at a nominal application rate of 1 Kg/ha, was incubated aerobically

in a sandy

loam and a loamy

sand soil for 30 days. Analysis of the soils indicated that the major fraction is parent fluazinam, with up to 26.4% of unextracted radioactivity and compound XII [5
- amino
-N
- (3
- chloro
- 5
- trifluoromethyl
- 2
-py ridyl)
- 4,6
- dinitro
- α,α,α - trifluoro
- o - toluol]. The aged soil was applied to a leaching column. A total of 66 cm of “rainfall” were applied over a period of 9 weeks. Le ss than 1% of the applied radiocarbon was found in the leachates and >>80% remained at the top of the soil columns (MRID# 42208415). **163 -**  **1 Mobility Batch Equilibrium**

**– Adsoption/Desorption for the Degradate CAPA**  This study

is generally

scientifically

sound and provides useful information about the mobility of the degradate CAPA (uniformly phenyl labeled) via adsorption/desorption (batch equilibrium) experiments conducted on four soils at various concentrations. The study, however, is deficient for the following reason: The soils were sterilized by the use of a HgCl 2 

### (0.0 1% solution) prior to the study and no reference chemicals of known mobility w ere tested simultaneously with the degradate CAPA to assess the possibility of a change in properties of the soil and subsequently of mobility of the chemicals. Traditionally, EFED has discouraged the use of sterilization of test soils in mobility s tudies. Sterilization can cause substantial alterations of the physico
- chemical properties of the soil (this is particularly true for autoclaving). On the other hand, EFED acknowledg es that in this study

the test material appeared to have low mobility . Given the fact that the 1/N values were close to 1 (one), both for adsorption and desorption, it appears reasonable to believe that a new study

would not alter substantially the conclu sions drawn from this experiment. Therefore, EFED will not require any additional study

at this time. [ 14 

### C]
- CAPA (uniformly

phenyl ring labeled), at four concentrations ranging from 0.2 to 2.0 μg/L, was equilibrated in four soil:solution slurries for 24 hours at 25°C, KOC 

### ’s obtained are summarized as followed: **Soil Type K** **F** 

### K**FOC** 

### 1/N **K F**  

### (des.) **K FOC**  

### (des.) **1/N** SiLm 28 1289 0.92 46 2076 0.93 LmS 11 1317 0.82 30 3539 0.86 SLm 4.9 1876 0.83 13 4959 0.86 SiClLm 67 3784 0.92 83 4663 0.94 

### 164 **- 1 Terrestrial**  **Field Dissipation**

NOTES THAT APPLY TO ALL THE TERRESTRIAL FIELD DISSIPATION STUDIES: 

### These studies provide only supplemental information about the dissipation of parent fluazinam and

###  

 53





### 53 various of its transformation products. All four studies presented similar problems as described below. All four terrestrial field dissipation studies are questionable and do not fulfill §N Guidelines for the following reasons:

 Soil storage stability

data (MRID# 44807316) indicated poor recoveries of the degradates CAPA and MAPA in as little as 29 days of storage of spiked frozen soils from Ephrata, Washington. It is noted that generally those metabolites were not detected (or were detected at very

small concentrations) in all field studies. The problem with the storage s tability is crucial because the results of these terrestrial field dissipation studies are entirely confounded and they

cannot be interpreted in light of the laboratory studies. The confusion would result because the aerobic soil metabolism shows persistence of the parent and no major degradates and all other laboratory studies predict persistence of fluazinam total residues. With a poor storage stability study we cannot determine if actually the transformation products were ever formed or if they persisted. In addition, there was no storage stability

data from the other three sites. Since some of the analy tes appear to be unstable in the soil from Washington, the storage stability information from the other sites becomes even more important.  The portio n of the storage stability related to parent fluazinam indicated that the chemical was stable frozen for up to 729 days. It appears that the fluazinam concentration from the field may b e used, and the half

- lives of fluazinam from the field studies can be used, at least qualitatively

in this assessment. At this time, EFED is requiring the registrant to submit only one new terrestrial field dissipation study, using the most typical use site, with the most typical crop.  Inaddition, the studies are deficient because the pesticide trifluralin, pendimethalin, and/or ethalfluralin were applied to the field within a short period of time before the first application of the test material. These chemicals are structurally related to fluazinam. According to the Pes ticide Reregistration Rejection Rate Analysis , Environmental Fate (EPA, OPP 738
- R
- 93
- 010, September 1993, pp. 168), “The dissipation of the pesticide under field conditions is usually sufficiently

complex that the presence of additional chemicals with simi lar physicochemical characteristics raises the question of interference, either with the observed rate/dissipation pattern, or with the subsequent chemical analysis. If the registrant applies multiple products, they must provide evidence for noninterference between components.” The registrant must prove that there is no interference between the related compounds applied to the field trials (trifluralin, pendimethalin, and ethalfluralin) with fluazinam and its transformation products.  As expected from the laboratory studies, the parent fluazinam dissipated moderately rapidly from the four field sites, with half
- lives ranging from 9 to 49 days; however, the degradation products did not show the pattern expected from the laboratory . In the field, the degradates were mainly found sporadically

and at relatively

low concentrations (≤0.05 ppm), while the laboratory predicted relative persistence for all four degradates.

###  

 54





### 54 **Terrestrial Field Dissipation of Fluazinam on Dry Beans in Ephrata, Washington** This study

(M RID# 44807320) provides limited supplemental information on the terrestrial field dissipation of fluazinam. Portions of the study have been deemed invalid for the following reasons:

 Soil storage stability

data was not available for the soil from the test site at Kempton, ND. The available storage stability data is inadequate. The majority o f the samples were stored over 235 days, and the maximum storage period was 810 days.  The pesticide Sonalan 3EC (ethalfluralin), which is chemically related to fluazinam, was applied to the field approximately two weeks prior to study initiation. Fluazinam (500F SC), broadcast applied four times at ~2 week interval (total application rate 1.8 lb a.i./A), appeared to dissipate with a calculated DT50 (using non
- linear regression) of about 9 days following the last of four applications on a loamy sand soil planted with pinto beans in Ephrata, Washington. The parent compound was detected in the 0
- to 6
- inch soil depth from the time immediately following the first application through day 479 posttreatment. Its degradation appeared to be biphasic, with rapid degradation during the first 30 days. Detections of the parent were reported at low levels (≤0.02 ppm) through day 6 0 after the last treatment in the 6
- to 12
- inch soi l layer. There were no detections of fluazinam above the limit of quantitation in the 12
- to 18
- inch soil depth. The degradate HYPA was detected sporadically at ≤0.02 ppm, in the 0
- to 6
- inch depth only . The degradates MAPA and CAPA were not detected at any sampling interval or depth, except for one detection of CAPA in the 6
- to 12
- inch soil layer, at 0.01 ppm. **Terrestrial Field Dissipation of Fluazinam on Dry Beans in Kempton, North Dakota** This study

(MRID# 44807318) provides limited supplemental inf ormation on the terrestrial field dissipation of fluazinam. Portions of the study have been deemed invalid for the following reasons:

 Soil storage stability

data was not available for the soil from the test site at Kempton, ND. The available storage sta

bility data is inadequate. The majority o f the samples were stored over 235 days, and the maximum storage period was 810 days.  The pesticide Sonalan 3EC (ethalfluralin), which is chemically related to fluazinam, was applied to the field approximately two ye ars prior to study

initiation. Furthermore, an unidentified herbicide was applied shortly before study

initiation. Fluazinam (500 F), broadcast applied twice at 29
- day interval (application rate (0.88
- 0.90 lb

###  

 55





### 55 a.i./A/app.), appeared to follow biphasic dissipation, with a half
- life of 49 days on a sandy loam soil planted with beans in Kempton, North Dakota. The parent compound was detected in the 0
- to 6
- inch soil depth from the time immediately following the first application through day 418 posttreatment. There was only one detection (only 1 of 3 replicates), at 0.01 ppm in the 0
- to 12
- inch soil depth and there were no detections below that level. The degradate HYPA was detected at ≤0.06 ppm, in the 0
- to 6
- inch depth only, between the time prior to the second application and 118 days posttreatment. The degradates MAPA and CAPA were not detected at any

sampling interval or depth. **Terrestrial Field Dissipation of Fluazinam on Dry Be ans in Porterville, California**  This study

(MRID# 44807317) provides limited supplemental information on the terrestrial field dissipation of fluazinam. Portions of the study have been deemed invalid for the following reasons:

 Soil storage stability

data was not available for the soil from the test site at Porterville, California. The available storage stability data is inadequate. The majority of the samples were stored for over 500 days.  The pesticide Treflan (trifluralin), which is chemically related to fluazinam, was applied to the field approximately

two months prior to study initiation. Fluazinam (500F SC), broadcast applied at 28
- day interval (total application rate 1.8 lb a.i./A), appeared to dissipate, with a half
- life of 20 days following the last application on a loamy s and soil planted with beans in Porterville, California. The parent compound was detected in the 0
- to 6
- inch soil depth from the time immediately following the first application through day 92 after the last treatment. Sporadic detections above the limit of quantitation were reported in the 12
- to 18
- inch depth. No detections were reported for MAPA, CAPA, and HYPA at any interval, except for one detection of CAPA in the 0
- to 6
- inch depth at 0.02 ppm at 13 days posttreatment. **Terrestrial Field Dissipation of Fluazinam on Peanuts in Montezuma, Georgia** This study

(MRID# 44607319) provides limited supplemental information on the terrestrial field dissipation of fluazinam. Portions of the study have been deemed invalid for the following reasons:

###  

 56





### 56  Soil storage stability

data was not available for the soil from the test site at Montezuma, Georgia. The storage stability data available were inadequate. The majority o f the samples were stored over 180 days, and the maximum storage period was 645 days.  The pesticide Prowl 4EC (pendamethalin), which is chemichally related to fluazinam, was applied to the field. Fluazinam (Fluazinam ® 

### 500F, 41.1% a.i.), broadcast applied four times (28
- , 28
- and 30
- day intervals) at rates of 0.47
- 0.49 lb a.i./A/application, dissipated with a registrant
- calculated half
- life of 17.0 days (r2 

### not reported) on a plot of sandy loam soil planted with peanuts in Georgia. However, the registrant
- calculated half
- life was based on data collected prior to and fol lowing each application (rather than strictly on data obtained following the final application) and the half
- life was of questionable validity due to variability

in the data. Residue data were reported as means of three replicates unless otherwise noted; days posttreatment refers to days following the fourth application. The parent compound was present in the 0
- to 6
- inch depth at 0.11
- 0.15 ppm immediately

following each of the first three applications. Fluazinam was 0.12 ppm immediately following the fourth application, was 0.03 ppm (2 of 3 replicates) at 3 days posttreatment, was 0.05
- 0.07 ppm from 7 to 21 days, was 0.09 ppm at 30 days, was 0.03 ppm at 60 days and was last detected at 0.01 ppm (2 of 3 replicates) at 272 days. The parent compound was detected once in the 6
- to 12
- inch depth, at 0.07 ppm (1 of 3 replicates) immediately f ollowing the first application, and was not detected below that depth. The degradate MAPA was detected once in the 0
- to 6
- inch depth, at 0.01 ppm (2 of 3 replicates) at 7 days posttreatment, and the degradate HYPA was detected once in the 0
- to 6
- inch depth, at 0.01 ppm (1 of 3 replicates) at 14 days; MAPA and HYPA were not detected below the 0
- to 6
- inch depth. The degradate CAPA was not detected at any sampling interval or depth.

###  

 57





### 57 

## Appendix E: Ecological Effects Data: **Overview** The toxicity

testing required does not test all species of birds, fish, mammals, invertebrates,and plants. Only

two surrogate species for birds (Bobwhite quail and mallard ducks) are used to represent all bird species (over 900 in the US), three species of freshwater fish (rainbow trout, bluegill sunfish and fathead minnow) are used to represent all freshwater fish species (over 900 in the US), and one estuarine/marine fis h species (sheepshead minnow) is used to represent all estuarine/marine fish (over 300 in the US). The surrogate species for terrestrial invertebrates is the honey bee, for freshwater invertebrates the surrogate species is usually the waterflea (

Daphnia m agna ) and for estuarine/marine invertebrates the surrogate species are mysid shrimp and eastern oyster. These five species are used to represent all invertebrates species (over 10,000 in the US). For plants, there are ten surrogate species used for all terrestrial plants and five surrogate species used for all aquatic plants. There are over 20,000 plant species in the US which includes flowering plants, conifers, ferns, mosses, liverworts, hornworts and lichens with over 27,000 species of algae worldwide
. The surrogate species testing scheme used in this assessment assumes that a chemical’s mechanism of action and toxicity found for avian species is similar to that in all reptiles (over 300 species in the US). The same assumption applies to amphibians ( over 200 species in the US) and fish; the tadpole stage of amphibians is assumed to have the same sensitivity as a fish. Therefore, the results from toxicity

tests on surrogate species are considered applicable to other member species within their class and are extrapolated to reptiles and amphibians. The US species numbers noted in this section were taken from: http://www.natureserve.org/summary (NatureServe: An online encyclopedia of life [web appli cation].2000) and the worldwide species number from Ecological Planning and Toxicology, Inc.1996.

###  

 58





### 58 **Toxicity to Terrestrial Animals Birds, Acute, Subacute and Chronic**  An acute oral toxicity

s tudy u sing the technical grade of the active ingredient (TGAI) is required to establish the toxicity

o f fluazinam to birds. The avian oral LD 50 

### is an acute, single
- dose laboratory study designed to estimate the quantity of to xicant required to cause 50% mortality in a test population of birds. The preferred test species is either the mallard duck, a waterfowl, or bobwhite quail, an upland gamebird. The TGAI is administered by

oral intubation to adult birds, and the results are expressed as LD 50 

### milligrams (mg) active ingredient (a.i.) per kilogram (kg). Toxicity category descriptions are the following (Brooks, 1973): If the LD 50 

### is less than 10 mg a.i./kg, then the test substance is very highly toxic
. If the LD 50 

### is 10

- to
- 50 mg a.i./kg, then the test substance is highly toxic
. If the LD 50 

### is 51

- to
- 500 mg a.i./kg, then the test substance is moderately toxic. If the LD 50 

### is 501

- to
- 2,000 mg a.i./kg, then the test substance is slightly toxic. If the LD 50 

### is greater than 2,000 mg a.i./kg, then the test substance is practically nontoxic. The results of the studies submitted for fluazinam are in following table below. Since the LD 50 

### falls in the range of approximately 1,782 mg ai/kg to greater than 4,190 mg ai/kg, fluazinam is categorized as slightly

to practically

nontoxic to avian species on an acute oral basis. The guideline 71
- 1(a) is fulfilled (MRID Nos. 42248623 and 42248622). **Avian (also Reptilian and Terrestrial -**  **Phase Amphibian) Acute Oral Toxicity -**  **Fluazinam Technical**  **Species %**  **ai LD**  **50 (m** **g ai/kg) Toxicity** 

**Category MRID No.**  **Author/year Classification1**  Northern bobwhite (Colinus virginianus) 95.3 1,782 slightly toxic 42248623/Hakin, B. et al./1991 Core Mallard Duck (Anas platyrhynchos) 95.3 >4,190 practi cally nontoxic 42248622/Roberts, N.

et al./1991 Core 

### Two dietary

studies using the TGAI

are required to establish the toxicity of fluazinam to birds. These avian dietary

LC50 tests, using the mallard duck and bobwhite quail, are acute, eight
- day dietary laboratory

studies designed to estimate the quantities of toxicant required to cause 50% mortality in the two respective test populations of birds. The TGAI is administered by

mixture to juvenile birds' diets for five days followed by three days of "clean" diet, and the results are expressed as LC 50 

### parts per million (ppm) active ingredient (a.i.) in the diet. Toxicity category descriptions are the following (Brooks, 1973):

If the LC 50 

### is less than 50 ppm a.i. , then the test substance is very highly toxic
. If the LC 50 

### is 50

- to
- 500 ppm a.i. , then the test substance is highly toxic
.

###  

 59





### 59 If the LC 50 

### is 501

- to
- 1,000 ppm a.i. , then the test substance is moderately toxic. If the LC 50 

### is 1001

- to
- 5,000 ppm a.i. , then the test substance is slightly toxic. If the LC 5 0 

### is greater than 5,000 ppm a.i. , then the test substance is practically nontoxic. The results of the studies submitted for fluazinam are in the following table below. Since the LC 50 

### is greater than 10,500 ppm, fluazinam is categorized as practically nontoxic to avian species on an acute oral basis. The guidelines 71
- 2(a) and 71
- 2(b) are fulfilled (MRID Nos. 42248625 and 42248624). The toxicity

value (LD 50 

### ) appearing in the shaded area of the table will be used to calculate the acute avian risk quotient s (RQs). **Avian (also Reptilian and Terrestrial -**  **Phase Amphibian) Subacute Dietary Toxicity -**  **Fluazinam Technical Species**  **% ai**  **LC50(ppm )**  **Toxicity Category**  **MRID/Accession (AC)**

**No. Author/Year Study**  **Classification** Mallard Duck (Anas platyrhynchos ) 95.3 >10 ,600 practically nontoxic 42248625/Roberts, N. et

al./1991 Core Northern Bobwhite Quail (Colinus virginianus ) 95.3 >10,500 practically nontoxic 42248624/Roberts, N. et

al./1991 Core 

### Avian reproduction studies using the Bobwhite quail and mallard duck are laboratory tests designed to estimate the quantity of toxicant required to adversely affect the reproductive capabilities of a test population of birds. The TGAI is administered by

mixture to breeding birds' diets throughout their breeding cycle. Test b irds are approaching their first breeding season and, generally, are 18
- to - 23 weeks old. The onset of the exposure period is at least 10 weeks prior to egg laying. Exposure period during egg laying is generally 10 weeks with a withdrawal period of three additional weeks if reduced egg laying is noted. Results are expressed as No Observed Adverse Effect Concentration (NOAEC) and various observable effect levels, such as the Lowest Observable Adverse Effect Concentration (LOAEC), quantified in units of par ts per million of active ingredient (ppm a.i.) in the diet. Avian reproduction studies using the TGAI are required for fluazinam because birds may be subject to repeated or continuous exposure to the pesticide, especially preceding or during the breeding season and the pesticide is stable in the environment to the extent that potentially toxic amounts may

persist in animal feed. The preferred test species are mallard duck and bobwhite quail. Results of these tests are tabulated below. The toxicity v alue (NOAEC) appearing in the shaded area of the table will be used to calculate the chronic avian risk quotients (Rqs). Avian reproduction studies using bobwhite quail and mallard duck (Guideline 71
- 4 a & b) resulted in LOAECs from 350 to 500 ppm based on reductions 14
- day old survivors weight when compared to the control (Table 3). The NOAEC ranges from 200 to 350 ppm. Guidelines 71
- 4(a) and (b) for

###  

 60





### 60 the TGAIof fluazinam are fulfilled (MRID Nos. 44807323 and 44831907). **Avian (Reptilian & Terrestria l** **- Phase Amphibian) Reproduction Chronic Toxicity**  **- Fluazinam Technical**  **Species/ Study Duration**  **% ai**  **NOAEC/ LOAEC (ppm** 

**ai) LOAEC Endpoints**  **MRID No. Author/year**  **Classification** Northern bobwhite (Colinus virginianus) /22 weeks 97.0 200/350 Reduction in 14
- day old survivor weight 44807323/Beaver s, J. et al./1996 Core
Mallard Duck (Anas platyrhynchos) /22 weeks 97.0 350/500 Reduction in 14
- day old survivor weight 44831907/Beaver s, J. et al./1996 Core


### Mammals, Acute and Chronic Wild mammal testing is required on a case
-by
- case basis, depending on the results of lower tier laboratory

mammalian studies, intended use pattern and pertinent environmental fate characteristics. In most cases, rat or mouse toxicity values ob tained from the Agency's Health Effects Division (HED) substitute for wild mammal testing. The toxicity values used in this assessment were taken from HED’s Tox One
- Liner and the final Hazard Identification Assessment Review Committee (HIARC) report on fluazinam dated February 13, 2001. These toxicity values are reported below. The toxicity values (LD 50 

### and NOAEL) appearing in the shaded areas of the tables will be used to calculate the acute and chronic mammalian risk quotients (RQ's) in subsequent sections. Toxicity category descriptions are the following (Brooks, 1973): If the LD 50 

### is less than 10 mg a.i./kg, then the test substance is very highly toxic
. If the LD 50 

### is 10

- to
- 50 mg a.i./kg, then the test substance is highly toxic
. If the LD 50 

### is 51

- to
- 500 mg a.i./kg, then the test substance is moderately toxic. If the LD 50 

### is 501

- to
- 2,000 mg a.i./kg, then the test substance is slightly toxic. If the LD 50 

### is greater than 2,000 mg a.i./kg, then the test substance is practically nontoxic. The results indi cate that fluazinam is practically nontoxic to mammals on an acute oral basis. **Table 4: Mammalian Acute Oral Toxicity -**  **Fluazinam Species**  **% ai**  **LD50 (m g ai/kg)**  **Toxicity Category)**  **Affected**

**Endpoints MRID or** 

**Accession (AC) No.**  **Technical** laboratory rat ( Rattus norvegicus) 95.3 4,300 (male & female) practically nontoxic mortality 42248603


### Mammalian Acute Dermal and Inhalation Toxicity Testing Inaddition to acute oral routes of exposure, terrestrial vertebrates entering treatment area may be

###  

 61





### 61 acutely exposed to fluazinam through other routes of exposure. Toxicity category descriptions associated with dermal routes of exposure include the following (U.S. EPA, July, 1997): If the LD50 is less than or equal to 200 mg/kg, then the test substance is in Toxicity Category I
. If the LD 50 

### is greater than 200 through 2,000 mg/kg, then the test substance is in Toxicity Category II. If the LD 50 

### is greater than 2,000 through 20,000 mg/kg, then the test substance is in Toxicity Category III If the LD 50 

### is greater than 20,000 mg/kg, then the test substance is in Toxicity Category IV. The results indicate that fluazinam is a Category III toxicant to mammals on an acute dermal basis. **Mammalian Ac ute Dermal Toxicity**  **- Fluazinam Technical**  **Surrogate Species %**  **ai LD50 (m** **g ai/kg) Toxicity**  **Category Affected**  **Endpoints MRID or** 

**Accession (AC)**  **No.** laboratory rat (Rattus norvegicus) 95.3 >2,000 Category III mortality 42248605 

### The acute inhalation toxi city results for fluazinam are indicated below. Toxicity category descriptions associated with inhalation routes of exposure the following (U.S. EPA, July, 1997): If the LC50 is less than or equal to 0.2 mg/liter , then the test substance is in Toxicit y Category I

. If the LC 50 

### is greater than 0.2 mg/liter through 2 mg/liter , then the test substance is in Toxicity Category II. If the LC 50 

### is greater than 2 mg/liter through 20 mg/liter, then the test substance is in Toxicity Category III If the LC 50 

### is greater than 20 mg/liter, then the test substance is in Toxicity Category IV. The results indicate that fluazinam is a Category II toxicant to mammals based on acute inhalation exposure. **Mammalian Acute Inhalation Toxicity -**  **Fluazinam Technical Surrogate**  **Species/ Formulation**  **% A.I. LC**  **50** 

### (mg/liter) **Toxicity Category**  **Affected Endpoints**  **MRID or Accession (AC) No.** 
laboratory rat (Rattus norvegicus) 95.3 0.463 (male) 0.476 (female) Category II mo rtality 42270601

###  

 62





### 62 **Mammalian Subchronic Toxicity Testing** The submitted mammalian subchronic feeding study indicate that extended exposure to fluazinam residues via the diet at levels greater than 50 ppm could result in the toxicological concerns cited below.
**Mam ma**  **lian Subchronic Toxicity -**  **Fluazinam Surrogate**  **Species/ type**  **- duratio**  **n % ai**  **Test Type**  **NOAEL**

**/LOAEL (m**  **g/kg/ LOAEL Endpoints**  **MRID or Accession (AC)**  **No.** Laboratory rat (Rattus norvegicus )/ feeding
- 13 we eks 98.5 Feeding 4.1/41 ( 50/500 ppm) Periacinar hepatocytic hypertrophy

(liver & gall bladder enlargement) and sinusoidal (venous cavities) chronic inflamation in males, increase in absolute & relative liver we ights in males, increase in absolute and relative lung we ights in females, and increase in absolute & relative uterus weights. 42248610



### Mammalian Reproductive and Developmental Toxicity Testing The treatment related developmental and reproductive effects caused by fluazinam are indicated below. A developmental fluazinam study on laboratory

rats indicated the maternal LOAEL was 5,000 ppm (NOAEL ≈ 1,000 ppm) due to decreased food consumption and body weight gain. The developmental LOAEL in this study, due to decreased body weights, placental weights, and an increased incidence of facial palate clefts, was determined to be 2,500 ppm (NOAEL ≈ 500 ppm). Another fluazinam developmental test, with laboratory rabbits, indicated the maternal LOAEL was 231 ppm (NOAEL = 132 ppm) due to an increased incidence of liver histopathology and a slight depression of food consumption. The developmental LOAEL, in this study on rabbits, was 396 ppm due to the increased incidence of total liter loss and the possible, slightly, increased incidence of fetal abnormalities which included placental abnormalities and some skeletal abnormalities (kinked tail tip, fused or incompletely ossified sternebrae, and abnormalities of head bones). The developmental NOAEL on the rabbit study

was 231 ppm. A 2
- generational reproductive study for fluazinam on laboratory rats indicated the parental LOAEL was 100 ppm (NOAEL = 20 ppm) based on liver pathology (increased incidences of periacinar hepatocystic fatty changes) in F1 males, the repro ductive LOAEL was 500 ppm (NOAEL = 100 ppm) based on a decreased number of implantation sites and decreased litter sizes to day 4 postpartum (after pup birth) for F2 litters, and the developmental LOAEL was also 500 ppm (NOAEL = 100 ppm) based on decreased body weight gain during lactation for both F1 and F2 pups. The reproductive NOAEL of 100 ppm in this study (MRID No. 42248619) will be used to determine chronic mammalian risk quotients (RQ's) in subsequent sections

###  

 63





### 63 **Mammalian Feeding, Developmental and Reproductive Chronic Toxicity**  **- Fluazinam**  **Technical Species/**  **Study Duration**  **%**

**ai Test**  **Type NOAEL/LOAEL** 

**Toxicity Value**  **(m g/kg/day)1**  **Affected**

**Endpoints MRID or**  **Accession (AC) No.**  laboratory rabbit (Sylvivlagus sp. )/not reported 98.5 Developmental 4/7 (132/231 ppm) (maternal) 7/12 (231/396 ppm) (developmental) mat. - increased incidence of liver

histopathological lesions [cellular hypertrophy, single cell necrosis, binucleate hepatocytes (liver cells), increased brow

n pigment deposition and apoptosis (c ell death)] & slight depression of food consumption. dev.
- increased incidence of total liter loss & possible, slightly, increased incidence of fetal abnormalities (placental abnormalities, some skeletal abnormalities including kinked tail tip, fused or incompletely ossified sternebrae, abnormalities of head bones).2 42248616

laboratory rat (Rattus norvegicus) /not reported 98.5 Developmental 50/250 (1,000/5,000 ppm) (maternal) 50/250 (500/2,500 ppm) (developmental) mat. - decreased food

consumptionn & body wt. gain dev.
- decreased body w

t., placental w

t., and increased incidence of facial palate clefts 42248613

laboratory rat (Rattus norvegicus) /2
- generatio n 95.3 Reproductive 1.9/9.7 (20/100 ppm)3 (parental) 10.6/53.6 (100/500 ppm)3 (reproductive) 8.4/42.1 (100/500 ppm)3 (devlopmental) par. - based on liver pathology

(increased incidences of periacinar hepatocystic fatty changes) in F1 males rep. - based on a decreased number of implantation sites and decreased litter sizes to day 4 postpartum (after pup birth) for F2 litters dev.
- based on decreased body we ight gain during lactation for both F1 and F2 pups 42248619

1 ppm conversion based on: 1 mg/kg/day = 20 ppm in adult rats, 10 ppm in younger rats, and 33 ppm in rabbits. (Nelson, 1975) 2 The co mmittee (HIARC) considered the developmental toxicity effects observed at the LOAEL in this study (increased incidence of total litter resorptions and a possibly increased incidence of fetal skeletal abnormalities, including kinked tail tip, fused or incom pletely ossified sternebrae, and abnormalities of head bones) to be effects that could occur after a single dose of fluazinam. Also, with respect to developmental toxicity effects, the rabbit is more

###  

 64





### 64 sensitive than the rat. 3 ppm results provided in study 

### Insect Acute Contact A honey bee acute contact study

using the TGAIis required for fluazinam because its outdoor use will result in honey

bee exposure. The acute contact LD 50 

### , using the honey bee, Apis mellifera , is an acute contact, single
- dose laboratory study designed to estimate the quantity of toxicant required to cause 50% mortality in a test population of bees. The TGAI is administered by one of two methods: whole body exposure to technical pesticide in a nonto xic dust diluent; or, topical exposure to technical pesticide via micro
- applicator. The median lethal dose (LD 50 

### ) is expressed in micrograms of active ingredient per bee (μg a.i./bee). Results of this test are tabulated below. Toxicity category descriptions are the following (Atkins, 1981): If the LD 50 

### is less than 2 μg a.i./bee, then the test substance is highly toxic
. If the LD 50 

### is 2 to less than 11 μg a.i./bee, then the test substance is moderately toxic. If the LD 50 

### is 11 μg a.i./bee or greater , th en the test substance is practically nontoxic The two (2) acute oral toxicity studies are categorized as supplemental because the submission of insect acute **oral** toxicity

studies is not a guideline requirement and the core classification is reserved for guideline studies that fulfill guideline requirements. The acute contact study on the 49.7% ty pical end
-use product (TEP) is categorized as supplemental because the guideline (141
- 1) requires the study

be performed on a TGAIformulation. Additionally, th e highest concentration tested for the acute contact study on the TEP was 4 μg/bee and a definitive LD 50 

### , greater than 11 μg/bee considered to be toxic to honey bees, was not established at this level. For the reasons indicated above the two (2) acute oral toxicity s tudies and the acute contact study on the fluazianm TEP are being downgraded from the current Core status to Supplemental through the issuance of this document. All four (4) bee studies submitted for fluazinam received the same MRID No. however only

the acute contact study

for the TGAIformulation is considered to be a Core study
. The acute contact LD 50 

### for fluazinam is greater than 200 μg per bee and it is, therefore, classified as practically

nontoxic to bees. The guideline (141
- 1) is fulfi lled (MRID No. 42208411).

###  

 65





### 65 **Insect Acute Contact Toxicity -**  **Fluazinam Species/Study**  **Duration %**  **ai LD50**  **(μg/bee) Toxicity** 

**Category MRID/Accession** 

**(AC) No. Author/Year**  **Study**

**Classification** Honey bee (Apis mellifera)/48 hour 98.8 > 200 practically nonto xic 42208411/Collins, I.

et al./1992 Core
Honey bee (Apis mellifera)/48 hour 49.7 > 4 (highest concentration tested) not applicable 42208411/Collins, I. et al./1992 Supplemental
**Insect Acute Oral Toxicity -**  **Fluazinam** Honey bee (Apis mellifera)/48 hour 98.8 > 100 practically nontoxic 42208411/Collins, I.

et al./1992 Supplemental
Honey bee (Apis mellifera)/48 hour 49.7 > 100 practically nontoxic 42208411/Collins, I.

et al./1992 Supplemental



### Insect Residual Contact A honey bee toxicity

of residues on foliage study is required on an end
-use product for any pesticide intended for outdoor application when the proposed use pattern indicates that honey bees may be exposed to the pesticide and when the formulation contain s one or more active ingredients having an acute contact honey bee LD 50 

### which falls in the moderately toxic or highly

toxic range. The purpose of this guideline study is to develop data on the residual toxicity to honey bees. Bee mortality determinations are made from bees exposed to treated foliage harvested at various time periods after treatment. Fluazinam, as indicated in the acute toxicity test in Table 9, above, is practically

nontoxic to honey

bees. Because of this, a honey bee toxicity

of resid ues on foliage (guideline 141
- 2) is not required for fluazinam. **Earthworm Acute and Chronic** Two (2) acute/chronic earthworm studies were reviewed for fluazinam. These studies were classified as supplemental since earthworm studies are not a guideline requirement under FIFRA. These studies were conducted in compliance with the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) guidelines for testing of chemicals and were reviewed, by EFED, under EPA Ecolo gical Effects Test Guidelines (U.S. EPA Ecological Effects Test Guidelines, April, 1996). In addition to being nonguideline studies, these studies were also classified as supplemental due to numerous deficiencies and/or deviations from US guidelines. Principally, in both studies, test material concentrations in the soil were not measured, which resulted in toxicity endpoints based solely

upon nominal values. The results of these studies are below. A NOAEC was not determined on the TEP (MRID No. 4480733 6) because of significant effects on earthworm body weights at all treatment levels. The lowest treatment level in the TEP study was 53 ppm. EFED does not have a toxicity

categorization for earthworms.

###  

 66





### 66 **Earthworm Acute and Chronic Toxicity -**  **Fluazinam Te chnical and TEP**  **Species/ Study**  **Duration %**  **ai LC50/**  **EC50 (nom** **inal/ me**  **asured) (ppm**  **in dry soil)**  **Toxicity**

**Category NOAEC/** 

**LOAEC (nom** **inal/ me**  **asured) (ppm**  **in dry soil)**  **Endpoints**

**Affected MRID/Accession** 

**(AC) No. Author/Year**  **Study Classification** 

Earthworm (Eis enia foetida) /28 days 97.3 > 1,000 (nominal) not

applicable 10/100

(nominal) reduction

in body weights 44807335/Edwards,

P & J. Coulson/1985 Supplemental

Earthworm (Eisenia foetida) /14 days 38.4 > 1,376 (nominal) not

applicable not

determined not

applica ble 44807336/Yearsdon, H. et al./1991 Supplemental


### Toxicity to Aquatic Animals **Freshwater Fish, Acute** Two freshwater fish toxicity studies using the TGAI

are required to establ ish the toxicity of fluazinam to fish. The preferred test species are rainbow trout (a coldwater fish, Guideline 72
- 1c) and bluegill sunfish (a warmwater fish; Guideline 72
- 1a). Results of these tests are tabulated below. The toxicity

category descriptio ns for freshwater and estuarine/marine fish and aquatic invertebrates, are defined below in parts per million (ppm), the standard units of measure (Brooks, 1973). The toxicity

values (LC50) appearing in the shaded area of the tables will be used to calculate the acute aquatic risk quotients (RQ's) in subsequent sections. If the LC50 is less than 0.1 ppm a.i. , then the test substance is very highly toxic
. If the LC50 is 0.1

- to
- 1.0 ppm a.i. , then the test substance is highly toxic
. If the LC50 is greater th an 1 and up through 10 ppm a.i. , then the test substance is moderately toxic. If the LC50 is greater than 10 and up through 100 ppm a.i. , then the test substance is slightly toxic. If the LC50 is greater than 100 ppm a.i. , then the test substance is practically nontoxic. Since the LC50 falls in the range of 0.036
- 0.11 ppm, for the TGAI , fluazinam is categorized as very highly to highly toxic to freshwater fish on an acute basis. Guidelines 72
- 1(a) and 72
- 1(c) for the TGAIof fluazinam are fulfilled (MRID Nos. 42974904, 42974905, and 42208409).

###  

 67





### 67 **Freshwater Fish 96 -**  **hr Acute Toxicity -**  **Fluazinam**
. **Species/ Flow**  **- through or**  **Static %**  **ai LC50 / (C.I.)**  **(ppm ai)/**  **(m easured/nom** **in al)**  **Toxicity**

**Category MRID /Accession No./** 

**Author/Year Study**  **Classification**
Bluegill sun fish ( Lepomis macrochirus ) /flow
- through 96.8 0.0527 (0.0471
- 0.0599) (measured) very highly

toxic 42974905/Gelin, M. and

J. Laveglia/1993 Core

Rainbow Trout (Salmo gairdneri)/

flow
- throu gh 97.3 0.11/ (0.10
- 0.13)1 (measured) highly toxic 42208409/Hill, R./ 1992 Core

Rainbow Trout (Salmo gairdneri)/

flow
- throu gh 96.8 0.036/ (0.033
- 0.056)1 (measured) very highly

toxic 42974904/Gelin, M. and

J. Laveglia/1992 Core

1 Based on total formulation. 

### Freshwater Fish, Chronic A f reshwater fish early

l ife
- stage test using the TGAIi s required for fluazinam because the end
-use product is expected to be transported to water from the intended use site, and the following conditions are met: (1) the pesticide is intended for use such th at its presence in water is likely to be continuous or recurrent, (2) an aquatic acute LC50 or EC50 is less than 1ppm, and (3) the EEC in water is equal to or greater than 0.01 of any acute LC 50 

### or EC 50 

### value. A cceptable freshwater test species are rainbo w trout, brook trout, coho salmon, Chinook, bluegill, brown trout, lake trout, northern pike, fathead minnow, white sucker and channel catfish. The fish early life
- stage is a laboratory

test designed to estimate the quantity of toxicant required to advers ely effect the reproductive capabilities of a test population of fish. The test should be performed using flow
- through conditions. The TGAI is administered into water containing the test species, providing exposure throughout a critical life
- stage, and the results are expressed as a No Observed Adverse Effect Concentration (NOAEC) and Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Concentration (LOAEC) in parts per billion (ppb) of active ingredient. The No Observed Adverse Effect Concentration represents an exposure c oncentration, at or below which biologically significant effects will not occur to species of similar sensitivities. The following table is a summary of a freshwater fish early

life
- stage test (Guideline 72
- 4a). The fish early life stage test showed effects at 10 ppb that included larval survival and growth. Guideline 72
- 4(a) for freshwater species is fulfilled (MRID No. 44807327).

###  

 68





### 68 **Freshwater Fish Early Life -**  **Stage Toxicity Under Flow -**  **through Conditions**
- **Fluazinam Technical**  **Species %**  **ai NOAEC/LOAEC**  **( ppb)**  **Endpoints Affected**  **MRID/Accession**

**(AC) No. Author/Year**  **Study1 Classification**  Fathead minnow ( Pimephales promelas) 96.8 5.3/10 (measured) Larval survival; Growth 44807327/

Machado/1993 Core



### A freshwater fish early

l ife
- cycle test using the TGAIi s required for fluazinam because the end
-use product is expected to be transported to water from the intended use site and any EEC is equal to or greater than one
- tenth of the NOAEC in the fish early life
- stage or invertebrate life
- cycle test. The preferred test species is fathead minnow. The results from a fathead minnow full life cycle study suggest that fluazinam exposure can result in reproductive effects at 1.4 ppb (# spawn per female; % hatch). The freshwater fish life
- cycle test (Guideline 72
- 5) has b een fulfilled (MRID No. 44807329). The toxicity value (NOAEC) appearing in the shaded area of the table will be used to calculate the chronic aquatic risk quotients (RQ's) in subsequent sections. **Freshwater Fish Early Life -**  **Cycle Toxicity Under Flow -**  **thro ugh Conditions**  **- Fluazinam**  **Technical Species**  **% ai**  **NOAEC/ LOAEC (ppb)**  **Endpoints Affected MRID #/**  **Author/Date Study** 

**Classification** Fathead minnow ( Pimephales promelas) 97.4 0.69/1.4 (measured) Reproductive (# spawns/female; % hatch) 44807329/

Dionne/1995 Core


### Freshwater Invertebrates, Acute A freshwater aquatic invertebrate toxicity test using the TGAIis required to establish the toxicity of fluazinam to aquatic invertebrates. The preferred test organism is Daphnia magna , but early instar amphipods, stoneflies, mayflies, or midges may also be used. Results of this test are tabulated below. The toxicity value (EC50) appearing in the shaded area of the table will be used to calculate the acute risk quotients (RQ's) in subsequent sections. Since the LC50/EC50 falls in the range of 0.18
- 0.222 ppm, fluazinam is categorized highly toxic to freshwater aquatic invertebrates on an acute basis. Guideline 72
- 2(a) for the TGAIof fluazinam is fulfilled (MRID Nos. 429 74906 and 42208410).

###  

 69





### 69 **Freshwater Invertebrate Acute Toxicity -**  **Fluazinam Technical Species/Static or**  **Flow -**  **through/Duration %**  **ai LC50/**  **EC50 (ppm )/(C.I.)/**  **(nom inal/m** **easured) Toxicity**  **Category MRID/Accession** 

**(AC) No. Author/Year**  **Study Classification**  Daphnid (Daphnia magna) /flow
- through (48 hr.) 96.8 0.222/ (0.188
- 0.300)1 (measured) highly toxic 42974906/Shults, S. et al./1992 Core

Daphnid (Daphnia magna) static (48 hr.) 98.5 0.18/ (0.14
- 0.22)1 (measured) highly toxic 42208410/Farrelly, E. et al./1992 Core 1 Based on total formulation. 

### Freshwater Invertebrate, Chronic A freshwater aquatic invertebrate life
- cycle test using the TGAI is required for fluazinam since the end
-use product is expected to be transported to water from the intended use site, and the following conditions are met: (1) the pesticide is intended for use such that its presence in water is likely to be continuous or recurrent, (2) the aquatic acute LC50 or EC50 is less than 1.0 ppm, and (3) the EEC in water is equal to or greater than 0.01 of any acute EC50 or LC50 value. The preferred test species is Daphnia magna . Results of this test are tabulated below. Fluazinam exposure to freshwater invertebrates can potentially result in reprod

uctive and growth effects at 140 ppb. The toxicity value (NOAEC) appearing in the shaded area of the table will be used to calculate the chronic risk quotients (RQ's) in subsequent sections. The guideline requirement (72
- 4b) is fulfilled (MRID 44807328). **Freshwater Aquatic Invertebrate Life -**  **Cycle Toxicity -**  **Fluazinam Technical Species/Static**  **Renew al or**  **Flow -**  **through %**  **ai 21**  **- day**  **NOAEC/LOAEC (ppb)**  **Endpoints**

**Affected MRID/Accession (AC)** 

**No.Author/Year Study**  **Classification**
Daphnid (Daphni a magna / flow
- through 96.8 68/140 Reproductive (# young/female) and growth ) 44807328/

Putt/1993 Core


### Estuarine and Marine Fish, Acute Acute toxicity

testing with estuarine and marine fish using the TGAI is required for fluazinam because the end
-use product is expected to reach the marine/estuarine environment because of its use in coastal counties. The preferred test organisms are the sheepshead minnow. Results of this test are tabulated below. Fluazinam exposure to estuarine/marine fish has the potential for very high acute toxicity

(120 ppb). The guideline requirement (72
- 3a) is fulfilled (MRID 44807325). The toxicity

value (LC50) appearing in the shaded area of the table will be used to calculate the acute risk quotients (RQ's) in subsequent sections.

###  

 70





### 70 **Summary of acute 96 -**  **hr toxicity tests for Estuarine/Marine Fish with Fluazinam.Technical Species**  **% ai**  **LC50 ppm**  **Toxicity**

**Category MRID No.** 

**Author/year Classification**  Sheepshead Minnow/ (Cyprinodon variegatus) / 96.8 0.1 20 Very highly toxic 44807325/

Machado/1993 Core


### Estuarine and Marine Fish, Chronic An estuarine/marine fish early life
- stage toxicity

test using the TGAIis required for fluazinam because the end
-use prod uct is expected to be transported to the estuarine/marine environment from the intended use site, and the following conditions are met: the pesticide is intended for use such that its presence in water is likely to be continuous or recurrent and the EEC in water is equal to or greater than 0.01 of any acute LC50 or EC50 value. The preferred test species is sheepshead minnow. The guideline (72
- 4a) is not fulfilled. A core study is required to be submitted for this guideline. **Freshwater Fish Early Life -**  **S tage Toxicity Under Flow**  **- through Conditions** 
- **Fluazinam Technical**  **Species %**  **ai NOAEC/LOAEC**  **(ppb) Endpoints**  **Affected MRID/Accession** 

**(AC) No. Author/Year**  **Study1 Classification**  Sheepshead minnow (Cyprinodon variegates) 98.4 26/>26 No effects 45822102 Supp lemental


### Estuarine and Marine Invertebrates, Acute Acute toxicity

testing with estuarine/marine invertebrates using the TGAIi s required for fluazinam because the end
-use product is expected to reach the marine/estuarine environment because of it use in coastal counties. The preferred test species are mysid shrimp and eastern oyster. Results of these tests are tabulated below. Fluazinam is very highly toxic to estuarine/marine invertebrates (mysid shrimp) on an acute basis (39 ppb). This compound is also acutely toxic to bivalves (4.7 ppb). The guideline requirements (72
- 3b & c) are fulfilled (MRID 44807326; 44807324). The toxicity value (EC50) appearing in the shaded area of the table will be used to calculate the acute risk quotients (RQ's) in subsequent sections.

###  

 71





### 71 **Estuarine/Marine Invertebrate Acute Toxicity -**  **Fluazinam Technical**  **Species/Static or Flow**  **- through**  **% ai.**  **48 -**  **hour EC50 (ppm** **) Toxicity** 

**Category MRID No./** 

**Author/Year Study** 

**Classifica tion**  Eastern oyster (Crassostrea virginica) /flow
- through (shell deposition) 96.8 0.0047 Very Highly Toxic 44807324/

Dionne/1993 Core

Mysid (Americamysis bahia) 96.8 0.039 Very Highly Toxic 44807326/

Machado/1992 Core 

### Estuarine and Marine Inve **rtebrate, Chronic** An estuarine/marine invertebrate life
- cycle toxicity test (Guideline 72
- 4b) using the TGAI is required for fluazinam because the end
-use product is expected to be transported to the estuarine/marine environment from the intended use site, the pesticide is intended for use such that its presence in water is likely to be continuous or recurrent, the aquatic acute LC50 or EC50 is less than 1.0 ppm, and the EEC in water is equal to or gre ater than 0.01 of any acute LC50 or EC50 value. The preferred test species is mysid shrimp. **Estuarine Aquatic Invertebrate Life -**  **Cycle Toxicity -**  **Fluazinam Technical Species/Static**  **Renew al or**  **Flow -**  **through %**  **ai 21**  **- day**  **NOAEC/LOAEC (ppb)**  **Endpoints**

**Affe cted**  **MRID/Accession (AC)**

**No.Author/Year Study**  **Classification** Mysid 9 8
. 4 2.0/3.9 Reproductive success 45822101 Supplemental 

### Toxicity to Plants **Terrestrial Plants** Terrestrial plant Tier I

se edling emergence and vegetative vigor testing of a fluazinam Technical End
- Use product (TEP) is currently recommended for all pesticides having outdoor uses (Keehner. July 1999). For seedling emergence and vegetative vigor testing, the following plant spe cies and groups should be tested: (1) six species of at least four dicotyledonous families, one species of which is soy

bean ( Glycine max) and the second is a root crop, and (2) four species of at least two monocotyledonous families, one of which is corn (Z ea mays ). Tier I tests measure the response of plants, relative to a control, at a test level that is equal to the highest use rate expressed as pounds active ingredient per acre (lbs ai/A). Tier II studies are required if the Tier I studies indicate any of the test species, when exposed to the test material, displayed a ≥25% inhibition or over- enhancement of various growth parameters as compared to the control.

###  

 72





### 72 Tier Iseedling emergence [guideline 122
- 1(a)] and vegetative vigor [guideline 122
- 1(b)] studi es (MRID Nos. 44807331 and 44807332, respectively ) for TGAIfluazinam were received but were determined to be invalid principally b ecause these studies relied upon the measurement of the fresh weights (as opposed to dry weights) of the above ground portion s of the plants tested to determine if detrimental effects were being caused by fluazinam. Fresh weight measurements are too variable and subject to different cultural practices and environmental factors and thus a scientific determination of the effects caused by f luazinam to terrestrial plants could not be made. Two other Tier Istudies were also submitted (MRIDs 46172801 and 46172802). The seedling emergence study (MRID 46172801) used a 41.5% formulation and was deemed as acceptable with no effects to plants. The vegetative vigor study (MRID 46172802), also using a 41.5% formulation, was deemed invalid due to many s tudy deviations but may

b e upgradeable if deficiencies are addressed
. Terrestrial Tier II plant testing is required when it is determine d that a pesticide has exhibited an adverse effect greater or equal to 25% during Tier I testing or when the pesticide is a known phy totoxicant. Tier II tests measure the response of plants, relative to a control, and five or more test concentrations to determine toxicity endpoints (NOAEC or EC05 and EC25). A Tier II vegetative vigor [guideline 123
- 1(b)] study (MRID No. 44807333) for TGAIfluazinam was reviewed and determined to be invalid principally because the study

relied upon fresh weight measurement s as opposed to dry weight measurements. Guideline 123
- 1(b) Tier II has not been fulfilled for fluazinam and it is recommended that a study be submitted if the registrant determines (through Tier I testing) or suspects that fluazinam is a phy totoxicant. Its hould be noted that single active ingredient, Technical End
- Use product (TEP) testing instead of the TGAIis recommended for all terrestrial plant tests. It is recommended that a TEP be used if/when this guideline study is resubmitted for review. Gui deline 123
- 1 Tier I s tudies have been submitted, though the Vegetative Vigor study

should be repeated. **Aquatic Plants** Aquatic plant testing is recommended for all pesticides having outdoor uses (Keehner July 1999). The tests are performed on species from a cross
- section of the aquatic plant population. The preferred test species are duckweed ( Lemna gibba ), marine diatom (Skeletonema costatum ), blue
- green algae (

Anabaena flos

- aquae), freshwater green alga (Selenastrum ca pricornutum ), and a freshwater diatom. Tier I aquatic plant testing is a maximum dose test designed to quickly evaluate the toxic effects to the test species in terms of growth and reproduction and to determine the need for additional aquatic plant testing. Tier II aquatic plant testing is a multiple dose test of the plants species that showed a phy totoxic effect to the pesticide being tested at the Tier I level. Tier II testing is designed to determine the detrimental effect levels of the chemical on the aquatic plants which showed a greater than 50% detrimental effect in Tier I testing. For fluazinam, one Tier II study has been submitted for S. capricornutum (MRID No. 44807334). Results of Tier II toxicity testing on the technical material are tabulate d in the table below. The EC50 for S. capricornutum was 180.0 ppb a.i. based on growth inhibition; the NOAEC was 48.0 ppb. The submitted study was determined to be supplemental because the light intensity used in

###  

 73





### 73 this study (7,200 lux) exceeded the recommended light intensity (4,300 ± 15% lux). The toxicity value (EC50) appearing in the shaded area of the table will be used to calculate the acute risk quotients (RQ's) in subsequent sections. Guideline 123
- 2 Tier II Aquatic Plant Growth studies with fres hwater green algae (Selenastrum capricornutum ), marine diatom (Skeletonema costatum ) and a freshwater diatom ( Navicula pelliculosa ) were deemed as invalid and should be repeated
. The duckweed (

Lemna gibba ) study

is upgradeable if data are submitted. **Aqua tic Plant Toxicity (Tier II)**  **- Fluazinam Technical**  **Species/duration %**  **A. I. EC50/NOAEC**  **(ppb ai) MRID No.**  **Author/year Classification**  Duckweed ( Lemna gibba ) 98.4 >69.1/17.5 45822103 Invalid (upgradeable) freshwater green algae (Selenastrum capricornutum ) 98.4 >170/170 45822104 Invalid (not repairable)

F reshwater diatom ( Navicula pelliculosa ) 98.4 0.90/0.76 45822105 Invalid (not repairable) Bluegreen algae ( Anabaena flosaquae) 98.4 9200/72 45822106 Acceptable Marine diatom (Skeletonema costatum ) 98.4 11 /7.5 45822107 Invalid (not repairable)
F reshwater green algae (Selenastrum capricornutum ) /96 hrs. 97.0 180/48 (measured) 44807334/Smyth, D. & J. Tapp/1987 Supplemental

###  

 74





### 74 

## Appendix F: Endangered Species A listing is not attached due to the mass ive volume of possibly affected species.